THE JOURNAL OF Mons r. de Saint Amour Doctor of SORBONNE, CONTAINING A full Account of all the Transactions both in France and at Rome, concerning the Five Famous PROPOSITIONS Controverted between the JANSENISTS and the MOLINISTS, From the beginning of that Affair till the POPE'S Decision.  
Faithfully Rendered out of French.  
A like Display of the Romish State, Court, Interests, Policies, etc. and the mighty influences of the Jesuits in That CHURCH, and many other CHRISTIAN STATES, being not hitherto extant.  ACT. iv Verse. XX. 
Non enim possumus quae vidimus & audivimus non loqui.   ornament of a crowned rose 
LONDON Printed by T. Ratcliff, for George Thomason, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Churchyard, 1664.   

To the Right Honourable ROBERT, Earl of ELGIN, Baron of WHORLETON, etc.  
MY LORD,  
IF the Greatness of the Subject may serve to justify the Inscription of a Book to so Great a Name, I may with reason affirm that none ever treated of an Argument of more weight, extent, and difficulty than This; and consequently hope, that the Considerableness of the Matter will supply for the little Title which the Translation hath given me in it, and upon which I have presumed to present it to your Lordship. Fatality and Liberty were disputable Points in all Ages of the World, and in all Religions. But the Controversies about them have been infinitely multiplied amongst Christians, and scarce any Questions agitated with greater heat both in the Purer and the Vnreformed Church. The Hypothesis of Absolute Predestination and Physical Predetermination of all Events, hath engaged its Promoters in the defence of sundry Consequent doctrines, of very great importance, yet no less controverted than their foundation. Of which no more need here to be mentioned, besides those contained in the Five Propositions of late years with incredible subtlety and artifice contested between the Jesuits and Jesuitical Faction on one side, and the Jansenists on the other, in the Roman Church, viz. touching The Possibility of keeping Gods Commandments, The Resistibility of Grace, The Liberty of the Will, The Efficacy of Preventing Grace, and The Universality of Redemption.  
In these Points the doctrine of the Jansenists is in some respects different from that of the Calvinists; yet not so much, but their subtle Adversaries took advantage of the Conformity, to contrive Five Propositions capable of a double Construction, namely, both according to the opinions of Jansenius, and those of Calvin; that by this means they might involve the former in a Censure of the latter, which they doubted not to obtain, as being equally condemned for heretical by either dissenting Party, the Adherents of the Jesuits, and the Disciples of Jansenius, or (as they style themselves) of S. Augustin. The Intrigues, Confederacies and solicitations for the accomplishment of which design are the matter of this Journal, as some Manuscript Pieces concerning the same affair are of the adjoined Collection.  
I know not whether at any time so ample an Account hath been given the world of the manner of Proceeding held by the Roman See in passing a Decision of Doctrine. But I persuade myself, that whosoever shall impartially peruse This, cannot have any great opinion of the Pope's Infallibility (which yet is the Basis, at least of all points held by the Romanists in opposition to the Protestants) when he finds that the Pope professeth himself no Divine, and the Cardinals pretend to no more but a Prudential Judgement (that is, such as is requisite to be passed in point of interest) that the Pope's meaning in his Constitution is as much controverted as the Cause it determines, while one Party adheres to what he writes, and the other to what he speaks; and that the Authority of the Church as well as that of the Fathers, is made use of to establish Contradictions, (That I mention not the disparagement of the so much pretended Unity of that Church.) Nor can any Exception lie against the Relator who was a principal Agent in the Affair, and upon all occasions makes as great profession of zeal and affection for the Roman Church as he doth of Truth and sincerity.  
I pretend not, my Lord, to exhibit your Lordship a Patron of the Cause, by dedicating the History of it to your Honourable Name. 'Tis not more indubitable that the Church of England hath delivered her sense upon these Points with singular prudence, caution, and moderation, then that your Lordship hath been always a most firm Propugner of that Church, even in the worst of times. And truly the late happy Revolution, in which your Lordship was so active as to venture all earthly Interests, hath redounded highly to the advantage of the Church, as to these very Doctrines: Since whatever Ecclesiastical Government might have been established during our Distractions, no Terms of Communion could be more rigid and unreasonable, as to these Points, than those required by the two most prevalent Factions of those Times; as appears by the published Confessions of Faith of the Assembly and the Congregations.  
Should I here take occasion to mention your Lordship's indefatigable Industry and Assiduity, Fidelity and Disinteressedness, in the Service of the State, certainly not man could be more justly accused of a superfluous undertaking, since I should speak no more than what is already most perfectly known to the whole Nation, at least in its Representative. Nor is it to be doubted but that being now in a higher sphere, your influences will be as great for the Public Good, since you are still accompanied with the same Virtues which rendered you a Peer of both Kingdoms by Merit, before you were so by Inheritance. Nor shall I attempt to give a Character of your Lordship's personal accomplishments; as, an Extraordinary Measure both of Divine and Humane Learning Perfection in the Modern and ancient Languages; together with singular Generosity and Beneficence (of which a more illustrious proof could not be given then your late vigorous actings for relief of the Sufferers by the late times.) It may suffice me to say that I have found particular effects of your Lordship's goodness, and that I should but little care to own the Translation of this work so publicly, did it not give me so fair an opportunity to declare the honour I have to be,  
MY LORD, Your Lordship's most humble, obedient and obliged servant, G. haver's.   

THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE, Giving an Account of the publishing of this JOURNAL.  
THe Affair of the Five Propositions being become by its Consequences so considerable, that it is at present the principal part of the Church-History of this Age, those very consequences which were soon foreseen and by divers of the most eminent Bishops of the Gallicane Church committed to me to represent to the H. See, caused me always to consider it as of very great importance: and the exact Account I conceived I ought always to be ready to render to those Bishops and the Church of all that I had done and could observe had passed therein, obliged me to apply myself about it with so much greater care, for that I esteemed it a Matter above me, and as a particular Engagement imposed on me by the providence of God, who is sometimes pleased to make use of weak Instruments about the greatest Matters. Hence it came to pass, that when after my return from Rome, I went about to reduce all I had acted and remarked therein into a Body of History, I found I had scarce any thing more to do but to transcribe the Memoires I had formerly prepared at Rome, and to join together the principal Accounts I had already gvien of this business. There are, I doubt not, many Histories more delightful than this for style and variety of matters, but perhaps there never was any more exact and faithful. I have not writ any thing but what I saw or heard, and that while it was fresh in my memory; It hath been always my care to speak nothing false, or that might be exprobated to me, not only before men but far more before God; well knowing that if it be pronounced universally, That we shall be justified or condemned by our words, it more eminently belongs to words of such importance as these, by which a public Testimony is rendered to the Church of what hath been acted in an Affair wherein she is so highly concerned.  
Truth then hath been the proper scope I aimed at in writing, which because it is not always seasonable to publish, and never unless great and weighty considerations require it, though many made me desirous to print this Journal assoon as it was finished, yet others restrained me, and some made me wish if possibe wholly to suppress it. Several years were spent in this Irresolution; but at length the Relalations full of falsities which have been offered to the world concerning what passed at Rome in this Affair, and the numerous false rumours spread abroad about it convinced me of my Obligation to undeceive the world, by giving it a true History thereof. The different things which have been spoken about it, have made all learned men desirous to know the truth of what hath passed; and they have thought it serviceable to the Church, that a History so conducing to the elucidation of the present Contests should not remain longer in the confusion and obscurity wherein it lay.  
I was confirmed in this thought by the extreme satisfaction which the Assembly of the Clergy of France in the year 1655. expressed to my Lord the Bishop of Lodeve, now Bishop of Mont-pellier, with the Relation he made them of what he had learned from the mouth of Innocent X. about this matter; it being so great that they desired he would give it them in Writing, to the end it might be inserted in the Verbal Process which they caused to be printed a little time after. For hence I inferred, that, if that Illustrious Assembly was so well pleased with that Account (in which things are not resumed from the bottom, but in gross and confusedly enough) that they judged it deserving to be published under their name and by their orders; there would be other grounds of satisfaction, both to the Clergy in general and the rest of Christians, to behold distinctly and orderly the particulars contained in this Journal touching the same matters which were related but in a word in that Account. Moreover, the care Pope Innocent X. told the said Bishop of Mont-pellier, he had taken to cause all transactions in this Affair to be compiled in a Volume, and deposited in the Archives of S. Peter, after he had declared the same in the Consistory he●d to that purpose; this Care (I say) clearly showing that Pope's desire to preserve to the Church the remembrance and information of all that passed in this Affair, and the said Volume being not likely to contain other Pieces then what are either entire or sufficiently set down in this Journal, I thought I should second his good intentions by presenting the same to the Public.  
I considered further, that besides those Pieces there were many things in this Journal which might be verified, not only by other proofs which I can produce thereof, but also by the Testimonies of the considerable Persons whom I call to witness by mentioning them: divers of which being since the finishing thereof passed to another life, I feared that if I longer deferred the publishing of it, I might one day be reproached for attesting only the dead and persons incapable of gainsaying me. Wherefore the faithfulness I have used herein, keeping me from fearing that any person might find any thing in it that were not most true, I judged that the sooner I divulged it, it would be the better, in regard of having the more witnesses of all that I have said, and of the sincerity with which I have said it.  
These considerations induced me to resolve upon the Impression which I have caused to be made this present Year 1662. that so I might consummate the Work of the Commission, in which it hath pleased God to employ me however incapable and unworthy of it, and die with more quiet, having hereby paid the Churuh what I conceived I owed to her.  
But because this Journal was written in the end of the Year 1653. and in 1654. I advertise those that shall read it to be mindful thereof, lest they be mistaken in some things which should have been expressed otherwise, had it been written at the present time. Thus, by those words [M. the Archbishop of Tholouse that died last,] M. the Marca is not meant, but M. de Montchal his predecessor; they not being intelligible of any but him when I writ them, and likewise when they were printed. When I name the Pope, Innocent X. must be always understood, because it was under his Pontificate that all this Affair was transacted and reduced into writing. And when I speak of My Lord Ghiggi, or M. Cardinal Ghiggi, it must always be understood of Pope Alexander VII. who sits in S. Peter's Chair at this present; because during all the time I was employed about this Journal, there was no other Cardinal Ghiggi besides him.  
At Paris this 25. of November 1662.   

A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS.  
A JOURNAL of what observations I made of things passed at Rome, touching the matter of the Five Propositions.  

The Division of the Work.  
THE FIRST PART. Containing that which passed at Paris in reference to the matter of the Five Propositions, particularly in sundry Assemblies of the Faculty of Divinity, held during the years, 1646. 1647, 1648, and 1649, page 1. 

CHAPTER I. OF what passed in the Assembly of the Faculty on the first of October 1646. Of a Speech pronounced in the Grand Chamber by M. Omer Talon, Advocate General, on Friday the 10th of May 1647. And of the Arrest issued forth on the 15th upon his remonstrances. p. 1  
Chap. II. Of what passed in the Assembly of the Faculty on the first of March 1647. concerning a Scandalous Libel against Petrus Aurelius. p. 3  
Chap. III. Of what passed in the Assemblies of the Faculty on the 2d. of May, the first of June, and the first of July in the year 1648. touching a Libel of F. Veron. p. 4  
Chap. iv Of divers things which passed in several Assemblies of the Faculty in the same year 1648. touching the Number of such of Mendicant Orders as might be admitted into Licences and Assemblies. p. 5  
Chap. V Of what passed heretofore in the year 1626. touching the number of the foresaid Orders admitted into the Facultie's Assemblies; and of the ancient adherences of M. Cornet with them and the Jesuits. p. 6  
Chap. VI Of what passed in the Assembly of the Faculty on 1. July 1649. in which M. Cornet produced the Five Propositions, to cause them to be censured. p. 10  
Chap. VII. Of what passed during the rest of the month of July, consequently to the deputing certain Doctors named by the Faculty for the examination of the said Propositions. p. 13  
Chap. VIII. Of the Writings published the same month of July by the Disciples of S. Augustin concerning the Propositions. p. 15  
Chap. IX. Of what passed in the Assembly of the Faculty on the first of August following, and the rest of that month, upon occasion of a Petition which we presented to the Parliament against the enterprise of M. Cornet. p, 16  
Chap. X. Of what passed in the Assembly of the Faculty on the first of September the same year, 1649. p. 19  
Chap. XI. Of a false Censure published in September against the Propositions. And of a second Petition which we presented to the Parliament. ibid.  
Chap. XII. Of the Arrest which followed upon the said two Petitions, and of what passed in the Parliament about this matter. p. 21  
Chap. XIII. Of what passed during the Months of October and November, touching the Election of M. Hallier to the Office of Syndic. p. 26  
Chap. XIV. Of what was done in the Assembly of the first of December 1649. in order to the agreement which the First Precedent desired. p. 29  
Chap. XV. Of what passed after that Assembly in prosecution of the propounded agreement till the seventh of December. p. 15    
THE SECOND PART. Containing a Relation of divers things which passed, and which I learned at Rome during four or five Months of my residence there, from the end of November 1650. till June 1651. when I returned back thither about the affair of the Five Propositions. p. 37 

CHAP. I. OF my Voyage from Paris to Rome in the year 1650. And of what I learned concerning the prosecutions against M. Hersent, whilst I was at Venice. p. 37  
Chap. II. Of the Letter of M. de Vabres. The Design of the Jesuits against (the book called) the Hours, translated into French. How odious such as are called Jansenists, were at Rome. p. 38  
Chap. III. The Complaint of the Venetians. The ill usage of the King's Ambassador. The King's Letter to the Cardinals in complaint thereof. A conference with Cardinal Barberini about the Hours and the Letter of M. de Vabres. p. 41  
Chap. IV. A false Censure of the Propositions sent to Rome to be confirmed. A Letter written to Paris about that matter; and Others received from Paris. p. 43  
Chap. V Divers visits, in which the five Propositions were spoken of; and a remarkable Circumstance touching the same. How few people at Rome well understood those matters, and the reason. p. 45  
Chap. VI Letters written to Paris containing the reasons which persuaded the good there would be in sending to Rome, and others which dissuaded it as unprofitable or prejudicial, concluding nevertheless, that it seemed best to send thither. p. 47  
Chap. VII. News from Paris of a check which M. Hallier received in the Assembly of the Faculty on the first of February, 1651. Discourse with Cardinal Lugo. Certain Propositions taken out of the Sermon of M. Hersent accused and justified. A strange secrecy concerning what passeth in the Inquisition. p. 48  
Chap. VIII. A visit to Cardinal Lugo. The fasilfication of the Bull of Urban VIII. The vehemence of M. Albizzi against S. Augustin. The Censure of Vallidolid. p. 51  
Chap. IX. Of what passed at Paris during this time. The Irish solicited. Complaints of some Bishops to the Nuntio of the practices of the Jesuits to get the Letter of M. de Vabres signed. Those Bishop's deliberate of sending to Rome. A Proposal of a Conference. p. 53  
Chap. X. That the Haereo fateor, is that which rendered Jansenius so odious at Rome. Sundry declarations of Cardinal Barberini that the Bull of Urban VIII. is only provisional, and reacheth not Jansenius' doctrine. The zeal of the Generals of the Dominicans and the Augustine's for S. Augustin, joined with fear of incurring displeasure thereby. p. 55  
Chap. XI. Intelligence of my danger of being put into the Inquisition. Of the Molinomachie of Aurelius Avitus. The Explication of Haereo fateor. Such as were believed inclinable to defend Jansenius, removed from the Assemblies of the Inquisition. An audience of the Pope. p. 58  
Chap. XII. Divers confirmations of the intelligence given me of the danger wherein I was. A Resolution of the Bishops to write and send to Rome. Difficulties about that sudden dispatch. A perfect discovery of the design there was to stop me. My leaving Rome. p. 60  
Chap. XIII. A Letter written from Florence to excuse myself absolutely from returning to Rome, though I had promised so to do. What I saw most considerable at Milan. p. 62  
Chap. XIV. A Letter from Paris received at Genua, to engage me to return to Rome. Which I accordingly resolved upon notwithstanding my former resolution to the contrary. My return to Rome. p. 63    
THE THIRD PART. Containing what passed at Rome after my return thither as Delegate from the Bishops, 15. June 1651. till the end of the year. p. 67 

CHAPTER I. THe Letter of the Bishops to the Pope. Deliberation whether it were fit to deliver it. Resolution to do so. p. 67  
Chap. II. A Visit to Cardinal d' Este, who gave me to understand that it was not safe for me to abide at Rome; But I was not moved therewith. Divers Visits upon the occasion of my return. Discourse with F. Annat. p. 69  
Chap. III. Visits at the end of June and beginning of July, in which I discovered the objections made against the Hours. Notice of an intention to put me into the Inquisition. p. 73  
Chap. iv Audience of the Pope on the 10th of July at my delivering him the Bishop's Letter, and declaring the subject thereof. p. 77  
Chap. V A Relation of all that passed in the business of the Hours. An answer to all objections made by the Jesuits against them. That they were put into the Index only because of a Bull of Pius V pretended to forbid the translation of the Office of the Virgin into the vulgar language. The violence of M. Albizzi. p. 79  
Chap. VI Divers Visits in the end of July and beginning of August, principally to the Cardinals Spada, Roma, Barberini, and the Ambassador who was returned to Rome from Tivoli. p. 89  
Chap. VII. Visits during the month of August to the Qualificators of the Holy Office. Letters of M. Hallier full of falsities. Sundry discoveries of the false Censure sent to Rome in the name of the Faculty. p. 91  
Chap. VIII. Visits in September. A writing full of falsities by an Augustin Doctor of the Faculty, which was dispersed secretly at Rome. Of the Bull of Urban VIII. Of F. Lemos; and of the zeal of Clement VIII. for the doctrine of Grace. Frequent prohibitions to speak of Jansenius. p. 98  
Chap. IX. The History of the fraud used by M. Hallier in sending a vagabond Cordelier named F. Mulard in quality of Deputy from the Faculty. With what boldness the said Cordelier (who had been sometimes a Capuchin and afterwards an Apostate and married) took upon him that quality in his address to the Pope. p. 106  
Chap. X. Visits in the end of September and beginning of October. A story of Clement VIII: Manuscripts of the Congregations de Auxiliis in the Library of the Augustins. Of that whereof I took a Copy from thence. The Jesuits endeavour in vain to draw the Dominicans to their side. p. 114  
Chap. XI. Letters from Paris confirming the resolution of the Bishops to do nothing but in a regular Congregation where the Divines of either side might speak in the presence of their Adversaries. p. 117  
Chap. XII. An Audience of the Pope 17. Octob. A Letter of the Bishop of Grass delivered to the Pope at that Audience. p. 119  
Chap. XIII. Visits in the end of October and the whole month of November. The Manuscript of the Bull of Paul V against Molina in the Library of the Augustins. Of the secrecy used in the affair of the Propositions. A Lie of M. Hallier and F. Mulard. Violences of M. Albizzi. p. 112  
Chap. XIV. Of the arrival of other Deputies on 5. Decemb. and the Visits we made together till the end of the month. p. 130  
Chap. XV. The Account of some Sermons made by M. Brouse upon the way at Die, against the Calvinists of that place, touching the Possibility of keeping God's Commandments. p. 133  
Chap. XVI. Passages at Paris towards the end of the year 1651. An accusation against me by M. Grandin the Syndic at the instigation of the Nuntio, as if I had styled myself at Rome the Deputy or Agent of the Faculty. The Jesuits confidently boast that the Propositions will be condemned at Rome. A scandalous Libel of F. Brisacier a Jesuit, against the Religious Virgins of Port Royal, censured by the Archbishop of Paris. p. 135    
THE FOURTH PART. Containing the things which passed during the first six Months of the year, 1652. p. 139. 

CHAP. I. OF what passed both at Paris and at Rome, during the first three weeks of January. page 136  
Chap. II. Of the first Audience we had together of the Pope, January 21, 1652, at the end of which we gave him our first Memorial. p. 141  
Chap. III. The verification of the original of the Memoires of M. Regna Dean of the Rota, touching the Congregations de Auxiliis. Divers things which we did during the rest of January and beginning of February. p. 147  
Chap. iv Of what we did till the end of February. A Promotion of Cardinals, amongst whom the Lord Ghiggi was one. Of a Memorial we presented to the Pope against a book of Father Annat, which was under the Press: and of the Visits we began to make to all the sacred College. p. 151  
Chap. V Of the Visits which we continued during the first days of March, as well to the sacred College as to the Consultors and Qualificators, ordinarily employed at Rome about matters of Doctrine. p. 155  
Chap. VI The continuation of the said Visits; and of what passed till the end of March. Of the necessity of M. Brousse's returning into France for his health-sake. Of the two Copies of the Memoires of M. Pegna, which we caused to be prepared very exactly with the original: and, of the success of our Memorial against F. Annat's book. p. 161  
Chap. VII. Of a small Tome of the principal works of Saint Augustin against the Pelagians and Semipelagians, which we put to printing after Easter, and of the obstructions raised against the said Impression. p. 168  
Chap. VIII. An incidental History of the exemplary punishment of the Subdatary Mascambrun, convicted of sundry forgeries, which happened at this time, and whereof I learned very weighty particularities by an assured way. p. 176  
Chap. IX. Of an ancient Manuscript which fell into my hands, touching an Affair of M. Grimani Patriarch of Aquileia; by which I found that the ground of all the matters in question had been examined, and decided by the Council of Trent. p. 186  
Chap. X. Of other less important passages (besides those of the three foregoing Chapters) during the months of April and May; amongst others, Of the arrival at Rome of MM. Hallier, Lagault and Joysel, Doctors of our Faculty; and of the Declaration they made to us in the presence of the Ambassador, that they came to demand the Censure of the Five Propositions as of things already condemned, without making any Examination or Congregation. p. 187  
Chap. XI. Of what passed during the whole month of June and the beginning of July. p. 192    
THE FIFTH PART. Containing what passed during the last six months of the Year, 1652. page 201. 

CHAP. I. OF the Declaration made to us on the eleventh of July by Cardinal Roma, that the Pope had constituted the Congregation which we desired of him. Of the Visits we made till the twenty first, to the Cardinals which were of it; and, of a Letter we writ thereupon to the Bishops who sent us. p. 201  
Chap. II. Of the first suspicions we had, that our Adversaries endeavoured to hinder what was most essential to the said Congregation, namely, an open hearing in the presence of one another. Of the solicitations we used to that end the rest of the month; and our discovery of an intention to put into that Congregation persons wholly suspected by us. An incidental Letter very considerable which I received at that time. p. 206  
Chap. III. Of the distribution we made in the beginning of August of our little Volume of Saint Augustin. p. 211.  
Chap. IU. Of an Audience I had of the Pope August 9, when I presented the said Tome of Saint Augustin to his Holiness. p. 213  
Chap. V Of the extraordinary summons given by Cardinal Roma at the solicitation of M. Albizzi, to provide in a fortnight's time all the Writings we had to deliver. Of the two first which we got ready by that time, and signed on Saint Augustin's day. p. 214  
Chap. VI Of two Conferences held at Paris during the month of August, between M. de Sainte-Beuve Doctor and Professor of Sorbon, and F. l' Abbé a Jesuit. Other Letters written to us from Paris during the same month, to instruct us not to appear but in presence of our Adversaries. p. 216  
Chap. VII. Of what was contained in our two first Writings; the one treating of what had passed in the Affair of the Five Propositions; the other of the authority of Saint Augustin. p. 218  
Chap. VIII. Of a certain Writing of M. Hallier and his Colleagues, which came accidentally to our hands. p. 221  
Chap. IX. Of our solicitations during the whole month of September, to obtain that the Writings which we should present to the Cardinals, might be communicated to our Adversaries. Of the death of Cardinal Roma which happened in the said month. Of the private Congregations which began to be held at the Palace of Cardinal Spada. p. 223  
Chap. X. Letters written to us from Paris in September, continually enjoining us not to engage ourselves in the Congregation, but on condition to be heard in presence of our Adversaries. Two or three remarkable things which happened to the Jesuits about this time. p. 233  
Chap. XI. New endeavours for the communication of our Papers: and of a new Writing of M. Hallier, which came to our hands. p. 235  
Chap. XII. Of Letters written to us from Paris during the month of October, concerning the proceeding which they understood there was used at Rome in the Congregation. p. 245  
Chap. XIII. Of our Negotiation during the whole month of November, chief endeavouring to get an Audience of the Pope, that we might deliver our Papers to him, and obtain that the same might be communicated to our Adversaries, with an Epistle to his Holiness to that purpose. p. 248  
Chap. XIV. Of what passed at Paris during the said month; chief of the violences used by the Jesuits against some Doctor's disciples of Saint Augustin, to deprive them of their employments. p. 256  
Chap. XV. Of the continuation of our endeavours during the month of December, to get the Audience of the Pope we desired, to the end we might present our Papers to him; With two Memorials: one to obtain that our Writings might be communicated; the other against F. Modeste, M. Albizzi and the Jesuits. p. 257  
Chap. XVI. How we were at length constrained to take occasion of the Pope's return from taking the air, to present those Papers and Memorials to him. Of a conference with the Ambassador, and other things which I learned till Christmas, in the year 1652. p. 263  
Chap. XVII. Of a consultation between my Colleagues and me, whether, in case they should persist at Rome to refuse to receive from us in order to the examination & sentence, any other then secret and private informations, we should at length yield and deliver such. The reasons we had on the one side and the other. Of the Letters we writ to Paris, and the Answers we received thereupon. p. 264    
THE SIXTH PART. Containing the passages of the first six months of the Year, 1653. p. 275. 

CHAP. I. NEw endeavours used at the beginning of the Year 1653. for the communication of our Writings, Discourses upon that matter with divers persons, particularly with Cardinal Spada and the Ambassador. p. 275  
Chap. II. Of Cardinal Spadas offer in the end of January, to hear us in the Congregation held at his house, and our Answer, That we were ready to appear there assoon as justice should be done us upon the conditions which we had desired. Of a Letter I writ thereupon to my Lords the Bishops, who had deputed us. p. 282  
Chap. III. How we observed that the Congregation held at Cardinal Spadas house, was only a part of that of the Inquisition. Of the hearing given there to M. Hallier and his Colleagues. Of the Letter I writ thereupon to the Advocate General Bignon; and a Discourse I had with the Ambassador, touching what had passed between us and Cardinal Spada. p. 288  
Chap. iv Of what I understood passed at Paris and elsewhere upon occasion of these Contests, by Letters written to me during the said month of January. p. 291  
Chap. V Containing what passed in the first days of February, particularly of a Memorial prepared by the General of the Augustins, touching the Five Propositions; And, of a Letter which we writ to the Bishops, signifying, that the Congregation chosen by the Pope, took upon them the quality of Congregation of the Holy Office. Of a writing of M. Hallier; which accidentally came to our hands. p. 293  
Chap. VI Of the conference between M. Hallier and his Colleagues on the one part, and the General of the Dominicans and some principal Fathers of his Order on the other part, February 14. p. 298  
Chap. VII. Of a long Audience I had of Cardinal Ghiggi the same day. p. 304  
Chap. VIII. Of two Memorials our Advocate presented in our behalf to the Pope at an Audience which we had of him, February 17. p. 306  
Chap. IX. Of the Papers the General of the Dominicans intended to present to the Pope, with his Memorial to intervene in this Affair. p. 309  
Chap. X. Of what passed at Rome from the 19th of February till the last of the same month. p. 310  
Chap. XI. Of divers Pieces published at Paris by the followers of M●lina during the month of February. Of divers rumours and threaten which they spread there. And of the Letters written to us from Paris during that whole month and the beginning of March, both touching that matter, and the Answers we had given to the offers of Cardinal Spada p. 313  
Chap. XII. The confederacy of M. Hallier and his Colleagues with the Jesuits, manifested by the Papers these Doctors presented to the Consultors, and printed at Paris under the Name of F. Annat; which I endeavoured to discover to the Cardinals Ghiggi and Spada, but in vain. A new discovery of a Paper of M. Hallier concerning the third Proposition p. 320  
Chap. XIII. Proposals to me by Cardinal Barberini about the Doctrine of the Thomists. The beginning of the Congregation. The Reconciliation of the Pope with Madam Olympia, who entertains him at Dinner on the day of the Annunciation, together with his Nephew, by whom in vain he is dissuaded from applying himself to the said Congregations p. 322  
Chap. XIV. A Visit I made to the Ambassador concerning the said Congregations. Assurance given me by him that we should be heard selemnly, and as much as we desired. New Propositions delivered to the Congregation as equivalent to those under examination, but for the most part comprised in more odious words. The judgement M. de Sainte-Beuve made thereof assoon as he saw them. Four Congregations held eight days before the Pope p. 327  
Chap. XV. The arrival of F. Des-mares and of M. Manessier at Rome. A notable change of a zealous Disciple of Molina, who became an ardent one of Saint Augustin by reading the little Volume I gave him, and the twelve chief Maxims of the Christian belief touching Grace, which he reduced into so many Latin Distiques. A scandalous Memorial dispersed through Rome and all Italy, as presented to the Pope by the Clergy of France concerning this Affair. Another Paper of our Adversaries contrived to delude the Dominicans, and full of falsities p, 330  
Chap. XVI. The Declaration of our opinions concerning the sufficient Grace of some of the Thomists, approved by the Fathers of that Order. A Congregation held on the 18th of April by the five Cardinals and M. Albizzi without Consultors. An Audience we endeavoured for F. Des-mares and M. Manessier. A remarkable saying of a Gallicane Prince. The reason which induced the Pope to be willing that we should be heard in his own presence. p. 335  
Chap. XVII. Of the Letters written to me from Paris during the whole month of April, concerning how the posture of this Affair stood at Rome. p. 337  
Chap. XVIII. Of the first certain News I received on the fourth of May, that the Constitution was made against the Five Propositions; and of the Audience which F. Des-mares and M. Manessier had of the Pope that day. p. 340  
Chap. XIX. The Discourse of Cardinal Ghiggi with an other Cardinal concerning the new Bull in the Consistory, May 5. Reasons which moved us to inform the Pope, that we should be ready to appear before him whenever he pleased, and in such manner as should seem fit to his Holiness. p. 343  
Chap. XX. Our signification of this Resolution to the Ambassador. The care he took to intimate the same to the Pope, and demand a day of him for that purpopse. Notice given to him by M. Hallier and his Colleagues, to be ready to appear likewise before the Pope a day or two after us. Our Visits upon this occasion to the Cardinals of the Congregation. The Bull prepared, and revised by those Cardinals by turns. p. 345  
Chap. XXI. Of the Papers we prepared to present to the Pope at the end of our intended Audience. p. 348  
Chap. XXII. Of the Audience the Pope gave us May 19 which was the first and last we had of all that had been promised us. p. 354  
Chap. XXIII. The Letter we writ May 26. to the Bishops who sent us, touching the grand Audience the Pope had given us. p. 380  
Chap. XXIV. Endeavours to get permission to print our Papers in order to present them to the Cardinals and Consultors. Visits to the Cardinals of the Congregation to present them our Piece of the Distinction of senses, and thank them for being present at our grand Audience. Congratulations received thereupon from their Eminences and others. The Calumnies which Cardinal Rapaccioli informed us were uttered to himself by M. Hallier and his Colleagues against our Doctrine. p. 395  
Chap. XXV. New rumours of the Bull against the Propositions. A considerable saying of Cardinal Ghiggi in our favour concerning the same occasion. The public entry of Cardinal Pimentelli into Rome, who takes this opportunity to dissuade the Pope from the purpose of this Bull, but without effect. M. Hallier and his Colleagues are not heard before the Pope, and the reason. The last conference I had with Cardinal Ghiggi. The pretention of F. Modeste to be General of his Order frustrated. p. 399  
Chap. XXVI. Of the Letters written to me from Paris during the months of May and June, concerning what passages at Rome I had related during May. p. 402  
Chap. XXVII. Of certain things we were informed of, and of our Visits from the first of June till the thirteenth. In what manner the Constitution against the Five Propositions was published. With what restriction and circumspection we resolved to subscribe to the Condemnation in case the Pope should require it of us. p. 408  
Chap. XXVIII. M. Hallier and his Colleagues desire audience of the Pope to complain of the public joy we testified throughout Rome, for the declarations the Pope made to us at our audience of parting; which the Pope confirms to them. The General of the Augustins gives us Letters of Association to his Order. The Ambassador by a letter to the Count de Brienne secetary of State confirms in what manner I spoke in all the Account we have had of the Propositions, and that the Pope hath condemned them.  
Chap. XXIX. Containing a relation of what passed in the Assembly of the Cureés of Paris on Monday, 9 June 1653. and in the King's presence on Wednesday after in reference to that Assembly.    
THE SEVENTH PART. Containing what passed at our departure from Rome, and after till our arrival at Paris; and what particulars I observed after we were arrived there, till the conclusion of this Journal. 

CHAP. I. COntaining the Pope's Constitution against the five Propositions; our departure from Rome; our arrival at Florence; a Letter we writ from thence to the Bishops; some Reflections we made upon our departure from Rome; our departure from Florence; our arrival at Venice; the stay we made there.  
Chap. II. Containing the Letters which I received from Rome concerning the Pope's new constitution during our stay at Venice.  
Chap. III. Containing the Letters writ to me from Paris, assoon as the certain news of the Pope's constitution was arrived thither; and the Answer F. Morin Priest of the Oratory made to one of his Brethren who consulted him about the said constitution.  
Chap, iv Of our Journey from Venice to Paris, and our passage through Switzerland.  
Chap. V Of particulars which came to my knowledge after our return to Paris. A calumny spread at Rome that we had caused a book to be printed at Venice against the Pope's Constitution. The Pope informs the Consistory of his Constitution and with what submission it was received. The Imprisonment of F. Nolano a Dominican falsely attributed to the doctrine of Efficacious Grace. p. 440  
Chap. VI The return of M. Hallier and his Colleagues. Calumnies which he spread against me. News come from Rome towards the end of the year, 1653. p. 442      

ERRATA.  
PAge 1. b l. 15. read spoke of two. p. 3. a l. 60. and 61. r. Nuntiature. ibid. l. 66. r. being taken. p. 4. a l. 5. r. generously. p. 8. a l. 39 r. against. p. 13. a l. 10. r. ago, and. ibid. l. 24. r. and for that. p. 14. a l. 3. r. Appeal. ibid. l. 19 r. signified to M. Changed ibid. l. 53. r. command. ibid. b l. 12. because of this. p. 16. a l. 29. r. statum & vires. p. 19 b l. 8. r. vanish. p. 22. b l. 49. deal and. p. 23. a l. 9 r. Arnauts. p. 26. b l. 48. r. Syndicate. p. 33. b. l. 5. r. they had. p 35. b l. 21. r. Doctors. p. 37. b r. moved. ibid. b l. 7. r. manners. p. 42 a l. 52. deal late. p. 47. b l. 1. r. with affections. ibid. l. 2. r. with that. p. 49. a l. 5. r. signified to me. ibid. l. 40. r. Chappel. p. 52. a l. 26. r. Baius instead of Bavis, and elsewhere. p. 57 b l. 17. r. these contests. p. 61. a l. 21. r. spinosity. p. 69. b l. 6. r. moved. p. 70. a l. 12. Had I not before. p. 78. a l. 13. erection. p. 85. a l. 61. Cities of Italy. p. 87 a l. 40. Consulted the Ballerie. p. 89. b antepenult. Baius. p. 62. a l. 7. little skilled. p. 94. b l. 7. of a solemn. p. 103. a 57 tecta p. 117. b l. 55. effect of them. p. 125. a l. 40 dissensu. p. 126. b l. penult. Baius. p. 221. b l. 22. report not. p. 224. a l. 23. hindered it. ibid. a l. 64. theirs to us. p. 230. a l. 11. resumere. 29. to discuss. p. 225. b l. 4. a little health. p. 254. a l. 1 cheering. l. 22. an Audience. p. 256. a l. 39 we aimed. p. 257. a l. 12. Molinistae. l. 14. habituros. l. 19 gloriantur. p. 262. a l. 42. He hath made it appear. p. 265. b l. 14. safer course. p. 268. a l. 7. restore peace. l. 10. deal the. p. 269. b l. 6. concernedness. p. ibid. l. 57 deal the. p. 270. a l. 5. being there are. p. 250. a l. 40. depress. p. 309. a l. 2. are no parties. p. 303. b l. 2. moreris. p. 313. a l. 55. and they. l. 56. 1602. p. 315. b l. 2. mitis homo. l. 38. exigi. l. 55. at length given you. p. 316. b l. 48. your Writings. p. 407. b l. 36. your audience. l. 38. Thus. l. 46. feigned. p. 408. a l. 20. by which. p. 409. b l. 28. the Nieces. p. 410. a l. this Abbots. p. 411. b l. 3. the condemnatory. p. 446. a l. 13. rigorously. b l. 10. deal that.  

In the Collection.  
Page 77 a l. 56. sensu unquam. p. 79. a l. 22. qui quocunque modo. b l. 40. quas ipsi. p. 91. b l. 26. postea de. p. 92. b l. 57 Ista def. p. 95. b l. 5. scrutandi. p. 97. b l. 3. non posse. p. 98. b l. 5. premit haec objectio. p. 107. a l. 20. culpa tribuitur. p. 114. a l. 19, scd eum adjuvat. b l. 27. offenderet. p. 115. a l. 53. habere in manu. p. 118. b l. 42. esse in omni homine. p. 119. a. l. 6. ut justus fiat. p. 124. a l. penult. Sine isto Sancti.    

A JOURNAL Of what Passages I observed at ROME Relating to the Matter of The Five Propositions.  

The DIVISION of this Work.  
WHat hath passed at Rome in reference to the Five Propositions is so well worth knowing, and yet so little known; that I account myself obliged to set down in writing all the Occurrences concerning them, which during two whole years, wherein I was employed about that affair, arrived to my knowledge; and also to fit the same either to be printed in my own life-time in case occasions so require and permit, or else transmitted to the notice of Posterity by the help of some Copies which I shall take care shall be made and reposited in Libraries.  
During the space of those two years I was careful to write down daily every thing that I either did or learned concerning this business. The principal particulars whereof I likewise every week sent into France, according as I was obliged. So that for the framing of my intended Narrative I shall only need to select out of the Journal I made then, and the Copies of Letters I preserved, such things as will not be unworthy the public Eye, leaving apart such as deserve not to be produced thence. Possibly I may relate some few that will seem at first View superfluous, or little important; but I hope even those which appear least considerable in themselves, will be in the sequel found serviceable to the illustration of such as are more so. However, I am secure I shall not mention any but what is most true; it not being possible for One who speaks only such things as he knows, and according to his knowledge, to utter falsities, unless he will himself; from which by God's grace my Intention is perfectly free.  
I shall divide the Journal of Passages at Rome into Four Parts; Each of which shall comprise Six Months of those two years: whereunto I shall add a Fifth, containing what came to my particular knowledge from the time of our departure from Rome till the end of the year 1653. But because the Propositions were not carried to Rome, but in consequence of the Motion made in Sorbonne in the Assembly of the First of July 1649. by M. Cornet, Doctor, and at that time Syndic of the Faculty of Divinity of Paris, for the nomination of Doctors to examine and censure them; there shall be Two Parts antecedent to the mentioned Five; the former of which shall comprehend what passed at Paris concerning this matter; wherein, that I may not omit any thing contributory to the manifestation of this business, I shall relate other things which preceded that Assembly, without the knowledge of which, neither the Judgements of some Doctors who delivered their sentence thereupon would be so well understood, nor the sequels it had sufficiently apprehended. The Second shall treat of what I learned at Rome in the first journey I made thither in the H. Year 1650. at which time this affair seemed wholly laid asleep amongst the Faculty. For after I had sojourned there three or four Months, although it was no part of the design of my residence, yet I occasionally learned some things of reference to it; and possibly what I writ to Paris thereupon, was the inducement to some Bishops of France to engage my return to Rome about this affair, when according to my own purpose I was upon the way back towards France. The account of the Seven Parts of the Work is as followeth.  
The First shall contain what passed about this matter at Paris particularly in several Assemblies of the Faculty in the years 1646, 1647, 1648, and 1649.  
The Second shall comprise sundry things which passed, or which I learned at Rome, during four or five months of my residing there upon my private account, from the end of November 1650. till May 1651.  
The Third shall recite what passed at Rome from the time of my return thither as the Envoy or Delegate of some Bishops, at the end of June 1651. till the end of the same Year.  
The Fourth shall set forth what passed at Rome during the first Six Months of the Year 1652.  
The Fifth shall relate the Passages of the last Six Months of the same Year.  
The sixth shall show what passed from the beginning of the Year 1653. till the Month of June, when we departed from Rome to come back to France.  
And the Seventh shall declare what occurred from the beginning of our voyage, till our arrival at Paris, and also what came to my particular knowledge, after our return till the end of the same year 1653.   

THE FIRST PART.  
October 1646. Containing what passed at Paris concerning the affair of The Five Propositions, particularly in several Assemblies of the Faculty of Divinity, held in the Years 1646, 1647, 1648, 1649.  

CHAP. I.  
Of what passed in the Assembly of the Faculty, 1 Octob. 1646. Of a Speech pronounced in the Grand Chamber by M. Omer Talon Advocate General, on Friday 10 May 1647. and, Of the Arrest issued from thence on the 15th.  
AT the beginning of the year 1646. my time of Licentiate being accomplished, and the Ceremonies of conferring Degrees deferred till after Easter, I thought fit to employ that interval of time in a journey to Italy, invited thereunto by the company of M. de Sovuré, Chevalier of the Orders of the King, and first Gentleman of his Chamber, and of M. the Abbot de Bassompierre, now Bishop of Xaintes, and of some other persons of quality whom I had the honour to know at Court. M. Bourgeois Doctor of Paris, and M. Duchesne an ancient Professor in Philosophy, were then at Rome by Order of my Lords the Bishops who had licenc'd the Book Of Frequent Communion, to defend the same against the prosecutions used by the Jesuits there to get it censured. During the short abode I made there, M. Bourgeois and M. Duchesne told me the Book Of Frequent Communion was wholly acquitted, but the Jesuits had turned all their forces against another Book, to which That had given occasion, namely, that Of the Greatness of the Roman Church. Nevertheless that they conceived they had so clearly evidenced to divers Cardinals the validity of the passages of the said Book, (which establisheth in the two Princes of the Apostles, S. Peter and S. Paul, the Authority in question) that they believed it now out of all danger of Censure.  
In these very terms I informed of this matter divers of our Confreres who requested intelligence thereof at my return, which was in the month of August the same year. And in September following, having received the Doctor's Cap, the first time I had the honour to enter into the Assembly of the Faculty, (which was 1 Octob. 1646.) M. Cornet, than Syndic, acquainted the Faculty that the Nuntio had told him, that certain Manuscript Gazettes [or Mercuries] were come to his hands from Rome, which spoke two Doctors there who pretended to be Delegates from the Faculty for the maintaining a Book as Orthodox, which undertook to show, That there may be two Heads in the Church; Of which he advertised the Faculty in regard of their concernment therein, and entreated them to declare to him, whether they had sent the said Doctors to Rome for the defence of such Book. This proposal was made after a manner so odious and captious against the said Book, that M. Chastellain (who was friend to M. Bourgeois, and was satisfied of the goodness of the Book defended by him at Rome, in which also he knew it was not maintained That there may be two Heads in the Church) conceived that enough would be done both for the Book and for M. Bourgeois, if it were declared to the Nuntio, That no person of the Faculty had so much as heard speech of any Book written to that purpose; and accordingly he nominated M. Pereyret and some other Doctors to carry this answer to the Nuntio. This disowning of an Imaginary Book, was very well pleasing to the enemies of the True Book which M. Bourgeois defended. For they saw well, it would not be difficult for them to involve the true one in it. So this advice was universally assented to, though with different ends and aims.  
My turn of suffraging came not till the last: but I did not forbear to give some intimation of the ill use I feared would be made of this Declaration; which when I saw ratified by the Conclusion of the Faculty, speaking after the Assembly with the Doctors (to whom, upon the assurance given by M. Bourgeois and M. Duchesne, I had signified that I conceived the Book out of danger of Censure) I told them that after this Declaration of the Faculty, I judged the Censure would indubitably follow, and believed two Months would not pass before its appearance. Moreover, because I saw the reputation of M. Bourgeois and M. Duchesne unjustly impeached, I gave such a testimony of them in this Assembly as I believed I was bound to do, being so lately returned from Rome, where I had seen (as I assured the Assembly) that they took not upon themselves the quality of Delegates of the Faculty, that all people of honour that knew them, looked upon them as sent by those of my Lords the Prelates of France who had given approbation to the Book Of Frequent Communion; and that none but framers of Gazettes [or Mercury-mongers] could speak otherwise of them.  
However, upon that Gazette which came to the Nuntio, and from him to the Faculty, the Conclusion passed. M. Pereyret went to visit him, according to the commission given him so to do: and although he had received none to leave any thing in writing with the Nuntio, yet he declined not to give him a Memorial of what he said to him, which he drew up as himself pleased, without communicating any thing thereof to the Faculty.  
The term of publishing the Decree of the Inquisition of Rome, which appeared against the mentioned Book, consequently to the Declaration of the Faculty, was longer than I imagined it would have been: for it was deferred till the 25th. of January the following year 1647. being the very day of the Conversion of St. Paul, which I cannot but observe here, because I doubt not but it was designed by the authors of the Decree.  
Some time after, this Decree came into France to the Nuntio, with command from the Pope to cause it to be printed, and sent to the Ordinaries of places; by which order, and for which purpose it was printed by Sebastian Cramoisy. I shall mention no other particulars of this Decree, but what are in the Speech of the deceased M. Talon Advocate General, whereof, and of the Arrest which followed it, I had a Copy; which I shall insert here to preserve the same to posterity, though they have been printed since in flying and perishing pamphlets.  
A Speech delivered in the Grand Chamber by Mons. Omer Talon, Advocate General, on Friday 10 Maii 1647.  
Gentlemen,  
WE received on Wednesday an order from the Court to make inquiry concerning a Bull printed a few days since, and a Sentence issued forth by the Provost of Paris on Monday last; whereby he hath condemned a small Writing and Book containing one sheet of Paper; which Writing is contrary to the authority of the said Bull. Moreover the same day we heard what passed in the presence of the Queen touching the same affair, where you were pleased, Sir, (addressing himself to the first Precedent) to express the sentiments of the Company, and their reasons for opposing the enterprise of the Pope's Nuntio, who goes about to establish a new Jurisdiction in this Realm: After which discourse, the Queen having called us and heard from our own mouths something of the particulars of this affair, and afterwards conferred of it with M. the Cardinal Mazarin, M. the Chancellor gave us to understand, that there was a difference to be made between a Bull issued by authority of the Holy See, for the printing and publishing of which there is the King's Privilege, and one set forth by the Mandate or Certification of the Nuntio, who makes no part of the Bull.  
Whereupon, Gentlemen, to tell you our thoughts concerning this Bull, we have found in it three things especially to oppose;  
First, that there has been printed in France, published, and endeavoured to be executed, a Decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition of the Holy Office, and that it hath been entitled, Decretum Sanctissimi D. N. D. Innocentii divinâ providentiâ Papae, under pretence that the Pope assisted and was present at that Congregation. For in France we acknowledge the authority of the Holy See, and the power of the Pope head of the Church, common Father of all Christians. We own him all sort of respect and obedience. This is the belief of the King, eldest Son of the Church, the belief of all Catholics, and of all such as are within the true Communion. But we acknowledge no Authority nor Jurisdiction of Congregations held in the Court of Rome, which the Pope establisheth as seems good to himself. But the decrees and arrests of these Congregations have no authority nor execution in this Kingdom; and when upon occasion of contentious businesses such decrees have been presented (as in the matter of Dispensations, Nullity of Vows, translation of Religious persons, and the like), the Court hath declared such Briefs null and abusive, with a salvo to the parties to have recourse to the ordinary ways, that is to say in the Chancery, in which Acts are expedited in the Name of our Holy Father the Pope, in whose person the lawful authority resides. And for what concerns matters of Faith and doctrine, they ought not to be determined in these Congregations, except by way of advice and counsel, not of power. 'Tis true, in these Congregations are censured Books suspected of Heresy and bad doctrines; here is made the Index Expurgatorius, which increases every year; and here have sometimes the Arrests of this Court been censured; as namely the Arrest issued against Jean chastel, the History of Thuanus, the Liberties of the Gallicane Church, and all others which concern the preservation of the sacred persons of our Kings, and the establishment of Regal Jurisdiction.  
Now, were the Decree in question, and others of the like nature published and authorised in this Realm, it would be in effect to receive the Inquisition into it, and that for this Remark, which seems to admit of no answer. The Congregation write themselves Generalis & Vniversalis Inquisitio in Vniversa Republica Christiana adversus Haereticam pravitatem; hence they assume a power of making process against the King's Subjects, and think they have a right to do the same against Books printed within the Kingdom. Wherefore having examined the Title of the Decree issued from the Inquisition in the aforesaid terms, which testify a pretention to Universal authority, we thought ourselves obliged to notify the same to the Court, that we might make our protestations thereupon according to the duty of our Offices.  
The second thing we observed, is the Mandate or Certification of the Nuntio to the King's person at the foot of the said Bull, wherein he styles himself Nuntio to the King's person, and the whole Realm of France; which is a Title unusual and extraordinary: for the Nuntio performing the Office of an Ambassador in France, and being capable of executing no other, it follows that he hath no other in this Kingdom: besides that, if he thought fit to speak of the Kingdom, he ought to have mentioned the Kingdoms of France and Navarre; it being certain that the omission of the latter is ordinarily affected, and that not without design.  
There is a second observation to be made upon this Commission, and it consists in one word, viz. That the Nuntio saith he received the Pope's command to cause the said Decree to be printed. Now Printing being a thing purely temporal, and relating to policy, cannot be allowed but by the authority of the King or his Magistrate.  
The third Consideration ariseth from that he saith, That the Original of the Decree aforesaid remaineth in the Records of his Nuntios Office; which manner of speaking agrees not with our Customs; because the Nuntio hath neither Court nor Records in France, no more than the Ambassadors of other Princes, or than the King's Ambassador hath when he is at Rome.  
In the last place he hath added, That this Bull shall be sent to the Bishops and Archbishops within his Nuntiature; as if the Office of Nuntio had any certain and limited Territory. Now in as much as this manner of speaking is a new and springing encroachment, we think there is reason to provide against it.  
This Speech was followed by an Arrest comprised in the following words.  
An Extract of the Registers of the Parliament of 15. May 1647.  
THis day the Court having deliberated upon the Remonstrance and Arguments of the King's Advocate General contained in the Registers of the tenth of this Month concerning a certain Paper entitled, Decretum Sanctissimi D. N. D. Innocentii X. divinâ providentiâ Papae adversus propositionem istam [Sanctus Petrus & Sanctus Paulus sunt duo Ecclesiae Principes qui unum efficiunt] & libros in quibus ista propositio asseritur & defenditur, printed at Paris by Sebastian Cramoisy, the King's Printer in ordinary, this present year 1647. at the end of which is the Copy of an Instrument made at Paris on the thirteenth of March last, signed, Nicholaus Archiepiscopus Athenarum, whereby the said Archbishop of Athens styles himself Apostolical Nuntio to the most Christian King, and the whole Realm of France, and declares, that by special Mandate of his Holiness given at Rome, he hath caused to be printed the Copy of the said Decree according to its Original kept in the archives of his Nuntiative to send the same to all the Ordinaries within the said Nuntiative, and others to whom it might appertain: which is an innovation and encroachment upon the authority of the King; wherefore the aforesaid Decree made in the Roman Inquisition on the 25th. of January last, and other Bulls and Briefs having taken into consideration, The said Court prohibits and forbids all Archbishops and Bishops, their Vicars and Officials, Rectors and Deputies of Universities to receive, publish, or put in execution the Decrees and other Acts of the Congregation of the Inquisition of Rome, as also any other Bulls or Briefs whatever, without the King's permission confirmed in this Court. Provided nevertheless, that the supplying of Benefices and ordinary Dispatches concerning the affairs of particular Persons, which, according to the orders of this Realm and laws of State, are obtained in the Court of Rome, be not included in the abovesaid Prohibition. Moreover, this Court hath ordained, and doth ordain, That all the Copies of the said Decree of the Inquisition bearing date on the 25th. of January last shall be seized on at the suit of the Attorney General, and brought to the Bar of the said Court to be suppressed. Also, it forbids all Persons to have, keep, or retain any Copy of the same under the penalties provided by Law in such Case. And requires all Printers and Stationers to keep and observe the Rules and Orders made about the matter of Printing, under penalty of being fined at pleasure. Lastly, The Substitute or Deputy of the said Attorney General is hereby required to be diligent in causing this Arrest to be put into execution, and to certify the Court thereof within a Month, to which end it shall by the care of the said Attorney General be forthwith sent into all Bailywicks and Precincts throughout the Realm.  
Given in Parliament, the 15th. of May, One thousand Six hundred Forty seven. Signed, Du Tillet.   

CHAP. II.  
Of what passed in the Assembly of the Faculty on the first of March, 1647. concerning a scandalus Libel against Petrus Aurelius.  
AMongst the Libels published this year by the Jesuits or their Partisans, there was one in Latin, entitled, The Divinity of Petrus Aurelius, or, His principal Errors against Faith and Good Manners, a Libel full of abundance of falsifications and calumnies, charging that famous Writer with errors directly contrary to his sentiments, and fixing the name of Error upon Catholic Truths. In the Assembly of the Faculty on March 1. M. Pereyret, according to appointment formerly laid upon him to read the said Libel, and make his report of the same that day, declared, that he had found that It contained a hundred Propositions, most of which were drawn entire and word for word out of the Works of Petrus Aurelius, and the rest made up of his words taken out of several places, and so put together as to make perfect sense: that the Author of the said Libel had to every one of those hundred Propositions added as many Conclusions, by which he attributed sundry Errors to Petrus Aurelius. That moreover it would be not only unprofitable but prejudicial to set upon the examination of the said Libel, because it would cost the Faculty not only some Months but even many years, multos annos, to discuss the sincerity of the extracted Propositions, and the truth of the consequence drawn from them, according to their accustomed diligence and fidelity, and to the rules of Theology; Wherefore he concluded that he judged it suitable to the interest and dignity of the Faculty to bury the whole Matter in silence, especially seeing the Epistle prefixed to the Libel was already torn by the Hangman's hand, and the Book condemned by a sentence of the Lieutenant Civil at the request of the Agents of the Clergy. This subtlety M. Pereyret made use of to engage the Faculty to abandon him who had so generally defended them. And for that men are easily led to such course as exempts from trouble, this Motion met with no opposition.   

CHAP. III.  
Of what passed in the Assemblies of the Faculty on the second of May, the first of June, and the first of July, in the year 1648. upon occasion of a Libel of F. Veron.  
IN the year following (1648.) was published another Libel, entitled A Gag for the Jansenists and Arnaudists, whereof F. Veron was the Author. It was sold by all the News-Sellers of Paris in the end of Lent. It contained Maxims so scandalous and prejudicial to the salvation and edification of Christians; it was filled with so many injuries and calumnies, and was so apt to trouble the public Tranquillity, that the Lieutenant Civil having taken notice of it, thought himself obliged not to fail in the duty of his Office to cause it to be suppressed. To which purpose he sent for the Syndic and Jurates of the Booksellers, forbade them to sell it, and gave order that the said Prohibition should be printed and fixed up in public places.  
F. Veron was rather exasperated by this Prohibition, than convinced of the mischief his Libel might do. He had published it at first without any Licence, and therefore sought to get one; but not finding any at Paris, he procured one from a Cordelier Doctor of Tours, and forged another of another Doctor a Cordelier at Chartres; with which approbations he caused his Book to be published and distributed again after Easter.  
Amongst the Errors and Calumnies wherewith this Libel was filled, especially against the ancient Fathers and Councils, in the sixth Page of the first Impression he writes, That anciently many judged that it was not commanded by Jesus Christ to make Confession even at the time of death, much less that there was any Precept to do it before Communicating, even by such as had sinned mortally; conceiving that Contrition alone was sufficient: And that there was in those times no Precept to confess every year; but that it was so ordained only by the Fourth Council of Lateran in the year 1215. And Page 7. That the use and practice of the Sacrament of Penance, and Confession for Mortal Sins, either before the Communion, or at the time of Death, appears very rarely in Antiquity.  
The new publication of the Libel, with the said approbations being likely to propagate the seditious Maxims contained therein, and do wrong to the Faculty, by reason of the approbations of those of their Body wherewith it was authorised, M. Guillebert Doctor of Sorbonne made complaint in the Assembly of the second of May following against the said Libel and the Doctors that appeared Licencers of it.  
Assoon as they who were in the Assembly heard M. Guillebert read one or two of the Maxims of the Libel, they were so moved thereat, that they were ready to nominate certain Persons to read it, and make report thereof, according to Custom, in the Assembly following. But M. Cornet diverted them from so doing, by desiring that before they debated upon this business, the Doctors who had given the Licences might be sent for to give account of what they had done. Whereupon the Faculty demurred, and gave charge to F. Lavaux, who was then Warden of the Cordeliers, to write to them to that purpose.  
In the Assembly of June, F. Charruau appeared and justified his Approbation with all imaginable boldness, proceeding from the assurance he had of a Party in the Faculty sufficiently potent to protect and bring him off. He discoursed with great vehemence against the Book Of Frequent Communion, and that of Jansenius; so long as he pleased to speak, he was not interrupted by any one, but heard peaceably. But when M. Guillebert offered to represent with singular moderation and few words some of the principal Points, and most pernicious Maxims he found in the said Libel, he was interrupted several times by divers Doctors, and particularly by M. Cornet who omitted nothing he could do to disturb him every moment, to disorder the coherence of his Discourse, and to keep him from being heard and understood. At last, the time of this Assembly being elapsed, and having been spent in several altercations, which clearly appear affected for that end, it broke up, after they had given charge to M. Guillebert to make an Extract of the Propositions of the said Libel which he should find most dangerous, and represent the same to the Faculty in the Assembly following, which was to be on the first of July.  
M. Guillebert performed his Charge, and on that day presented to the Faculty a Paper, in which he had reduced what he found worthy of Censure in the said Libel, to three principal Heads; The first of which contained what F. Veron had there written to destroy Confession; The second what he had urged against Penance; And the third what he maintained against the authority of Councils. M. Cornet made himself likewise in this Assembly F. Veron's Protector, as he had done in the former. He took upon him to justify F. Veron, in that he opposed the Propositions of the Bishop of Ipre; which, he maintained, it would also be necessary to examine, if this Libel were examined, (although that which M. Guillebert reprehended therein, had no affinity with those Propositions.) Which also he formally made a request for, for fear, if the Faculty should examine and disallow the Libel alone, it might be a kind of Fore-judgement in favour of those against whom it was written. Hereupon M. Pereyret failing not to represent at large, as he had done in the foregoing year, the length of time and greatness of pains it would be requisite to spend in that examination; insomuch (said he) that to do it well, Jansenius, S. Augustin, and sundry other Books must be read from one end to the other; and after ten years employed therein, there will be no great Progress made: The Faculty concluded, that for the interest of peace it was fit to forbear examining both F. Veron's Libel, and the Propositions opposed.  
I have lightly passed over this affair, omitting sundry very considerable Circumstances, that I might not stay upon any thing but what makes to my purpose: yet Two there are which I cannot pass in silence. One, that M. Cornet drew up the said Conclusion on the first of July, 1648. as he liked himself; and when it was read on the first of August following, M. Guillebert moved the Assembly that the same might be corrected, as being neither true, nor correspondent to what he had represented to the Faculty, touching the Libel. Yet this was hindered by the artifices and slights of M. Cornet.  
The other is a clause annexed to the said Conclusion, importing that if notwithstanding the difficulties which rendered the examination so laborious at that time, that it was not to be thought on, it should please God to inspire any one to present to the Faculty any Propositions to be examined and decided by them, it should be free for him to do so after two months. In which, besides the manifest contradiction appearing in the thoughts of these people, who make semblance of being lovers of the tranquillity of the Faculty, and nevertheless are ready to disturb the same within two months; who at this present judge an examination so difficult, which yet they are at the same instant disposed to undertake two months after. It is visible that they had already in their breasts a settled purpose of attempting the Five Propositions, the performance of which they deferred till July, in the following year, only by reason of the broils of Paris. For when the proposal thereof was made in Sorbonne, on that day M. the Abbot de l' Isle, Marivault Doctor of Navarre, told one of his friends from whom I learned it, that M. the Bishop of Rhodez had told him before the King's departure from Paris, on the day of the Three Kings 1649. that the said Propositions had been already shown him, to be censured on the first day by the Faculty.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of sundry things which passed in several Assemblies of the Faculty, in the same year 1648. touching the number of such of the Mendicant Orders as might be admitted into Licenses and Assemblies.  
IN the same Assembly of the second of May 1648. wherein complaint was made of F. Veron's Libel, another seed of division broke forth, which was of much longer continuance. Almost all the Religious Mendicants, Doctors of the Faculty, were so linked to M. Cornet and Pereyret, that they had no other rule of judgement in any matter under debate, but the opinion of the said two Doctors, insomuch that their Suffrages were almost always conceived in these terms, Sequor sententiam Domini Pereyret; Idem cum Domino Pereyret. In acknowledgement of which good offices, and to multiply voices they were so well assured of, these Doctors conspired with such other Secular Doctors as they could draw to their party, to get received into Licenses, and advanced to the degree of Doctor, as many Religious Mendicants as they could introduce, above the number prescribed by the Statutes of the Faculty, and Arrests of Parliament. In this Assembly, two Jacobins desired to be received as Supernumeraries, besides three Cordeliers and another Jacobin who had been already received as such. I signified to the Assembly, the Statute which hindered us from doing them this favour, and declared that if they proceeded to effect it, I would oppose it; nevertheless it was carried by the plurality of voices. I opposed the Conclusion, and M. de Roux Doctor of the house and society of Sorbonne, joined with me in the opposition.  
We presented our Petition to the Parliament, and an Arrest passed thereupon, whereby the parties that pretended to take benefit of the said Conclusion; were summoned to the Court on the first day; and in the mean time prohibited to make use of it.  
This Arrest was signified to the Faculty on the third of June, and all the Secular Doctors (excepting perhaps M. Cornet and his intimates) who had consented to do that favour to the said Religious Mendicants, only out of compliance, and had not been instructed in the matter, followed joyfully with one voice the judgement of M. Messier; which was, That the Arrest was to be obeyed, leaving the Religious to present themselves, if they thought good, before the King's Ministers, and represent to them their reasons if they had any.  
The four Mendicant Orders interposed in behalf of their Bachelors, who were concerned in the cause, which was pleaded on the eleventh of August. The said Arrest was confirmed, and besides it was enacted, That without regard to our Petition, but in justice, according to the Arguments of the King's Attorney General, the Arrests of the year 1626. (whereby, conformably to the Statutes and other Arrests, the number of Mendicant Doctors that might be admitted into our Assemblies, is restrained to two of each Order) should be read every year on the first day of October in our Assembly, to the end the memory and performance of the same may be perpetual, with injunction to the Dean and Syndic to see to the observation of the same, as they would answer the contrary at their peril.  
The University having heard the report of this Process, and considered the importance of it, concluded on June 13. to interpose therein, if need were; but the Arrest passed without mention made of their interposing, or concerning themselves in the cause.  
This last Arrest of the eleventh of August, was signified and read in the Assembly of the first of September. But it was so far from being executed by the Religious Mendicants, that on the contrary, not only they, but also divers Secular Doctors, swayed by M. Cornet, became together opposers of its execution. They were summoned to the Court upon this opposition, and September 3. appeared at the Palais with the said Mendicants, to the number of eighteen, amongst whom were MM. Pereyret, Morel, le Moine, Amiot, Grandin, Bail, Denis, Guyard, and others. The Mendicants were heard by their Speaker Friar Bernard Guiart, a Jacobin, and the Secular Doctors by M. Pereyret. The Result of the day was, that they should be heard more at large about their causes of opposition, on the first day after the feast of Saint Martin, but in the mean time the abovesaid Arrests should be observed.  
Which yet they were not in the Assembly of the first of October, though the said Result was declared there, and notwithstanding all the instances M. de Roux and I could use to procure the execution of the same. On the contrary, there arose new resistance on the part of the Mendicant Doctors, and those Seculars who joined themselves in the cause with them. Of this, M. de Roux and I having made new complaint to the Court of Parliament, another Arrest passed on the 27. of October, by which it was again enacted, that the aforesaid Arrests should be observed; that to that end MM. Viol and Broussel should with one of the Substitutes of the Attorney General, repair to the Assembly of the Faculty, which was to be held on the fourth of November following; and that what should be done and ordained by the said Counsellors, should be executed, notwithstanding any oppositions or appeals whatsoever, but without prejudice to the same.  
On the fourth of November following the said MM. Broussel and Viol, accompanied with M. Becheser, Dean of the Substitutes of the Attorney General, and M. Boisleau, Clerk of the Court, and two Ushers, repaired accordingly to our Assembly in the Sorbonne. There they caused all the Arrests I have spoken of above, to be read by M. Boisleau, and afterwards added sundry arguments and injunctions to oblige the Mendicant Doctors to obey those Arrests, and M. Cornet to procure the execution of the same, according to the duty of his place. But neither the Mendicants nor Cornet yielded to any thing said to them, or enjoined by Broussel and Viol; but on the contrary, they and some other Secular Doctors made replies to them very little respectful, which obliged them, after signifying their displeasure therewith, to profess that they would charge them with a verbal Process for it, and inform the Court of the disobedience they found to their Arrests in this Assembly. Hereupon they arose, and by name forbade M. Cornet to continue the Assembly after their departure, judging the same unlawful, because there were in it more than two Mendicants of each Order. However he did not forbear to continue it after they were departed.  
Divers Doctors, to the number of above fifty, amongst whom were M. Messier, Dean of the Faculty at present, M. de Heu Curé of S. Severine, M. de Mincé, M. Hennequin, M. the Curé of S. Roch, M. Duchesne of Sorbonne, M. Breda Curé of S. Andrews, M. Dabes, M. Sachot, M. Renier, and several others, who were not suspected of any adherence to the doctrine decried for new, to purge themselves from the reproach they conceived the resistance offered to the Arrests of the Court in the face of the Commissioners, sent by it to cause them to be executed, deserved: after the Assembly declared, that they were so far from bearing a part in such resistance, that on the contrary their will and intention was to observe the said Arrests, and that they accounted it very important for the glory of God, the honour of the Church, the preservation of the authority of the Pope and other Ecclesiastical Prelates, the service of the King and State of France, the peace and perfect liberty of the said Faculty, in all its resolutions and conclusions concerning doctrine, as also for its policy and discipline; that the abovementioned Arrests should be maintained, kept, and executed inviolably, as the words of the Writing run, signed for that purpose by them on 4. November 1648. and the days following.  
The purpose of MM. Broussel and Viol was, to make report to the Court of all that passed in the Assembly, before the first of December following, to the end the Court might as they thought fit, take for whatever course they should find necessary to be obeyed, and get their Arrests put in execution. But so great a number of unusual and strange things passed in the Assembly, that M. Broussel, who besides his slowness and ordinary exactness, was encumbered with multiplicity of other affairs, had not perfectly framed his Process verbal before the end of November, and could not make report of it in the few days which passed till the first of December, when the Parliament had assembled again after the feast of Saint Martin.  
Thus was the Report deferred till the month following. But in the mean time M. Cornet made his, I mean, the conclusion or relation of what passed in our Assembly of the fourth of November, which he drew up according to his own pleasure, to cause it to be read according to custom in the Assembly of the first of December, which was accordingly done; but it was so full of falsities and calumnies, that M. de Mincé complained of it, and desired a copy of it of M. Bouvot, the Register of the Faculty, who delivered him one forthwith; and that M. de Roux and I thought ourselves bound to present a new Petition to the Court, against the injurious words M. Cornet had put into his relation or conclusion to our disadvantage, wherein we beseech the Court to ordain them to be razed and expunged; that by doing this, the said conclusion would be reformed and reduced to the terms of the Process verbal, drawn up by the said MM. Broussel and Viol, referring ourselves moreover to the Court for means to hinder M. Cornet from using hereafter such like falsifications and enterprises as we complain he had used since our first opposition of his designs, to multiply more and more Religious Mendicants in our Faculty.  
This request was suddenly followed by another, which M. de Roux and myself found it requisite to present, against a Libel composed and dispersed by the Mendicant Doctors, in which we complained were contained many things scandalous and opprobrious, not only against ourselves and the ancient Doctors who joined with us in prosecuting the execution of the Arrests, against the Notaries that made the Process verbal of what passed in the Assembly of the first of September, and against the Usher of the Court, who made that of the first of October, but also against the honour and respect due to the Court and its Arrests.  
But before the report of all these things could be made in the Court, that sad Division happened which made a combustion in the whole Kingdom, and held Paris besieged the three first months of the year 1649. for which cause a more calm and favourable time was to be attended, to provide for the particular concerns of the Faculty.   

CHAP. V.  
Of what passed heretofore in the year 1626. touching the number of those of the said Orders admitted into the Facultie's Assemblies; and of M. Cornet 's ancient conjunction with them and the Jesuits.  
BEfore I proceed further in my designed relation, it will be worth considering what was the principal ground upon which M. Cornet withstood all the said Arrests, and all the arguments used by MM. Broussel and Viol, to move him to see to the execution of them in the Assembly; for though it may seem a little remote from my principal matter, yet it may be somewhat contributory to the perfect elucidation thereof.  
In the year 1626. appeared in France a Book printed at Rome, composed by a Jesuit named Sanctarel; which Book was dispersed there, and is still, to this day, with the permission and approbation of the Superiors. Assoon as it was seen in France, and the sentiments of the said Author were found seditious and contrary to the respect, obedience and subjection due to Kings, the Faculty Assembled extraordinarily on 16. March 1626. and deputed MM. Rumet, Daultruy, Dupuis and Chappellas to examine the said Book and make report thereof at the ordinary Assembly of the first of April following.  
On which day they reported that in the 30, and 31. Chapters they found these Propositions, That the Pope may punish Kings and Princes with penalties temporal, and dispense with the obedience which their Subjects own unto them. That this custom hath always been in the Church, even for other causes than heresy, as for faults committed by them, in case it were expedient, in case Princes were negligent, in cases of their incapacity, and in case of unusefulness of their Persons; with some other of the like strain to these; all which were censured both by the Deputies and the other Doctors of the Faculty assembled on the 1. of April, as containing a Doctrine false, erroneous, contrary to the word of God, giving ground of hatred of the Papal dignity, opening a way to Schism, derogating upon the Sovereign authority of Kings dependant only from God, and apt to hinder the conversion of infidel and heretical Princes, to disturb the public tranquillity, to avert Subjects from the obedience and subjection due to their Princes, and excite Rebellions, Seditions and Parricides.  
This Censure was confirmed on the day of S. Ambrose, April 4. in an extraordinary Assembly, and published forthwith, to the great satisfaction of King Lewis the Just of glorious memory, and with the applause of all France. But within a short time after, arose divers Persons even of the body of the Faculty, who endeavoured to get the said Censure revoked or at least mitigated. The solicitations and canvasings which agitated the Faculty upon that design, and which at length proved ineffectual, continued almost a year. But that which makes to my purpose, is, that there was no hopes of such revocation but by the aid of the Mendicant Doctors which were caused to come for that end to Paris from the most remote Provinces by commands sent to them from the places where their Generals make their residence.  
Hereupon thirty ancient Doctors of the Faculty, (amongst which was M. Hardivillier, afterwards Archbishop of Bourges, M. Hollandre Curé of S. Saviour, M. Faiet Curé of S. Paul, and M. Fonnellier Curé of S. Eustache last deceased) seeing this extraordinary concourse of Mendicant Doctors, resolved, consequently to a Conclusion of the Faculty on 15. June 1626. to have recourse to the Court of Parliament for the execution of the 15. and 16. Articles of the Statutes, to become formally Plaintiffs, and have a pleading in their own names, if need were, to obtain the Court to cause its Arrest of the year 1552. to be put in execution; which Arrest appoints the Religious Mendicant Doctors to retire into the houses of their Order assoon as they had taken the Cap; and to know of the said Court whether it did not intent that the said Monastic Doctors sojourning at Paris in regard of any Offices they might have there in their Covents, or because their Professions had been made there, or otherwise, should be restrained to a certain number, as to two at most, to have a Vote in Assemblies; and this to the end the Faculty might be at peace, and retain its rights in all freedom for the accompleshment of the service of God, of the King, and of all France. These eaten the words of the Writing signed upon this matter by those thirty ancient Doctors on the 16th. of July, 1626.  
The arrest of the year 1552. which they mention, was issued upon occasion of a Brief obtained by the Cordeliers of Pope Julius the 3d. for the adding of two more to the number of Bachelors which might be admitted to Licences, and upon the King's Letters Patents for the verification of the said Brief; Both which, the Brief and Letters were entered into the Register, but with a charge that (conformably to the 
* Item jurabitis quod sine fraude aut dilatione vos recipietis in Conventum in quo professionem fecistis.  Oath taken always and at this day by all the Mendicant Doctors so soon as they have received the Cap, to retire into the Covents of their Profession without fraud or delay) they should not fail to retire thither assoon as they had commenced, and so be incapable of being present in the Assemblies of the Faculty.  
Consentaneously to the said Statute, to the custom observed in all times in the Faculty since the admission of the Religious Mendicants thereto, to the said Arrest of the year 1552. and to the purport of the  Writing of the 6th. of July, an Arrest was issued by the Parliament on the 24th. of the same Month, which was explained and confirmed by another of the first of August following, by which the number of Religious Mendicants capable of entrance and a deliberative voice in the Assemblies of the Faculty was restrained to two of each Order at the most.  
To the invalidating of those Arrests one was passed in the Council Nou. 2. 1626. whereby the cognisance of the matter was interdicted to the Parliament, and it was ordained, That notwithstanding those Arrests of Parliament, all Mendicant Doctors might be present at our Assemblies in what number they pleased.  
There is come to my hands the Copy of a Letter written by Fillessac Dean of the Faculty to Cardinal Richlieu touching the said Order of the Council, which may inform the Reader in what manner and by what instigations the same was passed. I shall insert it entire here, to that purpose.  
A Letter of M. Fillessac to Cardinal Richlieu.  
My Lord,  
'TIs not only your Place of Superintendent of the Sorbonne, whereof I am the least, but your natural Goodness, which every one acknowledges, and of which all good Servants of the Kings and true Frenchmen are daily sensible of, that gives me boldness to represent to you our just complaints and real apprehension of the persecution intended against us. The Arrest of Council given in favour of the Religious Mendicants some days since, wherewith all Paris rings, furnishes us with most certain proof, and undoubted ground of belief of the mischief which is projected against us. Your incomparable gentleness and benignity will give me full liberty to represent to you freely & without dissembling any thing, that which most of all grieves us. Inimici nostri sunt Judices; M. the Keeper of the Seals is our Judge and Adversary too. This is verified by sundry reasons. First, it is known how that above twenty years ago he contracted a strict amity and familiarity with Doctor du Val. The same hath been cemented and diligently continued by the common administration wherewith they are entrusted by the Carmelites; the one for temporal, the other for spiritual concernments. I omit what other correspondences they have usually together; every one knows that the said Doctor du Val is our principal Adversary, and hath raised all his tempests in favour of the Religious for the accomplishment of his designs. The first Precedent hath informed some of our Doctors that the said M. du Val came to him to recommend the Religious Mendicants. On the other side, every one knows that Cardinal Spada pursues this affair with all eagerness, and hath so perfect a correspondence with the Keeper of the Seals, that when his Majesty placed him in that Office, the Cardinal being informed thereof, said in the presence of some Bishops, Io non temo piu, perch Marillaco a i Sigilli Real, I am out of fear now since Marillac hath the Royal Seals. Moreover we see in the Sorbonne the daily commerce of the said du Val with the said Cardinal, who according to the instruction he received at his coming into France could not do otherwise. For, as I understand by Letters from Rome, one of the Nuntios Instructions was, that he should lodge as near as might be to the Sorbonne, and have perpetual correspondence with Doctor du Val whom he might make use of as a Spy upon the Sorbonne. Lastly it hath constantly been observed that the Keeper of the Seals is one of the most resolute Defenders and Protectors of the Jesuits: and that, whenever the said Fathers have had need of his assistance. Now that these Fathers are not professed Adversaries of the Sorbonne, no Person can deny; all Paris having seen the experience thereof in their Sermons, Pasquil's and defaming Libels, I shall add that they have Doctor du Val amongst us who served them as a powerful instrument in our Assemblies when the question has been about securing us amongst them; and he being admonished that he acted against his Oath and against his Mother the Faculty, answered that he could not act against the said Fathers, quia, said he, commiserunt mihi secretum suum. Furthermore, we are not ignorant how the Keeper of the Seals is extremely confirmed in his aversion towards us by Father B. who hath great influence over him, either by occasion of the common employment they have had from the Carmelites, or for other reasons. Now this Father cannot patiently bear the particular Decree made in the College of Sorbonne for execlusion of such Doctors from the said College as have entered or shall hereafter enter into the Congregation of the said Father; which is also the grievance of the said Doctor du Val, who, as intimate Friend of the aforesaid Father B. hath perverted and solicited seven Doctors of the College of Sorbonne; to found and establish the said Congregation by becoming the first associates of the same, to the great scandal of the College. You see, my Lord, our just fear of ruin, which is pursued by our enemies with so great violence and eagerness. You see our adversaries openly professed, without comprehending those who out of interest dare not declare themselves; in the number of which I shall reckon a Cardinal, who speaking of your most generous design for the building of your Sorbonne, said, he esteemed it highly for itself, but was sorry it should be intended for Schismatics. However, my Lord, if that pretended Arrest must be signified to us, We most humbly beseech you, that it be not done publicly in our Assembly on the next day after the Holidays, which will be Wednesday. To conclude, what ever victory our Adversaries may gain over us, this glory will remain ours to posterity, that we thirty who were depressed for being faithful to our King, and true Frenchmen, signed this common cause in behalf of the King and France.  
This Remonstrance of M. Fillessac to Cardinal Richelieu did not hinder the Arrest from having its course; after which, the solicitations and canvasings to get the abovementioned Censure revoked, were renewed more than ever. But the Parliament checked the torrent of those canvasings and solicitations, by several Arrests issued forth to maintain it, and by an order given to the Precedent le Jay, and four Counsellors of this Grand Chamber to repair to the Sorbonne (as accordingly they did) to hinder all innovation touching this affair in the Assembly of the month of February 1627. in which it was to be feared one might happen, unless the Parliament interposed its authority to prevent it.  
Matters stood in this posture till the year 1631, when the University of Paris having maturely weighed the prejudice it received as well from the said Arrest of the Council of 2 Novemb. 1626., as from another of the same Council of 18 July preceding, concerning the same matter; and having gravely considered what necessity there was both for its own interest and that of the King and State to provide against the said Arrests, they repaired to the late King at St. German's to present to him a Petition, in which they complained of those two Arrests, as having been passed by surprise, contrary to all right, and upon false suppositions; for which reasons they beseeched his Majesty the same might be vacated. M. the Rector went to wait upon the King with this Petition, and spoke to his Majesty concerning the importance of this affair three quarters of an hour. The King heard him with attention and pleasure. He received himself the Petition which the Rector held in his hand, and caused it to be reported in his Council in his own presence; Whereupon on 8 July 1631, an Arrest was passed, whereby the aforesaid two of 18 July & 2 Nou. 1626., and all others prejudicial to the Statutes and Privileges of the University were annulled; and hereof Letters Patents were expedited for the University.  
M. Cornet could not be ignorant of all this; for I revived the memory thereof to all the world in the Assembly of 1 Octob. 1648. when it was needful to mention the same in answer to those two Arrests of the Council of 8 July, and 2 Nou. 1626. which had been signified to me anew that day by the Order and at the desire of the Mendicant Doctors. Nevertheless he forbore not in the Assembly of 4 Nou. to oppose those very two Arrests to the injunctions which M. Broussel and Viol used to him to see to the execution of those of the Parliament, according to the duty of his place.  
But it seems there is no great reason to wonder that M. Cornet so little valued those Letters Patents of 8 July 1631. sixteen years after they had been granted to the University; seeing that so soon as they were granted he set himself with all his might to hinder the effect they might have, causing himself by a party wholly of Mendicant Doctors to be installed before the end of three Months in the Office of Syndic; in which he would not want means to requite the good turns which he should receive from them, and to continue the fidelity and correspondence he had sworn with them. I shall mention nothing that passed in that election besides what I have learned from another Letter of M. Fillessac to Cardinal Richelieu dated Nou. 5. 1631. the Copy of which is come to my hands, together with the Cardinal's answer. And here they follow.  
Another Letter of M. Fillessac, Dean of the Faculty, to Cardinal Richelieu.  
My Lord,  
ACcording to the command you were pleased to lay upon me, to give you an account of the election of our Syndic, I shall tell you in the first place, that God having visited me with his merciful justice by afflicting 
* One of his Domestics had the Pestilence.  one of my Domestics, I was constrained to leave Paris; and in my absence on the first of October, according to our Statute, the election of a Syndic was taken into consideration, the term of the former being expired. In this Assembly fifty Doctors were present. But when I returned to Paris, I was desirous to know how the business passed. Divers Doctors of our Fraternity coming to see me, represented to me two considerable defects; one, in the person; the other, in the form of the election.  
As to the first, they represented him to me as a young Doctor of about five years standing, unacquainted with our Statutes, Customs and Forms; besides which, he has always been trained up and instructed by the Jesuits, having once purposed to enter into that Society, and to that end put himself into their Novitiate, where he was indoctrinated for some time; and had it not been for a sickness that befell him, he would perhaps be now of their Society, to which nevertheless he remains allied by affection. And every one knows how little reason we have to be well pleased with Them, considering the scandalous Libels they have written against us heretofore, and those they published lately against our Censure pronounced against two Books composed by two English Jesuits; Now it may here be presumed, that when ever there comes forth such like Papers from the said Society, this new Syndic will not fail to cross the business, and generally all others relating to that Society, (as it hath happened too often) which will be a perpetual cause of trouble and division amongst us. Our said Confreres make it appear, that the Syndic of our Faculty is nothing else but a Censor; and what Censure can he pass being ignorant of our Laws and Customs? And besides, how will one more ancient than himself take in good part any reproof or check from him, who hath no credit and authority, being a young Doctor.— As for the second defect; of the fifty Doctors present at the election the first of October, four and twenty voted it fit to stay till the return of the Dean, the other twenty six chose this new Syndic; and in this number there were eighteen Religious Mendicants suborned by the Nuntio, and of them two were interdicted by the Faculty. You may consider, my Lord, if you please, that it was never known that his Holiness' Nuntio had any thing to do with our affairs, or to attempt to give us Syndics, to the prejudice of the Rights of the King, the Liberties of the Gallicane Church, and the Maxims of France. Now if this proceeding be allowed, and this power of the Nuntio confirmed, I think in conscience I ought to discharge myself of the Deanship, before I see with my eyes the evident ruin of our Faculty by the loss of its liberty. It had been better to have retained the former Syndic, an ancient Doctor, very well versed in our affairs, and who knew how to maintain our discipline. These things I have remonstrated to the Nuntio, who is obstinate for retaining the new Syndic. I conceive it to as little purpose to send M. de Nantes, seeing the Abbot of St. Mark your Almoner having come to our Assembly hath declared it your intention that the said Syndic be retained in his office, and perform the duties thereof; which nevertheless seems not to agree with the words of your Letter, which speak only of Superseding the business, till you be more punctually informed of the state of it. Giving power to the Syndic to execute the place, is a confirming of him, and thwarting the tenor of the Letter. Wherefore it should seem there is no more room left for Remonstrances, but much for complaints, which I shall continue in my retirement, where I shall not cease to the last breath of my life to pray God for your prosperity and health, as being  
Your most humble and obedient Servant, J. FILLESSAC. Parish 5 Nou. 1631.  
The answer of Cardinal Richelieu to the foregoing Letter.  
SIR,  
I Have seen the Letter you writ to me, in which there are very considerable reasons. When we come to Paris, I shall be glad that you take the pains to see me, that I may advise with you about what will be necessary to be done in this matter. In the mean time, I can assure you, there is no person that desires more to maintain your College in its liberty, and procure its advantage upon all occasions than myself, who am in particular, Sir,  
Your most affectionate to serve you, The Cardinal de Richelieu. Chasteau-Thierry, 15 Nou. 1631.  
And is it to be wondered, after this Letter written with so great resentment by so eminent a Dean of the Faculty, whose remonstrances were received and esteemed by the prime Minister of State, whose worth was so highly acknowledged by the Commissioners of Parliament when they came into Sorbonne, Feb. 2. 1627. that in the draught of their Process verbal they profess to be sorry in behalf of the interest of France that his years were so far advanced; Is it to be wondered, I say, since this Letter and Remonstrances became ineffectual, that M. Cornet hath always had so great an adherence both with the Jesuits and Mendicant Doctors, who raised and maintained him in the office of Syndic; and that he hath so successfully laboured the ruin of the Faculties liberty in doctrine and discipline, notwithstanding any obstacles the most sagacious and faithful Doctors have endeavoured to oppose to his dangerous practices. But when it pleases God, for the executing of his secret judgements, (many times inscrutable, but always just) to humble the most great and illustrious Societies; he knows how to ●…ave them under the administration of such as are capable to destroy them; nor is it in the power of any mortal to hinder the revolution and downfall thereof.   

CHAP. VI  
Of what passed in the Assembly of the Faculty on the 1 of July 1649. in which M. Cornet propounded the Five Propositions, to get the same censured.  
WHen Public tranquillity was restored to the Kingdom, by the Peace concluded at Ruel, in the beginning of April 1649. we desired nothing so much, as to see this Blessing accompanied with the particular benefit of establishment of good order in our Faculty, by the execution of its Statutes, and of the Arrests of Parliament, which I have spoken of. For which end it was requisite for a survey to be made of all that had passed in our Assemblies, to the infringement thereof, and of the Petitions which M. de Roux and I had presented, for obtaining reparation of injuries, done us by M. Cornet in the Conclusions of the Faculty, which he penned and drew up according to his own pleasure. But the remembrance of the particular divisions and animosities which had been raised amongst the Doctors, by occasion of the prosecution used by us for the execution of the said Arrests, and establishment of our Statutes and discipline, causing us to fear if we began the same prosecutions again, they would awaken our division, and raise a new combustion, (wherewith we were threatened by the Mendicant Doctors, who dared to tell M. Brousel and M. Talon Advocate general to their faces, that they would die martyrs rather than consent to withdraw from our Assemblies, and that ere they would be brought to it, there should be made new barricadoes, which perhaps would prove more dangerous than those made the foregoing year) we thought ourselves obliged to defer our prosecutions, till we saw the minds of men more calmed from the storm which was but begun to cease.  
We continued living with this restraint and circumspection, and preferred the sweetness of the tranquillity in which the faculty seemed to breath, before its greatest interests and our own; when M. Cornet wholly disturbed this peace by the Propositions, which he produced in the Assembly of 1 July 1649. and required the Faculty to debate upon.  
Though this design had been framed above a year before, as I observed by the Clause put at the end of the Conclusion, made the same day of the foregoing year, concerning the affair of F. Veron; yet it was not taken notice of till this day, when the concourse of Doctors both regular and secular, whom M. Cornet had drawn from all parts (themselves not knowing for what cause) began to cause suspicion that they were not thus resorted in so great a number, but for some considerable matter to be done. M. Cornet himself seemed more musing and pensive then ordinary; and although he had as much leisure as needed to make that extraordinary resolution familiar to himself, yet he hesitated & seemed at a loss when he was upon the point of putting it in execution; as if God thereby gave him some presage of the dreadful mischief he was about to cause to the Church by the said proposal. When he was beginning to break the matter assoon as the usual supplicates and relations were finished, after he had half opened his mouth twice or thrice, he stopped and cast his eyes upon the ground, then lifting them up again, he turned toward the door of the Assembly from which he was very distant (for this Assembly was held in the great Hall of the Sorbonne) and seeing the door a very little open, he commanded him that kept it to shut it close.  
At length, after he had remained a good while in suspense, and held the Assembly a sufficiently long time in expectation of what he had to propound, he began and said, That he had for the time passed used his utmost endeavour to maintain quiet and unity in the Faculty, and that his affection to preserve the same perpetually, had made him condescend to sign several Theses, in which it was well known some went about to introduce new opinions; but he had connived thereat, and complied as much as he could, in hope to remedy the same by gentleness; having, to a void dissatisfing any, contented himself only with adding to such Theses what he judged necessary to keep the truth from being injured, and the decrees of the Faculty from being violated. That at present he saw all his fair carriage and patience were unprofitable; that the same were abused against his intention; that his own silence, and that also of the Faculty, was taken for a  approbation of the said opinions. Wherefore he conceived he could not in conscience connive longer at such disorders without advertising the Faculty thereof, and beseeching them to apply thereto such remedies as were necessary: That the mischief was proceeded so far, that in June last, after he had corrected a Thesis of a Bachelor, the said Bachelor did not, in his Act, defend it as it was corrected and printed, but as himseif had framed it at first; and that the Precedent of the Act did not dispute against him upon the said Thesis as it was corrected and printed, but according to the declaration made viuâ voce by the Bachelor of his sense in maintaining the same. That there happened in the same Act, a thing not wont to be done in the Faculty, namely, for a Doctor to speak from the Hearers seats when there is a Precedent of the Act, and that M. de saint Beuve had not forborn to do it in this. That the liberty taken by the Bachelor had gone yet further, in as much as the said Bachelor had caused a Thesis to be printed otherwise then it had been corrected for him. That unless the Faculty remedied this unheard of boldness, neither order nor submission was longer to be hoped for among the Bachelors. That he hoped they might be all reduced to the terms of their duty, if the Faculty would please to declare their judgement concerning some Propositions which occasioned all the disorders, and excited all those heats and contentions. That the propositions of that kind were few, and he conceived might all be reduced to six or seven principal ones; which he also rehearsed. The five, which have since made so great a noise, were the first. There was also this, Omnia Infidelium opera sunt peccata; and another touching Repentance. At the end of his discourse, he required the Faculty to deliberate upon what he had propounded, and entreated that for Commissioners to be nominated they would principally choose the Professors.  
M. de saint Beuve being present at this Assembly, and finding himself accused by M. Cornet of having spoken from the Hearers seats in the said Act, thought himself obliged to inform the Faculty in what manner he had done so.  
M. Mulot presided as Dean at that time, and assoon as M. de saint Beuve made show of going to speak, he interrupted him in anger, and told him he should do better to teach (as he ought) the received Doctrines, then to give scandal to the world by his writing and make a combustion, as he did.  
When M. Mulot had ended, M. de saint Beuve resumed his speech, and said, that it happening in that Act that a Bachelor disputing (who is since known to have been set on purposely to raise that quarrel) had divers times called the Respondent Perfidious and Perjured, because as said the Disputant, the Respondent's Thesis was full of doctrines condemned by the Faculty; he thought himself obliged (being the most ancient Doctor present in the Auditory, and the others entreating him) to tell the Disputant, that the Faculty took it ill that he gave the Respondent ill language, and condemned Propositions contained in a Thesis signed by the Syndic and the Precedent of the Act. That which M. de Saint Beuve did, happens not every day, but hath been often practised, when occasions made it necessary and convenient; as when silence was sundry times imposed by the Auditory to F. Arnould the King's Confessor, whom the deceased Prince of Condé would cause to dispute in a Tentative Question.  
M. de saint Beuve having thus justified what he had done, M. Mulot replied some choleric words against him, and then betook himself to put M. Cornet's proposals under deliberation.  
M. Messier advised that the Propositions mentioned by M. Cornet should be examined, and to that end nominated for Deputies or Commissioners out of the College of Sorbon, M. Hennequin, M. Morel, and M. Grandin; out of that of Navarre, M. Pereyret, and M. Capellas, and moreover M. Bail, M. Pignay, and F. Nicholaï a Jacobine. M. Messier in nominating these Deputies, hesitated like a man that sought them in his memory, and to whom they had been suggested before, and indeed he forgot one of them. M. Henriot who spoke second, redressed the inconvenience; for having been desired at his going out of the Chapel, to go up to M. Mulot's Chamber, and there told that it was material, in relation to an affair which M. Cornet had to propound, to nominate such and such Deputies; for fear lest his memory should fail him, he desired their names in writing, which were given him in a Note written by M. le Moine's hand, as the Doctors behind him perceived, (and amongst others M. Hodencq) in which Note (which he drew out of his pocket when he was to speak) besides those named by M. Messier, was also written the name of M. Gauquelin of Navarre, whom M. Messier had forgotten. Him M. Henriot named with the other, and upon this sole nomination, he was, by the Conclusion, taken into the number of Deputies, though he was at that time in the Country, and almost all the other Doctors that nominated Deputies for this business, not observing the difference between the votes of M. Messier and M. Henriot, had in theirs barely followed M. Messier. M. Pereyret who voted the third, took better notice of the difference; for in his vote he named those that were named both by M. Messier, and by M. Henriot; but so it was, that the Doctors his adherents did not observe it. For had they marked it, they would not have failed to have said the same. M. Pereyret added besides, that he doubted not but amongst the Propositions mentioned by the Syndic, there were some manifestly Heretical, and which needed no examination in order to their being condemned.  
M. Coppin said, that if these matters were to be examined, it behoved that it should be by all the Doctors in general; that it was not an affair for Deputies; that it was fit every particular Doctor should have a copy of the Propositions given him, to examine the same at leisure, and come prepared to deliver their Judgements thereof.  
Some there were so zealous in seconding M. Cornet, that they gave advice for an extraordinary Assembly on the 15. day of the month, wherein to receive the report concerning the Propositions, and determine the whole controversy. On the other side, M. Chappellas and F. Nicholaï seemed very reserved, and said, Nothing was to be done with precipitancy. M. Bourgeois said, he conceived that the affair whereof the Syndic made proposal, was perhaps the greatest and most important the Faculty ever had; that M. Cornet had set afoot Propositions upon which General Councils and the Holy See had abstained from pronouncing a definitive judgement, though the same matters had been ventilated before them; that there needed very much study, reading, meditation, leisure, and prayers to understand the same perfectly, and far more to pass any judgement upon them; that therefore his advice was, that every one would employ himself seriously in studying them, before they spoke of making any determination upon them, or of nominating Deputies to make report thereof to the Faculty.  
M. de Hodencq testified some indignation at the precipitancy and partiality with which they went about to handle this affair; and because he saw a design in the choice, which was made of persons all addicted to one side, he aimed to make them sensible of the injustice by a quite contrary nomination; and therefore said, that if the Propositions must be examined, he should depute to that employment M. Chastellain, M. Coppin, M. Bachelier, M. Bourgeois, and M. Retart.  
M. de Launoy also nominated Deputies wholly different from both sides; he chose persons whose names I will not relate, because they were all so little capable of such matters, that one of them, otherwise a very honest and intelligent man, hearing himself named for this business, became offended at it, and prayed M. de Launoy not to mock him.  
M. de saint Beuve said, the motion of M. Cornet to bring the Propositions he spoke of under examination, was made without any necessity; since, having no other foundation but the carriage of the Bachelors he complained of, it was certain that if at any time they put any thing ill into their Thesis, the Syndic had full power to expunge it before they caused the same to be printed; and if afterwards they let any thing fall in their Disputations contrary to the correction of their Thesis, it was the duty of the Syndic to complain thereof, and of the Faculty to punish them; That as for the matter of the Propositions produced by M. Cornet, it was not lawful for us to pronounce judgement thereof, but that we ought to leave liberty to Divines, according to the determination of Paul V. consequently to the Congregation de auxiliis, this very matter being then under consideration, though it was endeavoured to be disguised. Nevertheless if the resolution of the Faculty tended to take them in hand, he desired that some Propositions which himself should propound, should likewise be examined; and accordingly he forthwith mentioned divers. M. Cornet instantly accepted the offer, and sundry others by his example signified their assent thereunto. After which M. de Saint Beuve spoke against the artifice wherewith M. Cornet had made his motion, and said, that it was not necessary to pronounce concerning the possibility of keeping Gods Commandments by the righteous, it being concluded de fide by the Council of Trent, that they are possible; that all Catholics were agreed herein, because, Possibile est quod per gratiam possibile est. Now, said he, none but a Heretic denies that by grace they are possible. That the Question was, Whether all the righteous have always all grace necessary to keep them, and without the which it cannot be done. That in this point the School was divided, Molina holding the Affirmative, and the Disciples of S. Augustine and S. Thomas (who acknowledge grace effectual by itself, necessary to every action) holding the Negative. That the case was the same concerning that other Proposition, about resisting Internal Grace. In respect of Infidels, he said it was de fide, that Infidels can dispose themselves for the Grace of Baptism; but that the Question was, Whether without grace they can do any thing morally good, or any virtuous action; non solum quantum ad officium, sed etiam quantum ad rectum finem. As for the point, Of Satisfaction, that there was no Divine but acknowledged it an error to say it ought of necessity to precede Absolution; that Sextus iv had condemned it; but that the Question was, Whether it be not convenient in many cases not to give Absolution immediately after Confession. To conclude, M. de saint Beuve so clearly and in so Orthodox a sense explained the Propositions, that the Dominicans, who spoke after him, especially F. Bernard Guyart, being convinced that he had reduced them all to the Capital point of Grace effectual by itself, necessary by itself to every pious action, and consequently that it was that Grace which was struck at, named him to be one of the Deputies.  
M. Retart in his advice, recalled the memory of F. Veron's affair, spoken of above: He said, that when the several maxims and scandalous injuries vented by that Father in his Libel, were questioned, M. Pereyret and most of those in this Assembly that named Deputies for the examination of M. Cornet's Propositions, were of opinion that the said Book could not be meddled with, because the censure of it could not be made without holding the Faculty employed above ten years, by reason of the connexion of F. Veron's Propositions with the matters of Grace and Repentance, upon which nothing could be pronounced without first examining S. Augustine, Jansenius, Petrus Aurelius, M. Arnauld, the Gospel; and that he wondered how this was become in a years time so easy to decide. This argument very much pressed M. Pereyret and the rest of his party. M. Pereyret went to wave it off, by interrupting M. Retart about the word Gospel, denying that he comprised it amongst the things he then said were requisite to be examined. M. Retart on the contrary maintained that he did comprise it; whereupon M. Pereyret held his peace, and M. Retart concluded that the same reasons which at that time induced the Faculty to lay aside the examination of F. Veron's Libel, still holding and being much more valid and evident in the case of the Propositions produced by M. Cornet, in which S. Augustine's doctrine is concerned, it was his advice that the examination thereof be deferred.  
M. Guillebert said, that to perform the examination aright, required a man of great leisure, great labour, and great reading; that M. Coqueret, who complained that M. Launoy named him for the employment, and so excused himself from it, had acted with very great prudence, in regard of his great businesses; and that his modesty deserved to be commended, and to serve for an example to others.  
M. Marcan pressed again very vigorously the argument from the Conclusion made the foregoing year, upon F. Veron's Libel, which M. Retart had used against M. Pereyret. He represented, as also divers others had done, the importance this affair was of, it concerning the doctrine of S. Augustine, so often authorised by Popes and Councils, and so generally followed in all ages by all Catholic Divines, which it was just before all things to put out of danger of all impeachment. He said, (as also some Doctors had done before him) that it was not the custom of the Faculty to examine Propositions without noting the places from whence they were taken, and mentioning the Authors which delivered them, to the end every one might understand in the places themselves the meaning of the Authors. That M. Cornet did not declare whence he took those he produced, which he desired him to declare; and that till he had done so, he could neither consent to their examination, nor take any more express resolution upon his motion. He added, That it was nevertheless well enough discerned, that under pretext of those Propositions Jansenius was aimed at, and that the design was to cause the censure to fall one day upon that Author. But M. Cornet (who desired to divert and stifle this thought in the Faculty as much as he could) being surprised to hear M. Marcan speak in that manner, and making use of some sway of authority which he had formerly had, and thought he had still over him, conceived he might hinder him from speaking further of it, by intimating to him in one word, that he was not pleased therewith. Wherefore as soon as M. Marcan had named Jansenius, M. Cornet was moved to tell him hastily, though civilly too, That the Question was not about him, and consequently that he ought not to speak of him; Non agitur, (said he to him) de Jansenio, Domine mi. But M. Marcan notwithstanding his very modest and respectful temper, had no regard to what M. Cornet said to him; he did violence to himself by proceeding, in behalf of the truth which he knew, beyond the respects which engaged and subjected him to M. Cornet, and continued firm in his opinion, which he reiterated in answering to what M. Cornet said to him, which thing as much astonished M. Cornet, as any other that passed in this Assembly.  
To what was spoken by all the rest he held his peace: They might represent what they would, he continued silent, letting the Suffrages pass along; and being well assured that such as were come to this Assembly to promote his design, considered not what others might say, but only what themselves came to do, and what the intentions were of those that sent them.  
When I delivered my sentence, I said that M. Cornet's care would have been much better employed in seeing to the publication of the censure of Father Bauny's Book, (which was passed so long ago, as was so necessary in this age to stop the enormity of Usuries which that Author teaches so confidently) then to require a new one upon the matters he proposed. But if it were necessary to make any examination hereof, I should not gainsay it, provided all things were done according to our Statutes, Customs, and the Arrests of Parliament; because should those be violated in any thing (I used that passage, Nisi omnia fiant in pondere, numero & mensura, which I repeat here, because M. Cornet who cited it in the Conclusion he drew up, left out the word numero; which related to the excessive number of Religious Mendicants that were there) I should think myself bound to make opposition thereunto upon every occasion; and that I saw at that present sundry things that gave me cause to do so; I accordingly opposed the same as far as was needful.  
M. Mulot the Dean, however, concluded, according to the plurality of Suffrages, that the Propositions should be examined, and that the persons nominated by M. Messier and M. Henriot were deputed to that purpose. It was further added, that a copy of them should be given to every Doctor to debate thereupon at the next Assembly of the first of August; that in the mean time the Deputies should confer together about them, and should summon before them the Bachelor of whom the Syndic complained for having printed in his Thesis the Propositions which he had corrected for him.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of what passed during the rest of the month of July, consequently to the deputation of the Doctors nominated by the Faculty for examining the Propositions.  
I Have not hitherto set down the six or seven Propositions, to which M. Cornet said all the controversies might be reduced, because I judged it better to reserve them for this place, and represent them as they were printed in the Chartels distributed to the Doctors five or six days after at a Doctor's Act, which occasion was made use for the more commodious distribution. But I took notice of that concerning the works of Unbelievers, which he mentioned and required the examination of, Omnia infidelium opera sunt peccata; because it's not being found in these distributed Chartels, is a certain evidence of the liberty M. Cornet took to add or diminish in the Faculties Conclusions. The like dealing he used in reference to the Propositions which M. de Saint Beuve demanded to be examined also, in case the Faculty would examine the former; for he put but one of them into the Ticket, which is the last, and concerns Attrition; but M. de saint Beuve was so far from restraining himself to that alone, that on the contrary, he proposed sundry more upon the place; and yet all were but a sample, and as it were a spark of such as he thought more necessary to be examined, than those of M. Cornet. Wherefore after M. Cornet himself, and almost the whole Faculty with him, had consented to the examination of M. de saint Beuve's Propositions, it behoved according to order and justice, to have desired a copy of them from him, and added the same to that of M. Cornet.  
However see here the form in which they were all printed and distributed in the Tickets I spoke of, there being no intimation of a pretence that they were taught and delivered by any Author, M. Cornet not only not naming any in the Assembly, but also declaring that he did not meddle with Jansenius.  

1. Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia: deest quoque iis Gratia, quâ possibilia fiant.  
2. Interiori Gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.  
3. Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas à necessitate, sed sufficit libertas à coactione.  
4. Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis Gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei; & in hoc erant Haeretici, quod vellent eam Gratiam talem esse cui posset humand voluntas resistere vel obtemperare.  
5. Semipelagianorum error est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse.  
6. Sensit olim Ecclesia privatam Sacramentalem poenitentiam pro occultis peccatis non sufficere.  
7. Naturalis Attritio sufficit ad Sacramentum poenitentiae.   
The accusations made by M. Cornet against the Bachelors he spoke of, were nothing but vain pretexts, upon which he endeavoured to ground his design of getting these Propositions condemned, which he sought to colour by some seeming occasion. For indeed the Bachelor he complained of, had maintained nothing at all in his answers but what M. Cornet had approved in express terms by his signature or subscription; and so far was it from being true, that he had caused any other thing to be printed in his Thesis but what M. Cornet had signed for him, that on the contrary M. Cornet having, long after he had signed for him a Proposition of very great importance, bethought himself to bid him expunge it; the said Bachelor obeyed him without any repugnance, though a great part of his Thesis were already printed. Whence the said Deputies, though so chosen as I have declared, and sifting very narrowly in their private Assemblies the business about the Bachelors, found nothing reflecting upon them to make report of to the Faculty.  
They were less favourable to the Propositions. For in some private meetings which they had during the said month to advise amongst themselves about them, almost all concluded upon their condemnation. But it is material to consider, in what manner they proceeded to their examination. My knowledge of which I gathered partly out of two Letters still in my hands, partly out of an Article touching the Abusive Courses joined to a Petition mentioned hereafter, which we presented against the said Deputation; and partly out of what M. Hennequin, the Dean, spoke about that subject upon a remarkable occasion in the face of the Parliament, as I shall report in due place.  
The first of those Letters was written by a Doctor who was in a Coach with M. Chappellas one day as they returned from S. Denis, where they had been present at a Service which the Masters and Boursers of the College of Navarre are accustomed to celebrate every year in that Church for the repose of the souls of the King and Queen who founded their College. M. Brousse, M. Taignier, and M. Tallendier were there, and 'tis one of these three that writ it. See what it saith.— It was signified of M. Chappellas, of what consequence the Judgement was, which all the Deputies named with him for examining the Propositions, were about to make. It was told him, that it was a shameful thing to go about determining an affair of that consequence in so little space, and exposing S. Augustin to the Censure at a time when Heretics would not fail to heighten all faults committed by Catholic Doctors. Hereunto M. Chappellas answered, That he very well understood the consequence of such a Judgement; that himself had made a display thereof to all the Examiner's in an Assembly held at M. Bouvot's house, in declaring to them, that the Propositions not being taken out of any Book that appeared, and having much affinity with opinions not condemned but still received in the Church, it would be very difficult to pass any judgement upon them, unless they were compared with those opinions, and the books explicating the said opinions were examined; that for his part, he conceived it necessary for this reason that the examination of the Propositions should proceed in that manner. He answered further, that he very well understood the connexion of these Propositions with the doctrine of S. Augustin, and of the first amongst the rest (it being that, whereof they had already debated) that he had represented the same to the Examiner's, and shown, that in the doctrine of the said Saint it behoved to acknowledge a Differencing Grace which comes from God, and consentaneous to the truth of that sacred Oracle, Quis te discernit? Quid habes, etc. That this Grace is not given to all the Just, but only to such as fulfil the Commandments, by which Grace they are made to differ from those that do not fulfil them, that it behooveth also to acknowledge that this Grace is absolutely necessary to perform the command of God; seeing that without the same, he that performs it cannot be made to differ from him that performs it not, saving by the strength of his own will; which is a manifest error: and consequently that it was necessary to use very great circumspection in this Proposition.— He told us further, that here he was interrupted, and told that he was not to trouble himself, whether the Propositions were S. Augustine's, or had any affinity with his doctrine, or with that of any other Catholic Doctors; that it sufficed to consider the same according to the determinations of the Council of Trent, and the Holy Scripture, and to find what affinity they have with the Doctrine of such Heretics as have been condemned by that Sacred Council; that this was the sole rule which it behoved them to follow in their judgement upon those Five Propositions; that to stand upon S. Augustin's or any other Catholic Doctor's doctrine, were to engage in such inexplicable difficulties, as would hinder them from making any judgement at all thereof: That to this, he remonstrated that the judgements of the Church were not made otherwise then by considering what the Holy Scriptures, and the Councils, and the Holy Fathers had said concerning the matters to be judged of, that the Church always thought herself obliged to follow the doctrine of the Holy Fathers as constituting a part of Tradition; that the Faculty was not higher than the Church, and therefore it behooved it to conform to the rules of its mother, and to consider the Holy Fathers as well as she doth; and because this first Propositions affinity with the Doctrine of S. Augustin, he persisted in his first sentiment, that it behooved to consider S. Augustine's doctrine, together with the Holy Scriptures and the Council of Trent. Upon this Remonstrance some of the Examiner's seeming willing to proceed, as if what he said were nothing but his single opinion, he assured us that he insisted upon the maintaining what he had delivered, and hindered them from passing further. Whereupon the Examiner's, seeing him resolute to have S. Augustin's doctrine considered as a rule (in part) of the Censure they designed to pass upon the Propositions, broke up this Assembly.  
I shall add one thing very considerable, namely, that he told us one of the Examiner's brought into this meeting the determination of the First Proposition, and the condemnation he intended to make thereof. And upon my telling him that I believed it was M. Pereyret, he replied nothing to me; So that it's easy to judge that the said determination of the Five Propositions was beforehand framed by them who maliciously composed them. I entreat you to make use of this testimony, and aver it before whom you shall think meet; I assure you it is very sincere, and I will make it good in presence of any person whatsoever.  
The second Letter speaks of another Occurrence in the auditory of the Sorbonne, between M. Launoy and F. Nicolaï, at which M. Grandin was present also. Take it as it followeth.— I think myself obliged to give you some intelligence which may be useful in the cause you defend. I have amongst my Notes one remark which lately I made, namely that the Deputies who were to censure the Five Propositions within a month's time, triumphed in the Auditory of the Sorbonne, as being assured of the carrying of their cause, for that they had made themselves the Judges thereof. Father Nicolai a Dominican, and one of those Deputies, discoursing with M. Launoy a very eminent Doctor of our Faculty, said, That the intention of the Deputies was not to consider whether the Five Propositions had affinity with the doctrine of St. Augustin or no, but only what affinity they have with the doctrine of the Heretics that have been condemned by the Council of Trent; that there is no obligation to receive S. Augustine's doctrine or propose it to themselves for a Rule in the judgement of the Faculty; and therefore it is not to be stood upon. Upon M. de Launoy's answering him, that S. Augustin's doctrine was never condemned, and that it was twelve hundred years old, and that therefore it was not fit that Doctors who were not seventy five should undertake to condemn it; That Father replied, that what ever was contrary to the Council of Trent, and the Holy Scriptures, was likely to be condemned; and that there would be no speech of any particular persons doctrine, but only the Five Propositions. M. de Launoy gave him an account how S. Augustine's doctrine stands in reference to the first Proposition; and told him after his pleasant way, That S. Augustin was too old to be placed upon the seats of the Doctors in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, F. Nicolai answered, that this doctrine taken in the sense of Heretics deserves to be condemned; but that the business in hand is only about censuring or judging of Five Propositions.  
M. Grandin said that there was no obligation to follow S. Augustin; and mentioned some opinions of S. Augustin which ought not to be followed now. Which is a shameful evasion, and unworthy of a Christian man. Thus you have what is in my memory; make use of it as of a thing very certain, and testified to you by him who is, etc.  
As for the Abusive Courses upon which we grounded our Petition, of which I shall speak below; amongst ten comprised in a Memorial annexed to that Petition, the third ran thus. The Faculty hath not given power to the said Deputies for any of them to act in the absence of the rest, and nevertheless they never are together, and have not forborn to proceed. M. Pignay after the first Assembly retired dissatisfied, and repaired thither no more. M. Chappellas withdrew himself after the second conference, because he having gainsayed him that gave his opinion before him, and branded the First Proposition of Heresy, (the said M. Chappellas maintaining the same to be Catholic and S. Augustine's) nevertheless the plurality concluded that it was heretical. M. Gauquelin arrived at the meeting in the middle of the examination, and having seen the proceeding held therein, would be present at it no more. M. Hennequin assisted not at the last Assembly where the Deputies signed the Result in the presence of M. the Dean, who was present there to conclude, though he had not been at the other Assemblies. For there is a Law which gins, Si duo ex tribus, etc. which forbids some Commissioners to proceed in the absence of the rest, unless their commission expressly allow it. Duo ex tribus Judicibus, uno absent, judicare non possunt; quip omnes judicare jussi sunt. D. de re judicata, L. 39   

CHAP. VIII.  
Of the Writings which were published during the same month of July by the Disciples of S. Augustin touching the Propositions.  
BEfore this month expired, books were published concerning the subject of the Propositions which M. Cornet had presented to the Faculty. One was entitled, Molinae Collatorumque adversus S. Augustini doctrinam apparatus. Another began with these words, In nomine Domini. And a third had this title, Considerations upon the enterprise made by Master Nicholas Cornet. In each of those three Works complaint was made of the maliciousness wherewith these Propositions were framed, and rendered capable of divers senses very opposite, of which some were certainly Catholic, and the other evidently Heretical; to the end that being exposed to examination, they might be condemned under pretext of the heretical senses which they might include; and that when under the said pretext the authors of the said design should have obtained a censure thereof, they might apply the same as should seem good to themselves, and cause it to fall upon the Catholic sense, which they also admitted; and which M. Cornet and his Complices principally aimed at, though they durst not declare themselves against the same.  
Of these books, especially The Considerations, some were given to the Examiner's before they had ended their private meetings; they were likewise given to all the Doctors they could be delivered to, before the first of August. And I cannot sufficiently wonder, how, (considering the clearness wherewith the disguise and artifice of those deceitful propositions and the deplorable sequels of the whole attempt is therein laid open) nevertheless the beginners of it could be more obstinate in it, then at first; and how such as they had perverted could be as inclined as themselves to conclude in the assembly of the first of August, upon a condemnation not less ambiguous than the Propositions themselves, had there been nothing else to hinder them from doing so, but these Books.  
Those Works might deserve to be inserted here entire, for the importance of the things contained in them, and especially for the undeceiving of such as have been kept in a belief, that we have sometimes absolutely maintained the said Propositions. For they might see in every page of them, that we spoke at first of the Propositions as we have done since, namely, as equivocal, fallacious, ambiguous, framed with cunning, to render them capable of divers senses very opposite, whereof some are most certainly Catholic, and the other most evidently heretical. But I will content myself with reciting some lines out of that of the Considerations, which shall clearly manifest what I say, even to persons most obstinate and prejudiced. The 22. & 23. article of those Considerations run in these terms.  

XXII.  
Moreover, it is clear that they have gone about to encounter. S. Augustin like Foxes, not like Lions; and that to cover the shame of making themselves Masters and Censors of the greatest Master of the whole Church next S. Paul in these matters, and together with him of the Popes, Councils, and of all antiquity, they have expressed the Propositions in ambiguous and confused words; that so being true in one sense and false in another, they might excuse themselves to intelligent men, by saying, that they intended only to condemn the evil that was in them without purposing to wound S. Augustin, and at the same time decry them before the simple and ignorant (which are the greatest number) for absolutely condemned as well in the sense of S. Augustin, which is that which they chief design to ruin, as according to the other.   

XXIII.  
This is seen clearly in the first Proposition, Aliqua Dei praecepta, etc. which according to S. Augustin and the Bishop of Ipre (who hath handled and excellently explicated it by a multitude of clear and indubitable passages) hath no other meaning but this, that the Righteous are not always in one and the same disposition, nor in the same internal vigour, but that they are sometimes so weak that they cannot prevail with themselves to do those things which are their duty, although they know God commands the same, and they have a desire to do them, as it is manifest by S. Paul, who cries out, that he cannot do the good which he would, according to the explication of the Fathers. In this sense, so true and so conformable not only to S. Augustin and the Scripture, but also to the ordinary Prayers of the Church, and the continual experience of the greatest Saints, and of all such as endeavour to serve God faithfully, this Proposition cannot receive any impeachment from envy itself. But being taken after another sort, and according to the Letter, it may signify another thing, namely that there are Commandments of God which the righteous can never keep by the strength which is given them in this present life, what grace soever God communicates to them, and whatsoever will they may have to perform the same, which is an Error and a Heresy advanced by Calvin, in as much as it makes the Commandments of God absolutely impossible in this world: In the mean time, this is one of the senses intended to be put upon this Proposition to render it odious, and to make the people and ignorants believe, that it is what S. Augustine and his Disciples teach. For it was proposed in the same terms under the names of Luther and Calvin, in the 
* Theses Claromontanae An. 1644. Jan. 4. Concl. 18. Sacri●ega est & impia Calvini Lutherique sententia (Calv. in Antid. in cap. 12. Sess. 6. Luth. in Latom.) qua statuunt, esse in lege gratiae quaedam hom ni praecepta, illi secundum statum is vires in quibus constitutus est, impossibilia; & eam impotentiam etiam in fidelibus reperiri; nec tantum quando nolunt praecepta implere, sed etiam quando volunt? Calvinus in Antid. Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 12. Mihi sufficit nominem extit●sse unquam qui legi Dei satisf cerit, nec ullum posse inveniri. Ibid. Apostolus proculdubio significat impares fuisse ab initio universos mortales legis observationi, hodiéque esse.  infamous Theses of the College of Clermont, which the Nuntio caused the Jesuits to retract. And 'tis clear, that Calvin in the same place which is cited in those Theses maintains only the error and heresy before observed; namely, That 'tis impossible, not only for the generality of believers, but even for the greatest Saints, the Prophets and Patriarches to keep the Law of God, however strong a will they have to perform it, and whatever aid they receive from the spirit of God, Vtcunque Dei spiritu adjuventur; and that there never was a person who did or was able to do that which God commanded him, nor ever shall be any such. So that of a Proposition which is particular in all its points, is made a Proposition universal in all the same points; and instead of saying that some Righteous are sometimes under a disability of performing some Commandment, which themselves have done, and perhaps will do soon after; and that such disability proceedeth from their willing but weakly, and God's not strengthening them with his grace, (as he hath done and will do hereafter, as it is always to be hoped) S. Augustin and the Bishop of Jpré are made to say with Calvin, that all the Righteous are always under a disability towards God's commandments, and that no grace ever delivers them from it, how great soever such grace be, and what ever desire they have to accomplish the same. And this is one of the branches of conformity which those good Judges find between the doctrine of S. Augustin and that of Calvin.   
And in the continuation of this Article beginning to speak of the other Propositions, the mentioned Work saith of the second, that it is as captious as the preceding; of the third, that it is yet more openly fallacious; of the fourth, that it is as full of obscurity and darkness as the rest; of the fifth, that it contains an artifice and subtlety so visibly borrowed from the Semipelagians, that it is strange they have not been ashamed to make use of it publicly in so important an occasion. After which it explicates particularly the diversity of senses whereof they are contrived capable. It declares in such express terms both those which it maintains to be Catholic, and those which it acknowledges to be false and heretical, that it is hard for one to speak more clearly upon any subject. It shows next that those ambiguities and obscurities wherewith the Propositions are covered and intricated, have been affected, to surprise the Faculty and engage it in a Censure, in which the Doctrine of S. Augustin would be involved. It lays open the exorbitancy of this Attempt which strikes not only at S. Augustin, but at the Popes, the Holy Fathers, the Councils, and the whole Church in general, of which that Saint was the voice and instrument against the Heretics he encountered. It explicates the dismal consequences which are likely to happen from a condemnation of this nature, if it be made. It offers to verefy all that it delivers, in order thereunto to enter into a fair conference viuâ voce or by writing, before all sorts of persons not only learned, but barely rational and intelligent. And lastly it consents to hold for refuted and condemned the whole book of Jansenius, if they will only examine the Chapter from whence it taxes them to have taken the first Proposition by making notable alterations thereof; if they will undertake an exact confutation of that single Chapter; if they can show any difference between that which Jansenius mantaines there, and the Doctrine of S. Augustin, out of which he there recites a great number of passages upon which that Author grounds all that he saith; and if they can answer any thing to those passages which is not ridiculous and impertinent in the judgement of learned men. But this Work and two other were to as little purpose as if they had not been written; they were not considered at all; they were answered only with silence; and all the strength there was in them served only to render the Authors and partisans of this enterprise more inexcusable before God and men.   

CHAP. IX.  
Of what passed in the Assembly of the Faculty on the first of August following and the rest of that month, touching a Petition which we presented to the Parliament against the enterprise of M. Cornet.  
When I perceived that such bright and illustrious evidences produced no change, that the Deputies continued acting after the same manner in their private meetings, that they were prepared to make their Report on the first of August, and that many other Doctors impatiently waited for that Report and day, that they might see the Propositions condemned without any distinction or explication of sense; I believed myself obliged to prevent it by turning the opposition I had made against that Design on the first of July, and wherein I continued all that month, into an Appeal against Abuses. I made the same accordingly on the last of the said month by an Act which I took thereof before Notaries, the Draught whereof remained with M. Hervi, one of those before whom it was passed.  
On the Monday following, being the second of August, I caused the said Act of Appeal to be signified to the Assembly which was held in the Sorbonne by M. Tassin Junior Beadle of the Faculty, who gave notice thereof to all the Doctors then present. Of whom, sixty, all seculars, and one Monastic Augustine, judged this Appeal so just and important, that they not only approved it, but themselves joined therein by another Act passed likewise before Notaries. But this was not it chief which hindered the Deputies from making their Report, and the Doctors perverted by M. Cornet from concluding the Censure with them that day. The obstruction was, that M. Loysal Curé of S. Jean en Greave and Chancellor of Nostre Dame pretending a right to be Precedent in our Assemblies when any Censure is in hand, was present at this, and took the first place before the Dean was come, who finding it at his coming possessed, demanded it as appertaining to himself: and in the contest which arose between them about this matter all the time of this Assembly was spent, without possibility of speaking concerning any other thing, notwithstanding all the endeavours M. Cornet and his adherents used to bring the Propositions under debate, in order to their condemnation.  
Some days passed after, which were employed only in drawing up the Petition which we judged necessary to present to the Parliament, in order to stop the resolution in which M. Cornet and his Adherents persisted of condemning the Propositions, without making any distinction of the different senses whereof they were capable. It was drawn up and put into the hands of M. Broussel to present the same, as it here followeth.  
To our Lords of Parliament.  
Humbly supplicate, Anthony de Heu first Archpriest of Paris and Curé of S. Severin, Francis Ytier Chastellain Canon of the Church of Paris, Provost of Normandy in the Church of Chartres and Principal of the College of Fortet; Claudius Emerets Canon of the Royal Church of S. Quintin, Peter Copin Curé of Vaugirard lez Paris, Elias du Fresne de Mincé Curé of S. Peter de Gonesse, John Rousse Curé of S. Roch, Jerome Bachelier Counsellor and Preacher to the King, Archdeacon and Canon of the Cathedral Church of Soissons, and Counsellor in the Court of the Ecclesiastical Chamber at Paris, Peter le Gendre Curé of Aumale, James Brousse Canon of S. Honoré, Anthony de Breda Curé of S. Andrew des Arcs, Charles Meusnier Dean and Canon of the Cathedral Church of Orleans, Nicolas Drujon Canon of the Collegiate Church of S. Bennet at Paris, Alexander de Hodencq Canon of S. Firmin at Amiens, John Bourgeois Precentor and Canon of the Cathedral Church of Verdun, and Prior of S. Catherine de Loseliere, Henry de Creil Canon of the Cathedral Church of Beauvais, James Tirement Canon of the same Church, Francis Heron Prior Commendatary of our Lady of Champ Arien, Francis Blondel Curé of S. Hippolyta in the Suburb of S. Marcel at Paris, Lewis le Noire Curé of S. Hilary at Paris, Henry Holden, James de Sainté-Beuve Kings Professor of Divinity in Sorbonne, James de Paris, Peter Sarrazin Canon Theologal in the Cathedral Church of Chartres, Robert Constantin Canon and Archdeacon of the Cathedral Church of Angiers, Elias Foujeu Descure Archdeacon of Dreux, and Canon in the Cathedral Church of Chartres, Francis castle Curé of Compan, Claudius Vacquette Curé and Prior of Clermont, James Maleude Curé of Groslay lez Paris, Nicolas Gosset Canon and Curé of S. Opportuné, James Esmard, John Guillebert, Michael le Blanc; Renatus de Robbeville Canon Theologal; and Chanter of the Cathedral Church of Amiens, Claudius Grenet Curé of S. Bennet, John Callaghan, Henry du Hamel Curé of S. Mederic, George de Nuilly Canon of the Cathedral Church of Beauvais, Friar Alipius Roussel a Religious Augustin, Professor of Divinity in the Covent of the lesser Augustins, in the Suburb of S.  with the licence of his Provincial, Nicolas D'aignauln Canon of S. Cloud, Claudius Taignier, Noel de Lalane Abbot of Valcroissant, John Bapt. de Chassebras Archpriest and Curé of La Magdelaine at Paris, John Banneret Canon of the Cathedral Church of Rheims, Francis Retart Curé of Magny-Lessart lez Paris, Michael Taillandier, John James Dorat, Matthew Feydeau, John L'Abbé, John Bapt. Gaultier, Mathurin Queras, Thomas Fortin, Lewis de Saint-Amour, Michael Dobbaires, John Perou, Claudius le Cappellain, Philip Marcan, Gabriel Dabes, Peter Renier, Michael Moreau Canon of the Cathedral Church of Noyon, Philip de Longeran, Peter Barbereau, John Martin, all Doctors in the sacred Faculty of Divinity at Paris, to the number of above sixty; SHOWING, That on Thursday the first day of July in the ordinary Assembly of the said Faculty of Divinity of Paris, held in the Great Hall of the College of Sorbonne, the said Lewis de Saint-Amour one of the Petitioners opposed a Proposal made by M. Nicolas Cornet Doctor and Syndic of the said Faculty to debate and condemn the Propositions hereunto annexed, the said Cornet having to that end caused to come into the said Assembly many Doctors, Religious and Secular, which he the Syndic and his adherents had summoned on purpose from their respective houses, intending by their number to represent the said Faculty. That notwithstanding the opposition of the said Saint-Amour, the said Cornet and his adherents passed on to the said debate, deputed some amongst them to prepare the determination and condemnation of the said Propositions, and by the said Deputation made and drew up an Act which they endeavour to make pass under the name of a Conclusion of the said Faculty; and in pursuance thereof have had sundry private Meetings, the issue whereof cannot be other than a division very destructive to the said Faculty: That of the said Opposition an Act hath been made before Notaries by the procurement of the said Saint-Amour on the 31. of July last, and by him persisting in the said Opposition, an Appeal also against Abuses hath been made against all that hath been done and passed, as well in the said Assembly of the first of July, as in other private ones; and therein charging the same upon both the said M. Nicholas Cornet who propounded and required the debating of the said Propositions, and M. John Mulot Doctor and Dean of the said Faculty, who put the affair into deliberation; with protestation on the part of the said Saint-Amour to have recourse to the Parliament, to whom alone appertaineth the cognisance and jurisdiction of the said Appeal against Abuses, which Act of Appeal hath also been signified to the said M. Mulot, and Cornet, and to M. Maugin Tassin Junior Bedle, performing the office of Scribe, by Casault Usher of the Parliament on the second day of this present month of August; and nevertheless the said M. John Mulot Dean, and M. Nicholas Cornet Syndic, with their Adherents, have not forborn to use their utmost endeavours to cause the said Propositions to be debated and condemned in the ordinary Assembly of the second of August aforesaid, which would have been of very dangerous consequence, and put all the said Faculty into great trouble, if the greatest part of the Doctors thereof had not for preservation of the peace and honour of their Body, hindered the said debate by a better management. And forasmuch as the said M. John Mulot, Nicholas Cornet, and their Adherents, may still continue in the same attempts, and by that means put the said Faculty of Divinity into Division, notwithstanding the said Appeal against Abuses, unless provision be made against their so doing; the said Petitioners (whom the said Tassin performing the office of Scribe did in the said Assembly of the second day of the present month of August advertise of the notice given to him of the said Act of Appeal) have entered into communication thereupon, and to prevent the disorders threatened by such attempts, have thought fit to join with the said Saint-Amour, and jointly with him becoming Appellants to this Court, to set forth (as they will do in time and place) the causes and grounds of the said Appeals against Abuses, to the end they thereby be relieved upon the whole, according to its accustomed prudence. Which being considered, most honoured Lords, and withal that it may appear to you by the Propositions hereunto annexed and printed by the procurement of M. Cornet, of what consequence they are; as also that in prejudice to the said Opposition there could not and ought not to have been further proceeding to the said Deputation and private Assemblies; and that all that hath been done is Abusive, as being contrary to the Holy Decrees, and Canonical Constitutions, and to the Statutes of the said Faculty, and Arrests of this Court confirming the same; That moreover the Petitioners aim at nothing but the preservation of the honour and peace of the said Faculty, which the said Mulot, Cornet, and their Adherents go about to violate: May it please you to admit the Petitioners as Appellants against the abuse of the said pretended Conclusion of the first of July last passed, and of what followed thereupon, to allow the said Appeal for valid, to permit the Petitioners to cause the said Cornet and Mulot to be cited and sued in this Court by their proper and ordinary names, together with all others concerned, to the end to proceed upon the said Opposition and Appeal against Abuses, and to ordain that the Parties shall come and plead thereunto on what day it shall please the Court; and in the mean time to prohibit further proceeding or reading again and registering the said pretended Conclusion of the first of July, or any other Act made by the pretended Deputies and their Adherents, or passing on in any other manner, till this Court shall have determined concerning the matter: And you shall do well, etc.  
This Petition was answered on the 12. of August, and transmitted to the Attorney General, who put thereunto his own conclusions conformable to those which we had taken.  
M. Broussel undertook to make report thereof to the Court a few days after: M. Molé, at present Keeper of the Seals, than first Precedent, (and who is always meant when I barely mention the first Precedent in this Relation) was prepossessed by our Adversaries. Our Petition soon made a great noise in Paris, before M. Broussel spoke of it in the Grand Chamber. For on one side, the Considerations I mentioned having been seen by many inquisitive persons of all qualities; and on the other, the great number of Doctors that opposed the design, amongst whom divers were Curées of Paris, made this affair very notorious. Hereupon, as soon as M. Broussel opened his mouth to make his report of our Petition, the first Precedent was prepared to stop it; and without giving him time to set forth the grounds of our Appeal, and the aims of our Petition, he cut him off, and said, It was an affair to be examined more at leisure, before any thing were ordained in it; that we were people that said Jesus Christ did not die for the whole world; that God's Commandments are impossible to justified persons; all which required narrowly to be looked into. Thus the first Precedent by the great Authority he had in the Court, caused them to pass instantly to another affair, without giving M. Broussel time to reply to him, as he desired, which he could not do, though he endeavoured it once or twice, M. the first Precedent falling to speak as soon as M. Broussel uttered two words in answer to him. Of this myself was witness, the door of the Grand Chamber on the side of the Clerk's Table being for some time half open, and I happening to come thither at the same moment.  
A day or two after, to wit, on the 20. of August, M. Chastellain writ to me at eight a clock at night, that he understood the first Precedent had sent for him to come to him at six a clock; but the appointed hour being passed that day, he resolved to wait upon him the next immediately after dinner, and being it was a time when many might be there, he thought fit that I and some other Doctors whom he mentioned, should accompany him thither. But we were of opinion that M. Chastellain having been sent for alone, should go alone, inasmuch as we were not certain that it was about our affairs that the first Precedent had sent for him.  
Accordingly M. Chastellain went thither alone the next day, being the twenty first. The first Precedent caressed him, and with a smiling countenance, yet accompanied with his accustomed gravity, asked him, Whether there was any means of accommoding this affair? adding, That the division in our Body was much disrelished, and made a great noise in Paris; That great inconveniences might arise therefrom; That he had said as much to our Adversaries, and found them inclined to peace, and ready either wholly to desist from their enterprise, or at least to respite it for three or four months, without doing more than what was already done; That during that space the distemper of minds might be assuaged, and the means of a solid agreement sought out; for which good end the said term might be prolonged after the expiration of those three or four months, in case they should not be sufficient. M. Chastellain testified to the first Precedent, That we were as much inclined to peace as our Adversaries; That it was not on our part that the disturbance arose, but on theirs; That for the quieting all, it was necessary that they renounce the cause of it; That their pretended Deputation be no longer accounted valid; and in a word, That all things be restored to the posture they were in before the first of July; and that in order thereunto at the new reading on 1 September following the Conclusion which was not read again in the Assembly of the second of August, the same be done without making mention of any thing but the ordinary Supplicates; That he could give his word for nothing, before he made us acquainted with all this; but that he doubted not that upon those conditions we would be very glad to live peaceably in the exercise of our usual employments. These things M. Chastellain came and acquainted us with; We agreed thereunto: He returned, to give the first Precedent his word in our behalf, who also gave him his own in behalf of our Adversaries.  
Indeed, we something wondered at the three or four months' Truce which was offered us, and suspected the design of it to be only to relax our prosecutions, and make use of our silence and desisting against ourselves; but we did not as yet comprehend the mystery of it, as we found afterwards, and I shall relate in due place. It shall suffice to observe here, that we were given to understand, that it was meant only to let the memory of this attempt fairly bury itself, and become wholly lost by time, without obliging our Adversaries to renounce the same on a sudden, whilst they were still in their first heat. But time likewise taught us, that indeed it was to get means in the interval of prosecuting with the Pope the censure of the Propositions, after its miscarriage in the Faculty. They were not ignorant that at Rome they are very jealous of maintaining the Authority of the Decrees which issue from thence, and that this Consideration obliges the makers of them to look very well to the facility and compliance that may be expected in their execution, before they pass any at all. They intended to offer to the Pope a Censure made by the Deputies of the Faculty, as owned and authorised by the whole Body, that so they might obtain the like from his Holiness. They feared that if our Opposition should become more conspicuous, and the Parliament having regard thereunto should forbid them to proceed, some noise of it would get to Rome, and make the design abortive. Hereupon they were willing to hold us in quiet and silence during those ●hree or four months, which time they judged needful to obtain what they aimed at at Rome; or in case they should not accomplish the same in that space, they purposed to prolong the term of our silence and quiet further, namely, so long till they should have accomplished their design.  
But, as I said, we did not yet perceive the bottom of the artifice, wherefore we closed very readily with this Expedient, being well pleased to see, as we thought, their Counsels if not wholly quashed, at least checked and half broken. Yet how great need soever they had of the said Truce, they were not able to preserve it, but within a few days they failed in the conditions which they had promised, and upon which we had surceased.   

CHAP. X.  
Of what passed in the Assembly of the Faculty on the first of September 1649.  
THese conditions required that no footstep of what had been done in this business in the Assembly of the first of July, and that of August, should remain in our Registers; wherefore the Conclusions of those two months were read again by the Gressier, or Clerk, in the Assembly of the first of September following, without making any mention of what concerned M. Cornet's Propositions.  
But they who managed this Accommodation, that they might obtain the Censure which they hoped from Rome against the said Propositions, were not yet so certain thereof, but that they endeavoured to reserve one means to themselves (in case that failed) of renewing their prosecutions in the Faculty upon a more favourable opportunity: Wherefore being loath to see their pretended Deputation vanquish in smoke, they sought to keep it in being, to the end that when we least disinherited it, they might one day make the Report of the said Deputation, and dispatch in some morning the business of the Censure, when there should be no person in the Assembly to gainsay it.  
For which purpose, as soon as the Conclusions of the said two months were read again, M. Amiot stood up and told the Assembly, that no person ought to wonder that there was no mention made of the Deputies which had been nominated on the first of July for examining the Propositions; that the same was omitted, at the desire of the first Precedent, to see if within three or four months there would be a means to reconcile the business.  
The aforementioned Accommodement was not unknown to any in the Faculty, so that it was visible that M. Amiot spoke not this word of Advertisement to give information thereof to any one, but only to cause it to be inserted in the Registers the month following, when the things that passed this day were to be read again. Whereupon M. Chastellain, who understood the subtlety, presently fell to blame M. Amiot for violating the word passed to the first Precedent, and the conditions of agreement that were made. He told him, that had there been any report to be made of what passed at the first President's house, it did not belong to him (M. Amiot) who was the youngest, to make the same; but were he the ancientest, he ought not to have made it before they had agreed together thereupon. M. Amiot replied to this, that indeed they had promised the first Precedent that they would do nothing till after four months, but that they had not promised that they would say nothing. This juggling and equivocal answer was hissed at, as wholly unworthy of the place and the business treated of, and in this posture matters rested that day.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of a false Censure against the Propositions, published during the month of September; And of a second Petition which we presented to the Parliament.  
TOwards the middle of this month, it appeared by most strong and considerable evidences, that the Peace we had made, was not at all in the heart of those with whom we had made it. In Paris there was seen running through the hands of abundance of people, a draught of a Censure against the Propositions; and we likewise received Copies thereof, all agreeing together, which sundry of our Friends sent us from divers places of the Kingdom, as well to advertise us thereof, as to be informed by us concerning the truth of the piece. It was conceived in the same words, and drawn up in the same form which I am going here to insert and represent.  
Propositiones Baccalaureorum. Censura Doctorum. 1. 
Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia: deest quoque iis Gratia, quâ possibilia fiant.  1. 
Haec Doctrina est Haeretica.  2. 
Interiori Gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.  2. 
Haec Propositio est contraria Sacris Scriptures.  3. 
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas à necessitate, sed sufficit libertas à coactione.  3. 
Haec Doctrina destruit rationem meriti & demeriti, & est Haeretica.  4. 
Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis Gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei; & in hoc erant Haeretici, quod vellent eam Gratiam talem esse, cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare.  4. 
Hujus Propositionis prima pars est falsa & temeraria; secunda vero, quae asserit Haereticum esse admittere Gratiam cui possit humana voluntas resistere, est Haeretica.  5. 
Semipelagianorum Error est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse.  5. 
Haec Propositio est falsa & scandalosa, insimulans Erroris veritatem Sacris Scripturis contentam, & in Concilio Tridentino declaratam.  6. 
Sensit olim Ecclesia privatam Sacramentalem poenitentiam pro peccatis occultis non sufficere.  6. 
Haec Propositio vel spectat ad quaestionem juris; & sensus est, [Sensit etiam privatam Sacramentalem poenitentiam reipsa & absolutè pro occultis peccatis non sufficere;] & est Haeretica, Errorem infallibili Ecclesiae affingens. Vel spectat ad quaestionem facti, & sensus est, [Sensit olim Ecclesia, ex illius temporis disciplina, non sufficere privatam poenitentiam Sacramentalem pro peccatis;] & falsa est & temeraria.  7. 
Naturalis Attritio sufficit ad Sacramentum poenitentiae.  7. 
Haec Propositio intellecta de Attritione merè naturali ut sufficiente ad Sacramentum poenitentiae cum effectu Gratiae Justificationis recipiendú, est Haeretica.   
Ita visum est Doctoribus Magistris, 

Jacobo Hennequin Decano Professorum in Theologia.  
Jacobo Pereyret Summo Moderatori Regii Collegii Navarrae & Professori in Theologia.  
Claudio Morel Doctori Sorbonico & Librorum Censori.  
Nicholaö Cornet Syndico Facultatis Parisiensis.  
Marguarito Gauquelin Doctori Navarrico.  
Ludovico Bail Propoenitentiario Parisiensi.  
Fr. Joanni Nicholaï Primario Regenti in Theologia apud Fratres Praedicatores.  
Martino Grandin Professori Theologiae Moralis in Sorbona.   Deputatis in Sacra Facultate in Comitiis generalibus prima mensis Julii 1649. ad examen praedictarum Propositionum.  
Having well considered this piece, and the flying Paper which M. Pereyret formerly delivered to the Nuntio, and which was sufficient to draw after it the Decree and Censure of the Inquisition abovementioned, we certainly believed that they did not contrive this Censure only to make it run about France, where the Form of the Facultie's Censure is sufficiently known, but that they intended to make use of it at Rome for the purpose I noted. Yet we knew nothing certain thereof, and this was but our naked conjecture. However we thought that it was not to be neglected, but that it was necessary for us to have recourse to the Parliament, as well for provision against the dispersing and authors of this pretended Censure, as against the main of M. Cornet's Enterprise, against which we had already presented a Petition.  
Toward the end of this month we presented a Second, which we put into the hands of M. Broussel, who received the former, and annexed a Copy of the Censure thereunto; wherein, after representation of what had passed between the Framers of the Propositions and ourselves since the first, we complained that they had not only published this Censure in France, but perhaps also sent it out of the Kingdom; and we concluded with desires for right to be done us upon our first Petition, and that the said M. Nicolas Cornet Syndic, M. James Pereyret, Morel, and the rest under whose names the pretended Censure run, might be summonod before the Court, to acknowledge, own or disown the said pretended Censure, to the end that upon their declaration further resolutions might be taken by us.   

CHAP. XII.  
Of the Arrest which intervened upon those two Petitions; and Of what passed in the Parliament touching that matter.  
THere happened a very Considerable Incident on the first of October in the election of M. Hallier to the office of Syndic: but because it had many sequels, that I may not interrupt what concerns this Censure and the Petitions upon which the Arrest intervened the fifth day of the same month; I shall forbear speaking of the affair of M. Hallier, till I have spoken of the said Arrest, and what preceded it and hath connexion with the things I last treated of.  
I cannot pass over in silence the desire and care which MM. Tristan, Julien, Guerin, le Feuré, le Blond of Sorbonne, de saint Helvine, and Mesnidré, had the first and fourth days of this month to partake in the procurement of these Arrests. For they took an Act, on those days, before Notaries, that the appeals against Abuses, interposed both by me and the other Doctors named in the Petition, being communicated to them, they adhered thereunto, became appellants (as well as we) against all that had been done and passed in the assembly of the first of July, and against all that followed upon the same; they made M. Cornet and Mulot defendants as we had done, and purposed to have all the prosecutions requisite and necessary to this affair transacted in their names as well as ours.  
M. Broussel having on the 4 of October 1649. spoken in the Chamber of Vacations concerning our two Petitions and the project of the Censure above inserted (a Copy whereof was annexed to our second Petition) it was ordained that he should cause notice to be given to MM. Cornet and Pereyret and such other as he thought fit of those whose names were subscribed to that Censure, with some also of them who complained thereof, that either side might appear the next day at the Palais at seven a clock of the morning in the said Chamber, to be heard there.  
I went to see M. Broussel at his coming forth of the Palais. He told me this, and that he thought it convenient to summon with MM. Cornet and Pereyret, M. Hennequin, who was the ancientest of those that had subscribed. I made some scruple thereof at first, and represented to him, that we had not made M. Hennequin a Defendant, nor did he meddle in this enterprise, but that the authors of it caused him to be named, in regard of some dislikes which they knew he had against the truths they struck at; and were willing on the one side to cover (what they could) their Conspiracy and Cabal with the good repute of that ancient Doctor's name, who was not to be suspected thereof; and on the other to have him favourable to their designs by the inclination of his sentiments: That his candour made me concerned for him, and I feared it would trouble him to think himself persecuted by us, in case he should be sent for to the Parliament.  
This Consideration caused M. Broussel to consent to summon only MM. Pereyret and Cornet. Afterwards, having bethought myself, that the Court could not be better and more truly informed of the things that had passed then by the mouth of one who would speak thereof with plainness and ingenuity, (as I knew M. Hennequin would do) and that I might acquaint him privately that it was for no other end that he was sent for; I returned to M. Broussel to tell him this: He approved of it, and followed his first purpose: and I assured him that on our part M. de Mincé and myself would not fail to appear.  
MM. Pereyret and Cornet were the next day more diligent than we. Assoon as they were come, an Usher advertised the Court thereof, and they were presently introduced; upon a conceit, as I imagine, that both sides were there. They had the advantage of speaking alone to the Court about a quarter of an hour, and a possibility of prepossessing it without our being there to observe what they said; and I did not otherwse come to know the things that passed during that quarter of an hour but by M. the Precedent Coigneux, who was in office that week, and told us t●e same assoon as M. de Mincé and I were introduced.  
He spoke to us very near in these words. The Court, before it pronounce any thing upon the Petitions presented by you, hath thought fit to hear both the one side and the other, to the end to bring you to agreement, and to oblige you to live peaceably. You complain of a certain Manuscript Censure which runs through the world under the name of some Doctors that style themselves Deputies of the Faculty for examining certain Propositions. Your Adversaries here, say they have not given order to any person to publish the same; That it is against their mind that it is published; That they gave it not to any, nor spoke to any to give Copies of it; That they disown all such as have done it: Desire you any thing more, in order to being satisfied and living with good understanding together?  
M. de Mincé began to speak after this discourse, and answered almost in these words. Messieures; About four or five years ago, when the heat began on either side about opinions of Doctrine which concern the Propositions in question, the Faculty, by an universal consent of all the Doctors, for avoiding contentions and divisions which might arise amongst them thereby, ordained that no Speech should be had thereof on one side or other. From that time, they remained in silence and peace till the first of July last, when M. Cornet the Syndic (as I since understood, (said M. de Mincé) for I was not at that Assembly) by a manifest enterprise against that Conclusion of the Faculty, set afoot and required to be debated certain Propositions relating to that doctrine: In which he not only violated the resolution which the Faculty had taken not to speak thereof, but also acted contrary to the order received and practised from all time in the said Faculty, which is wont not to debate upon any Propositions, unless the books and places of the books from whence such Propositions are taken, be noted and examined; because the understanding and true sense of them depends very often upon what goes before, and what follows after. Now the Propositions which M. Cornet hath made and set afoot in that Assembly of the first of July, are lose and of uncertain sense, neither the places nor authors from whence they might be drawn being signified by him. Since that Assembly of the first of July, nothing more hath been said concerning those Propositions; for that of August was spent in a contest arising touching a pretention of the Chancellor of the University. In this of the first of September, the Faculty hath likewise spoken nothing more thereof. But for all this there is published this month a Censure under the name of pretended Deputies, who have no power so to do; it not appertaining to any but to the Faculty in a formal and legal assembly. Wherefore, may it please you, we desire that that pretended Censure be declared of no value and authority, as indeed it is not.  
M. de Mincé having ended, and the Precedent turned his head to M. Cornet, who said, That whereas they disown the Censure, they mean that they disown it indeed as to the publication, but not as to the doctrine. And as to what M. de Mincé had said, namely, that it is not the custom of the Faculty to censure Propositions without first examining the places of Authors whence they are taken, (he said) it was much otherwise: That the Registers of the Faculty were full of Censures which had been so made, upon bare Propositions, without noting the Authors whose they were. Particularly, that this was practised during the space of twenty years, from the year 1540 to the year 1560. which was the time when Luther and Calvin began to appear and publish their errors: That even the last year, the censuring of a book being spoken of in the Faculty, they had forborn to touch the Author to this hour, but ordered, that Particular persons who pleased to propound Propositions after two month's time, should have liberty so to do.  
Hereunto it was replied by M. de Mincé, that that which was said by M. Cornet was not true; that the example of the foregoing year which he brought made against him; the case thereof being thus; A Libel had been published the year before under the name of F. Veron, in which many things were judged by the whole Faculty evidently mischievous; besides many invectives and injuries against the memory and reputation of M. the Abbot of Cyran, and the two MM. Arnauls': hereupon some persons intimating in the Faculty that there were things in that Libel which had relation to, and connexion with the matters concerned in the Propositions in question, the Faculty ordained that the Censure of the said Book should be deferred, for fear men's minds should become heated and divided upon occasion of the said matters which were touched upon transiently and by reflection in that Libel. All which shows with how little reason M. Cornet hath brought that example, and what wrong he hath done by causelessly violating so prudent and necessary a resolution as the Faculty had made for four or five years, not to determine or decide any thing touching those matters on one side or other.  
At this time M. Hennequin came and was introduced into the Chamber, and as he advanced towards the side of the Table where MM. Pereyret and Cornet were, Mr. Cornet went a step or two to meet him, as if he meant to tell him something in his ear, before he came to the place of speaking. Which M. Hennequin perceiving, put his hand before his breast and face to stop him, and signify to the Judges, that he meant not to speak any thing that M. Cornet purposed to suggest to him. The Precedent said to him, We have caused you to come hither, that we may be informed by you concerning a Censure of certain Propositions, which runs under your name; and here are some of your brethren (pointing at M. de Mincé and me) who have complained to the Court thereof.  
M. Hennequin answered, That he would speak the truth sincerely, as he had always made profession and was bound in conscience to do. He said, that indeed having been put amongst the Deputies nominated in the Assembly of the first of July for examining those Propositions, he accordingly had divers times met together with them in the house of the Scribe of the Faculty; and that they had noted the places of Scripture and of the Fathers which to them seemed contrary to the said Propositions, with purpose to make report, and leave the judgement of the same to the Faculty, as to whom it appertaineth, and not to themselves; but as to the having determined the Propositions, or signed or decreed any Censure, that this they had not done. That in the mean time he had been astonished, when being at Troy's, whither he lately took a journey, he saw divers Copies of a Censure brought from several parts; That likewise on the other side he had seen books written in defence of the said Propositions; That all this was not well, and that it must be acknowledged that there was on either side a little too much heat.  
The Precedent said, that it behoved all of us to labour to moderate the same, and that the Court would on their part contribute their utmost thereunto; and thus he seemed to put an end to this hearing, and to dismiss us. Which I seeing, and conceiving that the things which might be spoken for the obtaining of the Arrest we aimed at, had not been sufficiently unfolded, I began to speak, and told the Court that M. de Mincé had been often absent from Paris during all that passed in this affair, and so could not represent to the Court many important circumstances thereof which came not to his knowledge; but that with their permission, I should resume the matter from the beginning, and lay open to the Court the whole Series thereof, if they would vouchsafe me one quarter of an hours audience. The Court with great gentleness granted it, and I made an exact relation of all that had passed from the first of July till that time. I added to the things which I have spoken above thereof, that the number of Religious Mendicants which came to that Assembly, beyond what is appointed by the Arrests of Parliament, rendered their Deputation invalid; and hereof I took M. Hennequin to witness, who acknowledged the same. I also made the Court acquainted how the first Precedent had interposed to reconcile us, and how his interposition proved ineffectual for preserving us in peace with our Adversaries, because they violated the word which they hah passed to him, and he had given to us in their behalf. I reported the answer which M. Amiot made in the Assembly of the first of September, when he was blamed for that the Supplicate made then by him was contrary to the word which they had given to the first Precedent, not to do any thing more concerning this affair; Namely, how he said, That it was true they had promised the first Precedent to do nothing, but that they had not promised to to speak nothing: and I asked the Court hereupon, whether the actions that pass amongst us can consist in any thing else but words, and what inducement there could be to rely upon those of people who thus interpreted their own! I concluded, that, to bring us to peace and quiet, it was necessary that the Court would please to bind us thereunto by an Arrest; and that with less than this, what ever promises these Gentlemen might make, after the experiences we had had of their carriage all full of disguises and artifices, we could never be secure thereof, but should always be in continual inquietudes and agitations.  
The Precedent said to me, How? If these Gentlemen promise you faithfully in presence of this Court, that they will think no more of what is past, and that they will do nothing more for the future; Do you fear that they will fail therein?  
I answered, May it please you; Should M. Hennequin pass such a promise to you, and did the performance thereof depend upon him, we should hold ourselves secure, because he is a man of integrity and sincere; But we have not the same conceit of these Gentlemen, we cannot confide in them.  
The Precedent addressing himself to M. Cornet, asked him, Whether he would endeavour to content us, and promise the Court faithfully to remain in quiet touching this affair?  
M. Cornet answered in these very words, Sir, We Promise to make good all that we Promised the First Precedent.  
M. le Coigneux replied to him also in these very words, Ha', Gentlemen, speak plain French, those lose words and General Promises are not Discourses to be held in this Company: The Sorbonne hath not the Repute of using Equivocations.  
The involved and ambiguous answer of these Doctors, who clearly convinced the Court of the necessity of the Arrest which I moved for, gave me the boldness to resume and continue my Discourse, by beseeching the Court to remember the Arrest which it was moved to issue against a Decree that came from the Inquisition of Rome, concerning a Book which proved the equality of authority in S. Peter and S. Paul. I showed that that Decree was obtained in this manner. The Nuntio sent to the Faculty a Roman Gazette, which related that there were Doctors of it there who maintained, That there might be more Heads in the Church; desiring the Faculty to tell him, whether this were true. Upon this proposal M. Pereyret was deputed to go to the Nuntio, and tell him that it was not. The Nuntio demanded of M. Pereyret his answer in writing, who gave him such a one as himself pleased, without consulting the Faculty about it. This writing of M. Pereyret was at Rome made to pass for a Disavowing of the Faculty against the Book concerning the authority of S. Peter and St. Paul; and this pretended Disavowing drew after it that Decree of the Inquisition, which they durst not have made at Rome before, and against which the Court became obliged to issue the Arrest which intervened. Now, I said, it was not to be doubted, but that they would make the same use of this pretended Censure, which they disowned not but only as to the publication, and not as to the doctrine, because they could have wished that it had been secret, to the end it might have been taken for valid at Rome as an authentic act, and by which they might have extorted again a Decree, which would serve only to trouble and torment us, and which would again oblige the Court to provide against it, as it did in that other occasion.  
M. Pereyret cried out hereupon in these very words; That all which I said was as false as the Devil,  
I replied to M. Pereyret, and protested to the Court, That I said nothing but what was most true; That if the Court pleased to assign two of the Gentlemen on the bench to inquire thereof, in case any falsity were found in what I had uttered, I would submit to all the penalties which Calumniators deserve: But that M. Pereyret ventured so boldly to say it was false, for that he feared the Arrest for which I made suit to the Court, by reason it would be an authentic piece, and destroy the effect which they promised themselves from their pretended Censure, and show the nullity thereof.  
The Precedent here interposed, and said that it would be much better that we agreed amongst ourselves of our own accord, without the granting of that Arrest, or issuing out any thing in writing: That war was kindled both without and within the Realm; that we had suffered famine; that there were still other scourges which threatened us; that it was a thing of ill relish to see Division amongst the Doctors; that the Court treated us with honour, acting with us, in this manner, inviting us to be reconciled together charitably, and being willing to be contented with our Words; that after this, we ought to agree and live in peace.  
I replied to the Precedent, That we much acknowledged the honour and charity which the Court was pleased to show us, and that if on our part we could not accept it, it was long of the temper of the adversaries we had to do with, which allowed us not to account ourselves in security from them without the Arrest, which we most humbly beseeched the Court to grant us.  
The Precedent answered nothing more, but that the Court would do us justice. As we were departing from the bar to withdraw, M. Pereyret looking fixedly upon me, asked me with a very choleric and high tone, Will you bind the Pope's hands? Whereupon I approached back again towards the barrre, to desire the Court to take notice how by this word which proceeded from the abundance of his heart, he verified that which I had blamed him for, and which he had said was so false; but some of the Gentlemen signified to me with the hand, that I had spoken enough thereof. So I added no more with my tongue, but pointed at the place where M. Pereyret, who was now gone from it, asked me that question; and all the Gentlemen had, as I imagine, without my so doing, sufficiently taken notice of the same. As we were withdrawing, I went close to M. Pereyret, and answered him very softly between him and me to the question which he had put to me, and told him, My design was not to bind the Pope's hands, but to hinder them, if I could, from surprising him.  
When we were withdrawn, the Court consulted upon our Petitions, and upon what they had heard in this private audience; I call it private, because there was none there besides themselves and us. Take here the Arrest which intervened  
An Extract from the Registers of PARLIAMENT.  
WHereas by the Chamber of Vacations hath been seen the Petition presented to the Court on the twelfth of August last by Anthony de Heu first Archpriest of Paris and Curé of S. Severin, Francis Ithier Chastellain Canon of the Church of Paris, Provost of Normandy in the Church of Chartres and Principal of the College of Fortet; Claudius Emerets Canon of the Royal Church of S. Quintin, Peter Copin Curé of Vaugirard lez Paris, Elias du Fresne de Mincé Curé of S. Peter de Gonesse, John Rousse Curé of S. Roch, Jerome Bachelier Counsellor and Preacher to the King, Archdeacon and Canon of the Cathedral Church of Soissons, and Counsellor in the Court of the Ecclesiastical Chamber at Paris, Peter le Gendre Curé of Aumale, James Brousse Canon of S. Honoré, Anthony de Breda Curé of S. Andrew des Arcs, Charles Meusnier Dean and Canon of the Cathedral Church of Orleans, Grand Vicar and Official of the Bishop of Orleans, Nicolas Drujon Canon of the Collegiate Church of S. Bennet at Paris, Alexander de Hodencq Canon of S. Firmin at Amiens, John Bourgeois Precentor and Canon of the Cathedral Church of Verdun, and Prior of S. Catherine de Loseliere, Henry de Creil Canon of the Cathedral Church of Beauvais, James Thirement Canon of the said Church, Francis Heron Prior Commendatary of Nostre Dame du Champ Arien, John Blondel Curé of S. Hippolyta in the Suburb S. Marcel at Paris, Lewis le Noire Curé of S. Hilary. Henry Holden, James de Sainté Beufve Kings Professor of Divinity in Sorbonne, James de Paris, Peter Sarrazin Canon Theologal of the Cathedral Church of Chartres; Robert Constantin Canon and Archdeacon of the Cathedral Church of Angiers, Elias Foujeu Descure Archdeacon of Dreux, and Canon in the Cathedral Church of Chartres, Francis castle Curé of Compan, Claudius Vacquette Curé and Prior of Clermont, James Maleude Curé of Groslay lez Paris, Nicolas Gosset Canon and Curé of S. Opportuné, James Esmard, John Guillebert, Michael le Blanc, Renatus de Robbeville Canon Theologal, and Chanter of the Cathedral Church of Amiens, Claudius Grenet Curé of S. Bennet, John Callaghan, Henry du Hamel Curé of S. Mederic, George de Nuilly Canon of the Cathedral Church of Beauvais, Friar Alipius a Religious Augustin, Professor of Divinity in the Covent of the lesser Augustins, in the Suburb of S.  with the licence of his Provincial, Nicolas D'aignaulx Canon of S. Cloud, Nicholas Taignier, Noel de Lalane Abbot of Valcroissant, John Bapt. de Chassebras Archpriest and Curé of La Magdelaine at Paris, John Banneret Canon of the Cathedral Church of Rheims, Francis Retart Curé of Magny-Lessart lez Paris, Michael Taillandier, John James Dorat, Matthew Feydeau, John L'Abbé, John Bapt. Gaultier, Mathurin Quéras, Thomas Fortin, Lewis de Saint-Amour, Michael Dobbaires, John Peron, Claudius le Cappellain, Philip Marcan, Gabriel Dabes, Peter Renier, Michael Moreau Canon of the Cathedral Church of Noyon, Philip de Lonergan, Peter Barbereau, and John Martin, all Doctors in the sacred Faculty of Divinity of Paris, to the number of sixty or more; Containing, That on Thursday the first day of July last in the ordinary Assembly of the said Faculty held in the Great Hall of the House and College of Sorbonne, the said Lewis de Saint-Amour one of the Petitioners opposed a Proposal made by M. Nicolas Cornet Doctor and Syndic of the said Faculty, to debate and condemn the Propositions, the said Cornet having to that end caused many Doctors, Religious and Secular, to come into the said Assembly, whom the said Syndic and his adherents had purposely convoked from several houses, intending by their number to represent the said Faculty. And that notwithstanding the opposition of the said Saint-Amour, the said Cornet and his adherents passed on to the said debate, and likewise deputed some amongst them to prepare the determination and condemnation of the said Propositions, and by the said Deputation made and drew up an Act which they attempt to make pass for a Conclusion of the said Faculty; That of such Opposition the said Saint-Amour took an Act before Notaries on the XXXI. day of July last, and persisting in the said Opposition, made an Appeal against the Abusivenesse of all that hath been done and passed, as well in the said Assembly of the first of July; as in other private ones; and also he made Defendants in their own ordinary names as well the said M. Nicholas Cornet, who proposed and required to be debated the said Propositions, as M. John Mulot Doctor and Dean of the said Faculty, who put the same under debate; with protestation of the said Saint-Amour to seek redress in the said Court, to which alone appertaineth the cognisance and jurisdiction of the said Appeal against Abuses: which Act of Appeal was signified to the said Mulot and Cornet, and to M. Maugin Tassin Junior Bedle, performing the office of Scribe, by Casault Usher of this Court, on the second day of August: and that nevertheless the said MM. John Mulot Dean, and Nicholas Cornet Syndic, with their Adherents, have not forborn to use all their power to cause the said Propositions to be debated and condemned in the ordinary Assembly of the said second day of August; which would have been of very dangerous consequence, and have brought all the said Faculty into great trouble, if the greatest part of the Doctors thereof had not for preservation of the peace and honour of their Body, by a better conduct hindered the said debate: And for that the said MM. John Mulot, Nicholas Cornet, and their Adherents, may yet hereafter continue in the same attempts, and by that means bring the Faculty of Divinity into division, notwithstanding the said Appeal against Abuses, if the same be not provided against; the said Petitioners, to whom the said Tassin performing the office of Scribe did in the said Assembly declare the notice given to himself of the said Act of Appeal, having had communication together thereon, determined for the redressing such disorders as these attempts might cause, to join with the said Saint-Amour, and becoming jointly with him Appellants to this Court, to set forth in time and place the causes and grounds of the said Appeal against Abuses, to the end to be redressed of all by the said Court. For these reasons they desired to be admitted Opposers with the said Saint-Amour, and Appellants against the abusivenesse of the said pretended Proposal and Conclusion of the first of July last, and of all that followed thereupon; to have the said Appeal allowed for good, and to be permitted to cause the said Cornet and Mulot to be cited and summoned into the Court by their proper and ordinary names, and all others whom it should concern; to the end proceed might be had upon the said Opposition and Appeal against Abuses, and that the Court would order parties to come and plead by such a day as it should please the said Court to assign; prohibitions in the mean time to be made of reading again and registering the said pretended Conclusion of the first of July, or any other Act made by the said pretended Deputies and their adherents, as also of proceeding further, till the said Court should determine therein. Moreover, whereas another Petition hath been presented by the said Petitioners for the further urging of the former; and that the said MM. Cornet and Pereyret, under whose names a pretended Censure was sent abroad, might be constrained to acknowledge, own or disown the said pretended Censure. Also the Acts and Papers annexed to the said Petitions, and the conclusions of the King's Attorney General having been seen and weighed; And for that the said Cornet and Pereyret, de Mincé and Saint-Amour, and M. James Hennequin an ancient Doctor of Sorbonne have been summoned and heard, and the said Pereyret and Cornet have declared that they did not publish that writing or draught of a Censure made by some particular Doctors commissioned for examining the Propositions therein contained, neither give charge to the Scribe of the said Faculty or any other to deliver out any act or copy thereof, but expressly forbidden him to communicate, publish or divulge the same, disowning the publication thereof, if any hath been made; and also have professed that the said Writing was not signed by any of them three, nor by the other Doctors appointed for examining the said Propositions; and that in the said draught delivered to the said Scribe, the said Propositions were not so determined as they are in the Copy annexed to the Petition, but only the passages of Scripture and Fathers, which the said appointed Doctors esteemed contrary to the said Propositions, were cited by them; all with an intention to make report thereof to the said Faculty assembled; Also whereas they have consented, that all things remain as they are, and give their word to do nothing in this matter directly or indirectly till the Court shall have given order therein: All this being considered, the said Chamber hath admitted and doth admit the said Petitioners Opposers and Appellants, hath held and doth hold the said Appeal valid, Ordaineth upon the whole, that the Parties shall have a hearing the first day after the Feast of S. Martin. In the mean time, besides the aforesaid Declaration, It hath made and doth make prohibitions and injunctions to the said Parties respectively both on the one side and the other, as well to publish the said writing and draught of Censure, as to agitate and bring into question the Propositions contained therein, also writ or publish anything concerning them directly or indirectly in any sort or manner whatsoever, till it shall be by the Court otherwise determined therein.  
Given in the Chamber of Vacations on the fifth of October, one thousand six hundred forty nine.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Of what passed during the months of October and November touching the Election of M. Hallier to the Office of Syndic.  
MOns. Hallier had been of sentiments and interests so different from those of M. Cornet in several things, that 'tis no small wonder that M. Cornet should think of going out of the office of Syndic, in the pursuit of the enterprise which he had contrived and hitherto little advanced; and that at his going out he should think of having M. Hallier for his successor in that place. Before that time they had never to my knowledge had any thing common, besides adherence and dependence on some persons of the Court of Rome; but in all other things a sufficiently great Antipathy. Nevertheless M. Hallier was advanced to the Office of Syndic by the whole Faction of M. Cornet; and indeed the person of the Syndic was of very great consequence for the success of the Enterprise, whether in regard of the correspondence necessary to be had with Rome for such things as depended thereof, or in regard of undertaking and carrying out those which should be acted in the Faculty.  
On one side, M. Hallier's just and disinteressed management I had observed in some Academical Affairs wherein we acted jointly together, kept me from thinking he could possibly resolve to favour M. Cornet's enterprise; but on the other it was perfectly visible that M. Cornet having in his dispose the suffrages necessary for obtaining the Syndicate, would not have determined to give the same to M. Hallier, unless he had first drawn from him all possible assurance to second his Designs. But to omit what may have been the tye between these two so opposite persons, I considered but one thing which I looked upon as that which ought to serve me for a rule in that Election after it was come to my knowledge; although I was very loath to make use of it, for that M. Hallier and I had ever been very good friends till that present; and for that when I had the honour to be Rector of the University, I had found him very active against the projects of the Jesuits to ruin it by getting to be incorporated into its body and made partakers of its privileges.  
But knowing that he had approved the doctrine of Sanctarel by setting his Approbation to the book of Corn. à Lapide a Jesuit upon the Canonical Epistles the same year that the Faculty condemned it, and all the Univesities of the Kingdom received and confirmed the Censure thereof; I conceived that to suffer him to enter into the sole Magistracy which is in the Faculty of Divinity, would be to trespass against my duty towards the King and the public, especially there being none but myself amongst all the Doctors, as I thought, that knew of his having given the said Approbation. Wherefore when M. Hallier was nominated for Syndic in the Assembly of the first of October 1649. and the suffrage was come to my turn, and no objection made by any of his unfitness for that place by reason of the aforesaid Approbation, I thought myself obliged to object the same, and upon that ground to oppose his election.  
I shall not stand here to recite the passages in that Assembly upon this matter, because they are contained in the Process Verbal which was drawn up thereupon and soon after Printed. It shall suffice to signify that M. de Heu Curé of S. Severin, M. Chastellain, M. Copin, M. de Mincé, M. Rousse, M. Bachelier and M. Brousse joined with me in the opposition wh●ch I made against the said election.  
M. Hallier employed divers of his friends to the end we might enter into some accommodement with him, and we on our part were as desirous thereof as himself, so far as the nature and circumstances of the matter permitted, and provided we might have sufficient assurance that such accommodement tended to the honour and public peace of the Faculty as well as to the satisfaction of the parties concerned.  
The first time he gave me occasion to speak thereof was the 12. of October by a Doctor much his friend and mine, who came to me as we were going from a Doctor's Act that day, and told me M. Hallier was prodigiously incensed against me, for that he understood I intended to prosecute in Parliament the opposition I had made against his election to the office of Syndic. That M. Hallier had enjoined him to assure me that he was absolutely disposed to live in peace with me, and to do his utmost for that of the Faculty: That he desired nothing more than to stifle the divisions arisen upon M. Cornet's enterprise, to reconcile the different opinions touching the prepositions made the first of July, and to reduce the most exasperated minds to a just temper and mutual concord. That he promised in the word of an honest man to use his authority to these ends, and to deport himself towards us in his Syndical so well, that we should have cause to be glad of him, if we would but leave him in quiet and liberty to perform the duties of his place. That should he be brought before the Parliament upon the accusation framed by me against him, we ought to expect from him (I, particularly) all such treatments as are to be feared from a man justly provoked and offended in his honour, which was dear to him, and which he resolved to maintain with the hazard of all other things: That we knew well what correspondence and credit he had at Rome to obtain or stop a Bull there against us. That he would interest the Pope and the Nuncio in his business; That he would stir up the Clergy of France whose Agent he had been in the last Assembly of the year 1645. That all this put together against the Parliament, might be able to balance its authority and make good his attempts. That as for me, he would destroy me, and that informations were promised him already against me.  
I could hardly believe all these things, did I not take them out of a letter which I writ the next day while they were yet fresh in my memory, to one of our common friends, whom I thought fit to advertise thereof. And here take the very words of my answer to the menaces of M. Hallier.  
I answered in sum, that I desired peace as much as he, and had always desired it; that whatever should happen, I would always act my utmost for it: but I wished a good one, safe and honourable. That I was not a man to betray weakly the cause of God and the King for a counterfeit peace. That all the powers wherewith he threatened me terrified me not, in as much as I hoped the justice of my cause and proceeding being known to them, they would approve my do, and there would be no division for this cause between them and our Lords of the Court of Parliament. That I was sorry that he engaged in this business; but private intorests are nothing to me when the public are concerned. That whatever he could say or do, I would omit nothing of my duty and of what was in my power for the sevice of God and the King, and for the defence of Truth and Justice.  
Some days after came the festival of S. Ursula; for the solemnising of which all the Doctors of Sorbonne not absent in remote Provinces, resort thither together. M. the Archbishop of Ambrun was to preach there this year, and the Queen was to come thither. My chamber was chosen for the said Archbishop to retire into before and after his preaching; and accordingly he came thither about nine a clock in the morning.  
Soon after his coming he began to speak to me of the foresaid agreement in a manner something more gentle than that of the above mentioned message, and to invite me thereunto by reasons not only relating to particular Doctors and all the Faculty, but also to the whole body of the Sat. This Prelate may remember that he found it no hard matter to convince me thereof, because I was perfectly prepared thereunto not only for public considerations and the desire which (he said) the Queen had for the agreement to be made, but also for that I had myself as great a desire of it as could be imagined. Nevertheless all the conference the Archbishop and I had about this matter was terminated in general discourses, and we spoke not of any conditions that might be made to that end, neither at that time nor in two or three other converses, wherein he spoke to me of it again that day. There was likewise another person of the College much devoted to M. Hallier, called M. Segures, who spoke to me about it in the same manner too without specifying any conditions thereof, and who knew also how desirous I was of it; but I did not find that an accommodation was any thing advanced by the discourse of either of them, whilst they remained within those terms.  
Wherefore the time urging either to conclude it, if M. Hallier were disposed to do such things as were necessary in order to it, or to pursue my opposition before the Parliament in the few days that remained thereof, to the end to get a Rule of Court therein before our ensuing Assembly of the 4. of November, if the public interests could not consist with the particular aims of M. Hallier; I resolved to go the next day to M. Segures, to tell him as much and desire him to advertise M. Hallier thereof, and withal to propound to him what I desired of him, to the end I might have ground to desist from the prosecution I should otherwise be obliged to use agninst him; and to know after he had spoken with him, whether he liked the conditions proposed to him, or not.  
M. Segure made several visits to M. Hallier within two or three days, (during which all prosecutions against him were suspended) about the expedients and conditions which were to be taken in order to concluding the said agreement. I shall not mention the same here, because they are to be set down in a List, whereof I shall insert a Copy in due place. It shall suffice to say that M. Hallier made no difficulty to close with them, and to give all the verbal assurances thereof that could be desired before persons of honour and authority who were able to constrain him to the performance of what he promised: but he refused to subscribe what he promised, thinking either it would be a dishonour to him, or that we disinherited his word, or that it might be said that he contracted for the place by his signature.  
We promised him that we would keep it very secret, that none but the Coadjutor of Paris, now Cardinal of Retz (to whom M. Hallier had addressed to entreat him to interpose in this accommodement) should be the Depositary of it; and that ●t should serve only to have recourse unto and regulate things by, in case that during his Syndicship complaint were made of his having failed in any one of the promised matters: That his office being expired, he should have his signature redelivered to him, to burn it. Moreover to remove this scruple, we offered him to sign on our part that which we should promise to him. In fine, we yielded so far, as that we were contented with his writing down the things which should be promised on both sides without signing them, to the end the same might remain a certain rule of Conditions of agreement, whereunto recourse might be had in case of need. But what ever could be said to him, he would never be brought to consent to sign any thing or leave any thing in writing concerning the said Conditions.  
Wherefore seeing there remained not above two or three days of the Parliament, and that we could do no good upon M. Hallier, we thought fit to signify to him by M. Segure, that, after his refusal of the accommodation offerred to him, he ought not to take it ill if we continued to procure a Report of the Petition which we had presented against him.  
Accordingly we solicited a Report thereof, which did not hinder but that M. Segure came again the last day to make us new tender of accommodement, of which the Bishop of S. Malio had spoken to him; namely, that the matters promised by M. Hallier should be written down and remain in the hands of the coadjutor, not as if M. Hallier were obliged thereto by us, but as if the Coadjutor caused them to be written for his own remembrance, and reciprocally desired the same of M. Hallier and of us.  
I willingly accepted this tender; but not till I should have imparted the same to the Doctors interessed in the business with me, without whose advice I would not conclude any thing therein. But as I was upon the point to impart it to them we understood that the very morning of that day, which was the 27. the Parliament had issued an Arrest upon our Petition, by which the Court received us as Appellants against the election of M. Hallier to the Syndicship, and ordained that upon the Appeal the Parties should have a hearing on the morrow after the feast of S. Martin; in the mean time prohibition was made to the said M. Hallier to meddle or interpose in the said office of Syndic, or execute any part thereof; and injunction to M. Cornet to discharge the duties thereof as he did before M. Hallier was chosen, till the Court should ordain otherwise therein. That moreover the Arrests issued against the Religious Mendicants, (who also had contributed with their Suffrages to the said election to the number of above two, though till this occasion there had been an Antipathy and continual feud between them and M. Hallier) should be put in execution.  
We looked upon this Arrest as a new obstacle to our agreement, because we were not so much Masters of the affair as before; and the discharging of the Syndicship being forbidden to M. Hallier by this Arrest, there would need another to re-establish him in it.  
Nevertheless there was no forbearance of seeking means of reconcilement, especially during the two last Festivals of All-Saints; and M. Deschasteaux, than Rector of the University, took very great care therein. But in fine, the Doctors with whom I was joined in the business, would not hear of aught but of M. Hallier's signing what he promised, and of the writing's remaining in the hands of the Coadjutor, for the end and reasons abovementioned.  
The draught of Conditions which we required M. Hallier to sign, contained, 1. That whilst he was Syndic he should promise for the restoring such peace as was in the Faculty before the month of July, and preserving the same, to keep an equality between both parties, by letting them enjoy the freedom of their sentiments, as well to utter the same viuâ voce, as to write them in their Theses. Moreover, not to carry on in any manner whatsoever the enterprise of M. Cornet, set on foot in the month of July, concerning the examination and censuring of certain Propositions, and nomination of Deputies for those purposes. As also not to reject either in Theses or any other way, the Doctrine and Authority of S. Augustine, as it is contained in his Books, and as it hath been taught in the Schools till then, for example, by M. de saint Beufoe. 2. That in case he (whilst Syndic) were obliged to go from Paris, he should promise to acquaint MM. N. and N. before he speak thereof to the Faculty, for prevention of such inconveniences as may arise upon the substitution of another, who may design to foment division in the Faculty. 3. That he should bind himself, being Syndic, and promise not to hinder, as such, or otherwise, the execution of the Arrests issued for the regulation of the Suffrages of Doctor's Mendicants, in Assemblies and Consultations of the Faculty. 4. That provided he denied publicly, and persisted to deny his having given approbation to the Book of Cornelius à Lapide upon the Canonical Epistles, and consented to all sorts of condemnations sued and prosecuted against the Propositions contained in that Author, of which complaint had been made to the Faculty: the Doctors who opposed his election, promised also to desist from their opposition, and to suffer him peaceably to exercise the duties of his place.  
It was eleven a clock at night on the third of November 1649. when M. Hallier resolved to write with his own hand the Conditions of this agreement, to put the same the next morning, before the Assembly, into those of the Coadjutor, and to promise to him performance thereof, accordingly as they are here expressed. I had notice of it on the fourth, which was the day of the Assembly, between six and seven in the morning, to the end I might repair to the Coadjutor, as accordingly I did with M. Taignier, and found M. Hallier there before us.  
After some slight contests which touched not the bottom of the business, M. the Coadjutor taking him aside and giving him the Conditions to read which he had promised to write, to the end they might remain in his the said Coadjutor's hands, M. Hallier having read them, spoke some words very low to him. After which we being drawn near, the Coadjutor told us, that M. Hallier not only refused to write, but likewise was not resolved to promise by word the Articles contained in that Paper. He expressed to us great regret to see this business out of probability of accommodation. For (said he) were there nothing between them but the mode and circumstances of things, some expedient m●ght be sought to facilitate the same; but there is not so much as an agreement about the substance. We testified to the Coadjutor how troubled we were at the averseness of M. Hallier, and beseeched him to remember, that we were no wise the cause of the miscarriage of the intended reconcilement.  
So we returned to the Sorbonne, to the end the Arrest, as yet not s gnified to M. Hallier, M. the Dean, and M. Bouvot the Register, might be signified unto them before the Assembly. I will not here report any thing particularly that was done therein, all being contained at large in the Process Verbal, which was soon after printed thereupon, and signed by the Usher of the Parliament, who came to the Assembly to signify the same there. I shall only say in this place, that notwithstanding the said Arrest which expressly interdicted M. Hallier all the functions of Syndic, he did not forbear to execute them all in this Assembly; and this, with a strange contempt of the Parliaments Author tie, by himself and all the Doctors who elected him to that place.  
The day of this Assembly being passed, it behooved to wait the resitting of the Parliament, to represent to them the infringements that had been made of their Arrests. We presented a new Petition to them, by wh●ch we besought them to take order therein, and cause the same to be executed. We annexed to this Petition the Process Verbal of the Usher, and a Summons made to M. Bouvot on the 18. of November, to declare who had till that day discharged the office of Syndic since the Assembly of the 4th. of November, to which M. Bouvot had answered that it was M. Hallier.  
In the mean time M. Hallier ceased not to renew his solicitations for an accord with us, notwithstanding all that was passed. He had recourse for that effect to the Bishop of Amiens and the Coadjutor, and again assured them, and entreated them to assure us, that he would deal equally with both sides in the matters of Grace, Predestination, and , and would not in Theses reject the sentiments of S. Augustine.  
After what was past we saw no great likelihood of any reconciliation, and little considered what might be propounded to us from M. Hallier; nor did we trouble ourselves with deliberating what to do in reference to his late offer to the said two Prelates: For before they had acquainted us with it, he went to the Coadjutor and desired him to release him of his word, and excuse him if he could promise nothing.  
Friday 26 November, M. Broussel reported our new Petition, to which report the first Precedent spoke thus: See (said he) here's a very considerable business, to reproach an honest man for an Approbation given by him ever since the year 1626. Who are the Petitioners? M. Broussel answered, the Petition must be read, and then, Sir, you will see who the Petitioners are, and find that this is not an affair of so small consequence as you apprehend. The Petition was read. When I was named, the first Precedent said, There, There's the man that makes all this ado. However the Petition was signed with Soit montre, Let it be admitted. The Precedent de Mesmes seconded the motions of the first Precedent to pacify matters. But when the Doctor's Mendicants came to be spoken of, the Precedent de Mesmes said, We cannot always live in this manner, some course must be taken for redress.  
After ten a clock the first Precedent sent to seek M. Cazaut, and asked him whether he had made the Process Verbal, concerning what had passed in Sorbonne. M. Cazaut answered, Yes, and that that Process Verbal would astonish him; That never was seen such a Rebellion against the Arrests of the Court. The first Precedent caused the first draught of it to be brought to him, the copy being not yet finished.  
We went the same day to M. Bignon, and told him, that we would cause our Adversaries to be Summoned to appear the next morning at the Bar of the Parliament, to argue the business, and he answered us that we should be heard there.  
The arguing of other Causes being dispatched, MM r. the King's Learned Council caused all the people to withdraw saving us. As M. Langlois, the Advocate retained on our side, was beginning to open the matter, and we stood towards the window, there appeared on the other side an Attorney or Procurator, who said, Messieurs, The Cause intended to be opened to you I am charged with, my Clients have had no notice of this hearing till yesterday in the Evening, and they have no Advocate provided. M. Talon thereupon asked him, Where his Clients were? He answered, In the Hall: M. Talon said; Call them hither, there needs but one word in this business, we will hear them by their own mouths. The Attorney said, They are not instructed in their own affairs; and so he withdrew. We continued our pleading, and besides the opening of our Case by the Advocate, MM. de Mincé and Brousse displayed it from the bottom. Amongst other things which were spoken there, we complained of the Coriolanus reprinted by M. Bail, containing the same Doctrine with Corn. à Lapide. The King's Learned Council told us, that when such evil books were published, there needed no more in order to have justice upon them, but straightway to bring them to the Bar. Their conclusions were; that on the King's part nothing hindered but we might have audience the first day, and they told us that we must repair to the first Precedent, who would sign us a Placet for appearance on Monday morning.  
M. the first Precedent aiming to prevent us of an Arrest, and to reduce us to a Treaty with our Adversaries, made many scruples to award us the said Placet; but we were so urgent upon the rules of Court, notwithstanding the difficulties and refusals he made us, that at length he took his pen and began to superscribe our Placet. Yet as he was writing, a resolution took him, to deny us the same absolutely; he returned the pen which we had presented to him, and instead of appearing with our Advocates, as we ought to do according to the usual order, he sent us back to our Reporter, by whom (he said) we should be heard on Monday concerning our Petition. Nevertheless when our Reporter was according to this Rule going to speak thereof on Monday, the first Precedent stopped him by a new diversion to other business, and only sent to tell us at ten a clock, that we must come and wait upon him after dinner. We did so; and there met with our Adversaries; in which interview, and many others in the same place, we had divers conferences with them in his presence. It is not material to give account of them; only I will touch two circumstances, which are too considerable to be omitted. One is, that M. Hallier having in one of those visits told the first Precedent, that he could not obtain peace with us, because he had refused to sign the Propositions of Jansenius: We answered him immediately, that he had never been spoken to about them. M. Hallier replied, that we caused the same be demanded of him by the Coadjutor: We answered, that it was nothing so. But returning again the next morning, M. de Lalane, who in the mean time went to the Coadjutor for the same purpose, said to the first Precedent, Sir, I am commanded by the Coadjutor to tell you from him, that he never from us demanded of M. Hallier to sign the Propositions of Jansenius, as M. Hallier told you yesterday. To which the first Precedent having answered, that that was not the matter in question; M. the Lalane replied, Sir, it is not just that M. Hallier should impose upon the Coadjutor and us, and that we say nothing thereof.— The second is, that whatever instance we could use to bring him to allow that our contests should be decided according to the ordinary ways by the judgement of the Court, he would not consent thereunto, but told us that we must labour to end the same ourselves by agreement; adding, that this was the mind of the Court, which he testified, that he had received order to acquaint us with.   

CHAP. XIV.  
Of what was done in the Assembly of the first of December 1649. in order to the Agreement desired by the first Precedent.  
THe first day of December being arrived, M. Charton told the Assembly of the Faculty, that the first Precedent had sent for either side, and signified to us, that the Court of Parliament desired we would seek amongst ourselves some terms of agreement.  
M. de Mincé spoke next, and testified that the first President's meaning was not to remit businesses to the judgement of the Faculty, but only to invite both parties to seek ways of Accommodation amongst ourselves.  
M. Hallier spoke something which caused a contest to arise between M. de Mincé and him, and which was the occasion that M. de Mincé having told him that he ought not to thrust himself into the Administrations of the Syndicship, M. Hallier declared, that he did not pretend to discharge any of them in this Assembly.  
M. Mulot put to the Vote that which was propounded by M. Charton. M. Messier Subdean, delivering his opinion the first, said, that for the Propositions it would be fit to nominate two Doctors on each side, to the end they might confer together of what was to be done. But being advertised that the Propositions were not under consideration, he altered his suffrage, and said, that he judged the way of agreement was, to execute the Arrests of the Court.  
After which no person spoke more concerning the Propositions, till M. Pereyret, whose advices are usually infallible Prognostics, and certain rules of the sentiments of all those of that party. He said, that in order to a solid peace, it behoved to discuss the principal cause of the division, to look to that which chief had incensed us, and that was Doctrine. That as for the Syndicship and the other things, they were not the principal, but only accessaries. That it behoved to apply the remedy to the root of the Evil. That it was this that was chief to be examined, and from which we might most expect peace. That all which had been done proceeded from that source. Wherefore it was requisite to give satisfaction therein, and for that end to take time to deliberate again thereupon, and in the mean while to invite all people to examine them. That they who were deputed should do the same. That in the interim it was fit to live in friendship and good intelligence one with another; and for this purpose, to forbear writing or speaking any thing about the said Propositions, and putting the same into Theses. That if in the mean space any Bachelors or Doctors attempt any thing contrary to this rule, either in Theses or Books, it behoved the Faculty to punish them sharply and severely by its Censures. That not only the first Precedent, but also all the other Precedents and Counsellors whom they had conferred with, had advised to proceed in this manner; and thus it was that they designed to act in this Accommodation.  
M. Coppin perceiving that this advice tended to renew the enterprise of the first of July, said as well in his own name as in that of a great number of Doctors, (whose mind never was to eschew the examination of those Propositions or others, but who on the contrary always desired that it should be set afoot, provided it were done with conditions necessary for the manifestation of truth, and the establishment of a firm peace amongst the Doctors) He said (as I intimated) as well in his own name as in that of the Doctors, that if the resolution were taken to set upon such examination, he demanded that certain conditions should be observed therein, such as all equitable persons would esteem just and necessary for the right performance of the same, and which he was going to propound to the Faculty: To do which, he took in his hand a paper, wherein he had written the same; but upon this there was raised a great noise, caused partly by such as liked not the mention of Conditions, and partly by others who disliked that we should propose them, because that in this Assembly the question was not about such examination.  
We answered, that indeed the Dean did not put the same to the Vote, yet M. Pereyret did not forbear to debate upon it, and by his discourse give cause to believe that it was intended to turn the deliberations of the Faculty that way. M. Pereyret went about to put it off, but he could not handsomely. M. Amiot maintained that M. Pereyret had reason to say that such examination was the thing to be considered, for that it was required to seek ways of accord, and the difference being about Doctrine, it was fit to speak thereof. As M. Coppin continued offering to read his paper, (because there would be no time to read it after the examination were concluded upon, and the noise continuing, he could not have a moment of audience) on the one side M. Mulot out of a caprichio by force snatched away his paper, and M. Pereyret on the other to appease the noise which increased more and more, altered his former sentence, or at least explained it; and concluded no more to examine the Propositions, or to forbid the maintaining of them. M. Mulot also rendered M. Coppin his paper, who gave it into the hands of M. Bouvot, to the end it might be registered, to be made use of, and had recourse to, as often as it should please those Gentlemen to attempt the examination of the matters in contest.  
M. Charton delivering his opinion, did not forbear to conclude again upon the examination of the Propositions, without speaking aught, or having any regard to the Conditions presented by M. Coppin. M. Morel advised the same with M. Charton, and said that the examination was already made by the Deputies, that there remained no more but for them to make their report thereof; that it was requisite to defer it still, and in the mean time to forbid the Bachelors to maintain those Propositions; but that it was not fit to name other Deputies to discuss the same; and as for M. Hallier, that things ought to be so ordered as that he abide in the office of Syndic.  
M. Hallier stood up, and said he would willingly relinquish it, if need were; yet he should advise, that eight or ten Doctors conferred together about what was to be done therein; but that it behoved not to speak of condemning the one or the other.  
M. Amiot said, that the time agreed upon to forbear speaking of the Propositions, and of the other transactions of the first of July, was expired; that it behoved now to speak thereof, and to make valid what was till then only suspended.  
When I perceived that this advice to take the Propositions in hand again was proposed by many Doctors, and that it was to be feared lest it should prevail, I caused notice to be given to an Usher of the Court of Parliament, whom I kept ready to signify, in case of need, the Arrest issued on the fifth of October, and spoken of before, by which they were forbidden to proceed further upon the business of the Propositions. M. Tassin who received the charge of signifying the said Arrest, brought it to the Faculty to the Table: They knew not what it was, but had wholly forgotten this Arrest, for the publishing of it had been deferred whilst it seemed not necessary; wherefore it was easily resolved that it should be read, to know what it was. Whilst it was reading, MM. Pereyret and Cornet denied their having spoken that which the Arrest expressly related to have been spoken by them, in presence of the Court, when they were heard there. M. de Saint Roch replied to them, that then they needed only to enter a challenge of falsity against the Arrest, and M. Brousse required a Memorandum of the Lie which they gave the whole Court.  
After that this Arrest was read, the Suffrages continued on. M. Cornet said the signification of this Arrest disturbed the peace, and hindered them from deliberating of ways of accord, for that it bond their hands. He was answered, that ways of accord were sought for upon M. Hallier's business; that this Arrest concerned only the examination of the Propositions, in which it forbade them further to proceed, and therefore did not hinder but that they might endeavour to find means of agreement. M. Cornet continuing his speech, said, that then himself was of M. Chappellas' opinion, and that these contests aught to be taken up according to the desire of the first Precedent, who made the overture of suspending the business of the Propositions during three or four months; and that himself should advise that the said term be prolonged; and nevertheless because the affair of the Syndic required expedition, that three Doctors of each side be nominated, and three in the name of the Faculty, who should all agree about means to accommode the contests.  
M. Amiot did not forbear, after this advice, to require a Memorandum of the publishing of this Arrest, as if it had been a misdeed committed against the intentions of the Parliament, by them who caused it to be published. And M. Brousse required one likewise of the time in which it was published, namely, after divers had given their Suffrages for continuing the examination of the Propositions. He also laid open in general what was contained in the paper of Conditions presented by M. Coppin, and required again that M. Bouvot should not fail to register it.  
After the reading of the said Arrest; there was no more speech of proceeding to examine the Propositions, but only of nominating Commissioners for the business of M. Hallier; and at length after divers Expedients mentioned, the plurality of Suffrages concluded that M. Hallier should name three on his own part, M. de Mincé three others, and that as many should be nominated in behalf of the Faculty, as persons indifferent, namely M. Chappellas, M. Gauquelin, and M. du Val, which nine were to meet and consult amongst themselves of means of accord, and make report to the Faculty the seventh of the same month, of what they offered in order to an Accommodation.  
The proceeding of the Doctors with whom we had to do, was sufficiently strange throughout the whole deliberation. For they debated in the same manner as they would have done if they had been Supreme Arbiters of the Accommodation, and as if the Court had remitted the whole business unto them to ordain thereupon. And although we were all divided into two parties, of which some were more heated and others less, yet they pretended that there was a third body between them and us, which they called The Faculty, (which yet consisted only of themselves) because with the help of the Religious Mendicants their number was unquestionably greater than ours. We did not omit to intimate to them very distinctly upon two or three occasions in this Assembly, that there was not in the Company a third party which composed the Faculty; that neither the Court nor the first Precedent had remitted us to be judged by themselves, but only to seek between them and us the means of reconciling us, and with charge, that if we did it not, we should have recourse to the Court of Parliament, to be judged there. Notwithstanding, though we endeavoured to make this as clear as possible, they could scarce be brought to understand our language, nor to forbear acting as if they had been absolute masters of our differences, and as if the Faculty had been some kind of thing distinct from themselves and us.  
Moreover M. Brousse opposed this Result as well in his own name as in ours. He said Commissioners could not be nominated on behalf of the Faculty, which was no party by itself in this affair, but was wholly divided into two parties. He said, that if it were requisite to nominate Doctors for mediators between such as should be nominated on either side, it would belong to these Doctors to choose them, and to agree about them, in case themselves could not agree together. He said, that particularly the persons named as indifferent, were not so; having declared themselves too openly in this assembly for M. Hallier: and he warned the said M. Hallier and the Dean to execute the Arrests published; telling them; that in default thereof he made against them all Protestations requisite in such cases, and persisted in all Oppositions, Appeals and Protestations heretofore made. Nevertheless the Dean forbore not to warn M. de de Mincé to nominate three Doctors on the part of the Opposers for carrying on the Accord. M. de Mincé answered, that without prejudice to the Declarations and Protestations made by M. Brousse, he would nominate them that day, and deliver them in writing to M. Bouvot the Register. M. Hallier was likewise warned by the Dean, and he immediately nominated for himself MM. Pereyret, Morel, and Le Moine. And thus this Assembly ended.  
The Conditions for examining the doctrine of Grace which M. Coppin presented in our behalf to the Faculty, were not entered in our Registers, what ever importunity we could use to have it done, because M. Cornet ever since that time was Master of our Registers, and put nothing therein but what himself would. Yet they were printed almost as soon as they were presented, and have been so again; however I shall not omit to give a Copy of them in the Collection of pieces I intent to place after this Journal. I shall only observe here, that it is said there in express terms, that the Propositions presented by M. Cornet to the Faculty for Censure, are equivocal and ambiguous, and are not maintained by any one in the sense which they seem to have of themselves. Postquam omnibus innotuit quàm periculosè M. Nicolaus Cornet Propositiones quasdam de Gratia ambiguas & aequivocas, A NULLO AUTORE IN SENSU QUEM PRAE SE FERRE VIDENTUR ASSERTAS, vocaverit in medium, & examinandas Facultati exhibuerit, etc.   

CHAP. XV.  
Of what passed after this Assembly till the seventh of December, in reference to the Agreement debated of.  
THough we were not bound to follow the Result of the Assembly held in the forenoon, but only so far as we judged it convenient to conform thereunto; neverthesse's, not to reject this way of accommodation, in case it might have any good success, and having considered that in particular conferences about this affair we should always have liberty to accept or reject, as we thought good; M. the Mincé in the afternoon delivered a Note to M. Bouvot, in which he nominated M. Chastellain, M. Bachelier, and me, to confer with the Doctors nominated by M. Hallier, for accommoding the Process commenced against his pretended Election to the Syndicship, or rather for finding means to bring him fairly out of it; because he (the said de Mincé) always thought that M. Hallier ought not to have been elected to it; for which purpose he made this nomination of Commissioners or Deputies, without prejudice to our Opposition.  
M. Chastellain, the ancientest of these nine Deputies, assembled us according to the custom of the College of Sorbonne to the lodgings of M. Bouvot on the fourth of December, between nine and ten in the morning. When we were all come thither, he propounded to us the matter about which we were assembled, and put it under deliberation amongst us, as it uses to be in the Faculty, to the end every one might give his advice thereupon.  
M. Pereyret, who was the first to speak to the proposal made by M. Chastellain, delivered his advice as it shall be reported hereafter. In the mean time it is worth observing, that by all that passed in the several conferences we had with the first Precedent touching our affairs, we found in him so great an averseness to suffer them to be managed by the usual ways of justice, and so great a resolution to have us labour to terminate them ourselves, that we were constrained before that Assembly of the first of Decemb. to resolve thereupon, and bethink ourselves of such conditions as were fit to be offered for the reconciliation which we might be obliged to make, to the end that by concluding the same, we might live in the Faculty with some kind of peace and freedom.  
Those Conditions, besides them which concerned the Syndicship of M. Hallier, hereafter related, were, 1. That the two years of his Syndicship being expired, M. de S. André, who had had in the assembly of his election the plurality of legitimate Suffrages, be Syndic, and exercise the functions thereof during the two following years. 2. That during the time in which M. Hallier should have occasion to be absent from Paris, whether for the necessities of his Archdeaconry of S. Malo or otherwise, M. de S. André exercise the functions thereof. 3. That M. Hallier come to the Sorbonne thrice a week, upon days appointed, to satisfy the Doctors and Bachelors that have any thing to do with him. 4. That M. Hallier have no power to reject out of Theses the Propositions of the ancient Doctrine of the Faculty, and of France, touching the Church, the Councils, the Pope, the Supremacy of the King, and the Liberties of the Gallicane Church, for the maintaining of which, the Bachelors who have their Theses signed by their chief Masters and Precedents, be left by him in perfect liberty. That likewise he have no power to reject out of them the doctrine of S. Augustin touching Grace, Predestination and ; nor to keep the said Theses, nor to alter in any thing the order and discipline of the Faculty. 5. That the Conclusions complained of a year or eighteen months ago, be reviewed and entered into the Registers conformably to the truth of the things which passed, and in such words as may not injure any one, but may be admitted by such as are concerned therein. 6. That the two Conscriptors nominated contrary to form in the absence of the opposers of M. Hallier's election, being persons altogether partial, be either both, or at least one of them changed, and two others duly agreed upon put in their places; or that one of them quit his office, and such Doctor put in his room as the Opposers should choose, to take care as well of the Conclusions hereafter to be made, as of the Doctors to be nominated for examining the Bachelors, to the end to hinder, that when it is known that any of them are taken to be of opinions not agreeable to one of the parties, there be not examiners assigned them of wholly differing judgements, and inclinable to use them ill in their examinations. 7. That the Advocate's General be informed of all these Conditions of our Agreements, to the end they may add what we may possibly have omitted conducive to the public interest, the King's service, and the duty of their offices.  
M. Bachelier, who was to speak next after M. Pereyret in this private assembly, proposed some of these conditions; and before the others declared their sentiments, M. Pereyret said, that provided they were agreed upon the Capital matter of these contests, all that M. Bachelier required would admit no scruple, but be very easy to perform. He added further, that these things needed not to have been demanded, being employed sufficiently without being spoken of; as also that the expenses made on either side in these contests, be reemboursed out of the public moneys of the Faculty.  
All the other Gentlemen who spoke after M. Bachelier, till it came to me, were of M. Pereyret's opinion, both as to the substance and as to the circumstances of what M. Bachelier added thereunto, saving that some alleged that it was not in our power to make Conscriptors, but that they were to be nominated by the Faculty: all agreed that it was just to make them according to these conditions, and that the Faculty would be inclined to nominate such as with submission to it we should agree upon.  
I was obliged to follow the order which all those Gentlemen kept, and I spoke last. I testified how great joy I found in their inclinations to our peace; but that the better to judge and speak thereof with more certainty, it would be fit to write down and view the conditions with which it was made, that so they might be performed before the peace be judged perfectly concluded and agreed upon; That I would for my own part contribute my utmost thereunto; That I had great hopes all these conditions would be performed, both for that I accounted them just, and because I perceived they were acceptable to them: But yet that in these kinds of transactions it behooved not to defer those things till after-Agreements, which ought to precede, or at least accompany them. Every one advised me to fear nothing, and told me, that content should be given me; and so way was given to M. Pereyret to dictate to M. Bouvot the Register who was present, the things which he had spoken in his Advice. The Copy thereof here follows, being all filled with his own matter, and having, no doubt been complotted before with M. Cornet.  
4 Decemb. 1649.  
MM.— deputed by the Faculty have agreed, That whereas provision hath been sufficiently made in reference to the Propositions in question by the Ecclesiastical Determinations and ancient Decrees of the Faculty; It is not necessary to proceed to an Examination or Censure, but it sufficeth to enjoin the Syndic to see to the execution of the Decrees heretofore made both for doctrine and discipline: And in case any scruples arise touching the aforesaid Propositions, or others relating to the matter of Grace, & de Auxiliis, That then the said Syndic shall take the advice of all the Doctors that were his Predecessors in that Charge.  
And for what concerns the Syndicship, That after M. Hallier shall have reiterated the declaration which he made in the Faculty on the fourth of November, that he did not approve the book of Cornelius a Lapide, but disallows the doctrine contained therein concerning the power of Temporal Princes; and that he adheres wholly to the doctrine of the Faculty in this point, and to the Censures which it hath made thereupon, and amongst others on the 1. & 4. of April 1626. And after that for justifying his innocence in this particular, he shall have presented a Petition to the Court of Parliament that Prohibitions be made to all Printers to print the said Book of Cornelius a Lapide with the said supposed Approbation, with penalties against the Offenders: Then with a common consent his Election shall be allowed.  
Signed, 

Chastellain,  
Pereyret,  
Chappellas,  
Bachelier,  
Gauquelin,  
Le Moine,  
morel,  
Du Val.    
After the Gentlemen abovenamed had signed, M. De Saint-Amour being moved to sign also, demanded time to consider, and a Copy of the present Result.  
Signed, Ph. Bouvot.  
I was very attentive to that which M. Bouvot writ, whilst M. Pereyret dictated to him, and I very easily perceived the equivocal terms wherein this Accord was drawn in reference to the Propositions. I looked upon it as a new seminary of divisions upon all occasions, wherein every one might have ground to interpret it to his own advantage. That our Adversaries being more numerous than we, would overrule its interpretation when ever they pleased. And lastly, that the Referring to the ancient Syndics such scruples as might arise about Theses, was the establishing of a petty Tribunal, and kind of Inquisition in the Faculty, by attributing to them a Jurisdiction appertaining to all the Doctors in a body, which might hereafter put fetters and constraint upon their sentiments, which ought to be preserved in the liberty hitherto so advantageous to them. This I accounted so much the more dangerous, for that amongst the Six Doctors formerly Syndics, MM. Pereyret and Cornet being of the number, and M. Hallier the present Syndic, I did not find so many of them equitable to us, as there were prejudiced against us. Wherefore upon the motion of signing this Writing as soon as it was finished, before any one had signed it, I took M. Chastellain and M. Bachelier aside, and beseeched them that they would take one day's time to review and examine it beforehand, as well for the reasons abovesaid which I partly noted to them, as for that there was no mention therein of any of the conditions which we had demanded in order to this agreement, and I thought not expedient to sign any before they were all performed; That we had to do with people that would never seek reconcilement with us as they do, were it not that they found themselves forced to it by the justice of the prosecutions we intent against them, and who would afterwards laugh at us and all that they have promised us, if we should give over those so just and necessary prosecutions without making the benefits thereof which we may for establishing the order, discipline and ancient doctrine of the Faculty; That we had reduced them to reason about the business of the Propositions by the Arrest of the fift of October. That this of the Syndicship would have as good an issue; that it should never be carried without occasioning an information of the infringements made of the Arrests of Parliament touching Religious Mendicants, (especially at the time when M. Broussel and M. Viol came to the Faculty) and without doing all things necessary for repairing the disobediences committed against the authority of the Court, and for procuring the execution of those Arrests which they knew to be so important to the good of the Faculty. I entreated them that for the honour of God they would have one afternoons patience for examining all that was to be considered about this business. But with all the representations I could use, they were not to be brought to any delay. M. Chastellain was much troubled with the Gout, and had caused himself to be brought with very great pain from his own Lodging to that of M. Bouvot, and therefore could not be prevailed with to come again, nor M. Bachelier to do any thing but what he saw M. Chastellain do. So all eight signed the Writing, as it is set down before; and at the signing of it, the rest assured M. Chastellain and M. Bachelier, that they would not fail in the conditions which we had required of them.  
I was much surprised to find myself the only person left to sign them, of nine who were much more ancient, experienced and judicious than myself; I saw that I could not avoid being blamed as obstinate, the sole cause of the divisions of the Faculty, and willing to keep up the disorder, of which some reproaches had been already made me with less appearance than there was in this occasion: but on the other side I could not resolve to avoid this vain reproach by signing a thing which seemed to me so evidently mischievous.  
However, they pressed me to sign it by threatening me to make complaints of me everywhere, and to impute to me all the evil that might arise from our disunion; but I could not be moved to do it; and all the expedient I could devise in this difficult conjuncture, was, to require time to consider what I was to do, and a Copy of the Result which they would have me sign as it is noted by our Register at the foot thereof, and is above declared.  
When I conferred hereupon with divers of our Brethren, I found none but was very glad of the resistance which I made thereto; many of them betook themselves to represent the consequences thereof to M. Chastellain and M. Bachelier; who at length became persuaded that I had reason on my side, particularly in reference to the petty Tribunal which was going to be erected amongst us, (consisting of the other Syndics) who were to become the only rules and masters of doctrine; and M. Chastellain resolved to summon us together again, to review and put into Latin that which was signed, to the end it might be fit to be reported to the Faculty; and for that by reason of his indisposition he was unable to come again to the house of the Faculty, he entreated us to meet at his own.  
It was on S. Nicolas' day in the afternoon. When I arrived there, the new Result was already prepared in Latin, and signed by all the Deputies except M. Chappellas and le Moyne, who were not yet come. It was presented to me ready drawn and signed as I am going to insert it here, to the end I might sign it also.  
ANNO Dom. 1649. die 4. mensis Decembris, Honorandi Magistri nostri, Chastellain, Pereyret, Chappellas, Bachelier, Morel Sorbonicus, Gauquelin, le Moyne, Du Val, & de Saint-Amour, respectiuè à Facultate deputati in publicis Comitiis ejusdem mensis concluserunt & convenerunt inter se, ad Facultatem referendum esse, Satis provisum fuisse tam circa Propositiones de quibus est controversia, quam circa eas quae tangunt materiam de Gratia & de Auxiliis divinis per Definitiones Ecclesiasticas & Antiqua Decreta ipsius Facultatis, atque ideo non esse necesse procedere ad examen vel judicium earundem, sed sufficere, si D. Syndico injungatur ut curet executioni mandanti Decreta antea facta tàm pro doctrina quàm pro disciplina: quòd si aliqua difficultas occurrat circa praedictas Propositiones aut alias circa materiam de Gratia aut de Auxiliis divinis, idem D. Syndicus consultet Facultatem: Si verò res ita urgeat ut non possit commodè convocari, consilium assumet omnium Sapientissimorum Magistrorum qui eum in officio & munere Syndicatûs praecesserunt.  
Quod vero spectat ad Syndicatum, postquam honorandus M. N. Hallier declarationem a se factam die quarta superioris mensis Novembris in publicis Comitiis reiteravit, videlicet se nunquam approbasse librum Cornelii a Lapide in Epistolas Canonicas, atque improbare se doctrinam in eo contentam quae tangit potestatem Principum temporalium, seque penitus adhaerere doctrinae Facultatis circa illud punctum, atque etiam Censuris ab eadem de eo factis, & inter alias decreto facto contra Santarellum; utque suam circa illud momentum innocentiam testificetur, libellum supplicem supremae Curiae Parlamenti offeret, eo fine ut omnibus Typographis & Librariis interdicatur sub poenis eidem Curiae reservatis in deficientes aut contravenientes, ne imprimant aut vendant dictum librum Cornelii a Lapide cum dicta supposita approbatione. Et in praedictorum consequentiam unanimi omnium consensu ejus electio ad Syndicatum probabitur.  
Signed; 

Chastellain,  
Bachelier,  
Gauquelin,  
Pereyret,  
Morel,  
R. du Val.    
In reading this result thus new modelled in Latin, I found a new difficulty in it besides those which I had found the first time. For to remedy that which I made of having recourse to the ancient Syndics, it was put, that in case there arrived any difficulty about the Propositions, the Syndic shall consult the Faculty thereupon: and that if the case be so urgent that the Faculty cannot conveniently assemble, than he shall take counsel of all the ancient Syndics. It seemed to me that on one side this Liberty given the Syndic to consult the Faculty about the said Propositions, was an Impeachment to the Arrest of the fift of October, and gave room for the reviving of M. Cornet's enterprise at pleasure; and that on the other, the liberty given him and the obligation laid upon him withal to recurre to all the ancient Syndics, when the affair permitted not the Faculty to be assembled, was for ever to erect such a Tribunal in the Faculty, by allowing him to recurre thereunto when he pleased; and moreover to impose a yoke and inconvenience upon him which our Syndic was not accustomed to bear; Wherefore I excused myself again, with more confidence (though with much more grief) from subscribing this new Writing.  
The next day (Dec. 7.) the Faculty assembled extraordinarily to hear the report of what we had done in the business. M. Chastellain said that the Result touching the Propositions and the Syndicship was in the hands of M. Bouvot, who should read it; and that none of the other Conditions agreed upon were put into it, (as namely about the new choice of Conscriptors, and review of the Conclusions) because for these it was relied upon the word of the Deputies which they had passed, and upon the confidence that the Assembly would approve the same.— So M. Bouvot read the Result in the very terms wherein it is transcribed above.— After it was read, I acquainted the Assembly what a trouble it was to me that I could not sign it, and laid forth the reasons thereof with all possible respect to the rest of the Deputies. Which yet did not hinder but that M. Chastellain and M. Chappellas expressed some displeasure against me for it; and touching ambiguity of words complained of by me. M. Chappellas said, that there was no subtlety intended therein, nor any design to prejudice any party; but whereas there was to be no more speech of the said Examination, it behoved to find some reason for it; and this in the Preamble was alleged to that purpose, so that it might be said on both sides, Causa quam putatis victricem causâ cecidit; he concluded, that in stead of the word Definitiones the word Sanctiones was fit to be put into the Agreement; M. Hennequin having intimated the same in his Sentence.  
Most of the Doctors also who spoke before me, pronounced it fit to retrench out of the said agreement that which I judged ill therein; (namely, that in case of difficulties arising, the Syndic should consult the Faculty, or have recourse to the ancient Syndics) which was accordingly retrenched. This being done, and on the other side many of my friends pressing me to acquiesce in the Accord, although I was not yet satisfied, yet because it behoved to consider all things, and to accept of the best that was offered, when all that was desired could not be obtained; when it came to my turn to give my sentence, I consented thereunto, and said I was ready to sign it, with regard had to the things abovementioned, and provided security were given for the punctual performance of the conditions about the Conscriptors, and the Review of the Conclusions whereof M. Chastellain had spoken. After which all nine of us were appointed to go and render thanks to the first Precedent, the King's Counsel, and some of the Precedents of the Mortar who had interposed in our Accommodation; and accordingly we went forthwith. It was also said that the book of Cornelius à Lapide and the Coriolanus should be delivered into the hands of the King's Counsel for the discharge of the Faculty.  
M. Hallier was not present at this Assembly, and M. de saint Beuve delivering his sentence touching the point the Syndicship, said, that although he accounted what was ordained about M. Hallier in that business somewhat uncouth, yet he should for his part tell the Faculty that he would do whatsoever it desired. M. Cornet officiated as Syndic here, and assoon as we were gone to make our visits, began to infringe the conditions which had been promised only by word of mouth. For whereas it was agreed to review the Conclusions registered within a year or eighteen months past, that the false and offensive words might be expunged; at the end of this Assembly, after the ordinary supplicates were done, he caused the Conclusions of the preceding Assemblies which had not yet been twice read, to be read again. M. the Abbot of Valcroissant who by chance stayed till the end of the Assembly, observing something in these conclusions to the prejudice of the Opposers, said, he conceived that since peace was made, it was reasonable, according to what had been propounded, that the same Deputies should review the said conclusions, to see what might be amended therein. Most of them which remained signified that they esteemed this just. M. Cornet would have put it off, and said there was not company enough to deliberate thereupon, the Assemby being broken up. M. Marcan replied that if there was enough for the reading of them again, there was also enough for the deliberating upon them. This pressed M. Cornet home, and constrained him to say, that they should be reviewed before they were entered in the Registers of the Faculty; which all that were present declared to be just.  
But how unsafe is it in Agreements to defer the performance of conditions wherewith they are made, when the business is with people of little ingenuity and good meaning! For the removing of the obstructions of this, we yielded in several things beyond measure; and yet in the very next Assembly after this on Jan. 1. 1650. it was requisite to make many complaints of non-performance of the conditions which had been promised. There arose new contests in the Faculty about the Conscriptors whom they would not have changed, and about the Conclusions which they would not have read again but as MM. Moral and Cornet had framed them. It was requisite to make new protestations before the Faculty; it was requisite to present again to it the conditions proposed on the first of December by M. Copin; it was requisite to enter a complaint before Notaries of their dishonesty and breach of promise with whom this decetfull peace was concluded, and to declare there that if it were no farther kept, then MM. Hallier, Cornet and their adherents were pleased to keep it, there would be nothing effected by it but only our renouncing of our Oppositions and prosecutions which were so just and so necessary. In brief, it was requisite to enter divers Memorials in the Faculty, and to declare formally that we persisted in all the Oppositions, Appeals and Protestations hereaftermade; to protest anew that we Appealed against all that had been done before and should be done afterwards to the prejudice thereof, and of the statutes, and Arrests rendered by the Court of Parliament; that we would there, assoon as possible, prosecute for judgement of all the causes depending between the Doctor, and demand reparation of all that had been anew attempted in the mean time in prejudice of the said Instances, Protestations, and Arrests.  
There were divers Doctors who entered a Memorial hereof before Notaries the same day, being they could not obtain the same in the Assembly. And if it had been any thing likely that the Avenues of Justice were not stopped, no doubt we should have presented ourselves again there to obtain it. But the difficulties laid in our way lately by the first Precedent, when we prosecuted it, together with all other inseparable from suits, even when the countenances of the Judges are most , obliged us to remain quiet. It behoved us to leave the Faculty in the hands of those who were made masters of it by stopping the course of our prosecutions when we hoped greatest success for its reestablishment: and we were forced to be content with sighing before God for its ruin, and leaving before men such monuments as might tell posterity it happened not by our fault.    

THE SECOND PART,  
Containing a Relation of sundry things which passed, or which I was informed of, at Rome, during the four or five Months of my residing there, from the end of November 1650. till June 1651. when I returned thither about the affair of the five Propositions.  

CHAP. I.  
Of my journey from Paris to Rome in the year 1650. and of what I was informed of being at Venice touching the prosecutions against M. Hersent.  
BUT although this Peace was one rather in name then in deed, being accompanied with all the commotions and partialities of a real Division; yet it was requisite to comply with the time and to endeavour to abstain from all occasions of making a stir, by letting them pass away gently, by dissembling all our displeasures and complaints we had so great ground for, and (in brief) by living with our Adversaries as if there had been a perfectly good understanding among●… us. For the first precedent had shown himself averse and opposite to the justice of our prosecutions that we could not well hope any would be done us so long as he had such authority in the Parliament, nor could we seek it elsewhere.  
Thus the Faculty lived in outward tranquillity, and the Assembly of the second of May 1650. was passed without any appearance of division, when I departed from Paris in the afternoon to overtake a Gentleman of quality whose worth and family I pecularly honoured, and to accompany him in his intended journey to Italy. He was a young Gentleman of very illustrious birth, for whom I had a very great esteem; and that which amongst other things wooed me to promise to accompany him in this journey, was, my observing in some converses with him that he did not undertake it as most of his age do, namely to see pictures and statues, but get acquaintance in all places with persons of learning and condition, not only for the having correspondences in stranger Countries, but also for the learning by their conversation after the most advantageous sort, the variety of humour, genius and manner in several nations. For which end he took with him at his departure from Paris a great number of letters of recommendation to all the Towns through which he was to pass.  
I could not be so ready to departed so soon as he, partly because I was willing first to see how that Assembly of the 2. of May would pass. So that I did not overtake him till I came to Geneva on Saturday the seventh of the same Month. I found him in the company of M. Godefroy then one of the two Syndics of that City, to whom he had been directed, and who took care to show him the same. When M. Godefroy saw me, he remembered, and made me call to mind, how that he being heretofore sent to the King in behalf of his Republic, whilst I had the honour to be Rector of the University, and finding me at the Lovure where he entreated me to do him a small office, for which he came to see me at the Sorbonne, I had performed it for him the most civilly that I possibly could: and he told me that he was still beholding to me for it, and that if there were any thing in which I needed his service in that place, he should be glad to testify his acknowledgement. All this ended in mutual civilities, and was the occasion that when we departed the next day being Sunday, the 8. of the same Month, he giving this Gentleman a letter for Zuric directed to M. Vlric chief Minister of that City, recommended me also unto him with words most obliging and full of more esteem than I had given him cause for.  
We arrived at Zuric, and during a day's time (wherein passengers usually tarry there as they go from Lions to Venice, to refresh themselves and their horses a little) M. Vlric showed us all the civilities he could. Wine was sent to us from the Signiory, and according to the custom of the Country some persons chosen for that purpose dined with us, and after dinner led us to see the Arsenal and the Library; M. Vlric being with us, and particulary expressing to me tokens of the esteem which M. Godfroy's letter had given him for me; He gave us also some new acquaintance amongst the Grisons, and letters for Milan and Venice.  
We spent the rest of this Summer at Venice, and in the Continent under the dominion of that famous Republic. A violent Tertian took me at Verona in September, which confined me to my bed for three weeks; of which as soon as I was recovered, we returned to Venice, to take our leaves there, and prepare ourselves to departed for Rome the soon we could.  
Presently after we were returned to Venic● we understood news of a Sermon made by M. H●…nt this year at Rome, upon the day of S. Lewis, in the Church of that name. We saw one of the printed Copies which he had caused to be made of it, and were told of the design some had to Arrest him for it by the Pope's order. It was related that M. Albizzi, Assessor of the H. Office, went in a Coach towards the Palace Borghese, (which is not far from that of the Ambassador of Malta, where he had notice that M. Hersent was) and gave order to the Sergeants to watch him at his coming forth, and bring him to that Coach, to the end to carry him thence to the Palace of the H. Office, where the Prisons of the Inquisition are. It was also told us, that at Rome it was looked upon as so high a matter, that they had order to go and seize upon M. Hersent even in the Palace of the said Ambassador, in case he delayed to come forth: but that M. Hersent fearing it, found no other way of safety but to cast himself instantly into a Coach of the Ambassador of France, which by good hap passed in the interim before the gate of him of Malta, and so with speed got to the French Ambassador's Palace, where he found an inviolable Sanctuary and sure protection.  
This news was brought to Venice not by Letters only; Persons, who were at Rome when the thing was done, arrived suddenly after at Venice, and published the citcumstances of it, and the consequences which they foresaw thereupon; amongst others a famous Capuchin (I believe it was F. George) gave an ample account of it to M. Matharel, than the King's Resident with this Republic, which place he discharged with great sufficiency and reputation. M. Matharel did me the favour to come and see me after his receiving the said account, and represented to me how ill an odour at Rome this unhappy accident would bring upon all such as should pass there for Jansenists. He told me, that the particular affection which we had contracted together during my stay at Venice, and the general care he was bound to take to his power, that no Frenchman became involved in troublesome and odious affairs in those parts, (because it always turned to the dishonour of the Nation) obliged him to testify to me what fears he had least in case I should go to Rome, so soon after this late disgust which M. Hersent had drawn upon himself, they would become jealous of me there as soon as they saw me, lest I should be looked upon as one substituted in his place for the interests of the same cause; and lest they should resolve there, by putting me in a place of restraint, to prevent all kind of contrivances, and other displeasing things which they might fear I was likely to act, unless care were taken to hinder me. He told me, he was never more surprised then at the hearing of the disgrace which was befallen M. Hersent for that Sermon, after the applause wherewith every one received him when he preached it, in presence of all the curious persons at Rome that understood French, and amongst others not only of the Ambassador, but also of the Cardinals Barberini, Ursini, and d' Este, two of which are of the Congregation of the H. Office; and that this aught to increase my fears as well as his; because this so sudden a change, was a sign that they were extraordinarily nice about these matters at Rome, and that the least suspicion was enough there to render a man criminal. That I had acted divers things in France against the Mendicants, and against M. Cornet and M. Hallier, which would not be very well gusted at Rome; wherefore, he could not conceal from me, that his opinion was, that I should do very well if I could resolve not to go thither. The Gentleman with whom I departed from France, was very desirous I should continue with him the intended Journey to Italy, and knew I had no other business there, nor any concernment with that of M. Hersent; yet he was moved with these reasons to condescend to my return into France, in case myself inclined so to do. But he was very glad when he saw me oppose to all M. Matharel's reasons, the testimony of my Conscience, which did not reproach me with any thing that might be justly objected against me; and to see that as it left me no regret for all that I had done in time past, so it gave me no fear for the future; but that on the contrary, I was resolved to maintain and justify at Rome and everywhere else, upon all occasions that might happen, all whatsoever I had done in France.  
Wherefore after thanks to M. Matharel for his affection and good counsel, and for the civilities which we had received from him during our abode at Venice, we took leave of our other friends and departed thence towards Rome, the 30th. of October, but arrived not there till the 20th. of November, partly because we took our way by Loretta, and partly because the relics of my sickness occasioned some day's slowness in our Journey.   

CHAP. II.  
Of the Letter of M. de Vabres; The design of the Jesuits against the Hours translated into French; How odious at Rome they were whom they call Jansenists.  
BEing arrived at Rome towards the end of November 1650. I found Letters directed to me there, the oldest of which were written at Paris on the 7th. of October. They gave me notice of the first discovery made of one penned by the Bishop of Vabres, to move the Pope to condemn the Propositions which M. Cornet had the year before endeavoured to get censured by the Faculty, excepting the two last. It was signified to me, that M. de Vabres had canvased as much as he could in the Assembly of the Clergy, to get them to subscribe the said Letter; but perceiving at last that if it were brought to the Vote there, it would undoubtedly miscarry by the opposition which would be made by the most judicious and zealous Prelates of the Assembly, who very well understood the iniquity and injustice whereof all people of honour had condemned M. Cornet's enterprise, still fresh in memory; he resolved not to propose it but to particular Bishops, with whom he thought he might prevail, and whose subscriptions he hoped to make good use of. A Copy of the said Letter was sent me, taken from a printed one which a Doctor visiting M. Hallier found by chance upon his Table: Which shows (said my corespondent) that he must needs bear a part in this business, because he is acquainted with the secret of it: Wherefore I was entreated to observe at Rome the most carefully I could, during my residence there, whether this Letter had been sent thither, and how it was received, because there were many Prelates, very eminent for Learning and Piety, who foreseeing many sad consequences from the same, would not fail to advertise the Pope to take heed thereto, as soon as they were assured that he had received it. The Copy sent was a Manuscript, and in Latin, as followeth.  
Beatissime Pater,  
MAjores causas ad sedem Apostolicam referre solemnis Ecclesiae mos est, quem fides Petri nunquam deficiens perpetuò retineri pro jure suo postulat. Aequissimae huic legi obsequentes de gravissimo circa Religionem negotio Sanctitati tuae scribendum esse censuimus. Decennium est ●…x quo vehementissimis turbis Gallia magno nostro moerore commovetur ob librum posthumum & doctrinam Reverend. Cornelii Jansenii Iprensis Episcopi. Tales quidem motus sedari oportebat tum Concilii Tridentini auctoritate, tum Bullae illius quam Urbanus VIII. foelicis memoriae adversus Jansenii dogmata pronunciavit, & decreta Pii V. & Gregorii XIII. in Baium edita confirmarunt. Atque hujus quidem Bullae veritatem ac Robur novo diplomate vindicasti; sed quia nulli sigillatim Propositioni certa Censurae nota inusta fuit, locus etiamnum aliquis quorundam cavillis & effugio relictus est. Intercludendum autem penitus speramus, si, ut precamur, Sanctitas tuae quid in hac re sentiendum sit clarè distinctéque definiat. Obtestamur ergo ut has praesertim Propositiones de quibus disceptatio periculosior ac contentio ardentior est, Sanctitas tua expendat ac perspicuam & certam de unaquaque sententiam ferat.  

I. Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia; deest quoque iis Gratia qua possibilia fiant.  
II. Interiori Gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.  
III. Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas à necessitate, sed sufficit libertas à coactione.  
iv Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis Gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei: & in hoc erant Haeretici, quod vellent eam Gratiam talem esse cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare.  
V Semipelagianum est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse.   
Experta est nuper Beatitudo tua quantum Apostolicae sedis in Gemini Ecclesiae Capitis errore profligando valuerit auctoritas; continuò sedata est tempestas, atque ad Christi vocem & imperium venti & mare obedierunt. Quamobrem flagitamus, Beatissime Pater, ut clarâ firmâque de Propositionum istarum sensu prolatâ sententiâ, cui etiam Reverend. ipse Jansenius morti proximus Opus suum subjecit, caliginem omnem discutias, animos fluctuantes componas, dissidia prohibeas, Ecclesiae tranquillitatem splendoremque restituas. Dum haec spes mentibus nostris affulget, Sanctitati tuae multos & prosperos annos, saeculorúmque beatissimam aeternitatem Rex saeculorum immortalis adjiciat optamus ac vovemus.  
Besides this business, word was sent me that F. Annat the Jesuit, than the French Assistant with the General at Rome, had written to F. l' Abbé one of his Brethren, that undoubtedly he should obtain a Condemnation of the Excellent Prayers, with the translation of the Hymns in verse, newly collected and presented to the King by M. du Mont; and that the Calendar afforded him a great argument to get them censured: Wherefore I was desired to inquire how the case stood, and to do what lay in me to secure the said Book from a blow so unworthy and unjust, and which might give so great advantages to the enemies of truth, and even to them of the H. See.  
I answered these Letters as one that sufficiently understood the importance of the affairs recommended to me, and who was as zealous for the same as was necessary, and withal as submissive and respectful to those from whom these orders were transmitted to me: Yet I could not but signify the little probability I saw of well acquitting myself thereof, being newly arrived in a place where I had little correspondence, where I was likely to be something suspected, where my steps might be watched, where I had other engagements hindering me from being master of myself, and where the affairs for which I was desired to concern myself were very odious. However I promised to do my best therein, and to neglect no opportunities. And accordingly I set myself to it, as much as all those circumstances and a weak unrepaired health permitted: but for all my diligence till the end of this year, I could discover nothing concerning the Hours; and as for the Letter, I only learned that it had been sent already; and that the F. Richeome the Jesuit, one of the French Penitentiaries at S. Peter's, boasted that it was subscribed by fifty Bishops.  
He that told me this, was well seen in those affairs, and in the whole managery of the persons upon whom the same depended; amongst the things he told me upon this subject, I observed these two principal. One, that he believed this Letter could not produce any thing new against Jansenius, because these persons now mentioned knew well that too much had been done already: but as for any thing that came from those who were looked upon as his followers, they would find no mercy, being ill gusted in this Court; insomuch that when nothing could be discovered ill in any writing of theirs, that may of itself deserve to be condemned, yet it is enough for its condemnation that it proceedeth from suspected persons. This Maxim made me cease to wonder at the condemnation pronounced against the Catechism of Grace, concerning which one had also written particularly to me, complaining that in that condemnation the little Book was accused of containing the Propositions condemned by the Bulls of Pius V and Gregory XIII. though indeed there was none such in it; whereas it but slightly prohibited the Catechism published by the Jesuits against the former, under the name of a Doctor of Douai, only for that it treated of the matter of Grace, though indeed it contained sundry direct Heresies. This prejudice of the Court of Rome against such as were there accounted Jansenists, much abated my desire of representing to some that might impart it to the Masters of the Censures, how unreasonably they suffered themselves to be guided by the bias of the Jesuits, being desired so to do by one of my friends, to the end this might make them more reserved for the future, and bring about the revocation of the said Decree, if it were possible. But this person gave me to understand, that it was not to be hoped for, (and this was the second thing I observed in his discourse) because the Tribunal from whence that Condemnation issued, knew not what it was to retract or look backwards, being fixed and immutable in its resolutions, and that when once it hath passed any thing, it is never to be brought by any motive in the world to alter it.  
As for M. Hersent, he was escaped from Rome before my arrival there. I was told that when it was known abroad, the stir and speech about him ceased, as if no more had been aimed at but to constrain him to fly; because otherwise there was both a necessity and a resolution to clap him in prison. And M. the baily of Valencai, than the King's Ambassador at Rome, a person of great gentleness and civility, speaking to me one day thereof, said that M. Hersent had several times professed while he was in his house, that were it not for that fear, he would willingly have appeared before the Judges of the Inquisition, to defend every thing in the Sermon he had printed, and for which he was in trouble. That himself had at M. Hersent's request, several times desired of the Pope liberty and security of h●s person for that purpose, which the Pope would never admit of, giving no other answer to his importunities but Vedremo, Vedremo, We will see, We will see. That he conceived the reason was, for that the Pope was very close in these matters, and would not have any speech thereof at all. That himself had often pressed him from the Queen, for an answer to some Questions which he propounded to him by his majesty's order, but could never bring his Holiness to declare himself, nor draw one word concerning the same from him, whatever urgent solicitation he had used to him. That the Pope acted in all cases with the same reservedness, and had treated the Capuchins in the same manner, (amongst others F. Joseph de Morlaie) who being at Rome, desired for quiet of their consciences to propose to him two difficulties before their departure, of which they could never procure any answer or satisfaction. That therefore he did not wonder at the Pope's refusing to grant M. Hersent the liberty he desired to speak of such matters. But others told me, that this was not the thing which most exasperated the Pope's mind against him, but his seeming in his Epistle to blame his Holiness of negligence, touching the doctrine of Grace, his vaunting of his particular fidelity, which he said was so well known to the Pope, and his praising Jansenius; but above all, the answer he made, when instead of delivering of the printed Copies of his Epistle and Sermon, he told those that demanded them, that he had already sent them into France.  
This boasting his fidelity towards the H. See, was undoubtedly founded upon the Book of Optatus Gallus de cavendo Schismate, which he had written by contrivance with the Nuntio, to show that the late Cardinal Richelieu tended to make a Schism in France; by which he put himself in danger of being infallibly ruined, in case he had been discovered: so that 'tis strange, a person that had hazarded himself so far for the interests of the Court of Rome, should be so ill dealt with, and for so little cause. But usually nothing is more hateful to Grandees, then to be upbraided with the services done them, and they had rather ruin a man then confess themselves beholding to him for any thing, especially if himself go about to bring them to such acknowledgement.  
There was a Dominican that suffered a backblow by the disgust taken at the printing of the said Book, namely he upon whose report the Master of the Palace gave permission for it; for he was confined in the Covent of Minerva till he should give account how deep he had been in the business, and there he remained a long time, though it seemed wholly laid asleep.  
From Spain I heard, that the Jesuits who always governed the new Queen, had prevailed with her to desire for her first request to the King her Husband, that the Bull against Jansenius might be commanded to be received throughout all his Estates; but the King being astonished at this request, answered very wisely, That it concerned things of Doctrine, which he understood not, that the Doctors were to be consulted about it, and if they judged that what the Queen desired might be done, he would do it willingly.   

CHAP. III.  
The complaint of the Venetians. Ill usage of the King's Ambassador. His Majesty's Letter to the Cardinals in complaint thereof. Discourse with Cardinal Barberini about the Hours, and the Letter of M. de Vabres.  
ABout this time I was told that the Republic of Venice finding itself much exhausted by extraordinary expenses so many years together in defending alone the Island of Candie against the Turk, without receiving any assistance even from the Pope, caused him to be advertised by her Ambassador in his Audience of the 9 of December, that she should at length be constrained to abandon that place, unless the Christian Princes inclined otherwise to succour her against the common and so powerful enemy; that the Ambassador had made to his Holiness great Protestations thereof, and (as it was added) some reproaches.  
But about a fortnight before there happened a very great quarrel between the Ambassador of France and his Holiness. For the Ambassador having sheltered in his Palace and under his protection certain Neapolitans who had fled thither for refuge, in the nights of the 21. and 22. of November, there were three of them assassinated by some of themselves, and one of the Ambassador's servants going out to see what was the matter was slain. The Authors of these murders did not commit the same so secretly as they could have wished for their own safety. The Ambassador whose Maxim it always was (as I understood from himself) not to shelter any in his lodging but such as were guilty by misfortune and not of enormous crimes, nor to maintain any committed by a man before fled into his house, complied with the Pope's Justice to deliver to the Sergeants on a day appointed the authors of the murders, and also to cause the Sergeants to be assisted by all his own people. On Thursday evening notice was given him that the Corpse's, Sergeants, etc. all the Horse and Foot of the Pope's Guard began to prepare themselves for the taking of the Criminals; He answered that he complied to cause them to be delivered to the Sergeant, but he would not do it, if they came thither with so great an Array. Observe that this was to be on Friday, and that the hour of the usual audience which he hath every fortnight of the Pope was appointed to be Friday morning; and that very morning, without further notice, all these military men came in arms to seize all the avenues of his Palace, searched all the neighbouring houses, entered even into his Court and kept all his gates seized. The Ambassador seeing this from his windows, sent to bid the Barisel or Provost that led them, to come and speak with him. The Barisel scrupled it at first apprehending some ill treatment, but two Knight, of Malta assuring him no hurt should be done him, he yielded to go up stairs. At the bottom of which he was disarmed, and coming into the Ambassador's presence without arms and bareheaded, the Ambassador asked him what made him so bold as to enter into his house? bidding him take heed what he did, and telling him that he was in the house of the King, and might one day repent his entering into it. The Barisel answered that he had received such order from his Master. The Ambassador replied, that if he passed on further, he knew how he would use him, and how his Master would use his. The Barisel witdhrew, and caused his company to make a halt, sent this intelligence to a place from whence order came for all these soldiers to return to their quarters. Nevertheless they made prisoners of some poor men and women dwelling near the place where the murders were committed, who should depose what they knew thereof, and that they might not return without doing something. The Ambassador sent a dispatch forthwith to the Court to give notice of all that had passed; which the King understanding thought fit to write a circular letter to all the Cardinals then at Rome, the tenor whereof was as followeth.  
To my Cousin the Cardinal N.  
COusin, Having been well informed of the truth of what hath been done by the Pope's Officers, who have violated all respect by forcing the Palace of my Ambassador; I have commanded him to departed presently out of Rome, whilst I examine what course will be fit for me to take for the redressing of so great an injury. Hereof I thought good to advertise you, not doubting but you will interest yourself in so just a cause, which ought to be looked upon as a common one, for that herein the Law of Nations and the Interest of all Princes is violated, as my Ambassador will more particularly declare to you; to whom referring myself, I shall pray God to have you, Cousin; in his holy keeping.  
Written at Paris 19 December 1650. signed, Lovis, and below, De Lomenie.  
Assoon as this Letter was come to Rome, the Ambassador went to visit all the sacred College to deliver to every Cardinal that which was for him, and to take leave of their Eminences before his departing from Rome, and retiring (as he did afew days after) to Tivoli.  
This action of the Barisel happened three days after our arrival at Rome, and the disgust which the Ambassador signified to me about it, making me fear he would not like that any French should go see the Pope at a time wherein he was so little pleased with his treatment, I thought fit to represent to him what obligations I conceived lay upon me to visit his Holiness, having the honour to be a Doctor of Sorbonne, and having formerly been well received by him, yet with a purpose to defer my visit till this misunderstanding were over, if I found the Ambassador judged it fit to forbear. Accordingly by what he said to me I understood that this was his mind; and I conformed thereunto, though my desire of saluting his Holiness was increased every day by the Letters which were writ to me from Paris, and by the things which I was informed of at Rome: not that I intended (being unqualifyed for so doing) to speak to him on set purpose of several things, whereof I saw it so necessary that he were informed and which I presumed were not come to his knowledge; but because I remembered that in an audience I had formerly of him, he had spoken to me of his own accord about divers affairs of this nature which concerned my profession, and therefore I believed that the Audience I should now have of him would not pass without his putting me upon such matters, and so giving me occasion himself to tell him what I desired thereof, nor without his discovering to me something about those, for which my friends were so solicitous in France, and of which I could by no otherways understand any certainty at Rome.  
I was in this perplexity (between the desire of having audience of his Holiness, and the consideration which deprived me of the confidence to request it) till the beginning of the year 1651. when having in a visit made to the Ambassador, understood that he was satisfied with having acquainted the Court with the proceed he disgusted, that he expected an answer thereof, and that till than he would not inflame matters nor drive them to a rapture; I thought fit not to let pass this interval without indeavoring to obtain an audience. For which purpose I went two several times to the Presence Chamber of his Holiness, but I could not obtain it though my Lord Torreiani Archbishop of Ravenna who was the introducer of strangers, conducted me thither once purposely, and did what he could to procure it me: and from that time no occasion being offered to request it, till the arrival of the King's letter , and the Ambassador's consequently retiring to Tivoli, I did not any more think of presenting myself but with the Gentleman whom I accompanied in his journey, a few days before we should leave Rome to return into France, as I shall relate in due place.  
In the mean time I neglected no other means, which I could devise, to find some remedy to the inconveniences which were feared. Cardinal Barberini offered me a very advantageous one; for his Eminence (whose esteem and Authority are so great in Rome that seldom any business can miscarry if he favour it) remembering an ancient correspondence which I had had the late honour to contract with him by letters when I writ to the late Pope Vrban VIII. against the design of the Jesuits to invade the privileges of the University of Paris whilst I was Rector of it, had now the goodness to desire to renew the same, and sent for me to dine with him on the 10. of January. He invited at the same time M. the Abbot Antenore, a very accomplished Roman Gentleman, who had studied at Paris in the College of Clermont, and spoke French so naturally that it was not easy to distinguish his Country, as also Lucas Holstenius whose worth is well known by all that have seen the translations he hath published, and the Works he is Author of.  
Our discourse before and in the time of dinner, was about Books, of which his Eminence hath a very vast and general knowledge, and about the divers contests which were arisen between Learned men. M. Pereyret's trip was not forgotten, who took the Count Boniface to whom S. Augustin writ so many Epistles, for Pope Boniface; which occasioned the said Doctor to say, that Pope Boniface gave S. Augustin charge to write for the Church against the Pelagians, because they had been friends whilst the Pope was a soldier. That I might draw the discourse to the Letter of M. de Vabres (of which I was desirous to learn some tidings) I bethought myself to mention the raillery lately made upon that Bishop, for boasting in one of his Works, That he had written more Ecclesiastical History than his Adversaries had read; because indeed it was granted that he had written some which no body ever read.  
But this moved not Cardinal Barberini to speak any thing of that Letter, whether it were that he knew nothing of it yet, or that he was pleased to be silent of it. The rest of the day also would have passed without my making any advantage of it, had I not resolved to speak to him a little more plainly about the new Hours in his Library whither he lead us after dinner, and where there is so great convenience to employ one's self with as much satisfaction as profit amongst so great a number of good books, and placed in so good order, that after that of the Vatican, which hath no equal, there is none in Rome to be compared therewith.  
Card. Barberini told me concerning the Hours, that they were very much spoken of and found fault with for two things; The one, by reason of the Calendar which is put into it; the other, because this Epithet Redemptor omnium is not expressed in the translation of the Hymns, where it is in the Latin.  
I could not but answer him in reference to the Calendar, that having read it throughout, I found not any thing to be blamed therein. He replied, that there might be several Impressions of the Hours, and that perhaps there was that in the other Editions which was not in mine. I answered, that I knew not whether there were more Impressions of them, that I had taken the Copy I had as soon as they were put to sale, a few days before my departure, that I might read it during my journey, without knowing any thing of them at that time otherwise then by the great esteem which I heard was made of them by divers persons of worth whilst they were printing. The Cardinal asked me, whether I had the book still, and told me himself had it not, and should be glad to see it. I promised to bring it to him; and in the mean time as for the Epithet Redemptor omnium, I told him he should see that it had been omitted without design in the translation of the Verses which answer to the Latin in which it is, but only through the necessity which ariseth in Verses; for which the Author also makes some excuse in the Preface: for in the first hymn where it was omitted in the first couplet, it is expressed in equivalent words in the second and fourth; besides, that it is expressed in several other places of this Translation, and even in those which have it not in the Latin; I added, that he might find that the Title of Creator of all things was not expressed in more general terms than this of Redeemer of all; and that this of Redeemer of Believers, whereby that of Redeemer of all might have been restrained had there been any thing of design, was also expressed in such a manner, as abundantly evidenced there had been no thought of taking advantage by this Translation in reference to the matters in contest.  
We spent the rest of the afternoon in other discourses. The Sunday following I went to carry the Cardinal my Copy of the Hours, and offered it his Eminence to put into his Library. He accepted it, on condition that I would send for it as often as I had occasion, and for any other of his books, which offer he made me before, but with so much goodness and civility that nothing can be imagined more obliging. With the book I delivered him a little Note wherein I had set down the pages where he might see all that I had spoken in its justification: after some other discourses we descended from his Chamber, and he took me into his Coach to go with him to take the air. I had now time and opportunity to tell him all that had been signified to me concerning the Letter of M. de Vabres. I also told him of the Observations which I understood would be made upon that Letter, and that I was promised to have them sent me as soon as they were printed; That as soon as I received them I should bring them to his Eminence. This was intended to move him to stop any resolution that might be taken at Rome upon that Letter till it were seen what might be said against it; as also to give him occasion of telling me what he knew of it; but he did not open himself at all, and only told me that he was well pleased with what I said, and that I should do him a pleasure in showing him what I promised.   

CHAP. IU.  
A false Censure of the Propositions sent to Rome to be confirmed there. A Letter written from Paris concerning it; with others received from Paris.  
IN the interval of time which passed between my first and second visit to this Cardinal, I visited another of great note for his sincere solid piety and high knowledge. He had scarce heard the first compliment which I made him, but understanding me to be a Doctor of Paris, he cast reproaches upon me for the Censure which (he supposed) the Faculty had made against the Propositions set afoot by M. Cornet. This treatment amazed me, and I justified myself by telling him, that I was so far from contributing to the Censure for which he reproached me, that on the contrary I had been the first in opposing that dangerous enterprise, in regard of the sad consequences it might have; that above sixty Doctors joined with me in the Opposition, and that the Faculty had not only not passed the said Censure, but that even they who designed it had been hindered by the prohibitions laid upon them by the Parliament at our suit. My answer as much amazed this Cardinal as his reproach did me: yet he concealed his astonishment as much as he could; but judging (as I conceive) that it was ingenuous and true, and thence concluding that (as I understood afterwards) this false Censure of them was dispersed to oblige the Pope to declare himself by confirming it, he only told me that he had believed it was so, for that one had appeared at Rome some time ago; and so he passed to other matters.  
This was enough to rouse my curiosity about this Cheat, of which we had suspected M. Cornet and his adherents above a year before, and charged them with the design in the face of the Parliament, before whom also they disowned it. For which reason also I sought ways to be informed thereof more particularly by a person of my acquaintance who knew the business, and to whom I had intimated in a visit, that I understood it sufficiently, that so I might oblige him to tell me what he knew of it. The said person accordingly certified me, that the Censure carried to Rome, and taken there as made by the Faculty, was the very same Draught which was dispersed through the Provinces in August and September 1649. under the names of the Deputies nominated upon M. Cornet's Motion, whereof we complained by our second Petition presented to the Parliament, and which MM. Cornet and Pereyret disowned in full Parliament on the fifth of October the same year, as I have related above. He assured me that that Draught of forged Censure had not only been carried to Rome as a true Censure of the Faculty, but that it had been brought before the Pope in the Assembly of the H. Office, to be the subject of debate for his Holiness and all that Tribunal; That there had been four Consultors nominated to examine it particularly, and to give their sense thereof in writing; That three of those Consultors proceeded roundly to the confirmation of the said Censure, and that the fourth, who was F. Abbot Hilarion a Bernardin, had spoken and written with some restriction, by reason of the several senses which the Propositions may admit; That however the deliberation amongst the Cardinals tended in general to an absolute confirmation of the Censure, excepting him who spoke to me thereof, and who taking the Propositions absolutely in the sense of Effectual Grace, and according to the affinity they have therewith, opposed the stream, and vigorously maintained, that the Propositions were not heretical, but the Censures made of them were so, because they might impeach that Grace; that the firmness of this Cardinal had astonished and stopped the Pope, and that had it not been for this resistance, the Chimerical Censure had without difficulty been confirmed by his Holiness.  
I knew all this when I made my visit to Cardinal Barberini on the 15th of January, (to which I now return) but I had no desire to let him see that I had penetrated so far into those mysteries, for fear of giving him occasion to inquire the particular way of my intelligence. I proposed to myself but two things in my discourse to him; First, to make him a sincere narration of all that had passed in France about this business, to the end he might know the foul play we were abused with, and the H. See more than we; and how the actions of that party were most gross delusions and manifest cheats. Secondly, to understand with what reservedness or openness the said Cardinal would carry himself towards me, when I gave him occasion to speak of things which I knew were so well known to him, and passed in his presence. Accordingly I related to him all the History; as a thing that might be new to him, at least as to the circumstances which I told him, and he had not been informed of before. I told him of our Petitions, of our Protestations, of what passed in the Parliament between our adversaries and us, of their disowning of this Censure, and of the Arrest which was issued thereupon. I promised to show him every of those pieces accordingly as I saw him attentive or pleased with the things I related. He heard and received all with very great Civility; he testified that he should be very glad to see all that I promised him; but he still kept himself as close as before, when I mentioned M. de Vabres' Letter; which was a certain token to me that his silence did not imply him ignorant of that Letter.  
After these visits I certified two things to them who writ to me from Paris about M. de Vabres' Letter; One, that there was no certainty of its not having been sent to the Pope, though it was not spoken of at Rome, because they who desired to make use of it to obtain that of the Pope which moved them to procure it, had the gift of secrecy and conduct, as well as they to whom his Holiness might have imparted it; that the business of the false Censure had been a long time under consideration, and had broke forth as much as a thing could do amongst those that are employed in affairs of that nature; and that nevertheless that intelligence which I sent them thereof, and I have related above, came to my knowledge but by particular good hap, without which the whole intrigue had remained under the veils of obscurity, which hide it till then; that whatsoever inquiry I could make about the Letter, perhaps I should not be so fortunate in its discovery, as I had been in that of the Censure; and that I conceived there was no reason to doubt of its having been sent, because it was not likely that after so strange a boldness in promoting so far a false Censure framed in the name of eight or ten particular Doctors, notwithstanding such public complaints as had been made thereof, they would leave behind a true Letter signed, as was reported, by fifty Bishops, against which no person appeared to complain. In the second place I advertised them that they saw how many disguisements, delusions and calumnies it might be presumed our Adversaries had set on work at Rome to obtain what they had obtained hitherto, if one might judge by enormities of their proceeding in this last action, in which they had laid aside all kind of modesty and decorum; trampled upon all laws not only of Christian conscience, but even of purely civil honesty, and violated the faith of the H. See (for which they profess themselves so zealous) the most essential Duties whereunto Infidels are bound towards the meanest of men, namely of not surprising them by what they say to them, of not lying to them, of not disguising things to them, but representing the same to them such as they are. And that they might hence conclude how much it would be for the interest of the H. See and of the service of God who founded it, as also for that of the Church whereof it is the centre, that all those cheats, calumnies and impostures were discovered to it; how much the same would then be abhorred at Rome, as well as all those who were found culpable thereof; and what advantages were to be hoped thereby to the holy truths which these people every day covered more and more with such thick darkness, and struck at with such outrage and violence.  
The Letters writ to me from Paris about the same time of my writing these at Rome, were not very remote from the sentiments to which mine might lead those Bishops which were solicitous about this affair, and earnestly waited for those discoveries which they were told might arrive from me. For it was signified to me, that a person well seen in the designs of the Jesuits and much devoted to truth, had assured them that the Jesuits hoped for a wonderful effect of the letter of M. de Vabres; that the Pope or some of his principal ministers had told their Fathers at Rome, that if they could get a letter signed only by a dozen Bishops, his Holiness would particularly censure the Five Propositions; that five and twenty Bishops had signed it already; that the Nuntio had further confirmed to the Jesuits, that it would not be long, before there were an express Censure upon that letter: Nevertheless those Bishops which were anxious about the effect which the said letter might produce, could scarce be persuaded that Rome would suffer itself to be so easily cajoled in the most important affair of the Church and of the Christian Faith; and that they had some thoughts of writing to the Pope about it, or sending some person thither on purpose to represent to his Holiness the dangers of this business, and the precautions with which it was necessary that his Holiness proceeded therein, to conclude it advantageously for truth and the edification of the Church.  
Notice was given me by letters at the same time touching the Decree made against the Catechism of Grace, that the said decree had been put by the Nuntio into the hands of one of the Agents of the Clergy to propound the same to the Assembly, and to bring it about that they might ordain the publishing of it through the Provinces; that this Proposal had been made there; but the Assembly was not disposed to condescend to this recommendation of the Nuntio. That on the contrary they resolved not to meddle with it, and likewise ordained that nothing should be registered about the Proposal which their Agent made to them. Moreover that this Decree had not only been thus refused, but also that excellent Reflections had been made upon it; and that the Court of Parliament had issued a notable Arrest against it upon the remonstrances made to them thereupon by the King's learned Counsel, after they had received at their bar the complaints of the Rector of the University, who presented himself there for that purpose.   

CHAP. V.  
Divers visits in which the Five Propositions were discoursed of, and of a remarkable circumstance touching the same. How few at Rome well understood these matters, and whence it came to be so.  
BUT before I received those letters, and mine were arrived at Paris, I continued to take all possible opportunities at Rome with the least noise to inquire further into the posture of affairs: Amongst others I visited the General of the Augustine's, whose great zeal for S. Augustine we had understood at Paris, by the Letter he writ to F. Alipius of the same Order, presently after M. Cornet's attempt. I discoursed with him chief concerning the two ways wherewith S. Augustine was struck at; one by openly rejecting the Authority of his Doctrine, as M. Pereyret and many others did; the other, by making show of owning his Authority, and yet teaching and maintaining a Doctrine in effect contrary to his, and driving at a condemnation thereof, as theirs who really defended it. I intimated to him as much as I could, the necessity there was of his courage and prudence, being equally armed against both these sorts of Enemies which S. Augustine had in this age. He very well received my discourse, and professed himself ready to do so according to his power upon all occasions. I told him of the Condemnation made at Vallidolid of two and twenty Propositions extracted out of the Jesuits Books against S. Augustine; but he was informed of it before, having received notice of it from Spain.  
I made a second visit to the Cardinal, whose resistance hindered the Pope from confirming the Facultie's pretended Censure of the Propositions, as otherwise he would have done: In this second visit we discoursed of the grounds of Doctrine which they concerned. I spoke thereof in the same manner as we had always done in France, from their first publishing by M. Cornet, namely as Propositions equivocal, ambiguous, capable of different senses, both Heretical and Catholic. But the Cardinal conceived that this was to speak too little advantageously for their defence. Particularly concerning the first, he said, that, considering it well, the words whereof it consists, which are found in the Book of Jansenius, restrained it clearly enough to the Catholic sense. That the righteous men, to whom it is there said some of God's Commandments are impossible, are supposed to have already fulfilled many of them, being arrived to such Holiness as denominates them just, that these Commandments are not absolutely impossible to them, but only in respect of the state wherein they are, having yet but weak and imperfect Grace, which they are supposed to have [volentibus & conantibus] and which gives them no other power for performance of the same, but imperfect desires and weak endeavours; which is yet more clearly expressed by the remainder of the Proposition, from which the beginning ought not to be considered as separate, but as referring thereunto, [Dost quoque illis gratia quâ possibilia fiant.] And that the Grace (namely, Effectual, such as is necessary to the Commandments in question) which renders them possible, is not yet given to these just persons in the state of weakness, wherein the Proposition supposes them in the time and circumstances of those first Graces with which they only will and endeavour weakly; that this is the whole Doctrine of Effectual Grace, according to the mind of S. Thomas, and S. Augustine his Master. That the four other Propositions cannot be considered but with relation to the first, together with which they are presented for examination; and that if there be any obscurity in the other four, it ought to be cleared and judged of according to the first, and the interpretation put upon it. The solid reasons which led this learned and pious Cardinal to speak and judge so favourably of the Propositions, by taking them, as he did, in the sense of Effectual Grace, I cannot so well repeat as himself deduced them to me; for I remember he did it with a strength of reason perfectly great; but I express his conceptions the best and the most faithfully I can, as well as those of all others which I mention; and I know he attributed the speaking of these Propositions after another manner than his own, only to the little understanding there was of these matters either at Rome or Paris. Indeed he spoke of them with so great energy and affection, that I ceased to wonder at what was told me of his having defended them so stoutly before the Pope; and if I could have doubted of the intelligence or sincerity of him who informed me how that story passed before the Pope, the vigour wherewith this Cardinal himself discoursed with me, would have perfectly confirmed me therein.  
Wherefore, having this full persuasion of the truth of the business, I went again to him that first acquainted me with it, and he told me a circumstance which he had omitted in his first narration, believing perhaps that I was not then fitting to hear it. He told me that the Pope (who although he highly esteemed this Cardinal, had nevertheless a little secret jealousy against him) seeing him speak of the Propositions with so much heat and vivacity on this occasion, and considering himself backed by all the rest that were present, being of contrary sentiments, his Holiness in a manner ranged himself on their side, by saying, Guardate i'll Cardinal N. chi dice che nostri Consultori sono Eretici: Take notice of Cardinal N. who says that our Consultors are Heretics. To which the Cardinal, without being moved, made answer; Vostra Santità mi scusi, Beatissimo Padre, non dico questo. Non dico che questi Signori Consultori siano Haeretici, mà che le loro Censure sono Haeretiche. Mà è ben vero che loro lo sarebbono, se vi fossero pertinaci: I beseech your Holiness to excuse me, most Blessed Father, I do not say that. I do not say that my LL. the Consultors are Heretics, but that their Censures are Heretical. But withal 'tis true that they also would be Heretics, should they continue obstinately therein. Which according to his sense was most true, for being he took all the Propositions to be meant of Effectual Grace, he had reason to accuse those Censures of Heresy which should condemn the said Propositions in this sense. This particular not having been told me at the first time of our discourse about the debate before the Pope, is wanting in the account given above of what stopped his Holiness in the quandary they had put him in, for the confirmation of the false Censure so often mentioned.  
About this time other news was written to me from Venice, namely that the Pope's Nuntio there had caused the Decree against the Catechism of Grace to be printed there in great numbers, and sent the Copies into all the Monasteries not only of Venice, but of the whole Venetian state. I was surprised at this news, both for that the Jesuits do not reign in that place, and because neither of the Books condemned by that Decree having appeared there at all, I did not see what ground there was for publishing this Decree there with so great diligence: and by the reading of it, I could not find any instruction or edification afforded thereby unto the faithful. But I let this intelligence pass as well as many others, without being more scandalised thereat, and continued my inquiry into affairs at Rome, as far as my condition gave me liberty so to do.  
In the Covent de la Minerve I occasionally saw a very devout, upright and judicious Monk named F. Barelier, who was assistant for France to his General. We discoursed together of our concernments with such caution as is used by persons that do not yet well know one another; and he spoke with as great prudence and equity as was possible for a man that till then had had no light of all the things that were passed. Afterwards as I was professing to one better informed, my wonder how it was possible that F. Barelier, a man of great parts, of an Order so much engaged as the Dominicans for the opinions about Grace, and of so considerable an employment in that Order, should be so much a stranger to all the contests in the Church touching the same: He told me, that I had much more reason to wonder that I found any that were not so in the place where I was. That F. Barelier (for example) was indeed in a considerable employment in that Order, but that this employment so wholly took him up in receiving all the Letters concerning the businesses and contests of Monasteries and particular persons of the Order dispersed through France, that being scarce sufficient thereunto, he could not give much heed to other things not allied to his own affairs: That others, besides their occupations which required their care and personal attendance, had designs of advancing every one himself to the several degrees whither they aimed, which taking up likewise a good part of their time, left them not much to mind other matters. Moreover, that since the last Congregations de Auxiliis, which after so long and diligent examination concluded only upon imposition of silence to the parties; there was great care used to keep such matters hushed and in oblivion, lest the like feuds might arise which make much stir and bring no profit. That the minds of the greatest part were bend only upon the several Courts of the Pope, the Cardinals, Ambassadors, Princes, and Princesses, whereof there was a great number at Rome. That they there studied nothing but the different interests and designs of this or of that, yet few did no more but study them, but the general practice was to mingle their own therewith, and seek means and occasions of advancing the same; to which the taking part in these contests, or seeming to understand them, was so far from conducing, that on the contrary it was an obstacle. That besides, should every one apply themselves to these matters as much as they avoided them, it would be hard to find many otherwise informed thereof then according to the intelligence given them by the Jesuits, these Father's having gained the Passes, made sure of those whom they saw might be employed in these affairs, biased them, and formed them to such conceptions of us also as they pleased, presented their own Books to them, and took care to have the Booksellers provided therewith; so that if I should go for example to M. Blaise the French Bookseller at Rome, and ask for F. Petau's Book Of Public Penance, I should not fail to have it shown me presently; but if I should ask for M. Arnauld's Of Frequent Communion, against which that of F. Petau was written, I could have no account of it. And therefore no body having hitherto spoken in our behalf, nor taken care for the dispersing of our Books there, as the Jesuits have to keep them from being seen, I ought not to wonder that F. Barelier, and infinite others less capable and laborious than he, have either had no knowledge at all of our affairs, or if they have been never so little informed thereof, it hath been to our disadvantage.  
Cardinal Ludovisio, then Grand Penitentiary at Rome, a little time after this visit, confirmed to me the truth of what was told me concerning the scarcity of our Books there. For hearing, after my coming to Rome, that there was a Doctor of Sorbonne in the City, he sent one to me to tell me he desired to see the Book Of Frequent Communion, which he understood was to be translated into Latin, and to ask me whether it were so. I told the Messenger, that it was translated above three years ago, and that I was sorry that I had lost in my Journey two Copies which I took of it in that Language at my coming from Paris; because it would have been a contentment to me to have been able to gratify the Cardinal's desire of seeing it. In the mean time this shows the scarcity there is in that Country of the most Excellent Pieces, which suit not with the gust of the Jesuits.  
Besides this difficulty which concerned all the world, there was another on the part of the Cardinals who might be employed about these matters. For the Pope could not likely make any resolution upon this business, without first having debated the same with my Lords the Cardinals; nor could there ascend much light to the Throne of his Holiness to illuminate the same in this particular, but what must be transmitted to it by their means. Now it was certain that they were not much better instructed about these matters than the rest of the Romans, but rather something less inclined to admit any information thereof. The continual diversions which they are obliged to suffer by so many audiences as they must give to such as have business with their Eminences, by so many Congregations as they must be present at, by so many active and passive visits from which they cannot free themselves, and by so many public Administrations and other external occupations to which they are subject, leave them fare less time and leisure for it. Very much care had been taken to prepossess them to our disadvantage, and against the truths we might have to defend; they were very little inclined to undertake the pains which is necessary to search the bottom of them, not having been brought up in this kind of study: and they were much more jealous for the authority of Decrees issued from their Tribunals, the preservation or destruction of which they were told was concerned in all such things as had the least relation to these matters.   

CHAP. VI  
Letters written to Paris containing the reasons of believing that it would be advantageous to send to Rome, with those of fearing that it would be unprofitable or prejudicial; concluding nevertheless that it seemed best to send thither.  
THE sum of all my reflections upon this posture of affairs, was that if on one side the intelligence I had given by former letters, might move my Lords the Bishops to write and send some ecclesiastics to represent the importance of our business and the circumspection and diligence wherewith it required to be handled; on the other, I considered that the abovementioned reasons might increase the necessity of a delegation for that purpose; but withal that they must needs cause it to be feared, that such delegation would be unprofitable, unless it were powerful enough to overcome all those perplexing conjunctures, and to supply all those needs above mentioned. I writ therefore once again about this mattet with more care than I had done before, and laid down as exactly as I could all the reasons I conceived possible to persuade or dissuade such a delegation; to the end that all of them being weighed, those might be followed which should be found best and most urgent.  
I added to those above which make against a delegation, that perhaps it would not have any good effect, because that the Pope liked not at all to handle such matters; that he would not hear any speech of them, and perhaps would employ in their examination persons not very intelligent therein: That the Jesuits had a great influence upon most of the Officers of the Inquisition, Cardinals and others, and bore a greater sway amongst them then was imaginable; That all these conjunctures being so contrary, and the Pope much advanced in age, it was perhaps expedient to let his Pontificate pass over with the most silence and least stir possible, in expectation of another more , during which time this affair might come to more maturity. Lastly that this reason was of great moment with me in regard of the fear we ought to have of injuring the affairs of God, by handling them which affections and precipitations a little too humane, and not what that humble respect and Christian patience which ought to be had for his holy Providence.  
On the other side I alleged that the mischief was great and urgent; that the Decrees obtained every day at Rome (as that lately against the Catechism) administered matter of triumph to the vain glory and ignorance of the Jesuits, and brought the disciples of S. Augustin and his doctrine into some state of oppression; and always more and more engaged the Court of Rome. That it was further to be feared M. de Vabres' letter might extort some ill-digested condemnation, ignominious to the H. See, and prejudicial to truth and the Church. That it was likewise matter of jealousy, that the mischief might afterwards pass further, and turn into a custom of condemning the best books when they do not please the Jesuits. That the sooner the Evil could be remedied, the better; and that the more speed there was used to remedy it, the more ground there would be to expect a prosperous event of the remedy which should be applied thereunto. That although perhaps a perfect satisfaction and vigorous protection of S. Augustin's doctrine could not as yet be hoped for; nevertheless, those persons on whom the same may be said principally to depend, might be obliged in the present state of things, at least to be hence forward more circumspect and cautious in their proceeding, and to have a greater distrust of the Jesuits accusations and practices. That besides, the success is not in our power; that indeed we may foresee what men are able to do, but we know not what it may please God to bring to pass; that we ought always to do our endeavour to plead aloud and with respect for truth; that it belongs to God to afford this pains and zeal what blessing it pleaseth him; but withal in undertaking it, it behoved less to consult with the wisdom of the flesh and the world, then with that of the spirit and the Gospel. That amongst the Cardinals as well as all other Orders of the Church, Prelates, Priests, and Monks, there are at Rome as well as elsewhere, though in small number, some who love and know truth, and who sigh as well as we for the ill usage she receives every day; that we should find these persons  to our attempts; that being unable to do any good by themselves, they would be extremely glad of the comfort of being able to second us in ours by all ways they can. That of others there were three sorts; the first, absolutely contrary, prejudiced, and unlikely to admit any reason repugnant to their preconceptions; the second, prejudiced too, but yet equitable and capable of hearing what may be represented to them; and the third indifferent, not very solicitous about these things, but like tabulae rasae, not having yet received any impressions concerning them. That these last would be awakened when they hear the voices of such as undertake to enlighten them; that the second would also consider the remonstrances and arguments we shall use, and perhaps God will show mercy to both in opening their understandings and making the same prevalent upon them: and as for the first, who are our most obstinate adversaries, it would be meet not to neglect them, because perhaps God might draw some of them out of their darkness, and they which resolve to persevere therein in spite of all the light offered them, may receive that for their confusion which they would not admit of for their edification.  
I had formerly said my first Mass at Loretto, and thence taking the way for France came to lie the next day at Senegallia, of which Card. Factrinetti was Bishop, by whom being entertained that night, we had converse enough to make me retain an acquaintance of so civil and excellently endowed a Prelate. He arrived at Rome whilst I was in these confusions, and I going to salute him some days after his arrival, he unwillingly both dispelled and augmented them, but with an honest intention and perfect candour. For our discourse being fallen upon the subject of our affairs, he told me that in some of the visits which he had already made to divers Cardinals, some of them told him that they had represented to his Holiness that it was most necessary to set upon their determination, to the end to restore peace to the world, and take away all ground of division amongst Christians. I desire no other thing but that this be done as it ought to be; but I fear those Cardinals of whom this spoke, were not moved to such thoughts by any concernment they had for S. Augustin's doctrine; and I scarce doubt but that the same were infused into them by the Jesuits to procure the effect of M. de Vebres' Letter, it seeming to me that no person could have spoken thereof to their Eminences, but by the instigation of those Fathers.  
There was in Rome another person, admirably intelligent in these matters, extremely prudent, and zealous to the higest degree, into whose acquaintance I fell very happily, and without whose advice I conceived not meet to do or write any thing in this business. I had already spoken with him twice about it. We had discussed together pro and con the reasons ; and had never been of the mind for the Delegation, nor could he believe that the difficulties, Of the Jesuits great credit; Of the prepossession of minds, Of the small knowledge of many, (amongst others, of the Pope himself) could be overcome but by time and patience; wherefore he judged it meet to wait for a more  Pontificate, and a Pope better informed and more versed in these matters than he that sat at present in S. Peter's chair. I visited this excellent man a third time, to see whether he persisted still in the same Mind; and besides the reasons above specified, which I impugned, I represented to him afresh the insolence wherewith the Jesuits triumphed over the H. See, the Church, the Truth, the Doctrine of S. Augustin, and the innocence of his disciples; the prevailing influence they had at Rome, for that no person contradicted their accusations, nor discovered the mischievousness of their conduct, and the enormities of their pernicious Maxims. I asked him whether he did not at length believe, that if some one backed with the authority of a considerable delegation should in a fit manner speak against those exorbitances, it would not hinder many from following their passions with a servitude so blind as this, wherewith they embraced the protection of their interests; and that if such a delegation had not all the success it deserved, it would not at least hinder them from proceeding further whilst they were grappled with, and serve to clear many things in order to a through regulation one day when it should please God to afford his Church so great a mercy. He acquiesced at length, approved it, and moreover desired to see it set on foot; and besides those foregoing reasons that which most prevailed with him, was, that, at the worst, the Pope (who was conscious enough to himself of his little knowledge in these matters) seeing himself pressed by two contrary parties would remain undetermined and grant nothing to one side in prejudice to the other; that in this conflict every one would be stirred up to inquire in the subject of the contest, and so the truths which the Jesuits endeavour to destroy might by this be means be maintained against their assaults, and rescued from the extreme oppression under which those Fathers reduce them.  
It was but in the end of January 1651. that I signified all these things to my Friends at Paris, thereby to contribute all light I could possible to the consultation which was to be had thereupon. I have related the same here very exactly, having extracted them almost word for word (but sometimes abridging many things) out of the Letters which I writ then, and which were redelivered to my hands for that purpose after my return. I gave notice also that I should stay at Rome but till Easter, intending, assoon as that solemnity was over, to return for France; that so my LL. the Bishops might hasten to send those thither whom they designed, in case their Lordships desired, that they should find me there before my departure, to receive from me by word of mouth many little instructions, and such acquaintances as are always needful to persons newly arriving in a strange Country.   

CHAP. VII.  
News from Paris of a Check which M. Hallier received in the Assembly of the Faculty on the first of February 1651. Discourse with Cardinal Lugo. Propositions out of M. Hersent's Sermon accused and justified. Strange secrecy concerning what passeth in the Inquisition.  
IN the progress of time which passed till Easter I ceased not to play the spy, observe all that I could at Rome, and give intelligence of it at Paris; as also I was reciprocally advertised of all that passed there worthy of remark touching the contests which were on foot.  
In the Assembly of the Faculty on the first of February 1651. M, de Mincé complained of M. Hallier who was Syndic; for having signed a Thesis (defended in January preceding) in which there were Propositions contrary to the doctrine of the Faculty; one whereof was, That it is not lawful to appeal from the Pope to any other; and another, That 'tis obstinacy, disobedience and rebellion to oppose his Decrees. It was signified me that M. Hallier defended himself so weakly and upon principles so suitable to his sentiments for the interests of the Court of Rome, that he exposed himself open to, and gave all possible grounds for, his own condemnation. That nevertheless many of the Doctors who less considered what was just than what might gratify those they call Jansenists, thought it enough to reprove M. Hallier in the Assembly, and to enjoin him to sign no more Theses in which such kind of Propositions were; but yet they hindered any thing concerning this Crime from being written in the Registers. That M. Brousse made notable opposition to such proceeding. That he required the inserting of the Propositions into the Registers, with an express prohibition to the Syndic of signing the like again; to the end the King and the Parliament might know how fare the Faculty was from approveing those new doctrines so contrary to its ancient Maxims. That hereupon he protested, and required a Memorial of his Declaration and Demand; but was denied: which obliged him to insist and profess, that if all were not written in the Conclusion when it was to be read again in the Assembly of the first of March, he would oppose the same, and complain thereof to the King's learned Counsel. The Doctor that writ me this news, joined with M. Brousse, and sent me word that they were resolved to drive this business to the utmost, yet with all possible moderation. He certified me also, that amongst the Doctors who gave this Check to M. Hallier, there was a Carmelite who so well acquitted himself therein that this touch alone ought to give him very much mortification.  
On the days when the Pope holds a Chapter, the Cardinal's repair to his Palace at the usual hour and assemble in a great Hall, where he comes to put on his ornaments, and thence they go to Chapel in order, as in procession. All the Cardinals march two and two after the Cross which is carried before them, and between each rank all persons of their Court which accompany them in this Ceremony go before every one of them. On Candlemas day I accompanied thither Cardinal d' Este Protector of France, whose rank was to march with Cardinal Lugo. Cardinal d' Este took occasion to cause Cardinal Lugo and me to talk together, making me approach towards him, and telling him that I was a Doctor of Sorbonne. Cardinal Lugo having testified to me in three words the esteem he had for our Faculty, asked me whether I was one of those who had approved M. Arnauld's book Of frequent Communion: I answered him, That I was not; but at the same instant a secret apprehension came into my mind that he might interpret my answer as a disavowing of that excellent Work: wherefore for fear of betraying the truth in any sort upon this occasion, by not explaining myself further, I added immediately, that I was not yet Doctor when it was Printed; but if I had been so, I should have willingly approved it, because having read it then and since again, I found nothing in it but what I judged conformable to the mind of the Church and the H. Fathers. Upon so ingenuous and free a confession, Cardinal Lugo replying to me began with these two words, Pian, piano, i. e. Fair and soft; and told me that this was not the judgement of all the world, that the book was not so esteemed of at Rome; and intimated something of a Proposition in the Preface, where speaking of S. Peter and S. Paul it saith, Those two heads of the Church which make but one. I made answer to the Cardinal, that this Proposition, whatever it was, did not concern the matter of Doctrine in that book, which I aimed at in testifying my esteem of it; and that, as for this very Proposition, M. Arnauld had explained how he understood it. The Cardinal added some words touching matter of Doctrine, which indeed he did not rightly apprehend; but he spoke conformably to those remote objections which the Jesuits made against it. All this discourse passed upon the way, and before I further replied to him, we were arrived at the Chapel, and so the conference broke off.  
On the fifth of the same month I made a visit, whereby I understood from a person sometimes sufficiently informed of things which pass in the Congregation of the H. Office, that they had there in good earnest set upon the examination of M. Hersent's Sermon, the memory of which I believed totally buried. He told me also the very Propositions extracted out of it by the prosecutors of its condemnation, to obtain the same. One of them was, That  is so weak, especially since the loss it suffered of innocence and righteousness in the First Man, that unless it be stayed and supported by God's Grace, it is no longer fit for any thing but to offend God; these are the very terms contained in the 28. page of the printed Sermon. The second was, That the Saints obey the motions of God's Grace with an obedience so much the more voluntary as it is free, and so much the more free as it is voluntary: This is in the 23. page of the same Book. Those who persecuted these Propositions, opposed them at first absolutely in themselves; and he that maintained them did it with so great strength and success, that he disarmed his Adversaries, and convinced his Judges of the things which he undertook to prove to them. But I was told that it was not without great reluctancy; which was such in reference to the first Proposition, that he became engaged to maintain a third, upon which he made a particular dissertation as well as upon the two other, though it was not extracted out of the Sermon, namely, That all actions performed by the sole strength of nature are sins. At length the Judges who examined the Apologies presented to them in defence of these three Propositions considered in themselves, became perfectly satisfied and convinced thereby, and the accusers of the Sermon were consequently forced to silence and a retreat. But being not of the humour to acquiesce so easily against their engagement, they devised to say, that though the Propositions might be maintained as they were explicated by him that defended them, nevertheless they are bad in that Sermon and Book, because it makes but one body with the Epistle which is before it, with reference to which it is just and necessary to consider the two Propositions in question, that considering them in this manner, they would no doubt be found worthy of censure, for that in the said Epistle Jansenius is spoken of with an Elogium, being an Author condemned by the Bull of Vrban VIII. and whose opinions this Preacher hath borrowed and maintained, as is evident by the Epistle.  
I was told that they who contrived this project, had the greater hope of success, because they saw him who maintained the Propositions absolutely in themselves as they are in the Sermon, wholly out of the business; he being that Monastical person upon whose faith the Master of the Sacred Palace gave permission for printing it, and the Epistle not being mentioned in his Licence, but only the Sermon, and he professing openly, that he saw none but the Sermon, nor heard any thing of the Epistle, which was an addition made by M. Hersent purely of his own head, without speaking one single word to him of it, or his own having the least ground to suspect it. Whence they took for certain, that the Apologies of the Licenser having been very well received, and he seeing himself delivered from all the combustion, and honoured also with the commendations of some of his Judges for the elegancy and solidity which they found in his writings, would not care to engage himself in a new labour, the success of which was incertain, and not only more dangerous than the first, but likely to make him lose all the benefit thereof. But this Ecclesiastic deceived them, because this new assault giving him the curiosity to search Jansenius upon the subject of these Propositions, and finding nothing there but the same Doctrine himself had lately defended, and the same Judges, before whom he was to maintain it again, approved; although his interest in no wise engaged him to the defence of the Propositions, interpreted with relation to the said Epistle and the opinions of Jansenius; yet he thought himself obliged thereunto by the love of truth, and by gratitude towards his Judges. And for these reasons he became then actually employed therein. It was told me that this Monastic was named F. du Four, and that he was a very intimate friend of M. the Abbot de Loiac, Chamberlain of honour to the Pope, and nominated by his Holiness to the Bishopric of Toul, with whom it was known that I had great commerce; there was also some hope given me, that by his means I might have a sight of his Writings, which I was certified were worthy to be read, and very compendious and determinative. I had a very great curiosity to see them, and to get a Copy of them, in regard of the nature of the business, and the commendations I received of them. Wherefore I had recourse immediately to the Abbot de Loiac, who very gladly and willingly brought me to the knowledge of the said Father. I found him of a great wit, a very agreeable and copious conversation, very clear in Doctrine, but as prudent too in management as a man of that quality could be after having passed almost sixty years in the world, whereof the twenty last were spent at Rome. I was always very welcome to him when I visited him, and received with very great civility; but I found him so close, as often as I went to put him upon these matters, and he so constantly diverted the discourse thereof; that I could not without great rudeness make the least mention of his Writings; because indeed he had been utterly undone, should his Judges have known that he communicated them, so inviolable will they have the secrecy of all things which they handle. There was nothing but M. Hersent that he spoke freely of, when he was put upon this subject, because the fact was public, and he could not forbear complaining of his not having told him so much as one word about his Epistle, having been treated with honour, as he was, for his Sermon. I excused M. Hersent a little by the custom in France, and likewise in our Faculty, of not showing any thing but the Theses and the Books to the Approbators, but adding Epistles and Prefaces according to prudence and discretion. But he liked not these excuses, because the custom was otherwise at Rome, which ought to be understood and followed; and because (he said) if M. Hersent had showed him his Epistle, he would have put it in a condition (by changing and blotting out some words) for being printed, without being liable to any exceptions or complaints more than the Sermon itself. But to return to his Writings, I believe he would not have granted the reading of them to M. de Loiac, though living with him in the closest friendship and correspondence that can be between two persons of parts, honour and piety: Such sacred things are secrecy, and the Excommunication under penalty whereof they are obliged to keep the same in that Congregation, in that Country.  
I shall in due place mention what success followed the generous resolution of the F. du Four, to defend those two Propositions, even considering them with reference to that Epistle, and the Doctrine of Jansenius: only this exquisiteness of secrecy called to my mind a thing told me by the Ambassador in one or two converses on purpose about M. Hersent's business, namely, that secrecy was so religiously observed, that himself often endeavouring to get some light from Cardinal d' Este, who was one of the Congregation, concerning the posture wherein that affair stood, and whither his Eminence judged it might tend, that so he might tell M. Hersent something of it, who was much in pain about it; he could never draw from him the least word or sign whereby to conjecture any thing, whatever industry he used to that purpose, whatever importunity he made to the said Cardinal, whatever perfect intelligence there was between them about all things else; and although the Cardinal would otherwise have been glad to oblige M. Hersent both for his own sake and that of his Nation. After which certainly I will never wonder that the mysteries of things which pass in that Congregation are so hidden and impenetrable; for there can scarce be imagined a person more industrious to penetrate into what he desires, than this Ambassador, nor one more beneficent and civil than that Cardinal, nor two persons more united together then they.   

CHAP. VIII.  
A visit of Cardinal Lugo. The falsification of the Bull of Urban VIII. The eagerness of M. Albizzi against S. Augustine. The Censure of Vallidolid.  
THE favour done me by the abovesaid Cardinal, in putting me upon a discourse with Cardinal Lugo, caused me to conceive myself obliged after this conference with him, to go and wait upon him in his own house, lest I might be liable either to be charged with disrespect to them both, or suspected of secret aversion against the said Cardinal Lugo for his being a Jesuit. So I went to visit him five or six days after, and found him at home: He received me very civilly, and after some discourse touching the studies of Divinity followed a● Paris, he told me that there were some that studied too much there. I understood him well, but I was willing to oblige him to speak more clearly, and to put himself into the matter of his own accord. Wherefore I answered, That excess was to be avoided in all things, and that though the profession of Literature requires great assiduity with Books, yet it was well enough known at Paris how to use moderation and due temper therein. At length he declared himself, and objected to me the Book Of the Authority of S. Peter and S. Paul, as a Rhapsody of passages, quotations, the interpreting and applying of which proceeded from that excess he spoke of, etc. That the Censure upon it had followed, etc. (these etc. etc. are usual in Italy, there is great use made of them in speaking, and that in the most polite discourses; and they are uttered for the abridging and supplying of what might be added for a more large explication, it being supposed also that he who is spoken to understands well what is employed, and is able to supply it.) I answered, that as to the passages of that Book, M. Bourgeois at his being at Rome had showed his Eminence the strongest and clearest of them, and that he might have judged thereof. As for the Censure, that we at Paris did not conceive it to touch that Book at all, it condemning only the Equality between those two Apostles, sine ulla subjectione, without any subordination; but there were Chapters in that Book, wherein several kinds of subordination were set down. He told me, that the Book spoke not of any besides that which concerns point of Time. I answered, that I had often heard those that had read it make account that there were several others; and that, as to the foundation of Equality of Power between those two Apostles, people not at all interessed for the Book, looked upon it as a thing very honourable and advantageous to the H. See. He continued firm in this, that there was no other subordination mentioned in the said Book besides that of Time, and then passed to speak of Sufficient Grace, the ground of which he drew from Jesus Christ and S. Paul, with as much certainty as 'tis possible for that which is always Victorious to be deduced from them. I told him, that the Disciples of S. Augustine made no difficulty to admit the same as those of S. Thomas do, namely, granting a certain posse, but never the velle, (to wit, perfect) nor the facere; besides which Graces there needs another Effectual one to produce the action; but as for Sufficient Grace subject to the Will, as that was which the first man received in the state of Original Righteousness, it could not be admitted, because it is conceived contrary to the Doctrine of the Scripture and the Church. In fine, I told him that this was the thing in controversy amongst Divines, for the clearing and pacifying of whose divisions, it was to be wished that the reasons both of the one side and the other might be heard, that every thing might be examined, etc. He much disliked the Expedient, saying that there needed no examination of a business which was already judged; and for proof of his assertion, he brought me the Bull of Pius V I told him, that I assented to the truth of that Bull, but that all the Propositions contained therein, were not thereby condemned; and upon my alleging the Exception, Quanquam earum aliquae possint aliquo modo sustineri in rigore & proprio verborum sensu ab autoribus intento, he told me, that these last words ought to be referred to that which follows; and that the sense was, that, Quamvis aliquo modo sustineri p●ssent, tamen in proprio autorum sensu erant Haereticae, etc. I answered, that this sense never came into my mind when I read the Bull, notwithstanding the different pointing used in the several impressions thereof, and that the words did not comply therewith. He replied, that he had consulted the Original of the Bull, and found the commaes thus placed. Hoc dato non concesso; I said, that the first words of the Exception were not put into the Bull without cause; and that there must needs be some sense at least in which those Propositions may be maintained in the rigour; and that this was it that was to be considered, viz. what that sense was. He could not gainsay it, but changed his battery, and recurred to the Scripture, the H. Fathers, and the Popes, upon whose Authority he pretended that Sufficient Grace was established. I answered him, that we judged the Scripture, Fathers, and Popes on our side; that if the case were as he said, if the opinions of S. Augustin were not such as were to be followed, the number of those who maintain them as well amongst the ancient Doctors of our Faculty as among the younger, would not increase every day as it did. Here he fell to mention pensions, benefices, and money given (as he said) to make those disciples; adding, that they were very well informed thereof, and had received certain intelligence of all those practices. I replied that this was so far from being true, that the Court being averse from those Tenants, the way for any one to obstruct his own temporal advancement, was to maintain them; That a greater injury could not be done the Doctors, then to accuse them of adhering to the truth upon so low and servile conditions and interests; and that they who know and love truth, embrace the same only for itself. He betook himself to the infallibility of the H. See, and cited this passage, Ego dixi tibi, Petre, non deficiet fides tua. I told him that was the same which we followed; that without it there is no salvation; and that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. This was the end of our Conference, which passed with sufficient moderation on both sides and with all the respect which I owed to a person of that eminent dignity.  
I have not related any thing as of this Conference besides what was spoken by the Cardinal and myself; but I cannot omit here a remarkable thing which I might have added when I was speaking concerning one of the points of which we discoursed, had I seen that it would have been beneficial and seemly. It is concerning the different pointings which have been made in the several impressions of the Bull of Pius V inserted in that of Vrban VIII. when it was printed the first time at the Apostolic Printing-house in the year 1643. it was thus pointed; Quas quidem sententias stricto coram nobis examine ponderatas, quanquam nonnullae aliquo pacto sustineri possent in rigore, & proprio verborum sensu ab assert●ribus intento, Haereticas, erroneas, suspectas, temerarias, scandalosas, & in pias aures offensionem immittentes respectiuè .............. praesentium autoritate damnamus. Which shows that the true sense of that Bull is, that some of those Propositions attributed to Bavis may be maintained in the rigour and the proper sense of those who advanced them. Quanquam nonnullae aliquo pacto sustineri poss●nt in rigore, & proprio verborum sensu ab assertoribus intento. But this Exception not pleasing the Jesuits, they have endeavoured to alter the sense by causing a Comma to be added between the two words possent, and in rigore, thereby to join this last and the following words to the condemnations pronounced against these Propositions, and to frame this scheme and signification of the words of the Bull, namely, that although the Propositions it speaks of may be some way maintained, yet taking them in the rigour and in the proper sense of those who advanced them, they are Heretical, scandalous, and so forth. This is a falsification which hath been committed in divers Editions since the first which was made, as I said above, at the Apostolic Printing-house in the year 1643. of which I keep some Copies which I procured when I was at Rome, to evidence upon occasion the falseness of those which do not agree therewith. But it is further remarkable, and shows how great an influence the Jesuits have had in that alteration, as also what credit and prevalence they have with the Officers by whom things are swayed at Rome; namely, That the said Bull hath been printed not only in remote Provinces with the addition of the Comma between the two words, possent and in rigore, but likewise once in the Apostolic Printing-house itself since that edition of the year 1643. The attempt of this Falsification appeared also once more plainly; for they who endeavoured it before these Editions I spoke of, thought it not enough to add a Comma between possent and in rigore, but also added a whole word, namely tamen after in rigore, to make the said Bull better square with their intentions. But for all this it ceased not to be evident, as I told Card. Lugo and he assented to it, That the first words of the Exception not having been put there to no purpose, there must needs be at least some sense in which the Propositions may be maintained in the rigour, and that the thing to be looked after is, What that sense is.  
Two or three days before this Visit one of the Ambassador's Secretaries said in a company where I was, that he speaking to M. Albizzi touching the business of M. Hersent, that Assessor answered him, that S. Augustin was indeed a great Doctor, but what he had delivered touching Grace was just the dregs of his Works, and the point wherein he was to be gainsaid. I went the next day to advertise the General of the Augustins of this, thereby to diminish his confidence in the said M. Albizzi, whom (as he professed to me) he looked upon as a man well affected to St. Augustine. That which obliged me to go so speedily to advertise him of it, was, that in one of my visits to that General a fortnight before, when I sp●ke much of the necessity there was of opposing without further delay the assaults and ambushes of the visible and invisible enemies of S. Augustin, he received it with liking and approved what I said; but yet seemed not so forward as I desired, and thought a person devoted as he was to S. Augustin, aught to be upon the things which I represented to him; indeed he seemed rather to become cold, and to rest upon future hopes and satisfactions, which I judged contrived to hinder him from stirring, that so all things might be ruined with more facility; which being once attained to, than all the promises made him would vanish and be forgotten.  
The Censure of Vallidolid against the 22. Propositions repugnant to the authority of S. Augustins' doctrine, was either in part or wholly the occasion of these promises. A Memorial was presented to the Pope to obtain of his Holiness the confirmation of that Censure, which was also desired of him by a Letter from the King of Spain delivered to him together with that Memorial. Whereupon the said Memorial was referred to a secret Congregation appointed for examination of affairs of that nature. Herein lay all the hope of the justice which seemed to be intended: but yet at the same time it was given out that nothing ought to be too much hastened in that point; because it behooved first to secure the authority of the H. See, which could not be done but by a full and absolute execution of all the Orders, Briefs, and Decrees in general which had issued from it. Wherefore this aught to be first seen to, and then the rest should be provided for in time, and care taken to give all the satisfaction that can be wished in a case wherein the H. See is the first concerned. Of this we have since seen considerable effects; but before we proceed, let us hear in brief what was done at Paris in this time.   

CHAP. IX.  
Of what passed at Paris in this time. The Irish dealt withal. Complaints made by some Bishops to the Nuntio concerning the practices of the Jesuits in getting subscriptions to the Letter of M. de Vabres. The said Bishops deliberate of sending to Rome. A Proposal of a Conference.  
ON one side there were persons who went about to all the Monasteries to get subscriptions to the Declarations against the Five Propositions, and so to send the same to Rome, thereby to embolden the Romans to condemn them in confidence of the multitude of those who would approve the Censure when it should be passed, they declaring themselves thus for it beforehand. Even poor Priests and poor Irish students maintained by the charity of others were solicited to subscribe thereunto. The Rector of the University who was advertised of the novelty and irregularity of this carriage, quashed it, and reproved all the Complices for it by a Solemn Decree, which was afterwards the ground of great contests and divisions in the University by the canvasings which M. Cornet and his adherents made there, to stir up against the Rectors decree a great number of Doctors, who impugned the same in every thing they could. The history of this must be reserved for others who were witnesses of it. This intimation may suffice in reference to my subject.  
The care taken by the authors of this Attempt to prepossess all people at Rome assoon as they resolved to remove it thither upon its miscarriage in the Faculty, began not to be understood at Paris till about this time; though the design was put in execution the year before. Of which I had a fair proof by a Letter which fell into my hands written by F. Nicholaï (a Dominican, Doctor of our Faculty, and one of the Deputies chosen by M. Cornet, on 1 July 1649.) to his General, dated May 23. 1650. He endeavoured therein to avert him from undertaking the protection of Jansenius, telling him that he wondered his brethren were so eager to defend him,  ita nostri fratres ad defensionem ejus exardescant. The reasons which he alleged to this end, were founded only upon the calumnies which that good Father being the Jesuits friend had learned of them, namely, that Jansenius teacheth not only an Effectual, but also a Necessitating Grace like to that of Calvin; Necessitatem in voluntate infert qualem ipse Calvinus. The only truth in the Letter was, that F. Nicholaï confessed in the beginning that he had not had time to read Jansenius well, neither would he so do; Censere mihi universim non licet, quia nec percurrere totum libuit nec vacavit; and that he acknowledged that when the Five Propositions were first propounded in Sorbonne, there was no design to attribute the same to Jansenius, but only to judge of them in general. Nec Jansenii tamen vel umbra tenus nomen praefixum illis fuit, sed universim tantum propositae illae sunt, ut sine ullo praejudicio censerentur.  
On the other side, the Assembly of the Clergy was held still at Paris, and there was no speech in it concerning M. de Vabres' Letter; but the subscriptions of such as were likely to be gained, were still secretly pursued. The Agents and their manner of proceeding cannot better be discovered then by a Note written by F. Dinet the King's Confessor to M. Hallier, which fell from M. Hallier's pocket occasionally as he was in Sorbonne, and was taken up by one of our Brethren who sent it to me at Rome. The Superscription of it was thus, For M. Doctor Hallier, Syndic of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris at the Hostel of Villeroy; the Contents thus; Sir, My Lord of Tarbe sent us his subscription the other day. My Lord of Troy's his brother is at present in this City, and promised yesterday that he would do the like after he had taken advice of some Doctors of your Faculty about it. Have you no one of your friends who may go to visit him? This is from Sir, Your most humble and obedient E. N. S. Signed Dinet.  
All these canvasings and other like proceed became at length displeasing to other Prelates, who more and more saw a necessity of hindering the evil effects which that Letter might produce, and of taking another course in case the business should be brought to a discussion and judgement. M. the Archbishop of Ambrun one of the Precedents of the Assembly, and the Bishops of Valence, Again, Chalons, Coming, and Orleans, sent to desire access of the Nuntio on Monday Feb. 10. He attended them, and they went to wait upon him, and told him, That it was not by order of the Clergy that M. de Vabres and the rest had written; that this proceeding was not at all liked by them; that they disapproved it; that the quality of Bishops empowered them to judge of controversies arising within their own Dioceses; that this power was signally infringed by the Letter which M. de Vabres had written; and that the business more than any other deserved extraordinary care and circumspection. They told him further of the danger there was in judging thereof, without having first examined it and summoned the parties. They represented to him what a noise might be made by such a Censure as the said Letter demanded; and above all, what necessity there was that before any thing be done, the Propositions in question should be discussed and scanned according to the places from whence they were produced. Lastly, they entreated him to advertise the Pope of this their Declaration, and inform his Holiness of the things which they had spoken to him.  
The Archbishop of Sens was to have been at this visit, but having been hindered by some other business, he went eight days after accompanied by some other Bishop to speak with the Nuntio about the same matter, and to inculcate to him afresh the necessity of the Pope's proceeding in this affair with mature deliberation, and according both to the forms required by the Canons, and to the order of Ecclesiastical Judgements.  
But the Prelates were not perfectly fatisfyed with this their diligence; for having left nothing but words with the Nuntio, they feared lest he might forget some of them, or lest the Letter which he was to write thereof to the Pope not being immediately delivered to his Holiness, might first fall into the hands of persons friends to the Jesuits, who in favour to them might either keep it as long as they pleased, or not present it to him but when it would be likely to be read in a perfunctory transient manner, or lastly wholly suppress it if it might be done conveniently: Wherefore they now took up the first purpose of writing to the Pope that Letter which shall be mentioned hereafter. But for that the same could not be so soon got ready to be sent and subscribed by all those by whom it was requisite so to be, M. de Valence writ in the mean time to the Archbishop of Tholouse (last deceased) all that had been done hitherto, and there was sent to me at Rome from him a duplicate of his Letter signed by him, to the end I might show it to all I thought fit, thereby to stop as much as possible the course of those practices, which were founded upon that of M. de Vabres. The Copy of M. de Valence's Letter to the Archbishop of Tholouse here followeth.  
Paris 3. March 1651. My Lord,  
BY reading the Considerations which have been made upon a Letter sent to Our Holy Father by some of Our Lords the Prelates, you may have understood all that hath passed upon that business. I knew nothing of the said Letter, nor of the whole design, (which was kept very secret) till my coming to Paris, and I have been extremely displeased to see how many artifices are used by the Molinists to hinder a solemn examination of all the Questions about Grace which are in dispute, (t●e only way as I conceive to procure Peace, and to clear up the truth.) We have here amongst us enquired what means were fit to be used for remedying the mischief which that Letter may produce contrary to the intention of Our Lords the Prelates who subscribed it, and we thought expedient to speak with my Lord the Nuntio, and desire him to write to his Holiness about it. Accordingly on Monday 22 Febr. my Lords, the Archbishop of Ambrun, the Bishops of Again, chaalon's, Orleans, Cominges, and myself went to wait upon the Nuntio. We declared to him that it was not the Clergy of France which signed the said Letter, but only some of our Lords the Bishops did it by themselves, and in secret, without speaking thereof to the Assembly; although the Clergy being assembled at Paris, it is an unheard of thing to write to his Holiness about an affair which concerns the whole Church, and particularly this of France, without acquainting the Assembly therewith.  
My Lord Archbishop of Ambrun represented to him the importance of this business, and the danger there was in judging of these questions without summoning and hearing the parties; That many things were to be said concerning the Propositions presented to his Holiness; and that for decision of the same it was requisite to examine and understand exactly all that hath passed here about that affair, to see in what sense the Disciples of S. Augustin maintain them; to distinguish S. Augustin's sense first of all, for fear of involving that Holy Teacher of Grace in a Censure, which would give occasion to our Heretics of saying, That the H. See condemns that which it hath always approved, and that the ancient Tradition of the Father's touching the points of Grace is deserted in the Roman Church. The Nuntio promised to let his Holiness know of our visit, and what we represented to him; he testified to us that he believed his Holiness would not deliver any Judgement, seeing it was not the Body of the Clergy which writ to him, but only some Prelates by themselves: My L. Archbishop of Sens who was to have gone with us to the Nuntio, having been hindered then, went to him eight days after with some other Prelate, and declared (as I have understood) that if the proceeding at Rome in this affair were not with all the forms required by the Canons, and according to the order of Ecclesiastical Judgements, neither himself nor many other Prelates of France would have any regard for what should be done. We have conceived that besides this, it would be requisite that we writ to his Holiness, to tell him our minds ourselves. To morrow will be sent to you our Letter which hath been signed by eight or nine Prelates. Were there time enough to send into the Provinces (as the other Letter was carried about five months) we should undoubtedly have a great number of Prelates that would subscribe it. But being we are informed that the Business hastens at Rome, it will be requisite to send it thither when you with some others of your Province have signed it, and to be contented with the fewer subscriptions by reason of the little time we have. Although I cannot believe that the H. See will be led to pronounce in such a manner upon questions of so great importance, I conceived it would be pleasing to you to understand all that we have done, and that having so great a zeal for sound doctrine, justice, and the dignity of our Function, you will approve all that we have acted only out of a spirit of peace and truth, and out of the duty of our Ministry. This is from,  
My Lord, Your most humble and most obedient Servant and Brother, LEBERON Bp. of Valence & Die.  
But before my receiving at Rome either M. de Valence's Letter or two others which informed me of what I have above recited touching the visits to the Nuntio, I received one which had been written ever since the 27. of January, in which several news was signified to me: first that there was talk at Paris of a Conference before my L. the Archbishop and some other Prelates and Magistrates. That it was demanded to have six persons there, and offered the Molinists to come in as great number as they would: That M. de Rhodez Tutor to the King had been solicited by F. Paulin his majesty's Confessor to subscribe the Letter of M. de Vabres, and that he refused it: That M. de Saint Flour did the like, though extraordinarily pressed to it by this Jesuits: That M. de Viviers confessed that he had signed it, but that he meant not to cast any blot upon Jansenius or the Propositions, but only desired a judgement for the sake of peace; and that the Pope was not entreated in that Letter to appoint a Conference, because it was not to be doubted but he would according to his wisdom call together the most able Divines on either side and make a solemn examination of the question (which cannot otherwise be well determined) before he pronounce any thing therein: In sum, that this was certainly the mind of most of the Bishops who subscribed the said Letter.  
The same hand writ to me again on 17. February wherein speaking of the Congregations held under the Popes, Clement VIII. and Paul V he hath these words; It must be incessantly inculcated to those of Rome that our disputes are wholly the same, and that the Question is solely about Effectual Grace, and sufficient Grace subject to Free will; and that neither Jansenius nor we further hold the said Propositions then as they are reduced to the point of Effectual Grace.   

CHAP. X.  
That the Haereo fateor is that which hath rendered Jansenius so odious at Rome. Several Declarations of Cardinal Barberini that the Bull of Urban VIII. is only provisional, and reacheth not the grounds of Jansenius' Doctrine. The Zeal of the Generals of the Dominicans and of the Augustine's, in behalf of S. Augustin mixed with fear of giving dissatisfaction thereby.  
IF it be true, as the abovementioned Letters affirm together with many learned and judicious persons who have carefully read Jansenius' book, that he holdeth no other doctrine but that of Effectual Grace which is wholly S. Augustin's, and which (as we shall see in the sequel) hath always been in general approbation and esteem at Rome; there is no little ground of wonder, how it could come pass that his name and his opinions have become so odious and suspected by the Romans. I observed about this time one of the capital causes thereof, if not the only one; namely That place of his book where objecting to himself against S. Augustin's doctrine the Bulls of Pius V and Gregory XIII. he answers that truly he is surprised at those Bulls, Haereo fateor; and that on the other side he seethe not what can be replied to S. Augustin's doctrine which hath been so often approved by the H. See. This doubt and seeming combat in which he placeth on one side the Bulls of these two Popes, and on the other the doctrine of S. Augustin so often approved by the H. See, (though he really accords and reconciles together those Bulls and this Doctrine sufficiently, and with a very particular respect towards the H. See) hath given so great advantages to the Jesuits against him and his book; that it not only facilitates any means which they will use to make him looked upon as a declared enemy of the H. See by persons prepossesed with the false zeal of those Fathers, but also they have thereby rendered him suspected by others, whom I found very intelligent, judicious, equitable, and likewise well affected towards this Prelate in all other things; so that expressing their dislike of this point alone they have testified their sorrow that he exposed himself to this disadvantage; so powerful is the conceit of the Pope's infallibility over the minds of the Romans, and so heinous a crime and mortal offence in their eyes is every thing that grates upon it more or less. But having seen how admirably the said Bishop is cleared from it by Aurelius Avitus in the 22. Dissonance of his Molinomachie which was lent me by a Cardinal to whom it was sent by the Post; I as often wished I could dispel those suspicions and dislkes entertained at Rome, against that place of Jansenius' book as I heard it spoken of, which was very frequently: but this was a work reserved for others. The Prejudices hereupon were so great and strong, that should I have said all I could in Apology for the Bishop of Ipre touching this matter, I should rather have made myself criminal then justified him. And indeed 'twas a thing I abstained from the more willingly and necessarily for that not being at Rome for that purpose, nor otherwise engaged in any thing that had affinity therewith, I contented myself with speaking of those which were recommended to me, or fell into discourse according as the visits I happened to make permitted.  
I made one to Cardinal Barberin on 27th. of January, in which he spoke among other things something largely of the great services which S. Bernard did to the H. See, and the ardent affection wherewith he was always animated towards it. I acknowledged to the Cardinal the truth of those commendations, and withal beseeched him to observe that that affection having been the primum mobile which set a going all his other motions and actions in behalf of the H. See, he used a notable liberty and frankness towards the same H. See, when he saw himself obliged to admonish the Popes that filled it, of such things as might give cause to complain of their government and Decrees. I added also that all such as are zealous for the service of the H. See, aught to testify the same chiefly in such occasions, wherein its interest lies so much, in understanding the things in which it hath been or may be surprised; That the Popes themselves for remedying mischiefs possible to arise from surprises have ordained in the Cannon Law C. 5. de rescriptis, that their Decrees be not yielded unto when there is difficulty in them, but that the same be represented to themselves, to the end they may use such order and remedy therein as is necessary. The Cardinal professed to like this discourse, and confirmed it by a decision or Maxim which he said is followed in the Rota. Yet he added that the books of S. Bernard De Consideratione are not those of his works which are most in esteem at Rome, having sometimes been in danger of being, if not condemned, at least suppressed or retrenched; which possibly might have been done, had it not been for the consideration of his eminent Sanctity.  
I gave him another visit on the 17. of February, and left with him the Observations made upon M. de Vabres' Letter which he sent me back after two days sealed, having read and made his extract out of the same. Ten days after I gave him another, he then professed to me that he approved those observations, but made more account of the Reflections upon the Censure of the Catechism. He said also that himself was made to speak well therein (that is to say, that he was well pleased  what was there related of him) but that the Letter of M. Albizzi which is produced there, and the other things spoken of that Assessor troubled him; and his Eminence gave me to understand that they were mutually concerned for one another, and reputed the offence done to one of their Officers as done to their proper persons. To which I answered that no doubt it was with unwillingness that M. Albizzi was reflected upon; and that it had not been done if he had not given ground for it, and the writer conceived himself constrained so to do.  
Happing to be in the company of the same Cardinal in the beginning of March, he told me plainly enough that when themselves or their officers are not treated with the respect which they think their due, they are apt to become rigid and suspicious, and to find fault with many things of which otherwise they should take no great notice, etc. That it behoved so to order the matter in the present case as not directly to thwart Decisions, and amongst others the Bull of Vrban VIII. of happy memory; but to show that what the Adversaries pretend to be contained therein, is not there indeed; and that the same is to be understood with this or that restriction, etc. That it is fit to allow something to Pope's great encumbrances which hinder them from being so exact in every point, etc. To which I answered two things. First that sometimes there is no way to deny the words which are express therein, nor to admit the same but by alleging a surprise. Secondly, That S. Augustin's disciples are full of great love and sincere respect towards the H. See and the Popes. That I doubted not but that they are always ready to interpret their meanings and words in the most benign sense that is possible. That if his eminence would think thereon, and give me light of a fit expedient how to put a  exposition upon that Bull at Rome, I doubted not but it would be accepted most willingly by all the disciples of S. Augustin, provided it be not prejudicial to truth, which with them is absolutely inviolable.  
Our discourse of this business passed so far, and the Cardinal professed himself so satisfied therewith, that I believed he would think in good earnest of procuring a clear declaration from the H. See of the motives and extent of the Bull of Vrban VIII. which he had explicated to me before on several occasions; and also (of making use of my mediation to bring it about that they who found difficulties therein (with whom he conceived I had some commerce) might acquiesce in the extent, and with the Glosses and passable conditions with which he told me the said Bull was made, and which might be expressed in such Declaration. Which was certainly a thought worthy so great and renowned a Cardinal, as well for the honour of the memory of Vrban VIII. his Uncle and the execution of his intentions, as for avoiding provocation to wrath (according to the Scripture expression) by the continuance of an obscurity and a studied silence, of the most humble children of the Catholic Church most zealous for her and the Holy See, and very capable of serving both against their common enemies.  
I remember I accounted it a thing resolved upon by the Cardinal, and so fully conceived that he having undertaken it, the accomplishment must needs follow, and they who professed some repugnance to the said Bull being (as I was confident) very ready to embrace all overtures of peace compatible with the preservation of truth; that at my return from a small journey taken with the abovementioned Gentleman to Civita Vecchia, the Alum mines, and Caprarola, finding a Citation fixed up against M. Hersent, in which I observed such words as might exasperate minds affected to S. Augustin, I went speedily to the said Cardinal to make my complaint thereof to him, and testify my grief in seeing this new obstacle to the design which he had professed of bringing matters to a safe and permanent reconciliation by giving a  interpretation to the said Bull. Now this Citation was decreed in the names of the Cardinals, Roma, la Cueva, Spada, Ginetti, S. Clement, Panzirolo, Lugo, Colonna, d' Este, and likewise in the name of Cardinal Barberin; and it mentioned the Doctrine of Jansenius, and of that whereof M. Hersent desired the Pope's protection (which is no other than that of S. Augustin) as a doctrine purely and simply condemned; although as for that of S. Augustin all the world acknowledged it at Rome, as a doctrine confirmed and approved by the general consent of the Church in all Ages; and although, as for that of Jansenius, Cardinal Barberin had often told me, that such as it was, it remained still in its integrity, and had received no blow from the Bull of his Uncle. But this Citation which was likely to be carried everywhere to the remotest Provinces, and which gave a sufficiently plausible ground to all the enemies of S. Augustin and Jansenius to speak otherwise of the said Bull, gave also occasion to such as were concerned for either or both, to become alienated and exasperated; and brought into dispute the honour of the H. See from whence it was looked upon as proceeding, bearing the names and seals of their Eminences, the most considerable members officers and supports thereof.  
The Cardinal seemed astonished at what I said to him, and answered me that he would consider the matter and advertise the aforesaid persons thereof; That he remembered that he signed some thing, but it was without having had any hand in the business: That he had been in the Country the week before, and indisposed this; that all these things were transacted by the Office of the Rota which inserts in these kind of Instruments what seemed good to them, and always interprets things to the worst. After which he proceeded to speak again of the Bull of Vrban VIII. and told me that we ought to handle the same tenderly and not thwart it so directly; because that this and others the like were set forth, and are to be understood, supposing that the books in question contain really the Propositions of which they are accused; which being matter of fact, the Popes may be surprised and deceived therein: And that in case such Books do not contain the Propositions imputed to them, condemnations (or rather, prohibitions) as he told me do not touch them nor lay any blot or prejudice upon them. And as for that of Jansenius in particular, he added that the Bull of Vrban VIII. doth not condemn but only forbidden it upon the report made thereof to his Holiness. I testified that I was very glad to learn from his Eminence the interpretation and extent which ought to be given to those Decrees and Bulls; but I told him that the Jesuits and their Adherents did not understand the same in this manner, nor confine them within these bounds. The Cardinal replied that herein we ought to be firm and hold them to it. I answered that that course was taken and is still endeavoured to the utmost; but his Eminence might extinguish many contests of no fruit nor edefication, if in stead of leaving Divines to wrangle among themselves about such punctilios he would procure some Decree or Bull from the H. See, wherein were made such an open and sincere declaration and explication of those hitherto set forth, as his Eminence did now make to me. But I could not urge this matter further; and the Cardinal having caused me to return to what I have above related of the visit given to the Nuntio by the Archbishop of Ambrun and the other Prelates, and to what had passed in the University touchching the Irish, he told me that it were good that the Pope had always about him two or three persons of France, and as many of Spain, to inform his Holiness of the things which passed in those remote countries touching doctrine. I answered him that it would be very good; but that besides the difficulties which occur herein, their manner of handling affairs in secret and covertly much discouraged those that desired to send or come thither. He replied that it was the order which was exactly observed amongst them, not to reveal any thing of the affairs which they handle daily; but that in those which then divided men's minds, and whereof we had so often discoursed, nothing could be done publicly without reciprocal communication, and a Congregation established on purpose for that cause.  
I had the honour to see Cardinal Barberin the Saturday before this conference, and to accompany him to the Celestines to a Thesis of Divinity dedicated to him on Saturday 19 March 1651. The Thesis amongst others was upon the matter of Grace and Predestination to Glory, which was defended there as done gratuitously and effectually before the Prevision of Merits: of which point that of effectual Grace and all the other Christian Truths maintained by us in the Five Propositions, being clear and infallible consequences, I this day took this occasion to make to his Eminence a short reduction thereof to grace effectual by itself, the sole thing for whose defence and establishment we were engaged, in exclusion of sufficient Grace subject to . The Cardinal professed himself satisfied with the reduction and declaration, and told me that he conceived that this was the way to bring affairs to a speedy issue.  
I remembered that at my departure from him when I showed his Eminence the Letter of M. de Valence, I went to see Lucas Holstenius, and showed the same also to him. He esteemed it so good and so judicious and withal so suitable to the inclinations which he had observed in the Pope in a familiar conference which he had with his Holiness for a whole hour about these matters, that he desired me to translate it into Italian, and give him a Copy of it to show the Pope, thereby to confirm him in the resolution which he had professed to have, of hastening and hazarding nothing in their contests. The subjects of these discourse was this; the Pope opening himself to him concerning the trouble he received by continual solicitations from France to make some decision of these matters which he understood not, and to the study of which he had never applied himself, M. Holstenius answered that his Holiness would do well not to begin at that age to put himself to the trouble of understanding, and much less of deciding them; because that they were of themselves very difficult to comprehend, that they had not only moved great disputes in all Ages of the Church amongst the faithful since the birth of Jesus Christ, but also had divided all the greatest Philosophers of old in the difficulty they found of conciliating the Freedom of Man with the most clear and infallible knowledge which God hath of future things, and with the most immutable resolution of his eternal Decrees; some of them sticking to these opinions, and others to other, as men do also now adays and will do as long as there be men in the world. Wherefore being no Decision can be made of these points which is likely to satisfy them, his Holiness should do better not to think of making any, nor trouble himself about it, but let things slide along as they do till they become calm of themselves, as no doubt they would do, when either side or both become weary of disputing and of endeavouring to persuade their Adversaries to their opinions. This was so well liked by the Pope, that he congratulated with M. Holstenius for the intimation which he gave him thereof, and told him that he would beware of proceeding after any other manner then according to this advice of his.  
About the same time a person of honour came to visit me, and told me he had been two days before with the Master of the sacred Palace; and that this pious Ecclesiastic had spoken to him with great resentment for the principles of S. Augustin explicated by the Bishop of Ipre, and with a holy abhorrence of the persecution which they suffered, promising on his part to retard and obstruct to his power the evil designs which he found were in agitation against those Holy Maxims, and such as defended them; but that he was troubled that we acted so little on our patt for the information of people at Rome, and that whilst we wholly deserted the Field of Battle to our Adversaries, it was no wonder if they prevailed as much as they pleased.  
I thought fit also to go and advertise the General of the Augustine's of the Citation fixed up against M. Hersent, and of the danger there was lest the Jesuits should make use of it in the remote Provinces, as a new Proof that S. Augustin's doctrine was looked upon and dealt with at Rome as a condemned doctrine: I intimated to him that the more he dissembled the outrages daily offered to the doctrine and authority of that great Saint, the less easy it would be to remedy the same. He assented to what I said, but propounded to me to make the complaints which I suggested to him: of which I making such excuses as he liked, and he acknowledging that himself might intermeddle therein with more reason, security, and success than I, he lift up his eyes and his shoulders, and striking his hands upon the arms of his chair, expressed his grief and his thoughts with these words, which he uttered twice, Non si può parlar, non si può parlar; There is no speaking, there is no liberty to speak. To which I answering, That it was time now to do it, or never would be; (to the end he might consider what course were best to take) I left him a Copy of M. Hersent's Citation, Epistle and Sermon. He accepted the same willingly, but withal asked me what he should answer in case it were demanded from whom he had them. I answered, that it was not fit to name me; which he promised me not to do. This I observe, to show what restraint they are under at Rome in reference to these matters; since a man of his quality feared being asked and obliged to declare from whom he had received such public pieces, which might have been found in every body's hands. Moreover he signified to me what just fear he had to make remonstrances so necessary and well-becoming him, by the example of a Cardinal who (he said) offering to make the like a little while ago about these matters, had fallen into great disgust and mortification for so doing.   

CHAP. XI.  
Notice of my being in danger to be put into the Inquisition. Of the Molinomachy of Aurelius Avitus. The Explication of Haereo Fateor. Such as were thought inclinable to defend Jansenius, removed from the Assemblies of the Inquisition. An Audience of the Pope.  
I WAS advertised about the same time that I was in danger of falling into the like myself, for that (as he affirmed who gave the notice thereof to the Gentleman my companion) in the visits which I had made to the Cardinals I had spoken too freely of those sentiments which pass at Rome for Heretical; that in reference to these matters there needed no more than a single Hear-say to cause a man to be apprehended and put in a safe place, that is to say, in the Inquisition; that when any one is once there, it is not easy for him to get out; and therefore I had great reason to take heed to myself. He who came to give this notice was a Jesuit, and at this time performed the office of Secretary for France to his General, and with whom I being frequently in company together with that Gentleman who had been recommended to him by some Letters of his Confreres in France I had contracted some acquaintance and friendship; Which nevertheless I did not believe so great, as to be more prevalent with him then the interests of his Society, and I scarce doubted but that he came to give me this intelligence by contrivance of his Confreres, either to frighten me, or for some other reasons. However, this Father was thanked for the kindness which he professed to do me; but withal he was given to know, that finding myself culpable of nothing, I feared nothing; which yet did not hinder but that, there remaining not above three weeks to the time set down by us for our departure, I was more wary of myself then formerly, for fear of occasioning the crossing of our designs, by giving any hold against myself. We began to take our leaves, and to buy such little curiosities as we minded to carry from Rome into France: amongst divers fine Prints which I had from a Graver there, I bought also five sheets of Paper, upon which there were above a hundred pourtraicts of several Jesuits who were Canonised thus, as having shed their blood for the Christian Religion, amongst whom this was in its order, Pater Henricus Garnetus Anglus Londini pro fide Catholica suspensus & sectus, 3 Maii 1606. None in the world is ignorant that he suffered there the punishment of death for the Powder-plot, of which he was accused, convicted, and acknowledged himself guilty before he died; insomuch that out of his resentment of his fault, upon some reproaches made to him as having pretended in committing it to attain to the glory of Martyrdom, He answered, That it was a thing unheard of for Traitors and Parricides to be ranked amongst Martyrs, Nunquam auditum fuit parricidam esse Martyrem; as it is related in these words, if I remember aright, by a well known Author who writ the History. These Prints, which are always sold at the Sign of the Eagle near the Church of S. Marcellus, with permission of the Superiors, I took with me to make use of, one day, against those who have thought fit that the Hours should be condemned, because in one of the Editions M. de Berule is found in the Calendar with this Letter B. which signifies Blessed, a title which the Censors of that excellent Work affirm is not lawful to be given to any person but by the authority and approbation of the Pope, whilst at the same time they suffer the title of Martyr to be given publicly and without contradiction for these forty years to persons dead in the greatest infamy, and for the most enormous crimes.  
Cardinal Barberin did us the honour to visit us on the 25. day of March; amongst other things we talked of the Molinomachie of Aurelius Avitus. The Cardinal asked me what was the subject of that Work. I answered him, that it was written concerning the Jesuits pretence that the Propositions condemned by the Bull of Pius V agreed with the Doctrine of Jansenius; that it showed with wonderful solidity, and invincible clearness, that such pretended agreement was indeed none at all but impertinent, and maliciously and falsely alleged by the Jesuits; that their artifices and horrible calumnies in all that business were laid open by the Author of the said Book. Amongst others I told him of the 22. pretended Agreement, in which the Jesuits recite this Proposition out of Pius V's Bull; Deus non potuisset ab initio talem creare hominem qualis nunc nascitur. I told him, that I had found true what the Molinomachie said thereof; namely, that Jansenius having mentioned it in his Book as an Objection to be cleared, and accordingly cleared it very solidly, they have taken it out of that place, as if Jansenius had written and affirmed it as of himself, without setting down the words foregoing, which show that he mentions it as an Objection, but suppressing all that the Bishop allegeth to show that it hath been condemned in the sense wherein it is taken by Pius V but that this sense makes nothing to that of S. Augustine, which he recites and explicates. The Cardinal professed himself surprised at what I said, and could not imagine (though upon my affirming it, and engaging myself to show it him, he believed it) that 'twas possible for men to resolve upon such black falsities. But for the better understanding of the business, he put to me the usual difficulty abovementioned, which the Jesuits make use of to discredit Jansenius upon all occasions; namely, that objecting the said Propositions to himself, he saith, Haereo, fateor, sed quid ad Doctrinam S. Augustini? as if Jansenius opposed the Authority of S. Augustine to Pius V and Gregory XIII. And indeed he proposed it, as thinking to press me with this instance; but I told him, that this was also one of the cheats of that Bishop's enemies, and was likewise laid open in the Molinomachie; that Jansenius did not thus close up his discourse; that it was an intolerable wickedness to suppress the remainder, by which he explicates this Proposition, and reconciles the H. See with itself, and that with very great care, esteem, and veneration; that the entire place ran thus, sed quid ad Doctrinam S. Augustini clarissimam invectissimamque, quam toties probavit & sequitur, sequendamque monuit Apostolica sedes? that he did not rest there, but a little after added and put to himself this question, as out of all likelihood, namely, Whether the H. See can be contrary and opposite to itself? to which he answereth, that this absurdity cannot be affirmed; and then shows that the H. See really agrees with itself, and that the Doctrine of S. Augustine, approved by the Popes, hath nothing of affinity with the Propositions condemned by Pius V and Gregory XIII. This reply cleared and satisfied Cardinal Barberin, who rejoined nothing further.  
The minds of many in constant employment at Rome about matters of Doctrine, were so possessed with aversion against the Bishop of Ipre, that they would not admit of any thing that might contribute to the clearing of his intentions, or to his justification. M. Albizzi (as I have since understood) effected some time ago, that F. Lucas Vadingo, Superior, and in a manner Founder of the house of S. Isidore, in which are the Monks of S. Francis all Irish, one of the Consultors of the H. Office, a man of singular piety and very great parts, was fain to absent himself from the Assemblies of that Congregation, only for saying; That it was requisite to examine Jansenius' Book, and to let it pass current after having retrencht out of it what was reprovable, if there were any thing which deserved such correction. And the F. Abbot Hilarion, of the Order of the Bernardins, some time after his composing the Book I mentioned above, in which he noted the different senses in which the Propositions might be taken, received an order from Cardinal Spada to repair no more to the Congregations where those matters were handled. The manner of it was thus: The Cardinal told him, That it was not necessary that he should be present any more at the Congregations held about this affair. F. Hilarion answered, That he was obliged to obey his Eminence. The Cardinal replied, That he did not say that, but only entreated him that he would think good to repair thither no more. When F. Hilarion gave me this relation, he told me, that the Cardinal spoke this to him because it had been his advice that the sense of Jansenius upon the Propositions might be examined and explicated. And as for F. Lucas Vadingo, that he received an express prohibition for it, by the intrigues and solicitations of M. Albizzi.  
F. Campana, Procurator General of the Dominicans, preached this Lent at Rome in the Church of S. Peter, and it was the third or fourth Lent that he preached there, it being usual to be retained Preacher of a Church not for one year only, but for many, till some occasion obliges him to desist from that employment. I went to hear him as often as I could: He was an excellent man, and I was much edified by him. I was there on Tuesday in the Passion week, and he gave notice of a Sermon about Predestination for the Wednesday following. But what? (said he) many will say 'tis a nice subject, and not meet to be preached of to the people. O, answered he, S. Augustine is not of that mind, who saith, That Praedestinatio Sanctorum populo Christiano praedicanda est ut qui gloriantur in Domino glorientur. I returned thither on Wednesday, and he made a very good and solid Sermon upon that subject.  
The Gentleman with whom I was, and myself, had resolved to departed immediately after the celebration and ceremonies of the Feast of Easter; and that we might not be delayed by an audience which we wished to have of the Pope before our departure, we solicited for one at the end of Lent; which on H. Monday we obtained, and the Pope treated us with very much gentleness, courtesy and familiarity, for half an hour. I twice turned the discourse as much as I could to things bordering upon the contests of the times, to give his Holiness occasion to enter upon them, but he handsomely kept off them, and we spoke not one word thereof far nor near.  
I much wondered at this time at the Pope's closeness upon the two occasions which I gave him of speaking of things which belonged to my profession, seeing in the audience I had had of him five years before, in the company of the Abbot Bassompiere now Bishop of Xaintes, the Marquis of Marevil Brother-in-Law to M. de Angoulesme, M. Sanguine the Son, first Master of the King's Household, and the Abbot Bontemps, now first Vallet of his majesty's Chamber, the Pope left none of the contests risen amongst Catholics without speaking something to me of them, and giving me occasion himself to tell his Holiness my thoughts thereof, though the company was then much more numerous, and he had less cause and time to fix his discourse with me than he had in this occasion, being only with that Gentleman. So that I could not attribute his reservedness and silence in these matters to any thing but to the resolution which it was told me he had so often made of not hearing any speech thereof at all, for that they did only trouble him without any benefit; and perhaps this consideration had some place at this time. But after I understood, as I am going to relate, that I had been accused to him for one of the most zealous of those whom they call Jansenists, and that there had been found one who defended me from that reproach: I conceived the principal reason of his silence was, to know who had spoken true, my accusers or my defenders; and that he would let me go on alone without replying any thing on his part which might give me occasion of speaking, to see how far my zeal (of which complaints had been made to him, which I knew not of) would lead me. Since my understanding of which, I accounted it my great good fortune that I kept within the bounds of the respect and circumspection which I own to the head of the Church, and spoke nothing to him of the affairs which concern it, and are above my reach, without his giving me an invitation to tell him what I knew thereof, which I should have done in this case in all Christian sincerity, and according to the measure whereof I am capable.   

CHAP. XII.  
Several confirmations of the notice given me of the danger wherein I was. A design of the Bishops to write and send to Rome. The difficulties of that so sudden Delegation. An entire discovery of the design almost taken to stay me. My departure from Rome.  
THE first notice I received of the complaints made of me, was given me by the kindness of the Jesuit I spoke of; and though I attributed not so much to it as to believe or conclude any thing certain from it, yet I had not forgotten it. It served me to understand a somewhat unusual compliment which was made me by the Cardinal of S. Clement, when I went to take leave of him, to thank him for the favourable reception he made me in my two or three visits to him, and to offer him the little service I was able to render him. For as soon as I had signified the cause that brought me to him, the only answer he made, was, to tell me that he was glad of it, and to ask me if I departed suddenly; and I having told him that I believed it would be the next day after the Festivals of the 13. or 14. of April, which was then began, he replied, That it would be well done, and the sooner the better. He passed instantly, with the civility so common to their Eminences, to another discourse, which yet he contracted according to his wont into few words; but I was more mindful to what he said to me at first, then to all the rest. For that which the Jesuit had told the Gentleman my friend, came into my memory, and I began to believe that there was something in it.  
For the same purpose I went to visit Cardinal Barberin, from whom I had received so many obliging treatments during my whole abode at Rome. Amongst other things which he said to me, he asked me whether I knew the Cardinal of S. Clement. I answered, that I had visited him twice or thrice, and found him of a very vigorous old age, and that there was seen in him as great testimonies of an eminent spirit, as there appeared tokens of modesty and peity in his countenance. Cardinal Barberin replied, that I had not lost my time in those visits, and that I held a good place in his mind. Mine was full of his Compliment, and the Jesuits intelligence, and this discourse was a new item to me in confirmation of the apprehensions I gathered from the two other, and gave me the curiosity of searching further into it. I answered therefore to Cardinal Barberin, that it was purely an effect of the Cardinal of S. Clement's goodness; and that since himself (Cardinal Barberin) did me the favour to acquaint me with that happiness which I was before ignorant of, I beseeched him to tell me how he understood it himself. Here t●ere arose a little alteration in Cardinal Barberin's countenance, which could not proceed but from his conceiving that he had told me too much, or from his being at a loss what answer to make me; so that I presently perceived, that from whencesoever that alteration proceeded, there was more in the business than his Eminence was willing to tell me; and after he had told me in general terms, that he had heard the Cardinal of S. Clement speak advantageously of me, I durst not press him further. But I well saw that something had been spoken in that way, in some place where they had been together, which they were not often, saving in the Congregations of the H. Office. This, with the Jesuits intelligence, was a certain evidence that it must needs have been in those Congregations; and that if it was there, that the Cardinal of S. Clement had spoken of me with advantage, it must be gathered from thence, that seeing complaints had been made of me, there had been some who spoke not of me in the same manner.  
I began also to perceive that those complaints must needs have been carried to the Pope, because it is the order used by the Congregation of the H. Office, for the Cardinals of whom it consists, to assemble at la Minerva the Dominicans house every Wednesday morning: Then for the Secretary or Assessor of the said Congregation to go to the Pope in the afternoon, to acquaint his Holiness with what was handled in the morning by the Assembly of Cardinals, that his Holiness may be prepared for the determination which he is to make thereof the next day, and may have the night to reflect thereon: Then for the same Cardinals to re-assemble on Thursday morning at the Pope's Palace, where in his holiness's presence they speak anew to all the things whereof they consulted the day foregoing, and deliver their last sentiments, which the Pope having heard, determines himself to that which seemeth good unto him.  
In this conjuncture Letters of the 17. of March arrived to me from Paris, certifying me; that the Bishops who went to the Nuntio, and some others with them, had at length resolved to write to the Pope touching the Letter of M. de Vabres, to beseech his Holiness, that if he intended to make any decision about those matters, he would so do it as that it might put an end to the contests amongst Catholic Divines, establish peace amongst them, clear up and settle the truth which both sides ought to acknowledge; all which cannot be done but in a solemn Congregation, like that which was appointed by Clement VIII. and Paul V. especially considering the speciosity of these matters, which have been very much embroiled by the process of time, and the malice of men. Moreover, that they had resolved, that seeing Letters are but dead remonstrances, lasting sometimes no longer than they are reading, to send also some Divines to be living solicitors for the procuring the effect of the Letters, and obtaining the erecting of such a Congregation. It was signified also, that the same Prelates pitched upon me for one of the Delegates; and being I was already upon the place, they desired me to stay there expecting the arrival of the rest, who were to come to me, and would be the bearers of their Letters.  
I was enjoined further to double my vigilance in the mean time about this affair, because it was likely that the Letter of M. de Vabres would be brought to effect; that all possible means would be used to bring it about; that there was lately a Letter obtained from the Queen, in which her Majesty pressed his Holiness to have regard to that of so many Prelates, and to the needs of her people, and for that purpose to pass a determination upon the contested Propositions, which were presented to him for his decision.  
It was now within four or five days to the time set for our departure: We had only some adieus to make, and were in the crowd of Ceremonies of the Festivals, which we desired to see, and other encumbrances which always accompany the preparation for a Journey out of a great City. I did not omit to go see that man whom I had found so quicksighted in the temper of the Roman Court, and all other circumstances of this affair, and who at length consented to the Expedient of this Delegation, in regard of the extreme needs which I had alleged to him for it: I imparted to him all that was signified to me by the Letters which I had received. He was surprised to see things so forward from France: He told me, that he had yielded to the said Delegation, but not to have it put in execution till things were in more forwardness at Rome: That it was requisite to allow time to those who were busied at Rome in drawing up some instructions touching these disputes, for the information of some Cardinals (on whom the affair was likely to depend) concerning the true estate in which they are: That till a fit mothod were taken to make their Eminences understand what was intended to be represented to them, no good was to be expected therein. This excellent man alleged some other reasons which I touched above, and repeat not here, whereunto I opposed the extreme needs of putting some obstacle to the powerful solicitations used by the Jesuits for compassing the evil effect which they proposed to themselves from M. de Vabres' Letter. He told me, that he was convinced more than I, what urgent necessity there was of applying some remedy to this mischief, which increased every day; but that it was not always a fit time to apply remedies though necessary; and that it behoved to wait for circumstances fit for the procuring that redress which was hoped for: That as for the evil effect which I feared, there was no probability of its coming to pass so soon; and besides if it did, inasmuch as it would be a thing against order and truth, and without hearing of parties, it could not be valid, but there would always be room to recurre to this course. That he remained firm in this mind, and that it behoved to beseech the Bishops of France to suspend the execution of their good intentions till things were more hopefully prepared at Rome. That incessant care should be used to prepare them without noise; and that if it should please God to bless that care, I should not fail of being timely advertised thereof, to the end the good purposes of those Bishops might not only be accomplished as much as lay in them, but also followed by a success worthy of their patience and zeal.  
This was the substance of the answers which I made on Easter Monday, April the 10th. though more at large then they are here recited, to the Letters which I mentioned. Namely, that considering all these reasons, and that their Letter was not sent to me, and possibly would not be suddenly, and being willing to accompany my friend in returning, as I had done in coming, I should without fail departed from Rome on the ensuing Thursday for France. I added, that nevertheless, that I might not seem to abandon a cause so important and just, nor fail in corresponding to the hope which my LL. the Bishops had of my submission to their Orders, nor wholly of my own motion overthrow the resolution which they had taken; in expectation of a reply to the reasons which I sent them, I signified what course I intended to take in my Journey, and how I might meet their Letters at the principal Cities through which I should pass, that so, if they pleased to give me new Orders about what I represented to them, I might receive and obey the same.  
All things were thus disposed for our departure; and I was yet ignorant of what had particularly passed touching the complaints made of me. There remained but two days more, and one of them was to be employed in going to Tivoli, to take leave of M. the Ambassador, who was still retired there since his going out of Rome; which was accordingly done: The other was so taken up with other visits active and passive, that there remained one yet to make in the morning of our departure to the Cardinal d' Este, to take leave of his Highness, which we did likewise. But after I left him, I had the good fortune to light upon a person who was very well informed of that which troubled me, and who told me thereof with sufficient freedom. For having professed his joy for seeing me departed in the good posture wherein I stood, and told me transiently, that the Jesuit often mentioned had reason for what he said, and that I had escaped fair: To put him upon a fuller discovery of what concerned my departure, I answered, That I had not been ignorant of the clamour made to the Pope about me, though without cause given by me; but yet if I had been well assaulted, I was also well defended. My friend by this believed that I understood the whole secret, so that no longer scrupling to speak plainly of it, he was much pleased to tell me all the circumstances he knew thereof, and I to hear them. He told me that the business was come to an even lay; and had not a Cardinal pleaded hard for me, I was in danger of making a troublesome residence at Rome. That the reason hereof was, for that in the discourses I had had with some of the Cardinals, I had testified some affection for Jansenius; (yet I said nothing of him besides what is related above) That upon the least discovery of the inclinations of one's heart, especially in matters so odious as these, the rest would be presumed; consequently it was gathered, that I had more of such affection than I had made show of: in a word, that I was a Janseniste, and that it was requisite to arrest me, and put me in the prison of the Inquisition. That upon this the Cardinal who spoke in my defence, declared that I had also visited him two or three times, and had indeed testified to him some zeal for S. Augustins' Doctrine, but said not so much as one word to him of Jansenius. That he demanded what proof there was of the accusation brought against me? Where were the books, or the Writings by which I might be convicted of that whereof I was accused? That he said, Such haste must not be used towatds a person belonging to so famous a Body as the Faculty of Paris, which might resent the injury done to one of its Doctors for words spoken into the air, for single hear-say, without proof under hand, without conviction. That were I guilty of what I was charged with, yet it would be necessary to have something before them, whereof to inform the public, and justify the proceed held against me. That should such a thing be done, it would be disapproved by all the world, for that I was come to Rome only upon occasion of the H. year or Jubilee; and so little in order to treating any affair there, that all I waited for to return into France, was only till the solemnity of the Festivals of the approaching Easter were passed; that therefore he did not see just ground enough to resolve upon arresting me. That in fine the Pope amidst this variety of opinions finding himself amused by these reasons, inclined to my side, and pronounced his sentence upon my affair in these two words; Lasciatelo andare, Let him go.  
I accounted myself much beholding to the providence of God, the protection of that Cardinal, and the goodness of the Pope, for the rendering of this sentence in my favour; very happy in knowing of it, and most obliged to this friend for having so clearly unfolded this mystery which I discerned but very obscurely before. Yet I took notice to him of but half my obligation; however being otherwise much my friend, congratulating myself with him for God's deliverance of me from the aforesaid danger; I embraced him, and took my leave. After which it remained only to dine, and so to horse, which we did about noon 13 April 1651. intending to lie at Monterose.   

CHAP. XIII.  
A Letter written from Florence to excuse myself absolutely from returning to Rome, notwithstanding my promise. My most considerable Observations at Milan.  
When I saw myself out of Rome, I had time upon the way to consider more attentively the danger I had incurred, and was more astonished at the project against me, than I had been when the several notices were first given me thereof. I scarce believed what I saw, and admired how I had escaped the danger, having been so near falling into it. I resolved positively not to put myself into the like again, for that it would seem a tempting of God to hazard myself anew to so evident peril. And whereas the reason which brought me off, was the Pope's considering that I was ready to departed from Rome to return into France, I resoived to write by the first Post, to make my most humble excuses to my LL. the Bishops, from the promise made in my last of returning to Rome if they appointed me; that so if they persisted in the design of sending some one thither, they might think, without delay, of some other than me.  
Assoon as we arrived in Florence, I did so, and signified by those Letters of the 20 of April, not only that I should not return to Rome as I had promised to do, in case I should by the way receive order for it of my LL. the Bishops, and the Letters to the Pope; but that I should write to a Father of the Oratory, a judicious, zealous and pious person, named F, Petit. (whom I had entreated to open in my absence such Pacquets as were sent to me, and to perform such things in my behalf as required haste, but could not see him after my receiving of that last intelligence) not to meddle with any thing, 〈◊〉 do aught of what I had instructed him, because considering the state of things not fit to be told at this time, it would not be safe either for the cause or his person, for him (any more than for me) to do any thing whatever about this affair, without express order and authentic power.  
I signified by the said Letters expressly, that this resolution was not to be altered; of which such as I should acquaint by word of mouth at Paris concerning the grounds thereof, would be convinced; that however I hoped the Pope would not hasten to determine any thing for all the solicitations made to him; and I intimated among other reasons I had for it, that dining with the Ambassador the day before our departure, and in the Converse after Dinner having read the Bishop of Valence's Letter to the Archbishop of Tholouse, he heard it silenty till the place where M. de Valence expresses his fear, lest the affair were hastened at Rome, and the Pope determined it before it were well examined; at which place the Ambassador who had abundant experience of the Popes resolved silence touching these matters, said these words, True indeed, 'tis well said; ha'! he cares not; I have spoken to him about it a hundred times, and could never draw one word from him.  
I observed too both in these and my last letters from Rome, that if any Delegates came, it was absolutely necessary, that they wholly abstain from the name of Jansenius, how well persuaded soever they were of the truth of his opinions and fidelity in explicating those of St. Augustine, and how ardent soever they were for the interests of the particular cause of that Prelate; because if they should, there would not only be nothing gotten by it to his advantage, but they would also ruin the grand affair for which they were sent to Rome; That for certain, things were in such a posture there, since the haereo fateor, etc. that assoon as the name of Jansenius were heard out of their mouths, they would be in an inevitable danger of rendering the rest of their most just and necessary Remonstrances altogether unprofitable.  
We were at Florence, and the parts adjacent near three weeks; partly in expectation of a passport for Milan, which was there solicited for us by M. Rinuccini Resident in that City for the great Duke of Tuscany. Thence we went to Bononia, Modena, Parma, Mantua, and after staying so long in those places as was requisite to see them and salute the several Dukes of them, we came down to Venice, arriving thereon Ascension day, whereon that famous Ceremony of renewing the Republics alliance with the Sea, is celebrated. We departed thence for Genua through the Duchy of Milan; all which State we saw, together with that great and goodly City which gives name to it. We were led round the great covered Galleries on the top of the ancient square Fortress in the middle, which commands all the Bastions of the new Citadel, which is so handsome, so regular and well fortified. One afternoon we went to M. Stella, Canon of the Cathedral, who showed us his Closet so worthy to be reckoned for a Rarity, not only in regard of the curiosities it contains, but also for the exquisite things made by his own hand belonging to the Mathematics, the Optics, and Musical instruments which are in so great number, that there is about fifty several kinds made by himself, and which he knows how to use very skilfully. He showed us the great Hospital, and the Seminaries built by S. Charles; and also the great Crystal Shrine, in which his body still entire clothed with his Pontifical Ornaments, is so well preserved, notwithstanding the injuries of time, which hath begun to invade the eyebrows and the end of the nose, that he seemed to me (by his left cheek, on which side he is seen) to have some air of the pictures which pass about of him. But I cannot forget the particular courteousness of M. Rinuccini, who brought us to the knowledge of this Canon, and showed us many other civilities. He accompanied us with the said Canon to the Cathedral Church; the design of which is so vast, and the structure so magnificent, as well for the Marble, of which it is all built without, as for the great number of exquisite statues about it in a thousand places. He conducted us into divers other places of the City. He invited us to dine with him a day or two after our Arrival, the Marquis of Caracena having sent him a very great fish on Thursday; we were desired to be at the eating of it the next day; but he seasoned it, amongst many other delightful things which came into discourse, with a question he made, which is worth the setting down here, to show many ecclesiastics, who shall read it one day, the just reproaches which we sometimes deserve to receive from the people of the world. He told me, he wondered that almost all the Writers of this age employed themselves chief in two things; the one, in amplifying more and more the Pope's power, and extending every day his authority much beyond the bounds which our Lord gave him: The second, in making men go as near as is possible to criminal actions forbidden by the Laws of God and the Church, and exciting them to commit the same with impunity, and without any remorse of conscience, by using all sorts of subtleties to sever from them the sinfulness which blackens them, and inspires a horror of them. He asked me how it came to be so? And he was not ill satisfied with my answer, which imported, That I wondered at it as well as he, and that his ask me the reason of it, was a sign that he knew it no more than I.   

CHAP. XIV.  
A Letter from Paris received at Genua, obliging me to return to Rome. It prevailed above my resolution to the contrary. My return to Rome.  
WE arrived at Genua a day or two before the day of Corpus Christi. Ever since my departure from Rome I continued in the resolution not to return thither, at least not unless some motives almost irresistible should arrive to alter it. The more I reflected by the way upon the fortune I had incurred, and the reason which dissipated the purposes of retaining me there, the more this resolution was fortified. I was still in this mind, when I went to visit Marquis Giustiniani Resident for the King with that Republic, to salute him, and desire the Letters which he had received for me, to the end I might know what my LL. the Bishops had determined upon my last from Rome of the 3. of April, and upon those from Florence of the 20th of the same month. I hoped all the answers I should receive, at least those to my Letters from Florence, would be so many releases of my former promise of returning to Rome in case it were judged necessary; and I believe had it been throughly understood in France how narrowly I escaped the nets which were laid for me, I had undoubtedly been dispensed with. But looking upon affairs near hand, and discovering them afar off, are two several things; and so are speaking of things in general, and considering them particularly. By all the Letters which I received, both those of the 28th of April in answer to mine of the 3d. and those of the 5. and 12th of May to mine from Florence, it was signified to me, that I must by all means return to Rome what reason soever I had to the contrary. That there were Letters sent both to the Pope and to some of the Cardinals (of which I shall speak afterwards) which were ordered to be delivered to none but to myself; that I should deliver them according to their directions, and beware of rendering them uneffectual by my negligence in an affair of so great importance as this in agitation, unless I would be responsible for all the evil sequels it might have, in case the Letters were not delivered through my fault or absence. None could write more expressly (speaking but in general) than I had done from Florence to evince that I ought not to return to Rome, at least not all alone; nor could more strong and urging terms be used then those which obliged me to return without admitting of my deliberation thereon.  
All which notwithstanding was no conviction to me that I ought to return to Rome. For how strong soever I had said my reasons were for not returning, yet I had not discovered the main particular. I knew it could not be divined, and was persuaded that had it been known, I had been dealt with in another manner.  
As I was alone upon the Port of Genua, ruminating upon these designs, that which was intended to be taken with me at Rome, and which kept me from returning thither more than any other consideration, brought a thought into my mind which suddenly changed my inclination and made me slight all other obstacles which might hinder me from so doing. I considered that God had perhaps preserved my liberty against their attempts and artifices who designed to deprive me of it, only that I might employ it for his service for that of the H. See, for that of Truth, and for that of the whole Church in reference to this Affair; after which I concluded that I should be guilty before him of ingratitude and infidelity if I demurred longer. That seeing he had once protected me against those attempts, he could do the same against the like or greater; and if it pleased his Providence that I should miscarry in the next adventure, I ought cheerfully to consecrate to him my liberty and life, which I could not do in a better occasion, having herein ground to hope from his mercy that I should lose nothing in the sequel but what he would one day restore a hundred fold. Thus I resolved to return to Rome, for those purposes which I shall set down when I come to speak of my actions immediately upon it; but I resolved to do it with such conditions and cautions as required to be heeded in such ticklish circumstances as I stood in, and expected all things to be at Rome.  
The principal one was, not to appear at Rome when I arrived there, but to return directly back without delivering the Prelate's Letters, if upon my imparting them and laying forth my commission to that excellent and judicious personage above mentioned (who did not approve the so soon beginning to stir in this business) he should advise me to retire without appearing or doing any thing. As on the contrary, in case he consented to my performing what I was charged with, I conceived I ought to do it with the greatest publicness and assurance that I could; that so they who contrived the former bad designs against my liberty during my stay there, might no more have the boldness to renew the same.  
I cast my business accordingly, and projected to arrive at Rome a day or two after Thursday or on Thursday itself; that so before another Thursday (which is the day for ordinary consultations about things and persons relating to matters of doctrine) I might either be upon my way back if it were requisite, or make known my quality of Envoy from the Bishops of France, which would secure me from all kind of enterprises and violences, and render my person sacred and inviolable by the Maxims of the Law of Nations. For I considered that if on the contrary I should arrive at Rome only a day or too before Thursday, and my return should by mishap come to be discovered before I could publish it with the solemnities requisite, I might fear lest those who had before spoken to the Pope against me, would not let pass the following Assembly without advertising his Holiness thereof, without convincing him that their accusations were well grounded, and that my departure from Rome had been only a mere trick; without confounding the Cardinal whose goodness had defended me, by showing him that he was mistaken in his judgement of me; and without causing him to look upon me from thence forward as a wilily and suspected person, and to consent with themselves to my restraint; and that whereas his former pleading had induced the Pope to say Let him go, his Holiness after this seeing me returned might say to M. Albizzi, Cause him to be apprehended. Which he would have been very glad to execute immediately, and to which for certain there would have been no want of his diligence.  
And although the Letters found with me aught in good justice to procure my release the next day, yet it was to be feared lest they might be suppressed or kept (at least) till another time, the Officers employed to arrest me being persuaded that it was for the interest of the H. see, that M. de Vabres' letter have its entire success; and that three or four Bishops (as M. Albizzi slightingly said to me even after he had seen their Letters) by whom I was sent, ought not otherwise to be considered then enemies to the H. See as well as myself.  
But, supposing all the justice I could desire were done me after such my Apprehending, and I were restored the next day to a full liberty of acting according to the commissions I had received, could I do it with any honour? could I have confidence enough to appear in Rome after having been disparaged by such an ignominy? and would not the cause entrusted to me (already but too much decried) receive prejudice thereby? would it be fit to commit the same to others? who would undertake it after its being thus discredited?  
These were the considerations which obliged me to retard my departure from Genua two or three days, that so I might take post with the Ordinary Courier of France, and arrive together with him at Rome about the end of the week according to his custom. But a Galley being to go almost empty from Genuá to Civita Vecchia to fetch home a Resident of this Republic with the Pope after his accomplishing his time, who waited only for the said Galley to carry him back, and it being ready to set sail in the afternoon of the Saturday following; and experienced people assuring me that it was morally impossible according to the quality of the time and season for it to be more than two or three days in reaching to Civitá Vecchia; I took it as an opportunity offered me by divine Providence for the seconding of my resolution and voyage: intending, in case it arrived at Civitá Vecchia some days before Thursday, to stay there till its going from thence; and in case the fair weather continued not according to expectation, then to land and take horse at the shore where it stayed, that so what ever happened I might arrive at Rome at the end of the week.  
Saturday afternoon being come, I took leave of the Gentleman for whose sake I undertook this journey, and of some others whom we were acquainted with at Rome and found at Genua as the little Rendesvows appointed for the meeting of all our company, to pass together into France. There was also a Canon of Noion called M. Wiar a very accomplished and prudent man; with whom we had been ever since our departure from Rome; they had all the goodness towards me (as well as the Gentleman my friend) to accompany me to the Galley, where was the place of our separation.  
Our voyage was, for my design, of just the length I wished. For we arrived at Civitá Vecchia on Wednesday about three in the afternoon, with one man more than we were at Genua, who was as well pleased as myself with being at Civitá Vecchia, though upon a very different ground. He was a Neapolitan, a goodly personage, of a sprightly aspect, and about 50. years old; we found him in the open Sea alone in a little skiff which he rowed along as well as he could with two oars, and his shirt hoist up instead of a sail. We took him and his skiff by the way into our Galley, he told us that the Spaniards had taken him by force from Naples to bear arms, and carried him to the garrison of Portolongone, from whence he escaped in that manner.  
Asson as we landed at Civitá Vecchia I gave order to have horses ready to departed in the evening, intending, to travel all night, that so I might arrive (as I did accordingly) the next morning at Rome at the same time that the Assembly of the Inquisition was holden before the Pope, whither no person was likely to carry them the news; and also might have a whole week free, wherein to order my affairs, and show myself publicly before they could any wise consult about me.    

THE THIRD PART.  
Containing what passed at Rome from the time of my return thither as Delegate or Deputy from the Bishops, 15. June 1651. till the end of that year.  

CHAP. I.  
The Bishop's Letter to the Pope. Deliberation whether it were fit to deliver it. Resolution to do so.  
BEing arrived at Rome on 15. June 1651. about one after noon, I presently sent to inquire for such Letters as were sent to attend me there from my LL. the Bishops; and I writ a Note to him whom I saw last there before my departure, (from whom I learned the particulars of what had passed about me before the Pope) advertising him of my return, and beseeching him to come and see me the soon he could that afternoon.  
Amongst those Letters, there were some for the Pope, others for MM. the Cardinals d' Este, Spada, and Barberin, and others for myself. Those for me contained the Orders laid upon me by my LL. the Bishops who writ them, to present theirs to his Holiness and their Eminences, and to endeavour the effect of them, to wit, the establishment of a Solemn Congregation, like those held under Clement VIII. and Paul V to which Catholic Divines of different judgements about the matters of Grace might be called, and fully heard on either side, both viuâ voce and by writing, according to the accustomed forms, and with entire Ecclesiastical liberty, before the Pope pronounce any Judgement upon the Five Equivocal Propositions which were presented to him; that so by this means that which he shall pronounce may be more signal, more satisfactory, more venerable to all the world, and more likely to dispel all difficulties, to confirm the truth, and to establish a sound peace amongst all Catholic Divines. The Letters directed to the Cardinals were sealed; it was signified to me that they were from M. the Bishop of Angiers, who was particularly known to them, and that he therein beseeched them to further the effect of so just a request, and to favour me with their protection, wherein I should need it. Those for the Pope were yet open, of which take here the translation. They were directed, To the most Holy Father Pope Innocent X. at Rome. The contents follow.  
Most Holy Father,  
WE have understood that some of our Brethren Bishops of France, have written to your Holiness touching an affair of very great importance and difficulty, and requested you by their Letter to decide clearly and plainly certain Propositions, which last year raised great disturbance without any benefit in the Theologal Faculty of Paris; nor could the issue be otherwise; for being contrived purposely in ambiguous terms, they could produce nothing of themselves but disputes full of animosity about the various senses put upon them, as it always happens in Equivocal Propositions. Wherefore our Brethren must give us leave to declare, that we cannot approve their design in this matter. For besides that the Questions about Divine Grace and Predestination are full of difficulties, and are not ordinarily handled without violent contests; there are other very considerable reasons which give us ground to conceive, that this present time is not fit for the terminating of so important a Difference, unless your Holiness will please, in order to passing a solemn judgement upon it, (which seems not to be their intention) to proceed therein according to the forms practised by our Forefathers, to resume the affair from its original, and to examine it wholly and entirely, to that end summoning and hearing the reasons and arguments of either side, as was done not long since by the Pope's Clement VIII. and Paul V of Holy memory. For if your Holiness do not take this course, the condemned party may with justice complain of having become so by the calumnies and artifices of their Adversaries, without having their own reasons heard. To which perhaps they may add, that this cause was brought to your Holiness, before it was judged in a Council of Bishops. And to strengthen the justness of their complaints by examples of the ancient Discipline of the Church, they may allege the Council of Alexandria against Arius, that of Constantinople against Eutyches, those of Carthage and Mileva against Pelagius, those of Valence and Langres held in France, for the same matter now in Question, and other Councils against other Heretics. And truly, most Holy Father, were it meet to examine and decide the said Propositions, the legal order of the Judgements of the Universal Church, together with the Custom observed in the Gallicane Church, requires that the greatest and most difficult Questions which arise in this Realm, be first examined by ourselves. Which being so, Equity would oblige us to consider maturely, whether the Propositions complained of to your Holiness have been made purposely to cast an odium upon some persons, and to excite a combustion; in what Books, by what Authors, and in what senses they have been advanced and maintained; to hear the plead and arguings of either side thereupon; to view all the Books written lately touching the said Propositions, to distinguish the true sense of them from the false and ambiguous; to inquire carefully into all that hath passed in the business since the beginning of the dispute; and after this, to give an account to your Holiness of all things done and ordained by us in this affair, which concerneth matter of Faith; that so what were rightly pronounced by us about this matter, might be confirmed by your Apostolical Authority. But how many artifices may there be to oppress and overthrow the truth, by thus directly addressing to your See before our examining and judging of the cause? By what abundance of calumnies may the reputation of our Prelates and Doctors be blemished? And by how many fallacies may your Holiness be circumvented and surprised in this great affair, which concerns points of Faith? For on the one side, it is visible that they in whose favour our Brethren the Bishops writ to your Holiness, maintain firmly and obstinately that the greatest part of the new Schoolmen is of their opinion, and that their Doctrine is most consentaneous to the goodness of God, and the equity of natural reason. On the other side, they who adhere to S. Augustin, declare, not in secret but publicly, that the Questions contested about, are not now dubious and problematical, but that 'tis an affair ended and terminated long ago; that they are the received Determinations of ancient Councils and Popes; whose Decrees are most evident in this matter; and especially those of the Council of Trent, which they maintain consist almost wholly of the words and maxims of S. Augustine, as well as those of the second Council of Orange do. Wherefore they profess, that instead of fearing either our judgement or yours, they have rather reason to desire the same, having all ground to promise themselves, that your Holiness, being assisted by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, (who vouchsafes to guide you when you consult him, and to hear you when you pray to him) will not in the least thing depart from what hath been determined by the H. Fathers; that so it may not happen (which God forbidden) that the reputation of the H. Apostolical See fall under the contempt of Heretics, who narrowly observe the least of its actions and words. But we have ground to hope that this will never come to pass; especially, if for retrenching all contest for the future, your Holiness will please, by treading in the footsteps of your Predecessors, to examine this affair from the bottom, and to hear the reasons and defences of either side according to custom. Vouchsafe therefore, most Holy Father, either to let this important dispute, which hath lasted divers ages without breach of the Catholic Unity, continue still a little longer, or to decide all the Questions by observing the legitimate forms of Ecclesiastical Judgements. And we beseech your Holiness, that you will please to employ all your care and zeal, that the interests of the Church entrusted to your Government, be not any wise injured in this Cause. God accumulate many years prosperity and happiness upon your Holiness. We are,  
Most Holy Father, Your holiness's most humble Sons and Servants in Christ Jesus. [Signed thus in several Copies.] 

In one. 

Lewis Henry de Gondrin Archbishop of Sens.  
B. Delbene Bishop of Agen.  
Gilbert Bishop of Comenge.  
Le Beron Bishop of Valence and Die.  
A. Delbene Bishop of Orleans.  
Bernard Bishop of S. Papoul.  
J. Henry de Salette Bishop of Lescar in Bearn.  
Felix Bishop and C. of Châlons.    
In another. 

Francis Bishop of Amiens.    
In a third. 

Henry Bishop of Angiers.    
In a fourth. 

Nicholas Bishop and C. of Beauvais.      
The friend whom I entreated to come to me, accordingly repaired to the lodging I had taken. We considered the above mentioned Letters, and having discoursed largely of all things, I desired him to go, and confer thereupon with the other person, (who could not so well come abroad, and who did not think meet the delegation should be hastened) and to assure him, that if the present posture of things at Rome would not bear the prosecution of my affair, I was for my own part ready to return back the next morning to Civitá Vecchia, and so to Genua by the Galley in which I came, and which was to return thither within a few days.  
I entrusted my Letters to this friend, who accordingly carried them to that other person, and after having conferred together upon them, came again to me the same day. I conceive that in case things had been still entire, and not yet meddled with, we three should have agreed to leave them so for some time, and wait till men's minds were better prepared then at present to receive our Remonstrances, and consider the truths which we were to defend in the Sequel of this affair, if the first Justice desired by us were granted, of which there seemed not to be any doubt, being sued for by persons so eminent among their brethren as those Bishops of France, who subscribed the letter whereof I was bearer. But for that it was not absolutely in our power to act so directly against their orders and intentions, without having reasons evidently convincing, and perfectly indubitable for so doing; and also for that, although there were very strong ones to persuade it expedient not to hasten so much the producing of my Letters, and beginning the prosecution enjoined me; yet there were others too no less powerful, to evince such prosecution both beneficial and necessary: We all three judged that it ought to be begun; we considered that the business was in very evident danger whatsoever course were taken; and that unless I stirred in it, the ill success would infallibly be attributed to so irregular a managment as mine would be. That such ill success was almost inevitable, there being already a Congregation established, which secretly carried on the affair, and which receiving neither opposition nor information contrary to the conceptions begotten in them by M. de Vabres' Letter (subscribed by so many Bishops and other persons who conspired and solicited the condemnation aimed at in writing it) would not fall to follow those prepossessions, and conclude upon the condemnation. That by the high credit and great authority of the persons who interested themselves in the prosecution of the same, and in whose power it would be to make such application, and use of it as they pleased, it would cause as much mischief, and have as evil consequences in what manner soever it were concluded, as if it were so, notwithstanding the letters I should deliver, and the remonstrances I could make: Besides, those letters and remonstrances in whatsoever manner they were received, and whatsoever regard were had of them, might always hinder some of those ill effects and grievous consequences. For either the condemnation would be proceeded to, notwithstanding my letters and remonstrances, and without granting the Congregation required by me; (in which case being an irregular, unheardof Condemnation made against all form and equity, it would destroy itself, and at least in time to come, incur the indignation of all persons any thing judicious or equitable:) Or the said congregation would be granted at our request, and the affair examined according to form; in which case it could not be but that at least a great part of those employed therein, would understand which side Truth and Justice are of, in regard every one would be necessitated to apply himself to the examination of writings delivered him on either side, to the discussion of things alleged in conferences held between us in their presence, and to the particular study of the matters which they saw in question between us. It was not possible likewise but that there would be found in the great City many persons who being awakened by the notoriousness of this examination would have the curiosity and the good hap to inquire thereinto, leaving apart their other studies and employments, which would be a good fruit of our pains. And lastly, that it was not possible but the Pope (who though little versed and skilful in these matters, was nevertheless very prudent and circumspect, as he lately showed when being prevailed with by the common consent of the Congregation of the H. Office to confirm the pretended censure of the faculty at Paris, he changed his mind, and was stayed from doing it by the dissent of a single Cardinal) would be more powerfully wooed with the number of those who should declare to him their being undeceived, and better instructed of the truth whereof they were formerly ignorant; that these reflections would move him either to abstain from pronouncing upon this affair any judgement which might be unworthy of the Majesty of the H. See, or to pronounce one worthy thereof. Whereupon we all three concluded, that these considerations obliged me to acquit myself of my Commission, to deliver my Letters, to begin my solicitations, and that the soon, and with the greatest publikness I could.  
I had time left the same day to send for a Tailor to make me a Gown and a furred Hood against the next Sunday, such as we have in Sorbonne, and also for a Cap-maker to make me a Cap with four Corners, most of these at Rome having but three, and being far less than what we are accustomed to wear at Paris.   

CHAP. II.  
A visit to Cardinal d' Este, who gives me to understand, that it is not safe for me to tarry at Rome. My immobility at it, with divers Visits concerning the cause of my Return. Discourse with F. Annat.  
I continued without stirring out of my Chamber till Saturday evening following (17 June) when being assured all my Equipage would be ready by the next morning, I went to salute Cardinal d' Este; to whom I conceived I owed that respect in the first place, both for that there was at that time no Ambassador at Rome, and because he was Protector of France, as also out of a design to make him mine as much as I could. I presented to him M. d' Angers' Letter sent to me for his Highness, and I acquainted him with the occasion of my Return: He seemed much surprised to see me in that Country, and that partly out of his affection for the Nation and myself, and partly out of the danger which he saw I incurred: for he was present at the Assembly of the H. Office, in which I was spoken of before the Pope, and knew what had passed thereupon.  
After he had read M. d' Angers' letter, and, as he was reading, considered what to say to me, he professed much affection and esteem for M. d' Angers, and told me, he conceived, I believed, he had some for me too; of either of which he could give no other assurance then by doing for me all that should lie in his power: But he asked me, whether I had well considered of the resolution which I took when I determined to come back, and that about such matters as these: He represented to me that I had spent the four or five months that I was at Rome with honour and success: that the affairs for which I returned thither, were very odious and apt to render all persons suspected that meddle therewith; but as for me in particular, for reasons he had, and could not declare to me, he desired me to take it well that he told me, that there was no person less fit to meddle therewith then I: That to advise me as a friend, he conceived himself obliged to advertise me that I must not appear again, but resolve to return back, and that with all speed.  
Had I before understood the reason which moved Cardinal d' Este to speak in this manner, I should have been more surprised therewith then I was: yet I forbore not to testify some astonishment to his Highness, because on the one side I was glad to find how far he would discover what had passed before the Pope; of which I still kept myself from seeming to have any light: And on the other, I was not at all willing to acquiesce in his counsel: For though I was sure of the affection, sincerity and generosity of him that gave it, yet I was also sure that he gave it me without having examined things to the bottom, and only considering my interest and safety: wherefore I told the Cardinal that I had so great respect and yieldance to his sentiments, as to submit mine to them readily, were the affair occasioning my return particularly my own; but it concerned the most illustrious Bishops of France who entrusted me with it, and promising themselves from my submission to their Orders, that I would punctually follow them when I had received them, relied upon me therein without looking out any other person more capable of discharging the same, as they would have done, had they not depended upon me, and therefore I could not fail in answering their expectation in a business so important as they accounted this which they had committed to me. To show him in what terms they had treated me, I drew out of my Pocket the Letters which they writ to me: The Cardinal thereupon answered, That those Prelates in France did not so understand the state of things at Rome as they do who are there, and have a clearer insight into those affairs; that he would return M. d' Angers an answer, and would assure him, and desire him to assure all the other Bishops of my good will and forwardness, and that I had not desisted execuing the Commission they gave me, but upon reasons to which it was impossible not to yield: I replied to the Cardinal, That I did not know those reasons; that he would oblige me in telling me them, if there were any, as I doubted not; but I could not imagine there were any prevalent enough to countenance such a desisting as his Highness spoke of; being convinced as I was of the importance of the affair entrusted to me: That besides I did not fear being blamed for it at Rome, when it was once considered; being certain that the H. See is more interested therein then any, and that in the prosecution I was to make, the service of that is more concerned then of the Prelates who obliged me to return.  
The Cardinal seeing me so firm, bid me do as I would; but he said, I had best take heed; That for his own part, he was convinced of the necessity of the advice he gave me; That he exhorted me again as a friend to follow it, and before my departure to speak with the Cardinals Spada and Barberin; whom he believed well affected towards me; and to see what their Eminencies would say to me. I answered, that I would wait upon my LL. the Cardinals Spada and Barberin, but not in order to change my purpose; for were I so minded, it should be upon what his Highness had said to me: wherefore intending not to fail to present to his Holiness the Letters which my LL. the Bishops had sent to him, I beseeched his Highness to procure for me assoon as possible an audience for that end.  
I perceived for certain that my remaining so firm in my resolution, troubled the Cardinal d' Este; that he looked upon me as one that was going to sacrifice himself, that he hearty wished he could prevent the unhappiness I was ready to fall into; and that he conceived (as he told me) that did I know what moved him to give me such counsel, I would take it of myself without needing any reason to persuade me of its necessity. But the Excommunication under penalty of which he was obliged to such religious secrecy as he used to the H. Office, made him rather consent to my unhappiness which he believed inevitable (notwithstanding his affection to me) then to violate the same by telling me a word, though my deliverance depended thereupon. Wherefore he promised me that in case I met with the least difficulty or delay of the audience which I desired to have of his Holiness, he would recommend me to some Officers in whom he had an interest, who should accelerate the same; but he said, he did not believe the recommendation necessary, considering the acquaintance I had lately by his mediation with those very Officers which 'twas likely they had not yet forgotten. As for the Prelates who signed the Letters which I had to present, he asked me what number there was of them: I avoided telling him, by answering, that their Letters were sealed, as indeed they were all at that time. And this I did, because I had not yet received them from all that were to send them: I hoped they would arrive before I could obtain audience of the Pope; and I was willing their names should be all known together, that so the first apprehension which would be had from their number, might not be disadvantageous to the business in a Country where I knew many things are measured by the outside and the show. At length I took my leave, more satisfied with this visit, in regard of the affection testified to me by this Cardinal, in his hearty endeavouring to persuade me from proceeding further in this business, than he was with my resolution which I signified to him of driving it on to the utmost, in regard of the danger which his Highness believed I incurred.  
On the Sunday morning (June 18) I presented myself in the Pope's Presence-Chamber in my Gown, Cap and Furr'd-hood, to have audience of him; I heard his Mass, and spent all the forenoon there; but audience there was none for me; Cardinal Gueva who took leave that day of his Holiness to go to his Bishopric in Spain, ingross'd it all. Also all the Jesuits Assistants waited for it, to give the Pope notice of the decease of the●r General who died the day before. When I saw audience desperate for me that day, I resolved to return home to my lodging; yet I thought fit before my going, to accost and salute F. Annat. who was with all those other Assistants, and with whom I had contracted some slight acquaintance. I conceived it fit to do so to that Father out of good manners and civility; and withal necessary too, to take from them all the thought of new Intrigues against me, by letting them see (yet without affectation) that I showed myself boldly, and had no fear, being sent as I was for a public cause, and by persons so considerable in the Church. I told F. Annat. after my saluting him, that he did not think at my departure of seeing me so soon, nor I him: but I had been stopped by the way, and obliged to return, to present the Pope a Letter from some Bishops of France, who knowing of my being in that Country, chose rather to charge me therewith, then to send some other person thither on purpose. When he heard me speak of a Letter from Bishops, (they are the words of the Letter which I writ the next day touching the discourse I had with him) he apprehended that it was concerning the Five Propositions, and I did not at all dissemble it. He answered, That it was very well done, that both the one side and the other had recourse to the Oracle. He told me nothing could be more civil than what was desired by those who writ on the other side, (as I remember, he used these words, Who writ for us) namely a plain judgement, without speaking either Pro or Con. I replied, That they by whose Order I was returned, desired not much more; to wit, That the Divines be first heard, for the distinguishing of the several senses of the Propositions, that so the censure may fall only upon that which is bad, and which all the world acknowledges such; but the Catholic sense may be safe, and exempted from the Censure; that so both sides having been heard, each may receive his Holines' judgement with respect, without stir, and without having cause to complain of not having been heard, and to make new Remonstrances, which would renew the Quarrel. He deemed all this just, and yet could not dissemble the design they had of getting the Propositions condemned absolutely. For he added, that notwithstanding the Propositions were capable of a Catholic sense, yet if absolutely and in themselves, they have an Heretical sense, 'tis fit they be condemned in themselves. Without seeming to take notice of his meaning, and to avoid disputing in that place, I only said, That the Heretical sense ought to be absolutely condemned, and the Catholic absolutely saved; after which I took leave of him, and separated civilly.  
In the afternoon I went to visit Cardinal Spada in the same habit which I wore in the morning in the Popes-Presence-Chamber. I told him that being at Genua upon the point to return into France, I received some Letters from my LL. the Bishops of that kingdom, which obliged me to come back to Rome to present one to the Pope which they had written to his Holiness concerning an affair of high consequence; the effect of which they charged me to solicit with all the care and diligence it deser'vd. That it was touching the Five Propositions contrived and framed in obscure, ambiguous, and equivocal words, so as to be capable of several very contrary senses according to the different interpretations which may be put upon them. That some of those senses are evidently Heretical; others most certainly Catholic, and containing the chief Truths of Faith and Christian Religion. That the Authors of those Propositions framed them in this manner, that so under pretext of those bad senses, they may get a downright absolute condemnation of them, and apply the same afterwards to the Catholic Senses and Orthodox Truths which they include. That they did thus because they are possessed with Sentiments contrary to those Truths; and seeing the same so firmly established, that there is no likelihood of impeaching them with success, should they openly declare against them, they had devised and framed those Propositions to overthrow the said Truths by involving them in one and the same condemnation with the errors contained in the said Propositions. That M. Cornet was the man that first broached them, proposing them to the Faculty almost two years ago to get them censured; but a great number of Doctors presently understanding the Artifice, and discovering the dangerous consequences thereof, both to the public by some Books published against that Attempt, and to the Court of Parliament by two Petitions which they were constrained to present for stopping its coutses; It incurred the indignation of all sincere and equitable persons that heard of it, and was repressed by an Arrest of the Court, which prohibited M. Cornet and all others to pursue it. That having missed of their design in the Faculty in the year 1649, M. Cornet and such as joined with him, conceived the Assembly of the Clergy held the year after, might be a favourable opportunity to revive it; because the Bishop of Vabres who was engaged therein with them, and was to be of the Assembly, might use such practices as were necessary for it with my Lords his brethren: But many of them which were also of the Assembly, having well understood the business, the memory of which was still fresh and abhorred; and M. de Vabres (having apprehended, that if he made the least opening of it, there would never be wanting some or other to represent to the Assembly, how great and fruitless a stir it caused the year preceding, how remote it was judged from sincerity and honour, and consequently how unworthy it would be of their company, and so his Proposal would certainly have no effect;) he durst not attempt to make it. Wherefore the business having failed in the Faculty, and being not thought fit to be set afoot amongst the Clergy for fear of the same success, they resolved to venture it to the H. See, conceiving all the particularities of its odiousness would not be represented there, and that no person would set forth to his Holiness what a plot there was upon him to engage the Apostolical Authority in a Censure intended to serve for the upholding of error. That they were the more confident of drawing the H. See to such a Determination (though it cannot but be shameful to it in the end, and beget confusion and greater Disputes in the Church, which yet is the only refuge they have in the miserable cause wherein they are engaged;) for that they presume the H. See not having any suspicion or distrust of those whic● solicit it, being persons who have ever professed a singular devotion to its interests and service. But this, as I conceived, would cause in the Pope and their Eminences, greater indignation against the Enterprise, when they should find that its Authors made use of that outside false zeal for the H. See, to circumvent it and bring it more easily into the Ambushes which they have prepared against it. That they covered the same with the authority of some Bishops which they have inveigled thereinto by sundry plausible motives and specious considerations fitted to every one's gust, thereby engaging each of them to subscribe a Letter addressed to the Pope for his Holiness' judgement upon the Propositions. That the fear of those by whose order I was returned lest this authority and recommendation of their Brothers should prevail upon the Pope's mind, and lest the promoters of this Enterprise should abuse their Letter against their intentions, induced them to write another to his Holiness, by which they advertise him of the prejudicial consequences likely to ensue upon his Decision, in case he make it before fully examining all the circumstances of the business, and throughly searching the bottom of the matter in question. Which they conceiving not to be done but in a solemn Congregation, in which all the Divines divided about these matters may be heard both viuâ voce and by writing, in presence of either side, to represent all their reasons and answer those of their Adversaries; their just care to prevent the troubles likely to arise in the Church, and their affection for the service and interests of the H. See, hath moved them to beseech the Pope to erect and establish such a Congregation. That they hoped this Request would be wellpleasing to his Holiness, because without such a Congregation it is not possible either to settle a firm peace amongst the Catholic Divines (whose concord is so necessary to the Edification of the whole Church) or to clear and maintain Truth, the defending and supporting of which are the prime duties and most essential obligations of the H. See, or to preserve the respect due to its Decrees, the authoriry of which ought to be rendered inviolable by using all circumspection and diligence possible in the making thereof.  
I added that what I represented to his Eminence, was more largely and clearly set forth in the Letters which I had to deliver to the Pope from my LL. the Bishops who obliged me to return; and moreover because it was requisite to add many things by word of mouth for the more ample deducing both to his Holiness and their Eminences, all the particulars and considerations fit to be represented in so great and important an affair, one man being not sufficient to perform the same fully and perfectly; they would likewise send at Autumn following some Doctors or other Divines, that so nothing might be omitted which they conceived they own to the H. See and the Church in this occasion. That nevertheless in the mean time their fear lest this affair might be too much hastened at Rome, before the arrival of those whom they intended to send thither, and lest his Holiness not being advertised of the danger there is in decreeing any thing in it before it be throughly examined, might grant some Decree upon the Instances made to him for it; understanding that I was still in those parts, and accustomed to the heats which are oftimes so prejudicial to new-comers, they obliged me to come and give him this first advertisement thereof.  
I delivered the Cardinal a Letter written particularly to himself, by M. d' Angers in recommendation of me to him and of the affair which I was to follow; and I beseeched him to countenance the prosecutions I should use, with his Authority; and to believe that next the service of God, of Truth and of the Church, which principally induced me to return to Rome in obedience to persons of so Eminent worth and dignity who obliged me thereto (notwithstanding my particular desire and interest to go home into France) I became engaged to do so by the affection which I have for the service of the H. See, which his Eminence would at length find more concerned in this affair than any other.  
I found a great difference (as indeed there was reason) between Cardinal Spadas deportment in this visit, and in another which I made to him of civility in the Lent preceding; for he was as reserved in this, as he was communicative in the former; he heard all that I said to him (just as I have since experienced to be the usual way in Italy in all audiences) with great silence, attention and gravity. He received the Letters which I had for him; and after signifying some testimonies of his esteem of the Bishops of France, and particularly of him whose Letter I presented, he told me, He hoped the Pope would not fail to take such course in this affair as was necessary for its succeeding to the honour of God and his Church; to which end, for his own part, should his Holiness employ him in it, he should contribute his utmost care and endeavour.  
I arose up from the chair set for me at my entrance right against that of his Eminence, in order to departed, and himself arose also to conduct me; which he did from the chamber wherein he received me till we came into the Dining room, where he left me; although between it and his chamber, there were two Antichambers to pass through. When he had quitted me, I was saluted by some of his Court who accompanied me to the door. This I take notice of, not as an extraordinary thing, but to intimate to such as know it not, in what manner these audiences use to be given; it being very civil and convenient; for the Visitant is received alone, and hath time to deduce at length and at his pleasure what he mindeth to represent.  
At my departing from Cardinal Spada, I went to wait upon Cardinal Barberin, and I was likewise so fortunate as to find him at his Palace, and to declare my mind to him as much as I desired the same day. I shall not recite here or elsewhere what I then said to his Eminence touching my return. For in all the visits which I made to speak of this business, it was nothing but a continual repetition (sometimes amplified more or less according to occasion) both of I what I said to Cardinal Spada and of what I have formerly related to have been done are Paris and at Rome about the Propositions. And as for what passed at Rome, sometimes I met with people, who hearing me speak thereof, and thereby conceiving me better informed then indeed I was, not only confirmed to me what I knew before, but also instructed me in some particulars of which I was ignorant; by which means I came to understand things so well as not to fear to assure the Pope even in Papers signed with our hands, of the truth of all those which I have above related.  
But to return to Cardinal Barberin, I told him all that I had said to Cardinal Spada, though not altogether in the same order and without interruption. For the great familiarity wherewith Cardinal Barberin used me in all the entertainments which I had with him during my residence at Rome the foregoing winter, and his more exact knowledge of all the things and persons of whom I spoke, caused him sometimes to interpose answers and interrogations to me concerning what I said; I was obliged to continue my discourse according to the matter and leisure which he afforded me; but I constantly resumed the series of my affair, and omitted nothing at all in giving him account of what I had said to Cardinal Spada.  
Besides which, I spoke something concerning another business, namely about the Hours, touching which I formerly had some discourse with him; and they were now recommended to me by the Bishop of Angers to take care of, and maintain and justify as much as I could against the prosecutions and accusations which he understood were made against them. Cardinal Barberin answered that it was a long while since he heard any speech of them; that he conceived, they were thought of no more; that the Bishop of Angers had recommended them to him by a Letter which he received from him some days ago; and that he hoped the answer which he intended to return thererunto the next day would give M. d' Angers content. I do not at present remember the particulars thereof which he was pleased to impart to me, nor can I find what I then writ down in my Notes; but I remember that according to what his Eminence then said, I Judged the Hours out of danger and wholly secure from calumny.   

CHAP. III.  
Visits made in the end of June and beginning of the month of July, wherein I discovered the objections made against the Hours. Notice of putting me into the Inquisition.  
I spent Monday the 17th. of June in answering the Letters I received at my arrival, and I advertised the Prelates who writ the same to me of what had passed since in the visits which I made about the affair wherewith they did me the honour to charge me. I spent Tuesday the 18th. in providing me a Lodging in the society of the French Priests which are at S. Lewis, that so I might be in a place more suitable to my condition and employment than I could be in an ordinary Inn; such persons as it was requisite for me to address to for the obtaining of the said Lodging, I acquainted with the occasion of my return; amongst others, M. du Noiset Dean of the Rota on whom it absolutely depended as being the superior of the said Society. On Wednesday I went to Tivoly, where M. le Bailly de Valancey the King's Ambassador to the Pope was still retired, to salute him and inform him also (according as I was obliged) of the Commission I had the honour to be charged with. He made me a very courteous reception, and promised to do what he could at that distance, to facilitate and hasten my audience of the Pope, whereunto I signified to him my great desire to be admitted without delay in regard of the importance there was in the Pope's being speedily advertised of the nature of the affair whereof I was to speak, that so surprisals and circumventions might be prevented, which were otherwise much to be feared.  
Returning at night from Tivoli, I understood Cardinal Barberin had sent for me to come to him that evening; and hearing I was gone to Tivoly, sent again to tell me I should come to him the next day about seven a clock in France. I add this word in France, because in Italy they begin to count the hours from the time of sunset, and reckon twenty four till the next day at the same time. Upon this account it is not frequent to make an appointment at seven a clock in the morning because when the days are longer, that would be about three in the morning; and therefore to intimate at our seven a clock, they say at eleven a clock. But for that I writ in French and for the use of Frenchmen who for the most part would not understand the Italian reckoning; should I use it, especially when I mentioned thirteen a clock, eighteen a clock, and one and twenty a clock; I conceive it fit to reduce their computation to ours as often as I have occasion to mention it, as I have done above, without adding the two words in France; because they are always to be understood.  
On Thursday morning (June 20.) at seven a clock I went to Cardinal Barberin according to his order. He told me he sent for me to tell me that it was requisite that I went to visit several persons whom he named, to acquaint them with what I had said to him in favour of the Hours, either by answering the accusations made against them, or informing them of what greast esteem they were in France with persons of understanding and honour who judged thereof impartially. The persons he named for me to visit, were my LL. the Cardinals Roma, Spada, Ginetti and Cechini, my Lord Albizzi and the Master of the sacred Palace.  
After this I accompanied Cardinal Barberin to the Pope's Palace, whether he repaired to the Assembly of the H. Office, which is held, (as I said above) every Thursday in presence of his Holiness; and having passed into the Presence chamber I there entertained as many persons as I could with the business which occasioned my return, during the time of the Assembly; which being ended, and M. Albizzi happening to be near enough to me for me to acquaint him with my purpose of going to wait upon him; according to the direction of Cardinal Barberin, I would not lose this opportunity of surmounting the difficulty there was in breaking our business to a man openly declared in sundry cases against what ever I could pretend, and wholly engaged in the ways and interests of the Jesuits. Nevertheless he very civilly received what I said to him concerning the design which brought me back, and told me I should always be welcome to him.  
In the afternoon of the same day I went to Cardinal Roma's Palace, but I could not speak with him, because a Congregation of Cardinals was there, the very same persons whose names Cardinal Barberin had mentioned to me in the morning, and because I was not yet so well informed of things as to know that M. Albizzi were there too, I went likewise to visit him; but not finding him, and being in the quarter of Saint Onuphrio, I went to see M. Holstenius who was retired thither a little while before to take the air and recover strength after a sickness. We were two hours together, and I informed him amply of my commission. He told me, I must forearm myself with patience; for without doubt the Pope would not grant the Congregation which I came to demand; and hereupon forgetting his having formerly related to me a conference which he had with the Pope touching this matter, he rehearsed all the same again as I have set it down in the 2. Part, Chap. 10. This obliged me to make an overture to M. Holstenius with which he might acquaint the Pope if he thought meet, namely, that there came into my mind a way by which his Holiness might disengage himself very handsomely of the business, and likewise oblige the Bishops of France according to that saying of Scripture, honore invicem praevenientes; and that was, by remitting to themselves the decision of the Propositions whereof his judgement was desired. And my meaning in this was not to decline the Congregation which I came to request, but that the overture being accepted, and the Bishops of France finding themselves obliged by such reference or remission to search throughly into the marters in question, the cause might be judged by persons better informed, and more solemnly than I conceived it could be at Rome in the Congregation I desired, in case the Pope should grant it; or in case he should not, (as I had cause to fear by the averseness which M. Holstenius represented to me, his Holiness had against it) that at least in regard of such reference the Bishops of France might not be excluded from it. But M. Holstenius replied to my overture, that the Pope would not be willing to remit to the Tribunal of Bishops a cause brought to that of his Holiness, which is superior to theirs. But though I was somewhat earnest in showing that the Pope doing this of his own accord after the submission of the Bishops to him, the rights of his Holiness would not be prejudiced thereby, and there would be always room to recur to him, in case any one found himself injured by the judgement passed by the Bishops; nevertheless M. Holstenius continued firm, that there was no ground to hope any success of such overture.  
On Friday the 24th. of June I went to salute M. Gueffier ancient Resident for the King at Rome, and after my coming from him I went to the Cardinal of S. Clement. In the afternoon I repaired again to Cardinal Roma, with whom I spoke also: and all that I added in these three visits to the general intimation of the business for which I returned, was, only what I said touching the Hours to Cardinal Roma, who professed not to have lately heard any speech of them. He added that perhaps they would not be mentioned before them in the H. Office, but only in the Congregation of the Index; and that the general prohibition of translating into the vulgar tongue any thing of the H. Scripture and the Offices of the Church was the principal cause of all the stir about them.  
It is not impertinent to set down what hindered me from speaking thereof to the Cardinal of S. Clement, who is also one of the Congregation of the H. Office, where all matters of this nature use to be handled. The truth is he was excluded from the consultations held about these particular matters, and they were regulated without advising with him about them. This course was resolved upon for that in certain cases where some thing was propounded against those who spoke thereof according to S. Augustin's sentiments, and amongst others where M. Jansenius was impeached, He had explicated things too much, and so handsomely withstood those who struck at him, that what they endeavoured had neither issue nor success. Wherefore, for the acting with more liberty and less contradiction, and for the more equitableness and sureness of resolutions, and for the easier dispatching them, it was pleaded requisite to exclude such as might have any interest therein; and for a pretext of excluding the Cardinal of S. Clement as a Dominican, Cardinal Lugo was also excluded as a Jesuit; and of seven or eight Cardinals that usually assist at the common consultations of the whole Congregation of the H. Office, the four , Roma, Spada, Gineti and Cechini were taken to make a particular Congregation, before which all matters any wise relating to these Controversies were to be proposed. For this reason without speaking to him of the Hours, I only informed him in general of the cause of my return, and how sensible I was of the testimonies of kindness which he had given me in my precedent visits to him.  
Saturday morning being S. John Baptist's day was spent at Chapel, whether the Cardinal's repair to celebrate that Festival in the Church of S. John of Lateran.  
In the Afternoon I went to visit M. Albizzi, to whom I laid forth the most largely and sweetly I could the matter of my commission, and the order I had to request the Pope, that it would please his Holiness to erect a solemn Congregation in which all the Parties concerned in the matters of the Propositions might be heard before his Holiness decreed any thing thereupon. M. Albizzi having heard me patiently, answered that he had not yet heard any speech of those Propositons; and he gave me some hope that in case of proceeding to do any thing about them or examine them, he would cause me to be advertised of it: but otherwise, I must know that in this business no parties were to be heard; because parties are not to be heard in matters of doctrine, but only when the question is about persons; that in the business of the Propositions, there was no question about any person, there not appearing any Author that had advanced them. That which moved M. Albizzi to answer me at first that he had heard no speech of them, was no doubt a purpose not to open himself in any sort unto me; and nevertheless in the Sequel of his discourse, he fell to speak of them as one that had not been ignorant till then of what pertained to that Attempt. I replied, That though matters of doctrine do not directly, and of themselves relate to persons, but may be considered apart; yet the Christian Faith being as dear to Christians as the apple of their eyes, there are no affairs more important to persons then these, when there are persons who will interest themselves therein, either to answer the calumnies and false accusations made against the purity of their sentiments, or to accuse other persons of pernicious Tenets against the purity of the Faith and Christian Morality. That this held good in this case, if ever it did in any; and that the Bishops in whose behalf I spoke, interposing to beseech the Pope to do that Justice to the Catholic Divines at difference about these matters, as to examine who they are that defend the truth with simplicity, and who they are that assault it with Artifice; they well deserved that the Pope should have regard to their Address which is so equitable, and that which his Holiness will find in the end to have been made more for his interest then their own. M. Albizzi answered me, That the Pope was the Master, ann would take what course seemed good unto him; that for making Articles of faith, he needed not to stand upon what may be represented to him, or consider what sentiments Divines are or are not of: but 'tis sufficient that he make his decision as seemeth good to him, and as the H. Spirit (whose assistance cannot fail him in regard of the infallibility which God hath promised him) shall dictate to him: That this Decision being made, all Divines are obliged to conform and submit thereunto. That nevertheless his Holiness may, before he pronounce any thing, do the favour to those who desire it of him, and interpose in the judgement of the Propositions, as to hear or receive in writing what they will represent to him: that so all being considered, he may decree what he shall think fit. I took heed as much as I could not to exasperate this person whom I knew already prepossessed in that behalf of the Jesuits, and not to give him any hold against me; and therefore without insisting further upon the word Party which he would not admit, or upon what he said the Pope might or might not observe in his Judgements, I contented myself with what he gave me in this first Visit, and said, That all we desired, was that the Pope would receive and hear what should be represented to him touching this affair according to the Custom and forms always observed in the Church: He answered, That if all of them were observed, and all that would be replied and rejoined on one side and the other were heard, there would be never an end; and the Pope in the mean time not condemning opinions that deserved it, might be suspected to favour them; as it happened to Honorius who was accounted a Heretic by some that decried him, because he had not speedily enough condemned the Heretics which arose in his time. M. Albizzi mentioned this story in such a manner as made me think it would be made use of to the Pope to induce him to condemn the Propositions, by telling him, That unless he condemned them, he would be accused of maintaining them. But not to infer any thing from what M. Albizzi said which was not essential to my business, I thought it enough to tell him clearly and in express terms, That I was not come to avert the Pope from condemning the bad sense of which the Propositions are capable; but to beseech him to examine that which is maintained to be Catholic, and to erect a Congregation in which all the Divines opposing or defending the same may be fully heard, that so it may be afterwards declared by him who of them mantain the Truth, and by supporting the same, a firm and lasting Peace may be established amongst them. All this conference passed between M. Albizzi and me very gently and civilly.  
After this I put him upon the Subject of the Hours, in reference to which Cardinal Barberin advised me to visit him. He spoke of them at first as a business forgotten and no more thought of. Afterwards he fell to declaim against them; and to let me see how worthy they were of Censure; he told me the translation of the first Commandment, wherein Images are spoken of, was correspondent to that of Geneva. He read out of the Hours thus; Vous ne ferés point d' idol, ny D' IMAGE TAILLEE, ny aucune figure, pour les adorer; You shall not make any Idol or GRAVEN IMAGE, or any figure, to adore them: Then he showed me a Geneva Bible wherein the Commandment is translated, and there finding the words Graven Image; he pretended to have found the correspondence of which he complained: But I told him, the words Graven Image are the sense of the Scripture word SCULPTILE, and I represented to him; that the ill use made by Heretics of this Commandment, consisted not in the words Graven Image, but in their not acknowledging that God forbids only the making graven Images for adoration, which is noted in express terms by the Author of the Hours, and therefore he is so far from being justly accusable of conformity with Geneva, that on the contrary it is visible his Version is wholly different from it, and absolutely suitable to the sentiment of Catholics. M. Albizzi very well understood the reason of this difference; but he answered me, that it might serve for the learned, but not for the simple people; and that these words To adore them, added in the translation of the Hours, were so far from rendering them more excusable, that on the contrary they were thereby the more faulty, because the Vulgar will take and understand them as if they ought not to fall upon their knees before Images: I answesed him, that if his objection were good against this translation, because of the bad sense which may be put upon those words against the interpreters meaning, it would also be good against the very words of the Text of Scripture; of which the same abuse and false interpretation may be made; but as nothing can be charged against the H. Scripture from them, so neither can any thing be concluded from the same to the prejudice of the Translator, who had therein faithfully acquitted himself. M. Albizzi made to me some further objections against the Hours, but because they are the subject of a memorial which I presented to the Cardinal of the H. Office, and is hereafter mentioned; I omit them at present, to avoid repetition. I shall only add, that after he had proposed them to me, and I had answered him, he fell to declaim in general against the liberty of Writing and Printing which is taken in France; and drew out of his Pocket certain little French Hours for the Cavaliers, and showed me a little image of St. Paul, at the bottom of which were these words, S. Paul Cavalier Prince of the Apostles, and made great complaints thereof. But being unwilling to meddle with that matter, I told him, I was not concerned in those little Hours which he showed me that I had not in charge to answer; but to the calumnies against those I spoke of before, and to clear the malicious suspicions endeavoured to be cast upon Writers to whom the public was indebted for so excellent a work. I entreated him again to deal with it favourably, and with Justice so far as lay in him, and so arose up to departed.  
Cross the Dining-Rome there was a Screen covered with painted silk, which divided it in two. As we were going out of the Antichamber, Father Morel an Augustin, Doctor of our Faculty, was entering in at the passage of the Screen: so soon as he perceived me, he was started, drew back, and hid himself behind the Screen: But suddenly (as I conceived) reflecting that this his fear of my having seen him come to visit M. Albizzi might make me presume there was more correspondence between them then he would have me believe there was, he came forth and showed himself, and as well as he could endeavoured to compose the disorder of the sudden astonishment, into which the first apprehension of his surprise had put him.  
The days following I continued such Visits as I could make, both to publish the principal Subject of my delegation touching the Propositions to such as ought to be advertised of it, and to recommend to them the affair of the Hours. To both which purposes, on Sunday morning (June 25.) I visited Cardinal Ginetti, and in the evening the Master of the sacred Palace, having passed almost the whole afternoon at Cardinal Panzirolo's Palace in attending an opportunity to speak with him; which I could not obtain that day. On Thuesday the 27. I again visited the Cardinal Spada and Barberin touching the Hours, and in sum having employed the other days of the interval the most profitably I could in order to that business, and having been four times at Cardinal Panziolo's Palace without obtaining to speak with him, I was referred for that purpose to Friday morning, July the 7.  
When I was come to his Palace, I found at the entrance of his Antichamber the Master of his Chamber, who told me he waited for me there to acquaint me that I needed not wear my gown to speak with his Eminence. I had always worn it hitherto in my visits, and answered him that I had addressed to my LL. the other Cardinals in that habit, which I wore out of respect to their Eminences. He replied that Cardinal Panzirolo had signified to him his pleasure to dispense with me for that subjection toward himself, because perhaps being likely to come often to him, it would be too troublesome for me always to change my habit. I answered that his Eminence had too great goodness for me, but nevertheless I should use the freedom which he gave me. So returning from his Palace, within a quarter of an hour I came back thither with my Cloak, and was presently introduced into his Chamber, where I found him sitting up, upon bed. I had scarce begun to declare to him the business in very few words, but he cut me short, and told me, that if it was concerning any thing contained in the Bull of Vrban VIII. the Pope would not hear any person before obedience were performed to it. That if it was any thing new, his Holiness would willingly hear both the one side and the other, and certainly would not precipitate or hasten any thing. I replied that none of the Five Propositions was contained in the Bull of Vrban VIII. But without suffering me to enter further into the matter, he bid me go visit M. Albizzi, telling me; he was the man relied upon for the care of those affairs. He cut me off so roundly that I had scarce added a word in assurance of our respect and affection to the H. See, but I was constrained to retire.  
On Saturday (July 8.) I learned something very considerable touching the Hours; but that I may give an entire account of what I have to relate concerning them together, I shall forbear to mention it till I have set down what passed in the audience which I had of the Pope on Monday the tenth, touching the principal affair: before which I will nevertheless relate what passed in a Visit which an Ecclesiastic made to me, to give me notice of the danger wherein I was of being arrested, and what cause I had to provide for my safety.  
I doubted for some time, out of what design the Ecclesiastic, who came to give me this notice, had so great a charity for me; for I knew him not but very generally, and there was nothing but his being a French man and a Priest of the Mission that could induce him to it. I conceived at first, it was to fright me, and to see what impression the fears he suggested in me would have upon me: but I have been assured since, that it was with a very sincere intention and affection.  
It was the first day of July that he came to me, and he was very earnest to speak with me, though I was newly let blood for an indisposition which permitted not the deferring of that remedy to another more fit season. He told me, and enjoined me secrecy (which I keep still in not nameing him) that a Doctor of our Faculty told him the day before, that I said, other Doctors were to come to Rome with me about the business which I had in charge; but there would come others thither too against me, and that neither I nor they which came after me about the same business, would be very welcome. That we were people, who besides the Propositions which were the ground of my journey, would introduce others far more pernicious. That this Doctor said there was fourteen extracted out of several Theses, presented to the Syndic by persons that defended the same opinions with us, which Propositions had been published and maintained in the Divinity Acts at Paris, had not the Syndic hindered it That he had Copies of them authetically compared, and that the Originals themselves signed by the chief Masters and Directors of the Bachelors Study would shortly be brought to Rome. This Ecclesiastic repeated to me divers Propositions of those fourteen whereof the said Doctor complained to him; but I took notice only of five. The first was, That the Pope is amongst the Bishops, what A is amongst the letters. The second, That the Council of Trent was not a true Council, but a Politic Assembly. The third, That he who sins after Baptism loses the character of it. The fourth, That Priests who fall into any sin, lose likewise the character of their Priesthood. And the fifth, That the Body of our Lord is not in the Eucharist; but as God is in the soul of the righteous. This Ecclesiastic told me, that I was liable to be accused as one of those who mantain these sentiments; and that under that pretext it might come to pass that I might be put into t●e Inquisition. That it was a Prison very dreadful, that it was very hard coming out when one is once there; and that if there were such a design against me, it would be put in execution without noise. That people would come to S. Lewis (where I lodged) at midnight, cause the Gates to be opened by the Pope's order, carry me away without telling whither, and forbidden all that knew of it, to speak any thing of it under pain of excommunication. That I ought not so much to rely upon the innocence of my sentiments, and the candour of my proceeding whereof I was confident, as to consider the power and credit of those who were not satisfied with my return. And though we are obliged to do many things, and hazard all sort of disgraces for the service of God, yet that when we see we cannot succeed, and 'tis not our fault, it behooveth to give way to the time, and provide for our own security and preservation.  
I answered this Ecclesiastic that I believed the Law of Nations would not be violated upon vain suspicions and extravagant calumnies of that nature; That I was a public person, being sent by considerable Prelates who would not endure that wrong should be done to me, or that I should disappear without taking pains to know what were become of me: That I conceived their Eminences and his Holiness too advised to attempt such a thing; that however, should they attempt it upon considerations leading them thereto which could not enter into my mind, they would be more troubled than I when they had me in their hands; for the more they examined me, the less would they find cause for arresting me. That for all this if contrary to my expectation it happened, that they would treat me otherwise and exercise any violence and ctuelty against me, I did not fear them; because the more it should please God to cause me to suffer in such innocence, and for a cause so just and necessary as this for which I was returned, the more I should esteem myself beholding to his divine mercy. And therefore so long as I was in a condition to act for that cause, by God's help I should not fail so to do. Whatever else this Ecclesiastic said in the discourse he had with me about this subject, during two whole hours which he held me, notwithstanding my blood-letting, he could draw no other thing from me.   

CHAP. IU.  
An Audience of the Pope on the 10 th'. of July, at my delivering to him the Bishop's Letter, and declaring to him the subject of it.  
THat which I had with the Pope on Monday the 10th. of July 1651. was very different, and much more pleasing. After the three usual kneel, one at the entering into at the Pope's Chamber as soon as he is perceived, the second about the middle of the way towards the Chair where he sits, and the third at the appraching near him to kiss his feet according to the custom; I told him (being upon my knees) that I was returning towards France, full of the resentments which I ought to have of the kindness wherewith his Holiness had treated me, and of the favours which I had received of him the foregoing Winter; but upon the way I received Letters written to him by some of my Lords the Bishops of France, with others for myself, by which they appointed me to return speedily to deliver those written to his Holiness, and procure the effect of the same from him, as being about matters very important and urgent. The Pope scarce stayed till I had done speaking; but he told me; that if I conceived I had received any testimonies of his kindness in time past, I might hold myself assured that I should receive no less for the future; and he asked me what was the subject of the Letters which I had to present to him? I answered, that they were upon occasion of other Letters which other Bishops of France had written to him, whereby they desired of his Holiness a clear determination of five certain Propositions framed with artifice and in ambiguous terms, capable of very different and contrary senses. That the same may admit an heretical sense, but there was no person that maintained them in that sense; that besides, they may have a very Catholic sense; and that his Holiness ought to observe that 'tis the Catholic sense which is struck at by those who solicited the Letter which those other Prelates had written to him, because this sense cannot comply with the novelty of their doctrines; and that under pretext of the heretical sense they endeavour to obtain a Censure, that they may afterwards apply the same to the Catholic sense; which would cause great disturbances and have very dangerous consequences. That the Bishops by whose order I was returned, beseeched his Holiness, that in case it pleased him to make any new determination touching those Propositions, it might not be without having first heard the persons who were to follow me, and who would declare and manifest to his Holiness, that there was neither Bishop, nor Doctor, nor Priest that maintained the said Propositions in their bad sense; and moreover, clearly show him certain and invincible proofs upon which the Catholic sense which they defend, and whereof the Propositions are capable, is founded. That this Request was the most just that could be made to his Holiness by Ecclesiastical persons; and that if we are obliged in all things providere bona non tantùm coram Deo sed etiam coram hominibus, 'tis chief when the question is to show the Church and the Vicar of Jesus Christ that the Faith is entire and sincere in our hearts, and that we are not infected with any thought contrary thereunto. As for his Holiness, that he could not but have great satisfaction in finding the same, by the example of S. John, who saith in one of his Epistles, Majorem horum non habeo gratiam quàm ut sciam filios meos in veritate ambulare. [I durst not at that time speak more openly of the Congregation whose election I was to solicit, nor use so much as the word Congregation at first, for fear of crossing the Pope's spirit in any thing, who I was assured, was very averse from entering into any discussion of these matters] Assoon as I had done speaking the passage newly mentioned, the Pope smiled at the application which I made of it; and told me the Bishops of France needed not to be solicitous about letting him know their devotedness to the H. See, and the sincerity of their sentiments; that he had abundant proofs thereof in the voyage he made thither in the legation of Cardinal Barberin; and he recounted to me at length all the Civilities which they received from them in the Dioceses through which they passed, and that were showed by the Body of the Clergy to M. the Legate, coming to bid him adieu before his departure, and to wish him a good voyage, to the number of fifty six. As for the Propositions, if they were contained in the Bull of Vrban VIII. or rather of Pius V that the same was passed with too much knowledge of the cause to afford any thing that might be gainsaid or glossed upon. If they were any new thing, all should be examined with care and leisure; That he had nothing so much at his heart, as to do things with all the prudence and circumspection that can be desired; That this was all the answer he could make me at present, before having seen what the Letters imported which I had delivered to him. I told the Pope, that as for the Bull of Vrban VIII. it had been received and published by the Archbishop of Paris; and that of the Five Propositions in question, not any was contained therein; that four of them especially had no relation to the said Bull; that one of them indeed seemed like one of those which are in the same, but yet was many ways different from them; that his Holiness knew well that there needs but one word to make great alterations. The Pope told me, that a point or a dash is enough for that. I added, that the Bishops who sent me had no design to invalidate that Bull, but only to keep his Holiness from being possessed or surprised in reference to the Five Propositions, and from passing (in regard of the bad sense whereof they are capable) such a Censure as may be applied to the Catholic sense according to which they may be understood; That the inventors of them spoke in France of the Censure which they expected from Rome, as if they had his Holinesses Tongue in their mouths, and his Pen in their hands. The Pope replied hereunto, by showing me a Crucifix, which he said was his counsel in such affairs as these; and that having heard what would be represented to him by such as argued therein, he kneeled down before that Crucifix to take at the feet thereof his resolution, according to the inspiration given to him by the H. Spirit, whose assistance was promised to him, and could not fail him.  
In this address the Pope spoke to me several times to rise up; which I out of respect being unwilling to do, he commanded me to arise, and told me, he would thereby show me what account he made of me. It was requisite to obey his Holiness; and towards the end of his discourse he bid me repair to M. Albizzi. I durst not then tell the Pope how much we esteemed M. Albizzi prepossessed by the Jesuits, and opposite to all affairs not approved by those Fathers. But I took occasion to tell him, that I had a very humble suit to make to his Holiness, namely, that he would not give credit to all the ill reports which might be made against me, and all those whom some endeavoured to bring into ill esteem with him; because we had to do with people very full of artifice, and exceeding bold in forging calumnies. Amongst other testimonies which I might have given his Holiness of the liberty of Detraction taken by our Adversaries, I instanced one to him which concerned myself in the time wherein I had the honour to be Rector of the University. I told him that the Jesuits in the end of the year 1642. attempting to invade its Privileges, I became obliged to write thereof to Pope Vrban VIII. to hinder them from obtaining of him by surprise some Brief which might favour their designs, unless he were preadvertised thereof: That the Letter which I writ to him being framed in such respectful terms as the person to whom, and the subject of which I was to write, required; the Jesuits in an Apology which they caused to be printed a little while after in behalf of their Society, took occasion therein to complain of my Letter, as if I had injured the service of the King, and the interests of the State by writing it; and that they might have wherewith to triumph against me, they falsely alleged in their book such words of it, as were not contained in any place of my said Letter, either together or asunder. Wherefore I beseeched his Holiness to consider to what exorbitance of calumnies they are likely to proceed in secret, since they are not ashamed, and make no scruple to divulge publicly such high things against a person who being in a Charge very considerable in Paris, was able to complain of the injury in all places, and so easily to convince them before all the world of the falseness of their accusation. The Pope answered that I had reason, and promised me that he would keep himself from being prepossessed by any calumny. I beseeched him that he would vouchsafe to let me advertise his Holiness upon occasion of all that I should find necessary to be represented to him in this affair, which I should always do with truth and moderation, yet with that Christian freedom which the justice of the cause for which I pleaded, and the service of the Church required. He answered, That he would always hear me very willingly. I held in my hand the Letters which I was to present to him. The Pope offered to take them, and lay them upon a low Stool near him, where he had already laid the Memorials which he had received that day; but I placed my Letters there myself; which as I was doing, the Pope presenting his hand to receive them, told me, the Bishops who subscribed the first Letter, were a very great number. I answered, that the Letters which I presented to him would, as I conceived, be as acceptable to his Holiness, and appear to him more necessary than those which he had received. After which falling upon my knees and receiving his benediction, I withdrew.  
It must be confessed that these audiences of the Pope are very pleasing and agreeable. One is admitted to him alone, and so long as they continue, there is no person but the Pope present, or that can hear what is said; so that a man may open his heart to him, and speak to him about any business with full liberty all that he conceives necessary to represent to him. There is no fear of being too long or tedious to him. For 'tis so far from being requisite to offer to retire and make an end, that on the contrary it would be an incivility and a fault to do it before the Pope himself signify his pleasure to end the audience, by the benediction which he gives when he finds there is no need, or no time to hear more.   

CHAP. V.  
A Relation of all that passed concerning the Hours. An Answer to all Objections made by the Jesuits against them. That they were put into the Index only because of a Bull of Pius V alleged to prohibit all Translations of the Office of the B. Virgin into the Vulgar tongue. The Asperities of M. Albizzi.  
IT was the tenth of July that I had the audience of which I have now given account. I would have gladly spoken to the Pope touching the business of the Hours, by reason of what I learned about them the day foregoing. But it not being the principal affair for which I was returned, and I not being confident that it was needful to speak to his Holiness for remedy in it, I thought fit to forbear.  
What I learned concerning them, was thus: viz. That there was sent about two months before to the Secretary of the Congregation of the Index, a Catalogue of Prohibited Books, amongst which the Hours were; That M. Albizzi had for some time since much urged the said Secretary to expedite the publishing of it; That it had been hindered from being so, among other impediments, by the solicitations used by the Jesuits to get exempted a book of one of their Fathers named Amceius, who was Author of a Work wherein sundry pernicious Maxims, especially concerning Murder, are taught; but all they could obtain was, that the title of Jesuit should not be mentioned in the Decree, but this clause be added to the condemnation of his book, donec corrigatur; That the business being made up thus, the Catalogue was at the Printing-house, and ready to be published every day, and that the Hours were in it.  
Then it was that I well understood what Card. Roma meant when he told me, that perhaps the Hours would be spoken of no more in the Congregation of the H. Office, but only in that of the Index; but I did not so easily understand to what purpose were the solicitations and general recommendations which Cardinal Barberin advised me to make to their Eminences in behalf of the said Book. Wherefore I repaired to his Palace, and not daring to tell him plainly my knowledge of the posture in which the business was (for I came to it by a very particular and secret way) after I had given him an account of the Visit which I made to Card. Panzirolo, who cut me off so short that he gave me not time to speak to him about the Hours. I asked him whether it were yet time and sitting for me to speak thereof to Card. Cechini, when I found him so little employed as to hear me; for his office of Datary obliged him to answer so many persons, that is often as I went to him, I always found him surrounded with a crowd of people. Card. Barberin answering me hereunto neither Yes nor No. I proceeded and told him, that the Jesuits continued to boast that they were confident of a Censure of the Hours, if not from the H. Office, at least from the Congregation of the Index. I told him further; that I had heard say that M. Albizzi speaking of a Catalogue of Prohibited Books which was to be published within some time, said it should be so before the following week were passed. I also signified to him what Cardinal Roma said to me, viz. that perhaps that affair would not pass before the Congregation of the H. Office, but before that of the Index: that all this put together made me fear, that the Service which he had intimated he would do the Bishop of Angers would be unprofitable, if perchance the said Book were amongst those contained in the Catalogue to be published a few days after; that I was informed that the business depended absolutely upon Cardinal Spada; who was the head of that Congregation, who could produce the said Catalogue, see whether the Book were in it, and blot it out, if it seemed good to him. Cardinal Barberin answered me to all this, That he was not present at all the Congregations, and that it was requisite for me to go to Cardinal Spada, to represent to him the same that I did to himself, and also to repeat all that could be said for defence and justification of the Hours. I replied, that I would willingly wait upon Cardinal Spada to acquaint him with all that he pleased; but that if he would make this business his own, as he had testified to me, it would be better for his Eminence to speak with Cardinal Spada then for me; and that that Cardinal would more regard the least thing spoken to him by his Eminence then all that I could represent to him. Nevertheless I could not obtain of Cardinal Barberin to promise me to visit Cardinal Spada, what ever importunity I used to him, but I was fain to departed without his giving me any assurance that he would speak to the said Cardinal; on the contrary he told me clearly that he remitted the whole business to my management.  
This so unusual indifference which Cardinal Barberin showed for a business which he had testified to me he would make his own, giving me cause to believe that he would meddle with it no more, because he saw no likelihood of succeeding in it, deprived me also of all hope, and with hope of all courage to labour in it; which I had the more reason to give over, when I considered how it was fully concluded, and how all the instances and solicitations which I could use for hindering it, were henceforth unprofitable and out of time; in as much as I certainly knew that the Printer had already carried the Secretary of the Congregation of the Index a proof of the said Catalogue, and that the Hours were in it, though I durst not plainly tell Card. Barberin so; the importance, necessity, and obligation of secrecy of the way by which I understood it, being more considerable to me then any other advantage which I could obtain in behalf of the Hours by divulging it. But besides, I was obliged to take heed of letting it be known that I understood how the business stood, even for the interest of the Hours; because I feared that if the Commissioners of the H. Office came to discover that I knew it so certainly, they would lose all the good will and inclination which they might otherwise have to do that excellent Work the Justice which I desired; and this in regard of the reputation of their Tribunal, which they would account impaired, should they suffer it to be thought subject to any vicissitudes, or capable of changing its determinations. Wherefore I was obliged to keep myself within these bounds with Cardinal Barberin, and to content myself with representing to him the most effectually I could the dangers wherein the Hours might be of receiving some doom as I presumed, for the reasons wherewith I acquainted him, to oblige him to prevent the same, according to the affection which he had to defend them; but seeing he referred the matter wholly to myself, I could no longer look upon it as other then desperate and irremediable.  
Hour, that I might not hereafter repent of having been able to make some remonstrance in behalf of the Hours, and not having done it, I resolved upon what Cardinal Barberin lately enjoined me, viz. to go again and visit Cardinal Spada, and try my last endeavour with him. When I came to his Palace, he was receiving a visit from a person of Quality, with whom he was about an hour, at the end of which came a Gentleman from Cardinal Barberin to know whether Cardinal Spada were at home. I doubted presently whether Cardinal Barberin had not altered his resolution since my departure, and I imagined that it was about the affair whereof I had spoken to him, that he intended to come visit Cardinal Spada. I had some mind to withdraw without speaking to Cardinal Spada for fear of spoiling any thing by so doing, and that I might leave the business to Cardinal Barberin entire, to do what he should think fit for the success of it. But the Marquis who was with Cardinal Spada coming forth almost as soon as the news of Cardinal Barberin's coming was brought, and it coming into my mind that Cardinal Barberin would perhaps be glad that I spoke some thing to Cardinal Spada before himself did, according to the order which he gave me, I spent the little interval of time which was between the Marquis' visit and Cardinal Barberin's coming, in representing to Cardinal Spada in few words and the greatest moderation I could, the same things wh●ch I had said to Cardinal Barberin. I told him of the absolute power which I was informed he had in this business, of the inconveniences and sad consequences which he might prevent by doing what I requested of him, and of the many obligations there would be to his Eminence for his good proceeding therein. Cardinal Spada answered me plainly, by acknowledging the Catalogue talked of to come forth in which the Hours were; but he spoke of it as a Prohibition little considerable, and not likely to do the Hours much prejudice, there being thirty or forty books comprised together in the same Prohibition; That nevertheless, if I were minded to prevent it, I must have recourse to the H. Office to take order therein; but as for himself he could do nothing alone.  
Cardinal Barberin arrived there incognito by the little Door. Cardinal Spada went to meet him, and I withdrew. Though it was already somewhat late, yet I went to Cardinal Barberin's Palace to wait for him at his return, and know what what he had done in this Visit. It lasted a long hour, and he came not home till night. He told me when he was returned, that I must again visit all the Cardinals whom I had visited before concerning the Hours. He took the pains to deduce particularly what I was to represent to them; and by all that he said he gave me very much ground to hope that they were disposed to have regard to my Remonstrances. He advised me to draw up a Memorial to present to them; and after it was finished, to let him see it, that he might tell me whether it were right. Moreover, touching the Gown and Cap which I had worn hitherto in the visits which I made to the Cardinals, he told me, that they did not like to see me in that habit, and that he conceived they would be willing that I wore it no longer. I rendered thanks to his Eminence for all the care which he took of this business. And as for the habit, I answered him that I should be very glad to be dispensed with from the subjection and trouble of wearing it, which I had not done hitherto with some inconvenience, but only out of respect to their Eminences; as himself had seen we use to do in France in occasions of honour and ceremony.  
This Advertisement was the cause that before I presented myself in the Pope's presence chamber to have the Audience of him which I above mentioned, on Sunday morning (July 9) I went to the Master of the Pope's chamber to his Apartment to inquire of him in what habit he thought good I should present myself to have Audience of his Holiness, and I offered him of my own accord to go with my Cassock and my Cloak. He answered, that this would be best, because of the novelty of the other, about which it would be requisite to speak to the Pope, to know whether his Holiness liked my wearing of a Gown and Cap; seeing the other Doctors which were there before, presented themselves only in their Cassock and Cloak. Whereupon I was not unwilling to accept the offer which he made me, to avoid deferring my Audience by the discussion of a scruple of this nature; seeing too, the principal cause of my wearing a Gown and Cap, (namely, to have it taken notice of at first that I was come back to Rome about a public employment) was ceased at that time by all the visits which I had made to show the occasion of my return.  
The same Sunday (July 9) I went in behalf of the Hours to visit Cardinal Ginetti in the moring, and Cardinal Roma in the afternoon; which last made me new instances upon the scruple about the Translation of the first Commandment touching Images. On Tuesday morning I finished the Memorial which I presented to their Eminences about this matter; I caused copies to be made of it, and carried them in the afternoon to the Cardinals Genetti, S. Clement, Spada and Barberin. Which last further advised me to look a little into the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and see how it speaks concerning Images. And because the time for their Assembly was near, it being to meet on Wednesday morning, and there being no order as I knew of to suspend the publishing of ●he  Catalogue, I left my Memorial at the Palace of those Cardinals whom I could not meet with to present the same personally. In the said Memorial having said something about the drift of the Hours, I passed thus to the answer of objections brought against it.  
This Book having been received almost universally by all the world with so great applause that there have been six several Editions of it within less than a year; it hath stirred the jealousy of certain persons, who not being able to find any thing considerable in it to gainsay, have been reduced only to blame it for three slight matters.  
First, of neglecting to translate out of the Latin the word Redempteur de tous [Redeemer of All] as if the translator omitted it out of design and set purpose.  
But the Authors of this work know too well what S. Paul saith in 2 Cor. 5. that Jesus Christ died for all; and what also is said in the first Epistle of S. John, chap. 2. that he is the price and ransom for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole World. They acknowledge too well, That Jesus Christ our Lord is the Saviour of all, to retrench maliciously the word, Redempteur de tous, or conceal a truth which they own de fide, and for which they are ready to shed their blood.  
And indeed the said Authors having been very diligent in the Work to translate the Hymns verse for verse (which is very difficult, considering the confinement of the French rhymes) it may have happened that it hath been put in the French verse which corresponds to the Latin wherein the said word is by reason of the rhyme, which would not fall right in the course of Poetry; but the said word is restored in the following verse, and hath likewise been inserted in sundry other places where the Latin wants it.  
This is seen particularly in the Hymn Lustris sex qui jam peractis, in which these six verses [Crux fidelis, inter omnes, Arbour una nobilis: Nulla sylva talem profert, Frond, flore germine: Dulce lignum dulces clavos, Dulce pondus sustinet] are thus translated,  
O Croix arbre d' amour, de salut & de grace,  
Arbre uraiment divin, qui tout arbre surpass.  
En miracles divers;  
O bois plus sacré per ce Corpse adorable,  
Tu ports le doux fruit, le fruit inestimable  
QUI GUERIT L' UNIVERS.  
In the Hymn Ad coenam Agni providi, Et stolis albis candidi, Post transitum maris rubri, Christo canamus Principi, The Translation runs thus  
Vaincucurs, de la mer rouge eschappés de son onde,  
Allons parés de blanc au festin de l' Agneau,  
Publions dans nos chants du REDEMPTEUR DU MONDE  
Le triomphe nouveau.  
In the Hymn Veni Creator Spiritus, the last verse, Gloria Patri Domino, Natoque qui a mortuis surrexit, is thus translated.  
Gloire a Christ par sa mort DES MORTS LE REDEMPTEUR.  
And in the Te Deum this verse, Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem non horruisti virginis uterum, is also translated into these words,  
Tu n'as dedaigné pour SAUVER TOUT LE MONDE  
D' entrer dans l' humble sein d' une verge fecund.  
Thus in divers places of the Hymns speaking indefinitely and generally, it is said that our Lord Jesus Christ is the hope of the whole Universe, the price of the world, the invaluable fruit hanging on the tree which heals the Universe, the Redeemer of the world, the salvation of men; and that he shed his precious blood for the infinite price of the guilty Universe; That he came to deliver man from his misery, to heal all our evils, to save the guilty, to break thc chains of sinners, to wash the world, to purchase the Universe: that we are purchased by his blood; That he came to be born and to die for us; That he died for guilty man. And more such manners of speech there are in the French which are not found even in several places of the Latin.  
The second objection made against this Work is that the Cardinal de Berule is put in the Calendar with the title of Bien-heureux blessed. To which it is answered that this is not the fault of the Author who well knows that it pertains only to the H. See to declare the Saints and the Blessed; but a simple devotion which he who corrected the second impression of the said Book had for that Cardinal. And accordingly the Author taking notice of the Corrector's fault, blotted out the tittle of Blessed from that Cardinal in the four other Ediitons which have been made since the second.  
The third Objection consists in that the Adversaries pretend that the Translator hath interpreted according to the conceptions of Heretics that passage of the fifth chapter of Deuteronomie; Non facies tibi sculptile, neque similitudinem omnium quae in caelo sunt desuper, etc. But those Censors are greatly mistaken in this particular; because the Heretics aim in that translation is to show that the Church does ill in the laudable custom which it hath of making and having the Images of Saints; for which purpose they leave out the word Idol, and the end, which is, to adore them. But the Translator hath faithfully put both into this book, making express mention of the word Idol and of the end, for which it is forbidden to make any, namely to adore them. The Translation is thus, Vous ne ferés point d' Idole ny d' Image taillee ny aucune figure pour les adorer, You shall make no Idol nor graven Image, nor any figure, to adore the same, which version is not only suitable to the text of H. Scripture, but also necessary for France; and it is found so in all the Catechisms printed for the instruction of children and plain people: And all Curates, and such as teach the Catechism to Children and the vulgar, have great care when they expound this commandment to recite it thus to them, and to make them take notice of it, that so they may know the reason for which God made that prohibition, and knowing it may also know that when the Church makes Images it doth nothing contrary to this commandment of God, because it makes them not to adore them, but only to render to them the worship (cultum) which is due unto them. And by this means the Catholic people are delivered from the fallacies and false explications and reproaches of Heretics; whereas if they were not thus instructed, Heretics might circumvent and seduce them.  
That if these reasons be not accounted sufficient to take away all the suspicions that may be raised against the good intentions of the Author of this Work, but your Eminences judge it necessary to add to the Book some Preface or Explication or other like thing for greater assurance of this Author's sincerity and good purposes; what your Eminences shall in prudence please ta appoint therein shall be punctually performed, the book shall be brought to you within three months reprinted with such new declaration, and shall never be printed otherwise hereafter.  
Moreover the book is of very great profit and edification to Christians containing nothing but the principal and most necessary Maxims of Christian life drawn out of the H. Scripture and the H. Fathers of the Church. It would be a sad and deplorable thing, if people should imagine that your Eminences condemn them; as the enemies of the said book will endeavour to persuade if it receive any impeachment, though it be not possible for their malice to hinder the great applause which it receives from all the world. Wherefore besides the good which your Eminences will do, and the scandal which you will prevent, you will also oblige very many pious and knowing persons who will endeavour to acknowledge this  dealing by all means possible, and will pray to God for the long and happy preservation and exaltation of your Eminences, whom God bless, etc.  
My purpose was to be on Wednesday morning (July 12.) at lafoy Minerve half an hour before the time which I understood the Cardinals were to meet there for their Congregation that so I might salute them as they came, partly to excuse the necessity there was of my leaving the Memorial at their Houses the foregoing Evening, having not time to return thither to present the same to themselves, and partly to inform them of what I read the precedent night in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. But they repaired thither much sooner this day then ordinary, by reason that Cardinal Pamphilio, who was to take his first sitting there that day, could not come thither later; and so they were all entered before my coming, except Cardinal Roma to whom I presented a Copy of the said Memorial, which I could not deliver to him in the evening.  
I was afraid too lest M. Albizzi should think himself slighted, and be incensed against us, if I did not present him one in particular; for which reason, I enquired whether there were no means to get him out of the Assembly for a moment, to present the same to him. I was answered No; but if I had a mind to speak any thing to the Assembly, I might enter in; for they would presently be called who had any thing to propose to it. I was something scruplous of resolving upon it, fearing lest by my presenting myself there, I might give the Congregation ground to pretend that a Frenchman and a Doctor of Sorbonne acknowledged its jurisdiction. However I determined to enter with the same mind and manner as I intended to address a Memorial to it, namely not as acknowledging any jurisdiction or superiority in the said Congregation either in respect of France, or of the book, or of the Author for whom I interceded; but only for preventing (if possible) the scandals which might arise from the Decrees of a Company of persons who indeed held a very considerable rank in the Church in regard of the manner wherewith many Catholics in France look upon those Decrees, the bad use which sundry particular persons make of them, and the false and pernicious consequences which they draw from them.  
They were seated about the Table in this order. The Cardinals Roma and Barberin were at the upper end; on their right hand on one side of the table were the Cardinals Ginetti, S. Clement, Lugo and Pamphilio; over against these two last M. Albizzi and the F. Commissary of the H Office sat upon lower seats, and before them there was a bar joining to the Table: Along the wall opposite to the Cardinals sat seven or eight of their Consultors. I drew near to speak at the end of the table which was empty, and I told them in Latin, That to avoid troubling them by repetition of what I had represented to them as well by word of mouth as by my Memorial, I should add nothing thereto but that having the foregoing night read the Catechism provided for Curates by order of the Council of Trent, translated into the vulgar tongue, and printed by the command of Pius V I observed that the Commandment touching Images was there expressed in the same words as in the Hours, and that in a higher and more dangerous manner, if the reasons of those who made the said Objection against the Hours deserved to be received. For the Catechism hath these express word, Non tifarai alcuna imagine sculpita, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, [Sculpita] which seemed most to offend the accusers of the Hours; And whereas in the Hours it is only said that they shall not make them to adore them, it is in the Catechism that they shall not adore them, yea (which is more) that they shall not honour them [Non le adorerai ne le honorerai] Wherefore if the Hours deserved to be condemned for that translation, the Catechism deserves it much more for this; and on the contrary if the Catechism hath not been condemned in these hundred years since its printing, the Hours deserve it far less. I added that if there were any thing else to be objected against the Hours besides what I had already heard, I no only hoped that it would not be harder for me to answer solidly thereunto than it had been to answer the objections made hitherto; but also that if their Eminences, desired any thing else from the Authors of the Hours for a more ample justification of their right Belief, honest management, and submission to their Eminences I assured them that they should give them full satisfaction within what time it pleased them to prescribe.  
Cardinal Roma speaking in the name of all answered that they would consider what I had represented to them by word of mouth and by writing, and then give me an answer [& dabimus responsum] As I retired I left a Copy of my Memorial to M. Albizzi, and laid upon the table before him the Catechism translated into Italian, which I procured the day before, and looked upon as a Piece that abundantly determined the capital difficulty brought against the Hours.  
I waited for M. Albizzi at his coming out of the Assembly, partly to understand from him as secretary of that Congregation what he might have to tell me concerning what was resolved upon that which I represented; and partly to make an excuse to him that I could not present the Memorial to him sooner by bringing it to his house. He answered me nothing, but that 'twas enough that I informed the rest.  
In the afternoon I went to wait upon Cardinal Pamphilio whom I had not yet saluted. I told him that I should come at the first opportunity to inform him of the principal motive of my return to Rome, besides what he might have already understood thereof by the Letters of the Bishops which I presented to the Pope; but in the mean time I came to acquaint him with the affair of the Hours. An account of which I aecordingly gave him, but in few words, being obliged to be brief, in regard of the great number of persons who were at the door of his Antichamber, and desired audience of his Eminence.  
The same afternoon I visited Cardinal Barberin again; I presented a Memoral to him; I told him of the Hours lately published by F. Adam, which he entitled Catholic in opposition to the former, as if they were Heretical, using much bitterness and calumny against those who had a hand in their translation. His answer employed as if all the Cardinals were sufficiently enlightened and satisfied as to the Objections which I removed, and as if there remained no other scruple concerning the Hours but their being in the vulgar tongue. I replied, That translation into the vulgar tongue was forbidden only of the whole entire Scripture, in regard of some particular places whereby the simple may be misled and ill edified; but it was never prohibited to extract and translate such principal places of it as may serve for the edification of the people. That in particular the Hours of F. Adam were in the vulgar tongue as was as the other; upon which nothing could be charged but what might also be charged upon those of the said Father; which besides may be justly accused amongst other things of having altered and corrupted in the Translation all the Collects in which the power of the Effectualness of Grace is expressed in the Latin. Then we fell to speak of the audience which I had had of the Pope the day aforegoing, of which I related all the particularities to his Eminence. Upon which occasion among other things which he said, I remember he repeated what he had formerly often told me, namely, That he wondered the Pope laid so much stress upon the Bull of Vrban VIII. as if it were decisive of any thing, whereas for certain, it was only provisional, not for the condemning of the Doctrine of Jansenius, but barely for the forbidding or prohibiting it, till it should be examined and approved.  
Neither Cardinal Spada, nor Catdinal Panzirolo were at la Minerve on Wednesday morning; nor could I meet with them in the afternoon. Wherefore holding myself assured that the affair of the Hours would be spoken of before the Pope on Thursday morning, and it having been told me that the sentiments of those two Cardinals were in great estimation with his Holiness, I went to their Palaces to wait upon them both before they repaired to the Assembly which was to be held that day in the presence of his Holiness.  
The first I went to was Cardinal Spada. I told him two things, whereof I had not spoken at my visiting him, nor said any thing in my Memorial. One was what I had represented the day before at la Minerve out of the Catechism of the Council of Trent about Images. The other, The information which I had received of the impression of the Hours of F. Adam. I added that word was sent me, that they were full of falsities & detractions which he mingled with the prayers of the Churth; that he entitled them Catholic, as if the other were Heretical; that he had translated the Hymns into burlesque and ridiculous Verses; that though I received this News but the last Post, yet it was signified to me that they had been public three or four months; and that I prayed him to consider what might be said, in case the other were comprised in a Decree, because they were in French, and these latter exempted. The Cardinal answered me, That if I had the Hours of F. Adam, and complained thereof to their Tribunal, as others there accused those which I defended, they would not condemn the one, unless they condemned the other also. I replied, That I had them not; that if he desired to see them, I would procure them to show him, that so by comparing them together, he might understand more clearly, and judge more certainly of the Justice of my Remonstrances: And for this purpose I beseeched him to procure time for it, by causing the intended Judgement upon the former to be suspended and deferred: but as for bringing my Complaints against those of F. Adam to their Tribunal, I saw no benefit of so doing; that if the Hours which I defended must be impeached by a Decree wherein they were comprised, I had as lief they were so alone as in the company of those of F. Adam; because it was not fit to accustom those Fathers to make a bad Book assoon as they saw a good one which they liked not, upon hope to get both condemned, (under colour of holding the balance equal, and restoring Peace between both sides) nor to give their Eminences occasion to proceed in such a manner.  
When I was come from Cardinal Spada, I went to the apartment of Cardinal Panzirolo which was down at Monte Cavallo where the Pope then resided. I could not be admitted to speak to him before he came forth of his apartment to go up to the Pope. He was encompassed with many persons of quality, Bishops, Gentlemen and Prelates of Rome, who were with him to court him and accompany him from his own apartment to that of the Pope. I addressed to him in the midst of all that multitude, because I could not otherwise; and presenting my Memorial to him, I told him, according as the place permitted, that I came to implore his protection for a Book, whose Excellence and general approbation had drawn some Maligners upon it, who not being able to blame any thing considerable in it, were reduced to very weak objections, as he might find by the memorial which I presented to him, and as I hoped, he would hear in the Assembly which was going to be held before his Holiness. I had no sooner done speaking, but the Cardinal instead of answering me, turned towards M. Albizzi; (who was one of those that accompanied him) and asked him what was the business whereof I spoke to him: M. Albizzi answered with a very high and earnest tone, saying these words twice, Si burla il signior sant-Amor, si burla, etc. M. de saint-Amor jests, he's in jest. These offensive and disparaging words would not have much troubled me if M. Albizzi had spoke them in some private audience, where I might have replied to him before those that heard them; but in a place so public as this was, before so great a multitude, and at a time when there was no room for much reply, (for it was in the middle of the way, and we were already almost at the foot of the stairs which leads up to the Pope) they were a sufficient rude taste of the haughty and imperious treatment which I was to look for when I should be obliged to visit M. Albizzi. But notwithstanding the just commotion which they caused in me, yet through a secret fear I had, lest he spoke them only to incense me and force me to some more vehement answer, (as indeed he deserved, but from which he might have taken advantage against me;) I did not address my answer to him, but to Cardinal Panzirolo, (though so loud, as to make it heard by most of those that took notice of the affront) telling him that his Eminence would see whether I jested or no, when he perused the Memorial which I presented to him. That I addressed myself to him to beseech him to acquaint his Holiness that some of the Bishops whose Letters I had presented to him, and who knew what the Book was, would account the treatment it received as done to themselves; and that I did not mention the same to the Pope when I presented him their Letters, because I did not then foresee that it was fit to speak of it, at least so soon, to his Holiness.  
Whilst I was speaking this to Cardinal Panzirolo, M. Albizzi was still behind him a little on one side, and having taken hold of a corner of the Book, he held it up very high, and showed it to all the company, shaking it and threatening, saying, I had spoken of it what seemed good to me; but they were going to see above, whether I had reason or no. Leaving Cardinal Panzirolo to pass on, I answered M. Albizzi, That that was it which I waited for; but I wondered in the mean time at this his usage both of the Book and of myself. M. Albizzi angrily replied, That I thought I had done a great matter yesterday when I had spoke of the above mentioned Catechism, but I ought to have first looked all along the place I cited, which is clearly expounded as the Catholic sense requireth, which the Author of the Hours hath not done. I answered, That the Catechism was more large, and extendeth itself further in the exposition of the said Commandment, than the Translation of the Hours doth; yet in the few words it containeth, it is well enough and clearly enough explicated without needing other comment to make it more intelligible. M. Albizzi replied, That the generality of the world could not well understand it being so compendious. I told him, That it was very easy for any person to understand, of how mean capacity soever. He replied, That women did not understand it. I said, That the meanest women understood it well; and that all such as teach the Catechism every day to little Girls and Children, were too careful in expounding it to leave obscurity in it; and that in France there was no Catholic ignorant of it. He continued speaking to me in a muttering way, and as offended at the care I took for the defence of the Hours, as if I went about thereby to do some violence to Religion and to the H. See, and to oblige it to tolerate a thing which might not be. I answered, That it was not my intention nor thought to engage the H. See to any thing whatever against its inclinations and interests; but to serve it by letting the Pope know the ambushes prepared against it by the equivocal Propositions whose Decision is pursued, and by informing him the most carefully I could of the true state of all the things wherewith I was incharged. And as for himself, I beseeched him that he would vouchsafe to hear what I had to say to him with some kind of equitableness, and not reject the evident justification which I could make both of the purity of the Doctrines contained in the Hours, and of the purity of their intentions who published them; which is very easy to be judged, since even in the whole Book there can hardly be found any rational ground for the least suspicion. M. Albizzi replied, That it was too manifestly seen how bad that Author's intention was, and that all that is reported of the evil designs of such people against the Holy See, whereof they are enemies, is but too true. Finding by this Answer that he was absolutely corrupted against us, and that the moderation and patience which I used in all this discourse, did only exasperate him, and make him break out the more against me, I fell into the just indignation which his carriage constrained me to, and told him with confidence, That what he said would not be found true, and that, I would never endure that any person do such a high Injury (as he had done) to the worthy persons whose sound Piety and sincere intentions I was acquainted with, without protesting against the Injustice, & showing the wrong done them by so false and prejudicial a belief, which can have no other foundation but calumnies and frauds. M. Albizzi replied not to this discourse but mutteringly between his teeth; so that hearing none of his words, and seeing mine very unprofitable with him, I stopped there, which silence was more easy to me; for all that we spoke was upon the way going up to the Pope's apartment, where we arrived when we ceased speaking.  
On Friday (July 14.) I was present at Mass with the Cardinals in the Chapel of the Cordeliers in the place Colonna, upon occasion of the Feast of St. Bonaventure, and I heard an Oration in Latin made there by a young Cordelier at the end of Mass in praise of the aforesaid Saint. In the afternoon I went to visit three Cardinals, to whom I spoke about the affair of the Hours. The first was the Cardinal of S. Clement, in conference of whom I discovered two remarkable things: First, that what I said & represened in the Congregation of the H. Office on Wednesday was very well received there, yet that I had better not have appeared in person in that Congregation, and that for keeping the greater circumspection and gravity in my Conduct. And secondly, that the grand occasion of complaints and prosecutions made against the Hours was not any ill observed in them, but the bad opinion taken up against those people who put them forth. The second Cardinal whom I visited was Roma, who told me that my Memorial was not read in their Congregation on Wednesday, but it should be in a private one held in his House for that purpose, to be reported afterwards to the General; but in the mean time I should not trouble myself; that nothing would be done but after mature and serious deliberation. And as I took occasion to tell him what passed on Thursday between M. Albizzi and me, whose animosity and power to hurt me I consequently ought to fear, his Office of Secretary of their Congregation, affording him so many occasions of speaking to the Pope and their Eminences about affairs of that nature; the Cardinal acknowledged that he had done amiss, yet excused him with greater kindness, bidding me not heed it, saying that it was his humour, that he acted very often with their Eminences so impetuously, and that I must not forbear to visit him, as if what was passed had never happened. The third was Cardinal Lugo, to whom I omitted not to carry a Memorial, notwithstanding his alliance wi●h the Jesuits.  
saturdays, Sundays and Mondays, were not usual days of much solicitation with me; because the Courier departing on saturdays for all the titles of Italy, almost all persons whom I could go see were employed about their dispatches: and the Courier of France going away on Monday, I many times began the Letters in Sunday afternoon, which I was to write to give account of what passed about the affairs wherewith I was encharged, Wherefore I could not before Tuesday (July 11.) continue the solicitations which I had began in the behalf of the Hours, having been obliged the foregoing days to send word exactly to the Bishops and the other persons who recommended the same to me how all passed hitherto about that matter.  
I also drew a second Memorial touching the Hours, by which the Cardinals of the Congregation of the H. Office were entreated to give way to the justification of the right faith and sincere intention of those who put them forth, and for this end to cause the whole Book to be read, and an Extract to be given of all that could be found  in it; that so, if after the objected difficulties were explicated, they thought meet to correct any thing in the Book or add any explication to it, for taking away the slightest suspicions, and clearing the least doubts, performance might be made of whatever their Eminences ordain, within a set time, and that with all the diligence which their Eminences can expect from persons perfectly full of submission and obedience.  
The desig●… of this second Memorial I communicated on Tuesday (July 18.) to persons very intelligent of the management, which ought to be used in that Country in those kind of affairs. It was assured to me, that according to the Laws and Customs of the Tribunal of the Inquisition, they could not deny what I requested by this Memorial, nor proceed further before they do right to it. So I was counselled to deliver it; but told it would be sufficient to carry it the next morning to Cardinal Roma for the whole Congregation, before he came forth of his Palace to repair thither. I had also time that day to visit Cardinal Barberin, and he permitted me to read to him the Copy of the Letter which I told him I had writ the day before to the Bishops concerning what had passed hitherto touching the Hours; which I could not but think very advantageous for their defence, in that this Cardinal might consider and tell the rest what interest was taken in this Work by Persons so Illustrious throughout all France for their dignity and merit; and how all that was done at Rome about this matter was punctually signified to them.  
On Wednesday morning I went to carry the second Memorial to Cardinal Roma; He told me that it was not yet time to give it to him, because my business would not be spoken of that day; but that I should bring it to him against the next day, that the private Congregation which he told me of before was to be holden. I learned that it would be the next day in the afternoon, and so did not fail to carry the Memorial to him half an hour before the Congregation was assembled.  
I waited patiently for justice to be done upon all that I had represented; but on Friday afternoon (July 21.) as I was going to Cardinal Barberin to fortify what I had said to him in favour of the Hours by undeniable examples of Books which I procured at Rome, I saw fixed up at the Apostolical Printing-house the new Decree of Books prohibited by the Inquisition during the course of that year, the publishing of which I knew was deferred only in expectation of what should be ordained touching the Hours. At first I was very glad to see it fixed up, in no wise imagining that they were comprised in it, but on the contrary persuading myself that they were wholly exempted; or that at least the publishing of this Decree was resolved upon, only for that it was foreseen that the discussion of what concerned the Hours, would take up more time than was fit according to their custom to delay the publication: but my reading of the said Catalogue of prohibited Books, informed me that the Hours were comprehended in it.  
'Tis in vain to speak of the extreme astonishment wherein I was at so unexpected an Event; but how great soever it was, it did not hinder me from presently considering the use that I ought to make of it, and the benefit which I might draw from it in reference to the principal affair wherewith I was encharged. And whereas it is no little advantage to understand as well as possible the people we are to deal with, I respited my intended visit to Cardinal Barberin, and returned back to Cardinal Roma. I spoke to him as if I knew nothing of the publishing of the Decree, and asked him plainly whether he had looked upon my two Memorials, and whether I might hope for justice from what I had represented to him. The Cardinal answered me with perfect sincerity, That the business was ordered and concluded, nor would it be any more spoken of; and of his own accord he related to me how the matter passed in the Conference which they had about it. He told me, that there was no more mention of the title B. given to M. de Barule in the Calendar, nor of the Translation of Redemptor omnium; but that the speech was about Images, and that seven or eight French Catechisms were produced, amongst others that of Cardinal Richelieu, in which the Commandment is not translated in the words that it is in the Hours; that on the other s●de an Heretical Catechism was looked into, and there it was translated just as in the Hours. But for all this, it was acknowledged that the version of the Hours in this point might have a good sense, and be well understood. He told me in the second place, that the bare Title of the Hours styled The Office of the Church, taken in the rigour displeased, and was judged worthy of blame, because the Office of the Church properly cannot be other then what is ordained by the Church itself; and that a collection of Prayers, through all the Churches made by any one whatever without the order and allowance of the Church itself cannot be called The Office of the Church. But yet it was seen well enough too in what sense the Authors meant it; and though the words were in the rigour bad, yet they were not the principal ground of the Resolution taken in their Congregation. In the third place he told me, That it was not liked that certain Prayers and Orisons (amongst others some to be said before and after Confession and Communion) which use to be in other Hours, were omitted in these; that it was inconvenient for every one to take the liberty of making them after his own fashion, and that this diversity of Prayers was not for edification. That he perceived well (nevertheless) that this was not unanswerable, and that he did not tell it me as such, but only to inform me of what was spoken, and how the matter passed, and also to let me know that it was well examined; that if the Conclusion was to the disadvantage of the Book; it was not without having had regard to my Remonstrances. In a word, that which at length absolutely fixed them, and obliged them not to suffer the Hours without condemning them, was the Bull of Pius V. which was recited and represented to their Eminences, by which that H. Pope made express prohibition of printing in the vulgar Tongue in what manner soever the Office of the Virgin; that this Bull being to them an inviolable Rule which they ought to follow, and one of the principal parts of the said Book consisting in the translation of that Office, it was not possible for them to let it pass without condemnation.  
This reason surprised me at first, and I imagined it convincing as well as the Cardinal; wherefore all that I could readily answer, having never had knowledge of that Bull of Pius V was, that I wondered how, the case being thus, so many other Hours in which the said Office is translated into the vulgar Tongue, are not condemned. To which the Cardinal replied, that they had no knowledge of it, no person accusing them and prosecuting their condemnation, as was done to these; which hindered not but that these deserved it, though the other which are equally culpable, scape free; just as a thief (added he) is sent to the punishment which he deserves, though others much more guilty than he are free from it, because they have not been prosecuted before the Judges, as he was whom they condemned; that as the Judges would likewise condemn those Thiefs whom they leave still in liberty, were they once accused before them; so none of those Hours in which the Office of the Virgin is in French, would escape condemning by their Tribunal, were they there accused.  
This seemed to me not to agree with what M. Albizzi said to me, viz. That in matter of Doctrine there were no parties. I found also by this, that it was easy for the Jesuits to get what Books they would condemned, they being always at Rome to play the part of Accusers; but on the contrary it was very difficult for their Books to be condemned, such as might accuse them not being at Rome. Lastly, I understood how when the Question is, Whether there be any particular thing bad in a Book, it is requisite that some be found to advertise the Inquisition of it: But in a thing so notorious as to know whether the Hours be translated into French, I saw not wherefore an Accuser is necessary; nor could I doubt but that the Inquisition of its own accord condemned an infinite number of Books without any persons meddling therewith besides its own Officers.  
But I dissembled all these thoughts, and thought it enough to testify to Cardinal Roma, that I was beholding to the goodness wherewith he informed me how the matter was carried about the Hours, which was no more to be thought of after its being thus determined. I took occasion to put him in mind of what I had said to him touching that of the five Propositions, which I told him was of other consequence then that of the Hours, and could not be composed without a more exact and longer discussion. Wherefore I beseeched him to employ his Authority to bring it to pass that there might be assigned time and place to all the Catholic Divines that concerned themselves therein, and minded to make their Remonstrances to the H. See touching the matter in question, to do it; and particularly to those who were to come after me, and to be at Rome in October following. Cardinal Roma bid me not trouble myself about this; telling me that this affair would certainly be drawn out in length; that it would not go as that of the Hours; that when a Determination is intended, there is care taken of not hastening too much. That there needed other studies and preparations for making a decision of Faith, then for making a Prohibition according to an Ordinance of a Pope. That such as would represent to the H. See what seemed good to them either by word of mouth, or writing, it should always be welcome, heard most willingly, and their service acknowledged by the H. See, which cannot take too much evidence in a business of such importance. That belonged to the H. See to judge and decide matters contested amongst Christians; but after they are decided by it, all Christians and others take upon them to judge of its decisions; and this obliges it to use all possible precaution to prevent being deceived. That for certain I should have more time than I could wish; that I now feared lest any thing might be precipitated, but the day would come that I should complain of not hastening enough: so that I ought to be at rest in this business, and signify to the Divines that they might come with all assurance, and that they should at their coming find things in the same posture in which I now beheld them.  
I departed from Cardinal Roma well satisfied with my Visit, especially in reference to this Affair, and even to that of the Hours too, because of the information he gave me, and the chief essential reason upon which he told me their Prohibition was grounded. Some time after I had the curiosity to be further instructed, and I confessed the Bullarie. There I found the Bull of Pius V. which forbids the Office of the Virgin in the vulgar Tongue; but after I had better examined it, I found not that the said Prohibitions could be extended to the Hours which were in question. That which gave occasion to the said Prohibition, was, that the Avarice of some Booksellers, and the malice or brutishness of some others leagued with them in that design put them upon publishing (out of emulation one against another) several Offices of the Virgin, or rather little Books under that name, in which there were divers Prayers which they forged, and which were full of superstitions and other follies, to circumvent the simple and promote the sale of their Books. Pius V taking notice of this abuse, and considerng how scandalous this exorbitant licence taken by some persons in the venting such Books was; and how destructive it might be to the consciences and edification of the faithful, he prohibited all those pretended Offices of the Virgin, and not only those which were already published, but likewise all such as might be published for the future.  
Certainly this Bull of Pius V had respect only to superstitious and scandalous Offices, such as those of which it complains, and which gave occasions for it; of which sort surely that is not which is contained in the Hours for which I interceded. I should not have failed to have represented as much very effectually and clearly to the Cardinals, if after it had been produced to them, they would have never so little suspended their judgement; and if before publishing the same, they had acquainted me with the said Bull as the Rule which they intended to follow, and which the Authors of the Hours ought not to have violated. But it made such impression upon their minds at the very instant of its proposing, that from thence they without hesitating concluded upon the condemnation of the Hours; and assoon as they had concluded it, the Decree was published and fixed up diligently, that between their judgement and its execution there was no room either for reflection or remonstrance.  
Although this business had such disadvantageous success, yet I took care not to be moved at it, nor to seem abashed; yea I conceived myself obliged to go thank Cardinal Barberin for the care he testified to me he would take of it. For which purpose I went to see him on Sunday (July 23.) in the forenoon with an aspect sufficiently free and pleasant. This was the cause he scarce knew how to answer to the thanks which I rendered him, nor whether or no he should tell me that the Hours were comprehended in the said Decree; because, as he told me afterwards, he knew not whether it were published, and feared his conscience would not permit him to tell me so, by reason of the secrecy whereunto they are obliged under penalty of excommuncation, and to which they take a solemn Oath at their Congregation. I testified that I was fully informed of the business, that ever since the Friday before I knew that it was ended, nor was I ignorant how it was carried. The Cardinal replied, (as if to comfort me for the Doom laid upon the Hours) That those decrees are not published at Paris (he meant such as issue out of the Inquisition, as this against the Hours did.) I answered, That the Jesuits would not forbear to triumph upon it in all places where they had partakers. He remained silent for some time without answering to this; and then changing the matter, he told me suddenly that it behoved him to think of obeying the Bull (meaning that of urban VIII. his Uncle against Jansenius) and that till it were obeyed, no satisfaction was to be hoped for. I replied that the Bull had been published at Paris, and moreover the Hours had no relation to that Bull. He told me that this was it in which I might see that it was requisite to obey the Bull; and that a bad business did wrong to a good one; that nothing else was to be hoped till obedience were yielded thereunto, that it behooved to begin there. I answered That I was sorry the affair of the Hours had no better success, especially after the hope conceived of the protection which his Eminence promised in it: but yet I was very glad to be delivered from the trouble and disturbance which the difficulties framed against them gave me, they being on one side favourably voidable, and on the other there being some offers to blemish them by a censure; that the success held in pain; but the determination being concluded as it was, I was now free from anxiety, and had no more to do but to rest and study till the business of the Five Propositions were stirred in, and I were advertised thereof according to the request made to his Holiness by the Bishops of France whose Letters I presented to him. The Cardinal replied, That I must not sleep in it, that it would be requisite for me to visit the Cardinals Roma, Spada, Ginetti and Cechini to acquaint them with what I had to represent to them touching the matter of the Five Propositions. He told me also, that I should do well to visit some persons skilful in those matters, and who had order to study them; he named to me F. Campanella a reformed Carmelite, F. Abbot Hilarion a Bernardin, the General of the Chierici minores and a Jesuit named Alziato (as I think) who he told me was in the balance with Cardinal Lugo to be promoted to the Cardinalship. I answered, That I was much obliged to his Eminence for the good advice he gave me; but I cared not to confer with any persons about the grounds of the Doctrine concerned in the Five Propositions, to give any information thereof, because I had neither order nor purpose to handle the matter slightly, and without seeing how the things which I had to present, would be considered, unless I might also be informed of those which our Adversaries alleged, thereby to discover and make known what is true and what false in their Writings; and unless I be assured that mine be also communicated to them, to oblige them to answer thereto either by refuting or acquiescing in the same. M. Cardinal Barberin replied, That if I would not communicate what I had to say, it was to be feared there would be further proceeding; that there is some times very quick dispatch at Rome; That the Tiber moves sometimes very swiftly; that there was no person in particular engaged in this affair; that it was not a Lawsuit. That the Pope, if he thought good, might make a determination without needing to hear any person. I answered, That they might move as fast as they pleased; that I should not trouble myself for that at all; that it was none of my business but the Popes and the Churches; that neither myself, nor any other concerned themselves in it but out of this respect. That I was come to give the H. See the first notice of one of the most fraudulent designs that ever was projected to surprise and engage it against one of the principal and most important truths of Christian Religion, till other persons arrived more able than myself to give it greater evidence of the Ambushes laid for it under the Five equivocal Propositions, the determination whereof was desired of it for that end. That if they at Rome would admit the informations and remonstrances which perhaps God had prepared to help the. H. See in this occasion by our means and the cares of the Bishops who sent us, they might; but it was requisite to be done in such order and manner, that we might be persuaded that the same would be considered; otherwise we had nothing to say. The Cardinal replied, That for this purpose it would be requisite to erect a new Congregation de Auxiliis; and that the H. See was not at this time disposed to decide that matter. I told him, that then it could not pronounce any thing upon the said Propositions, because it was wholly comprehended and involved therein. He proceeded to ask me whether it were not our intention that nothing should be done against the prevalence and efficacy of Grace. I answered, That provided that point were established, we desired nothing more; and that we reduced all our thoughts and pretensions thereto, because all the rest of our sentiments were dependant on and insepareble from it. He told me, that perhaps the H. See was not disposed to establish any thing about it; and he asked me, whether it were not enough that nothing were done against it, and that too without destroying the sufficient Grace of the Jesuits. I answered, That the H. See could not preserve or spare the sufficient grace of the Jesuits, without doing wrong to effectual Grace: That they are two things so opposite and contradictory, that the one or the other must needs fall to the ground; that there is no mean between them; and that we could not consent that the H. See admit or suffer as probable a Maxim which it hath always condemned, and which is diametrically opposite to another which it hath always established and maintained as de fide, and as that of the whole Church. Then we fell upon St. Augustin, and the Cardinal spoke of him as if his sentiments were difficult to be known, and as if some of his works were favourable to the Maxims of Grace which we defended, and in others there were principles conformable to the opinions of the Jesuits. To which I answered, That the Doctrine of St. Augustine touching Grace was clear and uniform; That I was so certain of it, that if but one of his works, where he handles the ground of this matter, could be showed me, in which his sense could be presumed conformable to the sufficient grace of the Jesuits, I offered to yield the cause: and on the contrary, if the effectual Grace, in behalf of which I was to speak, was not generally received in all his works written upon this subject, and in every one of them particularly, I would renounce the prosecutions which I purposed to make for the establishing of it. I know not how he fell to tell me of Paludanus who writ in Flanders very advantageously for the Bull, though he was not of the Jesuits opinion; and he told me, that if such a man as he should write to his Holiness in behalf of the present affair of the Propositions, it would be of great moment and produce a good effect. At length I told the Cardinal what cause I had to complain of the treatment which M. Albizzi showed me, and what little confidence I could have that any thing offered by me was likely to make any impression upon his mind; in as much as he looking upon us (as he did) as people of ill designs against the Church and the H. See, though we professed none, he could not receive any thing whatever I should say to him, but on the contrary must needs esteem it suspected, and slight it, through the belief which he will always have that it is spoken unsincerely, and out of a bad design. Cardinal Barberin replied, that this was considerable, and that I might represent the same to the Pope, and to my LL. the Cardinals.   

CHAP. VI  
Several Visits in the end of July, and the beginning of August, chief to the Cardinals Spada, Roma, Barberini, and M. the Ambassador, who was come back to Rome from Tivoli.  
AFter this Affair was thus ended, I applied all my cares to that for which I was sent; for which I saw but two things that I could do; One was to visit all persons to whom I could have access, and who might upon occasion contribute to the manifesting of the Design of the framers of the Five Propositions, after my informing them of what had passed in France about them, and of the Contents of the Bishop's Letters which I delivered to his Holiness; The second was, to renew from time to time my visits to such Cardinals as I perceived capable of procuring in this business such delay as was requisite for its thorough examination, by considering all that the Divines whom I expected, and others that might come, had to represent by word of mouth or by writing in this occasion.  
M. le Bailly de Valencey the King's Ambassador at Rome, having spent above Six Months at Tivoli returned thither on Monday July 17. upon the instances made to him for that purpose from the Pope by the Venetian Ambassador who mediated for the accommoding of his difference with his Holiness. On Tuesday morning he went incognito to see the Pope, and I had the honour to accompany him in that visit, at the end of which I recalled to his memory all that I had said to him at Tivoli, where he was at my coming to Rome, and I made him a summary recital of all that I had done since my last seeing him.  
On the 25th. I visited M. Michael Angelo Ricci a very wise and studious Roman Gentleman, in whose converse I observed this particularity; That having by him the works of Petrus Aurelius printed by order of the Clergy of France, he lent them to me, and told me, that as for himself, he durst not read them, because of a Decree of the Inquisition made March 19 1633. and published at Rome Febr. 16. 1642. by which that Tribunal forbade all books made on either side in the contests arisen concerning the Bishop of Chalcedon, and upon the business of the books of the English Jesuits which were censured by the Divinity Faculty of Paris, and by the Clergy of France. I thanked this Gentleman for his favour in lending me that famous Author, though it was then useless to him, not daring to read it; but I said nothing to him how that Decree was received and treated in France, where the Bishops in the year 1643. having renewed their Censures against the books of England, with the true names of the Jesuits who were the Authors of them, did also censure a new a book written in its defence by one of those Fathers. What further concerns this matter, I shall not here relate, but I shall refer the principal Pieces about it to the choice ones placed at the end of this Journal.  
On the 26th. I went to acquaint a person very illustrious both for dignity and knowledge, with what haste Cardinal Barb●rin had given me cause to fear this affair would be terminated. This excellent Personage answered thereunto in these words; Se fanno una definitione precipit●sa, so quel ch' ho da far: La Chiesa sarà la mia reg●…; bis●gnerà veder chi haurà ragione, o di quest●●…pa, o de gli aliri. If they make a precipitated definition, I know what I have to do; The Church shall be my rule; it will be needful to see, who hath reason, either this Pope, or they that have been before him.  
On the 27th I went again to vis t Cardinal Roma, to testify to him the same fear, by giving him assurance of the coming of the Doctors which were to follow me, and were preparing to set forth. The Cardinal answered that they might come with all confidence, that for certain there would be nothing done touching this affair before their arrival; That the Pope's never hastened to define any thing, and that the present Pope was more slow and circumspect than any other. I intimated to him the distrust I had of M. Albizzi. He told me that M. Albizzi was not the Master, and advised me to treat both with him and others the most peaceably I could. The next day one of this Cardinal's friends, who was also mine, told me, that his Eminence professed to him that he admired the modest and judicious deportment wherewith I had behaved myself to that time; because he expected nothing less from me, according to the bad characters given him of me; that he knew not whether I would continue to govern myself in that manner; but if I did, the reports made of me to him were very false and calumnious.  
During my residence at Rome the foregoing Winter, I fell into some correspondence of particular friendship with F. le Maire a Jesuit, and Secretary for France to his General. I conceived myself obliged to visit him being returned, which I did on the 28th of July, and amongst other things which we discoursed of, he asked me why we went about to hinder the condemning of the Propositions in themselves, which we confess already heretical in one of the senses whereof they are capable; seeing even in that which we account Catholic they are judged bad by many Catholics, (he meant the Fathers of his Society and their followers) and for his reason, he told me that Faith was a thing so tender and precious, and Heresy so hurtful and pernicious, that there ought to be no scruple of rooting it up from the bottom, or of condemning and suppressing whatever may give the least umbrage to it. I replied upon his very foundation, that Faith was a thing so dear, and Heresy so detestable, that heed ought to be taken of confounding them, or using them both alike: Wherefore for fear of injuring the Faith, by going about to destroy Heresy, all the world ought to wish and require that a distinction be made of the different senses whereof the Propositions are capable, that so in condemning the bad, the good may be preserved. Nevertheless he persisted in his opinion, and to evince it equitable, he alleged for instance the Bull of Pius V, against Bavis, in which it cannot be doubted that amongst those condemned Propositions there are some in terminis S. Augustin's; which hindered not but that all the world agreed that they were not thereby condemned in S. Augustin's sense. So when the five Propositions in question shall be condemned in terminis, it cannot be but in their bad sense; which will not hinder but that ever afterwards it will be lawful to revindicate the Catholic sense out of them. I maintained very steadfastly that his Expedient was not very proper for the clearing of the truth, and procuring peace among the Catholic Divines, but on the contrary very apt to cover the truth with obscure clouds, and to excite most dismal divisions amongst Divines.  
On the 29th. I went to visit Cardinal Barberin, to accompany him whither he was to go that day; and in attendance of the time to set forth, he joined me with the Archbishop of Beneventum, and amongst other things that he said, showed me as a new thing the last chapter of the Letter of Celestin the first to the Bishops of France, copied out in writing upon half a sheet of paper. The consequence that he meant to draw from it, was, That it was not necessary for the Pope to incline to the making of the decision of the matters contested between us and the Jesuits, founded upon these words contained in that chapter, Profundiores verò difficilioresque partes incurrentium quaestionum quas latiùs pertractarunt qui Haereticis restiterunt, sicut non audemus contemnere, ita non necesse habemus astruere. I told the Cardinal that I was very glad to see in his Eminences hands the extracts of a great Pope's Letter which was so advantageous to us, and which alone sufficed to decide all the differences which we had about these matters. He answered, that I ought not to fear that any thing would be done at Rome, contrary to the Letter of that Pope. I replied, that it was enough, and that I desired no more. He fell presently to speak of Sufficient Grace; to which seeing he invited me, I said that I had already several times intimated to his Eminence, and now repeated the same again in presence of the Archbishop of Beneventum, that we did not at all dispute against that of the Thomists; but as for that of the Jesuits, it could not, according to Celestin's Letter whereof he newly showed me an extract, consist with the faith of the the Church. The time to go forth being come, the Cardinal told me as he separated us, that it was requisite to think of obeying the Bull, and then all would go well.  
On the first of August I went to wait upon Cardinal Spada, and to beseech him to tell me whether I might write with full assurance to the Bishops who caused me to return, to cause the other Divines to set forth in Septemb. whom they determined to send in case things were at that time in their integrity; and whether I were not mistaken in my confidence that nothing would be done till the arrival of those Deputies. The Cardinal answered that I spoke of things to him, of which he was not the master, and besides being secrets, he could tell me nothing of them; but he believed I was not mistaken in my presumption. And on this occasion, himself put a question to me●, namely, Whether there would come also Doctors of the contrary party, presupposing that for the discussing an affair before a Congregation, it is requisite that there be persons contesting on either side. To this I answered, that there needed not other Doctors to come beside us, because the Jesuits who are our principal adversaries, are all prepared, and always present upon the place. In the second place I told him what passed between M. Albizzi and me; and that for the future I saw no likelihood of treating any thing with him whilst he presumed that all our intentions tended only to the disservice and subversion of the H. See. The Cardinal replied, that he was but a Secretary, who had no deliberative voice in their Assemblies, and with whom we might have nothing to do or say, unless we pleased.  
On the sixth of August F. le More came to repay the visit which I made to him; and I wonder (at the perusing of this Passage) that he was then so quicksighted in things that came to pass long after. He told me two of that kind; One that there would likewise come to Rome Doctors of the contrary parties; and the other, that the Pope would dispatch this affair after he had heard either side in one or two Congregations. Which inclines me the more willingly to believe a third which he told me of a thing then past, though I could get no more light of it since, viz. that their Letter (so he called that of the Bishop of Vabres) arrvied at Rome the first time subscribed by seventy two Bishops, and that several others had subscribed it since; so that the number amounted to fourscore and three.  
After F. le Maire had left me, I went again to Cardinal Barberin and acquainted him with new Letters which I had received for the Pope, whereof one was from the Archbishop of Tholouse last deceased, and the other from the Bishop of Grass, who joined their prayers to those of the other Bishops who desired of the Pope a solemn Congregation for the affair of the five Propositions before decreeing any thing therein. This motion of a Congregation seemed to this Cardinal so distant from the inclinations of the Pope and the Court of Rome, that the very thought of it seemed to his Eminence altogether uncouth and unseasonable. But to show him that it was not a thing so unreasonable, I told him that I conceived the order which (as his Eminence informed me) the Pope gave to some Divines and likewise to some of the Cardinals to study the Propositions, was the beginning of one. The Cardinal then advisd me to go to those Cardinals whom he had nominated before to me, and tell them that they became insensibly engaged in the business. I answered that there was no need for me to go to them again for that end till the arrival of the Divines that were to follow me. But, said he, take heed lest they be not stayed for to determine it. I replied that I had rather leave all to be done as it was now understood then press it on to no purpose. After this he asked me whether I had acquainted Cardinal Spada, with what passed between M. Albizzi and me: I answered that I had, and that that Cardinal bid me not be troubled about it, for he had no voice in judging. But yet you see, said Cardinal Barberin, that the Hours are put into the Catalogue of prohibited books. I replied that that was of a little importance. Here the Cardinal instantly reflecting upon what he had said added, That he did not mean directly that M. Albizzi was the cause of it; and though it were so, yet he was obliged to secrecy. After this discourse he carried me abroad to take the air with him, where we discoursed of many things; amongst others touching M. Hallier, in whose praises he was very copious, and of whom he said, (as an excellence) that it could not be denied that he was very pliant and obedient; when our Promenade was done, his Eminence did me the honour to bring me back to S. Lewis where I lodged.  
On Sunday morning (August 6.) I went to see a good French Friar of the order of the Carmelites, who told me that he learned the day before how M. Hallier had written several things against us, and the good Father mentioned them to me. But I remembered only two, whereof one was, that if the Pope did not hasten to condemn the Jansenists (so he called us) the face of the Church would soon be wholly changed; for proof of which falsity he alleged most of the lying rumours spread abroad on purpose to calumniate us. The second thing was that he was confident that if the Pope sent any decree against us into France, which proceeded as from the person of his Holiness, and not from the Tribunal of the Inquisition, that such decree would be received by the King, by the Bishops and by the Parliament.  
After this I went to wait upon the Ambassador, and gave him notice of the new Letters which I had received from the Bishops of Tholouse and Grass to deliver to the Pope, and other particular ones written to me by some other Bishops, by which they charged me anew to urge the erection of a Congregation as the only way which they judged convenient for the clearing of Truth and procuring peace in the Church. The Ambassador very well received what I said to him, and with great civility offered to get me audience of the Pope, that so I might make my remonstrances to him assoon as the posture of his affairs permitted. In the afternoon I visited Cardinal Spada, to whom I told in few words (besides some other things related above in the last conference which I had with Cardinal Barberin) that the Bishops who sent me enjoined me by their last Letters not to fail to send them an account in what condition the affair was wherewith I was encharged; but all things which concerned the same were so obscure and secret, that all I could signify to them was that a month a go I delivered their Letters to the Pope, and could discover nothing since of certainty to send them. That indeed I had some conjectures which made me think that there was a Congregation ordained, but I knew neither the the Cardinals nor the Consultors that were appointed to be of it; that I saw nothing at all to write to them, saving that I conceived they might send the Divines whom they intended. In the sequel of my discourse I twice insinuated to his Eminence the extreme necessity of hearing both parties for the clearing of the truth and settling peace among Divines. But all that I could observe in the Cardinal's answer was, that he told me with a very low voice that he would remember what I had said to him.  
On Tuesday the 8. of August I went in the afternoon to visit Cardinal Roma upon the subject , and amongst other things which I said to him, I acquainted him with the extreme dispatch that a Jesuit who came to see me (viz. F. le Maire) made account that the Determination would be passed, to wit after giving us one or two Audiences. The Cardinal answered, that that Jesuit must needs be a Frenchman; for they did not move so fast at Rome; That I should not trouble myself; that our affairs should not want for time. That there was no person but saw how just and necessary it was to hear the Divines of different opinions as I required, before pronouncing any thing upon these matters. But should all the world neglect so just a demand, himself would prosecute it, and make it his own business. This he inculcated to me with so much care and certainty, that he seemed to be somewhat troubled lest I should not be perfectly persuaded of the truth of it. So that I was obliged to tell his Eminence, that after the assurance which he gave me, I should for the future rely upon his authority and his care. We entered a little into the matter of the Propositions; and I took occasion to mention that proposition contained in the Book of Petrus Aurelius printed several times by order of the Assembly of the Clergy of France, viz. That God willeth not the salvation of those whom he doth not save; The Cardinal answered And who can doubt of it? And extending a little upon the proof of this truth, he cited among others those two passages of the Gospel, Without me ye can do nothing; and No man can come to me unless my Father draw him.   

CHAP. VII.  
Visits in August to the Qualificators of the H. Office. Letters of M. Hallier full of falsities. Several discoveries of the false Censure sent to Rome in the name of the Faculty.  
CArdinal Barberin did me the favour to send me two manuscript volumes in folio to look upon, containing what F. Lemos (that renowned Dominican who so well defended the cause of God's grace against the Jesuits in the Congregations de Auxiliis held under Clement VIII. and Paul V) had written upon that subject. On Wednesday (August 9th.) I went to thank the obliging Cardinal. And in my discourse with him having made reflection that in the Congregation which I hoped his Holiness would establish for discussion of the affair of the five Propositions, there would be many Consultors and Qualificators of the H. Office, that such as were chosen to be of it, might not want information of the nature of the business. I resolved to go visit them all. Which I did the more willingly, because it was the way to make it known the more, and consequently to draw the indignation of all good men upon the authors of the Enterprise.  
The first that I visited that day was F. Hilarion, with whom I had a sufficiently ample conference. He presently appeared to me a good man, and I found that he had very good sentiments concerning Grace; but he conceived that for the benefit of peace, and in regard of the weakness and extravagance of many persons skilled in that matter, it was necessary to be silent of many Truth's belonging to it. However, he said, there were two that cannot be too much inculcated to Christians; First, that they have in themselves a stock of malignity capable enough to precipitate them into sin, and cause them justly to merit the punishment due to their offences. The other was for persons freed by Grace from the bondage of sin, viz. That all the good which they do comes from God who gives it to them; and that if the Grace wherewith he favours them happen to leave them, they return incontinently to sin. I agreed with him, that these are truths of which the faithful cannot be too much instructed; but I told him, that all those which concern Grace depending upon the same principle, and being linked together by an invincible connexion, the same consequences may be drawn from these two as from others: to which he assented.  
I visited two more on Friday morning (August 11,) whereof one was F. Fani, Companion of the Master of the sacred Palace, whom I found sprightly, quick and clearsighted in these matters, and full of very sincere and right intentions. The second was F. Modeste, procurator of the Conventual Cordeliers, whom I entertained largely enough, but found nothing in him besides Molinist opinions, and little or no reading of St. Augustine.  
Some days before, the Pope was fallen into a disease which most people judged mortal, and divers already laid their contrivances for a new Papacy. By consequence I saw the business stopped till a future Conclave. Nevertheless I ceased not to continue the course of my Visits, as if he had been in the best health in the world. The same day in the afternoon I went to see M. Albizzi, though I looked upon him as a man perfectly gained and prepossessed against us; but the manner wherewith I purposed to deport myself towards him, made me hope that this Visit could not be otherwise then advantageous to me, though I got no more good by it but to see him answer to the things which I said to him. Accordingly within half an hour that our conference lasted, he corresponded to my expectation, and exceeded it too by much. I told him the most seriously I could, that when I had audience of the Pope to present him the Letters which he knew I delivered to his Holiness, he was very well pleased with the intentions and providence of the Bishops who writ them; That he promised me he would not make any determination upon the Propositions in question till the Divines, which those Bishops intended to send in October following were arrived, and had declared by word of mouth and by writing all that they had to represent in that matter; and that he bid me in the mean time repair to M. Albizzi. That it was in compliance with his Holines' order that I was come to him that day, and to assure him that those Divines would not fail to be at Rome in the month of October; and also to know of him in the mean time, whether the Pope had appointed any particular Congregation for this matter, and whether he had given Commissions to any of the Cardinals, or of the Consultors and Qualificators or other Divines to study them. M. Albizzi answered me roughly and half jesting, that he knew nothing, that he had heard speak of nothing, and had nothing to tell me. He added that he told me from the beginning, That for the making a determination of any point of Doctrine or Faith whatsoever, the Pope was not obliged to hear any person. That it was good to do so in Lawsuits, where there are parties interessed; but in these matters there were no parties. I told him, that I did not stand upon desiring to be heard as a party; that I insisted not upon this formality, which he made so much of; that I disputed it not; that 'twas enough that the Pope had promised me to determine nothing in the business without hearing us; and that for this purpose till they came who were jointly with me to represent the things which we had to say, I was come to wait upon him in obedience to his Holiness, and to beseech him to tell me at the present whether there were a Congregation established for this Affair. He replied, that I must not think to draw any thing from his mouth; That I should not have any word from him; That he had received no order to tell me any thing; That when he had, he would not fail to let me know it. I answered, that nevertheless it would be good that I knew the persons designed for that Congregation; because, though I should not give them the principal arguments in reference to the Propositions which were not to be produced till my Companions were arrived, and the Congregation were perfectly open, yet I might inform them of some accessories and dependences of this Affair, which they would be glad to understand and which it was profitable for them to know at this time; as for example, What the design was, for which the Propositions were framed, In what manner M. Cornet moved in the Faculty to have them debated: How the Faculty rejected the examination of them, and several other circumstances. M. Albizzi said that he was well informed of all this; and better than myself. And to show me as much, he added that, Truly the Faculty was willing to make a decision of them; but the Jansenists who were in it made a tumult, and by their combustions hindered the good designs of the Faculty. I answered that for better information thereof, he must yield to me; since I was present in all the Assemblies of the Faculty about this matter; That I had a sufficient hand in all the resistance that was made to M. Cornet's designs; That I was he who first opposed that dangerous enterprise. That moreover, he was mistaken in saying that the hindrance was caused by the Jansenists, because there was none in the Faculty. That that name was the odious name of a sect, with which the adversaries of those who adhered to St. Augustin's doctrine, projected to decry it. That indeed there was a sufficiently great number of Doctors of the Faculty who accounted themselves happy, and gloried in following the doctrine of that great Saint, who conceived they did service to the Church and the H. See by opposing M. Cornet, since they thereby kept a doctrine which was hereditary to the Church and the H. See from being condemned, and a particular Faculty from deciding it to the prejudice of the H. See, which hath reserved the cognizance thereof to it seif. M. Albizzi told me, that I might possibly deceive myself, if I conceived I had served the H. See by so doing. I answered that himself might be deceived, if he conceived that I did not serve it by procuring the execution of the Prohibitions published against deciding those matters. M. Albizzi replied that I did not apprehend the thing right: That those Prohibitions did not extend to this matter; that they were not intended to hinder the making of Doctrinal Censures, but only the establishing any Tenet by maintaining one of those two opinions as of faith. I answered, that he put a difference between things where there was none; for that at the same time that a Proposition is condemned, its contradictory is of necessity established. M. Albizzi seeing himself caught, & not knowing what to answer me hereunto, sought an evasion, and told me, that Faculties have no right to make an Article of faith; that this pertained only to the H. See; that they have indeed a coercive power to oblige those that depend on them, as the Rector lately used it unjustly against the poor Irish, whom he declared deprived of their degrees only for having obeyed the Pope. I let pass this incidental Discourse to follow him elsewhere; and told him, that though Faculties cannot make Articles of Faith by their Censures, yet such Censures many times bring great sequels when the Faculties that make them are in esteem for knowledge and integrity, as that of Paris is, whose sentiments have always been in singular veneration through all France. He told me that they have always been much esteemed at Rome too, and had it been suffered to make the Censure of the Five propositions, it would have been well; because the same had not anywise thwarted the intentions of the Bull issued upon occasion of the book of Jansenius. For to tell you the Truth, added he, that Bull was not passed to determine any thing of Doctrine, nor to hinder the decisions which they who have authority may make thereof, but only to remedy the stir which was raised, and the division which was broken forth amongst Catholics upon the impression of that posthumous Book, which perhaps would not have been printed, had not its Author been dead. That also nothing was decided either on one side or other for Doctrine, but only silence imposed to keep both parties from writing pro or con, for fear things might grow to a heat, and the divisions increase more and more. I replied, That they would grow to a heat much otherwise by a Censure pro or con, (which carries a great stroke) then by all the Books imaginable of particular persons, who on whatever side they be, have no considerable authority. He told me that nevertheless the Jesuits held themselves greatly offended by that of Jansenius. That if it were true that I had not read it, as I told him, he counselled me not to read it; but if ever I should read it, to take heed in the third book, which I should find was nothing but a continued detraction against Vasquez, Suarez, Gregorius a Valentia, Card. Bellarmin, etc. I told M. Albizzi that I wondered that Bishop should undertake against Bellarmine, who certainly deserved respect for his quality and his learning. This conformity of sentiments into which I entered with M. Albizzi, pleased him in some sort, and put him into the humour to tell me more. He added, That that Bishop was full of venom against those Fathers and the whole Society, that he broke out into unimaginable exorbitances against them; that this greatly provoked and incensed them against his book, and obliged them to solicit urban VIII. for the prohibition which he made of it. That had not he first assaulted them, perhaps they would not have thought fit of so doing; but after he set upon and outraged them as he did, it is no wonder that they have endeavoured to be revenged on him. That I knew, Defence is natural to every one, when he is assaulted either in his own person, or that of his friends; and that it ought to be more so to a great and renowned society, as that of the Jesuits, which saw itself reproached and offended unworthily by a single person. He continued to exaggerate to me the exorbitances of that Author, who not only fell foul upon that Society, but even broke forth against Popes, as among other places of his book that shows where he saith, Haereo fateor, etc.  
After I left M. Albizzi, I visited the Procurator Fiscal of the H. Office; whom I found very civil; and the Commissary of the H. Office, who told me he would maintain the truth with the hazard of his life, both as a disciple of S. Augustin, and as a Dominican. He prayed me also that we might see one another once a week, to confer together; that for that purpose he would come first to my lodging, and then I should go to his; which yet could by no means be performed.  
At my coming from the H. Office, I went again to the Carmelites to see F. Campanella, who told me that he believed that there was made above a year ago a secret Censure of the Propositions which I mentioned to him. But before he could assure me of it, he must see them in writing; and therefore prayed me to bring them to him.  
On Sunday the 13th. I met with a person who assured me, that a friend of his saw and read a Letter of six pages which M. Hallier writ to M. Albizzi, the whole design and result whereof was, That the Jansenists were people that loved novelties, and tended only to make a schism in the Church. He added, That the contents of the Letter were either read or reported to the Pope; and that it was accompanied with a Letter from the Nuntio, which was nothing but a Panegyric upon M. Hallier, and spoke of him as the most eminent and zealous servant that the H. See had. That moreover in this conjuncture a Benefice which he desired, about which there was some competitor or difficulty, was given him immediately.  
On Thursday (August 17.) I went to Cardinal Barberin, to accompany him to the Pope. The Cardinal made me a Compliment, and congratulated me for the Visit which the Commissary of the H. Office told his Eminence I made to him. I gave his Eminence Intelligence of a Latin Explication newly printed in France, and sent to me touching the sense in which alone we mantain the Propositions. The writing was entitled, Quinque propositionum de gratia quas Facultati Theologicae Parisiensi M. Nicolaus Cornet subdolè exhibuit primâ Julii ann. 1649. vera & Catholica Expositio juxta mentem discipulorum sancti Augustini. It began with these words, Beati Augustini doctrina adversariorum suorum calumniis semper appetita est ac sub alienis & fictis ad libitum assertionibus, etc. It ended with these, Sancti Augustini discipuli suam sententiam hanc de quinque Propositionibus istis subdolè concinnatis ad fraudem, omnibus Episcopis, Archiepiscopis, Romanae sedi, universae Ecclesiae palàm faciunt, ne quid jam subsit calumniae, triumphatisque malis artibus discat aliquando silere livor, & victricis Christi gratiae vindicem Augustinum cum universa Ecclesia colere. It was dated Parisiis Kal. Jul. anno salutis per gratiam reparatae MDCLI. I shall place a Copy of it at the end of this work among other pieces, to preserve them to posterity. I showed it at Rome to several persons, and gave many Copies of it; when I shall have occasion to mention it hereafter, I shall call it our Latin Manifesto.  
When I had summarily told Cardinal Barberin what it was, he ask ' me, Why, seeing we had really no other sentiments than the Thomists, we we became so alienated from their ancient manner of speaking? I answered, That we do not gainsay their sentiments of sufficient Grace as to the thing signified, but we cannot think fit to use that equivocal and captious word which St. Augustin and St. Thomas never used. But as for that sufficient Grace of the Jesuits subject to free Will, we are obliged to encounter it, and cannot admit it because 'tis contrary to the Doctrine of the Church. That indeed we should be glad that their sentiments were conformable thereto, that we might have nothing to quarrel with them; but so long as they persist in them, our duty obliges us to oppose them as much as we can. The Cardinal added that since we were not averse from the doctrine of the Thomists, we should do well not to separate from those ancient terms of the School. Here one intervening that diverted us, the Cardinal told me we should meet again.  
When I had accompanied him to the Pope, I stayed in his Holinesses Presence-Chamber till the breaking up of the Congregation which lasted not long; and then I went to see Cardinal Cechini, whom I could not hitherto speak with, because as often as I went to him, he was either gone abroad or so surrounded with a multitude which had business with him about the affairs of the Datary, that I thought not fit to address to him in that encumbrance. At last I found him this day in some fitness to give me audience, but yet so taken up too, that he scarce gave me time to lay open to him the business of my legation. After which he asked me whether the five Propositions I spoke of were in the Bull of Vrban VIII. against Jansenius. I answered that they were not there at all, and that I was come to tell his Eminence that they were forged at pleasure by M. Cornet to deceive the Pope, and circumvent the H. See; and this was it that I came to advertise his Holiness and their Eminences of, to the end no decision might be made of them before discussing the whole matter, and hearing the Divines which interested themselves on either side. He told me the Pope needed not hear any person in order to make a determination when there is no author that advanced a doctrine; that the Pope defines as seems good to him, and that assoon as the definition is made, it ought to be obeyed and submitted to. I replied something to him, to let him understand what necessity and benefit there was in a solemn Congregation before defining any thing: but perceiving that he did not receive it well, I told him (to make short) that the Pope promised me to do it, and that I beseeched his Eminence most humbly, that he would please to contribute on his part to keep the Pope in that good disposition. He told me that things must be done as his Holiness should appoint. I answered, that himself would find of what great importance it is to hear the parties in such a Congregation as I requested of the Pope, if he pleased but to weigh the reasons which I had to deduce to him; but here hearing a little noise behind me, I turned my head, and seeing the Tapestry at the door of his Chamber lifted up by a crowd of people that were in haste to speak with him, I rise up to take leave of him, and told him that if he pleased I would come another time to represent the same to him. He asked me whether I was come in behalf of the Letter which was signed by so many Bishops. I answered No, but neither was I come against it, because undoubtedly most of the Bishops that signed it, conceived that the Determination which they desired would not fail to be preceded by a  examination, and so tacitly requested what they who sent me sued for more expressly.  
At my coming from Cardinal Cechini I went to see the Procurator General of the order of the Servi. Who having heard patiently and attentively what I had to unfold to him, answered that for his own part he had not yet heard speak of the affair of the five Propositions; but perhaps it was about that subject that the Pope had appointed a Congregation which assembled every Thursday in the afternoon at Cardinal Roma's Palace, and at which were present with himself who was the Dean of it, the Cardinal Spada, Genetti and Cechini. That really, for his own part, he judged the demand which I made very equitable, very consentaneous to the custom of the H. See, and such as could not but be well received by the Pope and all the Cardinals. That he could not imagine their Eminences would end any thing without taking Divines into the business; and that if himself happened to be one of those to whom it were referred, he would do his duty. That he conceived the Fathers, Hillarion a Bernardin, and Lucas Vadingo a Cordelier would be interessed in it; and that I ought not to fear lest the Jesuits with all their strength of credit, which is undoubtedly very great at Rome, could cause any great haste in this business; hasting in such a case as this being so perfectly contrary to the mind of the Pope and Cardinals; but that which I ought to fear, was lest they did not cunningly and underhand get such Divines named for the said Congregation, as were of the sentiments of their society. Perceiving this Qualificator so correspond with mine touching the motion which I made for a Congregation, I thought fit to mention to him the difficulty which some made of it, alleging that the Pope is not obliged to hear any person in order to make a Decision, when there appears no Author that broached a doctrine or made a book, and solicited to have his defence heard and his reasons considered; and that out of this hypothesis, there is no Party interessed therein, or who may oblige to enter into the cognisance of the cause for the discussion and preservation of his interests. He answered me that every person that would interpose therein, is really and truly a Party. That so the Jesuits defended as far as seemed good to them; the book of one of their Fathers named Amicus who was dead, and who taught Homicide to be lawful in point of Conscience. That they delivered writings in his behalf four fingers thick, and that particularly four or five days before that Jesuit was condemned, himself was obliged by a Cardinal to receive a new writing in favour of that Jesuit, which contained forty six leaves of paper.  
The same day I visited i'll Signior Camillo Piazza Procurator for the accused persons; Monsignor Paolucci the most ancient of the Prelates of Rome, who had still fresh in memory what passed under Clement VIII. and Paul V in the Congregation de Auxiliis, and since that time had spent a great part of his time in reading of S. Augustin; as also the Procurator General of the Capucines; in the visits of whom I remark nothing worthy particular observation, no more then in that of Cardinal Ginetti whom I visited on Friday afternoon, though I entertained him very long and very commodiously, and spoke about almost all the things which I have above related; excepting certain particularities which were not proper for the conference which I had with him.  
On Saturday morning I visited F. Delbene, who having heard the whole relation which I made to him of this business, told me that I mentioned only five Propositions, but he thought there were seven, which he said were delivered to them to examine almost two years before, though after a new form; for that he and his Colleagues never spoke together of them saving once, but every one in particular delivered his sense to the Pope signed and sealed. That for his own part, he had in his Paper distinguished the senses, and adjoined to each of those senses its suitable qualification. That he never heard word of it since. His frankness gave me the boldness to ask him (or rather to tell him as a certain thing of which I was otherwise informed) whether when the seven Propositions he mentioned were delivered to them, they received not together the Censures which the Faculty of Paris had made of them? He was sometime without answering me, fearing no doubt, to sin against the secrecy which he had sworn to that Tribunal, if he told me, and against the truth if he denied it. Seeing him in this perplexity I repeated to him the same discourse so as urged him more to answer me. At length he answered that it was so; but a colour which arose in his countenance was testimony enough to me that the thing was so, and I had this new proof, That the first time of the Propositions being presented to the Pope, besides the bad senses they were made capable of in themselves, they were rendered odiours by a Censure of an Eminent Faculty, wherewith they were supposed already blemished. But when I told F. Delbene that that pretended Censure was never made by the Faculty; and that it was a work of the same men that contrived the Propositions, he was extraordniarily surprised at it, and could not forbear telling me, that they always took it for a true Censure, and advising me to advertise all such of its falsity as I should speak with about this affair.  
I returned after this to the F. Procurator General of the Servi to carry him a Paper which I promised to show him when I visited him. He spoke this day of the business, as having had some light since I saw him, and told me, He was confident no decision would be made without referring it, not only to the most able Divines of Rome, but also to some of foreign Countries, who should be sent to for that purpose; That for the present the Cardinals were still consulting whether it were fit to make a decision or no; That the Assistant of the Jesuits of France who was well acquainted with what passed in France about this matter, proclaimed that the decision was marvellously wished for there by all good men, and almost generally by all the world; That unless it were speedily made, all would be in a general disorder there; because the Propositions were maintained there in their bad sense at least by such as being capable of resting there when they hear the same proposed by others, and ignorant of distinguishing the senses which they may admit, accounted them true and maintained them according to the natural senses which they include. I answered this Qualificator, that he went a little too far, and that if F. Armat, who was then Assistant for France at Rome, affirmed this for true, the intelligence which he received from France touching this matter, was not so, for that in reality there was no Catholic in France of whatever condition so unhappy as to be of such belief. But those good Fathers and their Associates in the Cabal about the five Propositions, published this for the more easy obtaining of their condemnation.  
On Sunday the 20th I went abroad with Cardinal Barberin to take the air, where among other things I told him of a Cardinal one of his creatures (so they speak at Rome) with whom I conferred about the five Propositions, and who told me that having examined the doctrine of Jansenius touching them, he found all his sentiments very Catholic, though in some other particular points, (as, touching the works of Infidels, he found him differing from his own and consequently contrary to the true; which sufficed (said that Cardinal) to give ground for the Bull of Vrban VIII. against him. Cardinal Barberin answered me, that though Jansenius' sentiments were true not only in these points but also generally in all the other parts of his book, yet the Bull was well made for that it was not in any wise for the condemnation or establishment of any Maxim, but only a bare provisional prohibition of the book till it were cleared, and men's minds heated by its publication were returned to such calm as they ought to have. He added that if the Bull were taken thus, and submitted to without scruple as it ought to be, all things might be composed, and such as had withstood it hitherto might receive the contentment which they ought not to hope for without so doing.  
On Tuesday morning I visited Monsignor Spada Patriarch of Constantinople, who having heard my story, asked whether Divines would come to Rome of the Party contrary to that which I was; I answered him that I knew nothing of that, but there were always enough upon the place (viz. at Rome) for that the Jesuits are our true Adversaries.  
This did not hinder me from visiting F. le More the next day; who being asked whether he knew really that some of our Doctors would come against us, as I was told in several places, and himself had not long since testified his belief; He answered me, that he conceived there ought none to come; That the reasons of such as were of this opinion, were, that as for themselves they were as in possession, of the doctrine of the Church (to what a height ariseth by little and little the presumption of people after having escaped a condemnation which they so justly deserved!) and consequently needed not plead any thing to maintain it; and that they needed not trouble themselves about a thing which all the world consented to; that for any one's appearing here for defence of his sentiments, it became only such as had suspected or condemned one's; That the sole reason of others who were of advice for the coming of Doctors against us, was, That no Cause is so good, but needs help: But the former said, that if the Pope thought fit for any of their part to be heard, they might either be sent for or taken upon the place. Moreover he mentioned a very remarkable distinction which they made of the five Propositions, viz. that they must be considered and examined two ways, first with respect to the people, and secondly with respect to the Learned; and that if taken with respect to the Learned, they have senses capable of being admitted and maintained amongst them, and nevertheless taken with respect to the people, they be apt to excite a stir in the Church, and cast scandal or scruple into simple souls, they ought not to be spared but to be condemned. Because that indeed in France there were evidently seen two opposite parties (as 'twere) perfectly framed, and two different Religions; That there were seen different Hours; that there was made a new Catechism concerning Grace, that the Ecclesiastical and also the secular families were divided, etc. That it behoved to remedy these disorders and cut off the cause; which cause he ascribed to the Propositions. In the third place, The manner which he imagined was to be observed in the conferences which I was come to prosecute, was very remarkable. He spoke as if the whole business was to be reduced to certain Interrogations, which he said would be put to us about the senses in which we understood the Propositions; and after our answers and distinctions, if need were, new Interrogations to be put to us, till our sense were well apprehended; after which (according to his conjecture) we were to be remitted home, and then Judgement to be pronounced at the convenience of the Pope, and of such whose ministry his Holiness pleases to use in this affair; which Judgement according to the Jesuits account aught to be an inviolable rule of our faith. For in the fourth place he spoke of the infallibility of all that the Pope doth, either in the judgements of the Inquisition, or in any others in what matter soever, and in his bed too, where his Holiness then was very indisposed, as of certain and indubitable things, and as if the H. Spirit and his assistance were not more annexed to General Councils, then to these sorts of determinations: which he extended likewise for examples sake to all that was done and should be done in the affair of M. Hersent.  
The same day I visited the General of the Dominicans, who told me of the new order which he sent a little while since to all the Religious of his Order to preach and teach the doctrine of S. Augustin; and he spoke of it with much esteem and zeal, telling me that he did so, in conformity to the duty which he owed to God and the Church in this point. At my coming from this visit I made one to F. Bordonne, a Friar of the third Order of S Francis, in whom I found a great sincerity and much esteem and affection for the doctrine of S. Augustin.  
I visited likewise the same day the General of another Order, namely of the Sommaschi, named F. Vbaldino. He told me, that as to the ground of doctrine, few persons were better informed of the sentiments of the Jesuits then himself, because he had made two or three courses in Divinity, in which he taught the same as he had formerly learned them himself; but at length the mercy of God, and the reading of St. Augustine showed him his errors. That he wondered how he came to adhere to them formerly, and how he maintained them steadfastly for sound truths; that he blessed God for undeceiving him, and begged the same grace of him for them who were still in love with their own darkness. As for the Account of things which I told him were passed upon occasion of the Propositions, he prayed me to make a little History thereof, for that he conceived there needed no more to dissipate the whole Conspiracy, notwithstanding the great credit of the Jesuits. And as for the Congregations of the H. Office, of which he was a Qualificator, that 'twas a good while since he in a manner wholly withdrew from thence, and repaired not thither since the intelligences and practices which he found the Jesuits held there, that so he might avoid quarrelling with them, etc.  
On Thursday the 24. I showed F. Campanella the Propositions in writing, and he acknowledged that they were the same upon which their opinions were required in writing two years ago; but he told me that then there were two others, and that they were the last in the false Censure that was presented to the Pope, as made by the Faculty.  
On the day of St. Lewis, the Cardinals were at the Mass which is said in the Church of that name. When Cardinal Barberin arrived there, the Master of his Chamber told me, that his Eminence came incognito the foregoing Wednesday to take me abroad with him. When Mass was ended I testified to his Eminence my regret for not being at my Lodging when he did me the honour to come thither. He answered, that he had but one word to say to me, which he would tell me another time: and when I replied that I would come to wait upon him for that purpose, he told it me immediately upon the place. It was, that complaints were made of me that I made Conventicles with the Fathers of the Oratory at Rome, lodged in the house of S. Lewis, where also I for the present lodged till I could take a House fit for us. The Cardinal added, that I should do better to wait till the Doctors designed to follow me were come, and then to solicit our Affair jointly with such as it was fit to treat with; in the mean time to remain quiet, and not to incur distaste by my eagerness to tell it to all the world, and draw people into my sentiments and interests. I answered the Cardinal Barberin, that since my being at Rome, I usually saw no Father of the Oratory but F. Petit who was their Superior, and came frequently after repasts ended to visit me with M. Chibert, who was also the Superior of the Priests of that House; that in the familiar conferences we had together I mentioned my Affair the least I could, because being obliged to speak of it so much elsewhere to the other persons whom I visited for that purpose, the discourse of it was become tedious and troublesome to me out of those necessary occasions; that I saw not hitherto how the Fathers of the Oratory at Rome could further the effect of my business, and that the least thought of drawing them over to me, never came into my mind. The Cardinal replied, that he knew I acted with circumspection and prudence, but he gave me this notice, that I might take heed of giving ground for complaints against me. I thanked the Cardinal for the affection which he testified to me, and answered, that I acted with as much clearness and simplicity as prudence, that I was come to manifest to the H. See and all such as were concerned for its interests, one of the blackest Erterprises that ever was framed to circumvent it; that I would endeavour to acquit myself of my Commission, whatever was said of it; and that the complaints that might be made against me should not much trouble me, while they are so ill grounded as this which he mentioned touching the Fathers, which was no better than another which I learned by my last Letters that the Doctors, M. Cornet's complices spread of me at Paris, namely, that I styled myself at Rome, The Deputy of the Faculty, for which I appealed to his Eminence, who presently acknowledged it a ridiculous Calumny, and without reason.  
It was not only at coming forth of the Church of S. Lewis, that all these things were spoken between Cardinal Barberin and me; but we discoursed together in the afternoon upon the same principles on either side, in a visit which I thought myself obliged to give him in thankfulness for his care in giving me that notice which he had done; and after that which we spoke of it, the matter rested so. But this did not hinder but that the Jesuits who knew the business, took occasion thence to decry me in several places in Rome, as one already accused to the Inquisition for infecting with my Doctrine divers Priests of S. Lewis, and especially the Fathers of the Oratory which were there. It was an aspersion so much the more grievous, in that it was made with some probability of foundation, but it behooved me to wear it off as well as others without being troubled at it, and not to cease carrying on the principal business which was the subject of my legation.  
I forgot, that for rendering the ceremony of the Festival of S. Lewis more remarkable, and the Excommunication decreed by the H. Office against M. Hersent, (because of his non-appearance notwithstanding the citations published against him,) more notorious, Thursday the Eve of that Feast was chosen to publish and fix it up printed. Which choice was remarkable also, because it was the end of the Year that he preached his Sermon in that Church, in which nevertheless (as I said elsewhere) there could not be found any Proposition condemnable, either absolutely or in relation of Jansenius, whatever exquisite search was made, and whatever disadvantageous application and interpretation was striven to be put upon it.  
But when I consider that the same M. Hersent being at Rome in the Year 1645. there distributed himself a Memorial signed with his own hand in justification of Jansenius, whom he maintained to have taught nothing but the doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Paul, and wherein he speaks with strange vehemence against the Bull of Vrban VIII. without any trouble then raised against him, I cannot sufficiently wonder at the inequality of this proceeding. However, I have that Memorial in my hands, which hath this title; Super Bulla Urbani VIII. adversus Jansenium, & libro Antonii Arnaldi, admonitiones quaedam SS. D. Pontifici Innocentio X. pro Memoriali offerenda: It gins with these words; Magnum & perniciosum in doctrina Theologica incendium. And ends with these; Hoc Memoriale summo Pontifici offerendum curavit Carolus Hersent Doctor Theologus, & Regis Christianissimi Concionator ordinarius, pro suo summo in sedem Apostolicam & SS. Patrem Innocentium study & amore, saluâ in omnibus Apostolicae sedis & summi Pontificis reverentia. Signed, Carolus Hersent.  
On Tuesday morning the 29th. I went to visit the Church of St. John beheaded, and after I had ended my prayers there, I found under the Cloister M. Fernier Doctor of our Faculty, who came to me. He fell to speak of the great credit of M. Albizzi in the affairs about which I came; and of his intimate league with the Jesuits, and of the esteem wherein he was with the Pope and Cardinals for a knowing and intelligent personage. He was so prolix in this kind intelligence, that I was fain to answer him, That I dreaded neither M. Albizzi's person nor his power when he went about to employ it to the disadvantage of truth; because God its protector would not suffer M. Albizzi, nor others to do mischief against it further than it pleased his unsearchable and invincible Providence.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Visits in September. A writing full of falsities by an Augustine Doctor of the Faculty which was secretly-dispersed in Rome. Of the Bull of Urban. Of F. Lemos, and of the zeal of Clement VIII. for the doctrine of Grace. Advice several times not to speak of Jansenius.  
ON the third of September, an Ecclesiastic of the society of the Priests of S. Hierom de la Charitè, a man pious, learned, and full of zeal, whom I visited that day for the second or third time, having heard the Account which I gave him of this Affair, he told me freely, That he had been hitherto informed of those matters after another manner, and showed me a writing which he had formerly mentioned to me, and was entitled De Controversia inter Jansenistas, & Anti-Jansenistas, which he told me (as since too I have had certain proofs) was made by F. Morel an Augustin Doctor of our Faculty at the request of M. Albizzi, who desired him to draw up a Memoire for him of the state of the Controversies.  
In that writing he represents us under the name of Jansenists, as people spirited with nothing but passion and hatred against the H. See, and who have no other aim but to overthrow and ruin its Authority. That this Aversion is the original of all the Disputes arisen about all the contested points of Doctrine. That they have not ventured to write concerning Grace, frequent Communion, and the like, but to have occasion thereby to discredit the must zealous Defenders of the H. See, by causing them to pass with the people for Ignorants, who have corrupted the Sentiments of the H. Fathers, and are tainted only with Semipelagian and Pelagian errors; that so they may afterwards securely say what they please of that sacred Authority, to destroy it when its Defenders are become without credit and esteem: That for this it was, that there was such endeavours used to exclude them (the Religious or Friars Mendicants) from the Assembly of the Faculty, by restraining them to the number of two of each Order. That for the same end there were purchased with ready money Doctors, Preachers, Bachelors, Students in all the Universities and Cities of France; that so, not only in public occasions, but also in familiar Conferences they might gain the multitude, and inspire into them, not only their sentiments touching Grace and Predestination, but also the hideous Maxims which they maintain against the Sacraments of the Altar and Penance, and against the Authority of the Council of Trent. That we were possessed of the hearts of severaol persons of quality, rich and potent, who liberally furnished vast sums of money to supply the expenses necessary to be made for the carrying on of such pernicious designs. That we have in sundry places Seminaries and Assemblies of Sectators, who wholly apply themselves to contrive means to bring the same to pass. That 'twas for this end that we complotted right or wrong to maintain the Tenets of Jansenius, because they are very proper thereto. That nevertheless, finding we did not advance so much as we wished in this affair by the works composed touching Grace, we could no longer retain the venom which we had concealed a great while against the H. See and the Church, but at length vomited it forth by publishing the books of frequent Communion and of Tradition concerning Penance, in which we accused the Church of being corrupted, and pretended ourselves to be its Physicians and Reformers. That we always hindered by all sort of ways the Bulls of Popes from being received into the Dioceses, or by the Faculties; and that when the sleights used for that end succeeded not, we had recourse to other ways, so far as to stir up seditions, when we were able to do it, and judged the same necessary. That in fine all this being unprofitable, Rage and Fury led us to revive and maintain by all ways all the ancient Errors and scandalous Principles concerning Grace and the Sacraments which the Popes have heretofore condemned. That 'twas for this reason that those of the Faculty whose hearts were firm to maintain the authority of the H. See, and to stop the Current of calamities and disorders, (these beginnings of which threatened the whole Church) seeing themselves without comparison the greater number, in respect of those who were enemies of the said Authority, chose out as the most scandalous amongst many others Propositions which we dispersed among the people, those which M. Cornet produced in the Faculty to get them censured in the general, and without having regard whether they were advanced by Jansenius, by M. Arnauld, by the Jesuits, or by any other whatsoever. That moreover, the H. See aught extremely to take heed of giving ear to those Jansenists, because they are mingled and united with the Richerists (that is, with the sectators of the Doctor named Richer, who writ so much against the Ecclesiastical Monarchy) and because their whole faction strives after, and endeavours nothing with more ardour then to debase the Authority of the H. See. Wherefore this zealous Intelligencer and faithful Counsellor having in the same Paper, noted in particular the names of some of those whom he supposed culpable of these factions and designs, and the names also of some others of the principal servants of the H. See, who withstood the same, concludes at length with his advice which he proposes with some seeming moderation, saying, that the readiest Expedient in this affair would be to impose silence to every one; Yet really persisting in the good characters which he gave of us, and persuading the Pope to treat us with all the distrust and caution that can be used with an open enemy, and to overwhelm us every day with new Bulls and Decrees to reduce us to obedience; but to deal with the others as with his wellbeloved Children and most faithful servants, and to provide as much as possible for their interest and satisfaction.  
But though this be extracted out of the said writing word for word, yet it is hard to apprehend it for such as it is without reading it. And therefore though it be something long, I have thought good to place it among the Pieces which I shall add to this Journal, therein to show a Model of the disadvantageous Characters of us and our intentions inculcated to the Pope and his principal Officers, thereby to render us suspected and odious, and to incense them against us: And by this example it may be seen. how the Popes are sometimes very ill-informed of the truth of the things which are related to them. 'Twas a good Religious Friar, Doctor of Paris, of the order of St. Augustin, of whom a sincere account of those Disputes in France was desired. This Writing thus penned by him was imparted about as coming from him, and as a work rare, faithful and secret; and this raised a curiosity in every body to see it.  
All that read it gave perfect belief to it; there was no body at Rome to contradict it; and when I was arrived there, though I was named particularly in the said Writing, yet they for whom he drew it were obliged to such secrecy as would have kept them from telling me any thing of it, though they had otherwise desired it. So that it had its course freely through Rome, as no doubt many others had, of which I could never discover any thing; and this had remained unknown to me as well as the rest of like nature, had it not been for the cordial kindness of this good Priest who gave it to me, having by chance got it himself.  
It was confirmed to me that it came from F. Morel, by M. the Archbishop ............ the Pope's Sacristan, who was chosen out of the Order of St. Augustin, according to the custom, to be raised to that dignity and Office. But I must render this testimony to F. Morel, that being blamed by the said Signior Sacrista for the sharpness wherewith he spoke in that Writing against people who not without reason made profession of inviolably adhering to the doctrine of S. Augustin, whereof they style themselves Defenders, and being advised by him to correct it, F. Morel thinking he did enough for satisfaction of the said Signior Sacrista if he added something to sweeten it, therefore added the two last Sections which are after these words, [quod omen avertat Deus] with which he concluded at first: and besides those two Paragraphs, he added also to what is there said of M. Loysel Cure of S. John's, and Chancellor of the University, at the end of the Paragraph, Debet sancta sedes summè cavere. The whole Writing is to be found at the Journal, both as it was at first, and with the alterations.  
The Prayers of Forty Hours, which are always at Rome in several Churches in different quarters, were begun at S. Lewis, as usually on the day of the Feast, and they retained me there till they were ended, namely till the 28th. of August, the Feast of S. Augustin, when I left my residence at S. Lewis to go take possession of the lodging which I had procured for myself and the other Divines who were to come to me, it being ready some days before.  
Assoon as I was settled there, the King's birth day being come which is September 5. I took occasion that day (which ought to be dear and in veneration to all Frenchmen) to invite to Dinner some Priests of S. Lewis, whom I had seen most familiarly during my stay there, and F. Guerin Canon Regular of S. Augustin, and Procurator of the Order at Rome, whose neighbourhood I got by this new lodging, which was also near to that of the Priests of the Mission in the Gregorian street.  
We had scarce done Dinner but I received a new visit from F. le Maire the Jesuit who entertained me very copiously with the sentiments of his Society touching Grace, which he said, never fails the Will when it is obliged to do well, but the Will rejects or accepts it according as it liketh or liketh not to make use of it. He spoke also of the Censure which was made at Vallidolid of 22 Propositions contrary to the doctrine of S. Augustin, as of a Chimaera or Romance made at pleasure; although it was very certain, and printed authentical Copies of it were brought from Vallidolid to Rome. In fine, he spoke of the manner how he was confident the Pope would judge this whole Controversy, telling me as he had done formerly, that we must deliver our memoirs, withdraw, and leave the Church to do the rest.  
The death of Cardinal Panzirolo happened the day aforegoing, and he was interred this day with the ceremonies accustomed at the Funerals of their Eminences.  
Cardinal Barberin carried me again to his Library on Wednesday afternoon being the 6th. I restored to him that day some manuscript Quires of an Author named Paludanus, which he obliged me to read. I told him, that I found therein an Expedient sufficiently favourable to remove all scruples of receiving the Bull of Vrban VIII. namely in the place where he examines the greatest reason brought against it, which is, because it saith that there are in Jansenius' Book Propositions condemned by the Bull of Pius V. But, saith this Author, speaking to those that make this difficulty, You are agreed, and Jansenius too; for he and you trouble yourselves to explicate the diversity of senses of your Propositions and of those of Bavis; which needed not to be done, unless the words were alike. Now saith he, the Bull of Vrban VIII. doth not say that those Propositions which are in Jansenius, contain the same sense with those of Bavis, 'tis enough therefore for the validity and reception of it, that they are correspondent in words, though the senses of them be different; and this sufficed for a just ground to urban VIII. to make his Bull assoon as that Book appeared out of the apprehension he might have that they agreed also in sense, with a Salvo to discharge it from this condemnation when upon exact examination the truth and sincerity of his sense and the difference between the same and those condemned in the person of Bavis, were made evident. Cardinal Barberin was so well-pleased with this discourse that he answered pleasantly, Quando riceverela la Bolla, laglierete le gambe alli Giesuiti, That the way to ham-string the Jesuits was to receive the Bull. I told him that this was the principal thing that I had read in the Papers which he gave me of that book; and he returned me an answer which denotes his nimbleness and great diligence in reading books, viz. That he read it almost throughout in his Coach as he went to the seven Churches.  
During this interval of time which passed between my settlement in my new lodging and Sunday the 10th of September, besides those two visits of which I have now given account, I made sundry others, wherein there occurred nothing remarkable. I visited the Bishop of Cavaillon, a Gentleman of Avignon of good quality and parts; the Marquis Del Buffalo General of the Pope's Artillery, with whom I had contracted in my first voyages a particular acquaintance and friendship; M. Michael Angelo Rici, and F. Mariana his intimate friend; M. Paolo di Rossi a great Civilian, and who heretofore knew M. Pegna Dean of the Rota; Monsignor Sacrista; M. Ricciardo de Alcoltis Curè of S. Saviour's at Rome, a Florentine Gentleman by birth; Qualificator of the Congregation of the Index a great Divine, well seen in the Hierarchy and Ecclesiastical Discipline, which he learned, (he said) in S. Cyprian and not in our flattering Doctors, who have wholly disfigured it in their writings; but eminent above all things for his knowledge and hatred of the whole politic menagery of the Jesuits, and of their pernicious maxims in Morality and Religion; M. Dorigny superior of the Priests of the Mission at Rome; F. Barelier French Assistant to the General of the Dominicans; the F. Commissary of the H. Office: such of these Personages as I had not before saluted, I acquainted with the ground of my Return and Negotiation at Rome; and as for such as knew it before, to them I lent or gave of our Latin Manifestoes, and the Antitheses or Differences between the Doctrines of Calvin and St. Augustin, which is ours, they being newly sent me from France. This I did after long debating in myself, but always with reluctance, because the name of Jansenius was inserted in the first of those Writings, which name alone was enough to make them suspected or despised. But I considered the necessity there was to make known our sentiments at Rome the soon, and to the greatest number of persons, that I could; as also that if any one blamed me for this fault, I might render it in some measure excusable by pleading that what concerned the above mentioned Author, is but very lightly touched therein, and promising to do my utmost, that there be no more meddling therewith.  
Moreover I aimed by giving them about to prevent that blame, according as I saw fit, having regard to such as I presented them to; and if perchance there was any one whom I feared, lest receiving them from my hand, he should take them as an information which I had to deliver touching the Propositions, I roundly explained myself before giving them, by saying expressly that I did not give them for that cause; and that which I gave, was not that which we had to say before the Congregation which I desired, when it should be established, but only a slight draught of our sentiments published in France to disabuse the world of the Calumnies spread abroad against us; and I desired precisly that it might not be received from me, but upon this condition. The F. Commissary of the H. Office receiving from me the Latin Manifesto, and having heard what I proposed, to signify to me in two words that he understood my meaning, told me, that I gave it him, and he received it amicè, non juridicè.  
I had already contracted so much friendship and good correspondence with the whole order, of which this Father was, and they accounted all that I propounded to them touching this affair so judicious and just, that upon a naked overture which I made to them of what importance it was for the preservation of the Doctrine of St. Augustin and St. Thomas in our Faculty to choose in October following a Syndic well affected to this Doctrine, the General writ expressly thereupon to the Religious of his order who were Doctors of our Faculty. He sent the Letter to me assoon as it was written on the ninth of September, for me to dispose of, and cause to be delivered to the hands of such of his Friars as I should think fit when the time of the Election came.  
I went to thank him for it the same day, and by the same means I saw one of his most eminent and commendable Friars; in whose Conference I learned, that a Gentleman (who came heretofore frequently to visit F. Lemos, and one day brought him a Breviary which Clement VIII. presented to him as a small pledge of his good Will, and the value he had of his Ability and Vigour to defend against the Jesuits the sentiments of S. Augustin, S. Thomas and the Church touching Grace) testified after the death of that Pope, which happened in March, that his design and resolution was to publish on the Eve of Pentecost following at the end of Vespers his Bull against Molina, and then to create F. Lemos Cardinal in presence of the Jesuits and the Dominicans. That the Cardinal Monopoli to whom Clement VIII. opened his mind also about this particular, in like manner declared the same after the Pope's death. That during the time that he laboured and caused others to labour in the examination of these matters, besides the care he took to be informed thereof by solid study and the reading of St. Augustins' works as well the Writings presented to him both in behalf of the Jesuits, and of the Dominicans, which he weighed with singular diligence; he was sometimes found early in the morning going a foot without followers clothed in Penitents saccloth from Monte Cavallo to S. Maria Maggiore; and that many times too he spent two or three hours in the night at Prayers upon his knees ad limina Apostolorum. These particularities this learned and zealous Dominican had told Cardinal Roma before he told them to me; and the Cardinal was much affected and edified therewith, and presently out of the satisfaction which he had with the same, cried out with his ordinary plainness in these words, O Santi sensi & digni d' un Papa! sarebbe stato questo un Santo, se non havesse lasciato tanti bienk o' sui parenti; O holy thoughts worthy of a Pope! this man might have been a Saint, if he had not left so much wealth to his kindred.  
On Sunday morning (Sept. 10.) I went to Cardinal Barberin to show him a Letter written to me from Paris August 25. and brought to Rome by an extraordinary Courier who came thither upon a vacancy. This Letter was written to me from the Prelates, by whose order I was returned, and contained amongst others a thing which I conceived would be well pleasing to this Cardinal. It was, that those Prelates were resolved to admit the Bull of Vrban VIII. but never to consider it as other then provisional, and as an act of policy by which the Pope upon the first complaints made to him of that Book, without having examined or judged of it, but having regard to those complaints, and to prevent the ill Consequences which they caused to be feared from that book, stopped the course of it, and forbade the reading of it till after mature examination of it, it were otherwise ordained, which is in effect the same thing that Cardinal Barberin had said to me twenty times. And indeed he was very glad of this good News; and as I added, that it was requisite also if it were possible, to oblige the Jesuits to keep themselves within these bounds, and to cease from pretending (as they had done hitherto) that that Bull prohibited the said Book, not only upon a political account, but condemned the Doctrine of it as evil and pernicious; the Cardinal answered, that we ought not to trouble ourselves about what the Jesuits say, but rest upon and hold to what the Bull saith, Lasciateli dire, voi stiate à quello che dice la Bolla. Let them talk, etc. That we ought to be satisfied, since we knew that it was made only of that extent and for such effect, that no person knew better than himself what intentions his Uncle had in making, and his Eminence likewise in procuring it: that indeed it might be a little more clear than it is; but all things are not always done with so great circumspection, and in the perfection that they ought to be. Cardinal Barberin's Library-keeper, to whom his Eminence gave order to send me the Books which he desired I should see, occasionally confirmed to me what the Cardinal had told me so often, and so many others besides him, That the Bull of Vrban VIII. in the bottom of it and really doth not prejudice the Doctrine of any Author in particular, but that it was alike decreed against all those as well on one side as the other, who had written of the matter de Auxiliis, without permission of the H. See. For this Library-keeper named Signior Carlo Moroni, a man of parts, and very civil, sending me by his Master's order the Book of Ripalda, he did it with the same precaution, as if he had sent me Jansenius' works, advising me not to read it, unless I had permission to do it, because it was comprised in the general prohibitions made at Rome touching that subject: 'tis probable he did not give me this advertisement without receiving some little order for it from Cardinal Barberin, as well as for sending me the Book. I know not precisely at what time it was, for there is no date to the Letter which he writ to me when he sent it; but I am sure that it was much about this time that I am now upon: See the tenor of it;  
Molto illustre e reverendissimo Signore mio osservandissimo,  
L'Eminentissimo Signior Cardinale Barberino in hà commendato che io mandi a V S. questo tomo del Ripalda. Mà perche l' Eminentissimo si ritrova impegnato di doverlo prestare fra tre o quattro giorni ad un personaggio, la supplico à volerlo rimandare in tempo. Quando questo libro s' intend compreso nella prohibition, credo che V. S, ne haverà la licenza. Ne altro in occorre se non di rassegnarmi a V. S. molto illustre e reverendissima,  
Humillimo Servitore, Carlo Moroni.  
Right Worshipful and Reverend,  
THe most Eminent Lord Cardinal Barberino hath commanded me to send you this volume of Ripalda: Which, for that his Eminence is engaged to lend it elsewhere within three or four days, I desire you to return in time. Whereas the book is comprised within a Decree of Prohibition, I presume you have leave to peruse it. I have nothing else but to subscribe myself, etc.  
In the afternoon I went to see the General of the Augustins, but I could do nothing with him by reason of the distrust he had of F. Morel, whom he looked upon as M. Albizzi's spy about him; from whom he knew the said Father had received some good offices and particular favours in recompense for the Writing which he made, and of which I have above given account.  
On Tuesday (September 12.) in the morning I went to see M. the Abbot de la Paix, who in regard to his profession of being a disciple and Monastic of S. Augustin, told me he would willingly employ himself to help me in the cause wherein by the Account by me given him, he saw the Doctrine of that great Doctor of the Church was so unworthily and maliciously impeached.  
In the afternoon I went to see Cardinal Vrsin, who as concerned for the satisfaction of the Kingdom and Church of France could have wished with me that these contests were composed and terminated as I came to request; but he intimated several Political and Theological reasons which in his judgement rendered the discussion and decision of them in a manner impossible. And as he was Protector of Poland, he told me, that he understood that these Disputes were ready to arise into heat there too; and he mentioned also (though with some obscurity) a certain Letter from the King of Poland to the Pope touching the Queen's Confessor, who was said to be an Arnaudiste, and engaged in the opinions which divide the Church at this day. I told this Cardinal that I knew him to be a very able and honest man, Doctor of our society of Sorbon, and who would always defend himself very well from the vain accusations that may be made against him. This Cardinal Vrsin received with his accustomed civility, and told me, I should do him a pleasure in showing him some Writings which might inform him more particularly of the state of our Controversies.  
At my coming from him I went again to F. Campanella, to whom I lent our Latin Manifesto till Sunday following; he held himself obliged, and received it with contentment, but on condition that when he restored it I should dispense with him for telling me his sentiments of it.  
On Wednesday (Septemb. 13.) in the afternoon I met M. Fernier, who was with another Canon of Auxerre. I went with them to Cardinal Barberin's Library, and from thence to walk abroad. M. Fernier informed me, that a certain Cordelier named F. Mulard (of whom I shall give account hereafter) was arrived at Rome the day aforegoing, and that himself was much scandalised at the unworthy speeches which he heard that Cordelier utter since his arrival, in contempt of the Bishops whose Letters I brought to the Pope; for example of M. d' Amiens, that he was a good Beer-drinker; and of the rest the like vile and shameful injuries.  
On Thursday (Septemb. 14.) I went to give notice of this Cordelier's arrival to that good Friar who informed me of M. Hallier's long Letter, of which I have spoken above; and also that others were coming, of which this Cordelier was the bearer. This Friar confirmed to me, that what he had told me of M. Hallier's Letter was true; that he had since been better informed of it; that it was written to M. Albizzi, but was also showed to the Pope: that it consisted of six Pages, in which he had put many petty trifles, all which tended but to represent to his Holiness that Jansenism was embraced in a manner by all the Preachers, that it was also followed by the Confessors, that all the world was engaging in it, that the whole Church of France was endeavoured to be drawn to it, and that if the Pope took not heed, ere ten years hence the mischief would be past remedy.  
I understood that the four Cardinals whom Cardinal Barberin named and enjoined me to visit, Roma, Spada, Ginetti and Cechini continued to assemble together every Thursday afternoon with some Divines at Cardinal Roma's Palace; but being uncertain whether or no they had begun to take the Propositions in hand, I wished to be resolved; and that they also knew that the Assemblies which they made would be accounted in France as Beginnings of the Congregation which I came to desire, that so on one side they might think themselves more engaged to establish it, and withal conceive themselves less free to regulate any thing in this matter, before hearing the parties on either side by word of mouth and writing, as I solicited openly and publicly. For this reason I determined that afternoon to go see the Cardinal Roma, to take him at the breaking up of that Congregation, and to be in his Palace at the time that they who composed it went away. I did so, and after they were gone, and I was introduced all alone to Cardinal Roma (as 'tis the custom) I told him, That I came to congratulate with him for those first dispositions towards the erection of the Congregation which I came to request of the Pope; that I conceived myself obliged to send word to the Bishops of France in whose name I was at Rome, what I knew thereof, and the hope I conceived from thence for the perfect accomplishment of their desires; and the request which they made to the Pope by their Letters; which certainly they would rejoice very much to understand, by reason of the grand importance of which they knew the Affair to be in reference to the whole Church. The Cardinal answered me as one a little wearied with the Congregation from which he came, yet still full of affection and zeal for the perfect clearing up of these Disputes. He told me, that he would never spare any thing that lay in his power for the service of the Church, that it was requisite to endeavour to bring this business to an end, but it would be longwinded and of difficult discussion. I replied, that indeed some study and pains would be necessary in it, but it might be so managed as to save very much, if the right course were taken. That it was not necessary to begin this Judgement with examining the Propositions; because, that besides their not relating to us at all, and having no Author that taught them, but being framed at pleasure and out of malice by those who designed to get them condemned, should it be resolved to pronounce before searching into the bottom of things, a thousand difficulties and perplexities would arise of great intricacy, and not possible to be removed: whereas if the chief and essential matter were first discussed and regulated, it would be afterwards very easy to decide these Propositions, and that in a clear & indubitable way, by reducing them to the Chief Matter, which was already settled. Wherefore our design would no doubt be to enter straight into that matter, assoon as the Congregation were erected, and the Jesuits, who corrupted the faith of the grace of Jesus Christ in the Church (as we hoped to accuse and convict them) appeared there before us. Cardinal Roma answered that I had reason; and moreover he told me, that no doubt it behooved to condemn the sufficient Grace held by those Fathers, if the Effectual which we maintained was declared and acknowledged for the Catholic and Orthodox faith; because indeed one doctrine cannot be true, but its contradictory must be false. I took the confidence to tell him too, that certainly the opinion of those Fathers ought not to be spared, as it had been formerly, in case it were found wholly opposite to the Christian faith, as we pretended, because their boldness was at present raised to such a point, that they presumed to make it pass for the faith of the Church, having so long escaped condemnation since it was accused; whereas all that they pretended in the beginning was but to render it tolerable. Which seeing they could not obtain from the Inquisition of Spain, where Molina's Book was first accused, assoon as published, they had the cunning to evade the condemnation which was ready to be pronounced upon it there, by getting the business removed to the Inquisition of Rome, where also the very same condemnation was decreed, but restrained in darkness by reason of the death of Clement VIII. which happened when he was fully prepared and resolved to publish it. Cardinal Roma replied, that this and every thing else should be taken notice of in the progress of the business, and so I gave him the Good-night.  
The same day also I had time to visit Cardinal Ginetti, to whom I spoke very near to the same purpose that I did to Cardinal Roma. Cardinal Ginetti answered me by ask me who were those Deputies? I told him, that in the first place his Eminence was one. But the others, (said he;) I named them to him, he assented; and perceiving that I was informed thereof, he opened himself with freedom, and by his words gave me as many testimonies as he could of the particular care and extraordinary diligence, that for his own part he would contribute to the full and perfect discussion of this Affair.  
I was willing also to try that evening to meet with the Procurator General of the Augustine's, to which purpose coming back from my lodging I went to their Covent. As I arrived there, F. Delbene was coming forth. I had been twice that day to find him, to understand something from him which Cardinal Barberin told me this Father had to say to me. He would have put it off to another day because it was late; but my desire to leave it without delay, caused me to desire him to come into the Coach where I was, in which I offered to carry him home, and by the way he might tell me what he had to acquaint me with. He accepted my offer, and told me, Cardinal Barberin charged him to recommend two things to me. First, that I should not stir so much, to avoid giving occasion of hold against me; And secondly, that when I spoke of this Affair to such as were to be advertised of it, I should speak of nothing but of the Propositions, without troubling myself at all about Jansenius. I answered F. Delbene, that he knew whether in any of the Conferences which I had with him, I spoke so much as one word of that Bishop's Book, far or near. He replied; that he had given this testimony of me to Cardinal Barberin when his Eminence spoke to him of it. As for the first point of his Advertisement, I replied, that in my judgement that Counsel was given me by the Artifice of the Jesuits, who sought occasion to procure me some mischief, or at least to give out, that my person and sentiments were suspected at Rome; but all this should not hinder me from performing of my duty to the utmost of my power. That I was come to Rome to advertise the Pope, and with him all such as ought to take care of the interests of the H. See, of the most pernicious enterprise that ever was made to circumvent it, and that tended to cause it to do an Act which would impair its esteem in the eyes of all judicious persons living at this day, and be shameful to it in all Ages to come. Wherefore instead of abating the ardour wherewith I had hitherto spoken of the evil designs which the Authors of the five Propositions have, I thought myself on the contrary obliged to make them the more notorious, that they might be more heedfully taken notice of, and more narrowly observed. That I knew no person to whom I might in reason address myself to discover them, but I should forthwith visit him. That if heretofore there was a Son, who wanting the use of speech from his birth, acquired it when he saw his Father going to be killed; I conceived myself obliged to lift up mine more and more, while I see the Head of the Church and prime Father of all the faithful so unworthily invaded; and to practise towards our Adversaries (who under the false appearance of zeal for the H. See, assault it in that place where it is quickest of sense) that precept of Scripture, Quod in aure auditis, praedicate super lecta. That I hoped God would give me the grace to take no other course, and that he (Father Delbene) would do me a pleasure to assure Cardinal Barberin of this. I entertained the Father in this manner till we came to his lodging, where I left him, and returned to my own in that resolution.  
On Friday (Septemb. 15.) I accompanied the Ambassador to his usual audience at the Pope's Palace; and afterwards I went to a Chapel which was held by the Cardinals, where they caused Te Deum to be sung for a signal Victory won by the Poles. I returned thence to the Ambassador's lodging, where I was retained to dine. The Discourse of the Table fell immediately upon the business which brought me back to Rome; and I took occasion to tell the Ambassador, that the Doctors who were to come after me to join with me in my solicitations, set forth from Paris the next day after the Nativity of the Virgin. The Ambassador answered, that he imagined the Pope would not give us audience, nor erect the Congregation which I had requested of him. That he discoursed with him that very day half an hour about our affairs; and that he spoke of imposing silence to both sides. I replied, that my Condeputies were set forth upon the hope they had of such a Congregation, and in order to pursue the perfect erection of it jointly with me; but they knew that there was a little beginning of it at Rome already; the Pope having given order to four Cardinals, viz. Roma, Spada, Ginetti; and Cechini, to apply themselves particularly to these matters; who assemble together every Thursday afternoon with some Divines at Cardinal Roma's Palace; and that I saw them the last night coming away from their Assembly. The Ambassador told me, that were it the King's business, his Majesty would end these differences without standing upon such a Congregation. That he would roundly declare, that he would have but two Religions in his Kingdom, the Roman and the Calvinists; and that he would employ his Authority and the means which God hath put into his hands to reduce all his subjects to one or the other of those two Religions. I replied that it was very fit to be so; but we conceived that we maintained the faith of the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church touching the grace of Jesus Christ; that we have no other designs but to reduce thereunto all such as are separated from it; that in the pursuit we used, we sought means to find who defended the same really; Ourselves, or They whom we accused of corrupting it. The Ambassador told me, that he did not speak what he had spoken as meaning to reproach me for any thing, but only out of the sentiments which the King might have, and had indeed, namely to restore peace in his Kingdom, and to oblige the Pope to restore it in the Spiritual, whilst his Majesty laboured to restore it in the Temporal state: That he spoke to me in one manner, and to others in another. But yet that which really caused some fear that the divisions which were at present amongst the ecclesiastics of the Realm might produce worse effects, not easily to be remedied, at length, was, that in former times Calvin begun just as we did, and talked of reforming, public penance, and so of the rest. That all the Curates of Paris since these Disputes were become very nice and scrupulous, when they are about giving absolution. That Calvin made not so great progress in so short a time, as the new doctrine which is attributed to 〈◊〉 that nevertheless, because the innovations of that Heresiarch were not at first opposed, so great a multitude became suddenly infected with his poison, that it was not possible to find any Antidote or Remedy thereunto▪ What necessity was there of our adhering so vehemently to those innovations? and wherefore do we not give heed to what was approved by our good old Doctors, those white-beards, such as M. Hallier (I believe the Ambassador did not yet know him) who writ a little while since an excellent Letter touching the present Occurrences to Cardinal Panzirolo, whereof he (the Ambassador) had had a sight? I answered that if he had it still, he would do me a very great pleasure in letting me see it; but as for answering and satisfying all that he had spoken, this would be very difficult for me to do, unless he would take the pains to examine the bottom of things, and not rest upon flying rumours without proof, which Calumny spread in all places against very innocent and Catholic persons; that if, for example, I had but that Letter of M. Hallier which he mentioned, I doubted not to find wherewith to convince him (if he would examine it) that we were treated with all sort of injustice. The Ambassador promised me that he would endeavour to recover M. Hallier's Letter and give it me (which yet he never did, though I desired it of him many times) and in the mean time, asked me what Office M. Hallier had in the Faculty, and whether it were for life? I answered, that M. Hallier exercised the Office of Syndic there; but I could not assent that he was truly so, because the Parliament had forbidden him to take upon himself the title or administer the functions of it, for that he had approved a doctrine contrary to that of France, touching the Pope's power over Kings in temporals: That besides, this Office was but for two years; that those of M. Hallier's intrusion were ready to expire, that he must go out of it at the Feast of S. Remigius following, unless he be then continued; but if I were at Paris I would endeavour to hinder his continuation in regard of the scandal it was for a man not purged from the accusations charged upon him for that doctrine, to be suffered in an Office, which so many other Doctors besides were able to discharge worthily. After Dinner the Ambassador continued to hold me in discourse for the most part bordering upon the former, and all favouring of the false conceptions of us infused into him by the Jesuits; but for that he mingled therewith many Maxims and reflections very well grounded, I was forced to tell him that I could not answer to all that he said to me, because his discourse being of good length, and without interruption, and he speaking many things which were true, and also many others which were not so, it was necessary for me to make a separation if I would answer to them; but assoon as I began to reply to any particular which he had uttered, he presently resumed his speech and fell to others. The Ambassador answered me pleasantly, that indeed it was his design to hinder me from speaking, and that he had but one thing to recommend to me, which was Peace, and a hearty endeavour to put a speedy end to all these Contests. I replied, that we endeavoured to take the way to it, b●●eseeching his Holiness (as we did) that he would please to clear them; and I entreated the Ambassador to tell me whether he had observed any thing in our deportment which tended not to that Peace which he recommended. He answered that he had not, but it would be a question worth knowing, whether after the Determination which I came to desire of the Pope were pronounced, we would hold to it; I answered, that Charity must needs presume that we would; but I was not sorry to have this occasion to declare to him, that 'twas on condition that the same were made in the Order, and according to the Rules of the Church; whereas on the contrary, if 'twere intended to be made against the forms by M. Albizzi or some other people so illaffected, ignorant, and dependant on the Jesuits, as he was, there would be no submission to such determination nor regard had of it. That I had order from the Prelates by whom I was sent to speak in this manner. That if it pleased him to see all the Letters which I received from them within a month touching this business, he would find that they enjoined me nothing else. The Ambassador told me that it must be some other day at some little meeting which we must agree upon, when there might be two or three hours' time for him to spend about it.  
In the afternoon I went to see Cardinal Spada. In his Antichamber I met F. Delbene and the Procurator General of the Capucines; and having entertained them together concerning the Propositions, they both agreed before me, that they were obliged to deliver in writing their sentiments touching the five Propositions, without having ever conferred together about them; which they acknowledged was not wont to be practised, and deprived them of a great means to find out the truth by enlightening one another and correcting (as it oft happens) their own conceptions by those of others. I was called in to Cardinal Spada, and after having made him the same compliment, and spoke almost the same things as to the Cardinals Roma and Ginetti in my visits to them the day before, he answered me that all would depend upon the whole Congregation, the Cardinals, Consultors, and Qualificators; that for his own part, if he could do any thing towards the good discipline and carrying on of the Congregation, he should make it his care that matters might go well. I told him that the Divines who I had acquainted him were to come after me, set forth the next day after the Virgin's Nativity; he asked me their names, and I told him them.  
At my coming away from him I went to see the Procurator General of the Augustine's whom I entertained largely and conveniently with all that was passed in France and at Rome about the five Propositions, as I have above related. I found him a person very capable of hearing reason and very equitable. When in the course of the Narration I told him that in the Consultation which was held thereof before the Pope, there was found a Man that said that the Propositions were not Heretical but the Censures made of them, he answered smiling, Quello era un Frate, The man was a Friar; I replied si, mà vestito di rosso, Yes but clothed in red. He added presently si, mà per la barretta, True, but his Cap was so. Whereby I perceived that he was well informed of that notorious fraud which was committed before the Pope in this business; and his knowledge of it was to me a new confirmation of its truth.  
Since my receiving Letters for the Pope from the Archbishop of Tholouse last deceased and M. Godeau (than Bishop of Grass and Vence, now only of Vence) I could not till now think of delivering them to his Holiness. On Sunday morning (Sep. 17.) I went to his presence chamber to demand audience for presenting them; but I was not called in.  
On Tuesday afternoon (September 19) I went to see F. Luca Vadingo at S. Isidore's. He told me that F. Mulard came to see him in the morning about the same business that I had given him account of: that he was come as from the Faculty of Paris, and that he left with him one of its Conclusions for the execution of which he came, and that there were coming after him two secular Doctors of the same Faculty who were upon the way, and by this time, he said, very near Rome. He told him also that F. Annat, Assistant for France to the General of the Jesuits, carried him to M. Albizzi, and presented him to him in that Quality. As I largely informed F. Luca Vadingo of all that had passed about this business both at Rome and at Paris, he found much difference between my Narration and that of F. Mulard; and for that he desired something of me in writing whereby he might be more fully informed of the truth of things, and of our pretensions. I could at that time show him nothing but our Latin Manifesto: and in exchange he lent me the Conclusion of the Faculty which F. Mulard left with him.  
On Wednesday (September 20.) I met with nothing considerable but F. Mulard, who told me (1) that he came from the Ambassador's house where the F. Assistant (meaning F. Annat) had been with him. 2. I ask him whether he knew any news, he answered that I could not be ignorant that the Pope had appointed a Congregation of Cardinals whom he named to me, viz. Roma, Spada, etc. that M. Albizzi had told him that it was time to deliver his memoirs and instructions. 3. That neither Cardinal S. Clement nor Cardinal Lugo were of the Congregation, to avoid the contests and siding which might happen between them. [The true cause which caused the exclusion of both under this seeming pretxt, was indeed, for that Cardinal S. Clement had on many occasions so strongly evidicenced the matters which were to be debated, and spoken so home and so vehemently against the intentions of those which tended only to condemn what pleased the Jesuits and their partakers to have condemned, that those good people could not answer him, but were put to silence, and forced to expect other Congregations (wherein he was not) for obtaining the condemnations which they aimed at; so that it may be said truly of him; Nemo poterat resistere spiritui & sapientiae qua loquebatur.] But in the fourth place he told me that I was a good friend of F. Luca Vadingoes, though I had not seen him but upon the occasion alone which I newly mentioned.  
M. Fernier came to see me on Thursday afternoon (September 21) with another Canon of Auxerre; and F. Malgoirés a Bernardine Procurator of that Order, and Dr. of our Faculty, intervened during the Visit. F. Mulard was there spoken of; and M. Fernier said, That 'twas a shame that he durst term himself, as he did, Deputy of the Faculty; that 'twas a thing which he could not suffer; that if the Faculty were to send any from itself, it would not send a Friar; but if it did, it would never send such a one as this.  
Cardinal Barberin (whom I was to see the same day after the abovementioned Gentlemen left me) told me also concerning this Cordelier, That it was not credible that he came to Rome by the Faculties' order about this affair; but 'twas possible he had some intimacies and intelligences with the contrary party; that he was really no other than a Post, that he came to Rome the last winter, thence made a journey into Catalonia, etc. From this discourse we fell to speak again of the Bull of Vrban VIII. upon which I reiterated the declaration which I had made to his Eminence how the Bishops who sent me, henceforward considered it as purely provisional; To which the Cardinal gave me no positive answer this day, but told me, That we had nothing to do at all to meddle with Jansenius, nor to entangle our business with him; and that he conceived, That it ought to suffice us, that we obtained the point of Grace Effectual by itself, and all the indisoluble consequences depending upon it. I very willingly agreed with Cardinal Barberin to all this; but he added a thing whereunto I could not agree: namely that we must take special heed of speaking of a Congregation de Auxiliis, because the Pope, (said he) will certainly not grant it at this time. I answered Him, that Grace effectual by itself, of which we newly spoke, was no other but the same thing: To which the Cardinal, Replied that we must not confound things; and that it behoved not to speak of the matter de Auxiliis, because the Pope would not decide the question which hath been left undecided: So this point too was fain to be left undecided between the Cardinal and me, and I was to answer a question which he put to me, viz. Wherher F. Luca Vadingo were a friend of mine. I gave his Eminence account what knowledge I had of him; but I perceived that it was F. Mulard's intelligence to him, though he gave me not the least intimation who incited him to ask me that question.  
On Friday (September 22.) I understood that F. Cauálli a Cordelier, a very honest, learned and humble man, penitentiary of S. John de Lateran for the French, came several times to see me; This obliged me to visit him in the afternoon, to know what he desired of me; where after having given him such a narration as I could of the business which detained me at Rome, I asked him whether he knew F. Mulard. He told me, No; but promised to inquire who he was, and endeavour to discover what brought him to Rome.  
On Saturday F. Mulard came to see me; I put him to speak touching the Congregation which he told me of before. He would not tell me the names of those that were of it; but yet said M. Albizzi, signified to him that it would assemble the first time the week ensuing; that he had spoke to the Pope to hasten it; and that his Holiness gave him order for it.  
Sunday morning (September 24.) I spent in the Pope's Presence Chamber, to get audience of him, and present him the Letters which I brought thither eight days before for that purpose; but I was no more fortunate than I had been eight days before.  
The same day I went again to see F. Luca Vadingo, to know whether he had made inquiry of F. Mulard concerning his deputation from the Faculty, and caused him to lay open the particularities of it, as I had desired him. F. Luca Vadingo told me that he had not seen F. Mulard since; but F. Annat came to see him about the same business, and that he told this Jesuit as he had told me, that he saw that we were agreed on both sides to desire a Congregation of our H. Father; but unless there came a powerful commendation and solicitation from the Court of France, the Bishops and the Sorbonne, we should scarce obtain it. That as to the foundation of things, we were also agreed therein too; namely, that grace hath its efficacy of itself, and determines the will to the good actions which it performs, but an physicè an moraliter, this was the point of our contests. I replied to F. Luca Vadingo that this was not the knot of the affair; that it was no wise the belief of the Jesuits and our Adversares their Followers, That Grace determines the will to good actions; that if they agreed to this sincerely, we should have no disputes together at all about the manner, an physicè an moraliter. F. Luca Vadingo answered me that F. Annat told him that he assented to this truth, That the Determination of the Will to Good, comes from the Efficacy of Grace, and added that if they gave us a good declaration thereof in writing, this aught to suffice us. I replied to F. Luca Vadingo, that they meant never to do it, because though it may be the particular sentiment of F. Annat (which I knew not) yet certainly 'tis not the common one of their Society, which maintaineth that Grace is so subject to the determination of the Will, that it may be either followed or rejected actually by the Will, according to its choice and disposition. O, not at all, replied F. Luca Vadingo; they cannot say this; if they should, they were Heretics (Sarebbono Haeretici.) I agreed with the Father as to his consequence; and assured him that he should find in the sequel of the affair, that the Principle from whence he inferred it, was true; and that the sole thing which incensed us herein, was that we had people to contend with, who so subject Grace to the Will, that they make the Will absolutely Mistress, and affirm Grace to have or miss its effect according as it pleases the Will to follow it or not: which is to be understood in the opinion of these Fathers of the Direct and special effect for the production and position of which God giveth the same.  
As I returned in the afternoon from some other Visits wherein nothing passed worthy of remark, I met a French Ecclesiastic in the Spanish Piazza, who assured me, that F. Mulard openly voiced himself deputed by the Syndic of the Faculty of Paris, to procure the condemnation of Jansenius at Rome. He told me also, that the said Cordelier showed him the Letters of M. Hallier to the Pope and Cardinal Panzirolo. I told him, that he would oblige me very much, if he could get a Copy of them. He answered me, that he believed he could not obtain it, but he had seem them, and they were subscribed, Tuus observantissimus atque obsequentissimus, Franciscus Hallier sacrae Facultatis Syndicus; and that 'twas certainly a great ignomine to the Faculty to send in its name such a fellow as this.  
But to avoid touching in several places upon this Deputation, it will be expedient to sever it for one into a particular chapter, and to show how it came ●to be devolved upon this famous Deputy.   

CHAP. IX.  
A History of the Collusion which M. Hallier made use of, to send a vagabond Cordolier named F. Mulard, as the Facultie's Deputy. With what boldness this Cordelier (who was sometimes a Capucine, an Apostate, and married) took upon himself the said title in his address to the Pope.  
FOR a full and orderly account, it is necessary to look back into the history of the Irish, whose subscriptions against the five Propositions M. Vincent superior of the Mission solicited the foregoing winter, which I only touched upon transiently before.  
Now the Rector having notice that those Irish frequently assembled at the College des Bons Enfans near S. Victor's gate under the direction of one of the Priests of the Mission which are there; and one day (February 13. 1651.) being informed that they were assembled at that time for the same purpose at the College of Lizieux at the chamber of M. Poërus of that nation Bachelor of Divinity, he sent a Beadle of the University to them to forbid them from making such kind of conventicles and giving any Judgement in matter of doctrine. Which was no sooner signified to them by the Officer, but they retired every one to his own quarters and durst meet again no more. But within a few days after, certain persons went to their respective lodgings and used so many solicitations and promises to them, that at length they obtained that the declaration drawn for them against the five Propositions was subscribed by twenty six of their company, amongst whom there was but one Doctor, two Bachelors, two masters of Arts, and all the rest ordinary Scholars who were beginning to study Philosophy and Grammar.  
The Rector of the University understanding this, caused such of these Irish as had degrees in the University, to be cited to the first usual Assembly of Deans of Faculties and Procurators of Nations held on Saturday the fourth of the same month 1651. there to be heard touching their Declaration, and obliged to produce all the Copies which they had subscribed. The day of the Assembly being come, the Rector proposed the business to the Deans and Procurators; he represented to them the dangerous consequences which were to be feared, if such kind of Conventicles as these were permitted in the Colleges of the University, or people without authority or skill, to decide matters of Doctrine; he showed them chief, that in the declaration of these Irish, there were things highly prejudicial to the authority of the University of Paris, and to the Rights and Privileges of the Realm, and of the Gallicane Church. After this laying open the matter, the Irish who had been cited, were called in: Their Declaration was represented to them: They acknowledged that they signed it every one apart without having first conferred together about it, and that they signed three or four Copies, but there was none left with them; the one was put into the hands of M. Vincent, but they knew not what became of the rest; and that they were all ready to revoke their subscriptions, if the University so pleased: which Answer they likewise subscribed. After which they withdrew, and the Rector told the Deputies, that he was encharged with a Petition of some other Irish graduates in Divinity in the same University by which they supplicated, that that might not be attributed to their whole Nation, which was but the fault of some few particular persons; some of whom were circumvented by reason of their ignorance, others corrupted and seduced by the enemies of the University; but that this disorder committed by a small number of their Countrymen might be charitably redressed. After this Petition was read, several of those Irish who presented it were called in to be heard by word of mouth; and some of them declared, That there was two Jesuits who made solemn promise to the Irish, to give them a house if they would subscribe that Declaration; yea, they had hopes given them, that a certain person of quality would make a foundation for them; and that M. Vincent also promised to procure benefices for those that subscribed it. It was ordained upon all thus by the Rector and Deputies unanimously, that the Declaration was a highly temerarious and unjustifiable Attempt; that the University judged it contrary to its authority, and to the Rights and Customs of the Realm and Gallicane Church; that it vacated and annulled the same; and that all the Copies which were signed of it, wherever they were, should be brought to the Rector to be torn. It was enjoined all such as had signed it, to come and revoke their subscription within eight days in Writing to be left with the Register of the University, upon penalty that the said time being passed, such as have degrees in the University, to be deprived thereof, and of all Right and Privilege annexed to those degrees; and such as have not, to be debarred for ever from obtaining the same. Which time being passed, no act of Grace shall be done to such as have not revoked their Declaration. Likewise Prohibition was made to all other Members of the University never to attempt the like under penalty of being deprived of all Academical Degrees, Rights and Privileges.  
It is not impertinent to observe here by the way that which gave occasion to the University to judge that Declaration contrary and prejudicial to the Customs and Rights of the kingdom, and Church of France, was a clause by which these Irish promised in two places of their Declaration, Always to adhere to ALL the Decrees and Censures of the Pope, Nos semper adhaesuros omnibus Decretis ac Censuris summorum Pontificum: And never to teach any Propositions suspected of Error or Heresy, or condemned by any Pope in any manner whatsoever; Nunquam nos docturos ullas Propositiones de Errore aut Haeresi suspectas, aut QUOMODOLIBET A QUOVIS SUMMO PONTIFICE damnatas, praesertimque sequentes: Prima Propositio, Aliqua Dei praecepta, etc. They who understand these matters well, apprehend the consequence of these Maxims. For my part I relate not the words, but because of the connexion which they will be found hereafter to have with the foundation upon which the lately mentioned Deputation was set afoot.  
They who moved these Irish to make their Declaration against the Five Propositions, to draw the advantages from it which they aimed at, by building upon it their designs of getting them condemned by the Pope, fearing le●t on the contrary, the decree of the University which they had by this means drawn against themselves, might at Rome produce an effect different from what they propounded to themselves from the Declaration; they conceived it their interest to lay some clog upon the Decree, in stead of leaving the Irish to submit to and comply with it as they promised. Wherefore as at first they solicited them to this irregular enterprise, so now they inspired them with the spirit of Revolt against the University: they caused them to take an act before Notaries on the 22. of the same March, which tended only to elude the Decree of the University: and on the 24. they caused them to obtain of the Parliament an Arrest upon their Petition, which was signified to the Rector on the 29th; whereby Prohibitions were made to the University to put its Decree in execution, till further order were taken therein.  
They constrained the abovesaid Poërus (who had himself with the rest declared in the Assembly of the University, That he was ready to revoke his Declaration, if the University so pleased) to make complaint to the ordinary Assembly of the Faculty in April following against the Rectors Decree, to set forth there how they had recourse to the Parliament against the said Decree, and to beseech the faculty to interpose in their behalf in this cause against the University. It was a proceeding very extraordinary and strange; but a very great number of Doctors esteeming the University and its Rector unworthily treated by the impudence of these Foreigners, opposed all that M. Cornet, M. Hallier and their Adherents could cause to be concluded in their favout in this Assembly; and declared, that they joined with the Rector and the University in all that they had done in this business as very legal and well grounded. But the party of M. Cornet and his Adherents was too strong, and they were Masters of the conclusion of the Faculty▪ by which they ordained that the Faculty should intervene in this cause to the Parliament in behalf of the Irish, and they deputed MM. Amiot and Guyard with the Dean and Syndic to prosecute the business; wheresoever, and in what manner soever, in all places, and by all means. Appellationi Hybernorum seize adjunxit Facultas; Qui autem litem promoveant VBICUNQVE ET QVOMODOCUNQVE, nominavit Hon. MM. NN. Edmundum Amyot, & Dionysium Guyard cum DD. Decano & Syndico. It was as M. Pereyret gave his sentence, and many without making any reflection upon those words, saying according to their wont, Sequor sententiam D. Pereyret, which Doctor caused the conclusion to be drawn up in that manner.  
These unusual and very extraordinary Terms, Vbicunque & Quomodolibet inserted in a conclusion of the Faculty, in reference to an affair depending in the Parliament, of which there was no doubt of interceding, and making the necessary and accustomed prosecutions, in no wise suited to the gravity of the Faculty. Without question they were unworthy and wholly remote from it; nor could they be looked upon but as inserted out of a childish Bravado, to insult over the Rector and Deputies of the University by the same words which the University had judged of all that were in the Declaration of the Irish, most contrary to the Rights of the Realm and Gallicane Church. But the design and aim of the Doctors who caused this conclusion to be thus drawn up, were of further extent. Because the Declaration of the Irish was made against the Five Propositions; they looked upon every thing done against those Propositions, as part of the Process in which the Faculty concluded to intervene. They took upon themselves by those words ubicunque & quomodocunque to prosecute as far as Rome, and everywhere else a Process which really was laid only in the Parliament. Nor did they confine themselves up to a manner of prosecution, but undertook to prosecute after what manner, and in what way soever seemed to them advantageous to their ends; without excepting the resolution which they took afterwards, and very likely had then in their minds, to send F. Mulard to the Pope as Deputy from the Faculty. Thus it was that they plotted and prepared afar off the foundation of that so unworthy Deputation, which they might indeed have made as justly and reasonably without this Project as with it; but they meant to reserve it as a last Refuge, to ward off in some sort the just reproaches which such irregular and shuffling dealing would deserve, should it come one day to be discovered. Have Truth and Justice need of these Legerdemain tricks and juggles? Is it the Spirit of Truth and Justice which inspires the same to those who are not afraid to become guilty thereof before God and men?  
But I must add some things that followed upon this affair, before I give account how I came certainly to know how F. Mulard was commissioned by the abovesaid four Doctors for this Deputation.  
The day of the ordinary Assembly of May following being come, the conclusion made in the name of the Faculty on the first of April was to be read again. There was very great contest about the reading of it again, because most Doctors complained, that the truth of things then passed was altered in it; but at length it was read and passed: And indeed it passed without any obstruction in regard of the words ubicunque & quomodolibet, because every one saw that they were foisted at pleasure; but none had the least suspicion of the Use which would be made of them by those that were the Authors of their Insertion.  
During the month of May MM. Hallier and Amiot consulted to cause it to be printed with the King's Privilege, and to fix it up the Eve before Pentecost at all the Turn of the University and the City, and that with an injurious title. This obliged the Rector to assemble extraordinarily the next day after the Festivals which was the last of May, the ordinary Deputies of the University; who having debated upon this new attempt, declared amongst other things, That the Chancellor was surprised when he granted a privilege for the Printing of that Libel; That the Title put to it, was very false and very injurious to the whole University. That it behoved to inquire after those that were the Authors of this deceit and insolence, and to proceed against them with all rigour of Law. That M. Hallier obtruded a notorious falsity upon t●e Faculty in some thing which he spoke there very untruly touching this affair: That the Irish were proceeded against orderly, and according to the forms of Justice; That the Rector and the Deputies had not gone beyond their power in what they ordained against the Irish, who by their Declaration transgressed against the Discipline of the University; and heinously violated the Rights and Safety of the King and Kingdom: That nevertheless they appealed from this Decree to the Parliament, which received them as Appellants, and retained the cause before the Court; that consequently the Irish could not, nor ought not to have complained of the said Decree to the Faculty of Divinity, nor the Faculty have ordained any thing thereupon without doing wrong to the Authority of the University, and especially to that of the Parliament. And that the Faculty might not pretend ignorance of all the Contents of this new Decree, it was ordered to be the next day, (June 1.) signified by the Bedels' of the University to the Faculty assembled, and fixed up at the gates of all the Colleges.  
All which was executed the next day, and for all the endeavours used in the Assembly of the Faculty by all the Doctor's M. Cornet's Adherents, who in the name of the Faculty, determined the said intervention in behalf of the Irish, they could not invalidate this new Decree, nor give any impeachment to an Attestation which M. o Lonergan an Irish Doctor also gave to the Book concerning Prevailing or Victorious Grace; though M. Amiot made complaint of the said Attestation in the Assembly, for that it seemed to accuse of Ignorance his Irish Confreres who subscribed the  declaration, which M. Amiot said, was an Injury that redounded upon the Faculty, because it had undertaken the protection of these Irish by intervening in their behalf. For 'twas by such obliqne and indirect ways as those that most of this kind of affairs were then transacted in the Faculty.  
They set themselves again to try what they could do against this second decree of the Rector in the Assembly of the first of July following, but without any success; and they were at length constrained to yield to both the one and the other of those decrees, and the Irish to conform thereunto in every point; and their conclusion of the first of April was reformed by an accommodation, to which they were glad to submit in a conference held for that purpose in the College of Navarre July 28. between them and the Doctors who in the Facultie's Assemblies had maintained the Justice and Authority of those decrees. But they have since no more performed what they promised by this agreement than they performed that which I mentioned in December 1649. and this business hath insensibly rested till the present time without being regulated one way or other.  
F. Mulard in the mean time set forth from Paris towards Rome with his Commission and his instructions; and whether they had time and convenience to advertise him to retrench this particular before showing his Power at Rome, and would not the stone being already cast, and no other course or pretext more convenient coming into their heads make him pass there for the Deputy of the Faculty, which they judged too important to the success of their enterprise not to make use of; or whether they sent him Orders for it which were not soon enough brought to him; so it was, that he did not arrive at Rome till Tuesday Sept. 12. and there appeared immediately in the quality of the Faculties Deputy; and to testify that he was truly so, he presented that conclusion of the first of April, which showed that the Faculty referred to, and charged upon the Dean the Syndic, M. Amiot, M. Guyard the prosecution of that affair in all places, and by all ways which they judged fit; to which he added, that those four eminent Doctors chose him for this employment, as it was clear by the Letters whereof they made him the Bearer, there seemed nothing wanting for his just title to that quality.  
I found this out at first, (as I said above in the visit which I made to F. Luca Vadingo Sep. 19) by things which he ingenuously told me of F. Mulard's visit, and by that conclusion of the first of April which F. Mulard left with that good Father, being printed, though he had not left with him the Letters which were not so. But F. Mulard made an express Declaration of it to myself on Monday Sep. 25. in the Hall of Consistory which was held that day, where we fell into discourse together, and he told me the same in formal terms as I have related, and that before two unsuspected witnesses who by chance were also in the Consistory, and heard all that F. Mulard and I spoke, and deposed it on the seventh of October following before a Notary upon my request.  
He gave me occasion of entering into this matter by some word which he said concerning St. Augustine's Doctrine, whereupon I entreated him to dispense with me for answering him, because the air wherewith he demeaned himself, made me judge that he did not understand it. Yet he took occasion to enter further into it as he grew in heat, and cited some passages to me, which probably had been suggested to him by those who employed him in this affair, and he had learned by heart. After which alas (said he to me) is this being ignorant in St. Augustin! The good conceit of himself which those two or three passages which he recited put him into, obliged me to check it by ask him, Whether he could tell me what St. Augustin treated of in any of his works which he composed upon this matter? He treats in all, answered he, of Effectual Grace. That is not the thing, Father, said I, which I inquire. Ask you to tell me the particular Subject which lead him to write any one of his Books. He answered me, That 'twas Pelagius' too much advancing Free Will above Grace: and St. Augustin to thwart Pelagius, hath too much advanced Grace above Free Will, insomuch, said he, That in many places He falls into excess as well as St. Paul▪ Hold, Father, said I, You fall unwarily into Blasphemies and impieties against the H. Scripture, which the Inquisition would not suffer, were it advertised thereof. But letting that alone, I told him that what he said to me concerning St. Augustin and Pelagius were yet but general things: That I asked him something of particular; that I would have him tell me, for example, what occasion induced St. Augustin to make the Book De Praedestinatione Sanctorum? He answered me, That we were not living in those times, to know. God forbidden, said I! there needs no more to know, but to have read a dozen lines. And to make him comprehend this, I alleged to him, for example, M. Halliers Letter, which he (F Mulard) had presented to the Pope, and I told him, That they who should see that Letter two or three hundred years hence, would not have been in these times, and yet when they read it, they would well enough know why M. Hallier writ it, namely, as he told me, De Jansenistarum examinando dogmate. He knew not what to answer me, but was offended that I treated him as an ignorant, and he would have me know he was not so. Alas! said he, Do you think I was sent hither without good instruction? Did not M. Hallier give me his Notes or Memoires? Besides which, Have I not my own? Would the Faculty have charged me to speak in its name, had it not judged me capable to set forth its sentiments to defned the same? (he as little knew those of the Faculty, as those of St. Augustin) but he added, That in fine, he would have me know, that in the Letters which he brought after a summary account of matters, these words were subjoined, Quid plura? we send you the Bearer, in quo summam fidem, curam, experientiam, scientiam, and some other words he added which I did not remember, for he had his Letter almost by heart, and repeated it very currently: That the conclusion was thus, Igitur audies illum plura nostro nomine loquentem: nostro nomine, repeated he, that is to say, totius facultatis nomine loquentem. And truly, said he, The Faculty would not speak thus of me, and the four Doctors upon whom it reposed the Trust of this affair, would not have given me Commission about it in the Faculties behalf, if they had not conceived I had understanding enough to serve it. In sum, I should see, whether he would speak otherwise then becomingly to the Pope, when he should have audience of him, which he said the Ambassador promised to procure him assoon as possible.  
This so ingenuous confession of F. Mulard to myself of his pretended Deputation might seem a feigned story, if the Act or Memorandum which I took of it on the 7th, of October following, did not expressly contain all that I have related of it; and if F. Mulard had not made himself known for a great Talker in many other occasions, and upon this very subject too, as M. Bouvot Register of our Faculty testified to me, by a Letter which he writ to me about the same Affair July 14. wherein he speaks thereof in these terms, We have learned that our Master Hallier our Syndic hath conjointly with F. Paulin the King's Confessor, written to Rome by a Cordelier dispatched away on purpose, who is named F. Mulard, so very secret a person, that he hath published his Commission to contain an earnest solicitation to some Cardinals to beseech the H. Father, to take some order with the doctrine of these times; otherwise the Jansenists will bebome Masters of the University.  
M. Gueffier Resident for the King at Rome many years was witness of another Conference between F. Mulard and me upon the same matter two days after the Rencounter in the Consistory, viz. Wednesday Septemb, 27. That day I went to see the said M. Gueffier about two a clock afternoon, and I found F. Mulard with him, who it seems had dined there. After some indifferent discourses which I continued the most I could, F. Mulard told me, that he was returning shortly into France. I asked him whether he made so little account of the society by whom he was deputed, as to abandon the affairs so wherewith he was incharged in its behalf? F. Mulard answered me, that he was not maintained here by Bishops nor by other persons as I was, and so could not subsist long; that he had only been put in charge by the four Doctors upon whom the Faculty relied in this matter, to deliver at Rome as occasion served some Memoires and Instructions which he had received from them; that he should acquit himself of his trust while he stayed; that after he had said all, and made all known, as he would do exactly, openly, and without dissembling any thing, than he would return; and that he believed no other persons would appear here for this Cause after his departure. That there would remain only the Jesuits; that others linked with them in this Cause would not appear here for fear of putting to arbitration a thing already decided. But if it were needful for any to come, M. Hallier and M. Amiot might be the persons, provided nevertheless that M. Hallier were not hindered, from coming by the Office of Syndic (which F. Mulard conceived perpetual, so well he understood the most common things of the Faculty) for if that change required his presence at Paris, in such case he would be loath to desert the Faculty. That he had been decried at Paris indeed; but if he was ill represented to the Parliament for having protected poor strangers, who barely declared that they submitted to the Bulls of Popes, he should be revenged at Rome for the wrong done him at Paris. That for witness of this, the Pope had lately given him two Benefices without his ask of them; and that within a little time, it should be seen whether the injuries which had been done him at Paris, would be put up at Rome. That he (F. Mulard) had brought to Rome the Apologetical Memoires of the University; that he could bring but two Copies of them; that M. Albizzi had one, and the other was in the hands of the Jesuits; that he had promised the Ambassador to show him one of those Copies assoon as it was returned; that he had spoke to him that very morning about it; that he was promised to have audience of the Pope on Wednesday following; that he would speak to him as was fitting, and to all others whom he could address to before his departing. That to stay longer at Rome was good for Procurators; but for his part, he had no more to do there; that the Queen was of the party; that she had written to the Ambassador, that the Pope should only Decide, and not trouble himself for the execution. This fine Deputy after this endeavoured to engage me unvoluntarily upon the contested matters; but I told him plainly that I would never enter thereinto with him. Whilst these things were a doing, one came to advertise M. Gueffier, that the Ambassador was going abroad, which notice hastened him to go see him, and so very fitly broke off my Conference with F. Mulard.  
In the mean time it is a thing very remarkable, that amongst the principal crimes wherewith we were to be blackened at Rome by the diligence of this Cordelier, he was charged with the Apologetical Memoires of the University against the enterprise of the Irish, to attribute the same to the disciples of St. Augustin, because there is some vehement speaking in those Memoires against such as would promote the pretensions of Rome over the temporal power of Kings: for our Adversaries who no doubt made use of them for that purpose after their bringing to Rome, as well as their Deputy, were in this particular doubly culpable. First, in that they attributed to us particularly that which is common to all good Frenchmen, and hath been so often resolved by the Sorbon and the whole Clergy of France: one of the first Articles of the Liberties of the Gallicane Church, being to maintain That the King depends only upon God as to temporals. And in the second place, in that they betrayed the interest of the King and of France, to render us odious at Rome, for things which in no wise pertained to the Disputes agitated between themselves and us. For this reason I shall place those Apologetical Memoires amongst the Pieces which I shall subjoin to this Journal, to let Posterity see the infamous Artifices wherewith they endeavoured to draw upon us the hatred of the Court of Rome, that so the ill will conceived against our persons might engage the minds of the Superiors to treat us ill in the cause which we maintained.  
The fifth of October going towards evening to the Church of Ara c●li, to make my prayer there to S. Francis, whose Festival was there celebrated the Eve before with great magnificence, I was so curious as to inquire whether F. Mulard passed in that Covent for Deputy of the Faculty of Divinity, as I had great ground to presume he did. I entreated the Friar who was the Porter to help me to the speech of a French Father who was sent to Rome from the Faculty of Divinity at Paris. The Friar answered that he saw Friars come in and go out, to and fro, but he took no heed who they were, nor knew their names, but I might enter farther into the house, and address myself to some French Fathers, and they would inform me. Accordingly I passed on even to th' Cloister, and found at the entrance a great number of Cordeliers; I asked them if there was any amongst them that was a Frenchman? there was none; but they showed me two sitting and talking together under an Arch of the Cloister. I went to them, and told them that I was desirous to speak with one of their Fathers who was sent to Rome from the Faculty of Divinity at Paris. He of the two that spoke, answered me, With F. Mulard, Sir? I replied, Yes. He told me that he was not yet returned to the Covent, that he knew not whether he would return that day or no, because he had desired leave to lie in the City. So, after civilities I left him and went towards the Church; and assoon as I had quitted him, considering that I had the answer which I expected, but withal, that it was good that I knew the Father's name who gave it me; before I re-entered into the Church, I sent my man to ask it of him, to the end I might tell F. Mulard whom I had spoken to when I went to see him. On his part he asked mine of my man, who told it him; and as if he had be thought himself that he had not showed me civilities enough according to his mind, he came unto me in the Church where I was at my devotions. When I was risen up, he told me himself that his name was Friar Archangel, and that he was of the Province of Aquitaine. We returned under the Cloister, and discoursed of several things of the Covent. He told me that they were very well as for Diet, but very inconveniently in respect of Lodging: that there was but nine little very straight Chambers for strangers, who were then about twelve or thirteen. I asked him also the name of him that was with him when I spoke to him; he told me that his name was Friar Francis Gr●sset of the Province of Marseille; that he was come to Rome to get an Obedience to go study elsewhere, and that he intended to go to Bourdeaux; that his business was done. As for himself, he told me, that he had been but a month at Rome, and had a Quotidian Ague ever since his arrival; that he had been always in the Infirmerie or Sick-Quarter, where the accommodation was good, but he was ready to come from thence. Because he seemed a very ingenuous and civil person, and likely to need some little Refreshments, I cordially offered him the assistances and services which he might judge me capable to render him, and told him, that if he would accept my offers, F. Mulard could infotm him of my lodging. As I was coming back, I met F. Mulard upon the way, and told him that I was come from repaying him the visit which he had made me. He answered, that since by this civility I gave him the liberty of coming again to see me, he would do it; and I replied that he should be very welcome.  
Within a little time after, he was better than his word, for he gave me two, with the account of which I shall end this Chapter, to pursue the sequel of the other things which I have to relate.  
The former of those two Visits was on Wednesday. Octob. 11th. in the company of Friar Archangel above mentioned. This Friar was to go a few days after to take the air out of Rome, and did not speak much in this Conference, but was a witness of all that passed between F. Mulard and me. This Father put me upon the bu●…nesse, by ask me the names of those Deputies whom I expected. I excused myself, that I was not fully certain who they would be, till their arrival. Whereupon he answered that I was very secret, that I would never tell any thing, but that he always told me all; and then he named M. the Abbot of Valcroissan, and another Doctor who was none of them; but he said he knew not the two others, and that word was sent him that there were four; that in the Letter written to F. Annat they were mounted to five. In the sequel he told me, that he should always love the persons in whose behalf I was there, till there were a Decision of the pope against them. I said that there needed not so much haste, and showed him how far Charity towards our neighbour ought to extend: and as for the respect and submission which wear obliged to have for the decisions of the H. See, to which he began falsely to judge that we would be refractory; I told him, he ought to assure himself that we would not in the least be defective in that respect and submission, and I wished the same disposition of humbly and sincerely submitting were equal in all those of the contrary party. Hereupon, as if I had told him some new thing, And how think you, said he, can that be doubted of? How do you speak of so many Bishops which have written to the Pope against those Propositions? Do you think there can be any doubt of their submission to the H. See? I answered him, that he much deceived himself, if he accounted all those Bishops of the contrary party; which for my part I did not. That I was not come from those that sent me, to put an obstacle to what the others had desired, viz. a Judgement of the H. See upon the Propositions; but on the contrary to desire the same as well as they, yet with using such a precaution as no doubt the most of them presupposed, but had not expressly demanded, and that is, that before pronouncing such Judgement, the Pope would please to ordain a solemn Congregation, in which the Divines of different opinions might be heard antecedently on either side, both by word of mouth & by writing, as they had formerly been in like case and upon the same matter under Clement VIII. and Paul V F. Mulard replied▪ that those Bishops of whom I spoke, were of the contrary party, since they had declared in the Letter which they had signed, that they held the Propositions for Heretical, and that many amongst them had already condemned them in their Dioceses. I answered him what was fit to be said to such Discourse. And as he exposed to my view in his left sleeve a Paper & a little book covered with Marble Paper, without my ask him what they were, he drew them forth, and showed me. One was the Bull of Vrban VIII. which he alleged also as a proof of Jansenius' condemnation. I told him plainly that I would always refer myself to Cardinal Barberin for the extent that was to be allowed that Bull, and how it ought to be understood; and because he seemed to wonder at this Declaration which I made to him, I though fit to reiterate the same to him twice or thrice. He showed me likewise the Book. When I had seen the title of it, I prayed him to let me go up but to my Chamber and take a note of it. He would not condescend to it, saying, that he was afraid I made that pretence to keep his Book; and that he had business to do with it, as also with another Copy which he had lent to Friar Archangel, and that he came abroad on purpose to show the same to such persons as he was obliged to impart them to. That it was a Fundamental Piece, which served him as an Arsenal, from whence he could draw the chief Arms which he needed to make use of for the discharge of his Commission. For as for the Bull of Vrban VIII. he made sport with that, (it was his word) but he meant no more by it, then that he did not pretend to draw so great advantages from it as from the little Book; having had it in my hands during that short Conference, I retained the title in my memory which he would not let me take in writing, and it contained very near these words, Jansenius de sancto Augustino ac de Ecclesia Catholica, de sancto Thoma ac de Theologia scholastica pessimè meritus. Apud ............ Meturas, etc. He mentioned again his preparation to return into France. I told him, I could scarce believe that he would go so suddenly. He answered me; that he must obey his General. I replied, True, if his General would have it so, but he (F. Mulard) might represent to his General the importance of the affair for which he was at Rome, entrusted with the orders and interests with such an eminent Faculty as that of Paris had therein. He told me that on the contrary, That some affair induced his General to oblige him to return, because, as he said, it was to be feared that the solicitations made by him in it, might render his Order odious to another considerable Order in the Church with which he desired to live in good intelligence; and also to very many eminent persons in France who concerned themselves for the affairs for which he came. These were almost the last words wherewith we ended this Visit.  
That which he made to me a few days after, was on Sunday October 22. in the morning. He came all alone; but met there at the same time two persons worthy of credit, who the next day deposed an Act or Memorandum before Notaries as I desired them, of all that they heard spoken on either side. He came to me full of trouble and resentment for an Order to return into Franee, which his General had given him the foregoing evening. He said, that he beseeched his General to permit him to stay yet some days at Rome, to take leave of some of the Cardinals to whom he had brought Letters, and that his General had granted him that permission, but besides, he could not departed, till he had first received the answer of M. Hallier Syndic of the Faculty of Divinity who sent him thither, and till some Doctor or other person were come in his place to take care of the affairs wherewith he was entrusted. That he could not do otherwise notwithstanding his General's Order, since he was at Rome on the behalf of the said M. Hallier Syndic of the Faculty, as the said Syndic had testified in the Letters which he writ to the Pope and to some of the Cardinals, but especially in that which he writ to Monsignor Albizzi, wherein he saith formally speaking of the said F. Mulard, Audies illum nostro, id est, totius Facultatis nomine loquentem; which words, totius Facultatis were not in the other letters as they were in these. This F. Mulard expressly repeated several times, being moved thereto by the little difficulties which I made to him about it, to give him occasion to confirm it, and to such as were present to observe it well. After which I told him that I shared in his regret, notwithstanding a slight suspicion which he had, that I had contributed to his dismission by a visit which I made the day before to his General; and I assured him that it was a thing indifferent to me, whether he were at Rome or no; that though he termed himself Deputy from the Faculty, yet I had no ill will to him for his own part, considering that he acted under the good faith of the persons who gave him that Commission, and that he conceived they would not have given him the same unless they had had authority. But as for M. Hallier who gave it him, and writ those Letters without having any power so to do, I could not excuse his proceeding. F. Mulard replied to this, Ipse viderit; as for my part, I do not trouble myself; he knows well enough how to maintain what he has done. One of the two persons that were present, having said to F. Mulard, that he thought, he had told him that 'twas not only M. Hallier that charged him with his Commission, but also the Dean and the Subdean, and that the whole power of the Faculty was in the hands of those three persons; the Father answered that he did not say so; but indeed beside the said M. Hallier, there was also another Doctor named M. Amiot, who were two of the four which the Faculty deputed for this affair, and who as well in behalf of themselves as of the others gave him charge and instruction concerning all that he had to do; but besides, said he, addressing to me, were there none but M. Hallier, I should have as good a title as you, because M. Hallier is more esteemed there then a Bp. & looked upon as the most learned man in Europe. I replied to F. Mulard, that granting all which he said in M. Hallier's commendation were true, yet it did not give him power to have a Deputy at Rome in the name of the Faculty; and that the Office of Syndic gave him no more power to meddle with those affairs in the name of the Faculty, unless the Faculty gave him express order so to do, than the youngest of all the Doctors hath. F. Mulard quitted M. Hallier, and betook himself to ask me by what authority I was at Rome. I answered him that I was there in behalf and by order of some of my LL. the Bps. of France. namely of those whose Letters I had presented to the Pope. F. Mulard insisted, and asked me to what end, and whether it was against the Bull of Vrban VIII. or for Jansenius' book? I answered him that it was for neither; that there was nothing either in that Bull, or in those of Pius V and Gregory XIII. which was contrary to what I pretended; and as for the book he mentioned, that it was wholly unconcerned in my Commission, because the same was barely upon occasion of the five Propositions which had been presented to the Pope, and which being all contrived in ambiguous terms, might have, according to the explication of those terms, senses very different, and so opposite, that one was most evidently heretical, and the other most certainly Catholic; That my being at Rome was to advertise the Pope thereof, and to beseech him that before Determining any thing, his Holiness would please to give audience to both parties in a solemn Congregation. F. Mulard not knowing what to reply hereunto, and wlling to bring M. Hallier off the stage▪ drew out of his sleeve a Letter sealed, and directed to his General, which he said was written by M. Albizzi to desire that General in two lines that he would not oblige F. Mulard to departed from Rome, because his presence was requisite there in reference to things which were treating in the H. Office. That he (F. Mulard) had had that Letter before his General went away that morning, as he did, to go towards France; but he would not deliver it to him before his departure, that so he might put the same into the hands of the person who was to represent him, and perform his charge in his absence, by which means the Letter would have its full effect without any reply or difficulty. You see, said the Father, I shall be no longer here by authority from M. Hallier, but by that of the H. Office. Do you go now and tell M. Albizzi and the two Cardinals that advised me to address to him for this purpose, that they are to blame to retain me here. To which I answered, that it was all one to me whether F. Mulard was at Rome by the order of the H. Office, or of his Patron, or of any other whatsoever, provided the name of the faculty, whereof▪ I had the honour to be a Doctor, were not falsely used therein.  
These are the words of all that was deposed by the witnesses who subscribed the Act of Memorandum which I caused to be taken of this Confefence; but there were also some other things spoken which were forgotten or purposely omitted. M. Fernier was also witness of all, though he would not be one of those that subscribed the said Act. I shall mention only three of the most remarkable. The first was, that F. Annat was the Author of the Book De Ecclesia praesentis temporis. The second was, that speaking of the Letter which M. Albizzi gave him to his General, the said Signior Albizzi was every day with the Pope, that it was he that did all, that the Pope relied wholly upon him, and that one might say that what he did and what he would, the Pope did and would. The third was, in reference to the effect of the Letter which M. Albizzi gave him, that it was fit that they (the Religious, or Friars) might have recourse to some Powers, (against the commands of their Generals which were too burdensome to them) because otherwise, a Monk (meaning his General) might wrongfully and crossly torment an honest man (as himself F. Mulard) with a tyrannical power. And the fourth was, that having had recourse to Cardinal Spada to prevent the command to return into France, which he feared to receive from his General▪ he offered the Cardinal to return thither, if his Eminence judged fit; and that the Cardinal answered him in these two words, Non Expedit. Which when I consider I am apt to think that the said Cardinal was instrumental to the abovesaid Letter; because on September 21. F. Epiphanius a Friar dela Premonstré, a very able honest man, then at Rome about an affair of his Order, told me upon another occasion, that F. Novet a Minime, lately informed him that F. Mulard would have made use of him a few days before to present a Memorial to that Cardinal, to beseech his Eminence to cause him to stay at Rome, considering that he was deputed thither not only by M. Hallier, but also by the whole Faculty, non solum à Syndico, as his Memorial ran, sed etiam à Facultate delegatus.  
Moreover I know not whether F. Mulard's suspicion that I had contributed to his return into France enjoined him by his General, was not in some sort well grounded, though if I did, it was without having any such design. But see what befell me that same day, October 21. I learned in the morning of F. Mariana that that General was suddenly to go into France, that he was an able and upright man, and of good understanding too in the business wherewith I was encharged; That he had the greatest hand in the condemnation made at Vallid●lid of the 22. Propositions prejudicial to the honour of S. Augustin, and to the authority of his doctrine; and this good Priest invited me to visit him before his departure, that I might know him, and also advertise him of the book which F. Mulard distributed about at Rome, entitled Jansenius de Sancto Augustino pessimè meritus, in the first six lines of which it was said that the Censures of those 22. Propositions were impostures. I went then that evening to Ara Coeli; The General was not there. His Secretary named Michael Angelo de Napoli, stayed with me to entertain me in expectation of him. When he understood all that I told him aswell concerning our affair of the Propositions, as that of F. Mulard whom he knew, he prayed me not to go away before I spoke with the General also, who was, as he said, to departed very early the next day. I waited for the General, though he came not home till it was late. I informed him in the fewest words I could of both those affairs; and by the little discourse we had together he seemed to me well versed in the reading of the Fathers, and well affected to the good and sound doctrine, and I took leave of him without speaking so much as one word about the Dismission which he gave that very night to F. Mulard, against which he defended himself the next morning by the Letter . It was with that Letter that he and I ended our principal discourses touching his Legation to Rome: but because he passed there for a man as rare in his person as his call to this emplyment was extraordinary, and that so many things were daily told me of his irregular deportment, that they did not seem credible, I was willing to inquire from the place of his birth, (which was also the Country of his Cousin M. Hallier) whether the the principal of them were true or no. The person who made inquiry thereof at my entreaty, received the following Letter, by which we may judge of the advisedness and candour of those who put an affair of the Faculty into such hands, and blushed not to add to the others qualities of this Cordelier that of Deputy from that renowned and famous society. See the Copy of the Letter which I mentioned.  
SIR,  
THese few words may serve to certify you that I have gotten exact information touching F. Mulard the Cordelier. The said Mulard is a native of this City, of the Parish of S. Hilary next the Monastery; About thirty two or thirty three years ago he was a Physician Some time after, he became a Capucine. After he had worn the habit a long time, he cast his Cowle into a Ditch, and went to Montpellier, in which place he took a wife amongst the Hugonots. There he passed for a good considerable Physician. At length he was discovered by a Father Capucine passing through Montpellier, to whom the said Mulard, going to visit him as a Physician, was constrained to confess that he had been of his Order. There was a maidservant in the house where the sick Capucine was, who heard the passages between him and F. Mulard, and failed not to tell the same to the Master of the House. The matter being divulged, the said Mulard fled, and went to Rome, to get a dispensation from his Vow. He hath had the permission of the Pope to wear a Cordelier's habit. He belongeth to no Covent. He passed through this City a month ago; it is not known in what place he is at present. He calls himself Almoner to the Count of Harcourt. This is all that I have been able to learn of the life of the said Mulard; He is brother to our she-Cousin Le Feure, etc. I am ever with all my heart,  
From Chartres Feb. 4. 1652. SIR, Your most humble and affectionate brother to serve you, Edeline.  
I shall add to this letter by the way, that it was not without cause that this Cordelier termed himself Almoner of the Army; he had so much more in all his manners and deportment of the Soldier, and Goodfellow, then of the modesty and restraint of a Religious, or Friar. I speak this word upon my own account with confidence, not doubting but such as know him and read this, will in regard of what he is really say that I have spoken very sparingly of him. And not to mention others, F. Morel himself before the third of October said, with laughter, that he would write to M. Hallier to thank him for having made so worthy a choice, by sending to Rome in behalf of the Faculty such an ancient Doctor and an able man as F. Mulard.   

CHAP. X.  
Visits made in the end of September and the beginning of October. A story concerning Clement VIII. Manuscripts of the Congregations de Auxiliis in the Library of the Augustine's. Of that whereof I took a Copy there. The Jesuits in vain endeavour to draw the Dominicans to their side.  
When I quitted F. Mulard on Wednesday September 27. at my coming from M. Gueffier's house, who went to wait upon the Ambassador, I returned to my lodging to fetch the Preface of the book Of victorious or Prevailing Grace (which had been sent me in sheets) and carry it presently to the Ambassador, according to what he had desired me to do, in order to give him knowledge of the state of our Contest by the perusal of that Preface when he returned from his visits, and to give him time to be in some measure informed thereof before the day of his ordinary audience which was to be on the Friday following. I found at my lodging F. Petit, who waited there for me, to tell me that F. Mulard dining the day before with M. the Abbot Testu, said there that M. Albizzi had assured him that within a little time the Censure of the five Propositions would be passed.  
I went to the Ambassador's house, and accompanied him to S. Cosme and S. Damien whether he went. He caused his Coach to turn on the side of S. John de Lateran, out of the walls of Rome; and having alighted to walk, and to speak to me in particular about our matters, he put many difficulties to me, which consisted in the Consequences ordinarily drawn from them by such as oppose them with humane wit; and he did it after a manner very pressing, and nevertheless obliging. Whereupon having given him the answers which the Fathers make thereto, I invited him to read all those arguments in the Epistle of S. Prosper to S. Augustin, and also to view the Answers which S. Augustin makes to the same in the book De Praedestinatione Sanctorum; of which I had been but a bad Echo in what I had said to him. The second part of our discourse was touching the submission which we were likely to show to the Decision which the Pope might make of these matters; and I assured him that if he made one after hearing the paties in the ordinary forms of a Lawful Examination, such as I supplicated for in the names of the Prelates whose Letters I had delivered to him, we would show an absolute submission to such a Decision; but if he made any otherwise, and without having discussed the contested matters in a due manner, we should have as much submission for it as it deserved, and yet the greatest we could. And to satsify him of the necessity and justice there was in granting that solemn Examination to the Prelates who demanded it, and in whose names I solicited for it, I related to him with how much instance The Council of Trent offered the same to Heretics. The Ambassador replied, that as for that particular, they did not yield to the Decisions of that Council. I answered that they did not; but that was it which took from them all ground of blaming it in that point; whereas if they had demanded such Examination, and it had been denied to them, they would have had very just reason to complain thereof. At length I delivered to him the Preface of the book Of Victorious Grace, and advertised him of what was contained in the fifth page thereof in favour of Jansenius, of whom they would not hear any speech at all at Rome. I told him I could have wished that that passage had been left out, because it alone was enough to incense the minds of the Romans and make the whole book suspected. But I desired the Ambassador also to take notice of the time in which the book was written, because there was then no thought of any person's coming to Rome in pursuit of such Examination; but on the contrary there was daily expectation of some precipitated Censure according to the Menaces of the Jesuits in all places; That at the present we hoped things would be done upon Cognisance of the Cause and with justice, and therefore declined speaking of Jansenius, partly to avoid clashing with the people with whom we had to do, and partly because indeed the interests of that Prelate's book had not affinity with the prosecution wherewith I was encharged; though in the sequel the same might be advantageous to it, namely if the doctrine contained therein be conformable to what shall be decided. Concerning the Jesuits, the Ambassador told me, that they prosecuted with all possible eagerness a judgement uponthe Propositions (without speaking of such examination) that he received letters every week to do such offices as lay in his power for the promoting thereof, which he did as much as he could, but without injuring any person, and with endeavours to bring both the one side and the other to peace.  
On Thursday Sept. 28. I learned two excellent stories from a learned Dominican whom I visited that morning; I shall relate but one of them, as the most appertaining to the matter whereof I am writing. He told me, that Clement VIII. was at first very ill bend against the Doctrine of Grace, by reason of many complaints made to him by the Jesuits against the Dominicans, because these Monks, said the Jesuits, ceased not to give them continual vexation, upon the account of School disputes. That at length the Pope, importuned by their continual solicitations, and fearing the arising of greater divisions, one day as he was in this impatience and apprehension, he sent to the General of the Dominicans, who was gone out of the City upon a Visit, to return to Rome without delay; That the said General being returned, and appearing at his Holinesses feet, who had him in great esteem in regard of his great capacity and exemplary life, the Pope said to him; Come, good Father, you must give me satisfaction in one thing, you must employ all your authority in it, and if it suffice not, I will join all mine. You see how the Coat of Jesus Christ is rend, England, Germany, so many Hugonots in France, so many divisions and schisms on all sides. Is it so, that what is left in the Church cannot live in peace? Take some order speedily and absolutely, and see that the Religious of your Orders do not molest the Jesuits: Extinguish these Scholastic Quarrels, for fear lest they prove one day the cause of greater mischief. The General was astonished at this discourse, but he answered to it with as much vigour as respect, saying, H. Father, if your Holiness hath had hitherto any confidence in me, you are not mistaken, and I would sooner lose my life, then tell your Holiness a thing that were not true. But I assure you with as great protestation as I am able that it is not an interest of the School that is in question. 'Tis the Cause of Faith that is concerned. If the opinion which the Jesuits introduce into the Church be suffered in it, 'tis a depriving God of his Crown; 'tis no longer he that gives us Paradise; he is no longer master of his benefits and his graces; etc. This discourse, and the rest which the General added to it, so affected Clement VIII. that he was desirous to hear the General another time, to learn more particularities about this matter than he could tell him at this audience; and from that time forward Clement VIII. was earnest to see this General many times in a week, and received from him little Memoires, which served him to inform himself therein. At length, when this General had given Clement VIII. the first tinctures of this matter; the Pope liked well a request which he made to his Holiness, namely, that he might present to him some other Divines of his own Order, with whom he might confer as agreeably and as profitably as with him, and that himself in the mean time might better discharge the numerous affairs attending his Generalship.  
I shall not fear to tell who was the Dominican from whom I learned these particularities, adding here, that a few days before he told me this, Pope Innocent X. who sits at this day upon the throne of S. Peter, sending for him about a certain affair, and acquainting him with some of his regrets, said to him, That if it were well known what the Papacy is, there would not be so much seeking for it as there is; That he had so many encumbrances to satisfy all the world, so many things to set right with Crowns, etc. That he was now threescore and eighteen years old; That he was not master of one hours' time in the day, to take a little rest; and many other such things. And also speaking to him of M. Hersent's Sermon, he told him, that indeed there was nothing atall in it that deserved any Censure. This Dominican was the same, upon whose relation and approbation the Master of the Sacred Palace gave the Imprimatur to that Sermon; in one word, it was F. du Four.  
On Sunday morning Octob. 1. I visited a Religious Minime, whom upon occasion I acquainted with our readiness to yield submission to the Decision which should be pass d upon these matters, as I had done to the Ambassador. To which the Father Minime, named F. du Plantet, having told me that the Pope needed not for the making of such Decision to stand upon all these formalities which I demanded: I prayed him to tell me the reasons that might hinder the Pope from erecting such a Congregation and legal Examen, because I saw a thousand why he should do it, and none why he should not. He told me three very pitiful ones. The first was, That to hear parties, would very much protract matters in length. The second, that it might exasperate both things and persons. And the third, that the subtlety of such as should argue against the truth, might be so great as to dazzle the minds of the Judges, and circumvent them.  
In the afternoon I visited the Ambassador, and went abroad with him to take the air. After several discourses, and amongst the rest, about what I learned concerning Clement VIII. which I have newly related, he told me that he had conferred with the Pope about our affair, and that to all that he said to him, the Pope answered, That there were Bulls enough already; (he was in the right) That he (the Ambassador) replied, that indeed there were already very many; but every one drew them to his own side; that one was desired from him plain, express, decisive, that might clear the contests, and bring the Divines and all the Faithful to peace. (The Ambassador was in the right too.)  
On Wednesday Octob. 4. afternoon I went to deliver Card. Spada a Letter from M. d'Angers. He read it through by himself; and all the answer that he made to it then, was to tell me, that he was full of esteem for M. d' Angers, and should always make great account of his Letters. After which I told Cardinal Spada that F. Mulard styled himself Deputy from the Faculty; that I knew M. Hallier the Syndic of it had encharged him with some Letters, but could not make him such; and that if the Faculty were advertised of it, they would not be well pleased, nor suffer this enterprise of M. Hallier's; That I was informed that the Nuntio had sent to M. Albizzi some new Piece printed against the Five Propositions, which was pretended to be a Censure made by the Faculty; but I assured his Eminence, the Faculty never made any; That I knew many impostures and falsities were set on foot by clandestine suggestion; but no notice was given to me thereof; and that this was not the way to be satisfied therein and to know the truth; That if they were unwilling to do it, I did not desire to have the persons declared to me that sowed those falsities & calumnies; for fear of engaging such persons too far, but that at least the particulars whereof we are accused and blamed, might be told us, because perhaps we might bring such evidence as would evince our innocence, and justify the Candour of our sentiments, and of our sincere respect and affection for the things and the persons to whom endeavours were used to render us suspected. And for that I considered him as one of the most knowing and prudent of the Cardinals, I beseeched him for this favour, hoping that in the mean time that what I said to him would cause him to suspend his belief, and that of others also, as to any thing that might be secretly and craftily suggested to our disparagement. The Cardinal let me speak all that I would upon this matter, and when I had done, he arose up, telling me He would remember what I had said to him.  
Monsignor Sacrista about this time brought me to the knowledge of a Father who was keeper of the Library belonging to the Augustine's; and recommended me very much to him, to the end that if in their Library (which is public for all that will, to repair to in the forenoon, and make use of what books they needed) there were any book or manuscript that I needed for assisting me in the cause I was to manage, which he saw wholly in behalf of S. Augustin's doctrine and authority; he would do me the favour to accommodate me with it. The said Father promised me very willingly, and that I might more conveniently see all that he had to show me, he desired me to take the afternoons to come in, because then there would be no person there but ourselves. Accordingly I went thither on Tuesday Octob. 10. He showed me some manuscripts remaining in that Library, of the Congregations which were held under Clement VIII. and Paul V For Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Colonel who was one of the two Secretaries of those Congregations, and of the Order of Augustine's, had privately kept them till his death, after which they were taken into this Library and placed amongst the rest; That afternoon I copied out one myself, which at first view I conceived worthy of that labour, because I saw at the foot of each page, the subscriptions of the Divines of whom those Congregations consisted. In every of those Pages was seen the resolutions of those Divines against the errors of Molina, and that resolution was subscribed with the original signatures of those Divines who set thereto their Ita sentio, and subscribed it with their own names. They were but nine at first, and towards the end but eight; and their names were; 

Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Archiepiscopus Fr. Jo. de Rada Episcopus Pactensis. [he subscribed always thus, beginning with Archiepisc. Fr. which is very unusual]  
Fr. Julius Sanctueius Episcopus S. Agathae Gothorum.  
Laelius Laudus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Fr. Hieronymus Pallantus Episcopus Bizontinus.  
D. Anastasius a Brixia Abbas Farfensis, [who as it appears by the twelfe of these subscriptions was also one of the secretaries.]  
Fr. Joannes de Plumbino Ordinis Eremitarum S. Augustini Procurator Generalis.  
Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Colonel Secretarius [so he always subscribes himself.]  
Fr. Jacobus le Bossa Religiosus S, Benedict in Francia, & Doctor in Facultate Theologiae Parisiensi    
The title of this last calls to my mind, that there was also a Doctor of the Faculty named M. de Creit, who was of those Congregations, as I have seen in some other Manuscripts and Memoires of that time; but what ever cause, sickness or other, hindered him from being of the number of those that subscribed the Resolutions of this Manuscript, I found them subscribed only by those whose names I have mentioned. A present Copy of the said Manuscript shall be annexed to the end of this Journal, that the learned may see what it was, and I doubt not but it is still. I shall only say here before hand, that the Effectualness of Grace by itself, and its necessity to all the good motions of Christian piety, its dominions and infallible power over the Will of man, which nevertheless consists with the perfect liberty thereof; The gratuitous Election and Predestination wh●ch God maketh of men to eternal salvation depending on his pure liberality and mercy, and not on the praevision of their merits, and the good use which they will make of his Grace; The certainty of the eternal Prescience which he hath of all those which shall be saved in all times, founded solely upon that Election, and upon the Power and Virtue of his Grace, and the effectual motion which he giveth it to subdue and subject to itself the most rebellious Wills of those on whom he pleaseth to bestow that Grace, (which is all that we pretend and have ever pretended to defend against the Authors of the Five Propositions, who never invented them but as an Artifice to ruin and stifle those holy Truths) are very fully and evidently established in that Manuscript against the errors of Molina.  
I received that day too a Compliment from the Abbot of St. Peter in vinculis, who a little time after was made Archbishop of Manfredonio in the kingdom of Naples; he signified to me, that having understood that I had been several times at his house to see him, he desired me to send him word when he might come & visit me. I prayed him without Ceremony not to take the pains to come to see me, but to do me the favour to expect me on Thursday following▪ which was he 12th. of October. Accordingly I went to see him, and laid open my whole business to him, which he took very well, and seemed a man of capacity and study, and full of zeal for St. Augustin, and perfectly impartial.  
The same day a friend came to me, and brought me the Book entitled Jansenius de Ecclesia, etc. pessimè meritus, of which I made mention above. M. Guiffier had given it to this friend of mine, not knowing what to do with it, and told him F. Mulard presented the same to him, which shows, that that Cordelier had a good number of them to distribute, since he gave them to persons that had no need, and could make no use of them. The day preceding I received another visit from a Dominican, who told me, that being two or three days before with Cardinal Lugo, the Cardinal said thus to him, It is necessary that we unite together against the Jansenists, at least in the things in which they thwart both you and us equally, as in Sufficient Grace: whereto this Dominican answered (as another did sometimes to F. Annat, who blushed to have made so frivolous a Motion to a very intelligent Divine) that there was much difference between the sufficient Grace held by the Jesuits, and that which is held by the Dominicans. That the pretended Jansenists did not oppose any but that of the Jesuits, the good or bad use whereof depended absolutely on ; but the same Jansenists were agreed with the Dominicans, as to the main, namely, the Effectualness of Grace, and its necessity to all good actions.  
On the 13th. I found F. Malgaires at the Ambassadors house; he asked me whether I could lend him for two or three hours the Book of S. Fulgentius, which was newly published by a Jesuit of Dyon. I told the Father that instead of two hours, I would lend it him for three days. I asked him what news of F. Hilarion, and what he said to our affairs. He told me, that F. Hilarion would not further open his sentiments in reference to the Propositions that he had given you sealed up to the Pope two years ago next November, and that he would speak no more thereof; which I mention not in this place, but as a new testimony in confirmation of what I said before of the manner how they were proposed to the Pope, and how the Divines consulted upon them, delivered their judgements; viz. at the same time that the false Censure of the Faculty was carried to Rome, and the first Precedent made a Truce between us and our Adversaries at their instigation, for so much time as was requisite to let that false Censure have its full effect.  
Tursday October 17. I had a second audience of the Pope, in which I presented to him a Letter which the Bishop of Grass now of Vince had written to him. But before I relate the particularities of that audience, I think it not impertinent to insert here some Letters which I received from Paris, and which show with what intentions my LL. the Bishops who interposed in this affair, and we conjontly with them, acted therein.   

CHAP. XI.  
Letters from Paris confirming the Resolution of the Bishops to do nothing but in a regular Congregation, where Divines might argue on both sides.  
I Received many at this time, but all breathed the same spirit with these subjoined, which I have selected not by way of preference before the rest, but for that they have more connexion and correspondence to the matter which the Series of my Journal puts into my hands.  
The first of those Letters is dated 14. July 1651. and contains these words: Sir, I send you by this Post the Letters which my LL. the Archbishop of Tholouze and the Bishop of Grass have written to the Pope. You may please to present the same to his Holiness, and use all imaginable endeavours with him to procure the effect with them; and particularly in the point which ooncerns a Congregation like that which was erected in the time of Clement VIII. and Paul V I am charged to tell you that you must represent to his Holiness, that those Propositions have been framed by the Adversaries of St. Augustine 's disciples, on purpose to confound them, and blemish the honour of that great Doctor of the Church: or if you cannot have audience of his Holiness, they entreat you at least to acquaint the Examinators that the Propositions are not in any Author; that they were never advanced by the Disciples of St. Augustin; that to this present the Disciples of Molina have not been able to verify it, nor ever will, since in all their Writings which they have published to render the Propositions (invented by themselves) cdious, they have said nothing that verifies it. That the Pope ought not to deny the Disciples of St. Augustin the conference which they demanded in the Assembly of December 1. 1649. since the same is according to the Rules of the Church, and to what hath been formerly done in presence of Popes, and authorised by them. That they are ready to depute for that conference as many Deputies as his Holiness shall please; and that the said Deputy shall set forth by order of my LL. the Prelates, who writ the Letters which you presented to the H. Father. They are all prepared for the journey. My Lords have also commanded me to desire you to represent in their names to our H. Father, or to the Commissioners who examine, that the judgement which they render upon the Propositions before the Parties be heard, will serve only to augment the Disputes; since the Propositions being capable of very different senses, whereof one is Catholic, and the other is not, some will say, that they are condemned only in the Heretical sense; others will contest, that they are condemned absolutely, and so people will not know what to make of them; which will cause great trouble to the Church, and undoubtedly much diminish the respect which ought to be had for the authority of the H. See, etc.  
The second is of the same date, written by one of the Deputies designed to be joined with me, who speaks in the end of his Letter in these words; In the mean time while you expect us, use all possible endeavours that nothing be pronounced upon the Propositions. But you see they will do it, and there is no way to help it; than you must endeavour to get three things done; viz. that it be declared expressly, 1. That they mean not to lay any blemish upon the Doctrine or Authority of St. Augustine, which the H. Father requires to be reverenced by all the Faithful. 2. That there is no purpose at all to impeach Effectual Grace by itself necessary to all good actions, and to all the good motions of the Will which regard Salvation. 3. That there is also no design to damn the Propositions according to the connexion which they have with the same Doctrine of Effectual Grace by itself necessary to all the good motions of the Will, etc.  
The third of those Letters is from the same person who writ the first to me as from the Bishops, and in this which was written on the 25. of August, he spoke in these terms: I received your Letter of the 31. of July on Sunday last. I showed it to my Lords: They gave mecharge to tell you, that they are very glad to know what Cardinals they are to whom the Pope hath given Commission to view and examine the Five Propositions; and they hope that as they are very just persons, they will contribute all their Power, that his Holiness may grant to the persons whom they shall send a Conference or Congregation de Auxiliis to defend the Catholic sense of the said Propositions against all those that mantain they are Heretical and worthy of the greatest Anathemaes. My Lords, expect that the proceeding will not be so quick in this affair, which is the foundation of one of the greatest Contests that ever was in the Church, etc.  
The Deputies will set forth the next day after the Nativity of our Lady. Their Commission imports, That they confer not in secret about the Propositions, but demand a public Conference. The Latin Writing which I send you, hath been drawn according to the order which you gave me. My Lords are porswaded, that nothing can be more plain, concise and nervous then that little Tract; They are confident the Jesuits will never be able to say any thing against it, at least openly, either in a public regular conference, or by Writing: Indeed in secret, it is certain they may speak all that they please; but it cannot be legal or valid in the Judgement of any Court whatsoever.  
My Lords have given me charge to tell you, that they have no other design in their Letters, and the Commission which they have given you, but to preserve in the Church the Authority of the great St. Augustin, and the Veneration that is due to his Doctrine, which the Church hath made her own. They do not consider this Doctrine, because it hath been recited by the Bishop of Ipre; they say it is considerable only upon the account of its being St. Augustine's, and that M. d' Ipre cannot pass for the Author of any opinion, because he hath advanced nothing of himself; but all that he hath said, he drew out of that great source of light. So that in this affair, they have no regard at all to Jansenius, but solely to St. Augustin. The Bishops of Flanders may, if they think fit, send their Deputies to beseech the Pope to cause Jansenius to be examined, thereby to take from his Adversaries the pretexts which they daily make use of to calumniate him by calumniating the Doctrine of his Book.  
My Lords will never consider the Bull against Jansenius but as provisional, and made only for a Political purpose. For whatever the Jesuits say, they will never make it believed that the said Bull importeth any thing else but a Prohibition, and not a condemnation. Those Fathers do all they can to make good what they say by the word damnat, which is used in reference to the Doctrine of Bavis, which the Pope is there made to say, that he reneweth in his Book entitled Augustinus. But there is no strength in this inference, because if the Examiner's of Jansenius 's Book had found manifestly that he renewed the Doctrine of Bavis, undoubtedly they would not have suffered only the word Prohibit to be put in the same place where it is, and not rather have put in that of damnat. They would not have pronounced against it after the same manner as against the Thesis of the Jesuits. There is no rational man but yields to all this, and is of the same sentiment that I send you touching this Article.  
My Lords much wonder that there are found persons whom God seemeth to have placed in his Church for the deciding of matters of Faith, and regulating the manners of the Faithful, who yet think 'tis a persecution raised against the Jesuits, to oppose them touching Sufficient Grace. They say that such Grace is directly opposite to the faith of the Church, that it wholly destroys the belief of Original Sin, and evacuateth the adorable value, and victorious power of the death and cross of Jesus Christ; that it the foundation of Libertinism and Impiety; that it destroys Prayer and Christian Humility, and that it puts our Salvation in our own power, etc. How is it possible that Catholics can find what to blame in so lawful an opposition, the want of which hath, through a just judgement of God, for reasons which we know not, brought the doctrine of the Church at present into a lamentable condition, and reduced the undaunted defenders of this faith to be worse treated than Heretics? It is very necessary that you press this point home. All this hath no reference at all to Jansenius.  
All my Lords which are here, cannot brook the ill treatment used to the Hours; since it apparently disparageth the Authority of the H. See, and exposeth the same to the laughter of Heretics. But that which surpriseth them more, is, that the Jesuits whom they know very well to be the Authors of that blow given the Church, instead of hiding their malice and temerity, and hindering all speech of that affair, do all they can to move the Archbishop of Paris to blast those Hours publicly. To which purpose they employed the Nuntio too, who solicited the said Lord for the reception of that Decree, aend hath given him an extract of a Letter sent to himself from Rome, containing the reasons for which the Hours were put in Indice Expurgatorio. I send you the Copy of that Extract, etc.  
He writ so, but the Extract was left behind upon his Table, and he sent me word that all the prosecutions of the Jesuits and the Nuntio against the Hours could prevail nothing at all upon the Archbishop, so that they were sold and esteemed no less after that Decree of Rome, then before.  
The fourth of these Letters, which I mention here to represent more punctually the sentiments which people had at Paris▪ touching the transactions at Rome in this matter, was dated Septem. 29. In which after earnest injunction by order of my said Lords, to omit nothing in my power for the obtaining of the Congregation which they esteemed so necessary for the fitting discussion of the matter of the five Propositions, it was prescribed me from them; That in case the said Congregation were denied, and after long patience and continual solicitations sufficiently testifying the ardour of my zeal, nothing were granted but a slight audience, in which the points in Dispute could not be throughly examined, I should no longer deliberate, but declare that my Commission required that the parties might be heard in the manner that Clement VIII. and Paul V heretofore heard the Dominicans and the Jesuits in the solemn Congregation de Auxiliis, which not being granted, I had order to take leave and retire.   

CHAP. XII.  
An Audience of the Pope, Octob. 17. A Letter of M. the Bishop of Grass delivered to the Pope at that Audience.  
I Told the Pope in the first place that I had sigfyed to my Lords the Bishops whose Letters I had presented to him, with how great gentleness towards me and esteem for them he had received the same, and what assurance he had given me at that time that no decision should be made upon the Five Propositions, before such things as they intended to represent by persons sent hither for that purpose, had been well considered. That the same Bishops were joyful to understand the order that he had given to some of the Cardinals to apply themselves particularly to the study of those matters, to the end they might be of the Congregation which would be established to discuss them; and that there were three Doctors upon the way coming to join with me, to inform his Holiness more largely than I could do alone, of the importance of this Affair.  
But I had scarce ended this speech when the Pope began to speak, and told me, that I ought to remember that he intimated two things to me, which were not to be thought of; one was, the resuming of the Bull of Vrban VIII. and the other, entering into an examination of the matter de auxiliis. That as for any thing else, he had told me nothing should be done without thorough consideration. But as for the Cardinals that I spoke of, he professed to me, that either he gave no such order, or did not remember it; At least, he would not own to me that he had given any such.  
I replied, that I had formerly declared to him that we had no design to do any prejudice, neither to the Bull of Vrban VIII. nor those of Pius V and Gregory XIII. As for the matter de auxiliis, the Pope had spoken thereof to me with such aversion, and I knew otherwise that hewas so loath to apply himself thereunto, that I durst not tell him, that Then he must not enter into the examination of the Propositions which had been presented to him, because each of them was a necessary dependence thereon, and inseparable from it in the sense wherein we affirmed them to be Catholic; for fear, lest speaking to the Pope in that manner, I might put an invincible obstacle to all the solicitations which I was to make for obtaining the erection of the solemn Congregation, which seemed so necessary to the full discussion and decision of the Controversies which were in the Church between Divines about these matters. Wherefore without using the term de Auxiliis, I told the Pope, that since we had been accused to his Holiness of maintaining the five Propositions, presented to him under equivocal terms, which afforded different senses, whereof onewas Catholic and the other Heretical, it was agreeable to justice, and tended to the satisfaction of his Holiness, to know, that we abhorred the Heretical, and maintained the Catholic; and that those senses being distinguished, the condemnation which followed would be clear and distinct, and could not be attributed to the sense which we maintained to be the doctrine and faith of the Church, as it was the design of the Authors of those Propositions to do, if they obtained a Censure befoe the said senfes were cleared▪ and distinguished: Which since it could not be done but in a Congregation established for the purpose, this induced the Bishops for whom I appeared, to desire the same of his Holiness by their Letters, and to encharge me with solicitations to procure the effect thereof.  
The Pope scarce allowed me time to end this discourse, but he told me, that after Clement VIII. had caused this matter to be debated in his presence for a long time by the most excellent men, whom he summoned from several places, after he had studied them himself with very great care, (so that as he remembered, some took occasion thereby to say, that Clement VIII. began very old to study Divinity,) yet he could not at last decide any thing therein, but was fain to impose a perpetual silence both to the one side and the other, Imposuit omnibus perpetuum silentium: wherefore it behoved to acquiesce in that order and live in peace, and that every one in the mean time pray to God for grace to serve him well.  
I answered the Pope, that Clement VIII. notwithstanding all the care he took to examine that matter, could not indeed decide it; but he had the design to do it, and it was only death, wherewith God suffered him to be overtaken, that hindered him from deciding it in favour of our side; and that the said decision not having been then published, our adversaries take so great advantage thereof at this day, that they do not dissemble that they attempt to overthrow the doctrine of S. Augustin, which is also that of the Church.  
The Pope assented to this truth, that the Doctrine of S. Augustin was that of the Church, but he said, We understood S. Augustin one way, and our adversaries another.  
I answered, that greater wrong could not be done to S. Augustin, and all the holy Popes who proposed his doctrine to the Faithful as their own, then to pretend as our adversaries do, that it cannot be known to which doctrine, theirs, or ours, that of S. Augustin is conformable.  
The Pope replied that they drew him to their side, and we maintained him on ours. That this was it that was to be judged, but the discussion of it was a matter of much pains, it requiring much labour and time; that it was therefore requisite to hold to what Clement VIII. had ordained therein, namely to remain in silence.  
I answered that our Adversaries did not keep it, and ceased not every day to undermine the faith of the Church insensibly; which if they were suffered still to do, they would utterly ruin it at length. That truly it was difficult for me to take the boldness to speak thereof with so great instance to his Holiness, but his setvice and that of truth obliged me thereunto. And if his Holiness pleased but to peruse a little Italian Writing of about two Pages or more, which I had made purposely to show him in particular, and almost at one view, the evident coherence which those five Propositions taken in the sense which we maintained, had with Grace Effectual by itself, he would clearly discern the ambushes laid for him in presenting those Propositions to him, and would remain convinced of the importance of this Affair.  
The Pope replied, that he would not look upon that writing how short soever it were; because after having seen that, he must see another, and then another, and so he should by degrees become engaged in the matter unawares.  
I told him that I had not prepared that Writing to discuss the matter, but only to let him know in what manner our Adversaries had acted towards his Holiness in this affair; but the Pope would by no means hearken to what I propounded to him, because he still professed that he feared it would engage him further, and oblige him to too great toils, as he knew the discussion of this matter required even of such as had applied themselves to that study all their time; but much more pains must it cost him than others; poi (said he to me, they are his own words) non è la mia Professione; oltra che son vecchio, non ho mai studiato in Theologia. Because, (said he) it is not my Profession; besides that I am old, I have never studied Divinity. Which I beseech those that shall read, to take in the same sense that his Holiness spoke it, and wherein I writ it; that is, That he had not studied Divinity comparatively to the study of the Canon Law, upon which he had bestowed all his time, laying Divinity apart, as many do at Rome, where it seems the several employments which are followed, and by which advancement is attained, require rather a Canonist then a Divine.  
I replied then to the Pope, that I should be very loath to cause any inquietude to him, or engage him to any pains that were not agreeable to his Holiness; but I was obliged to make him the instances which I now did, because Monsignor Albizzi had told certain persons from whom I understood it, that his Holiness would within a little time pass a Decree upon those Propositions; and that it was of absolute and very important necessity that his Holiness were informed of the nature of those Propositions, before he made such Decree, and that there was no shorter way to give him a true Portrait thereof, than what I offered him in my Paper.  
The Pope answered me; Does he (or you) think that a Decree can be made so quickly, and that there is no more deliberation used thereunto?  
I replied, that before making, or so much as deliberating thereof, it was always necessary to be informed of the matter that is in question. And for that I perceived the Pope continued to show a great repugnance and aversion to that, I told him I was very sorry that I could no better represent to him then I did the extreme necessity there was of our being heard upon the subject of the Propositions, as well to let him know the sincerity and verity of our sentiments, as to establish a firm peace in the Church of France; but the Doctors who were upon the way, coming—  
The Pope interrupted me, to tell me that there were Ordinances which enjoined Silence in this matter; That if there were persons that would be disobedient, he could not keep or restrain them by force in their duty.  
I proceeded to tell him, that those Doctors which I was mentioning, could represent to him better than I how far that Silence might extend, andall the other things which I had intimated to him; but in the mean time I had further a Letter to deliver to him (it was that of my L. the Bishop of Grass, now of Vence)▪ which I drew out of my pocket, and presented to his Holiness.  
The Pope received it very coldly, testifying to me his reluctancy thereunto; and as he received it, he asked me what it contained?  
I answered him, that it was upon the same subject and for the same end with those that I had formerly delivered to him.  
The Pope hereupon reiterated to me the imposition of Silence ordained by Clement VIII.  
I answered again, that I beseeched him to excuse me if I presumed to tell him, that Clemen VIII. might have enjoined some temporary Silence as to these matters, possibly for so long time as the examination lasted, with which he was in hand, and till they were decided, but not for ever; since they were not of such a nature as to be buried in obscurity and oblivion, any more than the other points of the Christian Faith, which God appointed his Apostles to go and preach through the whole world.  
Forasmuch as I knew by all that I had learned of the Pope's disposition since my being at Rome, that he was much possessed with the thought of that Silence imposed by Clement VIII. and a purpose to make a new Decree to that end, it seemed to me so unworthy the Majesty and honour of the H. See to extinguish the Lamp to the Faithful in stead of lighting it, that I was prepared to encounter that thought in the Pope's mind; and I had made choice of two proper and decisive passages upon that subject, wherein one was taken out of S. Augustin, and the other out of S. Fulgentius, and both in reference to what S. Paul writeth to the Romans, to whom having explicated the Mystery of Predestination and Grace, he gives this reason of so doing; Nolo autem vos, fratres, ignorare mysterium hoc, ut non sitis. vobis ipsis sapientes. That of S. Augustin is in his 105th Epistle, where speaking of the same Grace which S. Paul preached to the Romans, and concerning which only the question is at this day between the Jesuits and us, he saith these words, De cujus commendatione maximè ad Romanos Apostolica Epistola loquitur, ut inde se praedicatio ejus velus à capite orbis toto orbe diffunderet. And that of S. Fulgentius is in the 8 ch. of the 3d. book, in these works, Beatus Apos●…s noluit taceri quod voluit scribi. And lower, Praedestinationem namque sicut tam fidenter quàm veraciter praedicavit, ita nobis praedicandam fidenter veraciterque mandavit.  
I had made choice of these two passages to tell them to the Pope, and to let him see thereby how distant the thought of Silence was from that of those H. Fathers; but he scarce gave me time to finish what I spoke above; but he replied that he very well knew what Clement VIII. ordained in reference to such Silence; he (Innocent X.) being at Rome at that time in the vigour of his youth; and that he remembered very well that the disputes raised under the Papacy of Clement VIII. were extinguished by that Silence. Wherefore fearing to cross the Pope too directly, by arguing further against what he said thereof, I was contented to keep my two passages for another more fit time, when the Pope might be better disposed to receive them: and conceiving that it was time for me to end this audience by holding my peace and withdrawing, I did so after I had received the Pope's benediction.  
Besides the Letter of my L. of Vence, which I delivered to the Pope at this audience, I had another from the late Archbishop of Tholouse; but having received news of his decease before that audience, I did not think fit to deliver it to the Pope, considering that if I afterwards should conceive fitting so to do, it might afford me occasion for a new Audience, wherein I might further speak to the Pope what was most urgent in behalf of the affair which I had in charge to solicit with him.  
Nevertheless I did not deliver it afterwards; and it served me only for a new proof that M. Hallier was in so perfect intelligence with M. Albizzi, that there was nothing but this Assessor communicated to him. For after our return into France, falling into familiar discourse with him touching the number of Bishops that writ to the Pope about the Enterprise of the Propositions, and I reckoning the Archbishop of Tholouse amongst them, M. Hallier imagining that I mentioned him only because he was dead, strongly denied that he was one of them, and told me he knew who writ to the Pope as well as I, because M. Albizzi had showed him the Letters, and there was none from the Archbishop of Tholouse. I acknowledged that M. Hallier had reason to speak as he did, seeing the Letter of that Prelate was not delivered to the Pope, nor found among those that M. Albizzi showed him; but I maintained too that I had said nothing but truth when I named him for one of those that writ to the Pope about this business, because indeed he had done so, as I could prove by the very Original of his Letter which remained then and is still in my hands. But I shall here set down the translation of that of M. de Vence, which I delivered to the Pope at the abovementioned audience. The Superscription was, To the most holy Father Pope Innocent X. at Rome. The Contents follow.  
Most Holy Father;  
I Can not understand but with very much grief, that some persons have lately written to your Holiness t uching certain Propositions, and desired your Judgement upon the contests arisen about that matter. Not that I am troubled to see that they have recourse to the S preme Tribunal, but because it hath been done by one alone amongst all the Bishops our most dear brethren who incited the rest to subscribe that Letter without having conferred together, without having gathered voices, without having convoked any Synod, and without having so much as propounded the business in the General Assembly of the Clergy of France, which by a happy chance was held at that time. I wish, most H. Father, from the bottom of my heart to see the fire extinguished which this Dispute hath kindled; but I cannot dissemble to your Holiness, that I much fear lest some will rather cast oil upon it then water, and under pretext of seeking peace, excite a new war more violent than the former. For to what else tendeth this Project? The very same Five Propositions are presented to your Holiness, which were tendered two years ago to the Faculty of Divinity at Paris, which for the sake of peace declined to Judge thereof; because it found that not being taken out of any Author, they are all composed of doubtful senses, and contrived purposely at pleasure by the Partisans of the contrary opinion, so as that they may easily explicate them in a bad sense. It was for this reason, most H. Father, that the Faculty with very great prudence judged that nothing could be decided touching such Propositions without very evident danger, for fear of impeaching by a Censure, not the doctrine of Cornelius Jansenius (whose name it observed was spared, upon other accounts) but, which is more deplorable, the doctrine of S. Augustin, and also that of the whole Church, which hath constantly embraced the sentiments of that Saint in the matter of Grace. Which, how great a mischief it would be, and how great a failure in respect towards your Holiness, who have so high esteem of that glorious Saint, cannot but be seen by such as are not ignorant, that it was under the conduct of that incomparable Chief that the enemies of the Church and of the Grace of Jesus Christ have been vanquished. Wherefore most Holy Father, that under pretext of the ambiguity which is found in the equivocal words of those Propositions, wrong be not done to that H. Doctor, we most humbly beseech you Holiness to permit those of the one part and the other to explain their sentiments, as Clement VIII. and Paul V of most happy memory did in a like case, to the end that in this affair, so important as none can be more, no person may complain of having been condemned without being heard, and consequently every one may without scruple submit to the Judgement which your Holiness shall pronounce. This is the request, most H. Father, which we make with profound respect to your Holiness, and beseech you to grant to us out of that charity which renders you a Father, that Equity which renders you a Judge, that Learning which renders you a Doctor, and lastly, out of the consideration that nothing can prejudice S. Augustin but it must fall upon the Church, such affinity is there between their interests, especially in this sort of questions, wherein all the Learned agree that they are absolutely inseparable. In the mean time, I pray God, most H. Father, by his Grace to continue your Holiness in your good purposes, and to grant that you may incessantly watch many years for the good of the Church, and all the Faithful in that height of Grandeur, whereunto I rejoice with all good men to see your Holiness advanced. I am,  
Most Holy Father, Your Holinesses most humble and most obedient Son and Servant, ANTHONY Bishop of Grass and Vence.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Visits made in the end of October and the whole month of November. A Manuscript of the Bull of Paul V against Molina in the Library of the Augustine's. Of the Secrecy used in the transacting the affair of the Propositions. An Untruth of M. Hallier and F. Mulard. Asperities of M. Albizzi.  
I Had received from France a Copy of a Bull which Paul V caused to be prepared for the condemnation of the sentiments of Molina, and confirmation of those concerning Grace Effectual by itself, and gratuitous Predestination, which we defended: the same had been drawn up in consequence of the Conferences which continued under his Papacy about this matter, after the death of Clement VIII. The same day of my audience, after noon, I went to seek in the Library of the Augustine's, whether there were  draught of it among the Manuscripts left there after the said Congregations, that so I might compare the Copy sent me from France with that which I should find there, according as I was enjoined. And indeed I happened to find one; but when I went to compare them, by reading but the first Paragraph I found them so different both in many words and in the citations, that I thought better to write out the Copy I found in this Library, then to make mine conformable to it by so numerous corrections. Wherefore I spent this afternoon in transcribing it, F. Mariana dictating to me.  
Thursday, Oct. 19 after noon I went to wait upon Cardinal Roma: He was coming out of his chamber to reconduct a person that had visited him, and at the same time M. Albizzi entered in, with a bag in which there seemed to be papers. The Cardinal came to me to speak to me, but I told him I would wait upon his Eminence another time when he was less employed; to which he agreed. The Master of his Chamber coming to me where the Cardinal left me, told me as he accompanied me upon the stairs, that this affair (meaning that which was treated of there every Thursday, and esteeming it the same with that for which I was at Rome) must needs be of great consequence; That he had never heard of any that had been more debated, and lasted longer than this; That every Thursday after the Cardinals had been with the Pope, they came thither in the afternoon. But I desiring to learn something further of him, and ask him, whether it were about the same with that for which I was at Rome, he seemed as if he repent that he had told me so much; for he answered me smiling, that he knew no more of it then myself. I shall mention here by anticipation, that I learned on Wednesday following (which was the 25th of the same month) that a Cardinal, very intelligent in these matters, and who admirably penetrated into all the contrivances and consequences of either side, had made some visits and very dextrous inquiries to find how things stood (for people were shy of him) but all that he could discover was that while either Party pressed to be heard, it was under debate whether it were fit to engage in the matter or no, and which way to go about it, a & Quomodo; that Opinions were very different herein, that the Pope would have no meddling with it at all; but Cardinal Roma was very earnest for it, and judged it absolutely necessary for a thousand reasons, as well as to supply the Bishoprics of Portugal, etc.  
On Wednesday October 20. I went to give Cardinal Pamphilio an account of the audience which I had had of his Holiness the Friday preceding; but I found Card. Trivultio coming forth with him, and there was such a multitude about the entrance that I could not come near the Master of his chamber to tell him that I desired to speak with his Eminence. So I quitted this Post, and went to entertain Monsignor Sacrista with the relation, and I prayed him, in case he found opportunity to speak to the Pope about our affair, to tell him plainly that our desires were that he would decide it, if his Holiness, could apply himself to examine it before hand with the care and study it deserved; but if he would not make such Examination with all due solemnities, than we desired him not to let any new determination be made about it, as he had formerly given me hope; one or the other; rather the former than the latter; but the latter, if we cannot obtain the former. He promised me he would do it, if he found opportunity; and counselled me in the maean time, not to address to the Pope again till the Deputies whom I expected were arrived.  
In the afternoon of the same day I went to see F. Vbaldino, who showed himself very quick and vigorous for a man of his age in a good long discourse which we had about this matter. As for the point of the Congregation which I solicited, he told me that assuredly I must not expect to have any determination during this Papacy, though such a Congregation were granted us. That were it granted, it would be only for form, and outward seemliness; but really to weary us, and constrain us by the length into which we should see all things drawn, to return without any thing done. And the reasons upon which he grounded this opinion, were, that the Pope was already very ancient, and would not be able to undergo the pains that that Discussion required of him. That he was naturally very slow in all things. That he was very prudent in affairs, and that he would not care to engage in one wherein he knew himself not very well skilled. The Father used the same words as the Pope did at my audience; viz. Il Papa non è Theologo, non è la sua professione; è Legista. The Pope is not a Divine, Divinity is not his Profession, but Canon Law.  
On Tuesday October 24. I met with M. Fernier, with whom I went to give a visit to F. le Maire the Jesuit. In our Discourse this Father maintained That the good natural qualities wherewith a man is borne, may be a motive to God to give him his grace for salvation, which he would not give to another that hath vicious ones. He maintained likewise that of three or four Jews alike disposed in themselves, whom I should exhort to embraice the faith, and whose conversion God equally willed, and for the effecting thereof gave them the like graces, one might actually become a Christian, and the other actually reject the graces given them by God for the same intent. He offered to prove this out of S. Augustin, and carried us into their Library to show us some passages in him; but all those which he showed us spoke nothing less than what he pretended. When I had made to those passages such answers as I conceived suitable, he replied, speaking of S. Augustin, Est meus & tuus; sed neque tuus neque meus. M. Fernier plainly reproved that speech as inconsistent with the esteem which ought to be had of that great Saint, whose sentiments are too clear and well explicated to deserve such a censure; and F. le Maire seemed willing to put it off, as grounding it upon all the world's pretending him to be on their side, and yet believing that indeed he was neither for one nor other. He added also that his case was the same as 'tis with the H. Scripture, which Heretics pretend is one their side as well as the Catholics, and which needs to be explained, that it may be known how it is to be understood. As F. le Maire reconducted us, we found F. Annat before his Chamber; he invited us to come in, and there we discoursed together for some time very pleasingly and of things wholly indifferent. At our departure they accompanied us with much civility as far as the door of their Church towards their Cloister, and M. Fernier and I heard Mass there.  
I spent that afternoon in the Library of the Augustine's, and transcribed thence the beginning of a little compendious History de Auxiliis. The keeper of the Library began to intimate some fear lest he should be blamed for letting me take the Copies of those manuscripts; so that I perceived I must not hope for any more to be showed me I perceived also that if I had not already had the Copy of that Writing which I mentioned above signed by those ten Divines who composed the Congregation established by Clement VIII. for examining Molina's book, and who so fully declared themselves against his errots in behalf of Effectual Grace and Gratuitous Predestination, this Library-keeper would not let me have taken it; but for that I had before transcribed it, he permitted me to compare it exactly, which I did some days after.  
The rest of this month I had but one more considerable Occurrence, and that was in a visit which I made upon the last day to Cardinal Roma. I told him the news which I had received of some obstruction in the journey of my Colleagues in this deputation, and I gave him an account of the audience which I had of the Pope on the 17th day. The Cardinal answered, that there was no haste, that they would come time enough, that nothing would be done without full cognisance of the cause, that I ought not to doubt it; and though he did not think it necessary for the salvation of every one to be fully informed of these matters in contest, yet it was very good to decide them. I told him of the coming of F. Mulard; and the manner of his pretended deputation. He answered me, that he had not yet seen F. Mulard; but is it possible, added he, that a man so eminent and so esteemed as M. Hallier, hath sent a Deputy as from the Faculty without having power to do it, and that a person ignorant and of a scandalous and corrupt life as is that of this Cordelier? I assured him that M. Hallier had done so, and acquainted him with the occasion that some had taken to calumniate us at Rome, as if we intended to burn all the Bulls of the Popes by reason of the just Scruples made by the University about some Bulls and Decrees of Popes passed upon surprise and without cognisance of the cause; as also with that which some took to say that the Faculty had subscribed the condemnation of those Propositions, because that the plurality of voices had resolved to intervene in the cause of the Irish before the Parliament in reference to Discipline; though a great number of Doctors of the same Faculty had declared contrary to the plurality, that they adhered to what the University had done against the said Irish. The Cardinal took all very well, and assured me again that he would take very great care that there might be no surprise here, and that truth might be the rule of all things.  
I made a visit likewise to Cardinal Spada to acquaint him with the retardment of our Deputies; to which he only returned these four words, as he risen up, Questi viaggi sono longhi, Those journeys are long.  
The first visit which I made in November was to the Ambassador, to wait upon him to Chapel on All Saint's day. The solemnity of the day, did not hinder him from ask me as he came forth of his Chamber, what news of our deputies. I told him the condition of their journey; and he replied that he believed the Pope would let all those problematical things alone so long as he lived. I answered the Ambassador that I feared so, and that the Pope had signified very much of such an inclination in an audience which I had of his Holiness during a small journey which he (the Ambassador) made to Tivoli, of which I should be glad to give him an account at his first convenience. Whereupon the Ambassador replied that we must see one another in one of the next ensuing days.  
In the afternoon after Vespers were ended, I visited F. Mulard, who read a Letter to me which he had received from M. Hallier; the most remarkable thing that I perceived in it, was, that though two Doctors of the contrary party (as he called it) were set forth on their own accord to come to Rome, nevertheless They (viz. who deputed F. Mullard) did not think fit to send others. I told F. Mulard that M. Hallier was mistaken in saying those two Doctors were set forth on their own accord. He answered me, that he had order to give out so upon all occasions, and to advertise M. Albizzi thereof.  
This discourse obliged me to make a visit on Friday morning to M. Albizzi; I told him, that I had acquainted him at my first arrival at Rome that the Bishops whose Letters I had presented to the Pope intended to send other Doctors to solicit the effect thereof jointly with myself; and that those Doctors would arrive in the month of October; That that month was past, and the Doctors not yet arrived: but to assure him th●… had not spoken it without being certain of w●at I said, I was come to advertise him that I had a letter from Lions of the 30th of that month, by which it was signified to me that they were set forth to continue their journey to Rome; That they had met with some obstruction in the way; but I hoped they would nevertheless be at Rome within a littletime. M. Albizzi answered me roughly in these words; Vengano, o non vengano, all mese d' Octobre, di Novembre, di Gennaro, di Febraro; questo non importa. Let them come, or not come, either in October, November, January, or February, it matters not. We never said (continued he in Italian & with the same air) that we gave them till the month of October or November: The H. See is not resolved to receive any party in an affair of doctrine, as this is. If they are minded to say any thing, it will hear them, if it think good, tanquam aliquos e populo, (these were his words) They have no charge to come hither, they come of their own heads. I interrupted him here, to tell him that they did not come of their own heads, but they were sent by the Bishops. He replied, that what I said was not true, questo non è pur vero, and that he was as well informed thereof as myself. I answered him, that whosoever had told him the contrary was a liar, è mendace. He maintained that he knew it full well, and that he had good intelligence for it. I replied, that whosoever gave it him, deceived him. He answered, What if it were the Nuntio? I replied, that if it were the Nuntio, he had not said true; he must needs have been ill informed. Ho, (said he) I warrant he would speak true; Do you think that the Ministers of the H. See send false intelligence to it? And do you think (said I) when I have in my hands a Procuration drawn in good form, and the Nuntio saith I have not, that I do not see and am certain that the Nuntio is mistaken? But I (said M. Albizzi) will say that it is a false one. And besides, added he, suppose they have a procuration from four Bishops, what is that against fourscore? I answered him, that one alone was sufficient; and that it was suitable to the order of the Church and the interest of the H. See, to hear him, and see what he had to say for the service of the Church and the H. See. He replied, that those Bishops and all of us, as many as we were, should do well to obey the Bulls, and live in peace; That as often as any went about to attempt any thing against the H. See, there was mischief followed upon it; That in France they had offered to find fault with many things that are practised at Rome; that they talked there of Reformation, and that they had set up a Reformed Religion. I asked who had done all this? He answered me Dio benedetto, 'twas God. I replied, that he said true, because 'tis said in Scripture, Non est malum in civitate quod non fecerit Dominus; but I asked him who had done it, because I had never read nor heard anywhere that the Bishops of France had failed in any thing of duty towards the H. See. He answered, that there was nothing seen daily in France but enterprises against the H. See; that nothing was heard spoken of but the Liberties of the Gallicane Church, which were so many revolts against the Apostolical authority; Qu' un tall Marca havesse fatto un libraccio il piu cattivo; That a certain Marca had made a kind of book, the most wicked that had been heard of, a long time. That indeed he since sung a palinody palinodia, and for that reason was made a Bishop; That there came to Rome about four or five years ago one Bourgeois, (he meant M. Bourgeois) with another named Duchesne, as the Deputies whom I expected would come hither upon their own private authority, to have the face to maintain heresies: But if he (Albizzi) could have been believed that Bourgeos sarebbe stato fatto priggione, that Bourgeois should have been arrested and put in prison, for having had the boldness to deliver a Memorial to the Pope, in which there was Heresy: I durst not take notice of the extreme scorn wherewith he spoke of those so worthy persons, for fear of falling into some unnecessary contest with him, from whence he might take advantage. But I answered him fairly, that all the things which he spoke of belonged not to my affair, that therefore I had nothing to say about them to him; but as for the Doctors whom I expected, I affirmed to him that they were rightly and duly sent by many Bishops of France of great consideration and merit; That it imported the order of the Church, and the interest of the H. See to hear them; and as for those that had told him that they came upon their own account, they were either malicious or ignorant of the matter. To this M. Albizzi said, He, se non lo voglio credere, And what if I will not believe it? I answered him, that he was master of his own will, that he might believe or not believe all that he thought fit; but whether he believed it or no, what I spoke was not the less true for that; Sele Padrone della vostra Voglia & del vostro credere, mà credete lo ò non, non è men vero. M. Albizzi replied to me upon this by repeating several times the same words, Ease non lo voglio credere, e se non lo voglio credere, in so strange a manner and tone, that being scarce able to forbear laughing, I was obliged to rise up to end this conference, and he reconducted me, muttering all the way, and I smiling at his answers and deportment.  
When I had quitted him, I passed by the lodging of M. Fernier, whom I found at his gate, and he told me as a new thing, that M. Aveline had acquainted him with all that F. Mulard had showed me in M. Hallier's Letter upon All-Saints day. And he further added, that M. Hallier had again sent to him to comport himself at Rome as Deputy from the Faculty, to take courage, and he should not be disowned; and that F. Mulard talked of nothing else upon the Piazza of Spain with all the French, with whom he was often seen walking there.  
In the afternoon I went to accompany the Ambassador to a Divinity-Act, which was dedicated to him in the Covent of the Barefooted Carmelites of our Lady de la Victoire. The most remarkable thing in that Act was this Thesis, Gracia efficax est incompossiibilis cum discensu, (which alone summarily comprised all our Sentiments) against which F. du Plantet a Minime Professor of Divinity, a la Trinité du mont, next whom F. Annat sat, disputed the third and last of the whole Act, and did it though with great zeal sat, very pitifully.  
At the end of the Act I waited upon the Ambassador home. As we entered into his Chamber, he told me that F. Mulard had said the day before, that he was a Jansenist, and that I reported it; and that to clear himself from that Reproach, he presently sent for the Abbot de Loiac to be a witness, that all the Interest which he took in this affair, was to procure the Pope to grant the Parties the Audience or Congregation which was desired of him (to the end he might pronounce such a decision as might restore Peace in the Church of France in reference to these matters) by representing to his Holiness the great disposition there was in the King and all his Subjects to hear his voice and obey it; but he had found the Pope always very averse from it. That he knew not whether besides the principal reason that might divert the Pope from it, because he was none of the most versed in these matters, and was too old to apply himself to them, he had not some fear of being at some expense in causing Learned me to come to Rome; as also lest when those persons saw themselves assembled together, they might think of going further, and meddle with other matters; or at lest it might prove the beginning of a Council, etc. I told the Ambassador that none of this was to be feared; and having given him my reasons, I proposed to him the Expedients to beseech the Pope to give Commission to a Congregation calmly to examine things, and give him an account in one half hour, of all that were done in it in a month, which I confirmed by the example of Clement VIII. who was not personally present in the first Congregations held under his Papacy, The Ambassador said, that he was of the opinion to get the Cardinals St. Clement and Lugo to be of it. And in fine, when my Companions were come, we should consult with him by what means to get the Pope to condescend, that some order or other might be taken therein. In this Entertainment I gave the Ambassador an account of what I have above related concerning the audience which I had of the Pope October 17. The Ambassador likewise told me, that the Pope would be more pliant when he saw more persons appear.  
On Sunday Novemb. 5. afternoon, I went to tell Cardinal Ginetti, what I had told Cardinal Barberin the day before, and others, concerning the Journey of our Deputies. He answered me, That their delay would produce no hurt; that they would come time enough, that he should receive them with joy; that he should see them with a willing heart, and do his utmost for their satisfaction, and that of the Prelates who sent them.  
On Tuesday Novemb. 7. I visited Cardinal Cechini for the same purpose, whom I found that day more at leisure to hear me then formerly. I remembered him of the audience which he had given me about the affair for which I came to Rome, and of his scruple that we were not Parties, and the Pope might make such Declarations as he would touching the Doctrine of Faith without hearing any persons. After which I told him, that that might be true, speaking generally, but in this cause we were truly Parties. That we found that the Doctrine which we held concerning Grace, & which we pretended to be that of the Church too, was involved in certain ambiguous Propositions, capable also of another sense which is heretical. That we perceived that under Pretext of that Heretical Sense, they who themselves fraimed the Propositions, endeavoured to obtain a Censure of them, that they might apply the same afterwards not to the Heretical Sense which we held not, but to the Catholic which we hold, and to which these Contrivers well know they may be extended: so that though they impute not those Propositions to us, yet we saw well that they aimed at us, and that we had as much ground to interess ourselves therein, as a man accused of a Crime, not by being named, but being described by the colour of his Liveries, would have to defend himself from such crime, though his name were not openly mentioned. Cardinal Cechini answeted, That as for himself, it was not necessary to speak to him di questa robba of those things, but I must advertise M. Albizzi of them, whose office it was to take care thereof. I replied, That I had informed M. Albizzi of the same, but I was oblige, d also to inform his Eminence thereof, as I had likewise done the Pope himself. As I was proceeding further, the Cardinal made show of going to rise up from his seat, and therefore I was obliged to rise from mine; which when I had done, I told him that the Congregation whose Erection I came to solicit conjointly with other Doctors that were shortly to arrive at Rome, was very just and very important for Truth, the Peace of the Church of France, the Honour of the Holy See, and the preservation of its authority. The Cardinal answered, that I must not doubt, but the Pope would have all imaginable care of an affair of that quality.  
In the afternoon I lighted upon a book at a Booksellers Shop, entitled Gemma sententiarum S. P. Augustini de Auxiliis, selectarum ex omnibus tomis & libris ipsius Patris Augustini a fratre Nicolao de Gracchis Romano, Ordinis Eremitarum S. Augustin. Mag. & Doct. in S. T. & J. V Professor. Ad sanctiss. Dominum nostrum Vrbanum VIII. P. M. Romae apud Andream Pheum. MDCXXVI. superiorum permissu. I bought several of those Books, though it was not of the most commendable for itself, but because in the few sentences therein extracted in very few words out of S. Augustin, there were a good number which suited with the Catholic sense of which the Propositions were capable, and having been dedicated to urban VIII, and printed with permission of superiors in the year 1626. and ever since publicly exposed to sale in Rome till the year 1651. without any complaint having been made thereof, there was great appearance, that neither Clement VIII, nor Paul V, had imposed perpetual silence upon the matter de auxiliis, as the Pope and many besides him endeavoured to persuade me.  
On Thursday morning I went to visit Cardinal Vrsin. I showed him our Latin Manifesto, and gave him an account how our inducement to procure the impression of it, was to let the whole Church now the Catholic senses which we maintained in the matter of the five Propositions, and which obliged us to endeavour to hinder their condemnation, for fear those senses might be involved in the same, and it might be extended and applied thereunto by the very Contrivers of the said Philosophical Discourse which we had to this purpose, the Cardinal acknowledged that the Jesuits had strangely corrupted Divinity, and amongst other examples that he alleged thereof, he mentioned two Jesuit Authors, named Pelissarius and Amicus, who taught, That one might kill a man that was ready to slander him, though he were a Religious, or Monk, perhaps not by giving him a wound with a Sword or Pistol, but by a way that seemed to them more gentle and moderate, namely by starving him per subtractionem ciborum. He told me also, that the Jesuits offered to undertake the defence of those Authors of their Society before the Congregation of the Index, whereof he was a member, but that they were condemned there. At the end of this Conference, he prayed me, when I should have any other Books Latin or Italian, touching the matters which were the subject of our Contestations with those Fathers, to lend the same to him to read.  
On Sunday Novemb. 12. I was at a Divinity Act held at the Augustine's, who invited me thither. There I saw answer and dispute well amongst others F. Alvarez a Friar of the Order of the Dominicans, and Professor in Divinity at la Minerve; The names of others I do not remember.  
On Tuesday November 14. I went to the Ambassadors whilst he was hearing Mass. I had heard it before. Cardinal Barberin arrived at the same time, and I went with him into the Ambassador's Chamber, expecting till Mass were ended, but it was then but beginning. The Discourse I had with the Cardinal in the interim, was only concerning the Book of Frequent Communion, and the purity wherewith it behoveth to approach that holy Table. When the Ambassador came to us, he saluted him very pleasantly, threatening to tell F. Mulard, that he had found him with me: which signified, that there needed no more to make his Eminence pass for a Jansenist in the opinion of that Cordelier.  
I dined that day with the Ambassador, who after many several discourses of Moral and Christian matters as well during Dinner as after, told me, that he lately saw in F. Mulards' hands a Letter signed by M. Pereyret, and many other Doctors touching the matters in contest. This gave me occasion to reiterate to him the request which I had formerly made to him for a sight of M. Halliers, whereof he had given me hope; and also to beseech him to let me see this new one if he could; assuring him that on my part I had nothing that I would keep secret, but contrarily should be always▪ ready to produce all to the public light, and particularly to such as might find themselves interested therein. But I could never get a Copy, or so much as a sight of those Letters either by this means or otherwise.  
On Wednesday Novem. 15. afternoon I went to Cardinal Barberin. I found F. Mulard coming out thence with a Letter, and a written paper which he held in his hand. I prayed him to let me see that Paper; he refused to do it, but yet condescended so far as to open it. It was very fairly written, and contained four pages. I cast my eye upon the Title, and there read these words, An sit● sopienda quae jam fervet Jansenistarum controversia, imposito utrique parti silentio, which was a sufficient Item to me, having gotten a Copy of it afterwards, that this man was made use of to distribute and impart here and there such kind of Writings which were works of darkness, wholly filled with calumnies and falsities, as well as that of F. Morel. F. Mulard told me, that he was going to carry that which he had in his hand to Cardinal Spada, with intent, after he had read it, to bring it again to Cardinal Barberin.  
I recovered that Writing afterwards, as I shall relate in its due place; but I shall here set down what I found it to contain.  
The design of those who caused it to be dispersed, was to show, that it behoved not to impose silence to the two parties, but to condemn Jansenius. They proved it; 1. because said they, Jansenius was already condemned by the Bull of urban, which declares, that he renews the Doctrine of Bavis. It hath been seen in several places of this Journal even by the acknowledgement of Cardinal Barberin, that there is nothing more false than this pretention; the said Bull being but provisional.  
2. Because if Silence were imposed, it would be no longer lawful to say that the Commandments are possible, and that the H. Spirit may be resisted. But this is ridiculous too, it being always lawful to utter such truths as are certain, and not contested by any person.  
3. Because the Church was already. engaged to find errors in Jansenius. Quia jam Ecclesia oppignorata est, cùm definierit multas ex Jansenianis Propositionibus esse damnatas & damnabiles; & proinde hujus controversiae materia non est amplius indifferens. It appears hence, that the principal artifice of the Jesuits hath always been to engage the Pope and the Bishops to make ambiguous Decrees, and afterwards to drive them further than they desired at first, by supposing that it is a thing decided. They obtained at first a little Decree against Jansenius; then they engaged Pope Vrban VIII. to make a provisional Bull, into which they procured ambiguous words to be slipped. By favour of the ambiguity of which provisional Bull, themselves have made a Doctrinal Bull of it; and at length have begun to seek for errors in Jansenius, because as they pretend, the H. See hath affirmed there were some in his book.  
4. Because those Propositions were maintained in France; which is very false; the Propositions having been framed by themselves, and no person there having ever maintain'n them, saving so far as they may be reduced to the sense of Effectual Grace; which is not to maintain them; but to maintain Effectual Grace.  
5. Because it was meet not to let pass the occasions of confirming to the H. See the possession of defining controversies touching Faith. Expedit non praetermitti opportunas occasiones hujus possessionis confirmandae. And that this occasion was the more favourable, for that the King was ready to cause obedience to be given to the Pope, and the Principal persons of the Parliament had likewise declared that his Decision should be obeyed. It is not improbable but this reason hath been considered as much or more than the rest.  
Lastly, to take away all scruples, they maintained that there was nothing in this controversy that had reference to the controversy de Auxiliis. Hanc esse causam Thomistarum & Jesuitarum, qui dicunt, errand toto coelo. Nihil proponitur Summo Pontifici, de quo fuerit contentio inter illos duos Ordines, nihil quod non sit inter ambas familias summo consensu constitutum. We shall see in its due place how far the Dominicans were from this thought.  
When I had quitted F. Mulard, I went up to Cardinal Barberin; but because he had many audiences to give, and I had not much to say to him, I continued with him but a moment. After which I went to visit F. Delbene, who told me he believed there would be erected a full and solemn Congregation, and that when he gave me the advertisement which he did from Cardinal Barberin, it was out of the affection which his Eminence had for me; and that he had also rendered his Eminence very advantageous testimonies of my deportment and discourse with him in all the conferences that we had had together.  
Yet it is certain that those charitable advertisements gave occasion to the Jesuits to spread the rumour in many parts of Rome, that I was already become suspected by the Inquisition: which rumour seemed to me so unreasonable and importune, that I was sometimes in the mind to make a free and authentic complaint thereof to those Officers; but persons more intelligent than myself in the genius of the Country, whom I acquainted with that thought, counselled me not to do any thing about it, but to lift myself above such false reports.  
On Thursday after noon I returned to Cardinal Barberin; and finding that he was gone abroad, I went up to the chamber of M. Holstenius. I found him with a book in his hands which the Pope had given him a few days before at an audience which he had of him, wherein he told me, his Holiness spoke very advantageously of me, and that he was well pleased therewith. As for the Five Propositions, he prayed me not to take it ill, if he freely told me his thoughts of them; which were; that he wondered that we would maintain the same absolutely because of the Catholic sense which they might admit, notwithstanding the Heretical inherent in them; and he spoke as if our intention were not draw out of each of those Propositions a clear and plain Proposition; expressing in evident and unsuspected terms the sentiments we had upon each. I answered him, that he had reason to say that it ought to be so done, and assured him that it was our intention. I told him, that it behoved to unravel and put into the fire those Propositions, and of each to make two, whereof one to contain explicitly the Catholic sense which we held, the other the Heretical, which was worthy to be condemned; and then to apply to each of those Propositions so expressed and exempted from all ambiguity and obscurity the judgement which it deserved. I told him that if he would take the pains to read the book of Victorious Grace, and our Latin Manifesto, he should find that we had no other aim then what I had declared to him. He answered me, that he would willingly see them, and upon occasion he fell to speak of the book entitled De Ecclesia praesentis temporis, which he accounted highly of. I agreed with him as to the goodness of the book so far as it pretended to prove the unity and perpetuity of the Church, and as to the stile and manner of expression: but as for the false suppositions which it made in attributing to us such opinions as we owned not, thereby to take occasion to impugn them, I told him that Author was a falsifier and a wicked person. M. Holstenius replied as if we were much too blame then, that we did not discover those falsities, and complain of those calumnies; and as if that silence had been an effect of the difficulty we had to manifest our sentiments. I answered him, that we desired nothing more cordially than that they were known by all the world for such as they are; that we wished they were written with letters as visible as the Sunbeams; that in occasions that seemed worth it, we complained of the impostures and accusations invented to blacken us; but we had not so many hands, nor so much authority and friends as the Jesuits, to divulge our books throughout Rome, where those Fathers dispersed theirs. We ended this conference with a new assurance that he gave me, more positive and indubitable then formerly, that the Pope would not make any new determination; telling me that we ought to comply with that inclination of his Holiness, and ought not to press the H. See further to take part in those contests, and become engaged in the toils and cares that the discussion of the same required.  
The next day Novemb. 17. I went to carry our Latin Manifesto to M. Holstenius, and not the book of Victorious Grace, because I had it not; but I directed him for it to Cardinal Barberin's Library, where I believed it was. After which I went to see the Father Commissary of the H. Office, but findding only his Companion, who entreated me to show him our Latin Manifesto, I discoursed with him at the present very copiously, and painted out to him the black malice of those who framed those miserable Propositions.  
On the 20th I went to deliver the Ambassador a Letter which I had received for him. He told me, that he had lately seen another from M. Hallier to a person of eminent rank, in which he said that he was not so averse from our sentiments; but that which animated him against us was our manner of obtruding them, which, as this Doctor suggested, employed that we held the Church had been in an error, which was a shameful calumny.  
On Tuesday 21. I carried to M. Holstenius the Latin explication of the Propositions made in July 1649. so soon as M. Cornet first set them afoot, to expose them to the Censure of the Faculty.  
Wednesday 22. I happened to meet with one of the most intelligent Divines of Rome, as well for his skill in doctrine, as in the practices of those that superintend in it; he told me that he would not advise us to seek to get a conference with the Jesuits, in regard of their great credit, and because it was a thing that had been formerly done unsuccessefully. I answered, that Truth was more powerful than they, and if it were once manifested, (as I hoped it would be if we could obtain a regular conference with them) it might overthrow them. He replied, that it were good to stay till one came that understood it well, and knew how to direct the blow and strike home, before it were possible for them to see it, and provide to ward it off. I also met with the Father Procurator of S. Marcel, who told me that there was talk of forming a Congregation about our affair, and that he hoped to be a member of it. In the afternoon I mer at S. Cecilia F. Malgoirés and F. Loyseau an Augustine and Doctor of our Faculty, who overtook me both together. F. Malgoirés told me, that the Abbot of Comblon informed him, that being on Sunday last in the presence chamber of the Pope, he heard F. Mulard say to the Master of his Holinesses chamchamber, these very words, Piaccia a vostra Signoria illustrissima farmi havere udienza. Son quà diputato dalla Facoltà della Sorbona per quell' affare contra Jansenio. I entreat your most illustrious Lordship to help me to have audience. I am delegated hither by the Faculty of Sorbon, about the affair against Jansenius. F. Malgoirés professed himself very much offended at it, and propounded an expedient to me to hinder it; and that was, for all of us that were Doctors at Rome to go together and complain of it to the Ambassador. M. Fernier intervening, professed that he was more displeased at it then I. But they did not agree that we should go to the Ambassador about it. When I had quitted them, within two or three steps I met with F. Mulard, & told him I came newly from some people that were very much incensed against him. He asked me who? I did not name the persons, but told him it was because he termed himself Deputy from the Faculty, though he was not. He answered, They are sots and fools who offer to gainsay it; the Pope shall be the Judge; his Holiness owns me for such; the Cardinals hear me in that quality; I care little for those that are not pleased with it. When he parted from me, he lighted upon F. Loyseau, who came and told me afterwards, that F. Mulard quarrelled with him, and charged him with having told me what I have above mentioned.  
I had received a new Letter which obliged me to go to Cardinal. Barberin, and signify to him that my LL. the Bishops, by whose order I was at Rome, were very joyful to understand that his Eminence did not approve the bad use which the Jesuits made of the Bull of urban 8. his Uncle, by extending it, as they did, to the absolute and decisive condemnation of the sentiments which those Father's impugned. I visited him on Thursday the 13. in the afternoon for that purpose; and he told me, that he could not approve the proceeding of those Fathers in this respect, and never had approved it. Upon my reading a congratulation to his Eminence, that those Prelates were resolved not to consider that Bull but as provisional, for this reason, that should they take it otherwise, they should have very great ground to complain of it, particularly, for that the terms of the Bull taken in the rigour, seemed to forbid them to speak of the matter of Grace even incidently, though it be not only a right inseparable from their profession, but also an essential obligation, from which neither themselves nor others can dispense with them, to instruct the people committed to their charge, solidly thereof; The Cardinal replied, that indeed the said Bull was not to be extended so far. Then I complained to his Eminence of the Quality that F. Mulard took upon him at Rome; of M. Hallier's unheardof audacity in giving it him; that the same Doctor writ injuriously and calumniously against us to several persons, and particularly to M. Albizzi; of the secret way that these things were received, and of the difficulty for us to defend and justify ourselves from them, whilst they remained in that secrecy. But the Cardinal seemed this day more disposed to excuse the things whereof I complained, then to receive the complaints which I made to him. At length we fell upon the Congregation which I sued for, and he told me the H. See was not very inclinable to grant it. I answered, that yet it was a thing highly necessary, contests being come to such a pitch, that it behoved for the sake of Peace and Truth to examine who were in the wrong, both being concerned in it; that if the sentiments which we defended were not true, I wished we were convinced the next day by a good condemnation; but on the contrary, if those of the Jesuits deserved it, they ought to wish it too as well as we; that for a little mortification which the condemned party would receive at first, for having been too eager in holding sentiments contrary to the truth, there would in the sequel arrive both to the one side and the other infinite advantages, considerable and important, to countervail the same; which being well weighed and examined by the H. See, it would assuredly find that it is obliged in justice to take such pains as are necessary to procure so eminent a Benefit to its Children, and consequently to establish the Congregation which is esteemed so necessary for that effect. The Cardinal desired me at the end of this audience to return again to him on Saturday following in the afternoon, with M. de Balagni a French Gentleman of great worth, whom I had mentioned to him, that we might go abroad to take the air, or repair to his Library, according as to the time should permit.  
On Saturday the 25th. as I was going accordingly with the said M. de Balagni to wait upon the Cardinal Barberin, I received very sad news, but, thanks be to God, it proved untrue. It was, that the Deputies whom I waited for, were taken at Sea by the Pirates. M. de Valeran Master of the French Couriers to Rome came purposely to tell it me, with all the circumspection and condolence accustomed in such cases, as having received the same from Florence, and esteeming it true, though not altogether certain. I was not dismayed at it, and it did not hinder me from going to Cardinal Barberin, and spending the rest of the day with him and M. de Balagni in entertainments upon indifferent matters.  
I was blamed the next day for having been so cold and negligent after the receipt of the abovementioned news; and for not going the same day, which was that on which Letters are dispatched from all Italy, to advertise the Ambassador of it, and beseech him to write by that Post to Constantinople for the procuring of my Colleagues their liberty, or at least some comfort in their captivity. But I cleared myself, by alleging that I did not judge M. de Valeran's intelligence very true; and that I conceived it was fitting to be sure of the truth, before I took the alarm and communicated it to the Ambassador. And accordingly I found that I had taken the best course; for I received Letters from them on Sunday the 26th. in the afternoon, by which I understood not only that M. de Valeran's news could not be true, but also that they would probably be at Rome within a very few days; and so they were, as I shall relate in the following Chapter: but I shall first observe here two or three things which come into my mind, and whereof I have made no mention in my Notes of this time.  
The first is, that happening occasionally since my return to Rome to be in the Professed House of the Jesuits under the Cloister or Gallery which is at the entrance, there passed by one of those Fathers whose hand was very white; and when he was gone, my friend that was with me, a Roman Citizen, told me it was F. Santarel. This put me in mind of his book, and made me desirous to buy it if it were to be sold. At my coming away from the Jesuits, I went purposely towards the Quarter of Pasquin where are the most Booksellers, and the first of whom I enquired for it, sold it me at a very ordinary price. I admired that that book was so commonly to be had at Rome after having been censured by all the Universities of France with so unanimous and universal consent; and it containing such pernicious doctrine, that the Author wanting more solid foundations for it, was forced to corrupt the H. Scripture so openly, that he retrencht a Negative particle out of the sacred Text, to make it speak quite the contrary to what it speaks of itself. 'Tis in that passage where S. Paul speaking of the Spiritual power which Jesus Christ gave to his Apostles for the Edification of the Faithful, he saith they received it ad aedificationem, & none in destructionem; For their edification and instruction, and not for their destruction and ruin. But this Jesuit on the contrary applying the said passage to the pretended Temporal power of the Pope over Monarchies, to make it believed that God hath given it to him as well to ruin and overturn them, as to edify them; he takes the Non out of the place; and citys it thus; Ad aedificationem & in destructionem. Notwithstanding all which, I found that the book was st●…l in great applause and free sale at Rome.  
The second thing; which I remember, but did not set down, was, that in my visits to Cardinal Spada, I used one argument which I conceived would have been most prevalent at Rome. I told him, that one way to fix in the minds of the world a great opinion of the Equity of the H. See, would be to grant us the equitable things which we requested, and to make a Decision  to our cause, in case they found that that we defended the truth. Because by that means, pronouncing in favour of persons which had been represented very suspected and odious to them, and had no support in the world but their learning and virtue. against others that had a very great credit, and were recommended by all the Princes of Europe, and openly professed an absolute dependence on the Pope, every body would be obliged to acknowledge that the H. See had no other rule in its Decision but Truth itself. I added further that should it consider only the interests itself hath to keep within their duty those persons that were the most dependant on it, and boasted themselves the most devoted to it, it ought in this occasion to humble the Authors of those Propositions and of that whole Design; because indeed they had forgotten the respect and fidelity which they ought to preserve towards it, forasmuch as they had framed the same Propositions so capable of equivocatious, and full of ambiguities, only to circumvent the H. See and engage it in the scandalous protection of their pernicious doctrine and their vain reputation which they saw they could no longer uphold but by sacrificing that of the H. See for that end. I told him also, that they would find the truth and sincerity of the submission and respect which the said persons pretended for the H. See, when it was not  to them. The Cardinal heard this discourse (which I renewed and urged to him several times) as he heard all the rest which I said to him, without answering any thing in particular. I represented the same also upon occasion to others, but more or less largely according as it was expedient.  
The third and last thing which I have to add here, of all that were observable during the six months that I spent alone at Rome in giving the Pope and his Ministers the first advisoes of this great affair, concerns another which hath almost no affinity with it, but yet is very considerable in itself. It is touching the violent persecutions which the Jesuits have practised for this long time against a learned and pious Bishop of America, who made a representation of them to the Pope in a letter written to his Holiness in the beginning of the year 1649. M. Cosimo Ricciardi gave me a Copy of it a little after my returning to Rome, and in many of the visits which I made to him frequently and familiarly, he always mentioned it with just indgnation. He got the Copy of it from that Bishop's Agent who brought it to Rome and delivered it to the Pope. He had a great desire to have it printed, that all the world might be partakers of it, and he signified seeveral times that he had given it upon that design to other persons besides me. But not knowing what those other persons may have done▪ I shall venture to put it among the first pieces of the Collection annexed to this Journal, to the end it may come to the knowledge of the public, and admonish all the world what is to be feared from the violences of the Jesuits and their strange obstinacy in invading the sacred rights of the Episcopal Office, and upholding themselves by all sort of practices in their sacrilegious usurpations.  
The ensuing title was not upon the said Letter when the Agent gave it to Signior Cosimo, but himself out of the satisfaction which he had after he had read it, thus endorsed it: Natalibus, doctrina, virtute verè Christiana Clarissimi & Illustrissimi Viri Domini Joannis de Palafox & Mendoza Hispani, & in America Episcopi Angelorum populi, ac Consiliis Indiarum Decani, Epistola sanctissima, gravissima, Ad summum Pontificem Innocentium X. de Jesuitarum societate extinguenda vel strictè reformanda ob venerabilis Ecclesiae bonum.   

CHAP. XIV.  
The Arrival of our Deputies on Decemb. 5. The visits which we made together till the end of the same month.  
THE day so advantageous and comfortable to me by the arrival of my Colleagues was December 5. about two a clock afternoon. They were three, namely M. Brousse Canon of S. Honorè, M. de Lalane Abbot of Valcroissant, Doctors of Paris; and M. Angran Licentiate. I went to Ponté-molle to meet them with some friends who pleased to accompany me thither. The rest of the day after dinner, was spent in receiving some visits of other friends who came to congratulate their safe arrival, with the more joy, in regard of the rumour of their detention.  
On Wednesday the 6. we went in the morning ad Limina Apostolica to S. Peter, to give thanks to God for his benedection vouchsafed to their journey; and we returned by the Church of S. Augustin, there to redouble our thanksgiving. In the afternoon we went to see the Ambassador, who received us with great expressions of esteem and courtesy, & seeing these Gentleman still in their riding habits, he offered us his coaches and all other assistances wherewith he could supply us. Then we went to see M. Gueffier, and some other friends, and as we were in the course of our visits we turned in at the Church of S. Lewis, to put up our prayers there.  
On Thursday the 7. I went to accompany Cardinal Barberin to Monte Cavallo. The Archbishop of Beneventum, the Abbot della pace, and two other persons were in his Coach with me. I advertised his Eminence of the arrival of our Deputies, and entertained him upon the way with the Sermons which M. Brousse was obliged to make at Die, of which I shall speak hereafter. In the afternoon my Colleagues and I went to visit other friends.  
On Sunday the 10. after I had waited upon the Ambassador to Chapel, I met the Cordelier who made the sermon at S. Lewis that year. He told me, F. Mulard had taken his companion by the throat in the Cloister, and by his menaces constrained another Cordelier named F. Pacifique, to retire to the Ambassador's, as to a place of refuge; that he was confederated against them with the Spanish Cordeliers; and in brief, caused a great deal of stir and trouble in the Covent. In the afternoon I met one of the Ambassador's Secretaires, who being asked concerning the Cordelier that was reported to have taken Sanctuary there, he told me There dined one there that day, but he did not know whether he were absolutely retreated thither.  
On Tuesday the 12. we went to visit the Ambassador and entertain him more at leisure than we could do at the arrival of my Colleagues. He was coming forth as we were entering in, and desired us to excuse him for that time; referring us to Thursday.  
On Wednesday the 13. we accompanied him to the ceremony of S. Lucia, which is performed every year in the Church of S. John de Lateran, in memory of Henry iv of glorious memory benefactor to that Church, and in the afternoon we went to see the Vatican Library. As I returned I visited a person well seen in the affairs of the H. Office, who told me that Cardinal Lugo complained there one day, that he had received Intelligence that the Bull of Paul V against the Jesuits was going to be printed in France; and that it was resolved thereupon that the Nuntio should be desired to take care that the said Impression were not made. He accqainted me also with a very secret and important Adviso; namely that the Emperor, the King of France, and the King of Spain had lately upon the Jesuits importunity written to the Pope, to demand the formal condemnation of the five Propositions, because they occasioned disturbance in their Dominions. That presently after the arrival of our Doctors the Pope was advertised of it. That it was debated on Wednesday at la Minerve, and on Thursday before the Pope what was to be done upon our request for the erection of a Congregation, and it was resolved to do nothing at all, but to hold us in expectation, to treat us with civility, to defer and put off from time to time all resolutions upon our suit, and in fine to weary us, and oblige us to resolve of our own accord to return without doing any thing. He advertised me also that there would be spies upon all our actions, and that we must always remember to speak in the name of the Bishops that sent us: Which indeed was otherwise our intention.  
This intelligence being given me upon condition of secrecy, I could not acquaint my Colleagues, nor indeed was it otherwise fitting, being such as might have cast them into despair of any good issue, should they have known that there was a resolution taken to grant them nothing of what they requested, but to pay them with formal civilities. But for my own part, God gave me the grace not to be discouraged at all these difficulties, but to maintain myself still with hope, that we might so effectually represent the necessity of establishing such a Congregation as we required that at length we might obtain it by our perseverance.  
On Thursday we repaired to the Ambassador, and found him yet in bed; After we had largely laid open to him the purposes and order we had to move the Pope for the said Congregation; as also the maliciousness wherewith those five Propositions had been contri●'d for the calumniating and disparaging of the true disciples and defenders of S. Augustin's doctrine; his conclusion was, that he counselled us to act with as much mildness and modesty, as he knew we understood to be requsite; and for any thing in his power, he would contribute it to obtain the Examen, and Congregation which we sued for; but he found the Pope very far from the inclination to grant the same.  
We went on Friday to see the master of the Pope's Chamber and know of him when we might be admitted to the audience of his Holiness. He desired one of us to take the pains to repair to him within a few days, and then he would satisfy our question.  
We intended to visit all the sacred College after we had saluted the Pope; but in the mean time we thought fit to visit the Cardinals of the French Faction, as we had done the Ambassador. Wherefore we visited the Cardinals Barberin and Vrsin. The latter first gave us audience on Friday Decemb. 15. Assoon as he saw us, he showed us the book of Jansenius de S. Augustino etc. pessimè meritus. We spoke of it to him as of an infamous Libel, and nothing but a heap of falsities and impostures; which would have been easy for us to prove, because in realty it was such. One amongst the rest I shall take notice of here by the way to show how the boldest lies, and most artifical impostures sometimes destroy one another. For at the same time that they imputed to the Bishop of Ipre the second Proposition, which is, That in the state of corrupted nature a man never resisteth internal grace; they attribute to him in that libel with no less falsity, an Error wholly contrary, viz. That sinners resist divine Grace, through an impossibility not to resist it. This is the second of the Propositions which they there charge upon Jansenius, Peccatores omnes qui divinae gratiae resistunt, illi resistere ex impossibilitate assentiendi, quam habet similiter adjunctam status in quo tunc reperiuntur quando resistunt. But in stead of noting to Cardinal Vrsin particularly any of the Calumnies of that book, we contented ourselves to tell him in general; that we had no more design to complain of that then of many others the same nature which were daily printed; because all the commission which we had received from the Bishops who sent us, was only to advertise the Pope of the Dis-ingenuity wherewith the Equivocal Propositions presented to him were framed, to represent to him what danger there was lest the holy truths included in those Propositions might receive some wrong, if the said Propositions were absolutely censured because of the Heretical senses whereof they were also capable, without having first separated and distinguished the different senses which they may admit, and to beseech him not to suffer the H. See to be circumvented, nor Truth to be oppressed in this cause, but to provide both for the one and the other by establishing a solemn Congregation in which the whole affair might be discussed with care, and the parties heard viuâ voce and by writing touching the matter of the Propositions, before his Holiness made any decision thereof. The Cardinal apprehended all this very equitable, and asked whether there were not a Congregation established already. I answered him that we had understood so, and that we knew at least four Cardinals that were designed to be of it. He asked who they were; I named them to him viz: Roma, Spada, Ginetti, and Cechini. He said he believed there would be Divines joined with them. I answered that I had heard some named. Hereupon he named to me the Father Procurator of S. Marcel and F. Aversa, as it were to ask me whether they were not the persons whom I had named. I told him, they were. It being late, and we disposing ourselves to take leave of his Eminence, he told us that for his own part he wished the affair were terminated in the manner we desired, and if he could do any thing in it, he offered us his service and his recommendation.  
That little book of Jansenius pessimè meritus, was in great vogue at Rome, and it had been distributed to abundance of people. For going that morning to la Minerve, one of their Eminent Fathers spoke to me about it, and told me, we must have a care of it, for it would produce very evil effects. But I answered him, that that was not our business at all; that if Jansenius had vented the Propositions which that book imputed to him, they might condemn him if they would, we were not concerned; that we were at Rome only to obtain of the Pope a solemn Congregation for examining the affair of the five Propositions before the Pope made any decision upon them: Which this Dominican was well pleased with, and that we declared ourselves openly in this manner and took no part in the defence of Jansenius.  
On Saturday the 16. I was in the Pope's presence-Chamber, and spoke with his Maistre de Chambre something more particularly touching the subject of my Commission. He told me that there came a Cordelier thither (F. Mulard) to present certain Propositions in a printed book to the Pope, and that before he introduced him he desired to know what it was. That Cardinal Cecheni told him, there was no danger in offering it to the sight of his Holiness. He said also that the Cordelier told him that he was one of the Sorbon. I answered him to this, that most certainly he was not; and so took occasion to give him an account of the whole Fraud. He admonished me also to take heed of giving the Pope alcuni travagli, any cause of disturbance and pains. I told him, that we would be as careful in that respect as possible; and that this consideration had already been the cause that I had represented to my Colleagues that between that day and the Festivals there was only the Tuesday following in which we could hope to have audience; that the Pope would be much encumbered that day, and that if we would stay till after the festivals we should with more ease and conveniency be admitted. The Maistre de Chambre was well pleased with this moderateness, and promsed me to procure audience for us assoon after the Festivals as he could.  
Sunday the 17. we went to the Pope's Chapel, and Monsignor Sacrista placed on one side of the Altar, just upon the passage where the Pope was to come in and go out; so that his Holinsse casting his eye upon us, considered us very wistly both at his coming in and going out.  
M. Cosimo Ricciardi de Alcoltis Cure of San Salvato della Copella, and Qualificator of the Congregation of the Index sent to me to come to him in the afternoon, which I did. He gave me notice that F. Annat was about to print a Book against the five Propositions, and that the book was committed by the H. Office to some persons to examine it, and see whether it were fit to give it approbation and permission to be printed; which might prove of very great prejudice in this affair, as I shall relate hereafter when I come to mention what we did to hinder it.  
On Tuesday the 19 we went to wait upon Cardinal Barberin, who fell into high commendations of the Faculty; which were seconded by our applauses; but least the same might be construed as if we took upon us to be at Rome in its name, I told his Eminence that the degree of Doctor being inseparable from the persons that have the honour to be of it, I conceived, he considered the same in us, though we were not employed by the Faculty but by some of my LL. the Bishops of France, for the purposes I had formerly had the honour to signify to his Eminence. Our conference continued not long, Cardinal Rapaccioli coming to call his Eminence to go abroad; and so it concluded in compliments.  
We went on Wednesday the 20. to visit the seven Churches. Going to S. Peter's in the morning I met F. Mulard in the street of the Hat-Sellers, who was buying some to return into France; he told me would not go now the season was so far spent, were it not that he was constrained by people that had power to command him; but he hoped he should come back shortly to Rome with M. Hallier. That the Pope would for certain pass a Judgement in the case; That it was reported that he would be contented with imposing silence as to our matters; but his mind was now otherwise. I desired him to remember me to M. Hallier, and assure him, that himself could not be more desirous to be at Rome, than I was to see him there. When we were returned from the seven Churches, F. Mariana came to put me in remembrance of some visits which he thought expedient for us to make. He told me when I asked him the question, that people seemed very joyful for the arrival of our Colleagues; and spoke very well of it. But he said he heard from a certain person, that there had escaped from one of us some word against the Council of Trent; but he had answered that it was a slander and a falsity, as indeed he had reason, there not having been the least pretext or ground for that accusation.  
On Friday the 22. M. Brousse and myself went to see the General of the Augustine's. Amongst other things, he told us that F. Mulard came to visit him as Envoy from the Faculty of Divinity at Paris; and wondered when we assured him that he was neither a Deputy nor a Doctor of it. He advised us very earnestly to forbear speaking of Jansenius, and promised to contribute with us what he could do for the interest of S. Augustin's doctrine.  
In a Visit I made in the afternoon to F. Barelier, he told me his General could not be spoken with till after two days, because of a hundred or sixscore letters which he was to prepare against the next day for Italy; but he had already mentioned our business to him, and said that we could not but be very welcome, provided we spoke of none but S. Augustin, and S. Thomas.  
All the Festivals were spent in Devotions, Ceremonies and Visits active and passive of our particular friends. I saw one thing at Vespers at the Church of S. Lewis, (where we were on Christmas day) which deserves in my judgement to be set down here. The prayers of 40. hours had been there, and ended that day. At the end of Vespers a Procession was to be made, and the H. Sacrament was to be carried about in order to being shut up after the procession and accustomed ceremonies. We had the honour to carry the Canopy. As we were coming out of the Church, Card. Giori was passing by: He caused his Coach to stop, the boot to be taken down, and fell upon his knees while the Procession was passing. When the Sacrament appeared, he alighted, accompanied it, and entered with us into the Choir, and there stayed upon his knees till all the prayers and ceremonies were ended.  
When the Festivals were over, I went to the Popes Maistre de chambre, who, for that the Venetian Ambassador newly arrived was to have his first audience that morning, and Cardinal Raggi was afterwards to present to the Pope the Conservators of the people of Rome newly elected, referred us for our audience to the Tuesday ensuing.  
Having quitted him, I went to the high Mass in the little Church of S. Thomas of Canterbury; at the end of which approaching to Cardinal Barberin in the Sacristie, we fell to speak of the Abbot of Bourzeis his not enduring that any thing should be spoken in the printed books about our contests against the Bull of Vrban VIII. whereupon Cardinal Barberin rejoicing, O, said he to me, M. de Bourzeis è mio grand amico.  
On Saturday the 30th. going in the afternoon for recreation to see the more considerable places of Rome, as we passed by Ara coeli, we met Friar Archangel, who told us that F. Mulard was gone, and that he was gone encharged with Procurations and letters of recommendation from Card. Barberin, to negotiate in France about the affair of the Five Propositions, to return speedily, and bring M. Hallier with him. I asked him concerning M. Hallier's letter which F. Mulard refused to show me; he told us, it was a thing not hard to be seen, for he had given Copies of it to several Cardinals, and he named Roma and Ginetti; that he (Fr. Archangel) transcribed them to present to their Eminences; but had kept no Copy for himself, they being too long, and in a very small hand, and requiring five or six hours to transcribe one. And by all that he told me, I found that what had been signified to me thereof by others not so clearly informed as Fr. Archangel, was nevertheless very true.   

CHAP. XV.  
An Account of some Sermons which M. Brousse made upon the way of Die against the Calvinists of that City, touching the possibility of God's Commandments.  
AMongst the particularities which my Colleagues related to me of their journey, they told me of the stay which the Abbot of Valcroissant made at his Abbey, during which M. Brousse had occasion to hear preach at Die a considerable Minister of that City which is almost wholly Calvinistical, and to refute what he had said in his Sermon. That which I heard mention of in familiar discourse, seemed to me so considerable, that I desired the Abbot of Valcroissant to set it down in writing, for preserving the remembrance of it. He did so; and the account he gave of it, deserves, as I conceive, to have a place in this Journal.  
In our journey from Lions to Marseilles in order to take Sea, we passed through the City of Die in Dauphine, where the Calvinists have a College, one of the most considerable that they have in France. We stayed there some days, by reason my Abbey is a league distant from that City. During which time M. Brousse, seeking occasion to evince the truths of the Catholic faith against the Hugonots, went to the Church on Sunday the 22. of Octob. to hear the Sermon of the Minister named Dise, who took for the Theme of his Discourse the 6. verse of the 8. chap. of the Epistle to the Romans; Nam prudentia carnis mors est, prudentia autem Spiritus vita & pax. From which words he adventured to draw sundry heretical consequences against the Possibility of the Commandments, against the Merit of Good works, and against the difference and distinction of Sins into mortal and venial. This was the matter that he handled during a long hour which his discourse lasted.  
When all was done, M. Brousse offered to the Principals of the Consistory to refute immediately all that the Minister had said, and to go for that purpose into what place they pleased, either into the Bishop's Hall, or into the middle of that place, or into the College, provided the Minister would hear him, as himself had heard him. But those Heretics refusing the challenge, he resolved to confute the said Sermon in the Cathedral Church, to which the Vicar-General of the Bishop of Valence and Die, and all the Members of the Chapter assented. Many of those of the Religion were present there, though the Ministers did not like it. He made two Sermons upon the same Verse, and confuted all the Heretical consequences which the Minister pretended to draw from it. In the former, he proved the Possibility of the Commandments, and in the second, he established the Merit of good works, and evinced the difference of mortal Sins from venial, and showed, that though no person lives in the world without small sins, yet all our works are not sins; contrary to what that Minister had maintained in his discourse.  
Touching the Possibility of the Commandments, he established the verity of the Catholic faith, making the same apparent between the two erroneous Extremes of the Pelagians on one side, who would have the Commandments possible by the sole strength of nature, without the aid of the true grace of Jesus Christ; and of the Lutherans and Calvinists on the other, who hold that they are not possible to Nature even assisted with the grace of Jesus Christ. And he showed clearly how both the one and the other are overthrown at one blow by the Council of Trent, Sess. 6. Can. 18. Si quis dixerit homini justificato praecepta Dei esse impossibilia, anathema sit. And cap. 11. Nemo temeraria illa & a Patribus sub anathemate prohibita voce uti debet, Praecepta homini justificato ad observandum esse impossibilia. Which he confirmed by abundance of passages of H. Scripture, and by the authorities of S. Hierome, S. Augustine, and the Councils of Mileve and Orange, out of which the Council of Trent hath taken its Definitions.  
And because the Minister, to elude the Scripture; by making semblance of answering to it and explicating it, had said, That the Commandments may in some sort be said to be possible in two manners; first, inasmuch as they may be performed in Heaven, as also they might have been before Adam had sinned. Secondly, that they may be said possible, because we have a Will which of its own essence is a remote Power, and is not found in other creatures. M. Brousse showed that the Commandments are not only possible in those two manners.  
In refutation of the former, he showed, that the H. Scripture speaketh of the fulfilling of the Commandments, which is done in this life; which he confirmed by the example of many righteous persons who lived under the Law and the Gospel, of whom it is said in the Old and New Testament, That they kept the Law of God, That they walked in the way of his Commandments, That they observed righteousness, That they were righteous before God, and they lived without blame, and without fault, etc. whence he concluded, that the H. Scripture speaks of the possibility of the Commandments in reference to this life; but because many that living after the lusts of the flesh do not observe them, or do not observe them by the Spirit of Grace and of the Gospel, and in the order to Salvation, but only by the spirit of the flesh, and according to the Letter and bark of the Law, in this sense the Apostle saith, Prudentia carnis mors est; Prudentia autem Spiritus Vita & Pax.  
He showed in the second place, that the Commandments are not possible to men only because they have a Will, which according to its Essence is a remote power accomplishing them;  
1. Because than Jesus Christ should have merited nothing for men by his death, in reference to the fulfilling of the Commandments; since without him they were equally possible with that remote power, which consists in the Essence of the Will, which Jesus Christ did not purchase by his death.  
2. Because the Christians would have no advantage above Turks and Pagans, in respect of being able to observe the Law of God; since that Power which consists in the Essence of the Will, is common to Turks and Pagans as well as to Christians. This he confirmed by the consequence of several other absurdities, which the Heretics cannot avoid.  
All the Auditors expressed great satisfaction with this Sermon, and agreed that M. Brousse had very solidly refuted that of the Minister. The Jesuits of Die which were there, were also very much edified with it, and without doubt they will attest the same. Many of those of the Religion who had heard the Minister before, confessed, that Mr. Brousse had confuted his Sermon word for word, and all commended his moderation, for having proceeded only upon the Authority and Reason founded upon the H. Scripture, and the H. Fathers, without flying into any contumely against the Minister. But that which most astonished the Heretics, was the hearing of the Catholic Doctrine in the point of the possibility of the Commandments explained, and their belief confuted without having recourse to Sufficient Grace subject to , as the Jesuits explicate it. This made them acknowledge, that those who are called Jansenists, though they hold Principles contrary to those of the Jesuits, yet for all that do not favour the Doctrine of Calvin, and have this advantage in oppugning them this way that they (Calvinists) could not upbraid these Doctors us they did the Jesuits, of falling into the Error of the Pelagians, by going about to oppose the Tenets of Calvin. Moreover the Catholics were heard to ask one another as they went from the Sermon, How can these Doctors be accused of agreeing with the Calvenists, touching the possibility of the Commandments, seeing we never heard the Doctrine of the Calvinists so well confuted, nor that of the Council of Trent so well established? as this Doctor hath done, who they say is a Jansenist, etc. M. Brousse offered the Ministers again to hold a conference, but they would not accept it. He was desired to preach to the Urselines, who are the only Nuns in that place, where seeing many of the pretended reformed Religion were come to hear him, he fully evinced against them, with the edification of all his Hearers, the Sanctity of Vows, by which Virgins particularly consecrate themselves to God in the retirement of Monasteries.  

An Addition to the foregoing Narrative.  
DUring the four months of M. Brousse 's residence at Rome, I never thought of showing him the foregoing Narrative; but since my Return, sending it to him to peruse, and see whether all were punctually related, and whether he would add any thing to it, after he had read it, he sent it to me back with the following Addition.  
In the said Narrative there is almost nothing of the second Sermon which I preached at Die, wherein I handled the matter of Good Works, and the distinction of sins into mortal and venial, with as great and more strength as I did the day before that of Grace, and the possibility of the Commandments; and wherein there was this Rrmarkable, That the Minister having mentioned the Opinion of the Jesuit Gretser, and brought a passage of his as a Doctrine of the Roman Church, I said in confuting him, That he was either extremely ignorant for a Professor in Divinity, or extremely malicious: Ignorant, if he knew not that the sentiment of that Jesuit was not owned by the Roman Church, since so many learned men had opposed it: Malicious, if knowing so much, (as it was not likely he could be so ignorant of what was so common among the learned) he had nevertheless the boldness to allege it to his Auditors as the belief of the Church of Rome, and so impose upon them the falsity. I added, that the opinion of the Jesuit Gretser was so far from being the belief of the Roman Church, that for my part I accounted the same directly contrary unto it. I added this, because I saw two Jesuits my Auditors, who after Sermon came to see me at my Lodging, and expressed to me the satisfaction they had in hearing with what perspicuity and strength I handled that matter.  
You may add, That the chief of the Heretics were so satisfied with me, that they prayed me to pass that way at my Return from Rome: I promised them, that if I came back by the same Road, I would do it with all my heart, and bestow a whole month amongst them, and every day confute their errors in the public place with the same clearness and solidity that I confuted the points which their Minister taught in his Sermon, and which I confuted in two, of which I made themselves Judges, if they would lay their hands upon their consciences.    

CHAP. XVI  
Passages at Paris towards the end of the year 1651. An Accusation made against me by M. Grandin the Syndic at the instance of the Nuntio, as if I termed myself Deputy from the Faculty. The Jesuits boast how they were confident the Propositions would be condemned at Rome. A scandalous Libel of F. Brisacier the Jesuit against the Nuns of Port-Royal, censured by the Archbishop of Paris.  
BEfore I enter upon the Narration of what passed at Rome during the first six months of the year 1652. there are three or four things worth mentioning here which passed at Paris in the end of the year 1651. That which hath most affinity with the former Story, is an Enterprise and Slander extremely ridiculous, which they contrived against me in the Assembly of the Faculty Novem. 4. no doubt out of a design to cloud and render uncertain the boldness of F. Mulard, who termed himself a Deputy from the Faculty, by accusing▪ me formally and solemnly in that Assembly of having committed myself the same Imposture, to which they had induced and trained that Cordelier.  
When they dispatched him from France to come and execute all their prescriptions in virtue of that Chimerical Deputation which they had given him by their own private Authority, and by which they hoped to authorise all things which they instructed him to say at Rome, they knew full well that I was set forth for France as I have above mentioned. They did not all expect my returning to Rome, or that there would be other persons there besides me who would be displeased and concerned for F. Mulards' styling himself Deputy from so famous a Society, and the knowledge they might have of his Life and Behaviour in the world, which gave him licence to speak any thing without any one's being offended or taking notice of it, undoubtedly made them presume, that this would be observed less in his person then in another; so that they looked he should act absolutely and without contradiction under that name in all the parts of his Instructions, and that neither he nor themselves would be liable to reproach for so foul a juggle: wherefore when they saw afterwards that their plot was contrary to their hope discovered by my means, whether they were only led with indignation against me for having searched so far into their contrivance, and therefore aimed to be revenged by falsely imposing that Crime upon me, of which themselves were truly guilty; or whether they only designed to keep off from themselves that Infamy, and render it obscure and dubious in reference to themselves, by imputing the same to one who was likely to complain of it, and accusing him first, though they knew him to be very innocent; so it was, that they took a Resolution to accuse me of it in public. Now that the accusation might seem the more plausible and better grounded, they would not be the Instruments of it themselves, but thought fit to make it more authentic by the considerableness of the Nuntios person, which they made use of therein.  
M. Grandin who had been chosen Syndic in M. Hallier's room in the last October, and was according to custom to give his Thanks in the Assembly of the fourth of November, took this complaint for the whole Subject of his Oration. He said. [as the Letter written by a Doctor, my friend, some days after that Assembly informeth me) that the Nuntio sent for him and the Subdean the day before, to advertise them that M. the Saint Amand (he meant Saint Amour; for having consulted his paper, he said no more Saint Amand but Saint Amour; which consultation of his paper was from his Charity, which told him it might be M. de Saint Amour) acted at Rome in quality of Deputy from the Faculty of Divinity, in behalf of the cause of some, whom with a lower tone he named Jansenists. That the Nuntio desired to know the Facultie's mind upon this Advice which he gave them, and whether it were true that it had named the said M. the Saint Amour for its Deputy. To which M. Grandin added that it was very important that the Faculty took into consideration what he propounded to it.  
Several Doctors who presently apprehended the maliciousness of this first proposal of the new Syndic▪ and were persuaded I was not capable of so shameful a falsity, nor had any ground or need to commit it, hissed his Proposal, and declaimed against the Deputation of F. Mulard, of which they had been advertised, saying, That that was it of which there was very great great reason to complain. When the murmur was appeased, M. Deschasteaux Doctor and Procurator of Sorbonne (to whom I had written since my Return to Rome in regard of the remembrance I had of a like charge with as little ground against MM. Bourgeois and Duchesne, and desired him if the same were renewed against me, to declare in my name, that in case it were with the least truth, I consented to pass for the most infamous of men) advertised the Faculty of the Letter which I had written to him, and produced it at the same time in the Assembly. After the reading of my Letter, he and many other Doctors who were convinced of my innocence, said, that it was not requisite that the Faculty declared, not barely whether it had deputed me or not, but generally whether it had encharged any other with such Commission to act in its name at Rome about the matters then agitated concerning Grace. Great contest there was in the Assembly upon this Subject, some saying, that the Question was not concerning F. Mulard or his Deputation, but to give an answer to the Nuntio; others on the contrary, that it was not necessary to answer the Nuntio, because his demand was grounded upon an Imposture, which was wholly visible by my Letter; That nevertheless it being true that I had in no wise usurped that quality, they would not hinder but the Truth might be known to all the earth; but being on the other side certain that F. Mulard had usurped it, it was necessary that upon the complaint made by Doctors who had proofs thereof at hand, the Faculty should declare the reality of the business.  
The design of the Doctors who complotted this Accusation, was to get the Faculty to declare, that it had not deputed me; which would have been an ignominious Note upon me, and given the public and Posterity occasion to conceive that the Faculty had believed upon the Nuntios Deposition that I had been capable of that Falsity. But at length after long debate which lasted almost till noon, it was concluded, that MM. Messier and Grandin should repair to the Nuntio, and tell him that hitherto the Faculty had deputed no person to Rome, and that it was manifest that I had not taken upon me that Quality, by a Letter written to M. Deschasteaux who produced the same in the Assembly, which Letter the Faculty ordered should be shown to the Nuntio. MM. Messier and Grandin when the Assembly was ended, went to deliver this answer to the Nuntio, and carried him my Letter. The Nuntio desired them to leave it, which they did. But M. Deschasteaux being loath to lose such a proof of my Innocence, prayed M. Messier to go next day to the Nuntio, and beseech him to return my Letter: He did so, and the Nuntio delivered it without any difficulty.  
'Tis remarkable, that though the words of the Faculty were general, and consequently aught in reason to touch such as had taken that Quality upon them, and brand them ignominiously, yet M. Grandin and the other Doctors that drew up the Conclusion, inserted in the draught only my name, and spared F. Mulards, leaving it to be presumed hereafter, that only I had given occasion for it. But assoon as I had received the Extract of it, which was sent me after it had been read again and confirmed in the Assembly of the first of December, I perceived how I could make use of it, to reflect it back upon the face of them who alone deserved to bear the affront; As I shall show when I give an account of the audience which my Colleagues and I had of the Pope the 21. of January following.  
The University also found itself interessed in the Conduct of the above said Cordelier, in regard of the falsities and injuries which they were advertised he spread against them in Rome; and they made a Decree in the ordinary Assembly of the Deputies, held in the College of Navarre, December 2. by which it was resolved to write to me, and desire me to inform them the most punctually I could of all those falsities and calumnies. The Rector sent me that Decree, and joined with it Letters of his own, wheredy he advised me to make complaint in the Universities name to some Judge, by putting in an information of the Lies and Calumnies of F. Mulard, and then to produce my witnesses. But consulting with two Romans, men of great insight and practice in those matters; one told me that the business must be brought before the Judges Criminal, that it was no very ordinary case; that by reason of sundry disorders lately arisen in those Courts, he feared they would be shy of meddling with it. The second told me, That the most proper Court was the Auditor of the Chamber, where he conceived, permission would be easily granted to inform; but for sending the informations elsewhere, he believed it would not be allowed. That this was a matter of consequence, in which nothing could be done without ask the Pope whether he pleased to grant this particular Grace: Which difficulties considered, together with F. Mulards' being returned from Rome, and the Rector desiring no more informations than what he had since seen the day of that Decree (which I sent him) and I esteeming it more requisite to apply ourselves totally to the prosecution of the grand Affair, in which all those Injures and Calumnies might be better quashed and dispelled, then to this incidental Contest, which would withdraw so much attention from the principal; all the difficulties I say, and considerations hindered me from fully performing (as I desired) all that the University recommended unto me.  
The Canons regular of the Order of St. Augustin having notice of the Examen intended at Rome about these matters in a solemn Congregation, assembled together to consult whether they should send thither one or two of their Fathers, in the name of the Society, in behalf of the interest which they took in the preservation of St. Augustins' Doctrine; and they had already cast their eyes upon F. Fronto for the Journey. The General writ to Rome about it to their Procurator General, who showed me the Letter, and ask my opinion. I congratulated him and the whole Order for so holy and Christian a care: I told him it might be very useful, and of a great example in due time; but I did not see all things yet in readiness enough for the putting of that good and pious design in execution.  
My Correspondent in behalf of my LL. the Bishops writ a Letter to me dated, December 22. 1651. in which he seemed to foretell in some sort, how the proceeding would be in this affair; as shall be seen hereafter. Blessed be God (saith saith) that there are persons in the College of Cardinals who understand the Truth in these Matters, though they be very few; but I am still afraid of the Roman Policy. Our Molinist Doctors (who have intelligence every week from Rome) are very pleasant, when they say the Censure of the Propositions will speedily come forth, and that the Jansenists are made believe that the Pope condescends to the Letters of the Bishops who writ to his Holiness against that of M. de Vabres, and will not pass Judgement of them at all. They add that the first Proposition is censured already, and declared Heretical▪ and that the others are under examination. That when the Censure is finished, before it be declared to you, you shall be called for, to be heard in private, and after that, the Censure shall be published. Accordingly they are more brisk than usual. Be pleased to inquire into the grounds of this news, which comes not from one alone, but from many hands.  
In the end of this year a Censure was passed by the Archbishop of Paris upon a book of F. Brisacier a Jesuit, entitled le Jansenisme confonda, etc. Jansenisme confounded. The Cause was for that the Author therein chargeth the Monastery of Religious Women or Nuns at Port-Royal with abundance of calumnies and scandals, so far as to accuse them of heresy in doctrine, and heinous disorders in manners: That according to the Rules prescribed to the Virgins of the H. Sacrament, there will be a new Religion made; that they shall be called Impenitents, Asacramentaries, Incommunicants, etc. For which the Archbishop condemned the said book as injurious, calumnious, and containing many lyts and impostures. He delar'd the said Nuns pure and innocent from the Crimes wherewith that Jesuit went about to soil the candour of their good manners, and traduce their integrity and Religion, of which the said Archbishop declared that he was assured with full certainty. This Censure he ordered to be published in all the Parishes of Paris, and caused the same to be printed and fixed upon the gates of all other Churc es. Which was performed with the applause of all good men, and a strange madness of the Jesuits, who had fruitlessly employed all their credit to hinder the said Censure, which made them pass everywhere for public calumniators.    

THE FOURTH PART.  
January 1652. Containing what passed during the first six Months of the Year 1652.  

CHAP. I.  
Of what passed at Paris and at Rome during the first three weeks of January.  
THE first thing which we did this year, was to go on Tuesday January 2. to the Pope's Presence-Chamber, in order to being introduced to audience; which we could not obtain that day, because the Prince of Luneburg who had the first, and Cardinal Vrsin who had the second, took up all the time. We repaired thither every day afterwards that we could hope for it, till at length we obtained it on the 21. of the same months, as I shall relate in its due place.  
In the mean while we employed our time as the necessity and advantage of our affair or the rules of Decorum required: That Tuesday afternoon I went with M. Brousse to M. le Cavalier Pozzo a person of note in Rome and of great worth; He told us in his entertainment a pleasant Conceit of a Jesuit, whom he formerly knew, and who was the present Pope's Confessor; This Jesuit maintained and would needs print his Opinion That the Pope might choose his successor before his death, and establish him as a Coadjutor in that highest Ecclesiastical dignity.  
The same day at Paris a person named Sanguiniere who had been a Jesuit, but thrust himself into the Faculty of Divinity, so far as to maintain a Thesis in a Tentative Question, having demanded in the Assembly Letters concerning his time of study, was denied, though he was backed by the favourers of the Jesuits, and more than any by M. Hallier.  
The same Doctors appeared also very displeased with the News which they received at that time of the arrival of my Colleagues at Rome: but yet they comforted themselves for all that, by publishing abroad that that whould not hinder but the Pope would speedily pronounce a Judgement against the Propositions, and that if he gave us a hearing before he pronounced, it would be but as I had been heard in the business of the Hours. Which coming to the ears of the Bishops who deligated us, they enjoined us again by a Letter which they caused to be written to us on the fifth of that month, to beware of engaging in a secret or private Conference; but to coniinue suing for a solemn one, like those which had been held under Clement VIII. and Paul V before which, we should not be contented with answering for the Catholic sense which the Propositions imputed to us might admit, in which alone they were to be maintained as Orthodox, but also should accuse the erroneous sentiments of Molina, and demand the condemnation thereof against the Jesuits.  
On Monday the 8. we accompanied Cardinal Barberin to the Consistory, and he did us the honour to desire us to dine with him the next day. Accordingly having treated us with very great magnificence he carried us to spend the afternoon in his Library, and afterwards himself conducted us home.  
On the 11. M. Brousse and I went to see the Ambassador, and accompanied him to the Palace of S. Mark to the Ambassador of Venice, and from thence to the professed House of the Jesuits called le Giesu, which is not far from his Palace. The Ambassador, as he told us, went thither to speak with one of those Fathers with whom the King was not well pleased; which he did, after he had heard Mass. I observed that assoon at F. Annat received notice of the Ambassador's coming, he went away without staying for him, to get audience of the Pope.  
On Friday the 12th. we began to visit the Cardinals who we knew were designed for our Congregation. That day we visited Cardinal Spada, who received and entertained us very well. But this was considerable in the audience he gave us, that there was not spoken so much as one word concerning our affair on one side or other. After which I going alone to see the Cure of S. Saviour, he gave me a very remarkable Item, which we always endeavoured to Practise, viz. That the half of an Affair, especially at Rome, consisteth in the manner of well managing it, La Meta d' un negotio consist nel modo di ben portarlo.  
This good Cure was great friend and countryman to Monsignor Ghiggi, who was lately returned from his Nuntiature at Munster. He gave me an account of him as a man of great piety and learning, much in favour with the Pope, and one of his Secretaries of state, who would not fail to be Cardinal at the next promotion, and perhaps one day Pope, when there was passed another Papacy after the present. For these reasons he advised me to visit him asson as I could, to inform him of the state of our affairs. Upon his motion I went for that purpose on Saturday the 13th of January; but finding that he gave no audience, I went tot S. Maria Maggiore.  
There I saw the Dominican Confessor of the French Nation, who told me that the next day there was to be, a Chapel of Cardinals, to celebrate there a Mass of the Trinity for Pius V That this Pope died in such opinion of Sanctity, that on the first of May his tomb was strewed over with abundance of flowers, and his Chapel was all full of ex voto. But since the Bull of Vrban VIII. for the Canonization of Saints, those ex voto were taken away and shut up in the Sacristy or Vestry, and the custom of strewing flowers upon his tomb was abolished: I went afterwards to S. John de Lateran to see F. Cavalli and return him his little tract of Observations upon the Conection of the Hymns which was made by a Jesuit in the name of Vrban VIII. which Jesuit was much incensed against F. Cavalli because of the faults, both as to Grammar and sense, which he found in that Conection. F. Cavalli submitted his Reflections very humbly, to as many as would look upon them. The Cardinals cared not to examine whether he had reason or no; though some said it was a thing that deserved to be taken heed to. But that which is remarkable herein, is, that though those new Hymns were introduced everywhere, as an order given by the Pope; yet the Canons of S. Peter withstood all the instances made to them to make use thereof, upon the sole account of the newness of those verses; wherewith their Chanters, being habituated and accustomed to the old, were inconvenienced. And indeed their resistance and their custom caused that they were left to the possession and use of the old, notwithstanding the earnest desire of the Authors of those new Corrections that those Canons should confirm by their example the care that was taken to introduce them into all Christendom.  
On Monday the 15th. we visited the Covent of Barefooted Carmelites of our Lady de la Victory, where we were informed by one of those Friars that the Pope having been lately conferred with about our affair by a Considerable person who solicited him to put an end to this great controversy de auxiliis, which troubled the Church for so many years; the Pope signified that his mind and resolution was to follow the example, of his Predecessors who were contented with imposing silence in the matter to both parties; that enough had been done in condemning or rather prohibiting in general the book of Jansenius; and that he would do nothing more. Wherewith the said Person not contented, replied to the Pope that this was not the thing which the most considerable persons in the Church expected, but on the contrary they conceived that his Holiness was obliged to terminate the contests in the present case; and to persuade him to it, he showed him the Writing above mentioned, whereof F. Mulard was the dispersor, entitled Vtrum sit sopienda, etc. Which he read to the Pope from the beginning to the end; and after the Pope had heard it, he made no other answer to this person to free himself from his instances, but told he might show the said Writing to such of the Cardinals as he thought fit.  
On Wednessday the 17th. I went again to Monsignor Ghiggi, to make him the visit which the Cure of S. Saviour had given him notice that I intended. He received me with much civility and gravity. After I had told him in few words the substance of our affair, and the importance it was of, I began to give him a particular account of all that had passed in it; but before I had done representing to him the reasons which were opposed to M. Cornet in the Assembly of the first if July, to hinder proceeding to any examination of the Propositions, Monsignor Ghiggi told me that he was expected by the Pope, and therefore prayed me to dispatch and tell him the matter of fact without standing upon the reasons. So I was obliged to pass succinctly over the chief and essential points of this affair, as the False Censure presented to the Pope for confirmation; the design of M. de Vabres, seeing that way failed to get the Assembly of the Clergy to sign a Letter wherein to desire the condemnation of the Propositions, upon assurance given him by the Jesuits that they would obtain it if the Clergy desired it; his resolution (when he could do nothing with the Clergy) to inveigle several particular Bishops to subscribe the said Letter; the care of those which sent me, to advertise the Pope of the ambiguity of the Propositions presented to him by that Letter, the surprise which was to be feared in it, the interest of the H. See to avoid that surprise, the importance it was of in refence to his Authority, the truth, and the peace of the Faithful; in fine, that I must come another time when his Lordship was more at leisure, to give him more ample and particular informations upon the whole, and that my Colleagues would not fail to wait upon him, and pay their duty to him as soon as they had seen the Pope. Monsignor Ghiggi told me, it would be better that I came alone to acquaint him with the Case, then that many came to do it; because oftentimes in occasions of this nature, number did more hurt than good. He said the Pope had not yet spoken to him about this affair, and till the Pope did so, he would not meddle with it; Ne videretur mittere manum in alienam messem: but probably the Pope would communicate it to him assoon as we had delivered him our Letters. I answered, that I had delivered them almost Six months ago. He replied, that then it would be requisite to leave a Memorial with the Pope when we were admitted to him, to refresh his Holinesses memory; and that when that Memorial came to his hands, it would be sufficient, that before it did, it was not needful for us to make a visit to him, because Secretaries of State receive none, but always keep their doors shut, excepting for affairs. I told him, that we would do as he appointed, and I renewed to him the declaration which I had made to the Pope, that we had no pretention against the Bull of Vrban VIII; and that of the Propositions upon which his Censure was solicited, there was not any in that of Pius V.  
On Thursday the 18th. we visited Cardinal Ginetti, who again gave us great testimonies of good will and earnestness ro apply himself seriously to this affair. He asked us also if our Adversaries were come. I answered, that none appeared openly; but the Jesuits were those with whom we had to do, and whom we would attaque as our principal adversaries, who had set a work all these projects against the doctrine of the Church, to uphold that of Molina; that their whole Society was assembled ad Rome; that they might choose the ablest of their Fathers to defend themselves against the accusations and complaints which we had to charge them with; and so we should not want Parties. He approved what I said; but our conference was not long, and we ended it sooner than we should have done, out of decency, because we saw there was a Table prepared for a Congregation which his Eminence expected there.  
That day I was told by one of the H. Office, that he to whom F. Annat's book de Incoacta libertate, then under the Press, was committed to read, had made his Report of it eight days ago; that M. Albizzi moved there might be given to it not only a Licence for printing, but also a kind of Approbation; that there was nothing in it contrary to the Faith; but the Members of the H. Office considering it was not their Custom, M. Albizzi could not bring them to his intended innovation, and so the book was only remitted to the Master of the Sacred Palace.  
I went to visit him on Saturday the 19 and represented the Prejudice which the Cause of Grace Effectual by itself would receive by the Approbation which F. Annat endeavoured to get from the Congregation of the H. Office for the Book he was printing, and the advantage which the Jesuits would make of it, for the upholding of their Molinistical Grace subject to Free Will, which could not be established but upon the ruins of many Christian Truths. The Master of the Sacred Palace presently agreed with me as to the prejudice which those truths receive from that Molinistical opinion, and particularly mentioned many truths that are subverted thereby. But he told me, that he did not believe F. Annat's book was writ in defence of that opinion; That were it so, it could not afford any consequence as to the matter of the Doctrine, which would not fail to be maintained, when they came to the Decision; but till it were come to that, the Pope had prohibited writing of these matters without permission of the Congregation of the H. Office; That the said Congregation had given F. Annat such permission, and him (the Master, etc.) permission to peruse the book, and give his consent to the impression; That he had done so, and could not have done otherwise; That those people were Almighty, Ognipotenti; That he was in an office in which it was necessary to obey. By which I saw, that we must be contented either to behold that book published, with whatever advantageous Notes of Approbation it could be authorised, or else stop its course by our complaint to the Pope against it, if we could get audience of him before it came forth.   

CHAP. II.  
Of the first Audience which we had together of the Pope, Jan. 21. 1652. at the end of which we delivered to him our first Memorial.  
AT length we obtained that so much desired Audience, on Sunday, Jan. 21. After we had made the usual kneel at entrance into the Chamber where the Pope was, and kissed his feet, we placed ourselves all four before him in a Semicircle, and being upon our knees, M. Brousse our Senior, spoke in Latin to his Holiness what followeth in the Translation.  
Most Holy Father,  
THE Joy we resent this day is so great, that no words are capable to express it. For what could happen more desirable and more happy to Sons of the Church, to Priests and Doctors, then to see ourselves prostrate before the Common Father of Christians, the Visible Head of the Church, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, and the Successor of S. Peter, to kiss his feet, and receive a benediction from his hand and mouth? So that we doubt not but the sequel of this Year will be favourable to us, and the success of our Commission fortunate, since we begin both the one and the other with your holiness's benediction.  
Behold us, most H. F. at the feet of your Holiness, sent from many most illustrious Bishops of France, who excited with an ardent Zeal for the Mysteries and Articles of Faith, and animated by their respect to the Holy See, and particularly towards your Holiness, have delegated us hither, to beseech you in their Name (according to the laudable custom of the Church in the like occasions) to please to ordain a Congregation for the Examination and Discussion of five Equivocal Propositions, fraudulently and subtly contrived, and whereof the Authors themselves solicit a Censure with all kind of artifices; to the end that after the Parties shall have been heard in presence one of the other, their proofs and reasons reciprocally produced, subscribed and communicated, the whole being weighed and examined as the importance of the matter requireth, your Holiness may pronounce and declare by the supreme authority which you have in the Church, what ought to be followed, and what avoided; which is the true sense of those Propositions which we are obliged to hold, and which the false which we ought to abhor; as we understand by public and authentic Acts to have been practised under Clement VIII. and Paul V of h●ppy memory, with so great glory to those two great Popes, so much lustre of the truth, and so great advantage to the H. See.  
Our Confrere here present hath formerly propounded the same more largely to your Holiness, when he had the Honour to present to you the Letters of our LL. the Bishops; and therefore I shall not repeat it, for fear of being tedious to your Holiness, reserving myself to speak further thereof when your Holiness shall please to command me. For your Holiness may easily judge, by that strength of mind which it hath pleased God to give you, of what importance this Suit of ours is for the preservation of truth, for unity, for peace, and for the authority of the Church, Forasmuch as the said Propositions being capable of divers senses, true and false, Catholic and Heretical, and having been cunningly framed by those who are the Authors of them, with design, if once they be condemned in general and according to the rigour of the words, to attribute to themselves the judgement of such Equivocal Censure, and under pretext of defending it, to take the Liberty of applying it as they please to all the kinds of senses; and so by mingling the true with the false, and error with the Catholic faith, to excite envy and hatred against many both Bishops and Doctors of very great piety and excellent learning, to accuse them to your Holiness as guilty of spiritual Treason, and to traduce them by their injuries and calumnies in the minds of the ignorant common people; as they have not been ashamed to do already, to the great scandal of all good men.  
In which regard, most H. F. there is none but sees how necessary the clearing of those Propositions is for Union, for peace, and for the good of the Church, to the end that the parties having been heard on either side, all the equivocations and ambiguities of words being unfolded, and all the odious cavils dispelled and rejected, falsity may become severed from truth, error from the faith, and bran from the flower, (to use S. gregory's Words.)  
I pass over in silence, most H. F. (that so I may not abuse the grace which your Holiness doth me in hearing me) that all this dispute concerns the dignity, authority and doctrine of S. Augustin, whom the supreme Pontiffs and the whole Church have always held in so great veneration; of that glorious Doctor I say, the scourge of Heretics, by whose mouth and pen during twenty years of his life the Church triumphed over its enemies, and still triumphs after his death: so that while the saving and victorious grace of Jesus Christ is in question, the cause is not only S. Augustin's, but that of the Church.  
Now, most H. F. whereas the sum of the difficulties which arise in this cause, is principally to know what is the sense of S. Augustin, undoubtedly nothing is so necessary in the Church as the discussion and judgement of that true sense; since if your Holiness should suffer people to continue to expound it in several manners, the authority and doctrine of that great Father, so often approved and commended by the Church, and by the supreme Pontifs, Innocent, Zozimus, Boniface, Celestin, Sixtus, Leo, Gelasius, Hormisdas, Felix, John, Gregory, Clement, Paul and others, would receive a mortal wound, be shattered, and made to jar with itself, and become exposed by means of fallacious Propositions, to the Censure of those who have seen hitherto that it was an attempt equally rash and unprofitable to impugn the same under the name of S. Augustin; which your Holiness easily judges would be the most prejudicial thing in the world, the most injurious to the supreme Pontifs, the most offensive in reference to the Holy Doctor of Grace, and the most destructive to holy and sacred Tradition.  
Your prudence and your goodness therefore, most H. F. will be pleased to grant in behalf of the grace of Jesus Christ, that favour to the Bishops which they request, that quiet to the Faithful which they wish, and that comfort to good men which they desire, and to our most humble supplications the accomplishment of our hope; that by this means the Faith may be cleared, Truth established, Christian Unity strengthened, sacred Tradition preserved, the honour of the Church maintained in the maintaining of the authority of S. Augustin, and that all may conspire to the upholding of the Majesty and Sovereignty of the H. See and the Roman Church, from whence as from a plenteous fountain flow the streams which water other Churches, as that Pope sometimes said who first bore the name which your Holiness doth. And lastly, that by these so important reasons the Church may have the comfort to see your Holiness happily accomplish what that H. Pope begun; and that what God did in Innocent I. by his grace and for his grace, he may do the same in Innocent X. and that it may be a part of the glory which by committing to you the guard of his divine flock, he hath reserved to your Holiness, to whom, we in the quality of true sons of the Church, Priests, Doctors, and Deputies of our LL. the Bishops, of France, wish at this beginning of the year, an accomplished felicity, and for whose health and prosperity we daily offer our Sacrifices to his Divine Majesty.  
M. Brousse pronounced this discourse very deliberately and pathetically, according to his usual way, and quickened it with as much vigour as the modesty and the submission befitting one that speaks to the Pope, and the place so little distant from him, and so private, wherein we were, could permit. The Pope heard him with great gravity and attention, and when he had ended, the Pope answered in Italian, and made a discourse of about the same length with this of M. Brousse. The substance which we could recollect of the Pope's answer, was not much different from what he had said to me in the two other audiences which he gave me alone. He told us, that he would not have us speak of Jansenius at all; Non voglio che sia fatta mentione di Jansenio in nissuna maniera. Those were his words. That when his book first came forth, what in it concerned this affair, was diligently examined; That after such examination it was thought meet to make the Bull of Vrban VIII, which was published upon this occasion, and by which the reading of Jansenius' book and the Theses of the Jesuits which treated of this matter, was prohibited; that as to the publication and execution of that Bull sundry difficulties were made, but they were never sound of moment enough to hinder the execution of the same; Thar the prohibitions made formerly by the Popes to write and dispute of those matters de Auxiliis, were not made without great necessity and cognizance of the cause. That Clement VIII. and Paul V his Predecessors, after they had taken very much pains, and spent much time and study upon this subject, and after they had assembled the most able Divines, who likewise laboured very much in it, at length all they could do was to impose a perpetual silence in these matters upon the Divines of both sides; That the best course was to keep to that, and not renew at this day those old disputes which could not be terminated in those times; and consequently not to speak of establishing a new Congregation de Auxiliis. That as for the doctrine of S. Augustin, there was no scruple but it ought to be followed and embraced in the Church, as it had been in all times in singular esteem and veneration; but the question was, who were they that truly embraced it; That when the Deputies of the Faculty of Louvain came to Rome, to defend the book of Jansenius, they said the same things that we do of the doctrine of S. Augustin, and the authority it ought to have in the Church; That it was to that alone which they adhered, and that Jansenius adhered to the same; but after his book had been examined and compared with the doctrine of S. Augustine, they who were employed therein at that time found that Jansenius held Propositions very different from the sentiments of S. Augustin; That all the world pleaded that authority and doctrine, and every one drew it to his own side; but it could not favour all; That every one construed it as he was inclined, and understood it after his own way; but it behoved not to stick so close to things and words, but to consider with what exaggeration and Hyperbole S. Augustin and other Holy Fathers of the Church may have spoken in some cases; as also not to rely and build upon what they may have sometimes said in the heat and vehemence of discourse, as upon the words of Scripture.  
The Pope in speaking all this, extended it more to other Fathers then to S. Augustin, and took his rise from what had been done by others, to tell us that the same might also have been done by S. Augustin: but indeed he spoke it with much hesitancy, and rather to make the answers and objections to us which possibly had been suggested to him by M. Albizzi, or others imbued with the Jesuits principles, then as being himself persuaded thereof.  
Wherefore his discourse leaving sufficient room for a reply, M. Brousse told the Pope in Italian (as the Letter relateth which he writ the next day to M. Puilon Doctor in Physic of the Faculty of Paris, his Countryman and friend) That we had nothing to do with Jansenius; That he was an Author in whom we were not concerned, no more than the Bishops who deputed us; that we barely requested the examen and discussion of the Propositions in question, in regard of the diversity of senses whereof they are capable, to hinder that the Censure which was to be made of them (as we acknowledged they deserved it in one sense) might not be reflected upon the doctrine of S. Augustin, as the enemies of that Saint professed to desire, having purposely framed them equivocal, and with different senses: As for the Congregation de Auxiliis, that we would abstain from the word Auxilium, saving so far as it would be necessary for the understanding of the Propositions (we knew the Pope was so firmly resolved not to renew the examination of that matter, that lest we should at the first address receive from his Holiness a precise and absolute refusal of the Congregation for which we supplicated, we were forced not to unfold to him so openly how it was contained in each of the Propositions well understood. Wherefore to render our Motion the more passable, M. Brousse was obliged to tell him in general, as his letter rehearseth, that we should abstain from the term Auxiliis, saving so far as would be necessary for the understanding of the Propositions.) And because his Holiness sp●ke of what passed under Clement VIII. as if after his time nothing had been done in this affair, and that the thing remained undecided, he prayed his Holiness to permit him to revive in his memory that point of history; and he told him, that after the death of Clement VIII, when the choice of his Successor was in agitation, it was determined in the Conclave before proceeding to Election, that he who should be chosen should finish what Clement had begun touching the matter de Auxiliis; That therefore Paul V (who succeeded Leo XI, whose Papacy lasted but a few days) immediately after his promotion to S. Peter's Chair reassembled those Congregations; that the matters having been examined anew at the instance of the Jesuits for defence of their Molina, who they said was ill understood, and ill defended to the Congregations under Clement, the matter was at length so terminated after many Congregations, that fifty Propositions of Molina were condemned; that the Bull was prepared and ready to thunder forth; but that which hindered it, was the quarrel of Venice, from whence the Jesuits being driven, prayed his Holiness not to publish that Bull, which would quite overwhelm them, promising him (what they have not kept) to renounce Molina, and no longer teach those evil Maxims. M. Brousse added, that this being a matter of fact and history which passed at Rome, we should not only be imprudent, but also deserve punishment for averring it at his Holinesses feet if it were not true; but we were certain that the Acts of those Congregations, with the Original of the Bull of Paul V were in Castello (in the Castle S. Angelo) and that if it pleased his Holiness to cause the same to be published, there would be no longer need of a Congregation for the terminating of all these contests. The Pope signified his satisfaction in this point of history, and answered that he would think on it. M. Brousse had the liberty to say many other things to him, among others concerning S. Augustins' doctrine, that we adhered to that alone, not as the Pope might fear we misconstrued it, but as it would be found to be really his; That when it came to be examined, it would be found clear and uniform, and that it must needs be so, since the Fathers and whole Councils have embraced it and commended it to the whole Church, as that which ought to be followed, and with which the Church had already triumphed over so many Heretics.  
We having there concluded it meet for me to speak to his Holiness, if I could have time, I took occasion in this place to say, That it would be one of the principal things in which his Holiness would by God's help one day have the satisfaction to find who were mistaken, our adversaries or we, when he had examined it and caused it to be examined in the solemn Congregation for which we came to supplicate; That he should see by the sequel of that examination, whether our adversaries or we, had the true understanding of St. Augustin's sentiments; That we now declared to him, that we would only adhere to what was acknowledged without contradiction and with perfect evidence, to have been taught by that great Doctor as the pure doctrine of the Church, and approved for such by Popes; and that it was for this purpose chief that we beseeched his Holiness to establish the Congregation desired by the Bishops upon occasion of those Five Propositions, whereof every one understood in the Catholic sense of Effectual Grace, contained an abridgement of his whole Doctrine; so connexed together were these matters, and dependant all upon one and the same principle.  
After this I took occasion from the Silence which the Pope so much insisted on, to complain to him of F. Annats' book which was printing. I represented to him, that that silence was so far from having been enjoined to Divines for ever, that at the same moment we were speaking to him, that book was printing in Rome; That M. Albizzi not content to have obtained permission from the Congregation of the H. Office for that Jesuit to break this silence, by publishing his book, used his endeavours to have it come forth with the Approbation of that Congregation, and the authority of his Holinesses name, thereby to engage the H. See unawares in the interests and sentiments of that Society; because upon the determination of one single point on one side or other, depended all that was to be held pro or con in the whole matter de Auxiliis.  
The Pope answered me, that it was a great mistake, to think that all that was printed at Rome was the sentiments of the H. See; but the approbation or Imprimatur requisite for the impression of books was not granted nor required, but to hinder lest any might be printed that were contrary to the Law of God and to Religion, or against good manners.  
Omitting what might have been replied to the Pope, (as, that the sentiments of the Jesuits touching Grace were wholly contrary to Religion, and to the good manners of true Christians) I answered, that F. Annat had designed not only to get the usual and general Imprimatur to his book, but to have it examined by the Congregatiom of the H. Office, to the end they might authorise the doctrine of it, and so the H. See become insensibly engaged in the unhappy cause of their Molina; that it wat only this consideration, and fear of the engagement of the H. See that made us anxious about the impression of that book; that otherwise, were there nothing more than the ordinary impression, we should be so far from hindering it, that we should rather further it; because S. Augustins and our adversaries printed nothing but what proved extremely advantageous to the truth and to our cause, they filled their books so with falsities, ignorances' and lies, and though all this might serve for some time to uphold their reputation by blinding the less attentive, yet when their books came once to be sifted in a Congregation of judicious & equitable Judges, the exorbitances would be scarce credible to which these good Fathers and their adherents suffer themselves to be transported against truth and honesty; that therefore the more they printed, the more they advantaged us; but all our trouble was, that they did it in the sight and knowledge of the H. See, and by that means engaged the same in broils from which it would be hard to clear itself, and which would increase the difficulties of our making known to it the justice of our cause, and of its declaring in our favour.  
The Pope was apprehensive of what I said to him about this subject, and signified that he had not heard of that book before, but he would consider of it, and take some order about it. I proceeded to tell him, how for the better accomplishing their design, they attempted to avoid passing through the hands of the Master of the Sacred Palace, who was forced to supplicate the Cardinals of the H. Office, that the rights of his place might not be prejudiced in this case; and all that he obtained, was, that the said Book might pass through his hands and he might read it; but withal he received order to pass it, to give it his Imprimatur; and that it was actually printing. The Pope smiled a little, to render this first audience more agreeable, speaking a word of raillery touching the continual contest that there was between the Dominicans and the Jesuits.  
I proceeded to the second thing whereof we agreed that I should complain to the Pope, and that was M. Albizzi's extreme passion for the interests of the Jesuits; and having told his Holiness that that Man was wholly possessed with their sentiments, and blindly favoured all their designs, I instanced visible tokens thereof that I had observed in particular cases: I told the Pope how he treated me when I was addressing to Cardinal Panzirolo touching the Hours, crying out, Si burla il Signor de Sant' Amor, si burla. That I presently remonstrating to him calmly, that he ought to treat me after another sort, if not for my own sake, yet in respect to the Bishops of France who sent me, and to the affair in which the H. See was the principal concerned, etc. The Pope here interrupted me, and told me I knew how himself had treated me, with how much esteem he had received what I represented to him in the name of those illustrious Bishops, and in what account he expressed to hold me particulary. I renewed my thanks to him; and he proceeded to tell me that Men are sometimes subject to choler, and suffer themselves to be transported with it; but it behoved to have a little patience in those cases, and excuse them. I replied, that M. Albizzi's proceeding testified more than choler, that he acted out of palpable Aversion: whereof I gave his Holiness this proof, that having continued to justify to M. Albizzi the reason for my acting as I did, he persisted to treat me ill and exasperate me, saying, that I was come to Rome to offer violence and force to the H. See; that we were full of evil intentions, and sought nothing but to cross its intersts, etc. The Pope, to show the injustice of that Reproach, interposed, that if it were so, we would not have recourse thither, as we had. I acknowledged the weight of the Pope's reason, and added, that it showed how injurious M. Albizzi was to speak otherwise; and that when I remonstrated to the said Signior Albizzi how little just it was in him, and very grievous for us, that he imputed to us evil intentions against the H. See, without having full proof thereof, he answered me more bitterly, That it was but too true that we had such evil intentions. Non è che troppo vero; etc. The Pope here again mentioned M. Albizzi's choler in his excuse.  
After this discourse, M. Brousse made some general complaints to the Pope touching the calumnies that were spread without control against us by the Jesuits, and at their instigation. To which the Pope answered, that it was not possible to hinder those disorders; That himself could not prevent all the calumnies that were made against him, and particularly, that it was not possible for him to stop the mouths of those which charged him as if he had no affection to France, but had intentions prejudicial to the service of that Crown, notwithstanding his care in all cases to give proofs of his affection for that first Kingdom of Christendom, in which for his own particular he had received so much honour, and so many obliging treatments.  
But to give the Pope an instance of the boundless liberty taken by our Adversaries to dare any thing against us, that their blind passion suggested, I was willing to have himself a witness thereof, in presence of my Colleagues. I said to him, H. Father, Your Holiness remembers that you lately saw here a certain Cordelier named F. Mulard, who addressed to your Holiness as being deputed from the Faculty of Divinity at Paris about the same affairs. The Pope answered, that it was true. I proceeded; H. Father, Your Holiness may also remember, whether in the Audiences you did me the favour to give me, you heard me so much as name the Faculty out of my mouth, to call myself their Deputy; and whether I ever said that I was sent from any other than the Prelates whose Letters I delivered to you. The Pope acknowledged the truth of both. I continued, Nevertheless H. Father, I have been accused to the Assembly of the Faculty, for terming myself their Deputy: and they, who instigated the said Cordelier to take upon him that Quality here, aimed by that artifice to cause the Faculty to declare that they had not deputed me, thereby to blemish my reputation, and possibly to take some pretext of inferring, that the Faculty indirectly authorised the Chimerical deputation of that Cordelier, (who termed himself so for three or four months) in that they did not complain thereof; But some Doctor's understanding this Fraud, and laying it open in the Assembly, it gave occasion to the Faculty to declare that they had not hitherto deputed any person hither; and by that means that which had been prepared to calumniate me, hath served to convince before your Holiness the Authors of that imposture of the Cordelier. In proof of all which I presented the Copy of the Facultie's Conclusion to the Pope, desiring him to keep it, and if he thought good, to send it into France, to verify whether it were the writing of M. Bouvot the Faculties Register, or not; and to make me undergo such punishment as he pleased, if he found that I imposed upon his Holiness. The Pope told me that he believed it sufficiently upon what I said to him, that he did not take me for a person likely to impose upon him; and he bid me read the said Conclusion, which I held in my hands before him. In obedience to his Holiness I read the same throughout in Latin, as it here followeth.  
ANNO Domini Millesimo Sexcentisimo Quinquagesimo primo, Die quarta Mensis Novembris, Sacra Theologiae Facultas Parisiensis, post Missam de Spiritu Sancto sua ordinaria habuit Comitia in aula Collegii Sorbonae; in quibus honorandus Magister noster Martinus Grandin Syndicus exposuit se ante paucos dies cum honorando Domino Messier Prodecano vocatos fuisse per Illustrissimum D. Nuncium Apostolicum, ipsumque ab iis quaesivisse an Facultas Romam legasset D. Abbatem de S. Amando, seu de S. Amore, seque respondisse Neminem Romam à Facultate deputatum esse. Quo audito honorandus M. N. Petrus Deschasteaux Sorbonicus asseruit coràm Facultate, Dominum de S. Amour, Romae non se gerere neque gessisse pro Deputato Facultatis; & suam Assertionem literis sibi ab ipso Domino de St. Amour dudum transmissis, quas exhibuit, comprobavit. jis expositis, Censuit Facultas referendum esse ad Illustrissimum D. Nuntium per eosdem Magistros nostros Messier & Grandin, neminem hactenus ex parte Facultatis fuisse Romam deputatum, Dominumque de St. Amour significasse se non agere ut deputatum ejusdem, ut literis Domino Deschastea●x ab eo scriptis in Congregatione exhibitis CONSTAT, quas eidem Illustrissimo Nuncio communicandas decrevit.  
In quorum fidem subscripsi die primâ Mensis Decembris, Anno Domini quo suprà. De Mandato DD. Decani & Magistrorum praefatae Facultatis Sacrae Theologiae Parisiensis. Signed, Ph. Bouvot, Major Apparitor.  
When I had done reading this Conclusion, the Pope asked me how the Nuntio came to have a hand in this business, He, come è intervenuto in quesio Monsignor Nuncio? I told the Pope, that I was unwilling to have mentioned that circumstance, though it may serve to make their insolence and detraction the more public and notorious, because I feared his Holiness would not be well pleased to hear what hand the Nuntio had had in it; but having been obliged by his command to read the Conclusion, I could not add to or diminish from it. That indeed I wondered, together with his Holiness, how the Nuntio came to interpose in the matter; but his Holiness saw that it was so; and all that I could conjecture was, that he must needs have been surprised, and made to believe things otherwise then they were; that however, his Holiness might find thereby that the Nuntio was liable to be surprised too in other things, and consequently that his Holiness ought not to give credit to all that he might signify against us, since others have deluded him by making him believe such things in France as he might have sent to his Holiness, how false and calumnious soever. In the discourse about the Authors of that unworthy accusation, mention was made of M. Hallier Syndic of the Faculty and Cousin to F. Mulard, who possibly had been the principal promotor of it. The Pope told us that he did not know him, but had heard him spoken of as a very commendable person. Whereupon I told the Pope, that whatsoever esteem was had of him, his Holiness might judge whether he deserved it, and know what temper and conduct he was of, by comparing the Letters which he had written and were at Rome, with the Conclusion of the Faculty which I had read unto him.  
The Pope remained astonished at this Intrigue. Yet he told us that without this conviction, the thing spoke sufficiently of itself; that indeed he had given audience to that Cordelier, and heard him as the Deputy of the Faculty of Paris, yet he could never think that he was so indeed, and that so eminent a society as that was, and as he had found it whilst he was in France, consisting of many learned and worthy persons, would send to him for Deputy un tall Fratre, such a pitiful Friar as F. Mulard was. I beseeched the Pope to remember all this history, so contrary to sincerity and to the respect which is due to the H. See; and to consider how little credit those people deserved in their private accusations and secret libels (of which themselves were so ashamed as not to bring them out of obscurity) who had the forehead to venture to commit publicly actions liable to so many reproaches, so odious and so easy to be refelled.  
The Pope answered that we ought not to fear that he would suffer himself to be possessed by calumnies; and that as to the main of our affair, he would take time to consider it more maturely; that it was of such a nature as admitted not much speed. I answered him that we should attend upon it; and yet we hoped his Holiness would not have so much trouble in it as might be imagined. I added that in the like case Clement VIII. employed the whole year 1597. in assembling the Consultors whom he chose for his Congregation. That the first time they were seen together, was the second day of the year 1598. That that year and the four following, all passed without the Pope's being present in those Congregations; That the first time their Congregation was held in his presence, was March 20. 1603. That to know how things went during those five years, he caused what passed amongst the Consultors to be reported to himself from time to time, by persons sure and faithful. The Pope was here pleased to object against what I said, telling me that in the year 1598. Clement VIII. went to Ferrara, for the recovering of that Duchy. I answered that I knew Clement VIII. made that journey in that year, but his Consultors tarried at Rome and ceased not to labour there during his absence. The Pope expressed himself something pleased with this discourse, and we all began to put ourselves in a readiness to withdraw, after having been about an hour in this audience: but before we arose up, I told the Pope again that we should attend his resolution and orders upon what we had represented; but in the mean time the thing that was urgent and admitted little delay, was, F. Annat's book, in which care was to be taken that the publishing of it might not be with any mark of the H. see's approbation; which the Pope testified he would see to. He gave us a plenary Indulgence in forma jubilei, upon visiting the four Churches, in favour of my Colleagues who were not at Rome during the H. year. As we withdrew from the Pope's presence, we presented to him the Memorial here subjoined; The form of those Memorials is thus, The sheets of Paper in which they are written, are usually so folded, as to be about four fingers broad and half a foot long. On the outside there is an Inscription at the top containing the Person's name to whom they are presented, and another at the bottom of the substance of the affair concerned; Ours was thus inscribed, Beatissimo Patri Jnnocentio Papae X. pro pluribus Galliae Episcopis, Doctores Parisienses illorum Oratores. The Contents follow.  
BEATISSIME PATER,  
IVxta literas à pluribus Illustrissimis Ecclesiae Gallicanae Antistitibus ad Beatitudinem vestram missas, illorum nomine Doctores Parisienses infrascripti sanctitati vestrae humillimè supplicant, ut distingui & sigillatim examinari jubeat varios sensus quinque Propositionum aequivocarum & ad fraudem fictarum, quae vestrae Beatitudini exhibitae sunt; atque ut de praedictis sensibus, prout exiget illorum veritas, ac aliorum falsitas, sententiam ferre velit, partibus prius in Congregatione tum voce tum scripto coràm auditis, & omnibus illarum scriptis mutuò communicatis, sicut postulant negotii magnitudo, in similibus occasionibus Ecclesiae consuetudo, ipsiusque Sanctae sedis Apostolicae usus non ita pridem à felicis memoriae Clement VIII. & Paul V vestrae Sactitatis praecssoribus observata. Confidunt iidem Oratores hoc se beneficium consolationémque istam accepturos à Summa benignitate, sapientia & aequitate Sanctitatis vestrae, quam Dominus gratiae suae praecipuo munere 
* Ex Ep. S. Aug. & caeterorum Episcoporum Concil. Milev. ad Innocentium I.  in sede Apostolica collocatam praestet per annos plurimos incolumem ac felicem.  
Signed, 

Ego Jacobus Brousse Doctor Theologus Parisiensis Praedicator & Consiliarius Regis Christianissimi, & in Ecclesia Sancti Honorati Parisiensis Canonicus, supplico ut suprà.  
Ego Natalis de la Lana Doctor Theologus Parisiensis & Abbas B. Mariae de Valleerescente, supplico ut suprà.  
Ego Ludovicus de Saint-Amour Doctor Theologus Parisiensis & socius Sorbonicus, supplico ut suprà.  
Ego Ludovicus Angran Licentiatus Theologus Parisiensis, & insignis Ecclesiae Trecensis Canonicus, supplico ut suprà.    
The said Memorial importeth these words being translated,  
To the most holy Father Pope Innocent X. in the name of sundry Bishops of France, the Doctors of Paris their Deputies.  
MOST HOLY FATHER,  
THE Doctors of Paris underwritten most humbly beseech your Holiness in the name of divers Bishops of the Church of France, according to the letters written by them to you, that it will please you to cause distinction to be made of the different senses of the five Propositions, framed equivocally and fraudulently to deceive and surprise the Church which have been presented to your Holiness, and to cause each of those senses to be particularly examined, to the end your Holiness may pronounce judgement thereupon, according as the truth of the one & the falsehood of the other shall require, after you shall have heard in a Congregation both parties in presence one of the other, both by word of mouth, and by writings, and all the writings of either side shall have been mutually communicated, as the importance of this affair, the accustom of the Church in like occasions, and likewise the practice of the H. Apostolical See, observed not long since by your Holines' predecessors Clement VIII. and Paul V of happy memory, require. The said supplicants hope they shall receive this favour and comfort from the goodness; wisdom and equity of your Holiness, whom God preserve may years in the H. Apostolical see, where he hath established you by a singular gift of his grace.  
Signed, 

James Brousse Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, etc.  
Noel de la Lane Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, etc.  
Lewis de Saint-Amour Doctor in Divinity of the house and society of Sorbon, etc.  
Lewis Angran Licentiate in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, etc.    
In the afternon of the same day the Pope sent for M. Albizzi, who repaired to his Holiness; some friends of ours that saw him when he came away from the Pope, told me that his countenance intimated no great satisfaction with his audience. After which it is likely he was with the Jesuits, who that day had chosen F. Godifridi a Neapolitan for their General. They were to have gone forthwith to salute the Pope, or at least the next day after that Election. But one of their Fathers the next day raised a very ridiculous and false Report, for the reason of their delay; namely, that notice was given them to forbear that Visit a while, because the Pope parted with us extraordinarily ill pleased, and they should have no contentment to address to him whilst he was in that bad disposition. For the Truth is, he gave us none but expressions of Joy, Benignity, Esteem and good Will.  
We could not conveniently wait upon Cardinal Pamphilio, to give account of this audience, according to the custom which is observed at Rome, till Friday the 26. of this month. Nor was he then disposed conveniently to hear us. For he was so busy, and it was so late, that we were forced to tell him, that it was expedient that we had a little more time to acquaint him with the business of our coming and deputation to his Holiness, than he could then afford us. He told us that he should be willing to hear us at any time. His Eminence would not set the day, as we moved him, but told us, that it should be as often as we pleased. We durst not press him further to assign one in which he might please to be at leisure, though it would have been very convenient both for himself and for us, and most advantageous for the affair whereof we were to speak. But he had so many other, and so different from ours in the station wherein he was, that its likely he had rather not hear of it at all, then suffer himself to be informed thereof.   

CHAP. III.  
The Verification of the Original of the Memoires of M. Pegna Dean of the Rota touching the Congregations de Auxiliis. Sundry things which we did during the rest of January and the beginning of February.  
THe Dominicans had lent me the last Summer with much goodness and confidence, the Original of the Writings of M. Pegna, sometimes Dean of the Rota under the Papacy of Clement VIII. who had had the curiosity to observe daily what passed in the Congregation de Auxiliis. I intended faithfully to restore what was so courteously lent me, but I was willing to keep a Copy or two compared with the Original, to have Recourse thereunto in case of need, and derive such Light and advantages from the same as it afforded for the cause of Truth, the Honour of the H. See, and that of the Consultors who had been employed in that Congregation. Wherefore before I transcribed my Copies, that I might be assured, the Original was the hand of M. Pegna, I had oft desired M. Noiset his Successor in that Office, to whom I had very free access, to show me some of the Records of their Tribunal of the hand-writing of M, Pegna. At length on Sunday the 28. of Jan. M. du Noiset sent to Brousse and I when we repaired thither, an ancient Notary of their Tribunal named Peter Cottuen, giving him order to do all necessary things for us that we desired. When this Notary had showed us several Papers written with the hand of M. Pegna, and we found that they were all like that of the Book which I had, we prayed him to get us two persons expert or sworn for the verification of Writings. He fetched two, who were name Andrea's Albercius, and Franciscus Pignocatus; and they acknowledged that the Book which I had was of M. Pegna's hand: whereupon they drew an Act or Memorandum which was de●ver'd to us the same day.  
On Tuesday the 30. of January we went to the Ambassador to acquaint him with all that passed in the Audience which we had had of the Pope. The Ambassador gave us very fair opportunity, for he lead us out to walk with him to the Church of St. Martin, where we heard Mass, and afterwards he carried us back to dine with him.  
In the afternoon we visited Cardinal Roma, who confirmed to us what he had always promised, that we should not fail to be heard in this affair as amply as we could wish, and declared to us that he promised the same again.  
On Wednesday morning the last of this month, we waited upon Cardinal Barberin de la Minerve. Whilst he was there, we visited F. Barelier. When the Cardinal came forth, he carried us to S. Jaques des Incurables, where he said Mass, and served the poor at Dinner whom he treated that day, and we assisted his Eminence to serve them. That afternoon we visited the Marquis del Buffalo, then F. Vbaldino, (who amongst other things speaking of the Pope and of Divinity, reiterated plainly what I have above reported, that is was not his Profession, Non è la sua Professione;) and afterwards the General of the Dominicans, whom we entertained amply and calmly concerning the matter of our Affairs, and he very well received what we said. One thing remarkable he told us, viz. That Cardinal Lugo whilst he was a Jesuit, endeavoured to engage him in a Ligue against the Book of Jansenius.  
The first observable thing that occurred in February, was, that on Monday the fifth day of that month one came and told me from a good hand, that F. Fani a Dominican and Companion of the Master of the sacred Palace, having read F. Annat's Book, found two Calvinistical Propositions in it, notwithstanding which he forbore not to give it his Imprimatur, on condition that they should be expunged. That this condition very much displeased the Author, who went forthwith to complain thereof to M. Albizzi: That M. Albizzi to content him, and revenge the Injury done to such an ancient Jesuit as F. Annat by so young a Dominican, presently writ to the Printer, that without taking heed to the Restriction of the Imprimatur, he should not fail to print all that the Jesuits appointed him. That F. Fani going to the Printer to see whether F Annat had taken care to expunge those two Calvanistical Propositions out of this Book, and how the places were corrected; he there found M. Albizzi's Letter contrary to the correction which he had enjoined. That he took and compared a Copy thereof before a Notary, and carried the same to the Master of the sacred Palace, who being informed of the whole matter on the foregoing Wednesday, acquainted the Congregation of the H. Office therewith, who gave a check to M. Albizzi for so doing, and enjoined him to meddle no more with things that belonged not to the functions of his place.  
On Wednesday morning, Feb. 6. we went to Monte Cavallo to thank the Pope's Maistre de Chambri, for the audience which he had procured us, and to tell him that in that Audience we had spoken to his Holiness of a particular affair which was urgent, and abont which we conceived ourselves obliged to present him a new Memorial; which Memorial we desired him to deliver without delay. We told him also that the Affair of which we were to inform the Pope, being of the nature of those which are held at Rome the most secret, we had made two Copies, whereof one was sealed, the other open in the ordinary form; & that we would leave with him which he pleased. He referred it to our own choice. We perceiving that he was willing to have that which was open, conceived that civility obliged us to repose that confidence in him (in which nevertheless we did ill; for had we given him the sealed Copy, he would no doubt have delivered it the same day to the Pope, without troubling himself about what was contained in it; whereas giving him that which was unsealed, he had the curiosity to look into it, and the quality of the matter made him backward to deliver it; this and other delays which superven'd, almost made that Memorial of no use, as I shall relate hereafter) But so it was, that we left t●e unsealed Copy of the Memorial with the Popes Maistre de Chambre, who promised to deliver it to his Holiness the same day.  
We went afterwards to visit F. Delbene, who repaid our Visit in the afternoon: in both which Entertainments nothing passed but after the general way in which we treated this affair, as I have above in imated.  
On Thursday Feb. 8. we visited Padre Bordone, whom we found very inclinable to be informed fully of the bottom of our Controversies, and very ready to receive such Impressions thereof as S. Prosper and S. Augustin might give him: in the reading which he promised us he would not fail to undertake them with care and diligence.  
On the ninth M. Brousse and I went to the Pope's Presence-Chamber to know of his Maistre de Chambre what he had done with our Memorial. He told us that that Memorial was about an affair of too great consequence, and fit only to be treated by an Ambassador. That to confess the Truth, he conceived that by our giving it open to him, we were willing that he should read it; that he did so, and afterwards could not resolve to present it to the Pope. That the Pope had a Nephew who did not stand for nothing. That if we thought good, we might address to him to present to it his Holiness; or if we liked better, we might come the Sunday following for an Audience, and present it ourselves, We accepted this last condition, and took back our Memorial, being unable by all our Reasons to persuade this Maistre de Chambre to do us that Office, or satisfy his fears.  
On Saturday the 10. M. Brousse and I were at Laurence Church in Damazo to hear a Sermon of F. Mariana; Cardinal Barberin happened to be then in a little Chapel right against the Pulpit; and understanding that we were in the Church, he caused us to be called, and Seats placed for us near his Eminence. The Preacher spoke very much in his Sermon of Effectual Grace, and of its necessity to all Christian actions; and he ended with a Prayer to God to beg his assistance and protection for the defence of that Grace, against those who impugned, and used all their endeavours to ruin the same.  
On Sunday the 11th. we went to the Pope's Presence-Chamber to be introduced to Audience, and to present him our Memorial. But lest the Pope should think we came to have his Answer upon our principal Affair, and therefore suspect us of Impatience, I brought it sealed, and entreated the Maistre de Chambre to take it in his hand, and when he acquainted the Pope that we desired Audience, to tell his Holiness that we (desired it to present that Memorial to him; upon the outside of which, the Subject it contained, was written according to the Custom. I added, that if the Pope pleased to hear us a little touching that matter, he might cause us to enter; otherwise, if he took our Memorial, it was sufficient. But the Maistre de Chambre would by no means meddle with it. We waited therefore to have Audience, till all that the Pope admitted were ended, but we could have none. Of which speaking to a friend that understood those Affairs, and of the necessity that our Memorial were speedily delivered, lest if it were long delayed, F. Annat's Book against the Publication of which it was designed, might be finished and published, my friend advised us to wait upon Monsignor Ghiggi, and entreat him to deliver it to the Pope without delay.  
Accordingly in the Afternoon we repaired to M. Ghiggi, but not finding him at home, we returned thither again the next day, and were told that he gave no audience that day, in regard of the Dispatches that he was preparing for France. But the prejudice which this Affair might suffer by delay, made us resolve to tell his Maistre de Chambre that we had sought eight days to deliver that sealed Paper to the Pope, and for that it was about a very urgent matter, and that was the day of the Curriers departure, we were desirous to send word that we had put it into a sure hand that would not fail to deliver it to the Pope. The Gentleman willingly undertook it, and assured us very civilly, that he would not fail to acquit himself of his Commission.  
As we had been in the Chapel on Candlemas day at the Ceremony and Distribution of the H. Tapers, and had each received one from the Pope's hand, so we were there also upon Aswednesday at that Ceremony, and there received Ashes likewise from the hand of his Holiness. In the Afternoon we began our Visits, and after many fruitless ones to Monsignor Ghiggi, to the Procurator general of S. Marcello, to F. Hllarion, etc. we made one with success to M. Noiset, to thank him for an other which he made to us the first of this month, and other civilities received from him, particularly the verification of the Original which I had of the history or rather the memories of M. Pegna.  
My impatience to learn whether our Memorial were delivered to the Pope, caused me to go alone towards evening to Monsignor Ghiggi. He who had it in charge, told me that Monsignor Ghiggi said, that being a Memorial it ought to go directly to the Pope's Maistre de chambre; yet for this time, and not to draw it into consequence, he would do us that office to his Holiness. I could not obtain to speak with him, but was referred to another time. However, I understood that his order and place was to unseal all the letters which he received for the Pope and Cardinal Pamphilio; and so our Memorial being sealed in form of a Letter, he had no doubt opened, and probably spoken of it to his Holiness.  
On Thursday the 15. we visited Cardinal Palotta, who at our coming was ready to say Mass, which we heard. After which we were scarce sat down to lay open to him the subject of our visit, but the time being come for him to go to the Sermon at S. Laurence in Lucina, we were obliged to remit part to another day: which he prayed us to do and to leave with him if we could some Instruction in writing concerning what we had to say to him; then we visited the F. companion of the Commissary of the H. Office, Cardinal Lanti who was sick, Cardinal Franciotti who assented that the authority of S. Augustin was sacred and inviolable, Cardinal Carpegna who heard us very calmly and gravely; and after them the Procurator General of the Capucines.  
On Friday the 16th. going to learn news of our Memorial from a particular friend, he could not tell me any, but informed me that two or three days ago two Cardinals being in a Coach together, and meeting us, one said to the other, There go the Jansenists, (or some equivalent word) and the other who knew our sentiments, undertook our defence, and gave his companion an account of our negotiation with the Pope. He told me also that Cardinal Rapaccioli was a great intimate of Cardinal Barberin, and therefore we should do well to visit him, and when we did so, to give him to understand that our affair had no affinity with that of Jansenius. This friend told me one thing which seemed strange, namely that the Jesuits presented a Memorial in the Spanish tongue to Clement VIII. in February 1602. which was neither the common language of the Western Church, nor the natural one of the Country where the Pope resided. He added that the Jesuits who presented, were of the same Country with Molina, for whose defence they were newly arrived from Spain, that Clement VIII. well understood that language; but besides that memorial they delivered others also in Latin.  
Returning from this visit (it being unseasonable to make any to the Cardinals, because it was the time of Sermon at the Pope's Chapel, whether they repair every Friday in Lent) we went to see F. Abbot Hilarion who lived in the House de saint Croix de Jerusalem. After reciprocal civilities, the first thing he put us upon was the Bull of Vrban VIII. which he complaned much that the Jesus tes abused against Jansenius, to whom it did no prejudice as to the ground of any thing in his book: Because the book was barely prohibited for having transgressed the prohibitions of printing concerning those matters without permission. That it was clearer than the day, that those Prohibitions were violated by its publication; and that indeed all others which treated of the same matters were equally against those prohibitions, because it was equally forbidden to write either for, or against; That in the second place, for the Bull's saying that there is in Jansenius' book, Ptopositions condemned by Jansenius, that is to be understood, as they were condemned by the Pope, and not otherwise: but amongst those which he there condemns, there are some excepted, and it was not said that those which were excepted, were not the same that Jansenius taught. So that the difference not having been made by the H. See, there was reason to forbid the book and the reading of it by provision, till it were made. But yet all that was in it, might be true to the least line, and yet the said Bull have its full and entire execution. Thus this learned Monastic engaged us to speak much of Jansenius; but before we parted, we told him, let the affairs of that Bishop go as they would, it was nothing to us, who had nothing to propound either for his defence, or against the Bull; and that we stuck only to the affair of the five Propositions in question. Of which we gave him the reasons, namely the Catholic sense concerning Effectual Grace included in them, which we explicated to him. He was well pleased therewith, and acknowledged every one for Catholic which we mentioned, telling us he believed they could be in no danger as to that sense. And at last he invited us to come the fourth sunday of Lent to see those rare and precious Relics which are in that House whereof he is Superior.  
The same day, Friday the 16th. we went to visit Cardinal Rapaccioli according as we were advised: He professd much desire to be instructed concerning our affair, whereof we informed him punctually enough, and when we told him we were not come for the defence of Jansenius' book, but only for the clearing of the different senses which might be given those Propositions, he answered that we did prudently, because Jansenius malè audiebat Romae. That in this affair he should be set aside, and the Propositions examined without taking notice of him. To which we replied as we had done in former visits, That when the senses of those Propositions were distinguished and cleared, and the Pope had passed a particular judgement of them, it would be easy to find whether the doctrine of Jansenius upon this subject were Catholic or Heretical, only by comparing those senses so cleared and judged with what is contained in the book of that Bishop.  
We also visited Cardinal Ludovisio, who heard our account of this affair with great civility. Besides the general things which we represented every where else, we testified to him that notwithstanding the necessity of it, yet we were very backward to bring this new encumbrance upon the Pope besides those which molested him already. To which he answered that the Pope was not a temporal Prince but by accident, that God had not established him such; but as for matters of Faith and Truth, they ought to be his first care. We beseeched him to remember the justice of our suit for a Congregation for the discussion of this affair, and to favour this suit with his approbation and recommendation in such occasions as he might have to do it. He told us that by what we had said, he sufficiently understood the importance of it; but the same would be more apparent when the Pope had appointed Judges to examine it; and if he were of the number, he would do all in his power in behalf of truth and justice.  
The Procurator General of the Augustine's received the next visit from us; we instructed him sound and amply of our intentions, and confirmed to him altogether, what I had formerly acquainted him with alone. The same day I endeavoured to speak with Monsignor Ghiggi, but was told some other hour in the day would be more proper than the Evening; yet I could not obtain to have one expressly assigned me, because Monsignor, they said, was not at his own dispose.  
I durst not go thither again on Saturday, in regard of the Dispatches for Italy, but I designed that day for some particular visits, amongst which one was to F. Dinel the Jesuit; we talked much more of the ancient acquaintance which he and I had at Court while he was the late King's Confessor, and of the singular good will which he acknowledged his Majesty had for me, then of the affairs of the time; saving that we spoke something about my return and my Commission to Rome, of which he acknowledged with me the fruit could not be but advantageous to all the world.  
On Sunday the 18th. after we had been to accompany the Ambassador to Chapel, I went to Monsignor Ghiggi's house, but not finding him I returned thither in the afternoon, and stayed to speak with him till six a clock at night. I told him we were constrained to have recourse to him for our Memorial, by reason of the difficulty and delay of audience from the Pope, and the fear lest the book should come forth in the mean time. He said it was a matter that did not belong to him, yet he had spoken of it to the Pope, who told him he had given order that the book should not come forth without having been first well perused, etc. I did not think fit to give Monsignor Ghiggi such an answer as would have been more material than that which I made him. I ought to have told him, that it was difficult to weigh the consequences of the impression of that book without having first examined things to the bottom, as we desired they might be, and the parties heard. But having thanked him for his good office, I only said, That with what ever care it might be perused, we had to do with people that had many wiles and subterfuges, that explicated their writings on way to the Examiner's before printing, and afterwards understood them another, and made what use of them they pleased. That, for instance, they took this course to draw the Dominicans into the same complotment with themselves, persuading them that they both defended the same kind of Grace which they call sufficient; though they knew very well, that that which the Dominicans hold (besides which learned Divines maintain that there is requisite Effectual Grace, to determine the Will to a good action) is wholly different from their own, which they so subject to the Will, as to make the good or bad use of it wholly to depend upon that Faculty. Monsignor Ghiggi fell upon the Political reason that there was, not to permit either side to print such sort of books, and that it was requisite to forbid all the world equally so to do. I answered, that it would be good in the interim; but at length it was requisite to manifest which side had reason, which defended the Truth and the Faith, and so come to a solemn decision, which would bring all parties to accord. He made great difficulties as to this, in regard he saw that while the H. See remembered and considered that Clement VIII. & Paul V had laboured so much in these matters without determining any thing, it would be loath to reassemble new Divines to labour therein. I acknowledged that certainly it would be very difficult; but I told him that it was the more necessary, in regard those two Popes forbore to define any thing or to publish their definitions, only to spare the Jesuits, upon hope that they would by degrees return to the good and holy doctrine of the Church which they had forsaken; but instead of doing so, they were become more and more remote from it, and therefore it was time to reduce them: Tempus faci●ndi, Domine; dissipaverunt legem tuam. Monsignor Ghiggi would not believe what I said; but I added that it would be very easy to verify it by most clear reasons and indubitable proofs; that we knew how all things passed under those two Popes, that we had the Memoires thereof, either the Originals, or such as were compared therewith, and that amongst others we had at Paris many Pieces concerning these matters signed by Clement VIII. his own hand. Monsignor Ghiggi was astonished at this, but I assured him of the truth it. Then we fell to speak of our Memorial; and he confirmed to me again that the Pope told him he would take order in it, and that he believed the impression of the book was stopped, till his Holiness further signified his pleasure about it. He said we might nevertheless continue our diligences in the ordinary manner, and that for his part, he could do no more in it then what he had done. He spoke also of prohibiting either side to print any thing touching these matters. I answered, that we could not consent to prohibitions that were common to us with them; that the same would be ineffectual with them, and prejudicial to the cause which we maintained; that they would not obey the same on their part, but make use of them for a pretext to oppose and persecute us. I added, that the shortest course, most honourable for the H. See, most edifying for the Church, most expedient against the reproaches of its enemies, and most advantageous for our adversaries and ourselves, was to examine and declare which of us was in the right; That we did not endeavour absolutely to hinder the impression of the said book; that we should be glad it were published; because, to judge by the other outrages which that party hath divulged, it might be presumed that this would give us new advantages against them as well as their former Libels: but all we proposed to ourselves in our prosecution against it, was only to hinder it from coming forth as authorised and approved by the H. See: Provided this particular were secured, we were not further solicitous. This Conference ended, as it began, with very great reciprocal civilities, with telling the news of the time, as he was doing me the honour to reconduct me to the stairs.   

CHAP. IU.  
Concerning our transactions till the end of February. A Promotion of Cardinals, amongst whom was Monsignor Ghiggi. Of a Memorial which we presented to the Pope against a book of F. Annat under the Press; and of the Visits which we began to make to all the Sacred College.  
THE next day after the abovementioned Visit, Monday the 19th of February, Monsignor Ghiggi was created Cardinal, with nine other persons, whose merit was publicly and unanimously acknowledged in Rome by all people. It was not remembered that there had been seen a promotion of such commendable Churchmen, not only in reference to those whom the Pope made of his own choice, but also to them who were nominated to him by the two Crowns. It is not credible how all people strived to give the Pope applauses and benedictions for having so worthily filled the vacant places of the Sacred College. Besides Monsignor Ghiggi, their names were, my LL. the Cardd. Homodei, Santa Croce, Corrado, Ottobone, Lomelino, Aldobrandino, who were at Rome; and the Cardinal of Hassia, Cardinal Pimentelli, and Cardinal the Rets, who were not there.  
When I received the news of this promotion, I was with one of my Friends, who came to me to advertise me, that Cardinal Spada had received many Letters from Paris, which were very sharp against those that are called Jansenists; that it was urged vehemently in these Letters, that unless the Jansenists were suppressed, all was lost; and that the Letters being in French, the Cardinal caused him to translate them into Italian, in order to present them so translated to the Pope. What could we now do against all these Cabals and calumnies, besides what we had done already, and continued to do? It behoved us to receive that intelligence from the hand of God, as well as the news of the Promotion, blessing him both for the one and the other, and partaking in the public joy.  
I had cautioned with the Master of the Sacred Palace for a permission for us to have and read all books made pro or con about the matters of Grace. In the afternoon I went to remind him of it, and to congratulate with him and F. Fani his Companion for the promotion of Cardinal Pimentelli, who was of their Order.  
Returning, I found F. Hilarion at our lodging. In his discourse he confirmed again to us that the Bull of Vrban VIII. against Jansenius might hold in the whole extent which the makers of it intended, and could equitably be allowed to it, and yet nothing at all be in the book of that Bishop but what was most true and most Orthodox; That the Jesuits had not so great credit at Rome as was imagined; That the Propositions, as we understood them, could not run any hazard; That he had looked upon the book of F. Annat; That F. Modeste Procurator General of the Conventual Cordeliers was he that read it, and made report that it might be printed, and if it were judged otherwise he would answer it; and many other things of this nature, which that learned Monastic told us with great gentleness and sincerity.  
On Tuesday the 20. one brought me very early as many sheets of F. Annat's book as were printed, and after we had perused some of them, M. Brousse and I went to the Pope's presence-chamber to endeavour to get audience, and present him our Memorial against that book. But we were frustrated because the Pope that day expected the Ambassadors of Princes who were to come and thank him for the Cardinals newly made at the recommendation of their Masters. Wherefore we went to wait upon the King's Ambassador to accompany him to the ceremony, and also to beseech him to move the Pope either to give us audience, or appoint his Maistre de chambre to take our Memorial, in order to show it to his Holiness. The Ambassador told us he should not speak of any business in this visit, but on Friday following, which was the day of his usual audience, he would not sail to do what we desired.  
On Wednesday the 21. I went to F. Fani to tell him how many things there were contrary to Effectual Grace in the sheets which I had seen of F. Annats' book. He bid me represent the same boldly; and said he had scarce had time to peruse it, and it was not in his power to read it exactly.  
Afterwards M. Brousse and I went to the Ambassador, who told us that in the end of his audience, ask the Pope, How his Holiness liked our Doctors? The Pope expressed himself well satisfied with us. That then he signified to him, that we desired to have an audience touching a book that was printing, whereof we complained. But the Pope seemed surprised at our soliciting for audience; and looked upon our complaint as a thrusting of ourselves to intermeddle with the order and discipline of Impressions which are made at Rome, and to reform the same. That the said the book had been seen by the Master of the Sacred Palace, that all the ordinary Ceremonies had been observed about it; and if there were any thing that ought to hinder the Impression, the Dominicans were adversaries sufficiently to the Jesuits, not to let it pass without complaining of it. As M. Brousse was going to reply, the Ambassador of Malta arrived and interrupted the conference. We retired into another chamber, where after the Ambassador had done with him of Malta, he came to rejoin us. We told him, that we should condemn ourselves, had we the thought as the Pope imagined, to cause the least change in the Regulation accustomed to be kept at Rome for the printing of books; but that whose impression we opposed being directly upon the subject of the difficulties to be debated amongst the Divines, upon which we came to supplicate the Pope to hear them in a solemn Congregation before any Decision of them, & consequently to prevent the H. See from being engaged on one side or other before hearing them; it was our duty to represent to the Pope what prejudice the Impression of that book authorised (as we were informed) by the H. See or some of its principal members, might bring to our cause, and to the H. See itself. We told him he might see the same more clearly set forth in our Memorial, if he pleased to take the pains to read it. He accepted our offer to leave the same with him, and he promised that he would not sleep before he read it. He stayed us to dine with him, and at the table F. Mulard's deputation was spoken of, and the real accusation that had been made against me; which the Ambassador acknowledged to be so groundless, that he told me himself would be my witness wherever I pleased that I had never given the least cause for it.  
On Thursday the 22th. the Ceremony of giving the Hat to the new Cardinals was solemnised, and we were present at it.  
On Friday the 23d. M. Brousse and I went to the Ambassador to wait upon him to the Pope, and to remember him of our Memorial. He showed us his Note of the things of which he was to speak to the Pope, amongst which our affair was written, and he drew our Memorial half out of his pocket, to show us that he had not forgotten us. While the Ambassador was at audience, we waited in the Presence-chamber, to be ready in case we should be called. He stayed till noon, and when he came forth, we reconducted him home in his own Coach. Where in few words he told us, that he had represented our affair very zealously and punctually to the Pope, but found him not disposed to conclude any thing upon it. That he told the Pope that it was urgent, and required a speedy Order to stop the Impression; That his Holiness knew well that be had never spoken to him in favour of us, but on the contrary had made many recommendations to him in behalf of the Jesuits; yet he looked upon this affair as likely to have troublesome consequences, and capable, unless his Holiness prevented it, to raise some combustion in France, which would not be pleasing to him; That the printing and authorising of a book of that nature, whilst we were soliciting for the examination of things to the bottom, could not be well resented; That he had hitherto advised the Pope to delude us, if he thought good, and do all that he pleased against us, but yet to content us at least in appearance, by granting the Congregation which we sued for, and holding such things as these which were not decisive, in aequilibrio in the mean time; but all his discourse could not prevail upon the Pope, whose mind he found biased and prepossessed in this affair against us; That nevertheless he left our Memorial with him; that very probably he would read it; that he had commended it to him, and said that his Holiness no doubt would be well pleased with it, excepting perhaps for some few positive words wherewith we spoke of our opinion, as constant and indubitable; That he could not procure audience for us that day in regard other Ambassadors were to be admitted; nor could we have any the next day, because it was the day for the Card. of the H. Office; that Sunday would be taken up at Chapel, Monday & Tuesday with the Signature of Grace: that this was great delay, but he hoped the Pope would in the mean time relent and become favourable to our request, when he had read our Memorial and ruminated upon it; That for all this hope which he gave us, we should not account our business done, but continue what other diligences we could use in it; That for his part he had forgot nothing that he could allege to the Pope in this cause; but the Pope instead of concluding any thing, still did what he could to wave the subject, and come to an end of the audience. We returned our most humble thanks to the Ambassador for the good office he had done us, and left him to prepare for his departure to Tivoli in the afternoon.  
I should here insert the Memorial which I have so often mentioned, and shall speak of in the sequel of this Narrative, but for that it contained only the same reasons more at large which we had represented to the Pope in few words at the audience we had of him, Jan. 21. it would be tedious to recite it here. I shall only note that among other things we declared in it, 1. That we impugned only the Sufficient Grace subjected to , which the Molinists hold. 2. That we maintained only Effectual Grace, as to the Five Propositions. 3. That we did not undertake the defence of the book of Jansenius.  
The same day we made a second Visit to Cardinal Spada, in which we represented our affair to him, giving him an account of what had passed in the audience which the Pope had given us, Jan. 21. After M. Brousse had ended his discourse, the Cardinal answered us in these words, Hò caro d'haver sentito quel c'hà detto suo Santità; quando veno qualche cosa ordinata da essa lo farò, etc. M. Brousse was about to add something to the Narrative which he had made, but one came to advertise Cardinal Spada that the new Cardinals were coming to salute him; and so we were fain to end what we had to say.  
From thence we went to Cardinal Rapaccioli, to whom we represented our affair fully and at leisure. He thanked us for our information, and told us he was very well pleased to hear of these matters which exercised the Church at this time, that they were sufficiently intricate, that he had not throughly studied them, but it behoved a Cardinal to be acquainted with them; That he had much contentment to hear that from our mouths which we had spoken to him concerning them, and that he would willingly apply himself to them as far as the employments of a Bishop would permit him. As for the express declaration we had made, of having no commission nor purpose to interest ourselves in any thing that regarded Jansenius' book, he told us we needed not trouble ourselves about it, for that when any opinion or Proposition is to be examined, it is not to be considered whether Jansenius delivers it or not, but only whether it be good or bad.  
On Saturday the 24. we went to visit Cardina Cesi, who afforded us leisure enough to set forth our affair; but he spoke more to us than we did to him. He told us there was nothing more easy to resolve. That the Pope might refer it to t●e Congregation of the Council, or that of the Holy Office, or select out of each divers Cardinals and other persons to compose a third. After we left him, we visited the Procurator General of St. Marcello, with whom there passed nothing memorable, saving that he assured my Colleagues, and offered to testify anywhere else, that before him I never took upon me the quality of the Faculties Deputy; and that when he had heard others speak of me, it was not otherwise then as of one sent by some Bishops of France.  
The same day I went to the Printer who had F. Annat's Book in hand, to know how it stood, and what remained to be printed. He told me that he had at lest enough for three weeks before it would be finished.  
On Sunday the 24. I went to a person, without whose Counsel I acted little, to acquaint him with the state of that impression, what had passed about our Memorial, and our fear to engage in that further solicitations against that book, both for the little likelihood of succeeding, and for that it was not a matter that directly belonged to our Commission; in which regard we had not subscribed that Memorial, but spoke of ourselves in it in the third person, as also of Jesuits and others mentioned in it. But we found that the same reasons though remote from our Commission, which had induced us to speak thereof to the Pope, and to get that Memorial presented to him, obliged us to pursue a favourable issue of it to the last, always keeping the same Circumspections that we had observed therein. For either our further diligences which we should further use, would obtain that favourable issue, or at least we should receive no more dissatisfaction and disadvantage after, having done all we could, then if we made only a plain recommendation; it being always to be presumed, that after we had concerned ourselves therein, we would do or aught to do our utmost to sueceed: Therefore we concluded it fit, if my Colleagues consented, to endeavour to get an Audience of the Pope, to go and speak with Monsignot Ghiggi, to carry a Copy of our Memorial to Cardinal Roma, and to defet for eight or nine days our Visits to the Cardinal St. Clement, Lugo and Colonna, who being of the H. Office, might have a part in the Resolution that would be made thereupon; to the end that if it were fitting to speak to them of it, we might do so in the Visits which we were to make to them about our principal affair.  
I learned from the same person, that one day of that week there was to be a little Interview of Consultors and Qualificators who were to confer together upon the first Proposition, and that probably this was done in consequence of the first Memorial which we presented to the Pope. Whereupon telling that person, that it was not those secret and particular Assemblies, before which the Divines of either side appeared not, that we demanded; he told me that those Consultors did not assemble to determine any thing, but rather to exercise themselves, and see what might be done with me in the business.  
On Monday the 26. M. Brousse and I repaired to the Pope's Presence-Chamber to have Audience touching our Memorial against F. Annats' Book; but we found so many Advocates waiting there, whose day it was in regard of the Signature of Grace that was to be made the next day, (in order to which they were come the day before to give his Holiness the first informations of the Affairs wherewith each of them was encharged) that we durst not demand it, but retired almost as soon as we came.  
Tuesday the 27. we visited Cardinal Savelli, who gave us a very favourable Audience, though himself and we were standing all the while. He received our Representations very well and made no difficulty to tell us that he saw nothing in our Request to the Pope for a Congregation, but what was altogether just and fitting to be granted.  
In the Afternoon we visited Cardinal Raggi, who also took well what we said to him during the short time that we entertained him, which nevertheless was sufficient to give him a general Idea of our Affair. Quittting him, we went to Cardinal Rondanini with whom we spent the better part of the rest of that afternoon. The cause of our long Visit was his making sundry Questions to us about the things represented by us to him, which he did not sufficiently understand, and we were obliged to explicate further for his satisfaction. He was pleased during this Audience to read the Letter of M. de Vabres to the Pope, and that of the other Bishops which I delivered to his Holiness, of which I showed him a Copy which I had purposely about me to show both of them to such persons as I found upon occasion had the Curiosity to see them. Having read the Propositions in the letter of M. the Vabes, he told us they seemed rude according to the words. Whereunto we answered, that they were framed so purposely, and we explicated to him the sense according to which we held the first and second, which he professed not to gainsay. At length we left him well informed and well satisfied with us, as himself testified, and the Abbot Rondanini his brother (with whom we contracted a great acquaintance, and who is certainly of excellent parts, and applies himself prosperously to good Learning and good things) confirmed to us since. This was a remarkable particularity in this Visit, that M. Brousse at first making a Compliment to this Cardinal as to all the rest in Italian, his Eminence answered in Latin, which thereby became the language used in all the rest of the entertainment.  
We ended this day with a Visit to the Abbot Charrier, to congratulate with him for the happy success of his Vigilance in negotiating for the Cardinal's Hat for my L. the Coadjutor of Paris, notwithstanding all the Artifices and obstacles employed by divers persons to cross it, and to testify to him the joy and hopes arising to us from that promotion in reference to the good of the Affairs of the Church of France.  
On Wednesday we learned that the Jesuits were advertised and alarmed at what we had done to hinder the publication of F. Annat's Book. We made a Visit to Cardinal Corrado, who received our Compliments upon his promotion with great Christian humility, and very exemplary sentiments of Piety. He well understood our Affair, and told us with great modesty, that in this and in all others, he should always endeavour to do what the service of the H. See required of him. He said also, that if what we reported of the Exorbitances of the Jesuits, and others against St. Augustin, were true, it was necessary that his Holiness took some course therein, and that it was not possible to suffer the Authority of that holy Doctor to be shaken, but the Faith and the H. See must receive prejudice thereby.  
Monsignor Sacrista showed us in the Afternoon the rich Ornaments and precious Relics of the Pope's private Sacristy or Vestry. As we returned we went to see F. Campanella at the Carmelites de la Transpontine. And at night I went to see one of my particular friends, who informed me that the General of the Augustine's was added by the Pope to the number of Qualificators who were to be employed afterwards in the examination of the Five Proportions.  
The next day I left my Colleagues with F. Lezzana an ancient Monastic and Professor in Divinity, Author of some works in print, and went to the Company of the Commissary of the H. Office, who told me that the Jesuits made a great clamour about a Book newly printed by a Minister of Holland named Desmares at Groaning. That they took occasion from thence to redouble their instances for the condemnation of the Propositions, which they demanded even without hearing the Parties, and as a thing very urgent and necessary, not only for retaining us for that lash and humiliation in the submission and obedience which we owed to the H. See, but also for the reuniting to the Church several Provinces withdrawn from it, and continuing in their rebellion and separation by our example. That there was much talk in Rome about this Matter, and that those Fathers omitted not to alarm the Pope and the Cardinals with it. I had not yet seen that Book, but I understood by Letters from Paris of the 26. of January what it was, and that there was an Answer intended to be made to it. I had already answered to those Letters, as not being much surprised at that work by the fear of what advantages might be made of it against us for some time; since after this Agitation we might make greater of it against the Jesuits and the Heretics themselves that produced it. I told this good Father the substance of all those Letters, with which he was satisfied; so that he plainly acknowledged that he needed but a little time to dispel all the Umbrages and Suspicions that might be given or taken by the said Book. He informed me also of another remarkable thing, namely, that in the year 1612. the H. Office made a Declaration, by which it was judged that the Books printed before the Prohibition of Paul V were not comprehended in that Prohibition, and might be reprinted without obtaining a new permission. I returned to F. Lezzana to call my Companions, from whom I learned that that Father had a great desire to be informed of all, that he carefully read all the Writings he could on this Subject, that he was at work about the Propositions, that he professed to follow the Doctrine of St. Augustine, and held the necessity of Effectual Grace ad singulos actus; that the reading of S. Augustine had caused him to embrace those sentiments, and that it infused piety.  
In the afternoon we visited Cardinal Capponi, who testified to us a very high veneration for St. Augustin, and an equal astonishment at the detractions and calumnies which we told him were spread against that H. Doctor and against us. As for the Congregation which we required, he said his opinion was, it ought rather to be established sooner than later, that so the matters in question might be managed with all fitting leisure and exactness. Stabilirla quanto prima, è poi ben maturarla.   

CHAP. V.  
Of the Visits which we made during the first days of March, as well to the sacred College, as to the Consultors and Qualificators who are usually employed at Rome in matters of Doctrine.  
I Learned on the first day of March a very remarkable thing, namely that before the Bull of Vrban VIII. Cardinal Barberin himself took the pains to make sundry accusations against the book of Jansenius in the Assembly of the H. Office, and that his Eminence caused it to be brought thither on divers occasions to show that assembly the erroneous opinions whereof he accused it: That one time amongst the rest he accused him for having written that Original sin was the sole cause of the damnation of the reprobate, as if it were the only cause, and actual sins contributed nothing at all thereunto. But that it always happened that it was evinced to his Eminence by examination of the places which he cited, that the Memoires delivered to him against that book were not well grounded, and that in this point particularly they were without any appearance; since, as Cardinal S. Clement, who was then but Master of the sacred Palace, showed in a full assembly, that Bishop expressly saith that actual sin is the radical cause thereof, causa radicalis damnationis; which is very true. Whereupon during some time, that book was no more spoken of in the said Congregation; but a little after, when it was least thought of, the Bull of Vrban VIII. decreed against the same book was published.  
In the afternoon we visited Cardinal Giori, to whom we had scarce begun to speak, but one came to advertise him that the Pope was going to S. Peter's Church, whither he was obliged to repair to receive his Holiness; and so we were constrained to take leave of him without further communication. My companions and I went to visit F. Modeste, who made as if he were ignorant of our affair and of the Five Propositions, though I had formerly acquainted him therewith whilst I was at Rome alone. He gave us but general and popular answers, concerning the diversity of Heretics with whom S. Augustin had to deal, and said that the vehemence wherewith he opposed them making him sometimes speak with Exaggeration, all his say were not to be looked upon as if they were Scriptures. He said also that the Pope was not obliged to hear the Parties, in order to making of a Decision. To which we answered, that at least it suited with his prudence and his justice when it was requested as it was by us in the name of persons whose worth and quality gave them right and authority so to do. Having continued with him till one a clock in the night we departed.  
On Saturday we visited Cardinal Ghiggi, who received us standing, and excused himself that the day being then Post-day made him in haste. He spoke of his Promotion with great sentiments of piety and modesty. He told us that he did not deserve that dignity, nor had he sought it; that he followed the Maxim of the Bishop of Geneva, To ask nothing, To refuse nothing, and To complain of nothing. On which occasion he told us that he always wore upon his breast a Meddal, on the one side of which was the Portrait of that great Bishop, and on the other that of S. Augustin. Touching our affair, he said that it was best to deliver Propositions very clear and exact; and that sometimes great stir and opposition about a business occasions the establishing of what we would overthrow; for which he cited the same verses of Horace, Ventus ut amittit vires, etc. which he had done formerly in a letter to M. Daquin Doctor of Physic at Paris, who sent him the book Of Frequent Communion during his Nuntiature i● Germany, upon occasion of the complaints and Writings which the Adversaries of that Excellent book published against it, as M. Brousse remembered him when he uttered them in this audience. I shall repete them here with four or five of the preceding lines of that Letter. Ego sanè non video quid contra librum de Frequenti Communione scribere sit opus, cùm in eo adeò attemperata videantur ea dogmata quae affert, ut nihil in eyes peccatum dicas. Tota namque moles difficultatis ad praxim devolvitur, in qua quidem non tam facile est praescribere leges, cum unica auricularis secreta confessio examen sit quo ad actum deducitur tota instructio, & in ea confessione servatur maximum omnium arcanorum. Spreta obsolescunt, si irascaris, agnita videntur, dicebat ille; dum alias, 
Ventus ut amittit vires, nisi robore densae  
Occurrunt Sylvae, spatio diffusus inani;  
Vtque perit magnus nullis obstantibus ignis,  
Sic hostes mihi deesse nocet—  Leaving Cardinal Ghiggi we went to visit Cardinal Cechini, who caused seats to be set for us round the Table where he was, and after he had heard M. Brousse's discourse, he answered us, that if he received any commands from his Holiness as to this matter, he would acquit himself thereof punctually.  
On Sunday the third, the Abbot of Valcroissant and I visited Cardinal Vrsin▪ before his going to Chapel, whither we accompanied him. After Chapel we went all together to see Cardinal Cornaro, who was standing and uncovered all the while we were speaking to him, which we did largely enough. Mention was made of one of the causes which caused Paul V to suspend his Bull against Molina, namely the banishment of the Jesuits by the Commonwealth of Venice, which happening upon occasion of his Interdict, when he was upon the point to publish his Bull, he was willing to spare them that second mortification, in hope that without it they might of themselves return to Orthodox sentiments, from which all that had passed in those matters, aught to have convinced them that they were gone far astray.  
In the afternoon we visited Cardinal Ginetti, to whom we gave an account of our audience with the Pope, particularly of the falsities and calumnies of which we complained, and of F. Annat's book which was printing. Touching the former, He acknowledged that I had never spoken to himself but in the name of the Bishops, and that F. Mulard had addressed to him as the Faculties Deputy, and touching the book, that we should do well to speak about it to the other Cardinals of the Holy Office. We replied, that we intended it, though we were no further concerned, then that the name of his Holiness or their Eminences might not be engaged in it; that we had spoken first to him, partly because of the singular benevolence which he had testified to us, and partly in regard of a particular authority which we knew he had as to the printing of books.  
We visited Cardinal Lomellino next, whom we entertained very familiarly; He answered us, that his various employments had much diverted him from the study of those matters; and thought he had been always obliged to apply himself thereunto, yet conceiving himself more obliged by his new dignity of Cardinal, he should willingly do it. Whereunto we excited him by the satisfaction which we told him he would receive in it.  
After which I went alone to carry Card. Roma a copy of our Memorial against F. Annat's book. The Cardinal told me it was not the intention of their Congregation to give F. Annat permission to write of the matter de Auxiliis. I answered, that nevertheless his book was upon that subject; but we were not much troubled at that; and if he pleased to cause the Printer to give us a Copy of what was already printed, we would deliver his Eminence such observations thereupon as should show that it was not our own interest that induced us to obstruct the publishing of it, but the sole consideration of the H. See, which the Jesuits would proclaim to have authorised the pernicious sentiments of that Libel.  
I learned the same day that the Consultors and Qualificators which were to have met last week, did not assemble; the cause of which was the subtlety of one of the principal and best meaning men, who alleged that he could not yet meet anywhere to consult of these matters till he had employed more time in studying them. And he said this, to the end the rest might follow his example, and not be ashamed to say and do the same.  
The same friend that gave me this intelligence, counselled me to take some care to inform one of the Consultors whom he named, and who deserved it, both because he needed it, and because he was a well-meaning and treatable man. But I answered, I could not do it, because we had no Order to inform any person in private and secretly, and all that was done in this manner was suspected by us and little troubled us: That we must first see the Congregation which we desired of the Pope, well open and well settled, before we resolved upon informing any one. This done, we would take all possible care and necessary pains to inform every one both in private and in public; but till th● were done, we could proceed no otherwise then 〈◊〉 had done hitherto, namely to make known to all such as were concerned for the interests of the H. See, Consultors and others, with what malicious subtlety they who framed those Propositions endeavoured to circumvent it. That yet I did not refuse to give in a friendly way, but not as to a Judge, such light as an honest man could desire in the things which I knew, and he was willing to understand; which office, provided it were thus received, I should not decline to do, though it were to a Consultor; (although less willingly to such then to another) but withal in such a way, that all I said to him should in no wise pass for an Instruction upon the grounds of the Propositions, which required greater study and attention, and much other solemnity. My friend approved this course, and acknowledged that we had great reason not to recede from it.  
We visited Cardinal Ottobone on Tuesday morning the 5. of March. He received our Compliments and made many to us; but our affair was little spoken of.  
Parting from him, we went to Cardinal Lugo; He asked me whether I had continued at Rome ever since our last speaking together. Whereupon I gave him an account of the occasion of my return, and what we four were to solicit with his Holiness. He replied that he had not yet heard speak of those Propositions. I proceeded to tell him what necessity there was of examining them throughly in a Congregation, in regard of the diversity of their senses. He answered that it was reasonable that we should be heard, and our writings seen. That what he could say to us, was, that it was an affair not handled in the H. Office, but reserved by the Pope to himself. I replied that we waited till the Pope pleased to erect a special Congregation for the purpose. He put us upon the business of S. Peter and S. Paul, telling us that the same course was taken for its examination, and that the Pope assembled together the ablest Divines in Rome, as well of the H Office as others, and that himself persuaded his Holiness so to do. I told him we knew nothing of all that, nor had we heard any talk of it; indeed we knew of the Decree passed upon the book, but were ignorant of the circumstances which he related. He replied in such a manner as tended to lead us to that subject again, but we diverted the discourse of it by bringing him to that of the solemn Congregation whose establishment we pursued. He told us again that he thought it fit and just that our writings were examined and communicated to the Qualificators and Consultors: but for our going to houses to see them, he durst not add that he judged it bad, but he gave us to understand that it did not please him. M. Brousse replied and said that Commission was not confined within such straight bounds, but it enjoined us to desire a solemn Congregation of the Pope in which both parties might be heard both by word of mouth and by writing in presence one of the other▪ and all their writings reciprocally communicated. The Cardinal said that it seemed we intended to have a kind of little Council. M. Brousse answered that that was necessary, as well for other reasons, as in regard of the falsities and calumnies that were found to have slipped into secret writings. I took this occasion and told him what accusation the Nuntio had made against me in the Faculty, what we had said to the Pope of it, and what the Pope had answered us. The Cardinal said he believed all those difficulties would come to fall upon the point of sufficient Grace: and to persuade us that that was it which was to be defended and would be judged the best, he made use of this comparison. He said, it was once indispute, which was the best way of counting the hours, either by four and twenty beginning from the time of one Sunset to another, as the Italians do; or ●rom twelve to twelve, beginning from Midnight to noon, and from Noon to midnight, as the French and Spaniards do: and that this last way had been judged the better, since Nations otherwise so opposite agreed in it. That so, sufficient Grace would undoubtedly, be judged the better, since the Dominicans and the Jesuits consented in it. I replied, that there were two sorts of Grace, which were called sufficient; that the Jesuits and the Dominicans agreed in the Word, but not in the Thing, and that other Divines, such as ourselves, did not impugn all kind of sufficient Grace, but only that which was made subject to ; and that the Dominicans opposed the same as well as we. That therefore when the question is of sufficient Grace, we should not speak of it without distinction, and without knowing of what nature it is, and what it is capable to produce in our hearts by the power which God gives it— Cardinal Lugo suffered me not to finish this discourse which assuredly was none of the most pleasing to his Eminence; but he interrupted it, saying that it behoved to defend the same which S. Augustin defended against Pelagius. The Abbot of Valcroissant replied that that which S. Augustin defended against Pelagius, was the Effectual by itself, necessary to every pious action; whereunto the Cardinal answering nothing, I continued my relation of what passed in the audiences which we had of his Holiness, and told him that the Pope in one audience asked me whether any of the Five Propositions was in the Bull of Pius V and I answered negatively. The Cardinal replied that the third was in it. (This agreed ill with what he told us at first, viz. that he had not yet heard speak of those Propositions) I proceeded, that I had told his Holiness, that indeed the third had some resemblance with two or three of those that are in the Bull of Pius V but yet they were different from it, and that upon my saying to the Pope that there needed but one word to change a Proposition, His Holiness answered me that there needed but a Comma. That I further told the Pope that this third was not condemned in the sense that we held it, nor like any of the others condemned in the sense that we held it, nor like any of the others condemned by that Bull. That we did not oppose it in any thing; nor had any thing to say against that of Vrban VIII. published against Jansenius. Neither had we ought to plead in defence of his book. That all those things were wholly different, and separate from our affair. That the same was only to beseech the Pope to cause the different senses of the Propositions to be distinguished before passing of judgement upon them, to admit us to declare which we do not hold; and as for those that we do hold, to examine the reasons which we have so to do; to communicate the writings which we should present to him upon this subject to our adversaries, and theirs to us; and to hear us upon the whole viuâ voce in presence one of the other; to the end that after having well cleared, heard and considered all, the Pope might pass judgement thereof, and his decision might be received peaceably with the satisfaction of both parties, and with the respect that shall be due thereunto. We risen up, and Cardinal Lugo told us as he accompanied us, that he was glad for his not being concerned in this affair nor employed in it; and we told him on the other side, that we wished his Eminence were employed in it.  
Ending this visit we went to Cardinal S. Clement, who, assoon as M. Brousse had begun to lay open the subject of our coming, told us he understood the business well enough, but he would acquaint us with some particularities that had passed at Rome. He said the Nuntio had sent thither a certain Censure made by the Sorbonne, in which those Propositions were condemned. That the Pope appointed four Divines to write their sentiments upon those Censures; that three of the four plainly and fully confirmed those Censures, but the fourth spoke a little more uncertainly. That himself being upon occasion obliged to speak what he thought of them, he had said freely, That the Censures were Heretical and not the Propositions. (For he construed them all to the sense of Effectual Grace.) That the Pope hearing his opinion, said, See, Cardinal S. Clement saith our Divines are Heretics; and that he replied to the Pope, that he did not say that his Divines were Heretics, but the Censures; and yet if they persisted obstinate in avowing the confirmation which they made thereof, they would be Heretical too as well as the Censures. He spoke something about the earnest study of these matters which was requisite for the right understanding of them, whereby he gave us to know that he understood the same well. He began to enter upon the discussion of the first of the Propositions, when one came to advertise him that the Prince of Lunebourg was coming to take leave of him, being to return into Germany; which broke off our conference. The Cardinal made an excuse to us, and testifed his regret for this interruption. We told him we could come again to see him; he answered that it was not needful, and that he was sufficiently informed of all that had passed and was daily acted, as to this affair.  
We went in the afternoon to accompany the Ambassador to the Cardinals Homodei, Santa Croce, and Corrado. At his return he asked us whether any thing was done touching our Memorial. We told him, we had heard no tidings of it: He replied, that nevertheless he conceived the Pope had taken order in it, and as he was told, had charged the General of the Jesuits to hinder those of his Order from Writing upon these matters during these contests, and this posture of things, without the Books be first seen and examined at Rome. We answered, That it was contrary to what we wished, because the Jesuits made no books, but wha● furnished us with new Arms; and so the more they writ, the more they fortifed 〈◊〉; but our sole intent in this ma●ter was, that their books might not be reviewed at Rome, for●…ar the H. See should suffer itself to be engaged in their sentiments, and surprised by their Artifices.  
M. Gu●ff●…r did us the honour to invite us to dinner on Wednesday the sixth, and in the afternoon we accompanied the Ambassador in the Visits which he continued to the new Cardinals, Ottobone and Lomelino.  
On Thursday the seventh the Cardinals held a Chapel at la Minerve for the solemnity of the fea● of S. Thomas, where they were all present except those of the H. Office; who on another day than Thurday would hav● been there rather than the rest, but now preferred their usual Assembly held before the Pope before that Ceremony. We were invited in the afternoon to the Covent of the  Carmeliets where an Oration and a Dispute were to be made for the celebration of the same Festival. The Abbot of Valcroissant and M. Angran were there, and M. Brousse and I continued to accompany the Ambassador in the rest of the Visits which he was to make to the new Cardinals Aldobrandino and Ghiggi.  
Friday the eight being the ordinary day that Ambassadors have audience of the Pope regularly every fortnight, we presented a little Memorial in French to our Ambassador as he was going to the Pope, partly to remind him of that which at our instance he had left with his Holiness at his former audience, and partly to inform him more expressly of the reasons which induced us to present it, which tended in no wise to hinder the Jesuits from writing and publishing Books, but only from doing it with the owning and approbation of the H. See. And to show him that it was no vanity that we said, that we could have advantages against the Jesuits out of their own Books, and particularly out of that whose publishing we endeavoured to obstruct, we showed him a printed sheet of it, in which F. Annat, either by a gross error or obstinate malice (which could not but turn to his own confusion) cited Pelagius' confession of Faith as a work of S. Augustin, containing his Doctrine. The Ambassador took our little Memorial, and the sheet we left with him to show the Pope, if he found it meet. He told us he was mindful of us, and that we were already in the Note of what he had to say to his Holiness.  
At his Return we entered into his Chamber, and he told us the Pope said, It was a strange thing we should oppose the Impression of that book, that it had passed through the ordinary forms; if it contained any thing to be disliked after it was printed, it should be censured, and they who did not do their duty, should be reproved. That the same course should be taken as was about M. Hersents book; after the impression and publication of which, a French Dominican who licenc'd it, was confined six or eight months in la Minerve, and the Master of the sacred Palace in danger of being cashiered, till both of them cleared and justified themselves of what they had done. But besides, if the Pope must take care of the printing of Books, he would be overwhelmed with infinite new encumbrances thereby. That he had fifty thousand other Affairs without that, and therefore we must have patience, if he could not meddle with it. The Ambassador told us, that he replied to the Pope, that it was more expedient to hinder a mischief before it were done, then to stay till it were done, to remedy it; and that it was easier to quench a taper that was ready to set fire on a Woodpile, then to extinguish the fire when the Woodpile was flaming. This, he said, he represented to the Pope, not as interessing himself in the business, but by way of advice which he received from us. He added that notwithstanding these considerations did not alter his mind, but he continued still in that which he had declared to us, that he took not the part of that book; and if we found any ill in it after it was printed, it would be easy for us and all others to complain, and the remedy would not be difficult. We answered the Ambassador that since it was so, and after this declaration of the Pope, it would be more advantageous for us that the book were published then suppressed. The Ambassador replied that yet he doubted whether in would come forth, because though the Pope was averse and made semblance of not much regarding it, yet he perceived that the Pope mused upon it, and made some reflection upon our instances; and that he believed it would be no ill way for us to continue the same by the mediation of some of the Cardinals. That for his part he could not speak in it any otherwise then by way of advertisement and representing to the Pope of what consequence we said it was, but not with that zeal and importunity which he should have done, if he had received order from the King to meddle in it. We gave the Ambassador our humble thanks, and acknowledged that he had done all we could hope from a very obliging and equitable person. That according to his advice we would endeavour to speak to some of the Cardinals as we had done already to Roma and Ginetti, but rather for form then otherwise; because the Pope having declared that he took no part in it, we were satisfied, and secure as to the rest.  
In the afternoon we went to see Cardinal Barberin. He was ready to go to S. Peter's Church when we came there: however he caused us to enter into his Chamber, and asked us whether we would accompany him thither. In the mean time, before any thing was spoken concerning our business, he asked us whether we had instructed the persons whom it was requisite. I answered that we endeavoured it as much as possible; and M. Brousse added that we had had audience of the Pope, and were well satisfied with the reception which he gave us. But without staying to hear any of the particulars, he asked us what was the first Proposition. I told it him, He asked whether we had writ nothing upon that subject. I answered that something was written at Paris which he had seen; but for our parts we had composed nothing about it but a Memorial which we left with the Pope at the end of our audience, wherein we moved his Holiness for a Congregation in which the Divines of different opinions might be solemnly heard in defence of their opinions. The Cardinal further put us upon speaking of the different senses of the first Proposition: but to prevent it, I told him we would give the explications thereof when the Congregation was assembled; the Cardinal replied that the Italians were molto tristi, that is, very untoward, and è grande la nostra tristitia (added he) that at Paris they say for accomplishing affairs it is requisite to solicit them well, but at Rome it required more pains to make those on whom they depended only to remember them. I replied to his Eminence that we had no order to act otherwise then we did, nor should we, what ever resolution were taken at Rome in this affair. That provided we acquitted ourselves of that commission, it was sufficient for us. That it belonged to the Pope or their Eminences to see to the rest. M. Brousse confirmed the same, and spoke of F. Annat's book, and our Memorial to hinder its coming forth. Which he said, we resolved upon chiefly, because of the affront that seemed to be done to the Bishops who sent us, by letting a book of that nature come forth owned and approved, in which the present contest was determined in favour of one of the parties, at the same time that we were suing in the name of those Bishops, for a solemn Congrregation to examine it in pretence of the parties, and to decide it after they had been heard. M. Brousse urged this very well, when one came to advertise the Cardinal that it was time to go to S. Peter's: Upon the way we mentioned the Bishop of Geneva's book, termed an Introduction to a devout life; I told him that I understood by the Bishop of Belie in what outrageous manner many Mendicant Friars, and the Capucines especially, opposed it at its first apearance, that their zeal became so vehement against that book, that some carried it into their pulpits, and after they had declared against it, threw it down in the pulpit, and trampled upon it with great demonstrations of indignation; others carried it into the pulpit loosestitcht, and after the like declamations broke the thread that held the leaves together and scattered them among their auditors; and lastly that others burned it after the same tragical manner. I told the Cardinal that M. Hallier and M. Hermant were present when M. du Belie told us these passages at a Visit which we made to him together, at the beginning of and concerning the opposition that was made against the book Of Frequent Communion. That therefore it was not to be wondered that good books were sometimes disparaged and persecuted by ignorant Friars; but that the event will be sooner or later like that which the same Bishop told us befell the Introduction to a Devout Life, which having by that means been much more read then otherwise it would have been, at length merited so general an approbation, that its Persecutors finding that the laughers were not on their side, became obliged to betake themselves to that of the laughers, and to be at last themselves the approvers of it with all the rest of the world; which the prodigious multitude of its several Impressions testified. We ended our journey to S. Peter's as we were speaking of the book of the Minister of Groaning, of the advantages which the Jesuits might pretend to derive from it, and of those which on the other side we conceived more reasonably might accrue to us, when the answer to it preparing by one of our friends was published. Wherewith Cardinal Barberin testified to us sufficient satisfaction.  
We left him at S. Peter's, and repaired to Cardinal Lanti, who received us courteously, heard us and answered us prudently & vigorously.  
On Saturday the 9th. I made a private visit in which I learned two considerable things: One, that the Congregation of Consultors and Qualificators designed to confer together upon the first Proposition, was appointed to meet again on Thursday following, and that this was the cause that persons well instructed and qualified were employed to visit those Consultors and give them some light upon the Propositions. The other that the Preacher of the Jesuits Professed House, having a few days before taken occasion to speak in his Sermon of the immaculate conception of the Virgin (which he did besides his purpose too) he went about to prove it by certain Plates of Copper that spoke of it, which had been found in a Cave in Spain during the Papacy of Vrban VIII. who being advertised in what veneration they began to be in Spain, caused them to be brought to Rome, where being examined, he soon after declared them Apocryphal, and forbade having them in any consideration, under the usual penalties contained in the Bulls and Decrees of Popes. That a Dominican who was present at that sermon, observing that the Preacher cited those Plates, informed the Congregation of the H. Office, whereupon by order of the said Congregation, the Jesuits Papers, were seized on, and verified the accusation. That Report being made thereof to the Pope, his Holiness said it was a shame that those people durst in view of the H. See contemn the Constitutions of Popes, especially at a time when we who complained of them were at Rome. That the Pope sent for the General of the Jesuits, and told him a little angrily that he was too blame for suffering that Predicator in the functions of the Pulpit a fortnight after he had committed such an exorbitance, for letting him celebrate Mass since that time and incur irregularity; that perhaps he would have let him continue in that manner till the end of Lent, if his Holiness had not looked after it; That Generals of Orders ought to be acquainted with the Bulls of Popes, that they may cause them to be obeyed by their Societies. In fine, that his Holiness interdicted the said Predicator.  
Accordingly he remained interdicted till the fifteenth day of March, when he made satisfaction for his fault in the Pulpit where he had committed it, reading the Recantation prescribed him by the Congregation of the H. Office; two Notaries of the said Congregation holding a Copy of it at the foot of the Pulpit, whilst F. Carlo Salviati damn less della Compagnia di Giesà (so was he called) read the same publicly. It was in these words:  
Havendo io inconsiderament nella predica che feci ligiomi passati sopra la Concettione della beata Virgin; preservata dal peccato originale allegato l' autorità di san Tesifone conservata nelle lamine di granata contro it decreto della santa memoria di Vrbano Ottavo fatto acinque di Maggio mille seicento trenta nove, e publicato a di tredici Maggio mille seicento quarenta uno. E per ciò essendo io caduto nelle Censure e pene fulminate nel detto decreto solamente per haver citato l' autorità di debt lamine di granata, mi fù fatto intendere da parte della santità di nostro signare è della sacra Congregatione deal sanct Officio che dovessi io astenermi dal predicare è dal celebrare come reo di debt pene; ho pienament obedito; Riconscendo il mio errore sono recorso alla clemenza della sua sanctita è della medisima Congregatione, da' quali sono stato begignament aggratiato di debt pene, è reintegrato all' asercitio del predicare, ho voluto accennare à questa udienza tutto ciò, per remediare allo scandalo che io havessi dato per essermi servito della sudetta autorità contravenendo al fudelto decreto.  
Whereas I have inconsiderately in my late Sermon upon the Conception of the B. Virgin as preserved from original sin alleged the authority of San. Tesifone in the copper Plates of Granata, contrary to the decree of Vrban VIII. published 1641. And being therefore fallen under the Censures and penalties thundered forth in the said Decree, I have been commanded by his Holiness and the Congregation of the H. Office to abstain from preaching and celebrating Mass, as guilty of the said penalties; I have fully obeyed. And acknowledging my error, I have had recourse to the clemency of his Holiness and the said Congregation, by whom I have been graciously released from the said penalties, and restored to the exercise of preaching. All which I signify to this Auditory, by way of amends for the scandal which I may have given by making use of the said Authority contrary to the said Decree.  
Coming from this Visit I went to hear Mass at a little Church of S. Frances, where there was also a Chapel of Cardinals, and from thence to F. Hilarion, to appoint an hour for seeing his Relics the next day. I told him all that had passed in reference to F. Annats' Book, and how the Impression proceeded notwithstanding our Remonstrances. Whereupon he alleged very considerable reasons to persuade us to go to M. Albizzi, saying, that he was a man that loved justice, and was upright in affairs in which he was not prepossessed; and exhorting us to speak to him hearty & with demonstration of confidence. I told him, we would endeavour to acquit ourselves the best we could. He further represented to me how prejudicial it was to us, that we looked upon the Tribunals of Rome as half contrary to us, and half Partisans of the Jesuits, who were they alone whom we ought to take for our Adversaries. I thanked him for his advice and assented to it: but I alleged the necessity of our judging so, by all the Decrees that were seen to come forth so easily and so frequently against the best books that were published on our side, and I instanced in the Decrees issued against the Catechism and the Hours. He answered me, that all those Decrees were to be considered with reference to the Bull of Vrban VIII. in consequence of which they were made, and that the H. See had no intention, either by that Bull or those decrees to innovate any thing or to pronounce upon doctrine one way or other, but only to cause its prohibitions of writing upon this subject without permission to be observed. That those prohibitions which were made to either side equally were so evident a conviction, that the doctrine of Jansenius received no attainder by that Bull, that the merest Peasant might be satisfied thereof. In fine, that the other Decrees were to be interpreted and considered in the same manner.  
Amongst the Relics which he showed us the next day, the most remarkable was the Title which was upon our Lord's Cross, of which there remains in that place but about one half. It is of very wormeaten wood, about seven or eight inches broad, and ten or eleven long, upon which Jesus Nazarenus is written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin; and these two last Languages written as the Hebrew from the right hand to the left. The Characters are framed very negligently, such as are commonly seen in the names which ordinary people write here and there upon walls, and such as the Soldiers or Executioners might frame at that time for a Criminal, as they esteemed our Lord. The Hebrew Characters are almost wholly defaced and eaten by the worms and time with the wood, so that they are scarce perceivable. The Latin is very legible, and in the midst of the two other Languages; and the Greek which is the lowest of the three is still easy to be read: but as I said, there is but about half of that piece of wood, and not that. It is that which was in the middle; it being likely that the two ends have been broken off; since neither the word Jesus, nor Rex Judaeorum are found there, but only Nazarenus, which takes up almost the length of the wood.  
The same day being Sunday March the 10th. all of us visited M. Albizzi together: He conducted us into his Chamber, where having taken our places, we prevailed with ourselves to make him the most cordial Declaration we could, in hope to have him favourable to our designs, when he found how conformable they were to Truth and Justice, which we knew he loved. He answered us also on his part very civilly, and told us the service of the H. See should be always his inviolable Rule, that he should always be a professed enemy to all those that should offend it: but he had much confidence, that we would always have it in great veneration, and he would do for our service what was possible for him: He interposed some very unpleasing things in his Discourse, which we dissembled or mollified the best we could: only one thing M. Brousse took up as it deserved, namely, that if the Pope heard us before passing his Decision, he would hear us if he pleased tanquam aliquos de populo, as he would do any ordinary people. He told us, that should the Pope hear and consider all that we intended to represent, as he conceived his Holiness would do, yet he believed that he would not grant us the Congregation which we demanded. We answered, that then we had nothing to represent, because we could not deliver any instruction by writing or word of mouth but before such a Congregation; that without that, our hands were bound, and we could not go beyond our Commission. He told us the Pope had put into his hands the first Memorial which we left with his Holiness, wherein we supplicated for the Congregation; he spoke also of the second, touching F. Annat's book, in reference to which he said, the Pope did no more but remove the Prohibitions formerly made of writing concerning those matters; that if any thing were found in the book not right, it should be censured as well as any other. We answered that the case being so, we desired nothing more than that it came forth; because it furnished us with advantageous hold against its Author. M. Albizzi added, that himself was the Compiler of the Bull against Jansenius; that it was made upon a belief that it would appease the troubles and Disputes arisen about those matters, and reduce things to silence and the former peace; That if what hath followed since had been foreseen, instead of making a simple prohibition of that book, the doctrine perhaps would have been examined and possibly condemned too; but that moderate course was thought sufficient, the rather to spare a Bishop who was dead in the Catholic Communion; That it was himself (M. Albizzi) that suggested that Counsel. After this he spoke of the Minister of Groning's book, which he said was sent him from Brussels and from Paris, and having in anger fetched the Book, he read to us out of the Preface, that the Author saith, they were of S. Augustins' opinion touching Grace, as Jansenius is too. M. Brousse answered, that there was no need of being angry, that we knew nothing of that Book; that Heretics are not always to be believed when they say an Author is for themselves; otherwise the Bible must be burnt, which they all say is on their side; that F. Annat in his Book de scientia media, citys four or five Heretics, who say that St. Thomas is for them; ought they therefore to be believed, and S. Thomas to be burnt? Besides that, it behoveth not to be angry if it be true that they are of S. Augustin's mind touching Grace, as they allege; on the contrary we ought to thank God, because they are Catholics in this point, and they need only to be instructed in the rest wherein they err. For, do not you believe (said he) that one is a Heretic because he is not a Molinist; on the contrary, I account that to be a Molinist, is to be an Heretic. But to satisfy him further upon this subject, I showed him Letters written to me on the second and 9th. of February, which promised an answer to the said Book: of which M. Albizzi professed himself glad, and told us that that was done as it should be. He spoke disadvantageously enough of St. Augustine, taxing him of excesses or flyings out in his encountering Heretics. He added, that these matters were not necessary to salvation; That they caused despair, etc. To all which we returned such answers as it deserved. He complained very much that the Bishops of Machlin and Gaunt, could not be prevailed with to receive the Bull. He spoke also of M. Bourgeois. We told him all those businesses were different from ours, which was only to obtain a solemn Congregation of the Pope, in which these matters might be examined in the Ecclesiastical forms; that besides, we were sorry that the Bull was so ill received, but the abuse which the Jesuits made of it was the cause of that mischief. Other things were spoken of in this Visit (among the rest, the place of Haereo fateor, in Jansenius, which M. Albizzi objected to us twice, as a certain conviction of that Prelate's bad sentiments; to which we said nothing) but these are the principal; and at last our Conference ended very calmly and civilly, both on his part and ours.  
After we left him, we visited the Commissary of the H. Office, who was not there when we arrived there, but his Companion received us, and while he was entertaining us the Commissary returned to his lodging. We discoursed with either of them only about Theological matters in reference to the first Proposition, till night broke off the Conversation.   

CHAP. VI  
The continuation of our Visits, and what passed till the end of March. M. Brousse constrained to return into France, in regard of his health. Two Copies of the Memoires of M. Pegna, which we caused to be compared very exactly with the Original. What success our Memorial had against F. Annat's Book.  
ON Monday the eleventh of March we visited F. Luca Vadingo; our chief Discourse with whom was (he already understanding our Affair enough) touching the Assembly of Consultors and Qualificators appointed on Thursday following. For though, as we told him, we doubted not of their capacity, understanding and good intention; and that almost all those whom we visited appeared favourable to the sentiments of S. Augustin, for which we had reason to be satisfied and to praise God; yet, as we told him too, a matter becomes more clear and is more throughly discovered after hearing the Contesting Parties upon it, then when it is barely examined by itself, especially when it is intricate, as that in question was; and when, besides the difficulties which are inseparable from it, it is industriously embroiled and obscured, as the Authors of those Propositions had entangled and clouded this. Moreover, That a man is more in his own power, and more fit to pass an equitable and disinterested judgement, when he has had time to meditate upon a matter, and make all necessary reflections upon it beforehand, then when he has already chosen a side by framing a false Idea to himself of it, and is become engaged by declaring himself too soon in maintaining the first Impressions he hath had of it, and the first sentiments which he hath discovered to witnesses, before whom he is very loath to retract and acknowledge his being deceived, So that to keep those persons free and equitable without engagement and prepossession, before they came to pass Judgement, we conceived that it would be good that before all things else they heard the Divines of either side, who were to oppose or defend the Propositions; and that their own interest as well as ours, obliged them to declare to such as importuned their assembling for delivering their sense of the first Proposition, that this was the right way to begin. And the rather, because the Propositions to be considered were subject to more ambiguities than we had represented, and those expressly affected by their Authors. That therefore for an orderly and due proceeding, the first thing to be done was to distinguish the different senses whereof they are capable; and in order to do that well, to make of each Proposition as many several clear and plain Propositions, as it included different senses; that so we might declare first of all which those are that we will not maintain, and for such as we will hold, expect who will oppose them; to hear both the one side and the other according to the usual and necessary forms; and after this was done, than it would be a fit time to ask of them their Sentiment. But to require it of them beforehand, seemed a little precipitous, and contrary, not only to all order of justice, but also to the Request which we had made to the Pope in the name of the Bishops, upon which his Holiness had caused us to hope he would give us satisfaction. F. Luca Vadingo approved these reasons; but told us these things were to be represented and desired of the Pope; because for their part, they could only desire them of God, and when they were summoned to deliver their judgement upon any Propositions, they could do nothing else but deliver it.  
In the afternoon I accompanied M. Brousse to Cardinal Ginetti, who had promised him the Relics. He asked us what tidings of our Affair; and we told him we waited for the Pope's resolution upon the Letters and Memorial which we had delivered to him.  
On Tuesday the 12th. I went to see F. Vbaldino, who wondered we had such correspondence at Rome, as to be advertised of that Assembly of Consultors. He approved the reasons which I alleged for deferring it till after both parties were heard, as formerly to F. Vadingo. But he said too, that he could do nothing, at least openly to get them considered; underhand he would do his utmost.  
I went also to represent the same to F. Delbene, who knew not how to satisfy me but by telling me that we should be heard undoubtedly, and it would not be prejudicial to us though they gave their opinion beforehand, because they reviewed it several times, and might correct in it what they pleased, or change it wholly. I told him, it would do better if they gave it not till after they had so well examined things, as to have no occasion to change any thing. I moved him also, that he would demand to hear us before giving his own, and also to incline the rest in their Assembly, if thete were occasion to make the same demand. But I obtained nothing of him as to this point, no more than I had done of the FF. Vadingo and Vbaldino.  
rejoining my Colleagues, we went to see Cardinal Colonna. By the way we met the Ambassador, who seeing our Coach stopped, caused his own to stop too, and had the goodness to speak to us so long, that he gave us time to testify to him our sorrow for his late loss of one of his Nephews, who died at Angers: Whereunto he made a very generous and Christian answer, I'll n'importe combien il en meure, pourveu que ce soit pour le service du Roy, & que Dieu leur face misericorde. It matters not how many of them die, so it be for the King's service, and God be merciful to them. We arrived at the Palace of Cardinal Colonna, in which there are most magnificent apartments. He received us with very great civility. We laid forth our Affair to him at large, and he heard it with attention and satisfaction. Our Conference with him was ended by the arrival of the Ambassador of Bologne who came to see him, and with a Compliment that I made to him as he reconducted us, upon hope that our cause should find in him a Protector amongst the living, as it had amongst the dead in Aegidius Romanus, who was his near Kinsman, and whose memory was still very fresh with him.  
In the afternoon we went to Cardinal Costagusti, and finding him busy for some time, we went to Signior Camillo Piazza Procurator of the Accused, to whom we declared our Affair, suitably to what I had formerly said to him. He received our Visit for a great honour, and told us what we demanded was so just that it could not be refused to any person. After which we returned to Cardinal Costagusti, who was ready to go abroad. So after some short Discourse, which to avoid being inconvenient to him, we broke off, he professed his regret for his being otherwise engaged, and the satisfaction he should have if we pleased to see him another time. Thence I went to Cardinal Roma, where I stayed till night to see him, and after the Litanies were done, at which I was present, and which were said daily there during Lent, his Maistre de Chambre informed me, that the Domestics of the Cardinals who were with their Masters, obtained the same indulgences as if they were present at them. The first thing Cardinal Roma spoke of, was, our Memorial against F. Annat's Book, which he offered to give me. I prayed him to keep it, that he might have it ready to show the next day to the Cardinals at la Minerve, if they happened to speak of it; because though the Pope told the Ambassador, that his Holiness had no Interest in the book, and that when it was printed it should be censured if it deserved it, yet I knew the Pope had given the Memorial to M. Albizzi, and perhaps it was to communicate the same to their Congregation, to which it was likely M. Albizzi had no great stomach. The Cardinal replied that he would carry it thither, to have recourse to in case of need. Falling then to speak of oaths matters of the times, I told him of the Minister of Groning's book, and of the answer preparing to it; as also of the malice and ignorance of those who would make use of S. Augustin against us, objecting to us passages out of Pelagius' Confession of Faith, as if it were S. Augustin's; and this with such obstinacy, that after having been fully convinced thereof by books published in answer to them, yet they produced the same thing again in a late book, as if they had never heard of our clearing it in former Writings. The Cardinal could not think it possible for people to be transported to such enormities, and testified great indignation at it. At length I mentioned the principal cause of my coming to his Eminence, which was the approaching Assembly of the Consultors on Thursday following, the danger we feared from it, and how advantageous it would be both for them, and those that defended the truth, if they heard the parties before declaring their opinions. The Cardinal answered, that that ought not to dismay me, because the Pope would not hasten to conclude any thing, and his Holiness well knew, that not only his own Reputation, but also that of the H. See was concerned in this Affair. That all that the Qualificators could do, was of no consequence. That it was not seen: and that the reason of their meeting before hearing us, was that they might ventilate and open the matter a little, and become more capable to hear it and deal with it when we came before them. But otherwise I might be certain, that nothing would be decided till the Parties were first heard as much as they could desire: that all this pains of the Consultors, was only to give the Pope and their Eminences some preliminary knowledge, for their better enlightening and disposing to hear what we had to say to them. I signified to the Cardinal that I was much heartened by his Discourse; but still I insisted, that it would be better, if before that labour the Consultors heard what might be said by the Parties on either side. The good Cardinal showed a reluctancy (no doubt elsewhere infused into him) to grant the Parties such an audience and public Congregation, as I maintained was most expedient and profitable for truth; and the pretext (suggested to him) was that it would make more noise, and retard and entangle the affair instead of facilitating and advancing it, as he sincerely desired; which desire induced him to ask us whether we were ready, whether we had our Memoires all prepared to deliver to them when required, adding that it was very expedient that we were ready to present ourselves to the Congregation when we should be Advertised of it. I answered, that the Bishops, by whose order we sued for a Congregation, purposed to send some other persons with us when the Congregation was resolved upon, and the matter came to be handled in earnest. The Cardinal replied, though gently and mildly, that it was something unpleasing that we were not ready: (so he interpreted it, and nevertheless he looked upon the slowness, to which I seemed to incline▪ as a thing not to be debated on, but necessary to be granted.) But I told him that that should cause no delay: and when the Congregation was ready, we would forthwith begin to deliver some informations upon the Affair, to employ the Divines of whom it consisted sufficiently, till others came to assist us to treat it solemnly and thoroughly. But without that too the Consultors might in the mean while be too much busied if they would seriously apply themselves to what was most necessary, in order to the getting of a clear and certain understanding of those difficulties: namely, to read well in the first place the principal works which S. Augustine hath written expressly upon these matters. The Cardinal assented hereunto, and added that it was very fitting, since S. Augustin should be the rule of those Disputes, and of the decisions to be made upon them. I replied that it was our hope; and when we came to speak and write before that Congregation, we would employ no other weapons but those which that H. Doctor made use of against the Heretics whom he overcame; but till it were established, and its establishment declared to us, our whole Commission was only to solicit for it. That from some slight passages we presumed it was preparing, but we had not yet received any authentical advertisement of it; and till we were so advertised, all that should be done, and nothing, were the same in reference to us.  
On Wednesday the 13. we visited the Cardinals di Santa Croce and Homodei, to neither of whom we spoke much, because our visits were interrupted. We visited also at la Minerve F. F. Alvarez and Nolano, very zealous and able Dominicans.  
In the Afternoon we visited the Abbot of S. Peter in vinculis, who received us very cordially and civilly. The remembrance he had of what I had formerly signified to him touching our Affair, hindered us from entertaining him further with it. We spoke of the Exorbitances of the Jesuits against S. Augustin, both in their Books and Sermons, at which he was filled with horror and indignation. He told us a considerable Cardinal lately visited him, and finding that he was so well informed of things, and so sincere for the defence of S. Augustin's Doctrine, embraced him with great affection. He spoke to us of the Nomination made by the Pope of the Cardinals Roma, Spada, Ginetti, and Cechini, as a certain and known thing; and said, he had received no intelligence of the Assembly of Qualifitators, which we were advertised was to be the next day. By which we gathered that he was not chosen to be one of them, though he was one of the Qualificators of the H. Office, and of the most intelligent in Theological matters. He asked us what danger there was in censuring the Propositions in general, seeing, according to ourselves, they might admit a bad sense? We showed him the danger by explicating the first; for that the Adversaries desired the condemnation of them, only to reflect it upon the Necessity of Effectual Grace, which we maintained in that Proposition; which account satisfied him. At length, after a long and agreeable entertainment, he showed us the chiefest Rarities of his House and his Church; and amongst the rest, the sacred Chains which are in so great veneration in that place, for having been sometimes the Instruments of S. Peter's captivity.  
Leaving him we went to visit F. Aversa at S. Laurence in Lucina. We explicated our Affair to him, which he took very well; and touching the Congregation, he asked us whether we had had any answer about it, and whether it would be erected? We answered, that we had learned by the common rumour the names of some of those that were to be of it; but for that nothing had been signified to us from the Pope, we did not hold ourselves assured, nor make any great account of what we had learned; because the iis quae non erant, & qua non apparebant, erat idem apud nos judicium.  
On Thursday the 14th. I went in to see F. Luca Vadingo, and to carry him in the way of a friend two little Latin Discourses upon the Propositions. He told that Cardinal Roma, with whom he had been upon Friday, was well satisfied with me, and assured him again, that this Affair would not be ended without our being heard as we desired & voce & scripto as much as we would. I thanked the Father for his new assurance of Cardinal Roma's good dispositions; and I told him, that both Justice and Prudence required that regard be had to Time and all the other circumstances which accompany affairs. That in the Church circumstances and conjunctures sometime obliged to condemn and reject at one time a Proposition, which would be well received and approved at another. That if we had been in Calvin's days when his Heresy was at the highest, I should not have advised to let pass the first Proposition without condemnation, if it had been advanced in the same words, and nakedly as it was expressed: because it might seem to countenance his opinion of the impossibility of God's Commandments. But the same Proposition having been deceitfully pulled out of a place, in which what goes before and what follows, reduce it to a very Orthodox sense and a very Catholic truth; and having been thus exposed under ambiguous and defective terms, only to destroy that Catholic truth by the Censure, which they who propose it, endeavour to obtain upon it under pretext of the bad sense of those terms: that the case being thus, I conceived it requisite to hinder it from being condemned, without first distinguishing the different senses, and securing the Catholic, for fear of administering advantage against the same, by an absolute and unlimited condemnation. F. Luca Vadingo consented with me, as to the justice and necessity there was of using that distriction and caution.  
When I quitted him I returned to my lodging to take my Colleagues, and went together to the Palace of Cardinal Trivultio. Some of his Gentlemen came and received us at the door of his first Antichamber, and conducted us through three or four before we met the Cardinal, and there were two or three more to pass through before we came to his own whether he led us, and at each door that was to be passed, he made us a civility before he entered at it. When we had taken our places in his Chamber, M. Brousse amply and at leisure gave him an account of our affair. He answered us that as for the Theological part, he was but little versed in it; but for the Political, he would assist us what he could to obtain satisfaction in so just a demand. He said, the Pope wanted not prudence, and he believed his Holiness would have regard to what he desired of him. He told us also, the Jesuits were violent upon this business, and that ever since he acted as the King of Spain's Ambassador he had heard speak of it, and interposed in it in reference to the Archbishop of Malines, and the Bishop of Gaunt. We answered that ours was not the affair of Jansenius, but only about Five Propositions, upon which it was important that the Pope pronounced a signal Judgement correspondent to his place and the esteem which people are to have of his decision. And the rather for that the boldness of those who inveigled the Bishops to present such equivocal and fallacious Propositions to him, was incredible, especially they persisting so obstinate in it, after having been convinced by so many writings of the unworthiness of the action which he who was the first author of them committed in presenting them to our Faculty. The Cardinal much approved our sentiments, and told us he should willingly receive and hear us as often as we had any thing to say to him. He accompanied us into the fourth chamber from that in which he received us, and twelve or fifteen persons of his Court continued marching before us to accompany us to the stairs. Which ceremonies I mention here partly in acknowledgement to him, who though of the Spanish Faction, and then encharged with the affairs of that Monarchy during the absence of an Ambassador, yet treated Frenchmen with so many demonstrations of esteem and courtesy, and partly not to omit any thing that was most singular and remarkable in any visit that we made about this affair.  
At our coming away from him we went to see the General of the Augustine's. He expressed a very deep resentment of this affair, and told us he would apply himself wholly to it; that for the right concluding it, one of the first things he should advise the Pope to do, was, to write to all the Catholic Universities to study S. Augustin, and in the mean time to appoint the Divines here to do the same, that so it might afterwards be more easy to judge what conformity the Propositions in question have with his doctrine. We much approved this advice, and told him it would be extremely useful to ruin two objections which were made with as much boldness as injustice against that H. Father. First, that he hath spoken with so great obscurity, that it is a hard matter to discover of what opinion he was. And secondly that in the heat of his discourses he hath suffered himself to be carried into the excesses opposite to the Heretics which he encountered. We mentioned likewise other calumnies dispersed against that Saint and ourselves as well by secret accusations as printed books. And our discourse falling upon that entitled Jansenius pessimè meritus, etc. which F. Mulard distributed at Rome, in the first lines of which it is impudently affirmed that the two and twenty Propositions censured at Vallidolid are so many impostures; the truth whereof this General might judge, having had a Censure of the very impression at Vallidolid sent him; he drew the said Libel out of his Pocket, and could not sufficiently admire the shamelessness of it. One entertainment held about an hour, and ended with the reflection which we made how important and beneficial it would be, if the Qualificators deferred giving their opinions upon these Propositions till they had thoroughly read the works of that Father, and heard what we had to say to them in the presence of our adversaries.  
In the afternoon we repaired to the Ambassador who was to receive a visit from Cardinal Corrado. When it was ended, we went to see Monsignor Borromeo, whom I had often attempted to write unto while I was at Rome alone, but could not. We gave him a full and punctual account of our affair: Which he heard, and thanked us for our information. I sent one of our people to Cardinal Roma's Palace to know who were to be present in the Assembly of the Consultors which we heard was to be held there: he brought word that there had been no Congregation at all there. Of which, the Curé of S. Saviour's coming to see me, told me the reason was, because the Cardinals Spada and Ginetti had got cold. Which was true as to the ordinary Congregation held there every Thursday by those four Cardinals. But there was another reason more considerable that hindered the meeting of the Consultors, which I was informed of the next day, and shall relate in its order. The same Curé further told me that the Pope had increased the number of the Cardinals of the Congregation of the H. Office by adding Cardinal Ghiggi who entered into it that day for the first time. And lastly he told me that according to my request he had spoken to the F. Procurator of S. Marcel, to incite him to demand to hear us before delivering his opinion upon any of the Propositions, for the reasons above mentioned.  
M. the Abbot of Valcroissant and I spent almost all Friday morning (March 15.) in conferring amicè with the Commissary of the Office upon the first Proposition. We told him also the same reasons why we conceived it so expedient that the Qualificators hastened not to write and deliver their opinions upon the Propositions before they had taken such light and informations upon the matter as they might hope from a legal Conference wherein we and our adversaries were heard. He answered that this was not to be told to him; that he was sufficiently persuaded of it; but it behoved to speak it to the Cardinals who were the Masters.  
As I returned to my lodging I went to see a particular friend who learned me three or four considerable things. First, that M. Albizzi had acquainted the Congregation of the H. Office with the visit which we had made to him, and spoke as if he had well humbled us, and taught us how to govern ourselves for our own safely. Secondly, that he had made complaint there against the book of Victorious Grace, and presented the same to the Congregation to be viewed and condemned. And thirdly that the General of the Dominicans intended that very day to seek for audience of the Pope after the Sermon, and if he could not obtain it, to return the Sunday following for he same purpose. And that his business was to tell the Pope that hitherto he had not spoken a word in the cause, by reason he did not clearly see what was the thing in question, but at length having well examined it, he found that it was the same affair that war formerly in agitation under Clement VIII. and Paul V between his Order and that of the Jesuits; that he would demand of his Holiness, that they might be heard too before any thing were determined on one side or other; that all proceed might be the same as they were under those two Popes, that the Memoires of the things which were passed in that time might be perused, to see what was expedient to be done at this. And fourthly, that the reason which caused the deferring the Assembly of the Qualificators which was to have been held the day preceding at Cardinal Roma's Palace, was indeed because the Commissary of the H. Office had signified to the said Cardinal that he was encharged with a multitude of processes for the visitation of Prisoners which was to be made before Easter, and so his Papers upon the first Proposition were not ready. Which he represented to his Eminence with a design not only that by this means the Qualificators might have more leisure to prepare themselves to do well, but also to give his General time to make his supplication to the Pope which I newly mentioned.  
A small indisposition of M Brousse hindered us from continuing our Visits together in the afternoon, and therefore I went to see F. Hilarion, partly to thank him for the favour he lately did us in showing us his Relics; partly to acquaint him how we governed ourselves in our Visit to M. Albizzi, but chief to tell him what he did against us three days ago out of a bravado in the Congregation of the H. Office, and to beseech him to use what interest he had in M. Albizzi, to hinder him from further persecuting the book of Victorious Grace, because it would make matters worse, and obstruct the restauration of a good intelligence. This was a very nice point to be touched upon at this time, as well on the part of of F. Hilarion towards M. Albizzi, as of mine towards F. Hilarion, because it was so to be carried that M. Albizzi might not know that F. Hilarion was so clearly inform of it, especially by me; and also that F. Hilarion might not know that I had such assured intelligence of it, for fear they would suspect him from whom I received it to have violated the fidelity of secrecy. In fine, I fetched a compass, and took all possible care and caution to avoid that inconvenience, which I would have shunned as solicitously are death itself. The F. did not promise me to speak to M. Albizzi about it, because he had no other occasion to visit him, and to go on purpose was not convenient. On the contrary, he told me, if that book were propounded in the Congregation of the H. Office in his presence, and he were obliged to give his opinion of it, he would sentence it to be condemned, because it treated of a prohibited subject. But when I had laid open to him the necessity of setting it fotth, the good effects it had had already, and might further be expected from it, he mitigated his first rigour▪ and condescended that the Congregation should take no notice of: and if M. Albizzi and he happened upon occasion to discourse of this point, he would persuade him as much as he could to that gentleness. In reference to the said book, I shall here by the way mention two things that came into my memory. First, that I made these solicitations in its behalf upon my own head without acquainting my Colleagues with M. Albizzi's accusation against it, partly not to disquiet them unnecessarily, and partly in consideration of secrecy which I was to perform to my Intelligencer. Secondly, that understanding from France the last Summer that it was intended to be translated and printed in Latin, in order to be sent and seen at Rome; I dissuaded the design, in regard of what was spoken in the Preface to the advantage of Jansenius: because I feared that place alone considering the state of things, would do more hurt to our cause then the rest of the book would do good.) But to return to F. Hilarion, I told him of the difficulty that I war certified there was to answer the Minister of Groaning aright, by reason of the decree made against the Catechism of Grace. The Father answered me, that it behoved us to observe a general and very sure Rule in those matters, namely, that the Popes would not hitherto pass any judgement upon the Doctrine. That therefore it was no wonder if it were suffered in the Anticatechism of Errors and Heresy, without any thing said to it. That as for what was noted, that the Catechism revived the Propositions condemned by Pius V it was ground enough for saying so, that there was one found to be such at the first inspection of the book. But it was not expressed in that Decree, whether those condemned Propositions which were in the Catechism, were any of those which Pius V had condemned as Heretical; or temerarious, or as offending Christian ears: which might be so in the time of Pius V and not so now: but however those Propositions having been once condemned, and that condemnation neither reversed nor interpreted, nor the prohibition of teaching and maintaining them removed, he was too blame that advanced and published them, and there was reason to complain as well of his writing of these matters contrary to the Prohibition', as of his reviving those condemned Propositions. F. Hilarion and I were three full hours in this conference, and it was far in the night before we broke it off.  
On Saturday morning the 19th. we did nothing but went to the Ambassador who expected a visit from one of the new Cardinals. And in the afternoon I learned nothing but that a new Tome of Suarez was lately printed at Lions touching the matter de Auxiliis, notwithstanding it had been formerly denied permission at Rome, and that the Jesuits caused it to be sold there. This intelligence was given us that we might complain of it; but we were loath to take new affairs and employments upon ourselves without necessity, being scarce able to manage all those in which we were engaged already.  
On Sunday (the 17th.) in the morning we went to accompany the Ambassador to the Pope's Chapel. From thence we went to Giesu to see the ceremonies which the Jesuits made after the election of their General, which we found plain and modest. We spent almost the whole afternoon at the Ambassador's house in reference to the visit which Cardinal Aldobrandino was to make to him.  
On Tuesday we went to see that Cardinal with whom we found Cardinal Trivultio. We waited till this latter was gone, and then were admitted to Cardinal Aldobrandino. We found him sufficiently informed of many circumstances of our affair, which we laid open to him at leisure. We spoke much of the famous Congregation held under Clement VIII. of whose family this Cardinal was, and who dying (as he intimated in our discourse) as he was upon the point to publish his Bull of condemnation against the Jesuits, his death was by those Fathers imputed to a Miracle.  
In the afternoon we visited Cardinal Sachetti, who apprehended our intentions and demands very just, and answered us very handsomely and ingenuously. He said, among other things, that the wiles and juggle which we showed him had been recurred to in this affair, were no good arms for defending a just cause: and that they who made use of them gave ground to believe that they were diffident of their good right. The same Afternoon we went to Cardinal Maidalcini who was the youngest of the Cardinals, and thence to Monsignor Paolucci who was the ancientest Prelate in Rome. M. Brousse declared the affair in Italian to Cardinal Maidalcini, and the Abbot of Valcroissant to M. Paolucci, who answered us as one that still well remembered all that he had seen formerly transacted under Clement VIII. between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, and who had since that time spent part of his own in the reading of S. Augustin.  
There remained none of all the sacred College to be visited but Cardinal Cherubin. We went to him on Wednesday (March 20.) and acquainted him, as we had done the rest, what had passed, and what we pretended to in this affair. We learned the same day that a Memorial was presented in the morning to the Congregation of the H. Office against the book of Suarez and those who dispersed it.  
Monsignor Spada Patriarch of Constantinople was the last we visited of the Consultors and Qualificators of the H. Office; for he had that Title which depressed him infinitely below the lowest Cardinal: which seemed very strange to us in the person of a Patriarch of the second See of the Church, and who since the second Ecumenical Council always held the first place after the Pope. We went to him on Thursday the 21. and after he had heard what we said to him, he wondered that we seemed to doubt whether the Congregation and audience of Parties would be granted, in which we placed the certain carrying of the Cause, and the indubitable triumph of truth against our common adversaries. He intimated, with a clear inclination to our good designs, that things were in suspense, that order would be taken about them, and that preparations were making for them. In fine he answered us very judiciously, gravely and courteously. And he acknowledged (as all other persons who we visited together, and whom I had visited before when I was alone at Rome, acknowledged in our common visits, though I have not menioned it in every occasion, to avoid too frequent repetitions) that I had never addresed to him but as one sent by some of my LL. the Bps. of France.  
Our visits being ended, and we finding by experience during the whole winter, that the air of Rome was very unsuitable with M. Brousse's health, and conceiving that the heat of the approaching Summer might be more prejudicial to it then the winter, during which he had a continual headache, and defluxion in his breast, which constrained him to be blooded largely five times, and to drink nothing but Ptisane: He prayed us to give way that he prepared himself to return to his native air after Easter, assoon as he was able to travel to the place of his ordinary residence. Whereunto we consented according to the condiscension of the Bishops who deputed us, to whom in the end of January last, we had signified the case of his indisposition which seized upon him assoon as he came to Rome, and continued to molest him ever since. Wherefore he and I went the same evening to advertise the Ambassador of it, and to beseech him to acquainr the Pope therewith the next day at his usual audience; to the end M. Brousse might salute his Holiness and receive his benediction before his departure, which was to be assoon as the Festivals and Ceremonies of Easter were over. The Ambassador promised to do him this office the next day if he could, or some day of the H. Week.  
The next day (Friday the 22th.) we attended the Ambassador to his ordinary audience. He caused M. Brousse to be called in, who being introduced, and the Ambassador going to speak some thing of him to the Pope by way of recommendation, His Holiness interrupted him with these familiar and obliging words, Lo conesco, è mio grand amico, I know him, he is my great friend. M. Brousse made ●his compliment to him in few words, and signified how his health necessitated his return. The Pope wished him a good journey, and gave him his benediction and indulgences. Besides the Ambassador, the Corrector of the French Minims was present, having been introduced at the same time about another business.  
In the afternoon I accompanied M. Brousse to Cardinal Barberin to take his leave; as accordingly he did after a long discourse of sundry things not necessary to be related in this place.  
Sunday the 24th. we were at the ceremony of Palms, and received some from his Holines' hand.  
Monday the 25. the Abbot of S. Peter in vinclis made an Oration upon the sanctity of that season in an assembly of an eminent Academy composed of many Ingenious and Learned persons, whereof the Gall●cane Prince was one of the principal members, if not the chief. The Abbot did us the honour to invite us to his Oration. We repaired thither, and before it began, Cardinal Rondanini's brother, and one of Cardinal S. Clement's nephews came to us to entertain themselves with us, and promote our acquaintance formely contracted, which we mutually promised to augment when the Festivals were passed.  
On Tuesday morning I accompanied M. Brousse in his visitation of the four Churches. In the morning we went to those of S. Marie Maggiore, S. John de Lateran and S. Paul; When he went in the afternoon to that of S. Peter, he left me at la Minerve; where I entertained at length F. Capisucci, a Monk of that Order and Professor in Divinity, with what had passed in the affair for which we were at Rome. F. du Plantet a Minime, very zealous against the sentiments of S. Augustin which he did not understand, and much devoted to F. Annat and the Court of Cardinal Spada who was protector of the Minims, had given this Dominican for a full instruction in this affair a Copy of M. de Vabres' letter, at the bottom of which were these words;  Subscripserunt aut suo nomine subscribi voluerunt hi qui sequuntur. 

Leonorius Destampes Archiepiscopus & Dux Remensis aliquot mensibus ante obitum.  
De Grignan Archepiscopus Arelatensis.  
Henricus de Bethune Archiepiscopus Burdigalensis.  
Anna's de Vanladour Archiepiscopus Pisuricensis.  
Henricus a Sabaudiâ nominatus Archiepiscopus Remensis. Sunt alii numero 64. Episcopi.   
I met in the City M. Michael Angelo Recci, who told me that F. Pascaligio an able Divine of the same house of S. Andrew de la Val, whereof F. Delbene was, desired to come and see us; but seeing that good Father much troubled with the Gout, he took the liberty to tell him that he would advertise us of it, and we should prevent him.  
I omitted mention that we spent all Saturday the 23. with Signior Pien Cottuen Notary of the Rota, and Andrea's Albercius, and Franciscus Pignocatus, expert Jurates for comparing and verifying writings, in a most exquisite comparing two Copies which we had caused to be made of M. Pegna's history. And we were so exact therein that each of those Copies was as useful and Authentic as the Original itself.  
Our Memorial against F. Annat's book, which we no longer thought of after it was declared to us, that neither the Pope nor the H. Office took part in it, had its effect the same day that we composed the papers of F. Pegna. M. Albizzi sent to the Printer by the Pope's Order, to command him to bring to the Palace of the H. Office (where M. Albizzi lodged, where also are the Prisons called the Inquisition) all the copies of sheets that he had printed of that work, with prohibition to distribute any to any person. The Letter was in these words. Signior Ignatio d'ye Lazaris Stampatore in Roma; In virtù della present doverà V. S. recare all S. Offitio è consignare à me infrascritto tutti gli essempi dell' Opera che con licenza della sacra Congregatione del santo Offitio ha' fatto Stampatore il Padre Anato della compagnia di Giesù, senza darne ad altri alcun essemplare sotto pena arbitraria alla medesima Congregatione. Perche così ha' ordinato è commandato la sanctità di nostro signore per ordine dato mi à bocca. Dato nel Palazzo del S. Offitio questo di 28. di Marzo 1652. Signed Fran. dalli Albizzi.  
The Pr●er let pass H. Friday without obeying this Order; but on Saturday he carried M. Albizzi all that he had printed of that book, and took his Receipt. The same day five Jews and one Turk were baptised at S. John de Lateran. The Marquis of Bréauté was Godfather to one of those Jews, and I to another, to whom I gave the n●me of Paul.  
M. Hostier Bishop of Béthleem arrived on H. Tuesday at Rome, whether he was sent from the Assembly of the Clergy of France, to obtain of the Pope that he would fill the vacant Sees of the Church of Portugal, with those persons which the King of Portug●l had nominated.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of a little Volume of the principal Works of S. Augustin against the Pelagians and Semipelagians which we put to printing after Easter, and of the Obstructions raised against the Impression.  
SHortly after we gave that poor Printer a better business then that of which we had been the cause that he was deprived. There remained but a few more sheets to print for the finishing of F. Annat's book, and we hired him to print for us the principal works of S. Augustin against the Pelagians and Semipelagians. It was a thing that we had designed some time a go, because we found nothing so proper, not only for justifying our pretensions to all Rome, and making known the truth of the doctrine which we defended, as well to the principal judges with whom we had to do, as to a great number of persons whom we found little enough intelligent therein, but very desirous to be instructed; but also to confirm to our interests (which were no other than those of truth) many other persons whom we had also found informed enough to consider them as their own. We had purposed to make several small volumes one after another, according as occasion should permit in the sequel of time; but we had already chosen wherewith to make up one first as the most necessary urgent, with the greatest diligence we could. The Pieces which we intended to put into it, were the book De Gratia Jesus Christi, that De perfectione Justitiae, the 107. Epistle ad Vitalem, the 105. Epistle ad Sixtum, the book De Gratia & Libero arbitrio, the 46. and 47. Epistles ad Valentinum, the book De Emendatione & Gratia, the Epistle of S. Prosper, and that of Hilary to S. Augustin, the books De Praedestinatione Sanctorum & De dono Perseverantiae, the Epistle of Pope S. Celestin I. to some Bishops of France, the Synodical Epistle of the African Bishops which were banished into the Island of Sardinia, the second Council of Orange, and the Letter of Pope Boniface II. for confirmation of that Council.  
On Easter Tuesday the second of April, I asked permission of the Vicegerent of Rome to print them, and after him of the Master of the sacred Palace: who both granted it immediately.  
The Printer began to work upon them on Monday following April 8. and before Thursday night there was one sheet printed, one corrected and ready for the Press, and a third composed and ready also the first proof to be made of it. But I was astonished that evening when the Printer came to tell me that M. Albizzi had sent for him, taken away the Permission to print which we had obtained (and which is necessary to be delivered to the Printer that he may begin to work) and given him an order in writing whereby he was forbidden to proceed further in the Impression of S. Augustin's works, if they were not first reviewed by the Congregation of the H. Office, particularly the Apostilles (or Notes in the Margin) The order was in these words.  
A voi sig. Ignatio di Lazaris s' ordina da parte della Santità di nostro sig. (and then two words which neither the Printer nor I could read) audar avanti alla stampa dell' Opere di Sant' Agostino contra Pelagio, se non sono rivedule particolarment le Postille dalla sacra Congregatione del Sant' Offitio, sotto pene arbitrary alla Santità di nostro signore.  
Dato nel Palazzo del Saint' Offitio li undeci di Aprile 1652. Signed, Fran. delli Albizzi.  
The Printer told me he had answered M. Albizzi very resolutely and contested much with him, that he might not part with his Permission to print, which was good and valid. That he had represented to him what cost he had been at, in buying new characters on purpose for this work, and in brief told him that what he was printing, was no new thing of a private author, but the Works of an ancient Father of the Church.  
On Friday morning April 12. the same Printer came and told me that he had been with the Master of the sacred Palace to advertise him of this Obstruction; and that the Master of the Sacred Palace bid him do no Apostille of hand-writing, but only such as were printed formerly. This obliged me to go to the Master of the sacred Palace, and show him that there was not any other printed, but such. The Master of the sacred Palace and I, after long discourse upon this surprising occurrence, agreed that the Printer should go to M. Albizzi to assure him thereof, show him the Impression which he followed, and that the Apostills might be no obstacle, offer him, if he pleased, to print the Text of S. Augustin alone without any Apostills.  
He went accordingly, and returned to tell me that he could not prevail with M. Albizzi; that he would hear nothing, not so much as of printing S. Augustin's text alone. That M. Albizzi only said to him, that he did not tell him that he should not continue to print, but he would have him wait for an order for it first. I bid the Printer go and acquaint the Master of the sacred Palace herewith.  
On Saturday April 13. I went to the Printer to know what the Master of the sacred Palace had said to him. He told me that he bid him have a little patience in attending M. Albizzis' resolution, and that he was to repair to him again the next day which was Sunday. He added that when he spoke to him on Friday about the Apostilles, that M. Albizzi taking them and looking upon them, said, It was there that the Heresies were, CHE era in questo che si trovavano le heresy.  
On Sunday the Printer came from M. Albizzi, and told me he was still in the same mind, what ever he could allege to him.  
I had let those three days pass, without advertising my Colleagues of the Obstruction of our Impression, that I might not needlessly divert them from the things about which they were employed in their chambers, and in hope that this storm, which had but a very ill grounded pretext, would be calmed by my little diligences, as speedily and as easily as it was raised. But M. Albizzi's obstinateness not to heed what ever reasonable and submissive applications the Printer made to him, caused me to fear that he purposed to hinder this Impression altogether if he could, or at least to retard it as much as possible, thereby to deprive us of all the benefit which we hoped to gather from it, and hold us busied in these trifles in prejudice to our more important actions, obliged me to advertise my Colleagues of all that had passed about it.  
Whereupon we presently resolved to complain of this proceeding to the Cardinals of the H. Office and give them a Memorial to signify our intentions in this matter. It was thus directed, To the most Eminent and Reverend Lords, the Lords Cardinals Inquisitors general in the sacred Congregation of the H. Office: and at the bottom, For the Printing of S. Augustin. The Memorial follows.  
Most Eminent and Reverend Lords,  
Besides the general benefits accrueing to the Church from printing at sundry times the works of S. Augustin against the Pelagians and Semipelagians, in which so many Popes have declared, that the doctrine of the same touching Grace is contained; The Doctors of Paris underwritten, have also had sundry considerations which have induced them to cause the same to be reprinted anew in the present posture of Controversies, which are between Catholics about that matter. Whereupon they desired and obtained of the Master of the sacred Palace permission to print the principal and most considerable Treatises thereof in one small Volume; which may be printed within two or three months, and by means whereof great light may be had of the justice of the pretensions of the Parties till time and conveniency shall serve for the printing of the rest. But as soon as the Impression of the said first little Volume was begun, M. Albizzi caused it to cease, upon a pretext of the Apostilles, which he saith, aught to be reviewed by the sacred Congregation of the H. Office before the said Impression be continued.  
And forasmuch as it may be suggested, that we the Persons underwritten might make some new observations, reflections, or interpretations whereby to force, wrist or corrupt the sense of S. Augustin; we have conceived ourselves obliged to advertise your Eminences that we have no such design. We add not the least word of our own thereunto. We follow the last Impression made at Lorain in the year 1647. as the most correct and conformable to that of Plantin, which is the best of all the Editions that have been hitherto made of that Father. There is not on the one side but the bare citations of places of Holy Scripture, upon which S. Augustin establisheth all that he saith against his Adversaries; and on the other there is nothing but a few words, exactly consentaneous to the text, serving to note to the Readers in the whole sequel the Point which is treated of in every place by that H. Doctor. So that on one side or other, it seemeth that there is not any difficulty or occasion to hinder or retard the said Impression.  
Nevertheless, if to take away all pretext of gainsaying this affair, your Eminences think meet to give order to the Master of the sacred Palace or any other, if so you please, to review those Apostilles before the book be published, or whilst it is printting, we are contented therewith, and willingly yield to the taking away of any Apostille whatsoever, not only if there be found any falsity (which we hope shall not be) or any forced interpretation put upon S. Augustin's words, but where there shall be found any shadow of difficulty, or the least foundation of scruple (which we believe also will not occur) and this without contest, and assoon as the least desire shall be signified to us so to do.  
This is, most Eminent and Reverend Lords, in brief what we have to say in a case of this nature; and we esteem it more than sufficient to represent the sincerity of our intentions, and the justice of our design to your Eminences, quas Deus, etc.  
Signed, 

James Brousse Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, etc.  
Noel de la Lane Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, etc.  
Lewis de Saint-Amour Doctor of the Sacred Faculty of Paris, etc.  
Lewis Angran Licentiate in Faculty and Canon of the Church of Trois.    
Having spent Tuesday morning in preparing this Memorial, we employed the afternoon till five a clock in getting Copies made, to carry to the Cardinal of the H. Office, and leave at the Palaces of such as we should not meet with. M. Brousse being still at Rome, signed it with us, but did not accompany us to the Cardinals, because he had lately visited divers of them to take leave of their Eminences before his departure, which was to be at furthest on the Friday following, as accordingly it was. He had been but three days before with the Cardinals, Barberin, Spada and Roma, and with the Ambassador; so that it was not seemly for him to present himself to them again about these new solicitations. By this Visit to the Ambassador, we found manifestly that M. Albizzi had stopped the course of our Impression, and given us all this trouble of his own head, without first acquainting the Pope at all therewith. For the Ambassador told us, that in his last ordinary audience, which was on the Friday foregoing, that the Pope occasionally had spoken to him of us, and yet made no mention of the Impression which we were in hand with, and which was stopped on Thursday evening, which without question he would have, if that obstruction had been by his order:  
Leaving M. Brousse at our lodging, the Abbot of Valcroissant, M. Angran, and I myself went out about five a clock on Tuesday April 16. to deliver our Memorial. We went first to wait upon the Cardinals Pamphilio, Ghiggi; Lugo, Ginetti, Barberin and Spada, but found none of them. I had ever since Sunday foreseen that this business would come to need a Memorial, and in a Visit that day to Cardinal Roma, I acquainted him with it by anticipation, and desired him not to fail to be at la Minerve the Wednesday following; which he promised me. So that it was sufficient that I went alone to carry him our Memorial to put him in mind of it: which I did accordingly; He needed no importunity in our affair; for he was as sensible of it as ourselves. Returning to my Colleagues, we went together to Cardinal Spada and S. Clement, spoke with them, and so left our Memorial: As also a Copy with the Secretary of Cardinal Ginetti, and another with the Maistre de chambre of Cardinal Pamphilio. We could not find a fit Person to leave it with at Cardinal Ghiggi's Palace, nor make more Visits that day.  
On Wednesday April 17. we went very early to la Minerve to deliver it to such as we could not speak with, nor leave it at their Palaces the day foregoing. But the fruit of our diligence was only to present one Copy to the Commissary of the H. Office, and another to M. Albizzi with our excuses for that we had not time to carry it to him the day before. For there came but four Cardinals to la Minerve, namely Spada, Ginetti, S. Clement, and Pamphilio; nor was our affair at all spoken of. Cardinal Roma could not be there, because the Gout had seized upon his foot in the night, where he had not formerly had that Disease.  
After the Assembly, we asked the Commissary of the H. Office what news there was touching our affair? He durst not answer us but between his Teeth, and bid us go to Cardinal Spada, Barberin, Roma, or some other; adding that our Affair was remitted to a Congregation to be held on Friday or some other day; and in one word, that he could tell us nothing of it, because those matters were secret. We would not be seen by the abovementioned Cardinals as they came forth, having saluted them at their entrance; nor could we get to speak to M. Albizzi as we desired: wherefore we determined to wait upon him purposely in the afternoon, partly to understand by what he should say to us what was fitting for us to do, and partly that we might not fail in any civility or respect towatds him, that might conduce to mollify the fierceness and asperity of his spirit against us. At noon I was advertised by a Note, that he had cunningly caused the mentioning of our affair to he deferred till the next day before the Pope, that he might inform his Holiness his own way when he should go to him in the evening of that day according to his custom. As also that it was expedient for us to endeavour to gain Cardinal Ghiggi, to oppose himself in our favour to the ill Offices which M. Albizzi might do us with the Pope.  
The Note was short, and consisted of these lines: Bisogna fare ogni Forzo di captivare il sig. Cardinale Ghiggi per la stampa, perch è Albizzi ha' studiosament differito il trattarne domani avanti all Papa, & hoggi infermera à suo modo.  
We persisted in our purpose nevertheless to go to M. Albizzi before we did any thing else: and accordingly M. Angran and myself went to him. As we came into his Antichamber, we heard him speaking very loud, and as it were in choler to two Religious Cordeliers that were with him, and whom we saw come forth presently after. The loud tone of his Voice kept us from going further in his Antichamber then the two first Chairs which were at the entrance. Yet we heard some things which he said to them. He was speaking to them concerning the affairs of Flanders, sharply and imperiously. The terms he used for the people of that Country were forfanti & forfanteria, rogues & roguery. Speaking of the Archduke Leopold, he called him The poor Arch Duke; What? said he, must it come into compromise for arbitration, whether the orders of Temporal Superiors are rather to be obeyed then those which come from Rome? Mi dispiace che i nostri soldati; (for said he, i Frati sono nostri soldati) siano quelli chi commettono questi disordini; I am sorry, our soldiers are they that commit these disorders. I say our Soldiers (said he) for the Frati (by which word in Italy they denote the Mendicant Friars) are our Soldiers. He said, the Archbishop of Machlin deserved to be burnt in the Piazza of S. Peter. He fell to speak of the Catechism of Grace, and named me, saying Non si vergognera questo sig. di Sant-Amor e glialtri suos compagni, etc. Is not this M. the Saint Amour and the others his companions ashamed, etc. He asked himself the question whether we were not ashamed to say that it were requisite to teach the people those matters, as those concerning the Trinity, though they be, added he, above the reach of human capacity. He said also that the Gospel would not be Gospel if the Pope had not approved it. They shown him the Letters of a certain religious Person or Friar; which after he had read, he counselled them not to present, because, said he, they will be more apt to do him hurt than good. At length those two Cordeliers came forth, and he reconducted them. When he was come back, I made our excuses to him for that we could not bring him our Memorial the day before. I told him we wondered our affair was not dispatched that morning, considering it was urgent, and we had by that Memorial satisfied all difficulties that could be made in reference to it. He answered us plainly, that it was not mentioned at all: which was not true. For it was propounded, but he diverted it, and caused it to be remitted to the next day before the Pope. He told us also that it should be taken into consideration in another Congregation which should be held the next day at the Palace either of Cardinal Roma or Spada. Yet at the same time he purposed that it should be spoken of before the Pope, as I learned afterwards, and shall relate in its order. In the sequel of his discourse, he told us, there might be some difficulty made as to the choice and order of the books which we intended to get printed, and that there might be met with in some of those books qualche crudità, some crudities, which had been better explicated and more digested in other later books: however, he conceived, this would not be much stood upon; but as for the Apostolles or Marginal notes which were there, and the Table of Contents which we might insert, therein would be the matter of trouble. We replied we had not the least thought of adjoining a Table; and as for the Apostilles, we offered in our Memorial what was fully satisfactory, namely, to take away without contest all such as could cause the least exception. He answered that he conceived we had good reason, mi pair che parlano assai bene. So we took leave, assuring him, he should always find our actions correspondent to our words.  
We returned home to acquaint the Abbot of Valcroissant and M. Brousse with the passages of this visit, and for that we saw matters still in suspense, we determined to go to speak with such Cardinals of the H. Office as we could meet with, and the Abbot of Valcroissant, M. Angran and myself went abroad again for that purpose. We could be admitted but to two of those Cardinals, namely, Ginetti and Ghiggi. The former we only acquainted briefly with our wonder that our affair was not dispatched that morning without difficulty, and what danger of extraordinary scandal there would be in the world if the Jesuits on one side and the Heretics on the other, each for their own interests, could boast that S. Augustin was not allowed to be printed at Rome. He told us, we had reason, and he hoped we should have contentment.  
Cardinal Ghiggi was ready to go from his own apartment to that of the Pope, yet he was pleased to give us audience, though standing. He said, that as for the impression of S. Augustin, it could admit no difficulty, in reference to the substance of the thing; but the advantage and ostentation wherewith one party might do it, to insult over the other might cause it to be hindered, considering the gentleness and tranquillity wherewith his Holiness desired things might be carried. That himself (Cardinal Ghiggi) was as full of esteem and veneration for S. Augustin, as could be imagined. That he had worn his pourtraicture from his childhood, and had the same still about him. That therefore we ought not to doubt but he should interest himself in any thing that concerned that holy Doctor. That if the Impression we had undertaken were spoken of the next day, he would do his utmost for preserving the honour due to those excellent works, for our satisfaction and for the common good of both parties. But in the mean time he exhorted us to do nothing that might cause any stir, to give no Person (not even our Adversaries) any ground to complain of us; to do nothing extraordinary or unusual, that might be taken notice of. That he could not approve the general blaming any whole Society what soever, as for example, all the Jesuits, etc. We answered to this last particular, that when we spoke of the Jesuits, we spoke of them in general, because it was the main body of their Society that was culpable of the things which we had to lay to their charge. As for tranquillity and gentleness, we desired it more than any, and were more resolved to comport ourselves in that mind than he could require of us. That no stir or noise had been about our Impression, if M. Albizzi had not interrupted it, but carried himself with a little more equality between both parties. The Cardinal replied that perhaps M. Albizzi was excusable, and had reason to do what lie had done, according to the diligence where unto his Office obliged him, which is termed in Italian Fiscaleggiare. I answered that M. Albizzi might have been as diligent to Fiscaleggiare as he would, by taking heed underhand to what we were doing about that Impression; but before he proceeded to stop it, he should have observed us gently and peaceably, and see whether we did any thing contrary to order, and then complained of it; he might, if he pleased, have caused the Printer to bring him everyday a Copy of the sheets which he dispatched, and have perused them himself, or by others whom he thought fit, that so nothing might be done worthy of blame; but to begin presently with this way of stopping the progress of the work, to tie the Printers hands, and constrain us to run to himself, and have recourse to their Eminences, without the least foundation of so doing, this proceeding seemed something rude and violent. He replied that possibly M. Albizzi did it thus to hinder the mischief in the beginning; that there was nothing like stopping an evil in its fountain, Principiis obsta; and that if some one had done the same Office for Janseniu's book, when his executors caused it to be printed, he should have done both him and them a good office: but they had been the Murderers of his work, and done him great wrong; that himself (Cardinal Ghiggi) had read the whole book; that besides about half a page which they might have left out or explained, there was nothing in it to be excepted against; because we had in mandatis to speak nothing that might relate to Jansenius, and had made it a chief point to abstain as much as possible even from pronouncing his name; we answered nothing to this discourse of Cardinal Ghiggi concerning him. But the Abbot of Valcroissant returning to what concerned our Impression, gave his Eminence an account of the number and order of the books which we purposed to get printed; and upon his mentioning the Epistle of Celestine, the Council of Orange, and the Epistle of Sardinia, the Cardinal stumbled a little at it, and asked us why we did not put those other works into a little book apart, But when the Abbot of Valcroissant had answered that those works had been formerly printed together with those of S. Augustin, as pertaining thereunto and treating of the same matter, he was satisfied.  
At length I beseeched his Eminence to believe, that in procuring this Impression we had not had the least thought of any bravado or ostentation, but only designed to clear the things in question, by the most solid, short and innocent way that we could choose. But I added further, that though we had been too blame in beginning it, (as we conceived there could not be the least pretext) yet things being to come to this pass, it seemed expedient not to stop it or interrupt it longer, in regard of the occasions which thereby might be taken to say, That S. Augustin began to be no longer in esteem and approbation at Rome as formerly; but to avoid the scandalous sequels which such discourse might produce, The Cardinal replied that he looked upon this argument as something, yet not as unanswerable: for than it would follow said he, that a man might engage thus upon what he please, and plead afterward such inexpediency to hinder him. I answered that I judged such proceeding in the general as unreasonable as himself did; but in this case and in the affair under question, this argument appeared to me very strong and convincing, because the thing undertaken was profitable, just and holy, and from whence we could not reasonably presume the least probability of any inconvemence. That we had used all circumspection and observed all the forms and rules that could be wish● before we began; and that the Obstruction of the work would be of no profit, but draw prejudicial sequels after it. His Eminence was in haste, and so it behoved us to break off, and we accompanied him, discoursing of other indifferent things, as far as the apartment of Cardinal Cherubini.  
On Thursday morning, April 18. the Abbot of Valcroissant and M. Angran went to wait upon Cardinal Barberin, who had been in the Country the two preceding days, and so could not be informed before touching this Impression. But I went alone to Cardinal Spada, and assoon as his Eminence was in condition to be seen, I told him that when we presented our Memorial to him, we acquainted him only with reasons alleged for obstruction of our work. That we accounted our affair so clear and so just that we doubted not but we should have had, after the foregoing days congregation, the liberty to continue it: but having had no answer in the morning, we went in the afternoon to M. Albizzi who raised new scruples, to which I was come to acquaint him in two words what we had to answer. That M. Albizzi, told us in the first place, that he had crossed us, out of the fear he had of a Table which he intended to adjoin to the book; and secondly that in the works of S. Augustin selected by us there were Crudities which had been digested and refined in his latter works. That as to the first difficulty, I was to tell his Eminence that we had not so much as the least thought of annexing a Table to the intended Volumn; And as to the second, 1. that the word Crudities could not be applied to S. Augustin's works without failing in the respect which is due to him and to the Popes who have approved them. 2. That there was really neither crudities nor obscurities, nor excesses nor perplexities in his works. And thirdly, that in case there were such crudities, obscurities and perplexities in others of his works, yet not in these which we have chosen to print, that are resolved and cleared, as being the last which he composed upon this matter; and when the greatest difficulties and strongest objections which his adversaries had to allege against the doctrine of the Scriptures and the Church which he maintained, h●d been propounded to him, and he had destroyed and confounded the most perplexing subtleties, I gave the Cardinal an account of the order and substance of those Books as well as the shortness of the time permitted. He heard with gravity and decency all that I represented to him. After which he accompanied me only to his Chamber door; but answered me not so much as one single word,  
In the afternoon we went to M Albizzi no know what was resolved upon in the Congregation before the Pope that morning. But upon the way I was informed there had been no mention of our business. That M. Albizzi before the Pope's coming to the Assembly, talked much with Cardinal Pamphilio and Cardinal Barberin apart, and that it was determined at length amongst them to defer propouning it to a particular Congregation at the Palace of Spada, M. Albizzi ending the conference with their Eminences with these words, Non daremo fastidio all Papa questa matina, ne parlaremo nella Congregatione particolare alla Casa di Spada. However we proceeded to M. Albizzi, to see what he would say to us. He had not leisure enough the day before to hear what we had to tell him concerning the order and subject of the books whereof we had made choice. The Abbot of Valcroissant gave him account thereof, during which M. Albizzi held in his hand the little Volumes of S. Augustin printed by M. Vitré, and read the titles of them; and after what M. the Valcroissant had said to him, he seemed to make no great difficulty about out affair, telling us he believed it would be terminated at the House of Cardinal Spada, where a Congregation was to be held that day; that the Pope should afterwards be acquainted with it; in a word, That perhaps Cardinal Spada would send for us to tell us that we might continue our Impression; that he was not certain of it, but he told us this by way of advice. He asked us whether M. Brousse were gone, and said he would do well to stay. I know not why M. Albizzi said so, but I answered him, that M. Brousse was not yet gone, but intended it th● next day without fail, his health not permitting his longer residence at Rome. When he departed from M. Albizzi, I sent a Laquay to Cardinal Spadas Palace to see who came to that Congregation. He brought me word at night that only Cardinal Ginetti and M. Albizzi were there; that he heard, the Cardinals Pamphilio and Ghiggi weet to be there, but they came not, being obliged to accompany the Pope abroad to take the air that afternoon.  
On Saturday the 20th. I went to restore a book to Cardinal Barberin. Our conference was very long, and we spoke sufficiently at large concerning our Impression. He told me the business lay in the hands of the Cardinals Spada and Ghiggi, and that for his part, he saw no difficulty in it.  
On Monday the 23d. I went to the Antichamber of Cardinal Pamphilio, where I found M. Albizzi. I took occasion to tell, that since the last visit we made to him, I had heard nothing either from himself or Cardinal Spada, and that in the mean time our Imperssion stayed without going forward. He answered me that he would take care of it the next day, la sollicitarinò domani. I told him the Answer to the Minister of Groaning was going forward at Paris, that the first letter of that answer was already printed, that the Minister was well refuted in it, etc. M. Albizzi answered me, that it was well done, faranno been.  
In the afternoon I went again to Cardinal Ghiggi, and showed him several small Impressions formerly made of those little works of St. Augustin, and represented to him with what gentleness and moderation we had governed ourselves in this matter, that so long as we could, we set the Printer to solicit M. Albizzi, that so ourselves might not appear in it without necessity; and that we had not resolved upon presenting our Memorial to their Eminences, till we perceived M. Albizzi was inexorable to all the Printers instances, and till we feared he might give the Pope and their Eminences unhandsome suspicions and diffidences against St. Augustin and ourselves. The Cardinal received very pleasingly and courteously what I said to him. Turning over these little Volumes of S. Augustin, he lighted upon some places which he read with pleasure; amongst others upon that of the 14th. Chapter of the Book de Gratia, where it is said, Si ergo sicut veritas loquitur, OMNIS QVI DIDICIT VENIT; quisquis non venit, profectò nec didicit. He spoke of that Holy Doctor with very great esteem, and gave me hope that we should have liberty to continue our Impression. I went also to visit Cardinal Roma, but the Gout had confined him to his bed.  
On Wednesday the 24th. I learned that the Jesuits had procured new instances to be made as from the King of Spain, to obtain a Decree from the Pope in favour of the immaculate conception of the Virgin; that Cardinal Trivultio had earnestly solicited all the Cardinals of the H. Office, that it would be propounded the next day before the Pope, and that his Holiness would have this matter handled in a very secret manner. The Abbot of Valcroissant and myself went again to Cardinal Pamphilio, to beseech him to get the affair of our Impression dispatched. He answered us very civilly, but remitted us to Cardinal Spada for a determination.  
The Ambassador came back from Tivolo on Thursday the 25. and civilities to him took up all the morning of the next day. The Bishop of Bethlehem whom we had visited, excused himself to us by the suspicion of Jansenism, that he had not yet repaid our visit. Monsignor Sacrista told me that the Congregation of the day before, which without doubt was touching the business of the Conception, lasted three hours, and that Cardinal Lugo went away from it with a high colour and discontent in his face. The Printer came to tell me that M. Albizzi had signified to him the day before that the Cardinals of the H. Office gave way to the finishing of our Impression, but he must review the Apostills.  
On Saturday the 27. we consulted with some intelligent persons what course to take in this matter, and concluded, for avoidance of new difficulties, to treat with Mr. Albizzi about the renewing of those Apostilles. Accordingly on Sunday the 28. in the afternoon we went to him for that purpose, with the Tome of S. Augustin printed at Paris anno 1635. out of which we intended to take the Treatise de Perfectione Justitiae, having as yet only the first Tome of the Impression of Louvain of the year 1647. in which the Treatise is not; which first Tome we carried too, intending to take out of it the book de Gratia Christi, and the 105 and 107. Epistles; and we left both the books in his hands.  
After which we were present at an Act dedicated to Cardinal Ghiggi at the Covent of our Lady de la Victoire, whereunto we were invited. But the Cardinal sent to desire that it might be deferred to another day, because the Pope went abroad to take the air, and took him with him. In the Garden of that Covent we met with the Bishop of Bethlem, who told me that the Superior of the Jesuits of Nevers visiting him upon occasion of some affair relating to his Bishopric which is near that City, had in his discourse about the matters in contest drawn from under his Cassoke a Copy of M. de Vabres' Letter to cause him to subscribe it; which he refusing, they had proclaimed him a Jansenist.  
On the 30. of April being the day of S. Peter the Martyr, the Cardinals and Consultors of the H. Office were at a Mass which was said at la Minerve for the solemnity of that Festival. And because it happened to be this year on a Tuesday and Wednesday would be taken up by that of S. James and S. Philip, they held their Congregation at the end of Mass: during which, the Printer told me▪ that he had spoken to M. Albizzi, who said he had not yet done our business, but he would dispatch it, and give us contentment: Vaglio dar gusto à questi signori.  
Wherefore to see whether he would give us the satisfaction he pretended, and to win him as much as possible by respects and submissions, I went to visit him on the first of May, and carried him a printed Copy of the first Letter against the Minister of Groaning. I showed him one of the principal places which spoke of the Pope, the Council of Trent, and the Errors of Heretics touching the matter of Grace. The two books of S. Augustin which we carried to him the Saturday following, lay by his Chair; he told me he had not yet dispatched them, but he would do it the next day. I told him it might be done in a moment. He assented, and further acknowledged, that it was a great inconvenience that the Printers work had been hindered for three weeks already; therefore he promised me satisfaction and expedition.  
The Congregation held before the Pope on Thursday morning (May 2.) was very long, not ending till an hour and half after noon: and another was held the same evening at the Palace of Cardinal Roma, at which were present the Cardinals Spada, Ginetti, and Lugo, and M. Albizzi; in all probability it was about the conception. All that day I could hear nothing touching our Impression; but having by chance visited Cardinal Vrsin, I learned from his Eminence that M. Hallier was a coming with some companions, and that their arrival might cause the hastening of the Congregation which we requested; but nevertheless he believed nothing would be done.  
Nor could I have any News from M. Albizzi on Friday and Saturday the fourth and fifth of May, neither by ourselves, nor by the intervention of the Printer. But on Sunday morning as I was ready to go abroad, the Printer came to tell me he had been with him the night before, and received from him our two Volumes of St. Augustin, with a list of such Apostilles as he would have charged in the four Treatises which we designed to take out of them.  
Having considered that list which contained six Articles, M. the Valcroissant and myself went to Mr. Albizzi forthwith, and signified to him that we would add to the Apostilles such of the alterations which he had set down, as we found agreeing to the Text: but for others not agreeing thereunto, or likely to alter the sense, we could not add them; yet were contented, according as we offered in our Memorial, to leave them all out. Mr. Albizzi heard what we said to him, made a mark upon his paper, and almost consented; but he did not resolve immediately, only told us he would signify our Answers à questi signori. He would have us understand, that it was to the Cardinals that he intended to signify our Answers, as meaning their Eminences by questi signori; but it was in reality to the Jesuits, and very probably to the Penitentiaries of St. Peter, who were his near Neighbours. For when we represented to him the inconvenience which the poor Printer suffered by doing nothing for a month together, his Letters being still engaged in the two sheets which he had got ready of our Book in daily expectance of liberty to proceed; and therefore desired him that the Printer might fall to work again the next day, he told us, it should be so, and appointed the Printer to come to him that evening. Now it was morally impossible that he could or would go that afternoon (which was growing very hot) to the Cardinals who lived remote from him, or that their Eminences would be ready to apply themselves so suddenly to the examinat on of those Apostilles, as the Jesuits might be, who were more instructed therein; who perhaps were the Authors of them, and who lived sufficiently near him.  
However of those six observations there were two most remarkable, touching which we could agree to nothing but leaving them out, in regard of the bad senses which they might have. One was upon the 14th. Chapter of the Book de Gratia Christi, where the power and operative virtue of Grace being explicated, there was put in the margin Gratia efficit; which he would have thus, Gratia efficax efficit, to intimate that there is another sort of Grace named sufficient which acteth not, and which he said in his note that St. Augustin teaches and supposes frequently in his other books. C. 14. had this note, Augustinus describit tantùm gratiam efficacem, & non excludit sufficientem, quam alibi saepe supponit. Ergo ne cui detur occasio errandi in Apostilla prima, ubi dicitur (Gratia efficit) ponendum esset, Gratia efficax. The second was upon the 32. Chap. of the same book, where St. Augustin relates and citys Pelagius' Confession of Faith; for denoting and distinguishing whereof to less skilful Readers, there was an Apostille. And because Mr. Morel had had the inadvertency to cite that confession of Pelagius' Faith as a work of St. Augustin, for which he was reprehended by the Abbot de Bourzeis, therefore the interests of that Doctors were so dear to M. Albizzi or the Jesuits, that they would not have any Apostilles set there at all: and though we condescended to put only these words, Libellus Fidei Pelagii, which are expressly in the Text, yet we were constrained to leave them out; nor did we make much resistance when we knew they would have it so. Cap. 32. had this Remark from M. Albizzi; Apostilla nihil facit ad textum, & tangit controversiam peculiarem inter D. Morel doctorem Sorbonicum, & alium doctorem Jansenistam, à qua videtur abstinendum. Extraordinary care in behalf of a man that took Pelagius for S. Augustin, and an injurious word against him that defended S. Augustin from that Reproach. But it behoved to suffer it with patience, as well as all the other rigours which we daily experienced for our most sincere intentions and lawful demands.  
In the evening the Printer repaired to speak with M. Albizzi, but could not. But the next day he brought us a second Writing in reference to Answers which we made to M. Albizzi. And being now free either to add in the Apostilles what was not contrary to the Text and mind of S. Augustin, or to put none at all, our Printer, to whom M. Albizzi returned the licence for Printing which he had from the Master of the sacred Palace, prepared his forms which were ready almost a month before to print the next day, and proceed to finish these four Treatises, whereof M. Albizzi had reviewed the Apostilles.  
We could not supply him with Books to review the Apostilles of the rest which we intended to print; but assoon as we designed this Impression, having writ into Flanders for the three small Tomes, that we might receive them by such time as we should need them, the second was brought to us Thursday the ninth of May.  
On Sunday the 12. we carried it to M. Albizzi, for him to review the Apostilles of the other eight Treatises of S. Augustin contained in our licence for printing. And that he might dispatch all together, and the sooner, we carried him at the same time the little Tome in which the Epistle of Celestine 1. is of the Impression of M. Vitre, anno 1644. As for the second Council of Orange, the letter of Boniface 11. who confirmed it, and that of the Bishops banished into Sardinia, we presented him other books, which he presently delivered us again, because they had no Apostilles.  
On Thursday the 16. I found him in the Pope's Presence-Chamber, and asked him whether he had viewed those Apostilles. He told me, No; but he would dispatch them the next day or the day after. The same day I received the third small Tome of S. Augustin by the Courier of Flanders.  
On Sunday the 19 being the day of Pentecost, M. de Valcroissant and myself went to M. Albizzi to desire the expediting of those Apostilles, and I carried with me the sheet of the above mentioned small Volume wherein was the Epistle of S. Celestine, intending to take back that of M. Vitre, in case he had not yet dispatht it; that so he might have nothing in his hands but of the same Impression of Flanders. Assoon as he saw us, he told us he had not had time to peruse what we came for, but he would do it before the Festivals were passed. That in the interim he advertised that Questi signori had found very much to dislike in an Apostille of Celestine's Epistle, which was in these words, Defensores liberi arbitrii nocentissimi sunt. (It is at the third Chapter of that Epistle, and the 803. page of M. Vitre's Impression) That the Defenders of  are very culpable. This Apostille surprised us a little, because indeed we had not observed it before, having designed nothing else in this Impression of S. Augustin, but the Impression itself simply and sincerely. Yet we answered M. Albizzi, That though the Propositions contained in that Apostille might have a bad sense, nevertheless it was clear, that it was to be understood with reference to the Text, which speaks only of those Defenders of Free Will, who think they cannot defend the same but by advancing it above and ruining Grace, who indeed are very culpable. M. Albizzi replied two things: First, that it was distasteful, and that these Apostilles gave grand fastidio à questi signori, great disgust to those Signori; and that it was requisite to reform them; he meant after his own way, and according to the shifts and distinctions which the Jesuits liked to give them. And secondly, that it was still judged more expedient not to print this book, di non stampare il libro. Yet he said he would make observations upon those Apostilles, and deliver them to us on Wednesday or Thursday following. Whereupon we departed, and when we were come away, I remembered that we had not left with him the sheet of the Flanders Impression wherein that Epistle was. I drew it out of my pocket, and looking upon it, we found that the Apostille whereof he complained, was not in this Edition: so I returned to give it him, and show him that we meant no subtlety, but proceeded fairly herein; and if we had been suffered to finish our Impression without disturbing us, that Apostille had not been heard of, because we purposed to follow that of Flanders as the best, in which the said Apostille was not found.  
I cannot omit here the remark which he made upon this Apostille in the paper which he delivered to us afterwards signed with his own hand; Apostilla quae habetur pag. 803. (Defensores liberi arbitrii nocentissimi sunt) videtur esse scripta propria ipsius Lutheri vel Calvini manu, continetque manifestissimam sensûs Caelestini corruptionem, & sufficeret sola ad damnandam hanc editionem selectorum S. Augustini opusculorum. It is evident, as I said before, that this Apostille speaks only of those who so defend Free will as that they destroy Grace, whom S. Celestin calls in this place Nocentissimos liberi arbitrii defensores. And yet because it pleased M. Assessor of the Inquisition, or those who set him on, to take this Note in a wrong sense, he said it was alone sufficient for the condemnation of this Edition of S. Augustine's select Works; which shows by the way what account is to be made of the Condemnations of books at Rome, since according to the express testimony of this Assessor, there sometimes needs no more for condemning the best, but such a misconception.  
We were so afraid of his delays, that lest the four other little Treatises would be printed before he had regulated the Apostilles of those which were still in his hands, and lest he should injure our Printer, and retard our work, we resolved to solicit him incessantly, till he delivered the same to us. Wherefore on Thursday the 23d. M. the Valcroissant and M, Angran repaired to him, and he put them off again for three or four days.  
On Sunday the 26. to lose no time, we went to him again. He delivered us a Memoire containing four pages of alterations to be made in the Apostilles of these works; and told us it was that which was appointed by those Cardinals, questi signori Cardinali.  
When we were come home, and considered this Memoire, we found there were Additions of new Apostilles, not before printed in any Editions; as this which was to be set at the eight Chapter of Celestin's Epistle, though there was nothing like it in the Text, Romanus Episcopus omnibus aliis totius orbis Episcopis praescribit quid sit sentiendum in materia fidei: some there are that evidenced the design of the Jesuits to diminish St. Augustine's authority as much as they could; as this, which he set to the second Chapter of Celestin's Epistle, ad cap. 2. Necessarium videtur notare ad marginem quod est in sensu, Augustinus inter Magistros optimos habitus à sede Apostolica, ut constet judicio Caelestini non unicum esse optimum, sed unum ex optimis. Some there were wholly corrupted and altered; as when instead of that which is at the end of the second Chapter of Celestine's Letter (where this Pope tells the Bishops, that they ought to restrain, and chastise the temerity of ignorant and presumptuous ecclesiastics, who exalt themselves against the Faith, and cause dissensions to arise amongst the Faithful) whereof the words are, Cuhibendae dissentiones ex Ecelesiis per Episcopos, he would have us put this new Apostille, Indisciplinatae questiones Presbyterorum per Episcopos exhibendae sunt, to take away from the Bishops their authority and jurisdiction over their ecclesiastics, by reducing them to carry their complaints to some other superior Tribunal, which could be no other, according to his pretention, then that of the Court of Rome. And upon the fifth chapter of the same Letter of S. Celestin, instead of this Apostille which was there, Bonitas nostra Deo debetur, which answers to these words of the Text, nam quid nos de eorum post hac mentibus rectum aestimemus, qui sibi se putant debere quod boni sunt, nec illum considerant cujus quotidie gratiam consequuntur? this Assessor would have us put this, Damnandi qui sibi putant deberi quod boni sunt, non considerantes Dei gratiam, insinuating thereby, that provided a man acknowledge the Molinistical kind of Grace, he is not  in thinking that he is beholding to himself for his goodness. Moreover he would have us put this at the end of Cap. 5. De Praedestinatione Sanctorum, Credere vel non credere in arbitrio voluntatis humanae est, supposita scilicet divina gratia, meaning thereby to establish the Molinistical Grace of the Jesuits, which is such, that being given to a man, he believes or not believes according as it pleases his freewill: whereas S. Augustin speaks the quite contrary in that place, ascribing faith to a singular Grace which severs him that believes from him that does not believe, being given to the one, and not to the other. For this see the entire passage of S. Augustin, Natura, in qua nobis data est possibilitas habendi fidem, non discernit hominem ab homine; ipsa vero fides discernit fidelem ab infideli. Ac per hoc ubi dicitur, Qui te discernit? Quid autem habes quod non accepisti? quisquis audet dicere, Habeo ex meipso fidem, non ergo accepi, profectò contradicit huic apertissimae veritati: non quia credere vel non credere non est in arbitrio humanae voluntatis, sed in Electis praeparatur voluntas a Domino. And in the Chapter ensuing; Multi audiunt verbum veritatis, sed alii credunt, alii contradicunt. Volunt ergo isti credere, nolunt autem illi. Quis hoc ignoret? quis hoc neget? sed cùm aliis praeparetur, aliis non praeparetur voluntas a Domino, discernendum est utique quid veniat de misericordia ejus, quid de judicio. There were several other Apostilles of the new invention of M. Albizzi or the Jesuits in the Memoire which he gave us, and which I have still subscribed by him: but I have insisted a little upon these, that the Reader may judge of their design, since they could hinder the Impression of S. Augustin's works, at least to corrupt the doctrine thereof as much as they could by their false Apostilles.  
Considering therefore that to debate with M. Albizzi concerning all the Apostilles contained in his Memoire, and to enter into examination of the reasons he had to oblige us to print them after this manner which he prescribed, and of ours to refuse it, was the way to engage ourselves in troublesome questions, in reference to which we could have no justice, and which might perhaps give occasion for some complaint against us; as also that either the absolute stopping, or at least long retardment of our Impression would follow thereupon (which perhaps was the thing they aimed at by the perplexities and wranglings about these Apostilles) we resolved to accept one of the two Conditions, though rude and displeasing, which he had written at the bottom of his Memoire, namely, either to print all these Apostilles precisely as they were prescribed, or to print no more through the remainder of the work: vel delendae sunt omnes Apostillae, vel imprimendae ut jacent in supradictis Annotationibus. Signed, Fr. d' Albizzi. So that having printed the four first treatises with the ordinary Apostilles, we were constrained, for avoiding worse, to take the former part of the offer, and print no more throughout the rest of the book, that so we might secure the Impression from further disturbance. And thus it came to pass that it appeared in public so imperfect and maimed, as it is, in this respect. You see what obstacles were to be struggled with in this age at Rome through the ligitiousnesse of this Assessor, for the printing those few works of S. Augustin, after his doctrine hath been canonised there in all preceding Ages by all the Popes that have lived since that great Saint, and have had occasion to speak thereof, and though it be still at this day in singular veneration with all the Divines of Rome, excepting a small number of those that are devoted to the interests of the Jesuits.   

CHAP. VIII.  
An incidental History of the exemplary Punishment of the Subdatary Mascamb●un, convicted of several forgeries, which happened about this time, and whereof I learned very considerable particularities by a most sure way.  
IT was necessary to lay aside for a while these few remarkable things which passed during the time that the business of our Impression was in agitation, that the Narration thereof might not be interrupted by the intermixture of other things according to the course of my Journal; which, that being dispatched, it is now seasonable to resume.  
There passed one about this time so considerable in itself, that though it have no reference to our affair but very indirectly, as having only been the cause that one of the four Cardinals designed for the cognisance of it, was almost wholly laid aside; nevertheless I shall not forbear to report here what I came to know of it by a very certain way, as well for the now mentioned reason, as that it may serve for a memorable example of the just punishments they sometimes receive who have abused the confidence their masters had in their fidelity and counsels, when their frauds and miscarriages come to be discovered.  
There was a certain person named Francisco de Canonicis, a native of Marca Anconitana, who having commendably dispatched the course of his studies in Humanity and the Laws, was entered with an Eminent Advocate named Mascambrun, to help him in his studies & copy out the Law-writing which he made for his Clients. This F. de Canonicis, who was of low extraction and poor, having found this occasion of getting money, employed his whole industry to grow wealthy. Besides the Advocate's fee, which is ordinarily eight Testons 
A Teston is worth 18d. sterl.  for every piece of writings, his Ajutante di Study (in plain English, his Clerk) who copies the same, hath for his fees a Gros for every page, (a Gros is the eight part of a Teston) This Francisco de Canonicis, put so few lines in a page, and so few words in a line, that the Draughts of Mascambrun became proverbial in Rome, to signify a thing extraordinarily drawn and stretched out in length.  
The Advocate Mascambrun finding that Francisco de Canonicis was a dextrous youth, and fit for the trade of Law, had much esteem and affection for him, and at his death bequeathed to him his name, his arms, his writings and his Library. All this gave a great reputation to Francisco de Canonicis, being so dignified by a man that had so much in his time; and making his advantage of it, he put himself forward as much as he could into the Intrigue of the Bar and sell into great practice.  
The rise of his great fortune was from the access which he had to the Pope whilst he was yet but Cardinal Pamphilio. This Cardinal had married the eldest of his Nieces to the Marquis Justinian, who had a Suit of great consequence in the Rota which this Cardinal tended and solicited as his own business. This Process had been laid after an ill sort, and two judgements had already past against the Marquis Justinian. Cardinal Pamphilio was much troubled for the interest of his House, and because he was engaged in a solicitation which proved unsuccessful. Now it happened that this Cardinal's Auditor spoke thereof to Mascambrun, as of a business that much afflicted his Master. Mascambrun was this Auditors great friend, and therefore he desired him to show him such papers as might give him full intelligence of the nature of the Suit. Which done, Mascambrun studied them with great diligence, and found that the business had been undertaken by a wrong course; and if it were so continued, it would be infallibly lost: but if it were laid another way, as he conceived it might be if he undertook it, it might come to a good issue. So he returned the Auditor his papers, told him his Opinion, prayed him to mention him to the Cardinal as one fit to be consulted with in this affair after the esteem wherein the deceased Mascambrun had testified he held him by leaving him his name, his arms, his Library and his Writings; but above all he desired him not to take notice to the Cardinal that he had shown him any papers belonging to this Suit. The Auditor easily condescended to this desire of Mascrambrun, and mentioned him effectually to the Cardinal, who amidst his inquietudes and discontents sent for Mascambrun, set forth the whole affair to him, and deduced it from the beginning to the two judgements which the Rota had passed against it. Mascambrun who had studied the business to the bottom, resumed it from the beginning, and passed over it with such facility before the Cardinal, to show him the errors that had been committed in the management, and what way there was to get those contrary judgements reversed, that the Cardinal was almost ravished, and judged Mascambrun the ablest man in Rome, hearing him speak so roundly to a business which he thought was so new to him, and show the way to accomplish an affair which was so important to him, and which he looked upon as absolutely lost. Whereupon he caused all his Papers to be put into his hands, and resolved to follow his counsel, in whatsoever was to be done. Mascambrun undertook it so successfully that he procured the two Judgements to be revoked and carried the Suit. The winning whereof so won the mind of Cardinal Pamphilio to him, that becoming Pope he made him Subdatary, and besides entrusted to him the care of all the businesses and encumbrances belonging to the house of Pamphilio.  
The Subdatary, to speak properly, is but the Substitute or Lieutenant of the Datary. The Pope makes him Chamberlain of honour, and gives him a pension for his table of bread and wine, and money for the rest. His business is to view all Petitions presented to the Pope; excepting such as are for Benefices vacant by death, which go to another Officer who is under the Datary and called the Per obitum.  
It belongs therefore to the Subdatary to make the division of Petitions. Matters of course, such as are all Vacancies by the death of Curees, and the simple Benefices of France, excepting Britain, all simple Resignations, the extra tempora, and Lapses, which are all ordinary matters, are not to be signed by t●e Pope, but he remits them to the Concessum, who is an Officer Prelate of the Court, having 1500. Crowns pension, and signs all the Petitions sent to him by the Subdatary, whose mark he must see at the foot of the Petition, which is in two words add Ord 'em. that is, ad Ordinarium. This Officer signs the Petitions in this form,  Concessum ut petitur in praesentia S. D. N. Papae. Fr. CAETANUS. 
There are other Petitions, whereof the matters are to be examined by the Congregations of the Regulars, or of the Council, or of the H. Office, or others. It belongs to the Subdatary to send them whether they ought to go.  
As for Petitions for Favours depending simply on the Pope, and needing no greater examination, the Subdatary according to the ancient form is to peruse them either by himself or by a trusty and intelligent Substitute, and write at the foot of every Petition the sum of what it contains. Which sum is an abridgement in very few words of the Grace sued for in the body of the Petition, and aught to be correspondent to the same; because the Pope, that he may know what he signs, reads only the Summary which represents to him what the Favour is which is desired of him.  
The Datary fails not to go every day to the Pope, to carry him the businesses of this nature which he is to sign. But first he calls the Subdatary and the Per obitum, to know what affairs ought to be presented to the Pope to sign. They examine those together which have any difficulty, to the end they may inform his Holiness thereof. Then they make a paquet or bundle of a number of Petitions to carry them to the Pope. The Subdatary goes with the Datary; but the Per obitum doth not, unless the Subdatary be sick.  
Mascambrun was accused of having committed many frauds and knaveries in this Office of Subdatary. For the understanding whereof, it is requisite to know how Petitions are made and through what Officers hands they pass to be dispatched.  
Petitions are made in half a sheet of Paper, at the top whereof is set the Diocese wherein the Benefice lies, if it be about a Benefice; or if it be a favour which doth not concern a Benefice, than they put the Diocese of the person which desires it; for example, Parisien. Trecen. Lugdun. Bononien. On the right side of the Petition is set down what Favour it is that is desired, as, Provisio, Resignatio simplex, Dispensatio in 3. & 4. consanguinitatis, Certo modo, Per obitum, Resignatio cum Pensione, or other the like, according as the matter is. Then the Petition gins, Beatissime Pater, etc. the name of the Petitioner is expressed in it, the grace which he demands, and all the circumstances necessary to be signified. After which there is left a void space of about three fingers for the the Pope's signing, and below the Petition is concluded with these usual words, Et cum absolutione à Censuris ad effectum duntaxat, etc. with all the decrees and restrictions wherewith graces are ordinarily granted. At the foot of the Petition the Subdatary or his Clerks set the Sum of the grace in a line or two, more or less, according as the matter is.  
The Officers through whose hands the Petitions must pass, are the Datary and the Subdatary, who carry them to the Pope to be signed, and are to acquaint him with what difficulties are in them, and the reasons for which he ought or may grant the favour desired of him. If the Pope judge the favour exorbitant, he rejects the Petition; if he will grant it, he writes Fiat ut petitur in the void space left between the body of the Petition and the Decrees, and sets the first Letter of his name, not his Papal, but his baptismal. Innocent X. is called John Baptista, therefore he sets an J. Vrban VIII. was named Mapheus and set an M. Moreover he writes the Fiat again in the margin right over the decrees.  
The Petition being signed, the Subdatary sends it to the first Revisor. There are two Revisors belonging to the Datary, to whom the Pope gives la part, which may be worth to each two hundred and sixty crowns. Their Office is to review the signed Petitions, to see whether the Summaries set at the foot of Petitions, according to which the Pope intendeth the favour, express all that is in the body of them. If the first Revisor finds that there are graces in the body which are not in the Summary, he blots out of the body what is not in the Summary, or else keeps the Petition, which goes no further. If he is minded to do service to the Expeditionaries or to the parties, he goes to the Datary or the Subdatary and confers with them about the defect of the Petition, and oftentimes they agree that it may be dispatched, because the Supreme Officers are accounted the Pope's instruments, and aught to know his will and intentions, since they treat every day with him. Therefore when they bid the first Revisor to proceed in doubtful matters, he sets his mark which is the first letter of his name at the beginning of the Summary. The first Revisor at this time was named Joachim, and set an J.  
After the first Revisor hath perused the Petition, if it ought to be dispatched, he sends it to the Dates, where dates are taken for Benefices whereto the Pope claims, as in all the Benefices of France (excepting Britain, which are not in the King's nomination.) He that hath the first Date, carries it. Assoon as they who desire it, have received news of a vacant Benefice, they go to the lodging of this Officer, and take a Date, which is nothing else but the name of the Postulant, the Benefice, the Diocese and the day current. The Officer enters the same into Register, that he may add the lesser Date to that which is entered. Now after this Officer hath received the Petition from the first Revisor: if it be for a Benefice upon which a Date hath been taken, he writes below the Summary the lesser Date conformable to what hath been entered; for example, S. M. M. Kalend. Martii Anno 8. etc. If they be Petitions for which no Date hath been taken, he sets down the date of the day current. This Date is called the lesser, to distinguish it from the great one which the Subdatary gives, as I shall show hereafter.  
After the Officer of the Dates hath dated the Petition, he sends it to the second Revisor, who is the second in order, but the first in dignity. He reviews what tne first hath already seen; if the first hath let pass any thing unfitting, or hath added any decree that restrains the grace too much or renders it unprofitable, he may alter, take away or add what he thinks fit. When he passes the Petition, he sets his mark, which is the first letter of his name, beneath that of the first. The second Revisor at this time, set an L. because his name was Lagnel.  
When the matter of the Petition requires payment of Composition, as titulary Priories, Abbeys, Coadjutories, and Pardons do, the Petition goes from the second Revisor to the Officer for Compositions, to whom it pays what is appointed. In very many cases things are not so regulated, but the sum is arbitrarily agreed upon by the Officer of the Compositions and the Cardinal Datary, and people must get off as good cheap as they can. When the Petition is to pay Compounding-money, one of the Revisors sets at the bottom of the Summary a C. or Comp. to show that it must compound before the Subdatary put the grand date to it. When the Officer of Compositions is paid, he writes at the bottom of the Petition Solvit, and the first letter of his name.  
From the Compositions the Petition returns to the Subdatary, to have the grant date set to it; the Dataries who did the same heretofore and thence took the name, relying upon the Sub-Dataries herein. The Subdatary is then to see whether the hands and marks of all the Officers are about the Summary, and whether the Composition be paid, in case any be due. Whereof when he is assured by the Solvit which he sees at the bottom, he puts to it the grand date correspondent to the lesser which I spoke of, but at length; for example, Datum apud Sanctam Mariam Majorem Kalendis Martii Anno Octavo, etc. When the Petition is thus dated, it goes to an Office which is called Missis, where the Summary is cut off from the Petition and remains in that Office; it is called Missis because it sends Petitions to the Registers to be enroled.  
One of the four and twenty Registers enters the Petition in the Registers, and then carries it with the Register to one of the four Masters of the Register, to hear the Petition, that is, to compare it, and see whether the Register be correspndent word for word with the Petition. Which done, the Master of the Register, mkes a great R. upon the backside thereof, which signifies Registrata; he sets his name at the foot of the R. and below the book and folio of the Register. And then the Petition passeth out of the Datary.  
All this premised we come now to our intended Narrative.  
Mascambrun was accused of five several Crimes. 1. Of having altered the Summaries of Petitions. 2. Of having defrauded the Compositions. 3. Of having given Mandates for the expediting of Bulls gratis. 4. Of having falsified the Registers of Pope Vrban. 5. Of having done the same in those of Innocent X.  
As for the first Article, of altering Summaries, he had offended two ways; the first whereof was in making flying Summaries. For the understanding whereof it is to be noted, that it happened in some cases, that the Petitions were very large, and left but little space at the bottom of the half sheet for to write conveniently the Summary of the favour contained in the Petition, because perhaps it comprehended several articles, which were to be expressed to the Pope to the end he might know what he signed; so that there needed sometime five or six lines for a Summary. In these cases the Summary was written in a Paper apart of about 4. or 5. fingers breadth, which was annexed to the bottom of the Petition with a little sealing paste. And so long as the Pope had no ground to distrust his Officers, he signed these Petitions promiscuously, whether the Summaries were written at the bottom of the same Paper with the rest of the Petition, or in these kind of annexed Papers, which they called flying Summaries.  
Now to deceive the Pope and cause him to sign gratis which undoubtedly he would not have granted if they had been asked fairly and plainly, they annexed to the Petitions which contained the extraordinary Graces which they would obtain by circumvention, one of these flying Summaries, in which they writ the summary of an ordinary Grace. Thus the Pope confiding in his Subdatary that the Summary was correspondent to the Petition, and seeing nothing extraordinary in it, used to sign it. When the Subdatary had this Petition thus signed, he took off the false Summary that was presented to the Pope, and annexed another perfectly correspondent to the body of the Petition, and sent the same to the first Revisor, who finding the Summary correspondent to the Petition was obliged to pass it. For example, if they minded to get a Dispensation for a Bastard, to enable him to possess Dignities in Cathedral Churches even to Bishoprics, which the Pope grants to none but Princes, they annexed a Summary in these words, Dispensatio pro illegitimo ad simplicia Beneficia; when the Grace was signed, they took off that Summary, and adjoined another in these terms, Dispensatio pro bastardo ad quacunque Beneficia, etiam ad dignitates in Cathedralibus & ad Episcopatum.  
One of the Revisors who took notice that such graces passed daily as all the world knew to be contrary to the intention of the Pope, showed some of them to Cardinal Chechini the Datary, and also the manner how the Pope was circumvented by those flying Summaries. Whereupon the Cardinal forbade the use of the like for the future.  
They who had used this Artifice to deceive the Pope, finding they were deprived of it, devised another, which was to make use of Paper (which they call at Rome French Paper) being larger than that which is ordinarily used for Petitions. And whereas before they writ their false Summaries upon flying Papers, which they took off afterwards; now they writ the same at the bottom of the page below the Petition; and after the Pope had signed it, cut off the false Summary, and writ another correspondent to the body of the Petition.  
This was discoveted by the first Revisor, who having taken a sheet of that large Paper, and comparing it with the Petitions for which it had been used, found that the sheet of the Petitions was not entire, but that there was as much cut off as might serve for a Summary; besides their shamelessness was at such a height, that oftentimes they cut off the Summary so negligently as there still appeared part of the Letters which had been cut off, so that a man a little considerate, as the first Revisor was, and who knew that the Pope had declared that he would not grant the graces which yet he daily saw signed by his Holyness' hand, very easily perceived in what manner the Pope was abused.  
The second Article of the accusation proved against Mascambrun was, for having cheated the Compositions. I mentioned how all Petitions that are to pay Composition-money before the Subdatary sets the grand date to them, go to the Officers of the Compositions, where they pay according as they are taxed; and that this Officer having received the money, writeth solvit upon the fold with the first letter of his name. The Expeditionaries who were complices with Mascambrun, were the five principal, namely, Monacci, le Gracco, Brignardel, de Goux & Bonozzi, each of them complying with him as to the affairs which they had in their hands, and sharing amongst them the sum which was to go to the Compositions; the greatest part whereof was for the Subdatary, and the rest for these Expeditionaries. Now to frustrate the Officer of the Compositions thereof, the Subdatary caused the Petitions to be brought to himself, assoon as they were out of the hands of the second Revisor, and set the grand date to them, without sending them to the Composition-Office.  
The third Article of Accusation was, for giving Mandates for expediting Bulls gratis. Those Mandates are expedited by a motu proprio. Which motu proprio distinguishes them from other Petitions which are passed by Fiat ut petitur; for that these latter are signed at the instance of the party, as the words ut petitur denotes; and the former are signed with Fiat motu proprio, and the first letter of the Pope's name, as I mentioned for the others. The Pope gives those Mandates for privileged persons, such as Cardinals, his kindred, the Officers of his House, all those that have Offices in the Datary and Chancery, and some others who of right have the free expedition of their Bulls; besides whom, the Pope does the same grace to whom he pleases. The Pope was circumvented by these Mandates in this manner; when his Holiness had signed à motu proprio and done the grace of a gratuitous expedition of his Bulls to a particular person, the Subdatary of his own authority caused the name of some other to whom he was minded to do that favour to be inserted in the same Mandate, and so made it extend to two or three what the Pope intended but to one. This or action was judged highly criminal, because, though the Subdatary and the other Officers of the Datary may add something to Petitions even after the Pope hath signed them, yet it must not be in any thing that is essential, le●t the grace which he hath granted become unprofitable. As for example, The Pope gives a Condjutory to a Canonship, the Revisors shall add thereto a Prohibition to the Bishop to supply that Canonship, because otherwise the grant of the Coadjutorship would signify nothing, in case the Bishop could supply it upon death or otherwise; but they cannot grant new and distinct graces, as in this case to make use of the Pope's signature to give the gratis of expedition to persons his Holiness never heard of, or perhaps hath denied that favour.  
The fourth Article of Accusation was, for falsifying the Registers of Vrban VIII. The grace which the Pope hath signed, is not accounted perfect and entire till it be registered. After which the Officers of the Datary have no more to do with it, because the Masters of the Register are as it were the Pope's last hand which gives accomplishment and the utmost perfection to a grant. Nor can the Petitions or Registers be any more meddled with the●, unless in some very light thing and which evidently changes nothing of the substance of the Grant: as if the name of the Petitioner were not fairly written, or a mistake were committed in the date; or a necessary clause omitted without which the Grant would be insignificant; in these cases the Datary causes the Register and Petition to be brought to him and rectifies what is amiss; but he cannot alter the substance of the Grace, or add any one which the Pope hath not granted. There is a particular Constitution of the Pope which prohibits any person to meddle with the Registers of a Pope, unless it be one of the Officers belonging thereunto. This fourth Article of Mascambrun's accusation was founded upon this Constitution. In the time of Pope Vrban a Collegiate Church was erected in the City of Fermo in Italy, consisting of four Canons and one Archpriest. Besides the revenues assigned to each person in particular, there was a common stock of 15. Crowns for any extraordinary Dividend, of which each Canon was to draw out three Crowns for his part. The Archpriest treated with Mascambrun, and desired him to get the institution of this Collegiate Church altered, and that sum of 15. Crowns which according to its first institution was to be distributed amongst all, assigned to himself and the Archpriests his Successors. Mascambrun who by the credit wherein he saw himself with the Pope, thought he was able to do all things, resolved to do this business by causing the bull of the Institution to be corrected in the Chancery, To effect which, it was requisite to change the clause of the Petition which urban had signed, and the Registers of the same Pope. As the Bull was carried to be corrected, Monsignor the Regent of the Chancery made great difficulty to suffer it. But Mascambrun spoke to him, and assured him that he had the Pope's word and order for it. The Regent seeing the Petition and Registers amended, permitted the Bull to be amended too accordingly. This action was judged very criminal. For besides that he could not pretend any legal authority to meddle with a Grant of Vrban whose Officer he had never been, to declare or interpret his will, he made a dead Pope speak that which he could not speak more; and the Bull bearing the name of urban in the front, contradicted after his death what he had expressly ordained during his life. They say, a piece of Land belonging to this Archpriest, and lying conveniently for Mascambrun who had an estate thereabouts, gave occasion to this fraud, and was the price of it. But that piece of land must have been very small, since the Archpriest got by this forgery but 12. Crowns yearly during his life; which more aggravates the wickedness of Mascambrun who was tempted to commit so great Crimes for so little Interest.  
As to the fifth Article of Accusation, of having meddled with the Registers of Innocent X. now reigning, the poor Mascambrun was convicted to have altered and added therein, and made new Grants of great importance with his own hand, as was proved by all the Registers.  
All Rome knew that great forgeries were committed in the Datary; but very few Persons knew in what manner the Pope was circumvented; which made many think (though it was not so, as the sequel showed) that his Holiness willingly shut his eyes, and consented in some manner, if not by approving, ac least by conniving at the infamous actions of the Subdatary, in whom he professed to have a perfect confidence.  
These frauds began to break out much about September in the year 1651. Boulboul an Expeditionary of Liege, solicited an affair. The Subdatary who let no Grant, or any thing extraordinary be signed but what passed through the hands of one of those five Expeditioners above named, who were his Correspondents, and kept open shop for the sale of all graces, rejected the Petition of Boulboul, and told him the Pope would not sign it. Boulboul who knew what course was to be taken for attaining his end, addressed himself to Gracco, Brignardel and de Goux, whom he found by chance all together, and presented his Affair to them all three, promising them that he who effected it, should have besides the charges of the expedition four or five pistols in Wine. De-Goux who was the Sub-Datarie's most trusty Substitute, and the most dexterous Person, dispatched the business. Boulboul having his Affair and the account of the expedition, and being not very negligent in reference to the Composition, had a mind to inquire whether this matter required four hundred and six Ducats for the Composition, as it was set down to him in the account. He was told that it used to pay but four hundred and four. To be assured whereof, he went to the Composition-Office, to see upon the Book of that Office how much it paid. He found that it was not set down. He enquired of the Substitute of the Office whether it was through forgetfulness or otherwise, that it was not entered? at length he found that this Affair was passed without paying Composition. Whereupon being not bound to hold his peace, and being vexed that De-Goux should go about to make him pay the Composition which himself had not paid, published the matter through all the Datary.  
The Perfect of the Compositions, named Brandanno, fearing to be called to an account for the Composition moneys, made a great clamour that the Pope was manifestly robbed, and said he could not have been defrauded of less than forty thousand Ducats. De Goux and le Gracco seeing things were in this case, and knowing themselves culpable of many things not yet discovered, fled to Legorne by Mascambrun's counsel's, who with his own money paid the four hundred Ducats purloined from the Composition, and appeased the noise. After which it was not hard for him to make the Pope believe that there was only those two Expeditioners that committed such lewd pranks, and he told his Holiness, that it was requisite to take care for the preventing of these disorders for the future by some good regulations. He added that those which were now complained of, happened only through the negligence of the subordinate Officers of the Datary; who instead of sending the Petitions from hand to hand according to the ancient form, delivered them to the Parties and the Expeditioners, who having them in their hands, made sometimes falsifications in them, or else got them expedited before they had passed through all the Officers. Hereupon an Order was published in the Datary forbidding all the Officers thereof to deliver any Petition signed by the Pope either to the Parties or the Expeditioners, with injunction to send the same from one to another immediately according to the ancient form. Thus the Subdatary was to send the Petitions signed by the Pope to the first Revisor; the first Revisor to the Officer of the lesser dutes; he to the second Revisor; he to the Composition s; the Perfect of the Compositions to the Subdatary; the Subdatary to the Missis; and this Officer to the Register. This order as it secured the Datary and Subdatary for a time, so it accused the Under-Officers of negligence; who thereupon complained, but in vain; there was no way but to suffer this reproach, the time being not yet come wherein Mascambrun's miscarriages were to be laid open.  
About the end of December in the same year 1651. they began to break forth, upon occasion of a false Bull concerning the transferring of a Cause then under cognisance of the Inquisition of Portugal, to Secular Judges. Some Lords of high quality in Portugal had been accused to the Inquisition of that Kingdom of a shameful crime. This Tribunal had secured the accused persons in its prisons. There was all probability, that they would be treated with rigour, and their estates, which were very considerable, confiscated. For which cause they solicited the Pope for an Evocation or Removal, thereby to be remitted to secular Judges by whom they conceived they might be more favourably dealt with. Don Diego de Sonsa a Gentleman of very high birth in Portugal, solicited the expedition thereof with the Pope. The Ambassador of France had also recommended it many times to the Pope, who always showed himself unwilling to do any thing in the matter, as well because of the indignity of the crime, as because he would not prejudice the power and privileges of the Tribunal of the Inquisition. There was found an Expeditioner named Brignardel a Genuite, who undertook the business upon condition of a large reward which was promised him if he could bring it about. This was no hard thing to him; it was but the making of a false Bull, and under the same Bull which was written by Orozzino the Italian Apostolical Scribe, to counterfeit the names of the Officers through whose hands it ought to have passed in the Chancery. Monsignor Bruningo (who was Auditor of the Contradettes, and had heard the Bull read, when he compared it with the Petition, which is the last thing done to Bulls after they have passed in the Chancery or the Chamber, and have the Led set to them) knowing that Monsignor Mendez a Portuguesse had solicited the same with the Pope, and meeting him in the Chapel which was held the last Sunday of Advent which happened to be Christmas Eve, congratulated with him that it was at length effected. Monsignor Mendez was extremely surprised at this congratulation, and seeing that M. Bruningo persisted in positively affirming that he had heard the Bull read, he could not forbear lamenting; Of which sadness his Friend pressing him to declare the cause, he told him it was because the Inquisition for Portugal hearing that he solicited this affair with the Pope, had put his Father and his Brother in prison, for which reason he had forborn to meddle with it further. That without doubt his Relations would be worse used when it should be known that the affair was done, because it would be thought to have been by his procurement. That for his part, he conceived that it was not possible ever to be effected, knowing how averse the Pope was against it. He desired him to advertise Cardinal Cechini the Datary of it, who without doubt knew nothing yet.  
Monsignor Bruningo went in the afternoon to Cardinal Cechini to wish him joyful Festivals, according to the custom at Rome, and acquainted him with this affair, assuring him that he had heard the Bull read. The Cardinal seemed much dismayed at this news, and cried out in these words, Poracci noi! che dirà il Papa, il quale tante volte hà negato questa gratia? Miserable we! what will the Pope say who hath so often denied this grace? Monsignor Mendez went at the same time to Cardinal Cechini under pretext of the Compliment of the Festivals; and the interests of his Father and Brother held prisoners by the Inquisition of Portugal, caused him to set forth of what great consequence this affair was. Hereupon Cardinal Cechini sent for Monsignor Mascambrun who was then in so high a degree of fortune and authority with the Pope, that if there had been a promotion of Cardinals in the Ember days preceding, it was held for certain that there was a Hat for him. Cardinal Cechini told him, that all possible diligence must be used to get this Bull, and show his Holiness that it was none of their fault. Mascambrun Professed more astonishment at this affair than any other person. He said, the Pope was never willing to do it, and therefore it must necessarily have been expedited by fraud. Forthwith he went into his Coach to go seek Brignardel, who was reported to be the man that expedited it. He took him with him into his Coach and carried him to Diego de Sonsa who had solicited the affair, and had the Bull; he caused him to deliver it to him the same day about ten a clock in the evening. Next day being Christmas day he showed it to the Pope and to Cardinal Cechini, and at the same time he caused a Vessel to be provided for Brignardel to carry him to Genua.  
The Pope having seen the Bull, and supposing upon the report of Cardinal Cechini and Mascambrun that it had been expedited by a Petition forged in all its parts, and even in the signature of his Holiness, he caused many of the Officers to be put into prison; Laurenzi the Register who had entered the Petition into the Register; Boncompan, Master of the Register, who had examined it; Orozzino, the Apostolical Scribe, who had writ the Bull; Godefido Officer of the Contradettes where the Bull had passed and had his hand; Monsignor Bruningo who had examined the Bull; and Don Diego de Sonsa who had been the principal solicitor & Agent in this affair. There was a great report that the Assistant Jesuit of Portugal was arrested at le Giesù, and confined in that house for his prison. But it is certain that he was examined by Marco Rugolo, who was deputed Judge of this cause.  
Mascambrun, whom it highly concerned to make appear that the Pop'es hand and his own too had been counterfeited in this Petition, but was not yet suspected of any thing by the Pope, had caused Marco Rugolo his great confident, and who he was sure would not act in this matter but by his direction, and with a perfect conformity and submission to his sentiments, to be deputed Judge of it by his Holiness. Himself also, two of the ablest Clerks in Rome, to affirm that there was great probability that the Pope's hand was counterfeited. He caused many of the Expeditioners, who durst not disobey him in any thing, to give out that the hands of the Pope and the Subdatary were counterfeited, and that if they had been Officers in the Register, they would never have expedited a Petition in that manner without advertising the Datary and Subdatary thereof. These Depositions thus contrived tended to two ends; First to secure Mascambrun from the accusation framed against him, afterwards for having caused the Pope to sign extraordinary graces under false Summaries; and therefore he made these people attest that it was not the Pope's hand but counterfeited. Secondly to save themselves by causing the destruction of the Officers who were imprisoned for letting it pass thus falsified. Rugolo, who was wholly devoted to Mascambrun, and who whilst he was preparing the Process, had every day long conferences with him till ten a clock in the evening, would not hear, nor allow to be written down any Depositions but theirs, who designed the justification of Mascambrun, and the Ruin of the Prisoners.  
The process was carried on in this manner; and such as very well understood the Villainies of that Wretch, could not without regret behold so many Innocents' going to be sacrificed for his safety: But no person durst or could speak a word: Cardinal Cechini himself and Cardinal Pamphilio, though well informed of many wickednesses which Mascamburn committed daily, and whose interest it otherwise was that he lost the credit and power which he had with the Pope, yet could not speak, partly because they knew not the chief Actor of these crimes, nor understood clearly how he committed them; partly because he so possessed the Pope's mind, that none could speak against him without danger of incurring his Holines' displeasure. But God raised up an honest man, very intelligent in all these matters, named Joachim Vaultrin a Lorrainer by birth, who had been first Revisor for the last two years; in which time having been very exact in the exercise of his charge, he saw very far into Mascambruns ill carriage, but he perceived little likelihood of forming Accusations against him that might have effect, because he had formerly made some, which the Pope slighted, and so they proved ineffectual. For above a year divers contests had passed between him and Mascambrun, because he would not comply to pass such extraordinary Graces as Mascambrun intened; but finding that many passed without his being able to hinder them, which he knew were manifestly contrary to the Pope's mind, he acquainted the Pope's Confessor therewith, whose name was F. Thomasi Lolli Cler. minor of S. Laurence in Lucina, and afterwards Bishop of Cyrane. This good M. Joachim delivered the Confessor a Note of four very extraordinary graces which had been then newly expedited. The Confessor gave the Note to the Pope, who finding it was about matters belonging to the Datary, thought it sufficient to advertise Mascambrun thereof, that he might see what it was: but the man being advertised thereof, had no great difficulty to divert the stroke, because the Pope had so great a confidence in him, referring to him the care of all the family of Pamphilio, that he easily believed upon his Report, either that these matters were of no great consequence, or else were passed by surprise, and Inadvertency: Wherefore the Pope's Confessor meeting afterwards with M. Joachim, told him he must be quiet, for the Pope had seen his Memoire, and did not think fit to do any thing upon it; so that the good man feared lest the same might be the issue of the other discoveries which he might make in the present Conjectures. But on the one side, the insolence which he could no longer suffer, and saw arrived at that point that graces were publicly sold, that none was passed but with money, & that with money any whatsoever might be obtained; and on the other, the oppression of all the Officers in Prison, whom he knew to be innocent, and who were all his friends, which he thought himself bound to hinder if he could, made him resolve again to try by some means to let the Pope know how all things went.  
For this purpose he caused notice to be given to Monsignor Farnese Governor of Rome by Don Diego, who served as Auditor to his Nephew Monsig. Albrici Secretary of the Congregation of Regulars, That the course taken in this business was not right; That the destruction of many innocent persons was designed as a means for the safety of one Criminal; That he knew the bottom of the business; and that if Monsignor Farnese pleased to be throughly informed of it, he conceived he could give him satisfaction. Monsignor Farnese, who knew the first Revisor to be a prudent honest man, was very glad to find means to see the depth of so intricate a matter, gave him order by the abovesaid Don Diego to come to him on Tuesday January 16. about seven a clock in the evening. He repaired thither precisely at the time appointed; and after he had made some excuses in reference to this irregular action, because he was a Priest, protesting to Monsignor Farnese that the sole motive which induced him to this discovery, was, after the fidelity he owed the Pope as his Officer, his desire of the deliverance of the prisoners, and he designed not to contribute to the death of Monsignor Mascambrun; he began his discourse against the iniquity of the Judge Rugolo who had sold himself to Mascambrun; who had caused this commission to be given him for the betraying of justice. He told him how Mascambrun and Rugolo had conference together every day; that Rugolo would not hear any testimony, but such as he thought would contribute to the destruction of the prisoners, and would admit any thing to be written down which might help to their justification. Moreover he told him that the principal head upon the process drawn, was founded upon a false supposition; namely, that the Pope's hand was conterfeited; because indeed it was the Pope's true hand, and there was no falsification in it at all: whereof he forthwith alleged these probabilities and conjectures.  
First, because the Petition being a motu proprio it was found signed by Fiat ut petitur; Which shown that they who expedited this Petition, being very intelligent in the style of the Datary, had not counterfeited it. For if they had minded to falsify it, they might as easily have done so by writing, Fiat motu proprio, J. as by writing Fiat ut petitur, J. but having intended to cause the Pope really to sign it, they had got it expedited with a Fiat ut petitur, and not with a motu proprio; because the Pope makes a great difference between things which he signs of his own proper motion, and those which he signs at the request of parties. When he sees that it is a motu proprio, he does not sign till he hath first enquired into the particularities and circumstances of the grace which he signs. Now the Subdatary not being willing to put it to the venture, that the Pope enquiring into the circumstances of the affair in question, might fall to examine the Petition, and if he found the same correspondent to what Mascambrun should tell him of it, reject it according to his professed resolution; or if on the contrary he pretended it to be another business with other circumstances, the Pope might find out his fraud, he got it signed with a Fiat ut petitur under some false Summary concerning a Coad jutorship or some other ordinary matter which the Pope useth not to examine.  
Secondly, That both the writing of the Pope and that of Mascambrun were very difficult to be counterfeited. That of the Pope, because his letters are not strait and even, but indented, by reason of the trembling of his hand, and therefore in the judgement of expert persons his writing was very hard to be handsomely counterfeited. That of Mascambrun, because the form of his Letters are very unusual too: whence it is inferred that if these two hands be falsified, it would have been more easy to counterfeit the great R. on the backside of the Petition, as any one may do without difficulty; which would have been more advantageous to them, because having the mark of Registration endorsed, it was not needful to carry it to the Registers, where the falsification of the Pope's and the Sub-Datary's hand might have been discovered. And it cannot be said that the hands of the Register and the Master of the Registers is falsified; so neither can the same be said of those of the Pope and the Subdatary.  
And whereas Mascambrun pretended that his hand was counterfeited, because in the date of the Petition anno octavo was written with the last O wholly closed, which he never used to close but half, as octavo; M. Joachim showed the Governor many Petitions dated by Mascambrun's hand, where the O was perfectly closed: which evidenced that he sometimes closed it, & sometimes not.  
Thirdly, That if a sheet of Paper of the same sort with that of the Petition in question were compared therewith, the sheet of the Petition would be found shorter than the other two or three fingers. Whereby it was easy to perceive that this Petition had been presented to the Pope with the Summary of an ordinary grace, which after the Pope's signing was cut off, and another written down correspondent to the body of the Petition; by which means the paper of the Petition became shorter.  
Fourthly, That there were a great number of graces signed truly by the Pope's hand, which yet were very extraordinary, and which he would never have granted, had they been asked of him. M. Joachim showed the Governor a Note of many such graces, which the Pope had frequently declared that he would not grant, and yet they were passed and signed with the Pope's own hand by the ministry of the Subdatary who had carried them to him to sign; That consequently the same judgement was to be made of the Petition in question as of them; and that as the Pope was deceived when he was made to sign them, so in this Petition of Portugal his Holiness had one thing imposed upon him instead of another, and by that means was brought to sign it.  
All these conjectures and reflections much astonished the Governor, (who till then had suffered himself to be persuaded that the Pope's hand was counterfeited) and led him to two resolutions; Frst to take the cognisance of the cause from Rugolo, which he promised M. Joachim he would do, that so justice might have place. Secondly, the next day, which was that of his ordinary audience, to acquaint the Pope with all this story, and induce him to send for M. Joachim to hear the same from his own mouth, and get some greater light from him if he could. And he did accordingly.  
The same day, Wednesday January 17. the Governor caused Rugolo to bring to him the Original of the Petition which was in his hands. He compared it with another sheet of Paper of the same kind, and found that it was shorter by two fingers. He considered the hand of the Pope and that of Mascambrun which were wholly like the signatures of other Petitions; and looking more narrowly upon it, he observed that there was dust of gold upon that of the Pope; whereupon, being otherwise very distrustful he told Rugolo that they who counterfeited the Pope's hand must have been very cunning, in putting the dust of gold upon it, knowing that the Pope uses no other. Rugolo answered that those people were sly and subtle as Devils, that they knew every thing, and had not failed to get that dust of Gold that they might render the thing more likely. This answer increased the Governor's suspicion of this Judge, and confirmed him in his purpose to take from him the cognisance of the cause; with which when he acquainted the Pope, his Holiness approved it. He also caused M. Joachim to be advertised that the Pope would hear from himself all that he had spoken to him the day before.  
On Thursday morning January 18. M. Joachim went to the Pope, who heard him with great satisfaction for one hour and half together. He laid upon the table above a hundred several graces which the Pope averred he never would grant, and yet were expedited and signed with his hand. He discovered to him in what manner he had been deceived, first by the flying Summaries, and after the prohibition of those upon complaint made by him against them, by other false Summaries wh ch were cut off after his Holiness had signed the Petitions. He told him that undoubtedly this concerning Portugal, in reference whereunto a process was preparing, had been signed in that manner, and that Monsig Mascambrun, to escape being convinced that he had caused his Holiness to sign extraordinary graces falsely and against his intention, was about to destroy divers innocent persons by suborned witnesses who had deposed that his Holiness' hand was counterfeited. When he had ended all that he had to say touching this matter, he motioned to the Pope that since only the fidelity he owed his Holiness, the honour of the H. See, and the desire to rescue the innocent prisoners had obliged him to make these discoveries, his Holiness would please to keep the thing secret, because it was much more easy to Monsignor Mascambrum to get him assassinated, if he had notice of what he had done, then to justify himself of the informations presented to his Holiness against him. The Pope, having testified to M. Joachim his acknowledgement of his fidelity, and recommended to him to have an eye over what should pass in the Datary, he promised him that till the person of Mascambrun were in custody, none in the world besides the Governor, should know what had passed between them too. And because all the Datary knew that he was at audience with the Pope, and every one would be curious to learn the business, and particularly Mascambrun, who was vigilant to discover all that passed, and had great jealousy of the first Revisor who had often opposed his designs in things relating to his place; the Pope bid him give out that he was sent for to conser with the Pope concerning some course to be taken that Summaries might be always correspondent to the Petitions, so that he might no more be deceived.  
The same day continuing his diligence for Mascambrun's interests, he caused the wife and the sister of Brignardel to be arrested and made prisoners; and to take away the scruple about the gold-dust which the Governor spoke of to him, he gave order to a Sergeant to carry some in a little dust-box, and when he went into the house to fling it upon a bed or a chair; and then at his going away feigning to search everywhere what they could find, to take up the same dust-box in presence of his companions: which was accordingly done. In the evening Rugolo went to the Governor, carried the gold-dust to him, and told him it was no wonder that he found such dust upon the Pope's writing, since there was a box-full of it found at Brignardel's house, which the Officers had brought to him. The Governor suspecting the fraud of this wicked Judge, answered him, that it was true that they found it there because himself had caused it to be carried thither; and so he forbidden him meddling from thence forward in any manner with this affair.  
Saturday following, January 20. Rugolo was commanded to departed from Rome, which he did forthwith. The same day Mascambrun's Nephew who was married at Rome, was arrested. And on Monday the Provost of the Capitol went to take Monsignor Mascambrun in his Chamber of the Datary, where F. Mascambrun a Jesuit was making him a visit, and he was carried from the Datary to the Tower of Nona. The next day the Pope sent for M. Joachim, and said to him first of all, Non habbiate più paura, Mascambruno è priggione, ne uscirà quando Dio vorrà, e la giustitia si farà. Fear no more (said the Pope to him) Mascambrun is in prison, whence he shall come forth when God pleases, and Justice shall be done. And after he had enquired of him many other things relating to this affair, his Holiness dismissed him.  
Forthwith the framing of his Process was taken in hand, and after he had been convicted of the Five Articles of Accusation above mentioned, he was in fine condemned to death for Treason, in that he had usurped the authority of the Prince by passing all sorts of graces contrary to his intention. He was a Priest and oftentimes while he was Canon of S. Mary Maggiore, he was seen to officiate or say Mass in more solemn Festivals. He was degraded in the Church of S. Saviour in Loro upon Sunday April 14. The next day his Head was cut off in the Court of the Prison of the Tower of Nona between three and four a clock in the morning; and assoon as it was day, his body was exposed publicly at the end of Pont. S. Angelo upon a Beir, covered with a very wretched Hearse-cloth, with a wax Taper lighted on each side. His Head was laid near the Body upon two Bricks, and covered with an old greasy Hat; that Head which three Months before was confident to wear one of a Cardinal. Near the Beir there stood a Beggar who asked the Alms of such who passed by for to get prayers to God for that poor miserable executed Person, per questo povero justitiato.  
All Rome ran to Pont. S. Angelo to see the deplorable spectacle of a Man who for the space of seven years had engrossed all the Pope's affections, who had gained such a confidence with him, that he seemed to have none for any other, who had filled the Pope's mind with suspicions and aversions against Cardinal Cechini, who by that means kept this Cardinal in so strange a depression, that though he was Datary, yet he had scarce any power in that Office, and never went to audience but he was accompanied with the Subdatary, himself on the contrary going alone without the Datary when he pleased; who had brought Cardinal Panzirolo into disfavour with the Pope, in which he ended his days; who had likewise alienated the Pope's affection from Cardinal Pamphilio, whom his Holiness had chosen to make not only a Cardinal, but a Cardinal Nephew; and lastly, who, if the promotion which was made during his imprisonment had been made three-Months before, would undoubtedly have been a Cardinal. In reference whereunto I remember; a friend of mine told me, that speaking four or five Months before his imprisonment to M. Joachim the first Revisor, of the report there was concerning the promotion which the Pope intended to make, and of the certainty of a Hat for Mascambrun, he answered him, That he believed God would not suffer so great an infamy in his Church, and that if he was to have a red Hat, it would be at Pont. S. Angelo.  
He remained exposed during four or five hours till the Society des Nobles florentin's who are by their institution to assist condemned persons at their deaths and bury them, carried him into their Church. The same Society had also sent some of their Confreres to him to help him to die well, and the Cardinals Barberin and Sachetti who are Members thereof, went to him clothed in the Sackcloths of their Confrerie, carried him the indulgence at the point of death which his Holiness sent him, and were present at his execution.  
His first Sentence was to be hanged, but the Chapter of S. Peter's Church (whereof the Pope had given him a Canonry a year before instead of his former of S. Mary Maggiore) apprehending it a dishonour to them for a Canon of their Church to be hanged, made so urgent instances to the Pope about it, that he mitigated the sentence, permitting only his head to be cut off in the prison.  
But before this latter sentence was pronounced upon him, a course was taken to bring two of his principal Complices De Goux and Brignardel to Rome. De Goux who was a natural Subject of the King of Spain, being of the County of Burgundy, after he had spent two or three months at Legorn departed thence to Milan, where coming to be known he was arrested Prisoner. And Brignardel who was withdrawn to Genua the place of his birth, was solicited to go upon the Territories of Prince Doria, where he was arrested likewise. The Pope so dealt with this Prince and the King of Spain's Ministers, that the two Prisoners were promised to be delivered to him. Whereupon a dozen Sergeants were sent from Rome to Genua, with order to take as much people as was needful to conduct them safe to Rome; and because there was some ground of fear that some attempt might be made by land to rescue the Prisoners, one of the Pope's Galleys to bring them with the more security. The Governor of Milan scent De Goux accompanied with the Sergeants of the City, and a hundred Horse, as far as the Territories of Genua, where he was received by the Genueses and conducted to that City whither Prince Doria had already caused Brignardel to be brought; from whence they were both put into the Galley which carried them to Cività Vecchia, and thence they were conducted in a Carosse de Campagne or Cart, well guarded to Rome, where they arrived the seventh of April, and were put into the Castle S. Angelo eight days before the death of Mascambrun.  
The innocent prisoners above mentioned were set at liberty; but some other persons were committed, having been Complices of these disorders, of whom I shall not speak further, than that two of them were arraigned, and being found highly criminal, hanged and burnt at Rome at the end of Pont S. Angelo, the 27. of July following.  
The less culpable, which was de Goux, died in a very Christian manner: For above three weeks before his Execution, acknowledging the grace of God in causing him to die a death that allowed him time for repentance, he resolved to spend the remnant of his life in following Gods purposes upon him, fasting almost continually with bread and water, & making a very exact review of his whole life to a Confessor who visited him ordinarily every day.  
I shall add also what became of Marco Rugolo, that wicked & corrupt Judge: Having been at first only banished from Rome and the Ecclesiastical territories, he retired to Posi, a place belonging to the Colonnesi in the kingdom of Naples, where he spent his time in contemplating the Stars, & drawing Horoscopes of many persons. At length he bethought himself to draw that of the Pope, which he sent to Car. Ginetti's Auditor, with a Letter n which he persuaded him to rejoice for the change which would shortly be seen by the Pope's death, which was to come to pass in the month of November the same year. This letter was intercepted, and the Auditor put in prison for it; and the Colonnensi at the Pope's request caused Marcó Rugolo to be apprehended in their territories. As he was bringing to Rome, he fell from his Horse, and broke his thigh, which having been ill set by a Country-Chyrurgon, he arrived at Rome in a very ill condition October the 8. which gave the Pope occasion to laugh at this man, who foretelling the death of others, could not foresee the mischief which was so near himself. I believe no more was done to him afterwards then being condemned to the Galleys; a punishment too light for all the crimes which he had committed, and for the oppression of so many innocent persons whom he had sacrificed to the interests of Mascambrun, using to boast, That there was no innocent person in the world, but he could make good an Indictment against him.  
But to return to the coherence which this History of Mascam. hath with ours, Car. Cechini who was nominated by the Pope to be one of the Congregation which we sued for, was upon this business excluded. For the Pope, having taken up a suspicion that he had had some hand in the miscarriages of the Datary (though this was not credible, there having been so great misunderstanding between him and Mascambrun, who was the Author of all those Enormities) treated him so ill for four or five Months after the death of that Subdatary, that at length he resolved in the month of September to demand his Congé, which the Pope gave him with very rough words, so far as to reproach him that he had dishonoured his House and his Government. Whereunto the Cardinal answered very resolutely, That he had done nothing unworthy of himself, which he would justify upon all occasions. So he left the Datary, and went to live at his Palace in Campo Marzo. And Monsignor Hieronymo Burtucci, whom the Pope of Senior Procurator and Servant of his House, had made Subdatary ever since Mascambrun's imprisonment, was now made Datary. At the same time the Pope took away from Cardinal Cechini the pension of poor Cardinals, which may mount to twelve thousand Crowns yearly, and prohibited him to come to any Assembly where his Holiness was present; which was to exclude him from the Consistories, Papal Chapels, Congregations of the Inquisition and others held before the Pope, at which this Cardinal used to be present. This was the reason that he was not at any of those which were held before the Pope about our Affair, though he was one of the Five Cardinals, whom Cardinal Roma told us the Pope had chosen for our Congregation, as I shall relate in its place.  
At present I shall take notice of a thing which deserves to be added to this Narrative, whereof I was informed by a Letter from M. Brousse, the Contents of which follow.  
The day before I departed from Rome, I went to see the Secretary of the Congregation of Regulars, Nephew to the Governor of Rome, to inquire of him news of the Bull of the Fathers of Christian Doctrine touching their Regularity. He told me it was declared false, and that within four or five days I might see the Brief of it. I replied, that I was ready to departed, but I prayed him to tell me whether I might assure the Archbishop of Paris thereof, who had given me Commission to inquire about it. He answered me Sì Sì, taking me by the hand, and pressing it: This obliged me to proceed further, and ask him whether what I heard was true, that Mascambrun had spoken of this Bull amongst the rest which he confessed that he had forged. He answered me in these words, Non è Mascumbruno mà il suo secretario, & frà pochi giorni sarà impiccato; It was not Mascambrun, but his Secretary, who within a few days will be hanged: which intelligence I writ the same day to my L. the Archbishop.   

CHAP. IX.  
Concerning an ancient Manuscript which came to my hands touching an Affair of Mr. Grimani Patriarch of Aquileia, whereby I found that the foundation of all the matters in question bade been examined and decided by the Council of Trent.  
DUting these Conjunctures there befell me an occurrence as considerable in its kind, which had much more reference to our Affair then that whereof I have given so long an account. It was a Manuscript of no small age, containing a little Collection of some Pieces which treated of an Affair debated and determined in the Council of Trent, about the same matters for which we were in contest with the Jesuits; and it was determined by a general consent of all the Commissioners to whom the Council referred the judgement of it, perfectly according to our sentiments. On the second of April 1652. I caused the same No●…ries who verified our History of M. Pegna, to declare their judgement of the quality of this Manu●…ipt, having made two Transcripts thereof compared by them with the Original, to make use of in time and place: To which purpose I caused a description to be made of it as it was when I presented it to them, that so I might make it be known for the same which accidentally was fallen into my hands.  
There was question in this Affair concerning a Sermon made in the year 1550. at Oudenay by a Dominican Friar nameed F. Leonard native of the same City which is in the Continent that belongs to the Repub. of Venice, whether the Patriarchal See of Aquileia hath been trasferred since the destruction of that ancient and famous City by the descent of Attila into Italy. This Predicator had preached one of the highest Truths, and in the hardest terms to be digested by humane understanding touching Gratuitous Predestination, which gave some scanda●●o the people who murmured at it. The grand Vicar of this Patriatch (whose name was Grimani, of one of the illustrious families of Venice) nevertheless thought not fit to act in any sort against the Predicator to constrain him to make amends for the scandal which he had given, without first giving notice to, and takeing orders ftom him whose grand Vicar he was. The Patriarch Grimani having received Letters from his grand Vicar, conceived himself obliged to answer him; but he was so far from finding cause to proceed against the Predicator, that on the contrary he judged the Propositions advanced by him very true, certain and Catholic; the reasons whereof he deduced at large in his answer, which he took principally from the H. Scripture and the works of S. Augustin. When the grand Vicar had received this Answer, he caused it to be published to all the people of Oudenay, and recorded in the public Registers of the City, wherewith every one was edified and satisfied. Some twelve or thirteen years after, namely in the year 1563. some persons, enemies to the peace of that City, as well as to Christian Truths explicated unto them by their Patriarch, who was a very learned and pious Bishop, began to sow amongst the people Complaints against his Letter; they drew Propositions out of it to the number of eight, which they accused of Heresy: In fine, they raised so much division in the minds of the City of Oudenay and the adjacent Region, that to hinder the troublesome consequences of those beginnings of disturbance and misunderstanding, they sent Deputies to the Republic of Venice, to pray that State to interpose its Authority and Recommendation to the Council of Trent which was then assembled, that the cause of their Patriarth might be discussed and decided; that his Homily (so they called his Answer to his grand Vicar) might be there read & examined; and if it were true and Catholic, they might be suffered to enjoy the Truth explicated by him to them in peace and quietness; but if it were false, that it might be condemned.  
I believe this Patriarch had been nominated to a Cardinal's Hat by the Republic of Venice; that people who aimed to cross his promotion, rendered him suspected of Heresy to Pope Pius iv by the extracts of his Letter which they delivered to him; that the same waa debated of in the Congregation of the H. Office; and that the Apology which he writ in behalf of his Letter against those Extracts had been carried thither also: but because this was not really clear by the pieces before me, I dare not affirm it as the rest which I have already said, and am going to adjoin.  
Accordingly the Ambassadors of the Republic Of Venice represented to the Council the neessity of making a solemn deputation for examining the answer of that Patriarch to his grand Vicar, and the Apology made by him about the Propositions extracted out of it. It was the last day of July in the year 1563. that this nomination of Deputies was made in the Council who were in number twenty six, namely two Cardinals, four Ambassadors, four Archbishops, thirteen Bishops, two Abbots, and one General of an order. They examined both of those Pieces; they made their report of them the thirteenth of August following in a Congregation which lasted six hours, where they spoke all their Sentiments, which they said were not theirs alone, but also of the Divines of their Nation, with whom they had conferred in this matter. And all agreed unanimously that it was so far from being true, that any word in that Letter and Apology was Heretical, that on the contrary there was nothing in them but what was taken from S. Augustin, S. Prosper, S. Bernard, S. Thomas, and other H. Doctors: Which I account the more considerable, because the foundation of all the doctrine which we held, and of all the Christian truths which we were to defend in case of the Propositions in question, is manifestly contained in that Letter and its Apology; and consequently besides other proofs which we may allege thereof in all ages, we have this advantage that this very doctrine was authorised in the last Council by a general consent of all those whom the Council commissioned to examine it, and by the unanimous suffrages of all the Divines of Christendom.  
I have in that little Collection 1. The Patriarches Letter entire. 2. His Apology for it. 3. The Oration of the Deputies of the Clergy, and of the City of Oudenay to the Republic of Venice. 4. The nomination, and the names of the Deputies or Commissioners appointed by the Council for this Examination. 5. The Votum of the Cardinal of Lorraine who was one of them. 6. One of his Letters to the Pope about this matter. 7. Another Letter of the Precedents of the Council to S. Charles Borromée about the same affair. 8. The Sentence of the Legates. 9 A Letter of Congratulation of the Republic of Venice to this Patriarch, upon the happy success which his business had had in the Council.  
All these Pieces deserve to be here inserted at length, but to avoid such frequent and long interruptions, I shall reserve them to be annexed to the end of this Journal.   

CHAP. X.  
Of other less important matters which besides those in the three preceding Chapters passed in the Months of April and May; among the rest, of the arrival at Rome of M. M. Hallier, Legault, and Joysel, Doctors of our Faculty, and the Declaration which they made to us in presence of the Ambassador, that they came to sue for a Censure of the Five Propositions as things already condemned, and without admitting any Examen or Congregation.  
TO return at length to our purpose, I was told on Saturday, the 4th. of May, that the General of the Dominicans had had audience of the Pope, and delivered him the Memorial which I mentioned above that he was to present. That he requested therein, his Holiness would please to appoint that before proceeding in this affair, things might be resumed as they were left by Paul V because that Pope and Clement VIII. his Predecessor had determined many things in favour of his Order, which might serve for great preparations to what was to be done. That his Dominicans had always been the Plaintiffs in this affair, and at present they were endeavoured to be rendered the Criminals. Hereunto his Holiness answered, that he would have regard to his request, which he judged very just; but he ought to be confident, that the matter de Auxiliis should not be meddled with. I was told that the Pope gave the same answer to the General of the Augustine's who had audience of him; that he would not have the discussion of that matter entered upon at all. That besides, his Holiness knew nothing then of the Assembly of Consultors which M. Albizzi endeavoured to procure before Easter, but yet was laid aside for a while, chief because of this interposition.  
I learned also that some days after the General of the Dominicans had delivered his Memorial to the Pope, he addressed again to his Holiness to present him the works of Albert the Great, the Impression whereof was then newly finished. That divers Fathers of this Order accompanied the General to carry the several volumes of that Author; that the Pope enquired their names and qualities; and that F. Fani companion of the Master of the Sacred Palace being one of the number, when he was named, the Pope bid him take heed for the future what Licences for Printing he gave; because when a Book was printed at Rome, it was construed that the H. See authorised the doctrine thereof. It is likely what we had said to the Pope touching that of F. Annat was still fresh in his memory.  
I learned further that the Monday foregoing a Consistory was holden, and that it was the first since the vacancy of the Sub-deanery of the Sacred College by the death of Cardinal Lanti. This Dignity belonged of right and according to the ordinary usage to Cardinal Barberin, who was the most ancient of all those that were there in person; but the Pope took it from him, and three thousand Crowns of Revenue annexed to it, and contrary to custom, gave it by a special Brief and privilege to Cardinal de Medicis Uncle to the great Duke of Tuscany, who was indeed more ancient than Cardinal Barberin, but was not present in person at at their Consistory.  
Lastly, I learned that two days before M. Albizzi took occasion in an Assembly of the Inquisition to read the Letters which he had received from Paris, by which it was signified to him that M. Hallier was set forth upon his journey towards Rome, with some other Doctors; that the Cardinals, Barberin and Spada, were at the reading of those Letters, and testified much joy for the sight of so great and famous a personage, and who knew so well (as their Eminencies said) the usages and customs of the University; but that which was more considerable herein, was, that some intelligent persons conceived their coming might prove the cause of establishing the sooner the Congregation which he had moved for, and which would not be granted at the instance of us alone.  
We had given and lent some Copies of the first Letter against the Minister of Groaning to divers of those persons whom I have mentioned, who lent it from one to another, and testified much satisfaction therewith. On Thursday the ninth, I carried one in the afternoon to Cardinal Ghiggi, who seeing by the Title that it was writ against Marests, (Maresius, I suppose) wondered at it, as being against a man whom he knew, and of whom he made no great account. I read to him the place of that Letter, where there is mention of our hope that the Pope would shortly determine our differences. To which he answered that we did well in ask a Hundred to get Fifty; the meaning whereof is, that he believed it would not be done, and therefore that we must have patience. That he had told the Pope that the advantage which the Jesuits endeavoured to make of the Decrees which had been made at Rome, had caused all the stir, and that one side could hardly be brought to yield to the other; adding to this purpose, Par in Parem non habet imperium.  
The General of the Dominicans seeing himself engaged by the interest of truth, the Church and his Order to proceed in this affair since the delivery of his Memorial to the Pope, resolved to acquit himself worthily of all the Duties whereunto he conceived himself obliged by the high importance whereof he knew it to be. Wherhfore though he had about him without looking forth of the Covent la Minerve, many Divines of his Order very intelligent and zealous, who were capable of doing service therein; yet, to omit nothing in his power, but to strengthen the number and ardour of those whom he might employ in the defence of truth, knowing that F. Reginald of the Covent of Dominicans at Tholouse had for a long time particularly studied all that had passed in these Contests since the publishing of Molina's book, he sent him a Letter of Obedience to come to Rome, dated 11. of May in the same year 1652.  
We had not had time in our first visit to Cardinal Castagusti to inform him of our affair, and he had desired us to take another opportunity to visit him. We went accordingly on Tuesday the 14th. of May. He received us obligingly, heard our discourse, and answered us both in Latin and Italian judiciously; in conclusion he obliged us to come to him again on the Friday following to give him a Copy of our Latin Manifesto, which we did accordingly.  
On Sunday the 19th. we went to S. Peter's Church to Vespers; at our coming from which we fell into the Company of Cardinal Barberin, who carried us to walk in his two little Vineyards. Amongst other remarkable things which he said to us, he discoursed very well how the opinion of Molina arose upon occasion of the opposition which was made at that time to Calvinisme, and that things were not so well understood as to refute him without falling into the other extreme. That however Molina's opinion having been judged not good, he was accused to the inquisition in Spain, where (he said) to have only been cited, was a thing highly ignominious. Wherhfore the Society of Jesuits, seeing themselves wounded in the affront which one of his Members had received, became wholly interested for him, and have since been daily more and more engaged.  
The morning of Friday the 24th. was spent in civilities with the Ambassador. M. Hallier arrived in the Evening with M. Lagault, M. Joysel, & a 4th. named M. Thomas, who was a Bachelor of the Faculty and Cousin to M. Hallier; but who in the sequel professed not to be one of their deputation. One came to advertise me of their arrival, and the lodging where they alighted, presently after their coming. I was alone at home when I received this notice, and went instantly to salute them, to congratulate with them for their arrival, to offer them whatever they needed, either in reference to our House or our Persons. By that time I got to their Lodging, they were at Supper with other Company. I feared to disturb them by my appearance; and because it was already late, all I could do was to return home, and leave my Servant there, to tell them when they were arisen from the Table, what diligence I had used to wait upon them, as also to make them the offers of service which I went to offer them myself, if I could have found them in a condition fitting to be spoken with.  
The next day M. the Valcroissant, M. Angram, and myself determined to visit them. We sent about eight a clock in the morning to see whether they were in a condition to receive our visit; but they were gone before to the Ambassadour's house, where, because he came forth late out of his Chamber, they spent all the morning, excepting M. Lagault, who left them, and went to see the Priests of the Mission, and afterwards came to us. We offered to stay him at dinner with us, but he excused himself, for that he purposed to return to his Colleagues at their Lodging. But the Ambassador retained them at dinner: and in the afternoon we going to the Pope's Vespers, understood that M. Hallier and M. Joysell were already gone from thence in one of his Coaches to see Cardinal Barberin. So we deferred visiting them till the Evening. When we arrived at their Lodgings, they were reconducting two Priests of the Mission who came to see them, so that they received us at their Gate. He had no long conference with them because they were called upon to go to collation. We invited them to come dine with us the next day; but they were promised elsewhere, otherwise M. Hallier professed sufficient willingness thereto.  
As we were going forth the next day being Sunday, May 26. to accompany the Ambassador to the Pope's Chapel; these Gentlemen passed by our Lodging. Our Coach stood at the Gate, in which there was room enough for them and us, and we desired them to go into it; but it being but a little way from our House to the Ambassadors, and the Street fair and spacious, they would continue their way afoot; which obliged us to do so too. I happened to walk with M. Hallier, who, amongst other things told me most freely that he had so great correspondence with Cardinal Barberin that he might in a manner pass for his Domestic; but he knew not whether it were advantageous, or not, to be so. At our coming from the Ambassador's, he caused M. Hallier and myself to come into his Coach; and as we were near one the other, the Ambassador said, smiling, Do not fight; and I answered him, That M. Hallier and I were not likely to fight, since our business was to keep others from fight.  
It was the same day, that having left the Ambassador and these Gentlemen in the Chapel, we made our last visit to M. Albizzi concerning our Impression, and in which, as I mentioned above, he gave us the four pages of new Apostills, which he said, questi Signori Cardinali would have us put into the Book, or none at all: but he told us also in reference to the arrival of M. Hallier, Joysell and Lagault, that they had had some Books at the Customhouse, which he had taken care to be sent back again. I learned since that the excellent Books which they took the pains to bring with them so far for defence of their Cause, were nothing but Jansenius damnatus, The secrets of Jansenism; The Crowns of Victorious Grace; The Jansenists acknowledged Calvinists by Samuel des Marests, and other pitiful Libels of that strain, all filled with falsities and calumnies, and the most part already ruined and confounded by the answers made thereunto; notwithstanding which they forbore not to get them in readiness for their service, and to reproduce them anew.  
We were desirous to have them at dinner with us on the day de la Feste Dieu, i. e. (of Corpus Christi) after the procession of the Sacrament which is performed at Rome with great magnificence and solemnity. Wherefore I went the day before about dinner time to their Lodging, where I found only M. Thomas, to whom I made the invitation in their absence, and prayed him to be one of the Company. As I was speaking to him, a Laquay came to tell him that his Companions dined with the Ambassador. M. Thomas promised me, to acquaint them with what I said to him; but to be certain whether they would do us that honour the next day or no, I went soon after dinner to the Ambassadors, upon occasion of the Pope's solemn Vespers, whither I purposed to accompany him. In the Garden there I found M. Hallier and M. Lagault, to whom I made my invitation. They answered me, that they yet had not time to look about them. I replied that they might defer looking about them till Friday; but in the mean time I desired that we might dine together the next day; They told me that it should be another time. I answered that it should be when they pleased, and we would expect their day and their order.  
However we received one the next day from the Ambassador by his master de chambre and by himself, to dine together with him on Friday. Accordingly we met there. During, M. Joysell spoke of M. Julien the elder, whose great age and vigour both or body and mind, as well as of capacity, acknowledged by all the world, rendered him venerable; he spoke contemptuously of him, giving him the title of a tottering Wall; and of M. Julien his Nephew as of a simple Country Curate. Whereupon I found myself obliged to take him up, and tell him more than once that he spoke of two Doctors as considerable as any were in the College of Sorbon. After dinner all the Ambassador's attendants being withdrawn, I suppose by his order, that we six might be left with him alone; after some general discourses about moral matters, he fell at length upon our affair, and told us he was glad of this accusation, to exhort us all to act one towards the other with all sort of civility and honours without any demonstration outwardly of division and misunderstanding, without any complaint or asperity on one side or other. He told us further, that he exhorted us hereunto in the King's name, for fear lest the Nation and our Faculty might be dishonoured, and ourselves particularly by the heats and disputes happening between us, if we acted otherwise. All which notwithstanding, either side might vigorously represent what they had to plead in behalf of their respective Cause. M. Hallier and his Colleagues agreed and promised all this very fairly; M. the Valcroissant likewise promised the same in our behalf. I looked upon this as a very commodious occasion to dive into some of the designs of these Gentlemen; wherefore in confirmation as to my part, of what M. the Valcroissant spoke in our names, I added that, besides the good dispositions we all ought to have to this mutual candour and correspondence, as well for its own sake, as for the honour the Ambassador did us in exhorting us so obligingly, it seemed to me that we had all the reason in the world for it even at this time, since our interests were common, and our intentions and solicitations ought to tend to the same end, namely to obtain the soon we could, the Congregation which we had requested; that after we should have obtained it, than was the time that according as we were engaged, our courses and intentions might be different; but till then we might make all our pursuits together, and by consent.  
The Ambassador who had no other design but to perform between us all the offices of an upright and civil Mediator, replied, and told me, that I could not oblige those Gentlemen to concur and join with us in what we demanded, that it behoved us to leave them to do as they thought fit, as ourselves might also on our side: but otherwise to live good friends. I answered the Ambassador, that I did not pretend to oblige these Gentlemen to any thing against their own minds; yet it seemed that if they intended to do any thing conducible to the illustration of Truth, and establishment of a firm peace in the Church, they ought not to disagree from the Congregation which we had demanded; as I beseeched the Ambassador to permit me to ask M. Hallier in courtesy, whether he were not thus disposed? The Ambassador gave M. Hallier time to answer. He had no great mind to it, and his Colleagues much less; but however it was requisite for him to answer. Wherefore he said, that they had no design to demand a judgement of the Pope, and that they had no other conditions to request but what the Pope should appoint. That in what manner soever the Pope declared, they should not be troubled, because he was the Judge both of Doctrine, and of the Conditions wherewith he would decide it. But I said to him, Do not you conceive that the Congregation which we have demanded, is to be wished for in reference to the greater satisfaction of all the world? Will not you help us in the assistances which we are obliged to make for it? M. Hallier answered, that they would not hinder us from making such instances; but as for themselves, they had in charge to desire of the Pope barely a Decision, without being solicitous concerning the Conditions. He did not yet speak clearly enough; wherefore seeing him hesitate in what he said, I let slip these words, You see they seek only a Judgement made in secret, (such as it may be) and without the antecedent discussion of things. M. Hallier finding himself a little pinched with this Reproach, went about to avoid it, by saying, that there was no need of a Congregation, or Examination, because the question was about things already decided, and that they had order to act thus.  
The Abbot of Valcroissant interposed, and said it was not true that they had order to act thus, because the Letter upon which he could ground this pretence, was public and testified the contrary. And as for what M. Hallier said, that these things were already decided. M. the Valcroissant told him, that it was abundantly visible what they designed. That upon this supposition, they would not only be contented with demanding a decision, but hinder to their utmost its being made with the requisite solemnities and hearing of the Parties. That we would not according to this intelligence which be gave us of their purposes, oppose the same as much as possibly we could. That besides we maintained, (and that with more reason than he) that the matters we were to defend, were decided and judged in our favour, as we should show him; but this was it that was to be examined, whether he had reason to affirm the same or no: whereas according to his mind, there was no need of a Congregation to hear the parties, and less of any examination, because things already judged used not to be examined; and this was it undoubtedly at which they aimed, namely to hinder all hearing, and all examination; That on the contrary for our parts, it was that we should endeavour to obtain, according to the order which had been given us, and the necessity we saw, so to do. That we hoped to effect it too, because it never happened in the Church that considerable persons, such Bishops as commissioned us, required the hearing of Parties, and it was denied either by the H. See, or in Councils. But M. Hallier replied, that it never happened in the Church that Parties were heard upon matters already judged and decided; and that it could not, and ought not to be done.  
Assoon as M. Hallier had thus opened his mind, M. Joysel and Lagault testified, that they were dissatisfied with it. M. Joysel who sat next M. Hallier, pushed him several times to hold his peace; and M. Lagault, who was separated from him by M. Joysel, made signs to him with his eyes and hands to speak no further.  
The Ambassador also endeavoured to divert this Discourse, and said, that it made such ado about the manner of being heard in that Congregation; there was danger lest at Rome (where they are very scrupulous) this demand might be interpreted, as if we meant to give Law to them by prescribing to them the ways of acting, and the order which they ought to hold, and as if we pretended to instruct them undrr the pretext of being heard; That the matter ought to be contracted as much as possible; That the King, who hitherto was but young, beginning to grow up, would end these Disputes, and perfectly redress them.  
The Abbot of Valcroissant answered the Ambassador, that we wished nothing more than this were done the most speedily that could be; but yet to that speed other conditions and precautions were to be attended to, in order to do it well. And that our demanding to have it done in a regular and solemn Congregation, wherein the Parties might be heard according to the usage of the Church and all Tribunals, both Ecclesiastical and Secular, was no prescribing of Law to any person; But we demanded as a thing just, and advantageous, and perhaps necessary in the present conjunctures for the disentangling and clearing of all the difficulties wherein Truth was endeavoured to be oppressed. That moreover, we could with as little reason be reproached, that we pretended to instruct the people at Rome, by being heard in a Congregation; that the same might be retorted upon all parties, that demanded of their Judge's time and convenience to inform them; who for all that do not thence infer, that their parties account themselves wiser than they. That when in Councils, and particularly in that of Trent, Divines had contested and disputed in presence of the Council for the clearing of things, those Divines did not thereby presume to be more knowing then all those Bishops, nor to instruct an Ecumenical Council wherein the Pope precided by his Legates, and the H. Spirit invisibly by its assistance. But whereas M. Hallihr, Joysel and Lagault declared, that they would not concur to a thing so just, and which would be so advantageous to themselves as well as to us, if they were in the right, it showed that they disinherited their own cause, and would continue to hold the truth in unrighteousness. That we doubted not after this declaration of theirs in his presence and before us, but they would do their utmost to hinder so great a Good: But this should not hinder us from doing all that possibly we could to procure it.  
M. Hallier was in some kind of little confusion, for having declared himself so much in behalf of a thing so unjust and so unheard of; to make amends for which, he said, that as for themselves, they were come to Rome to declare to his Holiness, that they were ready to acquiesce in his orders, howsoever they were passed, the decision effected. That the Pope had several ways to do it, and that he might do it of his own proper motion without hearing any person. That he might consult the Universities to have their sentiments in the matter, and know what judgements were made of it by all Europe before he passed his own. That he might erect a Congregation if he thought good. That he might hear us apart, one side after the other, or publicly in presence of either Party, viuâ voce only, or only by writing; either one way or the other: That they were ready for all, and should be pleased with any. But at length falling to his former strain, he said, that yet they were obliged to follow their orders. That the Bishops who sent them, had no other thoughts but that these matters were determined; and that they would act conformably thereunto; That this was their Commission.  
The Abbot of Valcroissant replied, and told M. Hallier, that what he spoke would not be found true: That the Bishops demanded only a Judgement by their Letter: That they did not say, that it should be Definitive: and they having not said it, he had no right to say it; that he passed beyond his Commission, and we would evidence the same to all the world.  
To appease this Contest, the Ambassador said, it was no time to dispute this; that M. Hallier and his Colleagues might act as they thought good, and we as we pleased: But it was fit that both sides proceeded with mutual Civility and Candour.  
M. the Valcroissant answered the Ambassador, that M. Hallier's speaking before us in this manner concerning the Bishops, whose Commission he pretended, could not but oblige us to gainsay him; and that such words were not to be let pass without an answer.  
M. Joysel and Lagault, did all they could to make M. Hallier hold his peace, and spoke to this effect several times, that each party might act as they thought good, and neither side was bound to give account thereof to the other.  
M. the Valcroissant, upon M. Hallier's saying that they cared not which way the Pope proceeded, answered him, that yet there were certain usual Rules in his holiness's judgement upon matters of Faith; and he asked him this Question, If the Pope without any examination or consultation should pronounce upon some Doctrine proposed, This Doctrine is Heretical, would it be well done? would you approve it? wherefore you ought not to say so generally, howsoever the Pope proceedeth; but indeed we hope he will do in this affair, what shall be most expedient for the peace of the Faithful, the clearing of Truth, and the dignity of the H. See.  
M. Hallier hereupon seeing himself so pricked, said, that if the Pope would hear the Parties, as we demanded, he was not one that would shun the Conference, and they would appear in the Congregation with us; but they were come to Rome barely to tell the Pope their judgement, and were no Parties.  
I asked him therefore in two words, And who are we? to signify to him, that in effect we were as little Parties as themselves, and perhaps less; since we acted not but by order of the Bishops who sent us, to beseech the Pope to erect a Congregation for the clearing of all things by hearing of both sides therein; and that there were very many complaints to be made against them for the management which themselves, or the adherents of M. Cornet, whom they represented (for they laboured only to effect his enterprise) had held for three years passed to the present. M. Hallier and his Colleagues knew not what to answer to this.  
In fine the conclusion was, that we should never speak of the affairs and questions in agitation when we met together; that we should visit one another and talk upon occasions with charity, honour and civility. But as to what M. Hallier demanded at first, that we should divulge nothing concerning our affairs, nor write thereof into France, we utterly tejected so unreasonable a Proposal, which could not be other than the effect of his fear lest it should be known in France in what manner things were transacted at Rome, and which accused all the Bishops that signed M. de Vabres' Letter (whose Deputy he termed himself) of a prodigious insensibility, which he attributed to them in so important an affair, if they had no curiosity of learning news concerning it.  
After we had taken leave of the Ambassador, we retired altogether, and as we passed through those vast and spacious Rooms in the Palace of the Barberini, where the Ambassador lodged, I went along with M. Hallier, who spoke two things to me very considerable, which yet I cannot set down here but with much trouble, to see the reasons for which himself affirmed that he had resolved to engage in this affair. First, That when he entered upon the Syndicship, he desired nothing but peace in the Faculty. But some began to push at him, and I first of all, and so things by little and little came to the pass at which they were now. Secondly, That the Pope had required his coming to Rome; that he was come thither, and it would shortly be seen what would follow thereupon. I answered nothing concerning the Pope; but as to his Syndicship, I told him, that we believed (this is meant of afterwards: for when I opposed his election, none of the Doctors knew that I intended to oppose it, nor that I had the book which was the cause of my opposition) that we believed (I say) that he would pursue M. Cornet's enterprise. He replied, that it was not so, and that we were mistaken.  
As for his saying that the Pope sent for him, and that he was come by his order; 'tis a thing I could never clearly understand, and believe it was not so; there not appearing any probability at all thereof. However he believed it, and not only believed it, but published it openly. I heard by a Letter written to me the 22 of the foregoing March, that they boasted that they were summoned by the Pope and the Cardinals before they set forth. And by another of the 12th. of April, that M. Cornet, and M. Morel, were not contented that M. Hallier and his Colleagues had undertaken this Journey; but were pacified upon M. Hallier's telling them that he was sent for by the Pope and some Cardinals. I know not whether by this Pope and these Cardinals there were not really some complot of M. Albizzi and some Cardinals, perhaps also some  consent or other of the Pope upon some Proposal made to him about it. In brief, 'tis a thing I could never clearly discover; but I leave it to the Readers to judge of.  
But as for F. Mulard, who set forth from Rome in December, to carry them the Letters and Messages which obliged them to resolve upon coming, he came back again with them or shortly after. For to my knowledge he was seen at Rome on Wednesday the 29th. of May, being the Eve of Corpus Christi, and he was heard that very day to say, speaking of M. Hallier and his Colleagues, and swearing by the name of God, By G. I have done so much that I have made them come; I have put the Sword into their hands, let them fight now. But what said one to him? Will you meddle no more in the matter? No (answered he) at least let them begin; when they have done the business, I may add the last stroke of the Pencil. It was added, That he could not be so supine as to forbear to meddle till the end; and he corrected himself by saying, that he might do it also in the interim, to put them in the way, if need were.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of what passed during the whole Month of June, and the beginning of July.  
ON the first day of June I visited the Curè of S. Saviors Church, with whom having made divers reflections about our affairs, he told me, we should do well in this so intricate a cause (wherein we had to deal with such potent Adversaries who would endeavour to cross and check us in the least circumstances of our business, when they could not as to the main) to retain an Advocate that well understood the forms of the Court of Rome, that so we might do nothing without his counsel in certain formalities requisite to be observed in this Country, in which it was likely we were not instructed of ourselves.  
In the afternoon of Sunday the second, we went to visit the Father's Divines of S. Augustin's order. Whiles we were entertaining them, the General returned home, and having seen us, came and conversed with us. After some Discourse about the presence of M. Hallier and his Colleagues, that there was no need of a Congregation, because the things were already judged, we took leave of him. He accompanied us from the Cloister where he had found us to the Church, where after we had performed our Devotions, ten or twelve of his Fathers whom he had left with us, reconducted us out of the Church.  
On Tuesday the 4th. I heard that M. Hallier went alone the day before to see Cardinal S. Clement, and as he gave an account of his business, he told him that he who was the cause of all the stir about the Propositions, was a great Doctor that was at Rome. M. Hallier meant me; but the Cardinal either not understanding him, or not willing to understand him, answered, that he wondered how so great a Doctor could have been the cause of all this scandal. Then M. Hallier explained himself, that he did not mean that that Doctor was great in respect of that quality, but great of body, of a tall stature, quantitate molis, non quantitate virtutis. He added, that all the evil in Jansenius' book was contracted into the Five Propositions, or rather, that it was all contained in the first alone. The Cardinal desired M. Hallier to recite it. M. Hallior did so, but either by chance or wittingly omitted these words, secundum praesentes quas habent vires. And at length setting forth, to what a pitch the mischief of the division caused by the Propositions was attained, he told the Cardinal, that the Jansenists were habited in one manner, and the Molinists in another. The Cardinal kept directly to the point in question, and told M. Hallier, he wondered how possibly a man so judicious as he could be induced to quarrel with Jansenius about that Proposition. That there might indeed be other things in that Author, which deserved Censure; but as for this, it was so clearly Catholic, that there was nothing more firmly established in the Scripture and the H. Fathers, particularly in S. Augustin, than what was delivered by M. Jansenius concerning this matter; and that he had explicated himself nowhere better, nor given less hold against his book then in this place. The Cardinal dilated amply, to convince M. Hallier of his Assertion by the indubitable principles of Theology, from which M. Hallier could not descent. On the contrary M. Hallier did what he could to defend himself by vain distinctions, but always overskipping the main matter in question. At length he was so put to it, that he could reply no more, and so this Conference ended. Nevertheless he forbore not to tell the Cardinal whilst he was reconducted by him, that it was good that the Propositions were condemned and censured, or at least prohibited to be maintained, that I may use the Latin word les prohiber. The Cardinal (who made the Narrative of this Conference to him from whom I had it) could not believe what he saw, and doubted whether M. Hallier understood Italian, though he begun to speak Italian, and the rest of their Discourse was mixed, part Latin and part Italian.  
M. Hallier, to explain in the sequel of this Discourse who the great Doctor he meant was, named me; He accused me also to be an enemy of Religious Orders, though no person ever opposed them more than himself before his reconciliation with the Jesuits, and whilst one of his Maxims was, That the Jesuits had no conscience. He uttered all other things he could in my disparagement, and to persuade Cardinal S. Clement, that his persecuting the Propositions was only in regard to their Heretical senses, he said, that for his part he was no enemy to S. Augustin's Doctrine, nor to that of the School of S. Thomas, but he was ready to subscribe to effectual Grace, and also to Physical Predetermination.  
On Wednesday I went to la Minerve, to publish to divers persons the design which M. Hallier and his Colleagues had declared to us in the Ambassadors presence; and all that I acquainted with it, condemned so unreasonable a pretention. Also meeting with F. Delbene in the place Navonne on Friday, I informed him of their purpose, which he pronounced very ridiculous.  
On Saturday June 8. we went again to visit Card. Giori, whom we could not inform of our affair the first time. He heard us gravely, and answered us with great judgement.  
In the afternoon M. the Valcroissant and myself went to the H. Office to see the Fiscal, but he was not there; wherefore leaving M. de Valcroissant, to go speak a word with the P. Companion of the Commissary, the Commissary himself met me. He drew me into his Chamber almost by force, but such a force as proceeded only from friendship. When I was there, he proposed some arguments to me about the first Proposition. M. Albizzi intervened, and we spoke civilly enough together. We continued the Discourse upon the same Subject, and occasion being offered me to quote that excellent passage of the Homily of S. Austin, taken out of his 92d. Treatise upon S. John, which is read in the Roman Breviary on Friday between the Octave of the Ascension and Pentecost, where that H. Doctor expounding the words of the Gospel of S. John, chap. 15. by which our Lord promised his Disciples, that when he had sent the H. Spirit to them, that H. Spirit should testify what this divine Saviour was; I'll testimonium perhibebit de me; he concludes with these after many others: Ille ergo testim●nium perhibebit de me, & ves testimonium perhibebitis; dabit enim vobis fiduciam testimonium perhibendi, charitas Dei diffusa in cordibus vestris per spiritum sanctum qui dabitur vobis: quae utique Petro adhuc DEFVIT, quando mulieris an●illae interrogatione perterritus, non POTVIT verum testimonium perhibere, sed contra suam pillicitationem timore magno compulsus est ter negare. When I had applied this whole passage to the first Proposition, M. Albizzi had the goodness to tell me, That he doubted not, but when a man sins, Grace is wanting to him; Not the Sufficient (added he) but the Effectual. Whilst M. Albizzi and I were speaking, the F. Commissary was gone to fetch a book, to show me some passage. He came back and read his passage to me, and proposed his argument to me again before M. Albizzi, and he did it with a rude and fierce tone; but when M. Albizzi had left us, he friendly told me, that it behoved him for certain reasons to speak in that manner before him.  
M. the Valcroissant had the patience to wait for me all this time; and when I had found him again we went together to Cardinal S. Clement, who confirmed to us most of the things which are above mentioned to have passed in M. Hallier's visit to him; and particularly that in reciting the first Proposition he suppressed the words secundum praesentes quas habent vires, and they demanded a pure and absolu●… condemnation of the Propositions without distinction of senses, examination or Congregation.  
On Tuesday June 11th. I went to see F. Hilarion, who told me that M. Hallier and his Colleagues had been with him, but he declared to them presently that there was no need for them to give themselves that trouble, because he was not of the Congregation. That they had no long discourse with him; but amongst other things they told him, that the Propositions being matters already decided and determined, they came with a belief that this affair would soon be dispatched. The Father added, that we were not to fear that, but we needed to deliver a Memorial to the Pope to beseech him that we might be heard; that nothing would be done without it; and that he had heard that it was resolved upon.  
On Thursday the 13th, I was in the Pope's Presence-Chamber, at the end of the Congregation of the H. Office, whence I saw all the Cardinals come forth, excepting Cardinal Spada who stayed with his Hol●ness. M. Albizzi followed Cardinal Ghiggi to his apartment. I sent a Laquay thither to bring me word when M. Albizzi was gone from thence, and immediately went to wait upon this Cardinal; but assoon as I had spoken three words to him concerning M. Hallier and his Colleagues, he told me that he had seen them; he said Yesterday, but it was upon Tuesday. He gave me to under●…and that the Pope would consider of the Congregation we demanded, and probably would erect it; and assoon as it was established, it would set upon two things to examine. First, whether it were expedient to make any Definition upon the Propositions, because the Pope was not obliged to make any upon every occasion, and all matters propounded to him. Secondly, to examine the grounds of the matters upon which such D●…inition was to be made in case it were resolved upon. And he seemed to intimate as if M. Hallier and his Colleagues had had audience of the Pope, and were inclined to consent to the Congregation. Whereupon I told his Eminence that there was no great likelihood that this was the inclination of those Gentlemen, because themselves had testified to us, that they aimed at a pure and simple condemnation, without hearing Parties, as if the matters were already determined, and because we knew also that they solicited to that purpose. The Cardinal replied, That if they were formerly defined, they were not to be examined again; but that this was the thing in question; that their word would not be taken for it, and that nothing would be done in this affair but by a Congregation, which should first examine all things exactly. I answered, that provided this course were taken, we should be perfectly contented; but in the mean time they diverted the Contest elsewhere, and drew it to things which had no affinity with that which was in question. He replied, that these sorts of solicitations were not much regarded at Rome, and that they were but lost words; and he asked me, where and how they held such D. scourses? I told him, that they had been with all the Cardinals, Consultors, and Qualificators; whereat he seemed something to wonder, as of a thing of little consequence. I told him, I feared I should be tedious to his Eminence, if I should acquaint him with the grounds upon which they sounded their reproaches; and that we had nothing else to answer thereunto, but that what they said would not be found true; but supposing it were, and there were as much more, yet it was nothing to the main business in question, which ought solely to be regarded. And thereupon I fell insensibly to lay forth particularly the principal points of the accusations and reproaches which they framed against us. I told him the grounds thereof, namely, M. Hallier's Syndicship, the business of Santaret, the design of accomplishing of M. Cornet's enterprise, the Religious Mendicants, the Decree of the University against the Irish, in what manner M. Hallier imposed the Minister of Groning's Book upon the Faculty. I summed up all this in very few words, and confusedly enough, considering the matter. Yet Cardinal Ghiggi apprehended all well enough, and told me, We ought not to be troubled about their suggestions; that they signified nothing; and in reference to the Minister of Groaning, he said scoffingly, that it was to allege a testimony ex ore mendacis; He added, that all solicitations to other persons, besides those which were named for the business, were lost labours, and even to those (who perhaps would be Cardinals, perhaps Consultors, and perhaps others) all those Prefaces and Discourses would be useless and superfluous. That the ground of things that could be alleged on either side should be drawn up in writing as compendiously as possible, and reciprocally deliverered to each part, that so either might see what they were to encounter with, and without so doing, all was to no purpose; and we might remain satisfied with this; and that nothing would be done at Rome, in respect to what one party or the other affirms or denies. Finding by the Cardinal's discourse, that what we had demanded was like to be granted, I asked him whether he had seen our Memorial. He asked me when it was delivered. I told him on the first of January; He answered that he had not seen it. Whereupon acknowledging the equitableness of his Sentiment, that what we had sued for to the Pope, was sitting to be granted; I told him the substance of the Memorial almost in its own words; but I added that I would bring his Eminence a Copy of it, and professed to him how great submission we and all the world with us should have for a Decision made in that manner. As I was about to take my leave, I told him we feared lest M. Hallier and his Colleagues had a design to carry matters to some imposition of silence, or some other remedy of that nature, which would produce nothing but mischief; that they would never be brought to a conference but with regret, as partly in respect of the difficulty they would find to defend so bad a Cause well, and partly because M. Hallier, as able a man as he might be in other things, was certainly little versed in the doctrine of Saint Augustin whom he had not read. He told me that I ought not to fear; and that their wishes or wills would be in no consideration at all. After this I withdrew, but I remember that in the course of this conference, I told Cardinal Ghiggi of the approbation which M. Hallier had given not two years since, whilst he was Syndic, to the first and third Proposition taken in the senses in which alone we held them; and after that approbation so freshly and solemnly given, new interests having made him change his mind, he now prosecuted the condemnation thereof. I remember also, that one told me in the Pope's Presence-chamber, that M. Hallier and his Colleagues were gone that day to wait upon Cardinal Spada; that before their parting from him they had spoken something to him in private; wherefore reflecting upon his staying with the Pope, after the Congregation of the H. Office, it seemed not improbable but he stayed so in reference to them, and the affair about which they came.  
On Friday, June 14. I carried Cardinal Ghiggi the Copy of our Memorial, which he told me he would gladly see, lo vedrò volontieri; and in the afternoon we went to la Minerve to see the Procurator General of the Dominicans, whom we found to be a very intelligent and resolute man. We visited also the F. Prior of the Covent, who received us in the Sacristy, whilst M. Hallier and his Colleagues were under the Cloister with F. Molano, whom they were come to visit. After they had left him, F. Molano told us, that M. Halier had assured him, that they would maintain Effectual Grace; and F. Fani whom we met, told us also, that they had declared the same thing to the Master of the Sacred Palace.  
He professed, that he did not otherwise impeach the Propositions than in Calvin's sense, and that this was correspondent to the discourses which he had held upon the way in divers places; amongst others, at Lions, where he said, That he was not going to Rome to dispute, but only to let the Pope know that the Doctrine contrary to that of the Propositions, was the Doctrine of the Church, which could not be opposed without Error; and that they who contradicted it, were guilty of as pernicious tenants as those of Calvin, as he said he would prove to his Holiness by the Book of the Minister Maresius which he carried with him, and made a great stir with everywhere. All this is out of a Letter written to me from Paris, May the 10th. upon the testimony of People of Honour who heard him discourse in that manner, and sent the Intelligence from Lions thither.  
On Saturday the 15th. I went to see F. Luca Vadingo. I put him to speak of M. Hallier and his Colleagues. He said he would not tell me what they had spoken to him, as neither would he tell them what we should speak to him; but he would serve both the one and the other alike. That he had professed to them how just our Demands were. And upon my urging him to speak by saying that theirs did not agree with ours; he told me at length, though with some hesitation, that they had affirmed to him that there was danger, lest we might embroil and perplex things in a Congregation: whereunto he had answered, That men were as quicksighted at Rome as in any place of the world, Tanto oculati quanto si voglia in altro luogo; and that there was one thing there which was not anywhere else, namely, the infallibility of the Pope by the assistance of the H. Spirit.  
From thence I went to the Master of the Sacred Palace, where I saw his Companion who told me, that M. Hallier and his Colleagues spread a report, that we were all enemies to those of Religious Orders; that we set upon the Jesuits to ruin them by doctrine, because none but they were able to resist us; and when we had once pulled down the Jesuits, we would soon dispatch the rest. I had no need to satisfy him concerning these accusations, because he was so already; but he told me it were good that we removed such evil Impressions out of the minds of others more credulous.  
We purposed to demand Audience of the Pope the next day, to speak to his Holiness concerning these new Comers, and to renew the Requests which we had formerly made to him. I went to his Presence-Chamber ro facilitate the procuring thereof; but I was advised in the afternoon to defer these instances till there were greater necessity.  
In the afternoon I went to Cardinal Roma: I complained to him, 1. what false things, and remote from the business, M. Hallier and his Colleagues, as we understood, spread every against us. 2. What their professed design was, namely, to get a pure and simple condemnation, for that the things in question were already determined. The Cardinal answered, And where are they so? we must see how. I told him that perhaps they believed their word would be sufficient; and that if they saw they could not compass a condemnation of that nature, we feared they would then aim at an Imposition of silence (which would be unprofitable and prejudicial) rather then come to a Congregation. He replied, that every one doth his utmost for the accomplishment of his designs: I answered, that we all ought to have but one and the same, to wit, the clearing of truth, the establishment of Peace amongst Divines, and that suitably to the honour and dignity of the H. See. The Cardinal replied, that the clearing of Truth included all the rest. I answered, that what he said, was very true; but a Congregation was necessary for that clearing of Truth. He replied that it was a thing already resolved and decreed.  
I professed my joy for it. We arose up, and I asked him what persons were of it, that we might visit them. He told me, this was not yet to be known, and that it was fit that they were visited beforehand. I know not whether M. Hallier had got some inkling hereof elsewhere; but the Cardinal said that they were not altogether Strangers to it when they came to him, and that they had spoken very reasonably, There pair (said he) i parlano molto a justament.  
I did not certainly understand that they had had audience of the Pope, till Thursday the 17th. but then I learned that it was very short, and that there could not have been many things spoken of. I learned also that they were displeased at the Lodging where they were, and had seen another which had liked them better; that they had agreed about the price; but the difference between them and the owner was, that they would take it but for three Months, and the Owner would not let it except for a year; and that it was at length compounded by a Friend of theirs, who persuaded them to take it for six Months.  
Tuesday in the afternoon I went to see a Discalceated Carmelite, Professor in Theology, a Person of great parts, probity and prudence, born at Chartres, as I think, as well as M. Hallier; his Name was F. Melchior. He told me that M. Hallier had said to him that he found nothing to say against us to our manners; that he was of the same mind with us in reference to the ground of doctrine; that there was nothing but the novelty of terms, and the manner of speaking, with the consequences, that he was offended at. As for his audience of the Pope, that he had given him fair words; but it was not upon that that he placed the principal hopes which he had of the success of his pursuits.  
On Wednesday in the afternoon, the Abbot of Valcroissant and myself went to Cardinal Spada. The Abbot very well represented to him the justice of our Demand, and very solidly replied to the many frivolous answers and difficulties which our Adversaries made about it; so that the Cardinal seemed by his countenance much satisfied therewith. He told us, those Gentlemen had been with him in the morning, that they had not spoken of all the particulars mentioned by the Abbot, and that they had declared to him how they desired a speedy dispatch of this affair.  
On Thursday morning, June 20.— came to visit me, and told me M. Hallier and his Colleagues had been with him the day before. That he put him in mind at his first compliment of an ancient acquaintance which they had had, but obiter in the University— where they met. That after the compliments he told him, that he was not in that Court about the matters which had been agitated between the Dominicans and the Jesuits; that those things were disputable and probable on either side; but as for the Propositions, they were Heretical, and taught by a mere Heretic. That afterwards falling to discourse of the Propositions in particular, there was not one of them but he undertook to confute sometimes upon foundations contrary to those of the Jesuits, and soon after upon the Principles and Maxims of those Fathers. That he admired this poor man, qui non constabat sibi, who did not agree with himself, that if he committed the like extravagances everywhere else, there needed none to ruin all that he said, but himself. That he had told him, that as for the Propositions, whether in their grounds, or their consequences, there was only St. Augustin & suoi scholari that were of that Opinion. He told me that he reiterated to him many times, That France was in a general combustion about these Contests. That of the hundred and twelve, or hundred and eighteen Bishops in France, fourscore had declared for the sentiments which he defended. That these things were so misconstrued; that some Bishops, otherwise good men, had taken upon them to maintain Calvinistical Propositions. That the University favoured the Jansenists too? who, (as M. Hallier told him, and he repeated to me several times in his visit) held the Propositions wholly Lutheran and Calvinistical. The Abbot Rondanini came to see us during this conference, and because we were not ready to receive him, he went to take a Turn upon the Mont de la trinity. The Visitant departed, and the Abbot returned; we all three received him, M. the Valcroissant, M. Angran and myself. In his long conference with us, he told us mucb the same things concerning the Visits of M. Hallier and his Colleagues, as are above related. When his visit was ended, F. Mulard came to see us. He went to make a turn in the City, and left him with M. the Valcroissant, to whom he told several particularities about his Voyage and that of M. Hallier, and since their arrival at Rome this very remarkable, viz. that M. Hallier told him, that the Pope signified to him at his audience that he had added Cardinal Ghiggi to the four others which his Holiness had nominated for the Congregation with honourable Titles, namely Roma, Spada, Ginetti and Cechini; Roma, he said, was huomo da bene an hone●… man; Spada huomo●capace, an able man; (these were the qualities in which they excelled) without having added any thing concerning the two other.  
I had entreated F. Guérin to endeavour to get a Copy of the Memorial, which M. Hallier and his Colleagues presented to the Pope that we might see, as we on our part were very willing that all the world saw ours. For that purpose he addressed himself too F. Noel, who had great intimacy with M. Hallier. F. Guerin told me, that F. Noel assured him that there was no Copy of that Memorial in rerum natura. That it was very plain, and all it contained, that such and such deputed to his Holiness by fourscore Bishops, beseeched him to decide the Five Propositions in question, or the Questions contained in the Five Propositions. That they represented to his Holiness that they were matters already decided, and assured him, that these Propositions had no relation at all to the Dispute between the Dominicans and Jesuits in the time of Clement VIII.  
In the afternoon we went to see Cardinal Barberin, who was ready to go abroad to Card. Brancaccio; we accompanied him thither, and after a short time spent in taking the air, he brought us to our own lodging. Upon the way we spoke concerning books. I complained chief of the malice of certain Authors who writ against us, and for want of true grounds to do any thing, falsely imputed to us some bad opinions, which we owned not; and afterwards laboured to prove against us such things as we agreed in, and acknowledged true as well as themselves. I instanced in the book of F. Annat de Ecclesia praesentis temporis, which is wholly founded upon a false and calumnious supposition. The Abbot of Valcroissant alleged also to him for example Riccardus, who makes use likewise of the same fraud to impeach falsely the Third Proposition, opposing it in a ridiculous sense of a Necessitating Grace destroying Indifference, in with it was notorious, that neither we nor any Catholic maintained it. It was added further, that if Riccardus had encountered it in a false sense, M. Hallier had approved it during his Syndicship in its true sense. We arrived at our Lodging, whether it pleased his Eminence to bring us, and so our Discourse broke off.  
On Sunday the 23d. in the afternoon we went to see Cardinal Ghiggi. The Abbot of Valcroissant very well refuted (as he had done before to Cardinal Spada) some of the principal reasons, for which M. Hallier and his Colleagues endeavoured to obstruct the Congregation which we demanded, as also the most considerable slanders, by which they endeavoured to decry us as sworn enemies of the H. See. The Cardinal heard all the Abbot's Discourse calmly, and when he had done, asked us where M. Hallier spoke all the things whereof we complained; for he remembered none of them; and indeed, that all that was spoken to him in that manner, entered at one ear, and went out at the other. That besides, he was not yet commissioned by the Pope to take any cognisance of those affairs; that every week six or seven hundred Letters came to his hands, that fourscore went to one Congregation, and forty to another; that for his part, he was chief taken up with things which they called Matters of State. That when our business came to him, he would apply himself to it in a fitting manner; that till then it was fit for us to have patience; that Time served to ripen things, and that oftentimes the H. See was willing to let the heat of men's minds abate a little. At length he recommended to us, to act peaceably, pacifica ment, and we answered him, that he should always find us in that temper through our whole deportment; but we could do no less then speak & represent the things which we conceived important to our affair. And whereas he said, he would have great care of it when it came to him, we told him we were very glad of it, because he would find that it was very important to the honour of S. Augustin, for whom he professed so great Devotion.  
We went afterwards to see Cardinal Roma; he was at his Palace, but was busy about some affairs. His Maistre de Chambre told us, that his Eminence would be glad to entertain us at leisure; and because he was the next day to consecrate Monsignor Litta Archbishop of Milan, he desired us to defer our visit till the Tuesday following. We had hitherto deferred to visit the Bishop of Bethleem; we acquitted ourselves thereof this day; and after divers general Discourses, at length falling upon the affairs which brought him to Rome, he showed us a Memorial which he had to present against a Brief passed by urban VIII. in the year 1632. impowring Commissioners to make processes against Bishops. It was an Affair wherewith he was encharged by the Clergy, besides the principal which was to obtain Bishops for Portugal.  
On Tuesday June the 25. passing before the Novitiate house of the Jesuits, I entered into it, not knowing that it was so, being invited thereunto by the goodliness of the Garden which appeared to me as I went along, the great Gate thereof being open. I saw Cardinal Ghiggi there walking between two Jesuits; but it did not trouble me, nor give me any irksome suspicion of him, because I had a most firm confidence of his capacity, Equity, and Benignity towards all the world.  
In the Afternoon we went to Cardinal Roma's Palace, and were fortwith admitted to him. And whereas amongst other things we complained of to him, we told him that we were threatened that we should have but one or two Audiences for form; he wondered that we could doubt of being heard as much as we could wish in an affair so important to the H. See as this, in which it was not only to judge (as the good Cardinal said) but to be judged by all the world; because assoon as its Judgement were pronounced, every one would take the liberty to examine it, and see whether it were passed according to justice and truth.  
We went from thence to see F. Pascaligo, to whom we displayed our affair at length: He was very glad, and surprised to hear it; and confirmed further to us our intelligence concerning the order which was given between two or three years before to certain Divines to write down their opinions, and deliver them sealed up both concerning the Propositions, and the false censure of them divulged under the name of our Faculty.  
When we had quitted him, we went towards the Ambassador's Lodging, whether I had purposed to go. We met our friends coming out thence, and a little after F. Malgoires who came after them, and told us that he had disputed there for two hours with M. Hallier. He told us several things of that Dispute, but amongst the rest, two more remarkable. First, That M. Hallier held all these matters so certainly condemned by the Council of Trent, that he would not so much as hear of St. Augustin. Secondly, That upon his telling M. Hallier that M. the Valcroissant maintained the five Propositions in question only in the sense of Effectual Grace; M. Hallier replied, that the Sieur de Valcroissant durst not subscribe that. We were extremely surprised at this Discourse, being unable to comprehend how it was possible that after so many Declarations made thereof formerly, and renewed upon all occasions, and by all means imaginable with the greatest solemnness, there should yet be found people that durst confidently affirm such malicious calumnies.  
I went to the Ambassadors: and found that Card. Barberin was there. I told his Maistre de Chambre, that we had been at his Eminences Palace to wait upon him: He answered me that there would be a good opportunity to do it the next day at his return from la Minerve after the Congregation of the H. Office. When he was gone, the Ambassador took Coach to go abroad to take the Air, and I accompanied him. He told me there was some likelihood that a Congregation would be erected, not for us to dispute in, but wherein we might be heard così, così, so, so. I answered him, that we did not desire to dispute, but we earnestly wished to confer one with the other, and that it might be done with all Moderation, Civility and Respect possible, yet according to the formalities requisite in all sorts of judgements for the full clearing of the thing in contest.  
On Wednesday morning we went to meet Cardinal Barberin at la Minerve, and returned to his Palace with him. The Abbot of Valcroissant acquainted his Eminence with the same causes of complaint we had of the carriage of M. Hallier and his colleague, that he had told Cardinal Spada and Ghiggi, and answered in like manner their objections and difficulties. The Cardinal made a little recapitulation of what the Abbot said, and answered nothing thereunto, saving that if the Pope gave him any Orders about our Affairs, he would endeavour to acquit himself thereof with the affection and fidelity which he owed to the H. See. He added, that we ought to be something contented now we had declared and continued so to do daily; that we had no other interest in this Affair but to preserve the Doctrine of Effectual Grace; since there was none but admitted and acknowledged it was well as ourselves. M. Angran replied to the Cardinal, that indeed there was none that declared against, or durst do so; but there were many who admitted only the name, and in their hearts denied and opposed the thing; and that the whole invention and structure of the Propositions was set on foot for nothing in the world else but to destroy it.  
In the afternoon I went to see a Person that understood affairs very well. He told us, that M. Hallier was (in concetto nella corte) suspected by the Court to do what he did only out of a grudge; and that it would be advantageous for us, if he continued to give the same opinion of himself that he had done hitherto. I went next to Cardinal Roma; but hearing that M. Hallier was with him, I waited till he came forth. I spoke but two words to the Cardinal, about something which I conceived we had not sufficiently explicated to him the day before. He asked me, whether I would not be glad to have a speedy end of this affair? I answered him, that we wished nothing else, but that it were treated with the greatest speed that could be; provided that speed were accompanied with all the consideration necessary for the examination of it: and that in this case the Counsel deserved to be practised, which saith Festina lentè: whereunto his Eminence assented.  
On Thursday the 27th. we went, for the closing of the Solemnity of la Feste Dieu, or the Festival of Corpus Christi to the Church of St. Peter, and as we were going thither we met M. Hallier and his Colleagues who were with the French Jesuits, Penitentiaries of that Church for that Nation. It was no very strange thing, considering that the confederacy of those Doctors with the Jesuits was so great, that almost every day, after their other visits were ended, they went to le Giesu to confer with those Fathers about what they had done that day, and what they should do the next. But yet a few years ago, such carriage in a Doctor of Paris would have been construed a great prevarication.  
On Friday we made a short Visit to the Resident of Polondi who was our Neighbour, and who had told me in several accidental meetings, that the Queen of Poland frequently enquired what we did at Rome. From thence we went to the Ambassador, to accompany him to Vespers at St. Peter's Church. When they were ended I beheld the ceremony of the white Jennet, which the King of Spain's Ambassador ptesents every year to the Pope in the name of the King his Master, in homage for the Kingdom of Naples. This year it was the Prince Pamphilio, the Pope's Nephew that presented it, the Spaniards having engaged him to take upon himself for that purpose the quality of their King's Ambassador extraordinary, by promising to make him a Grandee of Spain; I heard the Protestations which the Procurator Fiscal of the Apostolical Chamber maketh, That this Present which the Pope receives, doth not prejudice the Rights of his Holiness, nor those of the Apostolical Chamber to that Kingdom; and the Repetition made thereof after him by the Pope himself, wherein he calls it Regno nostro Napolitano; after which nevertheless he gives his Apostolical Benediction to the King of Spain, his wife, children & people.  
Of Saturday the 29th. being S. Peter's day, all the morning was spent in Devotion at the Pope's Chapel, and in the afternoon I heard the secret Vespers which are celebrated in the Pope's Presence-Chamber, where few others are admitted besides the Musicians that sing them.  
Cardinal Ghiggi had familiarly asked me how he might get some books of the handsome binding of France. Upon which occasion I was obliged to wait upon him on Sunday afternoon the last of June; at which time I gave him a Copy both of the Letter of M. de Vabres, and of that of the other Bishops which I presented to the Pope. I told him of the frequent Assemblies and Counsels which M. Hallier and his Colleagues held with M. Albizzi. The Cardinal answered, that to give them audience, was the least thing that was due to them. But it all signified nothing; that I might assure myself that this affair Caminarebbe per via regia, would proceed in the usual Road, and be handled with a full and public discussion; that nothing would be done otherwise: I replied that this was all we desired, as well in reference to the circumstances, as to the matter of Doctrine. He added, that he could in some sort give me assurance thereof, Sicurezza. I expressed much satisfaction at this good word, and gave his Eminence my most humble thanks for it.  
On Tuesday the 2. of July I met M. Borne, M. Halliers Correspondent and ours too. He asked me whether I thought we should make a long stay at Rome. I told him smiling, that we should continue there at least (jusqu' aux Roys) till Twelftide. He replied that that term would seem very long to those Gentlemen, who were very weary already, and thought they should have dispatched sooner than so.  
On Thursday the 4. we went to give Cardinal Homodei full information of our Affair, having been hindered from doing it at our first visit to him. He was much satisfied therewith, and expressed a desire to entertain us again, and to have the bottom of things laid open to him, that he might understand it; promising if there happened any occasion wherein he might assist us to obtain a happy issue thereof, he would employ his utmost to that effect.  
Friday the 5. was the ordinary day that the Ambassador was to be accompanied to his audience of the Pope: which Duty being performed, we went to visit Cardinal Brancaccio, who was come to Rome about three weeks before, to spend the Summer there: we set forth our affair to him at large, and he answered us with great courtesy and erudition. And because he understood the French Tongue well, he engaged us to lend him the book of Victorious Grace, which I carried to him on Sunday following; but not finding him at home then, I went again to his Palace on Tuesday the 9th, to entertain him again; and deliver the same to his hands.  
I visited again upon that Sunday July 7. Cardinal Roma, to put him in mind of our extreme desire that the Congregation might be established whilst there were Doctors of both Parties upon the place, and that we might once come to show what we had to say in that Congregation; yet provided, that as much time were taken as should be necessary for a thorough discussion of all our allegations. The Cardinal answered me, that we ought not to doubt of that, and that the H. See was so much concerned, that the affair might be transacted in that manner, that we had no reason to doubt that it would pass otherwise. I told him that this was as much as we wished, and that in the mean time we laboured much and made no progress; and that all we had done about the affair in our visits hitherto, was almost as if we had done nothing at all. The Cardinal confirmed his former asseveration, and added, that he hoped the Congregation would shortly be erected, and that nevertheless he did not yet know the order and pleasure of the Pope.  
On Monday the eighth, I was giving a visit to Monsignor Sacrista, when M. Hallier and his Colleagues came thither; they were led into another apartement, and I presently quitted the place to them. The next day in the afternoon F. Mariana came to see me, and give me an account of their conference with Monsignor Sacrista; He said they spoke to him una man di spropositamenti, abundance of impertinencies; amongst the rest, that the Propositions were condemned by the Censures of our Faculty in the year 1650. that they made several complaints against me, which were nothing to the purpose; and so of the rest.  
M. de Valcroissant had made an Advertisement to the Reader, to premise before the works of S. Augustin, contained in the little Tome which we caused to be printed. We were in doubt for a good while, whether or no we should print it before we showed it to M. Albizzi, who was so hot upon reviewing it, even to the Apostilles, lest if he perceived that we did it without consulting him, he might cause us some new obstruction. But on the other side, when we considered that his former opposition was purely a vexatious and humoursome action; that to give him this advertisement to the Reader to peruse, was to give it to the Jesuits; that there was danger lest we should not easily recover it out of his hands, and lest it might return at length maimed and with corrections to which we could not conform; and that all this might much retard our Impression and deprive us of the advantages which we hoped to obtain by publishing it: We resolved at length, first, to take good heed that there might be nothing in the said advertisement that were obnoxious to exception; and 2ly, to be contented with the Imprimatur of the Master of the Sacred Palace, according to the ordinary course: and lastly, to cause it to be printed without noise, and also published before M. Albizzi had notice of it. But in case he should afterwards complain and make a trouble about it, than we should endeavour to defend ourselves and justify our proceeding against his assaults; and it would be time enough to come into his hands when we could no longer avoid it.  
Yet this resolution was not approved by our Friends at Rome without some fear; however, we continued it, although they judged it something hazardous. But M. Albizzi's ill dealing with us about the Apostilles, and fear of the same; for this advertisement, if it once came into his hands, obliged us to venture all the after-claps his Furiousness seemed to threaten. I had carried our advertisement a day or two before to the Master of the Sacred Palace, and this day (Tuesday the 9th.) I went to fetch it from him. He liked it well enough, and delivered it to me without scruple, having first set his Imprimatur to it; and so we caused it to be printed with the permission alone of the Master of the Sacred palace, M. Albizzi not so much as hearing any thing of it.  
Wednesday the 10th. I learned that the General of the Dominicans had been with the Pope on the Sunday preceding about the affair of the Conception; and that the Pope told him that whereas none of his Predecessors nor the Council of Trent had defined it, neither would he define it; and moreover his Holiness acknowledged that the importunity made to him for it, was not so much out of devotion and piety, as out of jealousy and ambition.  
In which no doubt the Pope expressed as much moderation by rejecting the Proposal, as the Authors thereof showed ignorance in prosecuting such a Definition; since not only Prudence allows not the determining of the Immaculate conception, but it is also impossible to do it, there being nothing of it in the tradition of the Church; so that if the Pope would do it, he must ground his judgement upon particular Revelations, which would be a visible delusion, and open a way to all sort of error.    

THE FIFTH PART.  
Containing what passed during the last six Months of the Year 1652.  

CHAP. 1.  
Of the Declaration made to us, July the 11 th'. by Cardinal Roma, that the Pope had erected the Congregation which we demanded. Of our visits till the 21. to the Cardinals that were of it; and of the Letter which we writ thereupon to the Bishops by whom we were deputed.  
THe occurrence which first offers itself to begin this Fifth Part, is one of the most considerable of the whole Narrative. It is the Declaration which was solemnly made to us by the Pope's Order, That he had appointed the Congregation required by us, and looked upon by us as the certain means for the advancing of Truth and Innocence above the malice of those who persecuted both of them by Error and Calumny. This so advantageous and so desired Congregation was declared to us in this manner.  
On Wednesday evening, July 10th. a Note was brought me by one of Cardinal Barberin's lackeys, whereby I was advertised that my Colleagues and I must not fail to repair the next day in the afternoon to Cardinal Roma's Palace, who had something to tell us by the Pope's order at the end of the Consistorial Congregation, which was to be held there. The Note contained these words.  
A Monsiur de Saint Amour.  
Che si compiaccia dimani dopo pranzo 11. di Luglio, corrente mese, essere co ' i sui compagni dal Sig. Card. Roma, che da sua Eminenza segli de ve parlare dopo la Congregatione Consistoriale, d' ordine di nostro Signore. Per gratia non manchi.  
We repaired thither accordingly in good time, and finding that it was much too soon, we went to make some particular visits in the neighbourhood, till his Maistre de chambre should bring us word that it was time for us to go thither again. A little while after we were there, we saw Cardinal Patotta come forth from that Consistorial Congregation, which was ended a little before. Cardinal Roma reconducted him to his Chamber door at the furthest. Then there came forth another Prelate, and we were introduced.  
M. Albizzi stayed behind there, which was undoubtedly that he might peform the Office of a Secretary or Public Notary, to take notice of what M. the Cardinal should say to us, and what we answered; that so the action might be more solemn, legal and authentic. He was seated as well as the Cardinal; but at a convenient distance. Chairs also were placed for us, and when we were seated, the Cardinal began in Italian to this effect; You are here Gentlemen (said his Eminence to us) in the name of some Bishops of France, as also in your own, to obtain of his Holiness the clearing of some Propositions which cause very great trouble in France. The Pope hath for that purpose ordained a Congregation, as you requested of him, and to the end you may if you please, go and particularly inform the Cardinals who are of it, of what you think fit; You shall be advertised that there are Five of them, namely (said he) Spada, Ginetti, Cechini, Ghiggi, and myself. Moreover when you shall be ready and desire to speak to us all together in Congregation, you may advertise us thereof; we will appoint a day for that purpose and acquaint you with it.  
The Abbot of Valcroissant answered to the Cardinal in Latin, and told him, we were much obliged to his Holiness for having had regard to the Remonstrances made to him by us on the part of the Bishops of France who ●ent us, and who, as well as we, had no other thoughts, as should be found in the sequel, then to preserve in the Church S. Augustin's doctrine, to which alone we adhered. That this resolution of his Holiness gave us much consolation, and hope that the Church and the H. See would receive all sort of advantage and satisfaction by it as well as ourselves.  
The Cardinal expressed briefly what desire himself had that this Congregation might produce all good effects, and what hope he conceived thereof. After which we made him our most humble remerciments, and he conducted us as far as he could towards the door of his Chamber, excusing himself that his weariness permitted him not to go further. Which I mention not in respect of any advantage or satisfaction to us thereby, but only to give account how things passed, and to acknowledge the goodness and courtesy of that pious Cardinal.  
I can say nothing as to Cardinal Spadas satisfaction or discontent at the Pope's granting us this Congregation; but I know that being that morning with the Pope at the Congregation of the H. Office, he had much conference with M. Albizzi, during which, though otherwise a very reserved Person, he gave great external signs of commotion and displeasure, whatever the cause were.  
Upon this Declaration of Cardinal Roma I laid aside my purposes of a journey into France during this Summer, about Domestic affairs, which required my presence. I now thought of nothing but applying all my industry together with my Colleagues to every thing whereunto we conceived ourselves obliged for the attaining of the other fruits and advantages which we hoped for from our Labours, which we had employed hitherto.  
The next day we went to render thanks to God for the same, and to congratulate with some of our particular Friends, and to carry the good news to the General of the Augustine's, who not being at his Covent, we acquainted some of the principal monastics of his Order.  
In the afternoon we went to the Ambassador, who was well pleased with our intelligence, and told us he thought he had much contributed to it by his importunity with the Pope at his audience eight days before. He told us also, that they (meaning the Pope and all his Council) would make a clear determination; that we should be heard as much as we desired; but they would not have us enter into endless contests and disputes, tending to the exasperation of the minds of men. I was beginning to answer the Ambassador, that we were far from desiring to enter into such disputes; and to show him in what honourable and civil, yet earnest and peremptory manner we always maintained it necessary to hear us in presence one of the other. When Cardinal Barberin arrived there, he coming incognito to see the Ambassador, we were obliged thereby to end this conference: yet we omitted not to deliver the Ambassador a Letter which the Bishop of Grass (now of Vence) writ to him concerning our affair.  
I conceive I should wrong the public as well as our cause, if the Copy of the sad Letter remaining with me, I should not insert it here. It was addressed à Monsieur Monsieur le Bailly de Valenscy Ambassadeur du Roy aupres de sa Saintele, and contained the following words.  
SIR,  
THough I am tardy in rendering you most humble thanks for the favours which the Doctors of Sorbon deputed to Rome by some of my LL. the Bishops of France have received from your goodness; yet I beseech you to believe that I had at first all the gratitude for the same which I think myself obliged to have by being interested in their deputation. The affair about whech they are employed, is so reasonable and so important to the Peace of the Church of France, which is bound up with that of the State, that knowing the zeal you have for the glory of both, I wonder not that you have by your just Protection countenanced those whose designs are so innocent and conformable to their duty. The Bishops are the centres of Ecclesiastical unity in their Dioceses, as the H. Father is the centre of unity in the whole Church. Wherefore observing divisions ready to arise about questions of high importance, we conceived we could do nothing more becoming the Episcopal Office, than to recur to his Holiness, that it would please him to take cognisance of the dispute, and determine the same by such ways as the Churth hath used to follow in such cases, and have been practised by his Predecessors. 'Tis a Demand so reasonable and so just, that we cannot imagine how it can be denied. Yet with all the justice of our Cause we still need the continuance of your favour, and am bold to hope it. We know, they who lately went to Rome, are strengthened with powerful Letters, and perhaps with extraordinary Orders: but we know better that your Prudence is able to distinguish between what Importunity, canvasing and Prejudice may attempt, and what is for the solid service of the Prince and the true interests of Religion and the State. You are concerned in this affair upon two accounts; As Ambassador of the greatest King in the World, you love the peace of his Kingdom, and you acquit that Charge with such courage and prudence, and your deportment cannot be too highly commended. But you are also a Religious, and a Religious of S. Augustin upon account of your Rule. Whence all the Defenders of his Doctrine are encouraged to believe that you will second them in so holy a quarrel, and that in this occasion you will fight for true Christianity, as your Order doth for Christendom. Your Ambassage will be signalised for ever, if during your exercising thereof, the Church see that famous Dispute terminated by your cares, which hath so long disturbed its quiet. I wish you that glory, and account it mine, to style myself  
SIR, Your most Humble and most Obedient Servant, ANTHONY Bp. of Grass and Vence.  
When we came from the Ambassador, we went to the four Cardinals nominated to us the day before by Cardinal Roma, to salute them as Deputies for the Congregation; but we found only Cardinal Ghiggi to whom we expressed extraordinary joy and satisfaction. He received us with great civility and courtesy, and made as it were excuses for the slowness of ordaining the Congregation, and told us the abundance of affairs at Rome had been the cause thereof.  
I went on Saturday the 13th. to give notice of the same to Monsignor Sacrista, but finding he was at the Pope's Palace, I went thither to him, and in discourse asked him whethether he did not think it expedient that we rendered our most humble thanks to his Holiness for the Congration. He much approved thereof, and immediately went to call the Pope's master de Chambre to me, whom I acquainted with my purpose, and concluded upon the next day for an audience.  
M. Rousse Cure of S. Roch had sent me a Letter for the General of the Capucines to whom I went to deliver the same in the afternoon; and discoursing with him, I found that M. Hallier and his Colleagues had been with him to beseech him that upon occasion of his visiting several of the Cardinals by reason of a journey he was shortly to take into France, he would tell their Eminences how in his first journey he had found that the Jansenists were multiplied in all parts, and how necessary it was to discredit and exterminate them, by cutting up their root before they could multiply further. Thus sincerely did this good Father declare the whole project to me. I did not disagree from him that thanks be to God, those whom those Gentlemen branded with the name of Jansenists, were sufficiently multiplied; but I told him it were to be wished that there were no persons in France or any where else but such as were decried under that name, because there were not in the world better Servants of God and the King, of the Church and the H. See.  
We spent the Forenoon of Sunday the 14th. in the Pope's Presence-Chamber expecting audience, but it was was wholly taken up by Cardinal Corrado.  
Monday the 15th. we writ a common Letter to all the Archbishops and Bishops who had encharged us with theirs to the Pope, and in whose name we acted at Rome. We sent them word that at length we had obtained the Congregation which they wished, and we had solicited by their order. Take the Copy of the Letter as it follows.  
My Lords,  
ALL that we have done hitherto at Rome, having been only to solicit the Pope and Cardinals for the Congregation which your Lordships demanded of his Holiness by your Letters concerning the Five Propositions; we conceived it sufficient to give account to such of your Lordships as were at Paris how things proceeded here. And till we had received his Holynesse's answer and orders concerning your Letters, we did not think it expedient to write to your Lordships in general. We presume your Lordships have understood what favourable reception his Holiness made us in our audience at our first arrival; how we represented to him the state of the affair concerning which you writ to him, and the necessity of pronouncing a Solemn Judgement in the Case, and establishing fpr examination of the Propositions, a Congregation in which the Divines of different opinions might be heard. Your Lordships have also seen the Memorial which we delivered to his Holiness according to the custom, to give him a compendious account of your demand; and been informed that his Holiness, after professions of his great esteem of your zeal for the Faith, the service of the H. See, and the peace of the Church of France, told us that he would maturely consider the importance of this affair, and the demand we made to him in your name, that he would see what would be most expedient for the good of the Church, and acquaint us with his Pleasure. After that, my Lords, we took care to inform the Sacred College of the whole affair; and remonstrate to their Eminences how profitable it would be that his Holiness established the Congregation which you required for the examination and decision of the Propositions. We have seen what great esteem their Eminences have of the Prelates of France, and we are not able sufficiently to represent to your Lordships the honour they do, and the favourable audiences they give us upon that account. They have all acknowledged the importance of the affair, and professed with much zeal that they will contribute all that lies on their part for the interest of Truth and the peace of the Church. In brief, my Lords, his Holiness who watches in behalf of the Church with a most pure intention, and most exact prudence, hath given us to understand his pleasure by the mouth of my Lord the Card. Roma Dean of the Sacred College. On Wednesday last we were advertised to repair to his Palace, that we might hear from his Eminence what his Holiness had ordained upon your Letters, and the demand made by us to him in your Names: We repaired thither at the hour appointed; His Eminence told us, that whereas we were come to that Court to demand of his Holiness in the Name of the Bishops of France, by whom we were sent, a Congregation for the examining and deciding of the five Propositions concerning Grace, his Holiness having our Suit, had granted the said Congregation; and that the Cardinals designed for it, were my LL. Spada, Ginetti, Cechini, Ghiggi, and himself; that if we would begin to inform their Eminences in particular, we might visit them; and when we were ready to argue in full Congregation, we might give them notice, and they would take care to assemble. We signified to his Eminence our obligations to his Holiness for having thus provided for this important affair, and told him we hoped it would have a good issue, to the clearing of truth, the glory of the H. See, and the peace of the whole Church; and that when your Lordships writ to his Holiness, you had no other design then to keep S. Austin 's Doctrine, received and approved by all the Church, and particularly by the H. See, from being crushed and oppressed upon occasion of certain Propositions invented to impugn the same, as we should make appear in the Congregation. After which, we took leave of his Eminence with great sentiments of joy for having understood the so just and so advantageous resolution of his Holiness. Thus my Lords, you have some effect of our solicitude, and a testimony of his Holinesses vigilance and wisdom in the government of the Universal Church. We cannot but ascribe it to a manifest Providence of God, who always watches over the H. See, that all the solicitations to his Holiness for a long time have been fruitless; and that whatever instances have been used to induce him to a Judgement disadvantageous to the Propositions, under pretext of the evil senses whereof they are capable, his Holiness hath always declined it, and at length ordained a Congregation in which we may be heard, both by word of mouth and writing. Without question all my Lords the Prelates of France will be extremely well pleased to hear that his Holiness hath taken this course, since in the present case of the contest about the matter of Grace, no way can be more expedient than this, for the clearing of truth, and our establishing peace in the Church. And although divers other Prelates have desired of his Holiness by their Letter only a bare decision upon the Propositions, yet certainly they had no other intention than your Lordships, though they did not so expressly declare it; and the persons who have pretended that those Prelates desired not that his Holiness would grant the Congregation which your Lordships demanded, have no doubt acted contrary to their intention. This we have easily justified in some occasions, by representing, that if those very Prelates were to take cognizance in a Council of the Questions upon which they desire a Judgement from the Pope, and if the Doctors should desire them that they would hear them first, and consider their Reasons and Remonstrances upon the matters to be decided, they would grant them that favour, and appoint the Divines to appear, that so they might hear what they had to say: from whence we concluded, that in demanding his Holiness' Judgement, they could not but approve that he should first hear the parties who presented themselves, according to your request. We shall endeavour, my Lords, to contribute what lies in us to the advancing of so important an affair, protesting to your Lordships, that in imitating your zeal, and following your orders, we aim at nothing in this Controversy besides the clearing of truth in one of the principal mysteries of Faith and Christian Piety, besides the peace of the Church, and the defence of S. Austin 's Authority and Doctrine, which hath always been in so great Veneration in all the Church of France, which found its first Defenders there in S. Prosper, and S. Hilary, which being afterwards impugned, hath been maintained by Caesarius Archbishop of Arles, and by all the Fathers of the Council of Orange; by Avitus Archbishop of Vienne, and by all the Holy Fathers who lived at that time; in fine, which hath had for its Protectors in the nineth Age the SS. Remigius, Florius, Prudentius, and so many other Saints, and in general all the Fathers of the Councils of Valence, Langres, and Toul, assembled from the greatest part of the Provinces of France. We read in S. Prudentius Bishop of Troy, who was so famous in his Generation for Learning and Piety, one of the fairest testimonies of all Antiquity for the Authority of S. Austin's Doctrine touching the matter of Grace, wherein that H. Prelate seems to address to all the Bishops of France at this day, what he then writ to Hincmarus and Pardulus: Hoc primum (saith that H. Father) praecipuéque, vestram sinceritatem monens & postulans, ut doctrinam Beatissimi Patris Augustini, omnium absque ulla dubietate undequaque doctissimi, Sanctarum Scripturarum autoritati in omnibus concordissimam (quip nullus Doctorum abstrusa earum scrupulosiùs rimatus, diligentiùs exquisierit, veriùs invenerit, veraciùs protulerit, luculentiùs enodaverit, fideliùs tenuerit, robustiùs defenderit, fusiùs disseminaverit) vestri Pontificatus tempore, commento quolibet impugnari non permittatis; quando tanto coelestis gratiae munere donata existit, ut nullo cujusquam conamine ullatenùs evelli possit, cùm eam & Apostolicae sedis sublimitas, & totius Ecclesiae Catholicae unitas, auctoritate concordissimâ approbarint ac roborarint: adeo ut nullus ei singulariter, verum Vniversitati Ecclesiae Catholicae cum ea & in ea queat anniti. Si enim adversam fidei Orthodoxae in quoquam conspiceret, nequaquam eam Romanae Ecclesiae Antistes Venerabilis Innocentius cum totius Orbis Episcopis suscepisset, neque praedictum Patrem memorabilem suarum Epistolarum communiter privatimque officiis affecisset, neque successor ejus Zozimus eodem tramite concurrisset, neque Bonifacius ejusdem Apostolicae sedis Praesul Epistolas Pelagianorum sibi delatas ei ad respondendum misisset, aut responsionem ejus quatuor libris editam probabiliter atque honorabiliter suscepisset. Coelestinus quoque memoratae Urbis Episcopus, quid contra Gallorum insaniam super eo ejusque doctrina senserit, ex auctoritate Apostolica Decretorum suorum scita declarant. Can it be doubted then my Lords, but the H. See will in its Judgement upon the five Propositions concerning Grace, confirm the Authority, and follow the doctrine of great S. Austin, approved and received by all the Popes that have spoken of it, and which we find at this day at Rome in general esteem, and most high Veneration? Ought we not to pray to God that Innocent the Tenth may at this time happily terminate what Innocent the First so well began, touching the Authority and Doctrine of the same S. Austin? and aught we not, my Lords, to hope that all the Faithful, who shall understand that things are preparing thereunto by the establishment of a Congregation, will with a spirit of truth, submission and peace, await the Oracle of the H. See, and that the troubles excited amongst them about those Questions, will be calmed by degrees, to the edification of the Church? for the good and honour whereof we beseech God to preserve your Lordships, with all the respect and esteem which we ought to have for your Sacred Persons.  
My Lords, Your Lordship's most humble and most obedient Servants, 

De Latane Abbot of Valcroissant.  
De Saint-Amour.  
Angran.   Rome, July 15. 1652.  
On Tuesday the 16th. I had occasion to go to our Printer, and as I returned I went to F. Guerin, whom M. Hallier and his Colleagues had visited that very morning. Among other things, M. Joysel had complained to him, that I reported them to be the Emissaries of the Jesuits: I never had such a thought; themselves had done it more than I: but I would fain know what they were else, considering the confederacy and perpetual correspondence they had with those Fathers, of which I had at my departure from this visit a fair proof from the Bishop of Bethleem, who came the same morning to see us; for he told us he had visited those Gentlemen before his coming to us, and found them all three with three Jesuits at their lodging, laying their heads together. But to go on with what F. Guerin informed me; he told me M. Hallier had said to him, all would have been as well as possible could be, if we would have forborn (as himself did) to drive the Jesuits upon the matter of Moral Theology: That it was highly advantageous to himself towards the justification of his present actings; that he had formerly been the sworn Enemy of those Fathers: That, speaking of M. Arnauld, he said, he had taken the liberty to set forth divers Positions in his book of Frequent Communion, whereof he was afterwards obliged to make explications, of which he gave two instances: First, That Satisfaction is necessary before Absolution: And secondly, That Priests have power as well to bind sinners, as to lose them. Now to judge what reason M. Hallier had to make these complaints, it is good to observe here by the way, that M. Arnauld never thought of the first, and the second is very true: Quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eye; & quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt, in the Gospel of S. John, Chap. 20. v. 23.  
F. Mariana dined this day with us: He told us, M. Hallier complained that he found many Jansenists at Rome (so he called all such as gave not a blind belief to his discourses, and had a sound and serious respect for S. Augustin's Doctrine:) and truly all Rome was full of this sort of Jansenists. This afternoon we went to the Palaces of the Cardinals Spada, Ginetti and Cechini, to pay them our respects upon their being nominated for our Congregation, but we found only Cardinal Ginetti, to whom we could acquit ourselves of this duty. Afterwards we visited Monsignor Sacrista, by whom we understood most of the same things that F. Mariana had told us concerning the discourse of M. Hallier and his Colleagues in their visit: He added, that M. Hallier protested to him, that he had no quarrel against Effectual Grace: That as for what passed under Clement the VIII. and Paul the V were he to take a side, he would rather be for the Dominicans then the Jesuits: That he had been a great Enemy of those good Fathers: That himself and I had been formerly very good friends: That I had been sometimes his Scholar (perhaps I might have been, and indeed when I commenced Doctor, M. Froger Cure of S. Nicolas du Chardonnet, who was the Director of my Studies, happening to die in that conjuncture, M. Hallier did me that office, which M. Froger was preparing to do for me the same day he died) In brief, M. Hallier told Monsignor Sacrista, that he esteemed S. Augustin's Doctrine good and Catholic, and yet in the course of the conference he said, That when a Proposition is once condemned by the Church, it is not to be regarded whether it be in S. Gregory, S. Augustin, or any other; supposing thereby, with as much ignorance as irreverence towards S. Augustin and the Church, That a Proposition of S. Augustin's in this matter of Grace under contest, may be the object of the Church's Censure, which is as much as to affirm, that the Church may condemn itself.  
On Wednesday morning, July 17. we paid Cardinal Cechini the same duty we had done the day before to Cardinal Ginetti: In the afternoon we went for the same purpose to the Palace of Cardinal Spada, but could not find him, and therefore went to that of Cardinal Roma, to thank him for contributing his assistance to procure the erection of the Congregation: The Cardinal told us he was glad of it, and that the business would be dispatched (si spedira presto:) That himself and the other Cardinals were properly only to govern it, and see that all things were transacted in a fitting manner, and according to form: That a great number of Divines (una gran mano di Theologi) would be present to hear us; that M. Hallier and his Colleagues had been sent for that very morning to him, as we had been the Thursday preceding: That the erection of the Congregation was signified to them, and that they were told, as we had been, that when they were minded to be heard therein, they should give notice of their desire, and the same should be assembled; and that they answered, that they were ready. I asked the Cardinal, whose care it should be to advertise us when they pleased to appear for a hearing, that so we might be present at it, and they reciprocally present when we should be heard? Also, who were the Divines that were to be at the Congregation? His Eminence answered, that neither point was yet resolved upon: That sometimes charge was given to Divines to prepare themselves for these matters, sometimes to others; that some had been excluded, others added: That being he would speak nothing but was certain, he could not yet tell us any thing concerning these particulars; but when the List was perfected it should be delivered to us, that we might repair to the persons if we pleased, although it would be very troublesome to visit so great a multitude (tanta gente.) We rendered most humble thanks to his Eminence, and told him we would expect his orders. As to the main business; he told us also in this conference, that he had studied these Questions formerly, and understood them a little: We took the liberty to tell him, that considering the difficulty of the matter, it was necessary for a man to apply himself entirely thereunto: He answered, that the Cardinals needed not so throughly to understand it as the Consultors; because the Cardinals have but a judgement in point of Prudence, the Consultors a Theological one, and the Pope a Decisive. Noi habbiamo un giuditio prudentiale, i Consultori il Theologico, & sua Santita il decisivo. Yet it may be said to the commendation of this pious Cardinal, that it were to be wished all the rest had been as diligently acquainted therewith as he.  
On Thursday the 15th, we went again in the afternoon to Cardinal Spadas house, but had not yet the good hap to meet with him. As we came back, we made a short visit concerning the business of the Congregation to the Cardinal of S. Clement, in whom we always found an admirable insight into these matters, and an equal vivacity and clearness of judgement: We were highly pleased with all that he said to us in this visit, which had been longer, if the Ambassador of Bologne had not intervened. We went thence to advertise Cardinal Barberin of the Congregation, who carried us abroad to take the air, and brought us back to our lodging. After which I went to our Printer, and as I returned, found F. Guerin at his door, who told me M. Lagault was newly parted from him, and had said to him, That were the Question only about Molina and S. Thomas, who held differing Doctrines indeed, but such as may be followed indifferently, and without error, they should not be so much concerned; but that the Propositions were as manifest Heresies as the denial of Transubstantiation, and though they were not in formal terms in Jansenius, yet it was clear, that they were the whole foundation of his Doctrine.  
On Wednesday the 19th, after we had accompanied the Ambassador to the Pope's Palace, I met him again at that of Cardinal Pamphilio, whence he carried me home to dine with him: He told me that he had much congratulated the Pope for the establishment of the Congregation; that he had told him that his Papacy would be the most illustrious of all those that had preceded him: that he had the most glorious occasion in the world; Doctors and Bishops of either side abundantly submissive, who respectfully attended the Oracle of his Decision, etc. The Ambassador told me also, that the King meddled not in the business, but as the common Father of all his Subjects, without inclining either to one party or other. And moreover, that if he were minded to take a side in this matter of Religion, it would be requisite that his Majesty did it after another way.  
Returning after Dinner to our Lodging to take my Colleagues, we went to Cardinal Spada, who received our professions of satisfaction for the erection of the Congregation. From thence we went to see the Generals of the Augustine's and the Dominicans; but finding neither of them, I made a short visit alone to the Cure of S. Saeviour, who acquainted me that M. Hallier and his Colleagues began to say that it would not be meet that we argued in the Congregation both sides present; and that one of the reasons which they alleged was, that it would take up too much time: whereas on the contrary (said the Cure to me) there is no more compendious and clear way then to speak in presence one of the other; because should we do it apart, they would go one way, and we another, and so we should put all into confusion.   

CHAP. II.  
Of the first Suspicions we had, that our Adversaries endeavoured to obstruct what was most essential to the Congregation, viz. an open hearing in the presence of either side. Of the solicitations we made thereupon the rest of this Month; and our discovering of a design to get Persons wholly suspected by us appointed for this Assembly. A very considerable Letter which I received about this time.  
THe jealousies continually given us (for whose entertainment we were but too apt) that M. Hallier and his Colleagues employed all their cares and the credit of their Patrons the Jesuits and others to quash the condition of mutual appearance in the Congregation ordained, obliged us to go on Sunday morning (July 21.) to the Pope's Maistre de Chambre, and tell him that we thought fit to defer our thanks to the Pope, because we conceived we should have occasion to address to his Holiness within a short time about some business, and we were willing to do both together. Wherefore we beseeched him to reserve till that time the courtesy which he had promised us in introducing us that day to have audience of his Holiness. Our design in this delay, was, to free ourselves from being obliged to speak to the Pope about this difficulty and circumstance, and to get it handsomely rectified by the Cardinals without needing to move his Holiness concerning it when we should give him our thanks for the Congregation which he had granted us, that so our acknowledgement might be serene and fair, as the Declaration of it made to us by Cardinal Roma was.  
But before I mention our solicitations about this matter, I cannot forbear to insert a Letter here, which I entreat the Reader to look upon as a thing by itself; and which I transcribe not, although it hath much reference to sundry things before and hereafter related, but because I find it very elegant, and apt in this place about the time in which I received it at Rome from a Doctor of Sorbon, one of my intimate Friends, who writ the same to me from the place where he than was, June 16. 1652. The Contents follow.  
June 16. 1652. SIR,  
I Received together the two large Letters you writ to me, full of testimonies of the confidence and Friendship wherewith you are pleased to honour me. If I durst, I should find fault with your going too far therein; for I can make no other construction of your too favourable judgement of me, than that it proceeds from a singular affection, which gives you an opinion of me far above what I acknowledge in myself. I have always written to you with sincerity, and freely signified to you my thoughts and sentiments concerning your journey to Rome about the affairs which you manage there, and concerning the Proposals which you have made to me. And because I see things not altered, or at least varied only in appearance and some circumstances, I cannot change my judgement or disposition. 'Tis true which you tell me, that the voyage and residence at Rome is dangerous, and more for regard of the corruption of the mind then of the body; because that of the latter is sensible and visible, and the other being spiritual is indiscernible, and ofttimes carries its poison into the bottom of the heart without being taken notice of, insensibly corrupting Faith and Reason itself by humane prudence, and a manner of life and deportment altogether Political, which people contract there, unless they be prevented by God's special protection and favour. And to tell you true, though I am much averse from that vice which passes for virtue in the world, yet I account not myself so strong, but that I think fit to avoid even the occasions of it. Nevertheless 'tis not this alone which keeps me from coming to you, and taking upon me that part which you would assign me in the affairs wherein you are engaged, and labour with the care and zeal which you have ever professed for the Church and the Truth. If I conceived I could be as serviceable therein as you apprehend, and could it reasonably be hoped matters would be so carried and have such effects and issues as you aim at, solitude should no longer detain me, nor the danger of the ways or residence at Rome keep me from offering myself to God, to do him service, and second you in that which you endeavour to perform to him. But I am so strongly persuaded of the contrary both by potent considerations taken from humane prudence, as well as from reasons divine, and founded upon the present posture of things, that all the Remonstrances in your Letters have not moved me, although otherwise I may say (I think) without flattery, I am very prone to resign myself and submit to my Friends, and so devoted to satisfy and content them as far as my ability reacheth, that I can scarce deny any thing to them without doing violence to myself, especially in things wherein the service of God and honour of Truth are concerned, and to persons with whom I have some particular league and engagement of Friendship as I have with you. No, Sir, I cannot believe that ever there will be a regular and free conference about the matters in contest at this day; and should there be one appointed, and persons found capable of debating the questions on either side, and Judges intelligent enough of the truth and sufficiently impartial to determine them (which is very difficult, not to say morally impossible) I could not promise to myself the success which you aim at, and seem to hold for certain. All that could be hoped, so far as I see, from such a Conference, and most upright Judges, deputed to preside in it, is, that things would remain as they are, and Truth not be more wounded and oppressed than it hath been formerly; should the Arbitrators be disposed to do something more, and to pronounce in favour of Truth; they who have been inveigled into the contrary part, the Temporal Powers engaged with them, and the Spiritual, who at the best that can be hoped from them (if we may judge by things past) are indifferent as to these matters, would quite stop the passing of such judgement, thereby to avoid offending so many of the world; and under pretence of eschewing Division and maintaining the Church's peace, leave things in the same state in which they are. If you judge my conjectures, and the consequences I draw from them disagreeing from your own thoughts, yet I am confident you cannot but say that the suppositions which I make and from whence I draw those consequences, are very favourable, and that I put the case of things as well as you can desire, and in better than there is hopes of seeing them. For leaving you to find Persons capable to propose, manifest and maintain the truth befittingly in a regular Conference, I think you will not be backward to confess that there is not the least likelihood of finding Judges sufficiently intelligent in these matters, sufficiently well affected to Truth, and sufficiently proof against all sorts of interests, to pronounce in its favour when they have discovered it: And if they were truly such, undoubtedly one of the Parties would except against them or elude and prevent their Judgement. These matters have been agitated, examined, and determined too in in abundance of the most important questions and difficulties by the authority and oft time in the presence of two great Popes very learned and of upright intentions. And you know what hath been the issue of those Conferences which lasted many years. You are far from seeing your affairs in so fair a way; and if you promise yourself a better issue thereof, I attribute it to your zeal and the affection you have for the cause you manage, which makes you build too much, and ground the hopes of your justly desired success upon the good reception that hath been shown you, and the fair words and promises which are given you. You will permit me to mind you that that coin is very current in the world, and more in the place where you are than in any other; 'tis that wherewith all payment is ordinarily made; and many times where there is least will and power to give, the promises are largest. We have a very fresh example hereof, and in the same affair that you are soliciting at present, in M. Sinnic and M. Bourgeois who prosecuted the same before you. All the world knows how they were received well, heard courteously, how they had sundry audiences of the Pope, who received their requests and remonstrances by word of mouth and by writing, who gave them good words and made them still hope from his Holiness all that could be hoped from a common Father of all the Faithful. M. Sinnic was invited and treated magnificently by Cardinal Barberin, who made him the goodliest promises in the world, at what time in all probability the design of remanding him home was already projected, and accordingly was effected shortly after. All the Proposals of accommodation made to you touching the B. of Ipre's book, the Doctrine it contains, and the Bull that hath been made to fulminate against it, seem to me as suspicious as the promises that are given you, and are of much more dangerous consequence. You know Sir, by experience, in some general and particular Assemblies of the Faculty in which you were present, how all people easily hearken to such accommodations, how it is easy to be inveigled to remit something of the interest of truth in such cases, either by surprise, or by weakness covered with the pretext of peace; and how such accommodations and modifications are prejudicial to the truth. These are wounds which prove afterwards irremediable; because they are made by those who profess to defend it; and in this they injure it more than they who openly impugn it, and are its greatest Enemies. I confess to you, I could never read without pity (and I speak it too without any indignation) the Objections and Proposals made to you about the B. of Ipre's book and the Bull; and that which most amazes me is, that they who made those Objections and Proposals, pass for persons very intelligent and well-affected towards the truths of Grace. For to reply that M. d' Ipre intending to justify some Propositions of S. Augustin's, found among those of Balus, which have been condemned, and desirous to reconcile the Authority of the H. See, and of the Bull which seems to condemn them, saith Haereo; 'tis but to quarrel with that great Lover and Defender of S. Augustin, and Indict him for a word, and for a word very well spoken, and which shows his great moderation amidst his great knowledge, and the incomparable zeal he had for the truth. How frequently doth S. Augustin use the same manner of speech, or like it in his works, when he meets with some difficulty, even against the most important mysteries and certain principles of Faith? How often hath he remained in such dubitation, while he inquires the manner and way how original sin is contracted; not to mention abundance of other difficulties, in which he scruples not to declare his perplexities? and his modesty goes sometimes so far, as to acknowledge and confess his ignorance in certain cases. If it be demanded, how the Eternal Father begets his Son, how Jesus Christ gives us his Body in the Eucharist, how that Body can be the Life and Food of our Souls: If abundance of other questions be put touching our Mystery, touching the Articles of Faith, touching the difficult places of Scripture, to reconcile passages together which seem contrary one to another: who is there of the Doctor's Ancient and Modern, that continuing firm in what the Faith teacheth us concerning those Questions, not only saith not as M. d' Ipre, Haereo, but confesseth not that he cannot render a true reason of what he believes, and remains all his life in that ignorance? And shall it then be taken ill, that in a very difficult and intricate Question or Fact, in which some unskilful or ill-meaning persons have gone about to set the Authority of the Pope against that of S. Augustin, pretending to subject some Propositions of this Doctor of the Church to the censure of the H. See, M. d' Ipre who hath laboured with as much and more diligence and fidelity than any one whatever upon this point, upholding S. Augustin's Doctrine without injuring the authority and respect which is due to the H. See, should say at the first view of this affair so intricate and so difficult to disentangle, Haereo? They who frame these complaints against that great Prelate, and they who wonder and suffer themselves to be overawed when they hear them, show they have no great understanding in the Doctrine of the Church, and S. Augustin, nor much steadfastness in what they know thereof. And though they cover their accusations with the Authority of the H. See, yet I can tell you with assurance, that they have not (or at least their proceed argue not) so much zeal, nor so pure and disinteressed respect for the Head of the Church, or the Church itself, as M. d' Ipre hath had and testified in sundry important occasions, both by his actions, and by his writings. Other particulars wherewith he is charged, flow from the same Fountain, and are no less unjust than groundless: If he hath written concerning the matters of Grace, since a prohibition of the H. See, he is not the only man that hath done so, but 'tis he alone that hath written in that manner that he hath done, having only reported the sentiments of S. Augustin, whom the Church owneth, not only as one of its Pillars, but as its Master and Teacher, particularly in the matters of Grace; and he writ his book, being a Prelate and Pastor of the Church; should all those who writ before and after him, have incurred the Censure of the H. See; yet methinks all these peculiar considerations ought to secure him from it. Nevertheless, by a most manifest injustice, endeavours are used to get his book subjected to Censure, and to acquit all others: Whereas it is alleged, as you tell me, that the other books have not been informed against as this hath been, and that had they been complained of, and presented to the Pope, they would likewise have been prohibited: This is to seem blind in these things and deeds either through ignorance, or passion; through ignorance and want of understanding in these matters, if we admit they speak really; through passion and interest, if knowing well how the same have passed, and not believing what themselves pretend, they think to make the same credited by others: For all the world knows how many complaints have been made, how many Petitions have been presented to the Pope against the Jesuits, and the books and writings published by them about these matters, which yet they urge, are prohibited to be written of. In one single printed Petition have been noted, I think, twenty Jesuitical Authors, who have set forth books since that Prohibition, which is urged to stop that of the Bishop of Ipre. When M. Sinnic passed by Paris to go to Rome, he took with him a Copy of the Theses of Louvain, printed at the foot of the Bull, wherein they were expressly prohibited. And for all this, ignorance is pretended, and they say Justice should have been done against those Authors and their writings, had complaint been made thereof to the H. See. I confess Sir, I admire how any dare allege such excuses in the place where you are, as they so confidently do; and how they can hold you in hand with, etc. You see Sir, with what liberty I writ and expose my thoughts to you in answering to your Letters: 'Tis an evidence of the sincerity of the friendship I bear you, and of the confidence I have in yours. Assure yourself I do not forget you in my addresses to Almighty God; I represent to him your affairs and necessities as my own, and beseech him to make me as I desire to be always, more and more yours; which I shall look upon as his mercy towards me, & the making me more to be his. And I desire you to beg the same of him in my behalf.  
The same day that we desired the Pope's Maistre de Chambre to defer the Audience which he was willing to procure for us, as I related at the beginning of this Chapter, I went in the afternoon to Cardinal Ghiggi, partly in reference to M. Hallier and his Colleagues, partly to make some Remonstrances to his Eminence touching the Consultors and M. Albizzi. I told him that I came to speak to his Eminence about some things a little troublesome, which concerned our affair; that I was loath to give him disturbance with them, but we could not represent the same to him, to the end he might take some order therein if he could, unless his Eminence were advertised thereof, that so if the Pope happened to speak to him about them, he might be prepared to tell his Holiness his sentiments. I told him, that when we were sent for to Cardinal Roma, to hear the Declaration which he was to make to us from the Pope concerning the erection of the Congregation, M. Albizzi was present at what the Cardinal said to us; that by being so it seemed to us that M. Albizzi was intended to be Secretary of the said Congregation, and that the same appeared to us very hard to admit, considering his great prepossession against us, and the extreme partiality which he professed as openly in behalf of our Adversaries. Now to satisfy the Cardinal concerning his partiality, I intended to represent to him, 1. What M. Albizzi had done in the business of the Hours. 2. That he had told me that my opposing the Censure M. Cornet endeavoured to get passed in our Faculty against the Propositions, was a disservice to the H. See. 3. That upon a bare suggestion of F. Mulard, he had obstinately maintained that we were not deputed by several Bishops. 4. The manner wherewith, being in his Antichamber, I had heard him speak of me to two Flemish Cordeliers. 5. His insolence at la Minerve upon a very civil visit which we made to him. 6. His opposition, and rigorous, and altogether unjust treatment of us about the impression of S. Augustin. 7. What he had done on the other side to get published F. Annat's book, if he could, against the Pope's intention; and how he quarrelled with the Printer when he saw that Father's book prohibited by the Pope. 8. The continual correspondence he hath held with M. Hallier and his Colleagues, since their arrival, besides that which he hath always held with the Jesuits. 9 What I heard from F. du Plantet, that he had wonderful kindness for them and their affair. 10. I had also purposed to speak to him about the diversity of the Commaes, which he had caused to be put into the second impression of the Bull of Vrban VIII. purposely to comply with the Jesuits: But I could not particularly acquaint the Cardinal with any thing but the insolence which M. Albizzi had showed us at la Minerve, and his dealing with us about our impression of some of S. Austin's works; but I did it with great resentment, terming it barbarous and un procedere di Turco: I added, that it was a shame that he should deport himself thus with the countenance of their Eminences, and oftentimes acting in their names: That I had proofs hereof at hand, but it would require an hours time for his Eminence to see them. The Cardinal seemed moved at my discourse, and almost convinced of what I said; yet he told me, that we might comfort ourselves, for that the Pope and their Eminences would look exactly into the matter, having purposed so to do; that he was sorry for our discontent; but should a Prince have regard to the inclinations and aversions which one side or other may have against persons, nothing would ever be done: I assented to him, that to do so generally is difficult, yet experience sometimes shows, that it is necessary (and the late History of Mascambrun sufficiently evidences that I had reason.)  
Then I proceeded to speak concerning the choice and alteration made of the Consultors, attributing the same chief to the suggestions of M. Albizzi, and adding, that we had cause to fear that he would do his utmost to introduce persons engaged in the sentiments of the Jesuits, and exclude such as he saw inclined to favour S. Augustin's Doctrine.  
The Cardinal told me by the way, that S. Augustin's Doctrine, was out of all danger, che non patirebbe niente. He said also, that the choice of the Consultors was ordered by the Pope, who elected one person to day, and another to morrow; that it depended wholly upon his Holiness; nor ought any to ask why he did thus or thus, for he was the Master.  
I replied, that indeed the Pope was the Master; but M. Albizzi having the advantage to suggest to him this person or that, and to represent reasons to his Holiness for the exclusion of some or others, he might bear a great stroke in the nomination. That besides, he had so great a sway over the Consultors, that they had not the liberty to speak their suffrages in his presence, when they saw the same were not consentaneous to his sentiments and desires, lest having private access to his Holiness every eight days, and a great freedom with their Eminences, he might do them ill offices. That some of them had told me that they had formerly been spoken to about these matters, but because they had declared themselves a little too forwardly in behalf of the cause of Grace, they had heard no further of them since. That myself had experience hereof, upon an occasional meeting with the F. Commissary of the H. Office, when discoursing very gently with him about the first Proposition, and he being satisfied with the answers which I made to him, M. Albizzi superven'd, and thereupon the Commissary became as it were Metamorphosed, and not like the same man, speaking to me with a rude and sharp voice; but when M. Albizzi was gone, the Commissary resumed his former stile, and told me it was requisite to use such language as he had done only to please him.  
The Cardinal answered, that the Pope speaking to him about M. Albizzi, said, that indeed he was a man that sometimes spoke roughly and passionately, but otherwise when any thing was to be done, he considered twice upon it.  
I told the Cardinal how little versed M. Albizzi was in the matters of Grace, and so was an incompetent person for the right discharging the office of Secretary in a Congregation, wherein that business was to be thoroughly examined. The Cardinal answered, that perhaps he would be the fit for it, because he was only to write down what should be dictated to him: I replied, that to give a true Relation of a Disputation held between Dvines about this matter, it was requisite for the Relator to understand fully the Opinions both of the one side and the other, that so he might comprehend the knot of the difficulty, and faithfully report what should be alleged by either party in defence of their Sentiments. That heretofore, in the time of Clement the VIII. and Paul the V there were two Secretaries; and therefore admitting M. Albizzi for one, it was our request that at least another might be added to him.  
I proceeded then to acquaint him with a third thing which troubled us; namely, that after we had Petitioned for a Congregation, in which the Parties might be heard coram openly; that after it had been declared to us, that the Pope had granted the Congregation which we petitioned for; yet it seemed M. Hallier and his Colleagues endeavoured to hinder the execution of the same as it was promised. That we designing to speak nothing but what was true and justifiable, were very desirous to have them present at the Declaration of our Sentiment, to the end they might either assent and acquiesce in them, or be convinced thereof in case of denial. On the other side, fearing they might vent many false, fictitious, and frivolous things, we desired likewise to be present at their Hearing, that so they might be awed by the apprehension of our replying to them; or in case they uttered any thing of that strain, the same might be forthwith excepted against by us, and refuted. That the communication alone of Papers was not sufficient for this purpose, because possibly they might declare themselves more amply in speaking, as to some things, which in their Papers they would but slightly touch upon; yet this slight touching might be enough to mind those Persons whom they have tampered with, of all that they have beforehand privately suggested, which however extremely false, must needs pass for true, unless it be refuted, which is not to be done, unless they be heard; because the transient intimations in their writings, will scarce be taken notice of, or make impression; That therefore it was absolutely necessary, not only that there be an reciprocal communication of the Papers of one side to the other; but also that we be heard viva voce, and that in the presence of both Parties.  
Cardinal Ghiggi asked me whether we had acquainted Cardinal Roma with these things. I told him, That we had, but received no plain answer from him about them. That I hoped his Eminence would be favourable to our Desires, because besides the justness and advantageousness of them, they were also congruous to the practice both of the Church and of the H. See. The Cardinal then replied, that those Practices were understood well at Rome.  
I added that we had express order to be importunate upon this point, and no power to act otherwise; and therefore we beseeched his Eminence to bring it about that we might suffer no difficulty therein.  
The Cardinal began to be something moved at this, and told me; It seems than you intended to give law to the Pope, but the Pope would receive none from any. I answered that we intended no such thing; but all our business was to desire in the name of some Bishops who sent us, a thing which they conceived the Pope's justice, wisdom and prudence would easily condescend to their request. He replied, But, questa parola, Vogliamo, That word, we will. I answered that it was often used innocently to express that which is desired, without pretending to give law to any person; but for my part I had not used it. He acknowledged I had not; but added that this other, Non Possiamo, We cannot, had the same meaning. I answered that it was requisite that we, who acted not in our own names, should express by some some word our obligation to keep within the limits the Power hath given us; that it behoved us to follow our orders, and that if we went beyond them, we should be subject to be disavowed. He excepted, But can those Bishops themselves impose Law upon us? I answered that to desire of the Pope urgently, but yet with all possible respect a thing so very just, was not to impose Law; and that I should not have spoken to his Eminence so much as I had done, but only to avoid the necessity of speaking the same elsewhere more publicly; and to the end that he knowing our orders, might by his prudence and goodness assist us to execute them without further publishing thereof.  
Touching the choice of the Consultors, I proceeded to tell him that if it were thought fit, I assent that all the Consultors and Qualificators of the H. Office were indifferently taken, that so the business might clearly appear to be done without any partiality. And should it be conceived that I made this Proposal, because there were many Dominicans of it, I was willing that they should be excluded as well as the Jesuits. The Cardinal excepted, Why so? Why not a Dominican and a Jesuit? I answered, that as for the Jesuits, it could not seem reasonable to admit them for Judges in a cause wherein they were Parties; that we had declared them such at first; that 'twas they who had excited all this contest, by their intrigues in our Faculty, to get S. Austin's doctrine condemned, and that by the most strange and unequal proceed imaginable. That when the same should come to be laid open in the Congregation, it would scarce seem credible how such projects could enter into the minds of men who ought to have some Piety and Learning. The Cardinal replied, that others might say as much of us, but that the truth of all would be seen in the sequel. At the end of this Conference he reommended two things to me; First to endeavour as much as we could to make our writings short and intelligible; and secondly, to do all things with patience and moderation. I answered that I conceived we had hitherto acted according to that temper, and in case it happened we fell into any other, it would be an obligation to cause us to be advertised thereof, to the end we might take a better course.  
The next day in the afternoon I went to wait upon Cardinal Roma. I told him that my Colleagues remained at our Lodging to prepare our Papers against the Congregation, and that in the mean time I was come to acquaint him with some things which troubled us as to that particular. I repeated to him almost the same which I have newly set down. He made not so large answers thereto as formerly; yet he satisfied my scruples as courteously as he could; and as for the point of being heard in the presence of both parties, he readily acknowledged the benefit of it, and the necessity there would be for it sooner or later. However he advised me to repair to the other Cardinals, to tell them as much as I had said to himself in reference to this Article.  
The same Evening about ten a clock I received a visit from an Archbishop, who chose that hour purposely to come and see me incognito, and could not longer defer telling me some news which he conceived would be very acceptable to me. He told me that he had conferred with the Pope that morning about our affairs. That his Holiness himself gave occasion to the Discourse, and told him that he still remembered the time when the Congregations de Auxiliis were held under Clement VIII. and Paul V that he knew all the world was then for the Dominicans against the Jesuits; that for a long while together the publication of the Bull whereby the Jesuits were condemned, was daily expected; that nevertheless it was not published, though they well deser'vd it; But it was conceived that the H. See acted prudently (Fìc stimato allora grand prudenza, said the Pope) in not publishing their condemnation; because though the said Definition would have appeared with the general satisfaction of all intelligent Persons, yet those matters surpassed the reach of the unlearned, and the generality of the Faithful. That moreover the Pope said that he knew the Jesuits Sentiments were not good; and that if he condemned them, there were no Persons of Learning & Ability throughout Europe but would be satisfied and well pleased therewith: But that these Truths were so far above the ordinary capacity of Man, and the weak being much more numerous than the strong, more would be scandalised than edified with such condemnation. Whence this Archbishop concluded that if in the process of time I obtained not my designed condemnation of the pernicious opinions of Molina and his Brethren, yet I was sure the Pope would never pronounce any thing in favour of them; and consequently those whom I defended were no wise in danger of being condemned. He told me also that hereupon he had made a motion to his Holiness, that considering the Jesuits were so violent in their exorbitances against S. Austin's doctrine, he would please to make a Decree, by which all the Faithful might be enjoined in general to follow that great Light of the Church and embrace his Sentiments. That his Holiness paused upon this Overture, and as he believed, would take it into consideration.  
I had told Cardinal Ghiggi something of what I heard from Cardinal Roma about the changing of the Consultors, June 17. which he did not so expressly confirm to me in my visit of the 22d. Wherefore I thought fit to advertise Cardinal Ghiggi of what I had understood from him in both conferences. For which purpose I went to him on the 23d. and passing from one Discourse to another, he held me about an hour in speaking sometimes about our affairs and sometimes about other indifferent matters. Amongst other he told me, That we and our Adversaries endeavoured to ingratiate with those who sent us by making a great stir, and giving them a punctual account of all our Diligences. Whereunto I answered, That as for M. Hallier, he had professed to us, that those by whom he was sent to Rome, were so little anxious about any thing that was done there, that he offered me to forbear writing any thing touching our affairs into France, if we would forbear too. But we could not accept the Offer, because the Bishops in whose name we were there, were concerned for the least circumstances of what passed either well or ill in our negotiations, so great interest did they take in the affair wherewith they had encharged us, and accounted the same of such high importance. I had received by Letters of June 28. a new Order precisely to proceed in this manner; and therefore told the Cardinal that we could not disobey in this point, but we should certainly satisfy this Duty every eight days. Yet I added, that by writing nothing but the Truth we did our utmost to eschew the exasperation of things, and rather to qualify and sweeten whatever passages we had reason to be scandalised and discontented with. That moreover we sought not to make a stir without necessity, because we could scarce be sufficient for such things as were indispensible, and therefore had entreated my LL. the Prelates to send two or three Persons more to assist us, that so we might better acquit ourselves of what was to be transacted both by Speech and Writing in the Congregation.  
Going the next day to speak with sundry persons whom I conceived were then to be met with at la Minerve, I happened to light upon a Dominican of great age, yet of a vigorous health and mind, who I afterwards understood was called F. Galassini; he advised me to take care to the nomination that was to be made of the Consultors for our Congregation, and told me he had learned from a good hand, that before they were pitched upon, some Persons did their utmost to oblige them to declare themselves for Molinisme.  
The other considerations upon which, as I related above, the Cure of S. Savior had counselled us to retain an excellent Advocate well versed in the Court of Rome, lest we might do any thing contrary to form, joined to those first difficulties about hearing us in presence of either side, and those petty reproaches of intending to impose Law while we desired to be heard, the Parties present, obliged us at length to retain one, who, when occasion required, might plead the justness of our Demands with more earnestness than we durst ourselves, and press his Holiness and their Eminences with more liberty than we might take, being accustomed, as they are, to repair to them about affairs, which they lay forth to them at large; and lastly, who might sometimes draw some secrets and intimations from them, which their shyness kept from us. For these reasons we went on Wednesday July 24. in the afternoon to Signior Eugenio of Perugia, a man of great parts and of a very solid and free spirit.  
I went next to give half a dozen of our books to the General of the Augustine's, who told me that himself was appointed for the examination of the Propositions, but with injunction of secrecy. I heard also at the same time, that Cardinal Roma was the cause that this General was put into the number of the Consultors.  
We went on Monday, Aug. 5. to la Minerve, M. Valeroissant and I, to give some to the General of the Dominicans; but not finding him, we left them for him, and gave some to divers of his Order.  
In the afternoon I went to carry a couple to M. Albizzi, who received the same with civility enough, and said, there could be nothing but good, being S. Austin's; and that he would shortly peruse them. I told him, we designed nothing else in procuring this Impression, but the clearing of things; that when he understood us, perhaps we should be more in his favour than we were; but the calumnies of all sorts spread against us were so numerous, that I wondered we were not less: He answered me, that credit was not given to all reports; that he had lately been told of things alleged against him by us to deprive him of the Secretaryship; that he did not value the suggestion; that neither money, nor preferment, nor any other interest, could engage him to procure the condemnation of the Propositions. I replied, that neither had we any other interest but the service of Truth, and that of the H. See; that I hoped he should find it so; but indeed, I had said upon some occasions, that hitherto we had been much in disfavour with him, and that I wondered we were not more, considering the ill impressions suggested to him of us. In fine, that both he and I were to give account to God of the things which we should do in this world; that the time would speedily come, and that it behoved us to endeavour to do nothing whereof we might be ashamed before the Tribunal of his Divine Justice. I offered him as many of our books as he pleased, and left him with fifteen or twenty Letters newly brought him, which put an end to my visit.  
The same day I made another particular visit, wherein I learned that the custom of the Rota allowed us to print our writings in as great number as was needful to deliver to the Judges; and that M. Hallier, and his Colleagues, were taken in many places of Rome for people that attempted the ruin of S. Austin's Doctrine.  
On Tuesday, Aug. 6. I went to present our book to Cardinal Pamphilio, and withal to give him thanks, as the Pope's Nephew, for the establishment of our Congregation. He received all with satisfaction and civility. Thence I went to present one to Cardinal Cechini, and though he was weary with a Congregation that had been held at his house all the morning; yet I forbore not to tell him, that the book presented to him, contained all the Fundamentals requisite to be known for the clear comprehending of the present Controversies in the Church, and in what manner it was fitting to determine them.  
Cardinal Ginetti, to whom I delivered one in the afternoon, put me in mind to present a couple to each of the Cardinals of our Congregation; one bound in red Spanish Leather, with their Arms stamped in gold upon the Cover, and the other in Parchment, both of the best binding that could be had in Rome. For having received these two, he told me, that one of them was to give to Monsignor Ginetti his Brother. I signified to his Eminence, that I had another for him; but that second was for their Divine, or such other person as they pleased to favour with it, and whose assistance their Eminences perhaps might be willing to use in the Study whereunto they would be obliged for the discussion and decision of the Propositions. He asked whether this was all the informations that we purposed to deliver to them? I answered him, No; but that this book was the main foundation of them. Accordingly I went to present one to Monsignor Ginetti, who told me he had already read some of our Adversaries Papers, and should be very willing to read this work also.  
Thence I went for the same purpose to Cardinal Barberin's Palace; but not finding him there, I carried one to M. Holstenio, who testified very great satisfaction therewith. He much commended our design, and told me that after our example he would get printed some little Treatises of S. Cyprian and S. Augustin De Unitate Ecclesiae, & De U●ilitate credendi, etc.  
On Wednesday Aug. 7. I went to la Minerve to give some Books to such persons there as had not yet received any, and to whom we were obliged to do it. I gave two more to the General of the Dominicans, who told me that M. Hallier said in a visit to him, That he did not intent against S. Austin, nor against S. Thomas, nor against Effectual Grace; That he would not meddle with the matters that had been handled in the Congregations De Auxiliis; in a word, that he aimed only against Calvin.  
When I gave one on Thursday Aug. 18. to the Procurator General of the Capucines, he told me he had been very glad to see the Latin explication of the Propositions, which was made shortly after M. Cornets enterprise, and gins In Nomine Domini, etc. and that he was well edified therewith. He received it from the F. Capucine Assistant of France named F. Brisse, to whom I had sent it, having fallen into his acquaintance by going together once or twice to his General. When I gave one the same day to the Procurator General of S. Marcel, he told me that M. Hallier had made a second visit to him, in which he talked after a quite other manner than he had done in the first. The F. Abbot de la Paix at his receiving one from me, told me that Cardinal Lugo had counselled him to take heed of us, for we went about to defend Jansenius under pretext of defending S. Austin. When I delivered some to Cardinal S. Clement, I presented some also to his Nephews, whose parts, studiousness, modesty and civility were in particular veneration with me.  
At my delivering some to M. Eugenio our Advocate, I fell into the knowledge of a young Florentine Gentleman named Signior Cosimo Brunetti at his House, in whom at that first converse I found a very great vivacity and solidity of Spirit, with a free and ingenuous integrity, much fine Learning, a very prompt, open and obliging nature. He sojourned at our Advocate's House for his improvement in the study and practice of the laws, and to observe the way and genius of the Roman Court. I offered him a Copy, which he accepted with great professions of acknowledgement for the civility which I showed him.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of an Audience which I had of the Pope, Aug. 9 when I presented our Tome of S. Augustin to his Holiness.  
ON Friday Aug. 9 I went to give one of our Books to the Popes Maistre de Chambre, and desired him to procure me audience that morning, to present a Copy likewise to his Holiness. Whilst I was in the Presence-chamber, I delivered some to sundry Chamberlains of Honour and other Officers, who all received the same not only with testimonies of civility, but also with professions of an universal and high esteem of the works of that H. Doctor. Presently after, I was introduced to the Pope, where having first rendered him our most humble thanks for the Congregation which he had established in order to our affair, I presented him the Book. At first he made some difficulty to receive it, not knowing what it was, lest his particular reception of it might be (as he told me) interpreted for a public approbation. I signified to him that it was nothing but S. Augustin, and that it was not to be doubted but his Holiness had such Sentiments of approbation and esteem for the doctrine and works of that H. Doctor, as his Predecessors had given him example. The Pope answered that there was no doubt but S. Austin's doctrine was authorised by the Church, and aught to be embraced as that of the Church itself; but every one endeavoured to draw the same to his own side, and pretended it congruous and favourable to his Opinions. I replied that the preventing that disorder and foolish pretention of our Adversaries, was partly the design of printing this Collection, in which were the principal and last works which S. Augustin had written upon the matter in contest, when the greatest difficulties possible to be brought against it, had been both by those whom he opposed, and those whom he instructed, improved to the highest degree to which they could be raised. That we had put into this collection, not only some principal passages of those works, but the works themselves entire, to the end it might be seen more clearly and certainly which was the true and undoubted doctrine of that Saint. That they whom a secret light of Conscience convinced that they falsely presumed this heavenly doctrine to be consentaneous to their low and carnal opinions, thwarted this Impression purposely to hinder it; that it had been retarded a full month by their devices; but at length the Tribunal of the H. Office, whither we were drawn upon this business, judged that there was no ground to inhibit the finishing of it. That since it had been finished, I had presented Copies of it to almost all the Cardinals of whom the said Tribunal consisted, and who all received the same with satisfaction. The Pope replied and bid me give his to Cardinal Ghiggi, and signify to him that he should deliver the same to his Holiness, when it was time for him to read it. I answered that I should do what he appointed, but I conceived nothing hindered but his Holiness might receive it, and likewise read it when he thought good: That there was nothing at all new in it besides the Preface, in which we had collected together the advantageous testimonies of Saints, Popes and Cardinals touching these very works which we had caused to be printed. The Pope replied that those who had been at Rome in behalf of Jansenius on the part of the University of Louvain, had also made Collections, to show the authority of S. Austin's doctrine; but it was a thing concerning which there was not any doubt. I rejoined, that as for Jansenius, his Holiness well knew that we had already declared to have nothing to do with him, and that we took no side but that of S. Austin; but that the Passages in the Preface were not only to show the authority of his doctrine, but also to explicate the order and series of those works of that Father which we had caused to be printed; the matters which were handled in each of these works, and the occasion which induced S. Austin to compose them. Here I opened the Book, and read some passages of the Preface as they presented themselves. The Pope heard them willingly, and among the rest that of Pope Hormisdas, wherein it is so expressly declared that the Sentiments of the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church touching the matter of  and Grace are contained in sundry of S. Austin's works, but chief in two, De Predestinatione Sanctorum, and De bono Perseverantiae. After which the Pope received the Book which I was come to present to him.  
Then he fell to speak concerning our affair, and told me we must hasten to do on our part what was necessary for the speedy dispatch of it, because he intended on his to set about it with diligence, for some reasons which he mentioned. I answered that we would use all possible expedition; that for that purpose my Colleagues stayed at home in order to prepare our Papers, lest, being uncertain whether his holiness's affairs would permit us an audience for presenting the Books, they might have lost two or three hours in his Presence-Chamber; but had they been sure of admittance, they would not have failed to have come also, and been partakers of the honour and comfort which I received in this conference with his Holiness. That his Holiness might hence see how we managed our time, and how diligent we were to be in a readiness to employ the Congregation which his Holiness had granted to us. That I assured him, my Colleagues had since notice of its erection, many times spent ten or twelve hours a day about the business The Pope replied that so we must do if we would have expedition of him; that he was old, that he had lived fourscore years, and that if we hastened him not, he should go on slowly. I told him I should acquaint my Colleagues with his holiness's desire of speed, and that the same should further oblige us to redouble our diligences; but in the mean time whilst we were doing what lay in our power, and all the Congregation were employed in a serious discussion of what he had to represent to them, the tidings of its establishment spread throughout all Christendom, would very much quiet the most restless minds with the expectation of an approaching satisfactious decision.  
I further took the confidence to intimate to the Pope our extreme desire that his Holiness' other affairs would allow him some time for the reading of that little Book which I had presented to him, in order to prepare himself for the Decision which he intended to make, not only in regard of the necessity there was for it, to the end he might rightly apprehend of himself whether we or our Adversaries truly maintained S. Austin's doctrine, but also in reference to the incredible satisfaction which I hoped he would receive from it. Whereof to raise in his Holiness some desire, by what myself had received as often as I had read those little Treatises, I told him (what was most true) that I had already read the same several times, and knew in general all that was contained therein; but I had found so great a sweetness in the bottom of my Soul as often as I had read them, that should I see all the Grandeurs and riches of the world together offered to me on condition to lose the hope and liberty of reading those works again when it pleased God to give me time and desire so to do; certainly all those Grandeurs and riches would be as nothing to me in comparison of that advantage.  
I represented to him what might be desired from thence in reference to the clearing of obscurities pretended to be in the Sentiments of this so clearsighted Doctor; and added, that I conceived I might assure his Holiness, that our Adversaries could bring no Objection from Humane Reason or the Authority of the Scriptures against the opinions we defended, but what we could show in those very works to have been made to S. Austin, and make appear that the Answers made thereunto in his time were the same with those made by us at this day. After the Pope had had the goodness to hear all which I here relate, and more amply than is recited, he answered me in these words with some kind of astonishment; Dite gran cose, You speak great matters; and I replied in these very terms, E vero, Beatissimo Padre, posso ingannarim, mà crado ch' io non m' inganno. 'Tis true, most H. Father; the things which I speak are great and appear little credible; I may be mistaken, but I think I am not. This answer I uttered with so much confidence, and as so strongly persuaded of the things which I spoke, and the Pope heard the same with such attention, that me thought he also was half persuaded with what I had said to him.  
In fine, I told him further, That 'twas a wonder how he had not been surprised in this affair, after all the inventions and artifices employed to circumvent him; that we hoped he would perceive the same in the sequel, and bless God for it as well as we; and that when he should have one day made, as we hoped, a solemn decision, the Church would have cause to say of him more truly than the Poet Ennius ever had to say of Fabius Maximus:  
Vnus homo nobis cunctando restituit rem.  
His Holiness smiled; and having given me his Benediction, I withdrew.   

CHAP. V.  
Of the extraordinary Summons made to us by Cardinal Roma, at the instigation of M. Albizzi to provide within a Fortnight the Writings which we were to deliver; Of the two first which we got ready within that time, and subscribed upon S. Augusti 's day.  
IN the afternoon of the same day I went to carry a couple of our Books to Cardinal Barberin, who said to me as he received them, Gli altri se ne serviranno ancora, The others (i. e. your Adversaries) will make use of the same too. I answered, Eminentissimo si; They might serve themselves of them if they could; but they would not find in them whereupon to support their opinions if they followed the principles of Molina; that we would have sent each of them a Copy, if we had not doubted either that they would have construed this civility, as they did some which we showed them at their first arrival, as done out of the fear we had of what they could do against us, whereas the same proceeded merely from our benevolence towards them; or that they would have taken it for a piece of mocquery and insulting on our part, so apparent was it how little favourable or acceptable the little volume could be to them.  
On Saturday Aug. 10. I gave one to F. Hilarion, who made great account of it, and likewise highly approved our design of making the difference of the several senses whereof the Propositions were capable, when we should come to that point before the Congregation, hereby to save them that trouble, and to have something fixed, to the defence whereof we might stick.  
From that day till Thursday Aug. 15. the day of the Assumption, excepting that I was obliged to go and distribute some of our Books to some Persons to whom they were due, either upon account of their eminent and considerable dignity, or in regard of particular friendship which we had with them, I continued in our Lodging with my Colleagues, to finish and revise with them our first Paper, entitled De gestis in negotio quinque Propositionum; to the end we might have the same ready to appear before the Congregation upon the first occasion, and leave it there after we should have spoken upon that subject what we had to represent to them. But that Thursday evening a Ticket arrived which checked the satisfaction we had in distributing our Books, and was a new occasion of hastening.  
A Laquay of Cardinal Barberin's brought the same to me about Sunset, and told me he had received it from his Dean, that is to say from the Dean of that Cardinal's lackeys, who according to custom receives it from the Maistre de Chambre, and encharges with it whom he pleases of his Companinions. This subordination there is amongst the lackeys, and the Dean is clothed in black, and not in the colours of his Master, as the rest are.  
The Ticket contained these words; Monsieur de Saint Amour, si compiacerà d' esser di matina con l'aleri endue suoi compagni, dall' Eminentissimo C. Roma per le quindeci hore; Per gratia non manchi, i deve parlarli d' ordine di nostro Signore. 15. Agosto 1652.  
This Ticket gave us some amazement, and of the divers reasons for which we conjecture it written, and upon which we bethought ourselves what to answer, that which we judged most likely, was, that the intent of it was to instigate us to hasten our informations to the Congregation assoon as possible: In which case we had a very good answer to make, namely, that we were not behind hand, since the Congregation was not yet perfectly form, the Consultors who were to be of it, not being yet determined, but provided they were so between that day and the end of the month, we should be ready against that time.  
Yet we could hardly believe that this was the business, because the Pope had in my audience the Friday before professed indeed his desire of hastening, but signified not such impatience as that we needed purposely to be sent for upon so solemn a day; and because since that audience it was not likely that M. Albizzi had seen his Holiness, considering that Thursday this year being the day of the Virgin's assumption, there had been no Congregation of the H. Office before the Pope, and consequently M. Albizzi had had no occasion to repair to him on Wednesday evening; and I understood he had spent all that afternoon at Cardinal Spadas Palace about a Law-Process which was examined touching a defectuosity found in the Registers of the H. Office in reference to the matter of the conception.  
Accordingly on Aug. 16. we went to Cardinal Roma between eleven and twelve a clock, uncertain what he had to say to us, but well prepared to answer to whatever it might prove; M. Albizzi came thither also. The Cardinal entered into his Chamber as he came from his Chapel, where he had said Mass, still habited with his Cope, and a very modest Surplice, which was of plain silk, and had no Needlework. M. Albizzi entered into his Chamber before us, and after a short time we were called in: Seats were placed for us right over against the Cardinal, and M. Albizzi was seated on the right hand between his Eminence and us. The Cardinal told us, that it was more than a month since the Congregation had been established; that we had not yet delivered any writing in; that the Pope desired to expedite this affair, and allowed us fifteen days more; which past, if we were not ready, his Holiness would think what he had to do, and take such course in the business as seemed good unto himself. M. the Valcroissant answered, that since the first advertisement that we had received of the establishment of the Congregation, we had not lost one moment of time, as his Eminence should find when he saw our writings; that however we should be ready within the time prefixed: The Cardinal replied, that he was glad of it. I interposed, and told him, that though we had notice of the Pope's resolution for erecting the Congregation, yet it did not yet seem to us perfectly settled, because we were not advertised what Consultors were to be of it, and therefore beseeched his Eminence to tell us whether they were appointed. The Cardinal was just going to answer me, but M. Albizzi interrupted him, and said, that we had nothing to do to think of the Consultors; that they were not the persons that made report to the Pope; but the Cardinals; and therefore the Informations ought to be delivered to their Eminences within the time limited. The design and project of M. Albizzi was, that we should give all the Informations and Instructions touching our affair to the Cardinals within those fifteen days; for he, as well as M. Hallier and the Jesuits, sought nothing else but to stifle it, and make it abortive. But to avoid further manifestation thereof upon this occasion in his presence, and making more stir about his interrupting the Cardinal, and by that means depriving me of the opportunity of replying to his Eminence: I made semblance of not having heard what M. Albizzi said; but looking towards the Cardinal, and perceiving he answered nothing, I was silent also, and we arose up. The Cardinal reconducted us through two Antichambers as far as his Dining-Room, and at parting desired us very courteously to make haste, that we might not cause any delay in the dispatching of this affair; perch si voleva spedir ta cosa: For that it was resolved to expedite the same speedily. This Cardinal's intention was very upright, for he had long complained of the want of necessary order in it; but many others endeavoured to drive it on so fast, because they were unwilling to have it further examined: They could not endure the carrying it on with that vigour as we did, and they feared, lest our little S. Austin, which was growing to be common, and read by all the world, out of the curiosity that every one had to understand so eminent a Controversy, would make all the world, and the Pope himself become Augustinian.  
From Cardinal Roma we returned directly to our lodging, and began that afternoon to lay aside all other business, and to betake ourselves all three to our writings, that so we might prevent vexation, stop rumours, and give M. Hallier and his Colleagues no occasion to break off and go away, as we were informed they intended to do by All-Saints day at the first, under pretext that no progress was made.  
Wherefore I fell to work almost continually without going abroad, together with my Colleagues, till Tuesday Aug. 28. being S. Augustin's day, when we signed the first Copy. All that I learned in this interval, was the confirmation of what M. Hallier had declared to the General of the Dominicans, that he neither was against S. Austin, nor S. Thomas, nor Effectual Grace, nor what had been done in the matter de Auxiliis, under Clement VIII. and Paul V that thereupon the said General asked him whether he assented to the Propositions taken in the sense of Effectual Grace, and told him, that as soon as he found that the Question in this affair was about the Controversy his Order had with the Jesuits, which had not yet been decided, he would not suffer it to be decided amongst other parties without interposing therein.  
The same day, Aug. 28. we went to Cardinal Roma to present our first writings to him: We understood that he kept his bed, and thereupon entreated his Maistre de Chambre to give his Eminence notice thereof.  
On Thursday the 29th in the afternoon, I went alone to Cardinal Roma: His Maistre de Chambre told me, that he had acquainted him with our being there the day before, whereof his Eminence was very glad, and told him he should be very willing to hear us, and the first audience he gave when he was recovered should be to us. I signified to this Gentleman, who was a very good and honest man, that I conceived we had nothing to do till his Eminence's recovery, because I believed he was the first to whom our writings were to be presented, and from whom we ought to receive what orders we were to observe for appearing the first time before the Congregation. The Maistre de Chambre answered, that he thought that was the right course; nevertheless, if I pleased, I might repair to M. Albizzi about it, because he, as Secretary, had the direction of every thing. I replied, that I was unwilling to go to M. Albizzi, because perhaps his Eminence would be better within two or three days; and in case his infirmity continued, it would be time enough then to consider what course to take. He was satisfied with this resolution, and I was very glad of it, being loath to come into M. Albizzi's hands sooner than needs must; and partly because we might have leisure for the making of other Copies of our Papers to present to the other Cardinals, at the same time that we delivered the first to Cardinal Roma: To which purpose I went to find out divers Clerks or Copyists; and excepting the time of my attendance upon the Ambassador on Friday the 30th, I spent that day and the next with my Colleagues, in setting our Clerks to work, and comparing what they had written.  
Aug. 31. going between four and five a clock in the afternoon to learn tidings of Cardinal Roma, I found that he was gone abroad to make a visit hard by; wherefore I stayed till his return, and saluted him as he alighted out of his Coach, congratulating him both for his recovery, and the hope it gave me that his health would permit him shortly to look upon our Papers, and betake himself to all the rest of our affair. He answered, that he was far from being recovered, that he went abroad only by order of the Physicians to take a little air; but as soon as it pleased God to restore his health, he would willingly employ it in what concerned us. I replied, that in the mean time we would offer our prayers to God to return it sufficiently for that purpose; and certainly it was much our obligation and interest so to do, in regard of the understanding, sincerity and uprightness wherewith we knew he would comport himself therein.   

CHAP. VI  
Of two Conferences held at Paris during this month of August, between M. de saint Beuve, Doctor and Professor of Sorbon, and F. l'Abbe the Jesuit. Other Letters written to us from Paris, during the same month, enjoining us not to appear but in presence of our Adversaries.  
I Received news at the end of this month of two famous Conferences held at Paris, in presence of some persons of Quality, between M. de saint Beuve and F. l' Abbe the Jesuit, touching the subject of a work published by this Father in reference to the controversies of the times. The Father received much confusion therein, having been convinced of foul dealing, or little intelligence of the points whereupon they conferred, which were many in number. The Letter which M. the Saint Beuve did me the favour to write to me about it, contains so clear and compendious an account thereof, that it may be inserted here at length, with the satisfaction of those that shall read it, and without much interrupting the course of the principal Narration in hand.  
A Copy of the said Letter.  
From Paris Aug. 2. 1652. SIR,  
THe discourse of F. Annat is the common discourse of the Society. Those good Fathers published here as well as at Rome, that the Pope is to pronounce with all speed; and when they are told that there is no Congregation yet settled in which the Parties may be heard, they answer, that his Holiness will not hear any Parties, and that their Society hath resolved not to enter into a conference either at Paris or at Rome, touching the controverted Doctrine. This is what F. l' Abbe said to me in the conference I have had with him, when he wished it might be heard privately, for fear, as he said, it might be disowned by the Society, which hath resolved not to confer about these matters: Nevertheless, I think not to offend them, if I acquaint you with some of the particulars of it: You shall know then that he hath composed a book entitled Elogium Divi Augustini, Umbra ejusdem, Tumulus novae Doctrinae, Epitaphium, Antitheses Cornelii Jansenii & Divi Augustini. He presented the same to M. Dugue Bagnols, to whom he is known, for he lived long at Lions, and is Procurator General of that Province. M. Dugue sureprised at the sight of those Antitheses, committed the same to the perusal of some friends, and by them was assured, that they were full of falsifications; whereupon he repaired to the Father, and engaged him to a Conference, for which I was chosen: The day, place, and hour appointed in the presence of the Abbot's Charrier, and de Bernai, M. M. de Morangis, de Beaumond, Dugue, the Lieutenant Criminal of Lions, de Pomponne and Croisi, at the house of M. de Bernai. I offered to make good five things: 1. That the Author in contriving his Antitheses, had made use of many Treatises constantly held not to be S. Austin's. 2. That it appeared upon perusal of them, that he had no tincture of the reading of that Father. 3. That he had corrupted his words shamefully. 4. That he had perverted his sense: And 5. That he had falsified M. d' Ipre in the places which he cited for his Antitheses, both as to the words and the sense: I proved the former of these: 1. Because he cited as S. Austin's works the book De vera & falsa Poenitentia, that De Praedestinatione & Gratia, the Hypognosticon, the 191 Sermon De Tempore, which is Pelagius' Confession of Faith, and the book ad Articulos sibi falso impositos; and I justified all this by the testimony of Cardinal Bellarmin; lib. de Script. Eccles. in Aug. & Hier. which as you see admits of no reply. The second Charge I made good, by producing two and twenty allegations ill made; among the rest, the fifth book ad Simpl. The three Operis imperfecti; the ten contra Julianum: And to make it appear that it was not through errors of the Printing, I desired the F. to tell me whether they had in their College the third book of the Opus Imperfectum; if they had, to let me see it: He promised I should, telling me, they had the same of two or three Editions. The third was proved, by confronting the places as he citys him, with the plain Text, and made horrible things appear; as for example, that he added a Negation to an affirmative Proposition of S. Austin 's, etc. I proved the fourth only by two places, the time enforcing brevity; the first of which was an objection of S. Augustin, which he cited as if it was his answer; and the other was the Pelagian Doctrine, which he called the Augustinian: And for the fifth, I contented myself with choosing one place out of M. d' Ipre, which he falsified in the citing, by putting a negative for an affirmative: All this convinced the Company, who demanded of this good Father; whether he had any thing to object against me; whereupon apprehending that they were desirous to see me act the Respondent as well as the Opponent, I declared that I was ready to perform that part too; and for the subject of the next Conference (for it was above six a clock) I said I was ready to maintain, that of all the Antitheses of that Father, there was not one good: That day seven-night being appointed, all the abovesaid persons met at the same place again, excepting M. de Bernai, and M. de Pomponne, who were gone out of Town; but in their stead came M. de la Moignon, the Father having professed that he would not confer if there were more persons then at the first time, for fear lest the matter might become public, which would be prejudicial to him, for he should be disclaimed by the Society, which had resolved not to enter into Conference either at Rome or at Paris: I began with the same declaration that I had ended the precedent; and having again declared that I would hold myself worsted if, the Father could prove against me, that so much as one of his Antitheses was sound; the Father refused to confer about that point, but only about the ground of doctrine: The Company told him, it would be more contentment to them, if he kept to the business in hand, without meddling with the Controversy in which they understood not very much; yet they could not bring him to accept my Challenge: Wherefore I made another to the second part of his work, Umbra Augustini, being a Latin Poem, speaking whereof in his Epistle Dedicatory, he had written, Corrupit Augustini Doctrinam Jansenius, & Poema Prosperi de ingratis parum gratus Poeta Gallicus: Emendat Poetam Umbra Augustini: I offered to make immediately an Antithesis of his Poem, and that of S. Prosper, and to show that they were perfectly opposite: He was unwilling to accept of this offer too, but proposed to dispute at large of matters of doctrine, whereunto I assented: He propounded five points: 1. That M. d' Ipre was condemnable, as having written against the Council of Trent, and consequently against S. Austin, by affirming, That a man moved by Grace, is necessitated as to his liberty: Whereunto he was answered, That such a man is necessitated in sensu composito, but not in sensu diviso; and told that M. d' Ipre saith no more, which is not condemnable, unless the whole School of S. Thomas be condemned too: After many Contestations, the Father was obliged to consent with us. The second was concerning Sufficient Grace, and it was proved to him, that M. d' Ipre denied none but the Molinistical, in which he had so much reason, that Aquaviva himself had condemned it: He was loath to yield to this, but at length was constrained to it. The third was, concerning the necessity of sinning without Grace; which whole Doctrine having been explicated, he was reduced to the works of Infidels, and granted, that it was a Theological Question; whence I inferred, that then M. d' Ipre was not condemnable in this point. And this Doctrine appeared so fair to all the Hearers, that they declared highly for it. The fourth concerned the Commandments, and I having showed him, that the Doctrine maintained by us as to this point, was held by all the Thomists, the Defenders of Congruous Grace, and the Church in her Prayers; having reduced the Question to Final Perseverance, and proved that what the Father held, was the Doctrine of the Pelagians, Epist. 103. and of celest l. de perfect. justitia; and having made out, that supposing the necessity of Grace to act, it follows, that we cannot act without it; For, Necesse est sine quo aliquid esse non potest; The Father could not condemn the Dominicans nor the Congrui, of whose number he professed himself; and therefore was constrained to absolve M. d' Ipre from the accusation which he had charged upon him. The last was touching the Death of Jesus Christ; in reference to which, after I had explicated to him the Doctrine of M. d' Ipre, and S. Austin 's Disciples, I showed him, that the same was held by Vasquez, Pesantius, Pius, M. de Chartres, the Cardinal de Retz, and in a word, by all the Divines who say that de singulis infantibus non est provisum sufficienter; as also by those who say as much de infidelibus. I made him see that his Doctrine was the same with that of the Semipelagians against S. Austin, ad Cap. Gall. and S. Prosper, ad object. Vins. After which I proved, that that whereof he complained, was no other but S. Austin 's: Whence I concluded, that therefore M. d' Ipre, and S. Austin 's Disciples, could not be condemned as to this Article. The whole Company remained convinced thereof, nor did the Father gainsay it: It was almost seven a clock when this was done; and the general conclusion was a complaint which M. Dugué made to the Father for having termed S. Austin's disciples monsters, Lutherans and Calvinists. Whereunto the Father answered, that it was written Poetice. Thus the conference ended, and thereupon some of the Company remembering the title of that Poem, Umbra Augustini; added to it, & Umbrae somnium. I conceived that I could not conceal these Passages from you, because hearing of the same written by another hand, you would never have pardoned me. As for other things, I entreat you to endeavour to confer with B. Hallier in presence of some person of quality. I have not received the Book of that Bernardine. I am now out of my Lectures; in which I can say, that Ita explicatum est liberum arbitrium ut vicerit Dei gratia. I think to read concerning the Euchartst next year, and to encounter Mares (Maresius) to the purpose; but that design is not yet fully resolved upon, M. le Morice intends to treat of Predestination, and to refute the third Apology. M. Girard salutes you, and so doth M. Beaumond, etc. and myself, who am more than any other,  
SIR, Your most humble and most obedient servant, the Saint Beuve.  
All the Letters I receiv, d from Paris of this latter date, during this whole month, spoke of nothing but of the Congregation, of the establishment whereof we had given notice to my LL. the Bishops. Those, in answer to the first news, we sent of it were full of nothing but expressions of joy, benediction, and hope; to see our Disputes happily terminated, to the edification of the Church, and the glory of the H. See. But after they understood what restrictions were desiged to be made of the conditions, whereupon we had sued to the Pope for the Congregation; that we were not assured, but with hesitation that our Adversaries should appear there in our presence and we in theirs; that there was but so much as the least thought of putting a Jesuit into the number of the Consultors (a Member of that society who was our principal Antagonist, and a Confrere of those who had made the chief corruptions in Doctrine, who had been the first Authors of all these troubles, who had instigated supreme Powers to fire and sword against us as against Plagues of that State and Religion;) that besides this they heard what triumphs were made everywhere, because there would be no regular conference before the Congregation; and that the same was granted to us, but as a Ceremony intended to be observed for the condemning of us with more solemnity, after we had rendered account of our Faith, by making us undergo a kind of Examination.  
The joy was soon turned into sadness, and the sweetness of the former hope into bitterness; nevertheless it was not all lost. The goodness of the cause we had to maintain, and the justice of the conditions upon which we demanded that it might be lawful to defend the same, induced my Lords to enjoin us and our friends to counsel us anew, that we should continue our instances, for the effectual obtaining in the sequel all that we had at first demanded, and which there was reason to presume with all kind of justice that had been promised us, after the declaration made to us by Cardinal Roma from the Pope. Above all, we were enjoined by them not to appear before any Congregation, except in the presence of our Antagonists, and unless the proceed were according to the Laws of a regular Conference, as had been done under the Pope's Clement VIII. and Paul V in the Congregation de Auxiliis.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of the Contents of our two first Papers: Wherefore one was concerning what had passed in the Affair of the Five Propositions, and the other touching the authority of St. Augustin.  
NOtwithstanding the abovementioned Letters, we did not think that things were reduced to such extremity; although we perceived some difficulties therein, even greater than were yet apprehended at Paris. The last rudeness showed us by M. Albizzi in presence of Cardinal Roma; first by pressing us with such impatience to provide precipitously all our Writings about the Five Propositions within a fortnight, otherwise the Pope would proceed without any regard to what we should have to say; and next by interrupting the Cardinal, to tell us disdainfully that it did not belong to us to inquire who were the Consultors, nor to confer with them, instead of suffering the Cardinal to inform us of them, who had promised us a List of their names assoon as they should be determined: This last rudeness (I say) was hitherto unknown in France, and none but ourselves were yet sensible of the arrogance and scorn of it. It was so deeply resented by us, not only in respect of the dignity of the French Bishops by whom we were sent, who seemed to be injured in our persons, but also upon our own account, who deserved to be treated after another sort, had there been nothing else considerable in us, besides the honour we had of being Doctors of the Parisian Faculty; that we were tempted to lay aside all our other Writings, and put up our Complaits to the Pope by a Memorial, wherein the action should have been represented as it deserved. But all things considered, we judged it more fit to suppress our resentment for a time, and defer our complaints to a more advantageous opportunity, then to afford our adversaries ground to triumph further over us for delaying our Writings, and to proclaim, as undoubtedly they would, that we deferred them on purpose, because we had not confidence to produce them; which resolution was the more easily taken, for that we conceived, that after we had presented the same to Cardinal Roma, it would be more seemly to complain to him of M. Albizzies' strange action which passed in his Presence, and that his Eminence would do us Justice for it. Thus our patience and moderation as well as extraordinary Diligence which we took to finish them, were the cause that we had them ready, as I said by S. Austin's day, signed them the same day, and went to present them to Cardinal Roma.  
Which though his sikness permitted us not to do, and his Dignity of Dean of our Congregation forbade us to deliver them to any of the other Cardinals before his recovery which we daily expected; nevertheless before I relate all the occasions wherein mention will be made thereof hereafter during the month of September, it will be meet to give a brief account of them here, it being impossible to insert them at length, by reason of the too great interruption which they would cause in this Narrative.  
It must be remembered how I described the making of Memorials with an inscription on the outside, containing the persons name to whom they are addressed, those of the Supplicants, and the subject or affair about which they speak. We prepared our Writings in the same form, though they were very thick; the first containing twenty leaves, and the second an hundred and ten. We set the Inscription upon them as they use to do upon Memorials, though not on the backside, but in the first page of the first leaf. The Inscription of the first Writing contained these words in Latin.  
To the most B. Father Pope Innocent X. To my LL. the most eminent Cardinals, Roma, Spada, Ginetti, Cechini and Ghiggi. And to the other Divines deputed, or to be deputed for the Congregation touching the Affair of the Propositions concerning Grace.  
By MM. Noel de la Lane & Lovis de Saint Amour Doctors of the Faculty of Divinity of Paris, and Louïs' Angran Licentiate in the same Faculty.  
Against MM. Franceis Hallier, Franceis Joysel, and Jerosme Lagault Doctors of the same Faculty.  
The first Information upon matter of Fact.  
The second Writing had the same Inscription, only with this difference, that it was entitled, The first Information upon matter of Right.  
It is to be observed in reference to these Inscriptions, that we inserted the words, To the Divines and Consultors deputed or to be deputed: because when Cardinal Roma gave us notice from the Pope of the Congregation, he said it would consist of Cardinals and Theologians; and therefore they were to be mention, d in that Title, for fear of giving them offence in case they were omitted; but being we know not yet whether they were appointed or no, having received no list of them, we thought fit to use said alternative words; trusting, that if they were not determined, they would be shortly; and that when they were, they would fall to examining our Writings in order to judge of them, as well as the Cardinals, and before them too, notwithstanding what Mr. Albizzi said to us as to that point.  
We forbore to mention the Jesuits, yet because we reserved them for the second Information touching matter of Fact, which we purposed to deliver in the process of the Affair, and delivered accordingly, as shall be showed hereafter.  
But to return to our two first Write ; The first contained what had passed in the Five Propositions since M. Cornet propounded them to the Faculty, July 1. 1649. till that time. It was almost the same with what I have related in the first Part of this Journal, concerning what was done in the Assemblies of the Faculty on the first day of July, August and September of the same year 1649. the false Censure which they published throughout all France, and sent to Rome under the name of the Deputies of the Faculty, what was done in the Parliament, October 5. which we intimated, rather than set forth at large; and concerning the patched Peace which was made in the Faculty in December: The Theses which M. Hallier signed as Syndic, in which the first and third Proposition in the sense wherein we held them, were maintained in Sorbonne with his approbation, Jan. 1650. The Letter which M. de Vabres procured to be subscribed by a multitude of Bishops, the Subscriptions begged here and there in all Societies; what was done upon this occasion in the affair of the Irish, the false deputation of F. Mulard, and other things done at Rome, from the time of our arrival, till July 11. 1652. when the Cardinal Roma gave us notice of the Congregation. One thing also we observed in this writing, which I have not so expressly related above; namely, that all these erterprises were designed to procure by such scandalous and obliqne ways the destruction of S. Augustin's Doctrine, which they veiled under the obscurities of these equivocal Propositions contrived purposely to deceive. Wherefore we concluded this writing, requesting most humbly, that to the end all things might be done in this affair without fraud and confusion, before the examination of the Propositions were proceeded to, they might be altered and reduced into the several senses whereof they were capable, in such sort, that they might be free from all equivocation, and that the Catholic sense which they contained, and we alone held, might be distinguished clearly and plainly from the erroneous sense in which they may be understood (all that I relate of this Conclusion, is nothing but a faithful Translation) that the senses being thus distinguished and separated into several Propositions, we might declare which were those which abhorred, anathematised, and had always anathematised with S. Augustin, the Council of Trent, and the whole Catholic Church. That our Adversaries might be also obliged to keep the same course, and govern themselves in such sort, as to what they should argue and write against us, that there might be no question between them and us of the senses which we had once condemned, and declared that we acknowledged false, but only of those according to which we maintained the Propositions to be Catholic, and pertaining to the Faith of the Church; by which means the dispute between them and us would be clearer and shorter, and all ambiguity and fallacious subtlety being retrencht, it would be more easy and safe to pass Judgement upon them.  
We declared further by anticipation, that we purposed not to maintain the Propositions in any other sense, then in that which we should demonstrate to be suitable to S. Austin 's Doctrine. Can any offers in the world be more equitable and Christian? and could the same be refused by such as had the least sentiments of charity, either Christian or Civil? But to follow my Translation, we added, that being the whole authority of S. Austin's Doctrine was founded only upon the testimonies given to it by the Supreme Pontiffs and the whole Church, and therefore ought rather to be styled and accounted the D●…ctrine of the Supreme Pontiffs and the whole Church than S. Austin 's; 〈◊〉 the end 〈…〉 remain safe and entire in the Church as it 〈…〉 been, and secured from all impeachment in reference to those who dared to lift themselves up against it; to the end also to establish between our Adversaries and us a principal and certain rule of all the 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 should have both by speech and writing 〈◊〉 the Propositions, such as had been lately established by Clement VIII. and Paul V. Lastly, to give our Adversaries place to clear themselves, if they thought good, of the reproach charged upon them by us of having attempted to destroy it; We summoned them to declare by an authentic Writing that they acknowledged for true and indubitable (as we maintained they were) the Propositions following.  

I.  
That any Doctrine, Proposition or Opinion touching the matter of Grace, , or Divine Predestination, which shall be found to be S. Augustin's, or necessarily or evidently coherent with his Doctrine, cannot in any wise be condemned either of Heresy or Error, or with any other kind of Censure whatsoever.   

II.  
That never any Doctrine or opinion of S. Augustine hath been condemned of Error by any Popes or approved Councils.   

III.  
That the Council of Trent hath not defined or taught any thing that is contrary in any sort to S. Augustin's doctrine touching Grace.   

iv  
That all that S. Augustin hath held against the Pelagians, and Semipelagians, as a certain and Catholic Doctrine, ought likewise to be held for such; as likewise nothing ought to be held which is contrary to that Doctrine.   

V  
That to affirm that S. Augustin's Doctrine touching Grace is uncertain, contrary to its self, exorbitant, obscure, harsh, unworthy of the Clemency of God, little suitable for edification of the Faithful, or any thing else of that kind; is injurious to Popes, Councils, Saints, and generally to the whole Catholic Church.   

VI  
That presupposing the H. Scriptures, and the Definitions of Popes and Councils, the Doctrine of S. Augustine touching Grace is a most clear and certain rule, by which the Propositions in question, and all other generally whatever concerning Grace, , and Divine Predestination, may be examined with certainty, and also by right aught so to be.   
These six Propositions we demanded that our Adversaries might be obliged to acknowledge together with us for true and indubitable; and to let them and our Congregation know that we made not this Demand without reason, but for the clear and plain stating of Principles upon which both sides were to build and proceed, we presented to them the second Writing, which, as I said above, was the First Information concerning matter of Right, and was thus entitled, The Tradition of the whole Church in reference to the Authority of S. Augustin 's Doctrine.  
This second Writing was larger than the first, and contained eminent Testimonies touching this matter of more than twenty Popes, of as many General Councils, National or Provincial, and of above sixty either Saints, Fathers of the Church, or illustrious men, or Divines, or Religious Orders, or famous Universities, who during the space of twelve Ages had approved and commended this Heavenly Doctrine, as well in the Greek Church as in the Latin: And we answered also in the said Writing to all the Objections that the Jesuits are wont to make against the Authority of that H. Doctor.  
And because we are advertised that when Writings presented at Rome to Congregations happened to be somewhat long, the custom was sometimes to draw Summaries or Abridgements of them, for the ease of such as were to read them, and that either to give them beforehand a Model of all the Contents of such presented Writing, or to help them to recollect the substance thereof after reading; we made one of both our Writings containing eight leaves. The Conclusion whereof was, That having thus established the Authority of S. Augustine 's Doctrine, we had nothing to fear in reference to the Propositions; since we were sure likewise to show clearly that the sense in which we held them, was as certainly the Doctrine of S. Augustine, as we had shown invincibly that his Doctrine was that of the Church, after so general and continual esteem and approbation as we had evinced it to have been in for twelve hundred years. But moreover we published this Cartel of Defiance to the whole Molinistical Host, that we were certain, and spoke it without fear, That that H. Doctor would be found so congruous to all that we maintained, that our Adversaries, however they might rack their Brains, and whatever pains they should take with the whole Society not only of the Jesuits but of all others that would take part with them, could never propose any Argument drawn from humane reason or the H. Scriptures, which we could not make them see, had been proposed to S. Augustin by the Pelagians or Semipelagians, and resolvled against them by this H. Doctor, and which we could not in like manner refute very easily against our Adversaries by the answers and the doctrine which we should extract out of his Works.  
Wherhfore we further said, That our Adversaries, who made trophies upon the least occasion, were injurious in reproaching us for seeking delays; since in so short a space as six weeks we had with extraordinary diligence and pains composed those two Writings; one concerning Transactions, and the other concerning S. Austin 's authority in which we had reported above two hundred testimonies of above a hundred several Authors, and those the most considerable that could be cited in any Cause whatever; and that there was nothing that we wished more, or could be more acceptable to us, than, assoon as the authority of the said Doctrine were acknowledged and confirmed, as it ought to be between our Adversaries and us, to proceed forthwith with equal diligence and confidence, to make appear in the examen of the Propositions what that Doctrine was.  
And lastly, we told them that we did not think them to have so little insight into the matter which we negotiated, as that they could think that we held back; but that they murmured at the slowness whereof they accused us, that so they might keep things from being throughly examined (as they had done hitherto) by urging them on precipitously; and that they had endeavoured to bring it about that we might be constrained to huddle over the business, because they saw no other refuge for their so decried cause, but to deprive their Judges of the understanding of it, and to hinder the dispelling of the clouds wherewith they had obscured the Truth and blackened the most innocent intentions of its Defenders; being also as little ignorant that when things should be examined as they ought to be, they could never escape; and that upon the least Objection brought by them against us, either before the Pope or the Cardinals or the Consultors, they should incontinently see themselves overwhelmed with a hundred and a hundred passages of S. Augustin.  
We spoke very high, but indeed it behooved us to lift up our voices and make ourselves heard;  
Yet we said nothing but what we had well considered, and would very gladly have been put to prove. And we held ourselves so certain thereof, that we did not declare these things only in speech or writings that were liable to be disclaimed, but in Writings which we had duly examined, reviewed and subscribed.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Of a Writing of M. Hallier and his Colleagues which fell by chance into my hands.  
SUch were the Writings prepared by us in this Business and some time after presented to the Pope and the Cardinals, as I shall relate in proper place; and thus we began to treat this affair in order to its discussion upon so solid and inexpugnable foundations. But because my purpose is to repose not only what I know was done by ourselves, but also whatever I could learn to have been acted either by M. Hallier and his Colleagues or our other Adversaries, I think not unfit to mention also in this place the Writing which I intimated above to have been presented by them to the Cardinals, when they went all together to deliver their instructions upon the Five Propositions, and in one single Audience which might last an hour or thereabouts. The Writing bears no mark which entitles it to M. Hallier and his Colleagues, or shows that they own it; and indeed I think they never signed any at all in this affair. But it came to my hands upon Tuesday Sept. 3. by the procurement of a certain Person, who got it purposely to show me; and assoon as I had perused it, I coppyed it out.  
In this Writing those Doctors especially studied not to appear Molinists, and said they would not establish the Sufficient Grace of the Jesuits, but only Sufficient Grace in general.  
One may see particularly the spirit of M. Hallier in it, who always endeavoured to pass at Rome for a Defender of Effectual Grace; and who to get those condemned whom he termed Jansenists, hath always fastened upon them that they taught a kind of Grace not Effectual, but Necessitating; That they denied all Sufficient Grace, and other such Chimaeras which they attributed especially to those that were at Paris, pretending that we disguised ourselves at Rome. And 'tis no wonder, that these Calumnies, not being refuted, because they were sown secretly, and we would not speak before the Congregation except in their presence, made impression in the minds of the Cardinals, some of the Consultors and the Pope himself.  
This Writing being very short, I shall set down here at length, except some common passages upon the First Proposition, which have been refuted in several Work:. It was without a Title, as many others were, and began thus:  

Prima Propositio.  
Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia: Deest quoque iis gratia qua possibilia fiant, Jans. lib. 3. de gr. Chr. cap. 13.  
Sensus est, mandata Dei hominibus justis qui praecepta divina transgrediuntur esse impossibilia defectu auxilii sufficientis quo vel possint eadem implere, vel necessariam ad ea implenda gratiam petere.  
Nota per has voces (defectu auxilii sufficientis) non intelligi gratiam illam versatilem quae modo effectum suum habet, modo non habet, quae à multis Doctoribus Catholicis refutatur: Sed intelligi gratiam quae verè sufficiens sit quocunque tandem modo, seu quae verè facultatem tribuat justo aut implendi praeceptum, aut petendi gratiam necessariam ad illud implendum, ita ut per eam justus inexcusabilis reddatur quando praeceptum transgreditur.   

Secunda Propositio.  
Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.  
Sensus est, in statu naturae lapsae nullam esse gratiam Christi actualem internam in voluntate residentem, cui voluntas humana de facto dissentiat.  
Nota hic non attingi doctrinam Sancti Auguflini de gratia efficaci à se. Aliud est enim asserere Sanctum Augustinum admisisse aliquod genus gratiae quae infallibiliter effectum suum consequitur. & à nullo duro corde respuitur; aliud asserere Sanctum Augustinum nullam aliam gratiam praeter efficacem admisisse quae sufficiens sit. Primum Catholicum est; secundum non nisi à Calvino ejusque sequacibus fuit assertum.  
Quod Sanctus Augustinus gratiam 
* Quam plurima afferri possunt expressa testimonia S. Augustini ad probandam gratiam sufficientem.  aliquam sufficientem admiserit, patet ex iisdem quibus dicit Deum justo non praecipere impossibilia, nec justum deserere prius quam ab ipso deseratur. Nam cùm mandata Dei non reddantur possibilia nisi per gratiam, & justi non semper mandata Dei observent: sequitur eos aliquando actu & de facto gratia Dei resistere.  
Non itaque hic agitur de gratia sufficiente versatili statuenda, quae modò effectum suum habeat, modo non habeat: Sed tantum in genere quaeritur utrum verum sit in statu naturae lapsae nullam dari gratiam quae verè sufficiens sit.   

Tertia Propositio.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas à necessitate, sed sufficit libertas à coactione.  
Sensus est, ut actio quae meritoria aut demeritoria est, libera censeatur, non requiritur ut fiat cum indifferentia, sed sufficit modo voluntarie & sine coactione fiat.  
Haec autem sententia eadem est ac Calvini, qui nunquam eo sensu negavit liberum arbitrium, quasi actiones nostrae voluntatis non essent voluntariae, sed eo sensu quod negarit nobis inesse ●…differentiam ad utrumlibet.   

Quarta Proposttio.  
Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei; & in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare.  
Propositionis hujus duae sunt partes: Prima est facti; utrum scilicet Semipelagiani admiserint gratiam necessariam ad initium fidei.  
Secunda utrum haereticum sit dicere gratiam actualem Christi talem esse cui possit humana voluntas consentire vel dissentire.  
Neque etiam attingitur quaestio hic de gratia efficaci à se aut à consensu, quia utriusque opinionis assertores fatentur quod gratiam Dei possumus abjicere juxta Concilium Tridentinum Sess. 6. c. 5. Sed tantum quaeritur utrum gratia in statu naturae corruptae talis sit, ut necessitatem inferat voluntati, adeo ut ei non possit dissentire; quod nullus Catholicus umquam admisit.  
Haec Propositio, suppositâ aliarum falsitate, necessariò debet falsa judicari; nam si impossibilia numquam sunt Dei Praecepta justis defectu gratiae sufficientis cui actu resistunt, sequitur posse gratiae resisti. Nam ab actu ad posse valet consequentia. Secundò si certum sit ad meritum requiri indifferentiam, cum actio qua gratiae Dei consentimus, sit meritoria, sequitur consensum ei praeberi cum indifferentia, ac proinde cum potentia dissentiendi.   

Quinta Propositio.  
Semipelagianum est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse.  
Duo quaeruntur circa hanc Propositionem. 1, Quid de ea sentiendum quatenus notam haeresis affingit communi Catholicorum Theologorum sententiae quae asserit Christum pro omnibus omnino mortuum esse.  
2. Quatenus ex ment Jansenii Christus non pro omnibus sed pro praedestinatorum salute tantum mortuus est, ita ut omnibus reprobis negata sint auxilia sufficientia quibus possint salvari.  
Hoc sensu examinata Propositione, intactae relinquuntur difficultates quae occurrunt aut circa infantes sine baptismo decedentes, aut infideles, aut obduratos. Nam qui dicit Christum non pro solis praedestinatis esse mortuum, non dicit consequenter pro quolibet reprobo in particulari mortuum esse, sed sufficit quod pro aliquibus saltem reprobis.  
Quod autem pro justis saltem non perseverantibus mortuus sit, patet ex Concilio Tridentino, ubi defint justis mandata Dei non esse impossibilia, quia Deus iis gratiam necessariam suppeditat. Si enim possunt observare mandata, possunt salvari, ac non nisi ex meritis Christi.  
Idem Sess. 6. c. 3. Verum tametsi ille pro omnibus mortuus est, non omnes tamen mortis ejus beneficium recipiunt. Ergo Christus pro iis etiam mortuus est qui beneficium non recipiunt; at illi non alii sunt quam reprobi.    

CHAP. IX.  
Of our Solicitations during the whole month of September, to obtain that our Writings which we presented to the Cardinals, might be communicated to our Adversaries. Of the Death of Cardinal Roma which happened during this month. Of the secret Congregations which began to be held at Cardinal Spadas house.  
IT was the first and only thing which I did on Sunday the first of September, to seek means how to get the abovementioned Writing, which yet I could not do till two days after, and all that I learned on Monday the second, was, from the Resident of Poland, who signified to me that a Gentleman of that Kingdom told him, that he had been in the company of one of the Doctors of our Antagonists and a Jesuit; which Doctor said, that there were but ten or a dozen Doctors of our Faculty and four Bishops that maintained our cause, and that the Pope had professed that he would make so good a Censure upon this occasion, that there should be no more coming thither again. I sent likewise those two days, to know whether Cardinal Roma gave audience, and understood that he did not.  
On Tuesday the third I went to see F. Melchior, who not being at home, I fell into discourse with F. Dominique Priest of the same Order, a very able man, and who taught Theologie in his Covent, together with F. Melchior. He told me he had been at the Covent of the Minims upon Saint Augustin's day with M. Joysel, who spoke so confidently of the condemnation of the Propositions, that he was constrained to advise him not to go so fast, for there were many in the world that did not, as he, account the Propositions Heretical, by reason of the senses, as he explicated the same, which they admitted relating to Effectual Grace. Their Discourse forthwith fell upon the First Proposition, of which F. Dominique told M. Joysel what sense we held, and alleged some arguments for it, which M. Joysel being unable to gainsay, answered in one word, That they impugned the same as it was in Jansenius, and because it was there. F. Dominique demanded, whether the being of a thing in Jansenius were sufficient to make it deserve to be impugned and censured? M. Joysel answered, that it was not; but yet if it were lawful to maintain Propositions because they might have good senses, none should ever be condemned, because there is not any so bad but may be well interpreted; and he brought this for example, That the body of our Lord is not in the Eucharist, which he said might admit a good sense, because 'tis true that it is not there Circumscriptive, that is to say, as other bodies are in their ordinary places according to their natural extension. F. Dominique answered, that if there had been any Heretics who had affirmed it to be there Circumscriptive, as there had been others who have said that it is not there really; then, before judging of the Proposition, which affirms the same not to be there, it would be requisite to distinguish it with reference to those two sorts of Heresies. So in the matter proposed, there having been Heretics who have affirmed, that the Commandments of God are not possible even with the assistance of Grace, and others that they are so without it, that is, without that Grace which is necessary to render them possible with the last and next possibility, and which hath no more need of any other assistance for action; it is requisite for right determining this affair, to distinguish the senses according to which the said First Proposition may be extended, before judgement be passed upon it.  
The same Father told me another passage which fell a few days before from M. Hallier, and for which he was sufficiently well taken up. This Doctor said, that if Molina were rightly considered, it would be found that there was not so much to say against him as people believed, and that there was much difference between him and the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians. The answer returned to him, was, that this Discourse was very strange from a man who pretended to subtlety in these matters, For in the first place he was asked how it was possible that there should be so little to say against Molina, considering all that had been done against him in Spain and at Rome in the Congregations de auxiliis? And in the second place he was told, that truly there was much difference between Molina and the Semi-Pelagians, because Molina had said much more than they, That the Semipelagians held, that only the beginning of the first disposition to Grace proceeds from the part of man; that as for the rest, they assented readily, that Man is governed by the motion and power of the Efficacy of Grace; but Molina holds that Man is the primum mobile & chief master of his own Salvation from the beginning, to the end.  
In the afternoon we went to wait upon Cardinal Roma. His Maistre de chambre told us, that we might send one of our Attendants to him upon Friday following, and he would signify to us when we might probably have access to his Eminence. In the mean time he advertised us that one of our Antagonists came thither to know whether the Business were likely to go forward, and that he answered, That it did not stick at us, that we had performed our parts, but themselves might consider that Cardinal Roma was not in a condition at present for affairs. He added, that if they came again, he would acquaint them with our new diligence.  
F. Epiphanius came to see us after Supper. The Discourse happened to be about the false censure of the Faculty dispersed through the world, and which MM. Henneguin, Peregret and Cornet avowed in the face of the Parliament not to have been subscribed by any of themselves. F. Epiphanius told us, That M. Lagault affirmed to him since his coming to Rome that it was signed by them, and that there had been but one way which hindered us from being confirmed by the Faculty.  
On Wednesday the 4th. I went to Giesu Maria, where I saw F. Pancratio and another chief Father of that House; they both confessed to me, that they had taught the Molinistical Opinions, and that whilst they taught them they were persuaded in their Judgements that none but these were consentaneous to truth; but the reading of S. Augustin which they had happily undertaken, perfectly undeceived them. In our Discourse intervened a very aged Prelate named Monsignor Garotti, who spoke something concerning this matter, but vigorously and as one that understood it well. He told me that all this affair was but a business of animosity on the Jesuits part; that he remembered that Clement VIII. having highly blamed the General of the Jesuits for their engaging in defence of Molina's doctrine, the General answered the Pope, Vedremo, Beatissime Padre, come la potremo diffendere, We will see most H. Father how we shall be able to defend it: That thereupon he writ to all the Fathers of his Society to send to him all the best arguments that they found upon this Subject; and that a Jesuit talking with him (Monsignor Garotti) told him that he had of his own head furnished his General with ten Reasons for such defence.  
Perceiving Cardinal Roma's sickness to continue, it came into our minds to impart our Writings and their Summary to M. Hallier and his Colleagues, that we might get so far onward, and that they might employ part of their time in perusing them, and prepare themselves to make such answers thereunto as they should think fit. I went to see M. Cosimo, Cure of S. Saviour, to desire him to direct me to some Officer of Justice of his Acquaintance who were fit to make such signification in due form and order. M. Cosimo told me, That this could not be done, but either by the Secretary of the Congregation by whom our Writings might be communicated to our Adversaries, and theirs to ours, and that by Order of the same Congregation when it thought fit, after perusal and examination therein; or else Order of the Dean, in case we could obtain of him to permit us to hasten things, by endorsing them with Communicetur. That otherwise he thought it an ill course to do it of our own Heads, unless perhaps they would somewhat excuse it as possible to be our custom in France, and as if we understood not that of Rome: But it was to avoid such inconveniences that he had advised us to retain an Advocate; and since we had means to prevent mistakes in our proceed, it was best not to bring ourselves to such a pass as to have need of making excuses.  
A visit which I made to Cardinal Palatta took me up all the afternoon of this day, and in a converse sufficiently long that I had with him; that which I learned most considerable, was, that M. Hallier had visited him and told him, That we were Jansenists; and that our aim was by shifts and under pretext of some equivocations & interpretations of Propositions to cause the Church to declare that she had acted wrong in her former condemnations.  
On Wednesday the sixth, I went towards evening to Cardinal Roma's House. His Maistre de chambre told me, That we could not hope to see his Eminence till within two or three days more. I answered, That we would willingly have so much patience, and asked him whethor there were not some way in the mean time for his Eminence to appoint that our Writings might be communicated to our Adversaries, to the end they might be employed in pursuing them till he recovered his health. He replied, That he would endeavour to acquaint his Eminence with it; and we agreed upon the Tuesday ensuing for an answer.  
A Discalceated Carmelite informed us the same day that M. Ollier was the man that solicited in their Covent at Paris for subscriptions against the Propositions, and their Fathers refused to do it.  
On Saturday the seventh I acquainted a person, one of the most intelligent and accomplished in the Court of Rome, with what had passed between M. Albizzi and us, upon August 16. at Cardinal Roma's House. This Person counselled me not to lose this occasion of making known to the Pope the animosity and partiality of that Assessor, whereof the said Person gave me further clear and convincing proofs. M. Othewin told me that M. Hallier being that morning taking the air uprn the Mont de la Trinité, said to the F. Abbot of S. Antony that he (Hallier) held us fast, that we should not escape him, that he would cause us to be put in Cornetto, which is as much as to say, in Bedlam, and some other things of the same sttain.  
The Ambassador had been sick for some weeks, and so we could not visit him, but (thanks be to God) having by this time recovered his health, we went this evening to congratulate with him. He fell to ask us about our Business how it stood; and told us he had seen some of our Cardinals, amongst others Cardinal Ghigghi, who seemed very pleasant and joyful; which was an argument that they who usually are deep musers upon the smallest affairs that give them the least trouble, must needs have found out some favourable expedient to get out of it, and which afforded much satisfaction. We answered that that could not be, because to get out of it, it was necessary to examine the affair in due manner, which they could not do without trouble. Then we fell into Discourse whether or no we should be heard in the presence of either side. Whereupon he made scruples, which we answered; and though he seemed in some measure satisfied therewith, yet he told us, that he knew not whether it would be granted to us or no. He told us further, that they had used diligences by the mediation of the Nuntios to get the Opinions of Universities, etc. and we answered him that that course would not conduce much to the clearing of things, unless they did us the justice and took the pains to hear us in the presence one of another. We talked what had passed in the affair of the Irish, of the Letters which the Jesuits had obtained of the Emperor, the King of Poland, etc. of the Cornetto whither M. Hallier in companies threatened to send us. Here the Ambassador told me, that the day before he complained to him of a Letter which I had written to M. Bouvot Register of our Faculty, and which M. Bouvot had showed to M. Grandin our Syndic, in which, he said, I sent word that there had not been seen in many ages such a thing as the Congregation we had obtained, and that the Pope speaking of M. Hallier, said that this Doctor seemed to his Holiness very presumptuous. I answered the Ambassador, that indeed I believed I had written to M. Bouvot, when the Congregation was declared to us; That I did not remember what words I used to him about it, but I saw not the least appearance that I spoke any thing near what I was charged with; because when I writ I endeavoured to do it as if it had been in presence of all the world, and as if my Letters were publicly to be seen, because it was possible they might be so. That I had written many indeed which I should be loath to have become public; but I writ none which I foresaw not might incur that danger; upon which consideration I endeavoured to write nothing whereof I might he ashamed and repent me, in case they happened to be seen. How'ever, it would be very acceptable to me if he pleared to take account of that whereof M. Hallier complained, because I had written none for a long time, whereof I kept not a Copy by me; and that though I could send to M. Bouvot, yet I promised him to bring him a faithful Copy, that so if I had deserved blame, I might receive it and make satisfaction; but if there were found no cause of complaint, he might understand how groundless those of our Adversaries were.  
On Sunday morning Sept. 8. I went to see the General of the Dominicans about ' a particular affair of one of the Religious of his Order, concerning which a Friend of mine had written to me out of France. F. Barellier his French Assistant intervened in our Discourse. The General told me, among other things, that M. Hallier speaking to him about me, accused me of having written against the Pope; with which he acquainted me out of kindness and under secrecy, not to exasperate me against M. Hallier, but to cause me to bethink myself what might be the meaning of this accusation, which was of consequence. Yet I was not much anxious about it, nor have thought much upon it since, knowing well that this calumny was like all the rest which they used to devise against us, extravagant and groundless.  
On Monday the 9th. towards evening I went to Cardinal Roma's House. His Maistre de chambre told me, That he had not stirred out of Bed of two days before; that he was up that day, but was constrained to betake himself to bed again immediately; that if he could recover a little, he would go speedily into the Country to confirm it; that therefore he could not of long time intent our affair, and that we might consider upon what we thought expedient to do therein in the mean time. That M. Hallier and his Colleagues had been there the day before, and he had told them the demur was not on our part. He intimated to me likewise, that, if it seemed good to us, we might visit M. Albizzi. Whereunto I answered forthwith, That we could not have confidence in M. Albizzi, nor treat with him; and that if Cardinal Roma pleased to write upon our Papers that they should be communicated to the Doctors our Adversaries, it would serve them very much and us too, advance our affairs, and put both sides into a condition to wait some good space of time without impatience the secovery of Cardinal Roma. He replied, That his Eminence was not in a condition to meddle therewith; that M. Albizzi should no longer ordain any thing by his own authority; that it behoved us to have recourse to the Pope for the knowing of his pleasure what course we should take. I answered, That it was much better to expect yet for some time; That if in case Cardinal Roma did not suddenly recover his health, yet his indisposition might diminish and allow him to inscribe upon our Writings that they might be communicated. Wherefore I entreated him not to tell any person that he had spoken to me of M. Albizzi, but to signify to M. Hallier and his Colleagues, when they came thither, that I had been there and was obliged to have patience as well as themselves. Which request he granted.  
Tuesday the 10th. in the afternoon I visited Cardinal Barberin. Assoon as he saw me, he asked me whether we had delivered our Writings; adding that if Cardinal Roma's sickness continued, some means must be thought upon to supply that defect; that much time was spent without any thing done, that it was tedious; but however we might hold ourselves assured, that the Questions de Auxiliis would not be meddled with, but only the Propositions taken into consideration. To all which Discourse of the Cardinal, I answered what I thought fit, and he carried me abroad with him to take the air, and returned me to my Lodging.  
I had attempted from Tuesday morning to get Cardinal Roma spoken to by his Auditor for the Soit communiqué (Communicetur) of our Writings, and upon Wednesday morning we went to a very good and pious Ecclesiastic, his Eminency's cousin and intimate Friend to obtain the same courtesy of him, and get him to persuade the Cardinal to do it, if possible. He promised us to effect our desires, in case he found the Cardinal in a condition any wise fitting to be spoken to; but he told us that he was very sick, and recommended him to our Prayers. Afterwards we went to the Augustine's, whither we were invited, to hear an Oration of the Divinity-Professor who then began his Lectures. He spoke very copiously of the esteem that ought to be made of S. Augustin's Doctrine; he urgently recommended to his Auditors the reading of that Father's admirable works; but if they did not read them all, yet that none should omit to read the little volume which had been lately printed at Rome by persons whom he said he would not name; and yet without naming us he gave us public thanks for it.  
N●…helesse we judged it expedient to visit the other four Cardinals designed for our Congregation, that we might let them know what assiduous diligence we had used in the preparing of our Writings, and what had hindered us from presenting the same to them since they were ready. The same afternoon we visited Cardinal Cechini, who intimated to us to deliver them to the rest in the mean while till Cardinal Roma recovered. We answered that we had forborn so to do out of an intention to deliver them to all at the same time, and that they might have all a fresh remembrance of them when they should assemble in the Congregation to hear us and regulate us according to what they should have seen of us in writing. He replied, That for his part he should always willingly concur with what the rest should ordain in the business.  
Before our going to Cardinal Cechini, we had been at Cardinal Spadas House, where arrived at the same time some of the Cardinals in order to a Congregation which was to be held there; for which cause we retreated, having seen but not spoken to Cardinal Spada. Hereupon when we returned thither at the end of the Congregation assoon as he saw us, he came to us with a smiling countenance, and told us he was sorry that he could not give us audience that day. We signified to him in a few words what we had to say to him; but we were obliged to return thither the next morning upon his invitation.  
Before we went to him upon Thursday the 12th. I met with the Bishop of Bethleém, who out of kindness conjured me for the honour of God to deliver our Writings, adding that delay caused it to be suspected that we had evil designs, and inclined the people with whom we had to do, to judge and condemn us without hearing. That it was reported that time had been given us, that we had been summoned, and that we had passed the term. That all these particulars were registered. I thanked the Bishop for his affection, and answered him, that we had also kept Memorials both by our Letters and otherwise, of the whole manner wherewith we were treated, and of all that had been said to us. That we had used the greatest diligence that could be required of us in preparing our Writings. That we had more reason to complain of our being hastened as we had been, than others had to complain of our having delayed. That we did not in the least fear the most embittered and powerful persons against us, because they could do us no mschief, but they must do the like to the H. See, since we had no other interests in the whole affair but what were the same with those of the supreme Pontificate. The Bishop assented that the manner of proceeding towards us was exorbitant and strange, but yet it behoved us to condescend to the state in which things were, and endeavour to stop the mouths of the most passionate against us.  
When my Colleagues and I went to Cardinal Spada, we told him that we had ever since a fortnight before repaired to Cardinal Roma to acquaint him that we were ready to appear in the Congregation when it should please him to assemble it; and to bring him our first Writings; That we had been deferred from day to day since that time by Cardinal Roma himself, to whom we had spoken once, and who advised us to have a little patience, adding that assoon as he recovered a little health, he would employ the same in our affair. Cardinal Spada answered, that he would make report of what we said to him where it should be needful; but that these Autuminal Sicknesses were sometimes dangerous, and besides very long: that in case this of Cardinal Roma's should hold on, some order must be considered of in reference to our affair. We replied, if it lasted, we doubted not of the necessity of taking some other course therein; and we assured his Eminence that on our part we would always be found disposed to further the business with all sort of diligence, so far as the Things which we had to manage would permit.  
M. Hallier and his Colleagues came to wait upon Cardinal Spada, who was to go to Monte Cavallo, and being he was ready to go just as we had finished what we had to say to him, we became obliged to accompany him thither. When he was entered into the Pope's presence, we stayed in the Antichamber during that Congregation. And Monsignor Sacrista who entertained us there a good while, told us, among others, two remarkable things. First, That M. Hallier and his Colleagues had long ago delivered their Writings touching the Propositions to the Cardinals, and since begun to deliver new ones to them which related only to our persons and designs. Secondly, naming some of the Consultors appointed for our Congregation, he told us that F. Luca Vadingo would be one of them, and that he was well informed of the whole intrigue of the affair, particularly touching the Book of Jansenius; that in the beginning when he was first sounded, he said, Let us see whether it be contrary to S. Augustin, and then condemn it; or if they will not examine it, all that can be done against it is to prohibit it for having transgressed the Prohibitions of writing concerning this matter: That the cause stood thus when it was reported to Vrban VIII. and that after it was dispatched by the Pope, some persons had added what is found in his Bull, That Jansenius had revived the Propositions condemned by Pius V.  
When the Congregation was ended we went to Cardinal Ghiggi's Apartment, where we waited for his return; and though it was sufficiently late, yet he prevented us in speaking to us first, and caused us to enter into his Chamber. We told him, that our Writings were ready. Which word we had no sooner spoken, but O sia lodato Dio, God be thanked (said he to us) I think we have heard some mutterings about them. The meaning of which in his mouth, was, that great complaints had been made about them. We answered that it should be manifested that we had not been faulty of any delay. (Indeed 'twas an extraordinary thing that we could get our two pieces ready in so little time; and I think no person ever laboured at any work with more assiduity and speed day and night than M. de Valcroissant and M. Angran did to dispatch them; and when they were done, to get Copies of them quickly ready for their Eminences; we employed for some days together twenty amanuensis, whereof some transcribed one Choir and some another.) The Cardinal replied that he did not say that we had caused any delay, but that he exhorted us to endeavour to act in such sort that there might be no appearance that we had, nor ground to suspect it: Ma all meno que questo non apparisca. He told us also that if Cardinal Roma's sickness should prove long, Cardinal Spada would be the person to whom we ought to address ourselves, as Dean, à chi bisognarebbe far capo.  
I went in the afternoon with much anxiety to inquire the condition of Cardinal Roma's health; Cardinal Barberin arrived there almost at the same time that I did. We were answered that he was a very little better, whereupon Cardinal Barberin returned without seeing him for fear of disturbing him. From thence I went to see the person whom I had entreated to procure that Cardinal Roma's Auditor might inscribe the Communicetur upon our Papers; for I had understood that that was sufficient to authorize the imparting of them to the Doctors our Adversaries; and he told me that Signior Francisco, (which was the name of his Eminence's Cousin whom I spoke of) had told him that his Auditor could not write the Communicetur without first receiving his Master's order; that himself (Signior Francisco) could not speak that day nor the next to Cardinal Roma to cause him to give his Auditor such order; but in case his health continued in the condition wherein he beheld it, he hoped that he might do it by Saturday or Sunday following.  
Friday the 13th. was the day of the Ambassador's usual audience; and before he went to it, I entreated him that in case the Pope spoke to him about the delay of our Writings whereof complaint had been made, he would tell his Holiness, that that which hindered us for a fortnight, in which we could have delivered them, was Cardinal Roma's sickness. The Ambassador answered me nothing touching our Writings, but asked me immediately whether I had heard tidings of his health that day; and told me with a most sincere sentiment of esteem and grief, that if that Cardinal should be taken away, the Church would have a signal loss in him. We sent about noon to know what news of him, and understood that he was very much better than the day before. In the afternoon we went again to Cardinal Cechini to give him the same information concerning our Writings that we had given to others; but we were referred till that day seven night to speak with his Eminence.  
On Saturday in the afternoon I went to Cardinal Roma's house, where I learned that his health still grew better and better; and in the joy and hope that his Maistre de Chambre had of it, he told me that M. Albizzi coming thither the Thursday before to the Consistorial Congregation which was held there, he had said to him with a free air; Questi Dottori Francesi vengono sempre qui, & l' Eminentissimo non può attendere à sto negotio per hora. Fra tanto bisognarebbe far qualche communicatione di scritture, etc. Those French Doctors are always coming hither, and his Eminence cannot at present intent their affair. It may be requisite in the mean time to make some communication of the Writings of one side to the other, to employ them. But he had no sooner opened his mind to M. Albizzi, and done speaking, but M. Albizzi told him, Non si vuol disputare quì di questa cosa, It is not intended to dispute that point here. Which averseness of M. Albizzi from what he proposed to him, kept him from speaking any thing more to him about it.  
On Sunday the 15th. I accompanied the Ambassador to the solemnity of the Chapel which was performed that day as the Anniversary of the Pope's election; and whilst Cardinal Barberin was renewing to him the ceremony ad multos annos, there came a very great rumour of Cardinal Roma's death. Whereupon believing that God had disposed of him, we went in the Afternoon to Cardinal Spada, to tell him that when he pleased we were ready to appear before the Congregation and to deliver our Writings. The Cardinal told us that he would give us an answer on Wednesday or Thursday at the furthest, and that in the mean time we might visit those other Messieurs, to the end they might read our Writings. I did not believe that by questi altri Signori Cardinal Spada meant Messieurs the other Cardinals of our Congregation, but the Doctors our Adversaries, and that his Eminencie's intention was that we might communicate our Writings to them in the mean time. M. the Abbot of Valcroissant understood it also in this manner; and he and I having replied to the Cardinal that that was our Purpose (that so we might be more assured what was his, and act without fear of proceeding contrary to his intentions) He told us that that was not his meaning, but when it should be time to communicate them, if the Congregation judged it expedient, they should be communicated reciprocally at the same time, to the end there might be neither advantage nor disadvantage on one side or other, acciò non sia nc vantaggio ne svantaggio.  
On Monday the 16th. towards evening I went to see F. Melchior, who informed me that since some days they had been much troubled in their Covent about a Thesis, which was to be maintained there, of which the Doctors our Antagonists and the Jesuits having had notice, endeavoured to hinder the Impression by M. Albizzi's means, and made a great stir about it. That M. Albizzi for that purpose sent for the Procurator General of their Order, to whom, assoon as he saw him, he made great reproaches, for that the Professors of the Covent de la Victoire taught Jansenisme; the greatest proof whereof alleged by him was that they conversed with us, and for this consideration he threatened them to give them a Mittimus to departed out of Rome. That all the day preceding, though it were Sunday, was employed in go and come to and from M. Albizzi about the said Thesis. That M. Albizzi had a design to have seized all the Copies that were wrought off; but he to whom they belonged had been more diligent in getting them from the Printer than M. Albizzi had been in sending to take them thence. That M. Albizzi seeing himself prevented herein, sent to their Covent in the Pope's name to prohibit the Person that had them to part with any of them; and afterwards sent order to their Procurator-General with threatening that he should remain responsible for them. In fine, all this bustle was made against the said Thesis, because it was known to be composed conformably to the mind and doctrine of Councils, S. Augustin and S. Thomas; ad mentem Conciliorum, Sancti Augustini, & Sancti Thomae, and that it was almost wholly framed in their very words. F. Melchior told me likewise what diligence they had used both in addresses to the Master of the Sacred Palace, who licenced the Impression, and to Cardinal Ghiggi, from whose good will and protection they promised themselves assistants in this affair: and all that had passed therein he related to me more distinctly and particularly than I do here, because I set down only the most remarkable things which I writ thus confusedly when I returned home after their visit.  
On Tuesday morning being the 17th. we sent up our prayers to God for the eternal rest of the Soul of Cardinal Roma, whose death happened the evening or the night preceding. It was a great loss both to the H. See and the Sacred College: He was a man of known and generally esteemed integrity throughout the world. He was of very easy access, very equitable, and unmoveable by favour or faction. He had a very sedulous care of his Bishopric of Tivoli, and divided himself between the administrations of it and those whereunto he was obliged in reference to the Offices he had at Rome, with indefatigable pains. His charity and liberality towards the poor and his Church were so large, that they left him no thought of laying up of treasure upon earth either for himself or any of his kindred: and he gave them no part of his Ecclesiastical goods besides one furniture for a Table which he gave to one of his Brothers, as he would have given the same (he said) to any other Stranger, if he had not had that Brother, to the end he might have in the time of repasts some company and conversation. But this is not a place to speak of the particular actions and virtues which rendered him so commendable during the whole course of his life; it shall suffice to add here in reference to our affair, that he was more intelligent of, and better affected to St. Augustin's doctrine than he ever professed to be. But I was informed above a year before that he studied it with particular affection; and that he was enlightened in it by the informations which he caused to be given him by a very learned Dominican, who had such confidence in me and in the secrecy which he promised himself that I would keep for him, and the good use that I would make of the knowledge which he imparted to me of the correspondence which he had in this affair with Cardinal Roma, that assoon as he had finished a Writing to give him, he showed me a Copy of it, and when they had conferred together about it, advertised me likewise how his Eminence took and apprehended the matter, and in what sort he accounted himself convinced of it. I kept secrecy herein so faithfully, that I never spoke so much as a word of it to my Colleagues themselves, who only knew that this Cardinal being very pious and equitable, it was very advantageous to us that he was Dean of our Congregation. But now there is no longer any danger in speaking it. I preserved and still keep the Copies of those informations, which Cardinal Roma believed peculiar to himself; and looked upon as his own labour, having therein employed that of a man whom he knew very intelligent and impartial, whom he otherwise considered as his ancient friend, and who undertook the same by his motion, having nothing else in his view but God and the Truth: The Propositions in question were considered and handled in these Informations, as we had always considered them, capable of several senses very opsite, but as pertaining to the faith of the Church, when they were purged from their equivocations, and reduced to the sense in which they would be necessary sequels and clear dependences of the Efficacity of Grace. This may be seen in those Writings themselves, which I have thought fit to place at the end of the Collection, because they deserve to be kept to posterity. It may be judged thereby whether the death of this great and pious Cardinal was not a signal loss to the H. See, the Sacred College and indeed to the whole Church; it deprived us of a considerable Prop both in the Congregation whereof he was Dean, and in all other dependences of our affair to which he was sincerely affected; and of which he said a hundred times to the Ambassador, as well as of that of the Bishoprics of Portugal, that it was a shame they were not ended.  
Wherhfore his death, which according to the judgement we were able to make of it, was very unseasonable for us, could not but be resented by us with particular sorrow; but having considered that our affair was more God's than ours, that he had not removed this prop without secret but just reasons of his inscrutable judgements, and that he could, if he pleased, deliver it from oppression, and instead of one man whom he took from us, give us a thousand others with as much facility as he could, if he had pleased, have sent to our Lord in the time that he was sought to be hurried to death, more than twelve legions of Angels, to secure him from it; we comforted ourselves for the loss, and fell again to prosecute our affair with new care, diligence and vigour.  
In the afternoon we went to visit Cardinal Ghiggi, M. the Valcroissant represented to him with what diligence and sincerity we had laboured to put ourselves into a state to appear at the Congregation ever since it was declared to us, and after having spoken there to leave some thing in scriptis that might be worthy of the subject and the assembly; and on the contrary, in what manner we had been censured in the mean time as tergiversators, and those that endeavoured to decline the clearing of things; but we conceived that hereafter we should not be thus dealt with, when it were once considered who sent us, and what was the weightynesse and importance of the things which we had comprised in so little time in those two first Writings which we brought to him; and which accordingly, after this was spoken, we presented to him. The Cardinal received the same civilly, and with a sentiment of humility desired us to pray to God for him, that God would please to open his understanding to comprehend the same aright, adding that, for his part, he would study them very willingly and carefully. He told us also that from thenceforward, either the Pope or Cardinal Spada must be addressed to, for direction concerning what should be fit to be done in the Congregation. We answered, that we hoped his Emnence would have a hand therein too, and take care that all things might be observed according to the necessary forms. He replied, that as for himself, his Obligation should be to study the Writings which we had given him, and if in reference to the management and direction of the affair Cardinal Spada pleased to confer with him, it would be a thing that depended on his civility; Sarebbe la sua urbanità.  
Wednesday morning Sept. 18. I visited the Ambassador, and went abroad with him to take the air. Amongst divers things which we spoke about our affair, the most considerable was, that he told me some had spoken at Court of the Jansenists (or those that were denoted by that name) a people very ill affected to the King's service, even so far that some of them at Paris had left off praying for the King, and prayed only for the kingdom. That hence it was concluded that they approached very near to the Calvinists who were enemies of Kingly Government; that the King and Queen were rendered odious to that Party, by saying that they were not favourable to it; and to temper in some sort the extent of these false and malicious teproaches, (the Ambassador told me also) that it was said that all the Jansenists were not of the same humour, but that the malicious of the Party made use of the rest, who were good people, to cover their most evil designs under their reputation, as they carry Images of wax before Processions. I answered the Ambassador, that these calumnies deserved that an Answer should be given to him, to let him see the malignity of those that invented them. Whereupon he told me, That he had charged M. Hallier with the threatening that I acquainted him M. Hallier made of the Cornetto or Ergastulo against us; and that M. Hallier swore all the Oaths in the world, that he never spoke so; and nevertheless I was as well informed as any man could be that he had spoke so, and indeed it was very true.  
We made divers visits on Wednesday afternoon, Thursday and Friday both morning and afternoon, to wait upon the Cardinals Spada, Ginetti, and Cechini, and present our Writings to them. The first of the three whom we found ready for it, was Cardinal Spada upon Saturday the twenty first in the forenoon. M. the Valcroissant set forth to him very well and plainly the state of our affair, and gave him our Writings, and the last that he spoke of being the Summary, the Cardinal began his answer there, and told us that he would not look upon it, nor make use of it, till after he had perused the large Papers. According to the character that had been given of him to me divers times, he was a man likely to take that pains; but however he made us this promise, and received them courteously.  
When we went to him on Thursday in the afternoon, we found there a secret Congregation, at which were Monsignor the Patriarch Spada, a criminal Judge; the Capo Notaro of the H. Office and M. Albizzi: and when we went on Friday to Cardinal Ginetti, we found a Congregation of Cardinals assembling there; and as we were retiring, there arrived one, who advertised me that on Tuesday following a Congregation of Consultors were to be held about our affair, and that I must take heed, because some persons who were favourable to us, and aught to be there of right, were excluded.  
In the afternoon of Saturday, amongst other little businesses I went to carry Monsignor Sacrista our Writings of matters of Fact, and the Summaries of both, that he might have some kind of Idea of that of S. Austin's authority, a perfect Copy whereof could not then be had for him. He told me one very considerable thing, which was, that the Pope in discourse with him a few days before said to him, That the Jesuits fomented Heresy.  
On Sunday September 22. we went in the morning to Cardinal Ginetti: He was reconducting a Person to whom he had given audience, and returning came cheerfully to us, and said to us, as if to congratulate with us for what he was going to speak, E ben, sarà per Martedi la Congregatione, Well, the Congregation will be on Tuesday. I apprehended that we ought to be so far from being well-pleased at the Congregation's assembling before our Writings had been seen by those of whom it consisted, or communicated to our Adversaries, that on the contrary we had reason to be sorry for it. Wherhfore being we had not yet certainly understood this news from any person, and accounted the Assembly which was to be held without our participation and convenient advertisement of it, as good as nothing; to the end we might more cautiously declare our Sentiments to this Cardinal, assoon as he had regaled us with these compliments, E ben sarà per Martedi la Congregatione, I answered seriously and coldly in these words; I congregation, Eminentissimo? What Congregation is it, my Lord, that your Eminence tells us is to be on Tuesday? The Cardinal judging by our Answer that we had heard nothing of it, and fearing he had gone too far in opening a secret to us whereof we were not to be advertised, fairly changed the Discourse and asked us what brought us thither? We told him, It was to present our Write to him, which accordingly we did. As he received them, he said he would read them most diligently, diligentissima ment; and after he had read them, he should be very glad to hear us concerning them.  
Departing thence, after some small visits, I met a certain Person in the City who told me that the General of the Dominicans intended to present a Memorial to the Pope, to get time to send for some able persons of his Order, besides those he had already, who might represent to his Holiness the interests that his Order had in this affair.  
In the afternoon I visited that General, to show him one of our Write concerning Matters of Fact and our Summary. He presently sent for one of his Order to transcribe them. We conferred together a long time, and all our Discourse was, whether we had taken a right course in the business, and whether it would not be better to deliver Write concerning the Propositions, then concerning S. Augustin's authority; because he feared least whilst we took this care on one side to defend it, they might ruin it on the other by condemning the Propositions. I represented to him on the contrary that we were obliged to take that course in conformity to the desire and letters of our Bishops, who had written to the Pope, that in order to do something of profit and edification in this cause, it was requisite to resume the affair from its original and by its principles; rem à fontibus & ex integro violare. That however admiting we had taken a wrong course in reference to the mode of the Court of Rome, and done a superfluous thing in proving the authority of S. Augustin, whereof no Body doubted; it would then be easy to make our Adversaries acknowledge it, as we required them, and establish it as we demanded; that the worst was it might occasion possibly two months' delay in the Congregation, which would not be altogether unprofitable; wherefore if those of the Congregation had any sense of justice and equity, and so great an esteem for S. Augustin, that it were not necessary to say any thing in behalf of his authority, it being so universally acknowledged and beyond all contest, they would have nothing to do but first to confirm it as we desired; and after they had complied with our need and infirmity, and we were ready to take the right course in which we had failed, then to dismiss thoroughly the fantastic Propositions, I spoke to him about the Memorial which he was to deliver to the Pope, and about which he had been that day in the Pope's Presence-chamber to desire audience. He answered me that he could not deliver it, not having been introduced to audience. That his purpose in pressing to deliver it that day was, to hinder and get deferred the Congregation designed upon the Tuesday ensuing; that since he could not declare that day, he would wait to present it after that secret Congregation was passed.  
When I left him and had been a good while entertained about our affairs with sundry very affectionate and able Persons of his Order, I went to see another General of an Order, a very intelligent Person who very well understood the Jesuits, and who, speaking of them, said one thing which may amaze those that shall read it, viz. Non è più gran fortuna nel mondo, che di non connoscerbi, & none esserne conosciuto. There is no greater advantage in the world than not to know them, and not to be known by them.  
On Monday the 23d. we went in the morning before the Consistory, to see Cardinal Ghiggi (in whose equity, good intention and candour we had very great hope) and endeavour to set forth to him how unusual and strange the Congregation intended to assemble the next day seemed to us, we not having been advertised of it, our Write not having been well examined, and perhaps not any of the Consultors who should be called to it, having heard any thing of them. His Maistre de bre referred us to 3. in the afternoon. We failed not to return thither at the time appointed. His Gate was shut, no audience to be asked or hoped for.  
Had we been admitted, we could only have let him know our dissatisfaction that the proceed in this affair were so little conformable to the Suit we had made aswell by the Letter of the Prelates which we delivered to the Pope in 1651. and which there was a full years leisure to consider, as by our Memorial of the 21. of january, six Months before it was plainly and nakedly declared to us that the Pope had granted to us the Congregation which we had requested of him. But for all this we could not have hindered the assembling of the Congregation which they resolved to hold on Tuesday morning. It was signified on the Wednesday foregoing to be that day, in the usual order and according to custom by Tickets fastened on the Hall-doors of the Cardinals who were of it, (and elsewhere if need require) whereby notice is given of the day, hour, place, and subject that is to be treated of. All this had been done, and the Subject was also chosen and appointed to be the first Proposition. And that even three days before we had delivered to Cardinal Spada our preambulary writings touching things wholly different from the first Proposition. But the first notice we received of it, was that which Card. Ginetti gave us.  
Tuesday the 24th. being come, a friend of ours went to Cardinal Spadas Palace, to observe what should pass there and advertise us thereof. The hour appointed was 13. a clock, that is, about eight in the morning. Cardinal Cechini arrived there first, about half an hour after seven; and before eight all the rest, of whom the Congregation consisted, arrived there one after another in this Order. The Procurator General of the Capucines; Aversa: The General of the Augustins: F. Palavicini, a Jesuit; F. Campanella a Carmelite, who had also been a Jesuit before he entered into the Order of the Carmelites; Monsignor Albizzi; The Master of the Sacred Palace: Cardinal Ginetti: F. Delbene: The Procurator General of S. Marcel: The Commissary of the H. Office: F. Modeste Procurator of the Conventual Cordeliers: Cardinal Ghiggi: F. Luca Vadingo. The four Cardinals retired together in private for some time, and M. Albizzi with them: and a little after, which was about nine a clock, they caused all the other persons above named to enter. At Dinner time every one returned home. This is all that I leatnt after they were separated; and that they were to assemble again in the same manner that day seven night.  
In the afternoon I went to S. Andrew de Laval, where I spoke with F. Delbene, from whom I could learn nothing, saving that we had reason to be satisfied with what passed that morning. And as I was speaking to him of the reasons which hindered us from being contented with such proceeding, though perhaps in reality we had cause to be so, he said we might represent the same to the Cardinals, if we thought good; but he counselled me, if we did it, to do it a little less vehemently than I had done to him. F. Pascaligo with whom I conferred likewise in private, was much concerned in our Discontent, and judged the Proceed with us hard and grievous. Yet he confirmed to me that we ought to hold ourselves assured of F. Delbene, that he was absolutely for us; and according to what he could judge by his countenance; since the Congregation of that morning, he could not but be well pleased with what had passed therein.  
The next day some of our friends congratulated us thereupon, and counselled us to urge on our Affair in this good conjuncture, by delivering our Informations conformable to the manner in which they had began to proceed. But we excused ourselves from so doing, alleging that this secret and invisible management of such a difficult and intricate matter as ours, was too subject to foul dealing; and that besides we were obliged to do nothing that might prejudice the intentions of the Bishops who sent us, and in whose names we had demanded of the Pope a Congregation, in which the Proceed might be with the greatest Solemnity, and according to the free, open and fair forms which had from all time been observed and practised in the Church. But our friends asked us, Whether by standing upon those forms and intentions of the Prelates, we would leave them to make qualche Sproposito, some odd Decision besides our purpose? And we defended ourselves from that Panic fear, by alleging, that if they had a mind to do well, we had taken the right way; but if they were disposed to suffer themselves to be carried to any undue and unsearchable Resolution, the private and secret Informations which we should deliver them by the way, would not hinder them from it: That when all was said, we could do nothing that was contrary to the intentions of the Bishops who sent us.  
The same day in the afternoon I found occasion to take a copy of a new Writing, which I was told was delivered by M. Hallier and his Colleagues to the Consultors. I was employed therein till eight a clock in the evening, together with some other persons who helped me. We took it to pieces, and copied it out leaf by leaf, every one transcribing as much as he could; he that had it being obliged to restore it; and we fearing never to see it again, if we lost this opportunity of transcribing it.  
This writing was entitled, Damnatio Propositionum quinque ex Jansenii libris excerptarum. They attributed all the Propositions to Jansenius, without reciting any passage out of him, but only referring to some places; nor was any sense or explication set down of the three last Propositions.  
But upon the first they thus expressed the sense of Jansenius; Mandata Dei, etiam à justis, quando praecepti implendi necessitas imminet, observari non posse, Deo denegante iis adjutorium suum, tam illud quod ad praecepti observationem sufficiat, quàm istud quo gratiam ejusmodi emereri possint: quod utrumque justis denegari docet: which is false, captious, and founded upon the Ambiguity of the word Sufficient, as it would have been easy to show, if we had had the liberty to defend Jansenius.  
They impugned this sense by divers passages of Scripture, very remote from the matter in question: as, Jugum meum suave est, & onus meum leve; si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata.  
In the Sequel they confusedly recited the ordinary passages of the Bulls of Baius; of the Councils of Orange, Trent, Colen and Sens (which have been explicated a hundred times) without speaking a word of the Explications that have been made upon them: And especially, they urged divers censures of the Faculty against Luther and Calvin; which shows that they impugned the Propositions in the sense of Luther and Calvin, or gave cause to the Pope to construe them, in that sense.  
The sense which they put upon the second Proposition, with reference to Jansen▪ is very remarkable; Propositionis istius (said the writing) apud Jansenium sensus est, nullam esse Dei gratiam interiorem, cui homo per liberum arbitrium dissentiat aut dissentire possit in statu naturae corruptae, cùm in eo statu nullam admittat gratiam quae non sit efficax ad eum effectum ad quem datur; gratiae autem efficaci nunquam dissentiatur, aut etiam, ex tertia Propositione, dissentiri possit; hinc concludit interiori gratiae nunquam resisti. Vid. Tom. 3. lib. de Grat. cap. 14, 22, 25, 27, 28. lib. 3. cap. 1, 2, 3.  
Thus whilst the Pope and Cardinals declared to us viva voce, that they would not have us speak of Jansenius, and that they considered the Propositions in abstracto; these Doctors did not forbear to oppose him in their secret writings which were not communicated to us. And indeed had they been communicated to us in a legal way, whatever purpose we had not to speak of Jansenius, we should not have forborn refuting so great a falsity, as the charging him with having taught that Effectual Grace cannot be resisted, and that Internal Grace is never resisted; and accordingly we could not but say something again in defence of that Prelate against the like Impostures, in the Answer to the sixty passages of St. Augustin produced by M. Hallier, which we did not deliver to the Pope, till we heard the condemnation was already prepared, and which was not examined at all, as shall be shown in due place.  
The passages cited by M. Hallier and his Colleagues upon reference to the second Proposition, are the same which are every day in the mouths of the Molinists, and which are transcribed from the writings of M. le Moine.  
Touching the third Proposition; it may be observed, that though no sense be particularly set down of it, yet Jansenius is charged to have taught, That man hath no power to resist Effectual Grace, because such Grace does necessitate. And therefore he is combated with these words of the Council of Sens against Luther; Non multum distat à Manichaeo Lutherus: Nam cuncta quae ab homine fiunt, necessario fieri Lutherus credit.  
They continued the same order in the other Propositions, heaping up passages full of Abuses and Falsities, because they knew that those writings being secret, they would not be refelled by any person. Touching the fourth, they cited the false Council of Arles of the year 476. the Letter of Lucidas, the Council of Carisi, and other false or Semipelagian pieces.  
This was the reason why they were so afraid to appear in a contradictory conference, well knowing that these passages which were capable of blinding the eyes of the Cardinals, whom their great employments kept from being thoroughly instructed in these matters, and who take all passages for good that are produced before them, could have served for nothing but to confound them in case they had had Adversaries to their face to confute them.  
Thursday the 26th. going in the morning to Monte Cavallo, I visited F. Fani who was highly disgusted that the Thesis of F. Melchior which was composed almost in the very words of Augustin, had been stopped by M. Albizzi, who intended to to get it deferred till Easter, because, he said, they were then at Rome upon the examination of St. Augustine's Doctrine. This reason so highly displeased F. Fani, that he told me he would endeavour to acquaint the Pope with it; and Monsignor Sacrista was so touched with it, that he exhorted me that we should deliver an express Memorial to the Pope about it, to let him know how this Assessor treated that great light of the Church under his Papacy. But for that this Insolence was but an accessary to the principal things which we had in our hand, and we might more commodiously represent the same at another time, we did not think fit to make it a particular affair different from our own which wholly employed us, and which by the new Difficulties raised against us upon every occasion, gave us more trouble and business than it would have done, had it been managed in that usual and public way in which Cardinal Ghiggi had long ago assured us it should be.  
F. Hilarion and F. Vbaldino were both of the number of those which ought by right to have been of the Congregation which was held on Tuesday at Cardinal Spadas house, and both very fit persons to pass a Judgement on the Propositions with knowledge of the cause; but both of them had reasons which kept them from being present at those kind of Congregations, F. Hilarion held to the Judgement which he had delivered when the false censure of the Faculty was examined before the Pope; and as for F. Vbaldino though he would not be present in person at the Congregation, yet he thought fit to send his Vote and Judgement thither in Writing, according to the course and practise of those Divines, when any reason obliges them so to do. He entrusted it with the Commissary of the H. Office, who presented it to the Congregation; but Cardinal Spada refused, and would not receive it. I went to see that Father on Thursday the 26. in the afternoon, and besides what I have related concerning his Vote; he told me that the greatest part of the Congregation was spent on things remote from what ought to have been debated; that there was no likelihood that they could come that way to a handsome Decision, and that before they could agree what mischief to do against us, they would employ some time and consultation to resolve upon it.  
The same day I met with F. Alvarez an eminent Dominican and first Professor of Divinity in the Covent of la Minerve, who told me, that our Consultors found themselves much entangled, si horavano impicciatissimo. That amongst others, the General of the Augustine's did not dissemble what haste the time allotted for this affair put him upon, and how troubled he was to see that they were obliged to speak in a Congregation of learned and venerable persons, before they had time allotted them to inquire into the things whereupon they were to pass Judgement: That to be able to speak solidly of all the matters which were to be handled there, and were propounded, required the reading of St. Augustin, Jansenius, our Writings, and those of our Adversaries.  
After divers visits which we had made to Cardinal Cechini to present our writings to him, at length we were admitted to it on Friday morning, Sep. 27. But first the Abbot of Valcroissant set forth to him very largely in Latin the state of things, and what manner we accounted just and expedient to handle this affair for the right understanding and judging of it. Having heard us fairly, he bid us address to the other Cardinals before the Congregation, which was to be held on Tuesday following, in case the Signature of Grace did not hinder it, because in that of the Thursday foregoing, there had been no speech at all of these perambulatory matters which ought to be first judged of before setting upon the Propositions; but the Axe hath been laid directly to the root of the Tree, and they had began with the Propositions. We did not open ourselves very much to this Cardinal what esteem we made of those Congregations; but we told him, that this equitable manner of interpreting the things which we had represented to him, caused us to believe that when he had seen our writings, he would understand and determine together with us; that to judge aright of this Affair, and in order to the due comprehending of it, it was requisite first to dispatch all those preliminary demands, and then rightly state the Propositions and Questions which were to be decided, and upon which our Adversaries and we were to contend. In fine, he professed, that he took things well, and had they depended on him, he would have given his Judgement for the treating of them in the manner we desired. But he was already fallen into the Pope's disfavour, as I have related above; and if he had much of the spirit of justice, yet he had very little Authority: He was present at those private Congregations, whereas there were none but Cardinals; but his disgrace and misunderstanding with the Pope, did not allow him to appear anywhere in the presence of his Holiness, nor so much as to speak amongst his Confreres with the liberty which he could have done, if he had not been in that condition of disfavour.  
I learned in the afternoon, that the General of the Dominicans had new cause of complaint about the Congregation, namely, that the F. companion of the Commissary of the H. Office, and the F. companion of the Master of the sacred Palace, who by right aught to be of it, were excluded out of the number of the Consultors.  
Saturday the twenty eight, I met with a very learned Dominican, who being drawn to speak of the first Proposition, told me that he accounted it very true, and out of all danger of censure, if they did justice unto it; but that they who had a desire to condemn it, would fasten upon the expression and manner of speaking, that so they might have whereupon to ground their condemnation. That nevertheless he believed, there was no place to attaque it that way, because the manner of speech was not bad, because it was derived from the Gospel. Which he proved by the example of that young man who asked our Lord what he should do to inherit eternal life; and our Lord having answered him, That he should sell all that he had, and give it to the poor and follow him; the young man became sad thereat, because he was very rich. Whereupon our Lord said to his Disciples, That the rich should hardly enter into the kingdom of God; because it was more easy for a Camel to pass through the eye of a Needle (which is yet impossible) than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Which having moved his Disciples who were present to put this Question to our Lord, Quis ergo poterit salvus esse? who then can be saved? Our Lord answered them, Quae impossibilia sunt apud homines, possibilia sunt apud Deum: That the things which were impossible to men, left to themselves, were possible to them with the grace of God. Behold the very word (said this Dominican) which is in this Proposition, used by our Lord in the Gospel, and in an Hypothesis like to that in the Proposition: For the young man, upon occasion of whom he used it, was righteous, having kept God's commandments from his youth, and S. Augustin saith of him, that erat juvenis gratiâ & aetate. And our Lord bidding him sell his goods and give them to the poor, doth not give him an advice, but enjoins him a thing of commandment; for in the circumstances of that time a man could not follow our Lord without forsaking all. Besides, that our Lord placeth the Impossibility not upon the sale of the Goods but upon Salvation. Now it cannot be said that the Obligation that lies upon men to save themselves, is only a counsel and not a command. And nevertheless our Lord maketh use of that word, Quae impossibilia sunt apud homines. Why then, said this Dominican, may it not be made use of in reference to the Righteous mentioned in the Proposition, to whom the commandments of God are impossible in this manner when they have not yet all the grace which is needful for the observing of them; and to whom they become afterwards possible with the help of that Grace when they have received it, possibilia sunt apud Deum (as it is also said in the Gospel) and which is to be presupposed in the Righteous meant in the Proposition, to whom it is said that the commandments are impossible only secundum praesentes quas habent vires, according to the small strength they have during the time, that those commandments are not yet altogether possible to them, with the utmost possibility which needs no other grace to act?  
As for the Council of Trent, which condemns this manner of speaking (said the Dominican) 'tis in speaking against Luther, that it condemns it; against Luther (said he) who held that God's commandments were impossible to men, even moved and excited by Grace, etiam sub gratiam posito, which is meant of Actual Grace; for otherwise, the Council should have added it in vain: and Luther spoke universally of all the Righteous; the indefinite term of the Council being to be resolved into an universal. Now there is much difference between saying that God's commandments are impossible to all righteous men, with whatever actual grace they be aided and assisted, (which is that which the Council condemns) and saying that there are commandments of God which are impossible to the Righteous whilst they have not yet the Effectual Grace, whereof they stand in need to render the same possible unto them in such sort, that there be not wanting to them any assistance for acting effectively; which is that which is affirmed in the first Proposition.  
This was the sense of that Dominican, who understood and considered it in this manner. The Pope, to whom it was expounded otherwise, and who understood and considered it otherwise, hath condemned it. I stand to the condemnation which he hath made of it, under which this sense which this Dominican had, is not comprised and involved. I do not say, of the Proposition for it is condemned; but I say of the Catholic verity, which he considered under the terms of that same Proposition: which verity is not condemned with the Proposition.  
Monday the 30th. being by occasion in the Covent of the Augustins, I visited the Signior professor of Divinity, and in the Discourse we had together, I told him that he should do very well to persuade the General of the Augustins, underhand to demand in the private Congregations held at Cardinal Spadas House, that before any thing else, Justice might be done to Saint Augustin, whose Doctrine and Authority had been so unworthily affronted; and I told him plainly, That I could not speak to the General of it myself; because I would not take notice of the private Assemblies which were held about our affair, nor give occasion of saying that I made any secret and particular information to the Consultors which were of them.   

CHAP. X.  
Letters written to us from Paris during the month of September, by which we were enjoined not to engage in the Congregation, but upon condition of being heard in presence of our Adversaries. Two or three remarkable things which happened to the Jesuits during that time.  
'TIs a thing which still amazes me when I consider it, how the joy and hope, which our Bishops and Friends had of the Declaration made to us at the erection of the Congregation, were destroyed in a little time. Besides what I have spoken thereof above in the end of August, he of our Bishops who had the most experience in the Court of Rome, and also the greatest correspondence there, caused us to be advertised, that we should keep ourselves strictly upon our Guards, and that it was signified to him from Rome, That the Congregation was not appointed but to put us in a condition of receiving a contradictory judgement against ourselves, whereof the design was already resolved upon. And during the whole Month of September, they who were at Paris caused the like advisoes to be given us continually.  
By the Letters of September 7. we were given to understand as from them, That they had been written to from Rome that the Congregation was not granted us in order to do us Justice, but to circumvent us, with a design to pass a contradictory Judgement in the cause which we defended; and therefore we ought to have a care of surprises.  
By the Letters of the 13th. That what I had signified to them by the last which they received from me did not surprise them. That they had long ago been persuaded that M. Hallier and they with whom he acted in consort against us, would use all their endeavours to elude the congregation, and not to appear in it; but they held themselves assured, that so long as they had such Deputies as ourselves with the Pope, they ought not to fear that we would departed in any thing from the Order which they had given us for obtaining a Congregation, in which the Parties might be obliged to appear solemnly, and to act according to such forms as were Canonical, and necessary for passing such a Judgement as might be received by all the Faithful with benediction and without contest. That if nevertheless the people with whom we had to do were obstinate, in declining to appear before the Congregation according to the legal forms, they enjoined us to have recourse to our Commission, which imported that we should be heard publicly in a Congregation where our Adversaries might appear; to hold ourselves to that clause, and not to infringe the same in any manner whatsoever. That they were too well persuaded of the justice of the Pope and Cardinals, to believe that after so legal a Declaration they could find any thing to gainsay our proceeding. That consequently we should remember that besides this power we had no other. Wherefore if there arose any difficulties to the prejudice of it, we should have recourse to them, and send them word what was required of us. That that which obliged them further to recommend the same to us again, was, That the Jesuits and Friends of M. Hallier reported at Paris, that he would be coming away about the end of October to be at Paris in the end of November, and that he would bring a censure along with him.  
By the Letters of Sept. 20. my Lords approved the conclusion of our Writing of matters of Fact, and that which we had delivered concerning S. Augustin's authority, whereof we had sent them a copy. They were very well pleased that we thereby obliged our Adversaries to acknowledge that authority, and our judges to establish it, because when this should be once done; the remainder of the contest would be easy to dispatch, but they recommended to us above all to take heed that by occasion of our Writings our Adversaries did not endeavour to make our affair a process by writing, because it was the only means that could be left them to save themselves. That M. Lagault had written to a Person, a Friend of my Lords, as triumphing already for the victory whereof he was certain; that it seemed by his Letter that he was in a manner sure that no hearing would be allowed us in the manner that we had demanded, and that all that would be granted, would be to hear us in private the most speedily that possibly could be.  
And lastly, By those of the 27th. of the same month, That we should always take heed not to engage in the Congregation otherwise than in presence of our Adversaries; that the said Lords had not sent us but upon that condition; and that we should act in such sort, that our Adversaries as well as ourselves might reduce all that they should say into writing, and that they might be obliged to sign the same, according to the custom of Congregations.  
About this time two or three remarkable things passed amongst the Jesuits. They caused to be maintained in their College in the Town of Grets', in Germany (Graecii) this Proposition, That it is not a matter of Faith that Innocent X. is a true and lawful Pope, Innocentium X. esse legitimè Pontificem, non est de fide.  
They made a great solemnity at Rome for the secular year of the foundation or possession which they had of a College established for Germans and Hungarians. They caused an Oration to be pronounced by a young Germane Count which one of their Fathers had composed; to which they invited all the Cardinals, who accordingly were all present at it, if I be not deceived, except Cardinal Spada, who perhaps was detained elsewhere by some more grave employment. They caused the said Oration to be printed, and it was censured a few days after by the Master of the Sacred Palace. I remember amongst divers things in it deserving reprehension, which were in very great number, it was said by a sufficiently silly figure of Rhetoric, that the Pope favoured Heresy.  
Some Persons having considered that it was little edifying to see the Jesuits wander to and fro in their Churches and under their Cloisters, to receive and make visits, etc. in the time that the Divine Offices of the Grand Masses and Vespers were celebrating amongst them, whilst they caused the same to be sung by Laymen commended for it; they caused notice to be given thereof to some of those who were of the Congregation de Riti, of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies. The General of the Jesuits was advertised a little while after, that that Congregation was upon the point to make a Decree, 1. To oblige them to officiate in the double Festivals of the first and second class with Deacon and Sub-deacon, and other convenient Acolytes at the grand Mass and Vespers with a Priest, Portecierges, (Taper-carriers) and Porte-encens (Incense-carriers) etc. 2. To hinder them from keeping the Octaves of the Festivals of their Bien-heureux (Blessed) who were not canonised. The General and his Assistants having deliberated what to do in this occurrence, resolved to prevent the Decree by putting it in execution, thereby to take from the said Congregation the cause of making one, which might be published and become some matter of humiliation to them. Wherefore on the first of October when they celebrated the Holiday of their Bienheureux Borgia, they officiated at the first and second Vespers, and at the grand Mass with the Ceremonies above mentioned, according to the intention of the Congregation, whereof they had gotten intelligence, and contrary to what they had accustomed, they kept no Octave of that Festival. Till All-Saints day there happened no Festival for them of the first and second class, and during the whole month of October they did nothing but after the ordinary way. The Pope who was advertised of these do, and who intended to prescribe something further to them, caused one to tell the General, whom he had not seen of a long time, that he must repair to his Holiness. But the General would have been dispensed withal, alleging that he feared the Pope would not explicate himself more clearly; that he might prescribe them something further, whereunto it behooved them to obey, and that it was better to keep themselves as they were. Nevertheless he could not gainsay it, it behooved him to go to the Pope upon the Octave of All-Saints. He represented to his Holiness the alteration which the Congregation de Riti had introduced in their Society; that nevertheless they had submitted to it, and prevented the Decree by obeying it. The Pope answered him, that he was well pleased to understand that they had obeyed so readily; but that they deceived themselves in believing that the Congregation intended to oblige them to officiate in that manner only in the Festivals of the first and second Class; that they must do it as often as there should be a grand Mass and Vespers. The General replied, That his Holiness obliged them to that which was not practised in any House of Religion, not even in Collegial Houses, where they do not officiate in that manner upon ordinary Festivals. That he entreated his Holiness to consider that there was none in his Society that was instructed in the Ceremonies; that in many Colleges there was not company enough for that and the other Functions. The Pope answered that it must be done as his Holiness had said, in all the Houses of their Society throughout the world; and that if they did it not of themselves, he would cause the Decree to be published. The General replied that they would obey, and so he withdrew. Accordingly the second Sunday of November they officiated in the professed House of le Giesù with the abovesaid ceremonies. They celebrated the grand Mass with Deacon and Sub-deacon, the Portecierges and the Port'-encense. In the afternoon at Vespers which were those of S. Martin there was a Jesuit who officiated in his Surplice and Cope; within the Rails there were two Portecierges and one Port-encense, and two other Acolytes in Surplices, all Jesuits. When they had about this time at their College the Forty Hours, they performed the same in like manner. They were obliged likewise to use the same solemnity in the Noviciate when there should be a grand Mass or Vespers sung; but it was not believed that they would make much haste in taking up this usage out of Italy, where they were more distant from the Pope's presence. But let us return to the things which concern us.   

CHAP. XI.  
New Solicitations for the Communication of our Writings, and a new Writing of M. Hallier's which fell into our hands.  
WE did not go out of our Lodging on Tuesday the first of October; but we understood the next morning that a second Congregation was held at the House of Cardinal Spada. That the other Cardinals were so late in appearing there, that Cardinal Spada being impatient thereat, sent lackeys to their Eminences to know whether they would come. That at length Cardinal Ginetti and Ghiggi appeared there, but Cardinal Cechini did not come at all. That the consultors entered very late, and that the congregation lasted but a very little time.  
In the afternoon I visited the Ambassador. He told me that the day before he had seen two of the Doctors our Adversaries, who acquainted him, that the Conferences were begun, that they were not sent for to them, and that they let them alone. I answered the Ambassador, that these were the proceed which they desired, being acceptable enough to people that had no mind to appear publicly before the Congregation. The Ambassador replied, that nevertheless they declared that they were ready so to do: I answered, That they were ready indeed, as those who to play the Bravoes, make show of willingness to fight a Duel, but underhand, for fear of becoming engaged to fight, get guards set upon themselves. The Ambassador said, that he had always told me, that it would be a hard thing to get them at Rome to resolve upon giving us a public hearing. I answered, that we were not yet at the end of the Affair; that we should be too blame, if we complained so soon that they would not hear us; that we still hoped they would do according to the promise made to us at the declaring of the Establishment of the Congregation which we had demanded. That these first conferences which the Consultors had together, were perhaps on purpose to venilitate the Propositions among themselves, thereby to reduce them to clear and distinct senses; which was the first thing that we had represented to the Pope as necessary to be done in order to proceed profitably and sincerely in the whole Examen and decision of this Affair. The Ambassador went to see the Cardinals Capponi and Ursini: I accompanied him in those two Visits, and in the Discourse that I had with him by the way, I entreated him to take some occasion to get M. Hallier and M. de Valcroissant to enter into a conference together about some point of the matter in question, and that it might be in his presence, or of two or three of his friends with him, that so it might be tried in what manner both the one and the other would scan and discuss of things; and that both sides of us might be put a little in breath by that Essay. The Ambassador answered me, that it was not fit for him to thrust himself so far into the discussion of these matters: I replied, that it would not be to decide them; but no more then as when the King causes the Regiment of Guards to be exercised, where every one does what he would do in a battle, yet without any being victorious or vanquished, or so much as any fight offered on one side or other.  
The Cureé of S. Saviour had been gratified by the Pope with the Office of Subbibliothecary of the Vatican, which is a considerable quality as well in regard of the esteem which is thereby made of the capacity of the person to whom it is given, as in regard of the appurtenances annexed to it, and for that it puts a man into the rank of the Prelacy, which obliges him to go in a Coach, and clothed with violet, di pavonazzo. 'Twas Cardinal Ghiggi, his Countryman and ancient friend, who induced the Pope to acknowledge the merit and labour of this Curié by conferring the said Dignity upon him. He was ours as cordially as any man could be another's; and assoon as he had in his hands the badges of his Magistracy, which were the keys of the Vatican, and the Achives and Presses where the Books are; he came to offer us the use of them, not only at the ordinary times when such as have permission may resort thither, but also at all hours that we pleased, day and night. He told me on Thursday, October 3. that the good Master of the sacred Palace, who knew not what intimate correspondenee we had with him, entreated him out of kindness to us, to accommodate us with such books of the said Library as we should need.  
If I did not fear to fall into too frequent and tedious Repetitions of the same thing, I would here set down another Conference that I had with F. Mulard in presence of Sig. Domenico Ferranti and F. Fani, in which he told more things concerning his Deputation the foregoing year, and of that wherewith he affirmed himself encharged this year from the King about the same Affair, and of M. Hallier's letters to the Cardinals and M. Albizzi, than I have yet related. But to leave it all, and speak no more of it, I will only add two new particulars more here, not hitherto mentioned. First, That in the beginning M. Joysel was not to have been one in the voyage wherein M. Hallier was engaged; That the Letters of Recommendation from the Court in behalf of these Doctors, spoke only of M. Hallier and M. Lagualt; that M. Joysel aftetwards entreated them to take him into their company. And secondly, that the year before when his General charged him upon his obedience to return into France, he did it partly because of the Complaints which the General of the Dominicans made against him to his General, when he saw him solicit this Affair against us.  
In the Afternoon we went to the Cardinals of our Congregation, to put them in mind, that it was a fortnight since we had presented our writings to them; that we conceived; that they might have since perused them, & that in our judgements it was expedient, that they would please to communicate them to the Doctors against whom they were made, to the end they might be ready to answer thereunto when their Eminences should think fit that we appeared with them in the Congregation. And lest they might forget this request after our departure from them; we made a short Memorial of it, of which we transcribed and signed as many Copies as were requisite, to present the same to each of them. The Memorial was thus inscribed on the outside: Eminentissimis ac Reverendissimis Dominis, 
 Dominis Cardinalibus congregationis institutae pro negotio quinque Propositionum. And within side thus: Eminentissimi Reverendissimique 
 Domini Cardinals; 
 Eminentiis vestris humillimè supplicamus uti jubeant Adversariis nostris communicari duo scripta, eorumque summarium ante quindecem dies obtulimus Eminentiis vestris: Quas Deus, etc.  
This, etc. is the ordinary stile and form wherewith Memorials are concluded, comprehending all the words of respect, affection and good wishes, that they may be added by extending more at length.  
After the, etc. the Memorial was thus signed. 

Natalis de la Lane Doctor Theologus Facultatis Parisiensis, Abbas beatae Mariae de Valle Crescente.  
Ludovicus de Saint-Amour sacrae facultatis Parisiensis Doctor ac Socius Sorbonicus.  
Ludovicus Angran ejusdem sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis licentiatus, ac insignis Ecclesiae Trecersis Canonicus.    
We went first to Cardinal Spada, whom we found not at home, and thence to Cardinal Ginetti, with whom we spoke. We had little time to speak with him, when we presented our writings to him, and therefore upon this occasion we gave him an ample account of what was contained therein; after which he answered us in Latin, as M. de Valcroissant had spoken to him, and said nothing about the Communication which we requested, but gave us some genral terms of Assurance, that nothing would be done in this Affair, without first considering the whole exactly. Next we went to Cardinal Ghiggi, who retured not till night from taking the air with the Pope: When we had acquainted him with the subject of our coming to him, he answered us, that he knew not whether that course would be judged expedient, that this business would not proceed so fast, that it would go forward with leaden feet, that nothing would be done therein but very leisurly molto posatament. After which, touching the word Adversaries, he said, that he did not like the using of it between us, because he believed that both sides sought the Truth: we replied, that he did not like the using of it between us, because he believed that both sides sought the truth: We replied, that did we know a gentler word whereby to denote the people with whom we were in contest, we would willingly use it; and as for the scruple that he made about the Communication of our writings, it surprised us extremely; because Cardinal Roma had promised the same to us in the Pope's name, after we had been a whole year in suing for it. Cardinal Ghiggi answered, that he knew not what Cardinal Roma might have said or done: but however it should be taken into consideration what course would be expedient. He had some conceit, that this Request and Memorial were addressed to himself alone; but we told him that we should present the same also to the other three Cardinals; whereupon he answered us, that they would confer about it together; and after they had done so, perhaps it would be found requisite to consult his Holiness.  
Saturday the fifth, we went in the forenoon to Cardinal Spadas house to present our Memorial to him, but not finding him there, we went to that of Cardinal Cechini, to whom we presented it, having first acquainted him with the cause why it was made. Cardinal Cechini answered, that he had not as yet perused all our Writings, that they were much longer than those of our Adversaries, and the days already very short, and that his eyes no more allowed him to read any thing by a Candle. But that he gave us one Advice, namely to beware in the other instructions or informations that we should have yet to make, of falling upon the matters of Grace which had been heretofore controverted between the Dominicans and the Jesuits; because according to what he had heard, he believed it was not the Pope's intention that the same should be meddled with in any sort, considering that after the long conferences and disputations about them under Clement VIII. and Paul V all the Regulation that could be effected therein, was, that Paul V imposed perpetual silence to both parties upon that Subject. We answered, that we beseeched his Eminence to give us leave to assure him, that the silence imposed to the Parties by Paul V was not to be perpetual, but only a Provisional Order to hinder the parties from preventing his Judgement, and taxing one another of Heresy, till such time as the posture of things permitted him to publish his Decision, which was already made in favour of the Dominicans against the Jesuits, and whereof there was a Bull drawn up, as appears by sundry undeniable Records at Rome. That since that time, the Jesuits instead of making right use of that Silence which was enjoined principally in their favour (for a Condemnation was the thing first intended) and returning by degrees to the doctrine of the Church, which they were convinced to have deserted, on the contrary they have always receded further and further from it, and have at length so spread their erroneous imaginations everywhere in the Church, that they dared now a days to cry them up as the doctrine of the Church, and thereby gave an occasion to Heretics to reproach the Church of forsaking Tradition, and the dictates of the Scripture in these matters. That it was time to remedy this Disorder, and for the H. See and the Church to make known to all the world what was their common Doctrine and Belief as to these points. That it was the duty and interest of the one and the other, no more to keep under a Bushel by a longer silence the Light which ought to be set upon a Candlestick, or upon a Hill to give light to the whole world, and teach every one the true way of his salvation. That this mystery of Grace was one of the principal points of the Church's Faith, the knowledge whereof was most profitable to the Faithful, to keep them in the acknowledgement of what they own to God, and in the Christian humility which is so necessary to them. That for this reason the great Apostle of the Gentiles writing to the Romans to expound the same to them, tells them that he would not have them ignorant of it, lest they might leave some entrance for vanity into their minds: Nolo enim vos fratres ignorare mysterium hoc, ut non sitis vobis ipsis sapientes. That hence S. Fulgentius had taught us that the blessed Apostle intended not to have that Doctrine kept in silence which he had left in writing: Beatus Apostolus noluit sileri quod voluit scribi. That S. Augustin had observed that it was in his Epistle to the Romans principally that this Apostle had unfolded this Mystery, to the end that the knowledge thereof being conveyed to that Great City whose Dominion extended over all the Nations of the World, the same might from thence be diffused through the whole earth, as flowing from the Head to all the Members: De cujus praedicatione maximè ad Romanos Apostolica Epistola loquitur, ut iude se praedicatio ejus velut à capite orbis toto orbe diffunderet. That it would be a very strange thing for those wholesome waters which ought to flow from that Source into all Christendom, deriving a happy fecundity upon it, to be stopped up and retained in that Source by a continual silence, which must needs cause everywhere a sad drought and sterility; That one day God, who said to his Apostles, Go, preach the truths of my Gospel throughout the world, might reproach their Successors for having kept those Truth's captive and extinguished them in the very centre of their safest Sanctuary, as they would be, if instead of protecting them against the assaults of their enemies, the H. See condemned them to a perpetual silence. Wherefore there is no appearance to say that such silence was imposed; or if it was, there would be a necessity and evident obligation to break it. As for that which Cardinal Cechini said to us of not entering into the matter de Auxiliis, we answered, That we would not meddle with the same further than the things to be examined should engage us; But we could not dissemble to his Eminence, that if they would not have those matters entered into, then neither could any examen or discussion of the Propositions be taken in hand, because we maintaining the same only by reason of the connexion which they had with Effectual Grace, whereof they were consequences and necessary dependences, when reduced to the sense in which we intended to defend them, and so nothing could be established, judged or pronounced upon them one way or other, but the whole matter must at the same time be decided one way or other likewise. That there was so great a concatenation between all the Maxims that could be advanced on one side or other in this matter, that one single point being once granted on either part, it was easy to reduce all the rest thereunto by necessary and evident consequences; Non habet aliud summa quàm p rtio; That it had been the artifice of the Jesuits and their Confederates in this last affair to hid the Catholic truths of this mystery of Grace under the ambiguous terms whereof the Propositions were composed, thereby to involve some one of those truths under the condemnation which they might obtain of the Propositions, extend the condemnation of a Proposition to that truth, conclude evidently from the condemnation of this the condemnation of all the rest, and from their condemnation pretend afterwards that their sentiments which are diametricaliy opposite thereunto, were authorised and established for Orthodox by the H. See. That nothing but the evidence and importance of the Mischiefs likely to ensue from such a surprise as they would have put upon the H. See, had moved the Prelates by whom we were deputed, to send us hither to give notice thereof. That it belonged to the Pope and their Eminences, upon whom his Holiness relied, to take heed thereto; and that if we had some small interest therein, though our affection to the H. See, and the part which that affection caused us to take in an affair which so highly concerned it, the Pope and their Eminences were far more highly engaged and interested therein than we. The Cardinal heard this discourse with great attention; he seemed to us affected with it; and whereas he had been hitherto little accustomed to such language, the Sentin e●t which he expressed to us upon it made us conceive that he was one of those that considered the consequence of the things which we represented to him, and would to his power do us justice therein.  
On Sunday the 6th. we went again to Cardinal Spadas house, to whom we delivered our little Memorial, and told him that we had addressed the same to all the Cardinals of the Congregation, because when we requested him the first time that he would please to ordain the communication of our Writings, he had answered us that it was requisite to make the same request to the others, and they would all together take order therein. Whereunto he returned that he would make report thereof, and it should be considered what was expedient.  
The same day I visited Monsignor Sacrista who told me that the Jesuits were resolved to defend their Panegyric of the College of Hungary against the Decree of the Master of the Sacred Palace; and that they said that as to what they advanced therein, viz. that the Pope favoured Heresy, it was a figure of Rhetoric, whereby they put abstractum pro concreto; and that generally in Rome the common sentiment was that the Pope knew them well, and that he had them not in gran concetto, that he made no great account of them, that he loved them not overmuch.  
Monday the 7th. F. Mulard was again upon the point to return into France; and he acquained me with sundry small news; amongst the rest, That the year foregoing he had presented to the Pope and the Cardinals Roma and Spada, the Writing above mentioned, entitled, An sit sopienda, etc. That F. Annat was Author of that entitled, Jansenius à Thomistis damnatus. And upon my saying that it was a great shame that M. Hallier was so miserably become the Colporteur (the Pamphlet-venter) of the Jesuits, in that he received of them the Writings which they put into his hands, without so much as examining them, and went about to present them to the Cardinals, he took upon him to defend his good Cousin from this reproach, telling me that he had made another since. And when I pressed him to tell me what it was, he answered me that it was only a collection of passages out of S. Augustin (I believed he received the same from the Jesuits as well as the rest) but F. Mulard added, that M. Joysel and M. Lagault had also undertaken to compose something upon this Subject, but that what they had written was worth nothing at all. Lastly, He told me that F. Annat was likewise about to return into France, and that those three Doctors used all their endeavours to persuade him not to departed from Rome so long as themselves were there.  
We did not go out of our Lodging on the forenoon of Tuesday the 8th. But in the afternoon I visited F. Vbaldino who congratulated me for the good success of our Cause in our Congregation, and for that the whole Assembly had agreed to all that we had demanded in behalf of S. Augustin. I remonstrated to him that it was not enough that they agreed thereunto by word, but it was requisite that they declared the same in writing, and obliged our Adversaries to do the like. He acknowledged it, and further confessed to me that the way they had hitherto held in the Congregation both in reference to that point and to the Propositions, was not that which ought to be taken. He told me also, that one of our Adversary Doctors had been to visit him; he could not tell me his name; but according as he described him, I believe it was M. Lagault. He told me that this Doctor said to him, that if these matters were not speedily defined, and if the root and course of these Heresies were not cut off, all would be lost in France, and that at length there would be no remedy left. That they did not at all contend against S. Augustin; That they would not meddle with the matter de Auxiliis: That they acknowledged and confessed Effectual and Special Grace particular, which was not given to all the Righteous in general, without which there was no perseverance, and with which all such as received it could and did really persevere, which had been acknowledged and defined by the Council of Trent, as F. Vbaldino constrained him to grant. After which the same Father told me, that he urged the Doctor further, and made this argument to him: You acknowledge then that that Grace causeth Holy Action, sanctam operationem; which M. Lagault granted. Now, said the Father to him, Omnis actio praesupponit posse; ab actu ad posse valet consequentia. If then such Grace gives the Action, it gives also the power proportionate and correspondent to such Action. Therefore who so hath not such Grace, hath neither such action or such power. Now to him that hath not this power, though God's commandments be possible to him with another possibility, yet they are impossible to him with this. To which the Doctor could not answer, but fell to cry up M. Hallier's great labours in behalf of the H. See, for which he deserved to be rewarded. He was so copious in this Declaration, that F. Vbaldino told me, he could not but have great expectations. Towards evening I visited Monsignor Sacrista who told me that there was held that day another Congregation at Cardinal Spadas house, although there had been a signature of Grace upon the same day.  
We had made some transcripts of the Summary of our Writings, to justify to some of our friends that we had not taken pleasure to slink back during the time which we had employed in composing them, and to give them an Idea of what we pretended therein. I had lent one of them to M. Bouvier, who came to restore it on Wednesday the 9th. and who told me that the face of our affair was changed since a fortnight; that the wind sat in a good corner for us; that the common Bruit was that the Jesuits would be mortified, and that the Pope would count our affair among the great occasions of displeasure which they had given his Holiness.  
In the afternoon I met M. Delbene, to whom I said pleasantly that I should willingly ask him tidings of what passed in the Congregations which I understood were held at Cardinal Spadas house; but I considered the Obligation which I knew he had to keep secrecy. He professed that he was sorry for the restraint that was upon him, but as he left me, he said pleasantly too, Viva Sant' Agostino.  
On Thursday the 10th. I went to accompany Cardinal Barberin to Monte Cavallo. He told me that it was a long time since he had seen me, and asked me whether I had heard of the little Book of Gravina which F. Nolano had caused to be printed, in which the authority of S. Augustin's doctrine was pleaded for; adding that it seemed to him very superfluous; because all the world was obliged to reverence it; perch noi siamo tutti obligati a riverire sant' Agostino. I cannot tell whether or no by this Discourse he meant to intimate that the Writing which we had presented was not necessary. I saw Cardinal Spada arrive, in whose train was M. Hallier and his Colleagues. Monsignor Sacrista told me in the Pope's Antichamber that one of the Consultors had signihed to him that it was fit we presented a Memorial to the Pope to get M. Albizzi out of the Assemblies; because, said he, Grida l'uno, minaccia & burba l' altro: He calls out upon one, he threatens and mocks another, he gains others by hopes, etc.  
In the afternoon by chance I met with two Pieces of Writings which M. Hallier and his Colleagues had presented September 29. in the hands of one of the Consultors; one of which was upon the first Proposition, and the other upon the second. Out of the great confidence he had in me he lent them to me, and we forthwith fell to transcribe them very diligently, that we might speedily return them into the hands of him who had the goodness to lend them to me.  
Finding by these Papers that there were three others upon each of the other Propositions, in the days following I used some care to procure them; and understanding, as I was going about it that M. Hallier had made the same complaint to Cardinal Ghiggi of the Letter which I had written to M. Bouvot, that he had formerly made to the Ambassador, I visited that Cardinal upon Friday the 11th. in the afternoon. He declared that complaints of that nature made no great impression upon his mind; nevertheless I showed him a Copy of a Letter which I had written, and offered to leave it with him, that he might see how unjust and ridiculous M. Hallier's complaints were. But he was contented that I read to him what I would of it, and what I conceived most necessary to undeceive him. And indeed he was satisfied therewith.  
I proceeded otherwise with the Ambassador when I carried him a copy of the said Letter, presently after I had promised it to him: For I left it with him, to the end that if he thought good he might give it M. Hallier to send to M. Grandin, and compare it with the Original which I had written to M. Bouvot. The Ambassador willingly took it, after he had read it, to make the said offer to M. Hallier, telling me, that there was no ground of complaint in it, and I might without any fear send it open into all Countries in the world.  
When I went to Cardinal Ghiggi, I repaired to the Capucines to see F. Brisse. M. Lagault arrived there at the same time that I did, and attending till F. Brisse came down we discoursed together. He said that M. Cornet had reason to propound the Equivocal Propositions to the Faculty, because they were every day endeavoured to be put into Theses; but should there have been any cause of blaming him for it, yet he had been cleared by four and twenty Bishops who sent them to Rome to demand their condemnation. He said also, that were the question no more but concerning Molina, we should soon agree, and they would forsake their party. That indeed Molina had placed the Efficacy of Grace in dependence on the Will, that therein he was wrong, that he had deserted S. Augustin; but should things be reduced to that Question, they should not be much concerned, but leave us to act as we pleased: All this he said, whilst we were expecting F. Brisse. Whereunto I answered, when F. Brisse was come to us, ask him about what then was the question in those Propositions, if not about the point of Effectual Grace which Molina had impugned; after so many Declarations made by us that we did not stand for them, but by reason of the senses according to which they might be reduced, and had an indissoluble connection with that kind of Grace: He replied, That the Propositions were a distinct matter from it, as the Pope's Declaration to them and also, to us manifested; namely, That his Holiness would not have any meddling with the things which had been handled under Clement VIII. and Paul V I would gladly have replied something to him, but after this he left me in displeasure, telling me that we had good Judges, and should know shortly what would be the issue. He spoke in such manner as if he had been fully assured of the victory, and left me no room to reply to him; so that when he was gone, I was contented with minding F. Brisse to take notice what he had heard.  
Saturday the 12th. among other persons whom I visited in quest of the three Writings , I spoke to the companion of the Commissary of the H. Office, by whom I learned that a few days before M. Hallier and his Colleagues had visited the Commissary, and that during the visit the Commissary sent to him for a Writing which he had lent him, to return the same to them. It was thus entitled, Jansenius à Thomistis gratiae per seipsam efficacis defensoribus damnatus: It was since printed, as I shall observe hereafter under the name of F. Annat, though M. Hallier presented it to the Consultors instead of Instructions which he was to present to them. It was founded upon nothing but perpetual equivocations of Grace Sufficient and Next Power, and upon the Chimaera of Necessitating Grace which they attributed to Jansenius. What it contained most considerable, was refuted by the Dominicans in an Answer which they made to another of M. Hallier's writings, wherein he repeated the same things, and whereof I shall speak in its proper place.  
The same day I met with an Ecclesiastic who was Agent at Rome for the Archbishop of Malines, and I gave him notice that Jansenius was directly and openly assaulted in all those Writings which we had discovered, to the end he might advertise the Divines in Flanders thereof, and they might see what they had to do for the particular defence of that Prelate's Book, since we could not interest ourselves therein, nor speak of it in any sort.  
On Sunday the 13th. I visited the General of the Augustine's. He spoke of some Writings which had been showed him from our Adversaries. F. Mulard had showed him one which he came to demand again three days after, out of which he had extracted as much as he could whilst it was in his hands. It was, as he told me, a pretty thick Book bound in parchment, entitled, Liber quinque Propositionum quas octuaginta Galliae Episcopi Romano Pontifici ad Censuram obtulere. He said, that when F. Mulard came to fetch it from him, he told him that he was going to get it printed. I say nothing of it here, because I doubt not but it was the same which was since printed at Paris by the Cramoisis with the King's privilege, dated January 26. 1653. and with this title, Informatio de Quinque Propositionibus quas Episcopi Galliae Romano Pontifici ad Censuram obtulere.  
This General showed me two other Writings which he said were given him by M. Hallier himself; they were the same mentioned above to have been shown me by one of the Consultors, to whom also they were given by the same M. Hallier, September 29. The first was against the first Proposition, and the other against the second; and neither of them was any thing else but a heap of sundry passages out of St. Augustine, which the compilers pretended to be against the Propositions. I shall hereafter give an account of the first of those Writings when I come to speak of the Confutation of them which we presented to the Pope in a grand audience, which his Holiness gave us on the 19th. of May, in the year 1653, and by what I shall say of that, the Reader will be able to judge of the second. But in the mean time I shall observe one particularity here which I told this General, assoon as he had informed me that M. Hallier in person gave them to him, upon which I cannot speak so minutely in what I shall have to say hereafter thereupon in general.  
Amongst sixty Passages which were stuffed in the former of those Writings against the first Proposition, there was one which what taken out of Pelagius' Confession of Faith sent by that Heretic to Pope Innocent the First, but received only by Zozimus his Successor; and this passage was cited as out of a work of St. Augustin's, namely the 191 Sermon de Tempore.  
It was a fault either of ignorance or malice, into which the Jesuit Ripalda, M. Morel and M. le Moine fell one after another; and they had been blamed for it in the excellent Tracts printed against them, in which they had been so clearly convicted thereof, that though it had been excusable in M. Hallier, to have been the first that cited that work as St. Augustin's, yet it was no longer excusable after the public confusion, which those three other Divines above named had received for it. Nor did he cite it with such confidence, but that he declared that he would agree that St. Augustine was was not the Author of that Piece, but Pelagius. Notwithstanding which, he maintained that he had right to cite it, upon the reasons which he alleged for his so doing, which not only were false, but showed most palpable and strange foul dealing in him.  
He said in that Writing that he might cite that piece, because though it were Pelagius' Confession of Faith, yet it was certain that the said Confession was received and approved for Catholic by Zozimus, and that two Bishops of France named Heros and Lazarus, who had accused Pelagius as an Heretic, were found and declared by that Pope Calumniators, as appeared by the Letters of the same Pope to the Bishops of Africa; Sed cui placebit hunc sermonem sancto Augustino abdicare ut Pelagio attribuat, nobis gratum faciet, si modo addat quod è re est, confessionem istam Pelagii a Zozimo Pontifice probatam fuisse, à clero Romano cum gaudio susceptam. Judica um ex earum lectiene litterarum absolutae fidei Pelagium fuisse, Herotem & Lazarum delatores Pelagii tanquam calumniatores habitos fuisse, ut constat ex Epistolis Zozimi ad Episcopos Africa. See where M. Hallier fixes as to this point; see his language in the year 1652. See with what boldness he dares speak in a Writing which he presents to the Ministers of the H. See, in a business wherein the Catholic Faith is concerned; affirming a thing for true which himself knew long ago to be altogether illusory and full of falsity and lying.  
For in truth, this confession of Pelagius was received and approved by Zozimus for Catholic, and those French Bishops were decried and defamed as calumniators by the Letters which that Pope writ upon this subject to the Bishops of Africa. But those Bishops of Africa having by their answer given the Pope to understand, that he had been surprised by the ambiguity of the words of that Heretic's confession of Faith, and by the appearance of his submission to the H. See, the same Pope afterwards revoked the Approbation which he gave to the said Confession of Faith; and those Bishops whom he had decried as Calumniators, were acknowledged for very holy and zealous Bishops. Ought M. Hallier to produce before the H. See a Piece as approved by a Pope, which he knew very well the same Pope afterwards disapproved by revoking his Approbation? Ought M. Hallier to defame those two Bishops once again in this Writing, after himself had justified them sundry times in his printed works as well as the Card. Baronius and Bellarmine? And how could he resolve to speak of them again in secret as Calumniators in the year 1652. after himself had been in the years 1632. and 1644. a public witness of their innocence and merit?  
He was so in the year 1632. in a Book which he dedicated to Pope Vrban VIII. entitled Defensio Ecclesiasticae Hierarchiae, in the Preface whereof being to show, that Bishops have oftentimes censured Errors which sprung up far from their Dioceses, he proves the same chief by the examples of those of France, and descending to the two in question, behold how he speaks of them in that Advertisement to the Reader p. 34. Quid quod (saith he) Lazari & Herotis Episcoporam Galliae delationibus Celestius & Pelagius Heretici, qui Africam praesertim suis erronibus infecerant, Galliam vix ac ne vix quidem attigerant, toti orbi propalati fuerunt? Quos tamen cum falsis accusationibus apud Sanctam Sedem Celestius accusasset, accusatus ipse, ut Catholicus, ILLI VERO INJUSTE à ZOZIMO PAPA INFAMATI SUNT VT INIQVI ACCUSATORES, QVAMVIS HEROTIS NOMEN VT SANCTISSIMI VIRI Prosper Aquitanicus summis laudibus extulerit, & Vtriusque de Pelagio & Celestio fugiendis missas litteras Carthaginensis Conc●lii sub Innocentio Primo Patres approbarint. ZOZIMUS VERO SENTENTIAM POSTEA SVAM DE CELESTIO ET PELAGIO REVOCARIT, etc.  
And in the year 1643. the Jesuits exasperated at the zeal which M. Hallier testified in behalf of the interests of the University, whose Privileges those Fathers endeavoured to invade, having published a Book under the borrowed name of the Abbot of Boysic, in which they aspersed M. Hallier's person with calumnies, and proclaimed him an heretic, a calumniator, and one of the greatest enemies of Religious Life; they maintained that he was likewise an enemy to the H. See itself, and proved this last charge, amongst ot●ers, by the passage which I have newly transcribed out of his Advertisement to the Reader. M. Hallier, to answer to the Accusations of those Fathers, in the year 1644. published a Book intited A Defence of the doctrine of M. Fransois Hallier Doctor and King's Professor in Sorbonne By himself. And in the 36 page of that Book he answers to the abovesaid Accusation in these words: The Accusation, saith he, wherewith you charge me, when yoa blame me for taxing Pope ZOZIMUS, as if he had unjustly defamed two Bishops, HEROS and LAZARUS, falls upon a person as eminent for his learning as for the Purple wherewith his merits were sometimes acknowledged; I mean the great Cardinal Baronius, who saith the same expressly in his 5th. Tom upon the year of Jesus Christ 517. It would be ridiculous in y●u to pretend that that Illustrious Cardinal could be injurious to the person of Popes and the honour of the H. See, which he hath so worthily upheld. Do not find fault then that I writ boldly, that which he hath Affirmed, and that without losing any thing of the respect which I shall always inviolably render to the Soveragin Pontiffs, I relate one Act which cannot be dishonourable to Pope ZOZIMUS, who, it is known, was surprised in that Affair.  
I might further add here, that if the approbation which Zozimus through surprise gave to that Confession of Faith of Pelagius, authorised all that it conrained, the same Pope having likewise by the same surprise approved the request which Celestius presented to him, containing a Doubt contrary to the Faith in the matter of Original sin, it would be lawful to bring in doubt the Catholic Faith concerning Original sin, by alleging that Zozimus approved the request of Celestius, in which he expressly declared that he doubted of it, as may be seen by that which Saint Augustine saith thereof, lib. 2. ad Bonifac. cap. 3.  
I spoke part of this to the General of the Augustine's, and observed to him many other falsities and extravagances in the other reflections of M. Hallier and his Colleagues upon that single passage: This good General could scarce believe and comprehend how it was possible, that persons of knowledge and probity should suffer themselves to be led into such enormities; but he acknowledged yet more by this example, how greatly the Conference demanded by us viva vice, and by writing with people that used such practices, would be on the one side advantageous to all the Consultors and Cardinals and to the Pope himself, since it would save them much trouble, which was requisite otherwise to be taken before they could discover in the Writings of our Adversaries the like blemishes, which flew into our eyes assoon as we cast sight upon them (so present and familiar were these matters to us) and which they might all easily acknowledge after we had discovered them; and on the other side, how decisive the same Conference would be between our Advesaries and us, since it would give us the advantage to reduce them publicly before all the Congregation, and in presence of his Holiness to confusion and silence.  
Nevertheless I must add something here in defence of M. Hallier, since I profess to set down as well what I find  as disadvantageous to our Adversaries, and likewise to ourselves, having no other design but exactly to report the truth of all passages I met with, both on their part and ours, in the course of this affair. Now all that can be said to diminish the wonder of seeing him fallen into such shameful contradictions, is, that in all likelihood he took these Writings perfectly prepared and transcribed as he delivered them to the Consultors from the hands of the Jesuits, and that he distributed the same to them without so much as once reading them beforehand. Which yet must be confessed is a very pitiful Defence, and altogether unworthy of a Doctor upon whom so many Bishops relied in so important an Affair.  
Tuesday morning October 15. I walked abroad with F. Petit, who informed me that F. Annat was gone for France five or six days before; and that M. Albizzi, as well as our Doctors had done their utmost to retain that Writer at Rome, whose Artifices and Disguisements were so proper for the covering of Truth with darkness, and its Defenders with calumnies.  
In the afternoon I understood that there had been no Congregation that day at Cardinal Spadas house, and that the Consultors were countermanded when they were just ready to go thither. Various were the conjectures what might be the cause of this countermand. Some conceived it to be some unforeseen impediment arrived to Cardinal Ghiggi from the Pope; but I did not believe so, because the Tuesday before Cardinal Ginetti could not be there by reason of the Signature of Grace, at which he assisted, and yet the Congregation of Cardinal Spada was held in his absence; and it would have been no harder to set the Consultors to dispute in Cardinal Ghiggi's absence then in that of Cardinal Ginetti; since Cardinal Cechini was come to Cardinal Spadas house and F. Palavicini too, before the news of the countermand was sent abroad; and Cardinal Ginetti had no business to hinder him from being there if he had not been countermanded.  
F. Malgoires came to see us on Wednesday evening, and amongst other things he told us, that the Doctors our Adversaries professed themselves well pleased with the course which the Congregation held. That having had some conference with M. Hallier a day or two before, he had reduced him that he could not answer touching the parity which he propounded to him of the decision of the Council of Trent, which defines, that the Righteous cannot without special assistance persevere to the end, that is to say, keep God's Commandments to the end of his life with the ordinary perseverance of the same Righteous person in the fidelity and practice of the same commandments, and that M. Hallier having granted that the Commandments of God were in some sort impossible to the just, who wants that special assistance which is not common to all the just, and is yet so necessary to this for the keeping them to the end, that according to the definition of the Council, he cannot do it without such assistance, he could not tell him any reason why the same Commandments might not also be said impossible in some sort to the same just person, when in the course of his life he likewise wants that particular assistance which is necessary for keeping them, and without which it is as true according to the Council that he cannot do it, then as this is when he is arrived at the end of his life and he fails therein.  
Saturday the 19th. having visited the Cardinal S. Clement, he told me there had been some speech a few days before about adding Consultors to our Congregation, and that the Procurator General of the Carmelites della scala having been mentioned, it was answered that he was not right, and that he was a Jansenist; and another being nominated, that neither was he right, because he frequented us too much; that is, as this Cardinal said to me, their intention in this Congregation was, that after the Consultors had all spoken their suffrages, they would report to the Pope that they all condemned the Propositions unanimously unâ voce. That if it came before him, he would not fail to speak there, as he conceived himself obliged to do, with vehemence and freedom, as he had done formerly in cases that required it, and whereas he was present. That if God disposed of the affair otherwise, and the thing should be passed without his intervention, he would humble himself before the height of his judgements.  
Sunday the 20th. in the afternoon I received a Visit from an unknown person, who was extremely important with me to give him some information touching our affair, because he was ready to go into the Country, and in the course of his Journey, he was to see divers Cardinals who would ask him news of it: I suspected that he came to get me to speak something, and afterwards report what I had said where he pleased; wherefore I excused myself from telling him any thing (how important soever he was) alleging that the affair was too vast and ample, to tell him any thing of it in a little time. He tempted me as much as he could, to cause me to fall into a Narration insensibly; but all he drew from me, was, that the only means that I knew, to satisfy his curiosity and that of the Cardinals, to whom he desired to give intelligence, was that he endeavoured to get from one of the four Cardinals deputed for our Congregation, the copy of the Writings which we had presented to them, and to buy at the Booksellers the small works of St. Augustine newly printed.  
The General of the Augustine's, whom I visited about some other affair the next morning being the twenty first, told me that by his care in reading that H. Father, he was furnished from the Fountain which answers to all the Objections propounded against his Doctrine, which was the same that we defended.  
Tuesday the 22. towards evening I went to see F. Vbaldino, who told me that the Messenger of the H. Office came the day before to advertise him that there would be no Congregation that day at Cardinal Spadas house; at which he had wondered, having not yet been there, if he had not looked upon it as a mistake of the Messengers, who being sent about in general to all, made no difference of those upon whom there lay some exception.  
Wednesday in the afternoon we visited Cardinal Spada, who was very ready to receive us. The Abbot of Valcroissant told him that we came to his Eminence, to understand whether our Writings had been communicated; and if they were not, to beseech him that they might be speedily. As also to advertise him, that we had already prepared others for the proof of the first Proposition; and that we demonstrated so evidently that it was agreeable to the Catholic Faith in the sense wherein we considered it by the connexion it had with the Effectualness of Grace, that it was impossible to shake it, it was so clearly and solidly founded upon indubitable principles. The Cardinal answered us, that the Congregations begun to be held touching the Propositions, had been interrupted the two foregoing weeks by some Occurrences, but they would begin again the Tuesday following, and be so no more. And upon what we represented to him (speaking about the first Proposition) of the sense in which we maintained it, and of the necessity of distinguishing the divers senses which the Propositions might admit, thereby to avoid involving Catholic truths with errors in one Censure●; he answered us, that they would consider the Propositions precisely as they were in themselves, without having regard to the sense either of one side or other; using these words which he accompanied with a gesture of his hand in the air; Le ponderiamo in abstracto. Whereunto we replied, that if the business were only to consider the Propositions in abstracto, we would not have moved a step about it, nor taken the least interest therein, but we had regard only to the fundamental Doctrine which was in contest upon occasion of those Propositions, and which would be manifested by the distinction of senses and the clearing of the whole matter.  
As for the communication of Writings whereupon we insisted, he told us that in the last Congregation something had been spoken which had reference thereunto; but it was not judged expedient to make such communication. That indeed it was resolved to take into consideration all that we should write and speak viuâ voce, let it be as much as we would. That we might deliver as many Writings as we pleased, one, two, four, six, ten, mettete giù (that was his word) lay them down, entire Volumes. That we might demand to speak as much as we would, that they would hear us, that all should be received, that all should be considered and weighed with care; but as for communication of Writings, it was not thought meet. That should the Doctors of Flanders have come, they should have been treated in that very fashion, that we should be so too. That we had sued for the Congregation before the coming of M. Hallier and his Colleagues. That though they should not have come, yet it would have been established, and we should nevertheless have been heard in it. That the same course should be as if they were not there. M. the Valcroissant began to reply to him, saying, that the communication of our Writings would be more profitable, because when it was seen what either side had to allege, things might be more handsomely cleared, and what should be found untrue therein might be more solidly refuted. Here Cardinal Spada interposed, and said we were not ignorant of what our Adversaries could say. That we knew so well what could be alleged on either side touching these matters, that there had been so many Writings made pro and con, printed and otherwise, that the communication of Writings was not necessary; that moreover they had taken this course all tempo d' Vrbano, under the Pontificate of Pope Vrban VIII; that we were now under that of Innocent, and that they were not in a condition which allowed any other way. He had scarce done speaking, but he put his hand to his Cap, and risen up to end the Conference, and take away all place of Reply. So we were obliged to arise likewise, without speaking any thing further, and retire.  
When we came from Cardinal Spada, we separate ourselves, and I went to make a particular Visit to a Cardinal, who confirmed to me Cardinal St. Clement's opinion, that the prime design of those who assembled the Consultors of the Congregation, was, after that they had made them dispute sufficiently, to tell the Pope that they all agreed upon the condemnation of the Propositions; but he added, that God caused things sometimes to succeed otherwise then men propounded to themselves, and that sometimes there needed but a little Remora to stop the greatest Machine's. As for the late passages at Cardinal Spadas house, wherewith I acquainted him, he told me that it was his opinion, that in case they continued to deny us a thing so just, ordinary and easy, it would be fit that we presented a Memorial to the Pope to give him notice of it, and to tell him, that we came to Rome to defend the Catholic Faith against one of the most malicious erterprises that ever was contrived to its prejudice. That we hoped that what we had to represent touching this affair, would be examined according to the ordinary forms of justice, both Ecclesiastical and Civil. That seeing that to the prejudice of the assurance which had been given us from his Holiness at the advertising us of the Congregation, things were handled there in a manner quite contrary, which could nothing but continually disturb our minds, and keep matters in the confusion and obscurity whereinto the malice of the Authors of this enterprise had cast them, we beseeched the Pope to give us leave to return home with his Apostolical Benediction; and that we hoped he would be mindful of the Advertisement which we had given him, and not suffer himself to be circumvented by the Ambushes which we had told him were prepared for him. I answered this Cardinal that this resolution was bold, that nevertheless it might become necessary; but I feared it would bring things to that pass which our Adversaries most desired; because one of their two great troubles, was, to see us upon the place openly labouring to manifest the truth, and directing means to sundry persons for the understanding of it, who would not think upon it without us. The Cardinal replied, that I need not fear that the Pope and his Ministers would take us at our word, if they had the least common sense, S. hanno qualche intendi mento; that on the contrary they would fear our departure from Rome with so great and just causes of dissatisfaction, which after our departure would not be unknown to any body, and do so great prejudice to the reputation of the H. See, when so manifest a denial of justice by it were spread abroad. They will for certain be afraid, said he, lest you should departed, and this will oblige them to give you content. Nevertheless he added, that things were not yet so urgent as to drive us to this course. I answered, that they were not; but yet the Discourse of Cardinal Spada which put us off so far, and cast us upon so many troublesome difficulties with hope of so little fruit, made me suspect that perhaps we should do him a pleasure to act in that manner, and that he desired to make us fear the pains and tediousness which we should undergo in the sequel of a Proceeding so unlikely to promote our affair by all our labours, to drive us to that pass as to resolve to prevent those troubles by departing, and leave the Pope and their Eminences in quiet. The Cardinal and I ended this Discourse, both of us saying, that time would render us more knowing in the things that should pass, and in those which we should be obliged to do. In the mean time, after much reflecting upon the necessities which might one day impel us to have recourse to that unacceptable Remedy, I writ into France by the Courier which set forth on Monday following, to the end the state of things with all necessary circumstances might be communicated to my LL. the Bishops who had sent us; and that if it should prove requisite to come to that extremity, we might not do it without their privity and order. But I know not whether in the particular relation which I made of this Visit, I did not forget one thing which I am sure the same Cardinal said to me, either in this Visit or in another, complaining to him of the great credit of the Jesuits and their partisans, who deprived us of the means of obtaining the least things of justice; he answered me, that this was not to be wondered at, nor ought it to hinder us from doing what lay in our power for defence of the Truth. That we might call to mind the prodigious power which the Arians once had; that they governed the Emperors, that they assembled Councils; that they domineered therein; and that they drove most of the Catholic Bishops from their Sees; And yet, said he to me, what is become of all this? They were a long time the strongest, and Masters of all, and nevertheless all this is vanished; even their Writings are perished, and there are no more footsteps of them but in the Books of the Orthodox. Sooner or later the case will be the same with all those that oppose the true grace of Jesus Christ; that therefore we ought not to be discouraged, but do our duty, continue our endeavours, pray fervently to God, and patiently wait till it please him to show that mercy to his Church.  
Thursday the 24th, F. Reginald, the famous Dominican abovementioned, arrived at Rome, to engage with the Religious of his Order in defence of the cause which was common to them with us.  
Friday the 25th, the day of the Ambassadors Audience, when I went to his house, I found M. Hallier and his Colleagues, M. the Valcroissant, and M. Angran, discoursing together, in presence of the Bishop of Bethleém, and two other Prelates; I drew near, and all that I heard was, that M. Hallier, to purge himself no doubt from the blame charged upon him of hindering, not only the conference, but also the communication of writings, said, that he had two things to declare in reference thereunto. 1. That he maintained that the matters in contest were already defined, and that this was the first thing to be looked after: And 2. That if they were not, it was requisite in the second place to consider whether it were expedient to define them; yet to all this neither the communication of writings, nor the conference did hurt; but the Ambassador appeared ready to go forth, and this discourse passed no further. While the Ambassador was with the Pope, I went to see the new Nuncio designed for France: I had no time after the first words of civility, but to give him one of our little Volumes of St. Augustin; for his entertainment sometimes in reading it during his journey, and to tell him, that who so had well read that book, knew wherein all the present Disputes in the Church consisted; and who so had not read it, could not know them, how intelligent and able soever he might be in other things.  
I spent all Saturday the 26th with F. Reginald, in carrying him to Saint Peter's, and the other Churches and places in Rome, whither he was disposed to go after his arrival.  
Sunday the 27th we went again to Cardinal Spadas house, where after we had passed the time in his Gallery, from nine a clock till between eleven and twelve, he came to receive us in the chamber which is before that Gallery: M. the Valcroissant told him, that the last day we were with his Eminence, we had not time to acquaint him with some Reasons which we intended to represent to him for the communication of our writings: That we had great cause to wonder that we were still constrained to solicit it after so Authentical a Declaration as Card. Roma had made to us in the Pope's name, that his Holiness, without any restriction, granted us the Congregation which we had demanded, and in which we had expressly demanded that our writings might be reciprocally communicated. But to show this Cardinal the particular reasons of our making that demand, and prosecuting the execution of it, the Abbot de Vaelcroissant told him, that our Adversaries in this cause were so accustomed to produce calumnies and false suppositions, both in matters of Fact, and of Opinion, that it was absolutely necessary for us to see what they alleged, that so we might satisfy and wipe it off: That the matter in question was extremely vast, and yet very closely linked together: That though many writings and printed works had been composed about it, yet it was very difficult to find what to adhere to: That it had been extremely embroiled by our Adversaries; That an answer given by conjecture, was not so likely to satisfy, as one given and applied plainly, when the question is stated. That our Adversaries either assented to the mutual communication of Writings, or not; if they did, there was no reason to deny it; if not, it was a sign that they disinherited their own cause, and a reason which rendered such communication more necessary; and that indeed they saw in their consciences, that they could neither answer to what we alleged against them, nor make good what they alleged against us: That all these Reasons evinced, that the communication of Writings was more necessary in this important affair, then in all others wherein it was daily practised: That it was a way without comparison more compendious, clear and certain, to make all the world comprehend the truth of things, than not to do it; and that we hoped that when their Eminences had considered what we urged to him, and which we beseeched him to represent to his Holiness, if he judged it meet, for the obtaining of the communication of Writings, they would conceive it as equitable and necessary as ourselves. The Cardinal answered, that this did not depend on him alone; that we might move the other deputed Cardinals about it, and he named Ghiggi, Ginetti, and Cechini. That as for what he had said to us the last day, it was grounded only upon the practice which had been observed since these questions began. That Pius V under whom they were first debated, heard no Parties, nor caused any Writings to be communicated in order to the framing of his Decisions: That Gregory XIII. who followed him, did not follow this way: That urban VIII. took the same course as those two Popes; that at present we were under Innocent X. that it did not appear why it was necessary to run into those intricacies (in quest faccende) però; that nevertheless we might speak to the three Cardinals abovenamed, as also to Cardinal Pamphilio, whom the Pope was pleased to have come to those Congregations, that at least he would be there on Tuesday following: That we might likewise speak to the consultors; that he believed we knew who they were. As for the Doctors our Adversaries, they had presented Writings three month's ago, and professed that whether there were any communication of them or not, they should be contented: That all they demanded was, that they might be treated as we were, and that our writings might be communicated to them, if theirs were to us: That since so long time that they were composed, it was not possible but either side must have seen the others writings, and that they were by this time in France too: That, in fine, we might visit the persons whom he had named. Much might have been replied to Cardinal Spada, and he left us time to do it, though it was very late; but we did it not, conceiving we had obtained enough of him, that he permitted us to renew our solicitations to the others.  
Tuesday the 29th in the morning, I met the F. General of the Capucines, who stopped me, though I was in a Coach, to ask me what news of our Congregation; I spoke very coldly thereof to him, as one that had no news of them, nor was the least concerned for any: He told me, that that which was to be held that morning, was deferred to the next day in the afternoon, of which I learned the reason the same day in the Antichambre of Cardinal Ghiggi, whom we visited; and it was, for that there was that morning an examination of Bishops.  
We told Cardinal Ghiggi that we came to put him in mind of the little Memorial which we left with him about the communication of writings: He asked us, whether we had presented the same to the other Cardinals? We answered, that we had; but did not tell him that we had yet once been with Cardinal Spada about it. Cardinal Ghiggi told us, that the Congregation had been interrupted since the presenting of our Memorial, by reason it was the time of being in the country, and taking a little fresh air after the great heats of Summer, that therefore it had not yet been spoken of; but the Congregation would begin again the next day, and then perhaps it would be mentioned: The Abbot of Valcroissant answered, that we had many strong reasons which evinced the necessity of such communication; and he intended to repeat the same which he had alleged to Cardinal Spada; but he scarce touched upon those concerning the calumnies and false suppositions of our Adversaries, as well in reference to Facts as Opinions; but Cardinal Ghiggi replied, That as for all those calumnies and falsities, no regard would be had of them; that the chief and only business would be to give a succinct and clear account of the reasons of what we held; that it was not yet resolved, whether or not to make of this affair a Process, una lite; that if a day were set, to enter into so public discussions of it between parties, it would cause much noise and bustle: That as we were already three and three out of France, there might come three others out of Spain, three from Flanders, three from another place, etc. The Abbot of Valcroissant answered, that all which his Eminence said, did not hinder but that the reciprocal communication of our writings was necessary; since if, for example, we should not see the writings of our Adversaries, we could not defend ourselves from what falsities and calumnies they might allege therein, both against our persons and the truth, nor represent the same to their Eminences. The Cardinal asked us, whether we certainly knew that they had presented any writings; & added, that perhaps they had not yet presented any. But however (said he, ending as he began) we have not yet spoken of your Memorial; perhaps we will speak of it to morrow, and you shall understand our resolution. It was a thing not unpleasant to be observed, that he informed us that they had not yet spoken of it; and Cardinal Spada told us, as a thing already determined amongst them, that there would be no such communication.  
The two last days of this month I learned nothing at Rome, but the very great correspondences and confederacies which Cardinal Spada had with Cardinal Barberin, whereof I was told in two converses which I had about that matter with a Banker of very great Note, intelligence and freedom.   

CHAP. XII.  
Of the Letters which were writ to us from Paris, during the Month of October, touching the manner of proceeding in the Congregation.  
ABout this time all places were full of news concerning what was doing at Rome, and what the jesuites with M. Hallier and his Colleagues expected and boasted was in hand to their advantage, for the consummation of their Enterprise against the Propositions, without their being obliged ever to appear before the Congregation in our presence; and these news daily more and more astonished our friends, and the Bishops who sent us. Whereupon, almost all the Letters written to us during the whole month of October, were nothing but a continual renewing of former injunctions not to recede from the conditions wherewith the Bishops had given us charge to demand a Congregation of the Pope, and wherewith the Pope had caused the same to be promised to us by the late Cardinal Roma, without any modification or restriction. The difficulty about communication of writings, was not yet known in France; on the contrary, we were enjoined not to suffer ourselves to be circumvented in such sort that our affair might be made a simple Process in writing; but we were obliged never to separate the communication of our writings from the obligation which should be laid upon our Adversaries to be heard in our presence, and we in theirs, viuâ voce, in the Congregation, touching all that by either side should be presented in writing; as also to have a care, that all which they and we should speak there, might be written down. Moreover, we were prescribed not to present any writing after those which we had delivered already, but according to the forms used under Clement VIII. and Paul V till after we had declared viuâ voce, what we were to leave there in writing, and till we were assured that the consequence thereof would be the communication of the same to our Adversaries.  
It would be tedious to relate all the Letters here which were written to us during this month about this matter; but it will not be impertinent to insert two or three, which will teach the Reader some other particularities concerning this affair, which might otherwise remain unknown to him: The first was dated October 8. from Chalons in Champagne, and was thus directed, A Messieurs, Messieurs de la Lane, de Saint Amour, & Angran, Docteurs de la faculty, & nos Deputez a Rome. The contents follow:  
Messieurs,  
ALL good men rejoice with us for the blessing which God hath given to your solicitations and cares; which joy was particularly grounded upon the assurance given you, that the established Congregation would proceed according to the forms practised from all time in the Church, and in a like case under Clement VIII. and Paul V and without which it seems not possible for the truth to be perfectly cleared. I know that M. Hallier hath written to Paris, that he would hinder your being heard; yet I cannot doubt but Providence, which hath taken so particular care of this affair, will dissipate all his intrigues; that the H. Father will do us Justice; that he will grant what he hath had the goodness to promise, and that he will take the same course in this cause that his Predecessors did, since it is so worthy of the honour of the H. See, and so necessary for the re-establishment of peace in the Church: Wherefore all my LL. the Prelates, for whom you act, conjure you to remain firm, that is, never to speak but in presence, and to deliver no writings, saving in the forms observed in the Congregations de Auxiliis, under the Pope's abovementioned. They rely upon your accustomed prudence and courage, and I remain ever,  
MESSIEURS, Your most humble and most affectionate Servant, F. E. & C. de chaalon's.  
He who used to write to us in the name of all my said Lords, when they did not do it themselves, in his letter of October 11th. set down this clause:  
My Lords were glad of the Resolution which you have taken to speak high: They desire you not to relax in any thing; for it is highly important to the cause which you desired. They are very certain M. Hallier will use all means to obstruct an exact discussion of it. He is a man that intends no conference, whatever show he makes. He conceives the Dispute would not be advantageous to him, because he hath confessed to many persons, that he never read St. Augustin.  
Writ as little as you can in explication of the Five Propositions: for you ought to fear that M. Hallier will perplex the Affair in proceed by Writing.  
And in a Letter of the 18. from the same person, there was this clause touching the same matter.  
The Molinists in these parts hold for certain, that you will not be admiteed to speak in presence of your Adversaries before the congregation; alleging, that the Question is only about Five Propositions, which may easily be judged by all those that have never so little understanding and any tincture of Divinity. They boast, that in the first congregation held at Cardinal Spadas house, the first Proposition was determined. My Lords have confidence in God, and hope he will destroy all their designs who go about to dishonour his Truth: Above all, they rocommend to you, to be steadfast and undaunted in extremities.  
I received one dated the same day from a Doctor, my particular friend, who lived in Sorbonne, and always writ to me in Latin. He comforted me for the news of Cardinal Roma's death, and professed the more sorrow for it, because instead of a most equitable Dean of our Congregation whom we had lost, there remained another very partial and highly animated against us: His Letter was in these terms.  
A diebus aliquot resciveramus mortem Eminentissimi Cardinalis Roma, cum litteras has accepimus. Certè non potuimus non lugere viri optimi & amantissimi aequitatis inopinatum exitum; dolorque noster eo major extitit quod tibi causaeque vestrae adversarium esse accepimus Cardinalem Spada. Scriptum enim mihi est è Flandria non potuisse cum ipso convenire D. Sinnich, ita durum se ipsi praebuit. Jactare vulgo se habere argumentum, cui Jansenista (sic enim loquitur) nullus respondeat. Idque dixisse olim P. Courvaisier minimo Burgundo. Addidisse etiam, se etiamsi Cardinales caeteri in doctrinam illam consentirent, aut certè mitiùs habere vellent, solum se adversus omnes pugnaturum: Haec te monendum censui.  
I find, after this, one from M. de saint Beuve of the 25th. of this month, which deserves more than any other to be here inserted at length, as well for that he speaks touching the same necessity of being heard in presenee, as because a more illustrious Testimony cannot be brought how he and I were always affected to the H. See, and how we always considered the Propositions which were at length condemned by it. The Letter was particular to myself, and contained that which follows:  
SIR,  
WE are here troubled at the News, that the congregation is begun since Cardinal Roma's death, in which Cardinal Spada is Precedent, a Jesuit is a Consultor, and M. Albizzi Secretary, and that it is held without your being called to it. Though we could not imagine things to be so as is boasted in these parts, and that it seems your Letters assure us of the contrary, since by your last you signify, that you were soliciting their Eminences to ordain the communication of your Writings to our Adversaries, and that it would please them to set the day of the first congregation; yet I cannot dissemble to you, that the manner after which they talk here, makes us fear, that there is something of Truth in their Discourse, and that perhaps our Adversaries are plotting something according to their usual slights and artifices. This is it which troubles us, and whereof we entreat you to give us some light. And in the first place, I am to signify to you, that you must urge the carrying on of things in order, and that they be not done in secret. The Prelates who sent you, did not put you upon that journey to demand a secret Assembly of his Holiness, but a public and solemn congregation, like that de Auxiliis, in which the parties might he heard in presence one of the other, both viva voce, and by Writing. The Pope granted the same to you, as being a thing very just, and which cannot displease any but those who hold a Doctrine of Darkness: Wherefore prosecute the Execution of his Holinesses Order. But now Sir, Was there ever any thing more remote from Equity, then to make our Enemy's Judges? for is it not in some manner so, while a Jesuit is a Consultor? Who knows not that they are our right Adversaries? As for M. Albizzi, there is as little reason that he should be Secretary, since it is notorious, that he hath had inimate communication with M. Hallier about the Affair in question before the said Sieur Hallier went out of France. When the Faculty was assembled to be surprised by the Nuncio's means, who sent to demand, whether it had deputed you to his Holiness about this Affair, M. Hallier, whom I accused of having sent F. Mulard the Cordelier in quality of the Faculties Deputy, and encharged him with Letters subscribed by himself as Syndic, which Letters Mulard carried open to F. Divet to be sealed by him; M. Hallier (I say) confessed before the whole Faculty, that he had written to Rome to M. Albizzi; but he added, that it was only in answer to a Letter from him touchong the present controversies. All the Faculty can testify, whether M. Hallier had the confidence to deny it. So that to have M. Albizzi for Secretary, is to have a person whom we have had all reason to suspect ever since M. Halliers Declaration before the Faculty.  
Moreover, Sir, every one knows that in Flanders it is loudly complained of in Books that M. Albizzi inserted something into the Bull touching M. de Ipre, which was not in the sense of the late Pope of happy memory. This alone aught to hinder him of being suffered to exercise the Office of Secretary, without complaint and remonstrance to his Holiness against it. Perhaps they will say, That a Secretary is neither Judge nor Consultor; 'tis true; but than it cannot be denied, that he hath very great power in a congregation. And besides, though he could do no great matter, yet it is not suitable to order, at Rome especially, where all things are done so exquisitely, that the very adversaries of the Church are constrained to acknowledge the prudence of the proceed, wherewith things are carried there. But if Sir, they will not do you justice in these points, I conceive it will be more expedient to produce nothing, then to submit to such a congregation as that which is contrary to the intention of his Holiness. And in this case leave them to ordain what they think good, we shall very well know how to acquit ourselves in all things. Let them perplex and entangle the whole matter as much as they will, yet it must be reduced to three points. 1. Who are the Authors of those Propositions. 2. Whether it be true, that they consist of equivocal terms, which is the cause that they have sundry bad senses. And 3. Whether they be condemnable according to the sense of the necessity of Grace Effectual ad singulos actus, which is the only sense in which we have maintained them hitherto, and pretend to maintain them for the future. Now being we know that they cannot be condemned in this sense, hence it is that we have no reason to apprehend any thing. If they will make a Gallimawfry of them, it will be easy to let all Europe see both the goodness of our cause, and the bad proceed taken to disparage a Doctrine which they durst not openly condemn. Those persons will twice think what they shall do; and I can scarce believe that they will contribute to the oppression of Truth, and of the persons who defend. The Doctors of the Faculty of Paris ought to be more considered then to be slighted; and it is not needful to alienate the minds of those who have all possible devotion for the H. See, which will be done undoubtedly, in case they do not do them justice in an Affair which speaks for itself. ' I have often said it to M. Duvel, and I know not whether he hath told it to the Nuncio, There are many persons very little affectionated towards the Holy See, who wish, that justice be not observed towards us, hoping thereby to draw us to their party. For my part, I hope God will not so abandon me; but I know not whether this will not much diminish the high esteem which ought to be had for what proceeds from so venerable a Throne; But this, Sir, is enough touching that point.  
I cannot end this Letter without letting you know, that M. de Marca nominated to the Archbishopric of Tholouse, being in court last week, said to M. Nain de Beau. Master of the Requests, and to M. Queras our Confrere, that when he consented to the setting of his name to the Letter sent to his Holiness, he did it only at the entreaty of F. Petave and M. Hallier, who writ to him about it; and that it was never his intention to demand of the Pope a condemnation of the Propositions, but only that it would please his Holiness to pronounce upon the present controversies. And when the abovenamed persons replied to him, that the Letter subscribed with his name, demanded of the Pope the condemnation of the Five Propositions, he was amazed at it, and desired to see a copy of the Letter, which was promised him. And accordingly one being found in the hands of M. Lovistre Curée of Nantes, where the court than was, M. de la Militire took upon him to transcribe and present it to him. You see, Sir, how the Prelates have been inveigled, and how the Pope is imposed upon, when it is represented to him, that all the Prelates whose names are at the bottom of that Letter, demand of him the condemnation of the Five Propositions, as being the causes of all the stir and contentions. Moreover, these two Gentlemen have had the honour to confer with him about the senses of the Propositions, and he acknowledged, that ours was not condemnable, and he said only, that his opinion was, that whosoever hath Faith, hath all that is necessary from God to pray actually; and he advanced this Doctrine, founded, he said, upon that word of S. Augustin, Fides impetrat: You may judge by this, what sentiment the Thomists have upon this point.  
The Book of F. Martinon came forth here some days ago: 'Tis a Transcription of all that hath been written against us by our Adversaries; but not a confutation of all that we have opposed to their sentiments. It hath abundance of evil and unjustifiable Propositions: It bears a Warlike title: It may easily be rendered a pitiful piece in one printed Choir, or a work like to Vulpes capta.  
We are given to hope for one from M. Annat shortly; we expect it with joy, not doubting but that it will be of use for the manifesting of the Truth;  
I am, Sir, etc.  
The beginning of this Letter shows the truth of what I said to Cardinal Ghiggi in the andience he gave me on July 23. that I was not hasty to send word into France of such things as might cause dissatisfaction there, so long as necessity and our obligation of informing our friends and our Bishops of what passed at Rome, permitted me to defer, or wholly dissemble them. When I writ touching this matter to M. de saint Beuve the last day of September, I said nothing of the delay of communicating our writings, nor of the dubiousness signified to us, whether it would be granted or no; nor of the Memorial which we had resolved to present as a more express demand thereof, which might knock at the door of justice of the Cardinals chosen by the Pope to render the same to us; and which might leave to posterity more express monuments of the prosecutions and unheardof difficulties whereunto we were reduced, in case we should one day be obliged to acquaint the world with such irregular proceed. I thought it sufficient to tell him only, that we were soliciting their Eminences to ordain the Communication of our writings to our Adversaries, and to let them know, that we were ready to appear at the Congregation when it should please them to assemble it. And I used this reservedness out of hope that we should obtain justice at length, and that the denial or difficulty which they then caused about it, might not be known to any person. But it pleased our Adversaries to publish the same everywhere, by reason of the triumph which they presumed they had over us by that injustice: so that considering the necessity of letting it appear, all we could do, was to give an account thereof to our Bishops and friends, and however to leave them still in hope that justice would be done us after we had employed for the obtaining of it all the patience, perseverance, submission and power which we conceived necessary to that effect.  
We spoke no longer even at Rome in this conjuncture, of causing our adversaries to appear at the congregation in our presence; yet we did not renounce it; for we had presented our two writings only upon a certain expectation that we should be so heard. But we were restrained only to demand the communication of our writings, that so our request might be as easy as possible, and such as even the openest injustice could not refuse; intending after the obtaining of this point, to demand likewise that our adversaries might appear to hear what we had to add viva voce to what we had written; but till we had surmounted the first difficulty, we were silent as to the other things which we had to ask, to the end we might obtain this more easily.  
I spoke more openly thereof then I had done to M. de saint Beuve, to an Italian who was at Modena, and could not be ignorant of the least circumstances of our Affair, in regard of the great correspondences which he had in the Court of Rome, the Genius whereof he perfectly understood, especially in reference to our Disputes. He answered me by this Letter of the second of November, that all those obstacles were only the contrivances of Cardinal Spada, who being extremely passionate, sought nothing else but to discover the sentiments of the Consultors, to the end that if they were favourable to his purposes, he might press on the Affair to condemn the Prositions, and that in case he saw that he could not get them to conclude against them, than he might spin out things in length; Take the Letter as it was written to me in Italian:  
Reverendissimo Signor.  
Receuò le lettere de V. S. e vedo conquanta cautezza per sua parte, & arte per l' altra se tratta il negotio. Jo stimo che il tutto sia concesso del' Eminentissimo Spada, qual è per mio credere appationatissimo, e non cerca sapere il sentimento di quei Consultori per altro che per vedere se siano favorevoli alli suoi capritii, e quando vedrà di non potere concludere contro le Propositioni, tirarà il giuditio in longo; ma se le paresse potere condennarle, accelererà & precipitararà il tutto. Non potendo io fare altro, raccommando la causa à Dio, & in questo spero ogni bene, e a V S. facio humile riverenza.  
Modena li duë Novembre 1652. Di V. S. Reverendissima divotissimo servitore.  
The substance of this Letter goes before it, and therefore it needs no translation. It was subscribed with the name of him who writ it: but as soon as I received it, I tore off his name, and I do not think it yet time to restore it here.   

CHAP. XIII.  
What we continued to do during the whole month of November, especially for getting in Audience of the Pope, to present our Papers to him, and obtain that the same might be communicated to our Adversaries, with an Epistle to his Holiness touching the same matter.  
ON Friday Novemb. 1. I understood that the Congregation was held on Wednesday before in the afternoon at Cardinal Spadas house; that Cardinal Ginetti was not there, but Cardinal Pamphilio was, that it lasted till six a clock at night, and that F. Palavicini and M. Albizzi stayed after the rest, to confer together.  
Sunday the third I visited the General of the Dominicans about a case of a particular Affair. I acquainted him by the by, with the Memorial which we designed to present to the Pope for three things; whereof the first was the communication of our writings; The second, the Jesuits: The third, M. Albizzi; He approved all, and told me on his part, that if things went long in the present course, his order could not forbear to interpose and declare themselves very highly.  
Monday the 4. in the morning Monsignor Sacrista sent to desire me to come to the Pope's Presence-Chamber at ten a clock. I went thither and spoke with him: He told me that the Pope had chosen two or three other Consultors to add to the Congregation, and among those an Augustin named F. Celestin very much his friend. He prayed me to visit him, and give him some information of our Affair, because the Congregation was to be held, as I think, the next day. I desired Monsignor Sacrista to dispense with me from visiting F. Celestin, because whilst the Congregation acted as it did, we did not acknowledge it, and could not considet it as that which we had demanded, of the Pope, and his Holiness had granted to us. Monsignor Sacrista prayed me to go see that Father, as if I knew not that he was to be of it, but only as his particular friend, because it was requisite first to free him from the evil impressions which M. Albizzi had given him against the Propositions, when the said Father went to take the oath of secrecy from the hands of that Secretary, telling him in a scornful manner that it was to pass judgement upon certain erroneous Ptopositions, or some other like note wherewith M. Albizzi branded them. Whereupon I promised Monsignor Sacrista to visit that Father with the reservedness which he advised.  
In the afternoon I went and carried him one of our little Volumes of S. Augustine, whereof I made him a present. After some mutual civilities, we fell to speak of the affair about which I was at Rome; I gave him a brief account of it, and we entered into the matter of the Propositions. He told me that he had but barely looked upon them; that they were delivered to him in a Note without any other addition, but he judged by the outside and the surface that there was some evil meaning in them, yet considering them a little more, he found that they were reducible to a good sense, which might be justified. As I was going to speak a word to him concerning Effectual Grace, and the connexion they had therewith, he prevented me, as understanding it well, and himself explicated the nature of that Grace in two words, namely, quae dat posse, velle & operari. Nevertheless he told me that care must be had of the delicateness of the ears of the Cardinals, who not being broken and accustomed to Theological terms, upon the least umbrage that a Proposition could give them, were very inclined to conclude its condemnation. I told him also that we had demanded that before passing of judgement, they might be cleared of all equivocal and doubtful terms, and reduced to several clear and determinate senses, upon which we might give our Declarations before the Congregation, and in presence of those who pursued the censure of them, etc. He accounted all this perfectly just and necessary, and requisite to be pressed, and that it behooved us to renew our instances for it, farne nostre protest. I answered that this was the chief point of our affair, and a thing of great justice. I desired him likewise to assist us to obtain it if he came in place where he had any power. But to the end it might not appear that he did it upon our recommendation, I conceived it were good that he did us the courtesy upon the first opportunity, whilst it was not yet known that he had any correspondence with us. He replied that he would do it willingly, and in this first interview he spoke in all points as an intelligent and equitable person.  
The rest of this week we made no considerable visit. Only we went to our particular Friends to take their advice about certain things which we thought to do, and which I shall relate hereafter in the time and order that they were done.  
During all the time that passed since the presenting of our two Writings and their Summary to the Cardinals designed for our Congregation, we caused to be transcribed by a good Copist a very fair and correct Copy of them to present to the Pope. We caused the same to be bound up in the best velum with the Pope's arms stamped in gold upon the cover. The three Writings together composed a small volume in Folio about an inch thick. In the beginning of this Book and before all those Writings we placed an Epistle to the Pope, whereof take here the Translation:  
Most Holy Father,  
YOur Holiness having by your goodness and your justice established the Congregation for examination of the grand questions concerning Grace, we thought fit before all things to compose two Writings which we present to your Holiness; one whereof contains what hath passed in the affair under debate, and the other concerns S. Augustin's authority. We fear not most H. Father but your Holiness will approve this proceeding, since we tread in the steps of Celestin I Clement VIII. and Paul V doing nothing but what they did in a case altogether like. Thus we take for our rule the first and the last judgement which the H. Apostolic See hath pronounced touching this Contest; and the way whereof we make use to end it, is, to follow both its ancient Decisions, and those which it hath made in these latter ages.  
Soon after S. Augustin's death, some Priests of France found fault with his writings, and troubled the peace of the Churches by undiscreet Questions; whereupon Prosper and Hilary had recourse to Celestin, and reported to him what was published in France against the said Father. They complained that some Priests in France went about still to call in doubt that which had been proved in the Writings of S. Augustin, confirmed by the Pope's Innocent, Zozymus and Boniface, and established by Councils; and they demanded that before all things the H. Apostolic See would repress the temerity of those French, and confirm the doctrine and authority of S. Augustin. This care of Prosper and Hilary received commendation from the mouth of Celestin, and taking from the Priests of whom they complained all liberty of detraction, he ordained that the authority and doctrine of S. Augustin, should remain inviolable in the Church.  
Molina having had the boldness in Spain to renew those ancient complaints made of the Priests of France, and once again to make head against the same S. Augustin; and this new doctrine being accused to the H. See in which Clement VIII. presided at that time; this H. Pope would not have that Cause examined before him till he had first ordained that the authority of S. Augustin should be approved according to the Constitutions of his Predecessors, and his doctrine considered as a rule by which all controversies touching the assistance of God's grace ought to be examined, and Pope Paul V afterward ordained that the same thing should be exactly and religiously observed.  
Yet there are found at this day, most H. Father, New Censors amongh the Priests of France, who, to defend Molina's doctrine, have had the presumption to rise anew against S. Augustine; who trouble the peace of the victorious Church by Questions which they borrow again from the School of those Authors already condemned, and who call in doubt the principal Articles of Christian Grace, and of the doctrine of that H. Doctor. 'Tis for this cause that we are come to your Holiness in the name of some of the most illustrious Bishops of France, who with a pastoral care watch for the peace of the whole Church, the honour of S. Augustine and the dignity of the H. Apostolic See. We have complained of the Propositions which have been invented to prepare ambushes for the doctrine of S. Augustine and for your Holiness. And to the end they might be examined, and this whole affair fully and perfectly cleared, we have sued to your Holiness for the erection of a Congregation in which both sides might be heard viuâ voce, and by writing. Your Holiness hath accordingly established it, and they have appointed us to pre-present our Writings to them. We have therein first related to your Holiness and the Congregation what hath been acted in reference to the Propositions; in doing which we have followed the example of Prosper and Hilary commended by Pope Celestin, discovering by what means and artifices S. Augustin's authority is encountered, and with what excessive boldness the Jesuits by an unheard of conspiracy attempt to destroy it under pretext of these equivocal and fallacious Propositions. In the next place we have defended the best we could S. Augustin's authority, which is assaulted in so dangerous a manner, and hath received so great wounds; and we have proved it by the Tradition of the whole Church, namely by the testimonies of twenty Popes, fifteen Councils, and threescore and ten Fathers and Divines of great reputation. Which we have done, to the end your Holiness and the Congregation might understand on the one side the justice of our complaint, and observe on the other, how necessary it is to express the temerity of those Censors. And to the end your Holiness might have the goodness to practise from the entrance of this contest the same that Pope Celestine did heretofore, and Clement VIII. since, in occasions perfectly like to this, for the defence of S. Augustine's doctrine and authority, and to support it with a new recommendation; we have conceived that before all things we ought to summon our Adversaries to acknowledge the authority and doctrine of that Saint, not only with unprofitable and ineffectual words, or deceitful eulogiums and praises full of disguisement and fiction, but by solid and express approbations, till your Holiness shall have established it yourself according to the example of your Predecessors by a public Definition against these few accusers who can scarce be repressed any other way; which is the only and most profitable remedy that can be made use of for the peace of the whole Church.  
We know, most H. Father, that there is no practice or endeavour omitted by our Apversaries to hinder the effect of so just and necessary a Demand; we know that there is nothing in the world which they fear so much as to be constrained to subscribe as they ought, to the authority of S. Augustin, or to see your Holiness treading in the steps of Celestin I. & Clement VIII. confirm it anew, repress the temerity of these Censors, and give for rule of this controversy a Doctrine that hath been established for so many ages; because, assoon as they shall be obliged to admit the same against their wills, or shall see your Holiness solemnly confirm it, they will be out of all hope of prevailing against the Propositions, under the obscurity of which they aim only at the condemnation of S. Augustin, according to their formed design, although they affect not to express his name.  
Your Holiness will hear with wonder, that after having openly attaqu'd S. Augustin's doctrine with their utmost strength, both by themselves and by the help of the Jesuits, whose defenders and confederates they are, they now openly proclaim their submission to it. They will have the boldness to profess themselves public Panegyrists and defenders of that Father even in presence of your Holiness. But their doing thus will be only to palliate the contempt they have of him with feigned respect, and to free themselves from blame; it will be only to avoid the punishment of the insolence wherewith they outrage him; it will be only to hid the aversion which they have for his Doctrine, under the commendation which they give to his Person; it will be only to diminish the care which is to be had in these controversies, in examining which are the true sentiments of that H. Father, and to make it believed that it is not concerned in the Propositions which have been presented to your Holiness, since themselves who impugn them, profess to follow the doctrine of that Father, and so reverence his authority; to the end that having avoided the condemnation of their temerity by such feigned and captious eulogiums of S. Augustin, and got off without being obliged to subscribe to any thing, or your Holiness having ordained them so to do, they may with their Partisans thence forward reject his authority with more boldness than ever, condemn his doctrine, and continue to banish it from their Schools as Calvinistical and dangerous, especially in case your Holiness should be induced under some pretext to condemn the Propositions, because they will not fail afterwards to make the censure fall upon S. Augustin, and indeed they would have some ground for their doing so.  
These are the designs of our Adversaries, and we doubt not but they will be of no force with your Holiness, whom they have not been able to surprise hitherto, whatever slights they have made use of; since if that unhappiness should happen, it would be an exposing the principal Inheritance which the H. See possesses as by succession, to pillage and depredation, a transporting of it by the hands of the Churches own children to its enemies, as no doubt it would come to pass by the contempt of S. Augustin's authority and doctrine; it would be a nullifying the authority of all the Fathers; it would be totally to exterminate the antiquity of doctrine and venerable Tradition; it would be to abolish the respect which is due to the Decrees of the H. Apostolical See; it would imply that the Church hath unjustly condemned the enemies of Grace; it would give occasion to believe that the H. Council of Trent favoured the Pelagian Heretics, and gave new forces to the Calvinists. In fine, it would give ground to say, that your Holiness hath made but little account of all the ancient Decrees which your Predecessors, Innocent, Zozimus, Boniface, Celestine, Sixtus, Leo, Gelasius, Hormisdas, and others have pronounced in favour of S. Augustin, or rather that you abolished them.  
It must be confessed, most H. Father, that these things are of great importance, and seem almost incredible; but besides that they are evidently manifested to such as shall read these two Writings which we now present to you, they will be more visible and conspicuous in the whole sequel of this affair, and we are ready to convince our Adversaries thereof.  
Your Holiness will no doubt foresee dangers so extreme and imminent, you will hear complaints so necessary, you will take time to inform yourself fully of a cause so important; and your pastoral vigilance will apply itself with no less wisdom, integrity and justice to this great affair which is of high consequence to the whole Church, to the H. Apostolic See, to the Faith, and Christian piety, then to all the other affairs of the same Church. We know that God hath, as one of the principal effects of his favour, given us in our days such a Pastor, that if it happened sometimes that your Holiness cannot be advertised of the importance of things, yet when you are so, you cannot but ordain all that is requisite in justice, reason and equity; and we know likewise that all that we say is so certain and considerable; we know that the whole Church is reduced to so great extremities by all the contrivances of our Adversaries in this contest, that your Holiness would before now have provided for so urgent a necessity, if the true state of this affair had been sooner laid open to you, which it hath not been till the present.  
Nevertheless what ever great promise we seem to engage ourselves to here, we dare confidently affirm, that we shall give most clear and indubitable proofs thereof, provided the Congregation which your Holiness hath established obtain its full and entire effect, and time and place be allowed us to convince our Adversaries in their presence viuâ voce, and by writing. 'Twill then be that your Holiness and the whole Roman Church shall really know, that 'tis not without Cause that we have laid open to you the greatness of this danger, and that our complaints have been neither false nor frivolous when we brought them to the H. See, and to the Supreme Tribunal, before which S. Bernard hath taught us, that no person ought to draw any advantage from falsehood.  
We are, Most H. Father, Your Holiness' most humble and most obedient Servants and Sons, 

Noel de la Lane, Doctor of Divinity in the Faculty of Paris, etc.  
Louis de Saint-Amour, Doctor of the Sacred Faculty of Paris, etc.  
Louis Angran, Licentiate of the same Sacred Faculty, etc.    
Perhaps it will be thought strange, that we have spoke in this Epistle so earnestly in favour of the Propositions; I shall give the reason of it in another place, where I shall show that this doth not hinder but that we always condemned them in the same sense wherein they were condemned by the Pope: And to speak ingenuously here, I acknowledge that it was I who was the Author of the course for the reasons hereafter mentioned; and that in this Epistle, it was I who entreated M. the Valcroissant who penned it, to add these words, nec sane immerito; that it would not be without soms grounds that the Jesuits would reflect such condemnation upon S. Augustin. We conceived that the Pope would peruse of all our writings, at least this Epistle, which was addressed as an Epistle Dedicatory to his Holiness, and we judged it reasonable to give him this Idea, to the end the more to oblige him to cause the distinction of senses to be made as we demanded. But let us proceed with our Relation.  
During the same interval, we prepared a particular Memorial to present to the Pope with our book, whereby we demanded three things of his Holiness, wherewith I will acquaint the Reader, by inserting here the Translation of the said Memorial. It was thus inscribed;  
To our most H. Father Pope Innocent X. 

1. For the Communication of the Writings of the Doctrs of Paris, whose names are subscribed.  
2. Touching the Jesuits.  
3. Touching M. Albizzi.    
Most H. Father,  
SInce the time that Cardinal Roma, of happy Memory, informed us on July 11. by order from your Holiness, of the establishment of the Congregation which we demanded of your Holiness, by our Memorial presented to you on Jan. 21. we have not ceased to labour to get ready the first informations necessary to our cause; whilst we were busied therein with the greatest diligence to which we could be obliged by any reason or consideration whatsoever, we were suddenly summoned to repair to Cardinal Roma, who advertised us, that we must get ready our instructions touching this affair within fifteen days; that otherwise, after that time expired, your Holiness would think of other means to provide therein.  
We conceived, most H. Father, that this Order might have been procured by our Adversaries, and by M. Albizzi's means, in whose presence it was signified to us, and who at the same time put an affront upon us, which we pass over in silence for the present; but we did not think that it came from your Holiness, as well because it was not suitable to the nature and posture of the affair, as because in the audience which we had of your Holiness eight days before we heard nothing of it, your Holiness on the contrary testifying to us, that you were satisfied with the diligence wherewith you knew we laboured therein; and it was not likely that M. Albizzi had seen your Holiness within those eight days.  
Nevertheless, most H. Father, that we might not make any complaint to your Holiness without absolute necessity, and to take away all colour of blame for our imaginary delay, we testified no resentment at all for it, but resolved to get our first writings ready to be presented by the time prescribed, and we laboured therein day and night with so great and extraordinary closeness, that at length we finished them upon the 28th of August. We went to present them the same day to Cardinal Roma; but the sickness which befell him at the same time, caused us to defer it from day to day, till the 17th of September, on which, and the following days, we presented them to the other Cardinals of the Congregation; since which, most H. Father, notwithstanding so great hastening of us, we have not heard a word of their being communicated to our Adversaries, though we have sundry times made suit for a thing so just, easy, ordinary and necessary. Wherefore we humbly request:  
1. That your Holiness will please to consider the vast extent of this affair, how many things are essential to it, how many other dependant on it, upon which it is needful that the parties be heard, and the Judges informed, that so they may understand the true state of it, and fit it to be brought before your Holiness, to make such decision of it, as may remove out of the Church all occasion of Error and Division among Catholics touching rhese important points of the Faith and Christian Piety: How much time will be requisite for the doing of all this aright, and how tedious the affair will be, unless speedy course be taken to exclude all delay: Be pleased therefore, most holy Father, to appoint that our writings may be speedily communicated to our Adversaries.  
2. And because there are two sorts of them; some who appear openly, but are indeed the least, being scarce any thing else but the Agents and Instruments of the others, such as are M. Hallier and his Colleagues; others who are our true and principal Adversaries, namely, the Jesuits, who have raised all this stir to overthrow S. Augustin, and root his holy doctrine out of the Church, by help of the Five Propositions, whereof the Censure is prosecuted, as we have formerly intimated to your Holiness in the Memorial presented last Lent, and as will appear daily more and more in the progress of this contest; We most earnestly supplicate, that our writings be signified, not only to the said M. Hallier and his Colleagues, but also to the jesuites, and that both the one and the other be obliged to appear before the said Congregation, and both by speech and writing answer to the Accusations made, and to be made in this affair against them. This was always our meaning when we made suit for the Congregation, to the end the affair might by help thereof be so advanced, that these controversies might once be terminated at the same time with all the world, and that our pains might be instrumental to procure herein a general quiet to all the Faithful; and we conceived, that considering the state of things, no other course could be thought more expedient: But because we find that they have brought those Doctors upon the Stage, thereby to exempt themselves from appearing, out of design that if their own sentiments should come to be condemned (as there is all reason to hope) they might always keep a refuge to themselves, and put the Church into new trouble about these matters, under pretext of not having been heard, and that their Doctrine was not the thing in question, we conceive ourselves obliged, most Holy Father, to make this more express and precise Supplication for it to your Holiness.  
3. And whereas the abovesaid M. Albizzi is a person very closely united with them, one that hath always backed their designs, whatever they were, from whom, since we have had the honour to address to your Holiness about so great an affair, we have received contempts, obstructions, checks, and other ill treatments upon all occasions wherein we have had to do with him, whose greatest design in this affair, is to hinder the thing which may be most necessary for the service of your Holiness and the Church, namely, the full clearing of this affair with sincerity, and the most suitable, usual, and fitting means: For these and other causes, most H. Father, we beseech your Holiness, with all due respect, that you will please to regulate the Consultors which are to be present at the said Congregation, and not appoint the said M. Albizzi for a Consultor, and much less for Secretary, since it seems necessary to choose for that place among the Consultors, the most moderate, impartial, and learned person, and one who is least diverted by other occupations; which four qualities being all wanting in the said Sieur Albizzi, and for that by some occurrences we suspect that he pretends to that employment, your Holiness will pardon us if we take the boldness to dissuade you in this matter, and do us the favour to believe that we would not do it, if we did not consider, that as St. Augustin writes to Innocent the First, God hath placed you in the H. Apostolical See by a particular gift of his Grace, and hath rendered you such during our days, that we ought rather to fear being accused of negligence, if the respect we own to your Dignity kept us from telling you the things which we see it is so important to the Church to be represented to you, then that you will hear them with displeasure: and if we did not find that there is great necessity for it, in reference to the service of Truth, the Church, and likewise of your Holiness, whose years we beseech God to multiply, and diffuse upon you all sort of blessings.  
Subscribed thus; 

Noel de la Lane, Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, and Abbot of Valcroissant.  
Louis de Saint-Amour, Doctor of the Sacred Faculty of Paris, and of the Society of Sorbonne.  
Louis Angran, Licentiate in the same Faculty, and Canon of the Cathedral Church of Troie.    
Sunday the 10th, we went with our book of writings and this Memorial to the Pope's Presence-chamber, to desire Audience, and present them to his Holiness: We could not obtain it; but I met F. Celestin in the Presence-chamber, who told me, that he had visited the Cardinals Spada and Ghiggi, and spoken to them about the necessity of making a conference between the Parties, but he found their Eminences not in the least inclined to it.  
In the afternoon I visited F. Lezzana, to know whether the report were true, that he was made a Consultor: He answered me, that he was excluded, as being suspected by them touching his Faith: Me excluserunt, said he, ut suspectum in fide. He told me also, that in a visit to Cardinal Spada about the present Controversies, he recommended S. Augustin to him, as him alone among the four Fathers of the Church, that deserved the Title of Doctor by way of Eminence, in regard of the sublime and vast knowledge which was diffused in all his writings, and of the multitude of Heretics whom he encountered and overcame: He said, that Cardinal Spada received this intimation well enough, but he durst not go so far with Cardinal Ghiggi, because his Eminence had told him in a discourse, that he had read Vasquez, Merat, Suarez, and a fourth Jesuit Author, whose name comes not into my memory: To which he might have added a commendation commonly enough given to this Cardinal, namely, that he had made a Compendium of Suarez Metaphysics.  
The next morning we went again to the Pope's Palace for Audience, but had no better success than before. In the afternoon F. Melchior came to see us, and told us, that they in their Covent were threatened that the Congregation de propaganda fide, should visit there in reference to Jansenism, whereof they were accused.  
Tuesday the 12th, we attempted again, but in vain, to present our book to his Holiness. As I was going up to the Presence-chamber, I met a General of an Order coming down, who told me that the time was favourable enough to make the complaints which he knew we intended to make against M. Albizzi.  
Wednesday the 13th, there was a Consistory which caused the Assembly of the H. Office at la Minerve to be deferred till afternoon: I went to take a turn there, and met F. Celestin again, who told me that the Assembly at Cardinal Spadas house had been appointed for that day, but was remitted to the next. I met also F. Capisucchi, Secretary of the Congregation dell' Indice, who upon that, and perhaps other accounts, had great familiarity with Cardinal Spada: He told me, as if to congratulate with me, that our Congregation would be held the next day in the afternoon at that Cardinal's house: I answered him seriously and coldly, that it was none of ours, non è la nostra. He repeated his compliment, and said, he might very well know; for otherwise that of the Index was to be held, which it could not be, by reason ours was to be held the next day at Cardinal Spadas house. Whereupon I explained what I had answered, and told him plainly, that I did not say that a Congregation would not be held at Cardinal Spadas house which might hinder his, but that the Congregation held at Cardinal Spadas house, might perhaps be some preparative to ours, but was not ours. And so the Father well apprehended what I meant.  
The same afternoon I visited F. Pancratio, who told me that F. Jean an Augustine, otherwise called Tartaglia (who was added by Cardinal Pamphilio, as a new Consultor to the Congregation at the same time with F. Celestin) acquainted him, that the Thomists were agreed upon the falsity of the first Proposition; whereupon he desired him to remember that they were Compatriots, and not be so hasty, but to give this matter a few moments hearing before he determined any thing touching it. A little while after I understood that this good F. Tartaglia had put himself into a Covent of  Carmelites, out of a considerable motion of Piety: He had been Fellow-Student with F. Palavicini, and purposed to put himself into the Society of the jesuites; which purpose having communicated to a certain Religious person (from whom I understood it) the said Religious asked him why he minded to become a jesuite? F. Tartaglia answered him, that his design was to retire out of the world, to mind God and his Salvation, etc. The Religious asked him, whether he conceived he should be retired from the world by becoming a jesuite? and represented to him on the contrary, that he would thereby be more engaged in it: That whereas he had perhaps some talon above the generality, he must exercise it in all employments upon which these Fathers thought fit to put him; that they spent most of their life in visits, directions, negotiations, etc. F. Tartaglia was so prevailed upon with these Reasons, that instead of becoming a jesuite, he made himself a  Carmelite; but the Religious told me, that however I was not to expect any good from him in reference to our cause, for he was imbued with the same Principles of Molinisme that F. Palavicini had sucked in, and that in the whole Order of Carmelites, it would be hard to find a Molinist like him: That once his Superiors taking occasion of a slight indisposition which he had, sent him into the country under colour of taking the air, but indeed to remove him from his Profession of Divinity, because he taught Opinions contrary to those of S. Thomas; that nevertheless, after a years interruption, he was restored to the exercise of his charge, after promise of Reformation; but he always returned to his first sentiments, and taught according to the same principles of Molinisme.  
Sunday the 17th we returned again to get Audience of the Pope, but it began so late, and was likely to be so short, by reason he was to go abroad to take the air in the afternoon, that we determined not to wait for it.  
Tuesday the 19th we went again, but there was such a multitude, and amongst others Cardinal Sforza, who engrossed almost all the time, that we despaired of having any Audience that day.  
In the afternoon I visited F. Pascaligo, who told me that F. Celestin had taught Scientia Media, as well as F. Tartaglia, and that in print. We went to see the Ambassador, who desired us to dine with him the next day.  
We went thither, and both at dinner and after, the discourse was concerning the pains we took to get our writings communicated (for during those solicitations, there was no speech of being heard in presence) Whereupon the Ambassador told us, that we need not trouble ourselves about it, for without doubt it would be granted us, when things were in a condition to permit it; that it was practised in all Processes of the Rota, and consequently would not fail to be allowed in a general and important affair as ours was. That in the Rota they sometimes made ten and twenty Decisions before they passed Sentence; that the same would certainly be done in our affair, and instead of ten we should have thirty: That we must not be impatient, but walk abroad, and divert ourselves; that we must calmly spend our time in studying and clearing up ourselves, because whenever we testified the least impatience, it would be taken for obstinacy and disobedience. We answered him, that we were willing to do all this, so long as it caused no prejudice to our affair. He told us, that the Pope had signified to him that there should be two Congregatons in a week. We answered, that they might make as many or as few as they pleased; that it did not move us. That while they were such as the present, as we could not hinder them, so we had no regard to them. That this was not after the manner that we demanded, and that was promised us. He told us likewise, that the King would procure both for us and our Adversaries to be heard, and to represent as much as we pleased the justice of our cause. And upon our saying that, we had gone a fortnight together to all the Audiences of the Pope, to present the Book of our Writings to him, he did us the favour to offer us to introduce us on Friday following when himself was to go; or else to take at Audience for us for the Sunday ensuing.  
Thursday the twenty first, I was in the Pope's Presence-chamber during the Congregation of the L. Office, and came down from thence with the General of the Augustine's, who asked me where M. Hallier's lodging was, that he might go to restore him the Writings which he had had of him.  
Friday the 22d. we went to the Ambassador's house to accompany him to the Pope's Palace. He told us that we were down in his Note, and we desired him to procure us audience for Sunday next, because we should then have more time to speak to the Pope, then if we did it in his presence. Yet because we were not sure whether it would be desired till Sunday, or whether we might not be called whilst the Ambassador was there, we tarried in the Presence-chamber expecting the issue. A quarter of an hour after the Ambassador had been at audience, he came forth unexpectedly and with some commotion in his countenance, as I observed. N. Piques' Secretary of the Embassy had in his hand the Memorial of Affairs, whereof his Master was to speak to the Pope, ready to deliver to his Holiness 's Maistre de Chambre at his coming forth according to custom. But as he drew near to present them, I perceived the Ambassador made a sign to him with his head, not to deliver them.  
We let him departed, and stayed in the Presence-chamber. The Ambassador of Venice, who was to have audience next him, was not yet come. M. Angran, who had not observed as I did the countenance and commotion of our Ambassador, conceived this interval a fit opportunity for presenting our Book to the Pope, and therefore motioned that we might desire the Maistre de chambre to introduce us. I told him and M. de Valcroissant, that assuredly the Pope and the Ambassador had had some brush; but I entreated them not to speak of it, because I knew not whether any besides myself took notice of it. The Ambassador went down to Cardinal Pamphilio, where he was three quarters of an hour at audience. I went thither likewise, and learned that the day before a Gentleman arrived by Post from Monsignor Corsini who was going Nun●io into France, to advertise the Pope that he was stayed at Marseilles, and could not pass further. In the afternoon I went to see the Ambassador; Assoon as he saw me, he told me that he could not speak to the Pope about us; and I answered, that I perceived as much at his coming forth from the Audience. He replied, that indeed it was not difficult to perceive; for (said he) we were at big words this morning. I went abroad with him to take the air, where he told me, that a Cardinal Bishop in Marca Anconitana, had sent to desire him by a Gentleman to procure for him all the Writings that were made touching the Propositions.  
Saturday the 23d. I met the Bishop of Bethleem, who told me that M. Hallier informed him the day before that the Bishop of Amiens was dead, and before his death made abjuration of Jansenism in the presence of Witnesses. He told me also, that he had received order from the Clergy to make no new Demand to the Pope touching les causes majeures, and that the Clergy would continue firm in the practice of the ancient Canons.  
I had not ended with the Bishop of Bethleem when a certain Ecclesiastic came to me, and tol, me, that he had visited F. Hilarion that week about our affairs; and that speaking to him of M. Albizzi's extraordinary partiality, the Father told him, that it was true that M. Albizzi was very hot in the business, and that he had added some words of his own to the Bull of Vrban VIII. He mentioned expressly these three, In praejudicum fidei; and that a Cardinal (St. Clement) making great complaints thereof, M. Albizzi had recourse to F. Hilarion, as thinking himself a lost man unless he helped him. That F. Hilarion having seen the said words, said, it had been better if they had not been there; but since they were so, it was requisite to endeavour to salve them. Wherefore in the Congregation of the H. Office having interpreted them in this sense, namely, That it was a thing which would turn to the prejudice of the Faith, if the Pope's Decrees were not better executed, etc. Cardinal St. Clement's complaints were ineffectual, and M. Albizzi scaped and got out of the mire.  
But this danger wherein he saw himself, and the favourable interpretation by which he escaped, did not render him more moderate in this matter, nor disposed to confine the sense of the words of the Bull within those bounds. On the contrary, he extended them upon occasion the most he could, it being his interest and satisfaction that they might be verified if it were possible, and that every one might understand them, not only according to the explication of F. Hilarion, but also in the rigour of his own terms. He would be looked upon as the legal interpreter of them, because he had been the Instrument, as himself declared in the first Visit which my Colleagues and I together made to him, having fallen into a passion against those who doubted of the truth of the same Bull; and telling us that he could better testify concerning it then any other, because it was himself that penned it, and caused to be added in it, that Jansenius revived the Propositions of Baius. This passage, as well as many others, I had omitted in my Journal, which one of my Colleagues perusing, called it to mind, and sent it to me in a Letter, as it it is here transcribed.  
F. Petit came to see us in the afternoon. He told me, that after many Solicitations which he had made to M. Albizzi in the name of M. Hersent, to know what was requisite for him to do that he might be absolved from the Excommunication which had been fulminated against him by the Congregation of the H. Office; M. Albizzi at length answered him plainly, That M. Hersent must come to Rome to unsay and retract in a public Sermon, and to preach the contrary to what he had preached there upon the day of S. Lewis, and caused to be printed in his Sermon. He made this answer, and yet he knew that the Congregation of the H. Office had nothing to gainsay, either in the sermon by itself, or in its relation to the Epistle and to Jansenius. F. Petit, who did not know him so well as he, had recourse to Remonstrances and Prayers, representing to him the difficulty of the Journey, and told him, that M. Hersent enquired what behooved him to do in the place where he was, for obtaining absolution; and he would perform it punctually. At length M. Albizzi yielded a little, and answered him with much difficulty, grumbling and shaking his head (they are the very words of F. Petit's Letter to M. Hersent, which fell into my hands since) That people must not think to delude and abuse the authority of the H. Office thus, which used not to absolve such contumacious persons by a procurator; that therefore M. Hersent must repair to the Nuntio, and before him make an Act and a Protestation of his submission and obedience to the H. See, and declare that he renounced all the sentiments and opinions of the Jansenists. That when M. Hersent had sent him such an Act, he would then see what was fit to be done for him, and endeavour to cause satisfaction to be given him, but upon any other terms there was no hope.  
Sunday the 24th. we repaired again to the Pope's Presence-chamber: there was but half or three quarters of an hour's time for audience, which was given to the Nuntio newly returned from Florence, and to the General of the Capucines. The General of the Dominicans desired one as well as we, and told us that he was in the same bottom with us, sumus in eadem navi. He offered to persuade us to present informations to the Congregations held at Cardinal Spadas house, but we declared to him our steadfast resolution, and the necessity under which we were, not to proceed further than we had done, till we saw a Congregation established bona fide with all the conditions wherewith we had demanded, and which was resolved to proceed according to all the usual and requisite forms.  
The new Subbibliothecary told me in the afternoon, that the King of Poland had lately written to the Pope to press the condemnation of the Propositions, and that he more apprehended in his Dominions the divisions which might arise about them then the Wars of the Tartars and Moscovites. The new Nuntio was arrived there not long before, and when he went to salute the Queen, she asked him news of what was a doing at Rome touching this matter. He answered her Majesty, That he knew not in what posture this affair was, but assured her that he was forbidden to speak of it, either by words or by writing. An admirable Answer in the mouth of a Nuntio speaking to a witty and intelligent Princess, as that Queen is!  
Wednesday the 27th. we went to visit Monsignor Canzoni Bishop of Borgo. The Book of Jansenius was lying upon his Table. He told us among other things, that he could not express the astonishment and compassion which he had to see how outrageously that Prelate was decried and considered as a capital enemy of Religion and the H. See; when he remembered with what general applause and consent in the Consistory (whereof himself was then Secretary) he was promoted to the Bishopric of Ipre, and that the expedition of his Bulls was granted to him gratis. And amongst the reasons why this grace was done to him, besides his rare learning, he told us that it was considered that he had been thrice in eminent Conferences with Heretics, against whom he nobly maintain d the honour of the Church and the verity of the Faith▪ And this remembrance encreas d the grief he had for the persecution done to his Book and his memory. After which he fell to speak of the Congregations which were held at Cardinal Spadas house: We told him expressly that we expected some of another sort, and looked upon those only as such as might serve for preludes and preparations to those which we demanded.  
Thursday the 28th. the Subbibliothecary came to see us, and tell us (he said) some news of what passed in Cardinal Spadas Congregations. Nevertheless all that he informed us, was, that F● Palavicini was sufficiently mortified at the last which was held; and that he (the Subbibliothecary) heard from the Antichambre where he was, that every one cried up his own Sentiment vigorously, gagliardament.  
Friday the 29th. we went again with our Book to get audience of the Pope. He gave none but to a Polish Gentleman newly arrived at Rome, a German who was going away, and to three Auditors of the Rota. All which was dispatched very speedily, and justified what a friend of mine well versed in those things told me upon the stairs, that of late the Pope gave as little audience as he could, and made choice of such as might give him the least disturbance.  
In the afternoon I met F. Delbene, to whom I spoke earnestly how the Cardinals were obliged to hear us before they proceeded further in their Congregations, and what injustice they did us if they resolved upon any Censure before examination of the Propositions, as we demanded in all the necessary forms. He consented to all that I said, and he answered me, fariaeno male; no lo faranno. They should do ill; they will not do it. Parting from him, I met with F. Mariano, who told me much good news concerning the F. Commissary of the H. Office, the Master of the sacred Palace, F. Celestin, and the whole Congregation. He told me, that the weakness of F. Palavicini was discovered every day more and more; that his Companion F. Tartaglia the Barefooted Carmelite had all his own Order upon his back to keep him from acting as a Molinist in any thing that he had to do in this Congregation; that Cardinal Spada speaking familiarly concerning M. Albizzi to Monsignor Spada the Patriarch, he shaked his head, and signified by that gesture that he was not satisfied with him; that the Dominicans abovemention'd were very much heated since they perceived the evil intentions wherewith this affair was carried; but there were very many who were incensed against us, and chief against me, because they received no information about the Propositions from us.  
Saturday the 30th. we received a Visit from the Bishop of Bethleem, who told us, that having received one the day before from M. Hallier, he in some sort blamed that Doctor for that we were not heard before the Congregation, nor our Writings communicated. Whereunto M. Hallier answered, that we sought nothing but protractions; That should any Writing be communicated to us, we would desire six months' time to answer it; That for his part, he had no need of hearing us; That let us be admitted first into the Congregation, and he afterwards; that without having heard us, he would answer directly to all that we spoke; That we had only Jansenius; that he knew all that Jansenius said; That as for the audience which we sought to have of the Pope, we should never obtain it; That a Congregation was appointed for us; that we had no longer any thing to do to speak to his Holiness. That this was the course at Rome; and to show how much our protractions were to be feared, he took into consideration divers cases of affairs of State, to which delays are altogether prejudicial. The Bishop of Bethleem told us that he had undertaken to speak with us, that he might know out design, and as a Mediator procure of the Cardinals the reciprocal communication of our Writings. We thanked the Bishop for his good will, and desired him to tell M. Hallier, that we wished that our Writings might be communicated more speedily; but we should have patience till it were done; That assoon as we had theirs, we would use all possible diligence to answer them; That we never sought any protraction in things, but what was necessary for the right examining of them; That we would not have any composition of the business with him, and that he aimed at nothing but to procure a good determination from the Pope after our Contests had been examined in the legal and accustomed forms.  
The same day I was to visit F. Pascaligo. He told me, that so far as he could discover what passed in Cardinal Spadas Congregations, things went there rather well then ill; That such as at first were but indifferent, began to be well treated; That there needed but one resolute person to sway the whole Assembly, most of which, though well meaning persons, had not read St. Augustine. He told me also, that Cardinal Ghiggi had demanded of some, whether there were not some way to find a Mean and Temperament in this affair. I answered him two things. First, that they could not at Rome do a greater pleasure to the Heretics, then if they came to condemn any thing that was Saint Augustin's. And secondly, That the H. See aught to beware, not only of condemning a Catholic Maxim, but also of absolving or suffering error. That it ought to take equal heed, what was fit to be done, and what was not. And that it would be a less ignominy to it if it did not condemn an Error which came under its Cognisance, then if it condemned a Truth.   

CHAP. XIV.  
What passed at Paris during the same Month; especially the violences of the Jesuits against some Doctor's S. Augustin's Disciples, to remove them from their Employments.  
WE were busied at Rome all this Month in the most vigorous and assiduous pursuit that was lawful for us to make there, for the first audience in the Congregation which we demanded might be granted to us together with our Adversaries, after our first Writings had been communicated to them, to the end they might come to such audience prepared to answer to those Writings, and to what we should add thereunto viva voce. We could neither obtain to have a day set for such first Audience, nor that our Writings should be communicated, nor know whether they would grant us either one or the other. In the mean time the Jesuits, and the Doctors their adherents continued triumphing at Paris beforehand for the approaching condemnation of the Propositions, of which they held themselves sure, and in which they involved ours. By this means they caused great doubtings and distrusts, both in the Prelates who deputed us, and in our friends, what might be the issue of the Congregation which was signified to us, and what justice we should have done us by it; wherefore they sent us word by a Letter of the 22th. That we had done very well in demanding of Cardinal Spada a Hearing and a communication of our Writings; but that it was said there (at Paris) that it would never be granted us, because they would not engage themselves at Rome into the bottom of the Dispute. And they enjoined us severely not to deliver any instruction which might engage us in a single process by writing. Also M. de sainte Beuve writ to me the same day that we ought to continue our instances that the Authors of the Propositions mi●…t be known, our innocence declared, and the NECESSITY OF EFFECTVAL GRACE. established, which was the whole point of the Question; and that if we could not obtain this, that at least it might be inserted into the Bull, in case any were made, that we had always declared that we undertook the defence of the Propositions, only in the sense wherein they employed the Necessity of Effectual Grace; that by this means the Bull would be favourable to us, and moreover, make our Adversaries pass for calumniators and successors of these Semipelagians, as well in their manners and proceed, as in their doctrine.  
But the Jesuits and their Adherents did not stop at these threaten of future things; they already made advantages as well at Rome as at Paris of the Victories which they had not yet obtained. They assured their Partisans at Rome, that the Decree which they made against the Propositions, would be received with applause in France by all the Court and all the great persons of the times; and in France they animated all the powers, both Ecclesiastical and secular against the learned and pious persons of whom they were jealous, as against person already condemned and declared Heretics; the affairs of M. Manessier and M. Cordon, whereof one had been elected for the place of Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Caen; and the other for that Principal of the College of Montaigu, who were both cast out of their charges, are two memorable examples thereof, which I than insert here with the circumstances wherewith I understood the same in a Latin letter written to me the 29th. of this month. For that it contains nothing but affairs of the University, I shall leave it in the language of that place.  
Terrent minis Molinistinae quos ratione vincere non possunt. Hac se arte putant Romae plurimùm authoritatis habituras, si potentiam secularem ostentare possint. Timeri volunt quando persuadere & vi argumentorum vincere nequeunt. Ita profecto, ni fallor, Romae agent quemadmodum Lutetiae. Hic de futura, ut aiunt, Censura triumphant, illic de Optimatum protectione gloriabantur. Enimvero non semel ad vexandos adversarios Romano nomine abusi sunt, eviceruntque ut irascerentur ex Optimatibus & Principibus aliqui in homines Romae damnatos, & tollendos censerent quos Pontificium fulmen ferisset. Nuper hac usi sunt calumnia ut D. Manessier Cadomensi Cathedra, & de Cordon Montis acuti Primatu dejicerent; nefas aiebant, in eos conferre suffragium, quorum doctrinam Papa proscriberet. Quam artem ubi non procedere senserunt, ad vim apertam versi, utrumque suo loco pellere voluerunt. Litteras quasi à Rege miserunt ad Gubernatorem Cadomensem (Lettres de cachet, i. e. under the Privy Seal) quibus mandabatur, juberet protinus D. Manessier urbe cedere, sive lectiones orsus esset, sive non, seseque conferre ad Comitatum, Regi actionum suarum rationem redditurum. Invigilaret quoque P. de Folleville Oratorii Sacerdotis & Professoris Theologi lectionibus et doctrinae. Delata res ad Cadomensem Academiam, movit indignationem omnium. Causam D. Manessier suam fecere Academeci Proceres. Rescripsere ad Parisiensem Academiam, ut suo alumno patrocinaretur, obstaretque ne Theologi Professores paterent impotentissimorum hominum libidini. Nondum res conclusa est apud D. Rectorem. Moras nexuit D. Morel, qui Decani loco illis Comitiis interest; causatus rem esse periculosam, Regiae voluntati intercedere, ingratiam nescio quorum hominum perditae doctrinae, quorum reliquiae et Romae et in Gallia Regia auctoritate brevi conterendae sint. Non impediet tamen ne Parisiensis Academia Doctoris sui defensionem suscipiat. De D. Cordon res ita se habet. Mortuo de Canel, Bursarii palam fecere quàm propenso in illum animo essent. Hoc malè habuit Molinistas. Statim illi advolare ad Poenitentiarium, qui nomine Capituli inspector est, ut electionem istam disturbaret. Itur ad Carthusianos item illius Collegii inspectores; convenitur Prior. Doctores scrupulum movent, videret nempe ne grande piaculum committeret, reusque esset violatae Religionis, si hominem haereticum, daemonis filium, daemonem ipsum, et quid non? Collegio bene Catholico praefici sineret: omnia mala bonaque, justa & injusta tendanda esse ad Dei gloriam. Ille egregie animatus hisce declamationibus Bursarorum animos tentat. Vbi non potest ad suam pertrahere sententiam, quid agate? Molitur facinus indignum, indignissimum. Tres ex iis (sex autem omnino sunt habentes jus suffragii) hactenus ut Bursarios ab ipsis quoque Carthusianis, à Capitulo, à Primario, ab omnibus habitos, ipso electionis pervigilio bursa dejiciunt, nescio quid causati. Non cedere illi abdicati quoque, de vi queri, appellare, interest velle Comitiis, far suffragium; eligunt D. Cordon semel, iterum; biduo enim repetita suffragia. Opponunt seize Prior & Procurator Carthusianorum. Ind ad Senatum. Nam cum periculum esset ne Capitulum Parisiense rei indignitate motum adversus Carthusianos sentiret, obtinuerunt placitum libello supplici oblato, quo rei totius cognition & judicio Capitulo interdicitur. Tum alio libello supplici obtiwere ut de Marlier, quem Carthusiani Primarium volebant, licet non electus, Primarium lite pendente ageret. Duo Consiliarii sese contulere in Montanum Collegium, ut in illud novum Primarium inducerent. Restitere Bursarii, intercessere decreto facto non auditis partibus. Ind, quod summae aequitatis judicium est, abiere ad Cathusianos duo illi Senatores ad paratum convivium. Tertium etiam habere voluerunt, quo, non obstante intercessione, prius illud Decretum firmarent; sed rejecta est à Senatoribus importuna petitio, quorum magna pars graviter tulit tam praecipitanter rem illam actam esse ab uno aut altero Senatore inconsultâ Curiâ. Nam ita duo prima illa decreta facta sunt. Rem aliàs persequar. Sed non omittam Principis Senatûs dictum, quo rem dixit ad Regiam auctoritatem pertinere, necesse esse ut mos ipsi in Montano gereretur; quasi Regium edictum sit, ne quis adversùs injustam Monachorum tyrannidem reclamet. Vale.  
29 Novemb. 1652.   

CHAP. XV.  
The continuation of our Solicitations during December, to obtain the audience of the Pope which we desired, for presenting our Writings with two Memorials to him: one for communications of the said Writings; and the other against F. Modeste, M. Albizzi, and the Jesuits.  
THe first day of December the first Sunday of Advent; upon which the Pope usually went to Chapel; but some indisposition hindering him from doing so, and yet permitting him to give particular audiences, his Holiness appointed this day, at Cardinal Vrsin's request, to give audience to divers Polonians who were returning into their own Country. We endeavoured also to get opportunity to present the Book of our Write to his Holiness; but some obstacle hindered him from giving audience either to the Polonians, or to us. They returned thither on Tuesday, and we likewise: but they were so long at audience that they left none for us, though it appeared that the greatest affair which the Pope had with them, was, to give them his Benediction and indulgences.  
In the afternoon I went to visit the Ambassador, who was going to see Cardinal Albieri whither I accompanied him. We had been once or twice before to visit this Cardinal; and that we might be no more disappointed, I took this occasion to agree upon an hour for the next day with his Maistre de chambre. In going and coming I spoke to the Ambassador touching the communication of our writings. He told me that all the fear was of protractions which might happen thereby. I answered him that so much must be resolved upon as was absolutely inseparable from a legal examen; and besides such, we sought none: I manifested to him by the whole course which he knew we had kept hitherto, that we had not caused any, and I gave him all reasonable assurances that we would never occasion any. On the contrary I showed him that our interest as well as our intention was, to see this affair assoon ended as we could procure it; that if after a thorough discussion it were found that we were in the wrong, we should be glad to see a solemn and authentic condemnation, and that were favourable to truth, pronounced against us; that the Pope, the Consultors, our Adversaries and we ought to aim at no other; that likewise if it were found that the sentiment of the Jesuits and M. Hallier and his Colleagues were not conformable thereunto, it behooved to spare them no more than us to the prejudice of truth. The Ambassador acknowledged the truth of all this, and told me two things sufficiently remarkable, to let posterity know what infamous and shameful means were made use of to decry us and disparage a holy and wholesome doctrine. He told me that M. Hallier and his Colleagues had showed him a Letter of M. de Marca Bishop of Conzerans newly nominated to the Archbishopric of Tholouze (whose hand the Ambassador said he knew well, having received many Letters from him whilst he was in Catalonia) in which that Prelate signified to them that the Jacobins had informed him that a certain woman being at Confession confessed that she had forgotten herself in the conjugal fidelity which she owed to her husband, and alleged that Grace failed her three times. The second thing which the Ambassador told me about the same matter, was, that a certain man being sick in the quartier of the Jocobins, (viz. the Reformed in the Street S. Honore), received the Viaticum from M. de. S. Roch in the usual manner; That yet afterwards being visited by two of that Order who went so comfort and exhort him, telling him that it behooved him to think upon God and his Grace; The man answered, that he did not believe himself to be one of those for whom God had prepared it: That thereupon the Jacobins told him that he must beg it of God; and that he answered that he had not so much as the Grace to pray: They replied that he ought to have confidence that God had merited it for him by his death; the man answered that he could not persuade himself that he was one of those for whom our Lord died. That the man was recovered a little; that yet it was not known what would become of him in the end: but the Jacobins. and M. de S. Roch were much troubled about it, and that it made a great noise in his Parish. But in the mean time it was manifest what evil effects had been caused by spreading in the Church the difficult and strange Questions of the Mystery of Grace, namely Libertinism and Despair.  
I could not this day give the Ambassador the Answers which these examples or rather fictions deserved, because we arrived at his House, and the Discourse broke off. But being the next day at S. Lovis, one told me in the Sacristie in presence of sundry ecclesiastics who stood about the Fire, that the talk was in Rome, that the Confession a la mode was, to say, instead of I have failed, Grace hath failed me; whereupon conceiving that this Discourse proceeded from the Letter which M. Hallier had showed the Ambassador, I first remonstrated to the Company, as well as I could, and the place permitted, the injuriousness and impiety of those who thus sought to make ridiculous the prime maxims of the Gospel by false and senseless consequences. After which I went to dine with the Ambassador that I might have occasion to speak to him both privately and at his Table, and by answering those foolish and temerarious objections, ruin them in the same place from whence in probability they first began to be dispersed.  
I said as I had done at S. Lovis touching the first, That when it is said that Grace is necessary to all actions, the meaning is not, for the doing of them simply, because there are many other motives of civil honesty and natural equity obliging us thereunto, which are sufficient for the doing of them, as is clear by the examples of so many Pagans who received no Christian graces, who had not so much as the smallest light of Faith, and who nevertheless were chaste, just, charitable, faithful and generous, out of the consideration of what they owed to the interests of their honour, their friends and their Country. But the meaning is, That Grace is necessary for the doing of the least action upon the principles of Christian love, and profitably for salvation, etc. And as for the second example, to take away the scandal it might give in case it were true, I affirmed that it was not an effect of the sound doctrine of Grace (whereof Christian Piety obliged men not to be ignorant) but of the ill use and false consequences drawn from it by its enemies; That from this example we ought to take occasion to humble ourselves before God for avoiding the like error; That men ought to spend all their lives in fear and confidence, to work out our own salvation and hope in God with trembling: That S. Paul who did not find himself culpable for any thing, nevertheless did not presume that therefore he was justified; but although he had no such presumption, yet he had a holy hope of his salvation by the strength of him through whom he could do all things; that it behooved to follow his example in either respect, & that every one ought to labour after his salvation as if it wholly depended on himself, and yet hope in God's mercy and grace, as being unable to do any thing but by grace.  
I also caused the Ambassador to read about two pages of S. Prosper's Epistle to S. Augustin, wherein he acknowledged was contained and reduced the ground of all the ordinary Objections brought against the doctrine of Grace which we defended. But he asked me whether S. Augustin answered to all that, as I assured him; and if so, how was it possible that the Pereyrets, the Halliers, and other famous Doctors of the Faculcy had not read it, or if they had, why did they not understand it? I answered him, that I wondered at it as well as he; but I believed his admiration would diminish, when he should consider that this was not more strange, than to have seen the Chief Priests among the Jews who were no less able or considerable in their kind than the Pereyrets, Halliers and the rest, go about to kill Lazarus assoon as our Lord had raised him from the dead, because the evidence of that so famous miracle was the cause that many amongst the Jews embraced the faith of Jesus Christ.  
The same day being Wednesday December 4. we repaired to the house of Cardinal Altieri at the time appointed. We discoursed largely of the quality and state of our affair; he heard us with great attention, and received it well, not doubting of the necessity of hearing the parties in presence, and reciprocally communicating their Writings, and that after the Congregations of Cardinal Spada he sufficiently ventilated the matter, in case they should resolve to pass judgement upon it. At the end of this visit he told us, he should be glad to see us again and discourse about the Propositions, which had been given to him in a Note which he drew out of his Pocket, where they were barely set down without any citation, apostil or gloss whatsoever. We answered that we should have the honour to see his Eminence whenever it pleased his Eminence. Nevertheless when we made a succinct reduction of the Propositions to the sense of Effectual Grace in which we maintained them; he forthwith acquiesced therein, and answered us as one that had sufficiently read S. Augustine. He also demanded of us to see our Writings, on condition to restore them assoon as he had seen them, and caused them to be transcribed; and we promised to bring or send them to him speedily. He had told the Ambassador and confirmed the same to us, that being to take his leave of the Pope in the Consistory held on Monday December 2d. in order to retire to the place of his ordinary residence; the Pope said to him that he must not departed yet, because he intended to put him into some Congregation; and the Cardinal himself and the Ambassador conceived as well as we, that it was ours for which the Pope designed him. Of which we were very glad, because he appeared to be very equitable and very intelligent. But some time after he departed from Rome, without our knowing the reason of it, although he desired to keep correspondence with us; and indeed he not only read our writings de Gestis, and restored it during his stay at Rome, but after he was gone sent to us in divers Pacquets the Copy of the other concerning S. Augustin's authority; and according as he dispatched it, a certain person from him brought it punctually to us.  
Friday the 6th. I met M. Joysel. We talked long together about indifferent matters. At length he asked me whether we should stay much longer at Rome? I answered him that I wished we were ready to go from thence by the next week, if it were possible. He asked me whether we were not weary of Rome? I told him that my Colleagues and I had particular affairs enough which obliged us to return into France the soon we could; but we had patience seeing we could not make things go on so expeditiously as we desired. He replied that for their parts, they had formerly had much employment at Rome, but now the main of their affair was dispatched, that they had presented their Informations to the Congregation, and demanded nothing else but that they might return. He informed me also, that they were going to begin, or had begun to hold two Congregations a week at Cardinal Spadas house, and made as it were an excuse to me for it, telling me, that it was done without any solicitation of theirs, and the Pope himself appointed it so of his own accord: whereunto I answered, that instead of two I wished there were four, if it might be, because it was but so much preparation for the right clearing of things, and in order to the better understanding of the parties when audience should be given them. Touching the reading of the H. Fathers, and particularly St. Augustin, he told me, that it was requisite to consider the spirit and the design, and not to stop at the words and the letter. I answered him, that both aught to be considered: We fell to other discourse, and parted.  
Saturday the seventh, I had some engagement to go to the Ambassador in the morning. In his Antichamber I found Monsignor Glioddi with whom I discoursed a long time. As I was speaking to him of the long delays of communicating our Writings, and of the frequent Congregations which notwithstanding were held touching our affairs at Cardinal Spadas house, he told me that it was not to be wondered at; that he knew neither the bottom of our Affair, nor the order that was kept in it; but many of another nature often passed through his hands, and that they had this custom at Rome to inform themselves very carefully of an Affair, and to view and possess all the Writings concerning it before they ordained the same to be communicated to the parties. That it was very likely that the same course would be held with us, and perhaps that which hitherto hindered such Communication, was, that they were minded to see whether the cause were such as was fit to be decided before they put it into the hands of the parties; because if such Communication weet once made by their order, they should be more obliged to decide it, than they were by the private and superficial disquisition which they had hitherto been about.  
Sunday the eight I learned nothing, saving that a Prelate told me as we came out of the Chapel, that the day before he had discoursed with the Pope touching the Jesuits; and that his Holiness was very well disposed to do justice to those that should demand it against them, as willingly as if they demanded it against any other person whatsoever. In exchange for this Intelligence, I gave this Prelate a Copy of a very handsome letter which was written to me touching their Panegyric of their College of Hungary, which was condemned two months before by the Master of the sacred Palace.  
Monday the ninth we went to the Pope's Presence-Chamber to present to him the book of our Writings; but finding many people there expecting audience, and consequently that it would be very difficult to get any, we considered that the Pope went frequently abroad to take the air, and that we might present the same to him at his Return; and though this course seemed less advantageous, and it was a little disparagement to our persons and affair, yet the long time we had sought an audience, the fear of greater delay, and the necessity there was that the Pope should see more amply the state and importance of the business, and especially the redoubling of the Assemblies of the Congregation, prevailed with us to resolve upon it: wherefore we went thither in the afternoon for that purpose; but by that time we got to Monte Cavallo, we understood that the Pope was already returned.  
The next morning we went again to his Presence-Chamber, that we might omit no occasion in the which we could hope to get our desired audience; but 25. or 30. persons were demanding it as well as we, though almost none were admitted to it besides Monsignor Fagnani.  
Friday the 13. we accompanied the Ambassador to the Ceremony which is yearly performed on the day of S. Jean de Lateran for the rest of the soul of Henry iv of glorious Memory. Passing by Monte Cavallo as we returned, we found that the Sermon was newly ended, and saw the Cardinals and Prelates coming forth. There was one told me that the Preacher who was a jesuite, named F. Olive, after he had cited many Canonists about the matter whereof he treated, said, But some Divine must be cited too; and he cited S. Augustin, who said, he is, as I think, the Prince of Divines, Il quale, come io penso, all Prencipe d'ye Theologi.  
It was a slight commendation in his judgement who related it, that this Jesuit gave S. Augustin before that illustrious Assembly, to purge himself in some sort from the esteem which began to be had of them in Rome, that their Society were enemies to that H. Doctor.  
The same person that made this Observation, told me, that he had spoken a day or two before to Cardinal Ghiggi, and mentioned certain defects in some of the Consultors, in regard whereof an impartial judgement could not be expected from them. That he had particulatly spoken of F. Campanella who had been a Jesuit; of F. Modeste who was become a perfect Dependant on M. Albizzi upon account of his pretention to the Generalship of his order, and M. Albizzi's promise to procure it for him; of F. Tartaglia companion in studies with F. Palavicini; of this same Jesuit who was said to be of such strong and able parts, that he alone could overturn all the world. To all which the Cardinal's whole answer was, that F. Palavicini was so far from being of such abilities, that on the contrary the world stopped and checked him every day.  
The same person told me further, that because the General of the Dominicans could not get audience of the Pope, himself had advertised his Holiness of the Thesis which the Jesuits had caused to be maintained in Germany, viz. That it was not de fide, that Innocent X. was lawful Pope. That the Pope was surprised and scandalised at it, and sent to the General of the Dominicans to demand the said Thesis, that he might see and be assured of it by his own eyes.  
In the afternoon I was at the Sermon at la Minerué, at the end of which several Dominicans and others of our friends came to me under the Cloister, and blamed me highly for letting all Cardinal Spadas Congregations pass, without interposing at all, and giving any instruction either to the Cardinals or the Consultors. But I endeavoured to satisfy them by assuring them that so soon as the Congregation should be established according to our demand, and the promise which was given us, and proceeded according to such forms as were accustomed and necessaty for the hindering of all sorts of surprises against Truth and Innocence, and that it were rightly and duly signified to us; that then by God's help, we would not be wanting in any thing which the Cardinals and Consultors could expect from us, for their cleat and full instruction in the whole Affair; but so long as they proceeded in these Congregations as they had began, so that we understood only by chance and by stealth upon what days they were held, the delivety of our Adversaries instructions to them, and the rest of their actions, we should never consider them otherwise then we had done hitherto; namely, as some Preparatives to the Congregation which we had demanded, but not as the Congregation itself. That the vast amplitude and extraordinary importance of this Affair, as well as the precise commission which we had received from our Bishops, did not permit us to go beyond those bounds. That if the Pope and Cardinals chosen by him for this Congregation would not forbear to proceed without regarding what we had represented to them, and to condemn the equivocal Propositions which were presented to them, without distinguishing the different senses whereof they were capable, they might put all into confusion in the Church, if they thought good, and give us the dissatisfaction of not having been able to obtain of them the most just things which we had demanded, and which it was incomparably more their interest to grant us then ours to obtain. That by denying the same to us, they might cause a drop of blood to spring into our faces, but it would be such as came from the mortal wound which they would give themselves and the H. See. That we wished we could hinder so dismal a disorder and scandal; buc that under the apparent pretext of a hope to hinder it, which might prove deceitful, we would not put ourselves in hazard to see another arrive which might be more prejudicial both to them and to us.  
During this week the Subbibliothecary told me that the Bishop of Angelopolis had obtained a Decree against the Jesuits a year ago, but could not get it expedited since that time, by reason that Cardinal Spada hindered it underhand, though himself had been one employed in the passing of the said Decree. The Agent of the Bishop of Angelopolis who honoured us with a Visit in these Conjunctures, testified great grief and resentment to the Subbibliothecary that he was forced thus to consume so much time unprofitably in getting his Decree delivered to him: For, said he, if it be not just, do not pass it; if it be just, do not retain it. The Subbibliothecary offered the Agent to speak of it, and present him to Cardinal Ghiggi, in whose probity and sincerity he had more confidence then in his friendship, that his Eminence would give contentment to this Agent, either by himself, or by express order from his Holiness. He spoke to the Cardinal, and presented the Agent to h●m. The Cardinal touched the knot of the Affair, and acknowledged the injustice; and without making a stir, or speaking to Cardinal Spada, an express order came from the Pope to those who were to make expedition of the said Decree, that they should make the same without delay. And accordingly in less than three days it was expedited for the Agent, who could not, as I said before, obtain it in a years time, though he solicited for it with all manner of care and diligence, and was a man so intelligent, vigorous and undaunted, as I believe is not often met with.  
Saturday the 14th I met F. Malgoires in the City, who told me, that a few days before, he had much started M. Hallier and his Colleagues, by telling them, that they could not gain any thing hereafter by their pursuites to get the Propositions condemned, because the Pope having already declared, that he would not have Grace Effectual by itself meddled with; though it should come to pass that the Propositions were condemned, yet it would be nothing to the connexion which they have with such Grace; so that since we held them only in the sense according to which they have such connexion, the condemnation passed upon them would give them no advantage against us.  
The ancient Procurator General of S. Marcel had desired of me, to let him see our Writing the Gestis. I carried it to him this morning, and asked him by way of Exchange, whether he had no sort of Writing which M. Hallier and his Colleagues had showed him. He told me that they had been to see him several times, but never left half a line with him. He told me also that in Cardinal Spadas Congregations, they were upon the fourth Proposition. That hitherto they had only given their sentiments by speeches in few words, in poche parole. That he believed their Eminences would see their sentiments in writing at length, per extensum, but he was not certain of it.  
We gave our Writings thus freely and indifferently to be seen by all such as testified to us the least desire of it, whether they were Consultors or not. For we considered no person under that quality, no notice having been given us of them, excepting that we acted a little more reservedly towards such as we knew were Consultors by the private intelligence of our friends. Thus I carried our writings de Gestis to this ancient Procurator of S. Marcel, (who was one of the Consultors) his lodging being in the way by which I was to go elsewhere, and I sent the same some days before to F. Bordone, (who was none) and who lived in a remote place off the City.  
But the Letter written to me by this latter, the next after he had received the said writing, deserves to be reported here, because of the singular esteem it professes of S. Augustin, and shows what pity it was that a man so full of esteem for that H. Father, and who by his charge of Qualificator of the H. Office should by all right have been of the Congregation, was yet excluded with some others as well affected towards St. Augustin as he. The Contents of the letter were these.  
Illustris. Signore, Tengo copia del fatto sopra le controversie de gratia, del quale S.V. Illustris. m● h● honorato, confarmete partecipe; ammirando la flaccielagine e temertea di quelli che vogliono combattere la doctrina di saint Agostino, DELLA QVALE S. CHIESA NELL DEFINIRE LE CONTROVERSY DIEGO SIMILI MATERIE COME REGOLA INFALLIBILE SEMPER SI E SERVITA. Di S. Cosmo di Roma li. 5. december 1652. Di. V S. Illustris. devotissimo servo nel Signore.  
Signed thus, F. Francisco Bordone.  
I have received (said he) the copy of your writing concerning Facts in reference to the controversies about Grace, which you have done me the favour to send me. I admire the Impudence and rashness of those who go about to impugn S. Augustine's doctrine, of which the H. Church hath always made use, as of an infallible rule for deciding the controversies of these matters. I thank you, and kiss your hands, etc.  
Your most affectionate in our Lord, etc.  
Tuesday the 17. M. the Valcroissant and M. Argran continued to solicit for audience to present the Book of our Writings, and the Memorial above mentioned to the Pope, wherein we petitioned, that they might be communicated. And moreover a second Memorial which we had signed on Friday before, Decemb. 13. wherein we advertised the Pope of sundry things which we conceived his Holiness would find very important in themselves, and yet more regard of their consequences, which I will not trouble the Reader with here, but leave him to judge thereof by the reading of the said Memorial, whereof the translation follows:  
To the H. Father Pope Innocent X. touching some orders given by his Holiness to M. Albizzi, and violated both by him, and the Jesuits, and F. Modeste Consultor of the H. Office.  
Most Holy Father,  
YOur Holiness having considered the Memorial which was presented to you in Lent last against the impression which was making of a Book of the Jesuits, whereof F. Annat was Author, touching their sufficient Grace, and other like matters against Jansenius, with the authority of the sacred congregation of the H. Office; your Holiness judged the reasons for not permitting the said impression so considerable, that although the Book was already finished, yet your Holiness forbade proceeding in it, and appointed that all the sheets of it which were printed, should be suppressed and carried to the H. Office.  
The orders, most H. Father, could then be no otherwise then obeyed; but since, the same orders have been slighted, and your holiness's intentions frustrated and despised; inasmuch as though the course of the impression of the said book was stopped, nevertheless they have caused another to be printed at Paris concerning the same matter, against the same Advesary for the same ends, and by virtue of the same permission of the H. Office, albeit the same permission had been at least suspended and hindered by those orders of your Holiness.  
And although the said Book be printed at Paris, yet neither can M. Albizzi, nor the said Author with his Companions, nor F, Modeste Consulter of the H. Office who approved it, quit themselves of having contemned, transgressed, and voluntarily, and with deliberate purpose violated the express and formal pleasure of your Holiness touching this matter, which was to them sufficiently known, as your Holiness may evidently see, if you please to consider the following reflections.  
The said permission of the sacred Congregation of the H. Office was granted at the request and solicitation of M. Albizzi on May 13. in the last year 1651. The Memorial against the Book which was printing here, was presented to your Holiness in Lent last; your Orders given to M. Albizzi at the same time, were by him executed upon H. Thursday and Saturday, and the same Memorial put into his hands: Lastly, the Approbation of F. Modeste was signed the 14. of July last, and this new book was not published at Paris till towards all Saints, with the said permission and approbation in the Front.  
If M. Albizzi, most H. Father, had had a sincere desire to obey your Holiness, he would not have failed to have recalled and required from F. Annat the permission which had been given him, since himself having solicited, and got it expedited, he must needs know, that it was general, not only for that Book, but for others like it; and since he might have perceived clearly by the Memorial, that among the reasons which your Holiness had to prohibit the said book, there was not any which concerned it in particular, but all were generally as much against any other book of the same nature and subject, as against that.  
But moreover, most H. Father, the said Sieur Albizzi hath manifested clearly with how great repugnance he executed the orders which your Holiness gave him. He hath shown how much more he valued his passions and his intimate leagues with the Jesuits than your Holiness' commands. We have made it appear, that though he executed them, yet he did not approve them; that his own were very different from those of your Holiness; and that indeed if it had been possible for him, he would willingly have avoided the necessity of executing them, which seemed so hard to him. Your Holiness judged by the said Memorial, that it was expedient for your service to suppress the said book; M. Albizzi made great complaints that your Holiness was advertised of its impression; he was sorry that the book was not published before the news of it came to your Holiness, and he was so full of resentment for it, that the Printer repairing to him often during that time, and above a month after, about other business, M. Albizzi always made new reproaches, sometimes for the unprofitable expense, sometimes for other disadvantages which the Jesuits had suffered by the suppression of the said book, which was not done but because he had not been either secret or diligent enough to get it published before we could give notice of it to your Holiness. There cannot be imagined, most H. Father, a Minister more opposite and contradictory to the commands and service of his Prince then he; and it is not to be doubted, but having demeaned himself after this manner in reference to this book, he hath as much and mare connived, or positively contributed to the other▪  
As for F. Annat, is it credible, most H. Father, that when he saw his first book prohibited by your Holiness' order, he knew not the reason why? That he did not acquaint his Companions with it, who were in continual expectation of his work; and that none of them had heard tidings of our Memorial which was in the hands of the said Sieur Albizzi, who along time hath acted nothing in those Affairs but with their privity? Is it credible, that when F. Modeste gave his approbation to the second book above three months after the suspension of the first, which he had also approwed, he had not the curiosity to know what was become of the first, if at least he was then to learn? It must needs be acknowledged, most H. Father, that all the persons we speak of, have had a hand in this misdemeanour, though perhaps not all equally, but M. Albizzi more than any. It is beyond all doubt, that they well enough knew what they did; but they never thought that it would come to the ears of your Holiness, but persuaded themselves that we would not have either vigilance enough to discover them, or resolution enough to advertise your Holiness of their Miscarriage.  
But what can F. Modeste allege for himself, to whose care, fidelity and judgement the examination of the said books was committed? How can he excuse himself for having made a Panegyriek of the latter, as a work most worthy to be published, and the most agreeable to the H. Fathers, to the Councils, and to the Doctrine of S. Augustin that can be imagined, if under vain pretexes there be found in the said Book more injurious contempts towards S. Augustin then in any other, if therein Principles are established most prejudicial to his authority, if therein his sentiments are perverted after a most odious manner, and if those of the H. Fathers, Councils and Popes are treated therein with disguisments full of deceit and imposture? Certainly he will not be excused by having pretended to the General-ship of his order, nor because M. Albizzi promised him, as it is publicly reported in Rome, to make use of all his credit for his promotion, thereby to draw and embark him in the practices of the Jesuits; and if this excuse be not receiveable, we believe he cannot find any other to justify what he hath done in this matter.  
Many other reflections, most H. Father, might be made upon things so important; but to avoid being tedious to your Holiness, we refer them to your prudence, and most humbly beseech you, to believe that all which we say, is only for your service, and that of the H. See, and that it will be as easy to make it all good against any whosoever shall be found concerned therein, as it is to promise it, provided it please your Holiness either to hear us yourself touching this matter, or in the Congregation which you have appointed for us, when it shall be held, or in presence of whatever other Judges who shall hear us aecording as so weighty and difficult a thing requires. After which referring all to the good pleasure of your holiness, we beseech God to multiply the number of your years, and shower upon you all sort of Benedictions.  
Signed thus, 

Noel de la Lane Docto in Diviniiy of Paris, and Abbot of Valcroissant.  
Lovis de Saint-Amour Doctor of the sacred Faculty of Paris, and of the Society of Sorbonne.  
Lovis Angran Licentiat in the same sacred Faculty of Paris, and Canon of the Cathedral Church of Troie.     

CHAP. XVI.  
In what manner we were at length constrained to take occasion of the Pope's return from taking the air to present our Writings and Memorials to him. A Conference with the Ambassador, and other things which I learned till the Festivals of Christmas in the year 1652.  
Whilst my Colleagues waited in the Pope's Presence-chamber for an opportunity to present our Writings and Memorials to him, I was with the Ambassador to see whether he intended to go to his usual audience upon Friday following; and if so, to beseech him to procure one for us in order to the presentation of these Papers, and to desire him to read them. The Ambassador told me that he did not know whether he should go to audience on Friday or no, and that he would not go without being first assured that the Pope would receive him as he ought to receive the King of France's Ambassador: but in case he did go, he would certainly obtain for us our desired audience. I signified to him all that we had formerly said to the Pope, and that the Memorials and Writings which we were to present to him, were so clear, that there was no need of our adding thereunto any thing by word of mouth, saving a request to read them; for which in case we had no admittance during his audience, it would suffice us if we could by his mediation present the said Writings and Memorials to the Pope during the approaching Festivals, at the ending of a Chapel or other solemnity.  
After this, all that we did out of our Lodging till Sunday the 22d. consisted in three familiar visits of which I made one to the General of the Augustins upon Thursday the 18th. who told me that they had been so extraordinarily hastened in their Congregations that he had not had time to read half what he wished, in order to prepare himself for what he was to say. The second with M. Valcroissant to F. Tostat a Minime, who had been Confessor to the Abbot de S. Cyran during his imprisonment in Bois de Vincennes, and who rendered such fair testimonies of his virtue and after so Christian a manner, that it well appeared that he had conversed with him besides in Confession. And the third, all alone to F. Luca Vadingo on Friday the 20th. who told me that many of the Consultors wondered that they were set about this affair and passed judgement upon it, una sola parte informante, being informed but by one side. That nevertheless we should do well to continue as we did, and not fail to make our Remonstrances in time and place for not being heard. He asked me also to let him see our Writings but not to tell any that I had shown them to him.  
The Ambassador was not at audience on Friday; & we could not reasonably hope to make use of his mediation for presenting our Write and Memorials to the Pope on Sunday the 22d. at the end of Chapel. Wherefore we were constrained to expect the Pope's return from taking the air, which the fairness of the day caused us to hope he would not fail to do. It proved so; and at his return when he came near the Presence-chamber, he stood still. M. the Valcroissant presented our Writings and Memorials to him saying, H. Father, This is the Book of our Writings which we beseech your Holiness to have upon your Table, and these two Memorials we pray that your Holiness will please to read. The Pope asked what side it was for. It was answered that it was upon account of some Bishops of France in behalf of S. Augustine per Sant' Agostino. The Pope repeated the words, per Sant' Agostino with reflection. And then having considered us a little more attentively, he said, So, So, qui è; I know, I know what it is. M. the Valcroissant added that it was in reference to clearing the Five Propositions and defending them in the sense of S. Augustine. Whereupon the Pope making a sign to one of his Officers which followed him, that he should take the Book and bring it to him, he gave us his benediction, and as he withdrew, said, Si vede adesso, & lo considererò ancora io, This affair is now under examination, and I will likewise examine it afterwards.  
Returning from Monte Cavallo we went to the Ambassadors house, to advertise him of what we had newly said to the Pope; but finding him retired to write into France, I went thither again the next day about dinner time. When I had given him the abovementioned account, he answered, That he had always told me that they would use all necessary speed; and I replying that they had not hitherto used too much, since we could not yet obtain that our first writings might be communicated, he began with a higher tone, and told me that such communication might draw out the affair in length, and that it was requisite I knew that the King would have it dispatched, and would allow but two Religions in his State, the Catholic and the Calvinist. I answered the Ambassador that on our part we would do all we could to accelerate the expedition of it; but I believed the King's interest was not so much to have it dispatched, as to have it dispatched well, according as the Catholic Religion, which I believe we defended, required; and that if the King were minded to have but two Religions in his Dominions, I did not think that he would admit the Molinisme which we opposed. But I entered upon a more considerable reflection, which the Ambassador approved, and told me he would accordingly write that day into France, namely, that being the event of the judgement which was to be made in this affair was uncertain, and probably enough might and ought to be made against the intentions of the Doctors our Adversaries, it seemed to me important for the honour of the King, not to concern himself in their behalf, to the end that if they should come to be condemned as they deserved to be, it might not be said that his Majesty was engaged in a Party which was worsted. The Ambassador retained me to dine with him. After dinner we fell again upon these matters, in reference to which he said divers things to me, whereof I shall here recount the principal, according to the order in which they came into my memory, and I set them down at that time. He told me that since the King was come to Paris, the wings of those whom he called Jansenists were much clipped, that his presence had dissipated above three thousand of them, nay more than six. I desired him to name one of them to me. He told me that by Letters from Gentlemen and other persons of quality it was signified to him that Monsieur such a one, and Madam such a one had renounced the Party. Nevertheless he named to me no person of those six thousand who were already fallen off; but he mentioned M. Singlin and F. Desmares, whom he called two grand Pillars; that it was written to him that they hung but by a thread, and had protested that they would renounce the party assoon as the Pope had determined. That the Sermons preached about it had caused the Barricadoes at Paris. That the Spaniards looked upon these contests in doctrine as a fit means for fomenting the divisions of the State. That the Spaniards ca●'d not to meddle therein. I replied that they had meddled therein five or six years ago, when the Doctors of Louvain came to Rome to endeavour to stop the course of these divisions: but they could not compass their ●ent. He told me further that we had made a g●…at breach in the Sorbonne (which formerly ●…de Rome to tremble by the ability and reputation of its Doctors) by having divided ourselves and co●… to that pass as to put ourselves under the judgement of a dozen Monks; that we were derided at Rome for having reduced ourselves to these terms, etc. I answered the Ambassador that the H. See was the head and centre of the Church; and therefore recourse had been made to it from all parts of the world, not only by ordinary Doctors as ourselves, but by Councils of Bishops; and consequently the same might be done beseemingly enough. That when we demanded a Congregation from the Pope, we hoped he would compose it not only of able monastics, but also of other persons of the Clergy eminent in knowledge and considerable by their Learning, as well as by the rank and authority which their Quality gave them in the Church, that so the Congregation might be suitable to the weighty matter to be decided by it, to the persons that were to contend therein, and to the whole Church as being concerned in the judgement. That we already knew several of the persons whom the Pope had chosen for the Congregation held at Cardinal Spadas house, but knew not yet those whom his Holiness might add to the same Congregation, to make it such as we had demanded of him. That it was easy for the Pope, even without going out of Rome, if he were willing to ttansact things with the ordinary forms and solemnities which we had demanded, to add still to those already nominated a good number of intelligent and qualified persons who might render the Congregation full and solemn; but indeed although, as I said before, it was a thing very commendable and natural to have recourse to Rome in a time of need, yet it was really shameful and deplorable to be put to such needs and not to be able to regulate ourselves; that therefore I confessed that they who were the cause of the division between us were extremely to blame. And hereupon I gave him a full relation of the whole affair, to let him see that neither the Prelates who sent us, nor we, were the cause thereof. Thus the Conference ended; but it was very long considering that it was a day of dispatch, it being above four a clock before I could take leave of the Ambassador.  
One visit more I made on Tuesday the 24th. to F. Pascaligo, who told me that he heard from a Consultor, that Cardinal Spadas Congregation was upon the 4th. Proposition; that the same Consultor said to him, that as concerning matter of Fact, he conceived it was evident by the Epistle of S. Prosper; but as to the censure included in the Proposition which condemns the Semipelagians as Heretics for having been of such an Opinion, it seemed to him (the Consultor) that it was contrary to the Orders of Paul V. who had equally prohibited either party to condemn one another.   

CHAP. XVII.  
A Consultation between my Colleagues and me, whether in case they persisted at Rome to refuse to receive from us, in order to an examination and judgement, any but secret and private information, we should at length comply and deliver the same in such manner. Our Reasons for and against it. Of the Letters which we writ thereupon to Paris, and the Answers we received.  
WHatever steadfast resolution we had taken & professed touching the Assemblies of the Cardinals and Consultors held at Cardinal Spadas house, yet we were incessantly anxious concerning them, and feared some troublesome sequel from them. They troubled us so far, that we fell into consultation whether it would not be expedient for us to comply with the time & the disposition of things and minds, and deliver to the said Cardinals and Consultors secret and particular informations in writing touching the Propositions, to the end to prevent such mischiefs as might happen by their absolute condemnation, rather than let them pass on to such condemnation by keepgin close to the Order which we had received not to proceed but before a Congregation, wherein the forms usual in Ecclesiastical and civil judgements might be kept. We could not agree amongst ourselves what to think most expedient, and so to send to our Prelates to beseech them to permit us to act according co such necessity as we should all acknowledge. But our opinions being different in the business, we were obliged to signify to them at length what reasons we had on either side, either to comply or to continue firm in the order which they had given us; that so upon consideration of the same they might let us know their resolution, and send us orders what to do.  
The Opinion amongst us for complying with the Congregation's manner of proceeding was grounded upon very urgent reasons. The bottom of all which was, that notwithstanding out instances for the communication of our writings, and a hearing in presence of our Adversaries before the Congregation, we could get no plain answer concerning those two points, but still the Congregation frequently assembled and proceeded to the examination of the Propositions, and passing judgement upon them. We considered that being they saw not our writings, nor heard us before them, they could not be so fully instructed concerning S. Augustin's Principles, as they would be if they heard us or perused our Papers. That the more they became engaged by declaring what they could do against the Propositions, the more difficult it would be to reduce them, when we should afterwards come to speak before them in the Congregation. That if we always persisted in demanding those two things without ever obtaining them, and they still proceeded as they did, they might at length pronounce a judgement upon the writings alone which M. Hallier and his Colleagues, or the Jesuits supplied them with, the same remaining unrefuted by us, and consequenly make a decision to our disadvantage: whereas if we presented to them such writings as we could compose, and refuted those of M. Hallier and his Colleagues, as was easy for us to do, ours might be so strong and convincing, as we saw that already was which we had ready upon the first Proposition, and we might so well refute all those of our Adversaries which came to our hands, that it would be morally impossible for the Consultors not to remain convinced of the righteousness of our cause, and of the truth of the Propositions reduced to the sense which we defended, and not to be obliged by evidence of the things which we should tepresent to them in our writings, to declare themselves in our favour, and to pronounce to our advantage by distinguishing the senses, and approving those which we maintained. We were further confirmed in these apprehensions by knowing that M. Hallier and his Colleagues were highly pleased with our insisting upon the communication of our writings, and a public audience with them, without being able to obtain the same; because by this means they were at liberty to say and deliver in writing whatever they pleased, and feared no confutation or gainsaying; and that if by so doing they could obtain, as they hoped a favourable judgement against the Propositions, the credit which they had in the world would enable them to make as high use of it for the ends they aimed at, as if the same were passed after the greatest solemnities, and with full and perfect cognisance of the cause.  
We considered moreover, that the thing most to be feared in taking this resolution, was, either that the writings which we should deliver would not be regarded, or our verbal representations in particular visits not sufficiently attended to, and the same judgement be nevertheless passed, which in that case would be more prejudicial to us after our writings and remonstrances; because it might he said that it was decreed after the Parties had spoken and written all that they could, and consequently it would not be so easy to reclaim against such judgement if it brought any prejudice to the truth, as it would be in a time more favourable if it were passed without hearing us, as the prepossession and precipitation wherewith they seemed to proceed caused us to mistrust: But it could hardly enter into our minds that they would so lightly pass over our writings, and give so little attention to our words in a cause of so great importance both to the H. See and themselves as this. Wherefore it seemed to us a safe course to present our writings to them, and visit them severally to inform them; thereby to prevent the mischievous judgement which they might pass; then to wait, till it were given against us, to provide against it in a more favourable time, which perhaps would never happen. But we were further to fear lest if, after having made so great instances both for the communication of our writings and for a common hearing with our Adversaries, we came to comply, and took another way; we might never obtain either the one or the other of those things both which appeared to us so necessary. But against this fear we questioned with ourselves what advantage we could draw either from such eommunication, or Hearing, if they continued to deny the same to us till judgement were passed, as it was likely they would do by the present proceed. Wherefore all these considerations made us conclude that it was requisite to comply with the time and disposition of the persons with whom we had to do.  
But on the other side the reciprocal communication of writings on which alone we insisted in expectation of a common audience, and concerning which alone the question had been in all the solicitations which we had made since Septem. seemed to us a thing so just in itself, and so equitable to all persons that had the least degree of reason, that it might seem we could not hope for justice in any thing whatsoever if we could not obtain it in this. What reason then was there to go and deliver writings about Propositions obscure and intricate, difficult to be unfolded and comprehended, and yet more to be resolved, to persons who seemed so unmoved and regardless of our most earnest and respectful suit for a thing so evident and pleading so highly for itself? We considered that not only equity and the light of nature were violated herein, but also the customs from all time observed in Councils, and before the H. See itself. That this secret and dangerous proceeding into which we were consulting to engage, destroyed Ecclesiastical liberty and the confidence of such as might oppose themselves to novelties and errors in hope to find countenance from the H. See when they laid forth their complaints and remonstrances unto it in presence of such as they found themselves obliged to accuse. That the very interest of the H. See, and the sincere affection we bore towards it engaged us to preserve the avenues and recourse thereunto free and open to all the Faithful in whatsoever needs might arise in all ages; and consequently not to comply with this hugger mugger proceeding, which would be of ill example and dangerous consequence to all Christendom. That if any justice were to be hoped from this Congregation upon the account of writings and particular informations viuâ voce, those were sufficient which it had already received from us touching the evil designs of the Authors of the Propositions, and the authority of S. Augustin's doctrine. That till this Congregation had done us reason upon those writings by obliging our Adversaries to acknowledge the said Authority in such manner as was requisite to the due examen of the Propositions, we could not hope that it would do us more upon the other writings and informations viuâ voce which it might receive from us. That if we could flatter ourselves with hope that our writings would be so clear and invincible, the reasons which we should allege so palpable, and the productions of our Adversaries so easy to be confounded that it would not be possible but that all the Cardinals and Consultors must yield thereunto and become favourable to us; yet we ought to consider that amongst the same persons who composed the Congregation, there were divers Consultors, who though perhaps not so experienced and exercised as we, either in the matter of Fact or Right relating to our contests; yet were sufficiently instructed therein by all that had been already deelared thereof, to regulate themselves and inform others. That there might be many of them well affected to S. Augustin and his doctrine touching Grace Effectual by itself, who might represent to their Confreres and the Cardinals as solid and unmovable foundations, as we ourselves were able to represent to them, if not with as much force and largeness, because we were a little more versed therein, yet well enough to supply what might be defective on our part, and effectually enough to persuade the Congregation of the evidence of the justness of our cause, or at least of the necessity of hearing us more amply in the forms which we demanded before they hazarded their own reputation and that of the H. See by a precipitated judgement, if it were capable (as we undoubtedly supposed it by the reasons which inclined us to the resolution of delivering our writings and informations in private) to suffer itself to be prevailed with and fully persuaded in our favour by those which they saw in our writings, and heard from our mouths. That if on the contrary we flattered ourselves too much when we thought that it was morally impossible for all the Consultors not to be convinced of the evidence of our reasons and the truth of the Propositions reduced to the sense in which we defended them; if old prepossessions of many were stronger upon their minds than the reasons propounded in this manner for defence of those truths; if they were capable notwithstanding such reasons to continue in their ancient sentiments, and conclude the condemnation of the same truths, it were better to leave the other Consultors (who understood those truths as well as we) to allege the reasons for them unprofitably to their brethren, than to make a vain attempt ourselves, and by so doing abandon the right which we had to require a Proceeding in the Open and Universal way, which had been both prescribed and promised us, and to defend truth in the accustomed forms which had been also promised us, and according to which they that maintained it had no reason to fear any thing. So that it was more expedient that we persisted in our former demands and pretensions against the manner of Proceeding held by the Congregation, which appeared so unjust and prejudicial to us in case it were continued to the end, then to acknowledge it for lawful by condescending to submit to it, that we had ground to hope from the equity of the Pope and the Cardinals that after they had held the private Congregations at Cardinal Spadas house as often as they conceived necessary for their own satisfaction, they would afterwards give us the like by according the justice of our suits. T'has if they did otherwise, we ought to be patiented, since we could not force them to do justice whether they would or no. And if they proceeded in this course so far as to make a Decision, it would not be injurious to us, unless it were so to Truth; if Truth were wounded thereby, we must resolve to suffer with it, and comfort ourselves in such suffering by assuring ourselves that the same Truth which engaged us therein would secure us sooner or later; it being certain that the same may be said of it which is said of Righteousness in the Gospel, Blessed are they who love it, and who hunger and thirst after it, because they shall be satisfied therewith.  
But besides, we had this further important consideration, That we were not come to Rome either for the defence or examination or determination of the Propositions simply, as if our hopes and pretensions reached no further. What interest could we have in the success of that work of darkness, or in the condemnation or defence of such Propositions in themselves? We who had always considered them as the object of our aversion, and as the unhappy instrument of a pernicious design for the unworthiness whereof we had always reproached their Authors. But we had taken this occasion in which the exorbitant outrage endeavoured to be done to the H. See and the Faith by the Jesuits and their Adherents, was so visible, and the artifice whereby they contrived to get their errors authorised, so audacious and surprising; to the end that all persons who had any love for the H, See, for the Faith, and for Sincerity, entering into the just indignation which so shameful and unrighteous procedure merited, and acknowledging the necessity of securing the H. See & the Faith from the like ambushes for ever, might at length resolve to embrace the means necessary thereunto, which were no other than to condemn the errors which gave occasion to these conspiracies, and establish the Faith against which they were projected. So that this design obliging us to be able to manifest boldly, and with a holy confidence before the Judges which should be assigned us, all the errors whereinto the infirmity and extravigance of humane wit had suffered the Jesuits to be led, contrary to the Maxims of the Gospel, as well in Doctrine as in Morality, we were obliged also to preserve that Christian freedom, without which our Journey was frivolous; and was it a way to preserve it, by yielding to act after so vile and abject a manner? to wrangle pitifully about the terms of fantastic Propositions; to place all the success and fruit of our pains in what might be ordained concerning them; to appear privately before Judges who would seem to us like Idols, all whose words would be mysterious as Oracles, to exhaust all the force of our industry, labour, patience, bodies and minds, without being assured that any thing we writ or spoke; would be throughly weighed, or so much as read and remembered, and in a fear that every one of those to whom we had spoken, would never dream of us after our backs were turned.  
All these reflections seemed so strong to us both on the one side and the other, that we could not end the difference between us. We were obliged to writ into France, and represent the same to the Prelates who sent us, and to our friends that so we might have the judgements of the latter, and the resolutions and orders of the former to conclude amongst us what we should do in such perplexed and important extremities. We writ thither in the beginning of November, what I have above related; and towards the end of this month December we received such answers as the Reader, I conceive, will not be unwilling to see.  
The first is a Letter which was written to us in Latin, on Novem. 28. 1652. by two of my Lords the Bishops who sent us, being the only persons amongst them who were then at Paris. They writ the same to us in Latin, that it might not only serve for our particular direction, but also to justify our proceeding before the most scrupulous persons of the Court of Rome, by letting them see what they had prescribed us in the Original itself. This Letter was written before we durst signify to their Lordships at Paris all the difficulties with which we were surrounded, because we were still in hope that we should be delivered from them at Rome, without needing to make them known at Paris; but the vigilance of the Prelates prevented our needs. Nevertheless I shall insert only their last Letter here, and subjoin the Answer which we returned thereunto on the 30. of December.  
The first written to us after the newly mentioned, by one of our especial friends, who consulted many others about it, is of December 6. 1652. in these words. I have read all the reasons which you have sent me; I find that all those which are not for communicating, (with the Consultors, as we proposed) are the strongest; the others sway me not all.— Nevertheless I expect a more valid determination. If there proceed any thing from that Congregation in favour of the Molinists, I foresee a horrible persecution, because the Ecclesiastical Superiors who might hinder it, will be the prime Ministers of it; and we are already looked upon as victim, shortly to be sacrificed to the Idol of the Jesuits.  
The same person writ to me eight days after (Decemb. 13.) in this manner; All the Resolutions of our friends are, that you offer not any instruction whatsoever to the Congregation as it is now held. It is requisite that you let all be said against you that can be. You are only to speak boldly, and represent that you act only in the quality of Commissioners. You shall declare that since you are dealt with so hardly, you will writ to the Bishops: that they may discharge you of your Commission, and recall you home. In truth it is an amazing thing to see a Congregation proceed in the manner that this doth. We find none in the Church that ever was like it.  
There are no persons here who have a sincere love for Truth, and true zeal for the honour of the H. See, but sigh at so unjust proceed. I know some who afflict themselves with watch, fastings, and other austerities, to pacify God, who without doubt permits this unhappiness because of our sins. We shall never cease to offer vows and prayers to God, to implore him to diffuse a spirit of justice and truth in the hearts of all those who compose that Congregation.  
The same day Decemb. 13. M. de saint Beuve, (whose testimonies I so willingly produce, as well in regard of his own merit, learning and integrity as of his quality of Professor in Divinity, which he discharges with great ability and reputation) writ me a Letter touching the same matter, whereof the Copy follows.  
SIR;  
WE have all reason here to wonder at the rumours which are spread about, and at the discourses of the most considerable persons touching the Doctrine of Grace. A week ago the Queen said before a great company that we should shortly be condemned at Rome. The Jesuits say as much to their Confidents, and some of them proclaim the same with as great a certainty as if it were in their own disposal. Though I know very well that it is impossible for Truth to be condemned by the H. See, and though I See not that that which we defend is subject to censure, since no person can justify that the Proposions are held by any Disciple of St. Augustin; yet I confess I am something afraid, that considering the manner of proceeding held by the Assembly instituted for their examen, we may receive some displeasure from it. What can we expect from a Consultor who being a professed Jesuit, is by obligation engaged to act as our formal Adversary? What ought we not to fear from an Assembly in which he who hath fomented the Divisions of Divines hitherto, by declaring himself of a party, and a Solicitor, by the very confession of M. Hallier in our Faculty, holds the pen, and hath the Office of Secretary? And lastly, what likelihood is there that an Affair can be well understood when no hearing is granted to the Parties, and when the Communication of their Adversaries Productions is denied? How can any one know what they would have? how judge of their defences? But the worst of all is this, something will be decreed, which shall make nothing to the decision of the present controversy, and shall nevertheless be made use of by the Sectators of Molina as a strong determination against effectual Grace. Thus Truth will suffer, and those who defend it will be persecuted, and the Churches troubles continued. Whereas were your writings reciprocally communicated, and you allowed audience, it would be known wherein all the difficulty consists. And as your Memorial is a great overture to Peace, since by it you declare that the Propositions are not ours, but are equivocally and maliciously framed on purpose to involve a good Doctrine in the condemnation of a bad; and since you demand only that the several senses may be distinguished, with protestation of submission to the Judgement which shall then be passed, it were an easy thing to resolve peace to the Church by doing justice to those who sue for it. All things therefore being considered, my advice is, that you complain to the Pope of that Consultor and that the Secretary, and absolutely except against them. Also that you request his Holiness to ordain, that all which hath been and shall be done till you be heard in presence, one side of the other, and have had communication of either's productions, be declared null, as being against all order of justice. If you obtain not that which you demand, I conceive you may crave his Holinesses benediction, and departed, as having nothing to do in a place where audience is not afforded you in an affair for which alone you went thither. You may come back into France, and expect what shall be determined at Rome. But since they cannot hurt us, without doing extreme wrong to the grace of Jesus Christ, if we suffer any thing, we will comfort ourselves tanquam digni habiti pro nomine Jesu contumeliam pati. The interest which we have, is common to us with the Disciples of S. Thomas, and no less with the H. See, whose Doctrine we defend. We have been wanting neither to Truth nor the H. See, and therefore we hope likewise that the H. See will be wanting neither to us nor Truth, whereof it is the defence. It behoves us to pray very earnestly, and expect all from the H. Spirit.  
I am, etc.  
Eight days after, M. de S. Beuve writ another letter to me, which is here subjoined to the foregoing.  
SIR,  
I Do with great reluctancy give credit to the words which the Ambassador said to you, since his sentiments can be no other than those of him who sent him, which we every day understand to be not advantageous to the cause for which you are at the Pope's feet. By the last Post I told you what the Queen said before a great presence; and since that, I hear that the King hath also said, that four Propositions of the Jansenists are already condemned. I can scarce believe that their Majesties spoke this, except from the Ambassadors Letters. For which reason I must desire you not to trust to what that Lord shall say to you, M. the the Official told me, he hath learned from a Jesuit, that there are two condemned, viz. that concerning the Possibility of the Commandments, and that concerning the death of Jesus Christ. I answered him, and all such as have spoken to me as affrighted with these rumours, That it behoved to expect the Bull, which I was certain would be advantageous to us. For either his Holiness will distinguish the senses, and then our opinion will be approved, it not being possible for the Doctrine of the Effectualness of Grace to be condemned; or else he will not distinguish them, and then he will pronounce nothing against us, since we hold them good but in one sense alone, and not absolutely. Whether by writing or by speaking, In the name of God let it be declared, 1. That we are not the Authors of them, 2. That being fabricated of equivocal and captious terms, they include sundry senses which we detest. 3. That we do not and never did pretend to maintain them saving in the sense of Effectual Grace necessary to to every good action.  
I know not how what M. Hallier hath said to you, can agree with what he writes hither. He spoke to you about taking a new lodging, and yet hath given notice to M. de S. Malo, that he is upon his departure, and shall speedily come back into France. His arrogance does not surprise me. I have known him too long, to be scandalised at it. I pray God reform him yet more within then without. M. le Moine gives out here, that F. Annat hath left him his Memoires upon the Five Propositions: and so you see he is the Truckler under that good Father. I am galled the Dominicans bethink themselves of stirring; it is their duty. It shall be a secret amongst us till you allow us to speak of it. I am not far from your conjecture touching the Pope's designs in this affair. Is it true, that the examination of M. d' Ipre's book is taken in hand at Rome? If so, it were to be wished, that the Doctors of Louvain would make haste. I have sent you the right Title of F. Annats' Book, and without doubt it is the same which you obstructed there. There is nothing to be done as from the Parliament, touching the permission for its Printing. The discourse about the retractation of M. d' Amiens at his death is ridiculous.  
I am, etc.  
Another particular friend of mine who was likewise Doctor of Sorbonne, and was at that time in Normandy, writ one to me December 22. whereof the Copy follows.  
I Received all your Packets in Normandy, whether I went about some affairs. I have read your two writings; one of which is an abridgement; the other a Narration at length of all things which have passed in the affair of the Five Propositions. I find the Narrative very well composed, saving that it seems to give too much advantage against the Propositions, by speaking of them frequently as equivocal. I expected to find it extremely high, and feared it might be a little too vehement, by so much of it as you signified to me; but it seems extraordinary moderate, and the person who you tell me is not spared in it, hath no reason to complain, except perhaps he may believe that you speak not seriously in the commendations which you allow him. I am willing to believe, that you have done it with knowledge of the cause, not to prejudice that of the Truth which you defend, by speaking with more smartness of the persons who oppose it, and of the violences and artifices wherewith they carry on their opposition. I cannot but wholly approve your resolution of declining to proceed further, or deliver any new writing, till answer and satisfaction be given to what you have already offered. If the communication of your Adversaries writings be denied to you, together with the conference viva voce which you have demanded to have with them, for representing of your Pleas and Refutations, that so things may be laid open before your Judges, who cannot otherwise take a right Cognisance of your differences so as to pass judgement, and determine them according to Truth and Justice, 'tis an evident sign, that they are not disposed (as you sometimes believed) to do justice to you, and the cause which you manage. This is the universal opinion of all intelligent men concerning their strange proceeding. And methinks it obliges you to keep firm, and not to advance further by producing new Pieces, till reason be done you upon your first productions. They would be glad to have you writ always, and to receive from you as many Requests, Informations, and other writings as you please, provided they be not obliged to answer and satisfy you; and all those writings would serve for nothing, but to give them more liberty to condemn you; and the condemnation would be the more dangerous, for that it would seem in the world to have been passed with cognisance of the cause, and after hearing you, and receiving all the requests and justifications which you presented to your judges, etc.  
Another of Decemb, 26. was writ to me from Grodna in Poland by M. Fleury the Queen's Confessor, which though not relating to the manner of the Congregations proceeding, yet showed that in all places the jesuites already promised themselves an approaching and indubitable condemnation of the Propositions; It had this passage; A few days ago, a Father jesuite in this Court writ to an Officer of the Queens, that which follows.  
If the news from Rome be true, before our Return, the Truths which I have preached to you, will be again confirmed by the H. See. I say again, because they are already comprised in the Council of Trent, and some others. He to whom this Letter was written, made a good answer to it, thus;  
I have always believed that the Council of Trent would be received at Rome, as it is by all the faithful. I will not perplex myself with questions which surpass my capacity. When I am taught a Doctrine agreeabie to that of St. Paul, and as it is explicated by S. Augustin, I shall believe it, and not otherwise. The Holy sacred Ecumenical Council of Trent confirms me therein, and teaches me what I ought to believe. I beseech God to give me Grace to be willing and able to practise it. 'Tis from that Grace alone that I expect my salvation. I entreat you, reverend Father, to pray to God that I may obtain it, and that when I have it, I may persevere in it. He who returned this answer is a wise and prudent person; and though no great Bookman, yet God hath well instructed him in these Truths, of which many who believe and call themselves Divines, are very ignorant.  
Decemb. 27. M. de saint Beuve writ a large letter to me again from Paris, in which he gave me a particular account of what had passed in the affair of M. de Chavigny, which the Jesuits spread abroad at Rome as an authentic proof of the confederacy and Cabal of the Directors of Port-Royal, but was really an illustrious proof of their unconcernedness and evangelical vigour for the salvation of the great as well as the small, whom God in Mercy committed to their safe guidance. After M. de St. Beuve had ended this story in his letter, he spoke thus to me touching our affairs.  
I consent with you, that an affair of Doctrine ought not to be brought into negotiation; You must keep firm, and insist upon the pronouncing of a decisive judgement. None but such as defend a lie, desire accommodations, and say with the Harlot before Solomon, Non mihi, nec tibi, sed dividatur. The furthest we can go, is, in case the Propositions be condemned, to require that it be expressed in the Bull that they are not ours, and we neither do, nor ever did pretend to maintain them otherwise then in the sense of the necessity of Effectual Grace. As also that it be added, That nothing shall be inferred from such condemnation against this Doctrine.  
And at the end of a Letter of the same date, he writ these words to the Abbot of Valcroissant, I have signified to you or M. de S. Amour, that my advice was, that in case you could obtain neither the communication of Writings, nor a hearing in the Congregation, you ought to withdraw. M. de chaalon's is not of the same mind, but thinks it best that you remain firm and stay for a definition, which cannot be disadvantageous to us, since the necessity of Effectual Grace cannot be condemned.  
But now follows the Letter which was writ to us, Novemb. 28. by the two Bishops above mentioned, and the Answer which we returne● thereunto, Decemb. 30.  
A Messieurs, Messieurs de la Lane, de S. Amour and Angran, Doctors of the sacred Faculty of Paris, and our Deputies at Rome.  
ALthough by continual experience & testimonies we find, that the most important affairs may be safely entrusted to your fidelity, learning and courage: and nothing appears in your Conduct below either the judgement which we made of you, or the esteem which you have publicly acquired in the world; nevertheless as we have deputed you to the H. See with our Letters, recommendation and authority, so the cause of the whole Church now in agitation, leads us to animate you frequently by our exhortations and remonstrances. We have with satisfaction understood, and the first labours which you underwent in this contest, have manifested to us how careful you have been in the beginning this dispute with the defence of S. Augustin, the inducement whereunto is the peace of all the faithful, and in fight for the authority of that H. Father of the Church, whom though always very considerable to Popes, some persons are not afraid to trample upon throughout France with a most incredible and scandalous temerity. For if Pope Celestin was circumspect with Apostolical vigilance, to keep that Prelate of H. reputation, whom his Predecessors had always ranked among the most excellent Masters of the Church from being exposed to the contempt of some Priests of Marseille; is it not just to use the same remedy in an occasion which is more dangerous? And there are found many persons either of the Priesthood, or of the religious habit throughout France, who are with more temerity carried against S. Augustine then the Semipelagians were heretofore; is it not fit to seek protection for him in the same See from whence he derived his principal authority? wherefore as we congratulate with you for having formed this design with much prudence, and defended that H. Doctor with very learned Writings; so we promise ourselves that you will not only execute the things which have been recommended to you from us, but also in your management observe the same order which we have judged necessary to prescribe to you. We should have no ground to give you this advertisement again, considering the constant fidelity wherewith you acquit yourself of your duty, were it not that they who defend Molina's cause, boast publicly here, that they will so order it, that there shall be neither conference of Doctors on either side before such as are appointed Consultors, nor any communication of Writings. And though the Authors of this public humour are not known, yet it is spread so throughout Paris, and other Cities of France, that we should seem wholly to abandon the cause of Religion, if we did not exhort you to act in this cause (as we doubt not but you do) with a zeal proportionate to your great prudence. Assoon as we received intelligence of the Memorial which you presented to our H. Father, we observed at the same instant your constant and steadfast resolution, not to deviate in the least from the Commission which hath been given you, but to execute punctually what we have committed to your fidelity and industry. And when our H. Father granted you the effect of your demand and ours, he made us conceive a sure hope that he purposed to terminate this difference by such a way as was fitting to advance the Glory of God, the tranquillity of the Church, and the Quiet of the Faithful. For what can happen on one side or other more  to those who are divided by diversity of opinions, and have recourse to the H. Apostolical See, then that the Truth be displayed by a peaceable and friendly disputation, that the wild and confused reports, and humane Artifices wholly cease for the future, and that all things be examined by the light of Truth, and in the midst of that splendour which environs the authority of the H. See? But what can be imagined more advantageous to persuade those who not being engaged on any side, and holding themselves distant from all sorts of prejudices and prepossessions of mind, make profession of embracing that opinion which the supreme Vicar of Jesus Christ shall declare to be Catholic, after the pronouncing of a solemn judgement upon the matter? Is there any who would stop that Sanctuary against afflicted innocence, and not permit Catholic Bishops, Priests and monastics unworthily outraged by a thousand several calumnies, to defend their faith before their proper Accusers, to pronounce the most horrible Anathamas against the false Doctrines wherewith they are charged, and to discover the deceits of their Adversaries and Contradictors▪ But it will be said perhaps, that the H. Apostolical See will of its own accord take care enough to bring Truth to light, unmasked of all its own covet and obscurities. Who cannot entertain this hope? certainly we know the See of Rome hath hitherto used this vigilance; and we promise ourselves that it will use no less for the future. Our H. Father Pope Innocent X. hath hitherto sufficiently manifested that vain Reports are of no moment with him, but that on the contrary he will weigh all things with a judicious maturity. But as we have always conceived that amicable conference of both parties viva voce, and by writing, was the certainest means to discover Truth, and most agreeable to the practice of the Church; so the more we advance in the progress of this affair, the more we are confirmed in this opinion. For since on the one hand the advantage of such Disputation is indubitable and evident, and on the other there is no danger to be feared from it, nor any thing to dissuade it; it is manifest that such a means ought chief to be made use of, the success whereof is likely to contribute most to the honour of the H. See, the Edification of the Church, the confirmation of the public Peace. For though the pre-eminence of the H. See of Rome be sufficiently great of itself, not to have absolute need of such kind of Consultation, even when it is to pass its judgement about Doctrines of greatest importance; nevertheless we hope that the H. Father will have great regard to the present circumstances, and in this case consider less the exact rigour of his Right then the utility of the whole Church, and the design of calming these storms and tempests in all ages to come. All things are lawful for me, said S. Paul, but all things are not expedient. So in the time that Clement VIII. of most H. memory established the Congregation de auxiliis, he did not think he any wise weakened his authority (which he kept up very vigorously where he lived) when he suffered not only the Dominicans and Jesuits to be publicly heard disputing, but even the sentence which was passed by the Consultors to be reviewed and examined anew, for fear the Partisans of Molina should complain of the least wrong done them, and of being condemned without hearing, as they gave out without ground or pretext. That B. Pope understood that the principal authority annexed to the See of Rome, is nowise wounded by the reciprocal Conferences of Divines, as that of Ecumenical Councils suffers no diminution, and the respiration of the H. Spirit which is always persent to them, remains nevertheless constant and undubitable when the Doctors are caused to dispute publicly before the Canons are drawn. Now whereas all the Prelates of the Gallicane Church have no other desire nor aim then this, that no person may have any doubt for the future, and that after these so important matters are judged, they may no longer be the subjects of contestation and dispute, (having had no other notice in recurring to the H. See by their letters, but the zeal of procuring peace) we doubt not but this means which is most visible, carries with it the public tranquillity, will be well pleasing to the whole world. But if some of those who are now at Rome, so give up themselves to be led by their own passion as to employ all their endeavours to obtain a Censure (in any sort) of these Propositions which have been fraudulently invented; if they decline all examen conducible to the discrimination of what is precious from what is vile and despicable, of truth from error, and of faith from perfidiousness; all their humane artifices tend only to hinder the communication of writings in order to a serious discussion; if only the name of a public Dispute makes them so to tremble that they use all sorts of means to secure themselves from it; Doth not this Tergiversation manifest to the world how little sincerity and integrity there is in their pretended design of seeking the clearing of Truth? and may it not be concluded that they have just reason to distrust the goodness of their cause, since they are afraid to maintain it in the presence of their Adversaries? May it not be conceived that they are seized with a secret fear of letting all the world see in the open daylight of a Congregation, how remote they are from S. Augustin's doctrine, since they fear being obliged to dispute with those who know all the wind and fallacies of the new Authors, not only by domestic study, and private intelligence, but also by a long experience of many years, being ready to discover and refute the same upon the place? In the mean t●me 'tis of this very thing that the jesuites and their Partisans boast and glory at Paris; and all their business is to declare openly that they will bring it to pass that there shall be neither public disputation nor communication of writings at Rome. The truth is, we should hold their discourses worthy of nothing but slighting, if we had not to do with men who use all imaginable endeavours and stir all sorts of engines to bring about their designs. But for that reason we being at Paris, have writ this Letter to quicken your courage and fidelity; and we should have caused the same to be signed by many Prelates of the Gallican Church, had the case admitted longer delay, and allowed us to advertise the LL. our Confreres who are dispersed into several Provinces of this Kingdom. Continue therefore to act as you do, tread in the same way which we have prescribed you, and keep such a course as is advantageous for the stifling of all deceits, and for the procuring of peace. Demand with urgent suit a Congregation in which things may be examined and treated viva voce and by writing in a mutual conference, not in private and secretly. Thus minding you of the orders which you have received from us, we pray that you may be clothed from Heaven above with the strength of God himself, whilst you defend the Cause of his Spouse.  
Paris, Nou. 28. 1652. Signed M. & N.  
The answer made by us to this Letter is here subjoined:  
My Lords,  
THe Letter which we lately received from you hath much comforted us, in that it informed us of your approbation of the first Informations which we presented to begin the Instruction of the weighty cause which you have committed to us; as also of the course which we have observed hitherto therein. We always remembered, My Lords, that the principal and most express design for which you writ your first Letters to his Holiness touching the Five Propositions in question, was, to obtain of his Holiness, that before passing of judgement upon them, it would please him to establish a solemn Congregation, in which all the interessed parties might be heard in presence one of the other, viuâ voce and by writing, together with mutual communication of all their writings; to the end that the H. See having taken exact cognisance of all that either side pretended and had to say, it might pronounce an authentic judgement, by means whereof all the differences in the Church touching these matters might be regulated, truth and falsehood perfectly distinguished, and a firm and solid peace as to these important points established amongst all Catholics. The advantage and needfulness of this your design, My Lords, we ceased not to represent to his Holiness, their Eminences, and all persons of Literature, to whom we could fairly address for that purpose since our arrival in this City till the eleventh of July last, when we were sent for by the late Cardinal Roma, to understand from his mouth by order of his Holiness that he had established the Congregation which we had so importunately demanded. After which, my Lords, we spent some days in rendering our first respects, and the testimonies of our acknowledgements to those Cardinals designed by the Pope for this Congregation, conceiving there would be more leisure than we desired for all necessary preparations, because it would be ready to take the cause in hand, as well by reason of the ordinary heats of the season wherein it was established, as before we considered that it required time to advertise and get ready all the interessed parties, the Consultors who were to be of it, not being yet nominated. All which considered we might have remained so for some time, and not so soon have used the power which you committed to us in beginning to give his Holiness and the Congregation a general Idea of the state of the affair, in expectation till all the other persons who were to come, whether from you or elsewhere, were assembled in this City, and then to enter further into the matter. But we were strangely surprised when MM. Hallier, Lagaut and Joysel, (who had hitherto endeavoured to hinder the establishment of the Congregation by demanding always only and purely an absolute condemnation of the Propositions, as of things already condemned and needing no examination) hastened ten or twelve days after to carry writings to the Cardinals, as their Instructions to their Eminences, out of a design, as we then suspected, and afterwards found, to be quit of it so, and reduce all our contestation to an information which cost them but a few hours in private, and without any witness of what they alleged, whether touching matter of doctrine, or the actions, opinions and designs which they might impute to their adversaries. We took notice also of a rumour spread abroad almost at the same time, namely, that this Congregation was very contrary to our intentions and designs; that we had not demanded it but only for form, and out of a conceit that it would not be granted, that we sought only how to get away after it was established: which discourses we suspected that our Adversaries published, to engage to take the same course which themselves intended to hold, and to deliver tumultuary writings upon which the affair might be judged without hearing us otherwise. This was it, my Lords, which obliged us to set upon the cause, according to the power which you had given us in case of need, and which caused us to hasten with extraordinary diligence the two Informations which you have seen, one of the principal transactions since the first of July, 1649. till that time, and the other of S. Augustin's authority, thereby to delineate the first platform, and lay the foundations of what was to be done in this affair, in attendance of the arrival o● such as might come hither; and we found ourselves engaged to do it, as if we had been the sole parties. For considering our Adversaries humour, and the temper of those who upheld them, if we had given the least intimation of other persons being expected besides us, for terminating this affair with all the world, they would have triumphed after a strange sort; and published as a most certain thing that we sought nothing but evasions and protraction. Thus, my Lords, it was requisite to yield to the disposition of the time and persons, and we were further obliged to redouble our diligences by the occasion mentioned in our Memorial of the tenth of November. But, in brief, though we were ready by S. Augustin's day, and went the same day to present our Writings to Cardinal Roma, yet the sickness which surprised him the day before, and his death which happened afterwards, caused us to defer presenting them till the time specified in the same Memorial. We conceived, my Lords, that they ought to have been forthwith communicated to our Adversaries, and desired it of their Eminences when we presented the same to them, as a thing of no difficulty. We had done it of our own heads, if consulting a Friend to commend us to some Officer of justice who might do it, he had not hindered us by telling us that perhaps their Eminences would not be well pleased with that haste, it not being the custom of the Place to do it without their order. At length, my Lords, after a fortnight and more was past, and we saw that there was no speech of communicating them, we renewed our request to their Eminences, and left a short Memorial with them to put them in mind of it. The same solicitation to the Cardinals we continued near the whole month of October; and though to us it seemed a very easy and ordinary thing, yet one of them having told us that perhaps it would be needful to speak to the Pope about it before it were resolved upon, we conceived that at the presentation of your said writings to the Pope (whereunto we were obliged) it would be expedient to present a Memorial likewise to him for this communication, and for the two other things contained therein touching the jesuites and M. Albizzi. We began the tenth of November to endeavour audience of the Pope for this purpose, and when ever his Holiness hath given any since that day, we have not failed to attempt an admittance. But the multitude of affairs wherewith his Holiness is encumbered day and night, not having permitted to give much during this time, we were constrained to attend his Holiness a week ago also in his Presence-Chamber as he returned from taking the air. His Holiness taking notice of us, stood still, to know what we would say to him. We presented to him our Writings and the  Memorial with another touching a new Book which F. Annat has caused to be printed at Paris, contrary to the express intentions of his Holiness. We had not time to speak much to him concerning what we presented, but beseeched him to have our writings only by him, and to read those Memorials. He told us with much goodness and courtesy that himself would consider upon it all, and do what should be expedient.  
You see, my Lords, how far we have been able to proceed in this affair. This week we are preparing to renew to their Eminences the memory of that request for the communication of our writings. We understand that his Holiness hath substituted Cardinal Pamphilio instead of the late Cardinal Roma, which is a new testimony of the care which his Holiness continues to take touching this affair. In the mean time, since October to the present, their Eminences have often assembled, and summoned together many Divines of divers Religious Orders, and different Sentiments, even jesuites too, to hear them, and it is affirmed to us, that these Congregations are appointed for the examination of our business. We have also understood that MM. Hallier, Lagaut and Joysel, have frequently visited those Divines, and carried to them sundry writings touching the Propositions, and made many private Informations, as if the Decision demanded by us aught to be made in that form, and without other solemnity. This is what they desire, because they see well that they are not able to maintain in public against us what they allege, nor answer to what we have to allege against them. We have neither visited, nor intent to visit any of those Divines under the notion of Consultors and judges, nor have we given them any information upon the Propositions, either by speech or writing; but since we have been told what their manner of proceeding is, we never cared to know who they were, because we perceived that neither your Orders, my Lords, nor the quality of our affair could consist with such actings; and we have always had too great confidence in the equity and prudence of his Holiness and their Eminences to fear that they will conclude this affair without hearing us, as the weightiness and condition of the cause deserve, and according to the requests which we have made, and so often reiterated to them for it. You have further represented to us in your Letter with so powerful reasons the importance of acting thus, and so expressly enjoined us to follow the same course still, which you may be secure we will observe most exactly. All the Congregations which their Eminences have made, and the delay of the communication of our writings, make us not impatient, nor ought they to make you so, my Lords, because we doubt not, but it is done to the end their Eminences and the Divines may better understand the state of the affair, and the controversy before calling the parties to a public hearing. We are informed that it is a thing usual enough here in all judgements to view the writings before appointing the communication of them; and the quality of this affair which concerns the foundation of faith and Christian Piety, deserves more attention and maturity than others less important to the H. See. Upon this account it is that we slight the reports which our Adversaries disperse here and at Paris; namely, That they shall speedily have such a censure as they desire. 'Tis an artifice they make use of to frighten and amuse S. Augustine's disciples in France, and to decry them by the expectation which they raise in all the world of an approaching condemnation, which cannot happen but against those who visibly oppose the authority and doctrine of that incomparable Doctor. Nevertheless whatever hope we have that no judgement will be passed without the communication which we demand, yet not to omit any thing of our duty to Truth, the H. See, and your Orders, we are preparing a new Memorial wherein to represent with the strongest reasons the justice and importance of such communication. And because we otherwse find that if our Adversaries once see things in such a posture that they shall be obliged to appear, they will endeavour to shift it off, and urge among others two most false suppositions which they have broached; namely, first, that the present difficulties are not the same with those which were under Clement VIII and Paul V And in the second place, that touching those Matters silence is imposed for ever: we have likewise another Memorial ready to present to his Holiness, whereby we clearly show the Falsehood of either allegation. We shall probably present these two Memorials before the next month be past, sooner or later according as we shall see it expedient. In fine, my Lords, we have not remained idle the rest of the time which we have had free; we have still been preparing some writings beforehand as well upon the subject of the Propositions as upon other things whereof we are to inform the Congregation in the progress of the affair, that so both may be produced the most speedily we can, when time for it shall come, and by the extreme diligence which we shall use in all occasions, we may quash the conceit which our Adversaries endeavour to beget in the world that we seek protraction, designing by this means to derive upon us the odium of the lasting of these contests, which we desire with all our hearts to see terminated, and which they themselves first raised, and still keep afoot. 'Tis true, my Lords, the weight which lies upon us is very great, especially hitherto, inasmuch as not appearing yet in the Congregation, we cannot wholly rid ourselves from fear of the surprises wherewith we are threatened by the rumours which are spread abroad, that they will hinder it from ever coming to pass; and that it cannot be but these fears must greatly perplex us by the sollicitudes which they create in us, and by the diligences to which they oblige us in order to understand their designs and projects, as much as we can in the darkness wherewith the affair is still covered. We shall have great need of the assistance of those whom you have designed hither, that so we may be able to discharge all that we shall see expedient to do, as well in the present disposition of things, as in those whereunto we hope to bring them. But however, neither the multitude of the adversaries we have, nor the abundance of things we are to do, astonish us; we shall go into the field which is open to us with all possible diligence, circumspection and industry; and we hope that God on the one side, and his Holiness and their Eminences on the other, will supply what shall be wanting on ours: as for the desire of getting out of affairs, we believe there is not more either in our Judges or our adversaries, than we know there is in you, my Lords, and in ourselves, unless perhaps there be this difference between our adversaries and us, that their desire of hastening things, and their importunities for that purpose, are effects of their design of obscuring and embroiling them, and our desire of hastening the same also, how great soever, and though, as we conceive, it surpass theirs, is nevertheless accompanied with a constant resolution not to hasten more than the perfect clearing and solid establishment of them will permit; with this mind we shall act in all that we shall do, writ and speak in this affair. We beseech you, my Lords, to be assured of it, and rendering you again the most humble thanks which we own you for the approbation wherewith you have received what we have done till the time of your Letter, and for all the other care which you take to encourage us by your advertisements, we beseech you also once more to believe that we will not departed from the same in any thing, and that in this, as in all other things, we shall always be mindful of the respect which we own to your Sacred Character, and of the high Obligations which we have to be,  
My Lords, Your most humble and most obedient Servants, 

De la Lane Abbot of Valcroissant.  
De S. Amour, Angran.   Rome, Decemb. 30. 1652.  
The Memorial spoken of in this Letter which we say we had ready to present to the Pope against the two most notorious Falsehoods which our Adversaries endeavoured to make pass with his Holiness for most current Truths, namely, that in our contests there was no relation to the matter which was treated of under Clement VIII. and Paul V and that perpetual silence was imposed upon this matter, was not presented to the Pope as we supposed it would when we writ this Letter, because there arrived no necessity and occasion for it afterwards, as shall be seen in the Sequel. Nevertheless we sent the same a while after to the Bishops; and this is the reason that it is sometimes spoken of in the Letters written to me from Paris after it was received there, which I shall insert in their proper time to denote the Sequel of other things mentioned in those Letters. But being this Memorial, though prepared, was neither signed by any of us, nor presented to the Pope; and for that the substance of the principal things mentioned therein is contained in divers places of this Journal, amongst others in a visit which we made to Cardinal Cechini, Octob. 5. 1652. and in the writings of the Dominicans, I shall wholly omit it for brevity's sake, and proceed to what remains.    

THE SIXTH PART.  
Containing what passed during the first six Months of the Year 1653.  

CHAP. I.  
New Solicitations in the beginning of the Year 1653. for the communication of our Writings; Discourses touching that matter with several Persons, particularly with Cardinal Spada and the Ambassador.  
AS Soon as the Festivals of Christmas were passed, we renewed our solicitations to the Cardinals appointed for our Congregation, to obtain of their Eminences that our Writings might be communicated to our Adversaries; which we found ourselves obliged to do, partly because it was likely the Pope had referred to them the two Memorials which we had presented to his Holiness December 21. for that purpose, and partly by reason of the Answer which we had lately made to the Bishops who sent us, which was a new obligation to us to redouble our diligences in an affair so just and necessary.  
The same day that we returned that Answer, we went to visit Cardinal Ghiggi: The Abbot of Valcroissant acquainted him how we became obliged to present those two Memorials to the Pope; he related to him what they contained, particularly the first; and as mention was made of Cardinal Roma, this Cardinal told us that the Pope had substituted Cardinal Pamphilio, for which, as we continued speaking of our Memorials, we signified him our satisfaction only by gestures. When M. de Valcroissant had done speaking, he offered to give a Copy of those Memorials to his Eminence. The Cardinal answered, that it was better that he received them not, that so if his Holiness should happen to speak to him of them, he might find him wholly free from Prepossession in the business, not having yet seen nor received them; he told us nevertheless, that it might be the Pope would not speak to him of them, but debate concerning them perhaps with other Cardinals than these appointed for our Congregation, perhaps with those, perhaps all alone; that perhaps he had already done reason therein by writing upon them what he thought good, that he counselled us before we proceeded further, to repair to his Holiness' master de chambre, to know whether the Pope had not delivered them to him with this resolution written at the bottom: Thus Cardinal Ghiggi excused himself from taking them, and by what he said to us we saw no likelihood that the Pope had yet spoken any thing to him concerning them.  
The next day we went to Cardinal Pamphilio's house, where we found M. Hallier and his Colleagues, who departed before the end of the audiences. We were admitted to audience, but so late; that we could do no more but make a compliment to him touching what we learned the day before of his being of our Congregation in our visit to Cardinal Ghiggi.  
In the afternoon we went to inquire of the Pope's Maistre de Chambre whether his Holiness had delivered our Memorials to him. He answered us that the Pope did not remit affairs of such importance to him. From thence we went to the Ambassador's house to accompany him to Chapel to the Vespers of the Circumcision. After they were ended, I waited upon him home. He told me upon the way that there was newly sent to him from the Court a famous Book of F. Du Bess a Cordelier concerning the death of Jesus Christ for all, I answered him that I believed I had one (viz. the Apology of the H. Father's) wherein that was marvellously well refuted. Being arrived at his house, I spoke with F. Pique, Secretary of the Embassy, who told me that M. Hallier and his Colleagues expected the condemnation of the Propositions assoon as the Congregations held at Cardinal Spadas house were ended; and that they were very well pleased with the manner in which things were transacted. I answered M. Pique that those Gentlemen had all reason to be satisfied therewith, since they were on one side delivered from the pains of justifying their calumnies, and defending themselves from our accusations; and on the other all corresponded so well to the unhappy designs of their pernicious enterprise. That nevertheless I believed Justice would be done upon all the so reasonable demands which we had made; and that I did not think it imported the King's service, and the quiet of the State, to pass judgement suddenly in this affair without examining it, and to precipitate a Decision without considering whether it were proper to clear and establish the Truth, to secure Innocence from Oppression, and to calm and reconcile men's minds.  
The first day of the year 1653. we went in the afternoon to visit Cardinal Spada. After the Abbot of Valcroissant had given him account of the contents of our two Memorials, he answered us that it was not the custom at Rome to handle things in that way of disputation; that it was practised neither in the Congregation of the H. Office, nor in that del' Indice which was established since the Council of Trent; that indeed Books were looked into, but the Authors were not heard to argue; that there would be no end if that course were followed; that it was not practised under Pius V Gregory XIII. Vrban VIII. nor under this very Pope in the affair d'ye due Capi, of the two Heads, (he meant in the examination made at Rome of the Book concerning the authority of S. Peter and S. Paul.) As for the Jesuits he assured us in the Faith of a Priest (laying his hand upon his breast) that since this affair was begun, not any jesuite had spoken to him, excepting what F. Palavicini, one of the Consultors, had spoken publicly in the Congregation. As for M. Albizzi, that the part he had in this business was very small; that all he did therein, was, that when the Consultors had spoken in those Congregations half an hour, or three quarters at most, according as they pleased in full liberty, he writ down their conclusion. As for the Consultors, that it was but a work of supererogation which was required to be practised in this case, that it was not the order to say to persons, Go visit this or the other; that they were known well enough, that they came to the Congregations, that either side was left at liberty to go and inform them; Come (added he) Sappiamo bene che si fa dall' una & dall' altra parte, as we well know both parties do. The Abbot of Valcroissant answered that the Propositions in question were none of those which were condemned by the Bull of Pius V. which probably was not published but by Gregory XIII. That it was no wonder if the Parties were not heard in that case, the said Bull having been closely drawn up without any persons having been advertised of it, so that it was not possible for any to present themselves and demand a hearing touching that matter. That although things were thus transacted under those two Popes, yet under two others, their Successors, namely Clement VIII. and Paul V an other procedure was observed, mutual audience and communication of writings allowed to the Dominicans and the jesuites in their contests about Molina's Book. As for urban VIII. that there was likewise no opportunity of hearing parties in reference to his Bull, which came forth unexpectedly too, and was but a renovation of that of Pius V and a Declaration that there were in Jansenius Propositions condemned by that of Pius V In which no doctrinal judgement was made as was intended to be in this case; for which consideration it was very expedient that the parties might be heard disputing together. That the Council of Trent accounted the same so important, that it made many summons to those upon whose Opinions it was to pronounce, to appear there to defend the same, and represent the grounds of them; that it sent safe conducts to them, to the end they might repair thither in all liberty; and that they not coming, at length it caused their Sentiments to be disputed and maintained by Divines who so well took their part, and propounded their reason with so great vigour, that an Historian of that time records, that themselves seemed of that persuasion. Cardinal Spada answered hereunto that they had in a manner observed the same course in the Congregations held at his house. That Divines of divers Orders and different Opinions, Dominicans, jesuites, etc. had been caused to come thither. That besides, so much had been written and printed on either side touching this matter, that it was not possible to be ignorant of any thing that could be said therein. That the very writings which we had composed were to pass through so many different hands, both of Consultors and Copyists, that they could not but reciprocally come into the hands of either party; and that this gave power enough to each side sufficiently to answer thereunto. The Abbot of Valcroissant replied that although very much had been written upon this matter, yet it might be said that the Propositions had not yet been written upon as was requisite; that they had been least of all meddled with; that besides, this matter was so vast, so entangled, so subject to ambiguities and equivocations, that it was more needful to discuss the same in the presence of the parties than any other whatsoever. That for want of so doing great broils and occasions of division and scandal might arise, as it was easy to foresee by the professions of Pelagius and Caelestius which were received as Catholic whilst they were not opposed by Adversaries who understood and discovered the doubleness of their hearts and words. I know not how Cardinal Spada construed those acts of Pelagius and Caelestius; but he told us that our Adversaries had more reason to complain of those equivocations than we; but however, that it was one thing to say that it would be expedient to hear the parties in that manner, if the Pope pleased, and another to speak of it as a thing necessary; and he added one word more, to give us to understand that it was unprofitable harping upon the same string, to speak of it so much as we did. Nevertheless I forebore not to speak two things to the Cardinal which we had hitherto let pass without answering. One was touching his repeating this day a question which he had made to us in a former conference, namely, How we would have done if no Doctors had come of the contrary party? Whereunto I answered, 1. That they were come, and we acted with them as being there. 2. That turning over my Papers some days before, I observed that in a visit which I made to his Eminence Aug. 1. 1651. after I had spoken to him of the hope I had of the establishment of the Congregation, and the purpose of the Bishops who sent me, to send other Doctors the Autumn following, he asked me whether there would also come Doctors of the contrary party; and that I answered him that it was not necessary for any to come, to the end we might have Adversaries, because they were already upon the place, namely the Jesuits. 3. That the affair deserved the designing of a time in which the Congregation should begin, and in the mean while that notice of it were given in all parts by the Nuntios which his Holiness had resident with Christian Princes, to the end such learned men, as found themselves interessed therein, & were minded to engage in it, might repair to Rome by that time, and there represent their reasons & their interests.  
The second thing was in reference to the Cardinal's saying, That they knew well that we resorted to inform the Consultors on either side; and I told him that we had not visited any of them in that quality. That that which occasioned my visiting them incontinently after my return to Rome, was this; being come to advertise the H. See of the shameful and dangerous surprise intended to be put upon it, I conceived that after advertising his Holiness and their Eminences of it, it was fitting that I advertised all persons whom I could understand were usually employed at Rome in affairs of Doctrine, by that means to obstruct such surprise as much as I could, and make others as diffident as possible, who might be tempted for the future by the same people whom I knew to be the Authors of this. That in my Visits to them, having met with divers able persons, and commended them to my Colleagues, they became desirous of knowing them, and thus we afterwards visited them sometimes, and were reciprocally visited by some of them who repaid our visits; but we never visited them in the quality of Consultors of our Congregation, nor to give them any Information. That we had not yet made any upon the Propositions, nor produced others besides the two writings and their Summary which we had presented to him and to the Cardinals Ginetti, Cechini and Ghiggi in the month of September, and to the Pope about ten or twelve days before. During the course of this audience Cardinal Spadas Maistre de chambre came to advertise him aloud (in all likelihood on purpose to hasten us away) that several persons attended for him; nevertheless we took no notice of it, but continued what we had to say; and at length, as we parted we told the Cardinal that as to the manner of our demanding the communication of Writings and public audience in presence of our Adversaries, we conceived that we did it with all due decorum and respect to the H. See.  
The same day we visited Cardinal Ginetti, and gave him account of the contents of our Memorials, for which he thanked us.  
Thursday January 2. we visited Cardinal Barberin before he went to Monte Cavallo. He fell to speak concerning books, upon which occasion I mentioned that which F. Annat had printed at Paris, the Cardinal excused it, as if it had been no great matter to have caused it to be printed at Paris, Stampato in Parigi, notwithstanding the orders which the Pope had given that it should be suppressed at Rome. We also said something to his Eminence concerning the two Memorials which we had presented to the Pope, as well against that Book, as for the communication of our Writings. But the hour of going to Monte Cavallo being come, our conference was broken off.  
In the afternoon we went to see Cardinal Cechini. We acquainted him with our two Memorials, but had scarce told him the sum of the first, but he interrupted us with some compassion, telling us that we did not come any thing near the matter which was to be considered. That he had read all the writings which we had given him from one end to the other; but they did not touch the point in question: Nolunt (said he) considerare quid actum est, vogliono cercare la verità abstrahendo, etc. They will not consider what hath been acted in reference to the Propositions, but seek the truth nakedly and by abstraction, determine them according to the terms whereof they consist, and I would to God (added he) I might tell you with what care, intention, and sincerity the work is carried on. I answered the Cardinal that the affair was of greater importance than their Eminences apprehended. That the Propositions which they examined were only the occasion, but not the principal motive of our coming to Rome. That we were come thither only upon the consideration of Effectual Grace by itself necessary to all Christian actions, which was one of the principal Mysteries of our Faith, which the Authors of the Propositions endeavoured to overthrow, by the bad senses whereof they had maliciously contrived them capable, and with which the same Propositions taken and reduced as we understood them, and as they who framed them covertly opposed them, had an indissoluble concatenation. That consequently for the right judging of those Propositions it was necessary rightly to know and establish the ground of that Mystery. That therefore when we understood that there was some tendency at Rome to pass judgement upon the Propositions, we came to beseech the Pope, that before doing of that, this Capital point on which they depended might be examined and decided. For it being once known and rightly settled, it would be easy afterwards to pass an equitable and certain judgement upon the Propositions. That till that were first done, nothing could be determined with a legitimate and sufficient cognisance of the cause. Upon which ground (I further told him) we had been obliged to draw a Memorial against the false and ridiculous pretention of those who said that there was nothing to do in this case with the matter De Auxiliis, because indeed the first Enthymeme which we intended to make for proof of the five Propositions, in the sense wherein we understood them, was this; Grace necessary to every Christian action is effectual by itself; Therefore the five Propositions are true, reduced to the sense which we defended. That if those who impugned them, granted me the Antecedent, and denied the consequence, I would convince them thereof in one afternoon; if they denied the antecedent, I must prove it, and so we shall fall directly upon the matter of De Auxiliis. The Cardinal seem touched with the force wherewith we deduced all this to him; and he answered us, that for his part, he should readily consent to the treating of the affair as we demanded; but he was not the Master of it, and on the contrary was obliged to conform to the manner wherewith it had been hitherto carried and examined. We told him that the Pope's Clement VIII. and Paul V treated it after another fashion whilst these matters were agitated between the Dominicans and the Jesuits; and that those Popes were so diligent therein that after much private study they were personally present in fourscore and seven Congregations, besides those which were held at first by the Consultors. That we hoped also that the present Congregations were but preliminary to such as should be held afterwards in the form wherein we demanded, whereunto we beseeched him to contribute what he could: Which his Eminence hearty promised us.  
After this visit we made one of civility to M. Noiset, who acquainted us with the surprising news of the imprisonment of Cardinal de Retz happened at Paris Decemb. 19 The Courier extraordinary who brought the intelligence to the Ambassador arrived the day preceding, and the Ambassador acquainted the Pope with it that morning after the Assembly of the H. Office; it was soon after dispersed all over Rome, but we were ignorant of it till the evening.  
Friday, January 3. we visited Cardinal Altieri and gave him one of our little Volumes of S. Augustin. He re-delivered to us our first Information De Gestis, and gave us to understand by what he said touching our affair, that he comprehended exceeding well, both the extent, dependences, consequences and importance of it. He told us it was an affair worthy of a Council, but things not being in a condition for one, it was requisite in the mean time to use all possible care in it at Rome. That the decision ought not to be hastened, but a right course taken with all necessary precautions, as hearing the Parties, and all things whose observation we required. That yet he did not disapprove what had been done hitherto, because it was good that they rendered themselves in private capable of understanding the nature of the business before venturing to hear and judge others.  
Saturday, January 4. the evening we were invited to dine the next day with Cardinal Barberin, who acordingly treated us with much magnificence and courtesy. We had little time for discourse in the afternoon, by reason of the Vespers of the Three Kings, to which we accompanied his Eminence.  
Sunday the 12th. of this month I visited a very intelligent Divine of the H. Office, with whom I was familiarly acquainted, partly to blame him for refusing to be a Consultor of our Congregation when it depended only of himself; and because his absence had occasioned the introducing of F. Tartaglia in his stead, who as much favoured the interests and pretensions of the Jesuits as he might have obstructed them. He answered me smiling, that he had already been blamed for it by one of the Consultors his Friend, but upon another reason, namely, because he had lost the occasion of making molte buone risate per le pazie, i. e. of laughing in many cases at the fooleries and impertinences which had been uttered in those Congregations by some of the Consultors who were contrary to S. Augustin, and understood not the first Principles, nor the most ordinary terms of the things which were there handled. He told one serious thing, namely, that a friend of M. Albizzi informed him, that being lately upon occasion with him, he had heard him say, That some words which he remembered Pope Vrban said to him at the time of making the Bull against Jansenius, much troubled his mind, gli davana gran fastidio; the words were, Vedete, Monsignore, non est nostrae intentionis sugillare aliquem inauditâ parte, i. e. Take heed, Sir, it is not our intention to condemn any one without having heard him. I wondered at this Discourse, and asked him that made it, how these Compunctions could seize upon M. Albizzi. He answered me, that perhaps he had been touched with something which he had heard spoken in those congregations; that nevertheless he knew not how, but he was certain of the thing, and he enjoined me not to make him the Author of it, and several times repeated the  words.  
Amongst my Papers I have found one authentic Piece which confirms this truth, viz: an Act passed before a Notary, February 22. 1647. by M. Sinnigh Doctor of Louvain shortly after his return from Rome to Louvain, by which he testifies upon Oath that in the audience which he had of Pope Vrban VIII. in presence of M. Papius and M. Vercanteren, November 26. 1643. the Pope said three things to them. 1. That by the Bull which he had published touching the Book of M. jansenius Bishop of Ipre, and other Works composed about the same matter on either side, he had no other intention but to confirm the Bull of Pius V. which was already confirmed by Gregory XIII. 2. That he had expressly appointed that none should be noted particularly in the said Bull by the expression of his name. 3. That it was not his intention to do any prejudice by this Bull to S. Augustin 's doctrine, and that those were to be checked who durst say the contrary. And that he (M. Sinnigh) having replied, That then it was strange that the name of jansenius was inserted in the Bull contrary to his holiness's precaution; The Pope answered him, That as for that, they must speak to M. Albizzi who was the compiler of the Bull; He attests also in the same Act that on April 28. 1644. having had audience of three Cardinals, Spada, Pamphilio and Falconeri, in presence of M Albizzi, and the Abbot of S. Croix in Jerusalem named Hilarion, he said among other things, That that he was ready to show, 1. That all the points concerning Grace and  contested between jansenius and his Adversaries, were the same with those which were in dispute between S. Augustin and his Adversaries. 2. That all the Arguments wherewith the Doctrine of Jansenius is encountered by his Adversaries, are the same with those which the Pelagians and their Partisans employed to encounter the Doctrine of S. Augustin. 3. That all the Calumnies whereof they made use to decry Jansenius, were employed against S. Augustin during his life, and after his death. To which he added, That he engaged himself to burn Jansenius' book with his own hand in the field of Flora, if he failed to prove any of these points. That he had said near the same thing to our H. F. Innocent X. soon after his assumption to the Pontificate, Novemb. 5. 1644, in the first audience which he had of him. This is the substance of the said Act, which I judged fit to be placed at length in its own language among the pieces which I shall subjoin to this Journal.  
The first time I visited Monsignor Sacrista in the beginning of this year, he told me that the Jesuits had dismissed from their places the Prefects, Professors, and other Superiors of the College wherein the Thesis above mentioned was maintained, viz. That to believe that Innocent X. was true and legitimate Pope, was not the fide. He told me also that the Pope was much displeased with M. Albizzi. The Procurator General of the Augustine's came to us, and in the Sequel of this Converse, having showed them a Letter which I had lately received out of France, in which one of our Confreres spoke disadvantageously enough of the Propositions, by reason of the bad senses which might cause them to be condemned; they very appositely replied, that the good which they admitted, aught to be considered first, and they being secured and established, than the condemnation of the bad might be thought of.  
Tuesday the 14. being the Feast of S. Hilary, I went again to Monsignor Sacrista at the Pope's Presence-Chamber, where I also spoke with the Bishop of Borgo, the Commandeur du S. Esprit, M. Campore, and others. I told the most of those with whom I discoursed, what was in the Lessons of the Breviary of the Life of that H. Bishop, who going to Constantinople, and finding that the Faith was in great danger there, conceived no better and safer way to defend it, then to demand (as he did by three Petitions or Memorials which he presented to the Emperor) that his Adversaries might be obliged to appear before his Imperial Majesty, and enter into a conference with him touching the matters in question; Vbi extremum fidei periculum animadvertit, tribus libellis publicè datis, audientiam Imperialem poposcit, ut de fide cum adversariis causam disputaret. That we made the same suit to the Pope, and if the same happened to M. Hallier and his Colleagues which did to the Arian Bishops, who were more powerful with the Emperor in credit then in Doctrine, for fearing the abilities of S. Hilary, they became reduced to embrace rather any other expedient then enter into conference with him, to avoid which they were fain to persuade the Emperor to remit him unto his Episcopal Sea with honour; Verum cum Vrsacius & Valens Ariani Episcopi, quas Hilarius scriptis confutarat, praesentis eruditionem pertimescerent, Constantio persuaserunt, ut specie honoris in suum Episcopatum restitueret. Which was sufficient to the Church of France to receive St. Hilary with open Arms, as returning victorious over the Heretics to whom he had offered a disputation, and they durst not accept it, as S. Jerome reports. Tunc Hilarium è praelio Haereticorum revertentem, ut inquit S. Hieronymus, Galliarum Ecclesia complexa est. All those whom I spoke to that day in the Pope's Presence-Chamber, acknowledged that this was the very true case in which we were before the Pope, in respect of M. Hallier, and his Colleagues, and many of them told me that themselves had the same conceit in seeing their Breviary, before I advertised them of it.  
In the afternoon we went to visit Monsignor Bentivoglio, to inform him of our affair in the same manner as we had informed others, Cardinals, Prelates, Consultors and other learned men since our arrival at Reme; and we were the more satisfied with our giving him this information, for that he acquainted us with the high esteem which he had of the Bishop of Angers, one of those who deputed us.  
From thence we went to la Minerve to speak with the General of the Dominicans, whom we found not there, but spoke with several of his Order; F. Mariana being there, told us, that the Pope had deprived M. Albizzi's son of the Government of Fort Vrban, of which he had been Governor for several years. This Fort is so called because Pope Vrban VIII. caused it to be built upon the Frontiers of Romania towards the State of Modena. The Subbibliothecary assured me, that he had a while since told Cardinal Ghiggi, that it was expedient to take some order concerning that Fort, in regard of the Pope's displeasure with the said Seigneur Albizzi, for which the Pope was minded to remove the Assessor of the H. Office from his employment; and that it was not fit to restore a discontented person, and leave a Fortress upon the Frontiers of the Estate in his hands, and in the disposal of his Son. That he knew not whether this advice of his to the Cardinal was the cause that it was so done, or whether it was intended before he spoke of it; but he had spoke thus to Cardinal Ghiggi; and the thing was executed soon after. F. Mariana told us also that our two Memorials were still upon the Pope's Table, and that Monsignor Sacrista who saw them there since my parting from him, informed him so. The report of M. Albizzi's disgrace was forthwith spread all over Rome, with a circumstance too, whereof F. Petit came to advertise me in the evening, but of the truth of which I always doubted, namely that it was an effect of the Memorials which we presented to the Pope against him. But however it came to pass, it was a very rude shock for him; because besides that he saw his eldest son whom he had by his first wife deprived of his employment, he had several others of an age which required providing for, by his second wife. Wherefore when he received the news of this disgrace, he complained at first very high in the Pope's Presence-Chamber; but some of his friends minding him not to show any resentment, as well in respect of the Pope, as not to injure his Children further, and for the consideration of his reputation, in regard of the Public, and particularly of his Envyers, who would be the more joyful for his sensibility, he altered his Note, and fell to say, that the Pope was Master of his own places, which it was not expedient to leave always in the same hands; that his Son was yet young enough, and that indeed no other reason ought to be enquired of what was done, than the pleasure of him who did it.  
Wednesday the 15. I went in the afternoon to see some book in the Library of Car. Barberin, but finding no body there, I went to the Ambassador, whom I accompanied in a Visit which he was going to make; being returned from which, he took me into his Chamber to discourse about the state of our Affair. I told him we could not recede from the demand we made in the beginning for a Conference and reciprocal Communication of writings with our Adversaries; for the reason whereof I alleged the importance of preserving in the Church that custom and liberty, because it was ever judged the most facile and sure recourse of those who defended the faith against the errors of its opposers, which I confirmed by the example of S. Hilary; the History of whom he had read the day preceding in his Breviary. The Ambassador was moved with it, but attempted to find some difference between that case and ours, because S. Hilary made that offer and demand before the Emperor who was not instructed in those matters, and could not judge of them; and that we were before the Pope, who had authority to judge of them, and whom we ought to presuppose instructed in those things, were there nothing but the light and assistance which he received from the H. Spirit. I answered the Ambassador, that the difference of these circumstances was nothing to the substance of the example which I brought, because it was only to let him see, that the confidence wherewith a single man well instructed in the verity of the Faith, demanded to confer publicly with an Army of its Opposers, sufficed to maintain it and confound them. But to take away the foundation of this difference, I produced to him the example of the Council of Trent, which though it had no less authority to judge nor light then the Pope, and though the assistance of the H. Spirit was no less promised to it then to the Pope, yet conceived a Conference between the opposite parties about a matter to be so useful and proper for clearing it, that it always practised it before it passed decrees. Then I proceeded to the reasons which rendered it more necessary, and showed that it was much more due to the suit which we made for it both in our names, and in those of the Bishops who sent us, being of a Degree in the Church considerable enough to oblige the Pope not to deny what they demanded with so great instance and respect, since had they appointed it themselves in their own Dioceses, they had Authority so to do. We discoursed long about this point, and at last coming to speak of the Concernment which the King took in this business, I represented to the Ambassador, that it was not his Majesty's interest to have a huddled Decree made at Rome, which might excite trouble in the Church and his Kingdom, and give him a pretext to persecute his Subjects, who though rendered suspected, were most affectionate to him; but that his true interest was to procure the passing of one, against which there might lie no cause of blame, according to the accustomed forms of Ecclesiastical judgements, and which might produce Peace amongst Divines by a solid clearing of the Truth. That I conceived also that the King ought to beware of rendering himself so easily the Minister of a Decree obtained by surprise, of which the Obtainers might make use for the oppressing of the Truth and its Defenders, because though the Calumnies dispersed of them at the Court, and the false Impressions given of them to their Majesties, had inclined them to look upon those people as the Object of their Aversion; yet other occasions might come to pass, in which Decrees might be made not so agreeable and advantageous to the service and contentment of their Majesties, as this appeared to them; and to the execution whereof it would be pretended at Rome, that they were no less obliged, and whereunto perhaps they would be necessitated by extraordinary ways, of which there were but too many examples. The Ambassador told me that most of the world held all this affair to be nothing on our side but a Cabal: I answered, that this might indeed be said of us, as it might have been of S. Hilary, and those twelve or fourteen Bishops who retired half a days Journey from Rimini to a little Town which at this day bears the name of la Catolica, the Catholic, after so great a number of other Bishops had subscribed a Confession of Faith which destroyed the Faith of the Church; and that if the H. See came to pass a judgement in our favour, as I doubted not it would, if it examined things and decided them, it would be manifested that it was no Cabal. The Ambassador replied, that there was a suspicion of us at Court, and that it was believed, that we only sought protractions, to the end that while the affair remained undecided, the number of our Partisans might still increase, and our party be strengthened. Hereupon I laid open to the Ambassador as well as I could our sincere Intentions and particular interests, that things were handled and dispatched the most speedily that could be: Yet I told him there was this difference between our Adversaries and us, that they desired to hasten the Decision for the confounding of all things by precipitating them under the pretext of the blame which they charged upon us of seeking to retard them; but for our parts we were so desirous to promote them in such manner, that the speed used therein might not hinder their being examined with convenient leisure and attention. I likewise told the Ambassador the whole contents of our two Memorials; of which there was nothing but he judged reasonable. I spoke in general of the notorious falsehood I had observed in the Writings M. Hallier presented to the Consultors touching Pelagius' Confession of Faith, which he cited knowingly as a work of S. Augustin, or at least relying upon the honesty of the Jesuits, from whom he received and presented them, without troubling himself so much as to read them. The Ambassador seemed moved at this passage, and spoke in such a manner as gave me to know, that if what I said were found true, M. Hallier would fall in his and all the world's opinion into the contempt deserved by an action either so malicious or so servile, & one way or other so contemptible. I know not how in the Sequel of our converse he fell to read two chapters of F. du Bosc's Book; But I know, that what he had read giving me occasion to speak of the necessity of considering the place, a Proposition in the place whence it was extracted in order to the right judging of it, I brought him this example, Manducemus & bibamus, cras enim moriemur, Let us eat and drink, for the morrow we shall die; And I asked him whether considering it by itself, he would not take not for a Proposition unworthy to be produced by a Christian, and as befitting only the Discourse of a Sardanapalus, as undermining the foundations of Religion and Christian Piety, as destroying all hope and pretention of an Eternal life, and favouring Libertinism and Debauchery. Nevertheless (I told him) I had taken it out of the Books of a Writer to whose Labours and Preaching the whole Church was mainly beholding for the light of Faith which it had received, who excited us more than any other to renounce the interest and pleasures of the world and our very selves; and that in a place where he establishes one of the principal foundations of our salvation, namely, The Resurrection of the dead: In one word, out of S. Paul to the Corinthians, Chap. 15. vers. 32. where after other proofs of this fundamental Truth of our Religion he brings this, That if it were not certain, it were in vain that we performed all the painful and laborious actions of Christian life, we should only cheer up ourselves, and pass our Lives in delights agreeable to our carnal inclinations, being they would be so short, and we should have no other afterwards. Si (secundum hominem) ad Bestias pugnavi Ephesi, quid mihi prodest, si●mortui non resurgunt? Manducemus & bibamus, cras enim moriemur. Whence the Ambassador who saw how impious and dangerous this Proposition was, when separated from that place, and divided from what precedes aed follows it, acknowledging also how holy and edifying it was considered in its own place, might easily judge of the necessity and justice of considering those under examination, with reference to the persons to whom they were imputed.  
Thursday the 16th. in the afternoon we visited the General of the Dominicans, to acquaint him with the weighty and important reasons which retained us from delivering secret and private Instructions upon the Propositions to the Consultors of the Assemblies held at Cardinal Spadas house. He approved our reasons, and desired us to communicate to him the writings which we presented to the Pope, as accordingly we did we same day. He told us he conceived that the thing further to be feared in this affair was, that some Provisional Remedy would be used therein, as Imposition of Silence. Whereunto I answered, that we were as well prepared against so unworthy an Expedient as against the rest, and that we had a Memorial ready to present to the Pope against such imposition of Silence, assoon as we saw the least need of presenting it.  
The more our Adversaries sought to keep their Writings concealed, the more we endeavoured to communicate and make ours public. We had long ago provided a Copy of our first Information De Gestis for the Ambassador, to the end to inform him with the most care we could of all that we did in this affair. Which Copy I carried to him on Friday the 17th. and desired him to ask M. Hallier for his only for an Evening, not that I might see them, but that having received them from his own hand, I might show him (the Ambassador) the notorious falsehood which I had mentioned to him, and that he might not doubt of M. Hallier's being guilty of advancing it. The Ambassador assented, and told me that an Abbot (whom he named) lately signified to him that he heard M. Hallier and his Colleagues say, that there was not a page in S. Augustin explicable according to the Letter, his Writings were so obscure and perplexed. I answered that himself might make experience of it when he pleased to read them; but if he was minded to read something of them in a language more natural to him, I would show him the contrary by the Translation of the Book De Correctione & De Gratia, which I believed he would very much like.  
I understood that M. Albizzi did not enter into the Assembly of the H. Office which was held on Thursday before the Pope with the Cardinals, as he was wont, but stayed without with the Consultors, and entered not but with them. This made me suspect that the Pope had spoken to the Cardinals about our Memorials; but I learned afterwards that possibly he was excluded upon an other business which concerned him more nearly, and which I suppress; though I know the particulars of it very exactly, that I may avoid saying things disadvantageous to him, which are not necessary to my Subject, since I do it unwillingly when I am obliged to it by that consideration, and would willingly omit the same, if I did not fear to alter the truth, and frustrate those to whom I own it.  
Tuesday the 21. we went in the evening to Cardinal Ghiggi, in whose Antichamber we found M. Hallier and his Colleagues. When M. du Noiset who was a● audience came forth, they entered; and we when they came forth. The Cardinal spoke first to us, and reflecting upon the persons who newly left him, said, Existimabant negotium finitum esse, with some other broken words which we could not hear well, but, as I believe, signified nothing but that those Doctors were mistaken in conceiving that the business was done. Whereupon the Cardinal told us that it did not belong to them to know the times and seasons of it, Non est vestrum nosse tempora vel momenta. After he had ended the Abbot of Valcroissant told him that we came to his Eminence, to know whether the Pope had ordained any thing touching our Memorials, and that the affairs lately supervening and taking up the Pope and their Eminences (to wit, the imprisonment of Cardinal de Retz) kept us from coming sooner to desire tidings of them. The Cardinal answered us that those affairs lasted still, but he believed the Pope had read our Memorials, because there seldom passeth above eight or ten days but omnes supplices libelli all the Memorials were read, and answers given to them. We fell to speak of the two principal things demanded by those Memorials, namely the reciprocal communication of our Writings, and that a public audience in presence of either side; and to persuade the Cardinal of the justness of our demand, M. the Valcroissant represented sundry reasons to him taken from the nature of the affair. The Cardinal construed all those reasons contrarily to what we hoped; for he considered them as if thereby we pretended to give Law to the Pope in a thing whereof he was the Master. The like he judged of the certainty wherewith we spoke of the indubitable truth of our opinions, and the falsehood of the others whom we opposed; as if this great confidence was a defect of submission to the Decision which might be made thereof by the H. See. On the contrary, we gave him what verbal assurances could be given, that we had in our hearts as true a submission as this confidence was great; and we told him, that his Eminence could not consider those two qualities as opposite to one another, because they were both natural and ordinary to the defenders of truth; as on the contrary they who impugned it wanted both, or had the same but falsely and in appearance. After which the Cardinal advised us to be short in the Writings we intended to deliver, and to explicate our designs and pretensions briefly, and yet more than we had done in the summary of the two first Writings which we had presented. He also said that we should do well to repair to Cardinal Spada between that time and eight days after, and make our instances to him, if we desired to be heard in presence of our Adversaries, because he believed our Write would be received and audience given us; but he gave us to understand, that it would be severally, one side after the other. He asked us also whether we had visited Cardinal Pamphilio, and testified some desire that we would not fail to go and inform him. We answered, that as for that particular we had done all that we could, after we understood that the Pope had made him of the Congregation; but our affairs could be only transiently explicated; that as often as we had been at Cardinal Pampbilio's house we found it so full of people expecting audience of his Eminence, that we were obliged to return without demanding any, and that we were loath to accost him in his multitude of encumbrances with the least overture of our affair. But we had desired his Maistre de chambre to procure some time for us in which we might speak with him in a fitting manner; that he had given us hope of such an opportunity, but not yet effected it, though he had seen us often in his Antichamber whither we repaired to put him in mind of it. Indeed we had been four times at Cardinal Pamphilio's house since the next day after Epiphany, and could never find him in a condition fit to be informed. But in the mean time we caused a Book of our writings, like that which we had presented to the Pope, to be transcribed, intending to present the same to his Eminence, either when we should speak to him about our affairs, in case the Book were ready when that good hap should arrive, or some time after we had entertained him therewith, if we saw his Eminence first. We acquainted Cardinal Ghiggi with all this, and he was glad of it; having some suspicion that we neglected to visit Cardinal Pamphilio, probably because he conceived that we did not think him much skilled in these matters, nor much at leisure to be instructed therein. At last we acquainted Cardinal Ghiggi with the notorious falsehood in M. Hallier's writings, of which I had told the Ambassador. The Cardinal asked us pleasantly whether the falsity was in those which M. Hallier had given in facto, or in those which he had given in jure; for he told us instantly that that Doctor had given none but in jure; and besides added he, they were indeed the communi, and little serviceable to the Congregation.  
When we went from Cardinal Ghiggi, we repaired to Signior Eugenio our Advocate, to acquaint him with the odd estate of our negotiation, and to desire him to visit our Cardinals in our name, and beseech them to deliver us from the tediousness and perplexity of those importune and extraordinary solicitations. We did not meet with him; but being returned home, we were told that a Laquay had been there from Cardinal Spada, to tell me that his Eminence desired to speak with me the next morning.   

CHAP. II.  
Cardinal Spada 's offer to us in the end of January, to hear us in the Congregation held at his House; and our Answer, that we were ready to appear there when justice was done us upon the conditions demanded by us. The Letter which I writ thereupon to the Bishops who deputed us.  
I Failed not to go to him the next morning; and because all that he said to me in this visit and two others, one in the afternoon of the same day, and the other on Thursday the 23d. before he went to the Pope, was of consequence enough to be signified punctually to my LL. the Bishops who sent us; I shall not relate it otherwise than by inserting the Letter, though very long, which I writ to them thereupon on the Monday following, being the 27th. I directed the same to the two , who were then at Paris, and it contained these words:  
My Lords,  
Within these eight days a thing hath passed in our affair, of which we conceived ourselves obliged to give you notice without delay; and I am charged to do it, because I acted most therein, and MM. de Valcroissant and Angran being employed about other things which press us, referred this care to me. They conceive that nothing is to be neglected amongst all the things which I have to acquaint you with; and therefore I shall endeavour rather to represent the same exactly to you then in few words. We hold it our duty to give you account of the least particularities, that you may the better understand the main, leaving it to your prudence to make relation thereof to my LL. your Confreres, according as you shall judge expedient for their satisfaction, and the good of the affair which you have committed unto us.  
On Tuesday last returning to our Lodging in the Evening we were told that one from Cardinal Spada had left word there that his Eminence desired to speak with me. Which Order I failed not to obey the next morning; and being introduced into his Chamber, he told me that he had Order (without specifying from whom, tengo ordine were his words) to let me and my Colleagues know, that if we had any thing to propound to the Congregation held at his House, and would appear there, we should be admitted; and if we were ready, it might be on Monday: That the Doctors our Adversaries might be admitted afterwards upon Wednesday; and they should be treated in the same manner as we. That thus things would be transacted calmly, and nothing innovated in the ordinary practice according to which they proceeded.  
I answered the Cardinal that he told me very acceptable news, in telling me that the time was come in which we might appear in the Congregation. That we never wished any thing else, and we should do it with great contentment; but that the term which his Eminence proposed was something short for the first time, which required a little more than ordinary preparation, and proportional to so grave an Assembly, and so weighty an action. That it would not be my part to speak, but M. de Valcroissant's. That I could not precisely tell his Eminence whether he could be ready by the day appointed by him. That I hoped so; but I must first speak with him before I could give his Eminence a positive answer.  
Before I proceeded further in my Answer, the Cardinal told me that if Monday were too soon, it might be deferred till Wednesday; but he was desirous of a precise answer either that morning, or without fail in the afternoon, that he might afterwards give such Orders as ●ere necessary for the Assembly.  
I answered him, that I would not fail to bring him one in the afternoon at furthest; but besides the time needful for M. Valcroissant to prepare himself, we should be glad to have some wherein to confer with the Consultors particularly before seeing them in public. That we had not been told hitherto who they were; and therefore I desired his Eminence to cause a List of them to be given us.  
His Eminence presently took up a pen and writ one himself, then bid me transcribe it; which I did presently in his presence whilst he read some Memorials; and though I saw something which I might say to him immediately, yet considering that I was to return suddenly to him, I thought best to defer it till I had conferred with my Colleagues. Wherefore assoon as I had done the Catalogue, I took my leave.  
Thus passed this Visit. Being returned to my Lodging I gave account of it to my Colleagues, and shown them the List which I had written, containing the names following.  

1. The Master of the Sacred Palace.  
2. The General of the Augustine's.  
3. The Commissary of the H. Office.  
4. F. Raphael Aversa, formerly General of the Regular Priests.  
5. The F. Procurator, General of the Conventual Cordeliers of S. Francis.  
6. F. Campanella of the order of the Carmelites.  
7. F. Luca Vadingo of the reformed order of S. Francis, Superior of the Covent of S. Isidore, a native of Ireland.  
8, F. Ciria sometimes Procurator General of the order of the Servitae.  
9 F. Delbene Superior of the House of S. Andre de la val, of the order of the Theatines.  
10. The Procurator of the Capucines.  
11. F. Sortia Palavicini of the order of the Society of Jesus, and Reader of Divinity in the Roman College.  
12. F. Maistre Celestin Bruni, an Augustin.  
13. F. Tartaglia of the order of Barefooted Carmelites.   
This list, and what I have above mentioned, being considered by us, the principal thing whereupon we could presently resolve, was, that M. the Valcroissant should stay at home to prepare himself to appear in the Congregation on Wednesday following, and that M. Angran and I should return presently after Dinner to acquaint Cardinal Spada with that and other things needful to be represented to his Eminence.  
Accordingly, my Lords, we went to Cardinal Spada, and told him that M. the Valcroissant could have wished a little longer space for his preparation the first time; that nevertheless we left him at home to begin to get ready against Wednesday next which was the longest time allotted us by his Eminence. That we had considered of some things needful to be provided for before hand, if they were not already; namely touching the two Memorials presented by us to his Holiness, whereunto we had yet received no answer. That we knew not whether the Pope had taken any order or no: that in one of them we desired that when we should appear before the Congregation, not only the Doctors who were here against us, but also the Jesuits, our principal parties, might be obliged to appear there in our presence, and answer to the Accusations and instances which we had already made, and were yet to make against them in the progress of this Affair. That before our appearing it was needful that the same were ordained by his Holiness. That moreover we had considered, that in the list of Consultors given us by his Eminence, there was the name of a Jesuit; that a Party could not be a Judge, & that we were unwilling to acknowledge a Jesuit for such, and less this then an other; because besides the quality common to him with all the rest, we had some writings of his which he gave the last year to his Scholars in the Roman College, in which we were ready to show that he taught pure Pelagianism, Maxims directly opposite to all the Essential principles of S. Austin's Doctrine against the Pelagians. That besides him, we found among the Consultors the Procurator General of the Conventual Cordeliers, whom we conceived to be F. Modeste, who made a Panegyric upon F. Annat's Book newly printed; in which the Doctrine and Authority of S. Augustin were unworthily injured. That we had accused this Father to his Holiness as having prevaricated in this point of his duty, and we could not own him for a Judge in a cause wherein we accused him as Criminal. That lastly his Eminence had not signified who was to be Secretary in the Congregation; that if they intended to choose one amongst the other Consultors, we had nothing to say; but if M. Albizzi pretended to continue in that office as we heard he had hitherto done in the private Congregations which their Eminences held, we were not resolved to come where he exercised that charge, because he was a man too much suspected by us, for reasons represented in our Memorials, and others which we should deduce more largely in time and place, if it were needful. That we most humbly beseeched his Eminence, that all this might be regulated between this and Wednesday, if it were not already, and this granted, we would not fail to be ready to appear that day in the Congregation.  
The Cardinal replied to us, that this discourse seemed very different from that which had been held in the morning. That we said indeed that we would appear, but withal made Demands contrary to the purpose which we pretended to have of so doing. That we well knew, that there was no resolution to hear us in presence of both sides, that it was not the manner of the H. Office. That his Holiness might order things without all these Formalities: That all the Congregations which had been held were not necessary: that if their Eminences were obliged always to observe that course in all affairs, it would not be possible for them to dispatch any. That the Favour done us in offering to hear in the manner propounded to us, was not due to us, that we might accept it if we would; that if we would not, no body was forced to receive it: Beneficium (said he) non confertur invito: that however we had no reason to refuse it, since they promised to hear us as largely as we pleased; instead of one hour three days; and to receive as many Write as we were minded to present; two Reams of Paper if we would; and that they assured us nothing should be done till every thing were first most exactly weighed and discussed. As for the Consultors whom we refused, he could assure us, as he had done formerly, that since the establishment of the Congregation, no Jesuits nor any other from them had spoken to him concerning these affairs. That if we refused those whom we mentioned, our adversaries might likewise refuse others. That we ought not to have any ombrage concerning these Divines, since they had no decisive voice; Audimus, said he, illos disserentes, as we shall hear you. That were Prelates there with their Eminences, they should have no decisive voice; but after hearing the Arguments of either side, their Eminences were to consider the whole, make report thereof to his Holiness, and all to be judged and regulated according as Justice, and Truth, and the Obligation incumbent on the H. See to provide for the needs of the Church and the Faithful required. As for the Secretary, that his Office was very small and little important in those Congregations, that he had no power at all; that all he did there, was, after the Diunes had spoken an hour more or less, when they came to conclude and say, Sum igitur in voto, etc. to writ down the words dictated to him by the speaker, which were also written down by others who had so much curiosity.  
This, my Lords, is the substance of the Answer which Cardinal Spada made to us: If himself had dictated it, no doubt it would have been better digested and expressed than I am able to relate it: 'Tis a very difficult thing to represent in writing the discourse of any one whatsoever, but more one of so great and high a Genius as is that of Cardinal Spada; wherefore when you read what I was able to collect, I beseech you to supply with your imagination, the force and vivacity wherewith his Eminence spoke it.  
Towards the end of his Discourse he fell upon the principal point of our demand, viz. to have our Adversaries present, and we stood so much upon it, that the rest were no more spoken of▪ Wherhfore having urged to us again that the presence of Adversaries, and the disputation which we demanded, was not the use of the H. Office. When he had done speaking, we replied to him that our intention was not in any wise to cause any alteration in the Laws and practices of the H. Office; but his Eminence was also to consider, that we had not recourse to it. That we had recurred to the Pope as the Vicar of Jesus Christ, and head of the Church, to whom in the name of the Bishops who sent us, we had represented the intended surprise of his Holiness, entreated him to beware of it, and considering the combustion caused amongst Catholics by these contests, most humbly desired him to establish a Congregation like that held under Clement VIII. and Paul V in which the parties were heard viva voce, and by writing in presence one of the other. That the Letters which we first presented, were most expressly to this effect. That the Memorial which we delivered after those Letters, contained the same also most evidently. That all our remonstrances by speech touching this affair, both to his Holiness and their Eminences for a whole year together, before the Congregation was declared to us, were only to obtain the same in that form. That at length the Congregation was declared to us without any restriction, that we had given notice thereof to the Bishops who sent us, that the report of it was spread over all the world; that we had acted till the present in that confidence, and could not but be a little amazed at the difficulty which we found in the performance.  
I think, my Lords, we had not gone much further in this reply, when Cardinal Spada interposed and told us that we ought to consider what he had told us already several times, to wit, that when this affair was in agitation under Pius V there were no parties heard, nor in the time of Gregory XIII. nor afterwards under urban VIII. and lastly, under the present Papacy things were not handled otherwise, and that it was resolved not to alter the course.  
We inserted in his Discourse that between the times of those Popes newly mentioned there was Clement VIII. and Paul V under whom the proceed were in the manner which we demanded.  
His Eminence continuing his Discourse, answered that it was true; but that it was not intended now to bring upon the Stage again the matters agitated in that time; that the Question was only about qualifying precisely Five Propositions, what they were in themselves according to the very words in which they were comprised. That this might be done by the single inspection of them as they lay, without considering what had been acted, or hearing the Parties contradictorily.  
We told his Eminence that we could not enough wonder, how any could pretend to decide the Propositions without meddling with the matter De Auxiliis. That it was very easy to prove evidently, that none of them could be touched, but the whole matter De Auxiliis must be decided and carried one way or other by most certain consequences.  
His Eminence answered that this was our pretention; that our Adversaries had another, and took themselves to be as well grounded in theirs as we in ours. That they conceived it very easy to separate the Propositions from the matter De Auxiliis, as certainly as we believed the contrary. And lastly, that we ought not to doubt but the Persons employed to determine them would consider all their consequences and dependences; and therefore there was no need of such a contradictory conference as we demanded.  
We replied to his Eminence that this Matter was of itself so difficult, so subject to equivocations, so embroiled and obscured by our Adversaries; that a reciprocal Conference could not but be very advantageous for the disintangling of it, and exposing it naked to the eyes of the Congregation. As for what he said concerning determining the Propositions in the manner he mentioned, it was not at all the design either of the Bishops who sent us to Rome, nor ours; that we very little cared what value was set upon a word subject to divers interpretations, or how far it might be extended; that had nothing but this been in question, the Bishops who sent us would not so much as have set pen to paper, nor we have come out of our Closets; but the ground of their solicitude and ours, were the Catholic truths contained in those Propositions; which were taught us by Jesus Christ, and derived down to us by the Holy Scriptures, and by the continued Tradition of Popes, H. Fathers and Councils, which we observed were endeavoured to be overthrown under the pretext of some bad senses in which the Propositions might be understood. That thus the Propositions were not the primary object of our thoughts and cares; but having been taken by our Adversaries as a very plausible means to ruin the whole Catholic Doctrine concerning Grace; and knowing very well that they could not be touched without immediately falling amongst all the difficulties which are in the Church touching this matter; not to divert out of the way which our Adversaries put us upon to obtain, that they might at length be terminated, we judged it sufficient if the Congregation which we demanded were established for deciding the Propositions, to the end it might be obliged to decide all the remainder to the bottom. That in fine, not to enter further into the discussion of what we said, if the Propositions▪ did not relate to the matter of our Grace, we had nothing to do in the business, because we were sent only upon that account, and that was it which caused the present divisions in the Church; that we came to the H. See to seek a sovereign remedy which might conduce to the establishing of a solid peace amongst Catholics, by perfectly clearing the truth; that the Congregation which we demanded was esteemed the remedy most suitable and proportionate to the present circumstances that could be used; that having demanded it so expressly, and for so long time together, and it having been signified to us without any restriction, we had all reason to presume, pretend and believe that it was established; if it were, we desired the execution of it; if not, all that we had to do, was, to demand the establishment of it.  
The Cardinal urged to us the delivery of our Writings to the Congregation, by which we had in a manner owned it, and professed to be satisfied with the institution of it; and he asked us wherefore we scrupled to proceed in the manner already begun, since we were certain regard would be had to all which we should represent as well this way as an other; besides that His Holiness was not obliged to receive from us what rule he should hold in the conduct of this Judgement.  
We answered him, that we delivered those Writings out of a reasonable presumption that the Congregation having been purely and unconditionably granted us, it was established according to the terms wherewith we demanded it; otherwise we should have delivered no Writings, but continued our Instances for its establishment; and besides many reasons which we had represented for the obtaining of it, and the obligation imposed on us by the Bishops to prosecute it till we obtained it, we had yet a most powerful one; namely, that as far as we could understand after throroughly examining ourselves, and considering the cause we maintained, we saw not that our Adversaries could charge us with any thing which we could not very easily wipe off, whether in fact or opinion, but we did not perceive the Case so fair on their side; that therefore having to oppose to them none but most certain Truths, which we are ready to make good by most convincing proofs; and conceiving them to have nothing considerable to charge us with but what was false, fictitious and calumnious, we were not resolved to weigh what they had to say with what we had to say, as it would be if we have not the means solidly to refute their allegations, and manifest to the Congregation that they can give no solid answers to what we shall object against them. Now whereas his Eminence several times urged that it was not necessary for the Pope to comply with whatever we demanded in this affair; we declared to him that we no wise doubted of the Pope's plenitude of power, and the universal solicitude which he ought to have for all the Churches, enabled him with a right to suppress of his own accord a Heresy either newly sprung up, or already increased in any part of the world whatever, not only without hearing of party's contradictory in judgement, but also without the secret Congregations which had been held to the present, as Cardinal Spada himself said before, and as we could easily prove by the example of Celestin the first, when upon the advertisement whieh he received from S. Prosper and S. Hilary, he vindicated S. Augustin against the contempt cast upon his Doctrine by the Priests of Marseille, though in a less degree than that of the Jesuits and their Imitators at this day. That if a Pope took this course in every case, and made a good Constitution to repress the boldness of whosoever perverted the Maxims of Faith and Good manners, such Constitution would be very legitimate and valid, and all the Faithful would be obliged to revere and obey it according to the laws and customs of the Church: but as our affair stood at this day, we conceived it just and for the interest of the H. See as well as our own and that of the Church, to do what we requested of the Pope with all importunity, submission and respect. That it was a demand from which we could not recede in any thing, being but Commissioners. And being we apprehended this steadfastness of ours might be somewhat displeasing, that we might not seem to persist in it out of obstinacy, we declared that in reference to any other course after the orders which we had received from the Bishops, it was requisite to write to them to know whether they continued in the same resolution; that if they altered it, which was not likely, we might also take another way than what we now held; but till they changed their Orders, we were obliged not to departed from them.  
His Eminence asked us by the way, whether we desired this Expedient to prolong the affair; to which it might have been answered, that if we had such a purpose we should have embraced the offer he made us of giving us as many audiences, and receiving as many Writings as we pleased: but we assured him that if we were put to the proof in the way we demanded, it should be seen how extremely desirous we were to see the affair speedily ended, and that never any delay of the Decision would be caused on our part.  
As we proceeded to assure him, that if he were the chief in the business, we were so respectful of his Sentiments and submissive to his ways, that we should consult him what he conceived fit for us to do; the Cardinal replied that we might do as we thought good, either accept or not accept the offered favour of hearing us as he propounded. That if we would take that evening to deliberate with M. the Valcroissant, he would allow us that time to advise together, but he desired to know our last resolution the next morning before he went to the Pope at the Assembly of the H. Office. We scrupled not to refuse this favour from his Eminence.  
Thus, my Lords, we rested upon this Visit. His Eminence no doubt spoke many other things in confirmation of those which I have represented to you, and with more energy than I have been able to relate them; but I conceived it would be sufficient if I reported to you the substance of the the principal; some having escaped my remembrance, & others being not essential to the business.  
Thursday morning M. the Valcroissant stayed yet at home to prepare himself against Wednesday, but M. Angran and I repaired again to Cardinal Spadas house, as he appointed us the day before. We gave him our answer almost in these very words, viz. That we could not accept the offer made to us by his Eminence, but upon the conditions which we had mentioned; that upon those terms we were ready to accept it, and comply with it; that we despaired not to obtain the same when his Holiness and their Eminences had considered how just and important they were, and never were denied by the H. See when demanded; that perhaps it never happened in any kind of judgement that the Judges signifying to one Party that they were ready to hear it, and the party answering that it was ready to speak on condition its adversary might be present, the Judges denied such a condition. We added that (to show his Eminence that it was not particular obstinacy, but an express obligation which caused us to act thus) besides our General Commission oftentimes reiterated to us by us by particular Letters, we beseeched his Eminence to look upon one which we had received lately wherein the aforesaid Order was most expressly renewed. And hereupon, my Lords, we presented to him a Copy of the Letter which you did us the honour to write to us the 28th. of November last; we desired his Eminence to read it, and offered to leave the Original with him for more sureness.  
His Eminence replied that there was no need of it, yet if we pleased for our own satisfaction to read it, he would hear it. So we read the Original to him.  
Which ended, his Eminence excepted at those passages of the Letter whieh concerned our adversaries, and said in their defence, that they seemed not to him desirous of avoiding a mutual conference, but on the contrary professed to wish it, and to be ready for it; and further declared that however the H. See proceeded in this affair, they were contented.  
We answered that we wondered not much if in some occasions they professed to desire such a Conference; but we conceived that what emboldened them to speak thus of it, was their perceiving that it was not likely to be granted to us; and that if they should find that they must come to it, they would not be so desirous of it.  
His Eminence replied, that it was one thing to conjecture the secret intentions of persons, and an other to tell what of them appeared outwardly; but as for what appeared of those Doctors, none could deny but they were so disposed; and were perfectly submissive to all that should be ordained by the H. See, not only in reference to the Decision itself, but also as to the manner of proceeding.  
These affected compliances which our Adversaries have always in their mouths, and boast of upon all occasions, called to my mind that the principal artifice made use of by Pelagius and Caelestius to circumvent Pope Zozymus, was the professing an absolute submission to him, as 
* Annal. Eccles. ad an. 417, & 418.  Baronius observes. But we answered his Eminence that we did not judge of them by their secret intentions, but by what they declared at their first coming in presence of a person of unexceptionable credit, who would attest the same to his Eminence, if it were needful. For when it was proposed that they and we together should by common consent sue for such a Congregation, upon being pressed to it, at last they answered plainly, that if we could obtain it, they would appear before it; but they would first do all they could to hinder it, demanding formally a pure and absolute condemnation of the Propositions without hearing of parties. We added that this proceeding did not surprise us, because we certainly knew they could make good nothing against us, either by speech or writing when it came to be compared with what we had to say on the other side to overthrow it.  
His Eminence said, that we spoke very confidently, and our Adversaries no less; that they had showed as well as we, by the Books which they had made touching this matter, that they could easily defend themselves viva voce and by writing, it being easier to do it this way then by printed works of which all the world must judge.  
We answered that we could not persuade ourselves that his Eminence had perused the Books of both sides; for than he could not but have found that they were reduced by this way to the necessity either of being silent, or alleging nothing more but indefensible things.  
The Cardinal did not assent to this, nor yet altogether gainsay it, but leaving the cause between both, and saying that this was our conceit, ann perhaps others were of another mind, I know not how we fell again upon the principal subject of our discourse; but his Eminence alleged for instances against our demand the Conference of Poissy and Fontainebleau and other ordinary Disputations which produce no fruit.  
We answered that it was not to be wondered, because in those Conferences and ordinary Disputations there were no Judges to determine upon hearing of the parties, which was in the right.  
His Eminence further said, that he wondered at the assurance wherewith both we and our Adversaries spoke of our affairs. We answered that this was a motive to persuade the bringing of us together, that it might be seen who had reason in the allegations advanced in the absence of their adversaries.  
His Eminence said that Conferences served only to exasperate men's minds more, and produce division and noise. We answered, that if any one fell impertinently into heat in these Conferences, it would be to his own prejudice; and besides upon the first appearance of such misbehaviour, a little admonition would settle all again; and we beseeched his Eminence to consider what we had represented to him for the obtaining of a Conference.  
He replied that we might solicit it, and if the Pope appointed so, well. We answered that we solicited not only his Holiness, but likewise his Eminence for it. That we knew the Pope would do nothing therein without his advice, and that his Holiness had so great esteem of him that we doubted not but to which ever side he inclined, he swayed much in the business. Wherhfore we had recourse to him and supplicated him to further our suit with his Holiness.  
The same Evening, my Lords, I went to acquaint the Ambassador with the passages of these three visits to Cardinal Spada, and to beseech him to speak thereof to his Holiness the next day, being that of his audience, and procure one for us, to the end that we might make our Remonstrances to him ourselves. The Ambassador promised me he would. And accordingly the next day when his audience was ended, he told me that he had spoken largely to his Holiness about the passages of the said visits, who was informed thereof before and knew the whole contents of our Memorials. That his Holiness was considering to take order for every thing, but would do it in his own time and in the manner which himself judged fit; that in the mean time we must be quiet and patiented; and get ourselves ready to appear possibly before his Holiness and our Adversaries present when we least expected it. That he was resolved to end this affair with all possible solemnity, and that neither the one side nor the other should return into France before we had been heard as amply as we could desire.  
You see, my Lords, in general what account the Ambassador gave me of the Pope's intentions. He specified nothing precisely concerning the particular of our demands, but said enough to oblige us to be ready for every thing.  
I assured the Ambassador that we should joyfully and quietly attend the effects of his Holiness' good purposes, and considering afterwards how the Pope could be so soon informed of what had passed between Cardinal Spada and us, I discovered that the day before this Cardinal with Ginetti, Pamphilio and Ghiggi stayed an hour with his Holiness after the other Cardinals of the H. Office were gone at the end of their ordinary Assembly, to which Cardinal Spada went immediately as he left us. Hence I doubted not but in that time this Cardinal reported to his Holiness how we stood disposed. I shall add no more to this Letter but the rumour which I was told by one who heard it from our Adversaries, viz. that the abovementioned Cardinals stayed with the Pope to make report to his Holiness of the Affair of the Five Propositions, which were going to be decided, not to say (as the Relator did) condemned; as if this affair were in a condition to be judged, and as if an hours time sufficed to give his Holiness the information necessary for that purpose. A thousand such bruits and more groundless they disperse abroad; and provided they find any intention to dismay S. Augustins' Disciples, and excite some tempest against them they care not what way they take. Indeed we ought by this time to be proof against those Artifices and vain fears. Would God our Adversaries could abstain from the one, and we avoid the other, and that his Mercy may give us all a sincere love of Truth, and a true spirit of Peace: In which wishes I remain,  
My Lords, Your most humble and obedient Servant, De Saint-Amour. Rome 27. Jan. 1653.  
The fairness of this Letter shows how the circumstances of time obliged us to carry ourselves with Cardinal Spada, and to suppress such things as might exasperate him, had it been intercepted. I remember, that to oblige me to appear in the Congregation in their manner, he endeavoured to frighten me, bidding me take heed what I did; and telling me that if we did not appear, things might happen which might cause us to repent it. But I answered him resolutely, yet with respect, that the Pope and their Eminences might do what they thought good; that we were only to answer for the justice of our demands, and they for what they should do thereupon.  
The multitude of things spoken in this visit permitted me not to reply to his example of the Conference of Fontainebleau, whence he inferred the unprofitableness of all Conferences; which would have been easy to do, there being nothing less suitable to the Cardinal's design then the example of that Conference of Fontainebleau, which is known to have been so glorious to the Church, to have conduced to the conversion of so many Heretics, and to have covered with eternal confusion one of the greatest props of Heresy in France.   

CHAP. III.  
How we observed that the Congregation held at Cardinal Spadas house was only a part of the Inquisition. The Audience given there to M. Hallier and his Colleagues: the Letter which I writ thereupon to the Advocate General Brignon. A Conference which I had with the Ambassador touching what had passed between us and Cardinal Spada.  
THE foregoing Chapter contains the principal and most considerable Passages from the time of my being sent for to Cardinal Spada till the departure of the Pope, Jan: 27. Some small particularities remain not unworthy to be related.  
Wednesday the 22. after our second Visit to Cardinal Spada, we went in the evening to advertise Cardinal Ghiggi of what had passed in those two visits, and of the necessity of making the same answer the next day to that Cardinal which we had already given him. At first Cardinal Ghiggi would scarce hear us, but turned the whole carriage of the Affair upon Cardinal Spada who was (he said) Dean of the Congregation; but reiterating the Remonstrances, and beseeching him to consider that we were come to beseech his Eminence to assist the justice of our demands, in case Cardinal Spada made report thereof to the Pope the next day, as we believed he would; he heard what we had to say with more patience, and more courteously received our request that he would be favourable to us.  
On Thursday morning having been so late with Cardinal Spada that before his going to Monte-Cavallo there was no time but for his Mass which was just beginning; and finding, as he conducted us, M. Hallier and his Colleagues staying to attend upon him thither, we thought good to perform that duty to his Eminence as well as they, thereby to oblige him the more to be mindful of us and the justice of the things which we had represented to him.  
As we were going down stairs, he caused his Maistre de Chambre to signify to M. Hallier and me, that we should go in the Coach with him. This Doctor and I sat near together, and talked peaceably: I put on the most free and cheerful countenance I could, that the Cardinal might know that the justice of the things demanded by us, though he were not disposed to grant them, kept us from discontent and anxiousness about the issue.  
In the afternoon we went again to our Advocate to tell him how things stood; after which he said, that according to the ordinary forms there was not the least difficulty in our affair, but he had heard that they would burlare gli uni & gli altri, delude both the one side and the other. Nevertheless he promised to visit their Eminences in our name, to make such instances to them as our affair required, and to endeavour to know the reasons which moved them to baffle us in that manner.  
In the Evening a Laquay of Cardinal Spadas addressed himself to us, to know M. Hallier's lodging, which I told him, and believe he was to give him notice to appear before the Congregation on Monday following.  
Being on Friday amongst the attendants of the Ambassador, I heard some Frenchmen say one to another, that M. Hallier and his Colleagues said the day before that our affair was just going to be dispatched, and that those Doctors believed it would have been ended that day, because the Cardinals Barberin, S. Clement, and Colonna went out of the Congregation of the H. Office before them which were of ours, and these, viz. Spada, Ginetti, Ghiggi and Pamphilio stayed after the rest a whole hour with the Pope; but as I sent word in the abovesaid Letter to the Bishops, it was only about the report which Cardinal Spada made of what had passed between him and us.  
Saturday in the afternoon we visited M. Gueffier and gave him an account of all that had passed in our affair. He was highly pleased that we had had recourse to the Pope himself, and not to the Congregation of the H. Office. And the next morning he came to tell me that he was desirous to write into France that we were in danger of acknowledging in these contests the Congregation of the H. Office, whose jurisdiction and authority is not owned in France. I answered that we were far from it on our part, and I read the abovementioned Letter, which he counselled me to send word for word as it was drawn to the Bishops to whom it was written; and prayed me to inquire in the mean time a little more exactly whether the Congregation was summoned with the Title of the H. Office.  
Monday the 27th. I went to see the General of the Augustins, and recounted to him the last weeks passages in our affair. He was pleased therewith, and prayed me to let him presently set down something thereof in writing, or promise to give him a Narrative, which I willingly did. At my request he showed me the Ticket for appointing the Assembly to be held that afternoon at Cardinal Spadas Palace, and offered to give me a copy of it, taking up his pen for that purpose; but bethinking himself he said It was best that I transcribed it myself for fear of some inconvenience. I did so, and these were the words of it. Die Lunae 27. Januarii erit Congregatio Sancti Officii in Palatio Eminentissimi & Reverendissimi Domini Cardinalis Spadae. Forthwith I went to M. Gueffier, to show him what I had discovered.  
Afterwards I went to see F. Luca Vadingo, and his Ticket was wholly like the foregoing. In the afternoon I sent one to the Gates of our Cardinals to see if there were any left, and bring one to me if it could be done without offence, that I might have an Original written with the hand of the Cursors of the H. Office. That which was fastened at Cardinal Ghiggi's gate was brought to me, containing the same words with the former, and these besides on the backside, Sancti Officii, Eminentissimo & Reverendissimo Domino Cardinali Chisio; and within, before Die Lunae and the rest, Eminentissime & Reverendissime Domine. I acquainted M. Guffier with all this, and he writ that day into France what he thought good; and for my own part, I did my Duty therein eight days after, by a Letter which I writ to M. Brignon, February 3.  
At the Congregation thus summoned this afternoon, H. Hallier and his Colleagues were present; and all that I learned they d●d there was intimated to me the same Evening by a Friend who was purposely at Cardinal Spadas house to see what passed there. He did it in the following Note.  
The Congregation begun about three a clock. Your Adversaries arrived about a quarter of an hour before, and fell into talk with F. Campanella. When the other Qualificators and Cardinals were come, their Emininces retired into their accustomed chamber, the Qualificators into theirs, and the Molinists into that where the fire was. They did not enter where the Cardinals were at the same time as the Qualificators, because F. Palavicini was not yet come. On the contrary they went so towards the Stair-head that one would have thought they had been going away. But meeting that Father upon the stairs, they came back with him, and entered into the Congregation, and there stayed till the Ave Maria. When they came forth, the FF. Tartaglia, Campanella, Celestin and Aversa congratulated them; and so did F. Delbene in ceremony. This is all that I could spy or understand; The Ticket upon Cardinal Spadas gate was like that brought you from Cardinal Ghiggi 's, so that there was no necessity of taking it, the great multitude also being there. I kiss your hands, and cause some good Souls to pray to God for you, that by his assistance you may be victorious on Wednesday over your Adversaries.  
The good Priest who writ this Note believed that we were to appear indeed on Wednesday according to the Offer which he knew Cardinal Spada had made to us, and coming to see us the next day he wondered at our resolution and answer, that we could not appear unless upon the conditions abovementioned; and the more, because he came to tell us from Monsignor Sacrista that he concluded by discourse with Cardinal Ghiggi that it was likely a Bull would be passed for condemning t●e Propositions, yet without hurting S. Augustin or Effectual Grace. This good Priest was a little startled at this report, and blamed us both from himself and Monsignor Sacrista of a little obstinacy. Wherhfore to justify ourselves to the latter, as we did immediately to the former, I went on Tuesday in the afternoon to him, and after some discourse on either part about the business, I told him that we were responsible only for the demands which we had made and still insisted upon; that the H. See was so for what it should do upon those demands; and that it was a strange preposterousness, to see the H. See deaf to the horrible accusations made against the Jesuits, who outraged it by going about to engage it with themselves to dishonour S. Augustin and hfs Doctrine, and that the same H. See was inclined to grant to those Reverend Fathers a condemnation of the Propositions which ●hey had contrived purposely to accomplish the treacheries and outrages which they intended against it.  
The next morning I talked with several persons at la Minerve about the same matter; and after they had heard me, the conclusion of the plurality was, that we had done well, and been mindful of one of their Proverbs, That the Ass which suffers himself to be laden at the beginning of the journey, must carry the same burden all the rest of the way.  
The last visit which I made during this month to the Ambassador was upon Friday the 31. towards Evening, to beseech him to explain to me a little more largely what he had told me the week before at his coming from audience concerning the Pope's good purposes to give us contentment, and to hear us in presence of our Adversaries. The Ambassador fell at first to speak of our Memorials, and did me the favour to repeat to me the particularities which the Pope said to him thereupon, adding that we spoke a little too vehemently against the persons of whom we complained. I answered him that it was necessary to speak so; that nevertheless we did it with great circumspection, weighing all our words, and taking heed whether it would be easy for us to prove what we found ourselves obliged to allege. And to show him more particularly all that we had said therein, I offered him a copy of them which he willingly accepted. As for the principal affair, he told me the Pope intended to have the Votes of the Consultors in writing, examine them himself, caused the Congregation held at Cardinal Spadas house to assemble before his Holiness▪ to dispute the same matters in his own presence which were debated there. That the examination ended, he would appoint public prayers, make a Jubilee, and other such solemnities, before the resolution which he was to take in this so important occasion. That he would also first assemble all the Cardinals with their habits of ceremony, Rochets and otherwise. That himself would appear in his Cap, and clothed with his other Pontifical ornaments. In brief, that the business would be very solemn. But that he (the Ambassador) could not tell me all that he knew, yet we should assuredly see the affair determined with perfect solemnity; that in the mean we ought to trouble ourselves about nothing else, but to get ready to appear before that venerable Assembly, and represent all that we conceived necessary for justification of the cause we defended, possibly too (as he hoped) in presence of our Adversaries, that nothing might be wanting to our contentment or the discussion of the affair. I testified to the Ambassador great satisfaction for the hope he gave me, and told him that course would be admirable and afford great edification to all the Church, provided it were followed and put in execution. He answered that I need not doubt of it, and that sometimes Popes, ill-liked for other reasons, performed extraordinary and important things in which God's protection and direction was manifestly seen, and which obliged such as were otherwise not well pleased with them, to heap all sorts of applauses and benedictions upon them.  
The Ambassador added that nevertheless he must advertise me that many at Rome disapproved our carriage. That it was mere disobedience that we would not be heard, except after our own fashion. That we had no reason to pretend a necessity of hearing us as Parties in the affair; That they would not so much as hear of that word; that there was nothing in the points, which concerned the Faith; and that the aim both of the one side and the other was to seek the truth, and contribute what every one could towards finding it. I answered the Ambassador that the Faith of every one being that which might be dearest to him, there was nothing in which he might be a party with more reason than when that is concerned. That a man assaulted therein, had more reason to defend himself, than his goods, life and honour. That it was the most ordinary matter of contests that could spring up in the Church; and that if in other judgements it was fit to beware of suspect Judges, and to procure the observation of forms, more ought to be taken in such cases wherein a man's faith is in question. The Ambassador replied that the offers of hearing us in the Congregation appointed for our affair made us culpable of our own wrong; and since we would not accept them, perhaps we would wonder that a Cardinal should come to him to make a public Memorandum or Act of those Offers, and of our refusal and disobedience. That consequently thereunto a Decree would come forth; and that for his part, he could not but give way to the Act demanded of him, and write into France how things passed. That verbal processes would be made at Rome of the whole transaction, entered into the Registers of the H. Office, and found there to the end of the world. I answered the Ambassador that the offers made to us of hearing us, were not pure and simple, no more than our refusals; but we were offered to be heard in a secret and private Congregation, in which there was a Secretary and Consultors, our professed Adversaries, in which they were to be judges, and we to be heard severally, instead of obliging our Adversaries to appear there in our presence to answer the accusations which we had to make against them, and also to produce their defences before us and their charges against us. That provided the Act were made not only of the Offer and our Refusal, but also of the circumstances pertaining both to the one and the other, it could never be but to our advantage and glory; but if the circumstances were omitted, and the Act nakedly entered into the Registers, I should endeavour (and I added that I had done it already) not to omit them in the Letters which I was obliged to write into France, to give an account of our negotiations at Rome; and I hoped those Letters would become public and remain monuments to posterity as authentic and permanent, and more credible than the Registers of the H. Office, since they would show their defect, and want of fidelity and exactness. As for the Ambassador, if he were obliged to send word into France concerning the said Offer and Refusal; I hoped from his justice and generosity that he would not deny my most humble request to send the circumstances of them too; as also to consider that 'twas no disobedience to request so just and necessary a thing of the H. See as we demanded, of being heard pro & con by word of mouth and writing in presence of our Adversaries upon the matter in question; especially being obliged thereunto as we were, by the Commission given us by the Bishops who sent us. That if the Pope had at first done us this justice and grace together, as we might have hoped; or rather if the Declaration which he made to us by Cardinal Roma that he had granted the same to us, had been performed, we should not have been constrained to renew our instances so long and so often; but we had been obliged to reiterate the same, and endeavour to surmount all the difficulties laid in our way from time to time; and thus it was not through obstinacy but necessity that we acted in this manner. The Ambassador seeing me so courageously defend our proceeding against his exceptions, told me, He was not always so bad as he appeared, but spoke all this to let me know how things were construed at Rome: and because the Pope and Cardinal Spada were wholly surprised and astonished at the resolute manner wherein I had spoken to his Eminence about this Subject. I answered the Ambassador that in all I said to Cardinal Spada I did not think I had any ways violated the respect which we owed to his Eminence and the H. See. The Ambassador replied that he had nothing to blame me for thereupon; but our downright and flat refusal to appear in the Congregation amazed them, and that they looked upon it as if we intended to give law to them, which they were wont not to receive from but to give to others. I told the Ambassador again that no Judges in any place of the world conceived that the Parties contending before them had the least thought of giving them law, when they humbly demanded the favour to represent to them the merit of the cause upon which they were to pronounce; and besides that this seemed to me a First Principle known by itself, and needing no proof, that the Commission of the Bishops who sent us was to us a Law which we might not transgress. The Ambassador answered me that if those Bishops were themselves personally at Rome, they durst not act there as we acted; because there were means to reduce them, & in case of too much perverseness to depose them. I replied that it was strange that so much difficulty should be made at Rome to grant to us and those Bishops a thing which had been formerly so easily granted to the Dominicans and the Jesuits in a like contest under Clement VIII. and Paul V in the Congregation de Auxiliis. The Ambassador answered me that they knew at Rome what was done in that Congregation, and had the Acts of it. I replied that we had them too, and knew as well as they all that passed therein: which the Ambassador took as too confidently spoken, because it employed that we paralleled ourselves with them. Then he asked me for an example of any Saint, who refused to be present in a Council as we did to be in this Congregation. I instanced in S. chrysostom, whose Festival the Church had celebrated but four days before. Yet he said we should do well to appear there, because if we were heard severally, perhaps it would be a means to oblige them to hear us afterwards in presence of our Adversaries. I answered him that nothing hindered but they might do it at once, if they had any such intention; and that moreover perhaps the case would be the same as with our Writings which we had fairly presented upon a full confidence that the same would be communicated without any difficulty; and yet we could never obtain the communication of them, whatever instance we had made for it. The Ambassador said that perhaps the reason was, because we had demanded it with too great earnestness; that they would communicate them when we demanded it no more, and least thought of it. That they would do things after their own fashion, and not be forced to any thing. That they were the Masters, and would have it appear so.   

CHAP. IU.  
Passages at Paris and elsewhere upon occasion of these Contests, signified to me by Letters during the same month of January.  
AFter the account of what I could learn to have passed at Rome during this first month of the year 1653. I shall present the Reader with some things done and spoken at Paris and elsewhere during the same time, which I understood by the Letters of some Friends, considerable and unexceptionable persons.  
After the Ambassador had told me what M. Hallier showed him in a Letter which he received from the Bishop of Conzerans since nominated to the Archbishopric of Tholouze touching the Frantic sick-man and his uncouth confession, I writ to Paris about it to the Cure of S. Roch and M. de Sainte-Bouve, for satisfaction therein, and that being informed myself, I might give the Ambassador a true account of those two stories; and after he knew how apocryphal and forged they were, (according as I believed them) he might no more take notice of and object such detractions and calumnies to me. M. de Sainte-Beuve sent me an Answer first dated the third of this Month, and here it follows:  
SIR,  
FIrst wishing you the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ for all this year, I shall tell you that we wondered at the pretended Letter of the Archbishop of Tholouse; Whose learning and prudence, in my opinion, destroy the whole Story. What I writ to you concerning him the first of November is very certain; MM. Queras, le Nain, and de la Militiere will make it good when it shall be necessary: nevertheless for more sureness I will get him to speak by his most intimate Friend; I will know whether he is changed, or whether he is imposed upon, and send you word by the next return. As for M. Hallier I cannot but tremble to see the terrible judgements of God upon him, and the loss of his reputation, which began in the Clergy, in the Assembly whereof he was the Promoter, which continued in his Syndicship of our Faculty, and which he is going to complete at Rome. Would to God it might be with the edification of his Soul: but when I consider that he bids war to Truth, and that his negotiation tends only to the persecution of persons of whose probity be is fully convined, I confess I am as it were besides myself, and find thereby what it is to forsake God. Pray to him, I beseech you, that he do not abandon me to the desires of my own heart, but make me to know his Truths, and live according to them. I am, etc.  
Eight days after this Letter, the said Sieure de saint Beuve writ me another, which served to clear to me what he had told me in the preceding concerning the new Archbishop of Tholouse, and contained other particular things remarkable, enough to be inserted in this Journal.  
He sent me word, That our Friends at Paris were anxious about what was doing at Rome, because they heard that the Congregations were held very frequently, and we not admitted to audience; that we ourselves knew not their proceed; but it was noised at Paris that three Propositions were already examined and condemned. He wished that we would present to the Congregation which acted, a request like the first Memorial delivered to the Pope, and therein declare that the Propositions UT JACENT were not ours, that we always condemned them in the bad sense which they included, and never pretended to defend them in any other sense but that of the necessity of Effectual Grace; and he believed that this would fully secure us. He was not troubled for their being condemned, provided that by the same Bull of their condemnation it was declared that no prejudice was meant thereby to the doctrine of Effectual Grace; which he judged to be in effect a gaining of the Cause for us. He deplored the injustice of the whole proceedure observed at this time against S. Augustine's Disciples, against whom every particular interest was made to pass for a point of Doctrine; and amongst others in the business of Caen, which being begun by a very strange and irregular thing which he observ●d, namely, by a Privyseal Letter composed by F. Paulin a Jesuit, and the King's Confessor, in which a Swordman was appointed to watch over the Doctrine of a Professor of Divinity, had many sequels of the same strain. He further took notice of several persecutions and calumnies raise d against us, which the Authors cried up for convictions of our evil doctrine; but he added that the main and most important thing was, that he and our other Friends stuck all to the Memorial which we had presented to the Pope; that if it pleased him to distinguish the senses of the captious Propositions, they would disapprove those which his Holiness disapproved, and approve those he approved, which they knew well to be that of Effectual Grace. And as for the Argument which the Archbishop of Tholouse 's Letter supplied, he esteemed it as ridiculous as any other; and added that this Prelate ingenuously confessed that the Letter was his; that he writ it to M. Hallier whom he made use of at Rome for the obtaining of his Bulls: that he sent word of things as they were reported to him; but he positively denied that he had empowered him by that Letter or any other to prosecute at Rome any condemnation of the Propositions framed by M. Cornet, etc.  
I do not wholly relate what M. the Saint Beuve said of the Archbishop of Tholouse touching the sick person of the Parish of S. Roch, referring the Reader for further knowledge of the truth to what the Cure of that Parish writ to me himself the same Tenth of January. His Letter was in these words.  
God give you the good day and good year which you sent to me from Rome beforehand, and which arrived in time at Paris. As for the main business of yours, I knew nothing, before I received it, of the two cases said at Rome to have happened in my Parish. Upon inquiry touching the sick man, I have found that it is true that about two or three months ago I administered to a certain man desperately sick, and heard the general confession which he made with bitterness and fervency; and for fruits worthy of repentonce, he faithfully performed what I appointed him. He received also the most holy Viaticum in presence of sundry persons of condition and virtue. One and the other Sacrament being received by him with great fervency and piety, and great hope in God's mercy and grace, as well of amending if he lived, as of his salvation and life eternal if he died. Now God hath prevented him in his mercies, and I took my time well; for the deliration began already when he received the Sacrament; but afterwards he was seized with so great and furious a delirium, that for three weeks or a month he was not capable of any ratiocination; and not only wanted judgement and the use of reason, but being of a hot and boiling temper he uttered all sorts of words, Blasphemies and Oaths (though when in health no swearer at all) and many times despairingly said, that he was damned, and that there was no God for him, and other such language to which a furious Raving in a hot temper is apt to lead a sick man. During this time the Father, Reader of the Jacobines of S. Honore visited him, and 'tis true that he answered him as he did every body else, That he was damned, and other like; but that he formally answered him according to the three Questions contained in yours, namely, 1. That he did not believe that he had grace. 2. That he had not so much as the grace of Prayer. 3. That he could not persuade himself that he was one of those for whom Jesus Christ died; this, under correction, is very false; and I am certain that had he been learned (as he was not) or been of these Opinions and Doctrines concerning Grace, he was not then in a condition to answer about them so distinctly and formally; and should he have answered so, yet the disorder and despair of his answers ought not to be attributed to the Questions of Grace, but purely to his great and high Delirium. Nor do I think that the abovesaid Father so propounded those three points to him; if he did, 'twas very imprudently done, considering the sick-man's condition.  
As for the second Case touching the Woman who in Confession said Grace had failed her thrice, instead of saying she had sinned thrice; it did not happen in my Parish; but yesterday two Jacobines told me they heard that it was in the Confessional of a Sub-penitentiary they knew not whom. So that 'tis but a hear-say; and I will inquire more largely of this Case, and of the first too. I forgot to tell you that the abovesaid sick-person is returned to his right judgement and perfect health, and lately came to thank me for my ministering to him; and that he never seemed to me to adhere to those three or other opinions. I will look into the business, and write of it to you more largely. When he visited me, he told me that he remembered nothing at all of what passed, and is reported to have been spoken or done to him by during his delirium.  
Though the Bishops who signed the Letter of M. de Vabres, did it only for particular Engagements, and without any pubick deliberation of the Clergy, yet their great number made M. Hallier and his Colleagues take the confidence to speak and act at Rome, as if they had been sent by the whole body of the Clergy of France. But to overthrow this falsehood and presumption when occasion presented itself, wherein we might reproach them with it, we procured an authentic piece at hand to convince them. The Abbot of Valcroissant writ a Letter touching this matter to the Abbot of Marmiesse, who was then Agent General of the Clergy, and returned him this answer.  
SIR,  
I Received the Letter which you did me the honour to write to me, and sought in our deliberations of the Clergy whether there were any ground for the business concerning which you writ to me. The Clergy of France hath not deputed any Doctor to Rome about the Questions which are agitated there. 'Tis true, sundry Prelates no doubt out of a Principle of Charity, writ some time ago a Letter to his Holiness; but it was as a particular thing, and no act of a formed Assembly. This, Sir, is all the satisfaction I can give to your questions. Be pleased to believe me always perfectly,  
SIR, Your most humble and faithful Servant, The Abbot of Marmiesse, Agent General of the Clergy.  
I have not yet set down one circumstance of the reasons which the Pope told me he had to hasten to pronounce judgement upon the Propositions, in the audience which I had of him, July 9 1652. namely, by reason of the Divisions which they excited everywhere, he having lately been advertised that they began to excite some in Poland. I reserved it for this place, that I might at once clear it. For some time after, being certified that the jesuites had employed not only the recommendation and Letters which they had obtained for this end from the Emperor, the Kings of France and Spain, but also from the King of Poland: I writ thereupon to M. Fleury, the Queen of Poland's Confessor, from whom I received the following Answer.  
From Grodna in Lituania, January 17, 1653. SIR,  
I Read to the Queen the Contents of your Letter of the last of November. She was amazed when she heard that you were assured that the King of Poland had written in favour of the Fathers, and to press the conclusion of our affair, and that his Majesty feared that doctrine might spread in his Kingdom. Two days after, the Queen told me in presence of her first Physician, a good Friend of the Fathers, that he had spoken to the King about it, and the King affirmed that he had not written. He said indeed that he had been much pressed to do it, and that within three or four days; but always refused to write, and would leave the cause to be judged without meddling in it; that it was not an affair for a King but for the H. See and the Pope. This, Sir, I thought good to write to you, that you may be confirmed in the knowledge you have otherwise, that the good Fathers employ other weapons than Study and Prayer for advancing their designs, and for the judgement of an Affair wholly Ecclesiastical, etc.  
'Tis clear by this Letter, that the King of Poland had not written about this matter. Yet the assurances given me at Rome of the receipt of his Letters there, were very express; and that which the Pope himself said to me, was a very evident confirmation of it; So that it seems doubtful whether amongst the Arms made use of by the good Fathers to promote their designs, there was not a supposititious Letter of the King of Poland, as there had been a False Censure of the Faculty of Divinity of Paris.  
Their false Deputy, F. Mulard, was at Chartres the same Month; where upon the Eye of the King he visited M. Feron Doctor of the Society of Sorbonne and Abbot of S. Laumer, and told him that he was come from Rome, and should return thither suddenly with good tackle against the Thomists. That the H. F. would shortly pronounce upon the controverted Propositions, and according to all probability in favour of the Molinists. This notice was given by the said Sieur Peron the next day in a Letter to an intimate Friend of his, Doctor of Sorbonue.  
M. Brousse sent me word by one of the 24th. That a Friend of his, a considerable Officer of the Queen's, told him that he was present on Monday before, when the Bishop of S. Malo told her Majesty (no doubt upon the Letters which he had received from M. Hallier) that three of the Propositions were already condemned, and the rest would be so suddenly. That these reports were dispersed abroad, and occasioned many persons of Quality to resort to him for information of the truth.  
In fine, I learned by the Letters of this Month, that as Orders were given, and extraordinary endeavours used to pluck M. Cordon out of the College of Montaigu, and M. Monassier out of his Chair of Divinity in the University of Caën; so the like had been employed to hinder two Fathers of the Oratory from preaching are Paris in the two Churches where they were retained. That M. Argentier went to the Marguilliers of S. Bennet, to tell them from the Queen that her Majesty would not have F. Des Mares preach there, and that a Letter under the Privy-Seal was sent from the King to F. le Boulx to forbid him coming to Paris where he was also to preach in another Church.   

CHAP. V.  
Containing what passed in the first days of February, particularly concerning a Memorial prepared by the General of the Augustine's touching the Five Propositions. Of a Letter which we writ to our Bishops, informing them that the Congregation appointed for us by the Pope took the style of the Congregation of the H. Office. And of a Writing of M. Halliers which came by chance to my hands.  
THe first of February I visited Cardinal Altieri, who was about to return me the Book of Prevailing Grace which we had lent him, and the first Chapter of our Writing concerning S. Augustin's authority, which he had caused to be transcribed, being to return to his Bishopric the Monday following. He told me that he thought the Pope had intended to add him to our Congregation, but for certain respects, because he must have added others too, it was not done; and that his Holiness was willing that when he took his leave again in the last Consistory, their long Discourse should make the world believe that they had many affairs; but they had none at all, and all that they said was only familiar and indifferent things. I know not whether I was mistaken in my suspicion that the cause of the Pope's declining to add this Cardinal to the Congregation was his having opened his mind too freely to others about the necessity and justice of hearing the Parties as we demanded, and seriously sifting the whole matter de Auxiliis, before any thing could be reasonably pronounced upon the Propositions. But so it was, we were deprived of his protection, and bore his absence with the same submission to God's good pleasure which we used in all other difficulties opposite to our desires of seeing his Truth triumph over all those who assaulted and oppressed it so unworthily.  
The same morning I went to la Minerve, where I learned that F. Barellier and F. Reginald went the day before to the Ambassador by their Genera'ls order, to beseech him to allow them to intervene in the affair of the Propositions, against the Jesuits; and that the Ambassador answered them that their intervention would be no wise displeasing to the King, whose whole interest in the affair was to have it decided with the greatest diligence possible.  
Sunday, Feb. 2. the day of the Purification, having first accompanied the Ambassador to the Pope's Chapel, and according to my weak measure performed the duties of piety required by that Festival, I went to our Advocate who told me that being with Cardinal Spada at the end of a Congregation held at his House, and speaking to him about our affair, his Eminence told him strange things cose stupende; which yet our Advocate did not explain to me exactly. That as for our demands, the Cardinal said the Pope had given order to treat this affair in the manner wherein they acted, and till his Holiness appointed otherwise they could not alter it. That it was not in their power, but if we would obtain more than was hitherto done, we must address to the Pope. Touching the persons against whom we excepted, our Advocate told me further that we could not accomplish our desire; that he advised us to desist from it, otherwise we should make so many persons our Enemies to no purpose. That in conclusion he asked the Cardinal how the affair stood then in the Congregation; who answered him that it was under examination whether the Propositions were any of those which were condemned by the Bull of Pius V That in case they were not, we had reason; if they were, than our Adversaries had. That nevertheless after it were found that they were not, the next Question would be, whether they were true in themselves or no, which was a hard thing to judge, and therefore the Congregations were frequent. That Si vorrebbe far qualche cosa, they were desirous to do something considerable; but there was no great likelihood of bringing it about; they met with great difficulties; that after the making of a Decision, it was not known whether they who were condemned by it would acquiesce in the Condemnation. In summa, in a word, 'twas an affair likely to last to the end of the world, fin alla fine del mondo. Giesù my ha' detto grancose, che pareva quando parlava a gli altri che le loro Signory fossero tanti demonii. & quando parlava a loro che gli altri fossero tante bestie: Jesus (said our Advocate ending his Discourse) the Cardinal spoke strange things; he said when he talked with your Adversaries, he seemed to hear them say that you were very Devils; and when he talked with you, that your Adversaries were wild Beasts.  
Tuesday Feb. 4. in the morning two Augustine's visited us from their General; to desire us to appear in the Congregation, though it were for no more but to make the Declarations upon the Propositions which he had often heard us make in visits and particular meetings. We professed to these Farhers that we wished nothing else but an occasion of making those and other Declarations with all possible solemnity; but to appear before the Congregation whilst it acted as it did, and the persons excepted against by us were amongst the Consultors, was a thing whereunto it was impossible for us to condescend and conform. When these Fathers left us, I went to Mass at la Trinita del Monte, where I met M. Gueffier, who told me he had blamed the Doctors our Adversaries for appearing and being heard in Cardinal Spadas Congregation the last week.  
Wednesday the 5th. I went to see the General of the Augustine's, who repeated his desire of our appearing in the Congregation, Though it were (said he) only to testify your submission. That it would be expedient that we spoke all three there; that one of us represented perhaps the occasion of our undertaking this journey; that another laid open the truth of the Propositions in the sense wherein we maintained them▪ and that the third tefuted the Objections which could be brought against them. That above all it would be requisite that we took heed of saying any thing in defence of Jansenius; and as for the Bull issued against him, that we professed that we made no scruple to receive it.  
I thanked him for his affection, and represented to him some of the Reasons which kept us from complying with his desires. He redoubled his instances; I repeated my excuses, and Cardinal Roma's Brother supervening ended our Conference.  
Thursday the 6th. a friend of ours advertised us that F. Luca Vadingo told him that we should undoubtedly be heard; but it were good that some Doctors from Flanders came to Rome for the interests of Jansenius, since we declared that we would not meddle with his defence.  
Friday the 7th. being the day of the Ambassador's usual audience, when he returned from it, I went to him, to see, whether he would inform us of any thing touching the purpose which he said the Pope had to hear us solemnly; but he told me, he had other things to extricate. And in the afternoon being at S. Peter's Church, I was witness of Cardinal Corrado's piety whom I saw at Prayers above an hour and a quarter all alone upon his knees behind a pillar, without train.  
Saturday the 8th. I was informed that in Cardinal Spadas Congregations F. Palavicini being several times in dispute with some Consultors who validly and learnedly confuted what he alleged, M. Albizzi, to hinder the like inconveniences, at length brought an Order of the Pope that none of them should speak but in his rank, and measure his discourse by an half-hour glass which was introduced for that purpose.  
The same day I saw the draught of a Memorial which the General of the Augustin's was resolved to present to the Pope upon the fitst favourable occasion; in which he beseeched his Holiness to consider, 1. That the Propositions were contrived purposely to involve in their condemnation the total ruin of S. Augustine's doctrine under the name of that of Jansenius, which was so decried. 2. That their Authors had comprised in them the whole matter of Grace. 3. That they had propounded them in general without the name of any Author, in hope that they would be speedily condemned. 4. That finding that they could not make them so bade but they would appear capable of some Orthodox sense, they afterwards attributed them to Jansenius, that at length they might be condemned under that pretext. 5. That being considered even with reference to that Author, they included the sound Catholic doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Thomas, whereof Jansenius made profession. I shall here insert the Copy of the said Memorial, having been permitted to transcribe it.  
Beatissime Pater,  
EX obsequio in auctoritatem hujus sedis ac debito officii mei pro tuenda doctrina S. Augustini quam tuetur S. Thomas & ejus schola, humiliter supplico, ut advertat, quòd sub his quinque Propositionibus latet eversio totius doctrinae ejusdem S. P. Augustini; quem cum diserte ut Doctorem Ecclesiae adversarii impugnare non possent, pretextu doctrinae Jansenianae tam invisae eum omnino impetere cogitarunt. In illis enim quinque Propositionibus, datâ operâ, & magno artificio, & majori dolo, comprehensa est tota materia de Auxiliis, de possibilitate praeceptorum, de gratia sufficienti & efficaci, de libertate liberi arbitrii; quae quatuor capita totam hanc materiam comprehendunt. E primò quidem Propositiones in abstracto proposuerunt, existimantes quòd statim proscriberentur.  adverterant non posse per se Censuram damnabilem habere, quia eas ita confingere non potuerunt quin bonus aliquis appareret earum sensus, easdem Propositiones retulerunt relatiuè ad doctrinam Jansenii, ut saltem hoc titulo condemnarentur. Caeterum & cum hoc quoque respectu involvitur doctrina sacra & Catholica ejusdem & S. Augustini & S. Thomae quam Jansenius profitetur. Quare, etc.  
Moreovet the same day I learned that they who most ardently wished the condemnation of the Propositions began to confess that they were not of the number of those which were condemned by the Bull of Pius V. but were found in a greater number of those which this Pope had collected to condemn, and were left behind, yet being of the same quality with those which were condemned, they deserved the like condemnation.  
Sunday the 9th. I went to the Subbibliothecary at the end of his grand Mass, to tell him that I heard that Cardinal Ghiggi had said that the Propositions might be condemned without touching S. Augustine or Grace Effectual by itself; and to beseech him to advertise his Eminence of it, that he might take heed what wrong this report might do to his reputation. He told me he would seek occasion to speak to him about it; but in the mean time he advised us to frame a handsome Memoral, to represent to the Pope, that the usage of the Church had been in such Cases as this to assemble Councils either General or Provincial; and that it was free for all the Faithful to enter into such Councils, and represent to the Church so assembled what every one thought fit to represent in defence of the Catholic Faith. That the Tribunal of the H. Office was established for the punishment of Criminals who subverted the Maxims of the Faith, but not to make Canons and Decisions. This Consideration of the Tribunal of the H. Office, the style whereof was transferred to our Congregation, troubled us much, and obliged us to write another Letter upon the tenth of this Month to our Bishops, and give them account of some particulars touching the said Congregation, not signified to them by my Letter of the 27th. of January, and especially to know of them what we should do, if all the difficulties we had made of appearing were redressed, and there were only this that hindered us. The Letter follows:  
My Lords,  
HAving reviewed the Letter which was written to you a fortnight since concerning the offer made us by Cardinal Spada to appear, if we would, in the Coogregation held at his Palace, and our answer thereunto; we found it not so exact but there remain some circumstances which deserve to be signified to you.  
Though we had refused to appear for the reasons therein mentioned to you, yet we understood a day or two after, that it was appointed to be held on Monday, and that M. Hallier, Lagault and Joysel were expected to be there alone without Adversaries. We were told that the Tickets customarily fixed upon the Gares of the Cardinals belonging to it, run thus, Eminentissime & Reverendissime Domine, Die Lunae 27. Januarii, 1653. erit Congregatio S. Officii in Palatio Eminentissimi & Reverendissimi Domini Cardinalis Spadae, horâ 21. And upon ●nquiry we found it to be so. But having thereby the more curiosity to know whether the abovesaid Doctors appeared there; we sent a man at the time appointed to see them enter in case they should come thither; which accordingly they did. Afterwards we understood a remarkable observation made of their deportment whilst they were in the house.  
The Cardinals were in the usual Chamber of their retirement expecting till all their Eminences were come, the Consultors in another, and M. Hallier with his Colleagues in a third. When all their Eminences were arrived, they went into the Chamber where the Consultors were, to begin the Congregation. F. Palavicini the Jesuit was no● yet come, and his absence probably was the cause of deferring the admission of those Doctors. For there passed a considerable time, about a quarter of an hour, during which they who were without the place of the Assembly, wondered at the delay of introducing these Gentlemen. Themselves showed some signs of impatience by their carriage; but at length it was perfectly visible; for they left the Chamber where they were, being near the place of the Assembly; they passed into the Out-room, went down the stairs, so that it could not be known whether they were going away in good earnest or not. But F. Palavicini being come, and meeting them upon the stairs, the cause of their impatience was clearly known. For after such a salutation as uses to be between persons of perfect correspondence, the Doctors turned short and came up again with that Father; and assoon as they were returned to the place where they were at first, they were all four introduced into the Assembly.  
What several reflections were made hereupon, my Lords, is not needful to tell you, but we cannot omit the intimate correspondence of these Doctors with that Father. 'Tis believed their introducing was not deferred till that Father's coming without some very particular reason. Nor that it would have been so, had any other Consultor than he been absent; since at other times immediately upon the arrival of the Cardinals, the Congregation gins, though some other Person of the Congregation be not come; and especially this, which we are told is sometimes held in the absence of one of their Eminences.  
Another thing which a little amazed us, is, that these Doctors appeared there, though the Congregation taking the Title of the H. Office, is a Jurisdiction, however venerable in the places where it it is received, not owned in France, and consequently to which Frenchmen cannot have recourse about an affair risen in France, and which concerns in some manner the whole Gallicane Church. As for ourselves, my Lords, had we had no other consideration but this, to hinder us from appearing, this would have greatly troubled us, and we durst not have done it without first consulting the Ambassador to know whether neither the King nor his Estate, nor the Gallicane Church would be prejudiced thereby. Perhaps these Doctors enquired thus about it; but conceiving they did not, we beseech you, my Lords, to resolve us what we shall do in a like case, namely, supposing all the other difficulties which have hitherto kept us from entering into that Congregation, were removed, and there remained no more but this.  
We conceive those others will not be redressed so suddenly but we may have your answer hereupon beforehand. But to the end you may judge thereof with more certainty, we think ourselves obliged to represent to you in few words some circumstances on either side, which you cannot comprehend there so well as we do here.  
What may be said to induce us to appear in this Congregation, though under the title of the H. Office, is, that though the affair be handled there, yet perhaps no mention will be made thereof in the Pope's Constitution, but it will be drawn in form of a Brief or ordinary Bull. 2. That the Pope being to be assisted with information in this affair, his Holiness is free to take whom he please for that purpose. That had he appointed but three persons only, to be informed by us concerning what we had to represent to his Holiness, he relying upon those persons, we should have had nothing to say. Wherefore his Holiness having chosen Cardinals the most employed and versed in matters of Doctrine, and added to them thirty of the most experienced Divines in Rome, we ought to be satisfied with this establishment. 3. That though all the Cardinals designed for our Congregation, and most of the Divines employed in it, are Officers of the H. Office, yet some are not, and so it cannot absolutely be said to be that of the H. Office. 4. That the affair is not treated nor reported, at least hitherto, in the general Assembly of the H. Office.  
Now to this it may be answered, That whoever is engaged in the information of an affair, contributes very much to the judgement of it, and the Registers of the H. Office will without fail very authentically set forth that the whole procedure of this affair was before its Tribunal; and so its Jurisdiction will be acknowledged by us, and by you also, my Lords, in this so important affair, and that without contradiction; and supposing (as is very uncertain) the Brief and Bull speak not at all of that Tribunal, yet Monuments will be left to Posterity in what manner we acted in this Cause. 2. That the Pope being the Common Father of all the Faithful, may well comply with what the Customs of those who have recourse to him will admit; and there are other Cardinals, Divines and Bishops in great number in Italy, whom he may summon hither to make a Congregation somewhat solemn and more proportionable to the affair than this of which we speak is hitherto. 3. That no Cardinal is of this Congregation but is of the H. Office. That the Secretary of the Congregation is the Assessor of the H. Office. That of the thirty Divines chosen for it at first, only two not are of the H. Office, namely the General of the Augustin's and F. Aversa; and there is great reason to doubt, whether by being chosen for this Congregation, they be not eo ipso made Qualificators of the H. Office; which may be said also of the two other Divines substituted since in stead of the two Qualificators of the H. Office, who would not be present at these Assemblies. To which may be added, my Lords, that although no report be made of this affair to the General Congregation of the H. Office, yet the whole conduct is as that of the H. Office, the manner of proceeding secret; excommunication to whosoever shall tell the least word of what is done in those Assemblies; all the Consultors having no other suffrage touching what is treated there, but a deliberative one; and all the rest generally according to the order and manner of the H. Office; which was also one reason urged by Cardinal Spada in answer to our instances for a contradictory Conference, as we signified to you by our last. As for the reasons, my Lords, on either side relating to the substance of the thing which we propound to you, you know them better than ourselves, and sufficiently see the consequences which can be foreseen on the one side and the other. Wherefore we shall content ourselves with having mentioned these to you, and we believe they will suffice to clear the thing perfectly to you about which we consult you, and we beseech you most earnestly to send us your resolution with all speed.  
Other things remained to tell you, my Lords, concerning the choice of the Consultors, and the proceeding hitherto held in this affair; but because some of them are such that we need further light before we can speak of them with assurance and plainness, we shall defer them till we be better informed, and can acquaint you with them all, contenting ourselves for the present to have spoken to you of these. We are,  
My Lords, Your most humble and obedient Servants, 

De la Lane, Abbot of Valcroissant.  
De Saint-Amour.  
Angran.   Rome, Feb. 10. 1653.  
But when I reflect upon this Letter, I must confess, that how displeasing soever it was that an affair referred to the Pope by Bishops of France should be examined in the Inquisition, a Tribunal not owned in France; nevertheless it would have been an advantage to us, to have had it discussed in the full Congregation of the Inquisition, and not in this part, which M. Albizzi had cunningly culled, by removing those whom he thought likely to be contrary to his designs. For had it been examined before the proper Judges of that Congregation both Cardinals and Divines, without affecting or excluding any, 'tis credible things would have passed after another sort. Cardinal S. Clement alone, who had right to assist therein, and was excluded by this attificial choice, would have so cleared things, that he would have overthrown all the designs of the Molinists, and procured a distinction of the senses of the Propositions, which was all that we desired. Besides, there was amongst the Consultors the F. Abbot Hilarion; the Abbot of S. Peter in vinculis, since Archbishop of Manfredonio; F. Vbaldino General of the Sommasques; F. Bordone of the Order of S. Francis; the General of the Dominicans, and another Dominican, Companion of the Commissary of the H. Office; Monsignor Paolucci, the Procurator General of the Augustine's, and possibly two or three more, all excellent Divines, and very zealous for S. Augustine's doctrine, and Members of this Tribunal, who being joined to those of the Consultors who were favourable to us, would have been stronger as well in number, as they were incomparably in Learning. And the reason alleged for excluding the Dominicans particularly, and Cardinal S. Clement, as if they would have been partial in the business was the worst pretext in the world; since M. Hallier and all the rest protested daily that the Dominicans had interest therein, and that the points in contest were such upon which they fully agreed with the Jesuits.  
Tuesday the 11th▪ a New Writing against the Propositions fell into our hands; it was of a hand like that of the others, whereof we knew M. Hallier and his Colleagues were the Distributers. We forthwith took a Copy of it, that we might return it without delay to the person who did us the favour to communicate it to us.  
In this Writing, after the Propositions in the front, they attributed the same to Jansenius, citing him in this manner.  
(1.) A pag. Indicii facti 19 ad 22. (2.) à 33 ad 50. (3.) à 1 ad 18. (4.) in Hist. Haer. Pelag. & Semip. (5.) à pag. 59 ad 63.  
The false censure of the Sorbonne was cited in this manner: Has Propositiones Sorbona sequenti Censura notavit.  
The first Proposition was branded as Calvinistical, and as condemned by the Sorbonne in Luther. Damnavit in Luthero primam Propositionem ut impiam, Blasphemam & Haereticam.  
Primam Propositionem (said the Writing further) Jansenistae cum Calvino communem habent. It attributed to Jansenius that ridiculous fiction of Necessitating Grace. Intenditur (said this Writing) hac Propositione, ac imprimis scilicet, hominem in eo statu collocare, in quo si peccat, necessario peccet, quia defectu gratiae non peccare non potest; si verò bene agit, necessariò bene agit, quia GRATIA ILLUM AD AGENDUM NECESSITAT. Calvinus hoc etiam dixit. Propterea rectè concludit hominem libero arbitrio career. Nam revera si homo ex necessitate agit, liberè non agit.  
Thus they securely vented Calumnies in private Writings, and further affirmed this Falsehood upon the fourth Proposition in these words:  
Porrò eo fine hanc Propositionem adstruunt Jansenistae, ut consequenter ad sua Principia loquantur, ut gratiam sufficientem tollant; ut qui bene agit, bene agere necessario dicatur, cum gratiae resistere nequeat.  
And upon the fifth; Hanc Propositionem adstruunt, ut consequenter loquantur. Si enim Christus pro omnibus mortuus non est; Ergo nullam gratiam illis confert, saltum in ordine ad salutem, qui damnantur. Ergo necessariò peccant. Ergo praecepta Dei illis impossibilia.  
About the same time accidentally came to my hands another Writing upon the Propositions somewhat longer than the former, which tended only to show that they who prosecuted the condemnation of them were not contrary to the Thomists.  
It was an abridgement of a longer Writing mentioned above to have been dispersed at Rome, and since printed at Paris, viz. Jansenius à Thomistis damnatus. Only there was added divers passages of S. Thomas which the Dominicans confuted and endeavoured to present the said Confutation to the Pope, with the other Writings which his Holiness would not hear of. 'Tis observable that it determined not any sense of the Propositions, nor attributed them to Jansenius, but handled them in abstracto. It cited sundry passages of S. Thomas and the Thomists, to show that the Commandments are not impossible. That there is a Sufficient Grace in the sense of the Thomists; That Sufficient Grace is resistible; That the Will is not necessitated by Effectual Grace. None of which things were ever disputed in France, but thought fit by these Gentlemen to be brought into question at Rome, thus making an imaginary dispute and Chimerical adversaries; which was very easy for them to do, because they spoke alone, and writ what they pleased, without our knowing any thing of it when they dispersed these Writings, or being able to refute them had we known it, their subtlety in this affair having always been so to carry it, that they might be free to calumniate as much as they would, and not be subject to conviction. But the advantage to be drawn nevertheless from this proceeding, is this, that it discovers that the doctrine of Effectual Grace is so established in the Church and particularly at Rome, that they who impugned it in France were obliged to declare by all ways at Rome that they meant not to touch it; and being they opposed the Propositionly by Citations of the Thomists who are Defenders of Effectual Grace, 'tis a manifest proof, all those which this History affords of the condemnation which they obtained of them, does no prejudice to that Grace, as we have a hundred times protested.  
These false accusations show what necessity there was of a contradictory Conference, in which the Calumnies wherewith the minds of the Cardinals were prepossessed would have been not only laid open but destroyed in a moment. For to do it we needed to say no more, but that we taught nothing of all that which M. Hallier imputed to us; that we did not reject all Sufficient Grace, but only that of Molina; that we did not hold that Effectual necessitates but only that it infallibly causes to act; that men have a power to resist it, though it is not resisted: And so of the rest. This declaration alone would have stopped their mouths, and reduced the Dispute to precise terms, by obliging them to confess that either the Question was about nothing, or else designed against Effectual Grace.   

CHAP. VI  
Of the Conference, Feb. 14. between M. Hallier and his Colleagues on the one part with the General of the Dominicans, and some principal Fathers of his Order on the other.  
M. Hallier and his Colleagues having understood the visit which the Father Barelier & Reginald made to the Ambassador to entreat him that the King would allow the resolution of their Order to intervene in this affair, conceived themselves obliged touse all their endeavours to hinder it. For which end they repaired to the General on Tuesday, Feb. 11. Some days before we had visited him, and speaking of the design of all those who prosecuted the Propositions to destroy the Doctrine of Effectual Gtace by their condemnation, we thought fit to give him the proofs thereof in a short Writing, wherein we laid open their sentiments and designs; and accordingly, not thinking of any thing else we went to carry it to him upon February 14. But coming to la Minerve, F. Reginald met us, and told us that M. Hallier and his Colleagues were with the General, and it would be well that we delivered our Writing to him whilst those Doctors were there. We did so, and waited till their departure to speak with the General, and know what was the subject of their Visit. He received us but coldly, and told us that those Doctors had visited him in compliment; and that as for the Paper which we caused to be given him whilst they were there, he had not yet seen what it was. Whereupon we gave him an account of it, and read it to him.  
The next day we were informed that M. Hallier and his Colleagues had not visited the General of the Dominicans only in compliment, as he civilly told us, but to protest to him that he had no design to prejudice the Doctrine of Grace Effectual by itself, which his Order professed to defend; to convince him of which, they were ready to subscribe the Five Propositions in the sense of such Effect●… Grace, provided on the other side he and the 〈…〉 his Order would concur and contribute toged 〈…〉 them to the condemnation of the same Pr●…tions as they were contrary to the doctrine ●… sufficient Grace. That for this purpose he de●… speedy Conference in his presence with some principal Fathers of his Order, and they should all find how they (Hallier and his Colleagues) held the same Sentiments with the School of S. Thomas. Only they desired that F. Nolano and Reginald might not be of this Conference; because they were too hot upon this matter, and things would be more easily accommoded if they were not. We understand also that the General accepted this Offer, but would not yield to the exclusion of the two said Fathers; whereupon M. Hallier and his Colleagues at length consented. That the same Evening the General acquainted the Fathers of his Order with all this, and ordered F. Reginald to draw up the Five Propositions distinctly, in the sense of Effectual Grace, intending to cause M. Hallier and his Colleagues to subscribe them before entering into any other accord with them.  
The same morning M. the Abbot Viol told me that M. Joysel was impatient to return, and expected a condemnation of the Propositions the second week of Lent; that he had in a friendly and pleasant way blamed M. Joysel for daring to come to Rome about this affair, being so little versed in the matter in question; that he could not understand how so many other props of the Party came to rely upon him; and that M. Joysel ingenuously answered, that who had a mind to come, came, but of his own accord, and without procuration from Bishops or any body. I told the Abbot, that I was glad to understand this particularity. Whereupon he went about to retract, and excuse M. Joysel, saying that perhaps they had received procurations since he was at Rome. But I answered him that it was too late to disguise what he had spoken so plainly.  
Thursday the 13th. I understood that besides what is above related, M. Hallier and his Colleagues offered the General to confer not only with his Fathers, but also with us; and that the General answered that being that the Pope and Cardinals would not yield to a disputation between us, he was loath to suffer one before himself, or to be the Mediator of it. That nevertheless the General purposed to speak to the Pope the next day, and tell him what had passed between him and M. Hallier and his Colleagues; and that if his Holiness thought good that he should set them and us to dispute together, to try whether we could close, he should do it willingly, and account himself happy in being able to contribute to our reconciliation. I desired him who gave me this intelligence to pray the General not to make any such motion to the Pope, because we had no reconciliation of Doctrine to make with them; and that as for Conferences, it was more expedient to make them in a full Congregation. After I was returned home, and given account hereof to my Colleagues, they approved my answer.  
In the afternoon we went to the General, and assured him again of their design who persecuted the Propositions, to make use of their condemnation against Effectual Grace and S. Augustin; of which we gave him new proofs; and he promised us to beware of suffering himself to be diverted by M. Hallier and his Colleagues from the Capital point of Effectual Grace which they promised him to subscribe, being that alone for which himself and we were concerned. After our departure, one of their Fathers who had some intelligence of what passed in Cardinal Spadas Congregations, told us that all went very ill there for the Propositions; that nothing was spoken of but their condemnation; but because the Pope had given order whatever were done, to beware of meddling with S. Augustin's doctrine, or the matter De Auxiliis, they scarce knew what course to take. That yet he feared our resolvedness not to appear in Congregations but after our own way, might exasperate them against us, and carry them to extremities. We answered that we could not hinder them from doing what they thought good; yet all they could do could not hinder us from acting as we were obliged. An other of those Fathers told us that M. Hallier and his Colleagues, had since their visit to the General endeavoured to defer the Conference designed to be on Friday till Monday or Tuesday following; but the General would not yield to it, fearing to lose time whilst it was uncertain what the intentions of those Doctors might be. That otherwise they believed they tended to deceive; but they should find themselves deceived; for either they would subscribe the Propositions as they promised in the sense of Effectual Grace, and so we should have all we desired; or else they would not, and so manifesting their promises as equivocal and fraudulent as the Propositions, they should oblige their whole Order to stand no longer in suspense, but engage against them in this affair.  
Omitting some less considerable passages, which would cause too great interruption, I shall proceed to insert the Relation of the Conference which was held on Friday the 14th. word for word as it was given me soon after in Writing by one of the Dominicans.  
A Relation of a Conference between M. Hallier and his Colleagues at la Minerve, Febr. 14. 1653. and the General of the Dominicans and some Fathers of that Order made by one of those Fathers.  
M. Hallier and his Colleagues came to the General of the Friar's Predicants on Tuesday Feb. 11. 1653. The subject of their long discourse with him, was, That they agreed with the Thomists, and admitted Grace Effectual by itself, but held also that God gave Sufficient Grace. That in this sense they impuged Jansenius, and desired of his Holiness in the name of fourscore French Bishops the condemnation of the Five Propositions, in the maintaining of which the Order of S. Dominicus was no wise interessed.  
The General would not determine any thing with them, saying that the affair was too important to be decided in a moment; that he would consult with his Divines about it; that nevertheless he protested that he undertook not to defend Jansenius, unless in what he taught conformably to the sentiments of S. Augustin, whom the Fathers of his Order so vigorously defended under Clement VIII. and Paul V That if it could be known that the interest of that Doctrine was not mingled with Jansenius, he would not stir at all; but if it were never so little concerned directly or indirectly, he could not but interpose in the business.  
M. Hallier answered, That they were ready to show both to him and his Divines in his presence, that he was not concerned therein.  
Whilst they were in this debate, M. de S. Amour, M. the Abbot de Lane, and M. Angran came to la Minerve, and meeting F. Reginald (by whom they understood that their Adversaries were with the General) told him that they came to present a Writing unto him which contained the sentiments of M. le Moyne, Pereyret, and others who prosecuted the condemnation of the Five Propositions. F. Reginald answered them that it was very important that that Writing were delivered to the General before he concluded any thing with those Doctors, and therefore sent a Friar of the General's chamber to deliver it to him, and tell him that it was very important that he please to read the few lines written in the Paper. Which done, M. de S. Amour and the others waited till M. Hallier and his Companions were gone. After which they were admitted to the General, who received them somewhat coldly. The same Evening that General called for Reginald, told him that M. Hallier and his Companions were ready to subscribe, and to that purpose were to come on Friday to confer with us; and that they were very urgent that F. Reginald might not be there, which the General would not yield to, and so at length it was resolved upon. F. Reginald answered, that great heed was to be taken of surprises; that the Jesuits admitted Effectual Grace; that in the Congregations of De Auxiliis they proceeded so far as to affirm that God physically and really moves the Will before it acts; and yet under these fair words they had equivocations which wholly enervated Grace; that therefore it was needful to go with great precaution. Whereupon the General commanded him to draw up the Five Propositions in the sense of Effectual Grace, according to the sentiments of S. Augustin and the Fathers of the Order; which he did in this form:  

I.  
Gratia de se efficax vere, realiter ac physice praemovens ac praedeterminans, immutabiliter, infallibiliter, insuperabiliter & indeclinabiliter, ita est necessaria ad singulos actus etiam ad initium fidei & ad orationem, ut sine illa homo etiam justus non possit adimplere Dei Praecepta etiamsi & conetur affectu & conatu imperfecto; quia deest illi gratia qua possit, sive qua fiant ipsi possibilia possibilitate cum effectu, ut loquitur Augustinus de Nat. & Grat. cap. 42.   

II.  
In natura lapsa nunquam resistitur gratiae interiori, id est, efficaci, in sensu explicato in prima Propositione, quae secundum phrasim Augustini vocatur interior.   

III.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur libertas ab omni necessitate, sed sufficit libertas ab omni coactione, hoc est, a violentia & naturali necessitate.   

IV.  
Admiserunt Semipelagiani gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei; & in hoc erant Haeretici, quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse, cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare, id est, in hoc erant Haeretici quod vellent gratiam illam non esse efficacem modo explicato in prima Propositione.   

V.  
Error est Semipelagianorum dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse: quia videlicet Christus est quidem mortuus pro omnibus quoad sufficientiam pretii sufficienter, non tamen efficaciter, quia non omnes participant beneficium mortis ejus.   
During these two days F. Reginald by the General's Command showed the Propositions which he had drawn to the other Fathers who were to assist at the Conference, namely to F. Galassin, F. Nolano, F. Alvarez Regent of la Minerve, and F. Libelli Bachelier and Regent also; and advised what they were to beware of.  
Friday the 14th. being S. Valentine's day the Molinist Doctors came hither presently after dinner, and were brought into the great room of the Inquisition. The General also being entered, after a little Ceremony M. Hallier and his Companions were placed in Chairs near a Table upon which was set a Standish with Paper, in case there should be any need of writing. The F. General sat directly against M. Hallier on the right hand, F. Galassin over against one of his Companions, F. Nolano opposite to the other, and F. Bachelier to the Regent, who was placed next to those Gentlemen, and after him F. Reginald.  
The F. General begun in Latin, saying that those Doctors had taken the pains to come and enter into conference with the Divines of his Order about the affair of the Five Propositions; and therefore he desired them that they would unfold their sentiments.  
M. Hallier thereupon spoke, and said in Latin, That the University of Paris had always a great respect for the General and his Order; upon which he was very copious. That the Propositions had no relation to the dispute of the Friar's Predicants with the Jesuits; but were an affair totally distinct; that none was concerned in it but Jansenius who had revived the Propositions of Baius condemned by the most great H. and learned Pope Pius V the light of that Order, in whose praises he was very prolix; That the said Bull was published by Gregory XIII. renewed by urban VIII. and Innocent X. That the Congregations were held to this end with precaution in no wise to meddle with the matter De Auxiliis. He was long upon this Discourse, during which the last of his Companions was folding some papers upon the table.  
When he had ended, the General spoke, and repeating briefly and judiciously what M. Hallier had said, showed that the question was not about the defence of Jansenius, but only to explain how the Propositions could be censured or condemned without touching the matter De Auxiliis; that this seemed to him very difficult, that nevertheless he should be glad to know the sentiments of those Doctors.  
M. Hallier replied and spoke many things in general, repearing what he had formerly said; and added that when the Friar's Predicants defended the efficacy of Grace before Clement VIII. and Paul V these Propositions were not treated of; that when the Jesuits argued against Effectual Grace, that it would follow that the Commandments were impossible to those who had not such Grace; that this was absurd, and therefore it ought to be concluded that Grace is not Effectual of itself. The Friar's Predicants answered, by denying the Major and granting the Minor. That the Jansenists granted the Major and deny the Minor. That all the Thomists admitted Sufficient Grace; that Jansenius denied it; and consequently the Thomists were far from Jansenius.  
Hereupon F. Nolano said that this was so common amongst the Thomists; that S. Augustine was of another mind; and that they ought not to deprive us of the weapons of S. Augustine. But the General interposed, and said that the Question was not about Sufficient Grace.  
After which M. Hallier repeating the same things, added that this was the whole difficulty between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, but not the present question. That the Thomists affirmed that Effectual Grace did not pertain to the First Act and Power, but to the Second; that they admitted Effectual Grace which causes to act infallibly, insuperabiliter, iudeclinabiliter. But this did not hinder the Commandments from being possible, even to those who have not such Grace, because God gives them Sufficient to perform them, or else to obtain and impetrate that which is necessary.  
F. Nolano interposed again that there was no ground either in S. Augustin or S. Thomas for such Sufficient Grace; that on the contrary they denied it. That if S. Augustine were suffered to be condemned in one sole point of the Doctrine of Grace, his authority would be no longer considerable in the Church; that we ought not to suffer it; S. Augustin's doctrine having been approved by the Popes, Celestin, Homisda, Gelasius, and Clement VIII. that it was highly important to stand stiff upon this.  
The F. General replied again that this was not the question, and therefore M. Hallier might proceed, who repeating the same things concluded that the first Proposition had no connection with the questions De Auxiliis, agitated under Clement VIII. and Paul V And that for their parts, they never intended the condemnation of the Propositions but in the sense of Jansenius. That they had affirmed the same in the first Memorial, which they presented to the Pope in the name of fourscore Bishops who deputed them.  
Whereupon the third read the Memorial which they had presented, and said the same things which M. Hallier had done. The second likewise spoke something to the same sense.  
Then M. Hallier added that they had always made the same protestation; and that when they were called before the Congregation, they so protested, because they saw well that those Questions were not to be meddled with.  
The general answered him, that then it was not without reason that he feared and intended to stir; and he demanded whether his fear was just and well-grounded.  
M. Hallier replied, that the F. General's fear was just, and that he did well to fore-arm himself; but for their parts, it was in no wife their intention to get the opinions of the Dominicans condemned. Then he proceeded to the second Proposition, and briefly explicated it, saying that the Thomists admitted Sufficient Grace, not only external but also internal, which men may resist and do oftentimes resist; but Jansenius denied them; and so there was no connection of the Propositions with the doctrine of the Order of Friars Predicants. As for the third, he said that Jansenius affirms that 'tis sufficient to make an Action meritorious, that it be done without constraint, though it be necessary. That S. Thomas, Qu. 6. De Malo affirms this Opinions heretical.  
The second added, that the Thomists affirm the same.  
The third cited some Thomists.  
M. Hallier said, that the fourth and fifth had as little relation to the Dominicans opinions, because these Propositions were never agitated in the time of Clement VIII. and Paul V.  
After M. Hallier had ended, the F. General commanded F. Reginald to speak first and declare his judgement. He was the last on M. Hallier's side, who said that being thick of hearing he entreated the General to cause him to come nearer, and to place him where he might see him. Whereupon the Father exchanged places with F. Nolano.  
But when he began to speak, M. Hallier said he could not hear him, and therefore the General commanded him to speak louder. Which he did, and said that three things were to be supposed: First, that it could not be made an Article of Faith, That there is Sufficient Grace common to all; that it was a dispute in the Schools; that many Authors deny that there is any Grace purely sufficient, but that all Sufficient Grace is effectual for some acts, that in this sense Jansenius did not deny it. And however Jansenius' opinion were with which he would not meddle. It was certain, that a decision of Faith could not be made concerning Sufficient Grace, especially such as is general, because S. Augustin denies it, Nunc autem quibus deest, etc. as he speaks of Sufficient Grace, which he saith is denied to some. Secondly, 'Tis to be supposed that the Sufficient Grace admitted by the Thomists, is very different from that of the Divines of the Society; that these latter hold a Sufficient Grace which may be and is determined by the Consent of , either present or fore-seen; and besides this Sufficient Grace they admit no other necessary to all acts. But the Thomists with common consent admit a Sufficient Grace which gives power, but is not determined by the consent of the Will, and besides this Grace they hold that for a man to act he needs another Grace powerful and effectual of itself. Thirdly, That this Grace, necessary to all actions, even to the beginning of Faith, Prayer, and other Good Works, causes the will to act infallibly, insuperabiliter & indeclinabiliter, and that independently on Scientia media, and the conditional Prevision of God. That this being supposed, the Proposions were true in the sense of such Effectual Grace. That in the disputes De Auxiliis the Thomists had answered the Objections of the Jesuits, who drew all these Five Propositions as absurdities following from the Effectual Grace which the Thomists had explicated by the word of Physical predetermination; that it was a Question whether it pertained to the first act or the second, because it reduced the power of the first act into the second act. That in the Congregations De Auxiliis several points were disputed of, especially Grace necessary for performance of the Commandments; and that when the Jesuits objected, that if Effectual Grace were necessary, the Commandments would be impossible to those who had not such Effectual Grace, the Thomists answered that they were impossible in sensu Composito, but not in sensu Diviso: that as S. Augustin in the 42d. Chapter of the Book De Natura & Gratia distinguishes a possibility which he calls cum effectu, and another which may be called simplex, as may be collected from other places of S. Augustin; so the Thomists distinguish two Impossibilities, which, in the School-terms, they call in sensu Composito, and in sensu Diviso; that accordingly they distinguish that in sensu Composito, it is impossible for him who hath not Effectual Grace to observe the Commandments; which is as much as to say, that 'tis not possible for him with that possibility which S. Augustin terms Possibility joined with Effect, Possibilitas cum Essectu; but they are possible in sensu Diviso, that is, with a simple and remote possibility or power. And therefore he conceived that the first Proposition could not be absolutely and without distinction condemned, without doing great wrong to the doctrine which the Father's Predicants had defended in the Congregations De Auxiliis, considering also that in the first Proposition Sufficient Aid was explicated in the same manner that many Thomists explicated it, viz. in these words volentibus & conantibus, which ought to be understood of an imperfect will and endeavour, proceeding from a Sufficient Grace explicated in the sense of the Thomists.  
As for the second Proposition, he said that he conceived that neither could it be absolutely condemned without doing wrong to the doctrine of the Thomists; because if by Internal Grace we ought to understand Effectual Grace, as S. Augustin understands it, it is certain the Thomists always held that, to speak properly, it is never resisted, yea that it cannot be resisted; though in a sense less proper they confess that it may be resisted, that is, a man may not give his consent, because he who consents, consenting freely, always reteins a power of not consenting.  
As for the third he said, that if by Liberty from Necessity it was understood that to the making of an action meritorious it must be free from all Necessity, even that which is called Necessity of Infallibility in sensu composito, or from Necessity in general, and the like; then in condemning this Proposition, all the Thomists, yea all the Schools who admit it will be condemned. But if absolute or natural Necessity, which takes away the indifference of the Object be meant, then will Scotus with his School be condemned; and 'tis not convenient to require the condemnation of so famous a School.  
As for the fourth, that it depended upon History, and that the Thomists always maintained in the Congregations De Auxiliis that the Semipelagians erred in that they would not admit at least for some acts, Grace Effectual of itself, but only admitted Sufficient Grace which may be determined by the Will. That therefore if this Proposition were condemned absolutely, the Thomists would be condemned too, and deprived of all their proofs which they drew from S. Augustin to prove Grace Effectual of itself.  
As for the last, it appeared sufficiently by what he had said in the beginning; because if they would have it that Jesus Christ died for all, that is, by his death merited for all universally and without exception Sufficient Graces, it was a Question of the School which could not be determined. That if it were determined in this sense, that Jesus Christ merited for all Sufficient Grace's determinable by the Will, then Effectual Grace would be destroyed. But if they only aimed to get it defined that Jesus Christ died for all sufficiently, in regard his blood was of infinite value and sufficient for all, this fifth Proposition would not be condemned, because neither the Semipelagians ever spoke so much in this sense, nor the Disciples of S. Augustin ever accused them of Error, for having said that Jesus Christ died for all in this sense. And therefore he concluded that the Propositions could not be condemned absolutely, without wholly ruining the Doctrine of the Thomists.  
F. Reginald having thus ended, M. Hallier replied, That the Question of Effectual Grace was very remote from Physical Predetermination; that the Thomists never placed Effectual Grace in such Predetermination; that Grace was a thing very ancient, and Physical Predetermination a thing very new invented by some new Thomists.  
At these words F. Reginald made a little sign with his Head, intimating that he did not approve them; at which M. Hallier taking offence said that he spoke Truth, and that he ought not to shake his head at it; for 'twas true that it was a novel invention. F. Reginald, out of respect to the General, and because he was in their house, replied nothing.  
M. Hallier continuing his discouse, said that 'twas true that the Thomists, to reconcile and accord freedom with physical Predetermination, used the distinction of sensus Compositus & Divisus, but not to conciliate Effectual Grace with Liberty; That this Effectual Grace did not pertain to the First Act, nor consist in a physical Predetermination; that besides he had read S. Augustin very well, who never used those words Possibility with Effect and Possibility simple; that they admitted Grace Effectual of itself necessary to all Good works even independently on God's provision, which he had taught publicly long ago, and was ready to teach again; that he had protested thus before the whole Congregation of Cardinals and Consulters at his audience there; But that the Necessity of this Grace in no wise rendered the Commandments impossible to him who wanted it; That he who had it, had always a power to resist it; that the Council of Trent had so determined when it said possit dissentire si velit, and that consequently a man consented without Necessity. That the third Proposition had been condemned against Michael Baius, that constraint alone takes away liberty.  
F. Reginald replying, desired M. Hallier to excuse him if he told him that for certain all the Thomists, except one or two, held that Effectual Grace is a physical Predetermination; that even they who placed it amongst indeliberate acts, said it is predetermined physically, and that therefore the Thomists used the distinction of sensus Compositus & Divisus, as well in reference to Effectual Grace as physical Predetermination; That when the Council saith possit abjicere, possit dissentire, it means in sensu diviso, and not in sensu Composito. That physical Predetermination is not a new invention as to the substance of the thing, that the word Predetermination ought not to be disputed, being found in S. Thomas and many other ancient Doctors. That as for the distinction of Possibility with effect and simple Possibility, it is found in S. Augustin, who uses the word Possibilitas cum effectu in chap. 42. of the book De Gratia & Libera Arbitrio; as for the other part, simple posibility, he confessed it is not found formally in S. Augustin, but is evidently collected out of the fifth book De Civit. Dei.  
M. Hallier rejoined to the last point saying that the term Possibility with Effect was never found in S. Augustin, and repeating the same things which he had said before; especically that he had always protested that they pursued not the condemnation of the Propositions, saving in the sense of Jansenius, and not in the sense of Effectual Grace which they held.  
M. Hallier's Companions spoke the same things which they had said before, adding that in all Memorials they had used this exception, because they saw that otherwise they should do wrong to so many and so learned Diunes of S. Dominicus.  
Here the R. F. General interposed and said, Then our fear is just, since you acknowledge it requisite to make those protestations.  
M. Hallier answered that they had taken order for that, because the speech which he made in the Congregation would be inserted in the Bull, to the end it might be known that the Propositions were condemned only in the sense of Jansenius.  
Then the F. General commanded F. Alvarez Regent of la Minerve to speak, who said that he saw no more difficulty in this affair; that if these Doctors acknowledged Grace Effectual of itself indepently on God's provision, they must also acknowledge the truth of the Propositions in the sense of Effectual Grace, and consequently that the Commandments are impossible to him who wants it with an Impossibility consequent and not antecedent; and next, that a man never resists internal, that is, Effectual Grace; and that this necessity takes not away merit; and so of the other Propositions. That since they agreed in doctrine, it remained only to consider how it was requisite to proceed in this affair; that he conceived it expedient to unfold the Propositions and demand the confirmation and definition of them in the sense of Effectual Grace, and their condemnation in the other senses.  
M. Hallier permitted not the F. Regent to end, but told him that he acknowledged the Effectual Grace as mentioned by F. Regent; that he admitted that the Commandments are impossible to him who wants it, with an impossibility consequent and not antecedent; that they were ready to subscribe thus much privatim, but not as Deputies, provided their Reverences would subscribe the condemnation of the Propositions in the sense of Jansenius.  
F Galassin told them, that the match was not equal; that a General could not subscribe it, they subscribing only as particular persons.  
M. Hallier answered that he demanded only the condemnation of Jansenius who was condemned already.  
F. Reginald having desired leave to speak one word, said, But what if Jansenius hath had the same sense as the Thomists in all these Propositions, or in any one of them? this is the business. Why is it denied to distinguish that sense? wherefore (continued he) to avoid this inconvenience, it will be requisite to make a common Memorial addressed to his Holiness and the Congregation, wherein to lay open the sense of Jansenius, and, it not being the same with that of the Thomists, to pursue its condemnation.  
M. Hallier and his companions answered altogether that they could not do it, nor recede from their first Memorials, nor from the precise orders given them by the fourscore Bishops who disputed them.  
The F. Regent said to them, Neither can we agree with you, since you will not explain the sense.  
Whereupon M. Hallier and his companions said, that they insisted upon the condemnation of Jansenius, and the five Propositions, so far as they denied sufficient Grace.  
The F. Regent answered to them, He acknowledges it in the same Proposition, volentibus & conantibus with an imperfect will and endeavour; for that will or velleity, and imperfect endeavour proceeds from an imperfect and small Grace, which is in effect the sufficient, as many Thomists explicate it.  
The Doctors replied, that if he admitted it, he contradicted himself.  
The F. Regent said to them, If Jansenius contradicts himself, will you demand that he be condemned in both the two contradictions? It is requisite therefore to expound him before condemning him. For two contradictions cannot at the same time be true, nor consequently defined.  
The Doctors answered that Jansenius formally denied sufficient Grace in Tom. 3. l. 3. chap. 1. and the following, that he called it a Monster, and was as well against the Thomists as the Jesuits.  
The F. Regent urged them and told them, Jansenius admits habitual Grace, Gifts, Infused virtues, he admits also Inspirations and internal Illuminations which make us know Good, for since we cannot will what we do not know; and in this first Proposition he saith that the Just man wills, he supposes the knowledge which comes from supernatural light and inspiration. In the third place he admits that he hath an imperfect will and Endeavour: Now this velleity and imperfect endeavour proceeds from some Grace, as Jansenius saith, and this Grace is termed sufficient by the Thomists; therefore he admits all that the Thomists admit, and that you admit: For what is it that you admit more in him who does not fulfil God's Commandments? You admit habitual Grace and virtues; Jansenius admits them: You admit Illuminations; Jansenius admits the same: You admit a small and weak Grace for these Velleities and imperfect endeavours; Jansenius admits it also: You admit a Grace in him who peformes the Commandments; Jansenius admits the same: What is it then which you admit further in him who doth not fulfil God's Commandments?  
The Doctors were much pressed, and never answered; but speaking all at a time, never answered to the question made to them by the F. Regent, who urged the same arguments upon them twice or thrice.  
At length they answered, (and I think it was the last who answered) that besides this they admitted a sufficient Grace, which gives the utmost and complete power, in such manner, that therein is wanting to him who keeps not God's Commandments, only the bare action which proceeds from Effectual Grace.  
The F. Regent told them that this sufficient Grace was not in the sense of the Thomists.  
Then F. Libelli Bacchelier said that S. Thomas in 1. 2, 9, 109. act 9 and 10. and in many other places, saith that a Just man cannot fulfil the Commandments and do good without the motion of God; that such motion is Effectual Grace; and that therefore in some sense it is true that a man who hath not Grace, hath not a complete power; that this was the opinion of most Thomists, and that it was necessary to declare the sense in which they would have the Propositions condemned.  
F. Tolano added that the first Proposition could not be condemned without condemning those two express Articles of S. Thomas, wherein he affirms that a man cannot do good without Grace; and that it is evident that he speaks of Effectual Grace; that S. Thomas never taught any other; and therefore it was requsite to explicate the Propositions before condemning them.  
The F. Regent fell again to press the Doctors, and said, That what they admitted further in him who keeps not God's Commandments, is not at all received in the School of S. Thomas, though some Thomist should have said it. That if they would do any thing and agree with the Thomists, they must necessarily explain the Propositions, and afterwards in a Memorial either general, or in particular, demand of his Holiness the condemnation of the Propositions in the sense which should be found false; that it imported very little whether Jansenius or some other were the author of them.  
The Doctors replied hereunto that they could not in any manner recede from the Memorials which they had presented, nor the orders which fourscore Bishops had prescribed them. The F. Regent rejoined, Neither can we agree with you.  
Whereupon the R. F. General said to M. Hallier, that they must not take it ill if he took his Course, since he saw what interest all his Divines found, and themselves confessed his Order said that the Propositions might not be condemned without explication.  
This done, all arose from their seats, and after they had conferred a little apart, the F. General accompanied the Doctors to the bottom of the stairs into the Cloister; from whence F. Nolano, Libelli, and Reginald, accompanied them to the gate of la Minerve. This is the account of that Conference.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of a long audience which I had of Cardinal Ghiggi upon the same 14th of February.  
THE same day that this Conference was held at la Minerve, I was a long while in Cardinal Ghiggi's Antichamber before his mass begun. When it was ended, the first that had audience was the Secretary of the Congregation de Propagande fide. After him F. Modeste, and next him two persons in a curt garb who seemed to be but of mean condition. When there was no body more that desired it, I was introduced. I told the Cardinal that the last time we had had the honour to see him, amongst the reasons then represented to him for the communication of our Writings, I had acquainted him that happening to see one which was presented to their Eminences by our Adversaries, therein, casting my eyes upon a place, I found a great falsehood. That I was come again to confirm the same to his Eminence, and to show him if he pleased that it was not only an enormous, but also a bold and wilful falsehood. That his Eminence was concerned to know with what sincerity either side acted, and if he pleased to let me see that Writing of our Adversaries, I would instantly show him the falsity. The Cardinal took this Proposal quite otherwise than I expected, and with an air wholly contrary to his usual gentleness and courtesy. He answered me sharply, that it was time for us to resolve to submit and comply with the Pope's pleasure; that we had been told often enough already that there should be no communication of Writings. He asked me how I could know whether the others had presented any; that perhaps they had not; that he knew as little whether or no we had. I replied that his Eminence amazed me with this, for I conceived ours were both for bigness and matter considerable enough not to be forgotten. The Cardinal said, that at least we had not presented them à tutti to all; that Cardinal Pamphilio had none. That for his own part he knew not which were ours, and which were those of our Adversaries. That we had very late bethought ourselves of demanding a communication of Writings. That we spoke not of it at the beginning, before our Adversaries came. That we might have reason in desiring the Pope that he would please to define certain Propositions; but to impose law upon him touching the way of doing it, was not just. That we said, Vogliamo parti, vogliamo contestare; We will have parties, we will enter into disputation with them; that it did not become us to speak in this manner; Non est vestrum (said he) nosse tempora vel momenta, quae Pater posuit in sua potestate. I answered his Eminence that the demand we made for the communication of our Writings, was not new. That on July 10. 1651. I delivered to the Pope the Letters of the Bishops who sent us, and that those Letters expressly demanded it. That in our audience of the Pope, Jan. 21. 1652. we left a Memorial with his Holiness, wherein this demand was expressly contained. The Cardinal scarce suffered me to make an end, but he asked me, What meant you to say partibus auditis, seeing you had no parties then? No sooner had I begun to answer him that the Jesuits were our principal parties, and always upon the place at Rome; but he interrupted me again, saying, Ha', You would now fall upon the Jesuits and grapple with them; but the Pope will not suffer it. That we must resolve to proceed more mildly, and not speak, as we did, of causing the Jesuits to be declared Heretics. Then with a more gentle tone he told me, that he had always received me favourably; that he was not obliged to do so; that he might give me a bare hearing, and then reconduct me without speaking so much as one word to me. I thanked him for the good will which he professed to me, and told him that I conceived likewise that on our part we had endeavoured to correspond therewith; that our carriage had been modest and fair, and that the demand we made was never refused to any person by the H. See. He asked me whether I was sure of it. I answered that I knew no example. And he replied In some: as if to conclude, that if we had nothing else to demand, we might be quiet, and that it was not handsome in us to be so steadfast and resolute to be doing à pugni at cuffs. I answered him that I conceived not that there was any fight before Clement VIII. or Paul V or in the Council of Trent. He replied that the times were now otherwise, and, as if to dismiss me, he asked me what it was that I pretended. Whereupon I represented to him how little time he afforded me to speak, and satisfy his complaint of our not having yet presented our Write to Cardinal Pamphilio; and I told him that we knew not of his being substituted in the place of Cardinal Roma till he (C. Ghiggi) informed us of it the last of December; though indeed Cardinal Spada had told us once in October that he believed Cardinal Pamphilio would come to a certain Congregation which he designed for us. That ever since we had done our utmost to present our Write to Cardinal Pamphilio, but could not, by reason of the great multitude which we found at his Chamber door, as often as he gave audience, notwithstanding his Maistre de chambre had frequently promi'sd to befriend us. The Cardinal replied that nevertheless Cardinal Pamphilio was at all the Congregations held during the month of October, November and December. I mentioned again the communication of our Writings, and beseeched him that since I saw him altogether resolved to deny it to us, he would do me the favour to let me understand the reasons why he became of this mind, having testified to me in my former visits that such Communication was so necessary that nothing could be well done without it; to the end I might signify the same to our Bishops, and they, if it satisfied them, reverse the Orders which they had given us to persist in demanding it till it were granted. The Cardinal hesitated a little what answer to make; at first making semblance of doubting that he never was of that mind, or having forgotten it. But I pressed him, and said, Yes, My Lord, before the Congregation was established when M. Hallier came to relate to your Eminence all that came into his head against us, and I beseeched your Eminence not to value what he said; you answered me, that all those tattlings, chiacchiare, were to no purpose; that they went in at one ear and out at the other; that it was requisite to come to the proof, to writing, to set down the business in paper, to demand of the other what he hath to answer to it, who must also do the like, etc. In brief, your Eminence said so expressly, that to bring any thing to effect, it was necessary for all to be done which we demanded in our Memorial; that I asked your Eminence whether you had seen that Memorial, and you said it was fitting to do all that we demanded; but you had not seen it, and would be glad to see it; and therefore I carried it the next day or two days after to your Eminence, and you were well pleased with it. But since that Congregation has been established and our Writings presented, we have been held in suspense for some time whether they should be communicated or not; afterwards we were told that it was conceived that they should not; then from time to time our hope has been diminished, and now 'tis flatly denied. Your Eminence will extremely oblige me by telling me the reason of this alteration; that so being satisfied with it myself, I may signify it to the Bishops. The Cardinal began his answer something in anger, saying, Polevale dimenticare questo, You might have put this out of your head, but told me no reason of this alteration; and instead thereof fell to blame me, for that the Pope having declared from the beginning that he would by no means meddle with the matter De Auxiliis, yet we forebore not in our first Writings to drive the affair directly to it. I acknowledged that we had very well understood what the Pope said to ourselves concerning his resolution not to meddle with the matter De Auxiliis; and that we had nevertheless made all the importunity we could to induce the Pope to make an exact and serious examen thereof; because it was not possible to pass a Judgement well upon the Five Propositions in question (being in the sense according to which we defended, and our Adversaries in their hearts opposed them, but visible consequences from that Capital Principle and Essential Point of this matter) without first judging of the truth or falsehood of that principle. Wherefore though we found the Pope purposed to decide the Propositions without touching the matter; yet it did not stop us, because we hoped that in the progress of the affair the Pope would discover the error and defect of that purpose, which had been suggested to him by M. Albizzi or some other. I had scarce named M. Albizzi, but the Cardinal interrupted me in anger, and said, This it is, all is laid upon M. Albizzi. They of Flanders said M. Albizzi had falsified the Bull of Vrban VIII. yet he (the Cardinal) had showed them that 'twas not so. After which he added some words which I heard not plainly, but conjectured by these two words istos pervicaces & pertinaces (meaning I suppose as well us as the Doctors of Flanders, that their sense was that there was no way to reduce those obstinate persons to reason. I took no notice of all this; but continuing what I was speaking, added, that indeed we doubted not but M. Albizzi and perhaps others with him had persuaded the Pope that he had imposed perpetual silence touching the matter De Auxiliis; and that this was the cause why the Pope would not engage upon an unprofitable and superfluous labour which would terribly wrack him, and whereof he could not hope to see any issue for himself, or fruit for the Church. That it could never be proved that such a silence was imposed either by Clement VIII. or Paul V That if it had, we could show the Pope and their Eminences that that Ordinance ought to be revoked; and that it could never be upon any occasion so necessary as this of the Propositions, by reason of their indissoluble affinity with that matter in the true and orthodox senses, for which alone their Authors prosecuted their Condemnation, and we endeavoured to hinder it. The Cardinal suffered me not to make an end of what I was speaking concerning the connexion of the Propositions with Effectual Grace, but acknowledged that it was true, that they perceived it well, and that this gave them most trouble. That they considered all this; and that I ought not to doubt of it. I observed in this Conference that the Cardinal offered twice or thrice to end it, and about this place he turned towards the door (for we were walking all this while) whetefore I resolved to say nothing at all more to him, but suffer him to speak while he pleased. I was so dissatisfied during the whole discourse, that I believe some sight of it appeared in my countenance; which I conceived not unfitting to be observed by the Cardinal. When he had done, I suffered myself to be reconducted by his Eminence without speaking a word. He continued still to set forth to me, though not without some sticking, what care they took to effect some suitable and fitting order in this affair, concluding that they desired that we would contribute thereunto on our part, instead of obstructing them, as we did; desideraremus manus adjutrices non impugnatrices. After which, perhaps a little to temper the bitterness of these words, he added, when he was come to the place of parting, that we ought on either side to pray to God for his assistance in this affair, Oremus Deum, etc. I said nothing more at all to his Eminence, but made him a most humble and serious reverence, which might intimate to him as much my dissatisfaction as respect.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Of the two Memorials which our Advocate presented to the Pope in our behalf in an audience which he had of him, February 17.  
HAving in vain endeavoured to give the Ambassador a Visit, and an account of our affairs, I went alone to F. Luca Vadingo, who restored me our Writings De Gestis, and said he wished all the Cardinals had seen it. He told me of the Jesuits reproaches cast upon us by reason of the two stories of the frantic sick man and the lose woman. He told me that we were accused of causing disturbance everywhere, because we would not let our Penitents dispose of a penny but by our order, as appeared by the story of M. Charigny. By all which I perceived that these goodly fictions were spread amongst the Consultors of our Congregation as well as amongst the rest of the world. In brief, this good Father informed me, That their cares were so thronged with these vain reproaches, that in all their Congregations there was not so much as one word spoken concerning our Writings.  
Saturday the 15th. one came from Cardinal Barberin to invite us to dine with his Eminence the next day: Which we did; and amongst sundry Discourses in the afternoon, he friendly blamed us that he had not yet seen any of our Writings: Which obliged me to carry him a Copy a few days after. He showed us several curiosities and rarities in his House, amongst others a very goodly suit of Tapestry given him by the late King whilst we was Legate in France. He carried us abroad for a while to take the air, and returned us home.  
The continual difficulties and troubles which we suffered for fout months in pursuing the communication of our Writings, and the little hope Cardinal Ghiggi's late repulses left us of obtaining it, caused us to take a resolution to employ our Advocate thence forward in soliciting it, to try whether he could be more happy in it then we; wherefore before our going to dine with Cardinal Barberin, I went to acquaint him at large with the reasons of our demand and the objections made against it, that so he might be prepared to make good the one and answer the other when he should address to the Pope and Cardinals. And lest he should forget any thing of what I said to him, I left an Abstract thereof with him, which I shall here insert translated out of Italian. I intended it only for the use of our Advocate, but as it seems, it passed from his hands into those of the Pope, as I shall show afterward.  

Reasons in behalf of the demand made by the Doctors of Paris, defenders of St. Augustin, for a Conference.  
1. 'Tis an affair upon which the eyes of the whole world are fixed, and whose success every one attends, as well in regard of the substance of the things in question, as of the manner of proceeding.  
2. The Heretics also are in great expectation concerning it.  
3. A report is already dispersed into all places, that the Congregation demanded by these Doctors was granted and signified to them without any restriction, by the deceased Cardinal Roma of pious memory, according to the order which his Eminence received from the Pope.  
4. That although it had not been so; yet their demand is just and consentaneous to the usage of the Church. The Council of Trent practised the same towards Heretics, summoning them for that purpose, and offering them permission and full liberty to answer even to the things which the whole Council should object to them; Etiam ad Objecta Concilij generalis respondendi.  
Clement VIII. and Paul V practised the same since between the Dominicans and the Jesuits. Under Clement, after other great examinations preceding, 68 Congregations were held in the space of three years, at which that Pope was personally present, and 19 in like manner under Paul; in which Congregations the Domininicans and Jesuits were heard in presence one of the other both viva voce and by writing.  
They between whom the present contest is, are not of meaner condition or consideration.  
5. The matter is subtle and knotty of itself. Great surprises in it have sometimes been put upon the H. See, because the Parties were not present and heard. Moreover it has been grievously embroiled by the subtlety of Adversaries. It requires now a more exact discussion then ever.  
6. 'Tis an affair more important alone than all others of the H. See together. It concerns the first principles and essental Elements of Christian Faith and Piety; yea the whole Catholic Religion.  
That which is demanded is the last and sovereign remedy which hath always been in the Church, for repressing heresies and maintaining Catholic truths. The H. See never denied it to any that demanded it. If it denies it now, it takes away all courage, vigorous means, and boldness from Good and sincere Christians to oppose errors. By this demand alone S. Hilary sometimes overcame the Arians in the face of the Emperor, though one of those Heretics. Wherefore, etc. It is hoped the Pope, etc.   

Objections Answered.  
1. 'Tis said in the first place that there are no Parties in this affair.  
Answ. Propriety, life, honour, and above all, Faith, is the matter which causes controversies, and parties amongst men. The quality of Judge of Ecclesiastical Controversies which belongs to the Pope, shows that there may be Parties in things of Faith. And in those at this day, the contest is so inflamed, that never were greater, more opposite and more formal parties.  
2. That disputations never produce any fruit.  
Answ. 'Tis true, when they are made Metaphysically, only by words in the air and without Judges. But in this affair, Ecclesiastical Conferences viuâ voce, and by writing and before Judges, are demanded.  
3. That such conferences exasperated men's minds more.  
Answ. Suppose they do, yet those exasperations would soon pass over, because they will be ended by the Judgement intervening. But by delay in the true way of attaining thereunto they are fomented and increased daily more and more; because they who are in the wrong, not fearing to be ever convinced so long as the proceeding is thus, every day attempt some new project against the truth; and they who maintain it, are animated more to defend it against such endeavours: And neither the one nor the other will resolve ever to be quiet till after a solemn and authentical decision.  
4. That this Disputation is demanded, only to delay the judgement of the affair.  
Answ. There will be always seeking to delay the Judgement till it be examined and cleared fittingly to be judged of, as the truth, the honour of the H. See, and the good of the Church requires. That this way is looked upon as the only one in the present circumstances, for arriving to a perfect and sufficient knowledge to pass it; and it shall be seen with what diligence and sincerity this course shall be managed.  
5. That perhaps the H. See will not engage itself at this time to make such a Decision.  
Answ. When the H. See shall have taken a sufficient information of the affair, to be able to make such decision, it will not be obliged to make the same unless it Judge it necessary. It may defer it for as long as it shall please and think expedient; and perhaps with more credit than refuse a fitting information.  
6. That the Adversaries are contented with such as is made in the secret Congregations.  
Answ. They have reason not only to be contented with it, but also to desire it, having no other means and hopes to escape; nor can they otherwise secure themselves from the necessity either of discovering what they are, or of acknowledging S. Augustin's authority, and the true Grace which must be confessed by him that pretends to be a Christian, as saith that H. Father.  
It will be replied on the contrary, Your Adversaries desire a Disputation no less than you, but they refer themselves to what the H. See shall think most fit.  
Answ. When they say they desire a Conference, they dissemble, they delude. When they affect to seem thus perfectly submissive to the H. See, it must be remembered what Baronius observes, namely, that the great artifices of Pelagius and Celestine to circumvent the H. See, were such affected testimonies of their counterfeit submission. Whereof our Adversaries are the more to be suspected, as the impostures and ambushes which they have made against it within four years are stranger.  
7. That our Demand argues disobedience to the H. See, and implies as if we intended to give law to it.  
Answ. We are not so inconsiderate as to commit either the one or the other, nor so blind as not to see a difference between those faults, and a most humble, just, important and reasonable suit as ours is; nor so timorous as for such frivolous dreams as are objected to resolve to forsake so beaten and common a way in the Church.  
'Tis themselves that pretend to give law to the H. See and to us also; having boasted to all the world from the beginning of the Congregation that they would never permit a Conference either viva voce or by writing. And this the more obliges the H. See to grant it to us; because 'tis neither just nor edifying that the H. See should be conceived to receive law from them, nor yet that we should receive it.   
We saw the matter reduced to such extremity that we could no longer conceal our dissatisfaction from the Pope; we considered the Congregation often assembled at Cardinal Spadas Palace so improportional to the grandeur of the affair to be decided, and the dignity of the persons who had recourse to the H. See for that purpose; we saw that it acted in a manner so little Canonical, and so little conformable to the proceeding which we had prayed the Pope might be observed in that which we demanded; in fine we considered that it had so much of the H. Office, both as to the persons in it, and the course it followed, that we were resolved to make a new demand to the Pope of the first Congregation which we had demanded as having scarce any regard to this, but disapproving it as much as the circumstances of things would permit us to declare. Wherhfore we made a new Memorial, which I beseeched our Advocate to present to the Pope the next day, Febr. 17. when he was to have audience of him about other affairs. He promised me to do what he could in it, and I to send him the Memorial the next morning before he went to the Pope. It was thus inscribed on the outside: Beatissimo Parti Innocentio Papae X. Pro Doctoribus Parisiensibus S. Augustini Defensoribus. And the Contents follow:  
BEATISSIME PATER,  
ITERUM SUPPLICATIO, ITERUM PRECES, alebat S. Bernardus ad Innocentium secuudum, ET DECIES REPETITAE NON DESINENT. NON DESISTIMUS QUIA NON DIFFIDIMUS. BONAM CAUSAM HABEMUS ET AEQUUM JUDICEM Innocentium Decimum. Illi supplicamus iterum humillimè, pro negotio quinque Propositionum solennem illam, opprimendis fraudibus, indignandae veritati, compârandae paci maximè opportunam, quam petimus Congregationem concedi, in qua Partes tum voce tum scripto coràm audiantur, omniaque illarum scripta mutuò commnnicentur; sicut postulant Ecclesiae consuetudo, negotii magnitudo, & ipsius Sanctae Sedis Apostolilcae usus, non ita pridem à Clement Octavo & Paulo Quinto suae Sanctitatis Praeessoribus observatus, priusquam ad tantae litis diremptionem accingat se Sanctitas tua, ut tandem re perspectâ penitus, sententiam ferre velit. Hocque petimus it erum humilliamè, juxta literas Episcoporum Galliae, quorum nomine hîc agimus, Sanctitati tuae oblatas die 10. Julii anni 1651. juxta Memoriale exhibitum à nobis Sanctitati tuae die 21 Januarii 1652. aliaque ad id pertinentia, juxta declarationem hac de re nobis factam die 11 Julii ejusdem nnni 1652. ab Eminentissimo bonae memoriae Cardinale Roma, nomine Sanctitatis tuae, Cui omnia fausta ex animo precamur & annos de nostris. Hae die 17 Febr. 1653.  
Sic subscriptum: 

Natalis de la Lane Doctor Theologus Parisiensis, Abbas Beatae Mariae de Valle Crescente.  
Ludovicus de S. Amour Sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis Doctor & Socius Sorbonnicus.  
Ludovicus Angran ejusdem Sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis Licentiatus, ac Insignis Ecclesiae Trecensis Canonicus.    
I could not meet our Advocate to know what he had done with this Memorial till Tuesday afternoon; and then finding him in haste to go abroad, I was referred by him to M. Brunetti then at his House, whom he had acquainted with the success.  
M. Brunetti told me, that when our Advocate had ended his other affairs with the Pope, he asked whether his Holiness would permit him to present a Memorial to him; The Pope asked him in whose behalf? The Advocate answered, in ours. The Pope asked him, what we demanded? Our Advocate told him, The establishment of a Congregation which might hear us contradictorily viva voce, and by writing. The Pope replied, Do not they know that there are two parties in this affair? Bring them to this, and assure them for the rest, all shall be done with the necessary precautions. After this Answer the Advocate durst not press further, but risen up to retire; As he was going, the Pope called him, and asked him what the Memorial was, and what it contained? Our Advocate gave him account of the Contents again, and the Pope answered as before, that there were no parties, that he would take order sufficiently for every thing without that trouble, that he assured us of it. Whereupon our Advocate risen up and was going away, but the Pope recalled him once more, and for that he had spoken with some esteem of it to the Pope, his Holiness seemed something curious of it notwithstanding his outward unwillingness; which our Advocate observing, drew the Memorial with the abovementioned Abstract out of his pocket, and presented both of them to the Pope, conceiving the latter very proper and effectual to back the former.  
Two or three days after our Advocate confirmed the same to me, and told me two things more. First, That the Pope testified to him an esteem of our persons, and a desire to give us satisfaction, particularly as to the Conference which we demanded; but withal bid him advertise us that we might bring ill suspicions epon ourselves, if we persisted obstinately to give no information but in that manner. And Secondly, That the Pope mentioned Cardinal Spada as the person who told him that there needed no Conference in the Cause; and that he answered the Pope, That's very strange, H. Father; for he told me on the contrary that it stuck only at your Holiness, and that assoon as you appointed it, he would willingly do it. That the Pope seemed amazed at this, and that his wondering obliged him to confirm to his Holiness what Cardinal Spada had said to him by adding, No, H. F. when I tell you this, I do not lie; Cardinal Spada spoke it to me, I assure your Holiness. I thanked our Advocate for his interest and affection in our affair, and we agreed that he should carry Copies of our little Italian Memorial which he so much liked to the Cardinals; and when need required, address to his Holiness again in a second audience, and press him further.   

CHAP. IX.  
Of the Writings which the General of the Dominicans intended to present to the Pope with his Memorial to intervene in this affair.  
TUesday the 18th. in the forenoon I understood that the General of the Dominicans had been the Sunday before to get audience of the Pope, but could not; and therefore entreated Monsignor Sacrista (who had opportunity every day to speak to the Pope before or after Mass) to present his Memorial, and some few Papers to his Holiness. I have not the Copy of that Memorial; but for the Papers, I have most, if not all of them, which I shall insert in the annexed Collection.  
Here I shall only say, that as the Jesuits and M. Hallier represented our Opinions after a calumnious and fraudulent manner, so the Dominicans showed themselves equitable and intelligent in laying open their designs. Now the endeavour of the Jesuits and their Complices, M. Hallier, etc. was to hinder the Pope from giving them audience and receiving their Writings, which contained a full elucidation of the Controversy. But as they could not hinder them from coming to my hands, so neither shall they hinder me from preserving them to posterity as a monument of the zeal of that Order for the defence of Jesus Christ's Grace, and of the clearness wherewith those famous Divines extricated this so entangled matter.  
Only two differences will be found in their proceeding and ours. One, that whereas by the express order of the Pope, the Cardinals and all our Friends at Rome, we abstained from so much as naming Jansenius; these Divines who had received no such Order, defended him expressly in reference to the Five Propositions, and formally maintained that they were not his. So that if the Pope had pleased to decide this question of Fact, it was strange that on the one side he so often forbade us to speak of Jansenius; and on the other denied to hear and receive the writings of the most famous Religious Order in the world for knowledge in Divinity, and who were ready to defend that Bishop, and to show that the Five Propositions were not his.  
The second difference is this; Although they explicated the Propositions in the same manner as we did, and no less than we maintained the common doctrine of Effectual Grace, yet they did it in terms incomparably more powerful than ours. So that if those Eminent Divines have reason to say as they did, that they never maintained the Five Propositions, because to maintain the sense of Effectual Grace whereunto they were reducible, was not to maintain them, we had more reason to say so then they.  
But reserving these Writings for the end of this Journal, I shall only reckon them up here, and exhort the Readers to peruse them carefully as containing a perfect elucidation of the Controversy. Perhaps I shall not rank them in the same order as they were intended to be presented to the Pope; but that's no great matter.  
The first of them gins with these words: Beatissimo Patri Innocentio; Eminentissimis sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalibus & Doctissimis Theologis Censoribus pro negotio quinque Propositionum ab Apostolica sede deputatis. In this Writing they refuted M. Hallier's great pretention that the Five Propositions in question had no reference to the matter De Auxiliis; and showed that the Jesuits had objected all Five to the Dominicans in the Congregations under Clement VIII. and Paul V and the Dominicans maintained them all in a Catholic sense, which is that of Effectual Grace.  
The second Writing shows, that the Jesuits have three principal intentions in this affair. First, to get Molina's opinion obliquely defined. Secondly, to overthrow all that was done in ten years in the Congregation De Auxiliis. And Thirdly, to ruin S. Augustine's authority. All which they manifested by clear proofs.  
The third Writing contains an explication of the Five Propositions with reference to Jansenius; and therein they show that this Prelate never held the first but by determining it to a most Catholic sense; and that he never maintained the four others at all. They also unfold his Doctrine touching the matter of these four Propositions.  
The fourth Writing was almost to the same purpose, and seems made by some other Divine of the same Order.  
The fifth is also a Catholic explication of the Five Propositions, and a deduction of the consequences ensuing from their condemnation in a Catholic sense; and instead of these Five Ptopositions they substitute five of Molina's to be censured.  
The sixth clears Jansenius' opinion touching Sufficient Grace, and shows that he has admitted in effect all that the Thomists understand by that term.  
The seventh is a refutation of all which M. Hallier alleged out of S. Thomas and the Thomists, against the Five Propositions in a Writing which fell into their hands; 'tis that which I spoke of above.  
The eighth was a compendious enumeration of passages of S. Thomas and others falsified by M. Hallier in divers Write which fallen into their hands.  
The ninth was an Abstract of the Outrages of the Jesuits against S. Augustin;  
The tenth contained the reasons which had animated the Jesuits against Jansenius; namely the just parallel which he had made of their doctrine with that of the Semipelagians.  
The eleventh is an explication of these four Questions; namely, whether Jansenius admits that Internal Grace is resistible; and they show that he doth. Secondly, Whether Jansenius admits Sufficient Grace; to which they answer, That he admits the thing, but rejects the word, with reason. Thirdly, Whether Sufficient Grace can be proved by S. Augustin; and they answer by distinguishing the word. They show that a Grace Effectual for one Effect, and Sufficient for an other, may be proved by S. Augustin. Fourthly, Whether the Congregations cited in the first Writing were held before the Pope; and the answer, that they were so in the year 1062. and that all Five Propositions were maintained there in a Catholic sense.  
Such clear and compendious Writings as these will be found by who so peruses them, being presented by an Order so considerable at Rome and in the whole Church as that of the Dominicans, might and ought to have made some impression upon the Pope's mind, and induced him to distinguish the senses of the Propositions, had he been pleased to receive and examine them; but, as I have said, he was so fearful of engaging himself therein that he would give no audience to the General of this Order, though he requested it seventeen or eighteen times, his Holiness doubting that it was for this purpose that he demanded it; and a Prince of his near alliance, having taken a very favourable occasion to speak to him about it, his Holiness made a semblance of not hearing him, as shall be seen hereafter.   

CHAP. X.  
Of what passed at Rome from Febr. 19 to the end of the same Month.  
Wednesday the 19th. I went to the Subbibliothecary at the Vatican, and showed him that two Memorials which the Advocate commended by him to us had been presented to the Pope: wherewith he was extremely well-pleased. After which he told me how dejected his Heart was at a common rumour that Cardinal Ghiggi his Friend and Benefactor was in a straight union & intelligence with the Jesuits; because if it were a mere report and false, it wronged his reputation; and if it were true, 'twas yet worse. By this his grief he gave me occasion to tell him nakedly the whole Conference which I had lately had with that Cardinal. And upon my saying that I had minded his Eminence that before the Congregation was established, or he had seen our Memorial, he acknowledged to me that all was fitting to be done which we demanded; the Subbibliothecary interrupted me, saying, He said the same to me, I will maintain it to his Eminence; and the next time I see him I will not fail to charge him with it, and tell him friendly and freely, Come Signor Eminentissimo, How my Lord, etc. After which the Subbibliothecary told me, that it was good and necessary in this Court to make a little noise, and carry it high, è buono in questa Corte di far un puoco di rumore. And yet some-wise qualifying his Counsel, he said that when I addressed to the Cardinals 'twas good that I did it with the fleam and calmness deal Signior di Sainte-Amour; but when to others, to this or that General or Consultor, with the fire and ardour deal Signior Cosimo de Ricciardi, which was himself. Not to increase his grief, I was extraordinary moderate in recounting to him what passed in my Visit to Cardinal Ghiggi, and nevertheless it very much amazed and afflicted him.  
Returning home I passed by la Minerve, and gave the General of the Dominicans a Copy of the two Memorials which our Advocate left with the Pope. I told him also what extraordinary repugnances Cardinal Ghiggi showed to a Conference and the communication of writings. The General said that they doubted him much more since the late Declaration he made what part and interest he took in this affair. He told me some particularities of M. Hallier's visit to him ten or twelve days before, which I do not repeat here, because they are mentioned in the relation of it before inserted.  
I went again to la Minerve in the afternoon, to show F. Reginald some Propositions of S. Augustin, which F. Adam knowing for such, taxed of impiety and heresy. As I was showing the same to him in that Jesuits book under the Cloister, the General passed by to go into the City; we showed them to him too, and he thanked me for the double obligation which he said he received from me that day.  
As I was coming from la Minerve, I met F. Angelo Ricci who told me he had heard in several places in the houses of Cardinals and Prelates, (and one might be assured of what he said, he was so wise, reserved and circumspect) that many bad tenets were imputed to us, from which he advertised us to endeavour to defend and justify ourselves. These bad tenets were (he said) concerning Venial sins, Public Penance and the Pope's power. He was one of those who were troubled at our resolution not to inform the Congregation at all, whilst it remained secret and acted in obscurity as it did. Wherefore to remedy this his conceit as well as I could, I told him, that the best and sovereign means to purge us from those calumnies, was, the Congregation which we demanded, before which our Adversaries might impute what they pleased, but yet should be obliged to keep to certain heads, upon which after we were well justified, they would be no longer creditable in imputing the same or any others to us. For which end it was requisite that we endeavoured the obtaining of such a Congregation before which all things being cleared, calumnies would be destroyed and confounded, and till than we ought to suffer them with patience, since we could neither hinder them nor defend ourselves from them. He exhorted me however that seeing the Signori on whom we depended would not grant what we demanded, we would conform to their course; being, the more steadfast we persisted in the contrary, the more danger we should be in to exasperate them. The great goodness and gentleness of so accomplished a Gentleman and virtuous an Ecclesiastic, obliged me to tell him for his satisfaction (if it might prove so) that though the Congregation we demanded seemed to us so easy and necessary a means for discovering the falsehood and malice of those calumnies, yet if we could employ any other that were capable to overthrow them, we would willingly do it.  
Thursday the 20th I had much talk with M. Hallier and his Colleagues in the Pope's Presence-chamber, where they spoke many remarkable things, and M. Hallier amongst others very contemptuous words against the Arrests and authority of the Court of Parliament. And touching the voices of Mendicant Doctors, whom we endeavoured to reduce to two suffrages of each Order in the Assemblies of our Faculty; they told me they were persuaded that we did not attempt it, but only to the end we might more easily establish the points of doctrine which we had a mind to introduce there. But I think it more fit to pass over this Dialogue then to recount all the particularities of it which I writ down the same day.  
Friday the 21. I went to carry the General of the Augustine's a Copy of our Memorials: He thanked me for them, and told me he had had audience of the Pope that day seven night, about other affairs, yet took occasion to mention ours; and represented to him that it was a very difficult and hazardous matter, that it could not be searched with too much wariness, that no precautions and diligences ought to be neglected in it; because it was manifest that the five Propositions were invented only to ruin and and overthrow S. Augustin's doctrine. Whereupon the Pope answered him that he would have either side heard and that in his own presence; Vogliamo che tutti siano sentiti, & inanzi di noi. This good General out of the abundant joy which this hope gave him, told me there was yet an excellent means of making this examen, and discovering the effects of Nature and Grace, namely, by considering a little with attention and reflection, all that passes daily within ourselves. He told me also that we must be prepared with three things, in order to refutation of what our Adversaries might oppose to us. First, to explicate solidly some principal passages of S. Augustin, which they always objected to us. Secondly to do the like with some of the Council of Trent, which they likewise made use of. Thirdly to observe very distinctly, wherein consisted the Doctrine of Calvin, and declare how it was different from that of S. Augustin. He said, It was a shame to see the Writings of our Adversaries, in which they boldly cited false Councils, which, having had the curiosity to search, he found to be such. He showed me many sheets of Paper written with his own hand, containing Observations which he had already made upon this affair. He had collected all that passed in Cardinal Spadas Congregations. And being I wondered at his great pains and exactness, amidst his many other businesses inseparable from his quality of General; He told me he never spared his pen to ease his memory. He said 'twas a strange thing that Vasquez having without contract, taken the liberty to explicate the Propositions of the Bull of Pius V without complaint ever made thereof by any body; yet the same act was a crime of State in Jaensenius. That the answer which they gave in this case, was, that Vasquez lied, and that Cardinal Tolet had not writ in his Journal, that which Vasquez saith was told him by that Cardinal. Which was neither a good answer, nor a proof that Vasquez lied, because the Cardinal might have told him a thing by word of mouth, which he had forgot to set down in his Journal. He lent me the book of Turrienus printed at Lions 1623. to read the Bull of Pius V in it. He had noted it with his own hand in divers places, and I found that in pag. 611. right against this paragraph, Deinde sciendum est inexpositione, &c. this General had writ these words; Die 7. Febr. 1653. Cardinal Spada, dixit Vasq. mentiri, quia aliter reperitur in M. S. ejusdem Toleti. Which was a secret revealed innocently, and without incurring excommunication, which who so had revealed it knowingly, could not have escaped. This, I suppose, was spoken by Cardinal Spada to ward off some objection, which he could not otherwise avoid; and was a new proof of his engagement in the defence of the contrary party.  
Coming from this visit, I made another, in which I learned that Cardinal Barberin said in discourse with Cardinal S. Clement the day before, that it was ill done to set upon Jansenius for these five Propositions, because he was more obnoxious in regard of some others which concerned the honour of the Apostolical Decrees. He had said likewise two days before, to F. Reginald (who acquainted me with it) that it was requisite to condemn Molina and his disciples, and that his Eminence was something displeased with the Approbation which M. Albizzi had given to F. Annats' book.  
Saturday the 22. we went to hear a Sermon, which F. Mariana made at S. Laurence in Damase. It was an excellent Sermon, and almost all concerning Grace, its necessity and effectual power. Cardinal Barberin was there also.  
Monday the 24th. one of my friends told me that Cardinal Ghiggi had spoken to him of us, as much displeased with us, because we acted as if we minded to give them law, and never spoke of submitting ourselves to the H. See, whereas our Adversaries highly professed it upon all occasions. 'Tis true we did not affect to gain the good will of the Romans by such low flatteries, though we had in our hearts as great and perhaps more sincere submission to the H. See than they who gloried in it and made advantage by it. But our submission was regulated by reason: and we were never of those who think Popes cannot be surprised, and that 'tis lawful for them to neglect all kind of forms, and the most necessary means for discovery of truth, as was done in this case, by supposing that the Divine Inspiration would supply for all.  
Tuesday the 25th I went to visit F. Bachelier at la Minerve who was sick. I met a person there who told me that Cardinal Pamphilio had by mediation of other persons solicited the General, not to intervene in our affair; but all that could be urged to him had not moved him from his purpose. A Prelate there also told me, he had seen the General's Papers which he designed to present to the Pope.  
Wednesday 26. we went to accompany the Ambassador to the ceremony of Ashes. At Monte Cavallo we met the Abbot de la Paix, who told us we had the best reason in the world, but our resolute manner of carriage was not approved. Whereupon I showed him that we were obliged to act so, and for his further satisfaction, desired F. Guerin, who was to visit him in the afternoon, to carry him a Copy of the Latin Letter, written to us touching this point by our Bishops Nou. 28 and of the two Memorials presented to the Pope by our Advocate.  
As we returned home I visited F. Luca Vadingo, who told me we should do well to translate into Italian the Letter of the Curé of S. Roch, which I had showed him concerning the Despairing sick man of the Archbishop of Toulouse, and show it to the Consultors, to defend ourselves from the false impressions which our Adversaries, who never rested, gave them of us. He told me also that our writings both de Gestis and of S. Augustin's Authority, with their summary, were shown to him, and other Consultors by turns. He asked me if I knew whether any Doctors of the University of Louvain would come, because they would be very necessary in the cause to represent the interest of Jansenius. In fine, he told me also that we should do well to show that this Controversy was the same with that of the Dominicans and the Jesuits. That the first Proposition was concerning the Necessity of Grace, the second concerning its Efficacy, the third concerning its compatibility and agreement with , the fourth to know whether the same were necessary to the beginning of faith, and the fith whether there be a sufficient Grace given generally to all men.  
I spent the afternoon at la Minerve, where I found F. Fani, who told me that the Congregation was appointed to be next day at Cardinal Spadas house; and that if he were there, all he would answer to the passages of Scripture alleged by the Jesuits against the Propositions, should be, that these passages were the very same which the Semipelagians heretofore opposed to S. Augustin, and that he referred them to what S. Augustin answers thereunto.  
After some particular visits on Tuesday the 27. coming by Cardinal Spadas Palace in the evening I saw M. Albizzi's coach alone, still waiting for him, and without doubt all the rest of the Congregation which had been held there, were departed before.  
Friday 28 I understood that in this Congregation, order was given to the General of the Augustine's, F. Luva Vadingo, F. Delbene, the Master of the sacred Palace, and the Commissary of the H. Office, to Write down their Vote or suffrage per extensum, and that speedily, to have it ready when it should be demanded of them. That they said they wondered why this Order was given to them rather than to the other Consultors; and that Cardinal Spada answered that the others had delivered theirs in Common, in a particular Congregation held purposely, to which they had not been sent for with the rest, because they were of a contrary sentiment. That one of those that were at that particular Congregation confessed ingenuously, that they had subscribed the condemnation of the Propositions, and that the Cardinals had done the same and were all highly incensed against us.  
In the afternoon I met F. Galassini, who told me that a few days before he saw M. Hallier and his Colleagues much plunged with an Instance brought in defence of the truth which they impugned under the first Proposition, and that they could not get quit of it; and no marvel, for indeed it was not possible.  
A supposal was made of two Just persons, who both endeavour to perform a Commandment of God whereunto they are both obliged; one performs it effectively, the other doth not. They were asked what is wanting to him who doth not perform it, unless the Effectual Grace; which is necessary to them for performing it, & which enables the other to perform it; and whether it is not this Grace which renders the Commandment possible with the last and complete possibility, to which nothing is wanting? This good Father told me he never saw men so puzzled as these great Doctors, and that they could not answer a word to this Instance.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of divers Works published at Paris by Molina 's Partisans during the same Month of February. Of sundry rumours and menaces which they dispersed there. And of the Letters which were writ to us from Paris during this whole Month and the beginning of March, both touching the Matter and our Answers to Cardinal Spadas Offer.  
THe Letters writ to me from Paris this Month gave me intelligence of divers Books newly printed, amongst the rest of one which M. Pignay complained of in the Assembly of our Faculty primâ mensis, to the end the Faculty might nominate Doctors for examining it, and after an extract and report made of it, proceed to its condemnation in the ordinary forms. One of the ancientest Doctors deputed for its examination sent me word that 'twas a Book injurious to the living and the dead, to the King and the State, to the Church, to the Bishops, to the Faculty, to the Parliament, to the Archbishop then living, to Cardinal de Retz; in fine, to all sorts of persons. And notwithstanding sundry Doctors M. Cornet's Adherents, amongst whom were M. Charton and M. Morel, were very stiff against M. Pignay's motion; and to hinder the nomination of Deputies for examining the Book, caused M. Mulot Dean, and M. Grandin to rise from their places, and to go out of the Assembly with them, conceiving it would break up by their absence; Yet the Doctors who remained finding it was not just that a Dean and a Syndic should thus bafflle the Faculty, and break its Assemblies when they pleased, held the Assembly in their absence, and did justice upon M. Pignay's Supplicate, by nominating Deputies for examination of the Book complained of. It was composed by a Fueillant, and entitled, Chronicon seu Continuatio Chronici Ademari Monachi Engolism ab Anno 1032. ad Annum 1652. Authore D. Petro à Sancto Romualdo Engolism, etc.  
Two others were published under F. Annat's name, which were nothing else but the very writings which M. Hallier and his Colleagues presented at Rome to the Cardinals and Consultors of the Congregation, and of which mention is made above; the one being entitled Jansenius à Thomistis condemnatus; the other, Augustinus à Baianis vindicatus. But which was most strange, besides the unworthy abjectness to which Doctors of Paris debased themselves in being the Pamphlet-venters of the Jesuits, in a cause wherein those Doctors appeared outwardly the principal parties; the same work was printed and published a fortnight before as M. Hallier's, with the extract of a Letter in French by him written at Rome in December preceding; wherein that Doctor sent word that the Propositions would be shortly condemned, that the Pope and Cardinals judged us unworthy to be heard, and that the condemnation would be pasesed nevertheless. And the same Book was published afterwards under the name of the abovesaid Jesuit with a Latin Preface, in which according to his wont confidence and shamelesness, he affirmed that we had been heard as much as we would.  
But leaving aside this spirit of duplicity and lying, which caused both of them to speak so differently of the same thing; they showed evidently thereby, what we were taking pains to prove at Rome, that M. Hallier and his Colleagues were in this affair only the Agents of the Jesuits, and those Fathers our right Adversaries; who consequently ought to appear before the Congregation to defend themselves, and neither they, nor such as were known devoted to them, (as F. Modeste, and M. Albizzi) to have seats amongst those who were to hear and pronounce upon our differences.  
The abovementioned Writing, Jansenius à Thomistis, etc. gave occasion to two printed Letters which were directed to F. Annat touching its being one while attributed to M. Hallier, and another while challenged back by that Father. One of these Letters was dated, Febr. 7. and the other Febr. 12. both excellent. But I am so much an Enemy to the least Faults which escape even innocently against the Truth, that I cannot but correct one here which I observed in the reading of them. In pag. 23. it is said that the transient audience which we had of the Pope in his Presence-chamber at the presentation of our Writings and Memorials to him, lasted a very considerable time. Which by what I have above related, is convinced to be a mistake in the Author's intelligence.  
The same month another came forth, not quite new, but a second Edition. 'Twas the Antitheses of F. L' Abbé the Jesuit between Jansenius and S. Augustin, upon which he had conferred and been confounded by M. de S. Beuve, as is before mentioned; and yet this Father caused the same to be printed again, as if he knew not the weakness and falsehood of his work. He followed blindly the passion which inspired him with this incredible boldness, and crowned it with no less an outrage against S. Augustin. For at the end of his Antitheses he added an Advertisement to the Reader, wherein he tells him confidently, that those testimonies of S. Augustin which he cited, show the falsehood of the Five Propositions of the New Doctrine, or Jansenius abstracted and contained in those Five Propositions; and that if after all this, the Opinions of S. Augustin seem still obscure to any one, he need but be a little patiented till Rome declares what S. Augustin's Opinions were, or what they ought to have been. Ex allatis divi Augustini testimoniis refutatas habes quinque Theses novae doctrinae, seu, ut loquuntur aliqui, Jansenium in quinque Theses digestum. Si cui tamen post tot testimonia, obscurus adhuc videbitur Augustini sensus, expectet tantisper, BREVI LOQVETUR ROMA QVID SENSERIT AUGUSTINUS, AUT QVID SENTIRE DEBVERIT.  
In the Letter in which M. Brousse gave me notice of this second Edition, he concludes after these words; Behold, according to this Advertisement, S. Augustin eonvicted, and nothing more remaining but a Bull to declare him a Heretic, and remove him out of the Litanies as the Jesuits have already removed him out of the number of the Doctors of the Church, by putting S. Nicolas in his place in the proud Mausolaeum which they have erected in the Court of their College of Clermont, to the memory of Cardinal de la Rochefoucaut!  
M. de S. Beuve about three weeks after writ to me two reflections upon the same advertisement. The first was concerning the three last lines about S. Augustin, to whom, he said, this Discourse was highly injurious; that 'twas to accuse him of having erred, and by extreme arrogance to pronounce before Rome, by saying that within a little while she will speak and declare what ought to have been the sentiments of that H. Doctor. The second was upon the former part of the sentence; Ex allatis D. Augustini testimoniis, etc. for (said M. de S. Beuve) he thereby openly declares that their design is to involve in the Censure of Five Equivocal Propositions of which themselves are the Authors, the whole Doctrine of Effectual Grace so strongly made good by M. d' Ipre against Molinian novelties.  
M. le Maistre Doctor and Professor of Divinity our Confrere happened to be very sick; upon which occasion the Abbot Ollier made a Sermon at the Church of S. Sulpitius (the Cure whereof he had resigned a little before) which deserves to be reckoned amongst the extraordinary Pieces which appeared this month. The business was thus. M. le Maistre caused his usual Confessor to come to him, who was one of the Carmelites of the great Covent: He desired the H. Viaticum, which was brought to him from the Parish of Sulpitius. Upon the ordinary exhortation which the Priest made to the sick person, he out of sentiments of sincere Christian piety testified some fear of the dreadful and hidden judgements of God. The Priest spoke largely to the contrary, and perhaps a little too much concerning the inexhaustible abyss of his mercy. But being a man of less abilities then M. de Maistre he could not free him from this holy fear which is inseparable from solid Christian piety; and therefore went away displeased and angry; suspecting also that some body from Port Royal or the House of the Incurables had infused this fear into him. He made report in the Church of S. Sulpitius of what he had seen, and heard, and of his suspicion that the sick person who was a Priest, was almost besides himself, and reduced to despair by him who had ministered to him, and that he spoke of nothing but repentance and God's judgement. Upon this occasion the Abbot Ollier made a Sermon at S. Sulpitius, in which he showed at first extraordinary commotion and grief that all was lost. And then alleged in the first place that the cause of this his vehement affliction, was, that a sect of people was risen up in the Church who drew the people into error with themselves; which error consisted in their standing upon external repentance alone, so far as to contemn internal; and that nevertheless they continued puffed up with pride. After divers injuries suggested to him by his zeal against those people, he instanced (as an example of the pride whereof he accused them) in a man whom he affirmed that he saw cruelly mangle his whole body. Secondly, He said that these new Sectaries held for an undoubted Maxim, That Absolution is never to be given to any but those in whom perfect Contrition is found; which he said was an Error condemned by the Council of Trent, and of which he brought no other proofs, saving that he was ready to die for it. In the third place he accused the same people of believing that Absolution is unprofitable & did not remit sins; and that external penance alone remitted them. Fourthly, That they generally believed it was necessary to salvation to forsake Cities and retire into Deserts. Fifthly, Himself affirmed, that for obtaining remission of sins in the Sacrament of Penance, there was no more preparation or repentance necessary then is required in adult persons for Baptism; and that this was the pure doctrine of the Council of Trent. And in the sixth place, That for the direction and amendment of life, it is not requisite to make use of the rules of the ancient Fathers of the Church, but of those of the Doctors of the present times who had converted so many souls to Jesus Christ.  
This was the substance of his Sermon, in which appeared so many errors and calumnies. He who gave me this account of it in a Latin Letter of Feb. 22. had exactly taken it. Which Letter containing this judgement touching our refusal to appear in Cardinal Spadas Congregations, but upon such conditions as we demanded, I shall here insert at length, and with it two others, conceiving them worth the Reader's pains to peruse.  
QVid sit de Cardinalis Eminentissimi Spadae nuperrima denuntiatione sentienda, haud satis mihi liquet. Multi multa variáque dicunt, nec idem est ac constans omnium hac de re judicium. Si tamen licet in re tam difficili aliquid suspicari, arbitror virum in rebus gerendis versatissimum, hanc tentasse viam dirimendae litis illius maximae, quae omnium brevissima videbatur, si vos consentientes habuisset. Ita enim & satisfaciebat Ignatianis qui nihil pejus decollatione oderant, nec vobis videbatur facturus injuriam, si rationem illam judicii probasse●is. Etenim mihi persuadere nunquam potui, prudentissimos viros, tanti momenti quaestiones, in quibus totius fidei Christianae cardo vertitur, ex praeconceptis opinionibus & praecipiti judicio definituros. Et quanquam Eminentiss. Cardinalem Spadam illi sententiae quae Jansenio tribuitur, infensum non unus pridem mihi nunciavit, publicéque dicere habere se argumenta duo quae Jansenistarum nullus solvere valeat, arbitratus sum tamen illum non adeò sic adhaesurum privatae sententiae, ut cum se judicem intelligeret, von experiretur an qui aliter sentiunt, nihil habeant, nihil aut excogitarint aut à Deo acceperint, quo veritas illustrari posset. Sit enim persuasus licet dum privatum gerit, privatis rationibus, quas ut plurimùm quasi partus quosdam animorum plurimum diligimus; at ubi judicem induit, aequus esse debet, & antequam ad judicandum accedat, omnibus se prejudiciis exuere. De Traditione quaestio est quaenam vera sit, quaenam à Christo per Apostolorum, per Augustini, per summorum Pontificum manus Ecclesiae concredita; quid illi conform, quid illi adversum sit, res est obscurata pristinis contentionibus; multa per humanam Philosophiam & complicationis superbiam inducta sunt, quae sinceram Christi fidem involverunt: Enucleanda sunt illa, separandum est humanum à divino, falsum à vero; quod fieri non posse, nisi concertatione mutua oppositarum partium, ac utriusque doctrinae explicatione comparationeque certum est. Itaque licet Apostolica sedes, licet Concilia divinam gratiam in definiendis articulis Fidei semper sperare debuerunt, quae nunquam ipsis deerit, licet ad illa perfidia habere non possit accessum; Audire inter se Disputantes semper in more positum fuit, ut ex illa veluti collisione veritas excitaretur, cujus scintillae sese postea in universum orbem dispergerent. Istud non schismaticis, non haereticis negatum est, quanto magis Catholicis concedi oportet; qui se Pauli, Augustini, Thomae, veterum recentiumque Pontificum, adeóque discipulos Ecclesiae profitentur, & Sedis Apostolicae vocem toties gratiae Christi vindicem iterum audire gestiunt clarè loquentem, vera falsáque distinguentem, atque à Molinianis tricis atqué argutiis, quibus tamdiù veritati illuditur, sinceram fidem & Christi doctrinam eruentem! Quod quidem ut maximi momenti est, ita & servatâ quantum licet legitimi judicii formâ fieri debet, ut quemadmodum olim dum Concilium generale cogi non poterat, Romanus Episcopus convocatis vicinioribus & suburbicariae regionis Episcopis de fide consultabat, & disquisitione facta discernabat; sic etiam hisce temporibus pro ea qua pollet auctoritate, pro ea qua urgetur charitate, ad pacem inter fideles stabiliendam, ad tuendam veritatem, summus Pontifex Innocentius X. collationem instituat solennem, ut pollicitus est, quaestiones ventilari & examinari jubeat; ut maturè examinatis omnibus, discordiae semina penitus auferantur. Neque aliam mentem esse arbitror Eminentiss. Cardinalium deputatorum & Consultorum. Quî enim sibi in animum inducant, se tam exactè novisse omnia quae ad fidem Traditio nemque pertineant, ut nullam aliunde lucem haurire possint! Nam egent lectione, study, meditatione diligenti, ut quotidiè discant quod priùs ignorabant, & apertè videant quod apertum & obscurum apparebat; sed an ea legere, meditari, & videre unius aut etiam paucorum est, nisi disputatione & contrariorum oppositione, quae optima discendi Methodus est, adjuventur? An credere Spiritum sanctum immediatè cujuscunque hominis ingenio illabi, & revelare quae fidem explicant, nisi omnem in exquirenda veritate sollicitudinem adhibeant; Cum ne totius quidem Ecclesiae Concilia id unquam speraverint à Deo obtinere, nisi & prolixas preces & maximam diligentiam adhibeant? sed ista prolixiùs quam putaram de re minime dubia, quamque firmissimè credere Romanos Cosultores non ignoro.  
Tacere non possum duo quae Adversarionum tuorum fidem, probitatem & sinceritatem ostendunt. Primum est, Abbatis Ollierii zelusne imperitus dicam an furor, qui nuper in S. Sulpitii Ecclesia, cujus se cura nuper exoneravit, concionem habens ea dixit, quae non Sacerdotem modò; sed ne hominem quidem pudoris alicujus decerent. Occasionem hanc furori dedit D. le Maistre Socius & Professor noster; aegrotabat ille; advocavit Confessarium suum, Carmelitam scilicet ex majori Conventu▪ postea Viaticum petiit; adfertur ipsi ex Parochiali Ecclesia S. Sulpitii, accedit ad eum Sacerdos, qui talem agrotum neque ex nomine neque ex vultu nosset, sed confidens ac securus; tum qui decumbebat ex sensu vere Christiano testari quantum metu Divinorum judiciorum teneretur: alter mihi homo & ad misericordiam inclinatior spem ingerere, misericordiam opportunè importunè ostentare; aliquod tempus ea in pugna perditum est; sed sensit Sacerdos qui ad aegrotum accesserat, quàm impar esset congressus Achilli. Subiratus discessit: inde suspicio aliquem à Portu Regio aut Incurabilium Nosocomio infudisse metum hunc. Refert quod viderat, quod audierat, quod suspicabatur; hominem sacerdotem fere dementatum, & adactum in desperationem, à nescio quo, certe non è seminario; nihil loqui nisi poenitentiam, nisi judicium. Excitatur rumour, animatur zelus, succedit indignatio, inde in Cathedram veritatis post aliquot dies; Quid ibi? multa convitia; verberatur aer petulantibus maledictis, haecque docentur & stabiliuntur, Christiana pietatate scilicet plenissima. Primò, tam insolentis iracundiae causa affertur, nempe invaluisse Sect●m novorum hominum populum in errorem inducentium, quorum error hic esset, ut Poenitentiae soli exteriori adhaererent, ad contemptum usque interioris; qui interim superbia inflati remanerent, etc. Tum post contumelias non paucas, exemplum attulit superbi quem ipse viderat (exempli fides sit penes dicentem tam sincerum) corpus suum dilaniare. Secundo, nunquam abs●lutionem dandam nisi iis, in quibus perfecta contritio deprehenderetur; quam doctrinam errorem volebat à Concilio Tridentino damnatum; cujus rei aliud nullum argumentum attulit, nisi quod protestatus est se pro eo mori paratissimum. Tertio illorum quoque opinionem esse, Absolutionem esse mutilam, non remittere peccata, quae sola exterior poenitentia remitteret. Quartò eos universim credere, quod ad salutem consequendam necessarium esset urbes deserere, & in deserta recedere. Quintò ad consequendam remissionem peccatorum in Sacramento Poenitentiae non esse necessarium majorem dispositionem neque plus poenitentiae erigi quam ad Baptismum exigitur ab adultis, hancque esse puram doctrinam Concilii Tridentini. Sextò, ad directionem & emendationem morum, antiquorum Patrum Regulis utendum non esse, sed hujus saeculi Doctorum qui tot animas ad Christum converterunt. Ista ad verbum ex compendio brevi concionis illius reddiderunt. Alterum quod monendum habebam, videbis in Epistola P. Annati, quam ad te missam mox mihi dictum est. Vale.  
21 Febr. Anno MDCLIII.  
The third of these Letters was from M. de Saint Beuve, and here follows:  
Paris, Febr. 1653. SIR,  
WE have understood with wonder; by your last, how Cardinal Spada hath at length a list of the Consultors, and offered you a hearing in the Congregation which it pleased the Pope to grant to you for the Controversies about Grace. But we have understood with joy in what manner you carried yourself in this Occurrence, and all of us extremely approve your answer. It is not fit to appear so long as Palavicini, Modeste and Albizzi are Consultors; all of them carry their exception in their foreheads; and I doubt not but his Holiness will do you justice if you represent to him that 'tis not reasonable in a Cause of the Jesuits for a Jesuit, or an approver of the Jesuitical doctrine contained in F. Annat's book, to have a suffrage, and much less he, whom all Europe knows to have been their Agent for oppressing S. Augustin's doctrine. 'Tis notorious that the Jesuits are our right Adversaries, and that the Doctors who appear there as such, are only the Solicitors of their affairs, lending them their name and service, acting nothing but what they direct, and produce nothing but by their appointment. The last Book which came forth here under F. Annat's name, and this Title; Jansenius à Thomistis damnatus, is a convincing proof thereof; for this Jesuite's Book is nothing else but the Writings which M. Hallier and his Colleagues presented to the Congregation. The approbation which F. Modeste gave to the former Book of the same Author, entitled Augustinus à Baianis vindicatus, shows that that Approbator declaring himself thereby for our Adversaries is no longer fit to be a Consultor. And what can be said in the behalf of M. Albizzi, who engaged M. Hallier to go to Rome, who writ to him so frequently, and received his intelligences and answers, as M. Hallier confessed in the open Faculty, when he was accused of corresponding with the Jesuits in this affair, and subscribing the Letters which he sent by F. Mulard, in quality of Syndic, though he had no order from the Faculty to write? 'Tis necessary, therefore, Sir, that these three persons be excluded from the Congregation; Justice requires it; and the honour of the H. See no less. When they are excluded, than you may appear, but according to order; not to make a harangue or remonstrance, but first to hear the complaints of our Adversaries, and then answer them by distinguishing the bad sense from the good, which we defend and you would establish. To this purpose you must speak, propose and answer. Afterwards 'twill be your part to oppose, and then Rome will see that 'tis not of Propositions made at pleasure that S. Augustin's Disciples complain. Then will follow the answers of the Molinists, who will do no small matters if they save themselves from Censure. This is the Order, Sir, which is to be held and not departed from. If our Adversaries have carried their Complaint to the H. See, we shall also carry ours. They could not find Propositions in our Books worthy of Censure, our Doctrine is so Orthodox, and therefore they framed some of their own invention; but we have drawn such out of their Books as they can neither disown or defend. This, no doubt, they foresee; and therefore endeavour their utmost not to appear in a Disputation; which you must insist upon and take the advantage of this Congregation. M. Hallier is to return after Easter, and go directly to S. Malo, without coming to Paris, as I understand by the Almoner of the Bishop of S. Malo. And if so, you judge right, that he desires to decline all dispute. He has written to M. Amyot, that he shall shortly have the Propositions condemned, that he has been heard in the Congregation, and that you stand off and dare not appear there. His Letter was published in the Sacristie of S. Maderic and read in the seats of the Sorbonne by him to whom it was directed. This vain boasting confirms me in the same conceit, (besides that understanding persons have inferred the same) namely, that it is false that any Proposition is as yet condemned, seeing the Parties have not been heard. To think that judgement shall be pronounced without hearing you as you demand, is to think an impossibility. For how can they pronounce upon our sense, if they know not what it is? which they cannot but by ourselves. To say that they will pronounce without distinguishing the senses, is ridiculous. For besides that nothing would be pronounced in this case upon the present controversy, which is not touching the Propositions, but touching the different senses which they have, the Thomists would become involved in such an absolute condemnation. So that there's no more to be done, but to keep in the same mind. We will send you help, to the end that in case of sickness the Congregation may continue. He will set forth, I hope, the first week of Lent, etc.  
The third of those Letters was written to me by order of my LL. the Bishops to whom I had addressed mine of Jan. 27. And the Copy is here subjoined.  
Febr. 21. 1653.  
The answer to the Letter of Jan. 27.  
SIR,  
I Have communicated your Letter to my Lords, who were much surprised at your being sent for by Cardinal Spada, to appear before an other Congregation then that which it pleased the Pope to grant you upon your suit. They remember very well that his Holiness caus'd the late Cardinal Roma to signify to you, that having regard to the Letters and Memorial which you presented to him, he granted you the Congregation of Five Cardinals, namely, Roma, Spada, Cechini, Ginetti and Ghiggi, for the discussion and examination of the five Propositions. Since that time my LL. always relied upon the establishment of that Congregation, and persuaded themselves that the judgement of the Five Propositions would be passed according to all the forms of Ecclesiastical justice; that you should be heard in presence of your Adversaries, the Writing communicated, all causes of exception against the declared opposers of your cause admitted, and finally that the Pope would decide the questions in such manner as the like have always been decided by his Predecessors, in Councils and particular Congregations. When they were most at quiet, your Letter comes and gives them notice of another Congregation to which you were summoned; this amazed them; nevertheless your judicious answer to that summons comforted them; they extremely approve the same, and enjoin you to insist upon it, and not go beyond it. M. Hallier will do any thing that he pleases. My Lords pray you to continue in the terms of your answer, hoping that the Pope being just will have regard thereto; and lastly they recommend themselves to you and beseech God to fill you with blessings.  
By Command of my Lords N.  
After the departure of the Post, my Lords condering the present posture of our affair, and fearing the ill consequences which they foresaw, conceived it befitting their Episcopal care to endeavour the prevention of the same; wherefore those who were then at Paris, writ forthwith a new Letter to the Pope, which came not from them till eight days after, and was delivered to us at Rome in its due time. The French translation of it is here inserted, the Original Latin in the Collection ensuing. Being directed To the most H. F. Pope Innocent X. it proceeded thus.  
MOST H. FATHER,  
BIshops highly affectionate to truth, and the Church's peace could not receive more welcome news then the assurance given us last Summer, that your Holines' paternal affection and Apostolical care had induced you to establish that Congregation, so much desired by us. Assoon as we received this intelligence from the Doctors who solicit this great affair at Rome in our name, we rejoiced to understand that they had succeeded happily, that the supreme See of the Church approved and professed to embrace that means, which may be in some manner termed the only one likely to re-establish public tranquillity: From that time we conceived a firm hope, M.H.F. that the clouds of calumnies and humane artifices being dispelled, Truth, hitherto outrageed and oppressed by its enemies, would find as many protectors as judges: and that being an Ecclesiastical Judgement was likely to be passed for deciding such important questions, relating to the Faith, according as has been always practised, we ought to remain quiet in expectation of what so solemn a Congregation should produce. For the Jesuits having caused these five Famous Propositions to be contrived at pleasuere by persons devoted to them, the structure whereof is so artificial and the sense so equivocal, thereby to overthrow S. Augustin's authority, and make the novel opinion of Lowis Molina, triumph over the sentiments of the Congregation of Rome, the consent of so many Ages, and the Orthodox doctrine of ancient Divines, we could not doubt but the esteem and reputation of that H. Doctor of Grace, would be in safety when it should be examined before that supreme Tribunal, which has made him so renowned in all the earth, by the glorious eulogies which it hath given him. But, M. H. F. as much as we rejoiced then at the news of that Cogregation, so much have we since been surprised with the astonishment of the sudden change of which the Divines deputed by us to your Holiness have informed us by their last Letters; to wit, that the proceeding in this grand affair is become very different from what we believed, and that this Congregation is not, as was promised them, a Congregation in which the parties are heard in presence viuâ voce, and their Writings respectively communicated, for taking away all suspicion of fraud; but that a course is held wholly different from what they had informed us that they had obtained of your Holiness.  
This, M. H. F. appearing wholly contrary to our hope of seeing the Church's peace re-establisht, we could not understand without extreme grief; considering what boldness it gives to S. Augustin's declared enemies, with incredible mischiefs will ensue from it, of what new troubles it will afford matter to turbulent spirits, what damage the H. See and the whole Church will receive, if Molina's Partisans effect what they have used so many slight and artifices to obtain, which is, That it be not plainly declared in what precise sense the Propositions be condemned, but only that a judgement be passed without distinguishing the senses which are proper to them for deciding the capital point of the whole controversy: which would afford means to the enemies of the H. Doctor of Grace, boldly to abuse the said judgement hereafter not only against him and his disciples, but likewise against the authority and reputation of the H. Apostolic See.  
We beseech your Holinsse therefore to admit this complaint, being attended with no less affection and respect then grief and anxiety. Some small sparks have already caused a great flame on all sides, and the violence of this evils spreads everywhere. The children of the Church are divided, their Mother sighs at it, and the wisdom of their Common Father is alone capable to supply a remedy thereunto. This affair is treated with very much heat, but Y. H. may wholly extinguish it by using clear and precise words, in passing a judgement on the sense of the Propositions, which is the whole subject of this dispute; for by this means Y. H. will stop the contests of those who are divided into different opinions, and which both sides have maintained with so great ardour. Now to attain to this M. H. F. and that none may allege any excuse to cause delay, it it seems necessary in the present state of things, first, that liberty be given to our Deputies to declare their sentiments in presence of their Adversaries who are at Rome, to the end to discover their artifices; and that what shall be alleged by either side in defence of their opinions, be respectively drawn up into public acts, by some unsuspected person, that copies thereof be given to the parties, and that they interchangeably communicate what they advance for the establishing their own or opposing the sentiments of their Adversaries: That afterwards the Jesuits, being more obliged than any others to maintain this contestation in regard they uphold the new doctrine of Molina, and are declared enemies of that of S. Augustin, may enter into the cause, inasmuth as they are indeed the principal parties, as is evident from hence that the writings presented to the Congregation were made by Fransois Annat of their society, who has been so bold as to print the same publicly at Paris under his own name. That M. Albizzi abstain from the Congregation; since the causes of exception against him are so just and evident that they are known to all the world. And lastly that F. Modeste, who hath not feared to approve F. Annat's book assoon as it came from the press, may be likewise removed out of the number of the Consultors, having by so manifest a fore-judgment shown how much he favours Molina and is contrary to S. Augustin.  
Your Holiness, M. H. F. sees that these proposals tend not to eschew the judgement of the cause, but seek the means of establishing the Church's peace. And we hope, your Holiness will favourably admit requests, which as things stand, are not only just but necssary; which are full of low respect to Y. H. and which have no other aim but the good of souls which it hath pleased God to commiit to us, the authority of your judgement, and the glory of the Apostolic See. We know that one of the principal duties of Bishops is with great care to watch, that the Consciences of their people may remain in peace and Christian tranquillity; and that if when Tares are sown amongst them, we be so negligent as to sleep instead of plucking them up, God will require a severe account of us for it. This is it which makes us renew our supplications to Y. H. more than ever, to conjure you not to use a remedy in this occasion less than the evil, but to end this grand difference by a judgement: which may decide the bottom of the dispute, ruin error in its root, and establish a firm and sure peace. Which will most certainly come to pass, if it please Y. H. to grant us a Congregation like that which Clement VIII. and Paul V established, open and free to all parties, of which no person may complain, and which may be famous for ever. We beseech Our Lord Jesus Christ the Author of all graces to preserve Y. H. in health for the general good of all Christendom.  
We are, MOST HOLY FATHER, etc. Y. H. most humble and obedient Sons, N. and N. In the absence of our Confreres. Paris, Febr. 24. 1653.  
By the same return one of the same Prelates sent me the following.  
SIR,  
I Have read with great joy the generous resolution which you have taken, not to 
a It was not to return into France, as I designed for six Months together about my domestic affairs.  desert God's cause which you have hitherto so vigorously and happily defended; as also the 
b My Letter of Jan. 27.  Narrative of your transactions with Cardinal Spada. Nothing more weighty and judicious; and I hope you prudence and constancy will at length bring about the Congregation which we wish. I have understood with very much satisfaction how the Order of Dominicans proceeds. Be pleased to continue your adherence with them as to the fundamental controversy which concerns Effectual Grace. For obtaining a solemn Congregation, I see nothing more conducive, then to persist in urging that the H. See never denied to hear Bishops who demanded Audience of it; That since the time of Pius V Greg. XIII. and urban VIII. there have been no parties that demanded to be heard and to confer; nor can there be any obstacle now since M. Hallier and his Colleagues agree to it; 
c They professed so in words, and Cardinel Spada did them the honour and the kindness to say for them that they were ready to do it. So that this is meant but ad hominem.  As for the circumstance of the Inquisition, we conceive it hath nothing to do in these parts at present. It will be good if the Ambassador can move in the business, and give the Pope to understand that the French cannot acknowledge that Tribunal. I am more than ever most really etc.  
The same day N. de Saint Beuve writ one to me which deserves as well as any not to be denied the public light, 'tis so clear, sincere and comprehensive.  
SIR,  
YOU are very obliging in taking so much pains to encourage me, upon supposition that I am very anxious for the success of our affairs. Perhaps something of my style may have occasioned that your judgement; but though otherwise obliged to you, I cannot but tell you that I never had any apprehension, knowing the goodness of our Cause, and your vigilant and prudent conduct. The reports spread hitherto by our Adversaries have not shaken me, but I hoped well when I heard that they Decided beforehand, and published Judgements before the merit of the cause was known. Nevertheless I cannot omit what they have vented this week. F. Paulin said at the Lovure that we were in such contempt at Rome, that we were not thought worthy of being heard. You see what a great honour this man does to the H. See, since he judges it capable of Prepossessions to the prejudice of the course of justice which refuses not to hear the most wicked wretches in their own defence. At the College of Navarre, they say you have done as Luther and Calvin did. That first you referred your difference to the Pope, and when he was taking course to pronounce concerning it, you appealed to a Council, or rather demanded to be heard in a Council. These people are as knowing in history as they are honest in reporting your actions. In Sorbonne 'tis said that you were upon flight, and that not daring to appear before the Pope, because your condemnation was inevitable, you demanded to have a Council assembled. At the Bishop of Malo's house, it is said that M. Hallier is to set forth in the beginning of Lent for France, and to be at Lions by Easter, from whence he goes to Roanne, and thence to Nantes for S. Malo, with design to dedicate himself for the rest of his days to the service of M. de S. Malo, more than ever. And upon my objections that it was hardly credible that M. Hallier could be returning so soon, unless he came away before the decision of the cause, I was answered that he hoped to have judgement by that time, but would come back however, having sufficiently laboured for a year together. Whence I conclude that M. Hallier must suppose that the business would not be determined, by his return; for should he come into France with the least advantage whatsoever, he would come to Paris and to the Court to receive honours and compliments for it; and also to demand some recompense, either an Abbey or a Bishopric. But this is enough about them; let's return to ourselves. Nothing can be more prudent and commendable than your proceeding with Cardinal Spada; your Narrative of it has fully satisfied me. You have nothing left to do but to keep your ground, and insist upon this especially. 'Tis a thing unheard of, that in an important Controversy the Bishops of France demanded a hearing and a conference before the Pope, and were denied. That if it be true that our Adversaries desire to be heard coràm, there is no inconvenience in granting, the one side demands, and the other consents to. That 'tis the only means to restore a calm in the Church, without which, whatever else be done, the stirs and contentions will continue. That if an absolute condemnation be passed upon the Propositions without distinguishing senses, the Molinists will forthwith make advantage of it against the Thomists; and that the senses be distinguished without knowing of us which is ours. In fine, Sir, you must either be heard contradictorily, or else remain silent, patiently expecting what the determination will be.  
I forget to tell you that M. Hallier and his Colleagues writ that he has been heard, that both he and his Colleagues spoke an hour and an half with with great applause; and that the whole Assembly admired his abilities and moderation, your denial to appear having given great advantage to your Adversaries. But for my satisfaction I shall be glad if you signified to me what you have learned of their Orations. I am,  
Sir, etc.  
The same day a Doctor of the Faculty deputed for the examen of the new Chronicle of the Fevillant, sent me word by two Letters, that after a long Conference thereupon, they found the Book full of impieties and injuries; and (to make short) he signified to me the week after that the King's authority was interposed to forbid the Faculty to censure it, though it was injurious to Kings as well as to the Pope and Bishops, but principally to Kings. Take part of that former Letter written Febr. 18.  
Redeo à privatis Doctorum Comitiis, in quibus Chronici Ademari continuationem à Fulgensi recens editam expendimus. Tot sunt impiè, insulsè, contumeliosè dicta, ut examen nos ad usque multam noctem tenuerit. Hos duos dies, quòd mihi incumberet ut aiebant de illo refer, study ad id necessario consumpsi; quare prolixiùs non vacat.  
And part of the latter written to me March 7.  
Chronicon Fuliensis omnibus Ordinibus, Pontifici, Episcopis, Regibúsque praecipuè injuriosum, mendaciis erroribúsque plenissimum, Censura notari qui Regem obsident non sunt passi. Nec dubito quin Syndieus aliique ejusdem notae homines, prohibitionem hanc à Ministris Regiis extorserint, ita illorum indoli bellè convenit cum hoc opusculo tenebrarum.  
But they were not successful in their solicitations from the King and his Ministers to the Archbishop of Paris and his Officiate, to hinder the condemnation of it, as they hinder that of the Faculty. For the Archbishop caused his to be published against it at the end of Parochial Masses on the first Sunday of Lent, in spite of all obstacles laid in his way from the Court. And the Keeper of the Seals, having himself conferred with the Official about it two hours, received from him so evident an account of the necessity and obligation which the Archbishop had to condemn it, that he was constrained to yield to his reasons. This particularity was signified by M. de Sainte-Beuve in a Letter of March 7. in which he added that he had begun to read S. Annat 's Book entitled, Augustinus à Baianis vindicatus; and truly (said he) I pity him, he is so weak, calumnious and injurious to S. Augustin. And in another of March 14. That he found himself obliged to refute him in his Lectures, which was easy for him to do, the Father's grounds being nothing but Imposture, and his strength consisting in captious arguments.  
'Tis a strange thing that notwithstanding our refusal to appear in the Congregation separately from our Adversaries, and to present other Writings till our former were communicated, was so equitable and well-grounded; Yet their Eminences resolution not to admit of either, but to proceed to judgement in the affair without it, ceased not to make us fear ill success, if we continued firm in our denial. Wherefore we fell upon the same Consultation which he had held about three months before, namely, Whether in case that after all our reptesentations of the justice and advantage of such communication they should continue inexorable, and that a pure and absolute Condemnation were likely to ensue (much to the prejudice of the Church's truth and to ours) it would not be expedient that we yielded to inform them after their mode, rather than let such a Censure come forth. The reasons for either part, abovementioned at large, were again considered, with additions of new; but we were divided now, as formerly. We writ therefore severally into France our opinions, and the reasons of them. Not one of our Friends or Bishops thought fit that we should recede from any thing of our demand and proceeding, they judged it so equitable, and were so persuaded that if Justice were not done us in this point, we could not hope it in anything. This their judgement I shall extract out of a Letter written to him of us three, who was of the same mind, March 7. 1653.  
Reflecting upon the debate which you have had again with M. D. M. the more I consider the affair, the more I am on your side, and cannot yield to his reasons. I cannot think that if the resolution be taken to censure the Propositions, 'tis in the power of any thing that you can produce, to alter it. For the Condemnation will be concluded upon Politic reasons, to which you shall never be put to answer, and so never cut the knot of the affair. But if on the contrary the consideration of truth be more prevalent than human reasons, and they will not condemn it, you will be happy in having persisted so steadfast. You see how I incline according to my weakness and little intelligence; but I find not humility enough in myself to say that I submit to everything. I confess I cannot do it upon the reasons of M. D. M. though I have all imaginable respect for him. Continue firm, I beseech you, and do not all three give out, whatever happens. If you do, you will be looked upon as persons that had some good resolution at the beginning of the enterprise, but relinquished it upon the first difficulties. Christians are not crowned but upon perseverance.  
But to sum up all my intelligence of this Month, I shall here only insert what was signified to us March 21. in the name of the Bishops who sent us.  
My Lords are engaged in an Affair of great importance which concerns the Archbishop of Sens, and hath wholly taken them up this fortnight. All that they had given me in charge to tell you, is, That there are parties enough there, since M. Hallier, Joysel and Ragault are there, who demand an absolute Censure of the Propositions in the name of the Bishops, by whom they pretend themselves sent; and that you defend them in the sense of S. Augustin, which is the Catholic sense. That those Doctors cannot excuse themselves from appearing in your presence to justify their demand, and give account why they pursue the condemnation in such manner as they do. If they refuse, you must remonstrate to his Holiness, what an injury it is to the authority of the H. See; since the grand causes of the Church, amongst which this is one, aught to be treated before the H. See, and consequently according to all the forms of Ecclesiastical Judgements, (whereof the meanest require that the parties be heard to argue their rights) that so the judgement may be received without contradiction.   

CHAP. XII.  
The intelligence of M. Hallier and his Colleagues with the Jesuits, manifest by the Writings which those Doctors presented to the Consultors, and were printed at Paris in F. Annat's name, which I endeavour to discover to the Card. Ghiggi and Spada, but to no purpose. A discovery of another Writing of M. Hallier upon the third Proposition.  
F. Annae's printed Book, entitled Jansenius à Thomistis damnatus, I received on the first of March; which occasion I took too visit Cardinal Ghiggi, whom I had not seen since our great Conference above related. This Book and the Title-page fixed upon the corners of the Streets of Paris I made use of, as a manifest proof, to let him see a truth, otherwise but too certain, yet not admitted by him, namely, That the Jesuits were our principal Adversaries in this affair; seeing the Doctors who appeared against us were supplied by those Fathers with the Writings which they were to present to their Eminences and the Consultors. The Cardinal answered me, that the Jesuits had not meddled in the business since their defending the Theses in Flanders; that he heard indeed that those of France had done some thing, but it was not considerable; that it behooved all star quieto to be quiet. I replied that it was not we who set a foot the Propositions from whence all this trouble arose; but that we were come only to advertise the H. See of the practices against it, and the Catholic doctrine of Grace contained in the Propositions, and to entreat that nothing might be done without hearing us thereupon in a solemn Congregation. After which falling to speak of the bad sense which the Propositions admitted, I said, that we were agreed as to that; and that it was not our intention to maintain them in those senses; but yet we endeavoured to hinder an absolute condemnation of them, in regard of the evil use which might be made of it; and lest they who pursued it might afterwards apply it to the Catholic truths whereof they were capable. That a Proposiiion ought to be looked upon twice, and all its circumstances and sequels weighed before it be condemned; that if 'twere sufficient to the condemnation of a Proposition that it admitted a bad sense taken in the letter or the evil construction according to which they who disliked it pleased to understand it, many in the H. Scripture would not escape Censure. For example of which I alleged these, Non est justus quisquam; Qui in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt; Peccatores Deus non audit; and those which the Church delivers every day, in the Gloria in excelsis, addressing to the person of our Lord, Tu solus Sanctus. The Cardinal answered that they considered all this; that nevertheless we did well to discharge our minds con tutti, with all, as he believed we did. The supposition which I perceived he intended apparently to make by this discourse, that we had represented all our reasons to all the Cardinals and Consultors too, con tutti, increased my suspicion of their proceeding in the two last Assemblies towards the Consultors, namely, that they would really pass to the condemnation of the Propositions, and take the visits which we had made to them to obtain a conference and communication of Writings with our Adversaries, as judicial and sufficient informations to condemn us formally. Wherefore I told his Eminence that what I had now said was only to show him the necessity and advantage of hearing us according as we desired, for a thorough examination of all things; that we had spoke nothing to them but for this end; that his Eminence, I believed, was the only person to whom I had spoken so much as I had now done; and that we were so far from thinking to inform the others, that on the contrary we had avoided all occasions of doing it, because we would not do it but to good purpose, which could not be but according to the manner and form which we demanded.  
The same day I desired our Advocate to go to the Cardinals of our Congregations, and press them with the most urgent reasons he could to grant us a Conference. We talked largely together about the consequences which were to be feared in case they should not grant it; and he undertook to visit them for the purpose aforesaid, except Cardinal Pamphilio, whom, he said he could not yet address to; but for each of the rest he took a Copy of the two Memorials which he had presented to the Pope, to leave with their Eminences, after he had spoken to them what he intended.  
Tuesday the 4th. I went to show F. Annat's book to Cardinal Spada, that he might thereby see that the Jesuits were in the cause as well as M. Hallier and his Colleagues, in as much as these Doctors were but as the Agents and Pamphlet-venters of those Fathers. The Cardinal answered that he had never told me that those Fathers were not of the same opinions, or that they acted not something underhand, but that they had not spoken to him about them▪ and that the Pope having put two Dominicans into the Congregation for one Jesuit, we were rather favoured than otherwise.  
We heard in the morning at la Minerve that the General of the Domincians was gone to get audience of the Pope to present his Memorial and his Papers to his Holiness, and that the Commissary of the H. Office desired to speak with M. the Valcroissant as a particular Friend, and that we might go to him by the back stairs. In the afternnon I accompanied him thither. He propounded to us some difficulties upon the first Proposition, in which having received satisfaction from M. de Valcroissant's answers, he told us that it would be good that we could meet together some times, but in such a place as might not give jealousy to any body. I spoke to him concerning F. Annat's book newly printed; I showed it him, and told him it was the same Writing which M. Hallier and his Colleagues had presented to him four or five Months before. He answered me that he had one of them too; but had not had time yet to read it.  
Some days before this visit a Writing of good length made by our Adversaries upon the third Proposition fell into my hands; we caused it to be transcribed by several amanuensis, that it might be precisely restored by the time at which he who lent it us was obliged to return it. Afterwards recovering two others, one upon the fourth, and i other upon the fifth Proposition, we apprehended that these three Writings were parts of an entire Treatise upon the Propositions, and consequently that we wanted what had been commented upon the two first; but we could never light upon them.  
That upon the Third Proposition was nothing but a heap of passages and argumentations out of Ricardus and F. Pelau in his Treatise of Liberty; and besides an infinite number of wrested citations, it was wholly founded upon a point not at all in question. For it pretended to show that according to the Fathers,  requires some kind of Indifference. Now this was never disputed, none having ever denied that  is always inseparably in this life joined with the indifference held by the Thomists; that is to say, with an active power of acting or not acting. Nevertheless upon this false foundation all the said Tract is built, and falls to the ground by the sole distinction of two sorts of Indifference, whereof one, which is held by Molina, destroys Effectual Grace, because it infers that a man may so act and not act, that it sometimes comes to pass that the Will acts not and consents not to the same Grace which causes it to act at another time in the same dispositions; and this is that which we opposed. The other, held by the Thomists, does not in any sort destroy Effectual Grace, since it so gives the active power of not doing that whereunto Effectual Grace determines us, that yet it never comes to pass that the thing is not done. And as for this sort of Indifference, we not only never rejected it, but have formerly admitted it in a hundred places of our Writings.  
But hence it is easy to judge what impression might be made upon the minds of the Cardinals by the noise of a hundred passages pretended to be formally against the opinions of the Jansenists, which they understood only by the fabulous and calumnious reports which it pleased our Adversaries to make of them in their Writings and Discourses.  
And 'tis pleasant to observe that as they attributed to those Utopian Jansenists which subsisted only in their own brains, the imaginary Opinion of an absolute Necessity which takes away the power of acting and not acting, and destroys Indifference; so they make them speak after their mode, and attribute answers to them, which no body ever thought of.  
Respondent primò Jansenistae voluntatem hoc quidem posse si velit, quia si vellet, hoc ipso actu illud faceret; sed non posse illud velle propter grntiam qua impedit ne id velit. Which is a ridiculous answer sorged by them at pleasure; for no body denies that the Will can resist Effectual Grace, and hath the active power to will it, though it never comes to pass that it doth will it, because Grace makes it will the contrary, and determines it to will, not to use the power which it hath.  
Respondent secundò, (say they further) hoc sensu Voluntatem posse dissentire, quatenùs absente gratia non operatur illud bonum ad quod per gratiam excitatur, quod eâ praesente necessariò operatur. This is properly the ridiculous Chimaera of the Necessitating Grace which destroys the active power of resisting itself whilst it is present. It sprung first in F. Annat's Imagination, who diffused it into those of M. Hallier and his Colleagues, and by their means endeavoured to persuade the Cardinals and Consultors of it.  
'Tis easy to triumph thus over Adversaries by attributing to them imaginary opinions and answers. The length of this Writing hinders me from transcribing it particularly. I shall only add that it is concluded with the ordinary Protestation, that they do not persecute the Propositions in the sense of Effectual Grace, and that the question is not about the points contested between the Dominicans and the Jesuits.  
Colligitur secundo (say they in the writing upon the Fifth Proposition) quid dicendum sit illis qui hanc esse putant controversiam de auxiliis Divinae Gratiae tamdiù olim dissertatam sub duobus Pontificibus inter Thomistas & Jesuitas, jamque hoc pretextu Janseniani utuntur ut Censuras eludant; & cum non putent posse Thomist as in eandem ruinam trahi, cum illis ipsi commmnione sententiarum & connexione erigantur & stint, vel certè ut tanquam in pari causa dum ulterior expectatur definitio, eadem libertate fruantur docendi quodlibet quâ fruuntur illae duae familiae. Sed in co quoque latiùs aberrant, quàm toto coelo. Nihil omnino illis exprobatur de quo Thomistae cum Jesuitis contenderint, nihil exigitur quàm quod sucrit concordissimo duorum illorum Ordinum consensu atque suffragiis constitutum, quòd possibilia sint praecepta Dei transgressoribus, quibus transgressio ad culpa imputatur; quòd detur auxilium sufficiens atque internum eui homines dissentiunt; quòd indifferentia ad agendum & non agendum à libertate arbitrii quae requiritur admerendum & demerendum sit inseparabilis; quòd non sint Haeretici qui dicunt liberum arbitrium Deo moventi per gratiam efficacem dissentire posse ('tis the sense which they give the Fourth Proposition) & quòd sensus divisus quo id posse dicitur, non sit idem quod ex hypothesi mutationis & substractionis ejusdem gratiae, sed ita ut cum illa sit expedita ad dissentiendum potentia, quod Christus sit etiam pro reprobis mortuus, ut illis media salut is obtineret.  
This is the close way whereby they oppose us, fathering these ridiculous opinions upon us, or rather upon those who were in France. For they pretended to spare us, by endeavouring to persuade that we did not speak sincerely, or understood not the end of this new Heresy.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Proposals made to me by Cardinal Barberin about the Doctrine of the Thomists. The Beginning of the Congregations before the Pope. His Holiness' reconcilement with Signora Olympia by whom he is entertained at Dinner upon the day of the Annunciation with his kindred, who endeavour to deter him from the Congregations, but in vain.  
MArch the 4th. Cardinal Barberin returned to me our Writing De Gestis, and upon the 5th. I carried him our Summary. He asked me why we did not wholly join with the Dominicans? I answered him, that they did their own business, and we ours; that we might have our particular aims and pretensions, though their Doctrine was no-wise different from ours, at least at the bottom. He fell to speak of Jansenius, and said, that he admitted the same Sufficient Graces which the Thomists taught; for which he cited Chap. 3. lib. 4. I answered him that I could not tell, having not read the Book; but that no doubt there are such small Graces as the Thomists call Sufficient, and acknowledge as well as we not to be such really in the sense wherein the World takes the word Sufficient, since they do not suffice, there being need, besides these Graces, of that which is Effectual by itself, to perform the good action which would not be done without it. He asked me whether I had the Writing entitled Jansenius a Thomistis damnatus? I told him I had it, but did not speak of it to his Eminence, because it would shame M. Hallier, who had been the Distributor of it under the Pedagogy of the Jesuits, and whom I knew his Eminence honoured with his affection.  
In the afternoon I received a Visit from an intelligent person, who informed me, 1. That next week una Congregatione Papale a Congregation in his Holiness' presence was to be held. 2. That F. Lezzana had been retained by the Pope to be of the Congregation instituted for examining the Propositions, but was, by he knew not what insinuation of M. Albizzi with the Pope, excluded. For proof of which he told me, that Monsiguor Sacrista informed him that he, was that Father who said he was going to take the Oath required by the Congregation; that afterwards he was left out without any thing spoken to him; and that though he was very patiented and submissive to Providence, yet he had testified to Cardinal Ginetti some resentment of the stir. 3. That before the Commissary of the H. Office had considered upon the Propositions, he was much animated against them; during which tempest M. Albizzi made use of him to sound the minds and opinions of others before they were appointed for the Congregation. 4. That likewise the Master of the Sacred Palace had the Propositions in abhorrence, as he who told me this found when ask of him permission to read the Writing composed upon them, which gins In Nomine Domini, etc. for he answered him (Guardateri d' imbe ' vervi di quest cose) Beware of being infested with such things; and that to obtain such permission he was fain to carry a Friend, who was well known to the Master of the Sacred Palace, to assure him that he was a man not likely to be surprised by heretical Sentiments, per inhereticarsi. 5. That the Father's Delbene, Luca Vadingo, and the General of the Augustine's were at first of another mind than what they were of after they had carefully studied these matters.  
Thursday the 6th. I learned at la Minerve, that the General of the Dominicans, despairing to get audience of the Pope, intended to take the opportunity of the Congegation of the H. Office at which he is always present, to present a Memorial to the Pope, that his Holiness would please to afford him the audience which he had so often sought in vain. He promised me himself also, to cause his Fathers to draw up a Relation of the Conference which they had had with M. Hallier and his Colleagues, not to publish, but to preserve in the Archives of their Covent ad perpetuam rei memoriam.  
In another Visit I understood that the Consultors had order to be ready to deliver their Votes or Sentiments in writing upon the third Sunday of Lent (if my Informer was not mistaken in the day) and that the Congregation was thenceforward to be held before the Pope, but that they were all charged to take their measures so, that no one might speak above a quarter of an hour. I learned also in the same Visit, that the Consultors disaffected to the Propositions, finding the mind of them, and conceiving that any thing was lawful for them in the Congregations held at Cardinal Spadas House, made great clapping of hands and noise there, and M. Albizzi with them, crying Avaunt Heretic, Avaunt Lutheran, when the well-affected to the Propositions spoke the best things to defend them. In fine, that the five Cardinals oftentimes slept and snored there; sometimes all together; so that one of the Consultors seeing them in that posture, took the liberty to say to another these words. At least if there be any that keeps Sentinel, aiming thereby to hold the Consultors in their duty, that heed might be given to what was spoken, and the same afterwards reported to those that slept, All meno se fosse qualche d' uno che facesse la Santinella. But whether they slept or waked, certain it is that the manner of handling things in the Congregation upon the Information of one party alone was very unfit to instruct them in the matters whereof they were to judge. Which made us many times with eyes of compassion look upon those Cardinals, who having spent their lives in employments for the most part more Secular than Ecclesiastical, and Political then Theological, and being engaged in an innumerable multitude of other businesses, were appointed to give their own judgements, and form that of the Pope upon the most difficult matters of all Divinity, and upon which judgement cannot be passed without temerity, unless care be taken for instruction therein by exact, assiduous and deliberate reading of the Scripture and the Fathers.  
Immediately after Dinner I received a Note, signifying to me, 1. That the Congregation would be held on Monday following before the Pope. 2. That his Holiness was so prepossessed that no good was to be hoped. 3. That nothing was thought upon but a Condemnation. 4. That it was said of Monsignor Gavotti, that he began to dote, because he very well understood the doctrine of S. Augustine, and remembered also what passed under Clement VIII. and Paul V. 5. That all things tended to mischief, and to prevent the Dominicans of time to interest themselves in this affair. 6. That there was no place for saying any thing in order to stop the course of this mischief. The Original of the said Note was thus:  
La Congregatione è stabilita per lanedi.  
Pare il Papa prevenuto in modo, che nulla si spera di buono.  
Le prattiche si famo per condennare. Null' altra cosa più si medita.  
Monsignor Gavotti è tenuto per semo.  
Ogni cosa tend all male, & a fare presto, per levare campo a Domenicani.  
Non si può parlare.  
In the Evening I learned that a Letter from the Nuntio in Flanders giving intelligence of the death of M. Calenus who had highly defended Jansenius, being read in the morning in the Assembly of the H▪ Office, the Pope was displeased that he was entertained with nothing but that affair, and said angrily that he would end it, Voglio finir sta cosa. And that Card. Barberin, Spada, and a third, with M. Albizzi talking together about the Propositions, before the Pope's coming, Cardinal Spada said, We will condemn those Propositions; They must be condemned. They will not obey the Bull; but hold these Opinions, because they say the Book is not condemned, but only prohibited. It must be condemned; and more he said to the same purpose.  
All these unacceptable Items obliged us to go on Friday the 7th. to desire audience of the Pope, to know what was determined upon our two last Memorials which our Advocate left with him, and to take occasion to speak to him the most plainly and earnestly we could concerning our present needs. But we could not be admitted: Monsignor Fagnani, and the Inqusitor of Spain took up all the time.  
Hearing that the Pope had occasionally spoken to Monsignor Fagnani concerning our affair, I visited him the next day in the afternoon. He told me, that the Pope having asked him whether he had heard of it, he answered, No; his Holiness seemed troubled about it, and intimated a purpose to end it, telling him that he caused prayers to be made for it (the Vicegerent had sent by his order, to put a Bill upon the Sacristies, to recommend it to the prayers of those who said Mass, and likewise to some Covents to enjoin the saying a Mass of the H. Ghost and Litanies: all which was done with very little Ceremony, and in such sort that we, who observed the most we could all things pertaining to our affair, had not taken notice of it, if F. Petit who had care of the Sacristie of S. Lovis, had not told us that he believed the Bill sent thither concerned us, and if a Monastic of la Minerve had not by chance intimated the same thing to me concerning those Litanies.) M. Fagnani added that he told the Pope that his Holiness did very well; that he could not be too circumspect in an Affair of that importance; that though his Holiness was assisted by the H. Spirit in Canonising of a Saint, yet many things were striictly heeded, for fear there might be some suborned witness; and that in the matter of so abstruse a doctrine as this was, and wherein the Faith and the Belief of the Faithful were concerned, there was more danger of a surprise, and consequently more need of all possible precautions. That the Pope seemed to consider upon, and be well pleased with what he said.  
After Cardinal Ghiggi had given us notice that Cardinal Pamphilio was added to our Congregation, and something blamfd us for not having presented a Copy of our Writing to him, to take away all occasion of displeasure, we thought fit to do it with the best grace and most ceremony we could. Wherhfore we caused a new Copy to be made by the same Amanuensis who made that which we presented to the Pope. Being finished towards the end of this month, we got it bound tightly, and besides the two Writings and their Summary, which we had presented to the Cardinals, we added the same Epistle prefixed to that given to his Holiness; And before all a particular Epistle to this Cardinal, which we subscribed upon S. Thomas his day; whereof a faithful Translation follows:  
To my L. the most Eminent and Reverend Card. Pamphilio.  
MY LORD,  
OUr H. F. Pope Innocent X. the Vicar of Jesus and Successor of S. Peter in the See of Rome, hath at this day no greater Cause to decide then this, since the Grace which makes us christian's, is therein is disputed, and S. Augustin whom the H. See hath owned by perpetual approbation ever since Innocent the First, called in question. It suffices, my Lord, that you know thus much, that you may be convinced what part to take, and what care this Cause of Faith requires of you in so important an occasion.  
When Pope Innocent X. chose you among others to support the weight of the Church's affairs, and employ your Ministry in the negotiations which concern the H. Apostolic See, he engaged you wholly to his own person, not only by the Purple wherewith he adorned your Eminence, but also by the society of his Family and Name, which is a very strict alliance; and was pleased to communicate to you all the lustre and glory of his Papacy; Your Eminence entered not into the Pamphilian Family by the quality of your birth, but by the consideration of your merits; not by the advantages of blood, but virtue; so that there lies an indispensible necessity upon you contributing with so much more ardour the fidelity of your services to the dignity and honour of Innocent X. as this link which unites you to him, being an effect of virtue, is much more great and considerable than those which are derived from Consanguinity. We fear not then, my Lord, that it will be a diverting your Eminence from the care of the great affairs which exercise you, when we beseech you to read the Writings which we present to you, and to employ some time in examining with great care the whole Cause in question, there being nothing in the whole Church more considerable for the honour and reputation of Innocent X. then this affair concerning the grace of Jesus Christ.  
The reading of all things which have passed in this Difference will increase your Eminences vigilance and care, because you will find how justly their designs are to be suspected, the beginnings whereof are full of so many intrigues and deceits. Neither the canvasings nor the solicitations of our Adversaries, nor the ostentation of the favour of the Grandees of the Times, nor the false Protestations which they make to defend the Faith and uphold the dignity of the H. See, will be capable of shaking you, because you will fear on one side their surprising his Holiness, as they have already many times endeavoured, and on the other you will be lead to suspect that cause of in justice which hath needed so great a number of subtleties to support it.  
As much as our Adversaries have placed their hope in humane artifices, in winding and captions subtleties of words, and in terms which they have invented to vilify and disparage our persons; so much have we taken care to establsh our hope only in the assistance of God's grace, in sincerity and upright dealing, in the integrity of the H. Apostolic See and in the the equity of Innocent X. We hope therefore, my Lord, that you will employ all your credit with his Holiness, to promote the Congregation which we have demanded of him, as being the most advantageous means of ruinning all kind of Deceits, of clearing truth, and procuring peace, and which all the world, as well as we, conceived established before we had the honour to present these Writings to him, to the end the whole Church may know and posterity one day relate how prevalent simplicity and fair dealing, truth and justice were under the Papacy of Innocent X. when he was assisted with the Counsels of a Cardinal who was the emulator of his Glory as well as Heir and successor of his name.  
And although in all these things our own interest is less imported then that of the H. See, and we could be quiet henceforward, if we were not moved with the concernments of truth, the H. See, and the spouse of Jesus Christ, and the peace and edification of the Faithful; nevertheless all these these things make so sensible an impression upon our minds, that we shall consider as a signal benefit all the offices which your Eminence shall do for us with his Holiness towards procuring the success of a demand so just and necessary.  
We are, My LORD, Your Eminences Most humble and obedient servants, 

Noël de la Lane Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, and Abbot of Nostre Dame de Valcroissant.  
Louïs' de S. Amour Doctor in the sacred Parisian Faculty of Divinity, of the House and society of Sorbonne.  
Louïs' Angran Licentiate of the same sacred Faculty of Paris, and Canon of the Cathedral Church of Troy's.   March 7. 1653.  
Sunday March 9 with the Letters from Paris I received the Advertisement of F. L ' Abbé so injurious to S. Augustin and the H. See, and by which that Father so manifestly discovers their design against S. Augustin's doctrine. I thought fit to show it to as many persons as I could, that so the evil purposes of those Fathers might be more and more known, especially it coming to Rome so opportunely the day before the first Congregation was to be held before the Pope. Amongst others I went to show it to Cardinal Spada and the General of the Augustine's, and left Copies of it with them; adding more largely by word of mouth what was written to me concerning it. I found the General of the Augustine's shut up, to study against the next day's Congregation. Yet I was admitted to speak with him, and he told me that they did not yet precisely know what would be treated of the next day before the Pope, whether all the Propositions or only one; but it behoved them to prepare for all and leave themselves to be governed by Grace.  
Monday the 10th. the Congregation was held before the Pope in the afternoon. All that I could learn concerning it, was, that the Pope first made a short discourse, declaring that he intended not that in any thing which might be done in the progress of this affair, the doctrine either of S. Augustin or S. Thomas should be prejudiced. 2. That the Consultors had more time and liberty to speak than they expected. And 3. That it lasted two hours and a half.  
Wednesday the 12th. I repaired to see Cardinal Barberin before his going to la Minerve, but met him coming down stairs. He took me into his Coach, and asked me the same question which we had done eight days before, Why we did not declare that we held no other opinions than the Thomists? I answered him as I had done formerly. But the same day he told the General of the Dominicans, as I heard on Friday following, that we refused to subscribe the sufficient Grace of the Thomists, because haply in my discourse I had said that although we acknowledged those Graces which they styled sufficient, yet we could not agree to use that Term; being those Graces were not truly sufficient for the Action in regard whereof they were so called, though effectual for their proper Effect; nor that they were given generally to all the world without excepting any person, as some of their modern Authors have taught, but not all either the best or the most ancient. Now I wondered much that such a discourse by the by, could serve his Eminence for a ground to tell that General seriously and without distinction, that we denied to subscribe the sufficient Grace of the Thomists, when it was propounded to us; as if it had been propounded seriously that we migbt make a solid Declaration, and as if we had absolutely denied those sorts of Graces.  
In the afternoon I had accidentally a long converse with M. Joysel, all the particularities whereof, to avoid prolixity, I shall not here insert, but take notice only of three or four. First, speaking of the Congregation which we sued for, he said, it was not according to the Custom of the Church, but a thing unheard of, and never practised, and that they had above forty passages or examples to oppose us with in that point. Secondly, I speaking to him of the Writings which they delivered to the Consultors, and F. Annat lately printed 〈◊〉 first he denied it. Thirdly, when I affirmed the same so confidently, that he could not doubt but I had certain intelligence thereof, he confessed it, adding that it mattered not whence a good thing were taken. And Fourthly, when I told him that this showed their correspondence with the Jesuits, he answered me that the condition of a Doctor were very unhappy, if it obliged to renounce the acquaintance and commerce of the Jesuits.  
Thursday the eleventh I carried Cardinal Spada a Copy of the printed Preface of F. Annat's Bibliotheca, to confirm to him further how those Fathers interessed and carried themselves in this affair. And the next day I showed the same to our Advocate, that he might see by the thing spoke of himself therein, the extreme impudence and shamelessness of that Writer. Our Advocate, scarcely beliving his own eyes, desired to transcribe what concerned himself, that he might keep it as a proof of the spirit of Lying and bitterness of those good Fathers. But I said him the labour, promising to send him an entire Copy. As for the Memorials delivered to him to be presented to our Cardinals, of which I asked him tidings, he said he had been with but two, namely Ginetti and Cechini, and not with the others, because those two refused to receive a of Copy those Memorials, after (as they alleged) the Pope had declared his pleasure, and signifis d that he would not grant the contradictory audience and reciprocal communication of writings demanded therein. So that our Advocate returned the same to me, saving one Copy which he kept for himself. But to comfort me in some sort for the trouble it might be to me to see things so remote from our hopes, he told me one out of friendship which he hap learned in discourse with Cardinal Ginetti, who was his great friend and opened his mind to him, namely, that his Emincence believed that nothing would be done; or if any thing; such as would do neither hurt nor good, questo non portareble ne nocumento ne grovamento; and that we had reason to be not a little satisfied, because we had saved a Bull which our Adversaries would undoubtedly have extorted from the H. See, had not we come to Rome.  
Friday the 14th. after accompanying the Ambassador to the Pop's Palace, we went to that of Cardinal Pamphilio, to try whether we could present our book to his Eminence before the Ambassador came thither; but we could not. In his Antichambre we found the Bishop of Borgo, who in a long converse told us, that being lately in a company where F. Palavicini was, this Jesuit said of S. Augustin, that he was no great Divine, i sant' Agostino non era gran Theologo.  
I made a visit in the evening, wherein I learned two things. First that an Officer Of the Pope's chamber said that if his Holiness could condemn us, he would willingly do it, because he saw all France wholly disposed to receive and cause to be executed all the Decrees which he should make, if they were against the Jansenists; but if nothing could be done against them, nothing should be done at all. Secondly that there had been a Congregation the Wednesday foregoing at the Pope's Palace, which lasted three hours, and that one of the most sagacious Consultors had said to a Cardinal who told it me, that all things went alla peggio, were in a very bad posture there; that there was another appointed on Tuesday following, and that all who knew his Holines' accustomed circumspection and slowness, and the heavy and long manner of proceeding of the Court of Rome, (which occasioned the Anagram and Proverb Roma Mora) wondered extremely at this extraordinary speed, and presaged no good from it, because it was wholly contrary to the genius of Rome, and yet amore to that of his Holiness.  
We spent all the morning of Tuesday the 18th. in the Antichamber of Cardinal Pamphilio, to see whether we could present our Book to him. But his door was so environed with persons desirous to speak with him, amongst whom were the Generals of the Sommasques, the Conventual Cordeliers, and the Jesuits, crowding (to use M. Albizzi's words) tanquam aliqui de populo, as all the rest did, to enter where his Eminence was; that all we could do was to get out of the throng, and in expectation till it was over, talk with some Prelates whom we found in the Antichamber, amongst which was the Bishop of Borgo. At length the multitude diminished, and many who were as earnest as we, were at last constrained to return as well as we without speaking to the Cardinal; the Resident of Genua coming to his Eminence after he had done his audience with his Holiness.  
Thursday the 20th. as I was going to Cardinal Barberin, I met F. Reginald in the street, who told me that a Consultor asked whether he might safely affirm in the Congregation that we acknowledged the Sufficient Graces held by the Thomists, because he hoped to make great advantage of such a Declaration; for if we would do this, he hoped that M. Hallier and his Colleagues might make one in favour of Effectual Grace. I answered F. Reginald that there was no difficulty between the Divines of his Order and us as to the substance of those imperfect Graces which they term Sufficient; but that before making a Declaration of so much before a Congregation, there ought to be such a one established as we demanded; and that while this continued to act as it begun, we could not make any before it, being resolved not to own it. As for M. Hallier and his Colleagues, we would not hear of any Treaty with them.  
When I came to Cardinal Barberin, I told him that the last time I had the honour to see his Eminence, he asked me whether we agreed with the Thomists, and I was now come to satisfy him. For which purpose I presented to him the third Chapter of the Information which we had prepared upon the first Proposition. He answered me, that those Writings were very long, that all the world could not see them; That if we would present a little Memorial, and thereby declare that we held Sufficient Grace, as Alvarez and Lemos.— I replied that we could not give any such private Memorial, but this and every thing else should be seen in the progress of the Congregation when it should be held. He told me that the Congregation made haste. I answered his Eminence that it was without our partaking in it, and so long as it was held in that manner we could do no otherwise.  
I spent the afternoon at Cardinal Ghiggi's apartment, but he would not give me audience. The things considerable which I learned there were these: First, That the Pope had promised F. Lezzana a while since to give him permission to write and print concerning the matter de Auxiliis, as this Father told me, and that he came to desire his Eminence to put his Holiness in mind of it. To which the Cardinal answered, that he must have patience till after Easter, and that in the mean time it would be seen what would be the result of those Congregations. And Secondly, That a Fourth Congregation was to be held before the Pope upon Saturday following in the afternoon; which I discovered by a Bill which I saw fixed upon the door of Cardinal Ghiggi's apartment by the Mandatario or Cursor of the H. Office, and contained these words, Eminentissim. & Reverendissim. Domine, Die Sabbathi 22. cnrrentis Martii erit Congregatio coram Sanctissimo hora. 20. ½.  
On Friday evening I received the Letters, which came from Paris the last day of February, That of my LL. the Bishops to the Pope, spoken of above, was in the packet. On Saturday the 22d. I went to tell the Pope's Maistre de chambre that we had received Letters for his Holiness from our Bishops, and desired to present the same to him. He asked me what they concerned. I answered, the Things treated of in the Congregations before his Holiness. He referred me to Monday.  
The same afternoon I understood that Cardinal Spada, by reason of some indisposition, was not present at the Congregation held that day; and that the General of the Dominicans went on the morning to desire Cardinal Ghiggi to help him to an audience of the Pope, which he had so long solicited in vain.  
The same person who had told me some days ago that all went very ill in the Congregations held before the Pope, told me on Saturday the 23d. that the day before they began to be in a better estate.  
On Monday we went to present the new Letter of the Bishops of Fehruary 24 to the Pope; but Cardinal Trivultio took up the greatest part of the Audience that day, and the rest was given to others.  
Tuesday, being Annunciation-day, after we had accompanied the Ambassador to the Pope's Palace, we came back to la Minerve to take our places in the Choir, where we might conveniently see the distribution of purses yearly made to the Pope on that day to a prodigious number of young Maidens towards their preferment. There had been a long misunderstanding in the Family of the Pamphiliis; and Signora Olympia the Pope's Sister had not seen the Pope while it lasted. The reconciliation was lately made, and being Signora Olympia dwelled in the Palace Pamphilio not far from la Minerve the Pope was invited to dine there with all his Family at the end of the Ceremony. It was agreed between the Pope's kindred (who feared that his extraordinary attending those long and frequent Congregations in which matters were handled which he had never studied, might prejudice his health) to represent to him the danger into which he put himself, and desire him to ●a● another course. Some of them too who knew the merit of the suit which we prosecuted, who were sensible of the repulses which we suffered; who liked our Cause, and feared it might receive some injury by this hastiness, and lest the dis-satisfaction which those who were concerned therein should receive thereby, might produce some in the Pope; spoke to him with the rest, as well for those considerations as for that of his health, all that they could to allay the forwardness and ardour of his Holiness. But all served but to heat him the more. He wondered at his former averseness to hear of this matter afar off, considering the facility which he found in it then, and the pleasure which he received from all that he could hear spoken of it. He said he never was in Congregations which gave him less trouble and more satisfaction. That they lasted but two or three hours, and that if he had not had compassion of some good old men amongst the Consultors, who were obliged to be always standing, he should willingly have held them longer. And this satisfaction appeared so great to the Pope, that himself wondered at it, considering his ancient aversion; and he attributed this great and so sudden change to a particular and extraordinary assistance of the H. Ghost upon his person. Signora Olympia who saw the Pope so satisfied with these Congregations, asked him what matters were treated of in them, which could be so wellpleasing to his Holiness. The Pope answered her that 'twas about certain subtleties touching points of Faith which she did not understand; and yet (added he) I know not whether if you were there when one of the Consultors (whom he named) speaks you would not understand them, he unfolds them with so great plainness and clearness. Signora Olympia replied nothing; but the Prince Justinian (who was also Kinsman to the General of the Dominicans, and his good Friend, and to whose mediation this General was obliged to recur some days before; to get his Memorial and the other papers presented to his Holiness) told the Pope that he understood not much in those matters but he had read all the Papers of that General who had entreated him to present the same to his Holiness; and as much as he could judge of them, he found them very compendious and clear; and that he believed that if his Holiness should read them, he would also find much satisfaction in them. The Pope gave Prince Justinian no answer, whereby he apprehended that the Pope continued in his unwillingness to receive the said General's papers; And the discourse about this matter went no further.  
Cardinal Spada was not present at the two Congregations held before the Pope the week foregoing, whether he were constrained to be absent by some indisposition as his Secretary told me, or whether he counterfeited a distemper to cover some discontent which he had received in the former Congregations, as most believed; But on Tuesday morning I heard, that the Cardinals of the Congregation were at his Palace on Monday without the Consultors; and I believe, with many others, it was partly to oblige him not to be longer displeased, but return the soon he could to the Congregations, which were to continue to be held before the Pope, as accordingly the Fifth being held on Wednesday afternoon, I heard that he was carried thither in a Chair; which some believe was merely a Ceremony to complete the concealment of his pretence.   

CHAP. XIV.  
A Visit which I made to the Ambassador touching these Congregations. New Propositions delivered to the Congregation as equivalent to those under examination, but most of them comprised in more odious terms. M. de Sainte-Beuve's judgement upon them. Four Congregations held in eight days before the Pope.  
THe same afternoon I went to see M. Gueffier, with whom I found the F. Vicar of S. Antony, with his Companion. The discourse falling upon the demand which we made to be heard viva voce and by writing contradictorily with our Adversaries, these Fathers told me that M. Hallier and his Colleagues affirmed, that it was not the custom of the Church. That when the example of Clement VIII. was alleged to them, they answered that 'twas a fault which that Pope had committed; and when they were pressed with the example of the Council of Trent, they said that the Conferences among the Divines there, were only upon preliminary preparations.  
I accompanied M. Gueffier to the Ambassador's Palace, where I waited till he had done giving audience to others, that I might speak with him last with more leisure. I told him how the Congregations were continued before the Pope, without our being yet spoken to about a hearing, or any show that they thought of us. The Ambassador answered me, that we ought not to fear that we should not be heard, for we should be as much as we pleased. That he well knew what the Pope had said to him; That he told him he would take such course in this affair, that there should be no tail of it left. That if after we had been heard as much as we pleased, other persons in France desired it, and had any thing new to propose; they should be waited for, to know what they had to say, before passing of Judgement. That the Pope told him, That he knew there were some who presumed to have definitions after their own construction; but in an affair of this importance he was loath to hasten or do any thing till after a most exact discussion; That should he employ ten years in labouring in it, if God afforded him so much life, he should not account his time and pains misspent. That many persons of quality (some of which he named to me) had written to him concerning this affair; but he had answered them all, that they need no more to be troubled than we, for assuredly we should have satisfaction in this point, and that he was not in jest when he spoke about affairs of Religion. That besides, the Pope had told him that he should be glad if we would not give him so many Memorials. I answered him, That it would be easy for us to forbear, if his Holiness did us justice. But we had received another Letter by the last post from our Bishops to the Pope, which, if he spoke to him about our affair, we beseeched him to tell his Holiness we were desirous to present to him. The Ambassador promised me to do it upon Friday following, which was the day of his usual audience.  
He kept his word, and told me on Friday assoon as he came from audience that he had spoken to the Pope; but the particulars I could not conveniently receive from that day, by reason that two Danish Gentlemen went, with him from Monte Cavallo to dine with him, and stayed there almost the whole day; and therefore I repaired to him again on Saturday. He told me that the Pope said there was not time enough on Friday to receive the Letter during his audience, but we might return upon the first day that he gave any, and we should have it; or if it were any thing of haste, we might give the Letter to Cardinal Ghiggi, who would infallibly show it his Holiness. I asked the Ambassador whether he perceived that the Pope's resolution to hear us continued? He answered, That he could not tell me all that he knew therein; but we must expect, and undoubtedly nothing would be done without such hearing.  
Thursday afternoon M. Angran and I went to present our Book to Cardinal Pamphilio; but being hindered from doing it by a Congregation then held at his Palace, we returned thither on Friday for the same purpose, but without effect.  
Upon more attentive reading of the new Letter of our Bishops to the Pope, and considering how it might be taken by him and the Cardinals, to whom it would undoubtedly be communicated, we feared that being the intent of it was only to obtain a Conference; and the Ambassador assured us, That we should have one, it might be unseasonable to press for it by that Letter. Wherefore we resolved to defer delivering it, (as we had intended to do on Monday March 31.) till some new difficulty obliged us to it; or else to forbear altogether if we saw the performance of what we were yet made to hope.  
'Twas not only the Ambassador who assured us that we should be heard before the Pope as much as we could wish; but 'twas the general talk in Rome, that we should be summoned presently after Easter. Whereupon I began to keep close in my Lodging, more than formerly, to labour with my Colleagues to finish the new Writings about which they had been constantly employed since the delivery of the first, and which we resolved to present to the Pope at the first audience which he should give us. The time which I had been forced to spend, and the little fruit which we found in all our Visits and Solicitations to the Cardinals, and the small necessity of continuing them longer, made me resolve to make no more to them; and thence forward I could observe nothing of what was done or spoken at Rome, but what came to my knowledge occasionally.  
Yet I thought fit to advertise the Ambassador of the change of our Resolution touching the Letter which we had received for the Pope, and he had mentioned to his Holiness. I did so on Thursday April 3. and acquainted him with the reasons abovementioned. He much approved our purpose; and told me that nothing pressed us to deliver that Letter, which we might do when we pleased, but assuredly we should be heard; and that by the last he received from M. de Bienne, he signified to him that the King concerned not himself in the business either on one side or other, that all his Majesty demanded was that it might be dispatched, and that speedily. I answered the Ambassador that we desired the same; but yet it was to be remembered what I had read in a Book of M. Hallier's, That sicut Erroris spargendi, ita veritatis indagandae sua sunt incrementa, that as Error is not spread of a sudden, so Truth needs some time to be sought out and discovered; That a Statue is not made with the first stroke of the hammer, and that a Looking-glass or a Diamond must be ground a long time before they come to be smooth. The Ambassador replied that some affairs were spoiled by too long demur; I consented, but added, That others were lost by too much speed; that it was requisite to consider the nature whereof they were, and to use a reasonable moderation in all. That in this we would never cause any delay but what was perfectly necessary. That we would go directly to the Question, and by the shortest & surest way we could, and that we would not do like those who had lately out of I know not what design set afoot Five metamorphized and disguised Propositions in the Congregation. Thus they were written in a lose leaf, without citation, date, or subscription, and given to t●e Consultors to pass their Judgements upon, and also communicated to other Divines of Rome, whose Sentence concerning them some Eminent persons demanded. 

Propositiones primae examinatae a Dominis, etc.  
1. Aliqua Dei praecepta, etc.  
2. Interiori Gratiae, etc.   And the three other famous ones as they were first framed by M. Cornet, after which were added the following: 

Propositiones mutatae.  
1. Non potuit natura humana etiam de absoluta Dei potentia creari sine donis supernaturalibus.  
2. Auxilium sufficiens fuit necessarium in natura integra, in natura lapsa non datur.  
3. Omnia opera humano modo facta ab homine existente in peccato mortali sunt peccata mortalia.  
4. Non datur libertas quoad indifferentiam actus, sed quod coactionem.  
5. Christus mortuus est solum pro praedestinatis.    
I do not remember whether I showed this Paper to the Ambassador; but I remember well that he told me he could not believe what I said concerning those new Propositions; but I Answered that I was well assured of what I spoke, having received them from a most veracious person to whom a Consultor communicated them, to entreat him to help him to reduce his judgement upon them into Writing.  
On H. Saturday F. Lezzana sent me a Copy like the foregoing, and desired me to furnish him with some Writing touching the matters, if we had any; The next morning I went to him, and asked him what was the design of broaching these new Propositions. He told me that he himself did not understand it, but he had barely received order to set down his judgement of them in Writing before the end of the Festivals. I apprehended that the time of the end of the Festivals extended to a fortnight after Easter: but he told me 'twas no more than the two Holidays of Monday and Tuesday; and that the satisfaction which he should give to the person who laid that task upon him might be of some importance to our affair.  
I gave intelligence hereof to M. de Sainte-Beuve by the next Port, April 7. I spoke but obscurely to him of the manner how I came by them, telling him that they dropped out of a Consultos pocket; lest speaking more clearly, and my letter coming to be intercepted, the Consultor who gave them to my friend, whose assistance he desired, might believe himself and the whole secret of the privacy between him and my friend discovered; M. the Sainte-Beuve's answer was as follows.  
SIR,  
A Second information in facto, is not thought of here, every one says you have all the Memoires for it, and that 'tis a piece which requires your care. As for the Answer to F. Annat's book, I shall tell you that 'tis under so good a hand in Flanders, that that Good Father will have no great cause to please himself in the excellency of his work. The Answer is begun to be printed here; I think you will be as well satisfied with it as I am; but you must have a little patience, for the work is long. Were we capable of being astonished at the reports of the Molinists, we should be quite disheartened with these which are dispersed here. The most moderate amongst them affirm, that they shall speedily have a Bull, by which all the Propositions will be absolutely condemned, and that the Pope is resolved upon it. This discourse was made in Sorbonne, and is dispersed by the Jesuits. The Bishop of Rennes tells me he heard it from them; but the braggadocioes add that the Ambassador has forbidden you to stir out of your house, that the Pope accounts you unworthy of his audience, and that you have in vain offered the Pope 400000. Crowns to suspend his Judgement.  
This talk comes from Lions by a Letter of a Fueillant. To speak ingenuously to you, I never saw any thing like their discourses, nor more resolution than there is in the minds of ours. If some are in fear, because the Pope has held so many Congregations in so little time, others rejoice at it, considering that being himself takes such pains, 'tis a sign that he will be fully informed of the affair, which is the only thing we wish. For it is fit that truth be manifested, and the whole Church see that M. Cornet maliciously framed the five Propositions to raise an universal disturbance amongst Catholics. I pray God make him understand the greatness of his fault, which is such that I know not a greater. I cannot tell whether you have contracted an obscurity by contagion of the place of your residence, or whether you affect it; but I assure you there is a great deal in your Letter, in part of which you tell me of the note which contains the Propositions dropped from a Consultors' pocket. What think you is the design of them? Are they to be substituted in stead of the former? If so, 'twill be easy for you to come off. For as for the first, there needs no more to be said, but that we conceive that the Repugnancy by reason of which humane nature cannot be created without supernatural gifts, proceeds not from the Omnipotence, but from the Goodness, Providence and Justice of God. As for the second, we say that the sufficient aid, such as was in uncorrupted nature, is not an aid which is granted to our corrupted Nature; for that aid was subject to the Will. The third Proposition is an Heresy. As also the fourth and fifth. We all subscribe to this sentence, if there be no more in question but this,  
I am, etc.  
Four Congregations were held before the Pope in the seven first days of this month, each of which lasted about four whole hours, namely, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday of the Passion week, and H. Monday. I heard on H. Tuesday that in that of the day preceding there was great contest among the Consultors. Of the other four and the six foregoing in the three weeks before that of the Passion, we could discover no more than what is above related, which is almost nothing.   

CHAP. XV.  
The arrival of F. Des●mares and M. Manassier at Rome. A notable Change of a zealous disciple of Molina, who became an ardent one of S. Augustin, by reading the little volume which I gave him of the twelve principal Maxims of the Christian Faith touching Grace; which he reduced into as many Latin Distiches. A calumnious Memorial dispersed in Rome and all Italy, as presented to the Pope by the Clergy of France about this affair. Another Writing of our Adversaries, framed to delude the Dominicans, and full of impostures.  
ON H. Wednesday we were much comforted by the arrival of F. Des-mares and M. Manassier at Rome, whom our Bishops sent to share with us in the pains which we foresaw this affair was likely to require in the progress of its examen, and which M. the Valcroissant, Angran and I, could never have undergone alone without sinking under them; for the examen was not yet begun, and we were already overcharged. This re-enforcement and succour was as acceptable to us as necessary, and the more, because we had long desired it, and been much troubled to obtain it. But in truth we could not by any means have been without it, had the affair been carried as it ought to have been, especially considering the various dispositions of those with whom we had to do, all agreeing this point, to drive on that affair with unimaginable speed; for which purpose it was rumoured that we aimed at nothing but delays.  
These two new Colleagues arrived about half an hour before it was time to go and accompany the Ambassador to the Tenebres (a ceremony so called) of S. Peter. Yet I omitted not to go; I gave him notice of their arrival, and that they intended to have the honour of seeing him at his return. He answered me that he should be glad to see them, and that the Pope would certainly be so too. After having accompanied the Ambassador to S. Peter's Church, I returned home, and M. de Valcroisant, Angran and I, went along with them to his palace. He received them with his accustomed courtesy, and confirmed to us what he had so often said to me, that we should be heard as much as we could wish, the Pope having so assured him.  
Upon H. Thursday I went again to the Ambassador with F. Des-mares and M. Manassier, to accompany him to S. Peter's Church. He enjoined his Maistre de Chambre to take care of them that they might conveniently see the great Ceremony, or rather the several Ceremonies of that Eminent day. He had scarce left us, but the Pope came forth carried in his Pontifical chair; he took notice of them very attentively, and fixed his eyes upon them all the while his Chair was passing by. So that I conjectured the Ambassador had already acquainted him with their arrival; and accordingly he told me so the next day. I shall not stand here to describe the Ceremonies, which lasted all the forenoon; but I cannot omit the Ambassador's particular courtesy, who in several occasions performed the charge which he had given his Maistre de Chambre, having the abovesaid persons near him, discoursing with them, and causing them to pass before him in such places where the Swisses, who kept the doors, would not otherwise have permitted them entrance. We were all there at the Pope's Quarter, above the principal door of S. Peter's Church, during the fulmination of the Bull In Coena Domini; and the Benediction which he gives afterwards to the people; which is a narrow place scarce capable of a quarter of the Cardinals, Bishops, Ambassadors, Princes allied to the Pope, and the Officers inseparable from the person of his Holiness in this Ceremony; which my other Colleagues and I had seen the year before.  
But to omit these external magnificences, I had in the interval of the Ceremonies an encounter which gave me great satisfaction. There was in Cardinal Corrado's Court a learned person of great parts, named Il Signior Honorato, who having in several places heard talk of the subject of our Contests, and the Maxims imputed to us, could scarce credit them; and for his further assurance took the liberty to visit us long before. When he visited us, he was full of the conceits and phantasms of Molinisme; and having propounded to us what he pleased concerning the Propositions, and heard the answers which we made thereunto ingenuously according to S. Augustins' doctrine, he seemed to us outwardly not averse from them; yet, as he told us afterwards, he was wholly scandalised at them in his mind. Nevertheless being we conversed with him upon the terms of honest liberty and civility, he believed himself obliged to us. He esteemed our persons, but deplored our errors. When he met us, he received and returned our salutation civilly; but he was inwardly much troubled that such honest persons, as he accounted us otherwise, were so unhappily engaged in such extravagant Opinions, as ours seemed to him. We had a while ago printed our little Volume of S. Augustin, and as I was going to distribute some Copies of it, I met this honest Gentleman in a narrow place, where we were obliged to speak together. After some discourse, I conceived it not unfitting to offer him one. If he could have fairly declined it, he would, but fearing to injure the civility and heartiness wherewith I seemed to offer it, he accepted it, though with repugnance and regret. For some time he kept it, and would not read it; at length he read it; and it was at first an occasion of great perplexity to his mind; then, of much inquietude; afterwards of many tears and prayers; and at length the ground of a consolation which surpassed all the rest. He told me nothing of all these his secret sentiments till after that he was fully convinced of the Truth, which he had discovered by reading those Divine Works, which he did in private without the assistance of any person. This reading alone so rectified his former mistakes which he hitherto had accounted Orthodox Truths, and so convinced him the certainty and excellence of the Orthodox Truths which we defended, which he had mistaken for pitiful Errors, that I cannot express with what humility and resentment he professed himself bound to God for it. I have seen him since several times so tenderly sensible thereof, that tears of joy and consolation have come into his eyes. But it was upon this day that he told me the first and most acceptable news of it.  
A while afterwards he brought me twelve Latin Distiches, into which he had reduced as many prime maxims of the Christian Faith touching Grace, which S. Augustin in his 107. Epistle to Vitalis saith, Christian Catholics hold as so many certain rules of their Belief concerning that mystery. He showed them to me, only to see whether he had rightly taken S. Austin's sense; but I found those rules so well comprised in verse, considering the confinement of Poetry, and that they were composed by a person newly enlightened with those truths; that I desired him to give me a Copy of them, and have thought fit here to insert it. With which I shall also insert a faithful translation of the place of S. Augustin wherein those Rules are, to the end the Reader comparing the Distiches therewith may understand them more easily▪ and better judge of this first essay of a man newly reclaimed from Molinism.  
Because (saith S. Augustin) by the Grace of Jesus Christ we are Christians and Catholics; we know:  
I. 
That Children have done neither good nor evil in a life peculiar to them before their birth; and that 'tis not according to what they have merited in a former life (it being impossible that every particular could so merit) that they come into the miseries of this life; but being born carnally according to Adam, they contracted from their first birth the contagion of ancient death, and are not delivered from the punishment of eternal death, which a just Sentence hath passed upon all men, unless they be born again in Jesus Christ by Grace.  I. 
Mortuus heu primi contractâ morte parentis  
Nascor; at in Christo vita renata mea est.  II. 
We know that Grace is given neither to Children nor to persons of Age according to their merits.  II. 
Nulla nec infanti nec adulto gratia, quam te  
Forte putes factis promeruisse datur.  III. 
We know that the Grace which is given to persons who have the use of Reason, is given to them for every Action.  III. 
Recti quicquid agas, renovari ad singula credas,  
Hanc tibi quam gratis vim dedit ante Deus.  iv 
We know that Grace is not given to all men; and that they to whom it is given, it is not so by reason of the merits of their good works, nor in regard of the merits of their Will. Which appears clearly in Children.  iv 
Omnibus anne data est divina haec Gratia? Paucis.  
An meruisse juvat? Nil: Voluisse? Minus.  V 
We know that to whom it is given, 'tis given by the free mercy of God.  V 
Felice's animae, quibus haec sors contigit: atqui  
Credit gratuitum munus id esse Dei.  VI 
We know that to whom it is not given, 'tis by the just judgement of God that it is not given.  VI 
Vae tibi, vae misero, cui non data gratia; sed te  
Credideris justi judicis esse reum.  VII. 
We know that we shall appear before the Judgement-seat of Christ, that every one may receive according to what he hath done whilst he was in this mortal body, & not according to what he would have done either well or ill if he had lived longer.  VII. 
Quae quis agat vivens Christo sub judice, non quae  
Mox erat acturus, si licuisset, erunt.  VII. 
We know that Children also shall receive good or evil according to what they have done, being in their Bodies. But regard will be had to what they have done, not themselves, but by those who answered for them in Baptism. Upon which account they are considered as having renounced the Devil, and as believing in God. Whence it is that they are reckoned in the number of the Faithful, and comprehended in that Sentence of our Lord, Whosoever shall believe and be baptised, shall be saved. As on the contrary they who have not received Baptism, are comprehended in this other Sentence, Whosoever shall not believe, shall be damned.— According to this they shall be judged, and not according to what they would have done if they had lived longer.  VIII. 
Sors eadem manet infantes post funera: nempe  
Qui vivis datus est sponsor, is actor erat.  IX. 
We know that happy are they who die in the favour of the Lord; and that all which they would have done if they had lived longer, concerns them not.  IX. 
Felix si in Domino moriens; qualisne futurus  
Tu fueras, non tunc discutiendus eris.  X. 
We know that they who believe, being of Age to believe of themselves, do it by their own will and free arbitrement.  X. 
Cuique suum manet arbitrium, su● cuique voluntas:  
An credis liber, testis et ipse tibi.  XI. 
We know that we act according to true Faith, when we who believe, pray God for them who will not believe, that they would believe.  XI. 
Funde preces, rectaque fide te fundere credas;  
Sponte ut nolenti det Deus ipse fidem.  XII. 
We know that when any of those who would not believe, begin to believe, we ought to give thanks to God for it, and that we are accustomed so to do.  XII. 
Si quibus hanc dederit, grates debentur eidem;  
Atque agimus, nostris quod dederit precibus.   
Returning from— on Friday, we passed through the street of the Booksellers, and going into his shop to whom we had given our little S. Augustin to sell, he told us that some days before he had been cited to the H. Office, and interrogated concerning some words spoken in his shop derogatory to the respect due to the H. Father. At the end of the week following I went to him again, and he told me that one of his Apprentices had since I saw him, been also examined at the H. Office; but when I endeavoured to get some knowledge of his examination, he told me they were forbidden to tell any thing of it under pain of excommunication.  
On H. Saturday I heard that Cardinal S. Clement had visited the Ambassador a few days before, and confirmed to him what I have said above of the little understanding in these matters which his Eminence found in M. Hallier.  
On Easter Tuesday the Subbibliothecary told me that having been to give the Pope the compliment of the Festivals, and spoke to him about the Vatican Library, he also added something concerning our affair, but sound and vigorously after his way a mio modo. That the Pope was pleased in hearing him, and nevertheless testified to him some esteem of M. Hallier, saying, he had made a Book against the Jesuit Cellot: upon which he answered the Pope, Allora, Beatissimo Padre era buon Christiano; Most H. F. that Doctor was then a good Christian; but uniting with those Fathers in their Conspiracy against Grace, by framing the five Propositions in question, he was become a turncoat in faith and Religion. That the Pope replied that he would use all necessay diligence in this affair, that he would cause the same to be examined again by able Divines, that he would also appoint prayers on purpose, to obtain the Assistance of the H. Ghost. Nevertheless are perceived no other traces of these good purposes, neither before nor after, but what I have related of the Congregation, and the Notes sent to the Sacristies and Monasteryes. The same person told me likewise two days after, that having been to make the like compliment to the Cardinals Barberin and Ghiggi, the former told him that he foresaw great danger of division, in favour of which side soever the Pope should pronounce; whereunto he answered, that they who backed M. Cornet's enterprise were, vel omnium scelestissimi, vel ignorantes, either the most wicked men in the world, or ignorant, And the second, that Nissano Jesuita era nel calendario del Papa, That there was no Jesuit in the Pope's Calendar, i. e. of whom he made any esteem.  
The same Tuesday I found Monsignor d' Ornano in the Vatican, who told me he had lately seen a Memorial either of the Jesuits or the Doctors our Adversaries touching our affair. I desired him to let me see it. He said he had restored it. But if he could procure it again, he would send it to me. Two days after he sent a Copy of it which he was pleased to get purposely transcribed for me; but about three weeks after it became very public, and was dispersed by the distributers of secret intelligence in written hand with their Gasette of the 10th. of May.  
I cannot affirm that this Memorial was made by M. Hallier and his Colleagues, though it began thus, Supplica alla Sanctita & Nostro Signore ill Clero della Francia medianti alcani Doctori quà capitali della Sorbona di Parigi, che, etc. The Clergy of France supplicates your Holiness by the intervention of the Doctors of Sorbon here arrived that, etc. But however, it shows what false impressions were given of us at Rome, and through all Italy. For it was nothing else but a repetition, without any proof of the same Calumnies (concerning a Necessitating Grace, an absolute impossibility to keep God's Commandments, and the Death of Jesus Christ for the predestinate alone) wherewith our Adversaries filled all their Writings.  
About the same time a Father of the Datary brought me another Writing, which was carried about from hand to hand in Rome, and we had not discovered any thing of it. By the reading of it, we found that it must needs have been made at the time that M. Hallier endeavoured to draw the Dominicans to his party, or rather to hinder them from joining with us. For the whole scope of it, was to show that the cause of the Thomists had no relation to that of Jansenius, and that they could not be concerned in the Censure which the Pope should make of the Propositions. It began thus without any Title; Ex multis capitibus perspicuum est Jansenistas causae suae parum fidere, etc. And to prove that the Dominicans had no interest in this affair, it reasoned thus; Patres Dominicani nunquam hactenus negarunt praecepta Dei homini justificato per auxilium gratiae esse possibilia, nec nunquam dixerunt gratiam eis deesse qua possibilia fiant, eo scilicet tempore quo ipsos sub mortali peccato obligant. Nunquam etiam negarunt dari veram gratiam sufficientem, cui voluntas humana actu resistat, licet eidem consentire possit; & efficacem, cui actu consentiat, licet eidem resistere seu dissentire possit. Quod necessitas antecedens libertatem destruat s & quod Christus mortuus sit pro omnibus, multù in losis habet Sanctus Thomas, nec unquam Thomistae negarunt, nec ullum ex iis invenio qui vel unam ex quinque Propositionibus astruat, in eo scilicet proprio sensu in quo eas Jansenius & Jansenistae adstruunt.  
Now this particular sense upon which they accused the Jansenists, was, That there is no sufficient Grace, neither according to the sense of the Thomists, nor according to the sense of Molina; and that Effectual Grace produces an antecedent Necessity. Non agitur de modo rei, sed de re ipsa; non de modo quo gratia efficax est, sed de gratia sufficiente quam tam hi quam illi admittunt. Et de efficaci; utrum scilicet necessitet absolute & antecedenter voluntatem, quod certe utrique negant, & soli adstruunt Jansenistae. Non agitur etiam de modo quo gratia cum libertaee concilianda est, sed de libertate ipsa, quae reverà per necessitatem antecedentem distruitur. Whence they conclude according to their wont; Ergo in hac causa Jansenistarum nullo modo includitur celebris illa quaestio de Auxiliis; nempe utrique concedunt divinae gratiae humanam voluntatem consentire ac dissentire posse; hec ipsum Jansenistae negant. Igitur diversa sentiunt. But it had been easy in a Conference to have concluded on the contrary, Hoc ipsum Jansenistae non negant. Igitur idem sentiunt.  
'Tis clear therefore that this fiction of Necessitating Grace, is the chief Engine of which they made use at Rome, to decry S. Augustin's Disciples, who never dreamt of it.  
And 'tis remarkable that they take for granted, that the Jansenists teach this Necessitating Grace; this Antecedent Necessity in formal terms, and not by consequence; and that when it is objected to them, they acknowledge it to be their opinion. Wherefore they confess in this Writing, that indeed the Jesuits pretend to conclude from the principles of the Thomists, that they admit Antecedent Necessity and Necessitating Grace. But (say they) the Thomists deny the Consequence, and continue steadfast in denying it: whence they distinguish them from the Jansenists. Equidem (says the Writing) Jesuitae adversus Thomistarum praemotionem physicam pugnantes, arguunt ex hypoohesi tria gravissima absurda sequi. Primum illam praemotionem afferre necessitatem antecedentem voluntati; nempe talis est praemotio illa seu praedeterminatio physica, ut actus ad quem praedeterminat, sine illa est nec possit, nec possit illâ positâ non sequi. Igitur Necessitatem Antecedentem voluntati affere videtur; igitur & libertatem destruere. Sed Thomistae negant utramque consequentiam, hoc est, negant à sua praedeterminatione destrui libertatem, vel antecedentem illam inferri necessitatem, adhibentque suam dtstinctionem sensus compositi & divisi, vel actus Primi & Secundi. Et licet praedictae distinctiones difficultatem forte non expediant, in his tamen Thomistae constantissimè sistunt, & semper negant ex sua praemotione hoc absurdum sequi, scilicet violatae libertatis & illatae necessitatis.  
Thus separating the Thomists from those whom they style Jansenists, they must needs pretend that the latter admit those Consequences, and teach that Effectual Grace destroys Liberty, and antecedently necessitates the Will. Consequently, whereunto they thus reduce, the Dispute towards the end of the Writing. Non igitur in hac Jansenianarum Propositionum causa de scientia Media, nec de Praedeterminatione Physica; sed de Divinorum mandatorum Possibilitate, de Gratia sufficient, de libertatis indifferentia, de sufficientia meritorum Christi, de Gratia non Necessitante  
In fine, lest the Thomists should be jealous of the consequence of the Decree; they endeavour to satisfy them by this pleasant reason; That the Bull made against the five Propositions would hurt them no more them the Council of Trent. Quod aatem res seu causa Praedeterminantium seu Thomistarum in integro relinquatur, etiam si quinque Jansenianae illae Propositiones Decreto Pontificio damnentur, vel quia jam damnatae sunt, damnatas esse declaretur, manifestum est. Nempe ex hoc decreto non magis urgeri poterunt quam modò urgentur ex Tridentino ...... Nec minus faelie contra novum illud decretum sese tueri poterunt, quam modò contra Canon's Tridentinos sese tuentur.  
By these shameful Calumnies they amused the Cardinals and Consultors at Rome, who had no great mind to be undeceived, seeing they heard but one party; Which undoubtedly was a fit way for them to be deluded then if they had heard none at all. And should they have heard us severally, it would have been to little advantage, since we not knowing many times what M. Hallier spoke, it was impossible for us to refute it; and should we have known it, it would have been in some sort unprofitable; for he published that we disguised our sentiments, and that his aim was against the Jansenists of France: There needed but one regular Conference to reduce him to reason, by obliging him to prove the calumnies which he alleged; but the Pope was too much prepossessed against this only means of terminating a Dispute so full of duplicity and so little understood. It would not be granted us, whatever instance we made for it during two full years. But what followed, hath but too much justified the necessity of it.  
On Easter Tuesday, M. Hallier and his Colleagues went to visit the Count de Rochfort who arrived at Rome a little before the Festivals. They might have performed this Visit at a fit time; for the rain took them in the way, and they were throughly wet when they came to him. In their Discourse, they first desired his assistance in their cause, in regard (as they said, whether in raillery or otherwise) of the coming of F. Des-mares. Secondly, They told him, that they did believe the communication of their Writings would not be granted us, but that they knew that we had them. Thirdly, That 'twas we who had caused F. Annat's Writing concerning the Thomists to be printed, but maimed and disfigured, (Than which I knew not whether there can be a more extravagant and groundless lie). And lastly they confess, that indeed F. Annat had got many things ready before their arrival, and they had made use of them. A person present at the Visit told me all this the next day.  
Thursday the 17th. the Bishop of Borgo came to bid us adieu before his return to his Bishopric; and told me, that he believed the Pope intended to send for several able and qualified Pastors out of Rome, that he might be able to pronounte a solemn judgement, ex ea Cathedra upon our affair; and that Cardinal Sachetti said to him, that 'twere a shame there were not more at Rome capable to understand it well, and pronounce a judgement upon it correspondent to its merit.   

CHAP. XVI.  
The Declaration of our Sentiments touching the sufficient Grace of some Thomists agreed to by the Fathers of that Order. A Congregation held April 18. by the five Cardinals without Consultors. An Audience solicited for F. Des-mares and M. Manassier. A remarkable saying of a French Prince. The reason which obliged the Pope to be willing that we should be heard in his presence.  
APril 8. in the evening I visited F. Reginald, who falling to speak concerning their sufficient Grace, I told him that he knew sufficiently our sentiments of it, that we agreed in the thing, and doubted not but there were such small Graces which were the beginning of a right Will and Conversion, besides which for a through Conversion was required a more powerful Grace effectual by itself for that effect, as those other small Graces were for their proper and particular effect; but call those small Grace's Sufficient in regard of the effect for which they so styled them, we could not, because they were not really so, needing still another Grace to act effectually; that 'twas in this sense that the word Sufficient was taken in the World; and that the other notion of the word Sufficient, which they admitted in their School, for a Power depending in the action upon another Grace, being unknown, it gave too much advantage to the Molinists to admit a word which they abused; but otherwise 'twas only quaestio de nomine, since we granted what they meant by the term Sufficient, and they rejected all that we rejected under that word: That being agreed upon the thing, we needed not dispute about words. That we could not grant that those small Graces were given generally to all, nor should we say that they gave a perfect, neat and complete power, because these terms were abused as well as that of the Sufficient, the World understanding thereby a Power whereunto nothing is wanting, though we denied not the thing which they understood by those words of Next Power. That he should never have any thing else from us; and that if the Fathers of their Order were apt to stand upon their Niceties, and leave the main of the Controversy in which we agreed with them, we should nevertheless continue to pursue our point without their assistance, and endeavour alone to find strength enough in the Truth for the defeating of all its opposers. F. Reginald, both this day and two days after when he came to visit us, told us, that the Fathers of his Order desired nothing else of us, after this declaration of our Sentiments, except that we would not attaque the Authors of their Order, who taught that this Sufficient Grace (besides which an other Effectual is necessary to act well) is given to all the World, and gives a certain Next Power which sufficeth not to act; We answered him, that we should not stand upon the disputes of the School, being about nothing but words; and that we had no design to oppose the sufficient Grace of some of their Authors, or what they taught concerning it, but only that of Molina, professed by the Society of Jesuits, because 'twas only this which we judged incompatible with the faith of the Church in this matter.  
The same day a new Congregation was held at Cardinal Spadas Palace, where the other four Cardinals of it and M. Albizzi were present, but not any Consultor; It lasted three hours; and after it was ended, Cardinal Pampilio stayed a long while alone with Cardinal Spada. This was signified to me at night by an excellent man of one of the first Orders in the Church. Si è fatta hoggi la Congregatione de soli cinque Cardinali, essendovi intravenuto il Card. Cechini; vi è stato anche inimicus crucis Christi (so he styled M. Albizzi) Si è comminciata alle 20 hore, è finita alle 23. E restato dopo il Card. Pamphilio solo con lo Spada, & è notte ne è partito. Credo sia per consegli domestici Pamphiliani.  
A friend of one of those Cardinals coming to visit us on Monday the twenty first, told us that he had said to that Cardinal, that he would give an hundred Crowns on condition that I would give him a Teston every day till this cause were ended; and that the Cardinal answered him, that I would be a great gainer if I gave him every day but a Julio; and that they all understood nothing in it.  
He who writ me the abovesaid Note came also to visit us, and told us, that F. Aversa informed a considerable Prelate of the Court of Rome, that he had highly protested in the Congregation, that he had all imaginable esteem and veneration for S. Augustin's doctrine, but the Five Propositions non havevano i far con Sant' Agostino, had no relation to it. He told me also that it was publicly laughed at in Rome, that M. Albizzi being no Divine, was yet Secretary of the Congregation.  
I further heard the same day, that the illustrious F. Mulard was newly come again to Rome. Nor was it long before he gave us matter of divertisement by the complaint which he made to us of his good friends. For finding him two or three days after at the Ambassador's house, he came to me, and told me, that M. Hallier and his Colleagues were so impertinent as to accuse him of having given us F. Annat's Writing about Jansenius and the Thomists, that they had complained hereof to Cardinal Barberin; and that he desired me to testify to his Eminence that it was not so.  
Thursday the 24th. I entreated the Ambassador to tell the Pope at his audience next day, that F. Des-mares, and M. Manassier desired to salute him in private before we appeared publicly before his Holiness, as we expected every day a summons. The Ambassador very courteously promised to do it. The next day we accompanied him to the Pope's Palace, and when he came forth from audience, he told us that he had not forgotten us, but we could not have our desire at this time, and therefore he recommended it to the Pope's Maistre de Chambre to get us admission on Sunday next.  
On which day we accordingly all went to the Pope; but the Count de Rochefort being first introduced took up all the time, and when he came forth the Pope would give no more audience, because he intended to go to take the air presently after Dinner. Whilst this Count was at his audience, Monsignor Senzasono told us; that he wondered at the strange familiarity wherewith F. Mulard had demeaned himself that morning towards the Count; and indeed had we not known that Father we had wondered at it the more; for that when the Count came forth, he asked us who that Cordelier was who was with him that morning, and told him that he was come to M. Hallier's assistance. We answered him, that he must not be surprised at what he observed in his carriage; for to tell him all in a word, it was F. Mulard. The Count replied, that the Father had been in so very ill an humour that day that he quarrelled with a French Gentleman who sat between them.  
Monday 28. M. the Valcroissant and M. Angran stayed at home to finish the Writings which we were preparing, and I accompanied F. Des-mares and F. Manassier to the Pope's Palace to endeavour to get audience for them; but we could not succeed. We observed one pleasant thing of F. Mulard, who caused himself to be set down in the list of those who desired it, with the style of Preacher to the most Christian King. Whilst we stayed there, we fell into discourse with a man who was come post to the Pope from the Archbishop of Avignon about some urgent and important affair; and after much talk concerning the doctrine which we defended, and the persecutions and calumnies employed to decry it, he comforted us by saying, That it was a great favour of God to be of the number of those who know his Truth, and endure something for its defence.  
Tuesday the 29th. we went again to the Pope's Antichambre. As I was speaking about the matters of our Contest, and the Jesuits exorbitances with the General of the Discalceated Carmelites; who was skilled enough in them, in presence of the Resident of Modena, and two or three other Roman Prelates; the Gallicane Prince came to us; and having heard us peaceably to the end, when the General was called away to audience, to confirm what the General had said, he spoke a very handsome and remarkable word. The very name (said he) of the thing you speak of evidences all that you have said; because justice is due to all the world, but Grace to none; it is done only to whom we please. I congratulated the Prince for his conceit, and told him, there needed no more to decide all our Controversies. Assoon as the General of the Carmelites was entered to audience, the door was shut, and all the Suitors dismissed for that day.  
In the afternoon I accompanied F. Des-mares and M. Manassier in a visit to M. Gueffier, they laid open to him the necessity of hearing our Adversaries and us contradictorily viva voce and by writing; and what a shame it was to those on whom it depended, to be so long in granting it to us.  
To the same purpose I discoursed to Monsignor Fagnani in a particular visit, and told him it was not otherwise possible to put an end to our contests. He answered me that these disputes had no end. I replied, that we did not desire those kind of Scholastic disputes, which are endless; and as he perceived my drift, he prevented me and said, but those conferences (Congressi ne i quali si portano Canoni de Consigli, luoghi d'ye santi Padre, principalment di saint Agostino, decisioni d'ye Pontefici, etc.) In which are produced the Canons of Councils, the testimonies of the H. Father's especially S. Augustin, decisions of Popes, and other proofs of that nature, as the Scripture etc. He added that if the Pope spoke to him about our affair, he would persuade his Holiness as much as he could to make such conferences, simili Congressi.  
But 'twas these very Conferences which our Adversaries endeavoured to hinder. All their business was done. They demanded nothing but to departed and return into France. This information I received from two Abbots, the one of France, who told us that he heard the Postmaster who conducted M. Hallier and his Colleagues to Rome, say, that they made account to departed by Whitsund●y if they could. The other of Italy, who was told by Cardinal Ghiggi's Secretary that these Doctors desired that the affair might be dispatched speedily, che si sbrighi; that we would weary them by our subterfuges; that they had business which required their return into France; that M. Joysel alleged for his particular reasons, that he was obliged to preach in Lent the next year, and had not yet begun his Sermons.  
The same day being the last of April, I visited a very intelligent person, who told me that we must not think that either the instances of the Ambassador, or the remonstances of our Memorials had put the Pope in the mind to hear us; that he had declared as much all the Lent; That M. Albizzi conceiving it requisite to follow the ordinary forms of his Tribunal, the Inquisition, and to have the same course held before the Pope as before the Cardinals in the Congregation at Cardinal Spadas house, had told the Pope, that being M. Hallier and his Colleagues had been heard there it was fit likewise that they should be heard before his Holiness. That the Pope being-urged thus by M. Albizzi, said at length, that he would do it, but he would hear both the one side and the other, Vogliamo sentire gli uni è gli altri. That hereupon M. Albizzi fearing that this might occasion the Conferences which we demanded, and doubting the force of what we had to allege; ceased to press the Pope to hear M. Hallier and his Colleagues; and that hence it was that we were forgotten by his Holiness and left in quiet since the Festivals, whereas during Lent we expected to be called before his Holiness assoon as they were passed.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Of the Letters written to me f●om Paris during the whole month of April, concerning the state of our affair at Rome.  
ALthough all the Letters written to me from Paris during this month contain nothing considerably different from what passed at Rome; but are only reflections upon the course held there in our affair, and testimonies both of the triumphs which our A dersaries made already every where for the Censure of the Propositions, whereof they were confident; and of the Christian moderation and constancy wherewith we continued to pursue the examen of it, and to hope in the divine protection: nevertheless they seem to me so fit to justify to the Public and Posterity the innocency both of our Doctrine and Deportment; that I cannot forbear to insert some of the principal here.  
I received some from M. de saint Beuve every Post, and in regard of his quality and ability so well known in the world, and because he always spoke directly to the substance of the affair with great sincerity, I shall produce his first and almost alone. This he writ to me April 4.  
SIR.  
YOur concise stile tells me more things than when you are diffuse. Even your silence speaks, and inasmuch as you sent me no intelligence, you thereby informed me that you were much employed and were not without fear. For my part, Sir, I forthwith regretted your dejection, yet could not apprehend that the event of the Congregation to be held before his Holiness would be disadvantageous to us. The power of Truth, the assistance of the H. Ghost upon the Pope, his Holiness' greatness of mind, the learning and the generosity of the principal Consultors, the interest which the Dominicans have in ours, and the multitude of knowing persons of our opinion, keep me from fearing any thing; and put me in great hope in case they proceed to a definition. You cannot imagine how much our Adversaries dread the intervention of the Dominicans. They tell some, that they are sure the General of the Jacobines will not enter into the Cause, but will be contented if he be promised that an insertion shall be put into the Bull, that the Pope pretends not to prejudice the Doctrine of S. Thomas by it. Which discourse was made by a Jesuit named F. le Cointes, Companion of F. Paulin the King's Confessor. But whilst they speak thus, their Predicators preach in disparagement of effectual Grace, as one F. Mimbourg at S. German del' Auxerrois, and F. Lingendes at S. Gervais. They tell others that the Dominicans do not accord with us; and this is talked in Sorbonne, and comes from Rome. M. Lagault writes to M. Duval as one high in hopes, and that which makes them considerable is, that 'tis said that generally what he sends word is to come to pass by a set time, comes to pass accordingly; witness the prayers appointed by his Holiness. M. Duval above a fortnight before the last, informed us that the Pope would appoint prayers, and then pronounce without hearing parties, and that in France he should be obeyed. But all this does not much trouble me. Let his Holiness pronounce if he please; he must distinguish the senses, unless he means to add Oil to the fire; for 'twill be a new contest more violent than the first, in what sense the Propositions are condemned. If he does distinguish them, our Adversaries must of necessity fall. For our sense cannot receive any impeachment, being no other but that of effectual Grace. What I am charged to acquaint you with Sir, is this, that if it comes to pass that a Bull be passed in condemnation of the Propositions without distinguishing and securing the sense of effectual Grace, you must make all possible instances and suit to get the Pope to explain himself and leave no seed of division in the affair, M. LL. the Bishops command me to write this to you earnestly, and particularly that you join yourselves as much as may be withal the disciples of S. Thomas. For it shall not be said that we are injustly oppressed, that after the malicious contrivance of Propositions to blacken us, this imposture is Crowned with an ambiguous Bull, and that we hold our peace.  
I am etc.  
The same day M. Brousse Writ to me that which follows.  
Paris, April 4. 1653. SIR, My dear friend,  
I Did not writ to you on Friday last, because I had nothing new to tell you, and was so engaged in business that I did not think of the Post day till it was too late. Our Adversaries are more insolent than ever, and those words of the Scripture may be liberally applied to them; superbia corum qui te oderunt ascendit semper.  
You will see by a Letter written to me from Lions what they preach in that City; in these parts 'tis worse yet. F. Mimbourg made at S.  de l' Auxerrois a continued Satire against S. Augustine and his disciples, who are always those new Heretics. He draws the world after him by his insolences, as F. Novel sometimes did against the Book of Frequent Communion. Last week he was all about the Oeconomie of Grace and Predestination; he speaks such things as Pelagius never thought of; so that he laid for a foundation and principle in matter of Religion and Faith, that we ought to stick firm to what our senses and reason demonstrate to us; because they are the two Lights which God has given us for our direction. The Concierge of the Hostel de Villeroy who receives and distributes M. Hallier's letters, told a friend of mine lately that M. Hallier's servant sent him word that these Jansenists were worse than ever Calvin was, that they put them to so many troubles and shifts, was not credible. The Sieur Lagault writes to a Kinsman of his that he shall return very speedily, having no more to do in that Country. I salute all our dear Brethren and good friends, and am with all my heart, etc.  
The person who freequently writ to me in Latin sent me this of April 4. touching the state of things at Rome.  
QUid ex posterioribus tuis colligere debeam non certè scio. Quamquam enim causam hanc seminari optandum est, tamen ut, de aliorum relatione audio, non finiendae controversiae ratio initur quae omnino aequa videri possit. In consilium admittuntur (si quibusdam credimus) solum two qui cum Palavicino sentiunt & Albisio; caeteri jubentur ex scripto sententiam dicere. Brevitas imperatur ne omnia dicere liceat. Tui non audisti, Dominicani non admittuntur, qui tardè tandem rebus suis & doctrinae providere in animum induxerunt. Fortè istis satisfactum putabunt qui maximè illorum odere sententiam, si declarent nolle se quicquam praejudicare Thomistarum opinionibus, & hac clausula & ambiguitate verborum se tegent. Dum Jesuitae in omnes adversarios gratiae Molinisticae pronuntiatum esse contendent: at certè nihil est ejusmodi aequivocatione iis indignius, iis qui se doctrinae & fidei Moderatores supremos apud omnes haberi velint. Clarè pronuntiandum est, Veritas lucem amat, neque unquam apud majores nostros & primos Ecclesiae fundatores in more positum fuit, ut verborum circuitu hominibus illuderent, ne quisquam damnatus videretur, dum utraque pars diversa sentientium, tanquam damnata accusatur ab adversariis. Hac arte si prudentiam humanam olim Ecclesia sequi voluisset, Arrianorum querelas sedavisset; sed non Arrianum solum dogma respuit, sed evellere radices ipsas sollicita, ambigua distinxit, probavit bona, mala clarè condemnavit. Olim quòd de una vel pluribus in Christo voluntatibus silere jubetur, a Constantinopolitano Concilio legitur damnatus Honorius, & experientia manifestum factum est, Molinistarum deliria, quiae omnino praecisa non sunt, jam nobis obtrudi tanquam doctrinam Ecclesiae, quorum impudenti audaciae resisti diù non poterit, nisi qua merentur censura notentur; timendumque est ne dum pacem quaerimus, veritatem amittamus, breuíque quod de Arrianismo dixit Hieronymus, stupeat orbis se factum esse Pelagianum: sed ista curent, quibus inest mali praecidendi auctoritas; nos Deum obsecremus.  
The following dated April 11. was likewise sent me from the above commended M. the Saint Beauve.  
SIR,  
'tIs this day a year since I spoke to M. Hallier in presence of M. Duval concerning his voyage to Rome, and told him all my thoughts of it as his friend; but he was then too much engaged, to follow my advice. By this time, I hope he is upon the point to acknowledge that what I said to him proceeded from a lover of truth, and a person allied to him by an ancient friendship. For if the Pope pronounce, and secure our sense, what will remain to him of all his pains but confusion? besides that he will be esteemed by all intelligent men a perfect Boutefeu. But if his Holiness do not pronounce, I see not with what face he can return into France. For that the Pope will pronounce without securing the sense of Effectual Grace, is a thing altogether improbable. Such a blow is not to be feared from so wise, so prudent, so accomplished a man, and so great a lover of peace. For my part, Sir, I hold for certain that his Holiness will pronounce, he ought to do it in the present conjuncture, in which the whole Clery of France is at his feet demanding a decision of him with extraordinary submission. Rome ought not to lose this occasion, which never had its like. Yet I conceive his Definition will be so prudent, that no person will have cause to complain of it; otherwise the advantage which we offer him will be lost. And as we say that the Propositions are not ours, that they are equivocal, that they have very bad senses, but yet have a very good one too, which is that of S. Augustin and S. Thomas; so I persuade myself the Pope will pronounce that they cannot be maintained but that in that sense, and with explication, not wholly naked, because as such, they have a very evil sense: If he does this, the Jesuits will think they have their market, and not dare to say any thing; and we having ours shall have all reason to be contented and strongly to maintain the Pope's definition. I see not how he can pronounce after any other manner, without wronging the authority of the H. See, Truth and himself. I hope much from the continual prayers which are made in all the Churches of Rome for this purpose. I fear nothing from the opposition of the Cardinals. I expect all under God from the strength of his Holinesses 's mind, from the learning of the Consultors S. Augustin's Disciples, and from their care. There's but one thing to do, which is, to let the Pope know that when nothing could be found to gainsay our doctrine, their Equivocal Propositions were contrived to blacken us; that the same design will be endeavoured to be carried on by the Bull which shall be passed; & therefore beseech his Holiness that some other then M. Hallier our greatest enemy may be appointed to draw it, that it may be reviewed & examined diligently before it come forth, as well by his Holiness as by the Augustine's and Jacobines, since he declared in the first Congregation, that he intended not that any thing should be done in the whole course of this affair to the prejudice of the Doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Thomas. But if God should permit that there be obscurity in the Bull which shall be passed, which our Adversaries may abuse; I am charged by my Lords to bid you insist in their name to his Holiness, that all may be pronounced & explained with such perspicuity, that his Holiness 's judgement may produce peace amongst us.  
I am with all my heart, &c  
Another follows of the same M. de saint Beuve dated April 18.  
SIR,  
IF M. Hallier and his Colleagues have stayed longer at Rome than they purposed, their mishap has been the cause of it. M. Lagault writes to M. le Moyne, that his employment being to sing the Salve, he was obliged to stay at Rome, to sing that of Jansenism. I confess to you, that when this was reported to me, I could could not but say that it was a conceit worthy of a Molinist, and that they must be pardoned a sally of imaginary hope, since they have no ground for a true. Let us leave these Doctors to their boasting, whilst we labour vigorously in defence of the Truth. They are good friends of those who are in error, because they have been adorers of their own nature. Let us bear with them while they are vain in their own conceit, and desire God in their behalf that the spirit of Error rule no longer in them; You amaze me when you tell me, that the Consultors have not seen their first Writings; but I expect from your vigilance, that they will hereafter be all particularly informed of the merit of our cause. Let our Adversaries decline to appear contradictorily at Rome, 'tis an argument of the weakness of their cause: but when they boast of examples to justify that persons decried for teaching false doctrine, ought not to be heard, it can be construed nothing but either gross ignorance, or unmeasurable malice. It will not be necessary to take much pains to convince them; the Congregation de Auxiliis, and the Councils are peremptory proofs of the falsehood of what they allege so boldly. I should be troubled at the slowness of the Dominicans, did not the last inform me that the General were the same day you writ it, to desire audience,  
I am, etc.  
Moeeover, the same person gins another of April 25. in this manner concerning the intervention of the Dominicans.  
SIR,  
GIve me leave to ask you, why you send me no word concerning the Dominicans? Do they abandon our cause, or is it a mystery that must be concealed from us? speak freely, Sir, and know, that if we are glad of their union, we shall not be discouraged by their coldness. They may be so serviceable to the cause, that yet the cause hath need of them; for 'tis the cause of truth, and God is sruth, when needeth not either our goods or care— I read their Letter to M. de Chaalory, but I see not that it is requisite to think of what you propose, till his Holiness have granted a Congregation like that de Auxiliis; if I flatter not myself, methinks what is hitherto done is a perfect preparation to it. We are threatened here with a Censure within eight days, and 'tis bruited, that the Pope is to pass it in coena Domini; but we are very undaunted,  
I am, etc.  
Another Doctor of my friends writ to me on the 15th. of the same Month in these terms.  
The Molinists affirm that we are condemned, and that all which is done with so great solemnity, is done only to make the Judgement more notorious & powerful against us. I never heard them speak to us so as they have done since the arrival of the last Post. I have sure conjectures that their three Antagonists have written hither.  
The same person making a general reflection in another Letter upon the manner of proceeding in our affair at Rome, after many complaints and regrets wherewith he affirmed his heart was full, spoke thus to me; Is it possible for Truth to be so ill treated in the place where it ought to be as in its Throne, and where its enemies ought not to behold it but with trembling? It must be hoped that God will confound all those who so oppress it, and that one day it will be like a mighty Rock to overwhelm them, if not in this world, at least in that wherein all the most hidden things shall be revealed.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
Of the first certain intelligence which I received May 4. that the Constitution was made against the Propositions. And of the Audience which F. Des-mares and M. Manessier had of the Pope the same day.  
THe first of May being come, I understood that the feast of the two Apostles solemnised that Day did not hinder the Assembly of the H. Office before the Pope. Also that M. Hallier and his Colleagues went not only to Cardinal Spadas Palace to wait upon him to Monte Cavallo, but also waited his return and reconducted him home; after which they went to le Giefu to visit some Jesuits. All which implies the most intimate correspondence and dependence between them that can be imagined.  
Sunday ●he 4th. I received a visit in the morning from a well informed person, who assured me that there was a Bull or Constitution prepared, by which the Propositions were condemned; and I cannot doubt but it was the same which was since published. F. Des-mares and M. Manessier, and I were ready to go to the Pope's audience. I took with me the Bishop's Letter of Febr. 24. which we had forborn to deliver for fear of exasperating minds, and I resolved alone to present it to his Holiness, if we were admitted, seeing there was no more time to solicit for any thing. I would not dismay my new Colleagues with the bad news which I had lately received. But saying nothing to them about the same, desired them to go before to the Pope's Presence-Chamber, where I should be as soon as they, intending to make a short visit by the way. The person whom I visited, was one who had dissuaded us from delivering the said Letter for fear of producing ill blood. I told him that I was going to deliver it, seeing the Condemnation was already made, and nothing was likely to avert it but such an earnest and powerful Remonstrance as this Letter. My friend was amazed at my confident asserting the notice which I gave him; and supposing it true, as I assured him, he consented to the delivering of it, since it could do no hurt.  
Immediately I came to F. Des-mares and M. Manessier in the Pope's Presence-Chamber and the Maistre de Chambre to go back to the Pope, and to tell him that I desired to be admitted with them; and so I retired into the common Antichamber with the Letter in my hand (which I had delivered to the Pope if I had been admitted to audience) and let F. Des-mares and M. Manessier go alone; they were there three quarters of an hour. I cannot better relate what passed in this audience than the following Letter doth, which they writ concerning it the next day to our Bishops.  
My Lords,  
SInce our coming to this City, we have been employed chief in two things. First, To peruse the Writings prepared by our Colleagues, that we might sign the same jointly with them, and have them in readiness to present to the Pope when it should please him to hear us. And secondly, to obtain audience of his Holiness. Whereunto being admitted yesterday morning, we told our H. Father, that our Colleagues having represented to you, my Lords, that in hope that his Holiness would establish a solemn Congregation wherein they might contradictorily defend the true sense of the Five famous Propositions according to S. Augustin's doctrine, in presence of their Adversaries, and before the Apostolical Tribunal of his Holiness, they foresaw, that in the progress of the Conferences they might have need of some assistance for the more easy and speedy discharging of the duties of their Commission; and you had sent us not only for that purpose, but also to make new instances in your name to his Holiness for the establishment of such a Congregation as you had caused our Colleagues to demand several months before.  
Our H. Father answered us, that to satisfy the desires of the Bishops of France, who demanded his judgement touching the Five Propositions, he had assembled his Divines, and heard them sundry times with great care and patience upon the senses of those Propositions; and that not contented herewith, he had appointed public prayers, to obtain such light from God as was necessary for passing his judgement upon them. That moreover, he hoped to restore peace to the Church by other ways than Disputes. We replied, that we had recourse to the H. See, to obtain the same peace; but that these Bishops of France who sent us to procure it, desired with all good men that it might be a true, sound and permanent peace; which was not to be hoped in the present circumstances without the establishment of the solemn Congregation which we most humbly demanded of his Holiness. He answered, that the prime and supreme Vicar of Jesus Christ was not obliged to examine all things by Disputation. That 'twas sufficient that he took such means as he judged fitting to form his judgement upon the controversies propounded to him, and that after this we ought to believe that the inspiration of God would not be wanting to him for understanding the bottom thereof and deciding the same infallibly; and the truth of those Decrees depended only, salament, upon that Divine inspiration.  
Our reply was, my Lords, that our demand agreed very well with our belief that God watches particularly over the H. See, since we accounted it a visible effect of the divine vigilance, that it pleased God to inspire the Bishops of France with the thought and care to advertise his Holiness of the conspiracy which was made against the Doctrine of S. Augustin and the Church; which we undertook to justify before his Holiness in presence of our adversaries by unreproachable witnesses and invincible proofs. That if it pleased his Holiness to bring it to the trial, we hoped he should understand our sincerity and their foul dealing; that this might be known by the sole reading of the sixty passages of S. Augustin which they produced against the first Proposition, whereof there was not one but was a proof either of their ignorance or unfaithfulness; some being alleged impertinently, others misconstructed, and some mutilated and corrupted, as we were ready to demonstrate in presence of our Adversaries, and to convince them thereof before the H. See.  
You always suppose (said the Pope) that you have adversaries to encounter; 'tis not so. The other Doctors who are here to have judgement upon the five Propositions, call not themselves your parties, nor desire to be heard contradictorily. We answered, they must needs be our parties; because they produce objections against the Doctrine which we maintain to be Catholic. But besides, your Holiness will give us leave to say that we account all such our Adversaries and parties who impugn S. Augustin's authority and Doctrine. Now these are visibly impugned, and that by the Doctors who forged the five Propositions, by those who prosecute their Censure with them; but principally by the Jesuits, whose books printed with the approbation of superiors and public declamations, tend utterly to ruin the Established authority and Orthodox Doctrine of that great Saint. 'Tis no wonder if our adversaries demand not of your Holiness to be heard contradictorily in presence of S. Augustin's disciples; they fear to be convinced of subverting a Doctrine whose defenders have so often found a sanctuary in the H. See which hath Canonised it by its Decrees. Hence it is than employ at this day all their artifices and intrigues to keep your Holiness from obliging them to defend themselves before you from the just accusations which we have to charge upon them and their pernicious Doctrine.  
But (replied the H. F.) there's no need of entering into disputation with those you call your parties; 'tis no Law-Processe that is in debate, but the determining of Propositions. This suffices to produce peace to the Church; and we hope the Contests raised about these five, will cease as soon as the H. See shall have spoken, as it happened in the Controversy touching the authority of S. Peter, and S. Paul. Should I appoint such a conference as you ask, disputes would be infinite; Divines would come here from all parts: I will speedily end this business without noise. After using all the diligences I think necessary to understand it throughly, 'tis not to be doubted but the H. Ghost will communicate such light to me as I shall need to judge thereof according to truth.  
Here we took the Liberty to say, We most humbly beseech your Holiness to add one diligence to all those which you have used, namely the establishment of a a solemn Congregation, wherein the important truths in question may be cleared and confirmed. The Orthodox doctrine of S. Augustin is at this day in contest; our adversaries imagine the same by the bad sense which they put upon the five Propositions, whose Censure they press and solicit, to the end to disparage, by the conseqences which they shall draw from thence, the authority & Catholic sentiments of that H. Doctor of grace. We have many things to represent to your Holiness against our Adversaries, both matters of fact, and upon the several senses of the Propositions. This cannot be well done but in their presence, when they may contradict us, and reflect the falsehood, if we allege any, and we also make good exactly and without exception all that we have to produce against them. We shall show in that Congregation that the belief of the Jesuits touching the five Propositions, tends to overthrow the foundations of Christian Religion. The demand which we reiterate to your Holiness in the name of our L. L. the Bishops to be heard contradictorily, is legal, conformable to the practice of the Church, authorised by the H. Fathers, and allowed by the Predecessors of your Holiness. What will the Faithful say when they see the H. Father deny the Sons of the Church, all S. Augustin's disciples, a thing most just, not wont to be denied to any person, not even to Heretics? And what will Posterity say when it shall know that Bishops of France could not obtain of the H. See after long and urgent solicitations, that which ordinary Priests have obtained without difficulty?  
The Pope answered, that all these considerations had been represented to him already, & that 'twas to no purpose to repeat the same things; that 'twas our part only to consider whether we would be heard before him without our adversaries and without disputes, or no, that in case we would, he offered to receive our writings, and hear us with patience and benignity as much as we pleased, quanto vorrete. We replied, again that we were loath to be importune to his Holiness; but the affair committed to us being of extreme importance, obliged us to reiterate our most humble instances for obtaining a means which we conceived necessary for the right treating of it. In fine, perceiving the Pope pressed us to answer precisely, we, thought it our duty to say to him, H. Father, we desire withal our hearts and most humbly demand the audiences which your Holiness offers us; but we demand them always with the just and legal conditions which we have expressed, and which are imported by our Commission, the limits whereof we may not exceed. Whereupon finding our H. Father not disposed to grant us a conference, and that nevertheless he pressed us to appear before him to represent the things whereof we desired to inform him, we insisted no further; but prayed him to permit us to report to our Colleagues what it pleased his Holiness to propose to us, to the end we might all together testify the submission and respect which had for his Orders.  
In this disposition, my Lords, we left his Holiness. The same Evening we had certain notice of the draught of a Bull upon the five Propositions; we know not whether it be to condemn them in general or in particular, or whether it be only to deprive the parties of Liberty to dispute of them by imposing silence to both; yet 'tis most likely to be for condemning them in some manner. However it be, all considered, we have conceived, my Lords, that we are obliged to appear before the Pope when it should please his Holiness to send for us and hear us in presence of our adversaries.  
In the first place to the end to testify to his Holinsse that we reverence his power, and are obedient to his pleasure. In the second place to oppose by this last means now left us the enterprises and Cabals of the Jesuits against the truth, and to take away the pretext which they might have to publish, though very falsely, that your Deputies, my Lords, durst not appear before the H. see. In the third place to free ourselves from the blame which the disciples of S. Augustin and S. Thomas might lay upon us, (as they would here undoubtedly) of having left the truth in the oppression and obscurity whereinto its enemies would reduce it, if we refused the defence and elucidation which it requires here against those who endeavour to embroile it, and put upon it, if possible, the resemblance of error, whereby to render it odious and worthy of Anathema. Lastly we have taken this resolution as the sole means we have at present to obtain the effect of the commission wherewith it hath pleased you my Lords, to honour us.  
For we conceive the audiences promised us by the Pope may in some wise inform him of the matters in contest; especially of the necessity of the Conference which we solicit by your Orders; but they will not suffice to instruct him so fully in the matter in question that he may give a clear and definitive judgement of it with a perfect cognizance of the Cause. Many things which we have to represent to his Holiness may convince him that the present controversy is of highest importance, and cannot be clearly decided as things now stand, unless the parties be obliged to declare their belief plainly, and defend the same against their adversaries before the H. see in the manner which hath been proposed to our H. Father in your name. This is it which the Jesuits fear and decline as the certain destruction of their Molinisme; and 'tis that which we desire with all our hearts as the sure victory which the invincible and H. defender of Grace will gain once more over the new Pelagians of our age. God touch the heart of his Holiness and dispose him to grant us a thing so just and necessary. 'Tis the usual subject of our prayers, the weakness whereof hath need, my Lords, to be strengthened with yours and all theirs who have any love and gratitude for the grace which makes us christian's, and obliges us to honour with sincere and true respect the prime Ministers of Jesus Christ, in the love of whom we shall remain all our lives,  
MY LORDS Your most humble and most obedient servants, 

F. Des-mares.  
N. Manessier.   Rome, May 5. 1653.  
Receiving this Letter I remember one thing, which these Gentlemen have not mentioned, though they related it to us in the account they gave us of their audience; namely that when M. Manessier urged in the name of the Bishops for a Conference, and represented how necessary it was in this cause, the Pope answered them in these terms, Tutto questo dipende dall' inspiratione del spirito santo; all this depends upon the inspiration of the H. Ghost. Whereto M. Manessier replying that the assistance of the H. Ghost which God had promised to the Church in decisions of Faith, did not acquit Ecumenical Councils from all reasonable means of instruction in the truth; and that 'twas by these very means that such assistance was given them; the Pope said, Non dite questo, questa opinione non è buona; You must not say so; that opinion is not good. To which neither M. Manessier nor F. Des-mares durst reply any thing furthet, though it appeared to them sufficiently strange; since those very Divines who profess most adherence to Rome, (as the late M. Du Val) teach that the Pope is not instructed in the truth by special revelations but by the humane ways, wherewith God obliges him to seek it. Qui diceret (saith that Doctor in his book de autoritate Pontificis) Pontificem per immediatam & expressam revelationem suas definitiones habere, nonnihil ad haeresin quorundam saeculi nostri Novatorum, quise à spiritu particulari de rebus fidei edoceri & confirmari jactant, propenderet; quorum haeresis tanquam certissima ad errores via ab omnibus Orthodoxis reprobatur.   

CHAP. XIX.  
The discourse of Card. Ghiggi with another Cardinal in the Consistory, May 5. touching the new Bull. The reasons which moved us to go and tell the Pope that we should be ready to appear before him when and in what manner his Holiness pleased.  
TUesday, May 6. I heard that a certain Cardinal being advertised on Sunday last that the Bull was prepared, instantly resolved to make his complaints & Remonstrances against it to the Pope on Monday morning May 5. in the Consistory which was to be held that day: but fearing that what he should represent to the Pope would not be well received by his Holiness, he conceived it would be best to speak first to Cardinal Ghiggi who was likely to hear with more attention what he should say, to receive it better, and with more facility render the Pope susceptible of it. He intended also to discover by Cardinal Ghiggi's answers how the Pope's mind stood, and whether or no it would be fit to speak to his Holiness afterwards. But Cardinal Ghiggi replied so sharply to all that the other Cardinal said (though his elder and a most venerable person both for his endowments and his age,) and seemed so violently prepossessed and strongly bend to the purpose of Condemning, that he conceived the Pope was affected in the same manner, and therefore resolved to say nothing to him for fear he should do it in vain, but to practise that counsel of the Scripture, Non effundas Sermonem ubi non est auditus. And he saw that thenceforward all was desperate, and no more to be done in the matter but to have recourse to prayers and patience.  
I was informed exactly enough of the particulars of the discourse of these two Cardinals, and shall insert some principal fragments of it which I penned down at that time.  
Upon the friendly and familiar complaint made to Cardinal Ghiggi about the new compiled Bull, Cardinal Ghiggi answered the other roughly and as being surprised that the mine was discovered, seeming also in some sort to deny that it was true. He asked him Chive l' ha' detto? who told you this? The other answered calmly, I do not think I am obliged to tell you whence I had this intelligence; but I am advertised of it by a good hand. Your Eminence must not believe, but in such an affair as this, wherein all the world is interessed, every one endeavours to look about him and discover what is acted; I conjecture that in the first draught of the Bull there were some words in commendation of S. Augustin, because besides what I otherwise heard, the discourse of these two Cardinals came to this point, that Cardinal Ghiggi acknowledging that the Bull was made, yet undertook to justify the reasonableness of it, telling the other that no dangerous consequence could be feared from it, in regard of the praises attributed therein to that H. Doctor, by which (he said) his Doctrine was secured. The other Cardinal replied, that those praises were of little advantage to S. Augustin if his doctrine was really condemned; adding that the Propositions in question were his very doctrine, and, till their condemnation, maintained as so many articles of Faith. Cardinal Ghiggi answered, that they were equivocal; and contained evil sense: The other replied that they also contained Capital truths of the Catholic faith in the good senses wherein they might be understood. For proof whereof he began to explain them with admirable facility and clearness; but Cardinal Ghiggi excused himself from hearing him, saying that he had not studied them. Whereupon the other said, Alas! how then can you consent to their condemnation; if you have not studied them? Cardinal Ghiggi answered, I should have studied them, had I been (da volare,) obliged to give my opinion, and Vote concerning them. The other demanded, if you have not given your opinion, how will it be true which the Pope shall say in his Bull, that he condemns them by advice of the Cardinals, de Consilio fratrum nostrorum? Cardinal Ghiggi answered, that it would be true by a Council of prudence; per un Consiglio prudentiale, or otherwise, by a Political advice of what was expedient to ordain, regard being had to all the circumstances of the affair. The other excepted again, How can one give a prudential Counsel touching an affair which he hath not studied, and sees not to the bottom? If this Bull be published, 'twill be a Bull of the Consultors, not of the Cardinals; and of Consultors picked and culled by ways which all the world knows and the French Doctors are not ignorant of; they keep a register of them; and if an unfitting Judgement come forth we shall soon see the H. See charged with confusion by printed Books in all parts. Besides if any obscurity be in the Bull, every one will draw it to his own side, and this will cause horrible combustions and contest. But for all this, in summa (said my Relator) this Cardinal got nothing at all in his conference with Cardinal Ghiggi, but very sharp answers from him; Non fu guadagnato niente, ma sempre acertissima risposta.  
Returning home from the Visit wherein I learned these passages, we deliberated concerning our going altogether that morning to the Pope, to deliver him the Letter of Febr. 24. and declare to him, that we had been, and should be always ready to appear before him whenever he should appoint us. Besides, the general respect due to the Head of the Church from all the Faithful, we considered what particular reasons we had for it in the present conjuncture; and that the Pope was absolutely determined not to hear us at all in a contradictory Conference, having so declared to our new Colleagues; that he conceived he had used all moral diligences necessary for clearing the Truth; that he was persuaded that after those diligences, the H. Ghost's assistance of him was infallible; and that he was resolved to pronounce a Judgement.  
We considered the persons who informed him, & from whom he took counsel, most of them prejudiced against S. Augustin's doctrine & against us: offended with the difficulties we had made to appear before them, unless on the conditions we demanded, and accounting they did us a favour to hear us in the manner which they offered, (seeing that most of the World was become disaffected to us through the contrivances of the Jesuits throughout all Europe, especially in France) not likely to neglect so favourable an occasion of promoting the dominion which they affect over the conscience and liberty of the Faithful.  
We considered that the Bull, which was already compiled against the Propositions, could not but give great advantages to our Adversaries, and be in their hands like a sword in those of a mad man, when once it came forth; that having assuredly not been made but by the ministry of M. Albizzi, and the assistance of the Jesuits, they might easily have slipped into it words of very great consequence, beside the Pope's intention, from whence the Jesuits might pretend the cause gained for their Molina, and whose sequels his Holiness, not being sufficiently instructed in these matters, could not foresee no more being necessary: for his satisfaction, saving that it appeared in general that his intentions were followed; wherefore we accounted it highly important to stop its publication.  
We considered that in one of the Writings prepared for us, we had ourselves done what we beseeched the Pope might be done before all things, namely, distinguished the Propositions into the several senses whereof they were capable, and clearly explicated them both in the one and the other without equivocation or obscurity; Which Writing was necessary to be read and publicly declared to the Pope before the Bull came forth; to the end that if it absolutely condemned the Propositions, we might have this authentic proof further that we had not maintained them absolutely, but only in the Catholic senses whereof they were susceptible.  
We considered that we could not have the advantage of making such declaration and protestation before the Pope, nor hindering the publishing of the Bull, if we still insisted upon being heard in the forms which we had dnmanded; because 'twas evidently dangerous that the Pope would persist to deny the same to us, and without regard to what we had represented to him, cause the Bull to be published forthwith. Which would be of no other advantage to us, then that we might complain of being condemned after an unheard of manner in defending the best cause of the World. But nevertheless such condemnation would cause great disorder and scandal in the Church.  
We considered that the Pope might have good intentions; That our Writings were very home; that if he gave us time to explicate the same to him, and add thereunto viva voce what we pleased as he promised us, the truths which we had to represent to him might make some impression upon his mind, stop his purpose against us whereto our Adversaries had drawn him, convince him of the necessity of a Conference, and consequently move him to appoint one of his own accord without our further demanding it.  
We considered that should we be deceived in our hopes, this new fashioned Audience which he would give us, not being according to Ecclesiastical laws and customs, and we not accepting it but in regard of the present conjuncture and circumstances above mentioned, there would be no great difference between having been heard in this manner, and not being heard at all.  
Lastly, We considered that we accepted not this Audience, but only to have the means of representing to the Pope that it was not such as we demanded; that the accustomed forms of the Church were not observed in it; that Ecclesiastical liberty was infringed by it, and that we resolved not to begin to treat our affair after a manner opposite to their forms and liberty, but because we now saw no other way to preserve them, that we would slip no occasion, either in this Congregation or the following of making instances for the same; that whatever informations we gave of things, we should still conclude, that the Pope might see thereby the necessity of having Adversares to object against whatever falsehood or mistake might be in what we should represent against both their proceed and doctrine, and in behalf of our own.  
All these considerations confirmed us in the resolution of going altogether that day to the Pope, to testify to him that we were ready to appear before his Holiness, when he pleased and how he pleased, and in the mean time to deliver him the Letter of February 24. as a testimony of our desires, and those of our Bishops; and moreover to get ready a Memorial to present to him when we should appear before his Holiness, wherein to desire that both our first, and the new Writings which we should present to him, might be communicated to our Adversaries.  
Having briefly reduced our common resolutions into Writing before we went out of our Lodging, we repaired to the Pope's Presence-Chamber to desire Audience; but it being already somewhat late, we could not obtain it.   

CHAP. XX.  
Our resolution declared to the Ambassador. His care to signify it to the Pope; and desire a set day of him. His Advertisement to M. Hallier and his Colleagues to be ready to appear likewise before the Pope a day or two after us. Visits hereupon to the Cardinals of our Congregation. The Bull prepared and reviewed by these Cardinals severally.  
THursday May 8. being in the Pope's Presence-Chamber, and seeing the Cardinals, Barbarin, S. Clement and Lugo come from the Congregation of the H. Office, but Spada, Ginetti and Ghiggi stay behind with the Pope; I left one to observe how long they continued there, who told me about an hour and a quarter after; and almost at the same time a Laquay came to me from Cardinal Barberin, to tell me that his Eminence desired to speak with me at what time I would set, I asked the Laquay when he conceived his Eminence would be at leisure? he told me, Between four and five; and I sent word that I would not fail to be there at that time.  
By the way I made another Visit, wherein I heard, that the General of the Dominicans visiting Cardinal de Medicis the Uncle, complained very much to him of M. Albizzi, especially concerning this new Bull, and the practices used to gain suffrages in the Congregation: they talked of money given, and Bishoprics and other employments promised. They judged it the interest of Spain, as well as of the Order of Dominicans, to take heed of what passed in this affair; but Cardinal Pimentel's arrival was thought fit to be expected, that he might join with them in the common interest; In the mean time Cardinal de Medicis would use his endeavours with the Pope.  
Cardinal Barberin's business was not great; he told me, he invited me to come to him, believing I had something to say to him. I made our excuses to him, that our new Colleagues had not yet visited his Eminence. I told him the cause of their coming, which was, to assist us in our negotiation, and to make new instances to the Pope for such a Congregation as we had hitherto demanded. He answered, that it was not to be urged too much; that perhaps the Pope will ordain it of his own accord. I acquainted him with their audience of the Pope, & our resolution to appear before his Holiness, when and how he pleased. He said, it would be fit to represent that the Propositions could not be touched, without entering into the matter de Auxiliis. I answered, that this matter ought to be taken in hand, in order to root out the evil Opinions slipped into the Church touching the same. And that we had no other intentions nor course to take, than what was necessary for maintaining the belief of Grace against the late enterprises to ruin it. He said, there were some who persuaded the Pope that we would oppose Bulls; that we must take heed of that, and endeavour to remove that ill suggestion against us. I answered, that our carriage was full of sincerity; That we did nothing out of affectation; That 'twould be time enough to speak of this when occasion should be offered. That nevertheless seeing he mentioned it, I could assure him that we should not transgress any Bull; and as for that of Vrban VIII. his Eminence knew how F. Hilarion and myself had spoken to him of it, That it might have its full and entire effect, and yet all that was in Jansenius' Book be true even to the least line; that this was my opinion; but in the present Controversy we had nothing to say, either of that Book or Bull. This Declaration seemed to be well taken by the Cardinal, who being called aside for a little space into the next room, brought in with him F. Marinaris a Carmelite and his Chaplain, one of quick parts and a scholastic Genius. We discoursed long together before his Eminence, and afterwards went to see some Books in his Library, whereof we had spoken. The Cardinal told me of a Heretic, who said that they should gain all, if things were defined as we demanded. I answered him, that that Heretic might be mistaken in his pretention, and that no heed was to be given to what he said. Yet (said his Eminence) 'tis good to conform to the time and the manner of speech used by all the Thomists who have written since the Council of Trent. I assented that it was so, when the manners of speech tended to the clearing and establishing of Truths; but not when they might be prejudicial to, and ruin them. That if there were some Thomists whose sentiments were a very little different from ours in some slight circumstances, there were others who were conformable thereunto; But all agreed with us in the manner. And besides, 'twas not by them that the same aught to be regulated, but by the Saints and the Councils; and above all, by the Truth. The Candle was lighted; I exhorted his Eminence to read the Apology of the H. Fathers, and gave the Good night to him and his Divines.  
As I came back, I made another Visit, wherein I learned that the Bull whereof the Cardinal abovementioned had complained to Cardinal Ghiggi was no more talked of. That this Cardinal acquainted the Pope with it the same day for fear complaints of it might come to the Pope by other hands than his own. That another person speaking of it to the same Cardinal Ghiggi, he disowned it, as not having been ordained by the Pope. That in fine, 'twas no more talked of, but seemed suppressed; whether it were stopped upon the abovementioned Discourse, or whether the noise of it was only smothered, the better to bring us to the Audience which was offered us.  
In the same Visit I likewise learned that the Cardinals Spada, Ginetti and Ghiggi, who stayed with the Pope in the morning after the general Congregation of the H. Office, did not speak about our affair, but about the Bishops of Flanders, whose resistance extremely displeased the Pope. That he desired Cardinal de Medicis to obtain of the Archduke that these Bishops might be obliged to come to Rome to purge themselves; that the only thing which kept them from being cited, was the doubt and incertainty of execution; and that Cardinal de Medicis would not consent to it, in regard Jansenius was persecuted by the French for considerations and interests of State.  
Whilst I made these Visits, my four Colleagues went to give the Ambassador an account of the audience which the Pope had given F. Des-mares and M. Manassier; they told him that we made no difficulty to appear before his Holiness whensoever he pleased to call us; that we intended to seek an audience of him on Sunday next, to make this Declaration, and were glad of this occasion to give him a preliminary instruction concerning our affair, because it was very likely that the Pope would afterwards see the necessity of a Conference.  
M. Hallier brought a servant to Rome, who understood Latin, and there took the Order of Priesthood; He told one of our Domestics, that his Master said, if he were sent for before the Pope, all that he had to say, was, that he had no more to say after what he had said in the Congregation: and that if this affair lasted yet beyond October, he must go at that time into France in regard of his Cure.  
Friday the 9th. I accompanied the Ambassador to the Pope's Palace. In the Presence-Chamber I spoke with Signior— Advocate of Malta, who said, that Cardinal Spada told him the day before, that the Pope desired to be quit of these Congregations before his going to S. Peter's for the solemnity of Easter. That his Eminence designed to the Pope the days in which the Congregations would be dispatched; and that when Lent was ended, Non si farebbe per un pezzo Congregatione nianzi all Papa, there should be no more Congregations before the Pope.  
Saturday the 10. the Ambassador sent for us to come to him about ten a clock in the forenoon. The Messenger told one of our Domestics, that he was going to desire M. Hallier and his Colleagues to be there likewise about half an hour after. We went to the Ambassador at the hour appointed. He told us, that the Pope speaking to him concerning us the day before, he signified to his Holiness our resolution to appear before him when he pleased, and that he (the Ambassador) had obliged us to conform to whatever his Holiness should ordain in this matter, by the hopes which he gave us, that this ingenuous and absolute remitting our affair to his Holiness was the right course to obtain a Conference, if it were necessary as we pretended. The Ambassador added, that we should do well to comply thus, and that the Pope would by degrees incline to the Conference which we demanded. That if we needed a few days to get ourselves ready, he would procure time for us. In fine, he told us that he had sent to M. Hallier and his Colleagues, in order to make the same Declaration to them, that they should be ready to appear before the Pope a day or two after us. We answered the Ambassador no more, but that we were sorry we could not forthwith enter into Conference with all our Adversaries, because till we did so, it would be but so much time lost and superfluous pains; but seeing the Pope would have it thus, and there was no hope of obtaining such a Conference, we willingly took this resolution.  
The Ambassador accompanied us in ceremony through all his Antichambres to the door of the outer room; and as he was ready to leave us, M. Hallier and M. Lagault arrived there, and the Ambassador told me that he was going to make the same Declaration to them which he made to us, that they should be ready to appear and be heard before the Pope, after we had appeared; and having asked them pleasantly, whether they were ready to exchange a Pistol-shot; M. Hallier answered, that we were too many, Ne quidem, said he, Hercules contra duos.  
In the afternoon I went again to the Ambassador; He propounded the Rogation week for the time of our appearance, which I accepted. He told me, that M. Hallier and Lagault were not well pleased with his Declaration, and said, that all this tended only to retard; and that he answered them, that they ought to consider that all persons were desirous to be heard, and to speak their reasons, which advantage would be common to themselves with us, etc. I told the Ambassador, that we were willing that they should be heard as well as ourselves; but all this was but little, till we were in presence one of the other; That we had purposed to seek for audience of the Pope the next day, and acquaint his Holiness with our readiness to appear before him, but were now very well contented that he should be the depositary and witness of our Sentiments in that matter.  
Instead of going to the Pope as we had proposed, on Sunday the 11th. we went to Cardinal Spada, with whom we found M. Hallier and M. Joysel. We waited their departure a long time in the Gallery. When they were gone, we were introduced into his Eminence's Chamber. F. Des-mares told him in very few and smooth words the ground upon which our Bishops had sent him and M. Manassier. The Cardinal answered some civil terms, which not being heard by the Father, the Discourse became a little interrupted. But to recruit it, M. Valcroissant told him, that we desired to know three or four days beforehand what day the Pope would set to hear us the first time, to the end we might be the better prepared for it. The Cardinal answered, that the day could not be far off now. That the Pope had held Congregations with great diligence, that the affair might be ended before Summer; and that if we desired to be heard we should be ready as soon as we could. The Cardinal seemed to speak, as if, according to our Adversaries constant calumny, we still sought delays: Wherefore I told him that we were ready, and demanded no delay, but only to be advertised three or four days beforehand of that which the Pope should pitch upon, to the end we might have time to recollect what we had to say, it being not possible to have it always in mind without trouble. That we expected to have appeared immediately after Easter; that four weeks were since passed; that the day we spoke of was not yet determined. That we had purposed to go that morning and acquaint the Pope with our readiness, but the Ambassador had freed us from that care by undertaking to inform Cardinal Pamphilio of it. Cardinal Spada answered that it were good that we repaired to the other Cardinals, and told them the same as we had done his Eminence. We replied we should, and as we retired, F. Des-mares presented the two following Letters to him written by the Bishop of Angers and the Bishop of chaalon's.  
My LORD.  
I Know not whether it be an abuse of your Eminence's goodness, to recurre to it so easily as I do, to demand the honour of your protection: but in this case I can scarce believe you will account yourself importuned by the most humble supplication which I make to you, since it seems to concern the peace of the Church in France. It is my Lord, to get the favour granted to the Doctors, who deliver this Letter to your Eminence, which they demand of his Holiness to be heard in presence of their Adversaries: which seems to be the more just, in that a difference cannot be better understood or more certainly judged, then by confronting the Parties, and hearing all the reasons which can be alleged on either side. And being I have particular knowledge of the affair both in its foundation and circumstances, I can also, my Lord, assure your Eminence, that 'tis the best course to extinguish the troubles it causes in the Church of France: because after every one hath spoken with freedom in presence of their adversaries, all that they have to set forth, they will be obliged to stand to the Judgement which shall be pronounced, and have no cause at all to complain. But not to interrupt your Eminence's other occasions by too long a letter, I end this with renewed assurances of being with all imaginable passion and respect,  
My LORD, Your Eminence's most humble and most obedient servant, Henry B of Anger's. Anger's March 12. 1653.  
My LORD,  
I should not take the liberty to importune your Eminence, were not an interest infinitely dear to me concerned, that of the Church's peace. The desire of seeing it reestablished here, causes us to recurre in the present contests to the H. See with a true submission; to the end the most pure light flowing from thence may dispel the darkness and trouble possessing many men's minds. 'Tis out of this sentiment that the Doctors deputed by us cannot give over sueing to your Eminence for a hearing in presence of those who have so frequently and in so many places brought strange accusations against the doctrine which they maintain. This Justice hath always been granted by the Church to her Children, and offered even in all Councils to such as had revolted from her. I dare assure your Eminence, that all the dependences of this affairs render it more necessary in this case then ever; and I hope the extraordinary prudence which appears in all your Eminence's actons, will favourably hear so many most just considerations upon which this most humble supplication is grounded. I am withal due respect,  
My LORD, Your Eminence's most humble and most obedient servant, F. Bp. and C. of Chaalons. Paris March 31. 1653.  
Monday the 12th. we went to make our compliments to Cardinal Pamphilio, who was newly gone abroad: Thence we went to Cardinal Ghiggi, and waited a long time for admittance. He received what F. Des-mares said to him, with much gentleness. He asked us whether the Pope knew of our good purpose, because he conceived that the Ambassador had not seen Cardinal Pamphilio on Sunday, in regard he went with the Pope to take the air. He told us that if the Ambassador had not seen that Cardinal, it would suffice if we acquainted his Holinesses Maistre de Chambre with our resolution. We thanked the Cardinal for his good advice, to have us tell the Pope's Maistre de Chambre what the Ambassador had undertaken for us to signify to the Cardinal Nephew. He asked us news from France, and told us this considerable, namely that hopes were given them from the Court of the enlargement of Cardinal de Retz.  
Tuseday 13th. We left M. the Valecroissant at home to prepare his Oration against our audience, and went to Cardinal Ginetti, to whom I gave an account in Italian of the business of our visit. He answered us with his accustomed civility, and told us that the affair was well examined (he accounted it already done, as indeed it was) that the Pope was a very prudent person, (and besides) had the assistance of the H. Ghost. He asked me news of M. Brousse's health and offered us all the service in his power.  
We went thence to Monte Cavallo, to speak with Cardinal Pamphilio, where after we had waited till noon, he was visited by the Cardinals Altieri & Rondanini; after their departure we were admitted, and having scarce touched the affair, assoon as I named the Ambassador, he told us he had seen him, and that our hearing it would be within four or five days, either Saturday, or Monday. In the little discourse we had with him, he pronounced a sentence, the most tedious that we could hear, yet the most pleasantly that he could, as if it had been the most acceptable thing to us in the world, namely, Questa cosa non è causa di contradettorio, This affair requires not the hearing of Parties. Being he gave us not time to say any thing to him concerning the Book of our writings which we had prepared for him, we did not present it to him yet; and indeed it would have been a superfluous thing, as appeared by the Event.  
In the afternoon we went to visit the General of the Dominicans. Our conference was long; but the most considerable thing he spoke was, that he had done his utmost to intervene in this affair, but he could not be suffered. He had been seventeen or eighteen times to present his Memorials, and papers to the Pope, but could not obtain audience. He had procured Prince Giustiaainno the Pope's kinsman and his own to undertake the delivery of them, but his Holiness would not receive them. The secret of all which denials, was, that the Pope purposed to decide this affair without entering into the matter de Auxilis. We concluded by telling him that he was however obliged to pray to God for us when we appeared before the Pope, because we should be charged with his cause as well as our own, and should carry our own interests no further than his.  
Thence we visited the General of the Augustine's who made great caresses to us, testifying much resolution and hope, and by all that he said to us he manifested that he understood the particular design of hatching the Propositions, and the fundamental matter of the controversy.  
'Twas happy that M. de Valcroissant stayed at home; for the Ambassador going to take the air had the goodness to pass that way himself, to advertise us that the Pope had appointed Monday following, being that of the Rogations, for the day of our appearance.  
The complaint made by the Cardinal above mentioned in the Consistory May 5. to Cardinal Ghiggi that the Bull was prepared, caused the report of it to be smothered and made a greater secret; yet neither produced a total suppression of it, nor an alteration of the positive and determinate resolution to publish it. On Thursday the 15th. I was informed that since that Consistory, it had passed severally through the hands of the Cardinals deputed for the Congregation, who had viewed it and considered it, to see whether any thing were fit to be added or retrenched; that Cardinal Ghiggi was the last in whose hands it was, and that on Wednesday the 14th. he returned it to M. Albizzi reviewed and apostiled, with order to have it fairly transcribed against the Congregation which was to be held on Thursday before the Pope, to the end it might be shown and read to his Holiness at the end of that Assembly. I understood that in obedience to this order, assoon as M. Albizzi received it he set one to transcribe it, and that a great part of the night was spent in the work; but I knew not whether it was fit for the purpose intended. For having sent a man to Montecavallo assoon as I received this intelligence, to see whether the Cardinals of the Congregation appointed for this affair stayed with the Pope, after the others of the General assembly of the H. Office were departed, he brought me word two hours and a quarter after noon, that those Cardinals and S. Clement and Colonna, and M. Albizzi came forth with the Consultors almost at the same time: but that Cardinal Barberin stayed with the Pope almost an hour after the rest, and Cardinal Lugo an hour and three quarters afterwards.   

CHAP. XXI.  
Of the Writtings which we prepared to present to the Pope at the end of our intended audience.  
AFter the Ambassador had advertised us that Monday May 19 was the appointed day for our appearance before the Pope, we did not stir out of our Lodging till that day, but laboured to get ourselves and our writings ready against that audience. The first of five, was thus entitled, To our M. H. F. Pope Innocent 10. for the Doctors subscribed, defenders of S. Augustin, against the society of Jesuits; The first part of the second information upon Fact, containing above a hundred Propositions extracted out of the books of the Jesuits against S. Augustins' authority. In the preface to this writing we declared that we had produced the First information touching matter of Fact against M. Hallier and his Colleagues, because they appeared first as parties in this affair; that the little time we had to prepare our first writings, and the extraordinary instances wherewith those Doctors pressed the dispatching of this affair before it could be examined, constrained us to expose them with such brevity and diligence, that we were forced to fall directly upon matter of fact, and defer till another time all that had preceded and given occasion to this so unheard of and dangerous enterprise; which nevertheless was very necessary for the perfect understanding of all its circumstances and consequences, so that we were obliged only transiently to touch upon such things as evinced the Jesuits the prime architects of this conspiracy, and to defer to a more favourable time to present against them and their particular misdemeanours a new Information. But because this Information was so vast and important, that we could not yet wholly finish it, we had divided it into sundry Parts; whereof this was the first and most necessary to the business in hand, containing above a hundred Propositions drawn out of the Books of those Fathers, by which the authority of S. Augustin, and that of the Popes, from whence the same is derived, were unworthily outraged; and consequently served to show that we complained not without cause that these very Fathers had undertaken to ruin it, and that we justly demanded that they might be obliged to acknowledge it after an authentic manner, namely by a solemn writing, which might serve for an example to posterity, conduce to the glory and reputation to the H. See, and to the edification of all the faithful.  
Our design was, when we had before the H. See convinced the Jesuits of having corrupted the faith of the Church in the matter of Grace, to complain also of all the other corruptions which they had introduced in all the other points of Faith and Christian Morality; and to desire the H. See to do justice to itself and the whole Church against them for all their exhorbitances. But this required time, and 'twas expedient to have this first question voided before hand; And therefore we had entitled this Writing, The first Part of the second information touching Fact against the society of Jesuits. The Propositions which we related in it, were taken out of the Books of Molina, Vasquez, Mariana, a decree of their General Aquaviva, F. Caussin, Theophile Renault, F. Sirmond, F. Pelau, F. Adam, F. Annat, F. Martinon, F. l' Abbe, the Jesuits of Louvain, and the other society who are condemned by the censure of Validolid.  
And after the list of all these scandalous Propositions, we showed in the Conclusion of the Writings, that it was not credible that the same had escaped from them by chance, but that they had advanced them with deliberate purpose, and by voluntarily renouncing the truth and the respect which formerly they acknowledged due to S. Augustin's Doctrine. The proof we brought of this so strange accusations, was that two years before the publishing of Molina's work and doctrine, viz. anno. 1586. they caused a book eo be printed at Rome, entitled Ratio atque institutio Studiorum per sex Patres ad id jussu R. P. Praepositi Generalis deputatos conscripta Romae in Collegio Societatis Jesus. 'Twas a Book in Octavo about an ich thick, and sent as a Circular Letter to all their Colleagues for the regulating the studies of all their Fathers. Now in this book they acknowleged unanimously with sincerity and plainness, that the Doctrine of S. Augustin touching the matter of Grace and Gratuitous Predestination, was that which they ought to follow. Item, said they, p. 37. under the title concerning the Choice of their studies in Divinity. It hath been resolved that the cause and manner of Predestination proceeds not from our part. But some will say, (they objected so themselves,) that this doctrine is not very proper for piety. And they answered, that 'tis a doctrine of S. Augustine, which hath been already received, not only by the most common opinion of Divines, but also by the H. Fathers during twelve ages, who undertook to prove it by the Holy Scriptures, General Councils, the Answers of Popes, namely Zozimus, Sixtus, Celestine, Leo, Gelasius, all who, say they, always had an ill esteem of the Priests of Marseille Castian, and Faustus, for having been the opposers of this doctrine of Predestination. We observed that the Jesuits spoke in this manner whilst they did not yet foresee that they were to declare War against S. Augustin; but after the contest wherein they were engaged for defence of Molina's book and doctrine, to the end it might be free for all their Fathers to oppose that of S. Augustin & uphold their Confrere Molina who attaqu'd him first, and in whose defence they unhappily conceived the honour and reputation of their society concerned, they retrencht out of the succeeding edition of the said Book all that I have cited out of the first in favour of the doctrine of the gratuitous Predestination of S. Augustin whom they acknowledged to have taught it.  
We showed that their boldness had increased ever since, and that the latest of their Authors were still more heinously injurous against S. Augustin; That since this enterprise of the Propositions F. Adam, F. Annat, F. Martinon, and F. Labbe, had rose up against that H. Doctor, and that these three last appeared even since the complaints which we had made thereof to the H. See: That none of of their Confreres had been displeased with them for this enormity, but on the contrary seemed to esteem them the more, that they every where cried up their rare merits and advanced them to the prime charges and most considerable employments of their Order; That after this, it was not possible to imagine a greater violence, a more obstinate contumacy, a more audacious impudence, or a more offensive outrage against S. Augustin and the H. See itself.  
Wherefore we concluded that since it was requisite to judge rather by these their exorbitances against S. Augustin, and their designs to ruin his doctrine, then by vain words of respect towards him uttered with the lips; we had reason and necessity to summon them as we did, and had already summoned M. Hallier, and his Colleagues by our first writing de gestis, to acknowledge by an authentic writing for true and indubitable, the six Propositions which are at the end of that writing in favour of that H. Father's doctrine, and which were again inserted at the end of this new one. After which we added also, that if they made the least difficulty of doing it, we produced against them once more that of S. Augustin's authority which we had pretended for the same effect against M. Hallier and his Colleagues. The second of the Five was a Compendious distinction of the several Catholic & Heretical senses whereof the Propositions were capable; concerning which I shall speak no further here, as well because it is already printed, as for that I shall insert it at length hereafter for a reason which the Reader shall then understand.  
The third was entitled, To our H. F. Pope Innocent 10. To my L. L. the most Eminent Cardinals Spada, Ginetti, Pamphilio, Cechini and Ghiggi, and to the other Divines deputed or to be deputed for the Congregation concerning the affair of the five Propositions de gratia; For M. M. Noel de la Lane Doctor of Paris, Toussaint Des-mares Priest of the Orators, Lewis de Saint Amour and Nicolas Manessier, Doctors also of Paris, and Lewis Angran Licentiate in the same Faculty. Against M. M. Francis Hallier, Francis Joysel, and Jerome Lagault, Doctors of the same Faculty. The second information touching Right.  
I shall also omit to speak any thing of the Preface to this Writing, in which we set forth the reasons which obliged us to begin this Examen, and the proof the Propositions as we understood them by examining and proving the necessity of a Grace Effectual by itself generally for all the good motions and actions of Christian piety; and in which we showed likewise in few words the evident connexion which every of those Propositions taken and understood in our sense hath with that capital point of the Church's doctrine: because I find it requisite to insert the said Preface at length after the abovesaid distinction of senses. Something I must say of the body of this Writing, not seeing any fit place than this; and 'tis the least I can do, to set down in gross what they all contain, since their too great length and number rendering them capable of making a just volume alone, they cannot be commodiously inserted into this Journal.  
Now this third was divided into four parts. The first contained sixteen principal arguments, by every of which we proved, that Grace effectual by itself necessary to all actions of Christian piety is the true Grace of Jesus Christ, which the Catholic Faith obliges us to confess against the Errors of the Pelagians and Semipelagians, if we will (as S. Augustin saith) not only be called and appear Christians, but be such indeed. When I say this Part contained sixteen Arguments, each of which was capable to prove this Truth invincibly, I do not mean sixteen Syllogisms or Demonstrations consisting of three Propositions, but sixteen Sources or Places, fruitful of solid proofs, upon which we established this Truth as upon so many unmoveable foundations, each of which was able alone to uphold it! All the prayers of the Church, all the Truths which they discover to us, all the consequences which we can draw from them, made together but the first of those sixteen Arguments. S. Augustin's whole Book de gratia Jesu Christi, and all the Maxims spread through it, made but the second. The third was taken from the difference which there is between the Grace of simple Possibility, and that which gives the good will and the good action. The fourth from the difference between the Grace of the state of Innocence (such as Adam had) and that of Nature corrupted and disordered by sin (such as we have at present) and so of the rest. The fifth was taken from all the objections made by the Pelagians and Semipelagians against the Grace which S. Austin defended. And the last, from all the answers which S. Austin made to those objections.  
The second part of this Writing was in a manner only a Table of the Popes, Councils, H. Fathers and eminent Divines from S. Augustine's days to the present, who had written of this matter; whom we maintained to have taught that very Grace as the Faith of the Church; and we offered & undertook to convince our Adversaries before the Pope, that the sentiments of all those Popes, Councils, H. Fathers and Divines which we cited, and of every one in particular, were such as we affirmed; and we gave them the choice to dispute about that or those of these Popes, Councils, Fathers and Divines, whom they believed less favourable to this Doctrine. Amongst those whom we cited were the Master of the sentences, S. Thomas, S. Bernard, the Council of Trent, and Clement VIII ..  
The third part contained nothing but the Judgements and Decisions which were made against the Jesuits in the Congregation de Auxiliis under the Pope's Clement VIII. & Paul V extracted out of the originals.  
The fourth contained a very great number of Errors, blasphemies, or impieties, which we deduced by necessary consequence from the doctrine opposite to the Effectual Grace which we held; namely, from that which Molina and his Followers hold to be subject to the use of free will. Of all which Consequences we offered to convince them. And we concluded t'has 'twas easy to see by all these proofs how certain and unmoveable the doctrine of Grace Effectual by itself necessary to all acts of piety was, whose ruin the Architects of these Propositions projected; and how greatly they had failed in the respect and affection which they owed to the H. See, who endeavoured to get such detestable and impious Tenets, as these necessary sequels of the Molinistical Sufficient Grace, approved by it. For since, as we said, and showed in the Preface of this Writing, each of the Five Propositions reduced to the sense in which we understood them, had an undissoluble connexion with Effectual Grace, not any of them could be condemned, but this Grace must be condemned too; neither could this Grace be condemned, but the contrary opinion of Molinistical Grace subject to Free Will must be established as a Doctrine of Faith; nor this Molinistical Grace established as de fide, but all the other impious and abominable Propositions which we had deduced from it by necessary consequence, must be established too, as the Faith and Doctrine of the Church. So that, to take the matter in its extent, the condemnation of each of these Propositions as we maintained them, carried with it the establishment of all those pernicious errors, and introduced them into the Church.  
We said further, that we entreated such as said either that it was free or either side to defend their respective sentiments in this Controversy, or that they were enjoined silence therein for ever, or that it was requisite to make such an injunction, and in the Pope's power, to consider a little with attention what they said. Because if it were lawful for either side to maintain their respective opinions, than was it lawful to put the Doctrine of S. Augustin in equal balance with that of Pelagius, the Catholic with the Heretical, the true with the false, that which was the nurse of Christian piety with that which was the mother of errors and heresies. That if silence had been imposed in this matter for ever, or could be, than the Grace whereby we are Christians, the Grace which the Christian Doctrine teaches and publishes for the proper grace of Christians; the Grace which the Catholic Bishops were wont to read in the books of God, and to preach to their people; the Grace which is undoubtedly the true, Prophetical, Apostolical and Catholic Faith; the Grace which was requisite for Pelagius to confess, if he would be a Christian indeed, and not only in name: This Grace; I say, must be banished out of the hearts of the Faithful, and out of the Catholic Church. We concluded, that none could enter into these dismal thoughts, but such as had the boldness to annihilate the mystery of the Cross of Jesus Christ; and abolish all the mysteries of Christian Religion, and who could renounce all kind of respect and love to the H. See, for securing the phantasm of the interests and vain glory of the Jesuits.  
The fourth of these Five Writings was alone as big as the four others. It was entitled on the outside; To the B. F. Pope Innocent X. To my LL. the most Eminent Cardinals Spada, Ginetti, Pamphilio, Cechini and Ghiggi. To the most learned Divines of sundry orders appointed, and to be appointed for the examination of the Five Propositions; for the Doctors subscribed defenders of S. Augustin, Against the society of the Jesuits, and against M. Hallier, Joysel and Lagault Doctors of Paris, acting in the affair of the said Propositions in the name of the Jesuits, their own, or of any other whatever. A third information touching Right, wherein the true and Catholic, sense of the first Proposition is explicated and demonstated by the tradition of the whole Church.  
The title in the inside was, An Information of the first Proposition, or rather upon the possibiliey of God's Commandments. It was divided into six Chapters, each of which comprehended many Articles. I shall for brevity sake only speak concerning the six Chapters in general.  
The first Chapter was the shortest, wherein we declared the right and legitimate sense in which we understood and maintained the first Proposition; and related, distinguished and rejected the erroneous whereof it was capable. We acknowledged the bad senses to be many. We instanced in some, but pretended not to mention all. The first, we said, was, that it might be understood universally, as if its sense were, That there are Commandments of God which are impossible to all the just according to the greatest strength which they can have during the whole course of this life. And we said, that thus understood it was false, heretical, and condemned by the Council of Trent in Luther and Calvin. Vniversalis haec est: Aliqua praecepta omnibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires, hoc est, secundum quaslibet vires praesentis vitae, sunt impossibilia. Et ita detorta falsa & haereesset, & à Luthero Calvino & Concilio Tridentino damnata  
We said in the second place that there might be a bad sense in these words, volentibus & conantibus; because if they were explicated of a will and endeavour as great as they ought to be, than it would be false also (though understood in particular of some just men) and contrary to the second Council of Orange which defines in Canon 25. that after having received grace in Baptism, all the baptised may and aught by the help and operation of Jesus Christ, perform all things necessary to salvation, if they will labour faithfully therein.  
In the third place, we said, that if these words, secundum praesentes quas habent vires, were understood by comparison of the strength of this life with that of the life to come, the Proposition contained the heresy of Calvin, who saith, that God's Commandments are not possible even with grace during this life, but their performance is a thing reserved to the future life.  
Fourthly, We said, that these words, sunt impossibilia, may be understood of all kind of impossibility, de omni omnino impossibilitate; and that this was heretical too, because 'tis certain, that God's Commandments are always possible to the just in many manners; cum semper omnibus justis praecepia multis modis sint possibilia.  
Lastly, We said, that these words (deest quoque illis gratia qua possibilia fiant) might be understood, so as to extend to the whole duration of this life, in which case and sense the Proposition was heretical. And we declared, that if it were advanced or held in any one of these senses, we were so far from defending it or hindering its condemnation, that on the contrary, we should be the first to condemn it as freely as we condemned all their Errors. Wherefore to take away all ambiguity and equivocation, we reduced and propounded it in these clear terms in which alone we maintained it.  
Aliqua Dei praecepta aliquibus justis volentibus & conantibus invalidè & imperfect secundum praesentes quas habent vires, parvas scilicet & infirmas, seu auxilio Dei efficaci ad plenè volendum & operandum necessariò destitutis, impossibilia sunt proximè & completè, seu ab iis adimpleri proximò non possunt. Dost quoque gratia actualis efficax, qua praecepta illis proximè possibilia fiant: seu deest speciale illud auxilium, sine quo justificatus, ut ait Concilium Tridentinum, in accepta justitia; id est in observatione mandatorum Dei perseverare non potest.  
This declared and presupposed, we proved this Proposition in the second Chapter by several passages of the Gospel, by the prayers of the Church, and those of the just for themselves; amongst others, by these words of that which our Lord taught them, And lead us not into temptation, and by that passage of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. Fidelis est Deus qui non patietur vos tentari supra id quod potestis, etc. by the suffrages of the Pope's S. Innocent I. S. Celestine & S. Zozimus; by the Councils of Carthage, of Milevis, of Africa, of two hundred Bishops; by the second of Orange and that of Trent, and by many places of S. Augustin.  
In the third Chapter we proved the same Proposition by the authority of S. Thomas, and showed by all his principles that he never thought of admitting an actual sufficient Grace given universally to all the World.  
In the fourth Chapter we proved the same Proposition by the doctrine of Effectual Grace necessary to every pious action, and showed, that this grace gives us the next and complete power for the action for which it is given, and that without this Grace it might be said, That we cannot (or have not power) according to the Language of the Fathers. This we made appear as well by the Scripture, as by infinite passages of S. Augustin, by the Popes, S. Innocent I. S. Celestine, S. Leo, S. Gregory; by the Councils of Africa, by that of Orange, and that of Trent; by S. Prosper, S. Fulgentius, S. Isidore, S. Prudentius, S. Reminigius, by the Church of Lions, by S. Thomas, by the Faculties of Douai and Louvain, and by our Adversaries themselves. Whence we concluded this Chapter, That as 'twas evident that we had no other design then to defend the Catholic and Augustinian doctrine concerning this Grace, by which (according to S. Augustin) we are able, and without whieh we are not; but 'twas no less certain that our Adversaries, in demanding the condemnation of this Proposition, aimed at nothing else but to ruin this doctrine, how carefully soever they might dissemble: because agreeing with us in this true Principle; That when a man hath not, or is not master of a thing which is necessary to action, than he cannot act; if they could get the H. See to declare that the just can act without this Grace, than they would conclude and easily prove that the same is not necessary to enable us to act.  
The whole Fifth Chapter was only a Collection of the Objections, which may be made against the doctrine proved in the preceding, and of the clear and convincing answers which may be made to those Objections.  
In the sixth Chapter we treated of the Grace of Prayer; we showed, that all which we had said of Effectual Grace necessary to all other actions, agreed also to this Grace; that it is no more common to all the just, then that of action. That this Doctrine is one of the principal Foundations of Christian piety; and that when it happens that the just being left to themselves become lukewarm and negligent in prayer, and trusting too much in their own strength fall into some sin; that God excites them by such falls to acknowledge their weakness and the need of his assistance; which is his method to bring them to solid humility, and to have his fear constantly before their eyes. In the end of this Chapter, we propounded all the Objections which we thought could be made against this holy and wholesome doctrine, and produced the answers thereunto out of S. Augustin.  
The fifth and last of these Writings was entitled, To the B. F. Pope Innocent X. For the Doctors subscribed Defendors of S. Augustin, Against MM. Hallier, Joysel and Lagault Doctors of Paris, acting in the affair of the five Propositions, whether in the name of the Jesuits, their own, or any other: A fourth Information upon Right, in which are explicated about sixty passages of S. Augustin produced by the said Sieurs Hallier, Joysel, & Lagault in an Anonymous Writing against the first Proposition; and all the said Passages shown to be cited either impertinently or corruptly.  
The Title of this Writing speaks its Contents. For to refute these sixty Passages which those Doctors went about to distribute at the houses of the Consultors, as one of the greatest supports of their cause; we apprehended no better way then to recite their Writing entire, and subjoin to every passage our Answer, taken out of the very same places which they cited; and requiring only the addition of the words which they retrencht, either from the beginning or the end, and sometimes too from the middle of their passages, or but the mentioning briefly what subject S. Augustin treated of of there, which was almost always very remote from that for which they alleged it.  
But I need speak no more of it here, intending to annex it to this Journal, because it fully shows on one side the foul dealing or ignorance of our Adversaries, and on the other what little light the Pope could receive from such informations, whilst he refused to aford us the means to discover the falsities thereof by mutual communication of Writings and a public Conference.  
I shall only observe that in the Writing alone we spoke in favour of Jansenius, being induced thereunto (contrary to our own resolution and the Pope's order) for that the Writing to which we answered being grounded upon an evident falsehood, whereby M. Hallier and his Colleagues accused Jansenius of denying every sufficient Grace, as well that of the Thomists, as that of the Molinists; we thought fit not to let this imposture pass without a reply, as well to discover the malice or blindness of our Adversaries, as to justify ourselves by showing what sufficient Grace we disapproved, and what we admitted as well as Jansenius. But though we spoke something here which might have served to inform the Pope and the Congregation of the true sentiments of Jansenius touching some point of his Doctrine; yet neither his Holiness, the Cardinals nor the Consultors were the better informed by it, for they examined it no more than all the rest.  
When I reflect upon these five Writtings, the sincerity which I profess, will not permit me to dissemble one thing, since I writ these Memories rather in the sight of God then of men. Not that I am convinced of having done amiss in it, but being able neither to justify nor yet condemn myself, I shall relate it sincerely and leave the judgement of it to God and intelligent men.  
'Tis certain and most true that we always considered the Propositions ever since their first framing by M. Cornet, as a work of darkness, and as contrived maliciously and purposely to decry S. Augustin's Doctrine and the true effectual Grace of Jesus Christ.  
'Tis most certain also that we never owned them to have been written or advanced by any Author; and that we always spoke of them in all our Writings at Rome and at Paris, as equivocal, captious and fallacious Propositions in regard of the bad senses whereof they were capable.  
Lastly 'tis most certain that in this contest we never maintained but the H. and Apostolic Doctrine of the Effectual Grace of Jesus Christ, not necessitating, but necessary to all pious actions, that the defence of this Grace was the only object of our labours and pains; that we never thought of that ridiculous and extravagant Device of a Necessitating Grace, which wholly destroys the indifference of the Will. But as we saw on one side that the words of the positions might be reduced to the sense of Effectual Grace, wherein our whole Doctrine was conconteined, and that on the other the Jesuits secret design (who set all these springs a work) was to subvert the Doctrine of the same Effectual Grace, by getting the Propositions absolutely condemned by reason of their other bad senses: we thought it our duty to oppose to the utmost such an absolute condemnation of them without distinction or explication, certainly seeing how the Jesuits would abuse the same.  
But we were extremely at a loss in what manner to speak of them. Some of our friends advised us to maintain them absolutely, and say that they had not the bad senses charged upon them. Their reason was that the natural, proper and rigorous sense of the words in a proposition is not to be considered when no body holds them in that natural, proper and rigorous sense; but that the sense generally understood in these words, is although the less proper of itself, yet the literal, legitimate and true sense of them; as in infinite figurative expressions of Scripture, we are not to take the proper sense of the words for the true and legitimate, but only that which is meant and signified by the H. Spirit. Now in the matter of these Propositions attributed to S. Augustin's Disciples, 'tis visible that they hold them only in the less proper sense of the words considered nakedly and in themselves, and that no person maintains them in the peoper natural and rigorous sense of the same words; and consequently that the improper sense is the true and legitimate sense of these Propositions.  
That thus it might truly be said that they are good, because under these terms we maintained but a most excellent and holy doctrine, namely, that of Effectual Grace; and none maintained a bad under them. That therefore this aught to be freely declared at Rome, in order to hinder their condemnation; there being no greater motive to condemn them, then that we did not assert them peremptorily, but partly condemned them as well as their persecutors.  
On the contrary, others conceived that the Propositions being bad according to the words, and the natural proper sense included therein, although this sense were not held by any, yet the Jesuits might have credit enough with the Pope and Cardinals, to persuade them that they were held in France in those bad senses, and so get them condemned; that if they should be absolutely maintained under pretext of the sense of Effectual Grace, to which they were reducible, the Jesuits might reflect the Censure upon this Catholic sense, and pretend that that Grace is condemned by the Censure of these Propositions, or at least would not fail to take occasion from thence to decry the defenders of this grace, as persons condemned by the H. See. Wherefore it seemed the safest way to reject them absolutely, yet maintaining at the same time the true Doctrine of S. Augustin.  
M. de saint Beauve and most other of the Doctors our friends were of this last opinion; and one very pious, wise and sagacious Doctor with whom I had contracted great intimacy in the Assemblies of the Faculty, together with many very intelligent persons at Rome, were of the former.  
My Colleagues and I were divided in the business. They inclined more to the latter course, that is, not to speak of the Propositions but as absolutely condemnable. And I on the contrary strengthened with the advice of this Doctor and other my knowing friends of Rome, was troubled to hear those discourses; not that I held any thing in the Propositions but the Doctrine of Effectual Grace, and condemned all that my Colleagues condemned in them; but I feared this timorous proceeding would occasion a Censure, which would cause great mischief by the abuse the Jesuits would make of it: and the knowledge I had of the Court of Rome made me judge nothing more likely to prevent it then our firm and confident speaking.  
Wherefore I always urged that the Propositions might not be absolutely disclaimed, nor their bad sense acknowledged to be the true and legitimate. And I was the cause that in the Writing concerning the Distinction of senses, in representing the bad sense of the Propositions, instead of saying only sensus hereticus Propositionis, or sensus qui Propositioni affingi posset (as my Colleagues would have it) was put, qui malignè affingi posset, quem tamen legitimè sumpta non habet.  
It seems the Event was more favourable to them then to me; for this word grave the Jesuits occasion to calumniate us, as if we had maintained at Rome the proper natural condemned sense of the Propositions considered nakedly in themselves, which is very false; and it would have been more advantageous to have avoided in this place and some others all expressions which might afford ground to this calumny; nevertheless I hope equitable persons perpending the condition wherein we were then at Rome, will easily pardon this proceeding, and consider that having in my mind the horrid mischiefs which an absolute condemnation of the Propositions without distinction of senses might produce in the Church without any good, I was led to say all that I thought likely to hinder the same, provided it did not hurt the truth.  
I hope also few will be found so little intelligent, as not to acknowledge that though we affirmed that the Propositions legitimately construed had no bad sense; yet we would not say that they were not bad in the natural, literal and rigorous sense of the words, in which they have been since condemned, but that we only pretended that not being held by any person in those bad senses, they ought to be legitimately explicated in the sense whereunto we reduced them, which was that of Effectual Grace, and that thus this sense of Effectual Grace was their legitimate, though in itself less proper sense, considering precisely the proper and natural signification of the words whereof they consisted. And this sole reason caused that these holy truths which we undertook to defend sometimes, were more apparent to us through the veil of the equivocal words, obscurities and errors wherewith they were covered, than the very errors which the words taken literally included, because we knew these errors were no more held by any body in France then at Rome, and that only those truths were aimed at. However if I committed a fault in engaging my Colleagues to speak too advantageously of the Propositions taken absolutely, yet I shall ever have this comfort with them, that in the same Writing wherein we spoke some advantegeous words concerning them as relating to the Doctrine which we maintained, we most clearly & Catholickly explained the same as well by declaring expressly that we acknowledged no other Authors of them but those very persons who prosecuted their condemnation, as by purging them from all their errors and equivocations, and making other new ones of them, whose senses were clear, Catholic and incapable of being rendered suspected of any error by the most malicious interpretation, or receiving any impeachment by the most violent attempts of Envy itself. For the sense and doctrine maitained by us, and included in the Propositions of the second column (a little below) is that which ought only to be considered; and not whether or no we believe that the condemned Propositions were either legitimately or else properly and naturally capable of that sense, the Question not being, whether we too favourably interpreted those captious and equivocal Propositions, but whether we maintained any sense bad in itself, or any erroneous & censurable doctrine. Wherefore if the Propositions of the second column, to which we reduced all that we held in this matter, contain only an Orthodox Doctrine, which the Pope hath not touched (as must needs be granted) & since 'tis no other than the pure Doctrine of Grace Effectual by itself (as 'tis taught by S. Thomas and all his School) it must also be acknowledged that how favourably soever we spoke of the condemned Propositions, we cannot be charged with having maintained any error in them. And thus though we used all our endeavours that the abovesaid Propositions which the Pope hath condemned, might not be absolutely condemned, in regard of the reasons we had against it and the deplorable consequences which we foresaw would ensue from it; yet restraining ourselves as we did, to the sole defence of Catholic truths no less opposite to the sentiments of the Jesuits and their followers, then to the errors, heresies, impieties, and blasphemies which the Pope has condemned in those Propositions taken rigorously and in the bad signification of their terms (of which we never were idolaters) we condemned as well as he, nay before he did, the same errors, heresies, impieties and blasphemies which he condemned. All that we have done since the constitution, which we did not before, hath been to acquiesce freely in their absolute condemnation assoon as it was once pronounced, without attributing to them any good sense, or maintaining them in any manner under any pretext whatsoever, and to cease soliciting his Holiness to do right in a solemn Congregation upon the complaintt which we had made already and had further to make against the Jesuits. But to proceed to the remainder of this Journal.  
During the four days which we employed in reviewing our Writings I was in great perplexity whether or no I should acquaint my Colleagues with the new assurance I had that the Pope's Bull or Constitution was drawn against the five Propositions. For one one side the person from whom I received this intelligence had obliged me to secrecy: burr on the other, being I had understood the same as certainly from other hands, to let our affair go on as if we knew nothing thereof, and to plead against a prepared decree, without advertising my Colleagues of so considerable circumstances, seemed a thing very hazardous and daring. They had heard the report of this Constitution ever since the fifth of May; but because it was quashed of a sudden upon the above mentioned Conference of another Cardinal with Cardinal Ghiggi, they counted it wholly false, or else grounded upon some imaginary Bull contrived by the subtlety of the Jesuits. Now this fear being passed, and they preparing themselves to appear before the Pope which joy, tranquillity and hope to make impression upon his mind by the things which we should speak, I feared to cool their courage and the ardour of the speakers, by telling them such dejecting tidings. Wherefore to do nothing unadvisedly, I acquainted M. Manassier with it on Sunday May 18 (having as much confidence in his secrecy as my own) without letting him know from what hand I had it: and he was of the same opinion with me, namely to let it pass as if we knew nothing of it, and leave M. de Valecroissant and F. Des-mares entire liberty of spirit and action against the next day, when we were to appear before the Pope. The Passages of which are in the following Chapter.   

CHAP. XII.  
Of the grand Audience which the Pope give us May 19 being the first and last which we had of all that had been promised us.  
THis morning we got our Writings ready and signed them. And according to the order given us by the Ambassador, we went out of our Lodging to Monte Cavallo about three a clock. Where when we came we found some of the Consultors in the two outer Chambers, and amongst others, M. Hallier's servant, who was lately made Priest, who came thither openly and without fear of our perceiving that he came to spy what he could discover. But we were advertised, that one of M. Hallier's Colleagues hid himself in some place under the stairs or came thither a little after us; to assure himself whether we would be there; which he no soonner understood, but went down immediately out of Monte Cavallo leaping alone and clapping his hands and lifting them up to Heaven, for joy that we should be heard before the Pope. A religious Augustin who saw him go down the stairs in that transport, conceived that some disgrace had befallen us, and went home sad, that he might not be witness of the disaster: but when he afterwards heard the great success wherewith our audience was followed, he knew not whereunto to impute that joy. An length he understood the cause of it, when he saw the Constitution came forth some days after this audience, judging that our Adversaries must needs have then known that it was resolved upon and determined, and that they conceived our appearing before the Pope would give them ground to report that we were condemned after we had been heard.  
We stayed in the first antichamber where the Consultors were, and doubted at first whether we should enter into the second with them; but presently considering that they were not to be accounted as our Judges, we entered into the second Antichamber with them, and sat down by them. Here we stayed near half an hour expecting the coming of the Cardinals, and in the mean time doubting whether at our introduction to the Pope we should go to kiss his feet (because we knew not in what posture we might find him) I proposed doubt to a Chambelain of honour, who could not absolutely resolve it, but intimated that if we had done it when we saluted the Pope first, he did not judge it necessary in this case; nevertheless so further satisfaction he referred me to the Maistre de Chambre, and he to M. Albizzi. But having no mind to consult the latter about any thing, we resolved to do as we should see expedient.  
A little while after the coming of the Cardinals, the Consultors were called, and entered one after another according to their Seniority. Soon after we were called, and advertised to leave our Hats behind us. We found the Assembly in this order; being in the secret Antichamber, which is but a narrow place. The Pope sat in a Chair like that in which he usually gives audience, but so placed towards the door, that at our entrance, his Holiness' face was directly upon us at the distance of about ten paces. One pace distant from his Holiness' Chair were on each side two Benches with backs of carved and painted, wood capable of three persons. In the midst, a Turquy Carpet was spread upon the floor; and at a little distance from thence was a Table at which M. Albizzi (who otherwise stood) kneeled down to write when he pleased. The four Cardinals sat upon the Benches with their Caps on. Cardinal Spada sat first on the Pope's right hand, Cardinal Ginetti next to him on the same side, Cardinal Ghiggi on the other side right over Cardinal Spada, and Cardinal Pamphilio opposite to Cardinal Ginetti. But their order was as in a Circle, beginning from the Pope's right hand, Cardinal Spada being, the first, Cardinal Ginetti the second, Cardinal Pamphilio the third, and Cardinal Ghiggi the fourth. The same order was observed among the Consultors. They stood all successively according to their degrees, beginning from the Pope's right hand round to his left, and F. Tartaglia who was the last in degree stood nearest his holiness's left hand. The square made by the benches and persons thus disposed, was open on the side of the door right against the Pope, and was just large enough to receive my Colleagues and me all five in a row. The Abbot of Valcroissant stood in the middle of us in a direct line to the Pope, F. Des-mares on his right hand, I on his left, M. Manessier on the right hand of F. Des-mares, and M. Angran on my left.  
Being thus ranked at the edge of the Foot-Carpet, we all made a Genuflexion, and at the same instant the Pope made a sign with his hand to us to rise up, and spoke this word to us, Proponele, say what ye have to say.  
The Abbot of Valcroissant having taken breath, when he began his Oration, made another genuflexion as he pronounced Beatissime Pater, and we all with him. We risen up immediately, and he continued his Oration gravely and deliberately, and animated it in a very sprightly and agreeable manner. I subjoin here a most faithful and exact translation of it.  
An Oration pronounced before the Pope by the Abbot of Valcroissant.  
MOST HOLY FATHER,  
THere is nothing more reasonable and just (as Possessor an African Bishop sometimes said to Pope Hormisdas) then to have recourse to the Head when the members are sick, to the end to draw from it the strength which they need in their languishment. For who can have more care of the souls which are subjected to him, or from whom can greater support be expected to confirm the tottering Faith then from his successor, who having first sat upon the Apostolical Thrones, heard Jesus Christ himself say to him with his own mouth, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church!  
We are obliged M. H. F. to represent to Your Holiness, by how many Artifices and secret Ambushes some persons employ certain obscure, equivocal, and maliciously contrived Propositions to undermine the Church at this day, by assaulting and endangering the doctrine of S. Augustin touching the Grace of Jesus Christ so often approved by the H. See, and authorised without discontinuance by the universal consent of the whole Church.  
Upon which we shall speak M. H. F. with the now assurance and confidence, for that we speak before the H. Apostolic See and before the Roman Church, which being founded upon the immobility of a Rock, preserves with invincible constancy, and entire purity the unshaken firmness of its Faith and Doctrine, without ever suffering that to be violated which it hath once confirmed by its approbation, and whereof it hath declared itself protectress.  
We have then the advantage of speaking before the Roman Church concerning the doctrine and authority of him who hath always had the supreme Pontifs for approvers, admirers and defenders, and always found so powerful protetection from them as often as complaint hath been made to them of such as impugned, wounded oor despised his authority and doctrine.  
Now haply is never came to pass, that the authority and sentiments of that H. Father were more dangerously invaded then at this day, but certainly never more maliciously or with more artifice. Yet we praise God, M. H. F. for that the danger is passed, since those ambushes are discovered. For to have given the Roman Church knowledge of them, is to have dissipated them: and it being advertised of the danger wherein S. Augustine's doctrine is, there remains no doubt but the same will be secured and authorised as much as ever.  
But this our confidence in the H. Apostolic See is further augmented, because besides the authority of S. Augustin so powerfully established, the doctrine in question carries a privilege with it which is wholly peculiar to itself. For though there be none of the Truths of the Catholic Faith whereof this first See of the World is not the illustrious Depository; nevertheless it attributes to itself by proper right the care of preserving the Grace of Jesus Christ; inasmuch (as according to what S. Augustin observes in his sixth Letter to Sixtus) 'tis principally to this Church that the great Apostle S. Paul spoke and taught the mysteries of the Grace of God, which is given us by Jesus Christ our Lord. And the same S. Augustin in another Book, showing at the same time both that the Grace of Jesus Christ ought to be preached throughout all the earth, and that this Church is the head of all others, with these words, This great Apostle hath shown the power of Grace, principally in his Epistle to the Romans, to the end that the preaching of the heavenly Doctrine, might pass from this prime City of the World into all places of the Earth. Which manifests, that the Faith concerning the grace of Christians may be said by a special privilege to be the Faith of the Roman Church. 'Tis also for this reason that S. Augustin, its greatest Doctor and Defender next the Apostle, never was opposed concerning this matter, but the Roman Church ardently undertook his defence, and attributed his doctrine to itself as its own, and as its peculiar inheritance according as 
a In a Discourse which this Pope made in the first Congregation de Auxiliis, held before him in the Vatican, March 20. 1602.  S. Clement VIII. speaks.  
And certainly, 'tis not without ground that the Apostle gave this first Church of the World such sublime instructions of the mysteries of the Grace of Jesus Christ, since it is the fruit of his blood, the bond of God with men, the spirit of Jesus Christ and Christian Religion, and that which truly establishes the new Law and the Gospel. This Grace is not that which is taught by those who retain only its name, to avoid the indignation and scandal of the faithful, should they deny it absolutely; but 'tis that which was in question between S. Augustin on one side, fight in the name of the Church, and Pelagius and his followers on the other: that, as S. Augustin saith, writing to Pope Innocent the first. 
b Epist. 95.  which the Christian faith teaches and publishes to be proper and peculiar to Christians; that 
c De gratia Christi cap. 10.  which the Catholic Bishops were wont to read in the books of God and to preach to God's people: that 
d Q. q. contra Jul. cap. 40.  which Pelagius ought to acknowledge, if he would not only be called a Christian, but be truly one: and lastly, that (as he saith in another place) upon which are supported the principal fundamentals of Faith and Christian Piety, which will subsist as long as it stands, and be in danger to be overthrown when it is shaken.  
Wherefore when in these last times, some have attempted to overthrow the true Grace of Jesus Christ, they conceived nothing more expedient to advance their design, then to dilacerate, as 
e Contra collatere, & in Epist. ad Rssinum.  S. Prosper speaks, in dilacerating S. Augustin with outrageous words, the most learned of all the Fathers in the Doctrine of the Church, and the most powerful Defender of the grace of Jesus Christ; then to weaken the authority of his Writings which impugn the error of the Pelagians, and to despoil him of the belief which he hath in the minds of the faithful: they who formed so unhapdy a design, not doubting (as the same S. Prosper saith again) to be able at length to overthrow all the authorities Which uphold the purity of the doctrine of Grace, if they could once beat down with all their Engines of Pelagianism this strong and potent Tower which serves for defence to the truths of Faith.  
This enterprise against the Grace of Jesus Christ hath proceeded so far, that in regard of the close union of S. Augustin with S. Paul in what concerns this matter, we see that at this day the Enterprizers fear not to attaque them both together, by daring to accuse them of having passed even into Excesses.  
For at the same time that the five Propositions in question were contriving for the overthrow of S. Augustin's doctrine, F. Adam a Jesuit printed a Book, in which he flies out with no less fury against S. Paul himself then against S. Augustin; having the boldness to maintain therein, that either of them leaving themselves to the blind impetuosity of their temper, have gone beyond the bounds of the Truth and Faith. Is it then to be wondered that this Jesuit who treats Apostles and Prophets in this manner, has had the boldness to declare S. Augustin's doctrine impious and heretical? But who can without horror see pronounced against this great Saint without any palliation the most outrageous Censure that can be imagined? This Book so injurious to S. Paul, and to other Canonical Writers, and chief to S. Augustin, hath been printed & published with the approbation of their Provincial of Paris and three other Divines of their Society, and received with a public joy of all the Jesuits in France.  
What then ought not to be feared M. H. F. from the enterprises of this Society? For if to discredit S. Augustin they dare assail S. Paul, because 'tis from that Apostle that S. Augustin derived what he writ; what remains but that they rise up against Jesus Christ himself, since 'tis from him that S. Paul learned what he teaches us of the mystery of Grace? Behold, M. H. F. whereunto tends their design, who in reference to the belief which ought to be had in Christian Religion touching Grace, follow not the traces which are showed us by the Church, but measuring these mysteries by their own sense, judge of them rather by conjectures and seeming reasons, then by the perpetual and most certain authority of the tradition of the Church. 'Tis not M. H. F. by vain Imaginations, but by invincible proofs that we shall manifest to Your H. this public Conspiracy of the Jesuits formed against S. Augustin. Behold in my hands above a hundred Propositions against that Saint drawn out of several books made since 50 years by the Jesuits, which show, that the boldness wherewith they assault him increases daily, in such sort that they incessantly charge him with new & greater outrages.  
We know, M. H. F. that though our Adversaries have and do still testify to manifest an aversion against S. Augustin, yet they make semblance of reverencing his authority, and dare commend him even in presence of your H. and boast themselves to be his defenders and disciples. But this is only to put a colour of feigned respect upon their real disdain, and carry it more free from blame. 'Tis only to avoid the punishment of the insolence wherewith they outrage him. 'Tis only to hid their aversion of his Doctrine under the Commendation of his person. 'Tis only to dimish the care which in these contests aught to be taken for examining which are the true sentiments of that H. Father, and to make it believed that the same are not concerned in the Propositions which have been presented to your H. because they who oppose them make profession of following the Doctrine and revering the authority of that Father; that so avoiding the condemnation of their temerity by such feigned and fallacious eulogiums of S. Augustin, and the obligation of subscribing any thing in this matter by your Holinesses order, they and their partisans may reject his authority with more boldness than ever, condemn his Doctrine, and continue to banish it out of their Schools as Calvinistical and dangerous; especially if it happen that your H. be led under any pretext to condemn these Propositions; because they will not fail afterwards to reflect the censure of them upon S. Augustin, as a Jesuit hath plainly declared in a late published work, wherein he hath been so bold as to write, Have a little patience, dear Reader, Rome will shortly tell you, what S. Augustin's sentiments are or aught to have been in this matter. O most presumptuous word, yet fallen from this pen by a wonderful judgement of God, who overrules by his Providence even the darkness and disorders of men; since the Jesuits M. H. F. give you clearly to understand thereby, that the Doctrine of S. Augustin is included in these five Propositions, and that they expect not the condemnation of them from your H. but that they may afterwards condemn S. Augustin, which Christian ears cannot hear without horror.  
But though our Adversaries speak honourably too sometimes of S. Augustin, yet in their Writings they cannot forbear to declare themselves his enemies, by insinuating that his Doctrine is contrary to the sentiments of the H. Apostolic See. We are not ignorant, M. H. F. with what boldness they dare affirm that what S. Augustin teaches 
* De Corr. & Grat. c. 1.  constantly to be the principal Doctrine of the Grace of Jesus Christ, and a certain, indubitable, Prophetical, Apostolical, and Catholic faith, is only a dubious and uncertain opinion, and may consequently, say they, be rejected without fear. For this end they strive to persuade that S. Augustin does not agree with himself, that he contradicts himself, that there are some things in his Writings which favour our sentiments, others on the contrary which favour theirs.  
In which M. H. F. 'tis not so much S. Augustin whom they so insolently outrage, as the H. Apostolic See, and the Universal Church, since they would thereby cause men to believe that being the H. See approves and owns contradictory sentiments, it is not regulated and governed by the H. Ghost who is the spirit of unity and truth, but hath chosen a blind guide to encounter the enemies of Grace, and proposes him for a director to the Divines and the Faithful, though contradicting himself he cannot make us know what we are obliged to believe and follow.  
The true Disciples of S. Augustin and the sincere venerators of the H. Apostolic See are very fare, M. H. F. from having a thought so rash and unworthy of the respect which ought to be borne to that great Doctor of the Church. Let our Adversaries choose either to take him wholly, or leave him to us wholly. He is all theirs, or all ours; if he be not all ours, we do not envy them with him, being so far from desiring to do him and the H. See so much wrong as to wish him divided in pieces, that we might have a part.  
Your H. sees that the present difference between our Adversaries and us hath great resemblance with that of the two mothers, upon which Solomon pronounced so wise a judgement that it hath been ever since and shall be to all ages in admiration. Our contest concerns S. Augustin who is our Father and Master; either part pretends him on their side, and our Adversaries perceiving they cannot challenge him wholly to themselves, (being forced to confess that many of his sentiments are contrary to them, and favour us) they say he must he divided, in half, and either of us have a part. But we who are the true children and disciples of that Father, cannot suffer this partition. We maintain that he must either be all theirs, or all ours, inasmuch as to divide him were to destroy him, because his authority would fall to the ground if he were found contrary to himself; or rather, the H. See would be torn and pulled in pieces by this division of S. Augustin, since it should have approved and owned sentiments perfectly opposite between themselves.  
Wherefore we conjure Your H. with all the power and tenderness of affection which children can have for their Father, not to suffer that S. Augustin be divided. And, if it be lawful for me to use the words of the Scripture in this occasion, rather give him wholly to them and alive, then stay him by dividing him between us. Can any other judgement be expected from your Holiness in this contest then that of Solomon? Can you repute those S. Augustin's true disciples who would have him divided, and not rather those who would sooner be deprived of him altogether then that he were diuded? your H. will undoubtedly pronounce this sentence in our favour; Give S. Augustin alive without dividing and slaying him to these latter, for they are his true disciples. By this means, M. H. F. the whole Church will know that the wisdom of God directs Innocent 10. to render justice.  
And indeed, M. H. F. 'tis so certain that S. Augustin is not in any place on our Adversaries side; that they cannot produce one sole passage which is favourable to their sentiments, unless they cut it in the middle, maim and mulilate it, taking it out of its proper place, and putting another sense upon it then it hath of itself. Your H. will find it so, M. H. F. by the confutation of the Writing which they presented to you, wherein having cited sixty passages of S. Augustin against the first Proposition, we have related them all in the answer which we have to present to your H. upon those passages, wherein we show that scare one of them is truly and fairly alleged.  
But our Adversaries would have not only S. Augustin, but also the Grace of Jesus Christ divided, though neither the one nor the other can admit division or partition; because 
a Epist. ad Demetriadem.  S. Prosper saith, they reject Grace wholly, who do not wholly confess it. And elsewhere he useth these words, 
b Cant. Collat. cap. 44.  We will not suffer that any member of the body of that so justly condemned Doctrine rise up in the Church, because 'tis certain the disguisements and artifices of that falsehood are so subtle that if under pretext of a feigned recantation it may preserve the least root of opinions that favours it, that root will like a quickset cause it all to spring up again. For when there is nothing else in the whole then in each part, 'tis not a sign of piety to reject almost the whole; but to retain never so little portion thereof is an argument of insincerity.  
Hence it is M. H. F. that our Adversaries so vehemently wish that your H. would pluck up some small part of True Grace, that is to say, of the Effectual Grace of Jesus Christ, by giving them leave not to retain it all entire; in as much by this means it will be easy for them to ruin it all, to abolish all S. Augustin, and to revive the whole Pelagian Heresy by one of its parts.  
You may judge hereby M. H. F. how important this affair is, in which S. Augustin's Doctrine, and authority, & even the true Grace of Jesus Christ is concerned; in which nothing can be decided in favour of one party but it will have the whole advantage; and in which 'tis necessary that all things be first exactly examined and discussed before any certainty can be pronounced or established. Wherefore we cannot sufficiently admire, that in the midst of so many occupations wherewith your H. is in a manner overwhelmed under the weight of the Church's affairs, God through a singular providence has inspired you with a purpose to examine this important question with so much care and diligence that you may decide it fully, after having weighed, searched and considered all things; and we cannot too much thank his divine goodness that he hath pleased to increase the strength and confirm the health of your H. and together with this vigour of body and mind in so venerable an old age to inflame you with the same zeal, wherewith through his most celestal favour, for the deciding of this very cause he filled the Innocents', Zozimes, the Bonifaces, the Celestines and other great Popes your Predecessors.  
We confess, M. H. F. and your H. knows sufficiently that this matter is spinose, and deserves a long and most attentive discussion. Nature which flatters us, never ceases to oppose in us the mystery of the grace of Jesus Christ. Our Reason seeks means on all sides to free itself from that absolute submission which we are obliged to have for God; it forgets nothing to induce ever our faith to embrace these opinions; it insinuates every thing that favours this connatural pride in us. S. Augustin himself confesses that without thinking of it he remained a long while in the error of the Semipelagians, and got not perfectly out of it till after a deep meditation of the H. Scriptures, particularly of S. Paul, & an exact reading of the H. Fathers which preceded him, which happened but a little after his being called to the Episcopacy. And therefore 'tis no wonder that in all times there have been found so many difficulties and repugnances to cure the minds of the faithful of the error of Pelagianisme.  
Besides all which, M. H. F. there is a determinate resolution for Molina's defence of the whole Society of Jesuits, who by their Sermons, printed books, public Lectures and many other ways have mightily endeavoured to embroile, obscure, altar and ruin the heavenly Doctrine of S. Augustin touching the grace of Jesus Christ; & have perverted the minds of so great a number of persons; and amongst so many clouds and obscurities 'tis difficult to discern the truth and to get clear of the Jesuits Principles and Doctrines, which many, even Divines too, have embraced and through custom remain insensibly therein, either loath to take the pains which is necessary for their undeceiving, or afraid of the shame of changing their judgement, or through some other secret and hidden inclination. But this difficulty is further increased by the malicious artifice wherewith the Propositions have been contrived, only for the secret ruining of the true Grace of Jesus Christ by their equivocal expressions.  
The Pelagians; as Innocent 1. relates, made use of the same artifice when they began to sow their heresy, as that H. Pope calls it, which was the first that condemned it, and approved S. Augustin's Doctrine. Behold in what manner he speaks of them. 
c In the Epistle to the Bishops of Carthage which is the 91. amongst those of S. Augustin.  Their words being full of dangerous subtleties, they took, for pretext of their dispute, the defence of the Catholic faith, to the end to poison their minds whose sentiments were Orthodox, by causing them to embrace the bad side; and thus they endeavoured to subvert the Catholic belief of the true Doctrine of Grace. This is what the Event will show, and your H. will further find that the Bishops who sent us were induced by consideration of the H. See, and the defence of S. Augustin's authority and of the grace of Jesus Christ, to demand, as they do, of your H. a Congregation in which the parties may he heard viva voce and by writing in presence one of the other; and wherein, after reciprocal communication of all their Writings, all the points of this controversy may be fully and plainly cleared by resuming things from their original and examining them a new one after ather.  
But, M. H. F. though Nature and Reason are very unapt to comprehend what is the grace of Jesus Christ; and though this Doctrine be invelop'd as with so many clouds by the various new inventions of new Divines, and by the equivocations and ambiguities of the Propositions in question; nevertheless we dare boldly affirm that albeit this mystery is very profound, yet it is not so difficult to understand, provided the means be used and the rules followed which the Church hath established for clearing and deciding the Doctrines of our faith; and if (according to the Custom of the Church and the H. See, practised and confirmed lately in the Council of Trent) the H. Scriptures, the supreme Pontifs, the Councils, and Fathers, particularly S. Augustin as the principal minister and defender of the grace of Jesus Christ be consulted. If your H. uses this course, we hope you will clearly know that the Doctrine of Grace maintained by us is so certain and well grounded, that no doubt can remain concerning it. For we shall show your H. so many passages and such clear testimonies drawn out of these sources of Divine Wisdom, that we believe our Adversaries cannot solidly refute so much as one of them; whereas on the contrary we undertake by God's assistance that among those which they shall produce against our opinion and the sense wherein we defend these Propositions, there shall scarce be one which we will not fully destroy. And we here again maintain without fear in presence of your H. and this whole assembly, (what we have subscribed with our own hands in the conclusion of the two writings in form of Memorials which we have presented to your H.) that our Adversaries with all their endeavours cannot form any objection against the Propositions as we understand them, nor propose any argument drawn from the H. Scripture or Reason, which we cannot manifest to have been used by the Pelagians or Semipelagians against S. Augustin, either expressly or in words wholly equivalent, and which he hath not refuted by his answers, as we hope to destroy theirs by the most powerful and solid reasons of that H. Doctor.  
Whereunto we shall add, M. H. F. that of all the arguments which we shall produce against them, there shall not be one, where to it may be said that S. Augustin hath answered in any wise; so consistent he is always with himself, so manifest it is that he favours us, so wholly he is on our side, and so true and evident it is that the controversy renewed at this day, is, not only the same which was agitated under Clement VIII. between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, but likewise the very same which was between S. Augustin and Pelagius under your Predecessor Innocent 1. And your H. shall find, not without wonder, that 'tis renewed in such manner, that our adversaries, both in their manner of proceeding and writing, employ the same atifices and the same deceits of those ancient enemies of Grace, of which S. Augustin and S. Prosper incessantly complain.  
The Writing alone which they presented to your H. consisting of sixty passages of S. Augustin, fully proves with how great reason and justice we frame so important an accusation against them, and your H. will become fully persuaded hereof if you permit us to refute in your presence what they have advanced in that Writing. Your H. shall see that they suppose therein what not body hath taught; that they refute what no body hath disputed; that the passages alleged out of S. Augustin are maimed or perverted; that they maliciously suppress those which clearly explain his meaning; that they attribute to him a sense wholly contrary to his own, as the same passages manifestly show. And lastly your H. shall see that they are all either falsely, or maliciously or impertinently alleged; that they act without shame or faith before you in this matter of faith, that they approach your Apostolical Throne without any reverence, and that no other reason leads them under colour of a false respect to reject and decline the Conference which we desired to have with them, but because they well know that they cannot avoid being publicly convinced of foul dealing and ignorance. And consequently we are assured that as much as your H. loves sincerity, candour and justice, so much will you be moved with most just indignation against them.  
But this assurance, M. H. F. wherewith the truth, which we conceive we maintain, causes us to speak before your H. diminishes nothing of the full and entire submission which we shall always have to the judgement which you shall pass: as the boldness and confidence wherewith they, who before us encountered the errors sprung up or revived in the Church before the same were condemned, attaqu'd their adversaries, did not hinder but that they were perfectly submissive to the decisions of the H. See and Councils. Now being we have no other aim in this affair but to seek the Truth, which alone causes us to speak, and since we are deputed to your Holiness by some Bishops only out of a design to serve the Truth and the H. See, as much as we shall be able our desire shall be accomplished if your H. judge that the honour of Truth and the H. See obliges you to correct or even condemn somethihg of what we maintain; and we not only submit ourselves to your judgement, but being glad of being corrected, we shall publish the same everywhere with joy.  
But if on the contrary your Holiness finds that we defend the faith of the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church; and that the Jesuits and Doctors who contrived these Propositions, design by the obscurity of their equivocal words, to subvert the true grace of Jesus Christ defended by S. Augustin in the name of the whole Church, and to banish it out of the minds of all the Faithful, and that they are engaged in pernicious errors; we expect from Your Holiness' justice, and with as much humility as urgency desire, that you condemn their errors, and establish the Catholic Faith. Neither they nor we ought to be spared. Truth ought to be strongly upheld against us, if it appear that 'tis we who injure it: it ought to be established against us in its whole strength. This is that which we avoid not, but desire.  
Now if our Adversaries have the same purpose of seeking truth and peace, they will have no other wishes, nor make other demands, and Your Holiness will hear the same words from their mouths as from ours. Let neither we, nor those engaged in the same party with us be considered; but let regard be had only to the Truth, the honour of the Church, and the dignity of the H. Apostolic See.  
Thus M. H. F. after having implored the assistance of the Holy and Indivisible Trinity, we are prepared to maintain in Your Holiness' presence this so important point of the Catholic Faith, and trusting to that same Grace of Jesus Christ our Saviour, to the defence and glory whereof we consecrate all our words and Writings; we implore his divine illumination, that we may be able rightly to understand and explicate the matter in question. And it will be great consolation to us, that in speaking before him who is the Oracle of Truth, what we shall not be able to comprehend in such difficult questions, will not (as S. Augustin speaks) be imputed to the truth which profitably exercises pious souls even when it is hid from them, but to our little light which hindered us from being able rightly to comprehend them, or well explicate what we comprehended. And lastly M. H. F. We here make the protestation which S. Augustin saith is the token of a truly Catholic spirit; that if it should be so that the sentiments hitherto held by us be not conformable to the Truth, we are ready to renounce the same as soon as it shall be discovered to us, and to submit ourselves to your judgement, as being that of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, and of S. Peter's successor.  
Whilst this Harangue was pronouncing, the Pope and whole Assembly heard it with great silence and attention; the Pope advancing himself a little out of his Seat which was the ordinary manner of his greater attentiveness. Whenever the Jesuits were mentioned by their names, he instantly turned his head and cast his eyes upon F. Palavicini's, and held them fixed upon him, as often as any thing a little more vehemently was spoken against them; as if he meant to observe that Jesuits countenance, or ask him what he had to answer to the charge. The Abbot of Valcroissant had his Oration in his hand, as the custom is at Rome, to fix his memory the better, and though he looked upon his paper sometimes to follow it, yet he pronounced it all without need of recurring to it.  
At the end of the Oration we all made a genuflexion together. M. Manessier and Angran brought some books with them which they laid upon the end of the Benches whereon the Cardinals sat; and I had with me the Writings which we had prepared to present to the Pope. That which contained the hundred and six Propositions extracted out of the books of the Jesuits against S. Augustin's authority, I delivered into the hands of M. the Valcroissant; he also gave me his Oration. Assoon as ever it was begun, M. Albizzi fell to writing, and did the like at several passages, especially, by what I could observe, at such as mentioned submission, respect and affection to the H. See. No doubt, he conceived this Oration would not be seen, and feared lest those words of grandeur and esteem for the H. See should escape him.  
After M. de Valcroissant had made a little pause, he began a Discourse, not prepared like his Oration, but only a sequel and proof of it. For he further remonstrated that the design of this whole Affair, was nothing else but to subvert S. Augustin's authority & doctrine. To which purpose he made a short recapitulation of our Writings de Gestis; and laid open to the Pope's eyes the chief projects of our Adversaries mentioned therein. Nevertheless that it might not be said, that he declined the main matter by standing too long upon one thing (which yet was very important to be known to his Holiness) and so reserving himself to speak more largely both of his Writing, and that concerning the authority of S. Augustin's doctrine, in another Consideration wherein this matter should be further considered, he began to give the Pope a General Idea of the five Writings abovementioned, which we were to present to his Holiness at this time.  
Then returning in particular to the first of those Writings which is the first part of the second Information touching Fact, containing a hundred and six Propositions extracted out of the Jesuits Books against S. Augustin, he read a great number of them, and amongst the rest those out of F. Adam's book, in which S. Augustin's doctrine is termed heretical and Calvinistical, and S. Paul and other Canonical Writers accused together with S. Augustin, of being transported in their Writings bryond the bounds of Truth. During this reading, M Angran and I observed how at every Proposition that was read F. Palavicini harkened attentively, and shaked his head, either as approving it, or intimating that it was not worth speaking of. When M. de Valcroissant had done reading, he represented the circumstances of the time at which this book of F. Adam was printed, namely, at the breaking open of M. Cornet's enterprise, of whom he also related with what confidence he had blotted out this Proposition out of a Thesis whilst he was Syndic, That S. Augustin's doctrine in the matter of Grace may safely be followed. But for that I observed that this book of F. Adam made great impression upon the minds of some in the Assembly; and that M. the Valcroissant for compendiousness sake, considering the multitude of things which he had to say, did not, to my conceit, sufficiently set forth the circumstances of that book's coming forth; I first offered to suggest something to him which he had not observed; which not taking effect, because he could not mind it and speak to, I desired him to permit me to speak whilst he took a little breath. Having made a genuflexion to the Pope, I said, that I conceived his Holiness would not be displeased to hear me tell him that this book of F. Adam's, whence all those horrible Propositions were extracted, was printed in the vulgar tongue, and very common to be had; that its Author preached the same Maxims in one of the most eminent Parishes of Paris near the professed House of the Jesuits before a numerous Congregation, the whole Society knowing and approving it. I also beseeched his Holiness to remember the prodigious boldness of their Father Labbe, (mentioned by M. the Valcroissant) who dared to write, that Rome would suddenly pronounce of what opinion S. Augustin was, and aught to have been; not dissembling that their design was to get him condemned by the Constitution which they aimed to extort from his Holiness, and holding themselves as sure not to miss of it, as if they were the masters of his Pen and Tongue, or had the supreme disposal of those whose ministry they knew his Holiness used in his deliberations and decisions. This I pressed with such indignation as the knowledge of the prepared Bull animated me to, and a sudden design to give the Pope some diffidence of those who were about him, and counselled him to so sad a resolution. All was heard as the rest, neither the Pope or any else replying aught thereunto. I made a second genuflexion and M. de Valcroissant resumed his discourse: In which he further urged to the Pope, how great reason we had to summon our Adversaries to acknowledge S. Augustin's authority solemnly, by signing the six Propositions at the end of our Writings de Gestis, to which he summoned them again, and beseeched the Pope to oblige them to declare themselves thereupon.  
But, To enter further into the main of the matter in question, M. the Valcroissant left this Writing, and passed to that of the Distinction of the senses of the Propositions. He spoke largely upon the substance of the Preface, in which we with all the Bishops of France beseeched his Holiness to pronounce upon the Controversy between the Molinists and us. We read the words of the Letters of either side to show the Pope, that the question was not about any Calvinistical or Lutheran opinions which we condemned, and had always condemned, nor against these Propositions as they were couched under ambiguous terms which rendered them capable of different senses, (since we were not the authors of them, and knew no other authors of them but our Adversaries themselves, who contrived them thus to involve the Catholic Faith with Error in one condemnation, and to put all things in the Church by this means into a general confusion) but only about the Propositions reduced to the Catholic senses which we defended, and which were those alone that our Adversaries impugned. Hereupon M. de Valcroissant read the explication of those senses and the declaration of our sentiments upon each of them, as they follow a little below in three columes. Which when he had done, and declared at every Proposition, that it was that alone to whose defence we adhered, he made an evident reduction of them to the point of Grace Effectual by itself, showing as clear as the day that nothing but the connexion which these Propositions rightly understood, and purged from their bad senses, had with that capital point of the Church's faith and S. Augustin's doctrine in this matter, induced us to endeavour to prevent an absolute and confused condemnation of them, in regard of the consequences. When he was at the conclusion, he spoke something concerning our declaration and protestation to the Pope always to maintain the Propositions reduced to the Catholic senses which we defended, or rather those senses and Catholic Truths which lay hid under the terms of these Propositions, whilst it appeared not to us that these truths had been expressly condemned by a positive and solemn judgement, whatever condemnation might otherwise befall the Propositions considered in themselves as M. Cornet proposed them to the Faculty, and as they were presented the Pope by the Bishops of France who first writ to him.  
Being this distinction of Senses was read throughout and word for word before the Pope, it will be expedient to insert the same here, though it was printed since apart as it follows, as well in respect of the Titles, as Contents and Subscriptions.  
Beatissimo Patri Innocentio Papae X. brevissima quinque propositionum in varios sensus distinctio, apertaque de iis tum Calvinistarum ac Lutheranorum, tum Pelagianorum ac Molinistarum, tum S. Augustini ejusque discipulorum sententia.  
BEATISSIME PATER,  
EPiscopi Galliarum quorum votis atque expectationi Vestra Sanctitas satisfacere se velle testatur, circa quinque propositiones controversas judicium ab ipsa postulant, quod & veritatem dilucidare ac confirmare & controversias componere, & pacem Ecclesiae restituere idoneum sit. Petunt ergo ut de iis quae in controversiam inter nos & adversarios vocata sunt, expressam sententiam ferat, non de iis de quibus nulla contentio, nulla quaestio, nulla difficultas exorta est. Hoc ex variis omnium Episcoporum qui ad Vestram Sanctitatem scripserunt, litteris manifestum est. Quapropter primum officii nostri est Sanctitatis Vestrae oculis id aperte exponere de quo hinc & inde contendimus, ut de re quae inter nos & adversarios in controversiam vertitur, ipsi constet. De propositionibus autem non in sensu alieno ad quem trahi possent, quique a nobis respuitur, sed in sensu legitimo qui à nobis defenditur, atque adeo de fide Catholica in iis contenta controversia est; DEQUE JIS SIC SUMPTIS distinctum ac perspicuum judicium expectatur.  
Ne igitur in toto hoc negotio ullus pateat aequivocationi, calumniae, malignitati, dubitationi locus, veros & germanos propositionum sensus quos sustinemus, quosque impugnant adversarii, si aliquid agunt, ante omnia vestrae Sanctitati quam brevissime ac dilucidissime fieri potest, exponimus, atque ex una parte errores illis contrarios, quos adversarii tuentur, & ex alia haereses illis similiter contrarias, quas impugnare se jactitant cum propositiones impugnant, subjicimus: Ut Sanctitati vestrae innotescat nos neque d dexteram neque ad sinistram declinare, sed doctrinae Ecclesiae unice adhaerere, & inde Calvinistarum eorumque sequacium, hinc Pelagianorum eorumque reliquiarum haereses ac errores ex aequo detestari.  
De utrorumque sententia circa has quinque propositiones, & de nostra quae inter hanc & illam est media, aperte & sincere id quod profitemur Sanctitati vestrae aperimus, praetermissis atque in suum tempus ac ordinem dilatis eorum omnium quae asserimus, invictis, ut putamus, probationibus, nunc nihil aliud intendentes quam ut primo aspectu ac veluti in compendio exihibeamus, tum id de quo judicium fieri postulent expectentque universi Galliae, Episcopi, tum etiam quam Catholice sentiamus.  

PRIMA PROPOSITIO, à loco suo dolosè avulsa & exhibita.  
Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia; Deest quoque iis gratia qua possibilia fiant.  

Sensus haereticus. Qui primae propositioni malignè affingi posset, quem tamen legitimè sumpta non habet.  
Justis omnibus quantumlibet volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quantascunque vires quae a gratia magna & efficace habentur, mandata Dei sunt impossibilia. Deest quoque illis semper & quamdiu vivunt gratia qua possint vel unum ex mandatis Dei sine peccato adimplere.  
Haec propositio est haeretica, Calviniana aut Lutherana, & à Concilio Tridentino damnata.  
PRIMA PROPOSITIO, ut à nobis intelligitur ac defenditur.  
Aliqua Dei praecepta aliquibus justis volentibus & conantibus invalide & imperfecte secundum praesentes quas habent vires, parvas scilicet, & infirmas, seu auxilio efficaci ad plene volendum & operandum necessario destitutis impossibilia sunt proxime & complete, seu ab iis adimpleri proxime non possunt. Deest quoque illis gratia efficax qua praecepta illis proxime possibilia fiant, seu deest illis speciale illud auxilium sine quo justificatus, ut ait Concilium Tridentinum, in accepta justitia, id est, in observatione mandatorum Dei, perseverare non potest.  
Sustinemus ac demonstrare parati sumus hanc propositionem ad fidem Ecclesiae pertine re & in Sancti Augustini doctrina indubitatam esse, atque à Concilio Tridentino definitam.  
PROPOSITIO primae contraria ut ab adversariis defenditur.  
Omnia Dei praecepta justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires, sunt semper possibilia per gratiam eorum libero arbitrio subjectam. Nec unquam ipsis deest gratia ad operandum vel saltem ad orandum proxime necessaria, qua possibilia fiant.  
Sustinemus ac demostrare parati sumus hanc propositionem, quae est Molinae & adversariorum, esse Pelagianam vel Semipelagianam, quia gratiae ex se efficacis ad singulos actus necessitatem destruit. Atque ita declaratum est in Congregatione Romana de Auxiliis sub Clemente Octavo & Paulo Quinto.    

SECUNDA PROPOSITIO, fabricata & exhibita.  
Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.  

SENSUS HAERETICUS. Qui primae propositioni malignè affingi posset, quem tamen legitimè sumpta non habet.  
Interiori gratiae efficaci in statu naturae lapsae eatenus nunquam resistitur, quatenus voluntas hominis respectu gratiae efficacis mere passive se habet, & velut inanime quoddam nihil omnino agit, nec cooperatur nec libere assentitur.  
Haec propositio est haeretica, Calviniana, Lutherana, & à Concilio Tridentino damnata.  
Alius sensus erroneous.  
Interiori gratiae sumptae pro simplici quadam illuminatione intellectus & suasione voluntatis in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.  
Haec propositio est falsa & erronea, quia talis gratia non est vera gratia Christi, ut docet S. August. in libro de gratia Christi.  
Alius sensus erroneus.  
Interiori gratiae Christi, cum adhuc parva est, & dat tantum voluntatem inchoatam, in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur, quantum ad effectum interiorem ad quem disponit.  
Haec propositio est falsa & erronea.  
Secunda PROPOSITIO, ut à nobis intelligitur, ac defenditur.  
Gratiae Christi ad singulos pietatis actus proxime necessariae nunquam resistitur, hoc est, nunquam illa frustratur eo effectu ad quem a Deo proxime datur.  
Sustinemus ac demonstrare parati sumus hanc propositionem ad fidem Ecclesiae pertinere & in Sancti Augustini doctrina indubitatam esse.  
PROPOSITIO secunda contraria, ut ab adversariis defenditur.  
Gratiae Christi ad singulos pietatis actus, seu operandi seu saltem orandi, necessariae, in statu naturae lapsae aliquando resistitur, hoc est, illa aliquando frustratur eo effectu ad quem a Deo proxime datur.  
Sustinemus ac demonstrare parati sumus hanc propositionem, quae est Molinae & adversariorum, esse Pelagianam vel Semipelagianam, quia gratia Christi ad singulos actus necessariae vim & efficaciam destruit. Atque ita declaratum est in Congregatione Romana de Auxiliis.    

TERTIA PROPOSITIO, fabricata & exhibita.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas à necessitate sed sufficit libertas à coactione.  

Sensus haereticus. Qui tertiae propositioni malignè affingi posset, quem tamen legitimè sumpta non habet.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas a necessitate naturali, qualis etiam reperitur in motibus indeliberatis, sed sufficit mera libertas a coactione.  
Haec propositio haeretica est, Calviniana aut Lutherana.  
TERTIA PROPOSITIO, ut à nobis intelligitur ac defenditur.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas a necessitate infallibilitatis, sed sufficit libertas a coactione cum judicio rationis, si consideretur praecise essentia libertatis & meriti, quamquam ex ratione status semper reperiatur indifferentia potentiae qua voluntas etiam sub gratia proxime necessaria & ex se efficace potest non velle, non tamen ut nunquam simul cum eadem gratia non velit.  
Sustinemus ac demonstrare parati sumus hanc propositionem esse Catholicam & Augustinianam.  
PROPOSITIO TERTIAE contraria, ut ab adversariis defenditur.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae requiritur in homine libertas a necessitate infallibilitatis, seu necessaria est indifferentia proxima agendi & non agendi, qua voluntas instructa omnibus ad agendum Praerequisitis pro suo nutu modo se flectit in unam partem, modo in oppositam.  
Sustinemus ac demonstrare parati sumus hanc proposisionem, quae est Molinae adversariorum, Pelagianam esse, quia gratia ex se efficacis ad singulos pietatis actus necessaria possibilitatem destruit. Atque ita declaratum est in Congregatione Romana de Auxiliis.    

QUARTA PROPOSITIO, fabricata & exhibita.  
Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis 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 vel obtemperare.  

Sensus haereticus. Qui quartae propositioni malignè affingi posset, quem tamen legitimè sumpta non habet.  
Gratia Christi praeveniens talis est ut liberum arbitrium hominis ab ea motum & excitatum non possit dissentire si velit. Aliter dicere, Semipelagianum est.  
Haec propositio est haeretica, Calviniana, aut Lutherana, & à Concilio Tridentino damnata.  
QVARTA PROPOSITIO, ut à nobis intelligitur ac defenditur.  
Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus imperfectos, etiam ad initium fidei; & in hoc haereticè sentiebant, quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse ut voluntas illi pro nutu suo obtemperaret vel eam respueret, seu ut ex se efficax non esset.  
Sustinemus ac demonstrare parati sumus hanc propositionem quoad primam partem quae spectat quastionem facti, esse veram: quoad secundam vero ad fidem Ecclesiae pertinere, & in Sancti Augustini doctrina indubitatam esse.  
PROPOSITIO QVARTAE contraria, ut ab adversariis defenditur.  
Semipelagiani non admittebant praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus imperfectos nec ad initium fidei; nec in hoc errabant quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse, ut ex se efficax non esset.  
Sustinemus ac demonstrare parati sumus hanc propositionem, quae est Molinae & adversariorum, Pelagianam aut Semipelagianam esse, quia gratiae efficacis ad singulos actus necessariae Catholicam fidem & simul omnem Sancti Augustini auctoritatem destruit. Atque ita declaratum est in Congregatione Romana de Auxiliis.    

QVINTA PROPOSITIO, fabricata & exhibita.  
Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse.  

Sensus haereticus. Qui quintae propositioni malignè affingi posset, quem tamen legitimè sumpta non habet.  
Christus mortuus est tantummodo pro praedestinatis, ita ut two soli per meritum mortis Christi veram fidem ac justitiam accipiant.  
Haec propositio est haeretica, Calviniana, aut Lutherana, & à Concilio Tri●…entino damnata.  
QVINTA PROPOSITIO, ut à nobis intelligitur ac defenditur.  
Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus, seu nemine excepto, mortuum esse, eo sensu ut omnibus nemine excepto, per mortem ejus oblata sit gratia ad salutem necessaria, quam consequi in nutu arbitrii sit positum sine gratiae ex se efficacis adjutorio.  
Sustinemus ac demonstrare parati sumus hanc propositionem ad fidem Ecclesiae pertinere & in S. Augustini doctrina indubitatam esse.  
PROPOSITIO QVINTAE contraria, ut ab advesariis defenditur.  
Non est Semipelagianum, sed Catholicum, dicere Christum morte sua omnibus omnino hominibus seu nemine excepto communicasse gratiam proximè necessariam ad operandum, aut saltem ad incipiendum & ad orandum.  
Sustinemus ac demonstrare parati sumus hanc Propositionem, quae est Molinae & adversariorum, continere doctrinam Concilio Tridentino contrariam, atque etiam esse Pelagianam aut Semipelagianam, quia gratiae Christi ex se efficacis ad singulos actus necessitatem destruit. Atque ita declaratum est in Congregatione Romana de Auxiliis.    
Haec sunt Beatissime Pater, ad quorum omnium plenam explanationem, probationem, confirmationem a Vestra Sanctitate & verbo & scripto audiri postulavimus, & ad quorum discussionem pergere parati sumus quam brevissime feret rei gravitas & amplitudo, & quam diligentissime patientur Sanctitatis Vestrae curae & occupationes. Interea jam videt ex supra positis nullam de Calvinianis Lutheranisve haeresibus inter nos atque adversarios esse aut fuisse quaestionem. Si illas ipsi anathematizant, ex animo eas pariter ipsi anathematizamus semperque anathematizavimus, neque cum de his hodie quaestio non sit, eorum impugnationem contra nos suscipere possunt nisi ut nos calumnientur, atque sub illorum pretextu & involucris sensum Catholicum quem sustinemus, condemnationis periculo exponant, suumque nostro contrarium, Pelagianum scilicet aut Semipelagianum, & cum eo sexaginta & amplius nefandos errores ex illo ut ostendemus necessario consequentes, pro fide Catholica obtrudant. Iterum atque iterum, Beatissime Pater, Sanctitati Vestrae cum omnibus Gall●ae Episcopis, humillime supplicamus ut de re proposita & controversa claram firmamque proferat sententiam; profitemurque coram ipsa, nos & universos Sancti Augustini discipulos ac defensoros (qui, ut olim aiebat Sanctus Prosper ad Ruffinum cap. 2. nunc etiam in ipsis his locis, in quibus adversus eum querimonia concitatur, propitio Deo ad perceptionem Evangelicae Apostolicaeque doctrinae saluberrimis ejus disputationibus imbuuntur; & quotidie in membris corporis Christi in quantum ea ipse multiplicat dilatantur) pro indubitata tanti Doctoris atque adeo Ecclesiae doctrina praedictas propositiones ut a nobis superius expositae sunt, perpetuo defensuros, quandiu de illis expresse ut supra expositae sunt, intellectis prolatum non erit (quod a Sanctitate Vestra postulamus) solemn definitivumque judicium, quo nobis aperte constet eas in sensu quem asserimus Catholicum, esse damnatas.  
Quod quidem nunquam fore Deo adjuvante confidimus; ut vel ex eo conjicere licet, quod jam pridem omnium sermonibus percrebuerit, Vestram Sanctitatem ita sibi proposuisse de praedictis propositionibus agere ut ante omnia statuerit suo loco stare & illibatam servari debere Sancti Augustini auctoritatem, cujus doctrinae potissima pars & quasi summa est gratia ex se efficax, cum qua praedictae propositiones inviolabili insolubilique nexu conjunctae sunt. Quemadmodum videre, est in ipso limine scripti sequentis, in quo ejusdem gratiae ex se efficacis ad singulos actus necessitas solidissimis apertissimisque demonstrationibus comprobatur.  
Quae omnia Sanctitatis Vestrae correctioni ac judicio subjicimus. Subscriptum Romae die Lunae 19 Maii anno 1653. Sic subscriptum. 

Natalis de la Lane Doctor Facultatis Parisiensis, Abbas B. M. de Valle Crescente.  
Tussanus Desmares Presbyter Congregationis Oratorii Domini Jesus.  
Ludovicus de Saint-Amour, in sacra Facultate Parisiensi Doctor ac Socius Sorbonicus.  
Nicolaus Manessier, in sacra Facultare Parisiensi Doctor ac Socius Sorbonicus.  
Ludovicus Angran, ejusdem sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis Licentiatus ac insignis Ecclesiae Trecensis Canonicus.    
A COMPENDIOUS DISTINCTION of the Five Propositions touching Grace; Presented to the Pope by the Parisian Doctors defenders of S. Augustin, and clearly showing in three Columes the several senses whereof the said Propositions are capable, and the Sentiments of the Calvinists and Lutherans, of the Pelagians and Molinists, of S. Augustin and his Disciples; MDCLIII.  
To our most H. F. Pope Innocent. X  
MOST HOLY FATHER,  
THe Bishops of France, whose wishes and expectation Your Holiness professes an intent to satisfy, beseech you to pass a judgement upon the Five controverted Propositions, which may suffice both to clear and confirm the Truth, extinguish differences, and restore peace in the Church. These Prelates supplicate Your Holiness therefore to make an express decision only upon the things in contest between our Adversaries and us, and not upon such whereof there is no dispute, question or difficulty. The same desire is manifestly set forth in sundry Letters written by all the abovesaid Bishops to Your Holiness. Wherefore 'tis the chief duty of our Commission to lay before your eyes what things are disputed on either side, to the end you may have perfect cognisance of the present Controversy. It is certain that the Contest at this day in the Church touching the Five Propositions, is not in regard of a remote and evil sense which may be put upon them, and is rejected by us, but in regard of a legitimate sense, & which we defend, and of the Catholic Faith, which is found contained therein. 'Tis of the Propositions taken thus in the legitimate and Catholic sense, that we expect a clear and decisive Judgement.  
To the end therefore that in all this important Affair there may be no place for equivocation, or calumny, or the artifices of evil minds, or any doubts; We first lay open to Your Holiness as briefly and clearly as may be, the true and legitimate senses of those Propositions which we maintain, and which must be impugned by our Adversaries, if they will act against us. On one side we represent the errors contrary to the Orthodox senses of the Propositions, which are defended by our Adversaries; and on the other side, the Heresies in like manner contrary to those Catholic interpretations, which our Adversaries boast that they impugn, whilst they impugn the Propositions without distinction. Whence Your Holiness may behold, that we decline neither to the right hand nor to the left, but solely adhere to the doctrine of the Church, and by consequence equally detest on one side the Heresies and Errors of the Calvinists and their followers; and on the other the Heresies and Errors of the Pelagians, and those who have succeeded them.  
We openly and sincerely declare to Your Holiness our judgement touching the opinions of those two Sects in reference to the Five Propositions, and nakedly represent our own belief which is placed in the middle between the said Erroneous opinions, Reserving to their due time and order the proofs of what we assert, which shall be, as we believe invincible; we pretend nothing further at present, then to give a clear and compendious draught of the things upon which all the Bishops of France expect and demand the H. see's judgement, and to show how Catholic our sentiments are.  

THE FIRST PROPOSITION, maliciously pulled out of its place and exposed to Censure.  
Some of God's Commandments are impossible to just men, even when they are willing and endeavour (to perform the same) according to the present strength which they have. And the Grace which should render the same possible to them, is wanting to them.  

The Heretical sense, which may be maliciously fastened upon this Proposition; which yet it hath not, when taken as it ought to be.  
God's Commandments are impossible to all the just, whatever will they have, and whatever endeavours they use, even although they are induced with all the strength that the greatest and most effectual Grace affords. Also they always during their lives want such Grace whereby they might accomplish without sinning, so much as one of God's Commandments.  
This proposition is heretical, Calvinistical, and Lutheran; and hath been condemned by the Council of Trent.  
THE FIRST PROPSITION, in the sense wherein we understand and defend it.  
Some Commandments of God are impossible to some just persons, who will and endeavour weakly and imperfectly according to the extent of strength that they have in themselves, which is small and weak. That is to say, being destitute of the effectual aid which is necessary to the full willing and acting, these Commandments are impossible to them according to this next and complete possibility, the privation whereof puts them in a state of not being able effectively to perform these Commandments. And they want the Effectual Grace, which is needful that those Commandments may become proximately and totally possible to them. Or, they are unprovided of that special assistance, without which a justified man, as the Council of Trent saith, cannot persevere in the righteousness which he hath received, that is, in the observation of God's Commandments.  
We maintain, and are ready to demonstrate, that this Proposition is consonant to the Faith of the Church, indubitable in S. Augustin's doctrine, and defined by the Council of Trent.  
THE PROPOSITION contrary to the first, as it is defended by our Adversaries.  
All Gods Commandments are always possible to the just through Grace which is subject to their Free Will, when they are willing and endeavour according to their present strength. And Grace proximately necessary to render the Commandments possible, is never wanting to them to act, or at least to pray.  
We maintain, and are ready to demonstrate, that this Proposition which belongs to Molina and our Adversaries, is Pelagian or Semipelagian, because it destroys the necessity of Grace effectual by itself to all good works. And so it was declared in the Congregation de Auxiliis held at Rome under Clement VIII. & Paulo V.    

THE SECOND PROPOSITION, framed and exposed to Censure.  
In the state of corrupted Nature, Internal Grace is never resisted.  

THE HERETICAL SENSE, which may be maliciously put upon this second Proposition; which nevertheless it ' hath not, when taken as it ought to be.  
In the state of corrupted nature, Internal and Effectual Grace is never resisted, because Man's Will is purely passive in respect of such Effectual Grace, and being as a thing inanimate acts nothing at all, it neither cooperates nor consents freely.  
This Proposition is Heretical, Calvinistical Lutheran, and condemned by the Council of Trent.  
Another Erroneous sense, which the Proposition may receive.  
In the state of corrupted Nature, Internal Grace taken for a mere illumination of the Understanding, and a persuasion of the Will, is never resisted.  
This proposition is false and erroneous, because such Grace is not the true Grace of Jesus Christ, as S. Augustin teaches in his Book de Gratia Christi.  
Another Erroneous sense, which may be imputed to the same proposition.  
In the state of corrupted Nature, the internal Grace of Jesus Christ, whilst it is yet weak, and gives only— is never resisted as to the effect whereunto it disposeth.  
This proposition is false and erroneous.  
THE SECOND PROPOSITION, as it is understood & defended by us.  
The Grace of Jesus Christ proximately necessary to every act of piety, is never resisted. That is to say, it is never frustrated of the effect, for which it is effectually given by God.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition pertains to the Faith of the Church, and is indubitable in S. Augustin's Doctrine.  
THE PROPOSITION. contrary to the second, defendded by our Adversaries.  
The Grace of Jesus Christ which is necessary to every act of piety, whether of operating, or at least of praying, is sometimes resisted in the state of corrupted Nature. That is to say, This grace is sometimes frustrated of the effect for which it was directly given by God.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition, which is owned by Molina and our Adversaries, is Pelagian or Semipelagian, because it evacuates the power and efficacy of the Grace of Jesus Christ, which is necessary to every good action. And so it was declared in the Congregation de Auxiliis held at Rome.    

THE THIRD PROPOSITION, framed and exposed to Censure.  
To merit and demerit in the state of lapsed Nature, 'tis not requisite that there be in Man a freedom from Necessity, but a freedom from constraint (or coaction) is sufficient.  

The Heretical sense, which may maliciously be attributed to this third Proposition, which nevertheless taken in a right manner it hath not.  
To merit and demerit in the state of corrupted Nature, there is not required in man a freedom from Necessity natural, such as is found even in indeliberate motions; but 'tis sufficient that be be only free from coaction.  
This proposition is Heretical, Calvinistical, and Lutheran.  
THE THIRD PROPOSITION, as understood and defended by us.  
To merit and demerit in the state of corrupted Nature, there is not required in man a freedom from the Necessity of Infallibility; but 'tis sufficient that he have a liberty from coaction accompanied with the judgement and exercise of Reason, if the essence of liberty and merit be precisely considered. Although in regard of the state wherein we are in this life, our soul hath always such an indifference, whereby the will can, even when it is guided and governed by Grace proximately necessary, and effectual by itself, not will, yet 'tis in such sort that it never willeth not when it is actually assisted by such Grace.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition is Catholic and taught be S. Augustin.  
THE PROPOSITION, contrary to the third, and defended by our Adversaries.  
To merit and demerit in the state of corrupted Nature, there is required in Man a freedom from the necessity of infallibility, or 'tis necessary that he have a proximate indifference to act or not act, where be the Will being furnished with all things prerequisity to act or not act, inclines sometimes to one side, sometimes to the other as it pleases.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate that this proposition which is taught by Molina & our Adversaries, is Pelagian, because it destroys the power of that Grace effectual by itself, which is necessary to every act of piety. It hath also been declared in the Congregation de Auxiliis.    

THE FOURTH PROPOSITION, framed and exposed to Censure.  
The semipelagians admitted the necessity of internal preventing Grace to all good works, even to the beginning of Faith. And they were Heretics in this, that they held that Grace to be such as the Will of man might either resist, or obey.  

The heretical sense; which may maliciously be put upon the fourth proposition, although taken in a right manner it admits not the same.  
The preventing grace of Jesus Christ is such, that Man's Free Will, being moved and excited by it, cannot resist the same if it would do so. To affirm otherwise, is Semipelagian.  
This proposition is heretical, Calvinistical or Lutheran, and hath been condemned by the Council of Trent.  
THE FOURTH PROPOSITION, as by us understood and defended.  
The Semipelgians admitted the necessity of preventing and internal grace to begin all actions, even to the beginning of Faith; and their sentiments were heretical in this respect, that they held that Grace to be such as the Will might obey or reject at pleasure, that is to say, that the said Grace is not Effectual.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition is true as to the former part, which concerns matter of Fact; and that as to the latter, it pertains to the faith of the Church, and is indubitable in the doctrine of Saint Augustine.  
THE PROPOSITION contrary to the fourth, and defended by our Adversaries.  
The Semipelagians did not admit the necessity of internal preventing Grace to begin every action, nor yet to the beginning of Faith; and they did not err in holding that Grace to be such, as that it was not Effectual by itself.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition which it held by Molina and our Adversaries, is Pelagian or Semipelagian, because it destroys the Catholic belief of Effectual Grace necessary to every good work, and likewise all S. Augustin's authority. And so it hath been declared in the Congregations de Auxiliis held at Rome.    

THE FIFTH PROPOSITION, framed and exposed to Censure.  
'Tis a Semipelagian Error to affirm, that Jesus Christ died, or shed his blood for all men, without exception of any one.  

The heretical sense, which may be maliciously put upon this fifth proposition, which yet it hath not, if it be taken as it ought to be.  
Jesus Christ died only for the predestinate, so that they alone receive true Faith and Righteousness by the merit of Christ's death.  
This proposition is Heretical, Calvinistical or Lutheran, and hath been condemned by the Council of Trent.  
THE FIFTH PROPOSITION, as understood and defended by us.  
'Tis a Semipelagian error, to say, that Christ died for all men in particular, none excepted, so that by his death saving Grace is offered to all, none excepted; and that it depends on the motion and power of the Will to obtain salvation by such a general Grace without the help of any other grace effectual by itself.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition pertains to the faith of the Church, and is indubitable in the doctrine of S. Augustin.  
THE PROPOSITION contrary to the fifth, and defended by our Adversaries.  
'Tis not an error of the Semipelagians, but a Catholic Proposition, to say, that Jesus Christ hath by his death communicated to all men in particular, none excepted, the Grace proximately and precisely necessary to work, or at least to begin salvation and to pray.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition which is taught by Molina and our Adversaries, contains a doctrine contrary to the Council of Trent, and likewise is Pelagian or Semipelagian, because it destroys the necessity of Grace effectual by itself to every good work. And it hath been declared thus in the Roman Congregations de Auxiliis.    
These, M. H. F. are the Propositions, for the full explication, proof and confirmation whereof we have demanded of Your Holiness to be heard both viva voce and by Writing. These are the points of Doctrine, for the discussion of which we are ready to labour, and plead with as much brevity as the importance and amplitude of the matter, and with as much diligence as the cares and affairs of Your Holiness will permit. In the mean time Your Holiness by what we have here set forth, that there neither is, nor ever was any Contest between us and our Adversaries touching the heresies of Calvin and Luther. If they anathematise them, we do, and have always done the same; and the question not being now about those heresies, they cannot undertake to impugn the same by acting against us, unless it be to calumniate us; to expose the Catholic sense maintained by us to the danger of condemnation under pretext and colour of these Errors; to substitute in place of the Catholic Faith their Pelagian or Semipelagian sentiments which are contrary to ours; and lastly, to make current above sixty detestable Errors which we shall show follow by necessary consequence from the doctrine which they would establish.  
M. H. F. We still earnestly reiterate to Your Holiness the most humble request formerly made bv us with all the Bishops of France, that you will pass a clear and decisive sentence upon the matter now in controversy. And we protest before your Holiness that we, and all the disciples and defenders of S. Augustin (who, as S. Prosper sometimes writ to Ruffinus, In the several Countries where complaints and accusations are raised against that H. Father, receive by God's assistance the Evangelical and Apostolical doctrine, being filled with his holy and wholesome instructions, and grow and spread every day, according as it pleases our Lord Jesus Christ to multiply them and increase the members of his body) we all protest, that remaining firm to the undoubted Doctrine of that great Doctor, which is owned by the Church, we shall always defend the controverted Propositions in the sense wherein we have explained them, if in the solemn & definitive judgement (which we demand of Your Holiness) there be nothing expressly pronounced concerning them in that sense, whereby it may be openly declared to us, that they are condemned in the sense which we maintain to be Catholic.  
Which we trust, with God's help shall never come to pass, and we have ground to hope so, since 'tis already diffused through the whole world, that Your Holiness hath resolved so to act in reference to these Propositions, that you have in the first place established as indubitable, that S. Augustin's authority ought always to have the same esteem it ever had, and to be preserved in its integrity; and also that the principal part of his doctrine and the sum and substance of what that Father hath taught, consists in the proposition of Grace effectual by itself, with which the abovesaid Propositions are conjoined and united by an inviolable and indissoluble bond, as plainly appears by the following Writing, in which the necessity of such Grace effectual by itself to every good work is proved by very solid and clear demonstrations.  
We submit all these things to Your holiness's Correction and Judgement. Written at Rome, Monday May 19 1653. 

Noel de la Lane Doctor of the Faculty of Paris, etc.  
Toussaint Des-mares Priest of the Congregation of the Oratory our Lord Jesus Christ.  
Louis de Saint Amour Doctor of the Faculty of Paris, etc.  
Nicolas Manessier Doctor of the same Faculty. etc.  
Louis Angran Licenciate of the same Faculty, etc.    
As M. the Valcroissant read this Writing, assoon as he had ended one of the Propositions, he went to the third of our Writings, which demonstrated the indissoluble connexion of each of them understood our way with Grace Effectual by itself, and he extended himself more or less in this demonstration according as the matter required, and it seemed requisite for convincing the hearers thereof. Although the said demonstration might reasonably have been included in the foregoing Writing as it was in reading; yet we thought more fit to make it an Introduction to the Writing of Effectual Grace, that so we might avoid the blame laid upon us of entering into the examination of that matter contrary to the Pope's will, and therein justify ourselves for so doing; considering the necessity there was for it, and to show that it was not possible to judge well of these Propositions till that point were decided.  
Now being all that preface was read to the Pope, and the connexion of the Propositions demonstrated in his presence, it seems fitting to insert a faithful translation thereof in this place.  
AN INFORMATION touching Grace Effectual by itself, or predeterminating Grace, which is necessary to every action.  

THE PREFACE. In which the necessity of handling this Doctrine is set forth, and the connexion of the Five Propositions, as understood by us, with the same briefly manifested.  
THere are two principal foundations which comprise the whole Controversy and Doctrine of Grace; whereof the first is S. Augustin's authority and doctrine touching the matter of Grace; and the second whereunto all his doctrine is reduced, is the necessity of Grace Effectual by itself, and predeterminating to every good action. We have already made good the first of these foundations in the Writing which we have presented touching S. Augustin's authority, which is proved by the Tradition of the whole Church. The second is now to be established, to proceed orderly in this Dispute concerning the contested Propositions. But lest it should be objected, that we come not to the point in question, we have thought fit to make some remarks first, to show most clearly how necessary it is to examine that doctrine before all things.  
1. 'Tis impossible to terminate the great Contest raised among Catholics touching the matter of Grace, without examining the Opinion which is the capital principle and original of all difference. Now this Principle consists, in that there are some who call in doubt and impugn the doctrine of Grace effectual by itself necessary to every action. All the difference between our Adversaries and us, as to doctrine, hath no other source but this; here it gins, here it ends; and all the combustions and stirs raised about this matter come only from this diversity.  
We agree in many things; and the first ground of division is, that our Adversaries ascribe the using of Christ's grace to Free Will, whereas we attribute it to the efficacy and virtue of the Grace itself. Upon this depend all the other questions in dispute; and there is now no other considerable controversy among Divines, saving that some hold Grace effectual by itself necessary to every action, and others deny it. Wherefore this Point ought first to be handled, since after it is once judged, there will be no more ground of dispute; and till it be, none can be removed.  
2. Our Adversaries had no other aim in forging these equivocal Propositions, but covertly to overthrow the doctrine of Grace effectual by itself necessary to every action, as it is held by S. Augustin; and for a full discovery of their design, it suffices to consider that there is not any of the Propositions exposed to Censure, but hath a most manifest connexion with Effectual Grace, according as we explicate and defend them. That of all the arguments which they produce, there is not one whose force consists not in destroying Effectual grace (if there be such as have really any force): and lastly, that of all the works which have been published in defence of the Propositions as we understand them, there is not any whose principal scope is not the defence of the same Effectual Grace.  
3. Moreover, There is so visible and necessary a connexion of that Grace with the Propositions thus understood, that so long as that shall subsist, they will subsist also, as its destruction would be their ruin: so that we defend not any of them, but so far forth as it hath a necessary connexion with Effectual, nor do our Adversaries impugn any of them but to destroy the same Grace, as for proof we are now going compendiously to demonstrate.   

The Connexion of the Five Propositions (as the same are defended by us) with Grace effectual by itself, succinctly demonstrated.  

THE FIRST PROPOSITION, as it is maliciously taken out of its true place, and presented to Censure  
Some of God's Commandments are impossible to just men, even when they will, and endeavour according to their present strength; and the Grace which should render the same possible is wanting to them.  

THE FIRST PROPOSITION, in the sense wherein we hold and defend it.  
Some of God's Commandments are impossible to some just men who will and endeavour weakly and imperfectly according to what strength they have, which is small and weak; That is to say, being destitute of the effectual aid which is necessary to will fully and to do; these Commandments are impossible to them according to that next and complete possibility, the privation whereof puts them in a state of inability to perform those Commandments effectively. And they want the Grace whereby it is needful that those Commandments become proximately and perfectly possible to them: or, they are unprovided of that special assistance, without which, as the Council of Trent saith, A justified man cannot persevere in the Righteousness which he hath received, that is, in the observation of God's Commandments.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition pertains to the faith of the Church, is indubitable in S. Augustin's doctrine, and hath been defined by the Council of Trent.  
THE PROPOSITION contrary to the first, and defended by our Adversaries.  
All Gods Commandments are always possible to the just by the grace which is subject to Free Will, when they will & labour according to their present strength. And the Grace which is proximately necessary to render the Commandments effectively possible, is never wanting to them to act, or at least to pray.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition taught by Molina & our Adversaries is Pelagian or Semipelagian, because it destroys the necessity of Grace effectual by itself to all good works. And thus it hath been declared in the Congregation de Auxiliis held at Rome under Clement VIII. & Paul V.   

The Connexion of our Proposition with Effectual Grace.  
THe Grace of Jesus Christ effectual by itself is necessary to every action of piety. Therefore the first Proposition is true in the sense wherein we present and maintain it; because if Grace effectual by itself is necessary to an action of piety, as a principle requisite before the same be performed, then when it is present to us, we do the thing for which it is given; and when we do it not, it is not present to us, otherwise it would not be effectual by itself; and not only we act with it, but also without it we cannot act proximately and with all accomplishment necessary to action. For whoever hath not all that which is previously necessary to another thing as a principle, cannot do that thing proximately and with the utmost accomplishment necessary to do it. And hence the first Proposition which we have presented and defended, necessarily follows. For it happens sometimes that some just men being pressed with a great temptation, make weak and imperfect attempts to perform some Commandment, and yet perform it not. Therefore in these cases they have not that great and effectual Grace which is necessary to the performance of it: or as S. Augustin faith, They have not a Grace so great as to be sufficient for performing that Commandment; they have not the strength most effectual for overcoming the temptation, otherwise they would surmount the temptation and perform the Commandment; and consequently, according to their present strength they have not that next power, to which nothing is wanting for performing that Commandment; and they want that great and effectual Grace by which the Commandment may become possible to them with a next and complete power, to which nothing is deficient to proceed to action: or, they want that special help, without which, as the Council of Trent saith, He who is justified cannot persevere in Righteousness, i. e. in the observance of God's Commandments.  
'Tis in this sense only that we defend the first Proposition.  
On the contrary our Adversaries have an heretical sense in impugning this Proposition, because they destroy the necessity of Grace effectual by itself to every action of piety. For they hold, that every just man is always able to perform any Commandment whatsoever, because he hath always grace to perform it according as it pleases his Will. Now since he doth not always perform it, it follows, that they believe that the Grace which is necessary for performing it, is not effectual by itself. Which opinion is heretical and contrary to the true grace of Jesus Christ. Therefore our Adversaries hold an heretical sense in opposing the first Proposition, that is, they defend in an heretical sense the Proposition which is contrary to it.    

THE SECOND PROPOSITION framed and presented to Censure.  
In the state of corrupted Nature, Internal Grace is never resisted.  

THE SECOND PROPOSITION. as we understand and defend it.  
The Grace of Jesus Christ proximately necessary to every act of piety, is never resisted, i. e. is never frustrated of the effect for which it is effectually given by God.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition pertains to the faith of the Church, and is indubitable in the doctrine of S. Augustin.  
THE PROPOSITION contrary to the second, and defended by our Adversaries.  
The Grace of Jesus Christ which is necessary to every act of piety, whether of operating, or at least of praying, is sometimes resisted in the state of corrupted Nature, i. e. This Grace is sometimes frustrated of the Effect for which it is proximately given by God.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition wish is held by Molina and our Adversaries, is Pelagian or Semipelagian, because it destroys the power and efficacy of the grace of Jesus Christ which is necessary to every good action. And thus it was declared in the Roman Congregation de Auxiliis.   

The Connexion of our Proposition with Effectual Grace.  
THe Grace which is necessary to every pious action is effectual by itself. Therefore in the state of corrupted Nature the Grace which is necessary to every pious action is never resisted; that is, it never fails to do the effect whereunto it is given by God proximately, either for a weak and imperfect action of the Will, and it produces the same effectively by itself; or it is given for a great and perfect action, and produces the same likewise by itself, otherwise it would not be effectual. For though small graces are resisted, as to the utmost and perfect action whereunto they dispose, yet they are never resisted or rejected as to the imperfect action for which they are given, and aught to operate proximately.  
'Tis in this sense alone that we defend the second Proposition.  
On the contrary our Adversaries hold an heretical sense whilst they impugn this Proposition, because they destroy the power and efficacy of the Grace of Jesus Christ necessary to every pious action. For they maintain that in the state of corrupted Nature, the internal Grace proximately necessary to every action of piety is sometimes resisted, i. e. 'tis rejected and deprived of the effect for which God gives it proximately, because they say, it is not effectual by itself, but is subject to , which rejects or submits thereunto as it lists.    

THE THIRD PROPOSITION, framed and exposed to Censure.  
To merit and demerit in the state of lapsed Nature, 'tis not requisite that there be in Man a freedom from Necessity of willing or acting, but a freedom from constraint (or coaction) is sufficient.  

THE THIRD PROPOSITION as we understand and defend it.  
To merit and demerit in the state of lapsed Nature, there is not requisite in Man a freedom from the Necessity of Infallibility and necessary certainty; but 'tis sufficient that he have a freedom from coaction accompanied with the judgement and exercise of Reason, if the essence of liberty and merit be precisely considered. Although by reason of the state wherein we are in this life, our soul hath always such an Indifference, whereby the Will can, even when it is guided and governed by Grace, proximately necessary and effectual by itself, not will; yet 'tis in such sort that it never willeth not, when it is actually assisted by such Grace.  
THE PROPOSITION contrary to the third, and defended by our Adversaries.  
To merit and demerit in the state of corrupted Nature there is required in Man a freedom from the necessity of Infallibility and necessary certainty. Or 'tis necessary that he have a proximate indifference of acting or not acting, whereby the Will being furnished with all things necessary to act, inclines itself sometimes to one side, sometimes to the other as it listeth.   

The Connexion of our Proposition with Effectual Grace.  
IF Grace necessary to every action be effectual by itself, it by its own strength predetermines the Will after an indeclinable, insuperable, infallible and perfectly victorious manner, to do an action of piety. Therefore in all free and meritorious actions there is found a necessity of infallibility, which comes from the promotion of Grace, and is a consequence of Grace effectual by itself; and if this kind of Necessity destroyed Liberty and Merit, it would follow, that Grace which is given to perform all free and meritorious actions were not effectual by itself. As for those words: 'Tis sufficient that he have a freedom from coaction, they do not signify that there is not an indifference of power in the merit and demerit of this state; for this would be heretical, and was never held by any Catholic: and therefore this opinion cannot be attributed to us without imposture and calumny; but 'tis to be understood by these words, that this kind of indifference of power in the state of fallen Nature, is not that which precisely, essentially and formally makes the act which tends to a good end, free and meritorious; although this kind of indifference be always found;— as the power to sin in the state of fallen Nature is not the essence of liberty nor part of it; and nevertheless by reason of the state of this life, it is always found therein as a sequel of liberty.  
'Tis in this sense only that we defend the third Proposition.  
On the contrary our Adversaries hold an Heretical sense in opposing it, because they destroy Grace effectual by itself. For they say, it is necessary to liberty and merit to have this proximate indifference of acting, whereby the Will having all pre-requisite strength to act, turns itself as it pleaseth, sometimes one way, and sometimes another: and consequently they pretend at liberty from the necessity of Infallibility; which ariseth from the virtue of Effectual Grace infallibly predeterminating the Will by its own strength, is requisite in this state to act freely: whence it follows, that they destroy the necessity of Grace effectual by itself to every action of piety; and thus they hold an Heretical opinion whilst they oppose the third Proposition.    

THE FOURTH PROPOSITION, framed and exposed to Censure.  
The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of internal preventing Grace to all good works, even to the beginning of Faith. And they were Heretics in that they held that Grace to be such as the humane Will of man might either resist, or obey.  

THE FOURTH PROPOSITION, as we understand and defended it.  
The Semipelgians admitted the necessity of preventing and internal Grace to begin all actions, even for the beginning of Faith; and their opinion was heretical, in that they held that Grace to be such as the Will obeys or rejects as it listeth, i. e. that it is not Effectual Grace.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition as to the first part which concerns matter of Fact, is true; and that as to the second it pertains to the faith of the Church, and is indubitable in S. Augustin's doctrine.  
THE PROPOSITION contrary to the fourth, and defended by our Adversaries.  
The Semipelagians admitted not the necessity of internal preventing Grace to begin every action, nor yet to the beginning of Faith; nor did they err in holding that Grace to be such as is not Effectual by itself.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition, held by Molina and our Adversaries, is Pelagian or Semipelagian, because it destroys the belief of Effectual Grace necessary to every good work, and likewise all S. Augustin's authority. And thus it hath been declared in the Congregations de Auxiliis held at Rome.   

The Connexion of this Proposition with Effectual Grace.  
GRace Effectual by itself necessary to every pious action, is the true medicinal Grace of Jesus Christ, which is proper to fallen and weak men, to the end they may will and operate all that belongs to piety. This faith is without doubt the true Prophetical, Apostolical and Catholic faith, as S. Augustin saith in Chap. 2. de Cor. & Grat. Therefore the Error or Heresy of the Semipelagians consisted, in their denying Grace Effectual by itself to be necessary to the beginning of faith, and to other imperfect acts of piety.  
'Tis to be observed that by these words, And they were Heretics in holding that Grace to be such as Humane will may either resist or obey; nothing else is meant (as 'tis expressed in the Proposition which we maintain) saving that the Semipelagians erred, in holding the Grace necessary to the beginning of faith and other acts of inchoated piety, to be such, as is not effectual by itself, or which the Will sometimes resists, sometimes obeys at pleasure.  
There is in the fourth Proposition a question of Fact, namely, whether the Semipelagians admitted an internal Grace subject to  for the beginning of Faith. We shall show that it is so; but if once it be evident that they erred, in denying Grace Effectual by itself for the beginning of Faith, that question of Fact will be of little importance.  
'Tis in this sense only that we defend the fourth Proposition.  
On the contrary, our Adversaries hold an Heretical sense whilst they impugn this Proposition, because they deny, that the true Grace of Jesus Christ consists in Grace Effectual by itself necessary to every action. They deny this to be the Catholic Faith; They pretend that the Semipelagians never erred in this point; but on the contrary held the Catholic Faith, although they denied the necessity of Grace Effectual by itself to the beginning of faith and other imperfect actions of piety. Which is impossible to admit without overthrowing the belief of the true Grace of Jesus Christ, and destroying S. Augustin's whole Authority and Doctrine.    

THE FIFTH PROPOSITION, offered to Censure.  
'Tis a Semipelagian Error to say, that Christ died, or shed his blood for all men, none excepted.  

THE FIFTH PROPOSITION, as we understand and defend it.  
'Tis a Semipelagian error to say, that Christ died for all men in particular, none excepted, so that Grace necessary to salvation is offered to all, none excepted, by his death; and that it depends upon the motion and power of the will to obtain salvation by that general grace, without help of other grace effectual by itself.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition pertains to the faith of the Church, and is indubitable in S. Augustin's doctrine.  
THE PROPOSITION contrary to the fifth, and defended by our Adversaries.  
'Tis not an error of the Semipelagians, but a Catholic Proposition, to say, that Christ by his death communicated to all men in particular, none excepted, the Grace proximately & precisely necessary to operate, or at least to begin salvation and to pray.  
We maintain and are ready to demonstrate, that this proposition, held by Molina and our Adversaries, contains a doctrine contrary to the Council of Trent, and that it is Pelagian or Semipelagian, because it destroys the necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ effectual by itself to every good work. And it hath been so declared in the Congregations de Auxiliis.   

The Connexion of our Proposition with Effectual Grace.  
GRace Effectual by itself necessary to every action, is the true Grace of Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Faith. Therefore 'tis a Semipelagian error to say, that Christ died for all men generally, none excepted, in such sense that grace necessary for Salvation is offered, by the merit of his death to all, none excepted; and that 'tis at the disposal of  to receive it without the help of Grace effectual by itself. Now this, we affirm, cannot be held without incurring Semipelagianism, because it manifestly infers, that Grace effectual by itself is not necessary to every pious action.  
'Tis in this sense alone that we defend the fifth Proposition.  
On the contrary our Adversaries hold an Heretical sense whilst they impugn this Proposition, because they say, that Jesus Christ died for all men generally; in this sense, that he hath communicated to them all, none excepted, the means necessary for their salvation, either giving them all the Grace's subject to , as well to begin and to pray, as to act (which is Pelagian, since this opinion excludes the necessity of Grace Effectual by itself for all actions of of piety) or at least giving them all the grace's subject to  for the beginning of faith and for prayer, so that every man who makes use of these graces, obtains when he pleases, and as often as he lists. Grace's effectual for acting, which is Semipelagian, because it excludes the necessity of Grace Effectual by itself for the beginning of faith, and other imperfect actions of piety. Moreover, it is contrary to the Council of Trent, Sess. 6. Cap. 3. where we read these very words, Although he died for all, yet all receive not the benefit of his death, but only they to whom the merit of his passion is communicated. Which shows, that the true grace of Jesus Christ, which is the fruit or benefit of his death, is not communicated to all by the merit of his passion.     
Whilst M. the Valcroissant was speaking all that I have related, which took up about two hours and a half, he twice or thrice took occasion to tell the Pope, that his Holiness should be much otherwise convinced and enlightened in the things which we alleged, when they came to be treated more leisurely and throughly before him in the presence of our Adversaries, and that when he saw them obliged to answer plainly and directly to the things which we should say against them, than his Holiness would know more evidently then by all our present Remonstrances, how necessary it was to hear both the one and the other contradictorily. M. the Valcroissant spoke this according to agreement between us, to intimate that we had still much more to say; that the presence of our Adversaries was requisite, and that we yielded to this Audience, only that we might obtain such a one as we demanded.  
He added further, That the Connexion which he had most clearly demonstrated of the Propositions reduced to our sense with the point of Grace Effectual by itself, evidently showed the necessity of beginning the discussion of this Affair, by the Examen and proof of the Efficacy of Grace by itself, both because all the rest depended upon it, and the proof of it served for a general proof of the Propositions, till we alleged the particular proofs of each of them.  
When the Abbot of Valcroissant had done, F. Des-mares began, and continued the series of his Discourse, (as we had agreed together) and undertook the proof of the Efficacy of Grace. His first argument was taken from the prayers of the Church, and lasted three quarters of an hour. But his vivacity and eloquence so roused the Hearers; particularly Cardinal Pamphilio, that they showed by their countenances what delight they took in hearing such excellent things so well urged and delivered. I cannot forbear to say, that I never heard F. Des-mares preach better at Paris then he spoke at this time. Which is as much as can be said to such as have been happy enough to hear some of his Sermons. When he cited any passages, as, e. g. of Innocent X. he read the same out of our Writing of Effectual Grace, and then drew so clear and strong arguments from them in a Scholastic way, that nothing could be imagined more convincing. The day began to fail him at the end of this Argument, and fearing he should want light to read his Quotation, he doubted whether he should proceed to the second; but the Pope and Assembly remaining in great silence, we whispered to F. Des-mares to proceed, partly out of respect to his Holiness, and partly to take from our Adversaries the pretext of alleging that we held our peace because we had no more to say. This second Argument being begun so late, the Father was obliged to leave his place once or twice, and go to the window to read some passages out of S. Augustin's book de gratia Christi, and then returned to his station, and drew his consequences and inductions from the same. But at length it became so dark that the Father could read no longer at the window, and therefore intimated his want thereof, that they might cause a light to be brought if they would have him to continue. In stead of which, M. Albizzi said, it was sufficient, and the Father stopped.  
His whole Discourse as he pronounced it before the Pope in pure Latin, I have thought fit to insert in a faithful Translation.  
A Discourse pronounced before the Pope by F. Des-mares.  
MOST HOLY FATHER,  
I Can wish that the worthy Doctor who hath spoken before me in Your Holiness' presence, had made an end of handling the point of Christ's Effectual and victorious Grace, with the same strength of judgement and eloquence as he began to explicate it. But since it would have been too laborious to him, I shall continue where he ended (having first most humbly asked Your holiness's permission) and endeavour to acquit myself of the Obligation incumbent upon me, to prove that 'tis a Catholic and invincible Truth, that Grace Effectual by itself is absolutely necessary to all actions of piety. For what hath been newly represented to Your Holiness, showing clearly that the Necessity of that Grace and our sense of the Propositions are so perfectly united, that the one cannot be granted or denied, without granting or denying the other; Where should I begin, M. H. F. and whereunto ought all my endeavours to tend, but to prove by invincible arguments the necessity of such Effectual Grace for all actions of piety; since this Necessity being once granted and established; the whole Controversy which agitates and troubles the Church touching the Five Propositions; will forthwith perfectly cease? and Your Holiness will clearly see, that the whole question being reduced to that single point; If the Effectual Grace which we hold be necessary, we shall become victorious; and if it be not, we shall be overcome.  
The probation of this Necessity is reduced chief to four Heads:  
The first contains sixteen proofs or arguments of S. Augustin, which Father's authority I principally use, because he is the first who by many excellent works proved against the Pelagians with no less strength than success, the Necessity of Effectual Grace.  
The second Head contains all the Decrees of Popes upon this matter, the definitions of Councils, and the opinions of all Fathers and Divines who have been in greatest reputation from S. Augustin's days to the present. Of all which; to avoid being tedious to Your Holiness, I shall treat succinctly.  
The third Head contains the Doctrine which ought to be held, to avoid falling into the errors of the Pelagians and Semipelagians, according to the judgements which were always passed thereupon in the Congregation de Auxiliis held at Rome.  
And the fourth contains sixty signal Errors or Heresies, drawn by necessary consequence from the doctrine contrary to that of S. Augustin, and from the grace held by the Molinists; which totally subvert the principal foundations of Christian Faith.  
But to eschew all equivocations and ambiguities, I conceive it necessary to represent briefly to Your Holiness what is to be understood by the words, Grace Effectual by itself, and by the sufficient Grace of the Molinists.  
By Grace Effectual by itself, we understand a Grace which by its internal strength and virtue, and (to use the Apostles words) by its Energy, not only makes a man able if he will, but makes him most certainly and invincibly to will. Now this strength and virtue of Grace is nothing else, (according as S. Augustin shows and teaches in many places against the Pelagians) but a certain celestial sweetness and delectation of love, or an infusion of charity into our hearts by the Holy Ghost, causing us to perform with a holy love the good, which we know.  
For as our own experience teaches us as well as S. Augustin, that which hinders us from doing an action of piety, is either our not knowing good, or not being affected with and delighted in it, at least not so much as we ought. So that to accomplish a pious action, it is requisite that what is hid from us be discovered to us, and what doth not please us be made agreeable to us.  
The first is effected by the Law and instructions, which dispel the darkness of our ignorance; 
a Lib. de Grat. Christi.  and the second by Grace which cures our weakness, or, to speak better, both the one and the other are given by Grace, which for this reason S. Augustin terms an Aid added to Nature, and to instruction by the inspiration of a most pure and fervent Charity.  
Thus, when Ged will have us love and do some good work, what doth he in us? He inspires into our heart (saith S. Augustin) an ardour of love and charity, the pleasure whereof surpasses the delight of sin, and its Celestial sweetness causes that what he commands us, pleases us more than what withdraws us from obeying him. And it is called Effectual Grace, inasmuch as the delight and spiritual allurement wherewith it is accompanied surpassing the pleasures of the flesh and the World, infallibly and invincibly causes us to will, because, 
b In Ep. ad Gal.  saith S. Augustin, 'Tis impossible for us not to act according to that which pleases us most.  
Your Holiness may judge by what I have newly said, how excellent, clear and true this way of S. Augustin's reasoning is, since among all the advantages which make truth esteemed, the principal is, that it is no sooner explicated then acknowledged, and needs no other proof but a plain and naked Exposition.  
On the contrary, They who maintain the Indifferent and Molinistical Grace, say, 'Tis a certain illumination of the Understanding, and a pious motion in the Will, indeliberate and not free, by means whereof a man may will and do some good; but Effectual willing depends upon his , which according as it lists sometimes willeth, and sometimes willeth not, turning now one way and anon another. Thus according to their sentiments, this kind of Grace never produces Effectually by itself the free consent of the Will, but is termed Effectual or ineffectual by a certain external denomination, according as it pleases Man's Will to use, or not use it. Whence it sufficiently appears that the Question between us, is, Whether Grace rules over the will, or the will over Grace: whether Grace subdue  to itself, or  Grace. Now we affirm, that Grace is victorious over , and is necessary to every pious action; to prove which, we draw our first Argument from the prayers of the Church, as S. Augustin always did. And truly M. H. F. it cannot be but an admirable Providence of God, that the first day of Rogations, in which the Church offers public prayers to God for obtaining his Grace, is the day whereon we begin to prove the necessity of the same Grace by those very prayers which the Church uses to obtain it, they being not only a powerful means for obtaining, but also a most clear proof for evincing the same. Now the Argument is this.  
The Grace which the Church begs of God for all actions of piety, is simply and absolutely necessary for performing the same. But Grace Effectual by itself, is that which the Church begs of God for every action of piety. Therefore Grace Effectual by itself, is simply and absolutely necessary to the doing of them.  
The Major of this Argument cannot be denied without wounding the Faith. For one of these three things must be said: Either, that the Grace which the Church begs for all actions of Piety, is no ways necessary towards the doing of them; or, that it is only necessary for their more easy and certain performance; or lastly, that it is absolutely necessary, so that no man can do good without it. He that should affirm the first, mocks God, as S. Augustin saith, By ask of him what he hath no need of. For what is more ridiculous, then to pray for that to be granted to us which is in our own power? He that maintains the second, falls into Pelagianism, For no other reason made Pelagius pass for an heretic in the present Question, but that he affirmed, That Men pray for the grace of God through Jesus Christ, and God gives it to them only that they may the more easily do that by Grace which they are able to do by their own . Whereupon S. Augustin tells Pelagius, Blot out the Word, more easily, and your sense will be Catholic. It remains therefore that the third be granted, which is, That the grace which the Church desires of God for all sort of pious actions, is absolutely necessary towards the performance of the same.  
Now to prove the Minor (in which lies all the difficulty and all the strength of my Argument) namely, But Grace Effectual by itself is that which the Church begs for all pious actions: I prove it thus. We do not only pray for a Grace which gives the power to do well, but for a Grace which besides giving that power, causes also by its effectual virtue that the action is accomplished, and that in every pious action; Or, to speak better, we pray to God to give us the very will and the very action; as for example, To give us faith itself, repentance, continence, perseverance and other Gifts belonging to piety and salvation. For see how S. Augustin speaks to Vitalis, who denied that God works all these things in us; Turn all your disputes against the prayers of the Church; and when you hear the Priest at the Altar exhort the people of God to pray for unbelievers that he would convert them to the faith; for the Catechumeni, that he would inspire into them the desire of regeneration; and for the faithful, that they may persevere as they have begun: then scoff at so holy an exhortation, and say, that for your part, you do not do that whereunto he exhorts you, that you do not pray God to make the Infidels believers, because you conceive the coversion of Infidels is not a benefit of God's mercy, but an effect of man's will.  
Now what is this Perseverance which we ask of God (that I may not insist upon the other graces which we receive from him, or rather that we may judge of them by this) See how S. Augustin explicates it in the book De Cor. & Grat. cap. 12. The Saints who are predestinated to the kingdom of God by Grace, do not only receive that help of perseverance (such as that which was given to Adam) but that which they receive is such, that perseverance itself is given to them, so that they not only could not persevere without that help, but with that help they cannot but persevere.  
Now what S. Augustin speaks of Perseverance, 'tis manifest that he everywhere speaks the same of Faith, Repentance and Continence: Whence this Argument may be formed, In the same manner that the Church prays to God for Perseverance, it prays also for Faith, Repentance, etc. But when the Church prays for Perseverance, it prays for the assistance of Effectual Grace, without which we cannot persevere, and with which we cannot but persevere. Therefore, when it prays for Faith, Repentance, etc. it prays for the assistance of Effectual Grace, without which we can neither be Believers, nor Penitent, &c, and with which we cannot but be so.  
Pope Celestine in his Letter to the French Bishops, confirms the same thing so clearly, that the whole eleventh Chapter, shows by the prayers mentioned in it, what is the faith of the whole Church touching the true and Effectual Grace of God. His words are these: Besides the inviolable Decrees of the most Holy Apostolic See, by which those most Holy Fathers rejected this detestable Innovation, (whose source is Pride) have taught us, that we ought to refer to the grace of Jesus Christ, both the beginning of a right will in Man, and his increasing in holy life, and his perseverance to the end: Let us consider also the solemn prayers made by the Priests, which having been left us by Apostolical Tradition, are uniformly celebrated in the whole Catholic Church throughout the World, to the end that the form of our prayers may be the rule of our faith. For Bishop's acting as Ambassadors to God in the name of the faithful committed to their charge, plead the cause of mankind in his divine presence, and all the Church accompanying their words with sighs and tears prays to God with them to give faith to Infidels; to deliver Idolaters from the impiety of their Errors; to make known his Truth to the Jews by removing the vail which is upon their hearts; to enlighten the minds of Heretics, by causing them to embrace the Catholic faith; to diffuse a spirit of charity into the breasts of Schismatics; to grant repentance to such as are fallen, & to open to the Catechumeni the door of the mercy of Heaven in the holy regeneration of the Sacrament of Baptism. And the effects show that 'tis not in vain, and only for form that we beg all these things of God, since he vouchsafes by his goodness to draw many persons out of all kind of errors and wander, to deliver them out of the power of darkness, and bring them into the kingdom of his beloved Son; and thus to change those into vessels of mercy who were at first vessels of his wrath. Which the Church in such sort acknowledges to be wholly God's work, that it doth not fail to give him thanks for it, and offer to him a song of praises, confessing him the author thereof, and that 'tis he that enlightened the Infidels, and converted the sinners.  
But M. H. F. This will appear more clearly, by considering the very expressions of the prayers which the Church offers to God throughout all the World by perpetual custom, in which it prays not only for the power to act, but also for the will and action itself. In this manner it speaks on the sixth Sunday after Pentecost; God of all power and might, who art the only author of all true good, graft in our hearts the love of thy H. Name, cause us to grow more and more in religious piety, to the end that thyself cherishing the seeds of virtue which thou hast planted in us, the same may be preserved by the pious and faithful care which thou shalt cause us to have thereof. And on the eighth Sunday; Grant, Lord, by thy mercy, that thy Spirit may inspire holy thoughts into us, and cause us to produce holy actions, that we who cannot live without thee, may by thee be able to live according to thy Will. And on the twelfth Sunday; Almighty and merciful God, through whose grace alone it cometh that thy faithful people do unto thee true and laudable service, be pleased so to uphold we, that without falling through our weakness we may constantly run towards those good things which thou hast promised. And on the sixteenth Sunday; Lord, we pray thee, that thy grace may always prevent and follow us; and mako us continually to be given to all good works. And on the Eve of Pentecost; Grant, Lord, that we may be able to subdue our depraved will, and accomplish in all things the Righteousness of thy holy Commandments. And in the secret Orison of the Mass on the fourteenth Sunday; Lord, convert and draw unto thee our rebellious wills.  
Nothing can more clearly evince, that the Grace which moves our rebellious will to return unto God is not subject to , or of such a nature as that it sometimes fails of its effect through the resistance of the will. But what motion is that whereby the Church prays that it may be turned to God? Certainly, 'tis not such an inconsiderate and blind motion, as that wherewith an insensible Instrument is moved, but 'tis that motion of divine Love, and that bond of most sweet and heavenly charity, by which God pulls and draws to himself him whom he pleases to render virtuous. In which respect there is no fear of our liberty being violated by that attraction and motion how victorious soever it may be. For being nothing is done in us more freely than that which is done by Love (according to that saying of S. Augustin, He who doth any thing willingly, always doth it freely;) How can it ever happen that Liberty should be destroyed by the cause which produces it in its whole plenitude? But I return to the prayers of the Church.  
Now the Church speaks thus in the secret Orison which it makes to God for the gift of tears; Cause us to shed tears of compunction for the hardness of our hearts, to the end we may bewail our sins. And in the Postcommunion, Lord, through thy goodness infuse into our hearts the grace of thy Holy Spirit, which may enable us to blot out the stains of our sins by sighs and tears.  
Moreover, The Church implores the gift of Charity; O God which canst cause things to work together for the good of those that love thee, stir up in our hearts an ardent sense of thy love, that no temptation may be able to alter the holy desires which thou hast inspired into ut by thy goodness. And on H. Friday; Let us pray also for the Catechumeni, that the Lord our God may open the ears of their hearts. And a Little after, Let us pray also for the perfidious Jews, that the Lord our God may remove the vail which lies upon their hearts. And in the Orison following; Hear the prayers which we offer unto thee, to take away the blindness of that people, that knowing Jesus Christ the light of thy Truth, they may come out of their darkness. And in the next; Let us pray also for the Heathen, that the Almighty God may root out the iniquity which is in their hearts. And on Holy Saturday after the first Prophecy, Grant that our hearts and minds may remain steadfast against the allurements of sin. And after the tenth Prophecy; Give us both to be willing, and to be able to perform that which thou commandest us. And in the Orison which is said at the Altar, taken out of S. Basil's Liturgy, of which almost the whole Eastern Church makes use, as Petrus Diaconus witnesseth in the eighth Chapter of his Treatise De Incarnatione & Gratia; Lord, give us virtue, and enable us to keep it. 'Cause that the wicked may become good, and continue the good in their goodness. For thou art able to do all things, and none can withstand thee. Thou savest when it pleaseth thee, and no man resisteth thy Will.  
This made S. Augustin say in cap. 7. De Praedest. Sanctorum; Let not the Church expect long Disputes from us, but consider the prayers which she offers daily to God; she prays to him that the incredulous may believe; therefore 'tis God that converts them to the Faith, She prays that they who believe may persevere, and consequently 'tis God that gives them perseverance to the end of their lives. And he concludes in these words: What man having a sound and vigilant Faith, can listen to humane Reasonings against what is taught him by this loud Trumpet of Truth?  
Many other like prayers there are made by Saints, and dispersed everywhere in the Holy Scriptures; such as this; Create a new heart in me, O God. And this; God open your heart to understand his holy Law, and make you walk according to his Commandments. And this other; God give you all such hearts that you may serve him, and perform his will with affection and zeal. And this other of S. Paul; God incline you to every good thing, by working in you that which is wellpleasing to himself. And we beseech him, not only that you may not do evil, but that you may do good.  
From all which passages this Argument may be formed; He who prays to God for all the things abovementioned, namely, to graft his love in our hearts, to reduce our rebellious will to himself by his goodness, to give us the will and the power to perform what he commandeth, to create a new heart in us, to make us walk in the way of his Commandments, to take out of us the heart of stone which hinders us from performing thereof, and to give us a heart of flesh which may cause us to perform the same, to cause that no temptations may be able to alter the holy desires which he inspires into us, & not only that we may not do evil, but do good; He, I say, who prays for all these things, doth not pray for a sufficient Grace whereby we may be able if we will, which leaves it at the disposal of our , to will or not will: but he asks an effectual and victorious grace, which causes us to will invincibly, and as far as is needful to perform that which we will. But the Church asks all these things of God in its ordinary prayers. Therefore, etc.  
On the contrary it cannot be said, that the Church ever thought of praying to God for such Grace as the Molinists' fancy. For supposing that God has given a just man the Grace to persevere, but such a Grace as doth not make him persevere, though he might persevere; can any one be so senseless as to say, that such Grace is the Grace of perseverance which the Church asks of God in its prayers, and whereof the Apostle saith, We pray God that you do not evil, but that on the contrary you may do good?  
Hence therefore we may argue against them in this manner; The Grace which the Church never asks of God, is not the true grace of Jesus Christ necessary and sufficient to every action of piety, Now the sufficient Grace of the Molinists, by which most frequently we neither will nor do good, can neither be that Grace which the Church implores of God. Therefore this kind of grace is not the true Grace of Jesus Christ necessary and sufficient to every action of piety; but a false, fictitious, and illegitimate grace.  
Wherefore, M. H. F. If this Grace be ever acknowledged to be the true Grace of Jesus Christ, all the prayers of the Church must be changed; those holy prayers which having been left to it by the Apostle, are repeated every day in the same manner upon Altars consecrated to God over all the World. For God, according to the opinion of Molina and his Disciples, giving us by his grace to be able if we will, or rather ability to will, and leaving it to our own  to will, it is evident that we should have nothing to ask further of God, and that no other Grace is to be expected from him.  
Whence every Christian will for the future be obliged to speak to God in this manner; Lord, give me a Grace whereby I may will that which thou commandest me. For as for to will and to do it, that I ask not of thee, because it depends upon myself. Leave that to my ; let not the power and efficacy of thy celestial Grace extend further; for then the liberty of my will would be violated. I desire a grace which may give me a possibility and the progress of that possibility, which may invite me, call me, and solicit me to good; but I desire not such a grace as should give me the affection of the will and the effect of cooperation. I desire not such grace as should determine me to will, apply me to action, lead me to act by its invincible force, and operate in me both to will and to do. On the contrary, I would have a grace which I may apply, or not apply according as I please.  
Good God ' Can any Christian endure to hear such language as this? What is more unworthy of the School of Jesus Christ, more remote from all sort of piety, and more insupportable to the ears of the faithful, than this manner of praying; since sinners would never be converted to God, if they waited till they had the will to be converted, and if by the omnipotence of his grace he did not work in their hearts that good will and that conversion? Moreover, the Church doth not beg for them a grace whereby they may be converted if they will, but a Grace which may make them willing, which may soften their hardness, and take away their heart of stone to give them one of flesh. We pray, saith S. Augustin, not only for those who are unwilling, hut also for those who resist and oppose. What do we ask then, but that they may be so changed as to will that which they were unwilling to, to approve that which they disapproved, and to love that which they withstood? Because, as the Eastern Church speaks, He saves when it pleases him, and none resists his will. Because, as S. Augustin saith, Lib. de Cor. & Grat. cap. 14. He hath an omnipotent power to lead the hearts of men whether he pleaseth; and because as he saith in another place, Who is he that can resist God to hinder him from doing what pleaseth him?  
After so many proofs, M. H. F. who sees not that this manner of praying (consecrated by the universal consent of the Church, and confirmed by the authentic testimony of S. Augustin) can in no wise consist with the doctrine of Molina and his indifferent Grace? Whatever his Partisans can say or do, and whatever subtleties thy may have recourse to, they will never avoid the just reproach of having endeavoured to overthrow all the prayers of the Church. Whereof the reason is evident; The Church asks nothing of God but what he doth effect. Now by their principles, God operates nothing in us but the possibility of willng and acting, and the increasing of that possibility. But according to the same principles of theirs, God operates not in us the very being willing, the very determination and application of the will to will, faith itself, repentance and the effect of love towards God, inasmuch as all these are other things than power. For according to them God works not willingness in us, but so far as he gives the power, and solicits this power in such sort that we perform all these things by using, as seems good to us, the grace which is once given us. Whence it clearly follows that they wholly destroy the Church's prayers, whereby she asks of God not only the Faculty, and the power of willing and doing good; but besides this, she precisely asks of him the will to do it, and the action itself which is the effect thereof.  
Will the Molinists say, that besides this grace of possibility we have need of some supernatural concourse, by which God acting with us, operates all actions of piety; and that 'tis this singular grace which the Church prays for, when she demands power and willingness to accomplish what God commands us? But being that according to their opinion this concourse, how supernatural soever it may be, is wholly in our own power by means of that sufficient grace abovementioned, just as natural concourse is in our own power in using our natural strength, which hath all that is necessary to it to render us capable of doing good; What can be more extravagant, as S. Augustin speaks, that to pray that we may be caused to do that which we have already power to do, and to ask for that to be given us which we possess already. This concourse therefore is not the grace which the Apostle so highly esteems, & which the Church so importunately implores in its prayers. Which may be invincibly proved by this one Argument: That grace, which by the means of sufficient grace, is entirely in our own power, so that we may, as we list, use or not use it, and and which can never be withheld from us by God; is not the Grace which the Church implores, when she prays God to take away this heart of stone and give us one of flesh in its stead; and to cause that we may will that which we will not, consent to what we reject, and love what we formerly opposed. But this concourse of the Molinists, how supernatural soever it may be, is such as may be made use of or not, at pleasure. Therefore it cannot be taken for the Grace so ardently prayed for by the Church.  
Perhaps our Adversaries will say, That that which the Church asks of God in her prayers is not the ability to do good, or that supernatural concourse which is in our power by means thereof, but that she prays him to grant her that ability in times, places, temper of the body and other circumstances of second causes, by means of which he foresees that we will freely consent to his Grace. And 'tis in this temper that they ordinarily place the efficacy of that grace which they hold.  
But if by this manner of speaking they meant nothing else but that the efficacy of God's grace consists in a certain degree of love towards God, that is to say, in a charity greater than cupidity, by means of which God gins to appear to us desirable, and good works for his sake, so that we take more pleasure in doing what he commands us, then in not doing what he forbids us; they would agree with us, and there would be no longer dispute between us touching this matter. For what else is the effectual and medicinal grace of Jesus Christ according to S. Augustin, but a victorious pleasure, a sweetness and ravishment of divine love which surmounts all the allurements of the flesh; and an ardour of charity overmastering and subduing cupidity? But because our Adversaries place not the efficacy of God's grace in the victory of charity over cupidity, but in a certain temperament accompanied with the circumstances abovementioned, whence it follows, that such efficacy is still subject to , and that 'tis necessary for God first to sound the heart of his creature that he may see what it will do in such circumstances before he ordain any thing of its conversion; This is that which we reject and condemn as profane, and maintain it to be in no wise that Grace which the Church prays for. For she prays God to shed into our hearts such charity, the delectation whereof surmounts the delectati-of sin; she prays him to fortify our souls by his H. Spirit, and to ground and root us in charity; she begs of him such medicinal grace as may heal our infirmities and give us inward strength; she prays him to co convert us to him in whatever estate we be, either of prosperity or adversity, joy or sadness; she desires of him to give us the strength never to consent to sin by leaving our selves to be overcome by afflictions, allurements or threaten; and lastly, she prays to be enaled with great charity and patience, to surmount bll the difficulties and accidents which occur in the acourse of our lives. What relation M. H. F. have all these things to the Temper or Constitution whereof we speak? Does he who prays to God in the manner I have set forth, believe that his omnipotent virtue and charity cannot operate conversion in man's heart, unless by causing those circumstances of times and places to meet with the will of man? Let them who are of this mind hear what S. Augustin saith, Who is so void of sense and so impious as to say, that God cannot change the perverse wills of men, and convert those to good which he pleases, when he pleases and where he pleases? Because, as he saith elsewhere, God hath the will's of men more in his power then they have themselves. Let them hear S. Prosper in his Poem of Grace, chap. 16. where he hath this sense; But the Grace of Christ, being through Christ , heals a languishing soul after another manner; 'tis the spirit and hand of God himself, both beginning and accomplishing his divine work. Let a man, be young or old, rich or poor, yet when that exerts its activity, any time is ; Nothing withstands its powerful assistance; hardness of heart does not stop its course. And all the vain power of the second cause yields to his high designs purposed before the foundations of the world. Whence this Argument may be framed. The grace of God, which is of such a nature that it can change the most opposite wills of men, and convert to good those whom he pleases, when he pleases, and where he pleases, (he having always in his power the means of doing that which pleases him, without ever being liable to any retardment from the contrary manners or inclinations of men by any cause or obstacle whatsoever) is perfectly free and independent, as to its efficacy, or any natural disposition whatsoever. But the Grace by which God converts the wills of men, and which the Church asks of him in her prayers, is such, according to S. Augustin and S. Prosper, and the contrary opinion cannot be held without folly or impiety. Therefore the Grace by which God turns the wills of men, and which the Church desires in her prayers, is perfectly free, and independent upon any natural disposition whatsoever; and the contrary opinion is impious.  
But moreover we see that the Church's prayers are grounded not only upon God's prescience but upon his virtue and energy which acts upon our will as it pleases him. For as is above shown, the Church prays thus in the Collect of the Holy Altar, used almost throughout the whole East; Lord, give us virtue and the means to preserve it, cause the wicked to become good, and uphold the good in their goodness. For thou art able to do all things, and none can withstand thee. Thou savest when thou pleasest, and no person resists thy pleasure. Whereas on the contrary by this Answer of the Molinists, the prayers of the Church should not be grounded upon the power but the prescience of God; and 'twould not be needful to pray for a Grace whereby he may turn our will to himself and fill us with his love, but only for a Grace whereby he may know by his prescience that we will turn ourselves to him, not by the power of a determining and applying grace, but by the motion of our own . Whence it would follow, that God gives only a grace of Possibility, whereof he foresees our will will make good use in such and such circumstances, and not the grace to will and to do, that is, which operates both the will and the action, which is the most impious opinion that can be imagined.  
Again, 'tis indubitable that God by his prescience knows all the good works which we are to perform. But the ground of his knowing them beforehand, is, that 'tis himself who will do them; he sees them before they are done, because he has prepared and predestinated the good works in which he will have us walk. See how S. Augustin speaks touching this matter in the book De Praedest. Sanctorum, cap. 10. That which the Apostle saith, speaking of good works: That God hath prepared them to cause us to walk therein, denotes Predestination, which cannot be without Prescience, as Prescience may be without Predestination. For God by his predestination hath foreseen the things which himself is to do: Whence it it is said by the Scripture, That God doth the things which are not yet come to pass; but he can also know these by his Prescience which himself effecteth not, as all sins. After which he proves, that the good works which we perform are not those which God hath barely foreseen, but which he hath promised, and consequently works in us. For he promiseth, saith he, what he is to effect himself, and not what men are to effect; because though men perform holy actions pertaining to the Worship of God, yet 'tis God himself who causeth them to perform what he hath commanded them; and 'tis not they who cause God to accomplish what he hath promised; otherwise it would follow, that the accomplishment of God's promises depended upon men, and not upon God himself, and that 'twas they who acquitted God towards Abraham of what he had promised to Abraham. Now that H. Patriarch had no such belief, but giving glory to God, he steadfastly believed that God was able to do what he had promised. The Scripture saith not, that God could foretell or foresee it. For he can foretell and foresee what others will do and not himself; but it saith, that he could do it; denoting thereby that what he promised, was not what others were to do, but what he would do himself.  
From which words of S. Augustin, I shall with Your favour M. H. F. form this Argument. The prayers which the Church makes to God, have no other foundation but God's very promises. But God's promises are founded only upon his power and not upon his prescience. Therefore the Church's prayers are likewise founded only upon God's power. This Argument may be propounded after another manner and more convincingly. God acts in the hearts of men to work out their salvation in such manner as he has promised to act therein. But God promised Abraham the faith and conversion of Idolatrous Nations, not because he foresaw that they would believe, but because he had power to cause them to believe. Therefote he daily acts after the same manner in the heart of man in reference to faith and conversion, not because he foresees that man will turn by his grace, but because he is able and hath resolved to work such consent in his heart.  
But I will concede to our Adversaries that the Church prays to God for no other grace in order to all actions of piety, then that which they call Congruous in the sense before explicated, and to which he foresees that man will freely consent if he give him the same. Yet this very thing is more than sufficient to refute their doctrine and convince their errors. For, as 'tis evident by what I have already said, the Church asks no other grace of God for a pious action, then that which it believes wholly and absolutely necessary to the doing thereof. But the Church for every pious action desires that grace which they term Congruous. And consequently believes absolutely and wholly necessary to every pious action. Thus they who have not this Grace for a certain action of piety, suppose Repentance, have not all the grace which is necessary to repent. But all whom the Church prays God to turn to himself by repentance, have not this congruous grace of repentance; for if they had, they would be effectively turned, and 'twere superfluous to desire God to give it them. Therefore all those for whose conversion to God by repentance the Church prays, have not all the grace which is necessary to repent. How then can it be said that they have a grace perfectly sufficient thereunto?  
Is it not therefore, M. H. F. more clear than the day, the points of the Molinists' doctrine are wholly opposite either to the Catholic faith, or to themselves? For they must necessarily grant one of these two things, either that the Grace which the Church implores for the conversion of sinners is not absolutely necessary for their conversion, which is undoubtedly impious and heretical; or that sinners have not all the grace which is sufficient for repenting, since they have not that which is necessary thereunto.  
In the second place another argument may be drawn from the Church's prayers, to show that she implores of God no other grace then that which by its invincible power works in the hearts of men, the motion, the consent, and an actual conversion, and which she believes absolutely necessary for producing so saving an effect. For when Infidels or sinners withstand God's word, she prays for them that they may not resist but consent. She prays, as S. Augustin saith, in the place before alleged, that they may be so changed as to will that which they willed not, to approve that which they disapproved, to love that which they opposed. Thence she believes that when they consent not but resist, they have not from God the grace which is necessary to consenting: which shows that she believes that the necessary Grace is that which surmounts resistance and produces consent: which is no other thing then to say that Grace effectual by itself is absolutely necessary.  
Let any Molinist now come to maintain, (what he cannot deny, unless he will disclaim all his own principles) that an unbeliever and opposer of the Gospel, suppose some Jew of this City, hath all the grace necessary to believing; nevertheless he must acknowledge that the Church prays for him to the end he may believe. What doth she implore for him? What grace doth she pray God to grant to, this Infidel? It cannot be that which is necessary to believing, since if it were, he should not have all the grace necessary to believing; which is contrary to the Hypothesis, there being a manifest contradiction between these two contradictories, namely that this man hath all the grace necessary to believing, and that he wants some grace necessary thereunto. Thus it follows from the principles of the Molinists that the Grace which the Church implores for this man is not necessary for him, unless perhaps to lead him more easily and surely to believing.  
Whence this argument may be formed. If an Unbeliever who resists the Gospel, hath all the Grace which is necessary for him to believe; it follows that when the Church prays for him to the end he may be converted to the faith, she asks not of God to grant him a Grace which is absolutely necessary for his believing. But according to the Molinists, an unbeliever who resists the Gospel, hath all Grace necessary to his believing. Therefore when the Church prays for him that he may be converted to the faith, she asks not a grace which is absolutely necessary to his believing.  
You see, M. H. F. how the prayers of the Church are destroyed by this means. For these two things are perfectly opposite, namely, that an Infidel who resists the Gospel hath all the grace from God which is necessary for his believing; and that nevertheless the Church desires some grace for him which is necessary thereunto. Whence it follows that if an Infidel who resists the Gospel, hath all necessary Grace, 'tis in vain that the Church prays for him; or if 'tis not in vain, than he hath not all the grace necessary to his believing. Whereby Y. H. clearly sees that what Molina holds herein is contradictorily opposite to the prayers of the Church, and that we have right to say with S. Augustin; 'Tis then in vain and most unprofitably rather then truly that we address prayers to God for them, to the end that by believing they may assent to the doctrine which they oppose, if 'tis not the proper effect of his grace to convert to the faith of his Gospel the wills of men who oppose the same faith. But because the Church prays not vainly and unprofitably, it follows that the Infidel who resists the Gospel, hath not all the Grace which is necessary for him to believe, because he hath not the effectual Grace which might cause him to believe. Wherefore Grace effectual by itself is that which the Church asks of God, and which she believes and maintains to be absolutely necessary to every pious action.  
In the third place, M. H. F. this invincible argument may be drawn from the Church's perseverance in prayer. When the Church prays for the conversion of an Infidel to the faith, or of a sinner to repentance; what ever grace of possibility he may have received whereby he is able to turn himself, but doth not; yet the Church never ceases to continue praying to God to convert him and make him embrace repentance, and free him from the bonds of the devil till he be converted to God by faith and repentance. Therefore what ever Grace of possibility can be fancied, yet there is another grace besides which subdues free will to itself, & which the Church implores of God, which gives possibility with effect so as to work consent, and which as S. Austin speaks, constrains the unbeliever to embrace the faith. But 'tis this grace which is effectual by itself, which who so hath, is undoubtedly converted, and who so wants is not converted. Therefore the grace of faith of repentance which the Church prays for, is effectual by itself. And because, as I have often said already, the Church asks no grace of God but what she confesses to be necessary; it follows that the Grace which she asks is necessary and effectual by itself. This appears clearly by S. Augustin's words in the end of the 107th letter. Do you not go about to hinder the Church from praying for unbelievers to the end they may become believers? from praying for such as will not believe to the end they may be willing to believe? from praying for those who contradict her law and doctrine, that the may consent to the same, and that God would give them as he hath promised by the Prophet a heart to know God and ears to hear, the receiving of which is denoted by our Saviour when he saith, He that hath an ear to hear let him hear? And when the Lord's Priest being at the Altar, you hear him exhort the people to pray to God, or pray aloud himself that he would so constrain the Infidels as to make them embrace his H. faith, will you not answer, So be it?  
This being supposed, M. H. F. I demand whether or no an Infidel who resists the Gospel hath a heart to know God? whether or no he hath ears to hear? whether or no he hath grace which compels him to the faith? If he hath all these things, to what purpose doth the Church pray for him that he may receive what he already possesses? If he hath not, than he hath not all the grace which is necessary to him for believing, since (besides what I have frequently evinced, that the Church implores no grace of God which is not necessary) 'tis certain that none can know God unless he have received a heart to know him, nor hear his word unless he have received ears to hear. Moreover, this Grace being effectual by self, since as 'tis impossible for a man to know God unless he have received a heart to know him, so neither if he have received such a heart, can he but know him; having received a heart to repent, he cannot but repent; having received ears to hear, he cannot but hear; being impelled by that motion which causeth to embrace the faith, he cannot but embrace the same: It follows clearly, that the grace which the Church implores of God as necessary every action of piety, is effectual by itself.  
In the fourth place the same truth is invincibly manifested by the refutation of the Molinistical grace, even in S. Austin's own words, speaking in this manner to Vitalis a Semipelagian; You say, that God as much as lies in him, causes us to Will, since he gives us the knowledge of his pleasure, but if we will not obey the same, 'tis we who are the cause that God's operation is fruitless to us. Which if you affirm, you contradict the prayers of the Church.  
Which reasoning of S. Augustin utterly refutes any grace what ever that is subject (in its usse) to Free Will, as being utterly contrary to the prayers of the faithful. This Argument will evince it. Whosoever establishes a doctrine, from which it follows that he is of an opinion contrary to the prayers of the Church (as S. Augustin here judges that of Vitalis) he is in an error and alienated from the orthodox belief of the Catholic faith. But he who maintains a sufficient Grace subject to Freewill establishes a doctrine from which it follows that he holds an opinion contrary to the prayers of the Church. Which is proved by S. Augustin in this manner; Whosoever saith that we through our resistance and unwillingness to obey, cause God's operation upon us to become unprofitable, manifestly contradicts the Church's prayers. But he who maintains a sufficient Grace subject to Freewill, saith that we by resisting such sufficient Grace and by not willing to submit thereunto, cause God's operation to become unprofitable. Therefore he is in an opinion contrary to that of the Church's prayers, and consequently errs, and is not in the belief of the Catholic faith.  
Moreover all the thanks rendered to God by the Church prove the same thing; or as S. Augustin speaks in his 107. Epistle to Vitalis, This truth appears no less clearly in  then in prayer. It appears in the prayer which we put up to God for such as are still unbelievers; and it appears in the thanks which we render to him in behalf of those who are become believers. For as we ought to pray to him to the end he may accomplish that for which we pray, so we ought to render him thanks when he hath accomplished the same. Wherefore from the duty of thanksgiving I draw the 3. following arguments.  
First, We render thanks to God, not only for what we have been able to do, but for what we have been willing to do with piety, and accordingly performed. Thus S. Augustin teaches us in his Epistle to Vitalis, where he saith, Whence it is that the Apostle requires the same thing of the Ephesians, when he saith, Moreover having understood what your faith is towards our Lord Jesus Christ, and your love to all the Saints, I continually give thanks in your behalf: but we speak now only of the first beginning of faith, when men who were remote and even averse from God, are converted to God, and begin to will that which they willed not, and to have the faith which they had not; for the effecting of which alteration in them, it is, that we pray for them, although themselves pray not, because they cannot call upon him in whom they do not believe. And when God hath wrought that in them for which we prayed (i. e. when he hath turned their hearts) we give him thanks in their behalf, and themselves do the same. But as for the prayers which they make when they are already believers both for themselves and for the other faithful, that God would cause them to proceed in his way; and as for the thanks which they render to him, when they do accordingly proceed therein, I conceive there needs no dispute concerning the same.  
From which words of S. Augustin, I most humbly beseech Y. H. to give me leave to form this argument against the Molinists. We give thanks to God for what he hath already wrought in us: But there is no pious motion of our will nor any pious action, for which we do not give him thanks. Therefore there is no pious motion in our will nor any pious action which God doth not work in us. And consequently the grace of God necessary to every action of piety is effectual by itself of every pious motion of the will and of every pious action.  
'Tis therefore unprofitably, saith S. Augustin in the same Epistle to Vitalis, and merely for fashion, rather than really, that we render thanks to God with joy when any unbelievers are converted, if it be not he who worketh that in them for which we thank him. Let us not deceive men, I beseech you, for as for God we know that we cannot deceive him.  
The second Argument is this. The Church doth not give thanks to God for the conversion of any one to faith or repentance, unless when the is persuaded that he really believes or reputes in his heart for his offences, The Church therefore doth not believe, that God hath wrought the conversion of the sinner, and afforded all necessary assistance thereunto when he hath only granted the grace which gives only the power, as the Molinists hold; but then only when he hath inspired the grace by virtue whereof the first conversion undoubtedly followed, as I said when I spoke concerning prayer. This is proved evidently by that passage of S. Augustin, The Apostle having said that the Law is the strength of sin, subjoins immediately, But we give thanks to God who hath caused its to overcome through our Lord Jesus Christ. And thus the victory whereby we surmount sin, is nothing else but a gift of God, who in this combat assists our Freewill. Upon which account Christ himself saith, Watch and pray, that ye fall not into temptation; and thus all who stir against their concupiscence-ought to pray that they enter not into temptation, that is, that it may not captivate and prevail over them. But we fall not into temptation, when by a right will we surmount an evil lust. These last words of S. Augustin are very much to be observed, as whereby he clearly teaches that he who doth not overcome temptation, but on the contrary is overcome by it, hath not had that grace which the faithful implore of God, when they pray him not to suffer them to enter into temptation, Whence it evidently follows, that the grace necessary for overcoming all kind of temptations, which the faithful beg of God in their prayers, and for which they thank him when they have received it, is not only a grace of possibility dependant upon , but a grace of possibilty, of will and of action, and consequently effectual by itself.  
The third Argument is this, If God's grace affords only a possibility and worketh not the very consent, that is a right or good will, by its own strength, than we ought to thank God for giving us the faculty to will aright or do well, but not for what we have done well and co-operated with his grace. According to Molina's principles, we ought to thank him for giving us a grace which he foresaw we would use well and cooperate therewith. But to speak according to truth; we could not thank him for that we had used that grace well and co-operated therewith, since this use and co-operation would not be given us by God, but left to our : which cannot be so much as thought of without impiety.  
I conceive, M. H. F. that Y. H. clearly sees how strong and invincible this Argument drawn from the prayers and thanksgiving of the Church, is, to prove that Grace effectual by itself is necessary to all actions of piety. Which caused S. Augustin to say with so great reason in the seventh chapter de Dono Perseverantie; Had we no other instructions but this, the Lord Prayer were more than sufficient to uphold the cause of Grace which we defend. And in the 23d. Chapter; As the Church was from its first rise instructed in those Prayers, so she hath been instructed and educated in this faith, and is every day more and more confirmed therein. And in the 95. Epistle to Pope Innocent I. Prayer itself is a most clear proof of Grace. And Pope Celestine in the 10. Chap. of his Epistle to the Bishops of France, The manner according to which we ought to pray, teaches us also what we ought to believe. Wherefore 'tis no wonder if S. Augustin in all his Works and all the H. Fathers, who together with him so stoutly maintained the true grace of Jesus Christ against the Pelagians, have shown the tradition and constant and perpetual doctrine of this grace effectual by itself in the prayers which the Church hath offered to God from the beginning of her establishment, and which she will continue to offer to him till the end of the world. For the Church hath always daily implored of God the actual believing and conversion of the hearts of all Infidels, whose wills are remote from, and contrary to him; and in behalf of the faithful, who believe in him with the heart and confess him with the mouth, perseverance and victory in temptations: and for all there gifts the incessantly renders thanks to him.  
Having therefore most clearly proved, M. H. F. that there two principles are of the Catholic faith; first, that the Grace which the Church asks of God in her prayers, is necessary; and secondly, that it is effectual by itself, and that we cannot imagine that the Church prays for any other. Wherefore it irrefragably follows from those prayers of the Church, that Grace effectual by itself is necessary to all actions of piety, and that consequently whoso denies, manifestly subverts all the Church's prayers.  
Your Holiness, M. H. F. may hence very easily judge what opinion you ought to have of this new doctrine, of a Grace subject to our ; and I dare boldly affirm in your presence, for a conclusion of this first point of our dispute, that this doctrine of Molina is no less pernicious and sacrilegious than the very doctrine of Pelagius. For the Fathers of the Council of Carthage in their Epistle to Pope Innocent, (which is the 90th amongst those of S. Augustin) declare that the opinions of the Pelagians are sacrilegious and pernicious, to as much as it necessarily follows from their doctrine, that we ought not to pray to God not to leave us to fall into temptation; and that it seems a vain thing that the Church implores of him in behalf of his people what the prays for, to the end they may please him by living in his love & fear.  
Now he who maintains an opinion from whence such things follow, however his words be different from those of Pelagius, and whatever other grace he admit, yet he also embraces a pernicious, deadly and sacrilegious doctrine; and what he adds concerning the necessity of a sufficient Grace subject to , hinders nor but that he is in an error; because they who hold this Grace, can as little as the Pelagians, avoid contradicting the prayers & thanksgivings of the Church (as I have proved) and declaring themselves enemies of that Grace of God, which the prayers of the Saints prove so evidently, that is to say, Grace effectual by itself.  
All this Doctrine of the Fathers of the Carthaginian Council, confirmed also by that of Milevis, was approved by Pope Innocent I. in the Epistle he writ to them (which is the 91. amongst those of S. Augustin) We see not (saith he) any thing to be added to what you have done, because we see not that you have omitted or forgotten any thing fur the perfect refutation of those Errors, and the convincing of such as maintain them.  
It appears also by the whole Epistle that the principal cause why that great Pope detested the Pelagian Error, was, for that it takes away the necessity of Prayer. Pelagius (saith he) and Celestius are so presumptuous as to endeavour to persuade us that we ought to implore God's aid, and have no need of it, although all the Saints affirm that without it we can do nothing. And afterwards; there being nothing whereunto our profession more obliges us, and all our daily prayers tending only to implore God's mercy, how can we endure them who teach these Errors? But see the thundering words wherewith that most H. Pope strikes the Pelagians; Being armed, saith he, in their discourses with false subtleties, they cover themselves with the vail of the Catholic and Orthodox faith, and exhaling a mortal poison to infect the hearts of those who hold the sound doctrine and cause them to embrace error, they endeavour to overthrow the whole belief of the true faith. Wherefore the course of so dangerous a poison requires to be checked, to the end it may spread no further; 'tis requisite to apply the Iron and the Fire to this sore. For what can be more wicked and heathenish, more remote from our holy Religion, and more opposite to the first of Christianity? Is there any thing more deadly to souls, more apt to thrust them into a precipice, and more likely to expose them to all kind of dangers? They thereby highly declare themselves themselves enemies of the Catholic faith; they publish their ingratitude for the benefits which they have received from God, and care not to be worthy of our Communion, since they have polluted it by publishing such errors. They have absolutely abandoned our Religion. For there is nothing whereunto our profession more obliges us, and all our daily prayers to God tending only to implore his mercy, how can we endure them who teach such errors? What strange error is that which blinds them? Do not they deserve to be plunged as they are in such gross darknesses? 'Tis fit to root them out of the midst of us; they are to be driven far from the Church, that the evil may be kept from taking more root in our bowels, and by spreading further become incurable. What this Gangrene hath corrupted, is to be cut off from what remains sound in the body of the Church, to the end the strength of so dangerous a poison reach not to the parts which are not yet sick, and that the flock may remain sound by the separation of the sheep infected with this cruel pestilence.  
Now wherefore, M. H. F. doth this great Pope speak with so much heat against those Heretics, unless because they dared to affirm, that men have no need of Effectual Grace for the performing of Righteousness, overcoming of sin, and observing of God's Commandments? For he accuses them throughout the said Letter of denying that assistance of God which we pray for; and consequently of taking away the necessity of prayer. But the succour which we ask and obtain by prayer, is effectual by itself and cannot be understood after any other manner, as I have most clearly proved. Consequently, the cause of his condemning them as Heretics, and declared enemies of the faith and Christian piety, is, because they affirmed, that we have no need of the grace of God effectual by itself for the accomplishing the Commandments & surmounting temptations. Now this is the very same which the Molinists teach and maintain at this day, whilst they hold their sufficient Grace subject to ; and I shall further press them with this Argument, which shall be the conclusion of all that I have hitherto spoken.  
The cause why S. Augustin, the Fathers of the Council of Carthage, Pope Innocent I. and the whole Church condemned the doctrine of the Pelagians, as impious, heretical & sacrilegious, is, for that it follows from thence, that the Grace which the Church begs of God by her prayers, is not necessary in order to doing good. Whence it appears, that every Doctrine from whence the same consequence may be drawn, is likewise heretical, sacrilegious, and worthy to be strucken with Anathema. But it follows from the Molinistical doctrine of sufficient Grace subject to  as to its use, that the grace which the Church asks of God by her prayers is not necessary in order to doing good, since, as I have shown by invincible proofs, the Grace implored by the Church's prayers, is effectual by itself, and it follows from the doctrine of sufficient Grace subject to  is not necessary to doing good. Therefore it follows from the doctrine of Molinistical grace, that the Grace implored by the Church's prayers is, not necessary to doing good; and thus by manifest consequence the doctrine of Molinistical grace subject to  aught according to the judgement of S. Augustin, all the other Bishops of afric, Pope Innocent I. and the universal Church, to be accounted heretical, sacrilegious, and worthy to be struck with Anathema.  
I purposed M. H. F. here to end this so long Dispute at this time, for fear of being tedious to Your Holiness, but judging by the gentleness and extreme goodness wherewith You do me the honour to hear me, that You give me full liberty of speaking, and will not be displeased that I employ what remains of this day in bringing new proofs; I shall endeavour to show by a second testimony of S. Augustin the truth of the same Proposition which I have undertaken to prove, and which is the subject of all the present Contest; namely, that Grace effectual by itself is necessary to all actions of piety. 'Tis the subject which that great Saint handles in the book De Gratia Christi, wherein he represents so clearly and with such lively colours what is the true Grace of Jesus Christ, to the end that the same may be distinguished from that false Grace, which Pelagius endeavoured to establish by his disguisements and artifices. But that the testimony of this great Light of the Church may have as much weight and authority upon Your Holiness' mind as it deserves; I conceive requisite to give Your Holiness a brief account of the occasion of S. Augustin's writing that Book. 'Tis therefore to be observed, as Ecclesiastical History and that Book itself teach us, that Albinus, Pinianus and Melanius, so Illustrious among the Romans for their birth, quality and piety, that none surpassed them in Nobility, Dignity and Riches, going out of devotion into Palestine, and there finding Pelagius, exhorted him to condemn in writing the evil opinions whereof he was accused; whereunto he scrupled not to condescend, in hope that by pronouncing a false Anathema upon them, and making a disguised and artificial profession of faith, he might attract to himself persons of so great authority, and cause all the world to judge him innocent, not only of the crime, but likewise of the suspicion of Heresy. See the words which he writ; I anathematise those who affirm or believe, that the grace whereby Jesus Christ came into the World to save sinners is not necessary, not only in all places of the earth, but also in every moment and in all our actions: And I acknowledge, that all they who endeavour to abolish or oppose it, fall into eternal condemnation.  
Assoon as Albinus and Pinianus had this confession of Pelagius' faith in their hands, they sent it to S. Augustin, and desired him to send them his judgement upon it. He answered them, that Pelagius spoke like a Catholic, and yet was much to be disinherited, because he hide his poison under the ambiguity of the word Grace, thereby the more easily to deceive such as took not the more heed thereunto. And upon this occasion he expressly writ a whole Book concerning the grace of Jesus Christ, and sent the same to them; wherein he descries all Pelagius' artifices, unfolds all the ambiguities of his words, teaches what is to be understood by the words [Jesus Christ's Grace] and what Grace that is which Pelagius ought to confess necessary to every pious action, if he would not be barely a nominal, but also a real Christian.  
Now before I engage further in this discourse, I humbly beseech Your Holiness to give me leave to observe two things by the way: First, That the understanding of the true Grace of Jesus Christ and its efficacy upon the will of men, doth not concern only Doctors, Bishops, Priests and monastics, but also the Laics of what sex and condition soever; for S. Augustin hath addressed his principal works against the Pelagians to Lay-people, to the end they might not be drawn into their Error by their subtleties and vain Philosophy. For we see that he hath written a Book entitled De Spiritu & Litera to Marcellinus, and that De meritis & remissione peccatorum to the same; that De natura & Gratia to Jacobus & Fimasus; that De Gratia Jesus Christi, (of which I make use for the framing of this Argument) to Albinus, Pinianus & Melanius; that De gratia & libero arbitrio to the Monks of Adrumetum, (for in those day's Monks were reputed amongst the Laics) and afterwards to the same that De-Correctione & Gratia. Wherefore 'tis no wonder if the same S. Augustin in his 120 Epistle reckons those in the number of the foolish virgins that are excluded from the Kingdom of heaven; who bear not in their hearts the understanding and love of Grace; and who are ignorant, as he saith, in chap. 37. that none can be continent unless God give him continence.  
The second thing which I draw and observe from thence, is, that this single book is more than sufficient to decide all the controversies that can arise touching the grace of Jesus Christ. For Pelagius, ever after the Council of Diospolis, where he was constrained to renounce his error, constantly acknowledged with the Catholics, that the grace of God by Jesus Christ is necessary to every action of piety. But the difficulty was, what is to be understood by the term Grace. Which was the cause that S. Augustin continually repeats the sense thereof in his book. When Pelagius saith, that  hath always need to be aided by the grace and assistance of God, the question is what grace and assistance he means: wherefore 'tis not sufficient to denominate a man a Catholic, that he acknowledges a Grace of God necessary to every act of piety, since heretics themselves believe, or make semblance of believing as much, but we must moreover agree upon the true Grace of Jesus Christ, without contriving another in stead of it. Now being S. Augustin composed that book of the Grace of Jesus Christ, to take away all ambiguity which might be found in the word Grace, we have nothing else to do but to weigh and consider with great care what he understood by the word Grace when he disputed against Pelagius in the name of the whole Church, and what that Grace is which he would oblige that heretic to confess necessary to every act of piety, that he might be held a Catholic. In which we cannot be mistaken, being S. Augustin hath unfolded the meaning of it in a great multitude of definitions, whereof I shall briefly recite some of the principal to Y. H.  

'Tis that, saith he, whereby God inspires a holy delectation, to the end to cause us to do all that which we know we ought to do. chap. 3.  
'Tis that, whereby God operates in us not only the power but the will and the action, chap. 3.  
'Tis that, whereby God inspires the ardour of love into the will. chap. 6.  
'Tis that, whereby every good thing is not only enjoined but persuaded to us. chap. 10.  
'Tis that, which is not common to all because, all have not faith, and suasion is not always accompanied with persuasion. Ibid.  
'Tis that, which is intimated in those words; No man can come unto me unless he be drawn by my Father who sent me. Ibid.  
'Tis that, which we ought to believe God diffuses from above into the soul with ineffable sweetness, not only by causing it to know the truth, but by inspiring charity into it. chap. 13.  
'Tis that, whereby God together gives to such whom he calls according to his purpose, both to know what they ought to do, and to do what they know their duty. Ibid.  
'Tis that, whereby God's commandments seem not terrible but easy. Ibid.  
'Tis that, whereby all who are drawn and taught by the Father come to the Son: according to those words of the Gospel, whosoever hath heard and learned of my Father, cometh to me, chap. 14.  
'Tis that, whereby God teacheth men inwardly, insuch a manner, that not only their mind knows what they have learned of him, but their will desires it and their actions perform it. Ibid.  
'Tis that, whereby not only the natural possibility of willing and operating is assisted, but also the will and operation itself. Ibid.  
'Tis that, which together gives the advancement of the possibility, and the affection of the will and the effect of the action. Ibid.  
'Tis that, whereby God with an internal, hidden, admirable and ineffable power works in the hearts of men not only a true knowledge but also a right will. chap. 24.  
'Tis that, which the Apostle prayed for in these words; we pray God not only that you may not commit evil, but that you may do good. chap. 25.  
'Tis that, whereby the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the H. Spirit which is given us, so that without it we cannot do any good relating to piety and true righteousness. chap. 26.  
'Tis that, whereby God gives us, not the spirit of fear, but that of virtue, charity and continence. chap. 33.  
'Tis that, whose assistance giveth the will and the action by the infusion of the H. Spirit. chap. 34.  
And lastly, 'tis that which by the inspiration of a most ardent and pure love is a help and furtherance to do well, added to nature and instruction. chap. 35.   
These are the conditions and properties of the true grace of Jesus Christ, by which it distinguishes it from whatever other grace can be feigned or imagined, and which 'tis evident cannot quadrate but to grace effectual by itself. From whence I draw this argument,  
The Grace whereunto S. Augustin attributes all these Properties is the true Grace of Jesus Christ necessary to every action of piety. But Grace Effectual by itself is that whereunto S. Augustin attributes all these Properties. Therefore Grace effectual by itself is necessary to every action of piety.  
The same Argument which establishes the Effectual Grace of Jesus Christ, overthrows the Molinistical Grace subject to , as I am going to make good by four several proofs. First, the Grace necessary to every act of piety, is, according to S. Augustin, a help to doing well, added to nature and instruction by the inspiration of a most ardent and pure love. But Molinistical Grace is not such. And by consequence, &c, The Minor I prove thus. The Will cannot receive the inspiration of a most ardent and pure love, without it begin to be good. But Molinistical grace may subsist without, the will's being good in any sort: but the same may always remain bad; because this Grace leaves it still in a state to be good or bad. Therefore Molinistical grace is not by an inspiration of a most ardent and pure love. Hence being S. Augustin affirms in the 31. Chap. de Grat. Christi, that he never found Pelagius acknowledge in any of his Writings such help added to Nature and Instruction by the inspiration of a most ardent and pure love; And being Molina acknowledges the same no more than he did; it follows that he agrees with Pelagius to overthrow the true Grace of Jesus Christ.  
Secondly, The Grace of Jesus Christ is an heavenly teaching, whereby God so instructs the heart of man with such inexpressible sweetness, that he who receives that instruction, hath not the knowledge only of what he sees, but also the will wherewith he desires it, and the action whereby he performs it, Chap. 14. But the Grace whose use is left to , is not such: Therefore, etc.  
Thirdly, We cannot say of the Grace of Jesus Christ, that by it man learns of God what he ought to do, but that he will not do what it teaches him. Now this may be affirmed of the Molinistical grace; Therefore the Molinistical grace is not the Grace of Jesus Christ, Chap. 14.  
My fourth proof is this; Whosoever receives from God the Grace of Jesus Christ, comes to the Son of God; & whosoever comes not to him, hath not that Grace. Ibid. chap. 14. But many have the Molinistical grace who come not to the Son of God: Therefore the Molinistical grace is not the Grace of Jesus Christ; and consequently is not that Grace which S. Augustin saith was necessary to be acknowledged by Pelagius, if he would be a real and not a nominal Catholic.  
Now let any one of the upholders of such Molinistical grace appear in presence of Your Holiness; let him vaunt as much as he pleases that he holds not the opinions of Pelagius; let him say, I am not a Pelagian, because Pelagius acknowledged not other grace, but an external aid of the Law and Doctrine, or Instruction; But I moreover confess an internal and supernatural Grace, whereby God enlightens the Understanding and moves the Will, but whose use is left to . Certes, I should answer him, 'Tis very brave; I am extremely glad you are not altogether a Pelagian. But what are you the better, if you depart from Pelagius, but close not with the sentiments of the Church? And what advantage is it to you, to reject the Pelagian grace, if you do not admit the Christian? For how remote soever you are from Pelagius, whatever Grace you admit, whatever colours you paint it withal, and whatever Title you give it of internal and supernatural, if this Grace be not the same which S. Augustin saith Pelagius must confess, to the end he may be not only in name, but in Truth a Catholic; the Confession which you make of such other grace, may perhaps keep you from being wholly a Pelagian, but it can never make you pass for a Christian. For I grant it true as you say, (and this is no place to dispute it) that Pelagius denied, that there is any internal and supernatural Grace contrary to what S. Augustin maintained, viz. That there is an internal and supernatural Grace; But S. Augustin moreover maintained, That this Grace is Effectual and subdues the  to itself. While you hold against Pelagius that there is an internal & supernatural Grace, you hold at the same time against S. Augustin, that the same Grace is subject to . So that by your acknowledging an internal and supernatural Grace, perhaps you are not a Pelagian therein; but inasmuch as you acknowledge not that the same is Effectual, you are not yet a Catholic. You are as yet neither Pelagian nor Catholic; or rather, you are not at all a Catholic, but you are a Pelagian, in that you agree with Pelagius to oppose that Effectual Grace, which you will not acknowledge to be the true Grace of Jesus Christ.  
Whereunto I add, That your sentiment in the confession of this internal & supernatural Grace is not far from that of Pelagius, which I prove by Chap. 13. of the same Book of S. Augustin. He who knows what he ought to do, and doth it not, is not yet instructed of God by Grace, but only by the Law; he hath not been taught by the Spirit, but only by the Letter. And in Chap. 14. Jesus Christ speaking of this manner of teaching, saith, Whosoever hath heard the words of my Father, and hath been taught by him, cometh to me. And it cannot with truth be said of him that comes not to Christ, He hath known and learned that he ought to come, but he will not do what he hath learned he ought to do. No certainly, this cannot be said of that manner of instruction according to which God teaches us by his Grace. Now he who hath only the Molinistical grace, hath not been taught of God by grace and by the Spirit, but only by the Law and by the Letter; and consequently, the Molinistical grace is no other than the Pelagian, which consists only in the Law and Instruction. Whereby it appears, that the terms of internal and supernatural Grace, are only simple words made use of by the Molinists to cover and hid their Pelagian grace, to the end to avoid the indignation which the same would excite against them, and by this difference of words to obscure the Truth, and to keep themselves from being so easily convinced of their Error.  
After this Argument, I shall proceed to S. Augustin's third proof taken out of the same book, de Grat. Christi; where he throughly treats of the assistance of the possibility of the will and of the action; which he maintains to be the true Grace of the Redeemer, and which was the subject of the whole Dispute between him and Pelagius. For see how that great Saint speaks of this Heretic. Pelagius establishing three several things, whereby he saith God's Commandments may be fulfilled, viz. Possibility, Will and Action. Possibility, whereby a man is able to become Righteous; Will, whereby he is willing to become Righteous; and Action, whereby he is actually Righteous. He confesses that the first, viz. Possibility, is given by the Creator of our Nature, and depends not upon ourselves, since we cannot but have it whether we will or no. But as for the two others, namely, Will and Action, He holds that they are in our power, and that we have so much the dominion of them that they depend only upon ourselves. Whence Pelagius concluded, that a man deserves to be commended for his good will and his good actions; or rather that God and man deserves to be commended for the same, because God gives him the possibility of that good will, and of that good work, and always assists that possibility by the succour of his Grace. And a little after, That we can do, speak and think any kind of good, it is from God who gives us that power. But that we act, speak, or think well, this is from ourselves, because we can turn into evil the power which we have to do all such things.  
Now, said Pelagius, Can he who speaks in this manner be taken to deny Grace? And truly, M. H. F. who would not have taken the confession of that Heretic to be wholly Catholic? For to judge thereof by our natural Spirit, what else can the Grace of Jesus Christ be imagined to be, but that succour whereby our natural possibility is assisted. Yet if Your Holiness pleases we will see what S. Augustin answers to this. After a long and exact Dispute which tends to show that the Grace of Jesus Christ, gives us together both the advancement of possibility, and the affection of the will, and the effect of operation, he ends the 47 Chapter with these words: If Pelagius agreed with us, that God assists us, not only by giving us the possibility which may be in man, though he neither will nor do good, but by giving us the very will and action itself; that is, by causing that we both will and do the good, which is not in man except when he willeth good and doth it, and if he further confesses that succour to be such, as without which we neither will nor do any good; and that 'tis the Grace given us by Jesus Christ our Lord, according to which he makes us Righteous with his Righteousness, and not by our own; so that true Righteousness is that which is derived to us from him; I think there would be no more ground of Dispute between us touching the help of God's grace.  
In which words of S. Augustin, there are many things carefully to be observed.  

1. That the assistance of Possibility, and that of that of the possibility of the Will and of Action joined together, are two different assistances.  
2. That a man have the assistance of possibility, although he will not do good, and do it not.  
3. That the assistance of Possibility, of the Will and of Action, is never found in a man, but it causes him to will and to do good.  
4. That this last sort of assistance is so necessary, that we never either will or do any good without it.  
5. That this assistance is the true Grace of God, which is given us by Jesus Christ our Lord.  
6. That it follows from this assistance that the Righteousness of good works, by which we are Righteous, is not a Righteousness which proceeds from the Law and from , but a Righteousness which comes from God.   
These things being premised, I argue thus in favour of Effectual Grace. The Grace of God by Jesus Christ our Lord is absolutely necessary to all sort of pious Actions. But the Grace of God by Jesus Christ our Lord is nothing else but the assistance of Possibility, of Will and of Action, as S. Augustin teacheth when he explaineth the faith of the Church against Pelagius. Therefore the assistance of Possibility, of Will and of Action, is absolutely necessary to every pious action. Now this Assistance is Grace Effectual by itself, since 'tis by this assistance that man willeth and always doth good. And consequently, Grace Effectual by itself is necessary to all actions of piety.  
Which Argument against the Molinists I thus manage. Whatsoever name be given to Grace, and although it be styled internal and supernatural, yet if it be such as is found in a man sometimes who neither willeth nor doth good, it may be said to be always included within the bounds of the assistance of Possibility, or rather (to speak more clearly) 'tis only an assistance of possibility, not the true Grace of Jesus Christ. Whosoever therefore saith, that this Grace is that which is necessary to all actions of piety, without need of a Grace Effectual by itself, he doth, (as Pelagius) acknowledge only a grace of possibility, and deny the true grace of Jesus Christ, which is the assistance of Will and Action.  
Now I demand of a Molinist, whether or no he believes that the grace of Will and Action is necessary to all acts of piety; if he doth not, he cannot, according to S. Augustin be accounted a Christian; if he doth, and yet hold that such a Grace is not Effectual by itself, he cannot deny but it follows from thence that a man may have it, and yet neither will nor do good. Which being supposed, I answer thus.  
According to S. Augustin, The Grace of Possibility is that which is found in a man, although he neither willeth nor doth good. And the grace of Will and Action is that which is never in a man but when he wills and does good. Now Molinistical grace is in a man, although he neither wills nor does good. Therefore this grace is only a grace of possibility, and not a grace of will and action. Whence it appears clearer than the day, that although the Molinists acknowledge that there is a grace of will and action, yet they affirm it only with the mouth, for avoiding the Odium and Indignation which the denying thereof would draw upon them; but in reality they deny and oppose it in the sense wherein S. Augustin maintained it against Pelagius.  
But M. H. F. There follows one thing further, which is more detestable, and no doubt will more move Your Holiness. When S. Augustin disputing against Pelagius, asked him, whether a right will and a good action proceeds from man or from God? This Heretic answered him, that the same proceeds from both; from man because he wills and acts; and from God (although he durst not express it so clearly) because he gives (said he) that power to man, and assists him always with the help of his Grace. Whence S. Augustin argued against him, that according to this opinion a bad action proceeds from God, since he gives man power to do it. See his words in Chap. 17.  
Here F. Des-mares was going to read the said passage, but the light failed him, so that he was constrained to leave this Argument before he had finished it, and to do as is above related.  
When F. Des-mares had done speaking, we all five advanced into the middle of the void square, the Assembly remaining as at the first. And approaching near the Pope, we kneeled down and presented to him the five new Writings which we had prepared for that purpose, with a Memorial in which mention was briefly made of them, and by which we requested the Pope, that both these and the former might be presented to our Adversaries. The Abbot of Valcroissant asked him, when it pleased his Holiness to have us appear again in order to proceed. The Pope answered, that he had not yet thought of it, but he would consider upon it. The Abbot replied, that it should be when his Holiness pleased, but we conceived it our duty to testify to him that we should be always ready to appear as often as it pleased his Holiness to summon us. As I presented our Writings to the Pope, which contained between five and six quires of paper, he offered to take them with his own hand, and Cardinal Spada arose from his seat, and came to ease the Pope of that trouble; but at the same time I laid them upon a little seat on the Pope's right hand, and Cardinal Spada only helped me to place them better: yet by this advance he got a more commodious situation for hearing what we said to the Pope; for being very near him, we spoke sufficiently low. In giving him these Writings, I told his Holiness, it would be needful to let them be seen by my Lords the Cardinals, the Divines then present and such other as his Holiness pleased; that several Copies of them were requisite, which it was impossible to supply by the help of Scribes, who committed a thousand faults, that to prevent all these inconveniences, we had presented a Memorial to the Master of the sacred Palace, to desire his permission for their printing only ad hunc effectum, that our Request seemed to him equitable enough; but that it being an Affair wherein his Holiness himself was employed; the Master of the sacred Palace thought not fit to do any thing in it, unless his Holiness were first consulted, and that it were done by his privity and order; that the Master of the sacred Palace was there present; that if it pleased his Holiness to signify his allowance thereof, and tell him that it might be done with the conditions proposed by us which we conceived just, we should be much bound to his Holiness for the favour: The Pope answered us that he would think upon it, and let us know what he should judge expedient. We replied that we should attend his orders, and be ready to obey him in this and all other things. We kissed his feet, he gave us his benediction, and we withdrew.  
The Copy of this last Memorial which we presented to the Pope with our five new Writings here follows, together with that which we presented to the Master of the sacred Palace.  
To our H. Father Pope Innocent X.  
A Catalogue of all the Writings which were hitherto presented here in the Affair of the five Propositions by the Doctor's defenders of S. Augustin.  
MOST HOLY FATHER,  
'tIs some months ago that we presented to Your Holiness two Writings with their Abridgement. The first of which is the first Information in reference to fact against M. Hallier and his Colleagues; and it concerns what passed touching the business of the Five Propositions, from July 1. 1649. to July 11. 1652. where we discover a great multitude of the foul deal and ambushes of our Adversaries.  
The second Writing is the first Information touching matter of Right against the same Adversaries; and it concerns the authority of S. Augustin, which we prove by the whole Tradition of the Church.  
At this day M. H. F. we present five other Writings to Your Holiness.  
The first is the first part of the second Information as to matter of fact against the Jesuits, and it contains above a hundred Propositions against the authority of S. Augustin, drawn out of their books.  
The second comprizes in few words the distinction of the several senses whereof the Five Propositions are capable, and the clear and true sentiment of our Adversaries, of the Calvinists and Lutherans, and also our own touching the same matter.  
The third contains the second Information as to matter of Right, namely, that which concerns Grace Effectual by itself, which is the point whereunto this whole Controversy is reduced; and we show that Catholics can in no wise question this grace, principally upon this sole consideration, that 'tis impossible to deny it without establishing at the same time that which is contradictorily opposite to it, to wit, the Molinistical Grace subject to , and without approving by consequence sixty either Errors or Heresies which necessarily follow from it.  
The fourth contains the third Information, as to matter of Right, and concerns the first Proposition now in contest; which we show is firmly established upon the holy Scripture, the Councils and Fathers, and particularly upon S. Augustin and S. Thomas.  
The fifth contains the fourth Information, as to matter of Right, and the explication of about sixty testimonies of S. Augustin, which we found to have been employed in a nameless Writing by M. Hallier and his Colleagues against the first Proposition. And in the refutation of the said Writing we convince them of having advanced nothing at all that makes against us, but many things unfaithfully and without ground.  
We hearty submit all these Writings, M. H. F. to the correction of the H. Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, and to the judgement of Your Holiness; and we most humbly beseech Your Holiness that they may be communicated to our Adversaries when you shall think fit; namely to the Society of Jesuits, and to MM. Hallier, Lagault and Joysel, as also to the most learned Divines, when Your Holiness hath already heard us speak touching the five Propositions, and to all others to whom Your Holiness shall think good to show them; to the end that if the one or the other conceive that there is in our words or writings any thing either worthy of correction, or false, or obscure, or dubious, it may be showed to us in presence of your Holiness; and that it may be permitted us either to explicate the same, or prove it by competent reasons, or else amend it according as Your Holiness shall think fit, that so Your Holiness may be fully assured of the truth or falsehood of the thing and of its importance. We most hearty wish to Your Holiness all kind of prosperity, and that God may prolong the course of your years, by giving you even some of ours.  
Signed, 

Noel de la Lane Doctor of Paris, etc. and Abbot of Valcroissant.  
Toussaint Des-mares, Priest of the Congregation of the Oratory.  
Louis de S. Amour, Doctor of Sorbon.  
Nicolas Manessier, Doctor of Sorbon.  
Louis Angran, Licentiate of the same sacred Faculty of Paris, etc.    
The Memorial presented by us to the Master of the sacred Palace for obtaining permission to print our Writings, speaks thus in the Translation.  
THe most R. F. Master of the sacred Palace is most humbly petitioned by the French Doctors defenders of S. Augustin, to consider that the prohibitions of printing any thing touching the matter de Auxiliis concern books and other works intended to be exposed to sale, and published indifferently to all the world, but they extend not to Writings which are to be presented in private to the Pope, Cardinals, and other Divines to whom his Holiness shall think fit to have them communicated for their instruction, in an Affair which is to be examined before his presence, which being considered, and regard had to the great number of faults inevitable in Manuscript Copies by the ill shaping of Letters, omission of words, and false placing of Distinctions, to the great trouble of the Readers, by perverting the sense and interrupting attention; as also that it is impossible to have that great variety of Characters in Manuscripts, which may be had in printing, and serve so well for the Emphatical denoting of things, especially in a matter so embroiled, as that of the Five Propositions. Moreover considering the great number of persons who will be obliged to peruse the Informations made upon the said Propositions, the excessive pains and great time otherwise required to get them copied out, revised and corrected, which alone, whatever diligence were used, would swallow up the whole time of the Petitioners, and besides not satisfy them or any body else; and supposing it objected that there needs not so great a number of Copies, because the same Writings may be seen by many persons, by being transmitted from hand to hand, yet they cannot be so leisurely and exactly examined that way, as if every one have a Copy of his own.  
For these Reasons the said R. F. Master of the sacred Palace it most humbly petititioned to grant Licence to print the informations abovementioned which are to be presented to the Pope touching the Five Propositions, and this upon the condition following: First, That only a limited number of each sheet be wrought off; as two or three choir of paper. Secondly, That it be declared upon the first page that the Licence of printing is granted only for the conveniency of examination, and not any wise in approbation of what is contained in the said Informations. Thirdly, That the Doctors who make this request, give no Copy thereof to any person but what shall be subscribed with their own hands, as if it were a Manuscript. For so, etc.   

CHAP. XXIII.  
The Letter which we writ May 26. to the Bishops who sent us, touching the grand Audience given by the Pope upon the 19th.  
WE departed from this Audience full of satisfaction, and went to give the Ambassador the first relation of it, to the end that if he pleased he might write into France about it the same day which was the Post-day. Our return home was so late that we had little time left to write into France before the going of the Post more than two words, and were forced to defer sending the particularities of our Audience till that day seven-night. The Letter which I am going to insert here, will not be a bare repetition of the foregoing account, for the Letter was drawn before I made that relation, in which my design was to insert such particularities as were omitted in the Letter and not necessary to be mentioned in it at that time, in regard we stood in expectation to send more considerable matters every day. But indeed it seems to me expedient not to omit any thing which may contribute to give the public and posterity as full and perfect a view as possible, of all that came to my knowledge in reference to this Affair.  
MY LORDS,  
BY the last Post you received the first news of the public Audience given us by his Holiness eight days ago; we shall now give you the particular account of it. And since we act by your authority, we doubt not but you will be glad to hear a relation of all that passed in this occasion by the special assistance which God afforded us therein, for the maintaining of the true Grace of his Son before the sovereign Pontiff, and the visible Head of the Church.  
By the Letter which F. Des-mares and M. Manessier did themselves the honour to write to you, you understood our purpose to speak before the Pope when it should please his Holiness to call us. We mention not here the reasons which obliged us thereunto, since they were represented to you by that last Letter. After the said resolution was agreed upon amongst us, we thought fit to go and testify the same to his Holiness, according as F. Des-mares and M. Manessier had promised him. There having been no Audience during the whole week, we hoped to have had it on Sunday the 11th, of this month. In the mean time the Ambassador came from Tivoli to his Audience on Friday. We went and gave him an account of the Audience which F. Des-mares and M. Manessier had had, and signified to him that being his Holiness desired to hear us apart from our Adversaries, we were ready to do all that he pleased, and intended to declare so much to the Pope on Sunday next. The Ambassador much approved our resolution, and told us, that it was the fittest means to obtain a contradictory Conference afterwards, in case the Pope were convinced of the necessity thereof by what reasons we alleged. After his Friday's Audience, he sent for us to come to him on Saturday morning. We understood that he had likewise sent for M. Hallier and his Colleagues. We all five repaired accordingly to him. He told us, that the Pope having spoken to him concerning us, he had signified to his Holiness that we were determined to appear before him in what manner he should desire. Whereupon the Pope said it should be very speedily, and that he would hear us one after another, perhaps within a week. He also told us, that he would wait upon Cardinal Pamphilio to know the Pope's day, to whom therefore it was not necessery for us to address, since he understood our resolution. After our expression of thanks to the Ambassador for his care and our assurance that we would be ready against the time, we desired him to procure us two or three day's notice beforehand, which he promised us to do. He told us, that M. Hallier and his Colleagues were to come to him presently, and he should advertise them also to prepare themselves to speak before the Pope at the first convenient day after our audience. That afterwards possibly we should obtain a conference with M. Hallier, because we might desire of his Holiness, that some person might answer to what we should say concerning the Propositions, and convince us of what was reprehensible in our Writings; and then either M. Hallier must be the man, or his Holiness must depute some other Divine; but M. Hallier being here concerning this Affair, and having presented Writings against us, 'twas more likely that he would be appointed to answer us then any other. We answered the Ambassador that this was what we hoped, and that we had such important and convincing things to speak upon the points in question, that his Holiness would see that necessity alone had induced us to demand a Conference with so great instance, MM. Hallier and Lagault came to the Ambassador's house just as we were taking leave of him.  
F. Des-mares and M. Manessier, having not yet had leisure since their arrival to go to salute the Cardinals nominated for the Congregation, we accompanied them to that purpose in the days following. We declared to their Eminences our purpose to appear before the Pope, and that the Pope had given us order by the Ambassador to be in readiness by the first days of the week ensuing. Tuesday evening the Ambassador passing by our lodging, advertised us that the Monday next was the day appointed, and that we must be at the Pope's Palace by 20 a clock, that is, about three after noon.  
Accordingly we repaired on Monday to the Pope's Palace in Mont Quirinal, and were called for a little after three a clock, and introduced into the Pope's presence. On each side of his holiness's Chair were two Benches upon which the Cardinals sat, Spada and Ginetti on the right hand, and Pamphilio and Ghiggi on the other. The thirteen Divines of several Orders, whose names M. de S. Amour signified to you by his Letter January 27. stood bareheaded on each side behind the Benches. M. Albizzi Assessor of the H. Office was there also to perform the Office of Secretary. Besides these, no other persons were present at this Assembly. At our entrance we made our accustomed genuflexions to his Holiness, who gave us his benediction, and made a sign to us to rise and begin. We stood in the space between the two Benches, right against the Pope, it being just capable of us all five affront. The Abbot of Valcroissant began, and showed in general the importance of this Affair in a speech of about three quarters of an hour. We speak nothing of what it contained, because we send you, My Lords, a Copy of it as it was pronounced. After his speech was ended, he spoke of the two first Writings which we had presented the last year, the former whereof is concerning what hath been acted about the affair of the Five Propositions, and the other is touching S. Augustin authority. He spoke succinctly some principal things of the former Writing, to let his Holiness understand the foul deal, frauds, and the conspiracy of our Adversaries against S. Augustin, by contriving and presenting to our Faculty those captious and equivocal Propositions. But conceiving it more material to say something concerning the main business of doctrine in this first Audience, he did not think fit to be particular in laying matters of fact open to his Holiness, and therefore proceeded to the Writing concerning S. Augustin's authority; wherein we showed, that nothing is so much established in the Church as this Authority, since we justify it by above two hundred Testimonies of twenty Popes, fifteen Councils, threescore and ten Fathers of the Church, or illustrious Divines of all Ages, and the reception of the whole Church with unanimous and universal consent. He laid forth the reasons which obliged us to deliver this Writing first, in imitation of S. Prosper and Hilary of France, when they came to Rome against the Priests of Marseille, and to tread in the steps which we saw marked out in the first judgement which was made touching S. Augustin under Pope Celestine the first, and in the last examen which was made under Clement VIII. He added, that we did not insist upon proving more largely this authority of S. Augustin, being persuaded that his Holiness was willing that the doctrine of this Saint should serve for a Rule in this whole Dispute of Grace according to the Ordinances of his Predecessors.  
Reserving therefore to speak more at length of what had been done in France upon occasion of the Five Propositions when it should be expedient in the progress of things, and supposing the authority. of S. Augustin received and established, as we had agreed together, M. the Valcroissant proceeded to the Writings then to be presented, and told his Holiness, that to let him see that we complained not unnecessarily of the Jesuits outrages against S, Augustin's authority, we had one Writing to present to him, into which we had collected above a hundred Propositions against S. Augustin, drawn out of the books of Jesuitical Writers since Molina; that above fifty of them were published within these last four years; and that 'twas a great evidence of a conspiracy against S. Augustin in the contrivance of the five Pelagious Propositions; that F. Adam a Jesuit at the same time was preparing a bloody work against S. Augustin, which came forth on the first of January 1650. with the permission of the Provincial of Paris, and with the approbation of three Jesuits Divines. M. the Valcroissant read to his Holiness those Propositions of F. Adam, wherein the express doctrine of S. Augustin is plainly handled as Heretical and Calvinistical, and S. Paul and other Canonical Writers accused of having been exorbitant in their Writings, and gone beyond the bounds of Truth through humane weakness, from which, as that Jesuit saith, They were nor free. You may judge, My Lords, with what astonishment his Holiness and their Eminences heard these horrible injuries of that Jesuit against S. Augustin, which carried to reprehend S. Paul himself and the Prophets. He also read this Proposition which is in a book printed at Paris three months ago; Expecta tantisper, Lector; brevi loquetur Roma quid senserit Augustinus aut quid sentire debuerit. Which, as you see, My Lords, implies that the Jesuits expect shortly at Rome the condemnation of S. Augustin's Doctrine.  
In the next place, M. the Valcroissant explicated the Distinction of Senses and caused his Holiness to observe with how much sincerity the proceeded in this Affair, by declaring plainly what we rejected, and what we held touching all the Propositions. He remonstrated first that they were framed by the Molinists in equivocal terms capable of heretical senses, thereby to expose them to Censure, and afterwards reflect the same Censure upon Grace Effectual by itself, and upon S. Augustin's Doctrine, to which the Propositions are reducible by being explicated in the particular senses which they may admit, as we had done; that we were not the authors of those ambiguous Propositions; That they could not be shown in any book in the direct terms wherein they are conceived, excepting the first which is mutilated and maliciously separated from the words that precede and follow it, which being added to the Proposition. as it is found in the Author from whom it is taken, is not only not capable of any evil sense, but is the Catholic and Apostolic doctrine of S. Augustin and the Church. That it cannot be found in any works, Latin or French, published in France within these four years, that they have been defended purely as they are expressed; but that on the contrary it hath always been declared that in the generality of their terms, they are susceptible of heretical senses, and may according to those senses be condemned generally as heretical; and that never any other sense but the Catholic alone which they admit hath been maintained; that is to say, none ever absolutely maintained these five general Propositions, but the particular Propositions expressing the Catholic sense of them, which we presented and maintained in our Writing. Whence he concluded that the Controversy was not about the five Propositions as they appeared; That we do not defend them in their universality and ambiguity (which he repeated twice or thrice at several times) That therefore to follow the steps which S. Augustin's disciples had always trodden since this Dispute, according to the first Memorial presented by us to his Holiness at our first coming to Rome, and the demands which we had made eight months ago in our first Information de facto, we presented to his Holiness a Writing, wherein were contained on one side in clear terms the Catholic senses, or particular Propositions which we and all S. Augustin's Disciples maintained and had always maintained; and on the other side the sentiments, both of the Calvinists and Molinists touching the matter of these Propositions. That we desired of his Holiness an examination and judgement of these sentiments. That Calvin's opinion was not the thing in controversy between us, that we held him for a Heretic as well as our Adversaries do. That the two others were those alone in contest. That we were ready to demonstrate viva voce and by writing in presence of our Adversaries that our sentiment is most Catholic, most agreeable to S. Augustin, and altogether indubitable in the faith. That on the contrary that of the Molinists is Pelagian or Semipelagian, as it hath been already judged contradictorily in the Congregation de Auxiliis held by the Pope's Clement VIII. & Paul V of holy and glorious memory. He added, That to judge of the Propositions as they are contested between Catholics, 'tis necessary to distinguish the senses and make an express and particular judgement thereof. This he justified by the words of the Letter of the Prelates by whom M. Hallier pretends himself commissioned, because those Prelates demand a clear and express judgement upon the Propositions, such as may clear the Truth, regulate the present contests amongst Catholics touching this matter, and produce peace in the Church. And therefore that although by occasion of these Propositions there is a dispute between Catholics, yet seeing the controversy is not about the ambiguous Propositions as they are framed by the Molinists; but about the different senses which we presented and are alone in question, the Truth cannot be cleared, nor the Controversy terminated, but by an express judgement upon these several particular senses, or rather upon the Propositions exempted from all equivocation, as we presented them, and upon the contradictories of them, which needed to be solemnly and fully examined in order to a judgement thereof by a solemn and express Decree, as was done by the two Popes Clement VIII. & Paul V in their Congregation touching the same matter. He said, that whereas M. Hallier and his Colleagues give out that they are sent by Prelates to solicit a Censure of the Sentiments or Propositions maintained by us, they abuse their Letter and intention. That those Prelates are as much for us as for M. Hallier, since by occasion of the Propositions we demanded in your name, as well as they, a clear and express judgement, such as may regulate our Contests, and produce a full and lasting peace in the Church. It was not hard to justify, My Lords, that you demanded likewise an express judgement upon the distinction of senses, and upon the particular Propositions; for it appears sufficiently by your Letters and by our first Memorial. Then he showed the justice of this demand, inasmuch as the matter in controversy could neither be judged of, nor the differences touching these points of Doctrine terminated any other way. Secondly, Because it is necessary to judge of the sense according to which our Adversaries impugn these Propositions, since 'tis that of Molina's sufficient Grace which is a source of impieties, errors and heresies, as 'tis easy to make good by the sixty three Errors or Heresies which we deduced from it by necessary consequence, and placed at the end of our Writing of Effectual Grace.  
He demonstrated that the controverted sense of the Propositions, is that of Grace Effectual by itself necessary to every good action, since all the impugners of the Propositions, either by Writing or Teaching impugn them in the sense of Effectual Grace, as on the contrary all the disciples of S. Augustin, who have writ or taught before or since the contrivance of these Propositions, maintain only the pure sense of Effectual Grace; nor can other doctrine then that, touching the said Propositions be found in any book. Here he read the different senses of the Propositions which you have seen in the Writing which we sent to you the last week; and pronounced word for word all that is contained in the three Columes, both the different Propositions, and our qualifications or judgements of them. After the reading of each Proposition which we defended, he succinctly showed the connexion of it with Grace effectual by itself; as it is in the Preface of our Writing of Effectual Grace, which we likewise send you.  
He concluded with our most humble instances to his Holiness, that he would please to judge of those controverted senses, and said, (as 'tis contained in the end of our Writing or Declaration) that being persuaded that the senses or particular Propositions which we presented and defended, contained the principal grounds of the Christian faith and piety, we should always believe and maintain that sense or those Propositions to be Catholic, till his Holiness by a solemn judgement condemned that particular sense, i. e. those particular propositions which were framed and defended by us; which we conceived he would never do. He spoke a full hour upon the writing of the distinction of senses; and about an hour and half upon all the rest.  
When he had done, F. Desmares, according as we had agreed together, began to speak, and after a short Exordium he said, that having clearly reduced the Propositions, as we defended them, to the sense of Effectual Grace necessary to every good action; that having showed that the Propositions contrary according to the sense of our Adversaries contained the sufficient Grace of Molina; and that having affirmed that our senses are Catholic and indubitable in the doctrine of S. Augustin, and on the contrary those of our Adversaries Pelagian or Semipelagian; 'twas necessary in the first place to justify to his Holiness, that Grace Effectual by itself is the true Grace of Jesus Christ and the certain belief of the Church. This he began to prove; and first succinctly set forth the order and senses of writing of Effectual Grace, together with the contents of the four Articles. In the first whereof, he said, we demonstrated by sixteen principal arguments drawn out of S. Augustin's works, against the enemies of the grace of Jesus Christ, that Grace effectual by itself, necessary to every good action, is, according to that H. Father, the certain belief of the Church opposed to the heresy of the Pelagians, and Semipelagians; That in the second we summarily laid open the tradition of the whole Church, or the sentiment of all the Councils, H. Fathers and principal Divines since S. Augustin to the present age for confirmation of the same truth: That in the third were contained the Decisions passed contradictorily by the Congregation de Auxiliis in presence of the Pope's Clement VIII. and Paul V by whom Molina's doctrine of sufficient Grace was declared heretical and Pelagian, and the contrary sentiment of Grace effectual by itself judged the constant doctrine of S. Augustin and the certain faith of the whole Church. That we were ready to make good this truth by the acts of the Congregation, whereof we had seen the Originals, and extracted from them what we alleged: Lastly, that in the fourth Article were contained sixty and three heresies or impieties deduced by necessary consequence from Molina's sufficient Grace, whereby it appeared that this new novel opinion overthrows the principal grounds of faith and Christian piety, the authority of the H. See and the Council of Trent, the validity of Tradition; and the perpetual subsistence of one and the same faith in the Church, and is fit only to supply advantages to heretics to oppose the Roman Church. After this, the Father explicated what we understand by Grace effectual by itself, and by sufficient Grace subject to . Then he began the first argument drawn from the prayers of Church, and told his Holiness it was a great Providence of God which had caused him to choose the day of Rogations, a day consecrated by the Church particularly to prayer, for our justifying before him the faith of effectual Grace or the truth of Jesus Christ, by the prayers of the Church. He handled this argument with as great plainness and force as could be wished, and concluded with a necessary consequence drawn from what he had proved, that according to the express words of the Council of Carthage and Pope Innocent I. the dogma of Molina's suffcient grace is sacrilegious, impious, pestiferous, execrable and worthy of all kinds of anathema, Sacrilegum, impium, pestiferum, exitiale, & omni anathemate dignum; as you will see, my Lords, by reading that argument in the Writing of Effectual Grace.  
Moreover he more forceably encountered the common opinion of the Jesuits. For after the reciting of those terrible words of Innocent I. against the Pelagians out of his Epistle to the Council of Carthage, he applied them by a necessary consequence, which he had before demonstrated by several invincible arguments, to the defenders of Molina's sufficient Grace. And 'tis a thing, my Lords, very worthy of remark, that, before his Holiness, in a public Congregation, and a Jesuit being present, the doctrine of that society was so vigorously and resolutely impeached, and so plainly accused of so many heresies, and that after this was done viuâ voce we left the same with his Holiness in writing, persisting to require that those Fathers might be obliged to appear and answer; and that yet after all this they remained without reply, and silent. We doubt not, my Lords, but these Fathers would immediately have sought to purge themselves to the Pope of so capital an accusation, and pursued against us the reparation of this extreme injury, were they not conscious to themselves of holding a new doctrine which they cannot justify if they should be obliged to acknowledge S. Augustin for their Judge, as they cannot refuse him before the H. See; and were they not persuaded that all which we spoke against them is very true and easy to be made good, they ought for the sake of injured truth, and their Societies reputation, of which they are so jealous, to have made some defence, were it not that they feared to be publicly convinced, and to draw upon themselves a new condemnation of their errors after that of the Congregation de Auxiliis. But however, so long as they appear not to defend themselves, it will be a great blame upon their Molinistical opinions, and an ignominy which they will never wipe off before intelligent and equitable persons.  
From this argument drawn from the prayers of the Church, the Fathers proceeded to the second taken out of S. Augustin's book De Gratia Christi, and especially from these words in chap. 10. Hanc debet Pelagius gratiam confiteri, si vult non solum vocari, verum etiam esse Christianus. He showed by sundry passages of that book, that by this Grace no other can be understood, besides that which is effectual by itself. Whence he concluded that Molina and our Adversaries impugn that Grace which is necessary according to S. Augustin, to be confessed by him that would be truly a Christian. Night came, and constrained him to break off. He spoke about an hour and half; so that this audience lasted about four hours. His Holiness was so extremely attentive all the while, that certainly God increased his strength in so great an age and enabled him to preserve so great a presence of mind for so long together. And indeed we were much encouraged thereby to represent to him what we had to say. Their Eminences were likewise very attentive. The Divines seemed all to take careful notice of every thing. All the while we were speaking, his Holiness said not a word to us, but suffered us to proceed without ask any question, or any wise gainsaying what we alleged.  
Having ended, we went to kiss the Pope's feet, and present our five Writings to him. The first contained a hundred Propositions of the Jesuits against S. Augustin. The second is that of the Distinction of senses. The third is that of Effectual Grace. The fourth is touching the first Proposition. The fifth is an answer to sixty Testimonies of S. Augustin, which M. Hallier and his Colleagues presented in reference to the first Proposition. By this answer we convinced them of having alleged all those Testimonies, either falsely and unfaithfully, or impertinently and perversely; and we draw all our answers from the same places whence the Testimonies themselves are taken. We send you, My Lords, a Copy of all these Writings. In the last place we desired his Holiness' permission for printing a limited number of them here only for the conveniency of examination. His Holiness answered us that he would consider of this Request, and see whether it were expedient. After which we asked his Holiness, when it pleased him that we should appear again to continue the handling of what we had entered upon in this first Audience. He answered us that he had not yet thought of it, but he would consider upon it. We replied, that however we beseeched his Holiness to remember the assurance we gave him, that we were ready to continue what we had begun, and to do any thing that he should appoint in order thereunto; and after receiving his benediction, we withdrew half an hour within night.  
You see, My Lords, how we have managed the matter in this first Audience, and with what sincerity we have acted in beginning with the Distinction of the senses of the five general Propositions, and presenting to the Pope in words clear and free from all danger of evil sense the five particular Propositions which we maintain, and which are set down in the second column of our Writing, and the contrary ones of our Adversaries which we oppose, and upon which we desired of his Holiness an express judgement. We conceived it necessary to leave the whole Writing upon the first Proposition with his Holiness, to the end he might see that we decline not to enter upon the discussion of the Propositions, and that all the Writings which we have presented, are in order to establish the necessary foundations according to the order which hath been always observed by the H. See in the controversies of Grace, and not to avoid the matter in question, or giving Informations upon the Propositions, as our Adversaries accused us when we presented our first Writings, touching what hath been acted in relation to the Propositions, and concerning S. Augustin's authority. We shall hereafter present Writings upon the other four Propositions according as we come to treat of them. We have proved the first (not in its general terms, but reduced to the sense which we maintain) by so many authorities of the Scriptures, Councils, Popes, H. Fathers of the Church, and particularly of S. Augustin and S. Thomas; and we have so fully and exactly satisfied every contrary objection, that 'tis impossible, as we conceive, but they which read the said Writing will be perfectly convinced therewith.  
We have prepared a considerable Writing touching Sufficient Grace held by some Thomists of later times, for the clearer explication of what we and all other Disciples of S. Augustin held concerning that kind of Grace, and in what sense we admit or reject the Sufficient; and for answer to a Writing entitled Jansenius à Thomistis damnatus, published at Paris under F. Annat's name, and here presented by M. Hallier and his Colleagues to the Cardinals and Consultors. But because we have sufficiently cleared this matter so far as it concerns the Propositions in our writing upon the First, and have justified in a peculiar Chapter by above a hundred express passages of S. Augustin, S. Thomas, and all the Popes and H. Fathers, who writ concerning Grace, and of the Councils who have determined it against heretics, and by the very confession of all the Jesuits and other Molinists of these latter Times, That Grace Effectual by itself necessary to an action, gives the next Power to perform it, and that without the same we cannot proximately perform it, which is the sole Point wherein the whole difficulty consists; we have reserved this particular Writing of Sufficient Grace to present to his Holiness, after that upon the first Proposition has been examined; in case there should yet remain any difficulty about such Sufficient Grace, to which the new Thomists have had recourse for the satisfying of Pelagian objections, which may be more loudly refuted by the constant and indubitable Doctrine of S. Augustin and S. Thomas, without supposing a Grace and terming it Sufficient, which sufficeth not to produce the Effect in question, and which for that cause we account not Sufficient in the sense controverted between us and our Adversaries; although otherwise we acknowledge it in its substance, and rejected it nor after S. Augustin and S. Thomas, but in certain manners which are controverted amongst the Thomists themselves, as we demonstrate in the said Writing.  
After this public action we went to thank their Eminences for the  hearing they had given us; and they testified to us very great satisfaction. We see by the blessing of God the Affair in a very good condition, and we hope in the following Congregations so fully to justify all that we have alleged, that his Holiness shall more and more find, even before he hear us in presence of our Adversaries, that we have no other doctrine then that of S. Augustin and the whole Church; that on the contrary our Adversaries impugn the same, and all their design hath been to destroy it by the artifice of these captious Propositions, that so Molina may triumph over that H. Doctor of Grace and all Antiquity. We conceive, My Lords, they are at present sufficiently fallen from that hope, and will be the further from it according as things shall proceed forward and be more nearly examined; since after our declaring to the Pope that we are not the Authors of these captious and ambiguous Propositions, contrived by the Molinists and presented at their solicitation, that we never defended them absolutely as they are; that no Catholic holds, or ever held other sense or other Propositions than those which we presented to him ourselves, which are of a middle nature between the two extremes of Calvin's heresy and Molina's new opinion; that we shall always hold the same for most Catholic till they be expressly and particularly condemned by a solemn judgement (which by God's help will never be) 'Tis certain, that so long as the H. Father shall not expressly judge of our Propositions in their proper terms and their contraries, the Molinists will not have any advantage; and that if he judge of them, as we hope, no doubt he will approve ours which are wholly Augustinian, and condemn those of our Adversaries, conformably to the decisions of the famous Congregation de Auxiliis.  
Having thus began to state the Question, and to lay down our sentiments and the matter in controversy plainly by the Distinction of senses in this first Audience, we shall labour more and more by God's assistance to clear the whole Controversy with all the care and diligence unto which we conceive ourselves obliged in an Affair so sacred and important.  
We are, My Lords, Your most humble and obedient Servants, 

De la Lane, Abbot of Valcroissant.  
Des-mares, Priest of the Oratory.  
De Saint Amour.  
Manessier.  
Angran.     

CHAP. XXIV.  
Solicitations for permission to print our Writings. Visits to the Cardinals of the Congregation to present them our Writing of the Distinction of senses, and thank them for being present at our grand Audience. Congratulations received thereupon from their Eminences and others. Calumnies made by M. Hallier and his Colleagues against our Doctrine, and signified to us by Cardinal Rapaccioli.  
WE made no Journal when we writ the foregoing Letter, and therefore only mentioned in general our principal Visits from the day of our audience to that of our writing it; but now to continue the same order to the end which I have hitherto held in this Narration, I must give a more particular account of those Visits and the principal things which passed therein.  
Tuesday May 20. being the next day after our audience, we went in the morning to Cardinal Spada. We tendered to him our thank and our excuses for the time which the  hearing he gave us the day before had cost him. He answered us very civilly that that time was well employed, and that 'twas not possible to be weary of hearing people speak so well as we did. The Abbot of Valcroissant made him a brief Account of all the Writings which we had presented to the Pope, and told his Eminence, that were the connexion of all these Propositions with Effectual Grace to be demonstrated of each in particular as copiously and clearly as we could do it, had we but one to handle at a time, it would be far more conspicuous and appear with greater lustre and evidence than it could the day preceding, when we were obliged to speak of all at the same time in haste & few words, and only to give a general Idea of all our thoughts and pretensious in this Affair. The Cardinal asked whether we had presented all our Writings? We answered him that we had presented all as far as the first Proposition inclusively, and should present others according as we should be heard, and could proceed in the explication which we were to make viva voce of those already presented, and in the discussion of the whole Affair. We told him also, that we wished we could have had Copies ready of all those which we had presented to the Pope, to present to their Eminences; that we had endeavoured it as much as possible; but the most we could do, was to provide Transcripts of the Distinction of senses, as that which was to be presupposed to all the rest, and fit to give the first Model of our thoughts upon all the Propositions (and at the same time we presented one to Cardinal Spada) till we could bring the rest to his Eminence, as we hoped to do shortly, and in a manner much more commodious to him and every one else then Manuscript Copies, if we could obtain permission to print them upon the conditions mentioned in our memorial to the Master of the sacred Palace, which we related to his Eminence. The Cardinal answered, that 'twas not the custom to print Writings touching affairs which pass in the H. Office. But presently recalling what he bade said of the H. Office; 'Tis true, said he, this cause is nor there, but it comes near the matters which are transacted there. We insisted upon the necessity of this Impression, and the better to inform him of the conditions whereunto we restrained ourselves in this demand, I read to him our Memorial to the Master of the sacred Palace. After he had heard it, we took leave of his Eminence, who spoke nothing further about our Impression, although he accompanied us with a countenance more free and pleasant then ordinary.  
The Ambassador had desired us the foregoing Evening to dine with him this day, that we might discourse more at leisure of the passages of our Audience. We went accordingly, and in the afternoon had a very conference. I read to him the last Memorial presented to the Pope, and the other to the Master of the sacred Palace. He offered to take the latter, and speak to the Pope about it on Friday. We thanked him for his obliging Proposal, and being I had only a foul draught of it, I told him I would bring him a Copy on Thursday.  
When we were returned home, we understood that the General of the Augustine's had been there to see us, and that he was accompanied with three or four principal Fathers of his Order, to congratulate us for the great success we had had in our Audience, whereof he had been a witness; to thank us for all that we had spoken in defence of S. Augustin and his Doctrine; and to testify to us how greatly he and his whole Order accounted themselves beholden to us for it. But though he found us not at home, yet the extreme satisfaction which he received from our Audience, and his impatience to express the same to us, caused him to come again accompanied with the same Fathers on Wednesday the 21. in the morning. I was gone abroad, but my Colleagues were still in their lodging and received this obliging and agreeable Visit. I doubt not that many remarkable things were spoken in it; but being I was not there, and writ down nothing which they then told me, I cannot remember any particular besides the great satisfaction they all four had in having seen this General and his Fathers so well pleased with us, and animated for our cause.  
I was gone in the mean time to Cardinal Barberin, to tell him something of our Audience upon the way to la Minerve whether I designed to accompany him. At la Minerve I found nothing but congratulations for the good success of our Audience. F. Reginald among others told me, that having enquired news thereof of the Master of the sacred Palace, this good Father told him that we had spoken audacter, modestè, doctè, piè, Confidently, modestly, learnedly, and piously. My Colleagues, as we had agreed, met me at S. Lovis whether we went to visit Cardinal S. Clement together, partly to acquaint him with what had passed before the Pope, and partly to give him a Copy of the Distinction of senses, whereby he might see how conformable our Sentiments were as well to those of his Order, as to those of the Church. We did so, and this Cardinal looked upon us, (as he told us expressly) as the sole persons who had the means and liberty to defend the Catholic faith at this time, so unworthily distressed by such a multitude of people who ought to interest themselves in its behalf as well as we. When we left him we went to Montecavallo, from whence M. Manessier being indisposed, was forced to repair home. Nevertheless we visited Cardinal Pamphilio without him, & gave his Eminence thanks for the  hearing he had given us, and for his attention to what we spoke. He answered us, That 'twas a very delightful thing to hear people who spoke so well as we did. We presented him a Copy of the Distinction of senses; and as we were going to tell him of the other Writings which we had presented to his Holiness, he told us that he had seen them all (Perhaps 'twas at the moment of their delivery to the Pope) We signified to him our design to print them, what reasons obliged us thereunto, and upon what conditions we had requested permission for it from the Master of the sacred Palace. He answered us, he would speak to the Pope about it in the Evening; whereupon I told him, I would bring him a Copy of our Memorial touching that matter, to the end himself and his Holiness also might therein more distinctly see the reasons and conditions of our demands. At the end of Vespers I carried him a Copy, which he received with great courtesy, and assured me again that he would not fail to speak of it to his Holiness in the Evening.  
But before we went to Vespers, we had time to visit F. Luca Vadingo, who made us a compendious recital of all that we had spoken before the Pope. He professed great approbation of it, and told us, he believed we had changed his Holiness' thoughts, cogitationes sanctitatis suae. He said, The report of the great success of our audience was already spread throughout Rome; That in the morning he had seen two or three Cardinals, amongst others Pimentel, who told him that the business was related to them very much to our advantage; That this last said he should have been glad to have heard us; That it was affirmed to him by some, speaking of us, that egregiè se gesserunt, and that he answered his Eminence, that it might be said, maximè egregiè. That he wished he were acquainted with the Ambassador, that he might go to congratulate with him for the glory of this action, because indeed we had done honour to France.  
From F. Vadingo we went to accompany the Ambassador to the Vespers of the Ascension. As we were going before him into the Chapel, F. Celestin was coming forth, and told me, as he passed by and saluted me with a pleasant countenance, Monsù De la Lane mi died la l' altro giorno, mi rapi il cuore, Monsieur de la Lane put life into me the other day, he ravished my heart. Having heard Vespers, I carried Cardinal Pamphilio a Copy of our Memorial to the Master of the sacred Palace, as I said above. And afterwards, M. the Valcroissant, F. Des-mares and myself went to visit Cardinal Barberin, with whom we spent about half an hour.  
Upon Ascension day, after Mass, I went to Cardinal Pamphilio, to know whether the Pope allowed of our Impression, to the end we might set about it the next day. The Cardinal was already retired; ann I desired his Maistre de Chambre to tell him the business of my coming to him. He went and spoke to his Eminence, and came back and told me, che nero haveva altra riposta. I enquired the meaning of this word: He told me, that either his Eminence had not yet spoken to the Pope, or the Pope had resolved upon nothing. Coming from Montecavallo, I met Monsignor d' Ornano, who took me up into his Coach and carried me to my Lodging. By the way, he told me, that un tall signior mineti told him, that the Pope was marvailously satisfied with our Audience, especially with the Abbot of Valcroissant's Speech.  
In the Evening I carried the Ambassador a Copy of our Memorial to the Master of the sacred Palace, as I had promised him, and I told him what Cardinal Pamphilio had undertaken to do for us in this Affair, and therefore desired him to speak to him about it the next day when he saw him. As for the Pope, I left it to the Ambassador to speak what he thought fit to his Holiness, since Cardinal Pamphilio had promised to speak to him about it himself. But I desired the Ambassador, that whatever he pleased to do, he would procure us Licence for our Impression by the next day, that we might set the Printer to work forthwith; and also that he would assure the Pope, that in the ensuing Congregations we would abridge all things as much as possible, and be as little tedious to his Holiness, the Cardinals and Consultors as could be, as we had done in some measure in our first audience, of the length of which no body complained; but on the contrary, every one testified extraordinary satisfaction. The Ambassador seemed well pleased with this great success, and asked me, whether it was not good counsel which he gave us to appear and be heard; because, had we persisted in refusing to be heard except in presence of our Adversaries, this had never happened: whereas appearing as we had done, they who heard us knew what we said to them, and moreover saw what necessity there was of hearing us contradictorily. I told the Ambassador that we expected this from God's mercy and the Pope's justice; and that when it came to pass, the things which we had to say would become more apparent; and that if our Adversaries had been present at those which we had already spoken, they would have been more evident than they were; because had we spoken any one thing untrue, our Adversaries might have accepted against it; and withal been obliged to assent to such as they could not contradict. That in like manner were we present at their audience, designed to be within few days, they would be obliged to abstain from many calumnies and falsities which otherwise they would take the liberty to utter; or in case they ventured to speak the same in our presence, we should be able to make them and the whole Assembly sensible of their injuriousness in speaking so. The Ambassador told me, he would take occasion to tell the Pope all this, and that if his Holiness thought good, he might cause both sides to appear in this manner  
M. Manessier's indisposition continued still, and we continued our Visits without him. After we had accompanied the Ambassador to his ordinary audience on Friday May 23. we went to Cardinal Ginggi's apartment. We thanked him for the time and patience which he had afforded to our audience, and after an obliging and affable answer, he fell to speak of F. Adam's book, whose exorbitances he could not sufficiently comprehend. He asked us, whether the Ordinaries of places did not provide against such disorders? That their duty obliged them to remedy the same. We answered him that it happened so sometimes; as when F. Brisacier's book against the purity of the Doctrine and Manners of the Abbey of Port-Royal was condemned, and when the scandalous Chronicle of the Fueillant was suppressed; but we also mentioned the difficulties and obstacles which sometimes obstructed this course of justice. We spoke concerning the Impression of our Writings; the Cardinal understood the thing as if we desired the same liberty wherewith other books are ordinarily printed; but to undeceive him in that conceit, I read to him the conditions of our Request mentioned in our Memorial to the Master of the sacred Palace.  
From thence I returned to the Pope's Presence-Chamber; the Ambassador stayed with his Holiness till half an hour after twelve. I accompanied him to Cardinal Pamphilio; and as I returned with him in his Coach, he told me that the Pope said, we had spoken to his Holiness about our Impressi●, but the word Impression sounded somewhat ●h; that it was a thing of consequence; that herald consult with the Cardinals about it; that t● Festivals must first be over, and then it should 〈◊〉 taken into consideration. As for Cardinal ●…mphilio, the Ambassador told me, that his Eminence would readily have consented to it, had it depended on himself.  
Car●al Cechini, one of the five deputed for our Co●regation, could not be present at that which 〈◊〉 held before the Pope; by reason of his misund●tanding with his Holiness, which still continu● We visited him this day in the afternoon, ●ounted to him all that had passed, and gave hi● copy of the Distinction of Senses, as we had ●e to the rest. I shall mention here by the way, ●hat to the end these Copies might be as authenti●as so many Originals, we subscribed them all and ratified them with our accustomed Seals. Cardinal Cechini told us, he was sorry that he could 〈◊〉 be present at our audience; and in reference the Propositions which had been advanced aghasted S. Augustin, concerning which we spoke to ●m, he told us, that that was it which touched hi● and gave him the greatest trouble; Est id, sache, quod me auget & me urget maximè. We answered him, that we hoped shortly to present hi● all our Writings, having demanded I permission 〈◊〉 print them; but as for M, the Velcroissant's spe●…h, being it was not to be printed with our Writi●… is, we presented him a copy of it; which he r●…eiv'd with many expressions of satisfaction.  
From this Visit we went to Cardinal Rapaccioli, to whom we ●elated the passages of our audience; he thanked us and told us that his being at Rome was only acc●…ental, that he had studied there matters only so 〈◊〉 as to satisfy his curiosity, and not to judge of th●m; and nevertheless to tell us what he thought of ●he Propositions, he said, he accounted them he those pictures which represented on one side an ●ngel, & on the other a Devil; which are lovely if b●…eld one way, and affrighting if considered another. That the same might be said of these Propo●…ions, by reason of their good and bad senses; Th●t we had the unhappiness, that although we h●d not their bad senses, yet people that held them ●ere joined with us; and in case those people proved the cause that the Propositions were condemned by reason of such bad senses, yet we, who dis●…en'd the holding of them, should not be condemned I diverted this Cardinal as much as I could from th●s belief, and assured him that what he newly spoke was a mere calumny & an artifice employed by our adversaries for the more easy obtaining of the condemnation of the Propositions, to the end they might make what use thereof they pleased; that in truth no Catholic in France held the Propositions otherwise then we did. He told us our Adversaries having been lately with him, complained to him, that Women began to allege in confession that they had not power to resist a temptation. We answered him that this was another calumny contrived to render a holy doctrine odious and ridiculous; that yet were this abuse of it as true as it was false, nevertheless the doctrine and the truth ought not and could not receive any prejudice from it. Whence we took occasion to tell him that all these ●…ings evinced the necessity of establishing such Congregation as we demanded, wherein the a●●gations of either party against the other in pre●ce of them both might be carefully examined, a● neither of them venture to speak things in ●…e air, which could turn only to their own co●sion, when the other had full liberty to defers themselves according to the ordinary way of ●stice; and nothing might be admitted upon will and calumnious suggestions, but only what s●…uld be justified by good proofs. The Cardinal●●d, such a Congregation was a thing much to be v●…t, but he fell still upon his first conceit, namely the bad senses of the Propositions procured their condemnation, the same would in no wise hu●…us who maintained them not. Whereupon we ●ere fain to reiterate to him three or four several ●nes, that there was no ground to speak of a con●mnation in this affair by reason of the bad senses ●not only because the Propositions were advant by the Prosecutors of their condemnation pu●osely to make advantage thereof against the t●th, and for that these bad senses were not held I 〈◊〉 any Catholic; but also because it was requisite to consider the truths whereof they were ca●ble, and which were hidden, obscured and im●gned under them. He also mentioned a proje● for the H. See to find out a medium in which ●e parties might agree. Whereunto we answered that indeed 'twas a good thing to bring parts to a just temper and to reduce them thereunto ●om vicious extremes; but when but one of them 〈◊〉 in such vicious extreme, and the other is already in the middle, the latter must be left in its pl●e, and only the other reduced. For example, if ●here be two men, the one covetous and the ot●er prodigal; they ought both of them to be redu●… to the moderation and middle management o● the Liberal; but when one is liberal and the ot●er covetous, we must not talk of reclaiming both of them to a medium, but leave the liberal in his station, since he is already in the middle, and r●uce the covetous to it who is remote from it. That thus since by God's mercy we have been so ●…ppy as to hold the middle, wherein the Catholici● faith is found, which we defend against declared heretics as well as against the Jesuits, 'tis a goo● work to compare the one with the one with the other, and endeavour to reduce each of them to t●e middle wherein we are; but if we be compa●d with either of them, a medium between us cannot in justice be propounded. Upon which occasion we did not forget that excellent passage of S. Augustin in his second book ad Bonifacium, cap. 2. touching the reproaches which the Pelagians o●●st upon the Catholics of being Manichees, which we applied to the Jesuits and the Calvinists by changing the names: Desinant itaque Pelagiani Catholicis objectare, good non sunt, nec ideo si velint h●beri amabiles, quia odioso Manichaeorum alversantur errori, sed merito se agnoscant odibiles, quia suum non aversantur ererrorem. Possunt enim duo errores inter se esse contrarii, sed ambo sunt detestandi quia sunt ambo contrarii veritati. Nam si propterea sunt diligendi Pelagiani, quia oderunt Manichaeos', diligendi sunt & Manichaei, quia oderunt Pelagianos. Sed absit ut Catholica mater Ecclesia propter alterorum odium, alteros eligat amare, cum monente at que adjuvante Domino debeat utrosque vitare, & cupiat utrosque sanare.  
In the course of the Visits which we made since our audience, we had been twice or thrice to wait upon Card. Ginetti without effect. On Sunday May 25. we went again, and found him with Card. Colonia. He was to go abroad as soon as he had reconducted this Cardinal; and therefore when he departed, we presented ourselves below to Cardinal Ginetti to give him our thanks. But he would not speak with us till we were gone up and sealed in the ordinary way. We had no sooner begun our thanks, but he told us it was his part to thank us; That he should be glad to hear us a hundred times; that we spoke with vivacity, ingenuity, clearness and freedom. Li sentirci volentieri cento volte; hanno parlato con vivacità con spirito, con chiarezza, con franchezza. Whereto he added some other obliging terms which I did not remember. We presented him a Copy of the Writing of Distinction of senses, and told him we hoped to present him all the rest printed.  
Leaving him, we went to the General of the Dominicans, and gave him likewise a Copy of the above said Writing; by which we told him he should see, that if after that explication we were in any danger of being condemned, the doctrine of S. Thomas, which was that of his Order, would run the same fortune, as well as that of S. Augustin. He said, he had done his utmost to intervene in our affair, but the Pope had absolutely hindered him, because he would not meddle with the controversy which Clement VIII. had left undecided; that he omitted nothing that lay in his power to further our cause, but having been interdicted to intervene in it, they could not appear in it, and durst not speak. He told us Cardinal de Medicis spoke to him for a Copy of our Writings to send to the Duke of Florence. To which we answered that when they were printed, we would give him one both for that use and for any other he pleased. He said it was a strange thing how extraordinarily well pleased the Pope was with the Congregations held before him; and that when Prince Justinian acquainted him with what the Pope Paid at Signora Olympia's Palace upon the day of the Annunciation, he said his Holiness used these words; Non potete credere il gusto ch' halbiamo in questo Congregationi. Le faremmo durare tre ò quattro alter hore, se non, etc. You cannot believe, (said the Pope) what pleasure we take in these Congregations. We would have them last three, or four hours longer, were it not for the sake of the good old men who are standing all the while.   

CHAP. XXV.  
New rumours of the Bull against the Propositions. A considerable word of Cardinal Ghiggi in our favour concerning the same. Cardinal Pimentel's public entrance into Rome; he takes this occasion to divert the Pope from the design of his Bull, but in vain. M. Hallier and his Colleagues are not heard before the Pope, and the reason. My last conference with Cardinal Ghiggi. F. Modeste's pretention to the Generalship of his Order frustrated.  
THere was a Consistory on Monday May 26. in which two things passed worthy of remark: One, that a man unknown to M. de Vertamont, a Counsellor of the Parliament, who was then at Rome, addresed himself to him, and asked him, whether, when I spoke to him on Friday before in the Pope's Presence-chamber, I did not say to him, that after his Holines' judgement, it would be requisite to have that of a general Council. Whereunto M. de Vertamont said, that I never spoke any such thing to him or like it. The other, that the same Cardinal who discoursed so largely with Cardinal Ghiggi in the Consistory of the fifth of this month touching the Bull, of which a report was spread and afterwards smothered, discoursed with him again upon the reviving of the same, as a most certain and resolved thing. Cardinal Ghiggi fairly acknowledged it; but to justify it, he added that the Propositions had no relation to S. Augustin or S. Thomas. The other Cardinal finding it in vain to oppose it further, began to speak of it as a thing concluded, and asked Cardinal Ghiggi with what solemnities the Bull was to be published; particularly whether we should be required to subscribe to the condemnation of the Propositions, Cardinal Ghiggi wondered at this question, and told him none were required to subscribe to the condemnation of any doctrine whatsoever, but such as maintained it; and therefore there was no thought of causing us to subscribe to that of the Propositions, since we never maintained them.  
Tuesday the 27 M. the Valcroissant, M. Angran and I went in the morning to see the General of the Augustine's, and thank him for his courteous and obliging visit the week before: He received ours with extreme kindness, and showed us the Original Writing of of Clement viii. hand wherein was written half in Italian and half Latin, the famous speech which he made at the opening of the Congregation de Auxiliis held under his Pontificate, in which that Pope most solidly, establishes the authority of S. Augustin's doctrine; and as far as I could observe by what this General read of it to us, the expressions of that great Pope were more emphatical and vehement for the said doctrine then what I have seen thereof in several books wherein it is mentioned. He showed us also divers other original pieces upon the same matter, and gave us hope of copies of them in time, but durst not give us any yet. We knew not that that which was found among Cardinal Roma's Papers had been given to him; but he showed us the Informations upon the three first Propositions which were made for that Cardinal by the excellent Divines above spoken of, and asked us whether we knew how he might recover what was written by the same hand upon the two others. Assoon as I saw them, I intimated to him, that I knew whence he had them, and I told him, that it was in vain to seek after what the same Divine had written upon the two last Propositions, because he writ only upon the three first, having been obliged to departed from Rome assoon as he had done with them, to a considerable employment given him by the Pope.  
As we were returning home, we met an Abbot a friend of ours, who told us that he came from the Pope's Presence-chamber, and that we had hindered him from having audience that day, by reason of a Congregation which his Holiness held about our affair with the four Cardinals who were present at our grand audience. I asked him whether none were there but they. He answered me that M. Albizzi was there too, but as for Consultors, he had not seen any. He added that a friend of M. Hallier's told him the day before, that this Doctor said this Congregation was to be held, but it would be the last that should be held about our affair. Assoon as this Abbot spoke of this Congregation, I no longer doubted but it was the last, and that our business was absolutely at an end, as I testified to him and my Colleagues immediately.  
Nevertheless we went in the afternoon to carry Cardinal Cechini M. the Valcroissants Oration as we had promised him; but not finding him at home, we made some other visits, in the course having seen M. Hallier and his Colleagues going, as we conceived, to M. Albizzi to understand the news of the Congregation held in the morning. I caused one to follow them, and accordingly found that we were not mistaken in our Conjecture, because they went first to the Penitentiary Jesuits of S. Peter, and from thence to M. Aldizzi.  
Wednesday the 28th. we went again to carry Cardinal Cechini the Oration. When he had received it and thanked us for it, he told us that after our departure, the last time we visited him, he fell to read our writing of the distinction of senses, and liked it vety well, because we explained our sentiments very sincerely and clearly. He said also that he was very well pleased with two particularities which he took notice of in the last entertainment. One, that we had showed him that the Bishops who subscribed the letter of M. de Vabres, desired only a Decision upon the Propositions, and not a declaration against them. What he spoke upon this matter obliged us to answer him, and the discourse fell insensibly to other reflections, so that he mentioned not the other particularity wherewith he said he was well pleased. After we left this Cardinal, I went to see F. Vbaldino, and told him how inclined we heard the Pope was to publish a condemnation, notwithstanding his contrary judgement of his Holines' intentions; but none of these rumours startled this person who well understood his Holines' temper, and conceived him so very circumspect and prudent, that he could not believe it possible for him ever to be brought to it, because, said he, the least difficulty is enough to stop him, Ogni picciola cost a basta per fermare il Papa.  
Cardinal Pimentel, who arrived at Rome a while before, remained there hitherto incognito. On Thursday the 29. he made his entrance and cavalcade. And having been exactly informed of what passed in our affair, since his arrival, he resolved not to let the opportunity of this ceremony pass, without speaking to the Pope of it, and beseeching his Holiness not to precipitate any thing, but to give him time to represent what important things he had to acquaint him with concerning it, in regard of the dangerous consequences which were to be feared from it. Accordingly he spoke to the Pope of it privately upon occasion of this ceremony, and particularly asked him what a thing it would be if the doctrine of S. Augustin and S. Thomas came to receive any impeachment by this condemnation? The Pope answered him that the matter had been carefully examined in his own presence, that he had caused prayers to be purposely made for it, that the question was found to be neither concerning S. Augustin, nor S. Thomas, nor their doctrine; and it was necessary to do something against Jansenius' book.  
The same morning in the course of this ceremony I met a person very well informed of things, who told me that the Pope would give no more audience, but had given order to prepare the Bull. I asked him, since when? He answered me, since the last Congregation which was held on the Tuesday preceding. I learned afterward that M. Albizzi coming to Cardinal Pamphilio in the Consistory, presented his Eminence a paper folded up, upon which these words were written, Expediatur pro festo Pentecostes. I apprehended that it was the order which himself had given for it since the Congregation of Tuesday, and the Expedition of it rendered to him, which he delivered to this Cardinal. But I knew several days before, when the Votes of the Consultors were writ down in the house of the Inquisition that it was fully resolved upon to expedite this affair in the feast of Pentecost, no doubt to make the more show in the solemnity of the descent of the H. Ghost upon the Faithful, and to insult the more highly over such as gloried in the intention which Clement VIII. had, the year of his death (which happened in March) to publish his Bull against the Jesuits after the Vespers of this day in presence of the sacred College, and to create F. Lemos a Cardinal; as also to give those Fathers more ground to be quit with such as should upbraid them with it, and gloriously to abolish the memory of it by a contrary most  success upon the same day. See the Copy of a short letter sent to me by an eminent Dominican, whilst those Votes were transcribing in the H. Office, wherein he gave me notice of M. Albizzi's urgency for haste's which moved him angrily to tell the Father of that Order who were employed therein, but made not speed enough according to his fancy, That they were as stubborn as Mules, and would be the cause that the business could not be ready against Pentecost.  
Si scrivono (said he) li voti all Saint' Officio, & non sono in ordine ancora. Albici in colera proruppe & disse, Questi frati di San Dominico sono ostinati come muli: sono causa che non si spedirà questa facenda ne anco alla pentecost.  
I was the more amazed to see these preparations, for that I certainly known M. Hallier and his Colleagues had not been once heard yet before the Pope, and I had not forgot that the Ambassador said they should be heard after us. They should indeed, though it were but for ceremony; and it was so designed when we were heard; but they who managed their interests, remembering what those Doctors had done in the Congregation held at Cardinal Spadas palace January 27. wherewith nevertheless they were it that time satisfied, and whereby they perceived of what they were capable, foreseeing the great disproportion there would be between what they could do before the Pope, and what we had done; and it would be such as would perhaps render them ridiculous and despicable to the Pope and a great part of the Congregation; conceived it the safest way for those Doctors and for the accomplishment of their design of extorting a condemnation from the Pope, not to stand upon this formality, but to dispense with them from appearing before the Pope. Wherefore reflecting afterwards upon what F. Guerin had told me in a Visit upon Thursday in the afternoon, I did not wonder so much as I had done at the first notice of such shameful unworthiness, namely, their beginning to publish at Rome wherever they came, that they did not desire to speak before the Pope, nor account it necessary; that should they appear, they had nothing else to say but what they had said before the Congregation at Cardinal Spadas house January 27. and that his Holiness was sufficiently informed thereof by the relations of such as heard them. Nevertheless, for the better colouring of this tergiversation, they added that should the Pope desire to hear them and send for them, than they would appear; but whilst they spoke this, they knew they should never be summoned.  
In the evening I acquainted my Colleagues with what I had learned concerning the preparatious of the Bull which was talked of, to the end I might consult with them whether any thing could be done by us to stop the blow; but we all consented that after what we had done, there was no more to be done on our part, saving to redouble our prayers and sighs before God.  
Yet, to omit nothing of what we ought to do before men, but to continue acting to the last according as we were obliged, I went to Card Ghiggi on Friday the 30th. in the afternoon, I carried to him the several Title pages & beginnings of F. Annat's book entitled Jansenius à Thomistis damnatus, etc. according to my promise the last time we visited his Eminence altogether. I told him this Jesuits deceitful way of writing, so full of impostures and disguises, that the same were not to be unridled and discovered, but by one that was throughly informed of the matter. I did not dissemble the purity and clearness of his style; but withal I presented his Eminence the Preface of that work, in which I assured him, he would of himself discover many lies touching things which his Eminence understood, and this Writer advanced with as much confidence and boldness as if they had been most certain truths. The Cardinal neglected what I said to him concerning this subject, and did not deign to read the Preface, though it was but of two little pages. I told him also, that the body of this book was full of the like falsities, and yet it was one of the Writings of M. Hallier, and his Colleagues, presented to the Congregation. How? (said the Cardinal) have they presented it to the Cardinals? I answered, that I did not affirm so much of my own knowledge; though I could not doubt but they did, being I knew that they gave it to a Consultor, who lent it to a friend of mine, from whom I had it; and (for fear of never seeing it again) copied it out. The Cardinal replied hereunto with a careless accent, as telling me, 'twas a thing sufficiently superfluous to present Writings to the Consultors, because the Pope never intended to admit of a contestation between the Parties in this Affair; nevertheless, (as 'twere) correcting what he had said, he added, that yet 'twas good that they saw what both the one and the other had to say; which I interpreting, as if he meant that we had presented two Writings to the Consultors, I answered, that for our part we had not given to any (pass mesme un seul morceau de papier) not so much as one scrap of Paper; Nor any thing upon the Propositions to any one but the Pope at the end of our grand Audience. The Cardinal said, we presented some at the beginning. I answered him, that we gave none then but that de Gestis, and another concerning S. Augustin's authority; nor these to any but the Cardinals, and that upon a certain presumption, that the same would forthwith be communicated to our Adversaries. The Card. said, that Cardinal Spada had showed them to the Consultors. I answered nothing to this, but told him, that we had not yet presented to Cardinal Pamphilio the copy which we got ready for him, because 'twas a long time ere we knew of his being of the Congregation; and when we knew it, some time was requisite for preparing a copy; and since it was ready, we had gone several times to present it to him, but could not find him at conveniency to receive it, till the time of doing it was insensibly passed; that it remained still in our hands, and we kept it to present to him in case a fitting time returned. Whereupon I took occasion to ask this Cardinal, whether he knew that any thing was appointed concerning the permission to print our Writings which we requested. He answered, that he accounted it a difficult thing. I told him what Offices the Ambassador and Cardinal Pamphilio had done for us to the Pope about it, and that his Holiness answered, He would consult with their Eminences concerning it during the Festivals. I reminded him of the conditions and restrictions of our Request, and beseeched him to be favourable to us therein; whereof he gave me some hopes. Then I showed him F. Brisacier's Book, the Archbishop of Paris his censure upon it, and the Letter which the Jesuits published against this censure. I told him that these Fathers said of those of the Faculty of Paris, Non transeant Sequanam; of those of Rome, Quid Romanae Censurae cum Gallia? That they termed Rome a foreign Power, even in matters of Doctrine, as I showed him that M. Hallier had complained in the Defence of this Doctrine which he published against them Anno 1644. in which work also this Doctor complained that the Jesuits decried him as a Calumniator, a Heretic and an enemy of Religious life. I likewise showed him that passage of F. l' Abbè, Brevi loquetur Roma quid senserit Augustinus aut quid sentire debuerit. Whereunto the Cardinal answered that the Jesuits might say, that by Augustinus they meant Jansenius, in regard of his Book entitled Jansenii Augustinus. I showed him clearly by the reading of some words both at the end and beginning, that this was spoken of the true S. Augustin of Hippo, that great Doctor of Grace. He read over F. l' Abbe's Advertisement to the Reader, and persisted in his ingenuous subtlety and putoff, that the Jesuits might say, it was meant of the Augustin of Ipre; after which I gave his Eminence the good night.  
When I was returned to our Lodging, M. Angran told me, that F. Reginald had sent to acquaint him, that he understood by two or three hands that the Bull was printing, and would come forth the next day.  
Saturday May 31. I learned in a Visit, that the report of the Bull was renewed on Thursday morning, and come to the ears of the Procurator General of the Dominicans, by whom his General was advertised thereof, who seeing Cardinal Pimentel already engaged in the ceremony of his entrance, yet forbore not to go to Monte Cavallo, to acquaint him therewith in two words at the end of the Ceremony, to the end he might speak to the Pope about it. That this General having afterwards sent F. the Terrasanta to his Eminence to know the success, the Cardinal gave him the account above related, namely, that he had remonstrated to the Pope the danger of this Affair, and the sad consequences to be apprehended from it; and that the Pope answered him, that every thing had been carefully examined in Congregations before himself; That 'twas certain the Propositions had no relation to S. Augustin and S. Thomas, their Doctrine, or the matter de Auxiliis; That the Cardinal offered to reiterate and press his Remonstrances; but found the Pope so fixed in this mind and resolution, that he saw not how to proceed; and that his Holiness was absolutely persuaded that it was requisite to do something against Jansenius. The same Friend told me further, tdat he had newly sent to the Apostolical Printing-house, to discover whether the Bull was at the Press, but the doors were all shut, and he believed it was a printing; That therefore he had some suspicion that it would be published after Vespers or in the Chamber of Presence. I went to Vespers in the afternoon, and to the Presence-Chamber both before and after Vespers, to be a witness of all that passed there, in case any thing were done about publishing the Bull; but I saw nothing there more than usual, saying that all the Conventual Cordeliers who had chosen their General in the morning came with him in great number to salute the Pope and kiss his holiness's feet.  
F. Modeste was of this Order and pretended to this Generalship. There was a Statute of the Order which rendered him uncapable of being nominated. For the removing of which obstacle he obtained an express Brief of the Pope. Cardinal Pamphilio was Protector of this Order (that is, in plain terms according as things are transacted, the Master and Sovereign of it) and on Friday he went in person purposely to solicit the suffrages of the Friars in favour of F. Modeste. Now this Cardinal having conferred with the said Fathers about the matter, held himself so assured of this Election, that on Friday he told the Pope, who concerned himself therein, that the business was as good as done. On Saturday very early he returned to speak to those Fathers again that he might keep them in the same mind: but several of the Father's looking upon this proceeding as having some show of violence, there arose a loud cry amongst the multitude, Libertà, Libertà, Liberte, Liberte, which cry was begun by certain French. Hereupon Cardinal Pamphilio, who before accounted the thing most certain, withdrawing himself, that he might avoid giving occasion to those complaints, and leave them to make their Election in peace, the Friars chose an other then F. Modeste: which being reported to Cardinal Pamphilio, he conceived himself obliged to give the Pope notice thereof forthwith. The Pope seeing this so sudden change of the state wherein this Cardinal told him things were the day before, said these words to him, perhaps partly in jest and partly otherwise, Verament nuscirete been in un Conclave, 'Tis likely you would speed well in a Conclave.   

CHAP. XXVI.  
Of the Letters writ to me from Paris during the month of May and June concerning my relation of what passed at Rome during May.  
SCarce any thing considerable was writ to me by the two first Posts that returned in May, but what was at least reiterated and spoken more expressly by those Letters of the three last. Wherefore; to abridge and retrench unnecessary repetitions, I shall here give an account only of those of the 16th. 23d. and 30th. of this month.  
Those of the 16th. spoke of a ridiculous Libel which the Molinists caused to be cried up and down the streets, whereof they were afterwards ashamed. See what M. de S. Beuve writ to me about it; Since the prank which those of this City had the boldness to play last week, they have published nothing; they blush when they are reproached with the insolence of causing a ridiculous piece to be cried about entitled, A CATALOGVE INSTRUCTION SENT BY OUR H. F. THE POPE AGAINST THE JANSENISTS. They turn the fault from themselves upon the Hawkers and Pamphlet-venters.  
And nevertheless 'tis certain, that M. le Moine was the Approbator of it, as I found by a Letter wrii to me by M. Taignier, May 9 touching the same. The Libel, saith he, whereof I spoke to M. Valcroissant, is published under the Licence of M. le Moine, who hath written with his own hand at the bottom of the Frontispiece; THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS WRITING WHICH MAY HINDER IT FROM BEING PRINTED. LE MOINE. I have this Writing with le Moine's Original Signature.  
The Molinists absolutely affirm, that the Condemnation of the Propositions is most assured, and will undoubtedly be received at the end of this month.  
You will receive F. Annat's book de Ecclesia praesentis temporis, by the Messenger who sets forth on Tuesday.  
In his Letter of the 23d. M. de S. Beuve speaks thus: Sir, I understand by your last Letter that nothing has been done since Easter, but the reasons thereof are unknown to me; only people spend their judgements much concerning this delay. I leave policy to the Italians, and tell you, that you must still act vigorously and pursue the destruction of Molinism. It makes me somewhat impatient that the Dominicans have not yet presented their Memorial. I know all arts are practised to make them desist. M. de Marguerie, a known disciple of the Jesuits, though an ancient Counsellor of State, proclaims the General of the Dominicans Pragmatical and ignorant, and takes this liberty even in speaking to Dominicans, from whom I heard it. Judge whence such language hath its original. M. le Moine lately discoursing in our Court with the Abbot de Bourzeys and myself, and blaming the Abbot for imposing upon him in his last book, by accusing him of denying Scientia Media, after some pleasant discourse, amongst the rest, the Abbot telling, that he did not declare himself for Scientia Media openly till after the printing, or (at least) writing of this book, having till the last year avoided the Question, but that he saw how he drew near Molina every day, inasmuch as he affirmed, that the Grace of Action cannot be explicated but by Scientia Media; at length the Discourse fell upon the Declaration of the Dominicans for S. Augustin's Doctrine, and M. le Moine let slip this word, that only two or three poultry Jacobin's declared themselves at Rome. I could not suffer this language, but took him up, and told him that he was mistaken; that the whole Order was of that mind; that I knew it most perfectly; to all which he was silent. M. Annat said lately, that he conceived M. Hallier would return speedily. I know not whether it be, because he is to be at the Council of Tours appointed on the first of July; but I know certainly that Passports have been sent for him and his Colleagues. Perhaps they will substitute F. Mulard in their place as a most worthy Deputy, an exemplary Monastic, and a man of great probity. I wish I may be mistaken concerning M. N. but I fear I am not. The new-changed Propositions are in my opinion a testimony of the weakness of our Adversaries. Good use must be made of this opportunity, and two things inculcated to every one. First, That they endeavour to put the change upon us; and secondly, That they have no order from the Bishops to demand the Examen of these Propositions. After which they must be urged to allege the Authors of them, and his Holiness convinced that they abuse the H. See, by going about to delude it with their malicious and envenomned imaginations. For my part, I confess, I know not with what conscience M. Cornet contrived the first Propositions, or our Adversaries there substituted the second. Fail not to demand the condemnation of the Propositions injurious to S. Augustin's authority at their first Audience. 'Tis left to your prudence to propound other Propositions, according as you shall judge expedient.  
I think no day in the course of these two years afforded me more Letters worthy of inserting in this Journal than this thirtieth of May; I have half a dozen in my hands, whereof the first was from my Lord the Bishop of chaalon's Sur Marne, and follows in these terms,  
Sir,  
YOur last gave us some trouble, whereof the Impression would be more grievous, did not confidence uphold us. I have used all means possible to get these discoveries from the Nuntio which you desire, and 'tis very credible he hath not received those orders from Rome which you apprehend. Every thing shall be particularly signified to you. But I see nothing to fear, upon two grounds; first, in that there can be nothing disadvantageous to the truth, provided Effectual Grace be expressly secured, and that sense of the five Propositions justified; and seeondly, in that, being a thing most just and reasonable, it seems not possible to be denied you, inasmuch as 'tis the only undoubted means to quiet men's minds, and maintain the honour of the H. See. Many considerable persons intent to write to this effect to Rome, and the Dominicans are as much concerned to do it, as any. If they do not, they lose their ancient advantages, and the new Doctrine will prevail by intrigues against that of S. Augustin and S. Thomas. It is purposed to write largely hereupon to the Father's Nolano and Reginald; I doubt not but together within it they will employ all possible care and zeal therein, and am for ever,  
Sir, Your most humble and affectionate servant, F. Bishop, and C. de chaalon's.  
The second is from the Abbot de Villars, than Agent General of the Clergy of France to M. the Valcroissant;, and contained these terms.  
Sir,  
I Received your Letter of the 18th. of the last month. I was surprised at the news you have pleased to tell me, that some Doctors of Sorbonne have presented a Memorial to his Holiness in the name of the Clergy of France, and take upon themselves the quality of its Deputies. I believe you so intelligent of the manner of proceeding used by the Clergy of France, as not to be ignorant that such Commissions are never given but in Assemblies which we convoke ourselves. I can assure you that within these two years that I have been in office, no power hath been granted to treat of these kind of matters with his Holiness; it was never propounded; There goes forth no act of these Assemblies but what I sign, and therefore it will not be difficult for you to undeceive those that have credited this pretence; I wish, Sir, I could render you some other service, which might further assure you that I am,  
Sir, Your most humble and obedient servant, De Villars, Agent General of the Clergy of France.  
The third is from M. de Brousse, to this effect.  
Sir,  
THis week hath been sufficiently peaceable among us, at least so far as things are come to my knowledge. All that I have learned, is, that the other day M. Amiot's Vicar told a friend of mine, that M. Hallier had rend word to his Master, that the contests of the Jansenists were ended at Rome, and that the Bull for their condemnation was ready to be published. Moreover, I ha●… seen your last piece presented to the Pope, touching 〈◊〉 two false suggestions of the Jesuits, viz. that our contests have no affinity with those which were handled in the Congregation de Auxiliis, and a Perpetual Silence hath been imposed upon both parties. I truly say, I never saw any thing more solid, clear and generous; so that I make no difficulty to believe that 'tis the H. Ghost, the bestower of the Victorious grace of Jesus Christ, who guided your Hand and your Pen for its defence. M. Taignier sent it to me the other day, to translate into French by order from the Bishop of chaalon's. I have returned it to him this day, and am only sorry that my French hath not the life and gracefulness of your Italian. I doubt not but he will be ravished with it as well as he hath been with your other Memorials, of which I have writ to them formerly, and shall tell your further tidings by the next Post.  
The fourth is from M. Taignier, as followeth.  
THe denial to grant F. Des-mares and M. Manessier to be heard contradictorily with M. Hallier and the Jesuits, is a certain sign of what the Pope intends to do without hearing Parties. I conceive his Holiness has some particular design to pass a judgement; but I am persuaded 'twill rather be a judgement intricate and full of equivocations than a certain judgement, and such as might be received without any contradiction of the parties.  
My LL. the Bishops of Chaalon, Grasse and Valence, have spoken to the Nuntio in such manner as we desired, but could not discover that he had heard any thing like that you conjectured; nevertheless he has always appeared to have a prodigious aversion to S. Augustin's Disciples.  
Your Memorial was put into French yesterday. My L. of Chaalons showed it to my other Lords, who accounted it admirable.  
The Molinists have confirmed to us this week, that the Pope has given command for the preparation of the Bull. They hold for certain that it is in hand, and will speedily come forth. For my part I cannot believe that it is so, both in regard of what the Pope said to F. Des-mares, and what you have written to me hitherto; nor shall I ever believe it till I see it here.  
The fifth is from M. de Sainte-Beuve, and contains what follows.  
YOu signify to us, that F. Des-mares and M. Manessier have had a  Audience from his Holiness, who hath promised them to hear you voce & scripto, and only made a difficulty to grant you a contradictory Conference. This news does not perfectly satisfy us, since 'tis of moment that the Pope understand the deceits of our Adversaries and that truth which we defend, which cannot be unless he hear you in presence. But the news published here by the Molinists is much more surprising. They say, that the Pope is going to pronounce, that the thing is resolved upon, that the Bull is almost made, etc.  
This alarms many persons here, some of whom are of opinion; that you must be very cautious of appearing, becau●… the Audience granted you will be made use of only the more to oppress Truth and its defenders, for it will infallibly be mentioned in the Bull, that in it the parties were heard. Others conceive it requisite that you appear only to request the Pope to cause our Adversaries to declare who are the Authors of these Propositions; and to declare that they are not ours; and that we defend them not saving in the sense of the necessity of Effectual Grace. I cannot deny, Sir, that there is great reason for either opinion; and I certainly know, that if that whereof the Molinists boast be true, it will be a most disadvantageous thing to the H. See, and much abate the respect and submission which most men have always kept for Rome, and make many incline to the sentiments of the Richerists. But for my part, whatever others say, I am of advice, that you appear and speak resolutely; Lay open the fraudulent practices of our Adversaries, prove them the Authors of the Propositions which they have obtruded upon us, require an act thereof; declare, that although they be not ours, yet we conceive that they way have a very Catholic sense, in which we undertake to defend them. Demand, that judgement be passed upon this sense. Accuse our Adversaries of Impostures and delusions, accusing them of troubling the Church's peace, by prosecuting tho condemnation of the Propositions in the sense of Effectual Grace; and add, that if it pleases the Pope to receive them as accusers, it may be permitted you to impeach their doctrine as pernicious and erroneous. This is requisite, Sir, if you expect to have justice done you. Men may speak high when they demand nothing beyond the Rules of sincerity and Truth, etc.  
However, Sir, Supposing the Pope resolved to pass such a Bull as the Molinists speak off, yet if you be heard, he cannot but grant you two things: whereof one concerns our Persons, and the other the Doctrine. As to our Persons, We are obliged to let the whole Church and posterity know, that we are not the Authors of the Propositions, but they were maliciously forged by our Adversaries to make us odious by being charged with them. Your first Memorial presented to his Holiness is to this effect. And concerning the Doctrine; That the sense, of the Necessity of Grace effectual by itself, is a Catholic sense, free from all Censure, and that alone wherein we defend the Propositions. If these two conditions be added, I shall be contented, and the Church will have peace. Upon any others, we shall be so far from enjoying a calm, that on the contrary, we shall fall into a higher storm of dissension then before. We shall be obliged to make known the sincerity of our intentions, we shall complain of the wrong done us, and Posterity shall be informed of the truth of things. Be pleased to consider upon all this; and remember that I have long ago told you, that upnn this decision will depend the reviving of Richerism in France, whereof I am greatly afraid, etc.  
An other Doctor of Sorbon, a very able and moderate person (to whom I had often writ during the time that we desired our Lords to send us two or three persons more to help us in the managing of the matters, especially in the conferences which we expected to have before the Pope & the Congregations, to desire him to be one of the number, because I judged him very fit for it) returned the following answer to my invitation, May 31.  
Sir,  
I Have received three Letters from you almost altogether, though they be of very distant dates. One is of the 30th. of September. The supply you have received by the arrival of the persons who are gone to join with you, may serve for answer to a good part of what you writ to me, and expect from me. If I perform not to you, or rather to Truth, the same service which they are going to do, 'tis neither through want of zeal or affection, or else I understand not myself. Proportionably to my knowledge of Truth increases the honour and esteem I have of it, and I learn to know myself in it; which renders me always more backward to speak or treat of it, for fear of hurting it whilst I think to defend it, especially when I see not myself plainly engaged therein. Although to defend it, that is to withstand the violences and stratagems of those who go about to oppress it, showing openly their unfaithful dealing, their calumnies, and the injustice of their proceeding, seems to me more easy and less hazardous; because this consists more in matters of fact then in Questions and Controversies. But to pretend to examine it, to clear it, to commit it to the dispute and censure of its enemies, and to submit it to the judgement and determination of persons whom you hold suspected, and who in their best construction, never had the light and knowledge which is necessary for the comprehension of the matters in question, which are very difficult, and for the most part very remote from humane sense and reason, as the same is corrupted by sin; and to distinguish them from the apparences of Truth, under which Errors are ofttimes hid; all which is necessary in order to pronounce upon, and fully determine the questions at this day in controversy, so that there remain no seed of future combustion: This is that which I find most difficult, dangerous, and much above my abilities. 'Tis neither expedient nor necessary to define these questions in the Church; they are already sufficiently defined for such as seek the Truth without passion and interest; And others will not stand to what shall be now determined, in case it be conformable to Tradition, and contrary to their new opinions. Believe me, Sir, if you please, 'tis neither timorousness nor indifference that detains me; 'tis rather the respect and love which I have for the Truth. Had I less knowledge and experience of the state of the present affairs, perhaps I should be more bold, and I know not whether I should do better. However, should I fail in something, I hope God will not impute it, or else easily pardon it, whilst I keep to keep to his Laws, the guidance of the Church, and the common rules of prudence humane and divine; Adoring always with all submission his extraordinary ways, by which he absolutely effecteth whatever he pleaseth, and how he pleaseth, sometimes even by means and ways wholly contrary to those which he hath established. If it be a kind of little miracle, as you say, that he on whom the judgement of your affairs depends, hath at present an inclination to be informed thereof, whereas formerly he was troubled to hear the same mentioned; no doubt you will confess, that there needs another much greater miracle, whereby he may in a little time have the understanding and conduct which is necessary for pronouncing certainly, and conformably to the Truth and Tradition upon Questions so difficult and embroiled by the mixture of humane reasonings, as those are whereof you seem to demand the decision. I have formerly told you my mind upon this Point, and the occasion leads me to tell it you again here, I could not solicit and demand the definition of the affairs which you manage, and of the Propositions whereunto your conference is reduced. If God hath thought fit to make use of you to hinder the truths of Grace and S. Augustin's Authority from receiving any prejudice or disparagement, I account you very happy, and cannot but honour your zeal and fidelity in upholding them against the attempts and artifices of their enemies; but I believe, 'twere the best you could do for the present, if you could stop affairs at that point; not to be overcome, is to triumph in these occasions, and the confusion which your enemies would have in seeing themselves fallen from their pretensions & all their cabals without effect, add their calumnies and foul dealing discovered and known, without having been able to lay any blemish upon the truths which they aimed to get condemned with so great temerity and presumption, as that they proclaimed beforehand and affirmed publicly in many places that they were condemned, would be a signal victory for you, or rather for the Truth; and such as, in my judgement, may be wished for in the present disposition of minds and affairs. If any thing is to be desired further, 'twould be to get it declared, that S. Augustin's doctrine touching the matters of Grace and Predestination is the doctrine of the Church; and to obtain a prohibition, or rather to renew the Churches ancient prohibitions of condemning any dogmatical points of that doctrine taught by that H. Doctor. I might add further, to demand the approbation of the same Doctrine in the book of M. d' Ipre, who doth no more but rehearse it as it is in that of S. Augustin; but I think this last will be more contested and more difficult to obtain then the former, which is very easy, if the H. See hath any good will for that great Saint, and for the doctrine of Grace; and whereof there is no fear of missing, the same having been done already many times by several Popes. 'Tis a question of fact, about which there needs no great instruction. The decision thereof will be glorious to the Pope, and no person of whatever party can be offended with it, without making himself odious to all the world by declaring himself an enemy to S. Augustin, who is approved by the whole Church. To conclude, assure yourself of me as a person wholly yours, and believe that I do not forget you before God, but daily represent to him your necessities and affairs as my own.  
Now follow those of the month of June.  
The first is from M Taignier, written June 5.  
Some Molinists with whom I have had conference the second of this month, told me, that I had bad intelligence, since I did not agree with them that the Pope had ordained the passing of a Censure; they assured me that it was perfectly ready, and that the Pope would undoubtedly publish it at the feast of Pentecost. I asked them whether the Propositions were censured? They answered, that some of them were condemned as heretical; that others had the more gentle modifications, though such as blemished and overthrew them. I told them, I wondered that after what they had said, that it was almost impossilbe to learn the particular circumstances of things transacted in any Congregation at Rome; yet themselves seemed so well informed of things relating to the Examen and discussion of the Five Propositions, that they must undoubtedly hold correspondence with those who penned the Bull. They made no Reply, etc.  
You cannot imagine what good effect the Letters by this Post have produced; yet the most advised of our friends are in great anxiety for that the Pope will not grant you a Conference, because they conceive that the cause now under debate at Rome, is one of the most important causes that ever were treated in the Church. Were there no parties in it, as his Holiness admits none, yet he ought to take the Doctors there of different opinions, and hear them upon the questions intended to be examined and pronounced upon, since 'tis the course always used by the Church in its decisions. Truth becomes more illustrious when it is discussed in this manner. Thus were Decisions made in the Council of Trent, after matters had been disputed by the Doctors, as may be seen in the Acts of that Council, in which there were no parties, they refusing to appear.  
You must make great complaints about the Bull wherewith you are threatened, and you may vigorously represent to his Holiness, how little respect some have for him, since at the same time that he in goodness promised F. Des-mares and M. Manessier, and their Colleagues to hear them, a report is spread abroad, that his Holiness caused a Bull to be prepared against the Propositions, which is a thing of great terror. This circumstance well exaggerated with great sweetness and respect, may make some reasonable impression upon the mind of his Holiness.  
I am, etc.  
The second being from M. de saint Beuve, dated the same 5th of June, contained the following lines, amongst others.  
The news of the composition of a Bull continues still, to the great delight of the Molinists. They threaten us with it, upon the notice which they have received of it from our Confreres their good friends. The report of it is much divulged, etc. Satisfy me concerning the present state of the Dominicans, and in exchange I shall tell you, that the draught of a Bull hath been made at the College of Navarre, and in order to be sent to Rome. See, whether the rumour vented by the Molinists be not founded upon that piece.  
The third is from M. Brousse, June 13. Take what of it concerns our common Affair.  
Saturday last, I went to see M. Prignon, and carried him your last Memorial, as I had promised him. After the presentation of your commendations to him, and the return of his to you and all your company, we had not much discourse together by reason M. de Launoy superven'd and interrupted us. M. Prignon thanked him for the Present he had made him a few days before of his book entitled, De varia Aristotelis in Academia Parisiensi fortuna; in which he derides all the world. We went out together, and being in the street, he asked me whether I knew that M. Hallier was coming back from Rome? I told him, I did not. He replied, that he heard so from a Bishop the day before, who said, that he was bringing a great Pancart, by which word he meant the Bull. I answered, that this was a thing more unknown to me then the former. Yesterday after Vespers I visited M. Prignon again, who received me with extraordinary courtesy, and returning your Memorial, told me, he had read it twice with extreme pleasure, and admired both the solidity of the matter, & the pureness of your Italian style. I told him of the Audience which you had had of the Pope, and showed him your Letter concerning it. He was joyful beyond what I can express, and yet sorry too that his Holiness appoints not the Conference, being unable to imagine any reasonable ground of pretext to deny it to you, by saying that you have no Parties or Adversaries. He charged me to present his commendations to you, and to those Messieurs who (he said) have spoken with so much zeal for defence of the Truth.— A few days ago an honest Father well-affected to S. Augustin, went amongst the Jesuits to inquire news from Rome, feigning to be of their Party. F. Celot (to whom he spoke) told him the Jansenists were condemned, and the Bull ready, and upon the point to be published, when the Sieur Des-mares arriving there, by the help of 40000 Crowns, which he gave the Ambassador to procure him Audience, deferred the publication of it; but they expected it by the next Post. This hath some correspondence with the Pancart, whereof M. de Luanoy told me, and shows the spirit of those forgers of news.  
As I was ending this Letter, seven or eight persons of quality came to see me, among whom was that good Carthusian a great disciple of S. Augustin, and who has suffered persecution for being so; he told us, that he was the person that had been with the Jesuits to inquire news from Rome, and received the abovementioned answer from a Jesuit, namely, that The coming of P. Des-mares, and 40000 Crowns given to the Ambassador to procure a hearing, had deferred the publishing of the Bull of condemnation, and that 'twas a very notable sum for an Ambassador only to obtain so short a respite. You may make what use of this intelligence you please; at least, you may assure yourself it is true.  
And it was so indeed, this ridiculous and calumnious discourse having been made by a Jesuit to the abovesaid Carthusian; but the ground thereof, namely that we sought that short respite, or gave 40000 Crowns to the Ambassador to obtain it, was as little true as infinite other stories invented and published by those Father's every day. We never had the least thought of making any sort of Present, either to the Ambassador or others for the defence of the Truth which we held. We were always, God be praised, too well persuaded of its perfectly divine and invincible strength, to have recourse to such carnal and shameful Remedies in order to uphold it. And I am very confident, that had we been of such mean, servile spirits to have admitted such unworthy thoughts, the Ambassador had too much generosity and magnanimity to comply therewith. If he did us some good Offices, as I acknowledge he did in the manner above related, he did them upon the account of the justice which he found in what we demanded, whereunto there needed no other motive to oblige him then his ordinary principles of equity and goodness.  
The fourth of the Letters of this Month was from M. de saint Beuve, dated June 13. in these words.  
We are very glad to understand that the Pope has given you a favourable Audience, but our joy will not be complete till we hear that this Audience has produced a Conference. For till then we have great reason to fear that the design in hearing you is only that it may be said, that we are condemned according to form. The Discourses of the Molinists increase this fear; they say, that this Audience must be judged of by its sequels, and they assured it will have none to our advantage. Another reason of our fear is, the denying Audience to the General of the Dominicans so long together. Another, that the Letters which we see here, intimate, that the Pope will shortly decide the Affair. And the last, That hitherto all the civilities have been shown to our Adversaries, but to us all the severities (to say no worse) Albizzi, Palavicini, Modeste, Tartaglia, are plain proofs of this. That which I writ, is not mine own only, but the sense of many others.— I cannot but attribute the Voyage of F. Des-mares and M. Manessier to a particular providence of God in behalf of his Truth, since that Father hath spoken so nervously, and defended the cause of Jesus Christ's Grace with so great vigour and majesty. The Effects are in God's hands, the resolution thereof must be expected from him; but whatever they be, we shall always have this comfort, that the Truth could not be better defended than it was. Acquaint him with this our joy, and assure him that M. and M. de Liencour have more than they yet express. The little Writing presented to the Pope on the 19th. of the last Month was very necessary. The Impression shall shortly be taken in hand. I could have wished it had been thought sufficient to set this Title over the heretical Senses: Sensus haereticus qui malignè affingi potest, without the rest.  
The rest he means was, quem tamen legitimè sumpta non habet: and his reason was, because the Propositions were not ours; and inasmuch as in the rigour of their terms taken literally, they were capable of being condemned for their bad senses, it seemed to him that by these words, legitimè sumpta, etc. taken legitimately, we affirmed that the Propositions had not these bad senses in their proper and natural sense, making no difference between their proper and natural sense, and taken legitimately. But this was not our meaning. For as is noted before, we signified by the sense which the Propositions have, being taken legitimately, not their proper and natural sense according to the bare terms, but that which they have upon their relation either to Jansenius, to whom we knew our Adversaries attributed them in all their secret Writings, or in reference to ourselves, who interposed to hinder their condemnation, because we conceived Equity required them to be taken after this manner in this Contest.  
This was one of the reasons which I represented to my Colleagues, to incline them to add the abovesaid words in this Writing, but there was another which seemed to me very important, namely, that we might upon occasion give the Pope and Cardinals the most advantageous impression of the Propositions that we could, to the end to put the more obstacles to the inclinations and engagements which they might have to condemn them; and also to avoid the ill sequels which such condemnation might have, and the abuse that might be made of it. And indeed, had they been such as we could have maintained absolutely and undertaken their defence only and without restriction, there is all reason to believe, (so far as I can judge) that the Pope would have never resolved to condemn them, since being even such as they were; I hold for certain that if we had defended them in this sort, he would not have undertaken to condemn them, and that the thing which gave him the greatest confidence to do it, was, that we ourselves who endeavoured to hinder their condemnation, by reason of the ill consequences we foresaw it would have, always spoke of them in our Writings and Discourses as of Equivocal Propositions, framed purposely to surprise him, and capable of bad senses. But it behooved us to speak of them as they were really; and besides it, we conceived that all that we spoke aught to have sufficed for obtaining a thing so just and profitable, as that which we demanded seemed to us.  
The fifth Letter was from M. Taignier, June 13. whereof take one clause.  
The Molinists affirm everywhere, that the Censure passed, and that nothing else was stayed for but their Audience, that so the judgement might be contradictory.  
This, Of all the Letters writ to me from Paris during these two Months; These are they which I conceived most fit to acquaint the Reader with the true state wherein the matters hitherto related were at Paris, as well as at Rome. But because the passages of the latter place were diffused likewise into other Cities of Italy, I shall here produce one of those which I received from thence touching the business of our so feigned Audience; after which Cardinal de Este, to whom I had given account of it, hoped with great reason (which is a reflection worthy of remark) that the relations of things which passed at Rome, would every day become more considerable, and therefore commanded me to continue my begun intelligence to his Highness. I did so, and the satisfaction he testified therewith by his Answers was a great engagement unto me to do it; See the Copy of his courteous Letter.  
Sir,  
UNderstanding by your last that I was to expect another, together with a 
b viz. The little Volume of S. Augustin.  Book, touching the matters which you negotiate, I deferred my answer thereunto till this present, that I might thank you at the same time for your Present, of which indeed I make great esteem, as of a thing which upon several accounts and motives ought to be highly valued. 'Tis a new proof of your extraordinary courtesies which you cease not to exercise in favouring me as you do, with the continuation of the exquisite knowledge which you give me of your management, and how exceeding well you acquitted yourselves in your Discourse at the feet of his Holiness, which no doubt you accompanied with your perfect eloquence and excellent learning, besides the ardour which you have for the issue of an Affair of so great importance, and which by all right and reason requires the diligence which we hear is employed therein by our H. Father. Henceforward your Relations will from day to day be more considerable, which I hope you will not cease, still to confirm to me your most particular affection, in consideration whereof I am obliged to be eternally,  
Sir, Your affectionate friend to serve you, Card. d' Este.   

CHAP. XXVII.  
Of the things we learned, and the Visits we made from the first of June to the thirteenth. Of the manner how the Constitution against the Five Proposittons was published. With what restriction and circumspection we resolved to subscribe to their condemnation, in case the Pope had required it of us.  
CArdinal Pimentel having not been at the Chapel of the Papal Mass on the day of Pentecost, and the affairs whereof we were to speak with him, being sufficiently sacred and urgent, we went to wait upon him in the forenoon after Mass. When we had given him an ample account of our business, we told him, that the Authors of this black enterprise had still subtlety and credit enough to persuade the Pope, that the matter de Auxiliis was not at all concerned therein. 'Tis true, said the Cardinal, the Pope believes it is not; he professed as much to me; and thereupon he informed us himself of his above-related conference with the Pope. We replied, that the whole aim of our Adversaries was to embroil this Affair as much as possible under the name of Jansenius, which was become extremely odious. The Cardinal said that the Pope was possessed with this resolution, that it was requisite to destroy and abolish the work of that Prelate. His words were, That according to the Pope's resolution, Jansenius est revocandus, est rejiciendus. We discoursed largely to him concerning the necessity of Effectual Grace to every action of piety; whereunto he assented; and we assured his Eminence, that 'twas the only Point which we endeavoured to defend against the Machinations of all those who sought its subversion. Although we were with him more than an hour in this Conference, yet we did not remember to recommends one thing to him, which I took care to get signified to him the next day by one of his most intimate friends; namely, that although he had found the Pope inflexible by what he had represented to him, and there was no more encouragement for him to speak again to his Holiness, yet that he would not altogether neglect the Affair; but in the Visits which he should render to the Cardinals Spada, Ginetti, Pamphilio and Ghiggi, remember to tell them, and that with some earnestness, that he could not prevail with the Pope by what he had represented to him.  
Tuesday the 3d: I went to S. Augustin's Church to say Mass. By the way I met F. Mulard, who told me two things: One was, that M. Hallier and his Colleagues began to be very weary of Rome. The other, that he had a contest with them, wherein he maintained, That it imported their interest and their honour to speak before the Pope; and that they on the contrary would not demand it, but expect till they should be called upon, in which case they said, they would take but a quarter of an hour to prepare themselves. The General of the Augustine's said Mass almost at the same time with me, and coming to me afterwards in the Vestry, he exhorted me to continue acting as we had begun; and said, he hoped God would give his blessing to our labour. F. Reginald came to see us this day, and informed us of three things which the Pope had said to Cardinal Pimentel. First, That it was needful to do something against Jansenius. Secondly, That the Propositions did not concern S. Augustin's Doctrine, which was upheld by unmoveable foundations, and aught to remain in its integrity. Thirdly, That the same Propositions did not relate at all to the matter of Grace, and that all this had been well and duly examined.  
The same F. Reginald told me when I visited him the next day at la Minerva, that some Persons assured him that all that had been spoken concerning the Bull, was nothing but airy discourse, delle forfenterie, etc.  
The same day F. Guerin advertised me, that M. Gueffier bid him tell me that he heard from divers persons, that I said there needed a General Council to judge of these Propositions, which was a thing whereof I never spoke the least word.  
Thursday the 5th. the Sacristan of the Minims told me, that M. Hallier and his Colleagues had gotten M. the Valcroissant's Oration to the Pope; which indeed we had neither from them nor any other person; no more than any thing else. And another person told me the same day, that M. Albizzi had revoked the Order which he had given to the Apostolical Printing-house for dispatching the printing of the Bull.  
After we had accompanied the Ambassador to his ordinary Audience on Friday the sixth, we went to see the Master of the sacred Palace, who congratulated us for the vigorousness and modesty wherewith this good Ecclesiastic said we spoke. He discoursed with great devotion and humility, and being persuaded of the holy Truths which we defended, and of the justice of the rest of our demands, he regretted that we could not obtain all that we demanded. Upon all which he said several times, not daring to open himself further, captivantes intellectum, captivantes intellectum; That it behoved us to adore the Providence of God, who permitted by his secret judgement and for his hidden ends, that we suffered such treatment.  
After a long entertainment, assoon as we were risen up to departed, he did an action of extraordinary endearment towards us. He kneeled down with both knees to embrace ours, saying, that he acknowledged us for his Masters, and for the true defenders of the Catholic faith. F. Des-mares whom he went to embrace first, fell upon his knees at the same time, and another of our Colleagues in like manner. Whereat being surprised, I prostrated myself too, both to embrace and to lift up this good Father; and those of my Colleagues who had kneeled down, as he did, risen also at the same time. In fine, after some other words of cordial affection and civility added standing, we departed.  
About Evening F. Des-mares and I went to the Ambassador. After the Father had delivered him a Letter which he received for him from M. de Liencourt, I told him that the Festivals were passed, intimating thereby that we had awaited this term, to know what the Pope had ordained touching the permission to print our Writings. The Ambassador answered that the Festivals were not yet passed, but would continue a fortnight longer. That the Pope spoke nothing to him in the morning about our affairs neither good nor bad, though he much expected it; that M. Hallier and M. Lagault had been with him in the morning before his Audience, to desire him to ask the Pope, whether his Holiness pleased not to make some Decree for putting an end to this Affair before the hot season; that the heat was drawing very near; that they were desirous to return before its coming: but he answered them, that it would be in vain to speak to the Pope this day concerning this Affair, and accordingly he did not speak of it. F. Des-mares remained astonished at the demand which these Doctors had the face and confidence to desire the Ambassador to make to the Pope for them, to end an Affair before the first entrance into its examination were dispatched; and he very earnestly represented to the Ambassador how senseless and irrational it was. The Ambassador answered him, that those Doctors were not obliged to do our business, nor to speak according to our designs and desires. I told the Ambassador that indeed they were not; but if they had any that were extravagant, perfectly unjust and ridiculous, it was lawful for us to show how unsufferable they were, and how unworthy of persons of honour and probity. We discoursed very largely concerning the main Affair, and the falsities and vanities of their Writings; and at length came to speak of the permission we had demanded to print ours. The Ambassador said, he found the Pope so little disposed to grant us such permission, that he conceived we must resolve to get transcribed whatever we meant to present to them. But I answered, that if they put us to this, 'twould be another piece of rigour towards us, but to little purpose, because though they should not be printed at Rome, yet they would not fail to be printed in France, in regard of our obligation to send them to the Bishops who deputed us, the curiosity of many other persons interessed in this cause to see them, and the sufficient easiness for people there to print what they please. The Ambassador replied to all this, that the Pope was very averse from the thing, and had long ago forbidden to print the first decisions of the Rota, because sometimes there came forth such as were contrary one to another, which rendered that Tribunal ridiculous. I answered that the reason was good in that case, but of no moment at all to our Affair, because all things differed: and besides, that I believed no other could be alleged to obstruct the allowance of our demand. We fell again upon the falsities in the Writings of our Adversaries, and the sincerity of ours. The Ambassador said, that we should look upon them together at Tivoli, where he intended to retain us two or three days, after he had received the news of Cardinal Mazarin, who were preparing to go into France within a few days.  
The Ambassadors reason why he did not think fit to speak to the Pope about our Affair in his Audience, was, because his Holiness had for above a fortnight together employed all his thoughts about a very weighty Affair relating to his own family, to wit, the marriage of Prince Justinian's Daughter with M. the Abbot Barberin. The day before the Ambassador's Audience, Cardinal Barberin stayed with the Pope after the Congregation of the H. Office, to confer with his Holiness further about it; and 'twas a business, which besides the importance whereof the Pope always accounted it in itself, as to his own interests, and those of his house, having been long under consideration, the nearer its conclusion approached, the more it filled his mind; so that there was no room for other discourses with his Holiness, but of congratulation for the happy posture of so great an Affair.  
I learned from another person the Articles of this Marriage, which he sent me in a Note, whereof I have inserted the following Transcript.  

1. La dobe di cento incla scudi. 
The Lady's portion to be a hundred thousand Crowns.   
2. La restitutione delle mulcte 180. M. 
The Fines unto which the Signori Barberini had been condemned, to be repaid to them, amounting to one hundred and eighty thousand Crowns.   
3. La restitutione d'ye cazali è frutti decorsi. 200. M. 
Their Lands and the Rents that proceed out of the same to be restored, valued at two hundred thousand Crowns.   
4. La Translatione delle abbadie. 
All the Abbacies possessed by this Abbot, to be conferred upon his elder Brother the Prince Perfect, who by this means yielded to him his right of primogeniture.   
5. La Convalidatione delle gratie dubie concesseli da Vrbano & suspeceli. 
The confirmation of all the dubious Graces granted to them by Pope Vrban, and from the enjoyment and possession of which Pope Innocent had suspended them.   
6. La restitutione della Prefettura. 
The Prefecture of Rome, which the Pope had taken from them, to be restored.   
7. Il Cardinalato. 
And that with his Abbeys he should give his Abbot's elder Brother a Cardinals Hat.    
On Saturday the 7th. we went in the afternoon to see Cardinal Barberin, partly that M. Manessier might salute him, he having not hitherto seen his Eminence.  
On Sunday the 8th. in the morning, the Subbibliothecary of the Vatican desired us to lend him a Copy of all our Writings, that he might cause one to be transcribed and put into that Library. I went to see F. Vbaldino, on purpose to talk with him concerning the various rumours about the Bull, from which he always had believed the Pope extremely averse. He told me that he had heard it spoken of, but believed it would all come to nothing, because ogni piccola cosa bastava per fermare il Papa, the least thing was sufficient to restrain the Pope. I lent him a Copy of M. the Valcroissant's Oration.  
I know not well what we did this afternoon and the next morning, but I know that I neglected to set it down, because as we acted but very little this week, and writ but little into France, on Monday the 9th after noon, in comparison of what we did by the foregoing Posts; so the publication of the Bull against the Propositions (whereof we learned the first news in the evening, after all our Letters were written, and wholly unexpectedly) giving us to understand that this Affair was at an end, made me neglect to set down what was observable from the foregoing day to the noon of this, and in stead of the Letters written that afternoon send but one, whereby we signified this so surprising and unforeseen news. I cannot better represent how the matter was carried in respect of us, then by inserting the said Letter here.  
My LORDS,  
AFter all our Letters were written, about three quarters after seven in the evening, notice was given us that there was a Bull set up whereby the Propositions were condemned. We sent a man with all speed to see whether it was so, and soon after went ourselves that our own eyes might be witnesses of it. At the end of our street we met an Ecclesiastic a friend of ours, who told us, that he saw this Bull in writing posted upon the Chancery, and that the Propositions were condemned in it as impious and heretical, without any distinction of senses, or mention of S. Augustin. We continued our way with this friend, that we might be witnesses of what he told us, and by the way we met the Messenger whom we had sent, who confirmed the relation of this friend, and rehearsed to us the condemnations, qualifications of every Proposition, as they were in the Bull. We caused him to return back. to the end that if it were possible, our friend and this man might take a Copy of it to send to your Lordships this night, without our being seen ourselves. For which end we carried Ink and Paper, and Wax-candle with us. When we came near the Chancery, we sent our friend and the other man thither, and stayed in the Coach at a place a little distant. They returned immediately to tell us, that the Writing which they had seen was torn down. We went therefore to S. Peter's, where it was still fixed up. But just as we came there, two men arrived there also, who would not suffer it to be read, but betook themselves to pull it down. There was no body near but our friend and our man, and a Laquay who brought the Candle and had newly lighted it in a neighbouring shop. Our friend came and told us that the two men who tore down the Writing, were Sbirri or Sergeants, because he had seen a Stiletto in the pocket of the one, and the other had a prohibited dark Lantern, which things 'tis not permitted to any to carry in this City, but such kind of privileged persons. We asked our Laquay whether he knew them? he told us that one was a Sergeant, and the other a Notary of the H. Office. We asked him, whether he knew their names? He answered us, that he knew them only by sight; having seen them several times in the house of the H. Office, as being Officers thereof. In this manner, My Lords, the matter passed this night. We thought fit to send you a punctual account of it, that you may consider of it as you shall think good. We know not whether or no this Writing was posted up by the Pope's Order, but we cannot doubt but that it was fixed up by the Officers of the H. Office. The Affair will become more clear betwixt this and the next Post. In the mean time we remain,  
My LORDS, Your most humble and obedient servants, 

De Saint Amour.  
M. Manessier.   From Rome, Monday June 9 1653. half an hour after eleven a clock at night.  
All Tuesday we employed in visiting as many friends as we could, to inform ourselves of the truth of this Bull, and to find some one that had a Copy of it and could show us what it was. Many told us that the thing was true, there was no doubt of it; but we met with none that could give us a Copy, nor that had seen it exactly enough to give us a certain account of it. In the evening we judged that whatever it were, our Affair was at an end, and we had no other resolution to take in this case, but to departed assoon as possible before the hot weather, and in order thereunto to take leave of such persons as we owed this civility unto.  
On Wednesday the 11th. we went in the forenoon to discharge the same to the Cardinals, Barberin and Pamphilio; and in the afternoon we went for the same purpose to the Ambassador, and to desire him to tell the Pope at the first Vespers of Corpus Christi day whether we were going to accompany him, or else at Mass the next day, that we purposed to return speedily into France before the hot weather, and desired to receive his Holiness' benediction before our departure. The Ambassador approved our Request, and promised us that he would not fail to acquaint the Pope with our intention at some opportunity of one of those two Ceremonies.  
He did not do it at that of Vespers, but when we went to him the next morning to accompany him to S. Peter's to Mass, he told us he would not return home till he had done our business, and I might come to him in the afternoon with assurance to know what the Pope should say to him. I did so, and the Ambassador told me with an extraordinary cheerful air, that so soon as he mentioned to the Pope our intention to return speedily into France, and to take leave first of his Holiness, the Pope was glad of it, & told him that we should not fail to be in his Presence-Chamber the next day, and whatever other business might supervene, he would cause us to be called first, and give us Audience presently after the end of his Mass. I gave the Ambassador most humble thanks for his care of us, and told him we would not fail to obey the Pope's order.  
I returned home to relate the Ambassadors obliging answer to my Colleagues: but the Pope's excessive demonstration of kindness after the condemnation newly pronounced, notwithstanding all our Remonstrances to him to hinder it, gave them suspicion and mistrust, that these extraordinary Caresses and Civilities were affected to draw us fairly before the Pope, to the end that when we came there, we might be obliged to subscribe the said Condemnation.  
But for that I remembered what was spoken in the Consistory of the 26th. of May between Cardinal Ghiggi and that other Cardinal, who asked him, whether we should be required to subscribe the Condemnation? to which Cardinal Ghiggi answered, that those were never obliged thereunto who had not maintained the condemned Propositions, and that we had not maintained those which were condemned by this Bull. I told my Colleagues that they needed not entertain such a mistrust and apprehension, because I was certain, that nothing was less thought of then what they feared. They asked me how I could be certain of it? but the secrecy whereunto I was obliged, and which I should not have violated though my life had been concerned, permitted me not to satisfy this Question, and therefore I only told them that I was certain of it, but being I could not tell them how, I did not hinder them from acting and taking their resolutions the same manner as if I had no knowledge nor certainty thereof at all.  
Besides the reason of secrecy which obliged me to speak in this fashion, I considered with myself what dissimulations and disguisements men sometimes use in occasions where 'tis thought they speak most plainly, and also what changes happen in the most firm resolutions. Wherefore I was willing that they should debate, and debated together with them, what was fit for us to do, as if I had understood nothing of what had passed between those two Cardinals, and making no account at all of it.  
Having therefore put the case at the worst, as if subscription to the condemnation of the Propositions would be required of us the next day; We resolved with as unanimous consent as ever was, to do nothing unworthy of the quality whereof we were by God's mercy, of S. Augustin's true Disciples, and of the humble sons of the Church.  
As yet no Copy of the Bull appeared in Rome, at least that came to our view, and we neither knew the terror of it, whether the equivocal Propositions of M Cornet, or those which we presented to the Pope, to remove their equivocal and bad senses, were condemned by it; but supposing M. Cornet's, and not ours to be so, we resolved to subscribe to their condemnation, but with the conditions and cautions here subjoined; by which the Reader may judge what we would have done, had they been ours that were condemned.  
We resolved in the first place, that if we were required to subscribe the condemnation of M. Cornet's, we would excuse ourselves, by pleading that being deputed by Bishops of France, we could do nothing but in conformity to the power wherewith they entrusted us, and that they had indeed given us a power to solicit the establishment of a solemn Congregation for discussion of the Controversies between Catholics touching these matters, and this by all equitable means which we should judge most expedient; but they had given us none to make any such subscription. 2. That in case it were answered, that were those Bishops themselves at Rome, they should be obliged to subscribe; and so 'twas fit to oblige us thereunto because we were their Deputies, and represented them: We would answer, That if they were there, they might do as seemed good to themselves; but we being only their Deputies, could not go beyond their orders, nor do any thing whereunto they had not given us power. 3. That if it were required of us, not as their Deputies, but upon the account of our particular persons, we would answer, that we had no other quality at Rome besides that of Deputies; that the same could not be separated or abstracted from our persons, nor consequently our persons considered otherwise. 4. That if it were positively told us, That the Pope would be obeyed, and could no longer suffer these scruples and distinctions, being violations and infringements of the respect which was due to him: We would answer, That the respect and affection which we confessed we owed him, could not take from us the right of keeping within the bounds of the Commission which had been given us. But in the fifth place, If after all this we saw our most humble Remonstrances ineffectual, and it were absolutely determined we should subscribe; or in case we refused there were any intention to use violence to us, than we would resolve to subscribe to the condemnation of M. Cornet's Propositions, with a proviso, expressly excepting and securing by our subscription the Grace of Jesus Christ Effectual by itself, necessary to all actions of piety, and the doctrine of S. Augustin, to both which they had frequently assured us he would do no prejudice.  
We drew up and signed this Resolution on Friday June 13. about eight a clock in the morning before we stirred abroad to go to the Pope's Presence-chamber: And because we considered that possibly our subscription with this clause would not be satisfactory, but a pure and absolute one would be required, we resolved rather to suffer the utmost extremities than not to annex that caution, conceiving it not only just but necessary as well, as becoming the fidelity and Charity which we owed to the Head of the Church, in order to uphold him, and hinder those to whom he had granted the condemnation of these Propositions from abusing it and saying that he was thereby fallen into error by condemning either the abovesaid Effectual Grace or the doctrine of that H. Father touching the same.  
But because we were not certain either that our reasons would be taken according to this fair candid construction, or that we should return to lie at our lodging in case they were taken otherwise, we added to our writing a Letter whereby we sent word into France, that if we were delayed by the Pope's Officers, it was only upon this cause. We entrusted this writing and Letter to an Abbot, a friend of ours, whom we entreated to send them both into France upon Monday following, if he had no further news of us by that time.  
The Letter is lost, but the Original writing which I brought with me from Rome, is still in my hands, and this is the copy of it.  
A writing signed by us before we went to take leave of the Pope.  
AFter the publication of the Pope's Decree against the Five Propositions, there being no more hope to obtain of his Holiness (as we now see things) the solemn and regular Congregation which we demanded and solicited for the space of two years as most necessary in this conjuncture, in order to a full clearing of the matters controverted between S. Augustin's Disciples on the one part, and those of Molina on the other, and a formal perspicuous decision of the capital points of the controversy between them; we conceived that we had nothing more left us to do but to prepare ourselves to return into France: And before all things we thought ourselves obliged to take leave of the Pope and receive his benediction. But considering that his Holiness might possibly be lead to require us to subscribe his new Decree, of which we have not understood any thing since the day that it was posted up in writing about seven a clock in the evening, and plucked down an hour after or thereabouts by the Officers of the H. Office, saving that it condemns the five equivocal and general Propositions maliciously contrived and set a foot by the Molinists purposely to destroy S. Augustin's doctrine touching Grace effectual by itself: We have judged in the presence of God that we ought not to subscribe the condemnation of those Propositions without excepting the sense of Grace effectual by itself, and S. Augustin's doctrine which the enemies of both have designed in obtaining this condemnation to overthrow. Wherefore to take away all ground of saying that these Propositions have been judged false and erroneous in the particular sense which includes the Orthodox sense of that H. Father, according whereunto we explicated and defended them before the Pope, we have resolved not to subscribe that condemnation though the Pope require it of us, but with this clause; 
Propositiones ab Innocentio Papâ X. damnatas, nos iterum damnamus, ut semper antea damnavimus, salva tum gratia Christi per seipsam efficace ad singulos pietatis actus necessaria, tum doctrina Sancti Augustini; quibus nolle se praejudicium ullum afferre summus Pontifex multoties testatus est.   
We writ and signed this Resolution before we stirred out of our lodging to go and take leave of the Pope. We hope from the goodness of our Saviour who by his death merited this effectual and victorious grace for us, in defence whereof we are bound to spend our cares, pains and lives, that he will by the same grace give us such strength as is necessary for bearing sincerely the testimony thereunto which we ought to do in this occasion.  
Done at Rome, June 13. 1653. at 8. a clock in the morning, signed; Dela-Lane, Abbot of Valcroissant; Desmares, Priest of the Oratory; De Saint-Amour, Manassier, Angran.  
With this mind we set forward to the Pope's Presence-chamber; where we found all things otherwise then we feared, and my Colleagues acknowledged at length, that what I said to them at first was very true.  
I had made an exact relation of the particular passages of the audience which the Pope gave us this day, in which we were extraordinarily well received by his Holiness, and satisfied with the things which he said to us in great kindness and confidence. The principal of them are still fresh in my memory: but till I find my Relation which is mislaid, I shall only here set down what we writ concerning it to my LL. our Bishops in two letters; in the former whereof we could not through the shortness of time fully lay open the reasons which evinced that the Constitution did not at all infringe the doctrine of S. Augustin and of grace effectual by itself, and therefore we deduced the same more largely in another letter which we sent to the same Bishops when we were now gone out of Rome. Which advertisement may serve to satisfy such as have seen those two letters, which were in effect but one. The latter is this which follows.  
My LORDS,  
WE writ to you on Monday last what we had learned concerning the publication of a Decree upon the five Propositions. We understood on Tuesday that the same was posted up by the Pope's order; and thereupon perceiving no likelihood, that his Holiness would after this pass any solemn judgement upon the contested senses of the Propositions, we resolved to return into France without delay, to the end to prevent the immoderate heat of the Summer. On Wednesday we took leave of the Cardinals Barberin and Pamphilio. On Friday we went to the Pope's audience to receive his benediction. His Holiness caused us to be called first immediately after Mass. We told him that having understood that there was a Decree published upon the Propositions concerning which we were sent hither, we came to receive his benediction before our departure.  
His Holiness answered us, that having caused the Propositions to be examined by the Divines whom he had assembled, and used other diligences therein, he judged it expedient to decide them in the manner as he had done: That as to the rest, he was very well pleased with our deportment and manner of proceeding; That he had had great satisfaction in hearing us at the public audience which he gave us; and honoured us with this particular approbation, that we spoke with vigour, modesty, prudence and learning, these were the Popes own words, ho haruto gran sodisfattione del vigore, della modestia, prudenza è dottrina colla quale havete parlato.  
His Holiness then spoke of the sentiments he had for France, of his Esteem of that Kingdom, and particularly of the Clergy; of the sorrow he resented for the wars and troubles which had agitated it these late years, and he professed great desire to see all pacified both within and without the state.  
This discourse having lasted a good while, his Holiness spoke again concerning the examination of the Five Propositions, and told us, That he had caused sundry Congregations to be held in his own presence, wherein he had used great attention without being wearied by the length of time that they lasted: That, as for ours, he had not let one word of it fall to the ground, but been so attentive, that he could repeat to us from point to point, what we had represented to him: In brief that we had spoken very learnedly and elegantly, and urged what we said with good reasons. His Holines' words were, Direi cosa per cosa tutto cio che havete proposito, voi (directing his speech to M. the Valcroissant) cosis dottament, & voi (addressing to F. Desmares) cosi elegantement, è non si buona ragione persuaso.  
We took occasion to tell his Holiness that we conceived he did not intent by the Decree which came forth to do any prejudice to Grace effectual by itself necessary to every action of piety, nor to S. Augustin's doctrine. His Holiness, my Lords, was so fare from such intention, that he answered us with astonishment, that there was no doubt of this; his words were, O questo è certo: That the doctrine of S. Augustin had been too well approved in the Church to be capable of impeachment: That as to the matter of Grace which was agitated for the space of ten years under Clement VIII. and Paul V he had determined not to examine or discuss it in this cause. After which his Holiness asked us whether we had seen the Decree upon the Five Propositions. We answered him that we had not. Whereupon he told us the substance of what it contained, and remarked to us that he had not put at the end these usual words, De plenitudine potestatis; And indignationem Beatorum Apostolorum Petri & Pauli se noverit incursurum, and other like words wherewith Bulls are wont to be concluded. He added also that he had sent a Copy of it to the King and to the Bishops of France. We asked his Holiness for Indulgences, which he gave us with extraordinary bounty,— telling us among other reasons, That being we were come to Rome about a sacred and important affair, he willingly granted us all the Indulgences which we desired of him. And thus we retired, wishing to our H. Father all kind of prosperity; and we declared to him that we would by the grace of God live always most firmly addicted to the H. See and the doctrine of S. Augustin, as being that of the H. See, and which should ever be as dear to us as the apple of our eyes. These were the terms wherewith we took leave of his Holiness, who honoured us with his approbation and testimonies of his good will.  
You have, my Lords, a compendious account of what his Holiness said to us in this audience which lasted an hour and half, and in which his Holiness left us not upon our knees, but caused us to rise up immediately after we had begun to speak to him, and treated us in all the rest with a particular goodness. This his Holines' declaration seemed to us so important, and so contrary to the design of our adversaries, that to use precaution against the attempts which we feared they might haply employ one day to call it in doubt, we took care to make exact report thereof to all persons of whom we took leave afterward, that so the thing might become public before our departure, and our adversaries likewise might be convinced of the truth of all that we affirmed to have passed in this audience, since we would not have been so rash or impudent as to publish here in the sight of his Holiness so considerable a declaration if it had not been most certain. And indeed, my Lords, there is no person in this city who hath heard of our affair, but knows at present this declaration of his Holiness, it hath been as notorious as the Decree, and given as much joy to all S. Augustin's disciples, who are here in great number, as our Adversaries testified for the passing of the Constitution. When we took leave of the Ambassador yesterday, he told us that he knew already all that had passed in our Audience, and related the particulars which we here send you: adding, That his Holiness upon all occasions wherein he had spoken to him about this Affair, always declared to him, that he would not meddle with the matter of Effectual Grace, nor do any prejudice to the Doctrine of S. Augustin or S. Thomas, and he had written to this purpose to the Court by this Post.  
You see, My Lords, by the things which the Pope said to us in this Audience, and by the Relation which we sent you of what we spoke to him when we were heard publicly, that the Five Propositions are not condemned but by reason of their had senses wherein we ourselves always condemned them; and that the sense in which we said we understood and defended them, or rather that the particular Propositions which we presented to his Holiness and maintained before him as most Catholic, not only receive no prejudice, but also aught to be accounted as approved by his Holiness, as appears by the following Reasons.  
The first Reason is, My Lords, because we declared to his Holiness publicly, both by Speech and Writing, That we and all the other disciples and defenders of S. Augustin would always defend the Catholic sense of the Propositions which we presented to him, as containing the indubitable Doctrine of that great Doctor of Grace, (being also that of the Church) till his Holiness should pronounce an express and definitive judgement upon the particular sense which we held to be Catholic, by which it might evidently appear and be indisputable that they were condemned in this sense. These are the express words of our Declaration which we sent you almost a month ago; Prositemur coram ipsa nos & universos Sancti Augustini discipulos ac defensores pro indubitata tanti Doctoris atque adeo Ecclesiae doctrina, praedictas propositiones ut à nobis superius expositae sunt, perpetuò defensuros, quamdiu de illis expressè ut supra expositae sunt intellectis probatum non erit (quod à Sanctitate vestra p stulamus) solemn definitivumque judicium, quo nobis apertè constet eas in sensu quem asserimus Catholicum, esse damnatas.  
Having therefore explicated to his Holiness how we understood and defended these Propositions, having made this declaration to him by speech in the public Audience which it pleased him to give us, and by the Writing which we presented to him at that Audience; and his Holiness having not given his judgement but upon these Propositions in general, which are recited in the Constitution only in the general terms wherein they were framed in France by our Adversaries; and having neither expressed nor noted in any manner whatsoever, the particular and sole sense to which alone we reduced and defended them; namely, that of Grace Effectual by itself, which we declared to him at taking our leave, should be ever as dear to us as the apple of our eyes: 'Tis a certain proof that he hath approved that we always maintained that sense, or rather the Propositions which we reduced to that sense, as containing the formal and express Doctrine of S. Augustin.  
The second reason, My Lords, is, because when we mentioned and explicated these Propositions to the Pope in the terms and senses which we held, his Holiness not only reprehended nothing therein when we had the honour to speak to him in the public Audience which he gave us before the Decree, and in the last since the Decree, but also gave extraordinary approbations to every thing which we had spoken. 'Tis therefore a positive sign, that his Holiness intended not to do any prejudice to these Propositions taken as we explained them; or to speak better, to those which we presented clear from all equivocation and danger of bad sense; but on the contrary, judges the same most Catholic.  
The third reason, My Lords, which, as we conceive, takes away all doubt, is, that his Holiness expressly declared to us, that he intended not by this Decree to do any prejudice to Grace effectual by itself necessary to every action of piety, nor to the doctrine of S. Augustin received and approved in that whole Church. Now the Propositions, as we explicated them, contain purely the sense of Effectual Grace necessary to every action of piety, and the indubitable doctrine of S. Augustin. Therefore his Holiness hath not done any prejudice, nor laid any blemish by his Constitution upon the Propositions reduced to this sense.  
The fourth reason, My Lords, is, That the Pope hath been so persuaded, as his Holiness vouchsafed to testify to us, that we maintained before him only Grace Effectual by itself, and the pure doctrine of S. Augustin, as we justified to him in the discourse which we made in his presence, that he hath not since caused his Consultors to examine, whether what we maintained and explicated in our discourse, and declared by our Writing to be formally the doctrine of S. Augustin, were true or no: as he would not fail to have done, if he had doubted of it, since 'twas the particular point of the Contest which we managed against Molina's disciples. For in the same Audience, we granted, as it hath been always declared in all the French Writings published and printed at Paris upon this subject before the Affair was brought to Rome, that if the Propositions were considered only in general and without applying any distinction to them, they were susceptible of heretical senses, and might accordingly be condemned of heresy in this universality as they were censured by all S. Augustin's disciples who writ upon them. And being his Holiness gave us this Audience that he might understand the truth of our Sentiments from our own mouths, and by the writing of Distinction of Senses which we presented to him afterwards, he found that they were so different from the heretical senses which the Propositions generally taken might receive, and that they were so reduced to Grace Effectual by itself, which is the Catholic truth maintained invincibly by S. Augustin in the name of the whole Church, that he thought not fit to assemble the Consultors again, because he intended to pronounce only upon the Propositions as taken generally, and not upon this particular point of Grace Effectual by itself, in which all the Catholic explications of the Propositions meet as in their Centre, and which would need a long Examen, and many Assemblies and Conferences like those which were held under the two great Popes Clement VIII. & Paul V. who undertook to discuss them throughly, and for this purpose caused them all to be particularly examined in the public disputations of both parties, and in their own presence, after having declared That S. Augustin's doctrine was the Rule by which they would decide this Controversy and regulate their judgements. And therefore, since the Pope hath declared his Constitution that he hath caused these Five Propositions to be examined by the Consultors, the Censure falls only upon the Propositions in general, which the Consultors examined in general, and which we acknowledged in our first and only Audience to be susceptible of heretical senses, and cannot fall upon the particular explications which we proposed and established in presence of his Holiness by our Discourse and our Writing, since his Holiness hath judged them so Catholic that he made no scruple at all about them, nor assembled the Consultors so much as once to have their advice concerning the same as an obscure and dubious thing (as he did in reference to the Propositions in general) but found by his own judgement that they were free from all Censure, which he also testified to us in the last Audience which it pleased him to give us since his Decree, inasmuch as he not only reprehended nothing of all that we said and maintained in his presence, but also declared to us, as we have already related, that he had present in memory all that we had argued, and approved the same in as advantageous and honourable terms as we could hope for. And which is yet more, he made to us this so  declaration, not before his Decree, when it might be said that his Holiness was not yet fully informed and convinced of every thing, and was not to discover the secret of his Sentiments and intentions (which all Judges usually suppress before their sentences) but even after his Judgement and his Decree, which was the time wherein he was perfectly free, and conceived himself obliged to declare the same to us with all the sincerity of a successor of S. Peter, and of a Vicar of Jesus Christ who is Truth itself.  
You see, My Lords, by all these eonsiderations that his holiness's Censure falls not upon the Five Propositions, but inasmuch as they are considered according to the bad sense which may be put upon them, according to which S. Augustin's disciples rejected them three or four years ago as vehemently as we did in the writing which we presented to the Pope, and distributed in this City the next day after our Audience, to divers Cardinals and other persons of Note.  
It remains now to observe to you, My Lords, whence it came to pass that these Five Propositions were considered according to the heretical sense, that so they might be condemned in general; which we take one of the most important points, and a kind of secret of the Affair. 'Twas because the Consultors and Cardinals were made to believe that we spoke otherwise at Rome than they did in France, where there were persons who held the Propositions in their bad sense, and therein published a new Heresy condemned by the Council of Trent, with the errors of Luther and Calvin. Cardinal Rapaccioli, whom we visited after our public Audience, and carried him the Distinction of Senses presented to his Holiness, told us among other things concerning this matter; That our thoughts and intentions were good and commendable, but we had this unhappiness that many of those who were united with us, held the Propositions in the bad senses wherein we professed to condemn them; that instead of receiving help from those persons, they did us great ●hurt, and would be the cause of the condemnation of the Propositions; but should have this advantage, that that condemnation would fall only upon those persons, and not upon us  
We knew, My Lords, that the Doctors who came hither against us, had visited this Cardinal one or two days before, and so we had cause to believe that they had infused this falsity into him as a most certain truth. Wherefore we answered him, that it was a most malicious fiction and device of our Adversaries the better to obtain their designed Censure; and that we could assure him there was no Catholic in France who held the Propositions in any other sense than we do. But this conceit was so far imprinted upon his mind, as if it had been a certain truth, that we cannot think that we have removed it; although in our Conference we twice or thrice made him the abovesaid answer. Whereupon we had proposed to ourselves to undeceive this illustrious Cardinal, and with him many other persons according as occasion should have been presented, if this Affair had had a longer course, as we and almost all Rome besides believed it would. We hoped also, My Lords, to evidence clearly to the Pope the falsehood of this conceit in the following Audiences which we expected, not being longer solicitous to dissuade him from it in reference to ourselves after our first public Audience, at the end of which, we have understood since, that his Holiness said, These Doctors are not Heretecks as I was informed. But our Adversaries, who feared nothing more than these Audiences, and durst not appear in our presence to declare their Sentiments plainly, as we did ours with the greatest sincerity and clearness, and to maintain in public before the Pope the falsehoods and fictions which they dispersed in secret, set all their Engines on work and redouble their pursuits after that first audience, to deprive us of time and power to dispel all those shadows by the Light of Truth.  
This is the particular reason, My Lords, which caused them to urge the speedy publishing of the Decree; and they were not contented to allege this reason in their visits to the Consultors and Cardinals, but they mentioned it also in their Writings, which by good hap came to our hands, though communication of them could never be obtained. They endeavour in these Writings to insinuate this wicked & false conceit to all such as shall read them, they impute such opinions to S. Augustine's disciples, as are held neither by us nor any Catholic in the Church, and they labour to confute what no body ever controverted. Thus, My Lords, having suggested this false conceit, both in their Writings and secret Solicitations, they easily prevailed, that to prevent the holding of the Propositions in the Heretical and Calvinistical senses, in which they said many held them in France, and to extinguish this new pretended heresy, which was nothing but a vain phantasm of which they raised a fear in the Court of Rome, it was necessary for the good of the Church to condemn them.  
But you know, My Lords, that no Catholic Doctor or Divine of S. Augustin's disciples in France ever accounted these Propositions other then ambiguous, equivocal and captious, framed about four years ago by one of Molina's subtlest Partisans; as also that the two first of them were censured by S. Augustin's disciples in the Tract entitled Considerations, and in the Book Of Victorious Grace, as admitting three senses, all three heretical; and each of the other, one heretical sense. You know, My Lords, that we never held the condemned Propositions in the formal terms whereof they consist; That in the first Memorial which we presented to the Pope when he gave us Audience upon our coming to this City, we demanded of his Holiness that the senses which were in controversy might be distinguished, and that the examination and judgement which was solicited to be made upon the Propositions, might be made upon the said senses: That in our first Information in facto representing to his Holiness and their Eminences the state of the Controversy, we declared that the Dispute was not at all concerning the Propositions as they were presented: And lastly, that in the public Audience we had before the Decree was made, we renewed the same Declarations to his Holiness, and professed sudry times, that without insisting upon the Propositions which our Adversarries had maliciously contrived, we defended only the Catholic senses, or the particular Propositions framed by ourselves in perspicuous terms, and reduced to the pure doctrine of Grace Effectual by itself, as S. Augustin hath defended the same in all his works against the Pelagians and Semipelagians. Whereby you see, My Lords, most evidently, that not only the Pope's Constitution which pronounces upon the Propositions in their general ambiguity purposely affected to make them obnoxious to Censure, and his holiness's formal Declarations that he had no intention to prejudice S. Augustin's doctrine, which is no wise different from the particular and most Catholic sense which they admit, and we defended alone in France and at Rome; but also the Writings of our Adversaries who have imputed to S. Augustin's Disciples errors and heresies which they never held, justify that those Censures cannot fall but upon those heresies and errors, and that the Catholic sense explicated by us to the Pope in such express and formal terms, remains without impeachment and as Catholic as ever it was.  
For 'tis beyond all doubt that this sense of Grace Effectual by itself is that of S. Augustin; which if there were ground to question, our Adversaries needed only to desire a public Audience of the Pope, to demonstrate to his Holiness in our presence, either that this sense in which we maintain the Propositions is not that of S. Augustin, or else that S. Augustin's doctrine is not that of the Church: but the light and evidence of so many express passages of this great Doctor, and the secret force of Truth which is terrible to all its opposers, hath made them fear to enter into Conference with us touching thts subject in presence of his Holiness or the Cardinals. They were contented, My Lords, as we have before observed, to tell them in their secret solicitations, as we discovered they did at first in their secret Writings, that we who were deputed to Rome by Catholic Archbishops and Bishops, defended S. Augustin at Rome, but others defended Calvin in France; which you know they published formerly in France by many Libels and false reports against all S. Augustin's Disciples in general. And therefore this calumnious Accusation which they framed at Rome before the Decree, is at this day our justification after the Decree, and his Holiness' formal Declaration.  
It remains then, My Lords, That they can be no other than the public Enemies of S. Augustin and the H. See, who dare pretend that the Propositions are condemned of heresy in the proper and particular sense defended by us before his Holiness, and explicated in our Writings; since the Pope by the Oracle of his Speech, vivae vocis oraculo, as they speak in this Court, vouchsafed to declare to ourselves, That he intended not to prejudice S. Augustin, whose Doctrine having been approved by so many Popes, cannot be condemned of heresy without overthrowing the Authority of the H. See, Ecclesiastical Tradition, and the perpetual succession of one and the same doctrine in the Church, nor without violating the Respect which is due to his Holiness, who would hereby be accused of contradicting himself, since he hath declared in sundry occasions, and particularly to us since the publication of this Decree, That he meant not to touch Grace Effectual by itself, nor the Doctrine of that great Saint; and we have already noted, that his Holiness made the same express Declaration to the Ambassador sundry times, who, as we have before said, writ this very day to the Court, to inform their Majesties thereof.  
All these considerations, My Lords, have caused us to bless God since this Decree, That his Holy Providence brought us into this City, to the end that by the Distinction we made, in presence of the Head of the Church, of Truth from Error, when we had the honour to speak publicly to him before the Constitution, and by so true and important a Declaration as he was pleased to make to us since the same in our last Audience, the Censure of Error might be hindered from falling upon the Truth, and it might not be attributed to Innocent X. contrary to his express intention that he designed to condemn by his Decree, or at least by his silence, the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Doctrine of the grand Master of Grace, which his Predecessors for twelve hundred years together have admitted, approved, commended and Canonised by their formal words and most solemn Decrees; and that he rejected as impious and heretical the most Catholic and Augustinian sense included in the first of those Five Propositions, which you know, My Lords, was so fully and clearly defined by the Council of Trent, Can. 22. Sess. 6. where it saith, That the Righteous eannot persevere in the Righteousness which he hath received without special assistance; And before by Innocent I. when writing to the Council of Carthage, he pronounces these excellent words recited in the Letter of S. Celestin, to the Bishops of France 
a Caelestinus Epist. ad Episcop. Galliae, cap. 6.  As we are victorious in temptations when God succours us, so we must necessarily be overcome when he ceases to help us. Necesse est ut quo auxiliante vincimus, eo iterum non adjuvante vincimur. For were it thus, My Lords, should we not have cause to cry out with Saint Prosper, who defended the same Doctrine of S. Augustin, which we defend at this day; Then Innocent the first who so worthily filled Saint Peter's Chair, is fallen into Error, ERRAVIT ergo Innocentius Petri sede dignissimus!  
But we hold ourselves more happy, My Lords, in that it hath pleased God to make us instrumental to hinder the victorious Grace of his Son and the invincible Doctrine of his Church from being overthrown by the attempts of humane presumption; and we acknowledge, that if our weak interposition hath contributed any thing towards the diverting so great an evil, this effect is due only to the generosity of your zeal, the Authority of your Orders, and the uprightness of your Directions.  
Not but that we believe, My Lords, that Molina's Disciples (who by above a hundred Propositions, which we extracted out of their Books and presented to the Pope, declared, even before the Constitution, open War against S. Augustin, although they disclaim this boldness in Companies where they are reproached with it at Paris and in this City) will publish their false Victory everywhere, and put a false construction upon the words of the Decree, which speaks not of S. Augustin and upon the express intention of the Pope, who hath so often declared the esteem he hath of the admirable and divine Doctrine of that great Saint.  
'Tis fit, My Lords, That as this whole Affair hath had no other original on their part, but an unworthy Artifice, in prosecution whereof they have for these four years thought in the Censure of certain several and equivocal Propositions a suppott of their new Doctrine of Molina, first hatched in the Church but about seventy years ago; so it should be terminated with impostures and delusions unworthy of Divines and Catholics, and with imaginary triumphs. But we hope, My Lords, that all intelligent persons and well-affected to the divine interests of Jesus Christ's Effectual Grace, and to the true honour of the H. See and the Church, which ought to be precious to us, will easily discern the general and equivocal sense from the certain and particular; that which we have rejected as heretical from that which we maintained as Catholic; that which is expressed in the Constitution from that which is not expressed in it; and lastly, the false and most unjust pretensions of passionate men, from the true and most commendable intention of his Holiness.  
It remains, My Lords, That we prepare ourselves to departed from hence to morrow morning, and we beseech you in the mean time to continue to us the honour of your good will, and to believe, that as the sole love of Truth and the defence of S. Augustin's sacred Doctrine, which our adversaries have endeavoured to involve amongst errors, that they might also involve it in a Censure, caused us to undertake this long voyage, so it will render us more and more submissive to your Orders and Authority which we shall always respect most hearty, and as much as they ought, who are,  
My Lords, Your most humble and obedient Servants, 

De la Lane, Abbot of Valcroissant.  
Des-mares, Priest of the Oratory.  
De Saint Amour.  
Manessier.  
Angran.   Rome, June 16. 1653.   

CHAP. XXVIII.  
M. Hallier and his Colleagues desire an audience of the Pope to complain of the public joy we testified in Rome for the Declaration made to us by the Pope at our taking leave of him, which his Holiness again confirms to them. The General of the Augustine's gives us Letters of Association to his Order. The Ambassador in a letter to the Count de Brienne Secretary of State gives the same account of the manner wherein we spoke of the Propositions and the Pope condemned them, that is declared in this whole Relation.  
IT would be hard for me to express what comfort we received from the so advantageous declaration in favour of S. Augustin's doctrine and effectual Grace, which the Pope made to us in this audience.  
The joy which appeared in our countenances testified the same to all that saw us go abroad; and 'twas a remarkable accident that M. Hallier, who was in the Pope's Presence-chamber when we came forth from his Holiness, received at that very moment the first mortification by it. But he received more by the noise which this declaration of the Pope made immediately in Rome, as well through our care to publish it, as through the satisfaction with which those who loved our cause and persons, (the number of whom was very great) communicated so agreeable news one to another. Being there remained very few days before our departure which we determined to be on Monday or Tuesday following, we took occasion to tell it to all those friends and persons of greatest respect, of whom we were obliged to take leave before our going away; and we did it as particularly as the scantness of time permitted, to the end we might have them as witnesses in case of need to certify that they heard us publicly and openly proclaim it before our departure, and that when the abovementioned letter which we intended to write to the Bishops should be seen in France, our ordinary calumniators might not allege that it was a feigned thing invented at pleasure to delude the world and secure us in some measure from the condemnation of our opinions which they boasted to have obtained. We related it not only to those whom we went to visit, but to many others of our acquaintance, who occasionally meeting us congratulated us for what they had heard others speak advantageously of it, and desired us to confirm to them ourselves, and particularly relate to them what had been told them but in gross.  
The report of the applauses which we received and the public joy which we testified hereupon to all the world, so vehemently confounded M. Hallier and his Colleagues, that they thought themselves obliged to go and complain thereof to the Pope on Monday following, to the end it might please his Holiness before our departure, by some mortification to quash the advantages which we took from the said Declaration already, and might afterwards take (they said) to the prejudice of the Bull. I believe they did not speak thus moderately; but being I could not know this passage otherwise then confusedly, and by the report of those to whom they opened themselves and spoke nothing of it but what they pleased, I choose rather to speak the less of it. The sum of all was this, that all that they could say to the Pope made no impression upon him, but he answered them that being he had told us his mind and what he really thought, he could not dislike our relating it upon all occasions we pleased.  
Besides the Ambassador whom we acquainted with it, we told it also amongst other Frenchmen, to M. Du-Noiset and M. Gueffier, as well in regard of the civilities for which we were obliged to them, as because they were two public and unexceptionable persons, and might witness it to such of their friends in France as should have the curiosity to write to them about it.  
Moreover we went to tell it to the Generals of the Dominicans and the Augustine's, and by the same means to all such Fathers as we knew, of those two Orders in the Covent of S Augustin and in that of la Minerve. It so augmented the kindness and esteem which the General of the Augustine's had conceived for us ever since our grand Audience on Rogation Monday, that seeing us upon the point of our departure, he was pleased to give every one of us a pledge of his good will and esteem of our persons. It was Letters of filiation and Association to his Order, which he sent to our lodging by two of his Fathers, as I remember, on the Sunday before our departure; They were all dated on Saturday the 14th of June; the copy of that which was for me, is here subjoined, whereunto those for my Colleagues were perfectly like.  
Mag. Fr. Philippus Vicecomes Mediolanen. Ordinis Eremit. S. Augustini Prior Generalis licet indignus: Admodum illustri D. D. Ludovico de Saint-Amour in sac. Facultate Parisiensi Doctori ac socio Sorbonico.  
EOs qui de nostra sodalitate bene meriti sunt, vel in eam ipsam sunt optimè animati, sive piâ devotione propensi, facere non possumus, quin juxta nostram facultatem pietate prosequamur, eosdemque in optima erga familiam nostram voluntate, quantum maximè cum Domino possumus, confirmatos reddamus. Quare nos multiformis gratiae Dei bonos dispensatores imitantes, harum serie ac vi litterarum & nostri officii authoritate, Te & Consanguineos tuos in primo gradu in benefactores nostri Ordinis assumimus, & inter spiritualia nostrae Religionis castra annumeramus. Vobisque omnium Orationum, Missarum, Officiorum, Praedicatiorum, Contemplationum, Jejuniorum, Vigiliarum, Disciplinarum, Obedientiarum, Peregrinationum, Caeterorumque laborum ac bonorum omnium quae per Fratres & Sorores nostri Ordinis universo Orb Christiano constitutos, divina ope fiunt, tam in vitâ quàm in morte, participationem ex Apostolicae sedis indulto concedimus & impartimur. In nomine Patris †, & Filii †, & Spiritus Sancti †, Amen. Addentes insuper de nostra gratia speciali, ut cum obitus vester in nostris Comitiis generalibus, per Provincialem aut per alios fuerit nuntiatus, ea pro vobis fiant suffragia, quae pro nostris defunctis Fratribus ac Sororibus facienda nostri Ordinis Constitutiones decernunt. In cujus rei fidem ac testimonium hasce litteras manu nostra subscripsimus, & sigillo nostri Officii muniendas curavimus.  
Datum Romae in aedibus nostris die decima quarta mense Junio anno 1653. Signed, F. PHIL. VICECOMES GEN. IND. and sealed with the seal of the Order, which is a Crucifix, at the foot whereof S. Augustin is upon his knees, with these words round about; Augustinus lux Doctorum, malleus Haereticorum; Augustin the light of Doctors and the maul of Heretics.  
On Sunday the 15th we went to take leave of the Ambassador, and give him our humble thanks for the many testimonies of good will which he had given us in sundry occasions during our residence at Rome. We intended to give him an account of what passed in our last audience of the Pope, but he prevented us and told us the particularities thereof, as they are mentioned in the foregoing letter. There were some of greater importance concerning a particular matter, which we durst neither tell him openly nor wholly be silent of, and which might not be set down in the Narrative letter, as neither, may they in this Journal. And therefore we only intimated some thing of them in general to the Ambassador, who dispensed with us from further explication by telling us that he understood the same sufficiently.  
But what ever good offices we could receive from his courtesy, he never more obliged us and the Church with us, even when he exposed his life so often for its service against the Infidels, or when he groaned under their tyranny in a long captivity, then by writing a letter to the Count de Brienne Secretary of State upon the same 16th. of June that we writ to the Bishops; by which letter, (without thinking at all, as I believe, that it would ever come to our sight, or should be serviceable to ours and the Pope's justification in reference to what aims his Holiness had in making his Constitution) he so clearly and briefly lays open the Pope's intentions, what we maintained in the Propositions, and what the Pope pretended to condemn in them; That I cannot better conclude this sixth Part then by adjoyn●…g the subsequent copy of that letter.  
A Copy of a Letter written June 16. 1653. by Monsieur le Bailly de Valency the King's Ambassador at Rome to Monsieur the Count de Brienne Secretary of State.  
ON Thursday last I told the Pope that the Doctors who bear the title of S. Augustin's defenders were desirous to kiss his feet before their departure, being ready to return into France. His Holiness answered me that whatever business he might have, he would admit them to audience on Friday morning; which he did and caressed the Doctors extremely, and told them that he had not condemned the doctrine of S. Augustin or of S. Thomas, or the point of Grace effectual by itself, leaving this point and this controversy in the same posture as Clement VIII. and Paul V left it; but that, being themselves had declared that the Five Propositions have three senses, one Calvinistical, one Pelagian, and one true and Catholik, they ought to be pronounced erroneous and temerarious, inasmuch as in a certain manner and intent they were heretical; and that indeed no Proposition which may have poison hidden under it ought to be propounded to the people, (as pastures where venomous plants grow, ought not to be tendered to sheep although the same contain abundance of wholesome herbs) for fear lest the poison be swallowed unawares, the sheep not being able many times to discern the good from the bad. Then the H. Father commended them and thanked them, etc.   

CHAP. XXIX.  
A Relation of what passed in the Assembly of the Cureés of Paris on Monday June 9 1653. and before the King on the Wednesday following by occasion of that Assembly.  
'tWas a Coincidence sufficiently pleasant that the same afternoon on which the Pope's Constitution was fixed up and published at Rome in the manner , the Cureés of Paris in their monthly Assembly complained of another Bull which the Jesuits had obtained by surprise; dated Febr. 5. 1649. and had kept concealed for four years; by which Bull the Cureés cried out that the Hierarchical Order was perverted, the Parochial Churches and Masses deserted, and the Parishioners drawn away from their lawful pastors. Moreover they concluded that they would write to Rome, to beseech the Pope to revoke it, and that in case no remedy were granted by his Holiness, than they would appeal to the Parliament, and preach publicly against the abuses and pernicious consequences which they foresaw from it. But because they incidentally spoke concerning the confinement of Cardinal de Rets, occasion was thence taken to spread heinous falsehoods at the Court against them, and to accuse them to the King of things, by which themselves confessed in his presence they should have been guilty of high Treason, had they been true; but they cleared themselves thereof at the same time with perfect candour and generosity.  
The Curé of S. Roch their ancient Syndic, who was more active in all the circumstances of this affair than any other, penned a Relation of it, which an ancient doctor, his intimate friend and mine, copied from his manuscript, and sent to Rome to me, thinking it would find me there still, with design not only that I should understand what had passed at Paris touching that matter, but also that I should in name of the Cureés make all the complaints and solicitations which they should find necessary in process of time in order to the vacating of this Bull. But we were gone from Rome before the said Relation got thither, and I received hereafter. Nevertheless I shall insert the Relation here, that Posterity and after Ages may see to what enormity Calumny proceeded in ours, since even in things so public and whose truth was so easy to be cleared and known, it did not spare a Company composed of so many eminent and venerable persons in Paris both for their hierarchical functions, and for their piety and learning.  
A Relation of what passed in the Assembly of the Cureés of Paris on Monday June 9 1653. and at the King's Council on Wednesday following concerning the same.  
THe Curées of the City and suburbs of Paris, both by Custom and the Statutes of their Company assemble by permission of the Archbishop at the house of the Signior the first Monday of every month which is not taken up by any Festival, to consult first about the discharging of their functions which relate to the salvation of the souls committed to them, and afterwards of civil and temporal affairs if there be any that concern their Company.  
According to this custom an Assembly was held on Monday the 9th. of June 1653. in which after sundry spiritual affairs, two things were treated of in reference to the present Relation. The first was touching a certain Bull of Febr. 5. 1649. obtained without doubt by surprise, and kept concealed for four years; being granted to the Churches of the Jesuits and all other Churches whom they pleased, concerning a certain Communion which they call General, to be celebrated in their and other Churches by them appointed, and not elsewhere on the third Sunday of every month, in which the Communicants should gain a plenary Indulgence, and apply the same to souls in Purgatory. By which Bull, usage, clauses and consequences thereof the Hierarchical Order is perverted, and especially the Parochial Churches and Masses are deserted, and the Parishioners drawn away from their own lawful Pastors, contrary to the Holy Decrees and Synodal Constitutions of the Archbishop of Paris.  
Against which Bull it was concluded that the Cureés should write to Rome, as many others have done, and that our H. Father the Pope should be supplicated to revoke the same; as also the Nuntio desired to assist their complaint with his Holiness. And to this effect four Cureés were deputed to speak to the Nuntio. And it was added, that in case his Holiness granted no redress in the business, an Appeal should be put into the Parliament against the execution of the said Bull, and the Cureés be enjoined to preach publicly against the abuses and consequences of it. And that in order hereunto the Syndics of the Company should examine it, and take counsel of Advocates concerning what inconveniencies and abuses might be found therein.  
The second thing taken into deliberation was touching the Collects and Prayers appointed by the Archbishop, and published more solemnly at the last Jubilee for the liberty of Cardinal de Rets, his Nephew and Coadjutor; which some of the Company complained to have been left off in many Parishes.  
Whereupon it was concluded that the said Prayers should be renewed, and the Collects inserted in all the Missals of the Vestries of Parishes, and added by the Priests in all convenient Masses public and private. And that amongst the ordinary recommendations after service the people should be exhorted to make prayers likewise to God for the consolations of the said Lords, the Archbishop and Cardinal, in their present affliction.  
And forasmuch as it was reported in the Company that the Nuntio had said not long ago that he had solicited the King in his Holines' name for the deliverance of the said Cardinal the Rets, and that as often as he had order he would do it with all his heart; and that although affairs were not disposed for the same at present, yet he hoped the King would shortly restore him to his Holiness. The Company thought fit that the persons deputed to go to the Nuntio concerning the Bull, should take the occasion to thank the said Nuntio in the name of the Cureés of Paris for his negotiation, and beseech him to continue it upon all opportunities, and testify to him the great joy and consolation which the Company received from the hope which he gave that the King would shortly restore the said Lord Cardinal to his Holiness.  
In pursuance of which conclusions, the next day, Tuesday the 10th. the deputed persons visited the Nuncio, and did according to the order prescribed to them by the Company.  
Whereupon they conceived their intentions being pure, and their conclusion consisting in terms and ways wholly spiritual, Calumny itself could find nothing to gain say therein. Nevertheless some ill-willer to their Company or some flatterer having reported these things to the King and Queen otherwise then they were transacted, to the great prejudice and injury of the Company, the next day, Wednesday the 11th. all the Curées of Paris were summoned from the King by M. Saintot to meet at the house of the Cureé of S.  de l' Auxerrois, where they should receive the King's orders.  
To the appointed place they obediently repaireed to the number of thirty, from whence they were conducted to the Lovure by the said Sieur Saintot. Where being carried into the Queen's Presence-chamber M. le Tellier came to them and asked who were the Syndics, and the Sieur de Saint Roch signior Syndic stepping forth, M. le Tellier told him, both now and at several go to and from the King and his Council, that the King was not well-pleased with the Assembly of Cureés of Monday last, that his Majesty complained of their treating and deliberating therein concerning some affair of State, and of their concluding yea and executing their conclusion to have recourse to the Nuntio. That it was a crime to treat of such an affair and to give a visit to foreign Ambassadors without the King's leave: That the Cureés and others might indeed recurre to the Nuncio in reference to the spiritual part of his charge and the Court of Rome, but in affairs temporal and of State he was no other than the Ambassador of a foreign Prince. That therefore the Cureés had incurred a great fault in deputing persons to him, and were asked what reason they would give for it to the King.  
For answer whereunto the said Sieur de Saint Roch, having first made a Narration of what passed in the Assembly, and followed thereupon in reference to the Nuntio, said, That in regard of the complaint and opposition they intended to make against the Bull, 'twas a thing purely spiritual and belonging to their charges and functions, for which they believed his Majesty would not be offended, since it was lawful to address to the Nuntio about a spiritual Affair, and such as concerns the Ecclesiastical Court of Rome.  
As for the confinement and enlargement of the Card. the Rets, That the Cureés having spoken only concerning the public and private Prayers in the form, and according to the appointment of the Archbishop, well known to the King's Court and everywhere else without any offence taken thereat before, they conceived hitherto that their Conclusion for renewing and recommending the said Prayers to the people, was a piece of administration purely spiritual, and that to exercise the same was not to treat or meddle with affairs of State.  
That as to the having given charge to their Deputies, after they should have spoken to the Bull, to congratulate the Nuntio occasionally, and thank him for his Negotiation for the liberty of Cardinal de Rets, and testify to him the joy they received from the hope he gave, that his Majesty would shortly restore the said Cardinal to his Holiness, they conceived this Congratulation & Consolation not to concern affairs of State, or cause any prejudice to his Majesty's services.  
As for M. le Tellier's question, what reason they would give for it to the King, the said Sieur De S. Roch told him, That if after the foregoing relation according to the Truth and for justification of their Innocence, his Majesty desired any other reason, they should return their Answer with all respect when they understood what he desired; which Answer the said Sieur le Tellier accounted reasonable. After he had understood from the King in his Council what was desired of the Cureés, he came back; He told them, that the King required them to ask pardon of him for their Assembly, and depute some persons to tell the Nuntio, that it was not their intention to have recourse to him, nor by him to his Holiness for the enlargement of Cardinal de Rets. Whereunto the said M. de S. Roch answered, That forasmuch as his Office of Syndic empowered him only to propound things in their Company, to whom it pertained to conclude what answer was fit to be returned to his Majesty, they most humbly beseeched him to give them time to consider about it. Which Reply being again found reasonable, M. le Tellier went to know the King's pleasure concerning it, and returning to the said Curees, told them, That his Majesty required their answer presently, and that in order to consult thereof among themselves, they might retire either to S. Germani de l' Auxerrois, or into the Chamber of Marshal de Villeroy near the Queen's Presence-Chamber. According to which order for time and place, the said Cureés withdrew into M. the Villeroy's Chamber. M. le Tellier came thither to tell them worse news, to wit, that his Majesty was just then informed that the Cureés had signinifyed to the Nuntio, that they would write to the Pope for the liberty of Cardinal de Rets, and complain to his Holiness for not sending forth Excommunications by reason of the confinement of the said Cardinal, as some Popes his Predecessors had done in like case. That they desired the Nuntio to further their complaint with his Holiness; but the Nuntio much disliked these Propositions; and said, That more gentle courses were to be taken; That instead of taking this counsel the Cureés answered, That if the Pope would not do them reason upon their complaint of the Cardinal's confinement, they would address to the Parliament and preach vehemently and loudly against it. Whereupon the Nuntio thrust the Deputies out of his Chamber by head and shoulders. To all this it was answered by the Curé of S. Bartholomew, who was the Spokesman to the Nuntio, that these Reports were nothing but absolute calumny, as they could make good to his Majesty. The Sieur de Tellier said, he would go and give this account to the King.  
In the mean time it being taken into consideration what answer to return to his Majesty, especially concerning the last Relation, as also who should be the Speaker; it was agreed that an Account should be given to the King, as well of the Assembly of Monday last, as of the Deputation to the Nuntio, and M. de S. Roch was pitched upon for Speaker.  
At length M. le Tellier returned to the Chamber, and understanding the conclusion of the Company to go to the King, and that the said Sieur de S. Roch was deputed to be Speaker, He asked the Sieur de S. Roch what he had to say to the King. Whereunto being answered; That the Company would give his Majesty contentment, they were introduced by M. Saintat into the Queen's Chamber where either of their Majesties were seated in Chairs, the Dukes of Anjou, Guise, the Chancellor, the Keeper of the Seals, M. de l' Hospital, and le Tellier and some others of the Privy-Council standing by. The Cureés made a low Reverence to them, and the Chancellor told them, that the King was not well pleased with their Assembly of Monday last. Whereupon the said Sieur de S. Roch, after a reverence to their Majesties, spoke as follows, or very near; (for his Speech being not premeditated nor written beforehand it, would be hard to make a relation of it word for word.) Sir, The Cureés of your good City of Paris, your Majesty's most faithful Subjects, most humble and obedient Servants & perpetual Orators, conceived that their past services and obediences even during the late commotions, had secured their fidelity as to what concerns your Majesty's service from the reach of calumny. But since 'tis their unhappiness to have their Assembly of Monday last traduced to your Majesty, and your Majesty commands to give an Account of it, I shall report the whole transactions thereof to Y. M. with all truth and simlpicity.  
Sir,  
OF Ancient custom with the permission of the Archbishop of Paris our Superior, and according to the Statutes of our Company, we hold our Assemblies the first Monday of every Month, and therein treat and confer together of spiritual things which concern our Charges, and the salvation of souls committed to us. According to this Custom we held our Assembly of Monday last, in the place, time and manner accustomed, where two things especially were spoken of, and of those your Majesty demands an Account.  
The first was touching a certain Bull of February 5. 1649. obtained of the Pope by surprise, and destructive to the Hierarchical State, especially of Parishes. Against which it was concluded to write to Rome to get the same revoked, and also to beseech the Nuntio to assist our Complaint by his recommendation; Moreover, in case his Holiness would grant no redress therein, it was resolved to provide against it by legal ways permitted in your Kingdom, and to appeal against its being put in execution; Which is an Act purely spiritual, concerning the charge of souls, and touches not affairs of State in any wise.  
The second thing spoken of, was touching the public Prayers for Cardinal de Rets, upon which it was concluded that they should be ●…new'd. And whereas the Nuntio had told one of the Company, that in his Negotiation in the Pope's Name with your Majesty for the liberty of Cardinal de Rets, your Majesty had given hopes that you would shortly restore him to his Holiness; the persons deputed to the Nuntio about the Bull were enjoined upon this occasion to give the said Nuntio thanks in the name of the Cureés of Paris for his Negotiation, and to desire him to continue the same upon all opportunities, and to testify to him the joy which the Company received from the hope which he had given of the speedy enlargement of their afflicted Prelate. Wherein likewise, Sir, the Cureés of Paris conceive they have not meddled with Affairs of State, nor treated with a foreign Ambassador, nor done any thing against the service of your Majesty.  
As for the last Relation made to us by M. le Tellier, That it was newly reported to your Majesty, how we had said to the Nuntio, that we would write to the Pope for Cardinal de Rets's liberty, and complain to his Holiness, and that he did not send forth an Excommunication as some of his Predecessors have done in case of like detentions; and that he desired the Nuntio to assist our complaint herein to the Pope, with protestation that if he did us not reason, we would have recourse to the Parliament, and preach openly against the Cardinal's restraint; and that the Nuntio being offended with the violence of the Deputies, thrust them out by the shoulders.  
We confess, Sir, That if we had used those expressions, or propounded those means of Cardinal de Rets's deliverance, not only to a foreign Ambassador, but even to any one else, in the Pulpit, in public, in private, or otherwise, we should be guilty of high Treason. But since we are very innocent thereof, Your Majesty will permit us to say, that 'tis a mere Calumny, and to humbly beseech you that we may know who are the Authors of it, to the end we may justify ourselves face to face, and demand your Majesty's justice for this false Accusation. However to justify ourselves to our power, we shall readily depute some Persons to the Nuntio, to beseech him to give testimony to your Majesty of our innocence, and that we used those expressions and ways only against the Bull, and not in what concerns the detention of the Cardinal, and that he received and reconducted the Deputies of our Company with honour, so far he was from thrusting them out of his Chamber by the shoulders. By which testimony of the Nuntio, the Cureés hope Sir, that your Majesty will see the occasion and artifice of our Calumniators, who have endeavoured to attribute to the detention of the Cardinal, what was spoken against the surreptitious and abusive Bull.  
As to the main, Sir, As we never expected Cardinal the Rets' liberty but from God and your majesty's goodness; from God, by our Prayers; and from your Majesty, by our most humble Remonstrances and supplications; so we protest that we never intended to make use of any other way then this to obtain the same. And as for the prayers to God, we have made the same hitherto, and resolved to renew and continue them with perseverance, not only upon the injunction and command of the Archbishop, our Superiors, but also upon our Obligation to the service of our afflicted Prelate, and by reason of the sorrow which we resent from his confinement. As for our most humble supplications to your Majesty for that end we have frequently desired Audience of your Majesty that we might remonstrate the same, but could not obtain it. But since an unhappy calumny laid upon us hath proved the occasion of this Audience which your Majesty with great goodness affords us, we most humbly beseech your Majesty to grant liberty to Cardinal de Rets.  
After which account given to the King, the Chancellor told the Cureés briefly, that the King knew well enough that they assembled every Month by permission of the Archbishop of Paris; and although the Cureés of the City were not a Body, yet his Majesty was pleased with their assembling so, provided that in their Assemblies they meddled only with the spiritual or civil matters of their Charges, if any were. But they had committed a fault on Monday last, by taking into deliberation the Affair of Cardinal de Rets's detention, being an Affair of State, and by deputing persons to the Nuntio about it: That assoon as the King's Affairs permitted the setting at liberty of Cardinal de Rets, his Majesty would do it; but it did not belong to Cureés to meddle therewith nor with affairs of State; that for the future they must abstain from the same, otherwise the King would be constrained to use the Authority which God hath put into his hand. That nevertheless his Majesty was satisfied with the accounts which they gave him of their assemblies and of their good intentions; but withal enjoined them to depute some persons to the Nuncio, to tell him that they had no intention to make use of other means then the King's goodness for Cardinal de Ret's liberty.  

An Addition to this Relation.  
TO satisfy the Reader what became of the affair of the Communion for the Dead every third Sunday, after the complaints which the Cureés of Paris had resolved to make of it, I shall add here by the way, that the Jesuits have put the Bull in execution, and cause it to be practised by their Priests not only in Cities where they bear sway and do it with the greatest show and ceremony, but also in Paris, though with less magnificence and concourse; as I observed both at Paris and in some other Cities where I happened to be upon occasion during this present year. 1662.     

THE SEVENTH PART.  
Containing what passed at our departure from Rome, and afterwards till our arrival at Paris; and what particularities I have observed since our return till the Conclusion of this Journal.  

CHAP. I.  
Containing the Pope's Constitution against the Five Propositions; Our departure from Rome; our Arrival at Florence; a Letter which we writ from thence to our Bishops; some Reflection upon our departure from Rome; our departure from Florence; our arrival at Venice and stay there.  
I Cannot precisely affirm when the Pope's Constitution was exposed to sale in Rome, nor when we saw the first copy of it; but I know that neither the one nor the other was sooner than the Eve before, or the very day of our departure. Wherefore I think I cannot insert it in a more proper and natural place then this, after which I have nothing more observable concerning it to mention, saving what concerns the point of our departure or what I understood by the letters which I received afterwards. The Constitution follows.  
Sanctissimi in Christo Patris ac D. N. D. INNOCENTII Divina Providentia Papae X. Constitutio, qua declarantur & definiuntur quinque Propositiones in materia fidei. Romae ex Typographia River. Camerae Apost. 1653.  
INNOCENTIUS Episcopus servus servorum Dei; Universis CHRISTI Fidelibus salutem & Benedictionem Apostolicam.  
CVm occasione impressionis libri, cui titulus, Augustinus Cornelii Jansenii Episcopi Iprensis, inter alias ejus opiniones orta fuerit, praesertim in Galliis, controversia super quinque ex illis, complures Galliarum Episcopi apud nos institerunt, ut easdem Propositiones nobis oblatas expenderemus, ac de unaquaque earum certam ac perspicuam ferremus sententiam.  
Tenor verò praefatarum Propositionum est prout sequitur.  
Prima. Aliqua Dei praecept● hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus, secundum praesentes quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia; deest quoque illis gratia, qua possibilia fiant.  
Secunda. Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.  
Tertia. Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas a Necessitate, sed sufficit libertas a Coactione.  
Quarta. Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei; & in hoc erant Haeretici, quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse, cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare.  
Quinta. Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse.  
Nos, quibus inter multiplices Curas, quae animum nostrum assidue pulsant, illa in primis cordi est, ut Ecclesia Dei nobis ex alto commissa, purgatis pravarum opinionum erroribus, tuto militare, & tanquam navis in tranquillo mari, sedatis omnium tempestatum fluctibus ac procellis, secure navigare, & ad optatum salutis portum pervenire possit;  
Pro rei gravitate, coram aliquibus S. R. E. Cardinalibus ad id specialiter saepius congregatis, à pluribus in sacra Theologia Magistris, easdem quinque Propositiones ut supra nobis oblatas, fecimus singillatim diligenter examinari, eorumque suffragia, tum voce, tum scripto relata mature consideravimus, eosdemque Magistros variis coram Nobis actis Congregationibus, prolix super eisdem ac super earum qualibet disserentes audivimus.  
Cum autem abinitio hujuscemodi discussionis ad Divinum implorandum Auxilium multorum Christi fidelium preces tum privatim tum publice indixissemus, postmodum iteratis eisdem ferventius, ac per nos implorata Sancti Spiritus assistentia, tandem Divino Numine favente, ad infrascriptam devenimus declarationem & definitionem.  
Primam Praedictarum Propositionum; Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus, secundum praesentes quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia; deest quoque illis gratia, qua possibilia fiant; Temerariam, Impiam, Blasphemam, Anathemate damnatam & Haereticam, declaramus, & uti talem damnamus.  
Secundam. Interiori Gratiae in statu Naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur; Haereticam declaramus, & uti talem damnamus.  
Tertiam. Ad merendum & demerendum in statu Naturae lapsae non requiritur in Homine libertas a Necessitate, sed sufficit libertas a Coactione; Haereticam declaramus & uti talem damnamus.  
Quartam. Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis Gratiae Interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium Fidei, & in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent eam Gratiam talem esse, cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare; Falsam & Haereticam declaramus, & uti talem damnamus.  
Quintam. Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse; Falsam, Temerariam, Scandalosam; & Intellectam eo sensu, ut Christus pro salute duntaxat Praedestinatorum mortuus sit, Impiam, Blasphemam, Contumeliosam, Divinae Pietati Derogantem & Haereticam declaramus & uti talem damnamus.  
Mandamus igitur omnibus Christi fidelibus utriusque sexus, ne de dictis Propositionibus sentire, docere, praedicare aliter praesumant, quam in hac praesenti nostra Declaratione & Definitione continetur, sub Censuris & poenis contra Haereticorum & eorum fautores in jure expressis.  
Praecipimus pariter omnibus Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, aliisque locorum Ordinariis, nec non Haereticae pravitatis Inquisitoribus, ut Contradictores & Rebels quoscunque per censuras & poenas praedictas, caeteraque juris & facti remedia opportuna, invocato etiam ad hoc (si opus fuerit) Auxilio Brachii Saecularis, omnino coerceant & compescant.  
Non intendentes tamen per hanc Declarationem & Definitionem super praedictis Quinque Propositionibus factam, approbare ullatenus alias opiniones, quae continentur in praedicto libro Cornelii Jansenii. Datum Romae apud sanctam Mariam Majorem, Anno Incarnationis Dominicae millesimo sexcentesimo quinquagesimo tertio, pridie Kal. Junii, Pontificatus Nostri Anno Nono.  


Hi. Datarius.  
G. Gualterius.  
P. Ciampinus.   Anno à Nativitate D. N. Jesus Christi Millesimo Sexcentesimo Quinquagesimo tertio, Indictione sexta, Pontificatus Sanctissimi in Christo Patris & D. N. D. JNNOCENTII Divina Providentiae Papae X. Anno ejus Nono, die vero nona mensis Junii, supradicta Constitutio affixa & publicata fuit in Ecclesia Lateran. ac Basilicae Principis Apostolorum de Vrbe, nec non Cancellariae Apostolicae valvis, ac in acie Carupi Florae per me Hieronymum Mascellam Sanctissimi D. N. Papae Cursorem. Pro D. Mag. Cursorum P. Paulus Desiderius Cursor.  
When we had bidden Adieu to as many of our Friends as we could in the short time appointed for our departure, which was to be on Tuesday June 17. divers of them came to us that morning to wish us a good journey. And in the afternoon by the hour that we were to set forth, there met so many who would accompany us to Ponte-mele, where our Horses expected us, that they filled six Coaches. So that when we went out of Rome about the hour that the Promenade gins, through the street which goes from the College de propaganda fide to the Gate del Popolo, our Equipage seemed something Triumphant, and if I mistake not, the Count de Rochfort was one of those that saw us pass by in this manner, out of their windows. I mention these particularities because our departure being sudden, in regard of the approaching hot weather, some persons took occasion thence to vent this falsehood, that we were constrained to fly and make our escape assoon as the Pope's Constitution was published. I know not, as I said before, whether we saw it on the day before or the very day of our departure, because it was not sooner printed and exposed to sale at the Apostolical Printing-house, and none of our friends had a Copy of it before. But after we knew of it, both by the public voice and in the following Audience which the Pope gave us, we resolved to departed, whether we saw it first or not.  
We took Horse at Pontemole, and there parted with our friends who accompanied us thither. That night we lay at Monterose, from whence we went to Sienna. We traveled according to the usual stages, and had a very favourable time to begin our Voyage, considering the season and the Country. For the intermixture of Rain and a cool Wind, made this time resemble an Autumn of France, rather than a Summer of Italy. Nevertheless, F. Des-mares found some indisposition upon himself at Siene, which obliged us to stay one day there in attending him. And yet he could not continue the Journey with us to Florence but in a Litter, which we hired at Sienna for that purpose. M. Manessier also was indisposed when he came to Florence, in which place while we stayed there three or four days in expectation of his amendment, the reflections we made upon the Pope's Constitutions, which decided nothing of the matters, whose decision we had so importunately demanded of his Holiness, gave us a little scruple that we had departed from Rome without first receiving order from the Bishops who sent us thither, and induced us to write the ensuing Letter to them.  
My LORDS,  
WE departed from Rome the 17th. of this Month, as we signified to you by our Letter of the 16th. that we purposed to do. We intended to return with what speed we could, being very desirous to inform your Lordships personally of many things which cannot be so exactly written, and that those of us who are Doctors of the Faculty of Paris might be present at its Assembly, when the registering of the Decree passed upon the Five Propositions should be propounded, to the end we might at the same time acquaint the Faculty with the Pope's intentions, as we signified the same to you. So that our Report being likewise entered into the Register, no person might presume, either now or hereafter, that S. Augustin's doctrine and Grace Effectual by itself were prejudiced by that Decree.  
We designed, My Lords, according to the computation we made of our Journeys, to have been in this City on Saturday. But we were not strong enough to undergo such speedy travel, and could not reach hither before Monday; besides, that the indisposition of some of our Company has constrained us to repose here at the present, and will oblige us to make but short Journeys during the rest of our Voyage. This slowness, My Lords, has induced us to write to the Faculty for the purposes abovementioned; and the exact account we own to you of all that we do in this Affair, obliges us also to acquaint you with it and send you a copy of it. We hope, My Lords, you will approve our procedure and intentions, which aim at nothing but the peace of our body, the honour of the H. See, and the defence of Truth; and we conceive that when you shall have joined his reason to the others, which obliged us to departed from Rome without your express orders, you will not dislike our presuming that herein we did nothing but what you would approve. For although during all our stay we could not obtain of the H. Father what we demanded of him by your order, to wit the establishment of a solemn Congregation, wherein the matters which are the sole Contests in the Church, might be throughly examined, and with the conditions you appointed us to insist upon: Nevertheless, we conceived there was no reason to continue our solicitations for the same, after what is come to pass; since if the Pope had been disposed to enter into the Examen and discussion of these matters, there was no more justice, reason and appearance to do it before pronouncing any thing upon the Five Propositions, then after such a Judgement as that which is published. Indeed, My Lords, when the Pope declared to us that he meant not to meddle with the matter of Effectual Grace, or do any prejudice to S. Augustin's doctrine, and consequently, that he had not passed his judgement upon the Propositions which we presented to him in explication of those which were framed by our Adversaries, (since those propositions are necessarily linked with Effectual Grace, and express the doctrine of it without any equivocation according to the indubitable sense of S. Augustin;) it may seem that we might reasonably have represented to the H. Father, that his Decision did not clear what was in dispute, nor establish peace; and therefore we might still have demanded his Holiness' judgement upon the controverted senses. We might have beseeched him with all sort of respect, that (the Five Propositions remaining condemned by his Decree, so far as they are considered according to the evil, impious and heretical senses which may be given them, and according to which we ourselves condemned them first in his presence,) at least he would please to consider the controverted senses, to examine in a solemn Congregation the clear Propositions which we had presented to him, and their contraries which our Adversaries maintained against us; to hear us fully upon those senses in presence of such as impugned them, to peruse the Writings which we had presented concerning this cause, and to make such a distinct Decision of those Propositions as might appease the troubles of the Church. And we had the more occasion to renew so equitable a suit to his Holiness, inasmuch as he treated us with singular courtesy and esteem; But at the same time he seemed so averse from condescending to this Motion; we found during the whole course of this Affair, that he had so great a repugnance to it, partly through his own dispositions, and partly through the false suggestions of persons about him, and in whom he hath confidence; and we perceived so many reasons which your Lordships know of, and so many others which we have still to tell you, that we had no hope left of any effect (notwithstanding all the advantages and urgent reasons we had to make it) and consequently none of us judged it expedient. However, My Lords, since his Holiness hath declined neither to examine or define what is in contest between the Catholics, which was necessary to be done for the glory of Truth, the peace of the Faithful, and the honour of the Church, we cannot but tell you, that if you think it fit to renew your instances upon this matter, we are still ready to go & represent them to the Pope again. For the strengthening of of which, if the Body of the Clergy, or the King himself, or both together, would interpose their Authority for obtaining a solemn and regular Congregation, in which all things might be done according to forms accustomed in the Church, We are prepared to maintaain again before the H. See against any opposer whatever the indubitable truth of the Five Propositions, conceived in the terms into which we reduced them and defended them, which are free from all equivocation and obscurity, assoon as such a Congregation shall be established with the conditions we demanded at first, so just and necessary in the whole course of the Affair. But so far as we are able to judge of things, we perceive not that it is easy to obtain such a congregation of the Pope without new and earnest instances from the King and the Clergy: Nevertheless, My Lords, being unwilling to omit any thing in our power which may contribute to the good of peace between Catholics, and to the clearing of Truth, we resolve, My Lords, not to stir out of Italy before we receive your Orders in this business, that so in case you find any likelihood in the proposal we make to you, we may be in readiness to put the same in execution, and may further testify to you our obedience and zeal. We hope, My Lords, to hear from you within five weeks according to the directions we send to him who delivers you this Letter. We shall punctually obey you in whatever you shall prescribe to us. In the mean time, we shall continue our Voyage by little and little towards France in expectation of your Orders; which, whether you will permit us to re-enter there, or command us back to Rome, we beseech you to send us as speedily as may be, (especially if you recall us into France) and to continue to us the honour of being esteemed,  
My Lords, Your most humble and obedient Servants, 

De la Lane, Abbot of Valcroissant.  
Des-mares, Priest of the Oratory.  
De Saint Amour.  
Manessier.  
Angran.    
F: Guerin did us the favour at Rome to take upon him the care of selling our moveables, (of which we could not have acquitted ourselves in so short a time) and to agree with the Owner of the House on what conditions he should take it again. Therefore after the  Letter, I writ to F. Guerin, to desire him to defer both those good Offices till he heard further from us.  
We came to Florence on the 22d. of June, and the same day being S. John's day, saw the great ceremony of that Festival: We departed from thence on the 27th. to Bologne, whether we reached the next day. VNe intended to have stayed and rested a little there, but the excessive heat which we found there on the 29th. caused us to go from thence towards evening, and we took boat at Francolin upon the Po, to go down to Venice the next day: but the rain and the contrary winds forced us to lie one night in our boat upon the Channels which are between the Po and the Marshes of Venice; and having stayed a day or two at Chiosa till the fair weather returned again, we set forth for Venice, and arrived there on Friday the fourth of July.  
On Sunday the 6th. we went to pay our respects to M. d' Argenson, who was the Ambassador for the King to this Republic. He did us the honour to send to invite us to dinner with him on Tuesday following; as also to visit us himself on Thursday; and during all our stay at Venice, he gave us upon all occasion testimonies of singular goodness and courtesy. He saw also in several free Converses which we had the honour to have with him, how frankly we acquiesced in the condemnation made of the Propositions by the Pope's Constitution, and in what manner we were persuaded that this Constitution did not prejudice the opinions which we maintained, and had maintained before the H. See. So that he told us once that he had written as much to M. Coqueret, and assured him, that we did in no wise take ourselves to be condemned by it, nor yet the Doctrine which we hide defended.  
The day before he came to see us, we were visited by one M. Du Puy a Frenchman of good age, who had dwelled at Venice almost all his life, after he had quitted the employments he had had in the Affairs of France, a man of learning and parts, but he had the unhappy engagement to make profession of the pretendedly Reformed Religion. In this Visit we had much Discourse with him concerning the unity of the Church, and the obligation never to break the same, what cause and pretext soever a man may think he hath to do it. F. Des-mares spoke so vigorously of this matter, though with all the familiarity of a private Visit, that the honest man was touched therewith, insomuch that tears were sundry times seen in his eyes. Nevertheless he plausibly & stoutly defended himself from the charitable reproach which we made to those of his Religion, agreeing with us as to the strict Obligation to preserve that sacred Unity, but maintaining that 'twas not themselves that broke it, but those who would not receive them into their Communion upon conditions essential and sufficient thereunto, but exacted others which were not requisite. To which F. Des-mares replied, that although there might be abuses in the Church, yet most of the things which the pretended Reformers of the Church had taken for causes of their separation, were not abuses, but the ancient practice of the Church, as Invocation of Saints, veneration of their Relics, and other like things. And moreover, that without entering into these contests, it sufficed to tell them generally, that all the pretexts that could be alleged for breaking the unity of the Church, were not justifyable before God, since there is no just one for it, according to the Fathers, Praescindendae Vnitatis nulla est necessitas; as the Prophets never attempted to make a Body of Religion separate from that of the Synagogue, how depraved soever it were, but were contented with preaching against those Corruptions, even so far as to expose themselves to death for their condemning the same from God; That the like aught to have been done by those who pretended to reform the Church; If they found themselves called of God for so great a work, they ought to have undertaken the same in the Church itself, whatever should have befallen them; but if they knew themselves too weak to venture martyrdom, they ought to have been contented with reforming and correcting themselves, but not have meddled with the abuses which they could not amend in others.  
Upon occasion we told the Ambassador what was spoken concerning this matter on either side between M. Du Puy and ourselves. He was sorry that he was not present at the Conference, and desired us to give him notice, in case we could foresee a like occasion for another: But for that we stayed at Venice only till the great Heat was passed, and had received an answer to the Letter which we writ from Florence to our Bishops, and were not certain of seeing this M. Du Puy again before our departure (for he would not tell us his Lodging, although we asked him to the intent to repay his Visit) we told the Ambassador, that it would be great contentment to us to procure what we desired, but we saw no great probability of it. Nor indeed had we any opportunity to do it during all our stay at Venice, which lasted till about the middle of August.  
In all which time nothing memorable occurred, but the Letters which I received, both from Paris and from Rome touching the Pope's new Constitution, which I shall insert here, in regard of the further light which they give of the manner how it was passed, of the Pope's intentions in passing it, and of the sincerity and humility wherewith we submitted thereunto. I shall begin with those of Rome, because they were the first which were written to me, and appear to me the most considerable.   

CHAP. II.  
Containing the Letters which I received from Rome during our residence at Venice, touching the Pope's new Constitution.  
THe first of the 30th of June, written by a person of one of the most considerable Orders in the Church, and one of our most intimate friends, whom I had encharged at our departure to make our excuses to some of those of whom we had not time to take leave, or did not meet withal. He told me in his Letter, That the next day after our departure he began to acquit himself of what he had promised us: That he had seen the F. Library-keeper of the Augustine's, who accounted himself much obliged for some books which we promised to send to him for the service of the public in that Library: That he had seen F. Lezzana, who was soliciting for the Permission formerly promised him to print a book which he had made concerning Effectual Grace, and that upon telling him what the Pope said to us in our last Audience, he answered him that Cardinal Pimentel told him as much before, as having understood it from the Pope himself. Il giorno dopo che V. S. si parti con gli altri suoi signori compagni e miei padroni, comminciai ad esseguire i suoi ordini. Parlai co'l Bibliotecario Di S. Agostino il quale restò appagatissimo del suo buon desiderio di compiacerlo di qualche cosa per la sua libraria, perch può servire per util publico e far vedere qual cosa di buono e bello a chi vi va à studiare, mastime contra inimicos gratiae Christi, etc.  
Ho perlate co'l Padre Lezzana, e l' ho riscaldato a procurar la licenza di stampare la sua prima secundae colla materiè della Gratia efficace, e gl' ho suggerito molti motivi per disponere, etc. Gl' ha' appresi e già hà duo to un memoriale a Ghiggi & a nostro Signore. Lo riscaldero, etc. Li rigratia della memoria, etc. Havendoli raccontato quel ch' è successo col Papa e Coro Signori, mi hà replicato ch' alter tanto gl' hà detto il Card. Pimentelli, che gl' hà detto nostro Signore.  
The same friend sent me word also by the same Letter; that they could not conceive at Rome that the Constitution could have good sequels; That one of the Consultors, whom he named to me (but I conceal) told him, that the Jesuits complained of F. Palavicini, conceiving that he had not succeeded in this Affair as they expected; and that he gave thanks to God, that he had had no hand in making this Constitution, though he had been invited to it. That M. N. M. writ to him, that at his return he would tell him his thoughts of it, and that he was very joyful to see that it did not at all touch the doctrine which we defended. That Cardinal Pimentel told F. Nolano, that he would desire the Pope to declare for which senses he had condemned the Propositions; That F. Luca Vadingo said to F. Reginald, that he could not conceive how so rigorous a Censure came to be passed upon the Propositions, since not any of the Consultors censured them so vigorously in the Congregations, not even F. Palavicini himself. He told me also that the same day he writ to me, the Nephew of Barberini was made Cardinal. And lastly, he saluted us all hearty, and made an humble reverence to the Bishops, the undaunted lovers of the perfect Grace of Jesus Christ. Qua à nissun piace la Costitutione per più capi; ne si sà capire che posse apportar buon essito. Il P. D. N. N. mi diste che li Padri della Compagnia si lamentano assai del P. Palavicinii parendoli che non sia riuscito in questo negotio come pretendeano. Rigratia Dio di non esser stato à parte in stabilir la'Costitutione, come gl' era stato significato. Il signior M. N. mi scrive che nel ritorno mi manifestarè i suei sentimenti intorno la Costitutione, il era tutto allegro perch li per che non tocchi, etc. Il Card. Pimentelli hà detto hieri all Padre Nolano che vuol far instawza à nostro signore che dictriari il senso delle Propositioni. Il Padre Vadringhi hà detto all Padre Reginaldi che si sia fatta la Censura con tanto rigore, perch nelle Congregationi niuno l' hà censurate con tanto rigore, ne meno il P. Palavicini, etc. Questa matricas ' è fatto Cardinale il nepote d'ye Barberini. Riverisco è salato tutti ex toto cord è fo humilissima riverenza à i Vescovi intrepidis perfectae gratiae amatoribus.  
The second is of the same date, written by F. Petit Priest of the Oratory, who likewise assured me that divers of the Consultors affirmed, that in their suffrages none of them, not even F. Palavicini himself, qualified the Propositions with those rigorous terms which are in the Censure.  
The third was dated June 28. and written by F. Guerin, who amongst a thousand other good Offices which his inexhaustible charity and singular affection to Monseigneur d' Angers and to us, induced him to do for us, both during our residence at Rome and after our departure, acquainted me with some, which I shall here relate in his own words.  
I have presented your books (to wit, our little tomes of S. Augustin) to the Cardinals Franciotti, Trivultio and Omodei, who received them with great joy and expressions of acknowledgement, especially the first and the last. But the two first, particularly Trivultio professed, that they were much surprised when he saw the Pope's Censure, forasmuch as there was great likelihood and reason that you should be heard. Trivultio said, he did not think that it would any wise conduce to the establishment of peace, but rather the contrary, because though his Holiness seems in appearance not to have touched S. Augustin, yet he hath done it indirectly, and will cause much trouble. The two others earnestly pressed the Oration and the Dictinction of the senses of the Propositions, which all three judged should have been in the Censure. Franciotti hath made them already, and I shall carry them to Omodei afterwards.  
He had put off our House to Monsignor Caffaretti, and sold our furniture presently after our departure; and therefore understanding our offer to the Bishops to return to Rome if they pleased, he offered us his own in that case till another could be provided, in this obliging manner; If you return to Rome, be sure you alight nowhere else but at my house, if you will have me your friend.  
The fourth is of the same date, June 28. written by F. Petit Priest of the Oratory, and superior of these which are at Rome in Saint Lewis' Covent.  
Sir,  
I Have received yours of the 21. of June with the enclosed which I have distributed. I have seen as many of your friends as I could, and presented your recommendations to them; they are all glad to hear of your health, and pray our Lord Jesus Christ to continue strength and health to you till you come to the end of your Voyage, where I doubt not but you will have great Encounters to undergo for the cause of Truth. Now F. Dinet is grown so potent at Court by his guidance of the King's conscience, he will not fail to make use of that Authority for persecuting the Truth and those who defend it.  
As for news here, none is spoken of, saving that your Adversaries walk with something more stateliness, and carry their heads higher than they did formerly. The Jesuits proclaim openly, that you are condemned together with S. Augustin and the whole School of the Thomists; and a Divine of the Roman College hath begun to argue from the Censure of the third Proposition, that Jesus Christ had indifference in reference to his actions: to prove which, when he alleged the Censure of the third Proposition, they say, a Student answered him, Sed illa propositio est de natura lapsa, in qua non erat Christus: which put him to a nonplus. Nevertheless, the intelligent sort of people have no great respect for this Censure, they see so much partiality and passion, and so little justice in it. 'Tis affirmed to me, that F. Aversa & some other Consultors never saw your Writings, and was not called after your Audience, and that this Censure is certainly the same which was made towards the beginning of Lent. The same person assures me too, that the first beginning of the Congregation, 'twas a fixed and determinate resolution to censure the Propositions at what rate soever. And therefore 'tis no wonder that the Jesuits spoke of it so confidently from the first. He tells me likewise, that none of the Consultors, at least the Molinists, care not much for S. Augustine's Authority; but I hope that God and his Church will uphold the same above all those who go about to diminish it. At Rome this whole week hath been spent in Bonfires and public rejoicings, both for solemnity of the Marriage, and alliance of the Pamphilian Family with that of Cardinal Barberin, and for the Promotion made on Monday of the Prince Perfect, who took the Hat on Thursday last, but with the public Panegyrics of the Pope and Cardinals. 'tis believed that Cardinal Barberin shall resume the Helm of Government. Cardinal Antonio is certainly reported to be at Sea, and is expected every day. M. Hallier and his Colleagues make no show of departing yet. 'Tis said, they stay here to see how the Censure will be received at Paris and in your University, that so they may solicit his Holiness for such course and means as shall be necessary to enforce its reception.  
The fifth was written to me on June 29. by that person, without whose counsel I have said in one place of this Relation, that I did very few things. Both the Original and the Translation are here subjoined.  
Il pensiero di non uscire d' Italia fin che habbiano riposta di Francia, à me & all' amico piace sommannente.  
E la parterera Di Roma come fu ' necessarea così non può essere ripresa; ne il fermarsi poteva pastorire niuno buon effetto, è nella present congiuntura si è cavato della bacca ai Papa, quel piùs che si può sperare; è sarà sempre imprudenza tentare la cognitione d' una causa presso un giudice che non intend li termini.  
Si che non bisogna riguardare quello che ponno dire gli auversarie circa la partenzi ma li sogna con prudenza ponderare li nostri disvantaggi & li loro vantaggi altro che l' Aliero in tutti li circoli; dove si trova, predica che ei tiene la gratia efficace de se, è la dottrina di sant' Agostino, è che la decisione del Papa non effende ne l' una ne l' altra; è che li Molinisti sono in errore, come ancora quei della predeterminatione physica; & si riscalda in modo sopra di ciò che più non si può dire, è chi l' hà sentito più volte à me lo riferisse & è persona à Giesuiti affectionata.  
Che il Decreto sia per fape rumore in Francia non si crede, perch il Rè adopreà la forza & autorità, perch sia ricevuto con race, i così hà promisso; è lo so io.  
Che il campo sia aperto in Roma è meglio; perch sino che qui si stava, la Corte perretrava tutto l' intemo di vosignoria, è sprezzava Memoriali, come sè berrissimo; ma estendo absenti, se sentiranno rumori, potranno forzi comparire magiori è più considerabili, è mi credache bisogna preoccupare qualche favore ulla corte di Parigi, che questo paventarà più che altro, perch il brazzo regio è stato quello che hà triato il Papa à quella risolutione à che non saria mai venuto.  
In fatti l' amico conclude, che il partire sia stato prudente, il ritorno infrutuoso, è senza un giudice ch' intenda la materia, ogni causa sarà sempre pienadi disorenie.  
Roma li 29. Giugno.  
Which sounds thus translated:  
Your intention not to leave Italy till you receive an answer out of France, is extremely approved by me and also by our friend. Nor can your departure from Rome be reprehended, because it was necessary. To have stayed longer here, could have been to no advantage; and in the present conjuncture, you have drawn the utmost from the Pope's mouth that could be hoped for. 'Twill ever be imprudence to bring a cause to be examined before a Judge who understands not the terms of the matter in question.  
So that it need not be regarded what the Adversaries may say of your departure, but our disadvantages and their advantages must be weighed with prudence. Besides, M. Hallier in all Companies where he comes, preaches to all the world, that he holds Grace Effectual by itself and S. Augustin's Doctrine, and that the Pope's Decision hurts neither the one nor the other; and that the Molinists are in the error, as also those who hold Physical Predetermination. A person who hath heard him several times, and who is well affected to the Jesuits, assures me of this.  
As for the Constitution, 'tis not likely that it will cause any stir in France, because the King will make use of force and authority to cause it to be received; for so he hath promised, I am certain of it.  
Whereas your Adversaries at Rome are absolute masters of the Field, 'tis the better; for all the while you stayed here, the Court penetrated into your secret thoughts, and made mock of your Memorials, as you know full well. But now you are absent, if any stir be heard from any place, it will appear to them greater and more considerable. Have this persuasion, that you must endeavour to find some favour and support in the Court of France, and this will frighten them more than any thing else, because 'tis merely the King's authority which drew the Pope to this Decision; otherwise he would never have made it.  
In a word, our friend concludes, that your departure was prudent, that your return will be unprofitable, and so long as there wants a Judge that understands the matter in contest, all will be in disorder.  
From Rome June 29.  
The sixth is of the 4th. of July, written by the same person who writ the first. The sum of this was That the Jesuits made no great exultations of the Constitution at Rome, either because no body applauded them upon it, or because many, and particularly the more intelligent persons, said openly that it was not any wise advantageous to them. Quà i Giesuiti non si vedono troppo tripudiare, o perch non si applaudisce â loro per la Costitutione uscita, o perch si dica che non è a lor favore per niun conto, e cosí dicono i dotti.  
The seventh is of the fifth of July, written by F. Petit. Amongst other things which he signified to me, he told me these.  
Your differences are scarce any more spoken of here, so little care there is of Truth and what concerns it. M. N. M. who salutes you, told me yesterday, that the Jesuits are not very much pleased with this Decision, and that one of the hottest of them in this contest before the Decision, with whom M. Hallier had many conferences, having been with him two or three days ago, he found him very cold and little pleased with this Decision, as conceiving that no great advantage could be made of it in reference to the Controversies concerning which you were here, nor against Effectual Grace. F. Annat's book De libertate incoacta, is sold publicly. The Master of the sacred Palace made some scruple to give him his Publicetur, but he was constrained to do it by his holiness's Order. Cardinal Barberin grows every day to be of great power and consideration with the Pope. The Marquis del Buffalo is fallen out of his Holiness' favour, who 'tis believed intends to give his place of Captain of his Guard to the Commander Colonna, because the Marquis followed the motions and inclinations of the Cardinal of Florence, who would not make any rejoicing and Bonfires at the promotion of the Cardinal Perfect Barberin, wherewith his Holiness was extremely offended.  
I fail not to receive every day new intelligence of threaten by the Jesuits and their adherents to send me to the H. Office. F. Richeosme related a pleasant story the other day to some of his friends, which was, That in the House of S. Lovis a wench was found in man's ; and that upon examination of the authors of this prank, they had no other excuse but to say, That they had not the grace of chastity. And hereupon he said, You see what what an ill effect this is of the Jansenian Doctrine in the Fathers of the Oratory; 'tis fit they were expelled, lest they infect others. One that was present and heard this abominable fiction and calumny, came in kindness and charity to advertise me of it. Now, after such a loud untruth, judge what they may not attempt; since neither the Majesty of the place, nor the presence of the H. Sacrament, and the bodies of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, and the Tribunal of Truth where he was sitting on the part of Jesus Christ to condemn sinners and liars, hindered him from relating such a falsehood. But I neither fear him nor all his adherents, God be thanked. I hope God and Truth will be stronger than their lies and impostures. Nevertheless, I shall endeavour to make my complaints hereof to the Cardinals Barberin and Ghiggi, and to the Commissary of the H. Office, in order to prevent their malice.  
The 8th hath no date, but I believe it was about the same time with the former. It was from a very able and prudent Dominican, who testified much satisfaction in hearing of our welfare: and touching the Affair writ the following words; Quanto al negocio, nel Collegio Romano si lege de merito Christi, & subito si stabilisse la necessità della indifferenza con la terza propositione. Quindi si deduce che niuno atto di Christo era meritorio se non per quella circonstanze rispetto alle quali era indifferent. SH' è fatto penetrare all Papa, e questo hà mandato ordine all Generale Giesuita che scriva per tutta la Compania e faccia osservare nelli studii che niuno si vaglia della Bolla sua per stabilire niuno punto Controverso fra le suole. Ma quest' ordine essendo privato, non sodisfa. Noi habbiamo scritto per tutte l' Vniversità che siano raccolte tutte le consequenze de Giesuti oh d' altro, & siano mandata à Roma, perch intendiamo movera la controversia se hauremo in mano cosa che dia motivo, come credo che hauromo, & è impossibile che il Giesuita si tratenga fra termini della modestia, essendo Pedante pervicace. Così il fatto farà conoscere a nostro signore quello che non ha' voluto credere per le nostre istanze. Del resto, la Corte passa con discorsi di marritaggi e con dissegni che non passano i confini della famiglia Panfilia, de quali non voglio inbrattare il folio; e li faccio riverenza con compagni.  
That is in our language: As to the affair, in the Roman College (which belongs to the Jesuits) there are readings concerning the merit of Christ; and presently after the Censure of the third Proposition, they took occasion thence to establish the necessity of Indifference, in order to merit; Concluding that no action of Jesus Christ was meritorious, except upon account of the circumstances in reference to which it was indifferent. The Pope was informed of it, and he sent order to the General of the Jesuits to write to all the Society and forbidden all persons to make use of his Bull to the establishing of any point controverted in the Schools; and to enjoin observation hereof in all his Colleges. But this order being particular and secret, does not satisfy. For our parts, we have written to all Universities to get a collection made of all the consequences which the Jesuits or others can draw from this Bull, and to have it sent to us at Rome; because our design is to renew the Controversy, in case we can get any thing material, as no doubt we shall, it not being possible for the Jesuits to keep themselves in the bounds of modesty, considering what insolent Pedants they are. The result whereof will be to cause the Pope to know that, which he would never believe upon our remonstrances. Nothing is talked of at the Court, but maniages and designs pertaining to the Pamphilian family, wherewith I will not fill my paper. I kiss your hands and those of your Colleagues.  
The Nineth is of the 12th. of July, written by F. Guerin, and amongst other things contains these. The last Week M. Hallier came to seek me as himself said, several times; and F. de Vertamont, one. But neither of them finding me, they went severally to F. Placide to whom they made heavy complaints against me, for all that I have done and continue to do for you, which is to uphold so bad a cause, etc. But in particular for that I visited Cardinal Trivultio, and told him, as they most falsely alleged, that the Bishops would never receive the Bull, etc. Afterwards I met F. the Vertamont, and told him the occasion of my visiting the said Cardinal, which was, to present S. Augustin's book to him; and that I had spoken nothing else of what was imputed to me; With which he professed himself satisfied But seeing M. Hallier shortly after, he added that I had confessed to this Father that I had said to Cardinal Trivultio that there ought to be a Council for deciding these questions; which is as far from truth as the other calumny. These two persons, viz. Vertamont and Hallier, told F. Placide that I might perhaps receive a personal affront, unless I took heed to myself. You see what this tends to. They say, I ought not to have presented your books to the Cardinals. I have so much to tell you concerning this business that the paper and the day would fail me, should I go about to tell you all, and therefore I shall be silent.  
The Tenth is also of the 12th of July, written by F. Petit; in which I find these terms. The grace of Jesus Christ our Lord be with you for ever. I have distributed all those which were in the packet, and particularly that of P. A. to whom I delivered the same with my own hand. He brought me his answer to it this morning, and I send it here enclosed. He bid me tell you something which he purposely omitted in his letter, to wit, that his Cardinal was yesterday informed by the Cardinal of Florence or Trivultio that he was assured by letters out of Flanders that the Bishops of that Country would not receive his Holinesses declaration upon the Five Propositions, saying, that they acknowledged nothing for a Decision of Faith but what the Pope determined cum suo Clero, and not what he determined with three or four Cardinals, and in such a Congregation as that which made this Declaration. Were our Bishops of France and your Doctors thus magnanimous, the Molinists would not have whereof to glory. This would render this Court more circumspect in the making of such decisions.  
F. Reginald salutes you and your Colleagues, and desires me to tell you that in a visit which he made this week to Cardinal Barberin, they discoursed concerning his Holinesses declaration and the certainty that the Jesuits would make use of it against Effectual Grace; but the Cardinal told him they would not, and that he had signified his Holinesses order to the General of the Jesuits, enjoining him to write to all their Fathers, Houses and Colleges that the Pope forbade them to make advantage of this Censure against the doctrine of S. Augustin and S. Thomas, or against Grace effectual by itself. The same Cardinal told me near the same thing yesterday in a conference of half an hour which I had with him, upon occasion of my going to him to desire his protection against the menaces of the Penitentiaries of S. Peter to put into the H. Office, as a person disobedient to this Censure. I assured him that I received the same as a Condemnation of the heretical senses of the Propositions, but not as a condemnation of S. Augustin's doctrine touching Grace effectual by itself necessary to every good work of Christian piety, because his Holiness had solemnly assured you that he designed not to prejudice this doctrine in any wise, etc. He acknow edged that this was most true; but added, that we ought to keep as far as may be from the manner of speaking used by heretics, and that although the thing expressed by such manners of speech be true, yet because Heretics use the same manners of speech in ill part, therefore we ought to abstain from them. The conclusion of all his discourse was, that this Censure is rather a condemnation of terms and words, than any thing else. That, as for the doctrine of our Congregation, so fare as we stuck to S. Augustin, S. Thomas, and the manner of speech of the ancient Scholiastick Thomists, as Bannes, Alvarez, Lemos, etc. nothing could be said against it or me; that therefore I need not be afraid of any rumours or menaces, and of this I I might assure our General. Upon my mentioning the abuse which the Jesuits made of this Declaration, he told me their General had written to their Fathers to forbear doing so. That himself had written to F. Annat to that purpose: whose printing of his book at Paris Jansenius à Thomistis damnatus he did not approve, nor that which he printed de incoacta libertate with the decree and approbation of the H. Office, that had no esteem at all of these books; but that one of his, entitled Augustinus à Baianis vindicatus was a book of great learning (whence you may judge how requisite it is to have an answer made to it and seen here.) The day before, I was with Cardinal Ghiggi, to complain to him of the threaten of the Jesuits, and assure him that our Congregation would be always obedient to follow the doctrine of the Church and the H. Councils. And having also told him that because our Congregation adhered to the doctrine of S. Augustin and Thomas, this gave occasion to the Jesuits to calumniate our doctrine; He answered me that he had heard nothing of it; that indeed he had heard a talk of some union of F. Bourgoing our General with the Jesuits touching doctrine, but of nothing besides. To which I replied that this union was only an union of charity and not of doctrine; that we adhered in Divinity and doctrine to S. Augustin and S. Thomas, and should not recede from them, in regard his Holiness had plainly declared to have a great respect for this doctrine, and that he intended to do nothing against it. But the Cardinal answered me with sufficient coldness, that his Holiness intended not to do any thing against it, and that so long as we followed the Scholiastick authors approved by the H. Church, we should never be blamed. By his discourse I judged that he was one of those who had done most hurt to the truth, and contributed most to this decision. I am informed that amongst many other praises which F. Tartaglia gave this Cardinal in a certain company, for his wit, learning, and piety, one was that he was the penman of this admirable Constitution, in which he said nothing could be added, or whereof every word was as so many oracles of the H. Ghost, etc. I must confess to you, I have been much mistaken in this Cardinal, and the credit, respect, and esteem which I formerly had for him is much abated. I forgot to tell you that I found M. Hallier with this Cardinal before me, to whom himself and some others of his family made great caresses; whereby I perceived that the Molinists were more welcome there then the Augustinians. His Holiness gave M, Hallier this week a Priory of 800. Crowns motu proprio; that is to say, this Priory, which is in Bretegne and known by the name of the Priory de Rieux; having been desired of his Holiness by some persons potent in credit, of which some were Cardinals; the Pope asked what it was worth, and being answered that it was worth 800. or 1000 Crowns, his Holiness said he would have it for M. Hallier, and accordingly commanded the Datary to expedite the same for him. This will increase the number of his Benefices but not of his merit. 'Tis said, He looks for a Mitre as the reward of his glorious labours for defence of the Church. They lodge still at the three Kings in a hired chamber, etc.  
F. Reginald is talked of, to be Divine and Preceptor to the young Cardinal Barberin. If his General stir in it, he may have this employment; otherwise the Jesuits will obstruct him. I wish it him for the benefit which would thereby arise here to Truth.  
I shall add one reflection here which I hear was made upon the Censure by a person of capacity; viz. he saith he found in a Canonist that when ever his Holiness used the word declaramus in his Bulls and Decrees, 'twas an infallible token that his Holiness by such Bull or Decree non constituebat novum jus & censuram, sed tantum confirmabat & stabiliebat jam factum & stabilitum, licet adderentur ista verba, definimus, quae semper considerantur ut habentia ordinem ad declaramus. And consequently in the Censure of the Five Propositions, this word declaramus being repeated at every Censure of every one of the said Propositions, 'tis an infallible sign that by it his Holiness hath not made a new Censure of these Propositions, but only declared or renewed those which were formerly made against them in the Council of Trent, only in the sense of the Calvinists and Lutherans, and no-wise in the sense of S. Augustin, S. Thomas, or of him whom you follow.  
The Eleventh was of July 18. and contained no other news, saving that the Pope was much displeased with the Spaniards, and amongst other causes thereof, complained that the Bishops of Flanders refused to obey him and contemned his authority; which he threatened to revenge, and made great complaints of it to Cardinal Trivultio in the last audience which his Holiness gave him. Non ho cosa particolare di nuovo, salvo che il Papa si da per disgustatissimo da spagnoli è frà l' alhe occasioni del suo disgusto si duole che li Vescovi di Fiandra non obediscano è s' avanxano all dispreggio della sua autorità, onde minaccia sissentimenti, è nell' ultima audienza data a Trivulsio fece longa dolianza.  
The twelfth is of the 19th of July written by F. Petit, wherein, after some private affair he tells me thus; As for the Menaces of Jesuits, I care little for them; by God's help I shall dissipate them, without their doing me any mischief. Nevertheless I shall follow your counsel, and endeavour not to fall out with any person about these matters; although I shall have much ado to forbear from quarrelling with those who take advantage of this Censure, to say that the doctrine of S. Augustin and Thomas touching grace effectual by itself is censured, and that you are condemned, considering that ever since your first arrival, and since the Decision, the Pope plainly protested the contrary, and that you never held these Propositions but with reference to Effectual Grace: three days ago I had a brush about it with F. Marinari, who ask me news of you, fell to tell me that you were condemned; I could not suffer it, but answered him, that you never held these Propositions otherwise then in the sense of S. Augustin and of S. Thomas, and of Grace effectual by itself, which his Holiness professed he meant not to prejudice by this decision; but I could get no more reply from him, saving that they were condemned absolutely and without exception of Effectual Grace. And when I pressed him to tell me whether S. Augustin, S. Thomas, and Effectual Grace were condemned, he answered me plainly, that they are absolutely condemned. Yes, said I, in the bad and heretical sense which they contain, but not in the Catholic. You see hereby what evil consequence the enemies of the Grace of Jesus Christ draw from this Censure— Cardinal Antonio hath been received here with the public acclamations of Vivat le Card. Antonio. His Holiness received him with open arms— All your friends salute you, and desire me again to put you in mind that 'tis necessary that you make a brief Narrative or History of all which hath passed and you have negotiated in your affair, of the Instances, Memorials and writings which you presented to his Holiness, the audience which you had, and all the rest of the transactions in the decision of the Consultors and Cardinals, etc. also what your Adversaries both spoke and acted; and this plainly, yet respectfully speaking of the H. See and this Court, though without omission of any thing of the truth, and of the repulses which were given you. The History may be concluded with the Decision and what the Pope said to you at your taking leave of him; and as for the Decision itself, you must allow it in the sense and meaning which his Holiness put upon it, which is against the sense of Luther and Calvin, wherewith your adversaries and the malice of the Jesuits have always falsely charged you.  
The Thirteenth of the same date, in which F. Guerin tells me of some calumnious extravagant discourses which M. Hallier and his Colleagues made concerning us. The Molinists, (saith he) still lodge at the three Kings, a place of sufficiently ill note, but the good men know not so much, as I believe, although in the little time that I was there, I was but ill pleased with it. They have many untoward discourses of what (they say) the Pope said to them concerning your behaviour in Rome and theirs, your expense and theirs, their poverty and your riches, by help whereof you have spent in Rome thirty seven thousand Crowns, etc. That you endeavoured to corrupt by presents one of his Officers of the Palace, that you bribed one of the Consultors; That his Holiness knew whom you frequented, and who came to you; That you were called the rich Doctors, and they the poor Doctors, with a thousand other fopperies. I cordially salute your Colleagues, and am, etc.  
All that I learned considerable out of the Fourteenth, which is of the 26th. of July, is, that the face of Cardinal Antonio's affairs was already a little changed, and that the kindred of the new bride fell very short in performance of the conditions promised in reference to her marriage; That some persons, being incensed at the excesses of F. Adam's book and that of F. Annat against S. Augustin, indevored to get them Censured; and that the number of the Disciples of this great Doctor of the Church increased every day in that first City of Christendom. Non so che me der altro per fine, ch' i Discipoli di saint Agostino non minuiscono ma crescona qua.   

CHAP. III.  
Containing the Letters which were written to me from Paris, assoon as the certain intelligence of the Pope's Constitution arrived there; and the Answer of F. Morin Priest of the Oratory to one of his Confreres who consulted him concerning the said Constitution.  
I Have four Letters dated the fourth of July. Neither my Lords, nor our friends understood any thing concerning the Constitution at first but by the rejoicings of the Molinists, which good people being wont to tell wonders of their Affairs, the rumours which were spread abroad thereof were not believed, because it did not appear how the same agreed with the state of ours and what we had written; but assoon as the news became certain, I received these four Letters.  
The first of which was written by the order and command of my Lords, who conceived us still at Rome, whereby they sent us word to return the most speedily we could, and to testify their submission to the Bull in very general terms, although they made no difficulty upon the condemnation of the Propositions, because they sent us not to maintain them as they are condemned in the Bull, but only to hinder least by occasion of the five equivocal and maliciously contrived Propositions, the doctrine of S. Augustin and S. Thomas might be condemned chief in what concerns the necessity of Effectual Grace.  
The second was from the most ancient and considerable Doctor of our Faculty; and is here subjoined.  
Sir my dear Friend,  
AT length the thunder is fallen and has discharged its bolt. The alarms formerly given us have been followed with their effect, and the success shows that our Adversaries have had more interest than you in the secret Counsel, and made the better part of it, if at least they did not wholly model it by their management and subtlety. We wait impatiently for Monday, to understand from you the order and series of the whole Affair, whilst in the mean time we hear in the streets, houses & Companies, no other noise but that of Molinistical triumphs; and for my part I believe, artificial Fireworks will be made thereupon in the Colleges of Sorbon and Navarre, as well as at S. Lovis, not to mention S. , de l' Auxenois and S. Sulpitius. The Pamphleteers have not yet cried up and down the streets, but I look to hear them to day or to morrow. You see I have been a Prophet, and that when I told you this back-blow-would be given upon pretence that you were not parties, because you were not accused by any body, and 'twas only about the Propositions in general that his Holiness was consulted, who might answer by himself; it seems the H. Ghost spoke by my mouth. Well, Sit nomen Domini benedictum. I know not in what estate Rome is, but I desire to understand from you. I assure you that in this Country, the news doth not dismay us; on the contrary, 'tis an Antiperistasis which redoubles strength in the true Defenders of Evangelical Truths, to defend and maintain the same more vigorously than ever, both by speech and writing, in spite of the intrigues of their enemies, and the persecutions wherewith they threaten us from the temporal Powers. The Providence of God seems not to have deserted us in this occasion. For before this news, we printed the Distinction of the senses of the Propositions which you presented to the Pope in a full Congregation; which made almost all the world judge of the effect of this Bull before they saw it; and, as I am told, even M. the Penitentiary and Amiot have been heard to say, that it was in such a manner as it did no hurt, saving among the vulgar and ignorant. But, this is enough for them; and if they triumphed upon a Decree of the Inquisition, no doubt they will make Bonfires with invented squibs, when the Pope, as they think, hath spoken so well in their favour. All this moves not me, and I can truly tell you, that since our contestations I never found my mind more calm, nor offered the H. Sacrifice with more quiet and peace of spirit, than I have done since the Monday that that news came hither. I believe the like of you and our friends, whom I salute and embrace with all my heart, etc.  
The third was from M. de saint Beuve, as follows.  
Sir,  
We have had a copy of the Bull by the help of the Bankers. And upon good consideration of it, we find that it contains nothing which is not agreeable to our judgements. We shall receive it with all submission. It cannot be expressed how greatly the Molinists rejoice; but I think their joy would be greater than it is, if we were less submissive to the Pope's Orders. That which troubles them amidst their joy is, that we do not make lamentations for the condemnation; that we say, his Holiness hath done nothing but what we did long ago; and that we protest to hold for true henceforth what the Pope hath declared such, not only because it is so in itself, and we accounted it so before, but particularly because he hath declared it, In brief, our joy is, that we have so perfectly explained our minds, that none but the blackest malice can accuse us of holding the condemned sense. I shall say nothing to you of the Jacobins and the Augustine's, saving, that 'tis time that they get the Pope to declare, whether he had any intent to lay any blemish upon Effectual Grace, S. Thomas, and S. Augustin. M. Gueffier writes to the Count de Brienne, that the Jansenists said they would 
a This is a calumny, of which M. Gueffier was not the Author, but having heard it spoken, advertised me of it by a common friend.  appeal to a Council. 'Twas fit this kindness should be done us, to make up the other calumnies. Others have said, we intended to have recourse to the Parliament; which is as false as the former. If we meant to recur any whither, it should be to the Pope, to conjure him to define the Controversy, since hitherto he has only pronounced upon a thing which was out of all contest. But his not having done it, is a sign that he was unwilling to do it, and that it would be in vain for you to solicit him to it. I see nothing therefore that you have to do but to return with the most speed you can, and to rest confident that our Lord will always preserve his Truth. In whom I am with all my heart, etc.  
The fourth was from a Doctor of our Society who always writ to me in Latin, and contained these words.  
De Bulla, cujus hic exempla quaedam vidimus, nihil habeo quod dicam donec a vobis aliquid certi acceperim. Si vera est, optarem vos in Gallia esse. Timeo versipelle & ferox adversariorum vestrorum ingenium; nihil est moderatum apud ipsos; forte et Christianum nihil apud multos. SS. Oraculum veneramur; atque ideò apertiùs doceri petebamus. Nec unquam dubitavimus, quia Propositiones damnari deberent tam malitiosè contextae, ut eum qui pessimus est, sensum per se ferant. Itaque interpretatione egere ultrò concessum est. Plura dicere necesse non est. Videant Dominicani quo modo se tueantur; videant Episcopi quâ ratione compescant in posterum tumentes Jesuitas. Videant Christiani universi quomodo a corruptissima morum doctrina caveant, quam certè Jesuitae eidem cum Molinismo currui triumphali impositum populis ostentabunt. Hoc fulmen Romanum adversus eos ipsos intentatum jam est, & torquebitur deinceps, qui etiam odio habentes Jansenium, corruptelam morum & usurarium aut simoniacum palpum execrabuntur. Accepi M. Nuncium Bullam Regi obtulisse hesterna die, etc.  
After our sending word of our last Audience, and purpose to return as speedily as we could, few Letters were written to us. Yet the same Doctor who usually writ to me in Latin, by the next Post writ to me in French, which he conceived would meet me at Lions, and it here follows.  
The Bull is published here by the King's Order with much eagerness. The difficulty which long hindered the Bull of the Jubilee, did not obstruct this: and although the Brief bears only Francorum Regi and not Francorum & Navarrae, yet it was not considered for this time, that this omission was prejudicial to the King's Rights; but on the contrary it was said, That there was nothing in it contrary to the Liberties, and I extremely desire your return, etc.  
By the next Post the same friend told me, That the Jesuits there made great triumph, and their insolences were so excessive that their own friends blamed them. That their Affiches (or Notes containing the Questions to be discussed) were condemned by Councils and by Popes. It seems their joy put them out of their wits, etc.  
Assoon as the person who writ to us in the name of My Lords the Bishops had received the Letter which we writ to them from Florence, and shown it to them, he returned an answer upon the 14th. of this Month, continuing his instances to hasten our return.  
Upon the receipt of his Letter at Venice we resolved to departed from thence; but the fear of him who writ it, lest it should miscarry by the way, caused him to write others to us every week, by which he continually pressed us to return. I shall insert one here to conclude this Chapter:  
You are desired to put yourselves upon the way towards France, assoon as you receive the present. Our friends are so impatient to see you that they suffer very much during your absence. We have heard no news of you these five weeks, as for this fortnight I have been in great anxiety, but God be thanked, your Letters of the 12th. have given us ease. Have a great care of F. Des-mares, and tell him, his good friends wait to embrace him, and testify to him the resentments they have of the good services he hath done to Truth. Be not melancholy during your Voyage. The Constitution has rather made more disciples of S. Augustin then diminished their number; all our enemies are extremely crank, and will make the most they can of the Pope's Declaration. You did well in speaking to his Holiness as you did in the last Audience; and 'tis a blessing of God that his Holiness explained his mind so, Had you been here, the Prelates who deputed you, would before this time have written a Letter to the Pope, to thank him for his Declaration; which advantage your delay makes us look upon as afar off. Hasten, therefore, because 'tis almost the only consolation which we expect in our present condition; although this condition has not changed us, and we are undaunted as ever. I salute all our friends, and embrace them a thousand times, etc.  
Now what conceit the ablest persons even among those, who were not suspected to favour Jansenius, had of the Constitution, may be seen by this Letter of F. Morin Priest of the Oratory, and one of the most learned men that have been of that Congregation. 'Tis inserted in the Letter of another Father of the Oratory, who having consulted with F. Morin, communicated his answer to one of his friends, by which means it became very public and fell into my hands since my return. Take it at length.  
The Letter of F. Souvigny to his Friend, July 24. 1653.  
I am well satisfied with your perfect submission to the Decrees of the H. See. I acquiesce therein with the same resignation. But having taken time to examine Tradition concerning Grace, and seriously studied the Pope's Constitution, I have at length perceived that S. Augustin's Disciples are rather humbled before the ignorant, then condemn'n before capable and disinteressed persons.  
Many reasons incline me to this belief, especially the Church's interest to preserve to herself the Authority of S. Augustin, of his Disciples, S. Prosper, etc. and not to abandon it to the Huguenots, and embrace the protection of the upstart Contriver of Scientia Media. The Molinists, by what I always perceived, make not so great account of verity as victory; but the Holy Church neither loves nor deserves conquest but in regard of Truth. Yet I would not make an Idol of my own conceit, nor espouse it rashly without consulting more knowing persons than myself, for fear of mistaking in an Affair of such importance, which consists in taking the true judgement of his Holiness, and the right sense of the Propositions. Wherefore I writ to F. Morin, and desired him to clear my doubt, either by approving or disabusing my apprehension. I never preached concerning these knotty matters, and F. Morin hath lately published something against some Maxims of the Jansenists; in which regards we are less to be suspected, he of engagement, and I of temerity; and I believe his testimony ought to be more authentic, and my belief less culpable. Behold therefore his answer to my question, and the copy of his Letter.  
F. Morin's Letter.  
Assoon as I had read the Pope's Bull upon this famous Question, and having understood eight days before how the Jansenists argued four hours together before his Holiness, delivered Writings to him, and publicly & juridically signified, that the Five Propositions contrived by their enemies were ambiguous, and admitting divers heretical senses; and one Catholic; that the heretical senses were those of the Calvinists, the Semipelagians and the Molinists [for F. Morin understood hereby the senses of the Semipelagians and the Molinists in the Propositions] and that the Catholic sense was that of S. Augustin and their own; and that not contented to have said and declared this, they also distinguished and laid open those several senses to the Pope in Writing. After, I say, I had considered all this, I concluded forthwith and told all those who showed me the Bull, that the opinion of the Jansenists was not condemned by it, but there was a strong presumption in it against the opinion of the Jesuits, and one as great for approbation of that of the Jansenists. For the Pope in condemning the Five Propositions of heresy, hath done no more but confirmed the Censure before made of them by the Jansenists who are at Rome. They condemned the opinion of the Molinists of heresy in presence of the Pope and the Consultors; and the Pope who heard it in a judicial way, spoke not a word to the contrary. 'Tis therefore to be presumed, that he approves the sentence which the Jansenists pronounced against the Five Propositions to the prejudice of Molina. Moreover, they told the Pope juridically, that the interpretation which they gave according to their own sentiments is Catholic and S. Augustin's Doctrine; the Pope speaks not a word hereupon, and derogates not expressly by his Constitution from their interpretation: therefore he approves it; for in such case he is obliged to speak concerning the same, and not leave us to mistake. Therefore his silence is to be taken at least for a presumptive approbation. Add hereunto, that after the publishing of the Bull at Rome, the Jansenists went to take leave of the Pope, by whom they were well received and commended, and he assured them that he had in no wise intended to condemn S. Augustin; that, Vbi est Augustinus, ibi est Ecclesia, and that he had as little designed to prejudice Grace Effectual by itself; and after a long Discourse he gave them his Benediction and many Indulgences. All which hath been written not only by themselves, but also by the Ambassador, who testified the same in Letters to his Eminence Cardinal Mazarin, and the Count of Brienne Secretary of State. This is my judgement of this Bull, and I have declared it several times to such as have spoken to me about it. Some allege that the Pope saith, the Propositions are taken out of Jansenius' book, but the words in the beginning of the Bull show, that he only repeats things as they were presented to him. Now such relations made by Princes are not conclusive according to either Law, as we are taught by the Title of Concordat in the Pragmatic Sanction de sublatione Clementinae. C. litteris. On the contrary it falls out many times, that a violent presumption is equivalent to a definitive sentence; Extra de Praesumptione, cap. Offerte mihi. Therefore this Bull being considered by any person versed in the Law, will in my judgement appear more disadvantageous to the Jesuits then to the Jansenists.  
Hactenus. R. P. I. M.  
You see here's a strange 
a F. du Louvigny's Conclusion.  Calling-card for the Molinists, who triumph under the shroud of popular ignorance, and dare not present themselves to the Pope's face to justify against the five Doctors that they wrongfully accused them of heresy before the Throne of S. Peter; which they ought to do if they were as well skilled in the knowledge of the Saints, as in the policy of the world, etc.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of our Voyage from Venice to Paris; and our passage through Suizzerland.  
BEing the feast of the Assumption was near when we received the first Letter at Venice, which obliged us to return into France, we resolved to pass this Festival at Milan, and departed from thence in the afternoon. We prepared all our Affairs accordingly. We thanked the Ambassador for his civilities; we bid adieu to our other friends; and the above-mention. d M. du Pui coming to see us again, desired me to take a Letter with me for Mr. Vbric, from whom I had brought him one above three years before.  
We departed from Venice two or three days before that of the Assumption, and from Milan on that day at four a clock in the afternoon. We continued our Voyage to Zuric without any interruption, and during the day of Rest which the Venetian Messengers use to take there, I went to visit M. Vbric, as well upon the account of former civilities which I had received from him, as of M. Du-Puy's Letter. I could not prevail with my Colleagues to accompany me, and therefore I went alone. M. Vbric made me new offers of his service, both to my Colleagues and myself, and asked me, if they would not come at some hour of the day to see the Library? I answered him, that I believed they would take a turn about the Town to see the curiosities of it. He replied, that when they came to the Library, he would give order that there should be some persons there to receive them and to serve them. I thanked him for his courtesy, and returning to our Lodging, I acquainted my Colleagues herewith.  
I know not whether they went abroad in the forenoon or no, but in the afternoon we all went to see the Library, where we found some of their Professors ready to receive us. M. Vbric also came to us, and we discoured for some time with him of things purely civil and indifferent.  
When we offered to take leave of them; M. Vbric accompanied us into the street and went up again to the Library, but the rest accompanied us to show us the Arsenal; after which they conducted us to their new Fortifications. We thanked them for all their civilities, and took leave of them to return to our Inn: but it was impossible for us to oblige them to suffer us to go thither alone; and whatever resistance we made (which yet was not suitable to the civility of the Country, but they excused it in strangers) we could not hinder them from going along with us. They enter, d into our Inn with us, and continued to entertain us till Supper, which being brought, they sat down at the Table with us, intending, according to the custom in such cases, to pay their shot as well as we. 'Twas an honour they would needs do us, and we could not hinder it, no more than that which they did us during Supper, of sending wine to us from the signory.  
Amongst the indifferent things we talked of during the time they were with us, something was interposed concerning the Controversies between their Religion and ours, whereof every one spoke with civility according to their principles and capacities. We disputed against them in an honest freedom and sincere charity about Justification, the Pope's Primacy and some other matters. F. Des-mares spoke the most on our side, and can remember the things which we said on either side better than I. That which I remember best concerns the subject of this Relation; they triumphed upon the Pope's Constitution against the Five Propositions; and we answered as much as was possible in defence of it. The Declaration which his Holiness made to us of his intentions in our last Audience, which we opened at length, was the best Argument we could use to this purpose; but because nothing was set down in writing concerning it in his Constitution, wherein the Propositions were condemned in writing, this Argument did not seem to them available to justify the Pope's proceeding.  
We intended to enter France by Dijon, and so go to Paris the shortest way, according to the counsel given us by M. du Plessis Presanzon at Venice; but we turned half a day's Journey out of the way to see the goodly and great City of Basil; and being the Cantons were then assembled by their Deputies at Baden, which was upon the Road, M. Vbric gave me Letters of recommendation to both these places.  
I have forgot to whom he recommended me at Baden, but I remember his recommendation was much accounted of there, and was the cause that we were invited to Supper with the Deputies of the Cantons (who did us great respect) and lodged as friends for that night, which otherwise we had been but very inconveniently, in regard all the Inns were full of people.  
He gave me a Letter to Basil, directed to M. Buxtorf, that famous Author and Professor in the Hebrew tongue. My Colleagues went to see the Town and visit the Booksellers shops; but I would not lose the occasion of seeing a man so learned in that Language. In a quarter of an hours time that I was with him at the most, he made such rational reproaches to me of the vogue given in the Roman Church to the novel opinions of Molina against Effectual Grace necessary to all actions of piety, that I cannot but bear testimony thereof. He said, (and I still wonder at it) that were the Doctrine of Grace solidly established, and generally assented to by all the Faithful, it would alone be sufficient to compose all differences, because then every one would contribute to recall their brethren to the centre of the Faith and of the Church, and employ all their time therein, and sacrifice all their interests to that end. I answered that I agreed with him, that this Capital Doctrine being one of the most fruitful sources of Christian piety, humility and charity, it was certainly capable to cause men to watch and pray one for another; and such as are already in the true faith, to sigh sincerely for the return of their Brethren, without imposing upon them the necessity of acknowledging any thing essential to the Faith, which is not so indeed; but I still saw a great Chaos between them and us which kept us asunder, and hath no reference to this matter of Grace; to wit the mystery of the Eucharist, and the reality of our Lord's Body in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. He replied that was true, this appeared still a great cause of separation and division; but yet if this Doctrine of Grace were well established everywhere and unanimously acknowleged, means might be found to regulate and overcome the difficulty which I mentioned. And me thought he spoke with an accent, which showed in him a sincere and cordial desire of so great a good.  
He enquired of me concerning some of my Confreres of Sorbonne the King's Hebrew Professors, (who were not taken for Jansenists) and having some commerce with them by Letters, desired me to deliver his to them: Which I readily promised, as well that I might perform this office to so eminent a man and to my Confreres, as be above the ridiculous difficulties and impertinent calumnies of certain people in this Age, who take upon them to blame the best and most sincere Catholics for the least duties of civil Society towards those who are not of our communion, as if the same were heinous conspiracies against the Faith and the Church.  
We came from Basil by Franche-Compté to Dijon, where we left the Horses which we had taken at Milan. At Dijon we took a Coach which brought us to Auxerre, where we desired to see M. Percheron and M. Venier, and to go by water the rest of our Voyage to Paris. M. Percheron told us news of what passed at Paris according to a Letter of the 9th of August written to him by M. Brousse, which he read to us, and I desired him to give me. It was directed to M. M. Percheron Doctor in Theology of the Faculty of Paris, Archdeacon and Grand Vicar of Auxerre. And within it contained the following words.  
Paris, August 9 1653. Sir,  
I Have received great consolation by the Letter you pleased to write to me of the 3d current, for which I thank you with all my heart. Touching our Messieurs who are at Rome, I have had no news of them since their departure from thence, but I believe by this time they are in France. I know not whether M. de la Lane will go to his Abbey of Valcroissant before he come to Paris: for he hath business there, and he had so resolved when we passed that way. As for the rest, I believe you have heard how neither the Jesuits nor M. Hallier would enter into dispute; that their intrigues having obtained this Bull (which says nothing but what we said ever since these goodly Propositions were first contrived, as you will see in the book Of Victorious Grace) the Pope, before their departure from Rome when they went to take leave of him, assured them that he had no intention to touch S. Augustin's Doctrine, which is inviolable in the Church, nor Grace Effectual by itself, which is the centre of all the difficulties; Whereupon our Friends answered, that they would all their lives defend the same Doctrine, even to the shedding of their blood; and one of them added, that it should be dearer to them then the apple of their eyes. The Pope made the same Declaration to M. Hallier with a sensible testimony of the learning, modesty and zeal of our Friends; insomuch that he said, he knew they had lived at Rome like Saints. He made the same Declaration to the Generals of the Augustins and the Jacobins, and also to the Ambassador who certified the King of it; & likewise writ word of it to the Nuntio, and we saw the Original of the Letter. So that we receive the Bull with joy, because the sense of Saint Augustin not being condemned (as indeed it could not be) 'tis an evidence of its confirmation, after all the intrigues of its enemies; and that which kept the Pope from pronouncing upon the Distinction of senses, was, that he could not do it without condemning Molina, which the faction of his Partisans hindered. For these reasons, S. Augustin is more zealously adhered to then ever; the Bull hath only healed men's minds to defend him, and gained him many disciples who before were indifferent. Many Philosophical Acts in the University contain no other Doctrine touching Liberty, Predestination, the state of pure Nature, the virtues of the Pagans; and nothing is heard but Eulogies of Saint Thomas and Saint Augustin his Master. The Chancellor of the Arts goes every Sunday to give the Cap of Master in Arts to the Respondents, and makes admirable Eulogies of those two Angels of Divinity, Saint Augustin and Saint Thomas. The Jesuits miss of their Markets there, and lately when in an Act of Philosophy at their College, the Regent said Transeat to an authority of Saint Augustin, he was hissed by the Company; whereupon some Bishops who were present, told him he was an impertinent person, and rising up immediately, went out and made great complaint hereof to their Rector. You see in what condition we are; and we thank God this Bull hath yet made no Molinists, nor is it likely to make any. I believe you have seen the Distinction of the senses of the Propositions which our Friends presented to the Pope. However I send you two copies of it in French for yourself and M. Verrier, because I have it not in Latin, but I will endeavour to get one for you upon thr first occasion. 'Tis a piece which deserves to be kept, and which stops the mouths of the most obstinate Pelagians. I hope our modesty and restraint will obtain in time what our zeal could not.  
I am, etc.  
The shallowness of the water in the River which goes from Auxerre to Paris, and the contrariety of the wind kept us long from arriving at Paris; but we got thither at length, thanks be to God, in good health towards the middle of September. So many things have passed concerning the Constitution since our return, that if I should undertake a Relation of them, I should engage myself upon a new Work, or at least add a new Part to this, which would be larger than any of the rest. Therefore I shall adjoin none of those things which are come to public light, the Memory whereof may be preserved to Posterity by the pains of other persons as fit or fit to transmit the same than myself. I should not have taken upon me to collect those which I have related in this Journal, had I known any one so well informed of them and able to do it so exactly. I attempted it because it seemed a Work reserved for me alone, and I thought myself accountable for it to God and the Public. I shall keep the same mind in those few things which I shall add of what passed since our return to Paris, and setting aside all those which are already known to the world, and of which it cannot be but some hand or other will one day give a Collection to the Public. I shall speak only of such as are particular to me, and whose remembrance might be lost, if I should not here briefly set down what I know thereof.   

CHAP. V.  
Of the particular things which came to my knowledge after our return to Paris. A Calumny spread at Rome that we had printed a book at Venice against the Pope's Constitution. The Pope gives notice to the Consistory of his Constitution, and of the submission wherewith it was received. The imprisonment of F. Nolano, falsely attributed to the Doctrine of Effectual Grace.  
ONe of the first things that I learned after our return to Paris was, that our Adversaries, according to their old practice of calumniating, gave out at Rome after our departure from Venice, that we stayed there so long only to print a Work, to which they gave this Title, Augustinus à Pelagianis condemnatus; in which they feigned, that we termed the Pope and his Congregation Pelagians, because he had condemned S. Augustin by his Constitution; whereas we took no other care in all places where we found occasion to write or speak of it, but to manifest the respect, which the Pope had always testified for S. Augustin, and for his Doctrine of Grace Effectual by itself; and that the Pope had real and positive intentions not to prejudice the same in any thing that he did. However, the same of this Chimerical work was spread at Rome; it came even to the Pope's ears, who was greatly offended with it (as indeed he had reason, had it been true, after the satisfaction which he told us he had received by all that we defended in his presence, and after his so express and obliging Declarations to us of his right intentions) but he was much offended, that he gave order to one to collect the Titles of all Books lately written by those Messieurs (whom they call Jansenists) saying, he would answer them all. This word, a Father of the Oratory, who heard it from Rome, writ to me from Lions, September 12. in which Letter he likewise tells me, that a Bookseller of Lions told him that a certain person assured him, that he had seen some leaves of this fantastical Book, which never was (not even in Idea) saving in the head of those who invented this Calumny.  
A few days after, viz. October. 4. the Pope held a Consistory, in which we acquainted the whole sacred College with this new Constitution, and the submission and reverence wherewith he heard it was received in all parts (excepting Flanders) and particularly in France: and his Holiness testified great satisfaction thereupon. All the Cardinals, excepting four or five who spoke not a word, congratulated the Pope for the contentment which he took therein, and gave great applauses to his Holiness.  
A little while after, viz. Octob. 17. I heard some news from Rome which I shall insert by the by. The Agent of the Bishop of Angelopolis desired me to get the Brief which he had obtained against the Jesuits, printed in some work wherein it might be inserted for public view, because these Fathers had bought most of the Copies at the Apostolical Printing-house, purposely to abolish the memory of it. Moreover this Agent happened one day to walk in the vineyard of the Augustine's, where all those Fathers wished all sort of benedictions upon all the defenders of S. Augustin's doctrine. And lastly, F. Campanella seeing divers of the Consultors, who had been of the Congregation for the Five Propositions, rewarded with preferments for their pains, (as F. Celestin who was lately gone to his Bishopric of Boiano, which the Pope had given him in the Kingdom of Naples) presented a Memorial to his Holiness that he might have one likewise in the same Kingdom.  
F. Nolano, an able and ancient Dominican, was treated after another sort, Nou. 8. no doubt by the procurement of some persons who charged some great crime upon him. M. Albizzi went to la Minerve about 8. a clock at night with other Officers of the H. Office; and entered into this Father's Chamber, to seize upon him and his Papers. There being a Writing upon his Table in the Portuguese language, which some body intended to print, and this Father was perusing at the request of the Master of the sacred Palace, M. Albizzi asked him whether that were the Book which he had made against the Pope's authority? F. Nolano answered him that he had been prisoner three several times amongst heretics for defence of that authority, and he believed this would be the fourth: M. Albizzi took away all his papers with those which he had of F. Lemos, and carried him to the prison del Borgo. Whence some days after he was removed to the prison of the Inquisition; and the good Priest who sent me this news by a letter of Nou. 24. added that no body could imagine what might be the cause of this imprisonment; that it could be attributed to nothing but an absolute persecution of the enemies of Christ's Grace, who had cunningly suggested to the Pope by the intervention of some Cardinals, that this Father talked and writ against his authority; which not being found true, 'twas believed this falsehood would be blown away, and the contrary manifested, since this Father in all his discourses and writings testified greater respect than any other person to the H. See and to the person who fills it: Which caused a Cardinal to tell F. Fani that their Eminences already perceived that they had committed a great error; which nevertheless would perhaps be continued upon reason of State; but it was hoped God would protect the innocent, and make the authors of this surprisal sensible of their fault.  
Our common Adversaries failed not to impute this imprisonmen to the zeal of this good Father in defence of our common doctrine of S. Augustin and S. Thomas touching the necessity of Grace effectual by itself to every act of Christian piety (M. Hallier alleged that it was for that he had distributed some Copies of our writing of the Distinction of senses) to discredit this heavenly doctrine and all its defenders by terrifying simple spirits with what treatment they saw we received at Rome. But besides the grounds that there are to hope that the sequel will destroy the foundations of all these artificial calumnies, and manifest that these were the sole causes of his consinement; Two or three occurrences at Rome about the same time evidence, that it was not this doctrine which drew this disgrace upon this Father; for the same person who writ this news to me, tells me in the same letter of a Sermon which himself preached the day before, viz. on Sunday the 23d. a fortnight after F. Nolano's imprisonment, in which he spoke in defence of this Grace and against the opposite error as openly and with as much vigour as 'tis possible to imagine.  
His Letter runs thus, translated. Yesterday (saith he immediately after the foregoing news of F. Nolano) I preached at the Oratory, and upon that place of the Gospel, Cum videritis Abominationem, etc. When you shall see the Abomination of dissolution in the midst of the holy place, etc. I showed that this abomination is the pernicious and proud doctrine of Pelagius the forerunner of Antichrist; for as when he shall sit in the temple of God, he will have himself acknowledged as if he were God himself; so the Pelagian Dogma would have itself acknowledged as if it were God, since it makes our  not only God of itself, but also God of God himself, in that it will have his Divine Majesty and power subordinate to and dependant upon its pleasure; and that to sow this error there are already come Antichrists and false Prophets, who by the prodigious and surprising things which they do, endeavour to lead even the Elect into error; for instead of teaching little children the Catechism, they infuse into them the grounds of the Pelagian heresy, as they have lately done at Spoleto. This Discourse (saith he) pleased the auditory; I know not whether it will be acceptable to the Molinists, and I fear lest they contrive and raise some greater persecution against me then that of F. Nolano; but let his Divine Majesty dispose how he pleases of my person for his honour and glory.  
Now to satisfy the Reader what this Preacher meant by those false Prophets, who instead of teaching Children the Catechism, infuse into them the grounds of the Pelagian heresy, as they had done lately at Spolelo, I must advertise him that it being the humour of the Jesuits to make ostentation to the people of every thing they were not contented to give to children whom they taught the Catechism, the titles of the Emperor, but to do it with great pomp and fantastical formality in this little City of Italy, at their giving this charge to a Gentleman of this City named i'll Signior Paolo Bartiletti, they bethought themselves towards the end of last Summer to turn the contents of the Catechism into a kind of theses which were to be defended at the new election of this Emperor, of the Catechism by one named Viginisio Campana a native also of Spoleto, in which amongst the Maxims which these Fathers taught these children for Christian, were found these two.  
The first at the third article of these Theses, and the second at the fifth.  Bench sia necessario l' esser Catholico per salvarsi dopo la sufficient promulgatio ne dell' Evangelio, è però assai probabile che alcuni Eretici si salvano. 
Although since the promulgation of the Gospel it be necessary to be a Catholic, in order to salvation; Yet 'tis very probable that some Heretics are saved.  Dopo lafoy sufficient promulgatione dell' Evangelio, quantunque sia assai probabile che sia necessario necessitate medii il credere di più il misterio della Trinita, Incarnatione, Morte, Risurrettione di Christo, etc. Nondimeno e credibele che ancore tall uno si possa salvare credendo simplicemente solo, quòd Deus sit & remunerator sit. 
How probable soever it may be that since the sufficient publication of the Gospel it is necessary necessitate medii to believe moreover the mystery of the Trinity, the Incarnation, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc. Nevertheless 'tis credible too that some may be saved only by believing simply that there is a God, and he gives recompenses.  
These Theses of the Jesuits were censured by the Inquisitor of Spoleto the 31. of October last, according to the Pope's order for that purpose transmitted to him by Cardinal Barberin. I know not whether this Preacher knew of this Censure when he made his Sermon; but the Theses were come to his knowledge; and 'twas these horrible Maxims contrary to the first elements of Christianity, that he complained the Antichrists and false Prophets taught children as their Catechism.  
The second of these things which I said were done at Rome in favour of the doctrine of S. Augustin and S. Thomas touching effectual Grace, is contained in a letter which the General of the Dominicans writ to one of his Fathers, Prior of the Covent of Caën, who sent the copy thereof to M. de saint Beuve in a letter of his own, Nou. 24. Both which are here subjoined.  
SIR,  
I Salute you most humbly in our Lord. Some days before my departure from Paris I writ to our most R. F. General, beseeching him to let me know whether it were true, that the Pope had declared that he intended not by his Constitution to touch the doctrine of S. Augustin and S. Thomas, or of our School in the matter of Grace. I received his answer dated Octob. 6. and according to my promise send you a copy of it. I must not publish it here, for fear I be taken for a Jansenist; For the Molinists' building upon that Maxim, Qui non est mecum, contra me est, have declared and stigmatised all such for Jansenists in this City who do not follow their opinions touching Grace and Predestination. I beseech you, Sir, to command me if I can do any thing in this country for your service; and to experiment how much I hold it an honour to be  
SIR, Your most humble and obedient Servant in Jesus Christ. N. N. Prior of the F. F. Preachers.  
Extractum ex Epistola Reverendissimi Patris Magistri Generalis Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum.  
QVòd sparsos in Ordinem nostrum rumores malevolos occasione Constitutionis summi Pontificis supra quinque vulgatis Propositionibus attinet, non est quòd ex iis Fratres nostri turbentur ceu arundines omnem ad ventum agitatae, sed ceu columnae fidci immobiles fundatae supra firmam petram Orthodoxae & sanae Doctrinae Sancti Augustini & D. Thomae Ecclesiae Doctorum, fluctus illos proprio motu frangendos constanter sustineant, maximè cum tanti Doctores de haeresi aut errore nunquam suspecti fuerint, secùs verò qui eos impugnavere; & ipse summus Pontifex saepe & coram personis omni exceptione majoribus, vivae vocis Oraculo declaraverit, praefatarum Propositionum examine aut Censura nusquam doctrinam D. Augustini aut D. Thomae, & nostram de gratiâ efficaci in dubium revocari, vel minimum attingi velle aut debere. Quare non est quòd moveantur, sed si quid in praejudicium doctrinae Sancti Augustini aut nostrae Scholae in lucem spargitur, si impressum est, ad nos erit mittendum ut jacebit; si non impressum, authenticè collatum, ut hic obstruantur ora loquentium iniqua. Sed de his satis.  
Lastly, the third of those things was, that the Pope recommended to another Father of the same Order, viz. F. Reginald in presence of the French Ambassador who introduced him at his usual audience, before he went from Rome to Guyenne, (of which his General had made him Provincial) the Pope, I say, recommended to him to maintain and defend the doctrine of S. Augustin and S. Thomas, as I was informed by a letter of Octob. 23. written to me by a person who confirmed to me how the Pope immediately after his Constitution gave order to Cardinal Barberin to tell the General of the Jesuits in the name of his Holiness, that he required all the Fathes of his society to beware of taking any advantage of his Constitution against S. Augustin or against Effectual Grace; otherwise they would constrain his Holiness to make some Resolution against them.   

CHAP. VI  
The return of M. Hallier and his Colleagues. Calumnies which they spread against me. News from Rome towards the end of the Year, 1653.  
HAving thus exactly related the particularities of our departure from Rome and of our voyage till our arrival at Paris, as well as the remarkable news which I understood there after our return; it remains that I set down what came to my knowledge concerning the departure of M. Hallier and his Colleagues from Rome, and their voyage to Paris; it being no less my purpose in this Journal to write what relates to them then to ourselves in this affair.  
One of the most eminent Bankers of Rome and my intimate friend, sent me word by a letter of the 25th of August, that these Doctors kissed the Pope's feet on the Tuesday before in order to taking their leave; but his Holiness told them he would see them again before their going; that they intended to have departed on the Sunday following, but he believed they would scarce set forth within a fortnight.  
I understood by a letter from Lions dated Octob. 3. that the letters from Rome of September 8. said, that they went from thence two days before; that their Complices reported that they were highly caressed by the Pope, for their service to the Church, in purging it by their care from the new doctrines introduced into it; That M. Hallier had gotten a good Benefice, and his Holinesses nomination for the Bishopric of Toul; and that his Colleagues were entered in the Dataries grand Book for Benefices vacant within six Months.  
There was a talk also of some Medals which his Holinsse presented to them as a testimony of his good will towards them. Concerning which I shall acknowledge it certain that the Pope's Medaller, in favour and upon occasion of the new Constitution, made a new stamp in which the portrait of the Pope was on one side, and on the other a H. Spirit with this Devise about, Replevit orbem terrarum. But whether they received these Medals from his Holiness' hand, or bought them of the Medaller, is a thing very uncertain, nor do the Letters written to me concerning the same, clear the doubt.  
However, were it so or no, they set forth for France and traveled by the Country of the Grisons. M. Hallier and M. Lagault came both sick to Coire, which is the chief City, in the beginning of October, and M. Lagault died there in a very short time, for whom a service was performed as solemn as the place permitted; the City being wholly possessed and governed by those of the P. Reformed Religion; only the Church and the Bishop's Palace and some few Houses which stand like a Cloister, wherein dwell all the Catholics of either sex, are built upon a Hill higher than the rest of the Town. There are Capucines there who perfume the services of the Church. One of them made a Funeral Oration in the service of M. Lagault. He took those words of the Prophet Zachary for his Text, Vbi suut Patres Vestri? From which he said, he would take occasion to treat of the state of souls separated from the body, not in general, but particularly of that of this Doctor, who truly deserved the name of Father, because he had be a Father to the poor by the Alms which he gave them, a Father to miserable persons condemned to death by his charitable assistance of them in their sad extremity, and a Father of the Church too, as he had testified during his life, both by his learning, writing and other Talents, but especially in his last Legation to his Holiness, before whom he had defended the cause of the Church with such zeal, that he triumphed over his enemies the Jansenists. He said, it was to be enquired in what place this Father might be; That there were but three into which Souls depart, Hell, Paradise, and Purgatory; that the soul of this Father was not to be sought in the first of these places, because he had not done the works which lead thither; that then it should be sought in Paradise, to which his good works had caused him to take the way. But considering that it was improbable, but that during his life he had committed some small venial sins, he must be concluded to be in Purgatory where he was a purifying, and from whence he exhorted every one to help to deliver him by their prayers.  
His Hearse was covered with black cloth, round about which were Death's-heads painted in paper and fastened thereto, and on the top there was the figure of a heart painted red in paper likewise. He was interred in the Episcopal Church amongst the Canons, where he expects the Resurrection, which I pray God may be as happy to him, as I wish it through his mercy to myself.  
M. Hallier's indisposition detained him some days longer at Coire; but M. Joysel continued his Journey towards Paris, with the rest of the Company that came with them to Coire.  
They all passed by Geneva and came to Lions; and when M. Hallier was there, I was informed by a Letter, that he published such horrid calumnies there against me and my Colleagues, but especially against me, that he who advertised me thereof, not daring to mention the same in his Letter to myself, referred me to another friend to whom he had written them. 'Twere to no purpose to extract them out of the Letters, for I have hitherto slighted them, and am contented to have suffered as notorious calumnies from his own mouth in December last when he and I happened to meet at the house of M. de Sovure Knight of the King's Orders, and first Gentleman of his Chamber, to whom the next day I writ the following Letter.  
Sir,  
HAd M. Hallier been contented yesterday in the Discourse we had together in your presence, only to have given me the injurious and offensive words which you heard he did, I should have already forgotten them, and had no displeasure left for his having been so unmindful of the respect which is due to a person of your quality, and so much exceeding the bounds of the moderation required in all the Actions and words of a man of his age and profession. Had he added to his injuries only the several falsehoods which he asserted with prodigious confidence and affectation, I should have accounted him sufficiently punished by being convinced, as I convinced him of part of those falsehoods, & by being urged, as I urged him divers times (though he would not hear it) to choose any of those facts about which we disagreed, to be discussed and proved before you, to the end that by what should be found true of that single one, it might appear what judgement was to be made of the rest, and which of us spoke with truth and good grounds. But the horridness of the calumny, which alone I resented as soon as he uttered it, & told him I could not but challenge him either to prove or retract, or else to pass for a bold and insolent calumniatour, seems to me so important and touches me so to the quick, that I cannot forbear to renew my resentments and complaints thereof to you by writing. It constrains me, Sir, to beseech you again most earnestly, to suffer me to press M. Hallier by the ways of honour, either to come and justify before you so black an accusation as he had the boldness to charge upon me to my face, or else to disown it as spoken in heat and without good information; otherwise, in case he declines to satisfy this my just demand, he must remain in the opinion of yourself and all persons who shall hear of this Affair, a person convicted of calumny. Can it be suffered as the rest in silence, without prejudice to the estimation of my inviolable fidelity to the King's service, I should constrain my patience to the utmost, to bury it in oblivion. But since M. Hallier hath reproached me in your presence to my face of having dispersed Libels at Rome against the King, he would take my silence for guiltiness, if I should not resent this heinous accusation and urge him either to retract it or make it good. I have lately perceived by most certain reports of what he hath spoken of me upon several occasions, that he is so incensed against me, that I have reason to fear that he seeks to decry and mischief me by all ways that he can. Nor can I doubt but that in a hundred places where I am not present to defend myself, he makes the same discourses which he dared to make before me in your hearing, Sir, who might soon know by the long experience you have had of my deportment and ancient engagements to the King's service, how little probability there is in this accusation. God grant the distrust I have of M. Hallier's evil designs against me be as ill-grounded, and that his charity towards me, of which he gave you so ample a testimony at the beginning of our discourse, be true and solid; but the speeches which he hath uttered concerning me since his arrival at Paris, the leaven which remains in his heart ever since I went about, as he saith, to make him guilty of high Treason, by accusing him of having approved Sanctaret's book, and a design which perhaps he suspected I had at Rome, tending not so much to his advantage, have given me great grounds to conceive this distrust. Wherefore, I hope, Sir, you will approve my proceeding in this case, and add this new favour to the many former for which I am obliged to you, that this business between M. Hallier and me may be cleared before you, not so much in reference to my justification in your opinion (for I conceive you are already persuaded of my integrity) as to prevent him from venting the like calumnies in other places against me: and I believe you will be ready to afford me the means to prove before all the world hereafter (if M. Hallier gives me occasion for it by continuing the like speeches) by the discussion of this fact, I am not only clear from all fault in this kind, but that he hath not the least ground to charge me with any.  
But least such as may see this Letter hereafter, should imagine that there is some exaggeration in what I have spoken above in general of the other falsehoods which M. Hallier vented before you, and I clearly refuted upon the place, because they see none particularised; give me leave to remind you of half a dozen of the principal, of which this good Doctor was convicted. 1. He affirmed as a certain thing, that we have had great intelligence, familiarity and conference with the Ministers of Geneva, and that he was informed hereof by the Deputy Syndic of the City; but I cut him short, by telling him, that we came not within three day's Journey of the place, which I was ready to prove by the Messenger who conducted us, and by the testimony of all the Inns at which we lodged upon the Road that we came. 2. He called me a seditious person; and to prove it, said, That I had raised sedition upon sedition, viz. by moving sedition in our Faculty, when I saw Paris in combustion with the Barricadoes. But to refute this, I alleged, that the day when I made my opposition to the violation of the Statutes of our Faculty (the pretended sedition wherewith he reproached me) was the second of May 1648. and that the Barricadoes were not made till four Months after, to wit, the 26th of August following. 3. He contended most obstinately, that the Faculties Censure of the first of April 1626. against Sanctarel, was revoked by the Faculty: And I told him, I would put it to the trial, and undertake that he could not show me any valid act of this Chimerical revocation, but on my part, I would produce this Censure into the day newly extracted out of our Registers 4. To lessen the shame which he received by the opposition which was made to his Syndicship, because he had given his approbation the same year to that pernicious Doctrine, which he also solemny approved again in your presence, Sir, declaring, that though he believed it false, he woule rather departed the Kingdom then subscribe to the Censure which the Faculty had made of it, because it condemned the said doctrine of heresy, which he said had been supposed, followed and practised by five general Councils: He affirmed, that he had the whole Faculty for him, excepting seven young Doctors who opposed his Election. But I asked him, whether he accounted the Curé de S. Roch and M. Brousse young Doctors; and I told him that the five others who opposed him, were as old as himself, that is to say, of the ancientest of the Faculty. 5. He said, he had right to send F. Mulard to Rome as Deputy of the Faculty (though he added, that he did not send him) because, the Faculty had given him and three other Doctor's power to prosecute the Affair before all sort of Tribunals. And I asked him whether the word quomodolibet, which they had slipped into the Faculties Conclusion, purposely to countenance this pretended power afterwards, signified all sorts of Tribunals? And I averred, that in the Faculties deliberation, the question was never other then about joining in the appeal of the Irish to the Parliament, and that the Faculty had not the least thought of all sorts of Tribunals, much less of giving him power to send Deputies to Rome. 6. Lastly, Sir, Assoon as you were gone out of the Room, he complained in presence of M. de Sablonniere, and another person who I believe was one of your Officers, that I sent you word in the Letters which I writ to you from Rome, that the Pope had repulsed him, and that you told the King so; both which things as you know, are equally contrary to the Truth. All the other injuries and Discourse I pass over in silence, (though I penned an ample Relation thereof last night, to make use of when need shall be) both because the rest may be judged of by those which things I have here mentioned, & because I consider that I ought not to abuse the honour of the Audience which you give me, especially since this Letter is only in order to my justification against the most considerable of the calumnies whereof I complain, in order to the clearing of which, I once more renew my humble Requests to you with as much instance as the dearness of my Reputation and my innocence require, with sentiments as full of sorrow and compassion for M. Hallier as his were violent against me; and with as much respect to your person as my obligation is to be,  
Sir, Your most humble and obedient servant, De Saint-Amour. December 16. 1651.  
I sent this Letter to M. de Sovuré the same day; but he not being at home, I sent it again the next, and the next after went myself to reiterate my Request to him, that he would oblige M. Hallier to this Conference. He advised me to consider the Genius of the person with whom we had to deal, saying, that he was a heady man, with whom there was no pleasure to contend because there was no moderation in him. That therefore it was best to slight what he had said, and the rather for that all who heard it observed that he spoke crossly and perversely without reason or discretion.  
M. de Mets came to see M. de Sovuré whilst I was in this discourse with him, and as soon as he was entered, M. de Sovuré said to him, I wish, Sir, you had been here two or three days ago instead of to day; You should have seen M. the Saint Amour at a contest with M. Hallier, who assaulted him with a hundred frivolous accusations; 'Twas a comfort and some sort of justification to me, that all M. Hallier's unworthy discourses had made no other impression than this. Yet I was troubled to hear this heinous Calumny, which concerned my respect and fidelity to the King; and therefore I renewed my complaint of it to M. de Mets. But he had the goodness also to comfort me, and tell me that I was well enough known at Court from my infancy, and that none there would entertain the least suspicion against me for any of M. Hallier's reproaches. So that having the testimony of this Prince and of my own conscience in my favour, besides that of M. de Sovuré, and the company who were with him at his House when I met M. Hallier there, I could not in reason but conform to their sentiments.  
But M. Hallier was not the only man from whom we suffered in this kind. There were others who strove to equal him, accusing us particularly of intelligence, and conformity of opinions and designs with the Calvinist Ministers whom we had seen upon the way: Which Calumny became so common in sundry places of France, that two Doctors, my Friends, residing fare from Paris, writ to me upon the same day to clear myself of it; I answered their Letters with a sincere Account how things passed. And one of them was so satisfied therewith that he sent me this following.  
Sir,  
YOur Letters afford me as great contentment by the justification of your procedure with the Calvinists whom you met in your Voyage, as the calumny and imposture of your, or rather S. Augustin's Adversaries, had caused trouble and displeasure. They who have seen your Letter, are extremely satisfied with it, not only for the plain narration of the Truth which is enough to stop the mouth of Calumny, but for the delight it affords in the description of your Voyage, and the several entertainments you had with the Heretics. I am most pleased with the Christian moderation wherewith you treat your Calumniators. I pray God give them the like spirit of Charity, and preserve the same in you. 'Tis, in my opinion, the most effectual way to win them, and the best course to defend Truth against those who fight against it with more heat than knowledge.  
I am, Sir, Your most humble and obedient servant Percheron. From Auxerre December 9 1653.  
But to end this Work, I shall add no more but the news which I received from Rome by the two last Posts in December, 1653. by Letters of the 22th. signified to me.  

1. That F. Nolano was still in prison, though lately in a larger place, which gave more hope of him.  
2. That M. Albizzi published, that the Pope would not so soon have made his Constitution, nor in the manner he did, if we had not insisted so much for a Contradictory Audience.  
3. That 'twas held for certain, he would be made Cardinal at the first Promotion, and also F. Tartaglia, or he of Saint Laurence in Lucina.   
The same person writ me these words by another of the 29th.  
F. Laurence the Augustin tells me, he heard one of the Consultors for the Five Propositions say; That neither he nor his Companions ever saw the Writings which you presented to his Holilinesse; that he knew not what they were. You see how this matter has been examined, though it be the most difficult and important in our Religion. Be not weary of defending the Truth; and though the men of the earth persecute you, yet the Kingdom of Heaven will not fail you.    

THE CONCLUSION.  
THis is an Account of all that I understood to have passed at Rome in the Affair of the Five Propositions: In which I know not any thing which is not most true and exact: I do not mean as to the words (for 'tis impossible to retain them so exactly, though I used the best care therein I could;) but as to the substance of the things related. If I knew there were any one in it which trespassed upon Truth never so little, I would expunge it; being not ignorant, that if God judges for the least unprofitable words, he will judge me more vigorously for the false which I knowingly mingle in so weighty a matter. And truly I were very wretched, if having no other design in this Work then to honour the God of Truth, I should think to acquit myself of this duty by lying. I see not what interest could induce me to it, having by God's Grace very few pretensions in the world. But whatever those interests may be, I am well persuaded none upon earth deserves to be much prized, because there is not any but must end and consequently cannot last long, as I have learned from S. Augustin; Non est diù quod habet extremum. And according to the solidity of this sublime and certain Maxim, I should much deceive myself if I should be so unhappy as to speak the least falsehood in this Work for any temporal advantages that I proposed to myself as the recompense of my Lying; since, should these advantages last to the end of the world, I most clearly perceive that they should pass away with incredible swiftness, and that consequently, that being nothing can remain for me before God of this whole Work, but the falsehoods which I may have uttered in it, or the Testimonies which I believe I have rendered to the Truth, nothing but either of these can be of any importance to me. And through God's mercy this is all that I have aimed at; I consider nothing else, but look upon all the rest as already passed.  
And in witness of all the contents of this Journal, which I once again acknowledge before God for true, I have signed and subscribed the same as such, in my Chamber at Sorbonne this sixth day of August, one thousand six hundred fifty four. L. DE SAINT AMOUR.   


AN ADDITION Made to this Journal on S. Peter's Day, 1661.  
Containing, 1. An Answer of Cardinal Barberin to two Letters of mine. 2. Sundry places of F. Annat's Book entitled Cavilli, which justify many points of this Journal 3. A Decree of the Inquisition of Rome, touching the Pope's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Temporalties of Kings. 4. An Advertisement touching several Acts of the Congregation de Auxiliis, which we caused to be transcribed and compared at Rome.  
WHen I made this Journal, I had no purpose to add any thing beyond the year 1651. but when I reviewed it for the Press, I found among my Papers Cardinal Barberin's Letter of the twentieth of April, 1654. which contains an Answer to two of mine; in which, after a most sincere Declaration, that I condemned the Five Propositions condemned by Pope Innocent X. and that all our Friends did the same, I declared to him no less clearly that I was persuaded Jansenius was not the Author or Assertor of them, and that the reading of a little Tract made against F. Aunat's Cavilli Jansenianorum had fully convinced me thereof. I sent him two of those Books, and desired him to communicate them to Cardinal Spada and Cardinal Ghiggi (now Pope Alexander VII.)  
Cardinal Barberin's Answer was this.  
Sir,  
LAst week your letter of the 6. of March was delivered to me; and this week I have received another of the 20 th'. Both of them are so full of goodness and civility towards me, and so lively express your remembrance and affection to me, that I own you a thousand thanks for them. As for the particularities in the former, I cannot but much commend your pious sentiments touching our H. F. and the resolutions which you take; highly esteeming the confidence which you profess to have in truths deliberated with mature consideration. And I am glad to understand by the other letter the issue of the last Assembly, remaining in expectation to know the passages of the next. In the mean time I shall willingly read one of the two copies which you pleased to send me, and show them to the persons you desire. Moreover, I hope that as you are liberal to me of your favours, you will be so likewise of your commands, which I entreat you to be, assuring you that they will be most acceptable to me, since I particularly desire to let you know how much I am,  
Sir, Yours most affectionate, Cardinal Barberin. Rome, April 20. 1654.  
The mention of F. Annat's book entitled Cavilli Jansenianorum puts me in mind of the witness which he renders to the truth of two or three considerable passages in my Journal.  
For he acknowledges, (1) That the Constitution was already drawn, when we had our grand audience of the Pope, jam concepta definitione, p. 37. (2.) That after that Audience no Congregation was held to examine either what we had spoken, or the Writings which we had presented; nulla deinceps habita est Congregatio, p. 37. (3.) That we only huddled over the matter, not speaking directly to the Propositions, but altogether concerning Effectual Grace. Nam cum dicturi essent de quinque Propositionibus, coeperunt dicere de Jesuitis. Satyram illam excepit effusa in commendationem S. Augustini & gratiae per seipsam efficacis oratio, de quibus nulla erat controversia, & post longa quatuor circiter horarum fastidia compertum est nondum coepisse dicere de tribus capellis, p. 35.  
Wherefore these important mats of fact can no longer be questioned even by the most injust adversaries, after so public an attestation by him who had the best means to be informed of them, and the most interest not to acknowledge them.  
I had here ended this Addition, but that as I was closing up my papers, I cast my eyes upon a Decree of the Inquisition of Rome touching the Pope's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the temporal territory of Kings and other Sovereigns. And finding that it was made about the same time of the preceding letter, and seemed worthy of the public curiosity, and view, I thought fit to insert the following translation of it.  
A DECREE Of the sacred Congregation of the Supreme and universal Inquisition, specially deputed by the H. See against Heresy in the whole Christian Commonwealth.  
Thursday 15. January 1654.  
IN this City and perhaps in other places a Manuscript in Spanish hath been published beginning with these words, His Excellence hath received a letter by the hand of the Nuncio; and ends with this; which is most agreeable to the service of God, the good of souls, and upright justice. The Author of which according to public fame is BENOIST DE TREGLIES collateral of the Counsel, or Regent of the Chancery of Naples. And amongst other temerarious and scandalous Propositions it contains the following. The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction belonging to his Holiness, as Pope, out of his own temporal territory, concerns Causes and Persons, and is restrained to Determinate Causes and Persons in whom alone it may be exercised. Wherefore the Territory belongs only to the King; and as he who exercises jurisdiction in a stranger's territory is to demand the good leave of the Lord of the Jurisdiction of that Territory; So when the Pope, having no Jurisdiction in a Territory, intends to exercise any in that of the King over causes and Persons in what concerns him, he ought to let his Writs be examined by the Temporal Prince, that so it may be known whether the Causes and persons contained therein be of his Jurisdiction.  
Which Proposition having been examined and weighed by the Qualificators of the supreme and universal Inquisition according to the express command of our H. F. Pope Innocent X. the said Qualificators with unanimous consent adjudge the same Heretical and Schismatical.  
Wherefore lest the Faithful should be infected and corrupted with pernicious opinions and heresies by the reading of the abovesaid Manuscript; The Congregation of the supreme and Universal Inquisition absolutely forbids and condemns the said Manuscript, whether it be dispersed in the Spanish or any other language whatsoever, under the penalties and Censures contained in the Table of prohibited books.  
And let the Author know that he shall be punished with Censures and other Ecclesiastic pains, unless he purge himself speedily.  
John Ant. Thomasi Notary of the H. and Universal Inquisition of Rome.  
One thing I forgot to mention in my Journal, which is, that during our residence at Rome, one of my Colleagues got sundry original pieces of the Congregation de Auxiliis (which are kept in the Library of the Augustine's) carefully transcribed and compared. He also recovered the Original writings of F. Lemos touching the disputes of that Congregation, in which volume the same writings are signed by the hands of Clement VIII. and Paul V.   

A SECOND ADDITION Made to this Journal on S. Martin's day, 1662.  
THe Relation given to the Assembly of the Clergy anno 1655. by the Bishop of Lodeve, (now of Montpellier) of what Pope Innocent X. told him was done at Rome, in the affair of the five Propositions, deduces things with so little clearness and exactness, as to order and time, that when it came to my view first about a year ago, I thought it might serve in some sort to prove the substance of what is related in my Journal, and in requital my Journal might make it better understood. And this Relation having been so well approved by the Assembly that they desired the said Bishop to give it them in writing to the end it might be inserted in the Verbal Process which they caused to be printed, I presume all those who have read that alone, will be more satisfied with it by reading it after this Journal.  
An Extract of the said Verbal Process: Friday 14. March 1656. The Archbishop of Narbonne being Precedent.  
THe ancient Agents continued their report, and speaking of spiritual affairs, related all that had passed in the reception of the Constitution of our H. F. Pope Innocent X. touching the five Propositions condemned by his Holiness; as also what order they had received from my L. L. the Prelates extraordinarily assembled to this purpose, to write to the Bishop of Lodeve (then at Rome) concerning it.  
Whereupon the said M. de Lodeve said, That whilst he was at Rome, he was commanded by the Assembly of Prelates held at Paris to present to the deceased Pope Innocent X. the letters which they writ to his Holiness about the publication of his Bull; which obliged him to represent to the Assembly what passed at Rome concerning this matter during his being there; and that if the Assembly thought good, he would begin with the things which preceded the sending of that letter. The Assembly having approved this proposal, the said M. de Lodeve proceeded and reported, That in the first audience which he had of Pope Innocent X. of happy memory, 2. Jan. 1654. his Holiness did him the honour to tell him, that he was obliged to the Bishops of France, and had them written in his heart, for having been the first in acknowledging the authority of the H. See in the affair of the Jansenists; That these were his Holinesses very words; and that what he was about to speak further, was very near the same language which he used to him, he having put it into writing at the end of his audience.  
That his Holiness further told him, That the Question of the five Propositions being presented to the Bishops of France, they refused to take cognisance of it, and said to the Presenters, Go to the Pope, to whom it belongs to decide causes of Faith. That many Bishops had written to him; That Doctors of either side came to Rome; That his Holiness having asked Doctor Hallier whether he had any thing to say? he answered that he came to Rome only to understand his Holinesses sentiments, and to know the truth from his own mouth, touching the Five Propositions; and he would respectfully and submissively receive what he should decide, as an Oracle of Faith. That the other Doctors demanded a Hearing and liberty to answer to what the adverse party would allege. At which word party, his Holiness told them there was no party in this affair, and that the inquiry was only to find the truth. That then one of these Doctors made a discourse full of Invectives against the Jesuits, which his Holiness heard with patience and charity, though it was nothing to the matter in question. That after this speech, another made a long Predication, which he could not finish, because night superven'd, and he read in a Paper; but he said that all which they had to offer was contained in eight quires of paper which he presented to his Holiness, and desired permission to print; to the end their adversaries might answer thereunto in print, and themselves aftewards reply. That his Holiness received these papers, and put them with all other Acts relating to this affair into the hands of some Cardinals, of whom he named Pamphilio and Chisi. In the mean time his Holiness made prayers to God to be illuminated with his H. Spirit, and appointed prayers to be made in the City of Rome especially, by such persons as he knew to be of great piety. And having afterwards Assembled a Congregation of divers Cardinals, Prelates, Doctors and learned Priests, he heard them many several times discourse and give their opinions upon the matter. That God gave him the will and strength to be present at all the sit with great patience, without weariness or trouble. That himself, who before being Pope, had addicted himself to the Law, to the judgement of Processes, and to the management of public affairs, yet affirmed in truth and sincerity, that he received from God so great an opening of mind, that aperuit sensum scripturarum, that he understood all the subtleties and difficulties even to the most intricate Schoole-termes; and he received so great pleasure in these Congregations, that when night approached he was sorry he could not attend them longer. The Cardinals oftentimes told him that he took too much pains, and that this over great assiduity would do his Holiness hurt; and he answered that it was no trouble to him, but he pitied the good old Doctors who were standing all the time.  
That in fine, having throughly examined and recommended this affair divers times to God, he one day called Cardinal Chisi (than secretary to his Holiness, and now Alexander VII. happily sitting in S. Peter's chair) and having bidden him take paper and write, he dictated his Constitution to him in the same words wherein it was published. That the matters were so present and clear in his mind, that it was no trouble to him to dictate it, and that he could repeat it word for word, (as accordingly his Holiness did part of it) His Holiness also assured him that the matter was transacted in this manner, and that he had added nothing since to his Constitution but the last Clause, which saith that his Holiness intends not by this condemnation to approve the other opinions contained in the book of Jansenius. That the Pope had published this Constitution, and caused all that had been done in this affair to be compiled into one Volume, in the front whereof are placed The Letters of the Bishops of France, to serve for a testimony to Posterity of their respect towards the H. See. That he had caused this Volume to be deposited in the Archives of S. Peter, after he had made an Act of Declaration in a Consistory held for that purpose. That he had sent his Bull to the King of France, and to other Princes and Bishops. That those of France had received it with honour, as also those of other Kingdoms by their example. That even the Bishops of Malines and Grant, who showed some tergiversation at the beginning, having understood its reception by the French Bishops, received and subscribed it. That this was an obligation which his Holiness had to the Bishops of France, and should preserve as long as he lived. That he charged him, the Relator, to acquaint them therewith at his return. Which injunction he, the Relator, now discharges, by most punctually relating to this illustrious Assembly the discourse which his Holiness held to him in this first Audience— The Assembly gave the Bishop of Lodeve thanks, and was so satisfied with his Relation that they desired him to put it into writing, to the end it might be inserted in the present Verbal Process. Which was done accordingly, as is above mentioned.    
FINIS.   


A CATALOGUE Of the Pieces contained in the Collection, according to the same order wherein they are mentioned in the Journal.  

THe Conditions presented to the Faculty of Divinity at Paris for examining the Doctrine of Grace, (mentioned Part 1. Chap. 14.) are to be found in the Collection at Page 3.  
The Letters of some of the Bishops of France to the Pope concerning that of M. de Vabres about the Five Propositions translated into French, Part 3. chap. 1. is in Latin in the Collection at p. 5.  
The Decree of the Inquisition of Rome (mentioned Part. 3. chap. 6.) importing the suppression of all books written on either side, upon occasion of the Contest between the Bishop of Chalcedon and the Jesuits of England; and some other Pieces touching the same matter, Coll. p. 27.  
A Writing made and published at Paris and Rome in July 1651. almost two years before the Constitution of Innocent X. in form of a Manifesto, in behalf of the Divines disciples of Saint Augustin; (mentioned Part 3. chap. 7. and elsewhere in the Journal) is to be found, Coll. p. 35.  
A Writing of F. Morel, one of the Order of the Augustine's, and Doctor of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris, full of impostures and calumnies against Saint Augustin's disciples; (mentioned Part 3. chap. 8.) Coll. p. 139  
Apologetical Memoires, in behalf of the proceed of the University of Paris against the certain enterprise of the Irish, (mentioned Part 3. chap. 9) Coll. p. 126.  
A Manuscript containing divers Resolutions of the Consultors in the Congregation de Auxiliis, wherein the main difficulties concerning Grace are determined against Molina, and according to the Sentiments of Saint Augustin's disciples, (mentioned Part 3. chap. 10.) Coll. p 31.  
The Letter of M. de Godeau Bishop of Vence to the Pope, (mentioned Part 3. chap. 12.) Coll. p. 6.  
The Letter of M. de Menchal Archbishop of Tholouse (mentioned ibid.) Coll. p. 7.  
The Letter of M. de Palafax Bishop of Angelopolis, (mentioned Part 3. chap. 13.) Coll. p. 11.  
A Manuscript containing sundry Pieces about a great Contest touching absolute Predestination determined by the Council of Trent, in the Affair of M. Grimani Patriarch of Aquileia, (mentioned Part 4. chap. 9) Coll. p. 237.  
Three Write made by a learned Dominican for Cardinal Roma, (mentioned Part 5. chap. 9) Coll. p. 62.  
The Letter of two of the Bishops who sent us to Rome, enjoining us not to departed from their order of soliciting the establishment of a solemn Congregation, in which the Parties might be heard viva voce & scripto, (mentioned Part 5. chap. 17.) Coll. p. 8.  
An Act passed before a Notary, by M. Sinnigh Doctor of Louvain February 22. 1647. concerning what hath been spoken of Jansenius' book in some Audiences, which he had of the Pope's Urban VIII. and Innocent X. and some Cardinals, (mentioned Part 6. chap. 1.) Coll. p. 236.  
The Writing made by the Dominicans to be presented to Pope Innocent X. with their Memorial to intervene in this Affair, (mentioned Part 6. chap. 9] Coll. p. 44.  
The new Letter written to Pope Innocent X. towards the beginning of March 1653. by two of our Bishops (than at Paris) to press his Holiness for a solemn Congregation, (mentioned Part 6. chap. 11.) Coll. p. 9  
Our Answer to the LX. passages of Saint Augustin cited by M. Hallier, Lagault and Joysel; wherein we show how all of them are either impertinently, or perversely cited, (mentioned Part 6. chap. 21.) Coll. p. 89.   

Pieces added to this Collection.  
THe Speech of F. Mulard to the Pope, wherein this Vagabond Cordelier professes himself deputed to his Holiness from the King and the Sorbonne, etc. Coll. p. 199.  
The Votes or Suffrages of the Consultors of the Congregation of Innocent X. touching the Five Propositions, with short Notes of a Divine Saint Thomas' disciple, Coll. p. 144.  
The six Disquisitions of Paulus Irenaeus, Coll. p. 157.    

A COLLECTION OF SUNDRY TRACTS, LETTERS, etc. Thought fit to be subjoined to the JOURNAL.  

Reasons of my selection of these particular Pieces.  
MY purpose not having been to annex to this JOURNAL all such Pieces as may have reference thereunto (for they alone would form too great a Volume) I therefore here offer the Reasons upon which I have made choice of the following, and omitted some others which might seem to have right to a place here likewise.  

I. I have not doubted of the fitness of adjoining such rare and curious Pieces as have not otherwise been public, and are hard to be procured; as the Manuscript about the Dispute touching Gratuitous Predestination determined in the Council of Trent; Some Decisions made by the Congregation de Auxiliis, and other Pieces of like nature.  
II. I have also annexed the Writings of the Dominicans mentioned Part. 6. Chap. 9 and elsewhere, because they show not only the zeal which that Order had for the Cause we maintained; but also the clearness wherewith those Divines comprehended all the Artifices of the Molinists, and the perfect correspondency of their Sentiments with what we argued both before and after the Constitution, having held the Propositions in the same sense with us (viz. that of Effectual Grace) and justified Jansenius much more openly than we, by the same Proofs and Principles that have since been made use of for that purpose.  
III. I have not thought fit to augment this Volume with the Writings of our Adversaries that have fallen into my hands, because I conceived they might produce the same themselves if they judged it meet, and that the Abridgements which I have made of them, seemed to me sufficient to acquaint the Reader what they were. I have been content to set down one of them at length, Part. 5. Chap. 8. which shows what sense they put upon the Propositions; their other Writings proceeding upon the same Principles.  
IU. But for that their chief Weapons were Impostures and Calumnies, it hath appeared to me necessary to insert at length into this Collection the Writings of F. Morel, whereof I have spoke Part. 3. Chap. 8. because it sets forth in what manner they decried us at Rome, and what Impostures they made use of to render us odious to the Pope and Cardinals, as those that were Enemies to the H. See.  
V For the same reason I have added the Harangue of F. Mulard to the Pope, whereof no mention is made in the JOURNAL, because I had no knowledge of it whilst I was at Rome; but when I found that it was printed in the Juridical Narration of M. Fileau, I conceived it requisite to be annexed to the other Pieces as that which confirms all that I have spoken concerning the impudence of that Cordelier, who falsely styling himself Deputy from the King of the Sorbon, correspondently made a Speech to the Pope full of Lies and Falsities.  
VI For that the Suffrages of the Consultors have more essential connexion with the affair deduced in the Journal, than any of the other Pieces; I have also thought meet to add to the same, though I have scarce spoken thereof before, not having been able to discover any thing of them during my residence at Rome. Yet finding them since become very common and authentic in Copies dispersed abroad, perfectly agreeing with that published by the Bishop of Montpellier, I conceived it requisite that they accompanied the Journal.  
VII. I have not thought fit to insert all the Writings made by us at Rome, because they would have too much swelled the Volume, they being many, and divers of them very prolix.  
VIII. Nevertheless I have inserted the Answer to the Sixty passages of S. Augustin produced by M. Hallier in reference to the First Proposition; because the said Answer may serve to show what would have been the success of a Conference wherein those Passages might have been cleared, and what reasons we had to desire it, and our Adversaries to decline it.  
IX. Where Latin or Italian Pieces are found at length in the Journal translated into French, as sundry Memorials are, and the Speeches of M. De la Lane and F. Desmares in the audience which we had of the Pope, I have not thought needful to repeat them in the Collection in their Original Language, partly for the sake of Compendiousness, and partly because I considered that the Journal might one day come to be translated into Latin, and then the said Latin pieces might be set in their due Place and Language.  
X. Yet I have inserted the Letters of my LL. the Bishops, having conceived myself obliged by respect to them not to be contented with the Versions thereof, though most faithfully made and placed in the Journal; but to represent the same in their own words and form.  
XI. Mention having frequently been made in the Journal of a Latin Explication of the Propositions made and published at Paris almost two years before the Constitution, and styled by me (as often as I had occasion to name it) our Latin Manifesto; I have thought the placing of it here expedient for its Preservation to Posterity: because it admirably sets forth that the same doctrine was held by us both before the Constitution and since, namely, that Of Effectual Grace; and that the Propositions were never otherwise accounted than as things maliciously contrived by the Adversaries of S. Augustin's doctrine.  
XII. The same reason hath induced me to annex the Conditions which were presented to the Faculty in Order to examination both of the Propositions produced by M. Cornet, and of others extracted out of Molina's Book; And because this Writing is the first of all those that are mentioned in the Journal, therefore it is likewise placed first in the Collection. It follows with a short Preface, wherewith it was printed soon after M. Coppin had presented it to the Faculty, as I have related, Part. 1. Chap. 14.    

CONDITIONES Ad examen Doctrinae de Gratia oblatae Facultati Theologiae Parisiensi, apud Sorbonam Kal. Decembris congregatae Anno 1649.  
QUi Magistri Nicolai Cornet consiliis, & rogationi ab ipso latae prima Julii restitere; eo ducti animo, ne quid veritas aut B. Augustini doctrina detrimenti pateretur, ut palam esset quam non abhorrerent a legitimo de doctrina judicio, saepius quaestionem aequis conditionibus de illa constitui postularunt. Sed postquam adeo justam petitionem nullus recipiebat, visum ipsis est e re sua fore si postulationis formulam conscriberent, quam deferrent ad Facultatem, si forte de examine mentio fieret.  
Igitur cum M. Jacobus Pereyret Kalendis Decembris frequentissima Facultate sententiam dicens de pace inter Doctores revocanda, censuisset discutiendas esse propositiones illas quae totius dissensionis caput ac origo essent; atque ut ne quis minus mature tanta de causa statutum quereretur, totis mensibus tribus quatuorve rem expendendam; tum denique Doctores in suffragium mittendos; M. Petrus Coppin ne haec opinio valeret apud plurimos illius assectatores, atque etiam ne de illa ante comitia convenissent, ejus orationem excipiens ita locutus est. Si de propositionibus illis videretur constituendum judicium, legem quamdam ferendam esse, ex qua tota haberetur quaestio & controversia finiretur; illius se non solum auctorem, sed alios etiam sapientissimos Doctores plurimos, quorum nomine loqueretur. Cum vero tabulas eduxisset e sinu in quibus descripta erant rogationis capita, & jam legere inciperet, ut omnes intelligerent in quas examinis conditiones decretum fieri vellet, repente per vim a quodam e Doctoribus ereptae sunt. Statim de illa vi conquesti sunt M. Petrus Coppin, aliique plures, eviceruntque tandem sibi reddi has tabulas, quas cum M. Petrus Coppin a se per tumultum hunc legi non posse animadverteret, ad Scribam detulit, ut eas ille publicis Commentariis consignaret.  
Conditiones vero postulatae sunt quae nulli iniquae videri possint. Judicium enim non defugiunt B. Augustini defensores, sed liberum postulant, grave, prensationibus non obnoxium, cujusmodi videlicet ad causam adeo difficilem & arduam dijudicandam requiritur.  
POstquam ex scriptis quae circa Magistri Nicolaï Cornet consilium edita sunt, omnibus innotuit quàm periculosè propositiones quasdam de Gratia ambiguas, aequivocas, à nullo auctore in sensu quem prae se ferre videntur assertas, vocaverit in medium, & examinandas Facultati exhibuerit; postquam satis etiam Senatûs judicio comprobatum est, quàm sapienter & justè omnibus hac in re actis, jam septuaginta Doctores Seculares intercesserimus & ad Senatum provocaverimus, & quantùm Ecclesiae ac Facultatis paci ab omni hoc examine abstinere conduceret; totum hoc negotium alto silentio comprimendum, ab inceptis cessandum, pacem reddendam spes fuerat. Neque verò his sic obstitimus, ut examen aequum declinaremus, sed ut paci, & Ecclesiae, & B. Augustini auctoritati & doctrinae, quas impeti nemo non videbat, consultum esset. Verùm cùm quidam, quod semel aggressi sunt perficere omni conatu laborent, atque iterum propositionum examen à Facultate postulent; et si hoc consilium toti Ecclesiae ac summis Pontificibus, maximè verò Clementi Octavo ac Paulo Quinto injuriosum putemus, ne quis tamen nos doctrinae examen ac judicium effugere putet, examen & judicium, si facto opus esse videbitur, non respuimus, modò cum omni aequitate fiant, atque his conditionibus à nobis propositis, sicut tanti in Ecclesia & Fide momenti res exigit.  
Cùm M. Nicolaus Cornet propositiones de Gratia quas libuit & non nominato auctore primâ Julii Facultati obtulerit examinandas, atque tunc querentibus nonnullis plura alia esse nou minùs examine digna, responsum fuerit, licere cuilibet alias etiam examinandas Facultati propositiones exhibere. Cùm, si examen aggredi placet, Christianae paci, quae non parum hâc dissensione violatur, maximè conducat, ut omnis hac in re controversia quantùm fieri potest finem accipiat. Cùm querelis omnibus virorum eruditorum hinc & hinc componendis, inquiri ac dijudicari necesse sit, quis in Ecclesiam novitatem induxerit, quis ab antiqua Fidei doctrina recesserit. Cùm doceantur multa, in quibus veterum fortè errorum reliquiae latent: his de causis adeò justis, si exhibitas à M. Nicolao Cornet propositiones examinari placet, postulamus etiam ut hae inter multas alias propositiones examini subjiciantur.  
Propositiones ad examinandum oblatae.  

I.  

1 1 Molina in Concordia quaest. 14. art. 13. disput. 10.  HOminibus qui ad filîorum Dei dignitatem nondum pervenerunt, eatenus facta est potestas, ut filii Dei fiant, quatenus, si quantum in se est, conentur, praesto illis aderit Deus ut fidem & gratiam consequantur, neque desiderio suo fraudentur, etc. Quod si conantibus ex suis naturalibus, facientibusque quod in se est, vel ut fidem amplectantur vel ut de peccatis doleant, Deus non est semper praesto per auxilia & gratiam suam praevenientem, ut actu sint quales ad salutem oportet, quanam ratione verum erit Deum velle omnes homines salvos fieri, eaque ratione acceptum coram eo esse, ut obsecrationes, orationes, postulationes & gratiarum actiones pro omnibus hominibus fiant, ut eo loco Paulus docet?— 
2 Ibid. disp. sequenti seu 11.  Cum itaque Deus sua scientia praevideat quinam ex his qui audituri sunt Evangelium, conaturi sint ex suis naturalibus ad assensum esiciendum ut tenentur, & qui non; sane ut a peccato non excusentur, qui assensum fidei supernaturalem non elicuerunt, satis est Deum suo auxilio & gratia praesto esse ad praeveniendum in eodem instanti, quoscunque viderit ex suis naturalibus ad assensum conaturos.   

II.  

3 3 Idem Molina in Concordia quaest. 14. art. 13. disp. 40. Sect. Antequam.  Divisio auxilii sufficientis in efficax & inefficax sumitur ab effectu, qui simul ab arbitrii libertate pendet.— Auxilia praevenientis atque adjuvantis gratiae, quae lege ordinaria viatoribus conferuntur, quod efficacia aut inefficacia ad conversionem seu justificationem sint, pendent a libero consensu & cooperatione arbitrii nostri cum illis; a●que adeo in libera potestate nostra est vel illa efficacia reddere consentiendo, & cooperando cum illis ad actus, quibus ad justificationem disponimur, vel inefficacia illa reddere continendo consensum & cooperationem nostram, aut etiam e●…ciendo contrarium dissensum.— 
4 Idem quaest.— art. 4. & 5. disp. 1. memb. 6. Sect. Nonnulli hanc doctr. asserunt.  Dicere autem auxilium ex modo motionis Divinae & ex Deo ipso habere quod sit efficax, ut quoties per illud Deus movet liberum arbitrium, consentiat & cooperetur ad salutem, quoties per illud auxilium efficax non movet liberum arbitrium, non consentiat, neque cooperetur ad salutem, certe non dubitarem sententiam hanc, errorem in fide appellare. 
5 Ibid. Sect. Certe.  Si arbibitrium nostrum ab efficacia Divini auxilii habet quod consentiat vel non consentiat Deo vocanti, & cooperetur aut non cooperetur ad salutem, perseveret aut non perseveret in gratia; certe non ab innata & propria libertate pendet, sed a qualitate auxilii & motionis divinae; non est quod homini cedat in laudem & meritum, quin potius periit omnino libertas arbitrii ad salutem.   

III.  

6 6 Idem quaest. 23. art. 4 & 5. disp. 1. memb. 6. Sect. Octava 〈…〉.  Sumpta in particulari praedestinatione cujusque adulti, quae reipsa jam ex aeternitate fuit in Deo, ratio seu conditio sine qua in Deo non fuisset praedicta praescientia, est quod adultus ipse pro sua libertate ita cooperaturus est per suum arbitrium, ut ad vitam aeternam perveniat, sic etiam ab hoc ipso simili modo fuit dependens, quod reliquum quod eadem praedestinatio includit, vel sortiretur rationem praedestinationis, vel retineret solum rationem providentiae circa illum in beatitudinem.   

IV.  

7 7 Idem quaest. 14. art. 13. disp. 19 memb. 6. Sect. Sexta ratio.  Auxilia in se non supernaturalia (per quae in quocunque eventu insurgenteque quacunque difficili passione aut tentatione, in potestate arbitrii humani esset non succumbere, legemque per id temporis implere) conferenda fuissent generi h●mano instatu naturae lapsae, etiamsi per Christum non foret ●edimendum.   

V.  

8 8 Assertio 17. Censum Lovanientis.  Quod applicatio talis remedii (baptismi videlicet) his vel illis ob aliqua impedimenta occurrentia fiat impossibilis, non est Deo imputandum, quia non ordinat ut non possit applicari, vel ut talia impedimenta occurrant, sed tantum permittit secundum communem cursum rerum, sicut permittit peccata.   

VI  

1 1 Quaest. 14. art. 13. disp. 53. memb. 4. Sect. Ut ad argum.  Ratio viatoris simul & comprehensoris in Christo, a puncto conceptionis ipsius in utero Virginis usque ad animae exaltationem in Cruce in eo fuit posita, quod animae gloria ita contineretur, ut voluntas Christi perinde esset libera ad praecepta implenda vel non implenda, ac si eam gloriam non haberet, sed esset purus viator.— 
2 Ibidem.  Nihil impedientibus capitibus aliis quae commemorata sunt, libertatem reipsa habebat ad non faciendum ea quae facere ex praecepto tenebatur.   

VII. Molinae de seipso & de B. Augustino judicium.  

3 3 Molina in Concordia quaest. 23. art. 4 & 5. disp. 1. memb. ult. Sect. Nos pro nostra.  Si quae nos pro nostra tenuitate ad conciliandam libertatem arbitrii cum Divina gratia, praescientia & praedestinatione tradidimus, data explanataque semper fuissent, forte neque Pelagiana haeresis fuisset exorta, neque Lutherani tam impudenter arbitrii nostri libertatem fuissent ausi negare, obtendentes cum Divina gratia, praescientia, & praedestinatione cohaerere non posse, neque ex Augustini opinione, concertationibusque cum Pelagianis, tot fideles fuissent turbati, ad Pelagianosque defecissent; facileque Reliquiae illae Pelagianorum in Gallia, quarum in Epistolis Prosperi & Hilarii fit mentio, fuissent extinctae, ut patet ex iis, in quibus homines illos cum Catholicis convenisse & ab eis dissensisse eaedem Epistolae testantur. Concertationes denique inter Catholicos facile fuissent compositae.— 
4 Idem quaest. 23. art. 4 & 5. disp. 1. memb. 6. Sect. Quoad Angustinum.  Interim vero dum sub ea quasi caligine D. Augustinus ad hoc non attendit, scilicet fuisse praedestinationem & reprobationem non sine praescientia qualitatis usus liberi arbitrii.— 
5 Idem quaest. 23. art. 4 & 5. disp. 1. memb. ult. Sect. Longior.  Longior fui in hac disputatione, quam optaram, etc. Quia tamen res est magni momenti ac valde lubrica, & haec nostra ratio conciliandi libertatem arbitrii cum Divina praedestinatione a nemine quem viderim huc usque tradita:   

VIII.  

6 6 Ex scriptis Professoris Theologi Parisiensis.  Opiniones Sancti Augustini in Baio damnatae a Pio V & Gregorio XIII, & opiniones Molinae declaratae a Clement VIII contrariae doctrinae Sancti Augustini. Ab iisdem Pio V & Gregorio XIII Propositiones contrariae doctrinae Molinae damnatae judicio Pontificio, & a Clement VIII & Paulo V opiniones Molinae tantum declaratae sunt contrariae doctrinae Sancti Augustini, nec nisi judicio doctrinali, sed nusquam damnatae. Molinae opiniones examinatae sunt juxta loca quaedam Augustini, quibus visae sunt esse contrariae; si vero expensae fuissent juxta alia loca Sancti Augustini, non ita causa cecidissent Molinae propugnatores. Quomodo potuisset velle Clemens VIII damnare eas opiniones contrarias doctrinae Sancti Augustini in materia de Auxiliis, qui probe norat in Bulla Pii V contineri multas propositiones ex operibus Sancti Augustini, quae quamquam aliquo pacto sustineri possent, tamen in vero sensu damnatae fuerant.   
Ex una parte S. S, M. M. N. N. Chastellain & de Saintebeuve quatuor Doctores ex qua placebit domo & familia seligant, ex altera parte S. S. M. M. N. N. Pereyret & le Moyne, vel si placet alii, seligant pariter quatuor, ut selectihi duodecim propositiones omnes examinent; liceat verò duobus seligentibus, vel sui, vel cujusvis è sua parte absentis loco alium sufficere.  
Illustrissimus D. Coadjutor Parisiensis Doctor Sorbonicus, etiam atque etiam rogetur adesse ac praesse his collationibus, qui praesentia ac auctoritate suâ in his ordinem, concordiam, disputationum leges servari procuret. Duo & Domino Coadjutori Praesules Facultatis Doctores adjungantur, sicut & nuper in collatione facta cum Ludovico Cellotio observatum fuit, qui vel mutuo utriusque partis consensu seligantur, vel suum utraque pars seligat.  
Nulla his in collationibus, sententiis quae B. Augustini esse, vel cum illius Doctrina necessariò connexae demonstrabuntur, erroris, falsitatis, temeritatis aut quaevis alia nota affigi possit, nec ulla testimonia nisi apertis libris laudari.  
Eorum quae ex utraque parte dicta fuerint, processus verbales fiant per Scribam Facultatis, qui in fine singularum collationum recognoscentur ac subscribentur ab utraque parte, atque etiam ab Illustrissimo D. Praeside, ac typis mandabuntur, & singulis Doctoribus Facultatis exemplar concedetur,  
His omnibus collationibus peractis à Doctoribus ex utraque parte selectis, referatur ad Facultatem praesentibus Illustrissimis D. D. Praesulibus quid in iis actum fuerit: postea legantur coram Facultate universa processus verbales collationum; tum de propositionibus examini subjectis judicium fiat. Nulli verò Doctori liceat de his propositionibus deliberare ac decernere; nisi antè affirmet se processus omnes verbales collationum attentè & privatim extra comitiorum aulam legisse atque maturè ponderasse. Atque cùm in nonnullis Facultatis negotiis ad suffragiorum non pluralitatem, sed duas tertias partes, concludi cautum usitatumque sit, sicut & nuper in dispensationum causa renovatum est. Cùm nulla antiqua Facultatis Censura proferri possit, quae plurimis Doctoribus reclamantibus decreta fuerit, at semper unanimi vel quasi unanimi consensu. Cùm haec materia quae ad judicium vocatur, tam magni momenti sit ad difficillimas & gravissimas de gratia, libero arbitrio, ac praedestinatione Sanctorum quaestiones spectans, ad inscrutabilia Dei judicia inquirenda revocans, Theologiam universam pervadens. Cùm tot in Ecclesia eruditissimi Theologi quaestiones has magnâ hinc & inde animorum contentione exagitent. Cùm tot Facultatis Doctores in partes divisi sint. Cùm tale judicium ferri necesse sit, quod omnes non difficulter admittant. Cùm aequum minimè videatur alicujus doctrinae defensores, seu propositionem aliquam erroris vel haereseos notâ perstringi, si vel unius vel paucorum suffragio inter plurima damnatio superet, quando à multis Doctoribus vel Theologis Orthodoxis maximè Fidei rectae consentanea judicatur ac acerrimè defenditur. Cùm periculum sit ne in hac Fidei causa à tot seculis agitata, etiam coram ipsis Summis Pontificibus, qui perpetuo doctrinam B. Augustini comprobârunt ac sanxerunt, oppositaque illi adversariorum sensa damnaverunt, alicujus sententiae defensores damnati damnantibus non cedant, si se unius vel paucorum suffragio victos vident, ubi fortè ducenti judices stare debent, unde maximae & perniciosae in Facultate & Ecclesia dissensionis periculum crearetur. Atque etiam ut magis factioni, partium studio, artibus humanis non parum hac in causa (fidei licet) metuendis locus eripiatur, proponimus ac postulamus, ut nulla vel hinc, vel inde Propositio damnari possit, aut quâvis censoriâ notâ affici, nisi damnatio duabus tertiis suffragiorum partibus excedat. Si quid examinari placet, has conditiones proponimus & admitti postulamus. Si quid secus fiat, deliberetur, examinetur, judicetur, intercedimus.  factione & partium studio, non veritatem sincerè inquirendi causâ sicut Christianos Doctores decet, sed opinionem suam praefracte ac pertinaciter (ut de fide) statuendi, animo factum asserimus.  nullum, irritum, abusivum protestamur. Atque si aliquas propositiones examinari placet, ac tam necessarias & legitimas leges non admitti, provocamus ad Senatum, qui de illarum conditionum à nobis propositarum aequitate & necessitate judicet ac decernat.   

The Letters of my LL. the Bishops of France, the version whereof is inserted in such places of the Journal, where they fall in by course.  

A Letter of the Bishops to the Pope, which occurs translated into English, Part. 3. Chap. 1.  
It was thus directed;  
Beatissimo in Christo Patri Innocentio Papae X. Romam.  
The Contents follow:  
Beatissime Pater,  
COllegae quidam ac Fratres nostri Reverendissimi dederunt ad Te literas de re gravissima difficillimaque, uti nobis compertum est. Orant videlicet Sanctitatem Tuam, ut perspicuam & apertam sententiam ferat de iis maxime positionibus, quae superiori anno Parisiensem Scholam ingenti contentione, nullo fructu commoverunt. Nec vero secus evenire potuit, cum & ad libitum fictae, & ex ambiguis vocibus concinnatae, aliud per se nihil quam animorum jurgia, & pugnantium, ut fit in aequivocis, interpretationum dissidia natae sint procreare. Porro quod spectat ad Fratrum nostrorum Reverendissimorum hac in parte consilium, minime id quidem (si dicendum est ipsorum cum bona venia) probari nobis potuit. Praeterquam quod enim Divinae gratiae praedestinationisque tractatio ardua est admodum, vehementique ingeniorum aestu agitari solet, tum aliis quoque praecipuis de causis non satis tutum pro tempore censuimus tantam litem definiri ni solemni sorte (quae Collegarum nostrorum mens esse non videtur) & ad Majorum norman instituto judicio, hoc est vocatis & auditis ambabus partibus, ut non pridem sub oculis piae memoriae Clementis VIII. & Pauli V. factitatum est, rem totam placeat a fontibus & ex integro ventilare. Etenim aliter si agatur, utrivis demum damnati sint, inauditos se & calumniam passos invidiose clamitabunt; quin & forsitan causae cognitionem nullo praeeunte concessu Synodali delatam ad Te succensebunt; & aequitatem querimoniae suae antiqui moris praejudicio exemploque defendentes, Alexandrinam Synodum adversus Arium, Constantinopolitanam adversus Eutichem, Carthaginensem & Milevitanam adversus Pelagium, & in hoc argumento Valentinam Lingonensemque nostras, & alias pariter adversus alios memorabunt. Et revera, Beatissime pater, si propositiones istas ad examen et judicium vocari expediret, judiciorum ordo legitimus Ecclesiae totius, tum maxime Gallicanae nostrae consuetudo postulat, ut primum a nobis majores ac difficiles, quae apud nos ortae sunt, questiones dispiciantur. Aequum esset hic perpendere an istae, de quibus ad Sanctitatem Tuam querimonia delata est, Propositiones pro libito fictae fuerint ad excitandam invidiam, ciendosque tumultus; quibus in libris, quibus auctoribus, quo sensu assertae, audire hinc et inde contendentes; inspice opera varia circa easdem propositiones apud nos edita; sensus veros, falsos, ambiguos discernere; quaecunque de his nostris in partibus gesta sunt, ex quo de istis assertionibus controversum est, dignoscere; tum vero quae de hac fidei causa a nobis acta & decreta essent, ad Sedis Tuae notitiam referre, ut tota hujus auctoritate justa quae fuerit pronuntiatio firmaretur. At apud Sedem Tuam nullo nostro praeeunte hac in causa examine ac judicio, quot potest artibus veritas opprimi? quot calumniis Praesulum ac Doctorum existimatio pulsari? quibus insidiis Sanctitas Tua in hoc maximo fidei negotio circumveniri? Ab iis quidem in quorum gratiam Fratres nostri Reverendissimi ad Sanctitatem Tuam scripserunt, firmiter pertinaciterque dicitur sibi plures ex recentioribus Scholasticis favere, suamque doctrinam maximae esse Divinae bonitati & naturalis rationis aequitati consentaneam. Ab iis vero qui se totos Augustino tradunt, non obscure sed propalam jactitari notum est, rem de qua agitur non in medio positam, finitam causam aiunt, confectum pridem negotium; veterem esse Synodorum, Romanorumque Pontificum certissimum calculum; decretta obvia & aperta Tridentinae maxime, quam totam asserunt pene ut Arausicanam, ex Augustini conflatam vocibus ac sententiis; ut nostrum scilicet Tuumque judicium non metuendum sed exoptandum sibi dicant, plane sperantes sanctitatem Tuam ductu & afflatu Divini Spiritus, qui te & regere consulentem & orantem exaudire dignatur, a Patrum placitis nec latum unguem discessuram, ne Apostolicae, quod absit, & Romanae Sedis existimatio apud Haereticos dictis ejus & factis insidiantes in contemptum abeat. Id porro nunquam fore tum praecipue confidimus si videbitur Sanctitati Tuae Praecessorum Tuorum vestigiis insistenti, re tota penitus inspecta, & auditis ut solet contendentibus partibus, omnem deinceps altercandi segetem amovere. Age igitur, Beatissime Pater, gravissimam litem quae a multis jam saeculis Catholicae unitatis nullo dispendio hucusque perduravit, vel paulisper etiamnum patere ac sustine; vel causam hanc totam ex solemni judiciorum more expende. Ac ne quid detrimenti capiat, quae Tibi credita est Christiana Respublica, etiam atque etiam vide. Deus Te felicem & incolumen servet in annos plurimos Sanctissime in Christo Pater.  
Sanctitatis Vestrae Humillimi atque obsequentissimi Servi ac Filii. Sic subscriptum in variis exemplaribus. 

In primo, 

Ludovicus Henricus de Gondrin A. Senonensis.  
B. Delbene Ep. Aginnensis.  
Gilbertus Ep. Convenarum.  
Le Beron Ep. Valentiensis & Diensis.  
A. Delbene Ep. Aurelianensis.  
Bernardus Episcopus Sancti Papuli.  
I. Henr. de Saltette Ep. Lescariensis in Bearnia.  
Felix Ep. & C. Catalaunensis.    
In altero. 

Franciscus Ep. Ambianensis.    
In tertio. 

Henricus Ep. Andegavensis.    
In quarto. 

Nicolais Episcopus & C. Bellovacensis.       

A Letter of my L. the Bishop of Grass, now of Vence to the Pope, which is found translated into English, Part. 3. Chap. 12.  
The Address was thus:  
Sanctissimo Patri Innocentio Papae X. Roman.  
The Letter itself contained these words.  
Beatissime Pater,  
NOn sine magno dolore nostro audivimus scriptum nuper ad Sanctitatem Vestram de quibusdam Propositionibus, sollicitatumque judicium Vestrum de exortis inde controversiis. Non quia doleamus adiri supremum tribunal, sed quia id ita factum est privatim, & ab uno tantum è nostris Fratribus carissimis, qui alios ad subscribendum impulit, non communicato invicem consilio, nec collatis suffragiis, aut indicta Synodo, nedum re proposita in Comitiis Cleri Gallicani, quae opportune per id temporis haberi contigerat. Optamus certe, Beatissime Pater, & quidem ex medullis animae, extingui istarum controversiarum flammas omnes, sed neque id dissimulare possumus Sanctitati Vestrae, vereri nos non mediocriter ne minùs frigida quàm oleum quaeratur huic incendio, revocandaeque pacis obtentu acriùs etiam sententiarum bella ferveant. Quid enim nunc agitur? proponuntur Sanctitati Vestrae propositiones quinque, eaedem prorsus●, quae ante annos duos propositae sunt Facultati Theologiae Parisiensi. Et à quarum judicio eadem Facultas abstinuit & pacis causâ, & quòd animadverteret eas ut sunt singulae sensus ambigui & ancipitis, nullo ex certo auctore illis ipsis quibus conceptae sunt verbis excerptas fuisse; ita ut de industia ab adversae sententiae asseclis, ideò confictae viderentur, ut in perversum aliquem sensum faciliùs torqueri possent. ●is de causis facile praevidit Facultas rerum prudentissima, nihil nisi periculosè admodum statui posse de Propositionibus hujusmodi, ne scilicet in earum censuram non Cornelii Jansenii, cujus nomen verbo tenus praetendi existimabat, sed quod calamito sius est, ipsius Divi Augustini atque adeò totius Ecclesiae, quae Augustini judicio in causa Gratiae constanter adhaesit, doctrina incurrisse videretur. Id verò quanto malo fieret, & quàm parum reverenter id postuletur à Sanctitate Vestra, apud quam tantus est Augustinus, solus is nescit, qui Ecclesiae & Christi gratiae hostes nescit uno victore Augustino triumphatos. Ne quid igitur mali, harum propositionum ancipitibus verbis conceptarum obtentu, tanto Doctori creetur, id efflagitamus summopere uti placeat Sanctitati Vestrae facere dicendi potestatem utriusque sententiae patronis ac vindicibus, quemadmodum & potestas eadem facta est in re eadem a Clement VIII. & Paulo V. beatissimae memoriae Pontificibus, ne quis in hac causa, qua non alia gravior, damnatus esse putetur inauditus, latoque judicio omnium animi facilius & lubentius acquiescant. Hoc à Te, Beatissime Pater, nos Sanctitatis vestrae observantissimi, per eam charitatem qua Pater es, per eam aequitatem qua judex es, per eam eruditionem qua Doctores, per Ecclesiae denique conjuncta cum tanto Doctore pericula, atque in iis maxime controversiis communem utriusque semper causam (ut docti omnes intelligunt) humillimi postulamus. Perge interim quod pergis, Beatissime Pater, atque in eo rerum fastigio, ad quod Vestram Sanctitatem evectam gaudemus boni omnes, pro Ecclesiae fideliumque omnium salute semper & diu salvus ex●uba.  
Sanctissime Pater, Obsequentissimus & devotissimus filius & servus Antonius Ep. Grassensis & Venciensis.   

A Letter of Monsigneur de Monchal Archbishop of Tholouse to the Pope, whereof the Original remains in my hands, and mention is made Part 3. Chap. 12.  
The Direction was thus,  
Innocentio Papae X. summo Pontifici Roman.  
And the Contents thus,  
Beatissime Pater,  
CUm excitatae olim de Divina gratia contentiones nuper renatae, in Scholis nostris, maximeque Parisiensibus cum magno ingeniorum aestu incaluerint, atque in dies magis magisque exardescant, partis alterius antesignani capitula quinque concinnarunt, quae, si unum dempseris, nusquam extare pars altera affirmat, quae tamen si Sanctitas Tua Censura notarit, non modo grande momentum suae causae accessurum, sed etiam prava animorum certamina sisti posse arbitrantur Quod ut facilius exequantur, literas nomine Episcoporum Galliae composuerunt, quibus Te, Sanctissime Pater, ut de re omn●um gravissima pronuncies etiam atque etiam rogant. Id si obtinuerint, rem a se strenue gestam, confectumque negotium sibi persuadent. Caeterum illius epistolae subscriptionem a multis Reverendissimis Episcopis impetrarunt illi; vel etiam per amicorum aut Procerum gratiam expresserunt, ne dato quidem plurimis otio ad quaestiones tanti momenti & ram reconditae eruditionis expendendas. Inusitatum atque hactenus in Ecclesia inauditum id mihi v●sum, ut privatim singuli tanquam habito consilio suffragia mitterent, cum maxime Ordinis nostri concessus Parisus haberetur. Itaque rogatus recusavi nomen meum huic Epistolae addere, non quidem me praestare caeteris ratus, verum exemplum secutus plurimorum Praesulum qui pietate & doctrina celebrantur, qui post fusas ad Deum preces, & imploratum in negotio tanti momenti Divinum auxilium rem maturius perpendendam, neque a Sanctitate Tua flagitandum existimarunt, ut in praesentiarum de ea controversia apertam sententiam ferat, quam Praedecessores tui, sapientissimi Pontifices in medio reliquerunt. Nempe intellexerunt disputationum jurgia neglecta vanescere, coercitione exasperari, quemadmodum quibusdam morbis contingit qui sponte solverentur, & adhibita curatione graviores fiunt. Ego vero, Sanctissime Pater, mei esse muneris censui in re tam ardua, & quae ambitiosa omnium studia excitavit, mentem meam, & quid e re Christiana existimem, in medio partium constitutus, & utrinque rogatus aperire. De abditis quaestionibus & multa difficultate implicatis inter pios, doctos, Catholicosque homines quid vetat quaeri, salva Ecclesiae pace? Aut cum eo loco posita sit Respublica Christiana, quis opportunum remedium ponat ad sedanda animorum incendia in gravi censura & proscriptione ingeniorum? Pleraeque omnes Facultates Theologiae sic affectae sunt, ut quam semel hausere sententiam, mordicus retineant ac tueantur, aliis veteres, aliis recentes, aliis simul omnes sive Romanos Pontifices, sive Synodos obtendentibus, suasque in partes acerrime trahentibus, ut non immerito formidandum sit, ne si quid Sedes Apostolica decreverit, id qui damnati fuerint, vel damnari visi, non ea qua par est animi reverentia suscipiant. Quid? quod assertorem suae sententiae laudant omnes Augustinum? cujus summa est in hoc argumento auctoritas, quam illi cum tot encomiis Scholarum consensus, decreta Summorum Pontificum, Concilia & Ecclesia universa tribuerunt. Ut si vel minimum imminuta fuerit, verisimile sit defensores non ei defuturos, cum tot Ordines Religiosi sub vexillis ejus militent, tot Scholae in ejus verba jurarint, quae in illius placitis perseverabunt, & levibus distinctiunculis sententiae invidiam eludent. Quod si forte contingeret, Religionis Romanae hostes, quasi de erepto nobis, sibique parto tanti Doctoris suffragio, immane quantum gloriarentur. Verendum etiam est ne antiquae Ecclesiae auctoritas novae decretis adversa (quod Deus avertat) videatur. Addam denique minime monitam Sanctitatem Tuam quemadmodum, vel quam in partem propugnari velint theses de quibus judicium Apostolicum postulatur, illi qui eas asserere existimantur. Quod tamen ni diserte notatum fuerit, quidquid illa edixerit, neminem feriet peculiariter, & quo loco controversia est, ut prius suspensa atque indecisa perpetuo remanebit. Nihil mihi igitur tutius videtur in hac controversia, Beatissime Pater, quam si Sanctitas Tua Decessorum Tuorum vestigiis inhaereat, eorum prudentiam & aequitatem aemuletur, concitata dissidia vel penitus indecisa relinquat, vel si placet, in tempus opportunius differat, quo postquam ingenia deferbuerint, vocatis & auditis partibus, ut a Clement VIII. & Paulo V. sapientissimis Pontificibus nuper est factum, tanti ponderis controversiam excutere liceat ac definire, profundo interim utrique parti indicto silentio. Meum hunc animi sensum aperio, unam habens (ut quidem aestimo) prae oculis Divini Numinis gloriam, Ecclesiae pacem, & Apostolici Throni auctoritatem, cujus Te honori Deus ad annos plurimos servet incolumem.  
Tolosae 10. Cal. Jul. Sanctissime in Christo Pater, Tuus humillimus & obsequentissimus Servus, Carolus Archiepiscopus Tolosanus.   

A Letter which my LL. the Bishops writ to us Nou. 28. 1652. and which is seen translated into English, Part. 5. Chap. 17.  
The Direction of it was,  
Doctissimis Clarissimisque viris DD. de Lalane, de Saint Amour & Angram, Sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis Doctoribus, nostris ad Summum Pontificem Innocentium X. Deputatis Romam.  
The Contents follow.  
ETsi novis quotidie testimoniis experimur● (Viri Claririssimi) eos esse vos quorum fidei, doctrinae, constantiae summa gravissimarum rerum momenta tuto committi queant, neque vos aut nostro de vobis judicio aut publica fama inferiores demonstretis, ipsa tamen totius Ecclesiae causa facile persuadet, ut quos literis nostris instructos, commendatione munitos, auctoritate fretos ad Apostolicam Sedem deputavimus, eosdem crebris adhortatibus incitemus. Accepimus equidem, primisque vestris in hac controversia laboribus exploratum habemus, quam vobis curae fuerit totam hanc pro communi fidelium pace institutam concertationem a Sancti Augustini defensione auspicari, eamque auctoritatem propugnare quam Romani Pontifices magno semper in loco posuerunt, nonnulli homines incredibila audacia scandalique & publicae offensionis plena per totam Galliam conculcare non verentur. Si enim Apostolica vigilantia prospexit Coelestinus ne Sanctae recordationis Praesul inter Magistros optimos etiam a suis Praecessoribus habitus in Massiliensium Presbytetorum contemptum incideret, nunquid aequum est graviori discrimini idem adhiberi remedium, dumque non pauci vel in Sacerdotali gradu vel sub religiosa veste adversus S. Augustinum audacius debacchantur, quam in illum olim insurrexerint Semipelagiani, nonne ab eadem Sede merito illi accersendum est patrocinium, a qua praecipuum pondus auctoritatemque desumpsit? ut ergo id a vobis & prudentissime susceptum, & eruditissimis scriptis assertum gratulamur; sic fore confidimus ut non solum quod in mandatis habere recordamini, sed etiam illo ipso ordine quem omnino necessarium sumus arbitrati, observare studeatis. Neque vero esset quod vos in Officio constantes iterum moneremus, nisi publice apud nos gloriarentur quotquot Molinae causam agunt, eo se disputationis cursum torquere, ut suam quisque sententiam Romae seorsim tueatur: nulla fiat inter utramque partem coram nominatis consultoribus collatio, imo ne ulla quidem scriptorum ultro citroque communicatio. Quod quidem licet nullis certis disseminetur auctoribus, tanto tamen ardore per Lutetiam aliasque Galliarum civitates ab illis spargitur, ut neglexisse prorsus Religionis causam videremur, nisi vos ad illud idem praestandum adhortaremur, a vobis prudentia summa parique studio geri non dubitamus. Et vero cum Memoriale Sanctissimo Domino a vobis exhibitum accepimus, vidimus confestim constitutum vobis esse a demandata provincia ne latum quidem unguem discedere, atque illud ipsum exequi, quod fidei vestrae solertiaeque credideramus. Cum autem Beatissimus Pater, nostram simul ac vestram petitionem vobis annuit, spem nobis immisit certissimam, eam se sopiendi viam inire velle, quae Deo gloriam, Ecclesiae tranquillitatem, fidelibus quietem esset facile paritura. Quid enim diversa sentientibus & Apostolicae Sedis judicium implorantibus optatius debeat utrimque contingere, quam si amica disputatione veritas extundatur, jamque vagis rumoribus & humanis artibus nullus locus supersit, omnia ad veritatis lucem & in ipso Romani culminis splendore explorentur? Quid vero persuadendis illis opportunius excogitari queat, qui nullis partibus addicti vacuam ab omni praejudicio mentem servant, & illam ipsam sententiam sese amplexuros profitentur, quam post solenne judicium Summus Christi Vicarius Catholicam declarabit, quis afflictae innocentiae perfugium obstruat, neque sinat Catholicos Praesules, Presbyteros, Religiosos homines mille indignissimis calumniis exagitatos fidem suam coram ipsis accusatoribus defendere, falsa quae tueri finguntur dogmata diro anathemate detestari, ipsosque contradicentium dolos retegere? At satis ipsa per se pocurabit Apostolica Sedes ut veritas ab omnibus technis & ambagibus extricata elucescat? Quis id non speret? Scimus profecto hanc hactenus fuisse Romanae Cathedrae vigilantiam, neque minorem in posterum fore confidimus. Satis demonstravit Sanctissimus Pater Innocentius X. nihil se vanis delatoribus tribuere, contra vero omnia ad maturi judicii trutinam expendere velle. Sed amicam utriusque partis collationem & voce & scripto coram fieri ut tutissimam eruendae veritattis viam & Ecclesiasticae praxi conformem credidimus semper; sic quo longius in hoc negotio progredimur, eo firmius in praeconcepta sententia constamus. Cum enim hinc certa sit & conspicua mutuae hujus concertationis utilitas, inde vero nullum ab ea instituenda deterrere debere videatur periculum, in id imprimis incumbendum apparet, quod Pontisiciae, dignitatis splendori, aedificandae Ecclesiae, publicae paci stabiliendae & arctissimo nexu strigendae cessurum est. Quamquam enim ea sit Romanae Sedis praecellentia ut in ferendo de gravissimis dogmatibus judicio ejusmodi consultatione absolute non indigeat, speramus tamen Sanctissimum Dominum maximam habiturum esse praesentium circumstantiarum rationem, nec tam de summo suo jure quam de totius Ecclesiae commodo sedandisque in perpetuum procellis cogitaturum. Omnia mihi licent, aiebat Paulus, sed non omnia expediunt. Sic quo tempore Clemens VIII. Sanctissimae memoriae Pontifex Congregationem de Auxiliis instituit, nihil de auctoritate sua, cujus assertor vixit fortissimus, decedere arbitratus est, si Dominicanos Jesuitasque inter sese disceptantes non modo publice audiri pateretur, sed etiam latam a Consultoribus sententiam recognosci aliquando juberet, ne Molinae fautores laedi se vel minimum ac pene inauditos damnari, quod peperam clamabant, quererentur. Agnoscebat scilicet Beatissimus Papa auctoritatem illam primariam quae Romanae Cathadrae affixa est, non non laedi mutuis Theologorum collationibus, ut nulla ex parte Oecumenicorum Conciliorum vis ac facultas imminuitur, neque illum quem praesentissimum habent, S. Spiritus afflatus vocatur in dubium, cum canonibus condendis publica Doctorum altercatio praemittitur. Jam vero cum omnis Gallicanae Ecclesiae Praesules id unum in votis habeant, ut nulli vel nutare in posterum liceat, vel de rebus gravissimis ubi judicatae denuo fuerint contendere; neque alio quam parturiendae pacis studio ad Romanum apicem per literas confugerint; non dubitamus viam illam ac rationem omnibus acceptam fore qua publica tranquillitas apertissime continetur. Quod si nonnulli homines qui Romae jam agunt, privatis affectibus sic indulgent, ut propositionum mala fide confictarum qualemcumque censuram ambiant, omne refugiant examen, quo pretiosum a vili, veritas ab errore, fides a perfidia secernatur; si humanis artibus procurant ne scripta ultro citroque partibus communicata ventilentur, si ad ipsum publicae disputationis nomen expavescunt, eamque omnibus modis arcere satagunt: Quis ex illa tergiversatione non videat quam parum sincere ad veritatis illustrandae propositum accesserint, neque concludat causae suae aequitati merito illos diffidere quam coram adversariis tueri refugiunt? Quis non sibi persuadeat arcano illos metu percelli, ne in ipsa Congregationis luce patefaciant quantum abhorrent a S. Augustini sententia, cum eorum congressum reformident qui non domestico solum studio & privata solertia, sed longa ettam multorum annorum experientia captiosas omnes Neotericorum fallacias didicerunt, parati eas extemporanea confutatione retegere? Hoc ipsum est tamen quod Jesuitae ac Jesuitarum fautores Parisiis jactitant, atque in eo sunt toti ut ore rotundo pronuncient, nullam se Romae admissuros esse vel disputationem publicam vel scriptorum communic●tionem. Quod quidem solo contemptu judicaremus dignum, nisi res esset cum iis hominibus qui nullum non movent lapidem, nullas non agitant machinas, ut votis potiantur. Hinc 〈◊〉 (Viri Clarissimi) quod nos Lutetiae forte agentes hanc Epistolam quasi novum fidei vestrae ac virtutis incitamentum conscripsimus, a pluribus Eeclesiae Gallicanae Antistitibus consignandam si res moram pateretur, sineretque Fratres nostros per varias Regni Provincias dispersos admoneri. Facite illud ipsum ergo quod facitis, eam quam Vobis praescripsimus viam insistite, opprimendis scilicet fraudibus pacique comparandae opportunam. Eam Congregationem instantissimis precibus efflagitate; quae voce & scripto peragatur, non seorsim sed mutua inter se collatione. Sic vos mandatorum nostrorum memores ac sponsae suae causam agentes induat Dominus virtute ex alto.  
Parisiis 28. Nou. 1652.  
I do not here place the Subscriptions of the Bishops who writ this Letter to us, though the Original which hath them remains in my hands, because they are the same who writ the following Letter to the Pope, and for that I think it not expedient to expose them without necessity to the censures of such as may possibly be unsatisfied therewith.   

A Letter of my LL. the Bishops of France to the Pope, which was not delivered to him, but the translation of it is to be seen, Part. 6. Chap. 11.  
It was thus inscribed;  
Beatissimo Patri Innocentio Papae X. Romam.  
The Contents follow.  
Beatissime Pater,  
AD Episcopos & de tuenda veritate solicitos & Ecclesiasticae pacis amantissimos, nullus poterat jucundior nuncius pervenire, quàm qui paternum Sanctitatis Vestrae studium, & Apostolicam in ordinanda quam toties optaveramus Congregatione providentiam certissimis auctoribus aestate superiori referebat. Atque ubi primum id rescivimus ex Doctoribus Theologis qui nostro nomine tam grave negotium Romae procurant, gavisi sumus ita feliciter imp●nsam ab illis operam, ut restituendae publicae tranquillitatis viam propemodum unicam Summa Sedes probare sese amplectique demonstraret. Hinc spes nobis affulgere coepit non minima post discussas calumniarum nebulas, post dissipatam humanarum artium caliginem, fore ut oppressa veritas & atrocissimis adversariorum convitiis impetita, tot patronos tandem aliquando nancisceretur quot judices: atque ubi constitutum esset de gravissimis quaestionibus Ecclesiasticum judicium, & quale de rebus ad fidem ac doctrinam pertinentibus haberi jam olim consuevit, in tranquilla hujus Congregationis expectatione nobis acquiescendum esse duxmus. Cùm enim famosas illas quinque propositiones, structurâ ancipites, sensu aequivocas & subdolas, per homines sibi addictos ideò tantùm ad libitum suum procudissent Jesuitae, ut S. Augustini auctoritas funditùs convelleretur, neoterica Ludovici Molinae opinio de Romanae Congregationis sententiis, de tot retro seculorum consensu, de Orthodoxa veterum Theologiae Familiarum doctrina triumpharet, Sancti Divinae gratiae Doctoris existimatio in tuto jam esse videbatur; postquam ad illud Tribunal devoluta erat, ex cujus gloriosa commendatione publicam obtinet toto orbe celebritatem. Verùm (Beatissime Pater) quanta fuerat hactenus ad hujus Congregationis rumorem exultatio nostra, tanta nos repentinae mutationis admiratio percellit, ex quo illi ipsi Doctores Theologi quibus ad Sanctitatem Vestram Deputatis utimur, postremis literis significarunt aliâ longè viâ tantum negotium procedere coepisse, non haberi promissam Congregationem, in qua partes oppositae mutuò congrederentur, viuâ voce coram inter se contenderent, & scriptis ultro citroque communicatis omnem fraudis suspicionem amolirentur; sed aliud jam penitus institui, quam quòd annuente Sanctitate Vestrâ sese consecutos rescripserant. Quod quidem ut à speratae pacis ratione alienum videtur, sic à nobis sine intimo moeroris sensu disci non potuit, cùm attendimus quanta inde publicis S. Augustini adversariis accederet audacia, quae malorum seges excresceret, quàm opportuna inquietis hominibus praeberetur occasio novos longè lateque tumultus excitandi, quanta denique Romanae Sedi adeoque ipsi Ecclesiae labes aspergeretur, si quod Molinae fautores tot callidis m●litionibus ambiunt, de propositionibus quo sensu praecipuè contrevertuntur, aperta & expressa sententia non ferretur, ac de iis sine sensuum distinctione ad capitalem controversiam accommodata judicium fieret, quo deinde S. Augustini hostes non modo in illum ejusque discipulos, sed in ipsius etiam Apostolicae Cathedrae auctoritatem ac famam audacius abuti possent imposterum.  
Patiatur Sanctitas Vestra (Beatissime Pater) non noc pietatis minùs ac reverentiae quàm doloris ac gemituum plenam expostulationem. Exiguae scintillae latum jam undique sparserunt incendium, mali vis improba non uno loco grassatur, litigant filii, gemit Mater, in Patris providentia totius remedii summa posita est. Magno aestu res geritur, sed quem Pontificia restinguat auctoritas, s● de sensibus in quibus omnis contentio posita est, judicium disertis & perspicuis verbis expressum proferatur, ut eorum qui contrarias hactenus sententias tanto ardore propugnarunt, dissensiones finiat ac comprimat. Quod quidem ut fiat neque ulli super sit exceptionis aut tergiversationis locus, quaedam imprimis quo in statu res positas agnoscimus, necessaria videntur. Primùm ut nostris ad Sanctitatem Vestram Delegatis facultas fiat liberè coram adversariis qui praesentes sunt, aperiendi quod sentiunt, & omnes illorum technas retegendi. Deinde ut quae ultrò citroque ad sententiae defensionem prolata erunt, manu nemini suspectâ in publicos commentarios referantur, rerum in commentarios relatarum apographa concedantur disceptantibus, ipsique inter sese mutuò ac bonâ fide communicent, quae vel ad suam stabiliendam sententiam vel ad impugnandam oppositam exhibuerint. Praeterea ut Jesuitae, quibus tanquam Molinianae novitatis assertoribus & apertis Augustinianae doctrinae hostibus praecipua contentionis ineundae moles incumbit, in judicium tanquam primariae partes accedant, praesertim cùm scripta jam Congregationi oblata fuerint, quae Franciscus Annatus ex hac Societate suo nomine Parisiis palam edere ausus est. Demum ut D. Albizius à Congregatione abstineat ob eas recusationis causas quarum aequitas ipsa per sese satis superque elucescit. Denique ut Frater Modestus qui Francisci Annati Librum à praelo recentem approbare veritus non est, ab eodem judicio semoveatur, nec inter Consultores ferendae sententiae jus obtineat, qui tam evidenti praejudicio mentem Molinae patronis & in Sancti etiam Augustini auctoritatem declaravit.  
Haec sunt (Beatissime Pater) non declinandi judicii consilia, sed subsidia stabilienda pacis. Speramus Sanctitati Vestrae acceptas fore preces istas in hoc rerum cardine necessarias, justitiâ commendabiles, pietatis ac venerationis plenissimas, neque aliud spirantes quàm creditarum nobis animarum salutem & Cathedrae Vestrae judiciique auctoritatem. Novimus Episcopalis Sarcinae partem esse non minimam providere diligentissime, ut subditorum conscientiae Christianâ pace ac tranquillitate sine offendiculo perfruantur, neque impune nobis futurum, si dum superseminantur zizania, segniter dormiamus. Igitur ad Sanctitatem Vestram iterum iterumque supplices accedimus, & post humillima pedum oscula postulamus, ut non impar malo remedium adhibeat, eoque judicio lis tanta dirimatur, quod praecipuum controversiae caput definiat, errorem radicitus extirpet, pacemque certam & firmam stabiliat: Atque illud profectò futurum est, si qualem Congregationem Clemens VIII. & Paulus V. instituerant, talem Sanctitas Vestra nobis annuat, disceptaturis apertam & liberam, omni carentem invidiâ, celebritate solennem. Ita Sanctitatem Vestram gratiae auctor Christus publico Christiani orbis bono florentem semper & incolumem praestet.  
Beatissime Pater, Sanctitatis Vestrae Humillimi & obsequeutissimi filii N. & N. Datum Par. 6. Kal. Martii, 1653.  
I have still the Original of this Letter signed with the proper hands of two Prelates, who were then at Paris, and who added these words after their Subscriptions; De absentia Fratrum nostrorum.   

The Letter of M. de la Palafox Bishop of Angelopolis to Pope Innocent X. whereof mention is made, Part. 3. Chap. 13.  
An Advertisement touching the Printing of the said Letter in this Collection.  
THis Letter was sufficiently secret when I finished my Journal, and assigned it to this Collection; but it hath since become very public, being translated into French, and published in the year 1658. which Translation the Curees of Paris very solidly defended in their IX. Writing against the vain and pitiful cavils of F. Annat. However, I conceive the insertion of the Original Latin, not formerly printed, will not be unacceptable; besides, that it may be preserved in this Collection to serve for a testimony to Posterity of the patience and zeal of a holy Bishop of our time, as M. de Palafox was by the consent of all Spain. I have already related in Part. 3. Chap. 13. how it fell into my hands, and how the following title came to be endorsed upon it.  
Natalibus, doctrina, virtute verè Christiana clarissimi & illustrissimi Viri Domini joannis de Palafox & Mendoza Hispani & in America Episcopi Angelorum Populi, ac Consilii judiarum Decani, Epistola Sanctissima, Gravissima.  
Ad Summum Pontificem Innocentium X. de Jesuitarum Societate extinguenda, vel stricte reformanda ob venerabilis Ecclesiae bonum.  
Beatissime Pater,  
I. SAcris Tuae Sanctitatis pedibus provolutus, Pater Beatissime, infinitas Deo & Apostolicae Sedi gratias ago, quod tanta benignitate & humanitate Doctorem Silverium de Pineda Procuratorem meum foveris, ut quam brevissimo tempore ad te missū, ad me remissum utroque mari Oceano & Mediterraneo, Italia, Hispania, Americaque peragratis conspexerim, & ab eo literas Apostolicas super dubia Oraculo sapientiae Tuae proposita, nostros intellectus illuminantes, errores corrigentes, discordias sedantes non sine lachrymis prae hilaritate gratiarumque actione acceperim.  
II. Cui enim non erit laetitiae stuporique videnti viginti & sex quaestiones controversiasque Ecclesiasticas, auditis etiam prolixe partibus utrisque, & visis actis per sacram Congregationem a Te particulariter assignatam etiam ab occupatissimis Cardinalibus sapientia & virtutibus eminentissimis & Romanae Curiae Praelatis, intra quatuor menses dissipatas, collatas, conclusas, decisas & tandem expeditas fuisse? Ut jam deinde jure optimo, non sine magna animi infirmitate si aliter fecerimus, sacras illas voces debeamus non tantum attendere & audire, sed obedire Praelatis quibus Apostolica Sedes inclamat, invitar, & suadet patribus animarum dicens, Venite filii, audite me, timorem Domini docebo vos: Et iterum, Omnes sitientes venite ad me & ego reficiam vos, Ego enim sum via, veritas & vita. Cujus causa, Pater Beatissime, exteris hujus Americae nunciavi Pastoribus cum muliere quae convocavit amicas in Evangelio exclamans, Congratulamini mihi quia inveni drachmam quam perdideram: Ut omnibus pateat quanta brevitate, benignitate & humanitate Apostolica Sedes & Tua Pastoralis vigilantia, & summa solicitudo & sapientia dubitantibus respondeat, errantes dirigat, & moerentes consoletur.  
III. Sed heu! Pater Beatissime, nunquam in hac mortali conditione & miseria hilaritas sine moestitia, nunquam sine novo discrimine tranquillitas, docente Divino Spiritu, Extrema gaudii luctum occupare. Ea est enim humanae mentis & naturae fragilitas, ut semper magis ac magis medicina indigeat, & nondum vulneribus primis oleo charitatis sapientiaeque Tuae subsanatis, jam secunda succedunt.  
IV. Sacerdotes, Beatissime Pater, ad Te missi, & ad sacra Apostolorum limina visitanda, me ab assertis Conservatoribus, Regularibus & Religiosis Jesuitis praetextu suorum privilegiorum assignatis (non aliam ob causam quam quod in animarum salutem & propugnationem Ecclesiasticae Jurisdictionis, & decretorum sacri Concilii Tridentini incumberem, ut Congregationi sacrae super hoc negotio a Tua Sanctitate assignatae patuit) de facto excommunicatum & aliis innumeris injuriis impetitum fuisse.— retulerunt, & ad alia scandala devenisse nunciarunt.  
V. Verum post eorum discessum Religiosi Jesuitae majores turbas contra me & dignitatem meam excitarunt, acriores seditiones commoverunt, & in juriis atrocioribus dehonestarunt, & Clerum meum ac gregem credulissime vexantes, (liceat mihi ita enarrare cum ita eis fecisse libuerit) in majores angustias redegerunt.  
VI Caeco enim quodam quasi furore perciti, Pater Beatissime, Religiosi isti quos in Domino semper amavi ut amicos, & nunc ardentius ut inimicos diligo, videntes meos subditos Conservatorum suorum invalidis excommunicationibus non assentiri, sed suo amabili Pastori, vocem ejus in suis edictis agnoscentes, inhaerere, se existimantes contemptos in maximam iracundiam exarserunt, & nisi eorum libidini & arbitrio meam dignitatem & baculum Pastoralem submitterem, de incarcerando Episcopo cogitarunt.  
VII. Cum autem hoc non ea qua desiderabant facilitate consequi posse viderent, quia horror ipse facinoris ad defensionem sui proprii Pastoris populos excitabat, non tantum alios Regulares tanquam pro communi eorum causa contra me convocarunt, sed quod gravius est, prophanum & secularem gladium (Comitis scilicet de Salvatierra Viceregis qui mihi totius Regni visitatori generali in protectionem miserabilium Indorum incumbenti, quos sui ministri maxime exagitabant, infensissimus erat) etiam ingenti pecunia emptum, temeritate maxima exemptum, digladiantes, dignitatem meam, personam, gregem armis, incarcerationibus Ecclesiasticorum & Secularium, & aliis quamplurimis injuriis vexarunt; etiam hominibus flagitiosissimis armatis, dieque destinato (is autem fuit festum Corporis Christi, eodem enim die conveniens erat ut traderetur Episcopus quo captus fuerat Episcoporum Episcopus) ut meam personam caperent, dignitate expoliarent, gregem diriperent. Interim jurisdictione Inquisitorum ad id per ipsos conducta praetextu quod excommunicationes nullas Conservatorum mei subditi parvifacerent, incarcerante Clericos & Laicos, & atrociora, nisi Conservatoribus obedirent, minitante.  
VIII. Dum haec omnia a Religiosis jesuitis, & Conservatoribus, & Tribunalibus ad id convocatis geruntur, ego quantum adjuvante Domino potui pro grege, pro fide, pro jurisdictione, pro Concilio, pro Apostolicis constitutionibus & regulis, quamvis solus laborare non destiti, non tantum Regulares censuris severissimis terrendo, & Seculares eisdem fulminibus, & ed●ctis, & epistolis, & voce, & sermone intra ordinem & obedientiam continendo, sed etiam, cum parum hoc proficeret, contemnebant enim Iesuitae censuras Ecclesiasticas, & vinculis earum innodati, suspensi & irregulares publice celebrabant, sacramenta ministrabant, invito Episcopo etiam in non suis Ecclesiis praedicabant populo, Secularium confessiones audiebant, Viceregem & auditores Regios exhortatus sum, ut aliqua congruenti moderatione & remedio, missis ad id aliquibus de meo Capitulo Commissariis, differentiae istae & discordiae sedarentur, salva tamen tuae Sanctitatis irrefragabili decisione; & interim Respublica quieta, fidelium Ecclesia pacifica, & omnium suspensi animi sententiam Apostolicam expectarent.  
IX. Sed Religiofi Iesuitae, Pater Sanctissime, gladio seculari armati & Archiepiscopo Mexicano Joanne de Munnozca non tantum fautore sed auctore duceque freti, & omnibus pene Regni tribunalibus variis artibus in suam potestatem redactis, nullam compositionem aut concordiam admittere vol●ntes, Commissariis Ecclesiasticis ignominiose dimissis, imo expulsis, non pacem, non inducias, sed bellum cruentissimum indicentes; nisi me meamque jurisdictionem & baculum Pastoralem, arbitrio ipsorum & suorum Conservatorum, quos ego tanquam auctores hujus miserabilis schismatis paulo ante anathemate petcusseram, submisissem, caedes, carceres, exilia, proscriptiones, si aliter facerem, comminantur.  
X. Ruptis ab eis honestae concordiae articulis, a me ut tanta scandala vitarentur propositis, acrius Religiosi Jesuitae bellum contra meam dignitatem gregemque repetunt & instaurant, plures Clericos scilicet incarcerando, & hos honestiores, electum Episcopum de Honduras Vicarium meum Generalem, Virum doctissimum & honestissimum, manu seculari dirissime recludendo, & tandem meum gregem crudelissime omnibus modis vexando, & iterum ardentiori affectu meam incarcerationem, aut extra Provinciam relegationem, diversis machinationibus disponendo.  
XI. Ad hos sacrilegos conatus, Pater Sanctissime, iterum excitati populi, Episcopum prope ante Vicegerem & Gubernatorem amantissimum, jam tot petitum insidiis injuriisque exagitatum intuendo ad sui Pastoris & Ministrii Regii propugnationem convolant, & mortem subire parati, & sua etiam vita Pastoris vitam defendere contendunt. Et ita diviso Regno & in partes distracto, brachio seculari, & Jesuitis, & Conservatoribus contra Episcopum & Ecclesiasticam jurisdictionem, populis autem et Clero pro Jurisdictione & Episcopo contendentibus, in summum periculum redacta Respublica est.  
XII. Has inter angustias fluctuabat mens mea, aestuabat animus & concilium haerebat, exposcens a Deo etiam profusis lachrymis, ut viam mihi dignaretur aperire, qua salva fieret pax publica, jurisdictio oppugnata et vita petita. Deserere enim Ecclesiam, Jurisdictionem, & baculum Pastoralem Religiosis jesuitis ignaviter tradere, vilissimum: armis autem & sanguine filiorum spiritualium causam defendere, durissimum & dirissimum: nihil autem agere, sed Conservatorum irae me meaque committere, nocentissimum & imprudentissimum esse videbatur.  
XIII. Quis enim, Pater Sanctissime, baculum Pastoralem, id est gladium Dei sine crimine turpissime tradet? Aut quis suas oves ardentissime diligens, & pro quibus seipsum impenderet, & mortem etiam subiret, prae dolore conspicere posset sociali bello inter se digladiantes & se ad invicem occidentes? Pugnam cruentissimam & tristissimam intuens pater utrorumque amantissimus, in qua vinci infelicitas, vincere credulitas erit! aut quis tandem vel propugnatione pacem, vel ignavia vitam disperderet?  
XIV. Ideo utrinque angustias, utrinque pericula contuens, tanquam si in auribus personarent voces illae Salvatoris suos Apostolos & Discipulos in simili casu docentis, fuga Ecclesiastica victoriam, non bello mortem, aut populorum jacturam praetendendam esse: dicebat enim, Cum persecuti vos fuerint in una civitate, fugite in aliam: statui honestissima suga, non autem gladio crudeli & filiorum sanguine defoedato vitam & dignitatem meam propugnare.  
XV. Videbam enim adversariorum mentes in id maxime tendere, ut meam caperent personam, aut in ipsa expugnatione perimerent, qua capta aut perempta, & de mitra captiva triumphum, & de grege spolia, et de causa victoriam reportarent; percusso enim Pastore quam facillime disperguntur et oves; posteaque falsis probationibus et calumniis et criminationibus adversariorum, veritas Pastoris indefensa et fama acquisita cum ipso corpore occiso consepultae jacerent.  
XVI. Considerabam itidem, Regulares Jesuitas ardenti furore agitatos in hos actus adeo irregulares prosilire, & in praeceps dari non ratione sed affectu, & quo major impetus, eo brevior, conatus enim irae cito cadunt, & si primi illudant, secundi corruunt; nam etsi iracundia ab insania non nisi tempore distet, brevisque sit furor; tamen quamvis mala, quia furor, tolerabilis tamen quia brevis, ideoque furorem istum persecutionis quam citissime transitum existimavi more quidem fulminis quod uno eodemque momento venit, percussit, abscessit.  
XVII. Fuga ergo Rempublicam salvam facere statuens, & meis poenis adversariorum culpas, imo & iras aut eludere aut delinire constituens, ne populus innocens nostris omnium erroribus plecteretur, commendato prius grege aeterno Pastori, relictis etiam tribus Vicariis Generalibus, ut si forte absentes, vel legitime impediti fuissent, unus pro alio Ecclesiasticam Jurisdictionem defenderet; scripta etiam epistola Capitulo in qua causas meae ad tempus discessionis narravi, & ad defensionem Ecclesiasticae Jurisdictionis excitavi, duobus famulis tantum, Secretario scilicet, & eo qui mihi erat a confessionibus, comitantibus; exteros familiares per diversas vias mittens, ut confusione ipsa inimici mei distracti, ubi ego delitescerem ignorarent; in montibus quaesivi refugium, & inter serpentes, scorpionesque & animalia pestifera, quorum haec regio feracissima est; securitatem & societatem quam in hac Religiosorum implacabili societate invenire non potui.  
XVIII. Ubi postquam per viginti dies non sine magno vitae periculo & alimentorum penuria (aliquando enim solo pane tribulationis & aqua lachrymarum pascebamur) tandem in quodam parvo tuguriolo per quatuor menses delitui, exquisitissimis interim modis a Religiosis Jesuitis quaesitus, & pecunia maxima expensa, ut inventus aut baculum Pastoralem traderem, aut me vita exuerent & occiderent.  
XIX. Hoc modo hisque periculis & angustiis salva Respublica fuit, & si non pax spiritualis, saltem temporalis & publica reddita est Regno. Nam spiritualis tranquillitas, Pater Beatissime, ubi cum Jesuitis res agitur, solum a Jesus Christo, & a Tua Sanctitate ejus Vicario reddi stabilirique potest; adeo enim terribilis est si non reformetur eorum in Ecclesia universali potentia, adeo amplissimae facultates, honores, divitiae, ut omnibus dignitatibus, legibus, Conciliis & Apostolicis constitutionibus potentiores existant; ita ut necesse Episcopis sit (saltem in his partibus) aut in concertatione mori, & pro causa cadere & succumbere, aut suis nutibus obsecundare, aut ad minus summo discrimine, periculis, expensis, incommoditatibus, falsisque eorum criminationibus illaqueatis dubium exitum de sanctissima & justissima causa expectare.  
XX. Cum ergo viri Jesuitae frustra Episcopum carceri quaesivissent, gregem ipsius vexare & miserabiliter persequi & affligere statuerunt, ad hosque sequentes actus non sine maximo populorum scandalo processere.  
XXI. Primo enim suos assertos Conservatores Religiosos Dominicanos e Mexico in civitatem Angelorum, ubi mea Cathedralis sedes praeeminet, maxima Fratrum suorum & Jesuitarum comitante manu, incredibili pompa, plurimis curribus ad eorum adventum congregatis adducunt, ignorantem etiam plebem Religiosis Jesuitis monentibus, & per compita & plateas equitando clamantibus, ut genua flecterent duobus illis Fratribus Dominicanis assertis Conservatoribus (a me paulo ante excommunicationis fulmine & anathemate ut praedixi perculsis) ipsos asserentibus esse Papas & Pontifices Summos, & ut plus haec suaderent, postquam ipsos cum cruce processionaliter extra claustra Fratres sui Ordinis suscipiunt, non tam suadent quam jubent Jesuitae, qui eos conduxerant, erigere tribunal, creare Fiscales, & apparitores ac Notarios nominare.  
XXII. Deinde per platens galeris sericis & violaceo colore exornatis incredibili fastu circumducunt, & etiam prope Episcopale palatium, ut majori contemptu de dignitate Episcopali triumpharent, maxima comitante Regularium caterva, cum suis apparitoribus & ministris, curribus pluribus vecti circumambulant, et tandem omnia quae sanctum Concilium Tridentinum etiam legitimis Conservatoribus prohibet, Conserservatores isti intrusi patraverunt.  
XXIII. Deinde tribunali erecto, et his omnibus summa jactantia gestis, omnes Ecclesiasticos et miseros seculares variis modis et molestiis vexant, alios excommunicationibus, alios bonorum suorum distractionibus, alios seculari manu, exilio, vinculis, et injuriis, alios aliis artibus dirissime persequuntur.  
XXIV. Doctorem enim D. Manuelem Bravo de Sobremonte Cathedralis Ecclesiae Thesaurarium, Doctorem D. Ludovicum de Vongora antiquiorem Canonicum, Doctorem D. Nicolaum de Asperilla Portionarium, Sacerdotes honestos et doctos per manum prophanam ab Ecclesia et Dioecesi relegant, Archidiaconum Ecclesiae Cathedralis, Doctorem D. Ildefonsum de Cuevas et Avalos, Licentiatum D. Petrum de Angulo, Doctorem D. Andream de Luci, Baccalaureum Franciscum de Requesia, Capitulares et Sacerdotes, itidem viros eruditos et cordatos, fuga salutem petere cogunt; alios etiam Sacerdotes et seculares partim incarcerant; partim relegant, partim in angulis latere compellunt, et populum omnem suis deferre fidem invalidis censuris et edictis, minis suppliciisque intentant.  
XXV. His acts ad causae sententiam illi Fratres Conservatores in hac causa procedunt, declarantes et publico edicto pronunciantes, Episcopum, et suum Provisorem Vicarium Generalem in juriis affecisse Religiosos Jesuitas in exposcendo ab eis licentias praedicandi et audiendi secularium confessiones, et in prohibendo ut usquequo eas exhiberent, a confessionibus abstinerent. Quamvis mihi certissime constaret eos neque meas, neque meorum Antecessorum habere licentias.  
XXVI. Sententia ita lata, et in publicis Ecclesiarum suggestis publicata, ad alia atrociora procedunt, minis, praemiis et aliis artibus suadendo Capitularibus, imo et aliquos compellendo, ut Sedem vacantem publicarent, brachio seculari ad id implorato, et hoc praesentibusimo et intra Dioecesim existentibus Episcopo proprio, Provisore, Vicario Generali non tantum uno sed tribus, et his non obstantibus declarat Capitulum populo Sedem vacantem esse.  
XXVII. Jam hoc consecuti Jesuitae qui haec omnia machinati fuerant, jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam invadunt, usurpant, dilacerant, adulterium spirituale committunt, nefarium altare contra legitimum altare erigunt, alios Ecclesiasticos Officiales, Provisorem, Vicarium Generalem, etiam Vicarium Monialium nominant, et ab Episcopo nominatos amovent; Et huic Capitulo Sede-vacante-Iesuitico praedicti Iesuitae licentias quasdam confitendi et praedicandi ab alienis Episcopis obtentas (ex quibus quatuor tantum erant meorum Antecessorum) et certa privilegia quae ad terras infidelium (quales hae non sunt) et haec temporalia et suspensa et finita dicto Capitulo exhibent. Et tandem documenta haec talia qualia, quae noluerunt legitimo Episcopo et suo Vicario Generali exhibere, Capitulo per eos compacto et coadunato nulliter imo et sacrilige, Dioecesim vivente Episcopo gubernante, exhibuerunt.  
XXVIII. Hisce privilegiis, et aliarum Dioecesium Episcoporum licentiis visis a Capitulo Pseudo-sede-vacante, edictum ab eo conficitur, secreto tamen ab ipsis jesuitis compositum, et per omnia Ecclesiarum suggesta divulgatum, in quo omnibus fidelibus numatur, jesuitas Religiosos non egere licentiis Episcoporum propriae Diocoesis ad confessiones secularium audiendas, propter sua privilegia, et si egerent, eas habere, & Capitulo exhibitas esse, et si non haberent, et sufficientes non essent, eas Capitulum generaliter etiam sine examine concedere libentissime, declarando adeo esse doctos Religiosos jesuitas, ut nunquam fuisset credendum, eos sine legitimo titulo confessiones secularium audivisse. Alia etiam in hoc edicto subinferendo, jurisdictioni Episcopali, & auctoritati Ecclesiae & Tridentini Concilii & animarum saluti nocentissima.  
XXIX. Deinde censuras Ecclesiasticas ●a Vicario Generali Episcopi contra Conservatores & jesuitas qui cenfessiones secularium sine licentia proprii Pastoris audiebant, latas delent, auferunt, publice dilacerant; eas autem quae contra Episcopum proprium ejusque Vicarium Generalem nulliter & indebite, ut a Tua Sanctitate declaratum est, latae fuerant ab intrusis Conservatoribus, parietibus fixas relinquunt, videntibus et gementibus non tantum omnibus Ecclesiasticae disciplinae amatoribus, sed populis etiam clamantibus & reclamantibus qui tot injurias Episcopo suo amantissimo inferri conspiciebant.  
XXX. Deinde Capitulum hoc Pseudo-sede-vacante, contra Episcopum erectum, & a jesuitis tanquam si essent ipsi de corpore Capituli directum, omnia edicta quae circa mores & Ecclesiasticorum & secularium reformationem fuerant stabilita, in Episcopi odium abrogant.  
XXXI. In Ecclesiis a quibus ego prophanos cibos & commessationes prohibueram, iterum ipsi edere et sic eas polluere permittunt, Clericos, Regularesque quos ego ab audiendis secularium confessionibus arcueram, ipsi approbant; honestos Sacerdotes, modestos, spirituales, quos ego praemio affeceram, ipsi supplicio afficiunt; Seminaristas, Collegiorumque meorum cultores, quos ego tanquam Dei Ecclesiae maxime necessarios paterno educabam & instruebam affectu, ipsi molestant; et etiam de ipsis extinguendis conferunt.  
XXXII. Claustralibus Virginibus quae meis monitis, edictis et exhortationibus intra suae professionis septa libentissime continebantur, non tantum permissione, quod nefarium est, sed publicis exhortationibus, quod nefandissimum, ut ad suspectas collucutiones Secularium & Regularium et Clericorum iterum redeant, suadent. Et tandem licentias innumerabiles Religiosis adoloscentibus ad audiendas mulierum confessiones concedunt, et ut de alieno thesauro, de mea Ecclesiastica Iurisdictione profusissime prodigunt et impendunt.  
XXXIII. Haec omnia me P. B. non latebant, imo ex tuguriolo meo in quo prostratus coram Christo crucifixo Domino jacebam, et pro populo gregeque miserabiliter afflicto profusis lachrymis efflagitabam, tanquam a specula oves crudelissime diripi, sponsam meam amantissimam Ecclesiam dilacerari et impiissime vexari conspiciens, fractum Postoralem baculum, mitram conculcatam oculis dolentissimis intuens, suspiria, gemitus, lamentationes mearum ovium irreparabiliter non minoribus gemitibus et suspiriis exaudiens, etiam sine armis, etiam sine viribus, etiam prostratus, etiam solus, Divino tantum auxilio fretus, meum gregem curare non destiti.  
XXXIV. Illic enim tanquam ex carcere, si non eodem spiritu, saltem primitivorum praesulum exemplo, literis, nunciis, manuscriptis Pastoralibus Episcopis jurare, suadere, consulere, consolari studui, ut in fide et charitate permanentes, fortitudine aerumnas, constantia tribulationes, patientia persecutiones superarent, et a confessionibus et praedicationibus eorum, qui Dioecesani Praelati licentias non habebant, abstinerent et fugerent, quod pietate divina, non meae humilitatis et fragilitatis viribus maxima ex parte obtinui, ita ut paucissimi fuerint in hisce innumerabilis multitudinis populis, qui etiam tot incarcerationibus et relegationibus comminati, Relegiosis jesuitis et assertis Conservatoribus fidem detulerint, et adhaeserint.  
XXXV. Sed Religiosi isti, alias admodum docti et perfecti, potentia potentiam defendentes et ex abysso ad abyssum praecipiti cursu prolapsi, tanto plus ira excandescentes, quanto populos a suo pastore divellere non posse, imo ipsis jesuitis offensissimos esse conspiciebant, judices Seculares expensa maxima pecuniarum quantitate conducunt, qui sub praetextu seditionis (antiquum enim est, P. B. Ecclesiarum Praelatos qui in animarum salutem incumbunt, et Ecclesiasticam jurisdictionem propugnant, seditiosos vocare, et commovisse turbas eis imputare, incipientes a Galilaea usque ad Jerusalem, et aliis ejusdem farinae calumniis exemplo Salvatoris impetere) criminalissimum processum contra me scribunt, testes violentissime cogunt, alios pecunia corrumpunt, alios aliis artibus compellunt, alios attrahunt et alliciunt, ut deponant et etiam jure jurando affirment, me contra Reip. salutem, quae mihi charior semper vita extitit, machinatum esse; et uno eodemque tempore a septem judicibus (tanta est, P. B. jesuitarum potentia) in mea ipsa Dioecesi, imo et Episcopali civitate simul cum grege amantissimo syndicatus fui, a tribus scilicet secularibus a Vicerege missis, a duobus Regularibus, videlicet Conservatoribus, et ab aliis duobus Ecclesiasticis Sacerdotibus, et ab ipsa Societate expulsis, Inquisitionis Commissariis, et his septem judicibus, S. P. talibus moribus defaedatis, quos modestia tacet, et zelus dolet.  
XXXVI. Sed Deo infinitas gratias ago qui ut superbis resistit, humiles et propter suam causam persecutionem patientes protegit et defendit; tot enim judicibus, tot testibus inter se convenientibus & conspirantibus, imo et ipsas depositiones et acta propalantibus inter se & ad eundem finem dirigentibus, dignitate aliquid mea indignum Episcopali, etiam nulliter & violenter probare minime potuerunt; sed declarationes vagas vilium hominum coacevarunt, in quibus generaliter asserebatur, me maximam seditionem excitasse & terribilibus in juriis Jesuitas affecisse, quod videlicet confessiones audire sine licentia Episcopi prohibuissem, & ad ordinem Concilii Tridentini & Gregorii XV. constitutionis decreta ipsos per legitimos tramites redegissem.  
XXXVII. Elusa ergo processalis formae persecutione, P. B. quia Iesuitae nihil probabant neque ●is sacinoribus obtinebant, imo populi magis ac magis ab eis aversi, ipsisque infensi pro Pastore suo certabant, & ejus consiliis & exhortationibus inhaerebant, jam ruptis verecundiae & religiosae modestiae vinculis; ad aliam atrociorem formam, me meamque famam, dignitatem, personam persequendi processere.  
XXXVIII. Convocatis enim Scholasticis suis (quos alia certe doctrina imbuere debuissent) praetextu solemnitatis S. P. Ignatii sui Fundatoris (cujus animam sanctissimam maxime haec omnia abhorrere & abominari compertissimum est) choreas scelestissimas (mascaras Hispani vocant) constituerunt, in quibus in contemptum meae personae, dignitatisque & omnium Sacerdotum qui inter caeteros vita arctiori & honestiori fulgebant, & inter hos Procuratorem meum Sylverium de Pineda, qui tunc Romae aderat, & Tua sanctissima praesentia fruebatur, horribilibus larvis ac gesticulationibus & nefariis aliis modis, Episcopum, Sacerdotes, sanctas & venerabiles Moniales, dignitatem Episcopalem, imo & Catholicam Religionem infamarunt, irriserunt, illuserunt.  
XXXIX. Larvati enim & has personas sacras infami habitu tanquam in statuis per civitatem totam medio diei tempore circumgestantes, orationem sanctissimam & devotissimam Dominicam simulque Angelicam aliis profanis verbis immixtis turpissime decantantes, has infandas choreas per civitatem praedictam jesuitici scholares circumducentes, & a suis propriis domibus educentes, in solo Christiano et Catholicissimo, gentilicia & haeretica theatralia facinora contra Dei Ecclesiam, suosque Episcopos & Sacerdotes audacissime perpetrarunt.  
XL. Aliqui enim eorum, P. B. infames cantilelenas supradictae orationi Dominicae immiscentes, pro Libera nos a malo, quod in fine dicitur, decantabant, Sed libera nos a Palafox, nempe quia ego a malo (quod est intra limites suae professionis non contineri) jesuitas liberare, et in ordinem redigere conatus sum. Eodem pene modo salutationem Angelicam corrumpentes, maledictis in eundem finem tendentibus deturpabant.  
XLI. Quidam de ipsis, impuris bovis armis signando seipsum (quod Ethnicos contra Christiaanos fecisse non traditur) cunctis videntibus clamando pronunciabat: Haec sunt arma perfecti et veri Christiani, cornua tauri pro cruce sanctissima demonstrando.  
XLII. Alius autem in altera manu dulcissimi pueri jesu imaginem, in alia impudicissimum instrumentum portabat, piissimi nominis et infantiae jesu devotioni illudendo.  
XLIII. Alius equi cauda pendentem baculum Pastoralem portabat & in ipsis stapedis depicta mitra Episcopali equitabat, ut conculcatam pedibus exprobraret.  
XLIV. Deinde insolentissima carmina, & incredibiliter sacrilega et satyrica contra Clerum et Episcopum in populo spargebant, gloriantes seipsos jesuitas Episcopum vicisse et de eo triumphasse, ipsi quidem victi, superati et triumphati a sua ipsamet impotentissima potentia; Plurima etiam epigrammata Hispano sermone spectatoribus tradiderunt famae Pastoris et Cleri existimationi detrahentia, et inter alia sequens, quod quia maxime explicat quanto errore teneantur Religiosi Iesuitae, qui repagula suarum constitutionum rumpentes intra sua septa contineri non valent, hic inseri, P. B. non impertinens judicavi.  
Oy con gallardo denuedo  
Se opone la Compannia  
A la formal heregia.  
XLV. Hucusque, P. B. potuit spiritualis ista obcaecatio mentis procedere; cum enim ego defenderim S. Concilium Tridentinum, Constitutiones Apostolicas, decreta Pontificia, salutem animarum, haec omnia, quia eos ligant et arctant, haeretica esse populis Iesuitae suadent et suggerunt. Expugnare autem Constitutiones Apostolicas, decreta Oecumenici Concilii Tridentini contemnere, Pontificias decisiones evertere, Dioecesim invadere, Episcopum a sua Sede manu seculari detrudere, non folum injuriis sed etiam armis impetere, irridendoque et illudendo non tantum Episcopum sed etiam Clerum et Religionem Christianam maledictis infamare, hoc Catholicum, sanctum, juridicum docent.  
XLVI. Conservatores interim non aliis artibus, aut decentiori forma Pontificiam dignitatem, qua se jactabant exornatos, deturpabant: cum enim honestis moribus, cordatis verbis, incessu in omnibus religioso eam aliquo modo repraesentare deberent, comoediis et publicis commessationibus, alearum ludis, mulierum impudicarum choreis, et musicis interessendo et aliis luxuriae inhonestis oblectamentis, qui se in edictis Apostolicam personam repraesentare et Apostolica dignitate fulgere jactabant, non sanctissimorum Pontificum virtutes, vitaeque candorem imitantes, sed perditorum hominum vitiis personatam et fictam Pontificis Summi dignitatem et imaginem defoedarunt, hanc etiam non contemnendam notam et injuriam Sedi Apostolicae subinferentes, ita ut de ea talia possint existimari; dignitas enim sacra et Apostolica non solum vere sed etiam ficte aut invalide aut nulliter repraesentata, cum decore et auctoritate, et virtutibus, oculis fidelium, praecipue Neophytorum, in his partibus remotissimis proponenda est.  
XLVII. Transactis jam fere quatuor mensibus, quibus haec omnia Iesuitae Religiosi non admodum religiose supra dorsum meum fabricavere: ecce in portu Classis Regia ab Hispania adventaverat, et in ea mandata, quibus continebatur ut Comes de Salvatierra Prorex (qui Religiosos jesuitas caeco nutu fovebat, ab eisque Regni Gubernator etiam in propria jesuitarum causa gubernabatur) in Americam Meridionalem transiret, Episcopo Lucatanensi a Rege Catholico assignato successore, & hoc interim dum mittitur judex, qui de primis ad Tuam Sanctitatem delatis facinoribus contra meam dignitatem cognosceret: haec enim posteriora nondum Regi & suo Regali Indiarum Consilio propter temporis angustias innotuerant.  
XLVIII. Hoc nuncio allato, aliquo modo persecutionis hujus rabies temperata est, & cum jam intra Regnum Episcopus Lucatanensis existeret: quamvis certis de causis ei a Comite Prorege Regni gubernacula minime traderentur, mihi tamen jam tempus adesse in meam amantissimam Ecclesiam iterum redeundi, & quos filios absens Epistolis secretis consolabar, praesens exhilarandos existimavi.  
XLIX. Quod cum statuissem, scribens prius Proregi & Auditoribus Regiis, qui duabus diaetis a mea Diocoesi distant, & populum in me ingenti laetitia affectum spectare cognoscens, & non ignorans ad versariorum meorum dilationes & artes, quibus etiam sancta et perfecta sinistre admodum interpretantur, ne laetitiam istam & hilaritatem populi honestissimam, tanquam seditionem incusarent & in scandalum publicum verterent, in medio noctis silentio Episcopale meum palatium intravi. Quod sentientes populi, qui suum conspicere Pastorem tot lachrymis quaesitum et expectatum ardentissime desiderabant, ad me summo mane convolant; fractis etiam portarum repagulis, Episcopum suum amplexantur, lachrymis profusis proclamant, salutant, plaudunt, exosculantur, & per quatuor dies continuos copiam mei faciens, plusquam sex millia hominum, mulierum, infantium, qui ad me palatiumque meum concurrere, consolatus sum.  
L. Patres vero Iesuitae, qui tam praecipl● cursu ad me adventare populum maximo animi dolore conspiciunt, videntes nihil proficere, quia totus mundus vadit post eum, iterum atque iterum aliis et atrocioribus criminationibus in me meamque dignitatem insurgunt.  
LI. Iterum enim Viceregem Comitem adeunt, suadent, clamant, incendunt, affirmantes hunc concursum populorum seditionem esse, Regnum omne mihi pacis publicae inimico adhaerere, meo adventu exultare, & quid superest nisi solum Regnum? Ideoque Cathedralem meam Sedem, jurisdictionemque Ecclesiasticam, qua me praesumpti Conservatores expoliaverunt, mihi tradere & restituere, Regi Regnoque nocentissimum esse futurum.  
LII. Hisce artibus & calumniis Epistolas a Comite Vicerege obtinent, quibus intimatur Capitulo pseudo-sede-vacante a jesuitis machinato, ut proprio Pastori jurisdictionem usurpatam minime concederent, nec restituerent. Quo non obstante major & sanior Capitularium pars, quae jam ab exilio redierat, obedientiam mihi debitam praebuit; alia minori, quae jesuitis inhaerebat, proprio Episcopo resistente.  
LIII. Iterum ergo, P. B. angustiae, iterum schisma, iterum aquae tribulationum intraverunt usque ad animam meam; populus enim pro Episcopo, Prorex Comes pro jesuitis stabat. Cum ergo viri isti religiosi semper instarent ne me Dioeccsim meam gubernare Prorex permitteret, nisi porrecta manu de nihil innovando in causa jesuitarum; considerans ego et mecum perpendens, imo viros doctos & cordatos consulens, aliquando necessarium esse membrum putridum pro toto corpore offerre, & aliqua etiam alias non tolerabilia permitti, & tolerari debere ut non scandalizemus, sicut Dominus Petro, cum tributum ab eo posceretur, dixit, disciplinam etiam Ecclesiasticam dissipatam intuens, Monialium conventus quos ego reformatos reliqueram, relaxatos, Clerum quem ego tranquillissimum & virtutibus admodum praeditum, jam censura & jurisdictione Ecclesiastica laxata, non eo quo decebat ordine et honore florere, & tandem tali schismate gubernatam Dioecesim, ut neque legitime Sacramenta ministrarentur, neque sententiae Ecclesiasticae rite ferrentur, neque quidquam per suos tramites directum esse videretur, tandem pro publica pace (certis factis prius juridice protestationibus super praemissa & a Conservatoribus perpetrata) quousque a Tua Sanditate materia haec dirimenretur, de non innovando promisi.  
LIV. Quo facto intra paucos menses iterum alia navis ab Hispania pervenit, in qua literae regiae sunt delatae super hac causa, quibus expresse Comiti Viceregi jubebatur, ut officium deponeret & provincia excederet, Episcopus Lucatanensis gubernaret, gravissima etiam increpatione superaddita Proregi, quod jesuitis contra ipsas etiam leges Regias adeo impotenter & sine delectu & judicio in causa injustissima pro eorum arbitrio auxiliatus fuisset, mihique Ministro Regio, Consilii Indiarum Decano & Episcopo, & paulo ante Proregi in salutem animarum incumbenti tot & tanta incommoda tribulationesque intulisset. Eodem modo & majori severitate Rex Catholicissimus & clementissimus meus Conservatores praesumptos & Provinciales Dominicanorum & jesuitarum, qui haec omnia fuerant machinati, increpavit, & nullitatem omnium quae a Comite Prorege in favorem jesuitarum facta sunt, declaravit, & hoc nondum ei patentibus posterioribus eorum facinoribus.  
LV. Sed Iesuitae, qui non pro fide aut veritate, sed pro sua in populis existimatione decertabant, neque his decretis Regiis schedulisque assenserunt, imo neque eas accepisse fateri voluerunt, sed contrarium divulgantes toto eo tempore, quo Prorex Comes Regni gubernacula retinebat, haec omnia occultarunt, populis suadentes, fictis etiam Epistolis evulgatis, sevicisse, s●per●s●…, triamphasse, & ita quos ipsi dece●…nt, in suis erroribus conservabant.  
LVI. Verum postquam Episcopus Lucatanensis Regni gubernationem suscepit, jam aliquo modo clarior veritas (etsi aliquantulum a jesuitis suppressa,) fulgentior justitia, efficaciora mandata Regis omnibus extitere, & ego mea jurisdictione Ecclesiastica jam in aliqualem libertatem vindicata, fragmenta laceratae tunicae Petri, jurisdictionem disciplinamque relaxatam, fractum Pastoralem baculum, mitram conculcatam, sponsalem annulum a digito evulsum, non sine lacrymis & ingenti dolore talia videns conspiciensque, recuperavi, recollegi, consolidavi, erexi, & vulneratae dignitatis plagas quomodo licuit, curavi.  
LVII. Plurimos enim subditos meos tam Ecclesiasticos quam Seculates, qui constanter passi sunt, laudavi, imo & aliquos praemio affeci; qui autem animi potius fragilitate quam malignitate deliquerant, in ipsis quidem mihi omnibus fragiliori parcendo, eos absolvi, alios vero qui cupiditate vehementi, aut ambitione inordinata, aut Pastoris odio, aut in secularem potestatem adulatione & propensione agitati contra mittam conspiraverant, correctos, sed non sine Ecclesiastica moderatione, emendatos dimisi.  
LVIII. Quosdam vero, qui pecunia Iesuitica corrupti contumacissime suos errores defendebant, & nocentissima hujus Ecclesiasticae seditionis & schismatis capita, etiam se de hoc scelere gloriando, extitere, & neque ipsum vocati, imo rogati a proprio Pastore ut in viam veritatis redirent, recognoscere voluerunt, sed ex domibus jesuitarum, quo refugerant, plutima maledicta in in me & in meam dignitatem jaciebant (facto prius juridice per absentiam processu & legitime concluso) canonicis constitutionibus & sacris Apostolicis decretis, & eorum decisione subnixus, per meum Provisorem Episcopum electum de Honduras eos paenis censurisque subjeci.  
LIX. Deinde voce, epistolis, edictis, concionibus, quantum mea fragilitas valuit, pristinos status animabus restituti procuravi, & hoc quantum attinet ad subditos meos tam Ecclesiasticos quam seculares.  
LX. Verum quoad Regulares exemptos, Conservatores scilicet & jesuitas, & qui eis adhaeserant nihil profui, imo & post Tuae Sanctitatis Breve 16. Maii anno isto 1648. expeditum, mihi per Doctorem Silverium de Pineda delatum, ipsis intimatum, post ipsas etiam Regales declarationes, quae in classi Regia per mensem Septembris in portum appulere, notitificatas, semper, ut inserius dicam, in suo errore Iesuitae versantur, & vinculis excommunicationis innodati, irregulares, & suspensi publice celebrant.  
LXI. His enim Pontificiis Regalibusque decretis respondent Religiosi Iesuitae, Breve videlicet Sanctitatis Tuae hac super causa expeditum Romae 16 die Maii, anno 1648. viribus esse evacuatum. Primo quod ab Indiarum Consilio minime approbatum sit, & haec allegant quamvis decretis schedulisque Regiis contrarium statutum est. Brevia enim quae cum citatione partium, & in contradictorio judicio in Romana Curia obtinentur, patefieri Indiarum Consilio minime jubentur, sed tantum ea quae ad Patronatum pertinent, ut si quid subreptitie contra concessa a Tua Pontificumque Antecessorum Tuorum benignitate, beneficentissime Catholicae Hispaniae Coronae fuerit impetratum, Catholicissimi & piissimi Regis & Ecclesiae Romanae primogeniti precibus exauditis a Tua benevolentia reformetur.  
LXII. Ideoque a Religiosis jesuitis praesens interrogavi & interpellaviutrum verba illa, Pasce oves meas, a Domino in Tiberiadis littore Petro pronunciata, a Senatu Regio fuerint approbata? an oratio Dominica? an Angelica salutatio? an fidei articuli? an Apostolorum symbolum? an ipsa fides Catholica & Romana talibus decretis in quocunque articulo indigeat?  
LXIII. Ego enim qui per viginti annos Catholicissimo Domino meo in suis Regiis Consiliis inservivi, ejus mentem religiosissimam callens, & miram in Sedem Apostolicam observantiam, imo usque ad sanguinis effufionem contra Infideles, Haereticos & Schismaticos pro Petri Cathedra defendenda constantiam expertus, omnia ea quae ad fidem pertinent, & quae Religionem Catholicam augent, atquae animos ad aeterna dirigunt, & quae Sacramenta statuunt, & quae optimum administrandi ordinem introducunt; ac tuentur, & denique quae mala vitant, aut bona juvant, a Rege piissimo & religiosissimo, & ab Indiarum Senatoribus doctissimis & integerrimis non tantum approbari, sed etiam voce, legibus, pecuniis, viribusque omnibus juvari & commendari compertissimum habeo.  
LXIV. Secundo contra idem Breve Tuae Sanctitatis affirmant Iesuitae sua privilegia concessa esse a Sede Apostolica propter merita, & in contractus transisse, & ideo pacta vocari potius quam privilegia, cujus causa a Tua Beatitudine revocari non posse.  
LXV. Tertio quod huic proximum est, quia clausulam habent ut quamvis de verbo ad verbum de ogentur, non possint revocari, & ideo neque a Tua Sanctitate, ut Paulus V. in suo privilegio statuit, quod incipit, Quantum Religio.  
LXVI. Quarto tandem, quia Tuae Sanctitatis Apostolicae literae super hac causa expeditae & Sanctissimorum Pontificum Gregorii XV. & Urbani VIII. constitutiones, de quibus in eis mentio fit, non sunt ab Ecclesia admissae neque consuetudini traditae, & leges quae non admittuntur, pro legibus non computari. Et haec Iesuitae contra Tuas literas, S. P. proferunt, & totis viribus defendere nituntur.  
LXVII. Verum iste quidem constitutionum Apostolicarum & privilegiorum interpretandi jesuitarum modus non tantum negotio ipso ingratus & molestus est, sed etiam doctrinae fidei & Apostolicae Sedis auctoritati & dignitati molestissimus & nocentissimus. Nam hac interpretatione auctoritas & potestas Pontificum infringitur, Ecclesiae gubernatio turbatur, & omne sacrae jurisdictionis robur & dignitas debilitatur, & quod nefarium est, omnes pene a Sede Apostolica constitutiones quae quotidie magno Reipublicae Christianae commodo statuuntur & divulgantur, ad manem & quandam vanam & umbratilem legum formam reducuntur.  
LXVIII. Pontificia siquidem potestas non tantum coarctatur, sed minuitur, si Urbano VIII. minor sit auctoritas ad revocandum quod ipsi videbitur universalis Ecclesiae commodo & Religionis augmento utile revocari, ea potestate quae Paulo V. fuit ad statuendum.  
LXIX. Nam si Pontificibus posterioribus non licet reformare, quae ab Antecessoribus sanctissime constituta tractu temporis propter varias humanarum rerum vicissitudines et causas reformatione vel mutatione indigeant, & quae ipsi si viverent reformarent, posterior quidem Pontifex erit minor dignitate, auctoritate et potestate anteriori, et orbata videbitur Ecclesia circa ea quae remediis indigent, capite universali, et judice controversiarum supremo: et non tam Pontifices fummi, fidei directores et judices quam Antecessorum legum constitutionumque vocabuntur executores: quod asserere nefandissimum est.  
LXX. Leges enim condere, revocare, edere, temperare, et ad suam observantiam populos et Ecclesiasticos Ordines compellere, cuicunque Vicario Christi Domini Romano Pontifici aequaliter competit sine limitatione aliqua (salva solum naturall lege et Divina) quod nemo Catholicus hucusque negavit. Et praecipue hoc esse certissimum inconveniens constat, cum omnium fere sive Cleri, sive Cathedrahum, sive prorum locorum, sive Regularium privilegia clausulis eisdem jesuitarum privilegiorum fulciantur, & propter propria merita concedantur, et ita in nullo eorum Pontifices quid immutare posse dicendum esse.  
LXXI. Quod quidem absurdissimum est; nam semper in omnibus Apostolicis mandatis, constitutionibus et privilegis clausula haec tacita, secreta et nunquam moritura viget, quae omnibus ahis fortius influere neminem etiam modice eruditum, laet, videlicet, Salva semper in omnibussuprema Apostolicae Sedis auctoritate, et majori Ecclesiae universalis utilitate, quae in statuendis, erigendis, derogandis privilegiis et constitutionibus praeeminet.  
LXXII. In ultimo autem jesuitarum fundamento asserere acceptatas non esse ab Ecclesia, id est ab eis, (ita ego intelligo) has Apostolicas constitutiones, nempe quia ipsorum adversantur privilegiis (si enim non adversarentur, absque dubio acceptarentur ab eye) audaciorem esse istam inprecandi methodum quam a Tua Apostolica auctoritate tolerari possit, Innocenti Sanctissime, existimo.  
LXXIII. Quamvis enim verum sit leges universales aliquorum populorum assensu ut obligent indigere, praecipue quando superiorum praecepta non urgent, u●que eorum secundis jussionibus repugnant, vel desidia corrigitur subditorum, tamen hac juris regula omnes & singulas, & eas quae in contradictorio judicio latae sunt, Apostolicas constitutiones, vel quae circa Sacramenta vel fidem a Pontificibus Romanis statuuntur, vel quae circa administrationem Sacramentorum afferunt jurisdictionem vel auferunt, interpretari, & a subditorum voluntate, aut ab eorum arbitrio Ecclesiasticarum legum firmitatem pendere, & si nolint eas acceptare, minime obligare, asserere, Ecclesiae universali perniciosissimum esse quis non videt?  
LXXIV. Si enim a voluntate pendet subditorum, constitutionum robur & validitas, vana est & nulla superiorum quidem potestas. Et si Iesuitae nobis necessarii sunt, ut sua privilegia ab Apostolica Sede concessa vel declarentur, vel moderentur, vel revocentur, & sine eis Apostolica auctoritas non tenet, certe nunquam, Beatissime Pater, quietem habebimus, sed in his dissensionum fluctibus jactabimur.  
LXXV. Ideo haec jesuitarum opinio, P. B. istaque inspiratio vel illuminatio, & interpretandi Apostolicas constitutiones methodus, quia Apostolica quidem non est, Apostolica indiget virga censoria; nihil enim Apostolicae Sedis observantiae, obedientiae & reverentiae sapit, & hoc cum pluries dixerint mihi Iesuitae in conferentiis super hac causa mecum habitis, pluries etiam, ut debui, facie ad faciem restiti; ipsi tamen in eadem sententia opinionibusque versantur, & quamvis scriptis & typis edere non audent, tamen eye Iesuitae opinionibus vivunt, & sua privilegia jam emortua, etiam in ipsis funeribus rediviva esse contendunt, & iis jam finitis & revocatis, cum maxima animarum pernicie, in foro interiori utuntur.  
LXXVI. Ergo Patres Iesuitae jam rejectis Sanctitatis Tuae decretis, non reverentius Regias declarationes susceperunt; nam cum in eis religiosissimus Rex, suusque amplissimus Senatus idem quod Tua Sanctitas nobis Episcopis, & Regularibus, audientiae Mexicanae declarasset, scilicet Conservatores in hoc casu creari non debere, neque praetextu injuriarum Episcopum ejusque Provisorem, Cleros & Populos molestari potuisse, neque audientia Regali recusata a jesuitis Religiosis Proregi adeo impotenter et caeco nutu eis auxiliari licuisse; intimatis schedulis responderunt Iesuitae, nihil hoc Regale decretum causae suae obesse; laici enim cum sint tam Senatus quam Catholicus Rex, de causis spiritualibus cognoscere non potuisse.  
LXXVII. Itaque quando Prorex Comes de Salvatierra pro ipsis declaravit in spiritualibus Conservatores Iesuiticos legitime procedere et valide Ecclesiasticam jurisdictionem invadere & opprimere, & jesuitas ad exhibendas licentias confitendi et praedicandi non teneri, & injuriis a Provisore affectos, quia ab audiendis confessionibus abstinere eis jusserat: Tunc licet laico judici Proregi tanquam si esset Pontifex, vel tanquam Legatus Apostolicae Sedis, de Spiritualibus judicare, & Episcopos incarcerare, & Sacerdotes relegare, & alia quae supra dicta sunt perpetrare. Quando autem Rex Senatusque ejus ab ipsis Religiosis invocatus, contrarium declarat, & perperam fecisse Ministros Seculares in auxiliando Conservatoribus pronunciat, Laicus est Senatus, Laicus est Rex, Controversia est Spiritualis.  
LXXVIII. Cum certissimum sit, Pater Beatissime, quod quamvis de spiritualibus non liceat Laicis etiam supremis Consiliis secularibus judicare, imo si ipsi sibi deferrat jus potestatemque declarandi Ecclesiasticas & spirituales controversias tanquam judices earum legitimi & supremi, nefandissimum sit; tamen declarare & interpretari Apostolicas constitutiones, id est, jubere & imperare suis Ministris & Audientiis Regalibus ut constitutiones Apostolicas protegant & defendant, auxilientur & coadjuvent, & secundum ipsas judicent, & contra Ecclesiastica decreta Regulares agere non permittant, & Episcopos adjuvent, non tantum Ecclesiae non nocens, imo Ecclesiae utilissimum & necessarium esse, nemo est qui ignoret. Quis enim negabit brachio sinistro seculari spirituale dexterum adjuvandum esse, & utroque connexo et in unum tendente, Dei ordinationem, id est, Ecclesiasticam jurisdictionem Pontificiam & Episcopalem protegendam esse?  
LXXIX. Soluti ergo jam in suo ipso judicio a Pontificia jurisdictione & Regia potestate Iesuitae, & omni sive spirituali sive temporali jurisdictione superiores, nescio quo fine libellum mihi porrigunt, in quo protestantur, se neque per Pontificia decreta, neque per Regia mandata, sed pro mea tantum ordinaria Iurisdictione licentias confitendi, per duos pene annos a me expostulatas, ab ipsis denegatas exhibere velle, et si istae non essent sufficientes, a me expostulaturos confitendi facultatem, semper tamen insistentes, etiam intimato Brevi Tuae Sanctitatis, quo contrarium cavetur, licere sibi confessiones secularium audire sine licentia proprii Episcopi in vim suorum privilegiorum.  
LXXX. Libellum porrectum accepi non sine magna admiratione, jesuitas jurisdictioni majori, id est, Pontificiae meam jurisdictionem, quae illius rivulus quidam est, anteferre: & post tot pericula, controversias, difficultates, scandala, ad Tuam Sanctitatem recursus nunc tandem facere, quod prima die ab ipsis faciendum fuerat: & adhuc intimato Brevi Sanctitatis Tuae, non Tuae supremae jurisdictioni sed meae submitti velle.  
LXXXI. Verum cum mihi pateret, eos sine licentia praedicare & confessiones secularium audire, enixe considerans, ut aliquo modo hoc Ecclesiasticum schisma tolleretur, licentias accepi, et quas a meis Antecessoribus concessas inveni, quae paucissimae erant, approbavi, & religiosis senioribus & doctioribus facultatem audiendi confessiones secularium sine examine praebui, juvenes autem & mihi non cognitos, ut a Synodalibus examinarentur, remisi.  
LXXXII. Hoc facto, P. S. iterum aliam litem Religiosi Iesui●ae instaurant, affirmantes grav●ssimum & durissimum esse, Religiosos suos quicunque sint, sive juvenes, sive senes hi fuerint, sive a me cogniti sive non cognici, sive docti sive indocti, examini Synodalium exponi, ideoque nolle ipsorum censurae subjici, et in hoc hodie haeremus, imo et in isto inquieto discordiarum pelago fluctuamus.  
LXXXIII. Ita ergo jam prolixa admodum narratione Tuae Sanctitati patebit, Pater Beatissime, impunita esse maxima Christianae Reipublicae scandala, tot facinora contra Tuam Sanctitatem, Apostolicam dignitatem, et Ecclesiasticam jurisdictionem, et contra sacras censuras, leges, decreta, et alia ab his Regularibus perpetrata, confitendo et praedicando per annum integrum non solum invito sed contradicente Episcopo, suspensi et irregulares sacrum celebrando, Episcopos duos, Dioecesanum scilicet et ejus Vicarium, nulliter et indebite excommunicando, Sacerdotes, et Capitulares et Episcopum electum de Honduras carceri mandando, Angelopolitanum a propria Sede praedictis sceleribus detrudendo, et omnem potestatem, etiam Pontificiam, in hoc casu negando, caeteraque quae supra scripta sunt suaviori quidem et leniori stylo quam ipsamet.  
LXXXIV. Sed quo mea haec oratio tendit, Innocenti Sanctissime, Jesus Christi Filii Dei Vicari universalis, Pastor supreme, controversiarum Ecclesiae judex integerrime, communis omnium dulcissime Pater, num justitiam contra Jesuitas exposcam? Absit, ut quod Ananiae & Saphirae, qui Pontificali spiritu Petri & verbis tanquam gladio ancipiti percussi cecidere, Jesuitis exposcam: fratres sunt, Religiosi sunt, viri de Ecclesia bene meriti sunt; si plurimi eorum peccaverunt, non pauci eorum peccata plorabant, aliorumque gesta abhorrebant.  
LXXXV. Num exposcam mihi aut de tribulatione laudem, aut de offensis satisfactionem, aut de criminationibus calumniisque vindictam? absit, P. B. ut temporalibus spiritualia compensari desiderem, & de eo quod pro Domino Salvatore nostro Jesu Christo ejusque amore & pro animabus quas redemit, & pro Iurisdictione Ecclesiastica quam proprio sanguine stabilivit, & pro meis etiam sceleribus libentissime passus sum, aliquid humani commodi, aut honoris, aut laudis aucupari velim.  
LXXXVI. Utinam, P. B. pro tali causa Episcopali rocchetto proprio sanguine purpurato contigisset occumbere, & non sudore sed cruore causam justissimam ejus defendissem, qui meam totiusque generis humani defendit proprio cruore! Quis enim vulnera illata non libentissime pro eo suscipiet, qui illius sanctissima vulnera videt qui pro nobis in cruce pependit? Et si vita necessario amittenda est, pro qua gloriosiori causa impendenda quam pro salute commendatarum sibi animarum? quam pro constitutionibus Apostolicis, pro Ecclesiae offibus, Sacramentis defendendis, eorum legitima administratione?  
LXXXVII, Num ergo aliquorum qui mihi infensissimi fuerunt, & tot opprobria, delationes, injurias, publicos libellos sparserunt & divulgarunt, imo etiam vitam, honorem, famam meam pedibus conculcarunt, peto supplicium? minime, S. P. imo illis libentissime parco; majora meis culpis debentur; si flagellum fuit meis sceleribus illatum, a Divina justitia clementissime illatum fuisse cognosco; si probatio aut tentatio fidei, aut Episcopalis constantiae & integritatis, in cruce Domini mei glorior, hanc amplector, hanc in ipsis meis tribulationibus adoro; ipsa quae mihi crux, ipsa mihi praemium est.  
LXXXVIII. Solum ergo, B. P. dignitati, baculo, mitraeque condignam satisfactionem, quae Tibi videbitur aequa & ipsis Religiosis Jesuitis, eorum sanctissimae Societati sanctissimam, certe qua indigent, reformationem ab integritate sapientiaque tua, Innocenti Beatissime, exposco.  
LXXXIX. Utinam plura essem passus, dummodo eorum occasione & baculo Pastorali integritas & auctoritas, & sanctissimae huic Religioni primitivus caritatis ardor restitueretur. Ideo haec atrocissima in viris professione spiritualibus permisisse Dominum pie credere debemus: neque enim, ut ait Augustinus, omnipotens & misericors Deus, cum summe bonus sit, ullo modo sineret mali esse aliquid in operibus suis, nisi usque adeo esset bonus, ut bene faceret etiam de malo.  
XC. Oportet ut scandala veniant, P. B. dixit Dominus Jesus, ut scandalis ad optimas leges Ecclesiasticas evulgandas, & optime jam editas promovendas, fulciendas, defendendas, animus tuus zelo divino agitatus, Innocenti Sanctissime, excitetur, & Ecclesia clarioribus Tuae doctrinae radiis illustrata resplendeat: aliquando etiam ex horrido ore leonis favus elicitur dulcissimus reformationis, & excommunicationes & pontificalia flagella a Sede Apostolica jaculata & inflicta, quando alios feriunt, alios illuminant, sicut calor solis illuminando urit & urendo splendet.  
XCI. Quis enim, P. B. ea integritate qua decet & perfecta honestaque disciplina proprias oves & Dioecesim moderari audebit, si etiam justissima & sanctissima a Jesuitis in dubium revocentur, & si cum eis lis fuerit exorta, aut vita fundenda, aut baculus Episcopalis dimittendus est?  
XCII. Quis, P. B. dignitate mitraque conculcata virtutes erigere promovereque potest? quis baculo fracto vitia compescere, lupos arcere, oves defendere, pascere, servare, ad aeterna dirigere? illuditur enim praeceptum jubentis, si evacuata sit viribus jurisdictio dominantis, & ab ovibus spernitur Pastor; si baculus Pastoralis coram ipsis ovibus audacter confringitur, neque qualis debeatur Pastori pas●orum honor & obedientia constabit, si pastores ipsos irrisos, illusos, spretos grex ipse conspexerit. Imo contemptis membris & caput despicitur, & tota corporis mystici militantis Ecclesiae disciplina dissolvitur.  
XCIII. Ideo necesse est, B. P. ut alter duorum Fratrum Conservatorum (alter enim sine Sacramentis, sine absolutione, sine luce, sine duce, sine cruce, ut accidit Schismaticis, sine vita in lecto ipso excommunicatus & irregularis fuit intra annum misere inventus) & alii aliqui Religiosi qui dignitatem Ecclesiasticam & Ecclesiae censuras admodum contempsere, publice a proprio Episcopo ubicunque is fuerit absolvantur, idque omnibus pateat.  
XCIV. Et de caetero, S. P. a Tua summa prudentia & sapientia statuatur, ut minime liceat Regularibus seipsos contra Episcopum Conservatores eligere, & in propria aut communi causa sibi ipsis judicium agere & sententiam proferre, praesertim cum in istis Indiis Occidentalibus tot sint dignitates Ecclesiasticae seculares, quae ubi non sunt Synodales judices, hoc munus poterunt exercere.  
XCV. Neque liceat Conservatoribus, quicunque hi fuerint, etiam legitime assignatis Episcopos excommunicare neque incarcerare, & plebes populosque Christianos orphanos acephalosque relinquere. Nunquam enim in tot seculorum curriculis qui ab Apostolorum temporibus processere, Episcopi incarcerati sunt, nisi vel a Tua Sanctissima dignitate, quam veneramur superiorem judicem & matrem, vel a manu thaeretica, vel gentilicia, vel schismatica Ecclesiam ipsam in ipsis Ecclesiae ducibus & Episcopis tanquam membris suis persequente. Si enim Episcopi a Religiosis Conservatoribus excommunicari & incarcerari possunt, de tota Ecclesiastica disciplina, P. S. actum esse non dubito.  
XCVI. Acriora aut duriora, P. S. contra ipsos minime exposco, imo pro eis pedibus Tuae Sanctitatis provolutus quam humillime & instantissime deprecor.  
XCVII. Quoad secundam autem postulationem, S. P. quam necessitate propriaeque stimulo conscientiae compulsus Tuae Beatitudini propono, videlicet ut aliqua moderatione non levi Societas Jesu mihi amantissima Religio intra terminos contineatur.  
XCVIII. Testor & protestor Sanctissimae & individuae Trinitati, Patri, & Filio, et Spiritui Sancto, tribus in singularitate personis, uni in substantia Deo, et Deiparae semper Virgini Mariae, & Beatissimo Petro Apostolorum Principi et Coapostolo ejus Paulo, et omnibus Ecclesiae triumphantis beatissimis Spiritibus, et Angelorum Ordinibus, et Tibi verae Jesu Christi Domini nostri imagini, supremo Christi Vicario, Petri Successori, optime et Sanctissime Innocenti, quicquid in hac epistola vel supplici libello hinc inde usque ad finem ipsius a mea humilitate dictum fuerit et prolatum, non alio fine vel intentione proferre velle, nisi propter majus Christianae Religionis augmentum, pu●orem fidei propagationem, Infidelium securiorem et efficaciorem conversionem, Religiosorum Jesuitarum majorem profectum et utilitatem, et ut quam plurima mala quae hodie in Ecclesia pullulant et deinde imminent, a Tua Sanctitate et prudentia vitentur, aut praecaveantur. Et itidem protestor, quod totis meis visceribus Dominum meum Jesum Christum deprecatus sum et iterum deprecor, ut si haec epistola in his omnibus quae supra dicta sunt et infra dicentur, ad gloriam Dei non tendat neque dirigatur, ad Tuas Beatissimas manus non perveniat, et si pervenerit, parvifacias. Verum si haec omnia quae in his literis continentur, Tuae sapientiae remedio indigere et maximum Reipublicae Christianae non moderata nocumentum inferre posse fuerit visum, Spiritus Sanctus, cujus organum es, Innocenti Beatissime, illuminet, dirigat, & suggerat Tibi quod Ecclesiasticae unitati, Religionis propagationi, Christianae Reipublicae utilitati, & Jesuiticae Societatis spirituali incremento; sibi cordium scrutatori, mentium illuminatori, fidei propagatori videbitur efficacius.  
XCIX. Ista, B. P. protestatione Christiana praemissa, ea ingenuitate & sinceritate qua decet & licet filio qui Patrem, viro Christiano qui Christi Vicarium universalem alloquitur, profiteor Religionem istam alias sanctissimam, si intra cancellos justae & honestae reformationis a Tua integritate & sapientia non arceatur, jam non tam utilem quam animarum regimini, quod nobis Episcopis competit, nunc certe jam extare & magis tractu temporis noxiam esse futuram.  
C. Jesuitas Religiosos, P. B., per triginta annos satis intime tractavi, clarissimis & doctissimis eorum amicitia conjunctissimus fui, & modo equidem sum Antonio Velasquez qui de optimo Principe & ad Philipenses: Paulo Sherloquio qui de Kanticis Cant. Joanni Eusebio Nieremberg. qui plurima spiritualia scripsit: Francisco Pimentel Viro clarissimo & honestissimo, & Augustino de Castro, Regiis Praedicatoribus & aliis. Qualem ipsi de me existimationem habuerint, dicant eorum mihi dicati libri, & quos ego in lucem edidi, ab eis approbati & laudati: nunquam enim ipsis jesuitis malus fui, nisi quando Ecclesiae meae bonus ab omnibus existimabar.  
CI. Humanae conditionis est, P. B. ubi ad maximum devenitur, declinare; Religio ista sua potentia laborat; sua magnitudine jactatur; sua existimatione maxima ne minima omnibus aliis sit, a Tua admirabili sapientia & dexteritate qua polles in gubernaculis Ecclesiae moderandis & dirigendis cavendum erit.  
CII. Ego quidem fateor libentissime Societatem Jesu meritis & scriptis, voce & exemplo Dei Ecclesiam illustrasse & plurimum profuisse, sed aliis etiam incommodis, ne dicam imperfectionibus gravissimis Ecclesiae Dei nunc obesse & postea plus verendum obfuturam, affirmare coactus sum, qnae utrum illis ista majora sint vel minora, Tua ineffabili trutina & Apostolico calculo pensandum & judicandum erit.  
CIII. Nam sicut Praebenda vel beneficium quod plus pensionis & oneris quam lucri & commodi possessori fructificat, ingrata cuicunque existimabitur, ita etiam si Religio aliqua aut Ordo Regularis plus Reipublicae Christianae incommodi quam utilitatis pariat, ingrata potius quam necessaria videbitur, praecipue cum plurimi sint Ecclesiastici Ordines & Religiones quae sine tanta Reipub. Christianae jactura non minorem Ecclesiae afferant utilitatem.  
CIV. Quid enim interest, P. S. supponamus quod pro Ecclesia Societas Jesuitica laboret, & ejus onere, pondere, & praesumpta auctoritate magnitudineque Ecclesia Dei universalis laborat & gemit; quid interest, quod Episcopos in ministerio adjuvet, si Episcopos non suis nutibus obsecundantes deprimit & exagitat? quid interest quod populos doceat, si populos commovet & perturbat? quid interest quod filios erudite patribus instruat, si filiis dulcissimis patres orbat, & receptos i●erum & notatos a Societate pro levissimis projicit & expellit?  
CV. Quid interest quod Ministris aliquando Regiis Dynastisque & Principum aulis cum utilitate se inserat, si plures non necessaria imo Republicae noxia introductione & praesumptione, quae spiritualis ministerii existimationi detrahit plurimum, & offensam secularibus reddit, manu directioneque interiori de spiritualibus ad politica, de politicis ad prophana, de prophanis ad nocentissima subintrando, & magno secularium scandalo & incommodo interiora domorum secularium dirigendo & gubernando?  
CVI Quid interest quod inter Religiones floreat, si Religiones ipsas calamo, potentia, livore, doctrina, apologiis etiam editis opibusque deprimit & obscurat? quid interest quod tot scriptis Ecclesiam illustret, si tot opinionibus Ecclesiam vexat, sapientiam divexat & scindit, veritatem tandem reddit ambiguam? Nonne & scientia quis laborabit si plus sapiat quam oportet sapere? nam ad sobrietatem sapere docendum & ediscendum est.  
CVII. Quae alia Religio, Innocenti Sanctissime, Ecclesiae universali tanto fuit impedimento, & discordiis adeo totum orbem Christianum implevit? Nec mirum certe, B. P. liceat haec proferre; Religio enim ista singularitate sua laborat potius quam lucet; neque enim Clerum in totum sapit, neque regularitatem omnimodo amplectitur, sed utrorumque privilegiis gaudens, imo excellere & excedere praerogativis ab Apostolica Sede irrevocabiliter concessis existimans, utrosque contemnit, seseque supra omnes Ecclesiasticos Ordines extollit.  
CVIII. Quae alia Religio occultas proprias constitutiones habet, privilegia reclusa, institutiones velatas, & omnia quae ad eorum pertinent directionem tanquam mysterio aliquo obvoluta abscondit? Fateor quidem quicquid incognitum est pro magnifico haberi, verum etiam pro suspecto, praecipue in Ecclesiasticis Ordinibus, certissimum & evidentissimum existimo.  
CIX. Omnibus omnia caeterorum Ordinum instituta patent, etiam Pontificum, Cardinalium, Episcoporum, & totius Ecclesiastici Cleri docucumenta & conciliares regulae; non odit lucem Ecclesia, imo tenebras odit, tanquam ab eo perenni lucis fonte illuminata qui dixit, Ego sum lux mundi. Etiam caeterarum Religionum privilegia, instructiones, directiones, statuta conspiciuntur, & in publicis populorum Bibliothecis communiter dispenduntur; uno intuitu Novitius Franciscanus videt quod, Generalis si ipse esset futurus, faciendum esset sibi.  
CX. In Jesuitica autem Societate plures sunt etiam professi qui ignorant constitutiones proprias, privilegia, & institutiones, quibus nomen adscribunt, quam quibus constat, ut Tuae Beatitudini poterit constare. Neque manifestis Christianae Ecclesiae regulis, sed certa quadam ipsis Superioribus solum patenti, interiori directione & aliquibus delationibus arcanis admodum periculosis, & quae plurimos imo etiam innumeros expulsos pariunt aut abortant, & tandem magis moribus quam legibus gubernant, quod humanae naturae incongruum et contrarium esse quis non videt?  
CXI. Quae alia Religio tantas aliis Religionibus, Clero, Episcopis & secularibus potestatibus, & his Christianis & Catholicis turbas commovit, aemulationes peperit, querelas concitavit, controversiis litibusque implicavit? Aliqua aliquas, tantas nulla; de poenitentia & mortificatione cum Discalceatis & Observantibus: de choro cum Monachalibus & Mendicantibus: de clausura cum Coenobitis: de doctrina cum Dominicanis: de jurisdictione cum Episcopis: de decimis cum Cathedralibus & Parochis: de Regnorum statu & tranquillitate cum Principibus & Rebus publicis: de opibus & contractibus, & commerciis, etiam non admodum justis, cum secularibus: tandem cum tota universali Ecclesia contendit; etiam Tuam Apostolicam Sedem supra petram quae Christus est, fundatam, si non verbis, factis tamen negant, ut in praesenti negotio clarissime comprobatur.  
CXII. Quae alia Religio doctrinam Sanctorum tanta libertate impugnavit? & illis verae fidei antesignanis, Ecclesiae columnis, Theologiae micantissimis & dignissimis praeceptoribus minus detulit reverentiae? fallitur D. Thom, Bonavent. decipitur; non tantum dicit & scribit, sed etiam typis mandat quicunque jesuitarum modernus praeceptor.  
CXIII. In suggestis sacris jam reticet Augustinus, Ambrose; obmutescunt Gregor. Hieron. Chrysost. Cyrillus et caeteri Ecclesiae non quomodocunque lumina, sed luminaria fulgentissima; quidam enim tantummodo neoterici Iesuitae a suis discipulis laudati exaudiuntur, et eorum auctoritate, dictis, scriptisque doctrinam Christianam fulcire nituntur. Quod non solum dignitati verbi Dei maxime indecens, sed neque animarum saluti securum existimo. Si enim cuicunque Doctori eadem quae Sanctis conceditur auctoritas, maxime vexare potest Ecclesiam opinionum diversitas, et labefactari fidei puritas, et morum integritas, quae ex auctoritate Patrum et Sanctorum veneratione dependet.  
CXIV. Quae Religio etiam in suis incunabulis et primitivo fervore, et non a sua fundatione 50. annis transactis a Pontifice aliquo Romano fuit gravissime monita, et ut humilius procederet, circa tria superbiae capita animadversa, sicut Religio sancta jesuitarum a Clem. VIII. Pont. summo in sua Congreg. anni 1592. proprio oris oraculo, sapientissima oratione, & severa monitione correpta? nondum pene natam, jam relaxatam prudentiss. & perspicaciss. Clem. VIII. oculis conspicientibus. Aliamne Relig. hac censura in primitivo institutionis fervore ab Apost. Sede notatam aut tali sigillo vidimus obsignatam?  
CXV. Quae alia Religio adeo integros & antiquos mores Ecclesiae laxavit postquam a primitivo suo fervore discessit (scriptis intelligo et exemplo aliquorum sui Ordinis professorum) circa usuras, circa praecepta Ecclesiastica & Decalogi, circa omnem Christianum vivendi tenorem, praecipue quantum attinet ad doctrinam? ita ut arbitraria pene videatur et probabilis omnis in Ecclesia moralis Theologia. Cognovi quosdam jesuitas praeceptores in hac mea Dioecesi Angelopolitana satis adolescentes, siquidem aetatatis 30 annorum metam nondum attigerant, sanos, fortes, robustos, qui etiam in vigiliis Deiparae et Sanctorum, et in quadragesima sacra (ut mihi nunciatum est) neque lacticiniis, neque ovis abstinebant neque jejunabant.  
CXVI. Quia nimirum in puerorum instructione et verbi Dei praedicatione, in quibus non minus Clerus et caeterae jejunantes laborant Religiones, plurimum Iesuitae et intolerabiliter insudant. Quibus legibus, aut opinionibus, doctrina aut exemplo instructi discipuli juvenes, non solum inermes et effeminati, et spiritum sugientes, et carnis illecebris et voluptatibus procliviores et indulgentiores educantur, sed quaecunque in Ecclesia aspera et quae ad poenitentiam inducunt, et quae crucis mortificationem promovent, verendum est ne metuant, respuaut, perhorrescant: et cum Regnum caelorum vim patiatur, et violenti rapiant illud, mirum non eris si rapere ipsi non adeo faciliter queant.  
CXVII. Hoc autem caeteros Ordines Religionesque sanctissimas, jejuniis, flagellis, nocturnis excubationibus, choro, et clausurae arctiori assuetos, neque scriptis, neque voce, neque exemplo docere hucusque vidimus? imo poenitentiam praedicant quia agunt, paupertatem suadent quia colunt, cruem Domini defendunt quia portant.  
CXVIII. Et cum leniori et suaviori vita Religiosi Iesuitae, quamvis honesta et sancta non nego & professione inter caeteras fulgeat Religiones, prae omnibus aliis perfectiorem esse suam Societatem, Apologiis editis contendunt, arctamque viam quae ducit ad vitam, id est, aeternam, ut ait Dominus, ampliori v●ae & corporis illecebris suaviori postponunt: Non recta certe, meo quidem fragili judicio, imo et periculosa et plurimum nocente Christianae reip. doctrina; vivant enim ut velint, doceant ut debent.  
CXIX. Durum enim est, imo & durissimum, lene rigido, suave aspero, dulce amaro in spirituali & religiosa vita praeponere, & suam vivendi methodum & tranquillum & communem professionis tenorem caeteris preferre, etiam quibus d●rior lectus, quibus frequentior chorus, quibus perpetua oratio, quibus aeterna clausura, quibus amica poenitentia, quibus efficacior & non rarior, saltem in his partibus, verbi Dei praedicatio, & quibus cum activa vita ferventior contemplativa,, quibus majora erga Ecclesiam Dei merita, securiores gressus, et antiquiores et feliciores progressus.  
CXX. Quae alia Religio, P. B. a primis Monachalium seu Mendicantium, sive quarumcunque Religionum initiis in Ecclesia Dei telonium exercuit, pecuniis foeneravit, et in suis proprus domibus macella et alias impurissimas officinas in propatulo habuit? quae alia Religio foro bonisque cessit? et prophanis commerciis et contractibus maris terraeque totum fere orbem maximo secularium scandalo et admiratione complevit? Certe haec omnia, et ista ad secularia commercia propensio non ab eo videtur inspirata qui dixit, Nemo potest Deo servire et Mammonae.  
CXXI. Luget, S. P. Hispalensis populocissima civitas, complorant viduae Baeaticae, pupilli, orphani, desertae virgines, honesti Sacerdotes & seculares a Religiosis jesuitis deceptos esse inclamando, qui plus quam quatuor centum millibus ducatorum miserabilium istarum personarum dilapidatis et expensis in proprios usus bonis foroque cessere. Et totius Hispaniae gravissimo scandalo de hac fraude Religiosis jesuitis conventis & convictis (quod in quocunque non Religioso esset capitale) ipsis exemptione Ecclesiasticos gaudere Ecclesiae contendentibus, et Conservatores assignantibus, tandem cum ad Regium Castellae Senatum causa fuisset delata, decisum fuit, in ea jesuitas tanquam laicos coram judicibus laicis esse conveniendos, quia videlicet laicalia exercent commercia & negotiationes. Et hodie grex ille pauperum suas pecunias, alimenta, dotes, peculia, per secularia tribunalia contra jesuitas exposcentes eosdem fraude dolentissime incusant & infamant.  
CXXII. Quid dicent Batavi Haeretici, P. B. in illa Provincia & littoribus Gaditanis ubi hoc accidit frequentissime? Quid Britanni & Germani novatores qui bonam fidem in contractibus servare, & integra & candida fronte mutuo inter se contrahere praesumunt? Profecto Catholicam & Romanam fidem, Ecclesiasticam disciplinam, Sacerdotalem Ordinem, Regulares, sanctissimas professiones mordebunt, irridebunt, & contumaciores & duriores in suis erroribus permanebunt.  
CXXIII. Et nonne pudet, P. B. viros professione perfectos, sanctos, Sacerdotes, Predicatores, communes, ut ipsi aiunt, Ecclesiae magistros de talibus excessibus coram laicis incusari? & Ecclesiasticam immunitatem & institutum suum etiam contractibus secularibus maculare disperdere, & prophanare; & tandem exemptione, jure Divino Sacerdotibus concessa, sicut bonis etiam foro cedere? Haec omnia laicalia & illicita quae alia Religio egit? quis Ordo Ecclesiasticus exercuit? quae in Ecclesia Dei Sacerdotum societas (praeter hanc sanctissimam jesuiticam Societatem) Deo & temporalium rerum contemptui dicata, patravit?  
CXXIV. Et haec adeo omnibus patent, ut allegationes, accusationes, declamationes hujus causae per omnium manus non tantum in Hispania sed et in aliis orbis Christiani partibus et provinciis, ubi fama sive potius insamia, scandali hujus pervenit, circumferantur, ut per Illustrissimum Hispaniarum Nuncium Apostolicum poterit suae Sanctitati evidentissime constare.  
CXXV. Quae alia Religio proprios filios tali facilitate expulsos et notatos a seipsa projicit et etiam pro levissimis? quos caeterae Religiones uti matres tolerant, fovent, et conniventia Christiana et sancta patientia ad vitae spiritualis constantiam et perseverantiam suadent, erigunt et incendunt. Haec sancta Religio materno quodammodo affectu deserta & oblita, statim expellit, & sine titulo, sine Capellaneis, sine beneficio, sine congrua, sine alimentis, jam Sacerdotes, Diacanos, & Subdiaconos innumeris periculis, aerumnis & miseriis exponit, Clerum non necessariis & pauperrimis Sacerdotibus gravat, saeculum notatis & ignominiose expulsis Clericis replet, Regularem professionem, quae tot imperfectos creare existimatur, aliquo modo offendit, & tandem tot expulsis filiis per Dioeceses Episcoporum vagant●bus seipsam Societas Iesuitica notat. Nam si boni existimantur, ingrata; si mali, suspecta videtur. Quomodo enim tot malos genuit doctrina perfecta & educatio sancta?  
CXXVI. Videmus hodie jam conjungatum, quem heri vidimus, nostro judicio, observantissimum jesuitam; hodie expulsum & notatum, quem heri jesuitam omnibus virtutibus condecoratum venerabamur, imo & ab ipsis jesuitas commendadatum. Et cum ipsa subita mutatione crescat existimatio in omnibus majoris facinoris & atrocioris culpae, a videntibus supplicium & ignorantibus delictum non tantum ipsis expulsis, sed etiam expellentibus non minimum detrahitur.  
CXXVII. Cognovi Provincialem in his partibus qui infra triennium triginta & octo a sua Religione Sacerdotes & Religiosos expulit, cum tota Provincia etiam latissima paulo plus quam trecentis Religiosis constet. Alius fuit etiam Alphonsus de Castro qui plures expulit in eadem Provincia, scilicet octoginta: quod quidem cum in aliis Religionibus rarissimum sit, in hac adeo faciliter fieri, aut tantis delictis abundare, ut fieri necesse sit suspectissimum quidem videtur, ita ut dici aliquo modo possit, P. B. neque de his quos dimittit Societas diffidendum, neque de his quos retinet confidendum ut plurimum esse: nam dimissos & expulsos communiter approbat in suis literis dimissoriis, & retentos & approbatos quam frequenter expellit. Quod certe inter caeteros Ecclesiasticos Ordines admodum singulare est.  
CXXVIII. Tot igitur singularia, P. B. in uno & singulari Ecclesiae Ordine & membro (& singularia quidem, quae non tam a caeteris sacris Ordinibus differunt aut distant, quam eis adversantur aut contrariantur) nonne suspectissima sunt? sunt certe. Suspecto ergo tenore vivendi, praecipue inter ipsos Religiosos Ordines, ad quid indiget Ecclesia? quae crystallo ipsa & solari radio puriori doctrina moribusque fulget.  
CXXIX. Vidi librum Compluti typis mandatum anno Domini 1605. qui inter Jesuitas secretissime circumfertur, qui communiter vocatur El Porque, id est, Quare, Iesuitae choro non exerceantur? quare poenitentia tantum voluntaria teneantur? quare aliquando etiam post triginta annos professionem non emittant? quare expelli post eorum curricula possint? Vidi & perlegi, inquam, librum istum satis eruditum, R. Petro Ribadeneira jesuita viro docto & spirituali auctore, qui in hoc tractatu suae Societatis singularitates, & cum aliis Religionibus antinomias totis viribus & eruditione Hispano sermone defendit.  
CXXX. Et ex ipsamet causa defensa (hoc profero secundum meam fragilitatem pusillumque ingenii acumen) & ex ipsismet singularitatibus confessis & professis quicunque modice eruditus & Christianae simplicitatis amator fuerit, contra ipsam causam concludet.  
CXXXI. Et maxime observandum est, P. B. quod vir ille doctus S. Ignatii socius fuit inseparabilis, & suae Religionis singularitates defendebat, quando Primitivi fervoris florebat virtutibus, quod si modo defenderet, disciplina Iesuitica collabente, & pullulantibus tot in ea imperfectionibus, de quibus totus pene orbis conqueritur, multo minus quidem obtineret, & fortasse non defenderet neque propugnaret viriste perfectus.  
CXXXII, Ac tandem, B. P. quid interest quod Iesuitae Ethnicas nationes radiis fidei illustrare videantur, si Echnicorum quamplurimos non recta sacrae legis indictione catechizant? neque recte ab aliis Religionibus catechizari sinunt? imo a Provinciis Gentilium religant & expellunt operarios sanctissimos & doctissimos, manu etiam Gentilica & Ethnica arcent, recludunt, incarcerant, flagellant. Quis Ordo Ecclesiasticus cum alio Ordine Ecclesiastico hoc egit? A seculo non est auditum, tali aemulatione et imperfectissima zelotypia Christianos propagatores, magistros etiam Christianos cum animarum pernicie et jactura a vinea Domini inculta operarios relegare, ac ignominiose projicere et expellere.  
CXXXIII. Tota Ecclesia Chinica congemiscit, P. S. et se non tam edoctam quam deceptam ab ipsis jesuitis in fidei purissimae documentis et rudimentis inclamat, et toto jure Ecclesiastico orbata, crucem Domini reclusam, Gentilicos ritus permissos, et vere Christianos non tam introductos quam foedatos dolet, Christianizantes Idololatras, Idololatrizantes Christianos in una eademque mensa, templo, aris, sacrificiis, Deum et Belilial; et sub larva Christiana Idola venerata, vel potius sub Gentilica larva fidem sanctissimam defoedatam dolentissime conspicit.  
CXXXIV. Nobis B. P. Episcopis qui ab illis minus distamus provinciis, et ab earum Evangelieis ministris literas acccpimns, et qui etiam Apologeticarum eorum controversiarum certiores sumus, et eas in nostris Bibliothecis habemus, et qui cum simus Episcopi vocati regere Ecclesiam Dei, cavendum est nobis ne in tremendo Dei judicio canes muti fuisse videamur, et labiis nefario silentio pollutis de omissione gravissime judicemur. Nobis, inquam, Pastoribus animamarum competit latrare, et clamare, et haec Tibi Pastorum maximo propalare et proferre, et quanta scandala ab ista jesuitarum doctrina in propaganda fide suboriri possint, denunciare.  
CXXXV. Nam si Episcopi publicam causam Ecclesiae non defendimus, caeteri tacent, timent, & jesuitarum potentiam perhorrescunt, & secretis tantummodo suspiriis & lachrymis quae ad Tuae Sanctitatis aures & oculos pervenire nequeunt, poterunt adjuvare.  
CXXXVI. Volumen habeo integrum, P. S. Apologiis jesuitarum refertum, in quibus pene omnia a Religiosis Dominicanis & Franciscanis Apostolicae Sedi delata de erroribus quibus Neophyti Chinarum magistrorum jesuitarum incuria vel injuria tenentur; non tantum fatentur ingenue Iesuitae, tenoremque illum pernitiosum catechizandi Neophytos ab ipsis introductum esse fatentur; sed pene omnia quae a Tua Beatitudine in Congregatione de propaganda fide postea per decem & septem decreta sanctissime declarata & condemnata sunt anno Domini 1645. die 12. Sept. Didacus de Morales Societ. jesus Rector Collegii sub invocatione S. Joseph in civitate Manilae quae Metropolis est Philippinarum, per trecenta folia tenacissime impugnat et validissimis argumentis, imo cavillationibus sanctissimam doctrinam nititur expugnare, cujus tractatus copiam dedi ego Reverendo magistro joanni Baptistae de Morales Dominicano viro docto et sollicito Chinicae fidei propagationis, et qui etiam pro ea dirissime vapulavit, & primitivorum Martyrum exemplo plurima est passus, ut circa factum praecipue veridice responderet: quod fecit satis succincte et erudite, et utrumque apud me habeo.  
CXXXVII. Quae Religio iterum dico, P. B. quis Ordo Ecclesiasticus a veris Catholicae fidei rudimentis tantum aberravit, ut nationem numerosissimam, & satis callentem & politicam, ideoque plus fidei radiis illuminari & foecundari expositam, non ad fidei regulas magistri Neophytos, sed Neophyti ad Idololatriae▪ partes & nefarios ritus & cultum magistros alliciant, attrahant & deducant, ita ut non a piscatore piscis sed a pisce piscator capi videatur, Revolvantur, Beatissime Pater, Ecclesiastici annales, conspiciantur prima Christianae fidei monumenta, ptopagationis tenor, Religionis Catholicae progressus, & quibus auctionibus & incrementis in omnem terram sonus Apostolorum fuerit exauditus, examinetur.  
CXXXVIII. Episcopi-ne et Clerus qui per totum orbem proprio etiam sanguine in primitiva Ecclesia catechizarunt, forma ista Jesuitica Neophytos instruxerunt? Benedictini & suae ipsis subjectae Congregationes, Dominicani, Franciscani, Carmelitanis, Augustiniani, caeteraeque Angelorum Ecclesiae militantis cohortes, Religiones sanctissimae Gentiles-ne ista catechesi docuerunt?  
CXXXIX. Christumne crucifixum ne una quidem die, hora, momentove temporis prudentia humana subnixi occultarunt? Absit. Quinque-ne Ecclesiae praeceptis, mortificatione, jejunio, poenitentia, & per singulos annos Eucharistia sacra recipienda, & Sacramenti poenitentiae, & auricularis confessionis praecepto Neophytos aut privarunt aut absolverunt? Minime.  
CXL. Sacrificiis Idolorum nefariis templisque adesse, & in ipsis non solum Neophytos convenire, sed pollui & consacrificare permiserunt? Nequaquam. Nonne hoc est claudicare in duas partes? nonne est Deo inservire & Belial? nonne videtur Deo inservire & Mammonae? & neque calidum neque frigidum esse, sicut sacra pagina testatur.  
CXLI. Nonne hoc est persecutionis metu, humanae prndentiae ductu, quae Divinae adversatur, haec omnia nefandissima tolerare; Ecclesiamque illam decipere, & animas innumerabiles in aeternum barathrum deducere?  
CXLII. Maline Christiani, an vere Idololatrae condemnentur Chinae quid interest, Pater Beatissime? fidem autem nostram, quae tota pulchra est & formosa, falsis doctrinis non pollui, neque maculari, plurimum Ecclesiae universalis interest.  
CXLIII. Ideo ego quidem, Innocenti sanctissime, cum de Chinicae Christianitatis statu tanquam aliis Europae Americaeque vicinior Episcopus pluries mecum perpenderem tranquillitatem illam Ecclesiae primitivae politicumque illum prorogandi tenorem, et illam interiorem pacem inter Gentiles et Christianos ipsis jucundissimam, mihi tristissima et suspectissima semper apparuit.  
CXLIV. Et ut post sexaginta annorum curricula Dominicanos et Franciscanos fidei optimos propagatores ab ipsis Chinis flagellatos, incarceratos, et relegatos, literis etiam ab eye ad me missis audivi et perlegi, maxime laetatus sum, et bonum illi Ecclesiae auspicatus. Quae enim pax Religionis verae cum falsa? Christi Domini cum Belial? spiritus cum carne? Religionis Christianae cum Idololatria? crucis Domini cum voluptate? Quae Ecclesia in toto terrarum orbe sine sanguine foecundata? sine tormentis angularium lapidum, id est, Martyrum aedificata, aut sine cruce Domini culta fuit?  
CXLV. Romana quidem civitas caput urbium et orbis, pro omnibus exemplo sufficiat, quae non solum destinatione Divina sed sanguine Principum Apostolorum et innumerabilium Martyrum necibus et cruciatibus, tanquam sacris monilibus decorata, et triginta pene ac trium primorum summorum Pontificum sacro cruore irrigata, foecundata, laureata, totius Religionis et Catholicae fidei matrem Ecclesiam et Spiritus Sancti Cathedram et Apostolicam Sedem et dignitatem Pontificiam prae omnibus meruit possidere.  
CXLVI. Eodem sanguine, id est, fidei propagatoribus gaudet Hispania martyrum praeliis sacrata victoriisque illustrata, Italia, Gallia, Germania, tota denique Africa, Asia, ac japonia, et tandem ubicunque gladius temporalis propagatores fidei non protexit et ab Idololatrarum furore non defendit (ut accedit in America, dextera Catholicorum nostrorum Regum nostros defendente fidei seminatores) nunquam sine sanguine Religio Christiana fructificavit.  
CXLVII. Verum ubi sunt Chinici Martyres? praecipue in primitivis fidei gressibus et progressibus, in quibus semper gladius persecutionis atrocius acuitur et ferocius saevit? ubi mortes? ubi verbera? ubi persecutiones? ubi incarcerationes? ubi exilia? pauca aut nulla; neque vidimus, ncque audivimus, neque legimus, sed tantum communes vitae labores et aerumnas, quarum et pax est frequentissima et humana vita faecunda.  
CXLVIII. Hoc, P. S. funestissimum & inauspicatissimum illi Ecclesiae (quamvis non infallibile) signum existimo. Vereor enim ne quia ignoratur aut non divulgatur satis crux Redemptoris, ideo ignoretur crux persecutionis; & ea de causa Ecclesia illa Chinica martyres non peperit, quia de vero verbi Dei semine Redemptorisque nostri sanguine nondum fuerit gravidata; & diabolus tolerat, quia nondum Dominus superat; & Belial rericet, quia suos filios videt potius deceptos quam captos, illusos quam illustratos, & magis perversos quam conversos. Silet diabolus, quia nondum Dominus loquitur; & gladio persecutionis suos non defendit, quia gladius propagationis eos nondum offendit; & adversarium se Satan non manifestat, quia adversarios fidei propagatores non sentit.  
CXLIX. Imo & ipse Satan laetabitu●, nisi sallor, cum in suis templis, aris, sacrificiis non tantum antiquos discipulos, sed etiam baptizatos, Neophytos, & aliquando fidei propagatores sacrificia offerre, genuflexiones, protestationes, perfumationes, quae Idololatrae agunt, agere, & cum eis, saltem externis actibus, convenire conspexerit, & Arcam foederis, id est, crucem Domini cum Dagon in uno eodemque templo cohabitare laetabundus respexerit. Quod nunquam ab Apostolicis temporibus toleratum in Ecclesia Catholica fuit, neque actus interiores dirigendo cruci secretae, publico Idolo & cacodaemoni offerre exteriores.  
CL. Ubi enim fuerit interius, ibi erit exterius; ubi fuerit anima, ibi & corpus; neque anima coelo fruitur, cujus corpus in inferno cruciabitur; & sicut corpus & animam, & utrasque substantias Christo Filio debemus ut Redemptori, Patri ut Creatori, Spiritui Sancto ut fidei nostrae Propagatori, ita etiam non tantum actus interni ab Idolorum cultu, templis, aris, sacrificiis, prostrationibus, genuflexionibus, tanquam ab ipso infernali barathro arcendi & cavendi sunt inter verae fidei Christianos.  
CLI. Et si gladius persecutionis ideo saeviat, fidei propagatio foecundabitur; si propagatores persequitur Idololatria, persecutores vincet Religio Christiana; Et quot Martyres coelo mittet saevitia, tot & plures Christianos Ecclesiae concedet Divina clementia; Et sicut in cruce Dominus morte sacratissima sua vitam Ecclesiae praebuit, ita ejusdem meritis in propagatione suae Ecclesiae, quam morte redemit & creavit, tot vitas creat & foecundat occisorum Martyrum sanguis Religioni Catholicae (etiam Gentilium & persecutorum) quot guttis sacrat terram sanguis propagatorum, sicut ex grano emortuo in terram projecto procedit spica granorum referta.  
CLII Nam si vexillum crucis, P. S. non antecedit, quomodo Christiana Religio vincet, & Apostolica doctrina triumphabit? aut quomodo victoria contra Idololatras auspicabitur, si labarum crucis absconditur? & si vulnera Christi reticent, quomodo Christianorum & Neophytorum vulnera curabunt? Et si passionis Domini thesaurus recluditur, quomodo animarum egestas saturabitur? & si fontes Redemptoris & vulnera claudimus Salvatoris, quomodo sitientes bibemus peccatores? & si Neophyti & parvuli non de hoc lacte nutriuntur, quomodo jam facti majores incrementa Religionis suscipient?  
CLIII. Imo si modo eos Ecclesia vellet iterum docere & veris fidei regulis instruere, se deceptos esse clamabunt Chinae, & repugnabunt; & non jejunantem Religionem, aut fidem poenitentem, plorantem, naturae horridam, carni inimicam, cruci, morti, periculis destinatam, non Salvatorem crucifixum ipsis exposuisse magistros Jesuitas (quod Gentibus stulti●ia, Judaeis scandalum esse videtur) non hominem Deum flagellatum, consputum, contemptum, vulneribus sacris confossum, & in cruce pendentem, & mortuum eos amplexos esse protestabuntur, sed Salvatorem solummodo pulchrum, gloriosum, formosum (sicut ipsum Iesuitae Chinico habitu depingunt) & legem vitamque suavem, laetam, lenem, placidam, tranquillam, hisque erroribus ignorantiisque, sp●etis mysteriis Passionis, crucis & tribulationis, lumen & victoria contemnitur Resurrectionis, & in dubium vertitur triumphus Ascensionis, & tandem contempta cruce mortificationis, vita recta contemnitur Redemptionis & Salvationis.  
CLIU Hoc modo, P. B. his erroribus Neophytos neque Episcopi, neque Clerus, neque Religiones, neque aliq●is Ordo Ecclesiasticus vel secularis vel regularis instruxit: sed proprio cruore Christi Domini cruorem, propria cruce & tribulatione tribulationes & crucem Domini in cordibus Infidelium cum ipsa Christiana Religione inseruere & infixere fidei nostrae primitivi propagatores.  
CLV. Et a fundamento crucis & Passionis omnis Ecclesiasticae fidei unitas & compago in altitudinem tantam excrevit, & unde Dominus vitam finivit, inde vitam sponsa sua dulcissima accepit: Ut de latere Christi Domini vulnerato Ecclesia tanquam a thalamo sponsi sanguine purpurata procederet, & de ejus spiritu in vulnere biberet & sugeret, quem paulo ante aeternus Filius aeterno Patri pro illius redemptione tradiderat & emiserat.  
CLVI. Ergo, B. P. haec & alia quae Tuae Sanctitati constabunt, & mea humilitas, muneris & oneris Pastoralis obligatione compulsa, Tuo sanctissimo zelo retulit moderanda, vel omnino reformanda, omissis etiam plurimis de hi● sanctis Religiosis jesuitis, quae ad Tuas aures minime fortasse pervenerunt: nam ipsi enixe admodum curant (& ita cum meis istic Procuratoribus, quamvis frustra, actum est) ut ea Tuae Beatitudini occultentur, & remedium exposcunt, censura indigent, reformationem expetunt, Tuoque prudentissimo judicio relinquendum erit, quibus mediis remediisque haec omnia si non sanari, saltem moderari valeant, quod facillimum Tuae supremae potestati erit, praecipue omnibus fere Ecclesiae Ordinibus in idipsum conspirantibus.  
CLVII. Vel arctioribus legibus & institutis, choro, clausura, & communi unius anni professione vel duorum ad terminos certos praefixa: Vel aliquibus institutis quae ad mortificationem & poenitentiam tendant, sine quibus quam facillime disciplina Regulatis communiter laxatur & solvitur: Vel ad Clerum secularem Religionem Clericalem reducendo & cum eo incorporando, quod ipsis jesuitis jucundius, (perpaucis sui Ordinis decretoribus exceptis) Clero utilius, & negotio ipsi facilius esse fortasse videbitur.  
CLVIII. Nam si Clero seculari accresceret haec sancta Religio, permanente ea semper in praecipuis suarum institutionum exercitiis, quae Cleri secularis professioni minime contrariantur, imo maxime juvant, secularia ista Collegia ab Episcopis tanquam ab Apostolicae Sedis Delegatis, legibus a Tua Sanctitate assignatis, sine tanto Reip. Christianae incommodo gubernarentur. Quam primam quidem eorum vocationem sui S. Fundatoris fuisse tradunt aliqui.  
CLIX Et hoc medio ipsis jesuitis medicinam, Clero & Episcopis operarios sine livore, & ministros spirituales sine aemulatione, exterisque Religionibus tranquillitatem, sapientia Tua, Innocenti sanctissime, Spiritus Sancti radiis illustrata, praeberet, & Ecclesia tota universalis tot tantisque quaestionibus, controversiis, discordiis, difficultatibus, & scandalis, & aliis eorum negotiis tanquam procellis implicata & agitata, conquiesceret.  
CLX. Omnia haec, Pontifex Beatissime, Tuae infallibili censurae submitto, & si quid non congruum, vel indecens, vel quod aliquo modo reverentiae, quae Tibi ab ovicula ista debetur, & quod offendiculum praestare possit, scripserim, parcas clementer quaeso, & non meae propriae existimationi aut elationi, sed zelo quo ardet animus meus, Pastoralis baculi auctoritatis, sacrarum constitutionum observantiae, fideique purae, & rectae propagationis, & universalis Ecclesiae felicitatis atque incolumitatis a Tua benignitate imputandum esse confido.  
Deus Opt. Max. gratia & benedictionibus, quibus tuas oves imples, Sanctissime Pastor, Te repleat, Tuamque Sanctitatem protegat & gubernet. Angelopoli, 8 Jan. Anno 1649. Episcopus Angelorum Populi.    

The Decree of the Inquisition mentioned Part. 3. Chap. 6. importing the suppression of all books written on either side, upon occasion of the Contest between M. the Bishop of Chalcedon, and the Jesuits of England; Also some other Pieces touching the same matter.  
Decretum Sacrae Congregationis Eminentissimorum & Reverendissimorum Dominorum S. R. E. Cardinalium à SS. D. N. Urbano Papa VIII. sanctaque Sede Apostolica ad Indicem librorum, eorundemque permissionem, prohibitionem, expurgationem, & impressionem in universa Rep. Christiana specialiter deputatorum, ubique publicandum.  
CUm inter Chalcedonensem & Regulares Angliae proximis hisce annis nonnullae controversiae ortae sint, & harum occasione varii libri evulgati, in quibus qui ut riusque partis opinionem sequuntur, plures contineri propositiones contendunt Catholicae doctrinae repugnantes, non sine perturbatione publicae quietis, & scissura fraternae charitatis: Propterea S. Congregatio Indicis ad evellenda radicitus semina discordiarum, & Christianam pacem inter fideles stabiliendam, literarum Apostolicarum tam quae a felicis recordationis Clement Papa VIII. sub 9 Octob. 1592. quam quae a S. D. N. Urbano Papa VIII. sub 5 Maii 1631. ad hujusmodi contentiones in Anglia incitatas, supprimendas, & libros prohibendos emanarunt, & ad alias nationes nondum pervenerunt, auctoritatem secuta, decrevit, omnes ac singulos libros, tractatus, & alia quaecunqve quovis idiomate & ubicunque impressa, sive manu duntaxat exarata, quae ad praedictas controversias spectare, aut quacunque ratione directe vel indirecte trahi possunt, sive praefatas contentiones principaliter & immediate, sive occasionaliter & mediate quomodolibet attingunt, supprimenda, prout praesenti Decreto omnino supprimit: Mandans omnibus & singulis toto orbe fidelibus cujuscunque status, conditionis, prae eminentiae & dignitatis sub poena excommunicationis ipso facto absque alia declaratione incurrenda, a qua non nisi a S. Sede Apostolica, praeter quam in mortis articulo absolvi possint, ne ullus in posterum imprimere, manu scribere, aut quovis modo de iis rebus tractare aut disputare, aut quaestiones movere audeat. Ne quis autem ex hoc Decreto alios criminandi vel exprobrandi occasionem aliquam arripiat: Eadem S. Congregatio expresse declarat, se in praesentia non intendere aliquid de meritis causae statuere, vel ulli auctori aut operi ignominiam aliquam, aut notam malae doctrinae inferre, sed judicium horum omnium Apostolicae Sedi in opportunum tempus reservans, nunc praecipit ne quis adversae partis libros, tractatus, eorumve auctores haeresis, vel malae doctrinae notâ, vel alia quacunque ante Sedis Apostolicae definitionem verbo vel scripto deinceps afficiat. In quorum omnium & singulorum fidem manu & sigillo Eminentissimi & Reverendissimi D. Cardinalis Pii, S. Congregationis Praefecti, praesens Decretum signatum & munitum fuit.  
Romae die 19 Martii, 1633. 

C. Ep. Portuensis. C. Pius. Locus † sigilli.  
F. Joannes Baptista Morinus Ord. Praedicatorum S. C. Secretarius.   Romae ex Typographia Rev. Cam. Apost. 1633.  
The publication of this Decree, Anno 1633. caused great amazement in France; for this General Suppression decreed by the Roman Inquisition, seemed to put the books of the English jesuites against the Bishop of Chalcedon, though full of Errors and Heresy against the Hierarchy and the Sacrament of Confirmation, in the same rank with the Censures of the Bishops and the Sorbonne, who had condemned the said wicked books, and with all that had been written to justify those Censures against the infamous and scandalous Libels of the said English jesuites. This gave occasion at that time for the framing and publishing of a Latin Disquisition upon that Decree, which because it is very scarce to be had, shall be here inserted.  
Disquisitio Decreti S. Congregationis Eminentissim. & Reverendissim. S. R. E. Cardinalium, à SS. D. N. Vrbano Papa VIII. sanctaque Sede Apostolica ad Indicem librorum, eorundemque permissionem, prohibitionem, expurgationem & impressionem in universa Repub. Christiana spectaliter deputatorum, die 19 Martii 1633.  
Ad Eminentissimos & Reverendissimos Cardinales ipsi sacrae Congregationi Praefectos, ac Deputatos.  
CUm primum nobis allatum est Decretum die 19 mensis Martii, Eminentiss. Cardinales, coeperunt de illo varii spargi rumores, aliis subdititium esse contendentibus, aliis ob vestri nominis & auctoritatis Apostolicae reverentïam, assensum cohibentibus. In hac opinionum diversitate, cum hi indignarentur, illi tacerent; in eo tamen conveniebant, inquirendum prius, a quibus & unde in Galliam perlatum esset, quam de illo quisquam ita ut affectus erat pronunciaret. Nam si constaret ab ea auctoritate quam vobis Summus Pontifex summam transdidit, esse profectum, rem esse arcani consilii: Sin autem, quod plerique subsenserunt, eo venissent audaciae nonnulli, ut objecto splendore vestri nominis bonis ac simplicibus illuderent, tam insolens facinus dissimulari non oportere. Quae cum ultro citroque jactari & his graviora paulatim addi viderem, nihil me temere sed pro magnitudine rei sapienter & consulto factutum putavi, si vos in rei Christianae eminentissima specula collocatos commonefacerem; non quid de illo decreto sentiam, cum ei judicium meum nec interponere velim, nec debeam; sed quid de illo Episcopi, quid Theologi nostrates, eruditi denique omnes vulgo jactitent. Qui acute conjiciunt, Decretum istud aiunt vestrum non esse: aut si vestrum est, Episcopi Chalcedonensis adversarios a vobis illud, quibus solent modis, abstulisse. Quod enim vox Chalcedonensis initio sola ponitur, suppresso nomine Episcopi, cum est per se indignum, tum certissimum indicium est, decretum illud ex eorum sentina manare, unde tot probra & contumeliae in Episcopos Galliae & Facultatem Theologorum Parisiensium nuperrime proruperunt. Cui enim jus ac potestatem ordinariam negant, huic Episcopi quoque nomen adimunt. Quid porro causae est, inquiunt, quod cum a die 19 Martii factum sit, nondum tamen in campo Florae fuerit promulgatum? Cur Apostolicae Camerae typis impressum, & in exteras orbis regiones transmissum, ante quam Romae, in illo Christianarum legum domicilio, visum sit vel auditum? Quae ista rei tanta novitas? aut quid tam arcanum latet, ut vos, qui ordine, momento & judicio cuncta disponitis & agitis, ordinem & consuerudinem vestram hac in re neglexeritis? Nisi forte experiundi causa factum dicitur, quam non iniquo animo illud accepturi essent homines, Galli praesertim, apud quos decretoriis Episcoporum censuris tota illa causa jugulata est. Nam si aequi boni scitum illud vestrum facerent, tum Decreti tabulas in campo Florae figendas: sin repudiarent, pro nihilo habendas. jam si edictum ipsum totum ad rationem vestri Senatus & Ecclesiae disciplinam perpendatur, insolitum reperietur, & in omni memoria inauditum. Quo enim exemplo supprimitis, supprimendaque decernitis, quae Episcopi Galliae, quae Parisiensis Archiepiscopus, quae Theologi Parisienses de Anglicanis libris pie & religiose sanxerunt, censuerunt? Addunt, qui non dissimulanter loquuntur, qua auctoritate? qui obscurius; quo consilio? Nam retractari quandoque fidei causas a Summo Pontifice ersi nemo inficiabitur: supprimi tamen sine cognitione & judicio quis feret? A Congregatione vero, quae nihil de meritis causae, nihil de doctrina, mala sit an bona, statuere se profitetur, gravissimum & sanctissimum Episcoporum judicium in maxima Ecclasiae causa supprimi, res est, inquiunt, inauditi exempli, auctoritatis infinitae, consilii periculosi. Nam de privatorum libris qui de controversiis Anglicanis editi sunt, verba tantum fieri, nemo sibi persuasurus est, qui legerit supprimi non tantum libros illos, & tractatus, sed & alia quaecunque quovis idiomate, & ubicunque impressa, sive manu duntaxat exarata, quae ad praedictas controversias spectare, aut quacunque ratione directè vel indirectè trahi possunt, sive occasionaliter & mediatè quomodo libet attingunt. Supprimendum est igitur quod nostri nos Episcopi & Doctores docuerunt: 
1 Censur propositionum quaruadam ex Hibernia delatarum per sacram Theolog. Facultatem Parisiens. pag. 12. propos. xi.  Privilegia Regularium à summo Pontifice posse revocari. Et 
2 Ibid. pag. 11. propos. seven.  Superiores Regularium non esse digniores Episcopis▪ Aut si quis hanc esse veram & constantem Ecclesiae disciplinam scripto posthac defenderit, anathematis ei periculum continuo metuendum sit? Si vero iisdem auctorib●s ac ducibus asse●imus, 
3 Censura propositionum co●lectarum ex libro Danielis à Jesus, p. 40.  Necessarium esse in Ecclesia particulari Episcopatum: 
4 Ibid. pag. 42, 43, & 44.  Catholicos chrismate unctos in Baptismo, licet ab Episcopo non confirmatos, non esse plenè Christianos in sensu Patrum: adeoque Anglos Catholicos qui baptizantur ritu Catholico, vel qui recipiunt ceremonias baptismi, confirmati autem non fuerint ab Episcopo, non fuisse nec esse perfectè Christianos omni modo, nunc diris Pontificii; digni statim habebimur? Censuerunt iidem, Chrismationem baptismalem institutam non fuisse ab Ecclesia ad supplendam significationem Episcopalis chrismatis & ejus effectum: & posteaquam instituta est, nihilominus chrismationem quae fit ab Episcopo in Sacramento Confirmationis, tam esse necessariam quàm fuit antea: Declararunt hanc propositionem, Patet quod confidentia in Confirmationis virtute importare possit magnum periculum animabus, absolutè prolatam, falsam esse, piarum aurium offensivam, blasphemam, Sacramento & providentiae Christi maximè contumeliosam: Haec si loquimur, si defendimus, nos eodem loco ac numero quo qui contraria scripserunt, habebimur? Dirum fulmen quod tam sacris quam profanis intenditur! Sed, vae mihi si non Evangelizavero, inquit Apostolus. Itaque non tam nobis Ecclesiae doctrinam scribentibus ac praedicantibus, quam eam tacentibus ac supprimentibus poena metuenda. Haec & alia privatim ac publice, domi ac foris, de edicto illo jactantur. Quibus ut prospiciatis etsi nullius egetis admonitu, Cardinales Eminentissimi, animum tamen laudabitis, opinor, ejus qui saltem periculum de quo inaudiit, vobis ante denunciat. Nam si adversae partis libros, tractatus, eorumve auctores, haeresis vel malae doctrinae notâ, seu aliâ quâc unque afficere non licet, ejusque decreti sequenda est auctoritas, ut de nobis triumphaturi sunt Haeretici, cum audient Episcoporum & Theologorum nostrorum nomen contaminatissimis libellis infamatum, non modo non vindicari ab illo dedecore, quae sunt partes Summi Pontificis; sed a S. R. E Cardinalibus cautum esse, nequis interim eotum libellorum auctores paulo durius appellet, aut illorum doctrinam malam esse pronunciet? Cum in 
1 Page 41.  Querimonia Ecclesiae Anglicanae Illustriss. Galliae Episcopos Pilato impie comparari, quod two Anglicani libri, ut Pilato Christus Dominus, oblati fuerint, aliaque istiusmodi legent adverius illos immanis petulantiae plenissima: Cum in Spongia Loemelii Theologos nostros audient. 
2 Spong. 2. edit. p. 3. & p. 6.  Lupos dici ac Lupercos, 
3 p. 67.  Cerbero similes qui gutture trifauci inanes territat umbras, 
4 p. 69.  stupidos, 
5 p. 74.  ejusdemque cum Calvino palati, 
6 p. 99  monstra, 
7 p. 185.  censores qui errores, scandala, haereses crepant: in Vindiciis Smithaei, 
8 Vindic. Smithaei in Epistola Dedicatoria p. 3.  Sycophantas, 
9 In praesat. ad lect. p. 2.  discordiarum in Ecclesia Dei architectos, 
10 Ibid. p. 17  impie & ex malitia errantes, 
11 Ibid. p. 22  in quorum sinu foveantur schismata, & apud quos solos etiamnum vigeat cathedra pestilentiae, 
12 In refutatione Censurae p. 45.  profanos & carnales homines, 
13 p. 53.  versipelles sophistas, 
14 p. 56.  spermologos, 
15 p. 62.  homines ad miraculum malevolos, 
16 p. 75.  nugatores, & 
17 p. 164.  falsarios more suo, 
18 p. 182.  veteratores, 
19 p. 267.  sensum planè haereticum habentes: 
20 p. 268.  tricatores, 
21 p. 278.  qui pro libito suo Conciliis quidlibet imponendi arroganter usurpant potestatem: Cum, inquam, totam hanc male dictorum spurcissimam faecem audient, quam tamen per Cardinalitium edictum, donec ea de re Summus Pontifex pronunciarit, improbare non liceat: quid de nobis existimatuti sunt homines alioquin Ecclesiae Romanae jamdudum infensi atque inimici? Quod si in eorum manus pestifera & execrabilis illa censura pervenerit, qua Symbolum Apostolorum, sanctissima regula nostrae fidei, in profanos & impios sensus detortum est, qua Episcopi Galliae & Sorbonici Theologi perversi veritatis & avitae pietatis hostes appellantur: constiteritque Romae decretum esse ne quis ante Summi Pontificis definitionem inquinatissimum illud Scriptum malae doctrinae nota afficere audeat: an non repente gestient, ac tam praeclaram sibi datam esse criminandi nostri occasionem gaudebunt? Multa his acerbiora sibi decreto isto parari sentiunt Ecclesiae nostrae Antistites, quae vos pro vestra sapientia, ut speramus, amoliemini. Non enim patietur Summus Pontifex hanc tantam Ecclesiae & Episcopatui labem inferri, aut Christi populum incerta opinione confundi, falsitatem notabit edicti, subjectoris fraudem aperiet, suamque veritati lucem restituet. Sin aliud comperietur, efficiet sane, ut summam illam in moderanda re Christiana prudentiam magis magisque miremur, & nos ejus potentissimo nutu a maledicorum hominum petulantia tutos esse gratulemur.  
This writing having been published at Paris, in the year 1633. the same Jesuit John Floid, who under the name of a Canon of S. Omer called Hermannus Loëmelius, had composed two horrible books against the Bishops of France, and the Sorbonne, one entitled, Querimonia Ecclesiae Anglicanae, and the other Spongia, and a third against M. the Archbishop of Paris, entitled, Appendix ad Illustrissimum Dominum Episcopum Parisiensem; he added a fourth in defence of this Decree of the Inquisition, entitled Defensio Decreti. But this last book was censured at Paris with the three other, on Novemb. 29. 1643. by a numerous Assembly of Bishops, who renewed their first Censure against the books of England, adding thereunto the true names of the Jesuits who composed them, for that F. Alegambe had acknowledged in his Bibliotheca of the Writers of the Society that F. Edward Knot, the English jesuite, whose true name was Mathias Wilson, was the Author of that which went under the name of Nicholas Smith; and that F. John Floid, another English jesuite, was the Author of that which bore the name of Daniel à Jesus, as well as of the four other which had been put forth under the name of Loëmelius, in opposition to the Censures passed upon them, and which Alegambe by strange impudence dares to affirm, were written Contra Novatores. Behold the express words of what was then decreed thereupon by the said Assembly of Prelates, and printed at Paris by M. Vitre in the year 1644.  
A Process Verbal of the Assembly of my LL. the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops, held at Paris on Sunday the 29th of Novemb. 1643. at two a clock in the afternoon, in the house of my L. Cardinal Mazarin, who was Precedent of the said Assembly, in which were my LL. the Archbishops of Ambrun, Sens, Bourdeaux, Tours, Rheims, my LL. the Bishops of Amiens, Senlis, Valence, Chalon, Aire, Maillezais, Riez, Dol, Usez, Meaux, Nismes, Bazas, Utique Coadjutor of Montauban, Grasse, Lavaur, Toulon, Rennes, S. Brieu, du Puy, Chartres, the nominated Coadjutor of Sens, the nominated Bishop of Boulogne.  
IN the year 1632. notice was taken of two books brought out of England in the English Language against my L. the Bishop of Chalcedon, sent by his Holiness into England, with power to perform there all the Functions of Ordinaries: The said books being come to the knowledge of our Lords the Prelates, who were then at the Court about the important affairs of their Dioceses, they gave order for the same to be translated into Latin and French, and afterwards took the pains to examine the same themselves, and caused them to be examined by many persons of great intelligence and capacity. And after a very exact and faithful examination, the said books were censured; one under the name of Discussio modesta Nicolai Smithaei; and the other, Apologia Danielis à Jesus. My L. the Archbishop of Paris could not then assemble his Provincial Council, for that the Bishop of Meaux was not able to repair thither by reason of his old age, and the Bishop of Orleans was yet but nominated to that Bishopric; and therefore he summoned the Bishop of Chartres to his house, and Messieurs le Blanc, and Guyard, his Grand Vicars, Charton his Penitentiary, Du Val, Isambert, and Lescot, the King's Professors of Divinity, Habert his Theologal, Messier Commissary for the examination of the Priests of his Diocese, all Doctors in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, and censured the said books. The Faculty of Paris also gave their Doctrinal Sentence upon all the Articles in particular, which were to be condemned in the said books, with qualification of every Proposition: The said Censures were sent abroad by order of the said LL. Prelates, together with a circular Letter. This gave occasion to the said English to compose four other books in confirmation of the Doctrine of the former; namely, 1. Hermanni Loemelii Spongia. 2. Querimonia Ecclesiae Anglicanae. 3. Appendix ad Illustrissimum Dominum Archiepiscopum Parisiensem. 4. Defensio Decreti. All four under the name of Hermannus Loëmelius, whose true name is Floid. There is no injury or contumely which he doth not vomit against my LL. the Prelates, the Faculty, and the said Censures. Hereupon our said LL. Prelates assembled again, to continue their condemnation against the said four books, which they apprehended as well as the two first, to be composed by jesuites; whereof when the said jesuites were advertised, they delivered a Disavowry, wherein they declare the said books not to be composed by any of their Society, being displeased that such questions had ever been propounded. The said Disavowry was made at Paris the 23 of March, 1633. signed by De la Salle, Superior of the Professed House, Stephen Binet, Rector of the College of Clermont, Julian Haineufve, Rector of the Novitiate, and Claudius Maillan, the King's Confessor. Now though this Disavowry did not fully satisfy the said Lords, yet for that they were lovers of peace, they were contented with it for that time: But they were much astonished when they saw in a book entitled Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesus, Auctore Philippo Alegambe ex eadem Societate Jesus, printed at Antwerp apud Joannem Meursium, Anno 1643. The Authors of the said Tracts named by their right names, and acknowledged to be jesuites; and that in the said Bibliotheca they are named with Eulogiums, and that they speak contemptuously of our LL. the Prelates, and the rest who censured the said two first books, and which is worse, that in the Index of the Contents, they place under the head of books written against Heretics two of Floid's books; namely, Querimonia and Spongia, though they are composed against our LL. the Prelates, Messieurs of the Faculty of Paris, and against their Censures. This gave occasion to our said LL. to assemble again, and after several Conferences, they have thought meet to send again into the Provinces the said Censures, under the names of their right Authors, who are Edward Knot (whose true name is Mathias Wilson, who was formerly Censured under the name of Nicholas Smith) and John Floid, who was likewise Censured under the name of Daniel à Jesus, both jesuites, if the said Alegambe in his Catalogue be not mistaken in this particular, as 'tis said he is in other things; the jesuites of France still persisting at the present in the Disavowry which they heretofore delivered, that the said Authors are not of their Society, and that they cannot answer for the fact of the said Alegambe, who is the King of Spain's Subject; and also to declare the said four books contumelious, injurious against the Honour and Dignity of my LL. the Prelates in general, and of the Archbishop of Paris in particular, and of the Doctors of the Faculty of Paris; besides that, they contain the same Doctrine formerly Censured in the two other, etc.  
It is good to observe touching the abovementioned Disavowry of the jesuites, that some more intelligent persons found that they had made use of an Equivocation, according to their custom: For having set down this Title, The Disavowry of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus in France; they said in the sequel, that the said books were not made by any of their Society, meaning [in France] with reference to the Title, because they were made by English jesuites. Moreover, the Bishops had so little regard to the said Disavowry, that in the same printed piece wherein they speak of it, they renew their ancient Censure against the books of England, with this Title:  
Epistola Archiepiscoporum & Episcoporum Parisiis nunc agentium, ad Archiepiscopos & Episcopos Regni Galliae super animadversione duorum libellorum quorum tituli sunt; Prioris quidem, Modesta & brevis discussio aliquarum assertionum Doctoris Kellisoni in tractatu de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia. Auctore Edvardo Knotto Jesuitarum Anglorum Viceprovinciali, sub ementito nomine Nicolai Smithaei. Posterioris verò, Apologia pro modo procedendi S. Sedis Apostolicae in regendis Angliae Catholicis tempore persecutionis. Auctore Joanne Floido Jesuita Anglo sub falso nomine Danielis à Jesus, Jussu Cleri denuò in lucem edita.  
Universis per Galliam constitutis Reverendiss. Patribus Archiepiscopis & Episcopis Dominis & Fratribus nostris Religiosi ssimis, Archiepiscopi & Episcopi Parisiis variis de causis agentes, salutem in D.  
LImites habet Jurisdictio Episcoporum, non habet charitas: omnes illud Apostoli usurpare & possumus & debemus: Instantia mea quotidiana solicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum; quis infirmatur & ego non infirmor? quis scandalizatur & ego non uror? Itaque veteri atque Apostolico instituto, si qua in nostris Paroeciis schismata oriuntur aut haereses, auctoritate compescimus; si alibi, medemur amore, qui tum demum Christo dignus est animarum nostrarum Episcopo, cum omnes complectitur, sicut pro omnibus ille mortuus est. Huc accedit quod ubi de errore agitur, qui spectar Ecclesiam, sibi prospicit qui aliena curat: serpit enim ut cancer error istiusmodi, & merito cum unum inficit, omnes terret. His de causis factum est, Fratres Reverendissimi, ut nostra fuerimus arbitrati quae essent Anglorum, nec minus miserandae istius Ecclesiae vulnera sensetimus, quam si nobis ipsis essent inflicta. Cum enim accepissemus allatos ex ea Insula libellos duos quos linguae periti dicerent pestilentis doctrinae esse plenissimos, concurrimus velut ad sedandum domesticum incendium, quotquot in hoc orbis theatro versabamur Episcopi, & donatos Latinitate excussimus diligentissime ac recensuimus, iisque tandem inussimus stigmatis, quibus facile a scriptis probae ac sanae doctrinae discernerentur. Atque hoc judicium nostrum ad vos mittere visum est, Fratres Reverendiss. ut quorum una est causa, unus spiritus, una charitas, unus quoque sermo sit ac sententia. Neque enim ullo modo dubitamus, quin ea quae damnanda censuimus, sitis damnaturi, & eandem fidem eadem doctrina totis animis professuri.  
Primum autem in iis libellis finis ipse ac scopus summopere displicuit. Id enim agunt potissimum, eoque collimant, ut quam Dominus auctoritatem Episcopis attribuit, elevent quam maxime ac deprimant. Tum vero per Episcoporum latus, non Divinum tantummodo confirmationis Sacramentum, sed & Ecclesiae Hierarchiam, qua nihil sub coelo est augustius, & ipsum Petri Successorem Apostolorum Coryphaei supremumque Christi in terris Vicarium non obscure petunt. Innumeris denique propositionibus scatent quae infelici isti scopo aptissime nimiumque respondeant. Nam in priore quidem libro falsae, praesumptuosae, temerariae, antiquissimo Parochorum instituto contrariae, Christianae plebis ac simpliciorum hominum saluti perniciosae leguntur innumerae. Non paucae autem erroneae, in sacrum Episcoporum ordinem contumeliosae, & quae in hoc videantur scriptae, ut institutam a Christo Ecclesiae Hierarchiam aut evertant funditus, aut certe perturbent. Quaedam etiam deprehenduntur quae sacrosancto Dei verbo, & Oecumenicorum Conciliorum auctoritati sunt contrariae, imo quae haeresim si non aperte exponant legentium oculis, certe innuant.  
Posterior vero libellus crassiora habet omnia, & blasphemat simplicius. Nam praeterquam quod eadem penitus in eo peccantur quae in superiore reprehendimus, propositiones praeterea ejus longe plurimas periculosas, seditiosas, impias, & quae in anarchiam atque ordinis confusionem maxime propendeant, vel fautor auctoris atque amicus dixerit, si modo honoris Christi ac Catholicae veritatis fuerit studiosus. Ad haec non paucae leguntur schismaticae, blasphemae, in Sacramentum confirmationis contumeliosissimae, ac summi ipsius Pontificis supremi secundum Christum fidelium Patris auctoritatem convellentes. Nonnullas etiam est animadvertere quae verbo Dei abutantur, idque ad impios sensus detorqueant, imo quae aperte (quod non sine gemitu referimus) sint haereticae.  
Atque haec hactenus, Fratres Reverendissimi, a nobis fuerint animadversa id cogitantibus quo facti nostri rationem ipse Dei Spiritus videtur reddere, Super muros tuos Jerusalem constitui custodes, totâ die & totâ nocte in perpetuum non tacebunt. Ab iis enim quidem certe custodibus absunt quam longissime canes muti non valentes latrare, atque hoste in Dei domum irrumpente dormientes. Jam vero si (quod optandum quidem sit) erronei isti libelli ad vos non pervenerint, quae potissimum damnanda judicavimus in iis, cum videbitur, legetis, quae nobis jubentibus Ecclesiasticarum nostrarum rerum Agentes huic junxerunt Epistolae. Incolumes felicesque vos Dei misericordia tueatur, Fratres Religiosissimi, meritoque honorandi ac suspiciendi Domini. Datum Lutetiae decimo Februarii, anno Incarnationis Domini millesimo sexcentesimo trigesimo primo. Ainsi signé, Andreas Antiq. Arch. Bituricensis. Claudius Arch. Narbonensis. Octavius Arch. Senonensis. Dominicus Arch. Auxitanensis. Joannes Episc. Vasatensis, & nom. Arch. Arelatensis. Philippus Episc. Nannetensis. Alphonsus Episc. Albiensis. jacobus Episc. Sagiensis. Sebastianus Episc. Lingonensis. Guillelmus Episc. Lexoviensis. joachimus Episc. Claromontanus. Aegidius Episc. Altissiodorensis. Augustinus Ep. & Comes Bellovacensis. Raphael Episc. Digniensis. Henricus Episc. Tarsensis, Coadj. Abrincensis. Franciscus Episc. Ambianensis. Leonorius Ep. Carnotensis. Renatus Episc. Leonensis. Stephanus Episc. Dardaniensis. Emericus Episc. Lucionensis. Simon Episc. Suessionensis. Henricus Episc. Noviomensis. Aegidius Episc. Adurensis. Franciscus Episcopus Lemovicensis. Silvester Episc. Mimatensis. Martinus Episc. Madaurensis, Suffr. Metensis. F. Ludovicus Episc. Regiensis. joannes Episc. Gracensis. Leonorius nom. Episc. Constantiensis. Nicolaus nom. Episc. Aurelianensis. Nicolaus nom. Episc. Vasatensis. Gaspardus nom. Episc. A gennensis. Dominicus Episc. Bononiensis. jacobus nom. Episc. Xanctonensis.  
De mandato Illustriss. & Reverendiss. DD. Antistitum. 

De Bertet Juris utriusque Doctor, Protonot. S. Apost. Sedis, Prior Mosteriensis & S. Saturaini.  
De Sariac Abbas de Paimpon & de Lescal-Dieu.   Agentes in rebus universis Cleri Gallicani.  
In the same Collection printed by M. Vitrè, by order of the Clergy, is seen the Extract out of F. Alegambe, which clearly shows, that those wicked books of England, and the others published in defence of them, were made by jesuites. It is subjoined here, as it was taken out of the said Collection. Page 65.  
An Extract out of a Book entitled Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesus, Auctore Philippo Alegambe, ex eadem Societate, infolio, Antuerpiae apud Joannem Meursium, 1643. Approved by the General, and other Divines of the Society.  
Page 99  
EDvardus Knottus, vero nomine Mathias Wilsonus, natione Anglus, patria Northumber, vir eximiae doctrinae & aptissimae ad gubernandum mansuetudinis, diu Romae in Anglorum Collegio juventutem educavit, deinde Anglicanae Provinciae nostrae extra Angliam egit Viceprovincialem, nunc Anglicanae Provinciae praepositus est. Scripsit doctissimum libellum qui sub nomine Nicolaï Smithaei est editus hac epigraphe;  
Modesta & brevis discussio aliquarum assertionum D. Doctoris K●llisoni quas in suo de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia tractatu probare conatur. Ex Anglico in Latinum a Georgio Wrigtho conversa; & plurimis Doctorum atque adeo Catholicarum Universitatum suffragiis approbata. Impressa Antuerpiae in Officina Plantiniana Balthazaris Moreti 1631. in 12.  
Ejusdem sunt etiam  
Qualificatio charitativa Inquisitionis brevis in Disquisitionem praedictam.  
Defensio Nicolai Smithaei adversus Replicam contra eandem discussionem.  
Charitas propugnata contra Doctorem Potterum. Audomari 1634. in 4.  
Christianitas propugnata adversus Replicam Chiling Worthii. Audomari 1638. in 4.  
Directio praevia ad eundem. Londini 1636. in 8.  
In the same book page 242.  
joannes Floidus, natione Anglus, patria Cantabrigiensis, post studia Romae in Anglorum Collegio coepta, Societati se addixit anno salutis 1592. Missus postmodum in Angliam, captus atque in exilium pulsus est. Docuit complutes annos Theologiam in Lovaniensi Anglorum Collegio, jamque Audomari scribendis libris intendit.  
Sub nomine H. L scripsit  
Opuscula aliquot quibus Regimen Catholicorum in Anglia a Sancta Sede Apostolica institutum propugnat, & Decretum Sacrae Congregationis ad Indicem librorum deputatae contra contumaces quosdam in Gallia defendit.  
Et sub nomine Danielis a jesus.  
Apologiam Sanctae Sedis Apostolicae quoad modum procedendi circa Regimen Catholicorum in Anglia, primum Anglice, dein Latine Rhotomagi 1631 in 8.  
In the Table of the Contents of the same book, under the Head or Title, Theologia Polemica, seu controversiae cum Haereticis.  
Page 496.  
joannis Floidi, Synopsis Apostasiae M. Antonii de Dominis.  
And after the enumeration of some other Treatises against that Heretic, he adds,  
Ecclesiae Anglicanae Querimonia & Spongia pro Regimine Catholicorum in Anglia; in hoc argumento alta opuscula contra Crashan: contra Hobby: contra Novatores.   

A Manuscript, whereof the Original is in the Library of the Augustine's at Rome, containing sundry Resolutions passed by the Consultors of the famous Congregation de Auxiliis, wherein the principal difficulties concerning Grace are determined against Molina, and according to the judgement of S. Augustin's Disciples. It is mentioned Part. 3. Chap. 8.  
THe Original of this Manuscript contained fourteen leaves of paper sowed together, in each of which was set down one of the fourteen Resolutions following, with the names and Subscriptions of the Consultors who signed them, all the rest of each leaf remaining white. Upon the backside were written these Italian words, Capia d' alcune propositioni giudicate erronee dalla Congregatione ordinata da N. S. (i. e.) a Copy of certain Propositions judged erroneous by the Congregation ordained by our H. Father. The Resolutions themselves follow.  

I.  
DIcere 
1 Ex Ludovico Molina in concord. q. 14. a. 13. d. 3. Sect. Textis. d. 16. Sect. Explicandae. d. 19 n. 3. Sect. Tertia.  quod in statu naturae lapsae vires naturales liberi arbitrii eaedem prorsus seu tales secundum se in nobis manserint, quales illas essemus habituti si homo fuisset conditus in statu mere naturali ad finem tantum naturalem, quasi peccatum primi hominis non nisi in supernaturalibus nocuisset ejus posteris: adversatur doctrinae in Ecclesia, 
2 In epistola Caelestini 1. c. 4. & in Conc. Araus. c. 13. & 25.  cum olim contra Pelagianos cocumque reliquias definitae ac defensae, tum novissime in Concilio Tridentino 
3 Sessione 6. cap. 1.  confirmatae, quando agendo de vi naturae expresse tracitur liberum arbitrium viribus esse attenu●tum & inclinatum.  
Est & hoc conforme antiquis definitionibus, & doctrinae in Ecclesia semper traditae, & creditae, quod in eodem 
4 Sess. 6. c. 1. & can. 5.  Concilio contra Haereticos hujus temporis declaratur atque definitur, liberum arbitrium post Adae peccatum non esse extinctum aut amissum. Quod quia similiter intelligitur quoad vires conditionis suae naturalis, ideo huic definitioni non repugnat, quod liberum arbitrium spectando vires, quas ex largitione gratiae accepit, dicatur amissum ac perditum: Quomodo non repugnat quod retenta libertate naturali libertas gratiae dicatur periisse.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Ita est, Archiepiscopus Fr. Io. de Rada Episcopus Pactensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. julius Santuccius Episcopus S. Agatha Gothorum.  
Ita sentio Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Hieronymus Pallantus Episcopus Bisontinus.  
Ita sentio D. Anastasius a Brixia Abbas Farsensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Io. Baptista de Plumbino Ord. S. Aug. Prior Generalis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Coronel Secretar.  
Ita censco Fr. jacobus le Bossu Religiosus S. Dionysii in Francia & Doctor in Facult. Theol. Parisiensi.     

II.  
DIcere 
1 Ex. Mol. q. 23 art. 4. & 5. d. 1. memb. 8. & in editione Antuerpiae m. 9 Sect. His omnibus.  quod parvuli, cum post judicii diem resumpserint sua corpora, liberabuntur supernaturaliter ab omnibus molestiis & aerumnis quibus in hac mortali vita subjacemus, melioremque in naturalibus vitam vitio omni mentis & corporis immunem in perpetuas aeternitates ducent, quam ullus unquam mortalium duxerit, temerarium est, nimiumque accedens ad illum ab Ecclesia Dei errorem 
2 S. Aug. ep. 106 commemorat hunc errorem inter illos qui damnati fuerunt in Conc. Palaest. & de eodem habet lib. de haer. c. 8. & aliàs saepe.  semper habitum, adeoque in Pelagiano & Caelestiano dogmate condemnatum, quo dicebantur parvuli etiamsi non baptizentur, ideoque exclusi maneant a regno caelorum, aeternam ac beatam quandam vitam, sed extra caelum habere.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Ita est, Archiepiscopus Fr. Io. de Rada Episcopus Pactensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Julius Sanctuccius Episcopus S. Agathae Gothorum.  
Ita sentio Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Hieronymus Pallantus Episcopus Bisontinus.  
Ita censeo D. Anastasius Abbas S. Mariae Farfensis Ord. S. Bened.  
Ita censeo Fr. Io. Bapt. de Plumbino Ord. Eremit. S. Aug. Prior Generalis.  
Ita censeo Gregorius Nunnius Coronel Secretarius.  
Ita censeo Fr. jacobus le Bossu Religiosus S. Dionysit in Francia, & Doctor in Facultate Theol. Parisiensi.     

III.  
DIcere 
1 Ex M●lina q. 14. a 13. d. 5. Sect. Ut ad. & Sect. Verum.  quod in statu naturae lapsae homo solo concursu Dei generali absque alio dono vel auxilio gratiae possit efficere opus bonum morale quod fini naturali hominis accommodatum atque comparatione illius sit vere bonum, veraeque virtutis opus referendo illud in Deum naturaliter cognitum; id doctrinae illi contradicit, qua contra reliquias Pelagianismi olim definitum, 
2 In Conc. Araus. c. 25.  quod post peccatum primi hominis nullus operari propter Deum quod bonum est possit, nisi gratia eum & misericordia Divina praevenerit. Ex qua tamen doctrina nequaquam sequitur omne opus quod sine speciali gratia fit ab homine etiam infideli esse peccatum.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Non placet censura seu propositio, nisi intelligatur quoad opera ardua & difficilia. Archiepiscopus Fr. Io. de Rada Episcopus Pactensis & C.  
Assero hanc propositionem verificari nedum de opere arduo, sed etiam de bono ornato omnibus circumstantiis. Fr. julius Sanctuccius Episcopus S. Agathae Gothorum.  
Ita sentio ut in censura, Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Ita sentio ut in censura, Fr. Hieron. Pallantus Episcopus Bisontinus.  
Placet mihi propositio ut jacet in censura, Anastasius Abbas Farfensis.  
Placet propositio, modò addatur ly arduum cum debitis circumstantiis & ab homine posse fieri opera praesentis vitae ex sola facultate naturali. Fr. Io. Bapt. de Plumbino Ord. Etemit. S. Aug. Prior Generalis.  
Approbo censuram propositionis, Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Coronel Secretarius.  
Approbo simpliciter censuram, imo dico esse duplicem malitiam propositionis. Vnam quod possit homo sine gratia facere bonum opus; alteram quod possit illud referre in Deum. Ego Fr. Jacobus le Bossu Doctor Sorbonicus.     

IV.  
QUi dixerit 
3 Ex Molina q. 14. a. 13. d. 10. Sect. Illud. d. 4. Sect. Post haec. & Sect. Illud tamen. d. 19 m. 3. Sect. Ad quartum.  quod quotiescunque homo ex viribus naturalibus sui arbitrii cum solo concursu generali Dei facit, seu conatu facere, praestove est ad faciendum seu conandum totum id quod ex sese potest circa ea quae ad justificationem pertinent, Deus ipsi conferat gratiam praevenientem auxiliave quibus id faciat ut oportet ad salutem; errat, & supponendo posse hominem aliquid facere seu conari sine gratia Dei quod ad justificationem consequendam pertinet, & humano operi seu conatui ex negotio justificationis gratiam Dei reipsa subjiciendo.  
Et qui quamvis verbo addat, quod homo, eo conatu, seu opere non efficiatur dignus talibus auxiliis, ullaque ratione ea promereatur, attamen dixerit, quod inter leges, quas Christus Dominus cum Patre aeterno constituit de auxiliis & donis, quae nobis promeruit, mere gratis conferendis, una eaque rationi maxime consentanea hominibus subveniendi fuerit, ut quoties ex nostris viribus naturalibus conaremut facere quod in nobis est, praesto nobis essent auxilia gratiae, quibus ea ut oportet ad salutem efficeremus, ut ea ratione dum essemus in via, semper in manu liberi arbitrii nostri posita esset salus nostra; errat.  
Item qui dixerit, quod Deus saepe etiam ob Christi merita liberum nostrum arbitrium quasi sopitum & torpens omnino excitat, id ita exponendo, sive intelligendo, tanquam non semper, sive non in omnibus gratia praeveniat conatum liberi arbitrii, sed in aliquibus liberum arbitrium conatu suo praeveniat gratiam circa ea quae ad justificationem consequendam pertinent; gravissime errat contra doctrinam quae ex Scripturis sacris olim definita contra Pelagianos eorumque reliquias, & hactenus tradita a probatis maxime in Ecclesia Dei Doctoribus. Juxta quam doctrinam firmissime est tenendum et docendum, quod omne opus, omnisque conatus liberi arbitrii ad justificationem et salutem consequendam pertinens, a gratia Dei per Christi merita ad id movente praevenitur. Quippe quae gratia ut definitum est 
4 Ex Conc. Araus. c. 6.  non operantibus seu conantibus sine ipsa, sed ut per ipsam operentur et conentur homines quae oportet ad salutem, datur. E● sic datur sine lege et conditione, q●a vel ullis detur 
5 Ex S. Prosp. lib. 1 de voc. gent. c. 9  intuitu alicujus operis, seu conatus, cum nihil ex se operari seu conari possint homines quod prosit ad gratiam obtinendam, vel qua nullis non detur qui qualecunque sit quod ex se summum possunt, operantur, et conantur. 
6 S. Aug. lib. de Pecc. merit. & rem. c. 22.  Verum Dei gratia et Spiritus, qui ubi vult spirat, ob hoc omne ingenii genus in filiis misericordiae non praeterit. Item omne ingenii genus in gehennae filiis praeterit, ut qui 
7 2 Corinth. c. 10. v. 17.  gloriatur, in Domino glorietur. Ac sicut generaliter omnes declinaverunt simul inutiles facti sunt, Non est qui 
8 Ad Rom. 3. v. 12. ex Conc. Araus. c. 8.  faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum: Sic et in omnibus omnino hominibus, qui operantur seu conantur aliquid pertinens ad salutem, gratia praevenit omne ejusmodi opus et conatum.  
These Resolutions end at the bottom of the Page, and the Subscriptions are folio verso.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Ita sentio Archiepiscopus Fr. Io. de Rada Episcopus Pactensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. julius Sanctuccius Episcopus S. Agathae Gothorum.  
Ita sentio Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Hieronymus Pallantus Episcopus Bisontinus.  
Ita sentio Anastasius Abbas S. Mariae Farfensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Io. Bapt. de Plumbino Ord. Erem. S. Aug. Prior Generalis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Coronel Secretarius.  
Ita sentio Fr. Jacobus le Bossu Doctor Sorbonicus.     

V.  
QUi dixerit hominem ex facultate liberi sui arbitrii cum solo concursu generali Dei posse iis quae credenda sunt assentiti, tanquam a Deo revelatis, & quia a Deo revelata sunt, quando proponuntur & explicantur adhibitis argumentis quae afferri solent, ut homines merito sibi persuadeant ea revelata esse a Deo, & jussa credi, & accedente externa vocatione ad fidem per concionatores aliosque Ecclesiae ministros, errat.  
Qui dixerit similiter posse praeexistente assensu hoc in intellectu elicere actum sperandi a Deo, quae ab eo revelata ac promissa sunt nobis, errat.  
Qui dixerit similiter posse elicere actum absolutum dilectionis Dei super omnia, placendi Deo in omnibus, & propositum absolutum servandi mandata omnia naturalia obligantia sub peccato letali, errat.  
Qui dixerit similiter posse praeexistente maxime lumine fidei, qua Dei beneficia cum naturae tum gratiae, praemia justis & supplicia impiis proposita agnoscimus, elicere ex Dei timore actum attritionis cum spe veniae, & ex Dei amore actum contritionis de peccatis commissis cum proposito non peccandi amplius letaliter, errat, etiamsi dicat actus ejusmodi esse mere naturales.  
Qui dixerit hominem postquam edoctus fuerit auxilium gratiae supernaturale sibi esse necessarium ad justificationem & salutem, similiter posse illud optare, desiderare, petere sibi donari, & satagere se disponere ad illud recipiendum, errat contra doctrinam qua constat revelatum esse in Scripturis sacris actus illos, prout jam descripti sunt, esse dona Dei per Christi gratiam & merita, idque ab ipsa prima in iis cogitatione, ideoque ab Ecclesia merito definitum esse non posse eos fieri sine speciali Dei adjutorio. Quae & deinde doctrina in Ecclesia Dei tam severe definita, & constanter asserta, ut si quis affirmaret hominem per naturae vigorem sine praeveniente Spiritus Sancti gratia posse aliquem ex iisdem actibus operari seu conari sicut oportet, sive ut expedit, quod est operari seu conari secundum circumstantias omnes debitas ab homine in ejusmodi actibus adhiberi ad misericordiam seu justificationem consequendam, is & in antiquis definitionibus contra Pelagianos eorumque reliquias haeretico falli spiritu pronunciatus fuerit, & novissime in Concilio Tridentino contra calumnias Haereticorum hujus temporis eandem doctrinam confirmando, anathemate feriatur.  
In qua definitione cum dicitur hominem non posse per—  
These nine words are the last legible at the bottom of this page, and probably were the beginning of some Observation which Petrus Lombardus thought to have added, for they are of his hand and besides these, there are two or three more which cannot be read.  
The Subscriptions following are on the backside of the same page.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Ita sentio Archiepiscopus Fr. Io. de Rada Episcopus Pactensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Julius Sanctuccius Episcopus S. Agathae Gothorum.  
Ita sentio Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Hieronymus Pallantus Episcopus Bisontinus.  
Ita sentio Anastasius Abbas Farfensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Io. Bapt. a Plumbino Ord. Erem. S. Aug. Prior Generalis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Coronel. Secretarius.  
Ita sentio Fr. Jacobus le Bossu Doctor Sorbonicus.     

VI  
QUi dixerit in homine post lapsum talem esse libertatem ad quamcunque tentationem seu difficultatem cum solo concursu generali Dei in quocunque temporis momento superandum, quam pro servanda in quolibet ejusmodi instanti lege naturali necesse sit vincere, etiamsi ea de causa mors sit toleranda, ut si consentiat ideo peccet, quia secluso quocunque alio majori auxilio in potestate ipsius positum est non transgredi tunc legem & non transgrediendo victoriam comparare, errat.  
Qui dixerit hominem posse, etsi non sine ingenti difficultate vincere ex solis viribus naturalibus singulas tentationes, quantumvis graves & molestas, dummodo non longo tempore durent, gratiam vero tantum esse necessariam ad facilius, vel solum ad superandas omnes simul exsurgentes concupiscentias ne decursu temporis vincamur, adversatur Ecclesiasticis definitionibus de imbecillitate naturae humanae post lapsum ad tentationes superandas.  
Juxta quas definitiones declaramus 
1 Ex S. Aug. l. 21. de Civitate Dei c. 16.  tenendum ac docendum, quia tunc victa vitia deputanda sunt cum Dei amore vincuntur, quem nisi Deus ipse non donat, nec aliter nisi per mediatorem Dei & hominum hominem jesum Christum; id circo in vitiis & illicitis concupiscen●iis evincendis, in diaboli infidiis superandis, & tam in resistendo quam in succumbendo quibuscunque tentationibus; 
2 Ex S. Aug. ep. 106. Ubi refert decretum hac de re Conc. Palaestini.  licet habeat homo libertatem, id est liberum usum propriae voluntatis, tamen ad vincendam seu superandam quamcumque tentationem, ita nimirum, ut praeceptum circa quod tentatur quispiam servetur propter Deum, id est, ne offendatur Deus, non sufficiunt vires naturales liberi arbitrii, sed necessarium est quotidianum, id est continuo seu contra tentationes singulas subministratum adjutorium specialis gratiae Dei, idque non tantum ad facilius & melius comparandam victoriam & servandum praeceptum, sed quoniam ad ejusmodi observationem & victoriam adjutorium istud simpliciter est necessarium, juxta id quod olim a Sede Apostolica 
2 Ab Innocentio 19 ep: ad Patres Conc: quae est 91 inter epistolas S: Augustini: Et a celest I in ep: ad Episcopos Galliae pro SS: Prospero & Hilario.  responsum est in hac causa, necesse est ut quo auxiliante vincamus, eo iterum non adjuvante vincamur.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Archiepiscopus Fr. Io. de Rada Episcopus Pactensis.  
Ita sentio Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Hieronymus Pallantus Episcopus Bisontinus.    
The four following Subscriptions are folio verso.  


Ita sentio Anastasius Abbas Farfensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Io. Bapt. de Plumbino, Prior Ord. S. Aug.  
Ita censeo Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Coronel. Secretarius.  
Ita sentio Ego Fr. jacobus le Bossu Doctor Sorbonicus.     

VII.  
QUi dixerit gratiam qua Deus operatur in nobis velle & perficere, non sic movere nostram voluntatem, ut ex virtute motionis Dei per eam operantis sit infallibile, quod actu consentiamus & operemur; errat.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Idem sentio Archiepiscopus Fr. Io. de Rada Episcopus Pactensis.  
Ita sentio Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Hieronymus Pallantus Episcopus Bisontinus.  
Ita sentio Anastasius Abbas Farfensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Io. Baptista de Plumbino Ord. S. Aug. Prior Generalis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Coronel. Secretarius.  
Ita censeo Fr. jacobus le Bossu Doctor Sorbonicus.     

VIII.  

3 This Article is written by the hand of Colonel.  QUi dixerit gratiam istam ad volendum & operandum quae pertinent ad salutem, aut non esse ita efficacem ut praeveniendo voluntatem nostram ipsam vera & reali efficientia praemoveat & faciat velle atque operari, aut sine ea posse aliquem actu velle & operari; errat.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Ita sentio Archiepiscopus Fr. Io. de Rada Episcopus Pactensis, etc.  
Ita sentio Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Fr. Hieronymus Pallantus Episcopus Bisontinus Ita sentio.  
Ita sentio Anastasius Abbas Farfensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Io. Bapt. de Plumbino Prior Ord. S. Aug.  
Ita sentio Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Coronel. Secretarius.  
Ita sentio Fr. jacobus le Bossu Doctor Sorbonicus.     

IX.  

4 So also is this.  QUi dixerit gratiam efficacem excitare, allicere, invitare, & suadere voluntatem, non tantum ita ut Deus efficienter moveat voluntatem ipsam ad consentiendum, sed ipsa jam consentiente & cooperance simul cum ea influat tantum in actum; errat.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Ita sentio Archiepiscopus Fr. Io. de Rada Episcopus Pactensis.  
Ita sentio Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Hieronymus Pallantus Episcopus Bisontinus.  
Ita sentio D. Anastasius Abbas Farfensis Secretarius.  
Ita est, Fr. Io. Bapt. a Plumbino Prior Ord. S. Aug.  
Ita sentio Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Coronel. Secretarius.  
Ita sentio Fr. jacobus le Bossu Doctor Sorbonicus.     

X.  

5 And this.  QUi dixerit Deum per auxilium gratiae suae, & liberum hominis arbitrium tanquam duas causas partiales se habere in negotio nostrae justificationis, ita ut una ab altera non praemoveatur nec ab ea virtutem agendi recipiat; errat.  
Qui dixerit efficaciam gratiae Dei, seu hoc quod est auxilium gratiae, esse efficax, pendere a consensu & cooperatione liberi arbitrii hominis: aut liberum hominis arbitrium suo consensu & cooperatione efficere auxilium gratiae efficax: adversatur doctrinae 
6 Ex Concilio Araus. can. 4 & 5. & S. Aug. ep. 107. ex Petr. Diac. cap. 9 ex Fulg. c. 18, 28, 29, 30. de Incarn. & gratia.  qua ab Ecclesia Dei definitum est, Deum etiam in illis, quos vocat gratis, non expectare eorum voluntates, seu consensum ad ipsos gratia sua adjuvandum, quasi ab ipsorum libero arbitrio sic penderet, quod consentiant vocationi, aut velint id, ad quod sunt vocati, ut Deus hoc in iis non operetur efficaci sua gratia, sed ab iis expectet pro innata ipsis libertate.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Ita sentio Archiepiscopus Fr. Io. de Rada Episcopus Pactensis, etc.  
Ita sentio Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Hieronymus Pallantus Episcopus Bisontinus.  
Ita sentio D. Anastasius Abbas Farfensis Secretarius.  
Ita sentio Fr. Io. Bapt. de Plumbino Ord. S. Aug. Prior.  
Ita sentio Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Coronel. Secretarius.  
Ita sentio Fr. jacobus le Bossu Doctor Sorbonicus.     

XI.  

2 This Article is of Coronel's hand-writing.  QUi dixerit perseverantiam in bono usque ad finem vitae non esse ex tali singulari Dei dono quo non solum dat quod quis perseverare possit, si velit, sed etiam quo opetatur efficaciter, ut ex virtute ipsius doni, velit, & perseveret: aut dixerit cum hoc dono non cohaerere arbitrii creati libertatom; errat.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Ita sentio Archiepiscopus Rada Episcopus Pactensis, etc.  
Ita sentio Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Hieronymus Pallantus Episcopus Bisontinus.  
Ita sentio D. Anastasius Abbas Farfensis Secretarius.  
Ita sentio Fr. Io. Bapt. de Plumbino Prior Ord. S. Aug.  
Ita sentio Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Coronel. Secretar.  
Ita sentio Fr. jacobus le Bossu Doctor Sorbonicus.     

XII.  
QUi dixerit Deum ab aeterno non ita constituisse, proposuisse, praedefinisse, seu praedeterminasse illos omnes & singulos consensuros, credituros, operaturos, & perseveraturos, quicunque in tempore Deo vocanti ad salutem consentiunt, & consentientes credunt, operantur, & perseverant, ut decreto absoluto, id est, quo absolute vult quod consentiant, credant, operentur, seu perseverent, praeordinaverit unicuique eorum dare auxilium gratiae, cujus virtutem seu motionem praescit tam esse efficacem ad subjiciendum sibi liberum arbitrium ejus cui datur, ut ex ea certum sit, & infallibile, & insuperabile, quod is consentiet, credet, operabitur, seu perseverabit, aut ejusmodi decretum Dei absolutum seu efficacem motionem libertatem arbitrii tollere vel ei adversari; errat.  

3 These six lines were written by the hand of Petrus Lombardus.  Placet doctrina in propositione hac & sequentibus duabus comprehensa; sunt tamen redigendae in breviorem formam, & paulò clariùs exprimendum in quo falsa sit ratio illius praescientiae conditionatorum, quam ante decretum Dei ponit Molina.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Ita sentio Archiepiscopus Rada Episcopus Pactensis.  
Ita sentio Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Hieronymus Pallantus Episcopus Bisontinus.  
Ita censeo D. Anastasius Abbas Farfensis Secretarius.  
Ita censeo Fr. Io. Bapt. de Plumbino Prior Ord. S. Aug.  
Ita censeo Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Coronel. Secretar.  
Ita censeo Fr. jacobus le Bossu Doctor Sosbonicus.     

XIII.  
QUi dixerit praescientiam Dei de hominum salute, seu quocunque illorum actu ad salutem pertinente, fundari non in virtute auxilii, seu motionis efficacis ad subdendum sibi arbitrium ejus cui datur, sed in praeviso usu humani arbitrii pro sua libertate auxilio Dei utentis, vel non utentis, aut hujusmodi praescientiam esse necessariam ad conciliandum inter se auxilium gratiae Dei, & liberum usum humani arbitrii, errat, ponendo in Deo scientiam, quae nullum prorsus habet, vel habere potest objectum.   

XIV.  
QUi dixerit praedestinationem electorum sic pendere ab ipsorum arbitrio, ut non per efficaciam, seu virtutem auxiliorum, quae Deus sua praedestinatione decrevit dare, fiat quod bene iis utantur, sed quia Deus in praescientia sua videns quibus auxiliis pro sua libertate bene utentur electi, haec ipsis dare decrevit; errat, in illud incidens, praedestinationem esse ex metitis hominum: ita nimirum, ut gratia, qua adjuvantur homines ad consequendum effectum & finem, ad quem sunt praedestinati, ideo iis detur, quia ipsi volunt usu illo sui arbitrii, quem pro libertate sua adhibent, non autem ideo velint, quia per gratiam adjuvantur.    

A Writing made and published at Paris and Rome, in the year 1651. near two years before the Pope's Constitution came forth; showing, that the Propositions were never absolutely maintained, but only in their reduction to the sense of Effectual Grace; and that they were always considered as Propositions maliciously contrived, to the end, that being condemned in their bad sense, the Censure of them might be reflected upon S. Augustin's Doctrine.  
THis Writing is spoken of in Part. 3. Chap. 7. and in divers other places of the journal, under the name of Our Latin Manifesto, and it is here subjoined.  
Quinque propositionum de gratia quas Facultati Theologicae Parisiensi M. Nicolaus Cornet subdole exhibuit prima Julii anni 1649. vera & Catholica expositio juxta mentem Discipulorum Sancti Augustini.  
BEati Augustini doctrina adversariorum suorum calumniis semper appetita est, ac sub alienis & fictis ad libitum assertionibus ab iis reprehensa, quibus hanc sub Augustini nomine ac veris sententiis aggredi temerarium & inane visum est. Hinc teste B. Prospero a Gallis, inde a quodam Vincentio contexta Capitulorum prodigiosa mendacia, quae S. Augustino ejusque Discipulis inepte affingerentur ad invidiam in eos excitandam.  
jansenius Episcopus nuper Iprensis illustrissimus B. Augustini Discipulus, interpres, ac vindex, eandem cum Magistro suo sortem ab adversariis suis expertus est, 
Praefatio D. Prosperi in responsione ad Capitula Gallor.  ut quae in ipsius libris damnabilia reperisse non obscurè jactabant Molinae patroni, brevium quinque propositionum indiculis praedicarent, talique commento & detestationem ejus quem impeterent, obtinerent, & ab his quae infamassent curam exterriti lectoris averterent.  
Facultati primum Parisiensi in Sorbona prima Julii anno 1649. congregatae, quinque hae propositiones sine ullius harum auctoris nomine ad examen adhibitae sunt a M. Nicolao Cornet, nec auditae prius, quin statim S. Augustini Discipuli eas prima duntaxat aliquatenus excepta pro libito fictas, nec ab Episcopo sprensi, nec a quovis alio iisdem quibus conceptae sunt verbis assertas, atque ex ambiguis & aequivocis vocibus callide concinnatas esse, & con●ra morem omnem examini subjici conquesti sint. Non obscurum fuit nec ab ipsis Molinae Patronis taceri potuit, non Iansenii modo opus, sed & Augustini doctrinam his perversis & iniquis artibus ad judicium vocari, & paratam in utrumque licet dissimulato nomine censuram, si quod animo magna futurorum fiducia conceperant harum propositionum & molitionum architecti ad exitum perducerent. Atque haec tam inique & fraudulenter, tam praeter morem omnem in Facultate Parisiensi agi visa sunt, ut septuaginta Doctores intercesserint, provocaverineque ad Sonatum; ut Senatusconsulto, partibus auditis die 5 Octobris anni 1649. cautum fuerit, ne hae propositiones vocarentur ad examen, dum aliter provisum fuisset. Ne tamen aequum examen & judicium effugisse putarentur S. Augustini Discipuli, aequissimas & necessarias ad examen legitimum propositionum harum doctrinaeque omnis de gratia conditiones positas ad calcem libri de gratia Christi victrice, Facultati 1 Decembris ejusdem anni in Sorbona congregarae exhibuerunt. Atque ita mala haec quorundam Consilia avertit Deus, actique cuniculi dissilierunt in auctores suos. Ista in Facultate tempestas sedata est, & causa omnis felicissimo tandem exitu communibus votis peracta finitaque est: ipsoque Facultatis decreto unanimi Doctorum omnium suffragio 7 Decembris ejusdem anni conclusum suit, non esse necesse procedere ad examen vel judicium harum propositionum aliarumve de gratia & auxiliis divinis.  
At ab iisdem Molinae patronis non abfuit nova audendi animus; itum est ad alias artes; & jesuitis praecipue procurantibus emendicatae sunt undique subscriptiones hominum, eorumque maximam partem nullius auctoritatis, nullius nominis, nullius doctrinae, quibus omnes & in jansenii velut de haeresi suspecti, & in quinque propositionum ut erronearum censuram consensisse viderentur. Sed quod maxime dolendum est, auditur eos penes quos ipsius est doctrinae arbitrium, iniquissimis calumniis compulsos esse ut de Episcopi Iprensis opere apud sanctam Sedem conquerantur, ac ab ea quinque propositionum judicium efflagitent, persuasi a jesuitis, imo & a quibusdam e Doctoribus Parisiensibus prae se ferentibus speciem scientiae & virtutis, quinque has propositiones ab Episcopo Iprensi caeterisque Augustini Discipulis non modo in terminis & ut jacent, verum & perverso sensu, & a B. Augustini Conciliique Tridentini doctrina alieno propugnari, profitentibus iisdem eas ita a se & summa fide depromptas ex ipso volumine Iansenii cujus nomini pepercisse se dicerent. Atque cum hae propositiones ambiguis & aequivocis de industria vocibus conceptae sententiam habeant ancipitem, atque hinc rectae & sanae, inde perversae & erroneae doctrinae interpretationi subjaceant, persuaderi se facile passi sunt quidam Episcopi Molinae defensorum calumniis & artibus minus assueti, nec de re apud Sorbonam a biennio gesta satis admoniti; & putarunt eum inesse sensum scriptis Doctoris Catholici, quem viri minus simplices sub his quinque propositionibus fraudulenter exhibebant. Haec sane opinio hos aliquos Episcopos pacis & veritatis zelo impulit, ut Epistolae ad summum Pontificem subscriberent, qua harum quinque propositionum judicium a Romana Sede exposcerent, quas ab Episcopo Iprensi assertas, in Ecclesia subinde defensas, idque perverso & Tridentinis Patribus adverso sensu non obscure praedicarent  
Neminem latet syngrapham ab omnibus fere Galliae Episcopis omni arte quaesitam, negatam faisse a plurimis. Notum est in Cleri Gallicani Comitiis hac in urbe cum Epistolam hanc Molinae defensores conscriberent, eidemque Episcopi aliqui subscriberent, congregatis, nunquam hoc de negotio actum fuisse, cum tamen id apud Clerum proponi, ventilati ac decerni causae ipsius ratio, ac pondus, & consuetudo perpetua postularent. Compertum est etiam a multis magni nominis Archiepiscopis & Episcopis cum in eam rem convenissent, voce apud illustrissimum Sedis Apostolicae Nuncium, tum ab iisdem & multis aliis per varias Epistolas apud Apostolicam Sedem expostulatum, & significatum minus sibi placere subscriptionem illam Reverendissimorum suorum Fratrum. Demum obscurum non est ab illis Episcopis nec communi judicio aut examine, nec audito, ut par erat, ullo ex plutimis Doctoribus qui hac in causa adversus Molinae patronos intercesserant, sed privatim a singulis quolibet in numero sint, fuisse subscriptum. At quanto religiosior est apud S. Augustini Discipulos reverentia universi Cleri Galliarum, tanto certe metuerunt impenhus ne illius auctoritas vehementer iaederetur in hac causa, qua non alia gravior; Catholicorumque Doctorum & Praesulum fama adversis rumoribus apud istos Galliae Antistites afflaretur. Neque enim in unius caput haec faba cuditur, fed in Doctores, sed in Ecclesiae Ptincipes omnes, sed in ipsius Augustini proindeque in ipsius Apostolicae Sedis auctoritatem ac doctrinam, sed in ipsam denique veritatem, in ipsam fidem, in ipsam Christi gratiam fraus ista comparatur ab hominibus dolos & artes omnes quibus solis valent in unius Molinae praesidium advocantibus. Rem itaque totam hanc Episcopis omnibus, vel illis maxime qui ut iisdem Mosinistarum confiliis manum suam commodarent, dolis & calumniis abducti sunt, Galliae toti, Romanae Sedi, Ecclesiae universae retegere necessarium fuit.  
Quam igitur perversa fide, quanta calumniandl libidine tentata sint haec ab harum propositionum & molitionum auctoribus, facile comperient omnes cum duo haec intelligent. Prius est, quinque has propositiones quarum judicium & censura tam operose nunc exigitur, nusquam in terminis atque ut jacent, prima duntaxat utcumque excepta, fuisse aut ab Episcopo Iprensi (cujus hac in parte & quod ad quinque illas propositiones spectat, tuendi necessitas modo incumbit) aut a quoquam alio S. Augustini Discipulo assertas, sed fictas pro nutu ab ipsis Molinae patronis, quales ad censuram facilius comparandam excitandamque invidiam aptiores humana prudentia excogitavit. Atque has propositiones fictas esse ad libitum tandiu constabit, quamdiu ubi & a quo ut jacent assertae sint demonstratum non fuerit; 
Liber infamis cui titulus Jansenius damnatus p. 162  quod a nemine hactenus, nisi mendaciter praestitum est nec praestari potest, quam periculosum autem, quam iniquum, quam inusitatum est in Ecclesia, propositiones a nullo auctore assertas, a nullo auditas, ad libi um fictas examni subjicere?  
Primam propositionem utcunque excipimus quae iisdem quidem verbis in Iprensis Episcopi opere expressa, attamen a praecedentibus & consequentibus verbis quae apud jansenium planum & rectum Illius sensum declarant dolose avulsa, sic exhibita est, ut obscura & ambigua penitus perversaeque interpretationi obnoxia videatur, maxime vero Augustinianae doctrinae ignatis, proptereaque non sine arte & consilio dissimulatus locus est Iprensis Episcopi, ne scilicet, quo sensu ibi asseritur ac exponitur, tota Augustiniana, hoc est, tota Catholica, tota non alio sensu quam qui gratiae per se efficacis ad singulos actus necessitatem exprimit, defensa deprehenderetur, ut non magis ab harum propositionum auctoribus in veris quam in fictis fides desideran●a fit.  
Posterius est quod spectat ad harum propositionum sensum, scilicet aequivocas esse penitus & ambiguas omnes, proptereaque hinc rectae inde perversae, hinc Catholicae inde erroneae & haereticae interpretationi obnoxias: possunt enim ad gratiae victricis & per se efficacis ad singulos piae voluntatis motus necessariae doctrinam singulae revocari: nec alio quam gratiae istius per se efficacis sensu, aut ab Episcopo Iprensi quantum ex ejus operis lectione innotescit, aut a quovis alio B. Augustini Discipulo defensae sunt, nusquam ab iis ut jacent assertae, ut in libro de gratia Christi victrice in lucem nuper emisso satis fuse & pespicue demonstratur. Atque ita necesse est ut harum propositionum architecti cum has vocaverunt ad examen, vel de damnanda & proscribenda gratia per se efficace ad singulos actus necessaria cogitaverint, quod nemo consilium non exhorrescat: quis enim nisi impius ac profanus de damnanda hae doctrina cogitet, quam S. Augustinus adversus Pelagianorum & Semipelagianorum errores Ecclesia probante & applaudente universa certissime constituit? Concilia definierunt, Sedes Apostolica confirmavit, quam S. Thomas Scholae Dux ac Magister firmissime propugnavit: quam Schola illius universa, totus Dominicanorum Ordo acerrime adversus Molinam defendit, Pelagiani erroris aperte eos insimulans, qui necessitati gratiae per se efficacis adversantur: quam Clemens VIII & Paulus V, ille scripto, uterque suffragio suo non semel comprobavit: quam denique Congregatio de Auxiliis re totis decem annis in sessionibus amplius ducentis ventilata & expensa, partibus auditis; praesentibus saepe Clement VIII & Paulo V, frequentibus & censuris & responsionibus sic asseruit, ut sententiam Molinae Jesuitae, qua gratia Christi libero arbitrio subjicitur, & gratiae ex se efficacis ac praemoventis ad singulos actus necessitas negatur, Semipelagianam & Pelagianam esse saepissime pronunciaverit: atque erroris, Apostolico & solenni judicio penitus damnandam esse & abolendam judicaverit, ut colligitur tum exactis Congregationis de Auxiliis, tum ex historia Francisci de Pegna illustrissimi Rotae Decani, cujus exemplum manu scriptum ex autographo quod habetur Romae, certum & indubitatum apud clarissimum & eruditissimum virum Parisiis extat, in libro de gratia Christi victrice aliqua ex parte typis editum: sin vero adversarii ab eo concilio & ea ment abesse purandi sunt (& absunt certe Doctores omnes Parisienses quotquot sunt, ut ipsi palam & aperte profitentur) necesse est ut perversos sensus ad quos hae propositiones torqueri possunt, nec ab Episcopo Iprensi nec a quovis alio S. Augustini Discipulo assertos censurae subjicere voluerint: quem conatum ut inanem & otiosum prorsus quis non spernat? vel demum, quod credibile est, per aequivocarum assertionum censuram ancipitem variis interpretationibus obnoxiam in animo habuerunt invidiam & odium in Episcopum ●prensem & Sancti Augustini Discipulos concitare; vera falsis involvere; Pelagianum errorem cum Catholica simul fide commiscere; perturbare omnia; censuram ipsam ancipitem, hujus sibi judicium & interpretationem arrogando, in quos libebit sensus inflectere, sibi hujus censurae ancipitis tuendae praetextu quidvis audendi licentiam facere apud imperitam multitudinem cui uni fallendae & deludendae student; totum Iprensis Episcopi opus ut de errore vel de haeresi notatum conclamare; proscriptam si Deo placet S. Augustini doctrinam, damnatos omnes illius desensores; sententiam vero Molinae gratiam Divinam libero hominis lapsi arbitrio subjicientis, hoc est, evacuantis gratiam & crucem Christi, comprobatam dicere. Quos in fidei & gratiae Christianae causa dolos quis non detestetur? quae consilia in Ecclesiae totius perturbationem & luctum, in fidei Catholicae perniciem, & in haereticarum virium accessionem vergere quis non intelligat? Ita vero haec in Sorbona res a●itur; ut Theologi aliqui Parisienses quos praecipous in ista causa adversarios experti sunt S. Augustini Discipuli, & quos ab Apostolica Sede harum propositionum censuram etiam flagitare non insertis rumoribus jactatur, propositiones easdem quo sensu ab Episcopo Iprensi & a caeteris Augustini Discipulis defendi possent, ab omni errore vacuas faterentur, si principiis suis consentanea pronunciare vellent.  
Ut igitur quid de his propositionibus cum Episcopo Iprensi sentiant, semperque senserint Parisienses Theologi, caeterique qui S. Augustini doctrinam profitentur ac tuentur, Episcopis omnibus, Ecclesiae toti, Romanae Sedi innotescat, necessarium fuit apertam hanc brevem & sinceram expositionem subnectere, uti ne si propositiones istas ambigua aliqua nota ob perversum sensum quem admittere possunt perstringeret, Episcopus Iprensis caeterique S. Augustini Difcipuli istius perversi sensus auctores & defensores insimulentur. Atque ut sciant omnes, certi nihil de his quaestionibus quae in Christi gratiae argumento inter S. Augustini & Molinae Discipulos in Ecclesia agitantur definiri posse, nisi omni verborum dolo & ambiguitate semotis ad examen vocetur haec de gratiae victricis necessitate doctrina, ad quam quinquae istae propositiones recto sensu expositae revocantur.  

PRIMA PROPOSITIO.  
Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia: deest quoque iis gratia qua possibilia fiant.  

EXPOSITIO.  
CUm aliquis justus gratiam per se efficacem ad orandum, ad tentationem superandam, ad praeceptum aliquod observandum necessariam, a Deo aliquando non accipiat judicio occulto sed justo; etsi habeat aliquam praecepti implendi voluntatem, sed parvam, invalidam, & imperfectam, & ad praeceptum illud plene & ut oportet observandum imparem, tunc & secundum has praesentes, quas habet pro isto momento vires, ad orandum ut oportet, ad tentationem superandam ut oportet, ad praeceptum observandum ut oporter, non est proxime & complete potens. Atque impotentia haec, ea est quae a voluntatis infirmitate seu ab auxilii ad agendum proxime necessarii carentia, hoc est a gratiae per se efficacis, quam Deus tunc ilii non donat, absentia oritur. Cum enim gratia haec per se efficax det & velle & posse proximum et completissimum, quicunque gratiam hanc non habet, is non habet velle et posse proximum quod illa largitur. Atque ita aliquando justus aliquis non habet gratiam quae proximam et completissimam praecepti ut oportet, observandi potentiam donat.  
Hic genuinus et unicus est Episcopi Iprensis circa primam istam propositionem sensus; aliud nihil docet et asserit, ubi propositionem hanc non nude profert, sed ex jactis prius fundamentis necessario colligit, ut videre est in capite toto e quo deprompta est, scilicet l. 3. de gratia Christi Salvatoris c. 13, vide et cap. 14. et 15, in quibus justos omnes multis modis posse semper praecepta observare asserit, nec aliam impotentiam aliquando inesse justo alicui dicit, nisi eam quae a gratiae per se efficacis absentia oritur, quae simul et posse proximum ac completissimum et velle donat.  
Nullam ergo aliam doctrinam sic exposita propositio continet, quam doctrinam gratiae ex se efficacis ad singulos piae voluntatis motus et actus necessariae, necessariae justo ut oret, ut tentationem superet, ut praeceptum Dei observet sicut oportet, seu ut haec operari proxime possit; proindeque prima haec propositio ut est a Jansenio asserta, vel potius ex Augustini principiis collecta, damnari non potest, nisi vel gratiae per se efficacis ad singulos actus necessariae doctrina simul damnetur, vel damnetur Augustiniana haec doctrina, qua asseritur quod gratia ex se efficax, ad aliquem actum necessaria, potentiam proximam et completissimam ad hunc actum donat.  
Quam vero sic exposita propositio conformis sit sacri Concilii Tridentini, S. Augustini et Facultatis Lovaniensis doctrinae, sequentibus testimoniis innotescit.   

Conformitas propositionis expositae cum Consilii Tridentini, S. Augustini, & Theologorum Lovaniensium doctrina.  

CONCILIUM TRIDENTINUM.  SI quis dixerit justificatum vel sine speciali auxilio Dei in accpta justitia perseverare POSSE, vel cum eo non posse, Anathema sit. Conc. Trid. sess. 6. can. 22. 
Illud autem speciale Dei auxilium singulis justis, quovis momento a Deo non datur, judicio Dei occulto sed justo; non datur justis cadentibus, et in accepta justitia non perseverantibus. Quod speciale auxilium cum sit necessarium justis ut perseverent, fateri profecto compellimur, absque hujusmodi auxilio eosdem justos perseverare non poste, unde & Concilium Tridentinum justum hominem cui desit tale auxilium, non modo dixit non perseverare, sed nec perseverate quidem posse.   

S. AUGUSTINUS.  QVi ergo vult facere Dei mandatum & non POTEST, jam quidem habet voluntatem bonam; sed adhuc parvam & invalidam. POTERIT autem cum magnam habuerit & robustam .... Ipsam charitatem Apostolus Petrus vondum habuit quando timore Dominum ter negavit .... & tamen quamvis parva & imperfecta non decrat, quando dicebat Domino, Animam meam pro te ponam; putabat enim se POSSE quod se velle sentiebat. St Augustinus libro de gratia & lib. arbit. cap. 16. Est quippe in nobis per hanc Dei gratiam (scilicet per auxilium quo seu per se efficax, de quo hic sermo est) non solum POSSE quod volumus, sed eoiam velle quod possumus, S. Augustin. de corr. & grat. cap. 11. Qui eis (justis scilicet de quibus sermo hic est) non solum dat sine quo non possunt perseverare si velint, sed in eis etiam operatur & velle, ut quoniam non perseverabunt nisi & possint & velint, perseverandi eis possibilitas & voluntas Divinae gratiae largitate donetur: tantum quippe Spiritu Sancto accenditur voluntas eorum, ut ideo possint quia sic volunt, ideo sic velint quia Deus operatur ut velint, De corr. & gratia cap. 11. Neque de ipsa voluntate contendo cum s●nata & adjuta hominis voluntate possibilitas ipsa simul cum effectu in Sanctis proveniat. De natura & gratia, cap. 42.  

DOCTORES LOVANIENSES.  
In justificatione censurae adversus Jesuitas Lovanienses ante sexaginta annos latae.  POtentia credendi vel convertendi se potest aestimari dupliciter; semel ex ipsa liberi arbitrii utramque in partem flexibili facultate; quomodo est potentia in homine gratia destituto: Semel ex praecedentibus viribus satis efficacibus ad fidem & conversionem, juxta quem modum quidam dicuntur non posse credere aut sequi Dominium, sicut dictum est Petro, Non potes me sequi modo; & aliis, Quomodo vos potestis credere qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis? & iterum, Now poterant credere, quiae dixit Isaias, Excaeca cor populi hujus. Poterant ergo illi credere per flexibilem quidem liberi arbitrii in bonum facultatem; non poterant autem per eas vires seu affectus quos habebant in praesentia; poterant per remotam ut dici consuevit potentiam, non poterant per propinquam. Justificatio censura; cap. 16. Aliud autem est posse, in quo tam magnae insunt vires per sufficientem gratiae praeparationem, ut satis sit ad agendum, per quam quidem gratiam, non jam solum ipsum posse, verum etiam agere adjuvatur. Ibidem. Addimus & hoc qualecunque subsidium quod aliquando subministrari dicitur in aliis qui neque credunt veque convertuntur ad Dominum, non fuisse sufficiens ad fidem aut conversionem; quippe gratia ad conversionem sufficien ipsa convertit; quae vero non convertit non sufficit. Ibidem.    

SECUNDA PROPOSITIO.  
Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.  

EXPOSITIO.  
ESt propria et specialis Christi gratia ad singulos piae voluntatis affectus et motus necessaria, quae est gratia per se efficax, quae semper in cordibus nostris effectum ad quem a Deo datur producit; hanc gratiam voluntas nunquam respuit quia semper velle donat, semper cordis duritiam aufert pro mensura doni Divini majoris concupiscentia, seu quantum Deus misericorditer vult victricem hanc delectationem et majorem concupiscentia sive ad incipiendam, sive ad confirmandam, sive ad perficiendam animae curationem, in cordibus nostris diffundere.  
Etsi autem efficiat propria haec Christi gratia ut homo illi non dissentiat nec dissentire velir, semper tamen dissentire potest si vult, ut sacro Tridentino Concilio definitum est.  
Atque homo hac Christi gratia quae cordis duritiam aufert motus, non semper proinde vult aut agit efficaciter et perfecte quod volendum et agendum est; saepe enim contingit hominem peecatorem in solis inefficacibus desideriis quae gratia efformavit haerere, nec ea ad operis effectum ob infirmitatem suam ac vitium proprium perducere; abjicere etiam desideria ista, et reluctante ac vincente concupiscentia non resipiscere a peecato, non agere poenitentiam ut oportet et quantum oportet ut a peccato resutgat, illiusque veniam a Deo consequatur; hoc tamen in homine gratia Christi proximum effectum quem Deus intendit, boni scilicet et inchoati desiderii motum consequitur: quod autem istud desiderium caruerit ultimo et perfecto effectu operis ad quod impellebat et excitabat, hominis sollus vitium est, non Dei, et, ut ait Augustinus, 
1 De pecc. mer. & rem. lib. 2● cap. 17.  In homine causa est, non in Deo.  
Si tamen Deus vellet tantam gratiam, tam victricem delectationem conferre quanta sufficit et quanta necessaria est ut homo iste poenitentiam agat ut oportet, a peccato suo resurgat, et ad Dei gratiam justificantem perveniat, homo ille certissime poenitentiam ageret ut oportet, a peccato suo resurgeret, et ad Dei gratiam justificantem perveniret. At Deus ut vult, quantum vult, et ubi vult, uniuscuj isque miseretur juxta illud Sancti Augustini de peccatorum meritis et remissione lib 2. cap. 5. Cur autem illum adjuvet, illum nonadjuvet; illum tantum, illum autem non tantum; istum illo, illum isto modo, penes ipsum est & aequitatis tam secretae ratio & excellentia potestatis.  
Non alio sensu quam isto propositio haec secunda ab Episcopo Iprensi docetur, aut ab alio S. Augustini Discipulo, nec aliter in ejusdem Praesulis opere defensa legitur, nullibi in terminis et ut jacet ah eo asserta.   

Conformitas propositionis expositae cum doctrina S. Augustini ac Theologorum Lovaniensium & Duacensium.  

S. AUGUSTINUS.  HAec itaque gratia quae occulte humanis cordibus divina largitate tribui●ur, a nullo duro corde RESPUITUR; a Deo quippe tribuitur ut cordis duritia primitus aufer●tur. De praedest. SS. c. 8. Dat incrementum Deus, cui volenti salvum facere nullum hominis RESISTIT arbitrium; sic enim velle & nolle in volentis aut nolenter est potestate ut Divinam voluntatem non impediat, nec superet potestatem. De corr. et gratia cap. 14. Qui credunt, intus a Patre audiunt atque discunt; qui autem non credunt, FORIS audiunt, intus non audiunt neque discunt, hoc est, illis datur ut credant, illis non datur. De praedest. SS. c. 8. Cum dat incrementum Deus, auditor sine dubio credit & proficit; ecce quod interest inter legem & promissiomem, inter literam & spiritum. Lib. 2. op. imp. n. 157. Qui novit quid est qu●d fierl debeut & n n facit, nondum a Deo didicit secundum gratiam sed secundum legem; non secundum spiritum see secundum literam, De gratia Christi cap. 13. Si Deus miseretur, etiam volumus; ad eandem quippe misericordiam pertinet ut velimus. Lib. 1 ad Simpl. quaest. 2. Non potest effectus misericordiae Dei esse in hominis potestate, ut frustraille miseratur si homo nolit. Ibidem.  

LOVANIENSES.  NOn igitur specialis haec Chrictt est gratia, cui proprium id esse evidentissimis verbis Augustinus scribit, ut non sit bonis malisque communis, sed bonos discernat amalis; atque ut alibi ait, à duro nullo corde respuatur, quoniam per eam ipsa cordis durities auferatur, in qua fideleter agnoscenda quid à Pelagio idem olim postularit, operae pretium fuerit ex ejus hic verbis subjicere. Lovan. in cens. 8 assert.  

DUCASESES.  EA enim propriè est gratia Christi & gratia novi Testamenti quae aufert cor lapideum & tribuit cor carneum: quae operatur ipsum velle & perficere, per quam scribitur lex Dei in cordibus nostris, quae facit ut faciamus, non tantum ut possimus facere si velimus. Duac. in cens. 8 assert.    

TERTIA PROPSITIO.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas à necessitate sed sufficit libertas à coactione.  

EXPGSITIO.  
UT doctrina haec de hominis libertate ac indifferentia recte exponatur, multiplex prius indifferentia constituenda est, et explananda. Est scilicet indifferenti● voluntatis circa rectum finem, et circa media; et est indifferentia ex parte potentiae et ex parte actus. Indifferentia voluntatis circa rectum finem ea est qua voluntas vel rectum finem appetere, vel a recto fine aberrare potest, seu qua voluntas peccare potest et non peccare. Indifferentia voluntatis circa media, ea est qua voluntas medium hoc vel illud ac finem consequendum eligere potest vel non eligere. Indifferentia ex parte potentiae, ea est qua potentia licet ad hoc recte agendum a Deo determinetur, potest tamen per se etiam sub actuali gratiae motione constituta hoc non agere et contrarium eligere: licet nunquam accidat, ut a Deo praemota hoc recte non agat, et contrarium eligat. Semper autem indifferentia haec quae se habet ex parte potentiae, remanet ad malum, cum subest ratio aliqua boni seu motivi in objecto quod voluntas refugit & aversatur: Illud enim voluntas quavis determinatione ad bonum posita amplecti et eligere potest, quod sub aliqua boni et motivi ratione apparet, et ad quod eligendum homo potentiam habet. Denique indifferentia ex parte actus seu indifferentia proxima actionis ea est qualem Molina constituit, qua scilicet voluntas proximam habet agendi vel non agendi, agendi hoc vel illud indifferentiam; qua voluntas sic est in aequilibrio posita, ut pro libito se ad istud vel illud moveat vel non moveat; qua voluntas etiam posita motione Divinae gratiae, parem tamen habet in utrumlibet indiffetentiam, ita ut bonum aliquando actu eligat, aliquando actu non eligat, aliquando recte agat et gratiae divinae obsequatur, aliquando vero pro libito peccet ac gratiae divinae motionem abjiciat. Atque hanc solum Molinae indifferentiam utpote gratiae per se efficaci contrariam nec ad libertatem nec ad meritum in hoc lapsae naturae statu requiri S. Augustini Discipuli contendunt. Observandum etiam est, libertatem vel sumi secundum se et generatim loquendo, prout Deo, Christo viatori, Angelis Beatis, hominibus in statu naturae integrae vel lapsae convenit: vel sumi secundum varium statum in quo libertas & merirum occurrunt, puta secundum statum hominis ante lapsum vel post lapsum. His praenotatis facilis erit hujus tertiae propositionis per quatuor sequentes propositiones exposito.   

Prima propositio de libertate.  
Indifferentia essentialis est libertata circa media, seu quoad libertatem electionis quae circa media versatur, ubi plura sunt media ad fidem consequendum.  

Conformitas propositionibus hujus cum Doctrina S. Thomae.  VOlunras igitur Angeli se habet ad oppos●ta quantum ad multa facienda vel non facienda; sed quantum ad ipsum Deum quem vident esse ipsam esseneiam bonitatis, non se habent ad opposita, sed secundum ipsum ad omnia diriguntur quodcunque oppositorum eligant, quod sine peccato est. 1 p. quaest. 68 a. 8. ad 3. Vnde quod liberum arbitrium diversa eligere possit servato ordine finis, hoc pertinet ad perfectionem libertatis ejus. Sed quod eligat aliquid divertendo ab ordine finis, quod est ptccare, hoc pertinet ad defectum libertatis. Vnde major libertas arbitrii est in Angelis qui peccare non possunt, quam in nobis qui peccare possumus. 1 p. quaest. 62. art. 8. ad 3.   

Secunda propositio de libertate.  
Indifferentia ex parte potentiae ad bonum & malum non est necessaria ad agendum libere neque ad merendum, fi ratio libertatis & meriti generatim & secundum se considerentur, ut patet ex merito & libertate Christi.  

Conformitas propositionis bujus cum Doctrina S. Thamae & S. Augustini.  DIcendum quod etiamsi liberum arbitrium Christi esset determinatum ad unum numero sicut ad diligendum Deum, quod non facere non potest, tamen ex hoc non amittit libertatem aut rationem laudis sive meriti, quia in illud non coacte sed sponte tendit, & ita est actus sui Dominus. In 3 sent. didst 18. art. 2. ad 5. Nec tamen per charitatem Christus meruit in quantum erat charitas comprehensoris, sed in quantum erat viatoris: nam ipse fuit simul viator & comprehensor, ut supra habitum est. Et ideo quia nunc non est viator, non est in statu merendi. 3 p. q. 19 a. 3. ad 1. Pro tanto dicitur quod velle malum nec est libertas nec pars libertatis, quamvis sit quoddam libertatis signum. Inter quaest. disputatas q. 22. de voluntate art. 6. Nunquid metuendum fuit ne accedente aetate homo ille libero peccaret arbitrio? an ideo in illo non libera voluntas erat, ac non tanto magis erat, quanto magis peccato servire non poterat? S. Aug. de praed. Sanctorum cap. 15. Postea vero sic erit ut male velle non possit, nec ideo libero carebit arbitrio; multo quippe liberius erit arbitrium, quod omnino non poterit servire peccato. S. Aug. in Enchiridio c. 150.   

Tertia propositio de libertate.  
Indifferentia proxima actionis qualem Molina statuit, nullo modo necessaria est ad libere agendum, aut ad merendum in hoc naturae corruptae statu, cum eadem indifferentia gratiae vi sua efficacis ac insuperabiliter ad bonnm determinantis, & ad singulos pietatis actus necessariae, proprium agendi modum destruat.  
Seu, voluntatis ad aliquem pietatis actum per gratiam praevenientem vi sua efficacem determinatio, nullo modo libertatem quae ad merendum in hoc naturae corruptae statu requiritur, aufert, aut labefactat.  

Conformitas propositionis hujus cum doctrina S. Augustini & S. Tbomae à Duacensibus relata in censura assertionis decimae.  PRima, inquit S. Augustinus de corr. & grat. c. 11. gratia est, qua fit ut homo habeat justitiam, si velit; secunda vero plus potest, qua etiam fit ut velit. Et infra, nec de ipsa perseverantia boni voluit Deus Sanctos suos in viribus suis sed in ipso gloriari, qui iis non solum dat adjutorium quale primo homini dedit, sine quo non possunt perseverare, si velint, sed in iis operatur & velle, ut quoniam non perseverabunt, nisi etiam possint, & velint, perseverandi iis possibilitas & voluntas Divinae gratiae largitate donetur; Et iterum, subventum est igitur infirmitati voluntatis humanae, ut Divina gratia indeclinabiliter & insuperabiliter ageretur, & ideo quamvis infirma, non tamen deficeret, neque adversitate aliqua vinceretur. Et mox, Fortissimo quippe dimisit atque permisit facere quod vellet: infirmis seravit, ut, ipso donante, invictissime quod bonum est, vellent, & hoc deserere invictissime nollent. 
Ex quibus aliisque Augustini locis patet, ita efficacem esse gratiam Christi, ut voluntatem hominis infallibiliter, nullam tamen inferendo necessitatem, ad bonum determinet, a qua quidem necessitate nimium metuit assertor, quamquam nihil metuerit B. Augustinus, tametsi ei objiciente Pelagio, quod libertatem tolleret. At neque metuit S. Thomas, dum parte prima quaest. 105. art. 4. docet, Deum in nostra voluntate operari; pro fundamento illius doctrinae collocans illud Apostoli, Deus operatur in nobis & velle & perficere.    

Quarta propositio de libertate.  
In statu naturae lapsae ad merendum & demerendum & adest semper & etiam requiritur in puris viatoribus indifferentia potentiae, non modo circa media, verum & circarectum finem, non quidem ratione libertatis aut meriti secundum se, sed ratione status hujus & conditionis; adeo ut licet in justis etiam cum per divinam gratiam efficacissimam ad pie agendum moti pie agunt, peccandi seu male agendi potentia semper perseveret, propter quam dissentire possunt Deo moventi, hoc est peccare & a justitia excidere, nunquam tamen stet ut tunc actu dissentiant, hoc est, ut peccent & a justitia excidant, cum Deus eos ut non excidant & ut pie agant efficaciter praemovet.  

Conformitas propositionis hujus cum doctrina S. Augustini, S. Prosperi, & S. Thomae.  PLane illa possibilitas utriusque radicis est capax; quia non solum potest homo habere charitatem qua sit arbor bona, sed potest etiam cupiditatem qua sit arbor mala. De gratia Christi cap. 20. Natura humana quamvis mutabilis quantum ad id pertinet quod condita est, bona est quae non solum sine vitio facta est, verum etiam cum per vitium mala est, capax est boni quo bona sit: haec vera sententia fallacem Manichaeorum evertit insaniam. Et infra; Nunc ergo non solum potest peccare homo post baptismum, verum & quia bene reluctans concupiscentiae carnis, aliquando ab ea trahitur ad consensionem, & quamvis venialia, tamen aliqua peccata committit, habet cur semper hic dicat Dimitre nobis debita nostra, haec qucque Catholica veritas Joviniani redarguit vanitatem. Lib. 2. op. Imp. numero 10. In caeteris hominibus, donec caro concupiscit adversus spiritum & spiritus adversus carnem, & donec spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma, incommutabilis animi fortitudo non potest reperiri; cum non hujus sed alterius vitae sit vera, perfecta & secura felicitas: in praesentis ergo agonis incerto, ubi tota vita tentatio est, & ab insidianti superbia nee ipsa tuta est victoria, mutabilitatis periculo non caretur: Et licet innumeris Sanctis suis donet virtutem perseverandi usque in finem Divina protectio, nullis tamen aufert quod ipsis repugnat ex ipsis. Et infra: Merito igitur ab incipientibus non solum, verum etiam a provectissimis Sanctis uniformiter Domino supplicatur, & dicitur, Ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Univetsis enim qui in fide & dilectione permanent, ab ipso donatur ne in tentatione superentur, ut qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur; ipsamque gloriam iisdem quibus eam impertit ascribit, ut quamvis auxilio Dei steterint, tamen quia in se habebant unde caderent, ipsorum sit meritum quod steterunt. Prosp. de voc. Gent. l. 2. c. 28. Posse eligere malum non est de ratione liberi arbitrii, sed consequitur liberum arbitrium, secundum quod est in natura creata possibile ad defectum. S. Thomas inter quaestiones disputatas quaest. 23. art. 3. ad secundum. 
Ex quibus manifeste patet, indifferentiam qualemlibet in hoc lapsae naturae statu ab Augustini Discipulis, in his quae ad salutem & ad finem supernaturalem pertinent admitti, praeter Molinisticam quae gratiae ad singulos pios actus necessariae efficaciam & vim propriam destruit; non tamen ad libertatem & meritum secundum se, essentialem dici indifferentiam potentiae circa rectum finem, ne Christus Dominus qui peccare, qui Dei praeceptis non obsequi, qui opera sua ad Patris sui gloriam non referre non poterat, in actibus obedientiae, & dilectionis Dei vel liber non fuisse vel non meruisse dicatur.     

QUARTO PROPOSITIO.  
Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei: & in hoc erant haeretici quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare.  

Expositio primae partis propositionis.  
SEmipelagiani admittebant gratiae praevenientis interioris qualis fuit in primo homine ante peccatum, seu auxilii sine quo non fit, necessitatem ad initium fidei.  

Semipelagianorum ut à Patribus & à Theologis Lovaniensibus ac Duacensibus refertur sententia.  HIs verbis Sanctitatis tuae ita moventur, ut dicant quandam desperationem hominibus exhiberi. Si enim, aiunt, i●a Adam adjutus est ut & stare posset in justitia & a justitia declinare, & nunc ita Sancti juvantur ut declinare non possint (si quidem eam acceperunt volendi perseverantiam ut aliud velle non possint;) vel sic quidam deferuntur, ut aut nec accedant, aut si accesserint & recedant, ad illam voluntatem pertinuisse dicunt exhortationis vel comminationis utilitatem quae & persistendi & desistendi obtinebat liberam potestatem, non ad hanc cui nolle justitiam inevitabili necessitate conjunctum est. Epist. Hil. ad Aug. 
En Massilienses in hominibus lapsis ad initium fidei admittunt auxilium sine quo non fit, quale in Adamo innocente S. Augustinus constituit, utpote correctioni & exhortationi non contrarium, & desperationem non inducens, quod refugiebant tantummodo Semipelagiani. Illudque solum auxilium ad initium fidei, ad desiderium sanitatis tanquam correctioni inimicum respuunt, quo fit ut omne quod bonum est invictissime volumus & hoc deserere invictissime nolumus, quo fit ut indeclinabiliter non solum operamur, verum & in Deum credimus, nec solum in opere, verum & in fide & in oratione insuperabiliter perseveramus; quo demum omnia bona hominis merita tam quoad fidem inchoatam, orationem, & initium piae voluntatis, quam quoad charitatem virtutumque omnium opera, Deo nobis vires efficacissimas donante, praeveniuntur.  
Nec quod saepe Massilienses initium fidei ex nobis esse, ex viribus liberi arbitrii, & non ex gratia apud S. Augustinum asserant; inde eos auxilii sine quo non fit necessitatem ad initium fidei non admisisse ullatenus sequitur, quia juxta S. Augustinum quod agitur cum solo auxilio sine quo non fit, illud libero arbitrio, viribus nostris, & non gratiae tribuitur, ut patet ex Angelis quos ait de corr. & grat. cap 10. & 11. Stetisse per liberum arbitrium & non per gratiam; ut patet ex Adam, In cujus liberi arbitrii viribus fuisse dicit de dono pers. cap. 7. ut staret antequam caderet: cum tamen juxta S. Augustinum de corr. & gratia cap. 11. & Angeli & Adam ante lapsum auxilio sine quo non fit, ad perseverandum indigerent.  Ut acquiescamus salutiferae inspirationi, nostrae potestatis est, inquit Gennadius Semipelagianus de Eccles. dogm. c. 21. Haec sententia quae habet sufficere nunc justis ad perseverandum eam gratiam, qualis fuit primis parentibus data, & Massiliensium olim fuit, & directe ac ex professo Beati Augustini doctrinae repugnat, cap. 12. de corr. & gratia, & Ecclesiae orationes evertit. Lovan. in cens. 22. assert. Idem hoc volebant Massilienses quibus non placuit discrimen illud gratiae quod inter hominem lapsum & integrum posuerat Augustinus in lib. de corr. & gr. c. 12. ut est in ep. Hil. ad Aug. Duac. in cens. 22. assert.   

Expositio alterius partis propositionis.  
In hoc errabant Semipelagiani, quod vellent gratiam per se efficacem, non esse ad singulos actus etiam fidei inchoatae & orationis necessariam.  

In quo Pelagiani & Semipelagiani circa gratiam erraverint.  SEd nos eam gratiam volumus iste aliquando fateatur, qua futurae gloriae magnitudo non solum permirtitur, verum etiam creditur & speratur; nec solum revelatur sapientia, verum etiam & amatur; nec suadetur solum omne quod bonum est, verum & persuadetur. Hanc debet Pelagius confiteri si vult non solum vocari, verum etiam esse Christianus. De gratia Christi cap. 10. 
Certissimo itaque S. Augustini judicio errat circa Christi gratiam, nec Christianus ille est, qui docet quod gratia Christi non persuadet omne quod bonum est, hoc est, qui asserit aliquod bonum ad salutem conducens fieri sine gratia per se efficace, Pelagianusque est qui gratiam ex se efficacem ad nullum bonum actum requiri affirmat: Semipelagianus vero qui hanc ad aliquem bonum actum requiri & ad aliquem non requiri contendit.  
Lovanienses & Duacenses docent gratiam hanc quae libero arbitrio subjicitur, quam voluntas pro libito vel efficacem obsequendo, vel inefficacem respuendo reddit, seu quae vi sua efficax non est, non esse specialem & propriam Christi gratiam, non esse gratiam novi Testamenti. Ita Lovan. in cens. assert. 8. Non igitur specialis haec Christi est gratia cui proprium id esse evidentissimis verbis Augustinus scribit, ut a duro nullo co●de respuatur, quoniam per eam ipsa cordis durities auferatur. In qua fidelitet agnoscenda quid a Pelagio idem olim postularit, etc. Lovan. in cens. 8. assert.  Ita Duacenses in cens. ejusdem assertionis. Ea enim proprie est gratia Christi & gratia novi Testamenti quae aufert cor lapideum & tribuit cor carneum, quae operatur ipsum velle & perficere, quae facit ut faciamus, non tantum ut possimus facere si velimus. 
S. Augustini, Conciliorum, summorum Pontificum, totiusque Ecclesiae doctrinam in hoc consistere, ut gratia per se efficax ad singulos piae voluntatis motus & actus necessaria agnoscatur: In Pelagianorum vel Semipelagianorum errores incidere, qui ejusdem gratiae vi sua efficacis ad singulos motus & actus necessitatem negant, & qui Molinae hac in parte doctrinam sequuntur, docent summi Pontifices, Clemens VIII. & Paulus V. ille scripto suo Congregationi de Auxiliis exhibito, uterque suffragio suo ut ex iis Congregationibus in quibus praesentes adfuerunt facile intelligitur, & haec sententia de gratiae per se efficacis ad singulos pios motus necessitate, judicio ejusdem Pauli V. Apostolico publice ac solenniter confirmata fuisset nisi Venetorum motus obstitissent. Idem docent totus Dominicanorum Ordo, & Congregatio de Auxiliis, ut patet ex actis ejusdem Congregationis & ex historia Francisci de Pegna illustrissimi Rotae Decani; docent Lovanienses & Duacenses Doctores passim in suis censuris. Docent demum celeberrimi hac aetate Theologi, Bannes in D. Thomam 1 parte quaest. 23. art. 3. conclus. ultima. Alvarez lib. 1. de Auxiliis disp. 1. pag. 8. Navarreta controversia 21 de praedeterminatione Physica in quaest. 19 1. partis D. Thomae de voluntate Dei. joannes a S. Thoma in 1. p. quaest. 19 disp. 3. a. 4. Item quaest. 14. disp. 20. art. 3. & 6. Martinez in 1. 2. quaest. 10. art. 4. dub. 1. Estius in 1 ep. ad Timoth. c. 2. Cumel. in 1 partem quaest. 23. art. 3. quaest. apud auctorem 8. conclus. 5. Felisius dist. 24. cap. 25. in 2 sent. Cabrera 3 p. quaest. 18. art. 4. disp. 6. dubio 9 Aliique celeberrimi e Schola S. Thomae Theologi, quorum omnium testimonia in libro de gratia Christi victrice expresse continentur.     

QUINTA PROPOSITIO.  
Semipalagianum est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse.  

EXPOSITIO.  
VEritas est ad finem Christianam pertinens, quod Christus pro omnibus hominibus mortuus fuerit ac sanguinem fuderit.  
Attamen certum est Semipelagianos dixisse perverso & erroneo sensu, quod Christus pro omnibus omnino mortuus fuerit, ut patet ex testimoniis sequentibus.  Inquiunt Massilienses pro universo humano genere mortuum esse Dominum nostrum jesum Christum, & neminem prorsus a redemptione sanguinis ejus exceptum, etiamsi omnem hanc vitam alienissima ab eo ment pertranseat, quia ad omnes homines pertinet Divinae misericordiae sacramentum, quo ideo plurimi non renovantur quia quod nec renovari velle habeant praenoscantur. Itaque quantum ad Deum pertinet, paratam omnibus vitam aeternam. Ep. Prosp. ad S. Aug. Ind est quod illius sententiae expositionem, non eam quae a te est deprompta, suscipiant Massilienses, id est, ut nonnisi omnes homines salvos fieri velit, & non eos tantum qui ad Sanctorum numerum pertinebunt, sed omnes omnino ut nullus habeatur exceptus. Epist. Hil. ad August. 
Gratia, qua Christi populus sumus, hoc cohibetur  
Limite vobiscum, & formam hanc ascribitis illi,  
Ut cunctos vocet illa quidem invitetque, nec ullum  
Praeteriens, studeat communem afferre salutem  
Omnibus, & totum peccato absolvere mundum.  Prosp. poem. l. 2. c. 10. 
Qui vero dicunt Christi mortem pro omnibus, in hoc consistere, ut morte sua omnibus nemine excepto contulerit auxilia omnia quae ad salutem sufficiunt, ac quae necessaria sunt, gratiae Christi vi sua efficacis ad singulos pietatis actus necessitatem negant & evertunt. Si enim Christus morte sua omnibus contulit auxilia omnia necessaria ad salutem, certe auxilia ad salutem necessaria non sunt vi sua efficacia, cum omnes non salventur, & auxilia vi sua efficacia ea sint quae effectum suum a Deo intentum certissime consequuntur.  
Recte autem Duacenses in censura assert. 14. colligunt ex Concilio Tridentino generelem Christi pro omnibus redemptionem in hoc non consistere, ur omnes ex parte Dei habeant quod sufficit ad salutem; Quia si haberent, inquiunt, quomodo e contrario testatur Synodus Tridentina sess. 6. can. 3. quod etsi pro omnibus mortuus est Christus, non omnes tamen mortis ejus beneficium recipiunt, sed two duntaxat quibus meritum passionis communicatur?  
Recte & iidem Duacenses ac Lovanienses juxta Patrum doctrinam exponunt in censura assert. 7. in quo consistat generalis Christi pro omnibus redemptio. Talis est assertio septima jesuitatum Lovaniensium: Deus voluit dare Christum in redemptionem pro omnibus, nullo excepto: Ergo omnibus praeparavit sufficientia media per Christum. Probatur consequentia; Quia eatenus est Christus omnium Redemptor, quatenus per ipsum donantur omnibus sufficientia media quibus resurgant a peccatis. Si enim non darentur sufficientia, verus non esset eorum Redemptor; quia neque quoad sufficientiam, neque quoad efficaciam. Quam assertionem sic Duacenses in sua censura refellunt. Huic argumento Massiliensium (quod idem & Fausti fuit) responsum est jam olim a Prospero in hunc modum; quoad magnitudinem & potestatem pretii, & quod ad unam pertinet causam generis humani, sanguis Christi redemptio est totius mundi. Sed qui hoc seculum sine fide Christi, & sine regenerationis Sacramento pertranseunt, redemptionis alieni sunt. Cum itaque propter unam omnium naturam, & unam omnium causam, in veritate a Domino nostro susceptam, recte dicantur omnes redempti, & tamen non omnes a captivitate sint eruti; Redemptionis proprietas haud dubie penes illos est, de quibus Princeps mundi missus est foras, & jam non vasa diaboli sed membra sunt Christi. Et mox, p●culum quippe immortalitatis, quod confectum est de infirmitate nostra & virtute Divina, habet quidem in se ut omnibus prosit; sed si non bibitur, non medetur. Sic i●le. Sufficientia ergo quam postulat generalis redemptio, in pretio sanguinis Christi est, non autem in auxilio omnibus collato ut praetendit objectio. Nam alioquin etiam in parvulis quibus per Baptismum succurri non potuit, tale auxilium tribuendum erit: aut certe dicere oportebit, non pro illis Christum se dedisse in redemptionem, & ita non pro omnibus.  
Non alio quam isto hic expresso gratiae per se efficacis ad singulos piae voluntatis motus & actus necessariae sensu, propositiones istae quinque aut ab Illustrissimo Iprensi, aut ab ullo quovis S. Augustini Discipulo sive in libris editis, sive in lectionibus publicis sive in concionibus, Parisiis defensae sunt, a nemine ut jacent assertae. Non prius in comitiis Facultatis Parisiensis auditae sunt, quin professi confestim fuerint S. Augustini Discipuli, eas a se nonnisi juxta hunc sensum propugnari. Has ita Dominus de Saincte Beuve Doctor ac Professor Regius in Sorbonicis Scholis hoc anno explanavit, ut ex illius scriptis publicae dictatis manifestum est. Nec aliter expositae sunt in eo libro qui de victrice Christi gratia nuperrime in eam rem editus est, ut elucidarentur propositiones istae de quibus scriptum est ad summum Pontificem; quem qui librum legerit, profecto jam cogatur calumniandi libidinem omnem ponere, atque id fateri quod ad quinque illas propositiones attinet nihil nisi recte sensisse Iprensem Episcopum, & caeteros Augustini Discipulos, nisi perverse sentire putet qui gratiam per se efficacem ad singulos pios motus & actus necessariam esse cum S. Augustino, cum antiquis Patribus, cum Conciliis, cum summis Pontificibus, cum S. Thoma, cum universo Dominicanorum Ordine, cum Theologis primi nominis, cum Congregatione tota de Auxiliis, ipsisque adeo nuper Clement VIII. & Paulo V. crediderit. Sancti Augustini Discipuli suam sententiam hanc de quinque propositionibus istis subdole concinnatis ad fraudem, omnibus Episcopis, Archiepiscopis, Romanae Sedi, universae Ecclesiae palam faciunt, ne quid jam subsit calumniae, triumphatisque malis artibus discat aliquando silere livor, & victricis Christi gratiae vindicem Augustinum cum universa Ecclesia colere.  
PARISIIS, Kal. Jul. Anno salutis per gratiam reparatae MDCLI.  
Cette Date est de consequence & à observer. Elle estoit ainsi qu'elle est cy-dessus imprimée au pied de cet Escrit, quand il fut publié & donné à tout le monde dés ce temps-là.     

The Writings of the Dominicans, mentioned Part. 6. Chap. 9 and in other places of the Journal.  
Advertisement touching these Writings.  
I Cannot affirm (as I intimated in the Journal) whether or no I obtained all the Writings of the Dominicans, or whether they were all in the same order wherein they are here presented, together with the Memorial intended to be presented to the Pope by the General of that Order, when the Prelate (mentioned Part. 6. Chap. 10.) told me at la Minerve, where I met him, Febr. 25. 1652. that the said General had newly shown them to him, and that they were in very good order: But I know well, that if they be not all here, yet here is a good part of them: I know well likewise, that each of them was purposely prepared to be presented to the Pope by such of that Order as the said General had appointed to apply themselves to this affair; and lastly, that it was by their favour in giving me a Copy, that I obtained them.  

The first Writing.  
Entitled on the outside,  
Connexio quinque propositionum quae nunc examinantur cum iis quae disputata fuerunt coram felicis recordationis Clement VIII. & Paulo V.  
Voicy les termes qu'il contenoit:  
Beatissimo P. Innocentio X. Eminentiss. S.R.E. Cardinalibus, & Doctiss. Theologis Censoribus pro negotio quinque Propositionum ab Apostolica Sede deputatis.  
QUia nonnulli dicunt has quinque propositiones nullam habere connexionem cum his quae disputata fuerunt sub sanctissimis felicis recordationis Clement VIII. & Paulo V. & in ipsorum praesentia, visum fuit nobis pro ea in qua semper fuimus fide & reverentia erga sanctam Sedem, ex ipsis actis disputationum sub praedictis summis Pontificibus habitarum fidelissime extrahere, quae circa has quinque propositiones tunc agitata fuerunt.  

PRIMA PROPOSITIO.  
Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus sunt impossibilia secundum praesentes quas habent vires: deest quoque eis gratia qua possibilia fiant.  Ex disputatione 41 habita coram sanctissimo felicis recordationis Paulo V. die 9 Novembris Anno 1605. 
ET eodem modo P. Bastida Societatis Jesus, defensor P. Molinae ejusdem Societatis, inducebat aliud ex Concilio Tridentino cap. 2. Quod Dei praecepta homini justo ad observandum impossibilia non sunt: si autem esset necessarium illud auxilium efficax praedeterminans, sine illo (quod non omnibus datur) essent praecepta homini impossibilia; quia sine illo non poterit homo operari. Et in hoc puncto induxit conclusiones Fr. Thomae de Lemos, in quibus habatur, quod secunda causa sine praevio concursu primae operati non potest: Ergo nec operari poterit voluntas sine auxilio illo physice praedeterminante, & sic reddentur praecepta Divina impossibilia. Nec hic oportet recurrere, quod Deus neget illa auxilia propter praecedens peccatum, sive actuale, sive originale, quia homo existens in gratia nullum tale habet impedimentum, & tamen habens grariam habitualem, si non adsit illud auxilium physice praedeterminans, non poterit operari: & ex consequenti impossibilia ei reddentur Divina praecepta.  
Quod autem sermo esset de homine justo etiam volente imperfecte, & conante, atque habente auxilium sufficiens; patet, quia P. Thomas de Lemos & P. Alvarez dicebant, 
Constat hoc ex P. Lemos opusculo de auxilio sufficienti & efficaci, & ex Alvarez disp. 18. de Auxiliis.  omne auxilium sufficiens esse efficax respectu alicujus actus imperfecti: & ultra hoc dicebant requiri auxilium aliud simpliciter & absolute efficax sine quo homo non potest operari. Ex quo inferebat etiam P. Bastina, auxilium illud, quod P. Lemos & P. Alvarez vocabant sufficiens, non esse vere sufficiens, non dare verum posse, atque adeo praecepta esse impossibilia homini justo habenti auxilium sufficiens, & per illlud auxilium sufficiens imperfecte volenti, & conanti.   

SECUNDA PROPOSITIO.  
Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.  Ex eadem disputatione 41. 
PAter Bastida objiciebat P. Thomae de Lemos:, quod potest homo cuilibet auxilio gratiae praevenientis dissentire, ac resistere, & quod de facto aliquando dissentit, ac resistit.   

TERTIA PROPOSITIO.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur libertas à necessitate, sed sufficit libertas à coactione.  Ex disputatione 44. coram sanctissimo Paulo V habita die 10. Januarii 1606. 
PAter Bastida pro tertia propositione ex his, quas proponebat; dicebat; ex hac gratia physice praedeterminante, actus voluntatis sequitur necessario, non suapte natura, sed ex suppositione decreti Divini, vel alterius antecedentis causae; Et sic (inferebat) tollitur libertas; & consequenter meritum, ac demeritum.   

QUARTA PROPOSITIO.  
Semipelagiani admiserunt gratiae interioris neceessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei: & in hoc fuerunt haeretici, quod dicerent hanc gratiam talem esse, cui posset humana voluntas resistere, vel obtemperare.  Ex disputation 10 coram sanctissimo Clement VIII habita die 19 Novembris. anno 1602. 
REverendus P. Generalis Societatis asserebat Pelagianos (quo nomine frequenter intelliguntur etiam Semipelagiani, & certum est) non fuisse haereticos quia negarent gratiam ex se ipsa efficacem: unde dicebat, Multi Doctores dicunt gratiam movere moraliter, qui damnandi non sunt tanquam Pelagiani, Nunquid omnes erunt Pelagiani? Cui Generalis S. Dominici. Omnes qui id tantum dicunt, sunt Pelagiani, & omnes sunt discipuli vestri.   

QUITA PROPOSITIO.  
Semipelagianorum error est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, aut sanguinem fudisse  Post disputationem octavam. 
SAnctissimus Clemens VIII. misit 14. propositiones, ut disputaretur an Molina cum Cassiano & Semipelagianis conveniret in illis: praecepitque ut antequam disputaretur de illis, utraque pars scripto responderet. Itaque P. Thomas de Lemos ut ostenderet convenientiam Molinae cum Cassiano & Semipelagianis in 14 propositione, quae erat de praedestinatione, dedit in scriptis haec quae sequuntur.  
Insuper haec de eodem Cassiano & Fausto Semipelagianorum ducibus refert S. Prosper, sic dicens: 
Epistola ad Augustinum.  Haec ipsorum definitio ac professio est, omnem quidem hominem Adam peccante peccasse, & neminem per opera sua, sed per Dei gratiam regeneratione salvari: universis tamen hominibus propotiationem, quae est in Sacramento sanguinis Christi, sine exceptione esse propositam, etc.  
Et ut ostenderet P. Lemos, ipsum Molinam cum Cassiano & Semipelagianis in hoc convenire, citavit locum Molinae quaest. 23 art. 4 et 5 disp. 2. memb. 2. quo loco Molina docet, de universis omnino hominibus intelligendum esse, quod D. Paulus ait, Vult omnes homines salvos fieri, et Christus pro omnibus mortuus est.  
Denique omnia testimonia et argumenta quae contra has quinque propositiones objiciunt, objecerunt etiam in praefatis disputationibus.  
Ex his ergo apparet, quod non est diversa causa quae modo agitur, ab illa quae tunc agitata est, et consequenter, si quid definire sua Sanctitas voluerit, necessarium foret revidere acta sub praedictis Pontificibus.    

The secend Writing.  
Quid intendant qui petunt quinque propositiones damnari?  
Qui petunt à Sanctissimo damnari quinque Propositiones, tria potissimum intendunt.  

PRimum est ut tota doctrina Molinae definiatur. Hoc ipsos intendere ostenditur primo, 
Hoc probatur ex scripto signato N. 2 '  quia tota doctrina Molinae stabilitur ex damnatione harum quinque propositionum; notum est autem quanto studio tota Societas illam Molinae doctrinam amplexata ac tutata fuerit sub felicis recordationis Clement VIII. et Paulo V. ac deinceps. Unde eandem fere totam revocavit liber PseudoSuari 
Et Liber P. Adami & P. Annati recenter impressus.  Lugduni anno superiori impressus. Satagentibus Jesuitis de Auxiliis contra Pontificias sanciones, idemque de novo praestiterunt ex parte P. Adam et P. Annatus Jesuitae.  
Quod autem Patres Societatis curent per hos Doctores Sorbonicos peti damnationem harum propositionum, patet ex scedula Gallice scripta a quodam Jesuita ad ipsos, quam exhibebimus, ex continuis colloquiis et conciliis quae habent cum Jesuitis, et qu●a. iisdem argumentis ipsi et Jesuitae impugnant propositiones. Noluerunt tamen PP. Societatis per se ipsos petere hanc damnationem, ne Fratres Praedicatores moverentur, contenta sub his quinque propositionibus innotesceret Eminentissimis DD. Cardinalibus et suae Sanctitati; et valde notandum est quod eodem tempore Romae et in Hispania excitarunt controversias de Conceptione lib. ult. sicut olim fecerant sub Paulo V. ut hac ratione contra illos concitarent fideles.  
Secundo. Patet haec illorum intentio quia plures aliae propositiones continentur in Jansenio multo periculosiores istis, ut ipsi dicunt, et tamen non petunt condemnationem nisi harum quinque tangentium materiam de Auxiliis, ut constat ex sensu Catholico quem explicamus. Aliunde vero ex istis quinque sola prima habetur formaliter in Jansenio 
Patent haec ex eodem scripto.  secunda & tertia expresse negantur ab illo, quarta & quinta non habentur apud illum, quamvis possint aliquo modo ex i●lo colligi: Et omnes sunt fraudulenter compositae; quare constat studio impugnandi non Jansenium sed Fratres Praedicatores, has quinque tantum proponi.  
Tertio. Patet haec illorum intentio quia petunt ut damnentur hae quinque propositiones in sensu Jansenii: Nolumus quidem defendere Jansenium, quem in multis scimus esse contrarium iis quae tanquam S. Augustini & S. Thomae 
Patet hoc ex scriptis signatis N. 6 & 7.  semper Schola nostra defendit, maxime coram Clement. VIII. & Paulo V. Sed tamen ostendimus sensum Jansenii 
Hic sensus Jansenii ostenditur in scripto signato N. 3.  in his propositionibus procedere de gratia efficaci: Et quamvis, ut ipsi aiunt, procederet de gratia sufficienti, quam dicunt negari a Jansenio, non potest attingi hoc punctum, quin & simul attingatur ob connexionem materia de Auxiliis. Imo vero Jansenius vel sibi contradicit, & sic non est damnandus in utraque contradictoria, alias S. Sedes contradictoria definiret, vel admittit reipsa gratiam sufficientem 
Patet hoc ex scripto signato N 8.  non ad sensum Molinae & quorundam aliorum qui defenderunt doctrinam S. Augustini coram Clement VIII. & Paulo V.   

Secunda illorum intentio.  
ESt ut intra paucos menses evertantur omnia, quae fere per decennium gesta & decreta sunt sub Clement VIII & Paulo V. in trecentis pene Congregationibus.  
Probatur primo. Quia stabilita Molinae doctrina, evertuntur omnia in illis Congregationibus peracta, 
Constat hrc ex citationibus marginalibus in scripto signato N. 2.  cum in illis doctrina Molinae qualificata sit a Censoribus depuratis ut Pelagiana & Semipelagiana.  
Secundo. Patet 
Ibidem.  quia has quinque propositiones non sic artificiose collectas, sed seorsim objecerunt PP. Societatis, FF. Praedicatoribus in praefatis Congregationibus tanquam absurda quae sequebantur ex ipsorum sententia.  
Tertio. Quia omnia sere loca Scripturae, Conliorum, Sancti Augustini, & Sancti Thomae, quae modo adducunt pro damnatione harum quinque propositionum, fuerunt adducta a Patribus Societatis contra Fratres Praedicatores in praedictis Congregationibus, ut ostendemus quando placuerit suae Sanctitati; & quod caput est, sicut tunc aliqua truncabant & falsificabant, ita & nunc, cujus rei specimen exhibemus.   

Tertia illorum intentio.  
ESt 
In scripto signato N. 4.  pessundare D. Augustini auctoritatem approbatam ab Ecclesia in materia de gratia & praedestinatione.  
Probatur primo. Quia 
Patet ex scripto N. 2.  hoc sequitur manifeste ex damnatione quartae & quintae propositionis.  
Secundo. Quia eadem intentione quae olim Molina & alii dixerant irreverenter, P. Annatus, P. Adam, & P. Pallavicinus ejusdem Societatis renovarunt 
Et ex scriptio signato.  his temporibus.  
Tertio. Quia iisdem locis Scripturae utuntur contra has propositiones, quibus abutebantur Pelagiani & Semipelagiani contra D. Augustinum 
Patet hoc ex scripto signato N. 4.  ut susius ostendetur, cum sua Sanctitas dignabitur audire.    

The third Writing.  
Propositiones quinque expsicatae ex verbis Jansenii.  

PRIMA PROPOSITIO.  
Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia: deest quoque illis gratia qua possibilia fiant.  
Istam dicit Jansenius colligi ex testimoniis D. Augustini. Ita lib. 3 de gratie Christi c. 13 tom. 3. pag. 138. col. 2 lit. C in editione Parisiensi 1641.  
Explicat autem mentem suam ibidem lit. D. dicens: Eo quod vires voluntatis infirmae sunt propter concupiscentiam a volendo bono retrahentem, cujus renisu fit, ut viret voluntatis distrahatur: atque ita homo uon plene velit, non integre velit, non tota voluntate velit: Talem autem voluntatem non esse idoneam ut superet aliam vetustate roboratam: quia per illam nondum potest homo tantum velle quantum sufficit ut volendo faciat: Peterit autem cum habuerit magnam & robustam; Hanc vero sibi tribuere non est potestatis humanae; sed solius gratiae Divinae quam proprerea ex fide invocamus. Et postea, Plurimis autem non dari istam faciendi possibilitatem quae precibus implorati solet. Deinde quia multi fideles non convertuntur ad invocandam gratiam.   

SECUNDA PROPOSITIO.  
Gratiae interiori in natura lapsa nunquam resistitur.  
HAnc negat Jansenius lib. 1 de gratia Christi c. 16 tom. 3 pag. 26 lit. C. ubi admittit gratiam intellectus, & statim litera D explicat, Quod per hujusmodi gratiam nihil aliud quam scientia praebetur intellectui, qua cognoscat quid agendum cavendumque sit. Et haec cognitio, inquit, Pag. 27. col. 2 lit. B. non minus esse potest in eo qui resistit quam qui obtemperat suae scientiae & conscientiae. Vnde enim alioquin rebelles lumini?  
Docet quidem Jansenius lib. 3 de gratia Christi a cap. 2 usque ad cap. 12 non dari ullum auxilium sufficiens: sed quod negat verbis, reipsa concedit; nam imprimis admittit illustrationes, inspirationes, etc. lib. 1 de gratia Christi cap. 16 tom. 3 pag. 26 lit. C. et sequentibus. Deinde admittit auxilium efficax respectu alicujus actus imperfecti, quo disponitur homo ad perfectum, lib. 2 de gratia Christi C. 27 tom. 3 pag. 86 col. 1 lit. D. Denique in hominibus justis admittit gratiam habitualem, & virtutes quibus possint operari supernaturaliter, lib. 3 de gratia Christi cap. 15 & passim alibi. In his autem tribus plures Doctores Catholici dicunt consistere auxilium sufficiens: Admittit ergo reipsa Iansenius quod verbis negat.   

TERTIA PROPOSITIO.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in natura lapsa non requiritur libertas à necessitate, sed sufficit libertas à coactione.  
HAnc negat Jonsenius tom. 3 lib. 6 de gratia Christi cap. 36 pag. 308 col. 1 lit. C. dicens: Amplius ergo sine dubio requiritur quam esse voluntarium & sine violentia, ut sit liberum. Et quid sit illud amplius ibidem explicat, videlicet, quod sit in hominis potestate, quod simus Domini. Imo addit ibidem col. 2 lit. A. in omnibus hujus vitae actionibus reperiri indifferentiam contradictionis & contrarietatis, quamvis neget libertatem consistentem essentialiter in hujusmodi indifferentia.   

QUARTA PROPOSITIO.  
Admiserunt Semipelagiani gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, & in hoc erant haeretici quod vellent hujusmodi gratiam talem esse cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare.  
HAEc sub his verbis non est Jansenii, sed solum colligitur ex illo lib. 8 de haeresi Pelagiani c. 6, 7 & 8 tom. 1. praesertim pag. 193 col. 2 lit. D. Semipelagianos fuisse haereticos, quod vellent hujusmodi gratiam non esse de se efficacem, sed cujus usus in sua cuique voluntate relinqueretur.   

QUINTA PROPOSITIO.  
Semipelagianorum error est, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse.  
JAnsenius lib. 3 de gratia Christi cap. 10 tom. 3 pag. 163 col. 1 lit. A. admittit Christum pro omnibus mortuum esse, Sufficienter, quia sufficiens pretium obtulit, non tamen efficienter, sive efficaciter; sed, inquit, hoc modo mortuus est pro solis qui participant beneficium mortis ejus ....    

The fourth Writing.  

PRIMA PROPOSITIO.  
Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentious, conantibus, secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia: deest quoque illis gratia qua possibilia fiant.  
HAEc prima propositio non est Jansenii: quia solum dicit testimonia D. Augustini demonstrare illam esse veram. Et sic debet explicari ex ipsomet Jansenio,  
Aliqaa Dei praecepta (scilicet difficiliora ob renisum concupiscentie) hominibus justis volentibus, conantibus, (scilicet non plene & integre, non tota voluntate) secundum praesentes quas hahent vires (id est, secundum vires voluntatis quae renisu vel resistentia concupiscentiae distrahuntur) sunt impossibilia (id est, propter coucupiscentiam a volendo bono retrahentem, voluntas non est idonea ut superet aliam voluntatem vetustate roboratam: quia per illam nondum potest homo tantum velle quantum sufficit ut volendo faciat: poterit autem cum magnam & robustam habuerit: hanc vero sibi tribuere non est potestatis hamanae, sed solius gratiae Dei quam propterea ex fide invocamus, hoc ipso clarissima voce profitentes deesse nobis sufficietem ad illa praecepta facienda potestatem). Deest quoque illis gratia qua possibilia fiant (quia multi fideles non convertuntur ad invocandam gratiam qua possint & sufficiant, vel non ita petant, ut ad impetrandum necessarium est). Hanc propositionem intelligit Jansenius de gratia efficaci quam vocat omnipotentem. Haec omnia sunt ex Jansenio lib. 3 de gratia Christi c. 13.   

SECUNDA PROPOSITIO.  
Gratiae interiori in natura lapsa nunquam resistitur.  
HAEc propositio non habetur in Jansenio, imo illam negat expresse quatenus admittit gratiam interiorem, sive gratiam intellectus, quae solum intellectum afficit, dat scire, non velle, quae cognitio est etiam in eo qui resistit, & rebellis est lumini; ita lib. 1 de gratia Christi cap. 16. Si autem intelligatur de gratia interiori, id est, efficaci, omnipotenti, quae intra voluntatem peragit partes suas, efficiendo volitionem vel fortem vel infirmam: tunc verum est quod ei nun quam resistitur etiam in omnium sententia, & propositio est de fide.   

TERTIA PROPSITIO.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in naturae lapsa non requiritur libertas à necessitate, sed sufficit libertas à coactione.  
HAEc proposito negarur expresse a Jansenio lib. 6 de g●atia Christi cap. 36, ubi dicit, quod ut opu● sit liberum, & consequenter meritorium vel ●e●●itorium, aliquid amplus requiritur quam esse voluatarium & sine violentia: et quid sit illud ampiu●●…quisitum, explicat ibidem, quod videlicet actiones sint in hominis potestate, quod simus illarum domini, cum sint cum plena rationis adverientia. Imo ibidem dicit, semper esse in natura lapsa indifferentiam contradictionis & contrariet. tis.  
Si autem haec propositio intelligatur ut jacet, sic explicati debet, Ad merendum & demerendum in natura lapsa non requiritur libertas a necessitate (infallibilitatis consequentiae, etc.) sed sufficit libertas a coactione, id est, a violentia et necessitate naturali, per quam fit actio sine pleva rationis advertentia, ut colligitur ex Jansenio lib. 6 de gratia Christi cap. 6; et sic sumpta propositio est de fide.   

QUARTA PROPOSITIO.  
Admiserunt Semipelagiani gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei & in hoc erant haeretici quod vellent hujusmodi gratiam talem esse cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare.  
HAEc non habetur in Jansenio: colligitur tamen ex illo lib. 8. de haeresi Pelagiana cap. 6, 7, 8, ex quibus locis colligitur solum 
Tom 1 pag. 293 col. 2 lit. D.  quod Semipelagiani in hoc erant haeretici quod vellent hujusmodi gratiam non esse de se efficacem, sed cujus usus in sua cuique voluntate relinqueretur, inquit Jansenius illo cap. 6.  
Haec propositio tantum abest quod possit damnari, quin imo est ita certa, ut oppositum dicere, sit favere Semipelagianis & damnare Augustinum.   

QUINTA PROPOSITIO.  
Semipelagianorum errrr est Christum pro omnibus omnino mortuum esse, aut sanguinem fudisse.  
CHristum pro omnibus mortuum esse sufficienter admittit Jansenius 
Tom. 3 pag. 163 col. 4 lit. A. Quia sufficiens pretium obtulit.  lib. 3. de gratia Christi cap. 21 ex D. Prospero, addens ex eodem quod quia proprie redimere est de captivitate cum effectu eruere, Christum non pro omnibus mortuum esse efficaciter sive efficienter, sed pro solis qui parricipant beneficium mortis ejus. Quae propositio est de fide.    

The fifsh Writing.  

PRIMA PROPOSITIO.  


Hanc objecerunt tanquam inconveniens quod consequitur ex gratia efficaci in Congregatione sive disputatione 37 & 38, 41 & 45. Et revera est S. Augustini de gratia & libero arbitrio cap. 17 & Concilii Carthag. approbati à. Caelestino I epistola ad EpiscopoS Galliae cap. 10 & Concilii Araus. 2. can. 9  
Hanc eandem objectionem tanquam inconveniens ex gratia essicaci affert Pseudo-Suarez Lugduni anno 1652, lib. 5 cap. 10, 11 16 & 24. & prosequitur P. Annatus, qui hoc anno 1653. Parisiis mandavit typis librum, lib. 3 cap. 4 sect. 8. & P. Adam in libro Gallicè scripto etiam de novo typis mandato, qui PP sunt ex societate Jesus.   Aligua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus sunt impossibilia secundum praesentes quas habent vires: deest quoque illis gratia qua possibilia fiant.  

SENSUS CATHOLICUS.  
A Liqua Dei praecepta non possunt impleri ab hominibus justis, volentibus, & conantibus affectu & conatu imperfecto proveniente a gratia sufficiente per solam gratiam habitualem & sufficientem sine gratia efficaci, sine qua non possunt possibilitate cum effectu, ut loquitur Augustinus cap. 42. de natura & gratia, sive in sensu composito ut aiunt Scholastici.   

SECT. 1.  
SI damnetur haec prima propositio in hoc sensu, definietur nullum gratiam de se efficacem aut actualem esse necessariam, & tota Molinae doctrina de viribus liberi arbitrii in natura lapsa stabiliretur de fide, quamvis judicata sit Semipelagiana in Congregationibus de Auxiliis sub Clemence VIII. & Paulo V. damnata una propositione contradictoria illius: haec autem, omnia Dei praecepta hominibus justis sunt possibilia, secundum eas quas habent vires, nec deest illis gratia qua possibilia fiant, est contradictoria illius quae praemissa est; ergo, hac damnata, illa definitur: ex ista vero sequitur primo, non esse necessariam gratiam de se efficacem hominibus justis ad implenda praecepta, quae est etiam doctrina 
Molina in Concord. pag. 9, 14,, a. 13 disp. 37 & 38. De Novat. Pseudo-Suar. lib. 5 c. 6 & seq.  Molinae. Sequela probatur. Illud non est necessarium ad aliquid, sine quo illud est possibile, vel potest fieri; atqui sine gratia de se efficaci praecepta sunt hominibus justis possibilia; ergo haec gratia non est necessaria ad implenda praecepta. Contra quod judicatum est a Congregatione 
Congregat. 9, anno 1598. Congreg. 17 & 18 anno 1600. Congreg. 37, 38, 49. 1601. & in 16 Congreg. coram Paulo V. & in Congreg. 7 & 12, post disputationes 1607. & in praeparatione Bullae prop. 28 & seqq.  de Auxiliis ad Divinum 
Aug. de corr. & grat. cap. 12.  Augustinum.  
Sequitur secundo. Nullam gratiam actualem esse necessariam justo ad implenda aliqua praecepta, quod etiam docet 
Molina disp. 40. sect. occasione Pseudo-Suar. lib. 3 c. 8 n. 17.  Molina. Probatur sequela. Ad illud quod est alicui possibile secundum praesentes quas habet vires, non est aliud necessarium, alias non esset possibile; Atqui justo sunt praecepta possibilia secundum praesentes quas habet vires; Ergo non est aliud necessarium, nec consequenter gratia actualis contra judicium consulentium in 
Congregatione 6. 1598. & in praeparatione Bullae prop. 36.  Congregationibus, & contra easdem definitiones, 
Innocentius jepistolis ad Patres Concilii Cartbag. & Milev.  & contra D. 
Aug. de gratia Christi cap. 17.  Augustinum.  
Sequitur tertio, Gratiam habitualem vel actualem esse duntaxat necessariam, non ut impleantur praecepta, & ut vitetur peccatum, sed solum ut actus quibus implentur, sint supernaturales. Quae est etiam doctrina 
Molina loco citato disp. 83. porro & disp. 40. Sect. Occasione. Pseudo-Suar. lib. 4. c. 16. n. 12. & 14.  Molinae. Probatur sequela. Ad illud solum requi●i●ur gratia vel actualis vel habitualis, quod praestat actibus nostris ut sint supernaturales; Ergo gratia habitualis vel actualis solum requiritur ut actus quibus implentur praecepta sint supernaturales. Contra quam doctrinam judicatum est in Congregationibus 
Congregationes citatae in num. 5.  praedictis, & est contra D. 
D. Aug. ep. 94.  Augustinum.  
Sequitur quarto, Vires hominis in natura lapsa in ordine ad bonum naturale esse aequales viribus quas habuisser, si fuisset condi●us in puris naturalibus, quae est etiam sententia 
Molina in Concord. citat. disput. 3. 5. & sequentibus.  Molinae. Probatur sequela. Si gratia non est necessaria nisi ad hoc ut actus sint supernaturales, sine graria possumus elicere omnes actus naturales, ut est evidens; sed ex dictis gratia non est necessaria nisi ut actus nostri sint supernaturales. Ergo sine ipsa possumus elicere omnes actus naturales quos potuissemus elicere in natura pura, atque adeo habemus easdem vires modo ut tunc: quam doctrinam esse periculosam & destruere peccatum originale judicarunt Consultores in citatis 
Congr. 7. an. 1598. Congr. 1. 2. & seq. 1600. Congr. 8. & 10. 1601. Congreg. 2. 14. & 16. 1602. Congreg. 1. post disp. 1606. prop. 1. in praeparatione Buallae.  Congregationibus, quia revera est contra 
S. August. passim, praesertim cap. 12. de corr. & grat.  D. Augustinum.  
Sequitur quinto, Hominem in natura lapsa posse elicere actum bonum moraliter, qui sit verae virtutis opus fini ultimo naturali accommodatum: quod etiam docet 
Molina Concord. cit. disp. 5.  Molina. Probatur sequela. Homo in natura pura poterat elicere actum bonum moraliter qui esset verae virtutis opus accommodatum fini ultimo naturali; sed idem potest in natura lapsa quod tunc potuisset. Ergo potest hujusmodi actum elicere, & consequenter eliciendo frequenter hujusmodi actus, potest sine gratia acquirere veras virtutes; seque totum rectificare & ordinate in Deum ut finem ultimum naturalem, atque adeo resurgere a peccato, ut demonstravit P. Lemos, & judicarunt Consultores in 
Congreg. cit. n. 12.  Congregationibus de Auxiliis, in quibus censuerunt esse contra 
S. Aug. lib. contra Julianum. c. 3.  D. Augustinum.  
Sequitur sexto, Posse hominem solis viribus naturae lapsae assentiri revelatis assensu firmo sed naturali: quod etiam infert 
Molina ibid. disp. 7. Pseudo-Suar. supra cit.  Molina. Probatur sequela. Possumus in natura lapsa sola facultate naturae elicere omnes actus naturales, ut ostensum est; sed iste assensus, quamvis firmus, est mere naturalis ex Molina; ergo possumus illum ex naturalibus elicere sine gratia: quae doctrina judicata est Pelagiana & Semipelagiana in Congregationibus 
Congr. 7. an. 1558. Cong. 62. 3. 6. 1600. Congr. 10. 1601. Congr. 2. 1602. & in praepar. Bullae prop. 9  de Auxiliis, quia est contra 
D. Aug. cit. lib. de praedest. SS.  Beatum Augustinum.  
Sequitur septimo, Posse hominem in natura lapsa absque gratia sperare, diligere Deum super omnia, atteri & conteri de peccatis, resistere cuilibet tentationi etiam gravissimae, & etiam si mori oporteat pro servanda lege naturali: quae etiam sunt secundum sententiam 
Molin. concord. cit. disp. 13, 14. & 19  Molinae. Prob. sequela. Quia isti omnes actus sunt mere naturales, ergo possumus istos elicere. Quam doctrinam esse pure Pelagianam censuerunt 
Cong. 7. an. 1598. Cong. 10, 11. & 12. 1606. Cong. 29, 30. & 31. 1601. Cong. 45, 46: & 49. eodem anno. Cong. 3. & 6. 1606. in praeparatione Bullae prop. 10, 11. & seq.  Consultores de Auxiliis, & est contra S. Augustinum.  
Sequitur octavo, dari legem infallibilem, qua statutum sit a Deo auferendam gratiam facienti quod in se est ex viribus naturae lapsae sine gratia: quod & docet 
Molina in Concord. cit. disp. 10. Renovat Pseudo-Suar. lib. 4. cap. 13. & seqq.  Molina. Probatur sequela. Debet dari illa lex sine qua sequeretur hominem justificari per solas naturae vires; sed sine ista sequeretur quod homo diligendo Deum super omnia actu mere naturali, averteret se a creatura quam sibi constituerat ultimum finem per peccarum mortale, & converteret se ad Deum ut finem ultimum naturalem, utpote quem super omnia diligeret: igitur debet dari talis lex. Quae doctrina Molinae pluries notata est Pelagiana a 
Congr. 7. an. 1598. Congr. 3. 1600. Congr. 13. & 42. 1601. Congr. 32. & 34. 1602. & 1603. Congr. 3. 1606. & in praepar. Bullae prop. 5. & 6.  Censoribus in Congreg. de Auxiliis, & revera repugnat 
S. Aug. lib. de gratia & liber. arb. c. 21. & 22.  Augustino.  
Et ecce totam Molinae doctrinam de viribus liberi arbitrii in natura lapsa definitam, si damnetur prima propositio secundum sensum adductum: quare loco illius proponemus sanctae Sedi judicandum de sequenti.  

Molina in Concord. disp. 17. adjuncta disp. 40. & aliis citatis in hoc Sect.  Singula Dei praecepta in natura lapsa absque ulla gratia nedum justis sed etiam infidelibus quantumcunque graviter tentatis, & quamvis oporteat mortem subire, sunt possibilia secundum praesentes quas habent vires, ita ut de facto non transgrediantur illa: quod si fecerint, actu mere naturali Deus dabit illis gratiam qua justificationem consequantur.    

SECUNDA PROPOSITIO.  

Ester 13. Isaiae 46, 47. & 55. ad Philippenses 2.  Gratiae interiori in natura lapsa nunquam resistitur.  

SENSUS CATHOLICUS.  
Supposito quod 
S. Aug. in Euchirid. cap. 75, 76, 77, 83, 85. Et de gratia Christi cap. 14.  D. Augustinus vocet gratiam efficacem interiorem, & omnem aliam rejiciat ad legem atque doctrinam, sitque proposito 
Haec propositio fuit objecta disp. 10. de Auxiliis coram Clement VIII. & disp. 39, 41, 41. & 44. coram Paulo V.  Gratiae interiori, id est efficaci, in natura lapsa (in qua homo specialiter indiget gratia) nunquam resistitur; debet admitti ab omnibus.   

SECT. II.  
SI damnetur secunda propositio in sensu explicato, de fide erit, non dari gratiam de se efficacem; & tota doctrina Molinae de efficacia gratiae, de dono perseverantiae & de praedestinatione definietur.  
Item, si secunda propositio damnetur in sensu explicato, ejus contradictoria erit de fide: contradictoria vero est ista, Gratiae interiori aliquando resistitur; & cum propositiones indefinitae in materia de fide intelligantur universaliter, nisi aliter explicentur, sensus illius prioris erit, Cuicunque gratiae interiori in natura lapsa aliquando resistitur. Ex qua  
Sequitur primo, nullam dati gratiam de se efficacem, quod etiam infert 
Molina in Concord. cit. disp. 37. & 38. Renovat Pseudo-Suar. lib. 5. c. 4. n. 11. etc. 37. & 38. & P. Annatus lib. 4. c. 8. pag. 361.  Molina. Probatur sequela. Gratia cui resistitur non est de se efficax, ut probatur ex terminis: sed Cuicunque gratiae interiori aliquando resistitur, ex dictis: ergo nulla datur gratia de se efficax, sed omnis gratia est efficax ex eventu; quae sententia damnata est a 
In Congr. cit. Sect. praeced. num. 2.  Congregatione de Auxiliis tanquam erronea & contra 
D. Aug. praesertim c. 14. & 15. de corr. & grat.  S. Augustinum.  
Sequitur secundo, donum perseverantiae in adultis esse entitative gratiam cui aliquando resistitur, quod etiam docuit 
Molina in Concord. p. 1. q. 23. art. 4. & 5. disp. 1. memb. ult. Sect. 2.  Molina. Probatur sequela. Cuicunque gratiae interiori aliquando resistitur: sed donum perseverantiae in adultis est gratia interior: ergo dono perseverantiae aliquando resistitur. Quam doctrinam judicarunt 
Congr. 8. an. 1598. Congr. 12. an. 1600. Congr. 32. & 46. an. 1601. Congr. 22. an. 1603. Congr. 8. an. 1606. in praepar. Bullae prop. 38, 39, 40. & 41.  Consultores de Auxiliis adversari 
Concil. Trid. sess. 6. c. 16.  Concilio Tridentino & 
Aug. de corr. & gratia cap. 12.  Augustino.  
Sequitur tertio, donum perseverantiae non habere effectum infallibilem, nisi ea praevisione quod homo illi non resisteret, sed consentiret, ut etiam docet 
Molina loc. cit. num. 4.  Molina. Prob. sequela. Gratia cui aliquando resistitur, non habet infallibilem effectum, nisi praevideatur quod homo illi non resister, sed consentiet; quae doctrina a 
Congr. 9 an. 1548. Congr. 13. an. 1600. Congr. 32, 33, 46. & 47. an. 1601. Congr. 22, 60, 62. & 64. an. 1604. Congr. an. 7. 1606. in praepar. Bullae prop. 42.  Consultoribus judicata est Semipelagiana & contra 
Aug. toto lib. de dono persev. etc. 12. de corr. & gr.  S. Augustinum.  
Sequitur quarto, praedestinationem non posse fieri nisi post praevisa opera hominis, quod etiam docet 
Molina q. 23. a. 4. & 5. disp. 1.  Molina, Probatur sequela. Praeparatio mediorum quibus certissime aliqui liberentur, non potest fieri nisi media sint infallibilia & certa, id est, habeant infallibilem effictum; sed praedestinatio est praeparatio mediorum quibus certissime aliqui liberantur, ut docent cum 
Aug. de praedest. SS. c. 8.  S. Augustino omnes, & media non sunt certa nisi praevideatur quod non resistet, sed potius consentiet, ut patet ex dictis; Ergo praedestinatio fieri non potest nisi praevideatur quod homo non resistet, sed consentiet. Quam doctrinam Molinae 
Cong. 11. an. 1598. Cong. 40. & 50. an. 1601. Cong. 30. an. 1603. Congr. 8. an. 1606. in praepar. Bullae prop. 33.  Censores a S. Sede deputati arbitrati sunt periculosam in fide, & contra 
S. Aug. toto lib. de praedest. SS. praesertim cap. 10.  Sanctum Augustinum.  
Pro hac secunda propositione reponimus hanc examinandam: Gratiae cuicunque, quamvis praevenienti ex intentione Dei volentis salvum facere, aliquando resistitur.    

TERTIA PROPOSITIO.  

Hanc objecerunt disp. 37, 38, & 39, 42, 43, 44, & 45.  Ad merendum & demerendum in natura lapsa non requiritur libertas à necessitate, sed sufficit libertas à coactione.  

SENSUS CATHOLICUS.  
HUjus propositionis sensus Catholicus est, quod ad meritum vel demeritum non requiritur libertas a necessitate infallibilitatis quoad specificationem in communi sententia, sed sufficit libertas a coactione quae in doctrina Sancti Augustini sumitur & pro violentia & pro necessitate natura li & simpliciter.   

SECT. III.  
SI damnetur tertia propositio in sensu explicato, de fide stabilietur impossibilem esse gratiam de se efficacem, dari de facto scientiam mediam, & Christum electum esse ex meritis.  
Si semel definitum sit de fide, ad meritum & demeritum requiri libertatem ab omni necessitate, de fide etiam erit impossibilem esse etiam gratiam de se efficacem, quod etiam docet 
Molina p. 1. 23. a. 4. & 5. disp. 1. membro 6. Sect. Certe non dubitatem. Renovat Pseudo-Suar. lib. 5. cap. 19 & P. Annatus lib. 4. cap. 7.  Molina. Sequela ita probatur. Quod repugnat libertati necessariae ad meritum, est impossibile in homine viatore; sed gratia de se efficax repugnat libertati ab omni necessitate necessariae ad meritum, nam gratia de se efficax spectat necessitatem infallibilitatis; ergo gratia de se efficax erit impossibilis. Hoc tamen censuerunt 
In Congr. cit. Sect. 1. n. 2.  Consultores de Auxiliis esse Semipelagianum & contra 
Aug. de praedest. SS. cap. 10.  S. Augustinum.  
Sequitur secundo, dati scientiam mediam quam docet 
Molina in Concord. q. 14. art. 13. disp. 50. Pseudo-Suar. Prolog. & supponit P. Annatus.  Molina. Probatur sequela. Datur illud sine quo non potest salvari in nostris operibus libertas ab omni necessitate, etiam infallibilitatis: sed sine scientia media hoc non potest salvati, ut docet Molina: & ratio est quia si decretum Dei antecedat praevisionem nostri consensus, consensus noster sequetur necessario necessitate infallibilitatis; ergo debet dati scientia media, quam censuerunt 
Congr. 10. an. 1598. Congr. 12. an. 1600. Congr. 13. & 46. an 1601. Congr. 60. & 62. an. 1604. Congr. 8. an. 1606. & inpraepar. Bullae prop. 31.  Consultores sacrae Congregationis esse Pelagianam & contra 
D. Aug. toto libro de praedest. SS.  S. Augustinum.  
Sequitur tertio, Deum decrevisse offerre excellentiora dona animae Christi quia praevidit eam pro sua innata libertate usuram esse illis, ut expresse asserit 
Molina Concord. p. 1. q. 23. art. 4. & 5. disp. 1. m. 9 Sect. Illud autem.  Molina. Probatur sequela: quia alias usus ille donorum non fuisset in Christo meritorius, utpote cum non esset liber ab omni necessitate. Si enim Deus decernat aliquem actum ante praevisum consensum voluntatis creatae, actus ille non est liber libertate sufficiente ad meritum, ut dicit propositio. Ex quo manifeste infertur contra expressa verba D. Pauli Christum non meruisse sibi vel nobis per actum quo voluit obedire, nisi ea ratione quod Deus praevidit eum pro sua innata libertate usurum illis excellentioribus donis, quod quantum faveat Arianis & Nestorianis, constare videtur ex 
S. Athan. orat. 2. contra Arianos.  Athanasio, 
Alexander Episc. Alexandr. in epistolis.  Alexandro Episcopo Alexandrino, 
S. Aug. de praedest. SS. cap. 15.  Augustino, 
S. Prosper in epitaphio haeresis Pelagianae & Nestorianae.  Prospero & aliis, judicet sancta Sedes.  
Pro hac ergo tertia propositione reponimus istam:  

Vasquez 1 p. q. 19 art. 10. circa solutionem 1 argum.  Ad meritum requiritur potentia peccandi, quae est laudabilis, est a Deo, & est pars libertatis.    

QUARTA PROPOSITIO.  
Semipelagiani admittebant gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, 
In scriptis datis Congregationi ann. 1601. ad 16. prop. in disp. 10. ann. 1602. & 38. ann. 1605. & 39 & 44. ann. 1606. sustinuerunt Semipelagianos nullam gratiam interiorem admisisse ad initium fidei vel perseverantiam.  etiam ad initium fidei: & in hoc erant haeretici, quod dicebant voluntatem illi gratiae posse resistere vel obtemperare.  

SENSUS CATHOLICUS.  
HUjus propositionis sensus Catholicus est, quod Semipelagiani fuerunt haeretici quia negarunt 
Contra istam scribit P. Annatus & Pseudo-Suarez l. 5. c. 47. n. 6.  gratiam de se efficacem, cum qua non potest conjungi dissensus vel resistentia, cum semper voluntas etiam consentiendo retineat potentiam ad dissensum.   

SECT. IV.  
SI damnetur haec quarta propositio sic explicita, sequitur nullam esse auctoritatem S. Augustini, justas fuisse querelas Pelagianorum, & Semipelagianorum & Molinae adversus S. Augustinum, cujus doctrina immerito fuisset approbata, & illi injuste fuissent damnati.  
Damnata hac quarta propositione in sensu allato, sequitur Semipelagianos non errasse negando gratiam de se efficacem, sed solum negando ad initium fidei & perseverantiam, gratiam interiorem determinabilem ex consensu vel dissensu voluntatis posito vel praeviso. Sequela est evidens supposita legitima explicatione propositionis. Oppositum judicatum est in Congregationibus de 
In Congr. citatis Sect. 1. n. 2.  Auxiliis.  
Sequitur secundo Pelagianos errasse non admittendo ad omnia opera gratiam interiorem determinabilem. Probatur sequela: Eandem gratiam quam negarunt Semipelagiani ad initium fidei & ad perseverantiam, negarunt Pelagiani ad omnia opera, & in hoc tam hi quam illi fuerunt haeretici. Idcirco enim dicti sunt Semipelagiani, quia mediam partem haeresis Pelagianae tuebantur. Sed ex dictis Semipelagiani fuerunt haeretici negando gratiam solam interiorem determinabilem. Ergo Pelagiani quoad hunc articulum suerunt haeretici negando necessitatem gratiae interiotis determinabilis: quae est doctrina sequacium 
Suarez proleg. 5. de grat. c. 4. & 5.  Molinae proscripta in 
In eisdem Congregationibus.  Congregationibus de Auxiliis.  
Sequitur tertio, quaestionem de adjutorio divino inter D. Augustinum ex una parte, & Pelagianos & Semipelagianos ex altera, solum fuisse de gratia illa determinabili quam illi haeretici negabant, Augustinus vero probabat tanquam de fide. Sequela probatur: quia intendebat Augustinus uti haeretici admitterent gratiamillam quam negando erant haeretici: sed non erant haeretici nisi negando gratiam illam determinabilem: ergo D. Augustinus intendebat ut illam admitterent.  
Sequitur quarto, gratiam illam determinabilem de qua erat quaestio, non debuisse explicari nominibus expresse vel aequivalenter significantibus, quod sit determinans vel determinativa, praesertim quae scandali, turbationis & erroris possent esse causa. Probatur sequela: Doctor Catholicus debet exprimere rem de fide sicut est, non autem verbis oppositis, praesertim quando est admonitus quod hujusmodi nomina sunt causa scandali, turbationis & erroris. Sed D. Augustinus fuit admonitus 
Constat ex epist. 46, 47. initio de corr. & grat. Et ex epist. B. Prosperi & D. Hilarii ad Augustinum.  quod verba quibus utebatur, quae exprimunt quod hujusmodi gratia sit determinans, erant causa turbationis, scandali & erroris. Ergo non debuit Augustinus uti hujusmodi verbis.  
Sequitur quinto, D. Augustinum excessisse debitum modum explicandi gratiam de qua erat controversia inter ipsum & praefatos haereticos, quod tamen est contra expressam 
Caelestinus 1 ep. ad Episc. Galliae.  Caelestini I definitionem. Probatur sequela: Dicere quod per gratiam voluntas 
S. Aug. de corr. & grat. c. 12.  indeclinabiliter & insuperabiliter agitur & 
Idem ibidem.  inclinatur a Deo quo ipse voluerit & quando voluerit omnipotentissima potestate, ita ut volenti Deo salvum facere nullum hominis resistat arbitrium, nulla voluntas divinam impeciat voluntatem, vel superet potestatem, humanae voluntates non poss●…t resistere, 
Idem de praedest. SS. c. 8.  nemo veniat ad Christum nisi c●… illa gratia datur, at omnis cui datur veniat, ut per iliam 
Idem de corr. & grat. c. 12.  voluntas Dei semper justa faciat nos bonum invictissime velle, & hoc deserete invictissim● nolle, per quam non solum homines perseverare possint, sed non nisi perseverantes sint, ratione cujus 
Idem de corr. & grat. c. 14.  voluntates hominum Deus magis habeat in sua potestate quam ipsi suas. His, inquam, similibus verbis exprimere gratiam, est aequivalenter dicere quod gratia illa est determinans vel determinativa liberi arbitrii, ut omnes qui Latinam linguam callent, satis intelligunt: & his omnibus utitur Augustinus: sed ex jam dictis uti verbis aequivalenter significantibus, quod gratia illa de qua erat quaestio, est determinans, est excedere: ergo S. Augustinus debitum modum excessit.  
Sequitur sexto, injuste fecisse Pontifices, imo errasse 
Caelestinus, 1 ep. ad quosdam Galliae Episcopos, cap. 2.  Caelestinum, Gelasium, 
Hormisdas ad Possessorem.  Hormisdam & alios approbantes doctrinam Augustini, & justas fuisse querelas 
Constat hanc fuisse querelam Massiliensium contra D. Augustinum, quod sic explicaret gratiam; ex epist. B. Hilarii ad Aug. Sect. Deinde molestè ferunt.  Massiliensium quantum ad hoc, atque adeo ipsos fuisse injuste damnatos. Probatur sequela: injustum est approbare excessum, & justa est querela contra excedentes: sed ex dictis S. Augustinus excessit in explicanda gratia: ergo justae fuerunt querelae Massiliensium, & injuste & erronee praefati Pontifices approbarunt doctrinam Augustini, quam cum Clemens VIII. approbaret, & revocarunt in dubium an esset de fide quod ipse esset verus Christi Vicarius.  
Pro hac ergo quarta propositione reponimus istam.  

Haec prima pars propositionis ex locis S. August. citatis:  D. Augustinus admisit gratiam per quam voluntas hominis insuperabiliter & indeclinabiliter agit, & in hoc excessit praesertim dicendo quod voluntates humanae non resistunt neque possunt resistere: 
Haec secunda Molinae in Concord. p. 1. q. 23. art. 4. & 5. disp. 1. m. ult.  quod si ab eo dogmata de gratia, perseverantia, & praedestinatione aliter data explanataque fuissent, forte neque Pelagiana haeresis usquam exorta fuisset, neque Lutherani tam impudenter liberi arbitrii nostri libertatem fuissent ausi negare, neque ex Augustini opinione concertationibusque cum Pelagianis tot fideles fuissent turbati, ad Pelagianosque defecissent, facileque reliquiae Pelagianorum fuissent extinctae.    

QUINTA PROPOSITIO.  

Hoc argumento utehantur ad gratiam sufficientem determinabilem à libero arbitrio; disp. 17. coram Clem. VIII. Contra istam scribit P. Annatus l. 4. c. 5.  Error Semipelagianorum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse.  

SENSUS CATHOLICUS.  
SEnsus Catholicus istius propositionis est, errasse Semipelagianos in hoc quod asseruerint Christum ita pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, ut promeruerit de facto omnibus auxilia omnino necessaria ad hoc ut salutem assequantur.   

SECT. V.  
SI damnetur quinta propositio in sensu allato, sequitur D. Augustinum male interpretatum fuisse illum locum 
Ad Timot. 2. 2 ad Cor. 5.  D. Pauli, Vult omnes homines salvos fieri, & sua hac interpretatione fideles turbasse, ejusque occasione salutem eorum fuisse periclitatam.  

Haec omnia quae contra auctoritatem D. Augustini leguntur, renovat P. Annatus toto lib. 8. & P. Adam, ut constabit ex alio scripto quod offertur.  Si damnetur quinta propositio in sensu praedicto, de fide erit non errasse Semipelagianos, dum de omnibus universim hominibus interpretati sunt illud D. Pauli, Christus pro omnibus mortuus est. Ex quo  

Molina p. 1. q. 23. art. 4. & 5. disp. 1. m. 9  Sequitur primo, illos etiam non errasse dum eodem modo interpretati sunt illud aliud ejusdem Apostoli, Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri. Probatur sequela: quia pro iis omnibus mortuus est Christus quos Deus vult salvos fieri, &c contra. Adversarii vero noluerunt proponere hanc propositionem, Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, quia cum sit notissimum illam limitatam esse a D. Augustino, aperte judicati essent adversarii doctrinae D. Augustini.  
Sequitur secundo, limitationem quam adhibet D. Augustinus huic loco, ut non intelligatur nisi de praedestinatis, non sequi ex iis quae tanquam de fide docuit D. 
Aug. in Enchir. c. 103. & de corr. & grat. cap. 14. & 15.  Augustinus, & approbarunt summi Pontifices circa gratiam & praedestinationem. Probatur sequela; error est dogma contrarium illius quod sequitur ex certis de fide, nam in hoc differt haeresis ab errore, quod haeresis est contraria iis quae sunt de fide, error vero est contrarius iis quae sequuntur ex certis de fide: sed explicatio omnino universalis praedictorum locorum D. Pauli non est error: ergo non est contraria explicationi limitanti, ut patet: ergo explicatio illa limitans non sequitur ex iis quae sunt de fide circa gratiam & praedestinationem.  
Sequitur tertio, quod D. Augustinus credens ex iis quae de fide docuerat circa gratiam & praedestinationem, sequi illam suam explicationem limitantem, deceptus est, & sic 
Molina comment. ad 1 p. q. 23 art. 4 & 5 disp. 1. Et in Concord. ibid. m. ult. Sect. Credens.  quasi sub caligine non attendit. Probatur sequela: quia credit aliquid esse quod non est, decipitur & sub quasi caligine existens non attendit. Sed 
D. Aug. de dono persev. c. 19 etc. 14. de corr. & gr.  S. Augustinus credidit illam suam explicationem limitantem sequi ex iis quae de fide docuerat: ergo deceptus est & sub quasi caligine existens non attendit.  
Sequitur quarto, D. Augustinum hac sua falsa doctrina 
Molina loco proxime citato.  turbasse imprudenter plurimos ex fidelibus, & illius occasione salutem eorum esse periclatatam. Probatur sequela: Doctor Ecclesiae docens aliqua falsa quae sunt occasio scandali, turbationis et ruinae spiritualis apud fideles, imprudenter turbat illos, et illius occasione salus eorum periclitatur: sed D. Augustinus docuit illam doctrinam falsam & malam quae fuit occasio turbationis, scandali & ruinae spiritualis, ut asserit Molina: ergo D. Augustinus imprudenter turbavit plurimos ex fidelibus, & illius occasione salus eorum periclitata est, imo semel & iterum admonitus non correxit, sed potius confirmavit.  
Quare pro quinta propositione hanc reponimus.  
D. Augustinus sua doctrina, qua ex certis de fide intulit Deum non velle omnes omnino homines salvos fieri, & Christum non pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, turbavit mirum in modum plurimos ex fidelibus, non solum indoctos, sed etiam doctissimos viros atque in Episcopali dignitate constitutos, ne dicam illius occasione salutem illorum fuisse periclitatam.     

The sixth Writing.  
De gratia sufficiente.  
VEI Jansenius sibi contradicit negando in quibusdam locis gratiam sufficientem, & reipsa admittendo in aliis, vel non sibi contradicit: quia quando illam negat, intelligit in uno sensu, & quando illam admittit, intelligit in alio.  
Si sibi contradicit affirmando & negando eandem gratiam sufficientem in eodem sensu, oportet prius explicare quam damnare, ne petatur a Sede Apostolica ut definiat contradictoria.  
Si non contradicat sibi, sed solum in uno sensu affirmet gratiam sufficientem, et in ailo neget, explicandum est quis sit sensus falsus et qui verus, ne oriatur confusio in Ecclesia Dei, et ne simul cum Jansenio reputentur damnati qui verum sensum defendunt: nam gratia sufficiens multis modis explicatur.  
Aliqui enim Theologi arbitrantur in homine justo de quo est prima propositio, non dari aliam gratiam sufficientem nisi gratiam habitualem, dona et virtutes infusas, quasdam inspirationes et excitationes morales; et hoc modo explicant gratiam sufficientem Academiae Salmanticensis, Lovaiensis et Duacensis in censuris adversus Lessium et Molinam.  
Gratiam vero habitualem, dona, virtutes, inspirationes et excitationes morales admittit Jansenius lib. 3 de grat. Christi. cap. 6 et cap. 15.  
Alii dicunt quod gratia quae est efficax respectu actuum imperfectorum, et quae efficaciter facit, ut homo eliciat libere quaedam imperfecta desideria et velleitates, eadem est gratia sufficiens respectu actuum perfectiorum, quia disponit ad illos, et dat homini ut possit illos elicere.  
Hanc autem gratiam sufficientem hoc sensu admittit Jansenius, ut patet ex prima propositione, et ex lib. 3. de grat. Christi cap. 27, quamvis nolit eam vocari sufficientem, quia ultra illam requirituralia: in quo dissentit a Thomistis.  
Quidam vero Theologi, quamvis pauci, admittunt dari gratiam pure sufficientem, quae nullo modo sit efficax, etiam respectu actuum imperfectorum: sed addunt ultra hanc gratiam sufficientem requiri aliam efficacem, ut homo de facto eliciat actus quoscunque, etiam imperfectos; et hanc gratiam sufficientem impugnat Jansenius lib. 3 de grat. Christi cap. 1, 2 et 3.  
Denique Theologi Societatis contendunt da●i gratiam sufficientem ultra quam ad operandum non requiritur alia gratia praeveniens, sed illa sufficit er determinatur a libero arbitrio; et hanc cum omnibus Theologis Ordinis Praedicatorum impugnat Iansenius tanquam Pelagianam et Semipelagianam, ut patet eodem libro 3 cap. 3 et seq.  
Si ergo damnandus est jansenius, debet explicari in quo sensu damnetur: nam si damnetur quia negat gratiam sufficientem qualem explicant Patres Societatis, definitur tota causà de Auxiliis, et damnantur cum Iansenio omnes qui admittunt gratiam de se efficacem.  
Si autem damnetur quia negat gratiam pure sufficientem, cum illo damnabuntur plures et maximi Theologi.  
Denique si damnetur quia eam gratiam quam nonnulli vocant sufficientem, ipse non vult sic vocari, tunc damnabitur ob solum modum loquendi, et semper cavenda erit fraus et aequivocatio.   

The seventh Writing.  
Brevis responsio ad objectiones.  

Adversus primam propositionem.  
1 OBjiciunt D. Thomam q. 24. de verit. a. 12, Nec liberum arbitrium tollimus, cum dicimus quodlibet peccatum singulariter liberum arbitrium posse vitare.  
Respondemus D. Thomam satis se explicare dum paulo post addit, Quamvis non sine divino auxilio, quod hominem sua providentia ad bona agenda & mala vitanda gubernat; quod non potest intelligi nisi de auxilio efficaci quo Deus gubernat.  
2. Objiciunt D. Thomam ibid. ad 7. Aliquis in mortali existens potest vitare omnia peccata mortalia auxilio gratiae: potest etiam ex naturali virtute singula vitare, quamvis non omnia; & ideo non sequitur, quod peccatum committendo non peccet.  
Respondemus verum hoc esse, sed cum auxilio divino, ut dixit in corpore; & quia illud auxilium non solebat vocari gratia, ut expresse dicit D. Thomas ib. art. 4. ideo naturali virtute dicitur posse, quomodo D. Paulus dicit, Gentes quae legem non habent, naturaliter quae legis sunt faciunt.  
3. Objiciunt D. Thomam art. 13. ejusdem quaest. Quia nullus motus liberi arbitrii praecedit plenam deliberationem pertrahens ad peccatum quasi inclinatione habitus, ideo potest omnia mortalia vitare.  
Respondemus, in homine justo nullus motus inordinatus quo ad●aereat ultimo fini inordinato praecedit, quia jam poenituit & justificatus est, ideo potest omnia vitare, non tamen sine auxilio divino, ut dixit articulo praecedenti, & iterum dicit articulo sequenti.  
4. Objiciunt. art. 14 ad 12. Recte homo corripitur qui praeceptum non implet, quia ex ejus negligentia est quod gratiam non habet, per quam potest servare mandata quantum ad modum: cum possit nihilominus per liberum arbitrium ea servare quantum ad substantiam.  
Respondemus per gratiam habitualem hominem posse servare mandata quantum ad modum meriti, & quantum ad substantiam posse illa servare, non tamen sine mesericordia Dei, per quam interius motum mentis operatur, sine qua nullum bonum homo potest facere, ut expresse dicit Divus Thomas ibid. in corp. art.  
5. Objiciunt D. Thomam 3 p. q. 86. art. 1. Dicere quod aliquod peccatum sit in hac vita, de quo aliquis poenitere non possit, erroneum est, quia per hoc tolleretur libertas arbitrii, & derogaretur virtuti gratiae cujuscunque peccatoris ad poenitendum.  
Respondemus locum hunc truncatum referri; si afferatur integer, affert solutionem: sic ergo habet, & derogaretur virtuti gratiae per quam moveri potest cor cujuscunque peccatoris ad poenitendum secundum istud Proverb. 21. Cor Regis in manu Domini, quocunque voluerit vertet illud. Qui locus manifeste loquitur de gratia efficaci qua moveri potest cor peccatoris cujuscunque ad poenitendum, & qua sola cor Regis Deus vertit.  
6. Objiciunt Alvarem disp. 71 de Auxiliis n. 9 & n. 12. Gonzalem 1 p. q. 23. art. 8. n. 18, & n. 24. et q. 19 art. 8. disp. 58. sect. 2. n. 16. et Cabreram 3 p. q. 18. art. 4. disp. 6. dub. 5. concl. 2 et Petrum de Ledesma de Auxiliis quaest. unica, art. 16. concl. 3.  
Respondemus, admissis illis omnibus quae dicunt hi Auctores, adhuc veram esse propositionem, etiam apud illos. Apud Alvarem disp. 88 Gonzalem citatum in objectione paulo post verba objecta, Cabreram ibid. dub. 3 ad 1 confirmat. 6 argum. et ad 1 confirmat. 8 argum. Ledesmam ibid. art. 14 ad 2 et 3.   

Adversus secundam propositionem.  
1. Objiciunt D. Thomam contra Gentes cap. 152. Cum in potestate, etc.  
Respondemus D. Thomam statim initio capitis sequentis 160 solvere hoc argumentum. Quod autem inquit, dictum est, in potestate liberi arbitrii esse ne impedimentum gratiae praestet, competit his in quibus naturalis potentia integra fuerit: si autem per inordinationem praecedentem declinaverit ad malum, non erit omnino in potestate ejus, nullum impedimentum gratiae praestate. Et cap. 161: Non est ratio inquirenda quare hos Deus convertat et non illos: hoc enim ex simplici ejus voluntate dependet. Et cap. 94 ostendit non posse hominem vel aliam quamcunque causam Deo resistere. Quaecunque rerum, inquit, aliquid operantur, instrumentaliter agunt a Deo mota, et ei obtemperando ministrant ad ordinem providentiae ab aeterno, ut ita dicam, excogitatum, explicandum in rebus; si autem omnia quae agere possunt, necesse est ut in agendo ei ministrent, impossibile est, quod aliquod agens divinae providentiae executionem impediat, sibi contrarium agendo: neque etiam possibile est divinam providentiam impediri per defectum alicujus agentis vel patientis, etc.  
2. Objiciunt Alvarem de Auxiliis disp. 71, n. 3. Respondemus ex eodem, disp. 32, 92, 93, posse resistere sumi dupliciter; proprie, et sic gratiae efficaci non potest resisti; et imptoprie, et sic potest resisti, ut ipse locis citatis fuse explicat.   

Adversus tertiam propositionem.  
1. Objiciunt D. Thomam q 3 de potentia, art. 7 ad 13. Voluntas dicitur habere dominium sui actus non per exclusionem causae primae; sed quia causa prima non ita agit in voluntate, ut eam de necessitate ad unum determinet, sicut determinat naturam: et ideo determinatio voluntatis relinquitur in potestate rationis et voluntatis.  
Respondemus Deum non determinare voluntatem eo modo quo determinat naturam, quem modum explicat D. Thomas ibidem ad 2: Quia natura per suam formam est determinata ad unum: Voluntas autem per formamsuam non est determinata ad unum bonum: unde fit quod non ex necessitate absoluta, sed ex necessitate tantum secundum quid: et hanc necessitatem absolutam sicut et violentiam vocat Divus Thomas coactionem: unde ibidem ad 14 ait, Non quaelibet causa excludit libertatem, sed tantum causa cogens; sic autem Deus non est causa operationis nostrae. Quare praecipui duces adversariorum, Molina, Suarez, Conimbricenses. etc. admittunt Divum Thomam in hac quaest. 3 de potentia, art. 7, admisisse praemotionem physicam, praecipue ad tertium,  
Objiciunt Divum Thomam q. 6 de malo, art. unico. Quidam posuerunt quod voluntas ex necessitate moveretur ad aliquid eligendum, nec tamen ponebant quod voluntas cogeretur: non enim omne necessarium est violentum, sed solum illud cujus principium est extra .... Haec opinio est haeretica: tollit enim rationem meriti et demeriti in humanis actibus; non enim videtur esse meritorium aut demeritorium quod aliquis sic ex necessitate agit, quod vitare non possit .... Non solum contrariatur fidei, sed subvertit omnia principia Philosophiae Moralis.  
Respondemus Divum Thomam impugnare illos qui admittebant voluntatem eligere ex necessitate naturali, ut patet ex verbis quae adversarii ex consulto omiserunt. Vnde, inquit, & motus naturales inveniuntur aliqui necessarii, non tamen violenti: violentum enim repugnat naturali sicut & voluntario, quia utriusque principium est intra: violenti autem principium est extra. Haec autem opinio est haeretica, etc. Loquitur ergo de necessitate naturali: quod patet etiam ex iis quae dixit infra, sect. Posuerunt autem quidam; et in solutione ad 24, ubi dicit se loqui de necessitate simpliciter. Et ad 3 docet, Quod Deus movet voluntatem immutabiliter propter efficaciam virtutis moventis, quae deficere non potest, et infallibiliter: infallibilitas autem est quaedam necessitas, ut expresse docet Divus Thomas 1. 2. q. 112, a. 3. Quare in illa quaest. 6 de malo, art. unico, ut salvet libertatem in electione hominis in statu naturae corruptae, recurrit ad libertatem a coactione, dicens: homo peccans liberum arbitrium perdidit quantum ad libertatem quae est a culpa & miseria, non autem quantum ad libertatem quae est a coactione.  
4. Objiciunt Divum Thomam 1 p. q. 19 art. 10. Liberum arbitrium habemus respectu eorum quae non necessari● volumus .... Cum ergo Deus multa velit non ex necessitate, respectu eorum quae non ex necessitate vult, liberum habet arbitrium.  
Respondemus adversarios consulto praetermisisse verba sequentia, quibus Divus Thomas satis se explicat. Liberum, inquit, arbitrium habemus respectu eorum quae non necessario volumus, vel ex naturali instinctu; non enim ad libertatem arbitrii pertinet quod volumus esse felices, sed ad naturalem instinctum, etc. Quo loco aperte ostendit Divus Thomas se per necessitatem intelligere naturalem instinctum, qui facit naturalem necessitatem. Unde Divus Thomas in eadem quaestione art. 8. inquirens utrum voluntas divina rebus volitis necessitatem imponat, in solutione ad 1 & ad 3, concedit necessitatem non absolutam, sed conditionalem stare cum libertate.  
5. Objiciunt Divum Thomam q. 24. de verit. a. 2. In brutis est quaedam similitudo liberi arbitrii in quantum possunt agere et non agere unum et idem secundum suum judicium .... Sed quia judicium eorum est determinatum ad unum, per consequens et appetitus et actio ad unum determinatur: unde necesse habent, etc. Sed homo non necessario movetur ab iis quae sibi occurrunt, vel a passionibus insurgentibus, quia potest ea accipere vel refugere; et ideo homo est liberi arbitrii, non autem bruta. Et ad 7. Tam homines quam bruta beneficiis inducuntur et flagellis prohibentur, vel praeceptis et prohibitionibus, sed diversimode: quia in potestate hominum est ut eisdem rebus similiter repraesentatis, sive sint praecepta sive prohibitiones, eligant vel fugiant judicio rationis.  
Respondemus Divum Thomam loqui de determinatione judicii ex parte objecti: nam quando homo appetit, judicium ejus, cum sit actus singularis, est determinatum sicut et judicium bruti: sed est differentia, quia judicium bruti est determinatum ad unum ex parte objecti, non autem hominis, ut satis clare Divus Thomas explicat ad 7. Quod autem Divus Thomas admittat hanc tertiam propositionem; ibidem patet art. 1 ad ult. Habemus, inquit, respectu finis liberam voluntatem, cum necessitas naturalis inclinationis libertati non repugnet secundum Augustinum 5 de Civit.  
6. Objiciunt Divum Thomam q. 22. de verit. art. 6. ubi dicit: Cum voluntas dicatur libera in quantum necessitatem non habet, libertas voluntatis in tribus considerabitur, scilicet quantum ad actum, in quantum potest velle et non velle, et quantum ad objectum, in quantum potest hoc vel illud et ejus oppositum, et quantum ad ordinem finis, in quantum potest velle bonum et malum.  
Respondemus libertatem in viatoribus habere illa tria, nec tamen propterea sunt de essentia libertatis: nam libertas quantum ad actum non reperitur in Deo, qui tamen habet perfectissimam rationem libertatis, ut docet Divus Thomas q. 4. ce verit. art. 3 ad 3. nec similiter libertas quantum ad ordinem finis, qua potest velle bonum et malum, est essentialis; alias nec Christus, nec Beati essent liberi; esse tamen liberos, imo libetiotes quam nos, docet S. Thomas infra citandus. Sola ergo libertas quantum ad objectum est essentialis libero arbitrio, et haec excludit necessitatem simpliciter, non autem secundum quid; quare idem S. Thomas ibidem ait art. 5 ad 3. Libertas, inquit, secundum Augustinum opponitur necessitati coactionis, non autem naturalis inclinationis. Idemque dicit ad 1. 2 et 4. et q. 23. a. 4, q. 22. a. 8, 9, 10. docet Deum operari opera nostra, immutare voluntatem non cogendo illam, et non stare quod Deus velit aliquid quod illud non sit.  
7. Objiciunt Divum Thomam 1. 2, q. 10, art. 4. Quia voluntas est activum principium non determinatum ad unum, sed indifferenter se habens ad multa: sic Deus ipsam movet, quod non ex necessitate ad unum determinat, sed remanet motus ejus contingens et non necessarius.  
Respondemus verissimum esse quod voluntas, cum non sit determinata ad unum, Deus sic illam movet quod non determinat illam ex necessitate simpliciter, sed tantum ex necessitate secundum quid. Unde ibid. ad 3 Divus Thomas ait: Si Deus mo vet libertatem ad aliquid, impossibile est huic positioni, quod voluntas ad illud non moveatur, non tamen est impossibile simpliciter: unde non sequitur quod voluntas a Deo ex necessitate moveatur. Ex quo sic arguitur: Quod est impossible non esse, necessarium est esse, ut ex terminis patet: sed ex D. Thoma, hic supposiro quod Deus movet voluntatem ad aliquid, impossibile est quod voluntas non moveatur ad illud: eigo necessarium est quod voluntas moveatur ad illud: movetur autem agendo; ergo actio illa est aliquo modo necessaria: stat ergo quaedam necessitas cum libertate.  
8. Objiciunt Divum Thomam 1. 2. q. 13. art. 6. Homo non ex necessitate eligit, et hoc ideo, quia quod possibile est non esse, non necesse est esse: quod autem possibile sit non eligere, hujus ratio ex duplici hominis potestate accipi potest; potest enim velle et non velle, agere et non agere, et etiam potest hoc aut illud; ideo homo non ex necessitate eligit, sed libere.  
Respondemus hominem non eligere ex necessitate absoluta, sed ex necessitate suppositionis, quam non tollere libertatem aperte colligitur ex Divo Thoma ibidem ad 2; ubi si recte perpendatur, concedit eamdem necessitatem in electione quam concedit in judicio dirigente electionem: atqui clarissime admittit in illo judicio necessitatem ex suppositione: ergo eamdem admittit in electione, quae tamen est libera, ut etiam concedit Bellarminus, ut ostensum est in explicatione hujus tertiae propositionis.  
9 Objiciunt D. Thomam 1 p. q. 62 art. 3 ad 2. Inclinatio gratiae non imponit necessitatem, sed habens gratiam potest ea uti & peccare.  
Respondemus Divum Thomam ibi loqui de gratia habituali, ut disertis verbis explicat in corpore articuli: unde patet adversarlos voluisse imponere quasi Divus Thomas loqueretur de gratia actuali: sed oportet illos comprehendere in astutia sua: habens gratiam sanctificantem potest peccare, ut hic docet S. Thomas, et est de fide, sess. 6. can. 23. Et nihilominus 1 Joan. 3. dicitur quod qui natus est ex Deo, id est, justus, non potest peccare: potest ergo peccare et non potest: potest, quia cum gratia habituali retinet habitualiter potentiam ad peccandum: non potest peccare, quia non potest conjungere peccatum cum gratia, & tamen retinet libere gratiam. Ita similiter qui habet gratiam efficacem semper conjunctam cum actu bono, potest peccare, quia retinet potentiam ad peccandum: non potest peccare, quia non potest conjungere peccatum cum illa gratia efficaci, & tamen libere non peccat, & libere elicit actum: stat ergo aliqua necessitas cum libertate. Unde Divus Thomas ibidem art. 2 ad 3, docet, quod ad hoc, ut quis se praeparet ad gratiam habitualem, requiritur operatio Dei ad se animam converteu●is, juxta illud Threnorum ultimo, Converte nos, Domine, ad te, & corvertemur, scilicet infallibiliter. Quare Divus Thomas 1 2, q. 112, art. 3, docet, quod preparatio ad gratiam secundum quod est a Deo movente, habet necessitatem ad id ad quod voluntas a Deo movetur, non quidem coactionis sed infallibilitatis: ergo operatio Dei animam moventis ad conversionem, sive convertentis animam, habet necessitatem ad hoc ut anima seipsam libere convertat: stat ergo libert●s ●um aliqua necessitate. Quare D. Thomas ibid. ● 62, art. 8, dicit, quod major libertas est in Ange●… qui peccare non possunt, quam in nobis qui possu●us: quia posse peccare pertinet ad defectum libertatis.  
10. Objiciunt Divum Thomam q. 22, de verit. a. 8. Et praeter hoc habet appetere aliquid secundum propriam determinationem non ex necessita●e, quod ei competit, in quantum voluntas est.  
Respondemus voluntatem appetere aliquid non ex necessitate absoluta, quae etiam dicitur necessitas coactionis, apud D. Thomam. Unde ibid. ad 3, cum sibi opposuisset argumentum quod opponunt nobis adversarii, Libertas, inquiens, opponitur necessitati: sed voluntas est libera: ergo non de necessitate aliquid vult. Respondet, ad 3 dicendum quod libertas secundum Augustinum opponitur necessitati coactionis, non autem naturalis inclinationis. Idem habet ad 1. 2 & 4.  
11. Objiciunt D. Thomam 1 contra Gentes, c. 68 Dominium quod habet voluntas supra suos actus per quod in ejus potestate est velle & nolle, excludit determinationem virtutis ad unum.  
Resp. adversarios data opera suppressisse verba sequentia, & violentiam causae exterius agentis; non autem excludit influentiam superioris causae a qua est ei esse & operari, & sic remanet causalitas in causa prima quae est Deus respectu motuum voluntatis, ut sic Deus scipsum cognoscendo hujusmodi cognoscere possit. Quae verba continent solutionem argumenti quarti quod proposuerat cap. 63. quod etat hujusmodi: Quorumdam singularium causa est voluntas: effectus autem antequam sit, non potest nisi in sua causa cognosci: sic enim solum esse potest, antequam in se esse incipiat: motus autem voluntatis a nullo possunt per certitndinem cognosci nisi a voluntate in cujus potestate sunt. Impossibile est igitur quod Deus de hujusmodi singularibus, quae causam ex voluntate sumunt, notitiam certam habeat. Respondet D. Thomas: dominium quod voluntas habet in suos actus non excludere influentiam Dei qua habet voluntas etiam operari, & sic in hujusmodi influencia & causalitate potest Deus seipsum cognoscendo certo cognoscere actus nostrae voluntatis singulares & determinatos: atqui Deus non potest actus illos singulares & determinatos cognoscere in sua illa influentia, nisi illa certo & infallibiliter causet illos actus certos & determinatos: ergo debet illa eos sic causare, atque adeo illi sunt certi certitudine causalitatis divinae & infallibilitatis, & consequenter quodam modo necessarii, & tamen sunt liberi: stat ergo libertas cum quadam necessitate.  
12. Objiciunt Alvarem de Auxiliis disp. 117. n. 11. ad 3. Cumel. 1. 2. dist. 11. assert. 4. Petrum de Cabrera 3. p. q. 18. art. 4.  
Respondemus, admissis his quae isti auctores dicunt, adhuc verum esse quod stat aliqua necessitas cum libertate, ut etiam ipsi idem auctores docent: Alvarez disp. 22. n. 40. & 43. disp. 25. n. 2. disp. 83. n. 18. disp. 12. n. 1, 3, 4. & 5. & Cumel 1. p. q. 14. art. 13. disp. 3. & q. 41. art. 2. disp. 4. & Cabrera eodem loco qui citatur in objectione, disp. 1.   

Adversus quartam propositionem.  
1. Objiciunt omnia loca objecta contra primam & secundam: sed jam soluta haec sunt.  
2. Objiciunt D. Thom. q. 6. de malo art. unico ad 3. ubi solvens illam objectionem: Si ergo voluntas hominis infallibiliter movetur à Deo, sequitur quod homo non habeat liberam electionem suorum actuum. Respondet: Deus movet quidem voluntatem immutabiliter propter efficaciam virtutis moventis quae deficere non potest, sed propter naturam voluntatis motae quae indifferenter se habet ad diversa, non inducitur necessitas, sed remanet libertas, sicut etiam in omnibus providentia divina infallibiliter operatur.  
Respondemus adversarios noluisse impugnare propositionem, sed probare: nullus enim locus est in Divo Thoma aptior ad probandam quartam propositionem; quod sic ostenditur: Idem omnino est voluntatem agi insuperabiliter & indeclinabiliter, ac voluntatem moveri immutabiliter, efficaciter, per virtutem moventem quae deficere non potest: atqui Semipelagiani fuerunt haeretici quia negarunt voluntatem agi divina gratia insuperabiliter & indeclinabiliter: fuerunt enim haeretici quia negarunt gratiam illam quam Divus Augustinus admittebat toto libro de correptione & gratia, praesertim cap. 12. ut constat ex Hilario epist. ad Divum Augustinum, Sect. Deinde molestè ferunt. Gratia autem quam Divus Augustinus admittebat, est illa per quam voluntas insuperabiliter & indeclinabiliter agitur: haec enim sunt formalia verba Divi Augustini. Ergo Semipelagiani fuerunt haeretici quia negarunt gratiam qua voluntas humana movetur immutabiliter, infallibiliter, efficaciter, per virtutem quae deficere non potest: quia tamen cum hac tanta gratiae efficacia stat libertas, haec enim gratia facit utrumque, hoc est, facit ut agamus, & ut libere agamus, idcirco Divus Thomas dicit, quod non inducitur necessitas, scilicet absoluta, sed tantum necessitas infallibilis, immutabilis, efficacitatis virtutis quae deficere non potest, & haec necessitas non tollit libertatem. Et sic Divus Thomas duas simul haereses confutavit, scilicet Pelagii & Semipelagianorum, & Calvini.  
3. Objiciunt Alvarem disp, 3. de Auxiliis, n. 17. & 18. dicentem haeresim Calvini & Lutheri fuisse, gratiam divinam ita inchoare & perficere, & ita efficacem esse, ut homo solum spontanee & non libere, ultro & non coacte cooperetur.  
Respondemus & nos detestari & anathema dicere his haeresibus: sed hoc ipsum argumentum fuse dissolvit Alvarez disp. 22. n. 30, & 31. & disp. 92. n. 13. admittendo contra Pelagium & Semipelagianos, quod per divinam gratiam indeclinabiliter & insuperabiliter voluntas agitur; & contra Calvinum sustinendo, quod ita agitur, ut nihilominus ipsa libere agat.   

Adversus quintam propositionem.  
1. Objiciunt Divum Thomam 1. ad Timoth. 2. lect. 1. in fine: Homo Christus est mediator Dei & hominum, non quorundam, sed inter Deum & hominem: & hoc non fuisset nisi venisset omnes salvare.— Ipse est propitiato pro peccatis nostris, pro aliquibus efficaciter, pro omnibus sufficienter: quia pretium ejus est sufficiens ad salutem omnium, sed non habet efficaciam nisi in electis propter impedimentum.  
Respondemus, nos admittere haec omnia: inde tamen non potest colligi quod Deus det omnibus auxilia sufficientia interna, quibus possint ad libitum uti vel non uti; sed colligitur quid sit Christum mortuum esse pro omnibus sufficienter, videlicet quia pretium ejus est sufficiens pro omnibus: Dicit autem non habere efficaciam nisi in electis propter impedimentum: sed quis possit non ponere hujusmodi impedimentum, explicat S. Thomas 3. contra gentes cap. 163. ut supra ostendimus. Addimus autem, quod, cum sanguis Christi esset sufficiens ad tollenda omnia impedimenta quae proveniunt ex parte hominis, cur noluit illa tollere, non est al●a ratio inquirenda, nisi voluntas divina, ut docet ipse S. Thomas ibid. cap. 162.  
2. Objiciunt Divum Thomam q. 23. de verit. a. 2. Quia ergo Deus omnes homines propter beatitudinem fecit, dicitur voluntate antecedente omnium salutem velle; sed quia quidam suae saluti adversantur— implet in eis alio modo quod ad suam bonitatem pertinet, scilicet eos per justitiam damnans.  
Respondemus, nihil hoc loco dici de morte Christi: quod autem Deus velit omnes salvos fieri voluntate antecedente, concedimus, sed dicimus voluntatem illam antecedentem nihil aliud esse in Deo quam voluntatem ordinandi homines ad beatitudinem, hoc est, voluntatem qua voluit omnes homines facere & creare propter beatitudinem: & ex consequenti Deus voluit toti generi humano media quibus posset ad illam pervenire, quae quia voluntarie amisimus, Deus dat alia efficacissima electis: non dat autem aliis qui suae saluti adversantur peccando, cum posset si vellet eis dare etiam efficacissima quibus possent & vellent salvati, & de facto salvarentur. Unde Divus Thomas hoc satis insinuat in verbis quae consulto omiserunt adversarii: ait enim, Sed quia quidam suae saluti adversantur, quos or do suae sapientiae ad salutem venire non patitur propter eorum defectum, implet in eis, etc. Ordo igitur divinae sapientiae quosdam non patitur venire ad salutem ob eorum defectum vel actualem vel originalem, quem Deus, si vellet, posset ab eis tollere. Quare autem nolit? O altitudo divitiarum! ô homo tu quis es qui respondeas Deo! Cui solutio ista displicet, quaerat me doctiores, sed caveat ne inveniat praesumptores, inquit Augustinus de spiritu & litera cap. 33. qui etiam se ignorare fatetur cum Apostolo, cap. 8. lib. de correptione & gratia.  
3. Objiciunt Divum Thomam in cap. 2. ad Heb. lect. 3. ad illa verba Divi Pauli,  gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem. Pro omnibus autem, inquit Divus Thomas, dupliciter potest intelligi, vel ut sit distributio accommoda scilicet pro omnibus praedestinatis; pro istis enim tantum habet efficaciam: vel absolutè pro omnibus quantum ad sufficientiam; sufficiens enim quantum ad se omnibus est.  
Respondemus, quod cum Divus Thomas dicat locum illum Divi Pauli posse intelligi per distributionem accommodam de solis praedestinatis, ut etiam intellexit S. Augustinus, quomodo potest hinc elici propositionem hanc quintam damnari a Divo Thoma? plane non videmus. Verum mirabilis est fraus adversariorum, quia ve●ba sequentia suffurati sunt, ne intelligeretur quo sensu dicat Divus Thomas, quod mors Changed isti sufficiens est pro omnibus: subjungit haec verba 1. ad Timoth. 4. Qui est Salvator omnium, maximè fidelium. Chrysostomus: Pro omnibus hominibus generaliter mortuus est, quia omnibus pretium sufficit; etsi omnes non credunt, ipse tamen quod suum est implevit. Ex illis ergo Divi Chrysostomi verbis, quae affert, Divus Thomas satis ostendit quo sensu dixerit mortem Christi omnibus esse sufficientem, quia videlicet omnibus pretium sufficit: quod admittunt omnes, etiam ipse jansenius, in loco ex quo desumpta est haec quinta propositio. Quod autem omnibus omnino Christus promeruerit auxilia sufficientia, ne verbum quidem in Divo Thoma, multo minus quod haec auxilia sint determinabilia a libero hominis arbitrio.    

The eighth Writing.  
It was entitled on the outside,  
Indiculus falsitatum quae continentur in objectionibus.  
The Contents within were thus:  

Quae corrupte objiciunt in primo scripto D. Hallier & Collegae contra primam propositionem.  
1. OBjiciunt Divum Thomam q. 24. de verit. art. 12. Quodlibet peccatum singulariter liberum arbitrium potest vitare.  
Respondemus illos ex proposito omisisse verba paulo post sequentia, scilicet: quamvis non sine divino auxilio, quo hominem sua providentia ad bona agenda & mala vitanda gubernat.  
5. Loco, Objiciunt Divum Thomam 3. p. q. 86. a. 1. dicentem: Erroneum est dicere, quod sit aliquod peccatum de quo homo non potest poenitere in hac vita, quia tolleretur libertas arbitrii, & derogaretur virtuti gratiae cujuscunque peccatoris ad poenitendum.  
Respondemus, valde notabiliter illos corrupisse hunc locum: sic enim habet: Derogatur virtuti gratiae per quam moveri potest cor cujuscunque peccatoris ad poenitendum, juxta illud Prov. 1. Cor Regis in manu Domini, quocunque voluerit, vertet illud.   

In secundo scripto contra primam.  
12. Loco, Objiciunt Concilium Moguntinum anno 1549. cap. 9 Demonstrandum est mandatorum Dei observationem renatis & justificatis esse possibilem, non secundum naturae infirmitatem, sed secundum gratiam Christi, etc.  
Respondemus, triplicem in hac citatione esse corruptionem, quia abstulerunt duo aut tria verba ante, & totidem post, quia hic multum inserviebant ad propositum. Sic ergo habet Concilium: Ex eadem causa demonstrandum erit, mandatorum Dei observationem renatis ac justificatis esse possibilem, non secundum naturae infirmitatem, sed secundum gratiam Christi & secundum opem Spiritus Sancti: Sive ut paulo post dicit, opitulante Spiritu Sancto. Subtractio hujus posterioris clausulae manifeste indicat fraudem: subtractio autem prioris, scilicet, ex eadem causa, non minus fraudulenter facta est, quia illae particulae sunt relativae ad caput praecedens, in quo dixerat Concilium, dignitatem operum quae eliciunt justificati, sumi ex duplici capite, videlicet ex gratia Christi & ex Spiritu Sancto omnis boni operis motore & operatore; & post pauca, cujus motum in nobis efficacem cogitare debemus. Ex eadem ergo causa demonstrandum est, mandatorum Dei observationem, etc. nempe ex gratia Christi & ex Spiritu Sancto omnis boni operis motore & operatore, cujus motum in nobis efficacem cogitare debemus.  
Omnia fere loca D. Thomae quae allegant, potius convincunt oppositum, si antecedentia & consequentia expendantur. Et idem dicendum de locis Conciliorum.  
Omnia vero loca Scripturae sunt eadem quibus utebantur Pelagiani & Semipelagiani.  

Sic contra primam.  
Objiciunt quinque loca Scripturae ex quibus quatuor abutebantur Caelestius & Cassianus, ut constat ex S. Augustino de perfect. justitiae c. 10. & ex Cassiano collat. 7. c. 8. & collat. 13. c. 14.   

Contra secundam.  
Objiciunt loca explicata a Diva Augustino de praedest. SS. c. 8. & 16. de dono persev. cap. 14. In enchir. cap. 97. Lib. 1. imperf. oper. cont. julian. cap. 93. De grat. & lib. arb. cap. 5. & iis abutebantur Faustus & alii Semipelagiani.   

Contra tertiam.  
Utuntur locis citatis a Cassiano collat. 13. cap. 7. & a Fausto lib. 1. de grat. & lib. arb. cap. 19 quae omnia fere solvit D. Augustinus, de perf. justit. c. 19   

Contra quartam.  
Nulla loca Scripturae objiciunt.   

Contra quintam.  
Objiciunt quatuor, quae in se vel in similibus solvit Divus Augustinus de corr. & grat. cap. 14. & in enchir. c. 103.  
Denique omnes objectiones quas faciunt, sunt argumenta quibus usi sunt Patres Societatis in Congregationibus coram Clement VIII. & Paulo V. & quibus utitur Pseudo-Suarez noviter impressus Lugduni contra gratiam de se efficacem.     

The ninth Writing.  
It had this Title on the outside:  
Irreverenter dicta contra D. Augustinum a Patribus Societatis Jesus.  
And withinside contained these words:  
Quae irreverenter dixerunt adversus D. Augustinum Patres Societatis, maxime recentiores.  
REnovant omnes querelas Massiliensium, & omnes injurias, sive parum reverenter dicta contra D. Augustinum Patres Societatis.  
Primo igitur subjiciemus 22. propositiones quas generalis Inquisitio Hispaniae ex ipsorum libris decerpsit & damnavit.  


Dionysius Petavius discept. priori de Trid. Conc. & Augustini doctrina.  I. Augustini quaedam dogmata ab Apostolica Sede in terminis sunt damnata.  

Jesuitae Lovanienses in articulis censuratis.  II. Miseram fore Ecclesiam si S. Augustini placitis obstricta maneat.  

jidem ibidem.  III. Ecclesiam a tutela & paedagogia Augustini esse vindicandam.  

jidem ibidem.  IV. Augustini auctoritatem non plus valere, quam rationes, quas allegat, evincant.  

jidem ibidem.  V. Augustinum fuisse Doctorem perinde ac alium quempiam, etiam modernorum.  

jidem ibidem.  VI Augustini dotes, sive naturales, sive infusas, non fuisse altioris ordinis quam aliorum Doctorum, etiam Scholasticorum.  

Joannes Roberti in opus de Natal. c. 3.  VII. Si post Augustinum nihil Christianae eruditioni accesserit, Scholasticam Theologiam penitus rejiciendam fore.  

Idem ibidem.  VIII. Augustini auctoritatem interponentibus respondendum fore, Ecclesiam in suis filiis usque hodie crescere, etiam eruditione.  

Jesuita Logicus relatus à Joanne Rivio in vitam S. Augustini l. 4. c. 10. Sect. 6.  IX. Augustinum etiam juliani Pelagiani argumentis non satisfecisse.  

Idem.  X. Si triumphus Ecclesiae de Pelagianis niteretur posterioribus Augustini scriptis, immerito de eis illa triumphasset.  

Idem ibid. & Jesuitae in articulis censuratis.  XI. Volentem sustinere partes juliani, non posse Augustini rationibus convinci.  

Jesuitae ibidem.  XII. Augustini Theologiam de originalis peccati traduce esse rusticanam.  

Vasquez 1. 2. disp. 132. cap. 3. resp. 14.  XIII. Ex Augustini opinione de peccato originali cogimur incidere in sententiam Pelagii.  

Molina de opere sex dierum, disp. 1. Sect. postremo.  XIV. Augustinum sacrarum Scripturarum auctoritatem sua expositione evacuare & ludibrio infidelium exponere.  

Molina 1 p. q. 23. art. 4. & 5. disp. 1. m. 6.  XV. Augustinum quasi sub caligine constiturum ad veritatem a Patribus inventam non attendisse.  

Molina in Concord. q. 23. art. 4. & 5. disp. 1. m. ult. Sect. Credens.  XVI. Augustini sententiam fidelium non paucos turbasse, ejusque auctoritate perculsos in Pelagianismum declinasse.  

Idem 1 p. q. 23. disp. 1. m. 6. Sect. Ex his patet.  XVII. Augustini sententiam a multis duram nimis indignamque divina bonitate ac clementia judicari, non mirum.  

Vasquez.  XVIII. Ab Augustino aliisque idem sentientibus peti posse undenam suae sententiae certitudinem hauserint.  

Vasquez in 1. 2. disp. 193. c. 4. n. 39  XIX. Augustini vestigiis non esse insistendum, sed aliter philosophandum.  

Jesuitae Lovanienses in articulis supra citatis.  XX. Augustini locutiones quamvis aliquo sensu veras, improprias tamen esse nec frequentandas.  

jidem ibidem.  XXI. Utrum Augustinus contra quod sentiamus sentiat, non admodum referre.  

jidem ibidem.  XXII. Non recte dici potest, illud saltem necessario ab omnibus esse tenendum quod Augustinus tenuit nec retractavit.   
P. Annatus hoc anno 1653. edidit Parisiis volumen, in cujus libro octavo integro collegit dicta quae aliis contra Divum Augustinum exciderunt, vel certe non dicuntur de doctrina D. Augustini in materia de gratia in qua est approbatus ab Ecclesia, & tamen ipse applicat huic materiae, & sunt ita indigna, ut ipsemet erubescat cap. 3. & ad decretum Clementis VIII. quo in principio disputationum de Auxiliis cavit sequendum esse D. Augustinum, respondet solum jussiisse ut inquireretur sententia Augustini, nempe ut retineretur, quod perspicuum esset, illud voluisse, non autem quidquid constaret eum dixisse, atque ita saepe dixit D. Augustinum minus voluisse & plus dixisse, quod est revera concedere quod D. Augustinus excessit, contra expressam definitionem Caelestini in epistola ad Episcopos Galliae cap. 3. Unde idem P. Annatus pag. 172. dicit D. Augustinum suavi interpretatione torquendum in alteram partem.  
Il Padre Adamo ●iesuita in un libro che egli fece stampare doi anni fa intitolato, Il Calvino disfatto da se stesso; & per l'armi di S. Agostino, dice le cose sequenti, il quale libro e in lingua Francese.  

Pag. 614.  Che la luce delli libri di questo santo e grave Dottore e coperta di tenebre e di nuvole; che la sua dottrina e intricatissima, come che da se stessa si combatte esi distrugge.  

Pag. 581.  S. Agostino none riuscito nell● scelta delle sue opinioni ne delli fondamenti con li quali si prova, talche ci ha' lasciata l'assolutissima liberta de seguitarli overo d'applicarci ad un altro partito, bench li sia contrario, anzi che lui istesso dubita spesse volte intorno alla certezza dell' opinioni che egli insegna.  

Pag. 615.  Che non ha voluto parlar chiaro, overo che n'ha potuto spiegar li suoi pensieri con tanta facilita, che non ci ha luogo di dubitare delle sue intentioni.  

Pag. 626.  Che nella guerra che egli ha fatto contra li Pelagiani ha datto in estremita pericolose.  

Pag. 639.  Certo e che S. Agostino ha parlato con errore in materia della gratia e cella predestinatione, gia che bisogna addolcire e temperare le sue parole per non trapassare della lor aspressa ad un errore contra●io, mi sara troppo lecito di cercar un temperamento Catolico.  

Pag. 644.  M'e permesso di revocare ad un giusto temperamento tutto quello che li Dottori giudicano essere nell'eccesso.  

Pag. 640.  Conforme al suo parere & al consiglio de santi Padri apporto quello temperamento convenevole col quale fuggendo l'error de Pelagiani non casco nell'eccesso di S. Agostino. Perche io non caschi nell'error de Pelagiani con i quali S. Agostino combatte e ci obligo di seguitar l'impeto e tutta la forza delle parole delle quali eglisi serve per convincerli? Per questo io tengo il meso tra Pelagio e Calvino: se con voler temperare le parole di S. Agostino calassi io troppo in qui sa●ei subito Pelagiano; cosi se ancora volessi io stare nella lor forza sarei Calvinista: mi tengo io dunque nel meso con la Chiesa.  

Pag. 635  L'opinioni di Calvino si trovano provate in certi luoghi delli libri di S. Agostino, se vi applicate all apparenza sola delli termini.  

Pag. 639.  Basta a me che io costringa il mio adversario a consessare che S. Agostino secondo l'apparenza delli termini ha parlato a favore delli doi partiti, cioe della Chiesa e di Calvino.  

Pag. 661.  Benche li Pelagiani havessero predicato contra quest'opinioni, la Chiesa non l'haveria mai potuto metter nell'indice o catalogo de gl'Eretici.  

Ibid.  L'opinioni di S. Agostino sono feroci.  

Pag. 667.  E lecito detestare qu●ll ' opinione ' laquale assevera il peccato originale esser sondamento col quale viene giustificata la distintione che Dio ha fatto delli salvati dalli dannati.  

Pag. 662. L'istesse sostenne il Padre Hamelio Giesuita nell' istesso tempo nel quale incomincio questa materia degli Aussilii.  Questo mancamento non e tanto colpevole che non l'habb ia Iddio suppotrato in questi Autori che inspirava, che noi chiamamo canonici, che parlono conform alla loro imaginatione nell'esprimere le cose che Iddio gli ha revelate, che il foco e l'ardore che era naturale a S. Paolo era bastevole a trasportarlo in espressione di questa natura, e l'istesso afferma di David nel Psal. 11.  
Oltre le sopradette cose in tutto il suo libro dice piu cose dell'istesse conditioni contra l'autorita di S. Agostino come si puo'l vedere.  
Il Padre Caussino nel 2. tomo della sua Corte santa, massima 6. della predestinatione, n. 2. composto in lingua Francese cosi dice.  
Non e in raggione di spaventarsi dalle parole di S. Paulo e di S. Agostino che senza fare nessuna riflessione sopra le nostre buone opere,  che diano ogni cosa alla semplice volonta di Dio, perche havemo da considerare questi doi gran cervelli giusto come doi grandissimi mari quali si gonfiano con l'impeto del lor genio, di tall maniera in una riva che paiono voler lasciar l'altra senza aqua per un pezzo; ma come l'Oceano doppo di essersi largamente diffuso d'una banda, torna poi a i limiti, che Dio li ha prescrittis, cosi nell'istessa maniera questi doppo di essersi inaspriti contro li rebelli della Chiesa, che combattono la verita, tornano poi in un temperamento pacifico per l'edificatione della Chiesa di Dio.  
P. Pallavicinus Jesuita in Collegio Romano anno superiori 1652. in tractatu de Deo uno & trino, quem legit suis discipulis, in unico Sect. disput. de praedestinatione expresse docet,  

1. S. Augustinum non recte interpretatum esse Scripturas circa praedestinationem.  
2. Doctrinam S. Augustini de praedestinatione favere haeresi Calvini.  
3. Recentes Jesuitas accuratiores esse antiquis Patribus, scilicet S. Augustino, S. Thoma & aliis.    

The tenth Writing.  
Outwardly Inscrib'd,  
Rationes ob quas Patres Societatis adversus Jansenium commoventur.  
And within containing these words:  
Ratio propter quam tam acerbo Jansenium odio prosequuntur Patres Societatis Jesu est, quia in fine sui operis quatuor capitulis & octuaginta nobis ostendit maximam sententiae ipsorum cum Pelagianorum & Semipelagianorum errore in re & in verbis convenientiam.  
PAuca ex multis eligimus.  

D. Prosp. in ep. ad Aug. Faustus l. 1. de grat. & lib. arb. cap. 4.11, 12, 16. & ult. Et colligitur ex D. Aug. de corr. & grat. cap. 1, 2, 3. & 4. lib. de dono persev. c. 15. & 17. de praedest. SS. c. 1. & ex D. Prosp. ad Capita Gallorum & ad objectiones Vincentianas.  Dicebant Pelagiani & Semipelagiani removeri omnem industriam, tollique virtutes, si Dei constitutio humanas praeveniat voluntates, & sub hoc praedestinationis nomine fatalem quandam induci necessitatem, tolli libertatem arbitrii, afferri desperationem, induci socordiam, torporem & ignaviam, studium virtutis retundi; incitari homines ad licentiam ac dissolutionem vitae, laudem detrahi operibus bonis, orationes refrigescere, spem tolli, frustra exhortationes & correptiones esse, zelum animorum extingui, Deum fore acceptatorem personarum, peccata in Deum refundi, & homines condi ut peccent.  
Idem in terminis fere dicunt 
Vasquez.  Vasquez, 
Lessius.  Lessius, 
Molina.  Molina & alii: sic enim expresse Lessius de praedestinatione sect. 6. n. 79. Nihil videtur magis inducere torporem & desperationis metum, quam persua sio illa, de omnibus & singulis absque ullo operum intuitu tam firmiter esse statutum, & res omnes sic disponi ut omnia eveniant sicut absolutis illis & inflexibilibus & plusquam adamantinis decretis est sancitum. Quae decreta vocat alibi 
Lessius de gratia efficaci.  fatalem necessitatem, eodemque modo loquuntur 
Molina in Concord. q. 23. art. 4. & 5. disp. 1. m. 12. Vasquez 1 p. disp. 89. c. 10.  alii.  

D. Prosper in ep. ad Aug. Faustus l. 2. de lib. arb. c. 6. & 8. & l. 1. c. 11.  Dicebant Pelagiani & Semipelagiani non dari gratiam quae humanam sibi subjiciat voluntatem, quia destruit libertatem quando datur; quando vero non datur, praeceptum est impossibile, & hic frustra sunt praecepta, exhortationes & correptiones, & sola opus est oratione: absurdum enim est ut Deus petat ab homine sieri quae ipse per fatalem gratiam debet facere; unde etiam totum tribuitur gratiae & nihil narurae.  
Idem docent hi recentiores. 
Lessius.  Lessius de gratia efficaci cap. 9 n. 9 Antequam detur motio efficax, inquit, est in hominis potestate eam habere. Et cap, 7. Sequitur, inquit, praecepta Dei esse impossibilia. Et cap. 9 de gratia efficaci, Frustra erunt, inquit, praecepta, consilia, exhortationes & correptiones. Et 
Molina.  Molina 1 p. q. 14. a. 13, disp. 53. m. 2. Datur, inquit, locus illorum Monachorum opinioni qui dicebant hominem non corripiendum; sed solum orandum. Et alii multa similia dicunt.  

D. Prosp. in ep. ad Aug. Faustus l. 1. cap. 14. & 17. & l. 2. c. 9 & 6.  Pelagiani & Semipelagiani dicebant Deum quantum est de se, velle omnes homines salvos fieri, si tamen ipsi velint, quod etiam ampliabant ad parvulos. Ex qua voluntate statuunt beneficia omnibus ex aequo communia, Christi mortem, gratiam sufficientem, etiam actualem internam, sine qua homo non potest, quae dat posse, si homo velit, quam homo reddit efficacem vel inefficacem, qua posita Deus expectat volunratem, quia pendet a nutu hominis; alias opus nullius esset laudis aut meriti, & voluntas non laesa sed totaliter extincta videretur, & alia his connexa.  
Idem docent hi recentiores. 
Molina.  Molina 1 p. q. 23. disp. 1. m. 8. dicens Deum quantum in se est, velle omnium salurem si homo velit. 
Lessius.  Lessius lib. de praedest. sect. 6. dicit omnes esse divini auxilii participes. Et lib. de gratia efficaci c. 11. dicit omnes per illam posse si velint. Et c. 10. dicit esse in potestate nostra reddere gratiam praevenientem efficacem vel inefficacem. Et c. 4. dicit Deum expectare ut homo consentiat & purgari velit. Et c. 10. dicit influxum gratiae pendere a libero arbitrio, & alia his similia dicit.  

D. Prosp. & D. Hilarius in ep. ad Aug. & ipsemet Aug. de perf. justit. c. 10. & 19 & de nat. & grat. in pluribus capitibus: & alibi saepe.  Pelagiani & Semipelagiani citabant quaedam loca Scripturae, ut illud, Vult omnes homines salvos fieri, Christus pro omnibus mortuus est, Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis, etc. Quoties volui congregare filios tuos, etc. Vae tibi Corozaim, vae tibi Bethsaida, quia si in Tyro & Sidone, etc. & alia plura, quae ad suum errorem explicabant, utebantur auctoritatibus Patrum, maxime Graecorum, imo & ipsius Augustini, in iis quae ante Episcopatum scripserat, quem dicebant se in caeteris admirari, sed in hoc capite accusabant tanquam turbarum auctorem; & tandem dicebant de his posse sine detrimento fidei disputari.  
jisdem locis & eodem modo explicatis utuntur recentiores, ut patet ex 
Lessius.  Lessio de praedest. sect. 3. & 
Molina.  Molina 1. p. q. 23. art. 4. & 5. disp. 1. m. 3. & m. ult. ubi etiam dicit in caeteris magnam haberi reverentiam D. Augustino & D. Thomae: accusat tamen D. Augustinum tanquam turbarum auctorem; & tandem dicunt nihil in hac re definitum esse, ut patet ex praefatione Lessii ad opusculum de praedestinatione.   

The eleventh Writing.  
Quatuor à me quaeruntur.  
PRimum est, Utrum in Jansenio habeatur locus aliquis in quo admittat, aliquando gratiae interiori resisti?  
Respondeo brevissime, haberi; & primo quidem quantum ad gratiam interiorem intellectus, admittit expresse Jansenius illi aliquando resisti, ut patet ex lib. 1. de grat. Christi cap. 16. ubi explicans gratiam intellectus, dicit, illius proprium effectum esse dare cognitionem, facere ut homo sciat & cognoscat; & haec cognitio, inquit, aeque bene potest in eo qui resistit quam qui obtemperat suae scientiae & conscientiae. Unde enim alioquin dicerentur aliqui rebelles lumini?  
2. Quantum ad gratiam ipsi voluntati internam, etiam admittit jansenius, quod illi aliquando resistatur. Patet primo ex lib. 2. de grat. Christi c. 27. ex lib. 4. de grat. Christi c. 16, 17, & 18. Nam in c. 16. ait, quod gratia excitans excitat voluntatem ad imperfecta desideria: gratia vero adjuvans adjuvat infirmitatem ne in conatibus suis imperfectis cassa maneat & inanis. Et infra, conatus, inquit ex D. Bernardo, liberi arbitrii cassi sunt ad bonum, si non adjuventur; nulli, si non excitentur.  
Lib. 8. c. 2. Delectatio victrix, quae Augustino est efficax adjutorium, relativa est: tunc enim est victrix, quando alteram superat: quod si contingat alteram ardentiorem esse, in solis inefficacibus desideriis haerebit animus, nec efficaciter unquam volet quod volendum est. Lib. etiam 8. c. 16. admittit cum Tridentino & S. Augustino, hominem posse dissentire, posse gratiam abjicere.  
Secundum quod a me quaeritur, est, Utrum Iansenius admiserit praeter gratiam efficacem aliam sufficientem?  
Respondeo: Vel quaestio est de re ipsa, vel de nomine; si de re, certum est jansenium admisisse quantum ad rem, totum illud in quo recentiores Thomistae constituunt gratiam sufficientem: si de nomine, certum est ipsum noluisse illud admittere.  
De re igitur constat: nam Thomistae aliqui dicunt gratiam sufficientem in hominibus justis esse ipsam gratiam habitualem, virtutes & dona; hanc admittit passim jansenius lib. 3. de gratia Christi c. 15.  
Alii Thomistae constituunt gratiam sufficientem in quibusdam illustrationibus, inspirationibus, etc. & ita Academia Salmanticensis in censura contra Molinam, & alii viri docti constituunt gratiam sufficientem in his solis illuminationibus: has admittit jansenius lib. 1. de grat. Christi, c. 16.  
Denique alii Thomistae admittunt gratiam sufficientem, quae tamen est efficax respectu alicujus actus imperfecti: quia enim per actus imperfectos homo disponitur ad actus perfectos, gratia quae est efficax respectu actuum imperfectorum, dicitur dare posse respectu perfectorum, & sic dicitur gratia sufficiens respectu illorum; & hoc sensu Iansenius quantum ad rem admittit gratiam sufficientem, ut patet lib. 2. de grat. Christi, c. 27. in quo convenit cum Alvarez disp. 72. n. 13. disp. 80. n. 2. ubi citat M. Medinam 1. 2. q. 109. art. 10. Idem tenuit P. Thomas de Lemos in opusc. de gratia sufficiente & efficaci, & M. Herrera in tractaru de Auxiliis.  
Quantum ad nomen, noluit admittere Iansenius gratiam sufficientem, primo propter aequivocationem, quia nomine auxilii sufficientis intelligendum videtur ultra quod non requiritur aliud, & quia ultra auxilium illud sufficiens modo jam explicato requiritur aliud, idcirco Iansenius noluit vocare auxilium sufficiens, ne sub hoc nomine male intellecto everteretur auxilium efficax. Nam ipsi Thomistae qui vocant hoc auxilium sufficiens, dicunt illud esse sufficiens in suo genere, hoc est, ad dandum posse, non autem ad dandum posse cum effectu.  
2. Quia semper B. Augustinus & B. Thomas, quando loquuntur de auxilio sufficienti, sumunt sufficiens pro efficaci. Patet hoc ex S. Augustino lib. de grat. & lib. atb. cap. 15. Qui voluerit & non potuerit, nondum se plauè velle cognoscat, & oret ut habeat tantam voluntatem, quanta sufficit ad implenda mandata: sic quippe adjuvatur ut faciat quod jubetur. Et cap. 16. Certum est nos mandata servare si volumus; sed quia praeparatur voluntas à Domino, ab illo petendum est ut tantum velimus, quantum sufficit ut volendo faciamus. Et D. Thomas 1 p. q. 105. art. 4. docet voluntatem non posse moveti sufficienter & efficaciter nisi a Deo, ubi clarissime pro eodem sumit sufficienter & efficaciter.  
Tertium quod a me quaeritur, est, Utrum ex Augustino possit adduci aliquid pro gratia sufficiente?  
Respondeo, si nomine gratiae sufficientis intelligatur gratia efficax, quam D. Augustinus vocat sufficientem, infinita sunt loca pro gratia hoc modo sufficienti. Insignis locus ex cap. 12. lib. de corr. & grat. ubi ait: Subventum est igitur infirmitati voluntatis humanae, ut divina gratia insuperabiliter & indeclinabiliter ageretur. Et cap. 8. de praedest. Sanctor. Haec gratia à nullo duro corde respuitur, etc.  
Si autem nomine gratiae sufficientis intelligitur gratia quae est efficax respectu voluntatis imperfectae, & quae dat posse respectu actus perfecti, sic infinita sunt etiam loca cap. 17. de grat. & lib. arb. Qui ergo vult servare Dei mandata & non potest, habet quidem voluntatem bonam, sed adhuc parvam & invalidam, etc. Et cap. 16. ibid. & cap. 12. de corr. & grat.  
Si vero nomine gratiae sufficientis intelligitur auxilium aliquod quod dat posse, non tamen sit determinabile a voluntate, illud videtur admittere, cap. 11. de corr. & grat. Nunc autem quibus deest tale adjutorium, poena peccati est; quibus autem datur, secundum gratiam datur, & non secundum debitum. Et in cap. 7. & cap. 16. de praedest. SS. distinguit duplicem vocationem; alteram qua vocati sunt qui noluerunt venire judaei & Gentiles: alteram secundum propositum, qua vocatione fit credens. Et in ep. 106. ad Paulinum; & hoc ipsum satis clare ostendit Hilarius scribens S. Augustino, Sect. Deinde molestè ferunt.  
Denique si gratiae sufficientis nomine intelligatur gratia ultra quam nulla est alia necessaria, sed quae a libero arbitrio determinetur, respondeo hujus meminisse S. Augustinum non tanquam a se assertae, sed tanquam a se in posterioribus scriptis impugnatae, ut patet ex cap. 3. de praedest. SS. & de gratia Christi cap. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20.  
Quartum quaesitum est, an Congregationes quas in alio scripto citavi, sint coram summis Pontificibus Clement VIII. & Paulo V. vel inter ipsos Consultores, & quibus verbis hae propositiones discussae, defensae & approbatae fuerint?  
Respondeo omnes Congregationes quas citavi cum nota anni 1602. & supra, esse coram Summis Pontificibus. Propositiones vero hae quinque sub eisdem fere terminis sunt discussae, ut patet ex alio brevi scripto; fuerunt autem defensae in hoc sensu:  
Prima, quod non sunt impossibilia praecepta, quia homo per gratiam sufficientem habet posse, non tamen habet posse cum effectu.  
Secunda vero, tertia, quarta, quinta in sensu allato defensae sunt & approbatae, in quantum determinatum est dari gratiam de se efficacem sine qua homo non potest facere.    

Three Writings composed by a Learned Dominican upon the three first Propositions, and made use of by Cardinal Roma for his instruction in these matters, as is mentioned Part. 5. Chap. 9  

The first Writing.  
Error cui non resistitur, approbatur; & veritas quae minime defensatur, opprimitur. Felix Papa ad Accacium Episcopum Constantinopolit. in Baron. ann. 483.  
INstat vehementius apud Sedem Apostolicam altercantium Sorbonicorum pars altera pro censura aliquot propositionume Jansenio depromptarum: Altera pars eas ut ab Augustino assertas, sic & bonas esse ac Theologicas asserit, neque sine veritatis praejudicio damnari posse contendit. Incaluere in hac contentione dissidentium animi; certaturque inter eos ingenti quodam (si utrisque creditur) & Religionis, & in Sedem Apostolicam reverentiae certamine, quo se illi causam hujus Sedis agere dicunt, dum suspecti jam & ab ea proscripti Iansenii errores detegunt & damnari percupiunt. Hi vero & pro eadem Petri Cathedra se stare profitentur, dum probati toties & a tot Pontificibus consecrati Augustini oracula, vel pro ipsius Apostolicae firmitatis nomine inconcussa manere volunt, inconcussa desiderant.  
Esset utrorumque laudandus zelus, si (quod in tanta sententiarum repugnantia nequit) in utriusque secundum scientiam nec aliunde posset praesumi, quod alterutri hunc zelum mentiantur, aut quia fortassis decepti sunt, & veritatem non vident quam videre se credunt, aut quia nimio partium studio & ardore vincendi, & pudore cedendi agnitam fortassis veritatem sponte deserunt, & consulto decipere volunt. Experiendi igitur eorum animi, & dicta solertius expendenda: ne, si minus caute in hac causa proceditur, aut faveatur mendacio, aut veritati detrahatur, &, quod utrumque foret intutum, vel sub pallio Augustini effugiat Jansenius, vel sub Jansenii nomine vapulet Augustinus.  
Itaque ambiguas propositiones, nec in ea sensuum aequivocatione, quam continent, ullo modo definibiles, juxta Philosophi monitum, distinguendas prius existimem, ne, si indistinctae definiantur, per falsitatis latus impetitam se clamet veritas: Et (quod in damnatione articulorum Baii contigit) non paci & tranquillitati Ecclesiae sat plane consultum sit, sed acriori disputationum & turbarum flammae suggesta materies, dum alia & alia de damnati, nec clare expositi in qualibet propositione sensus fiet interpretatio.  

PRIMA PROPOSITIO.  
Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia: deest quoque iis gratia qua possibilia fiant.  

CAPUT. I.  
Assignantur sensus propositionis erronei & damnati.  
VIdetur primo intuitu illegitimus esse & intolerabilis hujus propositionis sensus. Primo quia affinis errori haereticorum nostri temporis, qui dicunt, Praecepta Dei esse impossibilia etiam viris justis, nec per divinae gratiae quantumcumque auxilium impleri posse. Secundo quia contrarius de creto Concil. Trid. sess. 6, can 18. Si quis dixerit Dei praecepta homini etiam justificato & sub gratia constituto esse ad observandum impossibilia, anathema sit. Tertio, quia adversans dicto B. Augustini lib. de natura & gratia cap. 49. Firmissime creditur Deum justum & bonum impossibilia non potuisse praecipere. Quarto, quia idem Augustinus lib. de haeres. Manich. cap. 3, dixit: Omnes homines posse se convertere ad Dei praecepta observanda si velint, quia illud lumen omnem hominem illuminat venientem in hunc mundum. Igitur si in eo sensu sumatur propositio, ut absolutam praeceptorum impossibilitatem, nullo divinae gratiae auxilio superandam importet: dubium non est quin haeretica sit & in legislatorem Deum horrendo blasphema.  
Rursum erronea erit & impertinens propositio, si a justis quamdiu manent justi, removere intelligatur gratiam necessariam ad abstinendum a peccato mortali, & implenda consequenter praecepta ex quorum transgressione peccarent mortaliter: cum enim non sit justus quisquam, nisi quamdiu perseverat absque culpa lethali; sequitur necessario necessitate suppositionis, quod quamdiu manet justus, hoc habeat per gratiam perseverantiae, qua fiunt ei praecepta possibilia, & movetur efficaciter pro loco & tempore ad ea implenda, & declinandum a peccato. Unde erroneum foret, nedum contra fidem, sed & contra ipsumrationis lumen, hanc gratiam possibilitatis praeceptorum a justo quamdiu manet justus, removere voluisse.  
Hi sunt sensus in hac propositione tam manifeste falsi, & tam ad primam propositionis superficiem cuique occurrentes, ut sperarint forsan qui censurae propositionis insistunt, ex horum horrore mox eam damnandam. Et si eorum subdolam mentem ex factis non sinceris liceat penetrare, hinc factum puto quod praeter disciplinae regulas, sub vaga, indefinita & incircumscripta terminorum expressione examinandam Sedi Apostolicae propositionem obtulerint, quo sub ea illimitatione ob pravos quos continet sensus indistincte damnatam, in iis quoque quos oppugnant sensibus Theologicis damnatam mentirentur, & apud imperitos lo canerent, ac quasi pro magna quam sibi pepetissent victoria insulse triumpharent: Distinctione igitur, ut dixi, opus est, ne quo ictu religioso perimitur falsitas, putetur & eodem sacrilego cecidisse & veritas.   

CAPUT. II.  
Praemonitum necessarium ad investigandos sensus bonos & Theologicos propositionis controversae, ac ferendum de ea judicium.  
MAndatorum possibilitas, relativum quid est, & ordinem dicit ad potentiam activam, quae in homine reperitur ad mandata implenda. Cum igitur mandata dicantur homini possibilia non per naturam, sed per gratiae sufficientiam, duplex distinguenda est gratiae sufficienta quam Scholae introduxerunt, moxque attendendum quaenam illa sit quam Jansenius pernegat in propositione ab eo asserta, & quae per propositionis proscriptionem consequenter adstruitur.  
Asserunt & D. Thomae recentiores discipuli & Molinae defensores sufficientem gratiam, sed non utrique eamdem, imo hi & illi diversissimam toto caelo: quippe Thomistarum gratia sufficiens incompleta est ad opus: Molinae vero sequacium completissima.  
Gratia sufficiens Thomistarum non talis est per quam homo in natura lapsa unquam de facto aut bonum operetur, aut fuerit operaturus, aut sit operaturus, sed per quam constituatur potens ad bonum operandum, nunquam tamen de facto operetur, nisi huic gratiae sufficienti supervenerit efficacis gratiae auxilium. 
Didacus Alvarez de Auxil. l. 8. disp. 79. Cumel in 1. 2. disp. 4. sect. 2. concls. 1. Silvius in 1. 2. q. 111. quaesito 3. concls. 3. Navarretta controvers. 19 ad q. 19 1. p. Cajet. & Medina. 1. 2. q. 109. art. 10.  Ut enim, inquiunt, oculus sanus quamvis aut somno ligatus, aut in tenebricoso constitutus loco, dicitur potens ad videndum, quamvis nec actu videat, nec visurus actu sit, nisi superveniente lumine & concurrente auxilio primae causae ad productionem actionis vitalis: ita & potens constituitur homo ad opus bonum per auxilium gratiae sufficientis, quamvis nunquam bonum ipsum de facto aut velit aut operetur, aut sit actu operaturus, nisi superveniente gratia efficaci, quae, ut ait Apostolus, operatur in nobis & velle & perficere. Hanc gratiam sufficientem nunquam vel ab Augustino vel a D. Thoma expresse memoratam ab eorum, ut putant, principiis deduxere eorum discipuli. Absque hoc tamen quod contendant, illum omni homini ad omne opus & pro omni tempore ac momento adesse: siquidem Cardinalis Bellarminus, qui cum Thomistis hanc gratiam sufficientem admittit, probat simul 
Bellarminus de grat. & lib. arb. l. 2. cap. 4.  nullam fore in Deo injustitiam, si om ibus eam denegaret; Et rursum per multa argumenta efficacissima ostendit hujusmodi 
Idem ibid. c. 6.  auxilium Dei sufficiens & necessa ium ad resurgendum a peccato non adesse omnibus momentis.  
E contra gratia sufficiens quam Molina & ejus discipuli invexerunt, cumulatissima est, & talis quod praeter illam, 
Bellarminus de grat. & lib. arb. l. 1. c. 12. ostendit quod haec sententia est omnino aliena à sententia B. Augustini & à sensu sacrarum Scripturarum, quodque penitus evertit praedestinationis fidem à Paulo praedicatam.  nihil aliud ex parte Dei per modum principii necessarium sit, ut homo nedum dicatur posse velle aut posse operari, sed de facto velit & opetetur absque novo aliquo gratiae efficacis juvamine; cum ipsamet gratia ex sui natura sufficiens a libero assensu & co-operatione voluntatis efficaciam & efficacis gratiae sortiatur appellationem. Hanc asserunt & deberi & dari a Deo omnibus hominibus quibus praecepta et leges imponit, ideoque iis sive fidelibus, sive infidelibus, sive justis, sive peccatoribus etiam obcaecatis et obduratis, omni loco et momento esse praesentissimam, nec nisi injutia subtrahendam.  
In hac explicandae sufficientis gratiae tam lata diversitate Cornelius Jansenius Episcopus Iprensis sufficientem gratiam a Molina et ejus sequacibus assertam, utpote jam in Pelagio damnatam, valide impugnat; illam vero quae a Thomistis statuitur nec admittit, nec rejicit, aut 
Jansenius tomo 3. lib. 3. de gratia Christi Salvatoris per totum.  ullam protestatur habere se de illa controversiam: imo censet & expressis verbis fatetur, quod 
Idem ibid. c. 1.  tale auxilium sufficiens fortasse non difficulter S. Augustinus admitteret, quamvis esse veram illam Christi gratiam, de qua cum Pelagio quaestio erat, pernegaret, ut et pernegant ipsi Thomistae.  
Igitur cum in odium Jansenii et ex occasione proscripti ejus operis delata fuerit ad Sedem Apostolicam controversae propositionis querela & ipsius exposita damnatio: delatorum mens ea est ut damnetur in sensu Jansenii, aut saltem ut dum indistincte damnetur, in sensu Jansenii damnata fingi queat. Parum illis est, ut damnetur in alio sensu, nisi damnetur, aut damnata credatur in eo quern impugnant: impugnant vero illam, in quantum asserit justis volentibus & conantibus non semper adesse praesentes vites, hoc est, sufficientiam gratiae Molinisticae, qua eis praecepta quaecunque fiant omni momento possibilia. Igitur et in hoc sensu eam proscribi volunt, aut posse fingi proscriptam. Parum illis est quod per hujus propositionis censuram deinceps dicendum sit, adesse justis volentibus & conantibus praesentissimam omni momento gratiam sufficientem, assertam a Bellarmino et Thomistis, qua eis fiant praecepta possibilia per potentiam, quae nunquam nisi rursum obstetricante manu Domini et efficacis gratiae impulsu voluntates determinante sit in actum exitura: hanc enim nec Thomistae semper adesse contendunt; nec si praesens semper admitteretur, Molina collaudaret. Pedissequam igitur voluntatis humanae gratiam quam do●…t, & quam unicam Christi Salvatoris medicinalem gratiam admittunt adstrui desiderant, eamque ex controver●ae propositionis censura firmiter stabilitam, et in fidei Ecclesiasticae canonem jam relatam posse celebrari peroptant.  
Non hoc dicunt, non hoc fatentur, hoc tamen quaetunt, et eo certiori spe obtinendi quod quaerunt, quo per cuniculos subreptionis apud Sedem Apostolicam obrepentes se latere existimant, sicque delusa Pontificis vigilantia sub propositionis universalissimae, indefinitae, ambiguae, et aequivocae, ac primo auditu nescio quid intolerabile resonantis postulata censura, suae simul non minus formidandae Molinisticae gratiae improvisam & incogitatam penitus Sedis Apostolicae definitionem obtinere se posse arbitrantur. Versipelles Oratores! Imo (quod invitus et dolens dico) sacrilegi omnino Sedis Apostolicae deceptores, qui mentiri audent Spiritui Sancto, & a Cathedra Petri, dum unum quid per speciem et apparentiam bonum petere se simulant, aliud non bonum, nec unquam sciente et vidente Petro approbandum, per fraudis iniquissimae malas artes non jam obtinere, sed furari moliuntur! Deponant semel larvam quam gerunt, et liparium quo teguntur amoveant, et aperte dicant quaerere se a Sede Apostolica, ut quod sub Clement VIII. et Paulo V. post celebres septem supra quadraginta Congregationes de Auxiliis habitas, adhibitis gravissimis Consultoribus, auditis acerrimis disputationibus in eorum doctrina prope damnatum fuit, modo sub unius larvatae propositionis proscriptione sine strepitu, sine disputationibus, sine partium advocatione sanum, sanctum, et Catholicum declaretur.  
Hoc quaerunt, et hoc certissime obtinent, si quam postulant propositionis damnationem reportant. Cum enim ex censura propositionis a Jansenio assertae, in odium J●nsenii delatae, et consequenter non in alio quam Jansenii sensu damnatae reputandae inevitabiliter resultet adesse omni tempore gratiam sufficientem Molinisticam, hoc est, humanae voluntatis pedissequam (quam solam et unicam Jansenius pernegat) qua justis volentibus et conantibus omni momento suppetant vires praesentissimae ad implenda quaecunque praecepta quantumvis difficilia; Jam certissime transiverit in rem judicatam tota lis, quae post tot Congregationes consultissimas manserat indecisa; et felicissimo et inexpectato olim rerum successu, nova Molinae doctrina (quam ejus assertores tum coram summis Pontificibus protestabantur, non eo animo suscepisse defendendam ut ostenderent esse Catholicam, sed solum ut probarent non esse aut haereticam aut damnandam) nedum damnata extiterit, nedum haeretica declarata, deinceps ex manifesta consequentia decreti Apostolici, quod contra propositionem controversam tam astute quaeritur et tam instanter petitur, et sana et Catholica manebit approbata, ideoque et in posterum inter Catholicos sola docenda, unica profitenda.  
Agitur itaque de summa rerum, et quod olim dicebat, in hostem conflicturus Imperator, Hodie in uno orbis angulo de totius imperio dimicatur: agitur, inquam, in uno articulo de totius corporis salute et vita; de tota dico fide sacrosancta, quam in causa liberi hominis arbitrii, gratiae Christi medicinalis et gratuitae Sanctorum praedestinationis a Paulo Gentium Doctore assertam, a Pelagio et Massiliensibus impetitam, acies Ecclesiae per viginti et amplius annos Augustino Doctore fortiter dimicans illaesam vindicavit. Delitescit enim tota in hac una propositione quae Sedis Apostolicae judicium hodie praestolatur, ut cum hac stante stet tota, cum hac cadente tota concidat. Si enim damnatur propositio Jansenii, asseritur eo ipso gratia Molinae quam solam propositio negat, et solam Jansenius impugnat; pro gratia Christi humanorum cordium victrice & domina stabilitur gratia creatae voluntatis serva & pedissequa; libero arbitrio humano bonorum operum gloria adscribitur; praedest natio Sanctorum non jam ex vocante, sed ex operib●s praedicatur: electorum salus aeterna non amplius miserenti Deo, sed volenti & currenti homini plenissima deputatur; atque ut uno verbo concludam, pro solidissima & sacratissima ac per omnes Ecclesiae aetates usque ad Molinam celebrata fidei doctrina quae ab●i●itur, nova Massiliensis farinae molitura cum sui remolitoris Molinae novis & pejoribus paraturis in Ecclesiae sanctuarium importatur.  
Haec praemonuisse oportuit pro causae gravitate, pro veritatis munimine, pro Religionis zelo, & pro gratiae Dei, qua Christiani sumus, debita defensione: nec homines notasse velim, quos ut Ecclesiae filios impense veneror: sed facta detexisse, quae parum sincera doleo, & doctrinae novae aut ex Massiliensium antiquis ruderibus de novo erutae sensus noxios, aut pravas sequelas revelasse, quas nec tam acriter quidem aut severe perstrinxissem pro reverentia judicis id vetantis, nisi apud ipsum judicem ageretur, cui non aliter & judicii ipsius momenta, & causae pericula, et structi laquei, et opertae fove ae, et paratae insidiae poterant aperiri.   

CAPUT. III.  
Exponuntur sensus propositionis controversae boni & legitimi, ac supra omnem censurae metum sua firmitate solidissimi.  

Conc. Trident. sess. 6. can. 23. Si quis hominem semel justificatum dixerit posse in tota vita peccata omnia etiam venialia vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de beata Virgine tenet Ecclesia, anathema sit.  PRimum est, Justis quandiu manent justi, etiam si velint aut conentur, non semper adesse gratiam necessariam, qua secundum praesentes quas habent vires, ab omni peccato veniali abstineant, aut praeceptum omne, cujus transgressio sit venialis, implere possint. Ratio hujus est: quia cum venialia non tollant justitiam, imo de fide sit, nulli praeter Deiparae concessam gratiam qua ab omni peccato veniali posset abstinere; dicente vel ipso Apostolo Joanne: Quoniam si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus, & veritas in nobis non est: Consequens est justo, quamdiu manet justus, non semper adesse gratiam necessariam, qua quodlibet virtutis opus aut praeceptum quodlibet, cujus omissio vel transgressio sit venialis, fiat ei possibile.  
Secund. est, Justis ut sic simpliciter sumptis, & absque illa reduplicatione suppositae perseverantiae in eo statu, non semper adesse gratiam necessariam quâ possint implere, aut de facto impleant praecepta sub mortali culpa obligantia. Ratio est: quia cum justus cadit a statu justitiae, cadit utique per transgressionem mortalem alicujus praecepti. At in hanc non caderet, si gratiam necessariam ad implendum praeceptum haberet, cum talis gratia sit efficax, & ut loquitur Paulus, operetur velle & perficere. Ergo hoc ipsum quod cadit, probatio est manifesta, non ipsi gratiam adfuisse qua staret. Ideo dicere justos non semper posse secundum praesentes vires quas habent, implere praecepta, non est aliud, quam impotentiam hujusmodi justis illis adscribere, qui per peccatum aliquod a justitia decidunt, & negare quod hi a Deo acceperint donum perseverantiae.  
Propositio juxta utrumque hunc sensum intellecta, tam est certa & vera, quam verum est, quod jugiter experimur, nec justum quemquam semper a peccatis venialibus abstinere, nec omnes justos in statu justitiae semper perseverare.   

CAPUT IU.  
Probatur itaque sic explicata propositio, & ostenditur auctoritatibus & rationibus, aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis, volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires esse impossibilia.  
PRimo ex Concilio Tridentino 
Definit praeterea Conc. Trid. sess. 6. can. 22. Si quis dixerit justificatum sine speciali Dei auxilio in accepta justitia perseverare posse, anathema fit. Speciali, inquit, ergo non omnibus communi, nec quod omnibus semper suppetat, & vires praesentes ad volendum, conandum, & multo minns implendum mandatum & servandam perseverantem sanctitatem jugiter subministret.  sess. 6. cap. 11. ubi mutuatis verbis ipsis Divi Augustini lib. de nat. & grat. c. 43. loquens expresse Concilium de justificatis sic dicit: Deus impossibilia non jubet, sed jubendo monet & facere quod possis, & petere quod non possis. Ex quibus verbis manifestissimum est fateri Concilium, Non adesse jugiter homini justo volenti & conanti vires praesentes, quibus possit implere praecepta quaecunque Divina, quodque praeterea eas debeat à Deo humiliter petere. Si enim jam haberet gratiam sufficientem & vires praesentes (quales fingunt Molina ejusque discipuli) quibus posset praeceptum implere, false diceretur non posse, & absque ratione moneretur orando satagere ut posset; ut enim perite Augustinus lib. de nat. & grat. c. 18. Quid stultius est quàm orare ut facias quod in potestate habeas?  
Secundo, ex Augustino 
Lib. de grat. & lib. arb. cap. 17. Quiergo vult facere Dei mandatum & non potest, jam quidem habet voluntatem bonam, sed adhuc parvam & invalidam: poterit autem cum magnam habuerit & robustam. Ibid. Parva & imperfecta charitas non deerat Petro, quando dicebat Domino, Animam meam pro te ponam; putabat enim se posse, quod se velle sentiebat. Serm. 106. Promisit se moriturum pro illo; non potuit, nec cum illo. Serm. 44. de diversis cap. 2. Nondum poterat. quia infirmus erat. Tract. 36. in Joann. Mori pro Christo nondum erant idonei Apostoli, quibus dicebat, Non potestis me sequi modo. Unde primus eorum Petrus, qui hoc jam se posse praesumpserat, aliud expertus est quam putabat. Lib. 2. de pecc. merit. cap. 19 Idcirco Sanctos & fideles suos aliquibus vitiis tardius sanat, ut in his eos minus quam implendae ex omni parte justitiae sufficit, delectet bonum, sive cum latet, sive cum etiam manifestum est: ut quantum pertinet ad integerrimam regulam veritoris ejus, non justificetur in conspectu ejus omnis vivens, nec eo ipso vult nos damnabiles esse sed humiles: commendans nobis eandem gratiam suam, ne facilitatem in omnibus assecuti nostrum putemus esse quod ejus est.  qui hanc eandem doctrinam constantissime repetit in locis innumeris suorum operum, & contra Pelagianos praeceptorum possibilitatem contumaciter inculcantes, perpetuo docet praecepta esse possibilia ex viribus gratiae, quas cum nec justus praesto semper habeat, orando mendicare debeat. Sic in lib. de nat. & grat. cap. 15. Itaque praecepto facere commonemur quod conantes & nostris viribus non valentes adjutorium divinum precemur. Et cap. 69. Eo ipso quo firmissimè creditur Deum justum & bonum impossibilia non potuisse pràcipere, hinc admonemur & in facilibus quid agamus, & in difficilibus quid petamus. Et in lib. de spirit. & lit. cap.— Ideo enim lex jubet, ut admoneat quid faciat fides, ut cui jubetur, si nondum potest, sciat quid petat; si autem continuò potest, & obedienter facit, debet etiam scire, quo donante potest. Et lib. de grat. & lib. arb. cap. 16. Magnum aliquid Pelagiani se scire putant, quando dicunt, non juberet Deus, quod sciret non posse ab homine fieri; quis hoc nesciat? sed ideo jubet aliqua quae non possumus, ut noverimus quid ab illo petere debeamus. Ipsa enim est fides quae orando impetrat, quod lex imperat. Haec & similia habet Augustinus lib. de perf. justit. cap. 3. & 4. tract. de ovibus cap. 1. tract. in Joan. 34. 66. & 96. serm. de divers. 44. cap. 2. & serm. 77. cap. 4. & serm. 106. cap. 1. & de verbis Apost. serm. 3. cap. 10. in Psalm 103. conc. 3. & in Psalm 106. & pluribus aliis locis quibus adversus Pelagianos fuse disputat, & exemplis a Scriptura adductis manifeste ostendit, non posse interdum justos etiam volentes & conantes ea implere quae volunt, & ad quae conantur praecepta implenda, quod eis secundum praesentes vires desint auxilia gratiae iis implendis necessaria.  
Tertio ostenditur ejusdem propositionis veritas ex orationis necessitate tam a Christo non infidelibus (quomodo enim invocabunt, in quem non crediderunt? Rom. 10.) sed fidelibus & in eum credentibus & justis Apostolis inculcata, Oportet, inquit, orare semper & nunquam deficere. Luc. 18. & 11. Matt. 7. Si enim viris justis semper suppetunt praesentes vires ad implenda mandata & vitanda peccata, cur eye & a Christo & passim a toto Scripturarum canone pradicatur jugis orandi necessitas & constans in oratione perseverantia? cur jubentur dicere, Et ne nos inducas in tentationem? si eis superandae tentationis potestas praesentissima, cur gemitus, cur lachrymae, cur suspiria importuna quibus caelum tundant, ut quod jam habent petant? Abducit ergo justos a studio Orationis qui eis hunc praesumptionis sensum iniquissimum suggerere non formidat, quod mox ut in gratiam Dei admissi sunt, nequeunt unquam laborare impotentia implendi quodvis mandatum quantumlibet difficile: hoc enim posito, jam necessarium non est ut ostium misericordiae pulsent tanquam mendici, sed ut pro acceptis bonis gratias agant tanquam Pharisaei. Quid, quaeso, magis impium, aut doctrinae Christi magis adversans? Igitur ut vel monente Christo Orationis perseverantia etiam justis est necessaria, utque aliunde perspicuum est eos qui Deum pro impetranda gratia deprecantur, ut tentationes vincant, in bono perseverent, & valeant facere quod jubentur, jam habere praecepti implendi voluntatem, sed deesse potestatem. Ita & luce clarius est, Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires, esse impossibilia, de●sse quique iis gratiam quâ possibilia fiant, ex quo pro ea impetranda orare compelluntur.  
Quarto probatur propositionis veritas ex everso alioquin totius Chri●…i●…ae salutis fundamento solidissimo: humilitate, inquam, & casti ●in o●… & virtutum omnium custode ●u●issima. Sierim existimas, quod ●emel justificatus habes in te ipso sufficientem gratiam ill●m Molinisticam, hoc est, praesentissimas vires quae plane sufficiant, & vitandis venialibus, & exercendis virtutibus, & domandae concupiscentiae, & perseverandi in gratia, & tentationibus evincendis, quae omnia ad implenda Dei mandata requiruntur; jam non est quod timeas, nec quod in studio humilitatis te tam sollicite contineas. Quae enim fundamenta hujus sanctae humilitatis, quae est totus & sincerissimus Evangelii spiritus?  
Procul dubio haec sunt. Primum est, nosse & fateri, quod 
Non sumus sufficientes cogitare aliquid, quasi a nobis, sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo est. 2 ad Cor. 3.  quantumlibet justi nec passum movere possumus in via Dei sine continuo ejus gratiae auxilio nobis prorsus indebito, nec nisi per meram misericordiam concedendo. Secundum, quod 
Necesse est ut quo auxiliante vicimus, eo iterum non adjuvante vincamur, S. innocentius Papa in ep. ad Presb. Conc. Carthag.  invalidi sumus vincendis tentationibus sine ope Dei, qua deficiente nos cadere statim ac vinci necesse est. Tertium, quod circumferimus nobis-metipsis legem peccati, quae nos omni momento in scelus pertraheret, ni valida manu Dei contineretur. Quartum, quod 
Scivi quoniam aliter non possum esse continens nisi Deus det. Sap. c. 8.  debemus cum timore & tremore operari salutem nostram, quia Deus est qui operatur in nobis velle & perficere pro bona voluntate sua. Quintum denique, quod humiliati sub manu potenti Dei, debemus jugiter in eadem anxietate palpitare, in qua olim sanctus David, qui quamvis & laetus & gratus pro inspirata sibi pietate, In toto corde meo exquisivi te: nihilominus tamen & deseri timebat, & ni desereretur orabat, Ne repellas me à mandatis tuis. Ecce orat (ait Augustinus in Psalm 118.) ut adjuvetur ad custodienda mandata Dei. Nam utique hoc est, Ne repellas me à mandatis tuis. Quid est enim à Deo repelli, nisi non adjuvari? Assignat vero Augustinus egregiam rationem: Mandatis quippe ejus rectis atque arduis humana non contemperatur infirmitas (etiam in sancto & justo viro qualis erat David) nisi 
Philip. 2.  praeveniens ejus adjuvat charitas: quos autem non adjuvat, hoc merito perhibetur repellere tanquam flammea framea prohibeantur indigni, ne manum extendant ad arborem vitae. Quis est autem dignus, ex quo per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum? sed indebita Dei misericordia sanatur debita nostra miseria, etc.  
Haec sunt igitur Christianae humilitatis solidissima fundamenta quae procul dubio convelluntur, si justificato nunquam desunt vires praesentissimae, quibus crescat in salutem, tentationum impetus frangat, concupiscentiae furores coerceat, velle & perficere mandata Dei sibi ipsi operetur, nec expectato novo eoque gratuito & indebito miserentis Dei adjutorio, pro volentis & currentis proprii arbitrii nutu in justitia perseveret; cur enim timeat, qui haec potest? Cur de se humiliter sen●iat, qui haec quae potest fortiter praestat?  
Ce●…e non jam ipsi, aut pro ipso dixerit Apostolus, Q●is est qui te discernit? 1 Cor. 4. Cum enim quod omnibus est commune, non singulos discernat a singulis, omnibus ve●o justis volentibus & conantibus adsint praesentes vires & auxilia communia quibus (juxta Molinam) si volunt mandata impleant, quod pauci impleant, multi non impleant, pauci stent, multi cadant, perseverent pauci, & multi deficiant, non jam per gratiam quae communis est omnibus, pauci a multis discernuntur, sed contra Apostolicum dictum, seipsos pauci a multis discrevisse dicendi erunt, qui gratia omnibus justis communi singulariter usi sint; & his cum eadem gratia pereuntibus, illi fortiter steterint, hoc est uno verbo, suae salutis aeternae praecipui auctores extiterint.  
Non ipsi nec pro ipso dixerit Apostolus, Quid habes quod non accepisti? aut quid gloriaris quasi non acceperis? & qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur. 1 Cor. 1. & 4. Cum enim acceperit quod alii, habeat quod non alii, & munitus unico possibilitatis praeceptorum communi dono, aliis non perseverantibus ipse perseveravit, aliis pereuntibus ipse coronam assecutus sit, habet quod non accepit, gloriari potest in quod non acceperit; & dum gloriatur, habet unde non in Domino, sed in seipso valeat gloriari.  
Non ipsi aut pro ipso dixerit Apostolus, Non est volentis neque currentis, sed Dei miserentis. Rom. 9 Cum, juxta Molinam, omnibus justis pari praeceptorum facilitate a miserente Deo, per aequam gratiae dispensationem liberaliter communitis, alii quidem quorum aequaliter misertus est Deus, a praeceptorum observatione & justitiae statu exciderint, ipse vero quia voluit & cucurrit, in iis servandis, perseveraverit, sic que non jam gratiae & miserationi divinae debeat, sed suae ipsius voluntati & industriae adscribat, quod in sanctitate perstiterit, quodque justitiae mercedem promeritus sit.  
Haec & alia plura divinae veritatis oracula ab Epistolis Pauli delenda erunt, aut si ea deleri non liceat, fateatur oportet cum humili David Psalm 119. Quisquis viam mandatorum cucurrit, cucurrisse se non quia voluit, sed quia singulari auxilio gratiae dilatavit cor ejus misericors ille & miserator Dominus qui operatur in nobis & velle & perficere, non pro volentis & currentis industria, sed pro bona voluntate sua. Fateatur oportet quisquis Domino suo stat, non in communi praeceptorum Molinistica illa possibilitate, quae justis omnibus asseritut concessa, se stare; sed per gratiae donum singulare quo ei possibilia fiant, se à Deo discerni ab iis qui Domino suo cadunt, nec quicquam habere se quod non singulariter acceperit, & de quo non in se, sed in Domino Deo suo debeat gloriari. Fateatur demum oportet sibi jugiter timendum, ut qui stat videat ne cadat, ex quo unde stet nequaquam habet, nisi eo misericorditer largiente qui quem vult indurat & deserit, & cui vult miseretur & tribuit, superbis resistens, humilibus autem dans gratiam. Igitur verum est, & Apostolicis dictis optime consonans, Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires, esse impossibilia.  
Quinto tandem & ultimo, ad hujus propositionis Catholicam veritatem manifestandam adduci possent sequentes (utinam non sic esset) experientia & quotidiani justorum gemitus, qui dum quae volunt bona non agunt, & quae nolunt mala haec faciunt, exclamant cum Apostolo, Infelix ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus? Vires itaque ad faciendum quod praecipitur, probant se non habere integras, sed ex ipsa tentatione divisas, & concupiscentiis cordis sui pravisque consuetudinibus vulnerati, earumque motibus distracti, bonum quod volunt non fortiter arque integre volunt, sed ut Augustini verbo utar, semisauciam huc atque illuc versant jactantque voluntatem, parte assurgente cum alia parte cadente colluctantem.  
Quod que miserabilius est, nec 
Aug. lib. 1. qq. ad Simplician. q. 2. Nonne aliquando ipsa oratio nostra sic tepida est, vel potius frigida, penè nulla, imo interdum ita nulla ut neque hoc in nobis cum dolore advertamus? Quia si hoc vel dolemus, jam oram●. Quid ergo aliud ostenditur nobis, nisi quia & petere & credere & pulsare ille concedit qui ut faciamus jubet?  ut plene velint & integre possint prae nimio devotionis tepore & spiritus atiditate, Deum adjutorem suum invocare queunt & orare ut oportet, quo vel sic confusi & ipsa confusione humilitati, in timore & tremore discant operari salutem suam, & prudenter intelligant, quod salus justorum a Domino nedum bonae voluntatis & boni operis vires tribuente; sed & ipsam quoque orationis gratiam qua talia postulantur, misericorditer quibus voluerit largiente, & juste quamvis occulte quibus libuerit subtrahente. Quia, ut ait Augustinus lib. de dono persev. c. 23. Et hoc ipsum est donum Dei, ut veraci corde & spiritaliter clamemus ad Deum; & multum falluntur qui putant esse a nobis, non autem dari nobis ut petamus, quaeramus, pulsemus: & hoc esse dicunt quod gratia praeceditur merito nostro, ut sequatur illa, cum accepimus petentes, & invenimus quaerentes, aperiturque pulsantibus. Nec volunt intelligere etiam hoc divini muneris esse ut oremus, hoc est, petamus, quaeramus atque pulsemus. Accepimus enim Spiritum adoptionis filiorum in quo clamamus Abba Pater. Quod & vidit beatus Ambrose; ait enim, Et orare Deum gratiae spiritalis est, sicut scriptum est 1 Cor. 12. Nemo dicit Dominus Jesus nisi in Spiritu sancto; ipse siquidem est Spiritus (ait Apostolicus Rom. 8.) qui interpellar pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus, sed veracibus, quoniam veritas est Spiritus, & ipse est Spiritus qui spirat ubi vult, & ut spirat spiritum gratiae ubi vult, sic & spiritum orationis & precum spirat ubi vult, sicut scriptum est Zach. 12. Et effundam super domum David & super habitatores Hierusalem Spiritum gratiae & precum.  
Igitur ut certum est vel experientia teste, justos non raro sub tentationum pondere gemere, orare ut non inducantur, precari ut liberentur; imo nec quo hoc ipsum petant, orationis spiritum interdum habere; 
Aug. lib. de nat. & grat. cap. 17.  Sed si petunt, non sic aut tantum quantum res tanta petenda est petere. Denique etiam in tempore tentationis recedere, & ab inchoato justitiae calle misere excidere, nec in bono perseverare. Ita & certum est, Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires esse impossibilia: deesse quoque iis gratiam qua possibilia fiant. Siquidem si adesset, nec gemerent quasi nondum haberent, nec peterent quam jam haberent; nec peccarent dum eam haberent: Haec enim gratia à nullo duro corde respuitur: ideo quippe tribuitur, ut cordis duritia primitus auferatur. August. de praedest. Sanct. cap. 8. Et ut ait veritas joinnis 6. Omnis qui audivit à Patre & didicit, venit ad me; quid est hoc nisi quia nullus per Dei gratiam excitatur qui non obediat? Quando ergo Pater intus loquitur, auferr cor lapideum, & dat cor carneum; sic quippe facit filios promissionis & vasa misericordiae quae praeparavit in gloriam. Cur ergo non omnes docet, nisi quia omnes quos docet, misericordia doce? quos autem non docet, judicio non docet, quoniam cujus vult miseretur, & quem vult indurat: sed misereturbonum tribaens, obdurat digna retribuens. Aug. ibid.  
Subscribat demum D. Thomas toti huic doctrinae in 2. 2. q. 2. a. 5. ad 1. sic habet: Ad multa tenetur homo ad quae non potest sine gratia reparante, sicut ad diligendum Deum & proximum (hoc est, ad praecepta Dei servanda quae in dilectione Dei & proximi tenentur) etc. his enim duobus mandatis, aiebat Christus, tota lex pendet, etc. Et similiter ad credendum articulos fidei; sed tamen hoc potest cum auxilio gratiae, quod quidem auxilium quibuscunque divinitus datur, misericorditer datur: quibus autem non datur, ex justitia non datur in poenam praecedentis peccati, saltem originalis, ut dicit Augustinus in lib. de corr. & grat. cap. 11. Ergo ex ment D. Thomae ut praecepta non sunt possibilia homini sine auxilio gratiae, utque hoc auxilium nulli debitum, non omnibus misericorditer datur, sed aliquibus juste subtrahitur; Sic nec iis quibus subtrahitur aut non datur, erunt praecepta Dei possibilia secundum vires praesentes quas habent, quamvis velint & quamvis conentur.   

CAPUT V.  
Solvuntur objectiones initio propositae.  
OBjicitur primo affinitas propositionis controversae cum doctrina Calvini. Sed ineptiam quidem objectionis video, affinitatem vero quam objicit nullam video. Negat Calvinus praecepta Dei esse possibilia etiam cum gratiae divinae auxilio. Negat propositio esse possibilia sine gratiae auxilio, quod non semper adest. Quae in his affinitas?  
Objicitur secundo canon 11. sess. 6. Conc. Trid. Si quis dixerit Dei praecepta homini etiam justificató & sub gratia constituto esse ad observandum impossibilia; anathema sit. Respondet Bellarminus lib. 4. de justificatione cap. 10. damnari a Concilio praefatam haeresim Calvini & Lutheri, absolutam praeceptorum impossibilitatem asserentium, quae nec per gratiae auxilium possit superari. Ut ergo hujus pestiferae assertionis nulla cum propositione controversa affinitas, sed recessus immensus; ita nec per damnationem illius quidquam illo canone actum est contra propositionis controversae saluberrimam veritatem.  
Objicitur 

Assertio 4. Molinistica inter alias plures quas sub anno 1586. & 1588. Academiae Lovaniensis & Duacensis tanquam fidei Christianae adversas celebri & docta censura expunxerunt, sic habet: Indurati & excaecati habent sufficiens auxilium ex parte Dei ut convertantur. Item omnes infideles semper & ubique habent sufficiens auxilium ex parte Dei.  
Censura Duacensis sic habet: Rejicienda est penitus tota haec assertio, velut plurimum detrahens beneficio singularis illius gratiae Christi quae non omnibus est communis, & tamen omnibus ad conversionem & salutem est necessaria. Quantum autem tota assertionis doctrina dissonet a sensu sacrae Scripturae, ostendunt ea loca in quibus legitur quosdam non tantum deseri a Deo ac dimitti secundum vias suas, & secundum desideria cordis sui, verum etiam obdurari & obcaecari: ideoque quod ad praesentem eorum attinet dispositionem, credere & benefacere non posse quosdam, item traditos in passiones ignominiae & in reprobum sensum. Quibus quidem omnibus velle tribuere auxilium sufficiens ad conversionem & salutem ex parte Dei, nimis absurdum est, cum ejusmodi dimissio, desertio, obduratio, excaecatio, & traditio significent auxilii necessarii negationem vel subtractionem. Ita censura Duacensis.   tertio Augustinus lib. 3. de nat. & grat. c. 69. dicens: Firmissime credi Deum justum & bonum impossibilia non potuisse praecipere. Respondeo primo, Quod cum Augustini dictum sit universale & congruat omnibus hominibus quibus a Deo imposita praecepta, haud dubie nihil facit contra propositionem controversam, nisi simul velis, aut quod possint impleri mandata sine gratia Christi, ut docebat Pelagius; aut mandata Dei non obligent infideles, quae esser nova haeresis tam rationi quam fidei adversans; aut quod gratia Christi nunquam desit aut obduratis & excaecatis aut infidelibus, ex quo sine illa Deus eis praeciperet impossibilia, & quod hodie quaeritur definiendum a Sede Apostolica, de solis hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus, quaeratur paulo post & pro impiis, excaecatis, obduratis, aut etiam infidelibus, quibus aeque ac justis Molina ejusque discipuli suam illam gratiam sufficientem praesentissimam ubique contendunt contra manifestissima Scripturae testimonia & perpetua D. Augustini contra Pelagianos asserta. Igitur respondeo secundo, non esse Augustini mentem, quod praecepta Dei possibilia sint homini in omni statu aut momento, dum dixit, Deum justum & bonum nihil impossibile homini praecipere; sed hoc voluit, quod mox subjunxit, Admoneri nos eo ipso & in facilibus quid agamus, & in difficilibus quid petamus. Haec enim ejus constans & millies repetita contra Pelagianos assertio: Deum praecipere homini quod ex naturae viribus & voluntatis depravatione praestare nequit, ut expertus homo suam infirmitatem, medicum quaerat liberatorem & gratiam postulet adjutricem.  
Objicitur quarto idem Augustinus de haeresi contra Manich. cap. 3. dicens, Omnes homines posse se convertere ad Dei praecepta observanda si velint. Sed hanc ipsam objectionem solvit Augustinus lib. Retract. c. 10. ubi quae loco citato adversus Manichaeos dixerat replicans, & ne Pelagiani his se communirent, praecavens, sic ait: Quod vere dixi posse omnes homines mandata servare si velint, non existiment novi haeretici Pelagiani secundum eos esse dictum. Verum est enim omnino, & tantum augetur munere charitatis, ut possint, ille enim facit ut velimus bonum de quo dictum est, à Domino gressus hominis dirigentur, & viam ejus volet. Psalm. 36, Hoc autem ibi ideo non dixi, quoniam praesenti quae contra Manichaeos tunc versabatur quaestioni necessarium non erat.   

Epilogus & conclusio.  
PRopositio itaque controversa ut in malis quos patitur sensibus jam satis per sacri Concilii Trident. anathematismos contra Calvinum & Lutherum dejecta & prostrata, nullius Theologi Catholici malo favore suscitatur; ita & in bonis quos habet sensibus tota est extra censuram. Stabilitur enim ab eodem sacro Concilio, docetur ab Augustino, confirmatur a Thoma, defenditur a Thomistis, jugi & insuperabili orationum necessitate adstruitur, Christianae humilitatis solidissima basi roboratur, piis & quotidianis justorum suspiriis exprimitur, & tam tota Pauli Apostoli cohaeret sententiis, ut non nisi per spreta & contempta tam authentica veritatis testimonia valeat condemnari.  
Si secus fiat (quod avertat Deus) jam in hac una hujus propositionis censura, tota de Christi gratia medicinali antiquissimae saluberrimaeque Theologiae fidei moles dejicitur, hominum discretio hominibus adscribitur; humanis meritis electio divina subjicitur; stupor Pauli circa praedestinationis Sanctorum inscrutabilitatem non rei profunditati, sed stupentis imbecillitati deputatur; versatilis & pedissequae gratiae omnibus retro seculis (si Molinae 
Theophilus Raynaudus in Holoptheca sect. 2. serie 1. c. 5. post abundè laudatum Molinam celebrat dictum Joannis de eo effuse prolatum disp. 48. select. num. 48. Molina Magister magistrorum est, cujus scripta tam in disputationibus scholasticis quam ad mores attinentibus lucem absconditis rebus emiserunt.  credimus) nova & inaudita doctrina consecratur; per versatilem hanc gratiam olim acerrime in Pelagianos impugnatam, hodie admissam, versatilis Ecclesiae fides, hoc est, non fides declaratur; Ecclesia tota quae erranti in caligine Augustino per mille ducentos & amplius annos, in materia gratiae constantissime subscripsit, caliginis quoque & erroris, quam solus depulerit Molina, arguitur; Et ut uno verbo concludam, non aliud agendum supererit, quam quod & Augustinus Ecclesiae Doctorum sublimior, & Paulus Gentium Apostolus, quorum in causa divinae gratiae & praedestinationis una eademque sententia, una praedicatio, ut prava dogmata quibus Ecclesiae tamdiu illuserunt, in ordinem redigantur, quodque novum orbis lumen Ludovicus Molina, qui, ut ipse gloriatur, horum discussit caligines & vicit ignorantias, victorum spolia detrahat, cum Principibus deinceps sedeat & solium gloriae teneat; atque pro Augustino a suo Doctoratu dejecto, pro Paulo a suo Apostolatu deposito, Molina Doctor Ecclesiae designetur primarius, Molina nuncupetur Apostolus; huic expectatissimo festo miris in Molinam encomiis, diris in Augustinum strophis & sacrilegis in Paulum blasphemiis, velut sanctioribus praeludiis praecinunt Molinistae: 
Nam de gratia sufficienti remota, qualem Thomistae & Bellarminus docent, nulla hic controversia.  diesque eis laeta quam expectant prope advenerit, si quod ab Augustino alienissimum, quod a Paulo dissentaneum, sed Molinae cerebro acceptissimum, ad Molinistarum instantias contingat approbari: Adesse omni momento omnibus justis volentibus & conantibus praesentes vires cumulatissimas, proximas & immediatas ad opus, quibus tentationes quantumcunque graves, exsufflent, martyria quaevis atrocia fortiter sustineant, & praecepta Dei quamvis ardua & difficilia alacriter impleant.     

The second Writing.  

II. PROPOSITIO CONTROVERSA.  
Interiori gratia in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.  

CAPUT. I.  
Secernuntur pravi Propositionis sensus à legitimo, & removetur quaesita à Molinistis aequivocationis occasio.  
VOlunt Sorbonici Molinistae hanc damnari propositionem. Damnetur quidem, sed distincta damnetur, ut in quo sensu damnata fuerit, in quo sensu indemnata remanserit, clare intelligatur. Interiores quippe gratiae multae sunt; interior est gratia habitualis, interior gratia est charitas, interior gratia est spes, interior gratia est sides, et interiores gratiae sunt quotquot virtutum infusarum habitus habitualem gratiam comitantur. Quis neget his omnibus interioribus gratiis saepe resisti, quas etiam saepe constat expelli? Rursum interiores gratiae sunt mentis illuminationes a Deo saepius immissaes, ab homine saepe repulsae. De his omnibus, ut de exterioribus gratiae auxiliis, lege, Prophetiis, Praedicationibus, promissis, comminationibus, suasionibus et correptionibus, dicebat Stephanus 
Act. c. 7.  Indaeis, Vos semper Spiritui sancto resistitis; et Paulus 
2 Cor. c. 6.  Corinthiis, Hortamur vos ne in vacuum gratiam Dei recipitatis. Praefatas omnes gratias interiores continet universalissimum et plane aequivocum INTERIORIS GRATIAE nomen quod in propositione ponitur; ut certo certius sit et citra omnem controversiam indubitatum, praefatam propositionem secundum quod hujusmodi interiores gratias sub sua universalitate comprehendit, non tam esse damnandam, quam omnium Theologorum consensu damnatissimam asserendam. Quid ergo eam Molinistae damnari postulant, quam nemo sanae mentis dubitat esse damnatam?  
Certe cum inter Molinistas et sanctorum Augustini et Thomae Discipulos tota in materia de gratia disceptatio sit circa gratiae efficaciam, (in hoc quod dicunt Thomistae, omne auxilium gratiae motricis prout venit a Deo esse efficax, et humanas sibi subdere voluntates: Dicunt vero Molinistae, nullum esse ex sua natura efficax, sed quodcunque indifferens et humanae pedissequum voluntatis) oportuerat omnino Molinistas (si non fucum et fraudem meditabantur) efficacitatis gratiae in hac propositione imprimis meminisse, quo attingeretur nodus controversiae, nec aliquis ambiguitatis subesset locus.  
Oportuerat rursum resistentiae significatum clarius expressisse. Cum enim resistentia alia sit invalida, qua frustra contranitimur: alia validissima, qua id cui contranitimur omnimode impedimus: Debuit explicari resistentiae qualitas ad tollendam aequivocationem, quandoquidem non de quacunque, sed de resistentia ultimo modo dicta, proprie ambigitur in hac controversia. Et tam ipse Jansenius, quam Augustinus, Thomas, eorumque discipuli, quibus sub Jansenii odioso nomine infertur bellum, admittunt passim, quandiu sumus in corpore mortis hujus, concupiscentiae et legis membrorum adversus Dei gratiam et legem mentis contumacissimam pugnam. Admittunt pravorum desideriorum carnis adversus victricis gratiae divinos impulsus, conatum et resistentiam: sed talem tamen quae gratiae Dei efficacis victricem delectationem non impediat, aut inspirationem flagrantissimae & luminosissimae charitatis non praefocet aut extinguat.  
Igitur ur sine fuco et fraude ac sine insidiarum suspicione procederetur, debuerant Molinistae sub his verbis articulum controversum proposuisse Sedi Apostolicae; Gratia Christi tam est efficax, quod in statu naturae lapsae nunquam ei ita resistitur, quin haec suum ad quem proxime & immediate a Deo destinatur effectum infallibiliter operetur: vel brevius, Nulla prorsus Christi gratia effectu suo caret: vel adhuc clarius, Omnis Christi gratia etiam sufficiens est efficax pro effectu ad quem datur.  
Non placuere Molinistis controversae difficultatis ram sincerae et clarae expressiones, ut quae parum favissent eorum fini, et nimia sui luce corum artes dissipassent. Intererat nimirum eorum scopo ut aequivoca propositio, quae in suo latissimo significato has omnes complectitur, ex aliis quas etiam continet intolerabiles et manifeste falsas, indistincta damnaretur: ut mox indistinctae damnationis calumnia ad has quoque trahi posset. Jamque eis liceret probabiliter apud imperitos fingere, quod propositio sub nomine Jansenii delata, et in odium Jansenii damnata, fuisset quoque damnata in sensu Jansenii, hoc est, Thomae et Augustini. Ideoque explosam a Sede Apostolica gratiam Christi efficacem cui nunquam resistitur, admissam et celebratam gratiam Molinae sufficientem cui saepe resistitur et semper resisti potest; tales a Sede Apostolica quaerere definitiones, non est quaerere pacem Ecclesiae, sed est, per delusam Petri Sedem, nova bella et majores turbas in Ecclesia Dei perverse excitare.  
Tenemus, spero, captas vulpeculas quae demoliuntur vineam Domini Sabaoth. Apprehendimus sapientes in astutia eorum, et consilia eorum dissipavimus; dum disjectis nebulis aequivocationum, quas in oculos Sedis Apostolicae nitebantur obfundere, distinximus pravos et ad praesentium disputationum causam prorsus inutiles sensus, a germano propositionis sensu, qui apicem quaestionis unice tangens, unicus proponi debuerat. Superest ut ostendamus hunc tanquam Augustinianum et Thomisticum, hoc est, fidei antiquae sincerissimum esse extra censuram, nec sub Jansenii nomine quasi ex proscripti jam auctoris praejudicio in damnationem compelli posse.  
Caeterum qui Jansenium nomino, et Jansenium tueor, tam sum Jansenista quam sum Mahometanus; antiquus sum in Schola Evangelica et Augustini et Thomae discipulus, qui ita Augustinum & Thomam in jansenio defendo, ut Evangelium defenderemin Alchorano. Haber Alchoranus quatuor Evangelicas veritates, unitatem Numinis, Christi ex Virgine nativitatem, mortuorum resurrectionem, & futurum judicium, has ut in Evangelio defenderem, sic defenderem in Alchorano, quia ut verae sunt in Evangelio, sic verae sunt in Alchorano, quamvis non ex Alchorano suae infallibilitatis habeant testimonium, cui si detrahi posset, detraheretur per Alchoranum; sic dum Jansenium allego, aut Jansenium protego, non Jansenii partes ago, sed partes Augustini, sed partes Thomae, sed partes veritatis, quae cum emanatio quaedam sit & vapor charitatis aeternae, tam non in ore aut proscripti Jansenii, aut execrandi Mahometis, quidquam perdit de sua veritate, quam nec solares radii quidquam in sterquilinio de sua puritate.  
Igitur quoties occurterit, Jansenium producam, non in Jansenii patrocinium, sed ne (quod quaerunt Molinistae) ex damnatis quae falso ab eis allegantur, Jansenii sententiis, contingat sustinere calumniam Augustini & Thomae & antiquae fidei saluberrimas veritates, cum quibus non raro Jansenius concordat.   

CAPUT. II.  
Gratia Christi tam est efficax, quod in statu naturae lapsae nunquam ei resistitur, quin haec suum infallibiliter operetur effectum.  
GRatiae quidem adversari & resistere etiam in hominibus justis concupiscentiam, a nemine ambigitur. Sed ita adversari aut resistere, ut ejus effectus impediat, ad quos ex decreto Dei efficaci ordinatur, falsissimum est.  
Primo enim hanc veritatem ut Augustini indubitatam, hoc est, haereditatiae fidei doctrinae sincerissimam novit Clemens VIII. qui in hoc sexto scripto sui nominis subscriptione roborato & a se tradito Congregationi de Auxiliis die 9 julii 1603. inter quindecim quos continebat articulos, tres sequentes inseruit. Quintus est: H●c gratia habet suam efficaciam ab omnipotentia Dei & a dominio quod summa Majestas habet in hominum voluntates, sicut in caetera omnia quae sub caelo sunt secundum S. Augustinum. Sextus est: Per hanc gratiam secundum Augustinum agit Deus omnipotens in cordibus hominum motum voluntatis eorum, faciendo ex nolentibus volentes, ex repugnantibus consentientes, ex oppugnantibus amantes. Decimus tandem: Essectus hujus gratiae efficacis secundum S. Augustinum est certus & infallibilis. Hoc novit, hoc censuit, hoc tradidit Congregationi de Auxiliis summus Pontifex Clemens.  
Norunt, & hoc ipsum censuerunt sapientissimi ejusdem Congregationis Consultores, qui in prima Congregatione sub Paulo V. habita die 20 Septemb. 1605. auditis super praefato scripto Clementis VIII. disputationibus P. Bastidae Iesuitae & P. Thomae de Lemos Dominicani, & examinatis etiam per se S. Augustini auctoritatibus ab ipso Clement VIII. ad cujusque articuli probationem adductis, in sequenti Congregatione concluserunt, eam esse germanissimam D. Augustini mentem, quam Clemens VIII. summus Pontifex ex multis hujus sancti Doctoris locis in singulis quindecim articulis suo scripto proposuerat.  
Cum ergo ex Augustini placito a Clement & Paulo summis Pontificibus eorumque selectissimis Consultoribus recognito, Gratia Christi suam efficaciam sortiatur non a creati arbitrii nutu & cooperatione, ut volunt Molinistae, sed ab ipsa omnipotentia Dei & supremo dominio quod summa divina Majestas habet in hominum voluntates, ut habet quintus articulus: Cumque per hanc gratiam Deus omnipotens agat in cordibus hominum motum voluntatis eorum, ut habet sextus articulus, sequitur evidenter, quod, ut nihil resistit potestati & actioni Dei, sic nec aliqua voluntas creata resistat ejus gratiae efficaci: sed quod (ut habet decimus articulus) effectus hujus gratiae efficacis sit certus & infallibilis; quodque consequenter gratiae Christi efficaci in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur, quae est propositio controversa.  
Secundo, tam reciprocantur apud Augustinum, gratia Dei & voluntatis creatae bona operatio, ut (quod de causa & effectu docent Philosophi) convertibiles fint, & a se mutuo inseparabiles: adeo ut quemadmodum ex gratia data mox sequitur bona operatio, sic ex defectu bonae operationis inferri certissime possit gratia denegata. Uterque iste arguendi modus & affirmativus & negativus tam est in hac materia apud Augustinum frequens, ut pene superfluum sit loca aduxisse.  
Ex multis tamen pauca adduco. Imprimis lib. de gratia Christi cap. 45. citat Ambrosium dicentem: Negavit primo Petrus, & non flevit, quia non respexerat Dominus: negavit tertio, respexit Jesus, & flevit amarissime Petrus.  
Deinde lib. 1 qq. ad Simplician. q. 2. Illud autem nescio quomodo dicatur frustra Deum misereri, nisi nos velimus: si enim Deus miseretur, jam volumus; ad eamdem quippe misericordiam pertinet ut velimus; nullius ergo frustra miseretur.  
Lib. de grat. Christi c. 13. ubi ex professo totum illud opud disputat contta Pelagianos de adjutorio medicinalis gratiae, hoc est gratiae Christianae, adeoque verae gratiae quae per crucem Christi humano generi revelata atque donata est, ita definitive loquitur: Qui novit quid est quod fieri debeat & non facit, nondum a Deo didicit secundum gratiam, sed secundum legem; non secundum spiritum, sed secundum literam; quamvis multi quod imperat lex, facere videantur timore poenae, non amore justitiae, quam dixit Apostolus justitiam tuam quae est ex lege, tanquam sit imperata & non data.  
Ibidem cap. 14. De isto docendi modo (nempe per gratiam) etiam Dominus ait; Omnis qui audivit a Patre meo & didicit, venit ad me: qui ergo non venerit, non de illo recte dicitur; audivit quidem & didicit sibi esse veniendum, sed facere non vult quod didicit. Prorsus non recte dicitur de isto modo docendi, quo per gratiam docet Deus; si enim, sicut veritas loquitur, omnis qui dedicit, venit, quisquis non venit, profecto non didicit.  
Et in lib. de praedest. Sanct. cap. 8. fusissime eamdem probat veritatem ex eodem Evangelii loco; Concludimus demum, Quod si & illos quibus stultitia est verbum crucis, ut ad Christum venirent, docere voluisset, procul dubio venirent & ipsi: non enim fallit aut fallitur, qui ait, Omnis qui audivit a Patre & didicit, venit ad me. Absit ergo ut quisquam quam non veniat qui a Patre audivit & didicit. Erursum instantius & inculcatius: Qui ergo credunt Praedicatore forinsecus insonante, intus a Patre audiunt atque discunt. Qui autem non credunt, foris audiunt, intus no● audiunt neque discunt, hoc est, illis datur ut credant, istis non datur.  
Poteratne for●ius D. Augustinus veritatem controversae propositionis expressisse, & inculcasse quod gratiae Christi in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur? Adducerem & plura alia ipsius veritatis argumenta & testimonia Augustini, ni quae jam sunt adducta, essent luculentiora quam quae ullo artificii aut tergiversationis fuco obscurari queant. Adducerem & omnium D. Augustini discipulorum, hoc est, omnium usque ad Molinam & Patrum & Scholarum, & totius Ecclesiae Catholicae conformes sententias, ni una instar omnium sufficeret D. Thomae Aquinatis, quam submitto, sincerissima & repetitia ad hanc doctrinam subscriptio.  
Subscribit certe D. Thomas Augustino manifestissime, dum 12. q. 98. a. 4 ad 2, ultimo relatam a nobis ex lib. de praedest. Sanct. c 8. Augustini sententiam & citat & celebrat. Rursum 2 2, q. 10. a. 4 ad 3, dum docet, Impossibile esse eum non moveri quem Spiritus Sanctus movere velit, etc. Rursum dum ait 2 2, q. 24, a. 11: Tripliciter possumus considerare charitatem, uno modo ex parte Spiritus Sancti moventis animum ad diligendum Deum, & ex hac parte charitas imperabilitatem habet ex virtute Spiritus Sancti, qui infallibiliter operatur quodcunque voluerit, unde impossibile est haec duo simul esse vera, quod Spiritus Sanctus velit aliquem movere ad actum charitatis, & quod ipse charitatem amittat peccando. En igitur gratiae efficaciam ex Angelici Doctoris testimonio infallibiliter operantem! En gratiae energiam indeclinabiliter agentem, non ex praevisione aut praescientia consensurae voluntatis, ut nugantur Molinistae, sed ab omnipotentia Dei (ut Clemens VIII. ex Augustino) & ex v●rtute Spiritus Sancti (ut loquitur Thomas) qui adeo infallibiliter operatur quodcunque voluerit, ut impossibile sit (Molinistae! ubi quaeso indifferentia sensus compositi?) eum non moveri quem ipse movere voluerit.  
Haec D. Thomae Aquinatis oracula manifestae sunt subscriptiones ad praeallegatam S. Augustini doctrinam, de inseparabilitate gratiae Dei & boni operis nostri, & plene relabuntur in illud aliud dictum Augustini de praedest. Sanct. cap. 8. Haec graetia quae occulte humanis cordibus Divina largitate tribuitur, a nullo duro corde respuitur, ideoque tribuitur ut cordis duritia primitus auferatur. Et rursum in illud de corrept. & grat. cap. 14. Deo volenti salvum facere, nullum humanum resistit arbitrium. Ut post haec liceat nobis tuto concludere, non amplius posse dubitari quin verum & verissimum sit, quod in hoc sensu interiori gratiae Christi in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.   

CAPUT. III.  
Omnem Christi gratiam secundum Augustini & Thomae Discipulos esse efficacem, & nullam prorsus suo carere effectu.  
QUid ergo? sufficientem gratiam negant? nequaquam. Sed ne recedant a principiis in Augustino & Thoma notissimis, quibus 
D. Th. 2. 2. q. 10. a. 4. ad 3. D. Aug. lib. de grat. Christi c. 13.  impossibile est cum non moveri quem Spiritus Sanctus movere velit, & eum qui discit per gratiam, non agere omnino quidquid agendum didicerit. Docent uno ore, quod quamvis ea gratia quam sufficientem appellant, inefficax sit ad plenum illud opus ad quod dicitur esse sufficiens, est tamen plenissime & cumulatissime efficax ad actum proximum & immediatum, ad quem a Deo datur & destinatur. Ita Medina 1 2, q. 109 a. 10, circa finem, & communiter recentiores Thomistae apud Didacum Alvarem lib. 8. de Auxiliis disp. 80. per totam.  
Exemplificat Alvares suum & Thomistarum commune dictum in auxilio sufficienti ad actum fidei, quod licet sit inefficax ad credendum, producit tamen inefficacitet in homine pias cogitationes & notitias credendorum, vel pia desideria & velleitates habendae fidei, & alios hujusmodi actus imperfectos, qui regulariter loquendo antecedunt assensum fidei; similiter in auxilio sufficienti ad actum contritionis, quod quantumvis inefficax ad ipsam contritionem in homine formandam, producit tamen in ipso efficaciter considerationem poenarum inferni, bonitatis Divinae, vel turpitudinis peccati, vel attritionem, vel displicentiam sui status, vel piam velleitatem verae conversionis in Deum, aut alios hujusmodi actus imperfectos, qui ad perfectam contritionem sunt praevii & praeparatorii.  
Probat suam hanc sententiam sic explicatam ex illo Isa. 55. Quomodo descendit imber & nix de caelo, & illuc ultra non revertitur, sed inebriat terram & infundit eam, & germinare eam facit, & dat semen serenti & panem comedenti: sic erit verbum meum quod egredietur de ore meo, non revertetur ad me vacuum, sed faciet quaecunque volui & pr sperabitur in his ad quae misi illud. Quibus verbis fignificatur vocationem internam, qua Deus illuminat animam, vacuam non esse, aut sine fructu: sed semper habere in homine aliquem effectum, illum videlicet quem Deus absolute vult ut habeat, quamvis eadem vocatio interior comparatione actus perfecti ad quem ultimate ex voluntate Dei antecedente ordinabatur, sit solum sufficiens.  
Probat secundo, quoniam auxilium actuale nunquam reperitur in intellectu hominis aut voluntate, absque operatione ejusdem intellectus & voluntatis, cum in hoc distinguatur auxilium actuale ab habituali, quod habitus est aliquid permanens in anima, etiam quando nihil operatur: auxilium autem actuale est aliquid fluens, sicut & ipsa operatio, unde & cum ipsa operatione transit: Ergo auxilium sufficiens actuale semper habet conjunctam aliquam operationem quam producit: Ergo respectu ejusdem operationis tale auxilium erit efficax, quamvis comparatione ulterioris actus perfecti ad quem ultimate ordinabatur, sit solum sufficiens.  
Probat tertio, nam Deus per auxilium sufficiens excitat animam, & anima nec per impossibile excitatur formaliter nisi per actum vitalem a se elicitum, cum ejusmodi excitatio sit vitalis, quae sine actu vitali fieri non potest: Ergo auxilium sufficiens semper producit in homine aliquem actum vitalem saltem indeliberatum: Ergo comparatione illius tale auxilium est semper efficax.  
Probat quarto, quia implicat contradictorium, quod Deus actualiter moveat animam, & anima non moveatur actualiter, cum movens & motum sint correlativa: sed per auxilium sufficiens actuale Deus movet animam; Ergo anima movetur actualiter: ergo per aliquem actum a se elicitum; anima enim nunquam movetur actualiter nisi eliciendo aliquem actum: ergo auxilium sufficiens erit semper efficax comparatione ill us actus.  
Omitto alias rationes Theologicas a Didaco Alvarez adductas quae in eo videri possunt. Et solum addo Roberti Cardinalis Bellarmini suffragium, qui, ut gratiam sufficientem Molinisticam constanter ubique rejicit tanquam Scripturis contrariam, Augustino inimicam, & mysterii praedestinationis penitus destructivam, ac salutem hominis non Deo sed homini adscribentem; gratiam vero sufficientem Thomistarum ubique complectitur, ita et cum Thomistis in hoc puncto de quo agimus, evidenter concordat, et eodem modo quo Didacum Alvarez audivimus, ratiocinatur. Lib. etenim 2 de grat. et lib. arb. c. 6, ubi retulit quosdam dicentes (hi sunt Molinistae) gratiam Dei semper adesse, & Deum perpetuo pulsare ad ostium cordis, & peccatores vocare, sed eos aliis rebus intentos, non percipere vocationem Dei: Subdit statim, Hoc assertum manifestissime cum ipso experimento pugnare. Nam cum vocatio, inquit, pulsus, tractus, illa excitatio Dei, sit actio nostra, quamvis non libera, nimirum bona cogitatio, bonumque desiderium repente ac divinitus immissum: Quomodo fieri potest, ut non sentiatur a nobis, si fit non solum in nobis, sed etiam a nobis?  
Ex quibus verbis evidentissimum est juxta Bellarminum, quod quia gratia sufficiens in nobis semper producit bonam aliquam operationem, sit consequenter efficax ad illam producendam. Quodque ex consequenti, nulla sit gratia sufficiens quae non sit absolute efficax ad opus proximum et immediatum ad quod a Deo destinatur, quamvis eadem sit inefficax ad actum ulteriorem.   

CAPUT. IV.  
Jansenium nihil docuisse in hac materia quam quod docuere Augustini & Thomae discipuli.  
EFficacissima gratiae natura declaratur (a Jansenio) ex eo quod nulla prorsus effectu suo caret, sed eum in omnibus quibus datur, infallibiliter operatur. Est hic et titulus et scopus totius capitis 25. lib. 2 de gratia Christi Salvatoris, a quo qui per latus Jansenii Augustinum et Thomistas impetunt, occasionem sumpsere formandae sibi proposinis quam Jansenii esse dicerent, & quasi ex praedamnati jam auctoris infamia, damnatam tacite, damnandam publice postularent, Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resisti.  
Imprimis non per aequivocas hujusmodi locutiones mentem suam Jansenius celat, sed aperte loquitur, clare se explicat, non de quacunque gratia sermonem instituit, de sola gratia actuali, quam toto illo volumine pertractat, se loqui manifestat, ut sane Molinistae, non se de quaesito in Sedem Apostolicam dolo, non se de meditata in ipsam veritatem calumnia valeant excusare, dum auctoris verba commutant, eaque sub tam vaga expressione producunt; quod ex prima inspectione fit sensus propositionis ambiguus, qui in ipso auctore cui illam adscribunt, est plane apertissimus: fit propositio partim vera, partim falsa, quae prout in praetenso auctore suo est tota cautissima.  
Secundo, non utitur Jansenius verbo resistendi, quasi vero cesset in hac vita & corpore mortis hujus pugna concupiscentiae adversus spiritum, nec quidquam id nobis supersit dum vivimus ab hac gratia edomandum. Contrarium docet prorsus Jansenius, contrarium ex Augustino millies ostendit, nec aliud asserit, nisi quod quantacunque sit concupiscentiae renitentia & carnis lucta, nunquam tamen ita gratiae praevalet, quin haec suum consequatur effectum, & omnem contrarium repugnantemque frangat conatum, delectatione victrici, ut loquitur Augustinus.  
Tertio, nequaquam docet Jansenius omnem gratiam esse cumulate efficacem ad plenum opus, quasi vero inefficaces ad illud excludat gratias, quas Thomistae vocant sufficientes. Imo qui sufficientes gratias Bellarmini & Thomistarum se nullatenus impugnare protestatur, judicans nec Augustinum ipsum in iis admittendis fore difficilem: sic eas sublata gratiae efficacis appellatione complectitur, quod quae respective ad ipsum totum & perfectum opus invalidae sunt & inefficaces, sint tamen absolutae & simpliciter efficaces ad opus proximum & immediatum, ad quod decreto Dei absoluto destinantur & pro quo a Deo conferuntur.  
An vera sint quae de ment Jansenii refero, dicat ipse Jansenius: Non moveat quemquam, (inquit tomo 3 de gratia Christi salvatoris cap. 27.) quod constet multos divinitus ment collustrari, imo vero & in ipsa voluntate motibus divinae gratiae percelli, qui tamen ab ejus interna suasione & inclinatione dissentiunt, ut propterea falsum putet gratiam in eo cui datur, semper operari effectum ob quem datur. Considerandum est enim multiplices esse divinae gratiae effectus sicut & voluntatis: est enim velle perfectum, & est imperfectum quod velleitatem appellare solent; & hoc ipsum diversos gradus habet, donec ad ipsam primam tenuissimamque boni complacentiam veniatur: haec ergo primus est caelestis ipsius roris effectus, quem ut minimum in omnibus operatur, in quibus eum infundit Deus. Nam quemadmodum inundatio divinae gratiae totam hominis voluntatem secum instar impetuosi cujusdam torrentis rapit, sic ut omnia cordis humani retinacula, quibus terrenis rebus irretitur, velut violenta quadam tempestate disrumpat: ita lenis ille velut aurae tenuis afflatus, complacentiam quandaam voluntatis tenuissimam rei tam pulchrae, quae simul objicitur contemplanda, contemperatam suaviter impetrat, & celerrime quasi furtim post se rapit. Haec igitur gratia, quamvis non sufficiat ut homo mandatum Dei operetur, ut Deum super omnia diligat, ut speret, ut oret, ut credat, ad hoc tamen facit aliquid & efficax est, ut istarum vel alterius cujusdam caelestis rei, liberas quasdam non voluntates, sed velleitates vel complacentias excitet, quas, nisi divinitus infundantur, obtinere humana potestate nemo potest. Sic videmus plurimos qui necdum ab immunditiis carnis se continere possunt, vehementer tamen optare continentiam: cujusmodi vota divinae gratiae sunt munera, & majoris gratiae provocativa, quamvis nullo modo verae perfectaeque continentiae comparanda sint.  
Hactenus Jansenius, ex cujus verbis probatum relinquitur, nihil eum circa controversam propositionem quae ei adscribitur, & circa hanc cujuscumque gratiae actualis efficaciam, dixisse aut docuisse, quod Thomistae non dixerint: ideoque nec ipsum in propositione controversa, aliter quam per damnatos Thomistas, damnari posse.   

CAPUT V.  
Molinistae nullam gratiam efficacem admittunt, hoc est, Christi gratiam negant; &, si Augustino creditur, non sunt Christiani.  
PEr obtentam damnationom cujuscumque ex quinque propositionibus controversis volunt nobis Molinistae Christi gratiam efficacem eripere. Num ut in illius locum ineffabiliori aliquo supernae largitatis dono a se reperto nos cumulent? Id sperem haud dubie de tam probis viris. Agedum; ostendant citius quod in hujus subtractae divinae gratiae vices sint nobis suffecturi. Videre cupimus, probare volumus, ne quod cani Aesopeo in fabulis contigit, dum Molina praeduce umbram insequimur, umbra nos cum offa deficiat, fames perurgeat.  
Solicissimam quidem animorum pacem & adversus omnes anxietates super salutis nostrae negotio pacatissimam quietem Lessius praecipuus Molinae discipulus peperisse se gaudet; splendissimam mundo in caligine constituto se lucem intulisse Molina gloriatur: per edoctam nobis eam gratiam, quae absque ulla prorsus difficultate cum libertate hominis queat conciliari, quae non jam nos fatalibus vinculis absolutae praedestinationis adstringat, quaeque futurae nostrae sortis, aut aeternam calamitatem, aut nunquam defecturam beatitudinem in cujusque manu facillime statuat. Essent haec bonae spei praeludia, ni iis ipsis olim usi Massilienses Presbyteri sub illa & promissae lucis & porrigendae consolationis specie densissimas sui erroris tenebras, pestilentisque doctrinae noxiam amaritudinem spargere fuissent deprehensi.  
Cavemus moniti, & hoc solum dolemus, quod qui semel in Massiliensium scrobem incauti incidere, ne se fateantur cecidisse, velint in eandem hodie Ecclesiam totam secum praecipitare, & quidem per easdem salebras, a quibus ne & ipsi primum caderent, poterant deterreri. Quid enim tanta facilitas cum mysterio tam abstruso? Quid tanta claritas in re, ut loquitur Augustinus, tam profunda & abdita nimis? 
Rom. 9 O homo tu quis es qui respond eas Deo? etc.  Debuit vel ipsa facilitatis praesumptio in hoc arduo & sublimi Religionis argumento timorem injecisse, ne quod tam facile solvebatur, non recte intelligeretur. Quid enim stupet Paulus 
Rom. 11. O altitudo divitiarum sapientiae & scientiae Dei! quam inscrutabilia sunc judicia ejus! etc.  gratiae dispensationem considerans? Horret & mirabundus exclamat, profundam divini consilii in filiis regni deligendis altitudinem perpendens, praedicat inscrutabile esse hoc mysterium & inscrutabilitet a suo artifice dispensatum, ut omne os obstruatur, & subditus fiat omnis mundus Deo. Afferit demum, non esse volentis neque currentis, sed Dei miserentis. Haec omnia mira & insperata facilitate per novum gratiae commentum Molina extricat, scrutatur inscrutabilia, comprehendit in comprehensibilia, penetrat inaccessa, stuporem compescit, horrorem serenat, praedestinationis adyta cuique pandit, & totas aeternitatis sortes in manu hominum deponit. Quid dicemus? Certe aut olim delirus Paulus, aut hodie Molina insanus; & si sani Molinistae qui haec videant, male tamen sani qui se non corrigant, sed per instructas agnitae veritatis insidias ipsam a qua timent corrigi Sedem Apostolicam compellere satagant in errores suos.  
Non igitur gratia quam Molina docet & tam ab omni difficultate aut scrupulo liberam ostendit, eadem esse potest cum ea quam docuit Paulus gratiae Apostolus, quamque tot mysteriorum obscuritatibus stupuit involutam. Sed nec potest eadem esse cum ea quam ex Apostolo Paulo & constantissime praedicavit, & ab iisdem numero tunc Pelagianorum nunc Molinistarum calumniis (quod libertatem evertat, quod fatum praedestinationis inducat, quod salutis desperationem suggerat) tutatus est Augustinus. Quaenam ergo erit? Eadem omnino quae & Pelagianorum, ipsissima, inquam, verae Christi gratiae inimicorum gratia fallax, gratia humanae voluntatis non ductrix, sed pedissequa, non domina, sed serva, &, ut gloriatur Molina, gratia intellectu facillima, quae, ut nutui voluntatis omni ex parte subdita, non jam suspicionem relinquit eversae voluntatis cui semper obtemperat, non inductae fatalis praedestinationis quam penitus tollit, non desperatae salutis quam a Dei arbitrio ereptam in cujusque hominis arbitrio plenissime reponit. Haec olim gratia Massiliensium, haec hodie Molinistarum, sed nunquam gratia Christi.  
Itaque quod primum probandum assumpsimus, assertam a Molinistis gratiam non esse gratiam Christi, quamvis probatum jam maneat ex ostensa contrarietate inter gratiam Molinae & gratiam Pauli, quae est sine dubio Christi, amplius tamen paucis ostenditur.  
Primo ex precibus Ecclesiae quas Lydium lapidem esse ad dignoscendam Christi gratiam adeo reputat Augustinus, 
Aug. lib. de dono persev. c. 22, 23. & 27. & ep. 95.  ut eas solas intuendas velit, quo postulatae gratiae natura patescat. Quaero ergo, an non gratiam Christi petat Ecclesia, cum eam a Christo postulat, aut per Christum? Quaero, an gratiam sufficientem Molinae qua possimus, an efficacem qua velimus? utrum eam postulet quae conferat nobis posse, an eam quae in nobis operetur & velle? Expendantur publicae preces 
Collectae Dom. 9 post Pent. Ut petentibus desiderata concedas, fac eos quae tibi sunt placita postulare, Dom. 3. post Pent. Ut mereamur assequi quod promittis, fac nos amare quod praecipis. Dom. 24. post Pent. Excita quaesumus, Domine, tuorum fidelium voluntates. Dom. 8. post Pent. Largire, Domine, semper spiritum cogitandi quae recta sunt propitius & agendi. Sabb. ante Dom. Pass. Ad te nostras etiam rebelles compelle propitius voluntates in secreta Missae. Hier. in Thren. Converte nos, Domine, ad te & convertemur.  sive quas aut ex Psalmorum, aut ex alterius Scripturae recitatione jugiter frequentat Ecclesia, sive quas, ut sunt ex arcano Scripturarum sensu collectae, Collectas appellamus. Mentior si non hactenus in his inauditum, quod sive pro nobis, sive pro aliis petamus gratiam qua orare, converti, bene operari & in bono perseverare possimus, si velimus, & si non eam semper petimus, qua oremus, qua velimus, qua convertamur, qua bene operemur, & qua in bono perseveremus. At gratia qua possumus, si velimus, est gratia Molinae sufficiens; gratia qua volumus & operamur, est gratia Christi efficax; igitur ut illa nunquam postulata, sic nec pro gratia Christi reputata. Sicut ergo in his Orationibus (Aug. 1. de dono persev. c. 23.) ita & in hac fide nata est & crescit & crevit Ecclesia, ut eam solam Christi gratiam credat, quae, ut ait Apostolus, dat velle & operari, eam vero prorsus ignoret, quae dat solum posse si velimus. Hoc argumento tanquam adversus omnes Pelagianorum cavillationes peremptorio usus est frequentissime Augustinus, definiente Caelestino Pontifice (in ep. ad Episc. Galliae c. 10.) quod legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi.  
Secundo ex Scripturarum testimoniis quae non gratiam possibilitatis, seu Molinae sufficientem & voluntaris pedissequam sonant, sed gratiam actionis seu victricem, efficacem, & quae, ait Apostolus, operatur in nobis & velle & perficere. Innumera ex his testimoniis urget Augustinus adversus 

Asserta Molinistarum, influxum gratiae pendere à libero arbitrio.  
Liberum arbitrium esse directe causam cur Deus influat in opus per suam gratiam, non autem gratiam esse causam cur liberum arbitrium influat.  
Nos quodammodo trahere Deum ad cooperandum.  
Usum gratiae esse subjectum voluntati; pendere à libero arbitrio quod gratia sit habitura vel non habitura effectum, etc.  
Ita passim Molina, Lessius, Suarez & alii contra canonem Concilii Araus. 4.  
Si quis ut a peccato purgemur, voluntatem nostram Deum expectare contendit, non autem ut etiam purgari velimus, per Spiritus Sancti infusionem in nobis fieri confitetur, resistit ipsi Spiritui Sancto dicenti per Salomonem, Praeparatur voluntas a Domino, & per Apostolum, Deus est qui operatur in nobis velle, etc.   Pelagianos. Sic enim lib. de grat. Christi c. 25. c. 14. etc. 5. notat non dixisse Apostolum, Deus est qui operatur in nobis posse, sed dixisse, qui operatur in nobis velle & perficere. Non dixisse Christum Apostolis, Spiritus Patris vestri est qui dat vobis posse bene loqui, sed dixisse, qui loquitur in vobis. Non dixisse, omnis qui audivit a Patre & didicit, potest venire ad me, sed dixisse, venit ad me. Non dixisse Apostolum iis ad quos scribeba●, orare se ad Deum pro eis, ut possent nihil mali facere, & possent bonum facere, sed dixisse ne quid mali faciatis & bonum faciatis. Non dixisse Deum per Prophetam, dabo vobis cor novum etc. & faciam ut in justificationibus meis possitis ambulare; sed dixisse, faciam ut ambuletis. Haec & ejusmodi innume●a loca quae ex Scripturis ponderat Augustinus ut gratiam sonant efficacissimam, sic & gratiam Molinae excludunt potentialem seu sufficientem, qua homini tribuatur posse operari si velit. Quantumcumque enim augeatur haec gratia Molinistica, etiam ad centenos & millenos sufficientiae gradus, naturam suam nunquam exuet, nec aliud tribuet voluntati quam posse si velit, adeo ut sive Deus operationem secuturam videat, sive non videat, sive Deus hoc velit, sive non velit, hoc sequetur certissime, vel ipsis Molinistis ita fatentibus, non quod gratia voluntatem, sed quod voluntas gratiam facit facere. Gratia Christi non est hujusmodi, nec ejus operatio aut influxus impulsum voluntatis expectat, sed praevenit, sed determinat, quodque ex Augustino dicebat Pontifex Clemens, Agit in cordibus hominum motum voluntatis eorum, faciendo ex nolentibus volentes. Ergo gratiae Molinae nihil commune est cum gratia Christi.  
Tertio demum probatur ex diversitate status hominis integri & hominis lapsi quae diversa quoque exigit gratiae adjutoria. Hoc argumentum tanquam totius doctrinae de gratia Christi basim firmissimam saepe inculcat & late prosequitur Augustinus. Audiamus illud ex ipsius ore lib. de corrept. & grat. c. 11. & 12. Quid ergo, inquit, Adam non habuit Dei gratiam? Imo vero habuit magnam sed disparem grasiae Christi. I'll in bonis erat quae bonitate sui Conditoris acceperat. Sancti vero in hac vita ad quos pertinet libertationis haec gratia, in malis sunt, ex quibus clamant ad Deum, libera nos a malo. I'll in illis bonis Christi morte non eguit: Istos a reatu & haereditario & proprio illius agni sanguis absolvit. Ille non opus habebat eo adjutorio quod implorant isti cum dicunt, Video aliam legem in membris meis repugnantem legi mentis meae, & captivantem me in lege peccati, quae est in membris meis: quoniam in eis caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, & spiritus adversus carnem; atque in tali certamine laborantes atque periclitantes dari sibi pugnandi vincendique virtutem per Christi gratiam poscunt. Ille vero nulla tali rixa a seipso adversus seipsum tentatus atque turbatus, in illo beatitudinis loco sua secum pace fruebatur. Proinde etsi non interim laetiore nunc verumtamen potentiore gratia indigent isti. Hinc consequenter docet Augustinus ex Eccles. 15. Adamum tanquam fortissimum relictum in manu consilii sui, datamque ei gratiam congruentem liberrimae sanissimaeque voluntati, quae videlicet non alia laborabat imbecillitate quam ea quae creaturae naturalis est; ut ad malum sufficiat, ad bonum verò nihil sit, nisi adjuvetur ab omnipotenti Deo; gratiam, inquam, non qua fieret ut vellet, non qua fieret ut perseveraret, non qua Deus operaretur ut vellet; sed talem, per quam posset bonum operari & in eo perseverare si vellet, & quam desereret cum vellet, eaque pro libito bene & male uti cum vellet, hoc est, gratiam mere potentialem & arbitrio voluntatis plenissime subditam, & quae ex operatione voluntatis fieret efficax, ex non operatione inefficax. At non sic, inquit, non sic actum est cum hominibus infirmis & in statu naturae lapsae constitutis, quibus debilitata, laesa, fracta, etc. (ut loquitur Concilium Arausicanum can. 13.) amissa libertas per effrenae concupiscentiae indomitos furores in carne, per ignorantiae vulnus in ment, non sic cum eis actum est, sed provisa eis gratia Redemptoris, qua invictissime quod bonum est vellent, & hoc deserere invictissime nollent. Nam si in tanta infirmitate hujus vitae, in qua propter elationem reprimendam perfici virtutem oportebat, ipsis relinqueretur voluntas sua, ut in adjutorio Dei, sine quo perseverare non possent, manerent si vellent, nec Deus in eis operaretur ut vellent, inter tot & tantas tentationes infirmitate sua voluntas ipsa succumberet, & ideo perseverare non possent, quia deficientes infirmitate nec vellent, aut non ita vellent infirmitate voluntatis ut possent. Prima ergo gratia quae data est Adamo talis erat, qua homo justitiam operaretur si vellet, & in qua permaneret si vellet, non qua fieret ut vellet. At secunda gratia quae insirmo jam & lapso tribuitur, potentior est, qua etiam fit ut justitiam velit & tantum velit, tantoque ardore diligat, ut carnis voluntatem contraria concupiscentem voluntate ipsius vincat. Haec Augustinus, ex quibus sic argumentor: Gratia possibilitatis data homini in statu naturae integrae non est gratia Christi medicinalis seu a Christo per suae passionis meritum infirmis hominibus comparata: At gratia Molinistarum est mera gratia possibilitatis, qua quidem indiget voluntas creata ut possit bene operari, sed qua operatur si velit, non operatur si non velit. Ergo gratia Molinistarum non est gratia Christi quae semper invictissime efficax: Ergo dum Molinistae gratiam efficacem rejiciunt, gratiam Christi penitus negant.  
Ex hac prima capitis parte sic probata inferret Augustinus secunda efficaciter Molinistas non esse Christianos. Quid ita? Quia Christi gratiam negantes omnem Christi Religionem uno impulsu evertunt, Christi crucem evacuant, ejusque in carne adventum inanem reddunt.  
Sed admittunt legem, admittunt Evangelium, remissionem peccatorum, gratiam habitualem, virtutes infusas, gratiam sufficientem, gratiam congruam; nihil refert, his omnibus utitur voluntas cum voluerit, haec eadem deserit cum voluerit. Nisi ergo admittant adjutorium quo, hoc est, gratiam actualem invictissime operantem, non admittunt gratiam Christi de qua inter Pelagianos & Ecclesiam per annos viginti & amplius certatum est; utque non admittunt grariam Christi, ut ait Augustinus, sic nec sunt Christiani.  
Confessus est Pelagius in Concilio Palaestino, Actiones naturales non attrahere gratiam, & gratiam non dari secundum merita nostra. Fatetur apud Augustinum lib. de gratia Christi cap. 30. Quod in omnibus operibus, liberum arbitrium divino semper adjuvatur auxilio; fatetur cap. 35. nos nihil omnino boni posse facere sine Deo; haecne sufficiebant Ecclesiae? nequaquam. Urgebat enim per Augustinum cui in Conciliis duobus curam Scripturarum & disputationum commiserat; Quaerimus adhuc quo auxilio liberum dicat adjuvari arbitrium? cap. 37. Fateatur gratiam de qua quaestio est, cap. 31. Quaerimus quo auxilio? quaerimus qua gratia? operatur (inquit Pelagius cap. 10.) in nobis velle quod bonum est, velle quod sanctum est, dum nos terrenis cupiditatibus deditos mutorum more animalium tantummodo praesentia diligentes, futurae gloriae magnitudine & praemiorum sollicitatione succendit, dum revelatione sapientiae in desiderium Dei stupentem excitat voluntatem, dum nobis suadet omne quod bonum est. Optime Pelagius! Sed nunquid sat clare pro notis Augustini? Nequaquam. In Pelagii & Caelestii scriptis (inquit cap. 30.) quaecunque legere potui, nusquam eos inveni gratiam quemadmodum confitenda est, confiteri. Quaerimus ergo quo auxilio? qaaerimus quâ gratiâ? Fateatur gratiam de qua quaestio est.  
Sed quaeso, dicat ipse Augustinus, quam ipse gratiam intelligat confitendam. Nos (inquit cap. 10.) eam gratiam volumus isti fateantur aliquando, quâ futurae gloriae magnitudo non solùm promittitur, verùm etiam creditur & speratur, nec solùm revelatur sapientia, verùm etiam & amatur; nec suadetur solùm omne quod verum est & bonum, verùm etiam & persuadetur. Non enim omnium est fides qui audiunt per Scripturas Dominum Regnum caelorum pollicentem. Nec omnibus persuadetur quibuscumque suadetur, ut veniant ad eam qui dicit, Venite ad me omnes qui laboratis. Quorum autem sit fides, & quibus persuadetur ut ad eum veniant, satis ipse demonstravit, ubi ait, Nemo venit ad me nisi Pater qui misit me, traxerit eum. Et paulo post, cum de non credentibus loqueretur: Dixi, inquit, vobis quia nemo potest venire ad me, nisi ei fuerit datum à Patre meo; hanc debet Pelagius gratiam confiteri, si vult non solùm vocari, verùm etiam esse Christianus.  
Audistis Molinistae! quascumque suasiones habeat homo, quascumque vocationes accipiat, si non persuadetur, si non venit, non hae gratiae sunt quas non norit Pelagius: non hae sunt de quibus quaestio est. Quae persuadeat & quae trahat, quaeritur: hanc debet Pelagius confiteri, si vult non solùm vocari, verùm etiam esse Christianus. Sed dicent, se omne bonum opus tribuere Deo, quod Pelagius tribuebat naturae: hoc recte dixerint apud idiotas. Quaerimus adhuc quomodo tribuant, an per eam gratiam de qua quaestio est? Quaerimus quo auxilio nos indigere fateantur? (cap. 33.) Dicent fateri se gratiam quae praecurrat omnem actionem liberi arbitrii, hoc fassi & Semipelagiani; gratiam, inquient, supernaturalem & internam, & quae non sit solum in ment, sed etiam in voluntate. Dicam ego cum Augustino cap. 33. Quis crederet sub hac quasi manifesta confessione sensum latere contrarium? Quaerimus adhuc quo auxilio, suadentene voluntati an persuadente, excitante an determinante, vocante an trahente? Nam & Pelagius, in desiderium, inquit, Dei stupentem excitat voluntatem, dum nobis suadet omne quod bonum est. Si non persuadentem & determinantem gratiam fatentur Molinistae, non eam fatentur de qua quaestio erat inter Augustinum & Pelagium, nec se adjunxerunt Augustino, sed toti adhaerent Pelagio: Hanc debet Pelagius confiteri, si vult non solùm vocari, verùm etiam esse Christianus.  
Uno verbo, in hac doctrina gratiae non datur medium, vel erratur cum Pelagianis & Semipelagianis, vel adhaeretur Augustino, cujus fundamentalis in illos assertio fuit, de hac gratia persuadente, determinante & victrici, a qua caetera de praedestinatione quaesita penderent, nec querelae, objecta, argumenta & invectivae Haereticorum in Augustinum ex alio capite promanarunt quam hujus victricis gratiae per cum contra ipsos ex Scripturis & Ecclesiae fide constanter assertae & stabilitae; vel hoc ipsum incogitanter fatente & observante Ludovico Molina, dum dicit; Quod si Augustinus gratiam ejus sufficientem & libero subditam arbitrio docuisset, fortè neque Pelagiana baeresis fuisset exorta, neque Semipelagianorum in Augustinum concertationes. Optime dicit Molina, quia & Semipelagiani omnes & Pelagiani fraternitatis dextras dedissent Augustino, nec aliud futurum erat, nisi quod Augustinum cum eis Ecclesia damnasset. Igitur de gratia efficaci tota suit controversia inter illos & Augustinum, ut & tota est hodie inter Molinistas & Augustini discipulos, ut non durum Molinae videri debeat, si ab his ex sui Praeceptoris verbis admonetur, quod hanc debet gratiam c●nsiteri, si vult non solùm vocari, verùm etiam●sse Christianus.  
Sed quare non sit Christianus qui caetera praeter hanc unicam gratiam victricem & efficacem de Christo & Christiana doctrina confitetur? Vellem dicti sui rationem ipse redderet Augustinus, reddam tamen ex Augustino, nec aliam quidem ab ea quam superius insinuavi, per negatam hanc gratiam efficacem everti uno impulsu omnem Christi Religionem, Christi crucem evacuari, ejusque in carne adventum inanem reddi.  
Has enim consequentias Augustinus & Patres contra Pelagium ex negata illa gratia quae propria Christi est, passim intulerunt, unde gratiam ad cujus confessionem Pelagium compellebant, soliti erant vocare gratiam Christi, gratium quâ Christiani sumus, gratiam Salvatoris, gratiam Christianam, gratiam quae revelata est per passionem & resurrectionem Christi, gratiam quae per Incarnationem Vnigeniti donata est, denique gratiam Dei per Jesum Christum quam ex Apostolo (Rom. 7.) didicerunt, liberare nos à morte corporis hujus, hoc est, victores nos reddere a vitiis & passionibus corporis mortis hujus. Haec autem gratia non est gratia illa Molinae sufficiens, similis ei qua etiam primus homo & Angeli indiguerunt, quando in primae illius dignitatis & felicitatis praestantia creabantur: sed est gratia medicinalis & efficax qua per Salvatorem servamur & liberamur a vulneribus libero arbitrio inflictis, & quae propterea non minus differt ab illa sufficiente, quam morbus cui sanando adhibetur, a pristina & primaeva sanitate quae post primi hominis lapsum amplius non habetur. De hac sola gratia Christi Augustinus & Patres disputant: hanc Augustinus explicuit, hanc (ut vidimus) primaevae illi gratiae sufficienti feu possibilitatis manifeste opposuit: hanc hominibus in statu naturae lapsae, ut mundum cum suis terroribus, amoribus & erroribus vincerent, necessariam ex fide approbantis Ecclesiae constantissime praedicavit; hanc qui non admittit, etsi alias quascunque gratias admittat, quantum ad praesentis controversiae cardinem spectat, perinde omnino est ac si nullam admitteret.  
Quia vero, ut salubriter monent S. Leo Papa Epistola ad Nicetam, & S. Prosper in carmine de ingratis, & contra collatorem cap. 5. tam sunt connexi haeresis illius Pelagianae errores, ut ex uno ejus capite vel minimo concesso, tota statim reviviscat: ita ex negata necessitate gratiae Christi efficacis, & dimissa in statu naturae lapsae sufficientia gratiae possibilitatis tam tota evertitur Christiana Religio, quam per totam Pelagianam haeresim plene evertebatur. Sequitur enim, liberi arbitrii vires integras esse quibus ad bene operandum non aliud datur post originalem noxam gratiae auxilium quam quod in statu innocentiae dari oportebat. Sequitur nedum non integras liberi arbitrii vires, imo & robustiores: ex quo cum eadem prorsus gratia qua in tanta status felicitate, in tanta non peccandi facilitate, poterat Adam non peccare, in tanta etiam qua nunc premimur aerumnosae mortalitatis calamitate, in tanta furentium concupiscentiarum tempestate, possint homines fortiter stare, possint & victores evadere. Sequitur contra Concilii Arausicani decreta liberum arbitrium non esse inclinatum, debilitatum & amissum in ordine ad bonum. Sequitur originale peccatum non vulnerasse libertatem. Sequitur non esse peccatum originale, ex quo per illud solum humana natura universim labe●actata est. Sequitur Christum gratis esse mortuum, ex quo per naturam justitia. Sequitur non fuisse mortuum, ex quo gratis fuisse mortuum improbabile est. Sequitur non esse incarnatum, ex quo non magnus de caelo venerit Medicus, si non magnus in terris jacebat aegrotus. Num aliud in Christianae Religionis sacrario superest evertendum? Num aliquid non solo aequatum? Igitur qui nolet tam celebres ruinas induxisse, aut se violatae totius Christianitatis reatu sacrilego adstrinxisse, duo gratiarum genera distinguat, nec quod sanae arbitrio voluntatis convenit, haec aegroto tribuat, nec quod libero, hoc captivo relinquat sufficientem possibilitatis gratiam statui naturae integrae: asserat gratiam Christi trahentem, persuadentem, efficacem & victricem statui naturae lapsae: Hanc debet Pelagius confiteri, si vult non solùm vocari verùm etiam esse Christianus.  
Hoc in Molinam transtuli ex sensu Augustini quod in Molinam quadrat, non quod hominis religioni velim detraxisse, aut discipulorum ejus famam traduxisse: sed quod pessimae quam incauti renovarunt doctrinae, cognita olim praecipitia a quibus retrocedant debui indicasse, errores insequor, errantes veneror, quos ut Ecclesiae filios incogitanter humana passos, & aliunde Christianae pietatis cultores, potens est Deus corrigere, potens est Deus statuere & elisos erigere: hoc interim eos rogans, ut si nondum in Augustini, hoc est, totius antiquae fidei sententiam consenserunt, suam sibi solis habeant quae ipsis sufficit gratiam sufficientem, nec per procurata parum sinceris artibus Sedis Apostolicae decreta eam qua fatemur nos egere, propriae infirmitatis consciis gratiam eripiant efficacem, quamdiu non aliud habent quod in ejus vicem offerant quam gratiam Molinisticam, hoc est, pro pane filiorum quem auferunt, durum lapidem, pro pisce serpentem, pro ovo scorpionem.   

Epilogus & conclusio.  
EX dictis patet gratiae Christi actuali de qua sola est quaestio, nunquam ita resisti, quin haec, si ad actum consummandum datur, & victrici delectatione spiritus omnem carnis delectationem superet, & omnipotentissima facilitate quamvis resistentiam frangat, ac ex nolentibus volentes faciat; ex repugnantibus consentientes, & ex oppugnantibus amantes. Hoc Augustinus ex Scripturis & fide, hoc Clemens Papa & Congregatio de Auxiliis, hoc Thomas Aquinas ex reconditis Theologiae fontibus decrevere.  
Patet praeterea gratiam quoque actualem quae sufficiens (remota & in actu primo) appellatur, nulla unquam prohiberi resistentia quin suum effectum immediatum & proximum ad quem a Deo efficaciter destinatur, producat infallibiliter. Hoc Bellarminus, hoc Thomistae omnes ex suis Praeceptoribus Augustino & Thoma didicerunt; & nec per impossibile aliter posse contingere manifestis rationibus demonstrarunt.  
Et propterea concludi debeat propositionem controversam (quod interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur) sic intellectam, nec ulli obnoxiam esse censurae, nec ex Jansenii nomine posse proscribi, cum circa illam nihil dixerit Jansenius quam quod ante ipsum dixerant Thomistae & Bellarminus.  
Si secus fiat, & sub sensu aliquo damnetur ex iis quos jam sua felicitate ex omnium Theologorum consensu, sed diximus esse damnatos, nisi two distincte & clare in proscriptionis decreto assignentur, non Ecclesiae paci consulitur, sed acriori contentionum flammae fomes adjicitur; dum contendant Molinistae suisse a Sede Apostolica assertam suam illam cui saepe resistitur, & cui semper resisti potest, gratiam sufficientem Paulo inimicam, Scripturis invisam, precibus Ecclesiae ignotam, quae ut olim Adamo innocenti percommoda, sic hominibus lapsis incongrua, quae mysterium praedestinationis evertit, crucem Christi evacuat, & totam haeresis Pelagianae luem radix virulenta restaurat. Igitur quod monet S. Prosper contra Collatorem c. 44. De prostrati dudum dogmatis corpore non hoc 
Nullum.  membrum sinatur assurgere, quia notum est ita se falsitatis hujus habere versutias, ut si liceat eis praeteritae correctionis imagine aliquod sibi faventium radicis suae germen excipere, totam sep●ssit in exigua sui parte reparare: ubi enim non aliud habet summa quam portio, non est devotionis dedisse prope totum, sed fraude retinuisse vel minimum.     

The third Writing.  

III. PROPOSITIO CONTROVERSA.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur libertas à necessitate, sed sufficit libertas à coactione.  
DIceres inspecto hujus propositionis cortice renovari damnatas Baii propositiones. Diceres tolli in staru naturae lapsae sive ad malum sive ad bonum indifferentiam. Crederes inductam libertati viatoris necessitatem, eversumque penitus humanae voluntatis arbitrium. Quid impie magis aut a Calvino dictum, aut a Luthero blasphematum? Peccavit certe, nec leviter, Jansenius, si haec docuit. Sed longe gravius peccant procul dubio Molinistae, si quod nec somniavit Jansenius, mendaciter apud Sedem Apostolicam Jansenio affingunt, ur per Jansenii latus, vel ipsa deceptae ac delusae Sedis Apostolicae sacratissima manu confossas fidei veritates, dejectam Christi gratiam efficacem, prostratumque Augustinum, hoc est, damnatam erroris omnium seculorum fidem, consecratum Molinam, restitutum suae innocentiae & famae Pelagium, impletaque uno verbo sua sacrilega valeant gloriari, Hoc volunt certissime Molinistae, hicque unicus scopus in quem per controversae propositionis delationem secretius collimant, non quod sperent eam in vero Jansenii sensu nunquam a Sede Apostolica debere proscribi, sed ut proscriptam in sensu Jansenii mentiri valeant, quam sub Jansenii nomine obtulerint proscribendam. Hinc nec pudor eos continuit ab infami & calumnioso mendacio, nec scrupulus aliquis eos fraenavit a Sedis Apostolicae tentanda deceptione; sed excussis pariter & fronte & conscientia propositionem hanc quasi ex Baio per Jansenium formaliter renovatam detulerunt, quod sibi persuaserint eam absque exactiori veritatis inquisitione ad solam quam habet cum dam nata Baii propositione verborum consonantiam, statim ab hac Apostolica Sede ut jam proscripta declarandam.  
Igitur ne eis prospere succedat ausus tam sacrilegus, sensum propositionum Baii ostendam alienissimum a Jansenio; & demum legitimos sensus secretioribus Molistinarum insidiis in hac propositione impetitos, & per indistinctam propositionis censuram calumniae expositos, diligenter expendam.  

CAPUT. I.  
Propositiones Baii in hac materia damnatae ostenduntur à doctrina Jansenii manifestissime alienae.  
PRocul ab Augustino & Theologica veritate recessit Baius, dum docuit non contrariari libettati, nedum necessitatem complacentiae et immutabilitatis, sed nec ipsam quoque necessitatem absolutam qua voluntas ad malum apperendum et exequendum sine ullo sui consensu, illicitis concupiscentiae motibus solet perurgeri. Hoc intellexisse Baium per articulos a Pio V. damnatos 39 Quod voluntarie fit, etiamsi necessario fiat, libere tamen fit. Et 66. Sola violentia repugnat libertati hominis naturali. Docet P. Gabriel Vasquez in 1 2 D. Th. disp. 109. cap. 8, dicens, Praedictum Michaelem Baium ita putasse hominem peccare in omnibus affectibus & motibus suis qui non essent virtutis, ut etiam in his quae sine libertate fiunt, peccatum esse diceret. In quo nec Augustinus, nec ejus discipuli peccatum agnoscunt. Ita Vasquez.  
Et quidem verissimam esse Vasquis interpretationem probat regula generalis P. Francisci Suares tom. 1. de grat. prolog. 6, c. 2, n. 13, qua docet quomodo in propositionibus Baii ambiguis distinguendus sit sensus Baii damnatus a sensu bono & Theologico, ex consensu nimirum propositionis ambiguae cum aliis propositionibus in Bulla damnatis. Illumque dicit judicandum sensum Baii ideoque et damnatum, qui cum aliis propositionibus Baii damnatis nec ambiguis manifeste consentit. Alium vero sensum qui cum eis non concordat, et alioquin habet fide jussores probatos Theologos, esse reputandum censum bonum et Theologicum, nec sub Bull ae censura aliquatenus comprehensum. Haec, inquam, regula ad praesentem materiam applicata clare manifestat attigisse Vasquem et Baii mentem in praedictis duobus articulis, et Pontificiae Censurae in iis damnandis unicum scopum: siquidem illi duo articuli sic intellecti, ut libertati et peccato locum tribuant in motibus illis illicitis, qui rationis vigilantiam et voluntatis consensum antevertunt, consonant plenissime cum articulis manifeste reprobis. 67. Homo damnabiliter peccat in eo quod necessario facit. 51. Concupiscentia sive lex membrorum & prava ejus desideria, quae inviti sentiunt homines, sunt vera legis inobedientia; & 76. Concupiscentia in renatis relapsis peccatum est, sicut & alii pravi habitus. Si vero intelligantur praefati duo articuli de voluntario libero et ex pleno arbitrii assensu elicito, jam nec congruunt cum articulis ultimo relatis: cum primi illi motus, etsi voluntarii, dicantur quia in voluntatem irrumpunt, non tamen sint aut dici queant liberi. Et ulterius habent illi duo articuli probe intellecti side jussorem Patrum et Scholasticorum insigniorum catervam nobilissimam uno ore docentem, libere fieri id omne quod v●luntarie fit, seu ex ipsa interiori voluntatis electione & inclinatione procedit, quantumvis alioquin necessario & immutabiliter fiat, nec libertati repugnare necessitatem complacentiae & immutabilitatis, sed solius violentiae aut coactionis, Ut infra videbimus.  
Admittitur passim haec Vasquis interpretatio tanquam Theologica & omnis censurae expers, cui Jansenium haesisse aut sciunt aut nesciunt Molinistae. Si nesciunt, certe non potuit ab eis incusari absque temeritatis infamia, quod praefatos Baii articulos in propositione controversa renovarit, cum projectae temeritatis sit, de eo quod ignoramus, quempiam criminari. Si sciunt & norant, jam profecto & deceptae Sedis Apostolicae & illatae Jansenio calumniae convincuntu●: cum ex hoc capite, quod falsissimum norunt, Apostolicam Sedem in damnationem Jansenii, nequssimo simul & sacrilego ausu conentur impellere. Sed sciunt omnino, nec eis licuit ignotare quod in illo Auctore tam pervium. Is enim tom 3, lib. 6, post explicatam suo modo liberi arbitrii naturam fuse & per multa capita, demum cap. 36. movet sibi ipsi objectionem ex damnatis Baii articulis sub hoc titulo: Explcantur proposiones in Bulla Pii V. Quod voluntarie fit, etiamsi necessitate fiat, libere tamen fit, & sola violentia repugnat libertati hominis naturali: hic est titulus praesati capitis 36. in ipso vero textu duplicem assignat difficultatis solutionem. Prima sic habet: Idcirco, inquit, utramque propositi mem damnandam censuerunt Pontifices, quia eo tendebant, ut motus illi concupiscentiae qui rationem antevertunt, essent peccata, quod sine dubio falsum est, etc. eo autem in illis proposi●ionibus collimari indicat Vasquez 1 2, disp. 190, c. 18, n. 185, ubi dicit auctorem propositionum putasse, hominem peccare in omnibus affectibus & motibus suis qui non esse●t virtutis, ut etiam in his quae sine libertate fiunt, peccatum esse diceret, hoc est, in istis motibus concupiscentiae indeliberatis, quos non esse liberos constat. Haec Jansenii prima solutio, ad quam corroborandam subsequenter confert articulos in titulo capitis recitatos cum aliis articulis in eadem Bulla comproscriptis, ut nos antea fecimus. Subjungit deinde alteram solutionem desumptam ex natura libertatis, quae sive importet indifferentiam salrem contradictionis, ut volunt moderni, sive eam non importet, ut voluit Augustinus & Patres, minus late patet quam voluntas. Sic ergo ●it: Quamquam secundo, etiam a caeteris avulsae & de libertate generatim, sicut eam ex posuimus, intellectae per se ipsae sine ulla interpretatione, vel mitigatione falsae sunt, constat enim hujusmodi improviso motus esse voluntarios & sine violentia ex voluntate fluere; nec tamen etiam in illo sensu esse liberos. Deest illis quippe id quod praecipuum est, quia non sunt in hominis potestate, non sumus eorum domini, fiunt sine plena rationis advertentia, profluunt invita repugnanteque voluntate: quae singula essentialiter repugnant libertati. Amplius ergo sine dubio requiritur quam esse volu●tarium & sine violentia ut sit liberum. Hoc Pontifices stahilire voluerunt, ne tales spontanei necessarii motus liberi putarentur, & in perniciosum hujus vitae errorem iretur, quem haeretici hujus temporis protulerunt. De amore autem beatifico, quem plures auctores veteres cum Augustino liberrimum esse docuerunt, nulla Pontificibus cura fuit: de illo vero solo nostra quastio est, etc. Hactenus Jansenius; & damnation● a Pontificibus in Baium latae religiose subscribens, & se a Baio alienissimum egtegie comprobans: Hoc si notunt Molinistae dum Jansenium accusant, calumniatores sunt; si non norunt, temerarii.   

CAPUT. II.  
Quod nec de indifferentia in statu naturae lapsae ab hominibus submovenda Jansenius somniarit.  
PRima in propositionem controversam querela de renovatis Baii articulis & adscriptis libertati & peccato, primis concupiscentiae motibus jam abstersa est: restat altera expurganda: quod nimirum a nobis dum vivimus tollat indifferentiam. Hanc u● aggrediar, quaero a Molinistis conversae propositionis fabricatoribus et delatoribus, an haec propositio unquam a Jansenio sic fuerit illimitate prolata, ut suspicionem aliquam facere potuerit negatae ab ipso in nobis indifferentiae, inductae ad agendum necessitatis, ideoque et eversae libertatis? sed, inquient, decet posse subsistere meritum sine indifferentia, & cum ipsa agendi necessitate. Non hoc quaero, nam et hoc dixisse et docuisse Augustinum, Thomam, et alios tam Patres quam Scholasticos, inferius ostendam. Quaero praecise, an hoc quod dicit posse fieri, unquam dixerit de facto in nobis fieri; Haec enim duo diversissima sunt, et talia, ut unum sit sanum & Theologicum, alterum erroneum: nec enim a potentia ad actum jugis est consequentia. Poterant Apostoli ita per gratiae dona firmari, ut nec venialiter quidem laberentur; hoc qui dixerit, verissime dixerit. Anne ideo asserere liceat eos nec peccasse venialiter; Hoc qui diceret, haeretice diceret, reclamantibus vel ipsis Apostolis, Quoniam si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus, & veritas in nobis non est. Ita et in nostra quaestione asserere liceat absque periculo indifferentiam non esse de conceptu libertatis aut meriti, sed posse utrumque salvari vel in ipsa agendi necessitate. At vero dicere non licet quod post lapsum hominem in Adamo careant homines indifferentia in hujus vitae statu aut ex necessitate quidpiam sive malum sive bonum operentur. Hoc ergo quaero an Jansenius dixerit? si enim dixit, just in eum insurgitur; si non dixir, calumniose impetitur, ut in his quae non dixit, quasi ea dixerit apud Sedem Apostolicam accusatus, & ab ea mutilatus, in aliis quae cum Augustino & Patribus contra Molinam docuit, fingi valeat a Molinistis fuisse condemnatus. Ut ergo pateat Molinistas non Jansenium quaerere sed sub Jansenii velut praedamnati hominis infenso & malo nomine Augustinum, Thomam, & ipsam veritatem insectari, imo ipsissimae veritatis Sedi augustissimae decipiendae totis animorum conatibus intendere, ipsum adduco Jansenium qui se prodat, et quid dixerit, aperte fateatur.  
Certe nedum non dixit, quod eum dixisse mentiuntur Molinistae, sed contrarium prorsus ex Augustino & universa Christiana Theologia ubique demonstravit: ut plane mirum sit, si post deprehensum tam solenne Molinistarum mendacium, aliqua deinceps fides eorum dictis habeatur. Unicum Jansenii locum adduco qui plures possem adducere. Sic habet tom. 3, lib. 8, de gratia Christi Salvatoris cap. 20.  
Quaeres fortassis, utrum igitur nulla indifferentia sive contrarietatis, sive contradictionis, sit in libero voluntatis arbitrio post peccatum quandiu in mortalitate vivimus? Si enim non adest indifferentia contrarietatis, quomodo possumus hic semper bene & male vivere? si n●n ade●… contradictionis, quomodo ergo dicitur, Qui potuit transgredi & non est transgressus, facere mala & non fecit?  
Respondetur, quandiu hic vivimus, sive in infidelitate ante gratiam, sive jam sub gratia, indifferentiam ad contraria, hoc est, ad volendum faciendumque bonum et malum, semper libero inesse arbittio: sed non eo modo quo quidam (Molinistas intelligit) putant, qui quocumque arbitrium sive gratiae sive peccati delectationibus imbuatur, semper existimant cum utravis ejus dispositione posse fieri, ut utrumlibet velit sive bonum sive malum, pro illa sola scilicet innata indifferentia voluntatis, quae sub quacumque dispositione actum, praeveniente se sua libertate, in utramvis partem flectit. Talis enim indifferentia contrarietatis ab Augustino constantissime negata fuit, et a Pelagianis contentiosissime postulata, prout utrumque suis locis demonstravimus. Alio igitur sensu liberum arbitrium ante gratiam, quemadmodum etiam alio sensu sub gratia indifferentiam contradictionis et contrarietatis habet; ita ut videlicet quibuscunque positis quae ad agendum bonum vel malum requisita sunt, possit liberum arbitrium in hac vita facere bonum et malum, facere alterutrum et non facere.  
Dicimus igitur, liberum arbitrium quantum cunque vehementi atque efficaci gratiae delectatione praeventum atque determinatum ad faciendum bonum, adhuc tamen posse bonum non tantum non facere, sed etiam facere malum. Verum est enim istud non quidem in sensu COMPOSITO, ut vulgo dici solet, SED IN SENSU DIVISO. Nimirum quia eodem tempore quo voluntatis arbitrium sub gratiae delectatione efficaciter eam movente positum est, imo quo etiam actum voluntatis bonum facit, est in eadem voluntate potestas illud non faciendi, imo peccandi, non quod cessatio ab actu quem tunc elicit, aut actuale peccatum cum gratiae delectantis influxu consistere possit (quod sensus compositus postularet) sed quia cessandi et peccandi potestas cum eadem gratia, simul in eodem voluntatis arbitrio conjungi potest; nam quamvis duo actus contrarii sunt oppositi, et in eadem voluntate simul esse non possint, potestates tamen ad opposita non sunt oppositae, nec sibi invicem, nec actibus oppositis, et in eodem simul subjecto sive agente sive quiescente possunt commorari. Sic ergo voluntas quantacumque gratiae suavitate rapiatur, potest non agere id in quod rapitur, quia veram non agendi potestatem etiam sub gratia rapiente retinet, quamvis fieri nequeat, ut ipsa non actio cum gratiae operatione in eadem simul voluntate copuletur. Sic enim juxta Tridentinum HOMO RECIPIENS INSPIRATIONEM ILLAM ABJICERE POTEST, ET LIBERUM ARB●TRIUM A DEO MOTUM POTEST DISSENT●RE SI VELIT. Qua de re qui plura volet, auctores qui de physica praedeterminatione tractant consulendi sunt.  
Hoc est igitur quod S. Augustinus tradit, quendo toties docet concupiscentiam & ignorantiam, per quam nunc omnia peccata committuntur, non auferri ex nobis quandiu in hac mortali vita versamur; hinc enim fit, quod non solum in nobis ipsa potentia voluntatis, quae de se ad malum flexibilis est, sed etiam pondus ad peccandum remanet, quod est peccandi potestas perfectissima, quae sane non solum adest inesique voluntati quando gratiae delectatione caret, sed etiam quando intima ejus suavitate efficaciter trahitur, propter quam sane liberum arbitrium, qualicumque gratia ad bene agendum rapiatur, rectissime dici potest posset peccare, licet fieri nequeat, ut ipsum peccatum simul in sensu composito cum gratiae operatione societur. Hoc sensu S. Prosper, QUI AD OBEDIENDUM SIBI IPSUM VELLE SIC DONAT, UT ETIAM A PERSEVERATURIS ILLAM MUTABILITATEM QUAE POTEST NOLLE, NON AUFERAT: quibus verbis significat manere in Sanctis illam mutabilitatem quae potest in tentatione mutari; propter pugnam videlicet carnis et spiritus.  
Hactenus Jansenius, non, ut calumniantur Molinistae, indifferentiae destructor, sed constantissimus assertor, & quidem sub iisdem prorsus te minis, quibus eam asserunt & explicant Bellarminus & Thomistae, quibus si quid contrarium dixerit in hac parte, liceat Molinistis asserere quod solum Jansenium impetunt. Si vero cum iis plenissime consentit, desinant suis artibus procurare ne audiantur Thomistae, quasi non eorum, sed solius Iansenii res agatur, nec ipsissimae veritates gratiae efficacis hodie impugnentur, quasi ipsi per suos Antesignanos, hoc est, Dominicanos Patres ante annos quadraginta coram summis Pontificibus Clemens VIII. & Paulo V. gloriosissime propugnarunt.   

CAPUT. III.  
Indifferentiam non esse essentialem libertati, sed posse stare libertatem cum agendi necessitate, ideoque solam coactionem repugnare libertati.  
VIdimus indifferentiam in hominibus, nec reclamante jansenio, huic vitae statui indesinenter annexam; nunc videndum existimem, an ea adeo libertati cohaereat, ut nequeat libertas sine ipsa constare.  
Certe Divus Augustinus, qui quamvis hujus indifferentiae in nobis, dum vivimus, sit perpetuus defensor, non tamen ex hoc indifferentiae capite (ut poterat) sed compendiosiori alia, eaque faciliori & magis simplici via efficaciam gratiae cum nostra libertate componit, & liberrimam asserit voluntatem sub quocumque gratiae efficacis impulsu, ex hoc solum quod ipsa non ut quoddam inanime organum movetur, sed ita movetur fortiter & suaviter, ut & seipsam moveat: ita pro suae naturae modo ad volendum excitatur, ut & ipsa velit: consequenter ostendit (quod & alias frequentissime asserit) se in eo sensu esse, ut absolute loquendo, sive voluntas sit indifferens, sive non indifferens, sed ad unum determinata, libere tamen agat & semper libere velit: quod consequenter indifferentia, non per se, sed per accidens, non ut innatum quidpiam, sed ut adventitium spectet ad libertatem.  
Concinunt Augustino caeteri SS. Patres & Scholasticorum turmae non ignobiles, dum dicunt passim voluntatem tam esse sui juris, ut cogi ab ullo nequeat, tam esse liberam ut impossibile sit eam sua libertate privari qua non plus carere valeat quam seipsa. Si enim (inquiunt) volumus, aut libere volumus, aut inviti & nolentes: velle nolentes & invitos contradictorium est, & tam implicat quemquam velle simul & non velle, quam implicat simul esse & non esse. Igitur si volumus, libere volumus, qui (ut acute Augustinus) non vellemus, si nollemus. Igitur operari voluntatem & non libere operari, nec ment quidem potest comprehendi.  
Ex hoc principio, quod ipsam voluntatis naturam exprimit, inferunt indifferentiam esse quidem signum libertatis manifestissimum in iis in quibus reperitur: at non esse ipsam libertatem, aut quidpiam ad libertatis per se spectatae essentiam pertinens, inferunt libertatem constare posse cum determinatione ad unum & necessitate agendi inevitabili: sicque demum asserunt, subsistere in Deo primo libero & totius libertatis archetypo: substitisse in Christo viatore, & tota aeternitate in Angelis & daemonibus, in beatis & damnatis hominibus immobiliter substituram.  
Audiamus loquentes Patres & Doctores alios.  
D. Augustinus lib. 5. de Civitate Dei c. 10. Si necessitas nostra illa dicenda est quae non est in nostra potestate, sed etiam si nolumus efficit quod potest, sicut est necessitas mortis, manifestum est, voluntates, quibus rectè aut perperam vivimus, sub tali necessitate non esse. Nam si volumus, est; si nolumus, non est. Non enim vellemus, si nollemus: si autem ista definitur esse necessitas, secundum quam dicimus necesse esse ut ita sit aliquid, vel ita fiat: nescio cur eam timeamus ne nobis auferat libertatem voluntatis; neque enim & vitam Dei & praescientiam Dei sub necessitate ponimus, (hoc est, necessitate contraria libertati) se dicamus necesse est Deum semper vivere & cuncta praescire, sicut nec potestas ejus minuitur, cùm dicitur mori fallique non posse. Et lib. 22. de Civit. cap. ult. Nec ideo Beati liberum arbitrium non habebunt, quia peccata eos delectare non poterunt; magis quippe erit liberum à delectatione peccandi usque ad delectationem non peccandi indeclinabiliter liberatum. Ibidem: Primum liberum arbitrium posse non peccare, novissimum non posse peccare, sic enim erit inamissibilis voluntas pietatis & aequitatis, quomodo & felicitatis, etc. Ibidem: Certè Deus ipse numquid quia peccare non potest, ideo liberum arbitrium habere negandus est? Erit ergo illius civitatis & una in omnibus, & inseparabilis in singulis voluntas libera, ab omni malo liberata & implenda omni bono, fruens indeficienter aeternorū jucunditate gaudiorum.  
D. Anselmus lib. de lib. arb. cap. 5. Velle nemo potest invitus, quia non potest velle, nolens velle. Nam omnis voluntas ipsum suum velle vult. Quomodo itaque non est libera voluntas, quam aliena potestas sine suo assensu subjicere non potest?  
D. Bernardus de grat. & lib. arb. Voluntatem impossibile est suâ privari libertate. Potest quidem mutari voluntas, sed non nisi in aliam voluntatem, ut nunquam amittat libertatem. Tam ergo non poterit privari illâ quàm nec seipsa. Si poterit aliquando homo velle aliquid, & non voluntate, poterit & carere libertate voluntas. Sicut caelestis Angelus, aut etiam ipse Deus permanet liberè bonus, propria videlicet voluntate, non aliquâ extrinsecâ necessitate: sic profectò diabolus aequè liberè in malum corruit & perstitit, suo utique voluntario nutu, non alieno impulsu, etc.  
Hugo a S. Victore in sum. tom. 3. c. 9 Liberum arbitrium sic dicitur, quia voluntarium, unde boni Angeli liberè boni, & mali liberè mali, etc. Et tract. 2. cap. 4. Quod si infers, ergo sunt indifferentes ad bonum & malum, respondetur, non in hac indifferentia consistere liberum arbitrium, sed liberum non aliud importare quàm voluntarium. Angeli autem boni abstinent à malo non necessitate cogente, sed libertate volente. Angeli similiter mali abstinent à bono non quia coguntur, sed quia liberè nolunt.  
Richardus a S. Victore de eruditione interioris hominis cap. 30. & de statu interioris hominis cap. 23. Libertas consistit in hoc quod non possumus cogi inviti nec ad bonum nec ad malum, & haec aequalis in bonis & in malis: nec perdi unquam potest, aut minui unquam.  
Petrus Lombardus dictus Magister Sententiarum lib. 2. dist. 23. Vbi non est libertas, nec est voluntas. Et lib. 2. dist. 7. idem docet de Angelis & daemonibus quod Divus Bernardus & Hugo Victorinus.  
Guillelmus Episcopus Parisiensis de vitiis & peccatis fol. 211. & 213. Necessitas aut impossibilitas quae non prohibent quin actio aliqua sit voluntaria, hoc est, quin procedat à voluntate quae non potest non esse libera, non impediunt etiam quin actio possit esse criminosa. Et necessitas stabilitatis & immutabilitatis qualis est quae in Deo in ordine ad bonum reperitur, non aufert, sed perficit libertatem.  
Alexander de Hales Ordinis Seraphici & Praeceptor SS. Thomae & Bonaventurae in 2. p. sum. q. 72. m. 3. a. 3. Necessitas coactionis destruit arbitrium, non autem necessitas immutabilitatis, qualis reperitur in Angelis & daemonibus, etc.  
D. Thomas Aquinas lib. 3. contra Gentes c. 138. Est duplex necessitas, quaedam coactionis, & haec laudem virtuosorum actuum diminuit, quia voluntario contrariatur. Est autem quaedam necessitas ex interiori inclinatione procedens, & haec laudem virtuosi actus non minuit, sed auget: facit enim voluntatem non magis intense tendere in actum virtutis; & quantò perfectior fuerit habitus ex quo voluntas operatur, tantò vehementiùs eam inclinat. Quod si is ad perfectiorem devenerit, quamdam necessitatem infert ad bene agendum, sicut est in Beatis qui peccare non possunt, nec tamen propter hoc aut libertati voluntatis aliquid deperit aut actus bonitati. Er de potentia q. 10. a. 2. ad 5. Necessitas naturalis secundum quam voluntas aliquid ex necessitate velle dicitur, ut felicitatem, libertati voluntatis non repugnat, ut Augustinus docet lib. 3. de Civit. Dei: libertas enim voluntatis violentiae vel coactioni opponitur: non est autem violentia aut coactio in hoc quod aliquid secundum ordinem suae natura movetur, sed magis in hoc quod naturalis motus impeditur, sicut cùm impeditur grave ne descendat in medium. Vnde v●…untas liberè appetit felicitatem, licet necessariò appetat illam. Sic autem & Deus necessariò & tamen liberè suâ voluntate amat scipsum, licet de necessitate amet seipsum; & necessarium est quod tantum amet seipsum quantum bonus est, sicut tantum intelligit seipsum quantum est. Liberè ergo Spiritus Sanctus procedit à Patre, non tamen possibiliter, sed ex necessitate. Vide & de verit. q. 22. a. 5. ad 1. 3. & 4. & q. 23. a. 4. & ult. & q. 24. a. 1. ad 20. Et in 1. ad Hannibaldum dist. 47. q. unica, a. 1. etc.  
Eadem dicunt D. Bonaventura in 2. dist. 25. q. 2. Richardus de Media villa in 2. dist. 7. a. 1. q. 2. & dist. 25. a. 2. q. 3. Henricus de Gandavo quodlib. 12. q. 26. Joannes Scotus quodlib. 16. Thomas de Argentina in 3. dist. 12. Marsilius in 3. dist. 12. a. 2. Gabriel Biel in 2. dist. 18. a. 3. Nicolaus de Orb●llis in 2. dist. 25. Stephanus Bruleset in 2. dist. 25. q 8. Petrus Capuleius Episcopus Conversanus in 22. dist. 7. a. 1. q. 1. puncto 1. Gibieuf lib. 1. de libertate Dei & creaturae, cap. 9 n. 7.  
Patrum & Scholasticorum auctoritatibus addo rationes Theologicas.  
Ab ip a prima libertatis radice exordior, quae in agente libero, non alia concipitur quam facultas illa mirabilis reflectendi se super suos actus, non solum appetendo, sed etiam judicando; hoc solius naturae intellectualis proprium est, ob ejus immaterialitatem, objectique vastitatem & illimitationem. Habet ergo agens intellectuale & liberum ex ratione quidem ut possit de fine & mediis judicare, utrorumque proportionem expendere, & per hoc ipsum de proprio suo judicio judicium ferre & definire, num recte judicaverit; habet vero ex voluntate ut possit se non solum appetendo movere, sed etiam super motum suum reflectendo velle movere. Haec prima radix libertatis quam insinuavit Thomas cum distinxit liberum a naturali, per hoc quod naturale agit ex inclinatione naturae, liberum autem ex judicio & ratione: ex hac vero altissima libertatis radice oritur in agente per voluntatem dominium sui actus, quod est a libertate inseparabile: siquidem non possumus concipere volentem quia vult se velle, quin statim eum concipiamus suae volitionis plenissime dominum & in volendo absolute liberum. Cum ergo in omni motu rationali voluntatis semper adsit expresse vel tacite hujusmodi super se reflexio: consequens etiam est quod ipsa voluntas in omni motu suo rationali aut consensu libera omnino, sibique dominetur, nec coacta agatur, nec impetu concitetur, sed ideo velit quia vult se velle, quia scipsam excitat, quia seipsam movet.  
Hinc recte dicitut voluntas esse incogibilis & indomabilis: nec minus esse impossibile voluntatem compelli invitam quam voluntatem non esse voluntatem: quidquid enim ex quocumque objecto voluptatis, aut timoris, aut cujuslibet affectus quantumcumque vehementis in voluntatem inciderit, semper ipsa suo arbitrio superior manet, & de istis tanquam de praeparatoriis ad consentiendum aut dissentiendum judicat hoc ultro & sponte esse volendum, istud respuendum, & sic facit id quod ei videtur, id quod ei lubet, id quod ei placet, quae propriae & verae libertatis indicia sunt. Si vero vehementissime placet aut displicet, nihil mirum si arbitrium quoque vehementissime constantissimeque sibi esse volendum aut nolendum arbitratur, & sibi ipsi legem imponit & necessitatem, quae cum in actu appareat, non aliunde quam ab ipso arbitrio aut voluntate & domini & libertatis ejus perfectione proficiscitur.  
Ex his sequitur manifeste quod probandum assumpsimus, posse stare libertatem cum agendi necessitate; solam coactionem ei repugnare; nec ●sse de ejus conceptu quidditativo ipsam indifferentiam, horumque exempla adducere possumus, qualia adducunt praeallegati Auctores in Deo, Angelis & daemonibus.  
In Deo quidem, quia in eminentia simplicissimi actus Divini quo Deus se diligit ut bonum infinite diligibile, intelligere debemus quidquid perfectionis est in agente per intellectum & voluntatem. Ut ergo summa ejus perfectio est, quod se super actus suos reflectat & judicet se bene judicare, & velit se velle, ac per hoc sit vere Dominus sui actus & liberrime agat: sic & concipere debemus Deum non solum cognoscere seipsum ut infinite amabilem, non solum amare seipsum infinito amore, sed & intelligere & judicate quod bene judicet, & velle per voluntatem sequi judicium rationis, & velle diligere, & quod semper & invariabiliter summum bonum est & summe diligendum, velle semper & invariabiliter diligere; ideoque beatam sibi imponere necessitatem nunquam non diligendi; ideoque esse vere Dominum sui actus, & non obstante necessitate esse vere liberrimum.  
Certe nefas est tam abjecte de Deo sentire, ut putemus eum praecipiti & concitato amoris aestu se unquam dilexisse. In aeternis, inquit Aristoteles, idem est esse & posse; ut id semper in Deo fuisse novetimus, quod aliquando esse posse sine errore intelligimus. At si concepimus aeternitatem pro cerebri nostri debilitate, seu per commensurationem ad tempus, nihil omnino addubitabimus, quin nunc saltem post elapsas infinitas seculorum myriades, noscant Pater & Filius se mutuo ardore, eoque justissimo, non minus quam infinito aeternum dilexisse. Non dubitabimus quin approbent suum velle & velint velle, & velint se notionaliter diligere: quod nunc ipsis inesse intelligimus, semper fuisse non non dubitemus: Domini sunt & fuerint sui actus, sponte se dilexerunt & diligunt: Ergo actus ille dilectionis vere liberrimus, nec ut naturae foetus considerandus, sed ut liberrimae voluntatis motus plenissime spontaneus. At simul etiam necessarius est, nec poterat aut potest non esse, cum nequeat Deus aut seipsum odisse, aut seipsum non amare. Fateor omnino, & ex hoc ipso concludo quod superius dixere tot Patres, stare necessitatem cum ipsa libertate, nec indifferentiam ipsi esse essentialem.  
Augustinus lib. 1. operis imperfecti contra Julianum fol. 150. objicienti juliano, Liberum non est, nisi quod duo potest velle bonum & malum; respondet, Liber ergo Deus non est, qui malum non potest velle: siccine laudas Deum ut ei auferas libertatem? An potiùsi intelligere debes esse quamdam beatam necessitatem, quâ Deus injustus esse non potest? Igitur stat suprema ratio libertatis in Deo cum necessitate se amandi, nec aliqualiter peccandi, quae in eo non aliud est quam firmissima, indeficiens, aeterna & immutabilis voluntas seu amor justitiae, aequitatis atque fidelitatis erga se; non potest se non amare; erga nos si loqui vult, non potest nisi verum dicere; sipromittit, fidelis est, & se negare non potest.  
En igitur indifferentiam specificationis a Deo remotam. Restat sola indifferentia agendi & non agendi, quae propria est exercitii; sed ista in Deo prorsus periit, hoc ipso quo semel immobili voluntate voluit arque statuit, quid in singulis circumstantiis agendum sit, quam retractare non potest. Quapropter si hoc duntaxat est esse liberum, indifferentem esse ad agendum & non agendum, liber fuisse Deus dici potest, liber vero esse non potest: imo vero nec liber fuisse dici potest. Quando enim liber fuerit, cum ab aeterno, hoc est, sine ullo initio, semper ad agendum vel non agendum determinatus fuerit? An ad instantia rationis veniendum erit, ut realem in Deo libertatem invenire possimus? Vel ergo & esse & fuisse semper liberum oportet, vel nunquam fuisse, nec esse, quod est impium cogitasse.  
Hoc ipsum quod in Deo ostendimus, videndum est modo in Angelis & hominibus qui viatores esse desierunt. Certe quotquot horum aeternam felicitatem sunt adepti, necessario immutabiliter Deum amant, & tamen eos in hoc bono liberos asseruerunt superius Sancti Patres. Nimirum non impetu concitantur ut bruta, nec pondere suo ruunt in centrum suae quietis ut lapides, sed ex rationis plenissimo, tranquillissimo serenissimoque judicio judicant sibi diligendum esse Deum, quem vident infinite diligibilem, & in hoc se sanissime judicare judicant: ex voluntate vero amando sequi rationem volunt, & hoc se velle volunt & cessare nolunt, & toto charitatis aestu Deum amare satagunt, ideo & seipsos movent, & sui actus dominium perfectissimum habent, vel in ipsa vel per ipsam quam sibi imponunt immutabilem diligendi necessitatem liberrimi existunt. Ut non frustra aut inconsulte dixerit Divus Thomas in 4. dist. 48. q. 10. quod respectu amo●is beatifici, erit sempiterna & libera electio. Et Divus Bonaventura rationem assignans & modum explanans in 2. dist. 25. q. 2. Necessitas coactionis repugnat libertati arbitrii, necessitas verò immutabilitatis non pro eo quod arbitrium dicitur liberum, non quia sic velit hoc, ut velit vel velle possit ejus oppositum, sed quia omne quod vult appetit ad sui ipsius imperium, quia sic vult aliquid, ut velit se velle illud, & ideo in actu volendi seipsum movet & sibi dominatur; & pro tanto dicitur liberum, quamvis immutabiliter ordinetur ad illud.  
Praeterea volunt Scholastici idcirco Deum nunc esse liberum, quia in illo instanti rationis liber, hoc est, indifferens fuit, & ex propria libertate se determinavit, in qua determinatione propter naturae voluntatisque constantiam immutabilis permanet. Hoc si Scholasticis sufficit, nulla ratio superest cur non & perpetuam illam justitiae voluntatem seu amorem beatificum, quo beati Angeli & homines peccare non possunt, liberrimam voluntatem esse contendant. Est enim certissimum Angelos & homines qui beati fiunt, ita libera indifferentique voluntate justitiam elegisse, propriaque se libertate determinasse ad diligendam pietatem & justitiam & in ea perseverandum, sicut Deus ad opera quibus vel creaturas vel aliquid in creaturis operatur. Non enim imaginandum est aliam Beatis infundi cum beatitudine voluntatem, quae propter perpetuam determinationem non sit libera, sed eadem omnino voluntas libera, seu amor justitiae liberrime susceptus in via, sine ulla mutatione firmior, & ardentior, & jucundior in patria perseverat, dicente Apostolo, Charitas non evacuatur. Igitur si immutabilitas naturae in Deo non extinguit primigeniam electionis libertatem, ideoque Deus quamvis immutabilis & ad unum determinatus, nihilominus liber intelligitur, quia in illo primo signo rationis concipitur fuisse indifferens: certe immutabilitas gratiae in Beatis quae naturalem Dei immutabilitatem non adaequat, sed solum imitatur, multo minus eorum libertatem interimet, aut ullatenus prohibebit quin, quantumvis immutabiles & determinati, revera tamen dicantur liberi, qui olim plane indifferentes, hanc sibi immutabilitatis determinationem & necessitatem voluntate liberrima elegerunt. Stat ergo in beatis Angelis & hominibus libertas sine indifferentia.  
Sed & stat quoque in peccantibus Angelis, seu semetipsos amantibus, ut in damnatis hominibus, quorum voluntas in malo obfirmata & ad malum determinata in aeternum sive naturae constantia, sive gratiae destitutione, sive damnationis aequitate & pondere, stabilis perseverat: quam tamen nemo dixerit esse minus liberam, etsi non alia quam illa ipsa, quam dixi, consideratione qua dicitur Deum esse liberum, quia se ipsum libere sua voluntate determinavit. Ita Divus Thomas q. 16, de malo, a. 5. 0. & ad 6. & 8. Secundum modum naturae suae competit Angelo ut immobiliter haereat ei quod per propriam voluntatem elegit, unde sicut motus aversionis à Deo fuit in diabolo voluntarius, ita etiam & quies in eo quod voluit est voluntaria; nam voluntariè perseverat in malo, sed tamen voluntas ejus in hoc immutabiliter manet determinata. Et Divus Bernardus loco supra citato: Nec Deus caret suo libero arbitrio, nec diabolus: quoniam quod ille esse non potest malus, non infirma facit necessitas, sed firma in bono voluntas, & voluntaria firmitas; quodque is non valet in bonum respirare, non aliena facit violenta oppressio, sed sua ipsius in malo obstinata voluntas ac voluntaria obstinatio. Igitur probatissimum manet, non esse essentialem libertati per se spectatae indiffesentiam, posseque sine hac libertatem subsistere, & cum inevitabili agendi necessitate componi, dummodo haec necessitas oriatur ab ipsa voluntate & ab immutabili firmitate & complacentia qua suo objecto inhaeret & agglutinatur.  
Objicies vel ipsum Divum Augustinum vel alios sanctos Patres, qui liberum arbitrium definiunt interdum per indifferentiam, vel per potentiam boni & mali.  
Respondeo, quod talis definitio non est per essentialia; sed quemadmodum Ambrose lib. de arca No cap. 4. & Augustinus lib. de ordine c. 11. & lib. de quantitate animae cap. 25. hominem definiunt Animal rationale mortale, non quod crediderint esse de essentia hominis, quod sit mortalis, aut quod immortalitas glotiosa destructura sit nostram naturam; sed quod intenderint definiendo homini in hoc statu infelici, in quo moriendi necessitas est naturae omnium hominum conditio inseparabilis. Ita etiam ideo vel ipsi vel alii definientes liberum arbitrium indifferentiae meminere, non quod existiment libertatem stare non posse sine hac indifferentia, sed quod libertatem considerent qualis in hominibus reperitur in hac vita huic annexam indifferentiae. Fuit igitur eorum scopus, non tam definite naturam libertatis in se spectatae, quam ejusdem contra Manichaeos probare existentiam, quae ex indifferentia, omnibus hominibus, dum hic vivunt, communi, manifeste convincitur: Ut enim passiones humanae, doloris, famis, sitis, lassitudinis, somni, sunt veritatis naturae nostrae certissimi indices, quibus se ideo Christus subjecit, ut se verum hominem comprobaret: nec tamen dici potest, quod sint essentiales naturae nostrae, quodque qui his carebunt in caelo Beati, desinant esse homines: ita verissime quisquis hanc habet indifferentiam et potest facere bonum et malum, operari et non operari, necessario liber est, quamvis dici nequeat quod quisquis hanc perdit indifferentiam, perdat et libertatem.   

CAPUT. IV.  
Stare posse meritum sine indifferentia & cum ipsa agendi necessitate.  
QUae de libertate probavimus, nunc de merito lubet ostendere, quanquam unum ex altero probatum maneat, et qui primum admiserit, nequeat de posteriori dubitare.  
Imprimis praeter Auctores superius allegatos et loca ex iis adducta Divi Thomae suffragium habemus manifestum, dum is in 1 p. docet, Angelos meruisse in primo suae creationis instanti, et simul definit non eos aliquam habuisse indifferentiam ad primam illam operationem quae erat ad unum determinata et necessario bona.  
Rursum idem statuit dum docet necessitatem amoris in Beatis nequaquam obstare merito, si status ipse beatitudinis huic non repugnaret. Sic enim 2 2. q. 4, a. 4 0. dicit. Quod voluntas videntis Dei essentiam ex necessitate amat, quicquid amat sub ordine ad Deum. Et postea 2, 2, q. 182, a. 2, ad 2. asse●it illum ipsum amorem a quo removerat indifferentiam et adstruxerat necessitatem, esse per se meritorium, nisi conditio ipsius status perfectae beatitudinis, ulterioris progressus meritum excluderet. In statu (inquit) felicitatis futurae homo pervenit ad perfectum, & ideo non relinquitur locus proficie di per meritum; si tamen relinqueretur, esset efficacius meritum propter majorem charitatem. Similiter 3 p. q. 19, a. 3, ad 1, negat D. Tbomas posse Christum in caelo quidpiam mereri, non ex agendi necessitate ad unum determinante, sed ex ipsa ratione status. Christus (inquit) meruit per charitatem, in quantum erat charitas non comprehensoris sed viatoris; & ideo quia nunc non est viator, non est in statu merendi.  
Adhuc in 3. dist. 18. a. 2 ad 5. dicit, quod etiamsi liberum arbitrium Christi esset determinatum ad unum numero, sicut ad diligendum Deum, quod non facere non potest, tamen non ex hoc amittit libertatem aut rationem laudis sive meriti, quia in illud non coacte sed sponte tendit, & ita est actus sui dominus. Nimirum perstat D. Thomas in suo illo centies repetito principio, quod sola necessitas coactionis tollit libertatem & facit involuntarium, & ideo excludit rationem laudis & meriti, non autem necessitas immutabilitatis, complacentiae, aut firmatae voluntatis in benum. Ita 2 2. q. 88 a. 3 ad 3, et q. 186, a. 2, ad 2. et 1. p. q. 62, a. 8 ad 3. et in 3. dist. 12, q. 3, a. 1 ad 3. et alibi passim.  
Addo his Divi Thomae et superius adductis Patrum et Scholasticorum auctoritatibus ponderationem argumenti efficacissime a summo Christianae fidei mysterio deprompti et a praefatis Auctoribus saepe insinuati ad ostendendam libertatis et meriti cum ipsa agendi necessitate concordiam.  
Petitur hoc argumentum e libertate et merito Christi Domini dum esset in hac vita: negari siquidem non potest absque everso Religionis fundamento, quin Christus Dominus liber fuerit, et meruerit in iis ipsis actibus, in quibus nullam potuit habere indifferentiam. Sumo hujus rei exemplum in ea morte quam ex Patris praescripto debuit perferre: haec enim quamvis in se esset objectum indifferens voluntati Christi, at ut jussa a Patre non poterat non acceptari a Christo, quia quamvis in sensu diviso posset Christus non mori, ut et caetera opera ei per praeceptum imposita non implere: at in sensu composito jam nullus remanebat locus indifferentiae: Cum qui non poterat habere indifferentiam ad peccandum vel non peccandum, non etiam poterat esse indifferens ad obediendum vel non obediendum. Q●omodo ergo fuit liber circa hoc praeceptum formaliter sumptum, si non habuit facultatem indifferentem ad utrumlibet? Quomod● libere obedivit, qui non obedire non potuit? Libere quidem obedivisse in morte appetenda certissima res est, cum ex communi omnium consensu, ubi non est libertas, nullus sit locus merito; nec per consequens potuisset Christus promereri salutem nostram in ea oblatione, si non in ea offerenda liber extitisser. At quomodo liber, si non est libertas sine indifferentia, nec libere fit, nisi quod omitti aut non fieri potest? Tenebatur Christus praecepto Patris mortem imperantis, joann. 6. Non veni ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem Patris qui misit me. joann. 10. Nemo tollit animam meam, sed ego pono eam, & iterum resumo eam: hoc mandatum didit mihi Pater. joann. 18. Calicem quem dedit mihi Pater, non vis ut bibam illum? Philipp. 2. Factus obediens usque ad mortem. Erat Christus ut peccati aut criminis, sic & cujuscumque vel levis imperfectionis incapax, ut posset se subtrahere nedum ab imperio & praecepto Patris, sed nec a quibuscumque vel levissimis quae ei quomodocumque placita intellexisset; quomodo ergo indifferens in morte appetenda? Mori debuit sub praecepto, non potuit non velle obedire: ergo non indifferens ad mortem. Si non indifferens, quomodo liber? Sed si non liber in obediendo, quomodo salutem nostram potuit mereri per hunc actum obedientiae? & quomodo dicit Paulus, Factus obediens usque ad mortem, propter quod & Deus exaltavit illum, etc.  
Variis effugiis eludunt hoc argumentum indifferentiae protectores, dum dicunt, non fuisse mortem Christo imperatam secundum omnes circumstantias, nec ex motivo diversarum virtutum, in quibus eligendis & exercendis libertatem habuerit. Verum non tangitur, ne dicam evacuatur per has evasiones difficultatis nervus, qui in eo est, ut ostendatur libertas Christi in observatione praeceptorum; sive legis naturalis, sive legis positivae & paternae, in qua quia praefati Auctores feu recentiores Theologi non vident indifferentiam, sic nec admittunt libertatem. Ideoque cum pernegent Christum fuisse liberum circa praecepta, recurrunt ad nescio quas circumstantias & virtutes non jussas ex praecepto, in quibus vel aliquam saltem libertatis umbram Christo condonant, removentes consequenter omne meritum & laudem ab ipsius obedientia & praeceptorum observatione: cui nihilominus Paulus Apostolus omne meritum adscribit, Factus obediens usque ad mortem, propter quod & Deus exaltavit illum, etc.  
Non ergo est quaestio de salvanda Christi libertate in his quae justa non erant, sed de ea comprobanda in o●…i●e ad praecepta, cum obedientia essentialiter p●…e●… tum respiciat, asseratque deinde Apostolus C●…um in obediendo fuisse liberum, dum eum ●…i in obediendo meruisse, cum tamen non poster non ob●…ite. Difficultatem in hoc inv●niu●…●raefati recentiores; sed certe vel haec sola difficultas qua se torquent, in salvanda in his actibus alioquin nec●s●ariis, Christi libertate, permagnum mihi est argumentum, quod notio quam habent de libertate, non sit vera nec adaequata, cum eos impediat ne eam agnoscant ubi supreme eminet. Fatentur ut fateri debent, potentiam peccandi necesse libertatem, nec partem libertatis, quodque e contrario summa libertas sit, non posse peccare, ut expresse cum Divo Augustino & Divo Thoma universa docet Theologia; & tamen dum inquirunt quomodo Christus potuerit esse liber, in hoc uno haerent, quod peccare nequiverit, sicque, velint nolint, ideo vix eum audent tueri liberum, quia norunt summe & supreme liberum. Ridiculam prorsus contradictionem! & illi plane similem qua quis admisso quod claudicatio nec fit ambulatio, nec pars ambulationis, sed turpissimus in ambulance defectus, mox ideo negate vellet Patrum ambulare, quod videret Petrum non claudicate. Si Christus obnoxius fuisset pecc●co ut caeteri hominum, nihil laborassent in a●noscenda ejus libertate: at quia non in eo vide● q●od ad libertatem non confert, sed libertati multum detrahit (posse peccare) jam liber non est, utque aliqualem in eo salvent libertarem, quaerunt aliquam in eo potestatem si non peccandi, at saltem minus perfecte & divine operandi, multa agendo absque expectato Patris sui nutu, in quibus, inquiunt, non fuisset liber, si ea Pater ei jussisset, quia jubenti Patri non obedire non potuisset. Intricatam plane Philosophiam & quae seipsam turpiter collidit!  
Spinas nimirum repetiunt & punguntur, ubi rosas colligerent si non ab antiqua & Patrum & Scholasticorum doctrina recessissent: haec ipsa quippe non peccandi necessitas, quae eos absterret ne libertatem discernant in actionibus Christi perfectoribus, eas ipsas actiones supreme liberas eis ostendisset, eoque liberiores quo magis n●cessarias. Audissent enim dicentes Divum August num, Thomam, Bonaventuram & alios supra allegatos, quod necessitas coactionis repugnat libertati arbitrii, non autem necessitas immutabilitatis; & quod necessitas coactionis tollit rationem meriti, necessitas autem immutabilitatis ex interiori voluntatis inclinatione & virtuosi habitus perfectione procedens, non laudem, non meritum virtuosi actus tollit, sed perficit, auget, non minuit.  
Talis omnino fuit Christi necessitas felicissima, secundum quam non poterat non obedire Patri. Num enim in hac illatam aliquam vim externam putas, quae eum ad obedientiam cogeret? Num determinationem aliquam servilem, qualis reperitur in brutis, quae non tam agunt quam aguntur ex praesentia objecti & apprehensione phantasiae? Nec hoc delilaret ipsa impietas. Unde ergo ipsi tam arcta necessitas ad paternas leges, nisi ex ipsissima ejus voluntate tam firmiter bono cohaerente & tam immobiliter Deo adfixa, ut non posset vel minimum ab ejus nutibus recessisse. Augustinus lib. de corr. & grat. cap. 11. Neque enim metuendum erat ne isto ineffabili modo in unitatem personae a Verbo Deo natura humana suscepta, per liberum voluntatis peccaret arbitrium, cum ipsa susceptio talis esset, ut natura hominis ita a Deo suscepta, nullum in se motum malae voluntatis admitteret. Et lib. de praedest. Sanct. cap. 15: An ideo in illo non libera voluntas erat et non tanto magis erat, quanto minus servire peccato non poterat?  
Demum ad hujus lucidissimae veritatis plenam intelligentiam deponendae anticipatae opiniones, quae mentem praeoccupant, e● con●ulendum rationis naturalis vel solum lumen, a quo prorsus abhorret, ut dic●m●r nos liberi in obedientia ad Deum, quia obedimus nutanti voluntare et ad singula momenta pene defectura. Christus vero, quia forti, quia plena, quia infracta voluntate obedivit, non ei libere obediverit, obedivit ex amore et consummata illa charitate qua in Patrem aestuabat: nihil autem amore liberius, nec quidquam tam libere fit, quam quod fit ex amore.  
Num, quaeso, risu et sibilis foret dignus qui succenseret puero quod non libere Patri suo obediat, quia tam impense Patrem diligit, ut prae amoris magnitudine nequeat vel minimum ejus praeterisse mandatum? Quis tam insulse philosophatur, ut dicat, mulietem parum sui viri amantem, libere magis aegro assidere quam quae tota erga virum in amores colliquatur: quod quae parum diligit, plenam habeat sui operis indifferentiam, et tam sit patata deserere quam assidere: quae vero ferventer amat, toto sui amoris pondere quasi suavi simul et ineluctabili necessitate trahitur, ut in aegri solatia se totam impendat? Quis dicat generosum militem, ad defectionem et proditionem in suum Principem magna praemiorum spe sollicitatum, parum aut nihil apud Principem meruisse dum non consentit, quod innata animi nobilitate adstrictus, et summo in Principem amore quasi religatus, nequiverit fidem suam prodere, quam forte prodidisset, si minus sui Principis amans, aut minus animo nobilis extitisset? Mentem exuerit qui hoc dicat, nec potius videat quod quo arctiori necessitate adstringitur puer ut Patri obediat, mulier ut viro assideat, subditus ut Principi serviat: eo et magis libere agunt, et plus laudis merentur, ex quo ista necessitas non est necessitas coactionis aut violentiae quae minuit laudem actus virtuosi, quia opponitur voluntario (ait Divus Thomas) sed est necessitas complacentiae ex interiori voluntatis inclinatione procedens, hoc est, ex ardentissimo affectu filii in patrem, conjugis in virum, et subditi in Principem. Haec enim necessitas (addit D. Thomas) laudem virtuosi actus non minuit, sed auget, quia facit voluntatem magis intense tendere in actum virtutis, & minus ab eo deficere. Et ideo quo magis augetur necessitas, eo et libertas: cumque summum suae perfectionis attigerit, ut in Christo & Beatis, qui Deum amant immobiliter, eique obsequuntur immutabili necessitate, tunc quoque & libertas perfecta est ac plane consummata.  
Igitur Christi erga Patrem praestita toto vitae decursu obedientia, er maxime in sui ipsius offerendo per crucem sacrificio, ut fuit actio supremi meriti, ita & fuit supremae libertatis, quamvis simul & semel fuerit supremae necessitatis, ex quo impossibile erat, quod dilectus hic Filius dilecto Patri non obediret. Nec vero ad haec concilianda opus est falsis subtilitatibus cerebrum implicare, sed solum meminisse illius quod ait D. Bernardus, Ideo in obedientia libero non caruisse arbitrio, quoniam quod non posset non obedire, non infirma faciebat necessitas, sed firma in bono voluntas & voluntaria firmitas.  
Stat er●o quod in hoc & superiori capite probandum assumpsimus, indifferentiam non esse essentialem libertati aut merito, nec simplicem necessitatem, qualis est complacentiae & immutabilitatis, libertati aut me●ito repugnare.   

CAPUT. V.  
De sensu composito & diviso.  

SECTIO PRIMA.  
Ezponitur nodus controversiae inter Molinistas & Sanctorum Augustini & Thomae Discipulos circa liberi arbitrii cum gratia efficaci concordiam.  
EOs hactenus sensus examinavi, quos controversae propositionis cortex primo velut intuitu repraesentat. Distinxi pravos & damnatos a bonis nec damn●bilibus, dum ostendi in primo capite illegitimam Baii doctrinam de libertate aut peccato primis concupiscentiae motibus attributo, religiosissime fuisse damnatam. Dum in secundo capite insinuavi indifferentiam ad bonum & malum ab homine via ore non nisi erronee posse negari: Dumque demum in tertio & quarto capite per rationes Theologicas & ex Patrum solidissima ment, a qua ple●…que recentiorum satis inconsulte & inadvertenter recesserunt, libertatem cum agendi necessitate composui, & absque ulla indifferentia stare posse demonstravi.  
Deregendus superest praecipuus & secretior finis qui Molinistas movit ut propositionem controversam miro ambiguitatis studio implicatam connecterent, & a Sede Apostolica damnandam postularent. Quid enim quaerunt? Num ut per damnatam hanc propositionem damnetur sensus Baii tanquam a Jansenio renovatus? Non hoc quaerunt qui Jansenium aequssimae Baii damnationi subscripsisse certo certius norunt. Num ut indifferentia, tum contradictionis tum contrarietatis, putetur ab homine, dum vivit, inseparabilis? Norunt & hoc etiam a Janseno millies assertum, ac velut fidei dogmata contra Calvinum & alios hujus seculi novatores, ex Augustino Scripturas ubique allegante, firmiter constitutum. Num ut non liceat deinceps opinari Deum & Beatos in sua felicitate, aut daemones & damnatos in suis aerumnis liberos esse, nec tamen indifferentes, sed immutabilis voluntatis necessitate illos ad bonum, & hos ad malum esse determinatos? Non hoc etiam quaerunt, qui ignorare non possunt, id olim venerabili Patrum antiquitati constanter acceptum, id nec ab hodiernis etiam Scholis ita exulat, quin absque aliqua censurae formidine & licuerit semper, & liceat nobilissimis Scoti Discipulis, se etiam ex frequenti Divi Thomae suffragio non inaniter protegentibus, vel in ipsa Spiritus Sancti aeterna ac pet se primo necessaria processione libertatem asserere? Non igitur hoc quaerunt, quod se expresse obten●utos sperare nequeant.  
Solius gratiae Christi efficacis & humanorum cordium omnipotentissima facilitate vict●icis, eversioni intendunt; huic cum Pelagio bellum indixere, & huic ab Ecclesiae fide eliminandae suas disponunt machinas. Quamvis igitur omnia fort●ssis supradicta quaerere se simulent, & quasi male a Jan●enio asserta mentiantur, ea quae sub unius propositionis censura & damnatione proscribenda sollicitent, non tamen haec quaerunt, sed per haec aut in toto aut in parte obtenta, insidiantur solidissimae veritati, quam, licet a Censoribus impensatam, a Judicibus intactam, & a sententia nota penitus immunem, volunt tamen velut formaliter damnatam ex probabili apud imperitos consequentia se posse traducere. Diffidunt quippe de suae causae aequitate, quam in Fausto, Cassiano, & aliis Semipelagianis Massiliensibus lugent totius Ecclesiae maledictis eversam. Vident quam se periculosae viae commiserint. Sed quo imprudentiam suam in suscepta semel doctrinae Catholicae impugnatione ipsa facti contumacia cohonestent: &, quod perseveranter agunt, prudenter inchoasse judicentur: nihil relinquunt intentatum, ex quo quodammodo sperent se, si non victoriam assecuturos, saltem adversae sibi partis jura perturbaturos.  
Admittunt omnes Divi Augustini & Divi Thomae Discipuli plenam in homine, dum vivit, ad bene vel male agendum indifferentiam, quam nulia tollat gratiae quantum cunque efficacis determinatio. Admittunt liberum hominis arbittium, etiam sub moventis gtatiae delectatione constitutum, adhuc tamen posse bonum, ad quod movetur, non tantum non facere, sed etiam facere malum. Verum quia non admittunt, quod olim contentiosissime postulabat Pelagiusi, & constantissime negabat Augustinus, posse componi actualem creatae voluntatis dissensum cum ipsa actuali motione gratiae efficacis, seu (ut in Scholis loquuntur) dicunt motionem efficacem Divinae gratiae non tollere a libero arbitrio indifferentiam, aut vero inferre necessitatem sensus divisi, sed solum sensus compositi, hoc est uno verbo, & libertatem salvant & gratiae efficaciam. Hinc Molinistarum adversus eos incitata contentio, & ferocissimus armatus furor, qui quod desperet se posse unquam perfringere aut penetrare, tentatum hactenus frustra hunc sensus compositi & divisi fortissimum clypeum, quo rubiginosa Pelagianorum tela, adversus libertatis & gratiae concordiam immissa, cuncta facillime eliduntur, de eo ab eis per dolum & insidias subtrahendo astutissime cogitavit.  
Hoc totum controversae propositionis fabricandae & apud Sedem Apostolicam criminandae arcanum secretissimum: si enim obtinerunt Molinistae damnari propositionem quae asserit, ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiri in homine libertatem a necessitate, sed sufficere libertatem a coactione, mox inferent audacissime, damnatam etiam necessitatem sensus compositi, de qua tamen Sedes Apostolica nec per somnium cogitaverit, exultabuntque exultatione pessima, & orbem inplebunt camoribus, explo sam gratiam Christi efficacem & consecratam gratiam Molinisticam; quod non aliud esset quam damnatam erroris omnium seculorum fidem, & declaratam Pelagii innocentiam.   

SECTIO SECUNDA.  
Distinctionis sensus compositi & divisi necessitas in rebus Theologicis ostenditur.  
COnstat imprimis hanc sensus compositi & divisi distinctionem prorsus ad infinita necessarium, nobi●que olim ab Aristotele indicatam in 1 Elench. cap 3, usurpasse millies Divum Thomam in sua Theologia, ubi & necessitatem sensus compositi explicat interdum per nomina aequipo●lenti●, necessitatis ex suppositione, necessitatis conditionat●, necessitatis consequentiae, necessitatis de dicto, necessitatis immutabilitatis & infallibilitatis. Necessi●atem vero sensus divisi exprimit sub nominibus necessitatis simplicis, absolutae, consequentis, dere, & coactionis. Usi sunt & eadem distinctione in materia de praedestinatione, gratia & libero arbitrio, Divus Augustinus lib. de civit. Dei cap. 10. & lib. de praedest. Dei, cujus locus refertur a Gratian. cap. Vasis i●ae. II. Quamvis 23, q 24. S. Prosper de vocatione gentium. cap. 18. D. Anselmus lib. de concordia praedest. & lib. atb. cap. 10. Concilium Coloniense in enchiridio Christianae institutionis, de Sacramento poenitentiae. Boetius Severinus a. Divo Thoma & Scoto relatus, Magister Sententiatum in 1. dist. 28. Alexander de Hales, Divus Bonaventura, Scotus, & quotquot post illos fuere Theologi Scholastici.  
Hujus siquidem distinctionis necessitas talis est, ut nequeant sine illa aut apte exponi, aut in concordiam revocari, multa quae alioquin in sacris Litetis & Conciliis videntur dissonantia. Duo hujus ●ei exempla profero. Definit Concilium Trident. sess. 6, c. 5, & can. 4, quod semper cum Augustino & Thoma docuerant antiquiores Theologi, Hominem a Deo per gratiam motum & excitatum posse abjicere inspirationem divinam, illique dissentire si velit. Quomodo, quaeso, haec Concilii definitio consonet cum variis Scripto ae locis, in quibus dicitur, posse neminem dissentire aut resistere volenti aut moventi Deo? Esther 13. Pr. 7.3. Isa. 14, 46, 47. & Rom. 9 Quis dicat aut Concilium Tridentinum Scripturis repugnare, aut Scripturas Concilio? Certe per hanc solam distinctionem possunt conciliari, ut intelligantur Scripturae locutae in sensu composito, Tridentini vero Patres in sensu diviso. Rursum quis audiat Joannem Apostolum 1.1, dicentem, Omnis qui natus est ex Deo non peccat; sed nec peccare potest, quoniam semen Dei manet in illo? An non natus est ex Deo David? An non Petrus Apostolus? An non justi alii plerique, quos tamen post acceptam gratiam & potuisse peccare, & turpiter peccasse Scriptura commemorat? An ergo Scripturae contraria? Nequaquam: peccare enim possunt justi absolute & simpliciter in se spectati & in sensu diviso; At ut justi, ut ex Deo nati, ut semen divinae gratiae in se habentes non peccant, nec peccare queunt in sensu composito: sed ex necessitate conditionata & suppositionis impeccabiles sunt. Implicat enim haec duo simul esse vera, quod scilicet aliquis sit natus ex Deo, hoc est, existat in gratia, & quod simul peccet mortaliter: quand oquidem gratia & peccatum mortale in eodem subjecto simul sic non possint. Dictum igitur Joannis Apostoli sic explicatum nullam facit difficultatem, quod sine hac distinctione esset intolerabile.   

SECTIO TERTIA.  
Sensus compositi & divisi germana intelligentia, & ad concordiam gratiae cum libero arbitrio applicatio.  
NE errari contingat in explicatione sensus compositi & divisi, aperienda est spontanea Mo●…starum hallucinatio, qui in suam & olim Pelagianorum laesae libertatis querelam possint probabiliter ingerere, aliter hos sensus intelligere se fingun● quam sint intelligendi. Dicunt enim 

Ita imponunt Thomistis Suarez lib. de concursu Dei c. 10. n. 5. & lib. 3. c. 9 n. 4.  
Molina 1 p. q. 14. a. 13. disp. 18. m. 2.  
Vasquez 14 p. q. 1. a. 13. disp. 68 c. 3 & 5.  
Coninc. de actib. supernatural. l. 1. disp. 2. dub. 3.  
Lessius de gratia efficaci, c. 3. n. 19  
Meratius de grat. disp. 6. sect. 1. & alii communiter.   hanc Thomistarum propositionem, Liberum arbitrium mot●m a Deo potest dissentire in sensu diviso, & non potest d●ssentire in sensu composito, sic esse inteligendam, quod quandiu motio divinae gratiae est in nomine, ille nequeat dissentire, sed necessario converratur: ab●ata vero motione illa efficaci, tunc po●e●it dissentire & non converti. Non, inquam, est iste verus sensus hujus propositionis, sed sensus a Molinistis egregie confictus, & tanquam haereticus ac humanae libertatis penitus destructivus, falso adscrip●us Divi Augustini & Thomae Discipulis, cum tamen ab eorum ment sit alienissimus.  
Certe tamburlaine clare & tam frequenter se isti explicant 

Ita se explicant Capreolus in 1. disp. 38. q. 1 ad 2. art. 1. Ferrariensis lib. 1. cont. Gentl c. 67.  
Dominicus Soto de grat. & lib. arb. lib. 1. c. 16.  
Bannez 1 p. q. 14. a. 13. dub. ult. & 2 2. q. 10. a. 1. dub. 2. docum. 3. ad 4.  
Alvarez de auxil. disp. 25. n. 19 & disp. 92. num. 5 & 6.  
Ledesma q. unica de auxil. a. 12.  
Cabrera, Cumel, Salmanticenses, Gaspar & omnes passim Thomistae.  , ut nullus in eos supetsit calumniae locus. Supponunt doctrinam probatissimam & per se manifestam Aristotelis & D. Thomae 9 Metaph. lect. 10; quod in causa contingenti & libera simul est potentia ad utrumque oppositorum, quamvis horum altero actu efficiatur: non tamen est potentia ad opposita simul habenda. Sic enim in homine, quamvis actualiter aut sedente aut ambulante, est simultas potentiae ad sedendum aut ambulandum, non tamen est potentia simultatis, hoc est, potentia ad ambulandum & fedendum simul. Et similiter in patiete est simul potentia ad esse nigrum & ad esse album, quae non ab eo tollitur per actualem albedinem aut nigredinem, non tamen est potentia ad esse simul album & nigrum, Et ratio est, quia potentia ad unum actum non repugnat potentia ad actum contrarium; nec etiam repugnat actui contrario: Sed tota repugnantia & incompatibilitas est solum in ipsis actibus contrariis, qui simul & semel reperiri nequeunt in eodem subjecto. Itaque juxta hanc doctrinam facillime explicant Thomistae suam propositionem, liberum arbitrium efficaciter a Deo motum non posse dissentire in sensu composito; dum dicunt non componi aut combinari in hac propositione auxilium efficax cum sola voluntate creata aut sola potentia ad resistendum, sed cum ipso actuali dissensu & resistentia voluntatis. Nec enim hujusmodi auxilium habet repugnantiam & incompossibilitatem cum potentia & libertate dissensus aut resistentiae voluntatis, sed cum solo ejus dissensu aut resistentia actuali.  
Igitur si haec propositio, Petrus sedens non potest ambulare in sensu composito, non significat quod quando Petrus sedet amiserit aut potentiam progressivam aut libertatem ambulandi. Cum vero non sedebit, jam & potentiam & libertatem ambulandi recuperabit; sed significat ambulationem & sessionem esse actus simul incompossibiles in Petro. Ita & haec propositio, liberum arbitrium motum a Deo auxilio efficaci, non potest dissentire in sensu composito, non significat quod quando motio est efficax in homine, non posset dissentire si velit; ablata vero motione efficaci, tunc possit dissentire; sed significat motionem actualem auxilii efficacis & dissensum & resistentiam voluntatis in homine esse incompossib●lia, nec minus inter se pugnare quam pugnent in Petro sedere simul & ambulare, vel sedere & non sedere. Itaque sicut Petrus dum sedet, ideo liberrime sedere intelligitur, quia potest surgere, potest non sedere, potest ambulare, quamvis ipsam ambulationem nequeat componere cum actuali sessione. Ita liberum arbirrium dum a Deo efficaciter movetur, ideo libertime moveri seu consentire intelligitur, quia ad dissentiendum & quidvis aliud operandum, liberrimam retinet potestatem, quamvis actum dissensus aut resistentiae non possit componere cum ipsa motione divina actuali.  
Omnem, si quae superest, difficultatem tollent quae superius diximus in examine secundae propositionis controversae c. 2 & 3, ubi ostendimus ex Divo Augustino, motionem gratiae efficacis & bonam operationem nostram se inseparabiliter comitari. Ostendimus ex Divo Thoma, impossibile esse eum non moveri, quem Spiritus Sanctus movere velit. Ostendimus ex Thomistis & Bellarmino implicare contradictionem, nec ab homine sanae mentis concipi posse, quomodo Deus actualiter moveat animam, & anima non moveatur actualiter, cum movens & motum sint correlativa. Haec enim omnia manifeste probant, motionem gratiae efficacis in voluntate non importare aliquam prioritatem temporis ante consensum ipsius voluntatis, sed solam prioritatem naturae, et quidem talem, quae dici nequeat prioritas existentiae, quasi in uno signo naturae existat motio efficax, et in alio signo existat consensus voluntatis; ut enim diximus, movere et moveri correlativa sunt. Nec potest concipi Deus in aliquo instanti naturae seu existentiae movere, quin in eodem voluntas concipiatur mota seu consentiens. Tota ergo haec prioritas naturae consistit in dependentia actus seu consensus voluntatis a gratiae promotione. Caeterum in eodem instanti nedum temporis, sed et naturae, in quo verum est dicere, voluntas praemovetur per gratiae efficacis auxilium ad Dei amorem, in eodem verum est dicere, voluntas nunc libere elicit actum amoris: unde fit, quod ponere tale auxilium efficax in voluntate, est etiam ponere, quod eadem voluntas libere consentiat. Sicut ergo repugnat, quod Petrus sedens possit ambulare in sensu composito (quamvis alioquin, ut ostendimus, liberrime se●eat), quia nimirum incompossibiles sunt in Petro simul et semel sedere et non sedere: ita repugnat quod liberum arbitrium motum a Deo, et simul consentiens possit dissentire in sensu composito (quamvis alioquin liberrime consentiat), quia nimirum incompossibiles sunt actualis consensus & actualis dissensus liberi arbitrii.  
His ita positis et explicatis, ingeminent Molinistae suas de laesa per gratiam hominis libertate querelas. Massilienses dicunt libertatem consistere in hoc quod, positis omnibus ad agendum requisitis, possit agere & non agere. Una hae distinctio sensus compositi et divisi ab Augustino et Thoma nobis porrecta, omnia erum argumenta retundet. Non enim necesse est, ut cum omnibus illis ad agendum requisitis, inter quae etiam caelestis delectatio seu gratia est, stet simul, ut non agat voluntas, sed solum ut possit non agere. In libero enim arbitrio quantumcumque ad agendum praeparato, imo determinato et actu operante, requiritur, ut diximus, simultas potentiae ad operandum et non operandum, non potentia simultatis, ut videlicet simul agat et non agat, hoc est, ut clarius exposuimus, in libero arbitrio est potestas ad opposita, non tamen potestas simul in se habenda: hoc enim nemo nisi insulsus dixerit. Hoc ergo sensu admittimus Molinistis, libertatem intelligendam, ut nimirum positis omnibus ad agendum requisitis, etiam caelesti quacumque dulcedine, praedeterminatione et auxilio gratiae efficacis praemoventis, stet simul, ut possit non velle, non autem ut simul non velit. Potentia enim non volendi non repugnat omnibus illis ad volendum requisitis, sed solus actualis dissensus, quo actualiter non velit. Itaque in sensu diviso potest voluntas non facere id quod Deus per gratiam efficacem in ea operatur, in sensu vero composito nequaquam.  
Horum utrumque insinuat Divus Augustinus, dum infirmitatem voluntatis humanae quae potest in peccatum deflectere, passim copulat cum indeclinabili gratiae firmitate, qua fit, ut invictissime nolit a bono, ad quod excitatur, averti. Lib. de corrept. et grat. cap. 12. Subventum est igitur infirmitati voluntatis humanae, ut divina gratia indeclinabiliter & insuperabiliter ageretur. Rursum: Et ideo quamvis infirma, non tamem deficeret, neque adversitate aliqua vinceretur. Rursum: Infirmis servavit ut, ipso donante, invictissime quod bonum est vellent, & hoc diserere invictissime nollent. Ubi infirmitatem voluntatis allegat, ostendit ejus libertatem absolutam, & in sensu diviso, quae etiam sub gtatia constitura, potest gratiae dissentire. Ubi invictissimam, indeclinabilem & insuperabilem gratiae actionem nominat, ostendit infallibilitatis seu sensus compositi necessitatem, qua non possit voluntas ab opere bono ulla tentatione ita declinari, ulla adversitate ita superari, ut actualis declina●io & superatio voluntatis una cum Dei gratia conjungatur. Id ipsum D. Thomas 1 2. q. 10. a. 4 ad 3: Si Deus movet voluntatem ad aliquid, impossibile est huic positioni quod voluntas ad illud non moveaetur (en necessitatem sensus compositi & condionatam) non tamen est impossibile simpliciter (en libertatem sensus divisi & absolutam) unde non sequitur quod voluntas ex necessitate moveatur, simplici scilicet & absoluta, quae sola cum libertate pugnat. Sic & in Boetium lib. 5 de consolatione, prosa ult. per ea●…dem distinctionem sensus compositi & divi●… concordat Dei praescientiam cum rerum continge●…●cens, Quae praevisa sunt a Deo necessario evenire in sensu composito, contingenter vero in sensu divise. S●…nt ipse ibi exponit necessario necessitate conditionata, non necessitatet absoluta. Vel, ut ipsemet lib. 1 cont. gent. cap. 67, neccessario necessitate consequentiae, non necessitate consequentis.  
Igitur necessitatem hanc sensus compositi in libero arbitrio sub gratiae motione constituto, tanquam ipsius libertatis humanae inimicam velle criminari, non aliud est, quam aut terminos non capere, aut manifeste delirare? sed nec delirio, nec terminorum ignorantia laborant qui eam criminantur, imo consultissimo astu tentant, quod viribus nequeunt, & suppresso callidius apud Sedem Apostolicam tum hujus necessitatis sic explicatae, tum gratiae efficacis nomine, quasi neutri immineant, & de neutra cogitent; propositionem controversam tanquam male sanam, Baianam, Jansenisticam, Calvinisticam, Turcicam, & diabolicam, simplici veritatis & Religionis zelo ementito damnari deflagitant, ut mox sub necessitatis nomine universaliter & aequivoce in damnata propositione expresso, damnatam etiam ipsam sensus compositi necessitatem, de qua Sedes Apostolica ne quidem cogitaverit, stabilitam sensus compositi indifferentiam, proscriptam victricem Christi gratiam, & consecratam demum Massiliensem Molinae sufficientiam audacissime mentiantur, nequissime glorientur.  
Haec bona eorum fides, quae, quia modo cognita, non eis quidquam proderit. Quamvis enim millies damnarerur propositio, quam damnari percupiunt, si non adhibita distinctione, sublata aequivocatione, restricta universalitate, & semota omni ambiguitate damnatur, & in ipso damnationis decreto specialissimam censurae notam in necessitatem hanc conditionatam intorquet: non haec, inquam, in damnatione comprehensa reputabitur adeo libertati innocua, adeo vindex libertaris a Christo liberatae.  
Meminerint Molinistae sibi per hanc ipsam allegatam sensus compositi necessitatem a P. Thoma Lemos & P. Didaco Alvarez obstructa saepius ora coram summis Pontificibus Clement VIII. & Paulo V. dum ad nauseam usque in variis Congregationibus de Auxiliis pro libero hominis arbitrio contra Christi gratiam egregii bellatores caput quintum et canonem quartum sessionis sextae Concilii Tridentini pro sua causa adducerent, in quo definit sanctum Concilium, Hominem a Deo motum posse inspirationem abjicere, eique, si velit, dissentire. Consulant acta Congregationum, et videant contra recoctam hanc crambem, quam jugiter recoquebant, assignatam sibi hanc distinctionem sensus compositi & divisi; admissam in libero arbitrio necessitatem conditionatam, seu in sensu composito, ut moventi gratiae consentiat; assertam libertatem absolutam & in sensu diviso ut dissentiat, & de hac explicatum tam fuse, et tam saepe, & tam luculenter Concilii locum, ut nec Judices, nec Consultores iam pati possent, quod inermis Bastida et prope exanimis pro sua saltem defensione, et ne inultus moreretur, ad excussum sibi pluries e manibus hoc pilum rursum vellet recurrere.  
Igitur ut Conciliilocus, quem pro se tam expressum mentiebantur, & tam ferociter intorquebant, hihil eis profuit quin causa caderent, sic nec quidquam proderit controversae propositionis obtenta proscriptio, ni ea nominatim hanc sensus compositi necessitatem profliget & confodiat. Profligabit autem (sic sperem securissime) cum Sedes Romana fiet Pelagiana, & adversus eam inferi portae praevaluerint, cum defecerit fides Petri, pro qua Christus rogavit ne deficiat, & cum suam Spiritus Sanctus deseruerit Ecclesiam, quam spopondit se nunquam desertutum.  
Ut vero distinctius intelligant quid sint ab hac veritatis Sede reportaturi, quoties non per fraudem circuitus, non per aequivocationum labyrinthos, non per sensus propositionum ambiguos et implexos, sed exerte, clare et distincte aliquid contra gratiam Christi efficacem, aliquid in favorem gratiae Fausti Molinisticae definiri postulaverint; Audiant explicatissimam mentem Consultorum Congregationis de Auxiliis circa sequentes articulos, qui omnes ad rem nostram.  
Ex actis Congregationis de Auxiliis.  
QUi dixerit, gratiam qua Deus operatur in nobis velle & perficere, non sic movere voluntatem, nostram, ut ex virtute motionis Dei per eam operantis sit infallibile quod actu consentiamus & operemur, errat.  
Qui dixerit, gratiam istam ad volendum & operandum quae pertinent ad salutem, aut non esse ita efficacem, ut praeveniendo voluntatem nostram, ipsam vera & reali efficientia praemoveat, & faciat velle atque operari, aut sine ea posse aliquem actu velle & operari, errat.  
Qui dixerit gratiam efficacem excitare, allicere, invitare & suadere voluntatem, non tamen ita ut Deus efficaciter moveat voluntatem ipsam ad consentiendum: sed ipsa jam consentiente et cooperante, simul cum ea influat tantum in actum, errat.  

1 
Ez Conc. Araus. can. 4 & 5.  
Aug. ep. 107. Petro Diacano, c. 9  
Fulgentio de incarnat, & grat. c. 18, 28, 29, & 30.   Qui dixerit, efficaciam gratiae Dei, seu hoc quod est, auxilium gratiae esse efficax, pendere a consensu et cooperatione liberi arbitrii hominis: aut liberum hominis arbitrium suo consensu et cooperatione efficere auxilium gratiae efficax, adversatur doctrinae qua ab Ecclesia Dei definitum est, Deum etiam in illis quos vocat gratis, non expectare eorum voluntates seu consensum ad ipsos gratia sua adjuvandam, quasi ab ipsorum libero arbitrio sic penderet, quod consentiant vocationi, aut velint id ad quod sunt vocati, ut Deus hoc in iis non operetur efficaci sua gratia, sed ab iis expectet pro innata ipsis voluntate, errat.  


Ita sentio Petrus Lombardus Archiepiscopus Ardmacanus.  
Ita sentio Archiepiscopus Fr. Jo. de Rada Episcopus Pactensis, etc.  
Ita sentio Laelius Landus Episcopus Neritonensis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Hieronymus Pallantius Episcopus Bisontinus.  
Ita sentio Anastatius Abbas Farfensis Secretarius.  
Ita sentio Fr. Io. Bapt. de Plumbino Ord. S. Aug. Procurator Generalis.  
Ita sentio Fr. Gregorius Nunnius Coronel Secretatius.  
Ita sentio Fr. jacobus le Bossu Doctor Sorbonicus, Religiosus S. Dionysii in Francia.         

An Answer to a Writing of M. Hallier and his Colleagues, containing Sixty Passages of S. August. relating to the First Proposition; in which we show, that there was none of them but what was either falsely or impertinently alleged.  
Advertisement touching this Answer.  
THe only thing needful to be signified to the Reader touching this Answer (besides what I have already said of it, Part. 6. Chap. 21.) and which he will observe of his own accord as he reads it, is, that I have added thereunto whilst it was printing four Notes or Observations, which he will find printed in different Characters from those of the body of the Writing, to signify more plainly that they were annexed thereunto. Three of them are placed after our Answer to what the abovesaid Gentlemen said in the beginning of their writing, imputing the first Proposition to Jansenius; and the Fourth after our Answer to the Nineth Testimony of S. Augustin, which they had cited in their Writing: That which we presented to the Pope in refutation of them, was thus entitled upon the outside of the first leaf; BEATISSIMO PATRI INNOCENTIO PAPAE DECIMO PRO DOCTORIBUS infra subscriptis S. Augustini Defensoribus, CONTRA DOMINOS Hallier, Lagaut & Joysel Doctores Parisienses, sive jesuitarum, sivae suo, sive alio quocunque nomine agentes in negotio quinque propositionum. INFORMATIO QUARTA IN JURE. In qua explanantur sexaginta Sancti Augustini testimonia a D. Hallier ejusque sociis contra primam propositionem in scripto quodam anonymo producta. Ostenditurque ea omnia vel mala fide vel perperam citata esse.  
There was also withinside another Title here subjoined.  
EXPLANATIO Sexaginta testimoniorum S. Augustini. Seu Confutatio Scripti cujusdam anonymi & à nemine subscripti, quod in manus nostras pervenit, quodque rescimus oblatum fuisse à Domino Hallier & Sociis ejus contra primam propositionem; in quo 60 circiter S. Augustini testimonia adversus eam ab ipsis proferuntur.  
CLarius atque commodius nullum fieri potest hujus scripti examen, quam si integrum referatur, ac singula testimonia in eo contenta sigillatim explanentur, sed prius aliquae notae in totum scriptum scribendique rationem subjiciendae sunt ad pleniorum controversiae intelligentiam necessariae.  

Notae generales in totum Scriptum.  

I.  
NOn ponitur quod in quaestione est, nihil ergo toto hoc scripto agitur. Ut primae propositionis veritas expendatur, duo tantum inquirere necesse est, scilicet, an gratia ex se efficax sit necessaria ad singulos pios actus, & an illa gratia det posse proximum ad hunc actum ad quem est efficax, adeo ut per illam possimus, & sine illa non possimus▪ His enim duobus positis, propositio, ut desenditur a nobis, & ut a jansenio asseritur, vera est. Nam sigtatia ad praeceptum implendum necessaria sit ex se efficax, certum est justos, qui praeceptum aliquod non implent, gratiam ex se efficacem, ad illud implendum necessariam, non habere. Et si eadem det posse proximum & completum ad hoc implendum, si per eam possumus, & sine ea non possumus, certum est etiam aliquos justos, hac gratia efficace destitutos, aliquando aliquod praeceptum implere non posse proxime & complete. Haec autem duo de quibus potissimum agitur, agique omnino necesse est, ut propositio juxta sensum a jansenio assertum, & a nobis defensum expendatur, ne attinguntur quidem, nec proinde quidquam de iis ex allatis Sancti Augustini testimoniis concludi potest. Mala ergo fide in hoc scripto agitur, ac frustra tot S. Augustini testimonia proferuntur.   

II.  
Ponitur & probatur plurimis locis quod in quaestione non est, imo quod Iansenius confitetur, quodque nos ut certum & Catholicum asserimus. Confitemur Deum nihil impossibile hominibus praecipere, nihil cuiquam praecepisse impossibile; S. Augustini, Concilii Tridentini, Ecclesiae universae doctrina haec est. De hoc non agitur, hoc non controvertitur: sed illud unum explorandum, quid, cum hoc dicunt, intelligant S. Augustinus, Tridentinum, Ecclesia. Nihil impossibile homini Deus praecipit, quia per gratiam fieri potest; quidquid praecipit fieri potest, si natura sanetur & adjuvetur gratia Dei per Christum, Hic est S. Augustini sensus contra Pelagium, & Tridentini contra Calvinum. An autem gratia Christi, sine qua praeceptum fieri non potest, detur omnibus, illud est de quo quaeritur. Dicimus non dari omnibus, Negamus hinc sequi quod Deus impossibilia praecipiat, nisi illa sententia sumatur secundum sensum Pelagii, non Augustini. Quidquid ergo ex S. Augustino proferunt adversarii, ut ostendant Deum impossibilia non praecipere, vanum est, nec ad rem pertinet, ac mala fide agunt.   

III.  
S. Augustini testimonia truncant ac mutilant, dolose supprimunt quae illius mentem plane explicant, illi sensum penitus alienum & contrarium affingunt, ut ex ipsis locis manifestum est. Denique haec omnia testimonia aut falso, aut fraudulenter, aut nequaquam ad rem allegant.   

IV.  
Multa S. Augustini testimonia hinc & inde adducunt, ut plurimum non dicendo qua de re in iis agatur, quid valeant, quid probent, qua intentione ea referant. Non est haec sincera veritatis indagandae ratio, sed apertum de ea occultanda consilium. Quam sinceriore modo agamus patet ex scripto nostro circa primam propositionem, ubi S. Augustini testimonia discutimus, quid valeant, quid probent ostendimus, ea singulis conclusionibus ordinatim arteximus.   

V.  
Simulant se gratiam ex se efficacem ad singulos pios actus necessariam non impugnare. Se gratiam quidem sufficientem admittere ac probare, sed eam qua gratia ex se efficax non destruitur, & tamen nulla est vis omnium fere testimoniorum quae proferunt, vel si ad aliquid valeant, valent ad destruendam gratiam ex se efficacem ad operandum & orandum necessariam; & cum ex iis concludunt semper dari aliquam gratiam sufficientem ad operandum seu ad orandum, vel nihil concludunt, vel gratiam sufficientem Molinisticam, seu libero arbitrio quoad usum subjectam intelligunt.   

VI  
Cum S. Augustini sententia clara & expressa ex iis libris in quibus dogmatice contra Pelagianos disputat, eorum errores refutat, Ecclesiae fidem defendit, praecipue inquirenda sit, quod nos in scripto nostro circa primam propositionem facimus, alia via procedunt advetsarii, ac praecipue ex moralibus S. Augustini, e fermonibus, e Psalmorum expositionibus, ex operibus contra Manichaeos testimonia proferunt. In quibus ex professo non agit de his quaestionibus, quanquam tamen nec quicquam in iis sit quod adversatiorum sententiae faveat, ut ostendemus.   

VII.  
Imponunt jansenio, ut infra ostendetur.   

VIII.  
S. Augustini testimonia referendo ejusdem auctoritatem destruunt, ut etiam probabitur.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
Prima Propositio.  
ALiqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia. Deest quoque iis gratia quâ possibilia fiant.  
Docet Jansenius tom. 3. lib. 3. de gratia Salvatoris cap. 33. qui & addit: Hoc enim S. Petri exemplo aliisque multis quotidie manifestum est, quitentantur ultra quam possint sustinere.  

RESPONSIO.  
HOc docet jansenius, & ex multis S. Augustini locis colligit, sed ex antecedentibus & conquentibus, a quibus propositio avulsa est, clarum est quam recto sensu illud dixerit. Nam non loquitur nisi de posse completissimo, quando voluntas sic est praeparata per Christi gratiam, ut non nude possit, sed etiam velit; quod posse completissimum dicit non haberi nisi per actualem Christi gratiam proxime necessariam ad id quod agendum est, quae dat non solum posse si velis, sed & velle quod potes. Sic loquitur libro 3. de gratia Salvatoris cap. 15. Sect. Quarto itaque completissime dicimur posse, quando Sancti Spiritus inspiratione sic voluntas praeparatur, ut non nude possit, sed etiam velit. Tali gratia non solum posse, sed etiam ipsum agere adjuvatur: dat enim non solum posse si velis, sed & velle quod potes. Hoc posse nunquam habetur nisi quando reipsa quoque agitur; & est proprius effectus non fidei, aut charitatis, seu bonae voluntatis habitualis, sed illius gratiae actualis, quam Christus attulit hominibus infirmis per crucem suam. In hoc ergo tota quaestio circa hanc propositionem consistit, an gratia efficax proxime ad agendum necessaria det completissimum posse ad agendum. Hoc est, ita completam agendi possibilitatem, ut nihil aliud per modum principii ex parte Dei ad agendum requiratur; Quam possibilitatem S. Augustinus de natur. & gratia cap. 42. vocat possibilitatem cum effectu. Nihil aliud Iansenius dicit, nihil aliud asserimus. Quamdiu adversarii hoc non refutaverint, nihil agent. Hoc autem toto hoc scripto nequaquam attingunt.   


Nota prima.  
Hoc scripto ante omnem Propositionum censuram summo Pontifici exhibito, apertissime innotescit, a Doctoribus Augustinianis nihil aliud circa primam Propositionem defensum fuisse, quam gratiam per se efficacem ad singulos pios actus esse necessariam, & per illam dari posse proximum & completum, seu, ut infra exponitur, ita completam agendi possibilitatem, ut nihil aliud per modum principii ex parte Dei ad agendum requiratur, quod solum gratiae per se efficacis ad singulos actus necessariae dogma continet. Dum primam propositionem veram & a se defendi aiunt, hunc unum sensum defendunt: ac, ne quis suspicaretur, aut primam Propositionem ab iis simpliciter defendi, aut alium in ea quam gratiae per se efficacis sensum defendi, vulgo eandem propositionem ita exprimunt ac limitant, Propositio ut defenditur a nobis, propositio juxta sensum a nobis defensum. Ergo ante constitutionem prima Propositio de haeresi damnata, utpote ab isto gratiae per se efficacis sensu alienissima, nequaquam ab Augustinianis defensa est.   

Nota secunda.  
Hoc uno scripto Augustiniani Jansenii sensum attingunt. Etsi enim de hoc in ista de quinque Propositionibus controversia agere ipsis minime propositum esset, nullamque ejus mentionem fieri monuisset summus Pontifex, cum tamen adversarii hoc suo scripto ejus verba referrent, & alienum ab ipso sensum illis affingerent, fieri non potuit, quin Augustiniani respondendo id óbiter animadverterent, & hanc hallucinationem veri Iansenii sensus circa primam Propositionem expositione detegerent. Non tamen de defenso Iansenii sensu quidquam Romae auditum dixeris, quia haec, quantumvis pro argumenti magnitudine ac difficultate brevissima, ac obiter solum dicta, nec lecta nec examinata sunt. Cum enim, ipso fatente, 
Cavilli pag. 37.  nulla deinceps, post audios Doctores, Consultorum collatio, nulla Congregatio habita fuerit, ita nullum hujus scripti & aliorum summo Pontifici simul exhibitorum examen institutum est.   

Nota tertia.  
Ex hac Ianseniani sensus obiter in hanc responsionem inserta defensione videre licet, unum semper ac constantem Augustinianis sensum de tota ista materia fuisse, nec, ut quidam cavillantur, eos post constitutiones demum ubique receptas ad hanc de male intellecto ab adversariis Iansenii sensu querelam & disputationem confugisse. Ecce enim hic & responsione sequenti aperte clamant, perperam ab adversariis intelligi jansenium & illi gravissime imponi. Non ergo Iansenii sensus nomine unquam defenderunt illos errores, qui ipsi ab adversariis tribuuntur. Sed falso illos affingi jansenio constanter, & ante & post constitutiones affirmarunt. Idem semper de gratia, idem de jansenio senserunt. Solam ipsi efficacem gratiam propugnarunt, solam a jansenio efficacem gratiam explicatam ac defensam arbitrati sunt: hoc uno aliquantum a se non sensu, sed verbis dissimiles, quod ante constitutiones gratiae efficacis doctrinam in Propositionum verbis, minus stricte & rigorose sumptis, includi posse merito, ut aliqui e Romanis Consultoribus sentiebant: eadem vero consensu Ecclesiae declaratione summi Pontificis, penitus jam ab iisdem exclusa, nihil jam in illis remanere fateantur nisi errorum faecem merito a quibusque reprobandam.     

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
COnstat verò ex ejus doctrina & pincipiis secundo toto isto libro, 3. & alibi, etiam justis, quotiescunque transgrediuntur mandata Dei, deesse gratiam, tum illam qua eadem implere possint, tum istam quâ auxilium ad praecepta implenda sufficiens impetrare queant.  

RESPONSIO.  
IMponunt gravissime jansenio, nisi per auxilium sufficiens intelligant Molinisticum, quod revera nunquam adesse in hoc statu docet jansenius, quia per illud vera Christi gratia destruitur, & Pelagianus error restituitur. Nunquam vero dixit justos, quotiescumque transgrediuntur praeceptum, nullam habere gratiam. In hac ipsa propositione de qua agitur, quaestio est de justis volentibus utique per gratiam aliquam; dicuntur enim volentes, imperfecte scilicet & invalide per hanc parvam gratiam, ut docet S. Augustinus de gratia & libero arbitrio, in testimoniis quae Iansenius praecipue citat in locis ubi de hac propositione agit. Dum ergo dicit jansenius, non adesse gratiam qua possint praecepta implere, intelligit de gratia dante posse ita completum, ut det simul plenum velle, sed non excludit aliam parvam gratiam, & quae tanta non est, quanta sufficit ad praeceptum aliquod implendum. Dum vero dicit Iansenius non adesse gratiam qua possint impetiare auxilium operandi, intelligit non adesse tantam gratiam, qua tam perfecte oretur, quam perfecte orandum est, ut impetretur magna Dei gratia, quae non nisi magnis gemitibus imploratur. Saepe enim Iansenius asserit esse parvam gratiam incipiendi, imperfecte volendi, tepide orandi, in eo qui non operatur, non perficit, non plene vult, quique ardenter & perseveranter non orat, ut videri potest multis in locis apud ipsum jansenium. Legatur de gratia Salvatoris lib. 2. cap. 27. lib. 4. cap. 16, 17, 18. lib. 8. cap. 2. & postea adversariorum fide judicetur.  
Hanc autem parvam gratiam non vocavit quidem gratiam sufficientem ad operandum, quia non existimavit illud auxilium ad aliquid sufficiens dici, praeter quod aliud auxilium necessarium est: sed reipsa gratiam sufficientem sumpram pro parva & imperfecta, quae tanta non est quanta sufficit ut volendo faciamus, sed quae sufficit & efficit ut imperfecte velimus, non solum non negavit, sed in locis citatis & ubique sicut veram Christi gratiam adstruxit, docuitque eam saepe reperiri in iis qui transgrediuntur aliquod praeceptum.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[I S. Augustini Testimonium ab Adversariis contra primam propositionem productum.]  
COntrarium docet Sanctus Augustinus. 1. Nemini à Deo impossibilia praecipi docet libro tertio de libero arbitrio, capite decimo octavo.  
Quaecunque ista causa voluntatis, si non ei potest resisti, sine peccato ei ceditur; si autem potest, non ei cedatur, & non peccabitur; an forte fallit incautum? ergo caveat ne fallat. An tanta fallacia est omnino non pssit? si ita est, nulla peccata sunt; quis enim peccat in eo quod caveri nulla modo potest? peccatur autem; caveri igitur potest.  Approbat lib. 1. Retract. cap. 9 in quorum recensionem haec habet. 
In his atque hujusmodi verbis meis, quia gratia Dei commemorata non est, de qua tunc non agebatur, putant Pelagiani, vel putare possunt, suam nos tenuisse sententiam: sed frustra hoc putant; voluntas quippe est quâ & peccatur, & recte vivitur, quod his verbis egimus.  Approbat lib. de natura & gratia cap. 67. 
Agnosco, verba measunt; sed etiam ipse dignetur agnoscere superiùs cuncta quae dicta sunt. De gratia quippe Dei agitur, quae nobis per Mediatorem medicinâ opitulatur, non de impossibilitate justitiae. Potest ergoci causae, quaecumque illa est, resisti? potest plane; nam in hoc adjutorium postulamus, dicentes, Ne nos inferas in tentationem: quod adjutorium non posceremus, si resisti nullo modo crederemus: Potest peccatum caveri, sed opitulante illo qui non potest falli.  

RESPONSIO.  
I. SI quid probat hic locus sumptus ex adversariorum ment, nimis probat; probat quod falsissimum est, & S. Augustino evidenter contrarium, proindeque nihil probat: nam vel adversarii probant quod intendunt, vel ex hoc loco colligunt dari semper aliquam gratiam veram & internam voluntati, ut peccatum vitari possit, quia alias peccatum non esset, cum vitari non posset: Ergo datur semper singulis adultis, infidelibus, excaecatis, & aliis, aliqua vera Christi gratia voluntati interna quotiescumque peccant; quia si non daretur, juxta adversariorum principia dici non posset peccatum vitari posse: Hoc autem cum falsissimum sit, & S. Augustini doctrinae penitus repugnans. Quando S. Augustinus dicit peccatum vitari posse, sensus non est, quod omni peccanti semper infundatur a Deo vera & interna voluntatis gratia. Adversarii ergo nihil omnino ex hoc loco probare possunt. Jam autem quis sit hujus testimonii sensus videamus.  
II. Nihil probat hoc testimonium adversum nos, sed potius confirmat quod dicimus. Quis enim negat peccatum posse vitari, posse illi resisti, justitiam non esse impossibilem? De hoc inter nos quaestio non est, sed de sensu quo S. Augustinus id asserat, dicimus hoc sensu asseri, quia, ut docet de perfect. justitiae Caelestio respondens cap. 2. Vitari potest peccatum, si natura sanetur gratiâ Dei per Christum. Et hoc ipsum in loco citato docet his verbis: Potest peccatum caveri, sed opitulante illo qui non potest falli. Hoc est, potest caveri quando Deus opitulatur: si autem intelligatur hoc sensu, quod Deus semper opitulatur ad vitandum peccatum, quod semper cuique inest peccati vitandi possibilitas proxima per gratiam Christi semper praesentem, qua voluntas pro nutu suo vel implet praeceptum ex pietate, vel impetrat auxilium, illud Pelagii principiis conforme esse dicimus, & a S. Augustino contra Pelagium semper negari, ut ostendimus in scripto circa primam propositionem cap. 5. art. 1. & 2. & art. 13. respons. 1. & 2. Ut ergo adversarii id de quo solum quaeritur probarent, in hoc deberent insudare, ut ostenderent gratiam Christianam, per quam praeceptum seu orandi, seu credendi, seu operandi, fit proxime & complete possibile, semper a Deo omnium hominum cordibus misericorditer infundi, ut verum sit quod Deus in sensu S. Augustini impossibilia non praecipit. Aliqua testimonia Augustini proferre deberent quibus illud demonstrarent.  
Sed hoc a doctrina S. Augustini omnino alienum est, apud quem peccatum & ab homine sano & ab homine lapso vitati potest, sed diversolonge sensu; ideo enim ab homine sano peccatum vitari potest, quia semper habet gratiam praesentem qua id proxime pro nutu suo possit; ideo vero ab homine lapso peccatum vitari potest, quia, ut diximus, per gratiam vitari potest, seu si natura gratia Dei per Christum sanetur. Sed, ut S. Augustinus aperte in locis citatis docet, natuta non semper sanatur per Christi gratiam, & tunc, ut loquitur, ex infirmitate, quae poena peccati est, non potest, sive non videndo qualis esse debeat, sive videndo & non volendo esse qualem se debere esse videt; hoc docet & retract. lib. 1. cap. 8. libros de Libero arbitrio recensens, & cit. cap. 6. de natur. & grat. quae infra referentur.  
Quoties ergo quae S. Augustinus de peccato in libris de lib. arb. dixerat, peccatum scilicet non esse quod vitari non potest, & similia; Pelagiani illi objecerunt, & eo sensu intelligi voluerunt, ut peccatum non esset, nisi quicumque peccat, semper proxime posset illud vitare, seu nisi in quoque homine semper esset illud pro nutu suo posse vitare & recte facere; toties S. Augustinus respondit se quoad istum sensum locutum esse de peccato, quod tantummodo peccatum est, non vero de peccato, quod simul & peccatum est, & poena peccati. Lib. 1. retract. cap. 9 sic loquitur: Et in libro tertio, cum dixissem illud quo & Pelagium de meis opusculis usum fuisse commemoravi; quis enim, inquam, peccat in eo quod nullo modo caveri potest? Peccatur autem, caveri igitur potest. Continuo secutus adjunxi, & tamen per ignorantiam facta quaedam judicantur, etc. Et mox infra: Sunt etiam necessitate facta improbanda, ubi vult homo recte facere & non potest, etc. Sed haec omnia hominum sunt ex illa mortis damnatione venientium; nam si non est ista poena hominis, sed natura, nulla ista peccata sunt. Et infra sic concludit●… Et alio loco, approbate, inquam, falsa pro veris, ut erret invitus, & resistente atque torquente dolore carnalis vinculi, non posse a libidinosis operibus temperare, non est natura instituti hominis, sed poena damnati. Cum autem de libera voluntate recte faciendi loquimur, de illa scilicet, in qua homo factus est, loquimur. Ecce jam longe antequam Pelagiana haeresis extitisset, sic disputavimus, velut jam contra illos disputaremus. Quae omnia in libro de nat. & gratia cap. 67. similiter dicit. Eodem modo cum Iulianus objiceret S. Augustino definitionem peccati ab eo contra Manichaeos prolatam, scilicet, Peccatum est voluntas amittendi vel retinendi quod justitia vetat, & unde liberum est abstinere; S. Augustinus ter illi in libro 1. operis imperfecti, nempe cap. 44. 47. & 104. respondit, se ibi peccatum definivisse quod tantummodo peccatum est, non quod etiam poena peccati: Ita definitio peccati, inquit cap. 104. ejus est quod peccatum tantummodo est, non quod etiam poena peccati, qua perit libertas non peccandi, a quo malo non liberat, nisi ille cui non tantum dicimus, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, verum etiam, Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera noc a malo.    

SCRIPTUM ADVESARIORUM  
[II. Testimonium.]  Idem libri 3 citati de libero arbitrio cap. 9 
Objicientibus cur cum ignorantiae caecitate & cupiditatis difficultatibus homines nascantur, ita respondet.  
REcte fortasse quererentur, si erroris aut libidinis nullus hominum victor existeret; cum vero ubique sit praesens qui multis modis per creaturam sibi Domino servientem aversum vocet, doceat credentem, consoletur sperantem, diligentem exhortetur, conantem adjuvet, exaudiat deprecantem, non tibi deputatur ad culpam, quod invitus ignoras, sed quod negligis quaerere quod ignoras: neque illud quod vulnerata membra non colligis, sed quod volentem sanare contemnis: ista tua propria peccata sunt; nulli enim homini ablatum est scire utiliter, quod inutiliter ignoratur, & humiliter confitendam esse imbecillitatem, ut quaerenti & confitenti ille subveniat, qui nec errat dum subvenit, nec laborat; nam illud quod ignorans quisque non recte facit, & quod recte volens facere non potest, ideo dicuntur peccata, quia de peccato illo liberae voluntatis originem ducunt.  Approbat lib. de nat. & grat. cap. 67. relatis verbis subjungens: 
Ita exhortatus sum quantum potui ad recte vivendum, & gratiam non evacuavi, sine qua natura humana jam tenebrata atque vitiata illuminari non potest & sanari, de qua re cum istis tota vertitur quaestio, ne gratiam Dei quae est in Christo Jesu Domino nostro perversa naturae defensione frustremur.  

RESPONSIO.  
AD intelligentiam hujus loci notandum est S. Augustinum, cum hos de libero arbitrio libros scriberet, nondum cognovisse nec asseruisse initium fidei esse donum Dei, illum de hac veritate convictum fuisse solum in exordio sui Episcopatus, scribendo secundam quaestionem lib. 1 ad Simplicianum. Hoc patet ex libro de praedestinatione Sanct. c. 3 & 4, et de dono persev. cap. 20.  
I. Hoc posito, petimus ab adversariis quid ex hoc loco colligant. An omnibus ad excusationem in peccato dari gratiam Christi, ut incipiant credere & pie velle, ac ut ad Deum orando confugiant? fed quomodo ex dictis a S. Augustino in libris de libero arbitrio probare possunt dari omnibus ad credendum & ad orandum gratiam Christi; siquidem Sanctus Augustinus, cum haec scriberet, non putabat initium fidei & orationem esse donum gratiae Christi, ut praenotavimus?  
II. Si gratia generalis fidei & orationis hoc in loco a Sancto Augustino tradita esset, & dicerent adversarii eam esse quam confitentur, & quam ad fidem & orationem confiteri sufficit, se Semipelagianos esse declararent, aliam gratiam ad initium fidei non confitendo praeter istam quam Sanctus Augustinus agnoscens, nihilominus in errore Semipelagianorum versabatur, ut ipse asserit.  
III. Juxta S. Augustini doctrinam contra Pelagianos assertam, gratia si daretur ad excusationem hominum in peccatis, non esset vera gratia, ut expresse ptobat in epistola ad Sixtum; ergo repugnat S. Augustino ut gratiam aliquam ad excusationem hominibus, cum peccant, dari, in libro de natura & gratia asseruerit, & hanc esse veram Christi gratiam censuerit.  
IV. Postquam adversarios convicimus ipsos hoc testimonium tam perperam adducere, ut contra nos eo uti non possint, nisi Semipelaginanum errorem profitendo: jam illius sensus exponendus est. Itaque S. Augustinus hoc loco aliud contra Pelagium adstruit, scilicet, gratiam operum, quam Pelagius negabat, & quam praecipue in libro de natura et gratia S. Augustinus probat: aliud vero silet, scilicet, gratiam fidei et orationis, eam nec negando, quia de illa hoc loco non agebat, nec adstruendo, quia S. Augustinus libros de libero arbitrio scribens, nondum eam cognoscebat. Itaque in hoc testimonio lib. 3 de libero arbitrio gratiam non evacuavit, ut ipse testatur in libro de natur. et grat. quia scilicet in eo gratiam operum adstruxit, & gratiam fidei non negavit, de ea nihil dicendo. Sic licet in libro expositionis quarumdam propositionum ad Romanos apertius quam in ullo alio secundum errorem, in quo erat, locutus fuerit, dixit tamen libro 1 Retract, cap. 23, se ibi evertisse haeresim Pelagianam, negantem scilicet gratiam Christi ad operandum et ad Deum amandum requiri: Vnde quidem, inquit, jam evertitur haeresis Pelagiana, quae vult non ex Deo nobis, sed ex nobis esse charitatem qua bene ac pie vivimus. Proindeque Sanctus Augustinus hoc testimonium petitum ex libro 3 de libero arbitrio repetit ac confirmat in libro de natura et gratia, non ut ex eo adstruat gratiam fidei, quam nondum cognoscebat cum libros de libero arbitrio scribetet, sed ut ex eo gratiam operum contra Pelagium confirmet, ostendatque se illam non evacuasse, cum dixit homines in peccatis excusationem non habere.  
Verus ergo hujus loci sensus iste est: Sanctus Augustinus ostendit homines non habere excusationem in peccatis, quia Deus aliqua semper adjumenta vel gratiae internae, vel saltem externae hominibus confert, per quae excusatio omnis illis aufertur. Per creaturam, inquit, sibi Domino servientem. An haec gratia interna est? puta per mundi ordinem, gubernationemque admirabilem, per solem, lunam, pluvias caeteraque caeli & terrae beneficia homines a se aversos vocat, & quidem ut dicitur Actorum 14, Non sine testimonio seipsum relinquens, benefaciens, de caelo dans pluvias & tempora fructifera, quod sufficit ad auferendam excusationem hominum in peccatis. Tali cognitione, inquit S. Fulgentius de veritate praedestinat. & grat. lib. 1, cap. ultimo, ablata excusatio est, non collata salvatio. Certum autem est, hic S. Augustinum non plene solvisse hanc summam difficultatem, quomodo juste Deus de peccatoribus conqueratur, quibus gratiam necessariam non dat, nec latentes judiciorum Dei causas aperuisse. Siquidem S. Augustinus nondum,, cum haec scriberet, gratiae & praedestinationis mysterium plene cognoscebat. Nec eo in loco de gratia ex professo agebat, ut ipse dicit lib. 1 Retract. cap. 9 De gratia vero Dei, inquit, qua suos electos sic praedestinavit, ut eorum, qui jam in eis utuntur libere arbitrio, ipse etiam sic praeparet voluntates, nihil in eis libris disputatum est propter hanc propositam quaestionem. Vbi antem incidit locus, ut hujus gratiae fieret commemoratio, transeunter commemorata est, non quasi inde ageretur, operosa ratiocinatione defensa.  
Ubi vero illi contra Pelagianos & eorum reliquias de praedestinatione Dei, de hominum excusatione ex professo disserendum fuit, ubi opus fuit gratiam operosa ratiocinatione defendi, videatur quid de hac re dixerit, praecipue in epistola ad Sixtum, in qua argumentum istud ab excusatione hominum petitum plenissime solvit, non per gratiae alicujus sufficientis voluntaris internae in usu liberi arbitrii positae assertionem, sed per inscrutabila & justa Dei judicia juxta Apostoli doctrinam, qui eadem responsione hominum excusationem repressit. Videantur dicta in scripto circa primam propositionem cap. 5, articul. 13, responsione 2 & 3.  
IV. Quod haec verba, Nulli enim homini ablatum est scire utiliter, quod inutiliter ignorat, etc. Observandum est, haec legi quidem in libro de libero arbitrio, sed non repeti in libro de natura & gratia, quia forte in his verbis Semipelagianus error exprimitur, si significetur in unoquoque restare post peccatum vires, ut ad sidem se disponat, ut velle incipiat, ut suam imbecillitatem confiteatur, & ad Deum orandum confugiat. Hic mala fides adversariorum retegitur, qui haec verba retulerunt quasi Sanctus Augustinus in libro de natura & gratia repetiisset ac confirmasset. Nam his verbis ex libro de libero arbitrio citatis, mox subjungunt: Approbat libro de natura & gratia cap. 67, relatis verbis subjungens: Ita exhortatus sum.  
Dicenr adversarii: Sed haec verba S. Augustinus non retractat neque in libro de natura & gratia, neque in lib. Retract. Respondemus haec sufficienter retractata fuisse, cum Sanctus Augustinus & in lib Retract. & in lib. de praedestinat. Sanctorum cap. 3. & de dono peseverantiae cap. 20. nos monuit se ante Episcopatum de dono fidei recte non sensisse. Non est ergo quod adversarii haec ultima verba de gratia ad quaerendum & ad orandum omnibus data exponentes, hac accusatione fraudem suam tegere intelligentiumque oculis eripere praesumant.  
Haec tamen verba secundum Catholicum sensum exponi possent, dicendo neminem necessitate premi ut in peccato maneat, posse unumquemque ex suae infirmitatis experientia scire, se infirmum esse, & ab ignorantia & infirmitate, Deo adjuvante, liberari.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[III. Testimonium.]  Idem lib. 1. de Gen. contra Manichaeos cap. 3. 
ILlud autem lumen non irrationabilium animalium oculos pascit, sed pura corda eorum qui Deo credunt, & ab amore visibilium rerum & temporalium se ad ejus praecepta servanda convertunt, quod omnes hominet possunt si velint, quia illud lumen illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum.  Approbat lib. 1 Retract. c. 10, in quorum recensione haec scribit. 
Non existiment novi haeretici Pelagiani secundum eos esse dictum; verum est enim omnes homines hoc posse si velint, sed praeparatur voluntas a Domino, & tantum augetur munere charitatis ut possint, quod hic ideo dictum non est, quoniam praesenti necessarium non erat quaestioni.  
NOTA hic absolute ab Augustino asseri verum esse quod omnes homines possint ad Dei praecepta servanda se convertere, negari tantum quod sine gratia id possint, idque adversus Pelagianos non silendum, adversus alios haeretoos fileri potuisse, affirmari. Quia scilicet ad veritatem propositionis id non spectare credidit, sed tantum ad modum quo propositio vera est, significandum, ideoque tacito etiam modo veritatis propositionem subsistere existimavit.  
NOTA praeterea, dum excusat se quod agens pro libero arbitrio sileat gratiam de qua minime agebatur, similiter innuere, nec se reprehendendum esse, si forte agens ex professo de gratia, liberi arbitrii mentionem omittat, de quo nulla cum Pelagianis erat quaestio.  

RESPONSIO.  
HAec verba prout exponuntur in libro Retractat. non solum nobis non adversantur, sed valde favent. Verum est enim omnes homines posse si velint; sed praeparatur voluntas a Domino scilicet ut velint; atqui certum est apud S. Augustinum voluntatem in omnibus hominibus non praeparari. Multi, inquit, de praedestinatione Sanctorum cap. 6, audiunt verbum veritatis, sed alii credunt, alii contradicunt; volunt ergo isti credere; nolunt autem illi, quis hoc ignoret? quis hoc neget? sed cum aliis preparetur, aliis non praepaeretur voluntas a Domino, discernendum est utique quid veniat de misericordia ejus, quid de judicio. Certum est etiam apud S. Augustinum & alios Patres, voluntatem praeparari nihil aliud esse, quam nobis volitionem ipsam actualem a Deo dari, ut voluntas praeparari nunquam dicatur, nisi cum actu volumus. Hoc patet ex iis S. Augustini verbis de Christi oratione pro Petro ut fides ejus non deficeret. Sed quia, inquit de corrept. & grat. cap. 18, praeparatur voluntas a Domino, ideo pro illo non posset esse inanis oratio. Quare, ut innumeris S. Augustini locis patet, haec Apostoli verba, Deus est qui operatur velle, eodem sensu sumuntur atque ista, praeparatur voluntas a Domino, proindeque ista sicut illa gratiam efficacem denotant; ergo licet omnes possint servare mandata si velint, quia tamen nunquam volunt nisi cum voluntas eorum praeparatur, ac semper voluntas eorum non praeparetur, probari non potest ex hoc loco, omnes homines semper habere gratiam internam qua proxime possint Dei mandata servare: imo ex hoc loco probatur hanc gratiam omnibus semper non dari. Alia verba sequentia evidenter denotant, ex hoc loco concludi non posse gratiam omnibus dari qua possint Dei praecepta servare. Sic enim S. Augustinus loquitur: Sed praeparatur voluntata a Domino, & tantum augetur munere charitatis ut possint. Quis autem dixerit in omnibus hominibus, infidelibus, Atheis, Haereticis, excaecatis voluntatem tantum augeri munere charitatis ut possint Dei praecepta servare? Cum ergo in omnibus non sit illud charitatis munus, omnes non possunt, quia solum possunt cum augetur voluntas munere charitatis, & illud munus est gratia haec magna de qua loquitur S. Augustinus de gratia & libero arbitrio, cap. 15 & 16, quae tanta est, quanta sufficit ut volendo faciamus, & quam qui non habet, nondum potest. Ut pateat quam verum sit ac S. Augustini doctrinae conforme quod dicimus, jam citata ex libro de gratia & libero arbitrio testimonia integra legenda sunt. In his enim S. Augustinus dicit quod non solum possumus mandata servare si volumus, sed etiam quod ea servamus si volumus; & tamen docet nos aliquando illa non posse servare. Per hanc, inquit cap. 18, gratiam fit, ut ipsa bona voluntas quae jam esse coepit, augeatur, & tam magna fiat ut possit implere divina mandata (en illud charitatis munus quo possumus) quae voluerit cum valde perfecteque voluerit, ad hoc enim valet quod scriptum est, Si volueris conservabis mandata, ut homo qui voluerit & non potuerit, nondum se plene velle cognoscat, & oret ut habeat tantam voluntatem, quanta sufficit ad implenda mandata. Sic quippe adjuvatur ut faciat quod jubetur: Tunc enim utile est velle cum possumus, & tunc utile est posse cum volumus: Nam quid p●odest si quod non possumus volumus, aut si quod possumus nolumus! Idem docet capite sequenti, ubi & utitur eodem isto loco Scripturae: Voluntas praeparatur a Domino. Certum est, inquit, nos mandata servare si volumus, sed quia praeparatur voluntas a Domino, ab illo petendum est ut tantum velimus, quantum sufficit ut volendo faciamus. Ex his patet, nos per eamdem gratiam simul & posse & plene velle: proindeque cum omnes gratiam, qua plene velint, non habeant, gratiam et ●…on habere qua possint; etsi verum sit omnes n●…olum posse servare mandata si velint, sed etiam ea servare si velint. Quibus & similibus sententiis non significatur gratiam quae det bonum posse, & bonam voluntatem semper esse praesentem, sed denotatur omnia quae ad colendum Deum & pie vivendum pertinent, sic in bona voluntate consistere, ut cum plene volumus, possimus juste vivere, nec bona vita ab exterioribus rebus pendeat, quas habere saepe non possumus, etiamsi plene & toto corde eas appetamus.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[IU. Testimonium.]  Libro de duabus animabus contra Manichaeos, capite 11. 
NEc hi libri obscuri mihi servandi erunt, unde dicerem neminem vituperatione suppliciove dignum qui aut id velit quod justitia velle non prohibet, aut id non faciat quod facere non potest. Nonne ista cantant & in mentibus pastors, & in theatris Poetae, & indocti in circulis, & docti in bibliothecis, & magistri in scholis, & Antistites in sacris locis, & in orbe terrarum genus humanum, quod nullo modo vituperatione & damnatione dignus est, aut non contra vetitum justitiae faciens, aut quod non potest non faciens!  

RESPONSIO.  
REspondetur Sanctum Augustinum loqui tum de eo qui non facit quod facere non potest, & si velit illud facere: quia tunc invitus illud non facit: tum de eo qui naturaliter non potest; quia tunc natura, non voluntate non facit. Seu Augustinus loquitur de eo qui non potest vel ob alienam vel ob propriam naturam bonum facere, non vero de eo qui vitio naturae & ex poena primi peccati non potest, quod evidentissime patet ex tribus capitibus.  
I. Ex ipso contextu S. Augustini; Quaerit enim an peccet qui invitus & coactus quippiam facit. Respondetque ex communi notitia generis humani non peccate, quia non nisi voluntate peccatur. Voluntas autem, inquit, est animi motus cogente nullo ad aliquid vel non amittendum vel adipiscendum. Et hoc, inquit idem, ita manifestum est, & non doctrina, sed natura omnibus promptum, ut necesse non sit libros obscuros scrutari, unde discatur neminem vituperatione suppliciove dignum, qui id non faciat quod facere non potest. Quis ergo non videat Augustinum loqui de eo qui vult facere quod tenetur, & non potest, quia tunc si non facit, id non provenit ex voluntate, sed ex coactione vel violentia? oportet autem, ait Augustinus, ut volens a cogente sit liber. Qui ergo vult aliquid facere & violentia prohibetur ne faciat, non peccat, quia non volens sen invitus non facit.  
II. Id patet ex errore Manichaeorum, quem hic sibi confutandum proponit Augustinus. Manichaei enim ex ipso Augustino tum in toto hoc opere, tum in lib. 1 Retractationum cap. 15, duas animas in uno homine constituebant, unam bonam a Deo, alteram malam a principe tenebrarum; illam totius boni in homine principium, hanc vero totius mali, adeo ut si illa velit declinare a malo & facere bonum, haec ut potentior illi reluctans, eam co gat invitam malum facere quod non vult, & prohibeat bonum facere quod vult, proindeque ipsam & totum hominem pertrahat in peccatum. Quem errorem impugnat S. Augustinus, quia hinc sequeretur, nec animam bonam peccare, nec malam; non bonam, quia cogeretur a mala, proindeque non peccaret, cum non nisi voluntate peccetur, non etiam malam, quia natura peccaret non voluntate.  
III. Id manifeste patet ex consequentia & definitione peccati, quam inde deducit Augustinus, & quam explicat in libro Retractat. Cum enim dixisset, ex communi notitia hominem non esse supplicio dignum qui non facit quod non potest, statim & nullo intermedio infert hanc definitionem peccati esse legitimam: Peccatum est voluntas retinendi & consequendi, quod justitia vetat, & unde liberum est abstinere. Verum quia postea abutebantur Pelagiam his Augustini verbis ut probatent nec eum esse liberum, nec peccate qui a peccato abstinere non potest, proindeque hominem aut gratia destitutum non peccate, aut sine gratia vince●e posse peccatum. Au●…stinus in libro 1 Retractat. cap. 15, ostendit haec verba nihil favere Pelagianis; docet enim quod a seipso dictum est adversus Manichaeos, non esse supplic●o dignum qui non facit quod facere non potest, id intelligendum non esse de impotentia quae oriatur ex perversis capiditatibus vitiosae voluntatis quae ipsam pertrahant in peccatum. Cum enim his cupiditatibus illectus homo trahitur in consensum, non praeterea non peccat, imo peccat & supplicio dignus est, quia licet abstractus a concupiscentia sua, tamen voluntate peccat. Quod clarissimis his verbis asserir Augustinus loco citato Retract. Quisquis sciens peccat, si potest cogenti ad peccatum sine peccato resistere, nec tamen facit, utique volens peccat, quoniam qui potest resistere, non cogitur cedere. Qui vero cogenti cupiditati bona voluntate resistere non potest, & ideo facit contra praecepta justitiae, jam hoc etiam ita peccatum est, ut sit etiam poena peccati; quapropter peccatum sine voluntate esse non posse verissimum est.  
Itemque definitio peccati, qua diximus: Peccatum est voluntas retinendi vel consequendi quod justitia vetat, & unde liberum est abstinere, propterea vera est, quia id definitum est quod tantummodo peccatum est, quale suit primum peccatum Adae, non quod est etiam poena peccati, nam quando tale est ut idem sit & poena peccati, quantum est quod valet sub dominante cupiditate, nisi forte, si pia est, ut oret auxilium, in tantum enim libera est, quia in tantum liberata est, & in tantum appellatur voluntas: alioqui tutius cupiditas quam voluntas proprie nuncupanda est; quae non est, sicut Manichaei desipiunt, alienae naturae additamentum, sed nostrae vitium, a quo non sanamur nisi gratia Salvatoris.  
Quod ipsum etiam repetit libro 1 operis imperfecti contra Julianum cap. 44. & 47. Etenim Pelagiani arbitrantes se triumphum insignem retulisse de Augustino per ipsummet Augustinum, illi objiciebant quod adversus Manchiaeos scripserat, quodque hodie nobis ab adversariis objicitur: O lucens aurum in stercore, aiebat Julianus; quid verius? quid planius dici a quoquam vel orthodoxo potuisset? peccatum, inquit, est voluntas admittendi vel consequendi quod justitia vetat, & unde liberum est abstinere. Sed ad hoc quid Augustinus? Hic peccatum, inquit, definitum est quod tantummodo peccatum est, non quod etiam poena peccati, de hoc quippe agendum fuit, quando mali origo quaerebatur, quale commissum est a primo homine ante omnes homines malum: sed tu aut non potes intelligere, aut non vis. Et iterum: Ipse est Adam quem nostra illa definitio, quae tibi placuit, intuebatur, cum dicerem; Peccatum est voluntas retinendi vel consequendi quod justitia vetat, & unde liberum est abstinere. Adam quippe omnino, quando peccavit, nihil in se habebat mali, quo nolens urgeretur ad operandum malum, & propter quod diceret, Non quod volo facio bonum, sed quod nolo malum hoc ago; ac per hoc id egit peccando quod justitia vetabat, & unde illi liberum fuerat abstinere. Nam ei qui dicit, Quod nolo malum hoc ago, abstinere in liberum aon est. Consulatur locus integer, ubi cognoscitur ex Augustino, eum peccare & supplicio dignum esse, qui non facit id quod non potest facere, si ideo non possit, quia carnali concupiscentiae, quae ex peccato irrepsit, resistere bona voluntate non praevalet.  
Pudeat adversarios antiquas illas Pelagianorum objectiones recantare; pudeat illos cum Juliano ex Augustino contra ipsum Augustinum arma depromere; sed magis eos pudeat locum citatum non integrum sed dimidiatum protulisse. Cum enim objecissent haec Augustini verba, eum non esse supplicio dignum, qui id non faciat quod facere non potest, haec verba immediate sequentia suppresserunt: ergo peccatum est voluntas retinendi vel consequendi quod justitia vetat, & unde liberum est abstinere. Verum quo consilio, qua ment id factum sit, non admodum difficile est deprehendere; videbant enim id quod ab illis objectum est, ab Augustino in sequentibus verbis esse explicatum, paratamque esse responsionem nostram loco citato Retractionum; ideoque haec verba de definitione peccati silentio praeterierunt, qua fraus illorum subtilius & occultius delitesceret.    

SCRIPTUM ADVESARIORUM. [V. Testimonium.]  Ejusdem libri cap. 12. 
DIcere animas esse malas & nihil peccare, plenum est dementiae; dicere autem peccare fine voluntate, magnum deliramentum est; & peccati reum teneri quemquam, quia non facit quod facere non potuit, summae iniquitatis est & insaniae: quamobrem illae animae, quidquid faciunt, si natura, non voluntate faciunt, id est, si libero ad faciendum & non faciendum motu anim carent: si denique his abstinendi ab opere suo potestas nulla conce●…ur, peccato earum teneri non possumus.  

RESPONSIO.  
CUm S. Augustinus dicit reum non teneri quempiam quia non fecit quod facere non potuit, loquitur tantum de eo qui id facere non potuit ob naturalem impotentiam, sed malitiam & primaevam sui institutionem, quales esse quasdam animas naturaliter malas contendebant Manichaei, non vero de eo quia id non potuit vitio peccati & concupiscentiae ex peccato subsecutae. Id manifeste demonstratur ex quatuor probationibus.  
I. Ex ipso argumento quaestionis. Agitur enim ibi, ut asserit S. Augustinus 
Lib. 3. Retract. cap. 15.  in Retractione nujus loci, de origine mali & primi peccati quod intravit in mundum, quodque Manichaei refund●bant in animas natura sua malas. Ex quo patet, quod cum Augustinus dicit, nullas animas esse naturaliter malas, quia nemo tenetur reus, quod non fecerit id quod facere non potuit, loquitur tantum de eo qui impotens est boni ex malitia naturali, non ex vitio praecedentis peccati; ita ut haec sit argumentatio Augustini: Qui naturaliter ita malus est ut bonus esse non possit, non peccat; quia non facit quod facere non potest. Atqui secundum vos, o Manichaei! sunt quaedam animae ita naturaliter malae ut bonae esse non possint; ergo secundum vos illae animae non peccant, quia non faciunt quod facere non possunt.  
II. Id patet ex argumento S, Augustini, quia inquit, non possunt esse malae animae nisi peccent, non possunt peccare nisi voluntate, nec possunt peccare voluntate, si libero ad faciendum et ad non faciendum motu animi carent, quia tunc non voluntate, sed natura peccarent. Nam voluntas rationalis non potest alio modo fieri, quam cum facultate quadam ad bonum & ad malum; quare si qua anima humana hac facultate careret, essetque ad malum natutaliter determinata, profecto non voluntate peccaret, sed natura.  
III. Ex alia ratione quam subjungit S. Augustinus, Manifestum est non peccare animas in eo quod non sunt tales quales esse non possunt. Atqui S. Augustinum loqui de impotentia ex malitia & institutione naturali, non ex vitio peccati, manifestum est ex libro de nat. & grat. c. 8 & 9 ubi expresse docet, & parvulos qui sine lavacro regenerationis morte praeveniuntur, & juvenes vel senes qui nihil de Christo audierunt, juste ut peccatores damnari, quamvis aliud esse non potuerint.  
IV. Quia, ut observavimus in responsionibus ad objectionem praecedentem, S. Augustinus iterum tractans hoc opusculum de duabus animabus, expresse docet, reum teneri peccati, qui non facit quod facere non potuit, si id non potuit ex resistentia carnalis concupiscentiae legisque peccati, quae repugnat legi mentis & captivam ducit in lege peccati. Qui vero, inquit, cogenti cupiditati bona voluntate resistere non potost, & ideo facit contra praecepta justitiae, jam hoc ita peccatum est, ut sit etiam poena peccati. Ex quo manifestissime apparet, haec verba ab adversariis objecta, eum non esse reum peccati, qui non facit id quod facere non potuit, esse solummodo intelligenda de eo qui id non potuit ex primaeva institutione suae naturae, quod directe adversatur Manichaeis contendentibus animas, quamvis essent naturaliter malae, peccare tamen & supplicio dignas esse.    

SCRIPTUM ADVESARIORUM. [VI. Testimonium.]  Lib. 2. 2 contra Faustum cap. 78. 
SIve autem iniquitas sive justitia, nisi esset in voluntate, non esset in potestate; Porro si in potestate non esset, nullum praemium, nulla poena justa esset; quod nemo sapit nisi qui desipit.  
EX his disce duo; primum, qui ad mores spectant, nisi in arbitrio pot staies existant h c absolute in potestate nostra posse dici, p●oinde nec pr●ceptorum observationem, quae a voluntate eligi non po est, absolute in hominis potestate esse dici posse; alterum, quae ea ratione in potestate nostra non sunt, illa nec praemio digna esse, nec poena juste affici dici posse.  

RESPONSIO.  
QUis pudor, quae fides adversariorum, qui hunc locum dimidiatum obtendunt, & reticent verba immediate sequentia, quae adeo conserunt ad S. Augustini sententiam, ut se habet, exponendam? En igitur verba Augustini quae proxime sequuntur: Ignorantia vero & infirmitas, ut vel nesciat homo quid velle debeat, vel non omne quod voluerit possit, ex occulto poenarum ordine venit, & illis inscrutabilibus judiciie Dei, apud quem non est iniquitas. Et infra Et quia de hac justa poena non liberat nisi misericors gratia, certum est; & hinc Apostolus gemeb●ndus exclamat, jufelix ego homo! quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus? Gratia Dei per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum. Sed quid sit distributio judicantis & miserentis Dei, cur alius sic, alius autem sic, occultis fit causis, justis tamen.  
Sed dicent adversarii, cum S. Augustinus dicat justitiam esse in voluntate & potestate nostra; quomodo verum erit quod subjungit postea, multa nos velle in hac infirmitate, quae tamen non possumus?  
Resp. hunc nodum solvit ipse Augustinus lib. 1 Retractionum cap. 22, explicans quomodo verum sit quod alio loco dixit, esse scilicet in nostra potestate mutare vitam nostram; ait enim, Id non est contra gratiam Dei quam praedicamus, in potestate quippe hominis est mutare in melius voluntatem, sed ea potestas nulla est nisi a Deo detur, de quo dictum est, Dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri; cum enim hoc sit in potestate, quod cum volumus facimus, nihil tam in potestate quam ipsa voluntas est: sed praeparatur voluntas a Domino; eo modo ergo dat potestatem. Sic intelligendum est & quod dixi postea, in nostra potestate esse, ut vel inseri bonitate Doi, vel excidi ejus severitate mereamur, quia in potestate nostra non est, nisi quod nostram sequitur voluntatem, quae cum fortis & potens praeparatur a Domino, facile fit opus pietatis, etiam quod difficile atque impossibile fuit.  
Agnoscant igitur & fateantur adversarii ex his geminis Augustini locis eam esse hujus sancti Viri doctrinam. 

I. Justitiam eatenus esse in potestate nostra, quia cum volumus illam facimus, si tamen valde & perfecte volumus.  
II. Ea ratione dari nobis a Deo hanc potestatem, quia ipse dat huius justitiae voluntatem.  
III. In hac infirmitate & sub onere mortalitatis hujus multa esse in voluntate nostra quae non sunt in potestate, eo quod scilicet voluntas nostra parva est est & invalida, nondum plena ac robusta.  
IV. Hanc voluntatem, seu parvam seu robustam, quibusdam dari a Deo miserente, quibusdam non dari a Deo judicante, quia cujus vult miseretur, & quem vult indurat, quod, inquit Augustinus, ex occulto paenarum ordine venit & ejus inscrutabilibus judiciis.  
V. Nisi Deus fortem atque potentem voluntatem praeparet, opus pietatis non solum esse difficile, sed etiam impossibile.      

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[VIII. Testimonium.]  Libro 1. de fide contra Manichaeos cap. 10. 
QUis enim non clamat stultum esse praecepta dare ei cui liberum non est quod praecipitur facere; & iniquum esse, eum damnare, cui non fuit potestas jussa complere? & has injustitias & iniquitates miseri non intelligunt Deo se adscribere; sed quid verum est, nisi & Dominum dare praecepta, & animas esse libetae voluntatis?  

RESPONSIO.  
NOn minus hoc testimonio S. Augustini quam aliis supra citatis abuntuntur adversarii; cum enim dicit, animas esse liberae voluntatis, non loquitur de libertate illis restituta per gratiam Christi, sed de libertate naturali, quam a Deo auctore acceperunt, & quam etiam per peccatum non amiserunt; de hac enim libertate naturali tota quaestio vertebatur inter Catholicos & Manichaeos'; unde perpetam omnino colligunt adversarii, gratiam Christi omnibus dari quibus praecepta dantur, qua illis ad pie vivendum restituatur libertas, ac praecepta Dei possibilia fiant. Quod ergo docet Augustinus, illud est, nempe liberum arbitrium ad bonum & ad malum esse etiam in hominibus lapsis, quod manifestissime demonstrat ex praeceptis quae dantur omnibus hominibus: ut quid enim juberet Deus si nulla esset libertas, & homines essent naturaliter determinati ad malum? Sed quae sit illa libertas, & quod in omnibus non sanetur nec juvetur gratia Dei, luce clarius ostendit lib. 1. operis imperfecti contra julianum cap. 98.  
Ex quo, inquit, homo incipit uti voluntatis arbitrio, & peccare & non peccate potest: sed alterum horum non facit, nisi adjutus ab eo qui dixit, Sine me nihil potestis facere; alterum vero propria voluntate sive a seipso sive ab alio deceptore seductus, vel peccato sicut servus addictus. Adjutos autem homines novimus Dei Spiritu, ut ea vellent quae Dei sunt, ante baptismum, sicut Cornelium; quosdam vero nec post baptismum, sicut Simonem Magum; judicia enim Dei sunt sicut multa abyssus, & gratia ejus non ex operibus, alioqui gratia jam non est gratia.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[VIII. Testimonium.]  Libro 2. de peccatorum meritis & remissione cap. 3. 
ACute autem videntur dicere, quasi hoc ullus nostrum ignoret, quod si nolumus non peccamus, nec praeciperet Deus homini quod esset humanae voluntati impossibile: sed hoc non vident, quod ad nonnulla superanda vel quae male cupiuntur, vel quae male metuuntur, magnis aliquando & totis viribus opus est voluntatis, quas nos non perfecte in omnibus adhibituros praevidit, qui per Prophetam veridice dici voluit: Non justificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens.  

RESPONSIO.  
NIhil penitus ad rem valet locus iste, nec magis nos premit quam S. Augustinum, dum illi a Pelagianis proposita est, Si nolumus non peccamus, sicut, si volumus mandata servamus, quod antea jam exposuimus; sed ut peccare non velimus, praeparatur voluntas a Domino; omnibus autem non praeparari certum est. Hoc unum est quod adversariis probandum est, omnibus voluntatem praeparari, ut peccare nolint. Agnoscimus cum illis quod Deus nihil praecipit quod sit humanae voluntati impossibile, quia quidquid praecipit per Christi gratiam possibile est; potest vitari peccatum si natura vitiata sanetur gratia Dei per Christum: sed non vident nobiscum, magnas & totas vires voluntatis, quibus ad nonnulla facienda aliqando opus est, semper nobis praesentes non esse: Hae enim vires sunt gratia dei magna quae semper non datur. Certum est nos facere cum faciamus, (inquit de gratia & libero arbitrio cap. 16.) sed ille facit ut faciamus, praebendo vires efficacissimas voluntati. Et infra: Qui ergo vult facere Dei mandatum & non potest, jam quidem habet voluntatem bonam, sed adhuc parvam & invalidam; poterit autem, cum magnam habuerit & robustam. Mox subjungit: Istam charitatem Apostolus Petrus nondum habuit, quando timore Dominum ter negavit. Hinc agnoscitur, aliquando etiam justis magnam illam deesse gratiam sine qua non possunt magnas illas vires voluntatis habere.  
Praeterea in toto hoc capite & praecedenti, ut vel minimum legenti patebit, agitur tantum de peccatis venialibus, quae Pelagiani contendebant omnino vinci per naturam, Augustinus vero nonnisi per gratiam. Itaque objiciebant Pelagiani hominem posse vivere sine omni peccato si velit. Id fatebatur Sanctus Augustinus hoc ipsomet libro cap. 6 & 15, dummodo adjuvetur a Deo, & tantum velit quantum res exigit. Ac per hoc, inquit, potest homo, si velit, esse sine peccato adjutus a Deo. Objiciebant Deum nihil impossibile homini praecepisse, cui praecepit vivere sine peccato. Dicebat S. Augustinus etiam id esse possibile homini si sanetur per gratiam quantum sanari oportet; sed ad hoc ut possit vivere sine peccato, opus esse aliquando magnis et totis viribus voluntatis.  
Jam vero quid inde adversarii colligunt? Colliguntne esse in omnibus justis magnas et totas illas vires voluntatis, seu gratiam sufficientem qua pro nutu suo illas magnas et totas vires adhibeant quibus opus est ad evitandum seu vincendum omni ex parte peccatum? Quo quid falsius? quid ab ipsa experientia Sanctorum & ab ipsa doctrina S. Augustini magis alienum est? Id ciare videri potest, si legatur ejusdem secundi libri de peccatorum meritis et remissione cap. 5, 17 et 19, ubi passim docet, Deum quosdam Sanctos suos sanare et adjuvare ad vitandum aliquod peccatum, quosdam non fanare nec adjuvare; quod si facit, misericordia facit; et quibus non facit, judicio non facit. Nos autem (inquit cap. 18.) quantum concessum est sapiamus & intelligamus, si possumus, Dominum Deum bonum, ideo etiam Sanctis suis alicujus operis justi aliquando non tribuere vel certam scientiam vel victricem delectationem, ut cognoscant non à seipsis, sed ab illo sibi esse lucem, quâ illuminent ur tenebrae eorum, & suavitatem quâ det fructum suum terra eorum.  
Quin etiam eo usque progrediuntur adversarii, ut doctrinam a Concilio Tridentino sub anathemate damnatam sequi & Augustino imponere audeant. Nam Concilium anathemate percutit eos qui dicunt hominem justificatum posse in tota vita peccata omnia, etiam venialia, vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de B. Virgin tenet Ecclesia.  
Absit igitur, absit, ut S. Augustinus senserit hominem justum per gratiam sufficientem semper ipsi praesentem pro nutu suo adhibere posse magnas illas et totas vires quibus opus est ut vivat absque omni peccato. Sed tantummodo dixit, quod ut homo vivat sine peccato, opus est magnis et totis vitibus voluntatis, quas homo a seipso non habet, sed a gratia sanante et adjuvante; quia vero Deus gratia sua non omnino sanat Sanctos suos in hac vita, ideo praevidet illos has magnas vires in omnibus non adhibituros, ex quo fit, ut non justificetur in conspectu ejus omnis vivens.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[IX. Testimonium.]  Lib. de natura & gratia cap. 42. 
HIc (Pelagius) recte facit aliquando consentire, quia non justificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens; non tamen ibi esse quaestionem, sed in ipsa non peccandi possibilitate contendit, in qua nec nos adversus eum certare opus est: Nam neque illud nimis curo, utrum fuerint hic aliqui, vel sint, vel esse possint, qui perfectam, cui nihil addendum esset, habuerint, vel habeant, vel habituri sint charitatem Dei; ipsa enim est verissima, plenissima, perfectissimaque justitia, quoniam id quod voluntate hominis adjuta per Dei gratiam, fieri posse confiteor & defendo, quando, vel ubi, vel in quo fiat, nimium certare non debeo, neque de ipsa possibilitate contendo, cum, sanata & adjuta hominum voluntate, possibilitas ipsa simul cum effectu in Sanctis proveniat, etc.  
TRIA hic nota contra Jansenium: I. de possibilitate adimplendi praecepta nullam fuisse S. Augustino cum Pelagio disputationem. II. Totam disputationem fuisse quod hic assereret sine gratiae ope praecepta omnia impleri posse; Catholici negarent. III. Augustinum non dicere possibilitatem praecepta adimplendi esse simpliciter cum ipsorum observatione conjunctam, quemadmodum vult jansenius, sed in justis tantum esse conjunctam.  

RESPONSIO.  
HOc unico loco prima propositio (ut a nobis defenditur) stabiliri possit, ut mox patebit.  
Quoad primam notam, respondemus nullam fuisse Sancto Augustino disputationem cum Pelagio de possibilitate, quia scilicet Augustinus contendere nolebat, utrum esse possent vel potuissent aliqui sine peccato, sed an hoc fieri posset in hominibus gratia non adjutis. Fuit ergo quaestio (hoc secundam adversariorum notam attingit) de possibilitate, an scilicet illa daretur per Christi gratiam? Affirmabat Augustinus, negabat Pelagius; sed haec gratia de qua quaestio erat, erat vera Christi gratia efficax dans simul posse & velle.  
Ad tertiam notam respondemus, ex adversariis ipsis primam propositionem hoc testimonio definiri. Dicunt enim, in justis possibilitatem praecepti adimplendi simul cum ejus observatione seu cum effectu esse conjunctam. Ergo cum justus non observat aliquod praeceptum, non habet illam possibilitatem quae simul cum effectu conjuncta est; non habet gratiam ex qua possibilitas simul cum effectu provenit; ergo tunc secundum vires quas habet, infirmas scilicet, non adjutas gratia efficace, non potest praeceptum aliquod servare, tunc deest illi gratia qua praeceptum illi possibile fiat quae est cum effectu conjuncta. Nihil aliud Iansenius circa hanc primam propositionem docet. Ad illud denique quod observant Adversarii, Augustinum non dicere possibilitatem esse conjunctam cum effectu, sed solum in justis, respondemus hic affirmati de justis, quod ad quaestionem nostram sufficit, non negari de aliis, quibus etiam, ut alibi docet S. Augustinus, gratia Christi dat simul possibilitatem proximam cum effectu, hoc est, cum pia voluntate seu actione, seu dat simul ut velint, et ut velle possint: ut centenis sancti Augustini testimoniis probavimus in scripto circa primam propositionem capite 4.  
Denique loquitur hic Augustinus de possibilitate cum effectu, qua natura adjuta & sanata potest praeter crimina etiam peccata venialia superare, quae gratia non datur nisi Sanctis; quapropter non est mirum si de Sanctis mentionem tantummodo hic fecerit Augustinus.   

Nota.  
Solus ergo gratiae per seipsam efficacis necessariae sensus ab Augustinianis circa primam Propositionem constanter defensus, solus Iansenio tributus. Sola possibilitas quae est cum effectu, seu quae complectitur omnia ad agendum necessaria, aliquibus justis quibusdam in tentationibus denegata.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[X. Testimonium.]  Lib. de nat. & grat. cap. 43. loquens de homine semivivo relicto ex peccato originali gravibus saucio confossoque vulneribus. 
NOn igitur Deus impossibilia jubet, sed jubendo admonet & facere quod possis, & petere quod non possis. Jam nunc videamus unde possit, unde non possit. Iste dicit, voluntate non est quod natura potest. Ego dico, voluntate quidem non est homo justus, nec naturâ potest, sed medicinâ poterit, quod vitio non potest.  
Nota differentiam inter Augustinum & Pelagium: Pelagius natum dicebat hominem justum, atque adeo non voluntate sed natura justum; Augustinus nasci quemcumque justum, aut naturae viribus justum fieri posse negabat, sed voluntate per gratiam sanatâ asserebat.  

RESPONSIO.  
DEus impossibilia non jubet, quia quicquid jubet per gratiam fieri potest; quae homo suo vitio facere non potest, illa poterit per medicinam, hoc est, quando natura sanata erit per gratiam. Sed hinc non sequitur omnes semper sanari per gratiam, vel dari omnibus medicinam qua possint. Multi aliqua suo vitio non possunt, quibus non adest gratia qua possint, iis tamen Deus impossibilia non praecipit, quia poterunt per medicinam quod suo vitio non possunt. Hoc in loco docet S. Aug. inter hominem sanum & infirmum hoc esse discrimen, quod homini sano semper adesset per gratiam ipsi praesentem peccata vitandi & praecepta implendi proxima possibilitas: sed jam homo infirmus ab illa felicitate cecidit, non habet amplius eandem possibilitatem per gratiam ipsi semper praesentem, & quasi insitam, sed eget auxilio medicinae ut praecepti implendi possibilitatem recuperet, & quia per medicinalem gratiam poterit, quod suo vitio non potest, igitur Deus impossibilia non jubet. Attendatur totus S. Augustini contextus: Verum est autem, inquit, quod ait (scilicet Pelagius) quod Deus tam bonus quàm justus talem hominem focerit, qui peccati malo carere sufficeret, sed si voluisset. Quis cum nescit sanum & inculpabilem factum, & libero arbitrio, atque ad justè vivendum potestate liberâ, constitutum. En possibilitas proxima non peccandi, per gratiam scilicet semper praesentem. Sed nunc de illo agitur quem semivivum latrones reliquerunt, qui gravibus saucius confossusque vulneribus, non ita potest ad justitiae culmen ascendere sicut petuit inde descendere, qui etiamsi jam in stabulo est, adhuc curatur. Non igitur Deus impossibilia jubet, etc. Homo ergo semivivus relictus, si in stabulo est, curatur: Ergo poterit per medicinam quod suo vitio non potest. Igitur Deus impossibilia non jubet; siquidem quae jubet, per gratiam sanantem impleri possunt. Haec est tota S. Augustini doctrina, quae nobis penitus savet, adversariis nequaquam; pleniorem hujus sententiae & fimilium expositionem vide in scripto circa primam propositionem cap. 5. art. 1. & 2. Praeterca observandum est, hoc testimonium ab adversariis citatum tam parum eorum sententiae favere, ut gratiam sufficientem communem, quam ex hoc probare intendunt, destruat. Haec enim verba ab Augustino dicta sunt praecipue in materia de peccatis venialibus, de quibus agitur toto hoc capite & praecedenti, ut objectioni Pelagii satisfaceret, quae talis erat: Deus bonus & justus nihil praecipit impossibile; atqui praecipit homini vivere absque omni peccato; Ergo non est impossibile homini vivere absque peccato.  
Jam vero quid ad haec S. Augustinus? Concedit Deum nihil praecepisse homini impossibile, cum ei praecipit vivere sine peccato; & tamen articulus est fidei, gratiam sufficientem & necessariam non dari homini in hacvita, ut possit vivere absque omni peccato. Igitur cum S. Augustinus dicit Deum nihil praecipere impossibile, non ideo dicit quia nihil Deus praecipit homini quod possibile non reddat per gratiam sufficientem illi collatam, sed solummodo quia prout homo sanatur per gratiam, medicina potest quod vitio suo, id est, vitiata natura non poterat.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XI. Testimonium.]  Ejusdem libri cap. 69. 
VAlde autem bona sunt praecepta si legitime utamur: eo quippe ipso quo firmissime credimus, Deum justum & bonum impossibilia non potuisse praecipere, hinc admonemur, & in facilibus quid agamus, & in difficilibus quid petamus.  
NOTA I. justitiae & bonitati Dei dici repugnanare quod impossibilia jubeat. II. Tam facilia quam difficilia a nobis impleri, sed facilia praesenti Dei ope, difficilia impetrato ejusdem per orationem auxilio.  

RESPONSIO.  
REsponsio ad haec duo testimonia patet ex praecedentibus, per praeceptum admonemur. Sed non sequitur ex admonitione nobis a Deo semper insundi gratiam internam, sive ad operandum sive ad orandum necessariam, ac licet non detur, tamen praeceptum impossibile dicendum non est, quia homo per medicinam poterit, quod vitio suo non potest. Quia possibile est, si natura sanetur per gratiam: nihilque probant adversarii, nisi ostendant dari semper gratiam, seu ad operandum seu ad orandum necessariam, quoties aliquid a Deo praecipitur. Quod ita erroneum dicimus, ut ex hoc principio sequatur evidentissime, Christum gratis esse mortuum, & gratiam non esse gratiam, sed esse ex debito, ex justitia, non ex gratia gratuita, ut omittamus hinc destrui necessitatem auxilii efficacis seu ad operandum seu ad orandum.  
Admonitionem, exhortationem & legem, saepe fine gratia voluntati interna, proindeque sine profectu esse, ciarissime docet S. Augustinus, cum dicit, legis auditorem frustra admoneri, nisi Deus intus operetur velle, ac sine dubio proficere, quoties Deus dat incrementum; ex quo sequitur, incrementum, seu gratiam interiorem auditori a Deo non dari, cum ex Dei sermone & admonitione legis non proficit. Admoneo, inquit Sanctus Augustinus operis imperfecti lib. 2. cap. 157. ut intelligatis cui gratiae sitis inimici negando operari Deum voluntates in mentibus hominum, non ut nolentes credant, quod absurdissime dicitur, sed ut volentes ex nolentibus fiant; non, sicut facit Doctor homo, docendo & hortando, minando & promittendo in sermone Dei: quod frustra fit nisi Deus intus operetur & velle per investigabiles vias suas. Cum enim verbis Doctor plantat & rigat, possumus dicere, forte credit auditor: cum vero dat incrementum Deus, fine dubio credit & proficit. Ecce quod interest inter legem & promissionem, inter literam & spiritum.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XII. Testimonium.]  Libro de gratia & libero arbitrio capite 16. 
MAgnum aliquid Pelagiani se scire putant quando dicunt, non juberet Deus, quod sciret ab ab homine non posse fieri; quis hoc nesciat? sed ideo jubet aliqua quae non possumus, ut noverimus quid ab illo petere debeamus. Ipsa est enim fides quae orando impetrat quod lex imperat. Denique ipse qui dixit, Si volueris, conservabis mandata, in eodem libro Eccles. cap. 22. aliquanto post dicit, Quis dabit in ore meo custodiam, & super labia mea signaculum astutum, ne forte cadam ab eo, & lingua mea perdat me?— Certum est enim nos mandata servare si volumus, sed quia voluntas praeparatura Domino, ab illo petendum est, ut tantum velimus, quantum sufficit ut volendo faciamus.  

RESPONSIO.  
MAgnum aliquid Molinistae se dicere putant, cum ex Augustino eruunt argumentum Pelagianorum, quod risit olim idem Augustinus, sed si quid in hoc magni dicunt, id pro nobis & contra se dicunt.  
Primo enim ex hoc testimonio clare convincitur, aliqua esse Dei praecepta, quae vult homo facere & non potest, quia non tantum vult quantum sufficit ut volendo faciat, ut toto hoc capite & sequenti S. Augustinus demonstrat.  
Secundo, ibidem docetur gratiam quae impetratur a Deo per orationem ad implenda mandata, esse per se efficacem; ea est enim, ut dicitur sub finem capitis, qua Deus facit ut faciamus, praebendo vires efficacissimas voluntati, & auferendo a nobis cor lapideum, unde non facie bamus, & praebendo cor ca●neum unde faciamus.  
Tertio ex eodem Augustino eodemmet l. c. 18. nec ipsa gratia orationis omnibus datur quibus praeceptum datur, quia talis gratia supponit fidem in corde hominis, & charitatem parvam, qua vult mandatum Dei implere, & qua ad Deum confugiat, ut illam charitatem augeat, detque illi, ut loquitur ibidem, ardentissimam divino amore voluntatem. Sic enim loquitur S. Augustinus cap. 18. Cur dictum est, Diligamus invicem, quia dilectio ex Deo est, nisi quia praecepto admonitum est liberum arbitrium ut quaereret Dei donum. Quod quidem sinesuo fructu prorsus admoneretur, nisi prius acciperet aliquid dilectionis, ut addi sibi quaereret, unde quod jubebatur impleret.  
Atqui ejusmodi dilectio inchoata non datur omnibus hominibus, puta iis qui Deum non noverunt, & iis, qui, etsi noverint, seipsos tamen tradunt in operationem omnis immunditiae, ut loquitur Paulus. Cum igitur illi homines nec charitatem habeant, qua possint servare divina mandata, nec illam qua possint ad Deum, ut oportet, confugere; & tamen illis mandata Dei sint possibilia (quandoquidem, ut dicit S. Augustinus, non praeciperet illis Deus quod sciret ab illis fieri non posse) nonne consequitur evidenter, mandata Dei non ideo dici a S. Augustino omnibus, quibus dantur, possibilia, quod semper conjuncta sint vel cum gratia qua fiant, vel cum gratia qua oretur ut fiant, sed solum quia possunt ab homine fieri si sanetur per gratiam, & si per gratiam accipiat unde sanetur.  
Quarto, Debebant adversarii didicisse a S. Augustino, etiam gratiam orationis non esse pure sufficientem, sed efficacem, sicut & quamlibet gratiam Christi, ad omne opus pietatis necessariam. De hac enim orationis gratia sic loquitur lib. de corr. & grat. cap. 1. Littera legis adjuvat nos ut declinemus a malo & faciamus bonum, quod nemo potest sine spiritu gratiae, quae, si desit, ad hoc lex adest, ut reos faciat & occidat, propter quod dicit Apostolus, Litera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat. Qui ergo legitime lege utitur, discit in ea malum & bonum, & non confidens in virtute sua confugit ad gratiam, qua praestante declinet a malo & faciat bonum. Quis autem confugit ad gratiam, nisi cum a Domino gressus hominis diriguntur, & viam ejus volet? ac per hoc & desiderare auxilium gratiae, initium gratiae est, de quo ait ille: Et dixi, nunc co●pi, haec est immutatio dexterae Excessi. Ex quo sic conficitur argumentum.  
Nemo potest confugere ad auxilium gratiae nisi sit praeventus ea gratia qua dextera Excelsi immutat cot hominis, quá Dominus ditigit gressu hominis, & qua facit ut homo vias Dei velit. Atqui eadem gratia est gratia de se efficax, ut patet ex eodem capite de gratia & libero arbitrio producto ab adversariis, ubi eadem verba (à Domino gress●s hominis diriguntur) citantur ab Augustino pro gratia de se efficace. Ergo sine gratia efficace nemo potest confugere ad auxilium gratiae, proindeque gratia ad salubriter orandum necessaria non datur omnibus quibus praeceptum datur.    

TRES NOTAE NECESSARIAE. Ad intelligenda multa testimonia ex Sermonibus & Moralibus S. Augustini desumpta, quae postea sequuntur.  
POst supra relata testimonia adversarii multa alia proferunt e sermonibus, & ex enarrationibus in Psalmos, in quibus S. Augustinus gratiae dogmata non expendit, sed mores instruit, quamquam nihil hic doceat quod verissimum non sit. Ad omnia haec testimonia intelligenda, aliqua notanda sunt.  
I. Haec omnia a S. Augustino dicta, Si volumus, possumus; si nolumus, non peccamus; peccatum vitare ac inimicos diligere possumus. Deus in potestate nostra posuit qualiter in die judicii judicemur. Non dixit, vade in Orientem, & quaere justitiam, etc. Haec, inquam, omnia & similia quae saepe in sermonibus & aliis operibus leguntur, nihil aliud significant quam bonos & plos mores, & quidquid ad Deum colendum & juste vivendum pertinet, ita a bona voluntate pendere, ut, cum plene volumus, possimus, neque exterioribus, quae, cum habere volumus, saepe habere non possumus, ad salutem indigeamus, ac nunquam Deus nobis imputet in peccatum quod non possumus si plene velimus, sed solum malam & perversam voluntatem, quae a rebus corporalibus non pendet. Quaeritur autem unde ista bona voluntas proveniat? Nos dicimus a gratia gratuita & singulari, praedeterminante, efficaci, quam Deus pro bona voluntate sua cui vult largitur, nec omnibus confert. Ex his ergo omnibus & similibus nihil adversum nos adversarii probant.  
II. Notandum est S. Augustinum in sermonibus ad populum alloqui auditores tanquam electos. Unde saepe dicit: Deus vos non tentabit supra quam potestis. Deus vos adjuvat. Deus vos non deseret. Vos eriget, vos suscipiet, etc. Augustinus sic a se exhortationibus ad fideles agi, & ab omnibus agendum esse docet de corrept. & grat. cap. 15. Nescientes enimi, inquit, quis pertineat ad praedestinatorum numerum; quis non pertineat: sic assici debemus charitatis affectu, ut omnes velimus salvos fieri. Hoc quippe fit, cum singulos quosque, ut occurrerint, cum quibus id agere valeamus, ad hoc conamur adducere, ut justificati, etc. Et infra: Ad nos ergo, qui nescimus quisnam sit filius pacis aut non sit, pertinet, nullum exceptum facere, nullumque discernere, sed velle omnes salvos fieri quibus praedicamus hanc pacem. Neque enim metuendum est ne perdamus eam, si ille cui praedicamus, non est filius pacis ignorantibus nobis, etc. Et de dono perseverantiae cap. 22. ubi praescribit rectum modum divinae praedestinationis populis praedicandae, ut, Qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur. Nunquam vult de iis, qui praesentes sunt, dici, quod forte ex ipsis aliqui sunt reprobi & rejiciendi, sed de aliis potius qui absunt, per verbi personam tertiam, hoc dicendo salubrem hunc timorem incuti, ut ex hoc illi qui audiunt, non scandalizentur aut commoveantur, sed instruantur. Quamvis ergo haec vera sint (inquit, eos scilicet qui praedestinati non sunt, non perseveraturos), non tamen isto modo dicenda sunt audientibus multis, ut sermo ad ipsos etiam convertatur. Et infra: Sed si & de iis qui non perseverant, aliquid placet dicere, vel necesse est, cur non potius ita saltem dicitur, ut paulo ante a me dictum est? primum ut non de ipsis, qui in populo audiunt hoc dicatur, sed de illis ad ipsos. Et infra: Nonne & verius eadem res & congruenentius dicitur, ut non ipsis tantum malum tanquam optare videamur sed de aliis referre quod oderint, nec ad se existiment pertinere, sperando orandeque meliora? Itaque quidquid e S. Augustini sermonibus ad populum profertur, non probat semper dari omnibus gratiam qua tentationem vincere possint ac vincant, licet fidelibus loquatur S. Augustinus, quasi eam habituri sint, nesciens quis eam habiturus sit nec ne, ac de omnibus bene sperans & optans. Ergo ex his S. Augustini verbis non sequitur, singulis semper adesse gratiam qua possint tentationem vincere, & qua eam vincant, qua possint salubriter orare, & salubriter orent. Nam si ille, cui praedicamus, non est filius pacis, certum est quod in eo Deus non operabitur velle, seu quod eum postea in peccatum cadere sinet, nec illi gratiam largietur, ut tentationem vincat & in justitia perseveret.  
Certum autem est omnes fideles, quibus loquebatur S. Augustinus, non fuisse filios pacis & promissionis. Ergo omnes non habebant gratiam necessariam ad tentationes vincendas, ad resurgendum a peccato, ad perseverandum in oratione & in operatione bona, licet loquatur omnibus tanquam filiis pacis & promissionis. Corripiatur ergo, inquit de corrept. & grat. origo damnabilis, ut ex dolore correptionis voluntas regenerationis oriatur; si tamen, qui corrtpitur, filius est promissionis, ut, strepitu correptionis forinsecus insonante atque flagellante, Deus in illo intrinsecus occulta inspiratione operetur & velle. Exhortamur ergo: inquit de dono perseverantiae cap. 14. atque praedicamus, sed qui habent aures audiendi, obedienter nos audiunt; qui vero eas non habent, fit in eis quod scriptum est, Ut audientes non audiant; audientes videlicet corporis sensu, non audiant cordis assensu. Hac etiam doctrina fideles in sermonibus suis S. Augustinus saepe imbuit, ut patet ex multis sermonibus de verbis Apostoli & aliis. Serm. 13, evp. 11. Ptorsus, inquit, si defuerit adjutorium Christi, nihil boni agere poteris. Agis quidem, illo non adjuvante, libera voluntate, sed male. Ad hoc idonea est voluntas tua quae vocatur libera, & male agendo fit damnabilis ancilla. Nonne clarissime hic populum docet adjutorium sine quo non possumus, semper non adesse: non adesse cum male agimus, & tamen nos male agendo, nec Dei adjutorium habendo damnabiles fieri? Hae duae notae ad solvenda omnia sequentia testimonia ex fermonibus ad populum & ex moralibus prolata sufficiunt, ut pateat ex his non sequi, singulis fidelibus semper adesse gratiam voluntati internam ad salubriter orandum seu ad juste vivendum necessatiam, sicut contendunt adversarii.  
III. Operae pretium erit diligentissime observare, inter artes Adversariorum, quibus veritatem impugnare solent, hanc esse unam ex praecipuis, quod passim & ubique promissiones Dei conditionatas, quae tum in Scripturis tum in Patribus leguntur, nobis objiciant, ut conditiones ejusmodi promistionum non esse singulare Dei donum, sed istas esse in potestate cujuslibet, per gratiam sufficientem evincant. Verbi gratia, haec & similia leguntur in Scripturis & Patribus; Si quis legitime utitur lege, id est, si quis per legem de sua infirmitate convictus consugiat ad spiritum gratiae, habebit Deum adjutorem, & implebit legem: si quis humiliet se sub potenti manu Dei, si quis non in se sed in Deo praesumat, si quis oret ut in tentationem non inducatur, Deus illum custodiet a malo, eumque non patietur tentari supra id quod potest, sed perficiet bonum opus quod incepit in eo; Hinc concludunt adversarii situm esse in potestate cujuslibet per gratiam sufficientem, & confugere ad spiritum gratiae, & humiliare se sub Deo, & in illo, non in seipso praesumere, & petere donum perseverantiae sicut oportet, & alia virtutum opera facere, quibus gratiam Dei ad ea facienda quae nondum potest, obtineat & impetret. Verum falsitas hujus consequentiae statim deprebendetur, si solummodo legatur apud Augustinum cap. 11 de praedestinatione Sanctorum, ubi, postquam efficacissime probasset superioribus capitibus, fidem etiam inchoatam donum esse gratiae singularis & efficacis, sibi hoc argumentum Pelagianorum proponit dissolvendum his verbis: Sed cum dicitur, inquiunt, si credidetis, salvus eris, unum horum exigitur, alterum offertur: quod exigitur, in hominis, quod offertur, in Dei est potestate. Cui objectioni continuo sic respondet: Cur non utrumque in Dei est potestate, & quod jubetur, & quod offertur? Rogatur enim ut det quod jubet, rogant credentes ut sibi augeatur fides, rogant pro non credentibus, ut eis donetur fides, ut & in suis incrementis, & in suis initiis Dei donum sit fides. Sic autem dicitur, Si credideris, salvus eris, quemadmodum dicitur, Si spiritu facta carnis mortificaveritis, vivetis. Nam ex his duobus unum exigitur, alterum offertur. Si spiritu, inquit, facta carnis mortificaveritis, vivetis; ut ergo spiritu facta carn●s mortificemus, exigitur; ut autem vivamus, offertur. Num igitur placet ut facta carnis mortificare non Dei esse dicamus, neque id donum Dei esse fateamur; quoniam exigi a nobis audivimus, praemio vitae, si hoc fecerimus, oblato? Absit ut hoc placeat participibus & defensoribus gratiae. Pelagianorum est error iste damnabilis, quorum mox Apostolus ora obstruxit, adjungens: Quotquot enim spiritu Dei aguntur, hi sunt filii Dei; ne facta mortificare nos carnis, non per Dei, sed per nostrum spiritum crederemus. De quo Dei spiritu etiam ibi loquebatur, ubi ait: Omnia autem haec operantur unus atque idem Spiritus, dividens propria unicuique prout vult. Inter quae omnia, ficut scitis, nominavit & fidem. Sicut ergo, quamvis donum Dei sit facta carnis mortificare, exigitur tamen a nobis, proposito praemio vitae: Ita donum Dei est & fides, quamvis & ipsa, cum dicitur, Si credideris, salvus eris, proposito praemio salutis exigatur a nobis. Haec Aug.  
Nec dicant adversarii, se fateri fidem esse donum Dei, sed hoc donum omnibus esse concessum ex parte Dei per gratiam sufficientem; illud, inquam, non dicant, siquidem toto hoc libro S. Augustinus contendit fidem etiam inchoatam esse donum Dei singulare per gratiam singularem & efficacem, quae omnibus non datur: sunt enim haec ejus verba cap. 8: Fides igitur inchoata & fides perfecta donum Dei est, & hoc donum quibusdam dari quibusdam non dari, omnino non dubiter qui non vult manifestissimis sacris literis repugnare. Praeterea ex allegato testimonio semper manet, non sequi ut conditiones quae ab homine exiguntur, in hominis potestate & nutu sint. Quandoquidem quomodo dicitur, Si credideris, salvus eris; eo prorsus modo dicitur, Si dilexeris Deum, omnia tibi cooperabuntur in bonum; eo modo dicitur, Si confugias ad Deum, auxiliabitur tibi: eo modo dicitur, Si te humiliaveris; & oraveris, charitatis munus obtinebis; si in orando non defeceris, perseverantiam in fide & dilectione impetrabis; proindeque sicut fides qua creditur, licet proposito salutis praemio, exigatur, tamen gratiae singularis donum esse non definit; pariter oratio & humilitas, licet ad charitatem & perseverantiam exigantur, tamen singularis & efficacis gratiae donum esse non desinunt. Plura de gratia orandi in scripto circa primam propositionem cap. 6   

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XIII. Testimonium.]  Idem in Psalm 48. Serm. 1. 
SI ergo iniquitas calcanei circumdabit nos, ut quid timemus in die mala, cum conversi ad Christum habeamus in potestate ut non faciamus iniquitatem?  

RESPONSIO.  
REspondet ipse Augustinus lib. 1 Retract. cap. 22: Sic intelligendum est quod dixi, quia in potestate nostra est quod cum volumus facimus, & quod nostram sequitur voluntatem, quae cum fortis & potens praeparatur a Domino, facile fit opus pietatis, quod difficile atque impossibile fuit.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XIV. Testimonium.]  Idem in Psalm 56. 
NEque imperaret hoc Deus ut faceremus, si impossibile judicaret ut hoc ab homine fieret; si considerans infirmitatem tuam deficis sub praecepto, confortare in exemplo: sed etiam exemplum ad te multum est, adest ille qui praebuit exemplum ut praebeat auxilium.  

RESPONSIO.  
VErum est quod Deus nihil imperaret si per adjutorium gratiae non posset homo, quod per vitium naturae non potest. Adjutos autem homines, ait Augustinus 
Lib. 1. oper. imperf. cap. 98. , novimus Spiritu Dei, ut ea vellent quae Dei sunt, ante baptismum, sicut Cornelium; quosdam vero nec post baptismum, sicut Simonem Magum; judicia enim Dei abyssus multa. Et lib. 2 de peccat. me●it. cap. 5; Curio autem illum adjuvet, illum non adjuvet, illum tantum, illum autem non tantum, istum illo, illum isto modo, penes ipsum est & aequitatis tam secreta ratio, & excellentia potestatis.  
Jam vero quod S. Augustinus subjicit, Si deficis sub praecepto, adest ille qui praebeat adjutorium, duplici sensu S. Augustini verissimum est. Primo sub hac conditione, si illud adjutorium petas, & tantum petas, quantum res ista petenda est. Secundo sub alia conditione, si filius es pacis & promissionis, quales, ut supra monitum est, sentiebat S. Augustinus esse fideles quibus praedicabat, exemplo Pauli dicentis: Sicut mihi justum est hoc sentire pro omnibus v●bis, eo quod habeam vos in corde.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XV. Testimonium.]  Sermone 191 de tempore. 
EXecramur etiam blaspemiam eorum qui dicunt impossibile aliquid homini esse praeceptum; & mandatae Dei non a singulis, sed ab omnibus in commune posse servari.  
1 NOTA dici a 2 Jansenistis, sermonem istum non esse Augustini, sed Pelagii; nam & confessionem Pelagii legi in tomis Conciliorum iisdem fere verbis exaratam, quibus iste sermo conceptus est, & ejus aliquam partem tamquam ex libello Pelagii oblato Innocentio P P. referri ab Augustino tamquam ambiguam continentem doctrinam, lib. de grat. Christ. c. 30 & 31. Neque nos pertinacius defendere velle hunc sermonem esse Augustini, quamvis & 3 a viris omni exceptione majoribus pro Augustini sermone habeatur 4 & nihil vetet ut confessio Pelagii, ubi ab Ecclesia Romana probatam eam fuisse innotuit, ab Augustino quoque populo credenda proponeretur: sed cui placebit hunc sermonem S. Augustino abdicare ut Pelagio attribuat, nobis gratum faciet, si modo addat, quod ere est, confessionem istam Pelagii a Zozimo Pontifice, in cujus manus inciderat, post mortem Innocentii I 5 probatam fuisse, a Clero Romano cum gaudio susceptam, ut vix fletu quidam & lachrymis temperarent, judicatum ex earum lectione literarum absolutae fidei Pelagium fuisse; 6 Herotem & Lazarum delatores Pelagii tamquam calumniatores habitos fuisse, ut constat ex Epistolis Zozimi ad Episcopos Africa; Hinc enim & sequitur, & 7 Zozimum Pontificem, & Clerum Romanum (8 quorum apud Catholicos major quam Augustini ipsius debet esse auctoritas) jam ab eo tempore execratos tamquam blaspemiam fuisse propositionem istam, quae p●…steo a Jansenio prolata est: Impossibile aliquid homini esse praeceptum, & mandata Dei non a singulis, sed ab omnibus in commune posse servari.  

RESPONSIO.  
MUlta sunt hic notatu dignissima, ex quibus seu ignorantia seu mala fides astversariorum arguitur.  
1 Indubitatum est hunc sermonem non esse Sancti Augustini, sed esse confessionem Pelagii; siquidem S. Augustinus ea quae hoc sermone continentur, velut libellum fidei Pelagii in libro de gratia Christi cap. 30. 31, 32, 33, & de peccato originali cap. 20, con●utat detegi que verborum am●iguitatem & aequivocationem, quibus Pelagius ad ad ●eci●iendum Innocentium seu Zozimum ejus s●ccessorem usus erat. Quid autem absurdius fingi potest, quam ut attribuatut Augustino opus aliquod quod ipse Pelagii esse testatut, quo●que ut aequivocum & dolosum duobus in locis refellit?  
2 NOTA, inquiunt, a Jansenistis dici sermonem istum non esse Augustini, sed Pelagii, Ergo Janieni●…●st Augustinus ipse, qui dicit esse opus Pelagii, proindeque non suum: Ergo Baronius & Bellarminus Jansenistae sunt, qui ante ortum Jansenium idem docuerunt.  
Baronius e codice Vaticano hunc libellum Pelagii nomine praenotatum in lucem edidit. Et Bellarminus lib. de Script. Ecclesiast. in observat. super tomum 9 S. Hieronymi. Non est, inquit, Hieronymi ad Damasum, sed Pelagii ad Innocentium.  
3 Si aliqui viri omni exceptione majores arbitrati sunt hoc opus esse Augustini, cum nondum res illa elocidata esset, non mirum est si in re facti falli potuerunt: sed postquam detectum est ex ipso Augustino non esse sermonem Augustini, sed confessionem Pelagii, Pelagio tribuendum est, non Augustino, licet viri magnae auctoritatis, qui illud non examinatunt, aliud sensetint. Nec in hoc facto alicujus momenti est eorum auctoritas, uhi illos deceptos esse constat, nec, postquam de veritate rei constitit, illi qui pertinaciter hoc opus obtrudunt pro sermone Augustini, ullam habent in sua pertinacia excusationem. Male ergo tentant adversarii ut his velut rationibus res adeo explorata in dubium revocetur.  
4 Nihil absurdius excogitati potest quam quod dicicur. Nihil vetare ut confessio Pelagii, ubi ab Ecclesia Romana probatam eam fuisse innotuit, ab Augustino quoque populo credenda proponeretur. Quia scilicet etiam postquam a Zozimo approbata est, non solum S. Augustinus eam ut ambiguam & dolosam confutavit in lib. de gratia Christi & de peccato originali, sed etiam a Zozimo & ambigua habita est. Ad quod intelligendum, notandum, quod statim atque Zozimus, examinata Pelagii confessione, eum & Caelestium Catholicos pronunciasset ob voluntatis emendarionem, quam uterque profitebatur, statim conquesti sunt Africani Zozimum Pelagii & Caelestii dolis circumventum fuisse; ex quo factum est postea ut Zozimus re plenius perspecta fraudem agnoverit, in Pelagium & Caelestium sententiam tulerit, eorumque haereses damnaverit, ut pater ex Prospero. Id resert Baronius anno 417, & 418. Ergo Zozimus judicavit Pelagium non alio quam fallendi animo hanc fidei confessionem. Sedi Apostolicae obtulisse, siquidem jucicavit, Pelagium nunquam Catholicam fidem sincare professum fuisse. Itaque licet Zozimus Pelagi● confessionem ut Catholicam approbasset ob rectum sensum quem prae se ferebat, maxime ab homine Sedi Apostolicae sese submittente prolatam, tamen Pelagium postea ut haereticum damnans, agnovit ejus conseffionem subdolam esse, atque aliud intendisse Pelagium quam quod ipse Zozimus scilicet approbaverat. Sanctus Augustinus Pelagii dolis assuetus, ejus confessionis ambiguitatem deprehendit. Zozimum monuit impulitque ut Pelagium & ejus haeresim damnaret. Dici ergo non potest fine summa absurditate quod Sanctus Augustinus hanc Pelagii confessionem, postquam a Zozimo recepta est, eam memoriter didicerit ac populo credendam proposuerit, siquidem semper eam ut subdolam & ambiguam habuit ac refutavit.  
5 Hanc itaque Pelagii confessionem a Zozimo & Clero Romano probatam fuisse agnoscimus, sed sensu Catholico, qui Augustini est, intellectam, non vero Pelagiano, & a Pelagio intento: ut ergo pateat quo sensu Zozimus illam approbaverit, videndum est quo sensu Augustinus cum Ecclesia Catholica docuerit Deum impossibile non praecipere, & quo sensu Pelagius asseruerit. S. Augustini sensum sequimur, adversarii vero sensum Pelagii, a quo nos cum abhorreamus, ideo nobis falso objiciunt, quod objiciebat S. Augustino Pelagius, nos dicere Deum impossibilia praecipere, illudqae ex sententia nostra sequi.  
6 D. Hallier operum suorum non meminit, cum Heroti ac Lazaro Gallis Episcopis calumniatorum notam inurit, postquam semel atque iterum libris in lucem editis eorum nomen ab hac injuria vindicavit, eo usque ut dixerit, illos injuste a Zozimo Papa infamatos fuisse ut iniquos, ipsumque postea, re magis perspecta, suam sententiam de Coelestio ac Pelagio revocasse, neque ex hoc quidquam dedecoris in S. Sedem redundare, cum res facti ageretur, in qua unicuique notum erat hunc Pontificem circumventum fuisse.  
7, Juxta S. Augustini, hoc est, Zozimi ipsius & Ecclesiae Romanae sensum cum Zozimo & Clero Romano execramur blasphemiam corum qui dicunt impossibile aliquid homini esse praeceptum, & mandata Dei non a singulis, sed ab omnibus in commune posse servari, quia quidquid praecipit Deus possibile est singulis si eorum natura sanetur per Christi gratiam.  
Calumniam Jansenio affingunt adversarii, cum dicunt hanc propositionem, impossibile aliquid homini esse praecoptum, etc. prolatam fuisse a Jansenio. Nunquam illud apud Jansenium legent, nisi ab eo prolatum intelligant quod refutavit ac damnavit.  
8 Denique dicunt quod Zozimi & Cleri Romani apud Catholicos major quam Augustini ipsius debet esse auctoritas, & sic Zozimum opponunt Augustino, ut insinuent (quod arbitrantur) ab Augustino assertum esse quod a Zozimo damnatum est. Qua in re ipsis Zozimo & Augustino, sanctae Sedi, ac universae Ecclesiae maximam injuriam faciunt, siquidem & illud jam aperte declaravimus, S. Augustini auctoritatem secundum se consideratam, inferiorem esse summi cujusvis Pontificis auctoritate, sed postquam ejus doctrina a tot Pontificibus fuit probata, jam ejus auctoritas non est alia quam ipsorum Pontificum qui illam receperunt, probandoque suam fecerunt. Adeo ut nunc opponere Augustinum Zozimo, idem sit at opponere Zozimum aliis summis Pontificibus S. Augustini approbatoribus, imo Zozimum sibi ipsi, cum inter ejus approbatores annumeretur. Quo quid atrocius in S. Sedem & in S. Augustinum ab infensissimo utriusque hoste excogitari potest? oportebat videlicet, ut se, Deo ita vindicante, proderent, qui S. Augustini auctoritatem venerarise apud S. Sedem profitentur, ne illam, ut oportet, recognoscere adigantur, quippe ipsam Sedem ideo maxime venerantur, ut eam, si possint, circumveniant.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XVI. Testimonium.]  Sermone 61. de tempore. 
ADditur & hoc quod, cùm tam magnum sit verae & perfectae charitatis remedium, nullus tamen invenitur qui eam cum adjutorio Dei non possit habere. Et ideo quia nulla nobis ante Tribunal Christi excusatio poterit esse, cùm Dei adjutorio totis viribus laboremus: sed, dicit aliquis, Nullâ ratione possum inimicos diligere. In omnibus Scripturis Deus tibi dicit quia potes: Tu è contrario respondes, non posse. Considera nunc utrum tibi an Deo debeat credi? & ideo quia veritas mentiri non potest, jam vanas suas excusationes relinquat humana fragilitas, quia nec impossibile abiquid potuit imperare qui justus est, nec damnaturus est hominem pro eo quod non potuit vitare qui pius est, quid tergiversamur incassum? nemo enim melius novit quantum possumus, quam qui nobis ipsum posse donavit.  

RESPONSIO.  
PAtet ex hujus sermonis lectione quo sensu S. Augustinus hoc doceat. Hic, ut & in multis aliis sermonibus, comparat praecepta quae per corporis vires & res exteriores implentur, quae, etsivelimus, non fiunt, qualia sunt praecepta jejunandi, eleemosynam dandi & similia, cum iis quae per cor implentur, quae, cum volumus, fiunt; qualia sunt praecepta dilectionis Dei & proximi. Dicit in primis praeceptis excusationem esse posse, ad ea hominem non teneri cum ea servare non potest, quia Deus impossibilia non praecipit, nec damnaturus est hominem pro eo quod vitare non potuit. In aliis vero praeceptis, quae in animi bonitate & voluntate consistunt, quale est praeceptum dilectionis inimicorum, de quo toto hoc sermone agit, excusationem praetendi non posse, neque dici posse, Inimicos diligere non possum. Additur, inquit, & hoc, quod, cum am magnum sit verae & perfectae charitatis remedium, nullus tamen invenitur qui eam cum Dei adjutorio non possit habere. In reliquis operibus bonis interdum potest aliquis qualemcumque excusationem praetendere; in habenda vero dilectione nullus poterit se excusare; potest mihi dicere aliquis, non possum jejunare; numquid potest dicere, non possum amare? potest dicere, propter infirmitatem corporis mei non possum a vino vel a carnibus abstinere; numquid potest dicere, non possum diligere? Et infra: Cum enim multa sint quae propter fragilitatem humanam corporaliter implere non possumus, charitatem tamen in corde nostro, Deo inspirante, si in veritate voluerimus, sine aliqua dubitatione habere poterimus. Multa enim sunt quae de horreo, canavo, vel cellario aliquoties proferre non possumus; de thesauro vero cordis nimis foedum & turpe est, si aliquam excusationem praetendere videmur: non enim ibi aut pedes laborant cur●endo, aut oculi videndo, aures audiendo, aut manus operando lassantur. Non nobis dicitur, Ite ad Orientem & quaerite charitatem, navigate ad Occidentem & invenietis dilectionem. Intus in corde nostro est, unde nos iracundia excludere solet, & redire jubemur, dicente Propheta, Redite praevaricatores ad cor: non enim, sicut jam dixi, in longinquis regionibus invenitut quod a nobis Dominus petit; intus ad cor nostrum nos mittit; in nobis enim ponit quod requitit, ubi tota charitas profecto in animi bonitate vel voluntare consistit, etc. Et paulo post refert quod citatur, Quia nec impossibile aliquid, etc. Quo fine haec adversarii omiserunt, nisi quia nihil aliud quaerunt quam ut fallant? S. Augustinus in Serm. 47. de Sanctis idem omnino docer.  
Numquam ergo S. Augustino venit in mentem ut diceret, omnes omnino homines habere gratiam sufficientem qua possint inimicos propter Deum diligere, quia ejusmodi gratia nihil est aliud quam inspiratio perfectae charitatis, jaxta illud supra citatum S. Augustini, Praeparatur voluntas à Domino, & tantum augetur munere charitatis ut possint. Quid autem absurdius & falsius dici posset quam inspirationem perfectae charitatis esse in omnibus hominibus? sed solum Augustinus docet, omnes homines posse inimicos diligere, Deo inspirante dilectionem, si in veritate voluerint, ut ipsemet loquitur; quo nihil verius. Proindeque si inimicos non diligant, non esse excusationem, sed accusationem, quia ideo non diligunt quia nolunt; & hoc est illud ipsum quod S. Augustinus ubique docet, & praecipue lib. 1. de libero arbitrio cap. 12. loquens de bona voluntate, quae nihil est aliud, ut ipse docet, quam charitas. In voluntate nostra constitutum est, ait, ut hoc vel fruamur vel careamus tanto & tam vero bono; quid enim tam in voluntate quam ipsa voluntas est? Et cap. 13. Ex quo conficitur, ut, quisquis recte honesteque vult vivere, si id se velle prae sugacibus bonis velit, assequatur tantam rem tanta facilitate, ut nihil aliud ei quam ipsum velle sit habere quod voluit.  
Ecce quo sensu secundum Augustinum possunt omnes homines diligere inimicos, quia diligunt de facto statim ut 〈◊〉 diligere in veritate voluerint, non vero quod 〈◊〉 ●ibus ut velint, sine quo velle non possunt, 〈◊〉 S. Augustinus, 
Lib. 1. Retract. c. 9  explicans sua verba de libero arbittio supra citata: In his atque hujusmodi verbis meis putant Pelagiani, vel putare possunt, suam nos tenuisse sententiam: sed frustra hoc putant; voluntas quippe est qua & peccatur, & recte vivitur; voluntas ergo ipsa, nisi Dei gratia liberetur a servitute qua facta est serva peccati, & ut vitia superet, adjuvetur, recte pieque vivi a mortalibus non potest.  
Illud maxime notandum est, eamdem S. Augustini sententiam apud Pelagium iisdem omnino verbis, sed penitus diverso sensu expressam reperiri in ejus Epistola ad Demetriadem. Hanc refert & refutat Beda lib 1. in Cantica Canticorum contra julianum. Ita cap. 5. Et paulò pòst inquit, (scilicet auctor Epistolae ad Demetriadem) nec impossibile aliquid potuit imperare qui justus est, nec damnaturus est hominem ob ea quae non potuit vitare qui pius est. Tum cap. 6. Beda hanc sententiam sic refellit: Quod dicit (scilicet julianus, seu potius Pelagius) Dominum non impossibile aliquid praecepisse qui justus est, verum profecto dicit, si ad ejus respicit auxilium, cui Catholica vox supplicat, Deduc me in semita mandatorum tuorum. Si vero viribus animi sui fidit, refellit eum veridica ejusdem justi conditoris sententia, qua dicit, Sine me nihil potestis facere. Quod dicit, eum qui pius est, non damnaturum esse hominem pro eo quod vitare non potuit, contradicit ejusdem pii Redemptoris & justi judicis sententia; qua etiam de parvulis ait, Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua & Spiritu, non potest videre Regnum Dei. Hinc agnoscitur eamdem penitus sententiam ab Augustino & a Pelagio prolatam fuisse sensu longe diverso; siquidem ut a Pelagio prolata est, a Beda refutatur. Intendebat Pelagius gratiam Christi & peccatum originale destruere, dicendo Deum nihil homini impossibile praecipere, proximam praecepti implendi possibilitatem in omnibus esse insinuabat, proindeque gratiam Christi singularem, & omnibus non communem, qualis a S. Augustino asserbatur, non esse necessariam, dicendo Deum non esse damnaturum hominem pro hoc quod vitare non potuit. Volebat peccatum originale non esse in parvulis, nec eos ob illud damnati, siquidem illud vitare non potuerant. Patet ex iis quae diximus quam contrario sensu eadem sententia a S. Augustino usurpata fuerit, & quam facile pateat aequivocationi, siquidem uno sensu Catholica est & Augustiniana, alio haeretica & Pelagiana.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XVII. Testimonium.]  Sermone de verbis Domini in Matthaeum. 
QUi recte intelligit, utrumque implet, & serviet universalissimo Domino qui servum pigrum non damnaret si ea quae fieri nullo modo poterant, imperaret.  

Mendum aliquod hic subest.  II. S. Augustinus rationes omnes Jansenii eludit. Iᵒ quidem quia docet Deum neminem permittere tentari supra id quod potest, seu nulla cupiditate ita hominem vinci, quin possint cum Dei adjutorio in contrarium ad, p●…ceptorum observationem adniti, eaque cum 〈◊〉 ●bervare.  

RESPONSIO.  
CUm de verbis Domini in Matthaeum multi sint sermones, citandum erat quo sermone; hoc in totis his sermonibus non invenimus. Tamen non dubitamusa S. Augustino dictum quod primo refertur. Ad quod respondemus, hanc sententiam saepe solutam esse. Verum enim non est nullo modo fieri posse quod per gratiam fieri potest.  
Ad secundum respondemus; adversarios ibi imponere S. Augustino & Jansenio. Augustino quidem, quod asserunt ipsum docere, Deum neminem permittere tentari supra id quod potest, hoc numquam ita absolute dixit. jansenio autem, cum significant ipsum dixisse, hominem ita posse cupiditate vinci, ut nec possit quidem cum Dei adjutorio in contrarium ad praeceptorum observationem adniti, eaque cum eodem observare.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XVIII. Testimonium.]  Libro de gratia & libero arbitrio cap. 2. 
QUomodo dicit inexcusabiles, nisi de illa excusatione qua solet dicere humana superbia, Si scissem fecissem, ideo non feci quia nescivi; aut si scitem facerem, ideo non facio quia nescio: haec ejus excusatio tollitur quando praeceptum datur, vel scientia non peccandi manifestatur, sed sunt homines qui etiam de Deo se excusare conantur, quibus dicit Apostolus jacobus cap. 1. Nemo, cum tentatur, dicat, quia a Deo tentor; Deus enim intentator malorum est; ipse autem neminem tentat; unusquisque vero tentatur a concupiscentia sua abstractus & illectus. Deinde cum concupiscentia conceperit, parit peccatum; peccatum vero cum consummatum fuerit, generat mortem. Idem de ipso Deo excusare se volentibus respondet libet Prov. Solomon, cap. 13. Insipientia viri violat vias ejus: Deum autem causatur in corde suo. Et liber Eccles. cap. 15. dicit: Ne dixeris quia propter Deum recessi, quae enim odit ne facias, etc. Ipse ab initio fecit illum, & reliquit illum in manu consilii sui.  

RESPONSIO.  
NIhil ad rem nec ad propositum iste locus. Hoc enim Augustinus solum vult, homines, cum peccant, peccata in Deum injuste referre, quasi ei placeant, vel ad ea peccatores inducat. Quod manifeste apparet ex verbis sequentibus Scripturae a S. Augustino immediate subjunctis, & ab adversariis partim suppressis. Sic enim S. Augustinus & liber Ecclesiasticus dicit: Ne dixeris quia propter Deum recessi, quae enim odit ne facias: ne dixeris quia ipse me induxit, non enim opus habet viro peccatore.  
Verum tantum abest ut hoc loco vel alio S. Augustinus docuerit, homines posse de Deo juste se excusare, si illis gratiam necessariam non daret qua possent vitare peccata, quin potius expresse contrarium docet in tota epistola 105. ad Sixtum; ubi eadem verba Scripturae ab adversariis nobis objecta producit, ostenditque, solis hominibus peccatum imputandum esse, quia, ut ait, Merito peccati universa massa damnata est, nec obdurat Deus impertiendo malitiam, sed non impertiendo misericordiam. Et infra: Postremo quonam se ipsi excusabunt modo? nempe illo, quem breviter tamquam ex eorum voce sibi objecit Apostolus, ut dicant: Quid adhuc conqueritur? Nam voluntati ejus quis resistit? Hoc est enim dicere, quid de nobis fit querela quod Deum offendamus male vivendo, cum illius voluntati non possimus resistere, qui nos obduravit misericordiam non praestando? si ergo illos non pudet hac excusatione, non nobis, sed Apostolo contradicere, cur nos pigeat eis, quod dixit Apostolus, hoc idem atque identidem dicere: O homo! tu quis es qui respondeas Deo, & c.?  
Et infra: Nihil ergo fit in eis qui dicunt, Quid adhuc conqueritur? nam voluntati ejus quis resistit? nisi quod legitur in libro Salomonis: Insipientia viri violat vias ejus, Deum autem causatur in corde suo. Quamvis itaque Deus faciat vasa irae in perditionem ut ostendat iram & demonstret potentiam suam, qua bene etiam utitur malis, & ut notas faciat divitias gloriae suae in vasa misericordiae, quae fecit in honorem, non damnabili massae debitum, sed suae gratiae largitate donatum: tamen in eisdem irae vasis propter meritum massae in contumeliam debitam factis, id est, hominibus propter naturae quidem bonum creatis, sed propter vitia supplicio destinatis, iniquitatem, quam rectissime veritas improbat, damnare novit ipse non facere. Sicut enim voluntati ejus tribuitur natura humana nullo dubitante laudanda, sic hominis voluntati tribuitur nullo recusante damnanda.  
Porro ipsa Scripturae verba ab Augustino allata & objecta ab adversariis: Ipse ab initio fecit hominem, & reliquit eum in manu consilii sui, quid vel minimum ad propositum, cum ibi agatur de libertate naturali hominis cum qua creatus est? Quod cuilibet patet qui hunc librum de gratia Dei & libero arbitrio tantisper legerit; nam tribus primis capitibus ostendit S. Augustinus, per praecepta, promissa, praemia, supplicia, esse in homine liberum arbitrium quod habet homo per naturam, sed nihil illi prodesse ad praecepta implenda, nisi sanetur per gratiam.  
Et certe quaerimus ab adversariis quid velint his verbis probare, Deus ab initio fecit hominem, & reliquit eum in manu consilii sui. An quod homo ita est in manu consilii sui, ut per naturam sine gratia possit eligere bonum vel malum? sed hoc Pelagianum est. An quod Deus constituat homines in manu consilii sui per gratiam liberatricem? quod est contra Apostolum: Etenim cum essetis servi peccati: Nulla esset in homine peccandi necessitas, quod pertinet ad errorem Pelagianorum: Multa erras, ait Augustinus ad Julianum lib. 1. oper. imperf. cap. 105. qui vel necessitatem nullam putas esse peccandi, vel eam non intelligis illius peccati esse poenam quod nullâ necessitate commissum est. Denique omnes omnino homines nascerentur cum charitate quae sola illos facit liberos ad precepta servanda, ut ait Augustinus ibidem n. 84. his verbis: Alia est remissio peccatoris in eyes quae mala facta sunt, alia charitas quae facit liberum ad ea quae bona facienda sunt: utroque modo liberat Christus, quia & iniquitatem ignoscendo aufert, & inspirando tribuit charitatem.  
Itaque his verbis Scripturae nihil aliud insinuatur, nisi hominem per naturam esse liberi arbitrii, esse in manu consilii sui, esse constitutum inter bonum & malum, inter vitam & mortem duplici ratione: Prima, quia quod voluerit faciet, & quod elegerit dabitur ei. Secunda, quia potest se flectere in utramque partem, & eligere bonum & malum, ita tamen ut bonum non possit eligere, nisi Deus in illo operetur & velle, malum vero per seipsum; sic enim S. Augustinus hanc sententiam Scripturae explicat, cum illi objiceretur a Pelagianis lib. 1. oper. imperf. cap. 45. Haec testimonia propter illam voluntatem dicta sunt, in qua quisque id quod vult agit; at si non habetur, (scilicet ipsa voluntas) ab eo poscatur qui in nobis operatur & velle; si autem habetur, fiant opera justitiae, & ei qui illam operatus est, agantur gratiae. Item de perf. justit cap. 19 eodem modo Calestio hoc Scripturae testimonium & alia similia objicienti S. Augustinus sic respondet: Aut quia in Deuteronomio scriptum est, Vitam & mortem dedit ante faciem hominis, bonum & malum, & admonuit ut eligeret vitam; quasi & ipsa admonitio non de misericordia veniat, vel a iquid prodesset eligere vitam, nisi Deus eligendi charitatem inspiraret & electam habere praestaret. Et infra: Aut quia dictum est, Si voles praecepta, servabunt te; quasi non debeat Deo gratias agere quia praecepta voluit, qui desertus omni lumine veritatis haec velle non potest.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XIX. Testimonium.]  Ejusdem libri capite 3. 
QUando autem dicit homo, Non possum facere quod praecipitur, quoniam concupiscentia mea vincor. Jam quidem de ignorantia non habet excusationem, nec Deum causatur in corde suo, sed malum suum in se cognoscit, & dolet, cui tamen dicit Apostolus Rom. 12. Noli vinci a malo, sed vince in bono malum. Ei utique cui dicitur, Noli vinci, arbitrium proculdubio voluntatis ejus convenitur; velle enim & nolle proptiae voluntatis est.  

RESPONSIO.  
NIhil etiam contra nos probat hic locus. Velle & nolle propriae voluntatis est: sed ad recte volendum praeparatur voluntas à Domino. Omnibus autem non praeparatur. Vide dicta de praedestinatione Sanctorum cap. 5. & 6. Non quia, inquit, credere vel non credere non est in arbitrio voluntatis humanae, sed in electis praeparatur voluntas a Domino. Multi audiunt verbum veritatis, fed alii credunt, alii contradicunt; volunt ergo isti credere, nolunt autem illi; quis hoc neget? sed cum aliis praeparetur, aliis non praeparetur voluntas a Domino, discernendum est utique quid veniat de misericordia, quid de judicio. Et infra: Misericordia igitur & judicium in ipsis voluntatibus facta sunt.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XX. Testimonium.]  Ejusdem libri capite 4. 
UBi si dixeris, Volo servare, sed vincor à concupiscentia mea, respondet Scriptura libero ejus arbitrio quae jam superius dixi: Noli vinci à malo, sed vince in bono malum; quod tamen ut fiat, adjuvat gratia, etc.  

RESPONSIO.  
QVod ut fiat, inquit S. Augustinus in loco citato (ut scilicet vincatur in bono malum) adjuvat gratia. Verum nec semper, nec omnes adjuvat ut paret ex his verbis immediate sequentibus, quae nisi adjuverit, nihil lex erit nisi virtus peccati: Nonne enim his verbis denotatur, gratiam non semper adjuvare? Ita sunt assueti fraudibus adversarii, ut ludum putent verba reticere tam aperta, quae ita conferunt ad sensum atque explanationem testimonii quod citant, ut eorum reticentia sensum omnino contrarium in animum legentis ingeneret. Hoc profecto committere horreret mens hominis quae nondum pudori omni renunciasset.  
Tam vero clarum est, hoc ipso capite S. Augustinum docere gratiam omnibus non dari, ut illud & in verbis antecedentibus & in consequentibus tradat, Dicit enim omnes, quibus datur gratia continendi, continere: Ex quo sequitur, omnibus hanc gratiam non dari, siquidem multi seipsos non continent; Et tamen, inquit, non omnes capiunt verbum hoc (Contine teipsum,) sed quibus datum est; quibus enim non est datum, aut nolunt, aut non implent quod volunt; quibus autem datum est, sic volunt, ut impleant quod volunt. Et paulo post in fine ejusdem capitis S. Augustinus sic loquitur: Ecce unde dicit homo, Volo legis servare mandatum, sed virtute concupiscentiae meae vincor: Et cùm voluntas ejus convenitur, & ei dicitur, Noli vinci à malo, quid ei prodest, nisi gratiâ succurrente fiat? quod ipse Apostolus secutus adjunxit: Gratias autem Deo qui dat nobis victoriam per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum; ergo & victoria quâ peccatum vincitur, nihil aliud est quàm donum Dei in isto certamine adjuvantis liberum arbitrium.  
Quis itaque non miretur adversarios ex eo colligere, gratiam sufficientem omnibus dari qui se dicunt a propria cupiditate superari, quod illorum arbitrium per legem conveniatur, cum S. Augustinus expresse dicat hanc legem nihil homini prodesse, nisi Deus illum adjuvet, Deum autem hominem adjuvare, quando dat illi victoriam per Jesum Christum; cum ergo non dot omnibus victoriam per Jesum Christum, nonne consequitur evidenter, Deum omnes infirmos non adjuvare cum per legem conveniuntur?  
Et ut mala fides adversariorum, vel eorum ignorantia in doctrina S. Augustini magis pateat, sufficiet nobis unum ex ejus testimoniis inter sexcenta producete. Ex serm. 4. de diversis, ubi clarissime docet, peccatorem auxilio Dei destiturum, non posse de ignorantia & de sua infirmitate conqueri, seu excusationes praetexere, quo minus peccet & pereat. Si acceperis legem, inquit, & defuerit tibi adjutorium spiritus, non imples quod legis, non imples quod tibi jubetur; sed homo sub lege insuper praevaricator tenetur: accedat spiritus; adjuvet, & fit quod jubetur; si defit spiritus, litera occidit te; quare litera occidit te? quia peccatorem te facit, nec potes te excusare de ignorantia, quia legem accepisti; jam quod faceres didicisti, ignorantia te non excusat, spiritus te non adjuvat: ergo peristi.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXI. Testimonium.]  Lib. de pastoribus cap. 6. 
SEd ne futuris tentationibus deficiat infirmus, nec falsa spe dejiciendus est, nec terrore frangendus: Dic ei: Praepara animam tuam ad tentationem, (Eccles. 2.) sed forte incipit labi, contremiscere, nolle accedere. Habes aliud 1 Corinth. 10. Fidelis Deus, qui vos non sinit tentari supra quam ferre potestis; Illud autem promittere & praedicare futuras passiones, infirmum confirmare est; timenti autem nimium, & ex hoc deterrito cum polliceris misericordiam Dei, non quia tentationes deerunt, sed quia non permittit tentari supra quam ferre potestis, fractum colligare est: affert consolationes alligamentum, alliga quod fractum est, dic ne timeas, non deerit in tentationibus ille in quem credidisti, fidelis Deus, qui non sinit te tentari supra quam potes ferre; non hoc a me audis, Apostolus dicit: qui etiam dicit, An vultis experimentum ejus accipere qui in me loquitur Christus? hoc ergo cum audis, ab ipso Christo audis, & ab illo Pastore qui pascit Israel; illi enim dictum est Psalm. 79. Potabis eos in lachrymis in mensura: quod enim ait Apostolus, non sinit tentari vos supra quam potestis ferre, hoc ait Propheta in mensura: Tantum tu noli dimittere corripientem & exhortantem, terrentem & consolantem, percutientem & sanantem.  

RESPONSIO.  
QUod hic & aliis multis sermonibus sequentibus dicitur, Fidelis Deus, qui non permittit vos tentari supra id quod potestis, sic intelligi debet ut diximus: quia S. Augustinus quasi electis loquitur, Quos Deus non permittit tentari supra quam possunt, spe & confidentia auxilii non defuturi, fideles erigit, terrore non frangit, ut hinc se ad orandum & operandum accingant, & omnem spem in Deo collocent. In scripto circa primam propositionem c. 2. art. 3. hanc Apostoli sententiam fuse exposuimus, nec solummodo argumentum, quod ex ea infertur, solvimus, sed etiam ex eadem sententia probavimus semper non adesse fidelibus gratiam qua possint tentationem sustinere ac vincere. Hanc promissionem in his qui secundum propositum vocati sunt, impleri docet S. Augustinus. Confirmat Hormisdas Papa: Tentatus est Petrus supra quàm posset sustinere. Quam verum est quod Deus in omnibus, qui tentantur, non facit cum tentatione proventum, seu, ut habet textus Graecus, & ut saepe S. Augustinus & S. Hieronymus loquuntur, non facit exitum ut possint sustinere! alias omnes in tentatione proficerent, evaderent, nullusque deficeret.  
Quamvis autem ista Apostoli verba intelligi tantum debeant de praedestinatis, vult tamen Augustinus, ut prudens Pastor illis verbis utatur ad confirmandum hominem infirmum, qui in cultu Dei tentationes reformidare posset; quia oportet ut cum illo agat tamquam cum electo, ad quem proinde pertineant promissa Dei de protectione & conservatione suorum electorum, ita tamen, ut, cum eum de tali protectione divina securum faciat, hac conditione faciat, ut non dimittat Deum corripientem & exhortantem, terrentem & consolantem, percutientem & sanantem, quemadmodum extremis verbis loquitur Augustinus.  
Verum haec conditio, sicut & quaelibet alia ad salutem pertinens, donum est gratiae singularis; sicut & praemium, ut supra demonstratum est, observatione 3 praemissa ad responsiones.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXII. Testimonium.]  In Psalm 40. 
NE dicas, non possum tenere & portare & fraenare carnem meam; adjuvaris ut possis: Dominus opem ferat super lectum doloris ejus.  

RESPONSIO.  
VErum est te adjuvari, si velis carnem tuam fraenare in nomine Christi, si non praesumas de viribus tuis, si praesumas de gratia, si praesumendo ad Christum venias, hoc est, Christi implores auxilium, ut loqitur S. Augustinus eodem loco, & paulo supra.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXIII. Testimonium.]  Enarrat. in Psalm 61. 
UT non cadat paries, Dominus suscipiet, quoniam qui dat potestatem tentatori, ipse tentato praebet misericordiam; ad mensuram enim permittitur tentare diabolus: Et potabis nos, inquit, in lacrymis in mensura; noli ergo timere nisi permissum aliquid facere tentatorem; habes enim misericordissimum Salvatorem; tantum permittitur ille tentare, quantum tibi prodest ut exercearis, ut proberis, ut, qui te nesciebas, ab ipso inveniaris: Nam ubi vel unde de hac Dei potestate & misericordia securi esse debemus secundum illam Apostolicam sententiam: Fidelis Deus qui non permittit vos tentari supra id quod potestis, etc. Et paulo post circa finem: Noli ergo mirari, permittit Deus, & judicio permittit & mensura, numero & pondere permitrit, apud illum non est iniquitas, tu tantum ad eum pertine, in ipso spem pone, ipse sit adjutor tuus, salutare tuum, in illo sit locus munitus, turris fortitudinis: Refugium tuum ipse est, & non sinit te tentari supra quam potes ferre, sed faciet cum tentatione exitum, ut possis sustinere; ut quod te sinit pati tentationem potestas ejus sit, quod non sinit ultra in te fieri quam potes ferre, misericordia ejus sit, quoniam potestas Dei est, & tibi Domine misericordia.  

RESPONSIO.  
SAnctus Augustinus loquitur, ut jam toties dictum est, omnibus fidelibus, ac si essent omnes praedestinati; Et ut utamur ipsius S. Augustini verbis; Paleae loquitur tanquam grano, quia paleam a grano discernere non potest, cujus rei evidentissimum est argumentum in illis verbis, tantum permittitur diabolus tentare, quantum tibi prodest ut exercearis, ut proberis, ut qui te nesciebas, ab ipso inveniaris; quod certe de reprobis dici non potest.  
Adde quod S. Augustinus hanc gratiam & Dei protectionem spondet omnibus fidelibus sub ea conditione, si ad Deum pertineant, si in Deo spem suam ponant, si ad illum confugiant, tamquam ad locum munitum & turrim fortitudinis, si illorum refugium ipse sit. Verum hanc conditionem esse donum gratiae singularis, supra ostendimus observatione 3.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXIV. Testimonium.]  Idem in Psalmum 91. 
SI non est valde impius, ad manum Satanam habet quem accuset, Satanas fecit, dicit, quasi Satanas habeat potestatem cogendi, astutiam habet: sed si Satanas loqueretur, & taceret Deus, haberes unde te excusares: modo aures tuae positae sunt inter monentem Deum & suggerentem serpentem: quare hinc flectuntur, hinc avertuntur; non cessat Satanas suadere malum, sed nec Deus cessat admonere bonum, etc.  

RESPONSIO.  
EX S. Augustino libro de gratia Christi cap. 13. admonitio qua Deus admonet, sicut & doctrina qua docet, duplex est: una qua Deus ostendit veritatem, altera qua impertit charitatem; una qua docet per legis literam, altera per spiritus gratiam; una qua suadet, altera qua persuadet; una quae facit homines inexcusabiles, &, si sola sit, legis praevaricatores, altera quae facit eos legis dilectores. Prior illa quaecumque sit, sive interior, sive exterior, pertinet ad legem atque doctrinam. Posterior vero est vera gratia Christi quae necessaria est ad singulos actus.  
De prima loquitur S. Augustinus in objectione quam contra nos adversarii proponunt. Ibi enim ostendit S. Augustinus, homines, cum peccant, inexcusabiles esse, nec posse accusare diabolum de peccatis suis. Primo quia diabolus non cogit invitum ad peccandum; suadere potest, cogere non potest. Secundo, quia si diabolus non cessat suadere peccatum, Deus ex altera parte non cessat, fidelibus saltem, suadere justitiam, quod sufficit ut peccantes sint inexcusablies. Quod vero S. Augustinus ne verbum quidem faciat de posteriore, inde patet, quod expresse doceat, eum, qui ea doctrina vel admonitione vitare peccatum & facere bonum a Deo edoctus est, femper peccatum vitare & bonum facere. Haec sunt verba S. Augustini docentis gratiam esse doctrinam Dei. De gratia Christi cap. 13. Haec graria si doctrina dicenda est, certe sic dicatur, ut altius & interius eam Deus cum ineffabili suavitare credatur infundere, non solum per eos qui plantant & rigant extrinsecus, sed etiam per seipsum, qui incrementum subministrat occultus. Ita ut non ostendat tantummodo veritatem, verum etiam impertiat charitatem; sic enim docet Deus cos qui secundum propositum vocari sunt, simul donans & quod agant scire, & quod sciunt agere. Unde ad Thessalonicenses sic Apostolus loquitur: De charitate autem fraternitatis non opus habetis vobis scribere, nam ipsi vos a Deo didicistis, ut diligatis invicem: tamquam hoc sit certissimum indicium quod a Deo didiceritis, si id quod didiceritis feceritis. Qui aurem novit quid est quod fieri debeat, & non facit, nondum a Deo didicit secundum gratiam, sed secundum legem, non secundum spiritum, sed secundum literam.  
Et cap. 14. De isto docendi modo etiam Dominus aic; Omnis qui audivit & didicit a Patre meo, venit ad me. Qui ergo non venerit, non de illo recte dicitur. Audivit quidem & didicit sibi esse veniendum, sed facere non vult quod didicit. Prorsus non recte dicitur de isto docendi modo, quo per gratiam docet Deus. Si enim, sicut veritas loquitur, omnis qui didicit venit, quisquis non venit, profecto nec didicit. Breviter igitur sic respondemus objectioni ipsismet S. Augustini verbis; Qui admonetur a Deo in tentatione & hac admonitione novit quid facere debeat, & non facit, nondum a Deo didicit secundum gratiam, sed secundum legem; non secundum spiritum, sed secundum literam: proindeque haec admonitio de qua loquitur S. Augustinus in Psalm. citat. non est illa gratia Christi qua docet homines quantum sufficit ut peccata vitare & bonum facere possint & faciant.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXV. Testimonium.]  In Psalmum 120 prope finem. 
FIdelis Deus qui non permittit vos tentari supra quam vos potestis ferre, ecce introitus tuus custoditur, quando non tibi sinit Deus accidere tentationem, quam non potes ferre, introitum tuum custodit & exitum; sed faciet, inquit, etiam cum tentatione exitum ut possitis sustinere. Numquid possumus nos, fratres, interpretari aliter quam ipsa verba Apostoli docuerunt? Custodite ergo vos, sed non a vobis, quia Dominus tegum entum tuum, qui custodit, qui non dormitat neque dormit.  
ALTERAM similirer rationem refellit S. Doctor, quod scilicet Deus gratiam nec praevaricatoribus legis deneget, vel qua possint eam observare, vel a Deo auxilium necessarium petere.  

RESPONSIO.  
I. HUic objectioni plenissime satisfactum est in responsione ad testimonium 21.  
II. Non dicit absolute S. Augustinus quod neminem Deus permittit tentari supra id quod potest, sed tantummodo quod, quando id permittit, tunc custodit introitum hominis in tentationem, & quando facit cum tentatione proventum, tunc custodit exitum a tentatione.  
III. Docet id fieri tantum a Deo in iis qui non habent ventum superbiae, quia humilitas, inquit, custodit in omni tentatione qui de se non praesumunt, sed auxilium suum ponunt in Domino, ut ipsemet dicit in contextu paginae. Atqui idem S. Augustinus docet in libro 2 de peccat. mer. cap. 17 & 19, hanc superbiam, quae omnium humanorum vitiorum causa est, & propter quam Deus plerumque sinit nos tentari supra quam possumus, non in omnibus sanari per gratiam; & cum Deus id facit, misericordia id facere; cum non facit, judicio non facere: judicio, inquam, vel condemnationis, si, ut loquitur S. Augustinus, damnandi praedestinati sunt propter iniquitatem superbiae; vel eruditionis, si filii sunt misericordiae, & contra ipsam suam superhiam erudiendi.  
Et in fine capiris 19 docet, ad obtinendam gratiam, qua peccata vitentur, necessarium esse ut conemur vigilanter, & Deum ardenter deprecemur, & agnoscamus hanc vigilantiam & orationem nobis a Deo donari per gratiam. Haec sunt ejus verba; Nec ideo tamen in iisdem vitiis nobis permanendum esse existimemus, sed adversus ipsam maxime superbiam; propter quam in eis humiliamur, & nos vigilanter conemur, & ipsum deprecemur ardenter, simul intelligentes, & quod sic conamur, & quod sic deprecamur, dono illius nos habere, ut in omnibus, non ad nos respicientes, sed sursum cor habenses, Domino Deo nostro gratias agamus, &, cum gloriamur, in illo gloriemur.  
Quis autem dicat hunc conarum, hanc vigilantiam continuam, hanc ardentem orationem non esse donum gratiae singularis & efficacis, sed solum sufficientis omnibus concessae? Hoc posito, respondemus, quod aliis similibus testimoniis solvendis sufficit; cum Paulus & S. Augustinus ubique spondent fidelibus Deum non permissurum eos tentari supra id quod possunt, hanc illis gratiam spondere, si humiles sint, si contra superbiam vigilanter conentur, si Deum ardenter deprecentur. Ad hoc ergo ut adversarii inde possent inferre Deum neminem permittere tentari supra quam potest, oporteret ut prius probarent, hanc animi piam humilitatem, hanc conantem vigilantiam, hanc ferventem orationem dari a Deo omnibus hominibus per gratiam sufficientem, quod certe falsissimum est, nec id adversarii coram sua Sanctitate audebunt unquam asserere.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXVI. Testimonium.]  Libro 1 de Gen. contra Manichaeos cap. 3. 
QVod (praecepta Dei servare) omnes homines possum si velint, quia illud lumen omnem hominem illuminat venientem in hunc mundum, probat lib. Retract.  

RESPONSIO.  
HOc testimonium jam antea relatum solutumque est n. 3.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXVII. Testimonium.]  Lib. 1 ad Simplicianum quaest. 1. 
HOc enim restat in hacce mortali vita libero arbitrio, ut non impleat homo justitiam cum voluerit, sed ut sese supplici pietate convertat ad Deum, cujus dono possit eam implere.  
NOTA Sancti Augustini doctrinam eam esse quam locis infra citandis tradit, non semper nobis suppetere ut absque auxilio per preces nostras impretando praecepta Dei quaelibet impleamus, sed nullum esse quod non vel gratis oblato auxilio nulla nostra prece efflagitato, vel certe auxilio a Deo impetrando possimus implere.  

RESPONSIO.  
I. SI quid probaret hic locus, gratiam sufficientem ad orandum libero arbitrio subjectam esse probaret.  
II. Si quid adhuc probaret hic locus, id tantum probaret de iis qui jam per gratiam Christi volunt implere justitiam Christi & conantur, sed majore impetu concupiscentiae prohibentur ne possint. Nam quod S. Augustinus de omnibus omnino hominibus id non dicat, clarum est ex cap. 22 de nat. & Stat. ubi docet, eos qui deseruntur a Deo, subdi necessitati peccandi, adeo ut audiant tantum auribus corporis vocem legis, qua admoneantur ad Deum recurrere; sic enim loquitur de Pelagio, qui ferre non poterat peccatum peccato & induratione vel caecitate a Deo vindicari. Nec cogitat, inquit S. Augustinus, praevaricatorem legis quam digne lux deserat veritatis, qua desertus utique fit coecus, & plus necesse est offendat, & cadendo vexetur, vexatusque non surgat, ut ideo tantum audiat vocem legis, quo admoneatur implorare gratiam Salvatoris, etc. Consulatur, si placet, locus integer.  
III. Nihil probari potest ex hoc loco, nisi postquam homo peccatum suum miseriamque, in quam demersus est, agnovit, nihil illi aliud restare, quam ut gemat & imploret auxilium Dei, quo justitiam implere possit & a peccato liberari, seu homini sub lege & peccato captivo alium modum resurgendi & juste vivendi non superesse nisi gemitum & orationem.  
Ex quo nequaquam sequitur, quod concludunt adversarii, omnibus semper dari orandi gratiam; imo contrarium semper docuerunt & S. Augustinus, & Prosper, & Fulgentius. Sic enim S. Augustinus lib. de nat. & grat. cap. 7. Vnde admonemur a Deo petere sapientiam qui dat omnibus affluenter, utique his qui sic petunt, quomodo & quantum res tanta petenda est.  
Et lib. de moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae cap. 17. Si sapientia & veritas non totis animi viribus concupiscatur, inveniri nullo pacto potest. At si ista ita quaeratur ut dignum est, subtrahere sese atque abscondere a suis dilectoribus non potest. Hinc est illud quod ait Jesus: Petite & accipietis, quaerite & invenietis, pulsate & aperietur vobis, amore petitur, amore quaeritur, amore pulsatur.  
Quis autem adeo superbi est animi, ut praesumere audeat se semper habere sufficientem Dei gratiam, qua possit ab eo petere observationem mandatorum eius, quantum & quomodo res tanta petenda est, id est, amore petendo, quaerendo, pulsanco, & totis viribus animi jugiter concupiscendo, praesertim in tentatione, cum animus illecebris voluptatum distractus est, nec toto animi conatu potest ad Deum confugere?  
Et lib. 1 oper. imperf. cap. 94, dicit admonitionem legis prodesse praedestinatis, sed non dicit prodesse omnibus hominibus, quia Deus omnibus quibus jubet bonum, non largitur charitatem quae sola vult bonum. Homo Pelagiane, inquit, charitas vult bonum, & charitas ex Deo est, non per legis literam, sed per spiritum gratiae: in hoc est praedestinatis adjutorium litera, quia jubendo & non juvando admonet infirmos confugere ad spiritum gratiae. Sic lege legitime utuntur quibus bona est, id est, utilis: alioquin per se ipsa litera occidit, quia jubendo bonum, & non largiendo charitatem qua sola vult bonum, reos praevaricationis facit.  
Et lib. de cor. & grat. c. 1: Qui etgo legitime lege utitur, discit in ea malum & bonum, & non confidens in virtute sua, confugit ad gratiam, qua praestante declinet a malo & faciat bonum. Quis autem confugit ad gratiam nisi cum a Domino gressus hominis diriguntur, & viam ejus volet? Ac per hoc & desiderare auxilium gratiae initium gratiae est: de quo ait ille, Et dixi, nunc coepi, haec mutatio dexterae Excelsi.  
Post S. Augustinum sic S. Prosper adversus Collatine. c. 23. Imperantur autem ista homini, ut ex ipso praecepto Dei, quo ei hoc quod accepit, indicitur, agnoscat id se suo vitio perdidisse, & non ideo iniquam esse exactionem quia ad reddendum quod debet, idoneus non est, sed a litera occidente confugiat ap spititum vivificantem, & facultatem quam ante non invenit in natura, quaerat ex gratia: quod si facit, magna est misericordia Domini; si non facit, justa est poena peccati.  
Denique post S. Prosperum S. Fulgentius lib. 2 de veritate praedestinationis & gratiae c. 4. Dum praecipitur nobis ut velimus, ostenditur quid habere debeamus; sed quia id ex nobis habere non possumus, admonemur, ut a quo nobis datur praeceptum, ab ipso petamus auxilium, quod tamen non possumus poscere, nisi Deus in nobis operetur & velle. Sufficiat igitur in posterum quod semel ex Patribus ostendimus, non consequi ex admonitione legis omnibus hominibus, quod lex admonet inesse sufficientes & necessarias vires per gratiam, quibus possint vel mandata legis implere, vel ad spiritum gratiae confugere.    

SCRIPTUM ADVESARIORUM. [XXVIII. Testimonium.]  Libri 1 quaest. 2 ad eumdem. 
NOluit Esau, & non cucurrit, sed si voluisset, & cucurrisset, Dei adjutorio pervenisset, qui etiam ei velle & currere volendo praestaret, nisi vocatione contempta reprobus fieret.  

RESPONSIO.  
HIc S. Augustinus errorem quem deponebat, disputando agitat; ibi enim eadem de vocatione & fide docet, quae in expositione proposionum ad Romanos dixerat cum in Semipelagiano errore versaretur. Hinc ergo concludi non potest juxta Ecclesiae sensum esse aliquam vocationem internam, cui pro nutu alter obtemperat, & alter resistit. Verum postquam ventilavit S. Augustinus, an voluntas credendi sit donum Dei eo solum nomine, quia credere non possumus nisi Deo vocante, tandem definit fidem esse donum Dei quia ut velimus & incipiamus credere, Deus miseretur, & cum miseretur, sine dubio volumus. Illud pater ex expositione hujus sententiae Apostoli, Non est volentis, neque currentis, etc. quam de gratia ex se efficaci ad bonam voluntatem & fidem necessaria S. Augustinus intelligendam esse docet.  
Nota etiam quod si quid ex testimonio citato probaretur, ex eo gratia sufficiens libero arbitrio subjecta probaretur.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXIX. Testimonium.]  Lib. 83. qq. quaest. 68 
AD illam coenam quam Dominus dixit in Evangelio praeparatam, neque omnes qui vocati sunt venire voluerunt, neque illi qui venerunt, venire possunt, nisi vocarentur; Itaque neque illi sibi debent tribuere qui venerunt, quia vocati venerunt, neque illi qui noluerunt, alteri tribuere, sed tantum sibi; quia ut venirent vocati, in eorum erat libera potestate.  

RESPONSIO.  
EX hoc loco nihil etiam colligi potest, nisi pro errore Semipelagiano, in quo erat S. Augustinus cum has quaestiones dictaret; tunc enim non putabat fidem Dei gratia praeveniti, ut clarius innotescit ex iis quae praecedunt verba ab adversariis relata, quaeque Semipelagianismum expressus continent.  
Sed cur, inquient, haec verba quaest. 68, in quibus errorem esse dicimus, S. Augustinus non correxit, cum hanc quaestionem Retractavit? Imo vero manifestissime correxit, sic loquendo lib. 1 Retractationum cap. 26: Est misericordia Dei praeveniens ipsam voluntatem, quae, si non esset, non praepararetur voluntas a Domino. Ad eam misericordiam pertinet & ipsa vocatio, quae etiam fidem praevenit. II. Quia quaecumque ad illum errorem circa fidei donum pertinent, satis retractivit in lib. de praedestinat. Sanctor. cap. 3 & 4.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXX. Testimonium.]  De natura & gratia cap. 26. 
NOn deserit, si non deseratur, ut pie semper justeque vivatur.  

RESPONSIO.  
I. SI quid ex hoc loco probatur, probatur gratia sufficiens libero subjecta arbitrio.  
II. Resp. Deus neminem deserit, si non deseratur, quia, ut inquiunt Thomistae fere omnes in hunc & Concilii Tridentini locum, nulli justo Deus gratiam sanctificantem subtrahit, nisi Deum per peccatum mortale deseruerit; seu, si de gratia actuali illud intelligendum sit, Deus nulli justo negat gratiam operandi, nisi negligendo orare Deum deseruerit, seu nisi Dei auxilium implorare desierit. Plura diximus ad hujus loci expositionem in scripto circa primam propositionem cap. 6. art. 3. Ex his patet solutio ad multas alias similes sententias quae adversus veram Christi gratiam, quam defendimus, proferuntur.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXXI. Testimonium.]  Libro 4 ad Bonifacium capite ultimo in fine. 
UT petant prudentes (homines) Deus instruit & clementer audit.  
NOTA, ridicule instrueret nos ut peteremus auxilium quod non esset paratus dare: quare si instruit ut petamus, dare paratus est, ideoque in nobis est ut petamus, quia petentes exauditurus est, in nobis est ut impetremus.  

RESPONSIO.  
DEus est paratus dare auxilium suum petentibus quantum petendum est, ideoque nos ad petendum instruit; sed ut pie petamus, ut petamus digne, fideliter, ardenter, peseverantet, & quantum petendum est, praeparatur voluntas a Domino. Quod si quia Deus nos monet ut petamus, colligitur ab adversariis semper nobis adesse petendi gratiam: Respondemus hunc fuisse Adrumetinorum errorem, qui vel correctionem & exhortationem inutilem esse contendebant, vel in unoquoque inesse facere quod praecipitur, vel orare. Ad quem errorem refutandum S. Augustinus scripsit librum de corrept. & grat. & praeterea contra julianum lib. 4. cap. 8. Pelagianos arguit, quod existimarent, ideo omnes salvos fieri, quia, cum Deus velit dare, nolunt ipsi petere, docetque, cum nemo velle possit, nisi Deo voluntatem praeparante atque subveniente, profundum esse cur & in majoribus & in minoribus Deus velit alteri, & nolit alteri subvenire, nec tamen ridicule instruit omnes ad petendum, licet nolit omnibus subvenire.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXXII. Testimonium.]  De gratia & lib. arb. cap. 15. 
QVare jubet si ipse daturus est? quare dat si homo facturus est? nisi quia dat quod jubet, & adjuvat ut faciat cui jubet.  

RESPONSIO.  
HIc locus ab adversariis male citatur, nam in editionibus correctioribus non ita legitur, Dat quod jubet, & adjuvat ut faciat cui jubet; sed ita legitur, Dat quod jubet, cùm adjuvat ut faciat cui jubet. Itaque non est sensus, Deum semper dare quod jubet, & adjuvare cui jubet, hoc enim evidenter falsum est, siquidem non dat Deus quod jubet quando ejus praecepta violantur: sed sensus est, Deum dare quod jubet, quando adjuvat eum cui jubet; quod maxime evertit doctrinam adversariorum. Ind enim sequitur nullam esse gratiam propriae sufficientem, nisi eam qua Deus dat quod jubet, talis autem gratia efficax est, cum sit vera gratia quam a Deo petimus.  
II. Cum dicit Augustinus Deum adjuvare cui jubet, loquitur de gratia efficaci, qua Deus dat quod jubet, & facit in nobis cor novum, & spiritum novum ponit in medio nostri, & convertit nos ad se, ut patet locum & caput integrum legenti: Atqui Deus non dat omnibus gratiam efficacem: Ergo non adjuvat omnes ut faciant quod jubet.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXXIII. Testimonium.]  Ejusdem libri capite 18. 
NIsi quia praecepto admonitum est liberum arbitrium, ut quaereret Dei donum. Quod quidem sine suo fructu prorsus admonefetur, nisi prius acciperet aliquid dilectionis ut addi sibi quaereret, unde quod jubebatur impleret: cum dicitur, Diligamus invicem, lex est; cum dicitur, Quia dilectio ex Deo est, gratia est, sapientia quippe. Dei legem & misericordiam in lingua portat: unde scriptum est Psalm 83. Benedictionem dabit qui legem dedit.  
NOTA, Ibi probari frustra statuendum sine dono gratiae praeceptum, illudque semper cum praecepto esse conjunctum.  

RESPONSIO.  
I. SI quid ex hoc loco probari posset, probaretur, gratiam, seu ad operandum seu ad orandum necessariam subjectam esse libero arbitrio.  
II. Hujus loci hic sensus est: (liberum arbitrium sine suo fructu admoneretur) scilicet quoad vim faciendi id quod jubetur, nisi prius acciperet aliquid dilectionis, quia gratia est fructus vim tribuens praecepti illius implendi, non vero quia gratia semper conceditur cum praeceptum datur: frustra tamen & inutiliter praeceptum non datur cum sine gratia datur, multae sunt enim praecepti utilitates: sed ubi non est gratia qua praeceptum impleatur, vel qua Dei donum quaeratur, non est praecipuus praecepti fructus. Ita ipse S. Augustinus eodem in libro exponit cap. 4. Nisi, inquit, gratia adjuverit, nihil lex erit nisi virtus peccati, augetur enim concupiscentia, etc. Et infra: Et cum voluntas ejus convenitur & ei dicitur, Noli vinci à malo; quid ei prodest nisi gratiâ succurrente fiat? Unde concludit in fine capitis: Homo ergo gratia juvatur, ne sine causa voluntati ejus jubeatur. Et cap. 15. Sic quippe adjuvatur ut faciat quod jubetur, tunc enim utile est velle cum postumus, & tunc utile est posse cum volumus. Nam quid prodest si quod non possumus volumus, aut si quod possumus nolumus? Clare docet S. Augustinus 2 operis imperfecti cap. 157. frustra Doctorem hortari, nisi Deus det incrementum, & cum Deus dat incrementum, auditorem sine dubio proficere. Ergo ubi non est gratia efficax, aliquo sensu frustra admonetur liberum arbitrium. Itaque ex loco citato non sequitur semper esse gratiam ubi est praeceptum, licet tunc praeceptum sit sine suo fructu quoad vim faciendi id quod jubetur: quamquam vero aliquo sensu sit frustra, & nihil prosit illi qui admonetur, frustra tamen & sine omni fructu & utilitate praeceptum non est, licet illi gratia conjuncta non sit. Ostendit esse in homine liberum arbirrium, sine quo praecepta impleri non possunt, monet hominem quid ab eo fieri debeat, aufert excusationem quam homines solent de ignorantia obtendere.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXXIV. Testimonium.]  Lib. 2. de Pastoribus cap. 5. 
COnfortatur infirmus cùm ei dicitur, spera quidem tentationes hujus saeculi, sed ab omnibus eruet te Dominus, si ab illo non recedat retro cor nostrum.  

RESPONSIO.  
VErum id, ut ait S. Augustinus lib. de dono pers. c. 7. Dei est facere ut non recedat retro cor nostrum. Post casum, inquit, hominis nonnisi ad gratiam suam voluit pertinere ut homo accedat ad Deum, neque nisi ad gratiam suam voluit pertinere, ut homo non recedat ab eo. Et paulo infra: Manus igitur est Dei ista, non nostra, ut non discedamus a Deo qui dixit: Timorem meum dabo in cor eorum ut a me non recedant.  
Quod certe in quibusdam facit, & in quibusdam non facit: Cur autem in omnibus non faciat audi S. Prosperum: 
Resp. 14. ad obj. Vincentianas.  Cur autem illum retineat (ne Deum deserat) illum non retineat, nec possibile est comprehendere, nec licitum vestigare; cum scire sufficiat ab illo esse quod statur, & non ab illo esse quod ruitur.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXXV. Testimonium.]  Enarrat. in Psalmum 26. 
NOli de te praesumere; si te dereliquerit, in ipsa via deficies, cades, aberrabis, remanebis: dic ergo illi, Voluntatem quidem liberam mihi dedisti, sed sine te nihil est mihi conatus meus; adjutor meus esto, ne derelinquas me, neque despicias me, Deus salutaris meus: Tu enim adjuvas qui condidisti, tu non deseris qui creasti.  

RESPONSIO.  
ID verum est; sed eum quide Deo, non de se praesumit, quique illi dicit in oratione sicut dicere o-Portet, Adjutor meus es tu, quod quidem nemo Potest dicere, nisi Deus in illo operetur & velle, ait S. Fulgentius loco supra citato.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXXVI. Testimonium.]  In Psalm 43. 
NOn ergo relinquit Deus, & cùm videtur relinquere; tollit quod malè desiderasti, & docet quid debeas bene desiderare.  

RESPONSIO.  
SEnsus est, Deum non propterea derelinquere hominem, cum subtrahit illi bona temporalia, sicut quidam arbitrantur se a Deo derelictos, cum illis in prosperitatibus non favet. Videatur locus iste apud S. Augustinum, ut pudeat adversarios tot testimonia, quae nihil ad propositum faciunt, congerere. Cum autem tollit tibi Deus haec temporalia quae male desiderasti, docet quid debeas bene desiderare. Verum est; sed ista doctrina, ait ipse S. Augustinus libro supra citato de gratia Christi, nisi eam Deus altius & interius cum ineffabili suavitate infundat, non solum ostendendo veritatem, sed etiam impertiendo charitatem, doctrina est literae, non gratiae, legis, non spiritus.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXXVII. Testimonium.]  In Psalm 51. 
NOluit intelligere ut bene ageret; non enim dictum est, Non potuit, sed noluit, inquit, intelligere ut bene ageret; claudit oculos suos à luce praesenti.  

RESPONSIO.  
REsp. primo, loquitur hic Sanctus Augustinus de cognitione & intelligentia veritatis quae obligat ad bene agendum, & ad quam sufficientes sumus per legem atque doctrinam, non vero de viribus sufficientibus ad legem implendam.  
Secundo, Illud dicimur posse secundum S. Augustinum, quod nostram sequitur voluntatem, & quod facimus quando volumus: quia vero plerique hominum cognoscerent veritatem si vellent, ideo de illis juste dicitur, non quod non potuerunt cognoscere, sed quod noluerunt, & quod in illis ignorantia sequitur voluntatem, non praecedit. Verum quid haec ad propositum? quid haec ad gratiam sufficientem omnibus datam ut praecepta impleantur?    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXXVIII. Testimonium.]  In Psalm 77. 
PRaecessit enim aliquid unde Deus justissimè iratus ab eis suum lumen auferret.  

RESPONSIO.  
ERat officii adversariorum locum integrum producere, & haec verba immediate sequentia addere, Ut in peccata, quae nulla tergiversatione defendi possunt, non esse peccata, caecitas humanae mentis ostenderet ab itinere justitiae deviando & errando.  
Haec S. Augustinus de Aegyptiis, qui caecitate mentis Deo rebellabant eique detrectabant obedire. Verum quid inde pro gratia sufficiente? quid enim aliud intendit S. Augustinus, quam aliqua peccata puniri a Deo tanta caecitate mentis, ut prae illa caecitate homines postea in alia peccata offendant, quae aut non vident esse peccata, aut, si vident, contemnunt? Quis hoc neget, peccata peccatis vindicari? nonne docet Apostolus, sapientes hujus mundi, qui Deum ex creaturis agnoverunt, quia tamen ei gratias non egerunt, sed pro vero Deo idola coluerunt, juste ab ipso traditos esse in reprobum sensum, & in passiones ignominiae, ut facerent quae non conveniebant?    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XXXIX. Testimonium.]  In Psalm 102. 
SAnat omnino ille quemlibet languidum, sed non sanat invitum; quid autem te beatius? quam ut tamquam in manu tua vitam, sed habeas in voluntate tua sanitatem tuam, etc. Vide ibi plura, sed maxime ista: Non enim cessavit vocare, aut vocatum neglexit instruere, aut perfectum neglexit coronare.  

RESPONSIO.  
MIra est omnino adversariorum audacia, & libentes dixerimus animadversione S. Sedis Apostolicae digna, non solum quod inverso ordine S. Augustini testimonium proferunt, sed etiam quod illud detruncant ac mutilant.  
Haec enim sunt priora verba S. Augustini: Non cessavit Deus vocare, aut vocatum neglexit instruere, aut instructum cessavit perficere, aut perfectum neglexit coronare; Ex quibus haec praecipua expunxerunt, aut instructum cessavit perficere; quia cum gratiam generalem omnibus datam ex hoc loco colligere velint, ac videant non posse dici de omnibus quod perficit per gratiam quos instruit, quia alias omnes per Christi gratiam essent perfecti, quod dici non potest, ideo fraudulenter haec verba suppresserunt, ex quibus solis S. Augustinum de gratia interiori omnibus data, in isto loco loqui non posse constat. Post ejusmodi fraudes quae sinceritas ab adversariis expectanda est? Deinde esto, nulla sit fraus in citatione hujus testimonii, qua fronte adversarii illud audent producere ab probandum peccatoribus gratiam sufficientem semper dari, cum ibi loquatur S. Augustinus homini peccatori, sed non de ipso peccatore, verum de homine justo, ut erat David, cujus iniquitatibus Deus propitius fuit, cujus sanavit omnes infirmitates, cujus redemit de interitu vitam, & quem coronavit in misericordia & miserationibus. Nam S. Augustinus hunc Psalmum explicandum suscipi, Benedic anima— qui propitiatur omnibus iniquitatibus tuis, etc. Ex hoc animat peccatorem ad spem similis gratiae, & a desperatione revocat; subdit enim immediate: Quid dicis quia es peccator? convertere & accipe retributiones istas, propitius sit omnibus iniquitatibus tuis, id est, convertere, & retribuet tibi Dominus bona pro malis, sicut retribuit isti justo qui dicit, qui propitiatur omnibus iniquitatibus tuis.  
Quod attinet ad illa verba quae sequuntur in S. Augustino: Sanat omnino ille quemlibet languidum, sed non sanat invitum: verum est, sed, ut ait ipse S. Augustinus ibidem: Opus est ut sanari velis, ut manum Medici non repellas, ut non solùm delecteris cùm fovet, sed etiam toleres cùm secat, ut toleres medicinalem dolorem, futuram cogitans sanitatem. Denique ut pro salute aeterna toleres, quod pro temporali solent homines aegroti tolerare. Sed, amabo, velle sicut oportet sanari, patienter manus Medici ferre, tolerare omnia dura & amara hujus seculi tamquam medicamenta morborum nostrorum amore salutis aeternae, parvane sunt ista? & quis ad tanta idoneus est, nisi Deus operetur in homine istud velle, illudque in eo de die in diem confirmet & corroboret per efficaciam gratiae suae singularis?  
Sed dicent adversarii: Subjungit S. Augustinus nos habere, id est, in voluntate nostra sanitatem nostram. Fatemur, verum non in eo sensu quem contendunt, quasi id omnes proxime possint per gratiam sufficientem omnibus datam, sed quia statim ut volumus sanari, sanamur, quia ista voluntas est sanitas, & quanto major voluntas, tanto major sanitas, quod certe dici non potest de omnibus aliis bonis quae extra voluntatem sita sunt. Audiant, quaeso, adversarii ipsum Sanctum Augustinum seipsum hoc eodem loco explicantem: Hanc salutem si volueris, obtinebis; honores, divitias cùm quaesieris, non continuò si volueris habebis: hoc & pretiosius est, & sequitur voluntatem, ejus scilicet qui voluerit.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XL. Testimonium.]  In Psalmum 118. Concione 17. 
QUia itaque credidi tua esse mandata, ipsa fides mea qua id credidi, impetrat abs te gratiam qua faciam quod mandasti; si enim homo mihi haec juberet forinsecus, numquid etiam ut facerem quod jubebat adjuvaret intrinsecus? doce ergo me suavitatem inspirando charitatem, doce me disciplinam donando patientiam, doce me scientiam illuminando intelligentiam, quoniam tuis mandatis credidi, te illa credidi mandasse, quia Deus es, & homini donas unde facias eum facere quod mandas.  

RESPONSIO.  
PRobat hoc testimonium jus esse homini Deum obtestari per fidei orationem, ut charitatem inspiret qua fiant ejus mandata quae fieri ipse praecepit. Quis hoc neget? imo ex hoc argumento invictissime demonstramus, haec omnia quae petimus a Deo, scilicet charitatem, suavitatem, sapientiam, bonitatem, & universa ejusmodi ad salutem pertinentia, nobis a Deo donari per gratiam efficacem, & proinde singularem; nulli er in unquam Christiano aut saltem Ecclesiae venit in mentem a Deo petere gratiam sufficientem libeto arbitrio subjectam, sed gratiam tantummodo quae ipsum liberum arbitrium invincibiliter & insuperabiliter sibi subjiciat.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XLI. Testimonium.]  In Psalmum 120. 
IN nostra potestate est, Deo donante, si eum nobis faciamus custodem, qui non dormit neque dormitam, qui custodit Israel.  

RESPONSIO.  
QUid illud est quod S. Augustinus dicit esse in potestate nostra, nisi ut habeamus custodem qui nunquam dormiat, & impediat quo minus moveatur pes noster? Si enim, ait Sanctus Augustinus tota hac enarratione, quaeras inter homines custodem qui non dormiat, non invenies. Nam omnis homo dormit & moritur; vis habere custodem non dormientem? Deum elige custodem. Ex quo concludit in fine: Est ergo in potestate nostra habere custodem non dormientem, si voluerimus eum eligere in custodem nostrum. Quis hoc neget? sed illa potestas ut eligamus Deum custodem nostrum, & in illo ponamus auxilium nostrum & fortitudinem nostram, nulla est nisi Deo donante, id est, nisi Deus eam det per gratiam suam efficacem.  
Quam autem male & perperam inferant adversarii ex hoc testimonio Sancti Augustini & similibus; nos posse per gratiam sufficientem quod S. Augustinus dicit esse in potestate nostra, patet ex ipsomet Sancto Augustino in eodem Sermone ex quo hoc testimonium adversarii desumpserunt; sic enim loquitur: Ut autem sis ad dexteram, id est, ut possis Dei filius fieri, potestatem accepisti, quam potestatem, de qua dicit Apostolus Joannes, Dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri; unde accepisti hanc potestatem? Credentibus, inquit, in nomine cjus; si ergo credis, ipsa tibi potestas data est, ut fis inter filios Dei. Sed quid ipsa potestas quam accepit homo, nisi Dominus protegat? Ecce credidit, jam ambulat in fide; infirmus est inter tentationes, agitator inter molestias, inter carnales corruptiones, inter suggestiones, inter cupiditates, inter versutias & laqueos inimici; quid valet ergo quia habet potestatem & credidit in Christum, ut sit inter filios Dei! Vae homini illi, nisi & ipsius fidem Dominus protegat, id est, ut non te permittat tentari supra quam potes ferre, sicut dicit Apostolus: Fidelis Deus, etc.  
En habes a Sancto Augustino haec tria: I. Christianos omnes, per fidem scilicet charitate operantem, potestatem habere sic vitam regere ut sint ad dexteram inter filios Dei. II. Hanc potestatem infirmam esse, & ciro deficere nisi Deus eam foveat, protegat, & confirmet. III. Deum non facere in omnibus ut non deficiat in tentatione fides eorum, vel non tententur supra id quod possunt ferre.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XLII. Testimonium.]  In Psalm 131. 
NEmo praesumat viribus suis se reddere quod voverit: qui te hortatur ut voveas, ipse adjuvat ut reddas. Cui affine est illud Sermon. 7. de tempore: Dulciter & confidenter voveamus, illed daebit possibilitatem ut reddere possimus.  

RESPONSIO.  
ITta sanc, sed addendum erat quod praemisit S. Augustinus, Ipse David vovit tamquam in potestate habens, & rogat Deum ut impleat quod vovit; est devotio voventis; sed humilitas deprecantis. Nemo praesumat viribus suis se reddere quod voverit. Adjuvat ergo Deus eum qui vovit ut reddat quod voverit, sed adjuvat humilem, sed adjuvat de Deo, non de se praefumentem. Et quis talis est, nisi per veram gratiam efficacem?    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XLIII. Testimonium.]  In Psalm 143. 
VIde quàm securus opereris, quia non desereris ab illo quem quaeris.  

RESPONSIO.  
HOc in loco agitur non de desertione adjutorii gratiae Dei sed mercedis. Sic enim justum alloquitur S. Augustinus: Quamvis opereris in nocte, id est, in obscuritate fidei, credens & non videns, tamen opera tua (id est, merces operum tuorum) non peribunt; non enim, si quaeris Deum in veritate, desereris in die judicii ab eo quem quaeris; libet hic afferre verba Sancti Augustini, Ergo operare quamvis in nocte manibus tuis, id est, bonis operibus inquire Deum, antequam veniat dies ille qui te laetificet, ne veniat qui te moestificet: vide enim quàm securius opereris, quia non desereris ab illo quem quaris. Sic abutuntur Molinae discipuli Religione summi Pontificis, sic imponunt judicibus suis, sic illudunt otio & eruditioni Eminentissimorum Cardinalium, quasi aut eis non vacet testimonia ipsa in S. Augustino examinare, aut vetum illorum sensum non valeant deprehendere.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XLIV. Testimonium.]  In Psalm 145. 
APpropinqua, incipe desiderare, incipe quaerere & agnoscere eum à quo factus es; non enim deserit opus suum, si ab opere suo non deseratur.  

RESPONSIO.  
EX integro loco S. Augustini clare patebit quis fuerit ejus sensus: Dicitur homini in afflictione aliqua constituto, Est quidem homo magnus per quem possis liberari, arridet, gaudet; En igitur, quod si dicatur illi, Liberat te Deus, quasi desperatione frigescit: promirtitur auxilium mortalis, & gaudes; promittitur immortalis, & tristis es, etc. Vae talibus cogitationibus, etc. Appropinqua, incipe desiderare, incipe quaerere & agnoscere eum a quo factus es, con enim deseret opus suum si ab opere non deseratur.  
Ex quo perspicuum est Sanctum Augustinum loqui de homine in aliqua tribulatione temporali constituto, cui spondet Deum illi non defuturum, sed eum a tribulatione liberaturum, si ipse homo Deum non deserat, id est, dummodo Deum quaerat, ad Deum confugiat, & in Deo, saltem tamquam in homine potente, spem suam reponat: quo quid vetius? & quis illud unquam negaverit? Verum, ut monuimus supra, in ejusmodi promissis conditionatis, & promissum & conditio, & quod exigitur & quod offertur, utrumque aequaliter donum est miserentis Dei, qui cujus vult miseretur.  
Quod si adversarii velint haec verba extendere ad omnem tentationem & adjutoriom gratiae Dei necessarium ut tentatio vinci possit, non contendemus cum illis, imo ultro satebimur Deum non deserturum hominem, si ab homine ipso non deseratur; sed ut S. Augustinus 
Lib. de don● pers. cap. 16.  dicit: Deus ipse facit ut non deseratur, nam ideo petimus ne inferamur in tentationem. Qua autem gratia facit ut non deseratur, sufficienti an efficaci? Audiatur ipse S. Augustinus cap. 2. citans illud Hier. Timorem meum dabo in cor eorum ut à me non recedant. Quod quid est aliud, quàm talis ac tantus erit timor meus quem dabo in cor eorum, ut mihi perseveranter adhaereant?    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XLV. Testimonium.]  Ex sermone 181 de tempore. 
HAbent tertium genus medicinae a quo se excusare non possunt, nisi qui morbos aenimae suae sanaere contempserint. Hoc ergo medicamentum, quod nulli sani mentae deesse potest, studiose & pie frequentemus, implentes illud Apostolicum, Sine intermissione orate.  

RESPONSIO.  
DIcit Augustinus triplicem esse medicinam peccatorum nostrorum, jejunium scilicet, eleemosynam & orationem; posse autem contingere ut quis excusationem justam praetendat quod non jej●net propter stomachi imbecillitatem, vel quod eleemosynam non det propter paupertatem; cum vero oratio intus in corde fiat, & orare nihil aliud sit quam desiderare, suaque desideria Deo exponere, si quis negligat orare, & hoc remedio uti ad sanitatem animae suae, profecto seipsum excusare non poterit, quia quod non oret, id non ex aliqua defectu vel corporis vel rerum externarum, sed ex solo contemptu salutis suae provenit; nam si non contemneret, & esset sanae mentis, hanc medicinam quae sola illi superest ad curanda vulnera sua, non negligeret. Jam vero quod ex his verbis S. Augustini, Hoc medicamentum nulli sanae menti deesse potest, inferunt omnibus qui phrenesi vel delitio non laborant, aut qui compotes sunt mentis suae, adesse gratiam sufficientem qua possint pie, frequenter & fine intermissione orare, sicut S. Aug. in objectione dicit esse orandum: quis non videat quantum a veritate, ab experientia, & a ment S. Augustini abhorreat? Quaerimus enim ab adversariis an gratia sufficiens qua in illorum opinione requiritur, tantum ad pie & sine intermissione orandum, sufficiat etiam ad jejunandum & eleemosynas dandum, an non sufficiat? si dixerit sufficere; Ergo gratia per se efficax non erit amplius necessaria ad aliquod opus bonum, cum haec tria, jejunium scilicet, eleemosyna & oratio omnia bona opera vitae Christianae comprehendat, & sic nulla erit gratia nisi subdita libero arbitrio, quod sane ab errore Pelagiano non recedit.  
Si dixerint non sufficere, sed ad jejunandum & dandum eleemosynas requiri gratiam per se efficacem, ad orandum vero pie & sine intermissione non requiri, sed tantum sufficientem; quomodo cum sana ment id poterunt dicere? quae est enim ista insania? si dicatur piam & jugem orationem magis esse in nostra potestate minusque a Deo pendere quam jejunium & eleemosynam, gratiamque ipsius orationis omnibus nominibus dari, je junii & eleemosynae non dari: nonne quotidie sanctiores quique experiuntur in seipsis nullem inter opera peitatis esse magis arduum ac difficile, nullumque inter Dei dona rarius aut preciosius esse quam ejusmodi piam & continuam orationem?  
Itaque cu dicit S. Augustinus, Hoc medicamentum nulli sanae menti deesse potest, non in hoc sensu dicit, quod omnis homo sanae mentis hanc gratiam piae & jugis orationis acceperit, sed quod nulli homini invito, & qui non contemnat salutem suam deesse potest, in quo hoc medicamentum differt ab aliis remediis jejunii & eleemosynae, quae homini invito & studioso salutis suae frequentissime desunt.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XLVI. Testimonium.]  Serm. 1 inter additos & opera Sirmondi editos. 
OStendit illos quos Esau praefigurabat sic esse peccatores ut in potestate haberent, & in libero arbitrio mutare se & fratri conjungi.  

RESPONSIO.  
UT non cessant Adversarii haec & similia objicere, ita non cessamus respondere cum S. Augustino lib. 1 Retractat. cap. 22: In potestate malorum est mutare in melius voluntatem, sed illa potestas nulla est, nisi praeparetur voluntas a Domino, quae cum fortis & potens praeparatur, facile fit opus pietatis, etiam quod difficile atque impossibile fuit.  
Itaque cum dicit S. Augustinus esse in peccatorum potestate mutare vitam suam, non est sensus quod detur illis omnibus gratia sufficiens subdita libero arbitrio qua possint, sed tantummodo quod id vere possunt, & revera id faciunt, quando Deo operante in corda illorum id volunt, quia, ut ait S. Augustinus, illud est in potestate nostra quod cum volumus facimus, & quod nostram sequitur voluntatem.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XLVII, Testimonium. ●  Tractat. 2 in cap. 1 Evangelii Joannis. 
ECce hic est, & modo & hic erat, & semper hic est, & numquam recedit; opus est ut non deseras, & non desereris; noli cadere, & non tibi aceidet; si tu feeris casum, ille tibi facit occasum; si autem tu stas, praesent est tibi.  

RESPONSIO.  
SEnsus est, opus est ut non deseras per iniquitatem, & non desereris ab eo secundum praesentiam qua vivificat animam piam. Nam ipse est vita & lumen animae: haec autem desertio peccatum subsequitur, verum quod fit alia quaedam desertio praecedens peccatum, qua licet Deus non auferat vires quas dedit, non tamen eas auget, nec novas addit in tentatione ut ei resistatur; ita clare docet S. Augustinus 
Serm 9 de div●rsis. , ut de hoc dubitare fas non sit. Haec sunt ejus verba: In illa tentatione qua quisque decipitur & seducitur, neminem tentat Deus, sed plane judicio suo alto & occulto quosdam deserit; cum ille deseruerit, invenit quid faciat tentator; non enim invenit adversus te luctatorem, sed continuo illi se exhibet possessorem si deserat Deus; ne deserat ergo nos, ideo dicimus, Ne nos inferas in tentationem.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XLVIII. Testimonium.]  Cap. 5. de gratia & lib. arbitrio. 
SI quaesieritis Deum, invenietis; si autem dereliqueritis eum, derelinquet vos; manifestat quidem liberum voluntatis arbitrium.  

RESPONSIO.  
VIx adduci possumus ut credamus, adversaries, qui ista nobis objiciunt, librum legisse de gratia & libero arbitrio unde desumpta sunt, cum totum illud caput ab Augustino conscriptum sit, ut hanc & similes Pelagianorum objectiones refelleret, ostenderetque, quod saepe jam diximus, promissa Dei conditionata nihil officere prorsus necessitati gratiae victricis efficacis & singularis. Talia, inquit, de Scripturis colligunt Pelagiani, Convertimini ad me, & convertar ad vos; ut secundum meritum conversionis nostrae detur gratia ejus in qua ad nos & ipse convertitur, nec attendunt qui hoc sentiunt, quia nisi donum Dei esset etiam ipsa ad Deum nostra conversio, non ei diceretur: Deus virtutum converte nos, & Deus tu convertens vivificabis nos; Et converte nos Deus sanitatum nostratum & ejusmodi alia quae commemorare longum est: Nam & venire ad Christum quid est aliud nisi ad eum credendo converti? & tamen ait, Nemo potest venire ad me, nisi datum fuerit ei a Patre meo. Item quod scriptum est in lib. 2 Paralipomen. Dominus vobiscum cum vos estis cum eo; & Si quaesieritis eum, invenietis; si autem dereliqueritis eum, derelinquet vos. Sed illi qui dicunt gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari, ista testimonia sic accipiunt ut dicant meritum nostrum in eo esse quod sumus cum Deo, ejus autem gratiam secundum hoc meritum dari ut sit & ipse nobiscum. Item meritum nostrum in eo esse quod quaerimus eum, & sewndum hoc meritum dari ejus gratiam ut inveniam●s eum. Et in lib. 1, quod dictum est. Et tu Solomon, fili mi, cognosce Deum, servi ei in corde perfecto & anima volente. Si quaesieris eum, invenietur tibi; & si dimiseris eum, repellet te in perpetuum, declarat voluntatis arbitrium. Jam igitur ex testimonio S. Augustini patet, Pelagianos, ut probatent gratiam Dei secundum merita nostra dari, haec testimonia illi objecisse: Convertimini ad me & ego convertar ad vos. Et illud: Dominus vobiscum, cum vos estis cum eo. Si quaesieris Dominum corde perfecto & anima volente, invenietur tibi. Et quid ad haec respondebat S. Augustinus? Respondebat nostrum conversionem ad Deum, propter quam Deus convertitur ad nos, donum esse gratiae singularis & efficacis, nempe illius gratiae quae his verbis exprimitur: Deus virtutum converte nos, & Nemo potest venire ad me, nisi fuerit ei datum a Patre meo. Quo autem modo dicitur, ut docet Augustinus, Si convertaris ad Deum, Deus convertetur ad te, eodem plane dicitur, Si quaesieris Dominum, invenies eum. Sicut ergo converti ad Deum ut convertatur ad nos, ita quaerere Deum ut inveniatur a nobis, donum est gratiae singularis & efficacis.  
Denique ex eo quod dixit Augustinus demonstrari liberum arbitrium ex Scripturae testimonio, Si quaesieris Deum, invenies eum, quid inde colligunt adversarii? & ad quid probandum haec verba proferunt? Voluntne his verbis Scripturae secundum Augustinum demonstrari, esse im omnibus hominibus liberum arbitrium instructum gratia sufficiente, qua possinr quaetere Deum, ut Deus inveniatut ab eis, an non volunt? si volunt, ergo per gratiam sufficientem sine efficaci possunt omnes homines quaerere Deum in corde perfecto & anima volente? Quo nihil Christianae gratiae infensius dici potest; & cum hoc adscribunt Augustino, quid magis falsum etiam in illorum sententia? fatentur enim Augustinum defendisse contra Pelagianos gratiam efficacem. Si non volunt, ut quid proferunt illud testimonium pro gratia sufficiente? Ut igitur objectioni respondeatur, dicimus quod cum Pelagiani uterentur his testimoniis Scripturae, ut probarent esse liberum arbitrium in homine per naturam quo possit ad Deum converti, eumque toto corde suo quaerere, fatebatur Augustinus haec testimonia demonstrare hoc liberum arbitrium esse in homine per naturam, nec amissum esse per culpam, sed simul etiam contendebat contra illo, hoc liberum arbitrium non esse sufficiens ad quaerendum Deum, nisi sanetur per gratiam.  
Itaque non dicit S. Augustinus his testimoniis Scripturae, si quaesieris Dominum corde perfecto, invenies eum, demonstrari esse in homine liberum arbitrium instructum per gratiam, sed tantummodo esse in omni homine per naturam, quod ad nihil valet nisi adjutum & sanatum per gratiam.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[XLIX. Testimonium.]  Sermone 9 inter eos qui a Sirmondo editi sunt. 
HAbe ergo spem & gloriam, non in te, sed in praecedente & subsequente misericordia Dei. Vide autem quo te perducit si non deserueris deducentem? ad domum Dei te ducit, non ut hospitem ad tempus ut migres ex ea, sed ut habitatorem, ut permaneas in ea, etc.  
EX his deducitur, Deum, quantum in se est, unumquemque in observatione praeceptorum, cum eorum observandorum obligatio imminet, sufficienter adjuvare, nec ulli deesse nisi qui voluerit. Quin etiam ex praedictis tertium illud deducitur, nempe fidelibus, multo magis justis qui tenacius adhaerent, nunquam gratiam omnem denegari ad observationem praeceptorum. Id autem pluribus locis.  

RESPONSIO.  
SAnctus Augustinus dicit debere hominem ponere totam spem, fortitudinem & gloriam suam, non in se, id est, in suis viribus, sed constituereun misericordia Dei praecedente & subsequente, id est, quae praecedit peccatorem ut justum faciat, & subsequitur justum ut justus permaneat.  
Inferunt adversarii Deum quantum in se est, unumquemque in observatione praeceptorum, cum corum observandorum obligatio imminet, sufficiente● adjuvare, nec ulli deesse, nisi qui voluerit. Si n●n deserueris Deum deducentem, ad domum Dei te ducet, id est, ad regnum Dei, ut inhabites in illo in perpetuum. Haec enim verba sibi proposuerat explicanda: Et m●sericordia tua subsequetur me omnibus diebus vitae meae, ut inhabitem in domo Domini omnibus diebus vitae meae. Ubi his verbis vel minimum verbum aut vestigum gratiae communis & sufficientis? Quid enim aliud illa verba: Si non deserueris Deum per peccatum, ducet te in regnum suum, quam illa significant; si servaveris mandata, vitam habetis: aut illa: Si perseveraveris usque ad finem, salvus eris? Et hinc licebitne inferre: Ergo omnes homines, etiam impii & infideles, habent iufficiens auxilium quo possint implere mandata, & in eis perseverare? Quae consequentia? Addunt adversarii: Quin etiam ex praedictis tertium illud deducitur, nempe fidelibus, multo magis justis qui tenacius adhaerent, nunquam gratiam omnem denegari ad observationem praeceptorum. Ita sane, haec consequentia deducitur ab adversariis, sed contendimus a nemine nisi falso & pertinaciter deduci posse.  
II. Non dicimus omnem gratiam denegari fidelibus & justis, cum nonnisi per gratiam justi sint & fideles; sed dicimus cum Augustino hanc potentiam quam dedit Deus fidelibus filios Dei fieri, infirmam esse & imparem tot & tantis tentationibus sustinendis, nisi eam Deus protegat indies & augeat, quod in quibusdam facit per misericordiam, in quibusdam non facit per judicium, & licet nulli justo aut fideli vires, quas illi dedit, non auferat nisi ob peccatum, non tamen semper novas & majores tribuit, sine quibus multae tentationes superari non possunt.  
III. Fatemur gratiam non denegari justis & fidelibus ad observationem praeceptorum, & ut loquamur cum Augustino loco ab adversariis citato, misericordiam Dei omnes fideles subsequi. Verum ea conditione, ad quam illos ibidem hortatur Augustinus, ut caveant jactantiam, ut per superbiam non deserant comitatem, ut apprehendant virgam disciplinae, & in baculo misericordiae fidenter incumbant, ut correptionem Domini patienter ferant secundum illud Psalmi: Virga tua & baculus tuus ipsa me consolata sunt. Verum quis ista potest, nisi gratia singulari & efficaci adjutus?    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[L. Testimonium]  In Psalm 7. 
DUo sunt officia medicinae; unum quo fanatur infirmitas, alterum quo sanitas custoditur .... Juxta illud ibi dicitur (Psalm 6,) Salvum me fac propter misericordiam tuam. Juxta illud hic dicitur: Judica me, Domine, secudum justitiam meam; ibi enim ut a malo evadat, remedium: hic autem, ne in morbum recidat, tuitionem petit. Juxta illud dicitur, Salvum me fac, Domine, secundum misericordiam tuam; Juxta hoc dicitur, Justum auxilium a Domino, qui salvos facit rectos corde; & illa enim & ista salvos facit, sed illa ex aegritudine ad salutem transfert, haec in ipsa salute conservat: Itaque ibi misericots auxilium est, quia nullum habet meritum peccator qui adhuc justificari desiderat, credens in eum qui justificat impium: hic autem justam auxilium est, quod jam justo tribuitur: Dicat ergo ibi peccator, qui dixit infirmus, Salvum me fac, Domine, propter misericordiam tuam; & dicat hic justus, qui dixit, Si reddidi retribuentibus mihi mala, justum auxilium meum a Domino qui salvos facit rectos corde; si enim medicinam adhibet qua sanemur infirmi, quanto magis eam qua custodiamur sani? Quoniam si, cum adhuc peccatores essemus, Christus pro nobis mortuus est, Rom. 5, quanto magis nunc justificati salvi erimus ab ita per ipsum?  

RESPONSIO.  
JUstus, de quo hic ait S. Augustinus loquitur, ille est, qui vocatus & justificatus est secundum propositum, quia talis est vere filius promissionis, ut loquitur S. Augustinus cap. 9 de cor. & grat. Filius in illa praedestinatione qua datus est Christo ut non pereat in aeternum, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Quoniam ergo vere filius promissionis est & haeres per Deum; ille est qui vere dicere potest, Justum adjutorium meum a Domino; ille est cui post regenerationem suam, quodammodo debetur adiutorium perseverentiae, habita ratione meritorum & mortis Christi; ad hoc enim datus est Christo a Patre, & Christus animam suam pro illo posuit, ut ei & perseverantia donetur, ut omnia ipsi cooperentur in bonum, & non pereat in aeternum, sed habeat vitam aeternam, ut late probat S. Augustinus ibidem.  
At vero non ita est de illo justo, qui quoniam victurus est impie, & in eadem impietate moriturus, non est haeres secundum praescientiam Dei, nec proinde filius in memoriali Patris aeterni, inconcussa stabilitate conscriptus: Est quidem Dei filius, sicut est justus propter susceptam temporaliter gratiam, ut loquitur Augustinus, sed non proprer praescientiam & praedestinationem Dei, de quo proinde intelligi debet illud Joannis: Ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis: Nam si fuissent ex nobis, permansissent utique nobiscum. Quibus verbis quid aliud dicit Joannes, nisi Non erant filii etiam quando erant in professione & nomine filiorum, non quia justitiam simulaverunt, sed quia in ea non permanserunt. Huic autem justo non debetur adjutorium, & licet Christus pro illo mortuus sit pluribus ac veris modis, non tamen ut morte sua perseverantiam in justitia, ac vitam aeternam illi efficaciter promereretur. Quia vero Sanctus Augustinus in suis enarrationibus super Psalmos sermonem habebat ad populum, eique moris erat frequenter fideles omnes ut justos, & ut electos, & praedestinatos alloqui: hinc fit ut de omnibus indifferenter haec verba Davidis intelligat: Justum adjutorium meum a Domino. Quod autem S. Augustinus cum omnibus fidelibus agat velut cum electis, eisque omnia electorum adscribat privilegia, dubitare nemo poterit qui legerit caput 9 de cor. & grat. Ubi inter caetera haec ait: Appellamus ergo eos & electos Christi Discipulos, & Dei filios, quiae sic appellandi sunt, quos regeneratos pie vivere cernimus: sed tunc vere sunt quod appellantur, si manserint in eo propter quod sic appellantur.  
Sed demus adversariis hunc locum Sancti Augustini quem nobis objiciunt, de quibuscumque justis, sive electis, sive reprobis intelligendum esse. Quid inde propterea concludent pro sua sententia? cum ibidem dicat S. Augustinus hoc adjutorium justo semper esse a Deo petendum, Nam, inquit, infirmus orat ut liberetur, sanus orat ne corrumpatur. Nonne ergo inde sequitur hoc adjutorium ideo dici justum, non quia omni justo semper datur, sed quia ex quadam justitia justo debetur oranti & petenti, & tantum petenti quantum & quomodo res tanta petenda est, id est, pie, ardenter, & perseveranter, ut supra ex eodem Augustino ostendimus lib. 2 de peccat. meritis.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[LI. Testimonium.]  In Psalmum 48. 
SI ergo iniquitas calcanei circumdabit nos, ut quid timemus, cum conversi ad Christum habeamus in potestate ut non faciamus iniquitatem?  

RESPONSIO.  
HAec eadem objectio jam facta & refutata est.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[LII. Testimonium.]  In Psalm 53. 
OMnes Sancti adjuvantur a Deo, sed intus ubi nemo videt: quomodo enim poena impiorum conscientia, sic magnum gaudium piorum ipsa conscientia.  

RESPONSIO.  
LOquitur S. Augustinus de adjutorio consolationis ex bona conscientia, quo Deus adjuvat Sanctos, ne doleant ex prosperitate impiorum, dando jucunditatem in cor eorum de bonis operibus, juxta illud Davidis, Dedisti jucunditatem in corde meo. Hic sensus patet ex contextu. Quis autem negat hanc consolationem Spiritus Sancti & laetitiam bonae conscientiae dari Sanctis a Deo consolante? sed unde ista bona conscientia? nisi ex charitate, de qua dicit Apostolus: Charitas de corde puro & conscientia bona & fide non ficta; & charitas unde? nisi a Deo, juxta illud Joannis, Charitas ex Deo est; non ex libero arbitrio quod est in nobis, ut toties ait S. Augustinus, Sed per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est nobis.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[LIII. Testimonium.]  In Psalm 66. 
CAnta in via, noli timere judicem, antequam esses fidelis timebas, sed invenisti Salvatorem; Impium te quaesivit ut redimeret, redemptum deseret ut perdat?  

RESPONSIO.  
REsp. Primo, Hic deprehenditur iterum mala adversariorum fides, quod suppresserint verba immediate praecedentia, quae sensum S. Augustini omnino aperiunt. Ait enim S. Augustinus in haec verba, ET GENTES IN TERRA DIRIGIS: Directae autem gentes, ambulantes in fide, exultantes in illo, facientes opera bona, & si qua forte, quoniam per mare navig ant, intrat aqua per minutissimas cavernas, per rimulas ad sentinam exhauriendo eam per opera bona, ne plus intrando cumulum faciat, & navem deprimat exhauriendo, quotidie je junando, operando, eleemosynas faciendo, dicendo puro corde, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut & nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, dicendo ista, ambula securus, & exulta in via, canta in via, noli timere judicem.  
Secundo, haec via, ut ait S. Augustinus eodem Psalmo paulo supra, Christus est; quanto securius cantas in Christo, non habet via ista latronem, etc. Ipsa cantatio confessio est; confessio peccatorum tuorum, & virtutis Dei, tuam iniquitatem confitere, te accusa, illum glorifica, te reprehende, illum lauda, ut & ipse veniens inveniat te punitorem, & exhibeat se tibi Salvatorem tuum. Vides quod ibi S. Augustinus loquitur de Christo Salvatore in die judicii.  
Tertio, Cum dicit S. Augustinus, Noli timere judicem, loquitur pro altera vita, non pro ista: nam superius dixerat: Gaudeat judicandus qui timuit judicaturum; & sensus est: Noli timere, ne judex tuus, cum venerit judicaturus, fallatur, ne corrumpatur sicut homo mortalis, quia judicat populos in aequitate. Audiatur, si placet, ipse S. Augustinus: Ille, cum venerit, populos in aequitate judicabit, quid ibi valebit calliditas accusatoris ubi est testis conscientia? ubi tu eris & causa tua? ubi Judex non quaerit testem? advocatum misit tibi, propter illum & per illum confitere, age causam tuam, & defensor est poenitentis, & peritor veniae confitentis, & judex innocentis: vere timere poteris causam tuam ubi advocatus tuus erit judex tuus. Laetentur ergo & exultent gentes, quoniam judicas populos in aequitate, sed timere poterunt ne male judicentur? dent se corrigendos, ei qui videt judicandos; hic corrigantur, & non timeant cum judicantut.  
Quibus ita deductis, nonne luce clarius est hanc esse mentem S. Augustini in hac oratione ad fidelem & justum, si ambulas in via, id est; in Christo, si exultas in illo, facies opera bona, si sollicitus es quotidie sentinam exhaurire, id est, levia peccata quae irrepunt redimere jejunando, orando, eleemosynam dando, noli timere de tuo Judice acsi corrumpi posset aut falli, imo gaude & exulta quia reperies Judicem qui judicabit populos in aequitate, qui tunc Salvator tuus erit, quia tui ipsius fuisti punitor. Nam si, cum esses impius, quaesivit te ut redimiret, redemptum non deseret ut perdat, id est, non te deseret aut trader adve●sario tuo & accusatori ut pereas. Quid enim ibi valebit calliditas accusatoris?  
Verum ex his verbis colligere, Homini justo quamdiu degit in corpore mortis hujus, non esse quod timeat ne desereatur a Deo & inferatur in tentationem, quis hoc ferat? quae Catholicorum aures id sine zelo & indignatione audire possunt? & ubi illud Pauli, Cum timore & tremore salutem vestram operamini? Deus enim est qui operatur in vobis velle & perficere pro bona voluntate. Et illud D. Leonis Magni: Et haec est Sanctis causa metuendi atque tremendi, ne ipsis operibus pietatis elati, deserantur ope gratiae, & relinquantur in infirmitate naturae.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[LIV. Testimonium.]  In Psalm 83. 
TAnta dat & malis, & tibi nihil servat? falsum est quod tibi promittit? servat, securus esto, qui tni misertus est cum esses impius, deseret te cum factus es pius? qui peccatori donavit mortem Filii sui, quid servat salvo per mortem Filii sui? Tene debitorem quia credidisti in promissorem. Dominus non privabit bonis ambulantes in innocentia.  

RESPONSIO.  
SEnsus est, non te deseret sine mercede quam promisit. Cum enim peccent omnes qui peccant propter bona temporalia vel adipiscenda vel retinenda, vult eos S. Augustinus ab hac iniquitate dehortari spe praestantiorum bonorum quae repromisit Deus diligentibus se. Et quae sunt illa bona? requies, immortalitas, aeternitas, impassibilitas, ipsa sunt bona quae servat Deus fidelibus suis. Et paulo infra: Tanta dat & malis, & tibi nihil servat? falsum est quod tibi promisit? servat, securus esto; qui misertus tui cum esses impius, deseret te cum factus es pius? qui peccatori donavit mortem Filii sui, quid servat salvato per mortem filii sui? tene debitorem, qui credisti in promissorem.  
Quis post haec verba dubitare poterit, S. Augustinum cum dicit Deum non desertutum hominem qui factus est pius, loqui, non de desertione auxilii ad perseverandum in hac vita, sed mercedis in altera? I. Quia haec verba sibi proponit explicanda, Non privabit bonis eos qui ambulant in innocentia. Unde concludit: Quod si Deus tanta dat bona malis, quanta servabit bonis? atqui verbum servare designat alteram vitam. II. Quia ista bona, sunt immortalitas, aeternitas, etc. quae sunt bona alterius vitae, non istius. III. Quia vult S. Augustinus hominem esse securum quod Deus illum non deseret, quia homo habet illum promissorem: atqui Deus promisit bona aeterna ambulantibus in innocentia, sed nulli promisit perseverantiam usque in finem. Ideoque secundum Concilium Tridentinum nemo sibi hoc singulare donum certo debet polliceri, nec in hoc tentationis loco degere securus: Et quidem si homo debet esse securus se a Deo numquam deserendum auxilio sibi necessario ad perseverandum in innocenti●, cur igitur rogat Deum ut ab illo non deseratur? cur dicit cum Propheta, Non me d●relinquas usquequaque, id est, ut interpretatur Augustinus, si dereliquisti, ut sine adjutorio tuo infirmus appaream, noli usquequaque, ne peream?  
Cur dicit cum eodem Propheta, Ne repellas me a mandatis tuis? Quid en●m est a Deo repelli, ait S. Augustinus, nisi non adjuvari? mandatis quippe ejm rectis & arduis humana non contemperatur infirmitas, nisi praeveniens ejus adjuvet ca●itas. Quos autem non adjuvat, hos merito videtur repellere, tamquam flammea framea prohibeantur indignine manum extendant ad arborem vitae; quis est autem dignus ex quo peccatum intravit in mundum, & per peccatum mors, & ita in omnes homines mors pertransit in quo omnes peccaverunt? sed indebita m●sericordia sanatur debita nostra miseria.  
Quam multa & praeclara hic docentur ab Augustino!  
I. Repelli homines a mandatis Dei cum non adjuvantur.  
II. Quosdam adjuvari, quosdam non adjuvari.  
III. Neminem etiam justum (nam justorum est ista vox, Ne repellas me a mandatis tuis) dignum esse qui adjuvetur ex quo periit in Adam.  
IV. Cum adjuvatur, per indebitam gratiam & misericordiam adjuvari, & ei propter ea hanc gratiam & misericordiam jugiter esse implorandam, dicendo cum Propheta, Ne repellas me a mandatis tuis. Quid autum stultius quam orare Deum ne faciat quod numquam facit nec ex justitia facere posset?  
Quod ergo anima Christiana confidens promissis Dei secura sit se numquam, si in innocentia ambulet, deserendam a Deo, nec privandam bonis quae Deus promisit & servat iis qui ambulant in innocentia, nihil sanctius, nihil Deo gratius; quod vero secura sit, se numquam a Deo deserendam illo adjutorio sine quo non potest ambulare in innocentia usque in finem, absit a cordibus Christianis ista praesumptio & securitas damnata etiam in Concilio Tridentino, sess. 6. cap. 13. & can. 16. & 22.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[LV. Testimonium.]  In Psalm 84. 
QVam certa, quam firma promissione servat justis vitam suam, qui injustis donavit mortem suam!  

RESPONSIO.  
HAec verba non reperiuntur apud S. Augustinum in Psalmum praedictum, sed in Psalm. 85. Quod ibi dicit S. Augustin. nihil omnino ad propositum: loquitur enim de vita beata, quam servat justis in praedestinatione sua, & cujus pignus voluit esse vitam & sanguinem suum. Haec sunt verba S. Augustini in Psalmo superiori: Ille quippe sponsus dans arras sponsae suae sanguinem suum & spiritum suum, quo locupletavit nos interim in ista peregrinatione, adhuc tamen servat nobis divitias suas; unde enim tale pignus dedit? quid est quod servat? Et post pauca: Ibi ergo Propheta videbat futura, nobis jam vero facta in illius providentia & praedestinatione certissima. Verum quid haec ad gratiam sufficientem?    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[LVI. Testimonium.]  In Psalmum 85. 
QVi praeter viam sunt, Christiani non sunt; aut Catholici nondum sunt, deducuntur ad viam: sed cum perducti fuerint ad viam, & Catholici in Christo facti fuerint, ab ipso deducuntur in ipsa via ne cadant: certe jam ambulant in via. Deduc me, Domine, in via tua; certe jam in via tua sum, deduc me ibi, & ambulabo in veritate tua: deducente te non errabo; si dimiseris, errabo. Ora ergo ut te non dimittat, sed usque in finem deducat, quomodo deducit semper movendo, semper dando tibi manum suam.  

RESPONSIO.  
I. FAlsitas est in citatione. Non enim dicit S. Augustinus, deducuntur, sed deducantur; aliud estautum dicere, cum homines Christiani facti sunt, deducuntur a Deo in via salutis: aliud dicere, deducantur; quia, ut subjungit Augustinus, nisi Deus deducat, ipsi cadunt.  
II. Non continuate legendum, quomodo deducit semper monendo, semper dando tibi manum suam. Sed per interrogationem: quomodo deducit? cui respondet semper monendo, semper dando tibi manum suam. Non ergo vult S. Augustinus Deum quemlibet Christianum deducere, quia, ut colligitur ex ejus verbis, si semper deduceret omnem justum, nullus justus aberraret; dicit enim David, Deduc me Domine, in via tua, & ingrediar in veritate tua; cum justus deducitur, semper ingreditur & ambulat; sed tantum docet S. Augustinus hoc modo Deum justos deducere, semper illis dando manum suam, quia si tantisper manum subtrahit & avertit faciem suam, non deducit sed dimittit. Quid ergo in his vetbis pro sententia adversariorum, imo vero quid ipsis magis contrarium ab ipsis poterat proferri?  
I. enim dicit Sanctus Augustinus, deducente te non errabo; ergo qui errant non deducuntur, & tamen volunt adversarii probare ex S. Augustino illos deduci.  
II. Subjungit, Sidimiseris, errabo; unde concludit & oratione opus esse ut Deus non deserat. Igitur qui non orant, deseruntur: quod si ex eo quod S. Augustinus dicit Deum esse orandum ne dimittat sed deducat, inferant advesarii, ergo omnes habet gratiam orandi; idem est acsi diceretur, Perseverandum est usque in finem ut salvus fias, ergo omnes habent gratiam perseverandi; vel si diceretur, Credendum est in Christum, & agenda poenitentia ut peccata remittantur, ergo omnes habent gratiam fidei & poenitentiae. Ecce validissima Molinistarum argumenta, ecce illorum obliquae consequentiae!    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[LVII. Testimonium]  In Psalm 86. 
FIlius Dei pro nobis mortuus est, securus esto●; accepturum te vitam ipsius, qui pignus habes mortem ipsius; pro quibus enim mortuus est Christus? nunquid pro justis? Paulum interroga: Etenim Christus pro impius mortuus est; impius eras, & mortuus est pro te; justificatus es, & deseret te? qui justificavit impium, relinquet pium?  

RESPONSIO.  
I. NE minimum quidem verbum hujus Objectionis loco citato.  
II. Quantum ad mortem Christi, quemadmodum dicebat olim S. Augustinus 
Lib. 1 de adult. conjug. c. 5. , Omnis qui Christi sanguine redemptus est, homo est; non tamen omnis qui homo est, etiam Christi sanguine redemptus est. Ita dicimus quod omnis qui Christi sanguine redemptus est, primum impius est, non tamen omnis impius etiam sanguine Christi redemptus est; non enim mortuus est Christus pro omnibus impiis, eo scilicet sensu, ut absolute voluerit singulos mortis suae participes fieri, & mortem suam illis applicari; neque enim omnibus infidelibus per ipsius mortem donatur gratia fidei, sicut nec singulis fidelibus vel justis donatur gratia perseverantiae in fide vel justitia.  
III. Quod spectat ad haec verba quae subjungit S. Augustinus: Justificatus es, & deseret te? loquitur de desertione mercedis, ita ut deserat justum sine mercede, nulla habita ratione bonorum operum ejus; qui sensus confirmatur ex praecedentibus verbis citatis: Securus esto percepturum te vitam ipsius qui pignus habes mortem ipsius.  
IV. Si contendant adversarii & probare possint S. Augustinum loqui de desertione quantum ad vitam aeternam, & media ad illam consequendam necessaria. Respondemus juxta ipsius mentem & principia, eum loqui de justificato pro cujus salute aeterna Christus mortuus est; quamvis enim mortuus sit et etiam pro justis reprobis ad temporales quosdam divinae gratiae effectus, non tamen ad obtinendam pro eis perseverantiam in justitia & vitam aeternam; alioquin, vel hanc gratiam & salutem sicut alii qui electi sunt, recepissent, vel oratio Christi pro illi● fuisset inanis: quod impium est tantummodo cogitare.  
Hanc autem explicationem libet confirmare ipsismet Sancti Augustini verbis lib. 22. de Civit. cap. 24. Quid dabit eis quos praedestinavit ad vitam, qui haec dedit etiam eis quos praedestinavit ad mortem? quae bona in illa beata vita faciet eos sumere, pro quibus in hac miseria unigenitum Filium suum voluit usque ad mortem tanta mala perferre? Vnde Apostolus de ipsis in illud regnum praedestinatis loquens, Qui proprio, inquit, Filio non pep●rcit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum, quomodo non etiam cum illo omnia nobis d●nabit? cum haec promissio complebitur, quid erimus? quales erimus? quae bona in illo regno accepturi sumus? quandoquidem Christo moriente pro nobis tale jam pignus accepimus? Ubi vides Sanctum Augustinum ita intelligere haec verba de electis, ut tamen & seipsum & fideles omnes inter electos computet & recenseat.  
Sanctum Augustinum secutus celebris ille Scripturarum interpres magnus Estius in haec eadem Pauli verba: Qui proprio filio non pepercit, quomodo non etiam cum illo omnia nobis donabit? Colligit, inquit, Apostolas argumento a majori Deum certissime largiturum nobis, id est, electis, bona jam enumerata, gratiae scilicet & gloriae; qui enim Filio suo, quo nihil habet carius, non pepercit, sed pro salute nostra impendit, tradens eum pro nobis omnibus in mortem, certe nec caetera d na ad salutem necessaria, nec ipsam denique salutem est negaturus; hoc de electis interpretatur S. Augustinus lib. 22. de Civit. cap. 24. & alibi, quamquam id per se clarum est, ex eo maxime quod sequi ur, Quis accusabit adversus electos Dei?  
Et paulo supra in illa verba, Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos? dicitur hoc in persona electorum seu praedestinatorum, de quibus jam locutus fuerat, quorum in persona etiam sequentia dicuntur; quatenm ergo quisque fidelium confidere potest ac debet se esse e numero electorum, ea ratione sententiam hanc cum iis quae sequuntur, potest ac debet sibimet applicare.  
Vides, lector, quomodo hac solida hujus loci interpretatione pateat vanitas omnium argumentorum quae adversarii ex testimoniis Augustini deducunt, in quibus ille Sanctus Doctor animat fideles ad spem & fiduciam promissorum Dei, eosque vult esse securos de Dei protectione & charitate, cujus pignus mortem unigeniti filii sui acceperunt.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[LVIII. Testimonium.]  In Psalmum 87. in hunc versum: Et ipsi expulsi sunt de manu tua. 
JD est, cum ab eis factus sum, ipsi expulsi sunt de manu tua, ipsi adjutorio manus tuae privati sunt, qui me sine adjutorio esse putaverunt: foderunt enim, sicut dicit in alio Psalmo, ante faciem meam foveam, & inciderunt in eam; melius enim sic intelligendum existimo, quam ut id quod dictum est, & ipsi expulsi sunt de manu tua, ad illos referatur dormientes in sepulchro, quorum non meminit adhuc, ut resurgant; de his tamen dictum est Sapientiae 3. Justorum animae in manu Dei sunt, hoc est, habitant in adjutorio Altissimi, & in protectione Dei caeli commorantur, Psalm 90. Ibi vide plura.  

RESPONSIO.  
QUis non videat quantum adversarii bonis probationibus indigeant ad suam sententiam confirmandam, cum tam invalidas & nec ad rem pertinentes accumulent? quid enim in hoc toto Sancti Augustini Sermone pro gratia sufficiente, vel omnibus vel fidelibus donata? siquidem  
In prima parte hujus testimonii dicit Sanctus Augustinus Judaeos repulsos fuisse a manu, & adjutorio Dei, qui Christum occidendo, eum sine adjutorio Dei esse putaverunt. Illi, inquit, expulsi sunt de manu Dei, qui Dominum Jesum Christum de manu ejus expulsum esse crediderunt, quia eum inter iniquos d putatum occidere potuerunt.  
In altera parte, ubi citavit hunc Sapientiae locum, Justorum nimae in manu Dei sunt, etc. loquitur S. Augustinus, sicut & Sapiens, de animabus Sanctorum qui cum pietate decesserunt, ita ut sit sensus, Cum inter dormientes in sepu chris sint justi quidam quorum licet nondum meminerit Deus ut resurgant, de his tamen dictum est, Justorum animae in manu Dei sunt, hoc est, habitant in adjutorio Altissimi, & in protectione Dei caeli commorantur. Quomodo enim animae Sanctorum non erant in manu Dei, si vel capillus de capite eorum non peribit?    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[LIX. Testimonium.]  Libro de corr. & grat. cap. 7. 
QUoniam potest dici homini, in eo quod audieras & tenueras, perseverares si velles; nullo modo autem dici potest, id quod non audieras crederes si velles.  
NOTA, de justo sermonem esse, in cujus arbitrio esse dicitur, ut si velit perseverare possit, quia nonnisi volenti Deumque deserenti gratia denegatur: Deus autem ex se gratiam ad perseverandum ad singulos actus semper dare paratus est, ideoque in eo non sit par ratio justi perseverare volentis, cui Dei pro certo illi auxilium danti proxima ad singula praecepta, quae ad perseverandum occurrunt, potestas inest, cum homini infideli eadem proxima potestas non adsit ut Evangelio sibi nondum praedicato assentiatur.  

RESPONSIO.  
I. SI quid probaret hic locus, probaret gratiam Christi libero justi arbitrio subjectam esse ad perseverandum seu in oratione, seu in operatione, atque ex nota & ratiocinatione Adversariorum illud sequitur.  
II. Si locus non truncatus, sed integer referretur, sola illius lectione agnosceretur, illum scopo adversariorum nequaquam favere, neque ibi adstrui gratiam perseverandi justis omnibus semper dari pro nutu voluntatis eorum: Sic enim Sanctus Aug. loquitur: Si ab hac damnatione non se liberabunt qui poterunt dicere, non se audisse Evangelium Christi, cum fides ex auditu sit: quanto minus se liberabunt qui dicturi sunt, perseverantiam non accepimus? Justior enim videtur excusatio dicentium, Non accepimus audientiam, quam dicentium, Non accepimus perseverantiam, quoniam potest dici: homo, in eo quod audieras & tenueras, in eo perseverares si velles: nullo modo autem dici potest, id quod non audieras crederes si velles. Sed nullus vult perseverare nisi in quo Deus per donum perseverantiae operatur istud velle: unde his verbis S. Augustinus tantum ostendit, justiorem videri querelam dicentium, Non audivimus Evangelium, quam dicentium, Non accepimus perseverantiam; licet enim vere hic perseverare non possit, sicut ille credere non potest, tamen quod hic non perseverat, ex mala voluntate proficiscitur, unde recte illi dicitur, perseverares si velles, id est, nisi bonum quod tenueras, per malam tuam voluntatem relinqueres. Alteri autem dici non potest, crederes si velles, cum nullus, eriam si velit, credere possit ea de quibus nihil audivit. Haec est hujus loci expositio.  
Quod vero Sanctus ille Doctor nunquam senserit, nec dixerit gratiam perseverandi justis omnibus semper dari, qua pro nutu suae voluntatis utantur seu possint uti vel non uti; tam certis argumentis ex hoc libro desumptis demonstrari potest, ut cum qui id vel in dubium revocaverit, hunc librum non legisse necesse sit. Ex multis aliqua solum proponimus; hoc enim fusius a nobis hic tractandum non est, cum jam satis testimonium objectum expo suerimus, illudque nullo modo adversariis favere ostenderimus.  
I. Itaque hoc probatur ex discrimine duplicis adjutorii, naturae sanae & integrae, quod hoc libro cap. 11. ex professo & plene exponitur, siquidem unum dat posse perseverare si velis, nec efficit ut velis; aliud dat non solum posse perseverare si velis, sed etiam effitit ut velis. Gratia primi hominis est adjutorium sine quo non fit: gratia vero secundi hom nis ad singulos pietatis actus necessaria est adjutorium sine quo non fit, & quo fit, quod indeclinabiliter, insuperabiliter; invictissime voluntatem ad agendum agit. Cum ergo S. Augustinus dicit justum perseveraturum esse si vellet, id non intelligit eo sensu, ut habeat gratiam sibi relictam, qua si vult perseverat, & qua non efficitur ut velit, quia tale adjutorium non esset hominis per peccatum infirmi, sed integri; non esset gratia Christi Salvatoris, sed Dei Creatoris.  
II. S. Augustinus cap. 12. docet justum post naturam lapsam perseverare non posse, nisi illi perseverantia donetur, per quam nonnisi perseverans est. Nunc vero, inquit, Sanctis in Regnum Dei per gratiam praedestinatis non tantum tale adjutorium perseverantiae datur, sed tale ut eis perseverantia ipsa donetur, non solum ut sine isto dono perseverantes esse non possint, verùm etiam ut per hoc donum nonnisi perseverantes sint. Ex hoc quaerimus an justis omnibus haec perseverandi gratia donetur? Responderi non potest affirmative, quia justi omnes perseverarent, siquidem haec gratia talis est, ut justi per illam nonnisi perseverantes sint. An ergo isti quibus eadem gratia non datur, perseverarent si vellent, adeo ut in eorum nutu sit perseverare? nec etiam hoc dici potest; alias haec perseverantiae gratia ad perseverandum necessaria non esset, quod S. Augustino repugnat, docenti hoc donum tale esse, ut sine isto perseverantes esse non possint. Quare & eodem capite asserit gratiam ad perseverandum necessariam talem esse, ut simul perseverandi & possibilitatem & voluntatem donet.  quoniam, inquit, non perseverabunt nisi & possint & velint, perseverandi eis possibilitas & voluntas divinae gratiae largitate donetur. Ergo justi qui non perseverant, non acceperunt gratiam, nec qua pro nutu suo, seu si velint, perseverent, nec qua perseverare possint.  
Denique si in voluntate justorum gratia sibi relicta ac semper praesente pro nutu utentium perseverare vel non perseverare positum esset, nullum esset inscrutabile judicium quod ex duobus justis unus perseveraret, & alter non perseveraret; sed illud totum per velle & nolle facillime solveretur. Docet autem S. Augustinus toto isto libro hoc esse penitus inscrutabile. Hic si a me quaeratur, inquit cap. 8. cur eye Deus perseverantiam non dederit, quibus eam qua Christiane viverent dilectionem dedit? me ignorare respondeo. Non enim arroganter, sed agnoscens modulum meum audio dicentem Apostolum: O homo! tu quis es qui respondeas Deo? & altitudo divitiarum sapientiae & scientiae Dei, quam inscrutabilia sunt judicia ejus, & investigabiles viae ejus. Et paulò infra: Si ergo confiteris donum Dei esse perseverare in bono usque ad finem, cur hoc donum ille accipiat, ille non accipiat, puto quod mecum patiter nescis, & ambo hic inscrutabilia judicia Dei penetrate non possumus. Et libro de dono perseverantiae cap. 9 docet hoc judicium Dei magis esse inscrutabile circa duos parvulos ac duos impios: Ex duobus autem piis, inquit, cur huic donetur perseverantia usque in finem, illi autem non donetur, inscrutabiliora sunt judicia Dei.  
Ex his patet quam alienum sit a S. Augustini sententia in libro de corr. & grat. expressa, ut dicatur docuisse dari semper omnibus justis in justitia perseverandi gratiam, qua pro suo nutu, seu si velint, utantur vel non utantur.    

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
[LX. Testimonium.]  Serm. 21. de verbis Domini. 
ET ideo unusquisque nostrum, dum licet, & cum Dei adjutorio in potestate nostra consistit, (id est, toto vitae tempore, ut patet ex serie sermonis) & peccata vitare, & quod bonum est, exercere contende.  

RESPONSIO.  
ERror est in citatione (istud enim non legitur in sermone citato,) Augustini tamen esse concedimus. Sed nihil aliud hoc testimonio significatur, quam, dum in hac vita sumus, semper nos per bona opera salvari posse, ut S. Prosper in responsione ad sextam objectionem Vincentianam docet his verbis: Hoc inter malos homines distat & daemones, quod hominibus etiam valde malis superest, si Deus misereatur, reconciliatio, daemonibus autem nulla est in aeternum servata conversio.    

CONCLUSIO.  
EX his facile est intelligere quae sit habenda Molinist is fides: quid sperari possit in rebus humanis ab hoc hominum genere, qui circa divinas artificio ludunt fallaci & sophistico. Interpretes falsi (ut de veritatis inimicis dicebat olim Cyprianus) 
Lib. de unitate Eccles.  extrema ponunt, & superiora praetereunt, partis memores, & partem subdole comprimentes. Divi Augustini reprehensores vana objiciunt, recta impugnant, prava defendunt. Neglectis atque contemptis Augustini libris integris, ubi rem, de qua agitur, data opera tractat, explanat, confirmat, inculcat, quasdam ejus sententias aut ad rem non pertinentes, aut dimidiatas, aut aliquando corruptas hinc inde colligunt, ut lectoribus credulis, aut solitae suae versutiae non assuetis fucum faciant. Ecce quibus artificiis relatorum ex Augustino testimoniorum interpolatores Doctorem probatissimum suas in partes invitum trahunt. Ecce quo candore genuinam ejus mentem exponunt, salutaremque doctrinam inquirunt. Ecce quibus viis perniciosos de gratia generali Molinistica errores defendunt. Locuti sunt adversum nos lingua dolosa, 
Psalm 108.  sed ille nos ab eorum insidiis liberabit, qui apprehendit sapientes in astutia eorum, & consilium pravorum dissipat. 
Job 5.  In oppugnandis Augustini Discipulis Molinistae ita se gerunt, quasi persuasum & exploratum habeant fraudibus & calumniis Catholicam fidem expugnari posse. Itane Molinae discipuli existimant in omnibus hominibus intelligentiae caligare obtutum, & a cunctis Ecclesiae filiis spiritum scientiae & pietatis abscessisse, ut non erubescant ingerere se judiciis legentium tam inhonesto mendacio? 
S. Prosper cont. Collat. c. 33.  Verum haec iniquae fortassis ipsorum causae tribuenda sunt, miserabiles istos conatus ab ingeniis non contemnendis extorsit dura necessitas. Haec opprobria facere jussit male susceptum patrocinium falsitatis. Erraverunt ab utero; locuti sunt falsa. 
Psalm 57  Itaque illos admonemus, ut si deinceps lucidissima & saluberrima scripta Sancti Augustini eo consilio scrutari velint, ut magistrum optimum atque sapientissimum suis adversari Discipulis, imo sibi ipsi contrarium esse, cum aliqua veri specie jactitent▪ paululum saltem humanae, si non Christianae sinceritatis assumant; vel certe cordatis hominibus persuadeant mendaciis indigere ac defendi posse veritatem. Alioqui dum hesterna Ludovici Molinae commenta in antiquissimis & fundatissimis Augustini documentis quaerunt, vano & poenitendo labore seipsos fatigant, novitatem suam in ipsis visceribus orthodoxae vetustatis indagantes.  
Quae omnia Sanctae Sedis correctioni ac judicio subjicimus. Subscriptum Romae die Lunae XIX. Maii anno MDCLIII. Thus signed with Paraphs. 

Natalis de Lalane Doctor Facultatis Parisiensis, Abbas B. Mariae de Valle-crescente.  
Tussanus des Mares Presbyter Congregationis Oratorii Domini Jesus.  
Ludovicus de Saint-Amour in sacra Facultate Parisiensi Doctor ac Socius Sorbonicus.  
Nicolaus Manessier in sacra Facultate Parisiensi Doctor ac Socius Sorbonicus.  
Ludovicus Angran ejusdem sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis Licentiatus ac Insignis Ecclesiae Trecensis Canonicus.      

Apologetical Memoires in behalf of the Rector, Deans, Proctors, and Deputies of the University of Paris. [Mentioned Part. 3. Chap. 9] Against the Enterprise of certain Irish, for the most part Students in the University.  
THough the University of Paris ought to prepare itself to suffer continual persecutions, so long as its Peace and Liberty are eyesores to its Enemies: nevertheless the quality of the persons lately employed to divide it, is a thing of sufficient wonder; and 'twas scarce credible either, that a small number of Irish, circumvented by strange Artifices, could raise against it the Syndic of the Theological Faculty, or that so many Doctors could be brought to favour so temerarious an enterprise. But since it finds itself in so deplorable a pass, as to be put to uphold its Authority against its own children, and to render an account of its proceed, yet it hath this consolation in its disgraces, that if it speaks for its non justification, 'tis before the Parliament of Paris, that is to say, before that August Tribunal which hath for many ages been the protector of its rights, liberties and privilidges; and it hath no reason to fear that the Court will account it as a crime, that had a zeal so full of moderation and prudence to repress an Innovation which it could not have suffered without conspiring at the same time against the Church's discipline and the King's Authority. The representation of the matter of Fact without colours or artifices will be sufficient to stop the mouths of its adversaries; and being always a cordial cherisher and lover of peace, it had rather justify itself before all the world by the innocent force of its reasons, then say all that it might allege against the violence of its most unjust adversaries.  

I.  
A faithful Narrative of all that passed in reference to a Declaration of the Irish; and of the true motives which induced the University of Paris to stop their interprises by an exemplary Decree.  
'TWas not credible that after the Archbishop of Paris, the most August Clergy of France, assembled at Paris a year before, and the famous Faculty of Divinity, forbore upon important reason to pass any judgement upon the questions concerning the matter of Grace, any should have with extreme importunities solicited a Decision of certain Irish students in the University of Paris, as if the doctrine of the Church depended on their judgement, or as if this unjust appeal gave them a new jurisdiction.  
Nevertheless the Rector of the University of Paris heard the astonishing news of such a design. He was informed that these Irish, solicited by certain ecclesiastics who are thought to be in some credit at Court, had consulted in several assemblies held to that end by them, to make some doctrinal declaration concerning the controverted opinions about Grace; and this new project obliged him to use all precautions necessary to stop the progress of it. For which end, having notice of an Assembly then held in the chamber of Nicholas Poetus an Irishman, Bachelor of Divinity and Professor of Philosophy in the College of Lysieux, and that they were upon the point to determine certain Questions of Grace; he caused one of the Beadles of the University to warn them on Febr. 3. to abstain from such kind of Conventicles, and not to presume to pronounce any doctrinal judgement.  
Their speedy departure from the abovesaid Batchelor's chamber seemed to imply at first that the command was given to obedient persons; but they who inveigled them into the business determined to effect that with less noise which did not succeed in those assemblies; and they run from door to door to get the subscriptions of particular persons to three or four copies of a Declaration which was presented to them ready drawn, and which contained a judgement upon the five Propositions touching the matter of Grace.  
Such urgent solicitations made to strangers whom their domestical Afflictions reduced to many hardships, prevailed with some of these Irish to hearken to those promised them assistance only upon this condition; and of twenty six who subscribed, there was only one Doctor of Divinity, two Bachelors and two Masters of Arts, all the rest having no rank nor degree in the University of Paris, and some of them having scarce studied Philosophy or Grammar.  
The Rector being informed of this secret negotiation, could not, without betraying his Magistracy, but complain of this enteprise against his authority. He gave notice of it to the Deans of Faculties, and the Procurators of Nations, and the ordinary assembly held at his house on Saturday the fourth of March; he represented to them how important it was to hinder such Conventicles from being held in the Colleges of the University, and to punish those who contrary to his express prohibitions, and without having either authority or degree to pass any Judgement in matters of doctrine, were nevertheless so bold as to pronounce upon Propositions which the Faculty of Divinity had Judged expedient not to meddle with, when the same were presented to it in the assembly of the first of July to be examined; that the Archbishop of Paris and the whole Clergy of France assembled a year before in that capital City of the Kingdom, had likewise refused to define any thing upon that matter. He gave them further to understand that this Declaration contained things extremely prejudicial to the authority of the University of Paris, and notoriously injurious to the rights and privileges of the Kingdom and Gallicane Church. Lastly, he told them that of these Irish he had ordered four who were of the body of the University to appear before the Assembly, to speak for themselves in the business, and to produce all the Copies of the Declaration by them subscribed.  
The Deans of Faculties and Procurators of Nations having agreed to hear the Irish before further proceeding, they were called into the Assembly, and after the reading of the Declaration to them, they all acknowledged that they had subscribed the same apart, and without having examined it in common; that no copy of the three or four which they had signed remained in their hand, but they had given one to M. Vincent General of the Priests of the Mission and Principal of the College des Bons-Enfans; that they were ready to revoke their subscriptions if the University commanded them; to which also they obliged themselves under their hands.  
At the same time the Rector produced a Petition which had been presented to himself with the Deans of Faculties and Proctors of Nations by the Irish Divines of the University of Paris; who most humbly beseeched them in the name of their whole nation, not to impute to all the body the fault and temerity of certain particular persons, some of whom had been mistaken and understood not the things which they subscribed, and others had been seduced by the Adversaries of the University to prevent the mischief which some particulars were going to bring upon the whole nation, to keep the bond of fraternal charity from being broken, and that they might not be branded with so shameful a blot to their reputation, as if they had all consented to the fault of some, who had committed so strange an attempt against the rights of the Gallicane Church and the whole Realm of France.  
After the reading of this Petition divers Irish Divines were heard, some of whom declared that two Jesuits had promised to give the Irish a house, if they would subscribe the Declaration; and that they were also put in hopes that some other personage would make a Foundation in their favour, and that Benefices should be given to the Subscribers.  
All these things being heard & deliberately considered, the whole Assembly unanimously resolved, That it belonged not to any person to define any thing in matters of doctrine; and consequently that small number of Irish, who were only private persons, of no authority, and most of them of no note for learning, or any degree in the University of Paris, had committed an action of temerity and insolence, in that after express prohibition given to them by the Rector, they took upon them to pass a doctrinal Judgement, and to decide Questions touching which neither the Faculty of Divinity, nor the Archbishop of Paris, nor the Clergy of France, would define any thing. That upon this account the University condemned, abrogated and nullified the said Declaration, Judging the same prejudicial to its Authority, contrary to the custom, and rights of the Realm and Gallicane Church; and it also ordained that all the copies that could be found thereof in any place whatever, with the subscriptions of those Irish should be brought to the Rector and cancelled: That it deprived of all degree, right and privilege of the University of Paris, those members of it who had subscribed the said Declaration; that it debarred the rest from ever receiving any degree, and expelled them out of all its Colleges, if within 8 days next after the signification of this Decree, they did not under their hand revoke that first subscription, and deliver their Declaration into the hands of the Register of the University; after which time there should not be any hope of pardon for such as should be convicted of contumacy: That it prohibited these Irish and all others in the University of Paris to attempt the like projects for the future, under pain of being deprived of all degrees, privileges, rights and Colleges of the same Universite: That this Degree should be forthwith signified to all Principals of Colleges and to all others to whom it might appertain. And accordingly being signed by Quintaine Scribe of the University, it was published by the Grand Beadle of the Nation of France.  
This so important Decree was afterwards confirmed in the General Assembly held at the Mathurins March 21. 'Tis true, M. Hallier Syndic of the Faculty of Divinity, was mighty hot in this assembly for the defence of so unjust a cause, being prepossessed with interest and passion; but because he boasted that he spoke in the name of the Faculty who gave him no order, and it belonged to the Dean, and not to him to be the Mouth of the Faculty in this case, as it was ever practised in these Assemblies, he was sufficiently convicted of the novelty of his proceeding. Yet above fifty Doctors of the Faculty who were present could not prevail with this Syndic to let the Dean take the voices of the Doctors according to custom. M. Masters who was Dean in this Assembly was also desired several times to gather their suffrages. But M. Pereyret and some others hindered him from doing it. In fine, M. Hallier having clamoured much that none should speak, received no other satisfaction from his bustle but the shame of having had abundance of witnesses of his disorder.  
After this solemn confirmation, 'twas hoped the Irish would betake themselves to their duty; but being possessed by other spirits than their own, they were counselled to appeal from this Decree to the Parliament, not that they hoped to find any protection to their disobedience there, but only to continue the trouble longer in the University, which is the only aim of those who make them the Instruments of their passion. Wherefore having presented their Petition to the Parliament, the Court retained the Cause by Arrest of March 24. which was signified to the Rector on the 29th of the same month. But these Irish meaning to testify that they had as little respect to the Parliament as to the University, took a very strange course, and addressed to the Faculty of Divinity, under pretext of imploring whose intervention, they demanded that it would please to judge of their difference touching the said Decree; as if the Faculty had been a Tribunal Superior to the University and the Parliament, and as if it had right to judge of a Judgement of the whole University. M. Nicholas Poerus being chosen as the boldest with M. Thomas Medus, brought this Petition to the Faculty of Divinity assembled in Sorbonne, April 1. They also presented to it an Original of that Declaration which they had Signed, and another Act made by the Irish before a Notary, March 22. viz. after the Confirmation of the Decree made by the University in its General Assembly held at the Mathurines, March 21. Such as had any knowledge of what had passed, were surprised; when by the reading of this Act, they found that these private persons, instead of revoking their Declaration, confirmed it by an Act directly contrary to what they had promised, and obliged themselves under their hands to do, in the Assembly of the fourth of March. And whereas the Declaration gins with a complaint against new Opinions, which it saith are publicly taught by some persons in this unhappy Age; M. de Sainte-Beuve, Doctor of Sorboune, and Professor of Divinity, asked Poerus what were those new Opinions, and who were the Professors that taught them: But they who had inspired this Bachelor with the boldness to come upon the Stage, and kindle the flame of Division, hindered him from answering to the Question, and immediately got him away; amongst whom M. Hallier forgetting that he was Syndic, to remember only that he was M. Hallier, and betraying the honour of his Office for the interest of his person, was so far from seconding M. de Sainte-Beuve's Proposal, that he became of Counsel with Poerus, by an unworthy prevarication, suitable indeed to the shameful manner whereby he entered into the Syndical. He gave notice to this Bachelor to withdraw instantly, and said he should answer with advice, respondebit ex consilio.  
The blindness of this Syndic could not but lead him to greater disorders. He propounded the affair to the Faculty, he moved to have it debated, he became the Advocate of the Irish, and the Defender of their Declaration; He undertakes to make it good in all its points, says they committed no fault in making such a private Declaration, & highly condemns the Universities Decree: And to citcumvent the Assembly, he boldly imposes upon it, and affirms, that the said Decree was not confirmed by any of the Faculties in the Assembly at the Mathurines; although M. de Sainte-Beuve being unable to endure such a notorious falsehood, declared openly, that the Decree was confirmed there, that he had a Transcript of it in his hand Signed by the Register of the University, which he offered to read to the Company. And by this artifice M. Hallier, notwithstanding the resistance of a great number of Doctors, brought the Conclusion to be, that the Faculty disapproved the Decree 
Improbavit praedictum Decretum diei 4. Martii: consensum qu●que si quem praebuit in comitiis privatis apud ampliss. D. Rectorem illi Decreto D. Prodecanus Theologiae; quae vero gesta sunt à D. Syndico die 21. Martii in Comitiis generalibus Mathurensium approbavit; & appellationi Hibernorum sese adjunxit, etc.  and the consent which his Subdean had given thereunto in the Assembly of the Rector, if he had given any; approved that which M. Hallier had done in the General Assembly at the Mathurines, and seconded the Appeal of the Irish: To which Conclusion about forty secular Doctors opposed themselves, declaring, that they adhered to the Rector, and to the University, to make good its Decree against those Irish.  
Certainly if this Doctor did not take pride in appearing a public Enemy of the Privileges of the Theological Faculty of the University of Paris, of the Rights and Safety of the Kingdom, of the Liberties of the Gallicane Church, and of all Ecclesiastical Discipline and Policy, he could not have been carried to such strange excesses, his Society would be in peace, and the tranquillity of the University would not be disturbed by Domestic Divisions.   

II.  
The Weighty Reasons which engaged sundry Doctors of the Faculty of Divinity not to relinquish the University.  
THis affair is none of those which are decided by plurality of voices, for all forms have been violated in it; and upon this account many, and those the most ancient Doctors, viz. MM. Hennequin, Chastelain, de Mince, Coppin, Dreux, Bachelier, Brousse, Bourgecis, and above thirty other Seculars opposed so injust a Conclusion, and declared, that they stood for the whole University to make good its Decree against the Irish; in which they had none but just considerations, and most reasonable inducements.  
I. This Decree was made according to all forms; all Rules of Law were observed in it; it was not made but by the advice of the Faculty of Divinity, being presented to the Assembly by M. Hennequin, Subdean thereof, who first gave his suffrage and consent to it; and no body will accuse this Venerable Subdean either of impudence or precipitation, but such as know not his integrity, wisdom and zeal for preserving the interests of the Faculty. His carriage in this affair is most justifiable, and it may be made appear, that he deserves the general approbation and thanks of the whole Faculty, as he received the same from all the Doctors, who with the greatest Justice defend the true interests of that Society: And lastly, this Decree was confirmed in the General Assembly held at the Mathurines, March 21. by the Deans of Superior Faculties, and Proctors of Nations.  
II. Were not the Declaration of the Irish altogether illegal, as it is; and were their proceed as justifiable, as it is unjust and worthy of punishment, there would be no need of the Faculties siding with those Irish. If it pretended to receive any injury in its rights, it might and ought rather to complain thereof to the University, and for want of satisfaction, to have recourse to the Court. But it not only joins with the Irish, and so becomes divided both in itself. (inasmuch as so many Doctors oppose what it acteth) and from the whole Body of the University; but besides, it passeth Judgement upon a Decree of the whole University, and disapproves it; and this is that which renders its Conclusion perfectly null and abusive, since it hath no Power nor Jurisdiction to disallow the Judgement of the University: The Faculty of Divinity is but a Member and part, though the Prime and Noblest of all the whole University; 'tis inferior thereunto, as a part is to its whole, it hath no right to judge of the Universities Judgement, nor to disapprove what it doth; it can only oppose itself thereunto, and appeal to the Parliament, or intervene in the Cause with Appellants; and it cannot say and pretend, that this Decree is not the Decree of the University, since having been made in all the forms, it was confirmed in the General Assembly of the Mathurines before the Assembly of the Faculty: Nevertheless, in the mean time, the Faculty of Divinity parted and divided in itself; pronounces that it disapproves this Decree, Inprobat Decretum.  
III. It is certain, that when M. Hallier spoke in the General Assembly of the Mathurines in the name of the whole Faculty, without order from it so to do; when he took upon him to be the Spokesman of his Society, in presence of the Deans to whom that right belonged; and when he refused to put to the Question what he had proposed, and to let the suffrages be gathered of the Doctors who were present in that Assembly, and composed the Body of the Theologal Faculty: 'Tis certain, I say, that in all this he acted against the Forms and Customs: And therefore how can the Faculty approve what he did in that Assembly contrary to the Rules of the Faculty? 'Tis not then the mind of the Faculty which framed this so illegal Conclusion: 'Tis manifest, that the Doctors who opposed it, are Defenders of the true Interests and Rights of their Society; add that if they are not the most numerous, yet they are the best and soundest part. 'Tis well seen, that M. Hallier could not get such a Conclusion made, without canvasing and intrigue. Four or five Doctors, who took upon them to overrule the Faculty, having counselled M. Hallier to attempt what he did in the Assembly of the Mathurines against all forms; and having authorised him themselves, they got it approved by the plurality of voices, how injust and illegal soever it were, and whatever Remonstrances were made by the Doctors, who in behalf of the Faculty opposed this pretended Conclusion. But how doth the Faculty approve that which M. Hallier did in the Assembly of the Mathurines, without knowing what he did? He saith, that not being allowed to speak in that Assembly, he made an Act before a Notary to oppose the Decree, which Act he ought to have produced and showed to the Faculty; and the Faculty by the reading thereof have known what he did: All which defects evidence, that more care was taken to bring that to pass in the Faculty which had been unsuccessfully atempted in the Assembly of the University, then to observe the Laws of the Faculty, and the Rules of Justice.  
iv Is it not further apparent, that M. Hallier the Syndic, and the Doctors who uphold him, violated in this Assembly all forms of right, and the most certain rules of Natural Equity? Is it credidible that M. Richard Nugent was suffered to be a Judge in this affair? Yet he was present at the debate, gave his Opinion, and a long Contest there was about writing down and reckoning his suffrage. Is there any greater Evidence of a Conspiracy, and any less just proceeding, then obstinately to hold him a Judge in his own cause, who was a Witness to the debate which principally concerned himself?  
V But there was no cause for the Faculties intervening in behalf of its own rights, since the same were no wise injured, nei her in respect of the Decree, which contains nothing but a Regulation of Discipline against those who usurped a Doctrinal Judgement, nor in respect of the Doctor comprised in the Decree, since the University hath right to judge as it did, and to decree a penalty against him which was only comminatory. And indeed this Doctor appeared in the Assembly, was examined, and willingly submitted himself under his own hand to the judgement of the University, and was not actually and by name excluded by that Decree from the rights of the Faculty. A second Judgement ought to be pronounced against him, and all the rest, to make them really understand the penalties specified in this Decree; which indeed is rather an exemplary and necessary Regulation for the keeping up of discipline and the Authority Royal, than a punishing of those that transgressed it, since no body in effect incurred any penalty by this Decree, and all might have scaped only with acknowledging their fault, and submitting themselves, as they publicly promised, to what the University should please to ordain. But supposing it had been expedient, for the avoiding of Consequences, to interest the whole Faculty of Divinity upon that Doctor's account; was this a sufficient cause for the Faculty to judge of the Decree, and intervene in the affair of the Irish against the University?  
VI Had there been reason to oppose this Decree, it ought to have been done in the General Assembly of the University at the Mathurines; but since no opposition was made there, either from the Faculty or any Doctor, how is it fitting to stir again an affair already judged and publicly passed by Authentic Confirmation? M. Hallier demanded to speak in the Assembly of the Mathurines, and was interrupted for the reasons abovementioned; but neither he, nor any other Doctor, publicly opposed the Confirmation of this Decree: M. Hallier protested only that he was hindered from speaking, but no body heard him say, that he opposed himself to the Confirmation of the Decree: Nor can it be showed that he makes any mention of his opposition in the act of the Confirmation of the Decree. 'Tis well known, that when one makes an opposition and demands an Act of it, 'tis always the custom to grant it to him. He told the Faculty that he opposed it by an Act before Notaries: but this was not sufficient; he ought to have said publicly in the Assembly of the Mathurines that he opposed such confirmation. He was heard to say to Notaries, that he demanded of them an Act, for that he was hindered from speaking, but not that he opposed the confirmation of the Decree, or demanded an act of such oppposition. And thus the Decree having been confirmed without public opposition, from the Faculty, Dean, Syndic, or any other particular Doctor, there was no longer any place for the Faculty to oppose the same afterwards. But had M. Hallier the Syndic in that assembly opposed the confirmation of the Decree, he ought to have taken the suffrages of the Doctors then present, who represented the body of the Faculty, to declare the sentence of the Faculty. That was the place and time appointed to debate of this affair; and M. Hallier's obstructing of the debate shows that he apprehended the Faculties unfavorable design, and that it would have confirmed the Decree, if it had had the liberty of opining in that Assembly. What violence was not used to keep M. Messier then Dean from speaking his advice publicly and intelligibly, and from taking those of the Doctor's present, as he was required to do? Things having passed thus at the Mathurines, either the Faculty than assembled aught to be accounted to have confirmed the Decree, or not opposing it in that place, it cannot oppose the same afterwards. But in brief, the Faculty of Divinity being but a part of the University, though it had opposed this Decree ac-according to form; yet the same had been confirmed by the University, being so by the other Faculties and by the four Nations.  
VII. Lastly, the Doctor's opposers are ready to make good to all the world the justice of the Decree itself, the injustice of the Declaration of the Irish in every thing that it contained. Whereas therefore they are persuaded here, and know that the university used its own right with extreme moderation and prudence, they cannot consent to this new faction which insensibly tends to the utter ruin of the University. This is what 'tis easy for the University to justify, and to show that its Decree is most just and moderate, and that the Declaration of the Irish is most injust and temerarious.   

III.  
The Declaration of the Irish refuted in general, ad the rashness and dangerous consequence of this enterprise laid open, chief as to the discipline of the Church in matter of Doctrine.  
NOw to comply with the obstinacy of our Adversaries, and consider this affair without respect to the Decree, and its confirmation, and as a thing not already decided; certainly 'tis hard to conceive what those protectors of the worst of causes can reply, when they are shown by most plain and convincing proofs, 1. That the Declaration is a very manifest enterprise of the Irish. 2. That it is unjust and temerarious in every of its parts, and wholly contrary to the liberties of the Gallicane Church, the rights of the Realm, and the safety of the sacred persons of our Kings. 3. That the Rector, Deans and Proctors had right to vacate it, and punish those exemplarily who were convicted to have subscribed it. 4. That having resolved to make an example of them, they proceeded therein with so much prudence and moderation, that they cannot be accused either of excess in their chastisement or of precipitation in their conduct.  
To begin with the Declaration, 'tis no Hyperbole to say that it wounds the peace of the Church, and particularly that of the Faculty; that it is contrary to Ecclesiastical discipline and policy, and of very dangerous consequence in reference to matters of Doctrine; that it is contrary to the Arrests of the Court of Parliament, and injurious to the Faculty in reference to the Five Propositions, which it qualifies as suspected of heresy; that it violates the Arrests of the Court, destroys the rights of France, ruins Royal and Sovereign Authority in what regards the power of Popes, whose temporal power it establishes ovet things; lastly, that it is against all kind of forms and equity.  
As the University hath neither judged nor pretended to judge of the matter of doctrine; as it hath said nothing in its Decree concerning the truth or falsehood of the Five Propositions of Grace contained in the declaration of these Irish; so hath it not any design either of approving or disapproving the same Propositions, whether considered in themselves, or according to the several senses which they admit, But it looks upon them as Propositions, about which there is great contest between Catholic Doctors, and the Faculty thought fit not to pronounce, and of which there hath not been any Judgement of the Church, since they were first set on foot. And indeed were the Propositions really such as the Irish determine them, to wit suspected of error and heresy, yet their enterprise were intolerable and of very pernicious consequence to the Church, because they have made a new Declaration of the points of Doctrine in contest, and drawn an unreceived and unheardof Profession of faith, without having any authority in the Church.  
I. He must be ignorant of all the Ordinances of the Realm as well as of all the laws of the Church, who doth not know that it pertains not to any private person to make private conventicles, wherein to consult about judging of doctrine, drawing declarations of faith, & to cause divers copies of the same to be subscribed and put into the hands and disposal of others. Yet thus the Irish began their enterprise. They assembled at the college of Lisieux in the chamber of M. Nicholas Poerus, and there resolved upon subscribing the Declaration. This matter of Fact is evident by the signification made to them in the Rector's name by the grand Beadle of the Nation of France. Now the attempt is the more worthy of punishment in that these strangers ought to have had more sense of the hospitality given them by France, then to do that amongst us which is not permitted them in any place of the earth.  
II. It is not lawful for any private person to make any new declaration or profession of Faith, nor to subscribe it; otherwise, every one might take the same licence, and take upon them to subscribe such as are contrary one to another. And so the Church would be divided by an infinite number of different professions of Faith, and the particular persons who made them without any Ecclesiastical Authority would wholly extinguish all the marks of the unity of Faith which makes all the Faithful but one and the same Religious Body.  
III. The same course might be practised in all sort of matters, and when there is no public allowance to write, or regularly examine, or appear as Divines before the Tribunals of the Church about points of Doctrine contested between Catholic Doctors, the weakest in knowledge but strongest in intrigues and credit, might have recourse to these negotiations of darkness in order to promote their opinions, and by this means render themselves absolute Masters and supreme Judges of Doctrine by making others subscribe the condemnation of what Tenets themselves dislike. They who hold a doctrine most complying and  to the genius of the world and humane interests, will take this course to authorize their sentiments to enervate the vigour of Ecclesiastical discipline, and to corrupt the purity of manners in Christianity. They likewise whose hearts are envenomed against the temporal power of our Kings, and burn with continual desire to subject their Crowns to the temporal power of the supreme Pontifs, will have recourse to this artifice for the upholding of a doctrine which they cannot retract; & the ancient sentiments of the University and Faculty of Divinity shall be betrayed by the iniquity of this practice. The bare description of this proceeding is sufficient to display the injustice and pernicious consequence of it.  
IU. 'Tis easy to verify that most part of those who subscribed are utterly ignorant in the matters whereof they judge. Of twenty seven, one and twenty have neither title nor degree in the University; and of these 21 there are 12 students in Divinity, and 7 students in Philosophy; the five rest are two Bachelors and two Masters of Arts; who indeed have been examined for the Degree of Bachelor but never kept their Act; and there is but one single Doctor of the Faculty of Paris, M. Richard Newgent. What Ecclesiastick, how ignorant soever, will not undertake to make the like Declarations in all matters of Doctrine, whether in reference to faith or manners, if this enterprise be suffered and not exemplarily punished in these Irish Scholars?   

IV.  
The Declaration of the Irish particularly examined, chief in what relates to the power of Kings.  
I. WE may see by the bare reading of this Writing that 'tis a form of Profession of Faith and a doctrinal Declaration; and should we go no further than the preface, these Irish might seem very considerable persons and of great Authority in the Church. Do but consider this magnificent beginning, Cum nova dogmata in his calamitosissimis temporibus a quibusdam doceantur, praedicentur, typis maudentur, etc. Nos infra scripti huic periculo mature pro Viribus occurrere proponentes, etc. Can the H. See or the Archbishop of Paris, the Clergy of France, speak with more authorithy if they were to make decisions? and may it not be said upon considering the style of these Irish, that every one of them is a Pope, or at least a Bishop? Certainly if the Faculty of Paris were obliged to give their judgement upon these matters, it would use other words, and not these expressions which denote power. Who then can endure that simple scholars should use such strange language? And what is more ridiculous than the boldness wherewith they say they will seasonably remedy the mischiefs which appear risen in the Church by the divisions concerning the matter of Grace? Does it belong to students of Philosophy and Divinity to judge and pronounce, that new doctrines are taught in the University of Paris? to judge of Professors of Divinity who are their Masters? and do they know what a new doctrine is?  
II. What may we expect from a Preface which denotes so great knowledge and authority, and in what manner will these Irish pronounce? They pronounce as persons that intended to make decisions. Firmiter statuimus (say they) promittimusque; we ordain and promise. Who can suffer so manifest an insolence of this small number of private persons, who having neither authority nor degree, forbear not to speak like Oracles in matters of Divinity? Who can but disapprove the temerity which leads them to make a common resolution upon points of doctrine? In brief, who could have imagined that persons of this conditions durst have subscribed the form of a Profession of faith wholly new and unheard of hitherto in the Church?  
III. But what do these Irish promise in such magnificent terms? Promittimus (say they) nos semper adhaesuro omnibus Decretis ac Censuris summorum Pontificum. To speak truth, this promise is nothing else but a Threat to all France, and an act of hostility against the rights of the Crown. But let us not lay the blame upon these scholars, who no doubt had not malignity enough to frame such a dangerous Conspiracy of their own heads. And since this is the stone of stumbling; let us not fear to say, that they who contrived this Declaration, had a direct design to wound the Rights of the Gallicane Church, to do an outrage to the Royal Power, to despise the Arrests of Parliament, and to trample upon the Censures of the University and Faculty of Divinity, especially the last which was made against the pernicious Doctrine of Sanctarel. For besides the general terms omnibus Decretis, they have explained themselves more fully, in this manner; Insuper promittimus nunquam nos ex animi sententia privatam aut publice def●nsuros, etc. ullas Propositiones de err●re aut haeresi suspectas, AUT QUOMODOLIBET A QUOVIS SUMMO PONTIFICE DAMNATAS. Behold the poison and the most dangerous artifice of so black a plot included in these last words! Is it possible to wound the Sovereign Authority of our Kings more openly, or more punctually denote the Bulls and Decrees of some Popes against their Sacred Power? These strangers are made to say, (that so, if possible, all Frenchmen might say the same) that they are contented to resolve and promise perpetual adherence to all Decrees and Censures of Popes: They add, they will never deliberately maintain, either privately or publicly, any doctrine condemned by any Pope whatsoever, by any way or manner whatsoever, without particularising the Bulls of Popes; for except particularly specifying the Bulls of Popes against Kings, 'tis impossible to use more express words whereby to denote such as are prejudicial to our Kings, and contrary to the Liberties of France. And the Act in which these Irish are inveigled to declare themselves upon this point, is contrived in such sort, that it is no less contrary to the Royal Power then their first Declaration: For in this Act, which gins with Insuper promittimus, they say, that by Propositions condemned in what manner soever, and by what Pope soever, they did and do understand such Propositions as have been condemned by any Censure whatsoever. Declaramus nos hic intellexisse & intelligere Propositiones quacunque censura sive nota haeresios, sive erroris, sive falsitatis aut temeritatis damnatas nunquam docturos. And thus their interpretation is rather a new Confirmation, than a disguizing of their design, or rather of the design of those who are the Authors and Instruments of this whole enterprise; nor do they declare themselves otherwise upon this point in the French Declaration made before Notaries. But should these second Declarations contain a favourable Interpretation, or even a formal revocation of what they had said in their first, were the Decree of the University ever the less just? Ought not that to be considered which they said in their first Declaration, against which the University made its Decree, which was also confirmed in the General Assembly of the 21 of March, before this second Declaration was made upon the 22. In which regard, the Faculty ought not to have had any consideration of these second Declarations, and the same ought not to have been a pretext for it to join with the Irish against the University, and disapprove its Decree, supposing it had right and power to judge thereof.  
Now if we consider the quality of this enterprise, we cannot but confess, that the Rector and the University had been culpable, if they had not repressed it. Some Irish residing in France, obliged by the public hospitality of this Courteous Nation, and though Strangers, yet admitted to Study with perfect liberty, in the University of Paris, are so presumptuous, as to make Conventicles about points of doctrine and our Religion; They subscribe Declarations against the Authority of Kings, the Arrests of Parliament, the Censures of the University and the Faculty; They approve, ordain by a firm resolution and promise to maintain the Bull of Boniface the VIII. upon which Sanctarel, and all the Sanctarellists, both on this and the other side of the Mountains, chief found their pernicious doctrine of deposing Kings, disposing of their Kingdoms, and absolving their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance; insomuch that one of them, Suarez the Jesuit, boldly alleges that Bull as his principal proof of his saying that this doctrine ought to be believed as an Article of Faith. These Irish, in general terms without exception, promise to maintain the Bull of Julius 11. against Lewis XII. and John d' Albret King of Navarre, both Predecessors of our most Christian King Lewis XIV. King of France and Navarre; They engage themselves by Oath to defend that Bull, whereby the Kingdom of Navarre hath been usurped from its lawful Lord: They oblige themselves to receive that Bull, by which Sixtus V deprived the late King Henry the Great (of glorious memory) of the Kingdom of Navarre, and declared the same King, and Henry Prince of Conde, and their Posterity, incapable of succeeding to the Realm of France, or to any other Principality or Dignity, and absolved all their Subjects and Vassals from the Oath of Fidelity, and all other duty. They determine and promise to adhere inviolably to the Bull in Caena Domini, 
Excommunicamus & Anathematizanus omnes & singulos Cancellarios & Vice-Cancellarios, & Consiliarios ordinarios & extraordinarios quorumcunque Regum & Principum, ac Praesidentes Cancellariorum, Consiliorum & Parlamentorum; nec non Procuratores generales eorundem, aliosque judices tam ordinarios quam delegatos: nec non Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Abbates, Commendatarios, Vicarios & Officiales, qui per se vel alium seu alios Beneficiales, & decimarum, ac alias spirituales & spiritualibus annexas causas ab Auditoribus & Commissariis nostris aliisque Judicibus Ecclesiasticis avocant— ac sese illarum cognitione tanquam judices interponunt, etiam sub praetextu violentiae prohibendae. Ex Rulla in Coena Domini.  by which the Appeals, used for so many Ages in this Realm, are expressly condemned, and all persons who interpose or favour them, and all Secular Judges who receive and take cognizance of them, are Excommunicated. Now what could the Rector do in this case, when complaints were made to him of this Declaration, and attested Copies thereof delivered to him by those who had seen the Original and the Subscriptions? Can he be (as he is) the Guardian of the Discipline of the University of Paris, and Head of that Renowned Body, and remain in silence, the meanest graduate and most careless of all men? Should not he acquaint the Deans of Faculties, and Procurators of Nations therewith? But if after he hath done his duty therein, and the deed is evidenced by Confession of the Complices, shall the University, which can no longer be ignorant of so dangerous an enterprise, neglect to repress it by the just severity of its Decree? Shall it not take a course to nullify such a Declaration, and punish those who subscribed it, unless they revoke and renounce it? But if the Rector were capable of so soft and stupid patience, what would the University say? And if the University were so regardless of the Rights of the Crown, what would the King, what would the Parliament of Paris say?  
iv If we will go further, and search into the secret of this affair, we shall see that none of all these words were inserted without design: To which purpose, consider but what persons they are who have the chief hand in this intrigue. 'Tis plain on one side, that the Jesuits were the promoters of it, and that the Declaration of the Irish was contrived by those Fathers, who always retaining the poison of their evil Doctrine against Kings, spread the same in all places where they come; and on the other, 'tis as clear, that M. Hallier Syndic of the Faculty was in the plot of this Declaration, since he became the Defender of it, contrary to the duty of his place. And as this Doctor hath signed in one of the Commentaries of Corn. a Lapide the Jesuit, the doctrine of Sanctarel, a Jesuit likewise; so he desists not from those pernicious Tenets, but favours them upon all occasions in his Signing of Theses. He hugs himself for the public opposition and reproaches charged upon him by some Doctors of the Faculty, because this renders him more considerable in the Court of Rome; and indeed he hath no other aim, both as Syndic, and as Doctor, then to diffuse Sanctarellisme, where he can insinuate it handsomely. 'Tis left to the Parliaments wisdom to judge, whether it be fit to suffer these Monopolists longer, and whether it be not expedient to inform against the Authors and Complices of this Declaration, that they may be punished, as those deserve, who make public Conspiracies against the Interests of the Crown.  
V Firmiter Statuimus (say these Irish) promittimusque nos semper adhaesuros omnibus Decretis ac Statutis summorum Pontificum, nominatimque iis quae lata sunt a Pio V. Gregorio XIII. Urbano VIII. & Innocentio X. contra Bain, Jansenium, eorumque sequaces. What a bold thing is this, for Irish Students in the University of Paris to promise by a public act, that they will adhere particularly to a Bull, contrary to the Liberties of the Gallicane Church, which the Faculty of Divinity would not receive, and which was never Registered in the Parliament? Is this a fitting course, when legal considerations, and weighty reasons, keep the Magistrates or Universities from receiving some Bull in France? Shall this Licence be taken to oblige private persons by their Subscriptions to Declarations to receive that as an Authentic Piece which whole Societies have refused to admit, not through any aversion to the Church, whose power will always be Sacred to Magistrates and Doctors, but upon the urgent necessity of withstanding the encroachments of the Roman Court? What force will the Laws of Realms have? What will the Authority of the Parliament serve for? Who will not slight the Resolutions of the University of Paris, and of the Faculty of Divinity, if this way be practised, of Authorising and causing to be received into France all sorts of Bulls and Decrees? If we grant impunity to this example, nothing will hinder, but as much may be done in reference to those Bulls which directly wound the Regal Rights and Authority, and which tend to overthrow the Fundamental Laws of the Realm. Certainly there is no proceeding more unjust, or which more deserves to be repressed by the care of the Magistrates.  
VI Insuper promittimus (say the Irish) nunquam nos defensuros ullas propositiones de errore aut haeresi suspectas, etc. praesertimque sequentes; 1. Aliqua Dei Praecepta, etc. We expect that these Scholars tell us what Authority, Power or Skill, they think they have to determine so positively, and brand with suspicion of Heresy five Propositions, upon which neither the H. See, nor the Clergy of France, nor the Archbishop of Paris, nor the Faculty of Divinity, have passed any Judgement. When the said five Propositions were proposed to be examined, the Faculty not only refused to judge of them, but by common accord and consent concluded in the Assembly of December 7. 1649. that it was not necessary to Examination or Judgement of them. And whereas a Writing, under the name of some Doctors, deputed for that purpose, was spread abroad, by which these Propositions were determined Erroneous; those very Doctors, who were Commissioned to make their report thereof, being cited to the Parliament, disowned the publication of that pretended Censure, or that they had qualified the same in that manner, and passed their word to do nothing in the business, directly or indirectly, till the Court had taken order in it; which public Protestation was followed with the Arrest of Octob. 5. 1649. forbidding all further proceeding. Now is there any greater boldness then that of these Irish! and must not he have renounced all sense of Honour, who can like, that Students of Divinity and Philosophy, determine, condemn and reject these Propositions under their hands, and hold Conventicles for passing Judgement upon them, though without all examination? When was it ever known that Doctors were silenced, and Scholars allowed to speak as Judges upon questions important to the whole Church? Did the Faculty resolve to hold its peace for no other end, but that it might give attention to the Oracles and Decisions of these Irish?  
VII. They will say by the mouths of their Partisans, what was said for them in the Assembly of the Faculty by M. Hallier, who defended the Declaration of the Irish, in all particulars, together with their manner of proceeding. According to the subtlety of this famous Divine, they will say, 'tis a private Declaration of some particular persons, who promise not to maintain a doctrine which seemed bad to them, or was represented to them as such; not that they pretend to make any Censure or doctrinal Judgement upon it. But this defence is too weak, and there must be something more solid alleged to cassate a Decree of the University. For it hath been said before, that these Irish cannot speak in that manner, unless they were persons of Authority in the Church. To declare that new doctrines are taught, that they have resolved forthwith to redress so dangerous a mischief, to determine Propositions and brand them as suspected of heresy; is not this to pass a doctrinal judgement? whether could the enterprise of these Irish go farther? 'Tis well known that they pretend not to pass a juridical censure; nor are they accused of so doing; but they are accused of making and signing a Doctrinal Declaration, and a new form of profession of faith, without having degrees, authority or skill for that purpose. Now if that reason which they allege by the mouth of M. Hallier one of their most zealous apologists, were a receivable justification, who might not lawfully do the same? Who might not make doctrinal Declarations in every matter, and professions of faith of a new stamp, in order to get them signed by all sort of private persons, ecclesiastics, Laymen, Seculars, Regulars, Learned, ignorant, men and women? For according to the reasoning of that Syndic, it will be free for every one to declare and sign what he thinks and judgeth upon matters of faith; and 'tis in the liberty of all particular persons to oblige themselves even under their hands to maintain and teach what they think fit, and without countervening the Laws of the Realm and Constitutions of the Church, to make Conventicles and Assemblies in order to league themselves together by the public confederacy of the same opinions and upon mutual engagement to maintain this doctrine, and to condemn or reject another. And yet they who do thus, need not pretend to make juridical Censures, as Prelates or Faculties do, nor to pass judgements which others are obliged to follow. Certainly they who reckon the greatest confusion that can be introduced into the Church as to faith an manners and indifferent thing, may answer in this manner, and slight all the sad inconveniences which are natural sequels of so strange a proceeding. But such as apprehend that this licence would in a little time produce as many different professions of faith as there are persons, cannot approve a course which tends to cause the same mischiefs in France in point of Religion which now make England a theatre of division and a sink of all heresies and errors imaginable.  
VIII. But lastly, 'tis very false, that this Declaration of the Irish is a private one; Cetainly, 'tis as public as such a thing can be. Six or seven and twenty persons assemble together several times, all sign the same writing, in three or four Copies which they send into all parts. This Writing is so little secret, that it is complained of to the Rector. The very persons who signed it caused divers copies of it to be printed. In fine, the Jesuits, who set a work the chief springs of this engine, have already alleged it as an authentick piece 
Triumphus Catholicae veritatis, p. 415.  in a book published April 1. So that if this Declaration be not public, 'tis hard to say what is. Mean while M. Hallier who saw and knew all this, forbore not to persuade the Faculty that it was only private; and in stead of considering that were what he said, true; yet being so illegal and injust as it is, it cannot come to public knowledge without being abolished; He hath used all his endeavours to maintain before the whole Assembly of the Faculty so unjustifiable and unreasonable a pretention.   

V.  
That the Rector, Deans of Faculties, and Procurators of Nations had right to pronounce the judgement in this case which they did.  
AFter having pretended that the Irish might of their own private authority subscribe a new Declaration of Faith, their partisans had no other expedient to crown so great injustice, but to dispute the jurisdiction of the whole University over its own members, and to ravish a right from it which it enjoyed from its first foundation.  
I. But the Parliament of Paris, the perpetual guardian of its privileges, will not endure that jurisdiction to be questioned which it hath always had of regulating, punishing and correcting those who offend against its constitutions and discipline. This authority hath been preserved in it in all reformations from time to time, particularly in the last which was made in the first year of this Century by the authority of that August Senate.  
II. If the Gallicane Church be maintained in its liberties, 
Recherches de Pasquier l. 3. c. 16.  'tis the University of Paris which hath always upheld the same amongst other societies. 'Tis well known what important services it performed for it in the time of S. Lewis, 
Id. c. 18.  what care it took to preserve the exemption from Tenths in France, when Gregory XII. Benedict XIII. and Alexander V contended for the H. See; how vigorously it upheld the cause of all France, under the Pontificate of John XXIII. Moreover the Rector is particularly entrusted to see that nothing be done against the liberties of the same Church, which are nothing else but the common right in which it hath always preserved itself, and 'tis founded upon Custom and Arrests for defending the Royal power and Authority. Upon this account he makes complaint to the Parliament, where any Decree of Rome contrary to the liberties of this Church comes to his knowledge. Upon this ancient right was the verification of the Cardinal d' Amboise's Bulls opposed by him in the Universities name in full Parliament. And lately complaint being made to that Court by him, of a Decree of the Roman Inquisition published at Paris, the King's Counsel highly commended him for his good service to the King and Crown.  
III. 'Tis certain that the Declaration of the Irish is illegal, contrary to the Policy of the Church, to the discipline and rules of the University; that it violates the peace of the Theological Faculty and the Conclusion which it made not to examine or judge of these Propositions. 'Tis injurious to the Arrests of Parliament, both in reference to the Prohibitions. 'Tis injurious to the Arrests of Parliament, both in reference to the Prohibitions made to the Faculty of doing any thing concerning them, and to the Arrests against Sanctarel and others; and it invades the sacred authority of our Kings and the laws of the Realm. Whence 'tis manifest that the Rector, Deans and Proctors, had right to cassate the said writings; and since they who subscribed it are subject to the Universities discipline, of which they have the honour to be members, it hath right to punish them if they revoke not their signature, to exclude the Scholars out its Colleges and debar them of their degrees; The Doctor amongst them, being a member of the University as well as the rest, is also subject to the jurisdicton of his Mother, as he acknowledged by appearing at the Assembly of the University, answering to the Questons' propounded to him, and submitting himself under his hand to what the University should ordain. Though indeed his bad example makes him more culpable than the rest.  
iv The Rector and the University having an undoubted jurisdiction in reference to discipline, they might exercise the same in matter purely of discipline. For though the Declaration of the Irish concern matters of doctrine, yet the University judged of their Fact and their Declaration, without out pronouncing upon the doctrine, as it declares by its Decree of May 31. Facile intelligi ex verbis dicti Decreti nihil statutum de veritate aut falsitate quinque propositionum in dicta Hibernorum Declaratione contentarum; atque in eare DD. Deputatos secutos Academiae mentem.  
V Nothing was done in this case, but what was done lately in a like case, without the dislike of any particular person of the University. For M. Francis Veron having libelled the University, and spoken new injuries viva voce in its Assembly, whether he was cited, M. Godefroy Hermant than Rector, and now Doctor of Sorbonne, concluded by the advice of the Deans and Proctors Sept. 14. 1647. that he should be deprived of all degrees, rights, privileges and prerogatives of the same University, that his Letters of Master of Arts should be torn and cancelled in the General Assembly of the University at the Mathurines. Which was executed without any contradiction.  
VI The authority of the University cannot be contested without countervening that solemn Arrest given at S. Germanien Laye, July 8. 1651 for maintaining its priviledge in jurisdiction. And as for judging of doctrine, we may say that the cognisance thereof belongs rather to the University then to the Faculty, the former having power to hear witnesses, cite the subscribers, receive their depositions, etc. which the latter cannot practise but with extreme difficulties. Besides, all the offenders, except one Doctor, were of the Faculty of Arts; and consequently the cognisance of the cause belonged more particularly to the Rector and Proctors of Nations then to any other.  
VII. But the rise and progress of this affair will manifest the justice of the University. The Rector received complaints of the Irish Declaration and oft their Conventicles; and thereupon apprehending the pernicious consequences of the same, prohibited the Irish to pass any judgement of doctrine; which most just and easy command they disobeyed, and proceeded to sign their Declaration. Notice whereof being given to the Rector together with Copies of it, could he, without betraying his trust, the cause of God, his Church, the King, the Parliament, and also of the Theologal Faculty, look upon this enterprise with indifferent eyes, and not remedy such a public disorder?   

VI  
That the Rector and that University acted herein with much prudence and moderation.  
THis assertion will easily be manifested by the bare narration of the affair. Notice is given to the Rector, of Assemblies held in the Colleges of the University for making new Declarations about points of doctrine; and particularly of one held at the Chamber of M. Nicholas Poerus. The Rector sends the grand Beadle of the Nation of France thither, to forbid such assembling and declaring. They dissolve, yet afterwise sign their Declaration contrary to the said express prohibition. The Rector is informed of this, and a copy of the Declaration brought to him. All this while he remains very patiented, and is lo●h to use all his authority, so long as he conceives more gentle ways may serve. In this spirit of moderation and prudence, he sends for the Irish to inquire the truth; in which work he spends almost a whole month. He acquaints the chief of the University with the business, who all agree to check the enterprise and punish this disobedience. At the ordinary Assembly of the University the Irish are interrogated, their depositions writ down: and four or five hours spent in consultation about them. At length after an exact discussion of the affair, all the Deans and Proctors are of advice to make an exemplary Decree. In all which proceeding what can the most severe Censors find to reprehend?  
They who complain that an affair of this consequence is determined in one single assembly, consider not that the Rector was a month in preparing it, and the depositions were all heard, that the fact was evident, as well as the dangerous consequence of it.  
But 'twill be said that the Irish submitted to what the University should ordain in reference to their action, and why then should they be punished with such severity? These Objectors may be answered that 'twas in the power of the Irish to free themselves from this pretended severity, after they had received the judgement of it. For being obliged thereby only to revoke their signatures, and no punishment inflcted but in case of refusal, let them acquit themselves of their promises, and they are subject to no penalty. Now this comminatory punishment was only to engage them to performance of their word; and thence forward they could not break it without doubly meriting punishment both for disobeying the laws of the University and violating their promise. But the truth is, they did not submit as they promised; but instead thereof recurred to the Parliament and the Faculty.   

VII.  
The Conclusion.  
NO doubt the Parliament judges the enterprise of the Irish an insolent action, and the conspiracy of the Syndic and many Doctors with them against the Rector and the University an effect of blind passion deserving to be repelled by the public authority of Justice. If 'tis a crime in the Rector and the University to have performed their office, to have had respect for the Arrests of Parliament and laws of the Realm, to have hindered conspirators against the Church's peace and the King's rights, 'tis so goodly a crime, that 'tis honourable to be accused of it, and glorious to be punished for it. But the Court ordains not punishments for actions, which it hath always honoured with praises; and there's reason to hope, that if it have condemnations to pronounce, 'tis against those who favour an enterprise wholly unjust, and who tend by this public division to ruin one of the most ancient works of our Kings, the Mother of all good learning and one of the rarest ornaments of the State and Gallicane Church.  
But if they are so in just as to pretend that this Decree is the cause of all this trouble, let them look back and see whether the University were not in peace before the Doctrinal Declaration of the Irish. The unreasonableness of requiring the connivance of the University, as it is sufficiently shown already. They are the authors of the trouble who thus complain: But 'tis not credible that the Parliament will countenance their pretences, but authorize a Decree made for maintainning the discipline of the University, The honour of the Faculty of Divinity, the policy of the Church, the Arrests of the Court, the Laws of the Realm, the power of our Kings, and the safety of their sacred persons.   

DECLARATIO HIBERNORUM  
Juxta Exemplar ab ipsis typis mandatum.  
CUm nova dogmata his calamitosissimis temporibus a quibusdam doceantur, praedicentur, typis mandentur, in colloquis familiaribus misceantur, & denique quod pejus est, catechismo rudi & incautae plebi proponantur cum summa animorum dissensione, periculumque sit, ne aliqui ex Hibernis, qui Parisiis majori numero student, quam in ulla totius orbis civitate, his dogmatibus imbuantur, quae in patriam nostram Hiberniam fidei avitaeque Religionis tenacissimam reduces disseminare, ac incautorum animis instillare conarentur, sicque Ecclesiam Hibernicam, a centum annis & amplius, haereticorum insultibus ac vehementissimis persecutionibus nimis afflictam, & a decennio crudeli ac periculoso bello agitatam, perturbarent. Nos infra scripti huic periculo mature pro viribus occurrerere proponentes, firmiter statuimus promittimusque nos semper adhaesuros universis Conciliis Oecumenicis, ac praecipue Tridentino, necnon omnibus decretis ac censuris summorum Pontificum, nominatimque iis quae lata sunt a Pio V. Gregorio XIII. Urbano VIII. & Innocentio X. contra Baium, Jansenium, eorumque sequaces. Insuper promittimus, nunquam nos ex animi sententia privatim aut publice defensuros, doctutos, praedicaturos, multoque minus catechismo plebi proposituros ullas propositiones de errore aut haeresi suspectas, aut quomodolibet a quovis summo Pontifice damnatas, praesertimque sequentes:  

PRIMA PROPOSITIO.  
Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia: deest quoque iis gratia qua possibilia fiant.   

II.  
Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.   

III.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas a necessitate, sed sufficit libertas a coactione.   

IV.  
Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulo actus, etiam ad initium fidei: & in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse, cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare.   

V.  
Semipelagianorum error est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, aut sangninem fudisse.   


Mauritius Durcanus, Doctor Theologus.  
Richardus Nugent, sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis Doctor, & Decanus Ecclesiae Cluonensis.  
Daniel Nune, Doctor Theologus.  
Nicolaus Poerus, sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis Baccalaureus, & apud Lexovaeos Philosophiae Professor.  
Thomos Medus, sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis Baccalaureus.  
Dermitius Hederman, sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis Baccalaureus admissus & relatus.  
Johannes Mollony, sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis Baccalaureus admissus & relatus, nec non Decanus Ecclesiae Metropolitanae Casselensis.  
Cornelius Fogorty, Protonotarius Apostolicus.  
Bernardus Cunlevy, Theologus.  
Carolus Horan. Theologus.  
Joannes fleming, Theologus.  
Moriatus Obrien, Theologus.  
Eugenius Okiffe, Theologus.  
Edmundus Barry, Theologus.  
Guielmus Quaeleus, Theologus.  
Philippus Lyen, Theologus.  
Donatus Horan, Theologus.  
Joannes Cuollaghan, Theologus.  
Edvardus Conell, Theologus.  
Gelasius Omeagher, Theologus.  
Donatus Falvy, Philosophus.  
Constantinus Brien, Philosophus.  
Guillielmus Gallueus, Philosophus.  
Thomas Laehi, Philosophus.  
Joannes Bourgo, Philosophus.  
Doratus kennedy, Philosophus.  
Joannes Madden, Philosophus.   Omnes supradicti sunt Sacerdotes, qui Superioribus suis tam in spiritualibus quam in temporalibus reverentiam & obedientiam promittunt.  
DECRETUM UNIVERSITATIS  
Studii Parisiensis.  
ANNO DOMINI millesimo sexcentesimo quinquagesimo primo, die Sabbati quarta Martii in Comitiis ordinariis Universitatis studii Parisiensis apud amplissimum Dominum Rectorem in Regia Navarra. Exposuit amplissimus D. Rector, cum sibi renunciatum esset nonnullos Hibernos a paucis mensibus saepe congregari in Collegio Bonorum, ut vocant, Puerorum, Praeside uno ex Missionariis, & eorumdem Hibernorum aliquos nuper inductos in cubiculum Magistri Nicolai Poeri Hiberni Baccalaurei Theologi & Philosophiae Professoris in Gymnasio Lexovaeo, ut illic de nonnullis quaestionibus in materia gratiae statuerent; se Rectorem statim illis significasse per unum ex Apparitoribus Univesitatis uti abstinerent ab ejusmodi conventiculis & ab omni judicio doctrinali: Visos quidem illos parere, quia statim discesserint, sed itum paulo post ostiatim ad singulos, & unicuique clanculum proposita tria● aut quatuor subsignanda exemplaria Declarationis, cujus hic tenor est: Cum nova irrepserint dogmata quorum aliqua publice doceantur, alia colloquiis particularibus misceantur, alia rudi plebi in catechismo proponantur imbuenda, & quia periculum est ne aliqui ex Hibernis qui nunc Parisiis student, perniciosa dogmata loco avitae fidei deferant in patriam Catholicae Religionis, ex quo semel in ea incepit, tenacissimam. Nos infrascripti his malis mature occurrere volentes, firmiter statuimus ac promittimus nos semper adhaesuros Conciliis Oecumenicis, praesertimque Tridentino, necnon omnibus decretis ac censuris summorum Pontificum, nominatimque iis quae lata sunt a Pio V. Gregorio XIII. Urbano VIII. & Innocentio X. contra Baium, Jansenium, & sequaces eorum. Insuper promittimus, nos nunquam ullas doctrinas de haeresi suspectas & quomodolibet a quocumque summo Pontifice prohibitas defensuros, docturos, praedicaturos, multoque minus in catechismo plebi proposituros, praesertimque sequentes propositiones: I. Aliqua Dei praecepta justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia: deest quoque eis gratia qua possibilia fiant. II. Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur. III. Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas a necessitate, sed sufficit libertas a coactione. IV. Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei; & in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse, cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare. V. Semipelagianum est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse. Hibernorum autem praedictorum unumquemque privatim omni arte sollicitatum ut praedictae Declarationi subscriberet, tandemque effectum ut subscripserint aliqui numero circiter viginti sex, quorum unus tantum Doctor erat Theologus Parisiensis, duo Baccalaurei, duo Magistri in Artibus, caeteri nullius gradus & nominis in Academia, quorum alii vix Philosophiam salutaverint, alii vix Grammaticam. Ostendit dictus Dominus Rector quanti intererat Universitatis, arcere a Gymnasiis suis conventicula ejusmodi, atque in eos animadvertere qui contra quam fuerat prohibitum in doctrinae causa sine ulla auctoritate statuere ausi sint, praesertim vero de propositionibus in ea Declaratione contentis, de quibus sacra Theologiae Facultas, tametsi deliberationi suae ante octodecim menses propositis, nihil decreverit, neque illustrissimus Parisiorum Archiepiscopus, neque Augustissimus, qui etiamnum Parisiis sedet suaque habet Comitia, Clerus Galliarum, de iisdem propositionibus quicquam definierint. Observavit item Dominus Rector quaedam in praedicta Declaratione contineri, quibus Academiae Parisiensis auctoritas, ac Regni & Ecclesiae Gallicanae jura & privilegia maxime laedi viderentur. Postremo dixit Academicos quatuor qui subscripserant, adesse jussos, ut de re tota audirentur, exemplariaque omnia Declarationis a se subscripta repraesentarent. PLACUIT igitur primum audiri illos; quibus admissis perlecta est praedicta Declaratio, fassique sunt se illi subscripsisse privatim & absque ullo praevio examine communi, & subscripsisse tribus quidem aut quatuor illius exemplaribus, quorum nullum penes se superesset, sed illorum unum traditum Magistro Vincentio a Paulo Missionariorum Generali, & supradicti Collegii Bonorum Puerorum Primario; paratos esse se revocare subscriptionem illam suam, si ita Universitati videretur; quae omnia vere a se dici & promitti, adhibito etiam suo syngrapho, confirmarunt. Tum Dominus Rector exhibuit libellum supplicem sibi & DD. Decanis & Procuratoribus oblatum ab aliis Hibernis Academicis Theologis, quo quidem Nationis suae nomine vehementer obtestabantur uti ne universae Genti suae imputaretur paucorum factum & temeritas, quorum alios ob inscitiam deceptos, alios ab Academiae adversariis seductos fuisse dicebant; postulabantque ut placeret Universitati diligenter occurrere huic paucorum malo, quo quidem charitas fraterna dissolvitur, inuriturque nota quasi omnes consenserint in paucorum istorum culpam, qui contra Ecclesiae Gallicanae & Regni jura id ausi sint. Quo perfecto libello supplici auditi-sunt plures Hiberni Theologi, quorum aliqui declararunt Jesuitas duos religiosissime pollicitos fuisse-Hibernis domum, si praedictae Declarationi subscriberent, factam etiam spem fundationis ab aliquo alio viro, & Sacerdotiorum seu Beneficiorum Ecclesiasticorum a praedicto Magistro Vincentio a, Paulo Missionariorum Generali. QUIBUS omnibus auditis, re in maturam deliberationem vocata, CENSUERUNT omnes unanimi consensu, neminem, qui privatae sit auctoritatis, posse in doctrinae causa decernere, proptereaque factum esse temere & insolenter ab istis paucis & privatis hominibus nullius auctoritatis, & maximam partem nullius doctrinae & nullius gradus in Academia, qui contra quam prohibitum illis fuerat ab Amplissimo Domino Rectore, doctrinale sibi judicium arrogare ausi sint, & de praedictis quaestionibus statuere, de quibus nec sacra Theologiae Facultas, nec illustrissimus Parisiorum Archiepiscopus, nec Augustissimus Galliarum Clerus quicquam definierint. QUOCIRCA UNIVERSITAS Declarationem istam damnat & abrogat, eamque irritam esse vult, & nullam, judicat eam auctoritati suae adversam, ac moribus & juribus Regni & Ecclesiae Gallicanae contrariam, jubetque exemplaria illius omnia ubicunque subscripta occurrerint ad amplissimum D. Rectorem affe●ri & aboleri. Academicos qui praedictae Declarationi subscripserunt, omni Academiae gradu, jure & privilegio dejicit: caeteros vero omni spe & aditu graduum excludit, & Gymnasiis omnibus expellit: nisi intra diem octavum a significatione hujus Decreti subscriptionem illam suam scripto & syngrapho apud Scribam Universitatis revocaverint, quo exacto tempore nullam spem futuram veniae contumacibus. Vetat ne illi aut alii in Academia simile aliquid privata auctoritate posthac ullatenus audeant: alioqui certissimam illis ab omnibus Academ●ae gradibus, privilegiis, juribus & Gymnas●is ejectionem edicit; primo quoque tempore ●…n ficandum Decrerum hoc censet omnibus Gymnasiarchis & aliis quorum intererit. ET ITA a Domino Rectore concluium fuit.  
Subscriptum QUINTAINE Scriba Vniversitatis.  
Acta in Comitiis generalibus Universitatis studii Parisiensis apud Mathurinenses, die 21 Martii.  
ANno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo quinquagesimo primo, die vigesima prima mensis Martii, alma Universitas studii Parisiensis de mandato clarissimi Viri M. Joannis Courtin Rectoris amplissimi hora nona matutina convenit apud Mathurinenses. Tum D. Rector apud omnes ejusdem Universitatis Ordines frequentissimos exposuit causam congregationis, nempe supplicationes a se indictas ad S. Medardi pro gratiis immortalibus Deo praepotenti agendis, quo quidem Auctore tum haec Urbs, quae a Rege Henrico IU. quondam defecerat, in optimi Principis ditionem tandem redacta fuit, tum Regiae prosapiae Principes de Conde & de Conty, & Dux de Longue-ville e carcere, in quem conjecti erant, post annum & amplius fuerunt emissi. Praeterea D. Rector verba fecit de quodam Decreto nuper facto, nempe die Sabbati quarto Martii anni praesentis in Comitiis ordinariis ejusdem Universitatis apud Regiam Navarram, adversus quosdam Hibernos, qui contra quam prohibitum fuerat ab amplissimo D. Rectore, doctrinale sibi judicium arrogare ausi sint, & cum nullius sint auctoritatis, de nonnullis quaestionibus in materia gratiae statuere, de quibus nec sacra Theologiae Facultas, nec illustrissimus Parisiorum Archiepiscopus, nec Augustissimus Galliarum Clerus quicquam definierint; quique firmiter statuerint ac pic●…serint se semper adhaesuros omnibus Decretis summorum Pontificum; quo quidem Regni & Ecclesiae Gallicanae jura & priv●legia, atque adeo Curiae Decreta maxime laedi viderentur. Insuper Dominus Rector pro more postulavit rata & grata haberi quaecumque gessit in suo Magistratu amplissimo, literasque commendatitias sibi decerni, simulque frequentissimum comitatum ad aedem Deo sub invocatione S. Medardi sacram. Denique D. Rector fecit supplicandi potestatem. Tum D. Hallier Doctor & Syndicus sacri Theologorum Ordinis dixit se velle loqui nomine suae Facultatis; sed Doctores plurimi contenderunt hoc ad ipsum non pertinere, nisi ab eadem Facultate ipsi data fuisset loquendi potestas, sed esse Prodecani qui tum aderat, Doctorum, qui tum Facultatem repraesentabant, suffragia colligere, & ex pluribus suffragiis concludere: cum vero Syndicus prohibuisset contra morem Academiae, quominus res in Doctorum deliberationem adduceretur, Doctores quominus ipse Facultatis nomine loqueretur, pariter intercesserunt, atque adeo contenderunt ad Decanum, aut ad seniorem, qui vices illius gerit, pertinere, Facultatis sententiam, inito prius consilio, referre, nec aliter fieri in generalibus Comitiis Academiae: penes vero D. Hallier esse, quod voluerit ab Academia privato nomine postulare, cujus rei instrumentum Doctores illi postularunt, sibi quod juris erit & rationis valiturum. Nihilominus DD. Decani superiorum Facultatum & quatuor Nationum Procuratores confirmarunt quaecumque gesta sunt ab amplissimo D. Rectore, ipsique proinde literas commendatitias decreverunt, & comitatum ad S. Medardi amplissimum. Et ita per D. Rectorem conclusum fuit Parisiis, anno & die praedictis.  
Subscriptum QUINTAINE.  
DECRETUM ALTERUM  
Vniversitatis studii Parisiensis.  
ANNO DOMINI millesimo sexcentesimo quinquagesimo primo, die ultima mensis Maii, in Comitiis extraordinariis Universitatis studii Parisiensis per DD. Deputatos congregatae apud amplissimum Dominum Rectorem in Regia Navarra: Exposuit amplissimus Dominus Rector editum fuisse libellum ante dies tres, eumque illo ipso die Pentecostes programmate publico tota Universitate, quin & urbe tota divulgatum pro triviis & compitis, proclamatumque deinde per vicos omnes cum hac inscriptione, CONCLUSIO Facultatis Theologicae Parisiensis pro Hibernis, adversus Decretum amp. Dom. Rectoris Academiae de die quarta Martii 1651. & jansenistas. Parisiis apud Guillielmum Sassier Typographum Regis via Restionum prope Sorbonam ad insigne duorum Turturum, MDCLI. cum privilegio Regis. Quo quidem libel●o multa continerentur praesenti animadversione diguissima; verumtamen quia longum esset deliberare nunc de omnibus, propositurum se tantum aliqua. Primo quid censeant de libelli inscriptione & de ejusdem programmatis. Secundo nunquid placeat inquiri in auctores. Tertio contineri in eo libello expostulationem Nicolai Poeri & Thomae Medi Hibernorum Baccalaureorum in Theologia, factam in Comitiis sacrae Facultatis Theologiae anno 1651. die 1 mensis Aprilis, multa de Decreto adversus se lato querentium, obtestantiumque dictam Facultatem uti de eo judicare velit, & revera de eo judicatum, latamque illo ipso die sententiam a dicta Facultate. Meminerint igitur DD. Deputati Hibernos istos duos auditos fuisse in Comitiis Ordinariis in Regia Navarra die quarta Martii, eosdem illic subscripsisse, paratos esse se renunciare Declarationi suae, si quid deliquisse viderentur: Decreto deinde adversus eos lato provocasse ad Senatum; retentam a Senatu cognitionem causae: Id ita significatum sibi Rectori die 29 ejusdem mensis Martii. Videant igitut DD. Deputati an isti Hiberni duo recte & rite querelam & judicium causae deferre postea potuerint ad dictam Facultatem die 1 Aprilis, & an dicta Facultas certior facta per eosdem Hibernos de ipsorum ad Senatum provocatione, de Decreto cognoscere & judicare potuerit salva Academiae & praesertim Senatus auctoritate. Quarto M. Franciscum Hallier Syndicum dictae Facultatis imposuisse graviter eidem suae Facultati, quia in expostulatione sua dicto libello dontenta leguntur haec illius verba: Ita ut praedictus D. Rector discesserit (ex postremis Comitiis generalibus apud Mathurinenses) sine confirmatione (dicti Decreti) facta ab ulla generalium Comitiorum Facultate, Diem crastinum statum diem esse Comitiorum dictae Facultatis. Judicent nunquid videatur e re Academiae dictam Facultatem congregatam de Decreti confirmatione certiorem legitime fieri. Et quia libellus prae se fert privilegium Regis, nunquid illustrissimo Cancellario Galliarum fraus facta, resque illi parum religiose recitata videatur. QUIBUS AUDITIS PLACUIT legi libellum totum; quo perlecto agnoverunt DD. Depurati ita rem esse plane, quemadmodum amplissimus D. Rector observaverat. Atque ita de omnibus ab eo propositis, CENSUERUNT: circumventam religionem illustrissim. Cancellarii Galliarum: libelli inscriptionem falsissimam esse & contumeliosissimam univesrae Academiae Parisiensi: rem esse inauditam & inausam hactenus, violari honorem Academiae injurioso etiam programmate publico; inquirendum in auctores fraudis & injuriae, & adversus eos omni jure agendum: Sacrae Facultati Theologiae insigniter impositum a M. Francisco Hallier illius Syndico, qui persuaserit Decretum latum adversus Hibernos aliquos a nulla Facultate fuisse confirmatum in postremis Comitiis generalibus capud Mathurinenses die 21. Martii, cum revera confirmatum fuerit a DD. Decanis superiorum Facultatum & quatuor Procuratoribus Nationum: in eo Decreto nihil factum inconsulta dicta Faculiate Theologiae, quia Decreto illi ferendo dicta Facultas affuerit per M. Jacobum Hennequin Prodecanum suum, qui primus sententiam dixerit, primusque consenserit in Decretum: neque propterea convocandas & consulendas fuisse Facultates & Nationes, quia soli Deputati decernere soleant quando peccatur in disciplinam: Declaratione Hibernorum violatam disciplinam Academiae, & graviter laesa jura & securitatem Regis & Regni: Facile intelligi ex verbis dicti Decreti nihil statutum de veritate aut falsitate quinque propositionum in dicta Hibernorum Declaratione contentarum, atque in ea re DD. Deputatos secutos Academiae mentem: priusquam dictum Decretum ferretur, Hibernos istos duos Nicolaum Poerum & Thomam Medum auditos fuisse in dictis Comitiis ordinariis in Regia Navarra die 4. Martii, eosdem illic subscripsisse paratos esse se●renunciare Declarationi illi suae, si quid in ea peccavisse viderentur; visum fuisse peccasse illos vehementer in disciplinam Academiae & in jura Ecclesiae Gallicanae & Regni, proptereaque Decretum adversus eos latum fuisse, iisdemque significatum die 21, Martii: provocasse illos ad Senatum, retentam a Senatu cognitionem & definitionem causae 24. Martii; id ita significatum amplissimo D. Rectori 29. ejusdem Martii; proindeque neque istos Hibernos duos ab eo tempore querelam & judicium causae deferre potuisse ad dictam Facultatem Theologiae, nec ab eadem Facultate judicium ullum ferri de dicto Decreto salva Academiae maxime vero Senatus auctoritate. Et ne istorum omnium praetendi posthac ulla ignoratio possit, crastino die primo Junii qui status est dies Comitiorum dictae Facultatis Theologiae, significandum Decretum hoc eidem congregatae Facultati per Apparitores Universitatis, atque hujus exemplum palam deponendum apud dictam Facultatem una cum exemplo dictae confirmationis Decreti lati adverius Hibernos, quod utrumque exemplum subscriptum fit a M. Nicolao Quintaine Universitatis Scriba. Atque hoc Decretum pro Gymnasiorum omnium sotibus primo quoque tempore affigendum. Et ita a Domino Rectore conclusum fuit.  
Subscriptum QUINTAINE.  
THe foregoing was signified by me Peter le Vasseur (underwritten) Grand Beadle of the Nation of France in the said University, to MM. the Venerable and learned Dean and Doctors of the Sacred Faculty of Theology founded in the said University, in their Assembly held at the College of Sorbonne, this first day of June, between seven and eight of the clock in the forenoon, 1651. by speaking to the Venerable and Learned M. John Mulot Dean, and M. Francis Hallier Syndic, and divers others in great number assembled, to the end they may not pretend ignorance thereof; and I left them a Copy of the Contents above mentioned, and of the present signification. Done in the presence of Peter Portier, Bedle of the Faculty of Canon Law, Lewis de la Roche, Grand Beadle of the Faculty of Physic, John de la Porte, Petty Beadle of the said Nation of France (who have signed this present writing) and of other Witnesses. LE VASSEUR, P. PORTIER, L. DE LA ROCHE, DE LA PORTE.    

A Writing of Father Morel (an Augustine, Doctor of the Faculty of Paris) full of calumnies against: S. Augustin's Disciples, and spread about Rome at the time of his being there in the year 1651.  
SO much of this Writing as is enclosed between two Crotchets, [] is the additions which F. Morel made to it, upon his being blamed of exorbitances in it, by Monsignor Sacrista, according as I have mentioned, Part. 3. Chap. 8.  
De controversia inter Jansenistas & Anti-Jansenistas.  
AB eo momento quo prodiit in lucem liber Iansenii Episcopi Iprensis pro titulo praeferens jansenii Augustinus de gratia, etc. velut flammae cinerum latebris aliquandiu sepultae, facto impetu eruperunt jamdiu delitescentes praemeditatae factionis ignes, ex quorumdam etiam Doctorum Parisiensium & Lovaniensium eadem simul concilia machinantium animis & calamis, qui miserabili successu funesta, quae nunc ardentius flagrant, excitarunt incendia, forsan deinceps non ita facile restinguenda, & quidem ad perstringendam (si possint) S. Sedis auctoritatem, & sanioris doctrinae puritatem cum ipsa maculandam. Adverti enim debet in Gallia & Belgio haereticorum radices in ipsos etiam Catholicos aliquem sinistrae in sanctam Sedem propensionis & doctrinae spiritum refundere, unde orti sunt viri politici & partiarii, ex fontibus haereticorum illam odii vel aversionis a summa sanctae Sedis porestate mentem perniciosius ebibentes: inter quos aliqui etiam sunt Facultatum Doctores erga ipsam minus bene affecti, qui mediis omnibus nituntur ipsam labefactare. En finis eorum qui Jansenistae appellantur, quia per fas & nefas etiam contra Bullas Pontificias Jansenii dogmata tuentur tanquam obtinendo suo fini aptiora.  
Ut vero finem facilius assequi possint, his artificiis utuntur, & imprimis operae pretium aestimant praecipuos sanctae Sedis zelatores tam seculares quam regulares debilitare, ac, si possent, opprimere: quod hujusmodi viri multis modis semper tentarunt, primo aperte conantes Religiosos Mendicantes (quos vocant mancipia Papae, quia Generales eorum sunt Itali & semper in Italia commorantes) ex Universitatibus & Facultatibus eliminate, ut debilior sit hoc modo numerus defensorum sanctae Sedis; propterea Richeristae sequaces Richerii qui potestatem Pontificiam impugnavit anno 1626. & novissime anno 1649. currente Jansenistae id sollicitarunt & super hoc Arrestum a Senatu obtinuerunt, ut tantum duo Doctores ex singulis Ordinibus Mendicantium votum habeant in Comitiis Facultatis Parisiensis. Secundo, Quia per vim id obtinere non potuerunt propter generosam & nunquam satis laudandam DD. Doctorum secularium erga sanctam Sedem bene affectorum etiam adversus Senatus-placita resistentiam, ideo secretioribus viis & diabolicam intentionem magis apte dissimulantibus id moliti sunt, videlicet scriptis impugnando communes aliorum Doctorum & Regularium sanctae Sedis addictorum sententias, & selegerunt materiam de gratia & praedestinatione, utpote implicandis animis commodiorem, quas vulgo persuadere volunt esse sanctis Patribus contrarias, ut sinistram de ipsis in populorum animos opinionem injiciant. Hoc artificio Jansenistae usi sunt: ut enim Doctorum sacrae Facultatis tam seculatium quam Regularium sanctae Sedis zelarorum conceptam apud omnes aestimationem convellant, ac facilius deinde possint sinistrae suae machinationis venenum respergere, velis & remis saniores eorum sententias insequuntur quasi cum Pelagianis & Semipelagianis in materia gratiae omnino consonas; & ad hoc aptius insinuandum, praeferunt ubique D. Augustinum velut suarum opinionum vindicem & assertorem, cui alios repugnare & dissentire continuo declamitant & derisorie ipsos appellant Molinistas & Jesuitas, quasi praeferant Molinam D. Augustino, imo ita calumniantur, ut appellent S. Augustini adversarios, cum tamen nec Jesuitis nec Molinae sed soli veritati sint addicti. Tertio, Nedum scriptis nituntur sua dogmata in perniciem zelatorum sanctae Sedis sub praetextu tuendi doctrinam D. Augustini propalare, sed conducunt etiam pecuniis Doctores & Concionatores qui virus idem effundant in pulpitis Scholarum & templorum, Baccalaureos in Facultate ut suis in conclusionibus publicis eorum placita sustineant: imo Studentes in omnibus Galliae & Belgii Universitatibus & Facultatibus venales habent, necnon omnis conditionis viros in urbibus fere singulis, ut pestiferam eruditionem in Scholis & in privatis domibus disseminent, & simpliciores etiam instiruant privatis colloquiis, in quibus miscent cum rebus de gratia & praedestinatione res horrendas de sacramentis Altaris & Poenitentiae, & contra auctoritatem sacri Concilii Tridentini, & perpetuas interserunt calumnias adversus Doctores & viros quoscum que sanctae Sedis zelatores praecipuos: & eo fine Magnates aliquos ditissimos suam in partem artificiose deduxerunt, a quibus ingentes pecuniarum summas habent ad perficiendas hujusmodi nefarias molitiones; & mirum est quos conatus efficiant ad finem assequendum. Habent aliquot in locis sectariorum suorum seminaria & congregationes his tantum machinationibus intentas.  
Deinde quia viderunt Jansenistae non satis promoveri votum suum contra zelatores sanctae Sedi● per solas disputationes de materia gratiae & praetextatum in his D. Augustinum, tum propter saniorem & ampliorem Doctorum adversantium partem, tum propter Bullas Pontificias talem controversiam prohibentes, non potuerunt diu conceptum adversus S. Sedem & Ecclesiam venenum retinere; quare illud foras evomuerunt per libros & scripta de frequenti vel melius de infrequenti communione, de poenitentia, etc. accusantes Ecclesiam corruptelae, cujus se medicos & reformatores ventilant, & etiam apertius per scripta de duobus Capitibus Ecclesiae, & quidquid in Bullis Pontificiis de his rebus sancitum ac prohibitum est, subreptitium & male sancitum esse palam dixerunt semper & scripserunt, & ubicunque ipsis liberum & obvium fuit, seditiones excitarunt, & conati sunt impedire ne in Facultate & in Ecclesiis Bullae Pontificiae super his rebus emanatae publicarentur & reciperentur: Fuerunt tamen irriti ac vani omnes eorum impetus ob majorem triplo in Facultate numerum Doctorum sanctae Sedis zelatorum, & propterea rabie ac furore perciti, antiquos errores & offensivas sententias de gratia & sacramentis ubique, sicut antea, scribere, dictare & evulgare non destiterunt.  
Quibus perspectis sacra Facultas Parisina sanctae Sedis semper observantissima nedum Bullas praefatas legit, amplexa est, & suos in commentarios ad aeternam memoriam & obsequentiam retulit, ●ed etiam novis decretis sanxit, ne unquam vel in scriptis vel in concionibus, vel in conclusionibus Theologicis Doctores sui & Baccalaurei auderent his de rebus a Sancta Sede prohibitis agere; & quoties aliquis Baccalaureus suis in Thesibus aliquam hujusmodi conclusionem adhibuit, deleta est a D. Syndico: cum tamen post tot & tantas cautiones adhibitas nunquam requiescerent a scribendo & loquendo Jansenistae, sed in dies cresceret eorum factio, imo aliqui Baccalaurei a Magistris illius factionis profecti eo devenissent audaciae, ut hujusmodi propositiones a D. Syndico deletas suis in conclusionibus reponerent, & factionarii magis ac magis offensivas propositiones ubique depraedicarent in contemptum Bullarum Pontificiarum & decretorum sacrae Facultatis, & magnum totius Ecclesiae scandalum, imo & aliarum nationum (quae jamdiu Facultatem Parisiensem Jansenisni calumniose insimulabant;) ad hoc ut posset illas factiones & factionarios perstringere atque configere, ac simul tamen Bullis Pontificiis prohibentibus discussionem & censuram Auctorum de praefatis materiis contradictorie disputantium non repugnare, censuit unanimi fere omnium Doctorum, exceptis quibusdam scilicet Jansenistis, consilio & decreto seligendas esse propositiones magis offensivas ex iis quae continuo in vulgus ubique spargebantur, nulla habita ratione vel mentione an sint Jansenii, vel Arnaldi, vel Jesuitarum, vel cujuscunque alterius, & eas afficiendas censura, si opus esset, post exactam Doctorum nedum aliquot ad hoc specialiter depuratorum, sed etiam omnium & singulorum discussionem & examen ad avertendum ne ulterius populi deciperentur: selectae sunt autem sequentes propositiones;  

I.  
Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia: deest quoque iis gratia qua possibilia fiant.   

II.  
Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.   

III.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas a necessitate, sed sufficit libertas a coactione.   

IV.  
Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei: & in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse, cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare.   

V.  
Semipelagianorum error est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, aut sanguinem fudisse.   

VI  
Sensit olim Ecclesia privatam sacramentalem poenitentiam pro peccatis occultis non sufficere.   

VII.  
Naturalis attritio sufficit ad sacramentum Poenitentiae.   
Atque istis propositionibus per Deputatos aliquos diligenter examinatis per aliquot menses, tandem sacta Facultas destinaverat eas censere in Comitiis prima Augusti proxime praeteriti: quod cum praeviderent Jansenistae, primo ad ea Comitia ex omnibus Regni partibus convocarunt dispersos suae factionis Doctores & alios etiam, quibus subdole & calumniose rescripserant, Facultatis Molinistas (sic appellant Doctores sanctae Sedis zelatores) velle censura perstringere S. Augustinum, dictitantes praedictas propositiones, exceptis duabus ultimis, esse D. Augustini, & ad hoc creduntur 40 librarum millia pro evocandis hujusmodi magistris undequaque dispersis impendisse. Secundo, Aliquibus etiam Re●igiosis idem persuaserunt hic agi de vindicando a censuris Augustino. Tertio, Cum non obstantbus illis artificus viderent se impares evitandae sacrae Facultatis censurae, seditionem excitarunt in Comitiis, nova fraude volentes contra consuetudinem intrudere in locum D. Decani quendam Doctorem eo praetextu quod sit Cancellarius Universitatis, & excitatis clamoribus continuis, hoc modo impedierunt determinationem Facultatis, in qua contra 25 vel 30 Jansenistas, & aliquot alios titulo tuendi S. Augustinum deceptos, erant centum & amplius Doctores. Quarto, Denique ad Parlamentum non ad sanctam Sedem appellarunt, & unum ex motivis appellationis inter alia proferunt, quod Comitiis Facultatis adessent Mendicantes qui ex Senatus-consulto debent abesse. Libellum supplicem eorum subscripsisse dicuntur 40 circiter, numerando eos qui praetextu vindicandi a censura D. Augustinum subscripserunt innocenter. Quinto, Etiam sollicitarunt aliquos ut Romam scriberent ad Generales Ordinum & alios, quod Facultas Parisiensis vellet censura perstringere D. Augustinum, ut hac arte, fraude & calumnia viros de rebus illis minime institutos praevenirent & suas in partes apud sanctam Sedem agendas illicerent; imo quaedam transmiferunt excerpta ex scriptis cujusdam excellentissimi viri sanctae Sedis inter alios observantissimi D. Pereyrer Regiae Navarrae magni Magistri, ut nitantur persuadete quod ille ac simul alii ejusdem partis sint adversarii D. Augustino, & notare possint cum ipso alios insignes sanctae Sedis zelatores infra nominandos, & commiserunt provinciam istas naenias & calumnias Romae disseminandi quibusdam ibidem nunc temporis commorantibus, qui nec sunt Doctores, nec ullatenus de veritate instructi; & aliquid jam profecerant apud nonnullos satis spectabiles, nisi casu adfuissent quidam Doctores illius sacrae Facultatis qui calumnias illas suae Parenti nefarie impositas eluerunt.  
Debet sancta Sedes summe cavere ne autem praebeat illis Jansenistis, quia mixti & conjuncti sunt cum Richeristis, id est, cum sequacibus Richerii, qui adversus Eeclesiasticam Monarchiam tantum scripsit & factiones fecit ab anno 1611. ad 1628. & omnis eorum factio nihil sic ambit & prosequitur quam sanctae Sedis auctoritatem labefactare (ut dixi) & artificia praetextatae doctrinae S. Augustini in Jansenio, & alia id genus non habent alium finem sibi propositum modo superius explicato. Praecipua vero Jansenistarum capita & columina sunt DD. Arnauld, Guilbert, du Hamel, Bourgeois qui Romae Jansenium defendit, Ludovicus de Saint-Amour funestus Guillielmi de Sancto Amore in persequendis apud Senatum Mendicantibus imitator cum socio suo Carol. de Roux, ambo ignobilis farinae homines, deinde D. de Mince Richerius alter redivivus sanctae Sedi minime affectus, D. Rousse S. Rochi Parisiis Curatus vir litigiosus & in Facultate maxime seditiosus, de Sainte-Beuve pro illa factione maxime zelosus, & alii qui memoriae jam non occurrunt. Illustriores autem illorum partiatiorum adversarii & sanctae Sedis zelatores ardentissimi sunt praefatus D. Pereyret, D. Cornet, D. Hallier Syndicus Facultatis, vir de sancta Sede pro zelo suo summe meritus, sicut & D. Morel, qui apud Regni primates pro ejusdem sanctae Sedis & sanioris doctrinae tutela continuo desudat; similiter D. le Moyne, D. Grandin Professores Sorbonici, D. Charton Parisiensis Poenitentiarius, D. Guichard Navarricus Professor. Inter Mendicantes P. Nicolai vir insignis, etc. Tot sunt ut commode nequeant enumerati. [D. Loysel Cancellarius S. Augustino quidem, non factiosis addictus, & praecipuus Augustiniensium in Facultate & apud S. Sedem benefactor.]  
Verum si liceat dicere quod sentio, quam vis sicut Jansenistarum factio est pessima & pessimos habet fines supra delibatos, ita ex adverso pars Anti-Jansenistarum sit omnino religiosa, & nonnisi sanctum pro Dei gloria & sanctae Sedis & purioris doctrinae defensione finem inspiciat; tamen ex reciproco oppositarum partium conflictu mali & perniciosi effectus oriuntur: quia enim Jansenistae pro clypeo praetenso & praetextato assumunt D. Augustinum, & Anti-Jansenistae ad illos configendos in materia gratiae & sacramentorum maxime nituntur Concilio Tridentino: hinc fit quod istorum aliqui videantur de●rimere in aliquo auctoritatem D. Augustini, & sane nonnulli 
Jesuitae.  peccant aliquando & excedunt in D. August. ut convellant fundamentum Jansenistarum; & Jansenistae ex opposito nituntur infringere auctoritatem illius sacrosancti Concilii, quod potissimum est partis adversae fundamentum, asserentes non fuisse ita legitimum, ut aestimatur, sed ex solis Papae mancipiis conflatum, etc. Unde non parum minuitur & S. Sedis & SS. Conciliorum auctoritas, & maxime debilitatur vis impugnandi haereticos per illa media, nec immerito haeretici subsannant in hoc Catholicos.  
Quamobrem his in controversiis existimo agendum magna cum cautela, & brevius esse omnibus silentium imponere, ut jam toties factum est. Sed non debet S. Sedes fastidire continuas reiterationes prohibitionum jam factarum, quia qui prima vice non obtemperant, secunda vice obsequentur. Studiose tamen cavendum est a Jansenistis, & consulendum, quantum fieri poterit, aliis qui sunt sanioris doctrinae & sanctae Sedis in omnibus ardentissimi zelatores, & quam citius fieri potest, sancta Sedes praesertim in Galliis propter haereticos quibuscunque novitatibus radicem praecidat, ne infausta iterum suscipiant incrementa, quod omen avertat Deus.  
[Revera tamen utrobique puniendi essent ac debito censura castigandi, nedum Jansenistae qui doctrina & nomine D. P. Augustini abutuntur ad commovendas seditiones; verum etiam illi Jesuitae qui temeratie ac irreverenter ausi sunt scribere vel loqui de sanctissimo & doctissimo illo Ecclesiae Doctore & Doctorum Principe, suum Molinam suasque novitates illi ac caeteris omnibus praeferendo: unde merito S. Inquisitio Decreto suo animadvertit in blasphemas illas contra D. P. Augustinum propositiones nuper in publicum disseminatas.  
Tamen praesens rerum necessitas postulat ut prius Romana Sedes circa Jansenii singulares propositiones distincte mentem aperiat ad extinguendum tot incendiorum fomitem: quia enim Bulla sanctissimi Urbani VIII. contra Jansenium hunc prohibet damnatque tanquam renovantem propositiones jam alias a summis Pontificibus damnatas; & Jansenistae insimulant accusant que hanc Bullae partem subreptionis, & fraude Jesuitarum fuisse infertam. Cum id maxime perstringat honorem & auctoritatem Romanae Sedis quae est columna veritatis: illa debet praefatae Bullae veritatem vindicare, & notatim ac singulatim designare quaenam sint illae propositiones ab ipso renovatae & alias a summis Pontificibus damnatae, ut nullam amplius habeant Jansenistae excusationis causam & occasionem alios decipiendi, maxime definiendo simul discrimen doctrinae Jansenii a D Augustino. Postea in alios D. Augustini doctrinaeque ipsius neglectores debita erit severitate agendum.   

Pieces added to this Collection.  

An Advertisement concerning F. Mulard's Speech.  
J Placed F. Morel's Writing at first amongst the Pieces of this Collection, as all the rest, according to the order wherein they are spoken of in my Journal: But having found it expedient, not to confine myself so strictly to that order in the printing of them, as not to consider the Connexion, both of their Subjects and the persons they concern, I reserved this same Writing for the last of those that I had joined to it, intending to subjoin F. Mulard's Speech to it, as the first of the Additions. But afterwards, considering that the said Speech is at length in the Fifth Disquisition of Paulus Irenaeus, at the Fifth Article, I conceived it unprofitable to insert it in two places, and better to suppress it here, where it would be but as a lose piece: The Reader therefore may please to have recourse thither, if he hath the curiosity to see it.   

An Advertisement touching the Suffrages of the Consultors.  
I Can discover nothing of these Suffrages whilst I was at Rome, but Copies of them were sent, which my L. the Bishop of Montpellier acknowledged in the presence of my LL. the Bishops of Olone and Conzerans, to be conformable to that which himself hath related thereof: So that on one side the truth of these Suffrages cannot be doubted; and on the other the Decree of the Inquisition of Rome, which declared them Apocryphal, is easy to be understood. For it doth not pretend to say, that they are false or supposititious, since if they were, the Consultors themselves, to whom this writing attributes them, would be made to disavow them, and their disclaiming would be published; but it only implies, that they are pieces which they at Rome would have been glad had not come forth. But having been printed with the Notes of a Divine S. Thomas' Disciple, I shall not scruple to insert them here with the same Notes.    

TREDECIM THEOLOGORUM  
Ad examinandas quinque Propositiones ab Innocentio X selectorum Suffragia, seu, ut appellant, Vota, summo Pontifici scripto tradita. Ex quibus verus Constitutionis sensus innotescit; & ad optatam inter Catholicos Theologos pacem stabiliendam via facilis aperitur.  

PRAEFATIO.  
ECclesiae vulnera in membrorum ejus intestina pugna qui non defleat, prorsus pietatis expers sit. Cuncta tamen deflere pauci possunt, quia partium studio pauci carent. Partem dolet qui parti addictus est. Universa lugere is unus potest, qui unius veritatis amicus est. Talem me esse, nisi sit insolens, dicere ausim. Certe nec Jansenio, nec Molinae studeo, Sancti Thomae jam inde ab initio sequax, & ipsius Scholae discipulus, quam utrique Catholicam fatentur. Illa ergo vel hoc nomine maxime idonea ad conciliand●s animos tanta inter se contentione dissidentes.  
Sed quoniam video nescio quorum temeritatem eo processisse, ut summi Pontificis Constitutione ad S. Thomae auctoritatem labefactandam abutantur, ad Sedis Apostolicae honorem pertinere vi●um est, hanc ab ipsa contumeliam depellere; simul Ecclesiae de gratia Christi doctrinam ab illis corruptelis vindicare, quas in ipsam certi homines immiscere variis artibus tentant.  
Ad id autem opportunissimum est visum, palam exhiberi Consultorum Vota sive suffragia, ex quibus summus Pontifex Constitutionem confecit. Ex his enim tum vera Pontificiae Constitutionis intelligentia patebit, tum multorum novitia Molinae commenta sectantium argutiae refellentur, qui dum Jansenio ardentius instant, Ecclesiam in Pelagii errorem pene praecipitant: cujus reum Molinam ante Clementem VIII. & Paulum V. egerunt & peregerunt clarissimi ex Schola nostra Theologi.  
Si quis autem de hujus scripti veritate dubitet, adire poterit Episcopum Montis-Pessuli, qui illud Roma rediens secum attulit: quod idem fecerunt alii ex Ordine Religio so, qui itidem illud ex manuscripto exemplar Romae descripserant; ut jam multa Parisiis hujus scripti exemplaria circumferantur. Quo magis necessarium est illud typis quam primum excudi, ne inter varias describentium manus, multas, ut fit, maculas contrahat, & fidem atque auctoritatem amittat.  
Ex eo autem constabit, 1. adeo non laesam Constitutione Thomistarum doctrinam, ut ad eam potius ipsa Constitutio conformara sit. Siquidem Consultores pene omnes doctrinam de gratia per se efficaci, quae maxime nostrae Scholae propria est, omnibus locis Catholicam, orthodoxam, veram esse profitentur.  
Constabit 2. Romae inter Consultores non de ipsa re, sive de aliquo dogmate disputatum esse, sed tantum de sensu Propositionum. Illas enim quicunque ad gratiam efficacem pertinere putarunt, etiam Catholicas pronunciarunt. Quicunque autem declararunt haereticas, etiam a gratia efficaci lato discrimine se junxerunt.  
Constabit 3. quo pacto Jansenii causa Romae tractata sit. Nam qui ejus nullam a Consultoribus rationem habitam velit, longissime erret. Multi enim ex Consultoribus expresse sensus Janseniani meminerunt. Contra qui id Consultoribus mandatum a summo Pontifice contendat, ut sensum Jansenii inquirerent, vel an Propositiones ex Jansenio excerptae essent, dijudicarent, prae studio falsus & iniquus videri possit. Aperte enim unus e Consultoribus, isque sancti Officii Commissarius, Propositiones a summo Pontifice propositas dicit in abst acto, & ut praescindunt ab omne proferente; quod illum coram summo Pontifice dicere ausum, nisi verum esset, nulli unquam sano verisimile fiet. Multi ergo de Jansenio locuti sunt; verum est. Sed injussi & sine mandato locuti sunt; & hoc verum est. Ita de Jansenii sensu neutiquam Romae judicatum est; nullum enim judicium sine praevia inquisitione: sed ex Theologorum obiter inter disputandum de ment Jansenii loquentium sermone, obiter in Constitutione nominatus Jansenius.  
Caeterum non mediocris mihi spes est, sore ud hoc scriptum ad hoc dissidium sedandum permultum faciat. Nam ex illo cernere poterunt Molinistae quam frustia gratiae efficacis doctrinam attentent. Rursus Jansenii defensores, qui toties germanos S. Thomae se discipulos esse testati sunt, quid sinceritatis habeat haec professio, facile indicare poterunt, si probatam & quasi sancitam in Consultotum Votis Thomistarum in quinque Propositionibus doctrinam ex animo amplectantur.  
Nullum autem tam absurdum futurum puto, ut ex istis Consultorum sententiis neget indagandam Pontificiae Constitutionis mentem. Non enim, ut omnes Theologi conveniunt, ex aliquo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & tanquam ex tripode promit oracula summus Pontifex, sed humano modo veritatem inquirens, doctos homines consulens, & ex illorum sententia fidei dogmata definiens. Nihil autem absurdius fingi potest, quam ut summus Pontifex tredecim viris doctis in confilium adhibitis, id haereticum pronunciet, quod illorum omnium calculo tanquam orthodoxum comprobatum sit. Quamobrem, ut dixi, cum omnes Consultores S. Thomae doctrinam de gratia per se efficaci passim extra aleam ponant, qui hanc vel leviter ausit incessere, tanquam summo Pontifici injuriosus ab omnibus repellendus est.  
10. Freb. 1657.   

CONSULTORUM super quinque Propositionibus VOTA. Brevibus interdum animadversionibus illustrata.  

PRIMA PROPOSITIO.  
Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia: deest quoque ill is gratia qua possibilia fiant.  

I.  Pater SFORZA PALAVICINUS, Societatis Jesus. 
Die 1 Octobris 1652.  
PUtant hanc Propositionem explicatam de illis viribus & illa gratia, quas Deus tenetur tribuere nullo supposito peccato, ne originali quidem, ad hoc ut valide obligaret, esse erroneam.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
HIc Jansenium ne nominat quidem ille Consultor, ex ea licet Societate quae Jansenium maxime insectatur. Patet tamen ex illius in alias Propositiones censuris, sensum illum quem in 1 Prositione damnat, Jansenio ab eo atribui: gratiam scilicet, de qua loquitur Propositio, deesse sine ullo ●eccato, ne originali quidem. Quod a Jansenii sententia omnino alienum esse, omnibus palam est. Quare merito in hoc sensu Propositionem damnat: sensum vero Jansenii omnino non attingit.    

II.  Pater MARCUS ANTON. CARPINETUS, Procurator generalis Capucinorum. 
MEa sententia est, quod tota propositio, ut jacet, cum illo addito, Derst quoque illis gratia, etc. sit non solum erronea & male sonans, sed etiam haeretica, vel haeresi proxima. Quia tamen Propositio potest hunc duplicem sensum habere, quod scilicet Deus hic & nunc sub●rahat gatiam, qua praecepta fiant possibilia justis volentibus & conantibus, fideliter aut non fideliter: ideo in primo sensu, ubi justi non fideliter agunt cum Deo, Propositio erit Catholica; sicut Catholica quod Deus nunquam subtrahat gratiam justis fideliter se gerentibus.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
PRaeclare Consultor duplicem in vocibus illis conantibus & volentibus sensum distinguit. Quidam enim fideliter conantur: his nunquam deest gratia efficax ad operandum necessaria. Quidam infideliter; quia nempe gratiae excitanti & sufficienti sensu Thomistico resistunt: his deesse potest, & ideo illi mandata implere non possunt, ea scilicet potestate cui nihil desit. An ille sensum Jansenii damnaverit, ex eo praecise judicandum, an per illos justos volentes & conantes intelligat Jansenius fideliter volentes & conantes; an vero volentes & conantes infideliter. Si primum, procul dubio illius sensum erroris damnat; si secundum ut pugnant Jansenistae, procul dubio absolvit. Utrum sit verisimilius, nolim hic definire, ne contentioni detur locus. Interim ex Consultoris ment haec propositio: Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus infideliter, sunt impossibilia; deest queque gatia qua possibilia fiant, est Catholica: & qui hunc Jansenii sensum esse velit, a Consultore nullo modo differt Apparet vero longe ipsum a Molinistarum sensu abhorruisse qui gratiam implendi praeceptum justis quocumque modo se gerentibus nusquam deesse volunt.    

III.  Pater THOMAS D'ELBENE, Clericus Regularis. 
PRopositio haec si intelligatur in sensu formali, hoc est, sumendo justos secundum praesentes quas habent vires, habituales, supernaturales, & actuales, est Catholica. Si sumatur in sensu reali, prout se habet a parte rei, sunt impossibilia simpliciter, quia deest gratia actualis quaecunque, sive sit efficax, sive sufficiens, est haeretica. Si sumatur, sunt impossibilia, secundum quid, propter negationem gratiae efficacis, sed non sufficientis; in hoc sensu est Catholica, conformis Scripturis & sanctis Patribus.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
EX isto Consultore hoc sensu tantum haeretica est propositio, si nomine gratiae, quae deesse dicitur, intelligatur tum efficax tum sufficiens. Ita si justis volentibus & conantibus deesse gratiam sufficientem Thomistico sensu Jansenius voluit, prorsus eum damnat Consultor. Sin autem, ut contendunt ipsius defensorers, solam efficacem; nihil illum laedit; siquidem ex ipso haec propositio, Aliqua Dei praecepta justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia secundum quid, propter negationem gratiae efficacis & non sufficientis, est propositio Catholica, conformis Scripturis & Patribus. Nec minus perspiciwm est quam iste sit alienus a Molina: siquidem nullam Molina impossibilitatem praeceptorum, nec absolutam, nec secundum quid admittit: sed omnibus praesto esse vult sufficientem quandam gratiam, cui non sit necessaria gratia efficax ad actu operandum.    

IV.  P. AUGUSTIN. MARIA a CREMONA, Ordinis Servorum. 
Die 8 Octob. 1652.  
SI propositio sumatur in sensu universali, sive loquendo simpliciter de omnibus justis, sive de omnibus justis transgressoribus, est propositio haeretica: si in sensu particulati, attento proprio & rigoroso verborum sensu, pariter est haeretica: si in sensu indefinito, prout jacet, est etiam haeretica.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
REcte Consultor propositionem Damnat, tum in sensu universali, quia sic Calviniana est: tum in sensu particulari, attento proprio & rigoroso sensu; quia sic impossibilitatem absolutam significat, non tantum impossibilitatem secundum quid; denique recte eitam in sensu indefini●o; quia sensus indefinitus in materia controversa & doctrinali pro universali sumitur; sicut ista propositio: Astra moventur a propria forma; quia de eo disputant Philosophi, fere sumitur, in sensu universali.  
Hujus Consultoris sententiam nihil officere Thomistis palam est. Jans●nistae vero illam amovent, quod absolutam preceptorum impossibilitatem nec a se, nec a Jansenio admissam contendunt: quorum exceptiones nec probare mihi, nec improbare consilium est, sed tantum indica●…    

V.  〈…〉 WADINGUS, ●…dini●…strictoris Observantiae. 
SI haec propositio intelligatur universaliter, ita ut omnes justos comprehendat, & pro omni tempore denegetur gratia ad implenda praecepta necessaria, est temeraria, a Pattibus damnata, scandalosa, Deo injuriosa, hominibus perniciosa: si vero intelligatur de praeceptis respectu peccatorum venialium; aut de justis operantibus secundum suas duntaxat vires, in iis tantum sistendo: aut tertio (quem putat sensum Jansenii) intelligatur de potentia proxima & completa, & de gratia actuali non semper, sed aliquando denegata, nullam meretur censuram.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
REcte Consultor propositionem defendit, si intelligatur de potentia completa, & de gratia actuali efficaci, scilicet justis aliquando subtracta: id enim docent plurimi Thomistae, imo omnes; si quidem potentiae completae nomine intelligatur ea cui nihil desit. Discans ergo ex isto Theolog● Molinistae, verum esse justis aliquando deesse gratiam efficacem, & tunc ipsis mandatu non esse possibilia potestate omnino completa, & quae nihil aliud requirat ad agendum. Verum hic obiter nota dum est, et si Consultor ante Constitutionem sic potuerit propositionem explicare, & sic explicatam defen●●ost Constitutionem tamen id non licere. Judicavit enim summus Pontifex pravum illius sensum mag is esse naturalem. Itaque illam nunc ab omnibus sine explicatione rejici convenit. Verum iste sensus, quem Catholicum defendit eruditus Consultor, etiamnum post Constitutionem ab omnibus Thomistis ut orthodoxus defenditur.  
Sensum Jansenii aperte absolvit iste Consultor; nihil tamen a caeter is distans qui illum damnaverunt, sed alio tantum modo illum exponens. Si melius ipse, Jansenius extra aleam est: si melius alii, Jansenius haeret in luto. Sed utut sit, Consultorum ipsorum hic existimatio non agitur, ubi de Jansenii sensu citra fidei periculum dissentire inter s●potuerunt.    

VI  Pater DOMINICUS CAMPENELLA, Ordinis Carmelitarum. 
ISta propositio videtur contra fidem coarctata ad aliqua praecepta, cum debeat extendi ad omnia. 2. Est insipienter composita ex duabus partibus contradictotiis. 3. Quoad utramque partem est formaliter haeretica.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
VOtum istius Consultoris obscurius est, ideo nec prodest, nec obest ulli.    

VII.  Pater MODESTUS a FERRARIA, Procurator generalis Ordinis Minorum Conventualium. 
SI prima pars hujus propositionis praecise accipiatur, vel facit sensum universalem, & sic est haeretica: vel facit sensum singularem, & sic quamvis possit explicari & tra●i in bonum sensum ut ly impossibilia dicat negationem potentiae proximae, potest admitti: & absolute cum illo termino, impossibilia, est re jicienda tanquam remetaria, & a Patribus sub anathematate prohibita. Si accipiatur secundum se totam, vel consideratur ut ille terminus, gratia, supponit pro gratia efficaci, cum exclusione gratiae sufficientis, & sic est haeretica: vel consideratur absolute secundum quod sonant termini ipsius, & sic faltem est errori proxima.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
FAtetur Consultor bonum esse istum sensum: Aliqua Dei praecepta non sunt possibilia hominibus justis potestate proxima. Vnde nescio quid cogitarint, qui super illa voce tot modo turbas excitarunt, quasi potestatem proximam admittere in omnibus justis necesse sit.  
Quod autem de side ait esse, justis volentibus & conantibus non deesse efficacem & sufficientem simul, hic sat scio inclamabunt quidam Janseniani, & Concilium ●ut Scripturae locum ostendi postulabunt, in quo haec gratia sufficiens Thomistico sensu contineatur. His tamen si ta● aequi sunt quam videri volunt, facile satisfieri potest. Verbum ipsum gratiae sufficientis non est de fide: nullo enim Conciliorum decreto consecratum est. Res ipsa nomine significata ad fidem pertinet: hoc enim nomine significamus gratiam excitantem quae imperfectos actus preducit, nec plenum tamen confensum operatur nifi adsit validior gratia; & ideo secundum quid tantum efficax est; semper enim producit actus illos imperfectos: & secundum quid est inefficax; quia nos excitat, & nobis dat vires ad bona opera facienda, quae tamen re●psa non perficimus propter resistentiam voluntatis. Ea gratia sic explicata nonne millies in Patrum monumentis reperitur? nonne eam omnes vel proprio experimento saepissime sentiunt? Quis enim est qui se excitanti Deo restitisse non dol eat? Ergo talem gratiam necessario admittendam vel ipsi, sise aud re voluerint, certe fatebuntur, eamque conamibus & volentibus semper praesto esse. Vnde enim conarentur & vellent nisi per illam? Vtrum autem ista gratia dicenda sit sufficiens, necne, nominis quaestio est ad fidem nihil pertinens, in quo multos ex ipsis vidi consentientes, nullum aperte refragantem. Malim ipse cum mea Schola etiam verbis congruere, dummodo non apud imperitos sermoc●ner, qui hoc verbo facile abutuntur: quia illud Moliniano sensu accipiunt. Caeterum propter ambiguum nomen, & nulla auctoritate sancitum, nullam cuiquam molestiam libenter f●cerim.    

VIII.  P. RAPHAEL AVERSA, Ordinis Clericorum Minorum. 
PRopositio in plano & aperto verborum sensu, sive dicamus in proprio & rigoroso significatu, est omnino damnabilis, tanquam temeraria contra omnem sententiam Theologorum, tanquam scandalosa contra communem sensum Catholicorum, tanquam injuriosa & blasphema contra Deum, & denique tanquam haeretica contra sidem.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
ET hic rigorosum verborum sensum attendit, quem baereticum esse inter omnes constat.    
P. VINCENTIUS DEPRETIS Dominicanus Commissarius generalis S. Officii. 
HAec propositio non est qualificabilis ratione proferentis; quia proposita fuit in abstracto, ut praescindit ab omni proferente: est qualificabilis secundum sensum communem & usitatum, faventem haereticis in modo loquendi recepto ab ipsis, & damnato ab Ecclesia Catholica; & est temeraria, scandalosa, male sonans. 3. Oportet formare prius sensum legitimum istius propositionis, antequam qualificetur ratione rei significatae; quia non apparet ex quo appareat ista impossibilitas.   
IDEM. 
Die 6. Novembris 1652.  
ISta propositio secundum omnes terminos quibus constat actualiter, acceptos in significatione propria, usuali & consueta, non est qualificabilis, & non est qualificabilis nisi reducta ad sensum in quo protuli esse erroneam; hoc est loquendo de impossibilitate physica, non tollente obligationem, nec excusante transgressores a culpa & a poena, & refusa ex negatione virium quas Deus teneretur dare ad praecepta talia observanda nulla existente culpa. Vbi autem ly justis, debet necessario impropriati, & stare pro justis de praeterito, & per appositionem terminorum nullo existente obice peccati actualis & originalis, qui termini nec implicite nec explicite includerentur in significatione usuali dictae propositionis.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
HIc veritati concedendum est. Plane demonstrat Consultoris votum nusquam jussu Pontificis ex cuss um esse Jansenii sensum, neque id aut ignorare potuit S. Officii Commissarius, aut cognitum apud ipsum summum Pontificem dissimulare. Cur ergo de Jansenio nonnuli loquuntur? Quia libuit, non quia jussum erat.  
Caeterum hujus votum a Molina alienum non negabunt ipsi Molinistae.    

X.  P. PHILIPPUS VICECOMES, Generalis Augustimanorum. 
SI propositio faciat hunc sensum: Justi secundum vires tantum quibus formaliter justi sunt, praeciso divino auxilio actuali, non possunt implere aliqua Dei praecepta, est vera & Catholica: si autem consideretur in suis terminis, est male sonans; quia pro eo quod dicere debuerat: Justi secundum praesentes vires tantum non possunt complete implere praecepta; maluit dicere: Praecepta sunt impossibilia secundum praesentes vires: vox autem ista praecepta impossibil●a, etiamsi limitata ad vires praesentes cum exclusione auxilii actualis, male sonat. Quoad secundam particulam, si faciat hunc sensum: Deest quoque gratia, scilicet actualis auxilii, qua secundum praesentes vires praedictas tantum possent illa complete implere: propositio est Catholica: propter tamen terminum, impossibilia, est male sonans.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
VIr ille doctrina eximius sententiam, qua justi dicuntur aliquando praecepta non posse complete implete, Catholicam fatetur. Caeterum vocem, impossibila, bene repudiat; quia ex se significat non solum absentiam potentiae completae, sed omnimodam potentiae negationem. Quisquis igitur solam potentiam completam, & cui nihil desit, justis deneget absente efficaci gratia, verbis & re cum Consultore consentit. Molinistas vero, qui potentiam omni ratione completam semper justis adesse volunt, quomodo ab illius censura eximam, prorsus non invenio.    

XI.  P. VINCENTIUS CANDIDUS, Dominicanus, Magister sacri Palatii. 
Die 14 Novembris 1652.  
SEntio praedictam propositionem aliquam non mereri censuram, sed esse verissimam & Catholicam; quia similis assertio conspicitut in variis locis Scripturae sacrae extare. Tradita etiam in venitur sub aequivalentibus terminis a Synodo Tridentina sess. 6. de Reform. c. 11. si attente verba illa prependantur. Consona etiam videtur praedicta propositio familiarissimo modo loquendi aliquorum Theologorum.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
CAve putes. R. P. Vincentium in errore fuisse, quia primam propositionem censurae judicat immunem; nam & ante Constitutionem, & post, maximo semper honore apud summum Pontificem fuit, imo moriens magnam sanctitatis opinionem Romae reliquit. Cur igitur absolvit quod Pontifex damnat? Quia hanc propositionem aliter interpretatus est quam summus Pontifex. Putavit illam in sensu gratiae efficacis accipi posse, & ideo Catholicam esse asseruit, conformem Scripturis & Patribus. At contra, sic illam interpretandam non esse judicavit summus Pontifex, cujus judicio Christianus orbis assensus est. Catholicus ergo sensus est quem defendit P. Candidus, sed hunc damnatae propositionis verbis exprimere nefas est post Constitutionem; ante Constitutionem nefas non erat. Unde nescio cur crimini vertatur quibusdam Doctoribus Parisiensibus, quod has propositiones in multis aliis sensibus jure damnandas, tamen in sensu gratiae efficacis defendi posse dixerint ante Constitutionem; cum id Consultores celeberrimi coram summo Pontifice sine invidia aut formidine tam aperte fecerint.    

XII.  P. JOANN. AUGUSTIN. A NATIVITATE, (Tartaglia) Carmelita Discalceatus. 
CEnseo hanc propositionem in aliquo sensu minus proprio posse sustineri: in sensu intento ab auctore, id est, Cornelio Jansenio, esse dignam censura, ut jam damnatam a sacra Tridentina Synodo; absolute ut praescindit ab hoc vel illo sensu determinate, offensivam aurium fidelium.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
SEnsus iste minus proprius, sensus est gratiae efficacis ad quam revocari posse primam proposionem quidam putabant. In hoc sensu posse sustineti propositionem censuit Consultor. Quod autem damnat propositionem in sensu Jansenii, magno nos negotio liberasset si simul expressisset istum Jansenii sensum. Nihil enim magis ambiguum: ita varie a suis vel adversariis vel defensoribus torquetur. Quia tamen hunc sensum indicat a Synodo Tridentina ante damnatum; cum illa Lutheri utique sensum damnaverit, videtur id existimasse Consultor, eundem Lutheri & Jansenii sensum esse quod vehementer pernegant Janseniani. Ita-Lutheri error primum constituendus: post, illud expendetur, an cum illo sentiat Jansenius: quae postrema quaestio facto non jure continetur.    

XIII.  P. COELESTINUS BRUNUS, Ordinis S. Augustini. 
CEnseo hanc propositionem esse censurandam, prout sacrum Concilium declarat, uti temerariam, & a sanctis Patribus anathemate damnatam. Et item quia immediate opposita est Scripturae sacrae, & sacro Concilio Tridentino, & aliis Conciliis; & novissime Bullis summorum Pontificum Pii V. Gregorii XIII. & Urbani VIII. Existimo etiam esse haeresi proximam. Possunt tamen opponi aliqua praeservativa.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
PRaeservativa illa quae apponi posse censet Consultor, non alia intelligi possunt quam quae sensum efficacis gratiae a pravis sensibus segregant: nam & istum gratiae efficacis patronum fuisse patebit ex sequentibus votis.  
Quamobrem ut votorum summam colligam, damnant propositionem in sensu universali (qui Calvinianus est) tres Consultores. In proprio & rigoroso, vel tanquam haeresim, vel tanquam haeresi proximam, quatuor. Absolvunt in sensu potentiae completae & proximae, tres. Sensum Jansenii unus expresse rejicit, unus expresse probat. Et quia propositionem omnes, excepto Candido sacri Palatii Magistro, aliquatenus damnant, ex omnium votis confecta Constitutio dicenda est.     

SECUNDA PROPOSITIO.  
Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur.  

I.  P. JOANN. AUGUST. A NATIVITATE, Carmelita Discalceatus. 
Die 18 Novemb. 1652.  
HAEC propositio in aliquo sensu minus proprio est vera, in sensu intento a Jansenio est digna censura, ut repugnans S. Tridentinae Synodo, & sacris Scripturis; & sic est haeresi proxima. Ut praescindit ab hoc vel illo sensu determinate, offendit aures fidelium.   

II.  P. COELESTINUS BRUNUS, Ordinis S. Augustini. 
HAEC praepositio si intelligatur de gratia efficaci praecise, vera est; sed quia proprie & juxta terminos suos indefinite loquitur de omni gratia, & quia fautores hujus propositionis destruant omnino sufficientem, quod est contra omnem Theologiam, SS. Patres, & precipue D. Augustinum, quem sibi falso patronum asciscunt, & contra sacrum concilium Tridentinum, ideo eadem censura, qua prima propositio, censeo qualificandam.   

III.  P. SFORZA PALAVICINUS, Societatis Jesus. 
HAEC propositio secundum se recepta mihi videtur immunis ab omni censura: quatenus vero profertur a Jansenio, & infertur tanquam ex praemissis, ex eo quod negat in natura lapsa etiam hominibus justificatis vires sufficientes ad implenda praecepta, quando reipsa peccant, est digna eadem censura, qui notavi primam propositionem; non secundum se, sed quatenus eonsequentia illius.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
NOta a Palavicino secundam propositionem propterea tantum damnari, quia sequitur ex prima propositione. Quare cum in prima manifeste a sensu Jansenii aberraverit; patet nec eum in secunda recte collimasse, si Jansenium ferire voluit: quod idem de reliquis propositionibus dici potest, in quibus semper ipsius censurae ad primam illam referuntur, & ex ea pendent. Quare si in ipso limine, ut patet, a Jansenii sensu deerraverit, prorsus ipsum in reliquo cursu non attingit.    

IV.  P. MARCUS ANTON. CARPINETUS, Procurator generalis Capucinorum. 
HAEC secunda propositio ut jacet, secundum suum sensum clarum non solum est perniciosa, temeraria, & male sonans; sed est etiam formaliter haeretica, aut haeresim sapiens.   

V.  P. THOMAS D'ELBENE, Clericus Regularis. 
Die 20 Novembris 1652.  
HAEC propositio si intelligatur de gratia interiori efficaci, est Catholica: si intelligatur de gratia interioti quacunque, distinguo: velfacit sensum quoad ipsum formaliter, & est Catholica; vel facit sensum quoad consensum qui semper sequatur, ita ut omnis gratia interior sit efficax, & nulla sufficiens, in quo sensu loquitur Jansenius; & sic, si non formaliter, saltem proxime est haeretica, & evidenter falsa.   

VI  P. AUGUSTIN. MARIA A CREMONA, Ordinis Serverum. 
HAEC propositio si sumatur in sensu connaturali, est haeresi proxima: si in sensu particulari, esto in aliqua sententia sit vera & probablis; in proprio tamen sensu & rigoroso verborum ab auctore, id est, Jansenio, intento, est haeretica: si in sensu indefinito prout jacet, est temeraria, male sonans, & scandalosa.   

VII.  P. LUCAS WADINGUS, Ordinie strictioris Observatiae. 
HAEC propositio cujuscunque auctoris illa sit, si intelligatur de gratia efficaci, sive adjuvante, sive excitante, est vera & Catholica; si vero de sufficienti, & quacunque gratia interiori, secundum omnem gratiae latitudinem, est temeraria, & haeresi proxima.   
P. DOMINICUS CAMPANELLA, Ordinis Carmelitarum. 
CEnseo istam propositionem, sive consideretur prout jacet, sive ut explicata ab auctore, id est Jansenio, esse formaliter haereticam; tanquam destructivam gratiae sufficientis, quae de fide est concedenda.   

IX.  Pater MODESTUS a FERRARIA, Procurator generalis Ordinis Minorum Conventualium. 
CEnseo hanc propositionem non solum in sensu Jansenii, sed etiam in proprio verborum sensu esse saltem haeresi proximam.   

X.  Pater RAPHAEL AVERSA, Ordinis Clericorum Minorum. 
PRopositio haec ita intellecta, seu potius correcta: Interiori gratiae efficaci nunquam resistitur, est vera & Catholica; supplendo tamen in bona Theologia, non solum (juxta Jansenium) in statu naturae lapsae, sed nec in statu naturae integrae, nec in statu viae Angelorum; at accepta ut sonat universaliter, quod nulli prorsus gratiae resistatur, si procederet ex suppositione, quod gratia desit peccatoribus, eo quod non esset illis necessaria, saperet haeresim Pelagianam. Procedente autem ex suppositione, quod gratia sit quidem necessaria, sed denegetur a Deo, ut non possit homo servare mandata, quo pacto proprie & in rigore est de ment Jansenii, sic coincidit cum prima propositione, ac propterea participat cum illa eandem censuram.   

XI.  Pater VINCENTIUS DE PRETIS, Dominicanus Commissarius generalis S. Officii. 
HAec propositio non est qualificabilis; quia gratia interior Augustiniana propugnata contra Pelagianos, est solum gratia efficax; ac proinde apud Augustinum convertuntur gratia interior & gratia efficax. Dicere hanc propositionem esse qualificabilem, quia tollit gratiam sufficientem omnibus modis, est qualificare ipsissimam doctrinam D. Augustini in suis operibus ultimis, & omnium Thomistarum.   

XII.  Pater PHILIPPUS VICECOMES, Generalis Augustinianorum. 
Die 27. Novembris 1652.  
GRatiae interiori, hoc est, efficaci, quae proprie interior dicitur, nunquam resistitur. Propositio vera & Catholica.   

XIII.  Pater VINCENTIUS CANDIDUS, Dominicanus, Magister sacri Palatii. 
CEnseo hanc propositionem nullam mereri censuram, imo esse Catholicam & veram. Nomine enim interioris gratiae in hac propositione vere & proprie debet intelligi de gratia efficaci. Etenim analoga stare pro famosiori significatu, nedum humanae Philosophiae, verum etiam sacrarum literarum mori & consuetudini est consentaneum. Ulterius si ly resistere accipiatur large & communiter, quamvis homo possit resistere si velit in sensu diviso, nunquam tamen in sensu composito dissentiet. In tali sensu est Catholica & vera. Similiter si ly resistere intelligatur stricte, nunquam resistet etiam loquendo in sensu diviso.   

ANIMADVERSIO GENERALIS In Vota Consultorum super secunda Propositione.  
SEcundam propositionem de gratia efficaci intellectam, septem, ut videre est, Consultores absolvunt, imo potius novem. Nam sensus ille in quo illam veram esse aiunt Augustinus a Nativitate, & Palavicinus, sensum esse gratiae efficacis, manifestum est. Caeteri gratiam efficacem ne vellicant quidem. Qui Jansenium defendere voluerit, non leve ex Wad ngi voto argumentum eliciet, ut probet nunquam mandatum esse Consultoribus ut sensum Jansenii excuterent. Incredibile enim est Consultorem de sensu Jansenii interrogatum a summo Pontifice, sic ipsi respondere ausum esse: Haec propositio cujuscunque auctoris illa sit.  
Quod autem id unum in Jansenio reprehendunt Consultores, quod gratiam sufficientem prorsus aboleverit, nullamque esse voluerit gratiam cui dissentiatur, hoc vehementer labefactant hodierni Jansenii defensores, cum se gratiam sufficientem Thomistico sensu reipsa admittere, eidemque vere resisti, vere ab ea dissentiri profitentur. Quo semel posito, nulla super hac propositione lis est ipsos inter & Consultores. Verum istam litem dirimendam Jansenianis relinquamus: nobis illius partes fovere nihil necesse est. Hoc unum dico, sufficientem illam gratiam, quam plerique Consultores admittunt, non esse Molinianam, ut patet, quia iidem gratiam per se efficacem simul admittunt, quam Moliniana prorsus abigit.    

TERTIA PROPOSITIO.  
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas à necessitate, sed sufficit libertas à coactione.  

I.  P. JOANN. AUGUST. a NATIVITATE, Carmelita Discalceatus. 
Die 27. Novemb. 1652.  
HAEc propositio in aliquo casu particulari non est digna aliqua censura: prout a Jansenio asseritur, repugnat Scripturae, & Concilio Tridentino, & successive est haeretica.   

II.  P. COELESTINUS BRUNUS, Ordinis S. Augustini. 
CEnseo hanc propositionem esse temerariam, & formaliter haereticam.   

III.  Pater SFORZA PALAVICINUS, Societatis Jesus. 
HAEc propositio secundum se, & intellecta de libertate includente sufficientem deliberationem, & indifferentiam judicii, ut intelligunt ejus auctores, puto non mereri ullam censuram: prout vero habetur in Jansenio, quod scilicet omnes, etiam justi qui peccant mortaliter, in natura lapsa careant libertate indifferentiae, & necessario taliter peccent, puto esse dignam eadem censura qua affeci primam propositionem.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
NOtatu dignum in hoc voto sententiam Thomisticam de indifferentia judicii circa media, quae non impedit quominus voluntas efficaciter a Deo praedererminetur, expresse ab hoc Molinae discipulo, sed moderatissimo, ab omni censura eximi. Auctores enim illi, a quibus eam asseri dicit, non alii sunt quam Thomistae. Quod autem addit ex Jansenio, Omnes qui peccant mortaliter, necessario taliter peccare, id vulgo negant Janseniani, qui se in peccatoribus indifferentiam contradictionis admittere dictitant, nec quicquam omnino a vulgari Thomistarum doctrina hac in parte differre.    

IV.  P. MARCUS ANTON. CARPINETUS, Procurator generalis Capucinorum. 
PRopositio haec, si accipiatur meritum & demeritum late, nulla digna est censura. Similiter si propositio intelligatur non solum de possibilitate in ordine ad Deum, sed etiam de facto, ex speciali privilegio quoad meritum, & ex aliqua causa speciali quoad demeritum, nulla est digna censura. Accipiendo vero propositionem ut jacet, & secundum sensum quem regulariter importat, & in sensu ab auctore, hoc est, Jansenio intento, est non solum male sonans, sed etiam absolute haeretica.   

V.  Pater THOMAS D'ELBENE, Clericus Regularis. 
CEnseo tertiam propositionem hanc simpliciter, esse formaliter haereticam.   

VI  P. AUGUSTIN. MARIA a CREMONA, Ordinis Servorum. 
HAec propositio in proprio & rigoroso sensu, maxime a Jansenio intento, est formaliter haeretica.   

VII.  Pater LUCAS WADINGUS, Ordinis strictioris Observantiae. 
CEnseo propter multitudinem & auctoritatem gravissimorum virorum, qui doctrinam omnem, a qua pendet propositio, defendunt, propositionem probabilem & nulla dignam censura Theologica.   

VIII.  Pater DOMINICUS CAMPANELLA, Ordinis Carmelitarum. 
CEnseo istam propositionem in sensu ab auctoribus explicato esse formalissime haereticam, tanquam destruentem libertatem, & consequenter rationem meriti & demeriti in nostris actionibus.   

IX.  Pater MODESTUS a FERRARIA, Procurator generalis Ordinis Minorum Conventualium. 
CEnseo hanc propositionem secundum proprium sensum verborum, & secundum se absolute consideratam, esse saltem erroneam in fide.   

X.  Pater RAPHAEL AVERSA, Ordinis Clericorum Minorum. 
CEnseo propositionem hanc non solum esse damnatam a summis Pontificibus contra Michaelem Baium, & contra Jansenium; sed esse formaliter haereticam, damnatam a D. Thoma, & ab aliis summis Pontificibus & Conciliis, & esse formaliter haeresim Calvini & Lutheri, damnatam in Concilio Tridentino. Quod si coarctaretur ad aliquem casum particularem, adhuc declinat in partem haeresis.   

XI.  Pater VINCENTIUS DE PRETIS, Dominicanus, Commissarius generalis S. Officii. 
HAec propositio intellecta de libertate a coactione, excludente libertatem indifferentiae destruentem efficaciam gratiae positam a D. Augustino, est Catholica, & non est qualificabilis; intellecta autem de libertate a coactione excludente indifferentiam compatientem secum efficaciam divinae gratiae Augustinianae, est qualificabilis, & est erronea, & etiam majori censura digna.   

XII.  Pater PHILIPPUS VICECOMES, Generalis Augustinianorum. 
Die 11. Decembris 1652.  
PRopositio quoad meritum est vera & Catholica; quoad demeritum respectu peccatoum quae sunt poena peccati, de quibus dicitur, De necessitatibus meis eripe me, Domine, non est qualificabilis.   

XIII.  Pater VINCENTIUS CANDIDUS, Dominicanus, Magister sacri Palatii. 
HAec propositio cum non solum a pluribus Doctoribus Scholasticis, sed etiam a multis Patribus & Doctoribus Ecclesiae, praesertim a D. Augustino & D. Thoma reperiatur asserta, necesse est dicere eam in sensu Catholico defendi posse, ne dicamus ipsos propositiones temeratias aut haereticas scripsisse. In re enim dubia & probabili interpretatio illa praeferenda, unde jus tertii non laeditur. Sentio igitur propositionem assertam nullam mereri censuram, imo esse veram & Catholicam.   

ANIMADVERSIO GENERALIS in Vota Consultorum super tertia propositione.  
VAlde hic nos turbant Consultores; quia sensum Jansenii saepe damnant, nunquam exprimunt. Quod tamen ex illorum votis conjici licet, sic illum utique acceperunt, quasi omnem prorsus indifferentiam, etiam eam quae cum gratia efficaci cohaeret, etiam indifferentiam judicii & electionis mediorum funditus sustulerit, & meram necessitatem invexerit: quo sensu, qui certe, ut aiunt, rigorosus & proprius est, illam etiam repudiant omnes tum Thomistae tum Jansenistae, qui hunc sensum Jansenio falso tribui pugnant. At quia praeter illas indifferentias judicii & electionis, quas omnes admittunt, est alia quaedam notissima, nempe Moliniana, illa scilicet quae semper in utramque partem sic expedita est, ut nihil ipsi desit quominus se vel in bonum vel in malum convertat; hanc utique nullo modo adstruunt Consultores, utpote gratiae efficaci capitaliter aversam. Imo quatuor ex ipsis dignitate longe praecipui, eruditione non postremi, propositionem ipsam a censura liberant, quatenus excludit hoc Molinianae Scholae figmentum; nec tamen cum caeteris Consultoribus pugnant, nisi quod illam aliter quam ipsi interpretantur. Hi propositionem recte damnant; quia in proprio sensu destruit omnem indifferentiam: illi mitius de ea sentiunt, quia solam Molinianam impugnare videri potuit, quod non modo non vetat fides, sed etiam jubet. Ergo qui caeteras indifferentias admittit excepta Moliniana, cum omnibus Consultoribus reipsa consentit.    

QUARTA PROPOSITIO.  
Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei: & in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent eam gratiam esse talem, cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare.  

I.  P. JOANN. AUGUSTIN. a NATIVITATE, Carmelita Discalceatus. 
Die 11. Decembris 1652.  
HAec quarta propositio ut jacet est haeretica; ut asseritur a Jansenio contra quosdam Doctores Catholicos, meretur censuram propter acerbitatem: ut est antecedens ex quo ipse infert consequentiam de gratia victrice & medicinali, est etiam haeretica.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
NOn nihil ille gratiam efficacem videtur impetere, sed in speciem tantum: non enim credibile est aliquem ex illo Ordine, qui speciali decreto praedeterminationem physicam docere & defendere tenetur, quae utique gratia victrix & medicinalis est, aliquid contra Ordinis sui doctrinam ausum esse. Quid igitur senserit, breviter indicabo. Sunt quidam, sed two perpauci, qui cum p●aedeterminationem physicam defendant, tamen illam a victrici delectatione a Jansenio asserta in eo se jungunt, quod praedeterminatio physica relinquat adhuc voluntatem indifferentem in sensu diviso & etiam composito, componendo scilicet potentiam cum actu opposito. At vero, inquiunt, delectatio victrix omnimodam necessitatem affert ex Jansenio, nec ullam relinquit indifferentiam. Sic videtur sensisse iste Consultor, itemque Raphael Aversa in suo suffragio. At in hoc valde repugnantes habebunt Jansenii defensores, qui hanc meram esse cavillationem a suo & Jansenii sensu alienissimam clamitant, nec ullam a se necessitatem gratiae tribui, nisi quam Thomistae infallibilitatis vocant; nullam indifferentiam repudiari nisi Molinianam. Ita hic etiam de sensu Jansenii ab istis Consultoribus dissident, at in ipsis dogmatis cum Consultoribus congruunt.    

II.  Pater COELESTINUS BRUNUS, Ordinis S. Augustini. 
Die 16. Decembris 1652.  
HAnc propositionem secundum historiam evidenter patet esse falsam: quantum vero ad id quod asserit in secunda parte, praeter censuram tertiae propositionis, quia ex ea infertur necessario omnes Catholicos haereticos esse, dico esse temerariam, blasphemam, & ad minus virtualiter haereticam, & forsan etiam formaliter.   

III.  〈…〉 PALAVICINUS, Societatis Jesus. 
P●… h●… propositionem esse●aliam & temerariem propter acerbitatem censurae quae notat sententiam probabilem, & uti talem ab Ecclesia admiss●…. Praescindendo autem a censura hujus sententiae probabilis, propositio ipsa in se, & prout prola●… a Jansenio, mihi videtur immunis ab omni censura Theologica.   

IV.  P. MARCUS ANTON. CARPINETUS, Procurator generalis Capucinorum. 
PRima pars propositionis in quantum continet factum sive historiam, non est digna censura, neque est etiam evidenter falsa. Secunda pars propositionis accepta indefinite prout sonat & potest extendi tam ad gratiam efficacem, quam sufficientem, est non solum temeraria & erronea, sed etiam formaliter haeretica. Prout restringitur ad gratiam efficacem, in quo sensu visus est Jansenius proferre, non est digna aliqua censura Theologica, nisi in quantum nimis rigorose censurat aientes, ejusmodi gratiae posse resisti & obtemperari: quae cum sit doctrina probabilis, non meretu● notam haeresis.   

V.  Pater THOMAS D'ELBENE, Clericus Regularis. 
JSta propositio, quicquid sit de prima parte, in qua est quaestio de facto, & mera historia, tamen quoad secundam partem prout intelligitur a Jansenio, est formaliter haeretica.   

VI  P. AUGUSTIN. MARIA a CREMONA, Ordinis Servorum. 
CIrca hanc quartam propositionem sum in voto, quoad primam partem esse falsam. Quoad secundam, licet in aliquo sensu posset probabiliter sustineri, in proprio tamen & rigoroso sensu verborum a Jansenio intento, cum annexis & connexis sub quibus porrigitur ab eodem, cui non potest adaptari sensus probabilis quem potest habere, propositionem esse formaliter haereticam.   

VII.  Pater LUCAS WADINGUS, Ordinis strictioris Observantiae. 
CEnseo propositionem hanc fuisse male conceptam, & auctorem (quisquis ille fuerit) in prima parte circa dogmata Semipelagianorum, & in secunda circa mentem Jansenii fuisse plane deceptum. Caeterum in libro Jansenii censeo scandalosum esse & temerarium nimis vehementem illum modum propugnanci sententiam propriam, & impugnandi alienas, praesertim Patrum Jesuitarum.   

VIII.  Pater DOMINICUS CAMPANELLA, Ordinis Carmelitarum. 
CEnseo hanc quart am propositionem quoad p●imam partem, tanquam punctum pertinens ad historiam, non cadere sub censura Theologica. Quoad secundam, & falso imponi Semipelagianis tanquam errorem, & esse formaliter haereticam, in quantum sententiam Catholicam antiquissimam, utpote a multis seculis, ipso Calvino fatente, traditam in Ecclesia Dei, & a cunctis fidelibus sine ●lla contradictione & discrepantia creditam, dicit haereticam.   

IX.  Pater MODESTUS a FERRARIA, Procuratogeneralis Ordinis Minorum Conventualium. 
DIco hujus propositionis primam partem esse falsam, alteram esse saltem haeresi proximam.   

X.  Pater RAPHAEL AVERSA, Ordinis Clericorum Minorum. 
Die 23. Decembris 1652.  
PRopositio haec est tota falsa & perniciosa contra fidem historiae: sed specialiter secunda pars redundat in maximam contumeliam Ecclesiae Catholicae, profitentis dari talem gratiam cui possit humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare, & ipsa in se est haeretica contra definitionem Concilii Tridentini. Quod si quarta propositio ita corrigatur: Gratiae efficaci humanam voluntatem non posse resistere, adhuc eo m●do quo ponitur a Jansenio, videtur haeretica; sed explicando gratiam efficacem eo modo quo apud alterutram Scholam intelligitur in sensu composito vel sub similibus terminis, sic contineret sanam doctrinam.   

XI.  Pater VINCENTIUS DE PRETIS, Dominicanus, Commissarius generalis S. Officii. 
HAEc propositio quia imponit notam haereticorum Semipelagianis, ex eo quod affirmarent gratiam ab ipsis positam esse talem, cui voluntas possit obsistere vel obtemperare, per taleitatem destruentem efficaciam gratiae Divi Augustini, ●…approbantem inefficacitatem gratiae assertam a Semipelagianis, impugnatam a Divo Augustino, est immunis ab omni censura.   

XII.  Pater PHILIPPUS VICECOMES, Generalis Augustinianorum. 
SI propositio ista intelligitur, quod solum admitteret talem gratiam cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare, cum exclusione omnis gratiae efficacis, & secundum propositum, sic utique erant haeretici Semipelagiani: si vero ita intelligitur, ut ita vellent eam gratiam esse talem cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare, ut tamen praeter illam admitterent gratiam efficacem & secundum propositum, sic non erant haeretici, sicut non sunt doctissimi viri qui utramque gratiam admittunt.   

XIII.  Pater VINCENTIUS CANDIDUS, Dominicanus, Magister sacri Palatii. 
QUoad primam partem propositionis quartae, censeo non mereri aliquam censuram; ut ex mu●…is relatis, praesertim ex testimonio D. Augustini de Praedestin. cap. 1. Quoad secundam partem, in hoc erant haeretici, quod sensum Pelagianorum proprium, quatenus excludebant gratiam vere efficacem quam statuit D. Augustinus in suis operibus, falsa est: si autem ly resistere accipiatur in proprio significatu, non videtur censuranda secunda pars propositionis.   

ANIMADVERSIO GENERALIS in Vota Consultorum super quanta propositione.  
PRopositionem ipsim, ut palam est, sex Consultores innoxiam pronunciant: caeteri propterea damnant, quia erroris accusare videtur Catholicam doctrinam contra Calvinum definitam, scilicet gratiae resisti vel obtemperari posse. An igitur sex ex illo numero haeretici fuerunt, & septem Catholici? An fides ab haeresi non nisi uno Consultoris calculo dissidet? Neutiquam, omnes idem reipsa senserunt: sed ut in aliis propositionibus, sic etiam in illa, de sensu ejus non conveniunt.  
Sensum Iansenii hic expresse jesuita Palavicinus, Carpinetus, Wadingus, a censura eximunt: imo postremus ille auctorem illarum propositionum in jansenii ment plane deceptum coram summo Pontifice praedicat, verene an falso, nihil ad me. Interim obiter noto hanc de Iansenii sensu controversiam inter ipsos Consultores viguisse, nec demum post Constitutionem natam esse, ut quidam fabulantur, quam utinam ex professo & non obiter tantum agitassent: tantas enim fortasse lites nobis non reliquissent.  
Rectissime autem Generalis Augustinianorum, itemque Commissarius S. Officii, in eo collocant Semipelagianorum errorem, quod gratiae efficacis necessitatem ad initium fidei destruerent, quod adversus Molinistas idipsum sentientes semper tenuit, & etiam nunc tenet omnis Schola Thomistica, omnesque graves Theologi.    

QUINTA PROPOSITIO.  
Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum fuisse, & sanguinem fudisse.  

I.  Pater JOANN. AUGUSTIN. a NATIVITATE, Carmelita Discalceatus. 
Dei 30. Decembris 1652.  
HAec propositio, ut jacet, non est Catholica; si exponatur quoad auxilia sufficientia praeparata omnibus hominibus ex meritis Christi, meretur censuram propter acerbitatem. Ut est connexa cum propositione jansenii, quod Christus sit mortuus solum pro praedestinatis, & illis solis praeparaverit auxilia sufficientia ad perseverandum, meretur eandem censuram ac prima propositio.   

II.  Pater COELESTINUS BRUNUS, Ordinis S. Augustini. 
EXistimo hanc propositionem tanquam omnibus horrendam & impiam, & tanquam animam reliquarum propositionum, & quia habet etiam affinitatem cum multis propositionibus damnatis Baii, prorsus temerariam & plus reliquis haereticam.   

III.  Pater SFORZA PALAVICINUS, Societatis Jesus. 
CEnseo istam propositionem secundum se esse Catholicam, & non dignam censura, nisi propter censuram annexam propositionis. Propter ejusmodi censuram qua damnat propositionem admissam a multis Scholasticis, & simpliciter prolatam in Tridentino, censeo esse temerariam & male sonantem; prout profertur a jansenio, censeo mereri eandem censuram qua notavi primam propositionem.   

IV.  Pater MARCUS ANTON. CARPINETUS, Procurator generalis Capucinorum. 
Die 12. jan. 1653.  
HAec propositio ut jacet, Christus non est mortuus pro omnibus omnino hominibus, & pro omnibus omnino hominibus sanguinem non fudit, sine alio addito explicante, est male sonans, pias aures offendens, & si non formaliter haeretica, saltem haeresi proxima. Eadem propositio restricta hoc modo: Christus non est mortuus pro praescitis, adhuc est formaliter haeretica, sic simpliciter & sine alia explicatione proposita. Eadem propositio restricta hoc modo: Christus non est mortuus pro omnibus omnino hominibus; quia non est mortuus pro infidelibus, adhuc est haeretica. Eadem propositio restricta hoc modo: Christus non est mortuus pro omnibus omnino hominibus, quia non est mortuus pro parvulis, adhuc est haeretica, simpliciter & sine aliqua declaratione prolata. Eadem propositio etiam declarata hoc modo: Christus non est mortuus pro omnibus, quia non omnibus contulit beneficium suae passionis, sed solum praedestinatis, adhuc est haeretica. In uno vero sensu solo erit Catholica, si dicatur: Christus non est mortuus pro omnibus, quia non omnibus contulit beneficium salutis sive beatitudinis aeternae.   

V.  Pater THOMAS D'ELBENE, Clericus Regularis. 
DIco: Vel quinta ista propositio facit sensum, quod Christus non sit mortuus pro omnibus efficaciter, & non est digna censura, sed Catholica: vel facit sensum quod non sit mortuus pro omnibus aequaliter: ita ut discretio sit ex nobis, non autem ex gratia; & est etiam Catholica: vel facit sensum quod non sit mortuus pro quibusdam, ut pro infantulis qui moriuntur sine baptismo, pro paganis, & quibusdam Christianis induratis; & esterronea & temeraria; saltem prout vocat opinionem oppositam, errorem Semipelagianorum: vel facit sensum quod sit mortuus pro praedestinatis tantum, & pro nullis aliis etiam justificatis, uti per baptismum, etc. & in hoc sensu, qui vere est Jansenii, est haeretica.   

VI  Pater AUGUSTIN. MARIA aCREMONA, Ordinis Servorum. 
SUm in voto, propositionem hanc ratione censurae esse male sonantem & temerariam: secundum se esse scandalosam: in sensu auctoris, nempe Jansenii, quatenus excludit a beneficio aeterno mortis Christi infideles & parvulos, esse parum probabilem, & nihil piam: quatenus excludit aliquos ex justificatis, esse erroneam & formaliter haereticam.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
HAereo, fateor, quomodo hic duos istos Consultores excusem, quod eam Jansenio sententiam tribuant, Christum ita pro solis praedestinatis mortuum esse, ut pro nullis aliis mortuus sit, etiam justificatis per baptismum. Hoc enim constat a sensu Jansenii verbisque disjunctissimum esse, cum pro omnibus justificatis, etiam reprobis Christum esse mortuum profiteatur. Non video igitur quid dici possit, nisi Consultores istos indiligentius sensum Jansenii excussisse; quia summus Pontifex propositiones expendi jusserat in abstracto, & ut praescindunt ab omni proferente, ut ait Vincentius de Pretis S. Officii Commissarius in suo suffragio. Quamobrem illi summi Pontificis jussu, propositionibus in abstracto spectandis intenti, de Jansenio audita potius quam visa retulere, aliter procul dubio locuturi, si Jansenium suis oculis inspexissent.    

VII.  Pater LUCAS WADINGUS, Ordinis strictioris Observantiae. 
Die 15. Januarii 1653.  
JSta propositio quinta cum illa nota sive censura Semipelagiani erroris, nullibi legitur apud jansenium. Explicatio autem quam adhibuit locis sacrae Scripturae de morte Christi pro solis fidelibus, praesertim pro praedestinatis, sana est & Catholica, utpote conformis eidem sacrae Scripturae, & quae expresse habetur apud Augustinum, & alios SS. Patres, & alios gravissimos Doctores.   

VIII.  Pater DOMINICUS CAMPANELLA, Ordinis Carmelitarum. 
DIco propositionem istam fuisse primo evomitam ex Calvino: secundo Semipelagianos non errasse in hoc puncto, sed recte & Catholice sensisse: tertio esse formaliter haereticam, tanquam repugnantem apertissimis & toties repetitis testimoniis Apostolicis, necnon sacris Conciliis, & SS. Patribus contradicentem; & proprie omnipotenti Deo, cujus natura bonitas; & copiosissimae Christi redemptioni, cujus modica sanguinis gutta pro totius mundi redemptione suffecisset, ut testatur Clemens VI in Extravagante Vnigenitus, de poenitentia, esse valde injuriosam.   

IX.  Pater MODESTUS a FERRARIA, Procurator generalis Ordinis Minorum Conventualium. 
CUm haec propositio, Christus pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuus est, sit de fide, ex Scripturis, Concilio Trid. & SS. Patribus, haec quinta propositio est omnino haeretica.   

X.  Pater RAPHAEL AVERSA, Ordinis Clericorum Minorum. 
Die 20. Januarii 1653.  
HAec propositio in modo loquendi proprie & rigorose sumpta, est blasphema, contumeliosa, contraria S. Scripturae, & Concilio Tridentino; in sensu vero Iansenii partim ex professo lib. 3. de gratia Salvatoris cap. ultimo, reducitur ad primas tres propositiones; quare eandem cum illis censuram meretur.   

XI.  Pater VINCENTIUS DE PRETIS, Dominicanus, Commissarius generalis S. Officii. 
HAec propositio per hoc quod afficitur nota erroris subit censuram quam meretur, & proinde est immunis ab omni censura.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
MEns Consultoris est, recte Semipelagiani erroris nota affici hanc propositionem, Christus pro omnibus mortuus est, intellectam Molinistico sensu, videlicet quod Christus omnibus promeruerit gratiam quandam Molinianam, quam alii accipiunt, alii respuunt pro solo nutu voluntatis; adeoque immunem judicat a censura quintam propositionem, quatenus Molinae sententiam damnat.    

XII.  Pater PHILIPPUS VICECOMES, Generalis Augustinianorum. 
VOtum est. Haec propositio ex D. Prospero & Hilario in terminis est a Semipelagianis asserta tanquam contraria sententiae S. Patris Augustini. An vero ab illis simpliciter asseratur, vel tanquam illorum error habenda sit, dico secundum sensum intentum a Semipelagianis, ista propositio est falsa, quatenus nimirum existimant Christum Dominum aequaliter ac indifferenter quacunque lege seclusa omni gratia efficaci, 
Deest hic aliquid.  & secundum propositum de quo loquitur Apostolus, & explicat Augustinus.  

ANIMADVERSIO.  
ET hic Consultor propositionem vocat, non totum istud complexum, Semipelagianum est dicere, etc. sed hanc solam partem ultimam, Christus pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuus est; quam falsam dicit, secundum sensum a Semipelagianis intentum, quem eundem esse manifeste vult ac sensum Molinistarum.    

XIII.  Pater VINCENTIUS CANDIDUS, Dominicanus, Magister sacri Palatii. 
CEnseo quintam propositionem praedictam nullam mereri censuram, & sustineri posse ut probabilem, & fine dubio veram. Semipelagianorum enim error fuit, ut omnibus pro comperto est, ita Christum Dominum esse omnium Redemptorem, & pro omnibus mortuum existimarunt, ut penes liberum arbitrium omnium hominum esset tale Redemptoris beneficium acceptare seu repudiare, etiam proxima & immediata, &, ut aiunt Theologi, cum actu conjuncta potentia: quo errore manifeste humano arbitrio partes primas, gratiae vero secundas tribuebant, contra Magistrum Gentium Paulum ad Corinth. 4. ac ipsius electionis profundissima mysteria relegabant, quo consequenter veram Christi Domini redemptionem de medio tollebant, ut talis redemptionis participes esse homines ex liberi arbitrii viribus operantes autumarent.   

ANIMADVERSIO GENERALIS in Vota Consultorum super quinta propositione.  
IN hac quinta propositione similiter se gerunt Consultores atque in caeteris. Quidam ex illis de sensu Jansenii pro libito loquuntur. Con●ra Wadingus nullibi legi apud Jansenium istam propositionem asserit. Ipsam propositionem quidam defendunt, quidam damnant, in ejus intelligentia dissentientes, in ipsis dogmatis aut nihil, aut parum. Siquidem inter omnes gratiae efficacis patronos, aut certe non impugnatores, quales illi fuerunt, sententias sequentes orthodoxas esse convenit.  

I. Christum solis praedestinatis ea beneficia morte sua promeruisse, quibus certissime liberantur quicunque liberan●ur.  
II. Nulli reprobo datum esse aut promeritum. per mortem Christi efficax & gratuitum perseverantiae donum, sine quo nemo unquam salvus erit.  
III. Gratias omnes quas justificati reprobi recipiunt, ipsis ex meritis Christi conferri: & quia justificati omnes habent gratias Thomistico sensu sufficientes, modo actuales, modo habituales, etiam pro illis promerendis Christum esse mortuum.  
IV. Mortem Christi esse sufficientem pro totius' mundi salute.  
V. Christum humana, vel divina etiam, sed antecedente voluntate omnium hominum salutem optasse.  
VI Absoluta voluntate & efficaci solis praedestinatis aeternam beatitudinem optasse, petiisse, promeruisse.   
Haec fere inter Thomistas constant, nec ullum ex istis capitibus convellunt Consultores, multa etiam expresse probant. Sunt autem quaedam in nostra Schola controversa, v. g. an omnes infideles & obdurati habeant gratias sufficientes: haec non attingunt Consultores.  
Si quaeras quem sensum Jansenio tribuant qui ipsi videntur adversi; Respondeo hunc esse, ut ex ipso pro solis praedestinatis Christus mortuus sit, & nullo modo pro reprobis; ex quo consequens aiunt esse, nulli, ne justo quidem, adesse sufficientia media ad salutem. Talem non esse Jansenii sensum multi contendunt: jure an injuria, grandis quaestio; at mei nec instituti, nec stomachi. Omnino enim quo pertineat de unius hominis sententia litigare prorsus non intelligo. Erret, an recte sentiat Jansenius, nihil ad me: imo nihil ad fidem, nihil ad Ecclesiam; dummodo de ipsis dogmatis constet. De ipsis propositionibus inter se Consultores dissenserunt; quanto id durius? Integra tamen omnium fides; quia verborum potius ista, quam rerum dissensio fuit. Potest idem in Jansenii sensu accidere, quem varie acceptum probare illi possunt, illi improbare, nihil inter se in ipsis dogmatis discrepantes. An ita sit, videant quorum id interest. Ego vero doctis illis viris, qui defensi Jansenii invidia laborant, libenter hanc conditionem tulerim, quam simili in causa Origenistis infensissimus illorum hostis Hieronymus tulit; aut deserant Jansenium, aut doceant illius mentem a proprio sensu propositionum penitus alienam, & in his quinque capitulis nostrae Scholae penitus consentientem, in qua certissimum ipsis ad vitandam Molinistarum ferocientium audaciam perfugium semper patebit.     

An Advertisement touching the General of the Augustine's.  
'tIs manifest in these Suffrages, that F. Philip Visconty General of the Augustine's, always held the five Propositions as free from Censure, because he took them in the sense of Effectual Grace: Whence it also appears, that the holding of the Propositions in the said sense was never taken ill at Rome, since the sentiments of this General hindered not his being afterwards offered three Bishoprics, of which he refused the two first out of humility; but at the instances of the present Pope, at length accepted that of Ascoli in the Kingdom of Naples, which preferment of his was certified to me by a Letter written from Rome, Febr. 19 1657.  
IO non so che nuova darle se nou brevemente significare a V. S. che doppo esser stati proposti i Vescovati di Catanzaro e Nardo nel Regno al P. Visconti, & esser stati da lui rifiutati; Mercordi passato, giorno delle Cineri su fatto awisare da N. S. che li proponeva il Vescovato d' Ascoli pure in Regno; e perche da questo scopri che sua Santita in tutti i modi lo volea Vescovo; e'l giorno dopo lo mando a chiamare Monsignor Ghiggi per l'istesso, la mattina seguente del Venerdi fu intimato all essame, e fu essaminato con Monsu Alliere per il Vescovato di Cavaglione. Non so che mi dire di questa premura; e come si siano incontrati a stare assieme l'Arca e Dagone. L' Alliere se ne sta nel convento di S. Marcello, e lo serve dicarozza il C. Barberino. Del resto le vivo servirore ela saluto con tutti amorosissimamente. Di Roma li 19 Febraro.    

PAULI IRENAEI CAUSA JANSENIANA, SIVE FICTITIA HAERESIS, SEX DISQUISITIONIBUS Theologice historice explicata explosa.  
ADVERTISEMENT Touching these Disquisitions.  
THREE of these Disquisitons have been formerly Printed; the other three, not till now. I was invited to annex them to my Journal by the conformity which I found in them with the historical matters related therein. Although I must not dissemble that the Author hath particular reflections of his own upon the same actions; which may be attributed to the diversity of Memoires and intelligence written touching the same Occurrences both by our Colleagues and our Adversaries. The sincerity and candour which appears in his manner of writing suffer me not to doubt but he hath spoken as faithfully and honestly as myself. And indeed these disquisitions so clear the matters which they treat of, and are all six so convincing, that what was formerly said of the two first which were printed, may be said of them all, viz. that they are ad presentes Ecclesiae tumultus sedandos opportunae.  
These following passages of S. Augustin were set in the front of the two former instead of a Preface when they were first printed.  S. AUGUSTINUS. 
CERTUM est non mandata servare si volumus; sed quia praeparatur voluntas a Domino, ab illo pretendum est ut tantum velimus, quantum sufficit ut volendo faciamus— Qui ergo vult facere Dei mandatum, & non potest, jam quidem habet voluntatem bonam, sed adhuc parvam & invalidam; poterit autem cum magnam habuerit & robustam— Et quis istam etsi parvam dare coeperat caritatem, nisi ille qui praeparat voluntatem, & cooperando perficit, quod operando incipit? Quoniam ipse ut velimus operatur incipiens, qui volentibus cooperatur perficiens— tamen sine illo vel operante ut velimus, vel cooperante cum volumus, ad bona pietatis opera NIHIL VALEMUS. De gratia & lib. arb. c. 16. 17.  Idem S. AUGUSTINUS. 
Concupiscentiae reatus nisi in renascentibus non solvitur, ut eo post hanc absolutionem non inquinetur, nisi qui ei ad perpetrandum opus malum spi itu adversus eam vel non concupiscente, VEL NON FORTIUS CONCUPISCENTE consentit. Lib. 6. operis ult. jul. cap. ult.  Idem S. AUGUSTINUS. 
Dicite nobis, o vani, non defensores, sed inflatores liberi arbit rii; dicite inquam, nobis, si noluissent Gentes eredere, justeque vivere, evacuaretur promissio quae facta est ad Abraham? Non inquies. Ergo ut Abraham ob stipendium fidei consequeretur dilatationem seminis, praeparata est Gentium voluntas a Domino; & ut vellent, QuOD ET NOLLE POTUISSENT, ab illo factum est, qui ea quae promisit, potens est facere. Contra secundam Julian. Resp. lib. 2.  Idem ADVERSUS SEMIPELAGIANOS. 
Omnes Deus docet venire ad Christum, non quia omnes veniunt, sed quia nemo aliter venit— Nam si & illos quibus stultitia est verbum crucis, ut ad Christum venirent docere voluisset, proculdubio venirent & ipsi. Non enim fallit aut fallitur qui ait: Omnis qui audivit a Patre, & didicit, venit ad me. Absit ergo ut quisquam non veniat qui a Patre audivit & didicit. Quare, inquiunt, non omnes docet? Si dixerimus, quia nolunt discere quos non docet, respondebitur nobis. Et ubi est quod ei dicitur, Dom ne tu convertens vivificabis nos? Aut si non facit VOLENTES EX NOLENTIBUS Deus, quid orat Ecclesia secundum praeceptum Domini pro persecutoribus suis, quandoquidem hoc pro eis oratur, ut non credentibus, id est, fidem non habuentibus, FIDES IPSA DONETUR? Cum igitur Evangelium praedicatur, quidam credunt, quidam non credunt. Sed qui credunt, Praedicatore forin secus insonante, intus a Patre audiunt atque discunt; qui autem non credunt, foris audiunt, intus non audiunt, neque discunt; hoc est, illis datur ut credant, illis non datur. Quia nemo, inquit, venit ad me, nisi Pater qui me misit, taxerit eum.— Et nemo potest venire ad me, nisi fuerit ei datum a Patré meo. Ergo trahi a Patre ad Christum, & audire ac discere a Patre quo credat in Christum, nihil aliud est quam donum accipere a Patre quo credat in Christum. Haec est Augustino Catholica fides Semipelagianorum errori opposita. De praedest. SS. c. 8.  S. THOMAS. 
Omnis absoluta voluntas Christi, etiam humana, fuit impleta; quia fuit Deo conformis: & per consequens omnis ejus oratio fuit exaudita. Quare dicendum est, quod Dominus non oravit pro omnibus crucifixoribus; neque etiam pro omnibus qui erant credituri in eum, sed pro his solum qui erant praedestinati, ut per ipsum vitam consequerentur aeternam. 3. p. q. 21. a. 4.  

PAULI IRENAEI DISQUISITIO PRIMA.  
An sint in Ecclesia novae alicujus haeresis Sectatores.  
OMnibus retro seculis nihil fortasse ejusmodi visum aut auditum, quale his nostris remporibus cernere est. Sollicitantur omnes & Ecclesiae & seculi potestates, armantur concionatores, populi concitantur, ad extinguendum nescio cujus novae latentis, ut aiunt, haeresis incendium. Periclitari dicitur res Christiana, nisi gliscenti malo mature occurratur. Rem totam proprius inspice, nec vanis rumoribus, sed fidelibus oculis crede● nec haereseos, nec periculi umbram aut somnium reperies.  
Id quoniam ostendi mirifice pertinet ad conciliandam Ecclesiae pacem, hac scriptione breviter, at, ni sallor, invicte demonstrabitur, nullam in Ecclesia haeresim, nullos haereticos esse, ut ex omnibus constet non tam hanc schismatis & haereseos flammam este, quam occultae malevolentiae & privati odii fumum: quem omnibus, ac praesertim Ecclesiae rectoribus, offundere nituntur homines sibi male conscii, nec obscuris de causis exulcerati, ut in hac omnium rerum caligine suis interim cupiditatibus serviant.  
Quod proposui, sic efficio. Nulla haeresis sine haeretico dogmate. Nulli haeretici sine pertinacia in damnato dogmate defendendo. Neutrum est in Ecclesia. Igitur nec haeresis in Ecclesia, nec haeretici.  
Singulas partes separatim exequemur, ac primum de haeretico dogmate.  

ARTICULUS. I.  
Novam illam haeresim in ipsis quinque propositionibus non residere, quia eas nemo defendit.  
OMnes de gratia controversiae ad quinque propositiones jam redierunt. Nam caetera omnia citra fidei dispendium libere defendi jam ipsi adversarii consentiunt. Ergo aut ibi haeresis sita, aut nusquam. At non ibi esse facile convincitur. Omnes enim ad unum Catholici istas propositiones proscribunt, & quidem in proprio verborum sensu: ubinam igitur haeresis? Confectam quaestionem diceres, nisi adversariorum calliditas novas rursum lites serere instituisset. Non satis aiunt esse ad declinandam haeresim, si propositiones damnentur in proprio sensu, nisi etiam damnentur in Janseniano. Ad hunc finem decretum quoddam ab Episcopis Galliae expresserunt Annati sui operâ Jesuitae, quo jubentur omnes Theologi propositiones in Janseniano sensu damnare. Hoc qui renuat, quod multi faciunt, illico hoc Annatino argumento feritur: Jansenianus sensus ab Episcopis ut haereticus proscribitur. Defendis sensum Jansenit. Ergo defendis haereticum sensum. Ergo es haereticus. Hoc sophismate, minis & terroribus ar mato, omnes jam Molinismi vires continentur. Ex illo novam Jansenianam illam haeresim eruunt. Hoc igitur accuratius excutiendum, dissolvendum, obterendum est, quo simul fictitiae haereseos terriculum evanescat.   

ARTICULUS II.  
Sophismatis Moliniani dissolutio.  
SI quis Bellarminum & Baronium Cardinales hoc argumento propter desensum Honorii summi Pontificis sensum, Monothelitanae haereseos ageret reos: Sexta Synodus oecumenica, item duae sequentes, ac duo summi Pontifices, Honorii Epistolas & sensum utique damnarunt haereseos Monothelitanae. Vos defenditis sensum Honorii. Ergo Monothelitanae haereseos crimen suscipitis. Quaero quo pacto tanti viri a tam foedo & tam aperte falso crimine eximendi sint? Nimirum detegendo argumenti vitio, quod constat quatuor terminis, & sub Honorii sensu aequivocationem & fallaciam tegit.  
Damnavit sensum Honorii sexta Synodus. Sensum Honorii defendunt Bellarminus & Baronius. Sed non eundem sensum illa damnavit, isti defendunt. Monothelitarum sensum in epistolis Honorii esse credidit sexta Synodus, & ideo damnavit. At easdem epistolas Catholico sensu interpretantur illustrissimi Cardinales, & ideo defendunt. Non ergo Synodo adversantur in quaestione juris, sed tantum in facto, id est, literarum Honorii interpretatione.  
Omnino duplici ratione hominis etiam ab Ecclesia damnati sensus defendi potest. Primo, ut ille ipse sensus, eademque sententia quam damnavit Ecclesia, defendatur. Hoc qui faciat, haereticus est. Secundo, ut alicujus auctoris sensus ab haeresi ad Catholicam fidem benigna interpretatione flectatur. Hoc qui faciat, sit temerarius, sit praepostere benignus, haereticus certe dici non potest: non enim haereticum, sed Catholicum sensum defendit.  
Utroque modo defensus Origines, & utrumque defensions modum valde Patres pro sua aequitate secreverunt. Multi enim ipsos Origenis errores defenderunt. Ergo illi a Patribus pro haereticis habiti. Alii contra sic Origeni patrocinati sunt, ut illos errores falso illi ascriptos esse certarent, ejusque verba durius accipi contenderent. Hi non sectatores, sed defensores Originis ab Augustino dicuntur, in quos nemo tam injustus fuit, ut ob hanc rem notam haeresos in illos conferret.  
Ex illis manifestum est Jansenii sensum dupliciter defendi posse. Primo ita ut quinque propositiones, & proprium earum sensum Jansenii esse quis fateatur, & eas nihilominus defendere non desistat. Hoc si quis fecerit, in illum insurgant Jesuitae quantum volent.  
Verum alia plane eximendi a noxa Jansenii ratio est: si quis videlicet ejus verba eo sensu interpretetur, quem constat esse Catholicum; idemque propositiones in earum proprio sensu damnet; at ipsas propositiones & proprium earum sensum in Jansenio se videre deneget. Qui ita se gerat, quocunque nomine afficiatur, haereticus dici nequit, cum sensus ille, quem vere an falso Jansenii esse putat, ut Catholicus ab omnibus probetur.  
Hoc constituto, reliquum est ut demonstrem hac tantum secunda ratione a permultis viris eruditis defendi Jansenium; quia nimirum ejus verba eo sensu accipiunt, quem nemo haereseos accusare audeat. Quod postquam confecero, sponte corruet Annatinum sophisma. Damnant enim Jansenii sensum Episcopi; sed illum videlicet, quem Jansenii esse crediderunt. Rursum quidam Jansenii sensum non ejurant; sed quia illum aliter quam Episcopi interpretantur, & eam tantum arbitrantur doctrinam in illo contineri, quam ipsis Episcopis, ipsi summo Pontifici, probatam esse certo sciunt. Non ergo illi ab Episcoporum ment & sententia discedunt in aliquo dogmate, sed tantum in intelligentia Jansenii, quem illi durius, hi benignius interpretantur. Vtrum in hoc sit temeritas aliqua, alia est controversia; non esse haeresim, extra controversiam est.  
Omnis ergo difficultas ad hoc caput reducitur, utrum ille sensus, quem Jansenio tribuunt qui illum condemnare recusant, sit Catholicus, nec ab Episcopis damnatus dici possit. Hanc, ni fallor, prorsus eximet subjuncta sensus illius Janseniani explicatio, quem tuemur.   

ARTICULUS. III.  
Tota Jansenii doctrina circa quinque propositiones ad duo capita haud dubie Catholica reducitur.  
QVid Episcopi sensus Janseniani nomine intellexerint, haud facile conjici potest: nunquam enim illum explicarunt. Tam varie autem adhuc illum interpretati sunt qui adversus ipsum scripsere, ut vix cuos reperias in eodem sensu congruentes. Prorsus enim quemlibet sensum Jansenio licet affingere, dummodo insulsum aliquem errorem contineat. Itemque quamlibet sententiam licet defendere, dummodo Jansenium verbo renus repudies. Quid ergo, inquam, Episcopi senserint, incertum est; illud certum & indubitatum, nusquam illis in ment fuisse damnare eam sententiam, qua contineri sensum Jansenii arbitrantur qui ejus damnationi non consentiunt. Tota res sola expositione indiget illius doctrinae quam isti esse Catholicam certo sciunt, & Jansenianam etiam esse putanr. Videant vel infensissimi adversarii quid in ea reprehendere habeant.  
Sic igitur existimant illi, totam Jansenii doctrinam circa quinque propositiones duobus istis capitibus contineri.  
Primo gratiam efficacem, qui voluntas infallibiliter, sed sine necessitate ad bene operandum applicatur & determinatur, ad singulas actiones bonas, & ad ipsam orationem esse necessariam. Ita per orbem Christianum omnis S. Thomae Schola, & celeberrimae Academiae. Nec vero isti gratiae majorem Jansenius attribuit efficaciam, quam Thomistae, ut quidam insulse criminari occipiunt; sed eandem plane qua scilicet voluntas physice praedeterminetur, sed sine necessitate, nisi isto nomine effectum infallibilem intelligas.  
Secundum est, nullam in hoc statu naturae corruptae dari gratiam sufficientem Moliniano sensu acceptam, quae scilicet nullum aliud auxilium requirat ad bene operandum: sed pro arbitrii nutu vel consentientis vel dissentientis, modo effectum habeat, modo non habeat. Ita etiam omnes Thomistae, ut ipse Jansenius testatur tom. 3. lib. 3. c. 1.  
Si nihil aliud Jansenius circa quinque propositiones doceat nisi haec duo capita, proculdubio Catholice sentit; proculdubio verum ejus sensum non damnarunt Episcopi, cum nemo dicere audeat, ab Episcopis vel gratiam efficacem esse damnatam, vel Molinianam gratiam pro fidei dogmate sancitam esse.  
Si quid aliud ipse sentiat aut doceat, ostendatur modo, & jam ipsius sensum nemo abdicare recusabit. Nam qui recusant, hac una ratione moventur, quod nihil aliud in ipso vident. In quo utique ertare possunt: possunt de illo benignius quam par esset sentire: possunt esse temerarii. At haeretici prorsus esse non possunt; nisi haereticum sit ipsam Ecclesiae fidem sub Jansenii nomine defendere.  
Sed ne tam generali asseveratione fucum facere velle existimentur, operae pretium est sigillatim ostendere quid Jansenium circa propositiones senfisse putant: ex quo patebit, nihil aliud astrui, nisi efficacis gratiae necessitatem ad singulos actus; nihil aliud re●…ci, nisi versatilem Molinae gratiam.   

ARTICULUS. IV.  
Quid circa primam propositionem senserit Jansenius, prout a suis defensoribus explicatur.  
HAec una est ex quinque propositionibus cujus verba ex Jansenio deprompta sunt; quanquam loco suo avulsa alium plane sensum exhibeant, quam qui ex appositis verbis elicitur. Hunc enim talem esse credimus.  
Cum omnibus hominibus, atque adeo justis necessaria sit gratia praedeterminans ad bene operandum, ad implenda Christiano animo praecepta, ad graves tentationes vincendas: illa tamen gratia non omnibus justis, etiam volentibus, conantibus, & orantibus imperfecte per gratias inefficaces, quas Thomistae sufficientes vocant, semper praesto est. Ergo etiamsi justi in hoc statu constituti veram habeant implendi mandata potestatem per gratiam illam tum habitualem tum actualem; illa tamen potestas non complectitur omnia ad agendum necessaria: nec sufficiens est Molinistico sensu; quia deest adhuc illi gratia efficax agendi, quae necessaria prorsus est ut voluntas ad plene consentiendum applicetur & determinetur. Ita si gratia sufficiens Thomistico sensu usurpetur pro ea quae tribuit posse internum a gratia efficaci applicandum, certum est omnes justos volentes & conantes nunquam carere ejusmodi gratia sin autem Molinistico sensu, sic quibuscunque deest gratia efficax, deest etiam gratia sufficiens Moliniana. Sola enim gratia efficax est omnibus modis sufficiens, ut vulgo Thomistae omnes agnoscunt. Similiter si vox posse usurpetur pro potentia interna agendi, ut vulgo sumitur a Thomistis, omnes justi semper habent ejusmodi potestatem, qualis est oculi sani in tenebris, ut iidem docent. Sin autem usurpetur Moliniano & vulgari sensu pro ea cui nihil deest necessarium ad operandum, non habent semper omnes justi ejusmodi potentiam; imo quicunque gratia efficaci carent, tali etiam potestate carent; carent enim aliquo necessario. Id si Moliniani defendi aegre ferent, damnari curent ab Episcopis & a summo Pontifice disertis verbis. Tunc enim sensum Jansenii constabit esse damnatum. Sin autem id se impetrare non posse sat sciunt, quid est cur haereseos accusent eos quorum sensus non ambiguis verbis expressos ne attentare quidem audeant?   

ARTICULUS V.  
Quid circa secundam propositionem.  
DVplex gratiae interioris actualis genus a Jansenio admissam existimamus: alia enim efficax apud illum, alia inefficax. Prima illa est, quam Thomistae simpliciter efficacem vocant: huic semper resisti potest, nunquam reipsa resistitur. Inefficax gratia eadem prorsus est atque ea, quam Thomistae modo sufficientem vocant, modo excitantem. Haec tribuit posse & vires ad alium effectum quem non habet, non tamen ita validas ut efficaci gratia ad bene operandum nihil egeant. Illi gratiae vere resistitur in eo effectu quem posset habere, si voluntas plene consentiret; imo nunquam isti gratiae non resistitur, nisi cum efficax & praedeterminans gratia illi adjungitur.  
Sed quamvis ista gratia sit inefficax respectu boni operis ad quod ex natura sua tendit, & ad quod implendum voluntatem excitat & roborat; alio tamen sensu est efficax secundum quid; quia semper actus illos imperfectos producit ad quos ex decreto absoluto divinae voluntatis ordinatur. Atque ita generatim omnis Christi gratia efficax dici potest; quia semper id efficit quod Deus absolute fieri decrevit.  
Quid haec doctrina a vulgari doctrina Thomistarum discrepet, omnino ignorare nos fatemur. Quare cum nihil laesam constet ab Episcopis Thomistarum sententiam, certum est etiam hanc, quam Jansenianam esse credimus, nullo modo ab ipsis violatam.  
Ergo ex Jansenio, prout a nobis intelligitur, ali●ui gratiae interiori verissime resistitur, sed non ita ut Molinistae docent, quasi eidem gratiae nunc resistatur, nunc non resistatur pro solo flexu voluntatis.   

ARTICULUS VI  
Quid circa tertiam propositionem.  
CUm gratia efficax infallibiliter moveat voluntatem, nec ei auferat aut libertatem aut meritum, certum est ad merendum non requiri indifferentiam illam Molinianam, qua voluntas ita potest bonum & malum agere, ut ad utrum libet actu & effective pro libito sese determiner: contingere enim non potest, ut cum gratia efficaci malum eligat.  
Rursus cum sine gratia efficaci nemo bene agat, multi contra peccent & demereantur, certum est ad demerendum non requiri indifferentiam Molinianam, qua voluntas ita se ad bonum & malum potest convertere, ut ei nihil desit necessarium, quo se in utramlibet partem convertat: caret enim in illo casu gratia efficaci ad bene agendum necessaria.  
At hac una indifferentia dempta caeteras omnes, quia gratiae efficaci non adversantur, semper in hoc statu natura lapsae reperiri, nobis videtur sentire Jansenius. Itaque ex illo ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non sufficit libertas a coactione, sed requiritur etiam libertas a necessitate; & cum ipsa gratia efficaci voluntas adhuc remanet indifferens ad male agendum in sensu tum diviso tum composito, prout explicatur a Thomistis. Vtrum autem hae indifferentiae requirantur ad libertatem in genere, vel ad libertatem abstrahendo a statu naturae integrae & lapsae, a libertate Christi & hominum, alia quaestio est, quae Constitutionem non attingit.   

ARTICULUS. VII.  
Quid circa quartam propositionem.  
NOn propterea Semipelagiani haeretici fuerunt, quia gratiae vel obtemperari vel resisti posse dicerent, omnes enim id Catholici docent; sed in eo praecise ab Augustino oppugnati, & postea ab Ecclesia damnati sunt, quod fidem inchoatam, & perseverantiam in fide negarent hominibus dari per gratiam efficacem; eam videlicet quae non esset communis bonis & malis, sed discerneret bonos a malis: eam de qua dictum est: Omnis qui audivit a Patre, & didicit, venit ad me: & eam ex qua totum gratuitae praedestinationis mysterium indissolubili serie necteretur. Id unum nobis videtur docere jansenius.   

ARTICULUS VIII.  
Quid circa quintam propositionem.  
MInime Semipelagianum est cum Prospero dicere, Christum pro omnibus hominibus mortuum esse quantum ad sufficientiam pretii, & communem generis humani causam.  
Non est item Semipelagianum, Christo tribuere humanam velleitatem pro omnium omnino hominum salute moriendi.  
Haereticum foret asserere, Christum tantum pro salute praedestinatorum esse mortuum: mortuus est enim pro promerenda gratia omnibus reprobis quibus aliquando collata est.  
Cum omnes justi gratiam habeant ad implenda mandata Thomistico sensu sufficientem, sive habitualem, sive actualem, omnisque gratia ex Christi morte derivetur, consequens est, Christum mortuum esse pro promeranda ista gratia omnibus justis.  
Cum absoluta Christi voluntas divinae semper conformis extiterit, proculdubio consensit aeterno praedestinationis decreto, quo Deus certos tantum destinavit ad regnum gratuita misericordia, rejectis ad hoc dono aliis pariter reis, quos in massa perditionis reliquit. Illudque decretum nec precibus suis, nec mortis oblatione absolute mutare voluit: non igitur reprobis vel perseverantiae donum, vel salutem aeternam, per mortem suam absoluta voluntate promereri voluit, quamvis utrumque antecedente & minus proprie dicta voluntate optare potuerit.   

ARTICULUS IX.  
Sensus istos nec a summo Pontifice, nec ab Episcopis esse damnatos; sed a tota Ecclesia Catholicos haberi.  
HAbent Molinistae, quid sentiant two quos falsis criminibus apud populum, apud Ecclesiae Principes, in invidiam vocare non cessant. Nihil aliud sensisse jansenium opinamur. Nos certe nihil aliud tenere, quoniam propriae conscientiae extra Deum quisque arbiter est, sanctissime confirmamus. Ergo aut hunc sensum aggrediantur, aut maledicere desinant.  
Verum quo pacto hunc sensum nisi apud impe ritos lacessere auderent, cum luce clarius pateat, nil in ipso contineri nisi gratiae efficacis assertionem, & Molinianae gratiae rejectionem, quorum a terutrum haereseos accusare, aut a summo Pontifice damnatum dicere, nullus alicujus nominis Theologus adhuc ausus est? Quin & ipse Molinistarum signifer Annatus in Cavill. p. 29. aperre confitetur, summum Pont ficem id in quo dissident Thomistae â Jesuitis disputationi reliqu●sse, nec attingere voluisse controversiam de gratia per se ipsam efficaci.  
Hoc Annatus veritati litavit, volenine an invitus, nihil definio. Aliter certe facere non potuit: noverat enim quam saepe Pontifex vivae vocis oraculo de gratia efficaci ulla in re violanda ne quidem cogitasse se declaraverat. Quod ne ulli obscurum esse posset, voci scriptum adjunxit. Nam in illo Brevi ad Episcopos Galliae misso, mentionem facit cujusdam decreti sacrae Inquisitionis, in quo expresse habetur, controversiam de auxiliis codem loco ab Innocentio X. relictam, quo illam Clemens VIII. & Paulus V. reliquerant. Hinc Romanorum Theologorum pars multo maxima non minus post Constitutionem quam ante, eandem doctrinam coram summo Pontifice quotidie tuetur & docet. Caetera vero per orbem Academiae adeo illam non rejiciunt, ut multae non aliam admittant, nullae excludant.  
Quid Societates religiosas Dominicanorum, & Carmelitarum Discalceatorum loquar, a quibus exulat Molinismus, in quibus regnat victrix Dei gratia? Quid Presbyteros Oratorii, & Canonicos Regulares sancti Augustini? Quam paucos habet in hoc numero Molina sectatores!  
Atenim quidam ex iis cum gratiam efficacem vel acerrime tueantur, sufficientem Molinianam vel cum execratione repudient, tamen iniquiores sunt Jansenio, fareor; sed quia Jansenii aliam mentem fuisse arbitrantur, eumque super hoc maxime Catholico gratiae efficacis dogmate nescio quos errores, imo illos ipsos qui in proprio quinque propositionum significatu continentur, superstruxisse existimant. At nos, quibus hoc errores recens a Jansenio exaedificatos nondum videre contigit, quique nihil in illo legimus super quinque illis propositionibus nisi puram & simplicem gratiae praedeterminantis doctrinam, Molinae oppositam, sicut cum illis in ipsis dogmatis congruimus, ita in interpretatione Jansenii tamdiu ab illis dissentiemus donec istos errores gratiae efficaci superadjectos ipsis lumen praeferentibus deprehenderimus.  
Ita prorsus de Episcopis Galliae Lutetiae congregatis sentire pium ducimus, quorum vel maximam partem a S. Thomae partibus stare, a Molina abhorrere notum est; nec ullum esse ex illis arbitror, qui Molinae patronus audire vellet. Et tamen illi Jansenii sensum damnari exigunt. Quamobrem? Quia nimirum ita multis sic asserentibus crediderunt aliquid sentire Jansenium a gratia efficaci diversum, a Thomistarum schola alienum.  
Verum de illorum ment divinare nihil necesse est; iis enim notis affecerunt Jansenianum illum sensum quem damnari volunt, ut non possit quicquam a gratiae efficacis doctrina esse disjunctius. Nam primo sensum illum recens a Jansenio inductum, & omnibus scholis Catholicis ante Baium ignotum esse ponunciant. At hoc minme in gratiam efficacem cadit. Quid enim in scholis Catholicis notius & illustrius quam haec doctrina, quae una ante Molinam, & nescio quosdam Theologos Pighium & Catharinum in scholis Catholicis viguit: post natos vero Jesuitas ac Molinianam factionem, etsi in illis locis in quibus dominantur, minus floruerit, tamen in nobilissimis Academiis eandem semper auctoritatem tenuit, & etiamnunc tenet.  
Secundo, talem aiunt istum sensum esse, ut ipse Jansenius fateatur illum a quingentis annis fuisse Scholasticis incognitum. At contra Jansenius non uno loco, sed pluribus divinae gratiae efficientiam infallibilem ex Thomistica schola confirmat; illosque doctissimos, ut ipse appellat, Theologos de vi illius praedetermnatrice rectissime sensisse testatur. Non igitur illa doctrina est, quam Jansenius scholis incognitam esse fatetur, cum eam ex schola didicerit, hauserit, expresserit.  
Nec minus illud a gratiae efficacis necessitate sensum illum Jansenianum abjungit, quod hunc Augustino adversum esse testantur Episcopi: nisi enim omnium oculi adhuc caligaverunt, nihil ab ullo Scriptore clarius, significantius, crebrius exprimi potest quam illius gratiae tum necessitas, tum vis indeclinabilis & insuperabilis omnibus locis ab Augustino expressa est. Legantur modo libri de Correctione & gratia, de Praedestinatione Sanctorum, de Dono perseverantiae, de Gratia Christi; nec ullum arbitror fore, nisi privatis cupiditatibus aut praejudiciis occaecatum, qui non Augustinum vel stultum fuisse, aut gratiae efficacis necessitatem ad singulos pietatis actus docuisse, clarissime & validissime confirmasse fateatur. Quam opinionem tantis nixam testimoniis, tot seculorum vetustate roboratam, ut verbulo obiter & aliud agentes Episcopi damnare voluerint, incredibile, indignum, contumeliosum in ipsos est. Verum, ut dixi, ne tam foeda macula aspergi possent, sedulo caverunt, tum illis notis quibus Jansenianum illum sensum designaverunt, tum maxime celeberrima illa Thesi apud Patres Oratorii defensa, ipsisque dedicata, in qua cum gratiae efficacis necessitas ad singulos actus clarissime esset expressa, ne huic doctrinae existimarentur iniqui, actum illum frequentia sua & plausu cohonestaverunt.   

ARTICULUS. X.  
Concluditur nullam in Ecclesia novam haeresim esse, nullos haereticos.  
ERgo cum in Jansenio praeter ipsum gratiae efficacis dogma nihil ipsius defensores videant & defendant: nec illum sensum quisquam haereseos accuset, consequens est nullum in Ecclesia haereticum dogma a quoquam defendi. Aut enim tantum gratiam efficacem docet Jansenius, & sic a nemine jure culpatur; aut aliquid praeterea, & sic a nemine defenditur. Sive autem recte sentiat, sive erret, prorsus tamen errore vacant ipsius defensotes, qui non aliam ob causam ejus sensum damnare refugiunt, nisi quia sic illum intepretantur, ut Catholicus esse a nemine negari possit.  
Consequens est secundo, illos Episcopis in nullo prorsus dogmate refragari. Quamvis enim Episcopi sensum Jansenii damnent, illi damnare renuant, tamen haec omnis dissensio nominis est, non rei. Arbitrantur Episcopi in Jansenio esse doctrinam quandam omnibus scholis Catholicis ignotam, a jansenio velipsomet teste recens inventam, Augustino manifeste repugnantem, toto orbe damnatam, a summo Pontifice percussam, quae denique proprium propositionum sensum contineat; & ideo illum sensum, quisquis est tandem, nullo enim ipsum loco indicant, merito proscripserunt. At illi qui in jansenio monstrosum illum sensum omnino non vident, & nihil aliud in ipso deprehendunt, nisi gratiae efficacis doctrinam omnibus scholis Catholicis notissimam, a jansenio Thomistarum consensione confirmatam, ab Augugustino, vel fatentibus adversariis, aperte traditam, ipsis Episcopis, ipsi summo Pontifici probatissimam, & a proprio propositionum sensu omnino alienam, utique illum sensum, quem unum in jansenio vident, damnare sua subscriptione non possunt.  
Consequens tertio est quicquid Iesuitae ad patiendam quandam juris controversiam in Ecclaesia machinentur, totam tamen disceptationem in facto consistere. Palam est enim, illos Theologos, qui Iansenii defensores dicuntur, non aliter ab Episcopis quam in interpretatione jansenii dissidere, quod qui facti quaestionem esse neget, nescio quid juris aut facti quaestionem appellet. Illa certe quaestio ad fidem pertinere non potest: fides enim Scriptura & Traditione nititur: at sic interpretandum esse jansenium an aliter, quomodo Scriptura aut Traditione probabitur?  
Postremo, quod initio proposueram, consequens est, nullos in Ecclesia haereticos esse. Nemo enim haereticus ob ejusmodi quaestionem quae Traditione probari nequit, & in nuperi Auctoris interpretatione sita est. Nec vero ulli sunt, quibus pertinacia in dogmate damnato defendendo jure objectari possit; nullum enim damnatum dogma a quoquam defenditur; aut si defenditur, sine pertinacia certe defenditur: nam quale sit illud, prorsus ignoratur. Nemo autem pertinax dici potest in illo dogmate tuendo quod ignorat.  
Quamobrem ut paucis omnia complectar, & adversariis os occludam, propositiones in proprio sensu a me damnari iterum professus, reliquas controversias sic expedio.  
Qui gratiae efficacis necessitatem ab Episcopis, aut a summo Pontifice Ianseniani sensus nomine damnatam dicere ausit, in illos mendacissime contumeliosus est, quem satis sit hoc argumento refellere: Si damnarunt Episcopi & summus Pontifex gratiam efficacem, iterum utique libentissime damnabunt. At (fidentissime hoc dicimus) ipsi nec ex summo Pontifice, nec ex Episcopis ullum auferre decretum possunt, quo gratiae efficacis doctrina a Thomistis omnibus defensa damnetur haereseos. Igitur ista doctrina prorsus ab omni censura libera est.  
Secundo, qui Ianseniani sensus defensores aliud his verbis quam efficacis gratiae doctrinam, qualis a Thomistis defenditur, intelligere dicat, aut delusus ipse est, aut alios deludere vult.  
Tertio, qui propterea Catholicos Theologos haereseos accuset, quod Catholici Antistitis verba benignius interpretentur, nescire testatur aut quid aequitas sit, aut quid haeresis.  
Ex omnibus autem manifestum esse arbitror, nisi tantos clamores tolleret iniquitas ut vix exauditi veritas possit, controversias illas, quae nunc tanta animorum contentione tanquam gravissimae, & ad summam Religionis pertinentes agitantur, ita leves, ita faciles esse, ut, nisi collationem utriusque partis semper Jesuitarum gratia praepediisset, vel semihora omnes turbaeconsopiri, omnes dissensiones sedari possent. De verbis enim aequivocis; non de re ipsa nunc disceptatur, cum a solida gratiae efficacis controversi ad potestatis proximae & sufficientis verba, ad actus primos & secundos disputatio abducatur; in quibus si varias vocum acceptiones sustuleris, lites pariter ac contentiones prorsus extinxetis. Id quominus adhuc fieret obstitit potentia Jesuitarum: fieri enim non potest quin continuo sua Ecclesiae tranquillitas reddatur, quod ne fiat omnibus modis agunt.   
FINIS.   

PAULI IRENAEI DISQVISITIO SECUNDA.  
De vero sensu Jansenii, & multis commentitiis sensibus illi affictis circa primam propositionem.  
NUllos in Ecclesia haereticos esse qui diffiteri pergat, magis id oprare malevole, quam revera sentire videatur. Restat temeritatis erratum, quo nonnulli Theologi aspergi possint; non leve illud quidem, at humanum tamen, nec dignum omnino quod tanta severitate coerceatur: nisi forte tam felici seculo vivimus, ut haec demum culpa judicii potius quam morum, cogitationis potius quam facti, castiganda supersit. Quam multis undique vitiis premimur, quae aut prudenti aut inerti indulgentia tolerantur! Quid ergo tantum committere potuit Jansenius, cui doctrinae ac probitatis laudem vel adversarii tribuunt, ut benignior de ipso sensus, nulla dignum venia scelus hoc seculo sit, quod non modo tunc plectendum, cum se profert & exerit; sed ex ipsis animi latebris, adhibitis subscriptionum tormentis eruendum videatur? Quid facient quibus non satis manifestum est Jansenium errasse, ut ipsum damnare tuta conscientia possint? Silere ipsis in votis erat, at loqui compellit subscriptionis exactor. Fidem suam palam profiteri non sufficit. Nam ad Jansenianum sensum tanquam ad scopulam semper urgentur. Quid igitur? Nempe quod restat; eas rationes afferent quibus Jansenium innocentem probent. Quod si quis gravius ferat, non ipsis imputet sed illis qui hanc necessitatem imponunt.  
Ex illorum numero vel postremus ego, postquam prima Disquisitione eum sensum qui Jansenio ab ipsius defensoribus tribuitur; Catholicum comprobavi; hac secunda plus praestabo, & sic omnino sentire Jansenium astruam; non ut ullis Episcoporum decretis refrager, sed ut temeritatis crimen aut purgem aut deponam. Si quis enim his quas proferam rationibus solide respondeat, quin ejus in partes concedam, nulla in me mora sit. Sin autem id nullus poterit, non video qui temerarius existimari possim, quod iis argumentis crediderim, quae reselli a nemine possint. Sensum Jansenii circa primam tantum propositionem hic exquiremus; de caeteris alias locuturi si opus sit; etsi vix necesse est, cum omnes ab adversariis ad primam revocentur.  

ARTICULUS I.  
Figuntur quaedam Regulae ad intelligendum Jansenii sensum necessariae.  
AUctoris sensus ex verbis eruitur; nam verborum ea vis est, ut animi cogitationes exprimant. At quia verba nonnunquam varios intellectus habent, hinc ex circumjectis saepe ad certam notionem alliganda sunt. Quod si quis Scriptor verborum suorum vim ipse exposuetit, tunc illo sensu semper intelligi in decursu operis debent; & quoties id verbum occurit, ipsa notio in ment substituenda. Viderunt hoc Geometrae, in veritate rimanda omnium sagacissimi. Hinc ad vitandos aequivocationis errores, verba in primis ipsa definiunt: constituta autem apud illos alicujus vocis notione, qui de sensu ejus adhuc dubitet, aut illam ex vulgi more, non ex ipsa definitione interpretatur, merito ab ominibus ridetur.  
Nusquam autem hujus instituti major necessitas extitit, quam in hac controversia de sensu Jansenii. Nam quinque propositionum prima, cujus unius voces apud Jansenium reperiuntur, tam vagos habet significatus, ut nisi illam ad certam notionem revocaveris, nihil certi de sensu ipsius possis constituete.  
Primo enim vox justis, aut de omnibus, aut de quibusdam, aut indefinite accipitur.  
Voces illae, conantibus & v l●ntibus, aut de conantibus per naturam, aut de conantibus pet gratiam. Rursus de conantibus per gratiam, aut sufficientem, aut efficacem, aut Molinianam: de conantibus per gratiam cui consentiunt, aut de conantibus per gratiam cui renituntur; id est, de conantibus fideliter aut infideliter.  
Praesentes vires intelliguntur aut actuales, aut habituales; naturales, aut supernaturales; comparatae ad vires hujus vitae, aut ad vires alterius vitae.  
Vox impossibilia, significat impossibilitatem absolutam, aut secundum quid; voluntariam, aut involuntariam: negat vel potentiam in actu primo, vel tantum potentiam in actu secundo; vel removet potestatem omnem, vel tantum completam, perfectam, sufficientem. Rursum potentia completa, proxima, etc. duos habet signicatus, ut notat Alvarez: apud Molinianos significat potentiam cui nihil deest; apud Thomistas etiam illam, cui deest adhuc aliquid necessarium, nempe gratia efficax.  
Similiter vox deest, a quibusdam accipitur pro eo quod deest fine peccato. Ita Nicolai, & quidam alii. Ab aliis simplicus pro eo quod deest quocunque modo.  
Gratia quae deesse dicitur, aut est habitualis, aut actualis: illa vero vel sufficiens, vel efficax: sufficiens, aut Moliniana, aut Thomistica, utraque vel agendi, vel orandi.  
Varias illas acceptiones si inter se permisceas, miraberis quantus discrepantium aliquantisper propositionum numerus exurgat, ut norunt omnes qui Artihmeticam callent.   

ARTICULUS II.  
Singularum vocum notio constituitur.  
CUm igitur non multiplicem, sed unicum sensum Jansenius habuerit, antequam de illo statuas, prius singula verba ad singulas notiones restringenda sunt: tunc demum liquido vera ejus sententia patebit, quod a multis praetermissum tam varios nobis sensus Jansenianos procudit.  

JUSTIS.  
Vocem justis, a Jansenio non de omnibus, sed de quibusdam tantum justis intelligi jam fere omnes consentiunt. Quod satis constat ex eo quod affert ex Augustino, paulo ante propositionis verba: Quarumdam cupiditatum tentationes ALIQUORUM hominum vires superare. Ergo justis idem est, ac qu●busdam justis.   

VOLENTIBUS ET CONANTIBUS.  
Primo non loquitur Jansenius de conatu naturali. Affert enim exemplum Petri ante lapsum, & Augustini ante conversionem, quorum infirmam voluntatem saepe exgratia fuisse agnoscit.  
II. Non loquitur de plena voluntate & efficaci. Nam voluntatem, de qua loquitur crebro, ex Augustino vocat parvam, infirmam, & invalidam.  
III. Certum est infirmae illi voluntati ex gratia profectae non consentiri ex Jansenio, sed potius resisti. Nam de conatu quem habuit Augustinus ante conversionem expresse ait: Nonne conabatur Augustinus, quando d ceb●t: Quibus sententiarum verberibus non flagellavi animum meum, ut sequeretur con ntem post teire, & tamen tanto conatui renitebatur? &c, Et in eo ipso loco unde deprompta propositio, renisu concupiscentiae fieri dicit, ut homo non plene velit, non integre velit, non tota voluntate velit.  
IV. Certum est, voluntatem illam imbecillem afferre vires quasdam. Non enim nullas esse, sed invalidas dicit Augustinus, & ex Augustino Jansenius.  
V. Certum est denique, voluntatem illam nunquam effectum habituraum, nisi adsit per gratiam efficacem plena & integra voluntas. Ideo saepe ait, cum illa homines non posse bene agere, id est nunquam bene acturos esse.  
jam vero quid est gratia imperfectam voluntatem producens, quae dat aliquas vires, aliquod posse, tale tamen ut effectu semper careat, nisi adsit efficax auxilium? Quid est, inquam, illa gratia, nisi ea quam sufficientem Thomistae recentiores vocant, non nomine designata, sed, quod multo clarius est, sua notione expressa?  
Hinc patet quam immerito Jansenius repudiatae penitus hoc loco sufficientis gratiae arguatur. Sed magis illud etiam constabit exposito vocis illius sufficiens sensu prout a Jansenio usurpatur: quo minus animadverso, multos in errorem inductos video.   

SUFFICIENS GRATIA ET POTESTAS, quid apud Jansenium.  
NIhil est quod hic divinationibus indulgeamus; omnem enim dobitationem praecidit Jansenius his verbis tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 1 Vocamus inquit, illam sufficientem gratiam seu sufficientem sufficiens adjutorium, praeter quod nihil aliud ex parte Dei per modum principii necessarium est, ut homo velit aut operetur; sic enim a multis recentioribus & vulgo fere acc●pi solet. Ecce apertissime testatur solam se Molinianam intelligere.  
Nunc vide de Thomistica quid sentiat: Quod si vero sic accipiatur ut sufficiens d●catur, sicut a qui. busdam d●citur, quod satis est ut homo dicatur posse operari, quamvis aliud necessarium sit ut de facto operetur; de hujusmodi sufficienti gratia non est h●c nostra controversia. Talem enim sufficientem fortasse non difficulter Augustinus admitteret, quamvis eam esse veram Christi gratiam, de qua questio est, pernegaret. Quod idem disertis verbis de gratia sufficiente habet Alvarez disp. 92. n. 2.  
Quoties igitur negat Jansenius gratiam imperfectae voluntatis esse sufficientem; idem est ac si diceret non esse Moliniano modo sufficientem; non esse ita sufficientem ut nihil aliud requiratur. At quin sufficiens sit Thomistico sensu, nec negavit unquam, nec negare potuit.  
Ex his omnibus liquet, haec verba, conantibus & volentibus, sic interpretanda esse, conantibus & volentibus per gratiam Thomistico sensu sufficientem, & ei resistentibus & ideo infideliter conantibus.   

IMPOSSIBILIA.  
Non loquitur Jansenius de impossibilitate absoluta. Omnibus enim locis fatetur mandatum quodlibet per gratiam efficacem impleri posse. Nec de impossibilitate involuntaria: nam ex Augustino saepe ab illo citato omnes homines mandata servarent si vellent. Non negat omnem potentiam: nec habitualem, quia loquitur de justis, quos per gratiam habitualem asserit posse, tom. 3 lib. cap. 15. nec actualem, quia loquitur de conantibus qui per gratiam excitantem habent vires invalidas.  
Quam ergo potestatem negat? Audiamus ipsum optimum sui interprerem: Ad hanc, inquit, sanitatem voluntatis assequindam, gratiam invocamus, hoc ipso clarissime profitentes deesse nobis sufficientem ad illa praecepta facienda potestatem. Et adhuc clarius paulo superius de justis volentibus & conantibus loquens: Nondum inquit, possunt tantum velle, quantum sufficit ad implenda mandata. Non negat igitur potestatem simpliciter, sed negat sufficientem potestatem. Quid est autem sufficiens potestas Jansenio? Meminerimus fixae supra notionis: ea scilicet cui nihil deest ex parte Dei. Quamobrem cum hoc loco dicit, mandata esse impossibilia sufficienter, idem est ac si dicat; Non sunt possibila ea potestate cui nihil desit. Itemque cum negat potestatem illam esse completam, non Thomistico sensu negat: de hoc enim ne cogitavit quidem: sed Moliniano tantum negat; quia deest ipsi gratia efficax. Quamobrem ut notiones verborum istorum magis etiam infigantur, iterum hic repeto, illa verba, Potestas sufficiens, completa, proxima: Potestas cui nihil deest ex parte Dei: Potestas complectens omnia necessaria ad agendum, idem omnino apud Jansenium significare, talisque potestatis defectum aliquando exprimi vel simplici voce, non posse, vel durius etiam per vocem, impossibile: quae quidem significatio, etsi dura & minus propria, non tamen auctoritate Patrum caret, in primisque Augustini & Prosperi.   

SECUNDUM PRAESENTES VIRES.  
Eas vires intelligit Jansenius quas justi habent in eo statu quo invalide & infideliter & conantur & volunt. Non probo, quia non negatur.   

DEEST.  
Nil notius in doctrina Jansenii, quam homini gratiam sine ipsius peccato subtrahi non posse; nec hic immoror in re non dubia.   

GRATIA.  
Non sufficiens utique, quia illam supposuit his verbis, conantibus & volentibus, sed ea quam invocari dicit, ut plene integreque velle possimus, id est, efficax, eaque non orandi, loquitur enim de orantibus, & gratiam invocantibus, non tamen tam fideliter & ferventer quam debent; sed agendi, & implendi actu praecepti.    

ARTICULUS III.  
Verus Jansenii sensus.  
IGitur ad constituendum certo Jansenii sensum, nihil aliud opus est, quam stabilitas verborum, quibus constat propositio, notiones pro ipsis verbis substituere. Sic enim nullus errori locus esse, vel si velis, potest. Exiis autem collectis hic sensus exurgit: Aliqua Dei Praecepta quibusdam hominibus Justis Conantibus & volentibus per gratiam excitantem Thomistico sensu sufficientem, sed et renit●ntibus & Ideo infideliter Volentibus, non sunt possibilia ex potestate cui nihil desit: deest quoque illis gratia efficax agendi, qua possibilia fiant ea potestate quae comp●ectitur omnia ad agendum necessaria. Ineptam hanc verborum congeriem vocat Annatus, quia praecisa ambiguitate nullum hic fraudi locum reperit. Ast ego aptissimam puto ad cavillationes ipsius elidendas. Aequivocis enim & nominum quaestionibus jamdiu Jesuitae Christianum orbem judificantur: cujus mali una cautio ac provisio, voces ipsas definire, ne de vocibus frustra litigetur. Quamobrem si solidam sibi victoriam quaerunt, hunc ipsum sensum his verbis expressum damnari diserte a summo Pontifice curent. Huc gratiam, huc artes suas conferant: huc machinas suas impendat numerosa Societas. Sin autem id se impetrare posse diffidit, cur de Janseniano sensu tot turbas excitat, quem non nisi involutum audet lacessere, evolutum attingere reformidat?   

ARTICULUS IV.  
Sensum illum Jansenii non esse proprium sensum propositionis in sespectatae.  
HIc merito quaeri potest, utrum sensus ille quem Catholicum esse constat, quemque jansenianum etiam ostendimus, sit verus & proprius primae propositionis in se spectatae sensus? Respondeo non esse proprium, & facile probo. Nam primo vox justis, cum sit indefinita, potius universaliter sumi debet, quam particulariter. Ut enim bene notat Franciscus Amicus jesuita, t. 8. disp. 3. n. 67. Verba indefinita in mat ria doctrinali accip●untur universal ter, sicut istam propositionem, Planetae non nisi a Sole lucent, nemo aliter interpretatur, nisi omnes Planetas a Sole luccre.  
Secundo, vox conantibus & volentibus, significat potius plenam voluntatem, quam velleitatem quandam, quae non est simpliciter voluntas, ut ait S. Thomas 1 part. quaest 19 art. 5. deinde significat potius voluntatem sine renisu, quam voluntatem cui validior voluntas resistit. Quod enim ita volumus, magis nolle dicimur quam velle.  
Tertio, vox impossibile, magis significat impossibilitatem absolutam, quam secundum quid. Nam, ut ait S. Thomas 1. part. quest. 62: art. 2 ad 2. Imp ssibile proprie significat id ad quod nullo modo pervenire possumus, ne quidem cum alterius auxilio. Magis etiam proprie significat impotentiam involuntariam, quam voluntariam. Quod enim fit cum volumus, cum eo ipso sit in potestate nostra, proprie impossibile dici non debet. Et, cum loquatur propositio de justis volentibus qui non posse dicuntur, omnino significare videtur impotentiam non voluntariam.  
Quarto, gratia cum sit nomen generis, magis proprie significat quamcumque gratiam, quam gratiam efficacem agendi.  
Fatendum est igitur, propositionem in se spectatam, & in proprio ac rigoroso sensu, ut loquuntur Romani Consultores, non unam, sed multas haereses complecti. At jansenii locum, ex quo illus propositionis verba revulsa sunt, minime in isto proprio & rigoroso sensu intelligi jam demonstravimus; sed in alio sensu improprio quidem, tralatitio, & catachrestico, si verha seorsim spectes; & tamen juxta notiones ab ipso constitutas legitimo & maxime Catholico. Non ergo potest ille haereseos accusari; & multo minus illi, qui ejus sensum tuentur: nam illi his vocibus nec usi sunt unquam nec utentur.   

ARTICULUS V.  
Falsi sensus Jansenio afficti.  
SCrupulosior ac minutior haec singularum propositionis vocum interpretatio videri possit, nisi ex ea facilis & expedita pateret via ad fictitios illos sensus explodendos, quibus Iansenii doctrinam ipsius adversarii passim adulterarunt. Manifestum enim omnibus erit, illorum errorem inde proficisci, quod aliquas propositionis voces contra mentem ipsius interpretati sunt; quod in singulis ostendere non erit inutile.  

Primus sensus falso Jansenio attributus, nempe Calvinianus.  
Nil frequentius in iis jesuitarum scriptis quae Constitutionem antecesserunt, quam ut Iansenius Calviniani erroris circa praeceptorum impossibilitatem arguatur. Id habent praecipue Clatomontanae Theses ann. 1644. in quibus prima propositio ex iis Lutheri & Calvini locis expressa dicebatur, in quibus illi haeretici aperte docent, impossibilia semper este praecepta omnibus justis, utcunque spiritu Dei adjuventur. At post Constitutionem, cum id viderent vehementer officere causae suae, velificatione mutata, jam negant vulgarem Calvini ertorem de praeceptorum impossibilirate omnibus generatim justis unquam Iansenio attributum, sed aliam quandam fictitiam & inauditam Calvini sententiam, de impossibilitate praecepti quibusdam justis tantum, ex defectu gratiae efficacis. Sic nuper disputare coepit Annatus, sed futiliter, ne quid gravius dicam. Quem enim alium intelligere potuerunt Romani Consultores ac summus Pontifex, nisi verum & notum Calvini errorem, qui certe in proprio primae propositionis sensu cum multis aliis continetu●? An vero suspicari debuerunt aut potuerunt nescio quam Calvini haeresim nondum natam, at ex jesuitarum cerebro propediem erupturam? Necessario tamen a jesuitis haec fabula instituta est, ut hoc suae causae grande vitium quodammodo sarcirent. Sed ut saepe in magno numero quidam crassiores reperiuntur, qui scenae suae male serviunt; ita nuper contigit, ut quidam jesuita Aurelianensis nomine Crasset, Societatis suae artes aut oblitus, aut non edoctus, rursus adversariis suis, quos Iansenistas vocat, crudum Calvini dogma objectaret. In publica enim concione dixit, Ex illorum sententia consectarium esse, omnes confessiones esse invalidas, quod actum contritionis impossibilem esse dicerent. Et ne tantae calumniae memoria intercideret, in famoso quodam libello adversus Aurelianensem Episcopum, qui ipsum a sacris concionibus interdixerat, scripto illam ipsam animose propugnavit. Verum hunc ad Societatem suam calliditatis magistram remitrere sat erit, ut rudem illam dediscat audaciam. Interim ex eo constabit, Calvinianum sensum, nempe omnibus justis mandata Dei esse impossibilia, jansenio a jesuitis attributum esse, sed falso.   

II. SENSUS FALSUS.  
Ex illa voce, conantibus & volentibus, male accepta.  
Voces illas dupliciter accipi posse fatetur Carpinetus Procurator generalis Capucinorum, Consultor in quinque propositionum causa delectus. Aut enim intelsiguntur, inquit, de justis infideliter conantibus, quo sensu ait, Catholica est propositio: aut de justis fideliter conantibus, & hoc sensu est haeretica. Et quia ille sensum Jansenii damnare voluit, ut in sequentibus votis indicat, utique hunc sensum Jansenio tribuit: Justis volentibus & conantibus fideliter, mandata Dei sunt impossibilia. At cum supra demonstraverimus per illos justos volentes & conantes eos intelligi a Jansenio, qui a gratiae suavitate dissentiunt, qui renituntur bonae voluntati a gratia immissaes; patet etiam non eos intelligi qui conantur fideliter, nisi forte dissentire a gratia, & ejus instinctus repudiare, sit fideliter conari aut velle. Perspicum est igitur, sensum illum, quem damnavit iste Consultor, merito quidem potuisse damnari; sed a Jansenii ment prorsus alienum esse.   

III. SENSUS FALSUS.  
qui est Annatinus, Ex iisdem vocibus, & verbo impossibilia, perperam acceptis.  
Pater Annatus Molinianorum facile primipilus, antequam illam de Jansenii sensu non exprimendo, sed generatim damnando, technam excogitasset, multis illum locis, prout sibi visum, expressit; ubique fraudulenter, & ex suo ac Societatis suae genio, sed praecipue in Cavillis cap. 8. pag. 56. Homines justi, inquit, quotiescunque divina praecepta transgrediuntur, ea transgrediuntur ex impossibilitate servandi, quae sequitur ex defectu gratiae ad constituendam servandi potentiam necessariae: esto non desit servandi voluntas & conatus: hic sensus est germanus Jansenii, & Jansenianorum, idemque haereticus. Sic ille.  
At ex ipso libenter quaesierim, quid tantopere laborat, ut Iansenii sensus adversariorum suorum subscriptione damnetur. Faciliorem longe viam ipsi demonstrabo. Tollat Iansenii nomen, jam ille jansenianus, ut ipsi videtur, sensus omnium subscriptione damnabitur. Scatet enim aequivocis, &, prout sonant termini, apertas haereses continet.  
Primo, falsum est homines transgredi praecepta ex defectu gratiae. Nam defectus gratiae efficacis non est causa peccati, sed mala voluntas.  
Secundo, impossibilitas illa non peccandi, de qua loquitur Annatus, cum voluntate servandi praecepti conjuncta manifeste significat, impossibilitatem non a voluntate profectam.  
Tertio, impossibilitas illa quam adstruit, non solum removet potentiam Molinianam, cui nihil necessarium deest, sed etiam Thomisticam. Talem enim esse vult, ut ei omnes Thomistae adversentur.  
Quarto, verba illa, voluntas, & conatus, cum minime restricta sint, ex se significant plenam & absolutam voluntatem, non quandam velleitatem; quo nomine etiam damnanda est Annatina propositio. Ergo ille sensum Iansenii non expressit, sed corrupit; & in his vocibus, conantibus, & volentibus, itemque in verbo impossibilia, fucum fecit.   

IV SENSUS.  
Ex eadem voce male intellecta.  
Quartum hunc sensum, quamvis cum Annatino quadantenus conveniat, visum est sejungere; quia planius multo & distinctius, animoque longe candidiore, a quibusdam vitis doctis & piis, verae & Christianae gratiae amatoribus propositus est. Hi cum Iansenianorum nomen effugere, & nihilominus Catholicam & Augustinianam gratiae efficacis doctrinam retinere vellent, utrumque assequi se posse sperarunt, si ita Iansenii mentem interpretarentur, quasi ille justos gratia efficaci destitutos, omni prorsus potentia spoliaverit, etiam ea quam Thomistae vocana in actu primo; ita ut etiam si adsint caetera adjutoria, nihilo magis ipsi bonum velle possint, quam caecus videre, claudus currere, beatus peccare. Sic illi Iansenii sensum expresserunt, & quidem ipsius verbis: fateor enim comparationes illas esse depromptas ex tom. 3. lib. 2. cap. 1. & 2. Simpliciter dicunt a se verba Iansenii accipi, & ideo nullam ipsi injuriam inferri. In quo primum videre oportuerat, an tali simplicitate sua ipsorum verba expendi vellent. Quod profecto recusarent. Nullus est enim fere qui non alicujus haereseos argui possit, si verba pressius urgere & ad vivum resecare liceat. Omnino ut in caeteris rebus humanis, ita sermonibus nostris, nisi aequitas interveniat; ex summo jure summa fit injuria.  
Id hoc loco factum ab illis esse contendo. Quod remoto contentionis studio paucis hic ostendam. Sine gratia efficaci non magis potest justus bene agere, quam caecus videre; agnosco haec Iansenii verba. Ergo, inquiunt, non modo negat sine gratia efficaci quidquam bene fieri, sed omnino destruit eam potentiam in actu primo, quam Thomistae defendunt. Nego hanc esse Iansenii sententiam, aut illam ex his verbis bene elici. Et cur negem affero. In omni comparatione non omnia similia sunt. Sufficit ut illa inter se conveniant, quae inter se comparantur. jam vero caecus cum justo gratia efficaci destituto dupliciter potest comparari. Primo, si spectentur potentiae in actu primo: sic nulla inter utrosque similitudo, sed potius magna dissimilitudo. Caecus enim caret interna videndi virtute: justus pollet interiori facultate bene agendi, etiam actuali, si vult & conatur. At si spectentur istae potentiae in actu secundo, tunc in eo plane conveniunt, quod sicut caecus videre actu & effective non potest; ita justus bene agere sine efficaci gratia actu & effective non potest. Plena est communis vita talibus locutionibus. Quis enim erroris arguat eum, qui sanis oculis praeditum non magis in tenebris posse videre, quam caecum dictitet? Igitur si Iansenius justum cum caeco comparavit, spectando potentiam in actu primo, inepte prorsus locutus est, &, si velis, haeretice. Sin autem spectavit potentiam in actu secundo, recte, Catholice, Thomistice locutus est. Verum est enim tam contingere non posse, ut justus sine efficaci gratia bene agat; quam ut caecus videat. Primo sensu, absurdo illo scilicet & inepto, jansenium interpretantur viri cruditi. Scio, & dolet. Sed ab ipsis libenter quaererem, quid eos compulit tam prave de illius judicio sentire. Simpliciter aiunt se ejus verba interpretari. Verum jubet nos Apostolus in bono simplices esse; at in malo, id est, cum de aliquo incommodius sentiendum est, idem nobis prudentiam imperat. Quid ergo illos moverit, nescio: cur ab iis dissentiam, illa me movent.  
Primum, ridiculum mihi videntur Iansenio consilium tribuere, ut grande volumen composuerit ad evertendam potentiam quandam in actu primo, quae nunquam in actum prodeat. Quid enim illi obest talis potentia? An illa praedestinationis divinae mysterium immutat? An efficacis gratiae necessitatem tollit? Omnino magna quaedam & gravis quaestio est, utrum sit necessaria gratia efficax ad bene agendum. At illa semel stabilita, de gradibus illius bene agendi potentiae, quae in justis, etiam efficaci gratia desertis, maner, quaeque nullum unquam sola producit actum, operose disputare, otiosorum hominum esse videtur. Quamobrem ne quis mihi de illa unquam negotium sa●essat, profiteor illam me locare in summo gradu, dummodo nunquam ex illo gradu in actum ullum prodeat sine efficaci Dei auxilio.  
II. Jansenius aperte pergratiam habitualem dari posse profitetur, tom. 3. lib. 3. c. 15. Idemque conartes & volentes vires invalidas habere dicit; ideo autem invalidas habere dicit, quia gratia efficaci egent ad actu operandum.  
III. Diserte jansenius tom 1. lib. 5. cap. 11. asserit gratiam efficacem esse adjutorium actus secundi. Hoc enim discrimen constituit inter gratiam possibilitatis (quae comprehendit gratiam sufficientem Thomisticam quae dat posse,) & gratiam efficacem quam post Augustinum vocat adjutorium voluntatis & actionis; Quod adjutorium possibilitatis sit adjutorium actus primi; adjutorium voluntatis & actionis sit adjutorium ACTUS SECUNDI. Illud enim facit ut potentia in actu primo potens fiat, & ad volendum agendumque habilis & praeparata: hoc vero ut in actu secundo velit atque agat. Supponit ergo manifeste Jansenius actum primum ante gratiam efficacem.  
IV. Quo maxime istius interpretationis iniquitas ostenditu●, cum ille tom. 3. lib. 2. cap. 3. discrimen inter suam Thomistarumque sentertiam explicat, illud in eo praecise situm docet, quod illi tam infirmum hominem esse fingant ante lapsum, quam ipse cum Augustino asserit esse post lapsum. Quare ut Thomistae homini stanti potentiam in actu primo largiuntur; sic illam Jansenius homini lapso libenter concedet; dummodo maneat illud, gratiam efficacem ad bene agendum nobis in hoc statu omnino necessariam esse.  
Haec de quarto illo sensu fusius disputavi, quod is unus Jansenio cum aliquo colore, licet, ut videre est, dilatiore a bonis viris imputetur: Caeteri sua sponte ex positis fundamentis dissiliunt, in primisque ille quem quinto loco afferemus.   

V SENSUS.  
Ex vocula, deest, male intellecta.  
Pater Palavicinus jesuita, e Romanis Consultoribus unus, sic sensum Iansenii interpretatus est, ut patet ex illius suffragio recens edito, quasi justis Iansenius deesse voluerit gratiam sine ullo peccato, ne originali quidem. Itaque videtur sic accepisse voculam, deest, quomodo illam accipit joannes Nicolai, qui eodem modo Iansenii sensum interpretatur in suffragio censorio, pag. 9 Cum gratia, inquit, dicitur deesse, non omnimoda tantum & absoluta defectio, sed spontanea ex parte Dei abdicatio indicatur, qua juvare plane nolit conantem licet ac volentem, qui manifestus Jansenii sensus est, expressus ex Jansenio per Arnaldum; unde ille novam istam voculae deest notionem hauserit, cum volet edisseret. Caeterum ipsum in jansenii sensu plane decipi manifestum est. Ex illo enim homini stanti gratia nunquam defuit: lapsis deesse non potest sine causa, quae sit in ipsis, non in Deo, ut omnibus notum est.   

VI SENSUS.  
Ex vocula, gratia, male intellecta.  
Multi Romani Consultores, in quibus est Thomas d'Elbene, & Raphael Aversa, illud Iansenio crimini dederunt, quod a justis volentibus & conantibus non modo gratiam efficacem removerit, sed etiam sufficientem Thomistico sensu. Quod cum falsum esse supra demonstraverimus, & istos patet in sensu Iansenii fuisse deceptos, cum generice gratiae nomen accipiant, quod specifice Iansenius accepit. Idem cum istis sensisse videtur Nicolaus Cornet, qui cum dixisset efficacis gratiae doctrinam optimam esse, nihilominus jansenium reprehendebat, quod non illam sufficientis gratiae condimento temperabat.   

VII SENSUS.  
Ex eadem vocula male accepta.  
Nec ab illorum errore abludit Professor Sorbonae Chamillardus, qui negatam hoc loco vult a jansenio non modo gratiam agendi, sed etiam orandi. Sustineo, inquit in secunda Epistola pag. 5. hunc esse Iansenii sensum: justis volentibus & conantibus mandata esse impossibilia, quia nec adsit gratia agendi, nec gratia orandi & impetrandi divini auxilii. At in utroque aperte fallitur; adeo enim hoc loco Iansenius non ait gratiam orandi deesse, ut illam gratiam quam deesse dicit, ideo deesse probet, quia oramus. Nemo aurem tam absurdus fingi potest, ut gratiam orandi probet deesse quia oramus, id est, quia gratiam orandi habemus. Et certe conatus ille & voluntas est gratia quaedam orationis: orare enim ex Augustino est desiderare; imo est agendi gratia, non efficax quidem, at Thomistico sensu sufficiens. Verum hic ipsius error alibi fusius exagitatus est.   

CONCLUSIO.  
Hic jam omnes non modo ab omni praejudicio liberos, sed non penitus privatis studiis occaecatos compello & obtestor, ut serio tandem secum considerent quam perniciosum exemplum in Ecclesiam inducatur, & quam intolerando jugo Catholicorum Theologorum fides opprimatur, conscientia vexetur, hoc novo extorquendarum subscriptionum consilio. Videant, quaeso, quid aequitatis habeat hoc inceptum. Quid enim? Postulatur a me ut quinque propositiones damnem. Facio, ac libenter. Non satis est, aiunt; illas in proprio sensu damnes oportet. Etiam hic non invitus obtempero. Urgeor adhuc: Addas, inquiunt, necesse est, proprium illum sensum esse etiam jansenianum. Eia quid hoc ad fidem? Quid ad haeresim? Sed tamen obsequi studeo, si possim. jansenianum sensum damnari placet? At quem potissimum? Nam multos video circumferri. Carpineticumne, an Annatinum? Corneticum, an Palavicinicum? Chamillardicum, an Crasseticum? Unum si eligam, caeteris injuriam infero. Quem voles, inquiunt, modo aliquem. Itane igitur ut Iansenius erret meo arbitratu? Sed quid mihi affertur, ut meipsum in hoc damnando non erraturum credam, cum caeteri omnes mihi adversentur?  
Age igitur, prolixius agamus, & plus quam postulatur ultro praestemus. jansenium damno prout explicatur a Palavicino, Annato, Corneto, Carpineto, Crasseto, & caeteris hujusmodi. Ita non jam unum, ut exigitur, sed septem & plures etiam sensus Jansenianos rejicio. Quid est ergo quod a me amplius peti possit? Ut istos existimem & profitear de Iansenii sensu bene sensisse. Omnesne? Qui possunt, cum uni scriptori multiplicem sensum imponant, qui non nisi unum habuit? An singulos? Si quem eligam ex septem, sex ex illis infensos habebo. Deinde si singulos separatim possum rejicere, cut non universos?  
An igitur eo res denique redibit, ut jansenium in genere errasse fatendum sit, abstrahendo a quocunque sensu? At prorsus ignorare me fateor, quid sit error in abstracto, & in genere, cujus species assignari non possit. Neque enim genus fine ulla specie cohaerere, in Logicae elementis didicisse commemini. Assignetur ergo Iansenianus ille sensus: alioquin quomodo a quoquam damnari possit non video.  
Attendant igitur quorum id interest, in quam horrendam perturbationem & caliginem praecipitetur Ecclesia, dum certorum hominum studiis indulgetur. Quod totum eorum arte & consiliis effectum est, qui semper omni ratione providerunt, ne tota haec causa, auditis utrinque partibus, praecisis nominum quaestionibus, constitutis dissensionis capitibus, in legitimo judicio disceptetur. Quod donec impetretur, infinitis semper contentionibus, quarum pleraeque de nomine sunt, jactabitur Ecclesia, & ipsius membra caeca concertatione inter se collidentur. Id gaudent, qui in hac confusione potentiam suam & securitatem quaerunt. Id dolent quibus veritas quae periclitatur, unitas quae scinditur, charitas quae violatur, cordi & solicitudini est.    
FINIS.   

PAULI IRENAEI DIS QVISITIO TERTIA.;  
SIVE ECCLESIAE TURBAE, Fr. ANNATO Jesuita judice compositae.  

I.  
Imprudentiae arguitur Annatus.  
DUram, mi Pater, cepi provinciam, qui te monere aggrediat in tanto tuo ac Societatis tuae plausu. Nihil enim monentibus inimicus, quam cupiditas felix, & opinione victoriae elatus animus. Sed tamen hac incommoda affectione tua non tardatus, peragam munus meum. Qui sibi uni peccat, dimitti potest incastigatus. Tuae culpae, mi Annate, latius manant, eae praesertim quas in hac postrema scriptiuncula admisisti. Patere igitur in viam te molliter reduci vel invitum, ut quos tecum in errorem abripis, vel tecum, vel sine te ad saniora judicia revocentur. In hac controversia tu mihi summus eris testis, tu praecipuus judex. Ita si te teste, te judice, causa cecideris, de nullo habebis nisi de te queri. Quin etiam hoc tibi tribuendum duxi, ut errata tua Latine potius quam Gallice retegerem, quod major tibi hujus linguae facultas sit ad responsandum. Sic enim habeto, me quidem nihil magis optare, quam ut meis monitis perniciosissimum turbandae Ecclesiae consilium deponas: hoc dempto, nihil malle, quam ut saltem ad respondendum te accingas. Nam id te facere non posse certo scio, quin causae tuae iniquitatem omnium oculis subjicias. Atque adeo non ut te pungam, sed ut vehementius extimulem, liberius indicabo quid sit in quo te incusem.  
Imprudentius aio a te factum esse, mi Annate, quod huic tanto Molinistarum triumpho despicatissimam quandam schedulam antevertisti, tam apertis fallaciis scatentem, ut victoriam tuam plus labefafactet, quam ulla cujusquam impugnatio. Haec palam demonstrari non erit inutile, ut Societas tua alium sibi provideat defensorem, aut tu certe aliam defensionem.   

II.  
Annatus causam suam prodit potius quam defendit.  
MAle collineat qui in adversam scopo partem jaculatur. Male partes Oratoris implet, qui quod astruere nititur destruit. De te fabula narratur, mi Annate: nihil enim minus efficis, quam quod effectum vis. Nempe hoc tibi propositum est in illa scriptiuncula tua, ut eos quos Iansenistas vocas, haereticos doceas. At ipsos nemo clarius quam tu Catholicos probavit. Miraberis quae dicam. Non jam ad Episcopos, non ad summum Pontificem provocamus, quando ne ad illos aspirent voces nostrae, Jesuitarum gratia praepedit. Te, te appellamus, mi Annate: tuo judicio stabimus, &, quae nobis causae nostrae fiducia est, tuo judicio vincemus. Age igitur, mi Pater, supremum te judicem finge, nos humiles & demissi sic fidem tibi nostram purgamus.   

III.  
Augustinianorum apud Annatum purgatio.  
CAlumniis impetimur a Societate tua, Pater Annate. Ridiculi nobis errotes imponuntur, de quibus cogitavimus nunquam. Sed ad eos amovendos sufficit sententiam nostram hoc unico argumento vindicare. Gratiae efficacis ad omnes pietatis actus necessariae dogma summus Pontifex Catholicum agnoscit, omnes per orbem Episcopi, omnes Universitates, imo tu ipse. Atqui hoc unum dogma circa quinque propositiones tuemur, & nullum aliud. Igitur & circa propositiones, summi Pontificis, Episcoporum, Universitatum, tuo denique judicio Catholice sentimus. Nec premere ullum potest non damnatus expresse Jansenius. Aut enim ille nihil aliud habet circa istas propositiones praeter hoc dogma, & sic caret errore: aut aliquid aliud, & sic defensoribus caret. Utrum autem habeat, necne, ita manifesta quaestio facti est, ut eam ad fidem pertinere ne fingere quidem possis. Brevissime dicam. Quem tu sensum Jansenii esse putas, nos damnamus: quem nos sensum Jansenii esse putamus, ne tu quidem damnare ausis. Habes orationis nostrae summam. Nos judicium tuum expectamus. Illud vero his verbis gravibus sane ac luculentis exponis.   

IV.  
Annati responsio.  
GRatia efficax (inquis in postremo tuo libello p. 21. & 22.) cuplici modo defendi potest, quorum ille haereticus est, haereticis principiis nixus; alter orthodoxus, sancitis auctoritate Conciliorum principiis suffultus. Primum sequitur Calvinus, & ideo haereticus est. Catholici Doctores, Thomistae, Scotistae, Sorbonistae, Iesuitae de secundo consentiunt, & propterea, variis licet concertationibus distracti, tamen in eadem & indivulsa Ecclesiae communione permanent. Ergo ut explores, an jansenius defendendae gratiae efficacis professione sit immunis, illud indagandum, quo pacto ipsam defendat, tanquam Calvinus, antanquam Catholici Doctores.  
Hactenus, mi Pater, bellissime principia posuisti. Itaque nos hic tibi nihil omnino refragantes habebis. Perge igitur.   

V.  
Primum judicium Annatinum.  
CAlvinus ita gratiam efficacem defendit, ut ab illa nullam aliam nobis relinqui libertatem putet, nisi eam quae dicitur a coactione; caeterum ab ista gratia agendi necessitatem imponi, quae potestatem auferat resistendi quamdiu gratia perseverat.   

VI  
Subscriptio.  
HAec paulisper, quaesumus, subsiste, mi Annate, & nobis expedi quo pacto quis hunc a se Calvini errorem possit amoliri, nimirum eo simpliciter, aperte, & sincere damnando. Bene habet. Igitur jam te judice, Calviniano errore liberati sumus: hunc enim simpliciter, ingenue, & aperte damnamus, rejicimus, execramur. Quid ultra postulas? Ut non modo de gratia efficaci non Calviniane sentiamus, sed etiam ut Catholice? Prescribe ergo quid sit Catholice gratiam efficacem defendere.   

VII.  
Secundum judicium Annatinum.  
CAtholici Doctores inter se consentiunt, gratiam per se efficacem ita regere voluntatem, ut vim & potestatem resistendi ei non adimat, ita ut haec duo inter se componantur, gratia in voluntate, & in eadem voluntate sub gratia constituta sufficiens non consentiendi potestas: nec dubitant quin hic verus sit Concilii Tridentini sensus in istis verbis, potest dissentire si velit.   

VIII.  
Subscriptio.  
ITerum quaerimus quo pacto quis fidem facere possit, hanc sibi doctrinam probari? An aliter quam ingenua & simplici subscriptione? Tollantur ergo vanae concertationes; subscribimus enim & sincere profitemur, remanere cum ipsa gratia efficaci dissentiendi potestatem. Verum ex omnium Thomistarum doctrina adjungimus, seu potius explicamus quae tu involvis, eam vim esse gratiae praedeterminantis ut physice semper & infallibiliter efficiat, non ut voluntas dissentire non possit, sed ut nolit. Relinquit ergo dissentiendi potestatem, aufert dissentiendi voluntatem: hoc est, cum ipsa gratia pacifice consistit dissentiendi potestas, consistere non potest dissentiendi voluntas. Nam, ut ait Alvares disp. 72. num. 4. Quando motio Dei est efficax, liberum arbitrium infallibiliter consentiet. Etenim hoc operatur gratia in libero arbitrio, quod cum possit dissentire, non dissentiat; cujus ratio est quam assignat S. Thomas 1. 2. qu. 112. art. 3. Nam intentio Dei deficere non potest. Unde si ex intentione Dei moventis est, quod homo, cujus cor movet, consentiat & consequatur gratiam, infallibiliter eam consequetur, & necessario, necessitate infallibilitatis, non autem ex necessitate absoluta. En doctrinae nostrae circa gratiam efficacem sinceram expositionem!  
Jam si quaeras quo pacto Concilii Tridentini locum accipiamus, non alium interpretem adhibebimus, quam illum Societatis vestrae coryphaeum, Dionysium Petavium. Audi, si placet, illum loquentem tom. 1. l. 9 p. 602. & nos Sodali tuo succinentes amplectere. Illud quod per Christi merita tribuitur donum, non solum dat posse si velint, sed etiam velle quod possunt; & est tale, ut eo dato non nisi perseverantes sint, id est, ut certo, & quod in scholis dicitur, infallibiliter perseverent, tametsi libere gratiae illi donoque consentiant, non necessario; sed ita ut dissentire possint si velint, quod Tridentina sciscit Synodus, quamvis ut non dissentire velint, eodem illo perseverantiae dono perficitur. Ergo etiam hic tibi plane satisfaciamus necesse est. Tuae enim doctrinae sine exceptione subscribimus. Superest 3. caput, quod sic expressisti.   

IX.  
Tertium judicium Annatinum.  
IN hoc quoque capite Catholici Doctores consentiunt, gratiam sub efficacis formalitate non esse ita ad bona opera necessariam, ut non possit sine hac esse sufficiens, omnemque largiri potestatem, quae necessaria est ad hoc ut quod jubet Deus, nobis possibile sit, quamvis illud reipsa non praestemus. Ex quo fit ut vitio nostro haec gratia effectu careat.   

X.  
Explicatio & subscriptio.  
ETsi, mi Annate, hic doctrinam tuam consulto obscurasse videri possis, ut nos ab ea amplectenda deterreres; quia tamen verba tua significas eo sensu accipienda qui Thomistarum doctrinam nihil laedat, nec me utique laedere possunt, nec ullum Augustini discipulum. Nam illi circa quinque propositiones cum vulgaribus Thomistis plane consentiunt. Nihil est ergo quominus eodem sensu quo illi tuum illud tertium caput approbem: imo nihil necesse est id a me jam fieri, cum in prima Disquisitione jam fecerim, aperteque dixetim, duplex esse gratiae genus, aliud efficax, aliud inefficax: hoc idem prorsus esse atque illud quod Thomistae auxilium sufficiens vocant, eoque mandata fieri vere possibilia, etiam cum illa reipsa non praestamus, adeoque hanc gratiam suo nonnunquam effectu carere. Haec omnia omnes Augustini discipuli toties iterarunt, ut mirum sit vos adhuc adversus eorum voces obsurdescere.   

XI.  
Thomistarum, quos orthodoxos agnoscit Annatus, de gratia efficaci pronunciata.  
CAeterum, mi Annate, quemadmodum in verbis tuis involutam Thomistarum sententiam probavi, sic eam paulo enucleatius hic a me proferri, ne fraudi detur locus, quaeso boni consulas. Haec vero ad ista dogmata, quae cum illis adversus Sodalitium tuum tuemur, fere redigitur. 1. Gratiam efficacem ad omnia pietatis opera, & ad ipsam orationem necessariam esse. Nam, ut rectissime Alvares disp. 55. num. 13. Praeter vocationem sufficientem, quae tribuit voluntati posse consentire, requiritur etiam ut actualiter consentiat, vocatio efficax qua fiat consentiens. Et adhuc clarius paulo supra, num 6. Nulla dispositio remota ad gratiam haberi potest ex sola facultate naturae, sive sit petere, sive desiderare ipsam gratiam, sive quodlibet aliud: sed ad illam necessario requiritur SPECIALE AUXILIUM PRAEMOVENTIS GRATIAE.  
Secundo, hujus tam necessariae gratiae ea vis & efficacia est, ut ait Alvares disp. 23. Ut haec duo sint incompossibilia: quod Deus auxilio efficaci moveat liberum arbitrium ad consensum; & nihilominus liberum arbitrium dissentiat. Alias enim non ageretur a gratia efficaci indeclinabiliter & insuperabiliter.  
Ac de efficaci quidem gratia ita sentimus. De inefficaci vero nostram sententiam habes Disq. 1. art. 5. Tantum hic duo nominatim annotabo.  
1. Etsi haec potestatem afferat observandi mandata, tamen istam potestatem talem non esse, ut complectatur omnia ad agendum necessaria. Nam illud, mi Annate, devores oportet ex Navarretta tom. 2. contr. 19 Quod Suares dicit, auxilium sufficiens includere in se omnia quae sunt necessaria ad operationem, falsum est, & contra D. Augustinum. Et ibidem: Non continet auxilium sufficiens quicquid per modum principii est necessarium ad illam operationem.  
II. Etiam gratiam sufficientem semper illum operati effectum, ad quem absoluta Dei voluntate ordinatur. Recte enim idem Alvarez disp. 80. Omne auxilium sufficiens comparatione unius actus semper est efficax respectu alterius, ad quem efficiendum decreto absoluto divinae voluntatis destinarur. Unde generatim omnis gratia dici efficax potest, & rursus dividi in efficacem secundum quid, quae eadem sufficiens vel excitans dicitur; & efficacem simpliciter & proprie. Eia, mi Annare, quid jam habes quod succenseas? An hoc forte nobis succenses, quod succensendi causas praecidimus? Nec modo levem controversiam super quinque propositionibus reliquam esse docemus: sed plane nullam. Nullam, nullam, inquam, invenies, Pater Annate, quantumvis omnes ingenii tui nervos intendas, dum Thomistarum sententiam, ut facis, orthodoxam fateberis. Atque adeo experire: enitere ut verbis ab omni ambiguitate remotis quaestionis caput assign●… Si feceris, mi Annate, viceris. Quae conditio quior cuiquam offerri potest, quam ut clare aperteque enunciet quod obtinere nititur? Et nobis pervicaciam objectas, qui tibi morigeri sumus plus fortasse quam velles. Et haeresim in Ecclesia esse dictitas, cum nullam de certo dogmate disceptationem possis ostendere. Prius ergo responde huic argumento: Nulla certa haeresis sine certa controversia. At nulla in Ecclesia certa controversia. Ergo nulla haeresis.   

XII.  
Annati sententia victus Annatus.  
NOn vereor igitur, mi Pater, quam de nobis jam sententiam pronunciaturus sis. Jam tu illam pronunciasti, cum tam accurato discrimine Calvinianum errorem a Catholica fide distinxisti. Quisquis enim Calvinum, ut a te explicatur, rejicit, te judice, Calvinianus non est. Quisquis Catholicam fidem ex ore tuo amplectitur, te judice, Catholicus est. Ita si nos ut haereticos pergas incessere, non tam nobis turpissimi criminis notam inures, quam tibi injuriae, inconstantiae famam apud homines, culpam apud Deum accersis. Hujus judicium, mi Annate, nimis abest ab oculis tuis. Aliter ageres, si de illo serio cogitares. Quam enim tandem Deo rationem redditurus es, cum exprobrabit tibi tot servorum suorum famam inanissimo haereseos crimine conscissam: projectam in periculum schismatis Ecclesiam: vilissimis, imo nullis quaestiunculis turbaram fidelium pacem: delusam artibus tuis summi Pontificis aequitatem, cujus aures, heu! vobis nimium credulas, innumeris quotidie mendaciis oneratis? Non agitur de Jansenio. I'll in tuto locatus non jam veretur humanum diem. De nobis agitur, quibus orbe Christiano inspectante Calvinianum sensum objicere non dubitas. Etiamne id nobis imperabis, ut reclamante conscientia hunc errorem a nobis defensum agnoscamus, quem tota ment semper repudiavimus? Nimis, nimis hoc durum est, Pater Annate, ut falsum crimen agnoscendum sit, ne falso accusasse videaris.   

XIII.  
Iterata responsione eliditur Annatinus de sensu Jansenii Cavillus.  
QUid afferes igitur quominus illa haeresis, quam nobis objectas, plane evanuerit? Iterumne ad Jansenii sensus cavillationem recurres, & ad tuum illud sophisma: Jansenianus sensus est Calvinianus: at Jansenianum sensum defenditis: ergo Calvinianum? Deus immortalis! Adeone homines ex odio & cupiditate immutari, ut nullum in iis non dicam humanitatis, sed rationis vestigium agnoscas? Nam tu, si homo esses, mi Annate, illo potius modo a gumentum tuum contexeres: Jansenianus sensus est Calvinianus: at damnatis sensum Calvini: ergo damnatis sensum Jansenii. Debueras ergo nobis non Calvinum objicere probatum, sed Jannium desertum. Certe enim Jansenianus ille sensus aliquo dogmate continetur, non nudis illis vocibus quae nihil ex se significant. Hoc dogma tu ipse definis, circumscribis, explicas, & in Calviniano errore situm doces. Nos illud dogma rejicimus. Ergo rejicimus sententiam illam, quam tu Jansenianam appellas. At quidam eam negant esse Jansenianus O miram haeresim, & ante inauditam! Duo homines eandem omnino sententiam tuentur, nempe Thomisticam; eandem sententiam damnant, nempe Calvinianam: eo solum discrepant, quod alter Calvinianum sensum appellat Jansenianum, & ideo damnat: alter sententiam Thomisticam, utrique probatam, appellat jansenianam, & ideo verbulum illud non damnat; ob hoc unum discrimen hic haereticus, ille Catholicus.  
Cur ergo non intelligis, Dialectice senex, puerile argumentationis tuae vitium, duplicemque sub his verbis Janseniani sensus notionem supponi, aliam a me, aliam a te; Thomisticam a me, a te Calvinianam? An tantum illius nominis virus est, ut quodcunque demum Janseniani sensus voce afficiarut, etsi caeteroquin orthodoxum, statim evadat haereticum? Quid si mibi persuadeam eundem esse Molinae & Jansenii sensum? jamne tuus Molina haereticus fieret? Injurius in te mihi viderer, mi Annate, si te fingerem tam absurdum. Ecce quidam sibi persuaserunt jansenium nihil omnino a vulgari Thomistarum doctrina circa quinque propositiones dissidere. Quis non videat nihil fieri posse dementius, quam si quis ea re ipsos haereseos insimulet? At stulte sibi persuaserunt. Stultos igitur voca, Catholicos fatere: quanquam jam ostendam tibi unde stultitiam istam hauserint. Hauserunt enim non modo ex multis Iansenii locis, quorum nonnulla 2. Disquisitione protulimus; fed etiam ex Patre Palavicino, Romano jesuita, viro in istis rebus & intelligente & moderato. Audi ergo quomodo ille jansenium cum Thomistis conjungat, de gratia sufficiente loquens: Primum, inquit Tr. de Grat. ann. 1645. in Col. Rom. Disp. 4. art. 4. asserunt communiter Patres Dominicani, & idem reipsa docet Jansen. lib. 3. de Gr. cap. 1. cum inficiaretur dari gratiam aliquam sufficientem, subdit eam concedi posse, si admittatur in eo sensu in quo eam admittit Alvares, caeterique nobis adversarii in quaestione de Auxiliis; ut nimirum det quidem posse, non tamen sit sufficiens adagendum, nisi aliquid aliud addatur ex parte Dei; adhuc tamen non esse veram Christi gratiam. Contratia est doctrina Societatis, pro qua sit conclusio.  
Hinc ille in votis suis eadem censura jansenium perstrinxit, qua idem Alvarem perstrinxisset. Erroneum dixit illius sensum, quia Thomisticum: haereticum nunquam dixit, quia Thomistas haereticos dicere nondum audetis. Quid quod ille super quarta propositione sensum Iansenii disertis verbis absolvit, & immunem jadicat a censura? Hic, quaeso, responde, Pater Annate. Cum Palavicinus sensum Iansenii immunem judicabat a censura, an ille Calvinianus erat, an blasphemus, an haereticus? Non opinor. Quare ergo ut Catholicum defendebat, quod tu Calviniani erroris accusas, nisi quia aliter qaam tu jansenium interpretabatur? Sentisne igitur non propterea quemquam Calvino adhaerescere, quia jansenium defendat, alioquin Romanum illud judicium dimidio fere Calvinistarum numero conflatum fuisset.   

XIV.  
Solam Molinae & Suaresii sufficientem gratiam a Jansenio explosam.  
CAEterum hoc Palavicini tui loco admoneor, ut obiter hic apetiam quantopere credulis lectoribus hoc sufficientis gratiae nomine sciens vel imprudens imponas. Scilicet nihil crebrius in ore habes, ut tibi Dominicanos adjungas, quam gratiam sufficientem Thomistarum a jansenio quasi monstrum esse exagitatam. At in hoc, mi Annate, longissime erras. Illa enim gratia sufficiens, quam ut monstrum insectatur jansenius, t. 3. l. 3. c. 3. non est illa Thomistica, quam ab Augustino libenter admissum iti docuerat cap. 1. sed Sodalium vestrorum, Suarisque praecipue incongrua gratia, quae lato limit a Thomistica dividitur. Hoc vero tam manifeste non innuit solum, sed expresse testificatur, ut mitum sit vos tam putidam criminationem toties iterasse. Quamobrem, mi Pater, ne vel te, vel alios fallas, sic habeto: Quoties Iansenius gratiam sufficientem explodit, non aliam intelligi, nisi Molinianam aut incongruam Suaresianam. Idem de caeteris Augustini discipulis affirmo, quibus in ista gratia sufficiente Thomistica nihil displicet praeter nomen, quo vos ad Molinam sovendum abutimini. At, si satis innotuerit, non eam hoc verbo significati gratiam quae complectatur omnia ad agendum necessaria, nihil jam erit cur non id nominis facile admittatur, & hoc sensu gratia sufficiens omnibus justis volentibus & conantibus concedatur. Quamobrem, ut dixi, res isto nomine a Thomistis significata probatur ab omnibus: ac verbum ipsum ante Moliniano veneno perpurgandum, quam in Ecclesiam invehatur; aut certe cum ea cautione usurpandum, ut Molinisticus sensus expresse rejiciatur.   

XV.  
Refellitur alia fallacia Annatina de sensu legitimo.  
EX his similiter corruit aliud tuum, in quo non mediocriter tibi places, argumentum, seu verius sophisma. Quinque propositiones, inquis, in sensu legitimo a quibusdam doctoribus defensae sunt: at damnatae sunt in sensu legitimo: ergo damnatae sunt eo sensu, quo defensae ab illis sunt. Hic etiam legitimi sensus aequivocatione nos illudis; nec aliter argumentaris, quam si quis ita concluderet: Legitimum Honorii sensum damnavit sexta Synodus: at legitimum Honorii sensum tuetur Bellarminus: ergo sexta Synodus damnavit sensum quem tuetur Bellarminus: ergo Bellarminus haereticus est. Siccine, mi Pater, in Dialecticis operam tuam diutinam consumpsisti, ut adhuc istius argumenti vitium non percipias, nec intelligas in sensus legitimi voce latere fallaciam? Alius enim prorsus legitimus sensus, quem Pontifex damnavit; alius legitimus sensus, quem illi defenderunt. Quis enim ille sensus ab illis Doctoribus propugnatus? Audiamus te ipsum corum verba referentem: Auctor, inquis, libri de gratia victrice ait, propositiones esse veras, & maxime Catholicas in sensu gratiae efficacis, atque hoc solum sensu a jansenio defendi. Ecce quid sit ille sensus legitimus, doctrina nempe de gratia efficaci, quam tu veram & orthodoxam sateris. Hanc illi in quinque propositiones includi posse existimarunt. Nec soli, mi Annate, ita senserunt. Praecip●… Consultoribus idem quod illi censuerant; nec t●…en Calviniani erant, aut ulla sinistra unquam opinione aspersi sunt. Contra Consultores alii numero plures sensum legitimum propositionum a gratia efficaci plane segregatum esse contenderunt. His assensus est summus Pontifex, ipsi orbis Christianus. Quid sequitur? Nempe hoc unum; gratiae efficacis doctrinam in sensu propositionum includi non debere, omninoque sentiendum, hunc gratiae efficacis sensum non esse legitimum quinque propositionum sensum. Quod illo argumento tuo bene convincitur. Summus Pontifex non damnavit gratiae efficacis doctrinam. At damnavit sensum legitimum quinque propositionum. Ergo doctrina gratiae efficacis non est sensus legitimus quinque propositionum. At sensus ille quem Doctores tuebantur, nihil aliud erat quam doctrina efficacis gratiae. Igitur sensus illorum a summo Pontifice damnatus non est. Hoc solum ergo ipsis exprobrare potes, sensum illum, quem legitimum dixere, sententia summi Pontificis illegitimum & alienum a propositionibus esse judicatum. Quod honori & reverentiae summi Pontificis facile dabunt.   

XVI.  
Ridicule implicitam Augustinianorum sententiam insectantur Jesuitae, cujus explicite & non ambiguis verbis expressae damnationem extorquere non possunt.  
CErnisne, Pater Annate, rationes tuas sponte dissilire? Sed paulisper subit hoc loco mitari fraudulentum Societatis institutum. Quorsum enim nos assidue legitimi sensus, Janseniani sensus vocibus pulsat & obtundit? Non obtegimus, non reticemus sensus nostros, imo eos planissimis verbis enunciamus. Non deest vobis gratia apud Reges, apud multos Episcopos, apud summum denique Pontificem. Quin jam igitur omissa illa futili de Janseniani sensus vocibus concertatione, sententiam nostram nostris verbis expressam apud summum Pontificem vel apud Episcopos Galliae accusatis? Si jam illam implicitam damnaverunt, ut contenditis, libentissime utique explicatam damnabunt.  
Agite ergo & enitimini, Jesuitae, ut in aliqua Bulla haec verba orbis Christianus legat: Haec propositio; Quibusdam justis gratiae excitanti & Thomistico sensu sufficienti renitentibus non adest gratia efficax, necessaria ad bene agendum, sive sine qua non adsunt omnia ad agendum necessaria; est haeretica, blasphema & impia.  
Facite ut legamus: Haec propositio; Duplex est gratiae genus: alia efficax, alia inefficax. Huic semper, cum sola est, resistitur; illi qunquam. Vtraque vero in eo convenit, quod semper efficax sit respectu illius effectus ad quem absoluta Dei voluntate ordinatur; est haeretica.  
Facite ut legamus; Haec propositio; Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur indifferentia Moliniana, qua voluntas ita potest velle & nolle, ut non modo cum gratia efficaci potestas dissentiendi cohaereat, sed etiam actus contrarius; est haeretica.  
Facite ut legamus: Haec propositio; Semipelagiani in eo errabant, quod negarent fidem ita esse donum Dei, ut nemo credat ut oportet nisi cui per gratiam efficacem fides ipsa donetur; est haeretica.  
Facite demum ut legamus: Haec propositio; Christus non est mortuus ut omnibus reprobis gratias Moliniano sensu sufficientes impetraret, quae sine efficacis auxilio in actum prorumpant; haeretica est & blasphema.   

XVII.  
Apostolica & Augustiniana gratiae efficacis doctrina, Jesuitarum in eam machinationibus confirmatur & illustratur.  
EJusmodi Bullam, Pater Annate, non timemus ne unquam à summo Pontifice Jesuiticae artes eliciant, & propterea triumphos tuos, vanasque victorias irridemus, seu potius miseramur. Nunquam enim forte illustriori exemplo comprobavit Deus quanta fit firmitas veritatis, & quam inanes sint hominum in illam insurgentium conatus. Ecce per duodecim annos conjurata in gratiam efficacem Molinistarum natio nullas artes, nullas machinationes ad eam evertendam omittit; Regibus, Episcopis, summis Pontificibus obrepit; & tamen eadem doctrina validius indies confirmatur; ab Episcopis, quotidie probatur; Romae ut cum maxime floret; nec quisquam est qui Molinista libenter audiat. Hoc tanto nobis solatio est, ut illos fluctus in nos concitatos securi laetique prospectemus. Non enim jam fides, non veritas periclitatur, quae adversariorum etiam ore & testimonio sancitur: non conscientia nostra, quae nobis coram Deo hoc sincerum testimonium reddit, nihil aliud nos in hac materia sentire, nisi quae supra exposuimus, quaeque omnium Theologorum calculo tanquam orthodoxa comprobari certo scimus. Ergo famae duntaxat nostrae, aut temporalium commodorum discrimen agitur, de qui bus siquis vehementius solicitus sit, & Christiani & Theologi nomine sit indignus. In haec saeviant Jesuitae quantum volent. Nobis illorum fortunam optare nunquam subibit. Interim dum nostra illorum calumniis obscuratur fama, veritatis, quam adversus illos tuemur, splendor clarius enitescit. Ecquis enim non hanc certam, Catholicam, ac divinam doctrinam putet, quae defensoribus suis in summam invidiam per falsas criminationes adductis, Jesuitarum tamen in petum in excidium suum, & Principum, & summi Pontificis gratia abutentium, suo robore sustentat? aut quomodo unquam huic argumento respondebunt Jesuitae? Si quid esset in doctrina superius exposita, quod vel levissimam notam mereretur, non ei parceret summus Pontifex, Jesuitarum operatione adversus illorum dogmatum defensores exasperatus. Sed nullum unquam ex supra posits capitibus expresse damnabit. Ergo nullum est damnatione dignum; nullum quod orthodoxum & sanctum non sit.   

XVIII.  
Cur Jansenium multi Thomistae damnare detractent.  
NImirum igitur accusatione haereseos excidisti, Pater Annate. Restat ut alio impetum convertas, ac nos dicas vere quidem Jansenii sensum damnare, quippe qui Calvinianum damnemus, quem eundem atque Jansenianum putas; sed sive pudore, sive stupore aut pertinacia hunc quem rejiciamus errorem, noluisse hactenus appellare Jansenianum. Hoc tantum, mi Annate, potes dicere, si te ipse audire volueris, nec a ratione desciscere. At hoc tamen cave ne dicas: nam eo si descenderis, hoc ipso pax erit constituta quam odisti. Parum enim admodum hac accusatione movebuntur adversarii tui, facilemque de se palmam hac in parte tibi praebebunt, ac te in hac victoriae specie quam voles exultare impune permittent. Itaque per eos licet ut debellati Jansenii sibi trophaeum erigat Societas: licet ut eos bardoes, stupidos, pertinaces appellet. Desinat modo commentitiae haereseos formidine Ecclesiam solicitare. Quin etiam, nisi plane sis intractabilis, facile erit de reliquis transigere. Quid enim restat cum tuum illum sensum Jansenianum omnes damnent? Hoc unum scilicet, ut eum Jansenianum omnes appellent. Leviculum negotiums jam enim de syllabis agitur, non de sensu. Sed vin tibi expeditam ostendi viam, mi Pater, qua non aegre omnes adduxeris; ut te de Jansenii sensu recte sensisse non inviti, sed ultro fateantur. Dignere, mi Pater, dubitationibus illorum occurrere, & quosdam ab ipsis evellere scrupulos quibus ab hac opinione retardantur: hos ne ignores, sincere & simpliciter hic expromam.   

XIX.  
Calvini doctrinam videtur damnare Jansenius.  
MAgnum postulas ut Jansenium Calvino succinere fateamur. Ego contra, levem hanc operam a te exigo, ut patienter auscultes, cur hoc creditu valde sit arduum. Difficile est enim, mi Pater, Catholico Antistiti eam sententiam tribuere q●am expresse damnat & rejiicit. Ubinam, inquis, id facit Jansenius? Tom. 3. mi Annate, lib. 8. cap. 21. Haec sunt, inquit, quae Ecclesia in Calvino, quantum ad hanc materiam gratiae & liberi arbitrii, improbavit. Primum est, quod Calvinus negat esse in homine boni & mali electionem, etc. Secundum est, quod Calvinus doceat gratiam ita movere hominem ut non sit ei liberum resistere. Sic enim loquitur: Voluntatem Deus movet, non qualiter multis seculis traditum est & creditum, ut nostrae postea sit electionis motioni aut obtemperare aut refragari. Augustino vero Dominus ita movet voluntatem, ut quamvis infallibiliter convertatur & operetur, possit tamen motioni Dei refragari aut obtemperare, seu, ut Concilium Tridentinum loquitur, illi dissentire si velit. Potentia quippe dissentiendi non repugnat actuali gratiae motioni & consensui, quamvis fieri nequeat ut actualis dissensus cum actuali Dei motione jungatur. Ecce Calvini dogma expresse damnatum, ut Ecclesiae & Augustino contrarium. Ecce sub actuali gratia permanentem dissentiendi potestatem.   

XX.  
Thomistarum doctrina a Jansenio explanata & comprobata.  
NEc vero hoc uno loco, sed integris capitibus ex professo docet & inculcat, & in primis capite superiori, ubi sic Thomistarum doctrinam explanat, ut vix ulli Thomistae eam luculentius exposuerint. Dicimus igitur, inquit, liberum arbitrium quantumcunque vehementi atque efficaci gratiae delectatione praeventum atque determinatum ad faciendum bonum, adhuc tamen posse bonum tantum non facere, sed etiam malum. Verum est enim istud, non quidem in sensu composito, ut vulgo dici solet, sed in sensu diviso; nimirum, quia eodem tempore, quo voluntatis arbitrium sub gratiae delectatione efficaciter eam movente positum est, imo quo etiam actum voluntatis bonum facit, est in eadem voluntate potestas illud non faciendi, imo peccandi; non quod cessatio ab actu quem tunc elicit, aut actuale peccatum cum gratiae delectantis influxu consistere possit, quod sensus compositus postularet; sed quia cessandi & peccandi potestas cum eadem gratia simul in eodem voluntatis arbitrio conjungi potest. Nam quamvis duo actus contrarii sint oppositi, & in eadem voluntate simul esse non possint, potestates tamen ad opposita non sunt oppositae, nec sibi invicem, nec actibus oppositis, & in eodem simul subjecto sive agente, sive quiescente commorantur. Sic ergo voluntas quantumcunque gratiae suavitate capiatur, potest non agereid quo rapitur: quia veram non agendi potentiam etiam sub gratia rapiente retinet; quamvis fieri nequeat, ut ipsa non actio cum gratiae operatione in eadem simul voluntate copuletur. Quin etiam Jansenius diserte asserit hanc esse mentem Trid. Concilii. Attende enim quid adjungat: Sic etiam juxta Tridentinum homo recipiens inspirationem, illam abjicere potest: & liberum arbitrium a Deo motum potest dissentire si velit.   

XXI.  
Alvaris doctrina Jansenio consona.  
QUaeso igitur, Pater Annate, hunc laborem suscipe, ut aliquo discrimine hanc Jansenii doctrinam a vulgari Thomistarum ment secernas. Id enim perdifficile videtur. Quid enim aliud Jansenius, quam quod Alvarez his verbis disp. 115. n. 3. & 4. Potentia ad unum actum non repugnat potentiae ad actum contrarium, nec etiam repugnat actui contrario? Actus autem contrarii rep●…nant inter se in eodem subjecto. Et infra: No randum secundo, quod cum dicitur potentiam liberam esse, quae, positis omnibus requisitis ad operandum potest operari & non operari, etiam in sensu composito, hoc dupliciter intelligi potest: primo, ut compositio fiat inter praerequisita ad operandum, & potentiam operandi & non operandi; & tunc sensus est, quod potentia ad operandum & non operandnm stat simul in eodem subjecto cum antecedenter praerequisitis ad talem operationem; & hic sensus verissimus est. Secundo modo potest intelligi, ita ut compositio fiat inter antecedenter praerequisita ad operandum talem actum, & carentiam talis actus, & tunc sensus est, quod omnia praerequisita, etam ex parte Dei, ad operandum talem actum particularem, & carentia ejusdem actus, seu actus contrarius, possint esse aut aliquando sint simul in eodem subjecto. In hoc sensu intendimus praedictam definitionem impugnare. Et disp. 92. cum Molinistarum sententiam sic expressisset, Quidam dixerunt, quod stante in homine quocunque auxilio praevenientis gratiae secundum omnem realem virtutem & perfectionem quam habet ut venit a Deo, possit etiam in sensu composito dissentire & non converti. Mox num. 4. subjicit: Contraria sententia vera est, & de ment Sancti Thomae, omniumque Doctorum quos supra adduximus. Idemque disp. 74. num. 6. Liberum arbitrium motum a Deo auxilio efficaci, non potest illi dissentire in sensu composito, sed in sensu diviso, ut inferius patebit. Sequeretur enim quod voluntas Dei esset inefficax, & impedibilis per hominis voluntatem: quod, ut Augustinus dicit, & nos supra ostendimus, est impossible. Vides, mi Pater, non levibus causis adductos fuisse, qui cum Patre Palavicino senserunt, nihil ab Alvare circa quinque propositiones discrepare Jansenium. Tu tamen, ut ingeniosus ●…, quaedam certe discrimina deteges, ut nullus jam scrupulus a damnando Jansenio quemquam retrahat.   

XXII.  
Occurritur argutiis Annatinis.  
NEc vero me ad eam quaestionem pe●traxeris, mi Pater, utrum potestas dissentiendi, quae cum gratia efficaci cohaeret, sit sufficiens, completa, proxima. Hanc enim uno verbo sic incido: Voces illae, ut notat Alvares disp. 117. n. 11. ambiguae sunt, & alium apud Thomistas, alium apud Molinistas significatum habent. Apud hos ea demum dicitur potestas sufficiens, quae nihil praerequirit ut in actum prodeat. Apud illos autem, etiam ea quae nunquam cum actu conjungitur. Itaque si illis verbis exprimas eam potestatem quae cum effectu aliquando conjungatur, quo sensu haec verba solet usurpare Jansenius, certum est eam dissentiendi potestatem, quae cum gratia efficaci remanet, nec proximam, nec sufficientem esse; nunquam enim cum actualli dissensu conjungitur, quamdiu gratia perseverat. At si quamvis aliam potestatem in actu primo cogites, per me licet ut eam sufficientem, sufficientissimam, completam, completissimam, plenam, plenissimam, expeditam, expeditissimam dicas, &, si velis, trecenta alia nomina excogites, dummodo gratiae efficaci nunquam actu & effective dissentiatur. Omnino ad istas cavillationes semel resecandas in secunda Disquisitione jam dixi, potentias illas nunquam cum actu conjunctas in summo gradu me semper constituere. Itaque, mi Pater, justis gratia efficaci instructis potentiam non agendi quibussibet nominibus ornatam tribue quantum voles: & iisdem gratia efficaci distitutis quamlibet bene agendi potentiam largire. Dummodo enim efficaci per se, & non exscientia media, gratiae neminem actu diffentire, & sine illa neminem bene agere fatearis, nihil omnino sententiae nostrae adversabetis.   

XXIII.  
Cuivis Theologo non licet quemlibet Jansenii locum pro arbitrio damnatarum propositionum loco supponere, idque temerarie ab Annato tentatum.  
NII necesse arbitror, mi Annate, in invidiosa, &, nisi fallor, infrugifera facti quaestione operose versari, ac tuum illum indiculum diligentius excutere, in quo tu praepostere quaedam Jansenii loca cum 5. propositionibus quasi sensu congruentia componis, quamquam hoc recte & salva summi Pontificis Episcoporumque reverentia poteram. Licet enim illi proprium & rigorosum 5. propositionum sensum in Jansenio extare significent; non tamen cuivis privato Theologo eam licentiam dederunt, ut quemlibet Jansenii locum pro damnatis propositionibus substitueret. Imo potius hoc omnino fieri non licere innuunt Galliae Episcopi, qui in sua Narratione propositionum sensum non aliquo peculiari loco contineri, sed ex totius doctrinae compage resilere asserunt.  
Multo minus licet, mi Annate, quod tu fecisti, Augustini loca pro damnatis propositionibus supponere, ipsa foede mutilare & corrumpere. Multo minus licet Lessianas sententias distinctis apud Jansenium characteribus expressas, & ab omnibus Thomistis in Lessii sensu rejectas, a summo Pontifice consecratas contendere. Verum minutiorem illam Disquisitionem nunc omittemus. Interim quaedam generaliora hic annotabo, quibus si responderis, tum ad pressiorem disputationem fortasse descendemus.   

XXIV.  
Propositiones in Jansenio totidem verbis extare asseruit Annatus, nec promisso satisfacit.  
IN primis, P. Annate, illud me male habet, quod non satis hic tuam ipse liberas fidem. Ecquid enim excidit tibi quam magnifice olim palam praedicaveris in Cavillis quinque illa damnata capita esse propositiones individuas & singulares totidem verbis in Jansenio contentas? Aut nobis igitur totidem illa verbe redde, vel inconsultum te promissorem fatere. At iniqui sumus qui a te totidem illa verba exigamus. Quasi vero iniquum sit, id a te exigere, quod tu promisisti, quodque omnibus semper seculis usurpatum est. Ecquod enim exemplum afferes, assignatas nominatim alicui scriptori nonnullas propositiones tanquam ex ejus libris excerptas, nisi totidem verbis ab illo scriptae essent?   

XXV.  
Annati in assignandis aequivalentibus propositionibus inconstantia.  
FRustra igitur, mi Pater, ad aequivalentes propositiones confugis, omissis illis totidem verbis, quae nobis representare debebas. Verum in his quoque, ne quid gravius dicam, parum felix es. Primum enim illud explicare decuerat, quod multos diu torsit, & etiamnum torquet. Si revera in Jansenio erant propositiones damnatis aequivalentes, cur non illae potius Jansenii verbis expressae summo Pontifici oblatae sunt? Expediendum tibi ante omnina fuerat, mi Annate, intricatum istius consilii mysterium.  
Sed quae tandem sunt illae tuae propositiones aequivalentes? Vagae, incertae, volaticae, sine certa sede ac domicilio: novae singulis annis priscis exclusis sese ostentant, mox, quasi partibus suis peractis, e proscenio se subtrahunt, & aliis locum dant. Itaque, mi Annate, anno 1654. alias plane propositiones aequivalentes attulisti, his depulsus ad alias nunc confug●s. Verum, ut tunc tibi me non debuisse credere res ipsa docuit, sic nihil satis firmum video, cur tibi nunc credam. Quid si enim ad duos annos alia loca Jansenii proferas, an tunc quo que tecum sententia mutanda erit? Non omnibus, mi Annate, tam mobile ac desultorium jud cium contigit. Propria haec virtus tua, quam tibi non invidemus. Praestat ergo diutius expectare dum in certis Jansenii locis constiteris: nec tu nobis hanc dilationem denegare potes.   

XXVI.  
Vitiosae Annati argumentationes.  
ESt aliud, mi Pater, quod valde in illo tuo inlice eruditi homines reprehendunt; infirma scilicet & imbellis argumentandi ratio: nam si quis illud omne quod postulas tibi concedat, nihil tamen omnino promoveris. Acc modari, inquis, po●est damnata ●um propositionum significatus certis, ill●s Jansenii locis. M●lti negant. Sed quid tum, mi Pater? Accommodati potesi Arianorum haeresis his Scriptura verbis: Pater major me est. Ergo revera illa Scripturae verba continent Arianam haeresim. Accommodari potest sensus secunda propositionis damnatae, Gratiae interiori nunquam resistitur, his verbis S. Augustini, Gratia Christi a nullo duro corde respuitur, quia ideo tribuitur, ut cordis duritia primitus auferatur. Ergo accomodandus. Sentisne quam ista male colligantur? Nihil igitur haberes, etiamsi illud impetrasses, istis Jansenii verbis damnatarum propositionum sensum accommodari posse. Illud, illud, mi Annate, probandum est, hunc damnatum sensum verbis illis suis a Jansemo accommodatum esse Quis enim scriptor Catholicus tamburlaine accurate locutus est, ut nonnunquam ipsius verbis non perversus aliquis sensus affingi possit?  
Exemplo eritille locus Jansenii, quem ut quartae propositioni consentaneum affers, ex tom. 1. l. 8. c. 6. In hoc ergo, inquit, propr●e Massiliensium error situs est, quod aliquid primaevae libertatis reliquum putarent, qua sicut Adam, si voluisset, p●terat perseveranter operari bonum ita la sus homo saltem credere p sset si vellet; neuter tamen absque interioris gratiae adjutorio, cujus usus vel abusus relictus esset in un uscujusque arbitrio & potestate. Huic tu loco sensum quartae propositionis aptas, nempe Calvinianum, quasi Jansenius hic dicere voluerit, Semipelagianos ideo fuisse haereticos, quod gratiam talem●sse vellent, cui possit humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare: Fatentur, mi Annate, adversarii tui, omni gratiae resisti & obtemperari posse, sive illa fit efficax, sive inefficax. Efficaci enim semper obtemperatur, & nihilominus semper resisti potest: inefficaci contra, cum sola est, semper resistitur, semper obtemperari potest. Hoc si neget Jansenius, errat. Sed unde concludis hoc ab ipso Jansenio negatum? Potest, inquis, illius verbis accommodari sensus Calvinianus. At potest etiam accommodari sensus Catholicus, nempe gratiae usum vel abusum non esse voluntati Moliniano modo subjectum: ita ut eadem gratia pro solo nutu voluntatis modo inefficax sit, modo efficax sine ulla alia Dei ope. Hic sensus, mi Annate, ita Catholicus est, ut contrarium Semipelagiani erroris damnaverit tota Congregatio de Auxiliis in tuo Molina.  
Haec propositio, inquit, & doctrina Patris Molinae, quatenus d cet efficaciam auxilii divini pend●re ab effectu & libertate arbitrii humani, non autem ab ipso auxilio prout a Deo venit, & ex modo motionis divinae, videtur tradita a Semipelagianis, ut licet videre in Epistola S. Hilarii ad ●. Augustinum: asseritur autem a Molina contra expressam sententiam. S. Augustini lib. de corr. & grat.  
Demus, mi Pater, utrumque sensum admittere verba Jansenii. Sint ergo haeretica si cum Calvino potentiam dissentiendi negent: sed Catholica erunt si cum Congregatione de Auxiliis Molinisticam gratiam Semipelagiani erroris accusent. At tu cur tuo jure in pejorem partem accipis? Cur ad Calvini sensum detorques? Debueras ergo aliqua loca proferre, ex quibus constaret Jansenium haec verba Calviniano sensu usurpasse. Nihil enim certius hoc principio: Ex solis verbis quae duplicem sensum habere possunt, quorum alter verus sit, alter falsus, constare non potest, malo illa sensu accipienda.  
Disce igitur●, mi Pater, accuratioris dialecticae leges. Si velis hunc locum quem profers, haereticum probare, alia conquire, quibus doceas non solum hic Molinam rejectum esse a Jansenio, sed Calvini errorem comprobatum, quod ex solis illis locis, ut multum, ambiguis nunquam elicies. Omnino enim in Semipelagianis solum videtur culpare Molinismum, ut cum tom. 3. lib. 3. c. 1. constituta Molinianae gratiae notione, in eo praecise quod nullum aliud Dei auxilium requirat, sic deinceps Semipelagianorum exprimit errorem: Pro scripti sunt Massil●enses non aliam ob causam nisi quia tale auxilium homini sufficere putarent, adeoque Nullum aliud adjutorium ad credendum actu ex parte Dei esse necessarium.   

XXVII.  
Damnati quinque propositionum sensus genuinae notae.  
FRustra sensum illum damnatarum propositionum in Jansenio quaeris, mi Annate, nisi prius damnatum illarum sensum qualis sit, noveris. Hunc vero, ne erremus, quibusdam notis indicarunt tum summus Pontifex, tum Episcopi Galliae; quas notas ubi non repereris, ibi scito sensum illum damnatum minime reperiri. Has etsi jam delibavi prima Disquisitione, tamen iterum hic clarius indicabo, ut ex his eruditi lectores de tuo indiculo possint statuere.  

PRIMA NOTA.  
In primis testantur Episcopi variis narrationis suae loci● praesertimque p. 15. hunc sensum damnatum, esse proprium & germanum istarum Propositionum sensum. Idem loquuntur Romani Consul. tores qui semper proprium & rigorosum sensum damnant. Hinc statuitur illud axioma:  
Quaecunque propositio non continet rigorosum & proprium sensum alicujus ex propositionibus, haec non c●n●…inet sensum damnatum illius propositionis.   

TERTIA NOTA.  
Declarant Episcopi Galliae sensum illum damnatum esse Augustino contrarium. Hinc elice aliud axioma:  
Nulla propositio Augustino & Jansenio communis co●tinet damnatum propositionum sensum.   

Declaret Romana Inquisitio: assentiuntur Episcopi: omnes Universitates consentiunt, Thomistarum doctrinam Innocentii Constitutione nulla in re violatam. Ind collige tertium axioma:  
Nulla propositio Thomastis & Jansenio communis continet proprium & damnatum sensum propositionum   

QUARTA NOTA.  
Speciatim declaravit summus Pontifex Innocentius gratiae efficacis doctrinam, prout a Thomistis defenditur, minime decreto suo ulla auctoritate spoliatam, ac de hoc capite tota Ecclesia consentit. Hinc nascitur quartum axioma:  
Quacunque propositio continet solam gratiae efficacis, prout a Thomistis defenditur, assertionem, damnatum illum seusum non continet.   

QUINTA NOTA  
Testantur Episcopi in narratione sua, hunc sensum damnatum a nullo ante Baium & Jansenium esse traditum, adeoque illum omnibus Scholasticis adversari. Ind colligo quintum axioma:  
Nulla propositio Scholasticis usitata, trita, & probata continet damnatum illum sensum propositionum.   

SEXTA NOTA.  
Damnatus ille sensus a summo Pontifice reprobatur, ab Episcopis proscribitur, tota Ecclesia hereticus judicatur. Sequitur inde sextum axioma:  
Nulla propositio quam vulgo Theologi nemine improbante defendunt, continet damnatum illum sensum.  
His notis, mi Annatae, probe perspectis, certius in explorando sensu Jansenii versabere: non perspectis, semper errabis.    

XXVIII.  
CONCLUSIO.  
MActe igitur animo, mi Pater, & cursum parum feliciter institutum felicius persequere. Non ingratam nobis, nec Societati tuae inutilem operam navaveris si fugitivas illas propositiones tandem elatibulis suis extraxeris. Nam quod simpliciter & libere decendum sit, tu quoque, mi Annate, jejunius adhuc in hoc argumento versatus es, magisque ad rudem imperitorum levitatem, quam ad eruditorum certum limatumque judicium elaborasse videris. Sed tu●, credo, quae per incuriam exciderunt, moni●us emendabis, & instructior redibis in praelium. Quin ne tibi aulicis occupationibus vale districto, nimis oneris videar imponere, unum hoc a te contendo; ut quae de prima propositione in altera Disquisitione disputavi, refellenda suscipias: hanc enim ideo, caeteris omissis, accuratius pertractavimus, quod ex ipsa reliquae necterentur. Ubi huic responderis, tum tibi de quatuor aliis responsio non deerit.  
Verum, si quid, ut vehementer aveo, rescribere dignetis, facito, quaeso, ut meos sensus impetas, non alienos affingas. Questionem illam generalem, an propositiones sint in Jansenio, necne, prorsus omitto. Sed loca illa quae profers, damnatis propositionibus esse aequivalentiae nego. Hinc sequitur, te propositiones in Jansenio non reperiste: non sequitur, neminem alium posse reperiere. Fortasse id praestabunt alii acutiores & diligentiores: non enim solus homo es, sed unus e multis. Non continebis te tamen, sat scio, quin me, si non haereticum, certe haereseos fautorem appelles. Ast ego hoc tibi in antecessum repono: Nemo haeresi favere potest quae nulla est: at nulla in Ecclesia nova haeresis: nulli ergo novae haereseos fautores. Quorsum igitur tot decreta, tot Epistolae, tot conciones, tot libelli? Nescio, mi Pater. Unum hoc scio, quaenam ista esset haeresis, quam vos sensus Janseniani haeresim dicitis, neminem adhuc me reperisse qui nosset. Incredibile, inquis, fictitiae haereseos larva Ecclesiam jactari. Incredibilius, mi Pater, esse quandam haeresim, quam nemo verbis perspicuis nec ambiguis possit exprimere, quam ignorent & qui accusant & qui accusantur; cujusque tota vis sex syllabis, sensus Jansenii, sine ulla certa notione & sensu contineatur. At in hac opinione vehementer, erro. Omnino vehementer mi Pater, si erro. Adde etiam ex vestris decretis, inculpate: invincibiliter enim erro, quippe qui omnem adhibuerim diligentiam ad novam illam haeresim detegendam, nec tamen detegere potuerim. Ita si me inclementius objurges, vel Escobario judice confutabitur reprehensor Annatus.   
FINIS,   

PAULI IRENAEI DISQVISITIO QVARTO.  
Nullum fuisse inter Doctores ex utraque parte Romam missos, legitimum controversiae caput.  

PRAEFATIO AD FRANCISCUM ANNATUM.  
Perstingitur ejus taciturnitas, occasio scriptionis declaratur.  
SIc est prorsus, mi Annate, insipienter speravimus fore ut Disquisitionum nostrarum aculeis aliquid a te responsi eliceremus. Sed insipienter quoque illi judicant, qui etiam silentio tuo causam praetendunt, quod indignum auctoritate tua sis arbitratus cum ignoto hoste confligere. Mihi vero & de te iniquius senti e videntur, qui tam insolens tibi fastidium tribuunt; & de ipsa re non recte, qui te parum decore in hoc certamen descensurum putant. Enim vero si honor spectatur tuus, lacessito tibi & vehementur tum Gallice tum Latine exagitato, longe fuit honestius respondere, quam tacre; praesertim cum tam facilem vincendi conditionem tulissem tibi, & id modo a re, quo me victum faterer, exegissem, ut controversiae qua hodie conflictatur Ecclaesia, certum aliquod caput assignares. Hoc, mi Annate, cur recusaris, non alia cuiquam causa occurit, nisi quod id te praestare posse di●fisus es.  
Praeterea non ignoras scriptiunculam nostram, ac multo magis celebrem illam decimam-octavam Provincialem epistolam, quae te, mi Pater, in magnas conjecit angustias, multorum manibus teri, nec paucis illud persuasisse quod volebant, nullam omnino de ullo fide dogmate contentionem in Ecclesia esse, totamque illam Janseniani sensus haeresim meram fabulam esse, a vobis inductam, ut adversariis vestris invidiam apud imperitos faceretis. Quam opinionem cur ex animis hominum nolles evellere, si hoc a te fieri posse confideres?  
Ergo illud propensius vero, si minus honorisicum tibi silentiam erat, utile certe Societati tuae fuisse, e cujus commodis & loqui tuum, & tacere metiris. Scilicet eam in non leve discrimen adduxerat incaute a te tradita Janseniani sensus explicatio, de gratia necessitante, quae dissentiendi potestatem auferret. Actum erat de causa tua, si tam perspicue loqui perstitisses. Nihil illa magis quam lucem timet: nihil illi insensius, quam si intelligatur. Unde te vehementius aiunt a Sociis tuis increpitum fuisse, quod praepostera & incallida defensione omnes penes defensiones suas disjecisses.  
Igitur, mi Annate, non ita prae studio iniqui sumus, ut susceptum tibi prudentissimae taciturnitatis consilium a te abjici contendamus. Novimus enim quam illud rationibus tuis opportunum, imo necessarium fuerit. Tu modo ne succenseas, si quando nobis non idem quod tibi conducit, non eandem quoque rationem ineamus. Tam nostra studet introspici causa, quam tua id causa reformidat. Ergo suae saltem utilitati servire cuique sit liberum. Tibi silere sit jus: nobis saltem hactenus loqui, ut veritatis patefactione lucem ac pacem frustra turbatae Ecclesiae concilemus: abacto scilicet fictitiae haereseos terriculo, quo illam jamdiu sine causa tu caeterique Sodales tui commovetis.  
Adeo aurem turbas hac scriptione contentionesque non molimur, ut nihil aliud contendamus, quam nullam omnino de fide in Ecclesia turbam, nullam inter nos & adversarios nostros contentionem vel esse, vel fuisse. Quod argumentum cum jam in prima Disquisitione pertractarim, cur hic uberius pertractandum censeam, paucis aperio.  
Dilucidis, ni fallor, & necessariis rationibus evici, nullum de quinque propositionibus dissidium in Ecclesia versari, nec causam esse cur ulli in suspicionem hae eseos vocentur, cum de ipsis dogmatis omnes consentiant, omnes illum sensum qui dicitur Jansenianus, peraeque respuant. Illud tamen, fateor, vehementius, mi Annate, mitabar, cur ergo Romam disceptaturi Doctores ivissent. Nimis enim mihi ridiculum videbatur, ut vel Doctores inter se de nihilo animose pugnaverint, vel judices de nihilo pugnari non intellexe int.  
Quamobrem hoc totum quale esset inquirendi consilium cepi; opportuneque nactus varia scripta quae utraque ex parte Consultoribus aut summo Pontifici oblata sunt, & praeterea multas eorum, qui tum Romae praesentes aderant, literas, nondum peracto negotio scriptas, in quibus quaecunque illic facta, dicta, agitata sunt, sigillatim recensentur; cuncta diligenter perlustravi. Hic quae mihi ante obscura & implicata videbantur, explicata & aperta visa sunt. Intellexi solidam initio & Theologicam fuisse contentionem de gratia efficaci & sufficiente Moliniana. Intellexi gravi & legitima a ratione Romam perfectos Augustinianos Doctores, ut eas calamitates averterent, quas ex confusa propositionum censura videmus accidisse. Reperi causae suae diffisos Molinistas, clam Romae totam controversiae faciam immutasse: efficacis gratiae oppugnatione deserta, abjectoque Molinianae patrocinio, veram disceptationis causam penitus sustulisse; aliamque commentitiam calumniis superextructam contentionem Consultoribus Romanis & summo Pontifici obtrusisse, nec in veros Augustini discipulos, sed in quasdam Jansenistarum larvas ab ipsis effictas impetum fecisse. Reperi postremo: tantum artibus & gratia valuisse Jesuitas, ut nec illae calumniae dilui, nec novae illius & fictitiae controversiae inanitas retegi & redargui posset.  
Enimvero, mi Annate, non mediocriter indolui, tamdiu accurata istarum rerum cognitione fraudatum esse orbem Christianum; nec leviter succensui eorum lentitudini, qui haec cum optime noverint, tamen adhuc a conficienda illa narratione supersederunt. Sed quam recte ipsi in tanta veritatis caligine opportunum fugandis tenebris lumen fidelibus subtrahant, ipsi viderint. Mihi certe licere non sum arbitratus ea tacere, quae abigendo fictitiae haereseos crimini, quo tot Catholici immeritissimo asperguntur, prorsus necessaris sunt.  
Quod nos eo minus invidiose facturi videmur, quod hic nulla de Jansenio quaestio est, sed tantum de Augustini discipulis, quos falso Jansenistatum nomine traducunt adversarii, a quibus quinque propositionum errores removeri adeo a summo Pontifici injurium non est, ut sit etiam honorificum & optabile. Quid enim ad probandum Pontifice Constitutionis aequitatem validius, quam ejusmodi esse illas propositiones, ut eas nemo in proprio sensu, & illo qui cicitur Jansenianus, un quam defenderit? Quid summo omnium Christianorum parenti optatius, quam filios omnes suos id ipsum de fide sentire & dicere; nec modo nunc, sed semper circa damnata haec capita extitisse concordes?   

ARTICULUS. I.  
De primo statu controversiae, dum Parisiis agitabatur ante quinque propositionum exortum.  
QUo pacto Romae inter se concordes reipsa Doctores extiterint, & falso discordes existimati sint qui Parisiis tam a criter inter se pugnaverant, hac quarta Disquisitione retegere, & in lucem promere consilium est; quia hujus ignoratio magnas huic toti negotio tenebras offundit.  
Norunt omnes, quibus contentiones illae, quae quinque propositionum ortum antecesserunt, auditae & perspecta sunt totam Augustinianos inter & Molinistas contentionum fuisse; Thomistasque in illa rixa nullatenus implicitos. Contendebant Augustiniani gratiam illam sufficientem Molinisticam, quae nihil aliud requirit ex parte Dei ut in actam prodeat, merum Semipelagianismum esse. Contra Jesuitae & eorum gregales, nisi ejusmodi gratia versatilis & libero arbitrio subjecta sive ad orandum, sive ad agendum admitteretur, fatum induci, necessitatem invehi, desperationem hominibus afferri, importunissime quiritabantur. Saepe Moinius in Scholis Sorbonicis hoc uno discrimine Jansenium a Thomistis secrevit, quod Thomistae duriores, horridiores, & adversus hostes suos minus tuti. Saepe de Hallerio multi audierunt: Si contentio fiat Jansenianae & Thomisticae opinionis, istam longe crudeliorem esse, quippe quae ad hominem innocentem acerba illa humanis sensibus gratuitae praedestinationis dogmata extenderet, quae tantum in hominibus lapsis Jansenius admittit.  
Quid vos in scholis vestris Claromontanis? Nonne apperte praedeterminationem physicam Calvinismi insimulastis, ut propterea Sedis Apostolicae Nuncius, ne Theses vestrae in quibus illud erat expressum, publice sustinerentur, inhibuerit?  
Quid tu ipse, mi Annate? Nonne cum in quodam de scientia media libro Calvinistis Thomistas aequiparasses, ab Academia Tholozana censura inustus es?  
Quid Moinius? Nonne aliquot ante annis hanc Jansenii propositionem Romam miserat, in ejus censuram impetraret: Nullum jam dari hominibus lapsis adjutorium sufficiens juxta primum sensum, oc est, praeter quod nullum aliud ex parte Dei per modum principii necessarium est, ut homo velit, aut operetur, quin simul efficax sit? Qui tum agebant ut haec propositio censura notaretur, quid aliud quam Molinianam gratiam Apostolicae Sedis judicio san ciri contendebant.  
Ergo, mi Pater, si verum dicere velis, ante quinque propositionum exortum, de sola efficaci gratia & sufficiente Moliniana tota erat controversia. Augustiniani pro efficaci contra Molinianam gratiam depugnabant. Vos cum vestris asseclis pro sufficienti Moliniana contra efficacem.  
Erat alia de Sancti Augustini auctoritate contentio. Hujus doctrinam sartam tectam volebant ipsius discipuli; vos eam non obscure vellic abatis.  
Quid enim aliud tendebat vester Ex-Jesuita Cornetus cum anno 1649. quo Syndici officio fungebatur, hanc conclusionem e thesibus jam impressis eradi jussit: Augustini doctrin m posse a quovis sine erroris periculo susti●e●i?  
Quid Adamus ille vester concionator & scriptor, qui tunc temporis innumeris concidit conviciis S. Augustinum, tanquam obscutum, intricatum, & qui nimio Pelagianorum odio in Calvinismum impegisset: a quo scilicet discedendum erat, ut veritas Catholica Pelagianos inter & Calvinistas interjecta retineretur.  
Quid caeteri passim vestri Sodales, quibus id temporis hoc unum studio fuisse videtur, ut Augustinum arroderent, ejusque auctoritatem elevarent?   

ARTICULUS. II.  
Quid de propositionibus questi sunt Augustiniani, cum primum a Corneto editae sunt.  
HIc scilicet fuit rerum status, cum famosae illae propositiones in lucem prodierunt. Mitto referre quo pacto Nicolaus Cornetus primo invitus ad istud inceptum adductus sit: quemadmodum secreta illa coitio coaluerit: tum quae Comitiis illis die 1. Julii anni 1649. habitis contingerint, ut totam fabulam prodiderit bonus senex, qui nomina Inquisitorum quos illi suggesseratis oblitus, schedulam e sinu protulit, Doctoris Moinii manu scriptam, in qua illa extabant. Quomodo Cornetus Doctori Jansenium subdole impeti conquerenti, ita responderit: Non agitur de Jansenio, Domine mi. Postremo quo modo tantus apparatus, intercessione septuaginta Doctorum, supremi Senatus auctoritate discussus sit. Conventio denique inter Doctores facta sit, ut de istis propositionibus tanquam a nullo prolatis auctore sileretur.  
Unum dico, Doctores Augustinianos de istarum propositionem fabrica multa questos; atque illud inprimis, fictas ad arbitrium propositiones, obscuras, & ambiguas, in quibus veritas cum errore permixta esset: Hinc in scripto Facultati oblato 1. Decembris 1649. à M. Petro Coppin omnium Doctorum nomine qui huic apparatui intercesserant, propositiones vocanter ambiguae, aequivocae, a nullo auctore, in sensu quem prae se ferre videntur, assertae.  
2. Testati sunt veritatem illam, quam subdole involutam in quinque propositionibus querebantur, esse dogma gratiae efficacis. Hinc liber de Gratia victrice anno 1650. de hoc uno argumento conscriptus.  
3. In praedicto sensu gratiae efficacis, propositiones istas verissimas & orthodoxas esse contenderunt: quod non est istas propositiones defendere, sed tantum dogma gratiae efficacis.  
4. In multis aliis sensibus falsas erroneas, & haereticas esse confessi sunt, sed qui nemine sustinerentur.  
5. Detexerunt artificium Molinistarum, ambiguam censuram obtinere molientium, quam deinde in Augustini doctrinam & efficacis gratiae dogma torquerent.  
Postremo multis scriptis id ostendere laborarunt, de aequivocis propositionibus sententiam ferri non oportere, priusquam evolutis illarum sensibus, in falsitatis damnatione veritas implicari non possit.  
De Jansenio autem quid dixerint, constare potest tum ex variis scriptis tunc editis, tum ex subjuncto loco qui habetur in scripto cui titulus est:  
Quinque propositionum de gratia; quas Facultati Theologicae Parisiensi M. Nicolaus Cornet subdole exhibuit 1 Julii 1649. vera & Catholico expositio juxta mentem discipulorum S. Augustini.  
Has propositiones, inquiunt, esse ab libitum fictas tamdiu constabit, quamdiu ubi, & à quo ut jacent assertae sint, demonstratum non fuerit; quod à nemine hactenus nisi mendaciter praestitum est, nec praestari potest. Quam periculosum autem, quam iniquum, quam inusitatum est, propositiones à nullo auctore assertas, à nullo auditas, ad libitum fictas, examini subjicere? Primam propositionem utcunque excipimus, quae iisdem quibus verbis in Iprensis Episcopi opere expressa, at tamen à praecedentibus & consequentibus verbis, quae apud Jansenium planum & rectum illius sensum declarant, dolose avulsa, sic exhibita est ut obscura & ambigua penitus perversaeque interpretationi obnoxia videatur: proptereaque non sine arte & consilio dissimulatus est locus Iprensis Episcopi, ne scilicet quo sensu ibi asseritur & exponitur, tota Augustiniana, hoc est, tota Catholica, tota non alio sensu, quam qui Gratiae per se efficacis ad singulos actus necessitatem exprimit defensa deprehenderetur. Posterius est, quod spectat ad harum propositionum sensum, scilicet aequivocas esse penitus & ambiguas omnes; proptereaque hinc rectae, inde perversae; hinc Catholicae, inde erroneae & haereticae interpretationi obnoxias. Possunt enim ad gratiae victricis & per se efficacis, ad singulos piae voluntatis motus necessariae doctrinam singulae revocari; nec alio quam gratiae istius per se efficacis sensu, aut ab Episcopo prensi, quantum ex ejus operis lectione innotescit, aut à quovis alio B. Augustini discipulo defensae sunt nunquam ab iis, ut jacent (id est in proprio significatu) assertae, ut in libro de gratia Christi victrice satisfuse & perspicue demonstratur.  
Sic Augustiniani loquebantur anno 1651. quo is libellus editus est, hoc est, duobus ante Constitutionem annis. Unde patet quam audacter viris primariis imposuerint, qui hanc iis fabulam persuadere veriti non sunt: Ante Constitutionem editam, nec in Gallia, nec in Belgio dubitatum, quin quinque propositiones Jan senii essent. Dubitatum enim non est, quin quinque illae propositiones ad efficacem gratiam revocari possint: quod verum esse omnes agnoscunt. Sed secluso illo sensu, qui a Pontifice utique damnatus non est, cum a tota Ecclesia & ab ipso summo Pontifice quotidie probetur in Thomistis; in quocunque alio sensu apud Jansenium extare nunquam agnoverunt illius defensores.   

ARTICULUS II.  
Censura quinque propositionum, ex Doctoris de Sainte-Beuve scriptis dictatis in Sorbona anno 1651. deprompta.  
SEd ne generatim haec tantum ad declinandam offensionem ab Augustini discipulis dicta causari possis, mi Annate, mecum, quaeso, recognosce, censuram in illas propositiones latam longe ante Constitutionem a Doctore de Sainte-Beuve, notissimae eruditionis, probitatis, sinceritatis viro. Hic vero, utpote scholastico more de his propositionibus in scholis agens, enucleatius sensum Augustianorum aperuit.  

Censura primae propositionis. D sp. 1. sect. 3●.  
ALii ad e●citandam invidiam in discipulos B. Augustini, alio modo contexuerunt propositionem suam, quam postea illis imposuerunt. Dixerunt scilicet, quod hanc propositionem Augustiniani iventur: Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia: deest quoque illis gratia qua possibilia fiant. De qua propositione diximus, quod conflata per adversarios Augustinanae doctrinae, una cum aliis quatuor, ex terminis ambiguis, aliquo sensu falsa est, & aliquo sensu vera; [quem tamen non esse proprium & germanum satis ipse declarat.]  
1. Falsa est & haeretica, si vox ista, hominibus, supponat universaliter pro singulis hominibus, & sensus sit, quod aliqua praecepta omnibus, & singulis hominibus, secundum praesentes quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia: nam certum est aliquos justos servare Dei mandata.  
2. Falsa est & haeretica, si voces istae, secundum praesentes quas habent vires, significent vires quas habent justi in haec vita: nam de fide est, justos in hac praesenti vita posse servare Dei mandata.  
3. Falsa est & haeretica, si vox illa, volentibus, significet plenam & perfectam voluntatem. Nam plene & perfecte velle servare mandata non potest justus, nisi ea servet actu.  
4. Prima ejusdem pars est etiam falsa & haeretica. Nam primo homines justi sunt liberi & viatores, adeoque capaces auxiliorum quibus mandata observent. Illud autem non est impossibile simpliciter, quod est possibile per gratia. Secundo, Gratia sanctificans, & actualia auxilia quae habent, si parva sunt, sunt aliquod principium propinquius observationis illorum: si magna, sunt principium proximum.  
Secunda autem pars falsa est & haeretica, intellecta de singulis justis, & de gratia qua possibilia fiant proxima Dei mandata. Nam cum sint aliqui justi in hac vita, qui Dei mandata observant, falsum est neminem esse justorum in hac vita qui habeat proximam ad implenda praecepta possibilitatem. Falsa etiam est & erronea, intellecta de aliquibus justis & de possibilitate remota: [sensu scilicet Moliniano, quam eadem proximam dici sensu Thomistico nihil vetet] Nam gratia sanctificans, & auxilia actualia quae habent, sunt quoddam principium mandatorum observationis.  
Est autem vera eo sensu, quod aliqua Dei praecepta aliquibus hominibus justis, non plane ac perfecte volentibus & conantibus, secundum vires quas habent in via, cum non plene ac perfecte volunt atque conantur sunt illis impossibilia potestate proxima, [id est, quae complectitur omnia ad agendum necessaria, & excludit necessitatem efficacis auxilii ad agendum,] deest quoque gratia [efficax scilicet, nam sufficientem: Thomisticam in istis justis supra agnovit] qua possibilia proxime fiant.  
Proximam enim potentiam quam negat, intellige semper Moliniano modo, praeter quam nihil aliud requiritur; nam hoc sensu hanc vocem semper usurpat. Aliam enim potentiam, quam Thomistae etiam completam vocant, cur cum ipsis non admitteret, cum illa nihil obsit gratiae efficacis necessitati, quam solam ille & caeteri Augustiniani tuenter? Praesertim cum idem Doctor infra nihil virtutis deesse gratiae excitanti ad effectum producendum fateatur, & ob solam resistentiam effectu carere: quod est illam asserere in actu primo completam.   

Censura secundae propositionis. Ex eadem sectione.  
QUod spectat ad istam propositionem: Interiori gratia nunquam resistitur, quae secunda est ex quinque quas composuerunt adversari doctrinae S. Augustini, & discipulis ejus tanquam auctoribus objecerunt, idem dico quod de aliis, scilicet aequivocam esse; secundum aliquem sensum falsissimam, secundum alium verissimam.  
Falsissima est sub aliquo sensu; quia sub aliquo sensu verum est, quod interiori gratiae semper resistitur. Prob. Omnis gratia interio est habitualis vel actualis; & omnis resistentia est cum victoria vel sine victoria. Resistitur habituali gratia ab homine cum victoria supra gratiam, quando peccat mortaliter: nam qui peccat mortaliter, agit contra gratiam habitualem, adeoque illi resistit. Resistitur gratiae habituali sine victoria super illam, quando concupiscentia insurgente & tentate, voluntas non consentit.  
Gratia actualis vel est intellectus, vel voluntatis. Gratiae interiori intellectus resistitur cum victoria quae de illa reportatur, quando sola est: quia ejusdem est conditionis quoad hoc cum gratia exteriori legis, quae si sola est, obest occasionaliter, etc. Gratia voluntatis vel est parva, vel magna: parva resistitur, sed ita ut aliqua ex parte, sed majori superetur, minori superet. Superatur, quia non ponit effectum, quem in subjecto minus resistente ponerit: superat, quia ponit omnem effectum ad quem ordinatur a Deo: facit velle, licet non plene, sed imperfecte. Verissima autem est haec propositio, intellecta de gratia quantumlibet magna vel parva, si per hanc vocem, resistere, intelligatur ea resistentia qua conatus omnis gratia ita inanis & vacuus fiat, ut impediatur a ponendo effectu ad quem ordinatur a Deo, [per voluntatem nempe absolutam, ut idem Doctor indicat alio loco. Nam gratiam frustrari eo effectu ad quem ordinetur per voluntatem antecedentem, libenter dabunt quicunque sentiunt istam voluntatem in Deo esse formaliter.]   

Censura tertiae propositionis. Eodem sectione.  
EX dictis judicium patiter facile fiet de tertia propositione, ab iisdem auctoribus eodem spiritu fabricata ex equivocis, & calumniose imposita Augustinianis. Talis est: Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur libertas a necessitate, sed sufficit libertas a coactione.  
Scilicet prima pars ejus, procedens de homine puro viatore, & non comprehensore, falsus est, & haeretica. Nam libertas voluntatis in genere, est libertas a necessitate extrinseca: quod aurem convenit superiori, convenit ejus inferioribus.  
2. Intellecta de libertate electionis, quae est libertas per quam meremur in via, & eadem intellecta de necessitate ab interiori inclinatione procedente, sive intrinseca, quae sit absoluta, est falsa. Nam libertati electionis essentialis est indifferentia ex parte potentiae: [activae scilicet, non passivae, ut late idem Doctor probat:] talis autem indifferentia opponitur necessitati inte iori absolutae, qualis est ea necessitas qua Deus amatur a Beatis.  
Verissima est autem de libertate electionis, & necessitate procedente ab interiori inclinatione, quae sit duntaxat hypothetica. Ratio est, quia posita motione divinae gratiae, sequitur necessario [hypothetice scilicet] agere voluntatem, sed suo modo, & absque essentialis libertatis suae indifferentiae nocumento; sed tantum cum defectu indifferentiae ex parte actionis, quae est illi accidentalis duntaxat.  
Posterior vero pars propositionis istius falsissima est eo sensu, quod omnis actus voluntatis non coactus, sed spontaneus, sit sufficiens ad meritum & demeritum: alias motus primo primi essent demeritorii. Secundo, Eo sensus quo coactum dicitur, quod fit a principio externo non concurrente, sed renitente passo: alias eo ipso quo vis ista inferretur voluntati, ut tamen ageret in bono sive in malo, posset demereri: quod absurdam esse docet Augustinus, ubi de fato Mathematicorum, & vi illata bonae naturae per malam in haeresi Man chaeorum.  
Verissima autem est, si liberum esse a coactione sit aliud, non tantum quod vim non pure pariter, quae prima species est coactionis, ut in lapide cum sursum projicitur: non tantum quod vim patiter & agit; sed modo praeternaturali, ut in lapide decidente sponte cum propellitur, ut majori decidat impetu, que est secunda species coactionis: sed etiam quod non est determinatum a natura, sed se suo modo determinat, quae est tertiae species coactionis. Nam apud SS. Patres quod est determinatum a natura, aliquando coactum appellatur. [Vides quam in aliena tantum, & minime propria significatione veram esse agnoscat, in aliis falsam concedat.]   

Censura quartae propositionis. Ex. 1. disp. sect. 1. art. 2.  
EX dictis patet, quale judicium ferendum sit de hac propositione: Semipelagiani admittebant praeve●ientis gra ie interi●ris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei, & in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse, cui posset humana voluntas resistere, vel obtempe●are. Quam propositionem una cum aliis quatuor B. Augustini discipulis calumniose imputant aliqui Molinae fautores.  
Dicimus igitur, quod ista propositio quibus libuit ab ipsis contexta terminis aequivoca est, sub quibusdam sensibus vera, & falia sub aliis. Prior ejus pars absolute falsa est, intellecta de Semipelagianis omnibus: quia certum est ex S. Prospero, Epistola ad Augustinum, quod aliqui ipsorum pelagianizabant, non agnoscentes illam gratiam ad initium fidei a gratia exteriori legis atque doctrinae. Eadem prior pars est vera de alio genere Semipelagianorum, intellecta de gratia interiori intellectus; hanc enim a Semipelagianis istis non negatam fuisse sole clarius est.  
Rursum vera est, intellecta de gratia voluntatis, quae commissa sit, seu subdita libero arbitrio; seu de auxilio sin● quo non, quod dat homini posse si velit, sed non velle quod possit, ut probationes nostrae evincunt. Sed falsa est, intellecta de gratia voluntatis, cui sit commissum seu subditum liberum arbitrium; seu de auxilio quo, eo scilicet quod dat homini velle quod possit, & non tantum posse si velit. Talis siquidem gratiae necessitatem ad initium fidei non admittebant Semipelagiani.  
Quod ad posteriorem vero ejus partem, scilicet quod in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent tam gratiam talem esse, cu●p sset human, voluntas resistere, vel obtemperare; dicimus illam simpliciter lo quendo falsum esse & haereticam. Nam de side est ex Conc. Trid. homines posse gratiae interiori voluntatis resistere, vel obtemperare. [Quid plenius quid, Pontificiae Constitutioni congruentius.]   

Censura quintae propositionis. Ex disp. 5. art. 7.  
REcenset primo v●rios sensus istius propositionis, Christus pro omnibus mortuus est; septem videlicet Catholicos, & unum Semipelagianum.  
Primus est, quod Christus pro omnium hominum salute mori voluerit, voluntate quadam antecedente, seu velleitate, u● colligitur ex S. Thoma.  
2. Quod mortuus sit pro omnibus & singulis, quoad sufficientiam pretii.  
3. Quod mortuus sit pro omnibus & singulis hominibus, ratione causae & naturae communis.  
4. Quod mortuus sit non pro singulis generum, sed pro generibus singulorum.  
6. Quod mortuus sit pro omnibus fidelibus, co sensu, quod nullus est fidelium qui non sit particeps alicujus effectus mortis Christi, maxime que redemptionis a peccato originali.  
7. Christus mortuus est pro singulis hominibus, modo ipsi credant, & se disponant ad gratiam adoptionis recipiendam.  
Sensus Semipelagianus est, ita mortuum esse pro singulis hominibus, modo ipsi credant, ut fides in omnium nutu sine efficaci gratia sit posita; quod refellit eruditus Professor variis locis & praesertim articulo praecedente.  
His positis, suam de quinta propositione censuram subjungit his verbis:  
Ex his patet quale judicium ferendum sit de hac propositione quam objiciunt Molinae defensores Augustini discipulis quasi suam, cum tamen ipsi ad excitandum invidiam ad libitum eam composuerint: Semipelagianum est Christum pro omnibus ommnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse. Scilicet Semipelagianum non est; imo maxime Catholicum id dicere in sensibus Catholicis a nobis propositis, licet id sit Semipelagianum dicere in sensu Semipelagianorum.  
En Professoris eruditi sincerum de quinque propositionibus judicium, ante Constitutionem Innocentii decimi editum, cui congruunt omnia illa scripta tunc temporis ab Augustinianis evulgata & maxime istarum propositionum explicatio Catholica excusa Parisiis anno 1651. itemque sensum distinctio summo Pontifici exhibita.    

ARTICULUS IV.  
De gratia sufficiente Thomistica quomodo locuti sint Augustiniani Doctores.  
SEcunda Disquisitione planum feci quo pacto nanc gratiam universim Jansenius e disputatione removerit, & speciatim in volentibus & conantibus admiserit. Operae pretium est hic ostendere quomodo illi quos Jansenistas Moliniani dicunt, hanc quaestionem ante Constitutionem omnino seposuerint & attingere noluerint.  
Inprimis Auctor Apologiae Patrum diserte testatur quam gratiam sufficientem impugnat, eam Molinianam esse, non Thomisticam, graviterque castigat Doctorem Morellium, quod Thomistas quasi gratiae sufficientis patrones auxilio accersivisset cum illi aliusmodo gratiam sufficientem admittant a Moliniana, quam Augustiniani aversabantur, longe diversam.  
Clarius adhuc Auctor libri de Initio piae voluntatis cap. 1. pag. 2. Non hic impugno, inquit, eam gratiam sufficientem, praeter quam alia ex se efficax necessaria dicitur ad singulos pietatis actus sed gratiam versatilem, in manu liberi arbitrii positam, ut a S. Augustini & Ecclesiae doctrina omnino alienam rejicio. Nullum esse talem ut a liberi arbitrii consensu effectam sortiatur contendo. Aliquam autem necessariam ad singulos pietatis motus, conatus, & actus, quae ex se sit efficax, assevero. Intellige ergo me, cum gratiae sufficientis, flexibilis, vel aequilibris, versatilis, anticipitis, in manu liberi arbitrii positae, nuncupatione utor, gratiam eam Mlcinisticam designare, quae effectum suum a voluntatis consensu Deo efficaciter non praemovente, fortiatur.  
Ubinam igitur totam reponit controversiam? Audi, quaeso, Lector, & intellige de quo tunc certaretur. Constat totam Molinistas inter & sancti Augustini discipulos controversiam in hoc sitam esse: An dentur aliquae gratiae actuales internae, cor & voluntatem intus afficientes, quae vi sua bonam voluntatem non efficiant: sed quas secundum se indifferentes & aequilibres, liberum lapsi hominis arbitrium ad effectum seu ad profectum operis perducat.  
Vides, mi Annate, Augustinianos semper seposuisse illam de generali gratia sufficiente quaestionem, nec omnino prompsisse quid de ea sentirent, excepto quod Iansenius ab Augustino illam non difficile admissum iri proficetur. Hujus autem cautionis ea causa fuit, quod semper eas quaestiones a●tingere veriti sint, ex quibus parum fructus posset in Ecclesiam redundare. Talis erat haec de generali gratia sufficiente quaestio, qualem omnibas etiam infidelibus nonnulli Thomistae concedunt. Nam quae cunque demum sit ea gratia, non ea certe est quam orant sibi fideles, & quam infidelibus petunt. Non enim petunt sterilem quandam bene agendi potestatem, sed perunt omnino ut bene agant, ut saepe ait Augustinus.  
Accedit quod talis gratiae explicatio parum admodum prodest ad compescendas hominum voces, divinae legis implendae potestatem sibi defuisse querentium. Nihil enim querulos illos consolatur potestas alterius auxilii ad agendum indiga. Unde Sylvius insignis Theologus Academiae Duacensis 1. 2. q. 109. a. 4. Sive detur aliqua gratia, quae tantum est sufficiens, non efficax, sive non detur; ea secundum rei veritatem est impertinens ad salvandum; quod homo possit divina mandata servare: partim quia ut ipse illa servet, ea gratia sola non sufficit; sed oportet quod etiam adsit gratia efficax quae a solo, Deo pendet, & gratis seu sine merito tribuitur: partim quia juxia communem sententiam gratia sufficiens non semper datur, & tamen homines viatores semper possunt divina mandata servare; ac per consequens etiam tunc quando non habent gratiam sufficientem. Ergo ut observatio praeceptorum dicatur esse possibilis, non est necesse venire eo ut dicatur quod habeant gratiam sufficientem. Haec ille longe ante natas ex occasione libri Janseniani de gratia contentiones.  
Erat aliud in istius gratiae tractatione periculosum, ipsum scilicet vocabulum sufficientis gratiae, quod facillime maximeque ab imperitis in perversum sensum detorquetur. Unde liquet apud Patres & S. Thomam nunquam illud illa notione usurpatum qua usurpatur a nonnullis Thomistis; nec sufficiens olim dictum, nisi quod ad agendum reipsa sufficeret. Quam ob causam Lovaniensis Facultas hoc nomen soli demum efficaci gratiae impertit. Gratia, inquiunt in justificatione censurae, ad conversionem sufficiens, ipsa convertit; quae vero non convertit, non sufficit.  
His de causis istam gratiam prorsus omittere satius plerique Augustiniani duxerunt; adeoque talis gratiae defensio vel impugnatio nunquam capitalis Augustinianae doctrinae pars ab ipsis constituta. Adstrueres illam vel non adstrueres, nihil ad cardinem causae, nec ad Augustinianae doctrinae summam.  
Sed illud animadversione dignissimum, jesuiticae causae defensores, Hallerium scilicet, & socios diserte in scriptis Romae oblatis esse testatos, nolle se gratiam sufficientem generalem adstruere, sed prorsus intactas relinquere has quaestiones, utrum Christus morte sua gratiam sufficientem infantibus, obduratis, infidelibus, promeruerit. Sic enim loquuntur super quinta propositione in scripto Consultoribus oblato, quod tandem cum quibusdam aliis in Augustinianorum manus venit: Hoc sensu examinata propositione, intactae relinquuntur difficultates quae occurrunt circa infantes sine baptismo decedentes, aut infideles, aut obduratos. Nam qui dicit Christum non pro solis praedestinatis esse mortuum, non dicit consequenter pro quolibet reprobo in particulari mortuum esse: sed sufficit quod pro aliquibus saltem reprobis.  
Atque haec de gratia generali, quatenus infidelibus, obduratis, generatim conceditur, Augustinianorum circumspectio fuit: sed aliter se gesserunt in asserenda eadem gratia respectu justorum. Multi enim gravissimique Doctores eam gratiam in infidelibus non admiserunt. At fidelibus eam prorsus negare, quod ad rem ipsam nemo potest, qui intelligat quid eo nomine Thomistae significant. Intelligunt enim motionem Spiritus Sancti, cujus instinctu volunt is imperfect as quasdam voluntares seu velleitates eliciat, quibus ita ad perfectiores actus disponatur, ut nisi ipsa resisteret, plenum illae gratiae effectum obtinerent. Resistit a●tem semper, inquiunt Thomistae, nisi voluntas ad perfecte consentiendum ●fficaciter applicetur. Talem gratiam qui prorsus respuat, omnino non dicam Catholicus, sed sanus non sit, cum eam experiri quisque saepe potuerit.  
Certum igitur talem gratiam admisisse Augustinianos, quam tamen libentius inefficacem appellabant quam sufficientem, ut videre est in secunda Apologia jansenii lib. 2. cap. 22. pag. 273. Ideo autem non appellabant sufficientem; quia eo nomine vulgus intelligit eam gratiam praeter quam nihil aliud praere quiritur ex parte Dei ad bene agendum & plene consentiendum: non quo negaverint unquam talem gratiam sensu Thomistico sufficientem dici posse. Quare Professor Sorbonicus D. de Sainte-Beuve, tametsi ut qui maxime Augustinianus, non dubitavit tamen hanc gratiam in justis, seclusa nominis ambiguitate, admi tere; Ejus verba describam, ne tu, mi Annate, causari possis, post Constitutionem demum de hac gratia admittenda Augustinianos cogitasse. Sic ergo ille in scriptis dictatis anno 1651. disp. 5. a. 6.  
Legitima est divisio gratiae voluntatis propriae status naturae lapsae per Christum Dominum reparatae, in gratiam sufficientem & efficacem, si per gratiam sufficientem intellig●tur gratia parva, ea scilicet quae cum sit efficax ejus effectus ad quem proxime ordinatur, & quem Deus ABSOLUTA VOLUNTATE [audi absolutam voluntatem] intendit; non est tamen efficax ejus effectus quem Deus absoluta voluntate non intendit, & ad quem ordinatur, quantum est de se [& antecedente si velis voluntate] & si per gratiam efficaem intelligatur gratia magna, ea scilicet quae est efficax ultimi effectus, quem Deus absoluta sua voluntate intendit. Sic gratia sufficiens ea est quae verbi gratia parit desideria parva; & parvam voluntatem conversionis; efficax, quae convertit perfecte.  
Probatur, quia legitima est divisio gratiae voluntatis status praesentis, in parvam & magnam. Augustinus illam agnovit l. de gr. & lib. arb. c. 17. sensit in sua conversione, expressit in confessionibus suis clarissime & eloquentissime. Haec autem quae parit desideria parva, & imbecillem dat voluntatem, licet sit efficax ratione hujus effectus, est tamen SUFFICIENS RESPECTU ULTERIORIS EFFECTUS; quia quod eum non ponat, NON EST DEFECTU VIRTUTIS, [audi virtutem cui nihil deest, id est, completam in actu primo] quae de se habet omnia quae requiruntur ad effectum illum ponendum, sed ratione resistentiae subjecti; quia scilicet gratia victrix est, non absolute, sed comparate duntaxat ad minorem concupiscentiam. Deus vero non intendit sua absoluta voluntate ultimum hunc effectum poni in subjecto sic resistente. Atque haec acceptio gratiae sufficientis pro gratia parva efficaci ejus effectus ad quem proxime ordinatur a Deo, & efficacis sumptae pro gratia magna, est insigniorum e Schola S. Thomae Doctorum, ut constat ex Sylvio 1. 2. q. 111. a. 3. scribente; Revera omnis gratia est efficax alicujus effectus, ejus nimirum ad quem proxime ordinatur, & quem Deus absoluta voluntate intendit. Laudat idem Doctor in eamdem sententiam Alvarem & Medinam, potuissetque omnes omnino Thomistas adjungere.   

ARTICULUS V.  
De potestate justorum ad observanda mandata, & de possibilitate proxima, quomodo ante Constitutionem Augustini discipuli locuti sint.  
BReviter dicam, una possibilitate excepta, caeteras omnes concesserunt. Non aliam, inquiunt in expositione propositionum ann. 1651. superius citata, impotentiam aliquando inesse justo alicui dicit Jansenius, nisi eam quae a gratiae per se efficacis absentia oritur, quae simul & posse proximum & velle donat. Et paulo supra: Atque ita aliquando justus aliquis non habet gratiam quae proximam & completissimam praecepti ut oportet observandi potentiam donat.  
Verum quia voces illae, potentiae proximae & completae, ambiguae sunt, alioque a Thomistis, alio a Molinistis sensu accipi●ntur, dispiciendum praeterea quid illi nomine potentiae proximae & completissimae, quam negabant justis, intellexerint: neque enim hoc ambi●uum reliquerunt. Sed multis locis vocibus his, posse proximi, intelligi a se significarunt possibilitatem cum effectu; possibilitatem cum ipso velle conjunctam, ut in ista expositione videre est; vel adhuc clarius; vel posse cui nihil necessarium deest ad operandum; potentiam quae non indiget alio auxilio, ut in opus suum exeat. Sic aperte Auctor scripti super quinque propositionibus, quod incipit: In nomine Domini nostri & Dei Servatoris Christi, anno 1649 editi. In hac igitur Christi schola faciunt profecto, quotquot possunt; non possunt vero quotquot non faciunt, hoc est, potentia proxima & directa, QUAE ALIO INSUPER AUX LIO NON INDIGET UT IN OPUS SUUM EXEAT. Quod identidem advertendum censeo, ne qua hic Thomistarum sufficienti gratiae, quam admitto lubens, fiat injuria. Ex quo liquet solam illos proximam potestatem Moliniano sensu justis negasse; & cum aliam qualemlibet concesserint, etiam proximam potestatem sensu Thomistico reipsa non impugnasse: licet eam remotam congruentius dici ea re sentirent, quod alterius gratiae auxilio ad operandum indigeret.   

ARTICULUS. VI  
De indifferentia quomodo locuti sint.  
HIc etiam brevissime sententiam suam complexi sunt. Ex quibus patet, inquiunt in expositione quinque propositionum, indifferentiam qualemlibet in hoc lapsae naturae statu, ab Augustini discipulis in his quae ad salutem & finem supernaturalem pertinent, admitti, praeter Molinisticam, quae gratiae ad singulos pios actus necessariae efficaciam & vim propriam destruit.  
Et speciatim de indifferentia Thomistica: In statu naturae laplae, inquiunt, ad merendum & demerendum adest semper, & etiam requiritur in puris viatoribus, indifferentia potentiae, non modo circa media, verum & circa rectum finem, non quidem ratione libertatis aut meriti secundum se, sed ratione status hujus & condi●ionis.  
Sed quia peccandi facultas Christo prorsus abfuit, cujus statui omnino repugnabat, ideo negarunt ad libertatem meriti & demeriti generatim & in alio quocumque statu requiri potentiam peccandi vel ullam indifferentiam potentiae, non ut in hominum lapsorum merito eam indifferentiam reperiri & requiri negarent; sed ne Christus Dominus qui peccare, qui Dei praeceptis non obsequi, qui opera sua ad Patris sui gloriam non referre non poterat, in actibus obedientiae & dilectionis Dei, vel liber non fuisse, vel non meruisse dicatur.   

ARTICULUS VII.  
Vtrum ante Constitutionem necessitantem gratiam admiserint Augustiniani.  
NEcessitatis vocem non exhorret quodam sensu S. Thomas. Sic enim 1. 2. q. 112. a. 3. Si praeparatio ad gratiam consideretur, secundum quod est a Deo movente, tunc habet necessitatem ad id ad quod ordinatur a Deo, non quidem coactinis, sed infallibi itatis; quia intentio Dei deficere non potest. Eodemque nomine frequenter utitur schola Thomistarum; sed Augustiniani raro admodum, nec fere unquam sine explicatione subjecta.  
Necessitantis vero gratiae voce, quia malo animo ficta & composita est, nusquam illos usos reperies: ac multo minus perversum illum sensum admiserunt qui sub illa fictitia voce solet ab illius artificibus inc●udi: Necessitantis enim gratiae voce eam intelligunt Moliniani, non modo quae infallibiliter habeat effectum, & physice praedeterminet, sed quae tollat dissentiendi potentiam, etiam in sensu diviso, id est, quae impedit quominus cum actu contrario potestas remaneat. Quisquis igitur resisti & dissentiri posse gratiae confitetur, is necessitantem gratiam repudiat. Hoc vero tam clare, tam crebro, tam sine ambagibus Augustiniani passim praedicaverunt, ut monstro simile videri possit ipsos in hoc capite columniam passos.  
Inprimis ante exortas propositiones, Auctor secundae Apologiae pro jansenio ann. 1645. in lucem editae, lib. 2. cap. 18. ejus adversus quem scribit criminationem his verbis refert: Docet Jansen●us gratiae resisti non posse, quia necessitatem imponit. Quid ipse igitur? An ita sentire jansenium agnoscit? Nihil minus. Ex jesuitarum Thesibus hanc calumniam ab ipso mutuatam ostendit; mox ex ipso jansenio late refellit, atque ex ejus doctrina tradit, dissentiendi a gratia potentiam non subtracta gratia supervenire, sed cum ipsa gratia consistere: quia actus opponitur non-actui, non autem potentiae ad contrarium.  
Nec minus clare Auctor expos. 5. propos. jam saepe laudatus: Etsi, inquit, efficiat haec Christi gratia, ut homo illi non dissentiat, nec dissentire velit, semper tamen dissentire potest, si vult, ut sacro Tridentino Concilio definitum est.  
Ac ne quis causari posset ipsos hanc dissentiendi potentiam admittere tantum subtracta gratia, non simul cum ipsa gratia, hanc malignam criminationem submovet his verbis: Licet in justis, etiam cum per divinam gratiam efficacissimam ad pie agendum moti, pie a●unt, peccandi seu male agendi potentia semper perseveret, propter quam dissentire possunt Deo moventi, hoc est peccare, & a justitia excidere: nunquam tamen stat ut tunc actu dissentiant.  
Et expressius adhuc Doctor de Sainte-Beuve in praelect. de gratia disp. 5. art. 7. super eodem Trid. Synodi loco: Respondeo, inquit, Concilium desinire, quod voluntas potest dissentire, stante divino auxilio; sed non definire quod actu dissentit, quando per gratiam omnem necessariam antecedenter ex parte Dei ad conversionem perfectam praemovetur, de quo tamen solo quaestio est; seu quod aliis terminis dicunt Theologi, potest in sensu diviso, non potest in sensu composito. Cujus distinctionis sensus non est, quod si voluntas non moveatur per gratiam, potest dissentire: sed quod etiam mota per gratiam conservat potentiam ad dissensum; quamvis nunquam contingat dissensus cum ejusmodi actuali Dei motione. Nam actus opponitur non actui; non opponitur potentiae ad non-actum.  
Sic illi quidem distinctionem illam vul●o acceperunt & vulgo interpretati sunt. Monendi sunt tamen Molinistae, explicationem illius sensus, quae a nonnemine per flexibilitatem liberi arbitrii tradita est, nullo modo repugnare huic Thomisticae: sed ea supposita aliquid ipsi superaddere, ut infra demonstrabitur.   

ARTICULUS VIII.  
Quid Romae circa propositiones contenderint Augustiniani Doctores.  
SIc illi quidem enucleate & distincte quid de propositionibus, quid de controversiae summa, quid de gratia sufficiente, quid de aliis capitibus sentirent, aperuerunt. Vestri autem etsi initio retecta fronte gratiam Molinianam a summo Pontifice sanciri voluissent, ut jam ostendimus, postea tamen obscurius agere coeperunt. Et quanquam propositiones generatim haereseos inconditis clamoribus accusarent, quamvis Augustini discipulos, solius, ut probatum est, in istis propositionibus gratiae efficacis defensores, omnibus maledictis concerperent, tamen sensum quo illas propositiones proscribi volebant, omnibus modis occultare conati sunt, maxime postquam Haberti Episcopi Vabrensis epistola Dineti Iesuitae concursatione ab Episcopis compluribus subscripta, totam rem ad summum Pontificem deferri curarunt, ut generalem quandam propositionum censuram ab eo impetrarent.  
Ad eam arcendam ab aliis Episcopis, numero quidem paucioribus, sed, ut omnes norunt, eruditione, dignitate & vitae sanctimonia non postremis, missi sunt Romam quidam Doctores; quibus quid mandatum sit ab illis Episcopis, & quid ipsi toto biennio quod Romae traduxerunt apud summum Pontificem egerint, ante omnia nosse, operae pretium est. Sic enim statim ut Romam appulerunt ex Episcoporum mandato summo Pontifici postulatorum suorum summam exposuerunt in Memoriali Sanctitati suae exhibito 21. januar. ann. 1652. juxta literas a pluribus illustrissimis Ecclesiae Gallicanae Antistitibus ad Beatitudinem vestram missas, illorum nomine Doctores Parisienses infra-scripti Sanctitati vestrae humillime supplicant ut distingui & sigillatim examinati jubeat varios sensus quinque propositionum aequivoca●um & ad fraudem fictarum, quae vestrae Beatitudini exhibitae sunt: de praedictis sensibus, prout exiget illorum veritas ac aliorum falsitas, sententiam ferre velit, partibus prius in Congregatione, tum voce, tum scripto coram auditis, & omnibus illorum scriptis mutuo communicatis, sicut postulat negotii magnitudo, in similibus occasionibus Ecclesiae consuetudo, ipsiusque sanctae Sedis Apostolicae usus, non ita pridem a felicis memoriae Clement VIII. & Paulo V. vestrae Sanctitatis spraedecessoribus observatus.  
Qui hanc supplicationem viderit, simul videt quid per totum fere biennium Romae Augustiniani Doctores fecerint. Innumeris enim supplicationibus, obsecrationibus, libellis, nil aliud apud Cardinales & summum Pontificem egerunt, nisi ut Congregatio solemnis institueretur, in qua auditis partibus, communicatis scriptis, tota controversia claro, nec ambiguo judicio dirimeretur. Quod cur non impetrarint, in altera Disquisitione narrabitur.   

ARTICULUS IX.  
Quid mali ex ambiguo decreto, non auditis coram partibus facto, eventurum Augustiniani Doctores multo ante praenunciarint.  
NOn difficile fuit ex jesuitarum moribus conjicere, quorsum illi generalem censuram nullo nominatim expresso sensu a summo Pontifice elicere tenderent. Itaque quaecunque postea contigisse videmus, tam distincte & accurate ante a Doctoribus praedicta sunt, ut id jesuitis studio fuisse videatur, illorum vaticinia ad amussim implere. Ecce quo pacto illorum consilia explicet Auctor expositionis 5. prop. Per aequivocarum assertionum censuram ancipitem & variis interpretationibus obnoxiam, in animo habuerunt invidiam & odium in Episcopum Iprensem & S. Augustini discipulos concitare; vera falsis involvere; Pelagianum errorem cum Catholica simul fide commiscere; perturbare omnia; censuram ipsam ancipitem, hujus sibi judicium & interpretationum arrogando, in quos libebit sensus inflectere; sibi hujus censurae tuendae praetextu, quidvis audendi licentiam facere; apud imperitam multitudinem, cui uni fallendae & deludendae student, totum Iprensis Episcopi opus, ut de errore vel haeresi notatum conclamare. Idem augurium videri potest late explicatum in praef. & concls. libri de gratia victrice.  
Multo etiam gravius Episcopi, cum pro illa solenni quam postulaverant Congregatione, aliam longe diversam institutam accepissent, inter Regulares tredecim & quinque Cardinales, in qua omnia clam peragerentur; nulla fieret scriptorum communicatio, nulla partium institueretur collatio: Episcopali libertate summum Pontificem monuerunt, fore ut ex tali agendi ratione infinitae turbae, contentiones, scandala oritentur, & magna Augustinianae doctrinae, magna Pontificiae Sedi labes aspergeretur. Ipsorum epistolam divinae prudentiae plenissimam, in sequenti Disquisitione recitabimus.   

ARTICULUS X.  
Jesuitarum calliditas in excipiendis Thomistis ex propositionum accusatione.  
ID igitur metuentes Doctores Augustiniani, ex Episcoporum, a quibus missi erant, mandatis, ut regia via res tractaretur, ante omnia solennem Congregationem institui postulabant, cum aliter calumniis, quibus potissimum Augustiniana causa premebatur, prorsus occurri & resisti non posset. Jesuitae contra ac Jesuitici Doctores, qui hoc causae ●uae capitaliter adversum esse sentiebant, devium quoddam ac tortuosum iter ingredi coeperunt, ut optato exitu potirentur. Hujus consilii, mi Pater, ne nega, auctor praecipuus extitisti; Neque enim in homines Sorbonicos cadebat tanta versuties. Sed tu tunc temporis Romae eras totius negotii moderator & rector, qui illos Doctores assidue tecum versantes ad hanc calliditatem instrueres. Patere igitur tibi breviter in memoriam redigi tuas palmas, id est, subtiliter excogitatas fallacias.  
Harum prima & maxime necessaria fuit, ficta cum Thomistis ad tempus consensio; quam tu propterea assimulare coactuses, quod cum illorum doctrina magna Romae auctoritate floreat, si paulummodo ipsos lacessivisses, certam tibi repulsam paratam esse sagaciter odorabaris. Illico enim insurrexissent in te Romani fere omnes Theologi; convolassent ex toto orbe Dominicani, ac multae aliae familiae Augustinianis subsidio venissent.  
Ergo ad auxiliares illas copias submovendas, necessario prae se ferendum, palamque denunciandum erat, nullum Thomisticae doctrinae caput in quinque propositionibus agi: totam hanc controversiam a disputatione de Auxiliis sub Clement VIII. instituta esse alienissimam: gratiae praedeterminanti & Thomisticae Scholae nullum omnino imminere ex illarum propositionum damnatione periculum; jesuitarum sententiae nihil penitus firmamenti accessurum. Haec, mi Annate, in ipso limine pleno ore praedicanda; alioquin statim exclusus esses.  
Verum hic tibi minime defuisti, ac ne quis dubitaret, ipse tantus Thomistarum hostis, fucati illius cum Thomistis super quinque propositionibus foederis praeco & buccinaror esse voluisti. Hoc consilio liber a te primum Hallerio Romae ad usum commodatus, mox tuo nomine editus est cum hoc titulo; Jansenius a Thomistis damnatus. Hic liber totus praeclaris Didaci, Alvaris, Nugnez, Cabesudo, Ledesmae, Nazarii, Gonzalis, Navarrettae, atque aliis ejusmodi nominibus personat.  
Quin ut Thomistis omnem omnino suspicionem demeres, sic eos in Praefatione metu & periculo liberas: Interesse puto, inquis, tum communis boni veritatis, quam omnes quaerimus, tum privatae Thomistarum dignitatis, auctoritatisque, quam non expedit in censura damnabilium sententiarum implicari, ut omnes intelligant pracipuos defensores gratiae praedeterminantis, & qui causam illam ardentius egere circae tempora disputationum, contraria prorsus posuisse principia principiis Jansenianorum. Quod, ut spero, lector perspicue intelliget ex oppositione doctrinae Thomistarum ad quinque propositiones, quae modo ad examen vocantur, ut non dubitem quin mecum dicturus sis eos qui tam facile sibi patiuntur imponi, alterutram Theologiam necessario nescire, nempe vel Thomisticam vel Jansenianam.  
Potuisti-ne amantius & benignius pro Thomistarum dignitate sollicitari? Parum tamen fuisset, nisi ad eum modum tuos etiam defensores instituisses. Hallerium loquor, Lagautium, Mulardum, Jossellium. Verum illi in ludo tuo ad calliditatem edocti, praeclare magistri sui artes retulerunt. Nihil enim magis laborarunt, quam ut alieni in Thomistas animi a se suspicionem averterent. Itaque Hallerius non obscure sese dictitabat efficacis gratiae patronum, & versatilis gratiae hostem, cum tu has injurias non iniquo stomacho concoquetes. Sic enim Romae faciendum fuit, & tempori serviendum. Haec cum ipsi, ubicumque tulerat occasio, praecipue coram Dominicanis sine dubitatione jactarent, tum vero in scriptis quae Consultoribus & Dominicanis obtulerunt, luculentissime expressere. Ex quibus quoniam omnia fere nactus sum, licet hic pauca describere, quae tu, credo, facile agnosces. Pleraque enim, aut potius omnia, ex Iesuitica officina prodierunt, eademque etiam Romae in multorum manibus versantur.  
In scripto cui titulus est, An sit sopienda quae jam fervet Jansenistarum controversia, imposito utrique parti silentio? sic loquuntur: Non est similis haec controversia controversiae de Auxiliis. In illa enim disputabatur de rebus nondum decisis, & ita disputabatur ut ipsa disputatione magis dubium fieret an & quid esset decidendum; & ideo facta est utrique parti copia suam defendendi sententiam. Hoc autem fieri non potest de controversia Janseniana.  
Item in fine: Hanc esse causam Thomistarum & Jesuitarum qui dicunt, errant toto caelo. Nihil proponitur summo Pontifici de quo fuerit controversia inter i●los Ordines: nihil quod non sit inter ambas familias communi consensu constitutum.  
Item in alio scripto Dominicanis conciliandis facto, Cum jansenistae per se ipsos stare non possint, alios sibi adjungere conantur, quibus innitantur, praesertimque reverendissimos Patres Dominicanos, quasi utrisque communis sit causa, cum tamen una toto caelo ab alia discrepet; quod, ni fallor, ipsa causarum expositione demonstrari potest.  
Ibidem: Quod autem res seu causa praedeterminantium in integro relinquatur, etiamsi quinque illae propositiones decreto Pontificio damnentur, vel quia jam damnatae sunt, damnatas esse declaretur, manifestum est; nempe ex hoc decreto non magis urgeri poterunt, quam modo urgentur ex Tridentino.  
Ibidem: Nullum ex Thomistis invenio, qui vel unam e quinque propositionibus admittat vel defendat. Ibidem: Nec quidquam ponderis accedet Jesuitarum hypothesi ex novo Pontificio decreto.  
Item in quodam scripto longiore super quinta propositione: Colligitur secundo, quid dicendum fit illis, qui hanc esse putant controversiam de auxiliis divinae gratiae tamdiu olim dissertatam sub duobus Pontificibus inter Thomistas & Jesuitas, hocque jam praetextu Janseniani utuntur, ut censuras eludant, ut cum non putent posse Thomistas in eamdem ruinam trahi cum illis, ipsi communione sententiarum & connexione erigantur & stent. Sed in eo quoque latius aberrant quam toto caelo. Nihil omnino illis exprobratur, de quo Thomistae cum Jesuitis contenderint: Nihl exigitur quam quod fuerit concordissimo duorum illorum Ordinum consensu atque suffragiis constitutum.  
Videsne quam instanter illud urgeant, nihil se omnino in judicium vocare quo vel tantillum Thomistarum sententia laedi possit, & Jesuitarum causa robotari.   

ARTICULUS XI.  
Conciliandorum cum Thomistis Molinistarum quanta fuerit difficultas. Summa in hoc Annati solerita.  
VErum pinguior istorum Doctorum calliditas extitisset, si universim tantum juravissent nolle se Thomistis injuriam factam; indignos esse tam graves Theologos, qui in quinque propositionum damnatione implicarentur. Merito non tam stolidos homines Romae putaverunt, ut haec sua sponte absurda ipsis tantum affirmantibus crederent. Ergo speciatim ostendendum fuit quo pacto ipsi a Thomistis alieni non essent, nec quidquam omnino contenderent, quod ipsorum causae obesse aliquatenus posset.  
Arduum profecto negotium; in quo tamen sic te nobilitasti, ut nusquam magis cognitum sit quantum esset in solertia tua. Quamobrem patientem, quaeso, nobis au●em accommoda, dum paulo latius mirabile illud commentum, cui tu praecipuam laudem procul dubio inter omnes calliditates tuas tribuis, & tuis & lectorum oculis subjicimus.  
Omnium dissidiorum quibus Molinistae a Thomistis distrahuntur, unicus pene fons est praedeterminantis & per se efficacis gratiae doctrina, quam hi tuentur, illi respuunt. Asserunt Thomistae ex Scripturae oraculis & Conciliorum Decretis sine gratia efficaci & praedeterminante nullum bonum opus fieri, nullum praeceptum impleri ut oportet: sive ut loquuntur, motionem Dei efficacem, cui voluntas infallibiliter consentit, ad omnia pietatis opera necessarium esse. Hujus opinions rigorem Molina non ferens, abjecta efficaci gratia quasi libertatis inimica, aliam excogitavit versatilem & sufficientem, quae daret posse, non velle: sed pro nutu voluntatis modo efficax, modo inefficax esset. Hae duae sententiae ex adverso sibi oppositae sunt: Perimit versatilem gratiam efficax ad omnia pietatis opera necessaria; abjicit efficacem versatilis & sufficiens Moliniano sensu gratia.  
Ex capitali illa opinionum distractione, aliae deinde Thomistas inter ac Molinistas contentiones nascuntur. Et primo circa possibilitatem praeceptorum longissime a Molinistis Thomistae dissident. Nam cur certum sit non omnes actu implere praecepta, certum est etiam non omnibus adesse efficacem gratiam ad illorum observationem necessariam: Hac enim praesente semper i●plentur, absente nunquam. Viderunt igitur Thomistae non omnibus talem implendorum praeceptorum potestatem concedi posse, quae cum actu aliquando conjungeretur. Potestas enim quam habent gratia efficaci destituti, nunquam cum actu conjungitur. Itaque distinctionem in scholis traditam ad hoc explicandum advocaverunt, sensus nimirum compositi & divisi. Quibus adest gratia efficax, his possibilia dicunt mandata in sensu composito, quia actualis observatio mandatorum cum illa gratia semper componitur: quibus autem non adest, hos negant mandata observare posse in sensu composito. Nunquam enim actualis observatio mandatorum, cum gratiae efficacis absentia componitur: posse tamen aiunt in sensu diviso: quia potestas observandi mandata cum illorum contemptu & omissione consistit, qui vocari etiam sensus compositus potest, si non actus cum actu contrario, sed potentia cum actu componi intelligatur. Hinc Alverez disp. 23. de Auxil. ●. 33. In sensu composito nihil velle possumus sine praedeterminatione divina: quia haec duo non possunt simul consistere, quod scilicet nos velimus in particulari aliquid, & quod Deus non praedeterminaverit quod velimus illud.  
Molinistae contra hanc sensus divisi potestatem irrident, omnibusque volunt mandata esse possibilia in sensu composito, ita ut actualis observatio semper cum illa potestate, actu & effective possit consistere, & aliquando consistat.   

ARTICULUS. XII.  
Fons discordiae sedatus, seposita quaestione de Gratia praedeterminante. Et contentio circa possibilitatem praeceptorum composita per possibilitatem abstractivam.  
VIdeamus, mi Pater, quo pacto tantam discordiam sedaveris; scilicet ut bonus medicus statim ad illius fontem remedium apposuisti, totam hanc de gratia praedeterminante contentionem e medio tollens. Non agitur de gratia praedeterminante, inquiebant tuo monitu Doctores Augustinianis adversi in scripto adjungendis Dominicanis facto. Item alio loco: Non agitur de modo quo gratia efficax est. Et infra; In hac causa nullo modo includitur celebris illa quaestio de Auxiliis, tam acriter olim sub Clement VIII. & Paulo V. Thomistas inter & Jesuitas agitata. Eodem pertinent loca superius adducta de Thomistarum dogmatis in damnatione propositionum nullo modo periclitantibus.  
Liberalius etiam Hallerius in celebri collatione apud Dominicanos habita coram Generali & praecipuis Religiosis illius O●dinis, paratum se professus est subscribendae suo nomine gratiae efficaci, ut postmodum dicemus.  
Verum hac quaestione seposita de mandatorum possibilitate, quomodo potuerunt illi cum Thomistis concordes se fingere? Famosa nempe abstractionum methodo; quandam enim abstractivam possibilitatem postulaverunt, quae neutri opinioni officeret, sed utriusque scholae calculis comprobaretur: quae non esset possibilitas sensus compositi: hanc enim rejicit schola Thomistica; nec possibilitas sensus divisi; hanc enim subsannat Schola Moliniana; sed nescio quae ab utraque praecisa possibilitas.  
Nihil fingo, mi Annate, nec jocor. Ex te ipso sciscitor, Potentia illa observandi mandata, quam in justis praecepta transgredientibus semper reperiri contentebant tui Doctores, cujusmodi esset? Talisne ut sola nonnunquam sine efficaci auxilio operetur? Jacent ergo Thomistae, jacet pollicitatio tua praedeterminantis gratiae minime laesae, jacet ipse Hallerius efficacis gratiae, ut ipse ferebat, defensor. Talisne ut sine auxilio efficaci in actum nunquam prodeat? Jacet Molina tuus. Igitur ut Molinae ac Thomistis sua jura serventur, statuenda fuit in justis illis peccantibus possibilitas, generalis quaedam abstrahendo ab ea quae aliquando operatur, & ea quae iners perpetuo remanet sine efficaci auxilio.   

ARTICULUS XII.  
Dissidium Thomistarum & Molinistarum de potentia proxima, abstractione ab Annato compositum.  
NUnquam majori cuiquam usui abstractiones fuere quam tibi in hac causa. Protinus enim nova abstractio fuit tibi necessaria, ut te cum Thomistis nonnullis in proximae & completae potestatis vocibus conjungeres. Mirifice tibi illae placebant; eo magis, quod eas ab Augustinianis vulgo repudiari, & a quibusdam Thomistis admitti videbas, rem consiliis tuis opportunissimam, cum id ageres ut cum Thomistis consentire, cum Augustinianis pugnare videreris. Verum nescius non eras has voces alio sensua Thomistis, alio a vobis usurpari. Thomistis enim potestas proxima dicitur, etiamsi indigeat auxilio efficaci ad operandum antecedenter necessario. Vobis ea demum potestas proxima, quae nihil aliud requirit ad agendum. Itaque vos potestatem proximam Thomistarum irridetis, illi contra proximam potestatem vestram promiscue omnibus concessam, haereticam censent: quia tollit efficacis gratiae necessitatem. Non te fugiebat nec Doctores tuos, tanta in illa voce aequivocatio & fallicia. Imo & tu in Jansenio a Thomistis damnato, & Doctores tui in quadam propositionum censura, Consultoribus oblata, locum Alvaris retulerunt in quo hujus nominis aequivocatio luculenter explicatur.  
Is locus petitur ex disp. 117. n. 11. Potentia potest dupl●citer dici proxima & expedita ad operandum. Primo, quia nihil al ud requiritur ex parte ipsius potentiae, quo in actu primo co●stituatur ad actualiter operandum, sive ad volendum & nolendum. Et hoc modo liberum arbitrium, positis omnibus requisitis ad operandum, potest potentia proxima & expedita operari & non operari, velle & nolle. Secundo modo potest dici facultas proxima & expedita ad operandum, quia in sua operatione non dependet ab alia priori c●usa tribuente ipsam cooperationem, vel actualiter concurrente, & in hoc sensu nulla causa secunda, quantumvis ponatur perfecta secundum se, & seclusa praemotione divina, est exped ta ad operanddum.  
Videsne igitur duplicem hujus vocis significationem ab Alvare distinctam? Alteram Thomisticam, alteram Molinianam: alteram quae adest gratiam efficacem non habentibus; alteram quae deest omnibus ista gratia carentibus? jam quaero quam statuere Romae volueritis? Non Thomisticam, credo; nam hanc irridetis; nec Molinianam etiam, nam illam respuit Alvarez quo tum nitebantur, & tota Thomistarum schola. Stultum est autem ex Alvare & Thomistis probare velle, quod negat Alvarez, negant omnes Thomistae. Quam igitur nisi possibilitatem proximam in genere, sive abstrahendo a possibilitate proxima Thomistarum, & possibilitate proxima Molin starum?   

ARTICULUS XIV.  
Dissensio de gratia sufficiente Thomistas inter & Molinistas, compressa per gratiam sufficientem abstractivam.  
MActe abstractionibus, mi Annate, bellissime enim procedunt. Ecce alia gravis Thomistas inter & Molinistas de gratia sufficiente discordia. Sufficientem gratiam admittunt Thomistae, quae producit actus quosdam imperfectos, & potestatem largitur ad perfectiores: Sed iidem docent nunquam isti gratiae plene consentiri: imo contingere non posse ut illi consentiatur sine efficaci.  
Contra Molinistae gratiam admittunt versatilem, cui sine efficaci auxilio aliquando consentitur. Quid ages? quo te vertes? Molinianam adstruere tutum non erat; Thomisticam admittete alienum a rationibus tuis. Quid igitur? Nec illam adstrues, nec istam, sed quandam gratiam sufficientem in abstracto. Audi Sorbonicos Doctores a te eruditos in quodam brevi scripto super quinque propositionibus, ubi pugnant; Justis volentibus & conantibus non deesse gratias sufficientes. At ne Molinani viderentur, quod nescio quomodo semper probrosum est, illud adjungunt; Nota, per has voces, auxilii sufficientis, non intelligi gratiam illam versatilem, quae modo effectum habet, modo non habet, quae a Multis Doctoribus Catholicis Refutatur: sed intelligi gratiam quae vere sufficiens sit, quocunque tandem modo: seu quae vere facultatem tribuat justo aut implendi praeceptum, aut petendi gratiam necessariam ad illud implendum, ita ut per eam justus inexcusabilis reddatur, quando praeceptum transgreditur. Et in explicatione, 2. propos. Non hic agitur de gratia sufficiente versatili statuenda, quae modo effectum suum habeat, modo non habeat; sed tantum in genere quaeritur, utrum verum sit in statu naturae lapsae nullam dari gratiam quae vere suffic●ens sit.  
Dixeramne tibi Doctores tuos Romae sufficientem gratiam in abstracto defendisse, & ne se cum Thomistis committerent, sufficientis Molinianae defensionem longe a se removisse? Perierat videlicer Catholica fides, si abstractionum methodus intercidisset. Sed reliqua videamus.   

ARTICULUS. XV.  
Dissensio Thomistarum & Molinistarum circa indifferentiam libertatis, absractione item ab Annato composita.  
SEquitur alia non levis inter Thomistas & Molinistas pugna ex eodem praedeterminantis gratiae fonte profecta. Ex Thomistarum dogmatis, cum adest efficax praedeterminatio ad aliquem actum, fieri nequit ut voluntas in istum ad quem praemovetur actum, non consentiat. Hinc illi consequenter philosophantes negant, ad libertatem requi i, ut positis omnibus ad agendum praerequisitis voluntas possit agere & non agere in sensu composito, ita scilicet ut cum istis antecedenter praerequisitis possit componi tam actus quam carentia talis actus. Praemot●o enim, inquiunt, est unam ex antecedent●r praerequisitis, cum qua tamen componi non potest carentia actus ad quem praemovet. Ergo aliusmodi indifferentiam admisere, quam indifferentiam potentiae appellant, oppositam determinationi naturali; hac fit ut quantacunque praemotione afficiatur voluntas, possit tamen agere, & non agere in sensu diviso, qui quatenus compositus dici possit, supra diximus. Quia, inquiunt, tametsi non possit contingere ut voluntas non el●ciat actum illum ad quem a Deo praemovetur, retinet tamen illius non eliciendi potentiam. Non enim potentia opponitur actui contrar●o, sed tantum actus contrarius. Sed praestat hoc ex ipso Alvare condiscere.  
Liberum arbitrium creatum, inquit. disp. 115. n 3. & 4. non solum antequam determinetur ad unum actum, sed etiam in ipso instanti in quo determinatur a Deo, & seipsum determinat ad eundem actum, simul habet potentiam qua potest libere producere actum contrarium, non tamen habet potentiam ad actum contrarium simul habendum. Nam duo actus contrarii simul in eadem potentia esse non possunt, sed solum successive. Hinc habuit ortum illa distinctio communiter a Theologis & Metaphysicis recepta, de simultate potentiae, & potentia simultatis. Est enim in libero arbitrio simultas potentiae ad operandum & non operandum. Nam per hoc quod operetur unum actum, non destruit liberam facultatem & potentiam quam habet ad operandum actum contrarium si velit, vel non operandum. Ad hoc igitur explicandum deservit illa distinctio sensus compositi & divisi, qua utuntur communiter Doctores, ut disp. 25 visum est.  
Notandum secundo, quod cum dicitur potentiam liberam esse, quae positis omnibus requisitis ad operandum, potest operari, etiam in sensu composito, hoc dupliciter intelligi potest. Primo ita ut compositio fiat inter praerequisita ad operandum, & potentiam ipsam operandi & non operandi, & tunc sensus est quod potentia ad operandum & non operandum stat simul in eodem subjecto cum antecedenter praerequisitis ad talem operationem; & hic sensus verissimus est, ut postea explicabimus.  
Secundo modo potest intelligi, ita ut compositio fiat inter antecedenter praerequisita etiam ex parte Dei ad operandum talem actum, & carentiam talis actus, seu actum ipsum contrarium. Et tunc sensus est quod omnia praerequisita etiam ex parte Dei operandum talem actum particularem ad, & carentia ejusdem actus, seu actus contrarius possint esse, aut aliquando sint simul in eodem subjecto. In hoc ergo intendimus praedictam definitionem impugnare. Sic Alvarez, & cum eo Thomistae.  
Imo quidam rigidiores definitionem vulgarem libertatis, quia dicitur id demum esse liberum, quod positis omn●bus ad agendum praerequisitis, potest agere & non agere, funditus repudiant. Haec definitio, inquit Lece ma disp. de Auxiliis, contra. 7. art. 1. neque apud Aristotelem neque apud S. Thomam, neque apud gravem auctorem nisi apud Almainum & alios nominales invenitur.  
Et ante Ledesmam Medina 1. 2. q. 10. art. 4. de Almaino loquens: Dat, inquit, definitionem libertatis su liberi pro sua phantasia, d cens, quod ad libertatem sufficit ac requiritur, quod positis omnibus praeviis necessario requisitis ad agendum, sit in potestate voluntatis agere & non agere. Et paulo infra vocat definitionem libertatis ab Almaino co●fictam. Cum his Cabezudus praedictam definitinem libertatis omnino negat, tract. de Auxil. q. 2. paulo ante finem, & Navarrettus tom. 2. contr. 12. S. 2.  
Sed quidquid demum de illa sentiant, certum est omnes Thomistas indifferentiam illam in sensu composito, cum scilicet componitur actus dissensus cum gratia efficaci, penitus rejicere, licet aliam admittunt, quam vocant indifferentiam potentiae & sensus divisi.  
Quid vos Molinistae? de ista indifferentia potentiae quid sentitis? Non aegre illam a Calvino admissum iti, prorsusque ad libertatem requiri indifferentiam ad agendum & non agendum in sensu comsito, quo possit componi uterque actus cum potentia. Sic tu in tractatu de scientia media, sic tecum caeteri Molinistae. Quo pacto igitur tu tam longe a Thomistis discrepans in indifferentiae notione, cum iis tamen super hoc capite foedus inibis? Rem conficient pacificae illae abstractiones. Ad libertatem requiri quandam indifferentiam dixisti, dixerunt Jesuitici Doctores, sed cujusmodi esset ista indifferentia, non explicasti, nec illi item. jam si te rogem, quam indifferentiam intellexeritis, nec Molinianam dices; quomodo enim illam, Thomistarum, ut ubique fecistis, testimoniis confirmassetis? nec etiam Thomisticam; jam enim aperte Molina repudiatus foret. Ecquam igitur nisi generalem indifferentiam & abstractivam? Habes compositionis tuae super indifferentia subtilem rationem.   

ARTICULUS XVI.  
Pugnam Thomistarum & Molinistarum super necessitate antecedente abstractione diremit Annatus.  
SUperest modo una de necessitate pugna, ex gratia item praedeterminante derivata. Hac posita quia semper consentit voluntas, in Thomistas istius gratiae defensores acriter insurrexerunt Molinistae hoc argumento, quod refert Alvarez disp. 22. n. 5. Necessitas antecede s liberum consensum creatae voluntatis, seu quae provenit ex causis prioribus, tollit libertatem. Sed necessi●as operandi habens ortum ex àbsoluto decreto voluntatis divinae praedeterminantis liberum arbitrium ad omnem suam actionem in particulari, est necessitas ex causis prioribus proveniens. Ergo, etc.  
Quid ad hoc Alvarez? distinguit duplicem sensum necessitatis antecedentis, dicitque hoc nomine ab Anselmo, unde fluxit, non intellectam esse omnem necessitatem a priori, ut Molinistae opinantur, sed tantum necessitatem absolutam; atque adeo necessitatem quae provenit ex voluntate divina, negat esse antecedeutem, quia non est absoluta, sed conditionata. Voluntas enim divina non tollit contingentiam a rebus.  
Respondet secundo, necessitatem ex suppositione voluntatis divinae non esse necessitatem antecedentem, sed potius consequentem causam rei. Licet enim antecedat causam creatam, non tamen antecedit causam primam simpliciter, quae est voluntas divina, quae magis influit in effectum quam causa secunda.  
Vides igitur Alvarem ideo negasse antecedentem necessitatem inferri a gratia vel praemotione, quia hoc nomine intelligit vel necessitatem absolutam, vel necessitatem quae omnem causam rei antecedat. jesuitis autem omnis necessitas a priori causa dicitur antecedens: ideo cum utrique dicitis necessitatem antecedentem destruere libertatem, non idem tamen dicitis, quia non idem intelligitis. Quaero igitur ut in aliis, cum tui Doctores Romae clamitabant necessitate antecedente perimi libertatem: quid illo nomine significarent? an quod Thomistae, nempe necessitatem absolutam quae tollat contingentiam? quid inde ad ipsos utilitatis redire possit? An quod Molinistae, nempe omnem necessitatem a priori? Ergo illi omnibus Thomistis eversae libertatis crimen intendissent, quod sedulo semper caverunt. Neutram ergo proprie intellexerunt, sed quandam duntaxat in abstracto necessitatem antecedentem impugnarunt. Verum ut magis hoc abstractionum commmento fruare, juvat hic abstractivam illam compositionem, quo melius percipiatur, brevi tabella delineare.  

TABULA Compositionis inter Thomistas & Jesuitas factae, sex abstractionum operâ.  Thomistae. Abstractivi Jesuitae. Molinistae. I. 
GRatia praedeterminans & per se efficax, ad omnia pretatis opera est necessaria.  I. 
ABstrahitur à quaestione de gratia per se efficaci & sufficiente versatili.  I. 
GRatia praedeterminans & per se efficax, non est necessaria ad omnia pietatis opera: sed est tantùm necessaria gratia sufficiens quae pro nutu voluntatis modò efficax, modò inefficax sit.  II. 
Justis volentibus & conantibus, sed gratiam efficacem non habentibus, mandata Dei sunt possibilia tantùm in sensu diviso, non autem in sensu composito, quo observantia mandatorum cum potentia illa observandi aliquando componatur.  II. 
Justis volentibus & conantibus mandata Dei sunt semper possibilia, abstrahendo à sensu composito & diviso.  II. 
Justis volentibus, & conantibus mandata Dei sunt semper possibilia in sensu composito.  III. 
Justis peccantibus suppetit proxima non peccandi facultas, quae nunquam in actum prodit sine gratia efficaci.  III. 
Justis peccantibus suppetit proxima non peccandi facultas abstrahendo ab ea quae prodit, & ea quae nunquam prodit in actum sine alio auxilio.  III. 
Justis peccantibus suppetit semper proxima non peccandi facultas, quae non indiget ut in actum prodeat efficaci auxilio.  IV. 
Datur gratia sufficiens, sed praeter quam aliud auxilium praerequiritur, ut voluntas ipsi plenè consentiat.  IV. 
Datur gratia sufficiens quomodocunque, sive abstrahendo à Moliniana & Thomistica.  IV. 
Datur gratia sufficiens extra quam nihil aliud praerequiritur ex parte Dei.  V. 
Indifferentia quâ positis omnibus antecedenter praerequisitis ad agendum, potest quis agere vel non agere in sensu composito, non requiritur ad libertatem meriti & demeriti, sed tantùm ut possit quis agere vel non agere in sensu diviso.  V. 
Requiritur ad libertatem indifferentia, quocunque tandem modo, sive abstrahendo à sensu composito & diviso.  V. 
Requiritur ad libertatem indifferentia agendi vel non agendi in sensu composito.  VI 
Necessitas antecedens sumpta pro necessitate absoluta, quae tollit contingentiam effectus, destruit libertatem: non autem si sumatut tantùm pro necessitate orta à causa prima quae praemoveat infallibiliter voluntatem, nec tamen tollat contingentiam.  VI 
Necessitas antecedens tollit libertatem abstrahendo ab utroque istius vocis sensu.  VI 
Omnis necessitas à priori est antecedens & tollit libertatem.    

ARTICULUS XVII.  
Annatum hoc inito cum Thomistis foedere, nullam sibi dissensionem reliquisse cum Augustinianis.  
NOn omnia sunt in astutia, mi Annate; habet illa suum modum, nec unquam praetergreditur naturae fines. Hâc tua fucatâ cum Thomistis consensione nil fieri potuit solertius, fateor. Est tamen magnum in ea re vitium, non tuâ quidem culpâ, sed ipsius rei. Non ignoras, credo, axioma Geometris pariter ac Philosophis tritum: Quae sunt eadem uni tertio, sunt eadem inter se. O si illud ex libris omnibus, vel potiùs è communi sensu delevisses! Nam velis nolis, unicum illud pronunciatum omnes tibi machinas disturbabit.  
Quo pacto, inquies? Audi, mi Pater? Habet hunc finem suscepta tibi cum Thomistis concordiae species, ut illorum auxilio fretus Augustinianos faciliùs expugnares. Sed frustra cum Thomistis coitionem facis, si hâc cum illis coitione cum Augustinianis pariter in gratiam rediisti, nec ullas tibi reliquisti certandi causas. Dicam planius. Cum eadem prorsus sit Thomistarum & Augustinianorum in illis 5 capitibus doctrina, non potuisti super illis cum Thomistis foedus inire, quin pariter cum Augustinianis inieris. Nam quae naturâ eadem sunt, ut ea divellas, natura non patitur. Ergo ut te brevi constringam argumento: De possibilitate praeceptorum, de gratia sufficiente justorum volentium & conantium, de indifferentia, de gratia necessitante, idem sentiunt prorsus Augustiniani atque Thomistae. Atqui cum Thomistis nulla tibi lis est, nec Romae fuit, ut tute confiteris. Ergo cum Augustinanis nulla est, nec fuit. Recurrit enim suprapositum axioma: Quae sunt eadem uni tertio, sunt eadem inter se. Id nobis paulo latiùs explicandum.   

ARTICULUS XVIII.  
Cùm de gratia praedeterminante Romae non actum sit, nulla fuit pugna inter utriusque partis Doctores.  
TOti, ut dixi, in gratia efficaci defendenda Augustiniani fuere. Hic unus ipsis amor, hic thesaurus est. Hunc ipsis qui relinquit, nihil eripit. Gratulantur ergo tibi, quod tuo monitu hanc adeo se venerari Hallerius & socii finxerint. Jure enim illas Pauli voces usurpare possunt: Dum omnimodo, sive per occasionem, sive per veritatem Christus annuncietur, & in hoc gaudeo, sed & gaudebo. Ergo quia nihil aliud circa quinque propositiones sentiunt, qui de eo capite non pugnat, ut nemo pugnavit, cum illis reipsâ non pugnat. Rursus cùm illi solam gratiam Molinianam & Parisiis & Romae impugnaverint, ut jam ostendimus, quando illam adstruere nec vos nec vestri Doctores voluistis, nec Augustiniani vobiscum pugnaverunt.  
Ostendimus totam controversiam Parisiis in eo sitam, an ad singulos actus gratia efficax requireretur, an daretur Moliniana & versatilis gratia, quae nihil aliud requirit ad agendum actu & effect●ve. Num ergo illi aliud Romae egerunt, aliud defendendum aut impugnandum susceperunt? Num se operosis de gratia sufficiente Thomistarum controversiis implicarunt? Imo vero legantur ad unum omnia scripta quae summo Pontifici paulo ante editam constitutionem obtulerunt, nihil aliud in illis reperies, quam gratiae efficacis confirmationem, Molinianae gratiae impugnationem; ac ne unum quidem verbum quo Thomistarum gratia sufficiens vel minime violata sit.  
Ecce quàm cautè clarus ille Des-mares coram Summo Pontifice quaestionis summam constituerit:  ab ipso sermonis exordio omnis prorsus aequivocatio toll●tur, ac citra omnem ambiguitatem nostra decurrat oratio, operae pretium existimavi breviter insinuare Sanctitati Vestrae, quid nomine gratiae per se efficacis, quid gratiae sufficientis & MOLINISTICAE intelligendum sit. Per gratiam ex se efficacem intelligimus gratiam quae sua vi ac virtute primâ interrâque, &, ut utar verbis Apostoli, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non solùm dat homini posse si velit, sed etiam facit certissimè ac invictissimè ut velit. Haec autem vis ac virtus gratiae, nihil aliud est quàm, ut docet Augustinus contra Pelagianos, suavitas quaedam caelestis ac delectatio dilectionis, seu infusio in animos caritatis, quae diffunditur in cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum, quâ cognita sancto amore facimus. En gratiae efficacis descriptionem ex Augustino. Ubi illud somnium gratiae necessitantis? Ne umbra quidem.  
Videamus contra, quam gratiam sufficientem impugnent: Verùm, inquit, ex opposito, per gratiam indifferentem & Molinisticam intelligunt ejus assertores illuminationem quandam intellectus, & pium motum in voluntate, indeliberatum tamen & non liberum, quo mediante possit homo velle vel agere bonum aliquod: ut autem velit, id relictum esse in suo libero arbitrio, quod nutu suo quandoque vult, quandoque non vult, modóque in unam partem se flectit, modò in alteram. Itaque haec inter nos & istos est quaestio: An gratia regnet in voluntatem, an voluntas in gratiam: An gratia sibi subjiciat liberum arbitrium, an liberum arbitrium sibi subjiciat gratiam. Nos dicimus gratiam esse victricem liberi arbitrii, eamque esse necessariam ad singulos actus.  
Vides-ne, mi Annate, quàm constans Augustinianorum ut sententia, sic oratio fuerit? ut adversus cavillationes vestras tuta atque munita? Quare nec ullum quidem aut verbum aut scriptum ipsorum proferre potes, in quo vel tantillum ex istis finibus quos sibi circumscripserant, egressi sunt. At tu quid habes ad haec? Quid tui Doctores? Gratiam, inquiunt, praedeterminantem non impugnamus. Bene est. Versatilem & Molinianam non adstruimus. Sat est, dormiamus in utramque aurem, veritas enim in vado est: vel potiùs, alacres, jam quaesitas à te dissensionis causas, futiles & inanes esse probemus.   

ARTICULUS XIX.  
Explicantur calumniae quibus Annatus falsam haeresim, falsam contentionem, fictitios in quos pugnaret adversarios extruxit.  
SI quis vincere velit mi Annate, ut tu certe volebas, nec ullum habeat adversarium, ut tibi, hac de gratia efficaci quaestione seposita nullus erat, restat ut is ludicrum certamen instituat, ludicros fingat adversarios de quibus possit triumphare. Hanc tu viam, mi Pater, hanc tui Doctores arripuerunt, non enim alia supererat.  
Pro veris Augustini discipulis, nescio quos adorti sunt Jansenistas, qui nemini praeterquam ipsis visi, auditi, cogniti forent. His stramineis Jansenistis quae voluerunt commenta, quas libuit haereses tribuerunt. Joculare figmentum, & tantum ridendum, nisi haec ipsa crimina, has haereses in Augustinianos Theologos, qui nunquam de his vel sommaverant, conferre voluissent. Illas igitur fictitias haereses seu veras potius calumnias operae pretium est hic ex sociorum tuorum & illorum Doctorum quos tuis artibus instruxeras, scriptis explicari. Non enim aliunde, credo, erui possunt. Audiamus itaque Jesuiticos Doctores, suae cum mentitis illis Jansenistis contentionis summam exponentes.  
In scripto de adjungendis Dominicanis instituto ita loquuntur: Non agitur de modo rei in hac causa, sed de ipsa re. Non agitur de modo quo gratia efficax est, de quo Thomistas inter & Jesuitas controvertitur, sed de gratia ipsa sufficiente, quam tam hi quam illi admittunt; & de efficaci, utrum scilicet NECESSITET ABSOLUTE ET ANTECEDENTER VOLUNTATEM, quod certe utrique negant, & soli ADSTRUUNT JANSENISTAE (habes Jansenianam haeresim.) Non agitur de modo quo gratia cum libertate concilianda est: sed de libertate ipsa, quae revera per necessitatem antecedentem destruitur. Ergo in hac causa nullo modo includitur CELEBRIS ILLA QUAESTIO DE AUXILIIS tam acriter olim sub Clement VIII. & Paulo V. Thomistas inter & Jesuitas agitata. Nempe utrique concedunt divinae gratiae humanam voluntatem CONSENTIRE ET DISSENTIRE POSSE. HOC IPSUM JANSENISTAE NEGANT. Igitur diversa causa est, nec quidquam ponderis accedet Jesuitarum hypothesi ex novo Pontificio decreto.  
Item in scripto super quinta prop. Qui hanc esse putant controversiam de Auxiliis ....... LATIUS ABERRANT QUAM TOTO CAELO. Nihil omnino illis exprobratur de quo Thomistae cum Jesuitis contenderent. Nihil exigitur quam quod fuerit concordissimo duorum illorum Ordinum consensu atque suffragiis constitutum; id est, quod possibilia sint Dei praecepta transgressoribus; Quod detur Auxilium sufficiens atque internum, a quo homines dissentiunt; Quod indifferentia ad agendum & non agendum, a libertate arbitrii quae requiritur ad merendum & demerendum, SIT INSEPARABILIS; Quod non sint haeretici qui dicunt libe●um arbitrium Deo moventi per GRATIAM EFFICACEM, (nota efficacem) dissentire posse: Et quod sensus divisus quo id posse dicitur, non idem sit quod ex hypothesi mutationis & subtractionis gratiae, ita ut cum illa sit expedita ad dissentiendum potentia.  
Observa, quaeso, mi Annate, quoties hic nomiant vel tu vel isti Doctores, gratiam sufficientem, possibilitatem; indifferentiam, haec omnia intelligi debere in abstracto; abstrahendo scilicet a notione Molinistica & Thomistica. His positis, pergamus, & nos in istis liberales expecta; imo tibi in expugnandis tuis illis Jansenistis fidissimos adjutores.   

ARTICULUS XX.  
Expurgantur priora ex fictitiis illis dissenssionis capitibus ab Annato ejusque Doctoribus Romae excogitatis.  
NOn leviter certe tibi ac Doctoribus tuis succenseo, mi Pater, quod tantum frustra laborem ceperitis. Idcircone Romam petere oportuit, ut possibilitates abstractivas, gratias sufficientes abstractivas, indifferentias abstractivas obtineretis? Poenitet me operae tuae tam male collocatae. Quin tu nobis ista praedicebas? Certe sine sumptu, sine labore hic ab Augustinianis non minus satisfactum foret, quam a Thomistis, omninoque ipsos in insectandis ac delendis nescio quibus illis Jansenianis necessitantis gratiae assertoribus, socios vel promptissimos habuissetis. Quid enim, mi Annate, hic petierunt tui Doctores, quod non ipsi Augustiniani, & ante Romanum judicium, & in ipso Romano judicio, & post istud denique judicium, tam prolixe quam ulli Thomistae detulerint? Petierunt ut possibilia dicantur Dei mandata. Quis hoc unquam Augustinianorum negavit? Ut vero possibilia dicantur. Bene est. Sed dic, quaeso, an satis sit possibilitas Thomistica actus primi & sensus divisi. Nempe illam satis esse fatearis necesse est, aut jam tibi cum Thomistis pugnandum, quod jure detrectas. Ergo illam tibi ac sociis tuis, quantacunque est, tradunt, concedunt, largiuntur Augustiniani. Ecquid beant te? At forte id meo nomine facio, quod nullum est? Imo vero sat scio, me nemo temerarium dicet, si hoc pro omnibus spondeam. Hoc certe concessit Arnaldus in Apologeticis epistolis: hoc caeteri quotidie Augustiniani largiuntur. Itaque cum expeditissimas, completissimas, sufficitissimas, proximas potentias, sine efficaci auxilio nunquam in actum prodeuntes plenis manibus tertia Disquisitione in sinum tuum congerebam, nemo Augustinianorum reclamavit, aut me questus est liberialiorem esse quam par erat. Ergo de possibilitate ipsa conveniat tibi nobiscum necesse est, quando cum Thomistis convenit.  
Nec de gratia sufficiente difficilior consensio est. Vide enim quam liberaliter Arnaldus in Dissertationis de propositione sua praefatione: Speciatim vero, iniquit, in justis volentibus & conantibus, gratias excitantes admittendas fateor, easque Thomistico sensu sufficientes. Quamobrem quaecunque demum sententia Constitutioni Innocentii subjiciatur, fateor verum esse illum sensum, quo vulgo a Thomistis accipitur, nimirum omnibis justis volentibus & conantibus adesse gratias excitantes sufficientes Thomistico sensu, neque deesse illis gratiam qua possibilia fiant praecepta, tum quia jam habent excitantem, qua possunt sensu praedicto: tum quia si illi gratiae plene consenserint (quod possunt si velint, quod si non fecerint, in culpa sunt) gratiam efficacem non jam habituri sunt, sed jam habebunt: quia si quis gratiae sufficienti consenserit, ut iidem docent, signum est a posteriori affuisse illi gratiam efficacem.  
Haec post costitutionem Arnaldus, quod idem, ut vidimus, ante Constitutionem varii dixerant, imprimisque Doctor de Sainte-Beuve, cujus locum ante retulimus. Nec aliter locuti sunt Romae Augustiniani Doctores, cum tandem casu nescio quod Hallerii scriptum nacti essent, cujus illi confutationem brevi confectam non Consultoribus, sed summo Pontifici obtulerunt ipso quo auditi sunt die, id est jam confecta Constitutione, ut fateris. In hoc scripto verba Hallerii referunt ita sensum Jansenii super prima propositione complectentis.  

SCRIPTUM ADVERSARIORUM.  
Constat vero ex Jansenii doctrina, ex principiis toto isto libro tertio, & alibi, etiam justis quotiescunque transgrediuntur mandata Dei, deesse gratiam, tum illam qua eadem implere possunt, tum istam qua auxilium ad praecepta implenda sufficiens impetrare queant. Hoc illi, qui de Jansenio nominatim Romae agi non putabant, obiter tamen & quasi aliud agentes ita refellunt.  

RESPONSIO.  
Imponunt gravissime Jansenio, nisi per auxilium sufficiens intelligant Molinisticum, quod revera nunquam adesse in hoc statu docet Jansenius, quia per illud vera Christi gratia destruitur, & Pelagianus error restituitur. Nunquam vero dixit justos, quotiescunque transgrediuntur praeceptum, nullam habere gratiam. In hac ipsa propositione de qua agitur, quaestio est de JUSTIS VOLENTIBUS UTIQUE PER GRATIAM ALIQUAM. Dicuntur enim volentes, imperfecte scilicet & invalide, per hanc parvam gratiam, ut docet S. Augustinus de grat. & lib. arb. in testimoniis quae Jansenius praecipue citat in locis ubi de propositione agit. Dum ergo dicit Jansenius non adesse gratiam qua possint praecepta implere, intellgit de gratia dante posse ita completum, ut det simul ipsum velle; sed non excludit aliam parvam gratiam. Legatur de gratia Salvatoris lib. 2. c. 27. lib. 4. c. 16. 17, 18. lib. 8. c. 2. & postea de adversariorum fide judicetur. Hanc autem gratiam parvam non vocavit quidem gratiam sufficientem ad operandum, quia non existimavit illud auxilium ad aliquid sufficiens dici, praeter quod aliud auxilium necessarium est: sed reipsa gratiam sufficientem sumptam pro parva & imperfecta, quae tanta non est, quanta sufficit ut volendo faciamus, sed quae sufficit ut imperfecte velimus, non solum non negavit, sed in locis citatis & ubique SICUT VERAM CHRISTI GRATIAM adstruxit.  
En quid illi tum obiter de Jansenio quem nusquam alias nec in scrptis nec in orationibus suis appellaverunt. Ergo, mi Annate, & ante & post Constitutionem, & Romae & Parisiis de gratia sufficiente justorum volentium tibi semper satisfecerunt Doctores Augustiniani. Non postulas Molinianam, concedunt Augustiniani Thomisticam. In hac includitur abstractiva illa tua gratia sufficiens, ut in specie genus, si sit aliquid; aut si nihil est illa gratia sufficiens in abstracto, ut longe probabilius est, & si hanc negarent Augustiniani, mi Annate, nihil negarent.  Si nil Cinna petis, nil tibi Cinna nego.    

ARTICULUS XXI.  
Alia fictitiae altercandi causae exploduntur.  
QUi vestram in calumniando audaciam ignoret, suspicetur necesse est, esse quosdam Hyperboreos Jansenistas, vulgo hominum ignotos, quorum nomina Romae detuleritis. Plane enim incredibile est vos iis qui vel in Gallia, vel in Belgio ac caeteris Europae locis versantur, tam inepta & absurda commenta affingere ausos, qualia his fictitiis Jansenistis ascribitis.  
Agitur, haec vestra sunt atque Hallerii verba superius relata, de gratia efficaci; utrum scilicet necessitet absolute & antecedenter voluntatem, quod certe utrique, id est, Thomistae & Molinistae negant, & soli ADSTRUUNT JANSENISTAE. Et infra: Utrique concedunt divinae gratiae humanam; voluntatem consentire & dissentire posse: hoc IPSUM JANSENISTAE NEGANT. Item: Exigitur ab ipsis ut fateantur QUOD NON sint haeretici qui dicunt liberum arbitrium per gratiam EFFICACEM MOTUM DISSENTIRE POSSE; & quod sensus divisus, quo id posse dicitur, non idem sit quod ex hypothesi mutationis & subtractions gratiae, ita ut cum illa sit expedita ad dissentiendum potentia.  
Age dic, mi Pater, quinam sunt illi Jansenistae qui id negant vel negaverunt? Quibus in urbibus, quibus in locis habitant? Quibus in libris id docuerunt? Quem testem adducis qui hoc de ipsis audierit?  
De Jansenio non agitur, de quo in hac tota Disquisitione non disputo; quanquam ipsius sententia ex ejus locis tertia Disquis. adductis, itemque ex toto cap. 4. lib. 8. de gratia Christi facile pervideri possit. Agitur de Augustini discipulis, in quos sub Jansenistarum nomine hanc calumniam contulistis; quam ergo in antecessum ex tot illorum locis art. 5. 6. & seq. allatis elisi. Hanc si Romae refellere potuissent Augustiniani Doctores, quis sociorum Doctorumve tuorum pudor? Quae angustiae fuissent? Quanta in illos summi Pontificis indignatio exarsisset, cum se tam aperte ab illis cognovisset illusum? Verum sedulo providistis, ut vobis haec objicere impune liceret; adversariis vestris haec non modo repellere, sed vix nosse quidem l●ceret: gratia siquidem vestra, perfectum est; ut Augustinianis & scriptorum communicatio, & tanta contentione postulata collatio negaretur, uti mox narrabimus. Divino tamen nutu factum est, ut in scriptis summo Pontifici oblatis, sed quae nullus omnino legit, ut pote Constitutione jam confecta, hanc calumniam, aliud agentes confutarint, illud ipsum asserentes, quod negare arguebantur. Sic enim illi in scripto de gratia efficaci, paulo ante Constitutionem editam summo Pontifici oblato: Ex ratione status, reperitur semper indifferentia potentiae, qua voluntas etiam sub gratia proxime necessaria ex se efficace, potest nolle. Et infra: Quod ad haec verba, SUFFICIT LIBERTAS à CO ACTIONE, non intelligitur nullam esse in hujus status merito & demerito indifferentiam potentiae, hoc enim haereticum esset, & a nullo Catholico assertum est. Et infra: ista indifferentia ratione status hujus semper reperitur.  
Abeant nunc quicunque jactare Romae non erubuerunt, gratiam efficacem talem ab Augustinianis adstrui, quae necessitet absolute: negare illos gratiae efficaci posse dissentiri, omnem omnino indifferentiam amovere, sensumque divisum tantum statuere ex hypothesi subtractionis gratiae, quod somnium coram adversariis suis ne minima quidem potuissent probabiltatis specie praetexere. Hi fere sunt sensus illi quos sub quinque propositionibus ab adversariis suis defendi criminabantur, ut ex te ipso, mi Annate, dicere est in praefatione Jansenii à Thomistis damnati ita loquente: Cum Thomistae, inquis, censeant intrinsecam omnino libero arbirio indifferentiam, eamque proximam & expeditam, (scilicet in sensu diviso) tertiam propositionem Jansenii penitus conterunt: unde sequitur etiam destructio quartae: quia fi gratia efficax non tollit libertatem, consequenter nec tollit indifferentiam qua fit ut possit dissentire; quod dicere, judicatur haereticum in illa propositione. Similiter Hallerius in explicatione quartae propos. Quaeritur, inquit, utrum haereticumsit dicere gratiam actualem Christi talem esse cui possit humana voluntas consentire vel dissentire— Neque etiam attingitur quaestio hic de gratia efficaci, a se aut a consensu, qui utriusque opinionis assertores fatentur quod gratiam Dei possumus abjicere, juxta Concilium Tridentinum, sess. 6. c. 5. sed tantum quaeritur utrum gratia in statu naturae corruptae talis sit, UT NECESSITATEM INFERAT VOLUNTATI ADEO UT NON POSSIT EI DISSENTIRE: quod nullus Catholicus unquam admisit.  
Primam & secundam propositionem eodem multi Moliniani referunt, nec quintam revocare difficile est. Ita ex unica illa necessitantis gratiae criminatione omnes pene propositiones conflatae sunt.  
Sed ut haec etiam magis dilucescant, non abs re erit, quemadmodum in abstractiva tua cum Thomistis pacificatione feci, itidem tuam hanc cum Augustini discipulis consensionem & fictam cum fictitiis Jansenistis pugnam exigna tabella hic repraesentari: In qua etiam adjicietur ad cumulum, verum & solidum inter Augustinianos & Molinistas de gratia efficaci vobiscum certamen, ne quid ad plenam totius hujus causae cognitionem desit.  
Vera pugna Fucata concordia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Molinistas inter, & Augustinianos ac Thomistas. Inter Thomistas, & Molinistas abstractivos. Inter Molinistas abstractivos, & fictitios Jansenistas. Veri Molinistae. Augustiniani & Thomistae. Molinistae abstractivi. Fictitii Jansenistae.     1 
NOn datur gratia nec per se efficax, nec necessitans, sed tantum sufficiens.  I. 
DAtur gratia per se efficax non necessitans.  I. 
NOn datur gratia necessitans, sed alia abstrahendo ab efficaci & sufficiente.  I. 
DAtur gratia necessitans sive dissentiendi potestatem tollens.  II. 
Mandata Dei justis volentibus & conantibus sunt possibilia semper in sensu composito.  II. 
Mandata Dei justis volentibus & conantibus, sed gratia efficaci ad plene conandum necessaria carentibus, non sunt possibilia in sensu composito, sunt tamen iisdem possibilia in sensu diviso, & in actu primo, ea potestate quae nunquam in actum prodit sine efficaci auxilio.  II. 
Mandata Dei justis volentibus & conantibus sunt possibilia, abstrahendo a sensu diviso & composito.  II. 
Mandata Dei justis volentibus & conantibus sunt absolute impossibilia tam in sensu diviso quam composito.  III. 
Datur gratia sufficiens versatilis quae pro nutu voluntatis modo est inefficax, modo est efficax, sine novo auxilio. Non datur autem ejusmodi gratia sufficiens quae aliud insuper requirit auxilium ut in actum prodeat.  III. 
Non datur gratia sufficiens versatilis, quae sine alio novo auxilio modo efficax sit, modo inefficax pro solo nutu voluntatis. Datur tamen gratia sufficiens, si per eam vocem ea intelligatur quae cum imperfectam voluntatem inspiret (qua ratione efficax est, potentiam dat ad plenam voluntatem, quam tamen nunquam producit sine efficaci auxilio.  III. 
Datur gratia sufficiens quomodocunque, sive abstrahendo ab ea quae nunquam, & ea quae aliquando in actum prodit sine efficaci auxilio.  III. 
Nulla datur prorsus gratia sufficiens nec versatilis, ne● Thomistioa: sed omnis gratia efficax est pleni consensus.  IV. 
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae, requiritur indifferentia in sensu composito, sive qua quis ita agat, ut contingere potuerit eum actu & effective non agere. Non sufficit autem indifferentia potentiae, sive in sensu diviso, qua ita voluntas dicitur posse non agere, ut nunquam reipsa non agat.  IV. 
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur indifferentia in sensu composito: sive non requiritur ut voluntas, positis omnibus ad agendum praerequisitis, ita sit ad agendum aut non agendum indeterminata, ut utrumlibet actu & effective contingere possit, & aliquando reipsa contingat, sufficit autem indifferentia in sensu diviso, qua ita dicitur voluntas posse non agere, ut tamen posito efficace gratiae divinae auxilio, nunquam ipsam non agere contingat.  IV. 
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae requiritur indifferentia abstrahendo ab indifferentia sensus compositi vel divisi.  IV. 
Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae, nulla requiritur indifferentia, nec in sensu diviso, nec composito, nec actus nec potentiae.  V. 
Cuilibet gratiae in sensu composito obtemperari & resisti potest.  V. 
Cuilibet gratiae in sensu diviso obtemperari & resisti potest; sed in sensu composito gratiae efficaci semper obtemperatur, nunquam resistitur. Inefficaci autem vel sufficienti, ratione illius effectus, respectu cujus dicitur sufficiens, semper resistitur, cum sola est nunquam obtemperatur.  V. 
Gratia cuilibet obtemperari vel resisti potest, abstrahendo a sensu composito vel diviso.  V. 
Gratiae efficaci resisti omnino non potest, nec in sensu diviso, nec in sensu composito.    

ARTICULUS XXIII.  
Conclusio cum exhortatione ad concordiam.  
SEd jurgiorum satis, mi Annate, praestat in concordiam redire, condonatis injuriis. Vides de necessitante illa gratia nullum unquam Augustini discipulum cogitasse. Desine ergo in illo figmento concertationis causas quaerere. Et quando abjecta Molinianae indifferentiae Molinianaeque gratiae defensione, nullum tibi esse cum Thomistis certamen agnoscis, agnosce itidem nullum cum Augustinianis vel esse vel fuisse. Fratres in se pugnare, miserum est; sine causa pugnare, miserrimum. Nullam autem causam fuisse cur Augustinianis illos errores impingeretis, ita perspicue planum feci, ut id nec palam negare audeas, si quid eruditorum judicium vereris; nec tacitus apud te, si quid vereris conscientiam tuam. Saltem ergo convictus define, & hanc discordiae stammam qua sine causa flagrat Ecclesia, compone. Bono zelo fortasse nescio quam illam gratiae necessitantis haeresim insecutus quibusdam videbere, si ea evanescente turbare desistas. At si postquam omnes insuperabili, indeclinabili, invicta gratia constantissime retenta, hanc tuam gratiam necessitantem propalam exploserint, tamen haereseos formidines intentare non desistas: tunc vel caecis patebit qui te spiritus agat, non eum pacis, sed discordiae; non veritatis, sed calumniae spiritum esse.   
v. Idus Augusti, Ann. Sal. MDCLVII.  
FINIS.   

PAULI IRENAEI DISQVISITIO QVINTA, HISTORICA & THEOLOGICA.  
Qua ratione Jesuitae effecerint, ne Romae intelligeretur de nihilo pugnari. Ubi brevis historia Romani judicii.  

ARTICULUS I.  
Scopus hujus Disquisitionis. Annati Consilia.  
QUo clarius demonstravimus nullam reipsa inter Doctores ex utraque parte Romam missos controversiam fuisse, eo videtur obscurius, cur hoc Romae sit ignoratum; curve tam facile Jesuitarum & Hallerii calumniis creditum sit. Hoc illud est, quod hâc Disquisitione explanandum aggredimur. Sed ad id necesse est brevem totius Romani Judicii historiam praetexi: quam etsi in totum comprimi maluissemus, extorquet à nobis adversariorum in objectando haereseos crimine pervicacia, quod pro viribus depelli, nemo non iniquus aegre ferat.  
Tu vero, mi Annate, quando in quarta Disquisitione tam benignam nobis operam navasti, & ubique scriptis tuis orationi nostrae fidem adstruxisti, hic etiam, obsecro, noli te subducere. Consiliorum enim tuorum profundam calliditatem oculis omnium, tuisque subjecturi sumus, quâ te vel potissimum frui decet. Nolo ingredi in interiora mentis tuae; facta per se ipsa loquuntur & mentem produnt. Liceat ergo perfacili quodam divinationis genere ex eis quae fecisti, colligere quae cogitaris, initioque hic repraesentare consiliorum tuorum summam quae postmodum ex iis quae acta sunt, luculenter patuere.  
Rerum tuarum, mi Annate, status hic erat. Oblata Thomistis pacificatio nullam pugnandi cum Augustinianis solidam tibi in propositionum negotio relinquebat causam. His tamen alienissima commenta affingere decreveras, ut quocunque tandem modo aliquam auferres propositionum censuram. Huc ut pervenires, ea tibi opportunissima visa est via.  
Imprimis destinatum fuit variis calumniis ab hoc quidem negotio alienis, suum tamen in animo morsum relinquentibus, Augustinianos adoriri, potissimumque inimici in Sedem Romanam animi labe aspergere. Sic futurum sperasti, ut eos Romani in propositionum controversia nocentes optarent, eoque facilius crederent.  
Jam vero non modo singularis in Sedem Romanam veneratio vobis prae se ferenda fuit; sed deforme ac degener in singulos Curiae Romanae ministros obsequium simulandum. Haec Romae virtutum non postrema censetur.  
Sed enim occurrebat hic grandis scopulus, ad quem tua coepta allisum iri pene certum erat: expetita illa nempe Augustinianis, & à summo Pontifice promissa collatio: quae si constituta fuisset, jam tuum cum illis consensum, & calumniarum tuarum vanitatem ad oculum demonstrari necesse erat. Hujus tam certi naufragii vitandi, mi Annate, una ratio erat, ut nervos omnes tuos intenderes ad summum Pontificem ab instituendae collationis consilio deterrendum.  
Magnum erat hoc impetrasse, non sufficiebat tamen ad victoriam. Quid si enim scripta mutuo communicarentur inter Doctores, & tui cogerentur explanate & distincte quid peterent & vellent, aperire? Scilicet abstractionum commentum nudatum esset, quod metus erat, ne sibilis à Romanis exciperetur. Quid tu igitur commodius hic ageres, nisi ut ne scripta communicarentur, pugnares, illudque pervinceres, ut soli tam voce quam scripto Doctores tui loquerentur, nec illorum mendacia ulli liceret refellere?  
Hoc assecutus poteras tu quidem esse superior, non tamen certo. Quid si enim Consultores Jansenii sensum circa quinque Propositiones explanassent, & cum Thomistis convenire docuissent? Fortasse illorum auctoritate motus esset summus Pontifex. Enitendum igitur fuit ut neminem audiret pro Jansenio loquentem, multos contra jansenio obloquentes.  
Unum restabat non minus difficile, sed quoquomodo tamen conficiendum: Augustinianos Doctores & omnino non audiri, & plane audiri, peraeque causae tuae noxium. Arripiendum ergo medium quoddam iter, ut sic audirentur, quatenus tibi utile erat, non quatenus ipsis. Audirentur ad pompam, non audirentur ad hanc controversiam penitus explicandam.  
Haec cogitare potuisti, mi Annate, ipsâ ejus quod gerebas, negotii naturâ & terrenâ prudentiâ quâ vales, admonente. Haec certe fecisse te ex consequenti narratione patebit.   

ARTICULUS II.  
Quàm praeclarè calumniis Romae Jesuitae pugnaverint in Augustinianos.  
NIhil unquam tantis studiis Jesuitae expetiere quàm Augustinianorum excidium. Nulla in causa tantopere Societatis suae existmationem imo salutem verti putarunt. Quantum igitur in illa contenderint, ex ipsorum cupiditatis magnitudine conjici licet. Quibus autem potiùs armis uterentur quàm iis quae ut sibi semper paratissima essent, diligenter curarunt? Calumniam & maledicentiam loquor, quam alii vitiorum capitalium numero subduxerunt, cum Jesuiticis utilitatibus inservit, & in illos exeritur, quos suae Societati infensos putant. Hanc cùm in levissimis rebus adhibere soliti sint, si in tanto rerum cardine negligerent, stultos seipsi deputarent.  
Itaque nusquam illi laxiores calumniae habenas admisere quàm cùm Romae 5 propositionum causa expenderetur. Mitto illas quibus novam haeresim Augustinianis affinxerunt, superiori Disquisitione confutatas. De his loquor quibus Romanorum animos praepararunt ad illa ipsa novae haereseos commenta procliviùs accipienda.  
Toto ex orbe, id agentibus ipsis, sinistri de Jansenistarum molitionibus rumores Romam affluebant. Illi a quadringentis Jesuitis per urbem differebantur, ipsique nominatim Pontifici clam a certis insusurrabantur hominibus. In his putida illa de negata Transubstantiatione, deletis imaginibus, negato purgatorio, spreta Sanctorum invocatione, explosis indulgentiis, mendacia quae jam in Gallia frigebant, Romae, quanto major hic jesuitis quam illic fides, maxime calebant.  
Haec ipsi quidem Jesuitae, magna Romae gratia pollentes. Sed plus etiam auctoritatis habebant illae calumniae quae per alios Romae disseminabantur. Quam ad rem multi operam suam Jesuitis commodarunt, ac praecipue Hallerius, & duo quidam Religiosi, de quibus infra dicetur. Hi praesertim eas sibi ceperunt dissipandas, quae graviorem Augustinianis invidiam conflare apud Romanos possent.  
Hoc consilio Hallerius, dum adhuc Parisiis esset, longas ad Albizium, ad Cardinalem Barberinum atque ad alios Romanae Curiae proceres mittebat epistolas, quibus, ut ex illo multi in ipsa Sorbona audierunt, Jansenistas confodiebat, hoc est calumniis conscindebat. In quibusdam, ut ex illo specimine hominis istius fides cernatur, scripserat, certa se habere documenta quibus convinceret eos qui S. Augustinum sequi se profitentur, innumeros errores docuisse, & istos nominatim: Christianos qui peccant mortaliter, baptismi characterem amittere neque Sacerdotes & Episcopos, si lethale crimen admiserint, privari suo charactere, neque Sacerdotes & Episcopos amplius esse: summum Pontificem esse tantum primum inter pares.  
Haec & alia multa in illas epistolas congessaret Franciscus Hallerius. Quod cum Parisiis rescissent Augustiniani Doctores, 1 die Decemb. 1651. in ipsis Facultatis Comitiis praedictum Hallerium interpellavere, ut ista quae se habere jactavisset documenta proferret, quo Facultas pro merito in istorum auctores animadverteret. Sed ille tum perculsus pudesactusque conticuit.  
Are postquam Romam v●nit, quo Jesuitis ibi conjunctior erat, eo ad calumniandum effraevatior fuit, cum ipse Curiae Romanae Primores quotidie inviseret, & tanquam unus e priscis illis Doctoriribus ab ipsis audiretur. Itaque mirum quam stulta multis persuaserit, tam apertum esse Jansenistarum schisma, ut jam vulgo differentem a caeteris habitum induerent: Frequenter mulieres sic adulteria sua in confessione explicate, Toties defuit mihi gratia: Esse nonnullos quos ad desperationem illarum opinionum crudelitas adegisset. His fabulis Romanorum credulitate abutebatur Hallerius. Mox eas Jesuitae ac multi alii Monachi acceptas Hallerio referentes, in vulgus spargebant, quasi irrefragabili auctoritate munitas.  
Horum quos dixi Religiosorum, unus Morellius appellabatur, Theologus Parisiensis. Hic cum Romae tum adesset, & voce & scripto Augustinianos insectari non destitit. Voces praetereo, scriptum unum mihi in manibus est, e quo nonnulla hic attexam, ut omnes intelligant qualia Romae de Jansenii defensoribus jactarentur. Hujus scripti titulus est: De c●ntroversia inter Jansenistas & Anti-Jansenistas. Hominis ingenium sequentia indicabunt.  
In Gallia & Belgio, inquit, orti sunt viri politici ac partiarii ex fontibus haereticorum, illam odii vel aversionis a summa sanctae Sedis potestate mentem perniciosius ebibentes, inter quos aliqui sunt etiam Facultatum Doctores erga ipsam minus bene affecti: qui mediis omnibus nituntur ipsam labefactare. En finis illorum qui Jansenistae appellantur; quia per fas & nefas etiam contra Bullas Pontificias Jansenii dogmata tuentur, tanquam obtinendo suo fini aptiora. Ut vero finem facilius assequi possint, his artificiis utuntur: & inprimis operae pretium aestimant praecipuos SANCTAE SEDIS ZELATORES tam seculares quam Regulates debilitare, ac, si possint, opprimere; quod hujusmodi viri multis modis semper tentarunt. Et infra: Secretioribus viis diabolicam intentionem magis apte dissimulantes, id moliti sunt, videlicet scriptis impugnando communes aliorum Doctorum & Regularium SANCTAE SEDI ADDICTORUM sententias, selegerunt materiam de gratia & praedestinatione, utpote implicandis animis commodiorem.— Hoc artificio Jansenistae usi sunt, ut Doctorum sacrae Facultatis tam Secularium quam Regularium S. SEDIS ZELATORUM conceptam apud omnes existimationem convellant, ut facilius deinde possint suae machinationis venenum respergere. Et infra: In perniciem ZELATORUM S. SEDIS conducunt pecuniis Doctores & Concionatores qui virus idem effundant in pulpitis scholarum & templorum: Baccalaureos in Facultate, ut suis in conclusionibus eorum placita sustineant, imo studentes in omnibus Galliae & Belgii Universitatibus & Facultatibus venales habent: nec non omnis conditionis viros in urbibus fere singulis, ut pestiferam eruditionem in scholis & in privatis domibus disseminent, & simpliciores etiam instituant privatis colloquiis, in quibus miscent cum rebus de gratia & praedestinatione RES HORRENDAS de Sacramento Altaris & poenitentiae, contra auctoritatem Concilii Tridentini, & perpetuas interserunt calumnias adversus Doctores & viros quoscunque S. SEDISZ ELATORES praecipuos. Et eo fine Magnates aliquos ditissimos suam in partem artificiose deduxerunt, a quibus ingentes pecuniarum summas habent, ad perficiendas hujusmodi nefarias molitiones. Et mirum est, quos conatus efficiant ad finem assequendum. Habent aliquot in locis sectariorum suorum seminaria & congregationes his tantum machinationibus intentas. Deinde quia viderunt Jansenistae non satis promoveri votum suum contra ZELATORES S. SEDIS per solas materias de gratia, & praetextatum in his D. Augustinum, non potuerunt diu conceptum adversus S. SEDEM & Ecclesiam venenum retinere. Quare illud foras evomuerunt per libros & scripta de frequenti, vel melius de infrequenti communione, accusantes Ecclesiam corruptelae, cujus se medicos & reformatores ventilant, & etiam apertius per scripta de duobus capitibus.  
Haec si Religiosus ille confidenter & cum laude ac plausu multorum Romae spargebat, quid censes Jesuitas? Itaque inanissimae illae calumniae tam altas egerunt in Romanorum ment radices, ut nihil mirum inde opprimendae Jansenianae, ut putarunt, factionis consilia fruticasse.   

ARTICULUS. III.  
Mulardi Franciscani, Regis Christianissimi nomine, cujus se Legatum ferebat, ad summum Pontificem in Augustinianos' calumniae.  
SEd Jesuitis parum suit omnium sodalium suorum singuas in Augustini discipulos armare. Parum fuit Religiosorum maledicentiam in illos distringere. Parum denique Episcoporum Legatum falsa sed magna doctrinae opinione Romae florentem Hallerium in ipsos immittere, nisi etiam Regis Christianissimi ridiculum quendam Legatum adornassent, qui ingentia crimina coram summo Pontifice, quasi Regis ipsius mandato, illis imponeret. Hic qualis fuerit, operae pretium paucis aperire, ut norit indigneturque posteritas, tam despectam Molinistis fuisse Regis Christianissimi Majestatem, ut ipsi tam infamem Legatum obtrudere non dubitarint.  
Huic Legato nomen fuit Mulardo. Erat autem origine Carnotensis, genere Hallerii consobrinus. Ille primum Capucinorum institutum professus; mox desertor & transfuga & Ordinis & Catholicae Religionis, Montis-Pessulam Calvinistam egit, uxorem duxit, & Medicinam factitavit. Deinde conjugalis vitae pertaesus, Romam petit, summo Pontifici obrepsit, & ab ipso cum absolutione, mutandi Ordinis, & ad minus asperum transeundi licentiam impetravit. Fit igitur ut pridem ex Capucino Calvinista, sic ex Calvinista Franciscanus, laxioris, vel nullius potius observantiae, parasiticam potius quam religiosam vitam agens, ubique turbans, & se vel alios prae animi vaga mobilitate exagitans.  
Hic, cum illa in Augustini discipulos invidiae flamma exarsisset, avide hanc occasionem arripuit, non tam ut sibi gloriam, quam ut huc illuc cursandi licentiam compararet. Itaque Hallerii opera delectus est, qui Romae Jansenistarum damnationem Facultatis ac Regis nomine deposceret, dignus a Molinistis judicatus, qui talem legationem obiret. Dedit etiam ipsi Hallerius ad Albisium aliosque literas, quibus eum a Facultate Theologica Parisiensi ad summum Pontificem missum fuisse mentiebatur. Post commendatam enim ipsius summam fidem, curam, experientiam: Audies igitur illum, inquiebat, plura nostro nomine, hoc est. Facultatis nomine loquentem. Denique quo Romae commendatior esset, adjuncta est Episcoporum literis, Reginae Regni tunc moderatricis ad summum Pontificem Epistola, qua ut hanc causam brevi decideret, orabat.  
His ille mandatis superbus Romam venit, nec modo quinque propositionum judicium petivit, sed infandas etiam calumnias tanquam regio jussu in Augustini discipulos contulit. Has nihil necesse est ex manuscripto erui, cum eas Jesuitarum assecla nomine F●leau nuper publicave it in illo etiam Jesuitis pudendo libello quem inscripsere, Relation juridique, Narratio jur dica. Ibi Mulardi oratio, tanquam insigne Molinisticae causae firmamentum typis sic edita est, pag. 177:  
Oratio ad summum Pontificem Innocentium divina providentia Papam X. habita Romae die. 25. Septembris anni 1651. a Patre Francisco Mulard, Praedicatore regio Ordinis Minorum, pro negotiis controversiae Jansenianae a Christianissimo Rege Romam misso.  
Missus a Christianissimo Rege, & a Syndico Sorbonae deputatus, romine Facultatis Theologiae Parisiensis, ad Sanctitatis Vestrae pedes, ut secundum antiquae Ecclesiae formam super dubiis rebus ac controversis Jansenianorum propositionibus Sedem Romanam consuleremus, & de ore Sanctitatis Vestrae Apostolico fonte responsa tandem aliquando per omnes Regni nostri provincias emanent. Hoc postulat, Beatissime Pater, apud nos Reipub. Christianae necessitas. Non enim apud eos qui Jansenianas partes sequuntur, doctrinae duntaxat consensio est, seu potius erroris uniformitas, sed & consiliorum communicatio. Jam ista doctrina in Sectam coaluit: conspiratio est hominum temerariorum, qui omnes spernunt praeter suos, sibi non faventibus quoque modo maledicunt, & Adversus summi Pontificis dignitatem atque auctoritatem vexillum erexerunt, juniorum Doctorum ac scholasticorum manipulos conducentes pretio, quod a mulieribus & laicis quibus poenitentiae publicae necessitatem inculcant, facile corradunt blanditiis, factione, novitatis dulcedine. Ab hominibus istiusmodi, Beatissime Pater, quid sperandum, vel potius, quid timendum praeter turbas, quas jam miserrime in Gallia excitarunt, & Ecclesiae turbationem quam pro certo moliuntur? Opus est igitur celeri ac potenti manu Sanctitatis Vestrae qua comprimantur. Nisi enim eorum dogmata erronea, quibus tanquam tessera ac sacramento confoederatio ista constringitur, certa ac singularia damnentur censura Pontificiis irrefragabili, quam alio nomine elevare nequeant, quasi sit Congregationis Inquisitionis, aut a certis hominibus dictata, non a Pontifice ipso lata, nunquam ad plenum debellari poterit ista factio. Ista, Beatissime Pater, non tam meo nomine, neque enim, si meo nomine tantum loquerer, adeo confidenter loquerer Sanctitati Vestrae, Sed nomine Christianissimi Regis, nomine Plurimorum Episcoporum, nomine multorum Doctorum & Sorbonicorum & Aliorum, imo omnium fere quotquot in Regno nostro sunt Catholicae fidei zelo aestuantium, & prudentia insignium ore loquor; aequi boni ut consulas hanc orationem nostram precamur. Et Sanctitati Vestrae plurimos ac felices annos optamus, ut Ecclesiae Dei & orbi universo pacem & spiritualem & temporalem tandem aliquando reddere possit & valeat.  
Sic ille & Regis Christianissimi Majestate, & summi Pontificis apice indignissime abutebatur. Sed quo effraenatior ejus audacia, eo minorem fraudis suspicionem praeferebat. An enim Christianissimi Regis Legato non credidisset Innocentius, octoginta praeterea Episcoporum & Facultatis Theologiae quasi suffragium proferenti? Si ergo credidit, credidit misere potius quam temere; atque eatenus erga fictitiam illam conspirationem & sectam pejus in dies animatus fuit.   

ARTICULUS IV.  
Collationis inter Hallerium & Dominicanos brevis historia.  
ROmanorum animisita per illas calumnias praeparatis, tota deinde vestra contentio fuit, ut collationis consilium disturbaretis. Quam id causae tuae capitaliter infestum esset, tu quidem ab ipsis initiis solertia tua sensisti: Hallerius autem non modo ratione, sed etiam quodam experimento, cujus narrationem placuit praemittere, ut omnibus pateat tam male compactam fuisse sententiam vestram, ut ne minimum quidem in legitimae collationis luce posset consistere. Hoc Hallerius, ut dixi, expertus est in brevi colloquio quod cum Dominicanis habuit, cujus historiam Romae tunc temporis fidelissime conscriptam, & mox in Galliam missam, nos hic compendio summa cum fide narrabimus.  
Die Martis undecima Februarii anni 1653. Generalem Dominicanorum convenit Hallerius. Dixit se cum Thomistis congruere, gratiam efficacem ultro admittere, non hoc sensu impeti a se Jansenium, sed alio qui Thomistas nil prorsus attingeret. Respondet Generalis gravius esse negotium quam ut brevi decidi possit, illud prius cum Theologis Ordinis sui communicandum. Res ergo ad feriam sextam rejicitur; interim cum Theologis suis consilium habet Generalis, quorum praecipue erant Nolano, Reginaldus, Galassinus, Alvarez, Libelli, quibus visum est sequentes propositionis contexere, quas Hallerio subscribendas offerent, ad id explorandum num vere & ex animo secum sentiret.  

I.  
Gratia efficax vere, realiter ac physice praemovens & praedeterminans immutabiliter, infallibiliter, insuperabiliter, ita est necessaria ad singulos actus, etiam initium fidei & ad orationem, ut sine illa homo, etiam justus, non possit adimplere Dei praecepta, etiamsi velit & conetur affectu & conatu imperfecto; quia deest illi gratia qua possit, sive qua siant illi possibilia possibilitate cum effectu, ut loquitur Augustinus de natura & g atia, capite 42.   

II.  
In natura lapsa nunquam resistitur gratiae interiori, id est efficaci, in sensu explicato in prima propositione, quae secundum phrasim Augustini vocatur interior.   

III.  
Admerendum & demerendum in statu natura lapsae, non requiritur libertas ab omni necessitate, sed sufficit libertas ab omni coactione, hoc est, a violentia & naturali necessitate.   

IV.  
Admiserunt Semipelagiani gratiae interioris ad singulos actus necessitatem; & in hoc erant haerettci, quod vellent eam gratiaus talem esse cui posset humana voluntas resistere vel obtemperare; id est, in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent gratiam illam non esse efficacem modo explicato in prima propositione.   

V.  
Error est Semipelagianorum dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, aut sanguinem fudisse: quia videlicet Christus est quidem mortuus pro omnibus quoad sufficientiam pretii sufficienter, non tamen efficaciter, quia non omnes participant beneficium mortis ejus.   
Die dicta, scilicet Februarii 14. Valentino Martyri sacra, Hallerius & socii cum Dominicanis collaturi adveniunt, ac post prima illa quae in congressu solent, demonstrare conatus est Hallerius quinque propositiones a controversia quae inter Dominicanos & Jesuitas viget, omnino esse alienas. Hic de Baianis propositionibus agi, quas Jansenius renovarat. Nominatim esse cautum in iis Congregationibus quae propositionibus excutiendis jam habitae erant, ut tota de Auxiliis controversia prorsus intacta relinqueretur, nihil omnino cum illa implicatas esse propositiones, nec enim eas a se impugnari, quatenus ad gratiam efficacem revocantur, sed tantum in sensu Jansenii, sicut ex omnibus libellis summo Pontifici oblatis planum erat; qui sensus prorsus a Dominicanorum sententia abhorreat. Hoc breviter ille in singulis propositionibus probare conatus est, his tantum duobus principiis nitens; admissam semper esse a Thomistis gratiam sufficientem, rejectam ab iisdem esse necessitantem gratiam quae tolleret dissentiendi potentiam; contra a Jansenio necessitantem gratiam adstrui, rejici funditus sufficientem, & tanquam monstrum exagitari.  
Ubi peroravit, jussu Generalis Pater Reginaldus sic exorsus est: Tria in hac quaestione supponenda; Primo, pro fidei decreto haberi non posse gratiam sufficientem omnibus communem. Secundo, ex Thomistis gratiam sufficientem semper esse ad imperfectos actus efficacem, neque hoc sensu à Iansenio negatam, eandemque longe diversam esse à Moliniana quae sit efficax per consensum, utpote quae nunquam in actum prodeat, nisi efficaci auxilio ad opus applicetur. Tertio, gratiam efficacem, quâ insuperabiliter & indeclinabiliter voluntas ad actum impellitur, ad omnem pietatis actum, adeoque etiam ad fidei & orationis initia esse prorsus necessariam.  
His positis, facile est, inquit, probare in sensu gratiae efficacis omnes propositiones veras esse. De possibilitate praeceptorum in Congregationibus de Auxiliis disputatum est. Urgebant Jesuitae in sententia Dominic. praecepta esse impossibilia justis gratia efficaci carentibus. Respondebant nostri esse impossibilia, in sensu composito, non in sensu diviso; sive possibilia esse possibilitate simplici, non autem possibilitate, cum effectu: adeoque verum est ex nostra doctrina justis volentibus & conantibus mandata Dei esse impossibilia in sensu composito, licet sint possibilia in sensu diviso per illam gratiam quae satis indicantur his vocibus volentibus & conantibus, id est, per gratiam sufficientem Thomistico sensu, quae nihil aliud est, quam voluntas & conatus quidam imperfectus. Caeteras eo modo ad gratiam efficacem revocavit, quo explicatur in Propositionibus supra memoratis.  
Postquam Reginaldus conticuit, excepit Hallerius: Gratiae efficacis doctrinam olim à se in scholis traditam dixit, nec se minus ad eandem profitendam paratum esse; & ita se in publica oratione coram Cardinalibus & Consultoribus testificatum. Verum hâc absente nequaquam praecepta esse impossibilia, nec hâc praesente potestatem dissentiendi eripi, ut Concilium Tridentinum desinierat, nec ipsi ex necessitate consentiri. Porro illam quam attulerat Pater Reginaldus diistnctionem possibilitatis simplicis & possibitatis cum effectu à nemine unquam esse traditam. Respondit Reginaldus eam extare apud Augustinum cap. 41. de nat. & grat. Tum Hallerius: Nusquam in Augustino reperire est haec verba: possibilitas cum effectu. Atqui, inquit, Reginaldus, hae ipsae Augustini sunt voces, & eo quo dixi loco. Convictus Hallerius alio sermonem detorsit, iterumque conformavit in sensu efficacis gratiae nullo modo propositiones à se impeti, quod ipsum asseverarunt sodales ejus Lagautius & josselius, idque à se expresse in omnibus supplicibus libellis suis esse declaratum. Non igitur, inquit Generalis, sine causa doctrinae nostrae timemus, quando vos ipsi illi timuistis. Tum Hallerius: sed nihil est jam quod illi timeatis. Inseretur enim in Bulla oratio nostra, quâ illa nominatim e discrimine tollitur.  
His dictis, Pater Alvarez Theologiae Professor sententiam dicere jussus: ut video, inquit, facilis inter nos compositio. Conceditis gratiam efficacem à praevisione Dei minime pendentem. Ergo etiam in sensu gratiae efficacis propositiones esse veras concedatis necesse est. Ergo fatendum est vobis, gratiae efficaci carentibus praecepta esse impossibilia impossibilitate consequenti, non antecedenti. Ergo etiam illud dabitis, gratiae efficac nunquam resisti, nec ista necessitate meritum tolli. Hoc igitur tantum facto opus est. Distinguendae sunt propositiones in varios sensus: mox a summo Pontifice communiter petendum, ut illas sanciat in sensu gratiae efficacis, damnet in aliis sensibus.  
Hic Patrem Alvarem interpellavit Hallerius. Quam tu, inquit, gratiam efficacem postulas, eam libenter concedo. Fateor itidem ea carentibus praecepta esse impossibilia impossibilitate consequenti. Hoc privatim subscribere paratus sum, non tanquam Episcoporum Legatus. Vos vicissim damnationi propositionum in sensu Iansenii subscribite. Hallerio ita loquenti caeteri Doctores palam assensi sunt. Tum Reginaldus: Quid si, inquit, nobiscum vel in omnibus propositionibus, vel in quibusdam sentiat jansenius? An sic quoque a nobis damnabitur? Hoc illud est, inquit Generalis, quod inquirendum est: cur igitur hunc sensum Iansenii explicare detrectatis? Enimvero, inquit Reginaldus, ante omnia explicandus est ille sensus jansenii, quem si pateat a Thomistis esse diversum, tum ejus damnationem communibus votis a summo Pontifice postulabimus. Hic Hallerius ac socii uno ore negarunt, hunc se Jansenii sensum explicare posse, ne a Mandatis Episcoporum discederent. Tum Pater Alvarez: Quando hunc Iansenii sensum explicare non potestis, nos vobiscum convenire non possumus. Volumus, inquit Hallerius, damnati jansenium, quatenus negat gratiam sufficientem. Atqui, inquit Pater Alvarez, in hac ipsa propositione quam impugnatis, eam admittit. Quid est enim volentibus & conantibus, nisi gratiam sufficientem habentibus? Imperfecta enim voluntas & imperfectus conatus est gratia sufficiens Thomistarum.  
Illi autem: Si gratiam sufficientem, inquiunt, admittit jansenius, sibi ipse repugnat. Tum Alvarez; Si sib contradicit jansenius, ob noc ipsum explicandus est ejus sensus: alioqui damnato sensu janseniano, utra tandem contradictionis pars damnata dicetur? Sed vos q●id tandem admittitis, quod Iansenius non admiserit? Admittitis in justo gratiam habitualem; admittit jansenius. Admittitis virtutes infusas; admittit jansenius. Admittitis inspirationes & illustrationes; admittit jansenius. Admittitis desideria bona; admittit Iansenius in hac prima propositione. Bona enim voluntas de qua loquitur, ex hac gratia est, & ista gratia ipsissima est gratia sufficiens Thomistarum. Quid ergo Thomistae, quid vos supra jansenium? Ut illi nihil respondebant, idem argumentum ter iteravit Pater Alvarez. Ad extremum respondit e tribus Doctoribus postremus; praeter haec omnia admittendam esse gratiam sufficientem, extra quam nihil homini deeft, praeter ipsum actum qui a gratia efficaci confertur. Negarunt Dominicani aliam a Thomistis admitti gratiam sufficientem, ab ea quam supra exposuerant, lateque probarunt ex sancto Thoma, sine efficaci Dei gratia nihil bene fieri posse: itaque damnata prima propositione damnari duos Sancti Thomae articulos. Non aliam igitur compositionis viam inire posse, quam si accurate veri istarum propositionum sensus secernerentur a falsis, ut falsorum damnationem simul prosequerentur. Tum Doctores: Nobis, inquiunt Sensus illos distinguere non licet, ne a mandatis Episcoporum desciscamus, nec nos, inquit Pater Alvarez, possumus consentire vobiscum.  
Haec ubi dixit; Generalis assurgens, Videtis, inquit, quantum e re nostra sit, ne propositiones sine explicatione damnentur. Boni ergo consulite, si, ne hoc fiat, pro viribus elaboremus. Quae cum dixisset, Hallerius & socii non multum alacres discesserunt.  
Postea Generalis totius familiae suae nomine decem & septem vicibus audientiam a summo Pontifice postulavit, nec impetravit tamen: adeo summo Pontifici illud haeserat de gratia efficace & de tota controversia de Auxiliis nullam hic verti questionem; & ideo non audiendos qui gratiae tantum efficacis defendendae causa audire postularent.   

ARTICULUS V.  
Qua pacto Jesuitarum gratia Auoustinianis Doctoribus solennis Congregatio scriptorumque communicatio negata sit.  
QUam bona fide Augustiniani in hac controversia versarentur, hinc perspici licuit, quod omni studio ac contentione semper egerunt, ut solenni congregatione institura, facta scriptorum communicatione, fraudis omnis amoveretur suspicio: Quam vos mala, inde potuit intelligi, quod omni arte semper tenebras & clandestina judicia captastis. Utrique prudenter; sed illi Christiana prudentia; vos seculari atque terrena.  
Nimirum si haec solennis, quam postulabant, Congregatio esset instituta, illi vicerant, vos perieratis. Quid enim fieret putidis illis abstractionibus vestris, si adversarii vultum, si disputationis lucem subiissent? Quid illa gratiae necessitantis larva, ac caeteris vitreis calumniis? Recte igitur ad illam Congregationem arcendam omnes vestrae Societatis artes, gratiam, potentiam contulistis. Hanc propria ductus aequitate summus Pontifex Episcoporum Doctorumque precibus initio concesserat: sed ad eum ab hac ment deducendum, quae non admotae sunt machinae? Qui non terrores allati?  
Quoties longaevo seni per homines familiares ac vobis addictos insusurratum, ne extremam senectutem superfluis curis oneraret, neve disputationum illarum molestia festinam sibi arcesseret mortem? Id Clementi VIII interitus causam fuisse citra fructum. Ad Sedis Apostolicae majestatem id quoque pertinere, ut inauditis partibus res fidei di judicare possit. Sic Pii V. sic Gregorii XIII. Bullas in Baium, sic novissimam Urbani in jansenium nemine audito confectam. Si semel istius Congregationis fama in exteras manaret provincias, advolaturos undique Doctores, & plura fortasse postulaturos Abunde odiosos esse qui jam Romae aderant; quid si rursum alii adjungerentur? Audiri jam non nullorum susurros de celebrandi Concilii necessitate. Asserendum omnino jus illud summo Pontifici de dogmatis sine ullis judiciorum dilationibus, & nullis partibus auditis decernendi; utendumque ad id ea temporum inclinatione qua nulla opportunior contingere poterat. Nunc Aulam Gallicam, nunc longe numerosissimam Episcoporum partem, nunc praecipua Senatus Parisiensis capita (ficenim de illorum voluntate largiebamini) ad accipiendam Pontificiam Constitutionem parata. Periculum in mora esse, hac confirmari jansenianam factionem, reformationis specie toti Ecclesiae imminentem, novandae Religionis avidam, de summi Pontificis infallibilitate male sentientem, cujus opprimendae tempus idoneum non omittendum, sed quam celerrime occupandum esset.  
Sentis, ml Annate, quam nihil mentiar: sed ne me putes divinatione verum assequi, sic habeto, nihil me conjecturis hic indulgere; nec quidquam scribere quod non tibi certis argumentis aliquando probetur. Erat summus Pontifex ob multa ab Ianseniana causa alienus, & maxime quod Urbani VIII. Bullam falsi accusaverant Iansenii defensores, in qua conficienda ipse, dum Cardinalis esset, affuerat: nec adhuc abscesserat ex ejus animo bicipitis illius capitis terror, initique olim, ut Romae jactatum erat, ab Iansenianis cum Cardinali Richelio foederis de duplici summo Pontifice constituendo: quo rumore praesertim adducta est Inquisito ad librum illum de auctoritate Petri & Pauli suo decreto profligandum.  
Hoc ergo timore perculsus, & praeterea variis rumoribus undique pulsatus Innocentius, quamprimum illa se molestia, illa suspicione exolvere statuit. Itaque pro solenni quam promiserat Congregatione, rem totam Inquisitioni, seu potius nonnullis ex Inquisitione selectis Cardinalibus & Consultoribus excutiendam remisit, ratus id & brevius, & ad auctoritatem Romanae Sedis ampliandum opportunius.  
Nihil laetius & exoptatius jesuitis poterat accidere: si quidem inter Cardinales Inquisitionis praefectos erat Spada, ipsis pridem conjunctus, duriusque olim in nescio quibus notis a nonnullis Augustinianis habitus. Erat etiam inter ministros Inquisitionis Albisius ejusdem S. Officii assessor, professas cum Augustini Discipulis inimicitias exercens, quae Romae etiam vehementius ob multas ipsius injurias recruduerant. E. Consultoribus multi jesuitis addicti, imo unius etiam jesuita. Accidit praeterea ut Abbas Hilarion & Pater Ubaldinus e Consultorum numero se subducerent. Ille a Cardinali Spada monitus ne adesset, hic nihil super ea re a summo Pontifice decretum iri arbitratus, ideoque inutilem contentionis invidiam fugiens. Quibus amotis, quos jesuitis minime deditos esse certum erat, illico in eorum locum intruduntur Tartaglia Discalceatus Carmelita, & Celestinus Brunus, ambo Molinistis obnoxii.  
Non statim tamen Augustinianis Doctoribus innotuit hujus controversiae judicium ad Inquisitionem delatum. Tacitis enim Consultorum nominibus soli demum Cardinales huic negotio praefecti ipsis indicati sunt, quibus deinde tanquam impetrata quam postulabant Congregatione, praeambula quaedam scripta obtulerunt de auctoritate sancti Augustini, & de rebus in Sorbona gestis.  
At postquam & Consultorum nomina rescivere, &, quod nunquam credidissent, nom modo cum adversariis collationem, sed & mutuam scriptorum communicationem sibi negari; tum vero destitutos se & illusos graviter apud Cardinales expostulavere; cum fraudulentis adversariis sibi rem esse dixerunt, quorum scripta & sermones innumeris mendaciis scaterent: haec a se nisi communicarentur, refelli non posse: nihil habere aequitatis ut accusatori liceret pro libito crimina confingere, reo negaretur haec saltem crimina de quibus accusaretur, nosse: hanc materiam ambiguis verborum notionibus sic implicatam, ut nihil facilius sit quam adversarii mentem in alienos sensus detorquere, & perversa interpretatione corrumpere; totam hanc concertationem meram 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fore, nisi partibus coram auditis utriusque sententia ex mutuo illo conflictu liquido pernosceretur.  
Haec illi super ipsa judicii forma; mox de personis quibus illa Congregatio constabat. Omisso honoris causa Cardinali Spada, quanquam hunc sibi manifeste infensum judicis partes obtinere aequum non esset, Albisium violentas cum ipsis & apertas inimicitias gerentem, omnesque adversus ipsos solicitantem; item Patrem Modestum Annatini libelli approbatorem; Patrem Palavicinum Rei personam sustinentem e Congregatione removeri petierunt.  
Nihil justius ea postulatione videbatur, nec ullus in Gallia judex qui ob istas recusationis causas non se ipse sponte de judicio subduceret. Alii Romae mores vigent. Ergo extrema haec postulatio statim explosa, aegre id quidem ferentibus Augustinianis, sed injuriam tamen istam ad tempus mussitantibus, ut saltem scriptorum communicatio & mutua collatio non negaretur.  
Verum ad hoc eludendum varias causationes attulerunt delecti Cardinales; alienum ab Inquisitionis more id esse, quae ne ad homines quidem morti addicendos, testes coram reis adesse necessarium censet: non privatorum esse Doctorum leges summo Pontifici dicere, tantamque ipsorum contentionem contumaciae vicinam: an dubitarent summum Pontificem de rebus fidei sine ullis disputationibus, sine ullis collationum ambagibus posse judicare? An vererentur ne si partes inter se contendentes non audisset, S. Spiritus afflatu in judicando privaretur? Longe ipsis modestiores & submissiores esse adversarios suos, qui nihil mallent, quam ut totares sine ulla scriptorum communicatione, sine disputatione, pro summi Pontificis arbitrio brevissime decideretur: denique non satis decoram Theologis illam pugnis cum adversariis suis decertandi cupiditatem.  
Opponebant Augustiniani longe majorem huic judicio fidem futuram, si solita majorum, non illa inusitata & clandestina via perageretur; longe exploratius omnibus fore affuisse summo Pontifici in judicando Spiritum Sanctum, si idoneas veritati aperiendae vias amplecteretur. Id enim jubere Spiritum Sanctum, humanas inquirendi veri rationes non respui, Traditionem consuli, doctos homines adhiberi, calumniae & fraudibus aditum obsepiri. Ad discutiendam illam aequivocationum mendaciorumque caliginem, qua totam hanc controversiam adversarii sui involvere studerent, mutuam disputationem plane necessariam: nihil esse cur Hallerii, ipsiusque sociorum obsequium Cardinales laudibus ferrent, non illos Romanae Curiae, sed rationibus suis obsequi: videre homines astutos actum esse de causa sua, si sententiam suam coram adversatiis promere & defendere cogerentur: Ideo quidvis ad hoc amoliendum moliri: unum illis esse praesidium in calumnia: haec vero in tenebris exultat, in luce jacet & evanescit: ita nihil mirum si in declinanda collatione tantopere se morigeros praestent. At stillorum obsequium concessa collatione periclitari velint, fore ut illos tam inobsequentes offendant, quam Augustinianos contra hac in parte ad parendum promptos & expeditos. Haec si Inquisitionis mos non ferret, argumento esse res tantas alio quam Inquisitionis judicio disceptandas: nec se Romam ab Episcopis missos, ut aliquod Inquisitionis decretum otiosi expectarent, sed ut solennem Congregationem efflagitarent, in qua sancti Augustini doctrinam adversus eos omnes tueri possent, qui eam vel palam, vel subdole impugnare auderent. Contumeliosum esse in Episcopos Gallos, si ipsis postulantibus in Augustini causa negaretur, quod olim Jesuitis in Molinae causa tam prolixe concessum erat. Caeterum non pugnis se sed rationibus, sed Patrum auctoritate certare velle, nec pugnis certe coram Clement VIII. decertatum, nec pugnis in Concilio Tridentino pugnatum, quamvis utrobique multae Theologorum rationes habitae sint: Nil injuriae fieri summo Pontifici, nec quidquam juris ipsi detrahi, si d ab ipso postuletur, quod a Conciliis Oecumenicis studiose servari solet: sed gravem Theologis Catholicis, gravem Episcopis injuriam fieri, si hoc ipsis negetur, quod haereticis negari nec solet, nec potest.  
Dura haec Romanis autibus oratio visa, incendentibus odia Jesuitis & Hallerio, tantoque demissius Tribunal Inquisitionis venerantibus, quanto illius auctoritatem agnoscere constantius Augustiniani detrectabant. Itaque tota res astute in honoris contentionem versa. Ostendere voluerunt Romani Inquisitores, decreta fidei, non auditis contradictorie partibus, tametsi auditi flagitantibus, a summo Pontifice condi posse. Ad extremum doctoribus semper libellis supplicibus solennem Congregationem urgentibus, & cur nega●etur poscentibus, simpliciter responsum est: Negatur quia postulatis. Hac spe illi dejecti nullum deinceps scriptum Cardinalibus obtulerunt; omninoque ex Episcoporum, quorum Legati erant, mandato, & de more Callicae gentis, quae Inquisitionis tribunal non agnoscit, causam dicere in hoc judicio defugerunt.  
Exinde res ad voluntatem jesuitarum fluere coepit. Semotis adversariis causam jesuiticam in illa Congregatione egit Hallerius. Augustinianos quibus voluit criminibus & maledictis oneravit. Suas de gratia necessitante, de erepta dissentiendi libertate, de impossibilitate praeceptorum, etiam in sensu diviso, naenias decantavit: patulis judicum auribus quas voluit fabulas instillavit. Sic institutum, sic peractum illud judicium Romanum fuit, in quo Hallerius & socii quae voluere nemine refellente, dixerunt: nullus pro altera parte locutus est: ita nullam serendis calumniis opportuniorem judicii formam, ne si vellent quidem, Iesuitae optare protuissent.   

ARTICULUS VI  
Episcoporum literae ad summum Pontificem.  
POstquam hoc Romanae Congregationis institutum Gallis Episcopis pro Augustino laborantibus auditum est, non mediocriter illi in tanto rei Christianae periculo commoti, statim literas expostulatorias ad summum Pontificem misere, in quibus quae consecuta vidimus mala, praesaga prudentia denunciant. Harum partem aliquam subjici non erit alienum.  
BEATISSIME PATER,  
Cum famosas illas quinque propositiones, structura ancipites, sensu aequivocas & subdolas, per homines sibi addictos ideo tantum ad libitum suum providissent Iesuitae, ut S. Augustini auctoritas funditus convelleretur, neoterica Ludovici Molinae opinio de Romanae Sedis judicio, de tot retro seculorum consensu, de orthodoxa veterum Theologiae familiarum doctrina triumpharet; sancti divinae gratiae Doctoris existimatio in tuto jam esse videbatur, postquam ad illud tribunal devoluta erat, ex cujus gloriosa commendatione publicam obtinet toto orbe celebritatems. Verum, Beatissime Pater, quanta fuerat hactenus ad hujus Congregationis tumorem exultatio nostra, tanta nos repentinae mutationis admiratio percellit. Ex quo illi ipsi Doctores Theologi, quibus ad Sanctitatem Vestram Deputatis utimur, postremis literis significarunt contraria longe via totum negotium procedere coepisse: Non haberi promissam Congregationem, in qua partes oppositae mutuo congrederentur, viva voce coram inter se contenderent, & scriptis ultro citroque communicatis, omnem fraudis suspicionem amolirentur: sed aliud jam penitus institui, quam quod annuente Vestra Sanctitate jam se consecutos esse rescripserant. Quod quidem ut a speratae pacis ratione alienum est, sic a nobis sine intimo moeroris sensu disci non potuit, cum attendimus quanta inde publicis S. Augustini adversariis accederet audacia, quae malorum seges excresceret, quam opportuna inquietis hominibus praeberetur occasio novos longe lateque tumultus excitandi: quanta denique Romanae Sedi, adeoque ipsi Ecclesiae labes aspergeretur, si quod Molinae fautores tot callidis molitionibus ambiunt, maxima hujus aetatis controversia ambiguo tantum & obscuro judicio dirimeretur, quo illi non in sanctum modo Augustinum ejusque discipulos, sed in ipsius etiam Apostolicae Cathedrae auctoritatem ac famam impune abuti possent imposterum.  
En quid illi futurum praesagiebant ex clandestinis illis obscurisque Congregationibus. His autem malis antevertendis plenum prudentiae, plenum charitatis summo Pontifici consilium deinde suggerunt.  
Patiatur Sanctitas vestra, Beatissime Pater, non tam pietatis ac reverentiae quam doloris ac gemituum plenam admonitionem. Exiguae scintillae latum jam undique sparserunt incendium; mali vis improba non uno loco grassatur: litigant filii, gemit mater: in Patris providentia totius remedii summa posita est. Magno aestu res geritur, sed quem Pontificia restinguat auctoritas, si nullis aequivocorum sensuum involucris obtectum proferatur, judicium, si secundum solitas Ecclesiasticorum judiciorum formas ac regulas pronuncietur; si denique tam omni ex parte absolutum sit, ut illi tanquam caelesti oraculo acquiescere debent, qui contrarias hactenus sententias propugnarunt: quod ut ipso even●u ratum fiat, neque ullus supersit justae exceptionis locus, quaedam imprimis videntur necessaria. Primum ut nostris ad Sanctitatem Vestram Delegatis facultas fiat libere coram adversariis, qui praesentes sunt, aperiendi quod sentiunt, & omnes illorum technas retegendi. Deinde ut quae ultro citroque ad sententiae defensionem prolata erunt, fida & accurata manu in publicos commentarios referantur: rerum in commentarios relatarum apographa concedantur disceptantibus, ipsique inter sese mutuo ac bona fide communicent, quae vel ad suam stabiliendam, vel ad impugnandam oppositam exhibuerint. Praeterea ut Iesuitae, quibus tanquam Molinianae novitatis assertoribus, & apertis Augustinianae doctrinae hostibus praecipua contentionis ineundae moles incumbit, in judicium tanquam primariae partes accedant, praesertim cum scripta jam produxe●int, quae Franciscus Annatus ex hac Societate Theologus suo nomine Paris●s palam edere ausus sit. Demum ut Dominus Albisius a Congregatione abstineat, ob eas recusationis causas, quarum aequitas ipsa per sese satis elucescit. Denique Frater Modestus qui Francisci Annati librum a praelo recentem approbate veritus non est, neque ullis ab hac audacia prohibitionibus potuit deterreri, ab eodem judicio semoveatur, nec ferendae sententiae jus obtineat, qui tam evidenti praejudicio mentem Molinae patronis obnoxiam declaravit. Haec sunt, Beatissime Pater, non declinandi judicii consilia, sed subsidia stabiliendae pacis. Speramus Sanctitati Vestrae acceptas fore preces nostras in hoc rerum cardine necessarias, justitia commendabiles, pietatis ac venerationis plenissimas— Postulamus ut non impar malo remedium adhibeat, eoque judicio lis tanta dirimatur, quod omnes admittant Catholici, regiones omnes venerentur. Atque illud profecto futurum est, si qualem Congregationem Clemens VIII. & Paulus V. instituerant, talem Sanctitas Vestra nobis annuat, disceptaturis apertam & liberam, omni carentem invidia, celebritate solennem.  
Ita loquuntur, ita monent, quos sincerus pacis ac veritatis amor incendit: Sed quibus artibus Iesuitae tam justa Episcoporum vota, tam summissas preces frustati sint, in hujus narrationis serie patebit.   

ARTICULUS VII.  
Nova Episcoporum Legatio pro obtinenda Congregatione.  
NEc vero hac libera admonitione contenti, duos rursus Legatos ad summum Pontificem mittunt, qui novis obsecrationibus Congregationem solennem ab ipso impetrare conarentur. Admissi in conspectum summi Pontificis novi Legati exponunt Episcoporum vota, collationis habendae necessitatem, pro ea obtinenda demisse supplicant, nec aliam certe pacis stabiliendae viam esse demonstrant. Ad omnia respondet summus Pontifex, supremum Christi Vicarium ad illas collationes concedendas nulla lege teneri. Congregationem a se institutam, qualem praesenti rerum statui convenire judicaverat: auditos a se Consultores diligenter de propositionibus disputantes; nec defuturam sibi S. Spiritus inspirationem ad illarum veritatem aut falsitatem pernoscendam, prorsusque Pontificiorum decretorum veritatem ab hac solum Spiritus S. inspiratione pendere: velle se totum negotium brevi transigere; disputationibus rem extrahi: affuturos toto orbe Doctores: inde contentiones infinitas: has se matura Constitutione velle componere. Multa illi contra suppliciter summum Pontificem obtestati sunt, ut illi diligentiae quam se in excutiendis propositionibus adhibuisse dictitabat, aliam etiam instituendae Congregationis diligentiam addere dignaretur. Hoc quoque divinae providentiae, Romanae Sedi tuendae semper invigilantis indicium esse, quod talem Episcopis Gallis mentem immisisset. Non enim afflatu prophetico veritatem summis Pontificibus innotescere; sed sacra Traditione consulenda, rebusque controversis humana & Ecclesiastica diligentia expendendis. Tum summus Pontifex, cujus aures sua sponte placidas jesuiticae criminationes & Albisii artes prorsus obstruxerant, saepius ista sibi ingesta dixit, eademque toties iterari superfluum: sibi constitutum esse nullam scriptorum communicationem, nullam disputationem concedere. Sed si audiri, inquit, sine adversariis vultis, ad vos quantum volueritis (quanto tempore) audiendos paratus sum. Nec pluta hac de re prae summi Pontificis reverentia adjicere ausi sunt.   

ARTICULUS VIII.  
Quomodo quaestio facti, seu Jansenii causa Romae tractata: quanta versutia Jesuitae effecerint ne quisquam pro eo loqueretur.  
VIsum est hanc totam pro impetranda solenni Congregatione altercationem, quo magis appareret, simul referre, tametsi per biennium ferme duraverit. Nunc uberius explicandum quo pacto in arcana illa Congregatione Iansenii causa, sive facti quaestio tractata sit. Quam narrationem paulo altius repetere non erit inutile.  
Non novum erat Romae Iansenii nomen: sed primo in bonam partem, deinde in malam clarissimum. Magnam enim initio apud Romanos famam ipsi conciliarant nobilia ejus pro fide Catholica adversus haereticos certamina: adeo ut Iprensis Episcopatus Bullae gratis ipsi omnium consensu Cardinalium concessae sint. Sed liber ipsius posthumus, tametsi eruditissimorum virorum laudes etiam Romae promeritus, tamen Jesuitarum potentia in gravem invidiam vocari coepit. Magna, & merito quidem, Romanis cura, ne quis Ecclesiae pacem solicitet. Sed non eadem semper ipsis felicitas in detegendis turbarum auctoribus. Quod cum apprime Iesuitae nossent, tota Europa in jansenium & jansenistas tumultuari coeperunt. Tumultum exaudiere Romani, unde oriretur non sensere. Iesuitae enim toto orbe dispersi sedulo operam dabant, ut undique sinistri de Jansenii defensoribus rumores Romam afferentur, quod ipsis adversus incautos adversarios non difficile fuisse, quisquis eorum potentiam, & magnam asseclarum multitudinem cogitabit, facile perspiciet.  
His assidue verberatus Urbanus VIII. statuit quam mitissimo remedio gliscens incendium extinguere, libro scilicet Jansenii, aliisque adversus eum scriptis eo tantum nomine prohibendis, quod adversus Pontificum decreta, inconsulta Romana Sede, de gratia scribi vetantium, in lucem editi essent. Deinde quoniam nescio quas Baii sententias renovasse arguebatur jansenius, placuit Urbano Pii V. & Gregorii XIII. Bullas renovare, non nominato jansenio: Neque enim fas esse censebat sugillare hominem quemquam inaudita parte, ut ex ipso in hac ipsa Iansenii causa multi audierunt. Sed quid jesuitis proderat renovata Baii Bulla? Damnari, aut certe perstringi jansenium volebant, ut hoc colore ipsius defensores vexarent, & Romanam cum ipsis Curiam colliderent. Estecerunt igitur Albilii praesertim opera, ut Iansenii nomen, quasi qui Baianas Propositiones renovasset, inscio Pontifice in Bullam insereretur.  
Tametsi vero nullum de Iansenii doctrina judicium, sed tantum libri prohibitionem haec Bulla contineret, ubi tamen in exteras missa est provincias, magnas ubique eruditorum querelas excivit, praesertim in Belgio & Academia Lovaniensi, cujus doctrinam, sicut Augustini, toto suo volumine Jansenius illustrarat. Ergo haec Doctores duos Romam misit, qui jansenium coram summo Pontifice defenderent, quorum unus erat clarus ille Sinnichius, vir doctissimus quidem, sed amiqua morum simplicitate, non hac recenti versuti●.  
Hic cum suae Facultatis de praedicta Bulla quetelas summo Pontifici exposuisset, responsum accepit, Bullam Pii V. & Gregorii XIII. se tantum renovari veluisse; sed ne quisquam nominatim carperetur, expresse vetuisse. Hoc responsum & ipse statim ad Academiam suam scripsit, & aliquanto post in Memoriali Cardinalibus oblato nominatim expressit; quod ab homine gravi factum nemo suspicabitur nisi verum esset. Sed cum nihilominus multis calumniis Romae lacerari jansenium videret, paratum se professus est ad ipsius Augustinum in campo Florae comburendum, si quid in eo ostendi posset ab Augustini & Ecclesiae doctrina dissonum.  
Sic ille annum & amplius Romae exegit, quoridie deposcens examen jansenii, ipsius adversarios quotidie lacessens; nec illo toto tempore quisquam qui cum eo congredi vellet, inventus est: nec injuria quidem. Vix enim alium reperire erat in Augustini doctrina peritiorem, ut testatur eximium illud opus Triados SS. Patrum, Romae ab ipso vacivis horis compositum.  
Urbano vita functo Cardinales Bullae confectores hunc Doctorem sibi jampridem odiosum amoliri volentes, sesquihora post obitum summi Pontificis eum accersunt, & omnis loco responsionis, Bullae anti-Iansenianae exemplar authenticum tradunt. Mansit tamen Romae adusque Innocentii Pontificatum; examenque jansenii, & Bullae abrogationem petere perstitit; sed ut nihil impetrari posse vidit ab eo Pontifice qui in ea conficienda affuerat, domum reversus est.  
Hic fuit primae in jansenium velitationis exitus: sed non multo post longe gravior in illum belli moles incubuit, cum plurimorum Episcoporum Galliae literis quas jesuitarum concursationes extorserant, quinque Propositiones a Corneto fabricarae, quae oblique in eorum epistola Iansenio tribuebantur, ad summum Pontificem delatae sunt. Missi sunt Romam, ut jam diximus, ex utraque parte Doctores dissimillimo consilio. Alii Propositiones sine distinctione damnati nolebant; alii eas confuse cum Iansenio censura notari deposcebant. Instituta est ab Innocentio X. Congregatio ad hanc controversiam examinandam, qualem optabant Iesuitae, qualem Augustiniani Doctores sugieb●nt. In hac omnia clam peracta; nulla collatio, nulla scriptorum communicatio, permissa est. Erat autem haec ipsissima Inquisitionis Congregatio. Hinc quibus habebatur diebus, pro foribus extabat charta cum hac inscriptione: Die N. habebitur Congregatio S. Officii. Ejusmodi inscriptio inde avulsa etiamnum Parisiis asservatur.  
Praeterea jam Romae percrebuerat Legatos ab Academia Lovaniensi ad Jansenium defendendum Doctores duos Madritum petiisse, ut commendatorias Regis Catholici literas obtinerent: indeque Romam brevi venturos. Consultius & providentius visum Jansenio in speciem parcere, ut eo securius oppugnaretur, quo tectius. Igitur ne quis aperte ipsi patrocinari posset, percrebuit inter Consultores odiosissimum quidem esse summo Pontifici Jansenium, utpote jam damnatum in Urbani Bulla; non tamen proprie causam ipsius in Congregatione tractari: sed de quinque Propositionibus inquiri. Ipsae Propositiones Inquisitioni oblatae sunt, abstrahendo ab omni proferente, mandatumque Consultoribus, ut de iis prout jacent, sententiam ferrent; quod expresse testatur in suffragio suo Commissarius S. Officii, qui certe quid in nac Congregatione factum sit, vel optime noverat.  
Ind consecuti sunt Jesuitae. Primum quidem, ut non iniqui Jansenio Consultores, cum inutilem sibi invidiam ex ejus defensione nollent accersere, de Jansenio silerent, Propositiones in abstracto consideratas, in sensu gratiae efficacis tueri satis habentes.  
2. Ut jesuitici Consultores, impune quidvis de jansenio, nemine reclamante dicerent, cum eorum commenta, quasi à causa quae tractabatur aliena, refellere nemo curaret.  
Habes igitur istius judicii formam qualis fuerit, jansenii sensum nonnulli Consultores, tametsi non ex mandato summo Pontificis, voluntate tamen suâ acriter insectati sunt, atque illi quas voluere fabulas imprimisque illud necessitantis gratiae, & sublatae dissentiendi potentiae figmentum affinxere. Contra Augustiniani Iansenii mentem nil ad rem pertinere rati, Augustinianam tantum de gratia efficaci doctrinam optime defenderunt. Unus Wadingus negavit Propositiones esse jansenii; sed id obiter & aliud agens. Ita summus Pontifex & Cardinales multos contra jansenium loquentes audierunt, vix ullum pro ipso, quamvis e Consultoribus quatuor aut quinque, & quandoque sex ab ipso starent, ut ex ipsorum suffragiis patuit.  
Atque haec sic esse gesta quemadmodum diximus, & certum est omnibus qui Romae tunc erant, & istorum Theologorum suffragia nuper edita planissime demonstrant. Nam si jussi essent Consultores de quaestione facti, utrum necne Propositiones in jansenio sint, sententiam promere, utique omnes de hac ipsa sententiam dixissent; & tamen Consultorum pars maxima de Iansenio silet, & Propositiones in abstracto considerat. Imo, ut dixi, Commissarius S. Officii disette testatur proposita fuisse haec quinque capita ut praescindunt ab omni proferente.  
Sic igitur votorum tuorum factus es compos, mi Annute, nec aegre tibi fuit Propositiones ipsas in sensu gratiae efficacis ab omnibus fere Consultoribus orthodoxas & ab omni censura immunes esse judicatas. Sperasti enim fore quod contigit, ut adversarios sub Augustini & gratiae efficacis defensione elapsos sub Ianseniani sensus nomine insequereris.  
Restabant adhuc amovendi molesti illi Doctores Lovanienses, qui si Roman venissent, cuncta fortasse jesuitarum consilia turbassent, sed ne venirent, sedulo allaboravit Cardinalis Spada. Scripsit quippe ad Hispaniensem Nuncium, ut anniteretur quo minus illi Doctores literas commendatorias à Rege Catholico pro Jansenio impetrarent. Neque enim de Iansenio Romae, sed tantum de quinque Propositionibus examinandis agi, nullâ habitâ auctoris ratione. Paruit Nuncius: interposuit auctoritatem suam: literas commendatorias pro Jansenio diu impediit tanquam inutiles. Hac spe illi dejecti, & praeterea memores quam Romae nihil paucis ante annis profecissent, in patriam re infectâ regressi sunt.  
Quis igitur jam mirabitur de Iansenio summum Pontificem & illos Cardinales incommodius sensisse? Habitabat in illorum auribus Hallerius, tam magnae illic fidei, quam istic parvae, sive nullius. Venditabatur octoginta Episcoporum numerus, tanquam Iansenio adversus, nec Romae cognitum erat quibus artibus hae subscriptiones extortae essent. Hibernorum declaratio, atque aliae ejusmodi tantopere Parisiis irrisae, hic quasi magni ponderis testimonia summo Pontifici clam ostendebantur. Ad haec jesuitarum magna Romae gratia, magna fides. An illi tantae pietatis Religiosi, fidei Catholicae columina, falsa Iansenio crimina vellent imponere? Porro Augustiniani Doctores haec omnia occulte misceri ignorantes aut parvifacientes, & praeterea Propositionum, non Iansenii causâ Romam ab Episcopis missi, secretis illis molitionibus nihil opponebant, nec ullum pro Iansenio suffragium proferebant (poterant autem quamlibet numerosa proferre,) quod nec ejus causam acturi Romam venissent, nec de eo omnino agi existimarent. Nemo ergo aderat qui jansenium defenderet, nemo qui se Ianseniani hominis invidiâ vellet onerare; contra innumeri Iansenio nemine prorsus refellente obtrectabant, & ipsum variorum errorum reum agebant. In his tenebris quis Innocentio, qui quicquid in rebus Theologicis noverat, per alios noverat, succensere possit, quod aliquid in jansenio vitii esse crediderit? Quem non humanae potius miseriae cogitatio subeat, quâ fit ut istiusmodi errores etiam bonis ac cautis saepe obrepant? Prorsus enim de Iansenio auditis tot accusatoribus, non auditis defensoribus, judicans Innocentius, vix aliter judicare potuit; poterat tamen, ut optabant omnes pacis amantes, vel omnino non judicare, vel ejus defensoribus locum dare. Quod si non fecit, Hallerio & jesuitis imputandum est, qui nullam de sensu Iansenii controversiam esse, talemque omnino esse qualis ab ipsis exhibebatur, constanter affirmarunt. His ergo credidit Innocentius, cum illos calumniari non crederet. Ind haud dubie conficiendae Constitutionis consilium cepit, in cujus praefatione, de qua certe Consultores judicium minime tulerant, nomen Iansenii insereretur, eoque temperamento, ut dubium esse posset, judicansne, aut sententiam suam, vel potius Episcoporum Galliae opinando interponens, de jansenio meminisset: quo progredi vel regredi posset utcunque Constitutio sua populos ac Theologos offenderet vel morigeros vel repugnantes.   

ARTICULUS IX.  
Audientia Doctorum Augustinianorum.  
UNum hoc tantum conficiendae Constitutionis auctores male habebat, quod Augustiniani Doctores constanter causam dicere, nisi praesentibus adversariis, renuebant. Hinc valde imminutum iri cernebant Constitutionis auctoritatem, si alterâ tantum parte auditâ factum esse percrebresceret.  
Ergo cum Augustinianorum constantiam pervincere illosque ad quandam audientiae speciem pertrahere illis potissimum superesset, opportune accidit, ut Christianissimi Regis Legatus bono animo Augustinianos Doctores obtestatus sit, ne audientiam pollicenti summo Pontifici se sistere detrectarent; alioquin fore ut multi suspicarentur ipsos causae suae parum fidere, eludendi judicii causas captare: simul injuriam fieri summo Pontifici, si oblata ab ipso causae audiendae facultas respueretur: postremo hâc viâ longe melius expetitam ab ipsis collationem impetrari posse, si ejus necessitatem ex eorum oratione summus Pontifex ipse condisceret: Eos esse Romae mores, ut quae poscuntur malint à se beneficii loco tribui, quam violentis precibus extorqueri.  
Haec atque alia, praecipue vero summi Pontificis reverentia, de cujus promissis dubitare pietas & Religio non sinebant (Promiserat autem, ut diximus quantam vellent, ipsis audientiam se praestiturum,) Augustinianos Doctores impulerunt, ut sibi solis atque extra adversariorum conspectum locuturis oblatam à summo Pontifice audientiam amplecterentur. Ergo se sistunt summo Pontifici 19 Maii anno Domini 1653. De gratia efficaci disserit Lalanius Vallis-crescentis Abbas, omnesque Propositiones ad eam revocari posse, & hoc sensu veras esse perspicue demonstrat, in aliis sensibus falsas & haereticas docet. Eandem materiam fusius prosequitur P. Des-mares, & ex Augustino confirmat gratiae efficacis ad singulos pietatis actus necessariae doctrinam ad fidem Ecclesiae pertinere. De Iansenio ne verbum quidem dixere, tum quia ejus defendendi causa Romam non venerant, tum quia apud omnes Romae notum erat, non de jansenio sed de Propositionibus agi.  
Primâ illâ audientiâ, necessaria quidem suae causae fundamenta jecerant: sed vix adhuc illam ingressi, nullâ Propositionum sigillatim excussâ, nullis adversariorum argumentis dilutis, cum aliis rursum accerserentur diebus, id se praestituros sperabant. In quo te habemus assentientem, mi Annate, qui sic in Cavillis pag. 35. Cum dicturi, inquis, essent de quinque Propositionibus, coeperunt dicere de Jesuitis.— Satyram illam excepit effusa in commendationem S. Augustini & gratiae per se efficacis oratio, DE QVIBUS NULLA ERAT CONTROVERSIA, & post long a quatuor horarum fastidia compertum est nondum coepisse dicere de tribus capellis. Sic igitur finem faciunt, ut qui se ad prosequendam multis aliis diebus causam adornarent. Decedentes summo Pontifici varia scripta offerunt: unum de prima Propositione: alterum de gratia efficaci: tertium de jesuitarum in Augustinum petulantia: quartum de variis Propositionum sensibus: quorum alii haeretici essent, alii Catholici; in quo palam contestantur semper illum sensum gratiae efficacis, quo Propositiones tuebantur, a se defensum iri; ni diserte a summo Pontifice proscriberetur. Accepit omnia gratanter summus Pontifex, illisque digressis collaudavit ipsorum erud tionem & pietatem, & circumstantrbus Cardinalibus dixit: HI DOCTORES NON SUNT HAERETICI, ut jactabatur. Itaque inflecti non nihil, & ad causam diligentius cognoscendam adduci plerisque visus est. Contra tamen exultare jesuitici Doctores, quod adversarii sic tandem ad audientiam pertracti essent, nec obscure illorum simplicitatem irridere coeperunt, qui alias audientias expectarent; sive hoc praesensione quadam & augurio conjectarent, sive consilia pridem fixa incautius enunciarent.   

ARTICULUS X.  
Quibus rationibus adductus summus Pontifex Constitutionem statim promulgari jusserit.  
MUltum plerisque Consultoribus, multum summo Pontifici arriserat Augustinianorum oratio: sed hoc ipsum jesuitarum fautores callidissimâ oratione in perniciem verterunt. Facile, inquie bant, illi Theologi in vulgari ac tralatitio argumento se jactarunt: In gratiae efficacis sensu Propositiones innoxias probant, quasi vero haec res agatur; ac non ipse summus Pontifex, ipsi Consultores, ipse Hallerius hanc de gratia efficaci quaestionem sepofuerint. At quod eas in aliis sensibus damnant, discat hinc Pontifex quam juste accusentur, quam tuto damnentur, nec se pingui artificio ab istis Jansenistis deludi patiatur. Defendunt hic quidem Augustinum, at in Gallia Calvinum: Pro sola efficace gratia laborare se simulant: at ipsorum asseclae nil istis simulationibus utuntur, sed plenis buccis necessitantes gratias, ereptam dissentiendi potestatem, absolutam praeceptorum impossibilitatem in Gallia crepant. An si ut isti Pseudo-Jansenistae meticulosi Romae nuncfaciunt, gratiam tantum efficacem in Gallia Jansenistae docerent, quisquam in eos tumultum concitasset? An eas Propositiones accusavissent octoginta Galliae Episcopi efficacis gratiae magna ex parte defensores? An earum damnationem postulaturus Romam venisset Hallerius, idem gratiae efficacis propugnator, & Jansenianorum hostis acerrimus? Nimirum haec ficta jansenistarum professio, quae Propositiones in solo sensu gratiae efficacis tuetur, nec promulgandae Constitutionis causam tollit, cum aliter in Gallia loquantur: & periculum tollit, cum ipsos ostendat jam in sententia nutare & viribus ad repugnandum carere. Cur igitur propter unum sensum, orthodoxum quidem, sed a nemine impetitum, nec in damnatione periclitantem, dubitet summus Pontifex noxias Propositiones proscribere; gliscentem slamman extinguere, Ecclesiae turbas componere; Sedis Romanae auctoritatem amplificare; inimicam potestati suae factionem ulcisci? Incolumem tantum volunt gratiam efficacem; age, age, in tuto est; nec est cur illi timeant, quam impetit nullus. Sed quando hoc folum petunt, nihil est cur illos iterum accersat summus Pontifex, ut ipsos rursum audiat frustra die gratia efficaci declamantes. Damnant Propositones ut haereticas in aliis sensibus; satis est; non repugnabant igitur Constitutioni, quâ perversi illi sensus proscribentur. Cur non igitur summus Pontifex quamprimum se hâc molestiâ & Ecclesiam hoc metu liberet? Cur non hanc opportunitatem arripiat ut publicae tranquillitati & Romanae Sedis amplitudini simul inserviat?  
His persuasus est Innocentius: Augustinianos Doctores ultra non accersivit: nullam Consultorum congregationem habuit (ut ipse fateris in Cavillis pag. 37.) in qua saltem ex ipsis quaereret quid de Augustinianorum oratione sentirent. Oblata scripta nemini communicavit, nec omnino inspexit: sed continuo conceptam antea (ut ipse ibidem scribis) Constitutionem publicari jussit. Hâc Propositiones sine sensuum distinctione damnabantur: Jansenius oblique earum auctor asserebatur.   

ARTICULUS XI.  
Augustinianos Doctores Roma digredientes multis Officiis prosequitur summus Pontifex, iterumque confirmat de efficaci gratia & auctoritate S. Augustini violanda nunquam se cogitasse. Quaedam aliae probationes afferuntur.  
NOn minimum perculit Augustinianos Doctores tam imsperatus eventus. Nunquam enim sibi in animum induxissent quatuor horarum spatio, quo vix insinuare controversiae caput potuerant, conclusum iri promissam illam audientiam quantam vellent. Certe enim longe ampliorem volebant; nec est ullus qui in tam perplexa causa non malit omnino non audiri, quam sic audiri.  
Ut in malis tamen, hâc se consolatione 
The Consolation here attributed to us by Paul Irenaeus, was during this interval only in his conceit; for, from the time that the Constitution was fixed up●, and almost as soon pulled down by the same Officers, till our departure from Rome, we saw it not, and knew not certainly what it imported. Nevertheless I leave what this Author hath written without any alteration, because it belongs not to me to meddle with the works of another, and because though we had not this Consolation at this time, the grounds thereof being unknown to us, yet we received the same a few days after, when those grounds became manifest to us.  recrearunt; si minus illo judicio certa Ecclesiae pax esset allata, certe violatam non esse veritatem, cum apud omnes constaret summum Pontificem non attigisse materiam de Auxiliis, nec gratiam efficacem, nec particulares illos sensus, ad quos quinque Propositiones revocaverant, qui nihil aliud quam efficacis gratiae doctrinam complectebantur. Praeterea cum summo Pontifici & scripto & voce denunciassent, nunquam se à quinque illarum Propositionum particularium defensione disceffuros, nisi nominatim ab ipso & conceptis verbis proscriberentur, manifestum erat damnatis tantum generali censurâ Propositionibus, particulares illos censurâ probatos potius quam damnatos fuisse.  
Ne quid tamen dubitationis superesset, ipsum Constitutionis auctorem, antequam Româ discederent, adiret statuerunt, quo certius ipsius mentem cognoscerent. Accersiti sunt ad salutandum Pontificem die 13 Junii anni 1653. Ille vero eos, non quasi damnatorum dogmatum defensores, sed quasi veritatis & Augustinianae doctrinae vindices excepit, amplexus est, ornavit. Dixit summam cepisse se voluptatem ex orationis ipsorum vigore, modestia, prudentia, doctrina. Ho havuto gran sodisfattione del vigore, della modestia, prudenza è doctrina col laquale havete parlato. An docte, an prudenter loquuntur qui haereses adstruunt? Dixit illos plane persuasisse quod volebant. An porro haeresim persuaserant summo Pontifici?  
Quid multa? Generalibus illis testimoniis non contenti Augustiniani Doctores, nominatim quaesierunt, an efficax, quam defenderant, gratia Constitutione illa proscriberetur? Quid igitur ad hoc summus Pontifex? Audiant Moliniani. Certissimum esse dixit: Qu sto è certo, nec Augustini doctrinam, nec gratiam efficacem illo judicio violatam. Quid tibi videtur, mi Annate, an sic loqueretur Pontifex cum iis quos aliquo errore crederet implicatos? non eos potius ab haeresi retrahere studeret, praesertim cum palam professi essent in eadem se semper sententia perstituros?  
At forte haec omnia fingimus. Cave ne istud Romae dicas, ubi eorum quae dico veritatem nullus ignorat. Cave ne apud doctos & eruditos qui haec inquirere curarunt. Ecquod enim istorum testimonium illustrius, quam ipsius Christianissimi Regis Legati epistola, cujus multa exempla in vulgus manarunt, quam hic etiam attexi non erit inutile?  
Excerptum ex Epistola Christianissimi Regis Legati, ad Comitem de Brienne, qui Regi est ab interioribus secretis. Dat. Romae 16 Junii anni 1653.  
Die Jovis 12 Junii, summo Pontifici dixi, Doctores qui vulgo Augustini defensores dicuntur, multum cupere, antequam in Galliam revertantur, ad osculum pedum admitti, & Apostolica benedictione donari. Respondit Sanctitas sua sequenti die quibuscunque tandem negotiis distringeretur, tamen audientiam ipsis sese daturum. Nec vero promisso defuit. Honorificentissimis verbis Doctores istos prosecuta est, Sancti Augustini ac Sancti Thomae doctrinam, necnon effieacis grutiae dogma decreto suo minime damnari confirmavit, omnesque controversias eodem loci relictas dixit, quo sub Clement VIII. & Paulo V. relictae sunt: sed eum ipsimet declarassent de Propositionibus vel Calvinistice, vel Pelagiane, vel Catholice sentiri posse, erroneas ac temerarias judicari ideo debuisse, cum certo sensu haereticae essent. Omnis enim Propositio in qua latere potest venenum, populis instillari nou debet, ut nee in pascua ducuntur oves quae bonis & venenatis herbis permixta sunt, ne incaute ab ovibus venenum hauriatur. Postremo summus Pontifex ipsos collaudavit & gratias egit.  
Cur igitur, mi Annate, quos collaudat summus Pontifex, lacerant tui? Cur summi Pontificis Constitutione ad stabiliendum Molinam tam saepe abutuntur, vix memores quam hoc severe summus Pontifex interdixerit? Nam cum paulo post Constitutionem Jesuita Romanus tertiae propositionis censuram in Molinae favorem detorqueret, per Eminentissimum Cardinalem Baberinum mandari curavit Innocentius ipsi Generali jesuitatum, ut talem suorum compesceret audaciam, omnibusque Professoribus suis ediceret, ne quid e postrema Constitutione adversus Sancti Thomae doctrinam, & efficacis gratiae ad omnia pietatis opera necessariae dogma, elicere tentarent.   

ARTICULUS XII.  
Allata in Galliam Constitutione silent turbae, sed ad breve tempus. Nova rursum contentio callide procuditur a Jesuitis de facto Jansenii. Haec controversia in duobus capitibus sita. Fundamenta negatium propositiones esse in Jansenio.  
HAec fuit, mi Annate, victoriae tuae ratio, in qua paranda, praesto fuisse tibi videtur Virgilianum illud: 
— Dolus an virtus quis in hoste requirat.  Nunc operae pretium est attendere quo pacto cursum illius prosecutus sis, & hoc Pontificio decreto adversarios tuos irretieris.  
Adfertur in Galliam Constitutio tanto ambitu petita, tanto data recipitur ab omnibus, siletur, propositiones ab omnibus rejiciuntur. Quid multa? Pacis imaginem quandam vidimus. Interim missa a Doctoribus ab Episcopos a quibus legati erant, distinctio illa sensuum summo Pontifici oblata, & a nemine Romae improbata, ante Constitutionis promulgationem in lucem edita fuerat, ut omnibus innotesceret quam illi nihil Romae nisi gratiam efficacem defendissent. Hic si vos ullum concordiae studium, si qua fraternae caritatis cura tangeret, tam promptam Augustinianis in damnandis propositionibus obedientiam gratularemini, pacem Ecclesiae redditam gauderetis. Sed nusquam magis aperuistis, nihil vos aliud in Constitutione ambienda spectasse, quam ut ejus specie vobis adversarios vestros liceret ulcisci.  
Supererat una de facto Jansenii contentio, quam multi in Constitutione Innocentii nondum decisam existimabant. Quam levis, mi Annate, quam nihil fidem attingens, quam nullo modo ad Ecclesiae aedificationem pertinens! Haec ipsa privatis potius sermonibus, quam libris agitata statim evanuisset, nisi fuissent qui foverent & exsuscitarent. Dem tibi in ea Augustinianos erravisse; tamen erat, aut nusquam veniae locus. Ubi enim nisi in ejusmodi rebus locum habebunt Apostolicae voces: Veruntamen si quid aliter sapitis, hoc quoque vobis Deus revelabit; quas toties usurpat Augustinus, ut id doceat: Qui de capitalibus dogmatis consentiunt, in minutiorum controversiarum ramis, non esse pressius urgendos, sed hortandos potius, ut eorum quae nondum capiunt, intelligentiam a Deo poscant?  
Hic fuit Apostoli, hic Patrum animus. At sociorum tuorum longe dissimilis. Dolebat illis adversarios suos accepta Constitutione, ipsorum se manibus subduxisse. Ergo ut eos jam elabentes suis rursum casibus irretirent, inani illa controversia avide arrepta tota Gallia clamitare coeperunt inutilem reddi Constitutionem, & Jansenistarum artibus Pontificem eludi.  
Sed obsecro, mi Annate, quid sibi volebant isti clamores, aut quid aliud quam pravum sociorum tuorum animum indicabant? Quid enim? An inutilis est Constitutio quae turbas componit haeresimque, si quae fuit, prorsus extinguit? Ita prorsus vobis inutilis erat; hoc que rebamini; unum enim in illa petebatis utilitatem, ut odii exsaturandi vobis facultas esset, Quod hanc vestram cupiditatem non explet inutile dicitis. Igitur ex nugatoria contentione brevi ingentem excitastis controversiam, dignamque quae Episcoporum conventus exerceret. Haec quoniam clamoribus vestris in tantum abiit celebritatem, paulo diligentius explicanda est.  
Augustiniani Theologi quo pacto totum hoc negotium Romae tractatum esset non ignari, in illa facti quaestione duo contendebant: I. Verba illa Constitutionis quibus Jansenio propositiones oblique tribuebantur, judicii Pontificii vim non habere; sed ad summum Pontificiae opinionis, quam ipse octoginta Galliae Episcopis, vel potius Jesuitis credens, re indiscussa obiter significasset.  
II. Ex Hallerii & Jesuitarum sermonibus, summum Pontificem durius Iansenii mentem interpretarum esse, & quasdam sententias Iansenius putasse, quae revera Iansenii non essent; ideoque in jansenii quidem sensu propositiones damnare voluisse, non tamen revera damnavisse; quia verus Iansenii sensus longe diversus esset ab eo quem tanquam Iansenii sensum in propositionibus proscripserat.  
Cur potius opinionem, quam judicariam sententiam in Constitutione de jansenio interpositam censerent, his argumentis movebantur.  
Primo, Quod novum prorsus & inauditum in Ecclesia esset, alicui Scriptori propositiones tribui, tanquam ex ipsius libro extractas, nisi totidem verbis apud ipsum extarent. At quatuor saltem propositionum verba in jansenio non extare, cuivis inspicienti patet.  
Secundo, Quod in singulis propositionibus damnandis nullum Iansenii mentionem faceret, sed tantum in prooemio & clausula Constitutionis, quae ad narrationem potius quam ad decisionem spectant.  
Tertio, Quod nullum sine examine judicium fieri solet. At nemini Iansenii excutiendi provinciam Romae mandatam; neminem de ejus sensu dicere jussum: ●opositiones ipsas in abstracto spectatas certissimum erat. Nil igitur probabilitatis habere videbatur, ut de tanti viri tantique Episcopi libro & grandi & ad intelligendum operoso, nemine audito qui in ejus defensionem loqueretur, ex paucorum Regularium ociosis sermonibus pronunciare voluisset Innocentius, praesertim cum Constitutioonis suae voces ita consulto temperasset, ut non violenter in alium trahi possent.  
Falsum vero sensum Iansenio Romae affictum, ideo sibi persuaserant, quod nihil aliud in jansenio deprehenderent circa propositiones quam gratiae efficacis doctrinam a Pontifice non damnatam, sed potius probatam. Quare cum pateret Innocentium in quinque propositionibus Jansenii sensum voluisse damnare, nec minus certum esset, non damnatum esse gratiam efficacem, consequens erat Innocentium per jansenianum illum sensum aliud quoddam dogma intellexisse a gratiae efficacis doctrina longe diversum, cum illum rejeceret summus Pontifex istam probaverit. Ergo cum exoticum illud dogma in jansenio, tametsi ac●i studio quaesitum deprehendere non possent, in eam opinionem venerunt, hoc potius ex Hallerii jesuitarumque commentis haustum quam in jansenio inventum esse.  
Harum quaestionum nullum ad fidem pertinere palam est. Quid enim refert ad fidem, an Pontificem censeam recte de Auctoris sensu judicasse, dummodo existimem de fide ipsa recte sensisse, & cum ipsis fide prorsus consentiam? Quid refert, credam necne, sensum illum quem damnavit Pontifex, in jansenio reperiri, dummodo idem atque ipse dogma, eundem sensum, eundem errorem quem jansenianum appellat, pariter damnem? Quid refert, an in jansenio sensum illum a gratia efficaci diversum possim detegere, dummodo illum, quicunque est, & ubicunque sit, proscribam & execrer? Haec tamen & tu, & Iesuitae gregales tui non intelligere simulantes, inde rursus novae dissensionis flammam excivistis & hoc colore de integro adversarios vestros, tanquam manifestos haereticos insectari vehementius coepistis.   

ARTICULUS XIII.  
Alexandro VII. statum hodiernae de facto Jansenii quaestionis perverse & mendaciter expositum. Hinc novissima ejus Constitutione praecipuum controversiae caput omissum; illud decisum quod ad rem nihil pertineret.  
MOrtuo Innocentio successit Alexander hujus nominis septimus, cujus magnae in conficienda Constitutione partes fuerant. Hic suopte ingenio in Jesuitas propensior, quanto plus ipsis fidei habuit, tanto ab istarum controversiarum veritate cognoscenda longius absuit. Indico esse potest decretum ipsius, quo Inocentii Constitutionem confirmare & facti quaestionem dirimere voluit. Ex hoc enim perspici licer, statum hujus quaestionis prorsus ignotum ipsi fuisse. Nam si postremam illam Constitutionem diligentius expendamus, & qualis Pontificis in ea condenda sensus fuerit, exploremus, reperiemus ita putasse summum Pontificem, Jansenii sensum esse certum aliquod dogma erroneum, de quo inter utramque contendentium partem constaret. Hunc quosdam tueri, & damnatum a summo Pontifice pernegare, quo sibi illum perpetuotenere liceat; atque ita illos, dum de quaestione facti tantum litigare se simulant, revera tamen de jure litigare, cum illud ipsum dogma adhuc defenderent, quod ab Innocentio damnatum esset.  
Hac opinione imbutus Alexander, nihil aliud sibi faciendum judicavit, quam ut declararet, utpote intimarum Innocentii cogitationum conscius, ipsi propositum fuisse ut Jansenii sensum damnaret, ac propositiones proscriberet, veluta Iansenio excerptas, tanquam in Gallia de Innocentii voluntate ambigeretur. Et quoniam in ea facti quaestione, qualis ipsi exhibita est, juris etiam quaestio involvebatur, ideo durius increpavit illos qui de facti quaestione dubitarent, filios iniquitatis appellans. Quo sane verbo nunquam mitissimus Pontifex in eo uteretur, qui in mera facti quaestione nihil ad jus, nihil ad fidem pertinente, in qua toties decepti sunt summi Pontifices, ab ipso modeste dissentirent.  
Talem fuisse summi Pontificis mentem tota clamat Constitutio, de qua tria dicere habeo.  
Primum si probe intelligatur, nihil illam definire non modo si jus, sed etiam si factum spectetur, quod non al qua ratione sit verum.  
Secundo, Falsum prorsus esse, & maligne a malevolis hominibus instillatam summo Pontifici eam opinionem, qua ad condendam Constitutionem adductus est.  
Tertio, Totam controversiam de facto Iansenii integram nec decisam esse relictam.  
I. Nihil falsi definivisse summum Pontificem, si jus & fidem spectes, manifestum est. Damnat enim propositiones, & earum proprium sensum sed ita ut gratiae efficacis doctrinam relinquat intactam. Secluso vero gratiae efficacis sensu, omnes illae propositiones in al iis sensibus merito damnari possunt.  
Ne in facti quidem quaestione quicquam dixisse mihi videtur, quod non omnes verum agnoscant si quid voluerit Pontifex, altius inspiciatur. Nam cum putaret in Gallia litigari, utrum Innocentius jansenii sensum damnavisset, & propositiones ex ipso excerptas credidisset, rectissime & vere declaravit, propositiones in sensu Iansenii esse damnatus, ab Innocentio scilicet, qui revera propositiones tanquam Iansenianas damnare voluit, sensumque Iansenii in iis volutum credidit.  
Veriorem & benigniorem hunc Alexandrinae Constitutionis intellectum puto. Non enim ullam ad hanc facti quaestionem dirimendam Congregationem habuit, ut in novis decretis condendis observari solet: sed ea tantum quae sub decessore suo sacta sunt, tanquam testis fidelissimus narrat, cui sane ea quae vidit novitque testanti fidem abrogari par non est. Vidit autem excuti propositiones: fateamur excussas. Novit Innocentio mentem fuisse damnare jansenium; fateamur tale fuisse Innocentii consilium, & Alexandro prorsus succinemus. At si de eo ambigi in Gallia putasset utrum ab Innocentio recte examinatus fuisset jansenius, utrum bene a Consultoribus ipsius intellectus, utique decreto suo haec controversiae praecipua capita decidisset; quod tamen Alexander omnino non facit. Magna enim diligentia propositiones examinatas testatur, Jansenium excussum non dicit, nec dicere potuit. Quam cautionem nemo fortuitam putet, & exceptum agnoscat quod non expressum est.  
Quia tamen haec interpretatio, etsi, ut dixi, religiosior, ac, si mentem Pontificis penitus introspicias, verior; tamen ab approbatione populari nonnihil abhorret; non existimem licere Theologo, qui Jansenium male Romae intellectum putet, huic definitioni ita simpliciter subscribere, ut non manifeste appareat eum de facti quaestione adhuc dubitare; ne, si postmodum urgeatur, ac dubitationem suam promere cogatur, in perversae calliditatis & perfidiae suspicionem veniat; quam opinionem Sacerdotes ac Theologi omnes longissime a se debent amoliri.  
TWO Nec vero difficilius probatur, opiniones a veritate prorsus alienas summo Pontifici de controversiis Gallicis instillatas. Nam ut ex ejus Constitutione cernere est, credidit Jesuitis summus Pontifex esse nonnullos, quos idcirco filios iniquitatis appellat, qui fidem ut testatur ipse, labefactent; illo ipso videlicet dogmate defendendo, quod Janseniani sensus nomine damnavit Innocentius. Hinc ad condendam Constitutionem ea se potissimum ratione profitetur adductum, ut omnes fideles in unitate, non alicujus facti, sed fidei, contineantur, quam ab illis Iansenii defensoribus callide violari credidit. Atqui hoc falsissimum esse Augustiniani omnes facillime convincunt, dum se profitentur cum summo Pontifice prorsus in fide congruere, & quidquid in propositionibus damnavit, pariter rejicere: dumque adversarios suos compellant ut vel unum assignent circa propositiones dogma, in quo a summi Pontificis sensu dissideant.  
Praeterea credidit Jesuitis Pontifex sensum Jansenii esse certum aliquod dogma, quod prolatis his voc●bus eodem modo ab omnibus intelligatur. Hinc de illo sensu quasi certo & minime dubio explicando non laborat. At hoc plane falsum esse perspicuum est, cum in sensu Iansenii interpretando tota nunc facti controversia posita sit, quem Hallerius & Consultores nonnulli ad necessitantem gratiam & alia ejusmodi monstra pertrahere nituntur: contra Augustiniani ad simplicem gratiae efficacis doctrinam revocant.  
Postremo credidit, dubitari hic in Gallia, an jansenium damnare voluisset Innocentius: at de hoc nullus unquam dubitavit.  
III. Ex omnibus autem clarissime demonstratur quod tertio loco posui, veram facti quaestionem prorsus ab Alexandro non decisam.  
Ambigebatur enim primo, num Innocentius opinando, an judicando propositiones Jansenio tribuisset, quia judicii loco vulgo non habetur, quod sine praevio examine summi Pontificiis obi●et pronunciant. At hanc dubitationem nullo modo sustulit Alexander. Non enim docuit nec docere potuit Jansenii librum legitime ab Innocentio examinatum; quo tamen omisso, omnis declaratio summi Pontificis, opinionis, non judicii locum habet.  
Ambigebatur secundo, an jansenius revera docuisset, gratia necessitatem afferri voluntati, dissentiendi potestatem tolli, justis mandata esse simpliciter impossibilia, etiam in sensu diviso, etc. Quemadmodum volunt Hallerius & Iesuitae. An intra vulgarem efficacis gratiae ac Thomisticae scholae doctrinam hac in parte stetisset, ut volunt ipsius defensores. Hanc dubitationem quomodo aufert ea Constitutio, quae Iansenii sensum omnino non explicat, nec innuit?  
Si quaeras igitur, mi Annate, quomodo hanc facti quaestionem dirimere possit summus Pontifex? Responsum habe: si Iansenii librum legitime examinari curet, ac patienter audiat Theologos qui pro Iansenio loquivoluerint. 2. Si perspicui & sine ambagibus assignet quid Ianseniani sensus nomine intelligendum sit, & quid ille ab Augustino discrepet. Hoc donec ab ipso impetretur, semper erit non injustae querelae locus adversus eos qui jansenianum sensum explicare detrectent, damnari sine explicatione imperiose praecipiant.  
En tibi, mi Annate, caecae illius contentionis, qua jamdiu sine causa jactatur Ecclesia, historiam pro rerum abundantia brevem; pro Disquisitionum nostrarum modo, longiorem. Nec enim sum eam quam potui copiam consectatus, nec rursus ea omittere volui, quae ad id probandum pertinebant, quod tota hac scriptione specto, nullam de quinque propositionibus, seposita utrinque efficaci gratia, vel esse vel fuisse controversiam. Et quoniam nonnullae adhuc cavillationes supersunt, quibus simplicioribus imponere foletis, visum est, ne qua restet difficultatis umbra, brevibus illas responsionibus ad hujus Disquisitionis calcem elidere.   

ARTICULUS XIV.  
Quibusdam Molinisticis cavillis occurritur.  

QUAESTIO I.  
CUr ante damnationem quinque propositionum, eas Augustiniani ambiguas tantum, uno sensu veras, altero haereticas dixere, nunc vero simpliciter haereticas fatentur?  

RESPONSIO.  
Verborum significatio ex usu hominum; Ecclesiasticorum verborum intelligentia ex usu Ecclesiae pender. Si quae sua sponte ambigua sunt, tota Ecclesia in aliquam significationem confluente, ambigua esse desinunt. Vocem Consubstantialis olim damnarat Synodus Antiochena contra Paulum Samosatenum: eandem contra hac haeresi oppressa pro fidei tessera habuit Ecclesia contra Arianos. Neque tunc causa●i licuisset hanc vocem per se ambiguam esse: consensu enim Ecclesiae amotus erat malus ille sensus, cujus ex se erat capax, omnisque ambiguitas dempta. Idem de propositionibus judicium fieri debet. Ambiguae secundum se & aequivocae sunt, ut ipsa Consultorum vota demonstrant. Possunt ad rectum sensum gratiae efficacis trahi possunt in malo & heretico sensu; & quidem, ut judicavit summus Pontifex, congruentius accipi. Sic autem illas damnavit Innocentius X. ut expresse efficacis & praedeterminantis gratiae doctrinam censurae subduceret. Sic ipsius Constitutionem suscepit Ecclesia, ut istiu● doctrinae auctoritas, etiam fatentibus jesuitis, maneret intacta. Non igitur illa includi jam potest in propositionum sensu; quia damnatas voces ad damnatum sensum aligat Ecclesiae consensus. Sublata est ergo omnis prorsus ambiguitas. Excerpta enim ex illarum propositionum sensibus efficacis gratiae doctrina, nihil jam in iis remanet nisi noxium & virulentum. Ergo ante damnationem quia ambiguae erant, partim verae, partim falsae merito dicta sunt, non ab Augustinianis modo, sed ab ipsis Romanae Inquisitionis Theologis, ab omnibus Dominicanis, imo ab ipso Hallerio & sociis qui in collatione cum Dominicanis contestati sunt, propositiones a se non impugnari in sensu gratiae efficacis, ut supra vidimus. Post damnationem vero, quia sublata est ambiguitas, recte item simpliciter haereticae dicuntur.    

QUAESTIO II.  
Cur nonnulli confessi sunt ante illarum propositionum damnationem, jansenii sensum in illis involvi posse, nunc iidem istud simpliciter negant?  

RESPONSIO.  
Etsi injurium sit ut singulorum dicta premant universos, facile tamen ex dictis cerni potest, quam non ista inter se pugnent. janseniinus ille sensus qui involvi in damnatione quinque propositionum poterat, nihil aliud erat, ut ab Augustinianis pulchre explicatum est, quam gratiae efficacis doctrina. Quid mirum igitur, fi subducto ex propositionum sensibus illo dogmate gratiae efficacis Jansenianus pariter sensus subductus sit? Constant igitur illi sibi pulcherrime; & qui ante damnatas propositiones, gratiae efficaci, sive Janseniano sensui metuebant, nunc ipsi nihil omnino timent. Quomodo enim Janseniano sensui metuerent, cum videant gratiam efficacem in tuto collocatam, quam nomine Janseniani sensus intelligebant?    

QUAESTIO III.  
An sensus divisus per mutabilitatem liberi arbitrii explicatus, excludat vulgarem ejus explicationem a Thomistis traditam?  

RESPONSIO.  
Cum negare non possent Moliniani, saepe ab Augustinianis usurpari vulgarem illam distinctionem Thomistarum, sensus divisi & sensus compositi, hoc fuco apud ignaros nostrarum rerum Consultores usi sunt, his vocibus, sensus divisi, ab ipsis non designari idem quod vulgo Thomistae intelligunt, sed quandam duntaxat flexibilit atem liberi arbitrii, quod substracta gratia possit male agere, cum hoc durante gratia non possit. Hic fucus ita facile abstergitur: Maxima Augustinianorum pars, non alio modo quam Thomistae interpretati sunt sensum divisum: in iisque ipse Jansenius, & ejus Apologistae, Doctor Sanbovius & omnes illius discipuli, ipsidemque Augustiniani Doctores Romam missi. Unus quem viderim, vir quidem doctissimus eam flexibilitatem liberi arbitrii uberius persecutus est, non ut aliquid Thomisticae explicationi detraheret, sed ut aliqiud superadderet. Non aegre fatetur ille cum ipsa gratia efficaci pacifice cohaerere dissentiendi potentiam, nunquam actu dissentientem, quod Thomistis ad sensum divisum sufficit. Sed cum hoc minus haereticis satisfaciat, plus aliquid dicere voluit, & id ostendere, quomodo gratiae non modo in sensu diviso sic explicato, sed etiam magis proprie & quasi in sensu composito resisti possit. Hoc sic ille confecit.  
Gratia efficax ex Augustino est delectatio victrix. Victrix autem dicitur quatenus aliam delectationem vincit. Vincit autem, quia validior & fortior est. Sed fortior est comparata ad concupiscentiae vires, cum quibus confligit. Ita si augerentur illae concupiscentiae vires, non jam superior, sed infirmior esset; ideoque non vinceret, sed vinceretur. Ergo quia concupiscentia semper augeri potest & inflammari vehementius, nullus est gratiae gradus in hac vita, in quo non possit gratia vinci per validiorem concupiscentiam. Cur igitur non vincitur? Quia, inquit, Deus hoc concupisentiae augmentum in iis quos tentationis victores facere constituit, vel reprimit, vel pro majori concupiscentiae ardore majorem charitatis ardorem accendit. Ita semper resisti potest gratiae efficaci, nunquam tamen resistitur. Hanc explicationem quae Thomisticae aliquid superadstruit, ideo magis amplectitur vir eruditus, quod eam haereticis quodammodo magis censet oppositam. Illi enim gratiam semel datam nunquam extingui in animo semel justificatorum censet: & sic salutarem hominibus timorem detrahunt a gratia excidendi.  
Hanc autem resistendi potentiam vocat ille quidem in sensu diviso, potuisset tamen aliquatenus vocare in sensu composito, cum per istud concupiscentiae augmentum, gratiae quae efficax ante fuit, aliquando reipsa resistatur. Sic enim infirma Petri charitas victrix erat in ipso antequam mortis metu percelleretur: accedente hoc timore victa est. Manifestum est autem sensum divisum sic explicatum, Thomisticam notionem involvere, & aliquid amplius.    

QUAESTIO IV.  
An qui indifferentiam sensus divisi non adhibet ad conciliandum liberum arbitrium cum gratia, ideo illam rejicere dicendus sit?  

RESPONSIO.  
Hoc arugumento nititur imperitissime Ricardus, ut probet indifferentiam Thomisticam sensus divisi a Jansenio negatam. Recurrit, inquit, ad aliam rationem conciliandae cum gratia libertatis. Quid tum? Ergo priorem tanquam falsam repudiat. Ubi logicum illud acumen? Quam multa vera aliis veris explicandis inservire non possunt! An quicunque sensus, quibusdam Scripturae verbis accommodari non potest, ideo falsus in se & erroneus? Certum est igitur in libertate hujus vitae reperiri indifferentiam illam potentiae a Thomistis explicatam. Agnovit id Jansenius & lib 8. cap. 4. & uberius cap. 20. & 21. Sed utrum ad libertatis cum gratia consensionem adhibita sit ab Augustino, alia quaestio est. Negat id Jansenius, sed non ideo indifferentiam illam rejicit. Vult esse proprietatem inseparabilemlibertatis hujus viae; aut si velis, esse de essentia libertatis, quatenus hoc nomine sola electionis significatur libertas. Sed non vult esse de essentia generali libertatis, sicut ab Augustino spectata est. Sed sive sit proprietas, sive essentia, certum est, ut Jansenius agnoscit, eam & reperiri & requiri in hoc statu naturae lapsae ad merendum & demerendum.    

QUAESTIO V.  
An gratiam sufficentem in abstracto, potentiam proximam in abstracto, etc. definivisse censendus sit summus Pontifex?  

RESPONSIO.  
Aliquis fortasse sibi in mentem induxerit, id Annatum abstractionibus suis esse consecutum, ut saltem a summo Pontifice gratiae sufficientes in abstracto, potentiae proximae in abstracto, indifferentiae in abstracto sancirentur. Verum etsi nihil hoc ad Augustinianos, tamen falsum est. Absit enim ut talibus ineptiis fidem Catholicam inquinarit summus Pontifex, summus idem Catholicae fidei vindex. Et certe cur eas ipsi tribuatis, causa nulla est. Primum verborum istorum nulla in Constitutione mentio: Ergo ista verba nullo modo usurpanda decrevit. Restat ut rem significatam ad fidem pertinere decreverit. Sed quae tandem est res significata per gratiam sufficientem in abstracto, & cetera ejusmodi? Vis dicam? Nulla. Vis probem? Nil facilius. Nomen enim illud sufficiens, & cetera id genus, non univoce Thomisticis notionibus & Molinisticis conveniunt; sed tantum aequivoce. At sicut univocorum una est notio quae potest praescindi & in abstracto definiri: ita aequivocorum nulla communis notio quae possit abstrahi & definiri. Exemplosit nomen, Taurus, quod aequivoce convenit Philosopho, monti, astro, animali: jam quaero, quid est Taurus, quatenus abstrahit a singulis illis significationibus? Nihil omnino praeter syllabas Tau, rus. Similis de gratia sufficiente ratio est. Sua constat significatio gratiae Molinianae, quam sufficientem dicunt; sua item Thomisticae. At utrique, ut fatentur omnes, vox suffic●ens aequivoce convenit. Abstrahe ergo illam ab utroque significatu, nihil remanet praeter sonum sensu vacuum, quem ne quidem tibi reliquit summus Pontifex, qui ejusmodi verba in Scholarum angulos relegavit, a fidei decretis longissime arcuit. Ridiculum ergo ut summus Pontifex gratiam sufficientem qua sufficientem in abstracto definierit, quia gratia sufficiens qua sufficiens, in abstracto nihil prorsus est.  
Quid igitur, inquies, definivit? Idem quod Concilium Tridentinum in illis decretis quae a Jansenio violata querebamini. Non ergo vetat, imo jubet & Religo & pietas, ut Innocentii Constitutionem omnes venerentur, & probent, pariterque Alexandri VII. decretum amplectantur, quatenus nihil superadstruit, & illos quos putavit Innocentius Jansenianos, cum ipsis proscribit erroribus. Verum ut hoc damnare proclive est, ita in iis, quibus tribuuntur, invenire difficillimum. Utut sit, nihil est quod de iis inveniendis laboremus. Haec ad te proprie cura pertinet, mi Annate, tu Janseniani errories, Janseniani sensus, fidejussor es, quandoquidem tibi Romae de eo creditum est.  
Deteges igitur quando voles Jansenistas illos qui negarunt gratiae efficaci posse dissentiri, qui necessitantem gratiam invexere. Nobis interim & caeteris Ecclesiae fidelibus sufficit ut illos tuos Jansenistas, & illum Jansenium tuum, quisquis fuit, ex animo damnemus, ut facimus.     
Nonis Octobris, A. S. 1657.   

PAULI IRENAEI DISQVISITIO SEXTA; SIVE VERA METHODUS DISQUIRENDI An quinque propositiones damnatae sunt in Jansenio.  

PRAEFATIO.  
QUaestionem per se levissimam, utrum propositiones sint in Jansenio, necne, celeberimam hoc tempore fecit altercantium utrinque Theologorum tanta contentio. Hanc etsi utilius fuisset vel ab initio non moveri, vel commotam statim extingui: tamen illa in praesens propterea jam omitti non potest, quia ex ipsa crimen haereseos, aut saltem inobedientiae, multis caeteroquin probatissimis viris, conflatur. Atque illud quidem crimen sic quinque Disquisitionibus depuli, ut confidam fore, tum ut mihi assentiantur aequi, tum ut saltem taccant vel iniqui, ac mihi causam silentio tradant. Superest nuda & ab omni dogmate avulsa facti quaestio, de qua non nisi primam propositionem attigi, utinam etiam non attingere licuisset. Sed quoniam litem ut cum maxime fervere perspicio, & tamen ea ratione a quibusdam tractari, ut finis contentionis nullus sit, visum est saltem brevem & certam methodum tradere, qua in alterutram partem expediti & ad exitum perduci queat. Omnino enim ejusmodi sunt facti quaestiones, ut de iis diu nisi vitio disputantium contendi non possit,  
Verum in tradenda certa illa methodo inveniendarum, si modo sint in Jansenio, propositionum, necesse fuit, falsas & fallaces methodos refellere; quarum omnium quoniam in Morelliano libello nuper edito exempla reperi, ea non aliunde quaesivimus. Itaque tam crebro bonum hunc Doctorem castigabimus, ut haec Disquisitio, libelli ab eo nuper conscripti confutatio haberi possit; tantum convitiis ejus nihil reponemus, saniorem ipsi mentem tare contenti.   

ARTICULUS I.  
Regulae generales verae methodi; fallacis notae. Principia per se nota vel ab utraque parte concessa.  
IN omni disputatione primum videre est quid utrinque concedatur. Deinde quid primum Reo ab Actore objiciatur, quod Rhetores intentionem vocant. Tum qua ratione praecipuam illam accusationem depellat Reus, quod appellant depulsionem. Ex hoc vero intentionis depulsionisque conflictu, status exurgit, qui primam clare & enucleate constituendus, & resecatis omnibus istis capitibus de quibus non certatur, quam accuratissime definiendus. Objicit Miloni Appius; Clodium occidisti. Intentio est. Respondet pro Milone Cicero: Occidi; sed recte, quia insidiatorem. Depulsio est. Hinc duae nascuntur quaestiones, quibus continetur status: An liceat occidere insidiatorem? An Clodius insidiator? Illa juris, haec facti.  
Hoc posito, jam facile a fallaci dignoscitur vera & certa methodus. Illa, unica tantum est, quae illud de quo quaeritur certis argumentis conficit, & quae ex adverso opponuntur firmis probationibus repellit.  
Falsa autem; non una, sed duplex. Nam vel illud probat de quo non quaeritur; ut si non aliud tota oratione probasset Appius, nisi Clodium a Milone occisum: vel de quo quaeritur fluxis & vanis argumentis adstruit.  
Constituta methodo, ne disputatio fluctuet, certa & utrinque concessa principia figi necesse est. Ejusmodi sunt quae sequuntur, de quibus tam Molinistae quam Jansenii defensores facile convenient.  

I.  
Cum Augustino, Patribus, & antiquis Scholasticis, ut sentire nefas non est, ita nec loqui.   

II.  
Augustini & Patrum, necnon S. Thomae & antiquorum Scholasticorum locutiones, sensum habent a damnato propositionum sensu diversum.   

III.  
Ex sola locutioni Augustini vel antiquorum Scholasticorum non potest argui quisquam vel ab Augustino, vel ab antiquis Scholasticis dissentire, vel ullum haereticum dogma docuisse.   

IV.  
Scriptoris Catholici ambiguam locutionem, orthodoxi sensus & erronei capacem, erroneo interpretari nefas est, si erroneus ille sensus expresse sit amotus.   

V.  
Ambigua locutio bono sensu interpretanda est, si ab ipso scriptore ad bonum sensum alligata sit: ut enim eg●egie Dionysius Carth. de sim. lib. 2. art. 8. Cum verba alicujus Doctoris in uno loco inducta poterunt sic & sic exponi, trahi, intelligi; videndum est ad quem intellectum ipsemet Doctor hujusmodi verba sua alibi redigat & coarctet.   

VI  
Nullus locus Jansenii reprehendi potest, nisi vel propter verba, vel propter sententiam vocibus subjectam.   

VII.  
Damnatus in propositionibus sensus ante exortas propositiones scholis Catholicis ignotus, ut in narratione sua testantur Episcopi.   

VIII.  
His principiis aliud addi potest, de quo jam diximus in secunda Disquisitione, nimirum, non mutari propositionis sensum, cum definitiones vocum pro ipsis vocibus subjiciuntur.    

ARTICULUS. II.  
Methodus imveniendae in Jansenio primae propopositionis.  
QUia jam istam propositionem accurate secunda Disquisitione excussimus, unum nobis hoc loco praestandum, ut tum impugnatoribus, tum defensoribus Jansenii, ineundam sibi ad causam obtinendam methodum demonstremus.  

Vtrinque concessum.  
Convenit orthodoxam, & nullo modo Pontificia Constitutione violatam Thomistarum doctrinam, qui docent, Justis quibusdam gratiam sufficientem habentibus, sed ei renitentibus, non adesse gratiam efficacem, sine qua tamen non habent omnia ad agendum necessaria, sive non possunt implere praecepta ejusmodi potestate, cui nihil defit ad agendum necessarium.   

Intentio Molinistarum.  
Tradit primam propositionem disertis verbis Jansenius tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 13: Aliqua Dei praecepta. etc.   

Depulsio Augustinianorum.  
Verba primae propositionis damnatae habet Jansesenius loco citato, sed sensum illius damnatum non habet: quia locus Jansenianus ex circumjectis & annexis ad eum sensum alligatur, qui nil contineat praeter vulgarem Thomistarum doctrinam, toti Ecclesiae, praecipue vero summo Pontifici probatam, istam nempe: Quibusdam justis gratiam sufficientem Thomistico sensu habentibus, sed ei renitentibus, praecepta non sunt ita possibilia, ut ea sine alio auxilio implere actu & effective possint, & deest illis gratia efficax, sine qua non habentur omnia necessaria ad implendum praeceptum.  
Cum certum sit hunc sensum esse orthodoxum; hinc exurgit   

Unica quaestio.  
Utrum hic sit verus Jansenii sensus, an alia huic loco sententia ab ipso subjecta sit?   

Vera methodus Augustinianis ineunda.  
Postulat ut ipsi hunc & non alium esse sensum Jansenii comprobent; quod nos, ni fallor, geometrica demonstratione conclusimus Disquisitione secunda. Contra   

Vera methodus Molinistis ineunda.  
Postulat ut p●obent non hunc, sed alium quendam erroneum sensum his vocibus a Jansenio subjectum. Id nisi faciant, nihil agunt, nec quicquam omnino promovebunt.   

Exigitur Morellius ad istam methodam.  
jam videamus quid egerit Morellius, & quomodo primam propositionem in Jansenio esse probaverit. Verba, inquit, illius in jansenio reperiuntur. Quid tum? Quis unquam hoc negavit? Quis non ultro concessit? De sensu solum quaestio est. Quaeritur an damnatus a Pontifice sensus (quem certum est ex 7. Principio 
VII PRINCIP. Damnatus in propositionibus sensus ante exortas propositiones scholis Catholicis ignotus, ut in narratione sua testantur Episcopi.  a Thomistarum doctrina alienum esse) in Jansenio sit? De hoc quid dicis, bone Morelli? Nihil. Quorsum ergo abit disputatio tua? in sumum. Quid meretut? R●sum. Quis credetet hominem qui se Magnatibus venditat quasi doctum, & istius praesertim controversiae peritum qui adversarios singulis versibus probris & convitiis onerat, tantae incuriae esse, ●ut cardinem difficultatis prorsus ignorat, & magno conatu quasi reconditum aliquod mysterium afferat, quod centies ipsi, ne postulanti quidem, concessum sit: ipsum vero controversiae caput ne verbo quidem attingat?    

ARTICULUS III.  
Methodus inveniendae in Jansenio secundae propositionis.  
REsecanda primum & a disputatione amovenda quae inter utrosque litigantes constant.  
1. Verba ipsa secundae propositionis non sunt in jansenio.  
2 Orthodoxa est Thomistarum sententia qui docent efficaci gratiae nunquam resisti; sufficienti, cum sola est, semper resisti in eo effectu ad quem excitat. Hanc ipsam tamen gratiam quam sufficientem vocant, esse secundum quid efficacem, & nunquam carere eo effectu ad quem divina voluntate ordinatur. Sic enim omnes Thomistae, e quibus Alvarez disp. 80. Omne auxilium, inquit, sufficiens comparatione unius actus, semper est efficax respectu alterius, ad quem efficiendum decreto absoluto divinae voluntatis ordinatur: V. g. auxilium sufficiens ad actum fidei producit efficaciter pias cogitationes & notitias credendorum, & pia desideria habendi fidem. Et Silvius in 2. 2. q. 111. art. 3. Revera omnis gratia est efficax alicujus effectus ad quem proxime ordinatur, & quem Deus absoluta voluntate intendit.  
His positis, videndum quid afferant Iansenii impugnatores, quid reponant defensores, ut ex illorum intentione & illorum depulsione constituatur quaestio.  

Intentio Morellii & Molinistarum.  
Docet, inquit, jansenius variis locis omnem gratiam esse efficacem, gratiam aegrae voluntatis non relinqui in libero arbitrio, sed invictissime facere ut velit bonum; tollere omnem resistentiam; oppositos obices voluntatis perrumpere; hominem Deo operanti per gratiam non posse resistere; nullam gratiam effectu carere; gratiam & effectum reciprocari; hoc ipso quo effectu homo destituitur, sequi nullam ei gratiam esse collatam.   

Depulsio Jansenii defensorum.  
Reponunt Iansenii defensores haec loca reprehendi non posse, nec propter verba, quia tota Augustinianis locutionibus constant, etiam apud Scholasticos usitatis; nec propter sententiam; quia talis est, ut etiam jesuitis eam probari faltem ut orthodoxam necesse sit: nempe: Quamvis sint gratiae quaedam inefficaces, & quibus vere resistitur; tamen omnem gratiam eo sensu efficacem dici posse quia nulla caret eo effectu ad quem absoluta Dei voluntate ordinatur.  
Hinc colligunt ex 
VI PRINCIP. Nullus locus Jansenii reprehendi potest, nisi vel propter verba, vel propter sententiam vocibus subjectam.  sexto principio articuli primi nihil in iis esse reprehendendum, prorsusque secundae propositionis nec verba nec sensum in jansenio contineri. Recta quidem ad metam ista tendunt, & nisi obstent Molinistae, etiam pervenient.   

Quaestiones duae.  
Duplex inde quaestio tantum exurgit.  
Alia minus praecipua: An ista loca Augustinianis vel apud Theologos usitatis locutionibus constent.  
Alia capitalis: An sensum in jansenio contineant toti probatum Ecclesiae, saltem ut orthodoxum.   

Methodus ineunda Molinistis.  
Prorsus alterutrum conficiendum est Molinistis; vel voces illas non esse Augustinianas, nec ullis Theologis Catholicis probatas: quod si effecerint, Iansen●um tantum temeritatis & incuriae coarguerint: vel non habere in jansenio sensum illum quem ipsi tribuunt ejus defensores, sed alium quo nulli prorsus gratiae ullo modo resisti statuatur: quod si praesterint, etiam haereseos reum tenebunt jansenium.   

Expenditur ex illa methodo Morellius.  
Quid ibi Morellius; quo pacto utramque quaestionem tractat? Quo pacto probat ex Iansenio nullam esse gratia inefficacem; non resisti gratiae in eo effectu ad quem disponit, ad quem excitat, ad quem allicit, ad quem dat posse quod nunquam in actum exit sine gratia uberiore, eo modo quo Thomistae docent. Audiamus quid afferat. Tacet, obmutescit, quaestionem ne cernit quidem. O praeclarum patronum! O dignum Pontificiae Constitutionis vindicem!   

Methodus Augustinianis ineunda.  
Nunc lustremus an melius in causa sua stent jansenii defensores, quibus hoc efficiendum est:  

1. Loca Iansenii quae arguuntur, Augustini aut aliorum Patrum gratiae defensorum locutionibus constare, aut certe apud Theologos usitatis.  
2. Nullo modo sensum damnatum secundae propositionis continere.  
3. Eo sensu accipi debere qui toti Ecclesiae probetur.    

Objecta a Molinistis Jansenii loca cum Augustini & Prosperi locis comparantur.  
Ad primum obtinendum solis se oculis advocatis egere dicunt Iansenii defensores; adeoque objecta Iansenii loca cum aliis Augustini aut aliorum Patrum locis e regione ita componunt.  
JANSENIUS tom. 3. lib. 2. cap. 4. 
Gratiae sanae voluntatis in primi hominis libero relinquebatur arbitrio, ut eam si vellet desereret, aut si vellet uteretur: gratio vero lapsae aegrotaeque voluntatis nullo modo in hominis relinquitur arbitrio, ut eam deserat aut arripiat si voluerit; sed ipsa est potius illa postrema gratia, quae invictissime facit ut velit, & a voluntate non deseratur.  AUGUSTINUS de corr. & gr. cap. 11. 
Nec illa gratia sani hominis parva erat, qua demonstrata est etiam potentia liberi arbitrii, quoniam sic adjuvabatur ut sine hoc adjutorio in bono non maneret, sed hoc adjutorium si vellet desereret: haec autem tanto major est, ut parum sit homini per illam reparare perditam libertatem; parum sit denique non posse sine illa vel apprehendere bonum, vel permanere in bono, nisi etiam efficiatur ut velit. Prima gratia est qua fit ut habeat homo justitiam si velit; Secunda plus potest, qua etiam fit ut velit. Si in tanta infirmitate vitae hujus ipsis Relinqueretur voluntas sua, nec Deus in eis operaretur ut vellent, inter tot & tantas tentationes voluntas ipsa succumberet. Subventum est infirmitati voluntatis humanae, ut divina gratia insuperabiliter & indeclinabiliter ageretur.   

Notae quaedam.  
NOTA. I. Insuperabilem, indeclinabilem illam gratiam quae dat velle, quae non relinquit homini voluntatem suam, sed facit velle: quae non est similis gratiae Adamicae, quam ipse deserebat cum vellet, ita necessariam ab Augustino statui, ut sine ea dicat non posse hominem lapsum vel apprehendere bonum, vel permanere in bono.  
NOTA. II. gratiam quae relinquitur libero arbitrio, quam deserit homo cum vult, nihil aliud esse Augustino & Jansen●o quam gratiam versatilem & Molinianam. Semper enim eam opponit Augustinus efficaci quae facit velle; sed hoc late infra probabitur.  
NOTA. III. Non id nunc agi, utrum Jansenius cum Augustino sentiat, sed utrum cum ●ugustino loquatur; quod certe qui haec loca inspexerit, negare nemo potest. Fieri tamen posse non diffitemur, ut alienum ab Augustino sensum in his vocibus inc●userit. Sed hoc factum probare debent Molinistae. Non factum vero probant Jansenii defensores, ut infra ostendetur.   
JANSENIUS tom. 3. lib. 2. cap. 14. 
Tota doctrinae Augustistini moles eo collimat, ut Christiani credant, & qui possunt intelligant, non liberum arbitrium esse quod reddat auxilium efficax, vel inefficax, & quod sit causa cur hic & nunc Deusinfluat in opus, quod possit gratiae efficientiam seu influxum in opus impedire, quod libertas illius causa sit, ut actus singuli hic & nunc fiant.  
Et in margine, Molinam, Lessium, Suarem, adscribit, quorum sunt verba quae distinctis hic characteribus excusa sunt.  S. PROSPER carm. de Ingratis. 
At vero omnipotens hominem cum gratia salvat.  
Ipsa suum consummat opus cui tempus agendi  
Semper adest, quae gesta velit, non moribus illi  
Fit mora, nec causis anceps suspenditur ullis,  
Nec quod sola potest, cura officioque ministri.  
Exequitur, famulisque vicem committit agendi.  AUGUSTINUS de gr. & lib. arb. c. 16. 
Certum est nos velle cum volumus; sed ille facit ut velimus bonum. Certum est nos facere cum facimus; sed ille facit ut faciamus, praebendo vires efficacissimas voluntati.  Ibidem. 
Ut in Deum credamus & pie vivimus, non volentis neque currentis, sed miserentis est Dei: non quia velle non debemus & currere, sed quia in nobis & velle operatur & currere.   

Nota.  
Morellium adhuc ut potui tuli, sed hic prorfus ferri potest, quem non puduit Lessi & Molinae loca, distinctis apud Jansenium characteribus expressa, solam gratiae versatilis doctrinam complexa, quasi fidem Catholicam a summo Pontifice consecratam proferre, & in hoc Jansenium erroris arguere, quod Molinae doctrinam dicat ab Augustino improbari. Nec est quod causetur commune esse Thomistis ac Molinistas dogma: Posse liberium arbitrium gratiae influxum impedire. Alio enim longe sensu a Molinistis asseritur, alio a Thomistis. Isti duplex genus gratiae admittunt, unum cui nunquam resistitur, aliud cui semper resistitur in secundario effectu, id est, plena conversione, quam ista gratia nunquam operatur sine uberiore auxilio. Hoc nunquam negavit Jansenius, imo multis locis admisit. At vero Molinistae uniusmodi gratiam admittunt, quae cum possit actu & effective sortiri effectum, nunc a libero arbitrio impeditur, nunc non impeditur. Itaque a libero arbitrio pendere volunt quod gratia nunc sit efficax, nunc inefficax. Hoc negat Jansenius, hoc ab Augustino improbati dicit; hoc tota olim Congregatio de Auxiliis in Molina damnavit his verbis: Hac propositio & doctrina Patris Molinae, quatonus docet efficaciam auxilii divini pendere ab effectu liberi arbitrii humani, non autem ab ipso auxilio, prout a Deo venit, & ex modo motionis divinae, videtur tradita a Semipelagianis; ass●ritur autema Molina contra expressam sententiam sancti Augustini lib. de corr & grat. Hoc negant omnes pene Romani Theologi, quibus ut blandirentur qui Romae quinque propositiones impugnarunt, & ne gratiam versatilem & Molinianam adstruere viderentur, multis locis providerunt in schedulis Consultoribus oblatis; & nominatim in hac propositione, de qua sic loquuntur.  
Non agitur de gratia sufficiente versatili statuenda, quae modo effectum suum habeat, modo non habeat; sed tantum in genere, utrum verum sit in statu naturae lapsae nullam dari gratiam quae vere sufficiens sit.   
JANSENIUS tom. 3. lib. 2. cap. 24. 
Gratia tollit omnem voluntatis resistentiam.  AUGUSTINUS de praed. SS. cap. 8. 
Haec gratia quae occulte humanis cordibus divina largitate tribuitur, a nullo duro corde respuitur; quia ideo tribuitur, ut cordis duritia primitus auferatur.  Lib. ab Simpl. q. 2. 
Nescio quomodo dicatur frustra Deum misereri, nisi nos velimus. Si enim Deus miseretur, ergo jam volumus: ad eandem quippe misericordiam pertinet ut velimus.  JANSENIUS tom. 3. lib. 2. cap. 24. 
Gratiam Dei ita victricem statuit Augustinus, ut non raro dicat hominem operanti Deo per gratiam non posse resistere, sed e contrario Deum non quicquid voluntatem facturam praevidet, sive absolute, sive conditionate, sed quicquid omnino voluerit in voluntate operari, quam ipse magis habeat in sua omnipotentissima potestate, quam ipsa voluntas. Quod probat illis locis quae hic è regione posita sunt.  AUGUSTINUS do cor. & grat. c. 14. 
Deo volenti salvum facere, nullum hominis resistit arbitrium. Sic enim velle & nolle in volentis aut nolentis est potestate, ut divinam voluntatem non impediat, nec superet potestatem. De his enim qui faciunt quae non vult, facit ipse quae vult. Non est itaque dubitandum voluntati Dei qui in caelo & in terra omnia quaecunque voluit fecit, & qui etiam illa quae futura sunt fecit, humanas voluntates non posse resistere, quominus faciat ipse quod vult.  JANSENIUS tom. 3. lib. 2. cap. 25. 
Nulla prorsus effectu caret, sed eum in omnibus in quibus datur, infallibiliter operatur.  AVGVST. serm. 44. de verbis Domini. 
Agis si ageris, & bene agis si a bono ageris.  Ibid. 
Gratiam tanquam causam & operationem voluntatis bonam velut effectum esse, ut Philosophi loquuntur, convertibiles & a se mutuo inseparabiles.  Lib. ad Simpl. q. 2. 
Nescio quomodo dicatur frustra Deum misereri nisi nos velimus. Si enim Deus miseretur, jam volumus.  Ibid. 
Hoc ipso quo effectu bono destituitur, nullam ei gratiam collatam esse.  De praed. SS. c. 8. 
Si omnis qui audivita Patre & didicit venit, omnis qui non venit non audivit a Patre nec didicit. Absit ut quisquam non veniat, qui a Patre audivit & didicit.  Ibid. 
Qui credunt Praedicatore forinsecus insonante, intus a Patte audiunt atque discunt. Qui autem non credunt, foris audiunt, intus autem non audiunt, neque discunt.  Lib. de gr. Chr. c. 13: 
Qui novit quod fieri debeat & non facit, nondum a Deo didicit secundum gratiam, sed secunddum legem; non secundum Spiritum, sed secundum literam.  Ibid. 
Quando Deus docet, non per legis literam, sed per Spiritus gratiam, ita docet, ut quod quisque didicerit, non tantum cognoscendo videat, sed etiam volendo appetat, agendoque perficiat.  Lib. 2. operis ult: in Julianum. 
Cum verbis Doctor plantat & rigat, possumus dicere, forte credit auditor; cum vero Deus dat incrementum, sine dubio credit & proficit.  JANSENIUS tom. 3. lib. 2. cap. 32. 
Quae agit & peragit effectum.  S. Prosper. 
Ipsa suum consummat opus.   
Ex his omnibus conficiunt Jansenii defensores, nihil in ipsis Jansenii locutionibus esse reprehendendum, omnesque bono sensu accipi posse, eo scilicet quo ab Augustino acceptae sunt: inde ejusmodi argumentum concinnant.   

Argument I.  
Omnes Jansenii locutiones quae circa secundam propositionem proferuntur, ex Augustino desumptae, vel manifeste Augustinianis aequivalentes sunt, tantumque aliquanto molliores, ut patet ex ipsa inspectione.  
Sed ex Augustinianis locutionibus nemo argui potest secundam propositionem tradidisse, per 
III. PRINCIP. Ex sola Augustini locutione nemo argui potest ullum haereticum dogma docuisse.  tertium principium articuli primi. Ergo ex istis locutionibus argui non potest Jansenius tanquam secundae propositionis auctor: quod erat probandum.  

Geminae notae in hoc argumentum.  
Hoc argumentum duabus notis suffulciunt: prima est, Augustini locutiones esse Jansenianis per se duriores. Nihil enim durius, si Molinistas audiamus, in hac materia dici potest, quam gratiam à nullo duro corde respui; eumque qui non facit quod non novit, nondum à Deo doctum esse per gratiam: sed per literam & legem.  
2. Augustinianas illas locutiones feres nusquam ab Augustino circumscribi & contrahi, contra autem a Jansenio easdem phrases saepe ad sensum omnibus probatum expresse alligari, ut infra probabitur. Rursus ab eodem haereticum sensum ab iisdem expresse removeri: unde sequi aiunt longe iniquius in Jansenium secundae propositionis invidiam conjici, quam in ipsum Augustinum conjiceretur.   

Lemma Praeambulum.  
Atque ita quidem illi summovent eos qui ex istis locutionibus secundam propositionem eruunt. Sed ipsum sensum Jansenii validius adhuc damnato secundae propositionis sensu segregant duobus argumentis, praeter alia superius posita principia, hoc item lemmate subnixis.  
Omnes superius allatae locutiones, in quibus contineri secundam propositionem putant, ut multum ambiguae sunt. Possunt enim ad illam revocari doctrinam, toti Thomistarum Scholae probatam: omnem gratiam tam efficacem quam sufficientem, esse efficacem respectu proximi istius effectus ad quem ordinatur voluntate Dei absoluta.  
Sic enim explicati possunt omnes superius allatae Jansenii locutiones: Gratia tollit omnem resistentiam, nempe quae impedit proximum effectum, non quae remotum. Item nulla gratia effectu caret, nimirum proximo illo ad quem destinatur voluntate absoluta, non remoto ad quem excitat: Gratia omnis agit & peragit effectum proximum, non remotum.  
Gratia est convertibilis cum effectu; distinguo, proximo non remoto, sive eo propter quem datur voluntate absoluta, non eo ad quem natura sua tendit & refertur voluntate Dei antecedente.  
Omnis gratia est efficax, nempe proximi effectus ad quem ordinatur voluntate absoluta, non ejus ad quem ex natura sua tendit.  
Nulla datur gratia sufficiens, nisi sit efficax; distinguo, sufficiens omnibus modis & ad agendum actu, sive Moliniane, verum est; sufficiens Thomistice, cui semper dissentiatur, nisi adsit efficax, falsum.  
Hinc claret omnes istas locutiones boni sensus capaces. Demus Molinistis etiam malum admittere, quod jure negari posset, quia Augustinianas phrases, quales istae sunt, ad bonum sensum Ecclesiae consensus alligat: Sed demus tamen includi posse sub omnibus illis vocibus, & Catholicum sensum Thomistarum, & haereticum damnatae propositionis, tamen concedant necesse est Jansenii adversarii, nil in eis esse reprehendendum, si pateat ab ipso Orthodoxo tantum sensu intellectas; hoc vero duplici argumento conficiunt ipsius defensores.    

Argument. II.  
Jansenius malum sensum qui in istas propositiones cadere poterat, expresse removit, cum variis locis asseruerit, gratiae nonnumquam dissentiri: gratias quasdam inefficaces esse: gratias quasdam in solis desideriis inefficacibus haerere, & a concupiscentia superari. Loca in promptu sunt.  

Primus locus.  
Delectatio victrix (inquit tom; 3, lib. 8. c. 2.) quae Augustino est efficax adjutorium, relativa est. Tunc enim est victrix, quando alteram superat: quod si contingat alteram ardentiorem esse, in solis inefficacibus desideriis haerebit animus, nec efficaciter unquam volet quod volendum est. En gratiam, qua accepta in solis desideriis inefficacibus haeret animus.   

Secundus locus.  
Initio autem capitis 27, libri 2 de gratia Christi Salvatoris: Nec vero, inquit, moveat quenquam quod CONSTET multos divinitus ment collustrari, imo vero & in ipsa voluntate motibus divinae gratiae percelli, qui tamen ab ejus interna suasione & inclinatione dissentiunt, ut propterea falsum putet gratiam in eo cui datur, semper operari effectum ob quem datur.   

Nota.  
Locus iste ita manifestus Annato visus est, ut aliter elabi non potuerit, quam causando non hanc esse Jansenii doctrinam, sed potius objectionem ab ipso propositam quam refellat. Agnoscit igitur hanc doctrinam esse Catholicam, & secundae propositioni contrariam. Restat inquirendum an hic locus contineat Jansenii doctrinam. Hoc vero ita perspicuum est, ut mirum videri possit tam absurdam cogitationem cuiquam incidere potuisse. Cuivis enim inspicienti patet hoc afferri a Jansenio quasi Catholicum dogma cum sua sententia conciliandum, cui repugnare in speciem videbatur. Explicare enim toto hoc capite contendit quomodo utrumque verum sit, & a gratia saepe dissentiri, & tamen illam semper eum habere effectum ad quem datur: velut si quis ita adversus Calvinistas disputaret: Nec vero moveat quenquam quod constet Christum in coelo nunc esse, nec inde exiturum ante supremum judicium, ut propterea falsum putet eum in Eucharistia esse. His verbis utique non negaret Christum in coelo esse, sed negaret ex eo sequi ipsum in Eucharistia non esse.  
Talem esse Jansenii mentem & per se patet, & ex sequentibus verbis omnino constat. Quemadmodum, inquit, inundatio divinae gratiae totam hominis voluntatem secum instar impetuosi cujusdam torrentis rapit, sic ut omnia humani cordis retinacula, quibus terrenis rebus irretitur, velut violenta quadam tempestate dirumpat; ita lenis ille velut aurae tenuis afflatus, complacentiam quandam voluntatis tenuissimam, rei tam pulchrae, quae simul objicitur contemplanda, contemperatam suaviter impetrat, & celerrime quasi furtim post se rapit.  
Non potuit gratiam sufficientem Thomistarum clarius & significantius exprimere. Hanc enim illi in istis velleitatibus, excitationibus, complacentiis sitam docent. Nec refert quod negat Jansenius istam gratiam sufficere. Semper enim hoc verbum, ut ipsemet monet initio libri 3, pro eo usurpat; quod sine alio auxilio sufficit ad actu & effective agendum, nec gratiam efficacem requirit. Ita cum ait, Haec gratia nullo modo sufficit ut homo Dei mandatum operetur, idem est ac si dicat, cum hac gratia nunquam hominem Dei mandatum operari sine uberiori auxilio; cum dicit, Non enim quaevis gratia ad quosvis effectus inserendos sufficit, idem est ac si dicat, non quamvis gratiam ad quemvis effectum reipsa actu & sine uberiore auxilio inserendum satis esse. Quae phrasis tametsi ex usu communi & ex Augustino petita, & a Jansenio multis in locis explicata, praecipue tamen Sholasticos induxit, ut ab eo omnem gratiam sufficientem rejici putarent.  
Postremo si quis inefficacis gratiae verbum ex Jansenii ore velit audire, habes illud lib. 4, cap. 10; Gratia, inquit; nunquam est sufficiens (Moliniano scilicet sensu' ut saepe monuimus) sed vel efficax vel inefficax. Satin hoc est? Addit Jansenius: Ex inefficaci gratia operationem sequi non posse: id est, ex perpetuo ejus loquendi more, superius a nobis in secunda Disquisitione stabilito, fieri non potest ut ex auxilio inefficaci solo sequatur operatio; quod de sufficient sua gratia millies Thomistae testantur. Cum igitur, ut patet, erroneum illum sensum Jansenius excluserit, sequitur ex 
IV. PRINC. Scriptoris Catholici ambiguam locutionem orthodoxi sensus & erronei capacem, erroneo interpretari nefas est, si erroneus ille sensus expresse sit amotus.  quarto principio, ambiguas ejus locutiones non posse ad illum detorqueri, sed orthodoxo potius sensu accipiendas. Quod erat probandum.    

Argumentum III.  
Idem Jansenius easdem locutiones aperte ad bonum & Catholicum sensum alligavit, additis restrictionibus Thomisticis.  
1. Fatetur non omnem gratiam plenum & integrum effectum obtinere; sed tantum aliquem. Nulla, inquit, Christi gratia effectu suo caret. En propositionem generalem: Sed omnis efficit ut voluntas velit & aliquid operetur. En restrictionem.  
Nomine autem voluntatis illius quam semper operatur gratia, non est intelligenda plena voluntas, sed nonnunquam sola velleitas & desiderium inefficax. Si contingat, inquit, cupiditatem ardentiorem esse, in solis desideriis inefsicacibus haerebit animus. Addit Jansenius, effectum illum quem semper efficit gratia, esse illum ob quem datur. Gratia, inquit, in eo cui datur, semper operatur effectum ob quem datur.  
Jam vero per voces illas, ob quem datur, manifeste intelligit Jansenius eum effectum ad quem destinatur voluntate Dei absoluta. 1. Quia cum voluntas Dei nominatur, nisi quid obstet, intelligenda est absoluta, non antecedens, quae nonnisi improprie dicitur voluntas, cum sit tantum velleitas, ut ait Sanctus Thomas. 2. Quia gratiae dantur voluntate absoluta, non antecedente, ut ait Jansenius lib. 3 de gratia Christi cap. 20. Hinc patet sententiam Jansenii his verbis concludi posse: Gratia semper aliquem effectum operatur, eum nempe ad quem ordinatur Dei voluntate absoluta.  
Ergo debent eo sensu accipi omnes superius allatae ambiguae locutiones, ex 
V. PRINC. Ambigua locutio bono sensu interpretanda est, si ab ipso Scriptore ad bonum sensum alligata sit.  quinto principio articuli primi. Sed hic sensus est Catholicus, quia Thomistis omnibus communis, ut supra constituimus. Ergo sensus Jansenii in omnibus illis locis est Catholicus. Quod erat demonstrandum.   

Corollarium.  
Ex his omnibus constat, inquiunt, unam eandemque esse sententiam Jansenii & Thomistarum circa gratiam tum efficacem, tum inefficacem, seu sufficientem.  
Utrique admittunt gratiae efficaci proprie dictae semper consentiri; utrique asserunt ex gratia inefficaci nunquam operationem sequi.  
Utrique asserunt tam gratiam efficacem quam in efficacem, esse efficacem respectu ejus effectus quem vult Deus.  
Utrique gratiam inefficacem in imperfectis actibus positam docent.  
Hoc tantum inter se differunt, quod cum duo in gratia inefficaci consideranda sint, unum quod sit efficax respectu ejus effectus ad quem ordinatur voluntate absoluta; alterum quod sit Thomistice sufficiens, & det posse a gratia efficaci applicandum & determinandum respectu alterius effectus ad quem excitat: frequentius illam Jansenius considerat, quatenus resertur ad illum effectum respectu cujus efficax dicitur. Contra Thomistae frequentius eam spectant quatenus refertur ad illum effectum respectu cujus dicitur sufficiens vel inefficax.  
Rursus Jansenius inefficacem gratiam vix unquam appellat sufficientem, non quod eam neget sufficere notione Thomistica; sed quia semper hoc verbum usurpat Moliniana & vulgari ratione apud omnes Patres usitata, & praecipue in Schola sua Lovaniensi recepta, ubi id demum sufficere dicitur, quod complectitur omnia ad agendum necessaria. Sic enim illi in justificatione Censurae ann. 1586. cap. 13. Gratia ad conversionem sufficiens ipsa convertit; quae vero non convertit, non sufficit. Hac notione recte Jansenius gratias inefficaces sufficere negavit, quamvis id nunquam Thomistarum notione negasset, ut testatur initio libri 3 de grat. Christi cap. 1. At vero Thomistae ad vitanda, credo, Molinistarum convitia, crebro gratias inefficaces sufficientes dicunt.  
3. Thomistae frequentissime cum gratia inefficaci hominem posse asserunt, in actu primo scilicet, & in sensu diviso.  
Contra Jansenius aliquando quidem dicit hominem cum illa posse. Nam de illa voluntate inchoata loquens tom. 3, lib. 8, cap. 20. Velle, inquit, dat posse; & fortiter velle, fortiter posse. Frequentius tamen hoc negat: quae verbi, non rei discrepantia est. Affirmat enim posse, cum hoc verbum usurpat pro potentio actus primi. Negat posse, cum accipit pro ea potentia cui nihil deest ad agendum actu necessarium.  
Quaeres, an concedi possit ex Jansenii principiis gratiam inefficacem dare posse proximum & completum, itidem ut quidam Thomistae de gratia sufficiente docent? Distinctione hic opus est, quam multoties attulimus. Si posse proximum accipis pro eo cui nihil deest necessarium ad agendum, ne quidem impulsio & applicatio ad agendum: sic non dat posse proximum gratia inefficax, nec apud Jansenium, nec apud Thomistas: at si accipis pro eo quod continet virtutem integram, applicandam tamen auxilio efficaci; sic nihil vetat quominus illaesa Jansenii doctrina, ●imo accurate vestigiis ejus insistendo, gratia illa inefficax posse completum largiri dicatur. Docet enim ille gratiam efficacem largiri tantum actum secundum; docet largiri tantum posse completissimum, quod complectitur omnia ad agendum necessaria; docet largiri posse cum effectu; docet ab Augustino gratiam Thomistarum facile admissum iri.   

Diluitur Annatinum sophismae.  
Ex his facile patet quo pacto retundendum sit Annati argumentum, quo Jansenium a Thomistis voluit segregare. Gratia, inquit, sufficiens apud Thomistas caret eo effectu ad quem dat posse proximum.  
At nunquam gratia Jansenio caret eo effectu, ad quem dat posse proximum.  
Ergo discrepat a Thomistis Jansenius.  
Fallacia enim laborat minor propositio, quae exposito duplici hujus vocis, posse, sensu detegitur. Nunquam caret gratia eo effectu ad quem dat posse proximum, quod nihil aliud requirat ad agendum; verum est ex Thomistis & Jansenio: nunquam caret eo effectu ad quem dat posse proximum actus primi, & semper ab actu divisum; plane falsum est ex utrisque.  
Sed ad istas argutias & similes alias semel & uno verbo incidendas, in promptu habendum est quod superius secunda Disquisitione & tertia annotavi; potentias illas non agentes in quo voluerint gradu adversariis esse concedendas, dummodo nunquam sine uberiori auxilio in actum prodeant. Nec minus illud ex Jansenio concedi potest, gratiam nonnunquam carere eo effectu ad quem destinatur voluntate Dei antecedente. Cum enim ea voluntas semper feratur in bonum absolute spectatum, consentire autem gratiae habeat rationem boni, utique semper illa voluntate Deus velle censendus est homines suae gratiae non resistere, sed illi plene consentire: improbat enim homines gratiae suae resistentes, velletque illos ad se converti, quod quidem si non praestant, in ipsis causa est, non in Deo. Prorsus autem sicut Thomistae docent, etiamsi gratiae efficaci nunquam dissentiatur, dissentiendi tamen potentiam in voluntate manere: sic instructa infirmioribus illis gratiis voluntas, etsi nunquam iis plene consentiat, tamen vere consentire potest, nec defectu physicae potestatis iis non consentit, sed quia mavult alii objecto; quo magis delectatur consentire. Ille tamen status animae oreaturam magis quam Deum amantis recte propterea vocatur infirmitas, imbecillitas, & impotentia, quia nunquam contingit ut in eo statu sine ampliori auxilio recte agat, & quia hic ipse status animae voluntarie malo consentientis, & ideo bonum respuentis, magna est infirmitas & impotentia respectu boni, non quidem antecedens, sed consequens liberum consensum voluntatis malo amplius delectanti.    

ARTICULUS IV.  
Methodus inveniendae in Jansenio tertiae propositionis. Quae conveniant.  
NEmo fere tam pertinax inter Molinistas quin libenter agnoscat summum Pontificem neutiquam sua Constitutione generalem illam attigisse quaestionem; Utrum libertas quatenus Deo competit, Christo, Beatis, hominibus & daemonibus, postulet indifferentiam. Nam & Philosophica potius quam Theologica est, & nominis plus fortasse quam rei, ut primarios Molinistas sentire novi.  
Rursus nec illud definivit Innocentius, Christum in iis actibus in quibus fuit determinatus ad unum, ut ad diligendum Deum, non meruisse, contra quam statuitur a Sancto Thoma. Non definivit, inquam, vel Christum Patrem non amare potuisse, vel amando non meruisse, adeoque de quaestione illa generali neutiquam pronunciavit, an libertas meriti & demeriti generatim quatenus hominibus lapsis & Christo competit, postulet indifferentiam, & excludat determinatam ad unum voluntatem. Hinc nominatim in propositione ad resecandas illas generales quaestiones, fit mentio status naturae lapsae.  
Constat 3. nec illud sanxisse summum Pontificem, ad merendum & demerendum requiri indifferentiam Molinianam, quae potentiam ita expeditam ad utrumlibet postulat, ut alterutrum possit reipsa & actu arripere sine novo auxilio. Late hoc Disquisitione quarta probavimus ex scriptis Molinistarum. Hic sufficit annotasse indifferentiam illam ab omnibus Thomistis rejici, quos sequi duces in Theologia licet,  
Constat postremo, satis esse ad omnem erroris suspicionem vitandam, illam indifferentiam admittere, quam admittunt Thomistae.  

Intentio Molinistarum.  
Docuit, inquiunt; tertiam propositionem Jansenius tom. 3, lib. 6, ubi dicit, nullam omnino voluntatem, quantumcunque ad unum determinatam, amittere libertatem. Hoc enim intelligendum de libertate meriti & demeriti & de statu naturae lapsae, a quo indifferentiam amovet, ut necessitatem invehat.   

Depulsio Jansenii Defensorum.  
Nec verba Jansenii reprehendi possunt, quia ex Patribus & Sholasticis petita; nec sensus, quia hoc tantum in illis locis docuit Jansenius: 1. Libertati in genere solam repugnare coactionem, quatenus hac etiam comprehenditur necessitas naturalis. 2. Ad libertatem meriti & demeriti, quatenus Christo convenit, non requiri indifferentiam. Non docet autem ad libertatem meriti & demeriti in statu naturae lapsae non requiri indifferentiam, imo potius statuit indifferentiam a libertate & a merito hujus viae in hominibus lapsis esse prorsus indivulsam. Ergo non docuit tertiam propositionem. Hinc oriuntur.   

Quaestiones duae.  
Alia minus praecipua: Utrum Jansenii locutiones de libertate e Patribus & Scholasticis petitae sunt.  
Alia capitalis; Utrum erraverit in sensu, sive utrum ab hoc statu indifferentiam amoverit, etiam Thomisticam in sensu diviso.   

Methodus ineunda Molinistis in tertia propositione.  
Debent ostendere 1. Jansenium hic usum durioribus locutionibus, nec apud Patres & Scholasticos usitatis: quod si evicerint, ipsum tenebunt imprudentiae reum.  
2. Omnem omnino indifferentiam ab ipso sublatam, etiam illam quam Thomistae concedunt; hoc modo poterit in errore teneri. In quo ea danda laus est Annato, quod unicam illam affricandae Jansenio tertiae propositionis viam non ignorarit. Hinc in Jansenio à Thomistis damnato propterea docet ab ipso traditam tertiam propositionem, quia tollit omnem indifferentiam, quam Thomistae concedunt. Nec minus clare Hallerius & socii in eo summam quaestionis recte constituunt, quod, inquiunt, indifferentia a statu naturae lapsae sit inseperabilis, ut supra vidimus.   

Expenditur ex ista methodo Morellius:  
Aliquanto item proprius in hac propositione Morellius ad controversiae caput accedit. Intellexit enim quaestionem esse scholasticam, utrum libertas in genere postulet indifferentiam: quam definire summus Pontifex ne cogitavit quidem. Ergo ut causam obtineat, illud adjicit: Jansenii discipuli, inquit, consentiunt toto libro sexto agi de libertate naturae corruptae. Laudo quod viam intellexit; in hoc non laudo, quod suo jure sumit illud ipsum quod probari decuerat, non laudo quod id adversariis suis affingit, quod ipsi tam diserte negant. Legat, quaeso, libellum qui anno 1654. adversus Annatum editus est, videbit in eo late comprobari Jansenium hoc libro non de libertare hujus status, sed de generali & naturali tantum disputasse, atque ut a generali indifferentiam exclusit, sic ad statum hujus vitae prorsus necessariam docuisse.  
At forte reipsa convictus dabit non hoc a Jansenii defensoribus agnitum, quod ab ipsis agnosci fidentius quam prudentius affirmavit: sed tamen contendet id ipsis agnoscendum. Verum id qui possit ab ipsis impetrare, cum tam asseveranter a Jansenio negetur? Ex Augustino, inquit tom. 3, lib. 7, cap. 5, & Bernardo asseruimus libertatem arbitrii (sed quam? An hujus status, an vero genericam?) generalem, inquit, & naturalem non esse aliam, nisi à necessitate, per quam patet eo● solam coactionem intellexisse. At cum idem agit de libertate hujus vitae, aliter se sentire profitetur. Sic enim inquit lib. 6, cap. 34. Inter actum liberum & statum libertatis permagna differentia est: aliter Deus, aliter Angeli viatores, aliter Beati, aliter damnati, aliter Christus Dominus in via constitutus liber fuit, nec ullo pacto quae in uno statu libertatis adsunt, aut etiam requisita sunt, ad alterum extendenda sunt. Hominum igitur viatorum non solum coactionis expertem esse libertatem, sed etiam necessitatis immutabilis voluntariae, cum Scriptura & Patribus & Catholica fide fatemur perlibenter.  
Quorsum ergo, inquiet Morellius, tam multis agit de libertate Jansenius, nisi ut naturae lapsae libertatem explicet? Facilis nodus, sed in quo tamen non miror Morellii ingenium haesisse, Genus praescindit quidem a speciebus, sed tamen in speciebus est, Gradus sentientis, ut vulgo in scholis philosophantur, rationem non involvit, & tamen sentiens in homine est, qui rationem habet, non quatenus sentiens, sed quatenus homo. Similiter generica illa libertas quam tractat & evolvit Jansenius, ut in Deo & in Beatis, sic etiam in homine lapso est, nec involvit etiam in homine lapso indifferentiam quatenus libertas est, sed illam aliunde individuo nexu habet adjunctam, quatenus libertas est hominis lapsi & viatoris: sicut sentiens, cum non involvat in se rationem, eam tamen quatenus in homine est, indivulso nexu habet annexam. Quamobrem qui negatae in hoc statu indifferentiae Jansenium propterea reum agat, quod indifferentiam ad genericam libertatis rationem pertinere neget, tam sit absurdus, quam si quis a Philosophis hominem fingi criminetur rationis expertem, quia negant eum quatenus sensu praeditus est, esse rationalem; five quia rationem, specificum esse gradum volunt, non genericum. Atque ut illi hanc criminationem facillime hac responsione depellerent ● Non dicimus hominem esse rationis expertem, sed negamus esse rationalem quatenus animal, quia hic gradus in aliis invenitur sine ratione: Sic item Jansenius nullo negotio eos repellit, qui negatam ipsi indifferentiam objiciunt. Non nego, inquit, hominem esse indifferentem, at nego indifferentiam ipsi convenire per genericam rationem libertatis, sed per specialem hujus status & viae conditionem, qua fit ut nihil ipsi proponatur ad merendum & demerendum nisi per judicium indifferens, ut aiunt Thomistae. Habet Morellius genuinam Jansenianae mentis explicationem, qui hanc viam explicandae libertatis propterea arripuit, quod Augustini interpretem professus, quae apud ipsum inveniebat, simpliciter debuit exponere.   

Methodus ineunda Jansenii Defensoribus.  
Primo docendum in objectis Jansenii locis nihil esse a Patrum & antiquorum Scholasticorum loquendi modo alienum. 2. Sensum illorum locorum non excludere indifferentiam, nec quicquam nisi Catholicum & orthodoxum complecti. Primum exequuntur comparatis inter se Jansenii & Patrum Scholasticorumque locis ad hunc modum.  
Locus Jansenii objectus a Morellio t. 3. lib. 6. c. 6. 
Aperte consectaneum est omnem omnino voluntatem, quantum cunque ad unum determinatam, nulla tali necessitate, qua dicitur necesse ut velit, desinere esse liberam, quia non desinit esse voluntas quae non nollemus.  Augustinus de Civitate lib. 5. c. 10. 
Si autem definitur ista necessitas secundum quam dicimus necesse esse ut ita sit aliquid, vel ita fiat; nescio cur eam timeamus ne nobis auferat liberratem.  S. Thomas q. 10. de potent. a. 2. ad 5. 
Dicendum quod naturalis necessitas secundum quod voluntas aliquid ex necessitate velle dicitur, ut felicitatem, libertati voluntatis non repugnat, ut Augustinus docet in 5. de Civitate. Libertas enim vol ntatis violentiae aut coactioni opponitur.  Et 1. part. qu. 88 ad 1. 
Verbum Augustini est intelligendum de necessitate coactionis, necessitas autem naturalis non aufert libertatem voluntatis.  Bernardus libro de libero arbitrio. 
Nec Deus caret libero arbitrio, nec diabolus, quoniam id quod ille esse non potest malus, non infirma facit necessitas, sed firma in bono voluntas, & voluntaria firmitas; quodque hic non vult in bonum respirare, non aliena facit violenta oppressio, sed sua ipsius in malo obstinata voluntas.  Jansenius lib. 16. cap. 24. 
Docet Sanctus Thomas opus esse laude vel vituperio dignum, ex hoc quod est voluntarium, non coactum, tametsi sit determinatum ad unum. Nam disputans utrum Christus peccare potuerit, cum sibi objecisset ex Augustino, quod nullus peccat in eo quod vitare non potest, & proinde nullus etiam mereatur, vel laudetur de hoc quod dimittere non potest.  
Deinde subjicit loca S. Thomae quae habes e regione.  S. Thomas. 
Impotentia coactionis quae opponitur voluntario, tollit rationem meriti & demeriti, non impotentia quae est ex perfectione in bonitate & malitia, quia hoc voluntarium non tollit, sed ponit voluntatem determinatum ad unum. Quod posse pecare pertinet ad laudem, est per accidens, in quantum ostendit opus quod laudatur ex nessitate factum non esse. Sed quamvis removeatur a Christo potentia peccan●i, non tamen ponitur coactio que voluntario contrariatur, & laudis rationem tollit.  In 3. dist. 23. art 4. 
Cum explicaret quomodo Christus mereri potuerit per liberum arbitrium determinatum ad unum.  
Dicendum, inquit, quod etiamsi esset Determinatum ad unum numero, sicut ad diligendum Deum, quod non facere non potest; tamen ex hoc non admittit libertatem aut rationem laudis sive meriti; & ita est actus sui dominus.  Jansenius lib. 6. de gr. Chr. cap. 38. 
Cum recensuisset Jansenius multa Scholasticorum loca, summam ipsorum breviter ita colligit:  
Habes, Lector, consensum admirabilem tot sanctissimorum & eruditissimorum virorum, de quibus nulla unquam erroris in hoc argumento suspicio fuit. Unanimiter constantissimeque docent voluntatem, hoc ipso quo rationalis voluntas est, esse liberam, sua non posse privari libertate, nec voluntatem, id est, vilitionem futuram nisi esset libera & in potestate, nullam immutabilitatis, inevitabilitatis, vel quocunque voces nomine, sed solam coactionis libertatem ei repugnare.  Loca e quibus Jansenius hanc conclusionem elicit. Petrus Capulcius in 2. disp. 7. 
Respectu amare Deum in Beatis, est sempiterna & libera electio.  Gabriel Biel didst 18. ad. 3. 
Actus beatitudinis est libere elicitus, & ita contingens, etsi immutabilis & perpetuus.  Marsilius ab Inghen. 
Necessarium & inevitabile, non per naturam, sed per gratiam non tollit rationem laudabilis.   Thomas de Argentina in 3. d. 12. 
Necessitas coactionis tollit rationem meriti, necessitas immutabilitatis, proveniens ex perfectione virtutum, non tollit, sed auget.  Scotus quodl. 16. 
Cum necessitate ad volendum stat libertas in voluntate. Nam in eo est libertas volendi, quia delectabiliter & eligibiliter aliquid agit.  Richardus de Media-Villa in 2. dist. 25. art. 3. 
Non obstante illa necessitate qua Angeli diligunt bonum liberrime, motu dilectionis movent se.  S. Thomas. 
Etiamsi esset liberum arbitrium determinatum ad unum numero, sicut ad diligendum Deum, quod non facere non potest, tamen non amittit libertatem aut rationem laudis, sive meriti.  Alexander de Hales. 
Necessitas coactionis tollit liberum arbitrium, sed non necessitas inevitabilitatis.  Guillelmus Parisiensis. 
Necessitas vel impossibilitas quae non aufert operi quin sit voluntarium, hoc est, ex voluntare, quam impossibile est non esse liberam, nec culpam aufert.  Petrus Lombardus. 
Ubi non est libertas, nec voluntas.  Hugo de Sancto Victore tract. 2. cap. 4. 
Ex quo voluntas est, libertas est, quia voluntatis est libertas; ubi autem non est libertas, nec voluntas.  Bernardus de libero arbitrio. 
Ubi voluntas, ibi libertas, & hoc est quod puto dici liberium arbitrium. Ipsam enim voluntatem, quia impossibile est de se ipsa sibi non obedire, etitiam impossibile est sua privari libertate.  Johannes Damascenus lib. 3. fidei orthod. cap. 14. 
Arbitrii libertas nihil aliud est quam voluntas.  Augustinus 22. de Civit. Dei. cap. ult. 
Erit una in omnibus, & inseparabilis in singulis voluntas libera, fruens indeficienter aeternorum jucunditate gaudiorum.  
Cerni licet nihil in summa istorum locorum a Jansenio collecta reperiri, quod non istis locis extet; nihil ab illo additum de suo, multa etiam resecata duriora; & tamen tam parum Ecclesiae, tam parum honori summi Pontificis consulit Morellius, ut his non Jansenii, sed Patrum Scholasticorumque verbis tertiam propositionem contineri contendat. Verum quid ipse sequensibus argumentis respondere possit, haud satis video.   

Argumentum. I.  
Ex solis Augustini & Patrum & antiquorum Sholasticorum verbis, nemo potest argui haereticam tertiae propositionis tradidisse doctrinam, ex 
III. PRINC. Ex sola locutione Augustini vel antiquorum Scholasticorum non potest argui quisquam vel ab Augustino vel ab antiquis Scholasticis dissentire, vel ullum haereticum dogma docuisse.  tertio principio arriculi primi.  
Sed haec quae profert Morellius, ipsissima sunt Patrum & Scholasticorum loca & verba, sine ulla inflexione, quae fensum mutare vel tantillum possit, a jansenio repetita. Ergo etc.   

Argumentum. II.  
Doctrina in tertia propositione damnata, nulli, ut testantur Episcopi, ante Jansenium cognita est. Atqui istorum locorum doctrina ab omnibus pene antiquis Scholasticis tradita est, utpote ex ipsorum libris ne verbo quidem addito, ducta. Igitur haec loca non continent tertiam propositionem.   

Argumentum. III.  
 detur ambigua esse locorum Jansenii verba, certe negari non potest quin commode explicari possit sensu orthodoxo, adhibita levi distinctione. Nam quod ait nullam inevitabilitatis, immutabilitatis, solam coactionis necessitatem libertati repugnare, intellige de libertate generali, quatenus Deo, Beatis, & hominibus convenit, non de propria hujus status. jam extra aleam hic locus erit.  
Quod ait docere Sanctum Thomam opus esse laude vel vituperio dignum ex hoc quod est voluntarium, non coactum: jam non metuet Molinistarum impetum, si addideris, spectare hic rationem laudis & vituperii generatim, quatenus etiam Christo convenit, qui caruit indifferentia in Deo diligendo, quo tamen ille actu meruit; non autem proprium & specificum meritum hujus status, quod nunquam ab indifferentia disjungitur.  
Quod ait voluntatem non amittere libertatem ulla tali necessitate, quia dicitur necesse est ut velit, tam orthodoxum erit si de libertate generali intelligatur, quam si de statu libertatis in hac vita falsum.  
Atqui Jansenius ambiguas istas locutiones ipse sano illo & orthodoxo sensu interpretatur, ipse de generali se tantum libertate, non de statu libertatis in hac vita agere testatur. Asseruimus, inquit tom. 3. lib. 6. cap. 5. libertatem arbitrii Generalem & Naturalem, non esse aliam nisi a necessitate, per quam intelligitur a Patribus sola coactio.  
Et statim initio libri septimi: Hactenus, inquit, delaravimus Generalem libertatis rationem, a qua dictum est l berum arbitrium in eo situm esse, quod immune sit a necessitate coactionis. Ipse inseparabilem esse ab hoc statu asserit indifferentiam potentiae, ut Morellio jam ostendimus.  
Ergo haec loca malo sensu interpretari nefas est, per 
V. PRINC. Ambigua locutio bono sensu interpretanda est, si ab ipso Scriptore ad bonum sensum alligata sit.  quintum Principium articuli primi. Quod erat demonstrandum.   

Argumentum. IV.  
Malum istum sensum qui in istas locutiones intrudi posset, nempe quod a libertate hujus vitae omnem indifferentiam excluserit, removit expresse Jansenius, ut jam probavimus Disquitione tertia. Igitur h●c sensu illas explicari injurium est, per 
IV. PRINC. Scriptoris Catholici ambiguam locutionem orthodoxi sensus & erronei capacem, erroneo interpretari nefas est, si erroneus ille sensus expresse sit amotus.  quartum Principium articuli primi.  
Ergo nec verba, nec sensus Iansenii possunt reprehendi; atque ita nil in eo nisi orthodoxum, per 
VI PRINC. Nullus locus Jansenii reprehendi potest, nisi vel propter verba, vel propter sententiam.  sextum Principium articuli primi. Quod erat demonstrandum.  
Videat, quaeso, Morellius quam recte isti ad controversiae caput colliment, non ipsius more inaniter sibi ipsi plaudentes, nec ridicule de prostratis hostibus, quos ne attigerint quidem, more ipsius gloriantes, sed jansenium claris & manifestis ipsiusmet Iansenii locis ab ipsius calumniis vindicantes.    

ARTICULUS V.  
Excursio in Annatum super Iansenii sententia de libertate.  
NE quid in hac materia difficultatis relinquamus, ad istius propositionis calcem, breviter quaedam perlustrabimus, dum Molinismi res adhuc fluctuarent, ab Annato scripta libro de incoacta libertate. Ibi enim futurae sortis ignarus, & quid postulatura esset Societatis causa non praescius, alieniora nonnulla ab illius utilitatibus posuit, illud que praesertim quod ait pag. 175. jansenium admittere Thomistarum indifferentiam: sed in eo sibi contradicere. Fatetur, inquit, Jansenius ita convenire indifferentiam libero arbitrio, ut quibuscunque positis quae ad agendum bonum & malum requisita sunt, possit liberum arbitrium in hac vita facere bonum & malum, facere alterutrum & non facere. Et iterum: Dicimus liberum arbitrium quantumcunque vehementi atque efficaci gratiae delectatione praeventum atque determinatum ad faciendum bon●m, adhuc tamen posse bonum non tantum non f●cere, sed etiam malum. Verum est enim istud non in sensu composito, ut vulgo dici solet, sed in sensu diviso. Adde quod dicit eodem libro dum putat suam sententiam defendere posse eadem ratione qua Thomistae: In libero arbitrio quantum cunque per gratiam praeparato atque determinato reperi●i simultatem potentiae ad operandum & non operandum: esto, non sit potentia simultatis. Et quod idem est: Qamvis duo actus contrarii sint, & in eadem voluntate simul esse non possint; potestates tamen ad opposita non sunt oppositae, nec sibi invicem, nec actibus oppositis; sed in eodem simul subjecto sive quiescente, sive agente, simul commorantur. Vsitata est ista dissidentium cogitationum pugna in Janseniana Theologia.  
Hic primo animadverti velim fateri Annatum non usque adeo firmum in neganda indifferentia jansenium, ut non eam disertis verbis aliquando agnoverit. Contradicit, inquit, sibi jansenius, nunc admittit indifferentiam, nunc negat. Igitur ex ipso Annato non minus probabilis est eorum sententia, qui agnitam a jansenio indifferentiam voluut, quam Annati qui sublatam contendit. Quodsi non minus probabilis, hoc ipso fit etiam probabilior, quia benignior, quia in Episcopum Catholicum religiosior est. Nam cum duae sunt de Scriptoris Catholici sensu opiniones, quarum unâ reus erroris alicujus asseritur, aliâ errore liberatur, nisi manifesta sit disparitas rationum, semper in judicando amplectenda est benigna sententia; quod nisi fit, in illud Domini praeceptum impingitur: Nolite judicare & non judicabimini.  
2. Notandum admitti a jansenio indifferentiam certis & conceptis verbis: at nullum locum profert Annatus, quo sic clare negatam in hoc statu indifferentiam vel ipse possit contendere. Quis igitur dubitet potiorem clarae & non ambiguae affirmationis fidem ad purgandum erroris suspicione jansenium esse debere, quam obscurioris alicujus locutionis ad eundem crimine innectendum?  
3. Non aliter fere probat Annatus tolli a jansenio indifferentiam, quam consecutionibus quibusdam, ex quibus indifferentiae excidium sequi dicit. At contra claram & apertam Scriptoris testificationem afferre consecutiones, ridiculum & injurium. Ecquid enim non tam saepe ejusmodi consecutionibus Thomistas cum Calvino sentire arguit? Et tamen ipse negat Thomistas ideo pro Calvinistis, pro libertatis inimicis habendos. Aliud est, inquit, videre quid sentiant, aliud quid contra eos objiciatur.  
Postremo, quod vel praecipuum est, pueriles, ridiculae, nullius roboris sunt consecutiones illae, ex quibus negatae indifferentiae accusationes conflat Annatus, ut ex illarum confutatione ad oculum demonstrabitur.  

Annatinus Cavillus.  
Non potest, inquit Annatus, a jansenio admitti simultas potentiarum, quia potestatem agendi conferri docet per victricem delectationem, sive in bono, sive in malo: At simul non sunt victrices delectationes: Ergo nec agendi potentiae. Respondeo, ludere Annatum in voce posse, & vulgatissimam in Scholis doctrinam dissimulare. Duplex est enim potestas, duplex posse: alia actus primi, alia actus secundi; alia quae interiorem virtutem notat, alia quae etiam impulsionem & applicationem ad agendum involvit: ex hoc postremo genere est victrix delectatio; impellit illa ad agendum, admovet, applicat, eo prorsus modo quo Thomistae de physica predeterminatione sentiunt.  
Dat ergo proprie dicendo actum secundum, primum supponit, tollit simultatem sensus compositi, quo componuntur actus inter se, relinquit simultatem potentiarum in actu primo, eo prorsus modo quo praedeterminatio physica. Eam ob rem Jansenio gratia efficax dicitur adjutorium actus secundi, non primi; nec dat posse alia ratione, nisi quia dat velle; dat ipsum actum, non quandam separatam abactu potentiam,  
Igitur si sermo sit de ipsis potentiis in actu primo spectatis, plena est apud Jansenium simultas potentiarum; si de actu secundo, nec apud Jansenium, nec apud Thomistas ulla simultas est, sed tantum successio: atque hoc est quod aliquando Jansenius ait, non nisi subtracta gratia efficaci hominem posse male agere, nimirum in sensu composito. Nunquam enim continget ut reipsa male agat, dum aderit efficax gratia; at potentia ipsa male agendi prorsus eodem tempore cum gratia efficaci consistit. Habet enim homo, etiam cum bene agit, male agendi potestatem, sed non habet male agendi voluntatem. Videat Annatus quam facile fuerit illud ipsius, quo maxime se jactat, argumentum refellere.   

Aliae Annati ratiunculae confringuntur.  
Quid est, inquit, quod dicit Jansenius, non admittere se indifferentiam, qualem admittunt recentiores Scholastici? Vin dicam, mi Pater? Non admittit Jansenius indifferentiam qualem Jesuitae, quos molli recentiorum Scholasticorum nomine appellat; Vide libri oras, non alios videbis quam Jesuitas adscriptos.  
Pergit Annatus, & ita disputat: Admittunt ne illi aliam indifferentiam, quam illa quam admittit Ecclesia? Ita prosus: admittunt Moliniani indifferentiam recta fronte cum gratia efficaci pugnautem; admittunt indifferentiam quae postulet non modo ut semper positis omnibus ad agendum requisitis possimus agere & non agere, sed etiam qua cum omnibus illis ad agendum requisitis, etiam cum ipsa gratia oppositus actus aliquando componatur. Hanc nunquam agnovit Ecclesia. Sed solennis Annati mos, quae proprie in Societatem suam dicta sunt, in omnes Theologos spargere, ad concitandam Iansenio apud omnes invidiam.  
Expressa est apud Jansenium, inquit Annatus, indifferentiae negatio, parall. not. 79. dum Suarem, Bellarminum & Vasquez eo nomine accusat, quod gratiam a imittant qua stante in libero arbitrio, possit arbitrium, indifferenter velle & nolle. Nunquamne intelliget Annatus solos hic Molinistas a Jansenio carpi, qui praesente sua gratia sufficiente, non certo in alteram partem vergere voluntatem dicunt, sed nunc gratiam rejicere, nunc accipere versatili & instabili motu, sine ullo alio Dei auxilio? Hanc indifferentiam negat, rejicit, damnat Jansenius, & quicunque cum Iansenio vestram illam gratiam versatilem detestantur: atque ut ille Molinisticam respuit gratiam, sic illas locutiones quibus a Molinistis exprimi solet, nempe ejus usum vel non usum in libero relinqui arbitrio, posse illam arripi vel repudiari pro nutu, posse ei voluntatem consentire vel dissentire, velle & nolle: quae locutiones licet rectum habeant sensum in doctrina Thomistarum, & ideo determinatae & alli gatae ad illorum sensum, saepe, ut jam late probavimus, a Jansenio probentur, tamen quia in Molinistarum ore, imo in ore vulgi, nihil aliud significant nisi gratiam versatilem quam pro nutu nunc accipit, nunc abjicit voluntas, nullo, cum accipit, uberiore instructa auxilio quam cum abjicit; hinc merito sensum istis locutionibus a Molinistis expressum explodit jansenius.  
Equidem miror tam tardum Annato ingenium fuisse, ut tam facilem verborum disctepantiam conciliare nequiverit. Admittit indifferentiam Jansenius: negat indifferentiam Jansenius: fatetur gratiae quamlibet efficaci vel consentire vel dissentire posse voluntatem; negat idem in libero arbitrio relictam gratiam; negat eam pro arbitrio recipi vel repelli. Si non ipse mentem suam interpretatus esset, tamen injurium erat pugnam illam verborum non aliqua, praesertim expedita & ad manum distinctione componere: sed prorsus excusatione carent qui in illa ambiguita●e cavillantur, cum ipse sic praecise definierit, quam indifferentiam oppugnet, quam admittat, ut nullum disputationi locum reliquerit.  
Definit indifferentiam quam oppugnat lib. 8. de gr. Christi cap. 20. Quandiu, inquit, hic vivimus, semper inest indifferentia libero arbitrio, sed non eo modo quo isti Scholastici (Jesuitae) putant, quos supra diximus, qui quocunque modo arbitrium, sive gratiae, sive peccati delectationibus imbuatur, semper existimant cum utravis ejus dispositione posse fieri ut utrumlibet velit, sive bonum, sive malum, pro illa sola scilicet innata idifferentia voluntatis, quae sub quacunque dspositione actum praeveniente sese sua libertate in utramvis partem flectit.  
Non potuit clarius Molinianam indifferentiam significare; quae cum quacunque gratia non nudam potestatem actus expertem, sed ipsum contrarium actum componit, qua voluntas ita potens fingitur, ut instructa sufficienti auxilio, nunc se in alteram partem flectat, nunc in aliam reflectat. Hanc indifferentiam oppugnarunt quotque in disciplina Thomistarum floruere Theologi; hanc revera tanquam humanae superbiae inventum insectatur passim Jansenius: at illam alteram Thomistarum, qua voluntas ita potest dissentire gratiae efficaci, ut nunquam dissentiat, ibidem ultro fatetur admittitque, & late explicat Jansenius.  
Eodem, inquit, tempore quo voluntatis arbitrium sub gratia efficaciter eam movente positum est; imo quo etiam actum voluntatis bonum facit, est in eadem voluntate potestas illud non faciendi, imo peccandi: non quod cessatio ab actu quem tunc elicit, aut actuale peccatum cum gratiae delectantis influxu possit consistere, quod sensus compositus postularet: sed quia cessandi & peccandi potestas cum eadem gratia simul in eodem volunnatis arbitrio conjungi potest. Sic ergo voluntas quantumcunque gratiae suavitate capiatur, potest non agere id quo rapitu●, quia veram non agendi potentiam etiam sub gratia rapiente retinet, quamvis fieri nequeat ut ipsa non actio cum gratiae operatione in eadem simul voluntate copuletur.  
Habet Annatus ad suas argutias. Habet Lector unde judicet, utrum aequius sit eam Jansenio haeresim tribui, quam disertis verbis ipse rejiciat; an vero illius verba, ut multum ambigua, eo sensu intelligi quo ab ipsomet explicata esse demonstratur.    

ARTICULUS VI  
Methodus in veniendae in Jansenio quartae propositionis.  
COnvenit inter omnes Theologos licere fine ulla erroris nota gratiam vetsatilem rejicere, quae modo effectum habet, modo non habet. Constat 2. orthodoxam esse Thomistarum doctrinam, qua negant gratiae efficaci unquam resisti, licet semper resisti possit.  

Intentio Molinistarum.  
Docet Jansenius haereticos in eo fuisse Semipelagianos, quod dicerent gratiae resisti posse vel obtemperari, quia vult gratia efficaci necessitatem afferri voluntati, & dissentiendi potestatem auferri; quam doctrinam tradit lib. 8. de haeres. Pelag. cap. 6.   

Nota.  
Nuspiam Molinistae quam in hac Jansenii accusatione, & in quartae propositionis sensu sic explicando constantiores. Docent enim unanimi consensu in hoc errorem Jansenii situm, quod gratiae efficaci dissentire posse negaverit, quia necessitatem affert. Sic Hallerius & socii in illis scriptis quae Romae Consultoribus obtulerunt; Thomistae, inquiunt, & Jesuitae concedunt divinae gratiae humanam voluntatem consentire & dissentire posse; hoc ipsum Jansenistae negant. Alibi: Exigendum a Jansenii defensoribus, inquiunt, ut fateantur quod non sint haeretici qui dicunt liberum arbitrium Deo moventi per gratiam efficacem dissentire posse. Et Annatus in praefatione libri cui titulus est, Jansenius a Thomistis damnatus: Si gratia efficax, inquit, non tollit libertatem, consequenter nec tollit indifferentiam; quod dicere judicatur haereticum in illa propositione. Idem in responsione ad Ludovici Montaltii Epistolam 17. praecipuum Iansenii errorem in eo collocat, quod velit gratia necessitatem afferti voluntati. Postremo Morellius in eo etiam collocat Jansenianum errorem circa hanc propositionem, quod haereseos accuset eos qui dicunt gratiae resisti posse.   

Depulsio Jansenii Defensorum.  
Nec in verbis Iansenii quicquam reprehendendum, quia Augustiniana sunt; nec in sensu, quia fatetur gratiae etiam efficaci resisti posse; fatetur ab ea liberum arbitrium posse dissentire, licet nunquam dissentiat: fatetur non esse haereticos qui hoc asserunt, imo haereticos asserit qui hoc negant. Sed eos tantum Semipelagiani erroris insimulat, qui eidem gratiae nunc consentiri nunc dissentiri pro solo nutu arbitrii volunt, sive qui gratiam Molinianam & versatilem in Ecclesiam invehunt; nec alius est sensus omnium locorum quae ab ejus adversariis proferuntur.   

Quaestio.  
An culpanda fuerint Iansenii verba, an sensus, sive an jansenius gratiam necessitantem admiserit, cui resisti non possit, quod improbandum: an vero solam gratiam versatilem, quae modo effectum habet, modo non habet, rejecerit; quod non modo licitum, sed laudandum est.   

Methodus Molinistis ineunda.  
Debent ad arguendum imprudentiae jansenium ostendere duriora illius verba, & minime Augustiniana. Ad eum vero haereseos accusandum docere debent gratiam necessitantem, cui resisti non possit, a jansenio admissam, nec solam Molinae gratiam repudiatam, sed & efficacem cui resisti posset.   

Expenditur ex hac methodo Morellius.  
Sedulo cavit bonus Doctor ne quid nobis uspiam in se refellendo laboris daret. Vix enim unquam ad usque controversiae caput pervenit. Quaere apud illum argumenta quibus probet admitti a jansenio gratiam necessitantem: quaere rationes quibus adstruat non solam a jansenio rejici Molinae gratiam, sed omnem omnino cui resisti possit, etiam efficacem. Altum ubique silentium reperies, & Morellium inepti illius patroni semper similem esse, qui multis laboraret ostendere Clodium a Milone occisum, nec ultra progrederetur.   

Methodus Jansenii defensoribus ineunda.  
Ut verba Iansenii innoxia esse demonstrent, ostendere sat est Augustiniana esse: Ut sensum, doceant oportet solam in allatis locis gratiam Molinisticam rejici, nec negari dissentiendi potestatem cum efficaci gratia cohaerentem. Utrumque autem ita praestant: ac de verbis primo.  
Locus qui objicitur jansenio, extat lib. 8. de haeres. Pelag. cap. 6. In hoc inquit, ergo proprie Massiliensium error situs est, quod aliquid primaevae libertatis reliquum putant, quo sicut Adam, si voluisset, poterat perseveranter operari bonum; ita lapsus homo saltem credere posset si vellet, neuter tamen absque interioris gratiae adjutorio, cujus usus vel abusus relictus esset in uniuscujusque arb●trio & potestate.  
In hoc loco ea demum verba culpantur, quod erroneum esse ●icat jansenius in hoc statu admittere gratiam, cujus usus vel abusus relictus sit libero arbitrio: atqui haec verba purgare nullius negotii est. Asserit enim Sanctus Augustinus gratiam naturae lapsae non relinqui libero arbitrio. Nec ipsum, inquit lib. de corr. & grat. cap. 11. Adamum Deus esse voluit sine sua gratia, quam reliquit in ejus libero arbitrio: tale quippe erat adjutorium quod desereret cum vellet, & in quo permaneret si vellet, non quo fieret ut vellet. Ecce quid sit gratiam relinqui libero arbitr●o, non dare velle, non esse efficacem, pendere ab ipsius nutu, nunc deseri, nunc arripi, sine alio auxilio quod det ipsum velle. Hujusmodi gratiam amoliri ab hoc statu nihil aliud est quam damnare Molinae versatilem gratiam. At vero talem non esse gratiam hominis lapsi, nec relinqui illam libero arbitrio, ostendit Augustinus sequentibus verbis: Si in tanta infirmitate vitae hujus ipsis relinqueretur voluntas sua ut vellent, inter tot & tantas tentationes voluntas ipsa succumberet. Subventum est igitur infirmitati voluntatis humanae, ut divina gratia insuperabiliter & indeclinabiliter ageretur.  
Sed ut ipsam locutionem omittamus, quam satis patet ex Augustino sumptam, sensum ejus ita vindicant: Verba illa Jansenii quae arguuntur, ut durissime de iis sentiatur, ambigua sunt, & sensum tum Catholicum, tum erroneum admittunt. Catholica erunt si sic accipiantur: Errabant Massilienses, quod admitterent gratiam versatilem, cujus usus & non usus ita libero relinquebatur arbitrio, ut sine alio auxilio eidem gratiae nunc consentiret voluntas, nunc dissentiret.  
Rursus heretica erunt si sic accipiantur: Errabant Massilienses, quod dicerent gratia non necessitari voluntatem, & dissentiendi potestatem ab eo non auferri.  
His positis, orthodoxum esse Janseniani loci sensum hoc duplici argumento concludunt.   

Argumentum. I.  
Excludit & amovet diserte jansenius malum illum sensum qui includi in his verbis posset. Sic enim loquitur de grat. Chr. lib. 8. cap. 21. Ecclesia reprehend t in Calvino quod doceat gratiam ita movere voluntatem, ut non sit ei liberum resistere: Augustino vero ita Deus m●vet voluntatem, ut quamvis infallibiliter convertatur & operetur, posset tamen motioni Dei refragari, aut obtemperare, seu, ut Concilium Tridentinum loquitur, illi dissentire si velit. Multa alia loca jam attulimus, quibus illam dissentiendi potentiam cum gratia efficacisimul consistere tradit jansenius.  
Itaque per 
IV. PRINC. Scriptoris Catholici ambiguam locutionem, orthodoxi sensus & erronei capacem, erroneo interpretari nefas est, si erroneus illesensus expresse sit amotus.  quartum principium articuli primi ambiguus ejus locus haeretico illo sensu accipi non potest; igitur orthodoxo, qui solam Molinae gratiam erroris accusat, accipi debet. Quod erat probandum.   

Argumentum. II.  
Verba quibus constant hic locus, saepe ab ipso Iansenio explicata sunt.   

Primaeva libertas.  
Passim enim declarat jansenius, per primaevam libertatem a se intelligi libertatem qualis in Adamo fuit, nempe voluntatem ita sanam ac robustam, ut gratia efficaci quae daret velle, quae voluntatem impelleret ad opus, non indigeret. En quomodo hunc primaevae libertatis statum expresserit, lib. de grat. primi hominis & Angel. cap. 14. In illo felicitatis statu velle & nolle non ab ipso adjutorio, sed ab arbitrii libertate Deus peti voluit, ut quocunque videretur se flecteret, sive applicando ipsum adjutorium ad influendum secum, si vellet; sive non applicando, si nollet.   

Adam per primaevam libertatem poterat perseveranter operari bonum.  
Posse intelligit jansenius, non illud Thomisticum a gratia efficaci applicandum: sed hoc tantum quod omnia ad agendum necessaria complecteretur, quodque in actum prodire sine novo auxilio non repugnaret. Hinc cum solo illo adjutorio Angelos asserit in bono permansisse. Videndus totus liber de gratia primi hominis & Angel. & praecipue cap. 14.   

Ita lapsus homo per reliquias primaevae libertatis, posset saltem credere si vellet.  
Id est, homo lapsus sine gratia efficaci poterat ex Semipelagianorum ment per solum illud adjutorium innocentiae & reliquias libertatis actu credere. Hinc eorumdem errorem definiens tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 1. Proscripti sunt, inquit, Massilienses, non ob aliam causam, nisi quia tale auxilium s●fficere putarent, adeoque nullum aliud adjutorium ex parte Dei esse necessarium.   

Neuter tamen sine interioris gratiae adjutorio, cujus usus vel non usus relictus esset in cujusque libero arbitrio & potestate.  
Id est, gratia quae velle non dabat, tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 6. Talis f●it illa gratia, ut ejus usus in sua cuique voluntate relinqueretur. Non enim dabat velle vel agere. Gratia quae non admoveret voluntatem ad opus. De gratia primi hominis cap. 14. Non enim adjutor●um fac ebat influendo ut arbitrium vellet, sed arbitrium volendo ut adjutor um influeret: Gratia cujus effectum saepe actu impediebat voluntas, rursus eandem quoque reddebat efficacem. Applicatio, inquit, ad influendum (statu innocentiae) libero arbitrio tribui debet, cujus nutus facit ut istud adjutorium si nul influat, cujus nutu plerumque fit & semper fieri potest ut non instuat.  
Ita ad verum Iansenii sensum inveniendum nil aliud opus est, quam varias illas colligi notiones, & una proposi●ione concludi. Errabant Massilienses, quod docerent non sic pec●ato originali laesam esse naturam, ut non aliqua illi pars superesset robustae illius libertatis, a qua peteretur ipsum velle, non ab ipso injutorio. Et ita sicut Adam poterat primae illius libertatis viribus actu in justitia sine efficaci auxilio perseverare; sic hominem lapsum posse saltem actu credere, nulla alia adjutum gratia, quam ea quae primo homini collata est, quae non erat efficax, quae non dabat velle, quae voluntatem ad opus non admovebat, sed contra ab ipsa libertate applicanda erat, ita ut pro nutu dominantis voluntatis, nunc careat effectu, nunc fortitetur effectum.  
His constitutis, sic breviter demonstratio conficitur: Haec propositio solam carpit & rejicit gratiam Molinianam, quod sine errore fieri licet, ex posito initio hujus articuli principio. Atqui haec propositio verum continer janseniani loci sensum, ut ex subjecta explicatione istorum verborum ab ipso Iansenio petita patuit. Igitur Iansenii locus solam rejicit gratiam versatilem & Molinianam, quod orthodoxum est. Igitur ejus loci sensus orthodoxus est ex 
V. PRINC. Ambigua locutio bono sensu interpretanda est, si ab ipso Scriptore ad bonum sensum alligata sit.  quinto articuli primi principio. Quod erat demonstrandum.  
Secundum locum quem affert Morellius, omitto, quia facilior est, & ex hac methodo nullo negotio repelli potest. Manifestum est enim per illa verba quibus abutitur, Cujus influxus in eorum libero relinqueretur arbitrio, solam designari versatilem Molinae gratiam, non vero gratiam efficacem, quae facit liberum arbitrium influere.    

ARTICULUS VII.  
Methodus inveniendae in Jansenio quintae Propositionis.  
GRaviter & verè nobilis Scriptor quaestionem illam; An Christus pro omnibus mortuus sit, factiosam vocat, & commovendis quidem imperitae plebeculae animis idoneam; reipsâ tamen apud eruditos futilem, imo nullam. Praecisis enim quae utrimque conveniunt, nihil jam restat de quo certari possit, aut, si quid restat, ita vanum ac inane est, ut de eo altercari ridiculum sit.  

Quae conveniant utrinque.  
Convenit orthodoxam esse eorum sententiam, qui praedestinationem statuunt sine praevisione meritorum factam. Et quidquid cum ea opinione, quam de fide esse asserit Bellarminus, necessario cohaeret; cujusmodi sunt illae Propositiones consectariae.  
Deus solis electis efficaci & absolutâ voluntate ante praevisionem meritorum regnum caeleste destinavit.  
Illis solis Christus, cujus voluntas divinae semper consentiens fuit, aeternam beatitudinem efficaci & absolutâ voluntate optavit, oravit, meruit.  
Nec Deus nec Christus ullam habuit efficacem & absolutam voluntatem salutis reproborum.  
Solis electis Deus & Christus efficacia adjutoria conferre decrevit, quibus certissimè liberantur quicunque liberantur.  
Nullis reprobis largiri Deus constituit efficax perseverantiae donum, sine quo nemo salvatur.  
Nullis reprobis conferre Deus constituit gratias illas versatiles & Molinianas, quibus ad salutem sine efficaci auxilio aliquando perveniatur, quia nullae ejusmodi dantur in hoc statu.  
Potest agnosci in Deo antecedens quaedam velleitas salutis reproborum, potest item in Christo.  
Christus voluit efficaciter morte suâ multis reprobis gratias quibus abutuntur, promereri.  
Non necesse est ad sidem, fateri omnibus reprobis collatas esse gratias sufficientes: patet exemplo excaecatorum & infantium, quibus tot Theologi gratias sufficientes negant, ut agnovit ipse Hallerius & ejus socii in scripto Consultoribus oblato super hac ipsa Propositione: Intactae relinquuntur, inquit, difficultates quae occurrunt circa infantes sine baptismo decedentes, aut infideles, aut obduratos. Nam qui dicit Christum non pro solis praedestinatis esse mortuum, non dicit consequenter pro quolibet reprobo in particulari mortuum esse; sed sufficit quod pro aliquibus saltem reprobis.   

De prima parte hujus Propositionis.  
Duplex in quinta Propositione pars est: alia falsa, scandalosa, etc. pronunciatur; alia etiam haeretica: utraque Jansenio tribuitur ab ejus aemulis, utraque à Jansenio removetur ab ejus defensoribus. Nos, ut res tota magis dilucescat, utramque partem separatim tractabimus, ac primo de ea parte quae falsa à Pontifice dicitur.  

Intentio Molinistarum.  
Docet hanc partem Jansenius, cum ait lib. 3. de grat. Christi cap. 20. Nec enim juxta doctrinam antiquorum, pro omnibus omnino passus & mortuus est, cum potius hoc tanquam erroneum rejecerint.   

Depulsio Jansenii defensorum.  
Nec verba, nec sensus istius loci reprehendi potest; non verba, quia à Sancto Augustino & Conciliis consecrata sunt; non sensus, quia negat tantum Christum esse mortuum pro omnibus in sensu Moliniano & Semipelagiano, nempe quod Deus det omnibus gratias sufficientes versatiles, à libertate arbitrii applicandas, nec singulari quodam modo pro electis mortuus sit, quo non est mortuus pro reprobis.   

Methodus Molinianis ineunda.  
Debent docere vel verba Jansenii auctoritate Ecclesiae carere, ut eum imprudentiae incusent; vel alio sensu à Jansenio intellecta, quam quo ab ejus defensoribus intelliguntur, nempe quod erroris etiam illam S. Prosperi expositionem arguerit, qua dicitur Christus mortuus pro omnibus, quantum ad sufficientiam pretii.   

Expenditur ex ista methodo Morellius.  
Utinam tam modestus esset Morellius quam parum molestus est! Nunquam enim vidi hominem minus litigiosum. Ergo si quaeras quid de ea dicat controversia, uno verbo accipe: silet.   

Methodus Jansenii Defensoribus ineunda.  
Debent vindicare tum verba, tum sensum istius loci Janseniani; quod illi sic praestant: Primum ostendunt è regione Jansenianae laciniae loca Patrum & Conciliorum easdem aut manifestè aequivalentes locutiones complectentia.  
Locus Jansenii tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 20. 
Ex quibus omnibus jam satis arbitror patere, argumentum istud quo Christus pro omnibus passus & mortuus est, vel redemptionem se pro omnibus dedisse dicitur, nihil omnino pro auxilio sufficienti suppeditando facere. Nec enim juxta doctrinam antiquorum pro omnibus omnino Christus passus aut mortuus est, aut pro omnibus omnino tam generaliter sanguinem fudit, cum hoc potius tanquam errorem a fide abhorrentem doceat esse respuendum.  Loca antiquorum ex quibus haec verba Jansen. mutuatur. Ecclesia Lugdunensis. 
Catholica fides tenet, & Scripturae sanctae veritas docet, quod pro omnibus credentibus & per gratiam baptismi ex aqua & Spiritu Sancto regeneratis & Ecclesiae incorporatis verè Dominus & Salvator noster sit passus. De infidelibus eàdem constantiâ definit. Cesset haec nova & inaudita praesumptio, ut nullus hominum, etiam impiotum, & apud inferos irrevocabiliter damnatorum fuerit, pro quo Christus passus non fuerit. Cum pro solis illis defunctis passionem sustinuerit, qui eum dum in corpore viveret, fideliter venturum, & mundum sua passione redempturum crediderunt. Hoc itaque est Catholicum, hoc fidei Ecclesiae ab initio commendatum.   
Et utramque partem iterum inferius tangens, ac disputationem prolixiorem concludendo complectens: Ex his igitur, inquit, d ligenter ac fidel ter consideratis certissime ac clarissime ostenditur pro omnibus fidelibus Christi qui fuerunt, aut sunt, velerunt, factam esse passionem Christi; pro corpore Christi immolari corpus Christi. De his vero qui adhuc in infidelitate atque impietate detinentur, manifestum est ex hac regula fidei, quod quicunque ex ipsis per Dei gratiam fuerint ad fidem conversi & in Christo regenerati, e●iam pro ipsis confitendum sit factum esse, quod pro omnibus fidelibus factum constat. De caeteris vero qui in ipsa imp etate sua perserverantes sunt perituri, si de Scripturae sacrae auctoritate, quod etiam pro alibus Dominus passus sit, certissimis & clarissimis testimoniis nobis demonstrare potuerint boni viri, qui talia definierunt, dignum omnino est ut credamus & nos. Si vero non potuerint, cessent contendere pro eo quod non legunt. Pudeat eos definire quod n●sciunt. Timeant statuere quod nullum Sanctorum Patrum, nullum Concilium, nullum Apostolicae Sedis Ponti m, nullum Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum decretum hactenus inveniant statuisse.  
Et Concilium Valentinum cap. 4. De redemptione sanguinis Christi propter nimium errorem qui de hac causa exortus est; ita ut quidam, sicut eorum scripta indicant, etiam pro illis impiis qui a mundi exordio usque ad Passionem Domini in sua impietate mortui & aeterna damnatione puniti sunt effusum definiant, contra illud Propheticum: Ero morstua, o mors; ero morsus tuus, inferne; illud nobis simpliciter & fideliter tenendum ac docendum placet, juxta Evangelicam & Apostolicam veritatem, quod pro illis hoc datum pretium teneamus, quibus ipse Dominus noster dixit: Sicut Moyses exaltavit serpentem in deserto, ita exaltari oportet filium hominis, ut omnis qui credit in ipso non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam.  
Qui neget Iansenii verba e Patribus sumpta, non stultus, sed plane caecus sit. Hinc ejusmodi demonstratio conficitur.   

Argumentum. I.  
Ex solis Patrum verbis nemo argui potest scandalosam & falsam circa mortem Christi doctrinam docuisse, ex tertio Principio. Sed hic Iansenii locus verbis Patrum totus constat, ut inspicienti patet. Ergo ex illo non potest argui falsam tradidisse doctrinam. Quod erat demonstrandum.  
Sensum autem solita methodo tuentur. Ambigua, ut multum, aiunt esse Iansenii verba. Boni enim sensus capacia sunt si sic explicentur: Christum non habuisse voluntatem absolutam promerendi per mortem suam omnibus reprobis gratias sufficientes Molinianas aut efficaces, quibus ab aeterno interitu liberari actu & effective possent.  
Falsum habebunt sensum si quovis modo explicatum de omnibus omnino hominibus istam sententiam, Christus pro omnibus mortuus est, erroneam esse statuat.  
Atqui, inquiunt, bono & Catholico sensu sua verba intepretatus est ipse lansenius. Primum enim aperit quid intelligat per illa verba, pro aliquo morri, & sanguinem fundere. Pro aliquo mortuum esse, inquit eodem capite, insinuat voluntatem Christi quam habet ut ei mori sua Patrioblata & sanguis prosit. Et clarius ibidem: Esse passum, crucifixum, mortuum, se redemptionem dedisse, vel propitiatorem esse pro omnibus, plus aliquid dicit, quam nude pretium sufficiens obtulisse pro iis. Illud enim indicat intentione morientis pretium pro illis oblatum esse, ut ejus oblatione placatus Pater eos reipsa deservitute liberaret, non sub ista conditione, si ipsi velint, qui nisi Deo donante non possunt, sed ut velint & credant, potenter in eorum voluntatibus operando.  
Voluntatem autem illam Christi quam requirit ut pro aliquibus mortuus esse dicatur, significat esse veram & absolutam, ut patet 1. ex remotione conditionis, Si & ipsi velint. 2. Quia sic se ipse interpretatur: pro veris ovibus, vero populo suo absolute salvando semetipsum ded●t ac tradidit. Et infra; Ipsorum liberationem a massa perditionis & salutem absolute voluit. 3. Quia cum generatim nominatur voluntas, intelligitur absoluta: hinc generalis Theologorum sententia: Christum nihil inaniter voluisse, nihil inaniter orasse; quod ita apud Theologos certum, ut inter errores a Facultate Parisiensi damnatos, qui in calce Magistri Sententiatum recensentur relata sit haec propositio: Quod satis erat possib●le quod per voluntatem aut volitionem creatam Christus aliquid voluit, quod nunquam debuit coenire.  
Sufficiens autem illa gratia, quam negat omnibus esse collatam, est Moliniana; quia initio hujus libri hoc sensu verbum istud semper se usurpaturum esse professus est. Hoc posito, ita demonstratio concluditur.   

Argumentum. II.  
Haec propositio, Christus non est mortuus pro omnibus omnino hominibus, cum intentione & voluntate absoluta ut eis mors sua prosit; ut ejus oblatione placatus Pater eos reipsa de servitute libetaret, potenter in eorum cordibus voluntatem ipsam operando, vel ut eis largiretur gratias sufficientes, quae nihil aliud ad agendum requirerent. Haec propositio, inquam, est orthodoxa ex suppositis principiis initio hujus articuli. Sed haec propositio continet verum sensum loci Janseniani; utpote expositione vocum ab ipso Jansenio facta tota constans, per 
VIII,. PRINC. Non mutatur propositionis sensus, cum definitiones vocum pro ipsis vocibus subjiciuntur.  octavum principium. Ergo verba ejus ut multum ambigua, hoc sensu orthodoxo sunt interpretanda. Quod erat demonstrandum.   

Argumentum. III.  
Malus sensus qui cadere in haec verba poterat, ejusmodi est: Quocunque sensu erroneum est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse. Hunc sensum amovet Jansenius, cum Prosperi expositionem qua Christus dicitur mortuus pro omnibus, quantum ad potentiam pretii, sive sufficientiam; non autem quantum ad applicationem & efficientiam, etsi Augustinianis expositionibus minus appositam sentiat, tamen ut Catholicam & orthodoxam & Semipelagianis oppositam esse testatu●. Nam hanc ipsam Prosperi doctrinam allaturus hoc praemittit: Fabricarunt, inquit ibidem, Massilienses adversus rigidum illud & peculiare propositum Dei, quandam generalem & indifferentem erga universos voluntatatem: deinde ex illa sufficientem omnibus gratiam derivarunt. Quare nihil mirum est si iisdem verbis idem proponamus antidotum, hoc est, si iisdem argumenris quibus Massilienses usi sunt, easdem Augustini & Prosperi solutiones opponamus. Et continuo ab illa ipsa Prosperi solutione orditur, ad omnes homines pertinente. Ergo cum nihil absurdius sit quam Prosperum a Jansenio Semipelagianum habitum esse, & Prosperi solutionem quam ipse Semipelagianis opponit, Semipelagiano errore infectam, patet Jansenium non omnes istius loci expositiones ad omnes homines pertinentes, erroris Semipelagiani damnavisse.  
Varias item sub finem istius articuli rationes quibus Christus dici possit mortuus pro omnibus omnino hominibus a Jansenio non abhorrentes indicamus.   

Nota.  
Si quaeras vero quam expositionem istius loci Semipelagiani erroris accuset, breviter ex ipso Jansenio ibidem disce, eam esse qua sub vertitur divinae benevolentiae propositum erga electorum salutem, tanquam Gentilium fatum, libertatis excidium, necessitatis azylum, desperationis ignaviaeque barathrum, praecepti, exhortationis, orationis interitus; illam esse, qua amoto peculiari proposito erga electos, fabricatur generalis & indifferens erga universos Dei voluntas: non illa antecedens quae cum gratuita praedestinatione cohaeret, & ab ipso Jansenio admittitur, sed illa conditionata, qua Deus ipsos salvos vult, si homines velint, per liberum arbitrium sufficienti quidem gratia motum, sed a gratia efficaci non determinatum.  
Illam esse qua sufficiens gratia in omnes derivatur, non ill● Thomistica quae cum praedestinatione gratuita, cum efficaci gratia placide consistit, sed Moliniana, quae utramque destruit, & pro solo nutu liberi arbitrii sine auxilio efficaci, nunc effectum habet, nunc non habet. Verum est hujusmodi expositionem propriam Massiliensium a Jansenio esse existimatam. Verum est a me quoque existimari; sed ita id existimo, ut non metuam ne Morellius & tota Molinistarum natio hanc propositionem vel falsitatis vel scandali a summo Pontifice notari curent; Semipelagianum est dicere, ita Christum pro omnibus mortuum, ut nullum peculiare propositum & voluntatem habuerit salutis electorum, sed omnibus citra delectum generatim salutem voluerit sub conditione, quae posset a libero arbitrio actu sine efficaci gratia impleri, atque omnibus sufficientes gratias versatiles, quae modo effectum habent, modo non habent, promeritm sit.    

De secunda parte quintae propositionis. Intentio Molinistarum.  
Tradit Jansenius quintam propositionem, etiam quatenus haereseos damnata est; quia vult, Christum pro solis electis mortuum esse, & pro nullis reprobis, tom. 3. l. 3 c. 27.  

Depulsio Jansenii Defensorum.  
Loca quae objiciuntur jansenio, ex Augustino & S. Thoma manifeste mutuata sunt: sensus item illorum orthodoxus est, & a quinta propositione disjunctus, nempe solis electis absolata voluntate Christum beatudinem optasse, orasse, meruisse: adeque ex 
VI PRINC. Nullus locus Jansenii reprehendi potest, nisi vel propter verba, vel propter sententiam vocibus subjectam.  sexto principio, nihil in iis est reprehensione dignum.   

Quaestio duplex.  
1. An locutus cum Augustino & S. Thoma jansenius? 2. An senserit Iansenius Christum nullo modo pro reprobis mortuum esse, nec ullum in ipsos ex morte Christi gratiam defluere docuerit.   

Methodus ineunda Molinistis.  
Debent verba Jansenii ab Augustini verbis abjungere, ut verba reprehendant; debent ostendere nullo modo ex Iansenii ment Christum pro reprobis mortuum, ut sensum incusent.   

Expenditur ex hac methodo Morellius.  
Semper sui similis Morellius, paris ubique levitatis, affert tantum quaedam loca jansenii, sensum eorum non assignat, nec damnatae propositionis sensu accipienda comprobat, cum manifeste alio accipi possint. Ita que aerem verberat, & ut simpliciter dicam, plane nugatur. Verum insigni hic argumento cerni licet quam malâ fide in hac contentione versetur. Nunc enim ex aequo & jansenium & jansenii defensores insectatur, nec minus erroneum quintae propositionis sensum ab ills defendi contendit, quam ab ipso Jansenio, & tamen olim tam longe ipsos hac in parte a jansenio segregavit, ut, cum quintam illam propositionem in jansenium conferret, immunes ab hoc errore ipsius defensores agnoverit. Sic enim loquitur in libro quem inscripsit, Augustini de gratia sententia, pag. 37. Ipsi, inquit, evidentia permoti, fatentur Christum esse mortuum pro multis qui pereunt. Credunt enim ipsum mortuum esse pro omnibus semel sanctificatis, etsi ad tempus tantum, nec in justitia perseverantibus. Itaque patet ipsos sine ratione contra mentem Augustini & contra suam hunc locum opponere.   

Methodus Jansenii defensoribus sequenda.  
Debent ostendere cum Augustino & Sancto Thoma loqui jansenium, deinde sensum ejus hunc esse in locis objectis, pro solis electis salvandis efficaci & absoluta voluntate mortuum esse Christum, quod constat orthodoxum esse.  
Primum igitur dicunt, allata ex Iansenio loca, quasi sensu cum quinta propositione congruentia, manifeste, si verba spectes, Augustinianis locutionibus constare. Quod sic ad oculum demonstrant.   

De primo loco Jansenii a Molinistis allato.  
Postquam, aiunt, probasset jansenius late, cap. 20. lib. 3. de grat. Christi, Christum esse mortuum pro tota Ecclesia toto orbe dispersa, pro peccatis omnium fidelium, pro justificandis temporaliter multis reprobis; ad jungit, quia solis praedestinatis salutem aeternam Christus absolute voluit. Ideo saepe ab Augustino locutiones illas Scripturae ad solos praedestinatos contrahi; quod his Augustini locis confirmat Epist. 48. Christus propitiator est peccatorum nostrorum, non tantum nostrorum, sea totius mundi; propter triticum quod est per totum mundum. Et lib. 21. de Civit. cap. 24: Quid est omnium? Et eorum scilicet quos ex Gentibus, & eorum quos ex Iudaeis praedestinavit, vocavit, justisicavit, non omnium hominum. Et lib. 22. cap. 24. Apostolus de ipsis in illud regnum praedestinatis loquens, qui proprio, inquit, Folio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum. Et mox illud addidit ex quo calumniandi causam arripuit Morellius & Molinistae, Ne quis, inquit, forte suspicaretur ita phrases hujusmodi affirmativas de praedestinatis intelligendas esse, ut tamen alii justi, qui de beato illo numero non sunt, non excludantur, non uno in loco invertit istiusmodi locutiones, ita ut eas negative efferendo dicat Christum pro caeteris qui non sunt praedestinati, non esse mortuum, non semet ipsum dedisse redemptionem. Hoc enim in Epistola ad Evodium sine ambiguitate pronunciat: Non perit unus ex illis pro quibus mortuus est Christus: quod, si nullus ex illis perit, inquit Janseniut, pro quibus mortuus est, profecto quisquis perit, sive aliquando justus fuerit, sive non, non est pro illo mortuus Christus.  
Haec postrema verba arripit Morellius ut Iansenio quintam propositionem affingat: sed facile unico illo argumento refellitur.  
Haec propositio, quae Augustini est: Non perit unus ex illis pro quibus Christus mortuus est; & illa jansenii, Qui perit, non est pro illo mortuus Christus; non duplex, sed una propositio est ex Logicae regulis conversa, quibus pueri docentur propositiones negativas universales posse simpliciter converti. Ergo locus jansenii Augustiniana locutione constat. Ergo nihil in ipsis verbis reprehendendum ex 
I PRINC. Cum Augustino, Patribus & antiquis Scholasticis, ut sentire nefas non est, ita nec loqui.  primo principio articuli primi. Ind vero ad repellendam Morellii accusationem, ejusmodi etiam argumentum conficitur.   

Argumentum. I.  
jansenii locutio Augustiniana est; ut per se patet, sed ex solis Augustini verbis nemo argui potest quintam propositionem tradidisse ex 
III. PRINC. Ex sola Augustini locutione nemo argui potest ullum haereticum dogma docuisse.  tertio principio, quia illae locutiones sensum habent a propositionibus diversum, ex 
II. PRINC. Augustini & Patrum locutiones sensum habent a damnato propositionum sensu diversum.  secundo. Quod erat demonstrandum.   

De secundo loco jansenii a Molinistis allato.  
Simili modo repellitur secundus locus, qui praeterquam quod Sancti Thomae est, nihil aliud quam evidentem ex Augustini loco, & legitime ductam consecutionem continet.  
Affert enim primum ibidem Iansenius hunc Augustini locum:  
Si de aliquibus ita Ecclesia certa esset, ut qui sunt illi etiam nosset, qui licet adhuc in vita sunt constituti, tamen praedestinati sunt in aeternum ignem ire cum diabolo, tam pro eis non oraret, quam nec pro ipso. Ex hoc loco & alio simili ex lib. de corr. & gr. c. 15. hoc colligit Jansenius: Scivit Christus quo quisque ab aeterno praedestinatus erat; scivit hoc decretum neque ullius pretii oblatione mutandum esse, nec se ipsum velle mutare. Ex quo factum est ut juxta sanctissimum Doctorem non magis Patrem pro aeterna liberatione ipsorum quam pro diabolo deprecatus fuerit. Sed si quid pro illis rogavit Patrem, pro temporalibus quibusdam justitiae effectibus rogavit, & pro iisdem obtinendis obtulit pretium, fuditque sanguinem suum. Cujusmodi oblatio, quia valde diminuta est, parumque reprobis, multum vero praedeninatis p●odest, ut infra declarandum est; hinc fluxit ut passim in scriptis suis Augustinus oblationem sanguinis & mortis, & orationem Christi fere ad solos electos restringere soleat.  
Hanc consequentiam rectissime ex Augustino ductam quis negare posset, aut quis illarum propositionum catenam abrumpere? Si Christus oravit pro reproborum salute, cum eos nosset ab electorum numero exclusos, pro iisdem oraret Ecclesia, etiamsi illorum reprobationem nosset. Sed ex Augustino Ecclesia non oraret pro reproborum salute si eos nosset. Ergo non oravit pro eorum salute Christus qui noverat.  
Sed verba ipsa Iansenianae propositionis, quatenu● arguitur, habemus apud Sanctum Thomam 3. parte, q. 21. art. 4. Secundum voluntatem rationis Christus nihil voluit, nisi quod scivit Deum velle. Et ideo omnis absoluta voluntas Christi, etiam humana, fuit impletae, quia fuit Deo conformis; & per consequens omis ejus oratio fuit exaudita. Hic cum occurret Christum orasse ut peccatum crucifixoribus suis ignosceretur, ita respondet: Dicendum quod Dominus non oravit pro omnibus crucifixoribus suis, sed pro his solum qui eraent praedestinati, ut per ipsum vitam consequerentur aeternam.  
Sed quid ad purgandum omni erroris labe istam locutionem Iansenii aliam auctoritatem querimus quam ipsiusmet Christi, qui se non pro mundo rogare affirmat, sed pro his quos ipsi dedit Pater? Ex quibus ejusmodi demonstrato conficitur.   

Argumentum. II.  
Haec verba Christ: Non pro mundo rogo, etc. Haec verba Sancti Thomae: Christus oravit pro his solum qui ex ipso vitam consequuntur aeternam. Haec Augustini doctrina: Non orandum pro eorum salute, qui ad aeternum interitum praedestinati noscerentur, recatuum habent sensum; Catholicum, orthodoxum, a quinta propositione diversum.  
Sed Iansenii verba, utpote aequivalentia locis Augustini, Sancti Thomae, imo Evangelii, eodem accipi sensu possunt. Ergo ex illis solis non potest elici sensus haereticus quintae propositionis, ex 
III. PRINC. Ex sola Angustini vel S Thomae locutione nemo argui potest ullum haereticum dogma docuisse,  tertio principio articuli primi. Probent igitur Moliniani ex aliis locis haec verba alium in Augustino & Sancto Thoma, alium in jansenio sensum habere, vel fateantur se nihil agere.  
Sic quidem Iansenii defensores quadam veluti exceptione adversarios suos sum movent, sed ad causam penitus obtinendam solita methodo haec loca tum ad bonum sensum expresse a jansenio alligari, tum malum sensum qui in ilia iutrudi posset expresse ab eodem removeri duplici argumento confirmant.   

Argumentum. III.  
Haec verba: Quisquis perit, non est pro illo mortuus Christus. Et illa item: Non magis Partem pro aeterna liberatione reprobarum, quam pro diaboli oravit, rectum & Catholicum habent sensum, si ita accipiantur:  
Quisquis perit, eum ab aeterna perditione per mortem suam liberare non voluit Christus absoluta volantate, nec aeternam illius salutem sanguine suo promereri absolute voluit, uti nec eam a Patre absoluta oratione petiit; hunc sensum rectum esse patet ex iis quae constate diximus initio hujus articuli.  
Sed ad hunc sensum alligavit verba sua jansenius, ut jam ostendimus. Primum enim explicat quid intelligat per illa verba, Pro aliquo mori. Pro aeliquo, inquit, mortuum esse vel fudisse sanguinem suum, insinuat voluntatem Christi quam habet ut & mors sua Patrioblata & sanguis profit. Volun●tem autem illam ibidem indicat esse absolutam. Electorum, inquit, liberationem ex massa perditionis absolute voluit. Et paulo superius: Pro vero populo suo Absolute salvando semtipsum dedit & tradid●t.  
Igitur in jansenii sententia Christum non esse mortuum pro aeterna salute reproborum, nihil est aliud quam Christum non voluisse absoluta voluntate ut per mortem suam reprobi salvarentur. Hic autem sensus orthodoxus est ex supradictis. Igitur sensus verborum Iansenii est orthodoxus & a quinta propositione alienus. Quod erat demonstrandum.   

Argumentum. IV.  
Malum sensum qui in illa verba includi posset, nempe quod non sit mortuus ad ullam reprobis gratiam conferendam, expresse removet jansenius. Testatur enim mortuum esse Christum pro univers● Ecclesia toto orbe dispersa, pro omnibus fidelibus. Dicit, fideles omnes sanctificatos in sanguine Christi, redemptionem assequi; five in accepta redemptione perseverent, sive ab ea excidentes, saenguinem Testamenti pollutum duxerint, in quo sanctificati sunt: Dicit omnes temporales quibus exornantur reprobi gratiae effectus morte Christi promeritos. Igitur ex 
IV. PRINC. Scriptoris Catholici ambiguam locutionem, orthodoxi sensus & erronei capacem, erroneo interpretari nefas est, si eroneus ille sensua expresse sit amotus.  quarto principio eus verba malo illo & perverso sensu explicari nefas est. Quod erat demonstrandum.     

ARTICULUS. VIII.  
Notae ad majorem intelligentiam Jansenianae doctrinae circa mortem Christi.  
DIximus summam doctrinae Iansenianae circa mortem Christi, hanc esse, pro redemptione totius Ecclesiae Christum semet obtulisse, & pro gratiis temporabilis multis etiam exreproborum numero promerendis, solis tamen praedestinatis aeternam salutem, & quae cum salute necessario connexa sunt, nempe efficacem perseverantiam absoluta voluntate promereri voluisse.  
Haec sententia ex iis quae vulgo in Scholis venditantur opinionibus aliam rejicit, alterius partem praecipuam amplectirur, minus praecipuam omittit intactam.  
Rejicit Molinianam quae Christum statuit sic omnibus reprobis gratias sufficientes promeruisse, ut quod eas alii respuant, alii accipiant, non discernenti gratiae efficaci, sed libero tantum arbitrio attribui debeat. Haecilla sententia est, quam ut Semipeligianam exagitat. Ad hanc stabliendam dicit afferri solitum, a Semipelagianis argumentum a generali redemptione petitum, quod quidem erroris accusat in sensu Semipelagianotum; quatenus videlicet volebant ex morte Christi ita generalem in bonos & malos gratiae abundantiam defluere, ut reproborum electorumque discrimen ex liberi atbitrii nutu, non ex divina praedestinatione penderet.  
Amplectitur recentiorum Thomistarum sententiae partem longe praecipuam, nempe Christum absoluta voluntate solis electis salutem voluisse, meruisse, petiisse; quatenus item fidelibus justis sufficientem suo sensu, sed indigam efficacis auxilii potentiam, gratia interiori instructam conferri sentiunt: sed quatenus ex iis nonnulli gratias sufficientes efficacis egenas in omnes homines spargunt, nec probat nec improbat.  
Rursus quod iidem in Deo antecedentem quandam voluntatem salutis omnium admittunt; agnoscit & ipse. Ex quo consequitur longe potiori jure admissam in Christo.  
Potro ista antecedens voluntas non eo solum pertinet, ut Deus abstrahendo ab hominis lapsu, salutem omnium, quatenus homines sunt, optare dicitur; sed generatim antecedens Dei voluntas fertur in id quod rectum, quod justum, quod bonum secundum se est; ita quia rectum est hominem converti, poenitentiam agere, bonitatem Dei non contemnere, gratias ejus non respuere, ad Sacramenta accedere; haec omnia antecedenti voluntate censetur Deus velle, licet spectatis fingulis circumstantiis, non decreverit singulis efficaces gratias conferre, quibus ad salutem certo perveniunt, sine quibus certo ab salute excidunt. Ergo non eo solum nomine antecedenti voluntate Deus omnium hominum salutem optat, quia omnes creaturas rationales ad beatitudinem fecit; sed etiam quia cum permultas gratias vel externas vel internas in reprobos diffundar, quibus injustum est ipsos abuti, iisdemque aditum ad Ecclesiam suam patere velit, antecedenti voluntate velle censetur omnes ad salutem pervenire, quia vellet ipsos obstinatos in malitia non manere, & oblatis sibi praesidiis bene uti; licet aliunde justitiae voluntate, spectatis omnibus circumstantiis, melius esse judicavit illos malitiae suae relinquere, nec efficacia adjutoria concedere, quibus solis humani cordis pravitas superatur. Hinc patet Deum antecedenti voluntate & daemonum & hominum reproborum salutem velle; longe tamen aliter hominum quam daemonum. Cum enim nulla jam gratiae praesidia daemonibus offerat, nec Ecclesiae aditum illis patere velit, aut sacramentorum opem; consequenter nec illos gratia sua bene uti vult, quam nullam ipsis hoc tempore largitur. Contra vero, cum homnines adhuc in via sint, conversionem illis & fincerum ad se reditum bonumqae gratiarum suarum usum, a quibus illos minime arcet, optare voluntate antecedente putandus est, quorum nihil erga daemones praestat.  
Illa vero antecedens voluntis saepe in Christo fuisse videtur, ut cum super Jerusalem fleret, & his verbis venturas ipsi clades deploraret: Flevit, inquit Lucas, super illam dicens, Si cognovisses & tu, & quidem in hac die quae ad pacem sunt tibi! nunc autem abscondita sunt ab oculis tuis, quia venient dies in te, & circumdabunt te inimici tui vallo, etc. Ita gentis suae, & in illa genre ommum quorum gerebat imaginem, reproborum ruinam lamentatur Christus, & tamen absoluta voluntate divinae praedestinationis decreto, quo ab illa sorte Sanctorum separati erant, plane consentiebat. Nec incommode quidam haec verba Christi in horto, Pater, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste, de humana illa velleitate intelligunt, qua objectam menti suae reproborum damnationem deprecabatur.  
3. Ex his patet quo sensu removeri debeat, & quo admitti possit in Deo & Christo conditionata voluntas salutis reprobotum.  
Nam conditio illa a Molinistis afferri solita, qua dicitur Deus omnium salutem optare si & ipsi velint, subministrata ipsis gratia quadam sufficiente, quae nihil requirat ad agendum, fundicus ejicienda, utpote efficacia divini auxilii prorsus indigna, & ab hoc statu penitus aliena, in quo, ut ait Augustininus, si homini relinqueretur voluntas sua, ita ut ipsum velle gratia non operetur, inter tantas infirmitates vitae hujus voluntas ipsa succumberet.  
At aliusmodi conditionata voluntas, qua diceretur Deus omnes homines salvos fieri velle, si & ipsi velint, non subministrata quadam ipsis versatili gratia, sed quia vellet ipsos a pravitate & duritia sua resipiscere, & ad poenitentiam reverti, a quo impediuntur, non extrinseca aliqua impotentia, sed propria & culpabili perverfitate: haec, inquam, ratio conditionatae voluntatis, cum nihil aliud sit quam antecedens voluntas, &, ut arbitror, quam lex aeterna omnia justa praecipiens, omnia injusta vetans, divinae praedestinationi nihil officit, nec Iansenio negata dici potest.  
Patet etiam ex supradictis multis modis Christum dici posse mortuum pro salute reproborum, etiam ex jansenio. Notandum enim, mori pro aliquo dupliciter accipi. Vel enim significat velle salutem alicujus, vel significat velle media conferte adipiscendae salutis.  
Rursus velle salutem alicujus dicitur Deus, vel antecedenti voluntate, vel consequenti, sive absoluta.  
Antecedens voluntas ●ursus vel Molinistice intelligitur, ut sit idem quod conditionata illa quam rejicimus; vel Thomistice, ut nihil sit aliud quam ea Dei voluntas qua Deus vult quidquid fieri justum & aequum est, quicquid per se● & absolute bonum est. Hanc convenire diximus cum aliusmodi conditionata voluntate.  
His positis, claret Christum multis modis dici posse mortuum pro salute omnium omnino hominum, & maxime fidelium reproborum. Primum enim sufficiens pretium pro omnibus obtulit. Deinde in nova lege sacramenta divinae gratiae fontes, & quasi poculum quoddam, ut ait Prosper, immortalitatis Deus omnibus proponit: & in veteri nusquam opem suam ex futuris Christi meritis defluentem implorantibus subtraxit. 3. Antecedenti illa voluntate vellet omnes ad Ecclesiam suam aspirare, a peccatis recedere, ad misericordiam suam confugere 4. Nusquam non hominibus quaedam adminicula salutis, nunc externa, nunc interna concessit, quibus si male utuntur homines, propria pravitate male utuntur, & contra antecedentem illam Dei voluntatem. Nam quia iniquum est homines sic Dei beneficiis abuti, ideo hoc dicitur Deus nolle, quia non vult malum. Contra autem, quia aequum est homines bene illis uti, ideo dicitur hoc Deus velle. 5. Magis adhuc proprie pro fidelibus reprobis, quia jus eis ad salutem aeternam per baptismum dedit, a quo nonnisi vitio suo & culpa excidunt.  
Hoc unum igitut reprobotum in infidelitate morientium nemini concessit, ut voluntates ipsorum ad se converteret efficaci illa gratia, sine qua propter obstinatam in malo hominum voluntatem, nihil unquam ab ipsis bene fit.  
Hoc unum item nulli fidelium reproborum concedit, ut efficax ipsis perseverantiae donum largiatur. Et tamen hoc ipsum petentibus non negaret; sed ut petant & ita petant ut tes tanta petenda est, occulto quodam judicio non in omnibus opetari voluit, quamvis quod non petant, non ex defectu gratiae, sed ex eorum depravatione nascatur.  
Constat igitur solis electis aeternam salutem, & gratias illas efficaces cam aeterna salute nexas Deum destinasse, & Christum absolute & efficaciter promereri voluisse. Et quia hic voluntatis modus maxime proprius; alius vero non ita proprius, nec omnino reprobis utilis, hinc luculenter Petavius lib. 9 c. 7. n. 9 Pluribus in Leis, inquit, Augustinus negat Deum velle omnes salvos fieri, sed eos tantummodo qui praedestinati sunt ad viam. Et paulo post; Quapropter utcunque de illa communi voluntate Dei statuatur, ac sive Augustinum ex slimes quandam in Deo volantatem agnovisse, qui a universam hominum massam l●berare & ad salutem provehere studuerit quantum erat in se; sive nullam erga re robos talem habuisse concedas; nihilominus hoc de quo solo pugnamus ex illius ment constabit, longe diversam, electis salvandis ac lib●randis, quam de reprobis in illo voluntatem extitisse. At ex ipso manifestum est sequi non ex meritorum varietate dsparem in autrosque salvandos voluntatem extitisse; sed cica electos absolutam & gratuitam: in reprobos vero nonnisi conditionatam, & quam velleitatem vocant, tanquam ita concipi●tur: Vellem istos salvare, nisi eos p●imi parentis culpa odi●sos & execrabiles fec●sset. Absolutam vero de iisdem damnandis ob illud originale delictum, voluntatem & sententiam fu sse. Et infra ex multis Augustini locis hanc consecutionem elicit: Igitur Augustinus arbitratus est non omnes velle salvos esse Deum, sed quosdam nolle salvos esse, non quia ipsi nolunt, sed quia Deus non vult, ut ipse diserte ait, Epist. 107.  
Postremo idem Petav●us de Valentini Concilii circa Christi mortem decreto ita joquitur: Canone, inquit, 4. Valentini Patres reprehendunt eorum errorem qui dicunt Christum pro omnibus imp●is quia mundi exordio usque ad Passionem Domini in sua impietate mortui aterna damnatione puniti sunt, & statuunt. PRO EIS TANTUM ID FECISSE QUI AETERNAM VITAM CONSEQUUNTUR.  
Habent Jesuitae propositionem damnatae quintae propositioni plane aequivalentem abuno ex suis pr●latam; Ch●istus pro iis solum sanguinem fudit, qui aeternam vitam censequuntur. Nullam ejusmodi in toto Jansenii libro invenire ita crudam possunt, ut fortasse quisquam suspicari possit librum Petavii pro Jansenii libro Innocentio X. obtrusum fuisse. Nec tamen ita sum inquus, ut Petavium propterea censeam errorem qui in illis verbis includi posset, etiam tradidisse. Hoc solum Jesuitas monitos volo; si iniquum sit quintam propositionem in Petavium conferri, apud quem saiutem extant illius verba, quanto iniquius in Jansenium, ubi nec ipsa ejus verba comparent!   

ARTICULUS. IX.  
Conclusio.  
HAEC sunt quae de methodo istius quaestionis expediendae in utramque partem disputando censuimus. Quod si in Molinistarum rationibus referendis breviores fuimus, credant hoc mihi velim, non ideo a me factum, quod eas consulto dissimularim, sed quia non alias inveni quas assererem: in quo ipsorum est aliqua culpa, qui cum tantum e re Ecclesiae judicent esse, omnibus persuadere quinque propositiones e Jansenio decerptas esse, tantumque in auferendis ea de re decrelis diligentiae ponant, contra in astruenda illorum decretorum fide, in erudiendis hominibus indiligentissime se gerant. Haeccine provincia tot minutis scriptoribus relinquenda erat, praesertimque Morellio uni omnium ad hanc causam pro dignitate tractandam, ne quid gravius dicam, minime apto! Quamobrem etsi parum honesta, providentior tamen Corneti ratio uldetur, qui suo suorumque ingenio, & fortasse causae diffisus, quantum potuit semper sequaces suos ab his scripti tandi consiliis de hortatus est. Scilicet sagaciter intellexit ille Molinianus Achitophel quam je junum esset quidquid de hac controversia a suis in lucem promeretur, quamque vix publici juris factum publico omnium contemptu priusquam adversariorum scriptis exploderetur. Ergo ut eos qua valeret aggrederetur, ad clandestinas se molitiones totum contulit; & nobile illud quinque propositionum opus; cujus in Bibliotheca Anti-Janseniana auctor perhibetur, idem primum & postremum esse voluit, laetus ac triumphans quod una pagella plus negotii adversariis suis exhibuit quam omnes Jesuitae & tota Molinianorum Scriptorum natio. Ergo hic unus vere sapit Molinisticas utilitates, caeteri illi scripturientes mera somnia.  
Ab his tamen, si tanta ipsos scribendo libido teneat, puto hac sexta Disquisitione non mediocrem me gratiam iniisse. Certam enim ipsis & unicam ostendi viam, qua expetitas illas propositiones in Jansenio possint invenite, si quidem ibi sint; erraticos excursus in quibus sine fructu expatiantur praecidi, nec ipsos de via errare passus sum. Alacres igitur eam ineant, si quid suae causae confidant, & mihi gratulentur tam certae methodi demonstratori. Nam quod Jansenii defensorum firmamenta latius paulo exposui, ad ipsorum quoque rationem promovendam pertinebit; scilicet haec, quae quoquo modo dissolvenda sunt, si ab ipsis ignorentur, nunquam ad exitum perduci quaestio posset. Nunc autem nudum quasi Jansenistarum latus ostendi, quod ipsi feriant & confodiant, si quid robore, si quid animo valent. Quod si non praestant, jam sibi non aliis imputent, quod utrum in Jansenio sint illae propositiones nec ne, tam multi dubitant. Fidenter hoc assero, quia vere; quamlibet multis Episcoporum summique Pontificis decretis definiri curent propositiones esse in Jansenio, nunquam ullam ab eruditis hoc pacto fidem impetrabunt, multorumque potius diffidentiam augebunt. Non enim ad has persuadendi vias quisquam confugit, nisi quem rationes deficiunt. Alia prorsus facti quaestonum, alia fidei ratio; in his auctoritas Ecclesiae valet plurimum, in illis autem ne auctoritatem quidem suam interponere debet, sed illas ad praestitutos ipsis a Deo & natura judices, sensus nempe rationemque remittere. Vere enim & prudenter Habertus illustrissimus Vabrensis Episcopus in facti quaestione ab Innocentio III. dissientiens, In hujusmodi, inquit, rebus ad verum semper redeundum est. Ergo quantumcunque nunc Theologi novi servitii jugo premantur, quantumcunque omnium ora intentaris terroribus obstruantur, erumpet tamen aliquando oppressa libertas, intelligentque tandem reipsa horum consiliorum auctores, vim, terrores, minas, parum idoneas ad persuadendas facti questiones esse methodos, nec minus rationem cogi non posse, quam voluntatem.  
VI Kal. Decembris. Ann. MDCLVII.    
FINIS.   

THE. DECLARATION OF Monsieur SINNIGH Doctor of LOUVAIN, (mentioned Part 6. Chap. 1.) concerning some audiences which he had whilst he was at Rome, of the Pope's VRBAN VIII. and INNOCENT X. and of some Cardinals, touching the book of my L. the Bp. of IPRE.  
An Advertisement touching this Piece.  
'tTWAS not my design but chance and necessity that I was obliged to retrench this piece of the Collection from those which I had promised in my journal, and to insert it in this place. I had not disposed of it in this manner, but because not finding it among the rest whilst they were at the press, nor knowing how to procure it timely enough to have it printed in its right order, it was necessary to seek a place for it elsewhere. Yet it seems to have so great affinity with what is treated of in this sixth Disquisition, as if it could not have any more natural than this; and that chance has in this case done what ought to have been done by choice and discretion.  
IN nomine Domini, Amen. Anno Incarnationis Dominicae millesimo sexcentesimo quadradragesimo septimo, indictione decima quinta, Pontificatus sanctissimi in Christo Patris ac Domini nostri D. Innocentii divina providentia Papae decimi anno tertio, mensis Frebruarii die vigesima secunda, coram me Notario publico, & testibus infra nominandis constitutus ac personaliter comparens eximius Dominus johannes Sinnigh, sacra Thelogiae in Academia Lovaniensi Doctor & Professor ordinarius, Collegii majoris Theologici Praeses, nuper pro parte ejusdem Academiae, & Illustrissimorum Ordinum Brabantiae ad Sedem Apostolicam deputatus, affirmavit, & interposito juramento asseveravit, quod in audientia quam a felilicis recordationis Urbano octavo summo Pontifice obtinuit die vigesima sexta Novembris millesimi sexcentesimi quadragesimi tertii sub horam nonam antemeridianam, idem sanctissimus Dominus Urbanus Pontifex vivae vocis oraculo dixerit ipsi Domino Comparenti, praesentibus clarissimo D. Cornelio Papio, & venerabili D. Petro Vercanteren, tria sequentia: primo se per Bullam seu Constitutionem suam occasione libri. D. Jansenii Episcopi Iprensis, & aliorum opusculorum super eadem materia utrinque editorum evulgatam, non aliud intendisse quam confirmare Bullam Pii V. a Gregorio XIII. pridem confirmatam: secundo, se cavisse ne ista sua Bulla seu Constitutione, ullus in particulari sugillaretur cum expressione nominis: tertio, non fuisse intentionis suae per istam Bullam seu Constitutionem procreate ullum praejudicium doctrinae B. Augustini, & eos qui contrarium asserere praesumerent compescendos esse. Cumque D. Comparens ad secundum replicasset mirum esse quomodo nomen Jansenii irrepserit in Bullam contra praedictam cautelam a sua Sanctitate adhibitam, sanctissimus D. respondit agendum esse de ea re cum D. Praelato Albisio compilatore Bullae. Insuper idem D. Comparens similiter affirmavit, & mediante juramento asseveravit, se die vigesima octava Aprilis millesimi sexcentesimi quadragesimi quarti, auditum fuisse personaliter & verbaliter cum praenominato clarissimo D. Papio a tribus Eminentissimis S. R. E. Cardinalibus, Spada, Pamphilio, & Falconerio, assisten●ibus praefato Praelato Albisio & Abbate S. Crucis in Jerusalem, nomine Hilarione, ibique inter alia multa dixisse, se paratum esse sub beneplacito sanctissimi D. Papae, & Eminentiarum suarum, ostendere imprimis omnia puncta doctrinae de gratia & libero arbitrio inter Jansenium & ipsius aemulos modo controversa, coincidere cum punctis olim inter Augustinum ejusque aemulos controversis: secundo, argumenta quibus Jansenii doctrina modo ab aemulis impetitur, coincidere argumentis quibus Pelagiani & eorum asseclae olim in Augustini doctrinam arietarunt: tertio, calumnias quas modo ab aemulis Jansenius patitur, coincidere cum iis quas olim in vita & post obitum passus fuerat Augustinus: Paratum praeterea se esse ad comburendum publice in campo Florae librum Iansenii in eventum quo in praedictorum probatione defecerit. Addidit postremo idem D. Comparens, & sub juramento similiter asseveravit, se haec eadem in substantia repetiisse coram sanctissimo D. nostro Innocentio X. ad Pontificatum jam evecto, idque die quinta Novembris ejusdem anni millesimi sexcentesimi quadragesimi quarti in prima audientia ab eodem obtenta in porticu palalatii Vaticani, ubi cum ipso ultra mediam horam deambulans circa horam tertiam pomeridianam, prolixe super praemissis disseruit. Acta sunt haec anno, indictione, Pontificatu, mense, die quibus supra, praesentibus in majori Collegio Theologorum Lovanii Dominis & Magistris Ioanne Cuvelier, & jacobo Bodart Presbyteris & Sacrae Theologiae Baccalaureis formatis, testibus ad praemissa vocatis atque rogatis. Minutae hujus subscripsit idem eximius D. Comparens juxta signaturam meii Notarii.  
And below was written: Quod attestor ad praemissa Notarius. Signed thus: Walt Ʋander Waterfort Notarius publicus. with a Knot.   

The MANUSCRIPT concerning the affair of Monsi'r GRIMANI Patriarch of Aquileia.  
The more I have read this Manuscript, the more considerable I have found it for the clearing of the matters at this day controverted in the Church. Wherhfore not doubting but they who shall read what I say of it in Chap. 9 Part 4. of the journal, will be contented to read it at length, I have thought fit to place it at the end of this Collection.  
The affair of the most illustrious and Reverend Grimani Patriarch of Aquileia, judged in his favour in the Sacred Council of Trent, under the Pontificate of our H. F. Pope Pius 4. Septemb. 18. 1653. touching a letter written by the said Patriarch to the Vicar of Oudene.  

The Patriarch's Letter.  
REVEREND VICAR, You writ me word that the Preacher of the Collegiate Church of Oudene hath preached as a constant maxim, that He whom God hath predestinated cannot in any manner be damned, though it come to pass that he falls into sin; because how great soever his fall be, God rescues him from his sin in such sort that he must needs be saved; and in like manner, he whom God hath reprobated, must needs be damned. Whereunto you add these former words, That upon this there arose a great scandal and disturbance among the people, and in yourself, as if he had altogether denied our , whilst he established God's Election and Predestination. And being you tell me that you were unwilling to do any thing for redressing this scandal, without first knowing what I judged of it; therefore to satisfy what my place requires of me, I find myself now obliged to acquaint you withal that God hath given me to know touching this subject by Reading the Holy Scriptures; that so I may supply you with what contentment and consolation I can in this case. To bear testimony therefore to truth, I am obliged to acknowledge that the Proposition advanced by the Preacher and wherewith the people is scandalised, is true & Catholic; namely, that the Predestinated cannot be damned, nor the Reprobate saved. Of which Proposition that I may the more commodiously bring you the proofs, my purpose is to demonstrate to you in the first place by authority of the Scripture, that Predestination and Reprobation depend upon God alone: Next I shall show you that it cannot be hindered neither by God's will, nor by the Devil, nor by ourselves, nor consequently by any whomsoever; & this I shall evince to you, as well by the authority of the Scriptures, as by evident reasons and the Doctrine of S. Augustin; protesting to you that through want of time and memory I cannot set down the thousand part of the truths whereby this Catholic truth may be established.  
But before all things it must be confessed, that if S Paul, that vessel full of the Holy Ghost, writing to the Romans concerning Election and Reprobation, after recital of sundry testimonies touching that matter, cries out at Length, O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God 'tis very just and necessary that we all make the same exclamation with him, and give glory to God; which we are the more obliged to do, inasmuch as we are fare from having such light as that great Apostle. But because our Lord Jesus Christ, according to truth of his unchangeable promises, hath never left his Church deprived of the illumination of the Holy Spirit, to the end this same Spirit might guide us into the knowledge of all truth, and accordingly we having left to us who are his members the seed of his Grace, lest without it we should remain barren and worse than the Children of Sodom, he hath preserved the Holy Ghost for our consolation against errors and the enemies of Grace. 'Tis a firm truth which I now confess, namely, that the predestinated whom God hath chosen according to the good pleasure of his will cannot be damned; and in like manner, that the Reprobated and Rejected cannot be saved. And to make you see that this is true, S. Paul inspired by God, teaches the Church of the Romans and all the world besides the deep secret of Predestination and Reprobation, in these words which he delivers in the ninth Chapter, For all that are of Israel are not Israelites: by which he shows us that the Predestination of the Children was typified in the person of Isaac who was the son of the Promise, to distinguish them from the Reprobates prefigured in the person of Ishmael the son of the flesh. And 'tis upon this account that he saith to Galatians, speaking of those two children, Cast out the bondwoman and her child, for the Son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the Son of the Freewoman. And to make the Argument stronger, the Apostle proves the Doctrine of Election and Reprobation in the persons of two Twins, of whom he saith, that before they were born, and had done either good or evil, that the decree of God might stand fast according to his election, it was said of the one, not according to the merit of his works, but according to the calling of God, that the Elder shall serve the Younger, as it is written, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated. You see how clearly S. Paul shows that he not only acknowledges Predestination and Reprobation, but acknowledges the same in such sort, that as he saith himself, God endures some with great patience, who are vessels of wrath, reserved for destruction, to the end he may show his wrath and make his power known, as also make known the Riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy who are fitted for glory. Whence it is clear that S. Paul applies Predestination and Reprobation particular and determinate to persons, as S. Augustin hath acknowledged in innumerable places of his works. Nevertheless we must not persuade ourselves that God may be accused of any kind of Injustice, being the universal Potter, who of the same lump of clay is able to make one vessel for honourable and another for contemptible uses. Wherhfore it must be concluded that Predestination and Reprobation come from God alone, as well because the Scripture affirms it, S. Paul confesses it plainly in this and many other places, as because it cannot draw its original from any natural principles, being, as it is, wholly Divine and spiritual, and depending only on the free promises which God hath made to us. It is easy now to perceive that this Predestinaton being an order established upon God himself, and not upon a created thing, it cannot be in any sort hindered by himself, since he saith by the Prophet, I am God and change not: much less can he contradict himself; which caused S. Paul to say, The gifts and callings of God are not subject to repentance. And if the calling (I mean the internal) which the Apostle writing to Timothy, terms holy, and saith was made not in regard of our works, but according to the decree of his will, be a thing of which God never reputes, than a fortiori must he never repent of the Election which he makes of us, it preceding this calling. This caused the Lord Jesus Christ to say to his Apostles, Rejoice not in that you do miracles, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven. As if he should say, If you have a mind to rejoice, rejoice not for things which you must shortly part with, how high and glorious soever they be; but I show you a ground of joy which you shall never lose, because your names are written in heaven; that is, one me rests & depends your felicity, which can never fail you. S. john confirms the same thing in his Revelation when he discribes the elected by the number of twelve thousand of every Tribe, who were entered in the book of life, and he saith they were marked, not with any other mark then that of the blood of Jesus Christ; which shows that they were no more to pass through Death, because otherwise his revelation would rather fill our hearts with confusion & trouble then with peace & consolation; and the fruit of the Redeemer's blood would not be an assured and stable thing. Besides this, the Prophet saith in Psalm 64. Blessed is the man whom thou choosest and causest to approach unto thee, he shall abide in thy house. And in sundry places of the Gospel, it is said, All these things were done that the Scripture might be fulfilled. And this Scripture is no other thing but the words of the Prophets illuminated by God. Why should we give less to God than a Prophet who is one of his servants? God's Predestination is nothing else but his Prophecy; that is to say, 'tis impossible things should come to pass otherwise then he hath foreseen them from all eternity. Besides that by his overseeing things (I speak now of such as are holy and good) he causes that they exist, through his mercy, goodness and supreme Justice. We must not therefore wonder, that, as the Psalm, saith the chosen and Predestinated cannot but be happy, because, it saith, he shall dwell in God's house; and this, as well because God hath foretold it as for that he will also cause it to be so.  
As for Satan, certainly he cannot hinder this Predestination, because the determinate number of the Elect, who could not be damned, was typified by the people of Israel, when God commanded the destroying Angel to slay all those whose doors he found not marked with the blood of the Lamb. If then the dead blood of animals had the virtue to preserve the people from bodily death in the day of God's anger, why shall we not confess that the living blood of Jesus Christ wherewith he hath marked his children from all eternity hath a much greater & effectual power to deliver from the Eternal death of the soul all those whom God hath already appointed to be of the number of his children? This is proved by the testimony of Jesus Christ, in S. john chap 10. where he speaks of the sheep that are of his flock, and of those which are not of it. Our Saviour in that place saith of those who are not of it. Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. But of those that belonged unto himself, he saith, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. If you consider and weigh all these words, you will be constrained to confess that God's elect cannot be damned, as in like manner the reprobate cannot be saved.  
But because I have, as far as the time permits, sufficiently proved by these few authorityes and reasons, which yet are of great moment to such as will consider them sincerely, that Election can neither be frustrated by God nor the Devil; not by God, because he is not contrary to himself, nor by the Devil, because our Lord Jesus Christ defends and maintains it with his blood; besides that himself saith in the 17. chapter of S. John, speaking of all his Disciples, I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me. If then the power of the Son be equal to that of the Father, and if the Father never denied him any thing, because he always found in him the object of his aquiescence or complacencies, who can say that there is any who can condemn the Children of God? The Devil indeed may torment them, persecute them, and sometimes too reduce them almost to Death; but they perish not, because God put his hand under them, and raises them up. But our Lord speaking of Judas who was a reprobate, saith in the same place, None of them is lest, but the Son of Perdition, that the Scripture (to wit the prophecy in the 109th. Psalms) might be fulfilled. Certainly if the Scripture must be fulfilled, then 'tis necessary that the Reprobate cannot be saved, because he is the Son of perdition; and the Son can never vary from the nature he received from his Father. To which purpose our Saviour saith, Ye are of your father the Devil, because ye do his works. These are properly they whom God never looks upon in Jesus Christ with an eye of divine mercy; such was Judas but not S. Peter; for our Saviour looked upon him, to the end he might not despair after he had so lamentably renounced his Master.  
It remains now that I show, that Predestination cannot be hindered or frustrated on our part; of which this is the reason: Because when God elects and predestinates us in Jesus Christ, he doth it without being necessitated thereunto; but by his own and free pleasure, to which none makes resistance; as 'tis said by the Prophet, Lord who shall resist the heat of tsty countenance? Moreover he elects us miserable men and not happy, poor and not rich, sinners and not righteous, naked and not clothed. And because all this is done by Divine goodness with a great and infinite love, he doth not elect us barely to abandon us afterwards, and leave us free in the hands of our own counsels, because he well knows that if he should leave us we should presently return to our first state; but in consequence of his Divine election he gives us in time all the graces which were included in that election. First, he prepares our wills that they may be fit to receive divine inspirations; he comforts and strengthens us in temptations, that we fall not into perdition; he give us faith, hope, and charity, to the end that with these weapons we may encounter & overcome our enemies; and in a word he furnishes us with all his benefits. Towards those whom Gods receives for his children, he deporteth himself as a Master would do, who seeing a poor miserable man destitute of all relief, knocked down in the high way, wounded and disserted by all the world, would be stirred by natural compassion to take him up and make him his beloved and faithful servant. It cannot be said that it is enough for this miserable person that man has done him the favour to choose him for his servant, because for all this, he might remain in the highway as much as ever exposed to his former miseries. Certainly if he means to give him any true testimony of his affection, he must not think it enough that he has chosen him for his servant, but he must carry him into his house, cause his wounds to be dressed, give him clothes, and do him new favours. But God's love is much more powerful than man's natural affection; for this can express itself only in outward benefits, but God not only gives us corporal goods most plentifully, but also lifts us up even above heaven with the spiritual gifts which he is able to bestow upon us, to the end that being clothed with a new spirit we may appear in God's eyes honourable servants; not ungrateful for the numerous benefits which we receive. And this is the cause that these servants, who acknowledge themselves to be of the number of his children, work always with love and not with fear.  
By these Reasons it is evinced that we cannot withstand God's Election. Hear the authorityes of Scripture which confirm the same thing S. Paul in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Ephesians speaks in this manner; Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before h●m in love: Hav●ng predestinated us into the adoption of Children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved: In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence: Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in himself, etc. This authority alone heard with the ear of the mind and not with that of the flesh, is sufficient to resolve and clear all the doubt which can arise from the Proposition advanced by their Preacher: & in truth, every one of these words (since they are so many words of the H. Ghost) ought to be more valuable to us then a thousand worlds, because we see appear in them so illustriously the greatness, goodness, compassion and mercy of God towards us, and particularly because thy give us to know, to our great comfort, that those who are predestinated and the children of God, can never perish, in regard they are elected in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world. Therefore he that is Elected, is founded upon Jesus Christ; and who is founded upon Jesus Christ can never fall, because Jesus Christ is the rock and unmoveable foundation against which the power of the Devil cannot prevail, as neither can it prevail against the structure built up of living stones which is the Holy Church and the determinate number of the Elect. This is further manifested by the Parable of the House built upon the sand, which falls at the least blast of wind, and that which is built upon a rock which cannot in any manner be shaken by the most impetuous storms. Moreover S. Paul addeth and saith that God hath chosen us in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. You see that Predestination regards as its proportionate object the good and holy works which God prepares for us that we may walk therein; to enable us whereunto, he hath left in the Church his Holy Spirit, which as a hidden but strong fire burns up all that it finds impure and superfluous, and more and more inflames the hearts of his elect with holy and chaste desires, so that they remain wholly cleansed when they are washed from the pollutions of this world. There is none but may and aught to acknowledge this Predestination of the Saints, whereof no other reason can be given but the good pleasure of God's will, which S. Paul expresses in the abovecited place, and S. Peter in the first chapter of the first of his Epistles; and all the Prophets both of the old and new Testament have likewise acknowledged this gift in the Elect, insomuch that the light of the Sun is not more bright than that of these divine testimonies.  
Let there be no mention therefore of those false, pitiful and forced consequences by which some pretend, as is above observed, that  is destroyed by God's gratuitions election, and that man remains like a stock or a stone; as S. Paul witnesss it fell out in his time, that what he preached for the advantage of Grace, was construed to establish the liberty of the flesh; as if it had been lawful for every one to do evil, that Grace might become more abundant; which is a damnable inference. These are the consequences drawn by those who are unwilling to give God all the honour which is due to him, or would share half of what belongs to Christ alone, and who know not the exceeding mercy which hath been shown to us by the death of the Son of God, who willing to manifest to us the deep misery of our bondage, exemplifyed in himself what is the true liberty of his Children, and afterwards taught the same with his own mouth, when he saith, If the Son make you free, you shall be free indeed. Wherefore we ought to know that Predestination does not deprive the Elect of their , but gives, procures and preserves the same to them; it does not force or use violence to any man, but he causes the Will to incline itself to good, and voluntarily and sweetly. Whence we see by experience, that there is nothing in the world more free, or whose power is greater than that of a good Christian, since his liberty extends over all things, even to the death of sin and his own, and that nothing can do any prejudice to him, provided, as S. Paul speaks, Christian liberty be not turned into a Carnal liberty; and if it happen sometimes that he falls into sin, he finds that saying of the Scripture verified in himself, that all things, even sins too, turn to the advantage of those that love God. Now this I speak after S. Augustin, and it must be taken in this sense, that the sins whereinto a Predestinated man hath suffered himself to fall, serve him for an occasion to recurre unto God whom he hath deserted, to deplore and repent of his sin, and to become better by it continually, always knowing more and more the death which arises from sin, and the life which Jesus Christ gives. 'Tis true indeed, in the Reprobate,  is not at all serviceable towards the attaining of eternal life, as S. Augustin writing to Simplician saith, liberum arbitrium plurimum valet; imo vere qu idem: sed in venundatis sub peccato quid valet?  
And in a few lines after, the same Father saith, Praecipitur ut recte vivamus; sed quis potest recte vivere nisi justificatus ex fide? You see, this holy man did not conceive as some do at this day, that 'tis a horrible thing to affirm that Freewill is not sufficient to bring us to salvation; he is so far from it, that he wholly condemns  without Grace in reference to merit and justification, as plainly appears throughout all his works. Let us likewise forsake that fleshly Presumption, which makes it strange that our Salvation is not in the power of our own ; because those are happy whose salvation is in the Hands of God, and they most unhappy who depend upon themselves: This is what S. Paul teaches us from that passage in the 33d. chapter of Exodus, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will shew mercy. Wherefore 'tis not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. Yet must it not be said that the Apostle in this place denies and impugns the cooperation of our Will; but he refers all the glory to God who powerfully solicits and invites the wills of those that believe. Whence it is that he complains by the Prophet of that hardened people which would not obey the voice of God who called them and desired to draw them to himself and gather them under his wings, as a Hen gathereth her Chickens. 'tis true, that as no other cause can be given of Predestination and Reprobation but God's will guided by his ineffable justice, as S. Augustin speaks; so 'tis our faults and iniquities which are the cause of our damnation; and this is what the Scripture saith in those words, Thy destruction is from thyself, O Israel, but thy salvation is of me.  
You understand all that I have written to confirm the first Proposition whereat you took scandal, That the Predestinated cannot be damned, nor the Reprobate saved: and I could not do it better than by the word of God which divides the spirit from the soul. But to the end that you and every one else may be assured that I have cited the Holy Scriptures faithfully, I shall hereunto add the sentiment of S. Augustin that pillar of the Church, taken out of Sundry places of his works concerning this matter. And in the first place to let you see that 'tis his opinion that the Predestinated cannot be damned, nor the Reprobate saved, see what he saith in the Third Tome, in his book De fide ad Petrum, cap. 25. Firmissime tene & nullatenus dubites omnes quos vasa misericordiae gratuita▪ bonitate Deus fecit, ante mundi constitutionem in adoptionem filiorum Dei praedestinatos a Deo; neque perire posse aliquem eorum quos Deus praedestinavit ad regnum caelorum, nec quemquam eorum quos non praedestinavit ad vitam, ulla posse ratione salvari: Praedestinatio illa gratuita donationis est praeparatio qua nos Apostolus ait praedestinatos in adoptionem filiorum Dei per Jesum Christum in ipsum. See now whether this H. Doctor did not understand the above cited passage of the Epist. to the Ephesians as I do, & confess that what is contained therein is not the imagination of any man, but a truth dictated by the H. Ghost. Therefore the H. Doctor doth not hesitate in the matter, but saith, Firmissime tene. He confirms the same thing in his commentary upon the 69. Psalm, at the 28. verse where it said, Let them be blotted out of the book of the living. And in another place, writing against Julian, he hath these express words Absit enim ut praedestinatus ad vitam sine s●cramento Mediatoris finire permittatur hanc vitam. And to conclude, let the 106. Epistle ad Paulinum Episcopum be read, and according to the Maxims contained in those writings, it will appear what is to be believed concerning those who belong to eternal life, and those who do not: because by the authority of this great Saint, to whom the Church is infinitely obliged, every one will bring the most attentive ears and eyes to read and contemplate the verityes of the Holy Scriptures, by humbling himself & praying God to discover to him the sense of the Scriptures. Wherhfore since the goodness of God hath manifested to us in the Church so many ways the predestination of the Elect, and the Holy Doctors and Preachers, amongst the rest S. Augustin that great light and powerful mawl of heretics, having always acknowledged it, I cannot but affirm with them that it ought to be taught and preached in the Church: yet it must be spoken of with wisdom, to the end it may be understood without Scandal and embraced; because we may contemplate therein as in a living mirror, and understand and penetrate by faith the high counsels of God, and what he resolved from all eternity concerning his Son and his Members, both as to remission of sins and preparation of glory for his Elect. By this means the spirit of Satan can never draw a consequence as impious as false, which was heretofore broached in the Church by some corrupt members who separated from it, and is again revived at this time: If God, say they, hath Predestinated some & Reprobated others, it will undoubtedly come to pass that the former shall be saved and the others damned. Whence they conclude, that whether they do good or evil, their salvation & damnation will come to pass by necessity: and they make use of these arguments for a liberty of continual sinning, since God, say they, hath already determined either to save or to damn them; and so they voluntarily give themselves up to be abused by the Devil who transforms himself into an Angel of light, that they may extinguish that word and seed by which he must be at length overcome and wholly destroyed. Yet these wretches perceive not that if God hath manifested for his Church the great mystery of Predestination which was hidden from ages passed, they ought rather to strive to make the holy calling of God sure by his mercy and the means of good works, then to show by their bad, that they are sons of the Devil, since if natural light teach us that we never ought to offend such a friend as out of charity would, to recover our earthly liberty, readily put himself into our place, and bestow his money to repair our misfortunes; how can the uncreated light of the Holy Spirit but teach us that being the Son of God died for the Elect, and saith they cannot perish, it is not lawful to commit evil wilfully by offending a friend so full of goodness, and a brother so affectionate, upon an impious opinion concerning Predestination; and like the perfidious Jews to crucify the Blessed Jesus for our damnation instead of being crucified with him for our salvation! The faithful Christian must never make profession of being a sinner, but he ought to acknowledge before God and men that he is a miserable sinner, and with continual repentance amend his bad life and reform his sins, because being become a child of God by regeneration, he must never enter into the works of the servants of sin; for he that commits sin is the servant thereof; and if it happen that he fall sometimes, he must rise again with more vigour, and thus every moment become a greater and more irreconcilable enemy to sin. As we see in the world, a Child of great quality never betakes himself to the servile offices in his Father's house which belong only to the lowest vassals, and if it sometimes happens that he put his hand thereunto, he presently draws it away again because he understands what ignominy and damage would ensue to him in case he should consume his life therein.  
I am come to the conclusion of what I had to say to you concerning these things, of which should I go about to speak as much as their dignity requires, great labour and study would not be sufficient: I mean, to exercise one's self, and not to manifest the truth, which is comprised in few words, because the Lord hath made a short work upon the earth. 'Tis sufficient to children that the eternal Father discover his will to them by the least sign, because they embrace it presently without many proofs; and to the end it may be preserved in them, he hath not left a more effectual pledge then that of his H. Spirit, whom I most humbly beseech to dispel the darkness of our ignorance, and fill the Elect with divine light, for which we are bound always to render infinite thanks. This is all I have to say to to you. The Lord God comfort you.  
From Venice the 17th. of April. 1549. John Patriarch of Aquileia.   

The Apology of the most Illustrious Patriach of AQILEIA for the Letter Preceding.  

I. PROPOSITION.  
He hath preserved the seed of his Grace, to the end we should not remain unfruitful; he hath preserved the H. Spirit for our consolation against errors and the enemies of grace.  

ANSWER.  
The name of the H. Spirit sent by the Father and the Son (who is the fountain of truth, and in whom I have written those things which are written in my little Tract of predestination) being first called upon, I explain the first Proposition extracted out of the said Tract, and term these enemies of Grace, who of what quality and condition soever they be, disparage and despise that free gift of God, perverting the holy things of God to the desires of the flesh; whom S. Augustine frequently impugns, and whom I thought fit to encounter in that Discourse. Moreover I call such the enemies of Grace, who I hear write and teach that salvation can accrue to those whom God hath not predestinated. And lastly, I term enemies of Grace not only the Pelagians who live amongst us at this day, but also those who are gone, and whom S. Cyprian, according to S. Augustin's testimony, overcame and routed long before they sprung up.    

II. PROPOSITION.  
Predestination is of God only, both because the Scripture affirms the same, and S. Paul teaches as much manifestly in this and divers other places, as because it depends not upon natural principles, being wholly divine and spiritual, and depending only upon the free promise which God hath made to us.  

ANSWER.  
Predestination is from God alone, because nothing hath preceded in Eternity God's will predestinating and reprobating. Therefore no efficient cause of it can be assigned besides the divine William. It is written in the 9 h. chapter to the Romans, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated. Which place I understand in the same sense as S. Augustin, S. Thomas and the Master of the sentences understood it. And predestination is here taken absolutely, not for it effects; neither is  therefore destroyed but operates in its time and place freely, meritoriously and without coaction, as I speak clearly concerning the same in my said Writing, so fare as the scantness of the time permitted. Nor do I deny that the goodness of God, who hath purposed to show mercy or not to show mercy, as I have noted in my Tract, is the cause why God predestinates or reprobates. And lastly I do not reject the use of  which serves to the obtaining of sanctifying grace, when God gives the same to the predestinate, to the end that using it well he may merit glory.  
Which being so, it may be truly said that predestination depends only upon the promises which God hath made to us. Nor will there be any contradiction in this, although predestination should be taken here for its effects which draw their original and their force from the merits of Jesus Christ, which grace confers upon us in consequence of the Promises made to those that believe in him. What I say concerning the promises, we learn out of the 11th. and 36th. chapter of Ezekiel, the 32d. of Jeremiah and many places of S Paul's Epistles: and S. Peter teaches us that all things which appertain to life and godliness are promised and given us by the almighty power of God; so that good works themselves are part of the promises which God hath made to us. I will give you an heart of flesh (saith the Prophet) and will take away the heart of stone, and will cause you to do, etc.  
He hath given us a strong assurance of his promises. God is become our debtor because he hath pleased to make his promise to us. We have therefore in the H. Scripture a most ample witness of the Divine promises. Yet do not these promises destroy  or hinder from concurring meritoriously to good works. S. Augustin in the third Treatise upon S. John is of this opinion; That life Eternal is given us only by grace: which would be false, if S. Augustine's words were not considered with reference to the original of this life, because they would take away meritorious works. And S. Paul, Life Eternal is a grace of God, and grace for grace. Which place he understands and expounds, as the grace which God hath done us in Electing us to eternal life, being the cause of the grace which he doth us in giving us good works which may merit the same. This opinion therefore doth not exclude , which, as I said before, is established in my Treatise, much less good works, but rather includes and requires above all things both  and good Works.    

III. PROPOSITION.  
Speaking of the Reprobate, that he cannot be saved because he is the Son of perdition, as our Saviour saith. The Son cannot disclaim the nature which he hath received from his Father; and therefore Jesus Christ saith, Ye are of your father the Devil, because ye do his works; and these are properly they whom God never beholds in Jesus Christ with an eye of mercy.  

ANSWER.  
Our Saviour calls the perfidious and obstinate, sons of perdition, all that time the Jews were murderers and persecutors of the truth. Which place I alluded to, and called them sons of perdition because our Saviour so termed them; Ye are of your father the Devil, because ye do his works. I say the same, and no more. But they who are not destinated simply and properly to eternal life, nor written in the book of life, although they may appear to be the Children of God, nevertheless they are the Children of the Devil, by imitation and not by substance, as S. Augustin speaks. This I said in reference to their last end of damnation and final impenitence which God foreknows, and always foreknew most certainly. I said that God never looks upon them with the eye of his mercy though a most just and incomprehensible judgement; as I said it was in Judas, whom Pope S. Leo in his Sermon of the Lords passion calls an inconvertible man, (that is, one who could not be converted.) This is the scope at which my words refer, & not to certain intermediate things, not to the justification of the present life in which they may be for some time, and during which God sundry times beholds Judas and other reprobates with his eye of mercy, namely when they do well and are upright.    

IV. PROPOSITION.  
God doth not elect us, only to relinquish and leave us in the hand of our own Counsels, because he well knows into what condition we would soon b●ing ourselves; but in consequence of his election he makes appear in due time all the gifts which were comprehended in his Election.  

ANSWER.  
If I knew sufficiently where the doubt concerning this fourth Proposition lies, perhaps I should better explain my mind. My intention was to say, that God bestows many gifts upon the Elect who by peculiar love are under the divine care, as is seen by the following words where I say that God prepares a right or good will for us according to the testimony of the Apostle, 'Tis God that works in us to will and to do; and the rest which follows, to which I refer. Therefore God doth not leave his Elect destitute without Grace, nor in the hand of their own counsels. Nor do I design hereby to contradict the saying of the Wiseman in any wise, (for it would be ridiculous so to do) Deum reliquisse hom●nem in manu consiliorum suorum. But all that I intended to signify by it, is, that God leaves not  in his Elect without assisting it by his Grace, and that it being assisted thereby, happily performs all the things which are enumerated in my Treatise. S. Augustin patronizes this opinion in abundance of places. And I desire the Reader not to believe that I here make  to be necessitated or compelled; for this would be an injury to truth. In the same Treatise I dispute against such as follow the false lights of a perverse spirit and reason in the model which they form to themselves of the holy gift of predestination; whilst through negligence and malice they refer the greatest liberty of  assisted by God to a shameful and damnable necessity contrary to the express doctrine of all the Doctors, and principally of S. Augustin, which Father is the most terrible to those kind of people. Wherhfore I conclude with the truth received in the Church and with the authority of the same S. Augustin, That predestination doth not take away Free-will but rather establish it; as I have said expressly in my Treatise, to which I refer the Reader.    

V. PROPOSITION.  
And in like manner cannot prevail against the structure built with living stones which is the H. Church and the determinate number of the Elect.  

ANSWER.  
In this Proposition those things which precede and follow in my Treatise, must be considered, because otherwise naked and mutilated clauses beget obscurity. In confirmation of Predestination and its strength, I cited the divine authority of S. Paul to the Ephesians, where that instrument of the H. Ghost lays open all the benefits which God hath prepared for the Predestinate. His words are clear, and gave me occasion to say (as I did) that Satan cannot prevail against the structure built with living stones, which Edifice is the H. Church and the determinate number of the Elect. And what I said herein is grounded upon the Parable taken out of the mouth of Truth itself. Who knows not (as S. Paul saith) that the Devil hath no power against God's Elect? Nevertheless 'tis not to be denied that the Devil sometimes prevails against the Elect; for indeed he often prevails through their negligence and corruption. But what is this to my expression which hath reference to that oracle of S. John, chapter 10. My sheep shall never perish; My Father which gave them me is greater than all: and no man is able to pluck them out of my hand: Therefore, against these Predestinate, who are the Subject of my Treatise, I said Satan cannot prevail in that manner which our Saviour and other holy and Catholic Authors understand; yet do I not therefore infer any necessity or compulsion upon the , as if it acted no more than a piece of wood or a stone. I only touched this matter by the way, and could not speak more largely off it in so little time; which was the cause that speaking of this Edifice built with living stones, I called it the Church and the determinate number of the Elect, yet not excluding the Universal Church, (which would have been the discouse of an extravagant and senseless person denying the clearness of divine light) since we are obliged to acknowledge and believe firmly the H. Catholic Church diffused throughout the whole world under one Head in Heaven, Jesus Christ (as S. Paul saith) and under his lawful Vicar, who is another Head on the Earth of the same Universal Church. But I thus termed the H. Church, the structure built with living stones, because it may be so called, although this Church be invisible; since S. Augustin calls it so in the fifth book against the Donatists, and S. Bernard upon the Canticles, chap. 23. and 68 The Elect are gathered into this Church by faith, charity, and the Sacraments, as in the visible and militant Church the Elect and the other Faithful are united by the same bonds; and although some of them departed from charity, yet if they fall not from the Catholic faith, they cease not to be and to remain in the same Church.    

VI PROPOSITION.  
And to enable us to do it, he hath left his H. Spirit in the Church, which with a secret but powerful fire burns up what ever it finds impure and superfluous, and more and more inflames the hearts of his Elect with holy and chaste desires, so that they become most purified when they are cleansed from the pollutions of this world.  

ANSWER.  
I proceeded in declaring the blessings and favours of God upon the Elect, since the H. Spirit is given to them for the purging away of their sins, and inflaming their minds with pure thoughts, which are the source of the good works which flow forth to the sanctifying of God, so that they become most purified. Which truth is not to be understood of all the Predestinate: but we must believe that this is effected in some who may become most pure according to the state of the present life, & may advance happily from virtue to virtue, as S. Paul notes in his Epistles. S. Augustin useth the same word in his first book de Trinitate when he saith that the most purified minds [purgatissimae mentes] are able to behold the Supreme Good. I say most purified as to the affections of the will, and not only as to the thoughts of the mind [quantum ad affectum, non selum ad intellectum] as S. Bonaventure expounds it. But to conclude how I might say this, S. Thomas must be consulted in scripto quarto super quartum sententiarum, where he speaks of Purgatory, and explains what it is to build upon the foundation wood and stubble; he that compares the works of the perfect with those of the imperfect, and saith that venial sins are burned by the favour of charity, and that we must not say that these sins are the wood and stubble built upon the foundation, because they remain not habitually in them; adding that they are secure, and their remains nothing to be purged in them. Now this my opinion does injury to no body, because 'tis delivered with a condition, and comprehends not all the Elect, as appears manifestly by the sequel and explication of the word; and should it comprehend them all (though I have not affirmed so) what hinders but that I may say that the Elect may become most purified, in the same sense that S. Paul saith there remains no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, and when he requires of a man who would be a perfect Christian to put off the old man with all its lusts?    

VII. PROPOSITION.  
These are Consequences drawn by those who will not give God the honour which is due to him, or those who would divide what belongs to Christ alone, and know not the abundance of his mercy which hath been exhibited to us in the death of Jesus Christ, who willing to show us the misery of our desperate bondage, hath showed in himself what is the true liberty of his Children, and taught it with his own mouth when he saith, If the Son make you free, you shall be free indeed.  

ANSWER.  
I had before rejected the false Consequences which they attribute to Divine Predestination; because things of the greatest truth may be perverted by such Consequences. But now to detest the pride of men who extolling the strength of nature more than they ought, pretend to do good works without the assistance of grace; I speak against those who knowing not what they are without grace, render not to God all the thanks which they ought. Now 'tis to God alone that glory is to be ascribed, because the universal Church sings thus after S. Paul, To God alone the immortal and invisible King be honour and glory. But to understand how I spoke this, there is no more necessary, but to consider the following words in my treatise, where I cite the H. Gospel, If the Son make you free, you shall be free indeed. I say once again that 'tis to God alone that glory ought to be given, nor can any place of Scripture be found wherein this wholesome confession doth not shine. The books of the Prophets are full of it, and the whole Scripture teaches us nothing else. Moreover from this holy and true acknowledgement all blessings arrive to us: the soul falls to reform itself when it humbly considers and sincerely acknowledges before God it own poverty and nakedness without his divine assistance. Nor is any thing derogated from men if they make use of God's grace to act well and to merit, as S. Augustin witnesseth, who saith that to believe and to work are both our act and God's; ours in regard of the liberty of , and Gods by reason of the spirit of Grace. The time would fail me, if I should speak 〈◊〉 that might be spoken in this matter. Wherefore 〈◊〉 shall be contented with those few things which I 〈…〉, and refer myself for the rest to what is to be found in the H. Scripture & Catholic Authors for confirmation of this my opinion, which is more than I am able to transcribe.    

VIII. PROPOSITION.  
'Tis true that in the Reprobate  is not available to the obtaining of salvation, as S. Augustin confesses, writing to Simplician in this manner, Liberum arbitrium plurimum valet; imo vere equidem; sed in venundatis sub peccato quid valet? And a little after, Praecipitur ut recte vivamus; sed quis potest recte vivere nisi justificatus ex fide? Consider here that this H. Man did not think it so horrible a thing as 'tis thought it this day, to say that  is not sufficient to effect our salvation.  

ANSWER.  
Having spoken most advantageously of  assisted by Grace, as may be seen a little before, I added (according to S. August●n's Doctrine after subjoined) that it is not available in such as are sold under sin. This Maxim and the like are found dispersed everywhere in S. Augustin's works; and I understand the same Catholickly, as he did, because  without Grace is absolutely unable to do any good or meritorious action. Without me ye can do nothing, saith the Truth; 'Tis God which works in you both to will and to do, as was above cited. Without preventing Grace we act no good, and without justifying Grace we are not saved.  
But to conclude, I affirm that in this Article I hold the same sense which the H. Church my mother doth, whose sentiment may be seen expressed in most manifest words, in which she saith and decreeth in the second Council of Orange chap. 6. 7. 13. and 14. And as in this Article, so in all I have and always had the same judgement with the H. Church, (out of which I profess most constantly there is no salvation to be hoped) to the praise of Almighty God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to whom as to the benefactor of all, and particularly toward me, I most humbly submit myself. Likewise I submit humbly and sincerely to our H. F. the Pope, and to the judgement of the Catholic Church all that I have said in this short space of time, and in the vehemence of my sorrow, having never had the least thought to recede from the sentiments of the Church, which every one of her Children ought to hold in singular respect and veneration. Blessed be God for ever and ever. Amen.  
Ego Joannes Grimanus Patriarcha Aquiliensis superiorem propositionem ita declaravi in nomine sanctissimae Trinitatis.     

The Supplicate of the Ambassador of FRIULI sent to the most Serene Republic of Venice, about the affair of the most Reverend Patriarch GRIMANI.  
Most serene Prince, and most Illustrious signory,  
WE, the most faithful subjects and servants of your Serenity, sent to you by the Reverend Chapters of Aquileia and Oudenay, by the magnific City of Odenay, and by the magnific Deputies of you Country of Friuli, do with truth assure you that for divers years our Country, our Clergy and our City have not sent their Agents to the feet of your Serenity about a more urgent, necessary and laudable affair than the present, in which the honour of God, and the peace and tranquillity of their consciences being concerned, we have judged the present conjuncture of affairs most favourable for communicating their grievances and needs to your Serenity, to this most Christian Republic, to our most gracious Prince. 'Tis a most advantageous means, most Serene Prince, to show with how great ardour and concord we all desire to testify a perfect and filial obedience and affection not only to your Serenity, but also to the spiritual Heads and Pastors whom God hath given us; as we now desire to testify the same towards the person of the most Reverend Patriarch John Grimani our most dear and beloved Father, which we shall do with piety and justice, well understanding that 'tis the will of God not only that we pray to his divine Majesty for the health and prosperity of our Pastors, that we hear them and that we obey them, but also that we have such care of them as good children ought to have of their Father, and perform this duty with so much the more zeal as our spiritual parents ought to be dearer and more venerable to us then our corporal. Wherhfore 'tis reason that when our head languisheth, we suffer together therewith, according to the Apostle's doctrine, who to confirm unity in the Church of God, and to take away Schisms and Divisions, enjoins and commands all Churches to have this cate and solicitude which we who are members of it ought to have one for another, and particularly for our Head. Wherefore confirming to the will of God in the needs which press us, and in so important an affair, we confidently address to the feet of your Serenity, and hope to receive such comfort from you as is agreeable to your goodness, our devotion and the necessity of our Country. We represent therefore most humbly to your Serenity, that thirteen years ago M. Leonard of Oudenay our Compatriote, of the Order of S. Dominick (a man of great note and esteem, and looked upon as a most learned and Catholic Preacher, and who had passed through all the honours and offices in his Order) preaching in the Church of Oudenay spoke something, out of good intent concerning divine Prescience and Predestination; and that the grand Vicar of that time acquainted the most reverend Patriarch therewith, who according to the custom of the ancient Fathers & Pastors sent for answer to the Vicar and the Church, a Homily concerning that Subject; conceiving that he should thereby better satisfy and confirm the mind of his Vicar and of all those who had heard the said Preachers expressions about this matter. This Homily was published and registered in the Chancery of your Serenity at the City of Oudenay, and soon spread abroad every where: since that time till the present we perceived not that this act of the most Reverend Patriarch caused the least alteration amongst us, other than what we have lately understood and find to be very considerable and of very great consequence. For the report which your Serenity knows to be spread lately concerning this Homily, being apt to cast infamy upon the most R. Patriarch, diminish or quite ruin his authority, overwhelm him with affliction and sorrow, and also being capable to give scandal and confusion to our consciences (which would be a deplorable mischief, and therefore requires to be prevented;) this whole Province would have accounted themselves worthy to be accused of disobedience and ingratitude, if in so long oppression of the innocence of a Pastor and a Prelate so dear to them, we should not give your Serenity and all the world certain proofs of our good will and obligations, both in reference to the affliction which we resent for that of my L. the Patriarch, and to a thing more important, to wit, the inevitable desolation which would befall us, if we should suffer this scandal to continue longer in so miserable a time when all things are full of tumult and confusion. This hath induced us to make this Remonstrance to you with the more earnestness, for that we know that faithful people are obliged to love and procure tranquillity and peace, especially at this time when bad examples instigate us to do otherwise. But setting aside the affection which we bear to the most R. Patriarch for his merits & virtues sufficiently known to you, which certainly is very great, and for which we would do all things possible to be done by the good children, we have resolved not to be deficient in what our Lord commands us with his own mouth; The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Cha●r, do what they say. Truth itself, most Serene Prince, tells as that we ought to hear our Pastors because they are the Fathers and Masters of the people. And 'tis for this reason that S. Paul saith, Remember those that are over you, who declare the word of God to you; obey your superiors and be subject to them: for they watch as they who must give account of your souls, that they may do it with joy & not with sorrow; for this is profitable for you. These are the authorities of God, to which it is necessary that we obey: & to the end we may do it with more success, it is necessary that your Serenity, who are guardians of the Holy Laws, favour and assist us. May it therefore please your Serenity, to interpose as you shall think fit, that we may be given to understand with assurance and by Sovereign authority, what is the doctrine of our Patriarch and Pastor in that Homily; because so long as this is undecided, we remain in sadness and in a scandal of very great consequence, being surrounded on every side with Provinces and Nations who suffer themselves to be led into other sentiments than those prescribed by our Mother the H. Catholic and Roman Church, from whom we shall never departed, acknowledging it a particular benefit of God's goodness that the Provinces & places subject to the Patriarchal Superintendecy, and the most happy government of your Serenity, are hitherto free from all the troubles which disturb the Church at this day. If therefore the doctrine of the most Reverend Patriarch in this Homily be good, let your Serenity consider how much we are obliged, and how greatly charity ought to inflame our hearts, to procure (for the love we bear him) his peace and tranquillity, and preservation of his honour and reputation, (all which are things from which we may hope all sort of advantage, as without which we must expect to be deprived of all spiritual consolation.) Your Serenity sees that all these honest and equitable considerations have caused the Clergy, City & all our happy Country account themselves obliged to do the same office towards our Pastor, which we read to have been heretofore done by most devou● nations towards theirs in the persecutions of Liberius Bishop of Rome, S. Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria S. Chrisostome Bishop of Constantinople, and many others, when the devotion of the people excited by the Holy Ghost manifested their piety and affection towards their Pastors. We desire to imitate them in their good actions, so much the more now the time presses us, and we can no longer dissemble: because, most Serene Prince, if the Patriarch be found innocent as he is esteemed by general consent, we discharge our duty in the resentment which we testify of his affliction, so 'tis requisite we do justice to ourselves, in case his doctrine in the said Homily be worthy of reprehension and condemnation: for so long as we remain in suspense concerning the same, and the discussion of so important an affair is deferred, we cannot but be always in danger of being deceived. Wherhfore to prevent so great mischiefs, and to procure perfect satisfaction to our minds, all the abovesayd persons of your most faithful Province have with common consent sent us to your Serenity, to the end that by the blessing of God and the intervention of your authority, we may obtain the effect of our just demands and suffer no evil, having committed no fault. Wherhfore we most humbly beseech your Serenity and this most happy and most Christian Republic, that seeing the affair, time, occasion and all things permit, you will vouchsafe to write to your most excellent Ambassadors renssiding at the Council of Trent assembled by authority of the Sovereign Pontif, and the Holy Ghost, that they with diligence and Christian benevolence make instance to those H. Fathers chosen out of the most faithful and learned of all Christendom, to obtain of them, that after they shall have considered with the eyes of Justice the words of my L. the most R. Patriarch in the said Homily, they declare whether the same be conformable to the sound doctrine of the H. Fathers of the Catholic Church; to the end that by an assured and solid declaration of the H. Council we may quiet our consciences, which cannot but be in agitation and trouble so long as our irresolution therein shall continue. We hope this Remonstrance by which we are so much obliged to you, will be very well pleasing to our H. F. Pope Pius 4 as a Father full of prudence and goodness, who will be most joyful to see so holy a conspiration in a whole Province affectionate to its Pastor; that he will acknowledge that this affection as well as this demand being a pure instinct of the H. Spirit (whose first Minister his Holiness is) will be worthy of his approbation and good will; and lastly he will find consolation in understanding the firm resolution which we have to live under the protection and true discipline of the H. Roman Church our mother: Which thing we plainly and faithfully manifest by our Zeal to render to our Pastor the honour and respect which we own to him. By this means we keep fare from that Pest which uses to give the sad beginning to unhappy heresies, when inferiors (as the B. Martyr S. Cyprian testifies) obstinately and contemptuously withdraw themselves from the Charity and obedience which they own to their Superiors. And being thus stirred up with pastoral care, he will be also glad to instruct us by his Authority and that of the H. Council, in what manner we are to demean ourselves in these miserable times towards the most R. Patriarch. We have the more hope that he will do this, because we speak of the Patriarchal See of Aquileia which the Sovereign Pontiffs his H. Predecessors style the first after the See of Rome. He will not therefore suffer a member so important, so considerable and so near himself to remain injured by the malignity of the times, if this member be found alive and innocent; since were it languid or infirm, he would not fail to comfort, heal and recover it, as God commands him by his Prophet. To conclude most Serene Prince, we have judged this way the most easy and ordinary, and that which may put an happy end to our distresses and the many mischiefs wherewith we are threatened. Because the Sovereign Pontifs, (as S. Gregory that great Pope oftentimes did) whose judgements are inviolable Laws in the Church to defend the innocence and estimation of good Prelates, or else to condemn the scandalous who would live contrary to the H. rules, have from time to time convoked Councils by authority whereof they have maintained their innocence and reputation of good Prelates and chastised the temerity of bad, stopping the mouths of all the world. And if our H. Fathers have assembled Councils to this end, the same thing will be done more easily without any inconvenience to the Church, now the most general and perfect Council is assembled that ever was since that of Nice. It being equitable both in regard to the nature of the affair (which was not brought upon the stage at this time without some mystery) and in consideration of the interests of your Serenity, and lastly in respect of the particulat qualities of the most R. Patriarch and his family, that his cause be examined and terminated by the judgement and authority of our H. Father and the H. Council. Which if it be not done in this favourable occasion, former examples tell us that we must look to remain (to our damage) in a perpetual & pernicious irresolution worthy of compassion in itself, and of the H. Council's favour; to which in Case of need we are willing to repair in order to manifest our faith, our charity and our necessity, and that of our whole Province; and we hope to find there, by the help of your Sublimity, all the favour and assistance which shall be needful to so just and honest a cause as ours. As for ourselves, most Serene Prince, being we have performed this duty with the utmost integrity, and with singular belief and firm hope that God will from above bless our endeavours, we beseech you to accept of our Zeal and humility, and to favour our humble requests (which imply nothing but affection and respect to the most R. Patriarch our Pastor and well beloved Father) with the same judgement and Charity wherewith your Serenety hath continually and unanimously cherished him and declared him worthy of all favour and of the greatest dignities: which you will the rather do because we imitate our Prince in our good desires and laudable intentions whilst we embrace what you have first solemnly approved by your most grave and wise judgement. We have no intent in all this to defend the cause of our Patriarch, which is known to you and all the world, as if it needed our defence. We agree with what S. Augustin saith, that the best cause is that which is approved without needing to be defended; & that the best established justice is that which is not supported by words but by the strength of Truth. Nor do we aim to deliver him from oppression; this belongs to God, and to Princes, whom he hath particularly commanded to deliver the oppressed. But the only scope of all this discourse and writing is to render an eternal testimony of our respect to your Serenity, besides all that hath been spoken more amply and prudently by our Colleague. After which we have no more to do but to recommend our Pastor, our Country, the safety of it people and ourselves to the Clemency of your Serenity, whom we pray God to preserve in perpetual felicity.  
The last day of July MDLXIII. The most Illustrious and Reverend Legates and Precedents of the Sacred Council of Trent have by Apostolical authority chosen the Fathers under written to deliberate with them concerning the abovesaid Letters and apology, namely whether the same be heretical or suspected of heresy, or so explicated scandalous; to the end they may give their judgements thereof. 

The most illustrious Cardinal the Cardinal of Lorraine and Cardinal Madrutio.  
The most illustrious Ambassadors, the Archbishop of Prague, The Bishop of Five-Kirke, the Bishop of Primistelot, and the Bishop of Auxbourg.  
The Arch-Bishops of Granada, Brague and Rege.  
The Bishops of Eureux, Sees, Conimbra, Segovia, Modena, Livia, Arras, Campagna, Theano, Ipre, Namur, Leon, Tortosa.  
The Abots of Clacivaux, Auxbourg.  
The General of the Augustine's.   All which Fathers diligently examined the said Letters and apology, and gave their opinions thereof.   

The Sentence of the most Illustrious Cardinal of Lorraine, touching the abovesaid Letter, given to the most illustrious and Reverend Legates of the Council.  
I Have read the Letter of M. John Grimani Patriarch of Aquileia dated the 17th. of April 1549. to his Vicar of Oudenay in the Church of Oudenay, and his Answers touching certain Propositions extracted out of the same Letter, which your most illustrious and Reverend Lordships caused to be delivered to me in your own presence by the Notary of the Council. And having first invoked the name of Jesus Christ, and taken the Counsel of some very learned persons, French Divines, and particularly of those whom the most Christian King sent to this H. Council, to the end that might be assisted and helped by their learning in so weighty a cause; And having after hearing them diligently examined the Writtings of the said Patriarch, I declare that I have found nothing in the above mentioned Letter which is heretical, erroneous, or scandalous, or suspected of heresy or error: That if some thing of obscu ity be found therein which may give suspicion to such as are not sufficiently skilled in these matters; the same may be all cleared and resolved by reading the answer of the said Patriarch, as accordingly I conceive it cleared and resolved. Wherefore I judge the said Patriarch free from all suspicion of heresy, error, or scandal.   

The same Cardinal's Letter to the Pope.  
Most H. Father.  
I Was lately called by M. M. the Prelates with twenty five most learned and grave Fathers chosen out of all Nations to be present at the judgement of the Patriarch of Aquileia concerning the accusation charged upon him touching matter of faith, upon occasion of a certain letter which he writ to his Vicar of Oudenay. Although the Question were very difficult, yet after a diligent examination made thereof, it was found to be clear not only of heresy, error, or scandal, but also of suspicion; and consequently the most R. Grimani was adjudged innocent by general consent and without the contrary sentence of any person. I have thought sit to write to Y. H. and give you an account of this affair, according as I am obliged, to the end you may aquiesce in the sentiments of these most learned and holy Fathers. Wherefore, I beseech Y. H. to receive this Prelate, who hath been found innocent, into your good grace, and to give this satisfaction to the most Serene Republic of Venice, which hath been always so devoted to the service of Y. H. and the H. See, that since it sees him absolv'd, it may also see him promoted to the Cardinalship by the justice, liberality and favour of Y. H. Assuredly Y. H. will herein do a thing worthy of eternal esteem, and highly oblige the Venetians, to whom being, as I am, beholding in many respects, I shall account myself to have a particular share in this benefit, if Y. H. pleases to add it to the many others which I have received from you. I beseech Y. H. if I continue to be troublesome to you by the length of this letter, The goodness of Y. H. towards all the world, and your singular goodwill towards myself, and your last letters of the 7th of August so full of paternal kindness to me, are the cause of it. In fine, I conceived myself obliged thereunto by my great respect to Y. H. my affection to your service, and in the inviolable fidelity which I have vowed and shall ever keep to you.  
Given at Trent.   

The Letter of the most illustrius Legates to Card. BONOMEO.  
Most illustrious and Reverend Lord,  
THE Bishop of Tortosa (who is one of the Commissioners for the affair of the Patriarch) being to go to Milan, to see the Duke of Sesse his Nephew, the Ambassadors of Venice made their solicitations that the abovesaid Commissioners might give their report and declare their judgement thereof before his departure. Wherefore to satisfy these Ambassadors we were obliged to put off the general Congregation yesterday in the afternoon, to dispatch this particular one which lasted from one a clock till night. The Commissioners whose names we send your most Illustrious and reverend Lordships were all there, except the Ambassador of Poland, who was indisposed in the Country, and they all gave their suffrages one after another according to their precedence. All the sentences were uniform, that in the Patriarch's letter there was not one heretical word, nor any which might not be found in S. Augustin, S. Prosper, S. Bernard, S Thomas, & other H. D. Whereupon they all concluded that he ought to be acquitted of the calumny raised against him; adding further, that it was not only their own judgement but also that of all the Divines of their nations with whom they said they had diligently consulted upon the whole matter. Nevertheless the Archbishop of Granada & the Bishop of Segovia appeared a little reserved, saying they had not considered the cause according to their desire; but so far as they had considered it then, they judged that the Patriarch was to be absolved, with reservation to give a more manifest declaration another time of what they thought of it, & desiring first to see the sentences which were sent to Rome, which were accordingly given them. Some also said that the author of the letter seemed little versed in the Scholastic way, but that nevertheless he so fully cleared things in the Apology, that there remained no scruple; when they had all ended giving their sentences, we desired them to give us the substance of the same compendiously in writing to the end we might consider them & frame our judgement to which they all agreed. Your most illustrious Lordship sees now in what posture the Patriarch's affair stands, and may give notice thereof to our H. Father. The present being to no other end, we kiss your hands and humbly recommend ourselves to your Lordship. From Trent the 14. of August. MDLXIII.  
Your most illustrious and most Reverend Lordships most humble servants, 

Cardinal Moronius.  
Stanislaus Card. of Worms.  
Cardinal Simonetta.  
Cardinal Navagero.     

The sentence passed upon the above mentioned Letter by the most Illustrious Legates of the Council of TRENT, under Pope PIUS 4. the 18th. of September MDLXIII.  
HAving invoked the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and having only God before our eyes, with the advice and consent of other persons learned in Divinity, we judge, attest and pronounce that the abovesaid Letter of the abovesaid most Reverend M. John Grimani Patriarch of Aquileia joined with his Apology, is neither heretical nor suspected of heresy, nor scandalously expressed. And nevertheless that it is not fit to divulge the same, by reason of certain difficult things which are handled and explicated exactly enough therein. We affirm, declare, pronounce and sentence thus in the best form, etc.   

The Letter of the most Illustrious signory of Venice to the most Reverend Patriarch of Aquileia.  
Most Reverend Father in Jesus Christ,  
IT would be hard for us to express with what comfort & contentment we have understood the just & honourable conclusion of which the affair of your most R L. hath had in the Sacred General Council with the universal consent of all those holy and learned Fathers, and in presence of all the Ambassadors of the Princes of Christendom. But you may well conceive the same by the Singular affection which we have always born to you, and by the desire as well as the firm and just hope which we have had that your innocence would be thus acknowledged & manifest to all the world. Wherhfore we extremely rejoice with you both for your particular interest, and chief for our own, Your most Reverend Lordship being not only born a Gentleman of our Republic, but of a family so honourable and to which we have so many obligations. And being this so high and so honourable and so sovereign Assembly hath favoured with its praises not only the judgement but also the testimony which we gave to the Pope, and where else it was needful, of your most Reverend Lordship, as knowing very well the virtuous, religious and Catholic life which you have always led, we have all grounds to desire and hope (as we shall do with all sort of affection and reason) that God who is the fountain of justice and of all good, having been pleased that the calumnies unjustly made against you, are surmounted by the truth, you will also surmount the Obstacle which had been laid against your most Reverend Lordship to the publication of that dignity which the honourable qualities of your person, virtue, piety and integrity have caused you to merit and obtain. Given in our Ducal Palace the 29th. of September, MDLXIII.  
GRIOLAMO PRIULI by the grace of God Duke of VENICE. And on the backside it was inscribed, To the most Reverend Father in God, M. John Grimani by the grace of God most worthy Patriarch of Aquileia.     
FINIS.