16. About the year 1702, the Jansenists again raised the point of the religious silence, by the publication of a pamphlet, in which it was said that Sacramental Absolution was denied to a clergyman because he asserted that he condemned the five propositions, as far as the law was concerned (jus), but as to the fact that they were to be found in Jansenius's book, that he considered it was quite enough to preserve a religious silence on that point. This was the famous Case of Conscience, on which forty Doctors of Paris decided that absolution could not be refused to the clergyman. The Pope, however, condemned this pretended silence by a formal decree, "Ad perpetuam rei memoriam," on the 12th of January, 1703. Many of the French bishops also condemned it, and more especially Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, who likewise obliged the forty doctors to retract their decision, with the exception of one alone, who refused, and was, on that account, dismissed from the Sorbonne, and that famous Faculty also branded their decision as rash and scandalous, and calculated to renew the doctrines of Jansenius, condemned by the Church. Clement XI. expedited another Bull, Vineam Domini, &c., on the 16th of July, 1705, condemning the "Case of Conscience," with various notes. All this was because the distinction of Law and Fact (Juris et Facti) was put forth to elude the just and legitimate condemnation of the five propositions of Jansenius. This is the very reason Clement himself gives for renewing the condemnation. His Bull was accepted by the whole Church, and, first of all, by the assembly of the Gallican Church; thus the Jansenists could no longer cavil at the condemnation of the book of their patron (13). In the Refutation of the errors of Jansenism, we will respond to their subterfuges in particular.

17. We may as well remark here, that about this time an anonymous work appeared, entitled, "De SS. Petri et Pauli Pontificatu," in which the writer endeavoured to prove that St. Paul was, equally with St. Peter, the Head of the Church. The author's intention was not to exalt the dignity of St. Paul, but to depress the primacy of St. Peter, and, consequently, of the Pope. The book was referred to the Congregation of the Index, by Innocent XI., and its doctrine condemned as heretical by a public Decree (14). The author lays great stress on the ancient practice used in Pontifical Decrees, that of painting St. Paul on the right and St. Peter on the left. That, however, is no proof that St. Paul was equally the Head of the Church, and exercised equal authority with St. Peter, for not to him but St. Peter, did Christ say, "Feed my sheep." Hence, St. Thomas says (15), "Apostolus fuit par Petro in executione, authoritatis, non in auctoritate regiminis." Again, if the argument be allowed that, because St. Paul was painted to the right of St. Peter, he was equal to him, would it not prove even that

(13) Jour. 257. (14) Gotti, c. 118, s. 4. (15) St. Thom. in cap.ii. ad Galatas.

he was superior? Some say that he was painted so, because, according to the Roman custom, as is the case in the East, the left hand place was more honourable than the right. Others, as St. Thomas (16), give a different explanation. Bellarmine may be consulted on this point (17). The author also quotes in favour of his opinion, the lofty praises given by the holy Fathers to St. Paul; but that is easily answered. He was praised, as St. Thomas says, more than the other Apostles, on account of his special election, and his greater labours and sufferings in preaching the Faith through the whole world (18). Not one of the Fathers, however, makes him superior or equal to St. Peter, for the Church of Rome was not founded by him but by St. Peter.

ARTICLE IV.

18. Quesnel is dismissed from the Congregation of the Oratory. 19. He publishes several unsound Works in Brussels. 20. Is imprisoned, escapes to Amsterdam, and dies excommunicated. 21. The Book he wrote. 22. The Bull "Unigenitus," condemning the Book. 23. The Bull is accepted by the King, the Clergy, and the Sorbonne; the Followers of Quesnel appeal to a future Council. 24. Several Bishops also, and Cardinal de Noailles, appeal to a future Council likewise, but the Council of Embrun declares that the Appeal should not be entertained. 25. The Consultation of the Advocates rejected by the Assembly of the Bishops; Cardinal de Noailles retracts, and accepts the Bull; the Bull is declared dogmatical by the Sorbonne and the Bishops. 26. Three Principles of the System of Quesnel.

18. WHILE Clement XI. still sat on the chair of St. Peter, Quesnel published his book, entitled, "The New Testament, with Moral Reflections," &c., which the Pope soon after prohibited by the Bull Unigenitus. Quesnel was born in Paris, on the 14th of July, 1634, and in 1657 was received by Cardinal de Berulle into his Congregation of the Oratory. In a General Assembly of the Oratory of France, held in 1678, it was ordained that each member of the Congregation should sign a formula, condemnatory of the doctrine of Baius and Jansenius, but Quesnel refused obedience, and was consequently obliged to quit the Congregation, and left Paris; he then retired to Orleans (1).

19. As he was not in safety in France, he went to Brussels, in 1685, and joined Arnauld, who had fled previously, and was concealed there, and they conjointly published several works, filled with Jansenistic opinions. They were both banished from Brussels, in 1690, and went to Delft, in Holland, first-afterwards, to the Pais de Liege-and then again returned to Brussels. Quesnel, after having administered the last Sacraments, Arnauld changed his dress, adopted a feigned name, and lived concealed in that city, where he was elected by the Jansenists as their chief, and was called by them the "Father Prior." From his hiding-place, he un

(16) St. Thomas in cap. i. ad Gal. l. 1. (17) Bell. de Rom. Pontiff. c. 27. (18) St. Thom. in 2 Cor. l. 3, c. n. (1) Tour. Comp. Theol. t. 5, p. 1, Diss. 9, p. 396.

ceasingly sent forth various pamphlets, defending and justifying his conduct in opposing the decrees of the Popes, and the Ordinances of the Sovereigns, condemning the appellants. This appears from the sentence passed on his conduct, by the Archbishop of Mechlin (2).

20. The Archbishop of Mechlin, in 1703, determined to extirpate the tares sown by the works of Quesnel, and, empowered by the authority of the King of Spain, his Sovereign, caused a strict search to be made for the author and his faithful friend, Gerberonius, and on the 30th of May, they were both confined in the Archiepiscopal prison. Gerberonius remained there until 1710, when Cardinal de Noailles induced him to retract and sign the formula, and he was liberated, but Quesnel was detained only about three months, having escaped through a small hole made in the wall by his friend (he was a very small man), and taken refuge in Holland, where he continued to write in favour of Jansenism. He was called a second Paul, after his escape, by his disciples, and he himself, writing to the Vicar of Mechlin, says, that he was liberated from his prison by an angel like St. Peter. The difference was great, however; St. Peter did not concert the means of escape with his friends outside, by writing with a nail on a plate of lead, and telling them to break a hole at night through a certain part of the wall of his prison, as Quesnel did (3). A process was instituted against him in Brussels, and on the 10th of November, 1704, the Archbishop declared him excommunicated, guilty of Jansenism and Baiism, and condemned him to inclusion in a monastery till the Pope would absolve him (4). Quesnel took no other notice of the sentence than by writing several pamphlets against the Archbishop, and even attacked the Pope himself, for the condemnation of his works. The unfortunate man, obstinate to the last, died under Papal censure, in Amsterdam, on the 2nd of December, 1719, in the eighty-fifth year of his age (5).

21. We should remark concerning the book of Quesnel, "The New Testament with Moral Reflections," &c. (it was published in French), that in 1671, while he still lived in France, he only published, at first, a small work in duodecimo, containing the French translation of the Four Gospels, and some very short reflections, extracted principally from a collection of the words of Christ, by Father Jourdan, Superior of the Oratory. By degrees, he added to it, so that sixteen years after the printing of the first edition, in 1687, he published another, in three small volumes, adding other reflections on the whole of the New Testament. In 1693, he published another larger edition in eight volumes, and another again in 1695, with the approbation of Cardinal de Noailles, then

(2) Tour. p. 397; Gotti, c. 119, s. 1, n. 3. (4) Tour. p. 405. (5) Tour. p. 406.

(3) Tour. p. 309; Gotti, n. 5.

Bishop of Chalons, first making some slight corrections on the edition of 1693. He published the last edition of all in 1699, but this had not the approbation of the Cardinal. In a word, for twenty-two years, that is, from 1671 to 1693, he laboured to perfect this work, but not correcting, but rather adding to the errors that deformed it; for in the first edition five errors alone were condemned-the twelfth, thirteenth, thirtieth, sixty-second, and sixty-fifth; in the second, more than forty-five were published; and they amounted up to the number of one hundred and one in the later editions, when they were condemned by the Bull Unigenitus. We should observe, that it was only the first edition of 1671 that had the approbation of the Bishop of Chalons, and the subsequent editions, containing more than double the matter of the first, were printed with only the approbation given in 1671 (6). The followers of Quesnel boast, that the work was generally approved of by all; but Tournelly (7) shows that the greater part of the Doctors and Bishops of France condemned it. They also boast that Bossuet gave it his approval, but there are several proofs, on the contrary, to show that he condemned it (8).

22. When the complete work appeared in 1693, it was at once censured by theologians, and prohibited by several bishops, and was condemned by a particular Brief of Pope Clement XI., in 1708. Three French bishops prohibited it by a formal condemnation in 1711, and Cardinal de Noailles felt so mortified at seeing these edicts published in Paris, condemning a work marked with his approbation, as heretical, that he condemned the three edicts. This excited a great tempest in France, so the King, with the consent of several bishops, and of Cardinal de Noailles himself, requested Pope Clement XI. to cause a new examination of the work to be made, and, by a solemn Bull, to censure any errors it might contain. The Pope, then, after two years' examination by Cardinals and Theologians, published in 1713, on the 8th of September, the Bull Unigenitus Dei Filius, &c., in which he condemned a hundred and ten propositions, extracted from the work, as false, captious, rash, erroneous, approximating to heresy, and in fine, respectively heretical, and recalling the propositions of Jansenius, in the sense in which they were condemned. The Bull, besides, delared that it was not the intention of his Holiness to approve of all else contained in the work, because while marking these hundred and ten propositions, it declares that it contains others of a like nature, and that even the very text of the New Testament itself was vitiated in many parts (9).

23. His Most Christian Majesty, on the reception of the Bull of Clement from the Nuncio, ordered an assembly of the bishops, to

(6) Tour. p. 409, 310. p. 426 & seq.; Gotti, 2, n. 3, 4.

(7) Tour. p. 412. (8) Tour. p. 419.

(9) Tour.

receive and promulgate it solemnly, and, in fact, after several private conferences, the assembly was held on the 23rd of January, 1714, and the Bull was received, together with the condemnation of the hundred and one propositions, in the same manner as the Pope had condemned them, and a form of acceptation was drawn up for all the bishops of the kingdom, that the Bull might be everywhere promulgated, and also a formula by which the clergy should declare their acceptance of it. The followers of Quesnel said, that the form of acceptation was restricted and conditional, but if we take the trouble of reading the declaration of the assembly, given word for word by Tournelly (P. 431), we will clearly see that there is neither restriction nor condition in it. This declaration was subscribed by forty bishops; eight alone refused, and the principal among them was Cardinal de Noailles; they had some difficulty, they said, about some of the condemned propositions, and considered it would be wise to ask an explanation from the Pope on the subject. When the acceptation of the Bull, by the assembly, was notified to Louis XIV., he ordered, on the 14th of the following month of February, that it should be promulgated and put into execution through the whole kingdom. The bishops wrote to the Pope in the name of the assembly, that they had received the Bull with joy, and would use all their endeavours that it should be faithfully observed; and the Pope, in his reply, congratulated them on their vigilance, and complained of those few bishops who refused to conform to the assembly. The Faculty of Paris, also, accepted the Bull on the 5th of March, 1714, imposing a penalty, to be incurred, ipso facto, by all members of the University refusing its acceptance. It was received in the same way by the other Universities, native and foreign, as Douay, Ghent, Nantz, Louvain, Alcala, and Salamanca (10). Notwithstanding all, the partisans of Quesnel scattered pamphlets on every side. against the Bull. Two of them, especially, made the most noise, the "Hexaplis," and the "Testimony of the Truth of the Church;" these were both condemned by the bishops congregated in 1715, and those who still continued pertinaciously attached to their erroneous opinions had only then recourse to an appeal from the Bull of the Pope to a General Council.

24. Four bishops, to wit, those of Montpelier, Mirepoix, Sens, and Boulogne, appealed on the 1st of March, 1717, from the Bull Unigenitus, to a future General Council. These four were soon after joined by twelve others, and soon after that by eighteen dissentients. This was the first time in the Catholic Church, that it was ever known that the bishops of the very Sees where a dogmatical Bull was accepted, appealed against it. The appeal was, therefore, justly rejected, both by the secular and ecclesiastical

(10) Tour. cit.