For，intheinstancesIamnowtoadduce，youwillseecouncilsandpopesrangedononeside，andJesuitsontheother；andyetyouhaveneverchargedyourbrethrenforthisoppositionevenwithpresumption，muchlesswithheresy。Youarewellaware，father，thatthewritingsofOrigenwerecondemnedbyagreatmanypopesandcouncils，andparticularlybythefifthgeneralcouncil，aschargeablewithcertainheresies，and，amongothers，thatofthereconciliationofthedevilsatthedayofjudgement。Doyousupposethat，afterthis，itbecameabsolutelyimperative，asatestofCatholicism，toconfessthatOrigenactuallymaintainedtheseerrors，andthatitisnotenoughtocondemnthem，withoutattributingthemtohim？Ifthisweretrue，whatwouldbecomeofyourworthyFatherHalloix，whohasassertedthepurityofOrigen’sfaith，aswellasmanyotherCatholicswhohaveattemptedthesamething，suchasPicoMirandola，andGenebrard，doctoroftheSorbonne？Isitnot，moreover，acertainfact，thatthesamefifthgeneralcouncilcondemnedthewritingsofTheodoretagainstSt。Cyril，describingthemasimpious，\"contrarytothetruefaith，andtaintedwiththeNestorianheresy\"？AndyetthishasnotpreventedFatherSirmond，aJesuit，fromdefendinghim，orfromsaying，inhislifeofthatfather，that\"hiswritingsareentirelyfreefromtheheresyofNestorius。\"Itisevident，therefore，thatastheChurch，incondemningabook，assumesthattheerrorwhichshecondemnsiscontainedinthatbook，itisapointoffaithtoholdthaterrorascondemned；butitisnotapointoffaithtoholdthatthebook，infact，containstheerrorwhichtheChurchsupposesitdoes。Enoughhasbeensaid，Ithink，toprovethis；Ishall，therefore，concludemyexamplesbyreferringtothatofPopeHonorius，thehistoryofwhichissowellknown。Atthecommencementoftheseventhcentury，theChurchbeingtroubledbytheheresyoftheMonothelites，thatpope，withtheviewofterminatingthecontroversy，passedadecreewhichseemedfavourabletotheseheretics，atwhichmanytookoffence。Theaffair，nevertheless，passedoverwithoutmakingmuchdisturbanceduringhispontificate；butfiftyyearsafter，theChurchbeingassembledinthesixthgeneralcouncil，inwhichPopeAgathonpresidedbyhislegates，thisdecreewasimpeached，and，afterbeingreadandexamined，wascondemnedascontainingtheheresyoftheMonothelites，andunderthatcharacterburnt，inopencourt，alongwiththeotherwritingsoftheseheretics。Suchwastherespectpaidtothisdecision，andsuchtheunanimitywithwhichitwasreceivedthroughoutthewholeChurch，thatitwasafterwardsratifiedbytwoothergeneralcouncils，andlikewisebytwopopes，LeoIIandAdrianII，thelatterofwhomlivedtwohundredyearsafterithadpassed；andthisuniversalandharmoniousagreementremainedundisturbedforsevenoreightcenturies。
Oflateyears，however，someauthors，andamongtherestCardinalBellarmine，withoutseemingtodreadtheimputationofheresy，havestoutlymaintained，againstallthisarrayofpopesandcouncils，thatthewritingsofHonoriusarefreefromtheerrorwhichhadbeenascribedtothem；\"because，\"saysthecardinal，\"generalcouncilsbeingliabletoerrinquestionsoffact，wehavethebestgroundsforassertingthesixthcouncilwasmistakenwithregardtothefactnowunderconsideration；andthat，misconceivingthesenseoftheLettersofHonorius，ithasplacedthispopemostunjustlyintherankofheretics。\"Observe，then，Iprayyou，father，thatamanisnothereticalforsayingthatPopeHonoriuswasnotaheretic；eventhoughagreatmanypopesandcouncils，afterexamininghiswritings，shouldhavedeclaredthathewasso。Inowcometothequestionbeforeus，andshallallowyoutostateyourcaseasfavourablyasyoucan。Whatwillyouthensay，father，inordertostampyouropponentsasheretics？That\"PopeInnocentXhasdeclaredthattheerrorofthefivepropositionsistobefoundinJansenius？\"Igrantyouthat；whatinferencedoyoudrawfromit？That\"itishereticaltodenythattheerrorofthefivepropositionsistobefoundinJansenius？\"Howso，father？Havewenothereaquestionoffactexactlysimilartotheprecedingexamples？ThePopehasdeclaredthattheerrorofthefivepropositionsiscontainedinJansenius，inthesamewayashispredecessorsdecidedthattheerrorsoftheNestoriansandtheMonothelitespollutedthepagesofTheodoretandHonorius。Inthelattercase，yourwritershesitatenottosaythat，whiletheycondemntheheresies，theydonotallowthattheseauthorsactuallymaintainedthem；and，inlikemanner，youropponentsnowsaythattheycondemnthefivepropositions，butcannotadmitthatJanseniushastaughtthem。Truly，thetwocasesareaslikeastheycouldwellbe；and，iftherebeanydisparitybetweenthem，itiseasytoseehowfaritmustgoinfavourofthepresentquestion，byacomparisonofmanyparticularcircumstances，whichastheyareself—evident，Idonotspecify。Howcomesittopass，then，thatwhenplacedinpreciselythesamepredicament，yourfriendsareCatholicsandyouropponentsheretics？Onwhatstrangeprincipleofexceptiondoyoudeprivethelatterofalibertywhichyoufreelyawardtoalltherestofthefaithful？Whatanswerwillyoumaketothis，father？Willyousay，\"Thepopehasconfirmedhisconstitutionbyabrief。\"TothisIwouldreply，thattwogeneralcouncilsandtwopopesconfirmedthecondemnationofthelettersofHonorius。Butwhatargumentdoyoufounduponthelanguageofthatbrief，inwhichallthatthePopesaysisthat\"hehascondemnedthedoctrineofJanseniusinthesefivepropositions\"？Whatdoesthataddtotheconstitution，orwhatmorecanyouinferfromit？Nothing，certainly，exceptthatasthesixthcouncilcondemnedthedoctrineofHonorius，inthebeliefthatitwasthesamewiththatoftheMonothelites，sothePopehassaidthathehascondemnedthedoctrineofJanseniusinthesefivepropositions，becausehewasledtosupposeitwasthesamewiththatofthefivepropositions。Andhowcouldhedootherwisethansupposeit？YourSocietypublishednothingelse；andyouyourself，father，whohaveassertedthatthesaidpropositionswereinthatauthor\"wordforword，\"happenedtobeinRome（forIknowallyourmotions）atthetimewhenthecensurewaspassed。Washetodistrustthesincerityorthecompetenceofsomanygraveministersofreligion？Andhowcouldhehelpbeingconvincedofthefact，aftertheassurancewhichyouhadgivenhimthatthepropositionswereinthatauthor\"wordforword\"？Itisevident，therefore，thatintheeventofitsbeingfoundthatJanseniushasnotsupportedthesedoctrines，itwouldbewrongtosay，asyourwritershavedoneinthecasesbeforementioned，thatthePopehasdeceivedhimselfinthispointoffact，whichitispainfulandoffensivetopublishatanytime；theproperphraseisthatyouhavedeceivedthePope，which，asyouarenowprettywellknown，willcreatenoscandal。Determined，however，tohaveaheresymadeout，letitcostwhatitmay，youhaveattempted，bythefollowingmanoeuvre，toshiftthequestionfromthepointoffact，andmakeitbearuponapointoffaith。\"ThePope，\"sayyou，\"declaresthathehascondemnedthedoctrineofJanseniusinthesefivepropositions；thereforeitisessentialtothefaithtoholdthatthedoctrineofJanseniustouchingthesefivepropositionsisheretical，letitbewhatitmay。\"Hereisastrangepointoffaith，thatadoctrineishereticalbewhatitmay。What！ifJanseniusshouldhappentomaintainthat\"wearecapableofresistinginternalgrace\"andthat\"itisfalsetosaythatJesusChristdiedfortheelectonly，\"wouldthisdoctrinebecondemnedjustbecauseitishisdoctrine？Willtheproposition，that\"manhasafreedomofwilltodogoodorevil，\"betruewhenfoundinthePope’sconstitution，andfalsewhendiscoveredinJansenius？Bywhatfatalitymusthebereducedtosuchapredicament，thattruth，whenadmittedintohisbook，becomesheresy？Youmustconfess，then，thatheisonlyhereticalonthesuppositionthatheisfriendlytotheerrorscondemned，seeingthattheconstitutionofthePopeistherulewhichwemustapplytoJansenius，tojudgeifhischaracteranswerthedescriptiontheregivenofhim；and，accordingly，thequestion，\"Ishisdoctrineheretical？\"
mustberesolvedbyanotherquestionoffact，\"Doesitcorrespondtothenaturalsenseofthesepropositions？\"asitmustnecessarilybehereticalifitdoescorrespondtothatsense，andmustnecessarilybeorthodoxifitbeofanoppositecharacter。For，inoneword，since，accordingtothePopeandthebishops，\"thepropositionsarecondemnedintheirproperandnaturalsense，\"theycannotpossiblybecondemnedinthesenseofJansenius，exceptontheunderstandingthatthesenseofJanseniusisthesamewiththeproperandnaturalsenseofthesepropositions；andthisImaintaintobepurelyaquestionoffact。Thequestion，then，stillrestsuponthepointoffact，andcannotpossiblybetorturedintooneaffectingthefaith。
Butthoughincapableoftwistingitintoamatterofheresy，youhaveitinyourpowertomakeitapretextforpersecution，andmight，perhaps，succeedinthis，weretherenotgoodreasontohopethatnobodywillbefoundsoblindlydevotedtoyourinterestsastocountenancesuchadisgracefulproceeding，orinclinedtocompelpeople，asyouwishtodo，tosignadeclarationthattheycondemnthesepropositionsinthesenseofJansenius，withoutexplainingwhatthesenseofJanseniusis。Fewpeoplearedisposedtosignablankconfessionoffaith。Nowthiswouldreallybetosignoneofthatdescription，leavingyoutofilluptheblankafterwardswithwhatsoeveryoupleased，asyouwouldbeatlibertytointerpretaccordingtoyourowntastetheunexplainedsenseofJansenius。Letitbeexplained，then，beforehand，otherwiseweshallhave，Ifear，anotherversionofyourproximatepower，withoutanysenseatall—abstrahendoabomnisensu。Thismodeofproceeding，youmustbeaware，doesnottakewiththeworld。Meningeneraldetestallambiguity，especiallyinthematterofreligion，whereitishighlyreasonablethatoneshouldknowatleastwhatoneisaskedtocondemn。
Andhowisitpossiblefordoctors，whoarepersuadedthatJanseniuscanbearnoothersensethanthatofefficaciousgrace，toconsenttodeclarethattheycondemnhisdoctrinewithoutexplainingit，since，withtheirpresentconvictions，whichnomeansareusedtoalter，thiswouldbeneithermorenorlessthantocondemnefficaciousgrace，whichcannotbecondemnedwithoutsin？Woulditnot，therefore，beapieceofmonstroustyrannytoplacetheminsuchanunhappydilemmathattheymusteitherbringguiltupontheirsoulsinthesightofGod，bysigningthatcondemnationagainsttheirconsciences，orbedenouncedashereticsforrefusingtosignit？