UNIGENITUS
129
UNIGENITUS
in the famous propositions of Jansenius". The first
forty-three propositions repeat the errors of Baius and
Jansenius on grace and predestination, such as: grace
works with omnipotence and is irresistible; w-ithout
grace man can only commit sin; Christ died for the
elect only. The succeeding twentj'-eight propositions
(44-71) concern faith, hope, and charity: every love
that is not supernatural is evil; without supernatural
love there can be no hope in God, no obedience to His
law, no good work, no prayer, no merit, no religion;
the prayer of the sinner and his other good acts per-
formed out of fear of punishment are only new sins.
The last thirty propositions (72-101) deal with the
Church, its discipline, and the sacraments: the
Church comprises only the just and the elect; the
reading of the Bible is binding on all; sacramental
absolution should be postponed tiU after satisfaction;
the chief pastors can exercise the Church's power of
excommunication only with the consent, at least pre-
sumed, of the whole body of the Church; unjust ex-
communication does not exclude the excommunicated
from union with the Church. Besides condemning
these 101 propositions, the Bull states that it finds
fault with many other statements in the book of
Quesnel, without, however, specifying them, and, in
particular, with the translation of the New Testa-
ment, which, as the Bull reads, has been censurably
altered {damnabUiter viliatum) and is in many ways
similar to the previously condemned French version
of JNIons.
Louis XIV received the Ball at Fontainebleau on
24 Sept., 1713, and sent a copy to Cardinal Noailles, who, probably before receiving it, had revoked, on
25 Sept., his approbation of the "Moral Reflections" given in 1695. The king also ordered the assembly of the French clergy to convene at Paris on 16 Oct., and designated the acceptation of the Bull as the purpose of the meeting. At the first session, on 16 Oct., Noailles appointed a committee presided over by Cardinal Rohan of Strasburg to decide upon the most suitable manner of accepting the Bull. Noailles, who took part in a few sessions of the committee, at- tempted to prevent an unconditional acceptation of the Bull by the committee, and when his efforts proved fruitless he would have withdrawn from the assembly if the king had not ordered him to remain. The report of the committee was for an unqualified acceptance of the Bull, and at the session of the as- sembly on 22 Jan., 1714, the report was accepted by a vote of forty against nine. By order of the king, the Bull was registered by the ParUament on 15 Fell, and by the Sorbonne on 5 March. A pastoral in- struction of Noailles, forbidding his priests under pain of suspension to accept the BuU without his authori- zation, was condemned by Rome. Of the bishops not present at the a.ssembly, seven joined the opposition, while the remaining seventy-two accepted the Bull unconditionally. The opposition, with the excep- tion of Bishop de La Broue of Mirepoix, also con- demned the book of Quesnel. As a pretext of their non-acceptance of the Bull, they gave out that it was obscure. Ostensibly they postponed their accept- ance only until the pope would exj)lain its obscurity by special declarations. It is manifest that the pope could not yield to the.se demands without imperilling the authority of the Apostolic See.
It was the intention of Clement XI to summon Noailles before the Curia and, if needs be, despoil him of the purple. But the king and his councillors, see- ing in this mode of procedure a trespa.ss upon the "Galilean Liberties", proposed the convocation of a national council which should judge and pass sentence upon Noailles and his faction. The pope did not relish the idea of convoking a national council which might unnecessarily protract the quarrel and endanger the papal authority. He, however, drew up two Briefs, the one demanding the unconditional accep- XV.— 9
tance of the Bull by Noailles within fifteen days, on
pain of losing the purple and incurring canonical
punishment, the other paternally pointing out the
gravity of the ciirdinal's offence and exhorting him to
go hand in hand with the Apostolic See in opposing
the enemies of the Church. Both Briefs were put in
the hand of the king, with the request to deliver the
less severe in case there was well-founded hope of the
cardinal's speedy submission, but the more severe if he
continued in his obstinacy. On the one hand, Noailles
gave no hope of submission, while, on the other,
the more severe of the Briefs was rejected by the king
as subversive of the "Gallican Liberties". Louis
XIV, therefore, again pressed the convocation of a
national council but died (1 Sept., 1715) before it
could be convened. He was succeeded as regent by
Duke Phihp of Orleans, who favoured the ojjponents
of the Bull. The Sorbonne passed a resolution, 4
Jan., 1716, annulling its previous registration of the
Bull, and twenty-two Sorbonnists who protested were
removed from the faculty on 5 Feb. The Universities
of Nantes and Reims now also rejected the Bull, the
former on 2 Jan., the latter on 26 June. In conse-
quence Clement XI withdrew from the Sorbonne all
the papal privileges which it possessed and deprived
it of the power of conferring academic degrees on 18
Nov. He had sent two Briefs to France on 1 May.
One, addressed to the regent, severely rejtroved him
for favouring the opponents of the Bull; the other,
addressed to the opposition, threatened to deprive
Noailles of the purple, and to proceed canonically
against all that would not accept the Bull within two
months. These Briefs were not accepted by the regent
because their text had not been previously submitted
to his ministers. But he sent to Rome, Chevalier,
the Jansenist Vicar-General of Meaux whom the
pope did not, however, admit to his presence, when
it became known that his sole purpose was to wrest
the admission from Clement XI that the Bull was
obscure and required an ex-planation. In a consis-
t ory heldon27June,1716,the pope dehvered a passion-
ate allocution, lasting three hours, in which he in-
formed the cardinals of the treatment which the Bull
had received in France, and expressed his pvu-pose of
divesting NoaiUes of the cardinalate. The following
November he sent two new Briefs to France, one to
the regent, whose co-operation he asked in suppress-
ing the opposition to the Bull; the other to the accej)-
tants, whom he warned against the intrigues of the
recalcitrants, and requested to exhort their erring
brethren to give up their resistance.
On 1 March, 1717, four bishops (Soanen of Senez, Colbert of MontpelUer, Delangle of Boulogne, and de La Broue of Mirepoix) drew up an apjical from the Bull to a general council, thus founding the party hereafter known as the "appellants". They were joined by the faculties of the Sorbonne on 5 March, of Reims on 8 March, and of Nantes on 10 March; like- wise by the Bishops of Verdun on 22 March, of Pa- micrs on 12 April, of Chalons, Condom, Agen, and St. Malo on 21 April, of Auxerre on 14 May, and more than a year later by the Bishop of Laon, al.'^o by the Bishops of Bayonne and Angouleme. Though a personal letter of the pope, dated 25 March, and a joint letter of the cardinals at Rome urgently begged Noailles to submit, he also drew uj) an appeal on 3 April, "from the pope manifest!}- mistaken, and from the Constitution L'nigenitus, in virtue of the decrees of the Councils of Constance and Basle, to the pope better informed and to a general council to be held without constraint and in a safe place". He did not, however, publish his appeal for the present, but de- posited it in the archives of the officiality of Paris. On 6 May he wrote a long letter to the pope, in which he endeavours to justify his position and that of his adherents. A few months later his appeal from the Bull was published. The appellants were soon
