A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

CHAP. VIII. (Book 8)

An History of the Errors Publish'd and Condemn'd in the Fifteenth Century, Chiefly by the Faculty of Theology at Paris; all whose Censares are here Related.

WE shall now give you an Historical Account of the Errors that were Censur'd in the Fif∣teenth Century, by the Sentence given-against John Monteson a Dominican, and against those of his Order, by the Faculty of Theology at Paris. For tho' this Affair was begun in the preceeding Century, yet it was not ended till the beginning of this, whereof here follows the Relation.

John Monteson, a Catalonian, of the Order of Friars-Preachers, Doctor of Divinity of the * 1.1 Faculty at Paris, advanc'd in 1387. many Erroneous Propositions in his Acts De Vesperiis, and de Resompta, and in his publick Lectures. The Faculty of Theology being certainly inform'd of this, appointed three Deputies who were Seculars, and three who were Regulars, to Ex∣amine the * 1.2 Ca••ire from whence they were extracted, but these being unwilling to make their Report, unless there were a greater number of Deputies, the Faculty appointed Six more who gave their Opinion in Writing; whereupon the Faculty being assembled July the 6th of the same year, Condemn'd the 14 following Propositions, and declared that this Regular ought to retract them. 1st, That the Hypostatical Union in Jesus Christ is greater than the Union of the three Persons in the Essence of God. 2. That it was possible he should be a meer Creature, who could merit for himself and all others after the same manner as the Soul of Jesus Christ did, by the assistance of habitual Grace; tho' it was not at all possible that he could Redeem and Save Man with the same Convenience and Sufficiency as Jesus Christ. 3. That a pure Rational Crea∣ture cannot really see the Essence of God as the Blessed do. 4. That 'tis possible there should be a meer Creature more perfect than the Soul of Jesus Christ as to merit, such as was the Grace of the Soul of Jesus Christ. 5. That such a Creature if he were in the World, would be above all kinds of Creatures. 6. That it is not a Doctrin contrary to the Faith, to suppose it absolutely necessary that any Creature should exist. 7. That a thing may exist necessarily, and yet be pro∣duc'd by a Cause. 8th, That 'tis more agreeable to the Faith to say that some other thing is absolutely necessary, besides the first Being, than to say without Exception that he is the only necessary Being. 9th, That 'tis a Heresie to affirm that a Proposition contrary to Scripture may be true; (this Proposition is not Condemn'd, but only so far as it is meant universally of all Pro∣positions which are contrary to Scripture, tho' this contrariety be not evident.) 10th, That it is expresly contrary to Faith, to say that every Man except Jesus Christ did not con∣tract the guilt of Original Sin. The Faculty Ordain'd that this Proposition should be retracted as false, scandalous, offensive to Pious Ears, and presumptuously advanc'd, notwithstanding the probability of the Affirmative in that Question, viz. Whether the Blessed Virgin was Conceiv'd in Original Sin? The 11th, That 'tis expresly contrary to Faith, to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary Mother of God did not contract the guilt of Original Sin. 12th, That it was as much contrary to Scripture to say that one Person only was exempt from Original Sin, as Jesus Christ was, as to except ten. 13th, That 'tis more expresly contrary to Scripture, to say that the blessed Virgin was not conceiv'd in Original Sin, than to affirm that she was Blessed and Victo∣rious in the Instant of her Conception and Sanctification. 14th, That in the explication of Holy Scripture, whether the Church define a Matter, or the Doctors explain it, or some exception be deduc'd about it, we must not draw any Decision, Declaration, or Exception, but only from the Scripture it self. The Faculty declar'd that this Proposition ought to be retracted as false and erroneous, if the meaning of it be, that the Exposition or Exception ought to be found expresly, or explicitly in Scripture; and that there are many general Propositions in Scripture which have Exceptions that are not expresly set down therein, whereof they give for an Example the follow∣ing Propositions: Every thing which enters into the mouth is cast forth; all Men from the highest to the lowest are addicted to Covetousness; no Man hath ascended into Heaven, but the Son of God who came down from it; if we say that we have no Sin, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us. The Faculty observes afterwards, that this Rule is prejudicial to the Decisions and Usages of the Catholick Church, because in the Primitive Church there were many explications of Scripture by Revelation, or by the Inspiration of God, and by the Informa∣tion of the Apostles. John Monteson was acquainted with this Censure by the Dean of the Fa∣culty, and Charitably admonish'd to retract these Propositions; but instead of doing it, as he had promised, he protested that he would defend them till death. Then the Faculty of Theology accused him to the University, which approv'd the Sentence of the Faculty, and presented it to the Bishop of Paris (Peter Orgemont) who being the ordinary Judge in such Matters, order'd

John Monteson to be Cited, who not appearing, he publish'd a Sentence on the 23d of August, wherein he forbids under pain of Excommunication, Ipso Facto, to maintain or teach the Pro∣positions which had been Condemn'd, and ordains that John Monteson should be taken up, Arrested, and clapt up in Prison, with the assistance of the Secular Power, if it were neces∣sary.

Monteson appeal'd from this Sentence, and from the Decision of the Faculty, to Pope Cle∣ment * 1.3 VII. who Resided at Avignon, and went to that City to maintain his Appeal. The Uni∣versity sent thither on their behalf for Deputies, Peter of Ailly, Giles of Champs, and John of Neuville, Doctors of Divinity, together with Peter of Alinville Doctor of the Canon-Law. After this Affair had been debated in many Consistories, in presence of the Pope and the Car∣dinals, (in one of which Peter Ailly made a Discourse which was very acceptable to the Pope, in defence of the Cause of the University) the Cardinal of Embrun in the Name of the Pope, forbad Monteson to absent from the Court of Rome until his Affair was determin'd by the decision * 1.4 of the Holy-See; but notwithstanding this Prohibition, Monteson foreseeing that the Event would not be favourable to him, and that this Prohibition was made for no other end but to seize him, and send him back to Paris to make his Retractation there, as the Deputies of the University should require of him, he retir'd secretly from Avignon, and went into Arragon, where he embrac'd the Obedience of Urban VI. and wrote in his favour against Clement. After his departure, this Pope appointed Guy the Cardinal of Palestrina, the Cardinal of St. Sixtus, and Amelius Cardinal by the Title of St. Eusebe, to judge of this Affair, and order'd them to make a Process against Monteson. They caus'd to search for him in the place where he Lodg'd at Avignon, and having learnt by the Search which was made, that he went from thence August the 3d, in 1388. they caus'd him to be Summon'd by publick Placarts, Sentenc'd him as Con∣tumacious, and declar'd him Excommunicate; they ordain'd also that this Excommunication should be solemnly publish'd, and Excommunicated those who should hold any Correspondence with him. The Sentence of these Cardinals is dated January 27. in 1389. and was thunder'd out against him at Paris the 17th of March following.

While these things were Transacted at Avignon, the University of Paris being highly offended * 1.5 with the Behaviour of John Monteson, and his Superiors who protected him, and of other Domi∣nicans who publickly approv'd his Opinion, oblig'd many amongst them to retract the Proposi∣tions which they had advanc'd against the Belief of the Immaculate Conception, and in defence of the Doctrin of John Monteson. We have many of these Retractations in the Registers of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris. The most Remarkable is that which was made by William Valon Bishop of Evreux, and Confessor to the King, in the presence of his Majesty, the Deputies of the University, and the Chancellor of the Church of Paris, on the 21st of February, in 1388 where he retracted what he had said in favour of the Doctrin of John Monteson. After this fol∣low the Retractations of John of St. Thomas, on the 21st of March in the same year; of Friar Adam of Soissons, on the 16th of May, in 1389. of Richard Mary in the same year; of John Adam in the Month of August; of Peter Chancey in the Month of October, and of John Nicholas in the Month of September of the same year. All these Friars-Preachers were obliged to retract the Propositions they had advanc'd, or other publick Dicourses against the Immaculate Concep∣tion of the Virgin, and against the Feast of the Conception.

The Common People were no less Scandaliz'd at the Doctrin of the Dominicans than the Divines, and conceiv'd so great a hatred against them, that they durst hardly appear in publick. At last, when the Confirmation of the Condemnation of Monteson was obtain'd from the Pope, the University made a Decree, wherein they exclude from their Society all those who would not Swear to maintain the Condemnation of the Errors of Monteson, and Ordain'd that for the future those who would take any Degrees, should take the same Oath.

The Dominicans being perswaded that this Censure impeacht the Doctrin of St. Thomas, would not take this Oath, and therefore were excluded from the Faculty, which render'd them * 1.6 so odious, that after this they were not admitted to Preach, nor to take any Confessions, nor do any other Office; and the Common People did not only refuse to give them their usual Alms, but also abused and persecuted them. The Dominicans to allay this Storm, had recourse to the Pope, and in their general Chapter held in the Province of Tholouse, in 1389. they appointed ten Doctors of their Order to go and maintain the Cause of St. Thomas at the Pope's Court against the University of Paris, who should be maintain'd at the expence of the Regulars of their Order, who should all contribute towards it; viz. the Doctors 20 Sous, and the other Regulars 10 Sous, as is to be seen in the Original Instrument, which is in the hands of Monsieur Baluzius.

The University at this time caus'd a Treatise to be written in its own defence, which is at * 1.7 the end of the Master of the Sentences; wherein they undertake to prove, 1st, That the Fa∣culty of Theology, and the Bishop of Paris, have not exceeded their Power in Condemning the Propositions of John Monteson. 2dly, That these Propositions are justly Condemn'd. 3dly, That the Doctrin of St. Thomas was not approv'd by the Church after such a manner, that the Ap∣probation could hinder the Execution of the Sentence given by the Bishop of Paris.

As to the first Point, the Faculty distinguishes two sorts of Approbations or Condemnations of Error; the one Doctrinal and Scholastical, and the other Authoritative and Judicial; and di∣vides this latter into Sovereign and Inferior. This distinction being supposed, it lays down the

following Conclusions. 1st. That it belongs to the Holy Apostolick See to define Matters which concern the Faith, by a Supream Judicial Authority. 2d, That it belongs to the Bishops to decide them by the same Authority, but which is Inferior and Subordinate. 3d, That it be∣longs to Divines to give a Doctrinal Judgment upon these Matters, since it is their Duty to teach the Holy Scripture, and to make use of it for rejecting Heretical Opinions, and approving Ca∣tholick Truths. 4th, That the Bishop and the Faculty of Theology may joyntly or severally Condemn Heretical and Erroneous Propositions, after the manner which has been now explain'd. 5th, That the Condemnation which is pass'd by the Faculty, may be even judicial with respect to its Members. 6th, That the Superior Judge ought not to hinder the Bishop nor the Faculty to proceed to some Condemnation, unless it be in a Cause very favourable, nor to delay 'till the Appeal is made before him, without mature deliberation. From these Conclusions they draw the following Inferences. First, That the Faculty of Theology may Condemn the Errors of Monteson Doctrinally. Secondly, That this Faculty being joyn'd to the other 3 Faculties, may pronounce this Sentence before the Bishop of Paris the ordinary Judge. Thirdly, That the Fa∣culty of Theology may forbid these Propositions to be maintain'd and taught in their Schools, and the Bishop of Paris may order the same prohibition in his Diocese. Afterwards they answer an Objection, which the Dominicans made, that some of the Propositions of Monteson were taken out of St. Thomas, whose Doctrin had been formerly Condemn'd by the Faculty of Divinity at Paris, but was maintain'd by Stephen Bishop of Paris, and approv'd by Urban V. in his Bull to the University of Tholouse, wherein he ordains that the Doctrine of St. Thomas shall be followed by all Divines. They add, that it belongs only to the Holy See to Decide, Condemn, and approve in Matters of Faith. To this the Faculty answers, that they always protested their Intention never was to Condemn the Doctrin of St. Thomas, which was very different from the Proposi∣tions of Monteson, tho' it could not be concluded from the Bull of Urban V. that it was approv'd in all things, and there were many Propositions in his Works which might be accused of Error.

As to the Second Point, which concerns the Propositions Condemn'd, the Faculty observes in the first place, that tho' a good sense may be put upon a Proposition, yet it may be Condemn'd, as that which ought to be retracted upon the Account of a bad sense. After this they relate the 14 Propositions which are Censur'd, and the Qualifications which signifie upon whom the Con∣demnation falls, and refer them to a Treatise which was written by Peter of Ailly to maintain the Censure.

As to the Third Point, the Faculty remarks that a Doctrin may be approv'd by the Church 3 ways. 1. As useful, probable, and common amongst Scholastick Divines. 2. As a Doctrin which every one is obliged to believe to be true in all its parts. 3. As a Doctrin which is neither Erroneous nor Heretical in any part: For, add they, there are many Propositions false which do not concern the Faith, and do not bring a Man into a damnable Error, which cannot be accused of Heresie because that implies a corruption of the Christian Faith. The Doctrin ap∣provd in the first way may contain Falsities, and even Errors, which is therefore more common and ordinary; besides this, an Approbation may be either express, or tacit, a Toleration or an Owning. These Principles being supposed, the Faculty maintains, that the Doctrin of St. Thomas was approv'd only in the first sense, and not in the two other senses, and that it contains Contra∣dictions and Errors in matters of Faith, whereof they bring Examples taken out of his Works; and they also produce other instances of many Saints, and many Authors who fell into some Errors, viz. St. Peter, St. Cyprian, St. Jerom, the Master of the Sentences, Gratian, St. Anselm, Hugo de Sancto Victore, and some others, whose Doctrins they affirm to be held in greater ve∣neration than that of St. Thomas. They maintain particularly that the Doctrin of St. Thomas about the absolute necessity of some Creatures, is Erroneous, or at least suspected of Error, and refuted by many Reasons.

They observe also that he is too much addicted to apply Principles of Philosophy, and Sen∣tences of Philosophers to Conclusions of Divinity, wherein he does ill; for, say they, Divines ought not to speak as Philosophers do, as St. Austin remarks in the 10th Book of the City of God, Chap. 23. in these words:

Philosophers do freely make use of what terms they please, and are not at all afraid to offend Religious Ears about such things as are very difficult to compre∣hend; but as to us we must not speak but according to a certain Rule, for fear lest the liberty which we take of using some terms as we please, should convey an Opinion of the things them∣selves, which is disagreeable to Piety.

We do not find that the Dominicans obtain'd of the Court of Rome any Decision in their Fa∣vour; * 1.8 but on the contrary, we see that to put a stop to the Persecution which they endured, they were obliged to Celebrate in France the Conception of the Virgin as others did, and no longer to maintain publickly that she was Conceiv'd in Sin, but to be silent as to that Que∣stion. By observing this Conduct they procur'd their own Repose, and were restor'd to their Functions; but they remain'd still excluded from the Faculty for the space of 25 years, because they would not take an Oath to approve the Condemnation of the Propositions of Monteson, un∣til at last the Faculty admitted them upon the importunate Request of the King, August 21. in 1403. upon Condition that they should Renounce the Appeal they had made from the Decree of the Faculty, and that those who were admitted into the Faculty should promise for the future to obey this Decree of the Faculty.

The Affairs of John Petit made no less noise in the University of Paris than that of Monteson; * 1.9 this Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, undertook to maintain the Action of John Duke of Burgundy, who had caus'd the Duke of Orleans to be Assassinated, and wrote upon this Subject a Treatise intituled, The Justification of the Duke of Burgundy, wherein he maintains that it was lawful for a private Person to put a Tyrant to death. This Book being for some time shelter'd from Censure by the Power of the Duke of Burgundy, was at last Censur'd in 1414. by the Faculty of Theology, at the instance of John Gerson, and Condemn'd by Gerard Montague Bishop of Paris, and John Polet the Inquisitor. The Censure of the Faculty is to be met with among the Works of Gerson; it contains 9 Propositions, with convenient Qualifications, whereof the 7 first concern the point in question; that 'tis lawful to kill Tyrants, and that those who do it, do not only deserve to be exempt from any Punishment, but ought also to be Rewarded. The Eighth Proposition which is Condemn'd as Erroneous is this, That to observe always the literal sense of Scripture is to kill a Man's own Soul. The 10th, which is Condemn'd as Erroneous and Seditious is this, that no Man is bound to observe that Alliance or Oath which he has made, when it happens that this Oath or Alliance is contrary to the welfare of his Spouse or Chil∣dren who made them. The Bishop and Inquisitor by one and the same Sentence did joyntly Condemn the Doctrin of John Petit as Erroneous in Faith, and good Manners, and as Scanda∣lous; they Ordain'd that the Copies of his Book should be brought to them, and forbad any to maintain or teach such Propositions. This Sentence is dated February 23. in 1413. according to the Stile of the Gallican-Church; i. e. according to our ••way of Reckoning in 1414. It was Publish'd the 25th of the same Month, and the Propositions of John Petit were publickly burnt. The King on the 16th of March of the same year, publish'd Letters Patent directed to his Parliaments, wherein he confirms the Sentence of the Bishop of Paris and the Inquisitor, and Ordains that they should cause it to be enter'd in their Registers, and to be executed; but it was not enter'd in the Register of the Parliament of Paris, till the 4th of June, in 1416.

The Duke of Burgundy appeal'd from this Sentence to Pope John XXIII. who appointed three Cardinals to Examine it, whose Opinion was that it was null; but Gerson carried this Af∣fair to the Council of Constance. The Duke of Burgundy wrote to 'em upon this Occasion, and demanded that nothing should be done against the Book of John Petit but in the presence of his Ambassadors. Martin Porree Bishop of Arras objected to Gerson that he had not faithfully ex∣tracted the Propositions out of the Book of John Petit, and that he did not take them in the sense of the Author.

The Council appointed Deputies to examine this Affair, which was warmly debated on both sides; and at last in the 15th Session of the Council held July the 6th, in 1415. the Propo∣sition * 1.10 of John Petit, that 'tis Lawful and even Meritorious for a Vassal or Subject to kill a Tyrant, was Condemn'd as Heretical and Scandalous, without naming the Author, but only declaring in General that those who should defend it obstinately should be reputed Hereticks, and punished as such. The Duke of Burgundy sent to Paris John Montleon his Almoner, to engage the University, or at least the Nation of Picardy, to pray the Dauphin that he would write to the Council a Let∣ter Condemning the Conduct of Gerson in this Affair, as having forg'd a Proposition which was none of John Petit's. Gerson on his part sent a Declaration to the University of Paris, against all those who should hinder the Duke of Burgundy from acknowledging publickly that he had com∣mitted a Crime, by causing the Duke of Orleans to be Assassinated.

The Faculty of Theology at Paris passed also in this Century many other doctrinal Censures.

From the year 1389. they had declar'd by their Conclusion dated September the 19th, against many Propositions of the Magical Art, wherein Compacts made with the Devil are excused, * 1.11 and the Superstitions of that detestable Art, to which a notable Vertue and Efficacy is at∣tributed.

In 1408. the same Faculty Consulted about a Question moved in the Diocese of Saintes, whe∣ther we may believe that some of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed upon the Cross was still re∣maining upon Earth? To which they answer'd May 28. that this Opinion was no ways con∣trary to Piety.

In the same year the Faculty Condemn'd 5 Propositions advanc'd by Friar John Gorel of the Order of Friars Minors, Licentiate in Divinity, and obliged him to retract them. These Propo∣sitions are, First, That the Sacrament of Penance does no ways operate by its own vertue in him who has Grace, because the principal effect of that Sacrament concerns only the Remission of Sins. Secondly, That he who has rightly confessed, can no ways be obliged to confess a second time. Thirdly, That it no ways belongs to Parish-Priests as Parish-Priests, to Preach, take Con∣fessions, give Extream Unction, and to Bury, nor to receive Tythes, because they were not Insti∣tuted by Jesus Christ, nor the Primitive Church. Fourthly, That it agrees more essentially and naturally to Regulars than to Parish-Priests to Preach. Fifthly, That Parish-Priests who have any other means to live upon cannot receive Tythes. The Faculty Condemns these Propositions, and declares that Parish-Priests are Prelates and Hierarchs of an Inferior Order, to whom the Right belongs of hearing Confessions, and of Administring the Sacraments, which agrees to the Regulars only by accident.

In 1426. on the Month of October the same Faculty having Consulted about the Obligation and * 1.12 Manner of observing Sundays, and Festivals, ordered Giles Charlier to draw up a Writing, wherein they lay down certain and solid Principles about the Celebration of Sundays, and

decide, 1st, That every Man is obliged to set apart some time, which ought to be particularly and only imploy'd in worshipping God; 2dly, That this time under the old Law, was Saturday; 3dly, That the Obligation to observe Saturday, was not a Law purely positive, and ceremonial, but also moral and natural; That the Observation of Sunday succeeded under the new Law to that of the Sabbath; 5thly, That we ought to attend the Service of God on Sundays and Festi∣vals; 6thly, That we may on Sunday do such Works as are Liberal, both Spiritual and Corpo∣ral, which concern the Service of God or Charity towards our Neighbour; 7thly, That we ought to abstain from servile Works, of which there are three sorts; first, Sin; secondly, the Service which we pay to another Man; thirdly, every Imployment or Action which hinders us from applying our selves to the Service of God, without reckoning the Works which concern that Service; 8thly, That these last Works are always lawful; 9thly, That it is more criminal to sin on Sunday than on another Day; 10thly, That no Man is obliged to abstain from these servile Works, which are necessary for the Preservation of the Body, as the dressing of Meat, a Man's defending himself when he is attack'd, and in danger of his Life; 11thly, That these servile Works, whose end is temporal Gain, are unlawful on Sundays and Festivals; 12thly, That 'tis not lawful on these Days to keep Markets for such things as are not necessary to Life, and chiefly during the time of Divine Service; 13th, That one may buy and sell the Necessaries of Life on these Days; 14th, That when there is some Necessity, a Dispensation may be granted for labouring on Sundays; 15th, That this Necessity cannot be described by a general Rule, but in these Cases we must have Recourse to the Judgment of a wise and good Man; 16th, That those who have a mind to abstain on these Days, from buying, selling, and doing such things as are even necessary to Life, ought not to be dissuaded from it; 17th, That the Transgression of this Command is very criminal.

A Regular of the Order of Friars Minors, called Peter Chonac, having advanc'd and preach'd * 1.13 some erroneous Propositions, and spoke some Words prejudicial to the Faculty, was obliged to make Satisfaction in 1428.

In 1429, John Sarrazin, Licentiate in Theology, of the Order of Friars Preachers, was dela∣ted to the Faculty, and accused of having advanc'd, in his Act de Vesperiis, Eight Propositions concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, contrary to the Doctrin of the Faculty, viz. 1st, That all the Powers of Jurisdiction in the Church, which are different from that of the Pope, are from the Pope in their Institution and Collation; 2dly, That these Powers are not of Divine Right, nor instituted by God immediately; 3dly, That Jesus Christ says nothing of these Powers, but only of the Supream, to which he intrusted the founding of his Church; 4thly, That when any thing is decreed in a Council, all the Authority which gives force to its Decrees, resides only in the Pope; 5thly, That there is no Text in the Gospel, by which it expresly appears, That the Power of Jurisdiction was granted to any other Apostle but St. Peter; 6thly, That it is re∣pugnant in some manner to Truth, to affirm that the Power of Jurisdiction in Inferior Prelates, whether Bishops or Parish-Priests, is immediately from God as the Power of the Pope is; 7thly, That no other Spiritual Authorities can do any thing of Right against the Pope; 8thly, That the Pope cannot commit Canonical Simony, which is forbidden by a positive Law. The Fa∣culty having caus'd these Propositions to be examin'd by Deputies, obliged Sarrazin to retract them publickly, and to make Profession of eight Propositions contrary to them, wherein he owns, 1st, That all the Powers of Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions, which are different from that of the Pope, are from Jesus Christ as to their first Institution and Collation, and from the Pope and the Church, as to their Limitation and Ministerial Dispensation; 2dly, That these Powers are of Divine Right, instituted immediately by Jesus Christ; 3dly, That we find in Scripture, that Jesus Christ founded his Church, and expresly instituted other Powers besides that of the Pope; 4thly, That when any thing is decided in a Council, the Authority which gives force to its De∣crees, does not reside only in the Pope, but chiefly in the Holy Spirit and the Catholick Church; 5thly, That there are express Texts in the Gospel, by which it appears, That Jesus Christ has given his Apostles and Disciples an Authority of Jurisdiction; 6thly, That 'tis agreeable to Evan∣gelical and Apostolical Truth, to affirm, That the Power of Jurisdiction in inferiour Prelats, whether Bishops or Parish-Priests, is immediately from God; 7thly, That there is a Power, viz. That of the Church, which can do something of Right in certain Cases against the Pope; 8thly, That every Man, in this Life, having the Use of Reason, of whatsoever Dignity, Authority and Preheminence, even the Pope himself, may commit the Crime of Simony. This Retractation was spoken by Sarrazin, in an Assembly of the Faculty, March the 30th, 1429. according to the way of reckoning in France at that time, i. e. in 1430.

In 1432. The Faculty was consulted in the Name of the Bishop of Evreux, and the Inquisitor * 1.14 of that Diocese, about a Proposition which one had advanc'd, That the Admonitions of Bishops are Abuses, and it declar'd by its Conclusion, dated May the 16th, That this Proposition was re∣proachful, presumptuous, rash, scandalous, tending to Sedition and Rebellion, and to weaken the Ecclesiastical Censures, contrary to the Doctrin of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, and favou∣rable to some Errors condemn'd in the Council of Constance.

In 1442. Nicholas Quadrigarii, a Doctor of Divinity, of the Order of Friars Hermites of * 1.15 St. Austin, having advanc'd in his Act de Vesperiis, two Propositions; 1st, That every thing which happens by Divine Providence, comes to pass necessarily; the other, That there is no other Power of Jurisdiction in the Church but the Pope's, which is immediately from Jesus

Christ, was obliged by the Order of the Faculty, to retract these two Propositions on the 9th of January, and to make Profession of the contrary Doctrin.

In 1448. a Regular of the Order of Friars Minors, having advanc'd in the Diocese of Tour∣nay, * 1.16 many Propositions contrary to the Rights of Parish-Priests, like those which had been for∣merly advanced in 1429. by John Sarrazin; the Grand Vicars of the Bishop address'd them∣selves to Giles Charlier, who wrote a piece to refute them, which is agreeable to the Doctrin of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, in the Censure against Sarrazin.

In 1451. John Bartholomew, of the Order of Friars Minors, advanc'd at Roan in his Sermons many Propositions contrary to the Rights of Parish-Priests, chiefly about Confession; viz. That the Parishioners may freely confess themselves to Regulars Mendicants, without asking leave of the Parish-Priests: Whereupon the Proctor of the Archbishoprick caus'd an Information to be drawn up against him, and the Affair being brought before the University of Paris, this Regular appear'd in the Assembly of the University December the 4th, and refusing to own that the Pa∣rishioners were obliged to confess themselves once a Year to their Parish Priests; it was resolved, That the Degree of a Licentiate should be denied him, and that the deciding of the Question should be referred to the Faculties of Theology and Law.

In 1456. this Question was started again with some Warmth in the University, upon occa∣sion * 1.17 of a Bull obtain'd from Pope Nicholas V. by the Mendicants, who gave them leave to take Confessions, to the prejudice of the Right of Parish-Priests, established by the Canon Omnis utri∣us{que} Sexus; and also, by Order of the Clementine Dudum. The University understand∣ing that it had been presented to the Official of Paris by some Regulars Carmelites, interposed an Appeal, and cited the Mendicants to appear on Monday, May the 24th, to declare to them, That they should be excluded from the University, unless they renounc'd the obtaining of that Bull, and would promise to obtain the Revocation of it within a certain time. The Mendi∣cants having appear'd, and refusing to do it, the University declared them perjured and excluded from their Society.

The Mendicants instead of procuring the Revocation of that Bull, address'd themselves to Pope Callistus; complain'd of the Treatment they met with from the University, and obtain'd of him a Bull, which confirm'd that of Nicholas V. and null'd all that the University had done against them. Notwithstanding this, the University continued firm, and the Mendicants were obliged to seek out some ways of Accommodation; the Archbishop of Rhemes, the Bishop of Paris, and the Parliament concern'd themselves in the Affair. At first it was proposed, That the Mendicants should declare they pretended not to acquire any new Right by this Bull: But this Proposal appear'd to be captious, and was not at all accepted. Several other means were afterwards proposed, which were also rejected, and none but one was accepted, viz. That the Mendicants should refer the Examination of this Bull to a future Council; and that in the mean time, they should adhere to the Definition of the Council of Lateran, and the Doctrin of the Gallican Church; but the Mendicants refused to submit to this Condition. In the Month of September, Pope Calistus granted a Bull wherein, for promoting Peace, he revokes all the Privileges granted to the prejudice of the Clementine Dudum, which he orders all to observe. This Bull was sent to the University, and read in the Assembly held February the 3d, in 1457. At last the Mendicants resolved to submit in order to their Restauration, and interposed the Au∣thority of Prince Artus of Brittainy, Count of Richmont, Constable of France, who came with the Archbishop of Rhemes, and the Bishop of Paris, to the Assembly of the University, which was held the 18th of that Month; where it was proposed, That in order to the restoring of Peace to the University, the Bull in question should remain in the hands of the Bishop of Paris; and that the Regulars Mendicants should be re-admitted into the University, as they were before this Contest, upon Condition that they would obey the Bull of Calistus III. which had revoked that of Nicholas V. The Prior of the Dominicans demanded this in the Name of all the rest; but because he had not done it with Submission enough, the Constable was obliged to bring the Regulars back into the Assembly, and to cause them to make a most humble Supplication by the Mouth of the Prior of the Augustins; after which they were admitted, upon Condition that they should never make use of that Bull which remained in the Hands of the Bishop of Paris, That they would obey the Bull revocatory, and cause it to be approved within a Year by their Generals; and that they would no more, for the future, obtain such Bulls under pain of the same Exclusion. On the 11th of July following, a Friar-Preacher came to wait upon the Rector of the University in the Name of his General, and declared to him, That he had Orders to for∣bid the Friars of his Order to enter into the University upon these Conditions. The Rector made him no Answer, but summon'd the Friars Preachers to ratifie the Agreement, and when they refused to do it, upon the Account of the Prohibition of their General, the University ex∣cluded them yet a second time from their Society until at last they were brought to supplicate on the eighth of October, That they would receive them, and promise to observe the Treaty made in the presence of the Constable.

In 1465. the Faculty order'd its Deputies to examine three Propositions, which had been * 1.18 maintain'd in the Schools that are in the Street at Fouarra, by a Scholar who answer'd about Physicks; 1st, That every Man is an infinite number of Men, and that an infinite number of Men have but one Soul; 2d, That no Man shall be corrupted, tho' a Man ought to be corrupt∣ed; 3d, That each part of a Man is Man. The Faculty condemned these Propositions, and re∣ferr'd

the Propositions of other Respondents, which do not concern the Faith, to the Decision of the University.

In 1470. about the end of the Month of August, the Faculty condemn'd also a Proposition * 1.19 like those of Sarrazin and Quadrigarii, concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, viz. That the Apo∣stles did not receive their Power immediately from Jesus Christ, but from St. Peter, which was ad∣vanc'd by John Meunier, of the Order of Friars-Preachers; who made Satisfaction, by de∣claring, That he knew not that the Faculty had condemned this Proposition, and that he sub∣mitted to their Decision.

In the same Assembly a Doctor of Divinity, of the Order of Friars Minors, called Donat * 1.20 Dupuy, who had obtain'd from the Pope an Exemption of his Order, and was principal of the College of Lombards, where he stay'd, desir'd to be admitted to Profess, representing that he was not a Regular but in Name, and making great account of the Services he had done in the Restoration of this College. The Faculty thank'd him, but they would not grant his Desire, lest they should infringe the Regulations made concerning the number of Professors of the Men∣dicant Orders.

In the Month of November in the same Year, the Faculty of Theology at Paris was consulted * 1.21 by that of Louvain, whether the Propositions of the Creed which respect the Future, such as these, Jesus Christ will come, The Resurrection of the Dead will happen, Be true, whether those who affirm it do not fall into the Error of them who think that all things happen by Necessity? And the Faculty answered affirmatively by its Conclusion, on the 12th of this Month.

In 1477. the Faculty being assembled January 15th, condemn'd this Proposition, which had been advanc'd by a Divine called William Milletis; viz. That the three Persons are constituted by three Properties, whereof one is not God, and declared it scandalous, false and erroneous: The Theologue who advanc'd it, submitted to this Condemnation.

In 1482. John Bethencourt, a Professor of Meaux, presented to the Faculty the following Pro∣position, * 1.22 which was preach'd in the Diocese of Saintes; That every Soul which is in Purgatory is delivered from it as soon as any gives for it six Blancs of Alms to the Church of St. Peter of Saintonge. This Proposition was founded upon a Bull of Indulgence granted by Pope Sixtus IV. to this Church August the 2d, 1476. The Faculty declar'd by its Conclusion November 20th, That this Proposition was not in that Bull, and ought not be asserted or preach'd.

At the Beginning of the next Year, the Chapter of the Church at Tournay sent to the Faculty * 1.23 fourteen Propositions, which were advanc'd by Friar John Angeli, of the Order of Friars Mi∣nors, in the Sermons which he preach'd during the Lent of the preceding Year, in the Cathe∣dral Church at Tournay, and the Parish-Churches of St. Peter and St. Quintyn. The Faculty having examined them, condemn'd them by its Conclusion, dated February the 1st. Here follow the Propositions and their Qualifications. Proposition 1st, The Friars Minors being presented and admitted by the Bishop, are much more proper Priests and true Rectors than the Parish-Priests, because they hold their Power of the Pope, whereas the Priests hold it only of the Bishop: Qua∣lification, Whatever may be said of the first part of this Proposition, by reason of the Equivo∣calness of the Word Proper; the Faculty declares, That the Proposition in it self, and as to all its parts, and the Proof of the last part, wherein 'tis said, That the Priest receives only his Power from the Bishop, is scandalous, erroneous in the Faith, destructive of the Hierarchical Order; and that it ought to be publickly retracted and abjur'd, for the Preservation of that Or∣der. The second Proposition, A Parishioner who has confess'd to these Friars, has satisfied the Decretal Omnis utrius{que} Sexus, and is not obliged to confess himself once a Year to his proper Rector, nor to desire leave of him: The Qualification, This Proposition according to the Terms wherein it is conceived, is scandalous, contrary to common Right, and ought to be publickly re∣tracted upon the account of the Obedience and Respect which Inferiors owe to Prelats. The third Proposition, If a Rector refuse to administer the Eucharist to a Parishioner, who has confess'd to a Regular, he may come to this Regular and he shall administer it to him: The Qualification, This Proposition is false, suspected of Heresie, contrary to common Right, and ought to be publickly re∣tracted. The fourth Proposition, A Parish-Priest can receive nothing from his Parishioners for Confession, nor for Administration of the Sacraments; but the same is not to be said of the Mendicants: The Qualification, This Proposition is contrary to the Disposition of Natural Right, and the express Command of God, and therefore false and notoriously Heretical. The fifth Pro∣position, the Parish-Priest who affirms, That his Parishioners are obliged to confess to him once in a Year, under pain of mortal Sin, is excommunicate; and if he celebrate Divine Service he is irregular: The Qualification, This Proposition is false and reproachful. The sixth Proposition, He who causes Mass to be said by a Priest, who keeps a Woman in his House, or is otherwise of ill Behaviour, sins mortally: The Qualification, This Proposition being indefinite is doubtful, rash, and ought never to be preach'd to the common People. The seventh Proposition, The Friars Men∣dicants are not obliged to pay what is enacted in the Clementine Dudum: The Qualification, This Proposition is contrary to common Right. The eighth Proposition, The Pope can destroy all the Canon Law, and make a new one: The Qualification, This Proposition is scandalous, blasphe∣mous, notoriously Heretical, and Erroneous. The ninth Proposition, Some Saints are furiously mad: The Qualification, This Proposition is scandalous, blasphemous, offensive to pious Ears. The tenth Proposition, The Souls which are in Purgatory, are under the Jurisdiction of the Pope, and if he pleases, he may empty all Purgatory: The Qualification, This Proposition in it self is

doubtful, and in the meaning of him who advanc'd it about ordinary Jurisdiction, it is false, scandalous, and ought not to be preached to the common People. The eleventh Proposition, The Pope may take away from an Ecclesiastick the half of the Revenues of his Benefices, and give them away to another without shewing any Cause for so doing: The Qualification, This Propo∣sition is dangerous, and ought not to be preach'd in these times. The twelfth Proposition, Who∣soever contradicts the Will of the Pope acts like a Pagan, and incurs the Sentence of Excom∣munication Ipso facto. The Pope cannot be reproved by any person, except in case of Heresy: The Qualification, This Proposition is false, and contains a manifest Lye. The fourteenth Pro∣position, Friar John Angely has many times affirm'd, That these Articles are true, and that he would maintain them at Paris, and over all the Earth, even till he was burnt, without ever re∣voking them; and that he was not of the number of those Preachers who retract: The Qualifi∣cation, This is the Discourse of a Man who is impudent and obstinate; and there is sufficient Reason to proceed against him judicially, as one who is very strongly suspected of He∣resie.

Another Friar Minor Observantine, called John Merchand, having preached in 1486 in the City of Besancon, many Impertinencies about the Prerogatives of St. Francis, the Faculty of * 1.24 Theology at Paris, by their Conclusion April the 10th, censur'd twelve of his Propositions. The 1st, That Lucifer, who was the Head of the Angels, having left his place vacant, which was wonderfully set off and adorn'd, it was reserv'd for St. Francis only; because as Lucifer was driven from it upon the account of his Pride, so there was no Saint found upon Earth, which had so much Humility as St. Francis; upon which account he was preferr'd to that place. He added, if any Person will not believe me unless he go thither and see, I would rather see it than believe it. The Faculty examin'd this Proposition by its parts; as to the 1st, which is Copulative, it was found false, contrary to the Sentiment of the Saints; the 2d, which concerns the vacant place of Lucifer, which was above the Angels, whither the Preacher affirms that St. Francis was taken up, appear'd to them rash, presumptuous, and derogatory from the singu∣lar Prerogative of the Virgin; the 3d, which is of the Humility of St. Francis, is also declared temerarious, presumptuous, false, reproachful to the other Saints; and in fine the last part, If any one will not believe, &c. is declar'd indecent. The second Proposition is, That St. Francis is like to Jesus Christ in forty Respects, That he is a second Christ, and a second Son of God. This Proposition is justly censur'd as false and Heretical. The third, That the Conception of St. Francis was foretold to his Mother by an Angel, like that of Jesus Christ: This is censur'd as rash and groundless. The following Propositions until the 11th, contain the Fables about the Brands of St. Francis, which are censur'd as having no Authority. The 11th, That St. Francis descends every Year on the Day of his Festival into Purgatory, and delivers out of it all those of his own Order, and that he carries them into Paradise, as Jesus Christ carried thi∣ther the Souls of the ancient Fathers. This Proposition is censured as suspected of Heresie, con∣trary to the Justice and the Law of God, preach'd for Interest, and on purpose to deceive the People. The 12th, That St. Francis obtain'd of God, That all the Regulars of his Order, who do not observe his Rule as they ought, shall not continue in this World; and that those who shall speak evil of his Regulars shall be punished, a thing which he never told to any but his Con∣fessor, who reveal'd it after his Death. This Proposition is condemned as schismatical, seditious notoriously false, impertinent, and suspected of Heresie.

As there were some Preachers who exceeded all due Bounds in their Devotion or Superstition towards the Saints, so there were some others who fell into the contrary Extream; and among * 1.25 the rest one nam'd Lailier, a Licentiate in Theology of the Faculty of Paris, who preaching in the same Year, 1486. at Paris, advanc'd many bold Propositions against the Authority and Laws of the Church. The Faculty equally condemn'd both these Extreams, and with no less Con∣stancy opposed the Novelties of Lailier, than those of the Regulars Observantines, of whom we have already spoken. Among the Propositions advanc'd by Lailier, they made choice of the nine following.

The 1st, You ought to keep the Commands of God and the Apostles, and as to the Commands of the Bishops, they are no better than Chaff, for they have destroyed the Church by their Reveries; The 2d, St. Francis is rather in the place where Lucifer is at pre∣sent, i. e. in Hell, than in the place where Lucifer was before his Fall, i. e. in Heaven; The 3d, I am not bound to believe that a Man is a Saint because he is canoniz'd; since he is canoniz'd for Mony, and none are canoniz'd but those who give something for it; The 4th, If a Priest marry clandestinely, and come to me and confess it, I would not enjoin him Pe∣nance; The 5th, The Priests of the Eastern Church do not sin in marrying, and I believe that neither should we sin in the Western Church, if we should marry; The 6th, Four Hundred Years agoe all Priests were forbidden to marry by a Pope or a Butterfly * 1.26, I don't know whe∣ther he could do it; The 7th, I would give two Blancs to him that will produce any passage of Scripture, whereby we are obliged to fast in Lent; The 8th, since the time of St. Sylvester, the Roman Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but the Church of Caesar and of Silver; The 9th, There is no more reason to believe the Legends of the Saints than the Chronicles of the Kings of France.

The Faculty by its Conclusion dated June the 6th, 1486. condemned these Propositions, and apply'd to each the suitable Qualifications of heretical, erroneous, schis∣matical, scandalous, rash, &c. together with another Proposition which the same Preacher ad∣vanc'd in his Sorbonica; That a meer Priest can as well consecrate the Chrism, and confer Or∣ders,

as the Pope, or the Bishop, and that all Priests are equal in the power of Order and Ju∣risdiction, * 1.27 as were also all the Apostles. The Faculty resolved at the same time to deny the degree of Doctor to Lailier; whereupon he Addressed himself to the Parliament, who referred this Affair to the Bishop of Paris, to be Examined and Judged by him joyntly with the Inquisi∣tor, and by 4 Doctors deputed from the Faculty. Lailier presented to the Official of Paris a Writing, for explaining some of his Propositions, wherein he affirms that he had said, First, I never found in the Old or New Testament, that our Lord or his Apostles Commanded to Fast Corporally in the time of Lent, by way of a Precept, under pain of Mortal Sin, or of Dam∣nation; and even the Holy Fathers who speak of it or describe it, do not Command it under pain of the great Excommunication, or of Mortal Sin; they never used these words about it, Praecipimus & Mandamus. Secondly, I never said that the Church can oblige under pain of Mortal Sin, or cannot, in a Sermon, but in a Disputation according to the Custom of the School, when the Reverend Father in God Monsieur de Meaux was present, I argued Pro & Contra about it, as a Problematical Matter, as Mr. John Gerson, and Peter de Alliaco have done. Thirdly, I never said that Priests can Marry after they have received Holy Orders, but I said that from the Passion of our Lord, to the time of Gregory VII. they did Marry. i. e. until the year 1073. and that St. Peter, and St. Paul, St. Philip the Apostle and Deacon, St. Fabian the Pope and Martyr, St. Hillary the Bishop of Poitiers, St. German of Auxerres, and many others were Married; and 'tis now two years since I said this. Fourthly, that there are some Proposi∣tions more bold than mine in Gerson's Treatise about the Spiritual Life of the Soul. The Fa∣culty Censured a-new these Propositions, except the 2d, as to which it declared that it no ways concern'd them. The Bishop and Inquisitor did each on their part draw up the Process of Lai∣lier. The Inquisitor Communicated the Informations he had made to the Bishop, but the Bishop would not Communicate his to him; and without Appealing he decided the Cause of Lailier Summarily, and after he had caused him to own and abjure the Propositions Censured by the Faculty, he gave him Absolution from the Excommunication, and restor'd him by his Sentence, to his Functions, Honours and Dignities, and gave him a Right of being promoted to other De∣grees, and abolish'd all Marks of Infamy.

This Sentence was given and pronounced by the Bishop of Paris, assisted with the Ecclesiasti∣cal * 1.28 and Secular Judges whom he had called together June 23d. in 1486. and in pursuance of it on the 29th of the same Month Lailier abjured publickly in a Sermon Preached at the Cathedral Church at a Solemn Procession, the Errors contained in the Propositions Censured by the Faculty; afterwards he used his Endeavours to be promoted to the Degree of Doctor, but the Faculty con∣tinued still to deny him; and when the Bishop of Paris would force them to grant the Degree according to his Sentence, they interposed an Appeal to the Person to whom it belonged, by their Act dated November the 6th. Pope Innocent VIII. being informed of this Affair, sent 2 Bulls, * 1.29 one Address'd to John Cossart an Inquisitor, by which he forbids Lailier to Preach, and intrusts this Affair with that Inquisitor, the Arch-bishop of Sens, and the Bishop of Meaux; the other Address'd to the Faculty, whose Zeal he commends, and approves what they had done against Lailier, forbids them to give him the Degree of Doctor, makes void and nulls the Sentence of the Bi∣shop of Paris. These Bulls are dated the 6th and the 9th of December, in 1486. There is no more about this Affair in our Registers, but an Extract of some Propositions which Lailier maintain'd in his Act of Sorbonica, dated July the 30th, in 1484. among which there is one which affirms that Confession is not of Divine Right: The other tend to overthrow the Pri∣macy of the Pope, and the Episcopal Power, and to establish an equality of Power and Jurisdi∣ction among the Ministers of the Church.

Some time after the Bishop of Meaux presented to the Faculty the 7 following Propositions. * 1.30 1st, 'Tis a greater Crime to have to do with ones Godmother, than their Mother. 2d, The Bishop canot Absolve from such a Crime. 3d, A Priest who is a Fornicator cannot say Dominus Vobiscum, nor repeat Divine Service in any place. The 4th, The Sacraments which are Admi∣nistred, or the Service which is said by such a Priest, is of no more value than the barking of Dogs. 5th, There is but one St. Ives among the Advocates who is Saved. 6th, Hell is all fill'd with Advocates, and therefore no person ought to fear that he shall go there. 7th. The Apothe∣caries, Artificers of Arms, Physicians, and those who make profession of other Trades, shall ne∣ver go to Paradise, unless they be carried thither by the Devils, or upon the Tail of a Mule. The Faculty Censured these Propositions as false, scandalous, and impertinent, on the 3d of No∣vember, in 1486.

On the 2d of August, in 1490. the Faculty declared a Contract to be guilty of Usury, where∣by * 1.31 a Church had bought a Rent of 30 Livres for 300 Livres, because they had added this clause to it, that when the Church would, the Sellers should be obliged to restore the Principal to that Church without diminution of their Interest: On the contrary, the Faculty determined that the Interest of 26 years which the Church had received, ought to charged upon the Prin∣cipal.

Four days after the Faculty made a Conclusion, wherein it Condemn'd the Superstition of a * 1.32 Prayer used against the Plague.

In 1493. the Faculty was Consulted by the Parliament, about the Profession, and the Books of Judicial Astrology of Simon Phares. This Man having exercised this Art at Lyons, was ap∣prehended by Order of the Official, his Books were seiz'd, and he was forbidden by a Sentence

to practise Judicial Astrology; and was Condemn'd to some Punishment for having done it. * 1.33 Phares appealed from this Sentence to the Parliament. The Parliament would not judge in this Affair, without having the Opinion of the Faculty, and sent to them the Books of Judicial Astro∣logy which were found in the hands of Phares, and seiz'd by the Official of Lyons to be ex∣amin'd. The Faculty appointed Deputies to examine these Books, and Condemned this Art. Whereupon an Act was drawn up in the Name of the Faculty, which contained the Sentence that the Deputies had given of all these Books, and by which it exhorts the Parliament to op∣pose the Progress of this Art, which it declares to be pernicious, Fabulous, Groundless, Super∣stitious, and adds that it Usurps the Honour of God, corrupts good Manners, and was invented by Devils for the destruction of Men. According to this Opinion the Parliament confirmed by its Decree the Sentence of the Official of Lyons, and upon the Remonstrance of the Faculty, forbad to exercise Judicial Astrology, to Consult Diviners, to Sell the Books mention'd in the Decision of the Faculty, or to use them, and Ordained that the Copies seiz'd upon Phares, should be sent back, together with his Person, and delivered into the hands of the Official of Paris.

In the same year the Faculty, according to the Opinion of its Deputies, Censured the two following Propositions, which were advanc'd by Henry Banquevil a Friar Minor. The First, * 1.34 Man was made God. The Second, Jesus Christ had a beginning. It declared that the first of these Propositions taken rigorously was False and Erroneous, forbad any to teach or maintain it, except they express the sense wherein some Doctors had affirm'd it; i. e. that 'tis come to pass that Man is God; it declared also the second to be False, Scandalous, and Heretical, being ta∣ken rigorously.

About the end of the same year Friar John Grillot of the Order of Friars Minors, having Preach'd on the day of the Virgin's Conception, Evening and Morning, in the Church of St. Germain of * 1.35 Auxerres, and having taken for the Text of his Sermon in the Morning these words, This Woman was taken in Adultery, and given Reasons to prove that the Virgin was Conceiv'd in Sin, tho' he asserted the contrary in the Sermon After-noon, was Cited before the Faculty, and obliged to Condemn this way of Preaching, and to acknowledge that it tended rather to the Subversion of People, than their Education. This Retractation is dated December the 25th.

In 1495. the Faculty by its Conclusion of January the 15th, Censured the Falsity and Heresie of the two following Propositions; 1st, The Essence of God is a continued quantity; 2dly, Je∣sus * 1.36 Christ is a continued quantity.

On the 15th of April, in 1497. the Faculty Condemned this Proposition; when the Prophet David says in the Psalms, I am a Worm, and not a Man, &c. tho' this may be verified of Jesus Christ according to the Allegorical and Anagogical Sense, yet it could no ways agree to him ac∣cording to the Literal Sense.

A little while after the Faculty obliged John Alutarii to retract a Sermon which he had Preached at St. John in Greve on the Birth-day of the Virgin, because tho' he had maintain'd * 1.37 that the Virgin had not committed Venial Sin, yet he brought Reasons and Authorities against it, and handled this Question indiscreetly, and to the Scandal of the People.

On the 23d of August in the same year, the Faculty drew up and published its Decree about the Immaculate Conception; wherein, after they had Consulted about this Matter in 3 Assemblies; whereof the 1st was held March the 3d, 1496. and the 2d the 9th of the same Month, they re∣solved to oblige themselves by Oath, to maintain that the Virgin was preserved from Original Sin, and never to admit any into their Society but those who would take this Oath, and declared that they would deprive of all Honour, and banish, all those who did maintain the contrary Pro∣position, which they judged false, impious, and erroneous.

Notwithstanding this Decree, there was a Jacobine of Roan, called Friar John of Verger, who was so bold as to Preach at Diep the contrary Doctrin; the Faculty Censured 3 Propositions * 1.38 which he had advanc'd upon this Subject, by their Conclusion dated September the 19th. in 1497.

On the 23d of August in the same year, the Faculty Censured also 4 Propositions of another Dominican, Named John Morcel, who derogated from the Honour of the Virgin. Here follow * 1.39 these Propositions, and their Qualifications.

First Proposition, God can produce a meer Creature more Glorious than the Virgin Mary by his absolute Power, although he cannot do it according to his ordinary Power: The Qualifica∣tion; this Proposition tho' true as to its first part, yet was Preached foolishly, indiscreetly, and did no ways tend to the Benefit and Edification of the People, and ought not at all to have been Preach'd; and as to the second part, if he compares the Virgin to the Humanity of Jesus Christ, and his Soul as to Glory, it is false and Erroneous in Faith, and ought to be retracted.

The Second Proposition, It is a Problem, viz. whether the Virgin Mary was Corporally more Beautiful than Eve: The Qualification, This Proposition is rash, derogatory from the Honour and Dignity of the Virgin, false, contrary to the Doctrin of the Saints, suspected of Heresie, and therefore ought to be retracted.

The Third Proposition, It is Apocryphal to say that Jesus Christ was before the Virgin in his Assumption: The Qualification; this Proposition is false, contrary to the Writings of the Doctors, favours of Impiety, and is offensive to pious Ears.

The Fourth Proposition, We are not obliged to Believe under pain of Mortal Sin, that the Vir∣gin * 1.40 was taken up into Heaven in Body and Soul, because this is not an Article of Faith: The Qualification; this Proposition as it is express'd is rash, scandalous, impious, tending to diminish the Devotion of People towards the Virgin, false and Heretical. Many People will find that there is some Extravagance in these Qualifications.

On the Month of January in 1498. the Faculty being Consulted by King Charles VIII. about * 1.41 the necessity of Celebrating General Councils, decided the Questions which his Majesty had pro∣posed to them after this manner. First, That the Pope was bound to call together every tenth year a General Council, chiefly upon the account of any Notorious Corruption in the Head and Members of the Church. Secondly, That if the Pope being desired, did refuse or delay to do it, the Ecclesiastical and Secular Princes might call it together. Thirdly, That in this Case those who make up the Assembly might Celebrate the Council, and provide for the Necessities of the Church. This Conclusion is dated February the 10th.

About the end of the same year the Faculty was Consulted concerning Sixteen Extravagant * 1.42 Propositions, which were Preached at Tournay by John Vitrier, a Regular of the Order of Friars Minors of the Observance, which it Censured, and qualified by its Conclusion dated October the 2d.

First, It would be better to Cut a Child's Throat, than to place it in a Religious Society which is not Reform'd.

Secondly, it would be better to take your Daughter by the hand, and lead her to a Lewd place, than to place her in a Nunnery that is not Reform'd. These two Propositions are Censu∣red as Scandalous, Seditious, savouring of the pride of the Pharisees, as false and contrary to good Manners.

Thirdly, Whosoever hears Mass said by a Priest who has a Wife at home, sins mortally.

Fourthly, whosoever makes a Priest that keeps a Wife at home Celebrate Mass, sins mortally, and by giving him Mony, you put a halter about his neck.

Fifthly, If your Parish-Priest, or any other Priest keep Women in their Houses, you ought to go and pull them out by force, and drive them out of their House. These Propositions are Condemn'd as Scandalous, Seditious, False, &c.

Sixthly, The Musick which is Sung at Notredam, is nothing but Lewdness, and a provocation to Lewdness. The Qualification which the Faculty gave of this Proposition was this; Altho' we approve not Lascivious and Theatrical Songs, if any such be Sung in the Church, yet we com∣mend and approve the Singing of Musick, which is usually done in the Church, because it ex∣cites the People to Devotion.

Seventhly, The King never gave the Privilege of so much Wine Custom-free at Tournay, to * 1.43 maintain the Lewd Canons and Ecclesiasticks. This is Censur'd as Scandalous, and Re∣proachful.

Eighthly, No Mony is due to Churches for Pardons.

Ninthly, Pardons are never given for Lewd Places.

Tenthly, Pardons come from Hell. These Propositions are Censur'd as Scandalous, False, and Heretical, &c.

Eleventhly, When you hear Mass, you ought to say nothing, and when the Holy Sacrament is Elevated, you ought to look towards the ground, and not upon the Holy Sacrament. This General Proposition is declared false, and contrary to the practice of the Church.

Twelfthly, The Hours of the Virgin ought not to be said by the Seculars.

Thirteenth, The Saints ought not to be pray'd to. These Propositions are Censur'd as False and Heretical.

Fourteenth, There are some who say certain Prayers of the Virgin Mary, to the end that at the hour of death they may see the Virgin Mary; thou shalt see the Devil, and not the Virgin Mary. The Qualification of this Proposition is thus: If the meaning be that it is not lawful to repeat certain devout Prayers, to the end that the Virgin may assist at the death of him who prays devoutly; This Proposition is false: But if the meaning be to Condemn the Superstitious Credulity of some, who think that by vertue of certain Prayers rather than other, the Virgin will appear to them visibly at the hour of Death, we do not Condemn this Sense.

Fifteen, It would be better for a Married Woman to break her Vow of Marriage, than to break her Fast.

Sixteenth, I would rather be the Cause of a Man's death, than lie with a Woman. These two Propositions are Censured as False, Scandalous, &c.

We may also rank among the Errors that were started in the Fifteenth Century, the Proposi∣tions * 1.44 of Matthew Grabon, against the Poverty of those who were not Regulars, which are Con∣demn'd in the Council of Basil, whereof we have already spoken; and the Reveries of Augustin of Rome, of the Order of Friars Hermits of St. Austin, who wrote a Treatise of the Church, divided into three parts; whereof the first was, Of the Union of Jesus Christ and his Church, or, of Jesus Christ entire; the second, Of Jesus Christ as Head, and of his Illustrious Dominion; the third, Of the Charity of Jesus Christ towards the Elect, and of his Infinite Love. He carried this matter so high in this Work of the Union of the Human Nature with the Divine, that he ad∣vanc'd some Propositions, wherein he attributes to the Human Nature in Christ, what agrees only to the Divine, as That the human Nature in Jesus Christ is truly, naturally, and properly God;

that the two Natures in Jesus Christ are equally amicable; that the Soul of Jesus Christ sees God as perfectly as his Divinity: And concerning the Union of the Members with Christ; that the Union of Charity is not sufficient to make a Member of Jesus Christ, but a Man must be of the number of the Elect and Predestinate.

These Errors, and the Book of this Author were Condemn'd in the Council of Basil, Sess. 22. only his Person was spar'd, because he testified his Submission, and gave good Reasons for his Absence.

Lastly, We must joyn to all the rest who wandred from the right way in the Fifteenth Cen∣tury, * 1.45 Peter Osma, a Professor at Salamanca, who publish'd a Book wherein he maintains that Confession is not the Institution of Jesus Christ, but the Invention of Man; that Mortal Sins are blotted out by Contrition alone, and Sins of thought by a meer Remorse. This Opinion was Condemn'd, and the Author was Anathematiz'd (if he did not retract) by the Arch-bishop of Toledo, Alphonsus Carrilla, whose Sentence was Confirm'd by the Constitution of Sixtus IV. Pub∣lished at the beginning of August, in 1479.

There were also some Fanaticks in this Century, who publish'd Extravagant Errors, among the rest a certain Carmelite, Nam'd William of Hildernissen, and Giles Le Chantre, both Flem∣ings, * 1.46 who called themselves new Prophets, Preached a New Law, permitted all sorts of Crimes, denied the Resurrection, and advanc'd many other Errors which were Condemn'd by Peter Ailly, and by the Inquisitor of Flanders, in 1412. Another Fleming called Pikard, was Head of the Sect of the Adamites in Germany, who led an infamous Life, and were destroyed by Zisca. Of this sort were the Diggers of Bohemia, so called because they dug their Assemblies in Forests and Caves, where they derided the Church, its Ministers, and Sacraments. * 1.47

Harman Risvich, a Hollander, taught horrible Impieties, that the Soul dies with the Body, that there is no Hell, that Matter is Eternal, that God never Created the Angels, that Moses and * 1.48 Jesus Christ were Impostors, that our Creed is a Fable, and the Gospel a Foolery. He was Condemn'd to perpetual Imprisonment, in 1499. and having made his escape out of it, and con∣tinuing still to vomit forth his Blasphemies, he was burnt alive at the Hague, in 1512.

Notes

• * 1.1

  A Censure of the Errors of John Monte∣son, a Friar Preacher.
• * 1.2

  i. e. a Parcel of Paper consisting of 3 or 4 sheets.
• * 1.3

  The Appeal of John Monte∣son.
• * 1.4

  John Monte∣son Condemn'd by the Pope.
• * 1.5

  The Retractati∣ons of the Bi∣shop of Ev∣reux, and many Dominicans.
• * 1.6

  The Domini∣cans excluded from the Uni∣versity.
• * 1.7

  A Treatise of the University in its own de∣fence.
• * 1.8

  The Restora∣tion of the Do∣minicans.
• * 1.9

  The Process of John Petit, and his Con∣demnation.
• * 1.10

  The Condemna∣tion of the Er∣rors of John Petit, in the Council of Constance.
• * 1.11

  A Censure in 1389. against some Proposi∣tions of the Magical Art. A Conclusion of the Faculty in 1408. about the Blood of Je∣sus Christ. A Censure of the Errors of John Gorel about the Hie∣rarchy.
• * 1.12

  A Conclusion of the Faculty in 1426. about the Celebration of Sunday.
• * 1.13

  The Satisfacti∣on of Peter Chonac to the Faculty. A Censure of the Errors of Sar∣razin, concern∣ing the Hierar∣chy, in 1430.
• * 1.14

  A Censure of a Proposition a∣bout the Admo∣nitions of Bi∣shops.
• * 1.15

  A Censure of the Errors of Quadrigarii and Augustin.
• * 1.16

  A Censure of the Propositions of a Friar Mi∣nor about the Hierarchy, in 1448. A Censure in 1451. against the Propositions of John Bar∣tholomew, a Friar Minor, contrary to the Rites of Parish Priests.
• * 1.17

  The Differences of the Univer∣sity with Regu∣lars Mendi∣cants, about a Bull of privi∣lege which they had obtaimed.
• * 1.18

  A Censure of some proposi∣tions main∣tain'd in The∣ses of philoso∣phy.
• * 1.19

  A Censure in 1470. against some proposi∣tions concerning the Hierarchy.
• * 1.20

  A Censure of some proposi∣tions concerning the Hierarchy.
• * 1.21

  A Conclusion of the Faculty a∣bout the Truth of some proposi∣tions of the Creed. A Censure of a proposition about the Trinity.
• * 1.22

  A Censure of an erroneous propo∣sition about In∣dulgences.
• * 1.23

  The Censure of some proposi∣tions about the Hierarchy, ad∣vanc'd by John Angeli.
• * 1.24

  The Censures of some imperti∣nent preposi∣tions of John Merchand, a Regular Obser∣vantine.
• * 1.25

  The Censures of the Errors of John Lailier.
• * 1.26

  D'un Pape ou un Papil∣lon.
• * 1.27

  A Censure of the Errors of John Lailier.
• * 1.28

  The Sentence of the Bishop of Paris, concern∣ing Lailier.
• * 1.29

  An Appeal of the Faculty from the Sentence of the Bishop of Paris. The Bulls of the Pope against Lailier.
• * 1.30

  Some other Pro∣positions Censu∣red, in 1486.
• * 1.31

  A Conclusion of the Faculty a∣bout a Contract for Usury.
• * 1.32

  A Conclusion a∣gainst a Super∣stitious Prayer made against the Plague.
• * 1.33

  A Sentence of the Faculty and Parliament about Judicial Astrology.
• * 1.34

  Some Propositi∣ons about the In∣carnation Cen∣sured.
• * 1.35

  A Censure a∣gainst a Sermon of Grillot, a Friar Minor, bout the Con∣ception.
• * 1.36

  A Censure of two Proposi∣tions. A Censure in 1497. about the sense of a Prophecy.
• * 1.37

  The Retracta∣tion of a Ser∣mon made by Friar John Alutarii. A Decree of the Faculty in 1497 about the Imma∣culate Concep∣tion.
• * 1.38

  The Retracta∣tion of John of Verger, a Friar Preacher.
• * 1.39

  A Censure a∣gainst the Pro∣positions of Morcel.
• * 1.40

  A Censure a∣gainst the Pro∣positions of Moreel.
• * 1.41

  The Answer of the ••aculty to the King, about the Celebration of a General Council.
• * 1.42

  A Censure of 16 Extrava∣gant Propositions of John Vit∣rier, an Obser∣van••ine.
• * 1.43

  Les malles Tantes de vin a Tournay.
• * 1.44

  The Errors of Grabon.
• * 1.45

  The Errors of Peter Osma.
• * 1.46

  The Impieties of William Hilldernissen, and Giles Le Chantre. Adamites.
• * 1.47

  The Diggers.
• * 1.48

  The Impieties of Harman Risvich.