confirmatis et innovatis, ceterisque in contrarium facientibus, quamvis specifica et individua mentione dignis, quibus omnibus illorum tenores pro plene ac sufficienter expressis, atque verbo ad verbum insertis habentes, illis tamen alias in suo robore permansuris ad præmissorum effectum plene et expresse derogamus. Datum Romæ apud S. Petrum sub Annulo Piscatoris die XXIX. Septembris anno MDCCCLXVII. Pont. XXII.
The anomalous nature of the proceedings instituted against Cardinal Andrea comes out yet more clearly on comparison with what was done by the Holy See in two other cases of Cardinals in opposition, which we have not mentioned in the text. The publication of the Bull Unigenitus led in France to a dispute with the Holy See, on the part of a large portion of the clergy, which brought that kingdom to the brink of schism. At the head of those who refused to accept that Bull without satisfactory explanation of its intent was Cardinal Noailles, Archbishop of Paris; and the Jesuits set in motion all their influence to have him brought to condign punishment. The object they had at heart was to secure the blind acceptation of the Pope's Bull, and the degradation of the Prelates who had ventured on demurring; and they induced Pope Clement XI. to address a brief to Cardinal Noailles in April 1714, summoning him to accept the Bull within fifteen days 'purely, and simply, and without comment,' after the lapse of which term, if
