THE GALLICAN CHURCH.

A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF FRANCE FROM THE CONCORDAT OF BOLOGNA, A.D. 1516, TO THE REVOLUTION, A.D. 1789.

CHAPTER XI.

COMMENCEMENT OF THE JANSENICTIC CONTROVERSY

The successors of Richelieu were not strong enough to carry on the system of despotic repression to which France had surrendered itself during more than eighteen years. Indeed, it is doubtful whether even the Cardinal himself could have maintained much longer the restraints which he had imposed on the struggling spirit of ecclesiastical discord. No sooner was that stem pressure withdrawn than an ebullition of strife followed, which to the Gallican Church proved full of peril and disaster, and which has left its permanent mark upon the general condition of Christendom. This was the Jansenistic controversy.

Before entering on the details of a contest so memorable for the magnitude of its subject-matter, for the character of the distinguished actors who engaged in it, and for its ultimate consequences to the Church and to society, it may be well to cast a glance upon the previous history of the theological questions which were now to be brought to an issue.

In the early ages, the belief of Christians upon the mysteries of grace and free-will was moulded chiefly by the writings of St. Augustine, that illustrious champion of the faith against Manichean and Pelagian heresy. Not that the Church ever adopted indiscriminately all the opinions of Augustine on these subjects. His teaching was endorsed by the great African Council against the Pelagians, by the decrees of the Council of Orange (a.d. 529) against the Massilians or Semi-Pelagians, and by a remarkable epistle of Pope St. Celestine to the bishops of Gaul (a.d. 431) to which were appended certain articles or canons on the doctrine of grace. But the principles laid down in these documents are of a general nature; the Church forbore to decide upon questions which were not considered essential to the integrity of the Divine Deposit. Thus it is affirmed, for instance, that “ no man can extricate himself from the ruin caused by Adam’s fall by his own free-will, or without the operation of the grace of God.” “No man is good in himself, except through participation in the nature of Him who alone is good.” “No man, although renewed by the grace of baptism, can conquer the snares of the devil and the lusts of the flesh, except by the daily assistance of God’s grace enabling him to persevere.” “No man can make a good use of his free-will except through grace.” “All good works and merits are the gifts of God; who works upon the hearts of men, and upon free-will itself, in such a manner that every motion towards good proceeds from Him.” “Grace avails not only to the pardon of past sin, but also to make us love, and enable us to perform, that which we know to be good.” “Grace does not take away free-will, but emancipates it, and makes it clear instead of dark, upright instead of infirm, cautious instead of thoughtless.”

Augustine, however, found it necessary, in order to combat the insidious cavils of the heretics of his day, to make a deeper investi­gation into the problems of the spiritual world; and we need not be surprised if in the course of it he trespassed upon regions which lie beyond the ken of human intellect, and thus became sometimes inconsistent, and sometimes unintelligible.

Augustine does not deny the freedom of man’s will; on the contrary, he affirms it; but with certain qualifications, which leave it doubtful whether he uses that expression in the sense commonly attached to it. He acknowledges that the will is naturally free, but he contrasts this liberty with that which it acquires supernaturally by Divine grace. To the former he seems to attribute only an unlimited capacity for evil; the latter he represents as impelled almost of necessity towards good.

In like manner he draws a contrast between the two kinds of grace; that which belongs to the state of nature, and that which is bestowed through Christ under the new covenant. In the original state in which Adam was created, man possessed the power to obey God, and to persevere in obedience, if he so willed. This is called by Augustine the “adjutorium sine quo non.” But the grace required by man in his fallen state—the grace peculiar to the Gospel—is that which gives not only power to obey, but the will also. This is the “adjutorium quo, or per quod, fit actio.” This latter grace acts upon the will “indefectibly and insuperably,” so that it never fails—never can fail—of its effect.

This effectual grace, however, belongs to the predestined only, the number of whom is fixed and certain. Although it is written “ God will have all men to be saved,” this is to be understood only of those who are foreordained to salvation. These will assuredly persevere unto the end; but those who are not to persevere—those who will fall away from the Christian state and die in their sins—have never been really sons of God, never “separated from the mass of perdition,” even during the time when they lived uprightly and piously.

Thus Augustine teaches virtually, if not in express terms, that Divine grace is irresistible. But if so, what becomes of the freedom of the will?

Does it not follow that those who obey God do so from necessity; and, on the other hand, that when grace is withheld, the will is of necessity determined towards sin?

In order to meet this objection, Augustine observes that necessity is not incompatible, in one sense, with the freedom of the will. Liberty is opposed, not to moral necessity, but to actual violence or compulsion. A man may act voluntarily, while at the same time it may be morally impossible that he should act otherwise than he does; and whatsoever is done willingly is also done freely. It is the essence of efficacious grace, that it imparts the will to obey God; and therefore, although such grace is necessarily followed by its effect, it does no violence to the faculty of self-direction, inasmuch as the just man obeys God from choice, from love, from the impulse of a new and sanctified will.

By moral freedom, Augustine seems to have understood simply the natural action of the human will. Taken in this sense, his reasoning is just, for the will can only act by willing to act; it cannot act in contradiction to itself; it cannot help obeying the impulse towards good or evil which is inseparable from its nature. If the essence of liberty, then, consists in spontaneity, the will must always be free, even though it be swayed in point of fact by an irresistible necessity. But this is not the ordinary acceptation of the term; it is usually taken to signify bond fide ability to act or not to act—to move in one direction or in the opposite—to choose or to reject—to indulge or to abstain.

The Augustinian tradition retained for several centuries its ascendency in the theological schools of the West. But in the course of ages the tone of Christian feeling gradually receded from this system, which was obviously capable of being perverted into a reckless fatalism. A reaction set in, and various causes concurred to bring about important modifications in the popular teaching, though not in the authoritative definitions, of the Latin Church. A large section of the Schoolmen (the Scotists) were strenuous asserters of the real freedom of the will. Their rivals, the Thomists, professed to follow St. Augustine, and in some respects even went beyond him, since they held that God moves the will by a direct impulse or power proceeding from His own omnipotence; yet they taught that grace sufficient for salvation is granted to all the baptized through the ordinary channels; thus excluding any notion which could be taxed as derogatory to the goodness and justice of Almighty God. The great Erasmus wrote a treatise against Luther (his ‘Diatribe de libero arbitrio’), in which he exposed with severity the pernicious tendency of the predestinarian scheme, and advocated views of a more healthy and practical complexion; ascribing the work of salvation primarily to Divine grace, but maintaining that grace may be abused, and that free-will co-operates with God throughout the entire process of sanctification. The Theological Faculty of Paris expresses itself much to the same purpose in one of the Articles drawn up by order of Francis I in 1542, preparatory to the meeting of the General Council. “It is to be held with the same constancy of faith, that man possesses a free will, by which he is able to act well or ill, and by means of which, even if he should have fallen into mortal sin, he may rise again to a state of grace with the help of God.”

The movement is further traceable in the records of the Council of Trent. That assembly, among other subjects of anxiety, was embarrassed by the bitter feud which reigned between the Dominican and Franciscan orders. All parties were agreed as to the urgent duty of condemning the necessitarian theory of Luther; but it was not easy to do this without offending the Dominicans —whose favourite dogma of the “praemotio physica” coincided to some extent with that of the German Reformer in principle, though they abhorred his conclusions—and giving a too decided triumph to the Franciscans, who professed opposite opinions. Taking these circumstances into account, it will be seen that the Tridentine decrees are drawn in terms which countenance to a remarkable extent the anti-Augustinian doctrine. The 4th canon on Justification (Sess. IV. cap. 16) runs as follows:—“If any one shall say that the free will of man, by assenting to God exciting and calling, does not co-operate in disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification; or that it cannot refuse consent if it would, but that, like a thing inanimate, it does nothing at all, but remains in a merely passive state; let him be anathema.” Again, Canon IV of the same session is thus expressed:—“If any one shall say that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that evil works are wrought by God as well as good, not by permission only, but by His direct agency, in such sense that the treason of Judas was no less His work than the calling of Paul; let him be anathema.” In like manner when treating of the gift of Perseverance, the Council declares that “all men ought to repose with confidence on the help of God, since, unless they themselves are wanting to His grace, He who hath begun the good work will also perfect it, working in them to will and to do. Nevertheless, let those who think they stand take heed lest they fall, and work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.”

The gradual change of sentiment upon this question may be further illustrated by reference to the Bull by which Pope Pius V, in 1567, condemned the errors of Bains. Several of the propositions there branded as heretical are to be found, in terms either identical or equivalent, in different parts of the writings of the great Bishop of Hippo. Such, for instance, are the 25th:—“All the works of unbelievers are sins, and the virtues of the philosophers are vices.” The 27th:—“Free will, without the aid of God’s grace, avails only to the commission of sin.” The 39th:—“What is done voluntarily, even though it be done of necessity, is done freely.” The 40th:—“ In all his acts the sinner is subservient to a predominant desire.”

The fact that these and other similar statements had been pronounced heretical and scandalous by the Apostolic See occasioned the utmost perplexity to Jansenius, as he candidly confesses in the second part of his work. He devotes three chapters to a laboured attempt to explain them inoffensively, and turn aside the edge of the Pontifical censure; but his reasoning is lame and inconclusive to the last degree.

The growing power of the Jesuits contributed to establish a style of teaching more in accordance with the grand principle of man’s moral freedom and responsibility. Without professing openly views opposed to those of St. Augustine, members of that Society held and asserted very generally, towards the end of the sixteenth century, that the human will possesses a faculty of disposing itself to make a good use of Divine grace; that grace sufficient for conversion is bestowed on all, but that, inas­much as it does not act in the way of positive compulsion or necessity, it may either be complied with or rejected; and that God predestines to salvation those only by whom He foresees that His gifts will be faithfully employed. These opinions were presented to the world in a philosophical shape by a Spanish Jesuit named Luis Molina, who published at Lisbon, in 1588, his celebrated treatise De liberi arbitrii cum Gratiae donis concordia. According to Molina, the Divine Intellect comprehends three different species or modes of knowledge: “scientia naturalis,” or that which relates to events caused immediately by God himself; “scientia libera,” which belongs to things depending on His own free will and choice; and “scientia media,” which is concerned with future contingencies, dependent on the agency of man under particular circumstances. It is upon this latter kind of knowledge that God founds His decrees of predestination and election. Predestination, consequently, is not absolute or unconditional, but proceeds upon God’s fore­knowledge of the conduct of individuals in the use of their natural faculties and of the privileges of their Christian calling. Thus interpreted, the doctrine of eternal election is compatible with the idea of moral probation, with the unconstrained exercise of man’s free will, and with the truth of future judgment according to works. Yet the system of Molina is no more than a plausible approach to the solution of problems which, as all must feel, are not to be fathomed to the bottom by our finite powers. It is open to objection as derogating apparently from the sovereignty of Divine grace by making it subject to the independent agency of man; for Molina, while admitting the necessity both of prevenient and assisting grace, yet held that without the adhesion of the natural will grace does not become effectual to its designed purpose. He coincided in this respect with the so-called Semi-Pelagians—a school of theology founded in the fifth century by Cassianus and other monks of the Abbey of S. Victor at Marseilles. The teaching of these “Massilians” was in considerable vogue for some time in the south of France; but it was rejected ultimately, as conflicting with the paramount authority of St. Augustine. It was vigorously combated by S. Prosper of Aquitaine, and was censured by the Council of Orange, a.d. 529. By means of a slightly varying terminology, Molina and his followers avoided the precise formula in which the misbelief of the Semi-Pelagians had been condemned by the ancient Church.

'The Jesuits never formally acknowledged the theory of Molina to be their own; but it was natural that they should defend his book, out of zeal for the honour and interest of their Society. The work was violently attacked by the Dominicans and other Augustinian divines; and at length, in 1598, Pope Clement VIII was induced to appoint a commission to examine it, which took the name of the “Congregatio de auxiliis,” as having for its subject the supernatural assistance given to mankind by Divine grace. Years of tedious controversy followed. Clement himself leaned towards the Thomists; and it is said that at one time he was on the point of deciding in their favour, but was deterred by the influence of Cardinal du Perron, who declared that if the “praedeterminatio physica” were defined to be the doctrine of the Church, he would undertake to make all the Protestants in Europe subscribe to it. Clement died in 1605, leaving the cause undecided. The sittings of the Congregation were resumed under Paul V, but little progress was made towards a definite conclusion. This Pope at length referred the questions in debate to two of the greatest theologians of the time, Francois de Sales and Du Perron. The advice which they tendered to him was never made public, but its purport may be inferred from the result. On the 28th of August, 1607, the Pope held a meeting of the Congregation, and announced that their labours were at an end; that he would make known his decision when he judged it expedient; and that in the meantime he prohibited all agitation of the disputed questions, and warned the contending parties to avoid mutual recrimination and imputations of false doctrine. No formal judgment was ever issued. The Holy See, by this wise policy, virtually granted toleration to both systems, on the understanding that nothing should be publicly advanced on one side or the other which contravened the authoritative decrees of the Church, whether ancient or modem. The effect, however, was a triumph for the Molinists; who thus for the first time obtained a quasi-recognition of their orthodoxy from the chair of St. Peter.

Such was the state of parties in this controversy about the time when Jansenius began to apply himself seriously to the study of the works of St. Augustine. That divine had been a pupil of Bai us in the University of Louvain; where he had learned both to identify the views of his master with the teaching of the “doctor of grace,” and to regard the latter as an exclusive and infallible oracle in the exposition of Catholic truth. During a sojourn at Paris in 1605, Jansenius became acquainted with Du Verger de Hauranne; and an intimate friendship was soon formed between these two young enthusiasts. Their dispositions were very similar; their favourite studies had converged upon the same engrossing theme, and they were well fitted to act in concert for the same objects in the busy drama of life. In 1611 they repaired together to Bayonne, the native place of De Hauranne; and here they dedicated themselves for the space of five years, with intense and indefatigable ardour, to the study of Holy Scripture and patristic divinity, especially the writings of St. Augustine. During that period the plan of operations was devised and matured, by which they proposed to restore to the Church the true primitive doctrine of grace, which for many centuries past (as they affirmed) had been utterly obscured and lost.

In 1616 the Bishop of Bayonne, who had been translated to the Archbishopric of Tours, carried Jansenius and De Hauranne with him to the north of France. The two friends now separated. Jansenius returned to Louvain, where he became President of the College of S. Pulcheria and Professor of Divinity. De Hauranne was recommended by the new Archbishop of Tours to his suffragan the Bishop of Poitiers, by whom he was made Grand Vicar of that diocese, Canon of the Cathedral, and lastly Abbot of S. Cyran—a dignity which the bishop himself resigned in his favour. His subsequent history has already been detailed in these pages.

The laborious investigations which engrossed the mind of Jansenius were prosecuted without intermission till his death in the year 1638. The fruit of this lifelong toil—the too-celebrated ‘Augustinus’—was entrusted by his will to his literary executors, Libert Fromont and Henri Calenus, who published it at Louvain in 1640, suppressing a letter written by the author just before his death, in which he had submitted himself and his work, in terms of profound humility, to the judgment of the Holy See. The book soon found its way into France, and was reprinted at Paris in 1641, with the official approbation of six doctors of the Sorbonne. Another edition appeared not long afterwards at Rouen. Richelieu, who, as we have seen in a preceding chapter, had conceived a violent prejudice against Jansenius and his school, exerted himself to procure a censure of the ‘Augustinus’ from the Sorbonne, but without success. The Jesuits, however, made such effectual use of their influence at Rome, that a decree of the Inquisition was obtained in August, 1641, condemning the work, not on the score of false doctrine, but as disrespectful to the Holy See, which had expressly enjoined silence on those controverted questions. Early in the year following Pope Urban VIII, by his bull “In eminenti,” renewed the censures of his predecessors Pius V. and Gregory XIII on the predestinarian errors of Baius, and prohibited the ‘Augustinus,’ as reproducing those reprehensible views. But the decree of the Inquisition was powerless in France, that tribunal being unrecognized by the law; and the bull “In eminenti ” was for a long time treated as invalid, by reason of an alleged ambiguity as to the date of its publication. Meanwhile the ‘Augustinus’ was read with avidity, and the disciples of Jansenius and St. Cyran rapidly multiplied on all sides.

The Jansenists (they were by this time of sufficient importance to be called by the name which they have ever since borne in history) employed every available artifice to prevent the recep­tion of the bull “In eminenti,” both in Flanders and in France. They pretended that it could not be genuine, since it professed to be issued at Rome on the 6th of March, 1641, whereas the copy despatched to Brussels by the Nuncio at Cologne was dated in 1642. This arose simply from the difference between the old and new calendars as to the time of commencing the year. The ancient computation, according to which the year began on the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25, was in use at Rome, and therefore the 6th of March fell within the year 1641; but the Nuncio, writing from Cologne, had followed the modern almanac, which of course reckoned the whole of that month in 1642. It was alleged, further, that the Jesuits had gained over some of the officials of the Roman curia, and that by their means the bull had been deliberately falsified. The ‘Augustinus,’ it was urged, was the result of twenty-two years’ unremitting study of the entire works of the “doctor of grace”; it was altogether inconceivable, therefore, that it should not be an accurate transcript of his mind. But St. Augustine had ever been accounted the legitimate interpreter of the Church of the West in that department of theology; so that, in censuring Jansenius, the Pope would be contradicting the authoritative tradition of the Church herself. The University of Louvain endorsed these arguments in favour of the late Bishop of Ypres, who had been one of its most distinguished ornaments; and the clergy of the Netherlands, in spite of repeated remonstrances from Rome, remained obstinate in refusing to accept the bull.

Nor was it received more cordially in France. The Nuncio Grimaldi laid it before the Royal Council on ecclesiastical affairs, urging that it should be published with the usual formalities. Several members of the Board—Vincent de Paul among the number—spoke in support of the bull; but the majority were of the contrary opinion, and in consequence no action was taken on the subject. Some few French prelates published mandements enjoining obedience to the Pope’s decree; among them was the Archbishop of Paris, Jean Francois de Gondi. “Our holy Father the Pope,” he wrote, in a pastoral dated December 11th, 1643, “ having taken measures to preserve the peace of the Church in the dangers which now threaten it, it becomes our duty to notify to you his decision, in order that you may receive it as proceeding from that chair where the Divine Spirit vouchsafes His utterances; that you may obey it with all the respect and submission which are due to it; and that those who by the love of disputation, rather than by the love of truth, may have been led astray into contrary sentiments may be recalled by the voice of the Universal Pastor to the unity of the Catholic faith. To this end we do, by our archiepiscopal authority, prohibit the book called ‘Augustinus,’ lately published under the name of Cornelius Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres, which contains propositions condemned as heretical by the Holy See. Let no man, then, henceforth have the temerity to maintain the opinions proscribed by this constitution.”

When the bull was presented to the Sorbonne, backed by a Royal lettre de cachet and by the Archbishop’s pastoral circular, it was objected to on the ground that it recited certain decrees of the Inquisition,—a tribunal unknown to French law. A committee, however, was appointed to examine the matter. At this moment a pamphlet appeared with the title of ‘Difficultes sur la bulle qui porte defense de lire Jansenius.’ It was from the pen of Antoine Arnauld, who now, at scarcely more than thirty years of age, began to signalise himself in the front rank of Jansenist polemics. The performance displayed rare ability, and doubtless had its influ­ence on the report of the committee. The Sorbonne ultimately decided against the registration of the bull; but took occasion at the same time to forbid all doctors and bachelors to main­tain the propositions therein censured by Pope Urban, together with the errors of Baius condemned by his predecessors.

These proceedings only served to swell the tide of agitation excited by the ill-starred publication of Jansenius. Isaac Habert, doctor of the Sorbonne and Canon “Theologal” of Notre Dame, attacked it violently from the pulpit of that cathedral. This brought him into conflict with Arnauld, who, in 1644, published his first ‘ Apology for Jansenius.’ Habert promptly rejoined with his ‘ Defense de la foi de l’Eglise et de l’ancienne doctrine de Sorbonne touchant les principaux points de la grace.’ Arnauld’s ‘Second Apology’ soon followed, in a style of greater warmth and vigour than the first; he vindicated the Flemish prelate with the utmost vehemence from the imputation of heresy, and insisted that his book contained neither more nor less than the pure invariable belief of the Church Catholic. These productions caused a wonderful sensa­tion, and enraged the Ultramontanes beyond measure. Arnauld had composed a third Apology, which was in the hands of the printer, when his antagonist Habert was promoted to the bishopric of Vabres, upon which he suppressed it out of respect for the episcopal office.

Arnauld was never more completely in his element than in the “eady fight” of controversy. While thus bearing the brunt of the fray on behalf of Jansenius, he was engaged in another contest, which placed him in still more direct oppo­sition to the Jesuits. A feud of long standing existed between that Society and the Arnauld family. The father of Antoine Arnauld, formerly Procureur-General to Queen Catherine de Medici, and one of the most celebrated advocates at the bar of Paris, had acted as counsel for the University against the Jesuits on an important occasion (already alluded tof in the year 1594, and had gained his cause. This success, the consequence of which was the banishment of the Order from France, was never forgotten or forgiven by the defeated party. Antoine, the youngest son of the great pleader, was born in 1612, and at an early age manifested extraordinary talent, combined with an almost insatiable love of study. He applied himself to theology, and became a pupil of Lescot; but alter a time grew dissatisfied with the views of that divine, and adopted with intense ardour those of Jansenius and St. Cyran. On this account he met with considerable difficulty in proceeding to degrees at the Sorbonne; but these being at length overcome, Arnauld acquitted himself in the. prescribed exercises to the amazement (ad stuporem) of the examiners, and was received doctor of the Sorbonne in 1641. He had been ordained priest in the previous year. In his academical theses Arnauld had shown himself vehemently opposed to the system commonly advocated by the Jesuits; but his active warfare with the In­stitute commenced on the occasion of his treatise ‘De la frequente Communion,’ which was published in August, 1643. It arose from the following circumstances.

A too general laxity seems to have prevailed among Catholics of that day with regard to the use of the Sacraments, particularly those of Penance and the Eucharist. Absolution was dispensed in the confessional upon terms which were practically subversive of all discipline. Even in the case of gross habitual sinners, it was seldom attempted to insist on satisfactory proof of penitence, according to primitive rule, before admission to the holy mysteries. So long as a mechanical round of external ceremonies was duly practised, the confessor laid little or no stress on the necessity of inward purity and contrition of heart. This state of things resulted, in great measure, from the false casuistry and worldly-minded policy of the Jesuits. These Fathers had gained for themselves an unrivalled reputation as directors of the conscience. It was, no doubt, substantially well founded; but, in order to enlarge and perpetuate it, they had been induced to adopt various maxims and expedients which were calculated to make religion palatable to men living an ordinary life in the world; to render the outward require­ments of the Gospel compatible with political ambition, with selfish indolence, or even with fashionable dissipation. The so-called Reformers, unfortunately, had depreciated and disparaged the visible means of grace. Everything, in their estimation, was of secondary importance compared with certain subjective emotional qualities—the peculiar marks, as they regarded them, of the regenerate mind. Confession and absolution they discarded as unnecessary, if not positively anti-Christian; even the Holy Eucharist was valued by them chiefly as an expressive symbol, designed to quicken the moral sense and spiritual affec­tions of the recipient. The Jesuits, in their zeal against these fundamental errors, had countenanced notions scarcely less objectionable in the opposite direction; and a dangerous reaction had ensued. The Jansenists felt the necessity of making an effort to readjust the balance; and their protest was raised with equal vigour against the doctrinal aberrations of Geneva and the practical abuses of Rome in its Ultramontane dress. The movement originated by St. Cyran and Arnauld aimed at restoring the reality and power of religion through the right use of its sacramental ordinances. It has sometimes been imagined that, because the Jansenists agreed with the disciples of Calvin in extolling the sovereign efficacy of Divine grace, therefore the two systems were in all respects identical. Jan­senism has been represented as simply another phase of rebel­lion against the authority of the existing Church; but this is a misconception of its character. The divines of that school clung steadfastly to the orthodox tradition as to the super­natural virtue of the Sacraments, the divine authority of the Priesthood, the power, of the Keys, the office of the Church as the infallible teacher and judge of truth; and thus severed themselves by a broad line of demarcation from Protestant sectaries, however designated. They were, in the strictest sense, Catholics; but their ideal of Catholicism was not an easy, accommodating system, which reconciled high religious pro­fession with a life of unrestrained worldliness, but an earnest application of Christian doctrine and Christian ordinances to the indispensable work of man’s personal renewal in holiness. If they erred (as unquestionably they did err) by taking an exaggerated and distorted view of the sense of Holy Scripture and the Fathers on certain points of metaphysical theology, all honour is due to them, nevertheless, for their endeavours to revive the flame of evangelical piety among the mass of nominal Christians, and to withstand the flood of Sadducean profaneness which threatened to inundate the sanctuary of the Church.

Such, generally, was the purpose of Arnauld’s great work, ‘Sur la frequente Communion.’ The Princess de Rohan-Guemene, a court beauty whose early life had been notoriously irregular, had placed herself in 1639 under the spiritual guidance of the Abbe de St. Cyran. From him she received a rule of considerable strictness; special restraint being imposed upon her with regard to certain worldly habits and indulgences which had been proved by experience to be temptations to sin. One day the Princess was asked by her friend the Marquise de Sable to accompany her to a ball; she declined, on the ground that she had received the holy Communion the same morning, and that under such circumstances the instructions of her confessor forbade her to spend the evening in gay amusement. Further discussion ensued between the two ladies as to the different principles by which each was governed. The rule prescribed by St. Cyran was submitted to F. de Sesmaisons, a Jesuit, the confessor of Mme. de Sable; and that divine thought proper to publish a treatise in opposition to it, in which both St. Cyran and his system of spiritual direction were severely criticised. Among other things Sesmaisons was rash enough to assert that “the more destitute we are of grace, the more boldly ought we to approach Jesus Christ in the holy Eucharist; the more full we are of self-love and worldliness, the more often ought we to communicate.” It was to refute this monstrous paradox that Arnauld composed his book on ‘Frequent Communion;’ one of the finest specimens of close and exact reasoning in the French language. Its appearance has been styled an epoch in the national literature, from its luminous perspicuity and irresistible force of logic. Sixteen prelates and twenty doctors of divinity stamped it with their approbation, expressed in unqualified terms. It is of great length, occupying nearly the whole of one of the quarto volumes of Arnauld’s works.

The main position for which the author contends is this; that it is not desirable to encourage indiscriminately the habit of partaking of the holy Communion every week; that those whose consciences are stained by mortal sin ought not to approach the Lord’s Table immediately after they have confessed, but to abstain for a season, in order to prepare and purify themselves by exercises of penitence. He reviews the penitential discipline of the early Church, and shows that the Fathers enjoined, in the first place, confession; next, penance; thirdly, the fulfilment of that penance, extending over a sufficient space of time; and lastly, absolution, to be immediately followed by Communion. If in modern times the primitive rule cannot be carried out in its strict letter, its spirit, says Arnauld, ought at least to be preserved; and other means should be adopted to compensate for that outward penance, which was found so conducive to true and solid conversion. “According to the doctrine of the Fathers, it is no affair of a moment to dispose sinners to receive with profit the absolution of the priest; and something more than words is requisite to satisfy the priest of the reality of a sinner’s repentance. The new man is not formed instantaneously, any more than the old; it is developed by degrees, and often a long time passes before it actually comes to the birth. The work of reclaiming a soul to God and rescuing it from Satan and sin, is not such an easy matter as to warrant one in supposing that as soon as sin has been verbally confessed, and a resolution has been declared to serve God for the future, the effect follows at once and of course; that all those chains are instantly broken which withhold the soul from God, that the heart of stone is suddenly transformed into a heart of flesh, and that, whereas formerly all its desires were centred in the creature, it acquires, as if by magic, a will devoted exclusively to the service of Jesus Christ. Others may expect this if they please; for myself, I consider it safer to follow the advice of Augustine and all the other Fathers, to shun precipitate remedies, and to aspire to the higher graces of the spiritual life by the means which Christ himself has pointed out—by asking, by seeking, by knocking; in short, to establish the work of conversion upon the solid basis of a lengthened and serious repentance; keeping constantly in view the admonition of the Wise Man, “An inheritance may be gotten hastily at the beginning, but the end thereof shall not be blessed.”

In treating, towards the conclusion of his work, of the dispositions which qualify the penitent to communicate profitably, Arnauld, in his zeal against the errors he is combating, is betrayed into a tone of exaggeration; insisting on so lofty a standard of attainment in some particulars, as to run the risk of repelling, instead of encouraging, the timid and sensitive mind.

Yet, while enlarging on the duty of systematic preparation for holy Communion, to protect the Sacrament from abuse, the author severely reprehends those who through mere indolence and carelessness remain contentedly strangers to the Lord’s Table. “ When I speak of thus separating oneself for a time from the Body of the Son of God, the better to prepare for its reception, I am very far from excusing the culpable negligence of those who are glad to escape from the duty of frequent Communion under shelter of a religious pretext; for the same thing is done in their case through an indifference which Holy Scripture threatens with the severest penalties, that with others arises from feelings of profound humility, and from love to Christ as fervent as it is full of veneration. As there was formerly a custom of deferring the administration of baptism, which the Church approved, when it was deferred for the sake of long-continued preparation and probation, while it was condemned when men postponed baptism merely that they might lead a worldly licentious life, such as they knew they could not lead after baptism; so there is a way of postponing holy Communion which the Church approves, when men abstain in order to give time for bringing forth the fruits of real penitence, while the same habit is repudiated and condemned by the Church when it proceeds from coldness and insensibility towards holy things;—a state of mind so perilous that the Church exerts her utmost energies to withstand it, since it tends directly to impiety and unbelief.”

This brief summary may serve to indicate the general scope of Arnauld’s book, though it can give but a faint notion of the ability displayed in its execution. The work produced an extraordinary sensation in the religious world. The Jesuits —although neither their Society as a whole, nor F. Sesmaisons in particular, was mentioned by name—assailed it with a rabid malignity which knew no bounds. In the teeth of the undeniable evidence of Catholic antiquity, in defiance of the recorded judgment of the most distinguished prelates and divines of France, the indignant fathers of the College de Clermont heaped upon Arnauld and his book every species of scurrilous abuse. One of them, F. Nouet, launched from the pulpit of their principal church at Paris a series of outrageous philippics, in which not only the author himself, but the bishops and divines who had endorsed his doctrine, were held up to public reprobation. No epithet was too extravagant for the occasion. “Falsifier of the Fathers, ignorant, fantastical, fanatical, mad, blind, serpent, scorpion, monster, wolf in sheep’s clothing, labouring to ruin the Church after the pattern of Luther and Calvin, under pretence of reforming it”; such are a few choice extracts from the vocabulary of this foul-mouthed orator. The bishops, who were assembled atone of their occasional meetings in the capital, justly resented his insolence. Nouet was summoned to their presence, sternly reprimanded, and compelled to apologise upon his knees; added to which a formal retractation was exacted from him of the offensive language of his sermons, and this document was printed and circulated throughout the kingdom.

This humiliation did not deter the Jesuits from prosecuting their schemes of vengeance against Arnauld. They attempted to obtain an order from the queen for his incarceration in the Bastile; but without success. Mazarin consented, however, to forward their views by other means; and Arnauld received a royal command to repair forthwith to Rome, and there submit himself and his book to the judgment of the Sovereign Pontiff. By way of justifying this arbitrary measure, it was alleged that the agitation which prevailed in France made it desirable to have the affair examined at a distance from home; and that many of the bishops, having already expressed their approbation of the work, were disqualified from acting in the capacity of judges in the cause.! But the proceeding was manifestly unconstitutional in every point of view. If Arnauld had committed an ecclesiastical offence, his proper judges were the bishops of the realm; if a civil offence, he could not be arraigned, as a French subject, before any but a French tribunal. Energetic remonstrances were made by the University of Paris, the Theological Faculty, the Courts of Parliament, and the prelates who had recommended the work; and the Regent, though for a time she seemed disposed to enforce her illegal mandate, at last found it prudent to give way. Arnauld thus escaped a snare which threatened his personal safety; for it seems probable that, had he gone to Rome, he would have been consigned to the dungeons of the Inquisition. As it was, he thought it advisable to conceal himself; and accordingly he spent no less than twenty years from this time in various places of secure retreat, known only to a few confidential friends. He did not re-appear in public till after the “Peace of Clement IX,” in 1668.

The Jesuits, conscious that if the principles enunciated by Arnauld should prevail, their own credit as spiritual guides must needs decline proportionably, strained every nerve to procure a sentence of condemnation from Rome upon the book of ‘Frequent Communion.’ Two of their Order, Fathers Brisacier and Benoise, were commissioned to press the affair at the Papal Court, where they were actively supported by Cardinals Albizzi and Barberini,—the former Assessor of the Inquisition, the latter the Pope’s favourite nephew. The friends of Arnauld, on their part, defended him with enthusiastic zeal. The prelates who had recommended his work, headed by the Archbishop of Sens, wrote a letter to Pope Urban (April 5th, 1644), in which they animadverted on the insolent, behaviour and dangerous doctrines of the Jesuits, and repelled the calumnies which had been circulated against the teaching of Arnauld. “We cannot conceal what we witness and experience day by day, that certain persons are attempting to establish among us maxims preju­dicial to the whole ecclesiastical body, and especially to the episcopal order; maxims which encourage a deplorable misuse of the holy Sacraments, and which, instead of providing means towards correcting and purifying the depraved morals of the age, suggest palliations which tend to justify them, as every one may clearly perceive by examining their publications. So much are they incensed by the recent exposure of a member of their Order, whose views have been refuted by evidence the most plain and convincing drawn from the writings of the Fathers, that they are employing all sorts of expedients for destroying the authority of our judgment in this matter; they decry the doctrine upon which that judgment rests, and strive to render odious the author who has thus faithfully interpreted the ancient tradition of the Church.” The bishops proceed to say that they anticipate important benefits from the appearance of Arnauld’s work, particularly as a means of counteracting the false casuistry of certain manuals lately put forth, some of which had been already justly censured by his Holiness.

Annexed to this letter was a declaration by Arnauld himself, who protested that, as in composing the treatise in question he had been actuated solely by the love of truth and zeal for the salvation of souls, so he wished to submit it in all sincerity to the judgment of the Roman Church; of the Pope, whom he revered as the sovereign Vicar of Christ upon earth; of the Archbishop of Paris, to whom he was prepared to pay, at all times and in all things, the obedience which he had promised by his ordination vow; and of the Faculty of Theology, whom he honoured as his mother, and for whom he should preserve through life a profound and ardent affection. “And as I hope,” he continues, “that by the grace of God, neither the desire of temporal gain nor the fear of temporal calamity will ever hinder me from defending the truth, so no stubborn attachment to my own opinions will ever cause me to forget in the least degree the entire submission which I owe and will always render to the Church, whose authority I acknowledge as that of Jesus Christ himself, and which is one and indefectible in the succession of its pastors and its Councils, from the first century down to the present, and from this day to the end of the world.”

After the death of Urban VIII, the same prelates addressed themselves in similar terms to his successor Innocent X. They also accredited a doctor of the Sorbonne named Bourgeois, one of the twenty-four who had sanctioned Arnauld’s book, as their agent in the affair at the Papal Court. Bourgeois reached Pome in April, 1645, and displayed remarkable acuteness in the discharge of his mission. After protracted delays, he was at last informed that the Inquisitors had unanimously determined that there was nothing worthy of censure in the doctrine set forth by Arnauld; and the Pope assured him, in a private audience, that no event since his accession had given him so much joy as the favourable report made to him in this case by the Congregation of the Holy Office. He charged Bourgeois to inform the French prelates, and likewise Arnauld, of the interest he had taken in the affair, and of his satisfaction at its happy termination.

By way of compensation to the Jesuits for this mortifying defeat, the Inquisition condemned an incidental expression in the Preface to the treatise on ‘Frequent Communion,’ to the effect that “ St. Peter and St. Paul are two heads of the Church who are virtually one.”  The phrase had been inserted, needlessly and injudiciously, by De Barcos, nephew of the Abbe de St. Cyran, a meddlesome person of inferior stamp. It was held to be injurious to the Roman See, which founds its claim to primacy and universal authority on its succession from St. Peter alone; and some reference was apprehended to the project attributed at one time to Richelieu, of setting up in France a national patriarchate, with independent rights derived from St. Paul. Such, at least, was the ostensible ground for taking notice of the passage; but it was probably a mere pretext. The Pope’s decree, denouncing as heretical the notion of equal or co-ordinate authority between St. Peter and St. Paul, as joint heads of the Church, appeared in January, 1647; it was worded, however, in such a manner as to be, in the opinion of the Jansenists, inapplicable to the statement in Arnauld’s book. The Nuncio in France ordered it to be printed without waiting for the usual formalities; upon which it was immediately attacked as illegal. On the 27th the Parliament issued an arret forbidding its publication or execution. These curious proceedings were at length thus brought to a close.

The triumphant acquittal of Arnauld of course reflected new lustre on the Jansenist community. Its effect was seen ere long in the augmented number of the inmates of Port Royal des Champs. Many notable conversions took place at this period among persons of different professions and various classes of society, prompted by a common impulse to renounce the world and devote themselves to God’s service in that ascetic retreat:—“like so many mariners,” says one of the historians, “ who, having suffered the calamities of shipwreck, find shelter in the friendly haven whither the all-powerful and merciful hand of God conducts them.” “God himself,” says another writer, “was the pillar that led them into this wilderness; the way by which they came thither; the guide who brought them there in safety; the hand which supported them there; the almighty arm which sustained them there with celestial manna. In that desert might be seen men of lofty birth clad in the garments of poverty and employed in the most fatiguing labours, with nothing to distinguish them from those placed by nature in that condition, except the noble mien which betrayed them, and the devout silence with which they applied themselves to their tasks. These saintly husbandmen had trodden under foot all earthly considerations. They could reply to those who charged them with fanaticism in the words used on a similar occasion by St. Paulinus: “It is not this garden, but Paradise, that I prefer to the world I have abandoned.”

Proselytes were made by the Jansenists about this time from some of the most illustrious families of France: those, for instance, of the Duc de Liancour, the Duc de Roannez, the Prince de Guènene, the Duc de Luynes, and the Marquis de Sable.

Meanwhile the flames of intestine discord were once more kindled throughout the kingdom. Mazarin, by a series of irritating and vexatious measures, had made himself odious to the nation. The Queen-Regent supported him with blind partiality. The nobles, in their disgust, made common cause with the refractory Parliament, and every day added to the bitterness of an animosity which was shortly to burst forth into open violence. In this singular contest, known in history as the War of the Fronde, the leaders on both sides were ecclesiastics. Mazarin dictated the councils of the Crown; while at the head of the opposition was the turbulent De Retz, nephew and co­adjutor to the Archbishop of Paris. Between these two digni­taries there was a deep personal enmity. De Retz had on many occasions thwarted and humbled the parvenu minister; and the latter was keenly jealous of the influence enjoyed by the coadjutor with the parochial clergy both in Paris and in the provinces, who were thus encouraged in a spirit of disaffection to the Government.

The religious disputes of the day kept pace with the political, and were in great measure complicated with them. De Retz was on familiar terms with Antoine Arnauld, and showed himself an indulgent patron of Port Royal. In his administration of the diocese (for his uncle was incapacitated by age) he favoured the clergy of the Jansenist school; and they, in return, were not ashamed, notwithstanding the prelate’s scandalous irregularities, to applaud his policy and enlist under his banners. Hence they gained the reputation, which however was scarcely justified by the facts, of being implicated in all the factious intrigues and rebellious enterprises of the Fronde. The Jesuits, on the other hand, were firm adherents of the Court and the Cardinal-minister; and thus found themselves arrayed against the Jansenists in civil partisanship, as well as in theological controversy.

The strife arising from the ‘Augustinus’ now commenced in earnest. Rival Jansenists and Molinists attacked each other from the pulpit; a stream of vehement pamphlets was poured forth on both sides from the press; and it was clear that the conflict was destined to engage all the energies and resources of the keenest intellects of the time. The mysteries of predestination and free-will seemed to have acquired an almost magical attraction; the younger students in divinity, yielding to the irresistible impulse of party-spirit, gave themselves up to the investigation of these vexed questions in preference to all others.

On the 1st of July, 1649, Nicholas Cornet, at that time Syndic of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, addressed a crowded assemblage of doctors in the great hall of the Sorbonne. He said that he had been induced, out of anxiety to preserve peace in the Faculty, to sign several theses in which it was evidently sought to promulgate the new opinions. He had hoped that such attempts might be suppressed by lenity; and had therefore contented himself with adding to such theses what he judged necessary to protect the truth from injury, and the decrees of the Sorbonne from being violated. He found, however, that his forbearance was abused, and his silence construed as an approval of these heterodox notions. He therefore felt bound in duty to bring the matter before the doctors as a body, that they might adopt such steps as the circumstances seemed to demand. One of the bachelors, whose thesis he had lately had occasion to correct, had totally ignored the alterations made in it, and maintained, in his public act, the terms in which it was originally drawn. He had also caused it to be printed in a shape differing from that which he (the Syndic) approved. Such insubordination was not to be endured. Respect for authority must be enforced; and to this end he suggested that the Sorbonne should record its judgment upon certain propositions which he had drawn up, after mature consideration, as expressing the sum and substance of the views in question. He proceeded to specify seven, which were afterwards reduced to five, as follows.

1.        “Certain commandments of God are impossible to just persons even desiring and endeavouring to keep them, according to the strength which they then possess; and such grace is lacking to them as would render them possible.”

2.        “In the state of fallen nature internal grace is never resisted.”

3.        “In order to merit and demerit in the state of fallen nature, freedom from necessity is not required of man, but it suffices that there be freedom from constraint.”

4.        “ The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of internal prevenient grace for each separate act, and even for the begin­ning of faith; their heresy consisted in this, that they con­sidered that grace to be such as the will of man might either resist or obey.”

5.        “It is a Semi-Pelagian error to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men absolutely.”

A sharp discussion ensued upon the question whether these propositions should be submitted to an official examination. It was decided at length in the affirmative by a plurality of voices; and a Committee was appointed to consider and report upon them, the members of which, with only two exceptions, were known to be hostile to Jansenius.

It is to be observed that the Syndic neither named any author, nor specified any work from which the propositions were extracted. Indeed when one of the doctors remarked that the intention was evidently to condemn Jansenius, Comet replied with warmth, “Non agitur de Jansenio.” Yet we know that in the sequel these very propositions were continually referred to as containing the pith and marrow of the Jansenist heresy, and that they were anathematized as such by the Apostolic See.

The Jansenists took the alarm at once, and put forth several pamphlets in which the tactics of their opponents were un­sparingly criticised. The most forcible of these, entitled Considerations sur l’enterprise de Maitre Nicolas Comet, Syndic de la Faculté, was by Antoine Arnauld; who maintained that the propositions were mere fabrications, and that such opinions had never in fact been held or taught by anyone. They were drawn up, he declared, in language so ambiguous, that they might be interpreted at pleasure either in a heretical or in an orthodox sense. Moreover, the Syndic and his friends had violated the rules of the Sorbonne by denouncing the proposi­tions without mentioning the name of the author, or the works from which they were quoted. It was manifest, he contended, that their object was to cast discredit on the teaching of St. Augustine; several of them having already expressed their dissent in many particulars from that Father’s views.

Meanwhile a strong minority of the doctors, headed by Louis de St. Amour, signed an “appel comme d’abus” to the Parliament against the proceedings of the Theological Faculty. They entrusted it for presentation to Broussel, a highly popular magistrate, the same whose arrest, in August, 1648, had given the signal for the outbreak against Mazarin and the Government. Thus early commenced the alliance, intelligible and natural under the circumstances, between the Jansenists and the party of political disaffection.

The appeal was duly admitted, but on the suggestion of the First President, Mathieu Mole, it was arranged that no further action should be taken for three or four months ensuing; in the hope that during that interval an accommodation might be agreed to, and peace restored. The truce, however, was ill observed by the Molinists. About the middle of September a document was circulated in Paris purporting to be a censure passed by the Committee of Doctors on the five Propositions, and signed by eight out of the ten members who composed it. Upon this St. Amour and his supporters again appealed to the law courts. The parties were summoned before the “chambre des vacations” on the 5th of October, and Cornet and his friends protested that the circular complained of had been published without their knowledge  or consent. The presiding judge now' made another attempt to effect a reconciliation; but finding it impracticable, he ordered the appeal to be heard at the first sitting of the Courts in November, and meanwhile forbade the parties to publish anything whatever on the subject, or agitate the question directly or indirectly.

The opponents of Jansenius now changed their plan of operations. From the temper manifested by the Parliament, the threatening aspect of public affairs, and the widespread prejudice against the Jesuits, there was reason to apprehend that the attempt to obtain a censure of the propositions from the Sorbonne would have been defeated. They therefore abandoned that project; contenting themselves with reminding the Faculty that it had already passed decrees upon the subject, and that nothing more was needed than that the Syndic should enforce their execution. The surreptitious form of censure, however, which Cornet and his colleagues had disavowed before the magistrates, was transmitted to rome, where it was dealt with as if it had been a genuine act of the Sorbonne. Commissioners were named to examine it, and it seems that their report would have confirmed it, but for the opposition of one of them, the Cardinal de St. Clement, a Dominican. The anti­pathy of the Dominicans to the Jesuits had been much intensified since the appearance of the famous work of Molina, which they regarded as an audacious attack upon the authority of St. Augustine and the doctrine of efficacious grace. The Pope accordingly abstained from giving a decision.

In the next stage of the contest the initiative was taken by the prelates of France;—a large body of whom appealed to the Pope for the purpose of prevailing on his Holiness to deliver an authoritative judgment on the merits of the Five Propositions. Their joint letter was drawn up by Habert Bishop of Vabres (the same who in 1643 had denounced the Augustinus from the pulpit of Notre Dame), and is said to have been cordially approved by Vincent de Paul. The document, which bore the signature of eighty-five bishops, possesses so much  rest, that a translation of it is here presented to the reader.

“It is an established usage of the Church, most holy Father, that the greater causes shall be referred to the Apostolic See; and the faith of Peter, which can never fail, demands that this usage be for ever continued as a matter of right. In obedience to so just a law, we deem it necessary to address your Holiness upon an affair of the gravest importance to religion. For ten years past we have seen with much grief France agitated by violent contentions on account of the posthumous work of the reverend Cornelius Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres, and the doctrine therein contained. These commotions ought indeed to have been suppressed as well by the authority of the Council of Trent as by that of the bull of Urban VIII, of happy memory, by which that Pontiff condemned the dogmas of Jansenius, and confirmed the decrees of Pius V and Gregory XIII against Baius. Your Holiness has established, by a fresh decree, the truth and the force of the bull; but because each individual proposition was not branded by a special censure, it has appeared to certain persons that room was still left for subterfuge and evasion. Such resources will, we believe, be altogether cut off, if it shall please your Holiness, according to this our petition, to pronounce clearly and definitely what sentiments are to be held upon this subject. With this view, we implore your Holi­ness to undertake the examination of the following propositions, the discussion of which is the chief source of the alarming excitement now prevailing, and to deliver a distinct judgment upon each of them.”

Here follow the Five Propositions, the text of which has been already given. The bishops continue:—“Your Holiness has had recent proof of the efficacy which attends the authoritative decisions of the Apostolic See, in the overthrow of the error of the double head of the Church. The storm ceased immediately; the winds and waves submitted to the voice and command of Jesus Christ. For which reason we entreat you, most holy Father, to publish a decisive judgment on the aforesaid propositions;—a judgment to which the reverend Jansenius himself, when at the point of death, expressly submitted his work; and by this means to dispel all obscurity, to reassure wavering minds, to avert divisions, and to restore to the Church her peace and her prosperity. While cherishing this anticipation, we address our desires and prayers to God, that the immortal King may bless your Holiness with long and happy years, and in the end with a glorious eternity.”

Exception was taken to this proceeding by a portion of the French clergy, first, on the ground that the signatures had been obtained by underhand and unfair means; and secondly, as interfering with the right of the episcopate to take cognizance, in the first instance, of the greater ecclesiastical causes, previously to any application to Rome. The Archbishop of Embrun, with some of his brethren, waited on the Nuncio to inform him that they disapproved the step, and that it must not be considered the collective act of the clergy of France. They likewise presented a counter-address to the Pope, setting forth at considerable length their view of the affair. The Five Propositions, they observed, being ambiguously worded, could not but engender disputes full of animosity, from the conflicting interpretations which must inevitably be applied to them. There were, moreover, other reasons for thinking that the present was not a favourable moment for determining the questions of grace and predestination—beset as they were with difficulties, and never agitated without violent contests. In such a case the order of the Church Universal, combined with the customs received in the National Church of France, ought to be scrupulously observed; and to this end the case ought to be brought in the first instance before the council of bishops, according to various precedents, which they cited, both ancient and modern. Had this course been taken, it would have been the duty of the bishops to examine whether the propositions had not been fabricated in order to stigmatize certain individuals, and excite commotion; to ascertain in what place, by what writers, and in what sense, they had been advanced; to distinguish their real meaning from the false ; to inquire closely into all that had passed upon the subject since the dispute commenced; to give a full and impartial hearing to all parties in the case; and after all this, to make known to his Holiness the result of their investigation. Whereas the measure adopted by their colleagues ’ left an opening for artifice, for calumny, for misrepresentation, for deception, which might lead to consequences deeply prejudicial to the cause of truth. They therefore implored the holy Father either to permit this grave controversy, which had already lasted several centuries without impairing Catholic unity, to remain still longer undecided, or to determine the questions submitted to him in accordance with the prescriptive rules of ecclesiastical discipline. This letter was signed by the Archbishop of Sens (Louis Henri de Gondrin), and by the Bishops of Orleans, Châlons, Lescar, Agen, Comminges, Amiens, Angers, Beauvais, and St. Papoul.

The request of the eighty-five prelates could hardly be disre­garded by the Pope; who accordingly appointed a commission of six cardinals to proceed to the examination of the propositions. The commissioners met for the first time on the 20th of April, 1651, under the presidency of Cardinal Roma, Dean of the Sacred College; but their sittings were not held regularly till the spring of the year following. Each party in the cause deputed certain divines as its agents and advocates at the Papal Court on this occasion. These were, on the side of the eighty-five prelates, whom we may call the appellants, MM. Hallier (who had recently succeeded Cornet as Syndic of the Sorbonne), Legault, and Joysel; on the opposite side, Gorin de Saint Amour (who has left a very interesting chronicle of the events of his mission), La Lanne, Abbot of Valcroissant, and afterwards the celebrated Father Desmares of the Oratory.

A discussion arose at the outset as to the method in which the inquiry should be conducted. The Jansenists desired to have the matter at issue argued by public disputation between themselves and their opponents, as the best means of ascertaining what was really maintained on each side, and fixing the precise sense of the propositions, which they affirmed to be equivocal. This demand was resisted by the Jesuits; and they succeeded in inducing the Pope and Cardinals to adopt the course which they preferred. The respondents, indeed, had an exceedingly difficult part to play. The Pope received them graciously, and assured them that whatever might be the final decision, it would by no means militate against the teaching either of St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas as to the efficaciousness of grace. Nevertheless, it was plain that the curia was strongly prejudiced against them. They strove to organize a friendly party among the religious Orders, especially the Augustinians and Dominicans; urging that a conspiracy had been formed to subvert the vital doctrine of efficacious grace, and that all who were anxious to preserve it ought to join heart and hand forthwith with the defenders of Jansenius. To some extent this attempt was successful; several Dominicans supported the Jansenist cause in the meetings of the Congregation, and pronounced in favour of the Propositions when the suffrages were collected. Others, however, having been re-assured upon the point which had caused alarm, voted for a condemnation. A complaint was raised, again, and with some reason, against the composition of the commission. It consisted, as finally arranged, of five cardinals and thirteen “consulters ” or assessors, chosen from the most eminent theologians of the monastic orders. Two of these, Modeste, a Franciscan, and Pallavicini, a Jesuit, had declared themselves decidedly opposed to the Augustinus. The Jansenist deputies objected in consequence to their sitting on the commission, and also to the presence of Cardinal Albizzi, who acted as secretary; but their appeal was disregarded. Other vexatious obstacles were thrown in their way; but the chief grievance was the determined refusal to confront them publicly with their antagonists, for the purpose of elucidating those terms and phrases in the controversy which (according to the Jansenists) were of dubious import.

The judicial investigation was conducted with laudable zeal and energy. Twenty sessions were held between the 1st of October, 1652, and the 20th of January, 1653; five of which were devoted to the consideration of the first Proposition, four to the second, four to the third, three to the fourth, and four to the fifth. The meetings took place latterly, by the Pope’s express desire, in his own presence. His Holiness, notwith­standing his great age, attended ten sittings, each of four hours’ duration, and spared no pains to make himself master of the intricate technicalities of the question in debate.

On the 19th of May, 1653, the Jansenist deputies were received in solemn audience by Pope Innocent and the whole Congregation. La Lanne and Desmares harangued them for several hours; the latter exhibiting on the occasion all the qualities of a consummate orator. They founded their argument specially on a document which became known as the ‘ Ecrit a trois colonnes;’ in which they had drawn up side by side three different interpretations of the Five Propositions. The first column contained the Calvinist sense, which all Catholics agreed in repudiating; the second gave the view which the Jansenists maintained to be the legitimate, orthodox, and true one; the third exhibited the so-called Molinist or Semi-Pelagian version, which was attributed to the Jesuits. By dint of much ingenious extenuation, many fine-drawn distinctions, and no small distortion of the plain meaning of words, the advocates of Jansenius modified the harshness of the text of the Proposi­tions, and showed that they might be so construed as to exclude the necessitarian theory. But they made no real impression upon the minds of their judges. It was nothing to the purpose to urge that the Propositions were susceptible of a non-natural signification, differing from .that which appeared upon their surface. The Pope was not called upon to decide whether they were capable of being understood in a Calvinist, a Jansenist, or a Molinist sense; but whether, taken in their obvious, gram­matical, and literal acceptation, they were or were not agreeable to the Catholic faith.

The Jansenists relied with unbounded confidence on the identity of doctrinal teaching (which, according to them, was complete and indisputable) between Jansenius and St. Augustine. If they could establish this, nothing more was needed, they conceived, in order to make victory secure. Yet St. Augustine, however brilliant the prestige attaching to his name, was not infallible;—so far from it, that sentiments of a conflicting tendency, and scarcely capable of reconciliation, may be gathered, as has been already noticed, from different parts of his voluminous writings. Under such circumstances, it is manifest that the Church was not bound to accept a theological statement or a metaphysical theory merely because it might be supported by sporadic quotations from the works of St. Augustine. The Church, it need scarcely be said, had never adopted any individual theologian as her exclusive oracle. Augustine had defended certain broad, general principles on the subject of Divine grace, with regard to which he was justly honoured throughout Christendom as a pillar of orthodoxy; but he had also hazarded speculations upon other matters — matters of abstruse detail—as to some of which, no authoritative judgment had been pronounced at all, while there were instances in which the voice of authority had been adverse to Augustine. The extent to which the Church had accepted him as the exponent of her mind had been distinctly indicated by the Council of Trent; so that it was vain to imagine that the Pope could sanction any tenets propounded in his name which were at variance with the Tridentine definitions.

That the Propositions were opposed to the decrees of Trent is at once apparent on comparing them with Chapters V—XIII of the VI^th. Session of that Council. Hence the Pope and his Congregation were fully warranted in declaring that they did not represent the real views of St. Augustine; inasmuch as the Church had determined, in and by those very decrees, the true sense in which that Father was to be understood by Catholics. Thus it was quite possible to convict the bishop of Ypres of false doctrine without thereby inflicting any similar stigma upon the Bishop of Hippo;—a contingency which, singularly enough, seems never to have entered into the calculations of La Lanne and his associates. Their chief anxiety, according to their own account, was, not so much to prevent the Propositions from being condemned, for they acknowledged that in a certain sense they deserved condemnation; but to prevent their being condemned in such a sense as would involve a censure of St. Augustine, or (what in their view was the same thing) of Jansenius. They insisted that the Propositions, rightly interpreted, were orthodox; taken in a different sense, they admitted them to be heretical, but they denied that this latter construction was the true one. Such special pleading would go far to preclude the condemnation of doctrinal error in any shape whatever; for few statements are so hopelessly heterodox as to be incapable of being transformed, under a process of dexterous manipulation, into comparative harmlessness. The position that “certain precepts of the Divine law cannot possibly be fulfilled by Christians, though they may desire and endeavour to do so,” is one which shocks the first instincts of a religious mind; and the idea, thus expressed, is inevitably rejected as false. Such language may perhaps be explained; but only by explaining it away. The same may be said of the dogma that “man never resists internal grace”—that “actions may be meritorious, or the contrary, even when they are done under necessity”—and that “our Saviour did not shed His blood for all mankind.” Thus coarsely enunciated, they, as it were, refute themselves, and are clearly untenable. Augustine, very possibly, may have given apparent countenance to similar opinions, especially in some of his earlier works; but his language is guarded and measured, if not ambiguous; whereas the conclusions drawn by Jansenius were indiscreet and violent in the extreme. This fact had a decisive bearing upon the ultimate judgment at Home. The Pope and his advisers drew a line of separation, sharply and strongly, between Jansenius and St. Augustine. The disciple they branded with heresy; but the credit and fame of the master—so immemorially cherished throughout the Christian world—were left altogether intact.

CHAPTER XII

THE BULL “ CUM OCCASIONE ”