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 XIII.

PASCAL'S PROVINCIAL LETTERS

The field was lost for the Port Royalists; but their leaders thought it possible that, by means of a skilful diversion, a considerable portion of the ground from which they had been driven might be recovered. It was resolved to attempt this by assailing with the shafts of satire—weapons at all times of peculiar potency in France—the most vulnerable points of the enemy’s position. Such was the object of the Lettres écrites à un provincial par un de ses amis, commonly called the ‘Provincial Letters’, the first of which appeared on the 23rd of January, 1656, while the question of Arnauld’s condemnation was still under discussion at the Sorbonne. They were written by Pascal, at the instigation, and partly with the assistance, of Arnauld himself. At first they were published without any name; afterwards the author assumed that of Louis de Montalte. The “provincial” to whom they were addressed was M. Perier, Pascal’s brother-in-law, a magistrate of the Cour des aides at Clermont.

In the first and second of these letters, Pascal ridicules the technical phrases “pouvoir prochain” and “grace suffisante”; which, so far as mere phraseology is concerned, were perhaps fair subjects for raillery. They expressed, however, important theological truths; truths involving the entire discrepancy between the views of Jansenius and the received teaching of the Church. That man, in his regenerate state, possesses in a certain true sense the power or capacity of keeping the Divine commandments, was almost universally acknowledged among orthodox Catholics; though, from the infirmity which still remains in our nature, that power is not always carried out in action. The grace which gives such power was known by various names;—“adjutorium sine quo non,” “gratia possibilitatis,” “grace suffisante,” “grace excitante,” “potential grace.” It was thus distinguished from “efficacious grace,” namely that by which the will is not only empowered, but moved and determined to the actual fulfilment of the law. This distinction was not admitted by the Jansenists; they held that all grace which is “sufficient” must be “efficacious” also; from which it followed that such a measure of grace as does not absolutely determine the will is not sufficient for obedience; so that when a just man falls into sin, he has no power to avoid it.

The particular epithet in question was open to exception; and, in the hands of Pascal, the “grace suffisante qui ne suffit pas” became irresistibly grotesque. Yet the idea is not really paradoxical, though it has that appearance. An army may be sufficient, in point of numbers, courage, and science, to reduce a given fortress; but it does not follow that it will actually capture it. A statesman may possess sufficient talent and experience to lead the House of Commons; but it does not follow that he will in fact succeed in leading it. In St. Augustine’s words, “Non est consequens, ut qui potest venire, etiam veniat, nisi id voluerit atque fecerit.”

The third letter is an indignant protest against Arnauld’s con­demnation, which had at length been published. Pascal denounces the sentence as unjust, preposterous, and nugatory, inasmuch as it was passed under coercion, and in the absence of a large body of dissentients. “It was not Arnauld’s opinions that were declared heretical, but his person; it was a personal heresy. He was a heretic, not on account of what he had written, but solely because he was M. Arnauld. St. Augustine’s doctrine of grace would never be the true one, so long as it was defended by Arnauld. It would at once become true if he happened to oppose it. Indeed this would be the surest, perhaps the only, way to establish Augustinianism and to destroy Molinism.”

These three earlier letters, together with the seventeenth and eighteenth, which conclude the series, are all that treat directly of the Jansenistic controversy. In the fourth, the argument is transferred from the region of dogmatic to that of moral theology; the object of attack being the system of casuistry practised by the Jesuits. This is criticised with exquisite wit and trenchant force. The principle upon which the Society acted with regard to the use of the Sacraments seems to have guided them likewise in the department of Christian morals; namely that of softening the strictness of the Gospel rule, so as to accommodate it to the habits of ordinary men of the world. That rule, under their treatment, acquired an amount of elasticity which made it practically indulgent to human infirmity, not only in small matters, but to a dangerous extent. Many of the most eminent writers on casuistical divinity in the latter half of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries were Jesuits; such as Lessius, Sanchez, Bauny, Emanuel Sa, Vasquez, Suarez, and Antonio Escobar. In proportion as the fame and influence of the Order increased, its confessors were perpetually brought into contact with religious doubts, scruples, perplexities, and emergencies of every description; and were thus almost compelled to provide themselves with a code of ethics embracing, so far as it was possible to embrace, all the numberless problems and minute distinctions of moral responsibility. Nevertheless, it must be recollected that the science of casuistry was not the invention of the Jesuits. In their hands, no doubt, it received an extreme and in many respects mischievous, development. But long before the days of Loyola this was accounted an essential branch of theological study; and, indeed, from the moment when the Church enforced auricular confession as a universal duty, it became indispensable to the clergy in the instruction and guidance of souls. It would be easy to produce a long list of Roman divines of all shades of opinion, who have devoted themselves to the examination of cases of conscience, and have published professed treatises on the subject; among such may be named, as altogether unconnected with the Jesuits, Bartolomeo Medina, Dominic Soto, John Nieder, and Diego Alvarez, all of the Order of Dominicans, and Miguel Salon, an Augustinian.

The theory of “probabilism” is impeached by Pascal in the fifth letter, as the main source and basis of the corrupt morality propagated by the Jesuits. According to this system, it is lawful to follow the less probable opinion, though it be the less sure, provided it has been held by any one doctor of high repute for learning and piety. And further, a doctor is justified in giving advice which is contrary to his own conviction, if such advice has been sanctioned by other doctors, whenever it appears more favourable and acceptable to the person applying for direction. Nay, he may tender an opinion which is held probable by some eminent divine, even when he himself is persuaded that it is absolutely false, f In like manner, a confessor ought to absolve a penitent who follows a probable opinion, although personally he may entertain the contrary sentiment. To refuse absolution in such a case would be mortal sin. Pascal goes on to show, in a series of instances, how, with the help of this ingenious hypothesis, the plainest precepts of the Divine law may be evaded, and excuses may be found for delinquencies of all kinds. Simony, sacrilege, usury, dishonesty, robbery, and even homicide in certain cases, are justified on this slippery principle.

In the seventh letter the casuists are attacked with refer­ence to their method of “directing the intention;”—a species of mental chicanery which undermined the very foundations of social faith and duty. “ If one can direct the mental intention to a permitted object, one may act in whatever way is most convenient or pleasant. Thus men are enabled at once to satisfy the requirements of the Gospel, and to comply with the received usages of worldly life. They please the world by their conduct, and at the same time they conform to the primary rule of the Gospel by purifying their inward intentions. This is, in other words, that most pernicious maxim, that “the end justifies the means which has become, though somewhat unfairly, proverbially identified with Jesuitry. The same sophism is used by the casuists to defend prevarication, lying, perjury, and unfaithfulness to engagements of all kinds; for “no promise is binding when one has not the inward inten­tion of becoming bound by it.”     

Pascal describes, in the ninth and following letters, other expedients invented by the casuists for making the way of salvation smooth and easy, especially as regards the duties of devotion. He quotes from a manual called Le Paradis ouvert, by Father Bauny, rules which make devotional religion to consist chiefly in paying homage to images of the Virgin, saying the “Petit chapelet des dix plaisirs de la Vierge,” pronouncing frequently the name of Mary, desiring to build more churches in her honour than have ever been built by all the monarchs in the world, saying to her “bon jour” and “bon soir” every morning and evening, and repeating every day the “ Ave Maria ” in honour of the “ heart of Mary.” Directions are cited which tend to reconcile with the law of Christ all the vices to which our depraved nature is most prone—vanity, envy, sloth, luxury, unchastity; and various artifices are ex­posed by which the discipline of the confessional may be rendered wholly nugatory in the case of persons living in habitual sin.

The sixteenth letter is devoted to a refutation of the calum­nies of the Jesuits Meynier and Brisacier against the com­munity of Port Royal, whom they charged with denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and other Calvinistic heresies. Pascal also undertakes to vindicate the Abbe de S. Cyran and Antoine Arnauld from the imputation of being in league with Geneva and the Huguenots for the destruction of the Catholic faith; noticing especially an absurd fable called the “ Conspiracy of Bourg-Fontaine,” at which place it was alleged that the Jansenist leaders, mysteriously congregated in a dark wood, had pledged themselves to a revolutionary enterprise which was to subvert not only the Roman Church, but Christianity itself. This is on the face of it so wildly improbable, that it is needless to enter on an examination of the arguments on either side.

The two concluding numbers—published at the distance of a full year from the commencement of the work, and addressed to Father Annat—revert to the original subject-matter of the Jansenist controversy. Pascal now lays aside his sarcastic style, and embarks on a lengthened argumentation with the view of rebutting the charge of heresy from himself and his associates, and showing that the Papal censures were directed against a mere chimera, or, at all events, against tenets which had never been held' by the Jansenists. These seventeenth and eighteenth Letters bear marks of anxious thought and patient labour; the latter is said to have been rewritten no less than thirteen times. They contain many passages of majestic eloquence, entitling their author to take eminent rank among the masters of rhetoric. Nor are they to be despised as specimens of learning; for Pascal produces a long list of re­ferences to Councils, historical precedents, and the works of standard theologians, to prove that the Pope and the Church are not infallible in judging of matters of fact, but solely in dogmatic definitions de fide. The meaning of a particular author, he contends, is simply a question of fact. Upon such a point the Pope may be mistaken; and consequently it cannot be heresy, though it may be presumption, to differ from the opinion propounded by his Holiness. The Church is protected by Divine authority in the exposition of the whole body of revealed doctrine—the “faith once delivered to the saints”; but with regard to other matters, not affecting revelation, man­kind are left to the guidance of natural intellect and reason. If upon such subjects the Church should define and exact any belief as exclusively true, she would be exceeding her lawful powers, and imposing upon the faithful a yoke which God has never sanctioned. The Jansenists, then, were no heretics for merely questioning whether Jansenius did or did not entertain a given opinion. This is not a point of theology, but of historical fact; and therefore the “sense of Jansenius,” now so violently debated, is in reality a matter of indifference, upon which men are fully at liberty to take opposite views, as they may in estimating the published works of any other author.

Pascal inveighs fiercely against the attempt of Father Annat to identify the “sense of Jansenius” with the theory of the heresiarch Calvin; quoting various passages from the Augustinus to the effect that grace may always he resisted, and that the human will has at all times the power to consent to the suggestions of the Divine Spirit.* He also insists that the Jansenistic doctrine as to the efficacy of grace is one and the same with that of St. Thomas Aquinas ; forgetting, apparently, that the Thomists distinctly inculcated the “gratia sufficiens,” whereas in one of the earlier ‘Provinciales’ that term had been satirized without mercy and scornfully rejected.

The work concludes with a fervid peroration, charging all the scandal of the existing dissensions on the Jesuits, and imploring them, if not from charity towards their opponents, at least out of compassion for the sufferings of the Church their mother, to exchange their persecuting policy for one of conciliation and peace.

Such is a brief outline of this celebrated work; which has done more to perpetuate the fame of Pascal than any of his scientific or philosophical productions, though these last are of far weightier calibre.

The immediate success of the Letters was almost unex­ampled. A dry ecclesiastical controversy, hitherto confined to the cloister, the schools, and the Sorbonne, suddenly converted into a theme for plaisanterie and badinage, was a spectacle inexpressibly diverting to the Parisian mind. Thousands in different classes of society, who up to this time had viewed these intricate speculations with apathy or contempt, found themselves irresistibly attracted towards them now that they were recommended by all the graces of a faultless style, and accommodated to the level of an ordinary intellect. Public indignation was at once and vehemently excited against the Jesuit moralists; and as a natural consequence, a temporary reaction ensued in favour of the persecuted Jansenists. Harsh proceedings had been commenced against them by the Government just before the appearance of the ‘Provinciales;’ the nuns of Port Royal were forbidden to add to the number of their novices and boarders; the Solitaries had been expelled from their retreat, and their schools abruptly closed. Further severities were averted by the vigorous castigation administered to their enemies by Pascal; and a remarkable incident of a different kind, which occurred at this critical moment, contributed not a little to re-establish for a season the declining fortunes of the Port Royalists. This was the miracle of the “Sainte Epine.”

Among the “pensionnaires,” or boarders, at Port Royal de Paris, was Marguerite Perier, a girl about eleven years of age, daughter of M. Perier the magistrate at Clermont, and niece of Blaise and Jacqueline Pascal. She had been afflicted for upwards of three years with fistula lacrymalis in the left eye. The disease was of a virulent character, and had made fearful ravages; the bones of the nose and palate had become carious; and the discharge of matter from the wound was so constant and offensive as to make it necessary to seclude the patient in great measure from the other inmates of the house. All medical treatment had proved unavailing. The child grew worse, and it. was arranged, as a last resource, to apply the cautery, though the surgeon gave but slender hope of a successful result. Meanwhile the sisterhood received from an ecclesiastic named La Poterie a precious reliquary containing a portion of the Crown of Thorns which pierced the head of the Redeemer. It was carried in procession to the altar of the convent chapel on the 24th of March, 1656, being the Friday of the third week in Lent. The nuns, each in her turn, kissed the sacred relic; and, when the pensionnaires approached for the same purpose, their governess, Sister Flavia, desired Mademoiselle Perier to commend herself to God, and apply the reliquary to the diseased eye. She did so, and became conscious of a complete and instantaneous cure.

Whether on account of the strict discipline observed during the season of Lent, or from some other unexplained cause, the occurrence was not mentioned in the convent till the next day, nor was it generally known till a week afterwards. On the 31st of March, the surgeon, M. Dalence, called to see his patient. Such was the alteration in her appearance, that, when she entered the room, he did not recognize her; and it was not till after minute examination, and on the most positive evidence of her identity, that he was at length convinced that a cure had taken place, which he did not hesitate to declare supernatural. The news now circulated like lightning through the city. The queen despatched her own surgeon to Port Royal to verify the facts; and a statement was drawn up by him, in concert with the other medical witnesses, attesting the reality of the cure, and pronouncing such a phenomenon to be beyond and above the operation of mere natural causes. Their testimony was confirmed by the ecclesiastical authorities; the Grand Vicars of the diocese, in the absence of the exiled Archbishop, published a formal recognition of the truth of the miracle. Solemn thanksgivings for this signal mercy were offered in the church of Port Royal; the Holy Thorn was presented to the convent in per­petuity ; it was exposed every Friday for the veneration of the faithful; and a long list of additional instances followed, in which its healing virtues were exerted for the relief of the afflicted.

In every point of view the miracle of the “Sainte lupine” happened opportunely for the interests of Jansenism. How could Port Royal be a nest of heretics when Heaven itself interfered to work marvels in its favour ? Was not the arm of the Most High visibly stretched forth to protect this much maligned community, and to vindicate its orthodoxy in upholding the efficacy of His sovereign grace? The cause of Port Royal was demonstrated to be the cause of God; within those walls was the chosen home and sanctuary of the Truth. Thus reasoned, not only the superstitious multitude, but even the intelligent and educated classes; and the impression produced upon the public mind was such that the Government could not venture to disregard it. The decrees which had gone forth against Port Royal were hastily revoked; as early as the month of May Arnauld d’Andilly received permission to return to his beloved retreat in the valley of Chevreuse; thither he was soon followed by Antoine Arnauld, Nicole, and Antoine Le Maitre; the other members of the fraternity reappeared by degrees, and the schools were ere long again in full operation. Viewed in combination with the extraordinary result of the Provincial Letters, this was an epoch of legitimate triumph for the Jansenists. Their popularity was greatly enhanced, the number of their disciples multiplied; and, although their opponents by no means slackened in activity, the minority on the whole maintained their ground with success. An interval of some years ensued, during which they were not molested by any further measures of forcible repression.

Two centuries have not sufficed to settle the questions arising from this singular episode of ecclesiastical history; those questions being, in the first place, whether the cure of Marguerite Perier was real; and if real, whether, secondly, it was supernatural. The truth is that questions of this nature can seldom be posi­tively determined. Except by minds of a peculiar bias, “ ecclesiastical miracles ” (as they are called to distinguish them from those recorded in Holy Scripture) will always be regarded with insurmountable prejudice. Persons, not otherwise sceptically inclined, will reject with a smile of contempt the notion of supernatural agency as manifested in the Church of any age subsequent to that of the Apostles. The whole stream of Christian history, they urge, “abounds with instances both of visionary delusion and of fraudulent fabrication for unworthy ends; and, under such circumstances, the weight of presumption against the genuineness of any particular miracle is all but overpowering.

Yet surely it cannot be logically maintained that, because the miracles of our Lord and His Apostles are distinct in character from those ascribed to the uninspired ages, therefore these latter were not in any sense manifestations of a power beyond and above nature. Nor, again, because we find in history many cases of spurious miracles, or “pious frauds,” will it follow that all modern occurrences involving miraculous pretensions are to be consigned to the same category. Nothing can be more unphilosophical than to found our opinions on such matters on mere a priori assumption or arbitrary prejudice. The true is to be discriminated from the false (in points not ruled by Infallible Authority) by patiently weighing the force and value of conflicting evidence, by scrutinizing motives and interests, by applying the tests of sound and enlightened criticism.

The prodigy of the “Sainte Épine” is supported by evidence which, if adduced to prove any ordinary fact, would probably be held conclusive. The various theories suggested for explaining it on merely natural grounds are scarcely less difficult to accept (some of them are more so) than the account of the Port Royalists themselves. Is it conceivable, for instance, that a sister of Mademoiselle Perier, who was also residing in the convent, was substituted for the real sufferer, and that the medical certificates attesting the cure were thus obtained by means of a gross deception ? Or again, is it easy to believe, with M. Sainte Beuve, that the application of the reliquary was made with so much force as to burst the morbid tumour, which thereupon dispersed so rapidly as to leave within the space of a few days no trace whatever of disease ?

Admitting, however, that the facts of the case are well authenticated, it by no means follows that the Jansenists were justified in the inferences which they drew from them. They argued that such an event not only marked out Port Royal as a spot singularly privileged by Heaven, but also that it established incontestably the truth of the peculiar doctrines which Port Royal represented. It proved, beyond all further dispute, that Jansenius was orthodox; that Arnauld was innocent; that St. Cyran was a persecuted saint; that Innocent X was a misguided tyrant; that the Sorbonne was a conclave of benighted dotards. Such a conclusion was simply preposterous. The miraculous cure (if such it was) testified to the infinite benevolence of that Being, whose “tender mercies are over all His works;” but it were mere fanaticism to interpret it as a decision from above, on one side or the other, of a vexed question in polemical theology.

Father Annat, in a vigorous pamphlet, entitled ‘Rabat-joie des Jansenistes,’ contested the genuineness of the miracle, denied the consequences deduced from it by the Port Royalists, and even maintained that, so far from proving anything in their favour, it was rather to be looked upon as a fresh call to repent of their heretical aberrations. To this an anonymous reply was published, which is attributed to Pascal, and inserted among his works; but there is reason to believe that he was largely assisted by the Abbe de Pontchateau, one of his brother solitaries, and perhaps by others.

Marguerite Perier (the miraculee, as she was called by her friends) survived to the age of eighty-seven, and died at Clermont in the year 1733, preserving to the last an immovable conviction of the reality of the restoration wrought by the Sainte Épine.

The storm of clamour against the casuists—excited by the Provinciales—was not easily appeased. The parish priests of Rouen, at a meeting held on the 28th of August, 1656, denounced the moral teaching of the Jesuits to their Archbishop, De Harlai. That prelate referred their complaint to the convo­cation of clergy then sitting at Paris; and upon this the cures of the capital came forward in support of their brethren, and drew up a list of forty propositions, extracted from the works of the principal casuists, which they submitted to the judgment of the Assembly. A committee of bishops was appointed to report on it; but the synod was on the point of separating, and there was no time to enter oil a discussion of such serious importance. The house contented itself with ordering an edition of St. Charles Borromeo’s ‘Instructions to Confessors’ to be printed at its expense, and circulated in every diocese, “to servo as a barrier for arresting the spread of novel opinions tending to the destruction of Christian morals.” This must have been mortifying to the Jesuits, since it was well known that Arnauld’s book, ‘De la frequente Communion,’ was derived principally from this very treatise of St. Charles, which was thus recom­mended as a text-book for the clergy throughout France.

But the contest was renewed shortly afterwards, by the appearance of an unlucky ‘Apologie pour les Casuistes contre les calomnies des Jansenistes,’ from the pen of the Jesuit F. Pirot. This ill-judged effusion consisted chiefly of vulgar ridicule and personal abuse; in point of reasoning it was wretchedly feeble; and its effect was to injure instead of furthering the cause it meant to advocate. A violent outcry arose against it from all parts of the country. The cures of Paris and Rouen put forth a series of factums or memorials on the subject, which were composed in reality by the Port Royalists—Pascal, Arnauld, Nicole, and Hermant, being the principal writers. The ‘Apology’ was disavowed officially by the Jesuits, according to their custom in such emergencies. They declared that Pirot had acted on his own responsibility, contrary to the advice of his superiors; and the unfortunate author was so deeply wounded by this treatment, that he fell into a lingering sickness which brought him to his grave. His work was referred to the Sor­bonne, and was condemned by that body in July, 1658. This was followed immediately by a censure from the vicars-general of the Archbishop of Paris; t and corresponding measures were taken in all the other dioceses, with some few exceptions, to express the strong disapproval with which the French clergy viewed the corrupt principles and practices complained of. The Bishops of Pamiers, Alet, Comminges, Angers, and Vence, all well known for their Jansenist sympathies, distinguished them­selves by strongly-worded mandements on this occasion. In 1659 the ‘Apology’ likewise incurred the censure of the Inqui­sition at Rome.

The ‘Provinciales’ thus enabled the Port Royalists to turn the tables with damaging effect on their opponents, and also did good service to the Church at large by exposing the dangerous sophistries of false teachers. There were, however, considerable deductions from the completeness of this triumph. It was felt in many quarters, that although individual authors might have been extravagant and reprehensible in treating casuistical questions, and might have sanctioned doctrines of an injurious tendency, it would be grossly unjust to throw the blame of this, exclusively and undividedly, upon the Jesuit body. Casuistry was not a science peculiar to the Jesuits, although it was true that members of that Society had cultivated it with pre-eminent success. The charge of teaching false morality might be substantiated quite as easily from the writings of Dominicans, Franciscans, and other religious schools, as from those of the disciples of Loyola. Considering the multitude of divines who had handled the subject at various times and in different countries, it would be strange if they had not been occasionally misled into erroneous decisions; but the Jesuits, as an Order, could not fairly be held responsible for these mistakes; that Society had repudiated and condemned them, by the sentence of its highest authority, long before they had fallen under the lash of Port Royal. It was alleged, moreover, that in numbers of instances the author of the ‘Provinciales’ had been guilty of misquotation, mistranslation, and malicious perversion of the true sense of the writings which he criticized; and that the worst imputations against the Casuists were founded on mere fragments detached from their context, and cited in that form solely for the sake of exciting odium. These complaints, which were to a certain extent supported by clear proof, were not without weight in the mind of the more calmly-judging part of the community, though insufficient to counterbalance the general effect of Pascal’s inimitable Letters. The feeling against them first found public expression in a decree of the Parliament of Aix, in Provence, in March, 1657, which stigmatized the volume as “full of calumnies, falsehoods, forgeries, and libels,” and condemned it to be burnt by the executioner. After this, several prelates animadverted upon it in their pastoral addresses; and in September, 1657, it was branded by the censure of the Inquisition, and placed on the Index, in company with the two famous letters of Antoine Arnauld. Two years later Pascal’s work, which had been admirably translated into Latin, with notes, by Nicole, under the assumed name of Guillaume Wendrock, was denounced by the Parliament of Bordeaux; and the case having been argued, the court determined, before giving judgment, to refer the book to the Theological Faculty of the University for its opinion. That body, after due examination, pronounced the Letters of Montalte to be free from doctrinal heresy, and, with regard to morals, commended them in the highest terms. Upon this the Jesuits, who were still all-powerful at Court, procured a royal ordonnance naming a Commission of bishops and divines to scrutinize the work afresh; and in time a report appeared, affirming that the heresies of Jansenius, already condemned by the Church, were maintained and defended in the Letters of Montalte, in the Notes of Wendrock, and in the Disquisitions of Paulus Irenaeus (another sobriquet adopted by Nicole), and that accordingly these writings had justly incurred the legal penalties against heretical and libellous publications. Thereupon an arret of the Council of State ordered the said writings to be publicly tom and burned by the “Executeur de haute justice,” which sentence was carried into effect on the 14th of October, 1660.

Such, however, is the transcendent power of genius, that neither royal commissions, nor judicial condemnations, nor even the thunders of the Vatican itself, prevailed to dethrone the Provincial Letters from their lofty place in popular estimation. The attempts made on the part of the Jesuits to refute them showed so decided an inferiority of intellectual gifts, that for the most part they were utter failures. The only apologist for the Order who seems to have produced any impression on the public mind was Father Daniel, author of the well-known ‘History of France’; who, in his ‘Entretiens de Cleanthe et d’Eudoxe,’ written in 1694, exposed with considerable force the mistakes and unjust imputations into which Pascal had been betrayed. This book was eagerly read, the whole of the first edition disappearing almost instantaneously. It was reprinted several times, and was translated into Italian and other languages.

The style was judicious, the reasoning powerful, the facts adduced indisputable ; and yet all these recommendations failed to secure a permanent triumph over such an antagonist as Pascal. Father Daniel established beyond contradiction many particular instances of misrepresentation, exaggeration, calumnious aspersion, and malicious suppression of the truth; but of the multitudes who had laughed over the libel, not one in a thousand ever saw the reply by which it was demolished; nor, indeed, could it be expected that cold, sober, unimpassioned argument should undo the effect which had been created by brilliant wit and scathing sarcasm. Hence the verdict originally pronounced on the Provincial Letters by the generation to which the writer addressed himself has never since been reversed.

Whether the theory based on the subtle distinction between the “droit” and the “fait” was ever really embraced by the singularly candid mind of Pascal is a point of psychology which we have no means of determining with certainty. It is probable that on first embarking in the controversy, he adopted, without examination, the line of defence devised by his Jansenist friends, conscious that he was not sufficiently well versed in theology to frame a system for himself. But it is a remarkable fact that subsequently, as the result of mature thought, he was led to a very different conclusion. In the seventeenth of the Provincial Letters he admits, like all the rest of the party, that the Five Propositions were heretical and rightly condemned, but denies that they expressed the opinions of Jansenius; upon this latter point, being a question of fact, he contends that it is lawful to demur to the decision of the Holy See, since the gift of infallibility extends only to matters of dogmatic faith. But in the sequel he abandoned this position as untenable; and declared that the Vatican had condemned the doctrine of efficacious grace, which was undoubtedly the doctrine of Jansenius, and not only of Jansenius, but of St. Augustine and St. Paul. He held, accordingly, that the Popes had erred, not in a question of fact, but in an article of faith: that they had condemned an essen­tial Christian verity. And, in consequence, the faithful could not, in his judgment, accept a Formulary which solemnly abjured all that the Apostolic See had condemned, without expressly excepting the so-called “sense of Jansenius” as to the Five Propositions. This change of sentiment placed Pascal in opposition to the Port Royalists, and caused a certain coldness and estrangement between them. Various explanatory statements were exchanged, but Pascal’s views were now those of sincere personal conviction, and he maintained them unflinchingly to the end. His sister Jacqueline (Soeur St. Euphemie), a person of eminent saintliness of mind and character, had discovered, as she conceived, the true force of the Papal decision before it became apparent to her brother; hence the famous Formulary, which was imposed on the Church in 1660 as an anti-Jansenist test, was to her an object of conscientious and profound abhorrence. Yielding, after a long struggle, to the authority and specious reasoning of her spiritual guides, the noble-minded Jacqueline subscribed the Formulary in July, 1661; but the mental distress occasioned by this act, and the remorse which followed, rapidly undermined her health, and on the 4th of October in the same year she sank into the grave. This tragical end of a sister to whom he was tenderly attached made an ineffaceable impression upon Pascal, and no doubt shortened his own life. A scene of ostensible, but, as it would seem, incomplete, reconciliation with Arnauld and Nicole took place in his dying chamber; and, without retracting his dissent from the authoritative sentence of the Sovereign Pontiff, Pascal expired on the 19th of August, 1662. But we are anticipating the order of events.

CHAPTER XIV.

THE CLERGY AND THE FORMULARY