Censure of the five Propositions 〈◊〉 things already condemned and withoâ—â— admitting any Examen or Congregatioâ— Which were things mainly inâ—isted up on by the Jansenists July 11. §. 10. Other Memorials presented by the Agents of the Jansenists to the Pope 1652. the Agents for thâ— Jansenists had a Declaration from Cardiâ—nal Roma that the Pope had erected thâ— Congregation they demanded for thâ— hearing and determining their affairs Buâ— their Adversaries the Molinists indeavored what they could to hinder an open hearing in the presence of either side In the beginning of November Lalane St. Amour and Angran Solicitors for the Jansenists compose certain Memorials which they present to the Pope with this Preface Most Holy Father your Holines having establisht the Congregation for examination of the Grand Questions concerning Grace we thought fit before all things to compose two Writings which we present to your Holines one whereof contains what hath passed in the affair under debate and the other concerneth St. Austins Autoritie Soon after St. Austin's death some Priests of France found fault with his writings and troubled the Peace of the Church by indiscreet Questions whereupon Prosper and Hilarie had recourse unto Celestin Who ordained that the Autoritie and Doctrine of Austin should remain inviolable Molina having had the boldnes in Spain to renew these ancient complaints made of the Priests of France and once again to make head against the same St. Austin and this new Doctrine being accused to the Holy See in which Clement 8. presided at that time this holy Pope would not have the cause examined before him till he had first ordained that the Autoritie of S. Austin should be approved The like did Pope Paul 5th afterwards Yet there are found at this day New Censors amongst the Priests of France who to defend Molina's Doctrine have had the Presumption to rise anew against St. Austin by Questions they borrow from the Schole of those Authors already condemned and who call in doubt the Principal Articles of Christian Grace 'T is for this cause that wâ— are come to your Holines in the namâ— of some of the most illustrious Bishopâ— of France We have complained oâ— the Propositions which have been invented to prepare Ambushes for the Doctrine of St. Austin And to the enâ— they may be examined and this wholâ— affair fully and perfectly cleared wâ— have sued to your Holines for the erection of a Congregation in which both sides might be heard viva vice and by writing Your Holines hath accordingly establisht it and to thâ— the end your Holines might have the goodnes to practise from the entrance of this contest the same that Pope Celestin did heretofore and Clement 8th since in occasions perfectly like to this for the defence of S. Austins Doctrine and Autoritie and to support with a new recommendation we have conceived that before all things we ought to summon our Adversaries to acknowledge the Autoritie and Doctrine of that Saint not only with unprofitable and ineffectual words or deceitful Elogiums and Praises full of disguisement and fiction but by solid and expres approbations We know that there is no practice or endeavor omitted by our Adversaries to hinder the effect of so just and necessary a Demand we know that there is nothing in the world which they fâ—ar so much as to be constrained to subscribe as they ought to the autoritie of St. Austin or to see your Holines treading in the steps of Celestin 1. and Clement 8. confirme it anew and repres the temeritie of these Censors Your Holines will hear with wonder that after having openly attaqued S. Austin's Doctrine with their utmost strength both by themselves and by the help of the Jesuits whose defenders and confederates they are they now openly proclaim their submission to it They will have the boldnes to professe themselves publique Panegyrists and defenders of that Father even in the presence of your Holines But their doing thus will be only to palliate the contemt they have of him with feined respect and to free themselves from blame it will be only to avoid the punishment of their insolence wherewith they outrage him 〈◊〉 will be only to hide the aversion whiâ—â— they have for his Doctrine under 〈◊〉 commendation which they give unâ— his person it will be only to diminiâ— the care which is to be had in these Coâ—â—troversies in examining which are 〈◊〉 true sentiments of that holy Father 〈◊〉 and to make it believed that it 〈◊〉 not concerned in the Propositions sinâ— themselves who impugne them pâ—â—fess to follow the Doctrine of thâ— Father and so reverence his autoritiâ— to the end that having avoided the coâ—â—demnation of their temeritie by suâ—â— feined Elogiums of S. Austin and 〈◊〉 off without being obliged to subscriâ— to any thing they may with theâ— Partisans thence forward reject 〈◊〉 autoritie with more boldnes than everâ— and banish his Doctrine from theâ— Scholes as Calvinistick especially 〈◊〉 case your Holines should condemne thâ— Propositions because they will no fail afterwards to make the censuâ—â— fall upon S. Austin and that not withâ—out ground These are the designs 〈◊〉 our adversaries which if they shoulâ— take place it would be an exposing the principal inheritance which the holy See possesseth to pillage as no doubt it would come to passe by the contemt of S. Austins Autoritie and Doctrine it would be a nullifying the autoritie of all the Fathers it would imply that the Church had unjustly condemned the enemies of Grace it would give occasion to believe that the holy Council of Trent favored the Pelagian Hereticks and gave new forces to the Calvinists This Epistle was subscribed thus Noel de La Lane Louis de St. Amour Louis Angran The Pope would not receive these Jansenists Writings c. July 1652. §. 11 The Popes Confession in behalf of the Jansenists St. Amour as he repoâ—â— fol. 211. received a visit from 〈◊〉 Archbishop who told him that he 〈◊〉 conferred with the Pope that morniâ—â— about their Affairs That his Holâ— himself gave occasion to the Discourâ— and told him That he still remembrâ— the time when the Congregations 〈◊〉 Auxiliis were held under Clement 〈◊〉 and Paul 5. that he knew all 〈◊〉 world was then for the Dominicaâ— against the Jesuits that for a loâ— while together the publication of 〈◊〉 Bull whereby the Jesuits were coâ—â—demned was daily expected that â—â—vertheles it was not publisht thougâ— they well deserved it But it was coâ—ceived that the Holy See acted prâ—â—dently in not publishing their conâ—demnation because though the saiâ— Definition would have appeared wiâ—â— the general satisfaction of all intelligent persons yet those matters surpassed the reach of the unlearned and the generalitie of the faithful That moreover the Pope said that he knew the Jesuits Sentiments were not good and that if he condemned them there were no persons of Learning and Abilitie throughout Europe but would be satisfied and well pleased
of France with the Kings approbation July 15th of the same year The Jansenists finding themselves oppressed by calumnies and â—inister dealings durst not openly oppose the Popes Bull only they contend that the five Propositions were not condemned in that sense in which Jansenius asserted them Whereupon their Adversaries the Molinists so stiled from Molina their Head procured a Declaration from the Bishops of France that the said five Propositions were taken out of Jansenius's Augustinus and condemned in his sense Which Judgement of these Bishops was confirmed by Innocent an 1654. as also by a new Bull of Alexander the 7th As Horat. Turâ—illinus the Jesuit in his Epist. hist. on the year 1653. But we have a more faithful and full relation §. 7. The more full relation of the Jansenists condemnation c. of these transactions 'twixt the Molinists and Jansenists at Rome by M. de Saint Amour in his Journal where he sheweth how this contest began first amongst the Sorbonne Doctors about the year 1646. and continued very warme and violent in the several Assemblies of the Facultie from that time unto the year 1650. especially an 1649. We find a good account of the Reasons and Motives Why the Jesuits were so much offended at Jansenius c. St. Amour fol. 93. which induced the Jesuits to condemne Jansenius's Augustinus in the Confession of M. Albizzi the Jesuits Patron unto St. Amour in these words He told me saith S. Amour that the Jesuits held themselves greatly offended by Jansenius S. Augustinus especially by the third Book which I should find was nothing but a continued detraction against Vasquez Suarez Gregorius a Valentia Bellarmine c. He added that that Bishop was full of venom against those Fathers and the whole societie that he broke out into unimaginable exorbitances against them that this greatly provoked them against his Book and obliged them to solicite Vrban VIII for the prohibition which he made of it that had not he first assaulted them perhaps they would not have thought fit so to do but after he set upon and outraged them as he did it is no wonder that they have endeavored to be revenged on him He continued to exaggerate to me the exorbitances of that Author who not only fell foul upon the Societie but even broke forth against Popes as among other places of his Book that shews it where he saith Haereo fateor c. In the year 1650. the Jesuits or Mâ—linists recommended their cause to the Pope by a Letter thus Its ten years since that France has been disturbed by Jansenius's Posthumous Book and Doctrine Such movings ought to be allayed by the Autoritie of the Council of Trent also by the Bull of Vrban 8th the Decrees of Pius 5th and Gregorie 13th against Baius And thou hast vindicated the truth and vigor of this Bull by a new Diplome But because no one Proposiâ—tion apart has been censured there 〈◊〉 yet left place for the Cavils of some which we hope may be wholly inteâ—â—cluded if your Holines shall clearâ— and peremtorily define what we 〈◊〉 to believe herein c. This Letter thâ— Molinists endeavored to get subscribeâ— in the Assemblie of the Clergie bâ—â— perceiving this design unâ—easible thâ— propose it only to some particular Bâ—â—shops inclined to their faction * This Letter was subscribed at first by 72. Bishops only but afterwards the number amounted unto 83. Thâ— Jansenists being persuaded that it woulâ— be advantageous for them to send 〈◊〉 Rome imployed M. de S. Amour witâ— others for the management of their Afâ—fairs Many of the French Prelats affâ—â—ctionately inclined to the Jansenists and therefore desired first a Conference witâ— the Popes Nuncio wherein they testified their dislike of the said Letter Shewing That the quality of Bishops impowred them to judge of Controversies arising within their own Dioceses that this power was signally infringeâ— by this Letter They told him furtheâ— of the danger there was in judging this matter without having first examin'd the parties and above all what necessitie there was that before any thing be done the propositions in Question should be discussed and scanned according to the places from whence they were produced c. But these Prelats being not perfectly satisfied with this oral Declaration to the Popes Nuncio they repete the same to the Pope himself by a letter from Paris June 15. 1651. thus Most Holy Father S. Amour jour fol. 67. we have understood that some of our Brethren Bishops of France have written to your Holines touching an affair of very great importance which last year raised great disturbance without any benefit in the Theologick Facultie of Paris nor could the issue be otherwise for being contrived purposely in ambiguous termes they could produce nothing of themselves but disputes full of animosities about the the various senses put upon them Wherefore our Brethren must give us leave to declare that we cannot approve of their Design in this matter For besides the Questions about Divine Grace and Predestination are full of difficulties and not ordinarially handled withouâ— violent contests there are other verâ— considerable reasons which give uâ— ground to conceive that this presenâ— time is not fit for the terminating oâ— so important a difference unles youâ— Holines will please in order to passing 〈◊〉 solemn judgement upon it which seemâ— not to be their intention to proceed therein according to the forme practised by our forefathers to resume the affair from its original and to examine iâ— wholly and entirely to that end summoning and hearing the reasons of either side For otherwise the condemned partie may with justice complain of having become so by the calumnie and Artifices of their Adversaries c. * S. Amour fol. 76. The Substance of this letter as St. Amour gives it us was That the Divines be first heard for the distinguishing the several senses of the propositions that so the censure may fall only upon that which is bad and which all the world acknowledgeth such but the catholick sense may be safe and exemted from the censures that so both sides having been heard each may receive his Holines's judgement with respect and without stir and without having cause to complain of not having been heard and to make new Remonstrances which would renew the Quarrel The same St. Amour addes that the 5. propositions were contrived in obscure ambiguous and equivocal words so as to be capable of several very contrary senses according to the different interpretations that may be put upon them That some of those senses are evidently heretical others most certainly Catholick and containing the chief Truths of faith and Christian Religion That the Authors of those propositions framed them in this manner that so under pretext of those bad senses they might get a down right absolute condemnation of them and apply the same afterwards to the Catholick senses and Orthodoxe truths which they include That M. Cornet was the
Austins or neceâ—â—sarily coherent with his Doctrine cannâ—â— be in any wise condemned either of Hereâ—â— or Error or with any other kind of ceâ—â—sure whatsoever 2. That never any Doctrine of S. Austiâ—â— hath been condemned of error by any Popeâ— or approved Councils 3. That the Council of Trent hath 〈◊〉 defined or taught any thing that is conâ—trary in any sort to S. Austins Doctrine 〈◊〉 Grace 4. That all which S. Austin has helâ— against the Pelagians and Semipelagianâ— as Catholick Doctrine ought likewise to 〈◊〉 held for such 5. That to affirm that S. Austins Doctrine touching Grace is uncertain contrary to its self exorbitant obscure harsâ— unworthy of the Clemencie of God littlâ— suitable for edification of the faithful c iâ— injurious to the whole Catholick Church 6. That supposing the Holy Scriptures and Definitions of Popes and Councils the Doctrine of S. Austin touching Grace is a most clear and certain rule by which the Propositions in question and all other generally whatever concerning Grace Freâ— Will and Divine Predestination may be examined with certaintie and also by right ought to be so These six Propositions the Deputies of the Jansenists demanded that their adversaries might be obliged to acknowlege together with them for true and indubitable in order to the clear plain stating of principles on which both sides were to proceed This was the substance of their first writing which had this Title The first Information upon matter of Fact Their second Writing was larger than the former The Jansenists second Writing and contained their first information concerning matter of Right and was thus intituled The Tradition of the whole Church in reference to the Autoritie of S. Austins Doctrine This second Writing contained eminent Testimonies touching this matter of more than twenty Popes of as many General Councils National or Provincial and about sixty either Fathers Saints or illustrious Divines c. And to prevent the imputation of being tedious they deew a model of both their Writings the Conclusion whereof was that having thus establisht the Auhtoritie of S. Austins Doctrine they hâ—â— nothing to fear in reference to 〈◊〉 Propositions since they were 〈◊〉 likewise to shew clearly that the sensâ— in which they held them was as cerâ—tainly the Doctrine of S. Austin as thâ—â— had shewn invincibly that his Doctrinâ— was that of the Church And moâ—â— over they publisht this Cartel of Defiâ—ance to the whole Molinistick Partiâ— That they were certain and spoke 〈◊〉 without fear That that holy Doctâ—â— would be found so congruous to aâ— that they maintained that their adversaries however they might rack their brains could never propose any argument drawn from human reason or the Holy Scriptures which they could not make them see had been proposed to S. Austin by the Pelagians or Semipelagians and resolved against them by this holy Doctor and which we could not in like manner refute very easily against our Adversaries by the answers and Doctrine which we should extract out of his works Wherefore they further said That there was nothing they wisht more that assoon as the autoritie of the said Doctrine was acknowledged and confirmed as it ought to be between their adversaries and them to proceed forthwith with equal diligence and confidence to make appear in the examen of the Propositions what that Doctrine was What issue and effect these Writings obtained St. Amour part 5. chap. 14. fol. 256. is given us by St. Amour thus We were busied saies he at Rome all this Moneth of November in the most vigorous and assiduous pursuit that was lawful for us to make there for the first Audience in the Congregation which we demanded might be granted to us together with our adversaries after our first Writings had been communicated to them to the end they might come to such an audience prepared to answer to those Writings and to what we should adde thereunto viva voce We could neither obtain to have a day set for such a first Audience nor that our Writings should be communicated nor know whether they would grant us either one or tother In the mean time the Jesuits and the Doctors their Adherents continued triumphing at Paris before hand for the approaching condemnation of the Propositions of which they held themselves sure and in which they involved ours By this means they caused great doubtings in our friends what might be the issue of the Congregation which was signified to us by a Letter wherein they injoined us severely not to deliver any instruction which might ingage us in a single processe by writing Also M. de Sainte Beave writ to me to continue our instances that the Authors of the Propositions might be known our innocence declared and the Necessitie of Effectual Grace establisht which was the whole point of the question and that if we could not obtain this that at least it might be inserted into the Bull in case any were made that we had alwaies declared that we undertook the defence of the Propositions only in the sense wherein they implyed the Necessitie of Effectual Grace that by this means the Bull would be favorable to us and moreover make our adversaries pass for Calumniators and successors of the Semipelagians as well in their manners and proceedings as in their Doctrine In the beginning of the year 1653. §. 13. The Dominicans interposing for the Jansenists and how far they agree S. Amour fol. 309 The Agents of the Jansenists solicite afresh for the reception of their Writings and Memorial And the General of the Dominicans with the rest of that Order at Rome interposed effectually in the behalf of the Jansenists They prepared a Memorial which they intended to present to the Pope wherein they gave a full elucidation of the Controversie and that more expresly than the Jansenists durst do For 1. They defend Jansenius expressely in reference to the five Propositions and formally maintain that they were not his c. 2. St. Amour saies that although these Dominicans explicated these Propositions in the same manner as they did and no lesse than they maintained the common Doctrine of Effectual Grace yet these Dominicans did it in terms incomparably more powerful than the Jansenists durst express themselves in 3. These Dominicans shew that the Jesuits have three priâ—â—cipal intentions in this Affair 1. To 〈◊〉 Molina his opinion obliquely defineâ—â— 2. To overthrow all that was done 〈◊〉 ten years in the Congregation de Aâ—â—xiliis And 3. To ruine S. Austins Aâ—toritie c. But the Pope would giâ—â— no Audience to the General of the Dâ—â—minicans herein though he requestâ— iâ— seventeen or eighteen times March 4. 1653. Cardinal Barbarin dâ—â—mands of S. Amour S. Amour fol. 322. why they 〈◊〉 Jansenists did not wholly join wiâ—â— the Dominicans to which he answerâ— thus They do their own business aâ— we ours we may have our particulâ— aims and pretensions though their Doâ—ctrine be no wise different from ouâ—â— at