THE JANSENIST MOVEMENT IN FRANCE TO 1713 Thai: for fine Dam of M. A. MiCHlGAN STATE COLLECR. John H, Roinoehl 194.9 I ‘-.l . . THE JANSENILLT HOVELENT IN FREQCE 1‘0 1713 BY John H. Reinoehl A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partical fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of l-IAS’I‘ER OF ARTS Department of flietory and Political Science 1949 Acknowledgement I wish to express my thanks to Professor John B. Harrison for his helpful suggestions and constructive criticism in both the research and writing done in the completion of this essay. TABLE OF CONTENTS m IntrOdUO‘ion o c c c c c c c c c I. II. III. IV. Boginningn......... The Controversial Period . . False Peace and Destruction. 1668.171} 0 O O O O C O O Conclncionc I O O O O I ‘ O m 1. l. 20. 7". 97. Introduction Man's religious beliefs have always been ideas for which he would fight and die .. they have been vital to him in revealing a reason for his existence and in giving him a suggestion of what is to happen to him in a new life. Religion has been a serious business with man; and he who has strayed from the accepted trail of his co-religionists has ever been punished. These heretics have suffered the greatest variety of punishment; from mild ostracism to a violent and tortured death; from short to long prison terms; from a day in the stocks to death on the rack. Heretics and schismatics have had difficult lives. The Sixteenth Century was the period of schism with- in the Western Christian world. Martin Luther. John Cal- via, and Henry VIII wereall able to break from Roman Cath- olicism in a lasting and 'suceessful' manner. although con- siderable blood was shed in the process. The Counter-Re- formation followed. with more bloodshed. as Roman Cathol- icism fought in an attempt to regain its status at the head of the Christian countries. .But the Protestant relig- ions lived on. This essay is the story of a Seventeenth Century group who strayed from the path of the many in religion. but did not desire to be sohismatic; a group who sought to purify a religion from within rather than follow others, with sim- ilar beliefs into a different church organisation. Their desire to remain within the old institution while profess- ing to have a.more true religion was fatal. But their ideas for their faith.did not die as readily as their abbey sue. cumbedto planned destruction; neither were the ideas scat- tered and dissipated in.exile as were the leaders of the movement. Jansenism came into existence as a purifying movement within the Roman Catholic Church.in France during the first half of the Seventeenth.century: it was pronounced dead hy the preponents of‘the Bull.ggigenitus with the promulgation of that document in 1713. The ideas remained, however; some- what different from the ideas of Jansen and St. Cyran; less well expressed than the thoughts of Pascal: less spectacu~ lar than the drama enacted by the nuns who were scattered when'Port Royal was destroyed. A reviewer said of an author's research for 'Later Jan- senists' in 1891: “wherever he comes upon priests who combined austerity of morals with.learning and.liberality of thoughts; magis- trates who were characterised by integrity, independence, and a passionate love of’Justice: statesmen. politicians, public functionaries, who. in spite of limitations and faults, conscientiously placed the interests cf’their counp try above every other consideration; there he assures him- self of being on the right scent. The Latent Jansenist is there; all that remains is to discover either in his own parentage or education. or more remotely in the social re- lations or literary tastes of his ancestors, or some poss- ible channel through.which the spirit of Port Royal may in a.neasure have reincarnated itself in him. That found. the crown is put on the quest; the roll of the later Jansenists ll is enriched by a new member of unimpeachable genuineness. 1- This statement refers to the more political Jansenism of the Eighteenth.and Nineteenth Centuries and is hardly . applicable as a.detinition for the Jansenists discussed in this paper. The Jansenist movement of the Seventeenth Cane tury is confined to the struggle within the Roman Catholic Church, highlighted by the trouble between.Jesuit and Janu senist. It is the movement of Pascal and Arnauld. rather than the movement of Frondeurs de Bet; and Madame de Long~ neville. According to the description given above. the Vol. taire who would defend snother's right to make a statement. whether he agreed‘with it or not, was a Jansenist; the stands ards of St. Cyran.and Mother Ang‘lique would hardly agree with.such a loose description. Their movement was religious. Politics entered only within the organisation.ot the Church 1tnue l. Anon.. “Les Dernier Jansfinistes. despuis la Ruins do Port Royal Jucqu'a nos Jours (lTlO~1870) Par Leon Sechfi , uarterl* Rev w . Vol. 173 (July. 1891). pp. 21694317.. 'L ' """"L'9"'“ ill . .1. Beginning: The century After the foundationuor Protestantism round the Gellieen Church with many nrobleme on ite hende. Added to the threat of the Protestant: were diesentione within ite own ranke. The main eplit. between the ultre— montane group end the group favoring e etate church. could not but weaken the inner structure of the Church; While no formal statement of the .Gallioan Liberties had been made at this time. they oneted ea surely then as they did etter their listing by sum» in 1682. ' Gnllioaniem added definitelyto the strength of the .onown in France, had. mturally. thie etrength use derived tron the Chnroh. The Libertiee consisted or tour chief . points: 1) Papal Bulle could not enter- Franne without the eoneent of theorem; 2) Roman congregation deeieione held no'veight in Frances.” French eubJeete could not be eited before a. Roman Tribunal; end 4) French civil courts could look into Church affairs it they thought the ram lee had been broken. 1 The lettw of these points wee interc- pretod very loosely by the French Parlemonte; at time they went so tar as to adminieter uoramente by adjudication to lndividuale who-.3 the Church had refneed benefit. 2 Then 1. Ward. Prothero, Leathias, eds... W m New York. (1908). V, T . 2. 121a,. v. 74. practices were by no means ordinary, however. The Gallican Liberties did, however, practically free the government of France from any Jurisdiction of the pap- acy when the French government was in the hands of e Rich- elieu. The French Cardinal could and did take both Prat- estant and nonoChristien elliee in his fight against the Catholic Hapeburgss it was outside the power of the papacy to influence him enough to bring him into harmony with his fellow Catholics. While to later Catholics. at least on the surface, the Liberties gave the idea. or being good Cath- alias as well as good Frenchmen, to the contemporary of Louie XIII they were regarded as a weapon to be used against Rome when political expediency deemed it necessary. 3 The French Glory derived positions from crown appoint- ments; again-political expediency raised its head. The crown controlled both position and puree, certainly e. dou- ble handicap to a tree church. Gifts could be demanded. pensions allotted from clergy revenues, appointments given to minors or sold m- rawors w money. The ma, whereby the revermes or e. vacant see were paid to the king. exitin- ed at this time. Thus it can be seen that the church. at least at the upper levels, was directly dependent upon the crown. The Pope was to dominate in spiritual matters, but with the clergy dependent upon the crown, this supremacy 3. m" V, 75. 4 . was more one of word than of action. Moral looseness in thc«court seeped into the upper levels of the clergy, making an unbecoming and lax group at the head of the French church. Two of the greatest con- tributors to this weakness in the upper strata of the clergy were the practices of pluralism and non-resident offices. Pluralism, the holding of several orfnzos simultaneously, added to, but did not necessarily force fine second and greet- er evil, non-resident office holding. The upper clergy lived at the court a their connection with their bishoprice was largely monetary. Their titles as 'eeoular‘ clergy, as com- pared with the regular clergy. was certainly a deserved one; they were secular in.the extreme. 5 it the lower levels the clergy was more well-meaning. ‘ but it was largely powerless to carry out its desires. Ill. iteracy among the lower clergy declined during the first part or the seventeenth Century due to the efforts of St. Vincent de Paul, but still contributed to their lack of effect- iveness. Many could not read their prayer books or devotion- al guides; some travelled through the country begging. cocaeo ionally preaching a sermon in an abbey whore they might be' housed for a short time. 6 The abbsys were also floundering in a state of spiritual 3‘- LQLQH V0 77° 50 me. vs "’78. 5- m" V! 78° decay. Throughout the country they housed nuns who knew or cared little for runes of poverty, chastity. or obedience. They were. to a great extent. daughters of wealthy persons who had had a position purchased for them in one of these abbeys as an alternative to a successful marriage. They liVn ed out their existence there. reading, acting in plays, giv- ing parties, receiving visitors ~ paying little or no attention to the type of conduct that one would normally expect to find in a convent. Monks from neighboring areas were invited in for the plays and parties. In short. the abbeys generally served as a more or less laxly run women's home.7 In addition to these handicaps to the Church, France was controlled during the Seventeenth Century by men who accepted religion only inasmuch as it added to their power or to the power of the French state. Henry IV, a converted Huguenot, accepted Catholicism outwardly, but added nothing toward making his religion any more than the forms that were insisted upon.8 Richelieu, a Cardinal. picked his bishops not from the lover clergy for their religious beliefs and training, but ”preferring clerics of good birth and admin. istrative capacity rather than saints or men dependent sole- ly upon ability."9 Loyalty to Richelieu and to France played 7. Anon.‘ “The Nuns of Port Royal from C. A. Saints- s Bueve Port ngaé, from Lizigg_§gg, Vol. 56 (29 Nov. 1855): PD: 5 5 e 8. Preserved Smith. The Age of the Reformation, New York (1912). p. 2 9. David Ogg. Eurgge in the Seventeenth Century, London (1938). Po 95cc 4 far more important a part in Richelieu's control of the Church than any nondvcrldly or spiritual motives. Masar- in represented a continuation of the Richelieu period - plots, intrigues. little vars - all emphasized the wide range of differences among the churchmen or France. Extremely important in any account of the Roman Church at the beginning of the Seventeenth Century is the Society of Jesus. Organised in 1540 along semi-military lines, the Jesuits had grown and spread rapidly. They became the drive ing factor in the Catholic CountereReformatian. They beo came prominent in education, politics and missionary work throughout the world; their control or education becoming a monopoly by the time of the Seventeenth Century. Selected carefully. they became excellent preachers; They advocated any expeditious means for getting rid of Protestantism. so France was split by religious were during much of the 75 years tollewing.their formation. But the Jesuits were sure; ed by being too successful - they did control education and dominate court life by means of the confessional; in order to do so they had to meet the world more than half way. They developed a lust for temporal power, and their posit» ions in the courts aided them in these pursuits. wealth followed power. and the Seventeenth.century found the Soo- iety of Jesus an extremely powerful and influential factor in both the religious and political worlds. Ranks said of them: on the whole. it was no longer their aim to subjugate the world. or to imbue it with.the spirit of religion; rather had their own spirit steeped to the world’ s ways; their only endeavour was to make themselves indispensable to man- kind, effect it how they might. Not only were the rules of the institution, but even its religious and moral doctrines. modified with this view. lhey gave a turn forever memorable to the office of confess- ion, that 0 Mt" so through which they exercised so direct an influence over the innermost sprin3s of individual conduct. We possess uncieetionable documents bearing on this point. The Jesuits have laid down, in numerous elaborate works, the principles they themselves observed 18 the con- fessional, and which they commended to others. Their methods for maintaining themselves in an esseno tial position were centered around the We main devices In which they had.obtained power originally: education and the confessional. Their system of education was superior to any that had before existed; by the beginning or the Seven. teenth Century they controlled the education of the Roman Catholic World. From control f education. it was a short stride to control or the confessional: their students were the future kings, lords, and other titled persons who would control states in due time.11 Their success in maintaining their positions as court confessorl lay in their use of two subterfuges: casuistry and probability. Casuistry is the science of dealing with cases of conscience and of resolving questions or right or wrong in conduct. Under the.Jcsuite. however, casuistry came to signify specious reasoning with regards to law or 10. Leopold Ranks. The Histo of the Po as h i and Sta 1 the Sixteenth and Beventeen c . Phi adelphier l , p. 3 11. Edward M. Hulls. The Renaissance the ngtegtggg R31- clution and the Catholic Perormat on "7zfififjh"A£L‘2E&$BSEE§l urogq, New YorE (Iglg), ‘ morale. The Jesuits made caeuistry subtle and considered motives instead of cine as the basis for judgement; prsc~ ticslly anything'uae penniesable, not even excluding mur- der itself. Thus, if one kills to defend his honor. rather than for the sheen Joy of killing or because he was angry with his victim. murder could be recognized as a pardonnblc offense. 12 The second subterfuge was that of probebilisa, where- by an act is considered moral, or at least possible of com- mission without mortal sin, if there is any degree of prob¢ ability that the sin is of non-mortal character. regardless of how slight taut degree might be. If two probable opin~ ions contradict (which.was very probable), it is possible to carefully choose either of them withont fear_of damnation. Both of these doctrines, used reasonably, were the ,natural rceult of having a confessional faith; some decision on the degree and character of the sin being needed. and. measuring standards, as with legal codes, are copied and built upon to become more or less permanent for Judging new cases which may arise. But these rules can be used for tho deliberate and.willful intent of permitting any sort of cone 'duct to be sanctioned. When the Jesuits attempted to accome odate their religion to all, they fell into the natural pitfalls that loomed ahead of’themo 13 12. Blaise Pascal. “Provincial Lotter’# 7” Apr. 25. 1656, from Pensegs - The Provincial Letters, tr. b H. F. Trotter an Rev. Thomas M Crio, New York (1 l). p. 411. 13. Flanke, {dietary of the Popeg, p.p. 366-367. The rulings of the different Jesuit fathers on various sins, greet and trivial, were collected and published in 1643 in a six volume work, Theologice Morelie, by a Spanish Jesuit, Escobar. These rulings were used by Jesuit confess- ors as a guide to their handling the confessional;lA as Pae- cal proved later their intentions sometines colored their interpretations so that extremes of immorality were appar- ently condoned by then. no the Jesuits, in their zeal for the advancement of their own seeicty, drifted free the doc. trines of the Church which they had bezn organized to save. One of their needs in executing their doctrine of easy salvation for all Wes a theory of grace different from the hard predestinetion of it. Ieul end St. Augustine, which was more recently advocated by Jchn Calvin. A Spaniel Jes- uit, Father holinn, filled this need with a different theory which was published in 1588. According to Molina, free will of the individual was all important in determining salvat- ion or lack of it, rather than a grace bestoWed by God for ressons unknown and unknowsble to men. Consequently, the grace of Eolina is an earned grace, and a grace that is ac- Oepted or rejected at the will of the individual. He "main- tained that free will, even without the help of grace, can produce morally good works, that it can.resist tenptstian, and Gun elevate itSelf to Various acts of hope, faith, love, and repentance. then s nan has advanced thus far, God 14. G. B. Eicolini, Histor1_of the Jesuits, London (1854), p. 256. 8 then bestows grace upon him on account of Christ’s merits, by means of which grace he experiences the supernatural means of eanctification; yet, as before this grace had been received, in like manner, free will is continually in action; and as everything depends u; on it, it rests with us to make the help of God effectual or ineffectual." 19 Elie doctrine of grace was rejected, at the time it was ptlDlilth, by the to: inicans, who carried the matter to Rome. fifter se verel years of etru.3 1e and interalay, silence was inpce e3 upon both sides by Pepe Paul V, pending clarification of the matter. This clarificaticn was not forthCOting, so each sije coatinued to labcr under the impression that its doctrine wae the correct one. Ge neral opinion at Rene con- ceded that the Jesuits were in error, but no decision to that f effect was farthconiu3. 1° Thus the Gallican Church was eclit in nuxerous ways at the be3inn3.n3 of the Seventeenth Century: the struggle be- tween the ultra-montene group L.nd the Gallic an group the split on the fundamental matter of grace between Jesuit and Doninicen; and the split between the lex morale group, rep- resented by the Jesuits, and the puriten group, who reflect- ed the influence of the Calvinists of Erence. The French Frotcetantc, or Eugucnctc, hcd grown under 150 Ibido, p. 231-0 16. 033, Eurcre in tue Ceventeenth Century, p 325. C” .7 c missionary work of John Calvin‘s students until tney com- pr r13 31 be ween one-fifth and one-sixth 17c? the pooulation of Frnacc ducfirc the Sixuccnth Century. lhty hLi been faught bitterly and c01harlui"cly Lucretcia-ly by both Church and Srown -- this fightirg being climax: ébd the bloofly St. 33r- tholemeu' 3 .1y flassscro in 1572. durin; w.rzich t1me ch can 10,000 and 20,000 were killed.18 fhcy had become prominent numerically in France, but their influence in the country was greater than their nuoerlcal strength ind cated. -They controlled wealth beyond their numbers, anfi‘were becoming increa sin'ly erportant ans n; the nobility. Durihg the rol- igious wars of the Sixte3nth Century their repracentative, Henry of Navarre, had become king, although.he had accept- ed Catb 011c131. filth the idiot of Nantes, 1593, they had become tollfw-‘mr1 in France, 3113 had been allowed to live peaceably again. Naturally the doctrine: of the Hugfinots came up for discussion'wherever opposition to them raised its head. This doctrine included strict predestination, absolute subties— ion to the will of God as the doctrinal key to salvation. iheir creed encompassed all the t3 :Ior of a God who saved or donned without canslder1n¢ the ncrit of the individual. This doctrine was bound to be usei by than in their resist- ance to attack. As they depended upon the Holy scriptures 17. Preserved Sglth, Age of the Fe eformatiun, p. 229. 18. 123111., 9. 21.9. 10 as a basis for their arguments, thoughtful opposition went to the Bible for refutation of those arguments. So, even if somewhat inadvertently, the Calvinists did cause some of their opposition to adopt their program of Bible reading. One of these disputants against the Calvinists was Michael de Bay. or Baius. (1513-1589) head of the University of Louvain. In the arguments with the Calvinists, Baius be. came convinced that the Roman Catholic Church.had strayed from the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the early fathe ere. Among the early fathers from whom the Church had wan. , dered was St. Augustine. an admirable choice for a debater to use because the African bishop was of sufficient stat~ are that his teachings could not be easily dismissed. Baius summed up his list of deviations as follows: 1) Men's stats of innocence prior to original sin was natural. not super- ' natural as taught by tin Church; 2) Men's state or wicked- ness in his fallen nature is absolute - all human action, regardless of its appearance,is evil in this state; 3) Prim- -itive innocence is resotred by Jesus Christ - through grace - which keeps consupiscence under control and enables one to do good. 19 These teachings came precariously close to the hereto ical work of Calvin; they certainly were definitely opposed to the tree-will theory of Molina and the Jesuits, and were positively opposed by them. Baiue published and taught this 19s 'Balua", cathOIIO EnCHCIOQedlg, New York (1913)e 11 doctrine. until his work was condemned by the Vatican. where- upon he recanted. He was, however. left in his position at the head of the University of Louvain, and his teachings con- tinued to be influential. A member of the succeeding generation who was influenc- ed by tho work of Baiue was Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638). Jansen‘was born to a poor family in the Province of Utrecht; he was educated and spent most of his life at the University of Louvsinu as a student, tutor. and professor. He was a serious. hard-studying individual. and after becoming involve ed in the arguments with both the Dutch Calvinists and the Jesuits, he made a lifetime study of the works of St. August- ine. placing especial emphasis upon the writings pertaining to the Pelagian.heresy. Pelagius. a.contempcrary of St. Aug~ ustine, had taught the moral strength of man's will - that alone sufficed to produce virtue. He saw in the life, eac- rifice. and redemption of Christ merely a good example for man, which.would counteract the bad example of Adam. Grace, according to Pelagius. was not needed for conquering sin nor even to gain eternal life. 20 Jansen saw considerable difference between the idea of grace of Augustine and that of Kolina; conversely he saw con- siderable similarity between the doctrine of Molina and that of Pelagius. He did not consider this switch from the grace of Augustine to that of Pelagius as grounds for leaving the Church; rather he considered the Church as being deceived by 20. ibid.. “Pelagius and Pelagianism". 12 the Jesuits and not erring in itself. While Calvin and Luther saw no hope for the old organization and split off to form new churches. Jansen clung to Roman Catholicism as the one true faith. He thought that if he studied the writings of St. Aug- ustine he would be able to correct this straying from the truth by the Church. “is writings to Rome on several occas- ions betrayed his fears of Semi-Pelagianism within the Church. He thought that if the errors were pointed out. the correct path would be followed. His work on Augustine was the result. Where Luther a century earlier had gone to Rome and then separated from the Church. Jansen continued to live within the Church; his entire life was spent firmly within the bosom of Roman Catholicism. In 1635 he published a pamphlet. flag; Gallicus, wherein he attacked the policy of the French court in warring against Catholic Austria. He was appointed Bishop of Ypres in 1636, but continued to devote most of his time to a study of St. Augustine. his work on the great African had not yet been published when Cornelius Jansen was striken by i the plague and died in 1638. Jensen's friend and companion, Jean de Vergier de Hauranne, or. as he was known from 1620 on, h. as St. Cyran, maintained similar beliefs. But where Jansen was the scholar, who worked .with books and writings, St. Cyran was an eloquent speaker. a talented man of the people, who created a profound impression on those whom he addressed. He was educated at Louvain with Jansen. but after his ordination he was sent as private secret- ary to the Bishop of Poitiers. While there he came in contact 13 with the Huguenots, and their objections to the Church. He became convinced that these persons would never come back to Roman Catholicism unless that body in turn came back to the teachings of the early fathers. Like Jansen. he was a firm believer in the doctrines of Lt. Augustine and at. Paul; he too set out to combat the laxness in the Church by a roe turn to the early fathers. His methods were different £30m those of his friend; St. Cyran preached and taught his theor- ies. Conversion, to him. was a powerful experience. similar to that of St. Paul on the Damascus Road. His teaching was fiery and emotional, his converts numerous. Richelieu recogo nised his abilities and offered him a bishopric; his refusal to cooperate with the Cardinal caused his imprisonment dur- ing the 1630's. 21 One of the oonwerts to St. Cyran‘e ideas of puritanical Catholicism was Jacqueline Arnauld. Mother Ang‘lique of Port Royal. a member of the famous family whmse name had become synonomous with antimJesuitism in France during the last de- cade of the Sixteenth Century. Jacqueline'e father, Antoine Arnauld. had opposed the Jesuits strongly during that period. Jacqueline. (1591-1661) was the leader of the Arnauld family in a religious sense. When she was seven years old, her father secured the abbey of Port Royal for her, to be turned over to her upon the death.of the then ruling abbess. Jacqueline was called to her task at the age of eleven, but over her 21. .Ogg, Europe in the Seyentgenth Century. p. 332. 14 protest. Convent life was not difficult, but it hold little appeal for her; several times ska considered Joining her re- latives at the nuguenot center of La Rochelle. When she was fifteen she signed some papers, at the order of her father, which pleased her to a life within the Church.22 Tho abbey of‘which.Jacquoline became head.was located near Versailles in a swampy, musty valley. It had been built in 1204, and in 1223 a bull was issued admitting worldly rc¢ cruits to Port Royal. Tho placc‘uas not distinguished hy' cithor word or deed prior to the coming of Mother Angélique. 1 When Angéaique was-1n her middle teens, she heard a sermon preached by a Cspuchin friar, and from that time for« ward she was happy with her position as a nun; Sh. took tbs now life seriously, inflicting upon herself the vows of pov- erty. chastity. and obedience 4 unhsard of in the abbey - ‘uhilo physical punishment became a part of her ascetic rout- ine. Sh. converted not only herself; her nuns at Port Royal were soon changed to nor now way of life. By 1609 tbs nuns of Port Royal had abolished private property in favor of coma munal living; still later laws of seclusion were enforced. Port Royal had moved from secularism to an.sxtrsmc or othsro worldlinsss. 22. The story of Angélique Arnauld and earl! Port Royal is taken from " 'Ths Nuns of Port Royal from G. A. SaintsaBucve‘s For? Rozali from V01. 56 (29 NOV. 1 5 ”a S ‘5300 15 . é . q - . ‘ nngeli uo's f.nily, and she had nineteen crotners and G3 I) sisters, had fregu atly visited her and provided clothing, ([1 money, and visitors when she had desired then. how she shut herself away from her family - refusing to see them except thcouéh the bars of the reception hall at Port Royal. After a fiery session, Angelique won the respect and then the sup— port of her family through her firmness and devotion to her vows; in time the entire family was converted to the relig- ious life except her father. Under Angeliquo's careful guidance and example. Port Royal became known throughout Franco as the most devout and well run abbey in the country. Gifts no longer insured a woman‘s acceptance into the spiritual life - a poor girl who impressed Mother Ang‘lique with her seriousness and honest desire for the Cloister could be assured of finding a place at Port Royal. In turn. Angelique became renowned throughout the religious world of France. In 1618 she was temporarily transferred to the abbey atiaaubisson, to restore order and chastity to that abbey that had become notorious for its lic- cntiousness.i Angelique stayed at Maubisson five years. and by her teaching and example changed it to a second Port Roy- al. When she returned to Port Royal in 1623, she brought with her the excess nuns from wealthier.Maubisson. Because of the increase in personnel, additional housing was required at Port Royal, and a new house was purchased in Paris. to which the abbey was transferred in 1526. While in 16 Paris,'Angélique decided that the nuns hould have choice over who snould become their abbess. Consequently she pet~ itioned the king to allow the nuns of Port Royal permission to elect their own abbess. Upon receiving this permission, She resigned and refused to accept the office herself. The next years were bitter ones for Angélique. Port Royal came under the control of M. Zamet, Bishop of Langres, who restored the former sensuous life to it. angElique found herself mocked and spurned by nuns who had formerly obeyed and revered her. This condition lasted until the middle 1630's, when Angélique came into contact with St. Cyran. It would be going too far to say that this devout woman was converted by the evangelical St. Cyran; their beliefs in a devout and ascetic life were very much in agreement and it was more a matter of their finding each other than one of conversion. Nevertheless, a new era was brought to Port Royal by 1636 when St. Cyran had been appointed spiritual director of the abbey and Angélique had again become abbess.23 Tortures of the flesh again became the rule at Port Royal. Prayers were said during the nights . fasting was a regular occurrence. tith the spiritual guidance and personal charm of St. Cyran. a large number of recluses were attracted tov Port Royal. These men lived in a nearby building for a time, but were later moved out to Port Royal of the fields - the original fort Royal located near Versailles. These men Poo. presented some of the most talented persons in France}. 23. St. Cyran had been appointed by Zamet. although the two had disagreed on how the abbey should be run. 17 noteworthy among them were four nenbere of the Arnsuld fen- ily: M. Arnauld d'endilly, brother of mother Angflique, and her three nephews, M. de heel, E. de hericourt, and H. Le Heltre, all fanous in their own right as scholar, soldier and lawyer. These men worked in the fields of Port Royal as the work was needed, but their main work, under the direct1)n of st. Cyran, was the formation of the schools at Port Royal. These schools became renous in France and attracted a wide range of schol- ars. Naturally this competition in one of their chosen fields aroused the enmity of the Jesuits for the little abbey that had dared to challenge their supremacy. Texts written at Port Royal became famous also; some of them were still in use at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century.24 The schools of Tort noyel were snell - based upon the individual pupil. Little was allowed in the way of coupet- itive study. Children were taught to road in their native tongue instead of in Latin. Foreign languages were taught by ectuel use of the language in Speaking - little formal orphaeis was given to rules, deolensions or exceptions. Port Royal turned out soae famous students, the poet Racine being the most famous. Extrenely talented persons served as instruct- ore there 0 Unfortunately for the movement, it use Just getting under way when, in 1638, the leader of the group, st. Cyren, incur- red the displeasure-of Richelieu and'wes put in prison. Al- though he directed the werk from Vincennes and later fron the 24. Anon.. ”Reuohlin's History of Port Royal“, The Edin- burgh Reziew, Vol. 73(July, 1841), pp. 309-365. 18 Bastille and contributed much to the schools in the way of textbooks and advice for the group, his personal leadership was missed at Port Royal. At this tiss Cornelius Jafissn, unknown to the Port Royallsts as a group, died at Louvain, his work on St. Augustine still unpublished. Jansen prob~ ably had little idea that his lifetime of study wculd stir France with religious struggle for the greater part of the seventy-five year! after his death. 19 II. The Controversial Period When Cornelius Jansen died of the plague in 1638, he left his life work, the study of St. Augustine, to two friends, - Frouond and Galen. Through then the work was published at Louvsin in 1540, written in Latin with the isoosing Latin title, éugustinus Corneliiglensenigxepiscopi. seu doctrine genoti MgustinLdeQu-neno neturg agritudinze medics. ad. or us gelggianon e; m33€1l1°n§§3-1 For obvious reasons it 4 w became known as the .gugustinus. Jensen nod carefully studied 5t. Augustine - according to the Rev. Thomas‘M‘Crie he had read the entire works of the saint ten times, and the sections dealing with Pelagisn- ism thirty times. The book is divided into three parts, “the first being a refutation of Pelagisnism , the second demonstrating the spiritual disease of man, and the third Omibiting the remedy provided." 2 ‘ Jansen set out to prove that man is not a creature of free will; pending the bestowsl of grace upon him by God. msn is tied down by lusts for earthly things. By himself, man is unable to raise himself from that depraved condition; with grace all things are possible. Grace is not so much 1. Rev. Thomas M'Crie, ”Historical Introduction" to the Provincial Letters, ed. by O. N. Wight, New York (1859’s po 95. 20 Mo. Pp. 94‘950 20 forgiveness of sin as it is the freedom from the bonds that~ cause nan to sin. He attributes the influx of grace to the higher and purer pleasure shied the soul derives fron heavenly things. The effectual grace of the Savior is nothing else, he says, than a spiritual delight, by which the will is moved to will and to do what God has decreed; it is the involuntary impulse impressed by God unon the will, by which man is made to take pleasure in good, and to strive after it. He insists, again and again, that good must be done, not fron fear of punish. ment, but from love for righteousness. From this point be next proceeds to the higher question, "What is this righteousne55?' * He answers, "God Himself.“ 3 ” Close as this sounds to the ideas of Calvinism on grace and man in general, there were two fundamental differences: Jansen.was guided by the teaching of early Church fathers, who had already been abandoned in favor of"the Bible by frot- estants generally;4 further, Jansen insisted that the Viso ' ible structure of the Roman Church was still the proper veh- icle for the teachings cf Christ and the priesthood Which administered the sacraments were an essential part of that vehicle. were Protestantism regarded the Church as so corrupt and rotten st its base that it would have to be superseded by a new church, Jansenism maintained that the old structure was sound and true, that the deformity and ills within the Church.uould require a major cleaning and over- hauling, but that the infallibility and imperishability rs- msined one with the Church. Jansenism thus reverts to the 3. Ranks, History of tneggopeé. p. 337. 4. $1314.33 D. 3.69 old Church fathers - ct. Augustine being the chief of these - the Protestants went back to the Holy Scriptures for their authority. Jansenism retained the sacraments of the Church intact; Protestantism discarded then in part as unnecessary. These differences seen slight today, but they were an un- _bridgable chasm to the devout persons on either side of the controversy at that time. And the Jansenists considered the Huguenots, who were so close to them in doctrine, as non- reformable heretics; when they were not being persecuted them- selves they were willing to aid in the persecution of the ' Huguenots.5 The book of Jansen, while it Was based upon the writ~ ings of a Church father of unimpeachable repute, was regard- ed by the Jesuits as a nonotoo-subtle blast at their doctrine under the title of Semi-Pelagianisn. Realizing that they would be treading upon dangerous ground if they attempted to defend this phase of their teaching (The old Dominican- Jesuit struggle at the turn of the century had been on sim- ilar grounds, and the doctrine of Molina has striking sim- ilarities to that of Pelagius) the Jesuits siesed upon an- other part of the St. CyranmJansen creed that looked con- siderably more vulnerable and diverting. Jansen implied and St. Cyran Openly taught that there existed a funiamentat dif- ference between the Roman Church and the hierarchy of the Roman Church. It was net difficult to convince the powers at Rome that this distinction was dangerous to then; there 5. J. B. Perkins, France Under Mazarin, New York (1885), II, 480. 22 was no need to show the application of this principle to political matters to Cardinal Richelieu. He had already felt «the blast from Jansenfs flare “allicge five years earlier; two years before he had put St. Cyran in prison as one of the most dangerous men in Europe.5 After a condemnation on these grounds had been assured, condemnation of the ggggggiggg would follow as a matter of course as the work of e heretic. So the Jesuits attacked the doctrine of St. Cyran and Jensen on eeparation of Church from the persons in charge, while waiting for a more cpportune time to attack the main doctrine of predestination and a bestowed. rather than an earned. grace. But at this time the Aggustigge was tied with the group at Port Royal through the common belief of Jansen and St. Cyran. When the attack finally settled on the Aggggtinue, the terme Janseniet and Port Royalist had'becoee practically synonomous.7 The Agguetinue had a fundamenta1.weakness as a contra. versial writing in that itwvae written in Latin and en prac- tically unavailable to all except the extremely well educated. It could never influence Opinion, especially popular opinion, to the extent that it would serve as its own.defense‘egainst the attack of the Jesuits; however, more popular Janseniet Vritings were not long in coming forth. Antoine Arneuld (1612-1694) was the youngest of the twenty Arnauld children. Opposition to the Jesuits was said 6. J. B. Perkins. Richelieu and the Growth of the Eggggh m. New York (19005, . 279. 7. Perkins. {gages finder Mazarig, II, #73. 23 . to be inherited in this family, and Antoine had received his share of this trait. He was a doctor of the Sorbonne, but. his fame cane from his scholarly and organisational work as a leader of the Jansenists; he became known and is still says arated from the rest of his illustrious family by the title 'the Great Arnauld'. He acquired his interest in Jansenism from his sister, Rother Angélique, and became one of its most fiery and talented advocates. A tireless writer, he turned out many pamphlets end books which opposed Vatican policy,Protestantism, and the Jesuits with equal vigor. When St. Cyran was imprisoned by Richelieu in 1638, Arnauld substituted for him at Port Royal, and devoted his time to running the schools and writing. Among his other duties at the abbey was that of direct- ing the literary output of the members, the most noteworthy of whom were his relatives. Under his guidance his brother, Arnauld d'Andilly translated St. Augustine's Confessions into French and his rs phew, de Saci, translated the Bible. School books were written. In addition, ”all prayed, mortified then- selves, gardened, took care of the farm animals, read the breviary and the Scriptures, busied themselves with the tem- poral matters of the monastery."8 Following the death of Richelieu, St. Cyran‘was released from prison, but his health had been so undermined that he died that same year, and nominal, as well as actual leadership 8. Emile Cailliet, Pascal - Genius in the Lieht f Scripture, Philadelphia (1935), pp. loo-lei. 24 ‘ of the Jansenist group passed into the hands of the "Great Arnauld‘. That same year Arnauld published a work which clearly drew lines for the struggle between the Jesuits and' Jansenists. The pamphlet, written in French, brought the argument on theology to the level of the non-theologian, and placed the matter in lay terms rather than in subtle differ- entiations on grace. It was called ”On Frequent Communion", but. as the C h Enc o edia suggests, the work night more aptly be called "Against Frequent Communion”; But it served to bring the controversy to the forefront of French religious matters, where it stayed, with minor lapses, until well through the first quarter of the Eighteenth Century; "0n Frequent Communion" delved into the problem of the priest who gave absolution for sin easily, and condemned the practice as contributing to the loose living and degeneracy of morals that were commonplace in France at that time. So opposite was the easy religion taught by the Jesuits to the strict puritanism of Port Royal that Arnauld was truly alarm- . ed at the way the confession was being managed. But the Jeso uits, as ever, proved to be formidable opponents, and did not delay in striking back. They were already armed with a prohibition of the gag: gggiggg,hy the lnquieition in 1641 and a confirmation or that decree in the 1643 Papal Bull 19 Eminenti.9 They threw 9. G. H. Putnam, The Censorshi f the Ch ch of Home New York (1906 , ”In, '“ 25 themselves into the task of getting rid of the leader of this groWing sect that Was giving them coupetition in their educat~ ive monopoly and questioning their methods of administering the confession. After some confusion as to how to counter this threat to their supremacy in their chosen fields, they organiz- ed their opposition, and showed their mettle as a smooth run- ning organization. Instead of shrinking to a defense of the charges made against them they countered with stronger and, while vague, non-the-less effective charges against the Jan- senists. They claimed that the Augustinus did not represent the true belief of the saint, but a misinterpretation foist- ed upon him by Jansen, and so, easily condesned as heresy. Arnauld's "On Frequent Communion" represented more of the same heresy according to the Society of Jesus. Disputes over the merits of the charges and counter-charges were raised in the Sorbonne. After a constant call for a demonstration of the heresy to be found in the Augustinus the Jesuits an- swered with seven propositions, five of which they characto erised as having been extracted from the augustinus and two from "On Frequent Communion", the latter two being subsequent- ly dropped. The propositions were developed by the Jesuit.- Nicholas Cornet. and were claimed to be contained within the text of Jansen's book. In the dispute that followed, seventy- one doctors could find no trace of the five within the éggggty gags, while "on the other side are eighty secular doctors,and some forty Icndicant frairs"10 with fifteen who stayed neutral. 10. Fascal, Provincial Letter & 1, Jan. 23, 1656. p. 326. 26 When asked to point out the offending propositions, the discoverer: of the heresy made no hove. Confusion reigned. Finally the suggestion was offered that the meaning of the five propositions was definitely contained within the A33- ustinue. The propositions that raised the storm were trans- lated by Charles heard as follows: 1. Sons comnandnents of cod are impossible of perfor- mance to Just men, according to their present strength, even though they be willing and striving to perform them; and the grace which.would make these commandments possible is also wanting. 2. In the state of fallen nature, no resistance is ever made to interior grace. 3. In order to produce merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature, liberty from necessity is not required in man, but liberty from constraint is sufficient. 4. The Semi-Pelagians admitted the need of prevenient grace for all actions, even for the beginnings of faith; and they were heretics, inasmuch as they would have this grace to be such that the will of man could either resist or obey. 5. It is a Semi-Pelagian error to say inst Christ died or shed his blood for all men, universally.1 The publication of these propositions gave the Jansen- ists a new basis for establishing their defense, and the Jesuits were once again on the offensive side of the contro- versy. Despite protests from the seventycone members of the Sorbonne, led by Antoine Arnauld, the propositions were sent to Rona for a papal ruling. The eXpected condennation.was stated in the Bull CE! occasionefinpressionis libri in May 1653. which pronounced the first four propositions heretical and the fifth false, but added that if the fifth implied that Christ died only for the elect, it was inpious and blasphemous 11. Anon., I'i":eard's History of Port Royal", Christian Obseggeg, Vol. 61 (Earth, 1861), pp. 251-232. 27 in addition to being heretical.12 The Jesuits had seemingly won their point - Jensen's doctrine had be;n condemned and was asparently to take its place among the minor heresies of the Church, This outlook reckoned without the active mind of Arnauld, who must have forsecn such a blow coming and prepared for the condennation of the five propositions. The line taken hy Arnauld and the Jansenist party was to concur with the Jesuits ani the papacy in condemning the five propositions as being heretical, but to maintain the the doctrines as expressed in the five propositions were not contained in the Aqgustingg, While it was true that the propositions were all that the papacy contended, this did not even remotely concern the Jansenists, because they neith- er knew nor would defend any person or group who uphold such tenets. Thus originated the difference between faith and fact - the ground upon which.Jansenisn was to strugsle long and constantly unsuccessfully in their battle for existence. They held that, while the Church or Pope night rule on net- ters of‘gggflg (the heresy of the five propositions), on the other hand the word of the Eope was no more effective than that of any other man on deciding whether or not the fact (the presence of the five prepositions within the Augustinus) was true. In this case, they were willing to concede the point on the matter of faith, but they‘werc far from concede ing anything as to the presence or tn: condemned propositions 12. Putnam, gensorship of pg: 28 within either the wording or the intention of Jensen. The Jesuits, meanwhile, prepared a fornnlary for the Jansenists to Sign, to the effect that they condonned the five prop- ositions; in signing it the Jansenists made it glain by their reservations that they were in no sense to be considered as condemning Jansen or St. Augustine. The Jesuits were not to be tricked by any such subtero fuse. They quickly had their Opinion on the propositions passed at the court. hazarin agreed that the schools of Port Royal were to be closed, the recluses were told to re- cent or leave, and the nuns of Mother Angelique, who had re- turned to Port Royal of the fields in 1548, were to be eject- ed. Port Royal had expressed sympathy for Frondeurs. and provided shelter for neighboring peoples during the wars of the Fronds, so Kazarin was rather easily convinced that there was a connection between the abbey and the Fronds. egard- less of whether or not Port Royal had synpathized with the Fronds, certain of the leaders of the Fronds had been favor- able to the Jansenists in their battle with the Jesuits, and that had satisfied the Cardinal that the Jansenist party W35 a menace.13 The Sorbonne was debating whether or not Arnauld should be voted off the faculty, and that individual was in hiding to avoid being jailed during the winter of 1655 and 1656. Again it appeared that the Jansenist movement was in its 13. 033. Euroge in the_$eventeenth ggnturY. PP. 352-353. 29 death throes, but this time the situation was remedied by the appearance of a great man and a convincing miracle. The man was Blaise Pascal; the miracle became known as the "hir- sole of the Holy Thorn". "Pascal was, simply speaking, one of the greatest men that have ever lived." 1‘ Ihat statement is overly simplified, but it is none the less true of this moat famous advocate of Jansenisn. He was born in Auvergne in 1623. as a baby he was sickly; for a year between thqages of two and three he was victim of an unusual malady, and he regained his health through an equally unusual cure. He had become languid, but when he see water or when he saw his parents together, he would scream and struggle. The parents had accepted the idea that Blaise was suffering from a "spell" which had been cast upon him by an old woman of the town. After a 'poultice made of nine leaves from three different herbs gathered before sunrise by a sevennyear-old child was applied to the baby'ls he was cured. Pascal's next venture into the realm of the unusual came at the age of twelve. He was taught by his father, fitienne, a stern man who considered the study of mathematics as too entertaining for a youth.who should be studying Latin and Greek. Eloise begged for permission to study mathematics - specifically geometry - but to no avail. Then one evening his father entered the room where Bl 'se was busy working on 14. horris Bishop, :aeoal,_§he Life of Genius. New York (1936), p. l. 15. Jacques Chevalier, Pascal, New York (1930), p. 48. ‘50 the floor. Using charcoal for a pencil, and so engrossed in his work that he failed to notiCe the approach of his father, claise'uas busy working out geonetric rules; when Etienne interrupted his he explained his findings. slaise had worked out the prepositiens of huelid to the thirty- econd one (th t the sum of the an5les of a triangle is equal to two right uJ6195)e 16 fitienne Fascal realized that he had a prodigy growing up in his household. He turned his books over to the boy, and Blaise learned his mathematics along with his foreign languages. Blaise did not stray from his early path of gen- ius. He was admitted to the Agadénig Libgg (a scientific discussion group to which Etienne Pascal belonged) when he was thirteen and he sat among the learned doctors and lis~ tened to and contributed to their9 The first letter Caused widely different reactions. Chancellor téguir of the Sorbonne read the document and had to be bled seven times. Paris laughed at the burlesquing of shat had been dry religious polemics. Those who normally were connected with the publication of works of Port Royal had police visits and the printer of the second letter had his shop entered while the forms were there. His wife took than to a neighboring shop and the second letter'was circul- . ated on the following day.36 The second letter was a continuation of the first in character. It repeated the charge that the difference was not as great as the terms'would indicate between,Jansenist and Doninican, or orthodox Catholic. But here he added a new thrust; while the Dominicans agreed with the Jansenists in doctrine, in terminology they were on the side of the {asuits, and-othis is important . the Jesuits had a recent. 1y manufactured and unorthodox belief. The disdinsuishing 35. Ibido' Letter u", 1" ‘99. 334.335. 35. hishop, Pascal, p. 225. m“ 41 term in this case was ”sufficient grace", and his argument was again crystal clear. The Jesuits hinged their consider» ations on grace on the torn "sufficient” which ihplied all that was needed for righteous action. They believed that grace is dooendcnt ucon tree will, that it is "given gener- ally to all men subject in such.a way to free-will that the will renders it efficacious or inefficacious at its pleasure, without any additional aid from God, and without wanting any- thing on his part in order to act effectively; and hence they term this grace sufficient, because it suffices of it- self for action.'37 Pascal here was merely pointing out the doctrine of Molina, uhich.was maintained by the Jesuits. The difference between this and the Jansenist picture of grace is clearly shown. The Jansenists, with their denial of free will, refused to recognize the term of the Jesuits o'sufficient' grace . because this grace was not of itself sufficient for action. They term their grace “efficaciouc', because it controls the will itself. With the Jansenist grace, the possibility of earning salvation through any means other than the choice of God is eliminated. They term the Jesuit grace as insuff- icient. because it had not the power to direct the'will to action, and so by no means could be considered sufficient. ”efficacious" grace was all that was needed for proper action, but nothing less would suffice.38 37. Pascal, Provincial Letter # 2. Jan. 29, 1656, p. 336. 33. Ibii., Letter;? 2{ pp. 339-341. 42 Here Pescsl pointed out the fallacy in the stead of the Doninicene hehini the Jesuits in the theological controversy. ihey hcd ccsgromisei their early stem; against foline's ver- sian of grece 1w eleptih the Jesuit terminology, while still holding to their own belief. "”hey agree with the Jesuits in admitting a sufficient gracg given to all men; but they maintain, at the same time, thet no men can act with this grace alone, but that, in order to do this, he must receive from God an efficacious grace which really determines his will to the action, and.whlch God does not grant to all men."39 Thus, by any logic, the controversy shouli not hsve re- mainei as to the heretical views of the Jensenistc, but in their refusal to use the term "sufficient" grace with the Jesuits. {hile the Dominicans, who persecutei the Jensenists with the Jesuits, believed the same we*, their belief was not heritiCul because they used the term with the Jesuits. But Pascal did not rest his case here. He had already translated the difference between Jesuit and Dominican into popular language for all to read; next he showed the reason why they could side together against the Jensenists. In his conversaticn with the Jesuit of the letters, he asked him why the holy fathers did not also fight the Doninicans, since heir ideas of grace and proximate power so closely parallel- ed those of the Janeenista. The father adnitted that the Dominicans were too powerful to attack. Recalling the stand-oft 59' iii-'1': Letter 2. p. 337. - 43 in the matter of grace between the two orders at the beginn- ing of the Seventeenth Century, the father said that the Jes- uits had decided to live in peace with the Eoninicans so long as they used the term "sufficient" to describe their grace. regardless of their acceptance or non-acceptance of its mean- ing in the sense used by the Jesuits. The Jansenists were persecuted beceuse they refused to acknowledge the tern, said Pesce1.40 the Dohinicans, en the other hand, refused to accept the sufficient grace of the Jesuits except that they would willingly use the term. Inconsistentiy, they admitted that the sufficient grace would not provide salvation without the additional efficacious grace. The Jesuits wouLd destroy the entire order (said the Dominican of the Letters) if lip ser- vice was not given to their required term. the Dominicans, by this bit of subterfuge, preserved their doctrine by using the meaningless term of the Jesuits.41 Isscsl stated the issue in law terhs: If I deny the sufficient grace, I an a Jensenist. If I ad- mit it, as the Jesuits do, in the way of denyiig that effico ecioue grace is necessary, I shall be a heretic, say you (a Dominican). And if I admit it, as you do, in the way of main- taining the necessity of efficacious grace, I sin against com- mon sense, end an & blockheed, say the Jesuits. that Just 1 do, thus reduced to the inevitable necessity of being a block- hesd, a heretic, LP antnscnist? end what a sad pass are matters come to, if thlre are none but the Jensenists who avoid coming into collisien either with the faith or with reason, 40. Ibid., Letter J 2, pp. 340-341. hid., Letter,9 2, p. 3th. m 41. H 44 and who o.vo troi.-lvov at once from fiulhl«iby on. from error! tith the is ue so pl: inly "10.,L--3, (so‘. 193 resolved :15'--f1'iozc1:~. 1! 1th E‘.’ ch letter. $116? iniivimiul lettcr’s circul- ated widely and speculation at to tr? author's identity was coxgcn thrw shout literary Fr once, as well as ooong the Jesuits thong-z-lvet' :ecauso the letters ploced the issue so plainly as a cat: or of the Jo s“*ts protecting an unorthodox doctrine by taking the offensive against orthodoxy in the form of Jan- eonian, thcro was a.movement away from the proposed disruption of Port Royal's schools, and the movement grew as the letters spread. Eascol took refuge under the none of M. de Mons, living alternately at Yort Ro wy 51 of the fields and in Faria.43 But while Pascal's letters hod had.wido appe31 to the reading public, an& had poyularlzed tho Janzoniot cause aaong his roodors, they h: .failal in their original purpose 3 that of relieving the condemnation of tho"Groat irnauld“ by tho Sorbonno. On Jar nary 31, 15 36, the Sorbonno had condemnod the doctrine of Arnould on St. Peter' 8 lack of grace by a vote of 130 to 9,44deopita wide approval at the message of the letters. Pascal, in the third letter, intinated toot tne condonnition was not because of the heresy of Urn uld, but of personal encity the Jesuits had against bin and ”it being a much easier matter with then to find monk'a (to vote against 42. Ibid., Letter 3 2, p. 340. 3. £13333, Pascal. Do 2; 44. Tn3 trienl a of Arnould had hithdrlwn orior to the vote because Arnauld had been irregularly eilencad; this accounts for the loss of votes. Bishop, Pascal, p. 225. h”. Arnauld) than reasons." 45 In attenpting to provide amnesty to érnauld, who was forced to remain in hiding, he reiterated his contention that the Janeenist faith. that of Arnauld, was more in agreenent with the Church fathers than that of the Jesuits or any of his accusere in the Serbonne. He quoted reed with tron 3t. nugustiwe, provin; that that fatner a' Arnauli in his contentien of ct. Feter’s fill tron grace: n ... Jesus Chrict points out to us, in the persan cf at. «eter, a righteous xnn, warning us by his fall to avoid preeuaptn - ‘. 1 ' [L ' ' DR .-: v.-’ ‘t- ' . \,v~--. 1" ‘- ion" anu taut cod, n oruer to anew us tnat hithent EZG;3 ' f '— we can do nothing left Lt. Peter witheut grace.” The entire argument of the Jesuits, acid Pascal. wee not to show the error of Arneuld’s saytngs, but to declare then to be impicuc and heretical. This nets calling. far from showing the heresy of Arneuld. pointed out the weakness of the case against him. Wage Arnauld heretical. surely his accusere would have pointed out the exact place where his doctrine hafi breached the Church creed and why he had been censured. Had there een any difference between the fathers and Arneuld, they woull have been quick to point it out. cut these cvycnen s of firnauld were more subtle than they' appeared - their motive was to discredit Arnauld - few per- scns wculd delve into the reascn for the Genetre anew it :1e assumption wculd lwe male that the censure 45. Pascal. Provincial Letter 5 3, Feb. 9, 1656, p. 354, AC. “1213., Let-39'" 3" 3, p. 331. .46 was Just. Thus the condemnation of Arnauld represented a personal censure, and in no sense one of doctrine. The doc- trine of Molina could not be made to appear to agree with that of St. Augustine and the fathers: but in the hands of Arnauld. the ideas of Augustine became heresy and the heresy of Pelagius in the hands of his opposition became true Cath- olic doctrine. Should Arnauld turn to accept Molinism. it would become heresy from that fact and could no longer stand as the true faith. The dispute was one of theologians. and in no sense one of theology.‘7 Apparently the third letter convinced Pascal that it was useless to go further in his attempt to relieve press- ure from Arnauld; he no longer dealt with the problem of his censorship. With the fourth.letter he started a scathing denunciation of Jesuit casuistry that was continued through- out the following twelve letters without ceasing. In them Pascal piled up damning evidence that has never been satie- factorily refuted or explained away. His cold logic and live- ly wit have insured wide circulation and lasting significance to his work. He blamed the Jesuits for adding to loosenees of morals by their easy lessons on grace and sins of ignore ance. The Jesuit father of the Provincial Letters said, "we maintain it, then. as an undeniable principle, that an action cannot be imputed as a sin. unless God bestow on us, before committing it, the knowledge of the evil that is in the 47o lbiqeo Letter # 39 p.357. 47 action, and an inspiration inciting us to avoid it.” Fur— ther, Father Annat, the Jesuit who led the movement against Arnauld, asserted that sins of omission and comaisslon are both absolved by igrgzoranceo‘8 At this point, the Jansenist view was shown, adequate- ly backed by scriptural quotations and the redoubtable Aug- ustine, as being directly opposed to that of the Jesuits. The Jesuit referred to Aristotle for support for his doctrine, but Pascal‘s Jansenist informed him that even this pagan philosopher required a higher moral creed than that of the Jesuits. He interrupted the argument here, with a promise of further enlightenment on the ground of morals. The fourth of the {rovincial Lettergpwas dated February 25, 1656. Following the publication of this letter. the great miracle mentioned above occurred, to raise the per- secution and bans upon Port Royal. and provide a stimulus for Pascal to continue his polemic writing against the Jes- uits. Pascal's niece. Marguerite Perier, was a residence pupil at Port Royal. She was suffering from an ulcer at the inner corner of her left eye that doctors of the day had pro- nounced as incurable, and it was accompanied by a secretion so foul-smelling that the little girl wasworced to live in a room separate from those of her fellow students. After several unsuccessful remedies, the doctors decided to caut- erize it with a hot iron to prevent its spread. Word was 48. lgld,, Letter'fl 4, ng, 25. 1555. p. 359. 48 sent to Marguerite's father; the operation was postponed un- til his arrival at Paris.49 Although the Port Royalists normally ignored relics, a thorn, said to be from the crown worn by Christ, was being worshipped by the community members. harguerite touched the thorn to her eye, and prayed for it to be cured. When she returned to her room she told those around her that her eye no longer hurt her. The cautious Port Royalists waited for a.week and then sent for one of the doctors who had pro- nounced the eye incurable. He attested to the cure, and ad- mitted that, in his opinion, it would have been impossible for the eye to have been cured without a miracle.50 The opponents of Port Royal were satisfied with the validity of the ”Miracle of the Holy Thorn". Persecutions were lightened; the little schools of Port Royal of the fields were reopened and the recluses gathered there again. Pascal accepted the miracle as a sign for him to continue his writing. He wrote, ‘Miracles serve not to convert, but to condemn.'51 Accepting this principle, Pascal, with the fifth letter, took on a new tons, a biting prosecution of the Society of Jesus. He piled up condemning evidence of their culpability; his case was built so solidly that the only refutation possible was to state that Pascal lied or erred. Those accusations have not been successful. although #9. Cailliet, zascal, p. 234. 50. l2;§,. 235. 51. Blai e Pascal, Pensees, Section XIII, No. 824, from Pen ees - The Provincial Letter tr by N. F. Trotter an ev. homes a Cris, new York (1941), p. 288. LA they are still made.52 Letter number five introduced the two most infamous of Jesuit practices: casuistry and the doctrine of probability. Pascal proved his points here with.quotations taken from writings of the Jesuit fathers themselves. He was satisfied that no work of his would lighten the Jesuit attack on the Port Royalists. In his Pensees he wrote, ”The hardness of the Jesuits, then, surpasses that of the Jews, since those refused to believe Jesus Christ innocent only because they doubted if His miracles were of God. shares: the Jesuits. adthough unable to