The Jesuits were resolved in their hostility. They knew that the book, while a.s.suming a historical form, and professing in the main to represent the doctrine of Augustine as directed against the errorists of his own time, had a side reference to the "opinions of certain modern authors,"

understood to be well-known theologians of their own school. This was in fact acknowledged in an appendix. Unable any longer to wreak their vengeance on the author himself, they were resolved to put his work under ban; and accordingly, a Bull was obtained from Rome in the summer of 1642, condemning Jansen by name, and declaring that the 'Augustinus'

contained "many propositions already condemned" by the Holy See. It was doubted whether the Pope, Urban VIII., designed to go the length announced in the bull, and the terms of the condemnation were rumoured to have been inserted by a Papal officer in the interests of the Jesuits.

The Universities of Louvain and Paris therefore did not take any steps to carry out the condemnation. They remained spectators of the controversy which raged around them, in which the Archbishop of Paris on one side, and the youngest of the Arnauld family on the other, were conspicuous.

Antoine Arnauld was the last of the twenty children born to the great parliamentary orator and Catherine Marion his wife, of whom we have already spoken. His nephews, Le Maitre and De Saci, were so near his own age, that they were accustomed to call him familiarly _le pet.i.t oncle_.

Early consecrated to theological studies by the influence of St Cyran and his mother, he espoused zealously the Augustinian doctrines. A splendid prospect seemed opening before him, had he chosen to enter the Church and pursue an ecclesiastical career in the ordinary manner. But while thirsting for theological distinction, he had scruples about his vocation to the holy office. He overcame his scruples so far as to become a priest; but not only would he not accept the benefices placed within his reach by powerful friends-he insisted on resigning such as he held. He even disposed of his patrimony for the benefit of Port Royal, preserving only as much as would provide him with the bare necessaries of life. He became a doctor in 1641, and already, in 1643, the interest of the whole theological world was aroused by his treatise, 'Of Frequent Communion.'

The aim of this treatise, as of all Arnauld's writings, was anti-Jesuitical. He set forth, backed by the authority of "Fathers, Popes, and Councils," the necessity of spiritual preparation for the Holy Communion, in opposition to the formula which had been boldly advanced by more than one Jesuit teacher, that "the more we are devoid of divine grace, the more ought we to seek Jesus Christ in the Eucharist." The commotion made by the publication shows how grave was the need for it.

On the one hand it was warmly welcomed, many pious bishops and doctors testifying approbation of its contents; on the other hand it was violently a.s.sailed. The Jesuit pulpits resounded with abuse of it and of its author. All Paris was disturbed by the noise which it made. "There must be a snake in the gra.s.s somewhere," it was wittily remarked, "for the Jesuits were never so excited when only the glory of G.o.d was at stake." The learned Petavius, and even the Prince de Conde, did not disdain to mingle in the combat. For a time Arnauld seemed to triumph, but finally the influence of Rome was brought against him, and he was glad to take refuge in concealment-the first of the many concealments into which his incessant polemical activity drove him in the course of his long life. He never abated his opposition. He had no sooner retired from one controversy, than he reappeared in some other. His energy knew no bounds, his love of fighting no pause. When in his old age his friend and fellow-student Nicole advised him to rest. "Rest!" he said; "have I not all eternity to rest in?"

It was a matter of course that when the great Jansenist controversy began, Arnauld should be found in the van of it. 'An Apology for Jansen'

appeared from his pen in 1644, and a second 'Apology' in the following year. It seemed for a time as if the Jesuits would be foiled in their efforts to secure the effectual condemnation of the book. But at length one of their number, Nicolas Cornet, Syndic of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, collected its essential heresy in the shape of seven propositions.

These propositions were afterwards reduced to five; and at length, on the 31st of May 1653, a formal condemnation of them was obtained from the Court of Rome. There was no longer any doubt as to the att.i.tude of the Holy See. All the propositions were declared to be distinctly heretical, and the first and the fifth, moreover, to be blasphemous and impious.

This result was not reached without much debate and delay. No sooner had Cornet's propositions appeared than Arnauld a.s.sailed them and all who supported them. A congregation of four cardinals and eleven theological a.s.sessors had been appointed to examine them in the end of the year 1651.

They had taken, therefore, a year and a half to their work, and the sentence at length issued was intended to bring the long warfare to a close. In point of fact it kindled a fresh fire, and opened, if not a larger, yet a more vital controversy. Arnauld retired willingly before a new writer summoned by himself into the field, and girded with his blessing as he went forth to the encounter.

The five propositions, which were professed to be extracted from Jansen's book, and as such were condemned by the Papal Bull of 31st May 1653, are so intimately connected with the 'Provincial Letters' as to claim a place in our pages. They are as follows:-

I. There are divine commandments which good men, although willing, are unable to obey; and the grace by which these commandments are possible is also wanting in them.

II. No person, in the state of fallen nature, is able to resist internal grace.

III. In order to render human actions meritorious or otherwise, liberty from necessity is not required, but only liberty from constraint.

IV. The semi-Pelagians, while admitting the necessity of prevenient grace-or grace preceding all actions-were heretics, inasmuch as they said that this grace was such as man could, according to his will, either resist or obey.

V. The semi-Pelagians also erred in saying that Christ died or shed His blood for all men universally.

It would be needless for us to touch these propositions, even by way of explanation. We have endeavoured to state them from the original Latin as clearly as we can, so that they may bear some definite meaning even to the non-theological reader. But their very statement bristles with controversy, and the half-extinct meanings of old questions that go to the root of Christian thought lie hid in their language. All the propositions were condemned without reserve, but two points were left unsettled. It was not a.s.serted that the propositions were to be found in the 'Augustinus,' and that they were condemned in the sense in which Jansen held them, and in no other. The course of the controversy and the fate of Port Royal in the end mainly turned upon these points.

The Papal Bull condemning the five propositions was speedily published in France, and the triumph of the Jesuits was undisguised. A great blow had been struck, and for a time all seemed inclined to bow before it.

Political reasons combined with others to give effect to the Papal verdict. Cardinal Mazarin, in possession of the favour of the Queen-mother, had imprisoned his enemy, Cardinal de Retz, who had so long waged in the intrigues and wars of the Fronde a restless conflict with them; and as the latter in his prosperity had shown a certain favour for Port Royal, this was enough to stimulate, on the part of Mazarin, an interest on behalf of the Jesuits. Yet he was reluctant to move actively against the Jansenists. M. d'Andilly still had his ear in matters of State, and by his intervention and that of others the project of an armistice was for a time entertained. Port Royal was to keep silence, if its enemies did not push their triumph to an extremity. Even the indefatigable Arnauld seems to have promised to be quiet. But the Jesuits were too conscious of their power, and too relentless in their hostility, to pause in their determination to crush their opponents.

They had recourse both to gibes and to active persecution. They printed an almanac with the figure of Jansen as frontispiece, flying in the guise of a winged devil before the Pope and the king into the arms of the Huguenots. They a.s.sailed the Duc de Liancourt, and refused him absolution in his own parish church, for no other reason but that he was on friendly relations with Port Royal, and would not withdraw, at their demand, his granddaughter from its protection. This affair, which appears to have been deliberately planned, caused a great sensation, and became, strangely, the indirect occasion of the 'Provincial Letters.'

Indignant at such an outrage, Arnauld was no longer to be restrained. He rushed before the public with a pamphlet under the t.i.tle, "Letter of a Doctor of the Sorbonne to a Person of Condition, concerning an event which has recently happened in a parish of Paris to a n.o.bleman of the Court, February 24, 1655." The Letter opened with an expression of his wish to dispute no more; but as Sainte-Beuve hints, the avowed desire of peace plunged him all the more into war. His letter called forth numerous replies. He responded by a "Second Letter," in the shape of a volume. In this letter his enemies seemed to see his fate written. They extracted from it two propositions which in their view clearly contravened the Papal verdict-namely, 1st, that he had expressed doubts whether the five propositions condemned as heretical were in Jansen's book at all; and 2d, that he had really reproduced the first of the five condemned propositions in one of his own statements, that according to both the Gospel and the Fathers, St Peter, a just man, was wanting in grace when he fell. This was nothing but undisguised Jansenism, and his accusers in the Sorbonne rallied for his overthrow. A meeting was summoned to consider the letter, and to judge it and the author.

The details of the proceedings would weary the reader. It is sufficient to say that, notwithstanding the concessions wrung from Arnauld, some of which were humiliating enough, he was condemned on the first point (Jan.

1656)-the great question of "fait," in contrast to the question of "droit," involved in the second statement as to grace being wanting to St Peter in his fall. His condemnation, however, was mainly secured by the introduction of a number of monks who swelled the majority against him, and the legality of whose vote was challenged by many members. But, as Pascal afterwards said, "it was easier to find monks than arguments."

The second and doctrinal point received professedly more deliberate discussion. The sittings regarding it were protracted till the close of the month, the 29th of January. But the result was really forestalled.

The restriction laid on free debate was such as to lead no fewer than sixty doctors to withdraw, protesting to Parliament against the interference with their rights. Their protest, however, came to nothing.

Sentence was finally pa.s.sed, against not only Arnauld, but all who adhered to him or espoused his opinions. The victim, with his usual adroitness, escaped his pursuers, and went once more into a concealment which all their vigilance could not penetrate. Two days after the censure he wrote to one of his nieces, "I am in very close hiding, and by G.o.d's grace without trouble or disquiet." "Would you like me to tell you where M. Arnauld is hidden?" inquired a lady of the _gendarmes_ who were searching her house for traces of him. "He is safely hidden here,"

pointing to her heart; "arrest him if you can."

It was in the interval betwixt the first and second judgment of the Sorbonne that the first of the 'Provincial Letters' appeared. The story is, {116a} that during the course of the process Arnauld, Nicole, and Pascal, along with M. Vitart, the steward of the Duc de Luynes (to whom Arnauld's second Letter had been addressed), and other friends, were met in secrecy at Port Royal des Champs. Their conversation turned to the pending case, and the misapprehensions and prejudices which prevailed in the public mind regarding it. It was felt that some effort should be made to clear away these prejudices, and to diffuse right information in a popular form. Arnauld, ever ready with his pen, was prepared himself to undertake this task; and in a few days afterwards he read to his friends a long and serious paper in vindication of his position. But his friends were not moved as he expected. His pen, powerful in its own sphere, was not fitted to tell upon the popular mind; and his audience were too honest to conceal their disappointment. Arnauld, in his turn, frankly acknowledged the truth forced upon him. "I see you do not find my paper what you wished, and I believe you are right," he said; and then, turning all at once to Pascal, he said, "But you, who are young, who are clever, {116b} you ought to do something." The effect was not lost upon Pascal. He divined with his genuine literary instinct exactly what was required in the circ.u.mstances, although distrusting his power to produce it. He promised, however, to make an attempt, which his friends might polish and put in shape as they thought fit. Next day he produced "A Letter written to a Provincial by one of his friends." The Letter was unanimously p.r.o.nounced exactly what was required, and ordered to be printed. It appeared on the 23d January 1656; and a second followed six days later.

Nothing could have been happier or more admirably suited for their purpose than those Letters. They took up the subject for the first time in a light intelligible to all. They brought to play upon it not only a penetrating and rapid intelligence, but a brightness of wit, and a dramatic creativeness, which made the Sorbonne and its parties, the Jansenists and their friends, alive before the reader. Never was the triumph of genius over mere learned labour more complete. Arnauld, as he listened to them, must have felt his own thoughts spring up before him into a living shape, hardly less startling to himself than to his opponents.

Addressing his friend in the country, the author expresses his surprise at what he has come to learn of the character of the disputes dividing the Sorbonne:-

"We have been imposed upon," he says. "It was only yesterday that I was undeceived. Until then I had thought that the disputes of the Sorbonne were really important, and deeply affected the interests of religion. The frequent convocation of an a.s.sembly so ill.u.s.trious as that of the Theological Faculty of Paris, attended by so many extraordinary and unprecedented circ.u.mstances, induced such high expectations that one could not help believing the business to be of extraordinary importance. You will be much surprised, however, when you learn from this letter the upshot of the grand demonstration. I can explain the matter in a few words, having made myself perfectly master of it."

Two questions, he says, were under examination-"the one a question of fact, the other a question of right."

He explains the question of fact as consisting in the point whether M.

Arnauld was guilty of temerity in expressing his doubts as to the propositions being in Jansen's book after the bishops had declared that they were. No fewer than seventy-one doctors undertook his defence, maintaining that all that could reasonably be asked of him was to say that "he had not been able to find them, but that if they were in the book, he condemned them there."

"Some," he continues, "even went a step farther, and protested that, after all the search they had made in the book, they had never stumbled upon these propositions, and that they had, on the contrary, found sentiments entirely at variance with them. They then earnestly begged that if any doctor present had discovered them, he would have the goodness to point them out; adding that what was so easy could not be reasonably refused, as that would be the surest way to silence all objectors, M. Arnauld included. But this they have always refused to do. So much for the one side.

"On the other side are eighty secular doctors, and some forty mendicant friars, who have condemned M. Arnauld's proposition, without choosing to examine whether he has spoken truly or falsely-who, in fact, have declared that they have nothing to do with the veracity of his proposition, but simply with its temerity.

Besides these were fifteen who were not in favour of the censure, and who are called Neutrals."

Having thus stated the question of fact, and the balance of parties regarding it, Pascal dismisses it at once, important as it proved in the after-history of Port Royal.

"As to the issue of the question of fact, I own I give myself very little concern. It does not affect my conscience in the least whether M. Arnauld is presumptuous or the reverse; and should I be tempted from curiosity to ascertain whether these propositions are contained in Jansen, his book is neither so very scarce nor so very large but that I can read it all through for my own enlightenment without consulting the Sorbonne at all."

Only, while himself hitherto inclined to believe with common report that the propositions were in Jansen, he was now almost led to doubt that they were so from the absurd refusal to point them out. In this respect he fears the censure will do more harm than good. "For, in truth, people have become sceptical of late, and will not believe things till they see them."

But the point being in itself so frivolous, he hastens to take up the question of right, as touching the faith. And here the play of the dialogue begins:-

"You and I supposed that the question here was one involving the deepest principles of grace, as to whether it is given to all men, or whether it is efficacious of itself. But truly we were deceived.

You must know I have become a great theologian in a short time, and you will see the proofs of it."

He describes, then, how he had made a visit to a doctor of the Sorbonne, who was his neighbour, and one of the most zealous opponents of the Jansenists, to inquire into the controversy. He asked him why the question as to grace should not be set at rest by a formal decision that "grace is really given to all"? But he received a rude rebuff, and was told that this was not the point. "There were those on his side who held that grace is not given to all, and even the examiners themselves had declared, in a full meeting of the Sorbonne, that this opinion was problematical." This was, in fact, his own view; and he confirmed it by what he said was a celebrated pa.s.sage of St Augustine, "We know that grace is not given to all men." He was equally unfortunate in his second inquiry. His neighbour, opposed as he was to Jansenism, would not condemn the doctrine of efficacious grace. The doctrine, on the contrary, was quite orthodox, was held by the Jesuits, and had even been defended by himself in his thesis at the Sorbonne. The inquirer is confounded, and ventures to ask then in what M. Arnauld's heresy consisted? "In this," replies his friend, "that he does not acknowledge that the just have the power of obeying the commandments of G.o.d in the way in which we understand it." Having got to what he supposes the "heart of the affair," he posts off to a Jansenist acquaintance, "a very decent man notwithstanding." But if he was puzzled before, he is still more puzzled when he hears the worthy Jansenist declare that it is no heresy to hold that "all the just have always the power of obeying the Divine commandments." Confounded by such a reply, he felt that he had been too plain-spoken with both Jansenist and Molinist. {120} There must be something more in this dispute than he understood; and if not, there was no reason why there should not now be peace in the Church and the Sorbonne. He returned to the Molinist, whom he had first visited, with this a.s.surance. The Jansenists, he said, were quite at one with the Jesuits as to the power of the righteous always to obey the commandments of G.o.d.

"All very well," said he, "but you must be a theologian to see the gist of the matter. The difference between us is so subtle that we can hardly make it out ourselves. It is quite beyond _your_ understanding. Suffice it for you to know that the Jansenists will indeed say that the just have always the power of obeying the commandments-this is not the point in dispute; but they will not say that this power is _proximate_. _That_ is the point."

Mystified more than ever by this new and unknown expression, of which he could get no explanation, the inquirer now returned to his Jansenist friend to demand of him if he admitted it. "Do you admit the _proximate power_?" was all that he could say to him. He had charged his memory carefully with the expression, all the more that he did not understand it. The Jansenist smiled, and said coldly, "Tell me in what sense you use the expression, and I will tell you what I believe about it." But this was just what he could not do. So he gave the haphazard answer, that he used it "in the sense of the Molinists." "Which of the Molinists?" was the rejoinder. "All of them together, as being one body, and having one and the same mind," was the second answer at random: upon which he is a.s.sured he is very ill informed; that the Molinists, instead of being at one, are hopelessly divided, but that being united in the design to ruin M. Arnauld, they have all agreed to use this term, understanding it in different senses, and so by an apparent agreement to form a compact body in order to crush him more confidently.

The ingenuous inquirer hesitates to believe in such wickedness. He professes himself to be animated by a pure desire of understanding the subject, and asks still that the mysterious word _proximate_ may be explained to him. His Jansenist friend professes a willingness to enlighten him, but says that his explanation would be liable to suspicion. He must have recourse to those who invented the expression, and is referred to a M. le Moine, on the one hand, as representing the Molinists or Jesuits; and a Father Nicolai as representing the Dominicans or "New Thomists." Both of these were real characters: the former a doctor of the Sorbonne, and a violent anti-Jansenist, who had written on the subject of grace; the latter a Dominican, who is said, however, by Nicole to have abandoned the principles of his order and embraced Pelagianism. The bewildered seeker after theological knowledge resorts, not to these worthies themselves, with whom he professes to have no acquaintance, but to certain disciples of theirs. In this manner he gets a definition of "proximate power," from which it is apparent that, while the Jesuits and Dominicans are only agreed in using the same expression-the meanings they put into it being entirely different-the Jansenists and Dominicans agree in substance, while only differing in the use of words. The pa.s.sage in which the result of his successive interviews is described is one of the happiest in the letter. On receiving from the Dominicans, whom he terms "Jacobins," from their a.s.sociation with the Rue de St Jacques, where the first Dominican convent in Paris was erected, an explanation of the doctrine of grace, he exclaims:-

"Capital! So, according to you, the Jansenists are Catholics, and M.

le Moine a heretic; for the Jansenists say that the just have the power of praying, but that further efficacious grace is necessary-and this is what you also approve. M. le Moine, however, says that the just may pray without efficacious grace-and this you condemn. 'Ay,'

they replied, 'but M. le Moine calls this power _proximate power_.'

'But what is this, my father,' I exclaimed in turn, 'but to play with words-to say that you agree as to the common terms you employ, while your sense is quite different?' To this they made no reply; and at this very point the disciple of M. le Moine, with whom I had consulted, arrived by what seemed to me a lucky and extraordinary conjuncture. But I afterwards found that these meetings were not uncommon; that, in fact, they were continually mixing the one with the other. I addressed myself immediately to M. le Moine's disciple: 'I know one,' said I, 'who maintains that the just have always the power of praying to G.o.d, but that nevertheless they never pray without an efficacious grace which determines them, and which is not always given by G.o.d to all the just. Is such a one a heretic?'

'Wait,' said my doctor; 'you take me by surprise. Come, gently.

_Distinguo_. If he calls this power _proximate power_, he is a Thomist, and yet a Catholic; if not, he is a Jansenist, and therefore a heretic.' 'He calls it,' said I, 'neither the one nor the other.'

'He is a heretic then,' said he; 'ask these good fathers.' It was unnecessary to appeal to them, for already they had a.s.sented by a nod of their heads. But I insisted. 'He refuses to use the word _proximate_, because no one can explain it to him.' Whereupon one of the fathers was about to give his definition of the term, when he was interrupted by M. le Moine's disciple. 'What!' said he; 'do you wish to recommence our quarrels? Have we not agreed never to attempt an explanation of this word _proximate_, but to use it on both sides without saying what it means?' And to this the Jacobin a.s.sented. I saw at once into their plot, and rising to quit them, I said, 'Of a truth, my fathers, this is nothing, I fear, but a quibble; and whatever may come of your meetings, I venture to predict that when the censure is pa.s.sed, peace will not be restored. . . Surely it is unworthy, both of the Sorbonne and of theology, to make use of equivocal and captious terms without giving any explanation of them.

Tell me, I entreat you, for the last time, fathers, what I must believe in order to be a Catholic?' 'You must say,' they all cried at once, 'that all the just have the _proximate power_.' . . . 'What necessity can there be,' I argued, 'for using a word which has neither authority nor definite meaning?' 'You are an opinionative fellow,' they replied. 'You shall use the word, or you are a heretic, and M. Arnauld also; for we are the majority, and if necessary we can bring the Cordeliers into the field and carry the day.'"

The second Letter, ent.i.tled "Of Sufficient Grace," is exactly in the same vein:-

"Just as I had sealed my last letter," the writer opens, "I received a visit from our old friend, M. N---, a most fortunate circ.u.mstance for the gratification of my curiosity. For he is thoroughly informed in the questions of the day, and up to all the secrets of the Jesuits, at whose houses, including those of the leading men, he is a constant visitor."

Using his friend conveniently as an informant, Pascal proceeds to explain to the Provincial the question of sufficient grace as betwixt the Jesuits, Jansenists, and Dominicans. The amus.e.m.e.nt of the Letter consists in the manner in which he brings out, as before, the substantial ident.i.ty in opinion of the Dominicans and Jansenists, notwithstanding the junction of the former with the Jesuits to oppress the latter. The Jesuits hold the old Pelagian doctrine that grace is given to all, dependent for its efficacy upon the free will of the recipient. This is with them _sufficient grace_. The Jansenists follow St Augustine, and will not allow any grace to be _sufficient_ which is not also efficacious. What is the view of the Dominican?-

"It is rather an odd one," he says; "for while they agree with the Jesuits in allowing a _sufficient grace_ given to all men, they nevertheless hold that with this grace alone men cannot act, but require further from G.o.d an _efficacious grace_ which determines their will to action, and which is not given to all."

In short, _this grace_ is _sufficient_ without being so. It bears the same name as the grace of the Jesuits, but in reality the Dominican doctrine is that of the Jansenists, that men require efficacious grace in order to pious action. What is the meaning of all this jumble of opinion? Simply, that the Dominicans are too powerful to be quarrelled with. The Jesuits are content that they should so far use the same language with them.