The True Idea of Jansenism Both Historic and Dogmatic

PART I.

The Historick Idea of Jansenisme.

The Original of Jansenisme amongst the Ancients. 2. Baius the first Founder of Jansenisme. 3. C. Jansen's character, and formation of Jansenisme. 4. San Cyran's assisting Jansen, &c. 5. Jansen's proper sentiments. 6. His condemnation. 7. The more full relation thereof, &c. 8. That which made Jansen odious to the Romans, was his opposing Austin to the Popes Bull. 9. The Jansenists Deputies at Rome, and their Agitations an. 1652. 10. Other Memorials presented, by the Agents of the Jansenists to the Pope. 11. The Popes Confession in behalf of the Jansenists. A Letter from a Doctor of the Sorbon, prognosticating the little good succes which the Jansenists might expect from Rome. Two Conferences at Paris in the behalf of the Jansenists. 12. The Jansenists two first Papers prepared for the Congregation at Rome. 13. The Dominicans interpose for the Jansenists, and accord with them. 14. The Jansenists Agents, their Audience and Apologies to the Pope. 15. The condemnation of the Jansenists an. 1653. The French Formularie ensuing upon th • condemnation of the Jansenists; and their arguments against the Imposition there of. The Provincial Letters. The Jansenists Apologies against the Imputation of Schism and Heresy. 16. An. 1662 Endeavors for Accommodement betwixt the Jansenists and Molinists. Th • Jansenists caution against Signature an • Formularie. 17. The main Article, that the Jansenists conform to the Thomists 18. How far the Jansenists yield herein 19. The breaking off the Treatie. 20. The Jansenists Vindication by the Bishop of Comenge; his Letter to the King. 21. The Molinists persecution of the Jansenists. 22. The Jansenists multiplication and acceptation with Papists and Protestants. 23. Their Affairs▪ an. 1668, 1669.

T HE design of this Discourse being to give an Idea of Jansenisme, it will be necessary to take a concise view of its original; which sprang out of the ashes of that old Controversy, 'twixt the Assertors of Free Grace, and those who asserted Free Will. For Pelagius and his Adherents having made it their business to advance corrupt Nature, and place it on the Royal Throne of Sovereign Grace, the Lord raised up Austin and other Worthy Instruments to give check to these Antichristian Infusions▪ whose Indeavors did, for some Ages, set bounds to this flood of Pelagianism. But when Antichrist arrived to his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or perfect stature of a Man of Sin, this Pelagian torrent grew so violent: as that it diffused its Malignant influences, throughout all the European Churches.

Yet were there not wanting some Gallant and brave Spirits, who opposed themselves to these Pelagian Infusions. Amongst these we may reckon Godescalcus, Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln, Joh. Bacon, alias Baconthorpe, Tho. Bradwardine, John Wicliff, Gregorius Ariminensis, and generally all such as follow the Determinations of Tho. Aquinas, commonly called Thomists and Dominicans; who, though in other points they have sufficiently approved themselves Devoti of Antichrist, yet in these Articles relating to Free Grace, they do generally adhere to Austin, and Thomas their Master. These Dominicans or Thomists (who have bestowed good endeavors, and that successfully, for the suppressing of the Pelagian Dogmas ) have been herein greatly opposed by the Jesuits; a generation of men, who started up about the year 1540. and have ever since made it a great part of their work, to defend, though covertly, the Pelagian Principles, as that which they conceive would prove the most effectual instrument to support the declining interest and Supremacy of the Roman Church.

The Head of this Jesuitick Faction was Molina, who is said (by the Jansenists ) to have outgone the Semi-Pelagians, in that these held, that only the beginnings of the first disposition to Grace proceed from the power of man; but as for the rest they assented readily, that man is governed by the motion and power of efficacious Grace; but Molina holds, that man is the primum mobile, and chief Master of his own salvation, from the beginning to the end: hence it was that he was condemned both in Spain, and at Rome: only the execution of the Popes Bull was, upon the importuni • le of the Jesuits, suspended as hereafter, §. 9. This Jesuitick design, for the reviving of Pelagianism, being discovered by some sober Reforming Papists, they put forth their most vigorous endeavors, for the timely preventing thereof, and confirming the Doctrine of Free Grace, asserted by Austin, &c.

The first who engaged in this nobl • design, for the vindication of Efficacio •• Grace, was Michael Baius Doctor, and Professor of Theology at Louvain; who, i • his Lectures and Writings, stoutly de • ended the corruption of Human Nature▪ the Sovereintie and Efficacie of Divin • Grace, with other Articles appenden • thereto. In so much that at last the • were 78. Propositions collected out of 〈◊〉 works, which, tending to the Advanc • of Free Grace, and Degrading of Fr • Will, were condemned by a Bull 〈◊〉 Pius 5th, an. 1570. and afterward by a • nother Bull of Gregory 13th, an. 157 • And moreover Francis Tolet, the Jesuit • was sent, by the said Pope, to Louvain, 〈◊〉 settle the University: by whose endea • vors, Michael Baius was induced to r •• tract, and that by a solemn recantatio • the said condemned Propositions; yet so as that he still continued his private • persuasions touching the same; whic • he ceased not to infuse into the Spirit of his Disciples, &c. Cornelius Janseni • as 'tis said, received the first impression of his Doctrine touching • fficaciou • Grace from Jac. Jansonius an Adherent of this Baius, who is thence made to be the first Founder of Jansenisme. Concerning Baius's 78. Propositions, for the Vindication of Efficacious Grace, and the corruption of Human Nature, and their symbolization with Jansen his Doctrine, See Lud. Bail Articul. de Grat. Part. 1 Art. 1. &c.

The immediate Parent of Jansenisme was Cornelius Jansen (Bishop of Ipre in the Low Countries ) borne at Leerdam, an obscure Town amongst the Dutch: who having spent his first studies in Humanity at Vtrecht, acquired his Philosophy and Theology at Louvain from Jacobus Jansonius, a stiff defender of Baius's opinions. Cornelius Jansen having been thoroughly principled with Baius's Principles at Louvain, he was made Moderator of the College of Baion; where having contracted a friendship with John Vergerius, then Canon of Baion, and afterward Abbot of San Cyran, they enter into a strict Confederation, for the confirming and propagating the revived Doctrine of Efficacious Grace, now called Jansenisme.

Jansen returning again to Louvain, was made Prefect of S. Pulchers College▪ and soon after, Professor for the explication of the Sacred Scriptures. Abou • which time also he writ a Book▪ styled Mars Gallicus, in favor of the Spanish Interest; which, they say, was the ground of his being preferred to the Bishopric of Ipre. He writ also three Books containing the body of Jansenisme, collected out of Austin's works, wherein he was incomparably verst: For, as 'tis said, he read over the whole of Austin ten times, and his Books of Grace thirty times. And indeed his design seems to be no other than that of Austin, for the depressing of Corrupt Nature, and advancing of efficacious Grace: whence he stiles his Book Augustinus; which he thought not meet to publish in his life time, but left it to his followers, dying, as his adversaries avouch, of the Plague in the fifty eighth year of his Age, greatly esteemed and beloved by the more serious Papists.

The great imputation the Jesuits cast upon Jansen is his symbolizing with Calvin, wherefore to purge himself, he writ, with some sharpness, against the Presbyterian Discipline; which Voctius has answered in his Desperata Causa Papatus. His adversaries say,

And it is apparent that Jansen had a very great ass • stance, for the forming and perfecting of his Augustine persuasions, from San Cyran. These having brought their design to some ripeness, began to publish their opinions, first at Paris, about 1637. both in Latin and French, thereby to awaken and in • orme, not only the learned, but also Vulgar Capacities: wherein they proved very successful; for in some few years a great part of France, as well Ecclesiastics as others, was leavened with Jansenisme.

In the Preface to Jansen's works, we find this account of him. Cornelius Jansen was borne an. 1585. at Leerdam, a small Town of the Netherlands. —When he entered on the Study of Theology, he was brought into the C •• lege of Adrian 6. at Louvain, by Ja • Jansonius the Moderator. After sharp a • assiduous studies, for some years, he 〈◊〉 into a consumtion, and danger of his lif • whence, by the advice of Physicians, 〈◊〉 purposed, for change of Air, to go in •• France. He first went to Paris, whe • he instructed some youth. He then • went into Cantabria, now called Bisca • in Spain; where, by conversation wi • learned men, and familiar communic •• tion of Studies, he made great Progr • in the understanding of the Father • especially of St. Austin.

Being afterwards recalled to Louvai • he was made Prefect of S. Pulchers Co •• lege; which he greatly adorned and a •• vanced. Afterwards finding the care 〈◊〉 youth to hinder his studies, he retired 〈◊〉 a private life, admitting only the societ • of a familiar Doctor. He thence was cal • led to be Regius Professor, of the Sacre • Scriptures: which he performed wit • great learning and profit, as it appea • by his Commentaries. But his Magnanimitie appeared most after his being made Bishop of Ipre, in his Meditation and attempts to Reforme the Bishopric: which undoubtedly he had perfected, had not he been taken away by a contagious death (with in one years space after his being Bishop) an. 1638.

He was of a most sharp, acute ingenie; a most profound judgment, and capacious memory. He had somewhat of a subtle Choler; which he was wont pleasantly to compare to corns of Gunpowder; which in one and the same moment, are inflamed and expired. To these endowments of Nature, he added an immense desire of Truth, and Indefatigable Study. Being asked by a companion, what Attribute of God he most adored? he answered, his Truth. In the beginning of his Theologick Studies, he mixed with the Schoolmen, the Lecture of the Fathers, especially of S. Austin; whence he learnt, how much the Schoolmen erred from Austin, in the head points of Grace and Free Will. He told his familiars, he had read Austin's Works diligently, ten times over: and has Books against the Pelagians thirty times. He said, that next to God and the Scriptures, A • stin was to him instar omnium.

He struggled, for many years, with 〈◊〉 old opinions, before he could reach th • intimate sense of S. Austin. He said 〈◊〉 depended upon that one first principl •• • ouching Grace. And he added, there • could be no truly spiritual life formed • but according to this Doctrine of Grac • taught by Austin: and that Christian hu •• militie was in a more particular regar • founded hereon.—Whence he oft consulted souls spiritual and truly humble, touching their sentiments of Divine Adjutorie, the infirmity of Free Will, and the necessity of Divine assistance to every good Act. He affirmed, that no one could be truly humble, without the like Opinions of Divine Grace. He ended the last period of his Book with his life, as though he had been borne for that design. He was not superstitious, or scrupulous, but burned with masculine piety, and fervent charity towards God and men. He prepared himself in the morning by Meditation, and the whole day was but a continued Meditation of God, &c.

As for John du Verger, Abbot of S. Cy • an, I find him to have gained a great • putation amongst the more serious • atholicks. They say, that through the • bundance of Grace, which possessed his • eart, he extinguished, even from his • ore tender years, all Ambition, all love 〈◊〉 riches, with all desire of human fa • r, and Ecclesiastic Dignity; and having • onsecrated the whole of his Spirit, la • ors, and life, for the defense of truth, • e lived in great solitude, even in Pari • 〈◊〉 self, for more than twenty years; af • ecting to have his Spirit free from all • rouble, inquietude, vanity, and complea • ance; thereby to obtain the more leisure for the Study of Wisdom. Thus did his Sanctitie darken the luster of his Science; and his Humility draw a veil upon all his Intellectual and Moral accomplishments; and, as 'tis said, he labored as much not to seem eminent, as to be so in truth. Which affected retirement and concelement of his excellent qualities, made him to be esteemed by some, as Melancholick and Morose: but this imputation was sufficiently removed by his Imprisonment; which rendered him mo • famous and serviceable, in that all so • of persons had recourse to him for a •• vice. He had indeed, as they say, a ma •• vellous fecunditie of Spirit, joined with • natural eloquence, and noblenes of speec • which rendered him very useful; he b •• ing capable, without long meditatio • to express the highest Truths, and re •• der them familiar and easy. He was v •• ry skillful in comforting, and establishin • troubled Consciences; directing them 〈◊〉 the blood of Christ, and his Grac • which Jansen also was wont to do.

S. Cyran usually founded his advice o • the Scriptures, which he ever commend • as the best Rule and Guide for Christian • He would often, in his life time, discour • of the Grandeurs of God; of the N •• thingnesses of the world, and of the d •• ties of Christianity. His sage instruct •• ons were generally reputed by the Devo • Catholics, as Evangelic and Apostoli • Counsels. Neither did he propose a Ple •• tonick Idea of Soverein perfection, whic • might be better admired than imitated • but he gave counsels, general and particu • lar, most easy and familiar for execut •• on, by the Grace of God; of which he was a great Admirer; acknowledging still, that without Efficacious and Soverein Grace, we could do nothing.

He prescribed the most excellent method for bearing afflictions, not with a Philosophic Generositie, but with a Christian Constance, which he himself also practiced, in an eminent degree, for the space of five years, whilst he was in Prison, au Bois de Vincennes, near Paris; whence most of his Letters extant were written, which seem very warm, and sparkling with that Divine fire which burned in his heart. In these his Letters he gives us many sublime and choice instructions; yet such as are most familiar and practicable. He exhorts much to self emptiness, spiritual poverty, humility, faith in Christ, and more especially to love God more than ourselves, and our neighbors as much as ourselves; which, according to his Master Austin, contains the Morals, Logic, Physicks, and Politicks of true Christian Wisdom. He is very much in showing the usefulnes of afflictions; asserting, that it is the greatest temptation to have no temptations. He also acquaints us with the Art and Skil • of bearing Christ's Cross, wherein h • himself seems to have been familiarly and feelingly versed, especially for th • time of his Imprisonment, which wa • very severe and strict; besides many and very great infirmities of body, under which he labored; yet with a very great vigor and vivacitie of Spirit; which his Discourses, Letters and Actions sufficiently testified. During this time of his imprisonment, notwithstanding the strictness of his Guard, he was possessed with a great calmnes and tranquility of Spirit, without fear or trouble.

Touching the proper sentiments of Jansen, and S. Cyran, and their mutual combination; we have a pretty true, though invective, account given us by the Jesuit Gautriche, Histoire Sainte (pag. 325. edit. 1661.)

Wherein we have much truth, though • mixed with much sinister interpretati • on. We have the whole of Jansen • Doctrine, for which he was condemned • reduced by his Adversaries to these fiv • Propositions, composed by M. Corn • as Denis Raimond affirms.

1. Some Precepts of God are impossib •• for persons just, willing, and endeavoring according to the present strength they hav • to perform; and there is wanting to the • Grace, by which they may be made possible.

2. Interior Grace in the state of lapse • nature is never resisted.

3. To merit and demerit, in the state 〈◊〉 lapsed Nature, there is not required in man a Liberty from Necessity; but a liberti • from coaction sufficeth.

4. The Semi-Pelagians admitted a necessity of preventing, interior Grace to all acts, even to the beginning of faith; but in this they were heretical, that they made this Grace such, as that the human will might resist or obey it.

5. It is Semipelagian to affirm, that Christ died, and poured out his blood universally for all men.

These Jansenian Propositions were sent, by the Jesuits, together with an Epistle to the Pope, with desires, that the whole might be determined by his Apostolic Authority. The Heads of the Jansenists had recourse also to Rome, and after long contests, the Jesuits obtained, May 31. 1653. a Bull from the Pope, whereby these five Propositions, containing as they pretend, the substance of Jansen's Errors, were condemned, as rash, impious, and blasphemous. This Decree was received by the Prelates of France, with the Kings approbation, July 15th of the same year. The Jansenists finding themselves oppressed by calumnies and • inister dealings, durst not openly oppose the Popes Bull, only they contend that the five Propositions were not condemned in that sense in which Jansen asserted them. Whereupon their Adversaries the Molinists (so styled from Molina their Head) procured a Declaration from the Bishops of France, that the said five Propositions were taken out of Jansen's Augustinus, and condemned in his sense. Which Judgment of these Bishops was confirmed by Innocent, an. 1654. as also by a new Bull of Alexander the 7th, As Horat. Tur • illinus the Jesuit, in his Epist. hist. on the year 1653.

But we have a more faithful and full relation, of these transactions 'twixt the Molinists and Jansenists at Rome, by M. de Saint Amour, in his Journal: where he showeth how this contest began first amongst the Sorbonne Doctors about the year 1646. and continued very warm and violent in the several Assemblies of the Facultie, from that time unto the year 1650. especially an. 1649.

We find a good account of the Reasons and Motives, which induced the Jesuits to condemn Jansen's Augustinus, in the Confession of M. Albizzi (the Jesuits Patron) unto St. Amour, in these words:

In the year 1650. the Jesuits or M • linists recommended their cause to the Pope, by a Letter thus:—

This Letter th • Molinists endeavored to get subscribe • in the Assemblie of the Clergy; b •• perceiving this design un • easible; th • propose it only to some particular B •• shops inclined to their faction . Th • Jansenists being persuaded, that it woul • be advantageous for them to send 〈◊〉 Rome, employed M. de S. Amour, wit • others for the management of their Af • fairs. Many of the French Prelates aff •• ctionately inclined to the Jansenists, and therefore desired first a Conference wit • the Popes Nuncio, wherein they testified their dislike of the said Letter: Showing, But these Prelates being not perfectly satisfied with this oral Declaration to the Popes Nuncio, they repeat the same to the Pope himself, by a letter from Paris June 15. 1651. thus:

The Substance of this letter (as St. Amour gives it us) was,

Saint Amour being Agitator 〈◊〉 the Jansenists Affairs at Rome he 〈◊〉 ordered, by letter from Paris 3 Mar •• 1651,

And accordingly he di • so; and after several conferences he give • us this observation.

Octob. 17. 1651. S. Amour had Audience of the Pope; wherein he insisted much on the former desires of the Bishops, to have the 5. propositions, presented to the Pope under equivocal terms, distinguished and cleared, that so the condemnation, which followed, might be clear and distinct, &c. But the Pope told him, that after Clement the eighth, had caused this matter to be debated, in his presence for a long time, by the most excellent men; yet he could not decide anything therein, but was fain to impose a perpetual silence. Wherefore it behooved to acquiesce in that order, and live in peace, &c.

Decemb. 5. 1651. there arrived at Rome, the Deputies of the Jansenists, namely M. Brousse; M. de Lalane 〈◊〉 M. Angran, who together with S. • mour, were to agitate their Affairs; 〈◊〉 order whereto, they make several visi • and conferences with Cardinals, & • The first Audience they had of 〈◊〉 Pope was Jan. 21. An. 1652. (Ne • Style) at the end whereof they deliver • to him their first memorial, pronounce • by M. Brousse, wherein he insiste • mostly on the necessity of discussing an • clearing the said 5. propositions, thereb • to discover Austin's true sense and judge • meant thereof, &c. The Substance of th • Popes answer, was little different from that he gave Saint Amour alone. He told them, that

And because his Holines spake of what passed under Clement 8. as if after his time nothing had been done in this affair; and that the thing remained unde •• ded, M. Brousse prayed his Holines to • rmit him to revive in his memory, • at point of history; and he told him, that after the death of Clement 8. when the Choice of his successor was in agitation, it was determined in the Conclave, before they preceded to Election, that he who should be chosen, should finish what Clement had begun, touching the matter de Auxi • iis.

Being discoursing of the Congregation • de Auxiliis, under Clement 8. I shall add a story, which S. Amour (fol. 115.) says, he had from a learned Dominican, who told him,

The Molinists send also M. Hallier, Legault, and Joysell, Doctors of the Facultie, as Deputies to Rome, to sue fo • Censure of the five Propositions, 〈◊〉 things already condemned, and witho •• admitting any Examen or Congregatio • Which were things mainly in • isted up on by the Jansenists.

July 11. 1652. the Agents for th • Jansenists had a Declaration from Cardi • nal Roma, that the Pope had erected th • Congregation they demanded, for th • hearing and determining their affairs. Bu • their Adversaries, the Molinists, indeavored what they could, to hinder an open hearing, in the presence of either side. In the beginning of November, Lalane, St. Amour, and Angran, Solicitors for the Jansenists, compose certain Memorials, which they present to the Pope with this Preface.

This Epistle was subscribed thus:

• Noel de La Lane,
• Louis de St. Amour,
• Louis Angran.

The Pope would not receive these Jansenists Writings, &c.

July 1652. St. Amour (as he repo •• fol. 211.) received a visit from 〈◊〉 Archbishop who told him, that he 〈◊〉 conferred with the Pope that morni •• about their Affairs. That his Hol • himself gave occasion to the Discour • and told him,

The more to elucidate the Intrigues of the Molinists, and to discover what suspicions there were amongst the wiser Jansenists, of gaining little advantage to their cause, by applications to Rome, I shall give the mention of some memorable passages, written in an elegant Letter, by a Doctor of the Sorbon, to St. Amour, dated June 16. 1652.

(which is very difficult, not to say morally impossible)

This Apologetic Letter, in the behalf of Jansen, against the Molinists, I am • pt to belief was written by Mr. Ar • auld Doctor of the Sorbon, and then Head of the Jansenists.

August 1652. There were two Conferences held at Paris, in the presence of some persons of Quality, between M. de Sainte Bevre and F. l' Abbe the Jesuit, touching the Subject of a work published by this Father, in reference to the controversy, betwixt the Jansenists and Molinists. The Father (saith St. Amour fol 126.) received much confusion therein, having been convinced of foul dealing or little intelligence of the points, whereupon they conferred. The Substance of this conference is given in a letter, which M. de Sainte Bevre writes to M. St. Amour, from Paris, Aug. 2. 1652. thus:

August 15. 1652. the Delegats for the Jansenists received an extraordinary summons, from Cardinal Roma, at the instigation of M. Albizzi, to provide, within a fortnight, the Writings, which they were to deliver unto the Congregation. The two first they got ready within the time, and subscribed on Austin's day. The first contained, what passed about the five Propositions, since M. Cornet propounded them to the Facultie, from July 1. 1649. till that time: namely what was done in the Assemblies of the Facultie July, August, and September, 1649. The false censure, which they published throughout all France, and sent to Rome, under the name of the Deputies • f the Facultie; what was done in Parliament, Octob. 5. and concerning the patched peace, made in the Facultie, in September; the Theses, which M. Hallier signed as Syndic; in which the first and third Proposition, in the sense wherein we held them, were maintained in Sorbon, with his approbation, Jan. 1650. The Letter, which M. de Vabres procured to be subscribed, by a multitude of Bishops; the subscriptions begged here and there in all societies, &c. One thing also these Deputies of the Jansenists observed, in this writing, not before observed; namely,

They declared further by anticipation, that they purposed not to maintain the Pro • ositions in any other sense, than in that, which they should demonstrate to be suitable to S. Austin's Doctrine; Wherefore • hey concluded this first writing, requesting most humbly,

They added also, to the end the Doctrine of S. Austin might remain safe and entire in the Church, and to give their Adversaries place to clear themselves, the Propositions following.

1. That any Doctrine, Proposition, or Opinion, touching the matter of Grace, Free Will, or Divine Predestination, which shall be found to be St. Austin's, or nece •• sarily coherent with his Doctrine, cann •• be in any wise condemned either of Here •• or Error, or with any other kind of ce •• sure whatsoever.

2. That never any Doctrine of S. Austi •• hath been condemned of error by any Pope • or approved Councils.

3. That the Council of Trent hath 〈◊〉 defined or taught anything, that is con • trary, in any sort, to S. Austin's Doctrine 〈◊〉 Grace.

4. That all which S. Austin has hell • against the Pelagians, and Semipelagian • as Catholic Doctrine, ought likewise to 〈◊〉 held for such.

5. That to affirm, that S. Austin's Doctrine, touching Grace, is uncertain, contrary to its self, exorbitant, obscure, hars • unworthy of the Clemency of God, littl • suitable for edification of the faithful, &c▪ i • injurious to the whole Catholic Church.

6. That supposing the Holy Scriptures, and Definitions of Popes and Councils; the Doctrine of S. Austin touching Grace is a most clear and certain rule, by which the Propositions in question, and all other generally whatever, concerning Grace, Fre • Will and Divine Predestination, may be examined, with certainty, and also by right ought to be so.

These six Propositions the Deputies of the Jansenists demanded, that their adversaries might be obliged to acknowledge, together with them for true, and indubitable, in order to the clear & plain stating of principles on which both sides were to proceed.

This was the substance of their first writing, which had this Title, The first Information upon matter of Fact.

Their second Writing was larger than the former, and contained their first information concerning matter of Right, and was thus entitled: The Tradition of the whole Church in reference to the Autoritie of S. Austin's Doctrine. This second Writing contained eminent Testimonies, touching this matter, of more than twenty Popes, of as many General Councils, National, or Provincial, and about sixty either Fathers, Saints, or illustrious Divines, &c.

And to prevent the imputation of being tedious, they deew a model of both their Writings, the Conclusion whereof was,

Wherefore they further said,

What issue and effect these Writings obtained, is given us by St. Amour thus:

In the beginning of the year, 1653. The Agents of the Jansenists solicit afresh, for the reception of their Writings, and Memorial. And the General of the Dominicans, with the rest of that Order at Rome, interposed effectually in the behalf of the Jansenists. They prepared a Memorial, which they intended to present to the Pope, wherein they gave a full elucidation of the Controversy, and that more expressly than the Jansenists durst do. For 1.

2. St. Amour says,

March 4. 1653. Cardinal Barbarin d •• mands of S. Amour, why they ( 〈◊〉 Jansenists ) did not wholly join wi •• the Dominicans? to which he answer • thus:

The Cardin • fell to speak of Jansen, and said, th • he admitted the same sufficient Grace • which the Thomists taught: for whic • he cited chap. 3. lib. 4. S. Amour an • swered him,

April 8. In the evening, saith S. Amour, I visited F. Reginald a Thomist, who speaking concerning their sufficient Grace, I told him, we agreed in the thing, and therefore needed not dispute about words. That we could not grant, those small Graces were given unto all generally; nor should we say, that they gave a perfect, next, and complete power; because those terms were abused, as well as that of sufficient, the world understanding thereby a power whereunto nothing is wanting; though we denied not the thing which they understood by those words of next power. Thus S. Amour fol. 335.

May 4. S. Amour was assured, that there was a Bull or Constitution made, by which the Propositions were condemned: which put them upon fresh addresses to the Pope. May 19. the Pope gave the Agents of the Jansenists a Grand Audience: which was the first and last they had, of all that had been promised them. Mr. de Lalane Abbot of Valcroissant, pronounced an Oration, in the name o • the rest, before the Pope, in these words:

The Jansenists presented also to the • ope a compendious Distinction of the five • ropositions, touching Grace; showing in • ree columns the several senses, where • f the said Propositions are capable: of • hich see S. Amour. fol. 365. When M. 〈◊〉 Valcroissant had ended his Oration, he • old the Pope,

(as they had agreed) and undertook the proof of the Efficacie of Grace. His first argument was taken from the Prayers of the Church, an • lasted three quarters of an hour, &c.

May 26. there was a strong Rumo • touching the publication of the Bull • against the five Propositions, which wa • accordingly, in some short time after▪ accomplished.

The BULL runs thus:

June 13. The Agents of the Jansenists signed this Resolution (before they went to take leave of the Pope)

With this mind the Agents of the Jansenists De la Lane, D • smares, St. Amour, Manassier and Angran went to take leave of the Pope, where they found all things otherwise than they feared, the Pope declaring great satisfaction in their deportment, &c.

The five Propositions of Jansen having been condemned by a Bull of Innocent 10th, ( May 31. 1653.) and upon the Jansenists pretending these Propositions were not condemned in Jansen's sense, there being a new Bull given out by Alexander 7. condemning these Propositions in the sense of Jansen, the Jansenists were hereby crushed, and brought under a severe Persecution. For hereupon the Molinists got the General Assemblie of the French Clergy (as I take it an. 1654.) to frame a Formularie, answerable to the foresaid Bull of Alexander 7. for the condemning of these five Propositions in Jansen's sense; which all Ecclesiastics were ordered to sign, or else to be deprived of all Ecclesiastic employment. This formularie great numbers, in heart Jansenists, are induced, by virtue of some mental reservations, to subscribe unto; but such as are thorough paced and professed Jansenists, look upon it as their great glory and Interest, to pass for Non-Conformists, though with the loss of their Dignities and Preferments; yea with incurring the censure of Excommunication. The Arguments, by which the Jansenists defend themselves against signing this formularie are these.

The Jansenists, though excluded from all public employment, cease not to defend themselves and their cause, partly by Apologies for themselves, and partly by attaquing their enemies the Jesuits, especially as to Morals. An. 1656. there were published seventeen Letters to a Provincial, (which in the English Version is styled the Mystery of Jesuitisme ) wherein the corrupt notions, principles, and distinctions of the Jesuits, for permitting and allowing the practice of all manner of • in, are brought to light. These Letters have much galled the Jesuits, especially since they have been examined and censured by some of the Bishops and Ecclesiastic Assemblies of France.

After the condemnation of Jansen, his Adherents the Jansenists, to wipe off the aspersion of heresy imputed to their charge, first, as to name, call themselves, not Jansenists, but Disciples of S. Austin;

As to the thing itself, and matter of their Doctrine, the Jansenists endeavored to vindicate themselves from the imputation of • eresie by certain Articles, and Apologetic Discourses touching their opinions. As for their Articles we find this mention of them in their own writings.

The Jansenists also vindicate themselves from the imputation of heresy, by several Apologies they publish in defense of Jansen, and thems • lves, touching their sense of the five Propositions condemned. Arnauld (in Latin Arnoldus ) the chief of the Jansenists, after a Letter of his, which was censured, writ a Theologick Dissertation, the design whereof was, to confirm their manner of speaking touching Efficacious Grace. This Dissertation was composed on the occasion of a Writing, which the Abbot Hilarion (a person particularly esteemed by the three former Popes) sent him from Rome, touching Efficacious Grac • . Wherefore this Dissertation having been sent to Rome, (first in Manuscript, and afterwards printed) not only to the Abbot Hilarion, but also to Cardinal Barberin, and to another Cardinal; it found favorable acceptation with them. And notwithstanding all the importunity, which the Jesuits used, to render this Doctor odious at Rome, yet could they never get this his Dissertation condemned. The design of this his Theologick Disertation, was to prove Efficacious Grace; which he makes good by more than eighty passages of Scripture, of Popes, of Councils, of Fathers, of Divines both ancient and moderne, yea of the Jesuits themselves.

Since the year 1654. the whole controversy, 'twixt the Jansenists and Molinists, has been reduced to a matter of Fact, viz. What is the sense of Jansen touching these five Propositions?

Denis Raymond being one, to whom the Jansenists refer us touching the sense of Jansen, about the 5. Propositions, I shall briefly relate his explication thereof. Denis Raymond in the Profession of his faith, before the Table of his Book, makes this general Declaration.

Art. 1. That Jansen undertook not to oppose sufficient Grace as delivered by the Thomists, but as laid down by Molina, pag. 33.

Art. 2. That when Jansen calls s • ffi • cient Grace a Monstre, he sp • aks only 〈◊〉 Suarez's sufficient Grace of Congruity, not 〈◊〉 that maintained by the Thomists, pag. 36.

Art. 3. That Jansen doth recognize the Sufficient Grace of the New Thomists as to i • s reality, albeit he gives it not that name, nor holds, that it gives a proxime power of operating, pag. 37.

Art. 4. That Jansen, in what he was taught of the next p • wer, hath said nothing, but what is conform to S. Augustine, S. Thomas, and the ancient Thomists, with many of the New pag. 41.

Ar • . 5. That Janseni • s, in what he has delivered of Efficacious Grace, • ffirming, that it gives not only the wi •• to act, but also forces; likewise that it • ides the feebleness, and heals the infirmity of the will, hath taught nothing; but what agrees with the sentiments of all the Thomists, albeit some speak in other terms, pag. 49.

Thus Denis Raimond Eclaircissement du fait, & du sense de Jansen a Cologne 1660.

Paulus Irenaeus ( to whom also we are referred) tells us, (Disquisit. 1. Art. 3.) that the whole Doctrine of Jansen, as relating to the five Propositions, as contained under these two heads. 1. That Efficacious Grace, by which the Will in infallibly, but without necessity, applied and determined to act graciously, is necessary to all good actions and to prayer itself. Neither does Jansen attribute more efficacy to this grace, than the Thomists. 2. That in the state of corrupt nature there is no sufficient Grace in the Molinian sense, &c.

Thus the estate of Affairs stood betwixt the Jansenists and Molinists unto the year 1662. Neither can I as yet learn, that there passed anything considerable, besides what has been mentioned, save persecution, of which hereafter.

About the end of the year 1662. there being a likelihood of a breach 'twixt the King of France, and the Pope, the Molinists begin to incline to terms of accommodement with the Jansenists: neither were there wanting some moderate Bishops (well-wishers to the Jansenists ) who were very zealous in the prosecution of this design; who also received a Commission from the King, to transact this affair, and bring it to some issue. The Prelates, who had part in this Conference, were Mr. the Bishop of Comenge, Mr. the Archbishop of Paris, and Mr. the Bishop of Laon. The Agents in behalf of the Jansenists (who named themselves the Disciples of St. Austin ) were the Sieurs de Lalane, Girard, &c. Arnauld (the Head of the Jansenists ) refused to engage in this Conference, as 'tis conjectured, from a Pr • vision he had of its little success. In the behalf of the Molinists, there appeared none but P. Ferrier the Jesuit, who was notwithstanding (as 'tis said▪) influenced and acted by his Chronie P. Annat, on whom the whole society of the Jesuits repose the main stress of their designs and affairs against Jansenisme.

The chief of the Prelates, that were Mediators in this Treatie, was Monsieur de Comenge, who sent from Tolouze, a writing thus titled,

The chief point this Project or Writing contained in favor of the Jansenists, was, that it should not be exacted from them, any signature, touching the matter of fact, (viz. whether these five Propositions were in Jansen, and condemned in his sense) nor yet touching the formularie, but only a respectuous silence. For the Jansenists would not engage in this Treatie of Accommodement, till there was a Promise given them, that they would not speak, either of signature, or of formularie; and moreover, that the peace of the Church should not be made to depend on a question of Fact. This Preliminary Article, which the Molinists yielded unto, gave the Jansenists, after the Treatie was broken off▪ great occasion of scandal: This direction of the intention or mental reservation in the Molinists, made the Jansenists accuse them of Collusion, &c.

This Treatie began about February 18. 1663. (New Style.) That which was first proposed by the Bishop of Comenge, as the most proper expedient to reconcile the two parties, was, that the Jansenists, to free themselves from all suspicion, should declare, That they had no other sentiment about this matter, save what was taught by the Thomists. But inasmuch as there is a difference amongst the Thomists; and that (for example) the manner of speech used by Gregory Ariminensis, Estius and many others, is different from that of Alvarez; the Molinists demanded, that the Jansenists should reduce themselves, to the form of speech used by Alvarez, and others, who writ according to his sentiment. And the reason they alleged of their demand was, that Alvarez having assisted at the Congregations de Auxiliis, there is a grand apparence, that he, and those others who writ at the same time, and since took up this mode of speech to salve Liberty, according to the movements and sentiments which the Popes Clement 8. and Paul 5th had; albeit they made no Decree on this matter. It was added, that if the Jansenists would determine in this, all contestations would end; because the opinion of these Thomists being taught as Orthodox, there remained not betwixt the Jansenists and the Molinists anymore, than the Contestation which has for a long time been between the S • hole of the Dominicans, and that of the Jesuits, which has not made any rupture of communion, nor yet of charity between these two Orders. And in this their hearts would be entirely reunited, albeit their Schools were not.

The Jansenists answer to this Proposition contained these two parts: 1. That they had refused, and that not without reason, to tie themselves up generally by a public engagement, to all the expressions of Alvarez; because he was not the rule of the Church, or measure of their faith. Yea, many famous Divines and entire Faculties; as those of Lovain and Douay, serve not themselves of all his expressions. 2. The other part of their reply was a Declaration at the same time, that there was in the explication of their sentiments, which they were disposed to give on the five Propositions, that which was conform, not only to the Doctrine, but also to the expressions of these New Thomists.

And farther to vindicate Jansen from the imputation cast upon him, touching his opposition to the Thomists, they add, And whereas it might be objected, that the Author des Lettres au Provincial (which is called the Mystery of Jesuitisme ) in his second Letter, complains sadly against the Thomists, for not publishing fully what they understood by sufficient Grace: the answer hereunto is, In fine; the Jansenists declared, That the Doctrine of Jansen, touching the five Propositions, seemed to them nothing different from that of the Thomists: and to give a specimen hereof, they instanced in the point of Efficacious Grace; which said they, as it is explicated by the defenders of Jansen, is reduced to this Proposition, common to all the Thomists, viz. every Grace of Christ 〈◊〉 efficacious of some effect unto which it 〈◊〉 nextly ordained, and which God, by hi • absolute will, doth intend. But to declare their conformity to the Thomists more • ully, Mr. de Lalane gave the Bishop of Comenge the Articles of their Doctrine, touching the five Propositions.

Notwithstanding these Concessions of the Jansenists, the Molinists were not satisfied, but began to fly off unto their old demands (peradventure from a praevision they had of an accord betwixt their King and Pope) for a signing the Formularie, and condemning the sense of Jansen, on the five Propositions. This the Jansenists judged a very hard and unreasonable demand. 1. Because it was formally and expressly against the main Praeliminary Article, granted in order to the Treatie. 2. If they could (add they) have signed the Formularie, &c. they had not needed any such Treatie for accommodement, for they should then have been esteemed as good Catholics as their adversaries the Molinists. 3. They judged it too great tyranny to make the peace of the Church depend upon a matter purely of fact, and not of faith: For (say they) suppose the Disciples of St. Austin (asserting that the five propositions condemned, were not to be found in Jansen 's book, nor yet condemned in his sense) should be deceived in this their Interpretation of Jansen, yet, seeing they condemned the five Propositions, as well as others, their Error was not in a question of Faith, but purely of fact, such as could not bespeak them Heretics.

Thus the Jansenists apologize, &c. But the Molinists adhering violently to their demands for the signing the Formularie, &c. the Treatie broke off.

The Jansenists to purge themselves, after this Treatie drew up certain Articles, (which I suppose were the same with those they offered in the Treatie) containing the explication of their own sentiments, on the five condemned propositions. These Articles they sent to Rome, with their submission to the Pope, not (as they phrase it) a submission of Faith, but only a submission of Respect or Discipline; which notwithstanding was acceptable to the Pope. After this Mr. De Lalane, and Mr. Girard presented a Declaration to the King, by the hand of the Bishop of Comenge, containing the Abridgement of what they had offered in the Treatie, and what was comprehended in their Articles sent to Rome. This Declaration having been condemned by some of the Bishops, is vindicated by a Letter from the Bishop of Comenge • o the King, dated Jan. 21. 1664. Thus,

Thus the Bishop of Comenge in behalf of the Jansenists.

The Molinists since the Treatie, have been very active and pressing on the King for his Declaration, against all such as will not sign the Formularie, and condemnation of Jansen 's book. The Jansenists have not been wanting, to give their reasons against such rigorous procedures; affirming,

The Jansenists also published in the year 1664. certain Apologies for themselves: but all could not secure them against the unwearied endeavors of their adversaries the Molinists, who obtained the Popes Bull for the imposing the Formularies, as also the Kings Confirmation of the same.

The Popes Bull runs, as it follows:

This Bull was, April 29. 1665. ( Sti • Novo ) ratified by a Declaration of th • King of France, enjoining the executio • of the same. But the Popes Nuncio imposing the said Bull on the Ecclesiastic • of France, without regard to the King • Autoritie, there issued forth, May 6 • 1665. an Arrest of the Parliament 〈◊〉 Paris, prohibiting the said Bull, &c. Whereupon the Arch-bishop of Paris, to comprimize the matter 'twixt the Pope • nd King, enjoins the Signature of • he Formularie by his own Pow • r.

The Molinists are full of indignation • nd passionate Invectives against the Jansenists, and all that incline to them; whereof we have a sufficient instance in their severity against one of their own Society P. de la Croix, who testifying more affection for the Doctrine of S. Austin, than for that of Molina, was much persecuted by his Brethren the Jesuits; and notwithstanding his innocence and candor of deportment, and his more than forty years profession in their Society, he was shut up in a cruel Prison at La Flesche, where he ended his days, none but God and themselves knows how.

The Jansenists, notwithstanding their great persecution, to this very day, have many and great friends amongst the more serious and sober of the Nobles, Clergy, and People of France. Many of the Bishops incline towards them, who (as I now hear) refuse to sign the Formularie for the condemnation of Jansen. Amongst the Regulars, some • whole Covents, yea whole Orders a • leavened with Jansenisme; though thei • Zeal be not so warm as to quit thei • preferment for their Principles. Th • Peres de L' Oratoire, or Preaching Fri • ars are generally Jansenists, as it appears by their famous Theses of Efficacious Grace, which they dedicated 〈◊〉 the General Assemblie of the Clergy 〈◊〉 France, An. 1657. wherein they asse • that sufficient Grace does infallibly wa • its effect, whereas efficacious Grace do • infal • ibly produce it in every state. Th • Dominicans also symbolize very far, 〈◊〉 not in every point, with the Jansenists (as has been before shown) though they dare not profess any considerable favor or kindness towards them, but rathe • some of them, out of a spirit of faction, or Interest, fall in with the Molinists. Yea, not only in France, but also in Flanders, Jansenisme has taken very deep rooting, especially in the Universities of Louvain, and Douay, where the Jesuits are as much hated, as by their professed enemies the Jansenists. The Protestants generally have a great favor and kindness for the Jansenists. 'It is not long since that Mr. Bochart (Pastor at Caen, ) discoursing with an English Gentleman, about the down-fall of Antichrist, gave this as one reason of the approach thereof, viz. from the multiplying of the Jansenists, and the Orthodoxalitie of their Opinions, &c. And albeit the Jansenists hitherto have not dared to profess any great affection for or inclination towards those of the Reformed Religion; yet 'tis conceived they want it not, but rather opportunity. Jansenists in his August. Tom. 3. de Grat. l. 8. c. 21. in answer to this Objection, that his Doctrine was Calvinistick, saith, All things that heretics teach are not heretical. If Calvin agree with Austin and the ancient Fathers, in any point, we must not be angry with Austin for Calvin's sake, but congratulate Calvin for Austin's sake. I once also met with this expression in one of their Papers, where being accused of Calvinisme, they reply thus: If Calvin and Luther be in the right, let them be absolved, rather than that the Truth should be condemned. The great Crime the Jesuits accuse the Jansenists of, is their symbolizing with the Calvinists: Wherefore somewhile since the Molinists pictured the Jansenist with his arms open, embracing Calvin. The Jansenists to vindicate themselves from this Imputation, now and then write a book against the Calvinists.

Notwithstanding the Popes Bull, the Kings Declaration, and the Archbishop of Paris 's Ordinance for the Signature of the Formularie, great numbers of the Ecclesiastics of France, both Secular and Regular, have refused to subscribe the same. Yea there are four Bishops, who have, even till the end of the last Summer, 1668. dissented herefrom; and by the interposure of other Prelates, have brought the Pope to be satisfied, that they co • sent to the condemnation of the V Propositions formerly sentenced, without any mention of the Books of Jansen: to which they have given their obedience, and accordingly subscribed. Hence (as I hear) the Jansenists by the Kings interposure, are again restored to their Dignities and preferments in the Sorbon, and else-where. The last news we hear of the Jansenists, is their consultations about setting up a Patriarch in France, which the Popes Nuncio complained of to the King, as that which would bring great Detriment to his Holines.

PART II.

The Dogmatick Idea of Jansenisme.

The Principles of Jansenisme as laid down by Jansen. 1. Efficacious Grace the first Principle of Jansenisme: of habitual and actual adjutorie. 2. The traduction of Original sin. 3. How far Invincible ignorance is sin. 4. Of sinful Concupiscence, 1 Joh. 2. 16. 5. Of the nature of Fruition, and that God is its alone object. 6. Why love to the creature for itself is irregular. 7. The pestiferous effects of creature-love and fruition. 8. No free-will to good. 9. Indifference not essential to Liberty, neither does voluntary Necessity exclude it. 10. The state of pure Nature, since the fall, is but a philosophick figment 11. Love to God in the state of Innocence both natural and supernatural▪ How love to God is a debt to huma • Nature, and yet of Grace. 12. Ther • is no natural Grace or Happines, b • what is supernatural. 13. How G • cannot but punish sin: Sin the great • punishment of sin. 14. No Obligatio • on God to give Grace to such as improve Naturals. 15. The impotence 〈◊〉 the Law as to salvation, and the irr •• tation of sin thereby. 16. Of Medic •• nal efficacious Grace, and its necessiti • 17. The nature of efficacious Grace i • Divine suavity. 18. There is no sufficient Grace but what is efficaciou • 19. How many ways God's Precept are useful and possible, without sufficient Grace. 20. The Distributions 〈◊〉 Efficacious Grace into preventing an • subsequent. 21. All Grace in love 〈◊〉 God. 22. Of servile fear, its causes▪ &c. 23. Of Free-will, its nature, &c. 24. The mode of reconciling Free-wi •• with Efficacious Grace. 25. Of Pre • destination, its act, object, motives, &c▪ 26. Of Reprobation, and against Vn • versal Grace. 27. Against Scholastic Theology. 28. The Jansenists D • gmes of faith, touching the perfection of Scriptures, efficacious Grace, justification by faith, &c. 29. Their practical Theology. 30. Their Principles as to Church Discipline: 1. That there is no human infallible judge in matters of faith. 2. That Church • power is declarative only. 3. For liberty of Conscience, &c.

HAving given some Historick account of Jansenisme, its Authors, Rise, and Progress, together with sundry particularities, as to matter of fact: we now proceed to its Principles both Dogmatick and Practick; wherein we may be more affirmative and peremptory, than in former matters of fact. The Principles of Jansenisme (as of all Religi • n ) have a threefold 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or regard. 1. To Faith or Doctrine. 2. To Discipline and Worship. 3. To Morals, or Conversation. We shall begin with the first, namely the Principles of Jansenisme relating unto Faith; which though in themselves more speculative and national, yet have they a very soverein influence on practice. These national principles of Jansenisme may be considered, as laid down by Jansen, the Founder of this Sect, or as taken up by his Adhaerents. We shall first consider them, as they are to be found in Jansen his Augustinus, which is made the source and measure of Jansenisme. And here we may not engage so deeply, as to extract a perfect Idea of all Jansen 's Doctrine; but shall content ourselves to cull forth and collect such particular notions of his, as carry in them some note of peculiaritie and remarque, whence the denomination of Jansenisme received its Original. And in this undertaking we shall follow Jansen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in his own words (translated) and method, as well as sense, so near as we may.

1. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the first lie or Idol of Molinisme consists in the asserting of Free-will; so, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the first Truth of Jansenisme regards Efficacious Grace. This is the first great fundamental notion, which I have remarqued in Jansen and his Adhaerents, who indeed are great Advancers of Efficacious Grace, but as great Abasers of Corrupt Nature; friends of Free Grace, but professed enemies of Free-will. So Jansen (in his August. Tom. 2. fol. 60.) distinguisheth of a twofold Adjutorie, or Divine Assistance: the one he calls an Adjutorie sine quo non, without which we cannot act: the other he calls an Adjutorie quo, by which we act. The first he makes to be only habitual, preparatory and potential, whereby the Powers of the Soul are prepared, corroborated, and capacitated to act: the second he makes to be an actual, energetick or influential Adjutorie, whence followeth the application and determination of the power to act. The former potential habitual Adjutories he supposeth to be in the same rank, with the Power or Facultie, for whose corroboration and assistance they are given: for out of them and the power which they inform, there is constituted one entire complete operative faculty; whence the power clothed with, or informed by these habitual Adjutories, receives the denomination of an actus primus, a first act, which gives not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Phil. 2. 13. the will, and the do, but only a complete power of willing and doing. Amongst thes • dispositive potential Adjutories or Assistances he reckons all Habits or Powers▪ as Intelligible species or Ideas, and the light of Intelligence, commonly style • intellectual Habits; as all moral Habits Dispositions, and Preparatory Graces, seated in the will. As for the adjutoriu • quo, the Adjutorie by which we act, o • actual Assistance, he proves, by invincible arguments, that both the Will, and the freeness of the will, as to whatever is morally good, depends immediately and wholly on the actual Adjutorie or concourse of Efficacious Grace. This he proves at large, in his Tom. 3. lib. 1. c. 2, 3. but especially, cap. 4. fol. 6. where he gives this Demonstrative reason from the cause, why no M • tion or Act of the Will can be Morally good, without the Adjutorie of Efficacious Grace:

2. Another great Principle, on which Jansen does largely discourse in order to the subversion of Molinisme, is touching the Traduction or propagation of Original sin, &c. So Jansen. August. Tom. 2. lib. 1. cap. 6. fol. 86.

This he does more fully explicate in what follows, cap. 19. of this lib. 1. Where he proves out of Austin, that good or evil Qualities are propagated, not by Emigration, but Afficiencie (i. e. by affecting what is produced) by reason whereof there is some like Quality propagated, as lights are propagated by Afficiencie, without emigration. Jansen asserts here a Prolifick force in the seed; also a great efficacy in the fancy of the Parent, for the propagation of original sin; concluding, that the depraved Imagination and Lust of the Parents have a mighty force and influence on the Morals of their children. And whereas it may be demanded, how the soul can receive Impuritie from the body? he replies, that the soul, by the defilement of the flesh, becomes fleshly: for the society of sinful flesh hinders it from savoring anything that is spiritual: as liquors receive a tang from the vessel, &c.

Jansen proceeds, from his Discourse of Original Sin in general, to the particular branches thereof; and begins with the Depravation of the Understanding. So in his Tom. 2. lib. 2. cap. 5, 6. fol. 128. Where that which deserves special remarque is, that he proves, against the common persuasion of the Schools, that invincible ignorance of what is our duty is both sinful and punishable. His words are these,

By invincible ignorance he means such as cannot be overcome by any human diligence. And first he takes it for granted, that invincible penal ignorance, wherein we are borne, wants not sin. Then he comes to a distribution of Ignorance, into Ignorance of Law, and of Fact: as for Ignorance of Law, 'tis either of the Divine Pos • tive Law, or of the natural Law; and thence he concludes, That the question is not of invincible Ignorance, as to matter of Fact, or as to the Divine Positive Law, both which excuse from sin; but of invincible Ignorance as to the Law of Nature, or any branch thereof. Now that this invincible Ignorance of Natures Law, excuseth not from sin, he proves, 1. Because the knowledge of the said natural Law is c • nnatural to human Nature, 2. If invincible Ignorance of the Law of Nature should excuse sin, there is n • reason why judicial ex •• cation or blindness should not also excuse sin: for both are a sort of ignorance; and both are invincible to corrupt nature only, but vincible by Divine Grace and Power. Thus Jans. Aug. Tom. 2. l. 2. c. 6. fo. 127, &c.

Hence Jansen passeth on to the corruption of the Will and Affections; which he discourseth of under the notion of Concupiscence. So Tom. 2. lib. 2. cap. 7. fol. 130.

Whence Austin more than once calls it, a natural, and, as to all human power, invincible custom. The • ject of this concupiscence he makes to 〈◊〉 , what ever is not God; and particu • rly all pleasures, not only of the body, • ut also of the mind. Whence he does, • ith Austin, reckon not only the Epicu • ans, but also the Stoics, and other • hilosophers, who placed the chiefest good 〈◊〉 Wisdom or Virtue, as sensual voluptuous • ersons, who lived according to the flesh, 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. 4, 5. The End of this Concu • iscence he makes to be, the fruition of the creature. For all love either terminates on God, and so 'tis charity, or on the creature, and so 'tis concupiscence; which according to Austin, is, quandouti • ur fruendis, ac fruimur utendis, an use of things to be enjoyed, and an enjoyment of things to be used. Thence, in what follows, cap. 8. fol. 132, &c. he gives us the distribution of Concupiscence, according to that 1 John 2. 16. into 1. The Concupiscence of the sensitive part, or the lusts of the flesh; which comprehends all the Pravitie of the external senses, &c. 2. The Concupiscence of knowing, or curiosity, termed the lust of the eye. 3. T •• Concupiscence of excelling, called th • pride of life. These three Parts of Co • cupiscence he makes the roots of 〈◊〉 sin.

Jansen having discoursed at large 〈◊〉 the Adherence of the Will to the creature which he calls Concupiscence, he come • to treat of the Wills Adhesion to God, under the Notion of Fruition. So Tom. 2▪ lib. 2. cap. 16. fol. 150▪ &c.

For this is commanded, not only by Christian Discipline, but also by that natural order which the eternal Law has constituted: Which order is apparently disturbed when any enjoy the means as the end, or stick in the way, as in the term or end. Hence cap. 21. fol. 164. he adds, Thus, by • n admirable kind of contention, the more 〈◊〉 man denies himself, the more he seeks himself; the more he is emptied of self, • he more he is filled with God. To relin • uish God is to embrace nothing.

Hence Jansen (Tom. 2. lib. 2. c. 19. • l. 156.) gives us a demonstration from because, why it is unlawful, for a creature 〈◊〉 terminate on himself or on the crea • ure, as the ultimate object of his love. Be • ause this is the natural condition of a rati • nal creature, to be placed under God, but • bove all corporeous Beings. Now this order 〈◊〉 preserved by regular Loves and Weights. • or a weight, according to Austin, is the • mpetus or Bent of everything towards its • roper place. And the weight of a rati • nal creature is his love, which is the • dea, and measure of corporeous weights. This Pondus or weight of love, is infused into a rational creature, for the preservation of natural order; that so he may be subject to God, but Lord of all inferior things. For such is the nature of love, that it subjugates the person loving to the thing beloved. What we love we serve, and are inferior unto: whence it follows that the Lover is affected with 〈◊〉 the perturbations of the thing be love • Seeing therefore God, the first Truth a • chiefest Good, is alone superior to the r •• tional creature, to him alone we oug • to su • ject ourselves, by the weight 〈◊〉 love: which when we do, we act ra • onally and virtuously: for virtue, whi • implies the best state of a rational cre •• ture, is nothing else but the order of lo •• whereby, as by a weight, the soul kee • itself below that which is most supre • and above that which is below it, in 〈◊〉 middle state, according to the obligati • and appointment of the eternal La • Hence the root of all sin is an inordin • adherence to the creature, &c.

Thence Jansen proceeds to demonstrate the pestiferous effects of inordin • love, which terminates on the creature So Tom. 2. lib. 2. cap. 20. fol. 159. Th • first effect (says he) which the love 〈◊〉 the creature produceth in the soul, 〈◊〉 amission of liberty. Whence also follows incapacitie of judgment. 2. Another effect of this inordinate love to th • creature, is, that it transforms us into th • ••• enesse of those things we love. For all • ve tends to unity, so far as 'tis possi • e; and albeit it comes short thereof, 〈◊〉 it leaves a likeness. For all likeness 〈◊〉 but a defective Unity: So that by the • rce of love, a man that loves the flesh, is • ereby made fl • sh • y. 3. Hence follows ano •• er effect of creature love; the alligation or • inding the heart to the things beloved. This at first is insensible, but yet by free • uent acts, this inordinate love increase • th; so that at last, from delight there • riseth custom; and from custom necessi • ie. 4. Whence also follows a difficulty of rending the heart from, and grief in parting with beloveds. 5. Hence likewise results instabilitie and inquietude of soul. 6. Whence also proceeds defilement of soul: for love is a kind of touch, yea, 'tis an intimate ingr • sse, or entering into the thing beloved; which, if it be more ignoble than the lover, does blemish and contaminate its dignity. This Impuritie clouds and darkens the mind, obstructing its s • renitie of judgment. 7. Lastly, From this hebetude of mind, and alligation to creatures, proceeds a perverse use of things; which is another pestiferous effect of creature love. For we can ne • use things well, till we have spirits 〈◊〉 obliged from them: a mind chained the creature by inordinate love, 〈◊〉 but abuse it. Whence he conclude • fol. 162. That all things must be refer • unto God, not only in the habitual co •• tution of the soul, but also in actual, or least virtual intention thereof.

These things being premised touchi • inordinate and ordinate love or fruiti • Jansen proceeds to prove that 〈◊〉 Will cannot be the Parent of any w • spiritually or morally good. So Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 3. cap. 14.

Whence lib. 4. cap. 11. he proves, That the virtues of the Roman and Greek Philosophers were vain and sinful, because swollen with pride. And cap. 12. he particularizeth in the pride of the Stoics, who held, That the Offices of virtue were desirable because consentaneous to reason; wherein they made reason their God. He farther demonstrates the Pride of the Stoics and Peripatetics, in making virtue to be the chiefest Good, which, says he, is in Austin's sense, to live according to the flesh, Rom. 8. 5. Hence also he proceeds to demonstrate, Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 16. That there are no seeds of virtue naturally in men. He grants, that if we consider the Office of virtue materially and nakedly, without regard to its form or end, there may be said to be some seminal dispositions naturally implanted in human nature: whence sprang those heroic acts of the Romans, &c. But adds he, this Office of virtue is but as the matter or corps; 'tis the End that is the Form, or soul of virtue. Then he concludes, that this opinion of the see • s of virtue inherent in human nature, was traduced, by the Semi-Pelagians, from the Gentile Philosophers, viz. the Peripatetics, Stoics, &c. whose opinion Tully lib. 5. de • inib. thus relates: Nature induced the elements of virtue,—but she only begins virtue, and no more. These Philosophic opinions of the seeds of virtue, adds he, the Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians and Schoolmen have brought into the Christian Schools: whence also the Schoolmen distinguish virtue into Natural and supernatural: which is a distinction not known to former Ages.

Jansen having demonstrated the Impossibilitie of Free Will to good, with the necessity of sinning in lapsed nature, he goes on to remove that common Pelagian objection, viz. that this necessity of sin destroys human Liberty. For the full solution hereof, he gives us an exact Idea of the Liberty of the Will, and its combination with some necessity. Thus Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 24. Where he proves at large, That Liberty includes not, in its formal reason or nature, Indifference to good and evil. He shows, that this false Idea of Liberty was taken up by the Pelagians, from the institution of Gentile Philosophers, who fancying nothing more as requisite to good, but the mere office, or naked matter, asserted an Indifference to good and evil in all; wherein they placed Liberty, as the Pelagians and Schoolmen after them. But that Indifference to good and evil is not essential or necessary to Liberty, Jansen proves, 1. From the Devils, who are determined to evil, yet freely. 2. From the good Angels, who are determined to good, yet freely. 3. From the cognation 'twixt Liberty and Voluntarinesse: For as an act of the Will may be voluntary so also free, though immobile and necessarily determined; and that according to the confession of the Schools, which grant that a desultori us mobilitie, or mutability of will, is not of the ess • nce of Liberty, but its imperfection. He farther proves, that Liberty is the same with voluntarines; yea, the same with the will itself, which ceaseth not to be most free, when 'tis most fixed and necessary. Yea, this firmitie and necessity, which ariseth from the wills own natural vehemence, or voluntary tendence is so far from prejudicing its Liberty, as that it does greatly corroborate • and confirm the same. He tells us also, that these false • dea's of human liberty were derived from Aristotle, who measured everything by his own reason▪ Whereas others of the Ancients had mor • Orthodox notions of human liberty making it the same with rational spontaneitie, or voluntarines, &c. of these things Jansen discourseth at large, in what follows, chap. 25. also in his Tom. 3 • lib. 6. cap. 3. 5. 10, 25, 35, 37, &c.

The Molinists to maintain their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or great Diana of free will, invented a middle state which they call 〈◊〉 state of pure Nature, without sin or Grace. This Jansen greatly opposeth, as tha • which was greatly derog • tory to the Wisdom and Grace of God. So in his Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 spends two or three whole Books in disproving this state of pure Nature. 1. H • tells us, that such a state of pure Nature was altogether unknown to Austin▪ and the Primitive Church: it having been obtruded upon us by the Gentile Philosophers, and Christian Heretics the Pelagians, &c. so fol. 278. Then he passeth ( l. 1. c. 1. fol. 279.) to what the latter Schoolmen mean by this their state of pure nature, viz. a Negative Purity, wherein they suppose a man to be created without Sin, or, Grace: I presume the same with Aristotle's rasa tabula, which he likened the soul unto. Now that there cannot be such a state of pure nature, Jansen proves, 1. From the order or regard a rational creature has unto God, as his first princ • ple and last end or good: For says he,

Whence it follows, there can be no middle state 'twixt sin and Grace, because the will always adheres to God or the creature.

Hence Jansen proceeds to demonstrate, That Love to God was in the state of Innocence a gift naturally due to human Nature, and yet of Grace given to it. So Tom. 2. de Pur. Nat. l. 1. c. 15.

Whence he starts another difficulty, cap. 17. fol. 312. Whether this love to God, be a debt due to human Nature? to which he replies,

From the foresaid hypothesis, that there is no such thing as a state of pure Nature, Jansen rationally concludes against, and rejects that usual distinction amongst the Schoolmen of virtue and beatitude, into natural and supernatural, &c. So Tom. 2. de Nat. Pura lib. 2. cap. 2. fol. 326. Where he tells us,

That there cannot indeed be any action or work naturally or morally good, but what is such supernaturally and spiritually is very evident, because the rule of all good, whether natural, moral, or spiritual is one and the same, namely, the Will of God revealed in the Moral Law, which gives the esse morale, the moral Being, morality or formal constitution to all moral good or virtue, whether natural or supernatural. Besides all good that is truly such, requires an integrity or fullness of causes, a good principle and end, as well as matter or duty, according to that Theologick M • xime, Good consists of all its causes, but evil of any defect.

Hence Jansen proceeds to prove, that there is a kind of necessity on God, for the punishing of sin. So Tom. 2. de Pura Nat. lib. 3. cap. 2.

Whence Jansen, cap. 11, &c. fol. 382. proceeds largely to prove that no evil can be inflicted by God on an innocent person; which overturns the Molinists state of pure nature.

Jansen, the more effectually to undermine the Jesuits great Idol of Free Will, proves Tom. 3. de Grat. Christi, lib. 1. c. 5. fol. 7.

Hence Jansen undertakes to prove the Impotence of the Law as to salvation, and its prevalence as to the irritation of sin. So Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 1. cap. 8.

Then cap. 16. 18. he proves, That the Grace of the Law, affects the mind only, not the will: it shows the disease, but does not cure it, &c. of which more hereafter.

Jansen having demonstrated the Impotence of the Law, in combination with Free will, to confer Grace, he thence proceeds to prove the Necessity and efficacy of Christ's medicinal Grace, &c. So Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 2. cap. 22.

whence Austin says, the will cannot resist this Grace, but that she is more in the power of God's triumphant victorious Grace, than in her own, &c. Whence he proceeds to prove, that the Molinists Conditional Grace destroys Christ's Medicinal Grace, and the difference 'twixt the Grace of a sick, and that of a sound will, &c. cap. 25.

Hence, lib. 4. de Grat. c. 1, &c. Jansen proceeds to discourse more fully of the nature of this Medicinal Efficacious Grace, which he stiles a spiritual suavitie, or coelestial delectation, whereby the will is prevented, and bent to will and do whatever God has appointed it should will and do. This he afterwards calls the Inspiration of Charity, with other Affections naturally flowing thence. That this medicinal Grace is, as to its substance, a spiritual suavitie or delectation infused from Heaven, he demonstrates out of Austin, 1. By an induction of every kind of good, which owes its original to this Inspiration of Divine suavitie infused by God. 2. He proves the same from the contrary, namely sin, which springs from a terrene suavitie. 3. From the conflict 'twixt these opposite suavities. 4. From the nature of the will, which by reason of its infirmity embraceth nothing, but what delighteth: and by how much the more it delighteth in any act, by so much the more strongly it acteth or worketh. Then cap. 11. he tells us, that this heavenly delectation, is a vital indeliberate act, dropt into the soul by God; which implies both love and desire of, as also complacence and satisfaction in its proper objects. He makes Love to be the principal cause of this Delectation, which tends to its center God, by the motion of desires, and terminates or rests therein by satisfaction and delight. For whoever loves God, does so far possess him, and thence injoies him with delight, and and also delights in him with enjoyment, &c.

Jansen having made some entrance on the explication and demonstration of Efficacious Grace, he asserts and proves, Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 3. cap. 1, 2, 3.

Hence Jansen passeth on to show, how many ways the precepts of God may be said to be possible, without asserting such a sufficient Grace: So Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 3. cap. 15, &c.

Jansen having discoursed of 〈◊〉 Nature and Necessity of Efficacious Gra • he proceeds to treat of the several kin • thereof. Thus Tom. 3. lib. 4. de Gr • cap. 12. to the 19th, where having give • the sentiments of Suarez, and Vasque • and their defects herein, he lays do • a division of his own conformable 〈◊〉 the mind of Austin, and so distribut •• Grace, 1. Into Praevenient and subseque •

and subsequent, as it follows th • foregoing good motion. This division had its rise not from the Metaphysick Speculation of the latter Schoolmen, but from that famous Pelagian Controversy, Whether the Will begins the first good mo • ion, so as that Grace follows the good • otion of the will? or whether on the ••• trary, Grace praecedes, &c. Hence Grace operant, is the same with praeve • ient, and Grace co-operant the same with • bsequent. Hence also Grace excitant is • iled, that which begins the first good • otion in the will, and Grace adjuvant is • hat which assists any good already be • un in the will, &c.

Jansen having finished his Discourse 〈◊〉 Medicinal Efficacious Grace, he pro • eeds to the effect thereof, namely to • irtue, which he makes to consist, radi • ally and principally in Love to God. So • om. 3. de Grat. lib. 5. cap. 3, &c.

i. e. consummate love to God, is the only reward of our present inchoate love to God.

Hence Jansen passeth on to treat of the fear of Hell, its causes, properties, and effects. So Tom. 3. de Grat, lib. 5. cap. 21. &c. where he shows, that the fear of Hell, considered in its self, is lawful and profitable; because it is an avoiding of evil, yea, it may be subordinate to our last end: And whereas some stick or acquiesce in this fear, as 〈◊〉 the term or center; this is the fault 〈◊〉 him that fears, not of the fear. He • en distinguisheth 'twixt ordinate and • ordinate fear of Hell:

Thence he shows, cap. 25. that this fear of Hell is not from the special grace of Christ, 1. Because it produceth a Legal Righteousness. 2. It does not sever the heart from sin; because the sinner flies not from sin, but from punishment; he abhors sin, not as sin, but as dolorifick or painful: there remains still in such, a depraved will, which is chained by fear of Hell, but not mortified or extinguished. Hence cap. 35. he proceeds to Explicate the good effects of this legal fear in order to a thorough conversion: and so he concludes, that this servile fear of hell, as 'tis fear, so 'tis good, but as servile, so 'tis evil.

Jansen having discoursed at large of medicinal Grace, its nature, and effects, he returns again to the main hindge or head of the Controversy, to discourse more fully of Free-will, its nature, &c. Thus Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 6. cap. 1. &c. fol. 255. where he begins with this sad Lamentation:

Hence he goes on to prove, that Free-will according to Austin, signifies nothing more than the power or act of the will, which is alone properly and immediately free, whereas the Reason is free, only by participation from the will. Then he proceeds to show, ( cap. 3. &c. ) That free is opposed to servile or captive, and implies somewhat positive, which is nothing else but to be sui juris, under its own power, and so to act freely, is to have our act in our own power, i. e. in the power of our own will: So amongst the Greeks, that is styled free, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in our power, which they also called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; which Basil opposeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whence it follows that all the internal and external faculties and acts are so far free, as they are in the power of, or subject to the will. For whatever we will • is in our power. The will is always, yea essentially free in every act, though necessarily determined thereto. He farther proves (from cap. 9. to cap. 38.) the essential combination of a voluntary necessity with the wills freedom; and that by arguments both artificial and autoritative: showing, how this necessity of the will flows from its self, its self-moving power, as in God, Christ, glorified Saints, &c.

Hence Jansen Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 8. cap. 6. unto 21. is engaged in that intricate difficulty of reconciling efficacious Grace with human Liberty,

Then he adds, cap. 15. whilst he clearly delivers, That a necessity of willing, is consistent with the liberty of willing; because says he, the will, by reason of the firmitie of its Liberty, does impose a necessity on itself, both in exerting its act, as also in persevering or fixing it • elf in act. Hence he farther declareth, that the will always keeps its mode of acting freely, and it is impossible that this mode of acting freely, should be by any power whatsoever, taken from her. • hus Jansen who cap. 18. adds farther thus, The like cap. 19. Thence cap. 21. he answers the objection of those who pretended, To which he replies, That if Calvin agrees with Austin in any point, we must not have indignation against Austin for Calvin's sake, but rather thank Calvin for Austin's sake, &c. In brief Jansen (following Austin ) gives a singular method for the conciliating Divine Grace and human Liberty; namely, by virtue of that secret, yet powerful sweetness (which the Schools term connaturalitie ) which attends the operation o • medicinal efficacious Grace, whereby 'tis rendered no less compleasant and sweet, •• an powerful. This happy concordance 〈◊〉 efficacious Grace with human liberty is • xcellently illustrated by Gibieuf, in his •• rned Treatise of the Liberty of the • ill, wherein he discovers himself to be Jansenist throughout, which has • rought him under the odium of the Molinists, especially of Annatus, who • as answered him.

Jansen having discoursed most • argely of the Doctrine of Efficacious Grace, he at last determines or centers • n the root, head or spring of all, viz. in Predestination. So in his Tom. 3. lib. 9. de Grat. cap. 1, &c. Where he begins in • his Preface thus.

Jansen after his Preface proceeds ( cap. 1. fol. 364.) to the explication of Predestination, both name and thing. As to its names, he tells us, Hence Jansen (cap. 5.) proceeds to the more full explication of Predestination; Jansen having given a general explication of Predestination, he passeth on ( cap. 15. to 25.) to the head of the Controversy to prove that Efficacious Election, is not founded on any praevision of merits: 1. He proves the absoluteness of Divine Election from the Efficacie of God's will which reacheth both end and means, cap. 17. 2. From God's efficacious Intention and Will, as to the salvation of Infants, who cannot be supposed to have any merits, &c. cap. 19. 3. From God's admirable Gubernation or Disposition of all things, so as that everything tends for good to the Elect; which argues a most efficacious Intention and absolute will of Providence. 4. From God's contrary Providence towards the reprobate, cap. 20. 5. He takes another Argument from God's Efficacious Vocation, according to his own purpose, which extends itself to all the effects of Election, even in infants, which argues an absolute purpose, cap. 21. 6. Then he concludes ( cap. 25.) that the very nature and profundity of free Grace requireth that the reason of the effusion or of the subtraction thereof, be fetched from the very good pleasure of the Giver, not from anything in the persons to whom 'tis given.

Hence Jansen proceeds to discourse of Reprobation, which he makes to be (according to Austin ) God's leaving men under their original damnation, &c. So Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 10. cap. 2. &c. Where explicating the distinction given by Moderne Divines of Reprobation into Negative and Positive, he concludes the nullity of this distinction, by showing how negative Reprobation includes also positive. The like he farther inculcates, cap. 3.

Hence Jansen (as also his Comrade St. Cyran ) entertained a deep displeasure against that abstruse, cloudy, and wrangling kind of Theology brought in by the Schoolmen, in imitation of Aristotle, &c. So Jansen. Tom. 2. de Nat. pur. lib. 2. c. 2. fol. 326. Where he shows, how the Schoolmen sucked in from Aristotle, their notions of a state of pure Nature, Free will, &c. Thus they joined Aristotle with Christ, and his Philosophy with the Scripture, as Dagon with the Ark. So again Tom. 2. lib. proaem. cap. 28. he says, that the

Thus much of Jansenisme as I find it delivered by Jansen.

We now proceed to discourse a little of Jansenisme, as taken up and maintained by the Sectators of Jansen, who in the general touching their sense of Jansen, refer us to the first and third Disquisition of Paul Irenaeus, as also to the first and fourth part of Denis Raymond, Wherein (say they) the Jansenists have declared exactly what they understand by the sense of Jansen: Moreover how far they symbolize with, and are willing to conform unto, the expressions of the Thomists has been before in the historick narrative sufficiently mentioned. But to give some particular Dogmas of the Jansenists as to faith.

1. They generally (following Jansen and St. Cyran herein) begin to have a good esteem of the Sacred Scriptures: and to vindicate much their perfection as the only rule of faith: I met with this expression in one of their Papers, viz. That it is an heresy to judge of heresies without the Word of God. This farther appears by their late Translation of the Scriptures.

2. As for Jansen's Doctrine touching efficacious Grace, they reduce it to this Proposition maintained by all the Thomists, viz. That all the Grace of Christ is efficaciously productive of some effect to which it is nextly ordained, and which God by an absolute will, intends. So Refutation du P. Ferrier c. 4.

3. Hence they allow not any Grace to be sufficient, but what is also efficacious. So Refutat. du P. Ferrier, c. 11. pag. 64.

And to show their dislike of this sufficient Grace, which the M • linists do so much Idolize, the Jansenists a while since, in a Shew at Paris, framed a Chariot wherein sat two Virgins; the one with fair and beautiful fruit in her hands without use, which they called sufficient Grace; the other with fruit useful and nourishing, which they styled Grace Efficacious. See their sentiments of Sufficient Grace, Part 1.

4. The Jansenists (as Jansen and St. Cyran their heads) seem good friends to Justification by Free Grace, and Faith in the blood of Christ, without any regard to human merits as abused in the Popish sense. 'It is true they make use of the name merit, but in no other sense than it was used by Austin, without any approbation of the thing, as the ground of Justification. This is manifest not only from their Books, but also by their Practice. It was the usual method of Jansen, for the comforting of afflicted consciences, to send them to the blood of Christ alone: and Mr. St Cyran seems mighty warm and pressing on this point. The like instances I have had touching others of this persuasion in France, who being to deal with dying persons, insisted much upon pressing them to have recourse to the blood of Christ.

Neither indeed are the Jansenists verst only in speculative and notional, but also in practic and active Theology; especially the chief of them Jansen and St. Cyran seem to have had a very deep, broad, spiritual light and insight into the Mysteries of the Gospel, and true Godlines; and I am apt to persuade myself, they had some feeling apprehensions and inward acquaintance with those choice Gospel truths, they commend to others. They talk much of studying the Scriptures, and acquainting ourselves with the mind and Spirit of God therein; they press, with some affectionate importunity, to the renouncing our own righteousness, strength, wisdom, wills, &c. They greatly commend to us spiritual poverty, soul-humility, heart-mortification, self-emptiness, and abjection, &c. These things they insist upon, not according to the Monkish mode of external mortification, but in a Gospel strain, with so much meekness of wisdom, and yet with so much spiritual passion and warmth, as if their words were but sparks, or ideas of that Divine fire which burned in their hearts. This I have particularly observed in Mr. St. Cyrans Epistles, in reading whereof, and comparing his expressions with the Character and Idea I have of his Spirit, and life, I must confess I have been much recreated. But thus much of their Doctrine.

The Jansenists begin also to have very moderate and favorable persuasions about Church Discipline; as it appears by these particulars.

1. They are come now generally to disavow, not only the Popes, but all human Infallibilitie. This is one of the last refuges they have made use of against their adversaries, as it appears by a Paper of theirs lately published, titled, Abrege d'un Traicte intitule l'Illusion Theologique. The sum whereof they comprise in this Syllogism:

2. Hence they also hold, that the Definition of Dogmas and submission of faith thereto, belongs only to the Word of God; which they make to be the measure of faith, and seat of all Church-Power. So the Bishop of Comenge in his Letter to the King, an. 1664. touching the Jansenists, speaks thus of them;

3. That the Church has only a Declarative power, and that as to matters of fact and Discipline; i. e. Ministerial only, and subordinate unto that of Christ. This is evident by their La simple Verite pag. 60.

Thus the Jansenists of the Churches Power and Discipline.

4. Hence also, as it naturally follows, the Jansenists allow, yea contend for a Liberty of Conscience, as to matters of fact, and Ecclesiastic determinations about things indifferent, or things not clearly revealed. This evidently appears by, and flows from what was lastly mentioned of them: where all that they require to the Churches definitions, is only a submission of respect; and in case of difference in persuasions, a respectuous silence, so far as the Churches Peace and Unity require • it, &c.

5. Hence also we see what Vniformitie, and Obedience they require, as to Church determinations about matters of fact, (which is the alone object of her power:) namely a submission of respect, or in case of differences a respectuous silence only, not a submission of faith.

6. Hence as to Church Censures they hold, ( La simple Verite pag. 58.)

7. Touching Schism, they hold, that be is the Schismatic, who treats others more Catholic than himself, as guilty of Schism.

As for Heresy, they say, 1. 'It is an Heresy to judge of Heresies without the Word of God. 2. That 'tis an Heresy to believe, that all those, who have a spice of Heresy, are Heretics. They make Heresy to consist mostly in the affection; as in their La simple Verite, pag. 50.