Jansenius and Jansenism
Cornelis Jansen, Bishop of Ypres (Cornelius Jansenius Yprensis),
from whom Jansenism derives its origin and name, must not be
confounded with another writer and bishop of the same name
Cornelius Jansenius Gandavensis (1510-1576), of whom we possess
several books on Scripture and a valuable "Concordia Evangelica."
I. LIFE AND WRITINGS
The subject of this article lived three-quarters of a century
later than his namesake. He was born 28 October, 1585, of a
Catholic family, in the village of Accoi, near Leerdam, Holland;
died at Ypres, 6 May, 1638. His parents, although in moderate
circumstances, secured for him an excellent education They sent
him first to Utrecht. In 1602 we find him at the University of
Louvain, where he entered the College du Faucon to take up the
study of philosophy. Here he passed two years, and at the solemn
promotion of 1604 was proclaimed first of 118 competitors. To
begin his theological studies he entered the College du Pape
Adrien VI, whose president, Jacques Janson, imbued with the errors
of Baius and eager to spread them, was to exert an influence on
the subsequent course of his ideas and works. Having hitherto been
on amicable terms with the Jesuits, he had even sought admission
into their order. The refusal he experienced, the motives of which
are unknown to us, seems not to be altogether unrelated to the
aversion he subsequently manifested for the celebrated society,
and for the theories and practices it championed. He was also
associated with a young and wealthy Frenchman, Jean du Verger de
Hauranne, who was completing his course of theology with the
Jesuits, and who possessed a mind subtile and cultured, but
restless and prone to innovations, and an ardent and intriguing
character. Shortly after his return to Paris towards the end of
1604, du Verger was joined there by Jansenius, for whom he had
secured a position as tutor. About two years later he attracted
him to Bayonne, his native town, where he succeeded in having him
appointed director of an episcopal college. There, during eleven
or twelve years of studies ardently pursued in common, on the
Fathers and principally on St. Augustine, the two friends had time
to exchange thoughts and to conceive daring Projects. In 1617.
while du Verger, who had returned to Paris, went to receive from
the Bishop of Poitiers the dignity of Abbot of St-Cyran, Jansenius
returned to Louvain, where the presidency of the new College de
Sainte Pulcherie was confided to him. In 1619 he received the
degree of Doctor of Theology, and afterwards obtained a chair of
exegesis. The commentaries which he dictated to his pupils, as
well as several writings of a polemical nature, brought him in a
short time a deserved renown.
These writings of Jansenius were not at first intended for
publication, in fact they did not see the light until after his
death. They are concise, clear and perfectly orthodox in doctrine.
The principal ones are "Pentateuchus, sive commentarius in quinque
libros Mosis" (Louvain, 1639), "Analecta in Proverbia Salomonis,
Ecclesiasten, Sapientiam, Habacuc et Sophoniam" (Louvain, 1644);
"Tetrateuchus, seu commentarius in quatuor Evangelia"
(Louvain,1639). Some of these exegetical works have been printed
more than once. Among his polemical works are "Alexipharmacum
civibus Sy vaeducensibus propinatum adversus ministrorum fascinum"
(Louvain 1630); then, in reply to the criticism of the Calvinist
Gisbert Voet, "Spongia notarum quibus Alexipharmacum aspersit
Gisbertus Voetius" (Louvain, 1631). Jansenius published in 1635,
under the pseudonym of Armacanus, a volume entitled "Alexandri
Patricii Armacani Theologi Mars Gallicus seu de justitia armorum
regis Galliae libri duo". This was a bitter and well-merited
satire against the foreign policy of Richelieu, which was summed
up in the odd fact of the "Most Christian" nation and monarchy
constantly allying themselves with the Protestants, in Holland
Germany, and elsewhere, for the sole purpose of compassing the
downfall of the House of Austria.
The same author has left us a series of letters addressed to the
Abbot of St-Cyran, which were found among the papers of the person
to whom they were sent and printed under the title: "Naissance du
jansenisme decouverte, ou Lettres de Jansenius a l'abbe de St-
Cyran depuis l'an 1617 jusqu'en 1635" (Louvain, 1654). It was also
during the course of his professorate that Jansenius, who was a
man of action as well as of study, journeyed twice to Spain,
whither he went as the deputy of his colleagues to plead at the
Court of Madrid the cause of the university against the Jesuits;
and in fact, through his efforts their authorization to teach
humanities and philosophy at Louvain was withdrawn. All this,
however, did not prevent him from occupying himself actively and
chiefly with a work of which the general aim, born of his
intercourse with St-Cyran, was to restore to its place of honour
the true doctrine of St. Augustine on grace, a doctrine supposedly
obscured or abandoned in the Church for several centuries. He was
still working on it when, on the recommendation of King Philip IV
and Boonen, Archbishop of Mechlin, he was raised to the See of
Ypres. His consecration took place in 1636, and, though at the
same time putting the finishing touches to his theological work,
he devoted himself with great zeal to the government of his
diocese. Historians have remarked that the Jesuits had no more
cause to complain of his administration than the other religious
orders.
He succumbed to an epidemic which ravaged Ypres and died,
according to eyewitnesses, in dispositions of great piety. When on
the point of death he confided the manuscript which he cherished
to his chaplain, Reginald Lamaeus, with the command to publish it
after taking counsel with Libert Fromondus, a professor at
Louvain, and Henri Calenus, a canon of the metropolitan church. He
requested that this publication be made with the utmost fidelity,
as, in his opinion, only with difficulty could anything be
changed. "If, however," he added, "the Holy See wishes any change,
I am an obedient son, and I submit to that Church in which I have
lived to my dying hour. This is my last wish."
The editors of the "Augustinus" have been wrongly accused of
having intentionally and disloyally suppressed this declaration,
it appears plainly enough on the second page in the original
edition. On the other hand its authenticity has been contested by
means of external and internal arguments, founded notably on the
discovery of another will, dated the previous day (5 May), which
says nothing regarding the work to be published. But it is quite
conceivable that the dying prelate was mindful of the opportunity
to complete his first act by dictating to his chaplain and
confirming with his seal this codicil which, according to the
testamentary executors, was written only half an hour before his
death. It has been vainly sought, a priori, to make the fact
appear improbable by alleging that the author was in perfect good
faith as to the orthodoxy of his views. Already, in 1619, 1620,
and 1621, his correspondence with St-Cyran bore unmistakable
traces of a quite opposite state of mind; in it he spoke of coming
disputes for which there was need to prepare; of a doctrine of St.
Augustine discovered by him, but little known among the learned,
and which in time would astonish everybody, of opinions on grace
and predestination which he dared not then reveal "lest like so
many others I be tripped up by Rome before everything is ripe and
seasonable". Later, in the "Augustinus" itself (IV, xxv-xxvii), it
is seen that he scarcely disguises the close connection of several
of his assertions with certain propositions of Baius, though he
ascribes the condemnation of the latter to the contingent
circumstances of time and place, and he believes them tenable in
their obvious and natural sense.
Nothing, therefore, authorized the rejection of the famous
declaration, or testament, of Jansenius as unauthentic. But
neither is there any authorization for suspecting the sincerity of
the explicit affirmation of submission to the Holy See which is
therein contained. The author, at the time of his promotion to the
doctorate in 1619, had defended the infallibility of the pope in a
most categorical thesis, conceived as follows: "The Roman Pontiff
is the supreme judge of all religious controversies, when he
defines a thing and imposes it on the whole Church, under penalty
of anathema, his decision is just, true, and infallible." At the
end of his work (III, x, Epilogus omnium) we find this
protestation perfectly parallel with that of his testament: "All
whatsoever I have affirmed on these various and difficult points,
not according to my own sentiment, but according to that of the
holy Doctor, I submit to the judgment and sentence of the
Apostolic See and the Roman Church, my mother, to be henceforth
adhered to if she judges that it must be adhered to, to retract if
she so wishes, to condemn and anathematize it if she decrees that
it should be condemned and anathematized. For since my tenderest
childhood I have been reared in the beliefs of this Church; I
imbibed them with my mother's milk; I have grown up and grown old
while remaining attached to them; never to my knowledge have I
swerved therefrom a hair's-breadth in thought, action or word, and
I am still firmly decided to keep this faith until my last breath
and to appear with it before the judgment-seat of God." Thus
Jansenius, although he gave his name to a heresy, was not himself
a heretic, but lived and died in the bosom of the Church. In view
of the fact that he consciously and deliberately aimed at
innovation or reforming, it would certainly be difficult to
exculpate him entirely or declare that his attitude was in no wise
presumptuous and rash; but impartial history may and should take
into account the peculiar atmosphere created about him by the
still smouldering controversies on Baianism and the widespread
prejudices against the Roman Curia. To determine the extent to
which these and similar circumstances, by deluding him necessarily
diminished his responsibility, is impossible, that is the secret
of God.
II. THE "AUGUSTINUS" AND ITS CONDEMNATION
After the death of Jansenius, the internuncio Richard Aravius
vainly endeavoured to prevent the printing of his manuscript; this
undertaking, actively furthered by the friends of the dead man,
was completed in 1640. The folio volume bore the title: "Cornelii
Jansenii, Episcopi Yprensis, Augustinus, seu doctrina S. Augustini
de humanae naturae sanitate, aegritudine, medicina, adversus
Pelagianos et Massilienses". It was divided into three volumes, of
which the first, chiefly historical, is an exposition in eight
books of Pelagianism; the second, after an introductory study on
the limitations of human reason, devotes one book to the state of
innocence or the grace of Adam and the angels, four books to the
state of fallen nature, three to the state of pure nature; the
third volume treats in ten books of "the grace of Christ the
Saviour", and concludes with "a parallel between the error of the
Semipelagians and that of certain moderns", who are no other than
the Molinists. The author, if we are to accept his own statement,
laboured for twenty years on this work, and to gather his
materials he had ten times read the whole of St. Augustine and
thirty times his treatise against the Pelagians. From these
readings emerged a vast system, whose identity with Baianism
neither skilful arrangement nor subtile dialectic could disguise.
His fundamental error consists in disregarding the supernatural
order, for Jansenius as for Baius, the vision of God is the
necessary end of human nature; hence it follows that all the
primal endowments designated in theology as supernatural or
preternatural, including exemption from concupiscence, were simply
man's due. This first assertion is fraught with grave consequences
regarding the original fall, grace, and justification. As a result
of Adam's sin, our nature stripped of elements essential to its
integrity, is radically corrupt and depraved. Mastered by
concupiscence, which in each of us properly constitutes original
sin, the will is powerless to resist; it has become purely
passive. It cannot escape the attraction of evil except it be
aided by a movement of grace superior to and triumphant over the
force of concupiscence. Our soul, henceforth obedient to no motive
save that of pleasure, is at the mercy of the delectation, earthly
or heavenly, which for the time being attracts it with the
greatest strength. At once inevitable and irresistible, this
delectation, if it come from heaven or from grace, leads man to
virtue; if it come from nature or concupiscence, it determines him
to sin. In the one case as in the other, the will is fatally swept
on by the preponderant impulse. The two delectations says
Jansenius, are like the two arms of a balance, of which the one
cannot rise unless the other be lowered and vice versa. Thus man
irresistibly, although voluntarily, does either good or evil,
according as he is dominated by grace or by concupiscence; he
never resists either the one or the other. In this system there is
evidently no place for purely sufficient grace; on the other hand
it is easy to discern the principles of the five condemned
propositions (see below).
In order to present this doctrine under the patronage of St.
Augustine, Jansenius based his argument chiefly on two Augustinian
conceptions: on the distinction between the auxilium sine quo non
granted to Adam, and the auxilium quo, active in his descendants;
and on the theory of the "victorious delectation" of grace. A few
brief remarks will suffice to make clear the double mistake. In
the first place the auxilium sine quo non is not, in the idea of
Augustine, "a grace purely sufficient", since through it the
angels persevered; it is on the contrary a grace which confers
complete power in actu primo (i.e. the ability to act), in such a
way that, this being granted, nothing further is needed for
action. The auxilium quo, on the other hand, is a supernatural
help which bears immediately on the actus secundus (i.e. the
performance of the action) and in this grace, in so far as it is
distinguished from the grace of Adam, must be included the whole
series of efficacious graces by which man works out his salvation,
or the gift of actual perseverance, which gift conducts man
infallibly and invincibly to beatitude, not because it suppresses
liberty, but because its very concept implies the consent of man.
The delectation of grace is a deliberate pleasure which the Bishop
of Hippo explicitly opposes to necessity (voluptas, non
necessitas); but what we will and embrace with consenting
pleasure, we cannot at the same time not will, and in this sense
we will it necessarily. In this sense also, it is correct to say,
"Quod amplius nos delectat, secundum id operemur necesse est"
(i.e. in acting we necessarily follow what gives us most
pleasure). Finally, this delight is called victorious, not because
it fatally subjugates the will, but because it triumphs over
concupiscence, fortifying free will to the point of rendering it
invincible to natural desire. It is thus clear that we can say of
men sustained by and faithful to grace, "Invictissime quod bonum
est velint, et hoc deserere invictissime nolint".
The success of the "Augustinus" was great, and it spread rapidly
throughout Belgium, Holland, and France. A new edition, bearing
the approbation of ten doctors of the Sorbonne, soon appeared at
Paris. On the other hand, on 1 August, 1641, a decree of the Holy
Office condemned the work and prohibited its reading; and the
following year Urban VIII renewed the condemnation and
interdiction in his Bull "In eminenti". The pope justified his
sentence with two principal reasons: first, the violation of the
decree forbidding Catholics to publish anything on the subject of
grace without the authorization of the Holy See; second, the
reproduction of several of the errors of Baius. At the same time,
and in the interests of peace, the sovereign pontiff interdicted
several other works directed against the "Augustinus". Despite
these wise precautions the Bull, which some pretended was forged
or interpolated, was not received everywhere without difficulty.
In Belgium, where the Archbishop of Mechlin and the university
were rather favourable to the new ideas, the controversy lasted
for ten years. But it was France which thenceforth became the
chief centre of the agitation. At Paris, St-Cyran, who was
powerful through his relations besides being very active,
succeeded in spreading simultaneously the doctrines of the
"Augustinus" and the principles of an exaggerated moral and
disciplinary rigorism, all under the pretence of a return to the
primitive Church. He had succeeded especially in winning over to
his ideas the influential and numerous family of Arnauld of
Andilly, notably M�re Angelique Arnauld, Abbess of Port-Royal, and
through her the religious of that important convent. When he died,
in 1643, Doctor Antoine Arnauld quite naturally succeeded him in
the direction of the movement which he had created. The new leader
lost no time in asserting himself in startling fashion by the
publication of his book "On Frequent Communion", which would have
been more correctly entitled "Against Frequent Communion" but
which, as it was written with skill and a great display of
erudition, did not a little towards strengthening the party.
Although the Sorbonne had accepted the Bull "In eminenti", and the
Archbishop of Paris had, in 1644 proscribed the work of Jansenius,
it continued to be spread and recommended, on the pretext that
authority had not rejected a single well-determined thesis. It was
then (1649) that Cornet, syndic of the Sorbonne, took the
initiative in a more radical measure; he extracted five
propositions from the much-discussed work, two from the book "On
Frequent Communion", and submitted them to the judgment of the
faculty. This body, prevented by the Parlement from pursuing the
examination it had begun, referred the affair to the general
assembly of the clergy in 1650. The greater number considered it
more fitting that Rome should pronounce, and eighty-five bishops
wrote in this sense to Innocent X, transmitting to him the first
five propositions. Eleven other bishops addressed to the sovereign
pontiff a protest against the idea of bringing the matter to trial
elsewhere than in France. They demanded in any case the
institution of a special tribunal, as in the "De auxiliis" affair,
and the opening of a debate in which the theologians of both sides
should be allowed to submit their arguments. The decision of
Innocent X was what might have been expected: he acceded to the
request of the majority, keeping in view as far as possible the
wishes of the minority. A commission was appointed, consisting of
five cardinals and thirteen consultors, some of whom were known to
favour acquittal. Its laborious examination lasted two years: it
held thirty-six long sessions, of which the last ten were presided
over by the pope in person. The "Augustinus" which, as has been
said, had friends on the bench, was defended with skill and
tenacity. Finally its advocates presented a table of three
columns, in which they distinguished as many interpretations of
the five propositions: a Calvinistic interpretation, rejected as
heretical, a Pelagian or Semipelagian interpretation, identified
by them with the traditional doctrine, also to be cast aside, and
lastly, their interpretation, the idea of St. Augustine himself,
which could not but be approved. This plea, skilful as it was
could not avert the solemn condemnation, by the Bull "Cum
occasione" (31 May, 1653), of the five propositions, which were as
follows:
� Some of God's commandments are impossible to just men who wish
and strive (to keep them) considering the powers they actually
have, the grace by which these precepts may become possible is
also wanting;
� In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior
grace;
� To merit, or demerit, in the state of fallen nature we must be
free from all external constraint, but not from interior
necessity,
� The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing
grace for all acts, even for the beginning of faith; but they fell
into heresy in pretending that this grace is such that man may
either follow or resist it;
� To say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men, is
Semipelagianism.
These five propositions were rejected as heretical, the first four
absolutely the fifth if understood in the sense that Christ died
only for the predestined. All are implicitly contained in the
second, and through it, all are connected with the above-mentioned
erroneous conception of the state of innocence and the original
fall. If it be true that fallen man never resists interior grace
(second proposition), it follows that a just man who violates a
commandment of God did not have the grace to observe it. that he
therefore transgresses it through inability to fulfil it (first
proposition). If, however, he has sinned and thus demerited, it is
clear that, to demerit, the liberty of indifference is not
requisite, and what is said of demerit must also be said of its
correlative, merit (third proposition). On the other hand, if
grace is often wanting to the just, since they fall, it is wanting
still more to sinners; it is therefore impossible to maintain that
the death of Jesus Christ assured to every man the graces
necessary for salvation (fifth proposition). If this be so, the
Semipelagians were in error in admitting the universal
distribution of a grace which may be resisted (fourth
proposition).
III. RESISTANCE OF THE JANSENISTS
Well received by the Sorbonne and the General Assembly of the
Clergy, the Bull "Cum occasione" was promulgated with the royal
sanction. This should have opened the eyes of the partisans of
Jansenius. They were given the alternative of finally renouncing
their errors, or of openly resisting the supreme authority. They
were thrown for the moment into embarrassment and hesitation, from
which Arnauld extricated them by a subtilty: they must, he said,
accept the condemnation of the five propositions, and reject them,
as did the pope, only, these propositions were not contained in
the book of the Bishop of Ypres, or if they were found therein, it
was in another sense than in the pontifical document; the idea of
Jansenius was the same as that of St. Augustine, which the Church
neither could, nor wished to, censure. This interpretation was not
tenable; it was contrary to the text of the Bull, no less than to
the minutes of the discussions which had preceded it, and
throughout which these propositions were considered and Presented
as expressing the sense of the "Augustinus". In March, 1564,
thirty-eight bishops rejected the interpretation, and communicated
their decision to the sovereign pontiff, who thanked and
congratulated them. The Jansenists persisted none the less in an
attitude opposed alike to frankness and to logic. The occasion
soon arrived for them to support this with a complete theory. The
Duc de Liancourt, one of the protectors of the party, was refused
absolution until he should change his sentiments and accept purely
and simply the condemnation of the "Augustinus". Arnauld took up
his pen and in two successive letters protested against any such
exaction. Ecclesiastical judgments, he said, are not all of equal
value, and do not entail the same obligations; where there is
question of the truth or falsity of a doctrine, of its revealed
origin or its heterodoxy, the Church in virtue of its Divine
mission is qualified to decide; it is a matter of right. But if
the doubt bears upon the presence of this doctrine in a book, it
is a question of purely human fact, which as such does not fall
under the jurisdiction of the supernatural teaching authority
instituted in the Church by Jesus Christ. In the former case, the
Church having pronounced sentence, we have no choice but to
conform our belief to its decision; in the latter, its word should
not be openly contradicted it claims from us the homage of a
respectful silence but not that of an interior assent. Such is the
famous distinction between right and fact, which was henceforth to
be the basis of their resistance, and through which the
recalcitrants pretended to remain Catholics, united to the visible
body of Christ despite all their obstinacy. This distinction is
both logically and historically the denial of the doctrinal power
of the Church. For how is it possible to teach and defend revealed
doctrine if its affirmation or denial cannot be discerned in a
book or a writing, whatever its form or its extent? In fact, from
the beginning, councils and popes have approved and imposed as
orthodox certain formulas and certain works, and from the
beginning have proscribed others as being tainted with heresy or
error.
The expedient contrived by Arnauld was so opposed to both fact and
reason that a number of Jansenists who were more consistent in
their contumacy, such as Pascal, refused to adopt it or to
subscribe to the condemnation of the five propositions in any
sense. The greater number, however, took advantage of it to
mislead others or deceive themselves. All of them, moreover,
through personal intercourse, preaching, or writing, displayed
extraordinary activity in behalf of their ideas. They aimed
especially, following the tactics inaugurated by St-Cyran, at
introducing them into religious orders, and in this way they were
in a measure successful, e.g. with the Oratory of Berulle. Against
the Jesuits, in whom from the first they had encountered capable
and determined adversaries, they had vowed a profound antipathy
and waged a war to the death. This inspired the "Provinciales"
which appeared in 1656. These were letters supposedly addressed to
a provincial correspondent. Their author Blaise Pascal, abusing
his admirable genius, therein lavished the resources of a
captivating style and an inexhaustible sarcastic humour to taunt
and decry the Society of Jesus, as favouring and propagating a
relaxed and corrupt moral code. To this end the errors or
imprudences of some members, emphasized with malicious
exaggeration, were made to appear as the official doctrine of the
whole order. The "Provinciales" were translated into elegant Latin
by Nicole disguised for the occasion under the pseudonym of
Wilhelmus Wendrochius. They did a great deal of harm.
However, the Sorbonne, again declaring itself against the faction,
had, by 138 votes against 68, condemned the latest writings of
Arnauld, and, on his refusal to submit, it dismissed him, together
with sixty other doctors who made common cause with him. The
assembly of bishops in 1656 branded as heretical the unfortunate
theory of right and of fact, and reported its decision to
Alexander VII, who had just succeeded Innocent X. On 16 October
the pope replied to this communication by the Bull "Ad sanctam
Beati Petri sedem". He praised the clear-sighted firmness of the
episcopate and confirmed in the following terms the condemnation
pronounced by his predecessor: "We declare and define that the
five propositions have been drawn from the book of Jansenius
entitled 'Augustinus', and that they have been condemned in the
sense of the same Jansenius and we once more condemn them as
such." Relying on these words, the Assembly of the Clergy of the
following year (1657) drew up a formula of faith conformable
thereto and made subscription to it obligatory. The Jansenists
would not give in. They claimed that no one could exact a lying
signature from those who were not convinced of the truth of the
matter. The religious of Port-Royal were especially conspicuous
for their obstinacy, and the Archbishop of Paris, after several
fruitless admonitions, was forced to debar them from receiving the
sacraments. Four bishops openly allied themselves with the
rebellious party: they were Henri Arnauld of Angers Buzenval of
Beauvais, Caulet of Pamiers, and Pavillon of Aleth. Some claimed
besides that the Roman pontiff alone had the right to exact such
subscription. In order to silence them, Alexander VII, at the
instance of several members of the episcopate, issued (15 February
1664) a new Constitution, beginning with the words, "Regiminis
Apostolici". In this he enjoined, with threat of canonical
penalties for disobedience, that all ecclesiastics, as well as all
religious, men and women, should subscribe to the following very
definite formulary:
I, (Name), submitting to the Apostolic constitutions of the
sovereign pontiffs, Innocent X and Alexander VII, published 31
May, 1653 and 16 October, 1656, sincerely repudiate the five
propositions extracted from the book of Jansenius entitled
'Augustinus', and I condemn them upon oath in the very sense
expressed by that author, as the Apostolic See has condemned them
by the two above mentioned Constitutions (Enchiridion, 1099).
It would be a mistake to believe that this direct intervention of
the pope sustained as it was by Louis XIV, completely ended the
stubborn opposition. The real Jansenists underwent no change of
sentiment. Some of them, such as Antoine Arnauld and the greater
number of the religious of Port-Royal, defying both the
ecclesiastical and the civil authority, refused their signature,
on the pretext that it was not in the power of any person to
command them to perform an act of hypocrisy, others subscribed,
but at the same time protesting more or less openly that it
applied only to the question of right, that the question of fact
was reserved and should be so, since in this respect the Church
had no jurisdiction, and above all no infallibility. Among those
who stood for explicit restriction and hence for refusal to sign
the formulary as it was, must be numbered the four bishops
mentioned above. In the mandates through which they communicated
to their flocks the Bull "Apostolici" they did not hesitate
expressly to maintain the distinction between fact and right. The
pope being informed of this, condemned these mandates, 18 January,
1667. He did not stop there, but, in order to safeguard both his
authority and the unity of belief, he decided, with the full
approbation of Louis XIV to subject the conduct of the culprits to
a canonical judgment. and for this purpose he appointed as judges
nine other members of the French episcopate.
IV. THE PEACE OF CLEMENT IX
In the midst of all this, Alexander VII died, 22 May, 1667. His
successor Clement IX wished at first to continue the process, and
he confirmed the appointed judges in all their powers. However,
the king, who had at first displayed great zeal in seconding the
Holy See in the affair, seemed to have let his ardour cool. Rome
had not judged it expedient to yield to all his wishes regarding
the formation of the ecclesiastical tribunal. Together with his
court he began to be apprehensive lest a blow should be struck at
the "liberties" of the Gallican Church. The Jansenists skilfully
turned these apprehensions to their profit. They had already won
over several ministers of state, notably Lyonne, and they
succeeded in gaining for their cause nineteen members of the
episcopate, who in consequence wrote to the sovereign pontiff and
to the king. In their petition to the pope these bishops, while
protesting their profound respect and entire obedience, observed
that the infallibillty of the Church did not extend to facts
outside of revelation. They further confounded purely human or
purely personal facts with dogmatic facts, i.e. such as were
implied by a dogma or were in necessary connection with it, and
under cover of this confusion, they ended by affirming that their
doctrine, the doctrine of the four accused bishops, was the common
doctrine of the theologians most devoted to the Holy See, of
Baronius, Bellarmine, Pallavicini, etc. The same assertions were
repeated in a more audacious form in the address to the king, in
which they spoke also of the necessity of guarding against
theories which were new and "harmful to the interests and safety
of the State". These circumstances brought about a very delicate
situation, and there was reason to fear that too great severity
would lead to disastrous results. On this account the new nuncio,
Bargellini, inclined towards a peaceful arrangement, for which he
obtained the pope's consent. D'Estrees, the Bishop of Laon, was
chosen as mediator, and at his request there were associated with
him de Gondren, Archbishop of Sens. and Vialar, Bishop of Chalons,
both of whom had signed the two petitions just spoken of, and
were, therefore, friends of the four accused prelates. It was
agreed that these last should subscribe without restriction to the
formulary and cause it to be subscribed to in like manner by their
clergy in diocesan synods, and that these subscriptions should
take the place of an express retractation of the mandates sent out
by the bishops. Pursuant to this arrangement they convened their
synods, but, as later became known all four gave oral explanations
authorizing respectful silence on the question of fact, and it
would seem that they acted thus with some connivance on the part
of the mediators, unknown, however, to the nuncio and perhaps to
d'Estrees. But this did not prevent them from affirming, in a
common address to the sovereign pontiff, that they themselves and
their priests had signed the formulary, as had been done in the
other dioceses of France.
D'Estrees for his part wrote at the same time: "The four bishops
have just conformed, by a new and sincere subscription, with the
other bishops". Both letters were transmitted by the nuncio to
Rome, where Lyonne, also alleging that the signatures were
absolutely regular, insisted that the affair should be brought to
an end. For this reason the pope, who had received these documents
24 September, informed Louis XIV of the fact about 28 September,
expressing his joy for the "subscription pure and simple" which
had been obtained, announcing his intention to restore the bishops
in question to favour and requesting the king to do the same.
However, before the Briefs of reconciliation thus announced had
been sent to each of the four prelates concerned, rumours which
had at first been current with regard to their lack of frankness
grew more definite, and took the shape of formal and repeated
denunciations. Hence, by order of Clement IX, Bargellini had to
make a new investigation at Paris. As the final result he sent to
Rome a report drawn up by Vialar. This report stated with regard
to the four bishops: "They have condemned and caused to be
condemned the five propositions with all manner of sincerity,
without any exception or restriction whatever, in every sense in
which the Church has condemned them"; but he then added
explanations concerning the question of fact which were not
altogether free from ambiguity. The pope, no less perplexed than
before, appointed a commission of twelve cardinals to obtain
information. These secured, it seems, the proof of the language
made use of by the bishops in their synods. Nevertheless, in
consideration of the very grave difficulties which would result
from opening up the whole case again, the majority of the
commission held that they might and should abide practically by
the testimony of the official documents and especially by that of
the minister I,yonne regarding the reality of the "subscription
pure and simple", at the same time emphasizing anew this point as
the essential basis and the condition sine qua non of peace.
The four Briefs of reconciliation were then drawn up and
dispatched; they bear the date, 19 January, 1669. In them Clement
IX recalls the testimony he had received "concerning the real and
complete obedience with which they had sincere}y subscribed to the
formulary, condemning the five propositions without any exception
or restriction, according to all the senses in which they had been
condemned by the Holy See". He remarks further that being "most
firmly resolved to uphold the constitutions of his predecessors,
he would never have admitted a single restriction or exception".
These preambles were as explicit and formal as possible. They
prove, especially when compared with the terms and object of the
formulary of Alexander VII, how far wrong the Jansenists were in
celebrating this termination of the affair as the triumph of their
theory, as the acceptance by the pope himself of the distinction
between right and fact. On the other hand it is clear from the
whole course of the negotiations that the loyalty of these
champions of a stainless and unfaltering moral code was more than
doubtful. At all events, the sect profited by the muddle these
manoeuvres had created to extend its conquest still further and to
get a stronger hold on several religious congregations. It was
favoured by various circumstances. Among them must be included the
growing infatuation in France for the so-called Gallican
Liberties, and in consequence a certain attitude of defiance, or
at least indocility, towards the supreme authority; then the
Declaration of 1682, and finally the unfortunate affair of the
Regale. It is worthy of remark that in this last conflict it was
two Jansenist bishops of the deepest dye who most energetically
upheld the rights of the Church and the Holy See, while the
greater number of the others too readily bowed before the arrogant
pretensions of the civil power.
V. JANSENISM AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
Despite the reticence and equivocation which it allowed to
continue, the "Peace of Clement IX" found a certain justification
for its name in the period of relative calm which followed it, and
which lasted until the end of the seventeenth century. Many minds
were tired of the incessant strife, and this very weariness
favoured the cessation of polemics. Moreover the Catholic world
and the Holy See were at that time preoccupied with a multitude of
grave questions, and through force of circumstances Jansenism was
relegated to second place. Mention has already been made of the
signs of a recrudescence of Gallicanism betrayed in the Four
Articles of 1682, and in the quarrels of which the Regale was the
subject. To this period also belongs the sharp conflict regarding
the franchises, or droit d'asile (right of asylum), the odious
privilege concerning which Louis XIV showed an obstinacy and
arrogance which passed all bounds (1687). Moreover, the Quietist
doctrines spread by de Molinos, and which seduced for a brief
period even the pious and learned Fenelon as well as the relaxed
opinions of certain moralists, furnished matter for many
condemnations on the part of Innocent XI, Alexander VIII, and
Innocent XII (see QUIETISM). Finally, another impassioned debate
had arisen which drew into the arena several groups of the most
distinguished and best intentioned theologians, and which was only
definitively closed by Benedict XIV, namely the controversy
concerning the Chinese and Malabar Rites. All these combined
causes had for a time distracted public attention from the
contents and the partisans of the "Augustinus". Besides,
"Jansenism" was beginning to serve as a label for rather divergent
tendencies, not all of which deserved equal reprobation. The out-
and-out Jansenists, those who persisted in spite of everything in
upholding the principle of necessitating grace and the consequent
errors of the five propositions, had almost disappeared with
Pascal. The remainder of the really Jansenist party without
committing itself to a submission pure and simple, assumed a far
more cautious demeanour. The members rejected the expression
"necessitating grace", substituting for it that of a grace
efficacious "in itself", seeking thus to identify themselves with
the Thomists and the Augustinians.
Abandoning the plainly heretical sense of the five propositions,
and repudiating any intention to resist legitimate authority, they
confined themselves to denying the infallibility of the Church
with regard to dogmatic facts. Then, too, they were still the
fanatical preachers of a discouraging rigorism, which they adorned
with the names of virtue and austerity, and, under pretext of
combating abuses, openly antagonized the incontestable
characteristics of Catholicism especially its unity of government,
the traditional continuity of its customs, and the legitimate part
which heart and feeling play in its worship. With all their
skilful extenuations they bore the mark of the levelling,
innovating, and arid spirit of Calvinism. These were the fins
Jansenistes. They formed thenceforth the bulk of the sect, or
rather in them the sect properly so called was summed up. But
apart from them, though side by side with them, and bordering on
their tendencies and beliefs, history points out two rather well-
defined groups known as the "duped Jansenists" and the "quasi-
Jansenists". The first were in good faith pretty much what the
fins Jansenistes were by system and tactics: they appear to us as
convinced adversaries of necessitating grace, but no less sincere
defenders of efficacious grace; rigorists in moral and sacramental
questions, often opposed, like the Parlementarians, to the rights
of the Holy See; generally favourable to the innovations of the
sect in matters of worship and discipline. The second category is
that of men of Jansenist tinge. While remaining within bounds in
theological opinions, they declared themselves against really
relaxed morality against exaggerated popular devotions and other
similar abuses. The greater number were at bottom zealous
Catholics, but their zeal, agreeing with that of the Jansenists on
so many points, took on, so to speak, an outer colouring of
Jansenism, and they were drawn into closer sympathy with the party
in proportion to the confidence with which it inspired them. Even
more than the "duped" Jansenists they were extremely useful in
screening the sectarians and in securing for them, on the part of
the pastors and the multitude of the faithful, the benefit either
of silence or of a certain leniency.
But the error remained too active in the hearts of the real
Jansenists to endure this situation very long. At the beginning of
the eighteenth century it manifested itself by a double occurrence
which revived all the strife and trouble. The discussion began
afresh with regard to the "case of conscience" of 1701. A
provincial conference was supposed to inquire whether absolution
might be given to a cleric who declared that he held on certain
points the sentiments "of those called Jansenists"} especially
that of respectful silence on the question of fact. Forty doctors
of the Sorbonnet among them some of great renown, such as Natalis
Alexander, decided affirmatively. The publication of this decision
aroused all enlightened Catholics, and the "case of conscience"
was condemned by Clement XI (1703), by Cardinal de Noailles,
Archbishop of Paris, by a large number of bishops, and finally by
the faculties of theology of Louvain, Douai, and Paris. The last-
named, however as its slowness would indicate, did not arrive at
this decision without difficulty. As for the doctors who signed,
they were terrified by the storm they had let loose, and either
retracted or explained their action as best they might, with the
exception of the author of the whole movement, Dr. Petitpied,
whose name was erased from the list of the faculty. But the
Jansenists, though pressed hard by some and abandoned by others,
did not yield. For this reason Clement XI, at the request of the
Kings of France and Spain, issued 16 July 1705, the Bull "Vineam
Domini Sabaoth" (Enchiridion, 1350) in which he formally declared
that respectful silence was not sufficient for the obedience due
to the constitutions of his predecessors. This Bull, received with
submission by the assembly of the clergy of 1705, in which only
the Bishop of Saint-Pons obstinately refused to agree with the
opinion of his colleagues, was afterwards promulgated as a law of
the State. It may be said to have officially terminated that
period of half a century of agitation occasioned by the signing of
the formulary. It also terminated the existence of Port-Royal des
Champs, which up to that time had remained a notorious centre and
hotbed of rebellion.
When it was proposed to the religious that they should accept the
new Bull, they would consent only with this clause: "that it was
without derogating from what had taken place in regard to them at
the time of the peace of the Church under Clement XI". This
restriction brought up again their entire past, as was clearly
shown by their explanation of it, and therefore made their
submission a hollow pretence. Cardinal de Noailles urged them in
vain; he forbade them the sacraments. and two of the religious
died without receiving them, unless it were secretly from a
disguised priest. As all measures had failed, it was high time to
put an end to this scandalous resistance. A Bull suppressed the
title of the Abbey of Port-Royal des Champs, and reunited that
house and its holdings to the Paris house. The Court gave
peremptory orders for a prompt execution, and, despite all the
means of delay contrived and carried out by those interested, the
pontifical sentence had its full effect. The surviving choir
religious were scattered among the convents of the neighboring
destroyed dioceses (29 October 1709). This separation had the
desired good results. All the rebellious nuns ended by submitting,
save one, the mother prioress, who died at Blois without the
sacraments, in 1716. The Government wishing to eradicate even the
trace of this nest of errors, as Clement XI called it, destroyed
all the buildings and removed elsewhere the bodies buried in the
cemetery.
During the disputes concerning the "case of conscience", a new
book came cautiously on the scene another "Augustinus", pregnant
with storms and tempests, as violent as the first. The author was
Paschase Quesnel (q.v.), at first a member of the French Oratory,
but expelled from that congregation for his Jansenistic opinions
(1684), and since 1689 a refugee at Brussels with the aged Antoine
Arnauld whom he succeeded in 1696 as leader of the party. The work
had been published in part as early as 1671 in a 12mo volume
entitled "Abrege de la morale de l'Evangile, ou pensees
chretiennes sur le texte des quatres evangelistes". It appeared
with the hearty approbation of Vialar, Bishop of Ch�lons, and,
thanks to a style at once attractive and full of unction which
seemed in general to reflect a solid and sincere piety, it soon
met with great success. But in the later development of his first
work, Quesnel had extended it to the whole of the New Testament.
He issued it in 1693, in an edition which comprised four large
volumes entitled, "Nouveau testament en francais avec des
reflexions morales sur chaque verset". This edition, besides the
earlier approbation of Vialar which it inopportunely bore, was
formally approved and heartily recommended by his successor, de
Noailles, who, as subsequent events showed, acted imprudently in
the matter and without being well-informed as to the contents of
the book. The "Reflexions morales" of Quesnel reproduced, in fact,
the theories of the irresistible efficaciousness of grace and the
limitations of God's will with regard to the salvation of men.
Hence they soon called forth the sharpest criticism, and at the
same time attracted the attention of the guardians of the Faith.
The Bishops of Apt (1703) Gap (1704), Nevers, and Besancon (1707)
condemned them, and, after a report from the Inquisition, Clement
XI proscribed them by the Brief "Universi dominici" (1708) as
containing the propositions already condemned and as manifestly
savouring of the Jansenist heresy". Two years later (1710) the
Bishops of Lucon and La Rochelle forbade the reading of the book.
Their ordinance, posted in the capital, gave rise to a conflict
with Noailles, who, having become cardinal and Archbishop of
Paris, found himself under the necessity of withdrawing the
approbation he had formerly given at Chalons. However, as he
hesitated, less through attachment to error than through self
love, to take this step, Louis XIV asked the pope to issue a
solemn constitution and put an end to the trouble. Clement XI then
subjected the book to a new and very minute examination, and in
the Bull "Unigenitus" (8 September, 1713) he condemned 101
propositions which had been taken from the book (Enchiridion, 1351
sq.). Among these were some propositions which, in themselves and
apart from the context, seemed to have an orthodox sense. Noailles
and with him eight other bishops, though they did not refuse to
proscribe the book. seized this Pretext to ask explanations from
Rome before accepting the Bull. This was the beginning of lengthy
discussions the gravity of which increased with the death of Louis
XIV (1715), who was succeeded in power by Philippe d'Orleans. The
regent took a much less decided stand than his predecessor, and
the change soon had its effect on various centres, especially on
the Sorbonne, where the sectaries had succeeded in winning over
the majority. The faculties of Paris, Reims, and Nantes, who had
received the Bull, revoked their previous acceptance. Four bishops
went even farther, having recourse to an expedient of which only
heretics or declared schismatics had hitherto bethought
themselves, and which was essentially at variance with the
hierarchical concept of the Church; they appealed from the Bull
"Unigenitus" to a general council (1717). Their example was
followed by some of their colleagues, by hundreds of clerics and
religious, by the Parliaments and the magistracy Noailles, for a
long time undecided and always inconsistent, ended by appealing
also, but "from the pope obviously mistaken to the pope better
informed and to a general council".
Clement XI, however, in the Bull "Pastoralis officii" (1718),
condemned the appeal and excommunicated the appellants. But this
did not disarm the opposition, which appealed from the second Bull
as from the first Noailles himself published a new appeal, no
longer chiefly to the pope "better informed", but to a council,
and the Parlement of Paris, suppressed the Bull "Pastoralis". The
multiplicity of these defections and the arrogant clamour of the
appellants might give the impression that they constituted, if not
a majority, at least a very imposing minority. Such, however, was
not the case, and the chief evidence of this lies in the well-
established fact that enormous sums were devoted to paying for
these appeals. After allowing for these shameful and suggestive
purchases, we find among the number of the appellants, one
cardinal, about eighteen bishops, and three thousand clerics. But
without leaving France, we find opposed to them four cardinals, a
hundred bishops, and a hundred thousand clerics, that is, the
moral unanimity of the French clergy. What is to be said, then,
when this handful of protesters is compared to the whole of the
Churches of England, the Low Countries, Germany, Hungary, Italy,
Naples, Savoy, Portugal, Spain, etc., which, on being requested to
pronounce, did so by proscribing the appeal as an act of schism
and foolish revolt? The polemics, however, continued for several
years. The return to unity of Cardinal de Noailles, who submitted
without restriction in 1728 six months before his death, was a
telling blow to the party of Quesnel. Henceforth it steadily grew
less, so that not even the scenes that took place at the cemetery
of Saint-Medard, of which mention is made below. restored it. But
the Parliaments. eager to de clare themselves and to apply their
Gallican and royalist principles, continued for a long time to
refuse to receive the Bull "Unigenitus". They even made it the
occasion to meddle in scandalous fashion in the administration of
the sacraments, and to persecute bishops and priests accused of
refusing absolution to those who would not submit to the Holy See.
VI. THE CONVULSIONARIES
We have reviewed the long series of defensive measures contrived
by the Jansenists rejection of the five propositions without
rejection of the "Augustinus", explicit distinction between the
question of right and the question of fact; restriction of
ecclesiastical infallibility to the question of right; the tactics
of respectful silence, and appeal to a general council. They had
exhausted all the expedients of a theological and canonical
discussion more obstinate than sincere. Not a single one of these
had availed them anything at the bar of right reason or of
legitimate authority. They then thought to invoke in their behalf
the direct testimony of God Himself, namely, miracles. One of
their number, an appellant, a rigorist to the point of having once
passed two years without communicating, for the rest given to a
retired and penitent life, the deacon Francois de Paris had died
in 1727. They pretended that at his tomb in the little cemetery of
Saint-Medard marvellous cures took place. A case alleged as such
was examined by de Vintimille, Archbishop of Paris, who with
proofs in hand declared it false and supposititious (1731). But
other cures were claimed by the party, and so noised abroad that
soon the sick and the curious flocked to the cemetery. The sick
experienced strange agitations, nervous commotions, either real or
simulated. They fell into violent transports and inveighed against
the pope and the bishops, as the convulsionaries of Cevennes had
denounced the papacy and the Mass. In the excited crowd women were
especially noticeable, screaming, yelling, throwing themselves
about, sometimes assuming the most astounding and unseemly
postures. To justify these extravagances, complacent admirers had
recourse to the theory of "figurism". As in their eyes the fact of
the general acceptance of the Bull "Unigenitus" was the apostasy
predicted by the Apocalypse, so the ridiculous and revolting
scenes enacted by their friends symbolized the state of upheaval
which, according to them, involved everything in the Church. They
reverted thus to a fundamental thesis such as has been met with in
Jansenius and St-Cyran, and which these latter had borrowed from
the Protestants. A journal the "Nouvelles Ecclesiastiques", had
been founded in 1729 to defend and propagate these ideas and
practices, and the "Nouvelles" was profusely spread, thanks to the
pecuniary resources furnished by the Bo�te a Perrette, the name
given later to the capital or common fund of the sect begun by
Nicole, and which grew so rapidly that it exceeded a million of
money. It had hitherto served chiefly to defray the cost of
appeals and to support, in France as well as in Holland, the
religious, men and women, who deserted their convents or
congregations for the sake of Jansenism.
The cemetery of Saint-Medard, having become the scene of
exhibitions as tumultuous as they were indecent, was closed by
order of the court in 1732. The oeuvre des convulsions, as its
partisans called it, was not, however, abandoned. The convulsions
reappeared in private houses with the same characteristics, but
more glaring. Henceforth with few exceptions they seized only upon
young girls, who, it was said, possessed a divine gift of healing.
But what was more astonishing was that their bodies, subjected
during the crisis to all sorts of painful tests, seemed at once
insensible and invulnerable; they were not wounded by the sharpest
instruments, or bruised by enormous weights or blows of incredible
violence. A convulsionary, nicknamed "la Salamandre", remained
suspended for more than nine minutes above a fiery brazier,
enveloped only in a sheet, which also remained intact in the midst
of the flames. Tests of this sort had received in the language of
the sect the denomination of secours, and the secouristes, or
partisans of the secours, distinguished between the petits-secours
and the grands-secours, only the latter being supposed to require
supernatural force. At this point, a wave of defiance and
opposition arose among the Jansenists themselves. Thirty appellant
doctors openly declared by common consent against the convulsions
and the secours. A lively discussion arose between the secouristes
and the anti-secouristes. The secouristes in turn were soon
divided into discernantes and melangistes, the former
distinguishing between the work itself and its grotesque or
objectionable features, which they ascribed to the Devil or to
human weakness, while the latter regarded the convulsions and the
secours as a single work coming from God, in which even the
shocking elements had purpose and significance.
Without entering further into the details of these distinctions
and divisions, we may ask how we are to judge what took place at
the cemetery of Saint-Medard and the matters connected therewith.
Whatever may have been said on the subject, there was absolutely
no trace of the Divine seal in these happenings. It is needless to
recall St. Augustine's principle that all prodigies accomplished
outside the Church, especially those against the Church, are by
the very fact more than suspicious: "Praeter unitatem, et qui
facit miracula nihil est". Two things only call for remark.
Several of the so-called miraculous cures were made the subject of
a judicial investigation, and it was proved that they were based
only on testimonies which were either false, interested,
preconcerted, and more than once retracted, or at least valueless,
the echoes of diseased and fanatic imaginations. Moreover, the
convulsions and the secours certainly took place under
circumstances which mere good taste would reject as unworthy of
Divine wisdom and holiness. Not only were the cures, both
acknowledged and claimed, supplementary of one another, but cures,
convulsions, and secours belonged to the same order of facts and
tended to the same concrete end. We are therefore justified in
concluding that the finger of God did not appear in the whole or
in any of its parts. On the other hand, although fraud was
discovered in several cases, it is impossible to ascribe them all
indiscriminately to trickery or ignorant simplicity. Critically
speaking, the authenticity of some extraordinary phenomena is
beyond question, as they took place publicly and in the presence
of reliable witnesses, particularly anti-secourist Jansenists. The
question remains whether all these prodigies are explicable by
natural causes, or whether the direct action of the Devil is to be
recognized in some of them. Each of these opinions has its
adherents, but the former seems difficult to uphold despite, and
in part perhaps because of, the light which recent experiments in
suggestion, hypnotism, and spiritism have thrown on the problem.
However this may be, one thing is certain; the things here related
served only to discredit the cause of the party which exploited
them. Jansenists themselves came at length to feel ashamed of such
practices. The excesses connected with them more than once forced
the civil authorities to intervene at least in a mild way; but
this creation of fanaticism succumbed to ridicule and died by its
own hand.
VII. JANSENISM IN HOLLAND AND THE SCHISM OF UTRECHT
Injurious as Jansenism was to religion and the Church in France,
it did not there lead to schism properly so called. The same does
not hold good of the Dutch Low Countries, which the most important
or most deeply implicated of the sectaries had long made their
meeting place, finding there welcome and safety. Since the United
Provinces had for the most part gone over to Protestantism,
Catholics had lived there under the direction of vicars Apostolic.
Unhappily these representatives of the pope were soon won over to
the doctrines and intrigues of which the "Augustinus" was the
origin and centre. De Neercassel, titular Archbishop of Castoria,
who governed the whole church in the Netherlands from 1663 to
1686, made no secret of his intimacy with the party. Under him the
country began to become the refuge of all whose obstinacy forced
them to leave France and Belgium. Thither came such men as Antoine
Arnauld, du Vaucel, Gerberon, Quesnel, Nicole, Petitpied, as well
as a number of priests, monks, and nuns who preferred exile to the
acceptance of the pontifical Bulls. A large number of these
deserters belonged to the Congregation of the Oratory, but other
orders shared with it this unfortunate distinction. When the fever
of the appeals was at its height, twenty-six Carthusians of the
Paris house escaped from their cloister during the night and fled
to Holland. Fifteen Benedictines of the Abbey of Orval, in the
Diocese of Trier, gave the same scandal. Peter Codde, who
succeeded Neercassel in 1686, and who bore the title of Archbishop
of Sebaste, went further than his predecessor. He refused to sign
the formulary and, when summoned to Rome, defended himself so
poorly that he was first forbidden to exercise his functions, and
then deposed by a decree of 1704. He died still obstinate in 1710.
He had been replaced by Gerard Potkamp, but this appointment and
those that followed were rejected by a section of the clergy, to
whom the States-General lent their support. The conflict lasted a
long time, during which the episcopal functions were not
fulfilled. In 1723 the Chapter of Utrecht i.e. a group of seven or
eight priests who assumed this name and quality in order to put an
end to a precarious and Painful situation, elected, on its own
authority, as archbishop of the same city, one of its members,
Cornelius Steenhoven, who then held the office of vicar-general.
This election was not canonical, and was not approved by the pope.
Steenhoven nevertheless had the audacity to get himself
consecrated by Varlet, a former missionary bishop and coadjutor
Bishop of Babylon, who was at that time suspended, interdicted,
and excommunicated. He thus consummated the schism, interdicted
likewise and excommunicated, he died in 1725. Those who had
elected him transferred their support to Barchman Wuitiers, who
had recourse to the same consecrator. The unhappy Varlet lived
long enough to administer the episcopal unction to two successors
of Barchman, van der Croon and Meindarts. The sole survivor of
this sorry line, Meindarts, ran the risk of seeing his dignity
become extinct with himself. To prevent this, the Dioceses of
Haarlem (1742) and Deventer (1757) were created, and became
suffragans of Utrecht. But Rome always refused to ratify these
outrageously irregular acts, invariably replying to the
notification of each election with a declaration of nullification
and a sentence of excommunication against those elected and their
adherents. Yet, in spite of everything, the schismatical community
of Utrecht has prolonged its existence until modern times. At
present it numbers about 6000 members in the three united
dioceses. It would scarcely be noticed if it had not, in the last
century, made itself heard by protesting against Pius IX's re-
establishment of the Catholic hierarchy in Holland (1853), by
declaring itself against the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception
(1854) and Papal Infallibility (1870), and lastly, after the
Vatican Council, in allying itself with the "Old Catholics", whose
first so-called bishop it consecrated.
VIII. DECLINE AND END OF JANSENISM
During the second half of the eighteenth century the influence of
Jansenism was prolonged by taking on various forms and
ramifications, and extending to countries other than those in
which we have hitherto followed it. In France the Parliaments
continued to pronounce judgments, to inflict fines and
confiscations, to suppress episcopal ordinances, and even to
address remonstrances to the king in defence of the pretended
right of the appellants to absolution and the reception of the
last sacraments. In 1756 they rejected a very moderate decree of
Benedict XIV regulating the matter. A royal declaration confirming
the Roman decision did not find favour in their eyes, and it
required all the remaining strength of the monarchy to compel them
to register it. The sectaries seemed by degrees to detach
themselves from the primitive heresy, but they retained unabated
the spirit of insubordination and schism, the spirit of opposition
to Rome, and above all a mortal hatred of the Jesuits. They had
vowed the ruin of that order, which they always found blocking
their way, and in order to attain their end they successively
induced Catholic princes and ministers in Portugal, France, Spain,
Naples, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies the Duchy of Parma, and
elsewhere to join hands with the worst leaders of impiety and
philosophism. The same tendency was displayed in the work of
Febronius, condemned (1764) by Clement XIII; and, instilled into
Joseph II by his councillor Godefried van Swieten, a disciple of
the revolted church of Utrecht, it became the principle of the
innovations and ecclesiastical upheavals decreed by the sacristan-
emperor (see FEBRONIANISM). It raged in similar fashion in Tuscany
under the government of the Grand Duke Leopold, brother of Joseph
II; and found another manifestation in the famous Synod of Pistoia
(1786), the decrees of which, at once the quintessence of
Gallicanism and of the heresy of Jansenism, were reproved by the
Bull of Pius VI, "Auctorem fidei" (1794). On French soil the
remains of Jansenism were not completely extinguished by the
French Revolution, but survived in some remarkable personalities,
such as the constitutional Bishop Gregoire, and in some religious
congregations, as the Sisters of St. Martha, who did not return in
a body to Catholic truth and unity until 1847. But its spirit
lived on, especially in the rigorism which for a long time
dominated the practice of the administration of the sacraments and
the teaching of moral theology. In a great number of French
seminaries, Bailly's "Theologie", which was impregnated with this
rigorism, remained the standard textbook until Rome in 1852 put it
on the Index "donec corrigatur". Among those who even prior to
that had worked energetically against it, chiefly by offering in
opposition the doctrines of St. Alphonsus, two names are deserving
Of special mention: Gousset, whose "Theologie morale" (1844) had
been preceded by his "Justification de la theologie morale du
bienheureux Alphonse-Marie Liguori" (2nd ed., 1832); Jean-Pierre
Berman, professor at the seminary of Nancy for twenty-five years
(1828-1853), and author of a "Theologia moralis ex S. Ligorio" (7
vols., 1855).
Such is, in outline, the historical account of Jansenism, its
origin, its phases, and its decline. It is evident that, besides
its attachment to the "Augustinus" and its rigorism in morals, it
is distinguished among heresies for crafty proceedings, chicane
and lack of frankness on the part of its adherents, especially
their pretence of remaining Catholics without renouncing their
errors, of staying in the Church despite the Church itself, by
skilfully eluding or braving with impunity the decisions of the
supreme authority. Such conduct is beyond doubt without a parallel
in the annals of Christianity previous to the outbreak of
Jansenism in fact, it would be incredible if we did not in our own
day find in certain groups of Modernists examples of this
astonishing and absurd duplicity. The deplorable consequences,
both theoretical and practical, of the Jansenist system, and of
the polemics to which it gave rise, may readily be gathered from
what has been said, and from the history of the last few
centuries.
J. FORGET
Transcribed by Tomas Hancil
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc.
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------
