|
The influence exercised by Baius, and the ideas that he implanted in
the minds of his students had a very disturbing effect on the
University of Louvain. Amongst those who fell under the sway of
Baianism at this period the best known if not the ablest was Cornelius
Jansen (1585-1638). He studied at Utrecht, Paris, and
Louvain. While in this latter place he formed a resolve to join the
Society of Jesus, but for some reason or another he was refused
admission, a slight which accounts in some measure for the continued
antipathy he displayed during his life towards the Jesuits. At
Louvain, too, he was associated very closely with a brilliant young
French student, John du Verger de Hauranne (1581-1643),
better known as the Abbot of St. Cyran, whom he accompanied to
Paris and afterwards to Bayonne, where both lived for almost twelve
years. During these years of intimate friendship they had many
opportunities of discussing the condition and prospects of the Catholic
Church, the prevalence of what they considered Pelagian views amongst
theologians, the neglect of the study of the Fathers, above all of
St. Augustine, the laxity of confessors in imparting absolution and
allowing their penitents to receive Holy Communion, and the absolute
necessity of returning to the strict discipline of the early Church.
In 1617 the two friends separated, Jansen returning to Louvain,
where he was appointed to a chair of scriptural exegesis, and du
Verger to Paris, where he took up his residence though he held at the
same time the commendatory abbacy of St. Cyran. As professor of
Scripture Jansen showed himself both industrious and orthodox, so
that in 1636 on the nomination of Philip IV of Spain he was
appointed Bishop of Ypres. From that time till 1639, when he
passed away, he administered the affairs of his diocese with
commendable prudence and zeal.
During the greater portion of his life he had devoted all his spare
moments to the study of the works of St. Augustine, especially those
directed against the Pelagians, and he had prepared a treatise on
Grace, in which treatise he claimed to have reproduced exactly the
teaching of St. Augustine. This work was finished but not published
when he took seriously ill, and the manuscript was handed over by him
to some friends for publication. Before his death, however, he
declared in presence of witnesses that "if 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."[165] Notwithstanding various efforts
that were made to prevent publication Jansen's book "Augustinus"
was given to the world in 1640.
Like Baius Jansen refused to recognise that in the condition of
innocence, in which man was constituted before the Fall, he was
endowed with numerous gifts and graces, that were pure gifts of God in
no way due to human nature. Hence he maintained that by the sin of our
First Parents human nature was essentially corrupted, and man fell
helplessly under the control of concupiscence, so that, do what he
would, he must of necessity sin. There was therefore in man an
irresistible inclination impelling him towards evil, to counteract
which Grace was given as a force impelling him towards good, with the
result that he was drawn necessarily towards good or evil according to
the relative strength of these two conflicting delectations. It
followed from this that merely sufficient grace was never given. If
the Grace was stronger than the tendency towards evil it was
efficacious; if it was weaker it was not sufficient. Yet, whether he
acted under the impulse of Grace or of concupiscence, man acted
freely, because, according to Jansen, absence of all external
pressure was all that was required to make an act free and worthy of
praise or blame.
The book "Augustinus" created a profound sensation among
theologians. It was hailed as a marvel of learning and ability by
those who were still attached secretly to the school of Baius as well
as by the enemies of the Jesuits. A new edition appeared in Paris
only to be condemned by the Holy Office (1641) and by Urban
VIII in the Bull, "In Eminenti" (1642). Various
difficulties were raised against the acceptance of the papal decision in
Louvain and in the Netherlands, and it was only after a long delay
and by threats of extreme measures that the Archbishop of Mechlin and
those who followed him were obliged to submit (1653).
The real struggle regarding "Augustinus" was to be waged, however,
in Paris and France. There, the Abbot of St. Cyran had been
busily at work preparing the way for Jansen's doctrine, by attacking
the modern laxity of the Church, and advocating the necessity of a
complete return to the rigorous discipline of the early centuries. He
had made the acquaintance of the family of the celebrated lawyer,
Antoine Arnauld, six of whose family had entered the convent of Port
Royal, of which one of them, Angelique,[166] was then
superioress, while his youngest son, Antoine, a pupil of St.
Cyran, was destined to be the leader of the French Jansenists.
St. Cyran insisted on such rigorous conditions for the worthy
reception of the Eucharist, that people feared to receive Holy
Communion lest they should be guilty of sacrilege, and for a similar
reason many priests abstained from the celebration of Mass. He
attacked the Jesuits for their laxity of doctrine and practice in
regard to the Sacrament of Penance. He himself insisted on the
absolute necessity of perfect contrition and complete satisfaction as an
essential condition for absolution. These views were accepted by the
nuns at Port Royal and by many clergy in Paris. On account of
certain writings likely to lead to religious trouble St. Cyran was
arrested by order of Cardinal Richelieu (1638) and died in
1643. His place was taken by his brilliant pupil, Antoine
Arnauld, who had been ordained priest in 1641, and who like his
master was the determined opponent of the Jesuits. In 1643 he
published a book entitled "De la frequente Communion", in which he
put forward such strict theories about the conditions required for the
worthy reception of the Eucharist that many people were frightened into
abstaining even from fulfilling their Easter Communion. Despite the
efforts of St. Vincent de Paul and others the book was read freely
and produced widespread and alarming results.
The condemnation pronounced by Urban VIII (1642) against
"Augustinus", though accepted by the king, the Archbishop of
Paris, and the Sorbonne, found many staunch opponents. It was
contended that the condemnation was the work of the Jesuits rather than
of the Pope, that it was based on the groundless supposition that the
system of Jansen was identical with that of Baius, and that as no
individual proposition in "Augustinus" had been condemned people were
perfectly free to discuss the views it contained. To put an end to all
possibility of misunderstanding Cornet, syndic of Paris University,
selected from "Augustinus" five propositions, which he believed
contained the whole essence of Jansen's system, and submitted them to
the Sorbonne for examination (1649). Owing to the intervention
of the Parliament of Paris in favour of the Jansenists the
propositions were referred to the Assembly of the Clergy
(1650), but the vast body of the bishops considered that it was a
question on which a decision should be sought from Rome. Accordingly
eighty-five of the bishops addressed a petition to Innocent X
(1651) requesting him to pronounce a definitive sentence on the
orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of the five propositions, while a minority of
their body objected to such an appeal as an infringement of the
liberties of the Gallican Church. A commission, some of the members
of which were recognised supporters of the Jansenists, was appointed
by the Pope to examine the question, and after prolonged discussions
extending over two years Innocent X issued the Bull, "Cum
occasione" (1653), by which the five propositions were
condemned. The Bull was received so favourably by the king, the
bishops, and the Sorbonne that it was hoped the end of the controversy
was in sight.
The Jansenists, however, soon discovered a new method of evading the
condemnation and of rendering the papal letters null and void. They
admitted that the five propositions were justly censured, but they
denied that these propositions were to be found in "Augustinus",
or, if they were in "Augustinus", they contended they were there in
a sense quite different from that which had been condemned by the
Pope. To justify this position they introduced the celebrated
distinction between law and fact; that is to say, while admitting the
authority of the Church to issue definite and binding decisions on
doctrinal matters, they denied that she was infallible in regard to
questions of fact, as for example, whether a certain proposition was
contained in a certain book or what might be the meaning which the
author intended to convey. On matters of fact such as these the
Church might err, and the most that could be demanded of the faithful
in case of such decisions was respectful silence. At the same time by
means of sermons, pamphlets, and letters, by advice given to
priests, and by the influence of several religious houses, notably
Port Royal, the sect was gaining ground rapidly in Paris, and
feeling began to run high against the Jesuits. The antipathy to the
Jesuits was increased and became much more general after the appearance
of the "Lettres Provinciales" (1656-57) written by Pascal
(1623-62). The writer was an exceedingly able
controversialist, and in many respects a deeply religious man. From
the point of view of literature the "Provincial Letters" were in a
sense a masterpiece, but they were grossly unfair to those whom they
attacked.[167]
The Sorbonne offered a strong opposition to the Jansenists, as did
also the bishops (1656). In the same year Alexander VII
issued the Bull, "Ad Sanctam Petri Sedem", by which he
condemned the distinction drawn between law and fact, and declared that
the five propositions were to be found in "Augustinus" and were
condemned in the sense in which they were understood by the
Jansenists. The Assembly of the Clergy having accepted this Bull
drew up a formulary of faith based on the teaching it contained. The
greater part of the Jansenists either refused entirely to subscribe to
this formulary, or else subscribed only with certain reservations and
restrictions. The nuns at Port Royal were most obstinate in their
refusal. As they persisted in their attitude notwithstanding the
prayers and entreaties of the Archbishop of Paris he was obliged
reluctantly to exclude them from the sacraments. One of the principal
objections urged against the acceptance of the formulary being that the
Assembly of the Clergy had no authority to prescribe any such
profession of faith, Alexander VII at the request of many of the
bishops issued a new constitution, "Regiminus Apostolici"
(1664), in which he insisted that all priests secular and regular
and all members of religious communities should subscribe to the
anti-Jansenist formulary that he forwarded.
Most of the Jansenists refused to yield obedience even to the commands
of the Pope. They were strengthened in their refusal by the fact that
four of the French bishops set them a bad example by approving publicly
in their pastorals the Jansenist distinction between law and fact.
The Council of State promptly suppressed these pastorals
(1665), and at the request of Louis XIV Alexander VII
appointed a commission for the trial of the disobedient bishops. In
the meantime, before the commission could proceed with the trial,
Alexander VII died, and was succeeded by Clement IX
(1667). Several of the French bishops addressed a joint letter
to the new Pope, in which by a rather unfair use of extracts from the
works of theologians they sought to excuse the attitude of their brother
bishops, and at the same time they hinted to the king that the
controversy was taking a course likely to be fraught with great danger
to the liberties of the Gallican Church. Louis XIV, who had
been hitherto most determined in his efforts against the Jansenists,
began to grow lukewarm, and the whole situation in France was fast
becoming decidedly critical. Some of the French bishops offered their
services as mediators. Through their intervention it was agreed that
without expressly retracting their pastorals the bishops should consent
to sign the formulary drawn up by the Pope, and induce the clergy to
do likewise. The bishops signed the formulary, and held synods in
which they secured the signatures of their clergy, but at the same time
in their conversations and in their addresses they made it perfectly
clear that they had done so only with the Jansenist restrictions and
reservations. The announcement of their submission pure and simple was
forwarded to the Pope without any reference to any conditions or
qualifications, and the Pope informed the king that he was about to
issue letters of reconciliation to the four bishops. Before the
letters were forwarded, however, rumours began to reach Rome that all
was not well, and a new investigation was ordered. Finally, in view
of the very critical state of affairs it was decided that the Pope
might proceed safely on the documents received from the nuncio and the
mediators without reference to the information acquired from other
sources. In January 1669 the letters of reconciliation were
issued. The Jansenists hailed the "Clementine Peace" as a great
triumph for their party, and boasted publicly that Clement IX had
receded from the position taken up by his predecessor, by accepting the
Jansenist distinction between law and fact. That their boasting was
without foundation is sufficiently clear from a mere cursory examination
of the papal letters. The Pope makes it perfectly evident that the
letters were issued on the assumption that the bishops had subscribed
without any reservation or restriction. He states expressly that he
was firmly resolved to uphold the constitutions of his predecessors,
and that he would never admit any restriction or reservation.
|
|