THE TRUE IDEA OF Jansenisme, BOTH HISTORICK AND DOGMATIC.  
By T. G.  
LONDON, Printed, for E. Calvert, at the West End of St. Paul's, and G. Widows at the Maidenhead in Aldersgate-Street. 1669.   

THE PREFACE.  
Christian Reader,  
THERE is not any thing, which those of the Roman Church do more commonly and constantly boast of, (as there are many things, which they boast of to little purpose, and with less truth;) than the Unity and Agreement in Doctrines, which they have among themselves; and the most superlatively excellent way, that they enjoy, for the preservation and continuance thereof. This Story, wit● a tragical exaggeration of differences amongst Protestants, serves constantly to fill up many Pages in their Writings: and is the principal subject of their Popular Declamations, where they have opportunity to vent them. And they have told this Tale so often, that many of them, especially those of the common sort, seem to believe it. Verùm ad Populum phaleras. Those who are wise amongst them, cannot but know the vanity and falsehood of this pretence. It hath been already demonstrated, and may be again if need require, that there is not one point in which they differ from Protestants, wherein they are agreed among themselves. However it cannot be denied, but that they industriously improve all imaginable artifices to conceal, at least to give a colourable pretence unto their intestine wranglings and debates: being herein, as to their design, wiser than the children of Light; though the means, whereby they pursue it, are remote enough both from wisdom and honesty. Where different Opinions, and contradictory Assertions have already been vented, and have firmed their station in the Writings of the Doctors of their Church; (as multitudes have done, and that in and about Articles of great importance;) they are ready with their Plea, that these differences, as managed by their Catholic Masters, are not of Faith, or do not impugn it, which way soever they are determined. As though the Faith of their Church were comprehensive of gross contradictions, in and about the principal Articles of Religion: and those, some of them, such, as that for Opinions of less importance they are ready to brand others for Heretics, and to endeavour their extirpation from the face of the earth. This is the whole of what can be pretended for what is past; and therefore remediless. How destitute of truth and modesty their plea herein is, hath been declared by many. If any single Person, or lesser number of Men among them, begin at any time to apprehend and divulge sentiments different from what is generally received, (unless it be to make some advance in the furtherance and promotion of their own Secular Interest and advantages; as all the late inventions and bold attempts of the Jesuits, both in their Mystical and Moral Divinity, openly and plainly do;) they have ways in readiness to cast them and their Opinions out of all notice and consideration; where they must lie until the Earth give up its dead, and disclose the blood that is secretly poured into its womb. They seem indeed, at present, signally resolved to obviate all progression in Opinions, true or false, unless they have a direct tendency to the establishment, or adoring of their Papal Omnipotency, and the increase of their own Interest in the Consciences, and over the outward concerns of men. And herein are they so blindly zealous, as to endeavour, at this day, to fix and gild the Weathercock of Papal Personal Infallibility, yea, in matters of Fact, on the top of that Tower, the visible rottenness of whose Foundations threatens them with a downfall every moment. Some of their present differences, as was observed, they know, are fixed beyond all possibility of reconciliation, or hopes of removal. Such are those contradictory Opinions, which are the inseparable adjuncts of some of their Religious Orders: which as they more and more discover themselves to be irreconcilable, so the relinquishment of any of them by their respective Assertors, is so remote from all expectation, that an Age scarce produceth an Instance of any one individual Person, renouncing the Opinions of his own, and entertaining those of another Order; and if any such should be found, he would be looked upon as a Fugitive, if not an Apostate. The sense, I confess, of these differences seems to be taken from them by their commonness and certainty. It passes for granted amongst them, that in some things, wherein both sides esteem Religion deeply concerned, the Jesuits must be of one Opinion, and the Dominicans must be of another: so must it be, in other matters, between the Dominicans and Franciscans; the Hildebrandine Jesuits and the Sorbonists also. They must believe contradictory assertions and propositions in Religion; and writ and preach contradictions, and confute the Opinions of one another: and on that account endlessly pursue mutual feuds and quarrels among themselves; and yet they are all at perfect agreement. But the relief herein is, that these Orders being confirmed and established, all of them, by the Pope, let them differ and contend whilst they please, so they fall not into excesses evidently beyond the tedder of former strifes, their contentions are to pass for agreements, and a part of that unity of Faith, which they boast in. But yet notwithstanding all palliating pretences, and the use of their utmost diligence, their differences sometimes arise to such an height, being animated with strong and vigorous spirits; as, if forcibly shut up too long, may threaten thei● whole Church State with an Earthquake; that they are necessitated t● forego their ordinary Artifices an● Excuses, and to bring their batta● ad Triarios, by venturing to seek fo● relief from the Papal See. This usually is done by one of the Parties litigant; yet not until they find, o● the one hand, their own weakness or that of their cause, not to b● maintained against the impression● of their Adversaries: and, on th● other, are sufficiently prepared to manifest, that upon the consideration of the Persons engaged; of th● state of all things in the places where the Controversies are agitated; and the Opinions themselves, whose confirmation they endeavour; that the determination of the points in difference, according to their desire, is not only suitable unto, and compliant with the present Interest of the See and Court of Rome; but lies also in a handsome tendency to the enlargement of its Authority and Reputation; little or no danger being to be feared from the dis-satisfactions of the Adverse Party. These are the things, which, upon any such address, the Court of Rome doth heedfully and scrupulously inquire into. Nor will it engage towards a decision of any controverted points, until it hath received full and ample satisfaction, that the determination of them hath an evident consistency with its honour, interest and advantage. Until it can come to a Resolution herein, a thousand tergiversations, delays, pretences of avocation, and diversions by more important occasions, difficulties about the things themselves, shall be pretended and pleaded. In the mean time, by their Agents, Nuntioes, Emissaries and Confidents of all sorts abroad, they of the Court endeavour to sound the minds of the great and the many, where the Controversies are managed; and to take a just measure of the Interests of the several Parties, engaged in the contest depending before his Holiness. If upon search, inquiry and mature deliberation, it appears, that there is any thing looking towards a balance between the Parties litigant; the managers of the Politics of the Roman See proceed as warily, as if they feared a Scorpion under every stone in their way; or should tread on deceitful ashes, that might burn, if not consume them. For the most part, in such cases, his Holiness would be glad, on any terms, to be freed from making a decision: and is oftentimes more than half angry with those, whom he most favours, that they should bring him into any straits, by their importunity to have an interposition of his Authority on their behalf. But yet it may be things come at last to that pass, that a continued suspense, or absolute refusal to determine any thing, is judged to be more noxious and dangerous; than a determination against the Interest of that Party, which the Court is fully satisfied to be ruinable, though at present some way considerable. In this case a decision shall be made; not direct, express or absolute, in terms and propositions affirming or denying, with respect unto the controverted Opinions: but in words and terms lose, ambiguous and general; only with a favourable aspect towards them of that Party, to whom the Golden Ball of Conquest is finally intended. The use of this forlorn is only to attempt the water's o● strife, and to try whether they ar● fordable or no. If the Party supposed the most numerous, and of th● most prevailing Secular Interest before, being now reinforced and en●couraged by the noise of the Bull● which they bring home in triumphs can drive their Adversaries from any of their former Posts, and ge● ground against them: that ground shall be firmed to them speedily by new Briefs, Orders or Decrees from the Court; and so accordingly their whole progress shall be established, until they arrive at a complete Conquest and Victory. But if, beyond expectation, the adverse party do make a stand; and either by their number, ability, reputation, popular favour, or Sovereign influence, seem probable to keep their ground: the Court will not in haste engage into ●ny further process; but rather ●eave the first Bull to be reverently stalled for a further occasion. In the mean time it is not imaginable, with what crafts, subtleties, artifices, false promises, and pretences; by what endless Legal intricacies, Forms, Processes, Orders, Rescripts, those, who have conduct of the Roman Court, do manage themselves, and those, with whom they have to do on such occasions: all which are laid open, and discovered unto the world, by men of their own Party and Profession. And unto such a full evidence and manifestation are these things arrived, that I much question, whether any man, of tolerable Learning and observation amongst them, can be so unhappily and prodigiously stupid, as to look upon the Papal determination of Controversies in Religion, any otherwise, than as a thing utterly foreign to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; or a mere P●●litical Engine, introduced by in 〈◊〉 rest, managed by fraud, for the preservation of such an agreement amongst them, as may serve the a●●vantage of those that are entrusted with it. Were it not, but that 〈◊〉 power and efficacy of prejudice, 〈◊〉 love of this present world, wi●● other corrupt lusts and affection●● do continually manifest themselves in the ways of the Children of men 〈◊〉 a man could not but be astonished, tha● all rational men should not nause●● eaten this abominable Pageantry 〈◊〉 deciding Controversies in Religion by the Roman Tripos. An address made by crafty interested men, armied with Commendatory Letters from great Men and Princes, provided with money to gratify or bribe Officers of all sorts; unto an Old Pope, who sometimes is so ingenious as● to confess, that he understands little in Divinity, and knows nothing of the matter proposed to his decision: He, to take care of the interests of the Holy See, which comprehends whatever is desirable to the carnal minds of men, in power, wealth and pleasure, commends the matter to the craftiest of his Cardinals and his Courtiers, so to manage it, as no detriment may arise thereunto: Whatever the experience of Rule, Diligence, Dissimulation, false Promises, spirited by distance and veneration of greatness, pomp and power, can enable them to compass, these men will not fail to effect, so as to secure the concerns of the Court. When this is done, and it appears upon advice, which way they may steer safely and advantageously for themselves, as to the various Interests of the persons litigant; they advise the Pope what he is to determine in a matter, that neither he, nor they have any tolerable understanding in, or comprehension of. It may be, for the farther solemnity of the business, thre● or four Friars of a side shall be admitted to dispute the matter in con●troversie, before, the Pope himself or some of the Cardinals: wherein yet it shall be so provided, th●● those, on whose side the Conclave is resolved to determine, shall hav● one way or other, advantage enough to give countenance to the senten●● before fixed on. When all is concluded and ready, a devout Bull 〈◊〉 drawn up in a due form of La● wherein all these preceding juggling and deceits, with others innume●rable, are Fathered upon the Inspi●ration and assistance of the Hol● Ghost, given unto the Pope, who ha● the least hand, it may be, in th● matter. I dare not, I will not sa● with that Papal Legate, Quonia● Populus vult decipi, decipiatur. But this I am apt to think; that strong delusion doth assuredly possess the minds of those, who can believe, that such lies have any footstep or foundation in the Religion of Jesus Christ. And herein consists that great means of agreement amongst themselves, whereof they boast: which how long it will yield them relief in that kind, God only knows: its foundation being in the sin and blindness of the world, its continuance may be long, for aught I know. Now, Reader, that thou mayst not suspect thyself imposed on, or any thing in the preceding Discourse to be asserted either partially, or without due evidence of Truth: behold here an Instance in the ensuing Treatise, wherein not only everything, that I have declared, is exemplified to the full; but also sundry other ffects of the old mysterious Iniquity the Roman See are plainly discovered. This is the Instance of Jansenisme; the Rice, Progress, State and condition whereof the ensuing Treatise giveth an Historical account. There are very few, I suppose, amongst us, who so little concern themselves in Religion, especially when it once comes to bear a share in the public and political transactions of the Nations of the world, who have not taken notice of the discourses and reports concerning Jansenisme from the Neighbour Kingdom of France. To some, it may be, it is a murmur, which they know not well what to make of, nor what is intended by it. Others, in general, conceive it to be an expression of some differences in Religion: but of what nature, importance or tendency; how or by whom agitated or maintained, they know not. But whereas it comes under a double consideration, there are two sorts of Persons, who judge themselves concerned to obtain an acquaintance with it. For it is not only considerable as a Controversy in Religion; on which account contemplative persons, or men of Learning, professing the Truth of the Gospel, esteem themselves obliged to inquire into it to the utmost: but also as it hath an influence into the Civil affairs of that Kingdom, and may have so into those of the whole Papal World; in which respect men that are, or should be Politically wise and Counsellors do suppose, that the knowledge of the true state of it is not to be neglected by them. But certain it is, that hitherto neither of these sorts could, in any competent measure, attain their ends, without such an expense of time, pains and diligence, as very few have either will, leisure or ability to be at. For as the Theological part of this Controversy is, by th● industry of engaged persons, diffuse● through Writings and Books (man of them bulky and voluminous almost innumerable; the greate● number of them written in the French Tongue, whereunto the generality 〈◊〉 Scholars amongst us are strangers' that very few have been able 〈◊〉 make that accurate enquiry in●● them, as is necessary to give a ju● comprehension of the whole matte● under debate: so the Political trans●actions, wherein it hath been con●cerned, having been in the Court of Princes foreign and remote from us, in Assemblies of Prelates, in A●cademical Disputations and Processes it is no common or ordinary wor● for any to obtain an acquaintance with them. Now I am greatly mi●staken, if both Divines and Politicians will not find themselves muc● relieved, assisted and directed i● their inquest, by the ensuing Historical narration; as well as others, who had hitherto but a slender and uncertain report of this matter, will find themselves brought out into the clear light of such an apprehension of it, as to have in readiness a just measure of those future reports or Discourses concerning it, that they may meet withal. Now whereas any long account of the matter, treated of in this place, would but prevent the Reader in what he will meet withal in the Discourse itself; I shall only add some such remarks upon the whole, as may manifest, what hath been before discoursed concerning the unity of Doctrine in the Papal Church, and their Artifices to preserve a pretence thereof, to be exactly exemplified in this one Instance of Jansenisme. The System of Doctrines concerning the Grace of God, and the wills of men, which now goes under the name of Jansenisme, as it is in general agreeabl● unto the Scripture; so it had firmed itself in the common profession o● Christians, by the Writings of some excellent persons, especially Augustin, and those who followed him, unto such a general acceptation▪ as that the belief and profession of it could never be utterly rooted out from the minds of men in the Roman Church itself. For although it was variously depraved, vitiated, obscured and opposed in and by the Writings of many of the Schoolmen; yet always, in every Age, some or other Persons of signal Learning and ability stood up, and pleaded for its vindication and confirmation, as to the substance of it. Amongst whom our Renowned Bradwardine, who with singular diligence and scholastic ability opposed the spreading of Pelagianism in and over the Roman Church, (which by various degrees had been, for a long season, insinuating itself thereinto, and insensibly invading the remaining vitals of its Doctrine;) deserves on all occasions a peculiar mention. Moreover, one whole Order of their Friars, out of zeal for the Doctrine of Thomas, (who was less averse from the Sentiments of the Ancients in this matter, than the most of that litigious crew of Disputers, whom they call Schoolmen;) did retain some of the most material Principles of this Doctrine, however not a little vitiated with various intermixtures of their own. Not a full Age since, as will appear in the ensuing account, after the lesser attempts of some more private persons, Jansenius, a Bishop in Flanders, undertakes the explication and the vindication of the whole Doctrine of the Effectual Grace of God, with the annexed Article● principally out of the works of A●●stin. This honest endeavour of h● being well resented, accepted an● approved by very many Learn● Persons in Flanders, and Fran● especially; and looked on by other● as an inroad made into the Kingdo● of Darkness and Error, which mig● open a way to further light an knowledge among the Papists themselves; was immediately violento and virulently impugned by the Jesuits, and those of their Party an● Faction. But whereas, in thei● wont manner, they contented n● themselves to oppose the Opinions 〈◊〉 Jansenius and his Followers, (wh● knowing the small Reputation 〈◊〉 Truth and the Scripture now in 〈◊〉 Papacy, durst not so much as avo● them; but chose to shelter themselves under the name of Augustin, and 〈◊〉 call themselves his Disciples;) in● Theological or Scholastical way; but endeavoured by artifices to reproach their persons, and to render them odious, and greatly to be suspected by the Church and State: they, on the other side, were necessitated, in their own defence, to make a discovery of the Arts, Treacheries, immoralities, Errors, Frauds, Lying, Calumniations, practised and defended by the Fathers of that Society, to the great satisfaction, and indeed benefit of the Christian World. The Jesuits hereby enraged, endeavour yet farther by false insinuations, complaints, Libels and suspicious Tales, managed principally by the Confessors of Kings, Queens, and great Princes, most of their Society, in a manner all of their Party and Faction, to oppress their Adversaries, and to enrage the Powers of the Kingdom against them. This work going slowly on, as being obstructed by some disputations with Conference in and among Assemblies of th● Clergy, the matter was devolved 〈◊〉 the Court of Rome. How the who● cause was there transacted, how de●termined, on what motives, grounds● Reasons and considerations the Pop● and Conclave proceeded, with wha● cunning and caution as to the se●curing of their own secular inte● rest, are exactly reported and pub●lished by Monsieur St. Amour th● Jansenist, in the Journal he hat● written of his own and their proceed in that cause. How th● Jesuits have since pursued their success, by what ways and stratagems they have managed their tottering cause and Interest; as also of other things before mentioned, the Reader will have a faithful account in the following Narration, composed by the Judicious Author, (enabled thereunto by all sorts of Advantages) and written for his benefit. ●his I was desired, and this I thought ●eet to acquaint thee withal: be●●g one, who in all things desires 〈◊〉 direction unto and establishment 〈◊〉 that Truth, which is according un●● Godliness.  
John Owen.   

A Premonition.  
THis little Treatise owes 〈◊〉 Production to a sober ●●riosity the Author had, to satis● himself and some inquisiti● friends, touching the ●rue Id● Rise, and Progress of Jansenism 〈◊〉 which has, for well nigh the●● thirty years, made so great noise in Europe; and in all like● hood, will yet prove more diffusive. And that which more effectually engaged the Author in 〈◊〉 Inquisition, was some advantage he had to inform himself the● in, from his personal Conversat● among the different Parties, co●●cerned in this Controversy.  
The Author himself being a person disinteressed, he conceives he may, with a greater liberty, and exactitude of Spirit, make some Reflections on, and Relation of this Affair. Neither does he act the part of a Disputant, but Historian; with endeavours nakedly and faithfully to relate matters of fact, and Doctrine, according to the best Memoires he could procure, both from one & t'other Party: wherein if he has failed of his design, it must be imputed to the defects of his Intelligence, and not to any voluntary injustice of Spirit.  
Such was the Original of this little Piece; which was, in its first lines, form into a Letter, not exceeding the bounds of one Sheet, for the private satisfaction, or rather divertisement, of some friends; but since enlarged upon the persuasion of intelligent persons, that the subject may be o● use, to awaken men's expectations, etc. The Author has con●sidered, that this small tract i● like to meet with as many Judges as Readers; neither is he ignorant what an hazard he runs, by committing it to public view ● but that, which he mostly affects▪ is such an exact and just Temperament of spirit, as not to be moved or influenced by the various Judgements, much less humours of men, farther than they tend to correct what is defectuous, and render him more serviceable to the Public: and so far he hopes, that the most severe Censures will not be less welcome, than advantageous.   

The true Idea of Jansenisme, both Historick 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. Jansenius' character, and formation of Jansenisme. 4. San Cyran's assisting Jansenius, etc. 5. Jansenius' proper sentiments. 6. His condemnation. 7. The more full relation thereof, etc. 8. That which made Jansenius 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 Pope's Confession in behalf of the Jansenists. A Letter from a Doctor of the Sorbon, prognosticating the little good success 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 formulary 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. Endeavours 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 Treaty. 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.  
THE design of this Discourse being to give an Idea of Jansenisme, 
§. 1. The original 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 Endeavours did, for some Ages, set bounds to this flood of Pelagianisme. But when Antichrist arrived to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 endeavours, and that successfully, for the suppressing of the Pelagian Dogmes) 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, 
S. Amour Journal fol. 223.  who is said (by the Jansenists) to have outgone the Semipelagians, 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 Pope's 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 endeavours, for the timely preventing thereof, and confirming the Doctrine of Free Grace, asserted by Austin, etc.  
The first who engaged in this nobl● design, 
§. 2. M. Baius the first ●ounder of Jansenisme.  for the vindication of Efficacious 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 Efficacy of Divin● Grace, with other Articles appendent thereto. In so much that at last the● were 78. Propositions collected out of 〈◊〉 works, which, tending to the Advance 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 recantation 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, etc. Cornelius Janseni● as 'tis said, received the first impression of his Doctrine touching efficacious Grace from Jac. Jansonius an Adherent of this Baius, who is thence made to be the first Founder of Jansenisme. Concerning Baius' 78. Propositions, for the Vindication of Efficacious Grace, and the corruption of Human Nature, and their symbolisation with Jansenius his Doctrine, See Lud. Bail Articul. de Grat. Part. 1 Art. 1. etc.  
The immediate Parent of Jansenisme was Cornelius Jansenius (Bishop of Ipre in the Low Countries) borne at Leerdam, 
§. 3. Cornelius Jansenius, his Original, and formation of Jansenisme.  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' opinions. Cornelius Jansenius having been throughly principled with Baius' Principles at Louvain, he was made Moderator of the College of Baion; where having contracted a friendship with John Vergerius, than 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.  
Jansenius returning again to Louvain, was made Perfect 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 favour 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 Augustine's works, wherein he was incomparably versed: 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 styles 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 Jansenius is his symbolising 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, 
* Les Provinciales letters, let. 16. pag. 32. Edit. Colo● 1657.  it is a most certain truth, that for the hatching of Jansenisme the Port Royal (a Covent in Paris) form a Cabal in private for thirty years' space; whereof John Vergerius Abbot of San Cyran, and Corn. Jansenius Bishop of Ipre, were the Heads. And it is apparent that Jansenius had a very great assistance, 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 inform, 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 levened with Jansenisme.  
In the Preface to Jansenius' works, we find this account of him. Cornelius Jansenius 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 College 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 Perfect 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 society of a familiar Doctor. He thence was cal●led to be Regius Professor, of the Sacred Scriptures: which he performed wit● great learning and profit, as it appea● by his Commentaries. But his Magnanimity appeared most after his being made Bishop of Ipre, in his Meditation and attemts to Reform 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 ingeny; a most profound judgement, 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 learned, 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, ther● 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 regard founded hereon.— Whence he oft consulted souls spiritual and truly humble, touching their sentiments of Divine adjutory, 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, etc.  
As for John du Verger, Abbot of S. Cy●an, 
§. 4. San Cyran his assisting Jansenius; as also his character.  I find him to have gained a great sputation amongst the more serious catholics. They say, that through the abundance 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 consecrated the whole of his Spirit, labours, and life, for the defence of truth, ●e lived in great solitude, even in Pari● 〈◊〉 self, for more than twenty years; affecting to have his Spirit free from all trouble, inquietude, vanity, and complea●ance; thereby to obtain the more leisure for the Study of Wisdom. Thus did his Sanctity darken the lustre of his Science; and his Humility draw a veil upon all his Intellectual and Moral accomplishments; and, as 'tis said, he laboured 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 Melancholic 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 fecundity of Spirit, joined with● natural eloquence, and nobleness of speec● which rendered him very useful; he b●●ing capable, without long meditation to express the highest Truths, and re●●der them familiar and easy. He was v●●ry skilful in comforting, and establishing troubled Consciences; directing them 〈◊〉 the blood of Christ, and his Grac● which Jansenius 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 Evangelick and Apostolic 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 Generosity, but with a Christian Constance, which he himself also practised, 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 neighbours as much as ourselves; which, according to his Master Austin, contains the Morals, Logic, Physics, and Politics of true Christian Wisdom. He is very much in showing the usefulness of afflictions; asserting, that it is the greatest temptation to have no temtations. He also acquaints us with the Art and Skill 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 laboured; yet with a very great vigour and vivacity 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 calmness and tranquillity of Spirit, without fear or trouble.  
Touching the proper sentiments of Jansenius, 
§. 5. Jansenius' proper sentiments.  and S. Cyran, and their mutual combination; we have a pretty true, though invective, account given us by the Jesuit Gautriche, Histoire saint (pag. 325. edit. 1661.) In our Age, (says he) which is the seventeenth, Jansenius Bishop of Ipres, incited by Du Verger Abbot of S. Cyran, as the Letters which they have reciprocally written testify, has brought to light the errors of Godescalcus, founded upon some passages of S. Austin, taken in the sense, and after the fashion of Calvin. For after having supposed a terrible sort of Predestination in God, by the which he chooseth some of those whom he sees envelopped in Original Sin, to save them; entirely abandoning the others unto eternal damnation, he teacheth consequently that Jesus Christ has not died for these latter, nor merited any Grace sufficient for to save them; and that therefore it is impossible, in this case, for them to observe the Christian Law, to the observance whereof they are notwithstanding obliged: and farther, that they cannot, says he, resist the movements of concupiscence; which hurries them into sin; and that they sin necessarily; nevertheless he teacheth, against all sort of common sense, and against the holy Scripture, that they cease not herein to have the Liberty required to merit or demerit; and that the Predestinated cease not to be likewise free in the actions of Grace, albeit they cannot resist, when they are prevented therein, etc. Thus Gautruche. Wherein we have much truth, though mixed with much sinister interpretati●on. We have the whole of Jansenius● Doctrine, for which he was condemned's reduced by his Adversaries to these fiv● Propositions, composed by M. Corne● as Denis Raimond affirms.  
1. Some Precepts of God are impossib●● for persons just, willing, and endeavouring 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 liberty from coaction sufficeth.  
4. The Semipelagians 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, 
§. 6. The condemnation of Jansenius.  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 Jansenius' Errors, were condemned, as rash, impious, and blasphemous. This Decree was received by the Prelates of France, with the King's approbation, July 15th of the same year. The Jansenists finding themselves oppressed by calumnies and ●inister deal, durst not openly oppose the Pope's Bull, only they contend that the five Propositions were not condemned in that sense in which Jansenius 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 Jansenius' Augustinus, and condemned in his sense. Which Judgement 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, 
§. 7. The more full relation of the Jansenists condemnation, etc.  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 Faculty, from that time unto the year 1650. especially an. 1649.  
We find a good account of the Reasons and Motives, 
Why the Jesuits were so much offended at Jansenius, etc. St. Amour fol. 93.  which induced the Jesuits to condemn Jansenius' Augustinus, in the Confession of M. Albizzi (the Jesuits Patron) unto St. Amour, in these words: He told me (saith S. Amour) that the Jesuits held themselves greatly offended by Jansenius S. Augustinus, especially by the third Book, which I should find was nothing but a continued detraction against Vasquez, Suarez, Gregorius a Valentia, Bellarmine, etc. He added, that that Bishop was full of venom against those Fathers, and the whole society; that he broke out into unimaginable exorbitances against them; that this greatly provoked them against his Book, and obliged them to solicit urban VIII. for the prohibition which he made of it; that had not he first assaulted them, perhaps they would not have thought fit so to do; but after he set upon and outraged them as he did, it is no wonder that they have endeavoured to be revenged on him. He continued to exaggerate to me the exorbitances of that Author, who not only fell foul upon the Society, but even broke forth against Popes; as among other places of his Book, that shows it, where he saith: Haereo fateor, etc.  
In the year 1650. the Jesuits or M●linists recommended their cause to the Pope, by a Letter thus:— Its ten years since that France has been disturbed by Jansenius' Posthumous Book and Doctrine. Such movings ought to be allayed by the Authority of the Council of Trent; also by the Bull of Vrban 8th, & the Decrees of Pius 5th, and Gregory 13th, against Baius▪ And thou hast vindicated the truth and vigour of this Bull, by a new Diplome. But, because no one Proposi●tion apart has been censured, there 〈◊〉 yet left place for the Cavils of some which we hope may be wholly inte●●cluded, if your Holiness shall clear● and peremtorily define, what we 〈◊〉 to believe herein, etc. This Letter th● Molinists endeavoured to get subscribe● in the Assembly of the Clergy; b●● perceiving this design unfeasible; th● propose it only to some particular Bishops inclined to their faction 
* This Letter was subscribed at first by 72. Bishops only, but afterwards the number amounted unto 83. . 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 Pope's Nuncio, wherein they testified their dislike of the said Letter: Showing, That the quality of Bishops empowered them to judge of Controversies arising within their own Dioceses that this power was signally infringe● by this Letter. They told him further of the danger there was in judging this matter, without having first examined the parties; and above all, what necessity there was, that before any thing be done, the propositions in Question should be discussed and scanned, according to the places from whence they were produced, etc. But these Prelates being not perfectly satisfied with this oral Declaration to the Pope's Nuncio, they repete the same to the Pope himself, by a letter from Paris June 15. 1651. thus: Most Holy Father, 
S. Amour jour. fol. 67.  we have understood that some of our Brethren, Bishops of France, have written to your Holiness touching an affair of very great importance, which last year raised great disturbance, without any benefit, in the Theologick Faculty of Paris: nor could the issue be otherwise; for being contrived purposely in ambiguous terms, they could produce nothing of themselves, but disputes, full of animosities, about the the various senses put upon them. Wherefore our Brethren must give us leave to declare, that we cannot approve of their Design in this matter. For, besides the Questions about Divine Grace, and Predestination are full of difficulties, and not ordinarially handled without violent contests; there are other ver● considerable reasons, which give u● ground to conceive, that this present time, is not fit, for the terminating o● so important a difference; unless you● Holiness will please, in order to passing 〈◊〉 solemn judgement upon it (which seem● not to be their intention) to proceed therein, according to the form practised by our forefathers, to resume the affair from its original, and to examine i● wholly and entirely, to that end summoning and hearing the reasons of either side. For otherwise the condemned party, may with justice complain of having become so by the calumny and Artifices of their Adversaries, etc.  

* S. Amour. fol. 76.  The Substance of this letter (as St. Amour gives it us) was, That the Divines be first heard, for the distinguishing the several senses of the propositions; that so the censure may fall only upon that which is bad, and which all the world acknowledgeth such; but the catholic sense may be safe▪ and exempted from the censures; that so both sides having been heard, each may receive his Holines' judgement with respect, and without stir, and without having cause to complain, of not having been heard; and to make new Remonstrances, which would renew the Quarrel. The same St. Amour adds, that the 5. propositions were contrived in obscure ambiguous and equivocal words, so as to be capable of several very contrary senses, according to the different interpretations that may be put upon them. That some of those senses are evidently heretical; others most certainly Catholic, and containing the chief Truths of faith and Christian Religion. That the Authors of those propositions framed them in this manner, that so, under pretext of those bad senses, they might get a down right absolute condemnation of them, and apply the same afterwards to the Catholic senses and Orthodox truths, which they include. That M. Cornet was the man that first broached them, proposing them to the Faculty, almost two years ago, to get them censured; but a great number of Doctors presently understanding the artifice, and discovering the dangerous consequences thereof, both to the public, by some books publ●● against that attemt, and to the Cour● Parliament, by two petitions wh● they were constrained to present 〈◊〉 stopping its course; it incur●● the indignation of all sincere a● equitable persons, that heard of 〈◊〉 and was repressed by an Arrest of 〈◊〉 Court, which prohibited M. Corn● and all others to pursue it, whereso● the business having failed in the faculty and being not thought fit to be set 〈◊〉 foot in the Assembly of the Clergy for fear of the same success, they reso●●ved to venture it to the Holy See, etc.  
Saint Amour being Agitator 〈◊〉 the Jansenists Affairs at Rome he 〈◊〉 ordered, 
§. 8. S. Amour. fol. 55.  by letter from Paris 3 Mar●● 1651, Incessantly to inculcate to tho● at Rome, that the Question was sole●● about effectual Grace, and sufficient Grace subject to free will; and th● neither Jansentus, nor his followers fur●ther held the said propositions, than 〈◊〉 they were reduced to the point of effe●ctual Grace. And accordingly he di● so; and after several conferences he give● us this observation. I observed (sait● he) about this time, that one of the capital causes why the name and opinions of Jansenius were so odious to the Romans, 
Jansenius' opposing Austin to the Pope's Bulls made him odious to the Romans.  was this; namely that place of his Book, where objecting to himself against S. Augustine's doctrine, the Bulls of Pius the fifth and Gregory the thirteenth, he answers, that truly he is surprised at those Bulls: Haereo fateor, 
* as if he opposed the Authority of S. Austin to these Popes. S. Amour. fol. 119.  etc. This doubt and seeming combat hath given great advantages to the Jesuits against him etc.  
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, etc. 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 any thing therein, but was fain to impose a perpetual silence. 
§. 9 The Jansenists deputies at Rome and their agitations.  Wherefore it behoved to acquiesce in that order, and live in peace, etc.  
Decemb. 5. 1651. there arrived at Rome, the Deputies of the Jansenists, namely M. Brousse; M. the Lalane 〈◊〉 M. Angran, who together with S. amour, 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● Stile) 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, thereby to discover Augustine's true sense and judgement thereof, etc. The Substance of th● Pope's answer, was little different from that he gave Saint Amour alone. He told them, that he would not have them make mention of Jansenius; because that after his book had been examined and compared with the doctrine of S. Austin, they, who had been employed therein by urban the eighth found, that Jansenius held propositions very different from St. Augustine's Sentiments, etc.  
And because his Holiness spoke 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 Holiness 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. That therefore Paul V (who succeeded Leo XI. Whose papacy lasted but a few days) immediately after his promotion to S. Peter's Chair, reassembled those Congregations; that the matters having been examined anew, at the instance of the Jesuits, for defence of their Molina; who, they said, was ill understood, and ill defended to the Congregations under Clement, the matter was at length so terminated, after many Congregations, that 50 propositions of Molina were condemned; that the Bull was prepared and ready to thunder forth, but that which hindered it was the quarrel of Venice; from whence the Jesuits being driven, prayed his Holiness not to publish that Bull, which would quite overwhelm them; promising him (what they have not kept) 〈◊〉 renounce Molina, and no longer tea● those evil Maxims, etc. St. Amour adde● That in the like case Clement 8. i●●ployed the whole year 1597, in asse●●bling the Consultors, whom he cho●● for his Congregation. That the first tim● they were seen together, was the 2d d●● of 1598. That that year, and the fo● following, all passed without the Pop● being present in those Congregation● That the first time their Congregation● were held in his presence, was Marc● 20. 1603. That to know how things went during these 5 years, he cause● what passed among the Consultors' 〈◊〉 be reported to himself from time 〈◊〉 time, by persons sure and faithful. Thu● St. Amour Journal. fol. 146.  
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, that Clement 8. was at first very ill bend against the doctrine o● Grace, by reason of many complaints made to him, by the Jesuits against the Dominicans, but being assured by the General of the Dominicans (whom he greatly esteemed) that it was not an interest of the Schools that was in question, but the cause of Faith that is concerned; and that the opinion, which the Jesuits introduce into the Church, is a depriving God of his Crown; so that 'tis no longer he that gives us Paradise; he is no longer master of his Gifts and Graces, etc. This discourse, and the rest which the General added to it, so affected Clement 8. that he w●s desirous to learn more particularities about this matter, and from that time forward Clement 8. received many little memoirs from this General, which served him to inform himself therein. At length when this General had given Clement 8. the first tinctures of this matter, the Pope liked well his request, namely that he might present unto him, some other Divines of his own order, with whom he might confer as agreably as with him about these matters, etc.  
The Molinists send also M. Hallier, Legault, and Joysell, Doctors of the Faculty, as Deputies to Rome, to sue fo● Censure of the five Propositions, 〈◊〉 things already condemned, and without admitting any Examen or Congregation Which were things mainly insisted up on by the Jansenists.  
July 11. 
§. 10. Other Memorials presented by the Agents of the Jansenists to the Pope.  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, endeavoured 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. Most Holy Father, your Holiness having established the Congregation for examination of the Grand Questions concerning Grace, we thought fit, before all things, to compose two Writings, which we present to your Holiness; one whereof contains what hath passed in the affair under debate, and the other concerneth St. Augustine's Authority— Soon after St. Austin's death, some Priests of France found fault with his writings, and troubled the Peace of the Church, by indiscreet Questions; whereupon Prosper and Hilary had recourse unto Celestin— Who ordained that the Authority and Doctrine of Austin, should remain inviolable. Molina having had the boldness in Spain, to renew these ancient complaints made of the Priests of France, and once again to make head against the same St. Austin, and this new Doctrine being accused to the Holy See, in which Clement 8. presided at that time, this holy Pope would not have the cause examined before him, till he had first ordained, that the Authority of S. Austin should be approved— The like did Pope Paul 5th afterwards. Yet there are found at this day New Censors amongst the Priests of France, who to defend Molina's Doctrine, have had the Presumption to rise anew against St. Austin, by Questions they borrow from the School of those Authors already condemned, and who call in doubt the Principal Articles of Christian Grace. 'Tis for this cause that w● are come to your Holiness in the nam● of some of the most illustrious Bishop● of France— We have complained o● the Propositions which have been invented to prepare Ambushes for the Doctrine of St. Austin. And to the en● they may be examined, and this whol● affair fully and perfectly cleared; w● have sued to your Holiness for the erection of a Congregation, in which both sides might be heard viva vice, and by writing. Your Holiness hath accordingly established it: and to th● the end your Holiness might have the goodness to practise, from the entrance of this contest, the same that Pope Celestin did heretofore, and Clement 8th since, in occasions perfectly like to this, for the defence of S. Augustine's Doctrine and Authority, and to support with a new recommendation; we have conceived, that before all things we ought to summon our Adversaries to acknowledge the Authority and Doctrine of that Saint, not only with unprofitable and ineffectual words, or deceitful Eulogiums and Praises, full of disguisement and fiction, but by solid and express approbations— We know that there is no practice, or endeavour omitted by our Adversaries, to hinder the effect of so just and necessary a Demand; we know that there is nothing in the world, which they f●ar so much, as to be constrained to subscribe, as they ought, to the authority of St. Austin, or to see your Holiness, treading in the steps of Celestin 1. and Clement 8. confirm it anew, and repress the temereity of these Censors— Your Holiness will hear with wonder, that after having openly attaqued S. Austin's Doctrine, with their utmost strength, both by themselves, and by the help of the Jesuits, whose defenders and confederates they are, they now openly proclaim their submission to it. They will have the boldness to profess themselves public Panegyrists, and defenders of that Father, even in the presence of your Holiness. But their doing thus, will be only to palliate the contemt they have of him, with feigned respect, and to free themselves from blame; it will be only to avoid the punishment of their insolence wherewith they outrage him, 〈◊〉 will be only to hid the aversion whi●● they have for his Doctrine, under 〈◊〉 commendation which they give un● his person; it will be only to dimini● the care, which is to be had in these Co●●troversies, in examining which are 〈◊〉 true sentiments of that holy Father 〈◊〉 and to make it believed, that it 〈◊〉 not concerned in the Propositions, sin● themselves who impugn them profess to follow the Doctrine of th● Father, and so reverence his authority to the end that having avoided the co●●demnation of their temereity by su●● feigned Eulogiums of S. Austin, and 〈◊〉 off, without being obliged to subscri● to any thing, they may, with the● Partisans, thence forward reject 〈◊〉 authority with more boldness than ever● and banish his Doctrine from the● Scholes as Calvinistick: especially 〈◊〉 case your Holiness should condemn th● Propositions: because they will no fail afterwards, to make the censu●● fall upon S. Austin, and that not without ground. These are the designs 〈◊〉 our adversaries— which if they shoul● take place, it would be an exposing the principal inheritance, which the holy See possesseth, to pillage, as no doubt it would come to pass by the contemt of S. Augustine's Authority and Doctrine; it would be a nullifying the authority of all the Fathers,— it would imply, that the Church had unjustly condemned the enemies of Grace; it would give occasion to believe, that the holy Council of Trent favoured the Pelagian Heretics, and gave new forces to the Calvinists. This Epistle was subscribed thus: 

Noel de La Lane,  
Lovis de St. Amour,  
Lovis Angran.    
The Pope would not receive these Jansenists Writings, etc.  
July 1652. 
§. 11. The Pope's Confession in behalf of the Jansenists.  St. Amour (as he repo●● fol. 211.) received a visit from 〈◊〉 Archbishop who told him, that he 〈◊〉 conferred with the Pope that morning about their Affairs. That his Hol● himself gave occasion to the Discour● and told him, That he still remember the time, when the Congregations 〈◊〉 Auxiliis were held under Clement 〈◊〉 and Paul 5. that he knew all 〈◊〉 world was then for the Dominica● against the Jesuits; that for a lo● while together, the publication of 〈◊〉 Bull, whereby the Jesuits were co●●demned, was daily expected; that nevertheless it was not published, though they well deserved it. But it was conceived, that the Holy See acted pr●●dently, in not publishing their con●demnation; because, though the sai● Definition, would have appeared wi●● the general satisfaction of all intelligent persons, yet those matters surpassed the reach of the unlearned, and the generality of the faithful. That moreover the Pope said, that he knew the Jesuits Sentiments were not good; and that if he condemned them, there were no persons of Learning and Ability throughout Europe, but would be satisfied and well pleased therewith; but that these Truths were so far above the ordinary capacity of man, and the weak being much more numerous than the strong, more would be scandalised, than edified with such condemnation, etc.  
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, 
St. Amour Journal ●ol. 205.  dated June 16. 1652. Sir I received, together, the two large Letters you writ me, 
A Letter from a Doctor of the Sorbon, touching the little advantage the Jansenists might expect from Rome.  full of testimonies, of the confidence and friendship, wherewith you are pleased to honour me. If I durst, I should find fault with your going too far therein: for I can make no other construction of your too favourable judgement of me, than that it proceeds from a singular Affection, which gives you an opinion of me, far above what I acknowledge in my●self. I have always written unto you in sincerity; and freely signified unto you my thoughts and sentiments concerning your journey to Rome, about the Affairs which you manage there, and concerning the proposals, which you have made to me. And because I see things not altered, or at least varied only in appearance, and some circumstances, I cannot change my judgement or disposition. 'Tis true, what you tell me, that Residence at Rome is dangerous, in regard of the corruption of the mind, which oftentimes carries its poison into the bottom of the heart, without being taken notice of, insensibly corrupting Faith and Reason itself, by human prudence, and a manner of life and deportment altogether Political, which people contract there, unless they be prevented, by God's special protection and favour. And to tell you the truth, though I am much averse from that vice, which passes for virtue in the world, yet I account not myself so strong, but that I think fit to avoid even the occasions of it. Nevertheless 'tis not this alone, which keeps me from coming to you, and taking upon me that part, which you would assign me, in the Affairs, wherein you are engaged. If I conceived I could be as serviceable therein as you apprehend, and could it reasonably be hoped, matters would be so carried, and have such Effects and Issues as you aim at, solitude should no longer detain me, nor the danger of the ways, and Residence at Rome, keep me from offering my sel● to God, to do him service, and second you in that, which you endeavour to perform to him. But I am so strongly persuaded of the contrary, both by potent consideration taken from human Prudence, as well as from Reasons Divine, and founded upon the present posture of things, that all the Remonstrances in your Letter, have not moved me; although otherwise I may say (I think) without flattery, that I am so devoted to satisfy my friends, as far as my ability reacheth, that I can scarce deny any thing unto them, without doing violence to myself; especially in things wherein the service of God is concerned— No Sir, I ca● not believe, that ever there will be 〈◊〉 regular and free Conference, about th● matters in contest at this day: an● should there be one appointed, an● persons found capable of debating th● questions on either side, and Judge● intelligent enough of the Truth, an● sufficiently impartial to determine them (which is very difficult, not to say morally impossible) I could not promise to myself, the success, you aim at, and seem to hold for certain. All that could be hoped, so far as I see, from such a conference, and most upright Judges, is, that things would remain as they are. Should the Arbitrators be disposed to do some thing more, and to pronounce in favour of Truth; they who have been inveigled into the contrary part, the Temporal Powers engaged with them, and the Spiritual would quite stop the passing of such judgement, thereby to avoid offending many of the world; and, under pretence of eschewing division, leave things as they are. If you judge my conjectures, and the consequences I draw from them disagreeing from your own thoughts, yet I am confident you cannot but say, that the suppositions which I make, and from whence I draw these consequences, are very favourable. For leaving you to find persons capable to propose, and maintain the Truth befittingly in a regular conference, I think you will not be backward to confess, that there is not the least likelihood of finding judges sufficiently intelligent, in these matters; sufficiently well affected to truth, and sufficiently armed, against all sorts of Interests, to pronounce in its favour, when they have discovered it. And if there were truly such, undoutedly one of the Parties would except against them, or elude and prevent their judgement. These matters have been agitated, examined and determined also, in abundance of the most important questions and difficulties, by the Authority of two great Popes, very learned, and of upright Intentions: and you know what have been the Issue of those conferences, which lasted many years. You are far from seeing your Affairs in so fair a way; and if you promise your self a better issue thereof, I attribute i● to your Zele, and the Affections you have for the cause you manage; which makes you build too much, and ground the hopes of your justly desired success, upon the good reception that hath been shown you, and the fair words which have been given you. You will permit me to mind you, that that coin is very current in the world, and more in the place where you are, than in any other: 'tis that wherewith all payment is ordinarily made; and many times where there is least Will and Power to give, the promises are largest.— All the proposals of Accommodation made you, touching the Bishop of Ipres Book, seem to be as suspicious, as the promises that are given you, and are of much more dangerous consequence. You know, Sir, by experience, in some general and particular Assemblies of the Faculty, in which you were present, how all people easily harkened unto such Accommodations; how it is easy to be inveigled to remit some thing of the Interest of Truth, in such cases, either by surprise, or by weakness, covered with the pretext of peace; and how such Accommodations and Modifications are prejudicial to the Truth. These are wounds which prove afterward irremediable; because they are made by such, as profess to defend it; and in this they injure it, more than they, who openly impugn it, and are its greatest enemies. I confess to you, I could never read without pity (and I speak it too without any indignation) the Objections and Proposals made to you, about the Bishop of Ipres Book, and the Bull: and that which most amazes me, is, that they which made these Objections and Proposals, pass for persons very intelligent, and well affected towards the Truths of Grace. For to reply, that M. d' Ipre, intending to justify some propositions of S. Augustine's, found among those of Baius, which have been condemned, and desirous to reconcile the Authority of the Holy See, and of the Bull, which seems to condemn them, saith Haereo; 'tis but to quarrel with that great Lover and Defender of S. Austin; and to indict him for a word, and for a word very well spoken, and which shows his grea● moderation, amidst his great knowledge, and zeal for the Truth. How frequently doth S. Austin use the same manner of speech, when he meets with some difficulty. Other particulars wherewith he is charged, flow from the same fountain, and are no less unjust than groundless. If he hath written of the matters of Grace, since a prohibition of the Holy See, he is not the only man that has done so; but 'tis he alone that hath written in that manner that he hath done, having only reported the sentiments of S. Austin, whom the Church owneth, not only as one of its pillars, but as its Master and Teacher, particularly in the matters of Grace: and he writ his Book being a Prelate and Pastor of the Church. Nevertheless, by a most manifest injustice, endeavours are used to get his Book subjected to censure, and to acquit all others— You see, Sir, with what liberty I writ: 'tis an evidence of the sincerity of that Affection I bore you, and of the confidence I have in yours. Assure yourself, I do not forget you, in my Addresses to God; I represent to him your Affairs and Necessities as mine own, and beseech him to make me, as I desire to be, always more and more yours; which I shall look upon as his mercy towards me, and the making me more to be his. I desire you to beg the same, etc.  
This Apologetic Letter, in the behalf of Jansenius, 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 saint Beure 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. the Saint Beure writes to M. St. Amour, from Paris, Aug. 2. 1652. thus: Sir The discourse of 〈◊〉 Annat. is the common discourse of th● Society. Those good Father's publish● here, as well as at Rome, that the Po● is to pronounce with all speed; and whi● they are told there is no congregation y● settled, in which the parties may be hear● they answer, that his Holiness will 〈◊〉 hear any parties; and that their Society hath resolved, not to enter into a conference either at Paris or at Rome, touching the controverted doctrine. This is what th● F. L'Abbe said to me in the conference I had with him— wherein he propo●sed to dispute at large of matters 〈◊〉 doctrine; whereunto I assented. H● propounded 5 points 1. That M. d' I●● was condemnable, as having written against the Council of Trent, and consequently against S. Austin, That a 〈◊〉 moved by Grace, is necessitated, as to hi● liberty. Whereunto he was answered, 〈◊〉 That such a man was necessitated, in sen●● composito, but not in sensu diviso, an● told, that M. d' Ipre saith no more 〈◊〉 which is not condemnable, unless th● whole School of S. Thomas be condemned too. After many Contestations th● Father was obliged to consent with us. The Second was concerning sufficient Grace; and it was proved to him, that M. d' Ipre denied none but the Molinistick. The Third was concerning the necessity of sinning without Grace. The Fourth concerned the Commandments: and I shown him, that the Doctrine maintained by us, as to this point, was held by all the Thomists, the Defenders of Congruous Grace, and the Church in her prayers. The Fifth Question was reduced to final perseverance; wherein I proved, that what the Father held, was the Doctrine of the Pelagians, etc.  
August 15. 
§. 12. August. 15. 1652.  1652. the Delegates 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, 
The Jansenists two first Papers prepared for the Congregation▪  and subscribed on Augustine's day. The first contained, what passed about the five Propositions, since M. Cornet propounded them to the Faculty, from July 1. 1649. till that time: namely what was done in the Assemblies of the Faculty July, 
The Contents of the first Paper. S. Amour Journal fol. 219.  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 Faculty; what was done in Parliament, Octob. 5. and concerning the patched peace, made in the Faculty, 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, etc. One thing also these Deputies of the Jansenists observed, in this writing, not before observed; namely, that all these erterprises were designed to procure, by such scandalous and obliqne ways; the destruction of S. Austin's Doctrine; which they veiled under the obscurities of these Equivocal Propositions, contrived purposely to deceive. They declared further by anticipation, that they purposed not to maintain the Propositions in any other sense, than in that, which they should demonstrate to be suitable to S. Augustine's Doctrine; Wherefore ●hey concluded this first writing, requesting most humbly, that to the end all things might be done, in this Affair, without fraud and confusion, before the examination of the Propositions were proceeded unto, they might be altered and reduced into the several senses, whereof they were capable, in such sort, that they might be free from all equivocation.— That the senses being thus distinguished, and separated into several Propositions, we might declare, which were those which we abhorred, and anathematised, with the whole Catholic Church; that our Adversaries might be obliged to keep the same course, etc.  
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. Augustine'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 any thing, that is con●trary, in any sort, to S. Augustine's Doctrine 〈◊〉 Grace.  
4. That all which S. Austin has hel● against the Pelagians, and Semipelagians as Catholic Doctrine, ought likewise to 〈◊〉 held for such.  
5. That to affirm, that S. Augustine'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 aught 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, 
The Jansenists second Writing.  and contained their first information concerning matter of Right, and was thus entitled: The Tradition of the whole Church in reference to the Authority of S. Augustine'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, etc.  
And to prevent the imputation of being tedious, they deew a model of both their Writings, the Conclusion whereof was, that having thus established the Auhtoritie of S. Augustine's Doctrine, they h●● nothing to fear, in reference to 〈◊〉 Propositions; since they were 〈◊〉 likewise to show clearly, that the sens● in which they held them, was as cer●tainly the Doctrine of S. Austin, as th●● had shown invincibly, that his Doctrine was that of the Church. And mo●● over they published this Cartel of Defi●ance to the whole Molinistick Parti● That they were certain, and spoke 〈◊〉 without fear, That that holy Doctor would be found so congruous to a● that they maintained, that their adversaries, however they might rack their brains, could never propose any argument, drawn from human reason▪ or the Holy Scriptures, which they could not make them see, had been proposed to S. Austin, by the Pelagians or Semipelagians, and resolved against them by this holy Doctor; and which we could not in like manner refute, very easily, against our Adversaries, by the answers and Doctrine, which we should extract out of his works. Wherefore they further said, That there was nothing they wished more, that assoon as the authority of the said Doctrine was acknowledged, and confirmed, as it ought to be between their adversaries, and them, to proceed forthwith, with equal diligence and confidence, to make appear, in the examen of the Propositions, what that Doctrine was.  
What issue and effect these Writings obtained, 
St. Amour part 5. chap. 14. fol. 256.  is given us by St. Amour thus: We were busied, says he, at Rome all this Month (of November) in the most vigorous and assiduous pursuit, that was lawful for us to make there, for the first Audience in the Congregation; which we demanded might be granted to us together with our adversaries, after our first Writings had been communicated to them; to the end they might come to such an audience, prepared to answer to those Writings, and to what we should add thereunto viva voce. We could neither obtain to have a day set for such a first Audience; nor that our Writings should be communicated; nor know whether they would grant us either one or t'other. In the mean time the Jesuits and the Doctors, their Adherents, continued triumphing at Paris before hand, for the approaching condemnation of the Propositions, of which they held themselves sure, and in which they involved ours. By this means they caused great doubtings in our friends, what might be the issue of the Congregation; which was signified to us, by a Letter, wherein they enjoined us severely not to deliver any instruction, which might engage us in a single process by writing. Also M. de saint Beave writ to me, to continue our instances, that the Authors of the Propositions might be known, our innocence declared, and the Necessity of Effectual Grace established, which was the whole point of the question; and that if we could not obtain this, that at least it might be inserted into the Bull, in case any were made, that we had always declared, that we undertook the defence of the Propositions only in the sense, wherein they employed the Necessity of Effectual Grace: that by this means the Bull would be favourable to us, and moreover make our adversaries pass for Calumniators and successors of the Semipelagians, as well in their manners and proceed, as in their Doctrine.  
In the beginning of the year, 1653. 
§. 13. The Dominicans interposing for the Jansenists, and how far they agree. S. Amour. fol. 309▪  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. They defend Jansenius expressly, in reference to the five Propositions, and formally maintain, that they were not his, etc. 2. St. Amour says, that although these Dominicans explicated these Propositions, in the same manner as they did, and, no less than they, maintained the common Doctrine of Effectual Grace; yet these Dominicans did it in terms incomparably more powerful, than the Jansenists durst express themselves in. 3. These Dominicans show, that the Jesuits have three pri●●cipal intentions in this Affair. 1. To 〈◊〉 Molina his opinion obliquely define●● 2. To overthrow all that was done 〈◊〉 ten years, in the Congregation de A●●xiliis: And 3. To ruin S. Augustine's Authority, etc. But the Pope would gi●● no Audience to the General of the D●●minicans herein, though he requests i● seventeen or eighteen times.  
March 4. 1653. Cardinal Barbarin d●●mands of S. Amour, 
S. Amour. fol. 322.  why they (〈◊〉 Jansenists) did not wholly join wi●● the Dominicans? to which he answers thus: They do their own business, a● we ours: we may have our particule aims and pretensions, though their Do●ctrine be no wise different from ou●● at least at the bottom. The Cardin● fell to speak of Jansenius, 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, That he could not affirm any thing as to that, but no doubt there are such small Graces, as the Th●●mists call sufficient, and acknowledge as well as they, not to be such really in the sense, wherein the world takes the word sufficient, since they do not suffice; there being need, besides these Graces, of that which is effectual by itself, to perform the good action, which would not be done without it, etc.  
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, 
§. 14. The Agents of the Jansenists their Audience before the Pope, and Apology.  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:  
Most Holy Father, 
St. Amour fol. 355.  We are obliged to represent to your Holiness, by how many Artifices, and secret Ambushes, some persons employ certain obscure, equivocal, and maliciously contrived Propositions, to undermine the Church at this day, by assaulting, and endangering the Doctrine of S. Austin, touching the Grace of Jesus Christ, so often approved by the Holy See, and authorized, without discontinuance, by the universal consent of the whole Church.— This enterprise, against the Grace of Jesus Christ, hath proceeded so far, that in regard of the close union of S. Austin with S. Paul, in what concerns this matter, we see, that at this day, the Enterprizers fear not to attaque them both together, by daring to accuse them both of having passed even into excesses.— 'Tis not, Most Holy Father, by vain imaginations, but by invincible proofs, that we shall manifest to your Holiness, this public Conspiracy of the Jesuits form against S. Austin. Behold, in my hands, above an hundred Propositions against that Saint, drawn out of several Books made since fifty years, by the Jesuits; which show, that the boldness, wherewith they assault him, increases daily, in such sort, that they incessantly charge him with new, and greater outrages.— We know Most Holy Father, that our Adversaries make semblance of reverencing his Authority: But this is only to put a feigned respect upon their real disdain. 'Tis only to hid their aversion from his Doctrine under the commendation of his person.— Let our Adversaries choose to take him wholly, or leave him wholly to us:— But our Adversaries would have not only S. Austin, but also the Grace of Jesus Christ divided— We confess that this matter is spinose. Nature, which flatters us, never ceaseth to oppose in us the mystery of the Grace of Jesus Christ: Our Reason seeks means, on all sides, to free itself from that absolute submission which we are obliged to have for God. It insinuates every thing that favours this connatural pride in us. S. Austin himself confesseth, that without thinking of it, he continued long in the error of the Semipelagians, and got not out of it, till after a deep meditation of the holy Scriptures; particularly of S. Paul. And therefore 'tis no wonder, that, in all times, there have been found so many difficulties and repugnances, to cure the minds of the faithful of the error of Pelagianisme. Besides all which, there is a determinate resolution for Molina's de●ence of the whole society o● the Jesuits— But Most Holy Father, though Nature and Reason are very unapt to comprehend, what is the Grace of Jesus Christ, and though this Doctrine be invelopped, as with so many clouds, by the various new inventions o● new Divines, and by the equivocations of the Propositions in question; nevertheless we dare boldly affirm, that albeit this mystery is very profound, ye● it is not so difficult to understand, provided the means be used, etc.  
The Jansenists presented also to the ●ope a compendious Distinction of the five propositions, touching Grace; showing in ●ree columns the several senses, whereof the said Propositions are capable: of ●hich see S. Amour. 
S. Amour. fol. 374.  fol. 365. When M. 〈◊〉 Valcroissant had ended his Oration, he ●old the Pope, his Holiness should be much more enlightened in the things, which were alleged, when they came to be treated more leisurely and throughly before him, in the presence of their adversaries.— He added further, that the connexion, which he had mos● clearly demonstrated of the Propositions reduced to their sense, with the point of Effectual Grace by itself, evidently showed the necessity of beginning the discussion of this Affair, by the examen and proof of the Efficacy of Grace, by itself; both because all the rest depends upon it, and the proof of it serves for a general proof of the Propositions. 
St. Amours fol, 375. — When the Abbot of Valcroissant had done, Des Mares began, and continued the series of his Discourse, (as they had agreed) and undertook the proof of the Efficacy of Grace. His first argument was taken from the Prayers of the Church, an● lasted three quarters of an hour, etc.  
May 26. 
§. 15. The Jansenists condemned.  there was a strong Rumour touching the publication of the Bull● against the five Propositions, which wa● accordingly, in some short time after▪ accomplished.  
The BULL runs thus:  

Sanctissimi in Christo Patris, ac D. N. Innocentii, divina Providentia Papae, decimi constitutio, qua declarantur ac definiuntur quinque Propositiones in materia fidei.  
Innocentius Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei, universis Christi fidelibus, salutem & apostolicam benedictionem.  
CVm occasione impressionis libri, cui titulus Augustinus Cornelii Jansenii Episcopi Iprensis, inter alias ejus opiniones lis orta fuit, praesertim in Gallia, super quinque ex illis, complures Galliarum Episcopi apud nos institerunt, ut easdem Propositiones nobis oblatas expenderemus, ac de unaquaque earum certam & conspicuam ferremus sententiam.  
Tenor vero praefatarum Propositionum est ut sequitur.  
1. Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis, volentibus, ac conantibus, secundum praesentes quas habent vires▪ sunt impossibilia; deest quoque illi● gratia qua possibilia fiunt.  
2. Interiori gratiae, in statu naturae lapsae, nunquam resistitur.  
3. Ad merendum ac demerendum i● statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas a necessitate, sed sufficit libertas a coactione.  
4. Semipelagiani admittebant pr●venientis Gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singnlos actus, etiam ad initium fidei: & in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent talem esse, cui potest humana voluntas resistere.  
5. Semipelagianum est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, vel sanguinem fudisse.  
Nos quidem inter multiplices curas, quae animum nostrum quotidie pulsent, illa imprimis cordi est, ut Ecclesia Dei, nobis ex alto commissa, purgatis pravarum opinionum errori●us, tutò militare, & tanquam navis in tranquillo mari, sedatis omnium tempestatum fluctibus ac procellis, secura navigare, & ad optatum portum pervenire possit.  
Pro rei gravitate coram aliquibus S. R. è Cardinalibus, ad id specialiter saepe congregatis, a plurimis in Sancta The●l●gia Magistris, easdem quinque Prop●sitiones, & supra nobis oblatas singulatim diligenter examinari, eorumque suffragia tum voce, tum scripto relata mature consideravimus; eosdemque Magistros variis coram nobis act●s congregationibus prolixe super eisdem, & super earum qualibet disserentes audivimus.  
Cum autem ab initio hujusmodi discussionis ad divinum implorandum auxilium multorum Christi fidelium preces tum privatim tum publice indixissemus, postmodum iteratis iisdem ferventius, ac per nos implorata s●llicite Spiritus Sancti assistentia, tandem divino numine favent● ad infra Scriptam devenimus declarationem & definitionem.  
1 a▪ Primam praedictarum propositionum, Aliqua Dei praecepta, etc. Temerariam, impiam, blasphemam, anathemate damnatam, & haereticam declaramus.  
2a. Secundam, Interiori gratiae, etc. haereticam declaramus, & uti talem damnamus.  
3 a. Tertiam, Ad Merendum ac demerendum, etc. haereticam declaramus, ac ut● talem damnamus.  
4a. Quartam, Semipelagiani admitte●bant, etc. falsam & haereticam declaramus, & uti talem damnamus.  
5a. Quintam, Semipelagianum, etc. falsam, temerariam, scandalosam; & intellectam ex sensu ut Christus tantum pro s●lute praedestinatorum mortuus sit, impiam, blasphemam, contumeliosam, divinae pieta● derogantem, & haereticam declaramus.  
Mandamus igitur omnibus Christi fidelibus utriusque sexus, ne de dictis propositionibus sentire, docere, praedicare alite● praesumant, quam in hâc praesenti nostr● declaratione & definitione continetur, su● Censuris & poenis contra haereticos, & eorum fautores in jure expressis.  
Praecipimus pariter omnibus Patriarchii●, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis aliisque locorum ordinariis, nec non haereticae pravitatis inquisitoribus, ut contradictores & rebelles quoscunque per censuras & poenas praedictas, invocato etiam ad hoc, si opus fuerit, auxilio brachii Saecularis, omnino, coerce●nt, & compescant.  
Non intendentes tamen per hanc declarationem & definitionem, super praedictis quinque, Propositionibus factam approbare ullatenus alias opiniones, quae continentur in praedicto libro Cornelii Jansesenii.  
Datum Romae apud Sanctam Mariam majorem anno Domini 1653. prid. Cal. Junii Pontifi. G. Gualtorius. Hi. Datarius P. Campinius.   
June 13. 
St. Amour fol. 412.  The Agents of the Jansenists signed this Resolution (before they went to take leave of the Pope) After the Publication of the Pope's Decree against the five Propositions, there being no more hope to obtain of his Holiness the solemn and Regular Congregation, which we solicited for the space of two years, as most necessary in this conjuncture, in order to a full clearing of matters controverted between St. Austin's Disciples, and those of Molina, we conceived that we had nothing left but to prepare ourselves to return into France.— We have judged in the presence of God, that we ought not to subscribe the condemnation of those Propositions, without excepting the sense of Grace effectual by itself, and St. Austin's Doctrine, which the enemies of both have designed, in obtaining this condemnation, to overthrow— We have resolved not to subscribe that condemnation, though the Pope require it of us, but with this clause. Propositiones ab Innocentio Papa X. damnatas nos iterum damnamus, ut semper antea damnavimus, salva tum Gratia Christi per seipsam efficaci ad singulos pietatis actus necessaria, tum doctrina Sancti Augustini; quibus nolle se praejudicium ullum afferre, Summus Pontifex multaties testatus est. 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, etc.  
The five Propositions of Jansenius having been condemned by a Bull of Innocent 10th, 
The French formulary for the condemning of the Jansenists.  (May 31. 1653.) and upon the Jansenists pretending these Propositions were not condemned in Jansenius' sense, there being a new Bull given out by Alexander 7. condemning these Propositions in the sense of Jansenius, the Jansenists were hereby crushed, and brought under a severe Persecution. For hereupon the Molinists got the General Assembly of the French Clergy (as I take it an. 1654.) to frame a formulary, answerable to the foresaid Bull of Alexander 7. for the condemning of these five Propositions in Jansenius' 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. 
See these arguments in La Simple Verité opposeé à la Fausse édee du Jansenisme. à Paris 1664.  The Arguments, by which the Jansenists defend themselves against signing this formulary are these. 1. That there is no Ordinance of the Church, which commands all the world to sign her decisions under pain of Heresy. 2. That the Pope commands none to sign it; neither has he as yet made any person to sign it. 3. No one speaks of signing this formulary in Foreign Provinces, nor in the whole Church. 4. None but the Assembly of the Clergy has ordained, that we sign her formulary; but this Ordinance is neglected by all as illegitime, it having not been approved by the Pope, nor by the Bishops; yea, the Jesuits themselves have been constrained to abandon this formulary, whereof notwithstanding they were the Authors.  
The Jansenists, though excluded from all public employment, 
The Provincial Letters.  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 Jesuitism) 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 Jansenius, 
The Jansenists Apologies▪  his Adherents the Jansenists, to wipe off the aspersion of heresy imputed to their charge, first, as to name, call themselves, not Jansenists, 
La simple Verité pag. 1.  but Disciples of S. Austin; For (say they) Jansenius makes Profession to teach nothing; but to report simply what St. Austin taught on the matter of Grace and Free Will, without b●ing any thing more than his Interpreter. In such sort, that if any could clearly discover any one point, throughout his whole Book, which was from himself, and not from St. Austin, he should be abandoned by all, and condemned by his own proper judgement. Whereas (add they) Molina, on the contrary, vaunts to have published a Doctrine which was never known before; and his followers the Jesuits glory in the title of being Molinists.  
As to the thing itself, and matter of their Doctrine, the Jansenists endeavoured to vindicate themselves from the imputation of heresy by certain Articles, and Apologetic Discourses touching their opinions. As for their Articles we find this mention of them in their own writings. 
La simple V●ritè. pag. 5.  Now these Divines (say they, meaning the Jansenists) have exposed their sentiments, in the Articles which they sent unto the Pope, and his Holiness has, by his last Brief, declared, That they contained an holy and Orthodox Doctrine. The Bishops, and most habile Divines, who have seen these Articles, have given the same judgement of them avowing, that they had nothing in them but what was Orthodox. And Mr. the Bishop of Commenge has expressly testified it to the King, when he had the honour to present the Declaration of these Divines to this Majesty, which entirely referred to the Doctrine of these Articles.  
The Jansenists also vindicate themselves from the imputation of heresy, by several Apologies they publish in defence of Jansenius, 
Refutation de la Fausse Relat. du P. Ferrier cap. 10.  and themselves, 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 favourable 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 modern, 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, 
Refutat. de la Fausse relation du P. Ferrier (1664. pag. 3●.  viz. What is the sense of Jansenius touching these five Propositions? The Jansenists tell us, they have accurately declared, what they intent by the sense of Jansenius, in the first and third Disquisition of Paul Irenaeus: as also in the first and fourth part of Denis Raymond; which were composed on purpose to clear the sense of Jansenius, as also that of his Adherents about these five Propositions. Denis Raymond being one, to whom the Jansenists refer us touching the sense of Jansenius, 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. That I may leave no room for suspicion, I declare farther, that by the sense of Jansenius, which I sustain, I intent no other Doctrine on the subject of the five Propositions, than that of Efficacious Grace, of itself necessary to all actions of Piety, in that manner, in which it has ever been, and still is sustained by the School of St. Thomas, and is recognized as Orthodox by all the Church; and I reject as an heresy that saying, That this Efficacious Grace necessitates the Will, and that it takes away the power of non-consenting, as it follows in this Book. More particularly, Denis Raimond (Premiere Party Chap. 1.) makes good these Articles, viz.  
Art. 1. That Jansenius undertook not to oppose sufficient Grace as delivered by the Thomists, but as laid down by Molina, pag. 33.  
Art. 2. That when Jansenius calls s●ffi●cient Grace a Monster, he speaks only 〈◊〉 Suarez's sufficient Grace of Congruity, not 〈◊〉 that maintained by the Thomists, pag. 36.  
Art. 3. That Jansenius 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 Jansenius, in what he was taught of the next pour, hath said nothing, but what is conform to S. Augustin, S. Thomas, and the ancient Thomists, with many of the New pag. 41.  
Ar●. 5. That Jansenius, in what he has delivered of Efficacious Grace, affirming, 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 sens de Jansenius a Cologne 1660.  
Paulus Irenaeus (to whom also we are referred) tells us, (Disquisit. 1. Art. 3.) that the whole Doctrine of Jansenius, 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 Jansenius 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, etc.  
Thus the estate of Affairs stood betwixt the Jansenists and Molinists unto the year 1662. Neither can I as yet learn, that there passed any thing 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, 
§. 16. An. 1662. Endeavours fo● Accommodation 'twixt the Jansenists and Molinists.  and the Pope, the Molinists begin to incline to terms of accommodement with the Jansenists: neither were there wanting some moderate Bishops (wellwishers 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, etc. 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 Treaty, was Monsieur de Comenge, who sent from Tolouze, a writing thus titled, A Project for Accommodement between those whom we call Jansenists, 
Against Signature and formulary.  and those who are named Molinists, debated betwixt the Bishop de Comenge, and P. Ferrier the Jesuit. The chief point this Project or Writing contained in favour of the Jansenists, was, that it should not be exacted from them, any signature, touching the matter of fact, (viz. 
Refutat. d● P. Ferrier chap. 2. p. 13.  whether these five Propositions were in Jansenius, and condemned in his sense) nor yet touching the formulary, but only a respectuous silence. For the Jansenists would not engage in this Treaty of Accommodement, till there was a Promise given them, that they would not speak, either of signature, or of formulary; 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 Treaty was broken off▪ great occasion of scandal: In that say they, this whole Treaty was on their part (viz. the Jesuits) no other than one continued perfidy; seeing that they have since avowed, that they always meant, they should condemn the sense of Jansenius; that is to say, that they should acknowledge, that the Doctrine condemned in the five Propositions had been taught by Jansenius. This direction of the intention or mental reservation in the Molinists, made the Jansenists accuse them of Collusion, etc.  
This Treaty began about February 18. 
§. 17.  1663. (New Style.) That which was first proposed by the Bishop of Comenge, 
Refut. de P. Ferrier cap. 6.  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. 
The main Article required of the Jansenists, is that they conform to 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 appearance, 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 Pope's 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 any more, 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 rapture 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: 
§. 18. The Jansenists Reply touching their conformity to the Thomists.  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 Louvain and Douai, 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. The Disciples of St. Austin (add they) have always said, 
Refutat. du P. Ferrier cap. 6.  that the Doctrine of Jansenius on the five Propositions, seemed not to them different from that of the Thomists. And farther to vindicate Jansenius from the imputation cast upon him, touching his opposition to the Thomists, they add, 1. That the design of Jansenius was not directly to render himself conform to the Thomists. 2. That yet in the chief of those points, wherein the error of Jansenius is made to consist, his Doctrine is not only by consequence, but formally conform to that of the Thomists. 3. That the most part of those general and indefinite Propositions, by reason of which they would fain persuade the world, that Jansenius was opposite to the Thomists, he himself in other parts of his Book does so restrain and limit, as that 'tis evident he intended nothing less than non-conformity to the Thomists. And whereas it might be objected, that the Author des Lettres au Provincial (which is called the Mystery of Jesuitism) in his second Letter, complains sadly against the Thomists, for not publishing fully what they understood by sufficient Grace: the answer hereunto is, That the said ingenious Author used, and that not without reason, somewhat more than ordinary warmth and indignation against some particular persons of the Order of S. Dominick, who being joined to the Molinists by a Spirit of Cabal and of faction, served themselves of the equivocate term of Sufficient Grace, thereby to deceive the world, as though they were agreed. In fine; the Jansenists declared, That the Doctrine of Jansenius, 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 Jansenius, is reduced to this Proposition, common to all the Thomists, 
Omnis gratia Christi est efficax alicu●us effectûs, ad quem prxime ordinatur, & quem Deus absoluta voluntate intendit.  viz. every Grace of Christ 〈◊〉 efficacious of some effect unto which it 〈◊〉 nextly ordained, and which God, by hi● absolute will, doth intent. 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, 
§. 19 The breaking off the Treaty of the Jansenists Apology.  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 formulary, and condemning the sense of Jansenius, 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 Treaty. 2. If they could (add they) have signed the formulary, etc. they had not needed any such Treaty 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 Jansenius' book, nor yet condemned in his sense) should be deceived in this their Interpretation of Jansenius, 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. For, add they, the common light of Reason as well as Faith, teacheth the most simple, that two things essentially separate, viz. a particular fact, and a Doctrine of Faith, may also be separated in the creance of Believers, and therefore there is no shadow to imagine, but that one may assent, that the Doctrine of the five Propositions is Haeretian, without assenting, that they are to be found in the Book of Jansenius: as if the heresy of the Doctrine should depend on Jansenius; or that it should be heresy no where but in his book. Thus the Jansenists apologise, etc. But the Molinists' adhering violently to their demands for the signing the formulary, etc. the Treaty broke off.  
The Jansenists to purge themselves, 
§. 20. The Jansenists Vindication by the Bishop of Coming his Letter to the King.  after this Treaty drew up certain Articles, (which I suppose were the same with those they offered in the Treaty) 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 Treaty, 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,  
I avow Sir, that it seemed to me, after I had obliged those whom they call Jansenists to declare (their sense) there could not be any more of heresy or heretics in the Church, the door being shut both to Error and opiniatretie. In effect, Sir, in those Conferences, which the Sieurs, the Abbot De Lalane and Girard had, in the names of all those who are engaged in this cause with P. Ferrier the Jesuit, they were reduced to declare so neatly what was their Doctrine on the subject of the five Propositions condemned, (wherein all that is called Jansenisme is comprehended) as also to speak so precisely the language of the Thomists, which is received in the Church, that there cannot remain any thing of Error in their Dogme,— In such sort, Sir, that on the one side making them to speak as the Catholic Schools speak; and on the other side, they having submitted themselves to have no other sentiments, but those of the Holy See, there remains not more of Error, or of Opiniatretie. Now their last Declaration, which I had the honour to present to your Majesty, signed by 〈◊〉 Sieurs de Lalane and Girard, is but 〈◊〉 Abregement of all that we have do● in nine months' travail. They rene● in this Act the Assurance which the have given me, and the See by me, 〈◊〉 to have any other sentiments on 〈◊〉 five Propositions, but what a● contained in their Articles, and t●● submission which they have made 〈◊〉 these very Articles to the judgements his Holiness. For this Declaration 〈◊〉 relative to the Articles, which we● sent and submitted to the Pope, an● which contain the sentiments of the● Theologiens on the five Propositions.— It is true, Sir, that they place not 〈◊〉 the same rank the submission, which they render to the Definition of Dogmes, and that which they render to the Definition of particular facts; because the one is a submission of Faith, and the other is a submission of Respect, and 〈◊〉 Discipline. Things being thus dismingled and differenced, Sir, your Majesty may, when you please, give peace to the Church of France, in pursuit of the generous dess●in which your piety has given you to 〈◊〉, etc. Thus the Bishop of Comenge in behalf of the Jansenists.  
The Molinists since the Treaty, 
§. 21. The Molinists' persecution of the Jansenists.  have been very active and pressing on the King for his Declaration, against all such as will not sign the formulary, and condemnation of Jansenius' book. The Jansenists have not been wanting, to give their reasons against such rigorous procedures; affirming, That there was not as yet any ordinance of the Church obliging thereto; neither was this formulary approved by the Pope or Bishops, yea that the Jesuits themselves were forced to abandon it as before. The Jansenists also published in the year 1664. certain Apologies for themselves: but all could not secure them against the unwearied endeavours of their adversaries the Molinists, who obtained the Pope's Bull for the imposing the Formularies, as also the King's Confirmation of the same.  
The Pope's Bull runs, as it follows:  

ALexander, Bishop, Servant of Servants of God, for perpetual memory.  
The Reason of Apostolic Government, by Divine Providence committed to us, though undeserving, requires that we apply our whole mind and care, so far as we may, in the Lord, unto such matters chief, as are most conducible to the conservation and propagation of the Catholic Religion, to the salvation of souls, and to the repose of Believers. 'Twas from the Intuition hereof, that we endeavoured the Second year of our Pontificat, by an express constitution published by us on this design, to put a period to the Heresy of Cornelius Jansenius, which spread itself principally in France, and which after it had been well-nigh stifled by Innocent 10th our Predecessor of happy memory, ceased not as a Serpent, whose head is broken, to make fresh efforts, and to appear willing to save itself by its ordinary turn and wind. But as the enemy of mankind has an infinity of Artifices to hinder the success of good designs, our endeavours (whose only but was to oblige all those who have erred, to re-enter into the way of salvation) have not had that issue we desired; albeit our desires have been happily seconded by the pains and industry, with which our Venerable Brethren, the Archbishops and Bishops of the Kingdom of France have applied themselves, so far as they could, to cause the said Apostolic Constitutions to be executed; and by the singular piety of our very dear Son in our Lord, the most Christian King, who has for the same purpose afforded us the succour of his hand, with an extraordinary vigour and constancy. Moreover, the most Christian King being induced, by the zeal he has for Religion, to remonstrate to us by his Ambassador, that the best remedy to extirpate the rests of this contagious Malady, is to cause all the World to sign one formulary founded on our Authority. In pursuit whereof, we command that all ecclesiastics, etc. to subscribe the following formulary.  
IN. submit myself to the Apostoli●● Constitution of Innocent X. dated, Ma● 31. 1653. and to the Constitution of Alexander 7th, dated Oct. 16. 1656. the chi● Bishops: and I do with a sincere mind re●ject and condemn the V Propositions, t●●ken out of Cornelius Jansenius' Boo● named Augustinus, and in the sense intended by the same Author, as the Ap●-stolick● seat has, by the said Constitution condemned them. And thus I swore. G● so help me, and these holy Evangels' 〈◊〉 God. Given at Rome, Feb. 15. 1665.   
This Bull was, April 29. 1665. (Sti● Novo) ratified by a Declaration of th● King of France, enjoining the execution of the same. But the Pope's Nuncio imposing the said Bull on the Ecclesiastick● of France, without regard to the King's Authority, there issued forth, May 6● 1665. an Arrest of the Parliament 〈◊〉 Paris, prohibiting the said Bull, etc. Whereupon the Archbishop of Paris, to compromise the matter 'twixt the Pope ●nd King, enjoins the Signature of ●he formulary 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, 
Ref●t. de la Fausse Relat. du P. Ferrier cap. 12.  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 candour 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, 
§. 22. The Jansenists multiplication and acceptation with serious Papists and Protestants.  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 formulary for the condemnation of Jansenius. Amongst the Regulars, som● whole Covents, yea whole Orders a● levened 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 Assembly of the Clergy 〈◊〉 France, An. 1657. wherein they asse● that sufficient Grace does infallibly wa● its effect, whereas efficacious Grace do● infallibly produce it in every state. Th● Dominicans also symbolise very far, 〈◊〉 not in every point, with the Jansenists (as has been before shown) though they dare not profess any considerable favour 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 Douai, where the Jesuits are as much hated, as by their professed enemies the Jansenists. The Protestants generally have a great favour and kindness for the Jansenists. 
This Conference was at Caen, Feb. 〈◊〉. 1664.  'Tis 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, etc. 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 Augustine'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 symbolising 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 Pope's Bull, 
§. 23.  the King's Declaration, and the Archbishop of Paris' Ordinance for the Signature of the formulary, 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 consent to the condemnation of the V Propositions formerly sentenced, without any mention of the Books of Jansenius: to which they have given their obedience, and accordingly subscribed. Hence (as I hear) the Jansenists by the King's interposure, are again restored to their Dignities and preferments in the Sorbon, and elsewhere. The last news we hear of the Jansenists, is their consultations about setting up a Patriarch in France, which the Pope's Nuncio complained of to the King, as that which would bring great Detriment to his Holiness.   

PART II.  
The Dogmatic Idea of Jansenisme.  
The Principles of Jansenisme as laid down by Jansenius. 1. Efficacious Grace the first Principle of Jansenisme: of habitual and actual adjutory. 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 freewill 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 philosophic figment 11. Love to God in the state of Innocence both natural and supernatural▪ How love to God is a debt to human Nature, and yet of Grace. 12. Ther● is no natural Grace or Happiness, b● what is supernatural. 13. How G● cannot but punish sin: Sin the greate● punishment of sin. 14. No Obligation 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 necessity 17. The nature of efficacious Grace i● Divine suavity. 18. There is no sufficient Grace but what is efficacious 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▪ etc. 23. Of freewill, its nature, etc. 24. The mode of reconciling Freewill with Efficacious Grace. 25. Of Pre●destination, its act, object, motives, &c▪ 26. Of Reprobation, and against Universal Grace. 27. Against Scholastic Theology. 28. The Jansenists D●gmes of faith, touching the perfection of Scriptures, efficacious Grace, justification by faith, etc. 29. Their practical Theology. 30. Their Principles as to Church Discipline: 1. That there is no humane infallible judge in matters of faith. 2. That Church-power is declarative only. 3. For liberty of Conscience, etc.  
HAving given some Historick account of Jansenisme, 
§. 1. The Principles of Jansenisme.  its Authors, Rise, and Progress, together with sundry particularities, as to matter of fact: we now proceed to its Principles both Dogmatic and Practic; wherein we may be more affirmative and peremptory, than in former matters of fact. The Principles of Jansenisme (as of all Religion) have a threefold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or regard. 1. To Faith or Doctrine. 
1. The Notional Principles of Jansenisme as laid down by Jansenius.  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 Jansenius, the Founder of this Sect, or as taken up by his Adherents. We shall first consider them, as they are to be found in Jansenius 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 Jansenius' Doctrine; but shall content ourselves to cull forth and collect such particular notions of his, as carry in them some note of peculiarity and remark, whence the denomination of Jansenisme received its Original. And in this undertaking we shall follow Jansenius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in his own words (translated) and method, as well as sense, so near as we may.  
1. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
●. Efficacious Grace the first Principle of Jansenisme.  the first lie or Idol of Molinisme consists in the asserting of freewill; so, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first Truth of Jansenisme regards Efficacious Grace. This is the first great fundamental notion, which I have remarqued in Jansenius and his Adherents, who indeed are great Advancers of Efficacious Grace, but as great Abasers of Corrupt Nature; friends of Free Grace, but professed enemies of freewill. So Jansenius (in his August. Tom. 2. fol. 60.) distinguisheth of a twofold adjutory, or Divine Assistance: 
Of a twofold adjutory habitual and actual.  the one he calls an adjutory sine quo non, without which we cannot act: the other he calls an adjutory 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, energetic or influential adjutory, whence followeth the application and determination of the power to act. 
Habitual Grace.  The former potential habitual Adjutories he supposeth to be in the same rank, with the Power or Faculty, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phil. 2. 13. the will, 
Phil. 2. 13.  and the do, but only a complete power of willing and doing. Amongst these dispositive potential Adjutories or Assistances he reckons all Habits or Powers▪ as Intelligible species or Ideas, and the light of Intelligence, commonly stile● intellectual Habits; as all moral Habits Dispositions, and Preparatory Graces, seated in the will. 
Of Actual Grace, and its necessity.  As for the adjutoriu● quo, the adjutory 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 adjutory 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 adjutory of Efficacious Grace: The true root (says he) why not work morally good, can be done without Grace freeing or uncaptivating the will, is this: That which by the bondage of Concupiscence is taken from good works, is not some supernaturalitie of the work, or the Reason of merit, but it is the very formal Reason, by which a good work is constituted such; so that upon the defect thereof sin ipso facto followeth. For the Pondus or weight of Concupiscence, with which the soul is possessed, wrists it from the love of justice and rectitude, which is necessarily and essentially required in every good work, and fastens it to some Creature. But of this more hereafter.  
2. Another great Principle, 
§. 2. 2. The traduction of Original sin.  on which Jansenius does largely discourse in order to the subversion of Molinisme, is touching the Traduction or propagation of Original sin, etc. So Jansen. August. Tom. 2. lib. 1. cap. 6. fol. 86. I find it, says he, to be the undubitable opinion of Austin, That Original sin is no otherwise propagated, from the first man to Posterity, but by the lust or Concupiscence of the flesh; that by the magnitude of that sin all humane nature should be vitiated. For by this it comes to pass, that this Concupiscential Law, or evil of Nature, being propagated, also Original sin should be propagated. 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. Jansenius asserts here a Prolific 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 Impurity 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 savouring any thing that is spiritual: as liquors receive a tang from the vessel, 
§. 3. The depravation of the understanding: and how far invincible ignorance is sin.  etc.  
Jansenius proceeds, from his Discourse of Original Sin in general, to the particular branches thereof; and gins with the Depravation of the Understanding. So in his Tom. 2. lib. 2. cap. 5, 6. fol. 128. Where that which deserves special remark 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, Invincible ignorance, which flows from necessity, not from the will, is not without sin. By invincible ignorance he means such as cannot be overcome by any human diligence. And first he takes it for granted, 
Jansen. Aug. to. 2. lib. 2. c. 2, 3, 4, 5.  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 Positive 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 Nature's Law, excuseth not from sin, he proves, 1. Because the knowledge of the said natural Law is connatural 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, etc.  
Hence Jansenius passeth on to the corruption of the Will and Affections; 
§. 4. Of concupiscence, and its natural propension unto the creature.  which he discourseth of under the notion of Concupiscence. So Tom. 2. lib. 2. cap. 7. fol. 130. Concupiscence (says he) which Tully calls Lust, and the Platonists Pleasure, or delectation, is nothing else than an habitual pondus or weight, by which the soul is inclined and bend to the fruition of the creatures. For whether this concupiscence be the very sensitive Appetite and Will, as destitute of Grace, and, by their own gravity and weight, prone to the appetition of things created, as many will have it; or whether it be somewhat superadded to these powers, as Austin rather inclines; (whether one or tother) its still like an inveterate custom, pertinaciously propelling to the fruition of Pleasures: Whence Austin more than once calls it, a natural, and, as to all human power, invincible custom. The eject 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 philosopher's, who placed the chiefest good 〈◊〉 Wisdom or Virtue, as sensual voluptuous person's, who lived according to the flesh, 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. 4, 5. 
Rom. 8. 4, 5.  The End of this Concupiscence 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, etc. he gives us the distribution of Concupiscence, according to that 1 John 2. 16. 
1 John 2. 16.  into 1. The Concupiscence of the sensitive part, or the lusts of the flesh; which comprehends all the pravity of the external senses, etc. 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 Concupiscence he makes the roots of 〈◊〉 sin.  
Jansenius having discoursed at large 〈◊〉 the Adherence of the Will to the creature which he calls Concupiscence, 
§. 5. Of the Nature of fruition; and that God is the alone object thereof.  he come● to treat of the Wills Adhesion to God, under the Notion of Fruition. So Tom. 2▪ lib. 2. cap. 16. fol. 150▪ etc. Man● (says he) love those things they know not they love; but this their love is discovered by fruition: for love without fruition cannot be understood; as neither fruition without love: seeing love is the beginning of fruition; & fruition the end of love; for none enjoys any thing but what he loves; and none loves any thing but what he would fain enjoy. Whence it comes to pass, that as there is no Fruition, but what is seasoned with love, so there is no love, but what tends to frution. Therefore love, says Austin, is nothing else, but the will desiring or tending to the fruition of somewhat— For love, as a hidden fountain, precedeth fruition; and fruition as an open stream or lake wherein love is drowned, is more manifest than Love: Wherefore there is the greatest vicinity betwixt fruition and love; so that Austin, explicating the reason of fruition, says, that to enjoy any thing, is by love to adhere unto it, for itself. For if we do not adhere unto the thing for itself, we do not properly love it, but that other thing, for which we adhere to it. Fruition properly is not love, but the fruit, effect, and end thereof. For love when its object is absent, breaks forth into desire; and when present and possessed, into fruition and joy; which is the centre that terminates its motion. These things being thus explicated; it evidently follows, (adds he) according to Austin, that a rational creature may enjoy nothing but God only. For we enjoy only that which we love for itself; wherein our objective happiness consists— From this immobile principle it follows. 1. That all use of the creature, which is not referred unto God, is sin. 2. That all fruition of the creature, no less than the love thereof, is sin. 3. That to use God for the obtaining the creature▪ is sin: which perversity is found in all sin; whilst we would enjoy things t● be used, and use things to be enjoyed. Whence sprang that rule of Austin, that all human perversion is, when men would enjoy things to be used, and use things to be enjoyed: And again, all ordination and virtue, is to enjoy things to be enjoyed, and to use things to be used. 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, This the Spirit of God most savingly indicateth unto us, that there is no true● self-love than that, whereby we love God with all the heart: and because the most refined and noble love of God, consists in a man's being abstracted from the reflection, and consideration of himself, it thence followeth, that by how much the more a man forgets himself, by so much the more noble and exact regard he has unto himself. 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 relinquish God is to embrace nothing.  
Hence Jansenius (Tom. 2. lib. 2. c. 19 ●l. 
§. 6. Why love to the creature for itself i● irregular.  156.) gives us a demonstration from because, why it is unlawful, for a creature 〈◊〉 terminate on himself or on the creature, as the ultimate object of his love. Because this is the natural condition of a rational creature, to be placed under God, but ●bove all corporeous Being's. Now this order 〈◊〉 preserved by regular Loves and Weights. ●or a weight, according to Austin, is the impetus or Bend of every thing towards its ●roper place. And the weight of a rational 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 ough to subject 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 crenature, 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, etc.  
Thence Jansenius proceeds to demonstrate the pestiferous effects of inordin● love, 
§. 7. Seven Pestiferous effects of creature love and fruition.  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 incapacity of judgement. 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 another effect of creature love; the alligation or ●inding the heart to the things beloved. This at first is insensible, but yet by frequent acts, this inordinate love increaseth; so that at last, from delight there ariseth custom; and from custom necessity. 4. Whence also follows a difficulty of rending the heart from, and grief in parting with beloved's. 5. Hence likewise results instability 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 Impurity clouds and darkens the mind, obstructing its serenity of judgement. 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 touchit inordinate and ordinate love or fruiti● Jansenius proceeds to prove that 〈◊〉 Will cannot be the Parent of any w● spiritualy or morally good. 
§. 8. No Free Will to good.  So Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 3. cap. 14. We judge, saith he, 〈◊〉 opinion of Austin, and his Disciples 〈◊〉 indubitable. 1. That no good wo● no not morally such, can be perform by Free Will, unless it be freed by ●wird● and that not of every kind, but of fai●● 2. That the Liberty of abstaining fr● sin is lost, and a necessity of sinni● even in every act, introduced: became whatever is not of ●aith, is sin. T● he farther demonstrates, Cap. 17. fol. 2● Because, according to the principle 〈◊〉 Austin, there can be no Work 〈◊〉 good, but what is referred unto God, for himself. 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 Augustine'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, etc. But adds he, this Office of virtue is but as the matter or corpse; '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 Semipelagians, from the Gentile Philosophers, viz. the Peripatetics, Stoics, etc. whose opinion Tully lib. 5. de ●inib. thus relates: Nature induced the elements of virtue,— but she only gins virtue, and no more. These Philosophic opinions of the seeds of virtue, adds he, the Pelagians, Semipelagians 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.  
Jansenius having demonstrated the Impossibility of Free Will to good, 
§. 9 Necessity of sin excludes not human liberty: neither is Indifference essential thereto.  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, Jansenius 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 voluntariness: 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 mobility, or mutability of will, is not of the essence of Liberty, but its imperfection. He farther proves, that Liberty is the same with voluntariness; yea, the same with the will itself, which ceaseth not to be most free, when 'tis most fixed and necessary. Yea, this firmity 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 corroborated and confirm the same. He tells us also, that these false ideas of human liberty were derived from Aristotle, who measured every thing by his own reason▪ Whereas others of the Ancients had mor● Orthodox notions of human liberty making it the same with rational spontaneity, or voluntariness, etc. of these things Jansenius discourseth at large, in what follows, chap. 25. also in his Tom. 3● lib. 6. cap. 3. 5. 10, 25, 35, 37, etc.  
The Molinists to maintain their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
§. 10. Against a state of pure Nature.  or great Diana of free will, invented a middle state which they call 〈◊〉 state of pure Nature, without sin or Grace. This Jansenius greatly opposeth, as tha● which was greatly derogatory 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, etc. 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, Jansenius proves, 1. From the order or regard a rational creature has unto God, as his first principle and last end or good: For says he, 'tis impossible that a rational creature should be produced by God in a connatural manner, without some regard to his last and most connatural end. So cap. 3. fol. 282. For, the reason of Divine Providence, and the connatural order of things require, that as things proceed from a first principle, so they tend to some last end. Yea, this flows from the very Institution of Human Nature, and is founded in its very Essence, that it adhere to God, as its supreme principle and last end. Which not to do is sin. 2. Seeing a rational creature cannot be made without a will regularly inclined to God as Creator, hence followeth a necessity of Grace, to inspire this will, whereby the possibility of a state of pure nature is overturned, etc. 3. All love terminates either on the creature, and so 'tis concupiscence, or on God, and so 'tis Divine Charity, or love, etc. Whence it follows, there can be no middle state 'twixt sin and Grace, because the will always adheres to God or the creature.  
Hence Jansenius proceeds to demonstrate, 
§. 11. Love to God in the state of Innocence, both natural and supernatural.  That Love to God was in the state of Innocence a gift naturally due to humane Nature, and yet of Grace given to it. So Tom. 2. de Pur. Nat. l. 1. c. 15. If (says he) a rational creature cannot be created without love to God, then hence occurs a weighty difficulty, whether this love may be styled natural, or supernatural: a debt or Grace. To which he replies thus: It seems to me that both may be affirmed without a contradiction. That this love is supernatural, is beyond controversy amongst all Catholics; for, as eternal bliss, so the Love of God, which is the way thereto, is in like manner supernatural: for though one and tother be the action of a creature, yet neither flows from the principles of nature, or natural faculties and force. This love to God may be called also natural, not only as consentaneous unto Nature; but 1. On the part o● reason: as the natural light of reason dictates, that God is to be beloved above all, and that by the most natural, strict and universal obligation, than which nothing is more moral, essential, and eternally obliging to human Nature, etc. 2. This love of God may be said to be natural, in regard of the will, as God is the most natural end of its choice, according to that of Scotus, God is the natural end of man, although not to be obtained naturally. Whence he starts another difficulty, cap. 
Whether this love to God be a debt to human Nature.  17. fol. 312. Whether this love to God, be a debt due to human Nature? to which he replies, 1. That God is to be loved by his creature in every state. 2. That this love, although it be consentaneous to human nature, yet it is the effect of supernatural Grace. 3. Hence (says he) it is most safe to affirm, that a rational creature considered without any foregoing sin, cannot be created without love to God; at least without a sufficient faculty, by which he may be enabled to cleave unto God, as his Creator: for otherwise the will should be void of ●s natural rectitude, and so sinful, etc. Which to impute to God, is a note of blasphemy, whereby he is made the Author of sin. 
How of Grace.  Thence Jansenius proceeds cap. 20. fol. 320. to show how this love to God, though a debt due to human Nature, proceeds notwithstanding from Grace. 1. There are, says he, certain debts or decent connaturalities, congruencies, and equity's, which spring not from the right of the creature, but from the Grace of God. For God is oft said to be a debtor to himself, his own attributes, not only to his Justice, but also to his Wisdom and Goodness, etc. 2. Again, the very nature of a Rational creature, is the gratuitous and free gift of God; so in like manner the rectitude of the same nature, which though inseparable, yet it ariseth not from any merit of the creature, but from such arguments or reasons as concern the attributes of God, his Wisdom and Goodness.  
From the foresaid hypothesis, 
§. 12. There is no natural virtue or happiness, but what is supernatural.  that there is no such thing as a state of pure Nature, Jansenius rationally concludes against, and rejects that usual distinction amongst the Schoolmen of virtue and beatitude, into natural and supernatural, etc. So Tom. 2. de Nat. Pura lib. 2. cap. 2. fol. 326. Where he tells us, That he has oft wondered how it came to pass, that the ancient Philosophers, Socrates, Plato, etc. discoursed more accurately, and truly of the lapsed state of man, than the late Schoolmen? Neither adds he, can I find any other reason hereof than this, that the late Schoolmen have all followed the purblind reasonings of Aristotle; who being ignorant of his own imbecility, and not sensible of any supernatural adjutory, taught men to expect all good from their own virtue, etc. Hence the Pelagians sucked all their poison: which the Schoolmen endeavouring to moderate and allay, have framed two men in one, a Philosopher, and a Christian: Whence, what ever they find in the Philosopher, touching free will or natural virtue they apply to their Philosopher; and whatever they find in Scripture, touching Grace, they refer to their Christian. Thus they frame a double virtue and happiness, one natural, another supernatural. So again, Jansen. Tom. 2. lib. 4. de Grat. Christi, cap. 16. fol. 255. The Schoolmen, says he, finding the Pelagian Infusions touching seeds of virtue, repugnant to the Catholic Doctrine, they frame a double man in a single, and so double charity, double virtues, double works; the one natural, the other supernatural; whereof there is not the least footsteps in Austin, who terms the Philosophers and schoolmen's natural virtues but splendid sins. So Tom. 2. de pur. Nat. lib. 2. c. 5. fol. 332. The Schoolmen, says Jansenius, confess, that man cannot be in a connatural mode created, but for some last end: hence they are forced to coin a twofold beatitude, one natural, t'other supernatural, etc. Then he concludes cap. 8. That as this state of pure Nature derived its original from the error of Gentile Philosophy; so likewise this imagination of natural happiness, etc. In brief, he demonstrates clearly, that these common notions, so frequent in the Schools, touching natural and moral virtues and happiness, as distinct from spiritual or supernatural, are but a mere chimaera, or figment, hatched first in the Gentile Schools, and thence derived by the Pelagians and Schoolmen into the Christian Schools, with no small prejudice to the Christian Faith. 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 Jansenius proceeds to prove, 
§. 13. That God cannot but punish sin.  that there is a kind of necessity on God, for the punishing of sin. So Tom. 2. de Pura Nat. lib. 3. cap. 2. That God, says he, can permit sin, whereby his order is disturbed, to go unpunished, Austin every where rejects, as a Paradox irreconcilable with Divine Justice. And this necessity of punishing sin results not hence, that God has thus by his peculiar will constituted, but from the very sanction of the Eternal Law, against which God cannot act, any more than against himself, seeing it is nothing else, but God's eternal Reason and Will. 
The punishment of sin is sin.  Then he proceeds cap. 3, 4. to show, what those punishments are, which are so inseparably and indispensably fastened to sin, 
1. Horror of Conscience.  viz. 1. Horror of Conscience, which is oft more intolerable than death itself. And if there be at any time security on sinners, yet this ariseth not from any health of conscience, but from its stupor. Now by how much the more stupid conscience is, by so much the more uncurable 'tis: as in the body, so in conscience, stupidnes is a disease worse than the most torturing dolours or pains. 
2. Inquietude.  2. Another inseparable punishment of sin, is a perpetual inquietude. 
3. Loss of God.  3. But another more weighty and intimate punishment of sin, is the loss of the chiefest good. For although no one sins but with his will, yet not one parts with his chiefest good, but against his will. 
4. Adherence to the creature.  4. This is followed with another punishment, which is adherence to the creature, and by how much the more pleasingly and securely the sinner enjoys the creature, by so much the more 'tis fastened to it, and therefore by so much the more miserable. 
5. Sin is the worst punishment of itself.  5. Sin is an unseparable punishment of itself. For though sin precisely as voluntary, is not a punishment but offence, yet as it is the offence of a rational creature, so it is an evil, which none would voluntarily partake of: For none chooseth pure sin. The greatest punishment of sin, says Seneca is in itself: it is no sooner committed but punished by its very act. Whence Jansenius, cap. 11, etc. fol. 382. proceeds largely to prove that no evil can be inflicted by God on an innocent person; which overturnes the Molinists' state of pure nature.  
Jansenius, 
§. 14. No obligation on God to give Grace to such as improve Naturals.  the more effectually to undermine the Jesuits great Idol of Free Will, proves Tom. 3. de Grat. Christi, lib. 1. c. 5. fol. 7. That God is not bound by any stable Law, to give Grace to him that does what he can by the force of nature to improve the abilities he has. For (says he) there is no Law or Ordination of God: by which Grace is conferred on sinners that do nothing of good: but this is dispensed, not only altogether freely, but also according to the most profound Laws of Divine Gubernation; whereby Grace is sometimes imparted to the most heinous sinners, and denied to others more righteous. Whence the question is resolved into this, Whether Grace be infallibly given to those who are less sinful. That Grace is not thus dispensed, is evident, in children, who without peradventure are less sinful than persons adult, and yet frequently excluded from having any share in Divine Grace. The like as to persons adult. And indeed this Law obliging God to dispense forth Grace, according to men's improvement of Naturals, is but a vain Comment found out by such, who being not able to bear the inscrutable profundity and liberty of imparting Grace, were willing to frame certain chains, whereby Nature and Grace should be knit together, that so condemned Nature might as it were by certain scales or degrees pass from one to the other. Thus Jansenius.  
Hence Jansenius undertakes to prove the Impotence of the Law as to salvation, 
§. 15. The impotence of the Law as to salvation with the irritation of sin thereby.  and its prevalence as to the irritation of sin. So Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 1. cap. 8. The knowledge of the Law, (says he) although it removes the ignorance of our duty, yet it leaves concupiscence more difficult to be overcome, more flourishing and strong than before. And whoever imagineth, that the Law was given to the Jews immediately for this end, that so they might by institution thereof be brought to a more facility of righteousness is greatly deceived. For lust being repressed, is increased; and being like to be deprived of its lusted good, it burns more strongly for the enjoyment of it. Yea, the Law is so far from lessening sin, as that it aggravates the same, and shuts up the sinner under a more severe condemnation. 1. In that he now sins against more light, etc. 2. In that, if the sinner be brought to any partial or imperfect conformity to the precepts of the Law, he presently is puffed up with pride, carnal confidence, and self-sufficience which is the worst of sins. 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, etc. of which more hereafter.  
Jansenius having demonstrated the Impotence of the Law, 
§. 16. Of medicinal efficacious Grace its necessity.  in combination with Free will, to confer Grace, he thence proceeds to prove the Necessity and efficacy of Christ's medicinal Grace, etc. So Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 2. cap. 22. The genuine nature (says he) of medicinal Grace consists herein, that it give not only an habitual or potential capacity, but also an actual adjutory, or Assistance, whereby the will may be determined (hic & nunc) immediately unto good. Then cap. 24. he proves more largely, That this medicinal Grace is Vorticordious or most potent. 1. In that it does, by an ineffable suavity, mixed with power, effectually overcome the heart. 2. In that God is the alone supreme Agent in this work. 3. In that this Medicinal Grace is such, as that its effect depends not on the will, but the will is by it determined: 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, etc. 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, etc. cap. 25.  
Hence, 
§. 17. The nature of efficacious Grace in Divine suavity.  lib. 4. de Grat. c. 1, etc. Jansenius proceeds to discourse more fully of the nature of this Medicinal Efficacious Grace, which he styles a spiritual suavity, or celestial delectation, whereby the will is prevented, and bend 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 suavity 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 suavity infused by God. 2. He proves the same from the contrary, namely sin, which springs from a terrene suavity. 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, dropped 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 centre God, by the motion of desires, and terminates or rests therein by satisfaction and delight. For who ever loves God, does so far possess him, and thence injoies him with delight, and and also delights in him with enjoyment, etc.  
Jansenius having made some entrance on the explication and demonstration of Efficacious Grace, 
§. 18. No sufficient Grace but what is efficacious.  he asserts and proves, Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 3. cap. 1, 2, 3. That men in their lapsed state are afforded no sufficient Grace, but what is also efficacious. For, says he, this adjutory purely sufficient belongs to the Grace of Nature, and is altogether unuseful for the reparation of persons lapsed, although it should be augmented to six hundred degrees of sufficience: Yea, it cannot be asserted, since the fall, unless with a greater delusion than that of the Pelagians, taking away original sin, we will allow unto Nature unwounded force. Yea, what can be produced more monstrous, than such a kind of adjutory, distinct from all the rest, which was never from the beginning of the fall, nor shall be to the day of judgement, conferred on the human will. So cap. 5.— 11. he proves, That the Law was given to the Jews, and to many Christians, without any such sufficient or adjuvant Grace. And unbelievers want this sufficient Grace as well the next as more remote, and all the principles thereof, etc.  
Hence Jansenius passeth on to show, how many ways the precepts of God may be said to be possible, 
§. 19 How many ways the Precepts of God may be said to be possible and useful without sufficient Grace.  without asserting such a sufficient Grace: So Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 3. cap. 15, etc. That the Possibility of God's commands, on which the Liberty of Will, and the Reason of sin depends, may be more fully explicated, it must be observed, how many ways a man may be said to be able, etc. 1. Most remotely, by the flexibility of human liberty. 2. Somewhat more nearly, by faith and love. 3. But most completely by the Assistance of actual Grace. This complete power, which actual Grace gives, is always joined, and that inseparably, with an actual will. Thus therefore the precepts of God are possible, 1. To the just by faith and love. 2. To unbelievers, by virtue of the flexibility of natural liberty, neither does the suspension of actual Grace at all excuse their moral impotence, of observing the Precepts; because this impotence is not antecedent but consequent and voluntary, arising from the perverse disposition of the will, which, by how much the more fixed 'tis; by so much the more inexcusable 'tis, so far is it from excusing sin. Then cap. 17. Jansenius proves, that these Divine Precepts are very useful, (though impossible to be kept) by unbelievers, without the vain figment of sufficient Grace, and that 1. To discover men's duty. 2. To discover their infirmity. 3. To render them inexcusable. 4. As a medium of judicial hardness. 5. But especially as to the Elect, these Precepts and Exhortations are useful: 1. To teach them 〈◊〉 infirmity, their blindness and hardness 〈◊〉 heart, etc. 2. To make them of 〈◊〉 miss and humble spirits, willing to 〈◊〉 saved in God's way, and on terms 〈◊〉 free Grace. God commands a du●● beyond our strength, thereby to dri●● us out of ourselves to Christ. 3. To●gether with the Word of Precept, 〈◊〉 gives out a word of Power, etc.  
Jansenius having discoursed of 〈◊〉 Nature and Necessity of Efficacious Gra● he proceeds to treat of the several kin● thereof. 
§. 20. The distribution of Grace into Praeventing, subsequent, operant, cooperant, excitant, adjuvant.  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● Which names (says he) are respe●ctive; whose term is not Grace, (〈◊〉 though one Grace did precede th● other) but the acts of the Will. Fo● Grace is said to be praevenient, because it prevents every good motion of th● will; and subsequent, as it follows th● foregoing good motion. This division had its rise not from the Metaphysic Speculation of the latter Schoolmen, but from that famous Pelagian Controversy, Whether the Will gins the first good mo●ion, so as that Grace follows the good ●otion of the will? or whether on the ●●●trary, Grace precedes, etc. Hence Grace operant, is the same with praeve●ient, and Grace co-operant the same with obsequent. Hence also Grace excitant is ●iled, that which gins the first good ●otion in the will, and Grace adjuvant is ●hat which assists any good already be●un in the will, etc.  
Jansenius having finished his Discourse 〈◊〉 Medicinal Efficacious Grace, 
§. 21. An Virtue consists in love to Go●.  he pro●eeds to the effect thereof, namely to virtue, which he makes to consist, radically and principally in Love to God. So ●om. 3. de Grat. lib. 5. cap. 3, etc. Austin (says he) teacheth us, that the virtue of a Rational creature, is no other than love to God. Which Doctrine indeed seems very exotic to the Sectators of Aristotle's Morals; but yet, if it be duly weighed, it will be found to be most true. For man's chiefest goo● and virtue consists in adhering to God▪ which is done by love. Virtue is nothing else but a rectified will. Henc● he proves, that all the Cardinal Virtue● Prudence, Temperance, Justice, Fortitude; yea, those which they term supernatural, as Faith and Hope, have 〈◊〉 their original from Love to God. Hen● also he proves, cap. 9 10. That love 〈◊〉 concupiscence which refers all to self, 〈◊〉 respect of God, is vicious: yet 'tis not repugnant to love to God, to have an e● on the reward: for love to God for himself is the only reward of our love to God, i. e. consummate love to God, is the only reward of our present inchoate love to God.  
Hence Jansenius passeth on to treat of the fear of Hell, 
§. 22. Of 〈◊〉 fear o● Hell, its causes, effects, etc.  its causes, properties, and effects. So Tom. 3. de Grat, lib. 5. cap. 21. etc. 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 centre; this is the fault 〈◊〉 him that fears, not of the fear. He ●en distinguisheth 'twixt ordinate and inordinate fear of Hell: Ordinate is that whereby the fault is more feared than the punishment; inordinate, when the punishment is feared more than the fault; which some call servile fear. Thence he leads us to the Springhead of this fear of Hell, showing, how it springs not from a spirit of Adoption, which inspires celestial suavities into the heart; but from the spirit of bondage, or a certain general Grace of of God. Yet adds he, this fear of Hell is attributed to the Grace of God, because 1. It proceeds from a Legal faith of God's Eternal Judgement, which is a gift of God. 2. God follows this apprehension of future Judgement with comminations, threats, and commotions of Conscience, etc. 3. God works this fear by softening the heart; and that either by the immission of temporal tribulations, or by the ablation of carnal delights, which harden Conscience. 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.  
Jansenius having discoursed at large of medicinal Grace, 
§. 23. Of freewill, its nature, etc.  its nature, and effects, he returns again to the main hinge or head of the Controversy, to discourse more fully of freewill, its nature, etc. Thus Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 6. cap. 1. etc. fol. 255. where he gins with this sad Lamentation: There is deserved and great matter of grief, that some are so given to human, and for the most part fallacious r●tiocinations, as that they suppose it more meet to draw the intelligence of freewill from Aristotle, and the Gentile Philosophy, than from the bosom of the ancient Church: namely, because this matter exceeds not the bounds of natural reason, therefore (as they conceit) it must be measured by reason. Neither indeed is the Pelagian heresy concerning Grace and freewill any other than pure Aristotelick Philosophy. Hence he goes on to prove, that freewill 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. etc.) 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 our power, which they also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which Basil opposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 wil● 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, etc.  
Hence Jansenius Tom. 
§. 24. The manner of conciliating efficacious Grace with the Liberty of the Will.  3. de Grat. lib. 8. cap. 6. unto 21. is engaged in that intricate difficulty of reconciling efficacious Grace with human Liberty, The mode (says he, cap. 6.) of conciliating Divine Grace with freewill is so difficult to be discerned, according to Austin, that when the liberty of the will is defended, the Grace of God seems to be denied; and when the Grace of God is asserted, the liberty of the will may be thought to be taken away. Hence Austin, to manifest, that the liberty of the will continues safe under Grace, and that both might very well conspire together in one, he never attempted any thing against the Pelagians, which excluded the will from an instrumental concurrence with the Grace of God, etc. Then he adds, cap. 15. This very thing John Scotus does professedly teach, 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 firmity 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 Jansenius who cap. 18. adds farther thus, The Catholics say, that by the Grace of God working in us every good work is done, yet that we are not compelled against our will to believe or that Grace is violent; because if the will be compelled or forced it does not will. And they add the reason, because God by Grace does not destroy reason and will, but enables men to will aright. The like cap. 19 It cannot be (says Jansenius) but that the will must be free, therefore if Grace enables and makes us to will, it enables and makes us also to will freely, so that there can be no repugnance 'twixt Grace and the liberty of the will— Therefore no necessity, no efficacy on the acts of the will, is to be feared but only force, coaction, and violent necessity. Thence cap. 21. he answers the objection of those who pretended, That this his concord of the wills liberty with efficacious Grace differed not from the opinion of Calvin, etc. 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 Augustine's sake, etc. In brief Jansenius (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 excellently 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.  
Jansenius having discoursed most largely of the Doctrine of Efficacious Grace, 
§. 25. Of Divine Predestination.  he at last determines or centres ●n the root, head or spring of all, viz. in Predestination. So in his Tom. 3. lib. 9 de Grat. cap. 1, etc. Where he gins in ●his Preface thus. The dispute of Predestination is so intimately conjoined to that of Grace, that the nature of the one cannot be exactly known, without the knowledge of the other. Whence it comes to pass, that look into how many parts the neoterick Schools are diltracted, about the operation of Grace, so many dissensions in opinion have they also about Predestination: every party contending in their manner, according as the Grace they defend requires. But the principal difficulties in this matter have had their rise from the too great contention of Philosophic ratiocinations, etc. Jansenius after his Preface proceeds (cap. 1. fol. 364.) to the explication of Predestination, both name and thing. As to its names, he tells us, That to predestinate properly signifies to praedecree, praedefine, praedetermine somewhat. Thus the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, as Rom. 8. 29. Ephes. 1. 5, 11. And because every Praedefinition of God must necessarily, eternally precede its temporal effects, hence instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, as Rom. 1. 4. Luke 22. 22. Acts 2. 23. Acts 17. 26, 31. Acts 10. 42. In all which places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes rendered simply to decree; because to decree with God is the same with to praedecree. Hence (cap. 2. fol. 366 he concludes, That from this principle 'tis no way difficult to resolve many Scholastic Questions. For hence 'tis manifest, 1. That the object of Predestination is not things eternal, but temporal. 2. That God's Predestination regards his own affairs: things to be done by him, not merely by others. For we decree things we are to do, either by working, commanding or persuading, etc. 3. That God's Decrees regard both end and means: for they include all God does. 4. Hence also it comes to pass, that children may be predestinated to glory without previous faith, as well as persons adult by ordinate merits: for there is no difference in the Decree. 5. That Predestination regards not only Good, but also Evil, etc. Hence Jansenius (cap. 5.) proceeds to the more full explication of Predestination; which, says he, is expressed in Scripture by many aequipollent names: for sometimes 'tis called Dilection; because God by it will nothing but good to his creature. Sometimes 'tis termed Election; because he chooseth one and refuseth another: sometimes 'tis styled Purpose; because it is not a sterile dilection, but an efficacious decree of conferring some benefit. Lastly, 'Tis called a preparation; because the Decrees of God are as it were pregnant, or big with child, till they break forth into operation. 
Election not founded on a Praevision of Faith or Merits.  Jansenius 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 Efficacy 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, etc. cap. 19 3. From God's admirable Gubernation or Disposition of all things, so as that every thing 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 substraction thereof, be fetched from the very good pleasure of the Giver, not from any thing in the persons to whom 'tis given.  
Hence Jansenius proceeds to discourse of Reprobation, 
§. 26. Of Reprobation.  which he makes to be (according to Austin) God's leaving men under their original damnation, etc. So Tom. 3. de Grat. lib. 10. cap. 2. etc. Where explicating the distinction given by Modern 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. But according to Austin (adds he) there is no negative Reprobation to be allowed, because in every sign or moment of Divine account, it ever has adjoined to it (by reason of the object or person on which both falls) positive Reprobation. Then having discoursed at large of the Acts and Effects of this positive absolute Reprobation (cap. 5. 9 13. etc.) he concludes, with an Apology for God his sovereintie, and just procedure herein, (cap. 17.) It may not (says he) seem a wonder to any, that God should create, conserve, and govern such a number of Reprobates without any purpose of saving them. For they serve for that purpose to which they are meet, and very necessary in this state of matters: namely, that in them the severity and justice of Divine Vengeance against sin, 
Against Universal Grace.  as also the magnitude of mercy towards the Elect might be shown forth. For they who have coined that exotic kind of Predestination, wherein God is exposed and brought in, as ready to pour out his Graces indifferently unto all, that he who will may free himself; whilst they seem to lay open the bowels of Election towards all, they do wholly evacuate the whole of God's love towards the Elect, which is so greatly applauded in the Scriptures, and S. Austin, etc. Lastly, Jansenius (fol. 446.) draws a lively and large parallel 'twixt the Semipelagians and these New Schoolmen or Molinists in all points of moment referring to Grace, etc.  
Hence Jansenius (as also his Comrade St. Cyran) 
§. 27. Against Scholastic Theology.  entertained a deep displeasure against that abstruse, cloudy, and wrangling kind of Theologie brought in by the Schoolmen, in imitation of Aristotle, etc. 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, etc. 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 Schoolmen being drunken with the love of too much Philosophy, would fain dig forth, penetrate, form, and judge of the hidden Mysteries of Grace, according to the rules of reason. Hence that ardour of questioning and disputing every thing. Hence their Theology became stuffed with an heap of innumerable opinions, by which all things, though never so contrary, are made probable: whence a general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Scepticism: for nothing is more natural, than of Peripatetics men should become Academics, etc. Thus much of Jansenisme as I find it delivered by Jansenius.  
We now proceed to discourse a little of Jansenisme, 
§. 28. ●he Jan●nists ●ogmes ●f Faith.  as taken up and maintained by the Sectators of Jansenius, who in the general touching their sense of Jansenius, refer us to the first and third Disquisition of Paul Ireneus, 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 Jansenius: Moreover how far they symbolise with, and are willing to conform unto, the expressions of the Thomists has been before in the historic narrative sufficiently mentioned. But to give some particular Dogmes of the Jansenists as to faith.  
1. They generally (following Jansenius 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, 
La simple Verity a Paris. 1664.  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 Jansenius' 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. Because (say they) this word Grace sufficient is not to be found, either in the Scripture, or in the Councils, or in the Fathers, etc. therefore no Jesuit has right to oblige us to make use of it farther than we please. And to show their dislike of this sufficient Grace, which the M●linists do so much Idolise, the Jansenists a while since, in a Show 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 Jansenius and St. Cyran their heads) 
Of Justification by ●aith ●one.  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. 'Tis 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 Jansenius, 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 versed only in speculative and notional, 
§. 29. Their practical Theology.  but also in practic and active Theology; especially the chief of them Jansenius and St. Cyran seem to have had a very deep, broad, spiritual light and insight into the Mysteries of the Gospel, and true Godliness; 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, etc. They greatly commend to us spiritual poverty, soul-humilitie, heart-mortification, self-emptinesse, and abjection, etc. 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 favourable persuasions about Church Discipline; 
Their principles of Church Discipline.  as it appears by these particulars.  
1. They are come now generally to disavow, 
1. That there is no human infallible Judge in matters of Faith.  not only the Popes, but all human Infallibility. 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, Abregé d'un Traicté intitulé l'Illusion Theologique. The sum whereof they comprise in this Syllogism: One ought not to hold for Heretics any, but such as resist an Infallible Authority in matters of faith. Now its certain, the Pope has not such an Authority. Therefore, etc. The second Proposition, add they, is clear; (as well as the first;) for an Infallible Authority i● Soverein in its kind, and acknowledgeth no superior, etc.  
2. Hence they also hold, 
2. That the definition of Dogmes belongs to the Word, and the definition of facts to the Church; to which we own only a submission of respect, not of Faith.  that the Definition of Dogmes 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; It is true, Sire, that they place not in the same rank the submission which they render to the Definition of Dogmes, and that which they render to the Definition of particular facts; because the one is a submission of faith, and the other a submission of respect, and of Discipline. The truth, Sire, of things revealed by God, may not enter into comparison with those not revealed; th● Dogmes are revealed, and not particular facts— We ought therefore to separate the Dogmes and fact decided in the Constitutions receive● by the whole Church; to the en● that we submit to the one with 〈◊〉 submission of faith, and to the other with a submission of pure respect. Thus also the Jansenists themselves, in their La simple verité, à Paris 1664. The common light of reason (say they) shows, even to the most gross, that two things that are essentially separate, as a particular fact, and a Doctrine of faith, may be also separate in the creance of believers, etc. Hence also the Jansenists assert,  
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 Verité pag. 60. In the state of this life the Church demands of her children nothing but love and accord: and the obedience she requires of them, touching the facts which she decides, is nothing but modesty and peace; not a creance or belief. She commands them to believe nothing, but what she has learned of Jesus Christ. She declares to them his Word, not her own; leaving to them, as other things, so also that liberty, which he has given unto them; provided, that they lose not that respect, which they own to their Mother, and trouble not the union of her children. Thus the Jansenists of the Church's Power and Discipline.  
4. Hence also, 
4. Liberty of Conscience.  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 Church's definitions, is only a submission of respect; and in case of difference in persuasions, a respectuous silence, so far as the Church's Peace and Unity require● it, etc.  
5. Hence also we see what Uniformity, 
5. What Uniformity is requisite.  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, 
6. Of Censures.  (Lafoy simple Verité pag. 58.) that Excommunication implies a penal death of the soul: and seeing this death is the last of punishments, which the Church can impose, she ought not to ordain it, but conformably to the Scripture, and holy Decrees, which are those of the Spirit of God; for undubitable crimes, and worthy of death, against those who are convicted.  
7. Touching Schism, 
7. Of Schism.  they hold, that be is the Schismatic, who treats others more Catholic than himself, as guilty of Schism.  
As for Heresy, they say, 
8. Of heresy.  1. 'Tis 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 Verité, pag. 50.  
FINIS.    

ERRATA.  
PAge 9 line 24. for works, read Augustinus: p. 15. l. 11. for au r. at: p. 16. l. 22. r. Gautruche: p. 20. ●. 22. r. Jansenius' Augustinus: l. 25. for against r. from: p. 23. l. 27. after besides, add that: p. 53. l. 26. r. drew: p. 66. l. 19 for nos r. nobis: p. 78. l. 10. for was r. has: p. 81. l. 2. for it r. there: p. 87. l. 24. r. Heretical: p. 93. l. 23. r. rest: p. 139. l. 22. for by r. to: p. 148. l. ult. for compleasant r. pleasant.