JANSENIUS
291
JANSENIUS
and the " quasi-Jansenists ". The first were in gootl
faith pretty much what the fins Janscnistes were by
system and tactics: they appear to us as con-
vinced adversaries of necessitating grace, but no less
sincere tlefenders of efficacious grace; rigorists in
moral and sacramental questions; often opposed,
like the Parleraentarians, to the rightsof the Holy See;
generally favourable to the innovations of the sect in
matters of worship and discipline. The second cate-
gory is that of men of Jansenist tinge. While re-
maming within bounds in theological opinions, they
declared themselves against really relaxed morality,
against exaggerated popular devotions and other
similar abuses. The greater number were at bot-
tom zealous Catholics, but their zeal, agreeing with
that of the Jansenists on so many points, took on, .so
to speak, an outer colouring of Jansenism, and they
were drawn into closer sympathy with the party in
proportion to the confidence with which it inspired
them. Even more than the " duped " Jansenists they
were extremely useful in screening the sectarians and
in securing for them, on the part of the pastors and the
multitude of the faithful, the benefit either of silence or
of a certain leniency.
But the error remained too active in the hearts of the real Jansenists to endure this situation very long. At the beginning of the eighteenth century it mani- fested itself by a double occurrence which revived all the strife and trouble. The discussion began afresh with regard to the "case of conscience" of 1701. A provincial conference was supposed to inquire whether absolution might be given to a cleric who declared that he held on certain points the sentiments "of those called Jansenists", especially that of respectful si- lence on the question of fact. Forty doctors of the Sorbonne, among them some of great renown, such as Natalis Alexander, decided affirmatively. The publication of this decision aroused all enlightened Catholics, and the "ca.se of conscience" was con- demned by Clement XI (1703), by Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, by a large number of bishops, and finally by the faculties of theology of Louvain, Douai, and Paris. The last-named, however, as its slowness would indicate, did not arrive at this decision without difficulty. As for the doctors who signed, they were terrified by the storm they had let loose, and either retracted or explained their action as best they might, with the exception of the author of the whole movement. Dr. Petitpied, whose name was erased from the list of the faculty. But the Jansenists, though pressed hard by some and abandoned by others, did not yield. For this reason Clement XI, at the re- quest of the Kings of France and Spain, issued 16 July, 1705, the Bull "Vineam Domini Sabaoth" (Enchiri- dion, 1.350) in which he formally declared that re- spectful silence was not sufficient for the obedience due to the constitutions of his predecessors. This Bull, received with submission by the assembly of the clergy of 1705, in which only the Bishop of Saint-Pons obstinately refused to agree with the opinion of his colleagues, was afterwards promulgated as a law of the State. It may be said to have officially termi- nated that period of half a century of agitation occa- sioned by the signing of the formulary. It also terminated the existence of Port-Royal des Champs, which up to that time had remained a notorious cen- tre and hotbed of rebellion.
When it was proposed to the religious that they should accept the new Bull, they would consent only with this clause: "that it was without derogating from what had taken place in regard to them at the tinie of the peace of the Church under Clement XI ". This re.striction brought up again their entire past, as was clearly shown by their explanation of it, and there- fore made their submission a hollow pretence. Car- dinal de Noailles urged them in vain; he forljade them the sacraments, and two of the religious died without
receiving them, unless it were secretly from a dis-
guised priest. As all measures had failed, it was high
time to put an end to this scandalous resistance. A
Bull suppressed the title of the Abbey of Port-Royal
des Champs, and reunited that house and its holdings
to the Paris house. The Court gave peremptory or-
ders for a prompt execution, and, despite all the means
of tielay contrived and carried out by those inter-
ested, the pontifical sentence had its full effect. The
surviving choir religious were scattered among the
convents of the neighbouring dioceses (29 October,
1709). This separation had the desired good results.
All the rebellious nuns ended by submitting, save one,
the mother prioress, who died at Blois without the
sacraments, in 1716. The Government wishing to
eradicate even the trace of this nest of errors, as Clem-
ent XI called it, destroyed all the buildings and re-
moved elsewhere the bodies buried in the cemetery.
During the disputes concerning the "case of con- science ", a new book came cautiously on the scene, another "Augustinus", pregnant with storms and tempests, as violent as the first. The author was Paschase Quesnel (q. v.), at first a member of the French Oratory, but expelled from that congregation for his Jansenistic opinions (16S4), and since 1689 a refugee at Brussels with the aged Antoine Arnauld, whom he succeeded in 1696 as leader of the party. The work had been published in part as early as 1671 in a 12mo volume entitled "Abregede la morale del'Evan- gile, ou pens^es chretiennes sur le texts des quatres evangelistes ". It appeared with the hearty approba- tion of Vialar, Bishop of Chalons, and, thanks to a style at once attractive and full of unction which seemed in general to reflect a solid and sincere piety, it soon met with great success. But in the later de- velopment of his first work, Quesnel had extended it to the whole of the New Testament. He issued it in 1693, in an edition which comprised four large vol- umes entitled, "Nouveau testament en fran^ais, avec des rMexions morales .sur chaque verset ". This edition, besides the earlier approbation of Vialar which it inopportunely bore, was formally approved and heartily recommended by his successor, de No- ailles, who. as subsequent events showed, acted impru- dently in the matter and without being well-informed as to the contents of the book. The " Reflexions mo- rales" of Quesnel reproduced, in fact, the theories of the irresistible efficaciousness of grace and the limita- tions of God's will with regard to the salvation of men. Hence they soon called forth the sharpest criticism, and at the same time attracted the attention of the guardians of the Faith. The Bishops of Apt (1703), Gap (1704), Nevers, and Besan^on (1707) condemned them, and, after a report from the Inquisition, Clem- ent XI proscribed them by the Brief " Universi domin- ici" (170S) as "containing the propositions already condemned and as manifestly savouring of the Jan- senist heresy ". Two yearslater (1710) theBishopsof Lu^on and La Rochelle forbade the reading of the book.
Their ordinance, posted in the capital, gave rise to a conflict with Noailles, who, having become cardinal and Archbishop of Paris, found himself under the ne- cessity of withdrawing the approbation he had for- merly given at Chalons. However, as he hesitated, less through attachment to error than through self- love, to take this step, Louis XIV asked the pope to issue a solemn constitution and put an end to the trouble. Clement XI then subjected the book to a new and very minute examination, and in the Bull "Unigenitus" (S September, 1713) he condemned 101 propositions which had been taken from the book (Enchiridion, 1351 sq.). Among these were some propositions which, in themselves and apart from the context, seemed to have an orthodox sense. Noailles and with him eight other bishops, though they did not refuse to proscribe the book, seized this pretext to
