The journal of Monsr. de Saint Amour doctor of Sorbonne,: containing a full account of all the transactions both in France and at Rome, concerning the five famous propositions controverted between the Jansenists and the Molinists, from the beginning of that affair till the Popes decision. / Faithfully rendred out of French. ; A like display of the Romish state, court, interests, policies, &c. and the mighty influences of the Jesuites in that church, and many other Christian states, being not hitherto extant.

About this Item

Title
The journal of Monsr. de Saint Amour doctor of Sorbonne,: containing a full account of all the transactions both in France and at Rome, concerning the five famous propositions controverted between the Jansenists and the Molinists, from the beginning of that affair till the Popes decision. / Faithfully rendred out of French. ; A like display of the Romish state, court, interests, policies, &c. and the mighty influences of the Jesuites in that church, and many other Christian states, being not hitherto extant.
Author
Saint-Amour, Louis-Gorin de, 1619-1687.
Publication
London :: Printed by T. Ratcliff, for George Thomason, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-yard,
1664.
Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms
Jansenists.
Molinism.
Jesuits -- Controversial literature.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A93040.0001.001
Cite this Item
"The journal of Monsr. de Saint Amour doctor of Sorbonne,: containing a full account of all the transactions both in France and at Rome, concerning the five famous propositions controverted between the Jansenists and the Molinists, from the beginning of that affair till the Popes decision. / Faithfully rendred out of French. ; A like display of the Romish state, court, interests, policies, &c. and the mighty influences of the Jesuites in that church, and many other Christian states, being not hitherto extant." In the digital collection Early English Books Online 2. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A93040.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 13, 2024.

Pages

CHAP. VIII.

Of a Writing of M. Hallier and his Col∣legues which fell by chance into my hands.

SUch were the Writings prepar'd by us in this Businesse and some time after presented to the Pope and the Cardinals, as I shall relate in pro∣per place; and thus we began to treat this affair in order to its discussion upon so solid and inexpug∣nable foundations. But because my purpose is to repose not onely what I know was done by our selves, but also whatever I could learn to have been acted either by M. Hallier and his Collegues or our other Adversaries, I think not unfit to mention also in this place the Writing which I intimated above to have been presented by them to the Cardi∣nals, when they went all together to deliver their instructions upon the Five Propositions, and in one single Audience which might last an hour or there∣abouts. The Writing bears no mark which inti∣tles it to M. Hallier and his Collegues, or shews that they own it; and indeed I think they never sign'd any at all in this affair. But it came to my hands upon Tuesday Sept. 3. by the procurement of a certain Person, who got it purposely to shew me; and assoon as I had perus'd it, I coppyed it out.

In this Writing those Doctors especially studied not to appear Molinists, and said they would not establish the Sufficient Grace of the Jesu∣ites, but only Sufficient Grace in general.

One may see particularly the spirit of M. Halli∣er in it, who alwayes endeavoured to passe at Rome for a Defender of Effectual Grace; and who to get those condemn'd whom he term'd Jansenists, hath alwayes fasten'd upon them that they taught a kind of Grace not Effectual, but Necessitating; That they deny'd all Sufficient Grace, and other such Chimeraes which they attributed especially to those that were at Paris, pretending that we disguis'd our selves at Rome. And 'tis no wonder, that these Calumnies, not being refuted, because they were sown secretly, and we would not speak before the Congregation except in their presence, made impression in the minds of the Cardinals, some of the Consultors and the Pope himself.

This Writing being very short, I shall set down here at length, except some common passages upon the First Proposition, which have been refuted in several Work:. It was without a Title, as many o∣thers were, and began thus:

Page 222

Prima Propositio.

Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis vo∣lentibus & conantibus secundum praesen∣tes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia: Deest quoque iis gratia qua possibilia fi∣ant, Jans. lib. 3. de gr. Chr. cap. 13.

Sensus est, mandata Dei hominibus justis qui praecepta divina transgrediuntur esse impossibilia de∣fectu auxilii sufficientis quo vel possint eadem im∣plere, vel necessariam ad ea implenda gratiam pe∣tere.

Nota per has voces (defectu auxilii sufficientis) non intelligi gratiam illam versatilem quae modo ef∣fectum suum habet, modo non habet, quae à multis Doctoribus Catholicis refutatur: Sed intelligi gra∣tiam quae verè sufficiens sit quocunque tandem mo∣do, seu quae verè facultatem tribuat justo aut im∣plendi praeceptum, aut petendi gratiam necessariam ad illud implendum, ita ut per eam justus inexcusa∣bilis reddatur quando praeceptum transgreditur.

Secunda Propositio.

Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nun∣quam resistitur.

Sensus est, in statu naturae lapsae nullam esse gra∣tiam Christi actualem internam in voluntate resi∣dentem, cui voluntas humana de facto dissentiat.

Nota hic non attingi doctrinam Sancti Auguflini de gratia efficaci à se. Aliud est enim asserere San∣ctum Augustinum admisisse aliquod genus gratiae quae infallibiliter effectum suum consequitur. & à nullo duro corde respuitur; aliud asserere Sanctum Augustinum nullam aliam gratiam praeter efficacem admisisse quae sufficiens sit. Primum Catholicum est; secundum non nisi à Calvino ejusque sequaci∣bus fuit assertum.

Quod Sanctus Augustinus grati∣am * 1.1 aliquam sufficientem ad∣miserit, patet ex iisdem quibus dicit Deum justo non praecipere impossibilia, nec justum deserere prius quam ab ipso deseratur. Nam cùm mandata Dei non reddantur possibilia nisi per gratiam, & justi non semper man∣data Dei observent: sequitur eos aliquando actu & de facto gratia Dei resistere.

Non itaque hic agitur de gratia sufficiente ver∣satili statuenda, quae modò effectum suum habeat, modo non habeat: Sed tantum in genere quaeritur utrum verum sit in statu naturae lapsae nullam dari gratiam quae verè sufficiens sit.

Tertia Propositio.

Ad merendum & demerendum in statu na∣turae lapsae non requiritur in homine li∣bertas à necessitate, sed sufficit libertas à coactione.

Sensus est, ut actio quae meritoria aut demeritoria est, libera censeatur, non requiritur ut fiat cum in∣differentia, sed sufficit modo voluntarie & sine co∣actione fiat.

Haec autem sententia eadem est ac Calvini, qui nunquam eo sensu negavit liberum arbitrium, quasi actiones nostrae voluntatis non essent voluntariae, sed eo sensu quod negarit nobis inesse •…•…differentiam ad utrumlibet.

Quarta Proposttio.

Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis gra∣tiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos a∣ctus, etiam ad initium fidei; & in hoc erant haeretici, quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse cui posset humana voluntas re∣sistere vel obtemperare.

Propositionis hujus duae sunt partes: Prima est facti; utrum scilicet Semipelagiani admiserint gra∣tiam necessariam ad initium fidei.

Secunda utrum haereticum sit dicere gratiam a∣ctualem Christi talem esse cui possit humana volun∣tas consentire vel dissentire.

Neque etiam attingitur quaestio hic de gratia ef∣ficaci à se aut à consensu, quia utriusque opinionis assertores fatentur quod gratiam Dei possumus ab∣jicere juxta Concilium Tridentinum Sess. 6. c. 5. Sed tantum quaeritur utrum gratia in statu naturae corruptae talis sit, ut necessitatem inferat voluntati, adeo ut ei non possit dissentire; quod nullus Catholi∣cus umquam admisit.

Haec Propositio, suppositâ aliarum falsitate, ne∣cessariò debet falsa judicari; nam si impossibilia numquam sunt Dei Praecepta justis defectu gratiae sufficientis cui actu resistunt, sequitur posse gratiae resisti. Nam ab actu ad posse valet consequentia. Secundò si certum sit ad meritum requiri indifferen∣tiam, cum actio qua gratiae Dei consentimus, sit me∣ritoria, sequitur consensum ei praeberi cum indif∣ferentia, ac proinde cum potentia dissentiendi.

Quinta Propositio.

Semipelagianum est dicere Christum pro om∣nibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse.

Duo quaeruntur circa hanc Propositionem. 1, Quid de ea sentiendum quatenus notam haeresis af∣fingit communi Catholicorum Theologorum sententiae quae asserit Christum pro omnibus omnino mortuum esse.

Page 223

2. Quatenus ex mente Jansenii Christus non pro omnibus sed pro praedestinatorum salute tantum mor∣tuus est, ita ut omnibus reprobis negata sint auxilia sufficientia quibus possint salvari.

Hoc sensu examinata Propositione, intactae relin∣quuntur difficultates quae occurrunt aut circa in∣fantes sine baptismo decedentes, aut infideles, aut obduratos. Nam qui dicit Christum non pro solis praedestinatis esse mortuum, non dicit consequenter pro quolibet reprobo in particulari mortuum esse, sed suf∣ficit quod pro aliquibus saltem reprobis.

Quod autem pro justis saltem non perseverantibus mortuus sit, patet ex Concilio Tridentino, ubi defint justis mandata Dei non esse impossibilia, quia Deus iis gratiam necessariam suppeditat. Si enim possunt observare mandata, possunt salvari, ac non nisi ex meritis Christi.

Idem Sess. 6. c. 3. Verum tametsi ille pro om∣nibus mortuus est, non omnes tamen mortis ejus beneficium recipiunt. Ergo Christus pro iis etiam mortuus est qui beneficium non recipiunt; at illi non alii sunt quam reprobi.

Notes

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.