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.

CHAP. VI.

Of the Conference, Feb. 14. between M. Hallier and his Collegues on the one part with the General of the Domi∣nicans, and some principal Fathers of his Order on the other.

M. Hallier and his Collegues having understood the visit which the Father Barelier & Reginald made to the Ambassador to entreat him that the King would allow the resolution of their Order to intervene in this affair, conceived themselves ob∣lig'd touse all their endeavours to hinder it. For which end they repair'd to the General on Tuesday, Feb. 11. Some dayes before we had visited him, and speaking of the design of all those who prosecuted the Propositions to destroy the Doctrine of Effe∣ctual Gtace by their condemnation, we thought fit to give him the proofs thereof in a short Writing, wherein we laid open their sentiments and designs; and accordingly, not thinking of any thing else we went to carry it to him upon February 14. But comming to la Minerve, F. Reginald met us, and told us that M. Hallier and his Collegues were with the General, and it would be well that we deliver'd our Writing to him whilst those Doctors were there. VVe did so, and waited till their depar∣ture to speak with the General, and know what was the subject of their Visit. He receiv'd us but coldly, and told us that those Doctors had visited him in complement; and that as for the Paper which we caus'd to be given him whilst they were there, he had not yet seen what it was. Where∣upon we gave him an account of it, and read it to him.

The next day we were inform'd that M. Halli∣er and his Collegues had not visited the General of the Dominicans only in complement, as he ci∣villy told us, but to protest to him that he had no design to prejudice the Doctrine of Grace Effe∣ctual by it self, which his Order profess'd to de∣fend; to convince him of which, they were ready to subscribe the Five Propositions in the sense of such Effect•…•… Grace, provided on the other side he and the 〈…〉〈…〉 his Order would concur and contribute toge•• 〈…〉〈…〉 them to the condemnati∣on of the same Pr•…•…tions as they were contra∣ry to the doctrine •…•… sufficient Grace. That for this purpose he de•…•… speedy Conference in his presence with some principal Fathers of his Or∣der, and they should all find how they (Hallier and his Collegues) held the same Sentiments with the School of S. Thomas. Only they desir'd that F. Nolano and Reginald might not be of this Con∣ference; because they were too hot upon this matter, and things would be more easily accom∣moded if they were not. We understand also that the General accepted this Offer, but would not yield to the exclusion of the two said Fathers; whereupon M. Hallier and his Collegues at length consented. That the same Evening the General acquainted the Fathers of his Order with all this,

and order'd F. Reginald to draw up the Five Pro∣positions distinctly, in the sense of Effectual Grace, intending to cause M. Hallier and his Collegues to subscribe them before entring into any other ac∣cord with them.

The same morning M. the Abbot Viole told me that M. Joysel was impatient to return, and expe∣cted a condemnation of the Propositions the se∣cond week of Lent; that he had in a friendly and pleasant way blam'd M. Joysel for daring to come to Rome about this affair, being so little vers'd in the matter in question; that he could not under∣stand how so many other props of the Party came to rely upon him; and that M. Joysel ingenuously answer'd, that who had a mind to come, came, but of his own accord, and without procuration from Bishops or any body. I told the Abbot, that I was glad to understand this particularity. Whereup∣on he went about to retract, and excuse M. Joysel, saying that perhaps they had receiv'd procurations since he was at Rome. But I answer'd him that it was too late to disguise what he had spoken so plainly.

Thursday the 13th. I understood that besides what is above related, M. Hallier and his Col∣legues offer'd the General to confer not only with his Fathers, but also with us; and that the Gene∣ral answer'd that being that the Pope and Cardi∣nals would not yield to a disputation between us, he was loth to suffer one before himself, or to be the Mediator of it. That nevertheless the Gene∣ral purposed to speak to the Pope the next day, and tell him what had pass'd between him and M. Hal∣lier and his Collegues; and that if his Holiness thought good that he should set them and us to di∣spute together, to try whether we could close, he should do it willingly, and account himself happy in being able to contribute to our reconci∣liation. I desir'd him who gave me this intelli∣gence to pray the General not to make any such motion to the Pope, because we had no reconcili∣ation of Doctrine to make with them; and that as for Conferences, it was more expedient to make them in a full Congregation. After I was re∣turn'd home, and given account hereof to my Col∣legues, they approv'd my answer.

In the afternoon we went to the General, and assur'd him again of their design who persecuted the Propositions, to make use of their condemna∣tion against Effectual Grace and S. Augustin; of which we gave him new proofs; and he promis'd us to beware of suffering himself to be diverted by M. Hallier and his Collegues from the Capital point of Effectual Grace which they promis'd him to subscribe, being that alone for which himself and we were concern'd. After our departure, one of their Fathers who had some intelligence of what pass'd in Cardinal Spada's Congregations, told us that all went very ill there for the Propositions; that nothing was spoken of but their condemnati∣on; but because the Pope had given order what∣ever were done, to beware of medling with S. Au∣gustin's doctrine, or the matter De Auxiliis, they scarce knew what course to take. That yet he fear'd our resolvedness not to appear in Con∣gregations but after our own way, might exaspe∣rate them against us, and carry them to extremi∣ties. We answer'd that we could not hinder them from doing what they thought good; yet all they could do could not hinder us from acting as we were oblig'd. An other of those Fathers told us that M. Hallier and his Collegues, had since their visit to the General endeavoured to defer the Conference design'd to be on Friday till Monday or Tuesday following; but the General would not yield to it, fearing to lose time whilst it was uncertain what the intentions of those Doctors might be. That otherwise they beliv'd they tended to deceive; but they should find themselves deceiv'd; for either they would subscribe the Propositions as they pro∣mis'd in the sense of Effectual Grace, and so we should have all we desir'd; or else they would not, and so manifesting their promises as equivocal and fraudulent as the Propositions, they should oblige their whole Order to stand no longer in suspence, but engage against them in this affair.

Omitting some less considerable passages, which would cause too great interruption, I shall proceed to insert the Relation of the Conference which was held on Friday the 14th. word for word as it was given me soon after in Writing by one of the Do∣minicans.

A Relation of a Conference between M. Hallier and his Collegues at la Minerve, Febr. 14. 1653. and the General of the Dominicans and some Fathers of that Order made by one of those Fathers.

M. Hallier and his Collegues came to the Ge∣neral of the Fryers Predicants on Tuesday Feb. 11. 1653. The subject of their long discourse with him, was, That they agreed with the Thomists, and admitted Grace Effectual by it self, but held also that God gave Sufficient Grace. That in this sense they impug'd Jansenius, and desir'd of his Holiness in the name of fourscore French Bishops the condemnation of the Five Propositions, in the maintaining of which the Order of S. Dominicus was no wise interessed.

The General would not determine any thing with them, saying that the affair was too impor∣tant to be decided in a moment; that he would consult with his Divines about it; that neverthe∣less he protested that he undertook not to defend Jansenius, unless in what he taught conformably to the sentiments of S. Augustin, whom the Fa∣thers of his Order so vigorously defended under Clement VIII. and Paul V. That if it could be known that the interest of that Doctrine was not mingled with Jansenius, he would not stir at all; but if it were never so little concern'd directly or indirectly, he could not but interpose in the busi∣ness.

M. Hallier answer'd, That they were ready to show both to him and his Divines in his presence, that he was not concern'd therein.

Whilst they were in this debate, M. de S. Amour, M. the Abbot de Lane, and M. Angran came to la Minerve, and meeting F. Reginald (by whom they understood that their Adversaries were with the General) told him that they came to present a Writing unto him which contained the senti∣ments of M. le Moyne, Pereyret, and others who prosecuted the condemnation of the Five Proposi∣tions. F. Reginald answer'd them that it was very

important that that Writing were deliver'd to the General before he concluded any thing with those Doctors, and therefore sent a Frier of the General's chamber to deliver it to him, and tell him that it was very important that he please to read the few lines written in the Paper. VVhich done, M. de S. Amour and the others waited till M. Hallier and his Companions were gone. After which they were admitted to the General, who recei∣ved them somewhat coldly. The same Evening that General call'd for Reginald, told him that M. Hal∣lier and his Companions were ready to subscribe, and to that purpose were to come on Friday to confer with us; and that they were very urgent that F. Reginald might not be there, which the Ge∣neral would not yield to, and so at length it was resolv'd upon. F. Reginald answer'd, that great heed was to be taken of surprizes; that the Jesu∣ites admitted Effectual Grace; that in the Con∣gregations of De Auxiliis they proceeded so far as to affirm that God physically and really moves the VVill before it acts; and yet under these fair words they had equivocations which wholly ener∣vated Grace; that therefore it was needful to go with great precaution. VVhereupon the General commanded him to draw up the Five Propositions in the sense of Effectual Grace, according to the sentiments of S. Augustin and the Fathers of the Order; which he did in this form:

I.

Gratia de se efficax vere, realiter ac phy∣sice praemovens ac praedeterminans, immutabiliter, infallibiliter, insupera∣biliter & indeclinabiliter, ita est ne∣cessaria ad singulos actus etiam ad ini∣tium fidei & ad orationem, ut sine illa homo etiam justus non possit adimplere Dei Praecepta etiamsi & conetur affe∣ctu & conatu imperfecto; quia deest illi gratia qua possit, sive qua fiant ipsi possibilia possibilitate cum effectu, ut loquitur Augustinus de Nat. & Grat. cap. 42.

II.

In natura lapsa nunquam resistitur gratiae interiori, id est, efficaci, in sensu ex∣plicato in prima Propositione, quae se∣cundum phrasim Augustini vocatur interior.

III.

Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur libertas ab omni necessitate, sed sufficit liber∣tas ab omni coactione, hoc est, a vio∣lentia & naturali necessitate.

IV.

Admiserunt Semipelagiani gratiae inte∣rioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium fidei; & in hoc erant Haeretici, quod vellent eam gratiam talem esse, cui posset humana volun∣tas resistere vel obtemperare, id est, in hoc erant Haeretici quod vellent grati∣am illam non esse efficacem modo expli∣cato in prima Propositione.

V.

Error est Semipelagianorum dicere Chri∣stum pro omnibus omnino mortuum es∣se aut sanguinem fudisse: quia videli∣cet Christus est quidem mortuus pro omnibus quoad sufficientiam pretii sufficienter, non tamen efficaciter, quia non omnes participant beneficium mor∣tis ejus.

During these two dayes F. Reginald by the General's Command shew'd the Propositions which he had drawn to the other Fathers who were to assist at the Conference, namely to F. Galassin, F. Nolano, F. Alvarez Regent of la Minerve, and F. Libelli Bachelier and Re∣gent also; and advised what they were to be∣ware of.

Friday the 14th. being S. Valentine's day the Molinist Doctors came hither presently after dinner, and were brought into the great room of the Inquisition. The General also being en∣ter'd, after a little Ceremony M. Hallier and his Companions were plac'd in Chairs near a Table upon which was set a Standish with Paper, in case there should be any need of writing. The F. Ge∣neral sate directly against M. Hallier on the right hand, F. Galassin over against one of his Com∣panions, F. Nolano opposite to the other, and F. Bachelier to the Regent, who was placed next to those Gentlemen, and after him F. Regi∣nald.

The F. General begun in Latin, saying that those Doctors had taken the pains to come and enter in∣to conference with the Divines of his Order about the affair of the Five Propositions; and therefore he desir'd them that they would unfold their senti∣ments.

M. Hallier thereupon spake, and said in Latin, That the University of Paris had alwayes a great respect for the General and his Order; upon which he was very copious. That the Propositions had

no relation to the dispute of the Fryers Predicants with the Jesuites; but were an affair totally distinct; that none was concern'd in it but Jansenius who had reviv'd the Propositions of Baius condemn'd by the most great H. and learned Pope Pius V. the light of that Order, in whose prayses he was very prolix; That the said Bull was publisht by Gregory XIII. renew'd by Ʋrban VIII. and Innocent X. That the Congregations were held to this end with precaution in no wise to meddle with the matter De Auxiliis. He was long upon this Discourse, during which the last of his Companions was fold∣ing some papers upon the table.

When he had ended, the General spoke, and repeating briefly and judiciously what M. Hallier had said, shew'd that the question was not about the defence of Jansenius, but only to explain how the Propositions could be censur'd or condemn'd without touching the matter De Auxiliis; that this seem'd to him very difficult, that nevertheless he should be glad to know the sentiments of those Doctors.

M. Hallier reply'd and spoke many things in ge∣neral, repearing what he had formerly said; and added that when the Fryers Predicants defended the efficacy of Grace before Clement VIII. and Paul V. these Propositions were not treated of; that when the Jesuites argu'd against Effectual Grace, that it would follow that the Commande∣ments were impossible to those who had not such Grace; that this was absurd, and therefore it ought to be concluded that Grace is not Effectual of it self. The Fryers Predicants answer'd, by denying the Major and granting the Minor. That the Jansenists granted the Major and deny the Minor. That all the Thomists admitted Sufficient Grace; that Jansenius deny'd it; and consequent∣ly the Thomists were far from Jansenius.

Hereupon F. Nolano said that this was so com∣mon amongst the Thomists; that S. Augustine was of another mind; and that they ought not to deprive us of the weapons of S. Augustine. But the General interpos'd, and said that the Question was not about Sufficient Grace.

After which M. Hallier repeating the same things, added that this was the whole difficulty between the Dominicans and the Jesuites, but not the present question. That the Thomists affirm'd that Effectual Grace did not pertain to the First Act and Power, but to the Second; that they ad∣mitted Effectual Grace which causes to act infalli∣bly, insuperabiliter, iudeclinabiliter. But this did not hinder the Commandements from being pos∣sible, even to those who have not such Grace, be∣cause God gives them Sufficient to perform them, or else to obtain and impetrate that which is neces∣sary.

F. Nolano interpos'd again that there was no ground either in S. Augustin or S. Thomas for such Sufficient Grace; that on the contrary they deny'd it. That if S. Augustine were suffer'd to be con∣demn'd in one sole point of the Doctrine of Grace, his authority would be no longer considerable in the Church; that we ought not to suffer it; S. Augustin's doctrine having been approv'd by the Popes, Celestin, Homisda, Gelasius, and Clement VIII. that it was highly important to stand stiff up∣on this.

The F. General reply'd again that this was not the question, and therefore M. Hallier might proceed, who repeating the same things conclu∣ded that the first Proposition had no connection with the questions De Auxiliis, agitated under Clement VIII. and Paul V. And that for their parts, they never intended the condemnation of the Propositions but in the sense of Jansenius. That they had affirm'd the same in the first Me∣morial, which they presented to the Pope in the name of fourscore Bishops who deputed them.

Whereupon the third read the Memorial which they had presented, and said the same things which M. Hallier had done. The second like∣wise spoke something to the same sense.

Then M. Hallier added that they had alwaies made the same protestation; and that when they were call'd before the Congregation, they so pro∣tested, because they saw well that those Questions were not to be medled with.

The general answer'd him, that then it was not without reason that he fear'd and intended to stir; and he demanded whether his fear was just and well-grounded.

M. Hallier reply'd, that the F. General's fear was just, and that he did well to fore-arm himself; but for their parts, it was in no wife their inten∣tion to get the opinions of the Dominicans con∣demn'd. Then he proceeded to the second Pro∣position, and briefly explicated it, saying that the Thomists admitted Sufficient Grace, not on∣ly external but also internal, which men may re∣sist and do oftentimes resist; but Jansenius deny'd them; and so there was no connection of the Pro∣positions with the doctrine of the Order of Fryers Predicants. As for the third, he said that Janse∣nius affirms that 'tis sufficient to make an Action meritorious, that it be done without constraint, though it be necessary. That S. Thomas, Qu. 6. De Malo affirms this Opinions here∣tical.

The second added, that the Thomists affirm the same.

The third cited some Thomists.

M. Hallier said, that the fourth and fifth had as little relation to the Dominicans opinions, because these Propositions were never agitated in the time of Clement VIII. and Paul V.

After M. Hallier had ended, the F. General commanded F. Reginald to speak first and declare his judgement. He was the last on M. Hallier's side, who said that being thick of hearing he in∣treated the General to cause him to come nearer, and to place him where he might see him. Where∣upon the Father exchang'd places with F. No∣lano.

But when he began to speak, M. Hallier said he could not hear him, and therefore the General commanded him to speak lowder. Which he did, and said that three things were to be suppos'd: First, that it could not be made an Article of Faith, That there is Sufficient Grace common to all; that it was a dispute in the Schools; that ma∣ny Authors deny that there is any Grace purely sufficient, but that all Sufficient Grace is effectua•• for some acts, that in this sense Jansenius did not deny it. And however Jansenius's opinion were

with which he would not meddle. It was certain, that a decision of Faith could not be made concern∣ing Sufficient Grace, especially such as is general, because S. Augustin denyes it, Nunc autem qui∣bus deest, &c. as he speaks of Sufficient Grace, which he saith is deny'd to some. Secondly, 'Tis to be suppos'd that the Sufficient Grace admit∣ted by the Thomists, is very different from that of the Divines of the Society; that these latter hold a Sufficient Grace which may be and is determin'd by the Consent of Free-will, either present or fore-seen; and besides this Sufficient Grace they admit no other necessary to all acts. But the Thomists with common consent admit a Sufficient Grace which gives power, but is not determin'd by the consent of the Will, and besides this Grace they hold that for a man to act he needs another Grace powerful and effectual of it self. Thirdly, That this Grace, necessary to all actions, even to the beginning of Faith, Prayer, and other Good Works, causes the will to act infallibly, insupera∣biliter & indeclinabiliter, and that independently on Scientia media, and the conditional Prevision of God. That this being suppos'd, the Proposi∣ons were true in the sense of such Effectual Grace. That in the disputes De Auxiliis the Thomists had answer'd the Objections of the Jesuites, who drew all these Five Propositions as absurdities following from the Effectual Grace which the Tho∣mists had explicated by the word of Physical pre∣determination; that it was a Question whether it pertain'd to the first act or the second, because it reduc'd the power of the first act into the second act. That in the Congregations De Auxiliis se∣veral points were disputed of, especially Grace necessary for performance of the Commande∣ments; and that when the Jesuites objected, that if Effectual Grace were necessary, the Commande∣ments would be impossible to those who had not such Effectual Grace, the Thomists answer'd that they were impossible in sensu Composito, but not in sensu Diviso: that as S. Augustin in the 42d. Chapter of the Book De Natura & Gratia distinguishes a possibility which he calls cum effectu, and another which may be call'd simplex, as may be collected from other places of S. Augustin; so the Thomists distinguish two Impossibilities, which, in the School-terms, they call in sensu Composito, and in sensu Diviso; that accordingly they distinguish that in sensu Composito, it is impossible for him who hath not Effectual Grace to observe the Commande∣ments; which is as much as to say, that 'tis not possible for him with that possibility which S. Au∣gustin terms Possibility joyn'd with Effect, Possibi∣litas cum Essectu; but they are possible in sensu Diviso, that is, with a simple and remote possibi∣lity or power. And therefore he conceiv'd that the first Proposition could not be absolutely and without distinction condemn'd, without doing great wrong to the doctrine which the Fathers Predicants had defended in the Congregations De Auxiliis, considering also that in the first Propo∣sition Sufficient Aid was explicated in the same manner that many Thomists explicated it, viz. in these words volentibus & conantibus, which ought to be understood of an imperfect will and endea∣vour, proceeding from a Sufficient Grace explica∣ted in the sense of the Thomists.

As for the second Proposition, he said that he conceiv'd that neither could it be absolutely con∣demn'd without doing wrong to the doctrine of the Thomists; because if by Internal Grace we ought to understand Effectual Grace, as S. Au∣gustin understands it, it is certain the Thomists al∣wayes held that, to speak properly, it is never resisted, yea that it cannot be resisted; though in a sense less proper they confess that it may be resisted, that is, a man may not give his con∣sent, because he who consents, consenting freely, alwayes reteins a power of not con∣senting.

As for the third he said, that if by Liberty from Necessity it was understood that to the making of an action meritorious it must be free from all Ne∣cessity, even that which is call'd Necessity of In∣fallibility in sensu composito, or from Necessity in general, and the like; then in condemning this Proposition, all the Thomists, yea all the Schools who admit it will be condemn'd. But if absolute or natural Necessity, which takes away the indif∣ference of the Object be meant, then will Scotus with his School be condemn'd; and 'tis not conve∣nient to require the condemnation of so famous a School.

As for the fourth, that it depended upon Histo∣ry, and that the Thomists alwayes maintain'd in the Congregations De Auxiliis that the Semipela∣gians err'd in that they would not admit at least for some acts, Grace Effectual of it self, but only admitted Sufficient Grace which may be determin'd by the Will. That therefore if this Proposition were condemn'd absolutely, the Thomists would be condemn'd too, and depriv'd of all their proofs which they drew from S. Augustin to prove Grace Effectual of it self.

As for the last, it appear'd sufficiently by what he had said in the beginning; because if they would have it that Jesus Christ dy'd for all, that is, by his death merited for all universally and without ex∣ception Sufficient Graces, it was a Question of the School which could not be determin'd. That if it were determin'd in this sense, that Jesus Christ merited for all Sufficient Graces determinable by the Will, then Effectual Grace would be destroy∣ed. But if they only aim'd to get it defin'd that Jesus Christ dy'd for all sufficiently, in regard his blood was of infinite value and sufficient for all, this fifth Proposition would not be condemn'd, because neither the Semipelagians ever spoke so much in this sense, nor the Disciples of S. Augustin e∣ver accus'd them of Error, for having said that Jesus Christ dy'd for all in this sense. And therefore he concluded that the Propositions could not be condemn'd absolutely, without wholly ruining the Doctrine of the Thomists.

F. Reginald having thus ended, M. Hallier re∣ply'd, That the Question of Effectual Grace was very remote from Physical Predetermination; that the Thomists never plac'd Effectual Grace in such Predetermination; that Grace was a thing ve∣ry antient, and Physical Predetermination a thing very new invented by some new Thomists.

At these words F. Reginald made a little sign with his Head, intimating that he did not approve them; at which M. Hallier taking offence said that he spoke Truth, and that he ought not to

shake his head at it; for 'twas true that it was a novel invention. F. Reginald, out of respect to the General, and because he was in their house, reply'd nothing.

M. Hallier continuing his discouse, said that 'twas true that the Thomists, to reconcile and ac∣cord freedom with physical Predetermination, us'd the distinction of sensus Compositus & Divi∣sus, but not to conciliate Effectual Grace with Liberty; That this Effectual Grace did not per∣tain to the First Act, nor consist in a physical Pre∣determination; that besides he had read S. Au∣gustin very well, who never us'd those words Pos∣sibility with Effect and Possibility simple; that they admitted Grace Effectual of it self necessary to all Good workes even independently on God's pro∣vision, which he had taught publickly long ago, and was ready to teach again; that he had protest∣ed thus before the whole Congregation of Cardi∣nals and Consulters at his audience there; But that the Necessity of this Grace in no wise render'd the Commandments impossible to him who wanted it; That he who had it, had alwayes a power to resist it; that the Council of Trent had so determin'd when it said possit dissentire si velit, and that conse∣quently a man consented without Necessity. That the third Proposition had been condemn'd against Michel Baius, that constraint alone takes away liberty.

F. Reginald replying, desir'd M. Hallier to excuse him if he told him that for certain all the Thomists, except one or two, held that Effectual Grace is a physical Predetermination; that even they who plac't it amongst indeliberate acts, said it is predetermined physically, and that therefore the Thomists us'd the distinction of sensus Compositus & Divisus, as well in reference to Effectual Grace as physical Predetermination; That when the Council saith possit abjicere, possit dissentire, it means in sensu diviso, and not in sensu Composito. That physical Predetermination is not a new invention as to the substance of the thing, that the word Predetermi∣nation ought not to be disputed, being found in S. Thomas and many other ancient Doctors. That as for the distinction of Possibility with effect and sim∣ple Possibility, it is found in S. Augustin, who uses the word Possibilitas cum effectu in chap. 42. of the book De Gratia & Libera Arbitrio; as for the other part, simple posibility, he confess'd it is not found formally in S. Augustin, but is evidently collected out of the fifth book De Civit. Dei.

M. Hallier rejoyn'd to the last point saying that the terme Possibility with Effect was never found in S. Augustin, and repeating the same things which he had said before; especically that he had alwayes protested that they pursu'd not the con∣demnation of the Propositions, saving in the sense of Jansenius, and not in the sense of Effectual Grace which they held.

M. Hallier's Companions spoke the same things which they had said before, adding that in all Memorials they had us'd this exception, because they saw that otherwise they should do wrong to so many and so learned Divnes of S. Domini∣cus.

Here the R. F. General interpos'd and said, Then our fear is just, since you acknowledge it requisite to make those protestations.

M. Hallier answer'd that they had taken order for that, because the speech which he made in the Congregation would be inserted in the Bull, to the end it might be known that the Propositions were condemn'd only in the sense of Jansenius.

Then the F. General commanded F. Alvarez Regent of la Minerve to speak, who said that he saw no more difficulty in this affair; that if these Doctors acknowledg'd Grace Effectual of it self indepently on God's provision, they must also ac∣knowledge the truth of the Propositions in the sense of Effectual Grace, and consequently that the Commandments are impossible to him who wants it with an Impossibility consequent and not antecedent; and next, that a man never resists in∣ternal, that is, Effectual Grace; and that this necessity takes not away merit; and so of the o∣ther Propositions. That since they agreed in doctrine, it remain'd only to consider how it was requisite to proceed in this affair; that he con∣ceiv'd it expedient to unfold the Propositions and demand the confirmation and definition of them in the sense of Effectual Grace, and their condemna∣tion in the other senses.

M. Hallier permitted not the F. Regent to end, but told him that he acknowledg'd the Effectual Grace as mention'd by F. Regent; that he admit∣ted that the Commandments are impossible to him who wants it, with an impossibility consequent and not antecedent; that they were ready to sub∣scribe thus much privatim, but not as Deputies, provided their Reverences would subscribe the condemnation of the Propositions in the sense of Jansenius.

F Galassin told them, that the match was not equal; that a General could not subscribe it, they subscribing only as particular persons.

M. Hallier answer'd that he demanded only the condemnation of Jansenius who was condemn'd already.

F. Reginald having desir'd leave to speak one word, said, But what if Jansenius hath had the same sense as the Thomists in all these Propositi∣ons, or in any one of them? this is the business. Why is it denyed to distinguish that sense? where∣fore (continu'd he) to avoid this inconvenience, it will be requisite to make a common Memorial address'd to his Holiness and the Congregation, wherein to lay open the sense of Jansenius, and, it not being the same with that of the Thomists, to persue its condemnation.

M. Hallier and his companions answer'd altoge∣ther that they could not do it, nor recede from their first Memorials, nor from the precise orders given them by the fourescore Bishops who dispu∣ted them.

The F. Regent said to them, Neither can we a∣gree with you, since you will not explain the sense.

Whereupon M. Hallier and his companions said, that they insisted upon the condemnation of Jansenius, and the five Propositions, so far as they deny'd sufficient Grace.

The F. Regent answer'd to them, He acknow∣ledges it in the same Proposition, volentibus & co∣nantibus with an imperfect will and endeavor; for that will or velleity, and imperfect indeavor pro∣ceeds

from an imperfect and smal Grace, which is in effect the sufficient, as many Thomists ex∣plicate it.

The Doctors reply'd, that if he admitted it, he contradicted himself.

The F. Regent said to them, If Jansenius con∣tradicts himself, will you demand that he be con∣demn'd in both the two contradictions? It is re∣quisite therefore to expound him before con∣demning him. For two contradictions cannot at the same time be true, nor consequently de∣fin'd.

The Doctors answer'd that Jansenius formally deny'd sufficient Grace in Tom. 3. l. 3. chap. 1. and the following, that he call'd it a Monster, and was as well against the Thomists as the Jesuites.

The F. Regent urg'd them and told them, Jan∣senius admits habitual Grace, Gifts, Infus'd ver∣tues, he admits also Inspirations and internal Il∣luminations which make us know Good, for since we cannot will what we do not know; and in this first Proposition he saith that the Just man wills, he supposes the knowledge which comes from su∣pernatural light and inspiration. In the third place he admits that he hath an imperfect will and Endeavour: Now this velleity and imperfect indeavor proceeds from some Grace, as Janseni∣us saith, and this Grace is term'd sufficient by the Thomists; therefore he admits all that the Tho∣mists admit, and that you admit: For what is it that you admit more in him who do's not fulfill God's Commandments? You admit habitual Grace and vertues; Jansenius admits them: You admit Illu∣minations; Jansenius admits the same: You ad∣mit a small and weak Grace for these Velleities and imperfect endevors; Jansenius admits it also: You admit a Grace in him who peformes the Command∣ments; Jansenius admits the same: What is it then which you admit further in him who doth not fullfill God's Commandments?

The Doctors were much press'd, and never an∣swer'd; but speaking all at a time, never an∣swer'd to the question made to them by the F. Re∣gent, who urg'd the same arguments upon them twice or thrice.

At length they answer'd, (and I think it was the last who answer'd) that besides this they ad∣mitted a sufficient Grace, which gives the utmost and compleate power, in such manner, that there∣in is wanting to him who keeps not God's Com∣mandments, onely the bare action which proceeds from Effectual Grace.

The F. Regent told them that this sufficient Grace was not in the sense of the Thomists.

Then F. Libelli Bacchelier said that S. Thomas in 1. 2, 9, 109. act 9. and 10. and in many o∣ther places, saith that a Just man cannot fullfill the Commandments and do good without the motion of God; that such motion is Effectual Grace; and that therefore in some sense it is true that a man who hath not Grace, hath not a compleate power; that this was the opinion of most Thomists, and that it was necessary to declare the sense in which they would have the Propositions con∣demn'd.

F. Tolano added that the first Proposition could not be condemn'd without condemning those two expresse Articles of S. Thomas, wherein he affirmes that a man cannot do good without Grace; and that it is evident that he speaks of Effectual Grace; that S. Thomas never taught any other; and there∣fore it was requsite to explicate the Propositions before condemning them.

The F. Regent fell again to presse the Doctors, and said, That what they admitted further in him who keeps not God's Commandments, is not at all receiv'd in the School of S. Thomas, though some Thomist should have said it. That if they would do any thing and agree with the Thomists, they must necessarily explain the Propositions, and afterwards in a Memorial either general, or in particular, demand of his Holinesse the con∣demnation of the Propositions in the sense which should be found false; that it imported very little whether Jansenius or some other were the author of them.

The Doctors reply'd hereunto that they could not in any manner recede from the Memorials which they had presented, nor the orders which fourescore Bishops had prescrib'd them. The F. Regent rejoin'd, Neither can we agree with you.

Whereupon the R. F. General said to M. Hal∣lier, that they must not take it ill if he took his Course, since he saw what interest all his Divines found, and themselves confess'd his Order said that the Propositions might not be condemn'd without explication.

This done, all arose from their seats, and af∣ter they had conferr'd a little apart, the F. Gene∣ral accompani'd the Doctors to the bottome of the staires into the Cloister; from whence F. Nolano, Libelli, and Reginald, accompany'd them to the gate of la Minerve. This is the account of that Conference.