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. XII.

The intelligence of M. Hallier and his Collegues with the Jesuites, manifest by the Writings which those Doctors presented to the Consultors, and were printed at Paris in F. Annat's name, which I endeavour to discover to the Card. Ghiggi and Spada, but to no purpose. A discovery of another Wri∣ting of M. Hallier upon the third Pro∣position.

F. Annae's printed Book, intituled Jansenius à Thomistis damnatus, I receiv'd on the first of March; which occasion I took too visite Cardinal Ghiggi, whom I had not seen since our great Con∣ference above related. This Book and the Title-page fix'd upon the corners of the Streets of Paris I made use of, as a manifest proof, to let him see a truth, otherwise but too certain, yet not admit∣ted by him, namely, That the Jesuites were our principal Adversaries in this affair; seeing the Doctors who appear'd against us were supply'd by those Fathers with the Writings which they were to present to their Eminences and the Con∣sultors. The Cardinal answer'd me, that the Je∣suites had not meddled in the business since their defending the Theses in Flanders; that he heard indeed that those of France had done some thing, but it was not considerable; that it behoov'd all star quieto to be quiet. I reply'd that it was not we who set a foot the Propositions from whence all this trouble arose; but that we were come only to advertise the H. See of the practises against it, and the Catholick doctrine of Grace contain'd in the Propositions, and to intreat that nothing might be done without hearing us thereupon in a solemn Congregation. After which falling to speak of the bad sense which the Propositions ad∣mitted, I said, that we were agreed as to that; and that it was not our intention to maintain them in those senses; but yet we endeavoured to hinder an absolute condemnation of them, in regard of the evil use which might be made of it; and least they who pursu'd it might afterwards apply it to the Catholick truths whereof they were capable. That a Proposiiion ought to be look'd upon twice, and all its circumstances and sequels weigh'd before it be condemn'd; that if 'twere sufficient to the condemnation of a Proposition that it admitted a bad sense taken in the letter or the evil construction according to which they who dislik'd it pleas'd to understand it, many in the H. Scripture would not escape Censure. For example of which I alledg'd these, Non est justus quisquam; Qui in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt; Peccatores Deus non audit; and those which the Church delivers every day, in the Gloria in excelsis, addressing to the person of our Lord, Tu solus Sanctus. The Cardinal answer'd that they consider'd all this; that nevertheless we did well to discharge our minds con tutti, with all, as he believ'd we did. The supposition which I perceiv'd he intended apparently to make by this discourse, that we had represented all our reasons to all the Cardinals and Consultors too, con tutti, increas'd my suspition of their proceeding in the two last Assemblies towards the Consultors, name∣ly, that they would really pass to the condemnati∣on of the Propositions, and take the visits which we had made to them to obtain a conference and com∣munication of Writings with our Adversaries, as judicial and sufficient informations to condem us formally. Wherefore I told his Eminence that what I had now said was only to shew him the ne∣cessity and advantage of hearing us according as we desir'd, for a thorough examination of all things; that we had spoke nothing to them but for this end; that his Eminence, I believ'd, was the only person to whom I had spoken so much as I had now done; and that we were so far from thinking to inform the others, that on the contrary we had avoided all occasions of doing it, because we would not do it but to good purpose, which could not be but according to the manner and form which we demanded.

The same day I desir'd our Advocate to go to the Cardinals of our Congregations, and press them with the most urgent reasons he could to grant us a Conference. We talkt largely toge∣ther about the consequences which were to be fear∣ed in case they should not grant it; and he under∣took to visit them for the purpose aforesaid, except Cardinal Pamphilio, whom, he said he could not yet addresse to; but for each of the rest he took a Copy of the two Memorials which he had presented to the Pope, to leave with their Eminences, after he had spoken to them what he intended.

Tuesday the 4th. I went to shew F. Annat's book to Cardinal Spada, that he might thereby see that the Jesuites were in the cause as well as M. Hallier and his Collegues, in as much as these Doctors were but as the Agents and Pam∣phlet-venters of those Fathers. The Cardinal an∣swer'd that he had never told me that those Fathers were not of the same opinions, or that they acted not something underhand, but that they had not spoken to him about them▪ and that the Pope ha∣ving put two Dominicans into the Congregation for one Jesuite, we were rather favour'd than o∣therwise.

VVe heard in the morning at la Minerve that the General of the Domincians was gone to get audience of the Pope to present his Memorial and his Papers to his Holiness, and that the Commissa∣ry of the H. Office desir'd to speak with M. de Val∣croissant as a particular Friend, and that we might go to him by the back stairs. In the afternnon I accompani'd him thither. He propounded to us some difficulties upon the first Proposition, in which having receiv'd satisfaction from M. de Val∣croissant's answers, he told us that it would be good that we could meet together some times, but in such a place as might not give jealousie to any body. I spoke to him concerning F. Annat's book newly printed; I shew'd it him, and told him it was the same Writing which M. Hallier and his Col∣legues had presented to him four or five Months before. He answer'd me that he had one of them too; but had not had time yet to read it.

Some dayes before this visit a Writing of good length made by our Adversaries upon the third Proposition fell into my hands; we caus'd it to be transcrib'd by several Amanuenses, that it might be precisely restor'd by the time at which he who lent it us was oblig'd to return it. Afterwards re∣covering two others, one upon the fourth, and che other upon the fifth Proposition, we apprehended that these three Writings were parts of an intire Treatise upon the Propositions, and consequently that we wanted what had been commented upon the two first; but we could never light upon them.

That upon the Third Proposition was nothing but a heap of passages and argumentations out of Ricardus and F. Pelau in his Treatise of Liberty; and besides an infinite number of wrested citations, it was wholly founded upon a point not at all in que∣stion. For it pretended to show that according to the Fathers, Free-will requires some kind of Indif∣ference. Now this was never disputed, none ha∣ving ever deny'd that Free-will is alwayes insepa∣rably in this life joyn'd with the indifference held by the Thomists; that is to say, with an active power of acting or not acting. Nevertheless up∣on this false foundation all the said Tract is built, and falls to the ground by the sole distinction of two sorts of Indifference, whereof one, which is held by Molina, destroyes Effectual Grace, because it infers that a man may so act and not act, that it sometimes comes to pass that the VVill acts not and consents not to the same Grace which causes it to act at another time in the same dispositions; and this is that which we oppos'd. The other, held by the Thomists, does not in any sort destroy Effe∣ctual Grace, since it so gives the active power of not doing that whereunto Effectual Grace deter∣mines us, that yet it never comes to pass that the thing is not done. And as for this sort of In∣difference, we not only never rejected it, but have formerly admitted it in a hundred places of our Writings.

But hence it is easie to judge what impression might be made upon the minds of the Cardinals by the noise of a hundred passages pretended to be formally against the opinions of the Jansenists, which they understood only by the fabulous and calumnious reports which it pleas'd our Adver∣saries to make of them in their Writings and Dis∣courses.

And 'tis pleasant to observe that as they attribu∣ted to those Utopian Jansenists which subsisted on∣ly in their own brains, the imaginary Opinion of an absolute Necessity which takes away the power of acting and not acting, and destroyes Indiffe∣rence; so they make them speak after their mode, and attribute answers to them, which no body ever thought of.

Respondent primò Jansenistae voluntatem hoc qui∣dem posse si velit, quia si vellet, hoc ipso actu illud faceret; sed non posse illud velle propter grntiam qua impedit ne id velit. Which is a ridiculous answer sorg'd by them at pleasure; for no body denyes that the Will can resist Effectual Grace, and hath the active power to will it, though it never comes to pass that it doth will it, because Grace makes it will the contrary, and determines it to will, not to use the power which it hath.

Respondent secundò, (say they further) hoc sen∣su Voluntatem posse dissentire, quatenùs absente gra∣tia non operatur illud bonum ad quod per gratiam ex∣citatur, quod eâ praesente necessariò operatur. This is properly the ridiculous Chimaera of the Necessi∣tating Grace which destroyes the active power of resisting it self whilst it is present. It sprung first in F. Annat's Imagination, who diffus'd it into those of M. Hallier and his Collegues, and by their means endeavour'd to perswade the Cardinals and Consultors of it.

'Tis easie to triumph thus over Adversaries by attributing to them imaginary opinions and an∣swers. The length of this Writing hinders me from transcribing it particularly. I shall only adde that it is concluded with the ordinary Protestation, that they do not persecute the Propositions in the sense of Effectual Grace, and that the question is not about the points contested between the Do∣minicans and the Jesuites.

Colligitur secundo (say they in the writing up∣on the Fifth Proposition) quid dicendum sit illis qui hanc esse putant controversiam de auxiliis Divi∣nae

Gratiae tamdiù olim dissertatam sub duobus Ponti∣ficibus inter Thomistas & Jesuitas, jamque hoc pre∣textu Janseniani utuntur ut Censuras eludant; & cum non putent posse Thomist as in eandem ruinam tra∣hi, cum illis ipsi commmnione sententiarum & con∣nexione erigantur & stent, vel certè ut tanquam in pari causa dum ulterior expectatur definitio, eadem libertate fruantur docendi quodlibet quâ fruuntur illae duae familiae. Sed in co quoque latiùs aberrant, quàm toto coelo. Nihil omnino illis exprobatur de quo Thomistae cum Jesuitis contenderint, nihil exigi∣tur quàm quod sucrit concordissimo duorum illorum Ordinum consensu atque suffragiis constitutum, quòd possibilia sint praecepta Dei transgressoribus, quibus transgressio ad culpa imputatur; quòd detur auxilium sufficiens at{que} internum eui homines dissentiunt; quòd indifferentia ad agendum & non agendum à libertate arbitrii quae requiritur admerendum & demerendum sit inseparabilis; quòd non sint Haeretici qui dicunt liberum arbitrium Deo moventi per gratiam efficacem dissentire posse ('tis the sense which they give the Fourth Proposition) & quòd sensus divisus quo id posse dicitur, non sit idem quod ex hypothesi mutatio∣nis & substractionis ejusdem gratiae, sed ita ut cum illa sit expedita ad dissentiendum potentia, quod Chri∣stus sit etiam pro reprobis mortuus, ut illis media sa∣lut is obtineret.

This is the close way whereby they oppose us, fathering these ridiculous opinions upon us, or ra∣ther upon those who were in France. For they pretended to spare us, by endeavouring to per∣swade that we did not speak sincerely, or under∣stood not the end of this new Heresie.