John H, Roinoehl 194.9

Home , Merit (Christianity)

THE JANSENIST MOVEMENT IN FRANCE TO 1713

Thai: for ﬁne Dam of M. A. MiCHlGAN STATE COLLECR. John H, Roinoehl 194.9

I ‘-.l . . THE JANSENILLT HOVELENT IN FREQCE 1‘0 1713

BY John H. Reinoehl

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science

in partical fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

l-IAS’I‘ER OF ARTS

Department of ﬂietory and Political Science

1949 Acknowledgement

I wish to express my thanks to

Professor John B. Harrison for his helpful suggestions and constructive criticism in both the research and writing done in the completion of this essay. TABLE OF CONTENTS

m m

IntrOdUO‘ion o c c c c c c c c c 1.

I. Boginningn...... l.

II. The Controversial Period . . 20.

III. False Peace and Destruction. 1668.171} 0 O O O O C O O 7".

IV. Conclncionc I O O O O I ‘ O 97. Introduction

Man's religious beliefs have always been ideas for which he would fight and die .. they have been vital to him in revealing a reason for his existence and in giving him a suggestion of what is to happen to him in a new life.

Religion has been a serious business with man; and he who has strayed from the accepted trail of his co-religionists has ever been punished. These heretics have suffered the greatest variety of punishment; from mild ostracism to a violent and tortured death; from short to long prison terms; from a day in the stocks to death on the rack. Heretics and schismatics have had difficult lives.

The Sixteenth Century was the period of schism within the Western Christian world. Martin Luther. John Cal- via, and Henry VIII wereall able to break from Roman Cath- olicism in a lasting and 'suceessful' manner. although considerable blood was shed in the process. The Counter-Re- formation followed. with more bloodshed. as Roman Cathol- icism fought in an attempt to regain its status at the head of the Christian countries. .But the Protestant relig- ions lived on.

This essay is the story of a Seventeenth Century group who strayed from the path of the many in religion. but did not desire to be sohismatic; a group who sought to purify a religion from within rather than follow others, with similar beliefs into a different church organisation. Their desire to remain within the old institution while profess-

ing to have a.more true religion was fatal. But their ideas for their faith.did not die as readily as their abbey sue. cumbedto planned destruction; neither were the ideas scat-

tered and dissipated in.exile as were the leaders of the movement.

Jansenism came into existence as a purifying movement within the Roman Catholic Church.in France during the first half of the Seventeenth.century: it was pronounced dead hy the preponents of‘the Bull.ggigenitus with the promulgation of that document in 1713. The ideas remained, however; somewhat different from the ideas of Jansen and St. Cyran; less well expressed than the thoughts of Pascal: less spectacu~ lar than the drama enacted by the nuns who were scattered when'Port Royal was destroyed.

A reviewer said of an author's research for 'Later Jan- senists' in 1891:

“wherever he comes upon priests who combined austerity of morals with.learning and.liberality of thoughts; magis- trates who were characterised by integrity, independence, and a passionate love of’Justice: statesmen. politicians, public functionaries, who. in spite of limitations and faults, conscientiously placed the interests cf’their counp try above every other consideration; there he assures himself of being on the right scent. The Latent Jansenist is there; all that remains is to discover either in his own parentage or education. or more remotely in the social re- lations or literary tastes of his ancestors, or some possible channel through.which the spirit of Port Royal may in a.neasure have reincarnated itself in him. That found. the crown is put on the quest; the roll of the later Jansenists

ll is enriched by a new member of unimpeachable genuineness. 1-

This statement refers to the more political Jansenism of the Eighteenth.and Nineteenth Centuries and is hardly . applicable as a.detinition for the Jansenists discussed in

this paper. The Jansenist movement of the Seventeenth Cane

tury is confined to the struggle within the Roman Catholic

Church, highlighted by the trouble between.Jesuit and Janu

senist. It is the movement of Pascal and Arnauld. rather than the movement of Frondeurs de Bet; and Madame de Long~

neville. According to the description given above. the Vol. taire who would defend snother's right to make a statement.

whether he agreed‘with it or not, was a Jansenist; the stands ards of St. Cyran.and Mother Ang‘lique would hardly agree

with.such a loose description. Their movement was religious. Politics entered only within the organisation.ot the Church

1tnue

l. Anon.. “Les Dernier Jansﬁnistes. despuis la Ruins do Port Royal Jucqu'a nos Jours (lTlO~1870) Par Leon Sechﬁ , uarterl* Rev w . Vol. 173 (July. 1891). pp. 21694317.. 'L ' """"L'9"'“ ill . .1. Beginning:

The century After the foundationuor Protestantism

round the Gellieen Church with many nrobleme on ite hende.

Added to the threat of the Protestant: were diesentione

within ite own ranke. The main eplit. between the ultre—

montane group end the group favoring e etate church. could not but weaken the inner structure of the Church; While no formal statement of the .Gallioan Liberties had been made at this time. they oneted ea surely then as they did etter their listing by sum» in 1682. '

Gnllioaniem added definitelyto the strength of the

.onown in France, had. mturally. thie etrength use derived tron the Chnroh. The Libertiee consisted or tour chief

. points: 1) Papal Bulle could not enter- Franne without the eoneent of theorem; 2) Roman congregation deeieione held

no'veight in Frances.” French eubJeete could not be eited

before a. Roman Tribunal; end 4) French civil courts could look into Church affairs it they thought the ram lee had been broken. 1 The lettw of these points wee interc-

pretod very loosely by the French Parlemonte; at time they went so tar as to adminieter uoramente by adjudication to lndividuale who-.3 the Church had refneed benefit. 2 Then

1. Ward. Prothero, Leathias, eds... W m New York. (1908). V, T . 2. 121a,. v. 74. practices were by no means ordinary, however.

The Gallican Liberties did, however, practically free the government of France from any Jurisdiction of the papacy when the French government was in the hands of e Rich- elieu. The French Cardinal could and did take both Prat- estant and nonoChristien elliee in his fight against the

Catholic Hapeburgss it was outside the power of the papacy to influence him enough to bring him into harmony with his fellow Catholics. While to later Catholics. at least on the surface, the Liberties gave the idea. or being good Cath- alias as well as good Frenchmen, to the contemporary of

Louie XIII they were regarded as a weapon to be used against Rome when political expediency deemed it necessary. 3

The French Glory derived positions from crown appointments; again-political expediency raised its head. The crown controlled both position and puree, certainly e. dou- ble handicap to a tree church. Gifts could be demanded. pensions allotted from clergy revenues, appointments given to minors or sold m- rawors w money. The ma, whereby the revermes or e. vacant see were paid to the king. exitin- ed at this time. Thus it can be seen that the church. at least at the upper levels, was directly dependent upon the crown. The Pope was to dominate in spiritual matters, but with the clergy dependent upon the crown, this supremacy

3. m" V, 75. 4 . was more one of word than of action.

Moral looseness in thc«court seeped into the upper

levels of the clergy, making an unbecoming and lax group

at the head of the French church. Two of the greatest con-

tributors to this weakness in the upper strata of the clergy were the practices of pluralism and non-resident offices. Pluralism, the holding of several orfnzos simultaneously,

added to, but did not necessarily force ﬁne second and greet-

er evil, non-resident office holding. The upper clergy lived at the court a their connection with their bishoprice was largely monetary. Their titles as 'eeoular‘ clergy, as com-

pared with the regular clergy. was certainly a deserved one; they were secular in.the extreme. 5

it the lower levels the clergy was more well-meaning. ‘ but it was largely powerless to carry out its desires. Ill.

iteracy among the lower clergy declined during the first

part or the seventeenth Century due to the efforts of St. Vincent de Paul, but still contributed to their lack of effect-

iveness. Many could not read their prayer books or devotion-

al guides; some travelled through the country begging. cocaeo ionally preaching a sermon in an abbey whore they might be'

housed for a short time. 6

The abbsys were also floundering in a state of spiritual

3‘- LQLQH V0 77°

50 me. vs "’78. 5- m" V! 78° decay. Throughout the country they housed nuns who knew or cared little for runes of poverty, chastity. or obedience.

They were. to a great extent. daughters of wealthy persons who had had a position purchased for them in one of these abbeys as an alternative to a successful marriage. They liVn ed out their existence there. reading, acting in plays, giving parties, receiving visitors ~ paying little or no attention to the type of conduct that one would normally expect to find in a convent. Monks from neighboring areas were invited in for the plays and parties. In short. the abbeys generally served as a more or less laxly run women's home.7

In addition to these handicaps to the Church, France was controlled during the Seventeenth Century by men who accepted religion only inasmuch as it added to their power or to the power of the French state. Henry IV, a converted Huguenot, accepted Catholicism outwardly, but added nothing toward making his religion any more than the forms that were insisted upon.8 Richelieu, a Cardinal. picked his bishops not from the lover clergy for their religious beliefs and training, but ”preferring clerics of good birth and admin. istrative capacity rather than saints or men dependent solely upon ability."9 Loyalty to Richelieu and to France played

7. Anon.‘ “The Nuns of Port Royal from C. A. Saints- Bueve s Port ngaé, from Lizigg_§gg, Vol. 56 (29 Nov. 1855): PD: 5 5 e

8. Preserved Smith. The Age of the Reformation, New York (1912). p. 2

9. David Ogg. Eurgge in the Seventeenth Century, London (1938). Po 95cc 4 far more important a part in Richelieu's control of the

Church than any nondvcrldly or spiritual motives. Masar- in represented a continuation of the Richelieu period - plots, intrigues. little vars - all emphasized the wide range of differences among the churchmen or France.

Extremely important in any account of the Roman Church at the beginning of the Seventeenth Century is the Society of Jesus. Organised in 1540 along semi-military lines, the

Jesuits had grown and spread rapidly. They became the drive ing factor in the Catholic CountereReformatian. They beo came prominent in education, politics and missionary work throughout the world; their control or education becoming a monopoly by the time of the Seventeenth Century. Selected carefully. they became excellent preachers; They advocated any expeditious means for getting rid of Protestantism. so France was split by religious were during much of the 75 years tollewing.their formation. But the Jesuits were sure; ed by being too successful - they did control education and dominate court life by means of the confessional; in order to do so they had to meet the world more than half way. They developed a lust for temporal power, and their posit» ions in the courts aided them in these pursuits. wealth followed power. and the Seventeenth.century found the Soo- iety of Jesus an extremely powerful and influential factor in both the religious and political worlds. Ranks said of them: on the whole. it was no longer their aim to subjugate the world. or to imbue it with.the spirit of religion; rather had their own spirit steeped to the world’ s ways; their only endeavour was to make themselves indispensable to man- kind, effect it how they might. Not only were the rules of the institution, but even its religious and moral doctrines. modified with this view. lhey gave a turn forever memorable to the office of confession, that 0 Mt" so through which they exercised so direct an influence over the innermost sprin3s of individual conduct. We possess uncieetionable documents bearing on this point. The Jesuits have laid down, in numerous elaborate works, the principles they themselves observed 18 the confessional, and which they commended to others.

Their methods for maintaining themselves in an esseno tial position were centered around the We main devices In which they had.obtained power originally: education and the confessional. Their system of education was superior to any that had before existed; by the beginning or the Seven. teenth Century they controlled the education of the Roman

Catholic World. From control f education. it was a short stride to control or the confessional: their students were the future kings, lords, and other titled persons who would control states in due time.11

Their success in maintaining their positions as court confessorl lay in their use of two subterfuges: casuistry and probability. Casuistry is the science of dealing with cases of conscience and of resolving questions or right or wrong in conduct. Under the.Jcsuite. however, casuistry came to signify specious reasoning with regards to law or

10. Leopold Ranks. The Histo of the Po as h i c and Sta 1 the Sixteenth and Beventeen . Phi adelphier l , p. 3

11. Edward M. Hulls. The Renaissance the ngtegtggg R31- clution and the Catholic Perormat on urogq, New YorE (Iglg), ‘ "7zﬁﬁfjh"A£L‘2E&$BSEE§l morale. The Jesuits made caeuistry subtle and considered

motives instead of cine as the basis for judgement; prsc~

ticslly anything'uae penniesable, not even excluding mur-

der itself. Thus, if one kills to defend his honor. rather than for the sheen Joy of killing or because he was angry

with his victim. murder could be recognized as a pardonnblc

offense. 12

The second subterfuge was that of probebilisa, where-

by an act is considered moral, or at least possible of com-

mission without mortal sin, if there is any degree of prob¢

ability that the sin is of non-mortal character. regardless

of how slight taut degree might be. If two probable opin~

ions contradict (which.was very probable), it is possible to carefully choose either of them withont fear_of damnation.

Both of these doctrines, used reasonably, were the

,natural rceult of having a confessional faith; some decision

on the degree and character of the sin being needed. and.

measuring standards, as with legal codes, are copied and

built upon to become more or less permanent for Judging new

cases which may arise. But these rules can be used for tho

deliberate and.willful intent of permitting any sort of cone

'duct to be sanctioned. When the Jesuits attempted to accome

odate their religion to all, they fell into the natural

pitfalls that loomed ahead of’themo 13

12. Blaise Pascal. “Provincial Lotter’# 7” Apr. 25. 1656, from Pensegs - The Provincial Letters, tr. b H. F. Trotter an Rev. Thomas M Crio, New York (1 l). p. 411. 13. Flanke, {dietary of the Popeg, p.p. 366-367. The rulings of the different Jesuit fathers on various

sins, greet and trivial, were collected and published in

1643 in a six volume work, Theologice Morelie, by a Spanish

Jesuit, Escobar. These rulings were used by Jesuit confess-

ors as a guide to their handling the confessional;lA as Pae-

cal proved later their intentions sometines colored their

interpretations so that extremes of immorality were appar-

ently condoned by then. no the Jesuits, in their zeal for

the advancement of their own seeicty, drifted free the doc.

trines of the Church which they had bezn organized to save.

One of their needs in executing their doctrine of easy

salvation for all Wes a theory of grace different from the

hard predestinetion of it. Ieul end St. Augustine, which was more recently advocated by Jchn Calvin. A Spaniel Jes-

uit, Father holinn, filled this need with a different theory which was published in 1588. According to Molina, free will

of the individual was all important in determining salvat-

ion or lack of it, rather than a grace bestoWed by God for

ressons unknown and unknowsble to men. Consequently, the

grace of Eolina is an earned grace, and a grace that is ac-

Oepted or rejected at the will of the individual. He "main-

tained that free will, even without the help of grace, can

produce morally good works, that it can.resist tenptstian,

and Gun elevate itSelf to Various acts of hope, faith, love,

and repentance. then s nan has advanced thus far, God

14. G. B. Eicolini, Histor1_of the Jesuits, London (1854),

p. 256. 8 then bestows grace upon him on account of Christ’s merits, by means of which grace he experiences the supernatural means of eanctification; yet, as before this grace had been received, in like manner, free will is continually in action; and as everything depends u; on it, it rests with us to make the help of God effectual or ineffectual." 19

Elie doctrine of grace was rejected, at the time it was ptlDlilth, by the to: inicans, who carried the matter to Rome.

ﬁfter se verel years of etru.3 1e and interalay, silence was inpce e3 upon both sides by Pepe Paul V, pending clarification of the matter. This clarificaticn was not forthCOting, so each sije coatinued to labcr under the impression that its doctrine wae the correct one. Ge neral opinion at Rene con- ceded that the Jesuits were in error, but no decision to that

f effect was farthconiu3. 1°

Thus the Gallican Church was eclit in nuxerous ways at the be3inn3.n3 of the Seventeenth Century: the struggle between the ultra-montene group L.nd the Gallic an group the split on the fundamental matter of grace between Jesuit and

Doninicen; and the split between the lex morale group, represented by the Jesuits, and the puriten group, who reflect- ed the influence of the Calvinists of Erence.

The French Frotcetantc, or Eugucnctc, hcd grown under

150 Ibido, p. 231-0

16. 033, Eurcre in tue Ceventeenth Century, p 325. doctrine discussion'wherever ance or iheir peaceably ed was become ion Henry This igious increa numerically controlled 10,000 tholemeu' bitterly of Srown pr C” r13 .7 c donned Catb Frnacc to greater missionary 31 doctrine Naturally 18. 17. to creed of sin'ly -- 011c131. wars the tollfw-‘mr1 and be attack. included Navarre, and 3 this ween Preserved without again. 123111., ducfirc will wealth 20,000 .1y encompassed of than in erportant c01harlui"cly was fightirg the the France, work flassscro one-fifth of As 9. in filth their the bound canslder1n¢ had were strict beyond God doctrine: Sixte3nth Sglth, opposition they 21.9. France, of Sixuccnth become the as nuoerlcal ans killed.18 but being John to all in depended predestination, their and the idiot n; Age 10 be 1572. their Lucretcia-ly the 3113 Calvin‘s of Century king, the climax: one-sixth usei the doctrinal of to numbers, Century. t3 had of the nobility. durin; influence strength the upon them ncrit fhcy by Nantes, although.he :Ior Hugfinots been ébd their students Fe than the eformatiun, raised of had 17c? of key w.rzich anfi‘were by allowed absolute the lhty a ind Holy in the repracentative, 1593, in both become God to Durihg the came bloofly their its cated. the hLi t1me until individual. salvation. had who scriptures pooulation Church to they becoming up head. subties— prominent country been p. accept- the ch resist- saved live St. tney for -They 229. had rol- and can faught 33r- This com- as a basis for their arguments, thoughtful opposition went

to the Bible for refutation of those arguments. So, even

if somewhat inadvertently, the Calvinists did cause some

of their opposition to adopt their program of Bible reading.

One of these disputants against the Calvinists was

Michael de Bay. or Baius. (1513-1589) head of the University

of Louvain. In the arguments with the Calvinists, Baius be.

came convinced that the Roman Catholic Church.had strayed

from the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the early fathe ere. Among the early fathers from whom the Church had wan. , dered was St. Augustine. an admirable choice for a debater

to use because the African bishop was of sufficient stat~

are that his teachings could not be easily dismissed. Baius summed up his list of deviations as follows: 1) Men's stats

of innocence prior to original sin was natural. not super- ' natural as taught by tin Church; 2) Men's state or wicked- ness in his fallen nature is absolute - all human action, regardless of its appearance,is evil in this state; 3) Prim-

-itive innocence is resotred by Jesus Christ - through grace -

which keeps consupiscence under control and enables one to

do good. 19

These teachings came precariously close to the hereto

ical work of Calvin; they certainly were definitely opposed to the tree-will theory of Molina and the Jesuits, and were

positively opposed by them. Baiue published and taught this

19s 'Balua", cathOIIO EnCHCIOQedlg, New York (1913)e

11 doctrine. until his work was condemned by the Vatican. where- upon he recanted. He was, however. left in his position at the head of the University of Louvain, and his teachings continued to be influential.

A member of the succeeding generation who was influenc- ed by tho work of Baiue was Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638).

Jansen‘was born to a poor family in the Province of Utrecht; he was educated and spent most of his life at the University of Louvsinu as a student, tutor. and professor. He was a serious. hard-studying individual. and after becoming involve ed in the arguments with both the Dutch Calvinists and the

Jesuits, he made a lifetime study of the works of St. August- ine. placing especial emphasis upon the writings pertaining to the Pelagian.heresy. Pelagius. a.contempcrary of St. Aug~ ustine, had taught the moral strength of man's will - that alone sufficed to produce virtue. He saw in the life, eac- rifice. and redemption of Christ merely a good example for man, which.would counteract the bad example of Adam. Grace, according to Pelagius. was not needed for conquering sin nor even to gain eternal life. 20

Jansen saw considerable difference between the idea of grace of Augustine and that of Kolina; conversely he saw considerable similarity between the doctrine of Molina and that of Pelagius. He did not consider this switch from the grace of Augustine to that of Pelagius as grounds for leaving the

Church; rather he considered the Church as being deceived by

20. ibid.. “Pelagius and Pelagianism".

12 the Jesuits and not erring in itself. While Calvin and Luther

saw no hope for the old organization and split off to form new

churches. Jansen clung to Roman Catholicism as the one true faith. He thought that if he studied the writings of St. Aug-

ustine he would be able to correct this straying from the truth by the Church. “is writings to Rome on several occas-

ions betrayed his fears of Semi-Pelagianism within the Church.

He thought that if the errors were pointed out. the correct

path would be followed. His work on Augustine was the result.

Where Luther a century earlier had gone to Rome and then

separated from the Church. Jansen continued to live within

the Church; his entire life was spent firmly within the bosom

of Roman Catholicism. In 1635 he published a pamphlet. ﬂag;

Gallicus, wherein he attacked the policy of the French court in warring against Catholic Austria. He was appointed Bishop

of Ypres in 1636, but continued to devote most of his time to

a study of St. Augustine. his work on the great African had

not yet been published when Cornelius Jansen was striken by i

the plague and died in 1638.

Jensen's friend and companion, Jean de Vergier de Hauranne,

or. as he was known from 1620 on, h. as St. Cyran, maintained

similar beliefs. But where Jansen was the scholar, who worked

.with books and writings, St. Cyran was an eloquent speaker. a

talented man of the people, who created a profound impression

on those whom he addressed. He was educated at Louvain with

Jansen. but after his ordination he was sent as private secret-

ary to the Bishop of Poitiers. While there he came in contact

13 with the Huguenots, and their objections to the Church. He became convinced that these persons would never come back to Roman Catholicism unless that body in turn came back to the teachings of the early fathers. Like Jansen. he was a firm believer in the doctrines of Lt. Augustine and at. Paul; he too set out to combat the laxness in the Church by a roe turn to the early fathers. His methods were different £30m those of his friend; St. Cyran preached and taught his theor- ies. Conversion, to him. was a powerful experience. similar to that of St. Paul on the Damascus Road. His teaching was fiery and emotional, his converts numerous. Richelieu recogo nised his abilities and offered him a bishopric; his refusal to cooperate with the Cardinal caused his imprisonment during the 1630's. 21

One of the oonwerts to St. Cyran‘e ideas of puritanical Catholicism was Jacqueline Arnauld. Mother Ang‘lique of Port

Royal. a member of the famous family whmse name had become synonomous with antimJesuitism in France during the last de- cade of the Sixteenth Century. Jacqueline'e father, Antoine

Arnauld. had opposed the Jesuits strongly during that period. Jacqueline. (1591-1661) was the leader of the Arnauld family in a religious sense. When she was seven years old, her father secured the abbey of Port Royal for her, to be turned over to her upon the death.of the then ruling abbess. Jacqueline was called to her task at the age of eleven, but over her

21. .Ogg, Europe in the Seyentgenth Century. p. 332.

14 protest. Convent life was not difficult, but it hold little appeal for her; several times ska considered Joining her relatives at the nuguenot center of La Rochelle. When she was fifteen she signed some papers, at the order of her father, which pleased her to a life within the Church.22

Tho abbey of‘which.Jacquoline became head.was located near Versailles in a swampy, musty valley. It had been built in 1204, and in 1223 a bull was issued admitting worldly rc¢ cruits to Port Royal. Tho placc‘uas not distinguished hy' cithor word or deed prior to the coming of Mother Angélique. 1

When Angéaique was-1n her middle teens, she heard a sermon preached by a Cspuchin friar, and from that time for« ward she was happy with her position as a nun; Sh. took tbs now life seriously, inflicting upon herself the vows of poverty. chastity. and obedience 4 unhsard of in the abbey -

‘uhilo physical punishment became a part of her ascetic rout- ine. Sh. converted not only herself; her nuns at Port Royal were soon changed to nor now way of life. By 1609 tbs nuns of Port Royal had abolished private property in favor of coma munal living; still later laws of seclusion were enforced. Port Royal had moved from secularism to an.sxtrsmc or othsro worldlinsss.

22. The story of Angélique Arnauld and earl! Port Royal is taken from " 'Ths Nuns of Port Royal from G. A. SaintsaBucve‘s For? Rozali from V01. 56 (29 NOV. 1 5 ”a S ‘5300

15 . é . q - . ‘

nngeli uo's f.nily, and she had nineteen crotners and G3 I) sisters, had fregu atly visited her and provided clothing, ([1 money, and visitors when she had desired then. how she shut herself away from her family - refusing to see them except thcouéh the bars of the reception hall at Port Royal. After a fiery session, Angelique won the respect and then the sup— port of her family through her firmness and devotion to her vows; in time the entire family was converted to the religious life except her father.

Under Angeliquo's careful guidance and example. Port

Royal became known throughout Franco as the most devout and well run abbey in the country. Gifts no longer insured a woman‘s acceptance into the spiritual life - a poor girl who impressed Mother Ang‘lique with her seriousness and honest desire for the Cloister could be assured of finding a place at Port Royal. In turn. Angelique became renowned throughout the religious world of France. In 1618 she was temporarily transferred to the abbey atiaaubisson, to restore order and chastity to that abbey that had become notorious for its lic- cntiousness.i Angelique stayed at Maubisson five years. and by her teaching and example changed it to a second Port Roy- al. When she returned to Port Royal in 1623, she brought with her the excess nuns from wealthier.Maubisson.

Because of the increase in personnel, additional housing was required at Port Royal, and a new house was purchased in

Paris. to which the abbey was transferred in 1526. While in

16 Paris,'Angélique decided that the nuns hould have choice over who snould become their abbess. Consequently she pet~ itioned the king to allow the nuns of Port Royal permission to elect their own abbess. Upon receiving this permission,

She resigned and refused to accept the office herself.

The next years were bitter ones for Angélique. Port

Royal came under the control of M. Zamet, Bishop of Langres, who restored the former sensuous life to it. angElique found herself mocked and spurned by nuns who had formerly obeyed and revered her. This condition lasted until the middle 1630's, when Angélique came into contact with St. Cyran.

It would be going too far to say that this devout woman was converted by the evangelical St. Cyran; their beliefs in a devout and ascetic life were very much in agreement and it was more a matter of their finding each other than one of conversion. Nevertheless, a new era was brought to Port Royal by 1636 when St. Cyran had been appointed spiritual director of the abbey and Angélique had again become abbess.23 Tortures of the flesh again became the rule at Port Royal.

Prayers were said during the nights . fasting was a regular occurrence. tith the spiritual guidance and personal charm of St. Cyran. a large number of recluses were attracted tov

Port Royal. These men lived in a nearby building for a time, but were later moved out to Port Royal of the fields - the original fort Royal located near Versailles. These men Poo. presented some of the most talented persons in France}.

23. St. Cyran had been appointed by Zamet. although the two had disagreed on how the abbey should be run.

17 noteworthy among them were four nenbere of the Arnsuld fen- ily: M. Arnauld d'endilly, brother of mother Angflique, and her three nephews, M. de heel, E. de hericourt, and H. Le Heltre, all fanous in their own right as scholar, soldier and lawyer.

These men worked in the fields of Port Royal as the work was needed, but their main work, under the direct1)n of st. Cyran, was the formation of the schools at Port Royal. These schools became renous in France and attracted a wide range of schol- ars. Naturally this competition in one of their chosen fields aroused the enmity of the Jesuits for the little abbey that had dared to challenge their supremacy. Texts written at

Port Royal became famous also; some of them were still in use at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century.24

The schools of Tort noyel were snell - based upon the individual pupil. Little was allowed in the way of coupet- itive study. Children were taught to road in their native tongue instead of in Latin. Foreign languages were taught by ectuel use of the language in Speaking - little formal orphaeis was given to rules, deolensions or exceptions. Port

Royal turned out soae famous students, the poet Racine being the most famous. Extrenely talented persons served as instruct- ore there 0

Unfortunately for the movement, it use Just getting under way when, in 1638, the leader of the group, st. Cyren, incur- red the displeasure-of Richelieu and'wes put in prison. Al- though he directed the werk from Vincennes and later fron the

24. Anon.. ”Reuohlin's History of Port Royal“, The Edin- burgh Reziew, Vol. 73(July, 1841), pp. 309-365. 18 Bastille and contributed much to the schools in the way of

textbooks and advice for the group, his personal leadership was missed at Port Royal. At this tiss Cornelius Jaﬁssn, unknown to the Port Royallsts as a group, died at Louvain, his work on St. Augustine still unpublished. Jansen prob~ ably had little idea that his lifetime of study wculd stir

France with religious struggle for the greater part of the seventy-five year! after his death.

19 II. The Controversial Period

When Cornelius Jansen died of the plague in 1638, he

left his life work, the study of St. Augustine, to two friends,

- Frouond and Galen. Through then the work was published at Louvsin in 1540, written in Latin with the isoosing Latin title, éugustinus Corneliiglensenigxepiscopi. seu doctrine genoti MgustinLdeQu-neno neturg agritudinze medics. ad.

4 or us gelggianon e; m33€1l1°n§§3-1 For obvious reasons it w became known as the .gugustinus.

Jensen nod carefully studied 5t. Augustine - according to the Rev. Thomas‘M‘Crie he had read the entire works of

the saint ten times, and the sections dealing with Pelagisn-

ism thirty times. The book is divided into three parts, “the first being a refutation of Pelagisnism , the second

demonstrating the spiritual disease of man, and the third Omibiting the remedy provided." 2 ‘

Jansen set out to prove that man is not a creature of free will; pending the bestowsl of grace upon him by God.

msn is tied down by lusts for earthly things. By himself,

man is unable to raise himself from that depraved condition;

with grace all things are possible. Grace is not so much

1. Rev. Thomas M'Crie, ”Historical Introduction" to the Provincial Letters, ed. by O. N. Wight, New York (1859’s po 95.

20 Mo. Pp. 94‘950

20 forgiveness of sin as it is the freedom from the bonds that~

cause nan to sin.

He attributes the influx of grace to the higher and purer pleasure shied the soul derives fron heavenly things. The effectual grace of the Savior is nothing else, he says, than a spiritual delight, by which the will is moved to will and to do what God has decreed; it is the involuntary impulse impressed by God unon the will, by which man is made to take pleasure in good, and to strive after it. He insists, again and again, that good must be done, not fron fear of punish. ment, but from love for righteousness. From this point be next proceeds to the higher question, "What is this righteousne55?' * He answers, "God Himself.“ 3 ”

Close as this sounds to the ideas of Calvinism on grace

and man in general, there were two fundamental differences: Jansen.was guided by the teaching of early Church fathers,

who had already been abandoned in favor of"the Bible by frot-

estants generally;4 further, Jansen insisted that the Viso

' ible structure of the Roman Church was still the proper veh-

icle for the teachings cf Christ and the priesthood Which administered the sacraments were an essential part of that vehicle. were Protestantism regarded the Church as so

corrupt and rotten st its base that it would have to be

superseded by a new church, Jansenism maintained that the

old structure was sound and true, that the deformity and ills

within the Church.uould require a major cleaning and over-

hauling, but that the infallibility and imperishability rs-

msined one with the Church. Jansenism thus reverts to the

3. Ranks, History of tneggopeé. p. 337.

4. $1314.33 D. 3.69 old Church fathers - ct. Augustine being the chief of these -

the Protestants went back to the Holy Scriptures for their

authority. Jansenism retained the sacraments of the Church

intact; Protestantism discarded then in part as unnecessary.

These differences seen slight today, but they were an un-

_bridgable chasm to the devout persons on either side of the

controversy at that time. And the Jansenists considered the

Huguenots, who were so close to them in doctrine, as non-

reformable heretics; when they were not being persecuted them-

selves they were willing to aid in the persecution of the '

Huguenots.5

The book of Jansen, while it Was based upon the writ~

ings of a Church father of unimpeachable repute, was regarded by the Jesuits as a nonotoo-subtle blast at their doctrine

under the title of Semi-Pelagianisn. Realizing that they

would be treading upon dangerous ground if they attempted

to defend this phase of their teaching (The old Dominican-

Jesuit struggle at the turn of the century had been on similar grounds, and the doctrine of Molina has striking sim-

ilarities to that of Pelagius) the Jesuits siesed upon an-

other part of the St. CyranmJansen creed that looked con-

siderably more vulnerable and diverting. Jansen implied and St. Cyran Openly taught that there existed a funiamentat dif-

ference between the Roman Church and the hierarchy of the

Roman Church. It was net difficult to convince the powers at

Rome that this distinction was dangerous to then; there

5. J. B. Perkins, France Under Mazarin, New York (1885), II, 480.

22 was no need to show the application of this principle to political matters to Cardinal Richelieu. He had already felt «the blast from Jansenfs ﬂare “allicge five years earlier;

two years before he had put St. Cyran in prison as one of

the most dangerous men in Europe.5 After a condemnation on these grounds had been assured, condemnation of the ggggggiggg

would follow as a matter of course as the work of e heretic.

So the Jesuits attacked the doctrine of St. Cyran and Jensen

on eeparation of Church from the persons in charge, while

waiting for a more cpportune time to attack the main doctrine

of predestination and a bestowed. rather than an earned. grace.

But at this time the Aggustigge was tied with the group at Port Royal through the common belief of Jansen and St. Cyran. When the attack finally settled on the Aggggtinue, the terme

Janseniet and Port Royalist had'becoee practically synonomous.7

The Agguetinue had a fundamenta1.weakness as a contra.

versial writing in that itwvae written in Latin and en practically unavailable to all except the extremely well educated.

It could never influence Opinion, especially popular opinion,

to the extent that it would serve as its own.defense‘egainst

the attack of the Jesuits; however, more popular Janseniet

Vritings were not long in coming forth.

Antoine Arneuld (1612-1694) was the youngest of the twenty Arnauld children. Opposition to the Jesuits was said

6. J. B. Perkins. Richelieu and the Growth of the Eggggh m. New York (19005, . 279.

7. Perkins. {gages ﬁnder Mazarig, II, #73. 23 . to be inherited in this family, and Antoine had received his share of this trait. He was a doctor of the Sorbonne, but. his fame cane from his scholarly and organisational work as a leader of the Jansenists; he became known and is still says arated from the rest of his illustrious family by the title 'the Great Arnauld'. He acquired his interest in Jansenism from his sister, Rother Angélique, and became one of its most fiery and talented advocates. A tireless writer, he turned out many pamphlets end books which opposed Vatican policy,Protestantism, and the Jesuits with equal vigor. When St. Cyran was imprisoned by Richelieu in 1638, Arnauld substituted for him at Port Royal, and devoted his time to running the schools and writing.

Among his other duties at the abbey was that of directing the literary output of the members, the most noteworthy of whom were his relatives. Under his guidance his brother, Arnauld d'Andilly translated St. Augustine's Confessions into

French and his rs phew, de Saci, translated the Bible. School books were written. In addition, ”all prayed, mortified then- selves, gardened, took care of the farm animals, read the breviary and the Scriptures, busied themselves with the temporal matters of the monastery."8

Following the death of Richelieu, St. Cyran‘was released from prison, but his health had been so undermined that he died that same year, and nominal, as well as actual leadership

8. Emile Cailliet, Pascal - Genius in the Lieht f Scripture, Philadelphia (1935), pp. loo-lei.

24 ‘ of the Jansenist group passed into the hands of the "Great Arnauld‘. That same year Arnauld published a work which

clearly drew lines for the struggle between the Jesuits and'

Jansenists. The pamphlet, written in French, brought the

argument on theology to the level of the non-theologian, and

placed the matter in lay terms rather than in subtle differ- entiations on grace. It was called ”On Frequent Communion",

but. as the C h Enc o edia suggests, the work night more aptly be called "Against Frequent Communion”; But it

served to bring the controversy to the forefront of French religious matters, where it stayed, with minor lapses, until

well through the first quarter of the Eighteenth Century;

"0n Frequent Communion" delved into the problem of the

priest who gave absolution for sin easily, and condemned the

practice as contributing to the loose living and degeneracy

of morals that were commonplace in France at that time. So

opposite was the easy religion taught by the Jesuits to the

strict puritanism of Port Royal that Arnauld was truly alarm-

. ed at the way the confession was being managed. But the Jeso

uits, as ever, proved to be formidable opponents, and did not delay in striking back.

They were already armed with a prohibition of the gag: gggiggg,hy the lnquieition in 1641 and a confirmation or that

decree in the 1643 Papal Bull 19 Eminenti.9 They threw

9. G. H. Putnam, The Censorshi f the Ch ch of Home New York (1906 , ”In, '“

25 themselves into the task of getting rid of the leader of this groWing sect that Was giving them coupetition in their educat~ ive monopoly and questioning their methods of administering the confession. After some confusion as to how to counter this threat to their supremacy in their chosen fields, they organized their opposition, and showed their mettle as a smooth running organization. Instead of shrinking to a defense of the charges made against them they countered with stronger and, while vague, non-the-less effective charges against the Jan- senists. They claimed that the Augustinus did not represent the true belief of the saint, but a misinterpretation foist- ed upon him by Jansen, and so, easily condesned as heresy.

Arnauld's "On Frequent Communion" represented more of the same heresy according to the Society of Jesus. Disputes over the merits of the charges and counter-charges were raised in the Sorbonne. After a constant call for a demonstration of the heresy to be found in the Augustinus the Jesuits answered with seven propositions, five of which they characto erised as having been extracted from the augustinus and two from "On Frequent Communion", the latter two being subsequent- ly dropped. The propositions were developed by the Jesuit.-

Nicholas Cornet. and were claimed to be contained within the text of Jansen's book. In the dispute that followed, seventy- one doctors could find no trace of the five within the éggggty gags, while "on the other side are eighty secular doctors,and some forty Icndicant frairs"10 with fifteen who stayed neutral.

10. Fascal, Provincial Letter & 1, Jan. 23, 1656. p. 326.

26 When asked to point out the offending propositions, the

discoverer: of the heresy made no hove. Confusion reigned.

Finally the suggestion was offered that the meaning of the

five propositions was definitely contained within the A33-

ustinue. The propositions that raised the storm were translated by Charles heard as follows:

1. Sons comnandnents of cod are impossible of perfor- mance to Just men, according to their present strength, even though they be willing and striving to perform them; and the grace which.would make these commandments possible is also wanting. 2. In the state of fallen nature, no resistance is ever made to interior grace. 3. In order to produce merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature, liberty from necessity is not required in man, but liberty from constraint is sufficient. 4. The Semi-Pelagians admitted the need of prevenient grace for all actions, even for the beginnings of faith; and they were heretics, inasmuch as they would have this grace to be such that the will of man could either resist or obey. 5. It is a Semi-Pelagian error to say inst Christ died or shed his blood for all men, universally.1

The publication of these propositions gave the Jansen-

ists a new basis for establishing their defense, and the

Jesuits were once again on the offensive side of the contro-

versy. Despite protests from the seventycone members of the

Sorbonne, led by Antoine Arnauld, the propositions were sent

to Rona for a papal ruling. The eXpected condennation.was

stated in the Bull CE! occasionefinpressionis libri in May

1653. which pronounced the first four propositions heretical

and the fifth false, but added that if the fifth implied that

Christ died only for the elect, it was inpious and blasphemous

11. Anon., I'i":eard's History of Port Royal", Christian Obseggeg, Vol. 61 (Earth, 1861), pp. 251-232.

27 in addition to being heretical.12 The Jesuits had seemingly won their point - Jensen's doctrine had be;n condemned and was asparently to take its place among the minor heresies of the Church, This outlook reckoned without the active mind of Arnauld, who must have forsecn such a blow coming and prepared for the condennation of the five propositions.

The line taken hy Arnauld and the Jansenist party was to concur with the Jesuits ani the papacy in condemning the five propositions as being heretical, but to maintain the the doctrines as expressed in the five propositions were not contained in the Aqgustingg, While it was true that the propositions were all that the papacy contended, this did not even remotely concern the Jansenists, because they neither knew nor would defend any person or group who uphold such tenets. Thus originated the difference between faith and fact - the ground upon which.Jansenisn was to strugsle long and constantly unsuccessfully in their battle for existence.

They held that, while the Church or Pope night rule on net- ters of‘gggﬂg (the heresy of the five propositions), on the other hand the word of the Eope was no more effective than that of any other man on deciding whether or not the fact

(the presence of the five prepositions within the Augustinus) was true. In this case, they were willing to concede the point on the matter of faith, but they‘werc far from concede

ing anything as to the presence or tn: condemned propositions

12. Putnam, gensorship of pg:

28 within either the wording or the intention of Jensen. The

Jesuits, meanwhile, prepared a fornnlary for the Jansenists to Sign, to the effect that they condonned the five propositions; in signing it the Jansenists made it glain by their reservations that they were in no sense to be considered as condemning Jansen or St. Augustine.

The Jesuits were not to be tricked by any such subtero fuse. They quickly had their Opinion on the propositions passed at the court. hazarin agreed that the schools of Port Royal were to be closed, the recluses were told to recent or leave, and the nuns of Mother Angelique, who had returned to Port Royal of the fields in 1548, were to be eject- ed. Port Royal had expressed sympathy for Frondeurs. and provided shelter for neighboring peoples during the wars of the Fronds, so Kazarin was rather easily convinced that there was a connection between the abbey and the Fronds. egard- less of whether or not Port Royal had synpathized with the

Fronds, certain of the leaders of the Fronds had been favor- able to the Jansenists in their battle with the Jesuits, and that had satisfied the Cardinal that the Jansenist party

W35 a menace.13

The Sorbonne was debating whether or not Arnauld should be voted off the faculty, and that individual was in hiding to avoid being jailed during the winter of 1655 and 1656.

Again it appeared that the Jansenist movement was in its

13. 033. Euroge in the_$eventeenth ggnturY. PP. 352-353.

29 death throes, but this time the situation was remedied by the appearance of a great man and a convincing miracle. The man was Blaise Pascal; the miracle became known as the "hir- sole of the Holy Thorn".

"Pascal was, simply speaking, one of the greatest men that have ever lived." 1‘ Ihat statement is overly simplified, but it is none the less true of this moat famous advocate of

Jansenisn. He was born in Auvergne in 1623. as a baby he was sickly; for a year between thqages of two and three he was victim of an unusual malady, and he regained his health through an equally unusual cure. He had become languid, but when he see water or when he saw his parents together, he would scream and struggle. The parents had accepted the idea that Blaise was suffering from a "spell" which had been cast upon him by an old woman of the town. After a 'poultice made of nine leaves from three different herbs gathered before sunrise by a sevennyear-old child was applied to the baby'ls he was cured.

Pascal's next venture into the realm of the unusual came at the age of twelve. He was taught by his father, ﬁtienne, a stern man who considered the study of mathematics as too entertaining for a youth.who should be studying Latin and Greek. Eloise begged for permission to study mathematics - specifically geometry - but to no avail. Then one evening his father entered the room where Bl 'se was busy working on

14. horris Bishop, :aeoal,_§he Life of Genius. New York (1936), p. l.

15. Jacques Chevalier, Pascal, New York (1930), p. 48.

‘50 the floor. Using charcoal for a pencil, and so engrossed in his work that he failed to notiCe the approach of his father, claise'uas busy working out geonetric rules; when

Etienne interrupted his he explained his findings. slaise had worked out the prepositiens of huelid to the thirty-

econd one (th t the sum of the an5les of a triangle is equal to two right uJ6195)e 16

ﬁtienne Fascal realized that he had a prodigy growing up in his household. He turned his books over to the boy, and Blaise learned his mathematics along with his foreign languages. Blaise did not stray from his early path of genius. He was admitted to the Agadénig Libgg (a scientific discussion group to which Etienne Pascal belonged) when he was thirteen and he sat among the learned doctors and lis~ tened to and contributed to their

The person closest to Bhaise Pascal throughout his lifetime was his sister, Jacqueline, who was two years younger than he. Jacqueline exceeded Blaise in precocity in the public view; she wrote poetry which.became known at court when she was only eleven and becane a court favorite of Louis XIII ani Anne of Austria. She pleased Cardinal hichelieu with her

16. Bishop,‘?asca;, p. 8.

17. Lead.. pp. 81-87, passin. acting et'the age of thirteen.18 ﬁt fifteen she won a prize

for writing poetry, and wee publicly preieed by the poet

Cornielle. Eleise use com?lete-y outdone es a public figure

by his sister. Deopite the rivalry between then for public

' adoration, there-e two maintained a. bond. of affectifn that

kept than following the name paths throughout their lives.

An older sister, Gilberte, who raised the two younger child-

ron when their mother died. married and raised a family; Eloise and Jacqueline neither married. Although.Jacqueline

put away her poetry at sixteen, Blsiee continued to work with his mathematics for several years.

When he was twenty, Bleiee conceived the idea of an

adding machine, the crux of which use to have wheels arrang-

ed side by side, With each one turning the Wheel to its

left one-tenth revolution for each complete revolution it

made. {he machine was successful in that it added as it was

supposed to do; it was hot 3 success financially, however.

It could not be produced for less than one hundred livres;

it wee cheaper to hire the men and let them do the work.

But the idea was eseentially the one that today operates add-

ing machines and records Speedometer miles.19

To round out the story of Pascal's contributions, he

devised a barometer - proving the exietence of a vacuux; he

developed the first interurben bus line; and he worked out

18. lblﬁ.’ P. 18. 19. Ibid., pp. 26-30, Regggg.

32 the law of ptwsics relating to the constancy of pressure on liquids - the pure science behind all hydraulic machinery «- which is still known as Pascal's Lemzo They make e. complete story in themselves: his religious and polemic writings are of more interest in e study of Jensenism.

Etienne Pascal injured his hip in a. fall in 1646. The individusle called in to treat the wound were e pair of

Jensenists who were famous as bone-setters, devoting their time to deede of charity. In the curing of it. Psscsl they eetsbli shed themselves in the Pascal home for three months, during which time the entire family was exposed to the writings and beliefe of Janeenism. Pesos]. was converted to the covenant et this time. but this has been termed hie first or his intellectual conversion. He read the writings of St.

Augustine. Jensen, and the sermons or St. Cyren, and beam to admire the Jansenist creed and the stern Jansenlet God. From this time on he considered himself a. Jensenist. and was considered as such by them21

Once Blaise was converted to the new faith he labored to convert the'rest of hie family. Hie success was such that Jacqueline and Gilberte (Madame Perier) both became severe Jenseniets, more so than Blsise himself was to become for the next eight years. Jacqueline lived the life or e. nun. although she did not Join the convent at Port Royal until

20o we. pe 68.

21c we. Po A2.

33 1652. Upon the death of her father, Jacqueline entered Port Royal as a novice and served under Esther Angelique Arneuld.

Blaine, however, went back to his pursuit of Science and math»

ematics for several years, interspersed with what is known

as his worldly period of life. During this time he became

interested enough in the art of ganbling to formulate rules of probability for playing cards; his first conversion to

Jansenism had had little effect upon his conduct. His health,

never very good, seemed at its best during this period, ex-

cept for violent headaches. He lived in the world without

bothering about religion. he Opposed Jacqueline‘s entering

the abbey - for a time he refused to allow her the money need-

ed for her entry into Pert Royal._ When the abbey vas going to admit her on charity, Bleise's pride forced him to pro-

' vide the required money, but the delay and disregard for his sister's wishes remove any credit he might have received for

so doing. Thus Jacqueline climaxed her conversion by taking

her final vows on June 5, 1653. becoming Dieter Saints-Euphp $mie. Speaking of this Blaise wrote to his brotherein-lew, M. Perier, "My sister made her profession yesterday, Thursday, the 5th of June, 1653. It was impossible for me to delay her:

the hessieurs of Port Royal feared that a slight delay might

bring on a greater one and they wished to hasten it o.. to put

her in office; and consequently it was necessary to hasten,

because for this several years of profession are needed."22

22. Blaise Pascal, Letter, “A. Pascal to e. P6rier,“ June 6, 1653, from O. W. Wight, tr., the Thoughts. Letters and O scules of Blaise ?asca1 New York

Jacqueline became a model nun. hhe was placed in charge

of the postulants and children. After a short period she

took charge of the novices at Port Royal. She remained at

the abbey until her death.

Blaiss, in 155‘. presented the picture of a prominsnt

young man, frail of health, brilliant, argumentative, poss- sssor of s shrswd msthsmsticsl brain. s.Jansonist in nsms, but little else in a religious sense. 'Ths your 165‘ dlvb ides Pascal's life in two. Had he died in that year, he

would be known to history as a scientist of inconstsnt gon-

ius, cut off before his brilliant promiss could be fulfilled:23

The transformation from Pascal the scientist to Pascal

tbs mystic ascetic cams quickly, on November 23, 1654. This was Pascal's Damascus Road experience; he recorded it and

the paper*was found sewn inside his coat after his death.

Tbs significance of the experiencs to Pascal is indefinabls

to another, it is the story of Pascal's two hours with.God. He opened his Memorial with the term “Firs"; it took him through a complcts conversion to tbs point where he was will-

ing to rcnouncs all the world to dodicats himself to God.

From this time forward, aside from brief interludes. Pascal

devoted his entire time to religious asceticism.24 Quits nato

urally he turned to Jacqueline for religious assistancs.

23. Bishop, gascgl. p. 168. 24. He returned to his first love, mathsmatics, to do some work on conic sections after this time. His sistery Madame Perisr, said his work was bsgun to "11.70 Iv toothachl. See Bishop, m pp. 307‘3080

35 Jacqueline sent Pascal to the Spiritual director of Port

Royal, M. Singlin, who received credit for the new conversion.

In December of l65#, Pascal was again in Port Royal of the fields; while he was not to become one with the solitaries of Port Royal, his association with then continued from this time.

Port Royal.of the fields. located near Versailles, con- sieted of e church. cloister, guest house, dornitory, hosp- ital, and cemetery, in addition to the other minor buildings. barns stables, chicken yards, and workrooms. There were nine- ty nuns there in l651?5. The famed male eolitarios lived in an accompanying building, Les Oranges, on the hill above the abbey?6 The solitaries rose at three. made their devotions, and then.wcnt to church for matine. Aside from devotional exercises their days were spent in working, either in the fields or shops of the place. These eolitaries, while they were not monke. outdid the monk in their adherence to the rules of poverty, chastity and obedience. Their poverty is e foregone conclusion; they practiced extremes of asceticien - not eating, wearing poor clothing, even to the extent of dam~ aging their health. Chastity was carried to a like extreme.

Pascal frowned upon the marriage of his niece. terming marriage

25. Bishbp, gascal, p. 188.

26. Although the nuns and solitaries lived in close association their morals were never seriously queen tioned, aside from gossip which said they ate with. only a wooden bar between them and drank toasts to each other or danced, still on opposite sides of the barriere. Arnauld d'Andilly was known to have ”affectionate hands"; the suggestion has been made that he was the model for'Moliere's Tartutte. See Bishop, Pascal. pp. 188-190. "' 15 ).l -.|ell|l l.flv.ll.llll ‘

es the "most perilous and lowest condition of Christianity". Still later he said, ”...to pledge a child to an ordinary man is a species of homicide and a deicide....”27 These opinions were ascribed by.Pascal to the spiritual advisers

of Port Royal. h. Singlin and a. dc Saci.

Madame de sévigné mentioned this trait of Port Royal

some years later. when she told of being warned by Arnauld

d'Andilly of too close an attachment to her daughter, Madame de Grignan. “He reprimanded me very seriously; and in the warmth and zeal of his friendship, told me I was very much

a heathen and you.were the idol I worshipped: that this spec-

ies of idolitry was fully as dangerous as any other, though

I might perhaps consider it in a less criminal point of view??.."

The complete disavowal of family ties practiced by Mother Angelique since her conversion over forty years earlier had become proper and normal to Port Royal.

Obedience ianort Royal was practiced, but the bier.

erohy normal to Roman Catholicism had been abandoned for e

new one. They looked to their own director, who in turn

looked not to Home. but to God, or his onn interpretation of God's will. he their'doctrine was one of a limited grace,

given only to a chosen few, and.as they naturally accepted

themselves as representing that chosen few, their humility

27. Bishop, Rascal, pp. 317-318. 28. Madame de Sevigné. ”Letter to sedans dc Grignan,‘ April 29, 1679. from The_Letters of Mad as e ssgiggg, shiiadeiphiefT1927). Ltr. # 97. I. 9.

37 in a spiritual sense may have left something to be desired.29

In addition. Port Royal had a knack of appealing to the noted persons of the time - as their solitaries were great and influential persons. so too, the abbey received public.

1ty from them. Arnauld d'Andilly kept up his acquaintences

‘uith his noble friends of earlier days and Port Royal. for all its piety and attempts at nondworldliness, was loathe to give up its connections of influence in the court and else- where.30

So Blaise Pascal. at 31. became linked with the abbey that had become the symbol of Jansenism in France; while he did not become a permanent member of the colony. much of the remainder of his life‘vas spent there. He gave the rest of his activity to the advancement of religion. and the religion of Pascal was Jansenism. He was converted in the midst of the struggle between Arneuld and the Jesuits and he was soon in the midst of the struggle.

The “Great Arnauld“ had Just made his distinction between tact and doctrine by denying the presence of the five propositions within the Augustinus. In order to prove that grace is sometimes lacking in the most righteous or men. he referred to the apparent absence of grace from St. Peter upon the occasion of his denial of Christ. He could hardly have

29. Bishop. Pascal. pp. 193-194.

30. 1321-10. p. 1950

38 _ made a more unfortunate choice for Roman Catholicism to accept. Ha was voted guilty of heresy for his theory of

fact and doctrine b; the Sorbonne in the fall of 1653; the

matter of heresy on the instance cited concerning 5t. Fet-

er's lack of grace was brought no in January of 1656.31

Arnauld. in hiding st Port Royal, decided to appeal to the

people. After writing his defense he read it to the assem-

bled solitarios of Port Royal. When their approval was not forthoosing he turned to Pascal and requested that he try

his hand st writing the case for him. The result, on.Jennary

23. 1656, was a 'Lotter*written to a Provincial by one of

his Friends on the subject of the present Disputes at the

Sorbonne.‘ the first of the Provincial Letters.32

This latter became widely read almost instantly. it was signed Louis de Hontalte, one of Pascal's pen names, and cir-

culeted among all the peeple, bringing the argunent into lay

terms and lay understanding'with an entertaining and taunt-

ing style. There was no covering the situation with vague

terminology in.Pasoel's writings; he was clear, frank, and

biting. His method was simple. The author of the Letter.

a nobleman who has become interested in the dispute, decided

to find out about it first hand. To do so he went to repres-

entatives of both sides of the argument and had then explain

their case. The result was s.resdsble, conversational sort

31. Cailliet, Pasogl, p. 187.

32. Bishop, Pascal. pp. 220-222.

39 of document. Naturally Pascal placed his Opposition in the. worst possible light. hith.the subject of the oorbonne dis- puto being the first developed, he went into the statement of fact, whether or not the five heretical propositions were contained within the éggustinus. ' r

Sons ... protested, that, after all.the search they had made into the book, they had never stumbled upon these propositions, and thst they hsd,on the contrary, found sentiments entirely at variance with then. Th5h they earnestly begged that, if any doctor present had discovered them, he would have the goodness to point them out; adding, thet whet was so easy could not reasonablxbbe refused, as this would be the surest way to silence the whole of then, M. Arnauld included; but this proposal has been uniformly dechnuh So much for the one 81d... )

Next he launched into an investigation of the term "proximate power", defined as a state of having all that is needed for perfornsnoe - thus to "have the proximate power of seeing must be to have good eyes and the light of day."34 The die- pute is then explained so the Jensenists appear to be correct end orthodox in maintaining that the righteous have always the power of obeying the commandments of God; the heretical part of their belief was in their refusal to term this power "prox- insts". were h. Arnauld able to use the term proximate in describing his interpretation, he would not be guilty of the heresy. Thus, individuals who_believe exectly the same way may be sepsrated_by their'uSB of the term. At the end of' the first letter, Pascal arrives at the conclusion that the beliefs of the Dominicans and Jensenists are similar, but

33. Pascal, Provincial Lettergs 1, Jan. 23, 1656, p. 326. 34. lbid., Letter5§ l, p. 331.

\ ho but their terminology is different. His summation is espec-

ially lucid:

...the following points remain undisputed and uncondenned by either party. First, Inst grace is not given to all men. Second, That all the righteous have always the power of obey- lng the divine cohnandnents. rhird, that they require, nevertheless, in order to obey then, and even to pray, an eff- lcacious grace, which invincaoiy deterhines their Hill. Fourth, That this efficacious grace is not always granted to all e righteous, and that it depends on the pure mercy of God. So that, after all, the truth is safe, and ncthgng runs any risk but that word without the sense, proximate.>9

The first letter Caused widely different reactions.

Chancellor téguir of the Sorbonne read the document and had

to be bled seven times. Paris laughed at the burlesquing

of shat had been dry religious polemics. Those who normally

were connected with the publication of works of Port Royal

had police visits and the printer of the second letter had his shop entered while the forms were there. His wife took

than to a neighboring shop and the second letter'was circul-

. ated on the following day.36

The second letter was a continuation of the first in

character. It repeated the charge that the difference was

not as great as the terms'would indicate between,Jansenist

and Doninican, or orthodox Catholic. But here he added a

new thrust; while the Dominicans agreed with the Jansenists

in doctrine, in terminology they were on the side of the

{asuits, and-othis is important . the Jesuits had a recent. 1y manufactured and unorthodox belief. The disdinsuishing

35. Ibido' Letter u", 1" ‘99. 334.335. 35. hishop, Pascal, p. 225. m“

41 term in this case was ”sufficient grace", and his argument was again crystal clear. The Jesuits hinged their consider» ations on grace on the torn "sufficient” which ihplied all that was needed for righteous action. They believed that grace is dooendcnt ucon tree will, that it is "given generally to all men subject in such.a way to free-will that the will renders it efficacious or inefficacious at its pleasure, without any additional aid from God, and without wanting anything on his part in order to act effectively; and hence they term this grace sufficient, because it suffices of itself for action.'37 Pascal here was merely pointing out the doctrine of Molina, uhich.was maintained by the Jesuits. The difference between this and the Jansenist picture of grace is clearly shown.

The Jansenists, with their denial of free will, refused to recognize the term of the Jesuits o'sufficient' grace . because this grace was not of itself sufficient for action. They term their grace “efficaciouc', because it controls the will itself. With the Jansenist grace, the possibility of earning salvation through any means other than the choice of God is eliminated. They term the Jesuit grace as insuff- icient. because it had not the power to direct the'will to action, and so by no means could be considered sufficient. ”efficacious" grace was all that was needed for proper action, but nothing less would suffice.38

37. Pascal, Provincial Letter # 2. Jan. 29, 1656, p. 336. 33. Ibii., Letter;? 2{ pp. 339-341.

42 Here Pescsl pointed out the fallacy in the stead of the

Doninicene hehini the Jesuits in the theological controversy.

ihey hcd ccsgromisei their early stem; against foline's ver- sian of grece 1w eleptih the Jesuit terminology, while still

holding to their own belief. "”hey agree with the Jesuits

in admitting a sufficient gracg given to all men; but they

maintain, at the same time, thet no men can act with this

grace alone, but that, in order to do this, he must receive

from God an efficacious grace which really determines his

will to the action, and.whlch God does not grant to all men."39

Thus, by any logic, the controversy shouli not hsve re-

mainei as to the heretical views of the Jensenistc, but in

their refusal to use the term "sufficient" grace with the

Jesuits. {hile the Dominicans, who persecutei the Jensenists with the Jesuits, believed the same we*, their belief was

not heritiCul because they used the term with the Jesuits.

But Pascal did not rest his case here. He had already

translated the difference between Jesuit and Dominican into popular language for all to read; next he showed the reason why they could side together against the Jensenists. In his conversaticn with the Jesuit of the letters, he asked him why the holy fathers did not also fight the Doninicans, since

heir ideas of grace and proximate power so closely parallel- ed those of the Janeenista. The father adnitted that the

Dominicans were too powerful to attack. Recalling the stand-oft

59' iii-'1': - Letter 2. p. 337. 43 in the matter of grace between the two orders at the beginn-

ing of the Seventeenth Century, the father said that the Jes-

uits had decided to live in peace with the Eoninicans so long as they used the term "sufficient" to describe their grace.

regardless of their acceptance or non-acceptance of its mean-

ing in the sense used by the Jesuits. The Jansenists were

persecuted beceuse they refused to acknowledge the tern, said

Pesce1.40

the Dohinicans, en the other hand, refused to accept

the sufficient grace of the Jesuits except that they would

willingly use the term. Inconsistentiy, they admitted that

the sufficient grace would not provide salvation without the

additional efficacious grace. The Jesuits wouLd destroy the

entire order (said the Dominican of the Letters) if lip ser-

vice was not given to their required term. the Dominicans,

by this bit of subterfuge, preserved their doctrine by using

the meaningless term of the Jesuits.41

Isscsl stated the issue in law terhs:

If I deny the sufficient grace, I an a Jensenist. If I admit it, as the Jesuits do, in the way of denyiig that effico ecioue grace is necessary, I shall be a heretic, say you (a Dominican). And if I admit it, as you do, in the way of maintaining the necessity of efficacious grace, I sin against common sense, end an & blockheed, say the Jesuits. that Just 1 do, thus reduced to the inevitable necessity of being a block- hesd, a heretic, LP antnscnist? end what a sad pass are matters come to, if thlre are none but the Jensenists who avoid coming into collisien either with the faith or with reason,

40. Ibid., Letter J 2, pp. 340-341. hid., Letter,9 2, p. 3th. 41. H m

44 and who o.vo troi.-lvov at once from ﬁulhl«iby on. from error!

tith the is ue so pl: inly "10.,L--3, (so‘. 193 resolved

:15'--f1'iozc1:~. 1! 1th E‘.’ ch letter. $116? iniivimiul lettcr’s circulated widely and speculation at to tr? author's identity was coxgcn thrw shout literary Fr once, as well as ooong the Jesuits thong-z-lvet' :ecauso the letters ploced the issue so plainly as a cat: or of the Jo s“*ts protecting an unorthodox doctrine by taking the offensive against orthodoxy in the form of Jan- eonian, thcro was a.movement away from the proposed disruption of Port Royal's schools, and the movement grew as the letters spread. Eascol took refuge under the none of M. de Mons, living alternately at Yort Ro wy 51 of the fields and in Faria.43

But while Pascal's letters hod had.wido appe31 to the reading public, an& had poyularlzed tho Janzoniot cause aaong his roodors, they h: .failal in their original purpose 3 that of relieving the condemnation of tho"Groat irnauld“ by tho Sorbonno. On Jar nary 31, 15 36, the Sorbonno had condemnod the doctrine of Arnould on St. Peter' 8 lack of grace by a vote of 130 to 9,44deopita wide approval at the message of the letters. Pascal, in the third letter, intinated toot tne condonnition was not because of the heresy of Urn uld, but of personal encity the Jesuits had against bin and ”it being a much easier matter with then to find monk'a (to vote against

42. Ibid., Letter 3 2, p. 340.

3. £13333, Pascal. Do 2;

44. Tn3 trienl a of Arnould had hithdrlwn orior to the vote because Arnauld had been irregularly eilencad; this accounts for the loss of votes. Bishop, Pascal, p. 225.

h”. Arnauld) than reasons." 45 In attenpting to provide amnesty

to érnauld, who was forced to remain in hiding, he reiterated his contention that the Janeenist faith. that of Arnauld, was more in agreenent with the Church fathers than that of the

Jesuits or any of his accusere in the Serbonne. He quoted tron 3t. nugustiwe, provin; that that fatner a' reed with

Arnauli in his contentien of ct. Feter’s fill tron grace: ... n Jesus Chrict points out to us, in the persan cf at. «eter, a righteous xnn, warning us by his fall to avoid preeuaptn

' . \,v~--. 1" ‘- ion" anu - ‘. taut 1 ' cod, [L ' ' DRn oruer .-: to anew v.-’ us tnat ‘t- hithent EZG;3

' f we can do nothing left Lt. Peter witheut grace.” '—

The entire argument of the Jesuits, acid Pascal. wee not to show the error of Arneuld’s saytngs, but to declare then to be impicuc and heretical. This nets calling. far from showing the heresy of Arneuld. pointed out the weakness of the case against him. Wage Arnauld heretical. surely his accusere would have pointed out the exact place where his doctrine haﬁ breached the Church creed and why he had been censured. Had there een any difference between the fathers and Arneuld, they woull have been quick to point it out.

cut these cvycnen s of ﬁrnauld were more subtle than they' appeared - their motive was to discredit Arnauld - few per- scns wculd delve into the reascn for the Genetre anew it :1e assumption wculd lwe male that the censure

45. Pascal. Provincial Letter 5 3, Feb. 9, 1656, p. 354,

AC. “1213., Let-39'" 3" 3, p. 331.

.46 was Just. Thus the condemnation of Arnauld represented a personal censure, and in no sense one of doctrine. The doctrine of Molina could not be made to appear to agree with that of St. Augustine and the fathers: but in the hands of

Arnauld. the ideas of Augustine became heresy and the heresy of Pelagius in the hands of his opposition became true Cath- olic doctrine. Should Arnauld turn to accept Molinism. it would become heresy from that fact and could no longer stand as the true faith. The dispute was one of theologians. and in no sense one of theology.‘7

Apparently the third letter convinced Pascal that it was useless to go further in his attempt to relieve pressure from Arnauld; he no longer dealt with the problem of his censorship. With the fourth.letter he started a scathing denunciation of Jesuit casuistry that was continued throughout the following twelve letters without ceasing. In them Pascal piled up damning evidence that has never been satie- factorily refuted or explained away. His cold logic and live- ly wit have insured wide circulation and lasting significance to his work. He blamed the Jesuits for adding to loosenees of morals by their easy lessons on grace and sins of ignore ance. The Jesuit father of the Provincial Letters said, "we maintain it, then. as an undeniable principle, that an action cannot be imputed as a sin. unless God bestow on us, before committing it, the knowledge of the evil that is in the

47o lbiqeo Letter # 39 p.357.

47 action, and an inspiration inciting us to avoid it.” Fur— ther, Father Annat, the Jesuit who led the movement against

Arnauld, asserted that sins of omission and comaisslon are both absolved by igrgzoranceo‘8

At this point, the Jansenist view was shown, adequately backed by scriptural quotations and the redoubtable Aug- ustine, as being directly opposed to that of the Jesuits.

The Jesuit referred to Aristotle for support for his doctrine, but Pascal‘s Jansenist informed him that even this pagan philosopher required a higher moral creed than that of the

Jesuits. He interrupted the argument here, with a promise of further enlightenment on the ground of morals.

The fourth of the {rovincial Lettergpwas dated February

25, 1656. Following the publication of this letter. the great miracle mentioned above occurred, to raise the persecution and bans upon Port Royal. and provide a stimulus for Pascal to continue his polemic writing against the Jes- uits. Pascal's niece. Marguerite Perier, was a residence pupil at Port Royal. She was suffering from an ulcer at the inner corner of her left eye that doctors of the day had pronounced as incurable, and it was accompanied by a secretion so foul-smelling that the little girl wasworced to live in a room separate from those of her fellow students. After several unsuccessful remedies, the doctors decided to caut- erize it with a hot iron to prevent its spread. Word was

48. lgld,, Letter'ﬂ 4, ng, 25. 1555. p. 359.

48 sent to Marguerite's father; the operation was postponed un-

til his arrival at Paris.49

Although the Port Royalists normally ignored relics, a thorn, said to be from the crown worn by Christ, was being

worshipped by the community members. harguerite touched

the thorn to her eye, and prayed for it to be cured. When

she returned to her room she told those around her that her

eye no longer hurt her. The cautious Port Royalists waited

for a.week and then sent for one of the doctors who had pro-

nounced the eye incurable. He attested to the cure, and ad-

mitted that, in his opinion, it would have been impossible

for the eye to have been cured without a miracle.50

The opponents of Port Royal were satisfied with the

validity of the ”Miracle of the Holy Thorn". Persecutions were lightened; the little schools of Port Royal of the

fields were reopened and the recluses gathered there again.

Pascal accepted the miracle as a sign for him to continue

his writing. He wrote, ‘Miracles serve not to convert, but

to condemn.'51 Accepting this principle, Pascal, with the

fifth letter, took on a new tons, a biting prosecution of

the Society of Jesus. He piled up condemning evidence of

their culpability; his case was built so solidly that the

only refutation possible was to state that Pascal lied or

erred. Those accusations have not been successful. although

#9. Cailliet, zascal, p. 234.

50. l2;§,. 235.

51. Blai e Pascal, Pensees, Section XIII, No. 824, from Pen ees - The Provincial Letter tr by N. F. Trotter an ev. homes a Cris, new York (1941), p. 288.

LA they are still made.52

Letter number five introduced the two most infamous of

Jesuit practices: casuistry and the doctrine of probability.

Pascal proved his points here with.quotations taken from writings of the Jesuit fathers themselves. He was satisfied

that no work of his would lighten the Jesuit attack on the Port Royalists. In his Pensees he wrote, ”The hardness of

the Jesuits, then, surpasses that of the Jews, since those refused to believe Jesus Christ innocent only because they doubted if His miracles were of God. shares: the Jesuits. adthough unable to

house."53

The Jesuits held to both Lax and severe Opinions of behavior, according to Pascal. to satisfy both types of be-

liever. They had to maintain some strict confessors to fell-

ow their practice of pleasing all. Thus:

Should any person present himself before them. for'example, fully resolves ti make restitution of some ill-gotten gains, do not suppos Tl ey would dissuade him from it. By no means; on the contrary, they would applaud and confirm him in such a holy resolution. But suppose another should come who wishes to be absolved without restitution, and it will be a part» icularly hard case indeed,if they cannot furnish him with means of evading the duty, or one kind or anotggr, the lawful~ ness of which they will be ready to guarantee.

52. Ogg, EurOpe in the Seventeenth Century, p. 350. 53. Pascal, renséee, Section x111. No. 853. p. 202. 54. Paﬁcal, Provincial Letter # 5. march 20, 1656, p. 37 . -

50 Escobar, compiler of the writings of the leading Jesuit casuists, came in for his share of censure from Pascal. Two of his quotations will suffice for the method used. “hay one, without breaking the fast, drink wine at any hour he pleases, and even in a large quantity? Yes, he may; and a dram of hippoorass too.'55 "If a man doubt whether he is twenty-one years old, is he obliged to fast? No. But suppose I were to be twenty-one tonight an hour after midnight. and tomorrow were the fast, would I be obliged to fast tomor~ row? No, for you.were at liberty to set as much as you pleased for an hour after midnight. not being till than fully twen- tyaone; and therefore having a right to break the rest day you are not obliged to keep 1t,"56

A second casuist is quoted, ”We may seek an occasion of sin directly and designedly~c primo at per se - when our own or our neighbor's spiritual or temporal advantage induces us to do so.”57 Pascal interpreted this to mean that if you can convince yourself of the value of sin to yourself or'your neighbor, you may do so with impunity.

But carrying casuistry on further. said rascal, the Jes- uits were willing to allow any degree or type of sin. Their reasoning went along these lines: -

Are assassins unworthy of sanctuary in churches? Yes, by the hull of Gregory XIV.they are. But by the word assessing we understand those that have received money to murder one;

55. L2y3,. Letter # 5. p. 378- 55. £2;Q,. Letter ¥ 5. Po 373~379. 57. an}... Letter 29" 5. p. 380. 51 and accordingly, such as kill without taking any reward for the deed, but merely to bli e thgir friends, do not some under the category of assassins.5

They defined superfluity to mean sosething other than that which men lay up to provide for their welfare, or that of their relatives and so that "such a thing as superfluity is seldom to be found among men of the World, not even ex- cepting kings".59 Any person‘sho could muster enough aha bition to deny their property being superfluity was easily able to avoid giving also.

. In the sixth letter, Pascal continued his attack - he told the story of Johnny D'Albs, a servant who listened to the casuist tell how a servant might steal from his master uithout sin if ho is satisfied that he is not receiving enough pay. Johnny robbed his master, safe in the assurance of the

Jesuit that ho'was guilty of no orine; the court held that

Johnny should be punished, despite the casuist. Pascal inp dicated that the Jesuit creed was beneath that of the courts, who allowed much behavior below Christian standards to go unpunished.5°

Next he attacked the casuist theory of directing the intention, whereby a sinner‘may, by not considering the evil. be absolved of the sin he has committed. A person who tights

1 dual may do Io, not for the sake of fighting a duel, which is wrong, but for the purpose of defending his honor, which is

58. lbid., Letter # 6, April 10, 1656, p. 388.

59. Lbid., Letter # 6, p. 389. 60. Ibid., Letter e 6, p. 400. 52 per ectly permissible. However, if no duel can be arranged, the eneny say be killed privately, since "by this means, we escape at once fron exposing out life in the cenbat, and from participating in the sin which our spoonent would have consitted by fIJLting . t . the , duelt'ol .. f

Probabilisn also entered the picture - that knao; by which either of two opinions on a matter are made 'probable' or permissible for governing one's actions. Judges might pronounce probable opinions despite knowledge of more probable ones and even if they do not agree with that opinion. The great Holina himself was quoted by Pascal, "Judges may receive presents fron per 155 when they are given them either for friendship's sake, or in gratitude for sons former act of Justice, or to induce them to give Justice in the future, .. . their or to oblige then to pay particular attention to-a case, or to engage then to daspatch it promptly.'62 Usury was permit- ted through the Hohatra bargain; buying an object for credit at a high'price and selling it back for cash at a lower price.

In the ninth letter, Pascal struck at an essential difference between the Jesuit and Jansenist way of performing their religious duties. The ease of religion aivised by the Society was solidly condemned. A Jesuit book, written by a Father

Barry and called Egradise_oiened to PhilagioL in a hundred k

61. Ibid., Letter # 7. April 25, 1656, p. 408.

62. Ibid., Letter 3 8, May 23, 1556, p. 420.

53 QEXQEAQEQ_§QWEQEJEQ§§?F of God; essilz‘grectipeg, was exas-

ined. Aethods advised were extrenely simole: saluting the holy Virgin when one happened to meet her iuege, saying a chaplet of the pleasures of the virgin, fervently pronounc- ing the nase of nary, couuissioning the angels to how to her for us, wishing to build her as many churches as all the none erohs on earth have done, bidding her good sorrow every morn-

ing and good night in Hie evening, veering a Chaplet night and day on the arm, in the form of a bracelet, or carrying a rosary, or an image of the virgin.53 This represents a vest difference from the creed of the ascetic Jensenists. who prided themselves on the difficulty of their reli5ion, ed upon their being a small group of God's elect.

The Jesuits had also decided that the worshiper'mey hear mess by hearing several parts simultaneously. and so save time - “one may hear mess any day at Hotre Lane in a twinkling." 54 But where the Jesuit was dlenetricelly opposed to the Jansenist doctrine was in his theory of the easy confessional. Sinners who were bothered by particularly grav- ioue sins were advised to have two confessors, one for nor- tal sins and another for sins which.were only venial. The

secraeent of penance was reduced to a nere form - the confessor bed to accept the word of even the host habitual of

sinners if he expressed sorrow for his sin, even if the

63. gb1d.. Letter s 9. July 3, 1556. p. 435.

64. Ibid., Letter'ﬁ-Q, p. 448.

54 confessor doubted his sincerety. "Contrition is by no means

necessary in order to obtain the principal benefit of the

sacrament; on the contrary, it is rather an obstacle in the way of lt.'65 One may or may not love God - the only neces-

sity was that one did not hate Him openly.

By the time the tenth letter was published, the Jes-

uits had rallied their forces sufficiently to strike back

by circulating letters countering Eascal's devastating att- b

.m-W

ack. But rascal was even more effective while counter- _~-.

...—....4 attacking than he was originally; he made the defense of the

i-‘—.‘u

5 society a weapon to be turned against them. Between August ;

18, 1656 and March 2h, 1657 he wrote eight more letters, no longer scaressed to the mysterious friend but directly

to the Society of Jesus as a group or to Father Annat him-

. self. They accused him of making light of religion; he caustically told them that there was a vast difference be-

tween making light of religion and making-light of those

who had made a mockery of religion. He compared them with

hicodesus or the Pharisees, who, although proud, were false

in their religious beliefs. Next he issued a challenge: he

had not been trying to wound them, merely pointing out weak

cpotn that appeared vulnerable; that they aroused ridicule

lay not in his work, but only in the fact that awareness of

their creed was becoming com.-non..6"5

65. Ibid., Letter # 10, Aug. 2, 1656, p. #61.

66. Ibid., Letter # 11, Aug. 18, 1656, p. 471.

..1“ ..u Mfivrf: fin!“ uh .u|an.mu hlwfllsl'lnflfl‘fi

__ _ Their next accusation was that Pascal had quoted their authors out of context - he requoted the text of his original quotation and asked for a specific correction of his error in each case. Where they had given him the specific quotation that they had said was out of context, he quoted more from the same area to prove his idea of the Jesuit meaning was correct. After refuting their denunciations, he returned to the attack by quoting further from their casuists.

By direct quotes he showed how murder may be committed for money, honor, property, or in return for a buffet, without danger of mortal sin.67

Then he hit out at the Jesuit art of calumny - be maintained that they used calumny as a standard.weapon for dis- crediting those who opposed them in any way. .Their defin- ition of a haretie was one who attacked their society. The

Jesuits slandered by insinuations or direct lies - as proof he quoted some of the tales they had circulated about hha, when they were not at all certain of his identity.58

The final three letters were aimed toward protecting

Jansenism, Port Royal, and Jansen himself from Jesuit atto ack. Charges that Jansen had stolen church money were dismissed as false. The accusation that the Port Royal nuns disbelieved the mystery of transubstantiation, and the

67. gbig., Letter # 13, September 30, 1656, pp 499-503 gassig. 68. Ibid., Letter # 15, November 25, 1656, and Letter g 13. December #, 1656. pp. 532-552 Qgsslm.

56 presence of Christ’s body in the eucharist and that they sub- scribed to the Calvinist belief, i. 6., that the body of

Christ can not be in many places at once - and is not contained in the bread and wine of the sacraments, was disproved by quoting Jansenist writings: "the flesh and blood of Jesus

Christ are contained under the species of bread and wine” and ”Jesus Christ reposes in the eucharist with the same glory that he has in heaven."69 To their general charge that Port

Royal was closely akin to the Genevan heresy, he challenged then to show where the two are in agreement unless both agree with the entire Church. Jansenists had been eager to find fault with.Protestantism; there could be no question of orthoo doxy on those grounds.

In defending the doctrine of Jansen, Pascal became even more pointed and convincing; First, he said, the Jesuits formed the argument on the cantention that the five props. sitions were contained word for~wcrd within the Augustinus;

Next, when they were unable to show these word for word in the book, they shifted to a heresy of the heart, saying that if Jansen‘was not quoted directly, at Least the crux of his meaning was contained in the five propositions.70

The Jansenists were not heretics because they refused to adnit that Jansen had written the actual five propositions or their meaning, admittedly heretical. They might have been

69. Ibid., Letter ,4: 15, p. 554.

70. Ibid., Letter # 17, January 23, 1657, p. 581.

57 mistaken, but an error of that type would hardly be consido cred grounds for an accusation of heresy. The Jansenist doctrine of efficacious grace had not been condemned in any sense; thus, "...either Jansenidgitgaggt the doctrine of efficacious grace, and in this case he has no errors; or he has taught some other thing, and in this case he has no de- fenders.'71 In matters of faith, Jansenism was willing to side with the papacy, and there was no contradiction between the two. But regarding the presence of the heretical doctrine within the writings of Jansen, the‘Pope was in no wise infallible, Successive popes had contradicted each.cther on facts; it‘wouid be absurd to indicate that neither had been in error.

The Jesuits had next condemned Jensen's doctrine, be what it may. But, if this were true, and Jansen had advocated the opposite of the five propositions, the five must be representative of the true faith. But, more important than has five propositions, if Jansenism is condemned regardless of its meaning, efficacious grace, admitted by all to be a part of Jansenism, is condemned also. Thus, said Pascal, the whole struggle went back to the controversy between Molina and the Dominicans at the first of the Seven~ tsenth Century. The artfulness of the Jesuit attack consisted in their tying the problem of faith (that the five propositions were heretical) with the matter of fact (that the

71. £bid., Letter # 17, p. 58‘.

58 doctrine of the propositions is contained in Jansenius) and so making it appear that the issue was a valid one for the

Church to decide.

He concluded his argument: It may be that they (the Port Royalists) interpret Jansenius too favorably; but it may be also that you do not interpret him favorably enough. I do not enter upon th’s ue tidy All I know is, that, according to your maximsfyh'ﬁ 31133,, with. out sin, publish him to be a heretic contrary to your own knowledge: whereas, according to their maxims, they cannot, without sin, declare him to be a Catholic, unless they are persuaded that he is one. They are, therefore more honest than you, father; they have examined Jansenius more faith- fully than you; they are no less intelligent than you; they are therefore, no less credible witnesses than you. But come what may of this point of fact they are certainly Cath- olics; for in order to be so, it is not ascessary to declare that another man is not a Catholics”...7

Meanwhile, the opponents of Jansenism recovered from the awkward position in which they had been placed by the

Miracle of the Holy Thorn although the physical punishment of Port Royal and Port Royal of the fields had been lightened. attacks upon Jansen and his doctrine continued, however. In August of 1656, all the recent writings of the

”Great Arnauld' were added to the index. On September 4, the aseembly of the Clergy of France approved a Formulary which stated that all French priests would.have to subscribe to the Pope's ruling on the five propositions.73

in October, 1656, a new hull was published which forbade,

72. Ibid., Letter # 17, p. 594.

73. Bishop, Pascal, p. 244.

59 condemned, and prohibited the augustinus and all other books

or manuscripts which might establish or sustain it. By this

document the frovincial Letters were condenned - the assen-

bly of the Clergy meanwhile addressed a letter to the author

of the letters ordering him to cease attacking the innocent

and put an end to the war that should never have started.74

Father Annat attenpted a defense of Jesuit practices with a paaphlet 'The good faith of the Jesuits." (Eascal addressed

the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Letters to Father Annat, as

well as an incompleted hineteenth Letter.) Annat accused

the writer of the letters of heresy35Pascal defended the Jan- senists and himself by denying the charges on the grounds

that no heresy had been indicated other than connecting hhl vith.Port Royal . his defense of Port Royal has already been

covered.

Pascal's real defense of hinself was in the fragments of the gensées - those disconnected Jottings which he did

not intend to publish. These thoughts on reliéion and other

subjects were found sown in the lining of Pascal's coat

Sleeve after his death, and arranged and compiled by his friends of Port Royal. His defense consisted of a denial

of the infallibility of the pope, a belief in the separation

of the Church from the doctrine being revered by Rome, and

finally in a direct appeal to God over the head of the papacy.

7A. Cailliet, Pascal, Po 257- 75. lbig.,'.258, and Bishop: Emma 245-

60 .ﬁgainst papal infallibility he wrote: The hope is head. who else is known of all? Who else is recognised by all, having power to insinuate himself into all the body, because he holds the principal shoot, which insinuates itself everywhere? How easy it was to sake this degenerate into tyranny: .... The Pope hates and fears the learned, who do not submit to hit?! at Will. he must not Judge of what the Pope is by some words of the Fathers ... but by the acts of the Church and the Fath- ers, and b; the canons. .... Unity and plurality. it is an error to exclude one of the two, as the papists do who exclude plurality, or the Huguenots who exclude unity. Would the Pope be dishonoured by having his knowledge from God and tradition: and is it not dishonouring his to separate him from this holy union? God did not perform miracles in the ordinary conduct of His Church. It would be a strange miracle if infallibo ility existed in one man. But it appears so natural for it to reside in a multitude, since the conduct $£ God is hid- den under nature, as in all His other works.

On the differences between the doctrine of the Jesuits (or Rose) and the actual Church, he is very plain:

Heretics, who take advantage of the doctrine of the Jesuits, must be made to know that it is not of the Church, and that our divisions do not separate us from the altar. Those who love the Church lament to see the corruption of morals; but the laws at least exist. But these corrupt the laws. The model is damaged. Mon never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. It is in vain that the Church has established these words, anathemas, heresics, etc. They are used against her.

Finally, there was his famous appeal to Christ over the head of the papacy:

If my Letters are condemned in Rome, that which I condemned in heaven. Ad tuum, Domino Jesu, trip? in them is condemned gngl apocllo. 9. 309. 75- Pascal. 2223223. Section XIV, Nos. 371-375, 9 - , pft I - 77. ‘ Quid... Section XIV, Natm. 33 3'7’

61 . . f“ .I... Ecu, yeuicalvse are c~rrtvtible I feared that I had writtsn ill, resin .3 mvself condemn. ed: but the sex pic of so many {ions writirje .a»-s me believe the contrary. It is no is n or allwtcﬁle to write well, so corrugt or i3nsrant is the -anlci n. .'“

Ihe eL hteenthl rovino almigtter centinursi the defense

of Jansenism, in the name of logic. He advised the Jesuit father to call the Jansenists stuped or uninfrrned, but not

to call them heretics; their beliefs, he es M , were orthodox, despite tr sir tile 3ed lack of knowledre of fa 3.79

rascal seemed alddened in the fragment or the nineteenth

letter . his satire became heavy as he considered the fate of those whom he defended. "£35. 01%. affirmed. "1:3 afraid fates-r.

the objects of your sanity are in distress.“ J oe described

the piety of the Port noyalists, their desire for peace and

truth. their distrust of their own infirnlties. hadaml d.

EEvigné described them with similar thoughts twenty years later when she wrote simply, “I have a great regard for

than. .do Grignan would think the: Jan; cnists: for my part I think then Christianm'm

Pascal regarded than as Christians also; Jesuit hands,

hows ever, were gui ing Church policy, and so made their apnea

site opinion felt. They,or their backers, strucx back.

9°?” alexandep VIII condemned the eighteen *-

73. l-‘l‘gg. aﬁctlan X431. ‘10. 919. pl 319.

79. Pa $3 3.1. JI‘OVIH”131 Letter 53 18-:-'.&1“Ch 24, 1557. p. 6330 5-3. 3213.. Letter ,9 19. n.d., p. 61.9.

81. ﬁadaee do Sévigné, Letter to aadaee do Grignan, any 17. 1730. Latter if 638. V. 98. . 62

ttera on be ember 5, 1657, along with the latest words of

Antoine nrnauld. There was a reaction against the Jesuits

in france for a brief tine - whether due to the letters of

Pascal or to tne miracles, similar to that of the Holy Thorn

which had occurred at Port Royal cannot be certain. Pascal

mentioned another of the miracles in a letter,32 and appear« ad to have been considerably moved by them. A book antitlld

$201033 for tho Casuicgg - defending the Jesuits against tho

attack of the Eggvincial Lettcgg_- was published by the Joe- uita. Pascal defended his writing with a paper "Eactum for

t‘e Eriosts of Paris against a bonk entitled Apology for tho Casuiatu, Against the Columnieo of the Jonsoniste. Paris. 1657. and against those who composed, printed and sold it.‘

This paper roatated the argument. of the Ergvincial Letters

and denied any motive to the Janseniat cause other than pur-

ifying the Church.83

The actual persecutions of Fort Royal were, however, interrupted until 1660: at that time the schools were again dispersed, and the Second Formulary was brought forth for

the Jansenisto.to sign. This document avoided the error of

the first one by specifying the doctrine as belonging to Jan~ son and as being contained in tho gugustinugt ”I condemn in

' my heart and by my words the doctrine of the Five Propositions of Cornelius Jansen, contained in the "Auguctinua', which

82. Pascal. Letter to M. and Mlle. do Rouannez, September, 1656. from Emile Cailliot, Great ShorterfWorkg or Pascal, rbiladelphic (1948), p. 153.

83. 560 My. pp. 173‘184 2238131. 53 has been conﬂetned by Innocent x and Alexander VII; which

doctrine is not that of St. Augustine but troubly explained

- ., . . -. _‘ ‘ , . 9} oy uanscnlue contrary to the mino or that caint."J4

At this stage the first split appeared in the ranks of

the Jenscniets. According to the reasoning of Pascal, this

forsulsry would coniehn not only Janeen, but all that Jansen

had stood for. do reasoned that it was not a great aistancs

from condennation of a principle Q; on individual anﬁ condem~

nation of all for which that individual stood. So Pascal op-

Posed signing of this new formulary. in a SAUPZ document on the subject he wrote: "First of all we must know that in

truth there is no difference between condemning the doctrine

of Jensen on the five propositions and condemning efficacious

grace, Saint sugustine, and taint Paul. It is solely for

this reason that the eneziec of this grace are endeavoring

to have this clause fasted.

sntoine Arnsuld and Nicole, numbers one and two in the

Jansenist group, thought differently. They devised a bit

or cunning that rivaled anything Pascal had condemned in the

Jesuits with his Provincial Letters. Arnauld proposed that

the nuns of Port Royal sign the fornulory, but with the men-

tal reservations that would safeguard the Janeeniet doctrine while outwardly condeoning it. The nuns had previously re-

fused to Sign the formulsry, defying all the pressure that

84. Anon., “The Story of Port Royal”. Edinburgh W, Vol. 203 (July. 1908). p. 18. 85. Pascal. #Writing on the Signature of the Formulary." November or December, 1561. from Cailllet, §hort§£ Works of Pascal, p. 218. 64 that coul& be brgeght a;ainet than. ﬁother Anggiique, sie-

ter of the "Great Arneuld" and founder of the aece 10133 of

Port heyal, died during “he sunrer of.1651, while the die-

oussione over the Eecond Foruulary were in full SWIng, but withzut signing it. Her last words expreesed satisfaction

at beinb Sperei the signing of this paper. ehe made it clear,

however, that others should aet acccrding to the dictates of

heir conscience about slgnirg the fbrmulery. Some of the

nuns and prieéte added an eXplanetion to their signatures to specify the annulment of tee docuﬁent even as they signed 1t.95

The second of the two most famous nuns of Port Royal.

Jacqueline (Sister Seinte-Euphémie) Pascal, was not spared

the sadness or signing the condenneticn of Jansen. She had

been particularly outspoken against signing, and criticized

severely the Jensenist leaiera who had advised the signature

under theee conditions. Writing to a friend she said, "Lince tee blehrps have a courage of maids, the maids should

have a courage of bishops. If it 18 net our task to defend

the truth. it is ours to die for the truth and sooner to aut—

fer everything then to abandon it.“87 She'wae not permitt-

ed to go to the extremes she adecatei defending her eith;

she was compelled, with the rest of the nuns, to sign the formulery. Her death, attributed to heartbreak at this act

es. Callllet, Easca;. p. 285-

87. gbid‘. . p. 285.

65 against her conscience, care on Sotober 5, 1651 - she was

36 years old.

Her brother was not one to take defeat sitting down.

He could.protest against laxity on the part of the Jesuits in his earlier writings - he could be equally vehement against the sane traits in the Jansenist leaders. He condemned their stand as.one that was 'aboninable before God, despicable be~ fore men,“ an ambiguous act that would do them no good as for as lightening their persecutions and.wouli cheapen uni dull the unchallenged solidarity of their faith. His sol— ution was to sign the docunent, formally excluding in writing the doctrine of Jensen, and so keeping Jansen and efficacious grace from conacnnation.88

Nicole wrote an answer to Pascal's suggestion - oppos- cd to the ”false conclusions“ of Pascal he set up his own ”true ones". Argumcntativc writings passed between Pascal and Nicole and Arnauld, but without achieving unity. Final«

1: the Jansenist leaders not in the home of Pascal to settle tho issue among themselves. .Thc majority voted with the two loaders - Pascal collapsed in a faint. He said of this, ”than

I saw all thus. very persons waver and succumb, who should havo beenudcfendors of the truth and to whom I believed God had.made the truth.known, I confess that I was so overcomc uith.thc grief that I could not endure it, andfoollapscd."89

83- Pascal, "Writing on the Signature of the Formulary,” from Cailliet, Shorter Works of Easoa;, pp. 218.220.

89. Osillict. Pascal, p. 287. ’ 66 Here expel the main cont rioutions of EMl is e Pascal to the Janseniet 75*ezcnt. His health we: very bad - he was hurt by the rejection of what he thought was the i3ht path for the movement to take. The death of his sister under the cirCJmstencee of the signature had hurt bitterly r his simple st: t2; ant cor firms his belief set forth in his denuncia~ tion of the formulary, “God give us t2;e grace to die as well as that."90 He had not long to wait. On August 19, 166 2.

Pascal died. His controversial status did not die wit h him.

sec al's family was still connected with Jansenisn; daiaue

Egzi'er, his elior sister, bed two children at .ort aoyal,

Margueriti, or the Holy Thorn miracle, and a son‘gtienne, who had been one of the few to side with Pascal on the occasion of the dispute over the formulary. They maintain that

Pascal's connection with Port Royal and Jansenisn was not dissolved in Pascal's last days.91

In 1365, slightly over two years after Pascal‘s death. and after his authorship of the Egovincial Letterg:had been fe.irly well eStzﬂbllsled, the dispute case to light when nbbe

administered the final sacrament to Pascal,

l‘ had

(1) who S rrier, was M31161 to task for 33 i.ninte rin5 absolution and the sac«

such a notorious heretic and Jensenist. The priest H u) ant to “:3 maintained hat Pascal had bee n congletely ort3od x - that

‘Vhen he was on his deathbed he had confe ess ed that he had

90. Ibi£., O. 355. retired from Port Royal because of the extreme stand of Jan- eonien on grace and its lack of eubmiseion to the ?cre. Pas- cal had died completely within the faith, said the priest.

Retrectione and counter~retractione followed, and the arguno out has never been settled. If one Judges solely from the writings of faacal hinsolf, his Janseniet beliefs were solid and.without question; his split from the movenent cane With their abandonoent of what he considered one of their fundamental doctrinee. He split'with than. in diort. because he waa more of a true Jenseniet than were they who bore the 92 mane.

11th the death of blaioe gascel an epoch in the Janeen- let period passed . the doctrinairo and controversial epoch.

The founders of the creed, Janeen and St. Cyren, the Women who lived the creed, personified by by the great Mother An- gélique Arnauld and Jacqueline (Sister Seihte-Euph‘mio) Pne- cal, and the knight of the pen who defended that creed against overwhelming odds, Blaiso Pascal, had all peeeed their struggle down to less able hands. The Janeeniet dispute became something less than a struggle for a faith or a creed. It became a fashion and a fad, without the leevening touch of the faith of the Pascale and the Xother Angelique.931f there was a gold. on age of Janeeniam, an age of denial of self for the belief in something good and great. its chief proponents died with the author of the W and the Provincial Ettore and the

92. 3big., p. 354. 93. Perkinl. Fggggg Under Magggig, II, 492. 68 two nuns whose lives have become models of purity and faith.

Those who came later carried the torch, but at a much lower level than it had been borne by those who had gone before.

The struggle over Jansenism did not die with these persons; it continued to be in the forefront of events about

Paris. The work of getting the formulary signed went on - those who refused to sign were denied the sacraments and were scattered in prisons or other convents throughout the country.

The issue became a matter for debate and discussion as it had been during the days of the Provincial Let;ggs.94

As the argument over the signing of the formulary continued. new breaks in the Jansenist wall appeared. A Port

Royal nun, Catherine Flavie Passart, arranged a deal with the pro-Jesuit archbishop of Paris for a change in the character of Port Royal. After confessing the errors of her Jansenist ways, she denounced her sister nuns as seduotresses who train- ed young nOVioes in their heretical ways. she listed twenty- six of the sisters as dangerous o these were promptly impri— soned for eight days. When none of them had signed the hated formulary in that time. twentyethree of their number were scattered through.neighboring convents and denied the sacraments. to frequently happens, the conniving person did not gain by her treachery - a different sister . named Perdreau - became abbess. She immediately moved to Port Royal of Paris - the abbey was put on a more worldly basis - plays and enter- tainments were given. The twenty-three who Here confined were

94. 033, Eugene in the Seventeenth Centggz, p. 353.

69 hold ten months, and then returned to Port Royal of the fields 9 they had not signed the fornulary and they continued to reoel against the signature. Consequently the sacraments as well as their normal religious functions were do- niod them.95

Action of this sort was not limited merely to Port Roy- al. The power of the Jesuits was high in the court of Louis

XIV, and his confessor, Jesuit Father Annst, controlled Church patronage. Persecutions of those who refused to sign the formulary became hitter and individuals who refused were. like the nuns of Yort Royal. denied the right of the sacraments and some even threatened with death. Feeling ran high.between the factions within the Church.95 Madame do S‘vigne mentioned the bottle or the formulary in a letter to M. de

Pomponne: M. de Paris minivan her (Pompomc's sister) a. sort of do- tossence, which.gained her heart and induced her to sign the wicked formulery. I had not mentioned the subject to either or them: M. de Paris had forbidden it. But I must give you an idea of prejudice: our sisters of Sainte-naric said to no, “God be praised, who at length touched th heart of this Boer child: she is now on the way to obedience and salvation. From thence I went to Port Royal, where I found a certain §§est recluse of your acquaintance. who accosted.me with. all, this silly goose has signed: God, inshort, has ebon- doned her: she in lost.'97 -

95. Anon.. "Reuchlin. History of Port Royal. The Strug- gle of the Reformed and the Jesuitical Catholicism." from the Edinburgh Reziew, Vol. 73 (July. 1341), ppo 34h'3k50 96. Saint-Simon, gemoigg (When H dame de M n Queen). tr. by Francis Arkwright. New Xcrk III, 360.

97. Madame de SEVigne, Letter to M. de Pomponnc, Nov- ember 20. 1664, Letter E 19, I. 21. 7O The outlo k for the creed of Jansen and for those who professed Jansenisn was dark for several years. Yet numerous bishops favored the movement - several wrote letters to home. at first only a few dared to come into the Open in this manner, but When they were threatened with loss of their offices they were Joined by others who wrote to Rone93a over the head of the Jesuit dominated French court.

Since the death of Mazarin in 1661, that court had been headed by the king himself. Louis XIV. 'Twcntyetwo years old at the time. Louis had decided toirule as well as reign. Al- though the announcement was not taken seriously by most of those at the court. events proved that the young king meant what he had said. He did rule from that time until his death in 1715. In matters pertaining to the Jansenists. however,

Louis XIV presented a varied front. Throughout his reign. he was to change from extremes of hate and persecution of the sect to contact and apparently friendly association with some of the group. arson of the old solitaire, Arnauld d' indilly, M. do Pomponne. served as his foreign minister for an extended period. but his confcseors were Jesuits.

The Jesuits had much fertile ground for convincing the ambitious and self-centered young autocrat that the Jansen- ists represented a menace to his throne. although their ideas on the five propositions and efficacious grace did not concern the king directly. out their lack of respect for authority was adequately shown by their refusal to accept papal

98. Saint-Simon, geaoirs, III. 360.

71 decisions on the presence of the heretical material in the

ﬁugustinur. ﬁlth this in mind, who could reasonably doubt

that they would not disregard the king's authority also if he happened to disagree with their stiff-neceed interpretation of the true way of life? Surely not Louis XIV, Jeal—

Oue of his newly acquired authority, and certain that the religion of the grand monarch.was good enough for any of his subjects. he was ready to call down the wrath of both Church and state against any who might oppose him. In addition, the Jansenists had proved they were innovators even before their pernicious doctrine had been published; Mother Angel- igue had gotten permission from Louis XIII to hold elections for the position of abbess in Port Royal. Disruption of the central power derived from this patronage system was bad, not to mention the loss of money from sale of these offices when they became vacant. So a positive threat to state control of the Church.could be considered as a potential menace from the Janseniets.

But despite all this, it seems doubtful that Louis XIV would have attacked the Jansenists had he been left to hie own initiative. He was not interested in Church.doctrine, el- though.he was extremely faithful in performing the outward acts of religion. Questions as subtle as the differences between the grace of Augustine and that of Molina would hardly have disturbed the monarch had not the Jesuits continualxy dangled Jansenist acts that smacked of heresy before his eyes.99

990 Ibidog III. 359-3600

72 Louis XIV was the weapon which the Jesuits spent many years learning to manage before they were successful in turning it on the Janeenists with.fevoreble results.

so, after seven or eight y’ars of persecution following the accession of Louis XIV to actual power, Janseniem was to enter a new stage known as the Peace of Clauent IX. It was achieved end maintained by a person who was hardly one to be classed with the dour Bisnog of Ypres or the ascetic Pascal.

Yet the nuchess de Longusville was the chief reason behind the break in hostilities that was to last approximately ten years, until her death in 1678. III. False Peace and Destruction, 1668 - 1713

Anus Genevieve do Bourbon 1was born in 1519 at Vincsnnes. whore her father, Henry, Prince of Orleans had been impris- oncd. During her youth her father and family were in constant difficulty with the crown in France. As they were too close to the throne to be executed they were constantly watched and frequently inpriscncd. Early in life the girl had exprcsscd a desire to entsr a convent, but she had been discouraged in this by her parents and went to the other cxtremc, becoming a court butterfly. At 23 she married the Duo do Longucvillc and she alternated between living with her husband and stay- ing on at Paris. 8h. achieved fans as one of the most pub- licised figures of tho Fronds and her two brothers, tho Prin- ccs of Conti and Cond‘.as well as bar husband were leadcrs in the covenant. She was extremely influential‘with then, as wall as bcing a colorful figurc in the fighting. Sh. directed troops, gave birth to a child while one of tho Paris battles was going on around her. and had hairbroadth escapes that sad. her an almost legendary figure. Hers was a doninat~ ing figure throughout the affair.

After the end of the Fronds. she had to reestablish hor- self in court. She went back to the plan of her childhood for an austere life, and took cars of her aging husband. As

1. For the early life and activities of Madame dc Lona . gucvillc. as‘wcll as tho other figures of tho Fronds who became prominent in the Jansenist movement, as. pocially Cardinal do Reta. soc Perkins, Francs Undo; Eazarlac 74 the cousin of “ouis XIV, she was able to live down her Fronds background without too much difficulty. She became interested in Port Royal and Jansenism;,then she became a convert and attempted to alleviate the persecution that had been taking place at Port Royal after the revision of the second formul- cry.

A contemporary of Madame de Longueville, Cardinal de

Reta. came into the picture at this time. Do Rats. archbishop of Paris, and far from a Jansenist in his religious and moral attitudes, had been a notorious Frondeur as will as an ardent foe of hazarin. He had been in exile until the death of Mazarin. and his duties had been handled by two pro-

Jansenist Vicars-General, who had openly expressed sympathy for Port Royal. The Jansenists had reciprocated by advocat- ing the return of de Reta to his post. While this movement had tended to raise aazarin‘s Opposition to Jansenism, it was more important as a tool in the hands of those who in- fluenced Louis XIV; it represented more proof that the Jan- senists would oppose royal authority as well as papal auth» ority.2 , .

The Duchess de Longueville, however, had lost none of her old ability as an intrigante. First she wrote a letter to the Pope asking him to stop the persecution of the Port

Royalists. The papal nuncio in Paris received the benefit of all the charms the Duchess possessed. Jansenist leaders Nicole and Arnauld worked with the Duchess and three

2. 053, Europe in the Sexenteenth Century. pp. 352-353.

75 pro-Jane en nist bishops in plannin5 t§.is intii5ue, sh ich continued for eighteen months. Ihe difficulties of the tat : were enormous; not only the Pope had to be convinced of the faultlessness of the Jansenis ts in relig i;us matters, but

Louis XIV, who still had the Jesuit Esther annat as his confessor, had to decide they were politically harmless as well.

ﬁne new pope, Closent ix, who had sucoe dad Alexander VII “1 in 1667, favored a peaceful settlement of the difficulty.

Four Jansenist bish 035 - had written letters to dose angina Ior I L a stop of the ill-treat3ent given the lcrt uujall~tag th:se had later been gained by a substantial nuober of the clergy, and the ma derate pope feared a eositive split within the

Church.3 In 1539 the process was completed and a document was 51 ::n as a ;y the Janscnists and the Charon. ihe agree ant "u

re chadin condensed the five proaositions as originally stated, but maintained a respectful silence as to the presence of these propositions within the auguztinus. leis subterfuge was more of the work of Arnauld and his disciple, Nicole; while they oppos 3d Jesuit cas istry and the doctrine of probability. they war: not above being subtle thehselves in their struggle for recognition as.orthcdox Catholics. 4 Regardless of the merits of their case. it is doubtful if the earlier members of the group would have compromised their beliefs‘ to such an extent. Pascal had opposed a sinilar move in 1661.

3. Saintooinon, Neaolrs, III, 350.

n 'hrid5e ﬁadern histogx, (

4. hard and others, eds., .33 in z; v, 84-85. while St. Cyran hsd preferred prison to a bishopric under Richelieu's terms, and Jensen had pulled no punches when he Opposed Richelieu with his hers Gallicus. None of these persons were the type that would have observed "respectful silence” in order to have their orthodoxy above question.

The Peace of Clement IX brought Jensenien book from persecution to popularity. The few sisters who had refused to sign the formulary became heroines; Arnauld and Nicole could go about openly agsin and renew their teaching and writing.

Students and penitents came back to Port Royal again; the abbey near Versailes went back-to s more normal existence.5

With the acceptance of Jansenism to orthodoxy, many per- sone were added to the rolls of Port Royal; persons who may have had difficulty entering the abbey as it existed under

St. Cyren and ﬂother Angelique. ﬁany individuals regarded

Janseniss as a creed for those who opposed authority, whether royal or papal in nature.6 The Duchess of Longueville built

8 home near Port Royal of the fields and lived out her life there, associating with the famed solitariec of Port Royal as well as lesders.ﬂicole and Arnauld. her associates ﬁne de Sable and Mme. de Liancourt took up life in the abbey also.

The poet Racine, who had studied under the Jansenists in his youth, but had quarreled with the leaders and gone over to s more secular life, came back to Port Royal; he wrote a history of the abbey. Madame de Séyigné visited Port Royal

5. "Jansenien' 'nc clonedis of Religion and Ethics new York, {1% s.» 6. 055, Euroge in the_§eventeenth Century, pp. 354-355

77 I often. her sympathy with the Jansenists b ng apparent through-

out her letters:

.That Port Royal is a perfect Thebais, a very paradise; a desert where all that is left of true Christian devotion, is retired. The whole country for a league'around, breathes the air of Virtue and holiness. There are four or five hermits, whom no one knows, who live like the penitents of st. Jean Climachus. The nuns are like angels upon earth. Mademoiselle de Vertus is wearing out the remains of a beautiful life there. in the most excruciating pain, but with inconceivable resignation. The very meanest of inhabitants have a serenity in their count- enances, and a modesty of deportnent, to be met with in no . other place. I own to you I was delighted to see this divine solitude of which I have heard so much; it is a frightful valley, calculated to inspire a taste for religion.7 Many of the group of which Madame de Sévigné was a part were ”inspired to religion,” and their addition to lort hoyal made

Jansenien a more political and a less severe religion than

it had men.

'as converts were added to Port Royal, Port Royalists

maintained the outer world contacts its members had had. The most fanous of the solitaires. Arnauld d'andilly, was

even received by the king - on one occasion spending more

than an hour with him. Louis XIV was described as being

very gay and witty:

His majesty said ... that he must not expect that he would suffer him to remain shut up in his desert. for he should very frequently send for him to Court where he should be glad to distinguish his as a person who had in so many rese pects rendered himself illustrious. then the good old man assured him of his fidelity and attachement. the king replied, that he had not the least doubt of it, for he who served his God well could not fail of serving his king well also.8

7. Madame de Sévigne, Letter to gadame de Grignan, Jan- uary 26, 1674, Letter # 287, iI, 268

8. ig;g., Letter to Fadaae de Grignan, Septerber 23, lo71. Letter a 137. I, 277.

78 Louis XIV had been temporarily convinced of the harmlessnsss of the Jansenists; however this tenporary conversion was no guarantee of permanznt peace for the group.

So while Janseniss had become popular, had becone acceptable to both the state of Louis XIV and the Church of Clenent

Ix and his immediate successors, it became the creed of the spectacularly reformed sinners or those who would associate with those who had been inspired by the ideals of the movement. It still stood strongly opposed to lax morality and was probably more opposed to ultra-montane principles than it had been in the bitter days of Arnauld, 5t. Cyran, and

Pascal, but it had lost its early initiative. In the minds: of those three early leaders, Jansenisn represented a return to the teachings of St. Augustine and the early fathers; by now it was a brand of anti-Jesuitism that had been forced to adopt the tactics of those it fought in order to remain with~ in the Church. Just as the Jesuits one hundred years earlier had tripped over their attempting to eliminate Calvinisn by becoming all that Erotestantism was not, so the Jansenists in this period became known not for their constructive program of a return to the early fathers, but a group whose reason for existence was political opposition the Jesuits, the

Church, or the Crown.

Their fund with Louis XIV was not neglected for long.

Despite his assurances that he considered d'Andilly beyond ofHu ’ It. reproach, his attempted extensionAggased a revolt against his authority led by two of the bishops who had 08poused the

79 cause of Jansenism in letters to the Pope mentioned above.

Louis refrained from attacking than due to the exhortations of the Duchess of Longueville, but the peace was on precaro ious grounds. 9

Too, Jansenist leaders may have been satisfied to maintain respectful silence concerning the presence of the five ’ propositions in the Augustiggg, but they continued to opoose the Jesuits. Nicole wrote a denunciation of casuistry and sent it to Rome. Casuistry was condemned by the VatiCan, but no actual change resulted. Continued attacks by Jansenists as well as others who opposed the Jesuits brought that group to a low ebb of influence during this period, but they were waiting to fight another ay; meanwhile they kept themselves entrenched as confessors to the crown, and in time became influential with Madame de ﬁaintenon as well.10

A blow to Jansenist security can. with the death of the

Duchess of Longuovillo in 1679. Louis XIV had spared the abbey at Port Royal because of her presence there; her death brought on quick renewal of the battle between Louis and the

Port Royalists.11 By 1780 a letter of Madame do Sévignﬁ mon- tioncd Nicole being in the Ardcnnes and Arnauld being “buried underground, like a mole.”-2 Neither vas everrable to

9. Ward and others, eds., gag Cambridge Mode Histo ,- V, 85. .

10. Saint-Simon, Memoirs (War and Court Gossip lzlg-LZLQ),

1?, ‘51‘45 2 I 11. "Jansenism", Encyclopedia of aaiigion M Ethicg. do Sévignel Letter to Madame do Grignan, May 12. Madame31. 1680, Letter}? 532, v. 42. return to their activities at fort Royal; both died in exile

during the mid-1790’s. Kith their deaths, the leadership

of the Jensenist group passed to fasquier cuesnel (1534-1719), who had written a back entitled .orel ﬁefleetione on the ﬂew

Teetsaent which wee to assume a place of icgortence in the

Jesuit-Jensenist struerle. at.) The boo& D published duri the

eece of Cleeent IX, had been accepted throughout France.15 'Tt

Queenel'e book was a French translation of the new

Testanent with worship aids, and stressed the irresistable power of grace, the presence of sin in conceit, and especially

the need for access to the Scriptures for all persons. Un-

like the Frequent Communion of Arnauld or the Augustinus of Jansen, it had had a rather peaceful existence for some time.

ihe Jesuits were under attack at Rome themselves, hav-

ing been criticized for their methcds of taxing conversions

in the East. en investigation was made and the society was

forced to defend itself against accusations of converting native people of indie to the force of Cetholicise but in-

cluding none of the dogma. The fight wee finally settled with the Jesuits shaken, but still intact and well organized.14

Views on the battle by Janeenist sympathizer Madame de

. . ' ~‘ ’ .--. L , ,__ '- _ (2 c/sevigne I and that . courtier of tee next generation, caint—cimon, were similar. Sévigné said, ”I think both he (St. Augustine)

13. "Jensenisn", Fncxclopedia of Religion and Ethics.

14. Seint-Einon, Eemoire, III. 351.

and St. Paul were perfect Jansenists. rue Jesuits have a phantom they call Jenssniss, when they abuse without seeming to knew hes nuel higher they strike.... They se Up the voice of pppositicn and reproach, which reuses the sleeping disciples of the two greet ssints."15

taint-Bison said thet the Jesuits bud invented the here-

Sy of J&t83ﬁ1”3 t: combat the OUDmNEHtB of Kolinism. lacy had attacked the ﬂu"ustin1£, discovered the five pronositiens,

defensive to an offensive position in the battle over creed.15 They had so managed tc stey on the offensive until ?ascel had placed his pen against them; from that tine they were much maligned and attacked, but they continued to take the.cffensive whenever any opportunity, hmwcver sliaht presented itself. Tee final battle for Port Royal was delayed however, because the battle for the Gallican Liberties

being fought between Eerie and Home, and Jensenism, while involved in the dispute, because of Louis’ attempt upon the rezsle, scene a side issue.17 when the bigger stakes were settled, Jansenisn was returned to the head of the list heed- ed fer persecution; the reel battle got under way after the

15. Madame de Sevigné, Letter to sedans de Griénan, June 9, 1580, Letter s 634, V, 51-52.

15. Saint~5inon, senoir III, 359. 17. The Jansenist bishops had continued their battle for rectricticn of the regelg, but the contest came to a heed with the pronouncement of the dallioan Liberties by ecssuet in 1682. It is interesting that French Jesuits here favored the Galilean movement while the Janssnists were on the side of the papacy. turn of the century.

The leader of the strugrle a6einst the Jansenists after

1709 wss s‘sthor Tellier, S. J., confss ear to Louis kZIV. he

had had a crsckered cs.reer. he had been coic"ted by the Je- suits, who had found him snong the Wdr “ of the people."

He had been in Hone, where he had written a book defending his society from the sccusstion of making political conversions in india. rho book was placed on too index, and 33s=ther

fellier had cone to Paris, where.his sosoisl talents sz'1d abilities became recognized; so the him; the struggle against the Jensenists. saint—oinon's description insured him long notoriety: .

He thought of nothin3 but the escd-licntont of the do spotic authority of his society and its maxims: on that point any Oomcromise or tolera tion was odious to bin; if he admitted‘ such a thing it was only to attain his object more surely: any other lea fox tolerationA a. a“ us uxuecintco ”N ii notla crisis. -n.Tnorou 6hly imbued as he was with the maxims and policy of his sooie ty, he was yL.Lbdquiy deceitf‘ul and tales, hiding his real sentiments under a thousand veils, but when he could afford to reveal then, and was in o gooition to note himself feared, he was exacting to the last degree, giving nothing in return, breaking his ~ost solemn grooises When it was safe to do so, and oersecuting with‘n.fury those to whom he he:i 1ivs n then. he was a terrible non, bent on dostrucuion; and when he had once reached a position of authority he made no stte ot to disguise hie- sentiments. In that position he was inocoessable even to the Jesuits, except four or five of the sane stone as himself; he was a terror to others; even these few only nonreached him with treibling. ﬁcthins interrupted his in his headlon6 course, for he never wanted anything for himself; he had noltncr friends nor relotives.... His appearance was in confornity with his character; he looked like a man when one would not care to meet at tf is corner of a wood. His countenance was g].oony, false, and terrible; his burning, evil eyes sou uinted ex txene- 1y; it ends one shudder to look at him]-U

18. Laint Bison, selolrs, Ill, 197-153.

83 From the ti:e Tellier case back to Paris, he was particularly opposed to Jansenism. he threw his tremendous energy

into the task of destroying this internal ulcer of Cathol-

icism. As Louis' confessor he wielded power enough to convince Louis that the Jansenists were dangerous. second to the Janssnists on Tellier’s program for eliaination was Card-

inal do Hoailles, who, although sympathetic to Jansenism, Was not particularly likedor approved of by Jansenist members, especially Port Royalists, as he had refused to be dominated by them on occasion.19

De Noailles, as Bishop of Chalons several years earlier, had made the unforgivable error of having apsroved Quesnel's book, 3932; Reflections. for study throughout his episoopate?o although Quesnel was known to be an ardent Jensenist, and af-

ter 1696 the recognized leader of the Jansenist party. Too, do Noailles had hesitated to work with the confessor or to pay heed to his wishes. The Cardinal hsd maintained a sound friendship with the King's wife, Madame de maintenon, and

considered any honage to Tellier as unnecessary. Ehus de

Koailles was hated by both sides in the struggle for power

in the Church, although he was friendly with and seehed to

favor the Jensenists.21

ﬂeanwhile Quesnel, who had been in Erussels in hiding, was arrested because of Jesuit influence in Spain. Although

19. £931.... ILL, 362. 20. _I_Igi_c_1_.. Iv. 120. 21. M” III, 3:32. 34 he escaped, many papers belonging to him were captured by

the Jesuits. These papers led to a monk, a follower of

Quesnel, who also escaped. Extreiely dauaging literature

Which consisted of pamphlets expressing republican views

and maxing little distinction between tyranny and sonarchy,

Was found in the monk's roon. guesnel was suspected of

sharing these opinions - the fact was made known to Louis

XIV as soon as possible.22

Despite the Later action of the king in the destruct-

ion of Port ﬁcyal and his action against the Jansenists,

another episode, this one occurring in 1703, indicated that

the king was not absolute in his opposition to the group.

One of the Port Royal nuns was in need of having her leg

amputated, and the kings physician garechai was going to go

to the abbey to perform the operstion; when Louis Was consult-

ed he told his physician to go early so he could look around

and bring back information of the abbey. I

Upon Marechal's return the king questioned his for near-

ly an hour. When he was told that the nuns had inquired as

to his health and that they prayed for him every day, the king remarked that "the nuns were holy women, who had been

hardly used; sufficient allowance had not been made for their

ignor:nce of factsrrtheir natural obstinacy; and matters had

been carried too fairfégrwt‘hen." Saint-Simon continued: V . sin .1 M ﬁrm-Id ”Such was the impugn»; and; on the king's mind by theAreport

22. Ibid., (gge Silver Age of Louis XIV), II, 122-123.

85 of a disinterested observer, concerning when he could have no suspicions,and whom, for that reason he allowed to sneak treely. But the king was enslaved by the other party, and listened only to their opinions; so this accidental impress— 0 _, ion of the truth was soon obliterated.23

Tellier's work was, however, made easier by the fact that the king was an ignorant and gullible person, who had been convinced that the Jansenists were a menace to both his- self and the Church. Too, the king feared for his salvation; as a form of penance for himself he saw nothing wrong with allowing the Huguenots or theJansenists to suffer - hence he attacked them frequently and with the zeal of a crusader.

The persons around the king, especially “adage de :aintenon,

Were influential with him, and -aintenon was also interested in the persecution of Port Royal. :0, while Iellier faced some opposition, none the less, numerous forces were working in his favor-.734

The Jansenists themselves had brought out the question that was to lead to their downfall. 'As the Jesuit attack on Quesnel's ;gg§l“efleot;2n§_continued, the Jansenists drag- ged an old skeleton from the closet ~ the “respectful silence“ of the Peace of Clenent Ix, now more than thirty years old, which brought the argument over the five pronositions back into the forefront. In 1701 the Sorbonne was asked to rule

24. Ibldo. III. 361' ' 86 on whether or not respectful silence was warranted - some had even gone so far as to disagree that there was a heresy contained within the five propositiens. France was again fired with the battle taken up by the "G eat Arnauld" fir- ty years earlier.25

In 1703. Louis had written to Clement XI to try to are range a final eettlenent of the Janeeniet problem. The result of this was the hull, Eineam Domini, which condemned. reapectful silence, although Saint Simon said that it was ambiguously worded and did not oppose the Peace of Clement

IX. Tellier, through Louis XIV. had Cardinal de Noaillee undertake the task of having a declaration of obedience to the Bull signed by the Port Royalists.26

Port Royal of the fields was vastly different from What it had beenyduring its greater moments. The nuns had been moved back to the Paris buildings and the abbey of the fields had been used more by those who farmed the area than by the religious persons. Father de la Chaise, Tellier'e predeces- sor ac confeeeor to the king, had seen to it that Port Roy— al had received no novices since before the Peace of Clement

IX, co the women were extremely old. In addition, during the years proceeding the turn of the century. the recalcitrant nuns of Port Royal of Paris had been sent to the Port Royal of the fields. They had lived there in extreme poverty; only

25. 053, gnrgpe in the Seventeenth Centggl. pp. 359*360. 26. Saint-Simon, Memoirs, III, 363. by means of hard work and the assistance of sins had they been able to live. The two abbeys drifted apart and becane bitter enemies. All of the property was given to the Earls branch, as the more orthodox of the two groups. however. the old inhabitants of the abbey near Versailles had lost none of the sxirit of their forerunners and they refused to sign the panama

De Koailles pleaded, then threatened, but to no avail; finally, as an.cxtreme measure, he declined the sacraments to the nuns. They remained firm. Tellier appeared to have achieved his purpose. He declared the nuns were rebellious against both papal and royal authority - they would have to be disbanded.and Port Royal of the fields destroyed.2¢Ihs old abbey must have been a symbol of Pascal and the Provin- gig; Letters to the confessor; a symbol of defeat and dis- grace for the society that was the only love of his existence. Like the old Roman, he had a Carthage that had to be destroyed, and that Carthage was Port Royal, home of a handful of old nuns.

If they were old. the nuns were by no means powerless; despite the approval of Louis XIV to the plans of Tellier. a protest to Rose by then won a decision against Tellier; their abbey remained in existence. Tsllier now had to reverse his field; his new strategy consisted of having the two Port

Royals declared to be only one conmunity. As Port Royal of

28. Ibid., III, 364. the fields was an unhealthy spot, ?ort Royal of Earls represented the only part of the abbey worth saving.29

The ruse worked. The order for the dispersion of the nuns was approved by a decree of the Council. 3n this occasion, no tine was allowed for an appeal. troops were sent to the abbey in the fields on October 28, 1709, and on the following morning the sisters were given fifteen minutes to prepare for their removal. it the end of that time the twenty- two nuns, ranging in a;e tron fifty to more than eighty years, were placed in carriages "like women of the town after a raid on a house of ill-fame.“30

The sisters were scattered inoconvents throughout France, where their persecutions were continued, in attempts to obtain their assent to the dull. The persecutions which they suffered became known and aroused severe indignation among the public.31 Those who continued to resist died without the sacraments, real martyrs to their cause.32

Father fellier was not satisfied with the closing of the abbey. He desired the permanent destruction of the buildings; Port Royal had to be destroyed physically so the heresy that had been nourished there would have no place to turn should it again become organized. early in 1710 persons

29. Ibid., III, 365. so. lbid., III, 365. 31. Ibid., III, 355.

32. .Anon., 'Reuchlin's Port Royal" Edinbur h Review,

V01. 73 (July. 1841). pp. 360'5510 8 89 having relatives buried in the Port Royal cenetery were told

to remove the bodies to other burial places. the aboey was

then dismantled; the corpses from the cemetery disinterred

and placed in a conhon grave; the land was plowed and sowed

again. Eort Royal of the fields was obliterated as much as

was possible.33

The struggle over the feral Reflections continued, how.

ever, and de NoallleS‘was still in favor at the court. The

two were linked together by the recommendation the Cardinal

had given to the book some years earlier, so Tellier was able

to strike at both at the same time. The wide use of the book

called for careful planning on the part of the Jesuit, however. Finally he induced two week bishops to write an ad-

dress to the clergy, condemning as heretical the edition of

the book that do Noailles had recomsended and censuring the

Cardinal for his advocacy of heretical literature. This ad~

dress was fastened to church doors throughout Paris, although the act was contrary to eccliastical as well as civil law.3‘

De Koailles responded to this attack by dismissing the

nephews of the two offending bishops from their studies for

the priesthood. The move was a fatal error; madame de Maint-

enon, do Noailles’ patron in the past, was displeased with

-the action, and the displeasure of Louis xiv followed swiftly.35

33. Saint-Simon, ﬁenoirs, III, 365-366.

340 we . IV, 1210

35. Ibid., IV, 122.

90 The two bishops, at Tellier's insistence, sent new letters to the king requesting punishtent for de hoailles, not for their own revenge but for the safety of the Church and in the interest of sound doctrine. De Noailles was denounced as an eneny of both - Church and State.’° 7 f

The king, diverted fron his nornal stand as a friend of de Noailles, told the Cardinal that he had taken the law into his own hands by dismissing the two boys; the king could do nothing for him. De Hoailles then published a letter de- nouncing the two bishops as tools, but the king was alienated further by the new letter, and the Cardinal was told not to cone to court unless sent for.37

In September. 1711, de Noailles washble to talk to the king concerning his quarrel with the two bishops. Tellier, meanwhile, had not been idle. He had new letters composed and sent to the king over the signatures of numerous bishops whom he could influence, again condemning both the ﬂags; Reflectiong,and do Noailles. The Cardinal answered by refusing to allow those bishops to preach or hear confessions within his diocese. At this point the dauphin intervened and tried to get the bishops to sign a modified statement about de Noailles, and without mentioning Quesuel’s book.38 int Tellier's activities with the other Church leaders dise pelled this peace move. The additional letters served to

35. Ibid., IV, 122. 37. 3911., IV, 123. 38. Ibid., Iv, 285-286.

91 keep the struggle from dying out. But at this time the terror of the Jesuits nearly tripped in the entanglements he was attenpting to weave around de Roailles.

A letter written by Tellier to one of the bishops and' containing a second letter‘which that bishop was to sign and return to Louis XIV fell into the hands of de Noailles. In- stead of going imaediately to the king, he waited for his scheduled appointment; Tellier heard of the letter and saw the king first, firmly drawing that individual to his side.

By the time do Noailles went to Louis with his open and shut case, the king was irretrievebly turned against him. The dauphinh desire for Tellier's dismissal was overlooked, and

Louis remained completely under Tellier's control as far as religious matters were concerned.39

Tellier decided at this time that the best way to hen» die the situation‘was to have Quesnel’s book condemned in

Rome, and the story of the activity in connection With the

Moral Reflections began to resemble that of the strungle over the augustinug. Quesnel, in exile in the Netherlands, call-

ed for a council to decide whether or not his book was heretical.ho Tellier's aim, however, was "to get the rope to issue a Constitution which should condenn, in his own authority, a number of propositions said to be contained in the book; and thereby implicitly establish the doctrine of Molina and his school as‘dogma. Many of the propositions which he wished

39. Ibid.. Iv, 3cA~305. 40. Ibid., Iv. 453.

92 to condemn were drawn directly from the writings of St.

Paul, or from those of St. Augustine and other Fathers; he could not, of course. expect such a condennation to be declared in so many words; what he wanted was a condemnation of the book in globe, vaguely expressed, so as to leave a.wide margin for interpretation: yet so that it should be possible to deduce free it arguhents in favor of the doctrines of holina."41

out if this project was to he completed in Home, still more intrigue was needed. The'Eapal Court favored the writings of at. Augustine and the king feared for his rights when the papacy ruled on French matters. so both had to be sold on the value of condemnation. Tellier rose to the occasion.

He had Louie XIV write a letter to the Eope asking for a decision, and indicating thet he favored action against Quee- nel. The Bone, however, replied that he had already dis— approved of parts of the book, and that de Noaillee had re- tracted his reconhendation of it. Louie wrote a second letter insisting, at lellier's suggestion, upon an authoritative oondennation of the book. Ihie Letter brought action.A2

Two enthusiastic Jesuits, Cardinal Fabronl and Father d'Aubenton undertook the task of finding the hereeiee of the

Moral Reflectiong and drawing up a document condemning then.

Saint-Simon said of their work:

41. Ibid., Iv. 453-454. 42. lhid., Iv, 454-#55. V 93 The document they produced was a masterpiece of art; it possessed every literary merit except truth. Its audacity was astonishing; it had this in connon.with the heretics, that it treated with contempt the writings of St. Augustine and other Fathers, whose doctrines have always been adopted by the Pope and General Councils of the Church; but it went be~ yond them in one respect, for it expressly condemned certain texts drawn from the Epistles of St. Paul, which in all ages since the time of Jesus Christ have been respected as the oracles of the Holy Spirit. I say, it went beyond the heretics: for they, although they pervert the holy scriptures and wrest them to forced and unnatuial meanings, have never ventured to reject or condemn them. 3

The Bull ggi enitus, as it came to be known, listed lOl

heretical prepositions contained in the ﬂora; Reflections,

followed by the following statement in both French and Latin:

,These propositions are condemned respectively as false, “captions, ill sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and its practices, contumelious to Church.and state, seditious, impious, blas- nhemous, susnected and savoring of heresy, favoring heretics, herecy and seniors, erroneous, bordering on heresy, often . condemned, heretical and reviving various heresios, espec- ially4those contained in the famous prepositions of Jansen~ ius.

Samples of the statements of Quesnel that were taken

from his text and condemned are:

'80. The reading of the Holy Scripture is foriall."

”81. The sacred obscurity of the word of God is no rose- on forathe laity to absolve themselves from thereadins of it. . ‘82. The Lord's day should be kept holy by Christians by pious reading, and above all by the reading of Holy Scripture. It is hurtful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from such readings."45

43. gbig., Iv, 460. 44. “Unisonitus', Catholic Encyclopedia.

45. Putnam, The Censorship of the Church of Rosa. 1Q, 351-362.

94 The Jesuit Fabroni undertook to pressure the Bull into existence without its being voted upon by the Cardin- als, who whuld have opposed passage. Using his influence over Clement XI, he had the document published and,posted before the Cardinals knew of its contents.45

In France, the issue over the Jansenist writings resolved itself into a battle of Gallicanism and Jansenism against Ultranmontanism and Jesuitisn. De Boailles led the movement against the Bull, although he was by no means a Jansenist. Just as Mazarin had regarded the Jansenists as sympathizers with the Fronds, so now Jansenism's defense took on a political note, and became confused with Gallican~ ism, and all France took sides in the struggle over the acceptance or rejection of the constitution. the general opinion of the Bull was that it condemned not only Quesnel and Jan- sen, but St. Paul, St. Augustine, and even Jesus Christ

Himself.A7

The faculty of the Sorbonne accepted gnigenitus by a bare majority in 1714, and the hull was recorded by the Perl- enent that same year. then Louis XIV died the follouing year however, the forces opioeing the bull rallied around do Noailles; they appealed to the Pope to clarify the status of the Bull.

In a second Bull, issued in 1719, the Pope decided that the the condemnation of the propositions was final and authoritative

46. Saint-Simon, ﬁemoirs, IV, 461.

47. ”Jansenism", Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.

95 and demanded unquestioned obedience.48

Sons more evasive reasoning allowed both sides to main-

tain their opinions and their Church status as well in 1720.

The French government approved a.watsred down interpretation

0! Unigenitgg,as acceptable for orthodoxy ani de Noailles and most or his followers signed this document. The final death blow to the apposition to gnigenitgg came when.de .3“; Noailles made an unconditional submission shortly before his death in 1729. ‘With the collapse of this opposition, Jansen- ism in France died as a religious organization; from that time forward Jansenisn had a political significance equal ;x in importance with its religious significance. It became considered as a republican movement, opposed to the Jesuits, but Opposed to authonitarianiom in both Church and state, and with little left of its original beliefs on grace or a puritan way of life.

48. Putnam; £99 Censorship of the Church of 303g, I, 363.

96 IV. Conclusions

The first conclusion to be reached about Jansenisn is

that Cornelius Jansen, while he gave his name to the movement within the Church.which headed back toward the early fathers,

actually had little to do with the founding of the Jansenist

party. There were three key figures in the organization and L‘A‘.

foundation of the group that took the name of the Bishop of rah-i .-lI‘-' x... Ypresa his friend, St. Cyran, who survived five years after is.’._

the death of Jansen; Mother Angelique, who had organized the ..u‘ - o... 'puritan' element at Port Royal thirty years before Jensen's ‘_

Augustinus was published; and antoine Arnauld, the "Great Arnauld", who organized the resistance and stabilized the

opinion of Port Royal in the formative years, both while St.

Cyran was in prison and in the years after his death. If it were possible to rename it. probably 'Arnauldism' would fit this movement better than 'Jansenism' - by sheer*weight of numbers the Arnauld family dominated the abbey of Port Royal;

some of the most famous names of Jansenism are members of

that family. This is plainly shown by the fact that between

1602 and 1694 an Arnauld occupied a leading position in the group a

This statement does not minimize the work of Cornelius

Jansen: he gave the movement its rallying point with his book, and there can. be little doubt that he added much to the move-

ment by formulating its doctrine. However, the Augustipgs

97 had become the flag around which Jansenisn gathered, rather

than a living creed.for the group, and was little more than

any other symbol would have‘beem whether a book. a flag, or

a GPOBS.

Another conclusion that seemed to take shape from the material covered was that the Jansenist movement of these years divides itself naturally into two parts; the first part ending with the deaths of the two Pascale and Aether

Angelique in the early 1660's. These three persons, to- gather with St. Cyran and Jansen, represent the old Jansen- ists. 'Jansenism'was something more to them than a battle to be fought, it was a.way of life, and those who opposed that way of life were to be taught differently. or at least given the chance to see the example of those who would live; that life before them. Jansenism was St. Paul and St. Aug- ustine, it was efficacious grace; to those who came later.

Jansenism was anti-Jesuitism or Gallicanism, opposition to

Rome or to Louis XIV, or a home for those who had burned them-

selves out on the fields of battle or in court life. Jensen was their cost of arms, but he represented little else.

An obvious criticism of this statement is that Pascal was the originator of the severe opposition to the Jesuits;

”while that is undeniably true, still, Pascal's opposition was more on the grounds that the Jesuits opposed Augustine and efficacious grace. Those‘who followed, opposed the Jes- uits because Pascal had brilliantly shown that their maxims were bad, and the term had a bad connotation. An element of

98 style had crept into opposin& the Jesuits shortly after the

Provincial Letters were completed.

Another and closely related observation is that Jansen~ ism seeaed to have lost the spark of greatness when its leaders sought to equivocate and hedge on matters where they should have stood out strongly. Their stand on the signing of the

Second Formulary was aptly described by Pascal when he termed K it ”despicable before men“; their two-edged answer to the demand for a straight-forward rejection of Jansen.was neither fish norfoul, and the movement suffered for it. It is possible that the movement was saved'by the maneuver. but the ; biblical paradox of losing that which you strive to save was never more applicable than to the Jansenist movement in their acceptance of the Second Formulary. They went into the issue with a strong creed. which they were trying to saveg'they came out with a sorely weakened creed because of their own failure to take a clear stand behind that creed. They saved their status as Catholics, but in doing so, they became more closely allied with that part of Catholicism'which.they were trying to reforrlor eliminate. They disagreed with.Pascal, to accept the armor of the Duchess of Longuevillo, Jansen- ism lost heavily when it saved its physical existence during the period between 1660 and 1668. The position of the King, Louis XIV, regarding Jansen- ism. is puzzling. Both Madame de Sévigné and Saint-Simon mention incidents where the king revealed a friendly, or at least a tolerant attitude toward the Jansenists, yet under 99 u ‘ JIiI III.‘

J. v 4‘ ‘f-hthlﬂlmgm'wE N»...‘ his rule Port Royal was destroyed and the Bull Unixenitus becane law in France with his approval and through his efforts. The extremely high influence wielded by the confessor Isllier seems beyond doubt; it does Louis no credit that he could 'ternately praise and persecute those who followed the beliefs of Jansenism. The king has been described as superstitious and credulous where religious mat--

.. ters are concerned, and possibly he did think he could re- ~. pent vicariously throuy h the sufferings of the Jansenists.

...—-m'runm

The relationship between Calvinism and Jansenism is

often suggested; Jansenists have been.described as being “..-.u-r-uﬂ-u‘.

v...

1 Calvinists who so to mass. There are other differences that may be worthwhile noting. First. there is a difference in the sacrament of transubstantiationx the Calvinist belief terms the bread and wine of the.eucharist as a symbol of the flesh and blood of Christ.1 The. Catholic. and the Jansenist, saysthat the bread and wine are transformed, by a miracle. into the actual'blood and flesh of Christ. The differences between the two on matters of grace were described by Pascal as being this: the Calvinist believes that man was condemned to sin and the state of pure evil by God; He created some - men to be damned, and this was planned long before the creation.

However, be elected to save some, so Christ was sent to save those few. The‘JanseniIt believes that Adam‘s sin has not planned by God, but that Adam sinned of his own free will. and

l. J. T. Kerr, Jr., ed., A Conoend of the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. Philadelphia (l939f, pp. 194-201 passim. (Book 193 Chapter L1“)

100

in doing so condemned all men after him until the time of

Christ. since that time God has divided all men, who are

all equally guilty and worthy of damnation, into those who will be saved and those who are to be deﬁned; only those who are to be saved are visited by the salvation giving of-

ficacious grace. Pascal condemned the Calvinist view because through it God planned the sin of Adam, which 'would be hor- rible to contenplate'.2

Jansenisn is still far fron being a dead movement; true

the asceticisn of Port Royal hardly survives, but the puritan

movement within the Church still exists. The only actually i- ﬁﬂrr‘

organized Jansenist Church is the Old Roman Catholic Church !

of Utrecht, in the Dutch Netherlands. They separated from

the Ronan Catholic Church early in he Eighteenth Century, denounced the infallibility of the ?ope and later the Bull

Unigenitus. Their congregation numbirs about 6,000 members.3

In addition, Jansenism of a sort became known in Italy

and Ireland, where it was described as a movement against

dancing or similar pleasures. The Jansenist movements of

France, Spain, and Portugal succeeded in banning the Society

2. Calvin said on this: "Our perdition ... proceeds from the sinfulness of our flesh, not from God.... And let no one murmer that God mighthsve made a better provision for our safety, by preventing the fall of Adam. For such an objection ought to be abominated, as too presumptively curious, by all pious minds....' from lbid.. p. 4#,(Book II, Chap- ter 1, Section 10).

3. ”Jansenius”, Catholic Encyclopedia.

101 of Jesus from those countries during the 1750's, but these movements received the label from a smell trait or character-

istic of the early novenent, and can hardly be termed Jan- senist in the sense that St. Cyrsn or even the “Great Ar— nauld' would have used the term. The religious Jansenism, aside from the individual group in Utrecht and vicinity, hardly survived the reace of Clement IX. :y the time of the.

Bull Unigenitug its existence was largely a matter of indiv—

idual beliefs. Jensenist free thinkers and Jensenist repub- -.—-,-—1

# lican movements are observed during the Eighteenth Century.

The anseniem of the founders, if in existence today, would ----:----~--M

- be extremely difficult to ferret out, aside free the group I at Utrecht.

Jensenism did leave vestigial remains besides this small community. An organization known as the Sisters of saint ﬁer- tha was founded immediately after the destruction of Fort

Royal by Jansenist sympathizers. It was dedicated to service of the poor, chiefly poor children, to whom it offered free education fees. It survived until 1847, although it had no

status within either the Church or state in France.

Another mark left by the JesuituJansenist struggle was its effect upon the Society of Jesus.‘ The Jesuits have never

recovered tron the severe beating administered by Pascal in the Provincial Lgtgegs. The disbending of the society in

the Eighteenth Century was certainly eided'by the wide circul-

ation of the letters; although many other factors were

me involved. Webeteﬂe CollegiateAQictionarg, fifth edition,

peye hnnage to Pascal when it writes the following defin- .itionex "Jesuit ....2.b. A ceeuiet; hence a crafty person; an intriguer." and jesuitien “A quibble; an equivocal act or statement; --an opprebrioue use of the word."

Probably the most important conclusions lie inthe quee-

tione that have only been suggested, not answered by this

paper. Host of them will always renein within the realm of ‘A

“Mt-ﬂ

speculation; additional research may ehed light on gone of __

I..._-_

them. Chief eeong them is the one: thy did the Jenseniete — L

“an

not split with the Church as the reformers with similar — t, I grievances had done a century earlier? Surely their hope

that the Church would accept their point of View on the

numerous dieegreenente was out of the question after the

firet few years. Would not outright schism have been bet-

ter for them than the dubious benefit of remaining within

the organization that regarded their creed as much heretical

as it did that of the earlier schismatioe? Is there a pos-

sibility that had a proninent early Janeeniet, say Janeen

of St. Cyrun, gone to Rome as Luther bed done earlier, a

break might have come?

A standard criticism of the Jenaeniete lies in the ar-

gument thet they were too narrow in their beliefs; they lived

too closely within their own narrow creed. This criticism

goes on to say that the Jesuits were actually closer to the truth then the Jenseniete. The Jesuits survived hecauee they

10} ‘recognized the human element necessary to religion, and this survival, contrasted to the elimination of the Jansenists,

came for that reason.

I would take issue with this opinion; it bases its

Judgement of right and wrong or truth a.d falsehood upon

the popularity or the survival of the movement concerned.

I do not think there is sufficient historical or moral Just-

ificstion for basing neerness to truth upon popularity or

survival in the idea or group concerned. Ideas and groups have lasted more than four hundred years in purely scientific schools of thought and have been proved incorrect; in anything as evasive as ultimate truth. the popularity or continued existence of the Society of Jesus hardly qualify it for the lasting correctness suggested in the argument.

Any Judgement of right or wrong on those who lived and worked at Port Royal requires presumpticusness. To the Church they were heretics, yet they considered their guys and beliefs as the true ones, and for the most part they resisted all attempts to change their ways. They achieved fans from both the genius of their individual members and the piety of their

:nssses in their'way of life. Admiration must be granted to them in both these phases of their history.

104 Bibliographical Note

I. Bibliographical.

An excellent starting place for a work of this nature was A. W. hard, G. w. Prothcro. Stanley Leathes, sds.. gag genbridge Hodcrn Historyj 14 volumes, Cambridge, England F“ and hes York (1902-1912); Vol. V use applicable for use on i this Loner. Other good bibliographical suggestions were M obtained from David 035. Eurooe in the Seventeentgzgentugz,

London (1925); ghe Encyclopedia Britannica, 29 volumes. 11th 3 edition, (1910-1911). Poole's ggdox to Periodical Lit- grsturo and the Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature were used for material available in magazine articles.

11. Primary Source Material

The earlier period of Jansenism was not covered by available primary sources. However. beginning with the’conversion of Blaise Pascal in 1654, there were sources available for the remainder of the study. Chief among those were the writings of Pascal: Pensées - Thcﬁﬁggvincial Letters) ensée translated by w. F. Trotter and The Provincial Let- gg£§,translated by Theses M'Crie), New York (1941): Emil. Caillict. ed. and translator, Great Shorter Works of Pascal, Philadelphia (1948): and 0. W. Wight, translator, The Tho hts, LettersLys d qusculeng: Blaise Pascal, New York (1861). The latter two works contained letters and documents by Pascal either in defense of Jansenism or in relation to it. Although not as directly related to the study of Jena

schism es the work by Pascal. Madame de SEVignE's work, 2g;

gettere of Madggg de Sevigne, (Introduction by A. Edward

Newton), 7 volumes, Philadelphia (1927) was exceedingly use—

ful for background and attitudes of her set toward the Jan- seniste. They spanned the years between 1644 and 1696.

Francis Arkwright, ﬁenoire o; the Duke de Saint-31323, 6 volumes, New York (n.d.), was used for the work of Saint- 3

Simon. The first four volumes, titled respectively Gossip

and Glen: of Versailles 1622«;10;. The Silvg; Age of Louie

XIV; Wheg‘Madame dg Maintenon was Queen, and War and Coggg| ;

GossipI lilO-lllh, were the most useful for this paper.

/ ’ / All three of these euthors; Pascal. Sevisne.‘end Saint-

Simon, provide excellent literature in the above-mentioned works in additional to their merit ee historical sources.

III. Secondary Source Material

Early background materiel for this paper was obtained

from the following sources: The standard source. previously

mentioned, Ihe eeggiggg godezg Hietggx, Vol. V; 033, Egg, Seventeenth Centurxﬁig Europa; Preserved Smith. The éae of the Regorgatiog, New York (1920), a standard.work for the earlier period; E. M. Huhe, WWWW

Reformation and‘the Catholic Reformatiog_in_§gg§igggtgl_§ugy 922, New York (1914); zhe Catholic Enolglopgdig, 15 volumes. New York (1907); James Hastings. ed.. The gncgclopedia of

Religion end Ethics, New York (1917); The Engzc;oped;§ Britannica; Janes B. Perkins, France Under Kazarin, 2 vol- ” Umes,.New York (1886) contained an excellent chapter on the

early history of the Jansenist movenent; James B. Perkins, Bicgglleg and the Growth of French.?ower, New York (1900);

H. Guizot and Madame Guizot Desitt, ghe History of France £293 the Earliest4gines to 1848. translated by Robert Black, 7-volunes, New York (1884), Vol. IV contained a conversation-

. a1 and much capitalized chapter on religion under Louis XIV.

Paar-q

"5—

Arthur Hassall. s XIV d the Ze it of the Fre t _ '.

Monarchy, New York and London (1910) was helpful in deal- nan-.43.”!

ing with the personality of Louis xiv; Leopold Ranke. ghe ‘uhr

History of the Po es

and Seventeenth Centuries, Fhiladelphia (1844), G. B. hic- clini, ﬁdgtory of the Jesuits, London (1854), and Thomas

M‘Crie's ”Historical Introduction“ to O. W. Wight. ed.. 2g; Provincial Letters, New York (1859) provided background material about the Society of Jesus, although the latter two had to be used with caution due to their position in oppos-

ition to the Jesuits; G. H. Putnam, ghe Censorship of the

Church of Home, New York and London (1906). 2 volumes, Vol.

II was used for infornation'on declarations from the Vatican

pertaining to Jansenism, and H. T. Kerr, Jr., ed.. A Compend of the Institutes of the Christian Religion by {ohn Calgin .

Philadelphia (1939) was used for the slight reference to the

doctrine of Calvinism.

Nunerous biogranLies of Pascal exist, four of which were

used in this study. in order of their usefulness were sortie

Bishop, Paeca Gen us, New York (1936); Emile

Cailliet, Pascal, Geni s in the Lighto§_icricture, Phila- delphia (1945); Jacques Chevalier, Pascal, translated by Lil- ian A. Clare, New York (1930); and S. H. a. ﬁt. Cyres, Pusqgl,

London (1909).

Lunerous magazine articles were available but, due to their nature could be used sparinély. The first four were

useful because they represented reviews of important works .M’m-j on Janc:nisa otherwise unavailable. Ihe others are listed

_'-'-'J'T‘-_‘-. in alphabetical order by magazine-title.

Tr.— Anon., "The Nuns of ?ort Royal from C. a. saints-ﬂueve's Port Royal", Li 1 a 6, Vol. 56 (1856), pp. 513-530. Ire...— Anon., "Reuchlin, History of Port Royal - The Struggle of the Reformed and Jesuitical Catholicism, let Vol. to the death of Angelique Arnauld", adinburgh Review, Vol. 73 (1841). Pp. 309‘3540 Anon. “The Story of Port Royal", Edinburgh Review, Vol. 208

Anon., ‘Beard’s Histor of Port Royal", Christian Obserggz, Vol. 61 (1351). pp. 21 ‘232.

Anon., "Pascal's tagcr", Qgtholic World, Vol. 118 (1923), pp. 114-115. M. J. Hillenbrand, "Pascal, Saint or Heretic,“ Catholic World, Vol. 144 (1937). pp. 418~425. c. n. 3. Richard, "Pascal in Pursuit of Happiness", Catholic World, Vol. 151 (1940), pp. 408-418. N. Luccock, "Inner Life of Pascal”, Chautauqugg, Vol. 32 (1900),

13?». 197-2010 w. H. Pater, "Fascal", gentegporary Review, Vol. 67 (1395); pp. 168-181. A. Law, ”Jansen Controversy", gentesporary Review, Vol. 153 (1938). pp. 718-725. "’ Anon., "An Excursion to Port Royal", Eclectic {agazine, Vol. 34 (1855), pp. 131-135.

Anon.. "51nd of E'scal", Edinburgh Review, Vol. 214 (1911), pp‘ 53‘93. Leslie .tenhen, "Pascal", Fortnightly Review, Vol. 68 (1897),

pp. SlT‘J290 C. Falls, "blaise Pascal", Fortnightly Revigﬂ, Vol. 119 (1923). PP. 955-955. M. A. bohimnelpenninck, "Port 80 al and Port Royalists", Fresegigmﬁaqgging, Vol. 60 (IBBQK, pp. 432-497.

Camilla John, ”The Revolt of the Sisters", Centlenen's 233» azine, Vol 66 (1900}. pp. 153*190.

“yr-I,

Anon.. "Port Royal dos Champs", Hours Ab HongJ Vol 2 (1866), 57'.

\‘-_*"-

no. 2h9-256. 4 .

Anon., ”a. a. Schimmelpenninok - Select ﬁenoins of Port Royal; 3' to which are added Tour to Alot. visit to Port Royal, uift of an ébbeos, Biographical Notices, etc., etc, taken from M‘s'Q‘vUA‘

original documents", gigigg_§gg, Vol. 62 (1859;. pp. 202-225. '5! ‘hf Anon. “A Pilgrimage to Port Royal". Living ége, 701.115

(1872" pp. “31‘4400 Anon., ”Port Royal”, Livinr A 9, Vol. 190 (1891), pp. 682-688. Anon., "Sons Thoughts on Pascal”, Living Age, Vol. 198 (1893). pp. 169-1770 A. Snares, ”Visit to Pascal", Living $59, Vol. 227 (1900), pp. 73-84 and 150-160.

P. Souday, “"Pascal and His Books“, Living A39. Vol. 318 (1923), pp. 463-465. L. Tolstoi, “Pascal”, Living Age, Vol. 326 (1925), pp. 520-524.

I. Babbitt, ”Reawakening of lntereat in Pascal“, Nation, Vol. 91. DD. 466-469.

Lnon., "An Excursion to Port Royal", §ntional Hagazing, Vol. 6 (1855). 408-413. M. E. Ponsonby, “Port Royal and Fasoal", 12in Century, Vol. 53 (1903). pp. 225-240. Anon., ”Les Dernier Jansénietes, despuis la Ruino’de Port Royal Jusqu‘a nos Joura (1710-1870) Par Léon Sacha”, Quarterly Reviog, Vol. 173 (1891!, pp. 2ll«234. Kn. Barry, "Froblem of Pascal", QuarterllﬁevieggJ Vol. 213 (1910). pp. A3i-A50. . .11.3..r.+'.l§,b.. I... V m I. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UBRARES

3 1 293 0 3487 248 5