The Augustinus is divided into three parts. In the first Jansenius gives a historical account of Pelagianism, which heresy exalted the power of free-agency, and de- nied the original depravity of human nature, and, conse- quently, original sin. In the second part the writer sets forth the views of St. Augustine on human natme, both in its state of primitive purity and in its state of degra- dation after the fall. In the third part, finally, he pre- sents the ideas of St. Augustine touching grace, by which Christ redeems us from our fallen state, also the pre- destination of men and angels. The fundamental propo- sition of the work is that, " since the fall of Adam, free- agency exists no longer in man, pure works are a mere gratuitous gift of Goil, and the predestination of the elect is not an effect of his prescience of our works, but of his free volition." This, it will be perceived, is a close re- production of the views presented by Calvin in the pre- ceding century. Such principles were, of course, in di- rect opposition with those advocated in Spain and Hol- land by the Jesuits Molina and Lessius, wiio wished to conciliate the doctrine of salvation by grace with a cer- tain amount of human free-agency. Jansenius, besides, had personally incurred the hatred of the '• Order of Je- sus" by causing the Jesuits to be excluded as professors from the University of Louvain ; and, though the work had failed to excite much attention, the Jesuits were determined now to be revenged on their enemy. The Augustinus thus became the occasion of a theological
JANSEN" V72
controversy by far the most important in its doctrinal. social, and even political results which has agitated the Roman Catholic Church since the great Keformation of the 16th century. The wliole weight of the order of the Jesuits having been brought into play to cause the condemnation of the work at Kome, it was accordingly and speedily done by pope Urban VIII, in his bull In ein- inenii, March 6, 16^2. " So decisive a point would not have been gained by the Jesuits had tliey not succeeded in directing the attention of the papal court to a passage in which .Jausenius brouglit forward a statement of St. Augustine as authoritative, although the same point (without reference, of course, to that father) had been condemned at Rome. This was an inroad on papal in- fallihiUty, awl this caused the rejection of the work." But if the book of Jansenius had failed to excite much at- tention, the issuing of a bull against its use, and all tliis at the instigation of the Jesuits, provoked no little in- terest. Especially strong was the opposition against the bull in Belgium and in France, an^l many were the partisans thus secured for the A uf/ustimis, a number of whom— perhaps even the most — were animated, in all likeliliood, less by doctrinal predilection than b\' an an- tipathy to the laxity of the moral teachings of the Jes- uits, with wliirh the opposition to the Augustinus was, of course, always identilicd. The very strongest of the partisans of the .| uguMlitus were the recluses of Port- Royal (q. v.), a celebrated association of scholars and di- vines, among whom figured some of the brightest names in the Church of France of the 17th century. One of these, Antoine Arnauld (q. v.), in 1643 pubUshed his De la frequente Communion, based on the predestination doctrine of Augustine and Jansenius, and thereby heap- ed more live coals on the heads of the now already much- distracted Jesuits. Even the Dominicans in different countries divided in opinion, those of Spain and Italy enlisting on tlie side of the Jansenisfs (as the advocates of the A ufjustinus came by this time to be called), those of France siding with the Jesuits. Even the Sorbonne, of whom Arnauld was a member, was divided ; and, after an earnest strife between the contending parties had waged in France for some time, both decided in 1051 to carry it to Rome, and plead their cause before the in- fallible (I) judge. In lfi-10. Cornet Syndic, of the theo- logical faculty at Pans, at the instigations of the Jesu- its, had drawn up, in connection with some of theni, five propositions, and had submitted them to the Sorbonne as forming tlie substance of Jansenius's work. These tlie .Jesuits now presented at Rome, satisfied that if they could only once obtain the condemnation of these as licrotiial, the fall of Jansenism was of course secured. On ^lay .HI, 1653, the Jesuits finally secured their end, and Iinidcent X, in his bull Cum occasione, at the insti- gation of his cardinal Cliigi, condemned the five propo- sitions, whicli had been " mostly couched in somewhat ambiguous language, so as to admit of verj- different explanaiions," the object of the Jesuits being "to pro- cure their condemnation in any sense or in any form." They are as follows: (1.) That there are divine com- mands which virtuous and pious persons, though they wouhl gladly perform the same, cannot possibly obey, because (iod lias not given them that measure of grace which is absolutely necessary to enable them to render such obedience. (2.) That no one in tliis depraved state of nature can resist the infiuence of divine grace when it operates on the heart. (3.) That, in order to make the actions of men meritorious, it is not necessary that they be free from 7teressitt/, but only from restraint, (i.) That the semi-Pelagiaus greatly err when they affirm that tlie will of man has power to receive or to resist the infiuence of prevenient grace. (5.) That they are semi- Pelagians who assert that Jesus Christ, by his passion and death, made an atonement for the siiis of all men. The pope pronounced the first and the last proposition prcsuraptuons, impious, and blasphemous, but the other tliree simply heretical. The friends and adherents of Jansenius admitted tlie propriety and justice of con-