I am the more particular in giving this statement, because, in my opinion, it discovers, in a very striking light, the spirit of your Society in the whole of this affair; and because some people will be astonished to find that, notwithstanding all the facts above mentioned, you have not ceased to publish that they are heretics still.But you have only altered the heresy to suit the time; for no sooner had they freed themselves from one charge than your fathers, determined that they should never want an accusation, substituted another in its place.Thus, in 1653, their heresy lay in the quality of the propositions; then came the word for word heresy; after that we had the heart heresy.And now we hear nothing of any of these, and they must be heretics, forsooth, unless they sign a declaration to the effect "that the sense of the doctrine of Jansenius is contained in the sense of the five propositions." Such is your present dispute.It is not enough for you that they condemn the five propositions, and everything in Jansenius that bears any resemblance to them, or is contrary to St.
Augustine; for all that they have done already.The point at issue is not, for example, if Jesus Christ died for the elect only- they condemn that as much as you do; but, is Jansenius of that opinion, or not? And here I declare, more strongly than ever, that your quarrel affects me as little as it affects the Church.For although I am no doctor, any more than you, father, I can easily see, nevertheless, that it has no connection with the faith.The only question is to ascertain what is the sense of Jansenius.
Did they believe that his doctrine corresponded to the proper and literal sense of these propositions, they would condemn it; and they refuse to do so, because they are convinced it is quite the reverse; so that, although they should misunderstand it, still they would not be heretics, seeing they understand it only in a Catholic sense.To illustrate this by an example, I may refer to the conflicting sentiments of St.Basil and St.Athanasius, regarding the writings of St.Denis of Alexandria, which St.Basil, conceiving that he found in them the sense of Arius against the equality of the Father and the Son, condemned as heretical, but which St.Athanasius, on the other hand, judging them to contain the genuine sense of the Church, maintained to be perfectly orthodox.Think you, then, father, that St.Basil, who held these writings to be Arian, had a right to brand St.Athanasius as a heretic because he defended them? And what ground would he have had for so doing, seeing that it was not Arianism that his brother defended, but the true faith which he considered these writings to contain? Had these two saints agreed about the true sense of these writings, and had both recognized this heresy in them, unquestionably St.Athanasius could not have approved of them without being guilty of heresy; but as they were at variance respecting the sense of the passage, St.Athanasius was orthodox in vindicating them, even though he may have understood them wrong; because in that case it would have been merely an error in a matter of fact, and because what he defended was really the Catholic faith, which he supposed to be contained in these writings.I apply this to you, father.Suppose you were agreed upon the sense of Jansenius, and your adversaries were ready to admit with you that he held, for example, that grace cannot be resisted, those who refused to condemn him would be heretical.But as your dispute turns upon the meaning of that author, and they believe that, according to this doctrine, grace may be resisted, whatever heresy you may be pleased to attribute to him, you have no ground to brand them as heretics, seeing they condemn the sense which you put on Jansenius, and you dare not condemn the sense which they put on him.If, therefore, you mean to convict them, show that the sense which they ascribe to Jansenius is heretical; for then they will be heretical themselves.But how could you accomplish this, since it is certain, according to your own showing, that the meaning which they give to his language has never been condemned? To elucidate the point still further, I shall assume as a principle what you yourselves acknowledge-that the doctrine of efficacious grace has never been condemned, and that the pope has not touched it by his constitution.And, in fact, when he proposed to pass judgement on the five propositions, the question of efficacious grace was protected against all censure.This is perfectly evident from the judgements of the consulters to whom the Pope committed them for examination.
