Chapter XIII. Baianism and jansenism

Turee years before the end of the Council of Trent, in 1560, the Sorbonne condemned eighteen propositions of Baius in which there were traces of the Protestant principles relative to grace and original sin. In 1567, a bull of St. Pius V condemned seventy-nine propositions of Baius, among which the following that more or less directly concern our subject must be noted: “Without the aid of God's grace, free will has power only to sin. All the actions of unbelievers are sins, and the virtues of philosophers vices. Only violence is repugnant to man’s natural liberty. Man sins even meriting damnation, in what is done out of necessity. It is a Pelagian error to say that there is in free will the power to avoid any sin. The integrity in which man was created was not an exaltation of human nature to which it had no claim, but its natural condition. The elevation and exaltation of human nature to a participation in the divine nature was due to it because of its original state of integrity; hence it must be declared natural and not supernatural.”¹

We perceive the trend of thought since Luther’s error and how this pseudosupernaturalism, which confounds the two orders of nature and grace, resulted from it. Viewed from this angle, it approaches Pelagian naturalism, although it differs very much from this latter in its notion of original sin and the consequences of the same.

Luther begins by saying that concupiscence is invincible, and that certain commands, as a consequence of original sin, are impracticable. Moreover, without the help of divine grace, free will can do nothing but sin. Grace of itself efficacious, though it was not necessary for perseverance in good in the state of innocence, became so by reason of our infirmity, and man is powerless to resist it when it is offered to him. The subsequent outcome of this pessimistic conception of human nature, such as it is in the present state, was that original integrity came to be viewed as something due to human nature, and grace, which is a participation in the divine nature, as due to the state of natural integrity. This pessimistic view led to the confusion of the order of nature with that of grace, a confusion which the Pelagians reached by the inverse method. Pelagianism is a phase of naturalism which attached no importance to original sin. Baianism is another phase of naturalism which attached very much importance to the fall of the first man.

Finally, Jansenius on the subject of original justice revived the errors of Baius. This explains his false doctrine concerning original sin, grace, predestination, and reprobation. According to his theory, by the sin of the first man human nature became entirely corrupt, so that it was no longer capable of doing anything good. At the same time he denied the freedom of the human will, declaring it to be completely passive and determined by the victorious delectation. If this delectation is terrestrial, it begets sin; if it is celestial, it results in virtue and merit; and for this, freedom from external constraint suffices, but not necessarily freedom from interior compulsion.

The five propositions taken from his Augustinus and condemned by Rome, show that this doctrine differs from that of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, though it has been at times confused with their teaching. Whereas St. Augustine and St. Thomas always steadfastly maintained that God never commands what is impossible, but makes it really possible for all

BAIANISM AND JANSENISM 125 to keep His commandments, the following Jansenist propositions deny this; they say: (1) “For the justified, willing and trying to do what they can, according to the present powers they possess, some of God’s commandments are impossible to keep. (2) In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior grace. (3) For meriting and demeriting in the state of fallen nature, freedom from internal compulsion is not required; it is sufficient to be free from external constraint. (4) It is a Semipelagian heresy to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception.” * Moreover, to understand exactly in what sense this last proposition is condemned, it is absolutely necessary to give in addition the text of this condemnation, which reads as follows: “It is declared and condemned as false, temerarious, scandalous, and, understood in this sense that Christ died only for the salvation of the predestined, it is impious, blasphemous, contumelious, contrary to the divine compassion, and heretical.”

Jansenism was thus led to adopt a teaching on grace and predestination that excludes God's universal will to save. In order to preserve intact one of the aspects of the mystery with which we are concerned, the other was completely rejected. Instead of a mystery of revealed truth, we have thus a cruel and absurd doctrine, for in this case sin is inevitable, which is no longer then a sin, and which cannot be punished, at least with eternal punishment, without manifest cruelty. God commanding what is impossible ceases to be God, and in vain would we seek to discover in Him not only mercy, but even justice.

SECTION III

PREDESTINATION ACCORDING TO THE TEACHING OF THE Post-TRIDENTINE THEOLOGIANS

After the Council of Trent, whose especial concern was to counteract Protestantism, L. Molina proposed a theory of foreknowledge and predestination which was the occasion of long controversies on these subjects, which are keenly enough disputed even at the present day. We shall proceed to examine the following theories, taking them in this order: (1) Molinism; (2) the congruism of Bellarmine and Suarez; (3) the congruism of the Sorbonne; (4) the Augustinian doctrine subsequent to the Council of Trent; (5) the Thomist doctrine subsequent to the Council of Trent. In giving an account of the doctrines of these schools, we shall at the same time point out the difficulties presented by each.

Footnotes

1. Denz., nos. 1021, 1025-28, 1066-67. For the exact meaning of these propositions, consult also Dict. de théol. cath., art. “Baius,” Il, 64 ff. 123 ↩