Some went further and even stated that they had not found disgraced postulates in the works of Jansenius, no matter how much they searched, moreover, they found there directly opposite ones. They then insisted that a scholar who had seen the notorious propositions anywhere in Jansenius's works, if he was present in the collection, should show the same thing to the others, for such a step would involve so little effort that it could not be refused, and the result would be that everyone, even M. Arnault, might be silenced; but this was always denied[61]. This is what happened on the one hand.

On the other side were eighty doctors of theology from the white clergy and about forty monks of the mendicant Orders, who denounced M. Arnault's position, not wishing to investigate at all whether what he had said was true or false; they even declared that it was not a question of the truth, but only of the audacity of his proposition.

In addition, there are still fifteen people who did not stand for censorship, and who are called indifferent.

That was the end of the question of a fact which did not bother me in the least; for whether M. Arnault is impudent or not, my conscience has nothing to do with it. And if I were curious to know whether Jansenius had these propositions, his book is not so rare and not so voluminous that I could not read it in its entirety and find it out for myself without asking the advice of the Sorbonne.

I am afraid, therefore, that in this case the censorship may do more evil than good, and lest it make an impression on those who know its history exactly the opposite of that which was obtained by such a conclusion of the debate. After all, people really become distrustful and believe only when they see. But, as I have already said, this question is of little importance, because it does not concern faith.

The question of law seems to be much more important precisely because it deals with faith. Therefore, I made a special effort to study it. But you will be very pleased when you see that it is as unimportant as the first.

The point here is to analyze the following statement from the same letter of M. Arnault: "Grace, without which nothing in the world is possible, was absent in St. Paul. Peter during his fall"[63]. You and I thought that in this case the task was to investigate the deepest foundations of the Teaching about grace, as, for example, whether it is not given to all people, whether it is effective. But we were deeply mistaken. I became a great theologian in a short time, and you will now see proofs of this.

In order to find out the truth, I went to see M. N., a theologian of the College of Navarre, who lives not far from me, and, as you know, is one of the most ardent opponents of the Jansenists. And as curiosity made me almost as zealous as he was, I asked him if they would not formally decide that "grace is given to all," so that no doubt might be aroused any more. But he cut me off abruptly and said that the question was not that there were some among his supporters who believed that grace was not given to everyone, that the members of the commission of inquiry themselves had declared that such a view was problematic right at the Sorbonne, and that he himself was of the same opinion; in confirmation he cited to me what he called a famous passage from St. Augustine: "We know that grace is not given to all men."

Apologizing for my lack of understanding, I asked him to tell me whether they would at least condemn the other opinion of the Jansenists, which had made such a fuss: "Grace is efficacious and determines our will to do good." But I was no more fortunate with this second question. "You don't understand anything here," he replied to me, "it's not heresy at all, it's an orthodox opinion: all Thomists hold to it, and I myself defended it in my Sorbonne dissertation."

Более я не решался предлагать ему свои сомнения и даже перестал понимать саму суть проблемы, а потому, стремясь к установлению ясности, принялся упрашивать моего собеседника рассказать, в чем же состоит ересь положения г–на Арно.

- В том, — сказал он мне, — что г–н Арно не признает за праведниками способности исполнять заповеди Божии именно так, как мы это понимаем.

После этого наставления я простился с ним и, гордясь тем, что знаком теперь с сутью дела, отправился к г–ну N; он поправляется с каждым днем и чувствует себя настолько здоровым, что сам проводил меня к своему шурину; это — янсенист, каких поискать, и, тем не менее, очень хороший человек. Чтобы он меня лучше принял, я притворился, что сильно склоняюсь на их сторону, и сказал ему:

- Возможно ли, чтобы Сорбонна ввела в церковь такое заблуждение, что «все праведные всегда имеют способность исполнять заповеди?»

- Как вы сказали? — спросил меня мой ученый. — Разве вы называете заблуждением мнение столь католическое, что одни лютеране и кальвинисты оспаривают его?