Paris, January 23, 1656

Gracious Sovereign!

We were misled. I was convinced of my mistake only yesterday, and until then I thought that the subject of the debate at the Sorbonne was very important and could have far-reaching consequences for religion. The numerous meetings of so famous a society as the Faculty of Theology in Paris, during which so many extraordinary and unparalleled events took place, inspire such a high idea of the questions discussed therein that the very idea that there was no extraordinary reason for discussion seems inadmissible. And yet you will be amazed when you learn from my story what all this fuss amounts to; I will present this question to you in a brief form on the basis of a thorough study of the case.

Two questions are investigated: one about fact, the other about law[59].

The question of the fact is whether M. Arnaud was impertinent in declaring in his second letter that he had read Jansenius's book attentively, and had not found in it the propositions condemned by the late Pope; that he nevertheless condemns these propositions wherever he encounters them, and condemns them in Jansenius, if they are there.

The question, therefore, is precisely whether he could not have the audacity to question Jansenius's ownership of these provisions, after the bishops had recognized this affiliation.

This case is proposed for consideration by the Sorbonne. Seventy-one Doctors of Divinity undertake to defend M. Arnault, and assert that he could not have answered anything else to the writers who have asked him in so many writings whether he admits that these propositions are in the Book of Jansenius, since he did not find them there, and that he still condemns them if they are there.

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.