Information concerning the Book of the Reverend Father Friar Henry of Noris, Augustinian — namely his Historia Pelagiana, his Historical Dissertation on the Fifth Synod, and his Vindiciae Augustinianae — addressed to the Censors of this Book recently chosen by the Supreme Pontiff, by a Single Theologian of Paris
Creator: Anonymous | Date: c. 1693–1695 | Notes: Original title: Informatio de libro r. p. f. Henrici de Noris, Augustiniani, &c. cui titulus est Historia Pelagiana, dissertatio historica de synodo quinta, vindiciæ Augustinianae. Ad censores libri hujus nuper à summo pontifice delectos. Ab uno theologo Parisiensi An anonymous Latin juridical brief addressed to papal censors, denouncing Enrico Noris’s works on Pelagianism and Augustinian grace. It argues, through page-by-page citations and technical scholastic distinctions about sufficient and proximate grace, that Noris’s doctrine is materially identical to condemned Jansenism and should be judged accordingly. The text culminates in a demand that Noris swear to the Alexandrine formulary in its plain sense. 👉 <a href="https://tryleo.ai/collections/exlatinis/the-charged-grace-and-the-remote-one-a-parisian-theologians-case-for-numbering-enrico-noris-among-the-condemned">Read our introductory primer, full report, and finding guide here</a> 📜 <a href="https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC">View the original file on Internet Archive</a> This text was transcribed and translated as part of the ExLatinis project—an effort by Leo to make English translations of every published text in Latin in early modern Europe (between 1450 and 1750) available to the public for free online.
- Title
- Information concerning the Book of the Reverend Father Friar Henry of Noris, Augustinian — namely his Historia Pelagiana, his Historical Dissertation on the Fifth Synod, and his Vindiciae Augustinianae — addressed to the Censors of this Book recently chosen by the Supreme Pontiff, by a Single Theologian of Paris
- Creator
- Anonymous
- Date
- c. 1693–1695
- Notes
- Original title: Informatio de libro r. p. f. Henrici de Noris, Augustiniani, &c. cui titulus est Historia Pelagiana, dissertatio historica de synodo quinta, vindiciæ Augustinianae. Ad censores libri hujus nuper à summo pontifice delectos. Ab uno theologo Parisiensi An anonymous Latin juridical brief addressed to papal censors, denouncing Enrico Noris’s works on Pelagianism and Augustinian grace. It argues, through page-by-page citations and technical scholastic distinctions about sufficient and proximate grace, that Noris’s doctrine is materially identical to condemned Jansenism and should be judged accordingly. The text culminates in a demand that Noris swear to the Alexandrine formulary in its plain sense. 👉 <a href="https://tryleo.ai/collections/exlatinis/the-charged-grace-and-the-remote-one-a-parisian-theologians-case-for-numbering-enrico-noris-among-the-condemned">Read our introductory primer, full report, and finding guide here</a> 📜 <a href="https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC">View the original file on Internet Archive</a> This text was transcribed and translated as part of the ExLatinis project—an effort by Leo to make English translations of every published text in Latin in early modern Europe (between 1450 and 1750) available to the public for free online.
Document notes
Original title: Informatio de libro r. p. f. Henrici de Noris, Augustiniani, &c. cui titulus est Historia Pelagiana, dissertatio historica de synodo quinta, vindiciæ Augustinianae. Ad censores libri hujus nuper à summo pontifice delectos. Ab uno theologo Parisiensi An anonymous Latin juridical brief addressed to papal censors, denouncing Enrico Noris’s works on Pelagianism and Augustinian grace. It argues, through page-by-page citations and technical scholastic distinctions about sufficient and proximate grace, that Noris’s doctrine is materially identical to condemned Jansenism and should be judged accordingly. The text culminates in a demand that Noris swear to the Alexandrine formulary in its plain sense. 👉 Read our introductory primer, full report, and finding guide here 📜 View the original file on Internet Archive This text was transcribed and translated as part of the ExLatinis project—an effort by Leo to make English translations of every published text in Latin in early modern Europe (between 1450 and 1750) available to the public for free online.
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-01.png
Transcription: ATR-1
INFORMATIO DE LIBRO R. P. F. HENRICI DE NORIS, AUGUSTINIANI, &c. CUI TITULUS EST: HISTORIA PELAGIANA, DISSERTATIO HISTORICA DE SYNODO quinta, Vindicia Augustiniana. AD CENSORES LIBRI HujUS NUPER à summo PONTIFICE DELECTOS. AB UNO THEOLOGO PARISI 735.1-6 REVERENDISSIMI PATRES Venit his proximè elapsis diebus in Galliam nuncius Reverendissimum Patrem Henricum de Noris cupidissimè expetiisse ut suus liber de Historia Pelagiana, cui adjunctæ sunt Dissertatio historica de Synodo quinta, Vindicia Augustiniana, recognos- A
Transcription: Translated (English)
Information about the book of the Reverend Father Friar Henry de Noris, Augustinian, etc., the title of which is: Pelagian History, A Historical Dissertation on the Fifth Synod, Augustinian Vindication. To the censors of this book, lately appointed by the Supreme Pontiff. By one theologian of Paris 735.1-6 Most Reverend Fathers In these last few days there came into France news that the Most Reverend Father Henry de Noris most earnestly desired that his book on the History of the Pelagians, to which are appended the Historical Dissertation on the Fifth Synod, and Augustinian Vindication, be reviewed- A
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-02.png
Transcription: ATR-1
ceretur à plurimis Censoribus, ad hoc munus Spe- ciali Sedis Apostolicæ mandato delectis: eapropter à summo Pontifice vos quinque fuisse delectos omni doctrinæ ac virtutum laude præstantes Theo- logos. Placuit nuncius viris cordatis. Cum enim liber iste jam dudum venerit in suspicionem erroris, existimatus est Noritius fungi officium hominis apprimè catholici, qui labem hanc jure an injuria sibi aspersam sustinere haud queat, in eo præsertim munere quod nunc gerit: ne scilicet Christi Vicarius doctrinæ suspectæ Theologum exornasse credatur. Nec verò poenitere illum debet sui consilii. Obtinuit, ut audivimus, Censores quinque, omnes benevolos, omnes erga doctrinam Augustini, quam defendere se profitetur, in primis affectos; atque in his tres Thomisticæ scholæ, pro cujus dogmatis invidiam se pati queritur, sectatores ac vindices oppidò strenuos. Non propterea dissidimus, æquissimi Censores, de eventu causæ hujus. Imo facit eximia de vestra in- tegritate expectatio, ut nonnullas Informationes transmittere non pigeat, ad earum normam quæ in simili prorsus negotio, dum Iansenii liber exami- naretur, tam gratæ, tam probatæ fuerunt doctissimis illis ab Apostolicâ pariter Sede delectis Censoribus, quorum memoria in benedictione est. [Informatio de v. Proposit. auth. Fr. Annato.] Optatissimum quippe debet vobis esse ut ex ipsis, qui præcipuè Noritii libro commoti sunt, Ultramontanis Theologis in- telligatis quid eos tandem offendat. Idecimo lectis accuratè plurimorum è nostra Pari- siensi Facultate Doctorum animadversionibus eas ex- cerpsi & affero, non quæ historicam ad eruditionem pertineat, sed quæ ad integritate Catholicæ veritatis. Ut quid enim Noritio tam ingenuè se habenti, mole- stus esse velim. Erraverit sanè, ut errare cuique pronu[m], in recensendis historiæ monumentis, parum est, neque ob eam rem judicium instituitur, quæstio de doctrinâ inovetur, deque iis quæ cum doctrinâ connexa sunt.
Transcription: Translated (English)
selected by many Censors, chosen for this office by a special mandate of the Apostolic See: wherefore you were chosen by the Supreme Pontiff, five Theologians outstanding in every praise of learning and virtue. The message pleased prudent men. For since this book had long ago come under suspicion of error, Noritius was thought to be performing the office of a man thoroughly Catholic, who could not bear this stain, whether justly or unjustly cast upon him, especially in the office which he now holds: namely, lest the Vicar of Christ should be believed to have honored a Theologian of suspected doctrine. Nor indeed ought he to regret his decision. He obtained, as we have heard, five Censors, all well-disposed, all especially favorably inclined toward the doctrine of Augustine, which he professes to defend; and among them three followers and notably zealous champions of the Thomistic school, for whose doctrine’s sake he complains that he suffers ill will. For this reason we do not differ, most equitable Censors, as to the outcome of this cause. Indeed, the excellent expectation of your integrity leads me to transmit certain Informations, drawn according to the norm of those which, in a completely similar matter, when Jansenius’s book was examined, were so acceptable and so approved by those most learned Censors chosen likewise by the Apostolic See, whose memory is in blessing. [Information on the 5 propositions approved by Fr. Annat.] For it ought to be most welcome to you to learn, from the very Ultramontane Theologians who were chiefly moved by Noritius’s book, what at last displeases them. Therefore, having carefully read the remarks of many Doctors from our Faculty of Paris, I have selected and offer these, not as concerning historical learning, but as concerning the integrity of Catholic truth. For why should I wish to be troublesome to Noritius, who is so frank in his conduct? Surely he has erred, as it is easy for anyone to err in reviewing the monuments of history; but for that reason no judgment is passed, no question of doctrine is raised anew, nor of those things which are connected with doctrine.
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-03.png
Transcription: ATR-1
Capita singula singulis Epistolis comprehendam, ac videar volumen scripsisse. II §. I. Exponitur doctrina Noritii. A Ngit nos primum ac præcipuè Noritii cum Iausenio affinitas tanta, ut dogma unius nec- dum possimus discernere ab alterius dogmate. Rem clarè propono. Docet Noritius hæc quinque. 1. Transgressorem legis reum esse peccati tametsi negata fuerit ipsi gratia proximè sufficiens qua posset exequi mandatum. 2. Tali auxilio proximè sufficiente privari, etiam justos, tum cum urget observatio alicujus mandati, quod non potest impleri sine gratiâ. 3. Vi talis privationis contingere ut reprobus, etiam postquam justificatus fuit, perseverare non possit in acceptâ justitiâ. 4. Remane re tunc in eo, velut in singulis peccatoribus fidelibus, infidelibusque, solam observandæ legis potentiam remotam, quæ ut in proximam mutetur, penes eos non est, Deo remotam solùm dante, proximam non offerente. 5. Privationem ejusmodi nullius plerumque actualis peccati poenam esse, sed originaliis solius. Noritii verba super unoquoque articulo in promptu sunt ex Vindiciis petita. Numerabo paginas Editionis Patavinæ anni 1673. I. Transgressorem legis reum esse peccati, tametsi negata fuerit ipsi gratia proximè sufficiens qua posset exequi mandatum. VERBA NORITII. Lex non infert potentiam proximam voluntà, A ij
Transcription: Translated (English)
I will comprise each matter in separate letters, and it may seem that I have written a volume. II §. I. The doctrine of Noritius is set forth. I am first and chiefly moved by the kinship of Noritius with Jansenio so great that we can scarcely distinguish the doctrine of the one from the doctrine of the other. I state the matter clearly. Noritius teaches these five points. 1. That a transgressor of the law is guilty of sin even though there has been denied to him the grace proximely sufficient by which he could carry out the command. 2. That by such proximate-sufficient aid even the just are deprived, at the very time when the observance of some command is required, which cannot be fulfilled without grace. 3. That by force of such deprivation it comes about that the reprobate, even after he has been justified, is unable to persevere in the justice he has received. 4. That then there remains in him, as in individual faithful and unfaithful sinners, only the remote power of observing the law, which, in order to be changed into a proximate one, is not in their power, since God gives only the remote, not offering the proximate. 5. That such deprivation is for the most part not the punishment of any actual sin, but of original sin alone. The words of Noritius on each article are ready at hand, taken from the Vindiciae. I shall number the pages of the Patavian edition of the year 1673. I. That a transgressor of the law is guilty of sin, even though there has been denied to him the grace proximely sufficient by which he could carry out the command. THE WORDS OF NORITIUS. The law does not confer proximate power on the will, A ij
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-04.png
Transcription: ATR-1
4 tis faciendi quod jubetur, & ex consequenti non " habet annexam gratiam proximè sufficientem ad " faciendum opus imperatum. pag. 89. " Ex his colligitur quomodo Insideles peccent " non observando legem, quandoquidem sine fide " manent tantùm sub lege præcipiente, non sub " gratiâ proximè adjuvante. pag. 90. " Etenim licet quis sit fidelis non habet singulis " momentis præsens auxilium proximè sufficiens " ad orandum. pag. 89. " Ostendimus non duriùs loqui (Augustinum) " qui asserat in hypothesi quòd lex sola jubeat, nec " gratia proximè sufficiens adsit, legem eandem " obligare, & transgressorem reum esse peccati. p. 91. " Unde opera quæ Insideles faciunt, sunt semper " peccata. p. 90. I I. Tali auxilio proximè sufficiente privari etiam Justos, tum cum urget observatio alicujus mandati, quod non potest impleri sine gratiâ. VERBA NORITII. " Asserimus Deum immediatè damnare poenâ æter- " nâ hominem ob peccata actualia in quæ incidit " ob impotentiam perseverandi, seu ob privationem " potentiæ proximè expeditæ ad perseverandum, " quæ est poena humanæ naturæ relicta ad ago- " nem. pag. 137. " Ipse & sibi & toti generi humano subsecuto ta- " lis potentiæ privationem inrulit (Adamus) cujus oc- " casione tanta crimina committuntur. p. 136. 137. " Homo enim justificatus, si tentatione gravi " pulsetur & stet sub privatione potentiæ proximè " expeditæ ad perseverandum, infallibiliter suc- " cumbet, ni Deus speciali auxilio donet vim perse- " verandi: quod auxiliu cum ex primo peccato non " debeatur homini, justè à Deo negari potest. p. 134. III. Vi talis privationis contingere ut reprobus etiam
Transcription: Translated (English)
4 is to do what is commanded, and consequently does not " have annexed to it grace next-sufficient for " performing the commanded work. p. 89. " From these things it is gathered how unbelievers sin " by not observing the law, since without faith " they remain only under the commanding law, not under " grace next assisting. p. 90. " For although one be faithful, he does not at every " moment have present help next-sufficient " for praying. p. 89. " We have shown that Augustine does not speak more harshly, " who asserts that, in the hypothesis that the law alone commands, and no " next-sufficient grace is present, the same law " binds, and the transgressor is guilty of sin. p. 91. " Hence the works which unbelievers do are always " sins. p. 90. II. To be deprived of such next-sufficient help even the righteous, namely when the observance of some commandment presses upon them, which cannot be fulfilled without grace. THE WORDS OF NORITIUS. " We assert that God immediately condemns to eternal " punishment a man on account of actual sins into which he falls " because of impotence to persevere, or because of the deprivation of the " power next-adapted for persevering, which is the punishment of human nature left to " struggle. p. 137. " Adam himself inflicted the deprivation of such power on himself and on the whole human race that followed, " on whose account so many crimes are committed. p. 136, 137. " For a justified man, if he be attacked by a severe temptation " and remain under deprivation of the power next " adapted for persevering, will infallibly succumb, " unless God grant by a special help the strength of persevering: which help, " since by reason of the first sin it is not due to man, " may justly be denied by God. p. 134. III. By force of such deprivation it happens that even a reprobate
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-05.png
Transcription: ATR-1
postquam justificatus fuit, perseverare non possit in acceptâ justitiâ. VERBA NORITII. Præter ea quæ lecta sunt superiore articulo duos expedit hîc adjici Noritii textus, quibus magis mentem suam exponit. Objiciunt plures, qui licet peccatum originale in iis quibus non est remissum, concedant esse sufficiens motivum reprobationis, in baptisatis tamen id nullo modo dici posse existimant. Hoc argumentum pariter Semi-peiagiani contra sanctum Augustinum adducebant... Respondeo peccatum originale intulisse poenas proprias ipsius naturæ, & has per baptismum non remitti, quarum præcipuæ sunt concupiscentia, & privatio potentiæ proximè expeditæ ad perseverandum in acceptâ justitiâ: & sic nihil damnationis remanet in baptisato, prout damnatio culpam significat, non verò prout dicit poenam, pag. 137. Catholicum est dicere secundum Patres Africanos Esaui originali peccato detentum justo judicio Dei odio esse habitum. At Esaui non est detentus originali peccato secundum reatum. p. 134. IV. Remanere tunc in eo, sicut & in singulis peccatoribus, fidelibus infidelibusque solam observandæ legis potentiam remotam; quæ ut in proximam mutetur penes eos non est, Deo solam remotam dante, proximam non offerente. VERBA NORITII. Homo ex peccato originali incidit in privationem gratiæ sanctificantis, & in privationem potentiæ proximè expeditæ ad perseverandum in senel acceptâ gratiâ justificante: quæ privationes cum respiciaut diversas formas, diversæ etiam sunt inter se, & una sine alterâ donari à Deo potest. pag. 132. 133. De auxiliis remotis locutum arbitror eundem A iij
Transcription: Translated (English)
after he has been justified, he cannot persevere in the justice he has received. WORDS OF NORITIUS. Besides the passages already read in the preceding article, it will be useful here to add two texts of Noritius, in which he explains his mind more fully. Many object that, although they concede that original sin, in those in whom it has not been remitted, is a sufficient motive for reprobation, they nevertheless think that this can by no means be said of the baptized. The same argument the Semi-Pelagians likewise brought against Saint Augustine... I reply that original sin has brought in punishments proper to nature itself, and that these are not remitted by baptism; the chief of them are concupiscence and the loss of the power immediately prepared for persevering in the justice received: and thus nothing of damnation remains in the baptized person, insofar as damnation signifies guilt, but not insofar as it denotes punishment, p. 137. It is Catholic to say, according to the African Fathers, that Esau, held fast by original sin, was by the just judgment of God counted as hateful. But Esau was not held fast by original sin according to guilt. p. 134. IV. Then there remains in him, as also in all sinners, believers and unbelievers alike, only the remote power of keeping the law; and to have this changed into a proximate power is not in their own control, God alone giving the remote, and not offering the proximate. WORDS OF NORITIUS. Man, from original sin, falls into the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and into the deprivation of the power immediately prepared for persevering in the once received justifying grace: and since these privations regard different forms, they are also different from each other, and one can be granted by God without the other. p. 132, 133. I think the same man was speaking of remote aids A iij
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-06.png
Transcription: ATR-1
, sanctum Doctorem in libro de Dono perseverantiæ c.9. ubi ait, ex duobus etate jam grandibus , impiis cur iste ita vocetur, ut vocantem sequatur, , ille autem, aut non vocetur ut vocantem sequatur, , aut non ita vocetur ut vocantem sequatur, inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei. Vocatio illius qui non sequitur, est per auxilium debile & remotum. p.92. , Itaque cum Augustinus gratiam dicit movere , indeclinabiliter, de congruâ & efficaci accipiendus , est: ar cum cuidam gratiæ nostram libertatem , resistere tradit, de alterâ gratiæ specie debili, in- , congruâ, & remotè sufficienti loquitur. p.18. , Idem est quod dicebam subjisse nos privationem , potentia proximè expeditæ ad perseverandum, , quæ non aufertur uisi speciali auxilio Dei. p.134. Illud verò auxilium speciale id est efficax supra declaravit passim non esse in nostra potestate: præsertim ubi dicit impotentiam legis observandæ propter gratiæ defectum, minimè excusare, cum orta sit ex peccato originali. V. Privationem ejusmodi nullius plerumque actualis peccati poenam esse, sed originalis solius. VERBA NORITII. Relata jam sunt in hanc sententiam verba quàm plurima: addo tamen alia. , Per gratiam sanctificantem, non tollitur ipsa , privatio potentiæ proximè expeditæ ad perseverandum. Hæc verò privatio est in poenam primi , peccati. pag. 132. 133. , Nam baptisatus cum primùm lethaliter peccavit, caruit dono perseverantiæ in bono semel , accepto: ergo in poenam peccati originalis fuit , à Deo denegatum. Nota de industriâ hîc confundi Donum perseverantiæ finalis quæ est gratia bonæ & opportunæ mortis in domino, cum potentiâ perseverandi in justitia per auxilium sufficiens ad hoc, quod nunc
Transcription: Translated (English)
, the holy Doctor in the book On the Gift of Perseverance, ch. 9, where he says, of two et ceteris being already grown old , why the impious one is called in this way, so that he follows the one calling, , while the other, either is not called so as to follow the one calling, , or is not called in such a way as to follow the one calling, the judgments of God are inscrutable. The calling of him who does not follow is through weak and remote help. p. 92. , Thus when Augustine says that grace moves , infallibly, it must be understood of congruous and efficacious grace; but when he teaches that our liberty can resist a certain grace, he is speaking of another kind of grace, weak, in- congruous, and remotely sufficient. p. 18. , The same is what I said: that there is in us a deprivation of a power near at hand and ready for persevering, which is not taken away except by the special help of God. p. 134. That special help, that is, the efficacious one, he has shown everywhere above not to be in our power: especially where he says that the inability to observe the law because of a deficiency of grace does not in the least excuse, since it has arisen from original sin. V. That such a deprivation is usually the penalty of no actual sin, but of original sin alone. WORDS OF NORITUS. Already very many words have been quoted in support of this opinion: nevertheless I add others. , By sanctifying grace, the deprivation itself of the power near at hand and ready for persevering is not taken away. But this deprivation is a penalty of the first sin. pp. 132, 133. , For when the baptized person first sinned mortally, he lacked the gift of perseverance in the good once received: therefore it was denied by God as a penalty of original sin. Note that here the Gift of final perseverance is deliberately confused, which is grace of a good and timely death in the Lord, with the power of persevering in righteousness through sufficient help for this, which now
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-07.png
Transcription: ATR-1
urget, præceptum adimplendum. Nam, ut supra inferebam, pe: missio primi peccati actualis sit justo judicio Dei negantis donum per- severantiæ in bono justitiæ per baptismum acce- p[er]e. At ex Augustino illud donum negatur in poenam peccati: non actualis (nam de primo actuali loquor) ergo in poenam originalis. p. 134. Igitur præcipuæ poenæ relictæ ex peccato ori- ginali sunt concupiscentia & privatio potentia proximè expeditæ ad perseverandum. ibid. Hinc quæcumque contra hanc privationem ob- jici solent, eodem prorsus modo solvenda sunt ac illa quæ contra poenalitatem concupiscentiæ Pe- lagiani Augustino olim opponebant. pag. 135. §. II. Explicatur magis ista Noritii doctrina. Minimè reprehendi posset Noritius, si præcisè contenderet aliquos peccare transgrediendo legem, licet ad eam servandam, non actu receperint auxilium proximè sufficiens. Id enim verum est de pluribus, non solùm Infidelibus, sed etiam fidelibus, imo & de justis, & ideo sancta sedes Apostolica hæ- reticam declaravit Iansenii propositionem primam non quia simpliciter asserit aliqua Dei præcepta justis &c. esse impossibilia, sed quia addit, deesse quo- que gratiam quâ possibilia fiant. At idem planè docet Noritius: siquidem gratiam proximè sufficientem quâ mandata verè & imme- diatè possibilia fiant, non tantùm vult aliquando non recipi, sed verè & propriè à Deo negari, adeo ut Iustus urgente mandato neque gratiam proximè sufficientem habeat, neque modum illius obtinendæ. Nimirum sic expressè asserit verbis toties ab eo repetitis, Privatio potentia proximè expedita ad per- severandum stat cum gratiâ sanctificante: Privatio A iiiij
Transcription: Translated (English)
urges, to be carried out. For, as I was saying above, the remission of the first actual sin is by the just judgment of God, who denies the gift of perseverance in goodness to the one who has received it through baptism. But from Augustine that gift is denied in punishment for sin: not for actual sin (for I am speaking of the first actual sin), therefore as punishment for original sin. p. 134. Therefore the principal punishments left from original sin are concupiscence and the privation of the power immediately suited to persevering. ibid. Hence whatever objections are usually brought against this privation, must be answered in precisely the same way as those which the Pelagians once raised against Augustine concerning the penal character of concupiscence. p. 135. §. II. Noritius’s doctrine is explained more fully. Noritius could hardly be criticized if he were precisely to maintain that some sin by transgressing the law, although, in order to observe it, they have not actually received the proximate sufficient help. For this is true of many, not only unbelievers, but also the faithful, indeed even of the just; and therefore the Apostolic Holy See declared Jansenius’s first proposition heretical not because it simply asserts that certain commands of God are impossible to the just, etc., but because it adds that the grace by which they are made possible is also lacking. But Noritius plainly teaches the same: since the grace proximately sufficient by which commands become truly and immediately possible, he not only says is sometimes not received, but is truly and properly denied by God, so that the just man, under the pressure of the command, has neither the grace proximally sufficient, nor the means of obtaining it. Indeed he expressly asserts this in the words repeated by him so often: The privation of the power immediately suited to persevering stands with sanctifying grace: Privation A iiiij
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-08.png
Transcription: ATR-1
hujus tam magni beneficii causa est damnationis illaciva. In peccata actualia incidit homo ob privationem potentia proximè expedita ad perseverandum. Dicebam subjisse nos privationem potentia proximè expedita. Infinitus sim si aggrediar recensere textus omnes ubi ab eo asseritur hominem privari potentiâ proximè expeditâ, gratiâ proximè sufficiente. At enim quomodo privari diceretur si Deus eam offerret, si peneshominem esset eam obtinere. Neque enim privamur eo omni quod abest, sed eo quod volumus nec possumus habere: atque hoc ut verum non esset de cæteris privationibus, certè privatio gratia nunquam intellecta fuit nisi de eo, cui nolit Deus illam conferre, nec de ullo sumitur pro qualibet gratiæ absentiâ, sed pro absentia cum impotentia obtinendi. Velut privari luce dicitur, non quicunque eam non videt, sed qui nec videt, nec videre potest. Nam qui lubens volensque claudit oculos lucente sole is privari luce non dicitur, quia penes eum est ut aspiciat. Ille itaque solus dicitur privari auxilio proximè sufficiente penes quem non est illud obtinere. Id clariùs adhuc patet ex ratione quam Noritius affert privationis hujus. Si enim penes hominem saltem justum fuit obtinere auxilium proximè sufficiens, cur ad peccatum originale, non verò ad peccatoris negligentiam recurritur ut gratia probetur non injustè, sed meritò subtracta; imo cur disertè asseritur, citra ullam personalem Iusti culpam talem privationem incurri, & ex illa peccatum? Apertè itaque docet Noritius justum urgente mandato neque gratiam habere proximè sufficientem, neque modum hujus obtinendæ. Hæc verò doctrina est quæ grave uobis scandalum affert. NORITII SENSUS DE GRATIA remotè sufficienti. Verùm, inquies, admittit Noritius potentiam remotam, auxilium remotè sufficiens.
Transcription: Translated (English)
the cause of so great a benefit is the damnation of sin which ensnares. A man falls into actual sins because of the deprivation of a power proximately suited to perseverance. I said that we are subject to the deprivation of a power proximately suited. I would be endless if I were to undertake to recite all the texts whereby it is asserted that man is deprived of a power proximately suited, of grace proximately sufficient. But how would one be said to be deprived if God were to offer it, if it were within man's power to obtain it? For we are not deprived of everything that is absent, but of that which we desire and yet cannot have; and although this would not be true of the other privations, certainly the deprivation of grace has never been understood except of one to whom God is unwilling to confer it, and it is not taken in any case for any mere absence of grace, but for absence together with inability to obtain it. Just as one is said to be deprived of light, not everyone who does not see it, but he who neither sees it nor can see it. For he who willingly and deliberately closes his eyes while the sun is shining is not said to be deprived of light, because it is within his power to look. Therefore that man alone is said to be deprived of the help proximately sufficient, for whom it is not within his power to obtain it. This is made even clearer from the reason Noritius gives for this deprivation. For if it was at least within the power of a just man to obtain the help proximately sufficient, why is recourse had to original sin, and not rather to the sinner's negligence, in order to show that grace was withdrawn not unjustly but deservedly; indeed, why is it expressly asserted that, without any personal fault of the Just Man, such a deprivation is incurred, and from it sin? Noritius therefore openly teaches that a just man, under the urgency of a command, neither has grace proximately sufficient, nor the means of obtaining it. But this doctrine is what gives us grave scandal. NORITIUS'S VIEW ON REMOTELY SUFFICIENT GRACE. But, you will say, Noritius admits a remote power, a help remotely sufficient.
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-09.png
Transcription: ATR-1
9 Admittit sanè, at quale Iansenius, non quale Orthodoxi. Hi quippe remotam ac mediatam vincendæ tentationis potentiam appellant, quæ sit proxima, & immediata potentia sive orandi, sive jejunandi, aut cujuscumque alterius actus exercendi, qui sit idoneus ad obtinendum infallibiliter auxilium proximè sufficiens. Et hanc quam uno nomine dicunt, puta orat onis gratiam, idcirco appellant remotam ac mediatam respectu finis, seu tentationis vincendæ, quia est proxima respectu medii ad hunc finem conducentis, id est respectu orationis, quâ mediante obtineretur proxima & immediata potestas vincendæ tentationis. Hæc cu[m] certa sint apud omnes cujuscumque scholæ Catholicos Doctores, adeo tamen distant à Noritiano dogmate, ut directè opposita ipse contendat. Ac primò negat Infidelibus adesse gratiam orationis aut ullum modum impetrandi auxilii proximè sufficientis, neque enim ullum agnoscit seclusâ fide, quâ illi carent, vult tamen eos non excusari, quia habent, inquit, auxilia quædam remota. p. 89. 90. Ecce per auxilia remota negat intelligi à se gratiam proximè sufficientem sive ad orandum, sive ad impetrandum auxilium immediatè sufficiens observandæ legi. Igitur quidquid intelligat per gratiam quam ipsi appellare libuit remotè sufficientem, aliud planè intelligit ac Catholici Doctores. Dicit nihilominus per suam illam gratiam remotè sufficientem inexcusabiles reddi transgressiones legis; quod si verum est, valet perinde sive in Infidelibus, sive in Fidelibus & justis, cum una sit quantum ad hoc omnium ratio. Imo eodem in loco Noritius justos, quos habere contendit gratiam illam suam remotè sufficientem, dicit, non habere in singulis momentis præsens auxilium proximè sufficiens ad orandum, quod quidem verum est de momentis quibus præceptum non urget, at hic erat quæstio de præcepto urgente. Hoc itaque rursus loco innuit nolle se per gratiam
Transcription: Translated (English)
9 He certainly admits it, but not in the way of Jansenius, but not in the way of the Orthodox. For these call the power of overcoming temptation “remote and mediate,” which is the proximate and immediate power either of praying, or of fasting, or of exercising any other act that is fit to obtain infallibly the aid which is proximally sufficient. And this, which they call by one name, namely the grace of prayer, they therefore call remote and mediate with respect to the end, that is, the overcoming of temptation, because it is proximate with respect to the means leading to this end, that is, with respect to prayer, by which, as intermediary, there would be obtained the proximate and immediate power of overcoming temptation. Although these things are certain among Catholic Doctors of every school, they are nonetheless so far removed from the Noritian doctrine that he himself maintains the direct opposite. And first he denies that unbelievers have the grace of prayer or any means of obtaining proximate sufficient aid; for apart from faith, which they lack, he recognizes no means, yet he wishes them not to be excused, because they have, he says, certain remote aids. p. 89. 90. Behold, by remote aids he denies that he understands the grace which is proximally sufficient, either for praying, or for obtaining aid immediately sufficient for observing the law. Therefore, whatever he may understand by the grace which he has been pleased to call remotely sufficient, he clearly understands something different from Catholic Doctors. Nevertheless, he says that by his own grace, remotely sufficient, transgressions of the law are rendered inexcusable; and if this is true, the same holds whether in unbelievers or in believers and the just, since the reasoning in this respect is the same for all. Indeed, in the same place Noritius, speaking of the just, whom he maintains have that grace of his remotely sufficient, says that they do not have, in each and every moment, a present aid proximally sufficient for praying, which certainly is true of those moments when the command does not press; but here the question was about a pressing command. Thus, in this place too, he indicates again that he does not wish, by grace
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-10.png
Transcription: ATR-1
10 remotè sufficientem, seu fidelibus, seu Infidelibus concessam intelligi gratiam ad orandum proximè sufficientem, per quam obtineri possit auxilium proximè & immediatè sufficiens tentationi vincendæ. Præterea gratiam cui resistitur declarat esse duntaxat remotè sufficientem: quibus verbis apertè demonstrat Justos qui urgente tentatione orare negligunt, non habere gratiam proximè sufficientem ad orandum sicut oportet: si enim haberent, non ei resisterent, ut ipse contendit, orarent ergo & exaudirentur, sicque non decesset illis auxilium proximè sufficiens vincendæ tentationi, at non orant, unde nec habent auxilium proximè sufficiens ad oradum. Tertiò dicit hominem baptisatum cum primum peccavit caruisse potentia proximè expedita ad perseverandum; at quandonam primum peccavit, nisi quando tentatione pressus ad Deum non recurrit, siquidem tunc maximè urgebat præceptum orationis? Quæro igitur de Noritio eratue tunc justus ille præditus potentiâ proximè expeditâ ad orandum? Dicere non potest, quin directè pugnet contra suam Thesim; adeo manifestè excludit ab homine gratiam orationis, & aliam omnem per quam proximè possit pervenire ad auxilium immediatè sufficiens tentationis vincendæ. Quartò si nomine auxilii remoti Noritius intelligeret gratiam proximè sufficientem ad orandum, vel ad agendum id ex quo infallibiliter sequatur collatio auxilii immediatè sufficientis, cur & quo modo passim docet Iustum, de quo sermo nunc est, privari potentiâ proximè expeditâ ad perseverandum, privari verò in poenam non actualis peccati ullius, sed originalis duntaxat? Neque enim, ut jam fusè demonstratum est privari homo dicitur ea re quam in ejus potestate est habere. Et idcirco de tot Catholicis Doctoribus qui negant auxilium proximè sufficiens conferri cuilibet transgressori legis, nullus à me inventus est qui talem absentiam ap-
Transcription: Translated (English)
10 remote sufficient, or understood as grace granted to believers or unbelievers, sufficient in a near sense for praying, through which the help immediately sufficient for overcoming temptation may be obtained. Moreover, he declares grace to which resistance is made to be only remotely sufficient: by these words he clearly shows that the righteous, who through negligence do not pray when temptation presses upon them, do not have grace proximely sufficient for praying as they ought; for if they had it, they would not resist it, as he maintains; therefore they would pray and would be heard, and thus the help proximely sufficient for overcoming temptation would not fail them; but they do not pray, whence they also do not have help proximely sufficient for praying. Thirdly, he says that a baptized man, when he first sinned, lacked a proximely ready power to persevere; but when did he first sin, unless when, pressed by temptation, he did not turn back to God, since then especially the command of prayer was pressing? I therefore ask of Noritius: was that righteous man then endowed with a proximely ready power for praying? He cannot say no, without directly fighting against his own thesis; so clearly does he exclude from man the grace of prayer, and every other grace by which he may proximely be able to attain the help immediately sufficient for overcoming temptation. Fourthly, if by the name of remote help Noritius understood grace proximely sufficient for praying, or for doing that from which the granting of help immediately sufficient would infallibly follow, why and in what way does he everywhere teach that the righteous man, of whom the present discussion is, is deprived of a proximely ready power to persevere, and deprived as punishment not for any actual sin, but for original sin alone? For, as has now been fully shown, a man is not said to be deprived of that which it is in his power to have. And therefore, among so many Catholic Doctors who deny that proximely sufficient help is conferred on every transgressor of the law, I have found none who would
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-11.png
Transcription: ATR-1
11 pellaret privationem: siquidem, inquiunt, penes eum fuit, ut haberet, nisi forte quando dicunt privari hominem auxilio hic & nunc necessario in poenam alicujus actualis peccati præcedentis, puta homo urgente tentatione privatur gratia, quia orare neglexit. At non ita Noritius, imo expressè vult Iustum sufficienti gratiâ & potestate proximè expedita privari, non propter ullam præcedentem culpam, sed propter solum originale peccatum, quantumlibet jam remissum. Quibus verbis clarè docet de tali justo dici non posse quod orare neglexerit, quod non benè usus sit potestate remotâ, quod aliquâ personali culpâ semetipsum privaverit auxilio immediato. Idem planè est ac si dicat Noritius justo huic non tantùm defuisse gratiam resistendi, sed & omnem gratiam orandi ut oportet. Ut quid enim si gratiam orandi accepit, non propter orandi negligentiam, sed propter originale peccatum solum privari dicitur auxilio proximè sufficiente, ut quid ad originale jam condonatum recurritur modo tam novo & Catholicis exoso. Fac Noritius, cupio enim illum nihil nisi Catholicum sensisse, gratiam remotam eodem modo intelligat ac reliqui orthodoxi, quare ne verbo quidem ostendit id quod tantoperè ad rem præsentem pertinebat, quodque Orthodoxi scriptores ad unum omnes tam amplè, tam sollicitè in præsenti argumento demonstrant, justum hunc non quidem habuisse vincendæ tentationis potentiam proximam, sed habuisse proximam orandi vel agendi aliquid aliud ex quo infallibiliter securura fuisset potentia proxima vincendæ tentationis, proindeque suâ propriâ negligentiâ privari tali auxilio quod sibi â Deo præparatum fuerat, penes eum fuisse ut illud obtineret &c. vel silere de his, præsertim hoc tempore, scandali plena res est, at non silet modo Noritius: docet planè contraria, hæc duo scilicet quibus sua omnis superiùs explicata doctrina cōtinetur.
Transcription: Translated (English)
11 They may call it a deprivation; for, they say, it was in his power to have it, unless perhaps when they say that a man is deprived of the help here and now necessary as a punishment for some preceding actual sin, as when, for example, a man under the pressure of temptation is deprived of grace because he neglected to pray. But Noritius does not say this; rather, he expressly wants the just man to be deprived of sufficient grace and of power immediately at hand, not because of any preceding fault, but because of original sin alone, however much already remitted. By these words he clearly teaches that it cannot be said of such a just man that he neglected to pray, that he did not make good use of remote power, or that by some personal fault he deprived himself of immediate help. This is plainly as if Noritius were saying that this just man lacked not only the grace to resist, but also every grace to pray as he ought. For if he received the grace to pray, why is he said to be deprived of proximate sufficient help, not on account of negligence in praying, but on account of original sin alone? Why is recourse made to original sin now already forgiven, and in so new a manner and one so hateful to Catholics? Assume, Noritius—for I desire that he meant nothing but what is Catholic—that he understands remote grace in the same way as the rest of the orthodox; why then does he not show, even by a word, that which was so greatly relevant to the present matter, and which orthodox writers without exception so fully, so carefully demonstrate in the present argument: namely, that this just man did not indeed have proximate power to overcome temptation, but did have proximate power to pray or to do something else, from which he would infallibly have secured the proximate power to overcome temptation; and therefore that by his own negligence he was deprived of that help which had been prepared for him by God, and it was in his power to obtain it, etc.? Or else to be silent on these matters, especially at this time, is a thing full of scandal; but Noritius is not silent now: he plainly teaches the contrary, namely these two points by which his whole doctrine explained above is maintained.
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-12.png
Transcription: ATR-1
12 1. Gratiam, sicui resistit quisquis mandatum trans- greditur, esse tantum remotè sufficientem. 2. Proximè sufficienté negari à Deo, & negari præcisè propter Adami peccatu quantumlibet jam remissum. Non aliud putaverat Antonius Arnaldus quando nostræ Facultatis Iudicio doctrinæ illius hæretica appellata est, & ipse quod eâ retractare nollet à sacra Facultate ejectus, ac ejus scripta in defensionem talis doctrinæ à Sancta Sede damnata sunt: quippe ubi semel negas auxilium quodvis proximè sufficiens ab efficaci distinctum, simul negas justo, quoties cadit, adesse auxilium proximè sufficiens etiam ad orandum, quæ est prima è damnatis Iansenii propositionibus. Ea propter tantâ solemnitate à nobis proscriptus est Arnaldus, cujus proscriptioni Baccalaurei omnes hodieque subscribere jubentur. Noritius porrò ejusdem esse sententiæ, neque ullum prorsus agnoscere auxilium proximè sufficiens ab efficaci distinctum, vel eo rursus patet; quòd gratiæ efficaci solam opponit remotè sufficientem. Repeto ipsius verba. Cum Augustinus gratiam dicit movere indeclinabiliter, de congruâ & efficaci accipiendus est. At cum cuidam gratiæ nostram libertatem resistere tradit, de altera gratiæ specie debili & incongrua, & remotè sufficienti loquitur. Notanda sunt hæc verba, cum cuidam gratiæ nostram libertatem resistere tradit, de alterâ gratiæ specie debili, incongruâ & remotè sufficienti loquitur. Qui enim dicit nomine gratiæ cui resistitur intelligi debere gratiam remotè sufficientem; idem prorsus est ac si neget proximè sufficienti quem quam resistere: idem est ac si dicat nullam esse proximè sufficientem quæ non sit efficax. Id verò multò adhuc, clariùs patet ex hoc quod alibi adjungit, nempe justum eo ipso quod speciali, hoc est efficaci auxilio destituitur remanere privatum potentiâ proximè expeditâ, ad resistendum ten-
Transcription: Translated (English)
12 1. That grace against which whoever transgresses the commandment resists, is only remotely sufficient. 2. That proximate sufficiency is denied by God, and denied precisely because of Adam’s sin, however much now remitted. Antonio Arnauld thought nothing else when, by the judgment of our Faculty, that doctrine was called heretical, and he himself, because he would not retract it, was expelled by the Sacred Faculty, and his writings in defense of such doctrine were condemned by the Holy See: for once you deny any proximate-sufficient help distinct from efficacious help, you at the same time deny that to the just man, whenever he falls, there is present proximate-sufficient help even for praying, which is the first of Jansenius’s condemned propositions. For this reason Arnauld was proscribed by us with so great a solemnity, and all Bachelors are even today ordered to subscribe to that proscription. Noricius likewise is plainly of the same opinion, and acknowledges no proximate-sufficient help at all distinct from efficacious help; this too is evident from the fact that he opposes to efficacious grace only a remotely sufficient grace. I repeat his own words. When Augustine says that grace moves infallibly, he must be understood of congruous and efficacious grace. But when he declares that our free will resists a certain grace, he is speaking of another kind of grace, weak and incongruous, and remotely sufficient. These words are to be noted: when he says that our free will resists a certain grace, he is speaking of another kind of grace, weak, incongruous, and remotely sufficient. For whoever says that by the name of grace which is resisted must be understood remotely sufficient grace is saying precisely the same thing as if he denied that anyone resists a proximate-sufficient grace: it is the same as if he were to say that there is no proximate-sufficient grace that is not efficacious. And that is much more clearly shown by what he adds elsewhere, namely, that the just man, by the very fact that he is deprived of a special, that is, efficacious help, remains deprived of a proximate capacity ready at hand for resisting ten-
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-13.png
Transcription: ATR-1
tationi, eamque privationem esse poenam originalis peccati quantumlibet jam remissi. Homo enim justificatus, si tentatione gravi pul- setur, & stet sub privatione potentiæ proximè ex- peditæ ad perseverandum, infallibiliter succumbet, nisi Deus speciali auxilio donet vim perseverandi, quod auxilium, cum ex primo peccato non debea- tur homini, justè à Deo negari potest. p. 134. Hæc sunt si Noritio credimus ipsa Augustini dogmata semipelagianis primùm, nunc quibusdam recentioribus exosa; interim tamen Ecclesiæ totius oraculo consecrata, quippe quæ fideles ad Augustinum remittat in quæstionibus de gratia. Utrum Iansenio potior Interpres Augustini fuerit Noritius, judicari potest ex testimonio Scholæ Thomisticæ, cujus Doctores minimè debent esse suspecti. 5. III. Quid sentiant Celeberrimi Schola Thomistica Doctores de præsenti doctrina. Huic judicio debet præire disquisitio duplex. 1. Quid intelligent Thomistæ nomine gratiæ præsentis. 2. quid nomine gratiæ sufficientis. I. Quid sit secundum Thomistas habere gratiam præsentem. Celeberrimus inter ipsos Nazarius super ea re lo- quitur in hunc modum: 1. p. q. 2 3. art. 3. Conc. 4. Sufficientia divini auxilii non in eo posita est, ut qui habet auxilium sufficiens, actu habeat omnia doua & intrinseca auxilia ad eam piam actionem, ad quam dirigitur auxilium necessaria: sed satis est ut habeat illa non quidem in sua potestate, sed ex divina largitate, & bonitate veluti assistente parata & præsentanea adeo, ut si divinæ gratiæ non defuerit, sit illa omnia opportuno tépore receptur. Idem est igitur Nazario quantum ad præsens nego-
Transcription: Translated (English)
that temptation, and that deprivation is the punishment of original sin, however much it has already been remitted. For a justified man, if he is pressed by a severe temptation, and stands under the deprivation of the power nearly at hand for persevering, he will infallibly fall, unless God grants by special help the strength to persevere; which help, since it is not owed to man on account of the first sin, can justly be denied by God. p. 134. These are, if we believe Noritius, the very dogmas of Augustine, first hateful to the Semipelagians, now to certain more recent writers; nevertheless, in the meantime, consecrated by the oracle of the whole Church, since it refers the faithful to Augustine in questions about grace. Whether Noritius was a better interpreter of Augustine than Jansenio, may be judged from the testimony of the Thomistic School, whose Doctors ought in no way to be suspect. 5. III. What the Most Famous Doctors of the Thomistic School think about the present doctrine. To this judgment a twofold inquiry must precede. 1. What the Thomists understand by the name of present grace. 2. What they understand by the name of sufficient grace. I. What it is, according to the Thomists, to have present grace. Among them the most famous, Nazarius, speaks on this matter in the following manner: 1. p. q. 2 3. art. 3. Conc. 4. The sufficiency of divine help is not placed in this, that the one who has sufficient help actually has all the gifts and intrinsic helps for that pious action to which the necessary help is directed: but it is enough that he have them, not indeed in his own power, but from divine generosity and goodness, as it were assisting, ready and present, so that if he has not been wanting to divine grace, he will receive them all at the appropriate time. The same thing, therefore, is true for Nazarius as regards the presen
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-14.png
Transcription: ATR-1
14 tium dari & offerri auxilium proximè sufficiens. Illud enim censetur collatum, quod licet actu non receperim, fuit nihilominus ita sincerè præparatum oblatumque, ut nihil ex parte Dei defuerit quominus illud haberem. Perinde siquidem peccator inexcusabilis est, sive gratiæ proximè sufficienti restiterit, sive gratiam proximè sufficientem noluerit, aut certè neglexerit habere. Neque enim dici potest tali gratia fuisse privatus, cum penes eum fuerit ut illa obtineret. II. Quid intelligent Thomista nomine gratia sufficientis. Illos potissimum Thomistas adducam qui præ cæteris floruere in famosâ disputatione de auxiliis. "Didacus Alvarez. Per auxilium gratiæ sufficientis "habet voluntas potentiam proximam & facul- "tatem expeditam qua possit converti. 1. 4. n. 1. "Illud auxilium ita est sufficiens, ut nullum aliud "requiratur ad hoc ut homo dicatur posse benè "agere & salvari. Idem disp. 79. num. 3. "Antequam accedat motio efficax, est in causa secunda "potentia proxima & expedita ad operandu[m], "quia nihil requiritur ex parte ipsius potentiæ quo in "actu primo constituatur ad actualiter operandum "seu volendum: quomodo liberum arbitrium, positis "omnibus requisitis ad operandum potest "potentiâ proximâ & expeditâ operari & non operari, "velle & non velle. Idem disp. 17. "Petrus Ledesma. Certissimum est quod auxilium "sufficiens verè & propriè & in omni rigore "est sufficiens: etiamsi auxilium prædeterminans "voluntatem sit neccessarium adipsam operationem. Addit hanc esse communem sententiam omnium discipulorum sancti Thoma. Tr. de auxiliis. art. 14. "Nazarius. Auxilium itaque sufficiens totam habet & confert in ordine ad operationem sufficientiam. 1. p. q. 2 3. art. 3. controv. 2.
Transcription: Translated (English)
14 of this, and offered sufficiently near aid. For that is considered to have been conferred which, although I did not actually receive it, was nevertheless so sincerely prepared and offered that nothing on God’s part was lacking for me to have it. In like manner a sinner is inexcusable, whether he has resisted sufficient-near grace, or whether he would not, or certainly neglected to have, sufficiently near grace. Nor can it be said that he was deprived of such grace, since it was in his power to obtain it. II. What the Thomists understand by the name of sufficient grace. I shall especially cite those Thomists who flourished above the rest in the famous dispute de auxiliis. “Didacus Alvarez. By the aid of sufficient grace “the will has a proximate power and an “available faculty by which it can be converted. 1. 4. n. 1. “That aid is so sufficient that no other is “required in order that man be said to be able to “act well and be saved. Ibid. disp. 79, no. 3. “Before efficacious motion arrives, there is in the secondary cause “a proximate and ready power for acting, “because nothing is required on the part of the power itself by which it is “constituted in first act in order actually to act “or to will: just as free will, all the requisites for acting being posited, can “by proximate and ready power act and not act, “will and not will. Ibid. disp. 17. “Petrus Ledesma. It is most certain that sufficient aid “is truly and properly and in all rigor “sufficient, even if the pre-determining aid “of the will is necessary for the operation itself. “He adds that this is the common opinion “of all the disciples of Saint Thomas. Tr. de auxiliis. “art. 14. “Nazarius. Thus sufficient aid has and confers “in relation to operation all sufficiency. “1. p. q. 2 3. art. 3. controv. 2.”
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-15.png
Transcription: ATR-1
His tribus sufficiet addere unum hac nostra ætate florentissimum Thomistam. Gonet. Nomine auxilii sufficientis intelligitur id omne quod dat potentiæ totum complementum seu sufficientiam ex parte actus primi. Quam definitionem ter repetit eo loco & addit: utram que gratiam efficacem & sufficientem Schola Thomistica constanter docuit & prædicavit, ac in defesso labore ab ortu suo per quatuor sæcula non minus fortiter ac generosè pro sufficienti quam pro efficii gratiâ decertavit. Decertat Schola Thomistica pro gratiâ sufficienti, cujus proprium est dare voluntati, totam sufficientiam, totum potentiæ complementum, potentiam proximam & expeditam. Noritius contra ubique asserit privationem potentiæ proximè expeditæ ad perseverandum causam esse cur homo etiam justificatus incidat in peccata actualia propter quæ damnatur. Videant æquissimi Censores utrum Noritius admirerit, vel in justo qui tentatione urgetur, gratiam sufficientem Thomistico sensu intellectam. Equidem haud dissimulo unum alterumve Thomistam reperiri qui aliter explicent gratiam sufficientem, ac dicant per eam quidem præcisè sumptam non tribui potestatem proximam completam & immediatam vincendæ tentationis, verùm ii statim addunt tali gratiæ si non resistatur secururam infallibiliter esse gratiam efficacem, eóque sensu priorem illam sufficientem dici, quod ponat in potestate hominis habere auxilium efficax, & idcirco, inquiunt, illi attribui debet quod non convertatur, neque moveatur à Deo efficaciter quia non caret hac motione divinâ efficaci, nisi quia vel resistit liberè, vel apponit obicem, aut nihil omnino curat de illâ se divertendo, aut quia non attendit divina excitationi & vocationi, & ad quid movetur & excitatur; quia alias non di-
Transcription: Translated (English)
To these three it will suffice to add one of the most eminent Thomists of our age, Gonet. By the name of sufficient help is understood everything that gives to the power its whole complement, or sufficiency, on the part of the first act. This definition he repeats three times in that passage, and adds: the Thomistic School has constantly taught and proclaimed both efficacious grace and sufficient grace, and in its unwearied labor from its origin through four centuries has fought no less bravely and generously for sufficient grace than for efficacious grace. The Thomistic School contends for sufficient grace, whose proper office is to give to the will all sufficiency, the whole complement of the power, proximate and ready power. Noritius, on the contrary, everywhere asserts that the deprivation of proximate and ready power to persevere is the reason why even a justified man falls into actual sins because of which he is condemned. Let the most impartial censors see whether Noritius would admire, in the just man who is pressed by temptation, sufficient grace understood in the Thomistic sense. For my part I do not conceal that one may find one Thomist or another who explain sufficient grace otherwise, and say that by it, taken precisely as such, there is not given the proximate, complete, and immediate power of overcoming temptation; but they immediately add that, if resistance is not made to such grace, efficacious grace will infallibly be secured, and in that sense the former is called sufficient, because it places in man’s power the having of efficacious help; and therefore, they say, it ought to be attributed to him that he does not convert himself, nor is moved efficaciously by God, because he lacks this efficacious divine motion only because either he freely resists, or puts up an obstacle, or cares nothing at all about it, turning himself away from it, or because he does not attend to the divine excitation and calling, and to what he is being moved and stirred up for; because otherwise not di-
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-16.png
Transcription: ATR-1
16 ceretur esse possibile homini converti ad Deum vel poenitere, si neque haberet præmotionem Dei effica- ram, nec potestatem aut viam ullam habendi eam. Ita Cumel dux opinionis hujus tom. 3. disp. 4. ad 1. p. & 1. 2. sect. 2. conc. 5. pag. 68. Fal- sum est igitur etiam secundum hos alterius opi- nionis Thomistas, falsum, inquam, 1. hominem, multò magis hominem justum privari à Deo gra- tia efficaci; falsum 2. privari propter peccatum originale: siquidem defectum hunc gratiæ ex- pressè referunt ad culpam personalem, adeo ut præ- dicent mandata fore impossibilia, nullumque proinde peccatum ejus qui citra culpam persona- lem careret gratiâ efficaci. Certè Dominicus So- to cujus verba referemus infrà, defectum hunc gra- tiæ necessariæ qua privari homo dicatur propter peccatum Adæ, hæresim putat. Unde manifestè apparet quantum aberret Nori- tius à quavis Thomisticâ notione gratiæ sive pro- mè sive remotè sufficientis. III. Thomistarum judicium de duplici capite Noritiani dogmatis. Noritanum dogma reduximus ad summa duo capita. 1. Quemlibet peccantem licet justum privari à Deo gratiâ proximè sufficiente. 2. Privari in poenam peccati originalis. Utrumque damnatur à Thomistis velut hære- ticum. Refero illorum verba. " Dominicus Bannes. Deus omnibus hominibus " dat supernaturale auxilium sufficiens ad salu- " tem omnium. Hæc conclusio certa est secundùm " fidem. . . Nemo peccat propterea quod non facit " quod facere non potest, ut certum est secundum " fidem. 1. p. q. 2. 3. art. 3. Lædesma. Postquam dixit hæreticos gratiam sufficien
Transcription: Translated (English)
16 it would seem possible for man to be converted to God or to repent, if he had neither God’s efficacious premotion, nor any power or way of having it. Thus Cumel, leader of this opinion, tom. 3, disp. 4, ad 1. p. & 1. 2. sect. 2. conc. 5. p. 68. Therefore it is also false, according to these Thomists of the other opinion, false, I say, 1. that a man, much more a just man, is deprived by God of efficacious grace; false, 2. that he is deprived of it on account of original sin: since indeed they expressly refer this defect of grace to personal guilt, so much so that they proclaim that the commandments will be impossible, and therefore that there is no sin of one who, without personal guilt, lacks efficacious grace. Certainly Dominicus Soto, whose words we shall quote below, thinks that this defect of necessary grace, by which a man is said to be deprived on account of Adam’s sin, is heresy. Hence it plainly appears how far Noritius strays from every Thomistic notion of grace, whether proximate or remote, sufficient. III. The Thomists’ judgment on the two heads of the Noritian dogma. We have reduced the Noritian dogma to two chief points. 1. That any sinner, even if just, is deprived by God of grace that is proximately sufficient. 2. That he is deprived as a punishment for original sin. Both are condemned by the Thomists as heretical. I cite their words. " Dominicus Bannes. God gives all men " supernatural aid sufficient for the salvation of all. " This conclusion is certain according to the faith. . . No one sins because " he does not do what he cannot do, as is certain according to the faith. " 1. p. q. 2. 3. art. 3. Lædesma. After saying that the heretics [call] grace sufficien
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-17.png
Transcription: ATR-1
sufficientem ab efficaci distinctam rejicere, addit Quæ quidem sententia falsa est & hæretica...." Dico certum esse secundum fidem quod detur hominibus auxilium sufficiens. Certum est secundum fidem quod non est peccatum, neque tribuitur culpæ, illud quod non est in hominis " libera potestate. At verò si Deus non conferret " auxilium sufficiens homini, non esset in ejus " potestate. Tract. de Auxil. quæst. unica. art. 15. " & 16. " Bartholom. Medina. Quilibet homo viator " potest ad Deum converti: & oppositum asserere est temerarium & hæreticum. Ex quo evidenter sequitur quod quilibet homo in hac vita " habet auxilium gratiæ necessarium, & sufficiens ad salutem, 1. 2. q. 109. art. 10. quæst. " sive conc. 1. " Cabezudo. Fides est, ita ut oppositum sit haressis manifesta quod omnis homo, dum est in " via, & compos rationis, potest simpliciter loquendo poenitentiam agere de peccatis; atque " adeo quod dentur omnibus auxilia sufficientia, 3. " part. quæst. 86. in exposit. artic. " Alvarez. Nullus Catholicus dubitare potest de " illa divisione auxilii in sufficiens & efficax. De " auxil. 1. 8. disp. 7. " Mascaronhas. Est inter Catholicos Doctores communis & in fide certa. Tract. de auxil. p. 6. Egregiè verò Dominicus Sotus descripsit ac notavit doctrinam Noritii his verbis. Aiunt vel " propter peccatum Adæ, vel propter alia cumulatiora nostra, ita nos à Deo cupiditatibus nostris esse addictos, ita in reprobum sensum, & " in desideria nostra traditos, ut non possimus " errores vitare, & cupiditatibus nostris resiste- " re. Quod si intelligent nos nequire sine auxilio Dei & favore, nihil aliud profiterentur, " quám fidem catholicam: sed quia sentiunt ita B
Transcription: Translated (English)
to reject the sufficient from the efficacious, he adds “Which sentence is indeed false and heretical....” I say that it is certain according to the faith that sufficient help is given to men. It is certain according to the faith that it is not a sin, nor is blame attributed, for that which is not in a man’s “free power. But if God did not confer sufficient help on a man, it would not be in his power. Tract. de Auxil. quæst. unica. art. 15. & 16. Bartholom. Medina. Every wayfarer man can be converted to God: and to assert the opposite is rash and heretical. From which it clearly follows that every man in this life has the help of grace necessary and sufficient for salvation, 1. 2. q. 109. art. 10. quæst. sive conc. 1. Cabezudo. It is a matter of faith, so that the opposite is manifest heresy, that every man, while he is “on the way,” and in possession of reason, can, speaking simply, do penance for sins; and moreover that sufficient helps are given to all, 3. part. quæst. 86. in expositione artic. Alvarez. No Catholic can doubt of that division of help into sufficient and efficacious. De auxil. 1. 8. disp. 7. Mascaronhas. It is among Catholic Doctors common and certain in the faith. Tract. de auxil. p. 6. And very excellently did Dominicus Sotus describe and note the doctrine of Noritius in these words. They say, either because of Adam’s sin, or because of our other more numerous sins, that we are so addicted to our desires by God, so given over to a reprobate mind and to our own desires, that we cannot avoid errors, and resist our desires. But if they mean that we cannot do so without the help and favor of God, they profess nothing else than the Catholic faith: but because they feel thus B
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-18.png
Transcription: ATR-1
18 "esse nos à Numine desertos, ut necessitate succumbamus "erroribus & pravis affectibus; hoc est quod "nos persistimus sacris eloquiis expugnare. L. de " N. & gr. c. 17. Alvarez verò loquens de auxilio justis concesso "ut perseverare possint ait. Nec etiam Deus homine "justum deserit subtrahendo ab eo auxilium "sufficiens quo possit operaribonum, & perseverare "usque in finem. Quod si interdum non dat ei auxilium "efficax quo actu bonum operetur & perseveret "usque in finem, non est Deo, sed homini "imputandum; nam per auxilium sufficiens poterat "perseverare (loquitur uti jam vidimus, de potentiâ "proxima & proximè expedita) & sua culpa "perseverare noluit. Ex his tot tantorumque virorum testimoniis apparet, Noritii doctrinâ haud posse defendi salvâ fide. 5. IV. Vtrum Noritii doctrina differat à doctrina Iansenii. Quinque proposuimus articulos Noritii. De tribus primis ac rursus de quinto dubitari minimè potest quin ei communes sint cum Iansenio. Nempe totus est Iprensis in asserendo 1. Impotentiam observandæ legis non excusare transgressorem à peccato. 2. In tali impotentiâ reperiri etiam Justos urgente præcepto. 3. Hinc contingere ut perseverare non possint in accepta Iustitiâ. 5. non posse verò, quia reprobati sunt ob solum originale peccatum, quantumlibet jam remissum. Verùm, inquies, non admittit Iansenius potentiam remotam in eo qui caret proximâ ad perseverandum: imò expressè negat in Infidelibus esse potentiam vel remotam legis divinæ observandæ. Hic est quartus Noritii articulus quem ad omnem Iansenismi suspicionem amoveundam sufficere
Transcription: Translated (English)
18 "that he has abandoned us to the Deity, so that we may succumb "to errors and corrupt affections; this is what "we persist in opposing by the sacred oracles. L. de "N. & gr. c. 17. Alvarez, however, speaking of the aid granted to the just "so that they may be able to persevere, says: Neither does God "desert the just man by withdrawing from him the sufficient aid "by which he may be able to do good, and persevere "to the end. But if at times He does not give him the effective aid "by which he may actually do good and persevere "to the end, this is not to be imputed to God, but to man; "for by sufficient aid he could "persevere (he speaks, as we have already seen, of a proximate "and proximally ready power) and "he was unwilling, through his own fault, to persevere. From the testimony of these so many and so great men it is clear that by the doctrine of Noritius it cannot be defended with the faith safe. 5. IV. Whether the doctrine of Noritius differs from the doctrine of Jansen. We have proposed five articles of Noritius. Concerning the first three and again the fifth there can be no doubt that they are common to him with Jansen. For the whole of Iprensis is in asserting: 1. The inability to observe the law does not excuse the transgressor from sin. 2. In such inability even the just are found under a pressing precept. 3. Hence it happens that they cannot persevere in the righteousness they have received. 5. But they cannot do so because they are reprobate on account of original sin alone, however much it may already have been remitted. But, you will say, Jansen does not admit a remote power in one who lacks the proximate power for persevering: indeed he expressly denies that in unbelievers there is a power either remote, or of observing the divine law. Here is the fourth article of Noritius, which to remove every suspicion of Jansenism is sufficient
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-19.png
Transcription: ATR-1
puravit. Ostendo verò nihil re ipsa, etiam in hæc parte, Noritium differre à Jansenio. I. Utrum à Jansenio differat Noritius in eo quod dicit de potentia remotâ. Admittit Noritius in nonnullis eorum qui legem transgrediuntur gratias debiles & incongruas: ad- mittit implendæ legis potentiam remotam. Neutrum negavit Jansenius, imo docuit utrumque. Adeo No- ritius & Irensis consentiunt inter se, alter altero nec plus dicit nec minus. 1. Non negat Jansenius gratias debiles & incongruas dummodo non dent potestatem proximam vel agendi vel orandi. Vid. 1. 2. de gr. sal. c. 27: Hac igitur gratia, (inquit,) quamvis nullomodo sufficiat ut homo Dei mandatum operetur ut Deum super omnia diligat, ut speret, ut oret, ut cre- dat; ad hoc tamen facit aliquid ut istarum vel alte- rius cujusdam coelestis rei liberas quasdam non vo- luntates, sed velleitates excitet. 2. Cum dicit Jansenius deesse Iustis potestatem agendi, aut orandi, loquitur de sola potestate proxi- mâ, admittit verò aliam quamlibet Noritanis prin- cipiis conformem; audiamus Jansenium. Libro tertio de Gratiâ Salvatoris, capitidecimo quinto titulum hunc imponit: Multis modis præ- cepta dicuntur possibilia, etiam sine gratia suffi- ciente. Quanam impossibilitas excuset peccantem. Statimque exorsus à multiplicitate potentiæ remo- tissimæ, remotæ, propioris & proximæ: Remotissimè, inquit) homo dicitur posse aliquid per solam li- beri arbitrii flexibilem facultatem ad bonum & malum, hæc potestas in naturâ nudâ liberi ar- bitrii constituta est... Secundò paulò propinquìs dicimur posse benè vivere, omnibusque tentatio- nibus resistere & peccata cavere per fidem, quam- vis dilectione Dei, & actuali Dei adjutorio... ca- B ij
Transcription: Translated (English)
puravit. But I show in fact nothing, even in this part, that Noritius differs from Jansenius. I. Whether Noritius differs from Jansenius in what he says about remote power. Noritius admits in some of those who transgress the law weak and unsuitable graces; he admits a remote power for fulfilling the law. Jansenius denied neither, indeed he taught both. So Nori- tius and Irenaeus agree with each other; neither says more than the other, nor less. 1. Jansenius does not deny weak and unsuitable graces, provided they do not give a proximate power either of acting or of praying. See 1. 2. de gr. sal. c. 27: "With this grace, therefore," he says, "although it in no way suffices for a man to perform God's command, to love God above all things, to hope, to pray, to be- lieve; yet for this it does something, namely, that it may excite certain free movements, not so much wills as inclinations, toward these or some other heavenly thing." 2. When Jansenius says that the just lack the power of acting, or of praying, he is speaking of the prox- imate power alone; but he admits any other power whatever, conforming to Noritian principles. Let us hear Jansenius. In the third book On Saving Grace, chapter fifteen, he assigns this title: "In many ways the commandments are said to be possible, even without sufficient grace. What kind of impossibility excuses the sinner." And immediately, beginning from the multiplicity of most remote, remote, nearer, and proximate power: "Most remotely," he says, "man is said to be able to do something by the mere flexible faculty of free choice toward good and evil; this power is established in the naked nature of free choice... Secondly, somewhat more nearly, we are said to be able to live well, and to resist all temptations and avoid sins, by faith, although without the love of God and actual help of God... B ij
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-20.png
Transcription: ATR-1
reamus. Tertiò dicimur multò pleniùs propin- " quiusque posse per charitatem, quia ut dicere so- " let (Augustinus) incipit homo amore jam posse, quod " timore non poterat! Ubi librata circumspectione " dicit, incipit amore jam posse. Quia voluntas " illa bona quæ per charitatem datur, initio in- " firma est & multa Dei magna præcepta implere " non potest; ut quid enim petunt (Iusti) si jam " sibi in primâ justificatione datas vires accepe- " re: Sexcenties docuit Augustinus multos (Justos) " etiam volentes bene vivere, mandata tamen " quædam implere non posse. Quartò itaque " completissimè dicimur posse, quando Sancti " Spiritus inspiratione sic voluntas præparatur ut " non nudè possit, sed etiam velit... " Sed quomodo, inquies, non sunt excusati, " sive fideles, sive insideles, qui illo postremo " sufficienti adjutorio carent: quando quidem si- " ne illo præceptum absolutè implere non pos- " sunt? nam reliqui tres possibilitatis modi im- " perfecti sunt, quibus præsentibus, si postremus " qui per actualem gratiam datur, non affuerit, " non magis hic & nunc & absolutè fieri posse " præceptum dici potest, quam si sine alis volari " posse diceretur. Quomodo igitur excusat tanta " implendi impotentia? En solemnis objectio quam perinde Noritius patitur ac Iansenius. Audiamus responsum. " Respondent aliqui, pergit Ipsius, peccare " eos qui adjutorio sufficientis gratiæ carent; " quia eorum impotentia non est antecedens. " Atqui hæc ipsa Noritii verba sunt desumpta " ex pagina 90. Quamvis enim, inquit Nori- " tius, careant auxilio proximè sufficienti, ha- " bent tamen auxilia quædam remota: unde non " patiuntur antecedentem necessitatem peccandi. " Et infra, pag. 92. In quo autem consistant " ejusmodi auxilia remota, non ita facile ex- " plicatur.
Transcription: Translated (English)
... We are therefore said in a third sense to be much more fully able through charity, because, as Augustine is accustomed to say, “man begins, through love, to be able now to do what he could not through fear!” Where, with well-weighed circumspection, he says, “he begins through love now to be able.” Because that good will which is given through charity is at the beginning weak, and cannot fulfill many of God’s great commandments; for why do the righteous ask [for help] if they have already received the strength given to them in their first justification? Augustine taught hundreds of times that many [the righteous], even though willing to live well, nevertheless cannot fulfill certain commandments. Fourthly, therefore, we are said to be able in the fullest sense, when by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the will is so prepared that it not only can, but also wills... But how, you will say, are those not excused, whether faithful or unbelieving, who lack that last sufficient help, since without it they absolutely cannot fulfill the commandment? For the remaining three modes of possibility are imperfect; and if, when they are present, that last one, which is given through actual grace, is not present, then it can no more be said that the commandment can be done here and now and absolutely, than if one were to say that flying is possible without wings. How then does such inability to fulfill excuse? This is the familiar objection which Noritius suffers just as Jansenius does. Let us hear the answer. “Some reply,” continues he, “that those who lack the help of sufficient grace sin, because their inability is not antecedent.” But these very words of Noritius are taken from page 90. For, he says, “Although they lack the help that is proximely sufficient, they nevertheless have certain remote helps; hence they do not suffer an antecedent necessity of sinning.” And below, page 92: “But in what such remote helps consist is not so easy to explain.”
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-21.png
Transcription: ATR-1
2 At saltem explicare debuerat, id quod in quæstione versatur quomodo auxilia remota necessitatem antecedentem tollant ei cui negatur gratia proximè sufficiens. Magis ingenuè Iansenius. Eorum, inquit, impotentia non est antecedens.... Non enim ideo peccant quia non possunt abstinere à peccato, quamvis reverà non possint, sed idcirco peccant, quia non volunt. Tum addit: si hoc alicui sufficiat, nihil est præterea satagendum. Pleniùs tamen fortassis allo modo quæstioni satisfieri potest. Itaque respondetur duplicem esse faciendi præcepti impotentiam, una est ex defectu alicujus quod non potest quantumlibet magna voluntate suppleri... Talis est impotentia illius qui caret breviario ad horas. Altera impotentia est quæ ex defectu ipsius volitionis sive voluntatis oritur, quæ si adesset quanta esse deberet, præceptum facillimè impleretur. Hæc impotentia nullo modo excusat eum qui non implet quod præcipitur. Posset enim implere si vellet. Unde colligit in hunc modum Iprenis. Constat peccata à non habentibus gratiam sufficientem posse vitari, non quidem illa proxima potestate, quæ dat simul velle quod possumus, & posse quod volumus; nec illa quæ potestatem voluntatis velut in æquilibrio ad utrumque ponit; sed illa remotiore potestate qua possunt ea vitare, si voluerint. En ut Iansenius admittit in peccatore remotam potentiam vitandi peccata, cum quâ egregiè conciliat quinque suarum Propositionum hæreses. Satis est enim pectatorem hunc privari gratiâ proximè sufficiente, ut verè ac propriè intelligentur man ata Dei esse ipsi impossibilia, incumbere necessitatem peccandi, mortem Christi pro salute duntxat electorum fuisse oblatam, cæterique id genus errores qui fidelium animos, in quæ libi- B iij
Transcription: Translated (English)
2 At least he ought to have explained this, namely the point at issue: how remote helps remove the antecedent necessity from one to whom grace sufficient nearby is denied. Jansenius speaks more candidly. Their powerlessness, he says, is not antecedent.... For they do not sin for this reason, that they are unable to abstain from sin, although in reality they are unable, but rather because they are unwilling. Then he adds: if this is sufficient for someone, nothing more need be done. Yet perhaps the question can be answered more fully in another way. Thus it is replied that there is a twofold inability to do what is commanded: one arises from the lack of something which, however great the will, cannot be supplied... Such is the inability of one who lacks a breviary for the hours. The other inability arises from the defect of volition itself, or of the will, which, if it were present in the measure that it ought to be, the command would be most easily fulfilled. This inability in no way excuses the one who does not do what is commanded. For he could fulfill it if he wished. Whence Iprenis draws this conclusion. It is established that sins can be avoided by those who do not have sufficient grace, not indeed by that proximate power which gives at once both to will what we can, and to be able what we will; nor by that power which places the power of the will, as it were, in equilibrium toward either side; but by that more remote power by which they can avoid them, if they should wish. See how Jansenius admits in the sinner a remote power of avoiding sins, with which he splendidly reconciles the heresies of his five Propositions. For it is enough for this spectator to be deprived of grace sufficiently near at hand, so that the commands of God are truly and properly understood to be impossible for him, the necessity of sinning to lie upon him, the death of Christ to have been offered only for the salvation of the elect, and other errors of this kind, which turn the minds of the faithful into the quæ libi- B iij
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-22.png
Transcription: ATR-1
22 dinium ac desperationis præcipitia dejiciant, utinam in transalpinis regionibus minùs experiremur. Iam credo apparet cur Jansenii libro ac doctrinæ tam sedulò parcat Noritius. Vidi enim ab eo commemorari sæpe Janseniana dissidia, nunquam damnationem Jansenii. Dissidia appellat, quasi altercationes istæ fuerint privatorum, non totius Ecclesiæ conspiratio adversus hæresim. Quid quod Jansenii accusatores Annatum, Adamum, Morainium, Campsiu[m] ait cum Sancti Augustini authoritate nimium se premi serò jam tandem sentirent, ne in eo campo hostibus (quibus nisi Jansenio & suis?) qui Augustini nomen ubique in clamabant, cedere viderentur, Augustino se conatos esse subducere. Quo quid potnetit dici magnificentius ad Janseniani dogmatis commendationem ac triumphum, ego quidem certè non video. S. V. Quid in præsenti causa expedire videatur tum fidelibus, tum ipsi Noritio. Falli tamen possumus opinione nostrâ, inque Noritii libro videre errores qui re ipsa non sunt. Verùm quia tam multi, & ubique gentium in Galliâ, Belgio, Germaniâ, Italiâ, omnis generis atque ordinis Doctores sive sæculares sive Religiosi, Episcopi, ipsique adeo purpurati Patres, idem scandalum passi sunt in hujus libri doctrinâ; profectò debet iis à Noritio, non dicam satisfieri, sed consuli: locum enim, sicubi uspiam, hîc maximè habet admonitio Petri: Parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos rationem de ea quæ in vobis est spe. 1. Pet. 3. v. 15. Visus est Noritius in Jansenii errores impingere, atque ita censent viri innumeri doctrinâ & virtute incliti. Volo fuisse deceptos: quam facile
Transcription: Translated (English)
22 ...and may they cast down into the abysses of dominion and despair, would that we experienced it less in transalpine regions. I now believe it is clear why Noritius so carefully spares Jansenii's book and doctrine. For I have seen him often mention the Jansenian dissensions, never the condemnation of Jansenius. He calls them dissensions, as if these disputes had been those of private persons, not the conspiracy of the whole Church against heresy. What of this, that Jansenii's accusers—Annatum, Adama, Morainium, Campsiu[m]—say they only felt too late that they were being too much pressed by the authority of Saint Augustine, lest on that field they should seem to yield to the enemies (to whom except Jansenius and his followers?), who were everywhere proclaiming Augustine's name, they tried to withdraw themselves from Augustine. What more magnificent thing could be said for the commendation and triumph of the Jansenian dogma, I certainly do not see. S. V. What seems expedient in the present cause, both for the faithful and for Noritius himself. Yet we may be deceived by our opinion, and see in Noritius's book errors that are not in fact there. However, because so many, and everywhere among the nations in France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, doctors of every kind and rank, whether secular or religious, bishops, and even the cardinals themselves, have suffered the same scandal in the doctrine of this book; surely they ought by Noritius, I do not say to be satisfied, but to be provided for: for here, if anywhere, the admonition of Peter has the greatest force: “Always prepared to give satisfaction to every one who asks you a reason for that hope which is in you.” 1 Pet. 3, v. 15. Noritius seems to have stumbled into the errors of Jansenius, and thus innumerable men distinguished by doctrine and virtue judge. I wish they had been deceived: how easily
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-23.png
Transcription: ATR-1
æ gloriosum Noritio iniquam hanc, si ita placet, at communem tamen suspicionem depellere. I. Primùm omnium declaret damnari à se quinque Propositiones in sensu à Jansenio intento, qui declaratur esse sensus obvius, juretque in Alexandrinæ formulæ verba obvio sensu accepta, prout accipi debere declaravit pariter his ipsis diebus sanctissimus Papa Innocentius XII, damnata quavis distinctione. Deinde manifestum ipse Noritius afferat discrimen sui dogmaris à dogmate Jansenii, claréque demonstret. Iustum præcepto urgente privari gratiâ proximè sufficienti ac potentiâ proximè expedita ad illud servandum; privari verò in poenam peccati originalis quantumlibet jam remissi; nec propterea conanti sibi secundum præsentes quas habet vires præceptum illud esse impossibile, nec deesse gratiam qua possibile fiat, nec suam transgressionem à coactione tantùm liberam esse, sed etiam à necessitate, proque ipsius salute passum esse Christum, tametsi in poena peccati originalis quantumlibet jam remissi noluerit ipse præparare auxilium, per quod perseverare posse: in accepta justitiâ. Ista conciliet Noritius si potest; si non potest, revocet ac damnet, non verò amplius recurrat ad potentiam remotam, quæ ut vidimus, nec latet Ianse- nium, nec salvat: sed exponat quomodo sincerè & plenè voluerit Deus salvare illum hominem, cui in poenam peccati originalis jam remissi abstulit auxilium sine quo salvari non poterat. Quod si id contradictionis plenum est, non exubescat Noritius mutare sententiam, & cum totâ Ecclesiâ profiteri, re- probo, qui baptismi gratiâ excidit, nihil ex parte Dei defu sic quominus illam servare posset. 3. Demum siquidem Thomisticæ scholæ clypeose protectum putat, ipsis Thomistarum verbis confiteatur, fide certum esse quod præcepto urgente justus
Transcription: Translated (English)
to glorify Noritius, if it please him, by removing this unjust, or at least common, suspicion. I. First of all, let Noritius declare that he condemns the five Propositions in the sense intended by Jansenius, which is declared to be the obvious sense, and let him swear to the words of the Alexandrine formula taken in their obvious sense, as the most holy Pope Innocent XII has declared in these very days that they ought to be taken, with every distinction condemned. Then let Noritius himself clearly present the manifest difference between his own doctrine and the doctrine of Jansenius, and clearly demonstrate it. That a just man, when the command presses, is deprived of grace proximally sufficient and of a power proximally ready for keeping it; yet deprived as a punishment for original sin, however much already remitted; and nevertheless, for that reason, to the one striving according to the present strength he has, that command is not impossible, nor is grace lacking by which it may become possible, nor is his transgression free only from coercion, but also from necessity; and that Christ suffered for his salvation, although in punishment for original sin, however much already remitted, he himself did not wish to provide the aid by which he could persevere in the justice received. Let Noritius reconcile these things if he can; if he cannot, let him retract and condemn them, and let him no longer appeal to remote power, which, as we have seen, neither escapes Jansenius nor saves: but let him explain how God sincerely and fully willed to save that man from whom, as punishment for original sin already remitted, He took away the aid without which he could not be saved. But if this is full of contradiction, let Noritius not blush to change his opinion, and with the whole Church profess: I reprove the man who, after losing baptismal grace, had nothing lacking on God’s part so that he could have preserved it. 3. Finally, if indeed he thinks himself protected by the shield of the Thomistic school, let him confess in the very words of the Thomists that it is certain by faith that when the command presses, a just man...
bub_gb_Jq07oNraCAEC-page-24.png
Transcription: ATR-1
24 uemo privetur sufficiente gratiâ quæ det ipsi potentiàm proximam & proximè expeditam ad observandum mandatum. Non videtur ea parte dissimulari posse ampliùs, postquam Noritius ipse expetiit librum suum recognosci, designatis ad hoc unum opus ab Apostolica Sede quinque Censoribus. Sive enim liber approbetur expresse, sive toleretur tantùm, doctrina quam oculis vestris subjicimus, Apostolicæ Sedis judicio dicetur approbata, certè negari non poterit à Censuris liberata. Hinc illam qui nequeunt à Ianseñianâ discernere, tot tantique viri non cessabunt obtrudere illud Apostoli Gal.2. Si enim quæ destruxi iterum hac edificio, prævaricatorem me consti, uo. Summè itaque necessarium est Æquissimos Censores in præsenti negotio attendere ad ea quæ Noritius adduxit Cælestini 1. verba pag.4. Timeo, inquit summus ille & doctissimus Pontifex, ne connivere sit hoc tacere: ne magis ipsi loquantur, qui permittunt illis taliter loqui. In talibus causis non caret suspicione taciturnitas, quia occurreret veritas, si falsitas displiceret, meritò namque causa nos respicit, si cum silentio faveamus errori. Ergo corripiantur hujusmodi. Non sit illis liberum habere pro voluntate sermonem. Ep[isto]la ad Gall. Antistites.
Transcription: Translated (English)
24 One and the same person should be deprived, with sufficient grace being given him, which grants him a proximate and readily available power to observe the commandment. It does not seem that this part can any longer be concealed, after Noritius himself requested that his book be examined, five Censors having been designated for this one work by the Apostolic See. For whether the book is expressly approved or merely tolerated, the doctrine which we place before your eyes will be said, by the judgment of the Apostolic See, to have been approved; certainly it cannot be denied that it has been freed from censures. Hence those who cannot distinguish it from the Jansenist doctrine, so many and so great men, will not cease to press upon it that word of the Apostle, Gal. 2: If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. It is therefore most necessary, in the present matter, for the most fair-minded Censors to attend to the words which Noritius brought forward from Celestine I, page 4: “I fear,” says that supreme and most learned Pontiff, “that to be silent in this matter is to connive; for those speak more who permit such men to speak. In such causes silence is not without suspicion, because truth would come forward if falsehood displeased; and the case truly concerns us, if by silence we favor error. Therefore let such men be corrected. Let it not be free for them to speak as they wish.” Letter to the Bishops of Gaul.