http://www.romancatholicism.org
|
|
Blaise Pascal The Provincial Letters The translation is that
of Rev. Dr. Thomas M’Crie D.D., Professor of Divinity, Edinburgh and was published
in New York by Robert Carter & Brothers, 1853. [Return
to book contents page] Letter III
Paris,
February 9, 1658 SIR, I have just received your
letter; and, at the same time, there was brought me a copy of the censure in
manuscript. I find that I am as well treated in the former as M. Arnauld is
ill treated in the latter. I am afraid there is some extravagance in both
cases and that neither of us is sufficiently well known by our judges. Sure I
am that, were we better known, M. Arnauld would merit the approval of the
Sorbonne, and I the censure of the Academy. Thus our interests are quite at
variance with each other. It is his interest to make himself known, to
vindicate his innocence; whereas it is mine to remain in the dark, for fear
of forfeiting my reputation. Prevented, therefore, from showing my face, I
must devolve on you the task of making my acknowledgments to my illustrious
admirers, while I undertake that of furnishing you with the news of the
censure. I assure you, sir, it has
filled me with astonishment. I expected to find it condemning the most
shocking heresy in the world, but your wonder will equal mine, when informed
that these alarming preparations, when on the point of producing the grand
effect anticipated, have all ended in smoke. To understand the whole affair
in a pleasant way, only recollect, I beseech you, the strange impressions
which, for a long time past, we have been taught to form of the Jansenists.
Recall to mind the cabals, the factions, the errors, the schisms, the
outrages, with which they have been so long charged; the manner in which they
have been denounced and vilified from the pulpit and the press; and the
degree to which this torrent of abuse, so remarkable for its violence and
duration, has swollen of late years, when they have been openly and publicly
accused of being not only heretics and schismatics, but apostates and
infidels—with “denying the mystery of transubstantiation, and renouncing
Jesus Christ and the Gospel.” After having published these
startling accusations, it was resolved to examine their writings, in order to
pronounce judgement on them. For this purpose the second letter of M.
Arnauld, which was reported to be full of the greatest errors, is selected.
The examiners appointed are his most open and avowed enemies. They employ all
their learning to discover something that they might lay hold upon, and at
length they produce one proposition of a doctrinal character, which they
exhibit for censure. What else could any one infer
from such proceedings than that this proposition, selected under such
remarkable circumstances, would contain the essence of the blackest heresies
imaginable. And yet the proposition so entirely agrees with what is clearly
and formally expressed in the passages from the fathers quoted by M. Arnauld
that I have not met with a single individual who could comprehend the
difference between them. Still, however, it might be imagined that there was
a very great difference; for the passages from the fathers being
unquestionably Catholic, the proposition of M. Arnauld, if heretical, must be
widely opposed to them. Such was the difficulty which
the Sorbonne was expected to clear up. All Christendom waited, with
wide-opened eyes, to discover, in the censure of these learned doctors, the
point of difference which had proved imperceptible to ordinary mortals.
Meanwhile M. Arnauld gave in his defences, placing his own proposition and
the passages of the fathers from which he had drawn it in parallel columns,
so as to make the agreement between them apparent to the most obtuse
understandings. He shows, for example, that
St. Augustine says in one passage that “Jesus Christ points out to us, in the
person of St. Peter, a righteous man warning us by his fall to avoid presumption.”
He cites another passage from the same father, in which he says “that God, in
order to show us that without grace we can do nothing, left St. Peter without
grace.” He produces a third, from St. Chrysostom, who says, “that the fall of
St. Peter happened, not through any coldness towards Jesus Christ, but
because grace failed him; and that he fell, not so much through his own
negligence as through the withdrawment of God, as a lesson to the whole
Church, that without God we can do nothing.” He then gives his own accused
proposition, which is as follows: “The fathers point out to us, in the person
of St. Peter, a righteous man to whom that grace without which we can do
nothing was wanting.” In vain did people attempt to
discover how it could possibly be that M. Arnauld’s expression differed from
those of the fathers as much as the truth from error and faith from heresy.
For where was the difference to be found? Could it be in these words: “that
the fathers point out to us, in the person of St. Peter, a righteous man”?
St. Augustine has said the same thing in so many words. Is it because he says
“that grace had failed him”? The same St. Augustine who had said that “St.
Peter was a righteous man,” says “that he had not had grace on that
occasion.” Is it, then, for his having said “that without grace we can do
nothing”? Why, is not this just what St. Augustine says in the same place,
and what St. Chrysostom had said before him, with this difference only, that
he expresses it in much stronger language, as when he says “that his fall did
not happen through his own coldness or negligence, but through the failure of
grace, and the withdrawment of God”? Such considerations as these
kept everybody in a state of breathless suspense to learn in what this
diversity could consist, when at length, after a great many meetings, this
famous and long-looked-for censure made its appearance. But, alas! it has
sadly baulked our expectation. Whether it be that the Molinist doctors would
not condescend so far as to enlighten us on the point, or for some other
mysterious reason, the fact is they have done nothing more than pronounce
these words: “This proposition is rash, impious, blasphemous, accursed, and
heretical!” Would you believe it, sir,
that most people, finding themselves deceived in their expectations, have got
into bad humor, and begin to fall foul upon the censors themselves? They are
drawing strange inferences from their conduct in favour of M. Arnauld’s
innocence. “What!” they are saying, “is this all that could be achieved,
during all this time, by so many doctors joining in a furious attack on one
individual? Can they find nothing in all his works worthy of reprehension,
but three lines, and these extracted, word for word, from the greatest
doctors of the Greek and Latin Churches? Is there any author whatever whose
writings, were it intended to ruin him, would not furnish a more specious
pretext for the purpose? And what higher proof could be furnished of the
orthodoxy of this illustrious accused? “How comes it to pass,” they
add, “that so many denunciations are launched in this censure, into which
they have crowded such terms as ‘poison, pestilence, horror, rashness,
impiety, blasphemy, abomination, execration, anathema, heresy’—the most
dreadful epithets that could be used against Arius, or Antichrist himself;
and all to combat an imperceptible heresy, and that, moreover, without
telling as what it is? If it be against the words of the fathers that they
inveigh in this style, where is the faith and tradition? If against M.
Arnauld’s proposition, let them point out the difference between the two; for
we can see nothing but the most perfect harmony between them. As soon as we
have discovered the evil of the proposition, we shall hold it in abhorrence;
but so long as we do not see it, or rather see nothing in the statement but
the sentiments of the holy fathers, conceived and expressed in their own
terms, how can we possibly regard it with any other feelings than those of
holy veneration?” Such is the specimen of the
way in which they are giving vent to their feelings. But these are by far too
deep-thinking people. You and I, who make no pretensions to such
extraordinary penetration, may keep ourselves quite easy about the whole
affair. What! would we be wiser than our masters? No: let us take example
from them, and not undertake what they have not ventured upon. We would be
sure to get boggled in such an attempt. Why it would be the easiest thing
imaginable, to render this censure itself heretical. Truth, we know, is so delicate
that, if we make the slightest deviation from it, we fall into error; but
this alleged error is so extremely finespun that, if we diverge from it in
the slightest degree, we fall back upon the truth. There is positively
nothing between this obnoxious proposition and the truth but an imperceptible
point. The distance between them is so impalpable that I was in terror lest,
from pure inability to perceive it, I might, in my over-anxiety to agree with
the doctors of the Sorbonne, place myself in opposition to the doctors of the
Church. Under this apprehension, I judged it expedient to consult one of
those who, through policy, was neutral on the first question, that from him I
might learn the real state of the matter. I have accordingly had an interview
with one of the most intelligent of that party, whom I requested to point out
to me the difference between the two things, at the same time frankly owning
to him that I could see none. He appeared to be amused at my
simplicity and replied, with a smile: “How simple it is in you to believe
that there is any difference! Why, where could it be? Do you imagine that, if
they could have found out any discrepancy between M. Arnauld and the fathers,
they would not have boldly pointed it out and been delighted with the
opportunity of exposing it before the public, in whose eyes they are so
anxious to depreciate that gentleman?” I could easily perceive, from
these few words, that those who had been neutral on the first question would
not all prove so on the second; but, anxious to hear his reasons, I asked:
“Why, then, have they attacked this unfortunate proposition?” “Is it possible,” he replied,
“you can be ignorant of these two things, which I thought had been known to
the veriest tyro in these matters? that, on the one hand, M. Arnauld has
uniformly avoided advancing a single tenet which is not powerfully supported
by the tradition of the Church; and that, on the other hand, his enemies have
determined, cost what it may, to cut that ground from under him; and, accordingly,
that as the writings of the former afforded no handle to the designs of the
latter, they have been obliged, in order to satiate their revenge, to seize
on some proposition, it mattered not what, and to condemn it without telling
why or wherefore. Do not you know how the keep them in check, and annoy them
so desperately that they cannot drop the slightest word against the
principles of the fathers without being incontinently overwhelmed with whole
volumes, under the pressure of which they are forced to succumb? So that,
after a great many proofs of their weakness, they have judged it more to the
purpose, and much less troublesome, to censure than to reply—it being a much
easier matter with them to find monks than reasons.” “Why then,” said I, “if this be
the case, their censure is not worth a straw; for who will pay any regard to
it, when they see it to be without foundation, and refuted, as it no doubt
will be, by the answers given to it?” “If you knew the temper of
people,” replied my friend the doctor, “you would talk in another sort of
way. Their censure, censurable as it is, will produce nearly all its designed
effect for a time; and although, by the force of demonstration, it is certain
that, in course of time, its invalidity will be made apparent, it is equally
true that, at first, it will tell as effectually on the minds of most people
as if it had been the most righteous sentence in the world. Let it only be
cried about the streets: ‘Here you have the censure of M. Arnauld!—here you
have the condemnation of the Jansenists!’ and the Jesuits will find their
account in it. How few will ever read it! How few, of them who do read, will
understand it! How few will observe that it answers no objections! How few
will take the matter to heart, or attempt to sift it to the bottom! Mark,
then, how much advantage this gives to the enemies of the Jansenists. They
are sure to make a triumph of it, though a vain one, as usual, for some
months at least—and that is a great matter for them, they will look out afterwards
for some new means of subsistence. They live from hand to mouth, sir. It is
in this way they have contrived to maintain themselves down to the present
day. Sometimes it is by a catechism in which a child is made to condemn their
opponents; then it is by a procession, in which sufficient grace leads the
efficacious in triumph; again it is by a comedy, in which Jansenius is
represented as carried off by devils; at another time it is by an almanac;
and now it is by this censure.” “In good sooth,” said I “I was
on the point of finding fault with the conduct of the Molinists; but after
what you have told me, I must say I admire their prudence and their policy. I
see perfectly well that they could not have followed a safer or more
Judicious course.” “You are right,” returned he;
“their safest policy has always been to keep silent; and this led a certain
learned divine to remark, ‘that the cleverest among them are those who
intrigue much, speak little, and write nothing.’ “It is on this principle that,
from the commencement of the meetings, they prudently ordained that, if M.
Arnauld came into the Sorbonne, it must be simply to explain what he
believed, and not to enter the lists of controversy with any one. The
examiners, having ventured to depart a little from this prudent arrangement,
suffered for their temerity. They found themselves rather too vigourously
refuted by his second apology. “On the same principle, they
had recourse to that rare and very novel device of the half-hour and the
sand-glass. By this means they rid themselves of the importunity of those
troublesome doctors, who might undertake to refute all their arguments, to
produce books which might convict them of forgery, to insist on a reply, and
reduce them to the predicament of having none to give. “It is not that they were so
blind as not to see that this encroachment on liberty, which has induced so
many doctors to withdraw from the meetings, would do no good to their
censure; and that the protest of nullity, taken on this ground by M. Arnauld
before it was concluded, would be a bad preamble for securing it a favourable
reception. They know very well that unprejudiced persons place fully as much
weight on the judgement of seventy doctors, who had nothing to gain by
defending M. Arnauld, as on that of a hundred others who had nothing to lose
by condemning him. But, upon the whole, they considered that it would be of
vast importance to have a censure, although it should be the act of a party
only in the Sorbonne, and not of the whole body; although it should be
carried with little or no freedom of debate and obtained by a great many
small manoeuvres not exactly according to order; although it should give no
explanation of the matter in dispute; although it should not point out in
what this heresy consists, and should say as little as possible about it, for
fear of committing a mistake. This very silence is a mystery in the eyes of
the simple; and the censure will reap this singular advantage from it, that
they may defy the most critical and subtle theologians to find in it a single
weak argument. “Keep yourself easy, then, and
do not be afraid of being set down as a heretic, though you should make use
of the condemned proposition. It is bad, I assure you, only as occurring in
the second letter of M. Arnauld. If you will not believe this statement on my
word, I refer you to M. le Moine, the most zealous of the examiners, who, in
the course of conversation with a doctor of my acquaintance this very
morning, on being asked by him where lay the point of difference in dispute,
and if one would no longer be allowed to say what the fathers had said before
him, made the following exquisite reply: ‘This proposition would be orthodox
in the mouth of any other—it is only as coming from M. Arnauld that the
Sorbonne has condemned it!’ You must now be prepared to admire the machinery
of Molinism, which can produce such prodigious overturnings in the
Church—that what is Catholic in the fathers becomes heretical in M. Arnauld—that
what is heretical in the Semi-Pelagians becomes orthodox in the writings of
the Jesuits; the ancient doctrine of St. Augustine becomes an intolerable
innovation, and new inventions, daily fabricated before our eyes, pass for
the ancient faith of the Church.” So saying, he took his leave of me. This information has satisfied
my purpose. I gather from it that this same heresy is one of an entirely new
species. It is not the sentiments of M. Arnauld that are heretical; it is
only his person. This is a personal heresy. He is not a heretic for anything
he has said or written, but simply because he is M. Arnauld. This is all they
have to say against him. Do what he may, unless he cease to be, he will never
be a good Catholic. The grace of St. Augustine will never be the true grace,
so long as he continues to defend it. It would become so at once, were he to
take it into his head to impugn it. That would be a sure stroke, and almost
the only plan for establishing the truth and demolishing Molinism; such is the
fatality attending all the opinions which he embraces. Let us
leave them, then, to settle their own differences. These are the disputes of
theologians, not of theology. We, who are no doctors, have nothing to do with
their quarrels. Tell our friends the news of the censure, and love me while I
am, &c. |
Blaise Pascal |
