View Volume II - In Today's Catholic World

AND THEIR REFUTATION. 317
point, where he answers all objections, and you will see also how
Jansenius treats it.
9. They say, likewise, that the propositions of Baius were
not condemned in the Bull of St. Pius in the sense the author
understood them. The words of the Bull are :
"
Quas quidem
sententias stricto coram nobis examine ponderatas, quanquam
nonnullse aliquo pacto sustineri possent, in rigore, et proprio
verborum sensu ab assertoribus intento ha3reticas, erroneas,
temerarias, &c., respective damnamus," &c. They then say that
between the word, possent, and the following ones, in rigore, et
proprio verborum sensu, there was no comma, but that it was
placed after the words ab assertoribus intento; so that the
sentence being read thus :
"
quanquam nonnullae aliquo pacto
sustineri possent in rigore et proprio verborum sensu ab asser
toribus intento," the proposition could be sustained in this proper
and intended sense, as the Bull declares. According to this
interpretation, however, the Bull would contradict itself, condemn
ing opinions which, in their proper sense, and that intended by the
author, could be sustained. If they could be sustained in the
proper sense, why were they condemned, and why was Baius
expressly called on to retract them ? It would be a grievous
injustice to condemn these propositions, and oblige the author
to retract them, if in the proper and plain sense they could be
defended. Besides, though in the Bull of St. Pius, the comma
may be wanted after the word still possent, no one has ever
denied or doubted but that it was inserted in the subsequent
Bulls of Gregory XIII. and Urban VIII. There cannot be the
least doubt that the opinions of Baius were condemned by these
Pontifical Bulls.
10. They say, thirdly, that the propositions were condemned,
having regard to the Divine Omnipotence, according to which
the state of pure nature was possible, but not in regard to the
wisdom and goodness of God. The Theologians already quoted
answer, that in that case the Apostolic See has condemned not a
real, but only an apparent, error, since, in reality, the doctrine
of Baius, in regard to the wisdom and goodness of God, is not con-
demnable. It is false, however, to suppose that the state of pure
nature is only possible according to the Omnipotence of God,
and not according to his other attributes. That which is rcpug-