View Volume II - In Today's Catholic World

AND THEIR REFUTATION. 53
aliquid mutari velit, sum obediens films, et illius Ecclesige, in qua
ad hunc lectum mortis obediens sum. Ita
semper vixi, usque
mea suprema voluntas" (4). Would to God that the disciples
imitated their master in obedience to the Holy See, then the
disputes and heartburnings which this book caused would never
have had existence.
11. Authors are very much divided regarding the facts
which occurred after the death of Jansenius. I will then suc
cinctly state what I can glean from the majority of writers on
the subject.
It is true he protested, both in the work itself and
in his will, that he submitted his book Augustmus in everything
to the judgment of the Apostolic See ; still his executors at once
put it into the hands of a printer, and notwithstanding the pro
test of the author, and the prohibition of the Internuncio and
the University of Louvain, it was published in Flanders, in 1640,
and in Rouen, in 1643. It was denounced to the Roman Inqui
sition, and several Theologians composed Theses and Conclusions
against it, and publicly sustained them in the University of Louvain.
An Apology in favour of the work appeared in the name
of the publisher, and soon the press groaned with Treatises in
favour of, or opposed to, Jansenius, so that all the Netherlands
were disturbed by the dispute. The Congregation of the Inqui
sition then published a Decree forbidding the reading of Jan-
senius s work, and also the Conclusions and Theses of his
adversaries, and all publications cither in favour of or opposed
to him. Still peace was not restored ; so Urban VIII., to
quiet the matter, published a Bull renewing the Constitution of
Pius V. and Gregory XIII. In this he prohibited the book of
Jansenius, as containing propositions already condemned by his
predecessors, Pius V. and Gregory
XIII. The Jansenists ex
claimed against this Bull ; it was, they said, apochryphal, or, at
all events, vitiated. Several propositions extracted from the
book were presented to the Faculty of Sorbonne, in 1649, to
have judgment passed on them, but the Sorbonne refused to
interfere, and referred the matter to the judgment of the
Bishops, and these, assembled in the name of the Gallican Clergy,
in 1653, declined passing any sentence, but referred it alto-
(4) Pallav. His. Con. Trid. Mo, c. 7, n. 13; Collet. Coiit.Tournel.de
Grat. 4, p. 1.