This simple question was the center of the quarrel around Port-Royal and the efficacious grace in the 17th century in France. In fact, the defenders of Cornelius Jansen’s *Augustinus* argued that they agreed to state that those five propositions were heretical. However they didn’t recognize that they were in the posthume book of the bishop of Ypres. --- In one word, I’m searching for an answer to the famous *question de fait* (*question of fact*) stated in the first *Provinciale*: >Celle de fait consiste à savoir si M. Arnauld est téméraire pour avoir dit dans sa Seconde Lettre : Qu’il a lu exactement le livre de Jansénius, et qu’il n’y a point trouvé les propositions condamnées par le feu Pape ; et néanmoins que, comme il condamne ces propositions en quelque lieu qu’elles se rencontrent, il les condamne dans Jansénius, si elles y sont. Translation : >The question of fact consisted in ascertaining whether M. Arnauld was guilty of presumption, for having asserted in his second letter that he had carefully perused the book of Jansenius, and that he had not discovered the propositions condemned by the late pope; but that, nevertheless, as he condemned these propositions wherever they might occur, he condemned them in Jansenius, if they were really contained in that work. Was Arnauld right not to find the propositions? --- --- **So, in short, my question is:** 1. Are the propositions in Jansen's book? 2. If yes, where **exactly** in the book? A page and/or quotation (even not translated) would be great. Many thanks for your answers! --- Reminder: the five propositions condemned are : 1. Some of God's commandments are impossible to just men who wish and strive to keep them, considering the powers they actually have; the grace by which these precepts may become possible is also wanting to them. 1. In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior grace. 1. In order to merit or demerit, in the state of fallen nature, we must be free from all external constraint, but not from interior necessity. 1. The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace for all acts, even for the beginning of faith; but they fell into heresy in pretending that this grace is such that man may either follow or resist it. 1. It is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men.

If the Jansenists did not deny the gratuity of grace, thinking grace cannot be earned or merited , why did they practice penances sometimes considered harsh?

Before St. Jane de Chantal met St. Francis de Sales, she had a very strict spiritual director, >a priest at the nearby shrine of the Black Virgin at Notre-Dame-d’Etang. He undertook her direction by burdening her with a great many formal exercises of devotion: long vocal prayers, elaborate meditations and mental considerations sealed with the stipulation that she speak to no one else but him of her spiritual life. The rigidity and exteriority of this director’s scheme served only to increase her anxiety and alienate her from the drama going on within.
—*Bond of Perfection: Jeanne de Chantal & François de Sales* , Wendy M. Wright, p. 34 Who was this "priest at the nearby shrine of the Black Virgin at Notre-Dame-d’Etang", exactly? Was he a Jansenist?

Did the Jansenists deny the gratuity of grace? That is, did they think praying more or doing more works of supererogation could always coerce God into granting them more grace, not that God grants or withholds grace as he pleases? >Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that **not of yourselves**, for **it is the gift of God**; not of works, that no man may glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

What are Jansenism's views of marriage? Were they akin to Manicheans' and Albigensians'? Who was a prominent Jansenist who wrote about marriage?

Cornelius Jansen is known as the intellectual father of [Jansenism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenism) , a movement [not unlike Calvinism](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52916/21576) in a few respects, like its emphasis on original sin and predestination. Jansen's book, *Augustinus* (published 1640), focuses on the works of Augustine to argue for these doctrines. Opponents to Jansenism didn't waste any time; Wikipedia indicates that Jesuits "designated" Nicolas Caussin and François Pinthereau to write anti-Jansenist works in the 1640s. By the following decade, the movement had been condemned by the Pope. Of course, Augustine was and is a highly regarded Christian theologian, though the Catholic church today recognizes that he was sometimes mistaken. But I'd like to know if the anti-Jansenists were willing to make that admission, or if they focused their attack solely on Jansen's arguments. So my question is: **Did the anti-Jansenist writings published before the papal condemnation ever directly say that Augustine was wrong on a particular point, or did they exclusively argue that Jansen and his followers had misused or misinterpreted Augustine?**

The soteriology of [Jansenism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenism) appears to bear some resemblance to that of Calvinism, as both emphasize doctrines like original sin, predestination, and irresistible grace. The two movements also share a common influence in Augustine, who was often quoted by their members. Another similarity is that both groups were ultimately regarded as heretical by Catholicism – the pope condemned Jansenism in 1653, despite claims by Jansenists that their views were *not* the same as those of Calvinists. Therein lies my question: In the years leading up to their condemnation, how did Jansenists argue that their views on soteriology, particularly original sin, predestination, and irresistible grace, were different from those of Calvinists?

I have read various polemics on the topics of Augustinianism, Calvinism, Jansenism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, and Catholicism which seem to use the term "sufficient grace" in different ways. For instance, this blog post by a Catholic claims that James White misuses the term "sufficiency of grace," and that White is ignorant of the history of Jansenism's denial of the Catholic doctrine of sufficient grace. However, it seems just as likely that White is simply using the term in a different way. What is an overview of how the term "sufficient grace" has been used by various perspectives in these debates?