History of the Catholic Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution: Volume 1 — Theological Controversies and Studies, Part 1

Schwane, /Dogmengeschichte der neuren zeit/, 1890. Turmel, /Histoire de la theologie positive du concile de Trente au concile du Vatican/, 1906. Denzinger-Bannwart, /Enchiridion Symbolorum/, 11th edition, 1911. Duchesne, /Histoire du Baianisme/, 1731. Linsenmann, /Michael Baius/, 1863. The Catholic doctrine on Grace, round which such fierce controversies had been waged in the fifth and sixth centuries, loomed again into special prominence during the days of the Reformation.

The views of Luther and Calvin on Grace and Justification were in a sense the very foundation of their systems, and hence it was of vital importance that these questions should be submitted to a searching examination, and that the doctrine of the Catholic Church should be formulated in such a way as to make cavilling and misunderstanding impossible.

This work was done with admirable lucidity and directness in the fifth and sixth sessions of the Council of Trent, but nevertheless these decrees of the Council did not prevent the theories of Luther and Calvin being propagated vigorously, and from exercising a certain amount of influence even on some Catholic theologians who had no sympathy with the religious revolt.

Amongst these might be reckoned Michael Baius (De Bay, 1513-89) a professor at the University of Louvain and John Hessels, one of his supporters in the theological controversies of the day.

They believed that Catholic apologists were handicapped seriously by their slavish regard for the authority and methods of the Scholastics, and that if instead of appealing to the writings of St. Thomas as the ultimate criterion of truth they were to insist more on the authority of the Bible and of the works of the Early Fathers, such as St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine, they would find themselves on much safer ground, and their arguments would be more likely to command the respect of their opponents.

Hence at Louvain, in their own lectures, in their pamphlets, and in private discussions, they insisted strongly that Scholasticism should make way for positive theology, and that the Scriptures and patristic literature should take the place of the /Summa/.

Not content, however, with a mere change of method they began to show their contempt for traditional opinions, and in a short time alarming rumours were in circulation both inside and outside the university that their teaching on Original Sin, Grace, and Free-will, was not in harmony with the doctrine of the Church.

The Franciscans submitted to the judgment of the Sorbonne a number of propositions (18) selected from the writings or lectures of Baius and his friends, and the opinion of the Sorbonne was distinctly unfavourable.

As the dispute grew more heated and threatened to have serious consequences for the university and the country, Cardinal Granvelle, believing that the absence of the two professors might lead to peace, induced both to proceed to the Council of Trent as the theologians of the King of Spain (1563).

Though the opinions of Baius found little sympathy with the Fathers of Trent, yet since the subjects of Original Sin and Grace had been discussed and defined already, nothing was done.

On his return (1564) from the Council of Trent Baius published several pamphlets in explanation and defence of his views, all of which were attacked by his opponents, so that in a short time the university was split into two opposing camps.

To put an end to the trouble the rector determined to seek the intervention of Rome.

In October 1567 Pius V. issued the Bull, /Ex omnibus afflictionibus/, in which he condemned seventy-nine propositions selected from the writings or lectures of Baius without mentioning the author's name.

[1] The friends of Baius raised many difficulties regarding the reception and the interpretation of the papal document, and though Baius himself professed his entire submission to the decision, the tone of his letter to the Pope was little short of offensive.

The Pope replied that the case having been examined fully and adjudged acceptance of the decision was imperative.

Once more Baius announced his intention of submitting (1569), and so confident were his colleagues of his orthodoxy that he was appointed dean of the theological faculty, and later on chancellor of the university.

But his actions did not correspond with his professions.

Various arguments were put forward to weaken the force of the papal condemnation until at last Gregory XIII.

was forced to issue a new Bull, /Provisionis nostrae/ (1579), and to send the learned Jesuit, Francisco Toledo, to demand that Baius should abjure his errors, and that the teaching of Pius V. should be accepted at Louvain.

The papal letter was read in a formal meeting of the university, whereupon Baius signed a form of abjuration, by which he acknowledged that the condemnation of the propositions was just and reasonable, and that he would never again advocate such views.

This submission relieved the tension of the situation, but it was a long time before the evil influence of Baianism disappeared, and before peace was restored finally to Louvain.

The system propounded by Baius had much in common with the teaching of Pelagius, Luther, and Calvin.

His failure to recognise the clear distinction between the natural and the supernatural was the source of most of his errors.

According to him the state of innocence in which our first parents were created, their destination to the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision, and all the gifts bestowed upon them for the attainment of this end were due to them, so that had they persevered during life they should have merited eternal happiness as a reward for their good works.

When, however, man sinned by disobedience he not merely lost gratuitous or supernatural endowments, but his whole nature was weakened and corrupted by Original Sin which, in the system of Baius, was to be identified with concupiscence, and which was transmitted from father to son according to the ordinary laws of heredity.

This concupiscence, he contended, was in itself sinful, as was also every work which proceeds from it.

This was true even in case of children, because that an act be meritorious or demeritorious Free- will was not required.

So long as the act was done voluntarily even though necessarily, it was to be deemed worthy of reward or punishment, since freedom from external compulsion was alone required for moral responsibility.

From the miserable condition into which man had fallen he was rescued by the Redemption of Christ, on account of which much that had been forfeited was restored.

These graces procured for man by Christ may be called supernatural, not because they were not due to human nature, but because human nature had been rendered positively unworthy of them by Original Sin.

The justice, however, by which a man is justified, consisted not in any supernatural quality infused into the soul, by which the individual was made a participator of the divine nature, but implied merely a condition in which the moral law was observed strictly.

Hence justification, according to Baius, could be separated from the forgiveness of guilt, so that though the guilt of the sinner may not have been remitted still he may be justified.

In sin two things were to be distinguished, the act and the liability to punishment.

The act could never be effaced, but the temporal punishment was remitted by the actual reception of the sacraments, which were introduced by Christ solely for that purpose.

The Mass possessed, he held, any efficacy that it had only because it was a good moral act and helped to draw us more closely to God.

---------- [1] Denzinger, op.

cit.

, nos.

1001-1080. (b) The Molonist Controversy.

See bibliography VI.

(a).

Molina, /Liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis ...

concordia/, 1588. Augustin Le Blanc, /Historia congregationis de auxiliis/, etc. , 1699, 1709. Elutherius, /Historia controversiarum de auxiliis/, etc. , 1705-15. Schneeman, /Enstehung und Entwicklung der thomistich-molinistischen Kontroverse/, 1880. Gayraud, /Thomisme et Molinisme/, 1890. Dummermuth, /S. Thomas et doctrina praemotionis physicae/, 1886. Frins (S. J.

), /S.

Thomas Aquin, doctrina de cooperatione Dei/, etc. , 1892. Dummermuth, /Defensio doctrinae S. Thomae/, etc. , /Responsio ad P. Frins/, 1895. The teaching of St. Thomas on Grace was the teaching followed generally, not merely by the Dominicans, but by most of the theologians belonging to the secular clergy and to the other religious orders.

When, however, the systems of Calvin and Luther began to take root some of those who were brought into close contact with the new doctrines arrived at the conclusion that the arguments of their opponents could be overcome more effectually by introducing some modifications of the theories of St. Thomas concerning the operation of Grace and Free-will.

The Jesuits particularly were of this opinion, and in 1584 the general, Aquaviva, allowed his subjects to depart in some measure from the teaching of the /Summa/.

This step was regarded with disfavour in many influential quarters, and induced scholars to be much more critical about Jesuit theology than otherwise they might have been.

In their College at Louvain there were two Jesuit theologians Lessius (1584-1623) and Hamel, who both in their lectures and theses advanced certain theories on man's co-operation with Grace and on Predestination, that were deemed by many to be dangerously akin to the doctrine of the Semi-Pelagians (1587).

The fact that the Jesuits had been the consistent opponents of Baianism induced Baius and his friends to cast the whole weight of their influence against Lessius.

A sharp controversy broke out once more in the Netherlands.

The Universities of Louvain and Douay censured thirty-four propositions of Lessius as Semi-Pelagian, while the Universities of Ingolstadt and Mainz declared in favour of their orthodoxy.

The matter having been referred to Rome, Sixtus V. imposed silence on both parties, without pronouncing any formal condemnation or approval of the propositions that had been denounced (1588).

The controversy in the Spanish Netherlands was only the prelude to a much more serious conflict in Spain itself.

In 1588 the well-known Jesuit, Luis de Molina (1535-1600) published at Lisbon his celebrated work, /Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis etc. / with the approbation of the Dominican, Bartholomew Ferreira, and the permission of the Inquisition.

Hardly had the work left the printing press than it was attacked warmly by Domingo Banez (1528-1604), the friend and spiritual director of St. Teresa, and one of the ablest Dominicans of his time.

He had been engaged already in a controversy with the Jesuit, Montemaior, on the same subject of Grace, but the publication of Molina's book added new fuel to the flame, and in a short time the dispute assumed such serious proportions that bishops, theologians, universities, students, and even the leading officials of the state, were obliged to take sides.

The Dominicans supported Banez, while the Jesuits with some few exceptions rallied to the side of Molina.

The latter's book was denounced to the Inquisition, but as a counterblast to this Banez also was accused of very serious errors.

If Molina was blamed for being a Semi-Pelagian, Banez was charged with having steered too closely to Calvinism.

In the hope of restoring peace to the Church in Spain Clement VIII.

reserved the decision of the case to his own tribunal (1596).

To get a grasp of the meaning of the controversy, it should be borne in mind that in all theories concerning the operation of Grace three points must be safeguarded by all Catholic theologians, namely, man's dependence upon God as the First Cause of all his actions natural as well as supernatural, human liberty, and God's omniscience or foreknowledge of man's conduct.

Following in the footsteps of St. Thomas, the Dominicans maintained that when God wishes man to perform a good act He not only gives assistance, but He actually moves or predetermines the will so that it must infallibly act.

In this way the entire act comes from God as the First Cause, and at the same time it is the free act of the creature, because the human will though moved and predetermined by God acts according to its own nature, that is to say, it acts freely.

In His eternal decrees by which God ordained to give this premotion or predetermination He sees infallibly the actions and conduct of men, and acting on this knowledge He predestines the just to glory /ante praevisa merita/.

According to this system, therefore, the efficaciousness of Grace comes from the Grace itself, and is not dependent upon the co-operation of the human will.

Against this Molina maintained that the human faculties having been elevated by what might be called prevenient Grace, so as to make them capable of producing a supernatural act, the act itself is performed by the will co-operating with the impulse given by God.

Man is, therefore, free, and at the same time dependent upon God in the performance of every good act.

He is free, because the human will may or may not co-operate with the divine assistance, and he is dependent upon God, because it is only by being elevated by prevenient Grace freely given by God that the human will is capable of co-operating in the production of a supernatural act.

It follows, too, that the efficaciousness of Grace arises not from the Grace itself but from the free co-operation of the will, and that a Grace in itself truly sufficient might not be efficacious through the failure of the will to co-operate with it.

The omniscience of God is safeguarded, because, according to Molina, God sees infallibly man's conduct by means of the /scientia media/ or knowledge of future conditional events (so called because it stands midway between the knowledge of possibles and the knowledge of actuals).

That is to say He sees infallibly what man would do freely in all possible circumstances were he given this or that particular Grace, and acting upon this knowledge He predestines the just to glory /post praevisa merita/.

The main difficulty urged against Molina was, that by conceding too much to human liberty he was but renewing in another form the errors of Pelagius; while the principal objection brought forward against the Dominicans was, that by conceding too much to Grace they were destroying human liberty, and approaching too closely to Calvin's teaching on Predestination.

Needless to say, however much they differed on the points, both the followers of St. Thomas and the friends of Molina were at one in repudiating the doctrines of Calvin and Pelagius.

A special commission (/Congregatio de Auxiliis/), presided over by Cardinals Madrucci and Arrigone, was appointed to examine the questions at issue.

The first session was held in January 1598, and in February of the same year the majority of the members reported in favour of condemning Molina's book.

Clement VIII.

requested the commission to consider the evidence more fully, but in a comparatively short time the majority presented a second report unfavourable to Molina.

Representatives of the Dominicans and Jesuits were invited to attend in the hope that by means of friendly discussion an agreement satisfactory to both parties might be secured.

In 1601 the majority were in favour of condemning twenty propositions taken from Molina's work, but the Pope refused to confirm the decision.

From 1602 till 1605 the sessions were held in the presence of the Pope and of many of the cardinals.

Among the consultors was Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Armagh.

The death of Clement VIII.

in March 1605 led to an adjournment.

In September 1605 the sessions were resumed and continued till March 1606, when the votes of the consultors were handed in.

In July 1607 these were placed before the cardinals for their opinions, but a little later it was announced that the decision of the Holy See would be made public at the proper time, and that meanwhile both parties were at liberty to teach their opinions.

Neither side was, however, to accuse the other of heresy.

Since that time no definite decision has been given, and, so far as the dogmas of faith are concerned, theologians are at full liberty to accept Thomism or Molinism.

(c) Jansenism.

Rapin, /Histoire du Jansenisme depuis son origine jusqu' en 1644/, 1861. Paquier, /Le Jansenisme, etude doctrinale d'apres les sources/, 1909. Dechamps, /De haeresi jansemiana ab Apostolica Sede proscripta/, 1654. Du Mas, /Histoire des cinque propositions de Jansenius/, 1699. Saint-Beuve, /Port Royal/, 3rd edition, 1867- 71. Seche, /Les derniers Jansenistes/, 1891. Van den Peereboom, /Cornelius Jansensius septieme eveque d'Ypres/, 1882. Schill, /Die Constitution, Unigenitus/, 1876. Fuzet, /Les Jansenistes du XVIIe siecle/, 1876. The influence exercised by Baius, and the ideas that he implanted in the minds of his students had a very disturbing effect on the University of Louvain.

Amongst those who fell under the sway of Baianism at this period the best known if not the ablest was Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638).

He studied at Utrecht, Paris, and Louvain.

While in this latter place he formed a resolve to join the Society of Jesus, but for some reason or another he was refused admission, a slight which accounts in some measure for the continued antipathy he displayed during his life towards the Jesuits.

At Louvain, too, he was associated very closely with a brilliant young French student, John du Verger de Hauranne (1581-1643), better known as the Abbot of St. Cyran, whom he accompanied to Paris and afterwards to Bayonne, where both lived for almost twelve years.

During these years of intimate friendship they had many opportunities of discussing the condition and prospects of the Catholic Church, the prevalence of what they considered Pelagian views amongst theologians, the neglect of the study of the Fathers, above all of St. Augustine, the laxity of confessors in imparting absolution and allowing their penitents to receive Holy Communion, and the absolute necessity of returning to the strict discipline of the early Church.

In 1617 the two friends separated, Jansen returning to Louvain, where he was appointed to a chair of scriptural exegesis, and du Verger to Paris, where he took up his residence though he held at the same time the commendatory abbacy of St. Cyran.

As professor of Scripture Jansen showed himself both industrious and orthodox, so that in 1636 on the nomination of Philip IV.

of Spain he was appointed Bishop of Ypres.

From that time till 1639, when he passed away, he administered the affairs of his diocese with commendable prudence and zeal.

During the greater portion of his life he had devoted all his spare moments to the study of the works of St. Augustine, especially those directed against the Pelagians, and he had prepared a treatise on Grace, in which treatise he claimed to have reproduced exactly the teaching of St. Augustine.

This work was finished but not published when he took seriously ill, and the manuscript was handed over by him to some friends for publication.

Before his death, however, he declared in presence of witnesses that "if the Holy See wishes any change I am an obedient son and I submit to that Church in which I have lived to my dying hour."

[1] Notwithstanding various efforts that were made to prevent publication Jansen's book /Augustinus/ was given to the world in 1640. Like Baius Jansen refused to recognise that in the condition of innocence, in which man was constituted before the Fall, he was endowed with numerous gifts and graces, that were pure gifts of God in no way due to human nature.

Hence he maintained that by the sin of our First Parents human nature was essentially corrupted, and man fell helplessly under the control of concupiscence, so that, do what he would, he must of necessity sin.

There was therefore in man an irresistible inclination impelling him towards evil, to counteract which Grace was given as a force impelling him towards good, with the result that he was drawn necessarily towards good or evil according to the relative strength of these two conflicting delectations.

It followed from this that merely sufficient grace was never given.

If the Grace was stronger than the tendency towards evil it was efficacious; if it was weaker it was not sufficient.

Yet, whether he acted under the impulse of Grace or of concupiscence, man acted freely, because, according to Jansen, absence of all external pressure was all that was required to make an act free and worthy of praise or blame.

The book /Augustinus/ created a profound sensation among theologians.

It was hailed as a marvel of learning and ability by those who were still attached secretly to the school of Baius as well as by the enemies of the Jesuits.

A new edition appeared in Paris only to be condemned by the Holy Office (1641) and by Urban VIII.

in the Bull, /In Eminenti/ (1642).

Various difficulties were raised against the acceptance of the papal decision in Louvain and in the Netherlands, and it was only after a long delay and by threats of extreme measures that the Archbishop of Mechlin and those who followed him were obliged to submit (1653).

The real struggle regarding /Augustinus/ was to be waged, however, in Paris and France.

There, the Abbot of St. Cyran had been busily at work preparing the way for Jansen's doctrine, by attacking the modern laxity of the Church, and advocating the necessity of a complete return to the rigorous discipline of the early centuries.

He had made the acquaintance of the family of the celebrated lawyer, Antoine Arnauld, six of whose family had entered the convent of Port Royal, of which one of them, Angelique,[2] was then superioress, while his youngest son, Antoine, a pupil of St. Cyran, was destined to be the leader of the French Jansenists.

St. Cyran insisted on such rigorous conditions for the worthy reception of the Eucharist, that people feared to receive Holy Communion lest they should be guilty of sacrilege, and for a similar reason many priests abstained from the celebration of Mass.

He attacked the Jesuits for their laxity of doctrine and practice in regard to the Sacrament of Penance.

He himself insisted on the absolute necessity of perfect contrition and complete satisfaction as an essential condition for absolution.

These views were accepted by the nuns at Port Royal and by many clergy in Paris.

On account of certain writings likely to lead to religious trouble St. Cyran was arrested by order of Cardinal Richelieu (1638) and died in 1643. His place was taken by his brilliant pupil, Antoine Arnauld, who had been ordained priest in 1641, and who like his master was the determined opponent of the Jesuits.

In 1643 he published a book entitled /De la frequente Communion/, in which he put forward such strict theories about the conditions required for the worthy reception of the Eucharist that many people were frightened into abstaining even from fulfilling their Easter Communion.

Despite the efforts of St. Vincent de Paul and others the book was read freely and produced widespread and alarming results.