on

with Baius concerning grace, &c.

XXXVIII. All the controversies that have been here mentioned did not break out at the same time. The carried disputes concerning divine grace, the natural power of man to perform good actions, original sin, and predestination, which have been ranged under the third class, were publicly carried on in the century of which we are now writing. The others were conducted with more secrecy and reserve, and did not come forth to public view before the following age. Nor will this appear at all surprising to those who consider that the controversies concerning grace and freewill, which had been set in motion by Luther, were neither accurately examined, nor peremptorily decided, in the church of Rome, but were rather artfully suspended and hushed into silence. The sentiments of Luther were indeed condemned; but no fixed and perspicuous rule of faith with respect to these disputed points, was substituted in their place. The decisions of St. Augustin were solemnly approved; but the difference between these decisions and the sentiments of Luther were never clearly explained. The first rise of this fatal controversy was owing to the zeal of Michael Baius, a doctor in the university of Louvain, equally remarkable on account of the warmth of his piety and the extent of his learning. This eminent divine, like the other followers of Augustin, had an invincible aversion to that contentious, subtile, and intricate manner of teaching theology, that had long prevailed in the schools; and under the auspicious name of that famous prelate, who was his darling guide, he had the courage or temerity to condemn and censure, in an open and public manner, the tenets commonly received in the church of Rome, in relation to the natural powers of man, and the merit of good works. This bold step drew upon Baius the indignation of some of his academical colleagues, and the heavy censures of several Franciscan monks. Whether the Jesuits immediately joined in this opposition, and may be reckoned among the first accusers of Baius, is a matter unknown, or at most uncertain; but it is unquestionably evident and certain, that even at the rise of this controversy, they abhorred the principal tenets of Baius, which he had taken from Augustin, and adopted as his own. In the year 1567, this doctor was accused at the court of Rome, and seventy-six propositions, drawn from his writings,

were condemned by pope Pius V. in a circular letter expressly composed for that purpose. This condemnation however was issued out in an artful and insidious manner, without any mention being made of the name of the author; for the fatal consequences that had arisen from the rash and inconsiderate measures employed by the court of Rome against Luther, were too fresh in the remembrance of the prudent pontiff to permit his falling into new blunders of the same nature. The thunder of excommunication was therefore suppressed by the dictates of prudence, and the person and functions of Baius were spared, while his tenets were censured. About thirteen years after this transaction, Gregory XIII. complied so far with the importunate solicitations of a Jesuit, named Tolet, as to reinforce the sentence of Pius V. by a new condemnation of the opinions of the Flemish doctor. Baius submitted to this new sentence, either from an apprehension that it would be followed by severer proceedings in case of resistance, or, which is more probable, on account of the ambiguity that reigned in the papal edict, and the vague and confused manner in which the obnoxious propositions were therein expressed. But his example in this respect was not followed by the other doctors who had formed their theological system upon that of Augustin; and even at this day, many divines of the Romish communion, and particularly the Jansenists, declare openly that Baius was unjustly treated, and that the two edicts of Pius and Gregory, mentioned above, are absolutely destitute of all authority, and have never been received as laws of the church."

Lessius and

XXXIX. Be that as it may, it is at least certain, that the doctrine of Augustin, with respect to the nature Contests with and operations of divine grace, lost none of its the Jesuits, credit in consequence of these edicts, but was embraced and propagated, with the same zeal as formerly, throughout all the Belgic provinces, and more especially in

Hamedius.

f See, for an account of the disputes relating to Baius, the works of that author, published in 4to. at Cologne, in 1696, particularly in the second part, or appendix, entitled Baiana seu Scripta, quæ controversias spectant occasione sententiarum Baii exortas, Bayle's Dict, at the article Baius, in which there is an ample and circumstantial account of these disputes. Du Pin, Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, tom xvi. p. 144. Histoire de la Compagnie de Jesus, tom. iii. p. 161.

g This is demonstrated fully by an anonymous writer, in a piece, entitled Dissertation sur les Bulles contre Baius, ou l'on montre qu'elles ne sont pas recues par l'Eglise, and published in two volumes 8vo. at Utrecht, in the year 1737.

the two flourishing universities of Louvain and Douay. This appeared very soon after, when two Jesuits, named Lessius and Hamedius, ventured to represent the doctrine of predestination in a manner different from that in which it appears in the writings of Augustin. For the sentiments of these Jesuits were publicly condemned by the doctors of Louvain in the year 1587, and by those of Douay the year following. The bishops of the Low Countries were disposed to follow the example of these two universities, and had already deliberated about assembling a provincial council for this purpose, when the Roman pontiff, Sixtus V. suspended their proceedings by the interposition of his authority, and declared, that the cognizance and decision of religious controversies belonged only to the vicar of Christ, residing at Rome. But this cunning vicar, whose sagacity, prudence, and knowledge of men and things, never failed him in transactions of this nature, wisely avoided making use of the privilege he claimed with such confidence, that he might not inflame the divisions and animosities that were already subsisting. And accordingly, in the year 1588, this contest was finished, and the storm laid in such a manner, as that the contending parties were left in the quiet possession of their respective opinions, and solemnly prohibited from disputing, either in public or in private, upon the intricate points that had excited their divisions. Had the succeeding pontiffs, instead of assuming the character of judges in this ambiguous and difficult controversy, imitated the prudence of Sixtus V. and imposed silence on the litigious doctors, who renewed afterward the debates concerning divine grace, the tranquillity and unity of the church of Rome would not have been interrupted by such violent divisions as rage at pre

sent in its bosom."

XL. The Roman church had scarcely perceived the fruits of that calm, which the prudence of Sixtus had The contro restored, by suppressing instead of deciding the the Moliniste. late controversies, when new commotions of the

versies with

h See Apologie Historique des doux Censures de Louvain et de Douay, par M. Gery, 1688, in 8vo. The famous Pasquer Quenel was the author of this apology, if we may give credit to the writer of a book, entitled Catechisme Historique et Dogmatique sur les Contestations de l'Eglise, tom. i. p. 104. See an account of this controversy in a piece, entitled Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire des Controverses dans l'Eglise Romaine sur la Predestination et sur la Grace; this curious piece is to be found in the fourteenth tome of Le Clerc's Bibliotheque Universelle Historique.

same nature, but of a much more terrible aspect, arose to disturb its tranquillity. These were occasioned by Lewis Molina,' a Spanish Jesuit, professor of divinity in the university of Ebora in Portugal, who, in the year 1588, published a book to show that the operations of divine grace were entirely consistent with the freedom of human will," and who introduced a new kind of hypothesis, to remove the difficulties attending the doctrines of predestination and liberty, and to reconcile the jarring opinions of Augustinians, Thomists, Semipelagians, and other contentious divines. This attempt of the subtile Spanish doctor was so offensive to the Dominicans, who followed St. Thomas as their theological guide, that they sounded, throughout the whole kingdom of Spain, the alarm of heresy, and accused the Jesuits of endeavouring to renew the errors of Pelagius. This alarm was followed by great commotions, and all things seemed to prognosticate a general flame, when Clement VIII. in the year 1594, imposed silence on the contending parties, promising that he himself would examine with care and diligence every thing relating to this new debate, in order to decide it in such a manner as might tend to promote the cause of truth, and the peace of the church.

XLI. The pontiff was persuaded that these gentle remedies would soon remove the disease, and that, The congregathrough length of time, these heats and animosition of aids. ties would undoubtedly subside. But the event was far from being answerable to such pleasing hopes. The Domi

i From this Spanish doctor's name proceeded the well-known denomination of Molinists, by which those Roman catholics are distinguished, who seem to incline to the doc trines of grace and freewill, that are maintained in opposition to those of Augustin. Many however who differ widely from the sentiments of Molina, are unjustly ranked in the class of Molinists.

k The title of this famous book is as follows: Liberi Arbitrii Concordia cum Gratia donis, divina præscientia, providentia, prædestinatione, et reprobatione, auctore Lud. Molina. This book was first published at Lisbon, in folio, in the year 1588. Afterward, with additions, and in 4to. at Antwerp, Lyons, Venice, and other places, in 1595. A third edition, still farther augmented, was published at Antwerp in 1609.

Molina affirmed that the decree of predestination to eternal glory was founded upon a previous knowledge and consideration of the merits of the elect; that the grace, from whose operation these merits are derived, is not efficacious by its own intrinsic power only, but also by the consent of our own will, and because it is adminis tered in those circumstances in which the Deity, by that branch of his knowledge, which is called Scientia Media, foresees that it will be efficacious. The kind of prescience, denominated in the schools Scientia Media, is that foreknowledge of future contingents, that arises from an acquaintance with the nature and faculties of rational beings, of the circumstances in which they shall be placed, of the objects that shall be presented to them, and of the influence that these circumstances and objects must have on their actions.

nicans, who had long fostered a deep-rooted and invinci ble hatred against the Jesuits, having now a favourable opportunity of venting their indignation, exhausted their furious zeal against the doctrine of Molina, notwithstanding the pacific orders of the papal edict. They fatigued incessantly the Spanish monarch, Philip II. and the Roman pontiff, Clement VIII. with their importunate clamours, until at length the latter found himself under the necessity of assembling at Rome a sort of council for the decision of this controversy. And thus commenced, about the beginning of the year 1598, those famous deliberations concerning the contests of the Jesuits and Dominicans, which were held in what was called the congregation de auxiliis, or of aids. This congregation was so denominated on account of the principal point in debate, which was the efficacy of the aids and succours of divine grace, and its consultations were directed by Lewis Madrusi, bishop of Trent, and one of the college of cardinals, who sat as president in this assembly, which was composed beside of three bishops and seven divines chosen out of so many different orders. The remaining part of this century was wholly employed by these spiritual judges in hearing and weighing the arguments alleged in favour of their respective opinions, by the contending parties." The Dominicans maintained, with the greatest obstinacy, the doctrine of their patron, St. Thomas, as alone conformable to truth. The Jesuits, on the other hand, though they did not adopt the religious tenets of Molina, thought the honour of their order concern

m The history and transactions of this congregation are related and illustrated by several writers of different complexions, by Jesuits, Dominicans, and Jansenists. Hyacinth Serri, a Dominican, published, under the feigned name of Augustin le Blanc, in the year 1700, at Louvain, a work entitled Historia Congregationuin de auxiliis Gratia divina; which was answered by another history of these debates composed by Liv. de Meyer, a Jesuit, who assumed the name of Theod. Eleutherius, in order to lie concealed from public view, and whose book is entitled Historia Controversiarum de Gratiæ divinæ auxiliis. The Dominicans also published the Acta congregationum et dispulationum, quæ coram Clemente VIII. et Paulo V. de auxiliis divinæ Gratiæ sunt celebratæ, a work composed by Thomas de Lemos, a subtile monk of their order, who, in this very congregation, had defended with great applause the glory of St. Thomas against the Jesuits. Amidst these jarring accounts, a man must be endowed with a supernatural sagacity to come at the truth. For acts are opposed to acts, testimony to testimony, and narration to narration. It is therefore as yet a matter of doubt, which the court of Rome favoured most on this occasion, the Jesuits or the Dominicans, and which of these two parties defended their cause with the most dexterity and success. There is also a history of these debates written in French, which was published, in 8vo. at Louvain, in the year 1702, under the following title; Histoire de Congregationis de auxiliis, par un Docteur da la Faculte de Theologie de Paris. This historian, though he be neither destitute of learning nor elegance, being nevertheless a flaming Jansenist, discovers throughout his enmity against the Jesuits, and relates all things in a manner that favours the cause of the Dominicans.