CHAPTER IX.

The Controversy on Grace.

The dispute concerning the doctrine of grace, which had arisen between the Dominican Order and the Society of Jesus, and had become steadily embittered, led in the time of Clement VIII to very serious strife. After the celebrated book concerning freedom and grace by the Jesuit Luis Molina (died 1600) had stated the point at issue in the most exact possible form, it seemed to have become necessary to transfer the discussion to Rome, under the eye of the Pope himself, in order to arrive at an agreement. Nevertheless, the discussions lasting through many years, and conducted by the most learned doctors in the presence of the Pope himself, were unable to attain the desired end or any immediate result; the keen expectation with which Catholics and Protestants throughout Europe, and later on the princes and diplomatists awaited the issue, had to remain satisfied with seeing both opinions tolerated by the Church for the time being.

Delight in a learned scholastic dispute was not the only reason why the Jesuits turned all their skill and energy to so thorny and obscure a problem. Grace and free will, predestination and eternal punishment, had become burning questions during the period of the Protestant schism. According to Calvin, God has predestined everyone a priori, even before foreseeing his good or evil works, either to eternal happiness or eternal flames. The views of Luther as to this matter were almost the same, since, as man in his opinion was not possessed of free will, it followed that not even his eternal destiny could depend upon his own will. Accordingly this, whether it were happy or unhappy, was allotted to him purely by divine predestination, without his being able to change it in the slightest degree.

Today it will perhaps seem strange that any such doctrine can have met with so much support in the XVIth century. By way of explanation it may be remarked that the numerous priests and monks who became preachers and teachers of the people among the innovators, found some comfort in being able to attribute their own fault to an inevitable destiny. Moreover the immutable divine predestination was made use of, as a proof of the fundamental principles of the innovators concerning the denial of free will, and the uselessness of good works. But whatever may have been the reason, the fact remains that under the influence of the Protestant preachers this terrible doctrine penetrated among every class of the people. “Who can resist the will of God?” was to be heard from the lips of quite ordinary folk. “If the wishes to save us for all eternity, then we shall be saved, but if He does not so wish, then we shall be lost. God knows our destiny from all eternity ; from all eternity it has been irrevocably decreed. Why then should we take trouble and wear ourselves out, why should we do good works?”. Naturally the moral consequences of such opinions could not fail to be deplorable.

In the Book of the Exercises, Ignatius of Loyola points out that certain people were arriving at the above conclusion from the doctrine of predestination, and were for that reason neglecting good works. Nevertheless he urges caution in speaking of such matters; he says that ordinarily, predestination should not be dealt with, but that if, as an exception, this should be done, care must be taken to ensure that the common folk do not arrive at erroneous conclusions. In like manner the power of divine grace must not be exaggerated in such a way as to impair human freedom. The disciples of Loyola had followed this warning of their master, and from the first, and long before Molina, had treated the mysteries of predestination and grace in such a way as not to infringe in the least degree on the freedom of man; they had from the first been opposed to those learned systems in which human freedom seemed to them to be threatened. This explains how it was that, when the book and doctrine of Molina was in question, the whole Society of Jesus rallied to his side.

Before Molina had come forward as a writer, he had long taken counsel with himself and others as to the subject to which he could best devote the fruits of his scientific studies for the greater advantage of the Church. In the end he resolved upon an exhaustive treatise as to the best way to reconcile grace and liberty. The main thesis and the end of his book is therefore an examination of that conclusion which was at that time so often propounded : if the divine decree which assigns to me heaven or hell is fixed and sealed from all eternity, then my free will has no influence upon my destiny. He aimed at scientifically examining this sophism which denied free will, and at refuting it.

The solution of this difficulty which Molina puts forward is fundamentally very simple. All men whom He has created or will create, or could create are present in the mind of God from all eternity. He also foresees the countless situations and different circumstances in which it is possible for each of these to find himself; he also foresees how each one will act in each of these circumstances, especially under the interior influence of grace. He foresaw, for example, that the Apostle Peter would deny the Saviour when the servant maid accosted him in the courtyard of the high priest, and that he would rise again after his fall, when, together with the interior action of grace, the look of Christ met his own. If then God wished to permit the fall of the Apostle or bring about his conversion, it would be sufficient that he should allow Peter to go to the courtyard of the high priest and that the servant maid should attack him with her provocative words; it would be sufficient that he should allow the grave and gentle look of Christ to meet that of the Apostle; if he falls the fault is his own, since according to the will of God he could and should have resisted the temptation; if he rises again after his fall, the merit is his ; neither the look of the God-Man, nor the interior action of grace have destroyed the freedom of his conversion.

According to Molina then, so-called efficacious grace is, it is true, infallibly united to the consent of the will, for otherwise it would no longer be efficacious grace, but this infallible efficacy comes from the foreknowledge of God, so that the will really co-operates with this determinate grace in these determinate circumstances, even though in se and per se it could resist it. “God has compassion,” says St. Augustine, “upon him who is called by Him in the manner which He knows will be suitable to him, so long as he does not reject His invitation.”

Molina’s bitter adversary, Domenico Banes (died 1604) held quite a different view of the question. Whereas the Jesuit theologian started with the free will of man, the Dominican fixed his attention before all else upon the power and operation of God, which embraces everything and penetrates everything, and without which the creature is absolutely helpless. And since the existence of the creature is inconceivable without the creative and conservative power of God, the same thing, according to Catholic doctrine, applies to the acts of the creature; God must co-operate in every human act, and these must also receive from Him their origin and their impetus; for every act of the creature springs from the desire for something which contains a certain good for him who aspires to it. But this tendency of the will towards its own good is implanted in it by God, and all man’s actions have their origin in it; the Creator makes use of it in order to spur men on to act. Thus even the free acts of men have their origin in God, and it is God who causes the free will to embrace the object of its desires.

So far there are no differences of opinion between the Catholic schools, but in what follows they diverge. According to some, such as Molina, this divine impulse may be affected by the free action of the will, in so far as that, in contrast to the original will of God, it may receive a tendency towards illusory good. But this kind of autodominion on the part of the creature was emphatically attacked by Banes. In his view, the majesty of God, his unlimited sovereignty over all created things, and the idea of divine omnipotence, demanded that every manifestation of the human will, both in its essence and its extension, down to the smallest detail, must be completely dependent upon the influx and predisposition of God. Free will makes its own decision, but is always and exclusively determined to that decision to which the influx of God has predestined and predisposed it, and it is infallibly certain from the first that it will not decide in favour of any other. But the influx of God into the will is not manifested by inspirations, warnings or attractions, that is to say by moral means, but by direct influx, which consists, as it is called in controversial terminology in the schools, by “physical predetermination.” Despite all this, according to Banes, free will remains, because in all things God works in conformity with the nature of things; necessary causes he makes to operate of necessity, free causes he makes to operate with freedom; thus even freedom of action is produced by Him.

What has been said holds good in the case of the purely natural actions of man, and also holds good in the case of those acts which call for a supernatural influence, that is to say the grace of God. According to Banes, efficacious grace in the supernatural order corresponds to the physical predetermination and predisposition in the supernatural order. Lacking this efficacious grace, the will cannot bring itself to act; but where it is present, then it infallibly produces precisely that determination of the will, which is pre-ordained. In the case of inefficacious graces, Banes naturally adheres to the term already in use among theologians, of “sufficient” grace, but these “sufficient” graces only give the will the power to act, which, however, can never be transformed into act.

As we can see, the scholastic dispute here touches upon the most profound depths of the inmost life of the soul: the mysterious mingling of divine and human action in the heart of man, the infinite variety of the devices which the divine love employs for the conquest of the soul of man, the thrice incomprehensible decrees of election and reprobation, the depths of which a Paul thought that he could not better honour than by a reverent silence. The necessary presupposition and foundation for understanding and appreciating the dispute is that doctrine of Christianity which, intimately united to the dogmas of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, offers the strongest possible contrast to every kind of rationalism and superficial naturalism, namely the doctrine of the natural and the supernatural.

According to the Catholic doctrine man is destined to a supernatural end, that is to an end to which he would have no right by his nature, and to which he is incapable of attaining, or even of imagining by his natural powers alone. This means that he is to be admitted in eternity to the direct contemplation of God, a thing to which per se none would have a right but the only-begotten Son of God, who by His Incarnation became the brother of man, raised him to the sonship of God, and made him his co-heir. To this sublime end there corresponds on earth a mysterious raising of the justified man in the order of grace. He is no longer only the servant of God, but by means of justifying grace he becomes His son; his soul is ennobled, as a wild tree by a noble grafting, his spiritual nature is as it were transfigured by sanctifying grace, his intellect by the infused virtue of faith, his will by the infused virtue of charity. Eternal glory therefore is not cast to the thus ennobled soul as a pure alms, but it is enabled on the contrary to gain it for itself. But since the natural powers of man are not sufficient for this purpose, God comes to his assistance with that kind of grace, concerning which the dispute between the Jesuits and the Dominicans arose : prevenient and co-operating grace, which consists in the illumination of the intelligent and the incitement of the will. This assistance of grace is an absolutely gratuitous gift of God, and all that man can do by means of his natural powers is insufficient to merit it ; but once furnished with it he is in a position, not only to merit an increase of justifying grace, but also the crown of eternal glory.

These remarks show that the efficacy of this assistance of grace offers further enigmas to the keen intellect. The mani­festations of the will which are developed under its influence cannot of their nature be operated by any but God, for otherwise they would no longer be supernatural. But at the same time, according to the whole of their interior essence they must come from the free will, since the question at issue is precisely the activity of freedom. The operation of God and that of man must therefore be united, just as in red-hot iron the metal is united with the fire, but the manner in which this takes place still remains obscure. To this is added the difficulty of reconciling the rights of freedom with the supreme authority of God, which shines forth yet more in the supernatural order than in the merely natural order. God cannot be deprived of his supreme sovereignty over his creature, yet if He creates free beings, it seems that he is renouncing a part of his rights over His creature. A third and a vast difficulty is presented by the mystery of the choice of grace. As grace cannot be merited, the beginning of the supernatural life as well as the distribution of graces to individual men can only come from God. Now God in distributing His graces sincerely wills that all men should co-operate with them, and thus attain to eternal glory. But in the case of many he foresees that they will not actually attain to this by means of the graces given to them, although they could do so. Why then does He not give them other graces? In every case it is for reasons dictated by His wisdom; and who can say or imagine what those reasons may be? When it was a case of the scientific discussion of the true issue of the dispute, yet another difficulty had to be taken into consideration : the taking into account of the opinions of the Fathers of the Church and of the scholastics. This was above all the case with St. Augustine, the master of grace, and St. Thomas Aquinas. Thus both one and the other were claimed as their own by the representatives of the two opinions.

It is no matter for surprise then that differences of opinion should have arisen even among Catholic theologians over a question of such difficulty, and that neither view was able to throw light upon all its obscurities. In the view of Molina it remained an impenetrable mystery how God could foresee the free acts of the will which were never to be realized; for this knowledge no satisfactory explanation is to be found. It would not seem at first sight that the school of Banes felt any difficulty on this point; according to this God had ab aeterno predestined the free decisions of his creatures, and therefore knows them just as He knows His own will. But at once the question arises: to what purpose should God make milliards of decrees of predestination concerning milliards of possible acts? Such decrees do not seem to have been invented for any other purpose than to give the theologian a way of explaining the prescience of God on the strength of them. Other difficulties as well result from the theories of the Dominican theologian. He was naturally bound to hold firmly that man possesses free will, and that God is not the author of sin; he must admit with the Council of Trent that it is also possible to reject grace if one wills. But the explanations of this point given by the followers of Banes seem to other theologians to be forced and artificial. It was brought against them that they were teaching a sufficient grace which was not enough for anything in practice, a liberty which was tied hand and foot, a power to resist grace which could never amount to a real resistance, and therefore did not deserve the name of power. To this was added that, according to the point of view of the Dominicans, it is difficult to explain how God does not become the author of sin.

From these brief remarks it will in any case be understood that the historian cannot pass over the dispute which arose, by describing it as a mere monks’ quarrel. The question concerns one of the most sublime and profound doctrines of Christianity, a question to which a man of intelligence and heart might very well devote all his powers.

The dispute between the two schools had already made itself felt in the discussions between Lessius and the theological faculty of Louvain. A greater uproar first arose on the occasion of a disputation at Salamanca, on January 20th, 1582, at which the Jesuit Prudencio di Montemayor had to defend a series of propositions, in the course of which he was attacked by Banes. These propositions contained nothing that could have provoked the Dominicans. This is clear from the fact that a friend and disciple of Banes, the Trinitarian Francisco Zumel, had accepted the presidency at this ecclesiastical tourney. But while the difficult question of the liberty of Christ was under discussion, the matter passed at length from objection to objection, and from reply to reply on the burning question of the doctrine of grace, and went so far that Banes and the Dominican Guzman described the replies of the Jesuit as heretical. There then intervened in the discussion the celebrated theologian and poet Luis de Leon of the Order of St. Augustine. Under the impression that such strong expressions were only being employed out of hatred for the Jesuits, he chivalrously took up their defence. Montemayor retired into the background and all eyes were turned on the celebrated Augustinian. Even after the closure of the theological disputation the discussion was carried on with vehemence. Names such as “Pelagian” for Luis de Leon, and “Lutheran” for the Dominicans, filled the air, and when several days later it was rumoured that the discussion was to be resumed in a further disputation, the hall was crowded with the curious. Once more Banes and Luis de Leon battled vehemently with each other. This time the Jesuits were silent, but in justification of their theory they arranged for January 27th a disputation at their own college, at which the question was discussed why, of two men who find themselves under the influence of the same grace, one may be converted and the other remain impenitent.

The Hieronymite Juan de Santa Cruz then laid before the Inquisition sixteen propositions as having been defended by Luis de Leon and Montemayor, and the licenciate Juan de Arrese at once appeared at Salamanca to open the process against four principal offenders. The Dominicans had in meantime collected signatures against the accused, and issued a warning that no one must declare himself on the side of the Jesuits as the cause was pending before the Holy Office. In spite of this, at Valladolid all the doctors of repute, with the exception of the Dominicans, took the side of the Jesuits ; in Andalusia even some members of the Order of Preachers pronounced in their favour, so that it is evident from this as well as from other attestations, that at that time, at the beginning of the dispute, not all the colleagues of Banes shared his views concerning the doctrine of grace.

Arrese, who was to conduct the process, at once found himself in an impasse. The accuser, Juan de Santa Cruz, had not been present at the first disputation, and it was quite clear from the statements of Luis de Leon that his theses had been very incorrectly formulated. The opinions of the Spanish universities, to which Arrese had appealed, were not in agreement. At Alcala it was held that both views, that of the Jesuits, as well as that of Banes, were probable; one of Banes’ was, however, found fault with, but this had no bearing upon the doctrine of grace. It would seem that the doctors of Salamanca were of the opposite opinion. Then the Jesuits asked, in the name of justice, that their reasons should be heard before a judgment was formed; they had gone into this question much more thoroughly than the others, and their view was safe, or at least worthy of preference. Luis de Leon even spread the report that the propositions of the Jesuits would shortly be declared safe in Rome.

Almost two years elapsed before a judgment was pronounced. At last, on February 3rd, 1584, Luis de Leon, the principal culprit, was cited to appear before the Grand Inquisitor, Cardinal Quiroga, and was reprimanded for his faults, which had been confirmed in the light of the acta. He was warned to refrain from maintaining, either in public or in any other way, the propositions which, it would appear, he had defended. Montemayor too received an admonition from the Grand Inquisitor and from his Provincial; he was no longer to be employed in lecturing. Montemayor complained to his General, and among other things pointed out that he had only defended what he had been taught by his professors, among whom he named Suarez and Toledo. Some years later, with the consent of Quiroga, Montemayor was again teaching theology at Toledo.

The questions raised at Salamanca were only a prelude to the great struggle that was soon to follow. It was shown that the burning question of the efficacy of grace had for a long time past been eagerly discussed among the Jesuits, and that on the whole the question had been harmoniously settled, but that there still remained certain obscure matters of detail, which showed that a thorough scientific examination of the difficult question was indispensable. The ground was therefore prepared for that work which for ten years held the whole of Europe in a state of suspense, the work of Molina upon the relations between grace and liberty. This was published at Lisbon at the end of 1588. As far as its outward appearance was concerned it was one of the least imposing of that author’s works, yet that modest quarto volume has a history such as few books in the world can boast. A few years before Banes too had set forth his views on the same subject, not in a work specially devoted to grace, but in various parts of his commentaries on the Summa of St. Thomas.

Three Jesuits had been charged by their Portuguese province to examine the work of Molina, among them Jorge Serrano, who was held in high esteem by the Inquisition. Molina wished that, on the strength of the favourable opinion of Serrano, a nihil obstat might be asked for the publication without any further censorship, because he was afraid of the Dominicans, upon whose judgement depended the permission to print the book. The other Jesuits, on the other hand, thought that the usual course should be followed, and that not the least distrust of the Dominicans ought to be shown. Molina had hardly handed over his manuscript to the censor, Bartolomeo Ferreira, when there began disputes about his book, which seemed destined to be the apple of discord between the parties. Ferreira was bombarded with accusations against Molina; it was naturally supposed that the Jesuit propositions which had been found fault with at Salamanca would be found in the book ; the confessor of the Grand Inquisitor, the Dominican De las Cuevas, brought forward the judgment in which those propositions had been found fault with, while other Dominicans thought that the honour of St. Dominic demanded a refusal of the permission to print. Ferreira, who was not opposed to the Jesuits, informed Molina of these accusations. The latter was not the man to stand and watch these attacks with folded hands, and he pointed out that Ferreira had not been appointed censor of the Inquisition in order to protect the interests of the Dominican Order; he had in no case taught the propositions found fault with at Salamanca, and Ferreira could satisfy himself as to this. If there were anything in his book which called for blame, in that case he himself would ask for its prohibition.

The unexpected end of all this was that Ferreira was persuaded, and gave the book that was the subject of so many attacks a glowing imprimatur. In this he states that the work contained nothing that was not in accordance with our religion, and that many passages taken from the Councils and the Holy Scriptures were explained and elucidated therein very happily. He therefore considered the work worthy of publication, and of advantage to the whole Church. In accordance with this, in the middle of July the printing was begun, and on January 6th, 1589, Molina went to the governor, Cardinal Albert, in order to present him with the first copy.

While the book was being printed its adversaries did not remain with folded hands, and Molina was soon made to realize that their efforts had not been ineffectual. Cardinal Albert received the first copy coldly and forbade the sale of the edition until further orders. Molina then asked for a strict examination of his work, adding the request that the objections should be made only in writing, and signed with the name of the critic. He pointed out that a favourable judgment had been passed upon his book by three of his brethren in religion and by Ferreira, that he had sent it to the royal council, both of Castille and Aragon, so that it might be examined there, and that the objections only sprang from the jealousy of the Dominicans. At a second audience Molina was able to point out that not only Ferreira, but some of the latter’s colleagues as well, who had formerly been his adversaries, had described the work as a good book, after Ferreira had enabled them to read it, comparing the printed edition with the manuscript. This proved what Molina had confidently said to Ferreira, namely, that if only his book were read, there would no longer be any question of suppressing it. Naturally not all the Dominicans passed a favourable judgment on Molina’s volume, and some thought that they could detect in the book the theses which had been found fault with at Salamanca. The pressure they brought to bear upon De las Cuevas, the spiritual director of the governor, led to Cardinal Albert’s causing Molina’s book to be once more examined by the Dominican Cano. Cano thought that he discovered in it the very theses which had been found fault with in Castille, and thus it came about that Molina’s work, which had already been so often examined, could not be sold for three months.

But in the meantime Molina, about the end of February 1589, had been informed of the state of the affair; he therefore hastened to come to the rescue of his child of sorrow, by an apologetic work. He confessed that he was indeed the author of some of the disputed theses, but that there was no reason at all to suspect them of being erroneous or heretical. In the majority of cases, however, he proved that opinions were being attributed to him which he would never have dreamed of defending. In the meantime in Spain Molina’s book had been judged by the royal council of Castille, as well as by that of Aragon, in a manner highly honourable to the author, nor were any of his theses called in question there. The Archduke Albert then gave permission for the sale of the book.

So far, then, the attacks on Molina had had no other result than that his book had appeared under the protection of the Portuguese Inquisition, and with the arms and protection of the royal council of Castille and Aragon. Later on to these was added the approbation of the Castilian Inquisition. Molina might be said to have been recompensed for his past troubles by the applause which he gained in far wider circles. Even during his life-time his book ran into new editions at Cuenca, Venice, Lyons and Antwerp. The professor of theology at Valladolid, Garcia Coronel, said that though it was true that the fundamental idea of the book contained nothing new, and was to be found, in his opinion, clearly stated in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Molina was nevertheless the first who had treated of the matter in detail, by solving the difficulties and building up the proofs; theologians who had to fight against the heretics were grateful for the weapon which he placed in their hands. Leonhard Lessius, who was in conflict with the doctrines of Baius at Louvain, pronounced enthusiastically in favour of Molina, who defended the same opinion as to efficacious grace as himself. The opinion of Lessius is also of importance for the reason that Francis of Sales, who was later on declared a doctor of the Church, declared that he shared his views on the doctrine of predestination.

New ideas, however, even though they are only such from this or that point of view, are hardly ever introduced in science without serious disputes, and certainly Molina’s book offered many points of attack. His opinions excited opposition both from Bellarmine and from many Jesuits in Spain. These differences of opinion, however, do not in any way concern the question as to how efficacious grace may be reconciled with human freedom. Besides the principal object of his book, Molina also treats of many other matters, and it seemed to some that in these secondary questions he devoted too much space to the natural powers of man in regard to supernatural things. Others again found matter for blame in the expres­sions he used, but not in the substance of what he said.

The principal part in the struggle against Molina was undertaken in about 1590 by a scholar who has attached his name to the theory of the Dominicans on grace as inseparably as Molina has done in the case of the corresponding theory of the Jesuits: Domenico Banes. Banes was a distinguished theologian. Among the Dominicans who, together with Francisco de Vittoria, founded the so-called neo-scholasticism, he holds an outstanding place as a shrewd dialectician, and a profound student of metaphysics. As the influential adviser of St. Teresa of Jesus, he became even more widely celebrated. By the concise and determined form which gives an impress to his intellectual originality, and by the positively fascinating influence which he exercised over those around him, he seemed destined to become the leader of a school; he became so, in spite of his assertion that he did not intend to depart by even a finger’s breadth from Thomas Aquinas. In the world of learning he displayed the independence of his intellect by various paradoxical opinions. When confronted with the Jesuits his determination degenerated into bitterness and rancour; when they were not of his way of thinking he described them as ignorant men, or men who, against their consciences, refused to recognize better doctrines; in some respects he seems the spiritual heir of his master and fellow Dominican Melchior Cano.

During the years 1590-1594 the Spanish Inquisition was preparing a supplement to its Index of prohibited books for Spain. Banes and his friend Zumel were among the scholars whose opinion was asked concerning more recent publications. They attempted to aim a first blow at Molina by proposing that his writings, that is his book on grace, and his commentaries on St. Thomas, should be included among the prohibited books. The attempt failed, and brought down upon its authors a denunciation that was not altogether harmless. Molina had learned of the plan, and addressed a letter to the Inquisition in which from the defence of his book he passed on to the attack. He said that he had turned against Bancs and Zumel because their teaching on grace and free will was not reconcilable with the Council of Trent. Starting from the principles upon which Banes based his proofs, the Lutherans had gone on to the absolute denial of free will. In proof of this he brought forward a list of texts from Luther, Calvin and Chemnitz, together with others from Banes and Zumel. The title of this collection is remarkable, for in it Banes is spoken of as the first to have introduced such doctrines into Spain. It was perhaps on this occasion that the Spanish Inquisition itself examined the book of Molina and expressly gave it its approval.

At the same time the Dominicans Mondragon and Avendano sought to stir up a storm against the great Jesuit theologian Suarez, who in 1590 and 1592 had published, as the first fruits of his labours, two volumes on the Incarnation which had been received with great applause. When in October 1593, on the occasion of his being transferred from Alcala to Salamanca, Suarez paid a visit to the Grand Inquisitor Quiroga, the latter spoke to him on the subject, and thus gave him an opportunity of showing the falsity of the accusations. About a year later it was rumoured that the Dominicans were trying to get almost all the theological books written by Jesuits included in the list of prohibited books.

In the apologetic works of the Jesuits there occurs again and again a complaint at the manifest injustice of such attacks. The reason why they were being thus persecuted could not be found in the doctrines which they had taught, since others had taught the same things without their having provoked any attack. The historian certainly cannot describe this complaint as unfounded; the passion displayed by some of the Dominicans against the new Order is too manifest to allow of any such thing. On the other hand the bitterness is easy to explain. The young and rising Society of Jesus had in several cases entered the lists against the older Order, which was already covered with renown, and had won brilliant successes, especially in the field of pastoral work and teaching. How then could it have failed to seem unjust to certain Dominicans, who for centuries had borne the heat and burden of the day, that they should be left behind by these new-comers at the eleventh hour ? The Order of Preachers had jealously looked upon theological science as its privileged field. But now that the work of Molina, which had made its appearance as the first book by a Jesuit on scholastic theology, had been followed by other important works by Molina himself and by Suarez, it seemed as though the younger Order was preparing to storm the last fortress of the older. The Dominicans would not have been a body of men, if there had not been among them some of choleric temperament, who from the first looked with suspicion and jealousy upon the works of their special rivals, and who in their mistrust did not fail to find in their writings things which in reality were not there. In order to increase the tension yet further, it was only necessary for the ecclesiastical courts to pronounce in certain other juridical questions in favour of the Jesuits against the Dominicans. Banes in particular, the senior professor at Salamanca, had been obliged, in the sight of the whole university, to submit to the humiliation of the sentence of the Spanish nuncio on the occasion of the dispute concerning the simple vows of the Jesuits. But in spite of all this, it was not the whole of the Order of Preachers, nor even perhaps a majority of its members, as became more and more clear, who allowed themselves to be governed by hostility towards the Jesuits, although actually the over-zealous excesses of a single member attracted more attention than the moderate behaviour of a hundred others.

The ever increasing tension reached its climax at Valladolid.1 There, at the Gregorian College of the Dominicans, the declared adversary of the Jesuits was Diego Nuno ; he set the doctrine of Molina before the students as being contrary to faith, and Molina himself as an ignorant, presumptuous and blaspheming man, and often attributed to his adversary opinions which the latter had expressly rejected and refuted. The horror aroused against the supposed heretic was manifested in the lecture halls by a general stamping of feet every time the name of Molina was mentioned. A colleague of Nuno prayed for the conversion of Molina, since he might become a dragon like the one in the Apocalypse, who swept away a third part of the stars of heaven. To complete the confusion, the most bitter anti­Jesuit among the Dominicans Alonzo de Avendano, went to Valladolid to preach the Lent,, and inveighed from the pulpit against the new Order, though he did not mention it by name. Gradually even the best friends of the Jesuits began to be afraid lest not all these accusations which were hurled from the pulpit and the lecturer’s chair, should prove to be purely imaginary.

The Jesuits then, to justify themselves, formed the idea of defending the doctrines of Molina at a public disputation, above all showing that he did not maintain the theses which were being attributed to him. This disputation took place on March 5th, 1594, but Nuno took care that it should not serve its purpose. Since all those who were present were allowed to bring forward objections to the theses advanced for the defence, Nuno availed himself of this right and declared certain theses which he attributed to the Jesuits to be heretical and erroneous. The Jesuit appointed to conduct the defence, and the president at the disputation, the Jesuit Antonio de Padilla, declared that the theses attacked were neither heretical nor to be found in Molina. The latter wished to prove this by reading certain passages from Molina’s book, but Nuno would not allow this; he began to cry out in a loud voice that he had already adduced proofs that the passage which had been read was heretical, and continued thus to cry out when Padilla began to read another of the passages. Some of the bystander tried to calm the angry man. “Let me be,” he replied, “I am fighting for the faith.” Then the Jesuit who was charged with replying to the objections lost patience, and addressed to him the contemptuous question: “Perhaps you have the keys of wisdom on your side?” To which Nuno rejoined that to speak like that was a sign of great pride.

Then Diego Alvarez began to speak, and he later on gave the best explanation of grace from the Dominican point of view. The Jesuits bear witness that his attitude was modest, and that he presented his case very well. But Nuno would not even now be silenced, and frequently interrupted the discussion, until at length Padilla permitted himself to remark that in scientific discussions it was not a question of strength of voice, but of strength of arguments. Nuno then rose with a clatter and said that Padilla’s remark was an insult, and that he did not intend to submit to it; he was going away and would not return any more, but would hold his own disputation concerning Molina at the Dominican college. Not much better than the behaviour of Nuno was that of his colleague, Jeronimo de Vallejo, the man who said that Molina reminded him of the dragon in the Apocalypse.1 He read some passages from Molina, adding the remark that all that he had read was erroneous. He would not suffer anyone to reply to him, and went on reading and condemning.

Two days after the disputation occurred the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas. Avendano was to preach the panegyric of the saint, and if he had already on other occasions made use of the pulpit to speak against the Jesuits during those days of commotion, he now surpassed himself. He applied to them the words of the prophet : “Their face is now made blacker than coals.” He said that certain people had begun well, but that now they were sinners like others; then followed allusions to the disputation just held. “If God made anyone the master of the sun in the firmament, that man might say ; the light is mine.” Therefore, if St. Thomas, the sun of the Church, is one of our number, then too the light which he radiates is ours, just as the keys of wisdom are ours and not yours ; our key is the true one, yours is but a pick-lock. You do not enter by the door, but enter as a thief, unlike us who hold firmly to clear and sound doctrine without turning aside to innovations.

After his sermon Avendano could justifiably boast of the severe blow that he had delivered against his adversaries ; the Jesuits might expect another and perhaps deeper injury from the disputation which Nuno had announced before he went away. They therefore addressed themselves to the Inquisition and asked that at least a book which had received the approbation of the Portuguese Inquisition should not be described by the Dominicans as an heretical book. Once more in this petition was expressed the complaint which the Jesuits had already put forward, namely that the reason why they were being attacked was not to be found in questions of doctrine. The same theses had been defended at the chapter-general of the Franciscans as at their college, without the Dominicans who had been present raising any objection. In a report of the disputation on March 5th, and of the attitude taken up thereat by Nuno, this complaint was set forth in even greater detail. In this it is stated that at the chapter­general of the Benedictines these theses had been defended in the presence of Dominicans without causing any scandal. Even before the time of Molina this doctrine had been taught by Mancio at Salamanca, and at Alcala by Juan Alonso, afterwards Bishop of Leon. The same doctrine had been defended at Alcala by Deza, though it had been contested by Banes, who held a chair at that university, but he had been unable to effect anything against the prestige which Deza enjoyed there.

At first the Inquisition had intended to forbid the proposed disputation altogether, but when it was approached by the Dominicans it only asked of them what had been suggested in the petition of the Jesuits, namely that the doctrine of Molina should not be called heretical. Nuno therefore restricted himself in the theses which he brought forward for the disputation to stating that some of the propositions which he was combatting were “worse than false”; thus the word heresy was evaded, but the accusation remained substantially the same. At the disputation itself the Jesuit Padilla admitted that the propositions as now enunciated were erroneous, but he denied that they had been taught by Molina. Even this concession was turned to good purpose by Nuno and his followers, for when Padilla wished to prove from Molina's book that the latter had taught the opposite of these theses, they prevented him from reading them by making an uproar, and when the disputation was over they spread the rumour that Padilla had recanted at San Gregorio what he had upheld at the previous disputation at the Jesuit college. Naturally the Jesuits at once drew up and issued a report contradicting this, and thus it seemed that the matter would drag on indefinitely.

It was time for the ecclesiastical superiors to intervene and put an end to this scandal. Alonso de Mendoza, who was administrator of the church at Valladolid as Abad Mayor, wrote on April 2nd, 1594, to the nuncio Gaetano at Madrid and complained of Avendano, who on the previous day had again preached against the new Order, which he hated so much, as well as of the passionate behaviour of Nuno at the disputation on March 5th. The Jesuits had already drawn up a letter to the Grand Inquisitor ; in this they stated that they were commonly looked upon as the defenders of doctrines contrary to the faith, and that the students in the lecture halls began to stamp their feet as soon as the very name of Molina was mentioned. The rector of the college at Medina, Hernando de Lacerda, was charged to take this letter to Madrid, and to defend the cause of the accused before the Grand Inquisitor and the nuncio. The nuncio referred the matter of Avendano and Nuno to Rome, whereupon the whole affair assumed an unlooked for aspect. On June 7th, 1594, Gaetano was ordered to open a process in full from against Avendano, which ended on January 5th, 1595, with the condemnation of this infatuated man. In the meantime Cardinal Aldobrandini wrote on June 28th, 1594, in the name of Clement VIII to the nuncio, on the subject of the quarrel between the Dominicans and Jesuits. Since a question of faith was at issue, and a matter of no small importance, the decision pertained to the Roman See, and no one else must interfere. The Grand Inquisitor therefore must no longer concern himself with it; the nuncio was to summon the superiors of the two Orders to his presence, order them to lay the matter of controversy before him in writing with full proofs, and then send the two statements to Rome. The nuncio was to order both superiors, under the gravest penalties, to forbid their subjects to discuss the matter any further pending the decision of the Pope. Gaetano communicated the Papal letter to the provincial of the two Orders on August 15th, 1594; anyone who dared to discuss the question of efficacious grace either in public or in private was to be excommunicated.

The superiors of both Orders set themselves to calm the excited feelings of their subjects. The General of the Jesuits, Aquaviva, on February 13th, 1595, urged the provincials by circular, in emphatic words, to maintain peace with the Dominicans, and to show them all charity in word and deed. The Spanish provincials at once acted upon these exhortations; their replies to Aquaviva constitute a justification of the Order of Preachers, in so far as they prove that it was by no means the majority of the Dominicans who were allowing themselves to be actuated by antipathy for the Jesuits.

Not long before the great quarrel between the two Orders had once again been manifested. Just as the Dominicans had previously tried to induce the Inquisition to prohibit almost all the books of the Jesuits, so once more was this the case with the programme of studies issued by the Jesuits in 1591, and with the writings of Cardinal Toledo. They were of opinion that both Aquaviva and Toledo were innovators, and that if the latter were allowed to have his own way he would destroy the Church. Only the week before the condemnation of Avendano had caused great excitement among his fellow Dominicans, but the storm thus aroused had been quickly calmed, a thing to which an appeal to the truce made by the king may have not a little contributed. The provincial of the Jesuits wrote from Aragon to Aquaviva that in his province they had always lived in peace and harmony with the Dominicans. The provincial of Andalusia bore witness that at that time they were showing great friendship towards the new Order, everywhere inviting Jesuits to preach on the feasts of their Order, so that it seemed that they took pleasure in being on good terms with them. A Dominican Visitor at Valladolid had shown himself a great friend of the Society of Jesus. In the very pulpit at Valla­dolid, from which in the previous year Avendano had launched his attacks, in 1595 there stood a Jesuit on the feast of St. Thomas, who made a good impression on the Dominicans when he said that the Soicety of Jesus held to the doctrine of St. Thomas, and that it was bound to do so by the Statutes of the Order. A similar report came from Toledo, although a long altercation between the two Orders there had embittered men’s minds.

At Alcala a Dominican and a Jesuit provincial had a conference in order to consolidate the peace, and to consider the best means to attain that end. They decided that the members of both Orders should speak well of the other, and that if anyone forgot this duty he should be admonished by his superior in order that he might repair his fault. If doubts concerning doctrine should arise, appeal should be made to the Inquisition, if the matter pertained to that tribunal; otherwise, as became good brethren, the question should be settled amicably.

If the Papal command not to discuss efficacious grace helped the maintenance of peace, in course of time the obligation of silence was resented by both parties as a heavy burden, which in the end would become unbearable. Among the Jesuits, Molina was planning an apologetic work concerning his doctrine, which had so often been attacked and falsified. Gabriel Vasquez had just completed a volume of his theological works, in which the question of grace was dealt with. To both of these it seemed hard not to be able to express their views. Vasquez therefore had recourse to the nuncio, but on April 1st and Nov. 29th, 1597, received a reply from Rome that he must not print his book. Vasquez obeyed, nor on the part of the Jesuits do we know of any offence against the Papal order of silence.

The Dominicans were less submissive. Some of them who were of ardent temperament could not even now restrain their tongues ; in pulpits and lecture halls and at disputations fresh attacks on the Jesuits and their doctrine occurred, as at Burgos, Palencia, Valladolid, Salamanca, Valencia, Saragossa and Calatayud. Philip II therefore decided to intervene once again. By his command, at the beginning of 1596, the visitor of the Jesuit province of Toledo and Castille, Garcia de Alarcon, together with the king’s confessor, Diego de Yepes, and the provincial of the Dominicans, were ordered to confer as to the best means to prevent these abuses. At the suggestion of Alarcon the best means to maintain peace would be to remove the disturbers of the peace from the work of teaching. Alarcon and the Dominican provincial, Juan de Villafranca, were to present themselves before the king’s confessor in March, 1596, and he was to communicate their decision to Philip II. The king gave orders that only such men should occupy professorial chairs as had the doctrine of St. Thomas deeply at heart; that for the present the members of one Order should not be present at the disputations of the other; that they were not to be allowed to declare the doctrine of their adversaries heretical or erroneous, and that they should even be exhorted to speak well of the others; those who contravened these orders were to be punished. Alarcon and Villafranca added a further order to burn within eight days all writings against members of the other Order. In consequence of this there were removed from the work of teaching, Nuno, Padilla, and another Jesuit, who had often disputed with Banes; Banes himself received a severe reprimand and admonition. The Dominicans did all they could to have the deprivation of Nuno revoked, in which they saw an insult to their Order, but the king adhered to his decision, and peace was restored for a whole year.

If the Dominicans showed themselves less submissive than the Jesuits, this may perhaps be explained by the fact that they looked upon it as an injustice that they should be treated on equal terms with a younger Order. This impression was clearly expressed in a memorial which Banes addressed to Clement VIII on October 28th, 1597, in the name of the General of the Dominicans and the whole Order, in order to obtain the removal of the prohibition in the case of the members of the Order of Preachers, and of them alone. In this petition it was taken for granted, as quite certain, that the doctrine of grace taught by Banes, including the controverted question, was the ancient Catholic doctrine taught by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, just as that it was most obvious that the Jesuits were introducing innovations. Following the example of the Apostle Paul, who even resisted Peter, the Thomists had always shrunk from innovations, and now prayed the Apostolic See not to condemn the true doctrine to silence, on account of the strange theory that had been set up against it. Before a decision on the part of the Pope was made years might elapse, while the authors of these innovations would do all they could to make the question drag on. In the meantime the new doctrine would strike deep roots. So long as the obligation of silence held good, it would be impossible to teach the doctrine of grace and predestination, a thing that would be all the more trouble­some in that that doctrine reacted upon so many other theological questions. Moreover this prohibition placed the Dominicans in the universities in various practical difficulties.

By the command of Clement VIII, Bellarmine, at that time the Pope’s theological adviser, wrote an opinion on this memorial of the Dominicans. He examined all the reasons set forth by Bailes, and above all pointed out that the Dominican scholar took for granted those very things which had still to be proved, namely that the Dominican doctrine could be taken as expressing ecclesiastical tradition. According to Bellarmine what was above all at issue was the question whether physical predetermination was in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, the councils and the Fathers of the Church or no. The theologians of the Society of Jesus denied this conformity, and maintained that such predetermination was especially contrary to the Council of Trent, and was therefore an innovation. If then the matter was still awaiting a decision it would be very rash to condemn the Jesuits as innovators as the memorial desired; to do this would be to anticipate the judgment of the Apostolic See, and to cry triumph before the victory was won.

On one point, however, Bellarmine was in agreement with the Dominican theologian ; he too thought that it would not be wise to allow the prohibition to treat of efficacious grace to go on for years. The Holy See should therefore intervene as soon as possible. Both parties could be exhorted by brief to mutual charity, and forbidden to describe the view of the opposing party as temerarious, erroneous or heretical, but that a discussion which brought forward real proofs might be allowed.

Accordingly Cardinal Santori, Prefect of the Roman Inquisition, in a letter to the nuncio in Spain of February 26th, 1598, allowed a learned discussion of the question, not only by the Dominicans, but also by the Jesuits. The Spanish Inquisition informed both Orders of this Papal decision, without, however, giving the text of Santori’s letter. The Dominicans complained of this to the Holy Office in Rome, because in the extract that had been published no mention had been made of two important facts : first, that the Papal permission, and thus the equal treatment of the two Orders was only to continue until the final definition of the question, and second, that the expressions used in Santori’s letter were favourable to themselves. As to this they were indeed telling the truth; the permission given to the Dominicans stated “that they might freely read and dispute as they had done in the past concerning the ‘Auxiliis divinae gratiae et eorum efficacia,’ in conformity with the teaching of St. Thomas.” The Jesuits were given a like permission with the addition “that they might continue to read and dispute concerning this question, always however teaching sound and Catholic doctrine.” In the case of both parties was added an exhortation to abstain from litigation, from innovations, and from any censure of the opposing opinion. It had to be admitted, as was clear from the letter of Santori, that the Dominicans held a predominating influence in government circles in Rome. As a matter of fact a first Roman opinion, though it was precipitate, was imminent at that time, even though the documents which would have to form the basis of the Papal decision had not as yet reached Rome.

Actually, in June and August, 1594, an invitation had been issued by Cardinal Aldobrandini and the nuncio in Spain to the opposing parties to send to Rome an exposition and defence of their doctrine of grace, while the Spanish Inquisition for its part had, in a circular of July 21st of the same year, asked for the opinions of twelve bishops and of a number of scholars as to the controverted point. But it took almost three years before the Spanish Inquisition sent (October 23rd, 1597) in a large chest an enormous number of papers in three great packets. The Dominicans sent a folio volume of 135 pages, entitled: Apologia of the Friars Preachers in the Spanish province. The first part, dated August 28th, 1596, is signed by seven professors, among them Banes and Nuno, and sets forth the doctrine of Molina; the second part, which was already completed on September 29th, 1595, and is therefore earlier than the other, bears the same seven signatures, together with an eighth. At the end of the whole volume sixteen other Dominicans have attached their names, among whom are to be found the confessors of the king and Cardinal Albert.

The Spanish Jesuits naturally could not produce the signatures of the confessors of princes. The four Spanish provinces of the Order gave their opinion separately; for the province of Castille and Toledo, the speakers were Francisco Suarez and Gabriel Vasquez, who still today rank as the greatest dogmatic masters of the Order. Both of them in the first place combat physical predetermination, and then explain the view of the Jesuits. From certain words at the end of the exposition of Suarez, just before the signatures, it is clear that the disapproval of physical predetermination was quite general among the Jesuits, and that among them there was no doubt upon this point.

Not all the bishops and scholars whose views had been asked for by the Inquisition could bring themselves to express their views. Besides the three universities of Salamanca, Alcala and Siguenza, only five bishops and four scholars had given their views on this difficult question. Of the three universities, Salamanca could not be taken into consideration, since it limited itself to stating what all Catholics held as to the controverted matter. Alcala did not pronounce any judgment; the professors there described both opinions as probable but inclined rather towards that of the Jesuits, and did not accept that of the Dominicans except with a proviso in favour of free will. Siguenza declared openly and in all things for Molina, and defended him against a censure which had been sent by the Inquisition together with its circular. According to the judgment of the University of Siguenza the three propositions which were put forward in the censure as being altogether blameworthy were not to be found in the work of the Jesuit theologian.

Of the five bishops who sent their opinion, the Bishop of Cartagena had not even read Molina’s book; he relied upon the censure that had been sent to him, and took the side of Banes. The Bishop of Mondonedo was also altogether for Banes against Molina. Pedro Gonzales de Areveao on the other hand was all for Molina. Pacheco of Segovia blamed Banes as much as Molina; both of them should be corrected in the case of a new edition of their works. The Bishop of Coria emphatically defended indeed the doctrine of Molina against the suspicion of heresy, but otherwise blames it severely ; his views were false and an innovation.

Just as the views of the five bishops differed entirely from each other, so was it with the four scholars who sent their opinion. Two were opposed to Molina. A third, the Augustinian Miguel Salon, rejected out of hand about forty propositions of the Jesuit theologian, only to agree with him entirely on the principal point of his teaching. Then he turns against Banes and condemns even more strongly the principles from which physical predetermination is drawn. The opinion of another Augustinian, Luis Coloma of Valladolid, is confined for the sake of brevity to the principal point, and absolutely rejects physical predetermination.

All these documents reached Rome on March 28th, 1598, and thus the final preparations for the great duel between the two Orders were complete ; the battle could now begin.

The General of the Jesuits, Paolo Oliva, later on was of opinion, looking at the matter in retrospect, that the issue had been very beneficial, but that as long as the controversy lasted the Order had been in great danger.

The young Society of Jesus indeed found itself face to face with an adversary of overwhelming power. No other body in the Church could match the scientific laurels of the Dominicans; they had in their ranks a number of scholars of the first rank, some of whom had been adorned with the aureole of sanctity by the judgment of the Church.

The forms of learning and the defence of dogma had become to a great extent based upon their labours. Even in recent times, the restoration of scholasticism1 had come from the Dominican convent at Salamanca, the very place where Banes had launched his attack upon the Jesuits. The Jesuits themselves, thanks to the organizer of their studies, Toledo, had become the pupils of the Dominicans at Salamanca. At Trent, under Pius IV, about twenty-five bishops, and thirty theologians of the Dominican Order, had taken a leading part in the discussions and definition of the decrees on faith. For all these reasons the Order of Preachers enjoyed throughout the Catholic world the reputation of being the custodian of true Catholic doctrine. To this had to be added the influence of the Dominicans at the Inquisition, with many secular and ecclesiastical princes, and with notabilities, whose confessors belonged to a great extent to their Order.

In all these matters the Society of Jesus, which was still young, was far from approaching the Order of Preachers. It was true that Salmeron and above all Lainez, had held a brilliant place at the Council of Trent ; Toledo enjoyed an uncontested reputation as a scholar in Rome ; in the matter of polemics the Dominicans could produce nothing equal to the learned works of Bellarmine. But in the matter of the doctrine of grace it was a question of scholastic theology, and it was only now that the younger Order was preparing to make a triumphant entry into that vast realm ; the first work by any Jesuit on such matters was the book of Molina on grace and liberty. The Jesuits could not rival the Dominicans in their influence in high places in Rome, nor in their knowledge of the conduct of affairs in the Curia, for the very reason that among them it was only by way of exception that men were to be found who had embarked upon a prelatical career, or even the first steps towards it. It was true that the General of their Order was one of these exceptions. Bishops filled with the spirit of asceticism and men of importance might indeed choose Jesuits as their confessors, but these were exceptional cases. When it was rumoured that Philip II. had entrusted the direction of his conscience to a Jesuit, the king wrote with his own hand: “If he intended to change his confessor, there were too many approved Orders, much older and well supplied with able men, to make it necessary to seek one in the new Order.” At the time of the dispute concerning grace in Rome, besides the two Dominican Cardinals, Bonelli (died 1598) and Bernerio, the influential Dean of the Rota, Francisco Pena (died 1612) was above all their declared adversary; he even laid it down in his will that the revenues of a legacy which he had made for poor students must never be given to a pupil of the Jesuits.

All this explains how it was that, in the intellectual contest that was beginning, it was the Dominicans whose influence decided the place and conditions of the battle, chose the judges of the contest, and “supplied the sun and the wind.”

The standpoint of the Jesuits from the first had been that it was not of importance to defend at all costs all the theses of Molina; some of their number did not altogether agree with Molina. In their opinion it was not persons or books that were primarily at stake, but a dogmatic controversy, and the critical point of the question consisted, to their way of thinking, in physical predetermination. They wished for an ecclesiastical definition as to this, and as to how it was reconcilable with the maxims of the faith and with the Council of Trent ; once this was cleared up, all the rest, so they believed, would not present any further difficulties.

But the Dominicans, as far as they were concerned, wished expressly to avoid the examination of this vital point, as to which there was not full agreement even in their own Order. They looked upon physical predetermination as a dogma, which simply could not be called in question ; therefore the whole discussion, according to them, must turn upon Molina’s book, not restricting itself to the doctrine of the reconcilability of grace and freedom, but extending to all the theses which he had maintained. The contrary position taken up by the two Orders with regard to physical predetermination entirely governed the course of the struggle and all its vicissitudes.

Once Clement VIII had transferred the dispute on grace to Rome in 1594, it was natural that both the Dominicans and Jesuits should send a representative to the Eternal City, to speak on behalf of his Order as occasion should arise. The General of the Jesuits thought of summoning Molina himself to Rome, but the latter replied to an invitation of February 16th, 1595, by excuses which Aquaviva had to admit were justified. Banes too excused himself on the score of age, but in the place of the old master there came to Rome in November 1596 his disciple Diego Alvarez, a young man of great talent, who certainly did not remain idle. After he had for many days examined the matter together with Cardinal Bonelli, the Protector of the Order, and other friends, in June 1597 he presented a memorial to the Pope, which was intended not only to hasten the beginning of the discussions, but also to set the whole question upon the lines desired by the Dominicans.

When in 1594 Aldobrandini transferred the discussion to Rome, no mention of Molina was made in his letter; it was rather a matter of a dogmatic question, the decision of which was withdrawn from the Inquisition and reserved to the Pope, namely the question in what the efficacy of grace consists. Alvarez, on the contrary, came forward in his memorial as the accuser of Molina; the books of Molina must form the central point of the discussion; they must be examined and condemned, and the examination must not be restricted to the principal question, as to which there were differences of opinion between the Jesuits and the Dominicans, but must extend to the whole contents of Molina’s book on grace and liberty. And whereas so far it had been intended only to begin the discussions when the opinions that had been asked for had arrived from Spain, Alvarez wanted the examination to begin as soon as possible, as all delay was full of danger; the work of Molina was meeting with much applause, and the younger theologians were adopting his ideas with the enthusiasm of youth; once this opinion had taken deep root among them, it would be too difficult to bring them back to the true doctrine of grace and liberty. To put it in another way : the Dominicans and Jesuits were not to meet as two parties with equal rights, but the Dominicans were to be the accusers, and the Jesuits were to sit, like poor sinners, on the bench of the accused. The attack on Molina thus had a vast field open to it, for not only would an error concerning the principal question of the efficacy of grace be fatal to him, but every mistaken or equivocal thesis in his book. Moreover the Dominicans enjoyed all the advantages of the attack ; the weak point of their own doctrine was for the time being outside discussion.

In addition to his own petition to the Pope, Alvarez had drawn up another document for Cardinal Bonelli, in which the scandalous propositions of Molina were pointed out and refuted.1 Bellarmine, as Papal theologian, had to draw up an opinion which is distinguished by its calmness and its absolute objectivity, as compared with the other writings which owe their existence to the violent struggle that had begun. Bellarmine rejects physical predetermination, but does not dare to condemn it absolutely, as it is supported by men of eminence. He also defends the “scientia media” of Molina; the name indeed is a new one, but the thing itself is very ancient. On the other hand it seemed to him that several of Molina’s propositions were false, or at any rate inexactly expressed, but he will not admit that they are deserving of any real ecclesiastical censure. In Bellarmine’s opinion no bitter expression against the Dominicans is used; the authors of the attacks on Molina are, on the contrary, called “very pious and learned men.”

At that juncture the Pope was exceedingly pleased with this little production of his theologian, which he afterwards caused to be examined by others as well, but from the whole of its tenor he was confirmed in his intention of having the serious accusations against Molina examined. For this purpose a special commission was appointed.

The Dominicans had thus obtained what they wanted : the inquiry was confined to Molina's book. This was for the Jesuits a first defeat. The composition of the commission was a second. Not a single friend of Molina was included, although the course of affairs up to that point has shown that there were many such.

A third defeat was soon to follow. The commission held its first session on January 2nd, 1598; at its eleventh, which took place on March 13th, it was decided that the book and doctrine of Molina must be prohibited, as well as his commentaries on St. Thomas, at any rate until they were emended. In the final judgment it was stated that Molina had repudiated in a haughty manner the doctrine of St. Augustine, which had been handed down by the Fathers, and more than once confirmed by the Church, and that the principles on which he based his doctrine were entirely opposed to St. Thomas. St. Augustine and the other Fathers ; that they contained many things which openly conflicted with the Holy Scriptures and the Councils, but were on the contrary in agreement with Cassian and Faustus of Riez, who had been combatted by Augustine.

The Roman commission could not have dreamed at that time that the discussions concerning Molina would drag on for years to come, and then end without coming to any definite conclusion. Even before the materials contained in the Spanish acta had come, they had arrived at a definite judgment, as it were in the twinkling of an eye! This was eventually explained by the fact that among the members of the commission there was not to be found a single man of any scientific weight. Even Clement VIII was surprised at this unexpectedly rapid solution of the question, for soon afterwards, on March 28th, 1598, when the opinions sent from Spain had at last arrived, he ordered the commission to study them, and then reconsider their judgment.

Thus the members of the commission found themselves face to face with a troublesome task. In October 1597 Bailes had written to Rome that the mere reading of these Spanish opinions would take two years, and that before the whole of the material had been carefully examined more than one pontificate might elapse, and that it was for this very reason that he had asked that the prohibition of any discussion of the controverted point of the doctrine of grace might be suspended.

The commission, however, once more made quick work of the task. In the eight months between April and November, in which were included the protracted vacations, all was completed, and the former judgment, namely the condemnation of Molina, was substantially confirmed. That all the Spanish opinions had actually been read by all the members seems unlikely, especially as there were not as many copies as there were members of the commission. The Jesuit Fernando de la Bastida was able later on in the presence of the Pope to point out a single person, who was in any case quite incapable of any such work, as the author of the censure. On March 12th, 1599, the secretary of the commission, the Augustinian Coronel, presented a document which purported to be the acta of the sessions, but which was in reality a violent attack upon Molina. Whereas the universities of Alcala and Siguenza had found nothing to censure in Molina’s book, Coronel condemns more than 60 theses. Inevitably, as the result of these events, the most unfavourable reports against the Jesuits at once became common. It was even said that the Papal condemnation of their doctrine had already taken place, or that at any rate it would not be long delayed.

Before, however, things could reach that point, the Jesuits had to be allowed to speak. After having thus far been kept entirely in the background, and only with difficulty obtaining any information of what was being done by the commission, they now prepared themselves for their defence. In December 1598, after the second censure had been pronounced in the previous month, skilful theologians of their Order came to Rome : Cristobal de los Cobos and Ferdinando de la Bastida, followed soon afterwards by Pedro de Arrubal and Gregorio de Valencia, hitherto professors at Dillingen and Ingolstadt. Molina himself addressed a letter to the Pope and asked for a hearing. He said that he had been urged to write his book by the same zeal as had led others to take up their pen against the heretics; he intended to confute the errors of Luther and Calvin, and had done so by relying in all things upon the Holy Scriptures and the Councils, especially the Council of Trent, on the Fathers of the Church, and among them above all on St. Augustine. The attacks upon him were due to the fact that he had himself attacked Banes, whose doctrines on the controverted point he had always thought to be more than dangerous, and irreconcilable with the Council of Trent. Banes indeed accused him of Pelagianism, but according to Luther the whole Church had fallen into that error, since it defended free will. His book, on the other hand, had met with much approval, but now, when he had thought that the dispute about the book had come to an end, it had reached his ears that he had been accused before the Pope himself. This caused him much anxiety, because he knew from experience how often things had been attributed to him by his accusers which had never entered his mind, and he therefore feared lest the same thing should have happened in Rome. He therefore asked to be allowed to speak, as was the right of the accused; let the Pope either summon him himself to Rome, or listen to the defence which he had laid before the Inquisition in Spain.

Molina had previously connected his defence of his doctrine with an attack upon his adversaries. He now did the same thing. Some of his theses, he said, had been declared to be suspect, but he too could enumerate many opinions in the works of his accusers, which seemed to him to be manifest errors of faith, Calvinistic in doctrine, and contrary to the Council of Trent. He knew that the Dominicans, had great influence, being the confessors of powerful princes, and occupying posts of importance, so that their help even in worldly matters was often asked by highly-placed personages. But even though they were superior in power and influence in other matters, they must not be given a preference where a question of faith and soundness of doctrine was at issue, nor could they alone be listened to, and he himself rejected. He therefore asked His Holiness to have the theses which he had noted in their works to be examined. When these were compared with the heresies of Calvin and Luther, it would be clearly seen that they were errors of faith. Moreover, according to Molina, the discussions about grace had attracted the attention of the Protestants, and they were waiting in expectation of a decision contrary to the Council of Trent. If, finally, the Pope was unwilling to listen to any of his requests, would he at least examine the concise exposition of his doctrine which he enclosed.

Perhaps a greater impression was made upon Clement VIII by the letters of King Philip III, the wife of the Archduke Maximilian, and the Archduke Albert, whom the Jesuits had won over to their side, than by the petition of Molina. The Pope decided that the Jesuits as well must be given a hearing. On January 1st, 1599, he cited Beccaria and Aquaviva, Generals of both Orders before him, and ordered them to discuss, together with some of the theologians among their subjects, the chief points of divergent doctrine in the presence of Cardinal Madruzzo.

The first meeting took place on February 22nd, 1599. The General of the Dominicans appeared accompanied by the procurator of the Order, and two theologians, Diego Alvarez and Raffaele de Ripa; Aquaviva’s theologians were Pedro de Arrubal, Michele Vasquez and Cristobal de los Cobos. In his opening discourse, Madruzzo explained the object of the discussions, namely to put an end to the struggle between the two Orders, in accordance with the wish of the Pope as well as of the King of Spain; both Beccaria and Aquaviva gave their opinion as to the way in which, to their thinking, that purpose could be attained. The General of the Domini­cans declared that his Order had nothing against the Society of Jesus, and that it was only the theses of Molina which were the rock of offence ; it his book were condemned and St. Thomas followed, then everything would be smoothed over. Aquaviva took up quite a different position. He declared that Molina indeed was not the Society of Jesus, and that therefore his cause was not necessarily their own. The Pope might do what he liked with the works of a Spanish theologian or with the writings of any individual Jesuit, without the order offering any resistance. But there was a dispute between the two Orders, arising from their different explanation of “sufficient” and “efficacious” grace; as far as could be seen, the intention of the Pope was not to give a judgment on Molina’s book, but rather to inquire into the differences of the doctrines in question, to establish the true doctrine, and to settle the questions at issue between the two great bodies.1 The conference ended with an injunction from Madruzzo to the two Generals to prepare for the next meeting three expositions concerning the controverted point in the doctrine of grace ; the first was to summarize in a few words the idea of his own Order, the second was to give the objections to the opposing theory, and the third the principal proofs in support of their own opinion.

The second discussion took place on February 28th. Aquaviva presented himself with the three expositions in writing which had been asked for, but Beccaria on the other hand only presented one ; a further accusation of Molina divided into six points. He said that he had not thought it opportune to prepare any others, because the only point at issue was the book of Molina, and the Spanish Dominicans had not taken up arms against the Society of Jesus, but against Molina. Moreover, the Dominicans were there as the accusers, and he could not allow them, by defending their doctrine, to confess themselves as accused. To this Aquaviva replied in the sense in which he had spoken at the previous meeting, but Beccaria adhered to his opinion. Aquaviva then placed on the table the second document he had brought with him, the objections of the Jesuits to the Dominican doctrine of grace, handing over the other two at the end of the meeting to Cardinal Madruzzo as a proof that he had obeyed him. The conference was over; it now remained to be seen what the Pope would do.

On March 5th, 1599, Clement VIII appointed the Jesuit Bellarmine a Cardinal, and assigned him, together with the Dominican Cardinal Bernerio to act as assessors to Cardinal Madruzzo in the conduct of the conferences.

At the third meeting, which was held on March 29th, it was seen that the situation had become considerably changed in favour of the Jesuits. Bellarmine brought forward six questions, in which he asked for an explanation as to whether physical predetermination was necessary for the good acts of the will, and for its evil decisions, whether the infallible efficacy of grace was based upon physical predetermination, or upon the contact of grace with the soul in the sense of St. Augustine.1 These questions therefore, without any evasions, were directed to the point which formed the kernel of the dispute on grace, and on the solution of which everything depended. But now the Dominicans refused to give an answer. They said that these six questions had evidently been thought out and brought forward by the Jesuits, thus arrogating to themselves a right which belonged only to the Cardinals.

The Dominicans, however, were no longer able to adhere to their own standpoint, of entering into no discussion save on the book of Molina. It would seem that, soon after the questions of Bellarmine, they in their turn asked for an answer to eight points on the doctrine of grace and freewill. But now it was the Jesuits who refused to give an explanation, until Clement VIII obliged them to reply. To five of these questions an affirmative reply could be given without more ado, but these five questions did not touch the controverted point of the matter, and the others only uncertainly.

Later on they declared that this had been the real reason why they had at first refused to reply, In other respects the Jesuits took all possible pains clearly to explain their view. When the Dominicans complained of a gap in the replies of their adversaries, they hastened to remedy it, though in doing so they took the opportunity thus offered them of once again alluding to physical predetermination, which, according to them, was opposed to the Holy Scriptures, the Councils, the Fathers of the Church, the scholastics and philosophers, and above all to St. Augustine and St. Thomas.

The whole of April passed in these exchanges, and it would seem that a kind of impatience at these fruitless negotiations seized upon the Jesuits. They suggested to Cardinal Madruzzo, in order to make some progress, that they should briefly summarize the points as to which they had come to an agreement or a disagreement at the meetings which had been held so far. Madruzzo then took three theses from among the expositions of the Dominicans, on which the Jesuits were to pronounce at the next session; actually, at that meeting both parties agreed upon seven points; this at any rate made it clear that the Jesuits did not deny efficacious grace. But they at once transferred the discussion to the most critical point of the whole question by bringing forward the question whether, according to the Dominican view, the infallible efficacy of grace was based upon physical predetermination. It might have been supposed that the answer would have been a plain Yes, and that thus the question would have been solved. But, strangely enough, the discussion of the pros and cons went on for so long that, although the Jesuits would not allow their adversaries to escape for a good three hours, they were unable in the end to get a definite reply.

But a clear reply was absolutely necessary if the discussion was to go on. On May 20th, 1599, therefore, the Jesuits sent a document to Cardinal Madruzzo, divided into five points, in which they explained, from their point of view, what they meant by physical predetermination in the sense of the Dominicans, and asked him to induce their adversaries to reply. The latter, on May 22nd, sent a document to the Cardinal in which they explained their view sufficiently clearly. But the expression “physical predetermination” was avoided in this. The Jesuits therefore again insisted that they must pronounce as to this expression, and received as a reply that the Jesuits must express themselves clearly as to what, in their opinion, the efficacy of grace consisted, for that so far they had only said in what it did not consist. The Jesuits complied with this demand without any difficulty, in an explanation of May 28th, 1599.

The continued insistence of the Jesuits, and the way in which they kept on returning to the weak point in their adversaries’ doctrine of grace, irritated the Dominicans all the more in that in their opinion it was not they but the Jesuits who, in the whole affair, should be subjected to examination concerning their doctrine.

Their annoyance so long suppressed, found vent in a written protest of June 8th, 1599, in which they gave a resume of the discussions, and described the behaviour of the Jesuits as intriguing and deceitful. The Jesuits replied to this on June 28th.

These two documents are among the most important relating to the negotiations before Cardinal Madruzzo; they complete and confirm our knowledge of what had happened on various points, while the intellectual outlook of both parties is set forth more clearly than usual. The Dominicans who took part in the discussions declared that they were not the representatives of the whole Dominican Order, and that in order to be so they would first have had to consult their universities and their most eminent theologians; they only presented themselves as a deputation of Dominican theologians in Rome. They further maintained absolutely that at the discussions nothing was at issue but Molina and his book, and if they also pronounced upon the doctrine of grace, they only did so as the theological advisers of the Pope, in order to give him the benefit of their scientific opinions. But the Jesuits maintained the opposite view with equal tenacity. They asserted that the Pope had not transferred the controversy to Rome in order to pronounce judgment on Molina, as was clear from the briefs to the nuncio in Spain and to the Spanish Inquisition, and, as had been several times declared to the Dominicans by Cardinal Madruzzo, the General of the Jesuits had expressly stated that he had no interest in defending all the theses of Molina.

It is also clear from the complaints and accusations of both parties that both the Dominicans and the Jesuits refused to reply to certain definite questions. The Dominicans tried to avoid an explanation of physical predetermination; this is definitely stated several times in the memorial of the Jesuits. “The most eminent Cardinal knows” so states the document, “how we have openly said that it is our desire that the Dominicans should explain their view just as we ourselves have done and will do, but they have attempted to evade doing so on various pleas. The first time they said that they could not speak for the whole Order, and would first have to consult the theologians of the various provinces ; another time they were not ready, and could not carry on the disputation without preparation; again, it did not affect the object of the discussion; lastly they openly declared that they did not intend to give their opinion, because as the accusers they did not wish to become the accused, or to admit that they should be subjected to an interrogatory. All who were present, and the most eminent President are witnesses as to this.” On a copy of this accusatory document, there is to be found attached to these assertions of the Jesuits a marginal note in the hand of a Dominican: “This is the sample truth, as the General of the Dominicans cannot at his pleasure prescribe a doctrine for his whole Order, nor had he time or opportunity to consult the universities of the Order on this matter.” This passage is of great value to the disinterested historian; what the Jesuits had several times asserted is thus confirmed, namely that physical predeter­mination was not yet at that time the doctrine of the Dominican Order.

On the other hand the Jesuits refused to give an answer to the question whether the infallible efficacy of grace came only from God, or whether it derived to some extent from the free will. If a proper order was to be followed in the discussions, they remarked, first it must be established in what the efficacy of grace consists, for only then would it be possible to discuss whence it came.

But on July 17th, 1599, Madruzzo proposed to both parties this question, together with others : can the free will refuse its consent to efficacious grace? Both were required to reply. Each party dealt with the question from their own point of view. Further discussion at length led the theologians of the Society of Jesus in November, 1599, to summarize in eight propositions the points on which they could not agree with the Dominicans, and concerning which they desired a disputation. On January 28th, 1600, they also presented to the Cardinal a number of theses which had been defended by the Benedictines, the Augustinians, the Franciscans, the Carmelites and the Minims, and which were in favour of Molina. The last thing we know of the discussions in the presence of Madruzzo are certain observations of the Dominicans concerning these eight theses of the Jesuits. They were presented on February 12th, and on April 20th 1600, the old Cardinal of eighty-eight breathed his last. This ended the conferences in which both the Generals personally took part.

The only result which the conferences had had was that the views of the two rival parties had been more clearly defined, and had become better understood by their adversaries. For the moment it seemed as though a rapprochement had been brought about. On one occasion the General of the Dominicans, as the Jesuits report, had said that if Molina had admitted all that the Jesuits had conceded in the presence of Madruzzo, there would have been no reason to take action against him. But the Jesuits thought that they could prove without any difficulty that all the theses in question had been expressly taught by Molina.

But a book by the Spanish Dominican Francisco Davila, which was printed in Rome in 1599, and immediately suppressed by the Pope’s orders in consequence of the remonstrances of the Jesuits, showed on the contrary how bitter the dispute really was, and how serious were the misunderstandings and prejudices. This book made the Jesuits appear as semi-Pelagians, and put together, without mentioning them, the most plausible accusations against their doctrine. In spite of this Davila had dared to dedicate his book to the Pope, and the imprimatur, given by a fellow Dominican, and full of encomiums, bore the signature of the General of the Order.

On April 24th, 1600, the General of the Dominican Order went to the Pope, and in the name of the whole Order expressed his gratitude for a decision which gave the whole dispute, now so long drawn out, a new turn, and which, at any rate according to the statement of the adversaries of the Jesuits, “filled all good men with incredible joy.” This was because, after the death of Cardinal Madruzzo, Clement VIII had thought it better not to continue the discussions between the Generals of the Orders, but to revert to that method by which the solution of the difficult question had first been sought, namely, that the book of Molina should once again become the central point of the discussions. A letter from Philip III, in which he expressed his desire for a speedy solution of the question, perhaps contributed to giving a fresh direction to the controversy. Therefore the commission which had first pronounced judgment on Molina’s book, was completed by the addition of Bishop Ippolito Masseri of Montepeloso, and the procurators of the Franciscan Observants and Conventuals, Giovanni de Rada and Girolamo Palantieri. Their task was to examine the voluminous censure of Coronel, and to point out, after a careful examination, which of the objectionable theses were to be found in Molina. This work was completed on August 31st, 1600, and was presented to the Pope in the middle of October. Of the eleven consultors two had refused their signature, Piombino and Bovio, while all the others were in agreement in condemning twenty theses taken from Molina. There still exist a number of writings of that time from the individual members of the commission, all of whom pronounce against Molina, with the exception of Bovio.

While the commission was still engaged upon this work, the Jesuits succeeded in getting a sight of the censure of Coronel, and at once saw that it was defective in many points. In this Molina was blamed for several theses which were in common use among other theologians, or else things were attributed to the Jesuit theologian which he had never taught. The Jesuits reported these discoveries to the Pope in various expositions. A special impression seems to have been made upon Clement VIII by a writing of Aqua viva, in which, so as to show the censure to be unjust, Molina’s own words are compared with a number of the accusations of Coronel. To these were added the remonstrances of Bellarmine and others, so that Clement VIII gave orders that the commission must also hear the defence of the Jesuits.

Nevertheless, in spite of this concession, the position of the Jesuits still remained very unfavourable, and even apparently desperate. They had asked to be allowed to present their defence before other judges than the commission, for otherwise the censors would have been bound to pass judgment upon complaints which were directed against themselves and their judgments. But they obtained nothing by their request. By the Pope’s orders the commission was to hear the Jesuits, but the judgment was left to them, and the Dominicans W’ere their advisers. The discussions were now conducted in the following way : first the censure was read, and was then defended by the Dominicans Diego Alvarez and Tommaso de Lemos, being then attacked by the Jesuits Cobos and Arrubal; at the end both Dominicans and Jesuits briefly summarized in writing what they had said orally. Thus it seemed as though the last word lay with the Jesuits, but the Dominicans, in addition to the writings which were communicated to the theologians of the other party, secretly drew up others which were intended only for the members of the commission, and in which they sought to refute anything that told in favour of Molina. The Jesuits learned of these intrigues, probably from their friend Bovio, and Gregorio de Valencia, who was present at the sessions together with Cobos and Arrubal, thereupon addressed his remonstrances to the Pope. Clement VIII then gave orders that these observations of the Dominicans were also to be handed over to the defenders of Molina. This time the theologians of the Society of Jesus made use of very emphatic language in their reply. At the outset it is stated: “In this document the Dominican Fathers advance so many things which are not in accordance with the facts, that they could never have supposed that these observations which they have addressed to the censors unknown to us, would one day fall into our hands.”

The discussions before the commission lasted until May 7th, 1601. On August 31st of the same year the censors came to their final judgment, and, as was to be expected, this declared that the commission adhered to the censures already pronounced against Molina. Only Piombino and Bovio once again refused their signatures. On December 5th, 1601, the commission presented itself before the Pope to deliver the result of its labours.

Clement VIII was aghast at the quantity of documents and opinions that was laid before him. “A year may have been sufficient for you to write all this,” he said, “but a year is not sufficient for me to read it.” The commission laid the responsibility for such prolixity upon the objections and artifices of the Jesuits; the Pope, however, with his great intelligence and learning had no need to read it all. Santucci, who after the death of Resta had acted as president, then made the strange suggestion that it would be well not to inform the Jesuits of their judgments, so that the matter might not be prolonged indefinitely.

Clement VIII at once saw that this new censure, the fourth in four years, was of no great use to him. If he was to settle the controversy personally by his supreme authority, then he must inform himself personally of all the details, and examine all these voluminous opinions. The observations of the Jesuits too could not be left unexamined; they would know how to lay their remonstrances before the Pope, even without being informed of the verdict of the commission. The suspicions which had been spread throughout the world on account of what had happened in Rome gave an opportunity for so doing. Molina, who died on October 12th, 1600, certainly knew nothing of the rumour which was spread throughout Spain that he had been condemned in Rome by a Papal sentence, and burned in effigy. On March 9th, 1601, Bellarmine had to reassure the Spanish Jesuits on this score j1 an edict of the Spanish nuncio of September 21st, 1601, reminded men of the Papal prohibition of mutual censures, and removed the grounds for such rumours. But in Italy, Germany, France and Poland similar rumours did no little harm to the work of the Jesuits in the exercise of their ministry.

In the meantime the Jesuits sought protection from the Pope, and on February 12th, 1602, they presented a memorial in which all the accusations which had been brought against them during the discussions in Rome were summarized under seven heads, together with a brief defence.

In answer to the charge that they were exigent and would not be satisfied in their claims, they summarized the points in which their desires really consisted : 1. Since the origin of these discussions lies in the question : In what does the efficacy of grace consist, may it please Your Holiness to define what must be firmly held as to this, so that, following that infallible rule, everything that is not in accordance with that definition may be expunged from the books. 2. A judgment should not be pronounced on the question of Molina, without his being heard. 3. That what we put forward on his behalf may be submitted, in accordance with the judgment of Your Holiness, to persons so well versed in dogma, and in such a degree specialists in scholastic theology, as such difficult questions demand ; men, moreover, who have not taken sides on the question, so as to give their signature against Molina before making a careful examination, and thus staining their reputation in this respect. 4. If questions and replies are not to be carried on indefinitely, let us be allowed to reply in the last instance, as we are defending the cause of the accused, to whom that right belongs. In forming a judgment as to these questions, attention should be paid to the documents which were presented at the session; if anything has been brought forward against Molina in secret, of which we were not given a copy so that we might reply to it, such matter must not be taken into consideration until it has been communicated to us, and we have made our reply. 5. When our replies are examined, the judgment must not be restricted to generic observations as to Molina, but should state in detail which of his theses are blameworthy, so that we may know what to be on our guard against, as well as for other reasons. 6. Anything that is found deserving of censure in Molina, must also be deleted in those other theologians who hold the same doctrines.

To the further reproach, that they were not satisfied with the judgment of the Roman censors, the Jesuits replied :

1. There are six on the commission who condemn the book, and two who approve it, and to each of those six we can oppose a tribunal, a university or a corporation that approves it. The Portuguese Inquisition has approved the book twice over, once by a majority of the votes of all the Qualificators, among whom were two Dominicans. The same was done by the supreme council of state of Castille and that of Aragon, who based their opinions upon those of the most eminent theologians. Moreover, the University of Alcala, which examined the book with great care for a whole year, approved it when, by the orders of the Spanish Inquisition, the matter was discussed before that tribunal. On the same occasion the book was sent to the University of Siguenza, which is one of the four principal universities of Spain, and always has at its command persons of distinction, since canonries are attached to the professorial chairs ; this university approved the book, and replied point by point to the objections. In like manner approval came from Italy, France and the Low Countries when the work was re-examined there for reprinting, and an imprimatur given. Moreover it received many approbations from prelates and doctors, to enumerate whom would take too long, besides which it is already abundantly clear from what we have said that the number of those who approve is greater than that of those who condemn. 2. Admitting that the judgment of the members of the commission was completely just, yet they had not heard us when they pronounced judgment the first time, and from that time onwards we have been compelled in our replies to make perpetual contradictions. As their reputation, it would seem, was already compromised, we cannot deny that for that very reason and from other circumstances as well, we must look upon them as partizans in the question, and, in a certain sense, in an even greater degree than the Dominicans themselves. 3. The book of Molina is concerned with doctrines of faith of great importance, which are connected with the most difficult questions of scholastic theology; they demand on the one hand a most complete knowledge of the controversies with the heretics, and on the other a great familiarity with the most delicate subtleties of scholasticism. And although we look upon the censors as very capable in their profession, and eminent for their learning, we take it for granted that they themselves would not deny that they have never before been forced to studies of this kind, either for the purpose of printing a book, or for disputations with heretics, or for teaching, outside their own Order, theses of this kind at any university. They themselves say that in their day nothing was known of such questions, and that they were not treated of; although, therefore, we look upon them as pious and learned, it is not going too far if we express our doubts as to the value of their opinions in such matters. 4. We know by experience that they have looked upon certain theses as being Molina’s, which he himself looked upon quite otherwise, and that they have censured others to which they could not have attached any importance if they had sent a copy of them to us. 5. We cannot feel satisfied with their judgment because we see, for example, that they declare a thesis of Molina’s to be Pelagian, which the universities of Alcala, Bologna and Siguenza hold to be true, and which has been defended as such by the most learned men of almost all the Orders of Spain, and the contrary theses to which Bellarmine, Stapleton and Gregorio de Valencia, who have read so many of the books of the heretics, and have held disputations against them, and confuted and written against them, declare to be a Calvinist error. In like manner, nine universities in the countries bordering upon those of the heretics have passed a similar judgment on that thesis.

When the Jesuits presented this memorial, Clement VIII had already resolved to leave on one side the mass of judgments and opinions upon the dispute. He thought that the purpose would be more quickly attained if he were to allow himself to be informed verbally of the reasons in support of the two controverted opinions by those who themselves represented them. Thus began the last and most celebrated phase of the negotiations in Rome : the disputations in the presence of the Pope.

The fatality which had hitherto pursued the Jesuits throughout the whole controversy, seemed destined to follow them from the opening of the new congregations. An imprudent act of theirs irritated the Pope against them exceedingly at the very moment when more than ever his good-will was so important to them. The occasion for this fresh storm was afforded by a subtle question of scholastic theology which had been defended at their college at Alcala on March 7th, 1602.

If, for example, a Pope has been canonically elected and recognized by the Church, then according to Catholic principles it must infallibly be held that he is truly Pope and successor of St. Peter ; but it is possible to go further and ask: is it only infallibly certain that such and such a Pope, for example Clement VIII, is the successor of St. Peter, or is this a truth of faith revealed by God ? If God has revealed that all men are descended from Adam, then He has also revealed that such and such a man is descended from Adam. Thus, in the phrase, which is certainly revealed: all legitimate Popes are the successors of the Prince of the Apostles, is there in like manner contained the other: in Clement VIII is continued the true succession of Peter? On this point theologians are of different opinions ; some reply in the affirmative, and others in the negative. The question is of no practical importance; no theologians questioned that Clement VIII was the true Pope, not even those who could not see in this a revealed truth in the full sense of the words. Such a question was treated of in the lecture halls as an example by the help of which certain theses of the doctrine of faith could be explained.

The Augustinians, for example, had, on May 7th, 1601, at Saragossa, maintained the negative view without anyone being disturbed. When in the following July the same theses had been presented before the University of Alcala by a professor, Pena called attention to this in Rome, and asked for the intervention of the Roman tribunals, without any steps being taken. It was only when the Jesuits at Alcala followed the example of the university on March 7th, 1602, at a public disputation, that a veritable tempest broke out. A Dominican stated at a public disputation at Valladolid that the Jesuits had denied that Clement VIII. was truly Pope, and that if a Papal sentence was pronounced against them on the question of grace, they would maintain that they had not been condemned by a lawful Pope. It was in this sense that the matter was brought before the Pope himself.

Clement VIII was not a theologian, and did not understand very much about the subtleties of scholasticism. Moreover, in the Eternal City suspicions were held of the Spaniards, for which their cesaropapalism and other pretensions against Rome had afforded abundant reason. Clement VIII therefore felt violent anger against the Jesuits of Alcala. Aldobrandini was told to write at once to Ginnasio, to upbraid him for not having reported this unpleasant incident at Alcala. If the Inquisition had not already interfered it must do so at once. The nuncio must then take the matter in hand with all speed, and he was therefore sent the censure which  Rome had launched “ against this bestiality, not to call it a thesis.”

The Inquisition feared that unless it interfered at once, the process would be transferred to Rome with the loss of its own prestige; it therefore at once caused four Jesuits to be thrown into prison, namely the student who maintained the thesis at the disputation, his professor, the rector of the college, and the celebrated theologian Gabriel Vasquez. The nuncio would have liked first of all to have sent to Rome, as being responsible, the three doctors of Alcala, who were the predecessors of the Jesuits in their defence of the thesis, but on May 8th, 1602, the king intervened on their behalf. Clement VIII decided that the cause of the four Jesuits, as well as that of the three doctors, must be judged in Spain. But the form in which he wrote this order in his own hand, on the last page of the letter to Ginnasio, shows once more the anger with which the events at Alcala had filled him. “The pride and presumption of these Spaniards in this matter—for there is no question of inculpating the Italians—is so great that they dare to write and print new and most perilous doctrines; it is therefore necessary that the Inquisition there should keep its eyes open ... How true this is, is shown by this last act of misconduct, while another proof is to be found in the obstinacy with which they defend Molina, since in this matter as well it is not a case of more than four Spaniards, who spring from God knows what race. Write to him (the nuncio) that we are satisfied, on account of the pressure brought to bear by the king, that the Inquisition there should examine, not only the cause of the Jesuits, but also that of those who have been summoned to Rome, but on condition that We are kept informed of what takes place.

It was not difficult for the accused Jesuits to make clear before the Spanish Inquisition the mistake of which they had been the victims. They were able to produce a number of skilled theologians who taught exactly the same thing.1 After a month and a half Vasquez and the rector of the Jesuits were set at full liberty as being innocent; in the case of the two others the professed house of the Jesuits at Toledo was to serve as their prison.

However serious the situation might be for the Jesuits there was not wanting a humorous side to the question. Among the theologians whom the Jesuits had cited in their defence was no other than their old adversary Banes, and thus the seventy-five year old scholar, after his long struggle with the Jesuits, found himself entangled in the same net as themselves. The old scholar had for a long time retired from his chair and from disputations, but on this occasion the old lion felt himself moved once more to enter the lists. On July 2nd, 1602, at Valladolid, where the court then was, he organized a public disputation, which was to be as brilliant as possible, in the Church of the Dominicans. The nuncio and many illustrious gentlemen were present. A thesis was discussed, which, though it did not recede from his previous theses, left nothing to be desired in the matter of devotion to the Roman See. He would have liked Spanish to have been chosen as the language for the discussion, so that the greatest possible number of persons might be convinced of his true opinions, but the Constable of Castille to whom he expressed this wish, drily replied that he preferred Greek, because in that way even less of the question would be understood. But Banes was able to repair the loss by delivering a panegyric on Clement VIII after the disputation. “Before God I am speaking the truth,” he began, “when I say that I have read of and seen many holy and good lives of Roman pontiffs, from the time of the Apostles to our own day, but I have never read of greater holiness and goodness than that of this Pope, by which I mean to say that Clement VIII always has been, and always will be a true representative of Christ, and successor of the Prince of the Apostles.” He said that this to him was a dogma, that he had always taught it and looked upon the contrary view as heresy and a shameless act of effrontery. Then the Constable spoke, and pointed out that such assertions were superfluous, for no one of those present had called the authority of the Pope in question. Banes replied that this was true, but that it was necessary to consolidate those sound sentiments, and that if anyone should maintain the contrary it ought to be made plain to all that for such persons there were always judges in Spain to brand them as heretics. Banes then wrote to the Pope that by his disputation he had stamped out a dangerous error, which on account of the reputation of its supporters might have spread throughout the world, and begged him at the same time to decide the dispute on grace by a pontifical sentence. The Trinitarian Zumel also held a similar disputation with his old friend Banes, and wrote an account of it to Rome, receiving, in accordance with the usage of the Curia, a eulogistic reply, as did Banes himself. Naturally the Jesuits could not now be left behind. On July 10th, 1602, they also prepared a disputation at Valladolid, in which they endeavoured to give satisfaction to the offended Pope; this they could do all the more easily in that probably the greater number of them did not share the opinions of their brethren at Alcala. They allowed themselves to say, however, without naming Banes, that the thesis recently maintained by a Dominican theologian was not altogether satisfactory.

The nuncio, who was not a theologian, and had not a sufficient knowledge of the state of the question, made a report to Rome concerning the Jesuit disputation, but in rather frigid terms. On the other hand he zealously supported at the Inquisition the condemnation of the culprits of Alcala.

The tribunal of the faith thus found itself in a position of much embarrassment ; it understood perfectly well that there were no grounds for a condemnation, but on the other hand had to take into account the irritation of the Pope and the pressure of the nuncio. At length, in September, 1602, the sentenced was pronounced, which, however, was not published until the summer of 1603. This was an acquittal, though an exhortation and admonition were to be addressed to the accused that is to say an exhortation to greater prudence, and an admonition for the imprudence already committed.

In the meantime the indignation of Clement VIII had evaporated. Cardinal Aldobrandini wrote on April 12th, 1603, to the nuncio in Spain that the great accumulation of papers and opinions on the theses of Alcala had been laid aside, together with the question itself. Clement VIII. had thus discovered that, notwithstanding the thesis of Alcala, no one thought of calling his authority and dignity as Pope in question.

Nevertheless, all this presaged ill for the subsequent development of the controversies on grace.

The misapprehensions of the Pope had shown, clearly enough, that he had no profound dogmatic knowledge. Indeed, it is not even certain that he had ever studied dogmatics. In his youth he had attended the University of Bologna, but the students who intended to devote themselves to the service of the Curia studied canon law, nor is there anything to show that young Aldobrandini was an exception.1 Yet now Clement VIII. intended to preside in person at the congregations at which the most thorny questions of dogmatic theology were to be treated of. In spite of his age he plunged eagerly into the study of theology, read far into the night, laboured and attended disputations, so that Cardinal Pierbenedetti laughingly remarked that in his old age he had changed from a jurist into a theologian. He thought that in this way, and by listening to the discussions, he would attain to that clearness of view which was necessary in order to formulate a dogmatic judgment; in this matter he acted rather as a private individual who wanted thoroughly to understand a scientific question, than as a Pope who was preparing to make a dogmatic definition.

The new series of disputations began on March 20th, 1602. There were assembled in the Pope’s apartments his closest advisers, Cardinals Pompeo Arigoni and Camillo Borghese, besides the members of the commission who had already four times spoken in condemnation of Molina, and who were now reinforced by four more consultors. Lastly there were the two Generals of the Orders and the theologians chosen by them; the General of the Dominicans, Girolamo Javieres, was again accompanied by Diego Alvarez; the General of the Jesuits brought with him as his theologian Gregory of Valencia.

The discussions which now began followed exactly the same course as that which had previously had so little result. This time again the first place was not given to the dogmatic thesis —in what does efficacious grace consist—but to Molina’s book. This time, in examining the book, they did not even confine themselves to the principal question, whether Molina was right in rejecting physical predetermination, and introducing in its stead the “scientia media” of God, but it was once more asked whether there were to be found in the disputed book theses which would justify its condemnation. Moreover, in the examination of the theses of Molina, the most difficult course was followed, namely their comparison with the doctrine of St. Augustine. Undoubtedly St. Augustine is looked upon by the Catholic Church as being par excellence the master of the doctrine of grace. But he often speaks with certain presuppositions, and refers to conditions which were well known and familiar to his first readers, but which cannot be understood by posterity, except by painful scientific study. Therefore he is not easy to understand in all particulars, and in the course of the history of the Church has given rise to many misunderstandings.

It was therefore easy to see that the disputations would be very long protracted, when, a few weeks after the opening congregation the Pope proposed as the subject of the next discussions the two questions: did Augustine or Molina attribute greater force for good to the free will, and was the thesis of Molina that God gives man His grace while he is doing what is within the reach of his natural powers, to be found in Augustine, or was it at any rate in accordance with his spirit, and recognized by him as a universal law of the order of grace. The first of these theses proposed by the Pope was treated of in eight congregations. The question was discussed whether man is capable of performing by his purely natural powers, without the help of grace, things that are naturally good, and whether he can do so even in difficult circumstances, for example, if he had to choose between death and sin ; also whether man is capable of assenting by his natural powers to the truths of faith, and whether he is capable by his purely natural powers of aspiring to faith and to supernatural help, of asking both from God, and of disposing himself to receive them. Then came the question : what is the part taken by the free will in receiving grace and in increasing it, and whether the free will is sufficient to arouse repentance for the love of God, or in general any act of the love of God which is purely natural, or to resist temptations. At the ninth congregation, on September 30th, 1602, the second of the questions originally proposed was arrived at. So far what had been always done was to first establish the doctrine of Augustine as to all these points, then that of Molina, and then to compare the two opinions. At the tenth congregation Augustine was abandoned, and until January 1603, that is to say for seven whole months, the doctrine of Molina was compared with that of Cassian, who is suspect of semi-Pelagianism without scholars having come to an agreement on the question down to the present day. Then the doctrine of Molina as to contrition and attrition, in accordance with the decrees of the Council of Trent, was examined, after which a return was made to Augustine, in order to discover a contradiction between him and Molina. In this way question succeeded question, and month after month went by, without any decision being come to. It seemed as though the principal question was being almost purposely evaded. The physical predetermination of the Dominicans almost disappeared from the scene during the discussions ; only three congregations concerned themselves with the “scientia media” of Molina, and these were the only ones during the whole of the year 1604 which were of any importance for the true point of the controversy. Then the matter was again allowed to lapse, and on January 4th, 1605, the question of eternal predestination was dealt with. Another congregation was fixed for February 12th, but by then Clement VIII had already been seized by the malady from which he never recovered.

Each of these congregations lasted for several hours. At the very first Alvarez and Valencia disputed for a full four hours; the Avvisi of July 27th, 1602, relate that the disputation lasted uninterruptedly for seven hours on end. After the discussion by the theologians, as at first arranged, the Cardinals and consultors were at once to pronounce their judgment upon what had been said. From the eighth congregation onwards the discussions by the Cardinals and consultors were separated from the disputation by the theologians, and transferred to one of the following days. This explains how it is that the number of the congregations is differently stated. Of the meetings, 68 took place under Clement VIII; at 37 of these the theologians disputed, while the Cardinals and consultors deliberated at the others. The total number of congregations under Clement VIII and Paul V was no less than 85. If the method so far adopted had been continued, such congregations could have carried on for years to come without arriving at any conclusion.

That this method was a mistake was pointed out to the Pope with great frankness by Cardinal Bellarmine. He frequently told the Pope not to deceive himself, and said that, as he was not a theologian, he must not suppose that he would be able by his own studies to penetrate so obscure a question. At the end of 1601 or at the beginning of 1602, Bellarmine addressed a letter to Clement VIII. in which he gives him information about Pelagius, and then implores the Pope to free the Church from the scandal of the dispute about grace as soon as possible, to restore unity, and to deprive the heretics of the opportunity of rejoicing at the discord among the Catholics. “And if it be lawful for me on a matter of such importance to say what I think as a Cardinal appointed by Your Holiness, and as your faithful servant, then I pray you to consider that the way which had been adopted had been shown to be very long and very fatiguing for Your Holiness.” The direct way is not that of secret discussions with a few persons, but that of public discussions, and there would be scandal if a decision were to be made without public discussion. If a public discussion by a synod of bishops, or at any rate by an assembly of the doctors of the various universities, cannot be avoided, it should be summoned before the Pope has read all that he has set himself to read. Previous Popes, in matters of dogmatic decisions, have not relied principally upon their own study of dogmatics, but upon the general conviction of the Church, and especially of the bishops and doctors ; in this way, without personal fatigue, Luther, for example, was condemned by Leo X, and many errors by Paul III, Julius III, and Pius IV with the assistance of the Council of Trent. The other method, that of personal scientific study, was attempted, for example, by John XXI., but without result, and “Your Holiness is faced by the danger to which Sixtus V exposed himself and the whole Church when he set himself to correct the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own views; I do not know that it ever passed through a greater danger.” There were two ways to put an end to the dispute on grace ; either to impose silence on both parties, or to convoke a synod of bishops or of chosen scholars from all the Catholic universities. But above all Bellarmine asked that, until a definite judgment was given, the mouths of those should be closed who went about spreading the rumour that the Pope had already formed his own convictions, that he leaned towards one of the parties, and was ill-disposed towards the other, for otherwise no one would any longer dare to express his own opinion

For a long time Bellarmine had been held in high esteem by Clement VIII., and when he was made a Cardinal the Pope said that the Church had no one to equal him in learning. As long as the influence of the Jesuit Cardinal lasted, the Pope was favourable to the doctrine of grace of the Society of Jesus, which he openly called, when talking with him “Our opinion”; but not later than April, 1600, when he ordered the examination of Molina’s book, Clement VIII had become subject to other influences, and altogether took the side of the Dominicans. The whole course and result of the congregations on the doctrine of grace show this. The choice of the subject to be discussed was entirely in accordance with the wishes of the Dominicans ; the Jesuits, on the other hand, were forced against their will to defend Molina’s book in all its theses, and never were able to obtain their desire to see physical predetermination brought under discussion.

Clement VIII, against the advice of Bellarmine, never made a secret of his own leanings. The Roman weekly news-sheet of March 23rd, 1602, says that he declared openly against the Jesuits; a few months later it reported that he had openly declared himself against them. The Papal preacher of the Apostolic Palace, Anselmo Marzato of the Capuchin Order, who was one of the consultors at the congregations on the doctrine of grace, openly took the part of the Dominicans against the Jesuits in his conferences; in January 1603, in the Pope’s presence he expressed himself in such a way that the coming condemnation of the Jesuits seemed to be heralded. In July 1602 Clement VIII distributed large alms to obtain the assistance of God in an important matter, and the decision as to the doctrine of grace seemed to be imminent. When the Pope paid a visit to the Jesuits on February 10th, 1603, he was given a present of some oil from the Indies. He asked whether Extreme Unction should be given with this to the Dominicans or the Jesuits. He then paid a visit to the Friars Preachers, and sent them some food from his own table, in order to show that the Jesuits had not affected him by their Indian oil.

Clement VIII undoubtedly had the intention of putting an end to the controversy between the two Orders by means of a dogmatic decision, but he was too conscientious to do anything hastily in the matter, and a condemnation of Molina seemed to become more and more impossible. It was reported again and again that the Papal decision was imminent, but those who looked more deeply into the question did not allow themselves to be deceived by such rumours. At the beginning of 1602 Bellarmine had gone so far as to tell the Pope that His Holiness would never give a dogmatic decision on the question, and he had remained fixed in his opinion, in spite of the assurances of the Pope to the contrary. Clement VIII was not a little disturbed by the apparent obstinacy of the Cardinal, and gave him a. severe admonition. But Bellarmine knew well enough what he was saying. Molina in his book had always connected his theses with the traditions of the past; it was impossible to condemn any of his assertions without at the same time involving a number of other illustrious theologians ; the Dominicans would have to allow their own theologians to be involved if they wished to obtain the condemnation of Molina. Bellarmine had written in this sense to the Spanish Jesuits, and the celebrated Jesuit theologian, Gabriel Vasquez, had spoken to the same effect. The remonstrances of Bellarmine had no other effect than to cause the Pope to appoint him Archbishop of Capua, and thus remove him from Rome.

The view of Bellarmine and of a few others, who were especially well versed in the matter, was not, however, that of the great majority. All Europe was impatiently awaiting the issue of the controversy. Even the Protestants eagerly gave ear to the rumours that were constantly being spread that Molina had already been condemned. Scribani, the rector of the Jesuits, wrote from Antwerp, “I can find no words to describe the expressions of joy with which this news has been received by the heretics of our city. Some of them have gone so far as to congratulate themselves that the view of Calvin as to free will has at last been recognized as true, and that the Papists who were formerly so proud of their unity, now find themselves at issue as to the principal dogmas of faith.” Scribani does not hesitate to say that such a condemnation would be a graver blow to the Catholic religion in Flanders than the long and bloody years of the civil wars. The Catholics were living in a state of fear, and were miserably depressed by the rumours which were being spread in Holland, and which would provide an opportunity for a flood of libels against the Catholics at the coming fair.

These rumours, which continued to be spread, were a sore trial to the whole Society of Jesus; the reputation of their teaching and their schools were bound to suffer grievous injury on their account. The very fact that the Order had had to sacrifice some of its most distinguished scholars for the absolutely sterile work of the congregations on the doctrine of grace, was in itself no small loss. Gregory of Valencia, who was first appointed to defend their cause there, fell seriously ill after the first eight congregations. His recovery was awaited for a month, and then he was replaced by Pedro di Arrubal. Valencia died soon afterwards, on March 26th, 1603, the victim, it was supposed, of the excessive work which he had had to undergo during the hottest months of the summer, with the oppressive feeling that the whole honour of the Order depended upon him. His successor, too, Arrubal, was taken ill in June 1603; after four months respite in the disputations, his place was taken by Ferdinando de la Bastida. After the latter had had to carry on the disputations at three congregations in the fourteen days between November 10th and 25th, 1603, it was only on December 1st that he received information of the subject that he was to defend on December 8th, and poured out his grievance to the Pope in a letter that was somewhat excited. In this he said that even if he were able to study uninterruptedly day and night he would not have time to prepare so difficult a subject, in view of this hasty procedure. Nor was the hint lacking that the Dominicans wished to wear out their adversaries and prevent them from preparing themselves as they should. The Pope should not permit him to lose his health and his life by such excessive labour.

The Dominicans too replaced the defender of their cause, immediately after the first congregation, by Tommaso de Lemos. The reasons for this change are not known; it is only known that at the end of the session silence was imposed under pain of excommunication, and that according to De Lemos the Jesuits were satisfied with the result of the disputation. De Lemos, who is described as a man of great physical robustness, lasted until the end of the congregations, although, in spite of all remonstrances, these w7ere very long drawn out.

The pressure which was brought to bear on the Pope by the Spanish government to hasten the discussions was especially importunate. Philip II had already addressed himself to Rome for this purpose; his son, although he knew nothing about the controverted matter, signed, under the pressure of those interested, a whole series of similar letters, both to the Pope and the ambassador in Rome, even before the congregations in the presence of the Pope had been begun. De la Bastida hinted, in the letter already mentioned, that the king was acting under the influence of the Dominicans, but there are also to be found edicts of the king to his ambassador which can only have been inspired by the Jesuits. Thus a royal order to the Duke of Sessa, of June 2nd, 1600, contains a command to present to the Pope, in the king’s name, a request that he will first direct the examination to the question of doctrine, and only then examine in the same way, both the suspected books, that of Banes equally with that of Molina. The Duke of Sessa wrote on July 12th, 1601, that so far there had been no talk of the principal point, and that all that had been dealt with was the work of Molina, its correction and its condemnation. According to the assertion of the Dominicans, the whole discussion would come to an end if certain theses of Molina’s were condemned; the Jesuits were defending these theses, but asserted that the controversy which the Pope should decide was not principally concerned with these. Such expressions obviously revealed the point of view of the Jesuits. Duke William of Bavaria and the widow of the Emperor Maximilian II. also intervened on behalf of the Jesuits, but the Pope rather angrily replied: “We are convinced,” he wrote to the Duke of Bavaria, “that your intercession can be traced to certain people who would comply better with their office and their duty if they paid attention with humility and submission to the judgment of the Holy See, instead of seeking for such intercession.” He wrote in the same sense to the Archduchess Maria.

Throughout the whole of this matter Clement VIII preserved a holy gravity. When at the opening of the first congregation he recited on his knees aloud a prayer to the Holy Ghost, it was to be seen that he was deeply moved, and the tears flowed from his eyes. He celebrated mass before each congregation, or at any rate received Holy Communion if his gout did not permit of his doing so. During the summer months of 1602, which were oppressively hot, he took part like the others at the wearisome sessions which lasted for hours, and not even in the October of that year would he leave Rome, so as not to be absent from the heated controversy. He assured the Spanish ambassador, when the latter urged him to take more care of himself, that he was working and toiling to the best of his ability, in order to get to the bottom of the matter. Some marginal notes and underlined words in a printed copy of the book of Molina, preserved at Tortosa, prove that he had at any rate attempted to make a profound study of the not easily to be understood work.

If in spite of all this he did not succeed in settling the controversy between the two Orders, the fault must be attributed to those about him. Not being himself a theologian, he had to trust to the advice of others, and he was badly advised. Above all, the way which he chose for the solution of the controversy was quite unusual, and never before attempted. Previous Popes had left the judgment on literary works either to the Inquisition or to the Congregation of the Index, and then considered their judgment with full confidence. But now an unheard of thing happened; a special congregation was appointed of which the Pope held the presidency in person. The disputations were indefinitely protracted, and all to ascertain whether a book contained heretical theses or not. For a thousand years no such unheard of honour had been accorded to any author. Peace between the Dominicans and Jesuits could be restored by the condemnation of Molina, yet the learned and careful theologian could not be convicted of heretical thesis. Certain Jesuits, for example Bellarmine, were not in agreement with Molina as to all his theses, but it is one thing to hold a thesis to be mistaken or inexact, and quite another to hold it to be heretical and deserving of theological censure, and the congregations held in the presence of Clement VIII finally justified Molina in this respect. Moreover, it was certainly a mistake to suppose that peace would be restored between the two Orders by the condemnation of certain theses of Molina. If this end was to be attained by means of a dogmatic decision, the principal question which was dividing the Order of Preachers and the Society of Jesus would have to be directly dealt with. But this was entirely set aside. The “scientia media” of Molina was only briefly dealt with in comparison with other questions of minor importance ; “physical predetermination” was hardly discussed at all. The dispute turned always on secondary questions, while the burning principal question was entirely neglected. Lastly, it may be asked whether it was fair morally to force the Jesuits to defend Molina and his book; they always clung firmly to the point of view that the whole Society of Jesus as such could not be held responsible for every thesis of Molina. Nevertheless circumstances had worked together to embitter the quarrel in such a way that a condemnation of Molina would have been looked upon as a defeat of the whole Jesuit Order, and as a proof of its scientific incapacity. The Jesuits therefore, whether they willed or not, had to resolve upon the defence of Molina if only to prevent a mortal blow against themselves. From the beginning the two Orders were not treated on equal terms. The Dominicans were allowed to come forward as the “defenders of the doctrine of grace,” and as the accusers, while the Jesuits had to take their place on the bench of the accused ; thus the Pope put himself into a position which, after the end of the matter, proved a false one.

“ Pope Clement ” so judged his successor Paul V, “regretted that he had allowed himself to be engulfed in this business, and that after many years of disputations he could find no way of coming out of it well.” It could not have been otherwise, once he had allowed himself to be led into the mistake of making Molina’s book the centre of the discussions. It would seem, however, that towards the end of his days, Clement VIII regarded the opinion of the Jesuits more kindly when there came to Rome Cardinal du Perron, after Bellarmine and Stapleton the greatest controversial theologian against Protestantism, who said to him that all the Calvinists and Lutherans in France and Germany would hold jubilee over the condemnation of the opinion of the Jesuits, and. would see in it an acceptance of their own doctrine of free will.

Thus the failure of the Pope in this difficult matter seemed to be inevitable and beyond doubt. In spite of this, from another point of view, Clement is deserving of every admiration. It is impossible not to realize his zeal to free the Church from a troublesome disunion, nor the conscientiousness and perseverance with which he took upon his own shoulders the crushing burden of personal attendance at the congregations, nor the self-control which never suffered him to take any mistaken action of importance against the Jesuits, in spite of his distrust of them, nor his sincere desire to arrive at the truth. If with all this it was not granted him to gather the harvest of his labours, he at any rate has the credit of having smoothed the way for his successor to a happy solution of the question.

Both the scholars whose controversy had laid such a heavy burden on the head of the Church preceded Clement VIII to the grave. Banes died on October 21st, 1604, at Medina del Campo. It is said that a short time before he breathed his last he protested that he believed all that he had written concerning the question of grace as firmly as he believed in the unity and trinity of God, but that he submitted everything to the judgment of the Pope and the Church. If Banes really said this he has in so doing given a further proof that his undoubtedly great intellect often allowed itself to be guided more by his strong will than by the conviction of proof,  since neither Dominican nor Jesuit could place his view on the controversy about grace on the same level as the great truths of faith.

Four years earlier, on October 12th, 1600, there preceded him to the grave the man against whom Banes had in life carried on a struggle so long, and as the event proved, so unjust. Molina was without doubt one of the most acute minds of his time, a time so rich in great theologians. But with all this he was not one of those who immerse themselves in the world of their own ideas without heeding the course of events around them ; the star which had guided him in his scientific labours was always, in his eyes, the welfare of the Church. Just as his work on grace and liberty aimed at finding a foundation for a solid solution of a difficulty that was then very popular,1 so the voluminous book to which he devoted the labours of his latter years aimed at providing a solid scientific basis for the decisions of the confessor and the parish priest, dealing in six volumes with the questions of canon law and justice. As they did in learning, so did Banes and Molina stand at opposite poles in character; Banes the head of a school, as it were predestined to gather others round him, to imbue them with his ideas, and fill them with enthusiasm for difficult undertakings; Molina, working in silence, as a man a picture of non-resistance, as a religious as submissive as a child to his superiors in spite of his great learning, yet a man according to the spirit of Thomas a Kempis, whose Imitation of Christ he read every day. In his last illness he no longer interested himself in scientific questions; when his superior asked him concerning his still unpublished books he replied that the Society of Jesus might do as it liked with them. His life was filled with disputes and attacks, but he always maintained peace of soul, in the firm conviction that he had truth on his side. A kindly star seemed to shine over his life, for however desperate his cause might have seemed, in the end it turned steadily in his favour.

The controversy between the two Orders did not end with the death of the two leaders, and the Roman discussions had on the contrary embittered and indefinitely prolonged the struggle ; but we must be careful not to attribute this unhappy result only to the imprudent impetuosity of Banes. The struggle between the older and the younger Order took its origin in the circumstances of the time and was difficult to avoid.

Throughout their course of action the Jesuits were inspired by the conviction that a new age had begun, and had brought with it new requirements, and that it was not enough merely to follow in all things the ways that had been trodden a thousand times. Always in contact with tradition, and no less than the others, mindful of the spirit of the Church, wherever they saw their opportunity they sought for new methods, both at home in the exercise of the ministry, and in the foreign missions, as well as in science. Even though at times this aim led to misunderstandings, yet their efforts proved of great advantage to the Church. The result of their labours in the field of learning was the development of ascetic and moral theology, of apologetics against Protestantism, a new manner of treating of the whole field of dogmatics, and of Christian philosophy in accordance with the exigencies of the times, together with vast labours on the Holy Scriptures. But it was inevitable that their whole tendency, and their attention to the needs of the times, which had been manifested during the first ten years of their Order, should arouse suspicion among those who, by the whole of their glorious past, found themselves bound to the maintenance of those forms in which they had hitherto moved, and by means of which they had acquired their reputation in the Church.

Some of this party watched with anxiety the actions of the young Order which was springing up so lustily; its proceedings seemed to them not to be free from an innovating and anti-ecclesiastical spirit, and they felt themselves called upon to apply a barrier. With his incomparable perspicacity Ignatius of Loyola had foreseen the future development of events in this respect, exhorting his sons at every opportunity carefully to try and avoid as far as possible all conflict with the friars and monks; but it was not possible to do so altogether. Not to do so might even be of use to the Church, in that the two tendencies, that which aimed at going forward and that which sought to hold it back, it might be saved by the very struggle from remaining one-sided.

Molina did nothing more than to let loose the storm of indignation which had been gathering for a long time past. It must be admitted that in his new setting forth of the most ancient ideas he did some extraordinary things, and in subsidiary matters went a little too far, even in the opinion of Bellarmine. In his overpowering zeal and in perfect faith, such a man as Banes might well suppose that the precious inheritance of traditional theology was threatened by him. After the question had been transferred to Rome, probably contrary to the intention or expectation of Banes, the opposition to Molina—precisely because of the long duration of a struggle which was fought out in the highest places and in sight of all the world—became more and more a point of honour for the whole Order, and the final result was that what had never been so hitherto, as far as can be discovered, was raised to the dignity of a doctrine of the Order.

From what was said at the chapter-general, where the whole Order was officially represented, it is quite clear that not all Dominicans as a whole were animated by sentiments of hostility towards their younger colleague and rival. Immediately after the first flashes of the dispute about grace, when the incitements of an Avendano were fresh in men’s minds, such an assembly was held at Valencia in 1596. The conciliatory attempts which, at the suggestion of Aquaviva, were then undertaken by the Dominicans and Jesuits, were so to say crowned by an express order from the chapter­general in favour of the Jesuits. This states “We exhort in the Lord all the brethren of our Order to embrace in sincere and fraternal affection all those religious with whom we ought to be striving for the same end, and in particular those who are labouring without ceasing in the midst of others for the defence of the faith and salvation of souls, namely the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, whom with the others we warmly recommend to you. We desire that they should have evidence in your deeds of the affection and charity of your hearts, that you should be at their disposal wherever you can, and that you should not give offence to them in any way, either in word or deed.” Those who act in any other way will be punished.

This exhortation was repeated by the chapters-general in Rome in the years 1644 and 1656. In 1644 it was laid down that the Dominicans must show to individual Jesuits and to the whole Society of Jesus “service and devotion, with the greatest kindness and conscientiousness, so that they may find in us the expression of an exquisite charity and a cordial affection. Even though we may not always be in agreement with them in their opinions and ideas, we must nevertheless always be in will of one soul and one heart.” The chapter of 1656 asked “that the Jesuits and all others should realize from our hospitality, confidence, cordiality and union that we are disciples of Christ.” The General of the Order, Giovanni Battista de Marinis warmly recommended his subjects in a circular of March 25th, 1661, to live in harmony with the Society of Jesus: “We ought on both sides to be one heart and one soul in Our Lor ; we ought both of us to prove this by our rivalry in fervent charity, while our undivided union must proclaim it.”

These decrees were responded to, on the part of the Jesuit by decrees of the General of the Order, Vitelleschi, and were repeated by the eight general congregation of the whole Order in 1645. The exhortation of the congregation says “ All our subjects must aim everywhere at speaking, both in private conversations and in public, in favourable terms of the venerable Order of Dominicans in general as well as of its institutions, its eminent learning and its distinguished works; they must treat its members with such respect and courtesy as to rival one another in mutual hospitality and other manifestations of affection, as is becoming to our humble Society, and as is due to an Order which is greater than ours in antiquity and dignity.” The same general congregation later on in 1661, following upon the letter of the General of the Dominicans, De Marinis, renewed and confirmed this exhortation.

CHAPTER X.

The Papal States.—The Re-acquisition of Ferrara.—Death of the Pope.