Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 91/2 (2015) 257-269. doi: 10.2143/ETL.91.2.308592 © 2015 by Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. All rights reserved.
The Condemned Biography of Leonardus Lessius and the Debates on the Efficacy of Grace
Diana STANCIU University of Oxford
The biography of Leonardus Lessius, S.J. (1554-1623), written by his nephew Jacob Wijns, S.J. (1593-1649) and edited by his great nephew Thomas Courtois, a Brussels lawyer, was put to the Index librorum prohibi- torum on 22 January 1642, soon after its publication in 16401. A new issue was still considered acceptable by Rome on condition that corrections were
1. De vita et moribus R.P. Leonardi Lessii e Societate Iesu theologi liber. Ad utramque provinciam Societatis Iesu per Belgium iubilaeum anno seculari suo celebrantem. Una cum Divinarum perfectionum opusculo, cura et sumptibus Thomae Courtois, Brussels, Gode- fredus Schovartius, 1640. For more details, see T. VAN HOUDT, Jacob Wijns, S.J., De vita, et moribus R.P. Leonardi Lessii liber (1640), in P. BEGHEYN – B. DEPREZ – R. FAESEN – L. KENIS (eds.), Jesuit Books in the Low Countries, 1540-1773: A Selection from the Maurits Sabbe Library (Documenta libraria, 38), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 104-107, p. 106. More on Lessius’ life and work in T. VAN HOUDT, Leven en werk, in Leonardus Lessius over lening, intrest en woeker: De Iustitia et iure, lib. 2, cap. 20. Editie, vertaling en commentaar, Brus- sels, Paleis der Academiën, 1998, ix-xiv and in T. VAN HOUDT – W. DECOCK, Leonardus Lessius: Traditie en vernieuwing, Antwerp, Maria-Elisabeth Belpaire, 2005 – especially Betrokkenheid en distantie: Lessius als jezuïet, pp. 21-39 and De Europese dimensie: Les- sius en de laat-scholastieke ethiek, pp. 40-54. However, as regards Lessius’ work, both Van Houdt and Decock concentrate more on the juridical and economical thought of Lessius and less on his theological views. Rather more helpful for the topic of this article are earlier authors such as Karel Van Sull and Xavier-Marie Le Bachelet. For instance, the facts that Wijns was the author of the biography and that he was Lessius’ nephew (his mother, Elisa- beth Leys, was Lessius’ sister) and spent some years together with him in Louvain and that Courtois was Lessius’ great nephew are confirmed and explained by Van Sull, who also wrote a biography of Lessius much later than Wijns. And this considerably contextualises the publication and the condemnation of the biography. Van Sull also notes that Wijns’ manu- script was actually completed in 1630 and was published by Courtois only as late as 1640. But Van Sull certifies that the manuscript text of Wijns’ biography and Courtois’ editon are identical – see C. VAN SULL, Léonard Lessius de la Compagnie de Jésus (1554-1623) (Museum Lessianum – Section théologique, 21), Leuven, Museum Lessianum, 1930, 334-335. A slightly different view can be found, nevertheless, in X.-M. LE BACHELET, Prédestination et grâce efficace: Controverses dans la Compagnie de Jésus au temps d’Aquaviva (1610- 1613). Histoire et documents inédits (Museum Lessianum – Section théologique, 25), Leuven, Museum Lessianum, 1931, 99-102. Le Bachelet does not mention any relationship between Lessius and Wijns (but he does not deny it either) although he also acknowledges the fact that Wijns is the author of the biography. Also differently from the other sources, Le Bachelet considers that Wijns died in 1640 and not in 1649. Le Bachelet does not mention Thomas Courtois either. He cites just the Brussels manuscript 4070, containing the biography. He may have then consulted only Wijns’ manuscript and not Courtois’ edition as well.
998150.indb8150.indb 257257 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 258 D. STANCIU
made. After a new attempt to publish it in 1644, the biography was never- theless once more prohibited, on 18 December 1646, and this time the deci- sion was irrevocable. These condemnations did not manage, nevertheless, to stop the dissemination of the biography. A few years later, Hieronymus Van Suerck, S.J. (1596-1655) reworked it in a new attempt to acquire the ecclesiastical imprimatur. However, the biography was again prohibited on 3 June 1648. Despite that, as late as 1750, Giulio Cesare Cordara, S.J. (1704- 1785) used Wijns’ biography for his description of Lessius’ life and works in the Historiae Societatis Jesu pars sexta2. And such a record of condemna- tions and reworkings cannot but determine one to find out more about the life of Leonardus Lessius and about the reasons for the repeated condemna- tions of his biography. The biography was indeed presented and its condem- nation shortly discussed in the article by Toon Van Houdt already mentioned above, at note 13. However, in my view, the biography and its condemnation should be also studied in the wider context of Lessius’ theological views. The hypothesis of this article is that the main reason for the condemnation of the biography was the fact that Wijns introduced some of Lessius’ debat- able theological views on the efficacy of grace in the biography.
I. LEONARDUS LESSIUS – SHORT BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Leonardus Lessius (or Lenaert Leys) was born on 1 October 1554 in Brecht, near Antwerp. He studied arts at the University of Louvain from 1567 to 1572. Afterwards, in 1572, he entered the Jesuit Order. Following his novitiate at Saint-Omer, he lectured on Aristotelian philosophy in Douai. In 1580 he was ordained priest and in 1583 he was sent to Rome, where he studied theology. Among his professors in Rome were Francisco Suárez, S.J. (1548-1617), Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (1542-1621) and Augustino Gius- tiniani, S.J. (1551-1590). In 1585, Lessius returned to Louvain, where he started lecturing on Thomas Aquinas’ Summa theologiae at the Jesuit Col- lege. He continued to do that for the next 15 years. Due to his treatise De iustitia et iure (1605), in which he developed an economic ethics that took into account the commercial and financial situation of the late 16th and early 17th centuries, Lessius became well known as a moral theologian4. Additionally, Lessius wrote devotional treatises, among which the Quin- quaginta nomina Dei5, posthumously published, in 1640, together with the aforementioned biography.
2. G.C. CORDARA (1704-1785), Historiae Societatis Jesu pars sexta, Rome, 1750, lib. 8, pp. 425-426 – cited also in VAN HOUDT, Jacob Wijns, S.J. (n. 1), p. 106. 3. VAN HOUDT, Jacob Wijns, S.J. (n. 1). 4. De vita et moribus R. P. Leonardi Lessii (n. 1), p. 25; see also VAN HOUDT, Jacob Wijns, S.J. (n. 1), p. 105. 5. Also discussed in De vita et moribus R. P. Leonardi Lessii (n. 1), pp. 54-55.
998150.indb8150.indb 258258 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 THE CONDEMNED BIOGRAPHY OF LEONARDUS LESSIUS 259
II. LESSIUS AND THE DEBATES ON THE EFFICACY OF GRACE
The Quinquaginta nomina Dei may have been a possible reason for the repeated condemnation of the biography. After simply studying its table of contents, one may observe that this short devotional treatise was prob- ably derived from a larger and much more controversial theological treatise written by Lessius, De perfectionibus moribusque divinis (Antwerp, 1620). De perfectionibus moribusque divinis followed and was inspired by Lessius’ failed attempt to secretly publish, with Balthasar Moretus, in 1619, a revised edition of his other important treatise, De gratia efficaci (1610), which con- tained some of Lessius’ views that had been censured much earlier, in 1577- 1578, by the Louvain Faculty of Theology6. So, Lessius’ Quinquaginta nomina Dei could be a reminder of these earlier 1577-1578 Louvain debates, on which I should give now a few details on the basis of the comprehensive study of E.J.M. van Eijl7. According to Van Eijl, in their lectures of scholastic theology in Louvain, Lessius and his colleague, Jan Hamelius, expressed opinions that were not in line with the doctrina recepta of the Louvain Faculty of Theology8. The professors of this faculty and especially Jacobus Jansonius9 seem to have assembled 31 propositions on providence, predestination and sufficient/ efficient grace taken from the lecture notes of the students and asked Lessius and Hamelius to explain whether they indeed taught such ideas. Lessius admitted that the 31 propositions were his, but insisted that they were taken out of the context and thus wrongly interpreted. In turn, he offered 34 sentences in which he explained his views10. Moreover, Lessius sent his 34 sentences to Rome, to his former professor, cardinal Robert Bellarmine11,
6. For this, I am indebted to VAN HOUDT, Jacob Wijns, S.J. (n. 1), p. 106. 7. E.J.M. VAN EIJL, La controverse louvaniste autour de la grâce et du libre arbitre à la fin du XVIe siècle, in M. LAMBERIGTS – L. KENIS (eds.), L’Augustinisme à l’ancienne faculté de théologie de Louvain (BETL, 111), Leuven, Peeters, 1994, 207-283, pp. 211-217, 228. See also J. ROEGIERS, L’augustinisme de l’école de Louvain au XVIIIe siècle, in LAM- BERIGTS – KENIS (eds.), L’Augustinisme à l’ancienne faculté de théologie de Louvain, 333- 360 for additional details. 8. See also M. LAMBERIGTS, Il giansenismo nei Paesi Bassi meridionali nel XVII secolo, in L. VACCARO (ed.), Storia religiosa di Belgio, Olanda e Lussemburgo (Europa ricerche, 6), Gazzada, Centro ambrosiano, 2000, vol. I, 281-314, pp. 284-285. 9. M. ALBERT, Nuntius Fabio Chigi und die Anfänge des Jansenismus, 1639-1651: Ein Römischer Diplomat in Theologischen Auseinandersetzungen (Römischer Quartalschrift für Christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte. Supplement, 44). Rome – Freiburg, Herder, 1988, pp. 58-60. 10. VAN EIJL, La controverse louvaniste (n. 7), pp. 210-211. 11. For more information on Bellarmine’s connection to Louvain, see M. BIERSACK, Initia Bellarminiana: Die Prädestinationslehre bei Robert Bellarmin SJ bis zu seinen Löwener Vorlesungen 1570-1576, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, 1989, pp. 31-70, 78-91 and S. TUTINO, Empire of Souls: Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) and the Christian Commonwealth, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 11, 15-19,50-63, 74, 81, 277.
998150.indb8150.indb 259259 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 260 D. STANCIU
and apparently gained his support in the first instance12, The final draft of the decision of the Louvain Faculty of Theology regarding Lessius, the work of Henricus Gravius, a specialist in Augustine and especially in his doctrine of grace, was approved by the faculty on the 9th of September 158713. The censure of the Louvain Faculty of Theology was also approved by the Douai Faculty of Theology, which drafted and approved its own censure in January 158814. The Jesuits appealed to high ecclesiastical instances such as the nuntio at Cologne and the Pope, but not much was clarified by that15. The debates on grace and free will in Louvain become even more rele- vant for Lessius’ case when one thinks that they had a counterpart in Rome as well. To briefly summarise that, too, I would note that the debates in Rome revolved around the idea of a contingent action of divine grace, that challenged not only its necessity and irresistibility, but also divine omnipo- tence in general. This idea was put forward by Luis de Molina in his Concordia (first published in 1588)16 and attracted hard accusations from Dominican theologians such as Domingo Báñez. Especially the suggestion that the sufficient aid of grace becomes effi- cacious or inefficacious due to the will of the agent17 was censured by Molina’s opponents. In defense of his views, Molina insisted that human free will excludes necessity and that no causes18 (even divine) can act in a necessary manner. Thus, according to Molina, prevenient grace was not
12. It was only much later, in 1610, after the publication of Lessius’ De gratia efficaci, that Bellarmine developed a better view of Lessius’ ideas and started opposing some of them – especially the idea of predestination according to the foreseen merits (post praevisa merita) – cf. VAN EIJL, La controverse louvaniste (n. 7), pp. 212-214. 13. Ibid., pp. 214-215, 217. 14. Ibid., p. 234. For the Censure of the 31 sentences from Lessius’ works by the Louvain Faculty of Theology, confirmed by the Douai Faculty of Theology, see also L. CEYSSENS, Le drame de conscience augustinien des premiers jansénistes, in Augustinus Magister (Col- lection des études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 1-2), Paris, Institut d’études augustini- ennes, 1954-1955, vol. 2 (1955), 1069-1076 (= Jansenistica minora III, fasc. 25), p. 1069, n. 1. 15. In August 1588, the Louvain Faculty of Theology approved a document drafted by Gravius and Lensaeus called Justificatio seu defensio censurae Facultatis S. Theologiae Lovaniensis contra assertiones quasdam Professorum ibidem Societatis Nominis Jesu, usu- ally shortened to Antapologia. In September 1588, Lessius wrote his Responsio P. Leonardi Lessii ad Antapologiam Ven. Facultatis S. Theologiae Universitatis Lovaniensis – see VAN EIJL, La controverse louvaniste (n. 7), pp. 255, 272-274. 16. L. DE MOLINA, Liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia, praedestinatione et reprobatione, concordia, Antwerp, Joachim Trognaesius, 1595. More on Molina and contingency in T.P. FLINT, Divine Providence: The Molinist Account (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion), Ithaca, NY – London, Cornell University Press, 1998, pp. 11-71. 17. MOLINA, Concordia (n. 16), q. 14, a. 13, d. 50, pp. 213-218; q. 14, a. 13, d. 53, part 1, pp. 239-246. 18. On causality in this respect, see J. SCHMUTZ, La doctrine médiévale des causes et la théologie de la nature pure (XIIIe-XVIIe siècles), in Revue Thomiste 101 (2001) 217-264.
998150.indb8150.indb 260260 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 THE CONDEMNED BIOGRAPHY OF LEONARDUS LESSIUS 261
irresistible even if it was indeed efficacious19. Just like free will, Molina insisted, prevenient grace was only a secondary cause20. The position generally accepted by Molina’s opponents was that of an intrinsic onto- logical difference between efficacious and sufficient grace. Thus, efficacious grace was supposed to attain its intended effect in a necessary manner whereas merely sufficient grace was not supposed to attain its intended effect in a necessary manner21. This debate raised by Molina’s views became so fervent that the Vatican intervened and, in 1597, Pope Clement VIII established the Congregatio de Auxiliis (Commission on Grace) in Rome, which started an investiga- tion that lasted for ten years22 but, unfortunately, found no solution to the debate. The controversy ended in 1607 due to the decision of Pope Paul V. In 1611, the pope also prohibited all further discussions on the topic. Thus, Lessius’ Quinquaginta nomina Dei, possibly related, as suggested above, with the aforementioned debates on the efficacy of grace interdicted by Pope Paul V, could be, at first sight, a possible reason for the condemna- tion of the biography. However, the Quinquaginta nomina Dei seems not to have been connected to the condemnation at all. Actually, it was not even put to the Index, as the biography was. Apparently, neither did the Quinquaginta nomina Dei violate the decree on the uniformity of doctrine that was issued by Superior General Claudio Acquaviva on 14 December 1613 while De gratia efficaci did. So, even if the Quinquaginta nomina Dei was thematically related to De gratia effi- caci, it seems to have been purged of the contentious content on the effi- cacy of grace in De gratia efficaci and to have remained just a devotional treatise. It thus seems to have been simply one of the many other devotional treatises that Lessius wrote after his views on the efficacy of grace in De perfectionibus moribusque divinis irritated yet another Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Muzio Vitelleschi, who accused the author of disobe- dience and asked him to correct the text23.
19. MOLINA, Concordia (n. 16), q. 14, a. 13, d. 53, part 2, pp. 255-257. 20. Ibid., q. 14, a. 13, d. 53, part 3, pp. 257-259. 21. D. BÁÑEZ, Apologia, in V. BELTRAN DE HEREDIA (ed.), Domingo Báñez y las contro- versias sobre la gracia: Textos y documentos (Biblioteca de teologos españoles, 24 – A 12), Madrid, Consejo superior de investigaciones científicas, 1968, II, ch. 3, n. 3, 115-380; D. BÁÑEZ, Tractatus, in V. BELTRAN DE HEREDIA (ed.), Comentarios ineditos a la Prima Secundae de santo Tomas. 3, De gratia Dei (qq. 109-114) (Biblioteca de teologos españoles, 9, 11, 14), Madrid, Consejo superior de investigaciones científicas, 1942-1948, II, ch. 3, n.6, 351-420. This was also the position accepted much later by Cornelius Jansenius, in his Augustinus, posthumously published in 1640, in Louvain. 22. See V. DIEGO CARRO, La critica histórica ante las controversias sobre la gracia en el siglo XVI, in La Ciencia Tomista 87 (1960) 39-96. 23. On the censure by the Jesuit Order (especially by the Superiors General Claudio Acquaviva and Muzio Vitelleschi) of some views in Lessius’ De gratia efficaci, see LE BACHELET, Prédestination et grâce efficace (n. 1), vol. II, pp. 211-212, 249-251. See also
998150.indb8150.indb 261261 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 262 D. STANCIU
In fact, with works like Quinquaginta nomina Dei, Lessius seems to have finally respected what he had declared to the Superior General Acqua- viva in 1615-1616, when he was the praefectus studiorum at the Jesuit College of Louvain, namely that he strictly observed the decree on the uniformity of doctrine within the Jesuit order24. The Quinquaginta nomina Dei cannot be thus considered a serious reason for the condemnation of the biography. That should be found somewhere else.
III. THE ATTEMPT AT BEATIFICATION
According to Van Houdt, another possible reason for the condemnation could be the fact that it was extensively used by Jacob Wijns, its author and Lessius’ nephew, for hagiographic purposes25. According to the title page, Lessius’ biography was published for the celebration of the centennial anniversary of the Jesuit Order (founded in 1540) in both the Provincia Flandro-Belgica and Gallo-Belgica. The pub- lication was obviously intended to present Lessius as one of the most learned and pious members of the Jesuit Order in the Low Countries. And, in fact, that was not a surprise since Lessius was praised also in the centen- nial volume Imago primi saeculi Societatis Iesu, published by the Flemish province in 1640, just like Lessius’ biography26. However, it is considered nowadays that the biography served yet another purpose: to promote Lessius’ beatification. For this purpose, after Lessius’ death, Jacob Wijns seems to have started encouraging different manifesta- tions of popular devotion in the Jesuit Church of St. Michael in Louvain, where Lessius was buried. Nevertheless, in spite of all his efforts, Wijns’ attempts did not succeed and, after the 1642 condemnation of the biography and especially after the 1647 transfer of Wijns from Louvain to Roermond, the “cult of Lessius” stopped. This situation actually made Van Houdt con- sider that Wijns’ exaggerate efforts to use the biography for Lessius’ beati- fication may have actually been the main reason for its condemnation27. And that might be indeed true since, in their zeal, Wijns actions broke the strict regulations regarding the canonization and veneration of saints decreed by Pope Urban VIII on 13 March 1625 and 15 July 163428.
VAN SULL, Léonard Lessius de la Compagnie de Jésus (n. 1), p. 335 and VAN HOUDT, Jacob Wijns, S.J. (n. 1), p. 107. 24. VAN HOUDT, Jacob Wijns, S.J. (n. 1), p. 107. 25. Ibid., p. 106. 26. J. BOLLANDUS et al., Imago primi saeculi Societatis Iesu a provincia Flandro- Belgica eiusdem societatis repraesentata, Antwerp, Plantin-Moretus, 1640, pp. 17, 793, 847-849, 877. See also VAN HOUDT, Jacob Wijns, S.J. (n. 1), p. 106. 27. VAN HOUDT, Jacob Wijns, S.J. (n. 1), pp. 105-106. 28. VAN SULL, Léonard Lessius de la Compagnie de Jésus (n. 1), p. 335.
998150.indb8150.indb 262262 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 THE CONDEMNED BIOGRAPHY OF LEONARDUS LESSIUS 263
IV. LESSIUS’ CENSURED SENTENCES AND THE DEBATES ON THE EFFICACY OF GRACE REVISITED
While acknowledging Van Houdt’s view, I consider nevertheless that there may be yet another and more important reason for the condemnation of the biography. That becomes quite clear, in my view, in a close read- ing of the text itself and on a detailed analysis of its structure, which may actually offer some additional clue for explaining the condemnation. The biography starts as an apparently chronological account: Lessius’ school years, his ordination29, his studies in Rome30 and his opera (espe- cially De iustitia et iure and De gratia efficaci are mentioned)31. It then changes into a praise of Lessius’ virtues, both cardinal and theological, and of any other kind of qualities he may have had. Lessius’ wisdom (sapientia)32 and prudence (prudentia)33 are emphasised among the cardinal virtues. Among the theological ones, his love (caritas)34 is especially mentioned. Next, Lessius’ piety (pietas)35, his meekness (humilitas) and his mod- esty (modestia)36 are stressed in an attempt to compare Lessius with the spiritual leader of the order, St. Ignatius of Loyola37. Also poverty (reli- giosa paupertas)38, the chastity of body and soul (castitas corpori et animi)39, temperance (temperantia)40, patience (patientia)41 and obedience (obedientia)42 are noted. Wijns also mentions the relationship between Lessius and the Superior General Acquaviva as an example of the for- mer’s reverence towards superiors (reverentia erga superiores). Finally, he underlines Lessius’ strict observance of the rules of the order (exactus in regularium observatio), again as an example of his reverence towards his superiors43. This observance of the rules of the order and Lessius’ obedience towards Acquaviva are nevertheless somewhat counterbalanced by the insertion of a passage of about six pages in the encomium dedicated to his virtues. These six pages actually contain a detailed presentation of six theological views on the efficacy of grace maintained by Lessius and censured by the
29. De vita et moribus R. P. Leonardi Lessii (n. 1), pp. 1-24. 30. Ibid., pp. 25-27. 31. Ibid., pp. 48-50. 32. Ibid., pp. 44-59. 33. Ibid., pp. 59-67. 34. Ibid., pp. 68-87. 35. Ibid., pp. 102-135. 36. Ibid., pp. 135-150. 37. Ibid., pp. 142-143. 38. Ibid., pp. 150-159. 39. Ibid., pp. 159-168. 40. Ibid., pp. 189-201. 41. Ibid., pp. 201-222. 42. Ibid., pp. 168-189. 43. Ibid., p. 147.
998150.indb8150.indb 263263 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 264 D. STANCIU
Louvain Faculty of Theology in 158744. The fact that these views can be found also in De gratia efficaci (1610), which is also referred to in the biography, makes them even more interesting for the present study. The censured sentences are inserted in the fifth chapter of the biography, immediately after Wijns’ statement that Lessius taught scholastic theology in Louvain upon his return from Rome45. The six censured sentences refer to sufficient/efficacious grace, free will, and the inspiration from the Holy Spirit and generally maintain that God offers human beings a sufficient aid of grace, to which they can consent or which they can reject, and not an immediately efficacious one. According to Lessius and Wijns, this suffi- cient aid of grace is similar to Molina’s general concurrence. And even the assistance of the Holy Spirit in writing the Scripture can be compared rather to this general concurrence than to an immediate and efficacious aid of grace. Thus, Wijns presents Lessius as asserting that: 1) God is ready to sufficiently help all humans so that they can avoid and resist sin in order to be saved. He brings out saving inspirations and good affections by which all adults can gradually attain salvation if they want to give their assent to all this46. 2) Children are also sufficiently prepared by God for being saved. In this respect, baptism was certainly instituted for all children and God does not impede its application. He does not ordain or dispose of natural and free causes so that the application of baptism be impossible, but just per- mits that it is not applied47. 3) Not everything is efficaciously preordained and absolutely willed by God, before any foreknowledge of the determinations of the secondary causes, but many things are permitted in as much as they are foreseen – namely God grants his general concurrence while they happen48. 4) A human being, sufficiently stimulated and prepared by God for any act, through stimulating and prevenient grace, can consent or refuse the
44. Ibid., pp. 29-34. 45. Ibid., p. 27: Docet Lovanii Theologiam Scholasticam – Romae revertentem Lessium […] anno 1585 Lovanium venit. 46. Ibid., p. 29: Deus paratus est omnes homines sufficienter iuvare, ut possint evitare peccata, et ab eis resurgere, et salvari. Imo omnes adultos pro loco et tempore actu excitat salutiferis inspirationibus et bonis affectionibus quibus sensim possent pervenire ad salutem, si velent acquiescere. 47. Ibid., p. 30: Parvulus ex parte Dei est praeparatum sufficiens remedium ad salutem. Unde ex parte Dei habent sufficiens remedium; hoc nimirum sensu quia Deus pro omnibus parvulis, nemine excepto, instituit Baptismum, nec impedit directe eius applicationem; quia non ordinat, nec disponit causas naturales et liberas, ut applicatio fiat impossibilis, sed tantum permittit non applicari […]. 48. Ibid., pp. 30-31: Non omnia quae fiunt, sunt a Deo efficaciter et absoluta voluntate praeordinata et praevolita, ante omnem praevisionem determinationis causarum secundarum, sed multa sunt permisa tantum et praescita; licet at haec dum fiunt, Deus etiam immediate concursu generali concurrat.
998150.indb8150.indb 264264 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 THE CONDEMNED BIOGRAPHY OF LEONARDUS LESSIUS 265
aid of divine grace according to his/her own will without a new grace being bestowed to make him/her consent49. 5) Human beings are not predestined to glory by immediate and absolute divine will, before their merits be foreseen. According to Lessius, all the Fathers clearly explain this except Augustine, who is rather unclear in this respect, but does not completely disagree with the others either. Thus, all those predestined are immediately elected for grace since God immediately knows those who will accede to glory. Thus, predestination is not according to the foreseen merits since it is election for grace and no one is elected according to merit. But election to glory is according to the foreseen mer- its since God prepared from eternity the glory of those whom he foreseen as ones that would use well his aid of grace50. Finally, 6) It is not necessary that all words and all sentences in Scripture be positively and immediately, word by word and sentence by sentence, inspired by the Holy Spirit in the writer. It is sufficient that the hagiogra- pher has the infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit, which does not permit him to fail – not even in those things that refer to natural relations, experi- ence or reason51. When compared, for instance, to the views expressed in Cornelius Janse- nius’ Augustinus, these six sentences may turn out to be rather polemic (especially that the biography and the Augustinus were published in the same year 1640). Especially the fifth sentence, referring to Augustine’s allegedly “unclear” views on predestination, while all the other Fathers had “clear” views about that, may have sounded quite offensive for Jansenius and, generally, for the professors of the Louvain Faculty of Theology, well known for their Augustinian stand. Their views on the efficacy of grace were very different from Lessius’. Thus, in Jansenius’ account, after the Fall, humans need the protection and the stimulation (excitatio) of the divine will so that their will chooses
49. Ibid., pp. 31-32: Homo sufficienter excitatus, et praeparatus a Deo ad aliquod opus, per gratiam excitantem et praevenientem, potest consentire et dissentire prout voluerit, sine nova gratia que faciat illum consentire. 50. Ibid., pp. 32-33: Homines non sunt immediate et absoluta voluntate (quae nullam praesupponat conditionem, quam implere, vel non implere sit in hominis potestate) desti- nati ad gloriam ante omnem praevisionem meritorum; quia hoc aperte fere omnes Patres docent praeter Augustinum, qui obscurius loquitur; qui tamen vere non dissentit. Omnes praedestinati immediate sunt electi ad gratiam, per quam Deus sciebat illos perventuros ad gloriam. Unde praedestinatio quidem non est ex praevisis meritis, quia est electio ad gratiam, ad quam nemo eligitur ob sua merita; sed electio ad gloriam est ex praevisis meritis, quia Deus ab aeterno praeparavit gloriam eis, quos praevidit sua gratia cum auxilio ipsius bene usuros. 51. Ibid., p. 33: Ut aliquid sit sacra Scriptura, non est necessarium ut omnia verba aut etiam omnes omnino sententiae sint auctori positive et immediate inspirata a Spiritu Sancto proponente ipsius intellectui singula verba et singulas sententias scribendas; sed sufficit ut auctor hagiographus habeat infallibilem Spiritus Sancti assistentiam qua non permittat illum falli etiam in eis quae cognoscit relatione, experientia, aut ratione naturali.
998150.indb8150.indb 265265 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 266 D. STANCIU
to act towards the good and to do the good and persevere in it52, to act propter Deum. While using Augustine’s terms and explaining that the adiutorium sine quo non, which Adam received before the Fall, is the aid of grace bestowed on the healthy human nature (adiutorium sanitatis) and that the adiutorium quo, which humans receive after the Fall, is the aid of grace that cures the corrupted human nature (adiutorium medicinale)53, Jansenius insists that the adiutorium sine quo non was such that humans could persevere if they wanted (possent perseverare si vellent) while the adiutorium quo is such that it effects the choice of the will so that they will and persevere (quo efficiatur ut velint)54. In opposition to Lessius’ views, Jansenius defines grace as efficacious in a necessary and irresistible manner. And that is later acknowledged by other Jansenists as well. For instance, not only Jansenius, but also Antoine Arnauld considers the adiutorium sine quo non an equivalent for sufficient grace (gratia sufficiens), or small (parva) grace and the adiutorium quo an equivalent for efficient grace in itself (gratia efficax per se) or victorious delectation (delectatio victrix)55. Starting from these premises, Jansenius quotes in the Augustinus a long excerpt of Lessius’ in which the latter asserts that divine grace is like an instrument that free will uses or not according to its choice (gratia est veluti instrumentum quo liberum arbitrium uti vel non uti potest). Janse- nius insists that the use of the infused habit of grace in human works and all its efficacy depends, according to Lessius, on the power of free will, on its inclination and cooperation (totus influxus gratiae in opus et tota eius efficientia est in potestate liberi arbitrii, pendet ab eius applicatione et cooperatione…). That means that grace becomes efficacious in actu secundo – that its efficacy depends on free will. And this is how the Jesuit scholars misinterpret, according to Jansenius, the words of Augustine in De correptione et gratia 11–12: perseverare et non perseverare in eius relinqueretur arbitrio56. Again, Jansenius quotes Lessius in order to expose his view that divine foreknowledge does not influence in any way free will, whose cooperation it does not effect, but just supposes and, on which it depends (praevisio
52. C. JANSENIUS, Augustinus, Louvain, Zeger, 1640, III, p. 214 (in mg. LESSIUS, second sentence censured by the Faculties of Theology in Louvain and Douai; R. BELLARMINE, De gratia et libero arbitrio, 2.8.5. c. ult). 53. JANSENIUS, Augustinus (n. 52), III, p. 110 (in mg. AUGUSTINE, De correptione et gratia 12). 54. Ibid., III, p. 215. 55. A. ARNAULD, Réponse au Père Annat, in Œuvres de Messire Antoine Arnauld, 43 vols., Paris, Sigismond D’Arnay, 1775, vol. 19, p. 189; cf. AUGUSTINE, De peccatorum meritis et remissione 2.19. For Antoine Arnauld’s Jansenist views, see É. JACQUES, Antoine Arnauld défenseur de Jansénius, in E.J.M. VAN EIJL (ed.), L’image de C. Jansénius jusqu’à la fin du XVIIIe siècle (Actes du colloque de Louvain, 7-9 nov. 1985), Leuven, Peeters, 1987, 66-77. 56. JANSENIUS, Augustinus (n. 52), III, p. 119 (in mg. LESSIUS, De praedestinatione 72, fol. 363).
998150.indb8150.indb 266266 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 THE CONDEMNED BIOGRAPHY OF LEONARDUS LESSIUS 267
Dei nullo modo officit libertati voluntatis, quia cooperationem et influxum non efficit, sed supponit et ab eo quodammodo pendet)57. In such a context, one might ask whether there was not also another purpose that turned out to be as important as the aforementioned ones and that may have weighed even more than them in the condemnation of the biography. This third purpose was the polemic attempt of the biographer to reinforce and justify Lessius’ censured sentences and, generally, his views on the efficacy of grace that were criticised by the Louvain Faculty of Theology. The resuscitation of Lessius’ censured views on the efficacy of grace represented indeed one of the targets of the biography, if not of the Quinquaginta nomina Dei as well, as I initially construed (following Van Houdt in this). And this “target” may have actually been a serious reason for the condemnation of the biography. The ban of the biography by the authorities in Rome could thus be inter- preted as a decision to stop any such attempts to restate or revive the debates on grace and free will between the Faculty of Theology and the Jesuits in late 16th-century Louvain or those in Rome in the late 16th and early 17th cen- turies. The fact that Lessius’ biography appeared in 1640, in the same year as Jansenius’ Augustinus, could also support this hypothesis. The praise of Jesuit scholars such as Molina, Suárez and Bellarmine (all of them more or less involved in the de auxiliis debate) and the emphasis on the relationship between them and Lessius in the biography may be one more proof that Lessius’ biographer may have wished to remind the reader of the debates on the efficacy of grace not only in Louvain, but also in Rome. One may be tempted then to conclude that a very important reason for the repeated prohibition of the biography is also the fact that its second issue was probably not much supported by the Jesuit Order itself. Even if the first issue was welcomed at the 1640 jubilee, the repeated attempts to republish the biography after its initial condemnation in 1642 and to con- tinuously recall the late-16th and early-17th-century debates on grace may have become somewhat embarrassing for the Order. Soon after the first issue, Lessius’ censured sentences in the biography were actually breach- ing the instructions of the Superiors General Claudio Acquaviva and Muzio Vitelleschi regarding the uniformity of doctrine. Within the context of the debate with the Jansenists, the Jesuits may have thus realised that Lessius was no longer the representative figure that he used to be in 1640, but had become a rather controversial one.
V. C ONCLUDING REMARKS
We thus come full circle and assert that Wijns’ biography, beyond its attempt to “regulate” and “promote” the image and the work of Lessius,
57. Ibid., III, p. 121 (in mg. LESSIUS, De praedestinatione 80).
998150.indb8150.indb 267267 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 268 D. STANCIU
also had a markedly polemic purpose, being a possible response to the censure of the Louvain Faculty of Theology at the end of the 16th century. This idea may be confirmed by what happened much later. Lessius began to attract again some attention after the Jesuit Order was restored (1840) and his bones were discovered (1891). There were also new attempts to have him beatified. The Jesuit Karel Van Sull (1859-1952) played a crucial role in the process of canonization that was initiated in Rome. In order to make Lessius’ scholarly and saintly merits more widely known, he published a new biography of Lessius (1930)58. However, his attempts remained as fruitless as Wijns’ had been before, although his biography was just a chronological account, with no reference to the cen- sured sentences, and also a book full of alleged miraculous healings by the “future saint”. But, one year later another book appeared, also written by a member of the Jesuit Order, the scholar Xavier-Marie Le Bachelet59. This book moderated and qualified the hagiographical enthusiasm of Van Sull. On the basis of numerous documents, Le Bachelet showed that Lessius’ De gratia efficaci had actually generated considerable controversy within the order and some of its views were even censured by the Jesuits themselves before being censured by Rome when Lessius tried to re-issue the book in 1619. Special attention is paid to the inquietude of Acquaviva and Vitelles- chi, on the one hand, and of Pope Paul V, on the other, regarding some of Lessius’ views60. Suárez and Bellarmine, presented as supporters of Lessius in Wijns’ account, are included here among the most important critics of Lessius’ views on the efficacy of grace61. All this confirms my hypothesis that the Jesuits may have become aware of the potentially controversial situation that Wijns’ biography had created (as they later became aware of the same fact regarding the biography of Van Sull) and did not try to resist the condemnation of the former as they neither resisted the criticism of the latter.
Faculty of Theology and Religion Diana STANCIU University of Oxford Gibson Building Radcliffe Observatory Quarter Woodstock Road Oxford OX2 6GG UK [email protected]
58. VAN SULL, Léonard Lessius de la Compagnie de Jésus (n. 1). 59. LE BACHELET, Prédestination et grâce efficace (n. 1). 60. Ibid., vol. I, pp. 106, 126-135, 139-142, 166-167; vol. II, pp. 111-115, 124-125, 131-139, 201-211, 236-239, 249-257, 260-277, 289-298, 311-320. 61. Ibid., vol. I, pp. 48-52, 53-58, 153-165.
998150.indb8150.indb 268268 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54 THE CONDEMNED BIOGRAPHY OF LEONARDUS LESSIUS 269
ABSTRACT. — This paper explores the links between the condemnation of J. Wijns’ biography of Lessius and his long-debated theological views on the effi- cacy of grace, expressed not only in his well-known work De gratia efficaci (1610) and in his De perfectionibus moribusque divinis (1620), but also in some passages in the biography. Especially six of Lessius’ theological views censured by the Louvain Faculty of Theology in 1587 and presented in the fifth chapter of the biography may have been at issue. The fact that these six views could also be found in Lessius’ De gratia efficaci, which was also referred to in the biography, may strengthen the assumption that there was indeed a link between the two. I am thus arguing that these six censured sentences may represent one of the main reasons for the condemnation of the biography.
998150.indb8150.indb 269269 118/06/158/06/15 10:5410:54