Domingo Báñez and His Dominican Predecessors: the 'Dominican

chapter 3 Domingo Báñez and His Dominican Predecessors: the ‘Dominican School’ on the Threshold of the Controversy De Auxiliis

Stephen Gaetano

In November 1595, several years before the start of the Congregatio de auxiliis, Domingo Báñez (1528–1604), the occupant of the distinguished cátedra de prima at the University of Salamanca since 1581, along with a cadre of his Dominican confreres, published the Defense of the Friars–Preachers, Professors of Sacred Theology in the Province of Spain, Against Certain New Opinions of a Doctor Named Luis Molina.1 Roughly seven years earlier, the Jesuit Luis de Mo- lina (1535–1600) had published his summarily controversial Concordia (1588).2 By the time of the publication of the Defense of the Friars-Preachers, a great quantity of Dominican and Jesuit ink had been spilled, not only in theolog- ical back-and- forth concerning the relationship between human and divine agency—stopped only by a papal injunction to silence in 1594—but also in mutual denunciations to the Inquisition.3 The Defense of the Friars-Preachers was a compendium of what eight Dominicans had separately presented to the

1 The Latin title is Apologia Fratrum Praedicatorum in provincia Hispaniae sacrae theologi- ae professorum, adversus novas quasdam assertiones cuiusdam doctoris Ludovici Molinae nuncupati (henceforth, Defense). The text of the Defense can be found in Vicente Beltrán de Heredia’s volume Domingo Báñez y las controversias sobre la gracia: textos y documentos (Salamanca: 1968), 115–380. A lengthy historical introduction to the Defense, as well as to the other materials in this volume, can be found.,in the same work, pp. 13–99. For an overview of Báñez’s life and works, see Juan Belda Plans, La escuela de Salamanca y la renovación de la teología en el siglo XVI (Madrid: 2000), 779–94. See also José Ángel García Cuadrado, Domingo Báñez (1528–1604): introducción a su obra filosófica y teológica, Cuadernos de Anuario Filosófi- co, 13 (Pamplona: 1999); W.J. Hill, “Báñez and Bañezianism,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (Washington, DC: 2003), 49–51. 2 For a collection of essays providing an overview of Molina’s thought, see Matthias Kaufmann and Alexander Aichele (eds), A Companion to Luis de Molina (Leiden: 2014). 3 For a recent overview of the figures and events of the controversy de auxiliis and a helpful analysis of the key points of disagreement between Báñez and Molina, see R.J. Matava, Divine Causality and Human Free Choice: Domingo Báñez, Physical Premotion and the Controversy de Auxiliis Revisited (Leiden: 2016). See also Beltrán de Heredia’s introduction in Bañez y las controversias sobre la gracia, 13–99.

Inquisition during the year prior to its publication.4 Báñez, a forceful oppo- nent of Molina since the publication of his Concordia, nearly blocking its publication with the allegation that it contained forbidden propositions, was one of the chief architects of this Dominican counterattack.5 From early on, the battle lines in this controversy were drawn quite clearly between Dominicans and Jesuits.6 The Defense, however, reveals that Molina and his allies sought support for their opinions in the works not only of Thom- as Aquinas (d. 1274) but also in those of certain other noteworthy Dominicans.7 After inspecting passages that they have cited from Aquinas, Augustine, and numerous patristic authorities, the Defense turns its attention to scholastic

4 Beltrán de Heredia discusses the collaborative nature of the work, as well as Báñez’s role as one of its chief architects, in the final section of his introduction in Bañez y las controversias sobre la gracia, 86–99. For the names of the eight Dominican collaborators, see Defense, 377. 5 After the censor of the Inquisition of Portugal suspected the Concordia of containing previously condemned theses, Báñez was among several theologians solicited by the Grand In- quisitor for an opinion. Báñez concluded that the work did, in fact, contain previously condemned theses. Molina, however, successfully defended himself before the Grand Inquisitor, and so the Concordia was allowed to be disseminated along with a newly attached appendix, namely, the letter of defense that Molina had submitted to the Grand Inquisitor, Cardinal Albert of Austria. 6 In its opening pages, the Defense frames the controversy as being between Jesuits and Domin- icans, though it does not ascribe the opinions of Molina to Jesuits in general. Nonetheless, the Dominicans explicitly identify their opponents as members of the Jesuit Order. Consider the following quotation from the prologue: “Iam vero nostris temporibus—proh dolor!— non desunt theologi de Societate Jesu qui utinam non de illa fuissent, quia tantae religionis et de Christi ecclesia benemeritae pro instituto defuerunt, qui eamdem consecutionem cum Pelagio et Luthero approbantes, in Pelagii tamen errorem temperatum inciderunt” (120). In- terestingly, the Defense takes issue with the way that Suárez seems to make his and Molina’s opinion concerning free choice characteristic of Jesuits in general, despite the fact that many Jesuits follow the ancient doctrine and share the view held by St Thomas and the Thomists (166). The Defense also claims that many Jesuits, in fact, “detest the new concord invented by Molina” and, rather surprisingly, proceeds to bring against Molina several passages from the biblical commentaries of the Jesuit Francisco de Toledo (156–58). 7 The Defense regularly refers to “Molina and his defenders” (defensores), sometimes to “Molina and his followers” (sequaces, sui), though one Jesuit in particular is singled out for his support of Molina’s “new doctrine”: Francisco Suárez. The following is from the Defense’s opening address to the judges of the Inquisition: “Unum scimus quod notissimum est, quosdam esse in eadem Societate assertores et defensores illius novae doctrinae, inter quos praecipuus est Franciscus Suarez qui etiam vulgari sermone scriptum quoddam in defensionem doctrinae Societatis, ut ille ait, circa liberum arbitrium invulgaverit” (116). For other explicit references to Suárez, see ibid., 152, 174. The first two chapters of the third part of the work are devoted to Suárez’s arguments against the neeed for “actual efficacious help” (271–82). For a statement recognizing an important point of disagreement between Molina and Suárez, “his partner in other doctrines,” see ibid., 203.