|
The Catholic doctrine on Grace, round which such fierce
controversies had been waged in the fifth and sixth centuries, loomed
again into special prominence during the days of the Reformation. The
views of Luther and Calvin on Grace and Justification were in a
sense the very foundation of their systems, and hence it was of vital
importance that these questions should be submitted to a searching
examination, and that the doctrine of the Catholic Church should be
formulated in such a way as to make cavilling and misunderstanding
impossible. This work was done with admirable lucidity and directness
in the fifth and sixth sessions of the Council of Trent, but
nevertheless these decrees of the Council did not prevent the theories
of Luther and Calvin being propagated vigorously, and from exercising
a certain amount of influence even on some Catholic theologians who had
no sympathy with the religious revolt.
Amongst these might be reckoned Michael Baius (De Bay,
1513-89) a professor at the University of Louvain and John
Hessels, one of his supporters in the theological controversies of the
day. They believed that Catholic apologists were handicapped
seriously by their slavish regard for the authority and methods of the
Scholastics, and that if instead of appealing to the writings of St.
Thomas as the ultimate criterion of truth they were to insist more on
the authority of the Bible and of the works of the Early Fathers,
such as St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine, they
would find themselves on much safer ground, and their arguments would
be more likely to command the respect of their opponents. Hence at
Louvain, in their own lectures, in their pamphlets, and in private
discussions, they insisted strongly that Scholasticism should make way
for positive theology, and that the Scriptures and patristic
literature should take the place of the "Summa". Not content,
however, with a mere change of method they began to show their contempt
for traditional opinions, and in a short time alarming rumours were in
circulation both inside and outside the university that their teaching
on Original Sin, Grace, and Free-will, was not in harmony with
the doctrine of the Church. The Franciscans submitted to the
judgment of the Sorbonne a number of propositions (18) selected
from the writings or lectures of Baius and his friends, and the
opinion of the Sorbonne was distinctly unfavourable. As the dispute
grew more heated and threatened to have serious consequences for the
university and the country, Cardinal Granvelle, believing that the
absence of the two professors might lead to peace, induced both to
proceed to the Council of Trent as the theologians of the King of
Spain (1563). Though the opinions of Baius found little
sympathy with the Fathers of Trent, yet since the subjects of
Original Sin and Grace had been discussed and defined already,
nothing was done. On his return (1564) from the Council of
Trent Baius published several pamphlets in explanation and defence of
his views, all of which were attacked by his opponents, so that in a
short time the university was split into two opposing camps.
To put an end to the trouble the rector determined to seek the
intervention of Rome. In October 1567 Pius V issued the
Bull, "Ex omnibus afflictionibus", in which he condemned
seventy-nine propositions selected from the writings or lectures of
Baius without mentioning the author's name.[164] The friends of
Baius raised many difficulties regarding the reception and the
interpretation of the papal document, and though Baius himself
professed his entire submission to the decision, the tone of his letter
to the Pope was little short of offensive. The Pope replied that the
case having been examined fully and adjudged acceptance of the decision
was imperative. Once more Baius announced his intention of submitting
(1569), and so confident were his colleagues of his orthodoxy
that he was appointed dean of the theological faculty, and later on
chancellor of the university. But his actions did not correspond with
his professions. Various arguments were put forward to weaken the
force of the papal condemnation until at last Gregory XIII was
forced to issue a new Bull, "Provisionis nostrae" (1579),
and to send the learned Jesuit, Francisco Toledo, to demand that
Baius should abjure his errors, and that the teaching of Pius V
should be accepted at Louvain. The papal letter was read in a formal
meeting of the university, whereupon Baius signed a form of
abjuration, by which he acknowledged that the condemnation of the
propositions was just and reasonable, and that he would never again
advocate such views. This submission relieved the tension of the
situation, but it was a long time before the evil influence of
Baianism disappeared, and before peace was restored finally to
Louvain.
The system propounded by Baius had much in common with the teaching of
Pelagius, Luther, and Calvin. His failure to recognise the clear
distinction between the natural and the supernatural was the source of
most of his errors. According to him the state of innocence in which
our first parents were created, their destination to the enjoyment of
the Beatific Vision, and all the gifts bestowed upon them for the
attainment of this end were due to them, so that had they persevered
during life they should have merited eternal happiness as a reward for
their good works. When, however, man sinned by disobedience he not
merely lost gratuitous or supernatural endowments, but his whole nature
was weakened and corrupted by Original Sin which, in the system of
Baius, was to be identified with concupiscence, and which was
transmitted from father to son according to the ordinary laws of
heredity. This concupiscence, he contended, was in itself sinful,
as was also every work which proceeds from it. This was true even in
case of children, because that an act be meritorious or demeritorious
Free- will was not required. So long as the act was done voluntarily
even though necessarily, it was to be deemed worthy of reward or
punishment, since freedom from external compulsion was alone required
for moral responsibility.
From the miserable condition into which man had fallen he was rescued
by the Redemption of Christ, on account of which much that had been
forfeited was restored. These graces procured for man by Christ may
be called supernatural, not because they were not due to human nature,
but because human nature had been rendered positively unworthy of them
by Original Sin. The justice, however, by which a man is
justified, consisted not in any supernatural quality infused into the
soul, by which the individual was made a participator of the divine
nature, but implied merely a condition in which the moral law was
observed strictly. Hence justification, according to Baius, could
be separated from the forgiveness of guilt, so that though the guilt of
the sinner may not have been remitted still he may be justified. In
sin two things were to be distinguished, the act and the liability to
punishment. The act could never be effaced, but the temporal
punishment was remitted by the actual reception of the sacraments,
which were introduced by Christ solely for that purpose. The Mass
possessed, he held, any efficacy that it had only because it was a
good moral act and helped to draw us more closely to God.
|
|