.
Subsection
Suarez vs. Banez on Free Choice
.
.
Order of Contents
Intro
Articles 3
Book 1
Historical 4
Latin 12+
Biblio 1
.
Intro
Travis Fentiman
9-2026
.
The De Auxiliis (“concerning helps”) controversy occurred in the late-1500’s and early-1600’s in Roman Catholicism. The basic issue was over free will, whether (1) man’s will is the first to act decisively in spiritual conversion (albeit with preceding and/or concurrent grace), or (2) whether God by grace moves the will (and must move the will) to freely choose salvation, such that the will inevitably does so choose. Certain Jesuits argued for the former (including Molina, Suarez and Bellarmine), while certain Dominican Thomists argued the latter (such as Banez, Alvarez and Lemos).
This controversy spilled over into Protestantism as James Arminius and numerous Arminians drew upon Molina’s ideas while numerous of the Reformed drew from the detailed discussions and delineations of the Thomists for their view(s). The whole came to a head in the Dutch reformed Synod of Dort (1618-1619), which fundamentally landed on the side of God’s effectual working of salvation in and through human instrumentation. The Synod’s canons strongly reflected Biblical guidance without going into as much metaphysical detail as the Thomists did.
After the Synod, the De Auxiliis controversy continued through the 1600’s. Part of this was due to the Pope in 1607, in an attempt at moderation, allowing the debate to continue, yet forbidding each side to condemn the other. Note that Thomist views and Reformed views were not identical in every way, just as Arminians did not always adopt the famed Middle Knowledge of Molina (or the Congruism of Suarez and Bellarmine). Likewise, some Jesuits favored Augustinianism and/or Thomism and suspected the others of their fraternity of Semi-Pelagianism.
.
Of Helps & Middle Knowledge
“Of helps,” or “aids,” in the name of the controversy refers to the gracious helps and aids God often (or even always, according to some) provides sinners towards salvation. The debate lies in the nature and efficacy of those helps, and in their interaction with the human intellect and will. The writings of Augustine (d. 430) strongly leant themselves to the side of the Thomists, if history is any indication, though both sides did appeal to Augustine in favor of their views.
In the Augustinian tradition, God has two kinds of knowledge: God’s natural, simple knowledge encompasses his omniscience and all pure possibilities. God chooses from these possibilities the creation and future to create. Subsequent to that choice by his will, and based on it, is his knowledge of vision, or his knowledge of the future.
Middle Knowledge, commonly understood, posits a kind of knowledge between God’s simple knowledge and that of vision, of what creatures could do, or would do, in various (hypothetical) scenarios. From these possibilities, God chooses to decree and create the universe and future where his selected scenario plays out.
Luis de Molina systematized and popularized middle knowledge with his book, the Concordia (1588), or The Harmony of Free Choice with the Gifts of Grace, Divine Foreknowledge, Predestination & Reprobation. Medieval precedents for middle knowledge had come before Molina and Molinists were quick to cite numerous early Church fathers for the same.
The Reformed commonly held the category of middle knowledge to be impossible and a fiction. Yet some, such as Molina himself (and some of the Reformed), considered middle knowledge to be a part of God’s simple knowledge. Others (including some of the Reformed), thought middle knowledge partook of both God’s simple knowledge and of his knowledge of vision.¹
¹ For some of the varied Reformed responses and conceptions, see ‘Middle Knowledge’ (RBO).
The issue truly is complex, in considering how God knows future actions that humans (and angels) will freely choose (this preserving God’s omniscience). Contingent actions, such as those exercised by man’s free will,¹ cannot be known simply from the causes that exist, because multiple varied effects may come from those same causes, they acting, by their nature, contingently.² There is no necessity from a contingent cause itself that requires a certain action and only that action, by definition.
¹ The Reformed regularly affirmed man’s free will in natural actions; see ‘On Free Choice’.
² See ‘On a Contingent Cause & Contingency’.
Augustine, with Thomas Aquinas (d.1274) following, posited that God knows the future (and future contingents) by beholding all things present, and that which will be present, from his Eternal Now. Yet this does not precisely encompass actions that creatures could do (and possibly would have done), but never do, and never become present, such as the Bible speaks of (1 Sam. 23:11-12; 2 Kn. 13:19; Jer. 38:17-18; Eze. 3:6; Mt. 11:21-23; Jn. 15:22-24; 18:36; 1 Cor. 2:8). These kinds of actions and scenarios are known as counter-factuals.¹
¹ That the Reformed affirm counter-factuals are possible, see ‘On Possibilities & Hypotheticals’.
John Duns Scotus (d. 1308), in seeking a better solution, posited that God knows future, contingent actions, and those that will never occur, though they might have, through his eternal decree, his decree establishing not only what will happen, but also what could happen and would have happened if contingent causes acted otherwise. Domingo Banez (d.1604) and the later strict Thomists, ironically, maintained this position of Scotus, with much of the Reformed after them.
Note that, with at least regards to Molina, by definition middle knowledge comes before God’s decree, and thus (inline with Augustine) God still decrees every last thing that comes to pass.¹ This could not necessarily be said of all Arminians’ appropriation of Molina (and thus Arminians sometimes were more akin to Semi-Pelagianism than many Jesuits).
¹ Thus Molinists were fully inline with the most relevant parts of the later Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), such as ch. 3, sect. 1-2:
“I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.”
Regarding the last sentence: Molina affirmed God’s knowledge of counter-factuals comes before God’s decreeing of them as future, not that they are considered as future before God decrees them (nor that such things would come to pass apart from God’s decreeing of them). Molinists were also fully inline with ch. 5, sect. 1-2, and the whole chapter.
“I. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold,a direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible fore-knowledge and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.”
Yet, even in Arminianism, with their (usually) affirming God’s immutable omniscience of all future things, this entails that all things will certainly come to pass as they do, lest God’s foreknowledge be wrong. Hence the certainty of the future, and that it will not be otherwise, is a common position shared by both the Reformed and Arminians (and any reputable Christian). The objection against the Reformed (regularly used by Arminians nonetheless) that future certainty implies a morally destructive determinism, is an unsustainable chimera.
.
Physical Predetermination
If the Reformed sometimes took varied views on the nature of God’s knowledge(s) and decree(s) (or lack thereof) of counter-factuals, this being the substance of middle knowledge (call it what you will, however one wants to delineate the finer points), it shows that such a category of God’s knowledge itself does not determine the issue. Rather, where the rubber hits the road is how God brings about, or allows,¹ his decree to come to pass.
¹ The Reformed affirmed evil is effectively allowed to come to pass; the issue here is with free, natural actions themselves.
The Jesuit side of things affirmed God supports all creaturely beings and their actions with a general concursus (or by a positive, necessary influx of God’s will, without which the actions would not occur), yet the person (from his or her own power given of God by creation, along with a moral suasion by God) makes the determining decision between choices. God’s concursus is herein indifferent, allowing for and supporting one or the other choice of the person. Persons choose (with the influence of God) as two persons on either bank (as it were) drawing a boat upstream with ropes. Man and God act as partial causes in the same order of things to bring the action to pass.
The Thomistic and Reformed side generally held to physical predetermination:¹ that God ineffably determines and moves the will, according to its nature, that is freely,² to a certain choice and not another. What God predetermines, man freely and actively does. God, the First Cause, does all his God-work, and man, a secondary cause, does all work proper to him, man being herein subordinate and an instrument in some way of God.
¹ This has a train of significant exceptions on the Reformed side. Barthold Holtzfus (d. 1717), a German Reformed professor of theology, who argued at length against physical predetermination, said, in supporting his view of free will:
“Francis Junius, Gerhard Johann Voss, Davenant, Johann and Louis Crocius, Louis le Blanc, William Ames, Robert Baron, Johann Strangius, Richard Baxter, D. Elias Grebenitz, D. Philipp Buchius, Dn. D. Samuel Strimesius, Pierre Jurieu—out of love for truth, antiquity and ecclesiastical peace, have preferred to retain that old and accustomed definition of free will; because it, in itself, and viewed without the abuse of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, contains nothing evil or inconvenient.” ‘Theological Dissertation on the Free Will of Man’ tr. AI by Nosferatu (Frankfurt: Zeitler, 1707), p. 7 Latin
² See ‘The Reformed Freedom of Choice vs. Determinism’ (RBO).
Yet there were different conceptions of physical predetermination (or physical pre-motion), some more basic (leaving much to mystery) and some more detailed, with variations. The same words do not always mean the same thing (nor do different words always mean different things).
It should not be surprising that the detailed paradigm Banez came to develop did not exist in such explicit detail before him (though precedents did precede him), as there was no movement which had yet pressed the antithesis so far. In this regard Banez went further than Thomas.
Specifically, in order to explain the difference from the state of the will before it determines its choice, to after, Banez posited that God infuses into the soul a physical quality which hence determines the choice to one option and not another. This conceptual mechanism (often simply known as “physical predetermination”) was sometimes objected to in that era, by even Thomists and some of the Reformed, as destroying free choice, and, with some persuasive force of evidence, as not only going beyond Thomas and Augustine, but against them.¹
¹ One such objector was Francisco Macedo (1596-1681), a Franciscan theologian, who argues, contra Banez, for the original position of Thomas and Scotus: Collations of the Teachings of St. Thomas & Scotus, with the Differences between the Two… with the commentaries of the interpreters, vol. 2 tr. AI by Vertias (Padua: Frambotti, 1671), bk. 2, Collation 9, pp. 361-429.
.
Trajectories
One of the main determining issues that the whole subject comes down to, is whether it is possible for God to create a rational will that, by definition, has power to move itself, of itself.¹ If this is not a straight contradiction (nor implicitly contains one), then, as God can do all things possible that are not contradictions, God can make creatures in this way. The question is one of Voluntarism (which involves a systemic priority of the will). Thomists answered in the negative; Scotists (and others, before middle knowledge) in the positive. Both sides interpret the Biblical data according to their conceptions, which they seek to propose as coherent.
¹ So Richard Baxter, who took the voluntarist view, following, apparently, the Medieval Durandus of St. Pourcain (d. 1332 or 1334) and Ludovicus a Dola (fl. 1634), without dependence on middle knowledge. For a lesson in humility, see if you can answer all his arguments against physical predetermination (in any and all of its forms), with his defense of voluntarism, in Catholic Theology, Plain, Pure, Peaceable, for Pacification of the Dogmatical Word-Warriors (London: White, 1675), bk. 2, First & Second Days Conference of Predestination, pp. 1-49.
Baxter on these points was fully in accord with the most relevant parts of the Westminster Confession, quoted above in a footnote, as well as Westminster’s deliverances on conversion and effectual calling, such as in WCF 7.3 and 10.1-2 (though explaining how so with Westminster’s consensus language would take a fair amount of more space). In Baxter’s scrupulous review of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, he does not take exception to any of the relevant passages of Westminster on this topic; see ‘Baxter on Westminster’ under ‘Origins of & Historical Examples of Scruples & Exceptions to Confessions…’ at ‘On Subscription to Confessions by Church Officers’ (RBO). Baxter was approved and appointed as a minister by the Westminster Assembly (1648): ed. Chad van Dixhoorn, The Minutes & Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1652 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012), vol. 4, Session 1041, Mar. 30, 1647 (actually 1648), Thursday Morning, p. 747; Alan Argent, The Richard Baxter Treatises: a Catalogue & Guide (Boydell Press, 2018), pp. 4, 109-10. From p. 110: “…doe hereby Order and appoynt Mr. Richard Baxter a godlie able, honest Orthodoxe Divine to be minister thereof.”
Roman Catholic theologians did delve into these matters (earlier, throughout and later) at much greater length and detail than Protestants, which means that if Protestants desire to (as they often did in the Post-Reformation), the mass of Romanist literature is already there to be drawn on.
Likewise, every conceivable, minute issue surrounding the main themes above have been discussed and argued, with many various positions taken, expounded and defended, in this great body of literature (which is only scantily reflected on this page). Such minutia include the nature of decrees, their relation to eternity and time and God’s revealed will, whether God’s will may be in any sense conditional or ineffectual (and in what ways),¹ the nature of providence and the means of grace as revealing the will of God,² the issue of sufficient grace,³ how Christ’s atonement relates to all this (especially with the rise of Jansensimª in Roman Catholicism, which the Reformed substantially agreed with on numerous of the pertinent issues) and much more. The Reformed often learned from Roman Catholics in these matters (and were eager to), while eclectically using what they found as sound (2 Tim. 1:13) for a fuller understanding in teaching God’s ways with us.
¹ See many Reformed theologians affirm this at ‘On Conditional Aspects of God’s Will’ and ‘On Ineffectual Willings of God’.
² See some of the Reformed, such as Davenant and Gale, draw profitably on some Medievals and Roman Scholastics on this: ‘On a Divine Will of Providence, & as Revealed through the Means of Grace’.
³ For some of the Reformed polemic on sufficient grace, see ‘On the Romanist & Arminian Distinction of Grace into Sufficient & Efficient’.
ª See ‘On Jansenism’.
Protestant theologians, though, be it noted, were often more content to receive Biblical guidance in these matters, according to their understanding, than to delve into extended metaphysical speculation.
The historical interest here is profound and complex, both in regard to the history of the controversy in the Roman Church, and with respect to the (developing) mutual interactions and influences between the varied traditions, namely: Roman Catholics (not limited to Thomists, Jesuits, Scotists, Franciscans, Jansenists, etc.), Lutherans, Reformed, Arminians, Socinians and others in that era. To explore these historical connections more, the interested student may peruse:
eds. Ballor, Gaetano & Sytsma, Beyond Dordt & de Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant & Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth & Seventeenth Centuries in Studies in the History of Christian Traditions Buy (Brill, 2019) 368 pp.
This page, as it grows, will only contain the most pertinent works to the controversy. Right now most are in Latin, though that is changing. For literature on numerous of the theological topics involved, see other RBO pages and sections, such as those on:
Predestination & the Decrees of God
Ordering of the Decrees
Immanent vs. Transient
Possibilities & Hypotheticals
God could have not Created
Reformed Freedom of Choice vs. Determinism
Revealed Will vs. Decrees
Revealed Will has a Foundation in God
Revealed Will: Improperly God’s Will
Revealed Will has Purpose
Persons’ Salvation ought to Occur, though it Never does
Mixed: Will of Sign & Decree
Divine Disposition, Inclination & Willingness
Signified Will
Providence
Divine Concurrence, Secondary Causation & contra Occasionalism
Can’t Move Apart from God’s Will
To Act Follows Being
Will of Providence
Conservation
Conditional Will
Antecedent / Consequent Will
Ineffectual Will
Kinds of Necessity
Contingent Causes & Contingency
Free Causes
Middle Knowledge
Preparation unto Salvation
Calling
Ineffectual Call
Calling’s End vs. God’s
Irresistible & Resistible Grace: Compatible
Sufficient & Efficient Grace
Human Soul
Relations between the Intellect & Will
Primacy of Intellect or Will
Last Judgment of the Practical Intellect
Free Choice
Cause of the Will
Regeneration
Regeneration as Subsequent to Faith
Regeneration, Only Initial Aspect is by the Lord Working Alone
Conversion
Jansenism
.
Articles
1500’s
Suarez, Francis & Domingo Banez – ‘Francis Suarez vs. Domingo Banez on Free Choice’ (1594)
.
1600’s
Alvarez, Diego – ‘Twenty Propositions’ (1620) as translated and excerpted from Richard Baxter, Catholic Theology (London: White, 1675), bk. 1, Conclusion, §II. ‘Alvarez’s Epitome in Twenty Propositions Considered’, pp. 70-74 from Alvarez, Of Divine Grace & the Powers & Liberty of Human Choice, & the Legitimate Harmony of that with the Efficacy of those same Helps, in 12 Books (Lugduni, Cardon & Cavellat, 1620), pp. 494-502 For Baxter’s commentary on these propositions, see his link.
“I. Free-will in lapsed nature cannot without the help of grace do a moral work, which by co-operation of the supernatural end shall be truly good and a work of virtue, so as that by the doer it be referred to God, beloved simply above all, as to the ultimate natural end.
II. Man by the sole strength of nature cannot assent to all supernatural mysteries propounded and explained to him as revealed of God, or because revealed of God, so as the formal reason of his belief is divine revelation.
III. Not only faith itself, but also the first beginning of faith proceeds from the help of grace, and not from the strength of nature only.
IV. The free-will of man in lapsed nature cannot without the help of grace, love God above all simply, even as He is the author of Nature.
V. Man in lapsed Nature, without the help of grace, cannot fulfill all the precepts even of the Law of Nature, nor overcome any great difficulty and temptation, even for any little time, which it is necessary to overcome, for the keeping of that Law.
VI. There is no law, nor ever was made by God, of his giving the actual helps of preventing grace to them that do all that is in them by the sole faculty of nature: nor has Christ merited, or would have, any such law.
VII. God by his helping grace flows into free-will by pre-moving it that it may co-operate; and also, truly-efficiently together with the same free-will, causes its pious operation.
VIII. When God by his exciting grace strikes and touches the hearts of men, He does not expect that the will by its innate liberty begin its motion by consenting: But God by adjuvant [assisting] grace effects that it freely and infallibly consent.
IX. Adjuvant grace and free-will are not partial causes of supernatural consent, as two drawing a boat, so as neither is pre-moved by the other, or makes it co-operate with it.
X. Scientia media [middle knowledge] is not to be ascribed to God—But all prescience [foreknowledge] of the future co-operation of the will, even from the foresaid hypothesis, presupposes in signo rationis [in the sign of reason, or according to man’s conceptions] the free decree of God’s will, by which absolutely (or granting that hypothesis) He will in us, and with us, effect that operation if good, and permit it if evil.
XI. There is on our part no cause, reason or condition assignable for which God’s supernatural providence, in comparison of this or that, has the formal reason of predestination, or retains the common reason of providence: but predestination is to be reduced into the sole free-will of God.
XII. God by an absolute and efficacious decree of his will, antecedently to the prescience of the future good use of free-will, predetermined all good acts which are done in time, specially those by which the predestinate come to eternal life.
XIII. The co-operation of free-will with the gifts of grace is in the predestinate an effect of predestination, and efficiently proceeds from God making us by the help of grace freely to co-operate; and consequently depends not on the sole and innate liberty of the will.
XIV. We must necessarily distinguish of a twofold help of grace: one sufficient, by which man may be converted to God or work piously; the other effectual, by which God effects that he be actually converted and act piously.
XV. The effectual help of preventing or pre-operating grace moves man’s free-will to act, not only by persuading, alluring, inviting or other morally attracting, even inwardly, but also efficaciously and truly effect∣ing that the will moved and excited of God determine itself and act well.
XVI. The efficacy of the help of preventing grace and the infallible connection of it with the free co-operation of the will, is totally founded and taken as from its first root, from the omnipotency of God and from the absolute and efficacious decree of his will willing that the man whom He moves be converted and work piously. Nor does this efficacy any way depend, no not as on a condition sine qua non [without which: nothing], on the future co-operation of the created will, though the free act by which man perseveres depend effectively on his will moved by God.
XVII. Supposing effectual grace in free-will, it infallibly follows that free-will will consent and act piously. So that these two are incompossible: that effectual Grace be in a man and that he actually dissent.
XVIII. The gift of perseverance, as such, and the efficacy of it depends not, no not as on a condition sine qua non on the co-operation of our free-will, but on the absolute decree of God effecting man’s perseverance.
XIX. Effectual aid and a power of dissenting are compossible in the same subject and consist in the same will.
XX. By preventing-grace-efficacious as aforesaid, the liberty of the will is not destroyed, nor the actual use of it hindered, but is wonderfully perfected and roborated [made strong].”
.
1600’s
Baxter, Richard – Catholic Theology, Plain, Pure, Peaceable, for Pacification of the Dogmatical Word-Warriors (London: White, 1675), bk. 1
Conclusion: Summing up the several ways of the Contenders
§II. Alvarez’s Epitome in Twenty Propositions, considered
§III. Of the three other ways: I. Of the Jesuits’ way
§IV. II. Of Durandus’s way
§V. III. Of the Scotists and Nominalists’ way
§VI. The true face or scheme of the Dominican predeterminant way, as to the sense and consequents
§VII. Of Jansen’s way of reconciling grace and free-will
§VIII. Summary determination of all these controversies to satisfy sober minds
Notes on some passages of Mr. Peter Sterry’s Book of Free-will
.
Book
1500’s
Molina, Louis de – On Divine Foreknowledge (Part IV of the Concordia) tr. Alfred J. Freddoso (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1988) 300 pp. ToC
.
Historical
Articles
Matava, R.J. – ‘A Sketch of the Controversy de auxiliis‘ in Journal of Jesuit Studies (Apr, 2020)
Abstract: “In the 16th century, the Dominicans and the Jesuits engaged in a polarized theological debate about how God can move the human will in a way that neither compromises human free choice nor makes God the author of moral evil. This debate, called the “controversy de auxiliis,” was never resolved. In 1607, Pope Paul V decreed that neither side was heretical and forbade further publishing on the issue without his explicit permission. This article explains the main theological points of the various Dominican and Jesuit actors, the human factors that contributed to the debate…”
Torrijos, David – ‘De Auxiliis Controversy’ in eds. Mário Santiago de Carvalho & Simone Guidi, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia with a bibliography
Wikipedia – ‘Congregatio de Auxiliis’
.
Book
ed. Ballor, Gaetano & Sytsma – Beyond Dordt & de Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant & Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth & Seventeenth Centuries in Studies in the History of Christian Traditions Buy (Brill, 2019) 368 pp.
de Auxillis means ‘on helps’, referring to certain gracious gifts or helps of God with respect to certain abilities of man in salvation according to the Roman Catholic tradition.
Blurb: “An exploration of post-Reformation inter-confessional theological exchange between Reformed, Dominican, Arminian, and Jesuit theologians on controversial soteriological topics. These essays bring theological works into meaningful points of contact in a European-wide struggle with the legacy of Augustine.”
“The title of the book mentions two of the most important events among Protestants and Roman Catholics in the early modern period dealing with the nature of divine grace: The Synod of Dordt [1618-19] and the Congregatio de Auxiliis [1582-1611]… to view them… as snapshots of the history of dogma which represent a larger conversation in these Western traditions… Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis reminds us that just as the early modern theologians read outside their own tradition to understand it more fully, so contemporary Protestants and Roman Catholics will best understand our own traditions by reading earnestly outside of them.” – Michael Lynch
.
Records of the Congregations on Aids
Latin Book
Lemos, Thomas de – All the Acts of the Congregations & Disputations which were held before the Most Holy Supreme Pontiffs Clement VIII & Paul V in that great Cause & Controversy concerning the Aids of Divine Grace, which disputations, I, Brother Thomas de Lemos, assisted by that same grace, sustained against several members of the Society [of Jesus] (d. 1629; Lovanius: Aegidius, 1702) 1,364 cols. ToC
Lemos (1555–1629) was a Spanish Dominican theologian and controversialist. He was the lead disputant for the Dominican side, with Alvarez by his side, in the congregations before the Popes.
.
Latin
Thomists
1500’s
de Soto, Domingo – Three Books on Nature & Grace, together with an Apology against [Ambrogio] Catarino on the Certainty of Grace… (1547; Venice: 1584) 301 pp. ToC Index
de Soto (1494–1560) was a Spanish Dominican priest, Scholastic theologian and naturalist. He is best known as one of the founders of international law and of the Spanish Thomistic philosophical and theological movement known as the School of Salamanca.
Báñez, Domingo
Commentaries on Thomas
Scholastic Commentary on the First Part of Thomas up to the 64th Question, vol. 1, 2 (Salmantica: M. Gastius, 1584a) ToC 1, 2 Indices: Subject 1, 2; Scripture 1, 2
Banez (1528–1604) was a Spanish Dominican theologian.
Commentaries on the First Part of St. Thomas, from the 65th Question to the End (Salmantica: A. Renaut, 1588) 1,680 cols. ToC Indices: Subject, Scripture
Unpublished Commentaries from the First Part of the Second Part of St. Thomas, vol. 3, On the Grace of God (q. 109-14) (Madrid: CSIC, 1948) 420 pp. ToC Indices: Subject, of Thomas, Authors Prefatory material is in Italian
Commentaries on the Second Part of the Second Part of Thomas, in which those matters that pertain to Faith, Hope & Charity are most clearly Explained [q. 1-46] (1584b; Venice: Zilettus, 1586) 1,475 pp. Index
.
Other Works
Decisions on Law & Justice… (Salmanticae: I. & A. Renaut, 1594; Duaci: Borremans, 1615) 336 pp. no ToC Index
De moderando decreto silentii in materia de auxiliis (1597), Biblioteca Angelica, Roma, ms. 883, ff. 54-58
Beltrán de Heredia, Vicente – Domingo Báñez & the Controversies over Grace: Texts & Documents (Madrid: CSIC, 1968) only 510 of 685 pp. ToC Prefatory material is in Spanish
Some documents to highlight in this volume include:
ch. 2, Apology of the Dominican masters of Spain against the assertions contained in Molina’s Concordia, pp. 115-81
ch. 4
(f) “In Defense of the Society [of Jesus] concerning Free Will” Paper delivered by Father Francisco Suárez, pp. 418-26
(g) Declaration and Reply of Father Báñez concerning Father Suárez’s paper, pp. 426-73
ch. 8 (j) Decree of the Faculty of Theology of Salamanca concerning the divine aids necessary for salvation (1595), pp. 587-603
ch. 9, Opinion of the University of Alcalá concerning the controversies over grace, pp. 607-13
ch. 10, Diverse unpublished writings of Banez over the matter of aids, pp. 607-13
.
1600’s
Zumel, Franciscus – Small Works, containing Three Books on the First Part [of the Summa], and Two on the First Part of the Second Part, and another [book] containing Various Questions (d.1607; Salamantica, 1608) no ToC or Index
Zumel (or Cumel, c. 1540-1607) was a Spanish philosopher and ecclesiastic. He was superior general of the Mercedarian Order and professor of physics and moral philosophy at the University of Salamanca. He was a Thomist and is most remembered for his polemical writings against the Molinists.
Ledesma, Pedro de – Tract on the Aids of Divine Grace, about those words of Isa. 26[:12], ‘All our works you have wrought in us, O Lord,’ and about the doctrine of St. Thomas in many places, especially [Summa] pt. 1, quest. 19, art. 8 & quest. 23, & pt. 1 of 2, quest. 111 (Salmantica: A. Ramirez, 1611) ToC is near the beginning; A Scripture and partial subject index are at the end
Ledesma (1544-1616) was a Dominican professor of theology at Salamanca.
Alvarez, Diego
Of Divine Grace & the Powers & Liberty of Human Choice, & the Legitimate Harmony of that with the Efficacy of those same Helps, in 12 Books [& 122 Disputations] (Lugduni, Cardon & Cavellat, 1620) 502 pp. Detailed ToC Index Alvarez gives a summary of his position in 20 points at the end in his Epilogue. Baxter lists and comments on these 20 points in English here.
Diego Alvarez (d. 1632)
bk. 1. Introductory 2 ToC
2. Knowledge of God in respect of future contingents, especially of those which depend on the created will 29 ToC
3. General concursus of God and divine predestination 70 ToC
4. Divine providence 140 ToC
5. Gracious predestination of saints 164 ToC
6. Original sin and the powers of natural choice, especially after the Fall 198 ToC
7. Powers of natural choice in respect of seeking or consequent grace 245 ToC
Powers of choice in order unto supernatural good, after it has received the prior helps of divine grace from God 261 ToC
8. Division of the helps of grace 307 ToC
Help of exciting and sufficient grace 320 ToC
9. Help of grace operating and cooperating, assisting or efficacious 333 ToC
10. Help of grace assisting and efficient through a comparison with the help of grace exciting and sufficient 388 ToC
Help of the most special grace proper to the predestined, that is, the grace of perseverance 417 ToC
11. Reprobation 437 ToC
12. Harmony of grace and free choice 467-502 ToC
Works on the Helps of Divine Grace, the Powers of Human Choice, Liberty & the Legitimate Concord of that with the Efficacy of those same Helps, a Summa in 4 Distinct Books, now first produced (Lugduni: Cardon & Cavellat, 1620) 802 pp. ToC Index
4 Books of Responses to Objections against the Concord of Free Choice with Divine Foreknowledge, Providence & Predestination, and that with the Efficacy of Prevenient Grace, as it is Defended & Explained by St. Thomas & Thomists (Lugduni: Cardon & Cavellat, 1622) 914 pp. ToC Indices: Subject, Scripture
de Lemos, Tomas – The Panoply of Grace, or Theological Dissertations on the gracious, divine, gently-powerful ordination, leading, means and free progress of the rational creature to a supernatural end, vol. 1 (Introduction), 2 (Highest Providence of God & the most Efficacious Predestination of the Saints), 3 (Influx of God into the Secondary Causes of the Natural Order that they may Produce their Natural Operations), 4 (Divine Efficacy of Prevenient Grace by which God works in us both to will and to work according to his good pleasure) (d. 1629; Leodi: Landas, 1676) ToC 1, 2, 3, 4 Index 1, 2, 3, 4
Lemos (1555–1629) was a Spanish Dominican theologian, professor of theology and controversialist. He was the lead disputant for the Dominican side, with Alvarez by his side, in the congregations before the Popes.
.
Jesuits
1500’s
de Molina, Luis
The Concordia
Concord of Free Choice with the Gifts of Grace, Divine Foreknowledge, Providence, Predestination & Reprobation, enlarged in its second part… to which is added now an Appendix to this Concordance (1588; Paris: Lethielleux, 1876) 650 pp. no ToC Indices: Subject, Scripture Here is the first 1588 ed. No old edition has a ToC
Molina (1535–1600) was a Spanish Jesuit priest, jurist, economist and theologian renowned for his contributions to philosophy and economics within the framework of the second scholasticism. He was a prominent member of the School of Salamanca and a professor of philosophy at Coimbra and of theology at Evora.
Liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia, praedestinatione et reprobatione concordia. Edited by Iohannes Rabeneck (Oniae/Madrid: Collegium Maximum S. I./Sapientia, 1953)
Commentaries on the First Part of St. Thomas, divided into Two Tomes [first contains q. 1-26; the second the rest and a treatise on the work of the 6 Days]… Added… are disputations… pertaining to this First Part… excerpted from the… Concordia… (Veneti: Minimam Societatem, 1602) 780 pp. ToC Indices: Scripture, Subject
Suárez, Franciscus
Article
ch. 4 (f) ”In Defense of the Society [of Jesus] concerning Free Will’ Paper delivered by Father Francisco Suárez’ in Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, Domingo Báñez & the Controversies over Grace: Texts & Documents (Madrid: CSIC, 1968), pp. 418-26
Suarez (1548–1617) was a Spanish Jesuit priest, philosopher and theologian, one of the leading figures of the School of Salamanca movement. His work is considered a turning point in the history of second scholasticism, marking the transition from its Renaissance to its Baroque phases.
Banez’s reply to this paper immediately follows it.
.
Book
[6] Various Short Theological Works [on 1. Concursus, Motion & Help of God; 2. God’s knowledge of future contingents; 3. Efficacious Help; 4. Liberty of the Divine Will; 5. Reviving of Merits; 6. Righteousness of God] (1599; Lugduni: Cardon & Cavellat, 1620) ToC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Indices: Subject, Scripture Here is the 1859 ed.
Torrijos: “Congruism” is the name given to the somewhat mitigated sort of Molinism supported by Bellarmine and Suárez, which was the one defended de facto in the controversies of Rome. According to this version, God gives a “congruous” grace morally adapted to the nature and circumstances of each one. This version tries to highlight the divine predilection for the predestined, somewhat diminished in Molina’s approach. Thus, unlike Molina, who thought that the divine decision to predestine some people presupposes in its design the good works they were going to perform with the grace of God (predestination post praevisa merita), congruists believe that predestination is logically previous to those merits and is, therefore, totally unwarranted (predestination ante praevisa merita).”
.
1600’s
Bellarmine, Robert – 3rd Controversy, sect. 1, ‘Of Grace & Free Choice [6 Books]’ in Epitome of Disputations on Controversies of the Christian Faith against the Heretics of this Time Ultima editio (Ingolstadt: Sartorius, 1601), vol. 4, pp. 506-929 ToC
Bellarmine (1542–1621) was an Italian Jesuit, apologist and a cardinal of the Roman Church. He was one of the most important figures in the Counter-Reformation.
For Bellarmine’s modified congruist position, see under Suarez above.
Richard Baxter: “I do verily believe, that Durandus and his followers, under the name of supporting the natural and free faculties, did mean inclusively that which Bellarmine pleads for: A General Concourse to the Act as an Act; and that they differ in words and not in sense.” – Catholic Theology (1675), Conclusion, p. 78
For Reformed responses to Bellarmine’s chapter, see ‘Works Against the Roman Apologist Robert Bellarmine’.
.
Bibliography
Article
2000’s
eds. Ballor, Gaetano & Sytsma – ‘Bibliography’ in Beyond Dordt & de Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant & Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth & Seventeenth Centuries in Studies in the History of Christian Traditions Buy (Brill, 2019), pp. 321-55
.
.
.
Related Pages