Biblical Scholarship in Louvain in the ‘Golden’ Sixteenth Century [1 ed.] 9783666593789, 9783525593783

Citation preview

Antonio Gerace

Biblical Scholarship in Louvain in the ‘Golden’ Sixteenth Century Academic Studies

60

Refo500 Academic Studies Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In Co-operation with Christopher B. Brown (Boston), Günter Frank (Bretten), Bruce Gordon (New Haven), Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Bern), Tarald Rasmussen (Oslo), Violet Soen (Leuven), Zsombor Tóth (Budapest), Günther Wassilowsky (Frankfurt), Siegrid Westphal (Osnabrück).

Volume 60

Antonio Gerace

Biblical Scholarship in Louvain in the ‘Golden’ Sixteenth Century

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.de. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: 3w+p, Rimpar Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-0165 ISBN 978-3-666-59378-9

Contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Historiographical Category of ‘Golden Age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The ‘Golden Age’: roots and growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Biblical Studies in Louvain and its alumni. Humanism, Confessional strife and War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

1. Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate . . . . . . . . 1.1 Nicholas Tacitus Zegers and his Text-Criticism of the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Lucas’ First Period: 1574–1592 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Lucas’ Second Period: 1592–1603 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Lucas’ Third period 1603–1618 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The Case of Gen 3:15 in Henten, Lucas and Sasbout . . . 1.4 Conclusion. The Nachleben of Henten, Zegers, and Lucas

. . . . .

41

. . . . .

44

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

50 52 64 68 74 82

. .

85

. . . .

85 92

. . . .

95 99

. .

100

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

2. The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction. Predestination, Grace, and Human Free Will in Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Double Justice and Double Justification amongst Catholic Theologians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.1 Albert Pighius and Double Justice . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.2 Gropper’s view: Both Double Justice and Double Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

11 23 27

6

Contents

2.2.2.3 The Answer of the Louvain Faculty of Theology: Ruard Tapper and the 32 Articles . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.4 Seripando: the Promoter of the Double Justice Doctrine at the Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Zegers’ Scholion and double justice between Driedo, Gropper and Augustine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Sasbout: the Pupil Follows the Master. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Iustitia Imputata as Remissio Peccatorum and Iustitia Inhaerens as Renovatio Animi? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Jansenius: Biblical Humanism and Augustinian-minded Exegesis . 2.3.1 Jansenius: from Hulst to Ghent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Jansenius’ Theology of Grace in the Commentary to his Concordia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 John Hessels the ‘anti-Pelagian’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Stapleton’s ‘Antidote’ to John Calvin: Luis de Molina’s ‘Middle Knowledge’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 Short Biography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 A Revealing Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3 Matt 11:21. Chorazin and Bethsaida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.4 Matt 11:21. God’s Omniscience and Human Free Will . . . . 2.6 Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 The Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 The Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3 Predestination, Grace and Human Free Will . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3.1 Eternal Election, Temporal Vocation and Human Free Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3.2 Eternal Predestination, God’s Adjuvant Grace and Good works: Three Causes of Human Salvation . . . . 2.6.3.3 The Third Cause: Bona Opera as Fulfilment of God’s Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3.4 The Problem of Sin: God’s Foreknowledge and Human Free Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Conclusion: Louvain between anti-Pelagianism and Molinism . . . 3. Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands . . . . . . . 3.1 Sasbout: Salvari possumus si volumus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Edition of Jansenius’ Sermons by George Braun . . . . . . . .

105 109 111 121 126 129 130 135 149 160 160 162 163 165 175 176 177 180 181 184 188 191 197 201 207 215

7

Contents

.

221

.

224

. . . .

232 238 247 254

General Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

257

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

263

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Index of the Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Index of the Secondary Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

265 265 273

Index of Names, Places and Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

289

3.3 Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Preaching against the Queen on the 19th Sunday after Pentecost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 The Mass on Septuagesima Sunday: again against the Queen? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Stapleton’s Sermon on the Protomartyr and Luis de Molina 3.4 Lucas’ sermons to Bruges’ citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acknowledgements

The present monograph is the very first book on the ‘Golden Age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship’ and its development in the Low Countries, with a specific focus on the University of Louvain. It was hard to achieve this; it was possible only thanks to the wealth of advice and critical remarks I received. First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the KULeuven Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies which, in September 2013, granted me a position that has allowed me to mature as a scholar in an international and dynamic academic setting. I would also like to express deep gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Wim François who was willing to entrust an anonymous Italian with a Master’s degree in Philosophy with the difficult task of researching the ‘Golden Age’. I can hardly repay my debt of gratitude for his continuous support during these years, for his patience, power of motivation, and immense knowledge. His guidance helped me throughout the process of researching and writing this book. I could not have asked for a better advisor and mentor for my Ph.D study. Moreover, I am very thankful to Prof. Dr. Alberto Melloni and the “Fondazione per le Scienze Religiose, Giovanni XXIII” (Fscire, Bologna) who granted me a six-month research stay in my homeland under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Giuseppe Ruggieri whose advice on this project has proved invaluable. Amongst the many scholars there who helped me in my research, special thanks go to Prof. Dr. Dino Buzzetti, Dr. Riccardo Saccenti and Dr. Patrizio Foresta. I would also like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Prof. Dr. Michael O’Connor, Prof. Dr. Violet Soen and Dr. Gergely Juhasz for their insightful comments which have made me more aware of both the limits and the merits of my contribution. Moreover, special thanks goes to Prof. Dr. Anthony Lane, Prof. Dr. Gert Partoens, Prof. Dr. Henk Jan de Jong, and Dr. Gert Gielis for their invaluable advice. Furthermore, I am very grateful to Dr. Jeremy Hovda and Dr. Michael Tait who carefully read my dissertation and checked my ‘broken’ English. Special thanks also go to Reformation and Renaissance Review, The Journal of Early Modern Christianity, Augustiniana, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi, Philosophy Kitchen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Peeters, and De Gruyter for having granted me the possibility of reusing and combining my published articles in

10

Acknowledgements

order to give a coherent contribution to the development of the Golden Age in Louvain, and to Prof. Dr. Herman Selderhuis who accepted my revised doctoral dissertation for publication in the Refo500 Academic Studies. Moreover, special thanks go to Ms. Miriam Espenhain and Dr. Elisabeth Hernitscheck, who followed me in the publishing process. Eventually, I want to thank my family and Tamara who have always supported me in this difficult journey that has finally come to an end.

Introduction

1.

The Historiographical Category of ‘Golden Age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship’

The historiographical category of ‘Golden Age’ or ‘Golden Century’ is commonly used with reference to the Spanish ‘Siglo de Oro’, to indicate the Spanish leadership in Europe, or to the ‘Dutch Golden Age’, to stress the cultural, economic and political development of the Low Countries in the 17th century. In addition to these ‘Golden Ages’, there is also the so-called ‘Golden Age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship’. In this sense, the expression could be properly applied to two different periods: first, the Patristic Age, and, second, the ‘rebirth’ of Catholic exegesis in the Early Modern Era. The former period covers about three centuries (2nd–5th) of intense Christian scholarship, dominated in particular by authors belonging to two of the five Patriarchal Sees, Alexandria and Antioch, as Pope Leo XIII maintained in his Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus (18 November 1893).1 In addition to the Golden Age of the Church Fathers, from the 19th century onwards, scholars started to use the expression ‘Golden Age’ to refer to the century following the Council of Trent. This attribution is due to the flourishing of biblical studies among Catholic scholars and theologians, in part as an effect of the Council of Trent itself, but also a result of the rise of Renaissance humanism and the reaction against the Protestant Reformation.2 Competition with these 1 “When there arose, in various Sees, Catechetical and Theological schools, of which the most celebrated were those of Alexandria and of Antioch, there was little taught in those schools but what was contained in the reading, the interpretation and the defence of the divine written word. From them came forth numbers of Fathers and writers whose laborious studies and admirable writings have justly merited for the three following centuries the appellation of the golden age of biblical exegesis”, Leo XIII: 1893. The Pentarchy numbers Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome. 2 I shall speak about biblical humanism using ‘humanism’ specifically to indicate that biblical scholars in this period considered the study of the Scriptures in their ‘original’ tongues as necessary. In other words, they recovered the philological approach proper to the first humanists, such as that of Valla, applying it exclusively to the Scriptures. I agree with Josef

12

Introduction

new and learned ‘enemies of the faith’ induced Catholic theologians to take on a thorough study of the Bible, both philologically and exegetically. It led to the production of an important number of commentaries of outstanding quality and, moreover, a renewed attention to the preaching of the Scriptures. Therefore, the Golden Age of biblical scholarship also includes a ‘Golden Age’ of preaching, given the importance of sermons in defence of the Catholic faith against Protestant teachings. The starting point of this Golden Age may be dated either to the beginning of the Council of Trent (1545) or to its end (1563); its endpoint is difficult to indicate exactly, whether it is 1650 or 1660, or even 1663. However, the aim of this section is not to answer this question; rather it is to show the development of this historiographical category. It seems that German scholars, and Jesuits in particular, were the first to identify this Golden Age of Catholic biblical scholarship in the Early Modern Era. Perhaps the very first scholar to do so was the German theologian Matthias Joseph Scheeben (1835–1888), in his Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik (1873–1887). Indeed, he noticed the development of biblical studies among Catholic scholars in the period 1570–1660 which he referred to as the Blütezeit – a term that can be translated as ‘flourishing’ (Scheeben: 1882, 1083–1099)3 – and which he saw as preceded by a Vorbereitungszeit, a ‘preparatory period’ lasting from 1500 to 1570 (Scheeben: 1882, 1080). Scheeben maintains that this Blütezeit was characterized by a speculative and systematic scholastic theology together with exegesis and controversialist theology. He also mentions several authors who worked in those years and identifies five categories of scholars in his treatise: 1) the ‘exegetes’, i. e. the commentators, 2) the polemists and controversialists, 3) the scholastic authors; 4) the mystics; 5) the historians of the Patristic age (Scheeben: 1882, 1083–1099). He further divides the scholastic authors into three subsets: a) Thomists; b) Franciscans; and c) Jesuits. However, a more complete list of the scholars of the Blütezeit appeared soon after Scheeben’s text, in the work of the German Jesuit Hugo Hurther (1832–1914) whose monumental Nomenclator Literarius (1871–1886) provided a kind of biographical dictionary of theologians, starting from the beginning of Christendom and ending in 1869. Hurter’s Nomenclator was first edited in five volumes, IJsewijn, who says “during the period under discussion (16th century in the Low Countries) humanism was an affair of a slowly growing but always limited numbers of students, teachers, and writers. Many of them did not view humanist studies as an end in itself but as a means of improving theological studies and Christian life. For this reason, it is better perhaps to speak of humanist Christians than of Christian humanism. This is not merely a matter of terminology but an attempt to define the essential. In their eyes, the fundamental value was not so much a renaissance of ancient literature as a renewal of Christian pietas, and here lies an abyss between them and the leading Italian oratores et poetae”, IJsewijn: 2015, 164. 3 See also Murray: 2016, 1–3.

The Historiographical Category of ‘Golden Age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship’

13

followed by two emended editions: the second in the years 1892–1899, and the third in the years 1903–1913. In particular, the third volume, first published in 1883, focused on the first century following the end of the Council (1564–1663), and provided an ‘index’ of more than 2,500 names of theologians, spread throughout Europe.4 After Hurter’s list, another German Jesuit, Rudolf Cornely (1830–1908), further defined the ‘Golden Age’. In his Historica et critica introductio in Utriusque Testamenti libros sacros (1885), he maintained that the century between the Council of Nicaea (325) and that of Chalcedon (461) has, with reason, been referred to as the ‘Golden Age’ of theological studies. However, Cornely explains, the second half of the 15th century gave new and powerful instruments to biblical studies. The first of these new instruments was the study of the ‘original’ biblical languages, Hebrew – already required by Clement V (ca. 1264–1314) in the wake of the Council of Vienne (1311–1312) – and Greek, supported by humanist popes, such as Nicholas V (1397–1455), who considered these biblical languages useful for gaining a better comprehension of the Latin Vulgate.5 Another important aid was the invention of the printing press by Johann Gutenberg (ca. 1398–1468) around 1440, a development that enabled the rapid spread both of editions of the Bible and commentaries on the Scriptures.6 Therefore, it was between the second half of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th that new seeds were dispersed in Biblical studies. Concerning the humanist scholars of the second half of the 15th century, Cornely mentions particularly Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457), Nicholas of Kues ‘Cusanus’ (1401–1464), Juan de Torquemada (OP, 1388–1468), Denis van Rijkel ‘the Carthusian’ (1402–1471), Peter Schwarz ‘Niger’ (OP, 1434–1483), Konrad Kürschner ‘Pellikan’ (1478–1556), Johann Reuchlin (1455–1522), Rudolf Agricola, (1443–85), Adriano Castellesi (1461–1521), Konrad Summenhart (1450– 1502), Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494), Felice da Prato (OSA, ca. 1460–1559), Agostino Giustiniani (OP, 1470–1536), Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (OFM, 1436–1517), and Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536). Among the biblical scholars of the 16th century, Cornely mentions Elio Antonio de Nebrija (1441–1522), Alfonso de Zamora (1474–1531), Diego de Zúñiga (OSA, 1536– 4 Cf. the Index Theologorum at the end of the third volume: Hurter: 1962 lxxvi–c. 5 “Circa medium saeculi 15 studiis scripturisticis nova et insigna accesserunt subsidia. Praeprimis enim illa aetate praeter linguae hebraice studium, quod a Clemente V in concilio viennensi commendatum magnos iam progressus fecerat letosque tulerat fructus inter populos occidentales graece quoque scientia … Nicolao V imprimis eiusque successoribus promoventibus refloruit atque statim ad meliorem Scripturam intelligentiam latinamque versionem illustrandam feliciter adhiberi coepta est”, Cornely: 1885, 689. However, in the same years, Ubaldo Ubaldi did not separate the period Ubaldi: 1882–1884, 415–21. 6 “Haud levioris forte momenti est, quod circa tempus inventa arte typographica libri sacri ipsi et alia monumenta theologica facilius propagari potuerint”, Cornely: 1885, 689.

14

Introduction

1598), Thomas de Vio ‘Cajetan’ (OP, 1469–1534), Sante Pagnini (OP, 1470–1541), François Vatable (d. 1547), Jean de Gagny (1500–1549), John Wild ‘Ferus’ (OFM, 1497–1554), Isidoro da Chiari (OSB, ca. 1495–1555), Frans Titelmans (OFMCap, 1502–1537), Ralph Baines (ca. 1504–1559) and Jerónimo de Azambuja ‘Oleaster’ (OP, 1503–1563). Cornely argues that their innovative approach to the Scriptures planted the seeds of the Golden Age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship, whose fruit blossomed after the Council of Trent (1545–1563).7 After this introduction, Cornely states that even the Patristic Golden Age can be compared and equated to the century that followed the Council of Trent (1563–1663).8 It was in that century that the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate was printed (1592), as well as the Sixtine edition of the Greek Septuagint (1586), and two polyglot Bibles – the Antwerp edition (1569–1572) and that of Paris (1628– 1645). This new Golden Age was not only characterized by text-criticism of the Vulgate but also by the many new commentaries that gave their support to the study of the Scriptures. By directly mentioning Hurter’s work, Cornely says that more than 350 commentators (interpretes) contributed to the flourishing of the Golden Century; actually, section 15 of Cornley’s third chapter is entitled Aureum exegeseos catholicae modernae saeculum (1563–1663).9 His use of this expression may have had a strong apologetic connotation, but in any case he 7 “Ab exeunte saeculo 15 nova quaedam in historia exegeseos periodus inchoari potest; veruntamen quum prima tantum semina exeunte 16 sparsa sint, exegetes vero non nisi post concilium tridentinum ad maturitatem perductae splendidissimos fructus dederint, a concilio tridentino terminato novum periodum inchoandum censemus”, Cornely: 1885, 689. Cornely lists these authors at pages 689–694, mentioning also their main contributions, to which I shall refer in the footnotes below. 8 I shall not be devoting a chapter specifically to the Council of Trent (1545–1563) since very learned authors have analyzed it better than I could here, having devoted complete volumes, like those of Hubert Jedin (1957–1961), or handy introductions to the topic, like that of John O’Malley (2013). By contrast, I shall deal with the Council of Trent only to the extent that it aids in the comprehension of the scholars I intend to study here. Given the nature of my book, I will particularly focus on the Insuper decree on the authenticity of the Vulgate, issued on 8 April 1546, at the end of the Fourth, and on the De iustificatione decree, issued on 13 January 1547, at the end of the Sixth Session. 9 Cornely states: “Iure merito in annalibus exegeseos catholicae saeculum illud aureum celebratur, quod a concilio nicaeno (325) ad usque chalcedonense (461) decurrit; maximorum enim interpretum fertilis fuit illa aetas … Nisi vero omnia nos fallunt, primae illi exegeseos aureae aetati comparari atque etiam aequiparari licet saeculum illud, quod a finito concilio tridentino defluxit … Indefesso theologorum istius studio imprimis debeamus clementinam Vulgatam nostram emendatam, sixtinam editionem versionis alexandrinae, bina celeberrima polyglotta, antwerpensia (1569–1572) et parisiensia (1629–1645), nonnullas editiones principes versionum antiquarum. Plura autem et maiora in ipsa interpretationem praestiterunt; neque est Veteris aut Novi Testamenti liber, qui vere eximiis commentariis illo tempore non sit illustratus … numerus interpretum, qui hoc saeculum aureo floruerunt, ingens est; plus trecenti quiquaginta, qui ab anno 1563 usque ad annum 1663 supremum suum diem obierunt, enumerantur a P. Hurter”, Cornely: 1885, 695–696. Italics are mine.

The Historiographical Category of ‘Golden Age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship’

15

wanted to stress the quality and the quantity of the contributions made by the numerous scholars that characterized that era. Among them, Cornely mentions in particular Sixtus of Siena (OFM, later OP, 1520–1569), Andreas Maes (1514– 1573), Cornelius Jansenius the Elder (1510–1576), Bishop of Ghent from 1568, Francisco Foreiro (OP, 1522–1581), Juan Maldonado (SJ, 1533–1583), Francisco de Ribera (SJ, 1537–1591), Francisco de Toledo (SJ, 1532–1596), Gilbert Génébrard (OSB, 1537–1597), Benito Arias Montano (1527–1598), Antonio Agelli (OP, 1532–1608), Nicolaus Serarius (SJ, 1555–1609), Benedict Pereira (SJ, 1536–1610), Willem Hessels van Est ‘Estius’ (1542–1613), Luis Alcázar (SJ, 1554–1613), Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ (1548/49–1619), Robert Bellarmine (SJ, 1542–1621), Benedetto Giustiniani (SJ, 1554–1621), Gaspar Sanchez (SJ, 1554–1628), Juan de Mariana (SJ, 1536–1624), Tomás Malvenda (OP, 1566–1628), James Tirinus (SJ, 1580– 1636), Juàn de Pineda (SJ 1558–1637), Cornelius Cornelissen van den Steen, ‘a Lapide’ (SJ, 1567–1637), Jacques Bonfrère (SJ, 1573–1642), Siméon Marotte de Muis (1587–1644), Jean Morin (1591–1659), James Gordon (SJ, 1553–1641), Michele Ghislieri (OP, 1563–1646), Fernando Quirino de Salazar (SJ, 1576–1646), Balthasar Cordier (SJ, 1592–1650), Giovanni Stefano Menochio (SJ, 1575–1655), Francesco Quaresmio (OFM, 1583–1650) and Jean de La Haye (OFM, 1593–1661). With Jean de la Haye, the Golden Age comes to an end, and is followed by an era of impoverishment of biblical studies among Catholic scholars. The list made by Cornely in his Historica et Critica Introductio remained basically unchanged (Cornely: 1885, 697–714). Later scholars list the same authors, usually in the same order, though without ever mentioning Cornely in their analysis of the Golden Age of Catholic Exegesis, the one exception being Heinrich Kihn (1883–1912). Kihn was a German scholar, who wrote an Encyklopädie und methodologie der theologie (1892), in which he mentions both Hurter and Cornely, in dealing with ‘das goldene Zeitalter der neuer katholischen Exegese’.10 French scholarship also seems to have quickly accepted the category of ‘Âge d’or’ in referring to the Catholic exegesis of this period, but Hurter’s Nomenclator was their only source of reference: the name of the ‘inventor’ of this category, Cornely, simply disappears from the literature. Luis Ducros (1846–1930), for instance, in his work Les Encyclopédistes (1900), quoting Kihn, speaks about the “Âge d’or de l’exégèse catholique moderne” (1563–1660), exactly on the basis of Hurter’s list, even though he is basically translating into French the expression that Cornely had used.11 10 Kihn: 1892, 201–202. In particular, among the most important authors, Kihn mentions Thomas de Vio ‘Cajetan’, Jacopo Sadoleto, François Vatable, Adam Sasbout, Johann Wild ‘Ferus’, Andreas Maes, and Cornelius Jansenius ‘of Ghent’. 11 “Sans doute, on avait vu, au lendemain de la Reforme, et pour lutter contre elle, surgir toute une légion de commentateurs catholiques: Hurter n’en compte pas moins de trois cents, de l’année 1563 à l’année 1660. Durant cette période, qui est l’âge d’or de l’exégèse catholique

16

Introduction

A quarter of a century later, the use of this category was also adopted by Italian scholarship. In 1925, again only on the basis of Hurter’s work, Alberto Vaccari spoke about the ‘saeculum aureum exegeseos catholicae’, although giving a different date for it (1550–1650). He offered a reason for taking 1550 as the starting date: two decrees at the opening of the Council of Trent were in the forefront of this rebirth of biblical studies: the first promoted and inspired biblical studies while the second indicated the right way to interpret the Bible. Vaccari did not refer to the decrees chronologically. His first reference is to the decree issued on 17 June 1546, during the Fifth Session, On the Institution of a Lectureship of Sacred Scripture, and of the liberal arts, which gave impulse to biblical studies thanks to the establishment of houses of study (studia) and academic chairs. His second reference is to the two decrees issued during the Fourth Session of the Council: Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, which defined the canon of the Catholic Bible and established the continuity of the apostolic tradition(s) within the Catholic Church. On the same occasion, the Council fathers issued the Insuper decree, which declared the Vulgate to be the ‘authentic’ version of the Church. That decree promoted both biblical studies and text-criticism of the Vulgate, calling for the emendation of the Latin Bible after a more than one-thousand year history. Moreover, that decree established that only the Church can faithfully interpret the Scriptures, on the basis of the “unanimous consensus” of the Church fathers.12 In particular, Vaccari maintained that this new age had its roots in Humanism and in the Renaissance (Aetas renatae antiquitatis) beginning in Italy in the 15th century. Of special relevance was the arrival of several Greek codices from the last remnants of the Byzantine Empire which had fallen on 29 May 1453 when the moderne, il s’agissait de démontrer aux Reformes que ce Livre, qu’ils avaient sans cesse à la bouche et dont ils prétendaient avoir retrouvé le sens et le beauté première, l’Eglise romaine n’avait jamais cessé de le bien comprendre et de l’interpréter dignement : et il se peut que les exégètes catholiques de cette époque aient été aussi savant qu’ils furent laborieux et que pour sauver l’ancienne foi, ils aient mis habilement à profit, comme l’avaient fait les protestants, pour fonder la foi nouvelle, quelques-unes des meilleures conquêtes de l’humanisme, qu’ils aient su, par exemple, appliquer, comme leurs adversaires, l’histoire, l’archéologie et les nouvelles études philologiques à leur interprétation catholique des Ecritures, de telle sorte que leurs ouvrages méritent encore d’être apprécies des théologiens de nos jours”, Ducros: 1900, 259. Of course, this Louis Ducros is not to be confused with the painter Louis Ducros (1748–1810). Ducros’ quotation of Kihn: 1892, 202. 12 “Primum saeculum a Concilio Tridentino (1550–1650) … tam fecundum fuit optimorum exegetarum apud catholicos, ut merito ‘saeculum aureum exegeseos catholicae’ audire meruerit. Fuit is praecipue effectus magni illius zeli, quod sanam ac veram Ecclesiam reformationem a Concilio Tridentino promotam catholicus orbis, in primis clerus, et securus est, ac fidem scientiamque catholicam adversus novatorum aggressiones strenue defendit. Itaque commemoranda sunt imprimis hoc loco duo decreta Concilii Tridentini, quorum alterum studia S. Scripturae excitavit ac promovit, alterum interpretationi rectum callem demonstravit”, Vaccari: 1951, 510–567, on 544.

The Historiographical Category of ‘Golden Age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship’

17

Ottomans, ruled by Mehmed II (1432–1481), conquered Constantinople.13 Among the codices arriving from the East were the Greek New Testament and the Septuagint. This led to the beginning of philological studies of Greek texts. Therefore, the ‘Golden Age’ was preceded by a ‘preparatory’ century in which several authors took on a philological analysis of the Bible, with Lorenzo Valla, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, and Erasmus of Rotterdam being the most important.14 Vaccari recalled another concomitant element that further helped Catholic exegesis: the invention of the printing press, which allowed for the rapid dissemination of works on the Bible.15 Vaccari mentioned a plethora of scholars who were involved in the ‘Golden Century of Catholic Exegesis’, often indicating their main contributions to Catholic scholarship, again chosen on the basis of Hurter’s list. Vaccari ended this list by mentioning in particular Jean de La Haye and his Biblia Maxima (1660). According to the Italian Jesuit, this huge work concludes the ‘Golden Century of Catholic Exegesis’, making a kind of summa of that flourishing period, after which a period of decline set in. This work gathered the results of an intense century of Biblical studies, and, although de la Haye had to use the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (1592) as the basis of his work, he did not limit himself to a simple re-printing of that Vulgate. Indeed, he added several prefaces, furnishing each chapter with the annotations of the various readings taken from Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac manuscripts, as well as from those handed down in the works of the Church fathers. He also explicitly referred to the commentaries of Nicholas of Lyra (1270–1349), Jean de Gagny, Willem Estius, Giovanni Stefano Menochio and Giacomo Tirino (SJ, 1580–1686). Finally, de la Haye attached chronological tables and systems of both measurement and currency.16 In effect, he analyzed almost every aspect of the Bible, from its text 13 The very last remnants of the Byzantine Empire were in effect the Despotate of the Morea, which fell in 1460, the Trapezuntine Empire, which fell in 1461, and the Principality of Theodoro in Crimea, which fell in 1475, all of them conquered by Ottomans. 14 Among them, Vaccari mentioned in particular twelve scholars in addition to Valla, Lefèvre d’Étaples and Erasmus: Jean de Gagny, Elio Antonio de Nebrija, Sante Pagnini, François Vatable, Agostino Steuco, Jerónimo de Azambuja, Ralph Baines, Cajetan, Isidoro da Chiari, Adam Sasbout, Frans Titelmann, John Wild ‘Ferus’, Vaccari: 1951, 544. 15 “Novam aetatem inchoavit in exegesis diffusa per Italiam primum, deinde in reliquam Europam, graecae linguae et totius antiquitiatis cognitio, saeculo Christi xv. Delati tunc ad Occidentis urbes graeci codices textum ipsum Novi Testamenti et Alexandrinam versionem Veteris multis aditu facilem reddidere. Sensum vero aperuit linguarum non solum graecae sed etiam hebraicae studium in dies latius pervulgatum, in quod plurimum contulit ars typographica tunc inventa”, Vaccari: 1951, 543. Not by coincidence, the first book to have been published was the 42–line Gutenberg Bible (1453–55). 16 “in unum corpus collegit Iohannes de la Haye in Bibliis magnis et iterum simul cum postilla Lyrani et delectu variarum ex antiquis versionibus lectionum, in Bibliis maximis … quae collectiones apte aureum hoc catholicae exegeseos saeculum quodammodo recapitulando concludunt”, Vaccari: 1951, 549.

18

Introduction

(using the official Vulgate and its different readings in the ‘original’ languages) and its exegesis, to the coins used in Old and New Testament times. Vaccari considered de la Haye’s work to be a kind of ‘swan song’ of the ‘Golden Age’ of Catholic exegesis, possibly because of its complexity and its encyclopedic approach to the Bible. At the end of this section devoted to the Catholic commentators, Vaccari even mentioned some important Protestant authors, since they also developed biblical studies in that period, such as Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669), Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), Matthew Poole (1624–1679), Samuel Bochart (1599–1667), Johann Heinrich Ursin (1608–1667), Johannes Drusius (1550–1616), Lodewijk de Dieu (1590–1642), and Johannes Buxtorf (1564–1629).17 In his lists, Vaccari mentioned especially a large number of Jesuit scholars, who arguably represent the most important Order of that ‘Golden Century’. When Ignatius of Loyola (1491–1556) founded this Order in 1534,18 he considered education in every branch of human knowledge, from humanities to the sciences, to be of the utmost importance for good Catholics, as was established in the Ratio of the Order (1599).19 The Jesuits then established many colleges throughout Europe, starting from Gandía (1544). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Vaccari mentions a particularly large number of Jesuits: in his list of 41 names, 18 are Jesuits, almost 50 %.20 However, it should also be remembered that Vaccari himself was a Jesuit, something which had undoubtedly influenced his choice. A few years after Vaccari’s contribution Historia Exegeseos (1928), Martin Grabmann (1875–1949) also dealt with a category very close to that of ‘Golden Age’, devoting the second chapter of the second part of his Die Geschichte der Katholischen Theologie (1933) to the ‘Die Blütezeit der neuerwachten scholastishen Theologie vom Konzil von Trient bis um 1660’ (‘The Flourishing Period of the Newly Awakened Scholastic Theology from the Council of Trent up to 1660’)

17 Vaccari: 1951, 550. 18 On 15 August 1534, Ignatius founded the order together with six companions, Francis Xavier (1506–1552), Alfonso Salmerón, Diego Laynez (1512–1565), Nicolas Bobadilla (1511–1590), Peter Faber (1506–1546), and Simão Rodrigues de Azevedo (1510–1579). This new order was later approved by Pope Paul III on 1540, through the bull Regimini militantis ecclesiae, then confirmed by the same Pope on 1543, through the bull Iniunctum nobis, and, lastly, in 1550, Julius III gave the final approval, through the bull Exposcit debitum. On the first period of the Jesuit order (1540–1565), cf. O’Malley: 1993, 23–36. 19 For instance, the German Jesuit Christophorus Clavius (1538–1612) was one of the most important mathematicians of his period, and the leading scholar of the reform of the Julian calendar, that then took the name of Pope Gregory XIII: the Gregorian calendar. 20 On the basis of Hurther’s list, the German Jesuit scholar, Augustin Bea (1881–1968), affirmed that among the 424 exegetes who worked in the century that followed the Council of Trent, one fourth were Jesuits. It should be noted that Bea does not use the ‘Golden age’ category. Cf., Bea: 1942, 122.

The Historiographical Category of ‘Golden Age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship’

19

(1980, 154).21 Grabmann basically recovered Scheeben’s work – without mentioning him – and he offered a list of the most important scholars, first identifying those of the “preparatory period up to the end of the Council of Trent”, from 1500 up to 1570, which is also the prelude to “the Catholic Golden Age”:22 Sixtus of Siena, Luis de Tena (OFM, d. 1622), Francesco Pavone (SJ, 1568–1637), and Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’. Of course, other biblical scholars influenced this flourishing of Catholic Scholarship, such as the Jesuits, Alfonso Salmerón (1515– 1585), Francisco de Toledo and Cornelius ‘a Lapide’. It was not only Jesuits who contributed to the development of biblical studies: for instance, from Belgium, Willem Estius and Cornelius Jansenius (1510–1576), also offered commentaries on the Vulgate (Grabmann: 1980, 155–158). Among the polemical and controversialist theologians, some key figures arose, such as Thomas Stapleton (1535–1598), Gregorio de Valencia (SJ, 1550–1603), Robert Bellarmine, Jacob Gretser (SJ, 1562–1625), Adam Tanner (SJ, 1572–1632) and Jacques Davy du Perron (1556–1618).23 As has been said, scholasticism also contributed important developments thanks to three schools. First, the Thomist scholars, mostly represented by Dominicans, especially those of the school of Salamanca founded by Francesco de Vitoria, such as Domingo Bañez (OP, 1528–1604) and Bartolomé de Medina (1527–1580);24 second, the Scotist school of the Franciscans, led by scholars such as Andrea de Vega (d. 1560) and Cornelio Musso (1511–1574); and finally, the Jesuit school, including Francisco de Toledo, Gregorio de Valencia, Francisco Suárez (1548–1617), also called Doctor Eximius, and Luis de Molina (1535–1600), amongst others.25 These impressive lists of names show that many centres of biblical scholarship arose all over Europe at this time. In addition to the Habsburg Netherlands, with its university cities of Louvain and Douai, where Jesuits and Augustinian-minded scholars predominated, we also find important theological schools in Spain, represented especially by Dominicans and Jesuits. Similar schools in France and in the Italian states arose as well.26 In addition to the German and the Italian theologians, even the Reformed minister from Geneva Victor Baroni (1893–1969) acknowledged the Catholic development of biblical studies in La Contra-Réforme et la Bible (1943), although 21 According to Grabmann, this flourishing period was almost inevitably followed by the decadence of the scholastic period for a century, 1660–1760: see the sixth chapter of the second part: “Die Theologie in der Zeit des Niedergangs der Scholastik (1660–1760)”, Grabmann: 1980, 192. 22 See the first chapter of the second part “Die Vorbereitungszeit bis zum Schluss des Konzils von Trient”, Grabmann: 1980, 147–154. 23 For the entire list, cf. Grabmann: 1980, 158–161. 24 For the entire list, Grabmann: 1980, 162–165. 25 For the entire list, cf. Grabmann: 1980, 168–172. 26 On the development of the Golden Age, cf. François, Gerace et al.: 2020. Part of this introduction was included in this article.

20

Introduction

he never used the concept of a ‘Golden Age’. By contrast, Spanish scholars used the historiographical category of ‘Golden Age’ in a sense closer to that of Scheeben than that of Cornely and Vaccari. Actually, Scheeben spoke about a ‘newly awakened Scholastic theology’, stressing the philosophical approach to the analysis of the Scriptures, ‘reborn’ after the high level achieved with Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. At the same time, Vaccari dealt expressly with the ‘Golden Century of Catholic Exegesis’, thus emphasizing works on the interpretation of the Vulgate which were developed more deeply thanks to philology. The Spanish scholar Jose Jiménez Fajardo actually preferred to use the expression ‘Second Golden Age of Scholastic Theology’. In fact, he quoted Grabmann, and followed his terminology in his monograph which focused on the theological question of the essence of venial sins and especially how they were discussed by Catholic scholars in this ‘Second Golden Age’ (Jiménez Fajardo: 1944, 41). In 1946, the fourth centenary of the Council of Trent was celebrated with three conferences at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, on 20 January, 3 and 17 February respectively. The main contributions were those of the Belgian JacquesMarie Vosté (OP, 1883–1949), who spoke about the Tridentine decree Insuper on the authenticity of the Vulgate; then, Alberto Vaccari, who dealt with exegesis at the Council of Trent; and, finally, Salvatore Garofalo (1911–1998), who presented his paper on the Italian humanists and their work on the Bible. In his contribution, Vaccari spoke about a ‘Golden Century of Catholic Exegesis’ during which Catholic theologians produced many more works of biblical scholarship than Protestant theologians. Catholic theologians, however, lost this primacy in biblical scholarship over the two centuries following their ‘Golden Age’ (1946, 301, n. 1).27 In any event, the Catholic ‘Golden Century’ produced such a high standard in exegesis that, Vaccari continued, some Protestant scholars even used and appreciated Catholic commentaries, such as those of Francisco Foreiro on Isaiah (1565), Andreas Maes on Joshua (1574), Antonio Agelli on the Psalms (1606), and Gaspar Sánchez (SJ 1554–1628) on the Prophets (1621). 27 “Intanto, l’attuazione dei canoni Tridentini di riforma causò nei paesi cattolici un intensificarsi dello studio delle divine Scritture, che portò ben presto copiosi e consolatissimi frutti. Non per nulla il secolo che seguì al Concilio di Trento vide uscire alla luce tanta e tale messe di commenti biblici d’autori cattolici (come fu già rilevato dal R. P. Retore di questo Istituto all’apertura della precedente conferenza) che poté essere chiamato il secolo d’oro dell’esegesi cattolica. Certo la produzione cattolica nel campo biblico superò allora per numero e qualità quella protestantica. Alcuni commenti cattolici di quel secolo ancor oggi sono consultati ed apprezzati anche da protestanti, mentre quelli contemporanei dei protestanti giacciono dimenticati nella polvere delle biblioteche. Così tenemmo allora un primato, che purtroppo andò perduto nei due secoli seguenti, quando anche gli avvenimenti politici frustrarono in notevole parte i benefici effetti della riforma promossa dal Concilio Tridentino. Tra questi effetti in ragguardevole posto deve porsi la magnifica fioritura biblica, alla quale abbiamo or ora accennato”, Vaccari: 1946, 327.

The Historiographical Category of ‘Golden Age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship’

21

A few years after Vaccari’s “Esegesi ed esegeti”, another Italian Jesuit scholar, Tiburzio Gallo, used the ‘Golden Age’ to indicate the century after the Council of Trent. The occasion was given by his monograph in three volumes on the interpretation of the proto-evangelium, Gen 3:15: “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel”.28 The first volume analyses the interpretations of the first fifteen centuries of the history of Church, starting from Origen and going up to the Council of Trent; the second volume deals with the ‘aetas aurea exegesis catholicae’ (‘The Golden Age of Catholic Exegesis’), from the beginning of the Council of Trent (1545) up to 1660; the third volume goes from 1660 up to 1854, when Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the bull Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December. In these three volumes, Tiburzio Gallo analyzed more than five-hundred authors. It is especially interesting to note that he did not restrict himself to Catholic theologians but also referred to the comments of Protestant scholars on Gen 3:15. In effect, he intended to offer the interpretation(s) of the proto-evangelium to which Christendom had adhered from its birth up to 1854. In particular, in his second volume, devoted to the ‘Golden Age’, Gallo referred to 184 authors, 152 Catholics and 32 Protestants.29 Finally, Gallo concluded his list by referring to de la Haye’s Biblia Maxima, as Vaccari had done, but he also included the Lutheran scholar Martin Caselius (1608–1656) and his De lapsu priorum parentum. In effect, both de la Haye and Caselius wrote works that were able to summarize the intense scholarship of both Catholic and Protestant biblical scholarship respectively.30 Between Scheeben’s ‘Die Blütezeit der neuerwachten scholastishen’ and Cornely’s ‘Aureum exegeseos catholicae modernae saeculum’, scholarship seems to have more frequently accepted the latter expression. More recently, the German Catholic scholar Johann Baptist Bauer (1927–2008) has spoken about ‘das goldene Zeitalter der katholischen Exegese (1550–1650)’ (1971, 30). In 2007, 28 If not otherwise declared, the English translations of the biblical passages are taken from the Douai–Rheims Vulgate edition (DRV), available at http://www.drbo.org/. 29 Gallo himself furnishes his data. Moreover, he adds that 125 Catholic theologians gave a Mariological interpretation to Gen 3:15, by reading ipsa conteret caput tuum, while the other 27, although not negating the Mariological reading, by using a philological approach, opted for ipse conteret caput tuum, with a Christological interpretation. For both Catholics and Lutherans, the semen of the woman is the type of Christ while Calvinists consider semen as the “humankind when it will win the infernal snake”. Mulier among Catholics could be considered as Eve, the Holy Church but above all the Virgin Mary. On the other hand, Protestants consider her as Eve or the genus of the woman, and also consider Adam as humankind, Gallo: 1953, 275. 30 “Opportune terminatur pars prior inquisitionis posttridentinae Biblia Maxima Versionem Johannis De La Haye et dissertatione De Lapsu Priorum Parentum Martini Caselii. Ille resumit ideas principaliores in hac periodo apud catholicos, hic apud novatores”, Gallo: 1953, 273. Gallo refers to Caselius 1637.

22

Introduction

Meinrad Böhl followed Bauer’s expression, although without reference to Vaccari’s or Cornely’s work: the use of the bibliographical category of ‘Golden Age’ seems to have gained academic acceptance (2007, 80). This statement is valid, however, only with reference to German, French, and Italian scholarship. Spanish scholars persist in using the expression ‘Siglo de Oro’ specifically to indicate the Spanish leadership in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Therefore, Spanish scholarship prefers to use Jiménez Fajardo’s ‘segunda edad de oro de la teologiá escolástica’. Meanwhile, other important publications related to Early Modern biblical scholarship have appeared. Specifically with regard to exegesis, Jean-Pierre Delville’s L’Europe de l’exégèse au XVIe siécle (2004) ought to be taken as the reference edition. Moreover, Euan Cameron has very recently edited a volume on The Bible from 1450 to 1750 (2016), which includes a contribution co-authored with Bruce Gordon that is very helpful for retracing the history of “Latin Bibles in the Early Modern Period”. Finally, in 2012 Wim François published a milestone contribution to the development of the category of ‘Golden Age’: “Augustine and the Golden Age of Biblical Scholarship in Louvain (1550–1650)”, which is actually the starting point of this research. In his article, François briefly examines the key figures that worked during that Golden Age in Louvain and, by extension, in other academic environments in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands, especially Douai. I hope therefore to have provided a useful introduction to the historiographical category of the Golden Age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship. From Hurter, Cornely, Grabmann, Vaccari and others we can be aware of the flourishing of the Biblical studies in the period 1550–1650, prepared by a long century of research. However, I want to make it clear that I shall not be using this expression with an apologetic intent, nor do I wish to pass a value judgment regarding the quality of the Catholic scholarship which, of course, does not meet the standards of today’s exegesis. Rather I shall use this category as a rhetorical means to indicate the dynamism of the biblical scholarship in Early Modern Catholicism, when a large number of Bible editions, commentaries and sermon books were published by many scholars. It is also a somewhat provocative term which can serve to draw attention to the important dynamism of biblical scholarship, which has been disdained – to a certain degree – not only within certain traditions of Protestant scholarship but also among some post-Vatican II Catholic writers (cf. Fischer/François/Gerace/Murray: 2020).

The ‘Golden Age’: roots and growth

2.

23

The ‘Golden Age’: roots and growth

Although the Council of Trent played a clear role, it was not the cause of the ‘Golden Age’: many other circumstances determined the development of biblical studies among Catholic scholars. It was around 1450 that many key events determined a turning point in Europe from which biblical studies benefited considerably and which eventually brought about the ‘Golden Age’. First, the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439), in which the Western and the Eastern Churches signed a reconciliation: on that occasion about 700 Greek scholars accompanied the Emperor John VIII Paleologos. Among them was also the future Catholic Cardinal Basilios Bessarion (1403–1472) who brought his library (over 900 books) into Italy. This became the nucleus of the Marciana Library in Venice. In this period, Italy received ‘immigration waves’ from the last remnants of the Byzantine Empire – which finally fell in 1453 –, and the Greek scholars who moved to Italy gave a strong impulse to humanism which had already started in the 14th century with Francesco Petrarch (1304–1374). In the same period, in Germany, Gutenberg invented the printing press (ca. 1440) which allowed the propagation of ideas in a more efficient and quicker way. Biblical scholars could apply the philological skills developed by humanists to the Bible, not only in Italy with Lorenzo Valla, who wrote his Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum from 1440–1450. Indeed, at the beginning of the 16th century in Germany Johann Reuchlin (1455–1522) issued De Rudimentis Hebraicis in 1506, while, in France, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples (ca. 1455–1536) published the Quincuplex Psalterium (1509) and the Pauli Epistolae xiv. ex vulgata editione, adjecta intelligentia ex Graeco cum commentariis (1512). A few years later, Erasmus issued his Novum Instrumentum in Basel (1516),31 a real landmark in the development of biblical humanism, while, in Spain, Cardinal de Cisneros (1436–1517) first established the Universitas Complutensis (1500). There, humanistic philological skills were applied to provide a polyglot Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin (1522). Moreover, the first Latin translation from Hebrew since Jerome’s time was edited in 1528 by Sante Pagnini, who also provided a grammar and a dictionary of Hebrew (Hebraicarum Institutionum libri quattor, 1526 and Thesaurus Linguae Sanctae, 1529; cf. Kessler-Mesguich: 2013, 121–151; Grendler: 2008, 240–247; Engammare: 2002, 41–52). The rise of the Reformation (1517) also contributed significantly to the development of Catholic Biblical scholarship since Catholics felt the need to counter Luther’s sola Scriptura theology by focusing on the text of the Bible itself and studying the Latin and Greek Church fathers. In other words, Catholics needed to train themselves in order to counter the advance of Lu31 I shall deal with the biblical humanism in the Low Countries more specifically in the next section.

24

Introduction

theranism and other ‘heterodox’ confessions, such as Calvinism and Anabaptism. Many Catholic biblical commentators appeared. In Italy, for instance, Cajetan published his Ientacula Novi Testamenti (1525), followed by commentaries on the Psalms (1527), the four Gospels (1531), the Acts of the Apostles (1531), the Pentateuch (1531), the Historical Books of the Old Testament (1533) and, finally, the Book of Job (1535) (O’Connor: 2017; Grendler: 2008; Wicks: 2008), while Agostino Steuco (1497–1548) published his annotations to the Pentateuch in 1529 (Delph: 2008; Grendler: 2008), and Jacopo Sadoleto (1477– 1547) used the Greek and Hebrew ‘originals’ to emend the Latin Vulgate, even publishing a Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to Romans (1535) (Grendler: 2008; Douglas: 1959). In France, Jean de Gaigny wrote several highly regarded commentaries on New Testament books: Brevissima et facillima in omnes divi Pauli epistolas scholia (1543) and Clarissima et facillima in quatuor sacra Jesu Christi evangelia (1552; cf. Delville: 2004, 352–357). Moreover, in 1540, Paul III approved the institution of the Jesuits, who put education at the center of their missionary work. The solid foundations for the ‘Golden Age’ had been laid, and they were developed further by the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent which promoted the textual critical study of the Vulgate in order to restore it, also thanks to the ad fontes approach. The humanist-minded Fifth Session also contributed to the development of Biblical studies, by asking for the establishment of lecturships. Amongst the various centers of biblical studies – such as Alcalá de Henares, Cologne, Paris and Rome – maybe because of their strategic position, the Low Countries were a particularly fertile soil for theological debates and had a real influence on the history of Early Modern Catholicism. In fact, for at least fifty years, from 1533 to 1583, Louvain was the centre of reference and the most authoritative place for textual critical studies, as testified by the influence of Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus on the deliberations leading to the Fourth Session of the Council (cf. infra ch. 1). Moreover, the southern part of the Low Countries was a kind of ‘Catholic wedge’ between the strong Calvinist presence in the north, the Huguenots in France, the Lutherans in Germany and Scandinavia, and the Anglicans in England. Because of that, Catholics in the Low Countries particularly felt the necessity of both a thorough study of the Scriptures and their sound preaching, as ways to counter their many opponents who claimed to base their opinion upon the Bible. In this book, therefore, I shall study the development of biblical scholarship in Louvain by analyzing seven authors who worked in the first part of the century in question and who are strictly linked to the Louvain milieu. In chronological order, they include Nicholas Tacitus Zegers (ca.1495–1559), John Henten (1499–1566), Cornelius Jansenius ‘of Ghent’, Adam Sasbout,

The ‘Golden Age’: roots and growth

25

John Hessels (1522–1566), Thomas Stapleton, and Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’. As I shall show by analyzing each of them in turn, my selection is in no case accidental: each author offered key-contributions that can effectively show the development of Catholic biblical scholarship in that period. This could be divided into three main thematic areas: 1) Text-criticism of the Latin Vulgate; 2) Exegesis of the Scriptures; and 3) Preaching of the Bible. Somehow, these three areas represent the ‘study flow’ of the Scriptures: the emendation of the Vulgate, aimed at restoring the text to a hypothetical ‘original’, and the philological approach to the Greek and Hebrew sources allowing for a better comprehension of the Bible. Such comprehension becomes the basis of commentaries made with the intention of explaining the meaning of the Scriptures to the faithful in the light of the Tradition. Furthermore, the Church needed to preach the Scriptures and their contents to the Catholic flock in order to safeguard them from any ‘heretical’ influence. Therefore, several homiletic works appeared so that priests could prepare their sermons appropriately. I have therefore decided to divide this work into three parts, each devoted to one of the three research areas, following the ‘study-flow’ of the Scriptures. After an introduction to the religious, political and theological context in which these seven authors worked, I shall deal with the text-criticism of the Vulgate in Louvain, starting from the Vulgata Lovaniensis, first edited by John Henten in 1547 as an answer to Trent’s request, and then by Francis Lucas’ reeditions in 1574 and 1583. I shall pay particular attention to these works, revealing their importance within the context of the biblical scholarship in the Early Modern Era. In fact, the Vulgata Lovaniensis was the first revision of the Vulgate after its promulgation by the Council of Trent as the ‘authentic’ text, the only one allowed to be used within Catholic Church. The Vulgata Lovaniensis was the reference edition up to the publication of the Sixto–Clementine in 1592, and important scholars, such as Girolamo Seripando in 1561, expressed their appreciation for the Louvain work. Moreover, Lucas published his Notationes in sacra Biblia (1580). This achievement benefited from the advice of Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto who also had his own copy of Henten’s edition. The Notationes were later included in the Vulgata Lovaniensis of 1583. This text was first used by Sixtus V as the basis for his Sixtine edition in 1590, and then it was used as the reference edition for the Roman Committees working on the emendation of the Vulgate. In fact, the fifth and final Committee based the eventual Sixto-Clementine on the so-called Codex Carafianus, a copy of the 1583 Vulgata Lovaniensis, annotated by Cardinal Antonio Carafa. The Sixto-Clementine was then the only one that could be used within Catholic Church, remaining unchanged for almost 400 years. A revision of the Vulgate was required at the end of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) by Paul VI, leading to the eventual issue of the Nova Vulgata

26

Introduction

in 1979. This may already show the vital impact that Henten and Lucas exerted on the history of the Vulgate and its textual criticism, and how important Louvain was as a theological centre in Early Modern Church history. After having examined the Vulgate edition, I shall focus on Nicholas Tacitus Zegers and his edition of the New Testament (1559) which the author intended to be the only reliable version. After having analyzed Zegers’ textual criticism of the New Testament, I shall focus on Lucas and his philological approach to the Scriptures. I shall conclude the first part of this work with a case study, on the so-called protoevangelium Gen 3:15, analyzing the three possible readings of this verse as presented by Henten, Lucas and, Sasbout, to show, on the one hand, the inherent difficulty of text-criticism of the Vulgate, and on the other hand, the variety of readings of the Bible handed down through the centuries, at least prior to the ‘crystallization’ of the Vulgate following the printing of the Sixto-Clementine in 1592. The second part of this book focuses on Scriptural commentaries and aims to show how the authors under discussion dealt with the crux of post-Tridentine theology: the relation between eternal predestination, temporal grace and human free will. Although other topics might also have been worthy of study, such as sacraments, ecclesiastical authority, religious images, vernacular Scriptures etc., I want to focus on what has been called “the problem central in all Western theology” (Kerr: 2004, 142; cf. also Matava: 2016, 1–7). The seed of the discussions on predestination can be found already in Paul, as I shall show in the introduction to the second part of this work, providing the opportune place to discuss both Zegers’ and Sasbout’s appreciation of the doctrine of double justice. Both of them wrote their commentaries after the Tridentine decree on Justification (1547), but they not only made use of sources such as Johann Gropper’s Enchiridion Christianae Institutionis (1538), which was disliked by the Louvain Faculty of Theology, but also referred to a doctrine – the doctrine of double justice – that had been clearly rejected by the Council of Trent. Somehow, Zegers and Sasbout were dissident voices, making them very worthy of interest, although scholarship has never paid sufficient attention to them. After having analyzed the works of the two Franciscans, I will study Cornelius Jansenius the Elder, a Louvain professor who became the first bishop of Ghent, and who “proved to be Louvain’s major biblical scholar of the sixteenth century” (François: 2012, 250). His theology seems to have been a kind of moderate Augustinianism, influenced by his humanistic approach to the Scriptures and his pastoral concerns. After Zegers, Sasbout and Jansenius, I shall deal with the outspoken ‘Augustinian-minded school’ of Michel Baius at the Louvain Faculty of Theology. Among the most important – and least studied – scholars of this school, we find John Hessels, a disciple of Baius, whose commentary on Matthew will be the subject of a careful analysis. The choice to focus on Hessels was conditioned, on

Biblical Studies in Louvain and its alumni. Humanism, Confessional strife and War

27

the one hand, by the absence of Baius’ commentaries – the core genre of this study – and, on the other hand, by the fact that Hessels was the most influential of Baius’ disciples, so that he can powerfully witness to the ‘Augustinian-minded’ exegesis. This school reacted strongly against the ‘semi-Pelagian’ Theses theologicae (1586) of the Flemish Jesuit Leonard Lessius. However, as my study will show, the diffusion of Jesuit ideas in Louvain was due to the English exile Thomas Stapleton, who was Baius’ successor as holder of the royal chair of Sacred Scriptures in Louvain, and to the aforementioned Francis Lucas. In order to grasp their ideas regarding predestination, grace and free will, I shall therefore analyze their commentaries on the Bible, focusing more or less on the same biblical passages where possible – in fact, some authors expressed their ideas in commenting on Paul’s Epistles, others on the Gospel according to Matthew – in order to offer the most accurate comparison of these scholars possible. The final part focuses on homiletic works. These were considered to be the most effective means of educating the flock. Among the authors I have analyzed in the first two parts of this work, Sasbout, Stapleton, Jansenius and Lucas gave attention to this genre; in particular, I shall focus on two Sunday Gospels, that for Septuagesima Sunday, Matt 20:1–16, and that on the 19th Sunday after Pentecost, Matt 22:1–14. The first Gospel pericope is also known as the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, and the second as the Parable of the Great Banquet. This choice is of course not by coincidence: both pericopes deal with predestination, grace and free will. Indeed, in their last verse (Matt 20:16 and Matt 22:14), both pericopes include the assertion “multi sunt vocati, pauci vero electi”. The analysis of the homiletic works, moreover, allows for a slide-focus on the missals and their different forms in the 16th century before the edition of the Roman Missal in 1570 under Pius V. As I shall show, for four authors (Sasbout, Jansenius, Stapleton and Lucas) there are, in effect, four missals involved, an interesting aspect that again underlines a relative multiplicity within Catholic Church, not only with regard to opinions, but also with regard to liturgical practice.

3.

Biblical Studies in Louvain and its alumni. Humanism, Confessional strife and War

In this section, I shall reconstruct briefly the history of biblical studies in Louvain from the establishment of the university (1425) to the de auxiliis controversy (1597–1607) within the complex geopolitical context in which theologians first prepared the ‘Golden Age’ and, after the beginning of the Council of Trent, continued to develop biblical studies. Politics and confessional strife played indeed a central role in this period in the Low Countries which are a unique case

28

Introduction

of study from many points of view: a region at the crossroads between France, Germany and England, one that changed the reigning dynasty, and where the seeds of Italian humanism (scil. Valla’s Annotationes) produced significant and unexpected fruits (scil. Erasmus’ work on the New Testament). After criticisms, the humanistic ad fontes approach was eventually accepted and elaborated in the traditional Catholic theological milieu of Louvain, which had a great impact on the history of Church, more than other places, having basically established the text of the Vulgate, as I shall show later. Moreover, confessional strife and wars devastated the Spanish Netherlands, and, in those battles, the difference of confessions challenged Catholics to improve their theological skills to counter Calvinism. At the same time, the country was split into two parts, a division comparable to the current border between Belgium and the Netherlands. A university was established in Louvain on 9 December 1425 through a bull issued by Pope Martin V, the result of the coordinated efforts of John IV, Duke of Brabant, the Collegiate Church of St. Peter and the magistrates of Louvain (Lamberts/Roegiers: 1990; Van Eijl: 1978, 30–35; Van der Essen: 1945). To grasp the importance of this institute, it should be recalled that the University of Louvain was the first university in the Burgundian Netherlands: prior to its founding, students generally went to Paris or to Cologne, or even further away, in order to have access to higher studies. The new University of Louvain offered diplomas in four faculties: the propaedeutic Arts faculty, and the higher faculties of Civil Law, Canon Law, and Medicine. The faculty of Theology was created by Pope Eugene IV only in 1432, seven years after the establishment of the university. Moreover, the university eventually also incorporated the studia theologica of the main religious orders, such as the Augustinian Hermits, the Dominicans, and the Franciscans in 144732 (followed later by the studia of other 32 “Le 4 juillet 1447, les maisons de ces trois ordres mendiants furent, à l’instar de ce qui existait à Paris, à Cologne et ailleurs, incorporées à l’université. Par la convention conclue ce jour entre le recteur et les supérieures de ces couvents, tous leurs religieux obtinrent, moyennant l’immatriculation d’usage, la jouissance des privileges des suppôts de l’université, mais, en revanche, chaque maison devait envoyer au moins un étudiant aux cours de théologie et contribuer modestement aux nécessites extraordinaires de l’Alma Mater. En 1461 les mêmes faveurs furent accordées à la maison des carmes, fondée récemment à Louvain”, De Jongh: 1910, 48–49. Cf. also Guelluy: 1941, 31–144. Concerning Louvain in particular, the first mention of the Franciscan Order is found in the year 1228, two years after the death of Francis of Assisi, when the Lovanienses built for themselves a convent, in 1231, next to that of the Dominicans. The Friars Minor then used this house for more than two hundred years, up to 1449. Reusens: 1882–1889, vol. 5, 228–229. Bert Roest’s works provide an especially invaluable resource for tracing the history of the Franciscan Order in the Low Countries (2014a; 2014b; 2005; 2000). Other publications also help to further clarify the history of the Franciscans in the Netherlands, such as the work of Johannes Antonius de Kok (2007, 96–112; 113–129). Benjamin de Troeyer has also written two monographs on the Franciscan Order in the Low Countries (1974; 1969–1970). Finally, some older publications such as Edmund Reusens’

Biblical Studies in Louvain and its alumni. Humanism, Confessional strife and War

29

orders, such that of the Carmelites in 1461), following the model of Paris, Cologne and other universities. Louvain theologians soon began conducting detailed work on the exegetical analysis of the Scriptures, and, among the most important contributions – which remained unpublished – were Heimericus de Campo’s Lectura super Apocalypsim, Jan Varenacker’s Lectura super Librum Sapientiae, Lectura super Epistolam ad Romanos, Lectura super Epistolam ad Hebreos, and Petrus de Rivo’s Monotessaron (Masolini: 2016), all from the second half of the 15th century. The beginning of the 16th century also saw the production of Adrian van Utrecht’s Expositiones in Proverbia Salomonis (Burie: 1977, 215– 272).33 Meanwhile, an important geopolitic change happened in the Low Countries: the Burgundian Netherlands came under Habsburg rule in 1477, following the marriage of Mary of Burgundy to Maximillian of Habsburg. Under the new dynasty, the study of Latin was greatly improved (IJsewijn: 2015, 31–34). In addition to Latin, between the end of the 15th century and the very beginning of the 16th, the study of the other biblical languages became significant. This happened especially in Louvain, where the Franciscan studium theologicum was the very first important centre of text-critical studies, under the guidance of Amandus van Zierikzee (1450–1524/34) who, in collaboration with his colleague Martinus van der Keele, ‘of Turnhout’ (1470–1540), reorganized the Franciscan study house in Louvain (cf. De Kok: 2007, 110; Sabbe: 1989; De Troeyer: 1965). Amandus was the first lector of the Sacred Scriptures, taking up his office in 1506. He had a deep knowledge of ancient languages, such as Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac and Aramaic: thanks to him the next generation of Franciscans had those academics skills needed later to counter Erasmus, the most influential humanist of Europe trans Alpes. It was precisely in Louvain that Erasmus undertook his text-critical work on the New Testament, after having found a copy of Valla’s Annotationes (1440–1450) in the Abbey of Park, near Louvain, in 1504. The following year, the Dutch humanist published Valla’s Annotationes in Paris. Then, in Basel, John Froben printed Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum (1516), the first Latin edition of the New Testament furnished with a facing Greek text, even though it was based on only a few manuscripts from the 12th to the 15th century (Metzeger & Ehrman: 2005, 143–145; Elliott: 2016, 19–22; cf. also De Jonge: 2016, Brown: 2016, Combs: 1996). Erasmus himself was all too conscious of the limits of work on the University of Louvain (1882–1889) and Dirk Servais’ book on Franciscans in the Low Countries (1885) remain important. Specifically on the studia theologica in Louvain, cf. Reusens: 1889–1892). On the Augustinian Hermits, cf. vol. 5, 266–344; on the Carmelites, cf. vol. 5, 345–378, on the Dominicans, cf. vol. 5, 183–227; on the Franciscans, cf. in particular vol. 5, 228–265. 33 These works are only preserved in manuscript form, even though Louvain took advantage of the printing press technology already in the early 1460s, cf. Arblaster: 2006, 104.

30

Introduction

his work: writing to Nicholas Ellenbog (April 1516), he confessed his edition “praecipitatum fuit verius quam editum” (Elliott: 2016, 13, n. 12; Allen: 1906– 1958, vol. 2, 402, 226). He repeated this expression writing to Willibald Pirckheimer (2 November 1517; De Michelis Pintacuda: 2001, 16, n. 5; Allen: 1906– 1958, vol. 3, 694), showing once again his awareness of the Novum Instrumentum’s limits. Furthermore, the codex of John’s Apocalypse at Erasmus’ disposal did not have the last page: instead of looking for another source, he preferred translating the six missing final verses (Rev 22:16–21) from the Latin Vulgate – which he did not appreciate – into Greek (Elliot: 2016, 15–16). Notwithstanding these problems, his work had a great success, being the only edition with the Greek text available at that time on the market,34 and it received four reprints, as Novum Testamentum in 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535, with the Annotationes attached and expanded with each new edition. Moreover, Erasmus’ New Testament was the basis for the Protestant vernacular translations: Martin Luther (1483–1546) used the 1519 edition for his German translation, while William Tyndale (1494–1536) used the 1522 edition for his English translation. Moreover, Erasmus’ publisher, Johann Froben also printed some of Luther’s treatises in 1518, and the Latin of their prefaces seems to have been revised by Erasmus himself: this was at least the idea of the Louvain theologians (M. Gielis: 2008, 198). These were of course additional reasons for the more traditional Catholic biblical scholars to be suspicious of Erasmus’ work (Asso: 2008; M. Gielis: 2008; 1994, 19– 32; 1994b; Rummel: 1989, vol. 1, 72–87). Moreover, he seemed to challenge some dogmatic issues, such as original sin in Rom 5:12 (Cummings: 2007 144–145; Coogan: 1992, 35) or the sacramental value of marriage in Eph 5:32 (Reynolds: 2016, 736–740; Pabel: 2002, 175–209; Telle: 1954, 266–271). In any case, Erasmus proved to be the most influential humanist in the Low Countries as is also shown by his great effort to execute the last will of Jerome de Busleyden (1470–1517)35 which provided for the foundation of the Collegium Trilingue in Louvain, in 1517 – thus in the same year that Luther posted his Theses – with grants to young and worthy scholars interested in studying the Bible in its original languages.36 This Collegium was to become the major centre in the Low Countries for the study of the three biblical languages – Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Then, its model was adopted by other universities cities. Even though, in 1508, a college of the three 34 Indeed, Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros’ New Testament was already finished in 1514, but the entire Biblia Polyglotta Complutensis was only released to the public in 1522. 35 The other executors were Adrian Josel, Nicolas van Nispen, Bartholomew van Vessem, Antony Sucket (De Vocht: 1951–1955, vol. 1, 49–62). On Erasmus’ stays in Louvain, cf. also Nauwelaerts: 1969. 36 “De relinquis omnibus bonis meis, tam mobilibus quam immobilibus, institui volo et stabiliri unum Collegium … Tres autem aliae Bursae pro tribus Praeceptoribus … profiteor … in tribus linguis, Latina, Graeca et Hebraica”, De Vocht: 1951–1955, vol. 1, 24; 27).

Biblical Studies in Louvain and its alumni. Humanism, Confessional strife and War

31

tongues had been established in Alcalà by Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros, its most important outcome being the publication of the Biblia Polyglotta Complutensis (Rummel: 1999), a new Trilingue was established there in 1528. Moreover, in Paris, Francis I established the Collège Royal in 1530 (De Vocht: 1951–1955, vol. 3, 78–81). As has been studied in detail, Erasmus’ humanistic perspective was not universally appreciated at the Louvain Faculty of Theology. In Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus (2008), edited by Erika Rummel, Marcel Gielis described the troublesome reaction of Jacques Masson or ‘Latomus’ (1475–1544), Johannes Driedo (1480–1535) and Erasmus’ opponents within the mendicant orders, such as the Carmelite Nicolaas Baechem ‘of Egmond’, the Dominican Vincentius Theoderici ‘of Haarlem’, and Eustachius ‘of Zichem’. In the same volume, Cecilia Asso (2008) analyzed Edward Lee’s (Coogan: 1992) and Maarten van Dorp’s opposition to Erasmus’ critical remarks on the Vulgate. Paolo Sartori dealt with the most famous Franciscan opponent of Erasmus, viz. Frans Titelmans, who debated with the Dutch humanist throughout the years 1527–1530 (Sartori: 2008), and with whom I shall deal briefly in order to introduce his pupil, Zegers. In particular, Latomus’ and Driedo’s opposition had to do with Erasmus’ criticism of scholastic theology and its auxiliary sciences, Aristotelian philosophy and logic, and his plea for a theology based upon the Scriptures and the study of the original languages and rhetoric, a position he had defended in his Methodus (1516) and even more elaborately in his Ratio vere theologiae (1518), amongst other works. Latomus countered Erasmus’ views in his Dialogus de tribus linguis et ratione theologiae (1519), arguing that the Bible had to be read in the light of the scholastic authors, and that for this the Latin Vulgate sufficed (François: 2005, 13–47).37 In 1519, however, the Louvain theologians realized that Erasmus actually did not write the prefaces to Luther’s treatises. The Dutch humanist was again accepted among them, and the Collegium Trilingue was formally accepted by Louvain University in the very same year. However, a letter from Erasmus to Luther dated 30 May 1519 again put a huge distance between Erasmus and the Louvain theologians (M. Gielis: 2008, 203). In the meantime, as inquisitor, Latomus harshly attacked Luther’s ideas, and he also continued to criticize Erasmus and his Spongia adversus aspergines Hutteni (1523) where a number of Luther’s propositions were quoted which, according to the humanist, were not related to matters of faith, a position, of course, opposed by Latomus (M. Gielis: 2008, 206). Moreover, Latomus attacked William Tyandale, who had translated the New Testament into English based on 1522 Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum, mainly because of Tyndale’s ‘heretical’ 37 Actually, Latomus’ work was against Petrus Mosellanus’ De variorum linguarum cognitio paranda oratio, which in any case was strongly influenced by Erasmus’ perspective.

32

Introduction

views on saints, purgatory, and the mass (M. Gielis: 2008, 207). Furthermore, in his De gratia et libero arbitrio, published posthumously in 1537, Driedo criticized Erasmus’ optimistic Christian philosophy, even going so far as to call it ‘Pelagian’. In effect, Driedo’s work shows various strands of the anti-Pelagian Augustinian thought (M. Gielis: 1994, 19–20) which would come to characterize Louvain’s theology for decades and even centuries to come, as I shall show later in this work. On the other hand, Driedo seems also to have internalized a humanistic approach to the Scriptures, showing in his De ecclesiasticis Scripturis et dogmatibus (1533) an openness to the use of Greek and Hebrew sources in order to have a better understanding of the Latin Vulgate, thus entering into the dynamics represented by the Collegium Trilingue. Meanwhile the political situation of the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands became very difficult (Pollmann: 2011; González de León/Parker: 1999; Goosens: 1997; Parker: 1990; Duke: 1990). The government wanted to keep Catholicism as the sole confession of the region, also with a view to maintaining a political union, whereas Reformation ideas were gaining increasing support. The initial reformers in the Low Countries had a radical belief in the Gospel as the sole basis for the faith and daily life of believers. They sought for spiritual support in vernacular Bible reading, a practice that had been well developed in the towns and religious communities in the Low Countries since the end of the Middle Ages. This Bible-based spirituality owes a lot to the Devotio moderna, was reinforced by Erasmus, and had never been seen as problematic by the religious authorities (François: 2006). Radical ‘evangelism’ became an important feature of the early Reformation in the Low Countries, and vernacular Bible reading in semi-clandestine ‘conventicles’ became a powerful means to disseminate ‘heretical’ ideas, also from abroad. Indeed, the Netherlands were a crossroads of international trade between France, the Holy Roman Empire, England and Scandinavia, all regions where Protestant teachings were present, and which activated the seeds of revolt in the Low Countries. Book production had a crucial role in this process: the many printing presses in the Netherlands saw the opportunity for profit: “the shrewd printers of Antwerp quickly grasped Luther’s commercial potential” (Duke: 1990, 16). Moreover, the Antwerp monastery of the Augustinian Hermits became a centre of Lutheranism: Luther’s works were translated into Dutch and printed from 1517 onwards, perhaps even being translated by the Hermits themselves. Reformation ideas found many disciples owing to the fact that “Luther’s theology penetrated the Netherlands in the wake of Christian humanism and contemporaries, therefore, felt the 1520s to be a time of momentous change. It was as though an abyss had opened up, cutting them off from their theological roots” (Duke: 1990, 27). During the 1520s, another ‘heretical’ movement took place in the Netherlands – the so-called ‘Sacramentism’ – which mocked the Eucharist and priests (Duke: 1990, 16–20). This movement, which

Biblical Studies in Louvain and its alumni. Humanism, Confessional strife and War

33

moved from “a late medieval Sacramentarism to a loosely associative Sacramentism until about 1530, gave way to Sacramentist Anabaptism” (Williams: 1997, 97), first introduced in the 1530’s by Melchior Hofmann (Estep: 1996, 152; Waite: 1987). Anabaptism lasted “to about 1568, to be marginalized by the ascendancy of Calvinism thereafter. The endemic Sacramentism of the Netherlands may indeed go far to explain why the Dutch were unable to accept the Reformation in its Lutheran form and eventually threw in their lot with Calvinism” (Williams: 1997, 97). The Louvain Faculty of Theology quickly developed into a guardian of Catholic orthodoxy and was soon contending for primacy with neighbouring centres of religious studies, such as the universities of Cologne and Paris. In this regard, I may refer to the Louvain theologian Ruard Tapper (1487–1559), who criticized the doctrine of justification espoused by the Cologne theologian Johann Gropper in the Enchiridion Christianae Institutionis (1538), a dispute that ended only in 1545 and to which I shall pay attention in the second part of this work. Tapper’s approach to theology was fully integrated with the scholastic tradition, as was that of Latomus and Driedo. However, to answer the nascent Protestant movement, with its cry of sola Scriptura, and in the wake of the aforementioned current of biblical humanism, Louvain scholars started to develop a more Bible-based theology, even if scholastic theology remained important. During this period, many commentaries on the Scriptures were published in which the Word of God was explained in the light of the tradition of the Church, with extensive reference to the Church fathers and most especially to Augustine. This development was later ‘consecrated’ at the Council of Trent, during its Fifth Session where its second decree favoured the foundation of institutes of biblical studies, aimed at educating the clergy. The intention was clearly to prepare clerics to preach and to explain the Bible in a sound way, but it also provided a powerful means for Catholic rulers to restrain the advance of Protestantism. In fact, Charles V organized a repression of the Reformation movement not only through a state inquisition, in which many Louvain theologians participated, for instance by interrogating ‘suspect’ people, and punish the obstinate ‘heretics’, but he also established two royal chairs at the University of Louvain, one on the Scriptures – that became the most important – and the other on scholastic theology. Their lectures were to be given every day, by contrast with the other courses which were generally taught six weeks a year (François: 2012, 235–236). The first to hold the royal chair of Sacred Scriptures was John Leonard van der Eycken or Hasselius, who had studied at the Collegium Trilingue, achieving a sound knowledge of the biblical languages. After a few years, in 1551, Hasselius left his office ad interim to Michel de Bay, disciple of Driedo, when he had to attend the Council of Trent, together with Tapper and the professor of theology, Josse Ravesteyn ‘of Tielt’, also called Tiletanus (1506–

34

Introduction

1570). After Hasselius’ death in Trent in 1552, Baius occupied that chair as a titular for about 37 years. Nevertheless, he did not leave any printed biblical commentaries to posterity, although his courses were eagerly followed by Louvain students. Baius’ far-reaching anti-Pelagian Augustinianism was not exempt from criticism, however. Tapper himself was the first to criticize it. He was followed by Ravesteyn whose opposition to Baius was behind the censure of Salamanca (1565), Alcalá (1567), and the papal condemnations from Pius V (1567) and Gregory XIII (1580) (François: 2012, 248; Vanneste: 1994, 123–166; de Lubac: 1965, 15–48; Van Eijl: 1953, 727–728). In this period, and again following the will of the Council to have an emended edition of the Vulgate, Henten produced the Vulgata Lovaniensis (1547), mainly based on Robert Estienne’s 1540 Vulgate, although the Louvain censors had listed this Vulgate edition in the Index librorum prohibitorum (1546) (Delville: 2008, 78; François: 2012, 238). Like his father and in continuity with his politics, “Philip II [was] convinced that religious uniformity was crucial for the well-being of their Netherlandish realms” (Janssen: 2014, 20). Philip II imposed rigid laws against heresy. Moreover, in 1559, Paul IV issued the bull Super Universas in which the dioceses of the Netherlands were reorganized and their numbers increased: from six bishoprics – four suffragan of the archbishopric of Reims (Arras, Cambrai, Thérouanne, Tournai) and two part of the archbishopric of Cologne (Liège, Utrecht) –, to fifteen dioceses, as suffragan bishoprics of three main archbishoprics, Cambrai,38 Malines and Utrecht (cf. Cools: 2012, 46–62; Dierickx: 1967). Two inquisitors were appointed in each diocese, increasing Catholic control over the region. Philip II even received permission to choose the bishops personally among whom was Cornelius Jansenius. In 1559, a university was established in Douai, very close to the border with France so that the French-speaking scholars of the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands could study in their homeland, without needing to move to Paris or Rouen, where the strong presence of Huguenots might potentially ‘infect’ them.39 Both events, the reorganization of bishoprics and the foundation of the University of Douai, can be seen as attempts to re-Catholicize the Low Countries and to strengthen the power of the Spanish Crown.40

38 On the archbishopric of Cambrai, cf. Soen: 2015, 2–13. Moreover, specifically on the printing press, see Soen/Soetaert/Verberckmoes: 2015, 62–81; Soetaert: 2016, 137–163. 39 For instance, “[i]n 1559 Antoine Havetius, the first Bishop of Namur, warned of the danger of the widespread habit of sending sons to France for a university education. In France, these students easily came into contact with rapidly spreading Calvinism”, Soen: 2010, 45. 40 Such measures could be reasonably interpreted in the light of the Sozialdisziplinierung, being a way to strength the control of the region through religion. On Sozialdisziplinierung, cf. Bianchin: 2005; Ceredi/Ceredi: 1994, 299–311; Prosperi: 1994, 3–48; Schulze: 1992, 371–411; Oestreich: 1968, 329–347.

Biblical Studies in Louvain and its alumni. Humanism, Confessional strife and War

35

Many in the rich cities of the Netherlands did not appreciate this newly established ecclesiastical order. Moreover, the implementation of the Council’s decrees was experienced as “a threat to their jurisdictional autonomy and to their commercial relations, which involved many foreign Protestants. The high nobility was indignant, as the plan had been developed in complete secrecy” (Van Gelderen: 1993, 33). In response, Calvinists asked for greater freedom of conscience. Several nobles supported this call for increased tolerance towards other confessions, but this moderation was continually denied by the central power which was intent on persecuting any kind of ‘heresy’. Political and religious conditions prepared the way for a revolt against the Spanish Crown. In 1559, Margaret of Parma was appointed by her half-brother Philip II as Governor of the Netherlands. However, in the Council of States, the most important voice was that of Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, sent to the Netherlands in that year by Philip II and appointed Archbishop of Malines in 1561. Granvelle applied a policy of repression against any and all ‘heretics’. Moreover, Philip II appointed William of Orange (1533–1584) Stadtholder of Holland.41 A member of the nobility, William soon countered Granvelle’s power in the Council of States, eventually asking for his removal in 1563, something which was granted the following year. In 1564, speaking before the Council of States, William publicly rejected the politics of repression towards ‘heretics’ (Van Gelderen: 1993, 34–37). Following this, certain noblemen petitioned Margaret of Parma for greater religious freedom, which seemed to have been granted. By 1566, Calvinists started to preach openly, and began to speak out against the ‘holy’ images, which they considered to be a manifestation of idolatry (Soen: 2015, 5; Janssen: 2014, 23; Deyon/Lottin: 2013; Duke: 2009, 178–98; Van Gelderen: 1993, 68; Crew: 1978). This brought about the iconoclastic fury, known as the Beeldenstorm, in the same year; it troubled the Low Countries starting from Steenvoorde in the south, moving towards the north, destroying many pieces of (religious) art. To answer the Calvinist fury (Soen: 2016, 99–120), Madrid sent Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba, to the Netherlands in 1567 to put down the Calvinist uprising in the region. Many Protestants from the Low Countries left their cities, finding refuge in England and the Holy Roman Empire. They included William of Orange who had supported the Protestant cause and would continue to defend the political and religious ‘freedom’ of the Low Countries. This was an early symptom of the Dutch Revolt, and prelude to the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648). The Duke of Alba was able to restore order to large parts of the Low Countries, and he also imposed new taxes. His authoritarian methods lacked for sympathizers, even among Catholics, above all after his sack of Malines in 1572: “[t]he Leuven Faculty of Theology even 41 “Traditionally the Stadtholder, a post normally occupied by a high noble, had been the principal representative of central government at the provincial level”, Van Gelderen: 1993, 21.

36

Introduction

secretly asked Philip II for the removal of Alba from the Brussels Government” (Soen: 2010, 52–53). With help from England and France, William of Orange was able to mobilize an army to attack the Spaniards. He invaded the Netherlands from the south and the east. To counter Orange’s attack, the Duke of Alba had to leave the north of the region which was now without a strong army. The Sea Beggars were able to capture Brielle on 1 April 1572, and Holland (and Zeeland) sided with William of Orange, proclaiming him as their Stadtholder (Van Gelderen: 1993, 43). Philip II therefore considered the Duke of Alba unable to solve the problem and had him replaced by Don Luis de Requesens in 1573. The new Governor-General tried to find a diplomatic solution, in part because the war with the Ottomans had depleted Spain economically. In 1575, peace talks with the rebelling provinces of Holland and Zeeland were initiated at Breda. However, the Spanish rejected the rebels’ request for religious freedom and refused to grant more autonomy to the States General. The peace negotiations failed and the revolt continued. In the same year, Philip II proclaimed that Spain was bankrupt. Hence, Don Luis would receive no further money from his homeland. As a consequence, after the conquest of Zierikzee, Spanish troops mutinied and sacked Antwerp (4 November 1576). A year later, the Governor-General died, and his power was assumed by the States General. The need for peace brought about the Pacification of Ghent, on 8 November 1576, later confirmed by the new General-Governor Don Juan of Austria in an attempt to reconcile the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands with the rebellious Holland and Zeeland. “[E]ven the Leuven Faculty of Theology approved of the Pacification of Ghent, ‘in order to prevent major evil’. In one sense this was true, as the Pacification of Ghent ended the religious persecution and thus would allow Catholicism to restart in rebel territory” (Soen: 2010, 55). Meanwhile, in 1576– 1577, the anti-Spanish faction was able to take control of the University town of Douai. The revolt spread further, and, in 1577, Ghent became a rebellious Calvinist Republic, followed by Bruges, Ypres and Antwerp. Furthermore, William of Orange’s mercenary army entered Louvain on 2 February 1578, and the University had to interrupt its academic activity (Israel: 1995, 194; De Schrevel: 1893, 553). It was on that occasion that Lucas had to leave the city. Without any possibility of returning to his native Bruges, which had become a Calvinist Republic, he finally reached St. Omer in 1581. Other young scholars also left Louvain, such as Willem Estius who started teaching at the new University of Douai in 1582. In 1578 Don Juan died and Alexander Farnese, a valuable diplomat and powerful ruler, took his place (Soen: 2012, 1–12). He supported the Union of Arras (1579) between Artois and Hainaut which declared their loyalty to Spain. The rebels answered with the institution of the Union of Utrecht (1579), ruled by William of Orange as Stadtholder (Van Gelderen: 1993, 229). In his war against

Biblical Studies in Louvain and its alumni. Humanism, Confessional strife and War

37

Spain, Orange also received military support from France with the arrival of Francis, Duke of Anjou. The Duke was elected as ruler by the States General who nevertheless retained “the right to renounce him in case of disloyalty. The logical consequence of the treaty with Anjou followed on 26 July 1581: with the Act of Abjuration the States General formally renounced Philip II” (Soen: 2010, 55). However, Overijssel, Utrecht and Guelders distanced themselves from the election of the Duke of Anjou, considering only William to be their ruler. In response, Anjou attacked Antwerp in 1583, but his army was completely defeated. Although he survived the battle, he died a year later. Orange was convinced of the need for Anjou’s help, but his pro-French policy had no lasting results. Eventually, Orange was murdered in 1584, and the Dutch provinces showed the fragility of their union. Farnese was in effect able to restore Flanders and Brabant to the Spanish Crown between 1582 and 1585. In this, he was helped both by the inner division within the Union of Utrecht and the money that had again started to flow from Spain which had recently made peace with the Ottomans. Philip II also prepared his Armada Invencible to fight against England, which supported the Dutch rebels. Indeed, in 1585, together with army and money, Queen Elizabeth I sent the Earl of Leicester, Robert Dudley, to become GovernorGeneral of the Dutch Provinces in place of the dead William, but he substantially failed in this mission. In 1588, he left the continent, and Maurice of Orange, William’s son, became the new Stadtholder and further reorganized the Dutch army. Moreover, in the same year, in an irony of fate, the Armada Invencible was defeated and, almost at the same time, the King of France, Henry III was killed. Farnese had to leave the Netherlands to help Catholics against the new Protestant King, Henry IV of Navarre. Without Farnese, who died in 1592, Maurice could continue his policies, ruling the Dutch Republic until his death in 1625. The Spaniards were eventually unable to pursue their Reconquista, but at least they maintained their power in the southern part of the Netherlands (which is today mostly Belgium), the geographical area with which I shall deal in this work. During the course of the religious wars, many Protestants and many rebels, had to leave their homeland to seek refuge in other cities or countries, but the same happened to many Catholics, including several Louvain scholars, who found a place in the archbishopric of Cambrai. This was firmly under Spanish control and included many important centres, such as Arras, Namur, St. Omer and Tournai, all of them suffagran dioceses. It also included the university city of Douai. This new institute, renowned for its theological studies, also attracted English Catholic exiles who had to leave their country after the Act of Supremacy and its attached oath (1558). Among them, Thomas Stapleton arrived in 1569, while another exile, William Allen, founded an English College in Douai.42 42 The arrival of Englishmen also provided an impulse to important scholarly projects, such as

38

Introduction

Louvain and Douai were also important centres for Jesuit-minded theology, notwithstanding the strong opposition from the anti-Pelagian Augustinianism of the established professorial corpus of both universities. For instance, the Jesuit Leonard Lessius taught philosophy at the Douai Jesuit College between 1575 and 1582, and, in the same years, Thomas Stapleton was strongly influenced by his scholarship. Later, Lessius taught at the Jesuit College in Louvain, together with his colleague Johannes Hamelius, criticizing the theology of Baius whose doctrine was condemned on several occasions (Roegiers: 2012, 156–161; François: 2012, 248; Vanneste: 1994, 123–166; de Lubac: 1965, 15–48; Van Eijl: 1953, 727– 728). Both the Douai Faculty of Theology and that of Louvain censured Lessius’ Theses theologicae (1586).43 For his part, Stapleton was ostracized from his Faculty in Douai because of his defence of Lessius’ view which was considered ‘semiPelagian’. On the other hand, the Spanish Crown overtly sympathized with Jesuit Molinist theology. Two facts may confirm this. Chronologically, Philip II first appointed Stapleton, a Molinist scholar, as a professor of Sacred Scriptures in Louvain because of his loyalty to the Crown, replacing the anti-Pelagian Baius in 1590; in some ways, that was a political choice. Secondly, in the context of the later de auxiliis controversy, Philip II would influence Pope Clement VIII not to censure Molina’s Concordia (Matava: 2016, 32). In these debates, Augustine was considered as the touchstone of orthodoxy, but he was a somewhat malleable touchstone since he was quoted in support of a variety of conclusions by antiPelagian Augustinians such as Hessels and Baius, Augustino-Thomists like Tapper, Humanist Augustinians like Jansenius, and Jesuits such as Stapleton – although he never completed his noviciate –, as I shall show in this work. This introduction has shown how important the difference of confessions was in politics: the rebelling provinces of the Netherlands fought for their own freedom to profess Calvinism, while Philip II tried to maintain Catholicism in his dominions by means of military force, with citizens sympathizing with one of both sides. In this confrontation, books played a strategic role in spreading new ideas. Not by coincidence, the reading of the Bible in the vernacular was felt by some Catholics to be a way to disseminate ‘heretical’ teachings, thinking for instance of the Dutch translations of Luther’s Bible. To fight the diffusion of ‘heretical’ ideas the edition of the Douai-Rheims translation: the New Testament was issued in 1582 in Rheims, while in 1609 the Old Testament was published in Douai. Norton: 2016, on 322–325. 43 On that occasion, an important place was taken by the renowned Augustinian-minded scholar Willem Estius (1542–1613), professor of Theology in Douai beginning in 1582 and promoter of the Douai censure of Lessius’ Theses Theologicae. Although he wrote important commentaries on the Apostolic Epistles, I did not include him in my selection: I have decided to limit my study to the works published in the second half of the 16th century – the only exception being the work of Lucas, in order to give the most complete overview on this scholar –, while Estius’ works were published posthumously, so after 1613. On Estius, cf. François: 2012, 262–271. See also Osculati: 2013, 529–540.

Biblical Studies in Louvain and its alumni. Humanism, Confessional strife and War

39

through ‘unfaithful’ Bibles, the Catholic Church had therefore to indicate which Bible was reliable. The official answer was ‘the Vulgate’, a very emended one. Therefore, after this historical introduction, in which attention has been paid also to the impact of humanism in the Low Countries, and its (critical) reception among the Louvain theologians, we can now move to the fruits yielded from the first generation of text-critical scholars in Louvain in the ‘Golden Age’: John Henten, Nicholas Tacitus Zegers and Francis Lucas of Bruges, whose common starting point is the Insuper decree, actually inspired by the Louvain scholar John Driedo.

1.

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

When John Driedo published his De ecclesiasticis Scripturis et dogmatibus in 1533 in Louvain, he intended to counter Luther’s sola Scriptura principle (François: 2006, 31–60). However, he could not imagine that his work would eventually influence the Council of Trent so strongly. More specifically, as suggested by Draguet (1946), Emmi (1949), and by François and Gerace (2018), the Tractatus 65, a summary written by the Franciscan friar and minor theologian of the Council Battista Castiglione, included in the Acts of the Council of Trent, and dated 8 or 9 March 1546, borrowed heavily from Driedo’s book. Both the Tractatus 65 and the De ecclesiasticis Scripturis state the importance of the ‘original’ Hebrew version and the Greek Septuagint, while declaring the Vulgate the faithful source for the establishment of doctrinal matters, although liable to clear scribal mistakes. The text of the Vulgate needed a careful revision, but not a new translation, a clear criticism of the ‘new’ Latin translations, viz., those of Erasmus and Pagnini. Moreover, the titulus crucis clearly indicated the three Biblical languages, Hebrew Greek and Latin: an evident proof for those scholars that vernacular translations had to be avoided. In sum, 85 % of Tractatus 65 is taken directly from Driedo (François/Gerace: 2018, 133–135). Furthermore, the Superior General of the Augustinian Hermits, Girolamo Seripando, wrote a few notes, entitled De Libris Sancris, which were really taken from Driedo’s book and which he very probably expounded before the Council fathers in order to defend his thesis of a threefold Bible, in Hebrew, Greek and Latin (Jedin: 1937, vol. 1, 326–326, François/Gerace: 2018, 136–137). Eventually, the Council fathers opted for Pedro Pacheco Ladrón de Guevara’s position and limited themselves to proclaiming the Latin Vulgate as the authentic version for the Church, as expressly stated in the decree Insuper: Moreover, the same holy Council … decides and declares that the old well-known Latin Vulgate edition which has been tested in the Church by long use over so many centuries should be kept as the authentic text in public readings, debates, sermons and explanations; and no one is to dare or presume on any pretext to reject it …

42

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

[Hence] the Council decrees and determines that thereafter the sacred Scriptures, particularly this ancient Vulgate edition, shall be printed after a thorough revision.1

The Vulgate was therefore considered the only juridically ‘authentic’, or, to use another word, ‘official’, Bible edition to be used as reference text about all matters of faith and doctrine, and this juridical status was based on the multi-century tradition within the Western Latin Church (Gerace: 2020a, Rongy: 1928/1929, 27; Vosté: 1946, 312; Muñoz Iglesias: 1946, 143–144; Bellarmine in Le Bachelet: 1911a, 112–113). On the other hand, critically speaking, the Vulgate was handing down many scribal errors, precisely owing to its long tradition, but (almost) nowhere affecting the sound doctrine of faith. A “thorough revision” was therefore required, with the aim of making the Vulgate ‘authentic’ also from a text-critical point of view: the future Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (Gerace: 2020a). Soon after the issuing of the Insuper decree,2 the Faculty of Theology in Louvain appointed John Henten (1499–1566: Aubert: 1990; Reusens: 1886–1887) to revise the text of the Vulgate. First serving as a Hieronymite monk in Portugal, he came back to Louvain around 1540 where, thanks to his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, he was able to edit two Latin translations of Greek commentaries on the Gospels: the first of Oecumenius (10th century?), in 1543, and the second of Euthymius Zigabenus (12th century), in 1544. Possibly owing to these works, the Faculty chose him for the emendation of the Vulgate, under the supervision of the theologians Ruard Tapper and Peter de Corte (Curtius). Eventually, in November of 1547, Bartholomew van Grave published Henten’s Vulgate with the title Biblia ad vetustissima exemplaria recens castigata. In his work, Henten showed his appreciation for the Parisian scholar Robert Estienne and his emended editions of the Vulgate, in particular that of 1540.3 In his prefatory 1 Tanner/Alberigo: 1990, 664–665. Here the Latin text: “Insuper eadem sacrosancta Synodus … statuit et declarat, ut haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur, et quod [=ut] nemo illam reiicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat … decernit et statuit, ut posthac sacra scriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam emendatissime imprimatur”, CT 5, 91, 1–35–92, 1–3 and 92 1– 17. 2 For the history of the revision of the Vulgate and the contribution of the Lovanienses, Höpfl (1913) and Quentin (1922) are still indispensable. The debates about the Vulgate at the Council naturally received additional attention on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the opening of the Council of Trent, in general, and of the promulgation of the Vulgate decree, in particular. Apart from the treatment of the topic in Jedin’s work (Jedin: 1957–1961, 2.52–98), many scholars are to be mentioned: Arthur Allgeier (1940; 1948; 1951), Beniamino Emmi (1957), Salvador Muñoz Iglesias (1946), Jacques Marie Vosté (1946; 1947); Sutcliffe (1948). More recent contributions have been written by Antonio Garcia-Moreno (1987), and Jared Wicks (2008). 3 Most probably, he used the 1540 Estienne edition: a comparison between the editions of the Parisian published in 1528, 1532, and 1540, on the one hand, and Henten’s Vulgata Lovaniensis, on the other, shows that the Louvain theologian used the last edition. Moreover, the appendix

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

43

epistle, Henten explicitly lauded Estienne’s work, but he also condemned those who had induced the Parisian to include erroneous readings in the margins, in the prefaces and in the index of the sentences (index sententiarum).4 Henten further compared the text with twenty-six Latin sources, from the 9th to the 13th centuries, plus one incunabulum, but he avoided using Greek and Hebrew sources.5 This approach totally differed from that used by Estienne since the Parisian referred both to Hebrew and Greek texts, maintaining that the most faithful readings of the Bible had been handed down by Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament and by Greek copies of the New Testament. In effect, according to Estienne, the Latin translation should be emended on the basis of the ‘original’ texts (Quentin: 1922, 108–110). Estienne’s Bible editions, however, were listed among the prohibited books by the Louvain Faculty of Theology (François: 2012, 238). Given Estienne’s experience, Henten may have preferred to avoid any reference to Hebrew or Greek, even though his edition was indirectly based upon Hebrew and Greek sources through his reliance on Estienne’s editions. Henten’s Vulgate was also appreciated in the Roman curia: in particular, in 1561, writing to his colleague Marco Antonio da Mula, called ‘Amulio’, Seripando admitted: “I really appreciated [the edition] of Louvain, which is the one that I was more familiar with”. The quality of this Louvain edition was due precisely to its minimalism: “it simply contains the emended edition of the Vulgate, with about twenty ancient manuscripts, and it puts in the margin some variety of readings, with the number of the ancient books which agree with that reading.”6 After “Hebraea, Chaldaea, Graeca et Latina nomina” is directly borrowed from that of the 1540 edition, even on the level of the typefaces used. Cf. also Delville: 2008, 78. 4 “Nemo est enim qui nesciat, ut unum pro multius in medium adferam, quantam diligentiam, quantasque impensas tulerit Robertus Stephanus, regius apud Lutetiam typographus (quem honoris causa nomino) ut accuratissima et castigatissima nobis Biblia traderet: propter quod plurimum etiam illi debent quotquot sacrarum literarum lectioni sunt addicti: quem ob id etiam in multis sequuti sumus. Et tamen candido huius pectori imposuerunt hi pseudochristiani, et sub ovina pelle latentes lupi rapaces: maxime in margine annotationibus, praefationibus, ac indice sententiarum”, Biblia sacra: 1547, ijv. 5 “Summo studio curavimus, ex iussu, instructione ac iudicio gravissimorum, longeque eruditissimorum et acerrimi iudicii Theologorum huius academiae Lovaniensis, ut comparatis undique, non solum quae castigatius excusa erant exemplaribus, verum alijs quoque plus minus viginti: quorum recentissimum ante ducentos annos manu scriptum erat, alia ante trecentos, quadrigentos, imo et sexcentos vel plures etiam annos: ex horum collatione restituiremus, quoad fieri posset, veterem ac vulgatam editionem synceritati suae atque puritati: non miscentes nos interim quaestioni, num Graecis et Hebraeis ubique respondeat”, Biblia sacra: 1547, ijv. For the full list of the sources, see Gerace: 2020a. 6 “Non lasserò di dire, che tra l’altre Impressioni si potrebbe haver qualche aiuto: à me assai soddisfà la Lovaniense la quale è quella che io ho più familiarmente usata. Contiene semplicemente l’Edittione vulgata corretta con circa XX Esemplari Antichi, et mette in margine qualche Varietà di lettioni col numero de libri antichi che convengono in quella lettione”. Seripando to Amulio, Trent, 25 June 1561. See Höpfl: 1913, 307–308. Italics are mine.

44

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

Henten, the first important text-critical work was that of Nicholas Tacitus Zegers, who worked specifically on the New Testament. The following section will turn to this author and his ‘meeting-clash’ with Erasmus’ philological approach to the Scriptures.

1.1

Nicholas Tacitus Zegers and his Text-Criticism of the New Testament

As said in the introduction, the Franciscan studium theologicum in Louvain was the very first center for the study of Biblical languages in the Low Countries. After Amandus, who brought to Louvain his deep knowledge of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac and Aramaic, Martinus occupied the lectureship of the Sacred Scriptures in 1510. He was eventually replaced in 1518 by the not easily identified figure of Everardus Baverinus who was later succeeded by possibly the most famous Franciscan ever to have worked in the Louvain house of study, Frans Titelmans, who started his teaching activity in 1525. His most important work was the Collationes quinque super Epistolam ad Romanos (1529), aimed at defending the Latin Vulgate from the ‘attacks’ of those influential humanists who had criticized the translation, such as Lorenzo Valla, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples and, of course, Erasmus (De Troeyer: 1969–1970, vol. 1, 87; in addition to Sartori: 2008; 2005 and 2003, see also Lines: 2008). After Titelmans, left for Italy to become the first Capuchin from the Low Countries, the office was offered to Nicholas Tacitus Zegers, from 1536 to 1548. Thereafter, Zegers left Louvain and went wandering through several convents in the Low Countries, being appointed as vicar or guardian in Tienen (1550–1551), Diest (1553–1554), Amsterdam (1555–1556), and Boetendaal (1557), finally returning to Louvain where he died on 25 August 1559 (De Troeyer: 1969–1970, vol. 1, 192). Hailing from Brussels,7 Zegers was a prolific writer: apart from translations of catechetical works from French and Latin to Dutch,8 and translations from French and Dutch to Latin,9 he published text-critical studies of the New Tes7 We can clearly deduce this from the title of a work of him: Proverbia Teutonica latinitate donata, collectore et interprete T. Nicolao Zegero Bruxellano, accuratius iam recognita, printed in Antwerp, in 1553. 8 We should mention Zegers’ Dutch translation of the German Jesuit Petrus Canisius’ Summa doctrinae christianae (1554). Zegers’ Dutch translation is Catechismus, dat is die somme des heylighen Christen gheloofs ([1557]). Moreover, Nicole Grenier’s La bouclier de la foy (1548) is translated as Den bueckelere des gheloofs ([1551]). Zegers also translated Pierre Doré OP, Collège de Sapience (1539) from French to Dutch as: Die Collegie der Wijsheyt (1556). 9 For instance, Zegers’ Latin translations of French and German proverbs, such as: Proverbia Teutonica Latinitate donata (Zegers: 1553b) and Proverbia Gallicae, una cum interpretatione tum Teutonica, tum Latina. Communs proverbes en francois, translatez en flameng, et en latin

Nicholas Tacitus Zegers and his Text-Criticism of the New Testament

45

tament, such as the Scholion in omnes Novi Testamenti libros (1553), the Epanorthotes sive Castigationes in Novum Testamentum (1555), both printed in Cologne at Birckmann’s printing house, and the Inventarium in Testamentum Novum, vulgo Concordantias vocant (1557). Finally, in the year of his death, he also published an emended edition of the New Testament, dedicated to Pope Paul IV, printed in octavo by Stephanus Valerius (Louvain, 1559) (cf. Gerace: 2020b). In this section, I will deal with Zegers’ textual criticism of the New Testament through an analysis of his Scholion (1553), the Epanorthotes (1555), and his edition of the New Testament (1559), paying particular attention to the prefatory epistles and the introductions. Knowledge of the ancient languages was a key principle in Zegers’ text-critical approach. He used the original Greek and Hebrew texts to emend the Latin text, and he explained, in the preface of his Scholion,10 that whoever wants to comprehend correctly the Apostles’ writings, viz. the New Testament, must know the language in which those texts were written, i. e. Greek, the tropoi or figures of speech of this tongue, as well as the cultural context of which it was part. Moreover, Zegers held that one should know the external influences to which that language was subject, such as Syriac or Hebrew. These influenced the Greek texts owing to the Hellenistic context in which they were written. In a kind of hyperbole, Zegers even maintains that who is Tullianae eloquientiae instructior, namely who has a deep knowledge of Latin, cannot comprehend the Scriptures as long as he ignores the use of that language in its context.11 (Zegers: 1554). As is reasonably arguable from the French title of the latter work, the Latin word for ‘Dutch’ is ‘Teutonicus’. 10 “Grecorum vero editionem, ubi a veterum theologorum enarrationem lectioneve, et simul a vulgata nostra versione discrepare cernebamus, aliquot quidem locis restituimus”, Zegers: 1553, A5. 11 Zegers provides an example to clarify his thought, although he refers to the Latin translation of the New Testament since this was the version to which the reader was more accustomed “Quisque recte intelligere et interpretari scripta apostolorum … desiderat: eum necesse est, non ignorare peculiares quosdam arcanum literarum tropos ac loquendi consuetudines. Nam, ut exempli causa, primum de vulgata nostra et ecclesiae usitata novi instrumenti versione loquamur: quo pacto hanc intelligeret qui veterem illum loquendi modum, quo tum vulgus utebatur, et quo ipsa versio pro omnium captu, proque faciliori ipsius intellectu, ac publica totius vulgi utilitate conscripta est? Siquidem nostra hac aetate diversus plane est, et dubio procul castigatior, delicatior, et latinior loquendi usus est: ita, ut si hunc cum veteris illius popoli loquendi conferas … hic ab illo discrepare videatur. Quo etiam sit, ut quo quisque latinior ac Tullianae eloquentiae instuctior est, hoc fere minus in arcanis literis vulgatam hanc legens editionem adsequatur atque intellegat … nam ut graecam linguam, qua omnes pene ab ipsis autoribus descripti sunt novi instrumenti libri, recte calleas, eiusque peculiares dicendi formae optime teneas, nisi etiam aliarum quorundam linguarum, veluti Hebraicae, Chaldaicae et Syriacae proprietates, imo barbarismo: denique, nisi et peculiares nonullarum sive latinarum sive graecarum vocum apud emendate loquentes minime aut secus usitarum significantias non ignores, non erit sane unde synceram tibi possis divinorum eloquiorum polliceri intelligentiam”, Zegers: 1553, 2r–3r.

46

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

In the same year as the Scholion, Zegers was ready to publish the Epanorthotes. Actually, its prefatory epistle is dated 1553. There, the author introduced the intent behind this work through a long captatio benevolentiae addressed to Pope Julius III (1550–1555). Zegers explained that he had worked hard in order to provide the best possible emended text of the New Testament in its Latin translation, and the Epanorthotes were actually the preparatory work for this edition which was eventually published in Cologne in 1559. Of course, he held that the edition should also be checked by ‘learned scholars’ and the final judgment on this emended edition left to the Pontiff. However, if the work should be deemed accurate and worthy of being published, Zegers asked the Pope to approve and to confirm the edition with his apostolic authority, and further requested that the edition be used everywhere as the authentic version, identical with the original version of the New Testament. Zegers clearly regarded his New Testament as the genuine edition, the only really emended and ‘full-sister’ (germana) of the ancient translation. He saw it as recovering the pristine integrity of the Latin translation from its previous mistaken corrections and additions.12 After the dedicatory epistle to the Pope, Zegers addressed a prefatory epistle to the reader, describing the great variety, discrepancy and corruption that characterized the editions of the New Testament, especially those which had been made three or four hundred years earlier. In this instance, the Franciscan was obviously referring to medieval correctoria. Here it is possible to catch sight of his humanist disgust for the Middle Ages, considered a dark age of ignorance. Moreover, Zegers described the confusion caused by the variety of the New Testament editions: Greek texts differ from their Latin translations, and the contemporary Greek and Latin editions differ from their ancient versions, and moreover these ancient versions differ from one another. One possible solution for recovering the text might therefore be to return to the ‘original sources’ – those in Hebrew for the Old Testament and those in Greek for the New Testament. However, this approach – explains Zegers – is not correct, since the Greek co12 “Sed et aliud est, quod isti tuae humiliter offero ac dedicando transmitto sublimitati: nimirum Castigatorem hunc novi Instrumenti, una cum nova quadam atque per nos emendata eiusdem Instrumenti editione: et est rursus aliud, quod vicissimis nobis et universae ecclesiae gregi a sedis Apostolicae maiestate aut autoritate exhibitum beneficium omni cum humilitate flagitamus: nimirum ut tua sublimitas haud gravetur hunc nostrum laborem, primum quidem eruditiis aliquibus viris committere discutiendum et examinandum, sed etiam pro ipsorum iudicio consilioue castigandum … si tamen digna et catholica uti speramus iudicabitur, adprobare et apostolica autoritate roborare, confirmare, et pro germana atque authentica ubique terrarum legendam committere, post habitis iis editionibus, quae huic adversantur. Haec etenim est, genuina, germana et emendata veteris nostris interpretis versio seu translatio, qua hactenus semper a tempore fere apostolorum … usa cognoscitur Romana ecclesia: quam ab innumeris tum mendis, tum adulterinis adiectiunculis, non sine magnis et multis molestiis repurgavimus, et pristino nitori et integritati, quatenus fieri potuit, divina iuvante gratia restituimus”, Zegers: 1555, 3 r–v.

Nicholas Tacitus Zegers and his Text-Criticism of the New Testament

47

dices, especially those that are “less ancient”, are more corrupt than the Latin. In speaking of “less ancient” codices, he was referring to Erasmus’ work, based on sources from the 12th to the 15th century. Indeed, the Franciscan first studied two Greek editions, one manuscript, preserved in the Priory of Corsendonk in OudTurnhout – nowadays more famous for its beer than for its library –, and a printed edition, preserved in St. Martin’s cloister in Louvain, which presents Erasmus’ corrections.13 Zegers then refers to the Insuper decree and its choice of the Latin Vulgate as reference edition for the Catholic Church. However – says Zegers – the Greek version is not to be completely condemned, since many parts of it are not corrupted, while the Latin text contains several mistakes, mutilations and additions. In this regard, he refers to three main factors. Firstly, while recognizing the diligence of many scribes, he has to admit that they may not have been accurate enough. He secondly refers to the mere ignorance/ negligence of the scribes while finally taking into account the obscurities of the text, to be removed after an accurate study.14 The great variety of readings and words that can occur in the 13 “Tanta est passim in novi Testamenti codicibus, tum latinis, tum graecis varietas, discrepantia et corruptela, praesertim in iis, qui ante annos hos triginta aut quadraginta vel calamo exarati vel typis sunt expressi… Graeca exemplaria dissident a latinis: graeca partier et Latina moderna a veteris: vetera a veteribus, moderna a modernis … Nam si Hieronymi atque Augustini hic consilium sequendum obtendas qui in huiuscemodi dubijs recurrendum docent ad ipsos versionum fontes: ut pote in veteri Testamenti ad originem hebraicam: in novo vero ad originem graecam. Respondebo tutum iam non esse hoc consilij admittere, quod graecorum codices, praesertim paulo antiquiores, longe sint corruptiores quam latinorum: nam qui paulo habentur castigatiores, non nisi nostra aetate restituti sunt, idque etiam in nonnulis locis (ut videtur) ex fide latinorum … Duo ipsi vidimus exemplaria graeca, quae palam arguunt, quantum pridem in lectione graeca fuerit corruptela. Alterum servatur in Coenobium regularium Corsendoncensi descriptum calamo, alterum in celebri academia Lovaniensi, apud eiusdem instituti religiosos in coenobio divi Martini expressum typis: quod cernentibus in numera ostentat correctionis cuiusdam nemper Desiderij (si recte memini) vestigia. Hinc palam liquet, quod agant praepostere, qui hodie pro tuenda lectionis veritate non alio confugiendum autumant, quod ad editionem graecam, quasi ea ipsissimus fons sit solidae veritatis: quum longe secus rem hodie habere, ex multis passim deprehendatur graecanicis adnotationibus probatissimi doctoris Beati Hieronymi. Dum enim ipse in suae aetatis translationibus reprehendit, quae hodie leguuntur in graecis: dum passim admonet, haec aut illa sic haberi in graecis, et aliter in latinis, quum hodie contra eadem sic in latinis legantur, quomodo tunc fuisse dicit in graecis, et ita sint nunc in graecis, quomodo dicit fuisse in latinis, dum in citandis scripturarum testimonijs, qui graecae fuit antiquitatis studiosissimus sectator, a modernis passim dissentit: quod aliud, quod manifeste coarguit, modernam graecorum editionem esse depravatam, nostra vero in eiusmodi locis synceram, eoque hanc in multis esse puriorem”, Zegers: 1555, 4r–v. 14 “Neque rursus haec dixerim, quod graecam editionem prosus damnanda aut contemnenda censeam: sunt enim permulta in ipsa quae usque adeo depravata non sunt … Verum quia etiam haec ipsa [latina] versio multis in locis noscitur vitiata, mutilata et aucta, idque vel diligentia, sed ea non satis exacta nonnulorum correctorum… vel inscitia seu oscitantia scribarum”, Zegers: 1555, 7r–v.

48

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

New Testament induced the Franciscan to restore the text through faithful examples, without considering the antiquity of the codex as a proof of its reliability. Zegers even argues that in ancient times the codices were rare and that all of them could have been derived from the same source. However, staying with Zeger’s metaphor, if the source was impure, all its ‘rivers’ would have been impure as well.15 To restore the Vulgate, Zegers had to collect several codices from different places, and he also had to use the ancient codices. In other words, he maintained a critical attitude regarding ancient manuscripts which, according to him, are to be trusted only in cases where three circumstances occur: 1) the absence of more probable sources; 2) the general consensus about their veracity; 3) the absence of other testimonies, such as occurrences in the works of the Church fathers. Nevertheless, the guarantee of a faithful reading can only be proved thanks to the Church fathers. Only in their writings – explains Zegers – is there an ancient and probable lectio, since they had the opportunity to consult codices more ancient and reliable than those at his disposal. Thus, in the Church fathers’ writings, the words of the Scriptures have obviously not been corrupted. The Franciscan, however, does not take an uncritical approach to the writings of the Church fathers, arguing that their lectiones are not always to be followed word for word, but rather in accord with their broader meaning, discerning certain elements which ought to be added and others which ought to be removed.16 After this general introduction, Zegers lists the primary sources that he had at his disposal, although he reports that he could not trace many of the codices for various reasons. Amongst these are: 1) lack of time to research them; 2) negligence of the librarians in the care of the library; 3) corruption of the Greek manuscripts; 4) ‘temerity’ of the corrections made by the scribes in the recopying of the codices; and 5) other unspecified causes of corruption. Nevertheless, he lists the more ancient and (for that time and place) famous manuscripts he was able to find. In particular, in the Benedictine Abbey of Gembloux, close to 15 “In restituenda item editione Latina, quae princeps est nostri instituti opera, non sat esse putavimus, si antiqua aliquot haberemus licet vetustatis exemplaria … fieri enim potuit ut omnia olim (quando magna erat codicum raritas) uno eodemque ex fonte dimanarit, qui si fuit impurus, impuros necesse est esse et rivos”, Zegers: 1555, 7v–8r. 16 “Sed neque diversarum quidem regionum codicibus quamvis vetustis semper fidem habendam putavimus, nisi ubi vel aliunde nihil probabilius obstabat, vel plurium erat consensus, vel alia testimonia non suppetebam: sed multo magis ad sanctorum doctorum, eorumque antiquiorum et probatiorum lectionem duximus confugiendum, quam nulla prorsus aut certe perpauca putaremus extare exemplaria tam syncerae scripturae, tamque antiquae quam sunt veterum quorundam lucubrationes: in quibus ut sacra scripturarum verba non facile potuerant corrupti, et multo etiam minus ipsorum auctorum in eadem explanations, ita plus illis fidei iudicavimus habendum. Non quod semper pro sono verborum ad illos, maxime antiquores confugiendum fuerit, sed pro sensu habendo, proque adiectijs et subtractijs dijudicandis”, Zegers: 1555, 8r.

Nicholas Tacitus Zegers and his Text-Criticism of the New Testament

49

Namur, he found: a) an entire Bible; b) three different codices of the four Gospels; and c) another manuscript containing the apostolic epistles and the Apocalypse. Moreover, he used four Carolingian codices containing the gospels: 1) the Codex Donatianicus, at that time preserved in Bruges; 2) the Codex Evangeliorum Elstensis, at that time preserved in the monastery of the Carmelites in Geldern; 3) the Codex Corsendoncensis, in Oud-Turnhout;17 4) the Codex aureus Dominae Margaritae, now called Codex aureus Escorialensis or Spirensis,18 actually owned by Archduchess Margaret of Austria (1480–1530): the manuscript was first preserved in Malines, at Margaret’s Palace, and later in Bingen am Rhein.19 At the end of his Epanorthotes, Zegers again distances himself from Erasmus’ approach to the New Testament (he had in fact based his work only upon Greek sources, contrary to Zegers’ claim) and, for exactly this reason, Zegers is an invaluable source for understanding the text-critical method of another Louvain biblical scholar, Henri van Grave (1536–1591) who was called to the Vatican Press in 1590 by Pope Sixtus V (Reussens: 1876). As Zegers reports, the Louvain theologian emended a Latin edition of the New Testament by Estienne. Zegers however criticizes van Grave’s work for relying too heavily on Erasmus without consulting ancient authors.20 Given the absence of a reliable Latin translation, Zegers decided to make an edition of his own. The Scholion and the Epanorthotes provided Zegers with the New Testament materials needed to prepare his Novum Testamentum. He submitted it to Pope Paul IV in the hope that the Pontiff would consider making this edition the official version for the Church. Zegers received the privilege of publishing his New Testament on 26 August 1558. This was his way of (partially) satisfying the request made by the Council fathers in the Fourth Session of the Council. Zegers was really convinced of the quality of his work, and he mentioned it in the Epanorthotes, already asking Julius III to use it as the edition of reference in the Catholic Church. This edition in octavo does not contain additional readings in the margin, possibly so as not to confuse the reader, its chief aim being clarity. By contrast, Zegers puts cross references to the other New Testament books in the margin. This edition also presents short summaries at the beginning of each of the New Testament books. After Zegers, the most important text-critical scholar in Louvain was Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’, who re-issued the 17 18 19 20

Now preserved in the Berlin Staatsbibliothek (Ms. theol. lat. qu. 4). Now preserved in El Escorial, Real Biblioteca, Cod. Vitrinas 17. Zegers: 1555, 15r. “Eandem hanc palaestram exercuit et Henricus Gravius, vir omni disciplinarum genere perpolitus, qui codicem suum, nihil obstante quod editionis esset Robertui Stephani, studiosissime castigavit: … Verum nos tandem eundem nacti codicem, deprehendimus ipsum plus aequo fuisse castigationibus Erasmici, et editioni Graece, nullis consultis scriptoris antiqui”, Zegers: 1555, 126v.

50

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

Vulgata Lovaniensis. However, his masterpiece was the Notationes in Sacra Biblia, although he published many other text-critical works which are analyzed in the following chapter.

1.2

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)21

After Henten’s Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis (1547) and Zegers’ Novum Testamentum (1559), another important project took place in the Low Countries to which scholars from Louvain made important contributions. In the years 1568– 1573, in Antwerp, Christopher Plantin published the Polyglot Bible or Biblia Regia which contained texts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Syriac. The work was made under the supervision of the Spanish humanist Benito Arias Montanus (1527–1598) and with the assistance of several Louvain theologians, such as Augustinus Hunnaeus (1521–1577/78), Cornelius Reyneri Goudanus (1525–1609), and the Jesuit, Johannes Wilhelmi Harlemius (1538–1578). Arias Montanus held the Latin Vulgate to be an unreliable source, so much so that he would have preferred to have left it out of his Polyglot Bible. However, under pressure from King Philip II of Spain, he was induced to include it (Rekers: 1972, 45–69; Voet: 1980, vol. 1, 280–315; Wilkinson: 2007 67–75). The question of a new emended edition of the Vulgate inevitably came up, with the condition that it would have to be able to include both the “declaration of the authenticity” of the Vulgate issued by the Council fathers and the humanist philological approach to the Latin text. In 1570–1571, a disciple of Harlemius was appointed to this difficult task of revising the Vulgate: he was Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ (François: 2012, 238–239). Unfortunately, the secondary literature on this author is sparse. Perhaps the most valuable studies on him are those of Arthur De Schrevel, who wrote an article on Lucas in the Biographie Nationale de Belgique (1893) and compiled a critical edition of his 137 letters in 1889. In 1903, Alfred Poncelet published another ten letters from Lucas (1903) and, finally, there is another epistle in Hildebrand Höpfl’s 1913 work on the Vulgate. In addition, another important work is the monograph on the Diocese of St. Omer – the milieu in which Lucas spent the greater part of his life –, written by Oscar Bled at the end of the nineteenth century. Furthermore, information can be derived from the corre21 The majority of this first part of the work on Louvain and the Latin Vulgate is published as Antonio Gerace, Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ and Textual Criticism of the Vulgate Before and After the Sixto-Clementine (1592), Journal of Early Modern Christianity 3 (2016), 201–237. DOI 10.1515/jemc-2016–0008.

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)

51

spondence that Lucas had with his publisher, Christopher Plantin (1520–1589), which has been edited by Max Rooses and Jan Denucé (1883–1920). The most important study on Lucas’ text-critical activity is Henri Quentin’s Mémoire sur l’établissement du Texte de la Vulgate (1922) since it reveals the methodology Lucas used leading up to the publishing of the Sixto-Clementine in 1592. However, Quentin’s work does not study how Lucas changed his text-critical approach after the publication of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. Thus, we shall pick up where Quentin left off and show how Lucas changed his text-critical approach owing to the publication of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. This section will be divided into three parts. The first part deals with the years 1574–1592. The terminus post quem, 1574, is determined by the publishing of ‘his’ edition of the Vulgate, followed by the Notationes in sacra Biblia, in 1580, and another Vulgate edition in 1583, which has the Notationes in an appendix. Quentin has already dealt with this period, devoting a significant portion of his study to the realization of the 1574 Vulgate in particular. I shall basically follow Quentin’s analysis, while also discussing a few extracts from the ms. Vat. Lat. 6236 which contains a specimen, or a preparatory document of the Notationes submitted to Cardinal Sirleto. The second part of this chapter deals with the years 1592–1603 and will contribute new insights into Lucas’ work. The terminus post quem is the publication of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (1592), including the 10 years monopoly it enjoyed, and also the Pope’s ban on any possible change of ‘his’ emended Bible. On the one hand, the ban severely limited the text-critical work that could be done. On the other hand, it shows the growing power of papal authority. Finally, the third part of the work focuses upon the years 1603–1618, and the expiring of the ten years monopoly during which Lucas used a new methodology, completely different from his previous approach. The terminus post quem of this third period is given by the publication of the Romanae correctionis… loca insigniora, in 1603. In this third period, Lucas also published other text-critical works such as the Novae ad varias lectiones in quatuor Evangeliis (1605), a critical apparatus attached to his Commentaries on the four Gospels (1606–1616), something which will be an object of particular attention here. Eventually, at the end of his life, Lucas published a final booklet which gathered additional lectiones of the Vulgate, the Libellus alter continens alias lectionum varietates in 1618. According to De Schrevel (1893, 550), Lucas was born in the final months of 1548 or at the beginning of 1549 in Bruges, as can be deduced from his toponym, Brugensis. There, he had his first education. After the town began to be troubled by the iconoclastic movement (1566–1568) then raging in the Low Countries,22 he moved to Louvain, where he studied arts in the Pedagogy of the Castle, and, on 6 22 Still important for the iconoclastic movement in Bruges specifically is De Schrevel: 1894. On the iconoclastic movement in the Low Countries, see Deyon/Lottin: 2013.

52

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

March 1568, he graduated as magister artium in fifth place, out of a class of 55 students (De Schrevel: 1893, 551). After two years, in 1570, he met with Johannes Wilhelmus Harlemius, a professor of Hebrew for a short time (1568–1569) at the Collegium Trilingue. Thereafter, Harlemius became rector of the Jesuit College. Thanks to his teaching, Lucas learned Semitic languages such as ‘Chaldean’ (Aramaic), Hebrew, and Syriac (an Aramaic dialect). During this period, again thanks to Harlemius, he became acquainted with Wilhelm Lindanus, later the Bishop of Roermond and subsequently of Ghent,23 as well as with the Jesuit theologian Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621),24 who had come to Louvain to study in 1569 and alongside whom Lucas possibly studied in the very same classroom, resulting in a long friendship.25 Over the course of just a few years, Lucas obtained a deep knowledge of the ancient languages and, because of that, he received from the Louvain Faculty of Theology the difficult task of revising Henten’s 1547 Vulgate, even though he was still a young man.26

1.2.1 Lucas’ First Period: 1574–1592 The starting point of Lucas’ text-critical work is Trent’s Insuper decree. As the Louvain scholar recalls, the Tridentine fathers declared the Vulgate to be the authentic version of the Bible for the Church, given its antiquity and longstanding use in the Church. However, as Lucas noticed, it was precisely this antiquity that had caused a variety of readings to come about in the manuscripts.27 He spent all

23 Cf. van Beuningen: 1966. 24 On Bellarmine’s stay in Louvain, Ceyssens: 1994, 179–205. 25 “John Willems, Guilielmius, of Haarlem, who, after his studies at the Trilingue, was appointed as professor of Hebrew in 1568; besides the ‘three’ languages [viz. Latin, Greek and Hebrew], he also knew Chaldaic, Syriac and Arabic … He entered the Jesuit Company in 1569”, de Vocht: 1951–1955, 2 vol., 156–157. Nève 1856, 247–248. Additionally, Lucas “vers 1570, il avait eu la bonne fortune de se lier d’amitié avec le P. Jean Guilielmi (Willemsz.), connu aussi sous le nom de Harlemius, professeur d’Ecriture sainte et de langues bibliques au collège des Jésuites, à Louvain”, De Schrevel: 1893, 551. Concerning the friendship between Lucas and Bellarmine, Bled (1898, 423, n. 3) writes: “Dans une de ses lettres le cardinal Bellarmin l’appelle: amicum suavissimum et virum modestissimum”. Moreover, “Grâce à Guillelmi, Lucas fut admis dans l’intimité de Guillaume Lindanus, évêque de Ruremonde, puis de Gand, et entra en relations avec beaucoup d’autres savants, en particulier avec le P. Robert Bellarmin, qui professait la théologie aux scolastiques de la Compagnie de Jésus, sous le rectorat de Guillelmi”, De Schrevel: 1893, 551. Bellarmine even cited Lucas in his works, in particular making reference to his Notationes, see Bellarmine: 1586 92. 26 “Le principal auteur de la révision [scil. l’édition de la Vulgate de 1574] qu’elle représente, Luc de Bruges, n’avait encore que vingt–six ans”, Quentin: 1922, 138. All of Lucas’ works were published by Plantin in Antwerp. 27 See for instance the dedicatory epistle, Lucas: 1580, esp. on pp. 5–ff.

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)

53

his efforts in revising – in the sense of emending – Henten’s 1547 edition. In 1574, Lucas was able to publish it with Christopher Plantin in Antwerp (even before having achieved the degree of licentiate in Theology, in 1575 or 1576).28 With the aim of producing the best text possible, Lucas decided to go further than Henten. In fact, Lucas did not accept all of Henten’s textual choices. After having analyzed the different lectiones, including those placed in the margin of Henten’s text, Lucas added certain signs to indicate his opinion.29 He compared the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic ‘originals’ of the Old Testament, and the Greek and Syriac texts of the New Testament, using Plantin’s Polyglot Bible (1568–1573), the socalled Antwerp Biblia Regia, to that end.30 The reason for this choice was the difference (diversitas) between the various Greek and Latin editions of the Bible. Lucas wanted to read more texts in order to have the most complete survey of the Scriptures, at least in his view. In a certain sense, Lucas intended to restore Estienne’s methodology, and it is even possible that, at an early stage, he had the intention of issuing an emended version of Henten’s 1547 edition. However, as Quentin suggests, after Lucas heard that Pope Pius V had organized the second Roman Committee (1566–1572)31 to edit the Vulgate, he may have decided not to alter the text of the Louvain Vulgate.32 In his Notationes, Lucas even emphasizes that “Henten’s text, as it was published, was not changed”.33 Lucas clearly wanted to affirm that the text he was using had already been accepted by the censoring authorities. Therefore, Lucas limited himself to adding only marginal notes from his reading of the Bible in the ‘original’ tongues. These marginal notes were regarded as useful in case the Latin codices seemed 28 See De Schrevel: 1893, 551. It appears that he never obtained the doctorate in Theology. 29 “In primis minime ignorandum est, illum hac editione prodire Bibliorum Textum, qui a Domino Hentenio castigatus, et Lovanii anno 1547 est excusus… Deinde observandum est, eas lectiones, paene omnes, quas in margine Hentenius collocaret, qualescumque essent, a nobis relictas et examinatas. Nam etsi earum multae tolli merebantur: tamen, ad aliorum codicum emendationem, eas relinqui, et rejectionis signo notari utile videbatur”, Biblia: 1574, 2. 30 “Praeterea expensae sunt eaedem lectiones, veteris quidem instrumenti, ad Hebraicum, Graecum, et Chaldaicum: novi vero, ad Graecum et Syriacum editionis Regiae Textus”, Biblia: 1574, 2. 31 Quentin: 1922, 161–168. Lucas worked on both his Vulgate and the Notationes under the second Roman Committee, composed of five cardinals: Marco Antonio Colonna (1523– 1597), Guglielmo Sirleto (1514–1585), Cristoforo Madruzzo (1512–1578), Jérôme Souchier (1508–1571), Antonio Carafa (1538–1591). 32 “Luc de Bruges est un esprit tout diffèrent. Il ne prend aucune décision. Si doué qu’il soit d’esprit critique, il ne fait pas besogne d’éditeur: le texte d’Hentenius sortira de ses mains sans le moindre changement. Sans doute, il n’avait pas toute la liberté nécessaire, car on était dans l’attente de l’édition officielle qui se préparait à Rome, et puis il était très jeune encore”, Quentin: 1922, 144. 33 “Quanquam a nobis, textus, ut ab Hentenio est editus, verbis neutiquam mutatus sit”, Lucas: 1580, 8.

54

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

ambiguous, since the references to the original could make difficult readings more intelligible. He was careful, moreover, to stress that his analysis would be focused solely upon philological (vox) and/or grammatical (casus, for nouns, and tempus, for verbs) difficulties34 in order to avoid the impression that he wanted to interfere with the Vatican Committee’s work on the Vulgate. In addition, Lucas went further than Henten by using the works of some Latin Christian exegetes from antiquity to the Middle Ages. In particular, he referred to Hilary of Poitiers (ca. 300–ca. 368), Ambrose (ca. 340–397), Jerome (ca. 347–420), Augustine (354– 430), Gregory the Great (ca. 540–604), the Venerable Bede (ca. 673–735), Rabanus Maurus (ca. 780–856), and Radulphus Flaviacensis (12th century).35 Unfortunately, Lucas did not furnish a reason why he has chosen these authors and not others: possibly, he was simply using those available in Louvain. Following Quentin’s suggestion, I maintain that Lucas wanted to publish a new edition of the Vulgate, but, after having heard about the work of the Vatican Vulgate Committee, he opted for a simple re-printing of Henten’s 1547 Bible with the addition of more notes in the margin. However, De Schrevel, also proposes an additional reason for Lucas’ choice. He states that, because the great variety of lectiones could not be shown merely by marginal notes, Lucas felt the need to provide further explanation for the readings. To that end, and with Harlemius’ approval and support,36 the author began to compile his critical apparatus, the Notationes in sacra Biblia. Quentin’s and De Schrevel’s arguments describe Lucas’ intention as having two successive stages. Originally, Lucas may have intended to emend Henten’s text, but, feeling impeded by the work of the official 34 “Quia vero talis propemodum exemplarium Graecorum, qualis Latinorum, diversitas est. Etiam aliarum editionum exemplaria Graeca a nobis consulta sunt. Ad haec igitur universa jam recensita, variae lectiones collatae sunt… Ad haec, cum deprehensum est, discrepare Latinam translationem a fonte ex quo fluxit, non raro annotatum est, non quod Versio vulgata ad eum modum putetur corrigenda, sed, quandoque, quod talia sint, ut videri verisimiliter possit ea ab Interprete translata in aliis Latinis scriptis reperiri posse: quandoque, quod ejusmodi sint, ut eorum cognitio non parum conferat. Praeterea cum animadversum est Latinam vocem, casu, tempore, aut simili modo ambiguam esse, vox Hebraica aut Graeca ex qua illa olim translata fuit, si ad eum modum ambigua non erat, ad marginem est notata, ut illius ambiguitas tollatur”, Biblia: 1574, 2. 35 Benedectine monk from the Convent of St. Germain de Flaix (= Flaviacensis) of the XII century. Lucas used the commentary on Leviticus, In mysticum illum Moysi Leuiticum libri XX, whose printed edition appeared at Cologne in 1536 from the printer Eucharius Cervicornus (1516–1547). 36 “Ille [scil. Harlemius] mihi auctor fuit, ut anno aetatis XXIV, scriberem Notationes in varias lectiones Bibliorum”, Lucas: 1616, 3. Concerning Lucas’ age, it is difficult to say when he was born, but he maintained that at 24 years of age he wrote Notationes, published in 1580. However, maybe he was 24 years when he started to write his work; otherwise he would have been born in 1556. In fact, using De Schrevel’s dating, Lucas was born in 1548. About Harlemius, Lucas mentions him also in the Epistula Dedicatoria to Cardinal Sirleto in Lucas: 1580, 11–14.

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)

55

Roman revision committees, opted instead for compiling an appendix to show the alternative readings that he had found in various sources. Lucas hoped to finish his work within three months after he had finalized his revision and to publish this critical apparatus as an attachment to his 1574 Vulgate edition (De Schrevel: 1893, 553). However, the work proved to be laborious and it took five years to complete it. This delay was due not only to the intrinsic difficulty involved in the work, but also to the religious and political context. Indeed, during the Eighty Years War, the Scottish mercenary army of William of Orange entered the city on 2 February 1578, forcing the University to dismiss its professors and scholars. Moreover, a return to Bruges was impossible for Lucas, owing to the Calvinist Republic that had been recently founded there (1578– 1584).37 Lucas finished his work in 1579 and a year later, the Notationes in sacra Biblia were printed by Christopher Plantin. This work, which was dedicated to Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514–1585), focused upon the Vulgate from a textcritical perspective. While he examined the various lectiones that had been handed down over the centuries, including those from the Hebrew and Greek texts, he also analyzed the numerous interpretations of the Church Fathers. However, Lucas avoided the controversial topics that were at the centre of the debate between Catholic and Reformation-minded exegetes. In comparing original texts, he simply provided a philological analysis that was corroborated by the Greek and Latin Fathers’ interpretationsm (Lucas: 1580, 2–10; 16–20). An attestation of this work occurs in a letter by Plantin to Benito Arias Montano, dated 22 October 1575, in which the publisher discusses a letter sent to him by Harlemius in which the Jesuit asked the publisher to gather information, from Cardinal Sirleto himself or from Arias Montano – editor of the Biblia Regia –, before the Notationes on the Old Testament were offered to print. The reason why Harlemius asked for Sirleto’s judgment is clear: at that time, the Cardinal was librarian of the Vatican library38 and was also working on the second Roman Committee for the emendation of the Vulgate. What Harlemius considered of importance was not only Sirleto’s judgment on the first part of the Notationes, but also – and above all – the Cardinal’s ideas about the Hebrew Bible and Pagnini’s Latin translation, which had not been appreciated by Bishop Lindanus (1575) and the Spanish theologian León de Castro.39 Harlemius’ letter to Plantin 37 Bled: 1898, 422. In the meantime, he had to leave Louvain for Bruges twice, to be ordained by Bishop Remi Drieux (1519–1594), first as a deacon (June 1574) and thereafter as a priest (April 1577), De Schrevel: 1893, 553. 38 Guglielmo Sirtleto was the fifth bibliothecarius, from 1572 to 1585. See the entire list on the website of Vatican Library: https://www.vatlib.it/home.php?pag=storia (accessed December 2014). 39 León de Castro (d. ca. 1586) was a Spanish Biblical scholar and professor of Rhetoric, Hebrew and Greek at the University of Salamanca. He was particularly opposed to Hebrew texts, as

56

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

comes as no surprise since the Jesuit was Lucas’ patron and had invited him to publish his Notationes. Harlemius’ demarche may also be considered as a precautionary measure, given the negative opinion that Lindanus and De Castro had voiced concerning Pagnini’s work. The Jesuit had also begged Plantin for as much precision as possible (perscribere, “to write in full”) in his advice, reminding Plantin that he should always inform him concerning the latest published works, including those by Lindanus and De Castro. Lucas made use of Lindanus’ and De Castro’s texts, even though he did not agree with their reticence with regard to the Hebrew Bible and Pagnini’s translation.40. Since Lucas eventually used the Hebrew Bible and the translation by Pagnini, it may be taken for granted that Sirleto allowed their use. Together with Harlemius and Plantin, Sirleto was a key-figure in the realization of Lucas’ work. Indeed, there was a frequent exchange of letters between the Cardinal and the young Louvain scholar through Plantin and others. Moreover, another document provides proof of Sirleto’s influence upon Lucas’ text. Indeed, there are still a few pages of the Notationes in the Vatican Library, on both Old and New Testament, which Lucas had sent to the Cardinal in order that his work could be approved prior to its publication and not incur the accusation of spreading errors or even heresy. Unfortunately, it is impossible to say exactly when this document was written and sent, but it was before 23 November 1576. Indeed, in a letter to Balthasar (Baldassarre) Ansidei (1555–1614), a scholar close to Sirleto41, dated 23 November 1576 (IX Cal. Xbr anni MDLXXVI), Lucas referred evidenced by the work to which Harlemius was referring: Commentaria in Esaiam prophetam, ex sacris scriptoribus graecis, & Latinis confecta, aduersus aliquot commentaria, & interpretationes quasdam ex Rabinorum scribiis compilatas (1570). At present, the only biography on this scholar is de la Fuente: 1860. 40 “Existimarem [ego, scil. Harlemius] bonum esse, si vel ex ipso Sirleto vel ex D. Aria Montano posses primo quoque tempore intelligere antequam notationes in Vetus Testamentum de variis lectionibus in lucem prodeant, quid Sirletus sentiat de variis lectionibus Novi Testamenti, et de Bibliis Hebraeis ac Pagnini quae Léo Castri, et Lindanus in libello Cardinali dedicato, tantopere insectantur: quia Magister Franciscus Lucas faceret de his mentionem et forte refutaret argumenta Domini Lindani si putares tutum. Proinde rogo ut si commode facere possis ejusdem Domini Cardinalis Sirleti judicium de dictis notis Bibliis Hebraeis et Panigni per oportunitatem expiscari et ad nos quando commodum tibi erit perscribere digneris et quid faciendum sit admonere. Nolim vero te posthac meliores horas in talibus indagandis et refellendis impendere ne dicam perdere”, Plantin to Arias Montano, 22 October 1575, in Rooses/Denucé: 1893–1914, vol. 5, 34. I want to underline Harlemius’ harsh tone, especially in the final sentence, as evidenced by my italics: “I would not want that you spend, not to say to lose, the best hours in both examining and rejecting such things in future”. About Lucas’ quotations from Lindanus, see for instance Lucas: 1580, Ps 13:3, 104. Concerning Lucas’ reference to De Castro, see Lucas: 1580, Is 40:2, 287. 41 Bignami: 1961, 419–420; see there for further references. The letter is still preserved in the Vatican Library (Cod. Reg. Lat. 2023, 80–2). A native of Perugia, learned in Greek and Latin, Ansidei studied in Rome from 1571 to 1577 and he obviously knew Guglielmo Sirleto since

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)

57

to the comments on the Notationes on the New Testament that he had received from Sirleto, and to another document he had previously sent to the Cardinal.42 The document (Vat. Lat. 6236ff., 128r–129v) is entitled Specimen 5 Locorum ex variis lectionibus francisci Lucae Brugensis [Example of Five Passages from Various Readings of Francis Lucas of Bruges].43 It contains the drafts of Lucas’ analysis of five pericopes, viz. Gen 3:15, Ps 5:9, Sir 10:27, Is 6:1, Matt 3:16. The comparison between this Specimen and the later Notationes shows few differences between these two texts, though there are some interesting changes. The verse which has the most important variations is Gen 3:15. The analysis of this biblical passage in the Notationes presents some changes and additions by comparison with the Specimen, and these have been put between brackets: (nos certe post D. Hentenium, nullum vulgatae editionis codicem potuimus reperire qui diversim legeret: nam Parisiensium sunt quos pro ipse Hentenius adfert: neque constat de Sorbonico correctorio qui alter est Parisiensium, an ex Hebraeo, an ex Latinorum codicum auctoritatem, sic legendum doceat; ut neque de Aloysij exemplaribus an nostrae sunt aeditionis, cuius certe Clarij Biblia, quae ipsum habent, non sunt).

The topic developed in this passage, viz. the different reading of ipsa/ipse/ipsum, is not relevant at this point.44 Instead, the important element which should be Ansidei was, according to Charles Dejob, “bibliothécaire à la Vaticane sous les ordres de Sirleto, et plus tard garde des archives du Vatican”, Dejob: 1884, 378. 42 The Specimen was sent before the 1576 letter to Ansidei precisely because of the reference to Estienne; indeed, Lucas asks Ansidei if Sirleto disliked the name Stephanus (“Scire et velim an displiceat Robertum Stephanum nominatum fuisse”) and, in the Specimen, the Cardinal in effect deleted this name, as shown later. The letter to Ansidei should be considered as a reaction to Sirleto’s comments on the Specimen. In any event, from the letter, it seems that this Specimen was only one of the documents that Lucas sent to Sirleto regarding his Notationes. Indeed, Lucas already knew the feedback around the quotation from ‘heretical’ scholars in the part of the Notationes devoted to the New Testament: “… ago [tibi, viz. Ansidei] gratias quod me certiorem facere monereque dignatus fueris, displicere Romanis Patribus ac nominatim Illustrissimo Doctissimo Piissimoque Cardinali Sirleto, cui labor noster iamdiu desudavit, quod in notationibus, quas in varias lectiones novo testamento nuper a Plantino Nostro edito adieci, citentur Munsterus et Erasmus, homines haeretici, aut certe haereseos apud bonos omnes suspecti” and Lucas also explains the reason behind using their works in this letter. Lucas to Balthasar Ansidei, 23 November 1576, in Höpfl: 1913, 317. Lucas also used Sirleto’s works; indeed, both in the Notationes and in the Specimen, references are made to Sirleto’s Annotationes variarum lectionum in psalmos (1572) and to Sirleto’s Varias lectiones in ecclesiasticum (not published). 43 In Höpfl: 1913, 112, the incorrectly reported title is Specimen 5 locorum S. Scripturae; in fact, Fayen correctly writes Specimen 5 Locorum ex variis lectionibus francisci Lucae Brugensis: this discrepancy is strange since Höpfl had read Fayen. Höpfl: 1913, 111, n. 2 (even if the year of the Revue des bibliothèques et archives de Belgique is incorrectly reported as 1906 instead of 1905) and Fayen (1905). 44 I just want to emphasize that Sirleto had a copy of Henten’s Bible (1547) which the Italian cardinal annotated by hand both in light and in dark ink. This printed edition is still preserved in the Vatican Library (Vat. Lat. 9517, see Quentin: 1922, 168) and, concerning Gen 3:15, in the

58

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

stressed here is the general expression Parisienses, underlined in the above quotation. It would be very difficult to say who these “Parisians” are simply by reading the Notationes. However, in the Specimen, Lucas clarifies who they are, or rather who he is. Indeed, Lucas used this vague term to conceal a troublesome name, that of Robert Estienne. As Quentin has already maintained (1922, 145),45 the Parisienses present in the Notationes replaced the name of Estienne which clearly appears in the Specimen as Stephanus. However, this name was deleted by a Vatican hand (obviously Sirleto’s) in the body of the text. The text of the Specimen therefore reads “Stephanus”, and in the margin “(Parisienses)” written between brackets. Moreover, in the letter to Ansidei, Lucas asked whether Sirleto disliked the references to Estienne and even if he should refer to him by giving just his name Stephanus, leaving out Robertus, so that he could not be easily recognized.46 Unfortunately, Ansidei’s answer regarding Sirleto’s position is missing, but from the change “Stephanus” – “Parisienses” it seems that Lucas was obliged, obviously by Sirleto, and possibly this was confirmed by Ansidei, to delete this name and instead to give a vague reference to ‘Parisians’. Although he does mention the manuscript Vat. Lat. 6236, Quentin does not include in his Mémoire the passages of both the Specimen and the Notationes in which the change “Stephanus” – “Parisienses” occurs. I have decided, therefore, to present them, by transcribing those passages present in the manuscript on the left and the corresponding passage of the Notationes on the right. Doing so better reveals Lucas’ text-critical preferences and the consequences of Sirleto’s intervention on the Notationes. Then, I shall focus upon both Ps 26:4 and Gen 3:15 to provide an example of Lucas’ textcritical approach in his “first period”. In particular, in the Specimen, there are two pericopes (Matt 3:16 and Ps 5:9) in which the name “Stephanus” is present, showing, on the one hand, Lucas’ appreciation of Estienne’s readings and, on the other, Sirleto’s request not to mention him. In the annotation to Ps 5:9, there is

margin, there is a clear attestation that Sirleto had read Lucas. Indeed, there is annotated in light ink “Luc. B. f./ P. Lau./ laboribus”. The former is clearly Lucas, whose work(s) are in the reader’s mind. About ‘P. Lau.’, I can just suppose that he was possibly the Benedictine monk Jerónimo Lloret (Hieronymus Lauretus), with the ‘P.’ as pater, who wrote Sylva allegoriarum sacrae scripturae mysticos eius sensus et magna etiam ex parte literales complectens (1570). This book explains all possible biblical allegories; in particular there are references to Gen 3:15 analyzing the words Calcaneus, Conterere, Semen. On Gen 3:15, see also Gallus: 1953, 21–22. 45 See also Maertens, Franciscus Lucas Brugensis et le texte de l’Ancien Testament (première partie), 6, available online at: http://www.academia.edu/2651905/Franciscus_Lucas_Brugensis_et_le_texte_de_lAncien_ Testament_premi%C3 %A8re_partie_ (accessed on 16–12–2014). 46 “Scire et velim an displiceat Robertum Stephanum nominatum fuisse … nusquam enim Robertum Stephanum, sed Stephanum ubique nuncupavimus, ut non facile a quovis cognosci possit”, Höpfl: 1913, 319–320.

59

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)

even a quotation from the Cardinal’s Annotationes variarum lectionum in psalmos (1571). Specimen Margin Antiqui autem Latini codices Epanorthae, quatuor Stephanj, unus Hentenij, duo nostri (Brug. Lob.), habent: dirige in conspectu meo viam tuam, quae et Graecorum quorundam codicum, Theodorito teste, lectio est, ac nominatim, Graeci exemplaris (Parisiensium) Vaticane Bibliothecae, id quod cum dignitate, tum eruditione et pietate clarissimus, S. R. E. Cardinalis, D. Guillelmus Sirletus, in suis variorum lectionum in Psalmos annotationibus refert, et nostra ad Vaticana collatio notat.

Notationes Antiqui autem Latini codices Epanorthae, quatuor Parisiensium, unus Hentenij, tres nostri*, habent: dirige in conspectu meo viam tuam, quae et Graecorum quorundam codicum, Theodorito teste, lectio est, ac nominatim, Graeci exemplaris Vaticane Bibliothecae, id quod cum dignitate, tum eruditione et pietate clarissimus, S. R. E. Cardinalis, D. Guillelmus Sirletus, in suis variorum lectionum in Psalmos annotationibus refert, et nostra ad Vaticana collatio notat.

Margin *Brug. Lob. Torn.

Between the Notationes and the Specimen no relevant differences occur, the only exception being the reference to a supplementary manuscript in Notationes,47 that of Tournai, something that may further confirm Estienne’s reading. It is interesting to note also that the Cardinal sometimes agreed with Estienne. For instance, in this case both of them would read, “in conspectu meo viam tuam”.48 The second passage in which “Stephanus” appears is Matt 3:16: Specimen Margin Capitis tertij versu decimosexto: et vidit spiritum Dei, descendentem sicut columbam, et ‘venientem’ super ipsum.] haec unius manuscripti lectio, eius quod a Stephano notatum est, S. Germani ‘(Parisiensibus)’ lati, minime est contemnenda: sic enim recte, et Graece vertuntur, et Syra. Caeterum altera, Et venientem super se, quae vulgo recepta est…

Notationes Capitis tertij versu decimosexto: et vidit spiritum Dei, descendentem sicut columbam, et ‘venientem’ super ipsum.] haec unius manuscripti lectio, eius quod a Parisiensibus notatum est, S. Germani lati, minime est contemnenda: sic enim recte, et Graece vertuntur, et Syra. Caeterum altera, Et venientem super se, quae vulgo recepta est…

47 A codex from Torn.= Tornacum= Tournai. See, the Catalogus eorum quibus usi sumus S. Scripturae Librorum, in Lucas 1580, 23–24. The other two manuscripts are from Lobbes (Lob.), and Bruges (Brug.). On the Lobbes Bible, see for instance Bogaert: 2008, 135–147. 48 For Estienne’s reading, see Biblia: 1546, 164v.

60

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

‘Stephano’ is deleted and, in the margin of the Specimen, “(Parisiensibus)” is annotated between brackets, as corrected by Sirleto. Once again Lucas agreed with Estienne’s lectio, which should not be censured at all (minime est contemnenda), since it contained the correct translation from both Greek and Syriac ‘originals’.49 The third annotation in which Lucas refers to Estienne is Gen 3:15, although it is hidden behind the expression unus: Specimen Margin Capitis tertij versu decimo quinto: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius.] Latinorum exemplarium pleraque legunt conteret caput tuum. Unus S. (Parisiensibus) Germani oblongum, cum Sorbonico correctorio, ipse habet conteret caput tuum. Harum lectionum posterior, Hebraeo conformior est.

Notationes Capitis tertij versu decimoquinto: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius.] Latina exemplaria pleraque scribunt conteret caput tuum. S. Germani oblongum et Sorbonicum correctorium, a Parisiensibus notata, ipse legunt conteret caput tuum. Harum lectionum posterior, Hebraeo conformior est.

In the Notationes, Lucas also added a Parisiensibus notata, viz. noted by Estienne, although his name was hidden by a generic unus in the Specimen and their (or his) lectio “ipse” was said to be closer to Hebrew originals.50 This reading was handed down by one codex especially: S. Germani oblongum or sangermanense oblongum (Paris, B.N. lat. 11504–11505=Geo), one of Estienne’s main sources. In fact, Lucas’ purpose was to give all possible lectiones handed down over the centuries through a great array of manuscripts, trying to show which reading was closer to the original meaning, or, at least, to illustrate those lectiones that were more similar to the ‘original’ sources, such as the Hebrew text. In Lucas’ view, he had to mention that Estienne had also correctly put in the margin the lectio “ipse”. The letter to Ansidei, to which I have referred earlier, confirms the philological approach that Lucas takes in his text-critical works. Indeed, the Louvain scholar affirmed that Sirleto disliked his quotations from Erasmus and Sebastian Münster (1488–1552), whom good Catholics considered to be ‘heretics’ or at least suspected of heresy. However, Lucas decided to quote them – although not nominatim – precisely because both Erasmus and Münster sometimes proposed plausible readings.51 Ansidei seemed to have allowed Lucas to quote Erasmus52 49 In this case, Estienne’s text also follows the tradition, viz. “super se”, simply including the alternative lectio “super ipsum” in the margin, Biblia: 1546, 292v. 50 As Quentin states, according to Robert Estienne “le texte hébreu est l’instrument de critique par excellence pour l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate”, Quentin: 1922, 108. 51 “Ago [magnas] gratias quod me certiorem facere monereque dignatus fuerit, displicere Romanis Patribus ac nominatim Illustrissimo Doctissimo Piissimoque Cardinali Sirleto … citentur Munsterus et Erasmus, homines haeretici, aut certe haereseos apud bonos omnes suspecti … Porro non sunt illi a me nominati … sed necessitatem quadam, quod ipsi vidisse

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)

61

but not Münster, who is actually absent from the Notationes. Moreover, the Louvain scholar asked whether Ansidei disliked the references to François Vatable (cf. Wursten: 2011, 557–591) and Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, while specifying that the Louvain theologian and censor, John Molanus, had allowed him to read the emended version of their works.53 Ansidei must have prevented him from referring to both Vatable and Lefèvre d’Étaples. For instance, in his letter, Lucas quoted the passage in which there is the reference to Lefèvre d’Étaples, but, in the Notationes, the author changed this name to quidam:54 Letter to Ansidei Notationes

Ceterum testatur Faber, quod Iansenius refert antiquos quosdam codices habere in Luca, ordinem eundem quem Matthaeus habet. Caeterum, testatur quidam; quod Iansenius refert antiquos quosdam codices habere in Luca, ordinem eundem quem Matthaeus habet.

Another possible name that might have offended the Curia was that of the Italian humanist, Valla, although it seems that Cardinal Sirleto did not particularly dislike him.55 Thus, with respect to his edition of the Bible, Lucas wanted to collect even those readings of both the early humanists and his contemporaries, always having in his mind the goal of amassing all possible lectiones. Following this aim, he quoted works of both ‘heretical’ and Catholic scholars, among whom were Valla, Erasmus, Münster, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, Vatable, Zegers,56 Henten, Cornelius Jansenius ‘of Ghent’, Lindanus, and others, although he had to disguise the names of some of them. At the same time, Lucas kept a constant, watchful eye on the Latin and Greek fathers of the Early Church as well as upon medieval commentators. Although Lucas was young – he started to write when he was 24 years old – this work shows his deep knowledge of both the Scriptures and ancient languages. Furthermore, he used a particular methodology to analyze the Bible, well expressed in his analysis of Ps 26:4. After the explanation of the Fathers’ readings of a particular passage, he declared that he would focus upon the different lectiones in each language, from Latin manuscripts to Hebrew texts, in addition to the

52 53

54 55 56

se codices scribant, quibus, verisimilis lectio probari possit, quos qualesve nos videre invenireve haud potuerimus”, Höpfl: 1913, 317–318. For instance, Lucas: 1580, 350, commenting on Matt 5:23. “Restat de Vatablo interrogem … et de Jacopo Fabro … interdictum enim est Vatabili bibliis et Fabri commentariis, donec fuerint expunctis locis suspectis emendata, sed Vatabili quidem Biblia habuimus ab Academia nostra emendata atque approbata; Fabri vero in Psalmos commentaria ut et emendata Vatabli Biblia dedit nobis librorum inquisitor M. N. Molanus legendi licentiam”, Höpfl: 1913, 320. Quidam, “someone”, was often used when catholic censorship was involved; for instance, Jansenius had to remove the name “Erasmus”, replacing it precisely with quidam. Screech: 1987, 303–304. For instance, Lucas: 1580, 350, commenting Matt 5:23. For instance, see the analysis of Matt 3:16, Lucas: 1580, 349.

62

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

Greek versions. Only by way of this thorough process could he propose his to be the most genuine reading (which was not inspired, he claimed, by his own theological interpretation). Below I include an extract of the Notationes, transcribing part of Lucas’ analysis on Ps 26:4. Ut videam voluntatem Domini. Ad hunc modum legunt universa nostra Latina scripta, cum Latinis Tractatoribus, Arnobio, Hieronymo, Cassiodoro, Beda, Haymone, Remigio, Thoma Aq., Hugone de S. Victore, & alijs … Sunt vero alij quidam Latini codices, qui una mutata littera scribant, Ut videam voluptatem Domini; Suessoniens exemplar (id quod est Parisiensium fide in Bibliorum margine notatum est) & Psalterium R.mi D. Lindani opera castigatum … ut videam voluptatem Domini … huic scripturae, inter Latinos Patres, S. Augustinus suffragatur … In hac Latinorum varietate, si, ex Graecis et Hebraicis libris, ferenda sententia est, posterior scriptura probanda, prior erronea iudicanda est. Est enim Graece τοῦ θεωρεῖν με τὴν τερπνότητα Κυρίου. τερπνότης, voluptatem, delectationem, iudicunditantem, non voluntatem denotat … Hebraice est … Noam, decorem, pulchritudinem, iucunditatem, designat. Hinc vertit Hieronymus: ut videam pulchritudinem Domini … Chaldaeus est … dulcedinem. Quae omnia, aut cum voluptatem idem signat, aut voluptatem spectant. quinetiam, voluptatem transtulit quidam. Complures itaque aetatis nostrae scriptores, voluptatem non voluntatem, legendum censuerunt: Pagninus, Iansenius, Bredembachius, Folengius, Eugubinus, Varlenius. Neque enim ea est, Graecis et Hebraeis, quae Latinis, vocum vicinitas, ea quae errori occasionem dedisse videtur, vel quod scribae, voluntatem pro voluptatem … legerint, (nam & aliis, quibusdam Scripturae locis voces istae varietate efficiunt) vel quod voluntatem emendandum iudicarint, quia id convenientius videtur. Minime vero, aut probandus est error, quia constans est; aut recipiendus, quia antiquus (Lucas: 1580, 114–115).

As Lucas explains, the major part of the Latin manuscripts reads voluntatem (will), together with many ‘commentators’: Arnobius of Sicca (d. ca. 327), Jerome (ca. 347–420), Cassiodorus (ca. 485–585), the Venerable Bede, Haimo of Auxerre (d. ca. 878), Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), Hugh of St. Victor (ca. 1096–1141), etc. However, in some Latin codices, voluptatem (enjoyment/delight) occurs, as handed down by the Illuminated Psalter–Hours of Yolande de Soissons (13th century, now at New York, Morgan Lib., MS. M. 729), as noted by Estienne and Lindanus, a reading which was also reported by Augustine (354–430).57 Augustine in particular reads delectationem Domini, and Lucas says that he “supports” (suffragat) the reading voluptatem. It is possible that Lucas did not stress the different reading delectationem/voluptatem, since these two nouns are synonyms. In addition, he may have wanted to focus on voluptatem/voluntatem, to show how easily mistakes could occur in the Latin, and why the appeal to the ‘originals’ was necessary in choosing the correct reading. Indeed, after having shown the discrepancy between the Latin sources, Lucas appeals to both Greek 57 See, Augustine: 1956, CCSL 38, 152.

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)

63

and Hebrew to argue that they use words closest to the Latin voluptas. Thus, he argues that Latin translators have made a scribal error by changing voluptas into voluntas. Finally, he demonstrates the reading voluptas by referring to early modern authors: Sante Pagnini, Cornelius Jansenius ‘of Ghent’, Matthias Bredenbach (ca. 1499–1559), Giovanni Battista Folengo (1490–1559), Agostino Steuco ‘Eugubinus’, viz., from Gubbio (1497–1548) and Hieronymus Varlenius (1511–1589). Lucas summarizes his methodology in the final short phrase, which I have underlined: the oldest manuscripts may not, necessarily, have handed down the genuine reading, and/or one cannot argue that a particular reading is correct, only because of its consistency in the majority of codices. The only way to choose the correct tradition is by way of a thorough philological analysis and by using the original Greek and Hebrew Bible texts.58 Nevertheless, Lucas did not want to suggest a correction of the Vulgate, because he accepted that the “vetus Editio Latina [was] a Tridentino Concilio probata, atque authentica pronunciata” (Lucas: 1580, 6). Lucas still wanted to fulfil the will of the Church which, in the Fourth Session of the Council, had asked for an emendation of the Bible text, ‘cleansing’ it from scribal errors. Therefore, he wanted to answer this request by comparing the Vulgata with the original texts and by showing all germanae lectiones.59 To that end, he had to use many different editions, both printed and manuscript.60 To conclude this section, Lucas’ methodology could be summarized in three steps: a. To take all possible Latin readings, referring also to Latini Tractatores, viz. the Latin commentators, or the Latin Church fathers, analyzing different readings, with constant attention to contemporary scholars. b. If there are different readings, to take the Greek and Hebrew original texts also and compare these with the Latin lectiones. c. To try to offer the most genuine reading, following two philological principles: i. Just because an error is frequent does not mean that it should be received as a correct reading (“aut probandum est error, quia constans est”). ii. The oldest lectio is not necessarily the correct one (“aut recipiendus quia antiquus”).

58 On this, see also Maertens, Franciscus Lucas Brugensis, avalable online at https://www. academia.edu/Documents/in/Franciscus_Lucas_Brugensis (accessed on 16–12–2014). 59 “Qua in re ut Synodi [scil. Tridentini] desiderio satisfaceret Theologica Facultas [scil. Lovaniensis] et D. Hentenio olim, et post nobis, hoc operis demandavit, quanquam a nobis, textus, ut ab Hentenio est editus, verbis neutiquam mutatus sit. Nam enim, ex Hebreo, Graeco, Chaldeo, aut Syro, vulgatam emendare studuimus Versionem: sed cum variare reperta essent vulgatae Versionis exemplaria, adhibita sunt Hebrea et Graeca, plerumque etiam Chaldea et Syra, ut dignosci posset quae Exemplaria lectionem servarent germanam”, Lucas: 1580, 8. 60 For all texts used by Lucas: 1580, 21–24.

64

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

The Notationes in sacra Biblia brought Lucas great recognition, thanks to which he was invited by the Bishop of St. Omer, Jean Six, to come to his diocese in 1581, along with other Catholic scholars from Bruges. There, the bishop even offered him the post of private chaplain and secretary in the same year.61 Finally, in St. Omer, Lucas achieved the goal that he had had in 1574 (according to De Schrevel), viz. that of printing ‘his’ Vulgate edition supplemented with a text-critical apparatus. In 1583, the Plantin Press published a very beautiful edition of this 1574 Vulgate, supplemented with the 1580 Notationes in sacra Biblia, which had been approved by Rome, in order that the reader might know (and possibly even adapt the Bible text to) the variants most faithful to the Hebrew and Greek ‘originals’. In conclusion, Lucas’ approach was completely philological and not theological. This is also evidenced by his quotation of ‘heretical’ authors, when he mentioned their lectiones. Whereas this was the methodology Lucas adopted when working on the 1574 edition, he had to change his methodology again following the “petrification” (Delville: 2008, 80) of the Latin Vulgate in the Sixto-Clementine edition (1592), as I shall examine in the part that follows.

1.2.2 Lucas’ Second Period: 1592–1603 After the publication of the 1583 edition, Lucas waited almost two decades before releasing a new text-critical work. Indeed, during this time, the third Roman Committee was able to emend the Vulgate in preparation for a new edition. The basis of the Committee was actually the 1583 Lucas edition: Carafa was able to offer an emended text that contained “ten-thousand interpolations” (Andreu: 1987, 85–86). Pope Sixtus, however, had disregarded the Committee’s preparatory work and had, on his own initiative, promulgated an edition that was even closer to the Louvain Vulgate, the so-called Vulgata Sixtina, in 1590.62 However, this work was not appreciated by the Congregation of the Cardinals: a week after the death of Pope Sixtus V (27 August 1590), they ordered, first, the suspension of the selling of this edition and, in 1594, the destruction of the printed copies.63 The need for an official text still remained and therefore, in 1591, Gregory XIV set up a fourth Committee which was then reorganized into the fifth and final Com61 Bled: 1898, 422. “Jean Six à peine monté sur le siège épiscopal de Saint–Omer ( juillet 1581), l’appela auprès de lui pour en faire son chapelain intime et son secrétaire”, De Schrevel: 1893, 555. 62 Specifically on the Vulgata Sixtina, Baumgarten: 1911; Amann: 1912; De Saint–Marie: 1987, and Balboni: 1987. 63 See Quentin: 1922, 190. Only a few copies were saved from destruction, and one of them is still preserved in the Maurits Sabbe Library of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies in Louvain (Maurits Sabbe Library: P22.053.2/F°).

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)

65

mittee. The basis of the Committee’s work was the Codex Carafianus, viz. the Louvain Vulgate emended by Carafa’s third Committee. Eventually, in 1592, the Vulgata Sixtina was replaced by the so-called Sixto-Clementine edition, issued by Clement VIII. This edition was actually very important, since it was that Vulgate requested by the Council of Trent almost 50 years earlier.64 Indeed, the preface of Jerome is preceded by a short document, Ad perpetuam rei memoriam, in which the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate is clearly established as being the only acceptable version for the Church. This text can be divided into three main sections: 1) the ban, 2) the possible condemnation, 3) the mandate. In the first section,65 three elements can be seen: a) The text of the Vulgate was accurately purged (accuratissime expurgatus) and restored to its primitive state (restitutus). After the Vatican Press printed this text, it could no longer be changed. Furthermore, this Vulgate should be preserved in the future exactly as it was printed by the Vatican Press. b) The Pope prohibited (Nos … inhibemus) the publication of the Vulgate in both Italy and ultra montes for ten years, giving the monopoly to the Vatican Press. c) After ten years, other publishers could print the Vulgate, but only by using a copy of the Sixto-Clementine printed by the Vatican, without any changes, and by strictly following the text.

64 In a contribution on him, Wicks maintained: “The prefaces prepared under Pope Clement VIII do not declare the 1592 edition to be the authentic Vulgate of the Tridentine Decree of 1546”, Wicks: 2008, 635–636. We do not agree with that interpretation as has already been explained in François/Gerace: 2018. Anyway, a clear proof of the authenticity is given by Clement VIII’s ban: this measure would be totally disproportionate and useless, if this Vulgate was not considered the only “authentic” version. It is true that the word authentica does not appear in the document ad perpetuam rei memoria, but the Pope clearly writes, through Marcello Vestri Barbiani, his domestic secretary, that the text of the Bible was restitutus: restituo in Latin means to restore, to return to the original state; in this restitutus we should read the authenticity of this Vulgate. Moreover, this text, the only acceptable version for the liturgy, was not replaced until the Nova Vulgata in 1979. 65 “Cum sacrorum Bibliorum Vulgatae editionis textus summis laboribus ac vigiliis restitutus, et quam accuratissime mendis expurgatus, benedicente Domino, ex nostra typographia Vaticana in lucem prodeat; Nos, ut in posterum idem textus incorruptus, ut decet, conservetur, opportune providere volentes, auctoritate apostolica, tenore praesentium districtius inhibemus, ne intra decem annos a data præsentium numerandos, tam citra quam ultra montes, alibi quam in nostra Vaticana typographia, a quoquam imprimatur. Elapso autem praefato decennio, eam cautionem adhiberi præcipimus, ut nemo hanc sanctarum Scripturarum editionem typis mandare præsumat, nisi habito prius exemplari in typographia Vaticana excuso: cujus exemplaris forma, ne minima quidem particula de textu mutata, addita, vel ab eo detracta, nisi aliquid occurrat, quod typographicae incuriae manifeste ascribendum sit, inviolabiliter observetur”, Biblia: 1592.

66

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

In the second section, Clement VIII addressed himself to printers and book sellers who would dare to transgress the stipulations, providing severe punishments for them. He pointed to the situation in which a printer, against the Pope’s will, dared to print, to sell, to offer for sale, to diffuse or to publish the SixtoClementine Vulgate at any moment during this decennial monopoly, or in which a bookseller presumed to sell, put up for sale or to publish copies of the said Vulgate edition, – or even of future editions of it –, which might offer a different text or layout with respect to the official version. Transgressors of the papal stipulations might be punished by excommunication, in addition to the confiscation of all of their books, and other possible punishments issued by the Pontiff directly.66 In the final section, the Pope ordered Patriarchs, Cardinals, Bishops and Prelates to ensure that his decision was respected.67 Nevertheless, after a few years, Clement VIII understood the impossibility of printing his Vulgate only in the Vatican Press. The problem was that it was impossible to distribute enough copies to every Catholic diocese, especially in Germany and other regions north of the Alps.68 Therefore, on 11 March 1597, the Pope allowed the Antwerp printer John Moretus, successor of Christopher Plantin, to print the Sixto-Clementine. Moretus was the only publisher north of the Alps (trans Alpes) to receive this privilege, even though the decennial monopoly on printing the restored Vulgate remained in force. Clement VIII sent a copy of the last available 66 “Si quis vero typographus in quibuscumque regnis, civitatibus, provinciis, et locis tam nostrae et S. R. E. ditioni in temporalibus subjectis, quam non subjectis, hanc eamdem sacrarum Scripturarum editionem intra decennium praedictum quoquo modo, elapso autem decennio, aliter quam juxta hujusmodi exemplar, ut præfertur, imprimere, vendere, venales habere, aut alias edere vel evulgare: aut si quis bibliopola a se vel ab aliis quibusvis, post datam præsentium, hujus editionis impressos libros, seu imprimendos a praefato restituto et correcto textu in aliquo discrepantes, seu ab alio, quam a typographo Vaticano, intra decennium excusos, pariter vendere, venales proponere, vel evulgare praesumpserit, ultra amissionem omnium librorum, et alias arbitrio nostro infligendas pœnas temporales, etiam majoris excommunicationis sententiam eo ipso incurrat : a qua nisi a Romano Pontifice, praeterquam in mortis articulo constitutus, absolvi non possit”, Biblia: 1592. 67 “Mandamus itaque universis et singulis, Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, ceterisque Ecclesiarum et locorum, etiam regularium Prælatis, ut praesentes litteras in suis quisque Ecclesiis et jurisdictionibus ab omnibus inviolate perpetuo observari curent ac faciant”, Biblia: 1592. 68 “Cum itaque alias, apostolica auctoritate, sub poenis tunc expressit cautum fuerit, ne sacrorum Bibliorum vulgatae aeditionis iussu felicis recordationis Sixti Papae Quinti praedecessoris nostri recognitorum textus, alibi, praeterquam in Typographia Vaticana, imprimi posset prout in literis apostolicis desuper expeditis, et in ipso bibliorum volumine expressis latius continetur: Cumque ob locorum distantiam, et portorii onera, et ob alias graves difficultates, et impensas, sacrorum Bibliorum in dicta Typographia impressorum volumina, ad Germania praesertim, et alias ultramontanas regiones deferri vix possint … Tibi soli trans Alpes, ut durante decennio proximo, Biblia vulgatae aeditionis huiusmodi iuxta, quam emendatissime tamen, et summa cum fide, nullaque facta additione, aut immutatione imprimere valeas”, Biblia: 1599, A4.

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)

67

reprinting of the official text of the Bible, the 1593 edition, to the Plantin Press, asking, or rather ordering, copies identical to the original to be produced. Finally, after two years, in 1599, Moretus published the first trans Alpes edition of the Sixto-Clementine. In spite of the Vatican recommendation not to change anything, the work changed obvious typographical mistakes in the Roman Vulgate. With the aim of restoring the 1599 Vulgate edition to the 1593 Roman copy sent earlier by the Pope to the Plantin Press, John Moretus received the assistance of some scholars, such as George Colvenerius (1564–1649)69 and Lucas ‘of Bruges’. This revision was made through an exchange of letters, characterized by the inclusion of long appendices containing lists of the typographical errors.70 Lucas highlighted the discrepancies between these two Vulgates with a welldefined methodology: he put all the differences into two columns, in order to compare the 1599 Antwerp version clearly with that of the 1593 Vatican edition of the Sixto-Clementine. As an example of the accuracy of this work, I have included an extract from the appendix to the letter sent by Lucas to John Moretus’ son, Balthasar, on 4 September 160171 (the underlinings are mine): Biblia Gen.

2. v. 16. 10. v. 14. 11. v. 11. 13. v. 12. 30. v. 27. v. 31. 32. v. 4.

Antv (viz. 1599). praecipitq. et Chassuim Vixtiq. postq. in opidis Labam nihil volo Praecipitq

Rom. (viz. 1593) praecepitq. et Chasluim Vixtiq. Sem postq. in oppidis Laban Nihil volo Praecepitq

69 George Colvenerius was Royal Professor of Theology in the University of Douai, see Van der Meersch: 1873, 311–313. 70 See the letters in De Schrevel: 1891, 210–212. For instance, Lucas writes “ex collactione Romani Bibliorum exemplaris [viz. 1593 edition], observavi errores exemplaris vestri [viz. 1599 edition]”, Lucas to Balthasar Moretus, September 4th, 1601. John Moretus received a letter a few months previously, also furnished with an appendix, by George Colvenerius, who also remarked upon those typographical mistakes in the Antwerp edition or at least discrepancies from the Sixto–Clementine: “Mitto pauculas, quae tua laus est et correctoris tui, mendas in editione Bibliorum ad exemplar Romanum, in quibus tua [viz. 1599 edition] a Romana impressione dissident. Observavi et alia non pauca in quibus non dubito errorem esse vel typographicum vel alium, sed nihil omnino notavi in his nisi ubi dissentis a Romano exemplaris”, George Colvenerius to John Moretus, April 26th, 1601, in De Schrevel: 1891, 210. 71 Lucas to Balthasar Moretus, 4 September 1601, in De Schrevel: 1891, 214. Anyway, consultation of the copy of the 1599 Antwerp Vulgate preserved in Louvain in the Maurits Sabbe Library shows that there is not always a correspondence between the typographical mistakes reported in the appendix and those ones present in this Vulgate. For instance, in Gen 10:14, there is correctly “Chasluim” and not “Chassuim” or, in Num 24:24, the appendix has “trienibus”, but in the Vulgate we read “triremibus” (instead of “trieribus”). I have personally seen the original letter, still preserved at the APM, Reg. 87, f. 303 and I can verify that De Schrevel has correctly transcribed the text: in sum, the problem of the discrepancies still remains.

68

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

1.2.3 Lucas’ Third period 1603–1618 It was not only the 1599 Antwerp edition that presented typographical mistakes. Pinpointing the discrepancies between Plantin’s printing of 1599 and the 1593 Vatican Vulgate, Colvenerius and Lucas were even able to find typographical errors within the latter edition. Therefore, they promptly sent these mistakes to Cardinal Baronius with Moretus as intermediary.72 It was the presence of these typographical errors73 in the 1593 Vatican edition that gave Lucas the inspiration to write a booklet (libellus) to be published alongside the second Antwerp Vulgate (1603). Lucas published it separately in order to respect the Pope’s will not to have changes to the Vulgate text itself (nullaque facta additione, aut immutatione imprimere valeas; Biblia: 1599, A4). Dedicated to the Bishop of St. Omer, Jacques Blase, the booklet was entitled Romanae correctionis … loca insigniora. The aim of this libellus is expressed in a letter of Lucas addressed to John Moretus: I send you the booklet (libellus) on the correction of the Roman Bible (de Romana correctione), which serves to ornament the Sistine Bible [scil. 1593 Sixto-Clementine] … attached at the end, in order that both those who do not yet have the Sistine Bible and also those who have it, but were habituated to other editions, could, thanks to this booklet, emend their own Bible copies and make them conform to the Sistine Bible; finally, the others could understand how the Sistine Bible is different from the other Bibles, facts that many people do not know, even though they have the Sistine Bible.74

72 “Quare summopere mihi gratulor ac gaudeo de censura quam Ill.ma R. T. mihi transmisit locorum quorundam in Romano Bibliorum exemplari quae errorem typographicum R.dis Dominis Francisco Lucae decano Audomarensi et Georgio Colvenerio”, John Moretus to Card. Baronius, January 3rd, 1603, in De Schrevel: 1891, 240. De Schrevel also adds Passages de la Vulgate, éditée à Rome en 1593, que François Lucas et Georges Colvenerius supposent être entaches d’erreurs typographiques et que le cardinal Baronius renvoie a Jean Moretus I, munis de observations, see De Schrevel: 1893, 234–238. 73 He always spoke about typographical errors. For instance, Lucas writes to John Moretus: “Porro inter colligendum illas Romanorum correctiones, observavi loca quaedam, quae, ut persuasus sum, in Romanis Bibliis erronea sunt excusa; illa in schedula descripta ad te mitto, ut eorum, si placet, Romanos reddas certiores, illuque tibi sententiam suam significent, qua intellecta, siquidem vitia typographica sint, vel emendes in iis quae imprimis Bibliis, vel, si loca praeterieris antequam illi scripserint, ad calcem annotes. Velim autem ego quoque certior fieri, si quid illi respondeant; jam enim ego in observationibus illis meis scripsi, videri mihi typographicos esse errores”, Lucas to John Moretus, 12 March 1602, in De Schrevel: 1891, 221–222. 74 “…mitto libellum de Romana correctione, qui serviet ornandis Sixtinis Biblis…ad calcem additum…ut et ii qui nondum habent Sixtina Biblia et ii qui etiamsi habeant, assueverunt aliis exemplaribus, sua Biblia ex hoc libello possint corrigere et Sixtinis accomodare; denique alii intelligere, quo differant Sixitina Biblia ab aliis Bibliis, id quod plerique nesciunt etiamsi Sixtina Biblia habeant”, Lucas to John Moretus, 1 May 1602, in De Schrevel: 1891, 224. The italics are in the text.

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)

69

On the basis of this quotation, it is obvious that Lucas intended his libellus to be an appendix to the Antwerp Sixto-Clementine edition of 1603 and to provide a list in which he included the emendations present in the Sixto-Clementine text. The goal was to allow scholars to compare the Sixto-Clementine version to other versions and to correct the other, older version. The second aim seems to have been the correction of the typographical errors that were present in the 1593 Roman Vulgate. The noun that he used to indicate these mistakes, vitiola, shows that he considered them not to be important, in terms of faith,75 since they are simply due to the inscitia and incuria of the printers, viz. their non-comprehension of the Bible and their negligence in the work. This is to say that the fault was not in the Bible; rather, in those who had printed it. In any case, Lucas left the decision whether or not to insert this booklet into his new edition of the SixtoClementine to Moretus.76 Below, there are some examples of these corrections. They are taken from the chapter on Genesis, in order to illustrate the double purpose of the booklet:77 Capitis primi versu secundo: Et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas. Non sine causa, Romani Correctores, Domini, id est, τοῦ κυρίου, quod est in multis libris, mutarunt cum Dei, .i. τοῦ θεοῦ quod est in aliis. (9) Versu 26. Et bestiis. Recte hic omiserunt vocem terrae, quam quidam libri addunt in hunc modum: Et bestiis terrae. (9) Cap. XX. v. 7 Nunc ergo redde viro suo uxorem, quia propheta est: et orabit pro te, et vives. Hic est ordo, non tantum Sixtinorum, verum etiam nostrorum antiquorum codicum, Hebraicae veritati consonantium. In aliis multis libris, illud quia propheta est, postponitur huic et orabit pro te. (13–14) Cap XXXV v. 8 Ad radices Bethel, subter quercum. Legendum est subter, quod locum inferiorem significant, non super contrarium, tametsi hoc sit in Romana anni 1593. editione: error est enim typographicus. (17)

75 “Verum hanc rem permitto judicio et arbitrio tuo, hoc tantum addo: quod si in hujusmodi separatam impressionem propenderes, non necesse esse expectare responsum Romanorum ad pauca poca illa quae videntur mihi in autographo Romano esse vitiata: nam quia jam edita sunt cum illis vitiolis Sixtina Biblia et Romae, et Antuerpiae, et alibi, omnino indicari oportet vitiola illa: qua si in excusione angustiae quae a vobis paratur, corrigantur, facile erit ad calcem illius excusioni id significare”, Lucas to John Moretus, 1 May 1602, in De Schrevel: 1891, 224. The italics are in the text. 76 “Ea tamen est, plerorumque qui Typographiis praesunt, vel inscitia, ut non agnoscant, vel incuria, ut negligant, quod verum est, et inolitis vitiis postponant… Dum igitur dispicio, quondam efficaciam remedium huic malo queat adhiberi, ne amplius ea loca corrumpantur, quae iam dexterrime correcta sunt…et indicata ea quae reiecta est lectione, ita clare intelligere posset, quae proba sit lectio, reproba sit lectio, quae textu expulsa, quae in textum, summi Pontificis Ecclesiae totius capitis, auctoritate recepta”, Lucas: 1603, 4. 77 Lucas: 1603. At the end of each quotation, there is the number of the page between brackets.

70

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

In the first example, Lucas refers to Romani correctores, the members of the Roman Committee, agreeing with their reading to change Domini (the Lord), to Dei (God) in Gen 1:2. In the second quotation, Lucas also basically agrees with the Romani correctores. In the third example the Louvain scholar shows the conformity of the Sixto-Clementine with the lectio (or rather the order of the words) handed down through “our ancient codices”,78 to which he had access and which offer a reading that is closer to the Hebrew version. Finally, the last quotation is a clear correction of a typographical mistake: the adverb super (on), which is present in the Vatican 1593 edition, should be read as subter (under). It is clear that the Romanae correctionis…loca insigniora does not offer the same textcritical analysis as was characteristic for the Notationes with their comparison of multiple manuscripts, their inclusion of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, or Syriac texts, and their quotation of ancient, medieval, and modern exegetes. The reason for this change of methodology is quite obvious. The two works have different aims. If the Notationes had the intention of collecting all possible lectiones handed down over the centuries, the Romanae correctionis … loca insigniora took the Sixto-Clementine to be the authoritative point of departure and intended simply to show its typographical mistakes. No substantial changes could be considered acceptable after the Sixto-Clementine. Lucas had to avoid any possible reference to a better reading since no reading could be considered better than that of the Pope’s Vulgate. In summary, the printing of the Vatican edition (1592) led to the “petrification” of the Vulgate text. After this point time, it was not possible to put other lectiones in the margin of the authentic version of the Church, let alone to attach a booklet in which other parallel readings might be included. This variation with respect to the methodology used in the Notationes and Romanae correctionis … loca insigniora becomes clear not only after the reading of Lucas’ exchange of letters with John Moretus, but also considering different verses in both works. For instance, in the libellus there is no mention of the problematic reading of Gen 3:15. Its examination would be useless not only because it was already fully developed in the Notationes, but especially because the Roman Committee had defined the only correct and faithful reading: there was no longer a reason to show divergent lectiones in respect of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate.79 In any case,

78 With all probability, Lucas is referring to those of Tournai, Lobbes and Bruges since, in Notationes, the author considers them nostri, “ours”. In addition to the manuscripts of Tournai, Lobbes and Bruges, Lucas counts as nostri that of Liege, see Lucas: 1580, Ecc 5:9, 277. Possibly, with nostri he refers to those manuscripts present in the Low Countries. 79 However, the text-critical studies could continue in order to help scholars, but these studies could not be inserted in the Vulgate: “Ita quoque non prohibet, quin alio genere caracteris in hac ipsa Vaticana editione ejusmodi adjumenta pro studiosorum commoditate, atque utili-

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)

71

the Romanae correctionis … loca insigniora was not exempt from criticism. For instance, Willem Estius, the renowned biblical scholar of the University of Douai, wrote to Lucas: “I observe in your corrections many things to be extolled, but not all”.80 Estius’ criticism focused especially upon the absence of several emendations given by the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, although Lucas had set out his aim to include them. In his reply, Lucas admitted that he had indeed not included all of them because, in his opinion, not every correction given by the Roman Committee was justified. In other words, the Sixto-Clementine did not always follow the right lectio. It is quite clear that Lucas, in this private communication, did not appreciate the Vulgate’s official text in all its passages. Nonetheless, due to the publication of the Sixto-Clementine, and its status as the ‘definitive’ and ‘authoritative’ text of the Catholic Church, Lucas had to change his methodology in the last text-critical works he produced, as I shall further show, on the basis of the Notae ad varias lectiones latinas in quatuor Evangeliis occurrentes, the publication of which was actually approved by Estius.81 The Notae ad varias lectiones was finished by the time the Romanae correctionis … loca insigniora was published, since the abovementioned letter to Estius dates from 1603, if not earlier.82 Like his previous work, this booklet, dedicated to tate in posterum adjiciantur; ita tamen, ut lectiones variae ad marginem ipsius textus minime annotentur”, Biblia: 1592. 80 “Observo multa in illis correctionibus a te laudari, sed non omnia”, William Estius to Lucas, 14 December 1603, in De Schrevel: 1891, 254. 81 “Quod autem observavi eruditio tua non omnia quae in illis Bibliis sunt a me laudari, fateor: ut et sunt non pauca loca illorum Bibliorum, quae in illo Correctorio omisi, tametsi variantia. Ratio ea est, quam animadvertit, adhuc deesse illis Biblis [viz. 1593 Sixto-Clementine] quae ad exactam castigationem faciant; nimirum non omnia loca correcta, quae a nostro judicio correctionem merebantur; sive, plures adhuc superesse lectionum varietates, e quibus non videantur ea Biblia sequi optime: id quod in quatuor certe Evangeliis facile observabit qui hunc libellum Romanarum correctionum, contulerit cum altero meo libello jampridem a vobis approbato, titulo: Notarum ad varias lectiones latinas in quatuor Evangeliis occurrentes”, Lucas to William Estius, 22 January 1604, in De Schrevel 1981, 255. About this libellus see below. 82 Between Romanae correctionis … loca insigniora and Notae ad varias lectiones there is Concordantiae Bibliorum sacrorum vulgatae editionis ad recognitionem jussu Sixti V. Pont. Max. Bibliis adhibitam recensitae atque emendatae (Antwerp: Plantin, 1617). The Concordantiae is not exactly a text-critical work, being the alphabetical list of the words of the Sixto-Clementine, with the indication and even the quotation of all the places in which they appear. However, Lucas affirmed in the prefatory epistle that he had corrected a previous edition of the concordantiae, the most complete and recent he was able to find, and used the emendation he had made in his Romanae correctionis … loca insigniora to that end. As Neirynck explains, Lucas firstly used Concordantiae Bibliorum utriusque Testamentis Veteris et Novi, novae et integrae, quas re vera maiores appellare possis (1567), but following the suggestion of Balthasar Moretus, he later used Concordantiae Bibliorum utriusque Testamentis Veteris et Novi, novae et integrae, quas re vera maiores appellare possis: opus post omnes quae praecesserunt editiones, multis depravatis locis commode restituitis et castigatis, summo studio ac labore illustatrum (1585). Neirynck: 1979, 370.

72

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

his friend Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, was intended to be an appendix to his commentaries on the Gospels, which were published in three volumes between 1606 and 1616. Again, the purpose of this book was to analyze the various lectiones present in the Gospels, and to distinguish the genuine versions from the spurious ones.83 Lucas, explicitly showed his methodology in the dedicatory letter to Bellarmine. Lucas explained that he had divided this work into two different volumes, one for the Greek differences by comparison with the Biblia Regia, and the other one for the Latin varietates, by comparison with the Sixto-Clementine. In this analysis, Lucas encountered three kinds of variation, for each of which he followed a different approach: a) The varietas is not very relevant (exigua). In this case, Lucas explained this variation. b) The varietas is relevant, but some analogy (quid habeat) with the lectio of the Sixto-Clementine remains. In this case, he briefly explained what this variation (and analogy) consisted of.84 c) The varietas diverges profoundly (nihil verisimilitudinis) from the SixtoClementine. In this case, Lucas completely rejected this variant reading without further analysis, since the only genuine lectio was proclaimed to be officially handed down in the Sixto-Clementine. The approach to the Notae is very different from the 1580 Notationes. Instead of his earlier text-critical principles, as “minime vero, aut probandus est error, quia constans est; aut recipiendus, quia antiquus”, Lucas had now to accept on authority that the correct reading had been established in the Vatican’s 1592 Vulgate. Therefore, he could only show the different varietates, without saying which lectio was correct according the text-critical method. He was simply forced to reject those lectiones which differed profoundly from the Sixto-Clementine. By way of example, a short extract of the Notae on Matt 1:11 is shown below:

83 “Putavi mearum partium esse, ut et varias lectiones, sive Graece sive Latine occurrentes, annotarem, discuterem, examinarem: denique eam quae genuina esset, sive fontis Graeci, sive versionis Latinae, quod ejus a me fieri posset, indicarem, et a spuriis distinguerem”, see the dedicatory letter to Card. Bellarmine in Lucas: 1605. 84 “In his duobus libellis, uno Graecas, altero Latinas Evangelicorum librorum varietates explicante, haec mihi servatur methodus, ut primum proponam, in Graecis quidem, eam lectionem quae est Regiorum; in Latinis autem, eam quae est Sixtinorum Bibliorum: deinde adferam eam quae ab illa variat, nec adferam tantum, verumetiam quo distinguatur describam, quando differentia exigua est (ut saepe est) ne vel in hoc ipsum correctorium irrepat error (quale exemplum in quibusdam manuscriptis correctoris vidimus): postremo si quidem nihil verisimilitudinis habeat, uno eam verbo reprobem; si quid vero habeat id paucis exponam”, in the dedicatory letter to Card. Bellarmine in Lucas: 1605.

Textual Criticism of the Vulgate before and after the Sixto-Clementine (1592)

73

Ἰωσίας δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰεχονίαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ] Decimusquartus e sedecim vetustis codicibus, cum quibus Parisienses olim contulerunt Graecam Novi Testamenti Editionem, legit, Ἰωσίας δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰαχείµ. Ἰαχείµ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰεχονίαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ. Ubi generationem unam studiose ab aliquot adjectam non dubium est esse, ad evitandas difficultates illas, quas in Commentario tractavimus. Nam ut a caeteris Graecis libris non agnoscitur illa generatio, ita neque a Syricis aut Latini, neque ab ullis omnino Tractatoribus, nominatim, inter veteres, Hieronymo atque Ambrosio Latinis, et Auctore operis in Matthaeum imperfecti atque Euthymio Graecis: ut praeteream, Jechoniae filii Joakim, non plures, sed unicum fratrem reperiri in sacris Litteris, Sedechiam inquam, I. Paral. 3. v. 16. nec Ἰαχείµ dictum esse patrem sed Ἰωαχείµ. Quare temerarium est, ex unius, ejusque alieni, nec visi fortasse, codicis, auctoritate, veterem et quidem constantem mutare sacrae scripturae lectionem: quod fecit Theodor Beza, cujus translatio est: Josias autem genuit Jakim: Jakim autem genuit Jechoniam et fratres ejus.

In this passage, Lucas disagreed with Estienne (Parisienses) and Theodor Beza (1519– 1609) on the possibility of inserting the expression “τὸν Ἰαχείµ. Ἰαχείµ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν” (Iacheim. Iacheim begat), between Ἰωσίας δὲ ἐγέννησε … τὸν Ἰεχονίαν (Josias begat … Iechonia). What is important to demonstrate in this pericope, the very first one to be included in the Notae, is how the methodology used by Lucas had changed, as is evidenced by the last sentences: “temerarium est, ex unius … codicis auctoritate veterem et quidem constantem mutare sacrae scripturae lectionem”. If in the Notationes in sacra Biblia (1580) the constancy and the antiquity of a lectio cannot guarantee the correctness of that particular reading, in the Notae, as emphasized, it is said to be temerarious to choose a different lectio with respect to the constant and ancient one,85 which is obviously to be identified with the Vulgate in its SixtoClementine form. Lucas’ very last work was the Libellus alter continens alias lectionum varietates, again dedicated to the Bishop of St. Omer Jacques Blase: it was printed in 1618, and Lucas died a year after its publication on 19 February 1619. This libellus was intended to add elements that were not present in the Romanae correctionis … loca insigniora.86 Nonetheless, he had to defend himself against the accusation of correcting the Sixto-Clementine, which was said to contain Jerome’s genuine translation. In a reply to this accusation, he specified that he did not prefer a 85 In this case, moreover, there is also the reference to the “Parisians” viz. Estienne, who was wrong, according to Lucas. Indeed, Estienne showed this idiosyncratic lectio in the margin of his edition of the New Testament in Greek: “*τὸν Ἰαχείµ. Ἰαχείµ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν”. See, ΤΉΣ ΚΑΙΝΉΣ ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗΣ ͗ΆΠΑΝΤΑ Ε͗ΎΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ (1550), 1. It is interesting to note that Robert Estienne suffered a kind of damnatio memoriae: in the copy still preserved in Louvain in the Maurits Sabbe Library (P225.042/Fo BIJB), “Stephanus” was deleted both in the frontispiece and in the Greek version of the dedicatory letter (but not in the Latin version, present in the verso of the same page), leaving only the name Robertus behind. 86 “Jam offero alterum libellum, in quem, doctorum Theologarum hortatu, congessi alia loca notatu digna, ex veteribus Editionis Vulgatae manuscriptis libris collecta, quae hactenus non correcta, merito fortassi pleraque corrigi possent”, De Schrevel: 1891, 395.

74

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

particular reading, but merely wanted to show variae lectiones of Latin manuscripts, following in any case the judgment of the papal authority, viz. the right lectio as contained in the Sixto Clementine Vulgate.87

1.3

The Case of Gen 3:15 in Henten, Lucas and Sasbout

To show the inherent difficulty of text-criticism and how, in practice, Louvain scholars tried to restore the Scriptures to their original form, I shall offer the philological analysis that Henten, Lucas and the Franciscan minor Adam Sasbout88 made of a specific passage, Gen 3:15, the so-called proto-evangelium. The choice of this verse is due to its manifold possible readings. Unfortunately, Zegers does not deal with it, but I have found a sermon of a disciple of his, Adam Sasbout, in which he analyzes this verse, giving an interesting interpretation. In his edition, Henten reads: Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus. Furthermore, Henten also puts in the margin the reading ipse in place of ipsa, but he does not furnish any explanation of this choice, just adding an Arabic number, 2, meaning the number of codices that he had consulted and which handed down that reading. Unfortunately, Henten does not indicate the codices he is referring to, considering it superfluous: he thinks that the reader could not actually consult the manuscripts that he has used, so their indication in the margin is not considered necessary.89 Adam Sasbout,90 however, has a completely different opinion. He was a Franciscan, hailing from Delft (‘Delphius’) in Holland who moved to Louvain to 87 “Nam, ut idem alias me monuit, Hieronymus versabatur, in corrigendis erratis Interpretum, quorum versiones in usum pluribus Ecclesiarum receptae jam fuerant: hic laboratur, non in corrigendo Interprete, sed in versione Interpretis emendanda ex ejusdem versionis exemplaribus, hoc est, in Notatiorum erratis auferendis, qua re minus facile potest offendi … Sed accusent me forte multi temeritatis et arrogantiae, quod post praeclaros illos viros, a Sede Apostolica delegatos ausim mutare aliquid in Bibliis, et judicum meum illorum judicio praeferre. Respondeo, quod mea mens non sit mutare aliquid aut praeferre: sed quod eas varias Lectiones, quas in latinis Vulgatae editionis codicibus et tractatoribus inveniam et verisimilitudinem habere videntur, in medium proferam judicio Suae Sanctitatis iisque quos illa iterum committere possit relicto, an sint praeferendae aliisque surrogandae”, De Schrevel: 1891, 395–396. 88 On the bio-bibliographical information on Adam Sasbout, see below chapter 2.2.3. 89 “Adiuncto ubique discrepantium exemplarium numero. Superfluum siquidem fuisset hos ipsos nominatim recensere codices, quum neminem hanc operam sibi sumpturum putem, ut singula, quae tot locis dispersa sunt, consular exemplariam sed nobis fidem potius habiturum”, Biblia: 1547, iij. 90 See Vander Linden: 1913, 422–424; De Vocht: 1951–1955, vol. 3, 509–512.

The Case of Gen 3:15 in Henten, Lucas and Sasbout

75

study, achieving his “baccalaureate” in 1537.91 There, he entered the Franciscan Order in 1544,92 becoming lector four years later, in 1548, succeeding Zegers. During his brief life, he wrote several exegetical books which had only a few reprints up to the beginning of the 17th century. In Sasbout’s works is present one of the leitmotivs of the Franciscan House of Study in Louvain: the criticism of Erasmus’ text-critical analysis of the New Testament, an element shared with Titelmans and Zegers (François: 2012, 244–247. See also Gerace: 2020b). In effect, Sasbout refers to the Dutch humanist on several occasions with the precise aim of attacking him for interpreting the Bible in a different way from that of the Church fathers. Sasbout shows his preference for Jerome among the Latin commentators and Origen among the Greeks.93 Another humanist who is the object of Sasbout’s denigration is Valla,94 while other opponents include Martin Bucer, John Calvin and the ‘Lutherans’ in general, referring, of course, to Protestants as a whole. In particular, his first work was the Conciones tres super scripturam Levitici, eritis mihi sancti ad clerum habitae which was published in Louvain by the printer Antoine-Marie Bergagne in 1552. As the title reveals, this book consists of three sermons on Lev 20:26 “You shall be holy unto me, because I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from other people, that you should be mine”. These sermons were intended for clerics and were dedicated to his biological brothers (germani fratres), Sasboldus and Gerald.95 The very same year, Bergagne published another writing of Sasbout, viz. Oratio quodlibetica demonstrans veram Christi ecclesiam. Cui adjuncta est alia funebris de obitu domini Tilmanni, which contains the sermon, “which shows the true Church of Christ” in addition to the funeral oration in memory of the dean (praeses) of the Pope’s College in Louvain, Tilman Clercx. With the same printer, in 1553, Sasbout published another funeral oration, Memento homo quod pulvis es, et quod in pulverum revereris in memory 91 “Aetatis sextum et vigesimum confecerat Adamus, cum varijs, titulum Bacca-laureati ad doctrinae et eloquientae gloriam adijciebat”, Vosmeer, R.P. Adami Sasbout ex Ordine Minorum s. Theologiae Professoris Vita, in Sasbout: 1613, c. 5. 92 “MDXLIV in D. Francisci familiam [Adamus] se dat … in laudato urbis Lovani monasterio”, Vosmeer: 1613. This data is also indirectly confirmed by another source: “[Adamus] vixit in Ordine annos novem [viz., 1544–1553]”, see Valery Andreas’ document attached to the dedicatory epistle of van Bukentop: 1696. 93 For instance, In epistola ad Romanos Expositio, Sasbout writes: “Quod autem Erasmus contra sententiam Hieronymi adfert”, 250b, or, analyzing the terms ἐπίσκοπος (epíscopos) and ἀπόστολος (apóstolos), Sasbout says “Cui [Chrysostomo] commentario ex diametro repugnat annotatio Erasmi … Hactenus Erasmus, cuius auctoritas non tanti apud nos esse debet atque Chrysostomi: neque ipsius tantum Chrysostomi sed et Origenis … quorum uterque in lingua Graeca doctissimus fuit”, Sasbout: 1575, 253b. 94 For instance, analysing the difference between λατρεία (latreía) and δουλεία (douleía), Sabout writes “Et frustra fatigat Valla, qui ut inscitia arguat”, Sasbout: 1575, 255b. 95 In the dedication, he writes: “Adamus Germanis fratibus suis Sasboldo ac Geraldo”. Sasbout 1552.

76

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

of his cousin, Arnold Sasbout, member of the Council of State, President of the Privy Council and Knight.96 In an irony of fate, the Franciscan died in the same year he wrote this funeral oration, passing away on 21 March at the age of 37.97 Among these sermons, one in particular grasped my attention, the oratio quodlibetica that actually deals with Gen 3:15. Sasbout gave this sermon when he was still adulescens,98 which probably refers to the period between earning his baccalaureate (1537), at 21 years old, and entering the Franciscan Order (1544), at 28 years old. In any case, he preached it before becoming lector of the Sacred Scriputres in the Franciscan House of Study in Louvain in 1548. Possibly, Sasbout’s ideas on this specific passage were later shared with his master Zegers, who may have agreed with them. In this sermon, Sasbout explains what the ‘true Church of Christ’ is, and, in this instance, he deals with Gen 3:15. After having mentioned the heretic opponents of the true faith, in particular the followers of Luther, Oecolampadius and Zwingli (Sasbout: 1552, Aij), Sasbout recalls that God actually sent his Son in order that all those who believe in Him are freed from their sins, receiving both justice and salvation, with no difference between family, sex and social condition.99 In this case, Sasbout refers directly to Gen 3:15, first offering the Hebrew text. His translation, however, differs from that of Henten. Sasbout writes: Inimicitiam ponam inter te et mulierem, et inter semen tuum et semen illius. Ipsum conteret tibi caput et ei conteres eius calcaneo. Here ipsum is clearly a variant reading in respect to ipsa, which was Henten’s reading. As Sasbout explains, ipsum is the Latin translation for the feminine Hebrew pronoun ‫[ ִהיא‬hıˆʾ] whose presence here he considered to be a typographical error owing to the negligence of the printer who wrote ‫ ִהיא‬in place of ‫הוּא‬. Actually, the original must have read the masculine Hebrew pronoun ‫[ הוּא‬hûʾ] which refers to the masculine Hebrew noun ‫[ ֶז ַרע‬zeraʿ] translated as semen in Latin. Then, since semen is a neuter noun, the appropriate pronoun is ipsum. Furthermore, the verb ‫[ שׁוּף‬sˇûp], translated as

96 “Eiusdem familiae princeps fuit Iudecus Sasbout, cuius filius Arnoldus Sasbout. Estque alter post alterum, a Consilio Hollandiae, in Gelriae Cancellarius delectus. Hic denique (quasi per omnes honorum gradus) in Regij Senatus, et Consilij Arcani Praesidem, atque Equestrem in numerum elatus: Adamis patruelis, ille patruis”, Vosmeer: 1613, c.1. See, de Borchgrave: 1913, 424–425. 97 “Natus fuit Adamus, die prime et vigesimo Decembris … MDXVI (21 December 1516) … Decessit xii Kalendae Aprilis a mille quingentis anno tertio et quinquagesimo (21 March 1553); Aetatis septimo et trigesimo, per tres menses, inchoato”, Sasbout: 1613, c.18. 98 “Mitto duas orationes. Altera [the quodlibetica] (quam adolescens habui) declarat quae sit, et ubi inveniatur vera Christi Ecclesia, simulque de peccato ad mortem, et loco Exodi, Ego sum Dominus Zelotes visitans iniquitatem patrum in filios, disserit [Ex 20:5]”, Sasbout: 1552, Ai. 99 “Mediatorem proposuit … ut omnes in ipsum credentes cuiusque tandem generis, sexus ac conditionis forent, a peccatis liberarentur, iustitiam acciperent et salutem”, Sasbout: 1552, Av.

The Case of Gen 3:15 in Henten, Lucas and Sasbout

77

contere in Latin, is conjugated as a masculine form which cannot refer to the feminine ‫[ ִהיא‬hıˆʾ].100 In order to corroborate his opinion, Sasbout also refers to the Greek text as handed down by the Septuagint which has αὐτός, the masculine pronoun, revealing that the original Hebrew version had ‫הוּא‬, something also confirmed by Jerome in his Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos. Therefore, the codices that hand down the reading ipsa are simply incorrect.101 In summary, the difference ipsum/ ipse seems not to be so relevant: ‫ הוּא‬becomes ipse in the case that the translator literally rendered the Hebrew masculine pronoun into the Latin masculine pronoun. In the case that the translator put ipsum, it means that he simply preferred to adopt in Latin the corresponding neuter Latin noun, semen, with its pronoun, ipsum. However, not to generate confusion in reading the text, the more appropriate translation should be ipsum since ipse/ αὐτός is masculine, and it cannot refer either to the feminine mulier/ γυνή, or to the neuter semen/ σπέρμα.102 That ‫הוּא‬/ipsum refers to ‫ ֶז ַרע‬/semen is also evident, according to Sasbout, by comparing Gen 3:15 with Gen 22:18, “benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae quia oboedisti voci meae”. Actually that in semine tuo is a typological prefiguration of Christ, like that of the protoevangelium, as Paul too seems to indicate in Gal 3:16 “Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius 100 “Cum enim duo praecedant nomina, alterum foemini generis nempe ‫ִאי ָשּׁה‬, quod mulierem sonat, alterum masculini, videlicet ‫ ֶז ַרע‬quod nos semen dicimus, et subijciatur, ‫ הוּא‬pronomen eius generis et significantiae, cuius est, ipse, apud latinos. Certe ad semen pertinet, quod de capite colubri conterendo scribitur. Nam si mulierem significare voluisset Moses, dixisset ‫ִהיא‬, quanquam voculae hae non nisi una litera differunt, scilicet media, quae in altera est, Vau, in altera Iod, quae et adeo similes sibis sunt, ut nisi vigiles, facile alteram pro altera legas scribasve. Atque putarem ego typographum indiligentia ‫ִהיא‬, mutatum hoc loci in ‫הוּא‬, nisi me retraheret, quod additur verbum ‫ ְישׁוְּפ‬id est conteret, quod cum masculini generis sit, non admittit ‫ … ִהיא‬plane indicet ‫ הוּא‬legendum in praecedentibus, ac de semine esse sermonem”, Sasbout: 1552b, Av-Avj. As Professor Gergely Juhasz has kindly shown me, “the original edition does not contain vowels and there is a typographical error: the printer obviously mistook the final pe ‫ ף‬for a tav ‫( ת‬similarly when Sasbout uses the feminine form ‫ תשׁוף‬it is erroneously printed as ‫”)תשׁות‬. 101 “Unde Septuaginta transtulerunt ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς: αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν. Quos cum libenter imitetur Hieronymus puto, et ipsum ad eundum modum reddisse ‫ הוּא‬hebraicum, licet reclament codices qui hodie in manibus sunt, qui constanter in foeminino legunt, ipsa conteret caput tuum, sed depravatos esse, facile colligere potest ex quaestionibus hebraicis, quas in Genesim edidit”, Sasbout: 1552b, Avj. The reference is to Jerome: 1959, CCSL 72, 5–6. Then Sasbout also refers to the divergent reading τηρήσει/ conteret, but he does not analyze it in depth so I shall postpone the discussion of this discrepancy to Lucas’ study, which is more developed. 102 “(Nove enim omnino trastulerunt, siquidem nec Graecorum, αὐτός, nec ipse, Latinorum quo pertinere secundum vocem possit, habet. Non enim ad γυναῖκα vel mulierem, non etiam ad σπέρμα vel semen referri potest, cum haec nomina aut foemina aut neutra sint, pronomen vero masculinum)”, Sasbout: 1552b, Avj.

78

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

non dicit et seminibus quasi in multis sed quasi in uno et semini tuo qui est Christus”.103 After Henten and Sasbout, Lucas also deals with Gen 3:15. He begins his Notationes in Sacra Biblia precisely by focusing on this verse, showing the variant lectiones of ipsa which in some codices reads ipse and in others ipsum, as we shall see. First, Lucas maintains that the majority of the Latin Bible translations have ipsa104 but, as emphasized by Parisian theologians, viz. Robert Estienne, the sangermanense oblongum et correctorium sorbonicum105 have a different interpretation. Indeed, their lectio is ipse, and Lucas maintains that this reading is more like the ‘original’ Hebrew text.106 Even the Greek translation has the corresponding reading of the Hebrew word, which is translated as αὐτός, as in the Codex Complutensis (viz. the Polyglot), in the Codex Vaticanus and in the Aldina edition.107 However, by comparing these codices, another variant occurs in this verse: 103 “Mihi sane eo fecisse videntur consilio, ut significarent in vocabulo seminis tropum subesse et poni pro magno illo semine, de quo c. 22 Geneseos, Benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae, ubi Christus intelligitur interprete Paulo. Abrahae, inquit, dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius, non dicit et seminibus, quasi in multis, sed quasi in uno et semini tuo, qui est Christus”, Sasbout: 1552b, Avj. 104 “Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius. Latina exemplaria pleraque ipsa scribunt conteret caput tuum”, Lucas: 1580, 25, and “Minime vero contemnenda est ea Latinorum exemplaria lectio ipsa conteret caput tuum, tum quod in omnibus paene Latinis codicibus legatur”, Lucas: 1580, 26. 105 During the Late Middle Ages, the Latin translation of the Bible was emended, and the correctorium sorbonicum was one of several manuscripts along with the correctorium parisiense (1226), the correctorium of Hugo of St. Cher (1240) and the correctorium vaticanum. In particular, on the correctorium sorbonicum, see Dahan: 2004, 113–153. Estienne used the parisiense in his edition of the Bible, see Elliot: 1997, 223. See also, Van Liere: 2012, 106–107. In the margin, Estienne makes reference to both the sorbonicum correctorium and the sangermanense oblongum, reporting the reading ipse. The latter codex takes its name from the Benedictine Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés in Paris. See Biblia: 1546, 1v; also Quentin: 1922, 112. In the catalogue of the manuscripts, there is even a clarification of the name oblongum: “uni nomen oblongi, quod chartis oblongis esset”. It is important to note that Henten’s edition (1547) follows Estienne’s Bible; the difference between them is that Henten’s does not refer to the Greek and Hebrew texts, whereas Estienne’s does. Hence, Henten indirectly went back to Greek and Hebrew, but only through the medium of Estienne. Besides, Lucas also used those same editions, not changing the text of the Vulgate, but simply adding other possible lectiones in the margin, as Estienne had done before him. As we hear from the Notationes, there were five codices from Abbey of Saint-Germain-desPrés: oblongum, latum, parvum, aureum and argentum. See, Catalogus eorum quibus usi sumus S. Scripturae Librorum, in Lucas: 1580, 22. On these codices, see Laffitte: 2009. Consult there for further bibliographical references. 106 “Latina exemplaria pleraque ipsa scribunt conteret caput tuum. S. Germani oblongum et Sorbonicum correctorium, a Parisiensibus notata, ipse legunt conteret caput tuum. Harum lectionum posterior, Hebreo conformior est”, Lucas: 1580, 25. The italics are in the text. 107 “Eadem lectio Graecae translationi similis est: sic enim habet αὐτός…ita exemplaria Complutense et Vaticanum. Germanicae vero editions, cum Aldina”, Lucas: 1580, 25.

The Case of Gen 3:15 in Henten, Lucas and Sasbout

Codex Complutensis and Codex Vaticanus: Aὐτός σου τειρήσει κεφαλὴν, καὶ σὺ τειρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν. Ipse conteret caput tuum, et tu conteres eius calcaneum.

79

Aldina (LXX): Aὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλὴν, καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν. Ipse servabit caput tuum, et tu servabis eius calcaneum.

Lucas notes that, in the first two codices, the Greek verb used is τειρεῖν (conterere in Latin), ‘to crush’, but the Septuagint offers the variant τηρεῖν (observare or servare in Latin), ‘to observe’. The former reading is closer (conformior) to the Hebrew – thus, preferable to the latter, according to Lucas – although the Fathers generally read τηρεῖν, basing their lectio on the Septuagint, in the Latin translation, which is ipse servabit caput tuum, et tu servabis eius calcaneum. Moreover, Lucas notes that Jerome includes both of these readings (viz. conterere and servare); indeed, in other codices (in aliis codicibus), the Church father reads τειρεῖν, ‘to crush’, but according to Lucas, Jerome preferred without doubt τηρεῖν, ‘to observe’.108 However, Lucas remarks that the lectio in the Hebrew original is conterere, to crush, including a typological reference to Christ, the Lord: the snake impedes human steps and the Dominus rapidly crushes its head under ‘our’ feet.109 Furthermore, whereas Augustine read servare, instead of conterere, he opted for the reading ipsa, instead of ipse. Indeed, in De Genesi contra Manichaeos,110 the meaning of these words is explained as follows: the enmity between the snake’s and the woman’s seed is the type of the opposition between the Evil One’s suggestion (perversa suggestio) and the fruit of good action (fructus

108 “Id quod [scil. Ipse tuum observabit caput et tu observabit eius calcaneum] a Patribus fere lectum est, atque adeo Hieronymo, qui, si in aliis codicibus τειρεῖν legi comperisset, ει nimirum primam syllabam formante, id procul dubio praetulisset. In Hebraicis namque super Genesis questionibus, producta interpretum 72 translatione, ipse servabit caput tuum, et tu servabis eius calcaneum annotat”, Lucas: 1580, 25. 109 “Melius habet in Hebraeo, ipse conteret caput tuum, et tu conteres eius calcaneum, quia et nostri gressus praepediuntur a colubro, et Dominus conteret Satanam sub pedibus nostris velociter”, Lucas: 1580, 25. 110 “Non autem inimicitiae ponuntur inter ipsum et virum, sed inter ipsum et mulierem. Numquid quia viros non decipit et tentat? Sed manifestum est quod decipit. An quia ipsum Adam non decepit, sed mulierem eius? Sed numquid propterea non est inimicus eius, ad quem pervenit per mulierem suam illa deceptio, maxime quia de futuro iam dicitur: “Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem”? Si autem quod non deinceps decepit Adam, nec ipsam Evam deinceps decepit. Quare ergo ita dicitur, nisi quia hic manifeste ostenditur non posse nos a diabolo tentari, nisi per illam animalem partem, quae quasi mulieris imaginem vel exemplum in uno ipso homine ostendit, de qua superius iam multa diximus? Quod autem etiam inter semen diaboli, et semen mulieris ponuntur inimicitiae, significatur semine diaboli perversa suggestio; semine autem mulieris, fructus boni operis, quo perversae suggestioni resistit. Et ideo observat ipse plantam mulieris, ut si quando in illicita labitur delectatio, tunc illam capiat: et illa observat caput eius, ut eum in ipso initio malae suasionis excludat.” Augustine: 1998, CSEL 91, 149–150. Lucas’ quotation is in italics.

80

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

bonae actionis). Thus, the snake observes the woman’s heel because, if she falls into illicit pleasure, he seizes her, while the woman observes the evil to reject it. Eucherius of Lyons, the Venerable Bede, Rabanus Maurus, and Gregory the Great also read ipsa in place of ipse. Moreover, Gregory the Great in his Moralia in Job analyzes further the meaning of the word calcaneum which he considers as finis. The Church father explains that the heel, the end of the body, is a metaphor used to indicate both the end and the goal of an action and this is the reason why the snake, or the Evil One observes Eve’s movements, or those of humankind: he wants to corrupt (vitiare) the purpose of the good action at its end, bonae actionis finis.111 In this case, according to Lucas at least, it is also possible to have a Mariological reading; the Virgin Mary generated Christ, who will crush the Evil One, securing a victory over him and liberating humankind from his tyranny.112 Eventually, the fifth Roman Vulgate Committee also opted for ipsa, recovering Henten’s reading: Ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus. However, there is also another possible variant, as evidenced by Sasbout: ipsum. Lucas explained this possibility through an accurate philological analysis, referring to the Hebrew text in which the pronoun ipsum would refer to semen. Indeed, this reading is also present in some Latin texts and Leo the Great maintained it in his second sermon De nativitate Domini.113 In particular, Leo maintained that, when the Evil One gave death to humankind through his poison, 111 “Quia enim in calcaneo finis est corporis, quid per hunc nisi terminus signatur actionis? Sive ergo maligni spiritus, sive pravi quique homines, illorum superbiae sequaces, calcaneum observant, cum actionis bonae finem vitiare desiderant. Unde et eidem serpenti dicitur: Ipsa tuum observabit caput, et tu calcaneum ejus. Caput quippe serpentis observare, est initio suggestionis ejus aspicere, et manu sollicitae considerationis a cordis aditu funditus exstirpare. Qui tamen cum ab initio deprehenditur, percutere calcaneum molitur, quia etsi suggestione prima intentionem non percutit, decipere in fine tendit”, Gregory the Great: 1979, CCSL 143, 55. Indeed, in Latin, the noun finis not only means the end, but also the purpose; it is the ἔσχατον and the τέλος. 112 “Potest autem haec lectio ad eum fere sensum quo superiores exponuntur, de Christi matre intelligi, ut serpentis caput contrivisset, quia eum genuit qui contrivit, quia diabolum sua morte devicit, et nos ex ejus tyrannide in libertatem asseruit”, Lucas: 1580, 25. Harlemius, Lucas’ master, opted for a Mariological reading, possibly influencing his disciple: “Maria virgo preannunciata, Gen 3:15”, Harlemius: 1571, 109. Concerning the Mariological reading of Gen 3:15, see for instance Manelli: 1995, esp. 2–19. 113 “Fortassis autem commodius neutro genere: Ipsum conteret caput tuum … Hoc modo (neutro inquam genere) in Latinis quibusdam exemplaribus haberi; insuper, ita D. Leonem legisse Aloysius Lippomannus docere videtur ex sermone De nativitate Domini secundo”, Lucas: 1580, 25. Lucas also quoted Leo the Great, where he said: “Deus enim omnipotens et clemens, cujus natura bonitas, cujus voluntas potentia, cujus opus misericordia est, statim ut nos diabolica malignitas veneno suae mortificavit invidiae, praeparata renovandis mortalibus suae pietatis remedia inter ipsa mundi primordia praesignavit; denuntians serpenti futurum semen mulieris quod noxii capitis elationem sua virtute contereret; Christum scilicet in carne venturum, Deum hominemque significans, qui natus ex Virgine violatorem humanae propaginis incorrupta nativitate damnaret”, Leo the Great: 1846, PL 54, coll. 194a.

81

The Case of Gen 3:15 in Henten, Lucas and Sasbout

the Lord immediately showed the Evil One that Eve’s progeny or semen was prepared to crush the head of the snake with its virtue. In other words, God showed his Incarnation in Christ, who would be born from the Virgin Mary, to condemn the Evil One. In sum, there are five possible lectiones of this verse:114 1.- Ipse conteret caput tuum, et tu conteres eius calcaneum, as is handed down in Codex Complutensis (the Polyglot) and Codex Vaticanus. According to Lucas, this is the most faithful translation of the Hebrew text and is present in some of Jerome’s codices. 2.- Ipse servabit caput tuum, et tu servabis eius calcaneum, is present in Aldina. This is the reading of the Septuagint, generally accepted by the Church fathers (a Patribus fere lectum), and according to Lucas, this is the lectio preferred by Jerome. In readings 1 and 2, ipse is interpreted as a typological reference to the Lord Jesus. 3.- Ipsum conteret caput tuum, used by Leo the Great in a Christological reading, considering ipsum to be semen mulieris, Eve’s progeny, viz. Christ, as proposed by Sasbout. 4.- Ipsa observabit caput tuum, et tu [observabit] calcaneum ejus, as we have seen in Gregory and Augustine. In this instance, the enmity between the snake’s and the woman’s seed is typologically interpreted as the opposition between the Evil One’s suggestion (perversa suggestio) and the fruit of good actions (fructus bonae actionis). 5.- Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus, the lectio proposed by Henten and finally chosen by the Church in the Sixto-Clementine, including a possible typological reference to the Virgin Mary.

114 There are more readings. For instance the London Polyglot furnishes a more complete overview: S–C

LXX

Targum

Syriac

Ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius.

Ipse servabit caput tuum et tu servabis eius calcaneum.

Ipse recordabitur tibi, quod fecisti in principio; et tu observabis ei in finem.

Ipsum conculcabit caput tuum et tu feries eum in calcaneo ipsius.

See, Biblia: 1655–1657, vol. 1, 12.

Samaritan

Hebrew (Pagnini) Ipsum Ipsum conteret conteret tibi caput tibi caput et tu et tu conteres ei conteres ei calcaneum. calcaneum.

Arabic Et haec findet ex te caput, et tu mordebis eam in calcaneo.

82

1.4

Louvain and the ‘Authentic’ text of the Vulgate

Conclusion. The Nachleben of Henten, Zegers, and Lucas

In these pages, I have introduced and analyzed the text-critical approach of three Louvain biblical scholars, Henten, Zegers and Lucas, all of them aiming at giving a restored text of the Vulgate and so trying to fulfil the request made by the Council of Trent. However, what remained of Henten’s, Zegers’ and Lucas’ textcriticism after their death? One answer to this comes from another confessional context – that of England. Indeed, at the end of the Golden Age of Catholic Biblical scholarship, Zegers’ and Lucas’ [and Henten behind him] humanistminded philological approach was taken into consideration by Anglican biblical scholars. In 1657, Brian Walton (1600–1661) edited the so-called ‘London Polyglot Bible’.115 He actually felt the need for a new Polyglot Bible in order to go beyond the limits of the other three Polyglot Bibles, namely, the Complutensis, Plantin’s Biblia Regia and the so-called Parisian Biblia Heptaglotta.116 In particular, the Biblia Regia and the Biblia Heptaglotta wrongly used the Greek text of the Complutensis and were not very reliable. Also their Latin text was not exempt from criticisms: Complutensis and Biblia Regia could not use the Sixto-Clementine (hence they were ‘excused’), but the Biblia Heptaglotta wrongly relied upon the Regia for the Latin, even though the Sixto-Clementine was already available in 1645. In effect, Walton considered the 1592 Sixto-Clementine as the only valuable Latin edition; moreover, the Septuagint was taken from the ‘official’ Sixtine text issued by the Vatican Press in 1587.117 In declaring his preference for the Sixto-Clementine, Walton specifically mentions Lucas, who is considered the reference scholar in the making of that edition.118 As the title of this huge work reveals, Walton used Biblical text material from nine languages: in addition to the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint, he also used Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, Persian, Samaritan and Syriac sources, and furnished the whole with a text-critical apparatus to offer several readings and many other appendices containing, for instance, chronological tables, maps, indices etc. Walton’s ap115 Cf. precedent note. 116 On the Polyglot Bibles, Schenker: 2008, 774–784. See also Hamilton: 2016. 117 “Versionem Graecam LXXII Interpretum celeberrimam et omnium antiquissimam Editionis Romanae, secundum exemplar Vaticanum supra 1200 antehac annos descriptum, exhibemus, quae ut maxime sincera doctorum calculis appobatur, rejecta illa Complutensium, quam secuti sunt in Regiis et Parisianis … Etsi enim Complutensis editio et Regia ante Correctionem Sixtinam vel Clementinam produerunt, merito tamen a suis reprehenduntur qui Parisianae praefuerunt quod Vulgatam Latinam tot mendis scatentem, post duorum Pontificum decreta in contrario, publicarunt”, Walton: 1628–1645, vol. 1, 2v–3r. 118 “Vulgatam Latinam, quae per mille annos fere sola per occidentem in usu fuit, secundum Sixti V. & Clem. VIII. editiones emendatas & correctas, et a multi errorum milibus, per Lucam Brugensem & alios enumeratis, repurgatas, reliquis adjecimus”, Walton: 1628–1645, vol 1, f. 3r.

Conclusion. The Nachleben of Henten, Zegers, and Lucas

83

proach was very simple: he presented each chapter of the Bible in all the languages available, and, for each version, he also offered the Latin translation on the right side. The only exception was the Hebrew text, which was provided with Sante Pagnini’s interlinear translation. This monumental work was followed by other accessory publications such as the Heptaglotton Lexicon (1669) by the orientalist Edmund Castell (1606–1686), a kind of dictionary in seven languages: Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, Persian, Samaritan and Syriac. Furthermore, another important work is tied to the London Polyglot: this is the Critici sacri, edited in nine volumes by John Pearson (1613–1686) and published in London in 1660. This work was then printed again in 1695 in Frankfurt and in 1698 in Amsterdam, and it was even ‘summarized’ in five volumes by Matthew Poole (1624–1679) in the Synopsis criticorum (1669–1676). But what is the Critici sacri? It is a collection of Latin biblical commentaries by both Protestant and Catholic scholars. In this work, Louvain theologians also appear, as for instance the Syriacist Andreas Maes. Moreover, the Critici sacri rely upon Lucas’ Notationes for both the Old and New Testament, and they rely on his commentary on the four Gospels. Zegers also takes an important place in the Critici sacri, thanks to his text-critical work on the New Testament, the Epanorthotes, together with the Adnotationes of Lorenzo Valla, Erasmus, François Vatable, Sébastien Castellion, Isidoro Chiari, Johannes van den Driesche (Drusius), and Hugo Grotius.119 The mention of both Zegers and Lucas outside their geographical and confessional context shows how important their work was in the field of biblical studies, being appreciated even in non-Catholic circles (François: 2012, 246). Having dealt with the texual criticism of the Vulgate and shown the reason why it was so important to establish an official text for the Church, I shall now turn to what is often considered “the problem central in all Western theology” (Kerr: 2004, 142. See, also Matava: 2016, 1–7): eternal predestination, and its relation with temporal grace and human free will. To have a better comprehension of this question, however, I first need to explain the concept of predestination, perhaps one of the most ancient topics discussed within the Church. To do this, I need to analyze this term in the ‘original’ language, Greek.

119 See, Critici Sacri: 1698, f. 2r. This volume also contains the prefatory epistles to the New Testament text–critical works realized by the critici sacri; specifically, those of Zegers are at pp. 9–16. In the same list, Lucas also appears for his works on the four Gospels. See also, Walton: 1628–1645, f. 4v.

2.

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

2.1

Introduction. Predestination, Grace, and Human Free Will in Christianity1

The theological problem of predestination, related to the topic of the possibility (or impossibility) of human free will, has been discussed since the beginning of Christianity. The opposition between Catholicism and Protestantism that arose in the Early Modern Era was only one of several instances of a more than thousand-year debate which saw the struggle, for instance, between Augustine and Pelagius in Early Christianity, and between Gottschalk of Orbais and John Scottus Eriugena in the Early Middle Ages.2 One of the results of this debate was the development of two opposed theories of salvation: on one side was ‘Pelagianism’, which considered possible for humankind to reach salvation without the continuous assistance of divine grace, solely on the basis of personal merits, and on the other side was the ‘gemina praedestinatio’, first articulated by Gottschalk, but then developed in depth by Calvin, which maintained a clear distinction between those God had predestined from all eternity to be saved and those who were damned. Catholicism took an intermediate position between these opposed theories, although with an internal debate regarding the respective roles played by the primacy of God’s grace and human free will. This opposition produced another polarization regarding the problem of God’s predestinating decrees, being taken ante praevisa or (aut) per propria merita, expressed, for instance, in the debate between anti-Pelagian Augustinianism, on the one side, and Molinism, on the other, in 16th – 17th century Louvain. It is this debate that forms the subject of the present chapter, as I turn to an analysis of the works of 1 Part of this section is already published in Italian as Antonio Gerace, “La determinazione della legge di Dio. Il pensiero del nómos in Paolo di Tarso”, Philosophy Kitchen 4 (2017a), 91–103. 2 Scottus Eriugena: 1978, CCCM 50, 9–13. On the debate between Scotus Eriugena and Gothschalk of Orbais, see for instance Moran 1989, 27–34. See also the introduction to the English translation by Avital Wohlman, in Scottus Eriugena: 1988, xv–xxix.

86

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

Nicholas Tacitus Zegers, Adam Sasbout, Cornelius Jansenius ‘of Ghent’, John Hessels, Thomas Stapleton, and Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’. As the reader will see, some pericopes of the New Testament offer an evident occasion to discuss the aforementioned points of doctrine, such as Matt 20: 1–16, or Matt 22: 1–14, but this does not mean that each author dealt with the same passages to develop his own view on predestination, grace and free will. In this research, I also made use of the digital tools now available, such as Google Books or the Digital Library of the Catholic Reformation, which even enabled the search for specific words within the texts under analysis, allowing a deeper comprehension of these commentaries. By way of introduction to the biblical commentaries produced in Louvain, I wish to spend some pages on the concept of predestination and its relation to God’s grace and human free will in Paul and Augustine who were the primary points of reference for both Catholic schools in 16th century Louvain. Possibly the first use of the term ‘predestination’ comes in Paul’s reflections, and his viewpoint was later one of the casus belli of the aforementioned discussions among Christians. The interpretation of Paul’s teaching and, in particular, his teaching regarding God’s election, a clear heritage of Judaism (for instance Deut 14:2), was a controversial topic. The use of the verb προορίζω (‘to determine before’) was especially problematic since it could be taken to entail the annihilation of human arbitrium. Indeed, the notion of predestination seemed to be liable to different interpretations, and it led to several opposing Christian schools. In the entire text of the Greek Bible, there are only six occurrences of this verb, five in Paul’s epistles (Rom 8:29; Rom 8:30; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1:5; Eph 1:11) and another one in the Acts of Apostles (Act 4:28). In all these passages, it is God who performs the action; he is always referred to in the aorist, a form used in Greek to indicate an act, but without giving a reference to the time in which this act is performed, although it is generally translated as a past tense. In Act 4:28, Rom 8:29, Rom 8:30 and 1 Cor 2:7 προορίζω is conjugated in the third person singular aorist of the indicative active, “προώρισεν”. Moreover, in Eph 1:5, this verb is conjugated as the masculine nominative singular of an aorist active participle, “προορίσας”, and, a few lines later, in Eph 1:11, there is a masculine nominative plural of the aorist passive participle, “προορισθέντες”, where obviously the subjects are subjected to God’s action. In an interesting contribution, Leslie Allen (1970) tries to show how Paul developed this concept, borrowing it from the Old Testament, in particular making an implicit reference to Psalms 2:7, “I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” (KJV).3

3 Only here do I quote from the King James Version, since in this instance it follows the

Introduction. Predestination, Grace, and Human Free Will in Christianity

87

Indeed, according to Allen, the use of the verb προορίζω in the Pauline pericopes (Rom 8:29; Rom 8:30; 1Cor 2:7; Eph 1:5; Eph 1:11), was used by the Apostle “because he has in mind a retrospective application of Ps 2:7”,4 translating this verb as “decreed of old”. Proposing a Christological exegesis, Allen stresses, in particular, the concept of adoption: in other words, as in Ps 2:7 God decrees who his Son is, so, in Rom 8:29, Paul would have used similar terminology to affirm the “shift of application from Christ to the church” of the principle of adoption (Allen: 1970, 109). The main point of Allen’s argument is based on an analysis of the Hebrew text, but, as he shows in the footnotes, the authors of the Septuagint chose to use the term πρόσταγμα (“ordinance”) to translate ‫( חֹק‬hôq).5 Although ˙ Allen’s analysis is very interesting, two criticisms can be made: first, if Paul were making a reference to Psalms, he possibly would have quoted this verse directly, as he did on other occasions;6 second, the Apostle would have used προστάσσω and not προορίζω, using a verb etymologically linked to the noun of the Psalm (πρόσταγμα), in order that the implied readers could immediately understand his allusion, with its concealed theological references. By contrast, a possible link to the Old Testament could be present in the Book of Proverbs 18:18: “The lot suppresseth contentions, and determineth even between the mighty”. In effect, in this passage, the verb ὁρίζω occurs in the Septuagint in order to indicate the determination of a particular condition, the end of a contention, owing to an external cause (the “lot”/ “fate”, κλῆρος, or the “silent”, σιγηρός),7 which decides “among mighty”. Concerning Rom 8:28–30, I wish to focus upon the links that the aorist προώρισεν has with two other terms with the common idea of ‘before’, προ. Indeed, Septuagint, in which the word “decree/ πρόσταγμα” occurs, while it is absent in the Vulgate and in the Douai-Rheims translation, used elsewhere in this work. Below the four versions of Ps 2:7: Septuagint

King James Version

διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα κυρίου Κύριος εἶπεν πρός με Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee

Vulgate

Douai-Rheims

Dominus dixit ad me filius meus es tu ego The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, hodie genui te this day have I begotten thee 4 Allen: 1970, 107. Allen maintains this first referring to 1 Cor 2:7 and then he affirms: “Rom 8:29 represents an interesting development of the pattern of usage of Ps 2”, Allen: 1970, 109. 5 Allen defends his thesis finding possible parallels between the use of the verb ὁρίζω (‘to determine’) and the Aramaic terminology used to express the idea of “decree”, Allen: 1970, 104. 6 For instance, 2 Cor 9:9 and Ps 111:9. 7 Indeed, in the Greek text, there are at least two lectiones of this verse: 1) κλῆρος in LXX, see Septuaginta: 1971; 2) σιγηρός see, ‘Η ‘Αγία Γραφή: 2003.

88

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

προώρισεν is strictly connected with another aorist, προέγνω, and the expression ‘κατὰ πρόθεσιν’. That prefix προ seems to refer to the a-temporal dimension which precedes the creation of the world which is marked by time. This argument is based on the Apostle’s own words; indeed, Paul is very clear when, in 1 Cor 2:7, he affirms προώρισεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸ τῶν αι᾿ώνων ει᾿ς δόξαν ἡμῶν (“God ordained before the world, unto our glory”). Therefore, the predetermination was made prior to time (and so anterior to the creation), and God’s decision has as its ultimate consequence: glory. This argument is in line with the exposition present in Rom 8:30 “And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified”. God’s predetermination refers to the adoption of humankind, as Allen correctly proposes in his contribution; and, as Paul emphasizes, υἱοθεσία (“adoption”) is made prior to the creation: “As he [God] chose us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity” (Eph 1:4). The other word that carries the idea of προ is the second aorist present in Rom 8:29, προέγνω, which precedes the verb προορίζω. This verb introduces the notion of the knowledge that God had prior to creation. Therefore, it seems that God, knowing the development of the temporal world, predetermined those who are to be adopted by Him as his sons prior to the creation. In any case, God’s decision is made only according to His own will. Indeed, Paul states in the letter to Ephesians that the predetermination follows God’s decision (Eph 1:11 κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, “according to the counsel of his will”). Moreover, this choice cannot be understood by human beings, as the Apostle emphasizes through the noun μυστήριον (“mystery”; Eph 1:9; 1 Cor 2:7), which indicates the inscrutability of God’s will which is beyond human comprehension. The third expression which contains προ/ “before” can be found in the expression κατὰ πρόθεσιν (“according to his purpose” Rom 8:28). In this form, πρόθεσις always refers to God in the Pauline epistles. More precisely, it is used to refer to God’s project for his creation (see, Rom 9:11; Eph 1:11; Eph 3:11; 2 Th 1:9). In Eph 3:11, Paul clearly affirms that God’s purpose is established from eternity (κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αι᾿ώνων, “according to the eternal purpose”). Moreover, what is interesting to note is the double occurrence of the verb προορίζω in Rom 8:28–30 and in Eph 3:11 together with the expression κατὰ πρόθεσιν: therefore, Paul affirms that God predetermines only after having developed his project,8 obviously prior to creation. Therefore, God’s foreknowledge (πρόγνωσις) seems to be the first stage, at least logically, necessary to develop a project (πρόθεσις), and, on its basis, God predetermines (προ-ορίσις) humankind to glory. It seems therefore that Paul offers a kind of pre-determinism in which there is no choice for men

8 Literally, πρόθεσις is “what it is established before”: προ + τίθημι.

Introduction. Predestination, Grace, and Human Free Will in Christianity

89

since God decides, prior to the creation and only on the basis of his will, to call, justify and glorify particular men. I have spent few pages delineating Paul’s thoughts on predestination since this is the theological basis of the succeeding disagreements over this matter among Christian scholars and theologians. The second author upon whom I wish to focus is Augustine since he became the author of reference in matters regarding predestination and grace. Moreover, his writings were the object of specific attention in 16thcentury studies. Possibly the best way to introduce Augustine’s reflection on predestination is to analyse his De predestionatione sanctorum (“The Predestination of the Saints”), one of his last works, addressed to Prosper of Aquitaine and his friend, Hilary. In fact, this work of Augustine’s was the text most frequently quoted by the biblical scholars whom I shall analyze in this second part. In this anti-Pelagian writing, as the title reveals, Augustine explains the concept of predestination. In dealing with salvation, Augustine affirms that ‘grace’ or (vel) predestination make a person worthy of being saved, not his/her will. The difference between grace and predestination is the moment in which God bestows his gift. Grace is the gift given to someone during his/her worldly life while predestination is the preparation for this gift. Moreover, predestination cannot be without foreknowledge (prescientia), although the opposite is not necessarily true: foreknowledge does not imply predestination. The difference between prescience and predestination is the same as that between set and subset: through foreknowledge, God foresees all events, even those which do not depend on his will, such as sins. In this way, foreknowledge can be conceived as “set”. By contrast, it is thanks to predestination that he foresees those things he would do. In this sense, predestination is a ‘subset’ of foreknowledge since, here, God is foreseeing a restricted range of things, only those which depend on his will. Furthermore, if predestination is ‘preparation for grace’, grace is an effect of predestination. This statement allows Augustine to affirm that when God promises something, such as progeny to Abraham, he does not do it on the basis of what a human will would have been able to do, but only on the basis of his own predestination. Therefore, when a person performs good actions, it is God who makes a person do what He had previously established for her/him to do through His predestination. Human beings alone do not have the power to actualize God’s promises/decisions. If they did have, God’s promises would be within a person’s power.9 This would be a kind of paradox since God’s will would depend on a 9 “Non desunt qui dicant, voluntate humana: nos autem dicimus, gratia vel praedestinatione divina. Inter gratiam porro et praedestinationem hoc tantum interest, quod praedestinatio est gratiae praeparatio, gratia vero iam ipsa donatio … praedestinatio … sine praescientia non potest esse; potest autem esse sine praedestinatione praescientia. Praedestinatione quippe Deus ea praescivit, quae fuerat ipse facturus… Praescire autem potens est etiam quae ipse non facit; sicut quaecumque peccata: quia etsi sunt quaedam, quae ita peccata sunt, ut poenae sint

90

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

creatures’ capability. Moreover, Augustine maintains that God prepares, namely predestines, the will of the elect to believe.10 Therefore, if one person believes while another does not after having listened to Christ’s Gospel, the reason is quite obvious: God prepared, so predestined, some to believe and others not to believe. Those whom God chooses are therefore the elect; they are chosen not because of their potential merits, but only according to God’s will. Augustine concludes that God’s decision is inscrutable: it is not possible to comprehend why he freed one person from his sins while condemning another.11 In commenting on Rom 8:28–30, Augustine maintains that the elect were chosen before the creation of the world through God’s predestination by means of which it is foreknown what a person will do in the future: the faithful were chosen without any previous merit, not because they had believed, but in order that they might believe.12 In sum, God predestined and elected some to receive his etiam peccatorum … non ibi peccatum Dei est, sed iudicium. Quocirca praedestinatio Dei quae in bono est, gratiae est, ut dixi, praeparatio; gratia vero est ipsius praedestinationis effectus. Quando ergo promisit Deus Abrahae in semine eius fidem gentium, dicens: Patrem multarum gentium posui te; unde dicit Apostolus: Ideo ex fide, ut secundum gratiam firma sit promissio omni semini, non de nostrae voluntatis potestate, sed de sua praedestinatione promisit. Promisit enim quod ipse facturus fuerat, non quod homines. Quia etsi faciunt homines bona quae pertinent ad colendum Deum, ipse facit ut illi faciant quae praecepit, non illi faciunt ut ipse faciat quod promisit: alioquin ut Dei promissa compleantur, non in Dei, sed in hominum est potestate, et quod a Domino promissum est, ab ipsis redditur Abrahae”, Augustine: 1962, 10. 19, BA 24, 522–524. This passage should be linked with Augustine’s De dono perseverantiae, in which the Church Father maintains that prescience is the “preparation of the benefits”: “An quisquam dicere audebit, Deum non praescisse quibus esset daturus ut crederent, aut quos daturus esset Filio suo, ut ex eis non perderet quemquam? Quae utique si praescivit, profecto beneficia sua, quibus nos dignatur liberare, praescivit. Haec est praedestinatio sanctorum, nihil aliud: praescientia scilicet, et praeparatio beneficiorum Dei, quibus certissime liberantur, quicumque liberantur”, Augustine: 1962, 14. 35, BA 24, 680. For a good introduction to Augustine’s view on predestination, see Ogliari: 2003, especially chapter four “The vexata quaestio of predestination”, 303–402. 10 “Non quia credere vel non credere non est in arbitrio voluntatis humanae, sed in electis praeparatur voluntas a Domino”, Augustine: 1962, 5. 10, BA 24, 496. 11 “Multi audiunt verbum veritatis: sed alii credunt, alii contradicunt. Volunt ergo isti credere, nolunt autem illi. Quis hoc ignoret? quis hoc neget? Sed cum aliis praeparetur, aliis non praeparetur voluntas a Domino, discernendum est utique quid veniat de misericordia eius, quid de iudicio … Ecce misericordia et iudicium: misericordia in electionem quae consecuta est iustitiam Dei; iudicium vero in ceteros qui excaecati sunt; et tamen illi quia voluerunt, crediderunt; illi quia noluerunt, non crediderunt. Misericordia igitur et iudicium in ipsis voluntatibus facta sunt. Electio quippe ista gratiae est, non utique meritorum … Gratis ergo consecuta est, quod consecuta est electio: non praecessit eorum aliquid, quod priores darent, et retribueretur illis: pro nihilo salvos fecit eos. Ceteris autem qui excaecati sunt, sicut ibi non tacitum est, in retributione factum est … Investigabiles igitur sunt, et misericordia qua gratis liberat, et veritas qua iuste iudicat”, Augustine: 1962, 6. 11, BA 24, 496–498. 12 “Elegit ergo eos de mundo cum hic ageret carnem, sed iam electos in se ipso ante mundi constitutionem. Haec est immobilis veritas praedestinationis et gratiae. Nam quid est quod ait Apostolus: Sicut elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem? Quod profecto si propterea

Introduction. Predestination, Grace, and Human Free Will in Christianity

91

grace, and it is only thanks to God’s grace that human beings have the power to follow his commandments.13 From the reading of Augustine’s De praedestinatione sanctorum, it seems that he opted for a clear determinism in which human free will has no relevant place, a fact that may be considered as problematic, given the importance that works have in the Catholic economy of salvation, and, a fortiori, for the Molinist scholars, as I shall have occasion to show in this second part of my work. In another anti-Pelagian writing, the De gratia et libero arbitrio, the Bishop of Hippo explains in what sense human will can be regarded as ‘free’. Freedom, in Augustine’s views, is the counterweight of slavery: if a person is ‘free’ from justice, he or she is subject to sins; if he or she is ‘free’ from sins, he or she is a ‘slave’ of justice.14 Of course, only in the latter case, can a person do good. In De dono perseverantiae, Augustine summarizes that only grace can make a person free: moreover, grace is bestowed not according to human merits but is completely gratuitous.15 Paul’s Epistles were therefore at the basis of unsolved debates on predestination, strictly linked to other topics like grace and free will. Moreover, this was strictly linked to justification which was often the subject of debates between Catholics and Protestants but also among Catholics themselves. To introduce the commentaries on the Vulgate and how their authors dealt with these troublesome topics, I shall first refer to the “curious case” of two Franciscans who decided to adhere to the so-called doctrine of ‘double justice’ almost ten years after its rejection by both Catholics and Protestants.

dictum est, quia praescivit Deus credituros, non quia facturus fuerat ipse credentes, contra istam praescientiam loquitur Filius, dicens: Non vos me elegistis, sed ego vos elegi: cum hoc potius praescierit Deus, quod ipsi eum fuerant electuri, ut ab illo mererentur eligi. Electi sunt itaque ante mundi constitutionem ea praedestinatione, in qua Deus sua futura facta praescivit: electi sunt autem de mundo ea vocatione, qua Deus id quod praedestinavit, implevit. Quos enim praedestinavit, ipsos et vocavit: illa scilicet vocatione secundum propositum: non ergo alios, sed quos praedestinavit, ipsos et vocavit: nec alios, sed quos ita vocavit, ipsos et iustificavit: nec alios, sed quos praedestinavit, vocavit, iustificavit, ipsos et glorificavit, illo utique fine qui non habet finem”, Augustine: 1962, 17. 34, BA 24, 570. 13 Cf. Augustine: 1962, 16. 32, BA 24, 160–164. 14 “Semper est autem in nobis voluntas libera, sed non semper est bona. Aut enim a iustitia libera est, quando servit peccato, et tunc est mala; aut a peccato libera est, quando servit iustitiae, et tunc est bona. Gratia vero Dei semper est bona, et per hanc fit ut sit homo bonae voluntatis, qui prius fuit voluntatis malae. Per hanc etiam fit ut ipsa bona voluntas, quae iam esse coepit, augeatur, et tam magna fiat, ut possit implere divina mandata quae voluerit, cum valde perfecteque voluerit”, Augustine: 1962, 15. 31, BA 44, coll. 158–160. Augustine also addressed his attention to human free will in a previous work, the De libero arbitrio, three books written in dialogic form: with Evodius, he discussed the problematic relation between God’s foreknowledge and human free will, showing that God’s sure knowledge of future events does not invalidate or determine human free will. 15 “Oremus … ut Deus gratiae det … intelligere et confiteri … neminem nisi gratia Dei liberari; eamque non secundum merita accipientium tamquam debitam reddi, sed tamquam veram gratiam nullis meritis praecedentibus gratis dari”, Augustine: 1962, 24. 66, BA 24, 758.

92

2.2

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice16

Among the authors I intend to analyse in this second part of my work, the Franciscans, Nicholas Tacitus Zegers and Adam Sasbout, are chronologically first and, moreover, they are the only ones who were members of a religious Order. Therefore, I will first focus my attention on these two Franciscans who worked in Louvain during the first half of the 16th century. Both of them received the office of lector of Sacred Scriptures in the Franciscan House of Study (studium theologicum) in Louvain, Zegers in 1536, and Sasbout in 1548. François (2012), in his well-known article, “Augustine and the Golden Age of Biblical Scholarship in Louvain”, pays attention to both authors. His contribution could be considered the starting point of this chapter which aims to investigate the Biblical exegesis of these two Franciscans in greater depth. Nevertheless, as Bert Roest (2014) correctly maintains, “[n]either of these men’s scholarly exegesis has been studied in depth: not Zegers’ Scholion, not his New Testament commentaries, not his Epanorthotes, nor Sasbout’s commentaries on Isaiah and the apostolic Epistles” (Roest: 2014, 296; Dlabacova/ Prochowski: 2014, 225–229). The purpose of this chapter is therefore to fill this gap in the literature by analyzing both Zegers’ and Sasbout’s works. Particular attention will be paid to their adherence to the socalled doctrine of ‘double justice’, intimately linked to ‘double justification’,17 something they seem to defend even after the Tridentine decree on justification. This aspect is really important for the religious history of the 16th-century in the Low Countries since the doctrine of ‘double justice’ was proposed at the Diet of Regensburg (1541) by Cardinal Gasparo Contarini (1483–1542), and the biblical scholars, Albert Pighius of Kampen (1490–1542) and Johann Gropper (1503– 1599), in an attempt to reconcile Catholic and Lutheran positions, even though it did not have lasting success. In particular, on that occasion, the Catholic theologians, Gropper, Johannes Eck (1486–1543) and Julius von Pflug (1499–1564), and the Protestant theologians, Martin Bucer (1491–1551), Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) and Johann Pistorius the Elder (1504–1583), discussed the doctrine of justification among other issues and their main result was the elaboration of Article 5, a document on justification in which Catholics and Protestants deal with a ‘freely imputed justice’ and an ‘inherent justice’.18 Thereafter, Girolamo 16 The major part of this chapter has already been published in an article co-authored with Dr. Gert Gielis (KU Leuven), “The Ambiguous Reception of the Doctrine of the Duplex Iustitia in Leuven (1544–1556)”, Augustiniana 68 (2018), 91–123. 17 In this instance, I prefer to translate iustus with “just” in place of “righteous” and iustitia with “justice” in place of “righteousness”, trying to be closer to the Latin words as much as possible. Later, I shall explain the difference between “double justice” and “double justification”. 18 For the English translation of Article 5, see Lane: 2002, 233–237.

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

93

Seripando (1493–1569) defended this doctrine during the Council of Trent in the preparation of the decree on Justification, but, finally, the Council fathers rejected both ‘double justice’ and ‘double justification’ (1547).19 Concerning these two different but linked doctrines, the scheme below can provide a rough differentiation: 1. Double justice (duplex iustitia) is the theological doctrine that teaches that there are two kinds of divine justice: a. ‘inherent’ (inhaerens): justice that is intrinsically instilled into the faithful. This justice is imperfect in the sense that it does not suffice for salvation. b. ‘imputed’ or ‘bestowed’ (imputata/donata): justice that ‘covers’ the (sins of the) faithful who thereby become worthy of salvation. 2. ‘Double justification’ is, strictly speaking, the theological doctrine that teaches “as it is encountered during the Tridentine proceedings on justification … two formal causes of justification: in other words, justification takes place on account of duplex iustitia” (McGrath: 2005, 313). This means that the two formal causes are inherent justice and imputed justice. Unfortunately, the closeness of these two doctrines can lead to misunderstandings. To prevent this from happening, I intend to follow strictly the scheme offered above. Furthermore, if the doctrine of double justification needs double justice, the opposite is not true: double justice does not imply double justification, since one can teach double justice without considering it as the formal cause of justification, as I shall show later. Therefore, when I speak about ‘double justification’ I shall specifically refer to it as the doctrine that carries with it the idea of a ‘double formal cause of justification’, and this double formal cause will refer to imputed and inherent justice. To stress the difference between ‘double justice’ and ‘double justification’ it might be useful to refer to the theologian who was perhaps the first to draw this distinction: Martin Luther. In distinguishing between the two, he wished to affirm the former and reject the latter. He may possibly have been the first to have used the expression ‘double justice’, even devoting an entire sermon to the theme in 1519. On that occasion in particular, Luther discussed a ‘first justice infused from outside’, which the faithful receive through baptism. From this first justice comes a second, which Luther calls ‘our proper justice’, and which cooperates with the first.20 Although 19 A brief but good introduction to Seripando’s idea of double justice is offered in Maxcey: 1979, 270–271. 20 “Duplex est iustitia christianorum sicut duplex peccatum est hominis. Prima est aliena et ab extra infusa. Haec est qua Christus iustus est… haec ergo iustitia datur hominibus in baptismo et omni tempore vere penitente … Igitur per fidem in Christum sit iustitia Christi nostra iustitia et omnia quae sunt ipsius …Haec est iustitia infinita et omnia peccata in momento absorbens. Et haec iustitia est primo fundamento, causa, origo omnis iustitiae

94

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

Luther affirmed the concept of ‘double justice’, he totally rejected ‘double justification’.21 Moreover, in the writings dating from 1534–1535, Luther distinguished two dimensions to justification: justification in the sight of God, and in the sight of the world. It is clear that he is not developing a doctrine of what would later be known as ‘double justification’ at this point, but merely identifying one element of the usus legis in loco iustificationis. The good works of the justified demonstrate the believer’s justification by God, and cannot be considered to cause it. (McGrath: 2005, 313)

As I will show, among the Catholics who attended the Diet of Regensburg, only Contarini and Gropper maintained both doctrines, while Pighius accepted double justice while rejecting double justification. Notwithstanding the Tridentine decree on Justification (1547), the Louvain Franciscans who are the subject of the present study still maintained the doctrine of ‘double justice’, possibly seeing it as a way to overcome the schism within the Church, basing their expositions mainly on Gropper and his Enchiridion Christianae Institutionis, prepared after the Provincial Council of Cologne (1536). Therefore Zegers’ and Sasbout’s commentaries on the Pauline corpus, especially on the Letter to the Romans (as at 1:4; 1:17; 8:28–30), will be the subject of careful study. It is there that both dealt with this doctrine.22 Before showing Zegers’ and Sasbout’ approprie seu actualis quia vere ipsa datur pro originali iustitia in Adam perdita et operatur id immo maius quam illa iustitia originalis fuisset operatur … Haec igitur iustitia aliena et sine actibus nostris per solam gratiam infusa nobis … secunda iustitia est nostra et propria … quod cooperemur illi prime et aliene. Haec nunc est illa conversatio bona in operibus bonis primo in mortificationem carnis et crucifixionem concupiscientiarum … secundo et in charitate erga primum, tertio in humilitate ac timorem erga deum … haec igitur iustitiae est opus prioris iustitiae et fructus atque sequela eiusdem”, Luther: 1519, 1r–v. It is important to stress that “[I]n the case of Luther, the ‘second’ justice is a becoming of what we truly are. Luther does not for a moment believe that we are counted righteous with God on account of some interior change”, Hampson: 2001, 61, n. 21. Cf. also Gerace: 2017b. 21 “It is clear that he [Luther] is not developing a doctrine of what would later be known as ‘double justification’ at this point, but merely identifying one element of the usus legis in loco iustificationis. The good works of the justified demonstrate the believer’s justification by God, and cannot be considered to cause it”, McGrath: 2005, 232. Just to show how intricate the discussion of double justice and double justification could be, Martin Bucer (1491–1551) surely accepted ‘double justice’, but quite possibly without also accepting ‘double justification’. In effect, Lugioyo maintains, “Bucer’s teaching of justification by faith cannot be accurately described as ‘double justification’. Bucer did not conceive of separate judgments, one synthetic and then one analytic, based on works, which the tag double justification can tend to insinuate”, Lugioyo: 2010, 101. Differently, McGrath maintains: “The question which necessarily follows from this analysis is this: did Bucer actually teach a doctrine of double justification strictu sensu – in other words, that the formal cause of justification is both imputed and inherent righteousness? Bucer’s involvement in the drawing up of the Regensburg Book (Liber Ratisboniensis) with its important article on justification is certainly highly suggestive in this respect”, McGrath: 2005, 252. 22 On the iustitia duplex, Pas: 1954: 5–53.

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

95

preciation of ‘double justice’, I shall first introduce this doctrine by analyzing those authors who proposed it before the Council of Trent at the Diet of Regensburg (1541), following chronological order.

2.2.1 Double Justice and Double Justification amongst Catholic Theologians In this section, I shall analyze the concept of ‘double justice’ and the related question of ‘double justification’ in the texts of its leading Catholic promoters: Cardinal Gasparo Contarini, Johann Gropper and Albert Pighius. In this way, it will be easier subsequently to show the adherence of both Sasbout and Zegers to this intermediate way between the Catholic and Protestant interpretations of divine justice. Moreover, I shall later show that both Gropper and Pighius were invaluable sources for Zegers and Sasbout in their exegesis of the Letter to the Romans. In summary, the purpose of this section is to show that Zegers and Sasbout made use of the concepts of ‘double justice’ and ‘double justification’ in their writings. It is therefore important to highlight how the Tridentine fathers approached both double justice and double justification since Sasbout and Zegers wrote their reflections after Trent’s Sixth Session.23 As papal legate at the Diet of Regensburg, Gasparo Contarini24 gathered together his ideas on duplex iustitia, preparing on 3 May 1541 a scheda which offered a first definition of double justice, discussed in the fifth article of the Diet.25 The Italian Cardinal provided a more thorough exposition of this doctrine in a letter written a few days later (25 May) addressed to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga (1505–1563). The letter is divided into five sections, the fourth of which addresses the problem “How an impious adult person goes from being unjust to being just”. In this instance, the Cardinal asserts:26

23 With regard to the discussion on double justice during the Sixth Session, see the Articulus de iustitia imputativa propositus examinandus theologis dies 15 Octobris 1546, CT 5, cc. 223–32, 523–632 24 On Cardinal Gasparo Contarini and his participation at the Diet of Regensburg, see among others, Prodi: 1988, 207–222. Also Matheson: 1975. 25 The reference is to Contarini, Scheda minor de Iutificatione, in CT 12, 313, 26–30. For an English translation of this document, see Gleason: 1993, 231. 26 Contarini, ad secretarium Herculis Mantuani de justificatione epistola, 25 May 1541, CT 12, 318, 34–38. In this work, all the parallel English translations are mine.

96

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

“Attingimus autem ad duplicem iustitiam, alteram nobis inherentem, qua incipimus esse iusti et efficimur consortes divine nature et habemus charitatem diffusam in cordibus nostris, alteram vero non inherentem sed nobis donatam cum Christo, iustitia inquam Christi, et omne eius meritum. Simul tempore utraque nobis donatur et utramque attingimus per fidem.”

“We come into contact (attingimus) with double justice; one of them is inherent in us, and through it we start to become just, and we may be made partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), and we have a diffused charity in our hearts. The other [ justice], besides, is not inherent, but it is bestowed (donata) to us with Christ, – I mean – the justice of Christ, and all merit is his [scil. of Christ]. Both are simultaneously bestowed on us, and we come into contact with them through faith.”

Contarini’s words provide an effective compendium of this theory. Moreover, he provides further explanations, which are summarized here: 1.- Inherent justice: it is inchoate, imperfect, “[f]or in many things we all offend” (James 3:2), so the faithful cannot be considered just before God.27 The use of the attribute inhaerens is not coincidental; it entails that this justice is intrinsically instilled into the faithful, becoming part of that person’s essence, just as an accident is inherent in the being of an entity.28 However, such justice is not sufficient in God’s sight. In effect, this would have the absurd consequence of rendering the passion and resurrection of Christ useless. Besides, the “other justice” is necessary for the faithful in order to be saved. Inherent justice is therefore “imperfect”, not complete, since it does not guarantee salvation; however, it is necessary, since it is the only way for the faithful to start to become just. 2.- “Justice of Christ”: it is given and bestowed upon the faithful since “we are inserted in (inserti sumus) Christ and we put on/ assume/dress in (induimus) Christ”. This is the true and perfect justice in which nothing can offend God. Since the faithful ‘are covered’ by Christ’s justice, they are justified before God and can effectively be regarded as just.29 Such justice is not inherent to the person’s being; rather, it comes ‘from outside’, from Christ.

27 “Hec etenim nostra iustitia [inherens] est inchoata et imperfecta, que tueri non potest, quin in multis modis offendamus … Et id circo in cospecti Dei non possumus ob hanc iustitiam nostram haberi iusti et boni”, Contarini, de justificatione epistola, 25 May 1541, CT 12, 319, 31–35. 28 It could also be inferred from an interesting passage in which Contarini was dealing with bestowed justice, affirming that this is not inherent since it is bestowed on us: “non quod nobis inhereat, qui iam vivimus, sed quia nobis donatur et imputatur”, Contarini, de justificatione epistola, 25 May 1541, CT 12, 320, 19–20. 29 “Et iustitiam Christi nobis donatam et imputatam, quoniam inserti sumus Christo et induimus Christum … iustitia Christi nobis donata est vera et perfecta iustitia, que omnino placeat oculis Dei, in qua nihili est, quod Deum offendat, quod Deo non summopere placeat. Hac ergo sola certa et stabili nobis nitendum est et ob eam solam credere, nos iustificari

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

97

Contarini therefore maintains ‘double justice’, but does he also accept ‘double justification? The literature is divided on that. For instance, McGrath argues that the “suggestion that Contarini affirms that iustitia inhaerens and iustitia imputata function as the double formal cause of justification cannot be sustained on the basis of the text in its support: the adverb formaliter is transferred from its proper clause to one subsequent, from which it does not appear to have been elided” (McGrath: 2005, 315, n. 27). Here McGrath is criticizing Hanns Rückert’s opposing position (Rückert: 1926, 82, n. 2). The context is that of Contarini’s Epistula de Iustificatione, where the papal legate says:30 “Fide iustificamur, non formaliter, scilicet fides inhaerens nobis efficiat iustos, sicuti albedo efficit parietem album aut sanitas hominem sanum. Nam hoc pacto charitas et gratia Dei nobis inhaerens et iustitia Christi nobis donata et imputata efficit nos iustos.”

“We are justified by faith, not formally, scil. the faith that inheres in us makes us just, as whiteness makes a wall white or health [makes] a man healthy. Indeed, in this way [hoc pacto, so formally] the charity and the grace of God that inhere in us and the justice of Christ bestowed and imputed to us make us just.”

In this instance, I would follow Rückert’s suggestion rather than McGrath’s: the adverb formaliter would be replaced here with the expression hoc pacto. In effect, Contarini is dealing with the difference between the formal cause and the efficient cause of justification, maintaining that faith is the efficient cause, while the two justices, inherent and imputed, constitute the double formal cause. He continues:31 “Neque per fidem intellegimus habitum, ut superius diximus, sed actum. Sed vera propositio, si capiatur efficenter, sicut linitio efficit parietem album et mendicatio efficit sanum; sic vel non dissimili ratione fides efficit hominem iustum et iustificat, quia per fidem attingimus ad utramque iustitiam.”

“We do not consider faith as a habitus, as said above, but as an act. However, the [previous] proposition is true, if efficenter is considered, as the act of painting [linitio] makes a wall white and medication makes [a man] healthy; so for a not dissimilar reason, faith makes a man just and justifies [him], because through faith we come into contact with both justice(s).”

According to Contarini, faith is the efficient cause of justification, analogous to the act of painting which makes a wall white. Inherent and imputed justice together constitute the formal cause, analogous to the whiteness that makes a wall white. In other words, Contarini affirms both the ‘double justice’ doctrine coram Deo, id est iustos haberi et dici iustos”, Contarini, de justificatione epistola, 25 May 1541, CT 12, 319, 24–39. 30 Contarini, De iustificatione epistola, 25 May 1541, CT 12, 319, 9–13. The edition of the epistula to which Rückert refers is Gasparo Contarini, Epistula de Iustificatione, 25 May 1541, CT 12, 29, 1–4, in Hünermann: 1923. If not declared otherwise, all the English translations are mine. 31 Contarini, De iustificatione epistola, 25 May 1541, CT 12, 319, 13–15.

98

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

and the ‘double justification’ doctrine (meant as double formal cause of justification). The Cardinal uses the distinction to clarify the difference between ‘to make just’ formally and ‘to make just’ efficiently:32 “Nunc accedamus ad aliud vocabulum, quod includitur in nomine iustificationis. Dicamus ergo, quod fieri et facere … duobus modis accipitur. Nam dicimus, albedinem facere parietem album; dicimus etiam linitionem pictoris facere parietem album. Eadem prope modum ratione dicimus sanitatem facere hominem sanum. Item dicimus medicationem facere hominem sanum. Different hi duo modi; nam albedo facit parietem album ut forma inherens parieti, et sanitas facit hominem sanum ut forma corpori inherens. Quare dicimus hanc, ut ita dicam, factionem esse formalem et dicemus formaliter facere. Linitio vero facit parietem album ut actio pictoris ideoque efficenter. Sic dicemus medicationem efficenter facere hominem sanum.”

“Let us now approach the other word which is included in the noun justification. Let us say therefore that to be made and to make are intended in two ways. Indeed, we say [that] whiteness makes a wall white; we also say [that] the painter’s act of painting [linitio pictoris] makes a wall white. Similarly, with reason, we properly say that health makes a man healthy. Also we say [that] medication makes a man healthy. These two ways diverge; indeed whiteness makes the wall white as form that inheres in the wall, and health makes a man healthy as form that inheres in the body. Therefore, we say this, so to speak, [that] the act of making [factio] is formal, and we shall say to make formally. But the act of painting makes the wall white like a painter’s act and therefore efficiently. So we shall say that medication efficiently makes a man healthy.”

Moreover, Contarini also deals with the other sense of the noun justification – ‘to do good’. In this sense, justification allows men to become ‘more just’ after having been justified by God. This is the so-called justification by works through which the faithful achieve the merits they need to be saved. Contarini concludes his epistle declaring that both those who maintain that men are justified by works and those who maintain that men are justified by faith are right since they are dealing with the two different meanings of the word ‘justify’.33

32 Contarini, De iustificatione epistola, 25 May 1541, CT 12, 316, 36–45. According to the cardinal, the efficient cause, faith, comes from the Holy Spirit, who illuminates the human mind and inclines the human will: “Nunc tempus est, ut accedamus ad explicationem iustificationis, ac primum de iustificatione ea, quam impius adultus ex iniusto fit iusto. Hec iustificatio, si queritur de eius causa efficiente, nulli dubium est, quin sit a Spiritu sancto. Nam Deus solus remittit a peccata, Deus dat gratiam, Deus iustificat impium [Rm 8:33]. Modus autem, quo Spiritus sanctus hoc efficit, est modus et insipiratio, qua eius intellectum illustrat et voluntatem movet”, Contarini, De iustificatione epistola, 25 May 1541, CT 12, 317, 32–36. 33 “Verum etiam et alius iustificationis modus, quo quospiam ex iusto fit iustior … haec justificatio potest dici fieri ex operibus et potest appellari iustificatio operum. Prior vero, qua quis efficitur nova creatura in Christo [2Cor 5:17] non debeatur operibus nostris, sed Spiritui sancto, qui movet corda nostra removendo ea a vita peccati et per fidem erigendo ad Deum per Christum … Ex operibus tamen, que sequuntur, ostenditur hec iustificatio et hec fides perfecta seu formata et efficax per caritatem, ut dicit Iacobus in sua epistola. Nam si opera bona non sequantur, imperfecta fuit fides illa et inanis … Ideo ex operibus qui dicunt nos

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

99

2.2.1.1 Albert Pighius and Double Justice Together with Contarini and Gropper, the Dutch Catholic theologian Albert Pighius participated in the Diet of Regensburg (1541). He was the second author of reference for Zegers. In particular, Zegers used Pighius’ Controversiarum Praecipuarum in Comitiis Ratisponensibus in his Scholion published soon after the aforementioned Diet, in 1541. Pighius speaks about two different kinds of justice: 1- Iustitia coram hominibus ( justice before men), which entails doing good, performing the officia charitatis34. Pighius also calls this justice nostra iustitia (our justice) to indicate that this is the justice of people which technically consists in obedience to Christ’s precepts.35 2- Iustitia coram Deo ( justice before God): this expression may have three different meanings, according to Pighius. However, neither of the first two senses (‘for contention’ and ‘for correspondence’) can be strictly ascribed to human beings, since both of them make an impossible comparison between the justice of the faithful and the justice of God.36 Only the third meaning can be properly ascribed to humans: ‘to be freely justified by God’, who redeems the faithful, making them just, through the remission of their sins.37 Pighius also calls this justice the ‘justice of Christ’ which is, technically, Christ’s obedience to God’s will.38 This distinction seems to follow closely the traditional division between ‘to make just’ and ‘to act well’.39 It does not necessarily support an affirmation of double

34

35 36 37 38 39

iustificari, verum dicunt, et qui dicunt nos iustificari non ex operibus sed per fidem, verum etiam dicunt”, Contarini, De iustificatione epistula, 25 May 1541, CT 12, 321, 25; 322, 4–15. “Ad haec, in hominibus duplex considerari potest iustitia, sicut duplex invenitur regula, cui conformari debeant. Altera, qua iusti sunt in coram hominibus, aut inter homines, nemper respondentes legibus, quibus constat iustum inter homines: ut neminem afficientes iniuria, imo benevolentiam, humanitatis, charitatisque officiis prosequentes proximos, omnibus in omni ordine reddentes quod suum est”, Pighius: 1541, F6v. “In Christi autem obedientia, quod nostra collocatur iustitia, inde est, quod nobis illi incorporatis, ac si nostra esset, accepta ea fertur: ita ut ea ipsa, etiam nos iusti habeamur”, Pighius: 1541, G2v. Concerning “justice before God” per contentionem and per correspondentiam, see, Pighius: 1541, H3r–Gr. In the margin, Pighius explains “Nullo horum modorum invenit: suae iustitia iustum quemquam coram Deo inter Adae filios”, Pighius: 1541, Gr. “Iustitia est, inquam, non nostra … sed Dei, qua ille gratis, ex iniustis iustos facit, nobis remittens nostram iniustitiam, in Christo, non in nobis”, Pighius: 1541, G2v. “Haec est Christi iustitia, eius obedientia, qua voluntatem patris sui perficit in omnibus”, Pighius: 1541, G2v. This scheme is well documented in Catholic authors. For instance, Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Theologiae that “iustificatio dupliciter dicitur. Uno quidem modo, secundum quod homo fit iustus adipiscens habitum iustitiae. Alio vero modo, secundum quod opera

100

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

justice, though Pighius’ contemporaries discerned some ambiguities, possibly owing to the expression “duplex potest considerari iustitia” (“the justice could be considered double”). But should Pighius’ text be read as affirming ‘double justification’? Here Pighius is very clear: ‘our justice’ can in no way be regarded as a formal cause. In explaining the difference between the position held by Lutherans and that held by Catholics, he states:40 “illi sola fide, non charitate iustificari nos [Lutherani] affirmant: Nos contra dicimus, nec fide, nec charitate nostra nos iustificari coram Deo, si formaliter et proprie loquamur: sed una Dei in Christo iustitia: una Christi nobis communicata iustitia. ”

“They [Lutherans] affirm that we are justified by faith alone, not by charity. By contrast, we say, neither by faith, nor by our charity are we justified before God, if we speak formally and properly. But one is the justice of God in Christ: one is the justice of Christ communicated to us.”

There is only one formal cause of justification – the ‘justice of Christ in God’, or imputed justice. This formula attracted strong criticism from the Council fathers at Trent. One in particular, the Portuguese Gaspar do Casal (1510–1584), member of the Augustinian order and bishop of Funchal, Leiria and Coimbra, asserted that Pighius’ doctrine was close to that of Calvin since Pighius asserts that only the imputation of the justice of Christ can save the faithful. The Portuguese bishop made his criticism in his De quadripertita iustitia (‘On fourfold justice’), published in 1563 at the end of the Council of Trent.41 2.2.1.2 Gropper’s view: Both Double Justice and Double Justification Johann Gropper participated in the Diet of Regensburg, and, prior to that, he took part in the Provincial Council of Cologne (1536) whose proceedings were published two years later, in 1538. These proceedings contain the Enchiridion iustitiae operatur, ut secundum hoc iustificatio nihil aliud sit quam iustitiae executio”, Aquinas: 1892, I,2 q. 100, ar. 12, 222. 40 “Itaque quod illi sola fide, non charitate iustificari nos affirmant: Nos contra dicimus, nec fide, nec charitate nostra nos iustificari coram Deo, si formaliter et proprie loquamur: sed una Dei in Christo iustitia: una Christi nobis communicata iustitia”, Pighius: 1541, I1r. 41 “Nec admittentes quod nostra iustificatio constat ex remissione peccatorum et infusione gratiae gratum facientis creatae, seu sanctificationem, aut renovationem, sed in sola peccatorum consistat remissione. Hunc errorem ex parte secutus est Albertus Pighius, qui sicut docuerat omnes homines peccatores nasci in Adam, non quasi aliquod proprium peccatum seu culpam contrahant in seipsis, sed ex sola imputatione peccati Adae: ita posterius docuit, homines iustificari in Christo formaliter a peccatis, non per aliquam iustitiam quam in seipsis accipiant realiter, sed per solam imputationem iustitiae Christi. Id ergo asserit Deo, simul docens cum Calvino, quod in Christo iustificamur in Deo, non in nobis: non nostra sed illius iustitia, quae nobis cum illo iam communicantibus imputatur, et quod propriae iustitiae in opes extra nos in illo docemus iustitiam quaerere, a cuius iustitia per imputationem simus iusti”, Gaspar do Casal: 1563, 314r.

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

101

Christianae Institutionis in which Gropper dealt with justification. The ideas expressed there were an important source of inspiration for both Zegers and Sasbout, especially the sentence: “Justification properly comprises two “Iustificatio duo proprie complectitur, nempe remissionem peccatorum et interioris [elements] viz. the remission of sins and the mentis renovationem, seu repurgationem. ”42 renovation of the inner mind or purification.”

Effectively, as I shall show later, both Zegers and Sasbout used this expression. McGrath comments: “[f]ar from developing a doctrine of ‘double justification’ Gropper merely states the inseparability of remissio peccatorum and renovatio in a thoroughly Augustinian sense”.43 As I intend to show at the end of this chapter, Zegers and Sasbout actually interpreted Gropper’s statement as double justice, possibly following what Gropper wrote after Regensburg (1541) when the doctrine of ‘double justice’ was first developed. One place where Gropper unequivocally asserts this doctrine is in the Antididagma, a work not unknown in Louvain. In this book, Gropper expressly refers to double justice as the formal and essential cause of justification. On the one hand there is imputed justice, which is perfect; this is the justice of Christ. It has an ontological priority, hence it is the ‘high cause’ (summa causa) of justification. On the other hand, there is inherent justice, which is imperfect. Gropper explains that this is imparted to men by means of the simultaneous remission of sins together with the renovation of the soul by the Holy Spirit and the diffusion of charity in men’s hearts. Such justice is bestowed only on the basis of each believer’s faith. Of course, imputed justice has primacy, but inherent justice, by means of which the faithful ‘feel’ the renovation of their soul, is a kind of experience that allows one to ‘certify’ that his sins are actually remitted, that the justice of Christ is imputed to us and that Christ inhabits us through our faith.44 More simply, the renovation of the soul is 42 Pighius: 1541, 158r. 43 McGrath: 2005, 314, the most important contribution on the Enchiridion and the related question of the duplex iustitia. See also Braunisch: 1974, 419–437. Similarly also Cavallera, who declared: “il n’y a donc pas à distinguir entre la justice de Dieu qui nous est imputée et la justice d’une bonne conscience, interdite à celui qui a péché : il n’y a qu’une seule et même justice”, Cavallera: 1939, 26. 44 “Iustificamur a Deo iusticia duplici, tanquam per causas formales et essentiales. Quarum una et prior est consummata Christi iusticia: non quidem quomodo extra nos in ipso est, sed sicut et quando eadem nobis (dum tamen fide apprehenditur) ad iusticiam imputatur. Haec ipsa ita nobis imputata iusticia Christi, praecipua est et summa iustificationis nostrae causa, cui principaliter inniti et fidere debeamus. Aliter uero iustificamur formaliter, per iusticiam inhaerentem: quae remissione peccatorum simul cum renouatione Spiritus sancti, et diffusione charitatis in corda nostra, secundum mensuram fidei uniuscuiusque, nobis donatur, infunditur, et fit propria: atque ita per fructus spiritus exercetur, efficiturque in nobis propria quaedam iusticia, qua afficiamur. Cui tamen inhaerenti iusticiae (quod sit imperfecta) non

102

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

inherent justice, while the remission of sins is imputed justice. The remission of sins is the basis upon which the renovation of the soul can be carried out. Therefore, in the Antididagma, Gropper maintains both ‘double justice’ and ‘double justification’ since both imputed and inherent justice are conceived as the double formal [and essential] cause of justification. The Antididagma was also printed in Louvain in 1544. However, the Faculty of Theology did not appreciate Gropper’s work, and, on 9 July 1544, they sent him a letter expressing their offense at his ideas which are nowhere encountered among the Church fathers.45 Gropper received this letter on 18 July and soon replied to them with a letter dated 27 July 1544 in which he maintained the Catholicity of his doctrine, claiming that it was supported by both the Scriptures and a number of Church fathers, including Cyprian, Origen, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Bernard of Clairvaux. He also claimed support from contemporary scholars, such as Albert Pighius and the French theologian Jean de Gagny.46 Gropper then furnished a more systematic answer innitimur principaliter: sed ea tanquam interiori quodam experimento certificamur, nobis (qui talem renouationem spiritus nostri in nobis sentimus et experimur) remissionem peccatorum factam, et Christi consummatam iusticiam nobis imputari, atque ita Christum per fidem in nobis habitare”, Gropper: 1544, 13v. This is not the only place of the Antididagma in which Gropper deals with double justice. For instance, in another passage, he specifies that imputed justice is perfect while inherent justice is imperfect: “Duplicem esse iustitiam. Unam ex omni parte consummata, quam in vita praesenti non assequamur. Alteram vero minorem et imperfectam, quae nobis dum vivimus competat, et ut servemus sit praecepta”, Gropper: 1544, 5r. 45 “Prostare apud nos ceperat paucis superioribus diebus Antididagma editum per Reuerendissimos et Illustrissimos Canonicos Colonienses … Liber qui multa quidem docte prudenter et Christiane proponit, sed ad cuius lectionem multi nostrum fuerint nihilominus offensi, atque ita offensi ut communicatis aliquoties inter nos consiliis, ambigeremus utrum hic distrahi uulgo expediret … Nam de iustificatione nostra, proponuntur quedam que sicut cum protestantium dogmatibus non simplicitur conueniunt, ita ualde iudicio nostro accedunt uidelicet quod ipsa primum remissionem et ablutionem peccatorum per imputationem iusticie Christi includit. Item quod fit per iusticiam Christi consummatam tamquam causam formalem potiorem … Quodque iusticia inherenti, eo quod sit imperfecta, non innitimur principaliter, sed ea tanquam interiori quodam experimento certificamur nobis qui talem renouationem spiritus nostri in nobis sentimus et experimur remissionem peccatorum factam et Christi consummatam iusticiam nobis imputari. Nos in patrum monumentis legere non meminimus ubi loca que hic ex Epistolis ad Roma 4, ad Gala 2 et Act. 10, hoc sensu sint exposita de iustificatione que fit per fidem”, Letter of the Louvain Faculty of Theology to the Cologne Faculty of Theology, 9 July 1544: Arch. Stat. nr. 433, 1r–1v. Remarkably, the Antididagma was reprinted in Louvain by Servatius Sassenus a few weeks after the Louvain reprimand (August 1544). 46 “Litteras vestras quibus nostrum de Antididagmate …sententiam rogatis, accepimus primum xviij iulii … explicarunt sensum suum orthodoxum et catholicum veteribus omnibusque catholicis scriptoribus consentaneum … congesserunt sylvam e scripturis veteris et novi testamenti ac patribus item Cypriano, Origene, Hilario, Ambrosio, Augustino, Leone magno, Chrysostomo, Theophylacto, Bernhardo, magistro sententiarum aliisque pluribus … adfer-

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

103

through another work: the Articuli antididagmatis notati per Theologos Lovanienses (1545).47 In the meantime, the Faculty of Theology issued 59 articles, subsequently shortened to 32 articles, to summarize the teachings of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the consistent explanation of those articles (by Ruard Tapper) would not come until 1555–1557. In any case, because of the intervention of the Louvain theologians, Gropper had to clarify his position in the Articuli antididagmatis by maintaining that only the imputed justice of Christ is the formal cause of justification, and further specifying that inherent justice, called ‘charity’,48 is not a second formal cause of salvation.49 Gropper defended Pighius’ assertion that Christ’s justice is the formal cause of salvation, even replying to the Louvain theologians that his position was not so different from theirs. Whereas the Louvain scholars did not accept inherent justice as the formal cause of justification, Gropper made it clear that inherent justice is inseparably linked to the justice of Christ, without which inherent justice would simply vanish.50 Fur-

47

48

49

50

unt quoque et e recentioris nostrae etatis catholicis scriptoribus quosdam in quibus sunt Johannes Pighius et Johannes Gagnaeus”, Letter of the Cologne Faculty of Theology to the Louvain Faculty of Theology, 27 July 1544: Arch. Stat. nr. 433, 3r–3v. In particular, he focused upon four statements concerning the relation between “inherent” and “imputed” justice 1) “Quod scriptura quatuor iustificationis capita includit, et imprimis remissionem et ablutionem peccatorum per imputationem iustitiae Christi. (2) Quod per fidem, qua absque dubitatione firmiter confidimus nobis, qui ueram poenitentiam habemus, peccata nostra propter Christum esse dimissa (de quo tamen oportet intrinsecus per fidem Spiritus Sancti testimonio certificatos nos esse) iustificamur tamquam per causam susceptiuam. (3) Quod iustificamur imprimis per iustitiam Christi consummatam, tamquam causam formalem potiorem, quando eadem nobis per fidem apprehendentem ad iustitiam imputatur. (4) Quod inhaerenti iustitiae, quod sit imperfecta, non innitimur principaliter, sed ea tamquam interiori quodam experimento certificamur, nobis, qui talem renouationem Spiritus Sancti in nobis sentimus et experimur, dimissionem peccatorum factam et Christi consummatam iustitiam nobis imputari”, Gropper: 1906, 207–223, on 207. On the equivalence between ‘charity’ and ‘inherent justice’, which corresponds to the renovation of the soul, Gropper is very clear when he deals with its imperfection: “Restat de imperfectione inhaerentis iustitiae, hoc est charitatis nostrae, quae imperfectio facit, quod ea principaliter niti neque possimus neque debeamus, sed quod tantum confitemur, nobis talem renouationem interiori experientia iam sentientibus remissa esse peccata per Christum”, Gropper: 1906, 213. “[An iustitia Christi imputata sit causa formalis iustificationis nostrae.] Hoc quidem uerum est iustitiam Dei, qua iustus est Deus, eatenus, quatenus in Deo extra nos est, non posse proprie dici causam formalem iustificationis nostrae. Sed quid uetat, quominus eam formalem iustificationis causam dicamus, quatenus Deus illam credentibus per fidem applicat et ea applicatione remissionem et absolutionem peccatorum (qua imprimis iustificatis constat) nobis impertit. Certe hanc proprie formalem causam rei dicimus, quae dat esse rei et qua fit, ut res talis dicatur. Hoc uera sola iustitia Christi, quatenus ea nobis per fidem applicatur, seu (ut Augustinus dicit) quatenus ea per fidem induimur, facit, ut coram Deo obtenta remissione peccatorum, in sanguine Christi, iustificati dicamur. Nam charitas, quae remissis peccatis infunditur, non est formale remissionis peccatorum, quae plane gratis nullis praecedentibus meritis donatur, sed tantum innouationis nostrae”, Gropper: 1906, 211–222. “Et si non omnino fallar, uidetur mihi facultas Louaniensis non ita longe abesse a sententia

104

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

thermore, Gropper maintained that the doctrine of justification expressed in the Articuli Antididagmatis is consistent not only with the teaching of the Church fathers but also with that developed by the Louvain theologians and (other) Catholic scholars. He therefore complained about the serious injury he had received, having been censured by an unidentified Louvain theologian, very probably Ruard Tapper.51 Thus, it is possible to discern an evolution in Gropper’s thinking on the doctrine of double justification – which in his case consists in asserting two formal causes of justification, viz. imputed and inherent justice – from the Enchiridion (1538) to the Antididagma (1544). In the former work, Gropper did not accept ‘double justification’ in that he stated that there is only one formal and proper cause of salvation, namely God’s mercy. In the latter, by contrast, he did maintain a double justification doctrine, since both inherent and imputed justice are treated as formal causes of justification.52 Finally, as a conAntididagmatis, quum charitatem nostram, quam erga Deum et proximum habemus non faciat simpliciter et solum formale iustificationis, sed addat: aut cum ea inseparabiliter coniunctam, quo nimirum intelligitur, iustitiam Christi, quae est inseparabiliter cum nostra infusa charitate coniuncta et sine qua nostra charitas statim euanescit atque adeo nulla est”, Gropper: 1906, 211–222. 51 “His omnibus igitur satis superque ostensum putamus quaecumque de iustificatione in Antididagmate asseruntur adeo non dissentire a doctrina Patrum ac ne quidem a sententia facultatis Louaniensis et eorum, qui nostra aetate contra haereticos scripserunt, ut potius illi per omnia consentiant, nihilque illic contineri de fide iustificante, quod in Patribus et nostri temporis scriptoribus catholicis non sit assertum prius, ut non citra grauem iniuriam Louanienses suspicionem peregrinitatis (nescio cuius) atque adeo ueneni latentis Antididagma degrauet, quo non modo libro huic, sed ueteribus ad unum omnibus, ex quibus is optima fide (Deo teste) collectus est, grauem iniuriae notam inurunt”, Gropper: 1906, 220. 52 In the Antididagma, Gropper defines a threefold justification, the first of which coincides with double justification: “Sacra Scriptura docet nos de triplici hominis iustificatione. Principio de iustificatione, qua increduli, impii, et qui hactenus inimici Dei fuerunt … primum et recenter in homines pios et Dei amicos, per sacrum baptisma regenerantur. Huic iustificationi Scriptura sequentia quatuor capita includit: Primum, remissionem et ablutionem peccatorum, per imputationem iusticiae Christi. Alterum, reconciliationem cum Deo, et assumptionem in filios adoptionis per regenerationem. Tertium, renouationem Spiritus sancti, quam is facit per diffusionem charitatis in corda nostra. Quartum donationem uitae aeternae, cuius per iustificationem haeredes efficimur secundum spem. Quae omnia sunt tamquam essentiales quaedam partes, primae et principalis iustificationis nostrae”, Gropper: 1549, 27v. The second justification in Gropper is that of works: “Caeterum prima ista iustificatio, haud dubium sola gratia et misericordia Dei, per fidem dona ista apprehendentem, impetratur … Secundo, meminit Scriptura iustificationis cuiusdam, quam non per solam fidem consequimur, sed etiam per opera … Et quanquam opera nostra quadantenus sint causae crescentis istius iustificationis, meriti etiam apud Deum, non temporalium modo, uerumetiam spiritualium bonorum, imo et uitae aeternae”, Gropper: 1549, 28v–29r. Third is the justification of penance. Moreover Gropper specifies that Augustine dealt with all of them: “Tertio Scriptura commemorat perpetuam quandam et necessariam iustificationem, quae in hoc consistit, ut pro quotidianorum delictorum uenia consequenda, cum omnis uita et conatus noster, quamdiu in hac carne ambulamus, defectui subiaceat … Deum in uera fide per Christum sine intermissione inuocemus … Tres istas iustificationis formulas explicuit et

105

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

sequence of the debate with the Louvain theologians, in the Articuli antididagmatis (1545), Gropper refuses ‘double justification’, rejecting the idea that inherent justice can be a formal cause of justification. As correctly noted by Anthony Lane, “Gropper’s relationship to the duplex iustitia formula goes through four phases. Prior to Regensburg, including the Worms Draft, he is innocent of the formula. At Regensburg he came to embrace the formula. That this was on the basis of genuine conviction rather than ecumenical expediency is shown by his vigorous defence of the formula until 1544. From 1545 he remains silent about it, but without ceasing to believe in it”.53 The scheme below shows the different approaches of the authors who accepted ‘double justice’ – or who seem to have accepted it, as in the case of Pighius – with regard to the formal cause of salvation. As the reader can see, only in the cases of Contarini and Gropper [limited to the Antididagma] is it possible to speak properly about a ‘double justification’ since both of them considered inherent and imputed justice to be formal causes of salvation.

Formal cause

Gropper (1538) God’s mercy

Pighius (1541) Christ’s justice (imputed justice)

Contarini (1542) Double justice (inherent and imputed)

Gropper (1544) Double justice (inherent and imputed)

Gropper (1545) Christ’s justice (imputed justice)

2.2.2.3 The Answer of the Louvain Faculty of Theology: Ruard Tapper and the 32 Articles In 1544, the Louvain Faculty of Theology issued 59 articles on the Catholic faith. In the same year, these articles were condensed to 32, constituting a kind of manifesto of the Louvain Faculty of Theology. The eighth article in particular deals with justification. An exposition of these articles was published in 1554 under the title of Declaratio Articulorum a Veneranda Facultate Theologiae notauit (quamquam paucioribus uerbis) sanctus pater Augustinus”, Gropper: 1549, 29r. In particular, he refers to Augustine: 1865a, II.8.23, PL 44, col. 689: “Iustificatio porro in hac uita nobis secundum tria ista confertur: prius, lauacro regenerationis, quo remittuntur cuncta peccata; deinde, congressione cum uitiis, a quorum reatu absoluti sumus; tertio, dum nostra exauditur oratio”. 53 Anthony Lane, “Cardinal Johann Gropper and the Doctrine of Twofold Righteousness and Double Justification”, 8. Professor Anthony Lane shows in his paper presentation that, in an exchange of letters with Julius Pflug (1499–1564), Gropper still maintains imputed justice in 1552, although such an expression was not acceptable after Trent. I wish to thank Professor Lane who shared with me his knowledge on this matter, sending me his paper “Cardinal Johann Gropper and the Doctrine of Twofold Righteousness and Double Justification”, given at the Society for Reformation Studies Conference in Cambridge on 6 April 2016.

106

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

Lovaniensis (“Declaration of the Articles [issued] by the Venerable Faculty of Theology of Louvain”). Although the text claimed Ruard Tapper as its author, it had actually been compiled from notes taken during Tapper’s courses by some student(s) of his.54 The aim of the work was first to explain the sense of the articles, then to show their truth through the Scriptures, the definitions of the ecumenical councils, and the doctrines of the Church fathers. Finally, for each article, the author would explain both the ideas of the Protestants and the doctrine of the University of Louvain.55 In particular, in the eighth article, the Louvain theologian replied to the Reformed-minded scholars who were spreading the doctrine of imputed justice.56 In the Declaratio, the author describes the process of justification, first asserting that “in the Scriptures a twofold justice (duplex iustitia) is found”, distinguishing ‘justice’ in ‘humana’ and ‘divina’. The first, ‘human justice’, which Paul calls ‘justice of the law’ or ‘justice of the work’, can also be considered as ‘moral’ and ‘natural’ justice, but does not lead to eternal life since it is not the ‘true justice’ in which Catholics believe, i. e. the justice that makes a person just before God. If ‘human justice’ were able to make a person just, Christ’s death would have been in vain.57 The text then pays particular attention to the ‘justice of 54 “Dès 1545 les trente-deux propositions deviennent la base de l’enseignement de Tapper à l’université. Il expliqua notamment les différents points, et réfuta une à une les objections suscitées à l’encontre de hacune d’elles par les novateurs. Ces leçons furent appréciées à tel point qu’un de ses auditeurs s’avisa d’éditer les notes prises aux cours pour les vingt-quatre premiers articles. La publication de cette Declaratio Articulorum, qui vit le jour à Lyon en 1554, tout en étant une marque d’estime pour le professeur, lui causa des inquiétudes, à cause du manque de précision et de netteté dans l’exposé, qui, en ces temps de discussions théologiques, ne pouvait être assez exact. Aussi résolut–il de faire imprimer lui–même ses explications pour éviter tout malentendu, et en même temps pour répondre au désir de Viglius qui lui avait demandé de composer un ouvrage pouvant remplacer les fameuses Sentences de Pierre Lombard, devenues surannées et insuffisantes, inexactes d’ailleurs dans beaucoup de citations. Le premier volume des Explicationes Articulorum fut imprimé en 1555, par Martin Verhasselt, de Louvain”, De Vocht: 1929, 564–565. 55 “In progressu harum annotationum hic fere ordo obseruabitur. Primum declarabitur sensus ipsius articuli. Secundo ostendetur eius ueritas, tum per sacrarum Scripturarum testimonia, tum per conciliorum generalium definitiones, tum per concordem patrum doctrinam. Postremo explicabitur in quo aduersarii a nobis dissideant: et rursus in quo nobiscum conueniant; Declaratio articulorum a ueneranda facultate theologiae Louaniensis”, Tapper: 1554, 3. 56 “Putant enim illi [sc. the Protestants] hanc dici Dei et Christi iustitiam, quod ea Deus iustus sit, ipseque Christus, qui Deus et homo simul est: nobis autem eam communicari tradunt non communicatione participii, seu meriti, sed imputationis: docentes nos ab illa solum extrinsecus iustos … reuera autem nihil esse in nobis participatum a Christo, quo formaliter et intrinsece reddamur, et simus iusti coram Deo”, Tapper: 1554, 147. 57 “Aduertendum igitur initio duplicem in Scripturis reperiri iustitiam. Alteram humanam, quam Apostolus in epistolis ad Romanos et ad Galatas uocat iustitiam legis, siue quae ex lege est aut operum: atque haec est, quam externam, moralem, atque politicam dicimus, siue naturalem … Haec autem iustitia quamuis Deo non displiceat, uti nec ipsa natura, quae est

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

107

faith’ in which he discerns a further ‘moral justice’, which corresponds to ‘divine justice’ in the sense that such ‘moral justice’ is primarily an effect of God’s grace, a justice intrinsically present in man due to the infusion of the Holy Spirit. Technically speaking, this is inherent justice, which the Declaratio regards as the formal cause (formaliter) of justification.58 The text describes this justice as ‘charity’, even maintaining that it is inherent in the faithful as form and quality.59 In addition to inherent justice, there is also an ‘imputed justice’ bestowed on the faithful by Christ’s death and resurrection. The Declaratio does not consider this ‘imputed justice’ as a formal cause of justification, but instead an ‘efficient and meritorious’ cause.60 The misunderstanding brought about by the Declaratio induced Tapper to write a subsequent text, the Explicatio articulorum.61 This book was printed in

58

59 60

61

ipsius principium, non tamen proprie et iuxta modum Scripturae placet ei, quoniam nihil conducit homini ad uitam aeternam … Hanc non esse ueram iustitiam confitemur, quae nos Deo commendet, et coram eo iustos efficiat … Si ex lege est iustitia, ergo gratis Christus mortuus est … Si ex natura est iustitia, ergo gratis Christus mortuus est”, Tapper: 1554, 145– 146. “Sicut igitur ille peccator reputatus est, sic (secundum horum commentum) homo reputatur iustus, et per hoc iustificatur et non aliter coram Deo: licet aliam tamen intrinsecam ponant iustitiam quandam, imperfectam et inchoatam, sed sic imperfectam, ut reuera non possit in iudicio Dei consistere: et proinde quae reuera non sit iustitia, sed peccatum et iniustitia … Verum ecclesia catholica semper tenuit et docuit, et ex Scripturis intellexit esse aliquam ueram iustitiam in homine ipsi intrinsece adhaerentem, ut formaliter dicatur homo tali praeditus iustitia, iustus coram Deo. Sed nunc uideamus, cur haec iustitia fidei appelletur, nempe quod quemadmodum illa iustitia moralis … naturali cognitioni respondet … ita haec iustitia, fidei et doctrinae Christi (quam per fidem accepimus) correspondet … quia moralis iustitiae primum et principale est opus, iustitiae uero diuinae, opus hominis non est, primum principium, sed Dei gatia: augmenti autem eius opus quidem hominis est, gratia autem Dei illius per fidem spiritum intrans, per quem ipsa diffunditur, primum est”, Tapper: 1554, 149. “ Ex isto consequitur, iustitiam non esse homini extrinsecam, sed reuera ipsi inhaerentem, et inexistentem formam et qualitatem”, Tapper: 1554, 155. “Fatemur quidem iustitiam Dei Christi nobis imputari in meritum uitae et mortis eius, nobis enim ut natus erat et incarnatus, ita uixit nobis, et pro nobis mortuus est, ut sub morte sua nobis impetraret remissionem peccatorum, reconciliationem cum Deo patre, iustificationem et uires bene operandi, denique ipsam uitam aeternam … ex iustitia Christi non formalis causa est, qua iustificamur, sed efficiens et meritoria”, Tapper: 1554, 163. In the preface to his Explicatio articulorum Tapper writes: Missa est haec rapsodia Lugdunum Galliae, ibique typis excusa mendosissime: aut ob exemplar mendosum, aut ob typographi incuriam. Eadem Louanium tandem ad me perlata est: qua conspecta dolebam plurimum inconcinnam hanc congeriem sub meo nomine in lucem aeditam. Et quidem ne diligens quidem et doctus auditor per omnia posset ex ore docentis et non dictantis excipere uniuersa quae dicuntur, et solidae probationi ac ordinatae deductioni conducunt: Attamen si omnino me inconsulto placebat haec aedere, uaria erant exemplaria maiori iudicio conscripta, quae continerent ea quae docueram. Sed omnino me praemoneri oportuit, qui tolerabilius saltem exemplar exhibere potuissem: atque illa Louanii potius typis committere, quo in dubiis semper ad me potuisset haberi recursus. Dolorem meum et factam mihi iniuriam cum

108

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

Louvain by Martin Verhasselt in two volumes: the first in 1555, in which Tapper explained the first seven articles, the second came two years later, in 1557, and explained the other 13 articles. Tapper was not able to complete his work since he discussed only 21 articles out of 32. Already, from a merely ‘quantitative’ perspective, the differences between Declaratio and Explicatio are obvious: whereas the former consists of just 359 pages in 4o, the latter consists of almost one thousand pages in 2o (the first volume has 406 pages and the second 526). Tapper devoted 121 pages to the topic of justification alone. In these pages Tapper counters John Calvin, Philip Melanchthon, and Johann Brenz (1499–1570), while also harshly criticizing Albert Pighius, for having been ‘seduced’ by Calvin and the latter’s views on justification by faith. Moreover, Tapper quotes from Gropper’s Antididagma and refers to the ensuing dispute on justification between the Louvain scholars and Gropper. Tapper refers to the Spanish Dominican Domingo de Soto (1494–1560) who, in his Ad Sanctum Concilium Tridentinum de natura et gratia libri tres (1549), had criticized Pighius’ position on justification as well as Gropper’s thoughts on double justice, as expounded in the Antididagma.62 As Tapper relied on the Tridentine decree, there is no need here to consider his position further. However, it is reasonable to believe that some dissident voices remained in Louvain, since at least the two Franciscans, Zegers and Sasbout, continued to promote Gropper’s position. Before analyzing the two Franciscans, however, I will deal with Girolamo Seripando, who tried to convince the Council fathers of the Catholicity of the double justice doctrine. exponerem apud familiares amicos, simul illi quidem condolebant: sed hinc magnam nacti occasionem, quod saepius antea fecerant, nunc longe uehementius, hortabantur ut haec aut aliud quippiam circa dictos articulos aederem”, Tapper: 1555–1557, vol. 1, cii v. An old but still relevant publication on both the Declaratio and the Explicatio, De Ram: 1841. 62 “Et Antididagma ob suavi loquentiam adversariorum a veritate deviasse, et inconsiderate esse locutum, docet Reverendissimus Magister Noster Dominicus a Soto, lib. 3 de natura et gratia”, Tapper: 1555–1557, 60. The reference is to de Soto 1549 (first edition Venice 1547), in particular to the second book, chapters 19 and 20, respectively De causis formalibus iustificationis adversus Lutheranos and De iustita Christi nobis imputata. In particular, Soto maintains that there is only one formal cause of justification, namely, inherent justice, which does not need imputed justice, since the justice that faithful receive in themselves is Christ’s justice: there is no difference among them since justice is one and unified, as also the Council of Trent decreed: “Est ergo conclusio, quod non solum iustitia illa nobis inhaerente, quam Deus impartit, formaliter, sumus iusti: sed quod nulla praeterea opus est imputatione iustitiae Christi ad supplendum eius imperfectionem. Ratio autem (ut summatim dicamus) quare iustitia formalis sit in nobis, est haec Iustitia Christi a qua efficimur iusti, una est, neque variatur”, de Soto: 1549, 180v–181r. Concerning Gropper, just mentioned as Colonienses, de Soto refers to the passages of the Antididagma on double justice that I analyzed before, de Soto: 1549 177v–ff. Moreover, de Soto cites Pighius by name several times in chapter 20 to show his proximity to Lutheran teachings. In particular, Pighius’ main mistake is to have considered the existence of two justices, inherent and imputed, of which only the latter is a formal cause of justification, de Soto: 1549, 181v.

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

109

2.2.1.4 Seripando: the Promoter of the Double Justice Doctrine at the Council The last mention of the doctrine of double justice should have been during the Council of Trent. The Superior General of the Augustinian Order, Girolamo Seripando, offered the Council fathers a synopsis of the ‘double justice’ doctrine as part of the discussions that led to the decree on justification. He gathered the expositions of four authors concerning ‘double justice’ in his ‘apology’ Pro confirmanda sententia de duplici iustitia catholicorum quorundam doctrina (“To Confirm the Sentence on Double Justice [as] a Doctrine of Some Catholics”).63 In this writing, Seripando first referred to the Spanish Augustinian hermit, Jaime Pérez de Valencia (1408–1490), a kind of precursor of the doctrine of double justice, and then he reported the thoughts of Pighius, Gropper, and Contarini. After this introduction, Seripando defended the doctrine against nine possible criticisms, explaining his own position in that way. This was clear: people have an inherent justice, imperfect not because of the grace that the faithful have received but because of human nature,64 a justice to be ‘perfected’ by imputed justice, the latter doctrine based on Augustine’s authority.65 Seripando was so convinced of the efficacy of this solution that, after having expressed the thesis on duplex iustitia to his colleagues, he even declared:66 “Si sermo hic apud hereticos tantum audiatur est, procul dubio anathemizandus. Si inveniatur apud catholicos, nollem certe propter unam voculam, que bonum sensum, pie interpreretur, accipere potest, concordiam ecclesie catholice scindi.”

“If this argument [viz. the doctrine of double justice] is heard only amongst heretics, there is no doubt that it must be anathematized. However, if it [viz. this argument] is found amongst Catholics, I would not want the unity of the Catholic Church to be divided, because of one small word [voculam, viz. duplex (iustitia)], which can be taken in a good sense if it is conscientiously interpreted.”

Therefore, on the one hand, he defended this doctrine, but on the other hand, he declared his fear that another schism could result from its rejection;67 Seripando’s 63 Seripando, Pro confirmanda sententia de duplici iustitia catholicorum quorundam doctrina, October 1546, CT 12, 664–71. Specifically on Seripando, see McGrath: 2005, 322–334. On Seripando’s view on double justice, see also Marazzini: 1997, 259–268. 64 “Sic dico, cum iustitia nostra inherens esse possit imperfecta, non ratione gratie, que in se perfecta est, sed ratione nostra, qui gratiae cooperamur, ex ea non deminamur iusti”, Seripando, Pro confirmanda sententia de duplici iustitia, October 1546, CT 12, 669, 6–8. 65 “Augustinus docet, cum ait de Christo: Delicta nostra sua delicta fecit, ut iustitiam suam nostram iustitiam faceret … quod nisi imputatione non potest intelligi”, Seripando, Pro confirmanda sententia de duplici iustitia, October 1546, CT 12, 671, 30–3. The reference is to Augustine: 1956, Ps 21:2, CCSL 38, 123, 21–24. 66 Seripando, Pro confirmanda sententia de duplici iustitia, October 1546, CT 12, 668, 31–3. 67 In any case, with regard to the possibility of other schisms, Seripando seems to have been

110

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

suggestion, however, was not taken into consideration. Still, in the draft decree written by the Superior General of the Augustinians (31 October 1546), he tried to include double justice, maintaining that justification depends on both the ‘washing’ (ablutio) of sins, on the one hand, and on sanctification and infusion of the gifts of grace, on the other hand. Regarding the formal cause, however, Seripando had to refer to the “one justice of God” (“una iustitia Dei”).68 Nevertheless, in the decree on justification, the Council fathers wanted to be clearer in this regard by maintaining that “unica formalis causa est iustitia Dei” (the unique formal cause is the justice of God). This formulation “has the effect of defining that the one formal cause of justification was the righteousness of God, in the sense described – in other words, the possibility of a double formal cause of justification (iustitia imputata and iustitia inhaerens) was excluded” (McGrath: 2005, 74–77). Although the Council fathers clearly conceived justification as remission of sins and “interior renovation of person”, with regard to double justice, one inherent and another imputed, the decree clearly specified that such a distinction does not obtain. Inherent justice and God’s justice simply refer to the same object: “It is said ‘our justice’ because we are justified by means of that which inheres us, which is the same [ justice] of God, because it is infused by God through the merit of Christ”.69 By way of conclusion, in this short section devoted quite worried. It is possible that he was even thinking of a problem present within his own order, the Augustinians, especially among Italians. As Superior General of the Augustinian Order, for instance, he had to expel two friars, Agostino Mainardi (1482–63) and Giulio della Rovere (1504–1581), because of their appreciation of Protestant teachings on justification. See Rozzo: 1989. Of course, Giulio della Rovere is not to be mistaken with the well-known known Pope, Julius II, ‘Della Rovere’ (1443–1513). For a further analysis of Seripando’s proposition of double justice, together with double justification, see McGrath: 2005, vol. 2, 74. The idea of a schism “because of a word” is not a coincidence. For instance, in writing to Cardinal Alexander Farnese (1520–1589), Cardinal Contarini claimed to have maintained almost the same point with Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle (1517–1586): “Sua Signoria stette quieta né mi fece replica. Poi ragionammo in universal di quelli, che non sono essentiali, ma così universali in tutta la chiesa, nelli quali, dissi, quanto pericolo era far mutazione senza gran circumspettatione, per non far un altro schisma over’hora, over dopo qualch’anno. Et qui li narrai dell’aggiunta fatta al simbolo di quella parola ex filio, dove parla della processione del spirito santo, come molte decine d’anni, dapoiché fu fatta, dette occasione del schisma fra Greci et Latini, che fu la causa della ruina della Grecia et di tutto quello Imperio”, Cardinal Contarini to Cardinal Farnese, Regensburg, 18 March 1541, in Schulze: 1879, 160. See also Mackensen: 1959. 68 “Impii autem iustificationis, quae simul in ablutione peccatorum, simul in sanctificationem et in infusione donorum consistit… formalis iustitia una Dei, qua renovamur spiritus mentis nostrae et non modo reputatur, sed vere iusti nominamur et sumus”, Girolamo Seripando, Decretum [Seripandi] de Iustificatione, 31 October 1546, CT 5, 512, 6, 12–18. Moreover, Seripando had to explain his position on double justice further in the congregation of 26–27 November 1546, see CT 5, 666–76. 69 “Hanc dispostionem seu praeparationem iustificatio ipsa consequitur, quae non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

111

to Seripando, I would maintain that the notion of double justice was particularly appreciated by Augustinians: among them, for instance Jaime Pérez de Valencia, Giles of Viterbo (as Serpiando affirms), Luther, and Seripando himself, but I agree with McGrath when he says that It is not merely impossible to defend the view that the doctrine of duplex iustitia was of Augustinian provenance; it is impossible to provide convincing evidence for an ‘Augustinian school’ during the Tridentine proceedings on justification. This is not to deny that the Augustinian contingent at Trent espoused certain specific theological attitudes: it is to call into question the implication that these attitudes were representative of the Augustinian Order as a whole, or that they corresponded to a tradition or a school of thought peculiar to that Order (McGrath: 2005, vol. 2, 67).

2.2.2 Zegers’ Scholion and double justice between Driedo, Gropper and Augustine After this extended introduction to the doctrine of double justice, the focus can now turn to Nicholas Tacitus Zegers. However, before dealing with the topic “Zegers and double justice” I intend briefly to recall Zegers’ text-critical approach since it forms the basis of his exegesis. In the preface to the Scholion, the Franciscan explains that the reader of the Latin translation should always have clearly in mind the references to and the expressions of the Old Testament that are conveyed in the New Testament. Moreover, he should also be aware of the use of the Latin by common people in the time in which the translation was made since the text was intended for the faithful of that period. The author stresses this idea on several occasions in the preface to the Scholion. It seems, therefore, that Zegers is conscious of the evolution of language: in other words, through his Scholion, the author wants to provide an instrument for the reader so that he can better comprehend the New Testament. With this aim, at the beginning of his Scholion to the Pauline epistles, Zegers not only furnishes definitions and examples of the tropoi used by Paul in his Epistles – such as hyperbaton, hypallage, hendiadys, etc. – but also provides a short lexicon of the most important words that occur in Paul’s vocabulary, such as adoptio, Deus, fides etc. By way of example, in the explanation of Pauline terminology, the Franciscan introduces a term that has particular interest for this research: gratia. Given the importance of this noun in Paul’s Epistles, Zegers offers the reader a full definition of it, before susceptionem gratiae et donorum … Demum unica formalis causa est iustitia Dei”, Decretum de iustificatione, 13 January 1547, CT 5, 792, 7, 25–35. “enim iustitia nostra dicitur quia per eam nobis inhaerentem iustificamur illa eadem Dei est quia a Deo nobis infunditur per Christi meritum”, Decretum de iustificatione, 13 January 1547, CT 5, 797, 16, 18–9.

112

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

he starts his commentary on Romans. Thus, after having provided a philological analysis of the noun gratia, the author gives his exegetical interpretation: Grace is everything that, thanks to the divine favor and gift, through Christ or through the Holy Spirit, we receive, as mortals, of the plenitude of the immortal God: through it we are called to the faith, we are absolved from sins, we flee evil, we do good, we are glorified.70

Another key concept in the Pauline corpus is ‘faith’, fides. Here again, Zegers provides a full explanation of this noun in the preface. In the sacred Scriptures – says Zegers – ‘faith’ is often used to indicate trust in God, and, in this instance, the sense is similar to that of ‘hope’. However, more frequently this term expresses the meaning ‘belief in God’, specifically to indicate absolute and perfect faith, also called ‘living faith’ and/or the faith ‘of grace’. According to Zegers, Paul specifically referred to this latter concept when he was writing about justification, salvation, and life71. After his explanation of what gratia and fides mean, the focus can finally be given to Zegers’ exegetical analysis of Romans and, in particular, of Rom 3:28 “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law”. It is here that Zegers shows his appreciation for the doctrine of double justice. To be precise, it should be noted that in ‘analyzing’ Rom 3:28, Zegers made a kind of ‘collage’ from three sources, namely – in the same order as they are used by Zegers –: 1) John Driedo, whom Zegers does not mention by name; 2) Johann Gropper, to whom Zegers expressly refers at the end of his exposition, along with another theologian, Albert Pighius; 3) Augustine, whose name is mentioned in the margin. A closer look at ‘Zegers’ collage’ is rewarding in that it reveals how the Franciscan interpreted Gropper’s doctrine of ‘double justice’ in the light of Driedo’s ideas on justification. The third source, Augustine, appears at the end of Zegers’ section on Rom 3:28. In fact, Zegers borrows his analysis wholesale from De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, in particular quoting question 76, which discusses James 2:20: “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”72 In effect, the entire second half of Zegers’ ‘collage’ is occupied with this quotation of Augustine’ question. Like Sasbout’s (cf. below), 70 “Praeterea (ut in summa dicam) gratia est omne illud, quod mortales divino favore ac beneficio per Christum aut Spiritum Sanctum de immortalis Dei plenitudine accipimus: quo vel vocamur ad fidem, vel absolvimur a peccatis, vel mala defugimus, vel bona agimus, vel glorificamur, vel aliud aliquod donum consequimur”, Zegers: 1553, 5v–6r. 71 “Fidem frequenter usurpant sacrae literae pro fiducia erga Deum, ut non multum differat a spe … sed absoluta et perfecta fides, cuius frequentior est in scripturis mentio, ea est, qua non modo Deo et Deum credimus, verum etiam in Deum, hoc est credendo, pio affectu partier et effectu in Deum tendimus, et ab illo pendemus: quam proprie fidem vivam et gratiae dicimus … hic igitur memineris oportet, quod ubicumque Paulus vel alis scriptura sacra fidei tribuit in justificationem, salutem, vitam, aut aliquid huiusmodi, de fide loquatur viva et perfecta”, Zegers: 1553, 6v–7r. 72 Augustine: 1975, q. 76, CCSL 44a, 218–221.

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

113

Zegers’ exegetical approach is thus characterized by ‘massive’ quotations from other authors. Already, at the beginning of his commentary on Rom 3:28, Zegers makes the first hidden reference to Driedo. Before discussing the relation between grace and justification, Zegers describes the latter in two different ways: “in the Scriptures, iustificatio has two meanings (bifariam accipi)”. This expression appears in Driedo’s index of the De Captivitate et Redemptione Humani Generis (The Captivity and Redemption of Humankind). Indeed, one of the chapters is titled “iustificari in scripturis bifariam accipitur” (‘to be justified is understood in the Scriptures in two ways) and is used by Zegers for his explanation of Rm 3:28:73 Driedo’s De Captivitate et Redemptione, 291. Zegers’s Scholion in Romanos, Rom 3:28, 11r-v. Deinde interdum, iustificari est ex impio Interdum enim iustificari est ex impio fieri fieri iustum, quod si in momento ullis iustum, quod absque ullis operum meritis: et operum meritis: et de huiusmodi de huiusmodi iustificatione loquitur fere iustificatione loquitur apostolus in epistola apostolus in hac epistola, et in ea quae est ad ad Romanos, et in ea quae est ad Titum non Titum, ubi ait: non ex operibus iustitiae quae ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos, sed fecimus nos, sed secundum suam secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos misericordiam salvos nos fecit (Titus 3:5). Interdum iustificari est ex accepta fide in fecit (Titus 3:5). Interdum iustificari est, ex accepta fide in iustitia proficere, et iustitiae opera exequi, iustitia proficere, et iustitiae opera exequi, magis magisque iustus fieri: de qua loquitur magis magisque iustus fieri: de qua loquitur beatus Jacobus: Fides, inquit, cooperatur Jacobus: Fides, inquit, cooperatur operibus operibus eius (Jas 2:2). eius (Jas 2:2).

Zegers quotes Driedo’s definition of justification nearly verbatim. In particular, he maintains that ‘to be justified’ has two meanings: 1- For an evil person to be made just. In this sense, justification is considered as a gift bestowed by God: this is the justification by faith. Therefore, in this instance, there is no reference to human works. Zegers and Driedo base this analysis on Titus 3:5 “Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us”.74 2- To do good. After having accepted the faith, the faithful do good and continue to do good, increasing their justice: this is the justification by works. In this

73 “sciendum iustificandi vocabulum in scriptura accipi bifariam”, Zegers: 1553, Rom 3:28, 11r. See Driedo 1534, 3. 74 “Interdum enim iustificari est ex impio fieri iustum, quod absque ullis operum meritis: et de huiusmodi iustificatione loquitur fere apostolus in hac epistola, et in ea quae est ad Titum, ubi ait: non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit (Tit. 3:5) … Contingit ergo haec prima iustificatio homini gratuito Dei munere, etiam sine ullis praecedentibus bonis operibus … quae ut ad iustificationem nihil homini conferunt, ita quatenus talia sunt, ad acquirendam iustificationem necessaria non sunt”, Zegers: 1553, Rom 3:28, 11r–v.

114

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

instance, Zegers and Driedo rely upon James 2:22 “faith did co-operate with his works”.75 Zegers does not accord primacy to one of these two in the economy of salvation, but after having explained the two meanings of iustificatio, by grace and by works, he does deny that faith is the cause of justification. It is true that people are justified by faith (per fidem), but faith is just an immediate instrument of God’s grace, also defined as misericordia (“mercy”). In other words, God’s grace is the proper and formal cause of a person’s justification; therefore, only because of God’s grace do the faithful receive justice. It is important to stress here that the order of the causes involved in the process of justification as described by Zegers in 1553 is not in accordance with that maintained in chapter seven of the Tridentine decree on justification, promulgated in 1547: Zegers’ Scholion Rom 3:28 … non quod fides ipsa proprie causa sit nostrae iustificationis, sed quod per ipsam, quasi per immediatum quoddam instrumentum Dei misericordiae seu gratiae, quae proprie causa formalis est iustificationis, ipsam iustitiam accipiamus.

Decretum de Iustificatione c. 7 Hujus justificationis causae sunt: finalis quidem gloria Dei et Christi ac vita æterna; efficiens vero misericors Deus, qui gratuito abluit et sanctificat signans et ungens … instrumentalis item sacramentum baptismi, quod est sacramentum fidei … unica formalis causa est justitia Dei, non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit.

The order of the causes in Zegers’ exposition seems to be inverted with respect to that of the decree. Indeed, the Franciscan asserts that the instrumental cause is faith, the formal cause is God’s mercy, viz. His grace, while the final cause seems to be God’s justice, as can be reasonably inferred from the final relative clause quod … accipiamus (‘that … we could take’). By contrast, in the Tridentine decree on justification, although faith – or better the concomitant sacrament, viz. baptism –, is the instrumental cause, the formal cause of justification is God’s justice (“since it makes us just”), while the final causes are the glory of God and Christ, as well as eternal life for the faithful. Lastly, in the Tridentine decree, God’s mercy is the efficient cause. It seems therefore that, on Zegers’ view, God’s justification is aimed at God’ justice, viz. that God justifies people in order to accomplish His justice, through the medium of faith in Christ. Besides, the decree on justification affirms that God justifies people, on the one hand, for ‘the glory of God and Christ’ but, on the other hand, for the salvation of human souls, an aspect which is even not considered in Zegers’ exposition. In his description of the causes of justification, however, Zegers was not original, but rather followed 75 “Interdum iustificari est ex accepta fide in iustitia proficere, et iustitiae opera exequi, magis magisque iustus fieri: de qua loquitur beatus Jacobus: Fides, inquit, cooperatur operibus eius”, Zegers: 1553, 11v.

115

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

Gropper’s Enchiridion Christianae Institutionis from which he sometimes quotes, as can be seen from the underlined passages: Zegers’ Scholion Rom 3:28, 11v. Iustificamur ergo per fidem in Christum, qua credimus per meritus ipsius nobis condonari peccata: non quod fides ipsa proprie causa sit nostrae iustificationis, sed quod per ipsam, quasi per immediatum quoddam instrumentum Dei misericordiae seu gratiae, quae proprie causa formalis est iustificationis, ipsam iustitiam accipiamus.

Gropper’s Enchiridion, De Iustificatione hominis … per fidem in Christum, qua tanquam instrumento remissio peccatorum et renovatio interioris hominis (136r). Detrahimus itaque et fidei et huic novitati eam dignitatem seu causam justificationis quin potius ob id tantum dicimus fidem iustificare, non quod [fides] sit cause justificationis, sed quod nulla alia re misericordiam et gratiam Dei nos innovantem, quae proprie causa formalis iustificationis est, [iustitiam] accipiamus. (137v–138r)

The following table clearly demonstrates the difference between Gropper’s and Zegers’ interpretation of justification, on the one hand, and the official doctrine elaborated by the Council fathers at Trent, on the other: Cause Formal Final

Gropper (1538)

Zegers (1553)

God’s mercy/God’s reGod’s mercy/God’s reGod’s justice newing grace newing grace Glory of God, Glory of Christ, God’s justice God’s justice Eternal life for the faithful.

Instrumental Faith Efficient

Justification decree (1547)

Baptism (Sacrament of Faith) God’s mercy

Faith

Both the quotation and the table illustrate Zegers’ reliance upon Gropper’s Enchiridion, and it should be stressed that the Scholion was published in 1553, six years after the promulgation of the Tridentine decree on justification which Catholic theologians had to regard as the authoritative point of reference in their discussions of justification, grace, and faith. This fact notwithstanding, Zegers chose to refer to Gropper’s doctrine of justification rather than to that of the Council. Zegers’ appreciation of Gropper’s Enchiridion is not limited to the order of the causes involved in the process of justification: the Franciscan even quotes the following formula verbatim:

116

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

Zegers’ Scholion Rom 3:28, 11v Complectitur autem iustificatio duo, nempe remissionem peccatorum, et interioris mentis renovationem.

Gropper’s Enchiridion, 158r Iustificatio duo proprie complectitur, nempe remissionem peccatorum et interioris mentis renovationem, seu repurgationem.

This formula was a favourite of Zegers and, later on, of his disciple Sasbout too. After introducing the question with the formula, Zegers calls this justification prima iustificatio. This ‘first justification’ should be taken to refer to the first meaning of iustificatio that Zegers accepted on the basis of Driedo’s definition, namely ‘to make an evil person just’. Zegers repeats that this first justification is a free gift from God. In his further explanation, Zegers seems to have in mind Gropper’s Enchiridion. Gropper explained that this justification comprises both the remission of sins and the renovation of the inner mind. He furthermore maintained that, when Paul deals with justification, he refers to the free gift from God that makes an unjust person just, not only through the remission of sins, but also through inner renovation. Moreover, Gropper argued that the regeneration of mind and will do not pertain to justification properly; rather, they are somehow a consequence of the remission of sins76 Thus, it seems that Zegers relied on Driedo for the introduction to his discussion of justification where he offers a short explanation of what it means ‘to be justified’. After having explained the twofold sense of the verb iustificari, Zegers clarifies the first meaning ‘to make just’ – on the basis of Gropper’s Enchiridion – as the following table illustrates: Iustificari

Driedo (1534)

Dei munus/ at Ex impio fieri iustum level of grace opera / at level Ex accepta fide in iustitia of men’s proficere et iustitae opera works exequi

Gropper (1538) Remissio peccatorum Renovatio interioris mentis

Zegers (1553) Prima Iustificatio [Gropper’s] remissio peccatorum and renovatio interioris mentis Secunda Iustificatio?

76 “Verbum iustificari quid proprie apud Paulum significet. Qui dicunt, uerbum iustificari, apud Hebraeos uerbum esse forense, et usurpari, apud Paulum Hebraica consuetudine, pro eo tantum quod est acceptum reputari, et non magis significare, impium seu iniustum gratuito Dei munere non solum a peccatis absolui, sed et intus regenerari, renouari, repurgari, piumque et iustum effici, perinde atque mentis seu uoluntatis innouatio ad iustificationis rationem proprie non pertineat, sed eandem potius subsequatur”, Gropper: 1538, 132r. The italics are in the margin.

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

117

It is important to note that Zegers refers only to the prima iustificatio without mention of the secunda iustificatio, as one would expect from the second meaning offered by Driedo, to which Zegers refers at the beginning of his comment on Rom 3:28. Nevertheless, the Franciscan does deal with this ‘second justification’, albeit without using the expression, as can be deduced from Zegers’ analysis of good works. They are the consequence of the faith that is viva and formata, and the author divides them into two sets:77 1- The works that precede justification, which are defined as opera poenitentiae, i. e. the works of penance, such as confessing sins, abstaining from evil, restoring alienated goods, giving alms, and being thirsty for justice. 2- The works that follow justification, which are defined as officia charitatis, good works (omnia benefacta) more generally. They are a necessary element for those who want to be justified in order that those who are iniusti might become iusti, although in themselves these works are not meritorious for eternal life. These are the ‘works of justice [that come] from having accepted the faith’. They are the works to which Driedo refers and which represent the ‘second justification’. In summary, Zegers seems to describe an articulated process of justification, which is indebted to his reading of Driedo and Gropper. It starts with a prima iustificatio, the formal cause of which is grace, and, since grace is a free gift, there is no human contribution. This first justification is twofold and includes double justice: on the one hand, the remission of sins, on the other hand, the interior renovation of the will which is somehow a consequence of the remission of sins. Thanks to this first justification, which is situated at the level of grace, the faithful become conscious on the one hand of their sinful condition and, on the other hand, of the possibility of being redeemed through Christ. The secunda iustificatio is now involved, at the level of works. More specifically, men do good in two ways: 1) by performing the opera poenitatiae, the works of penance, which precede the ‘first’ justification; 2) by performing the officia charitatis, the acts of charity. Both the opera and officia are consequences of faith. However, the works of penance are performed before receiving God’s justice, namely the remission of sins and the renovation of the mind/will, while the acts of charity are performed after having received God’s justice. In any case, both the works and the acts do not 77 “Porro opera quae ex fide fiunt, siue ea iustificationem praecedant, ut sunt opera poenitentiae, nimirum dolere, conteri, temperare a militia, restituere alienum, facere eleemosynas, sitire iustitiam, hoc est remissionem peccatorum: siue ipsam iustificationem sequantur, ut sunt officia charitatis, et caetera omnia benefacta, necessaria quidem sunt homini cupienti iustificari, neutra tamen per se proprie merentur, ut quis iniustus reddatur iustus. Quamquam interim posteriora maioris meriti sunt quam priora, quod haec posteriora ex fide iam uiua et formata fiant”, Zegers: 1553, 11v.

118

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

in themselves contribute to justification. Moreover, Zegers maintains that the officia have ‘more merit’ than the opera since the former came from faith already ‘living’ and ‘formed’ (viva et formata fides), precisely because the officia follow the first justification. The previous table can now be completed as follow: Iustificari

Driedo (1534)

Dei munus/ at level of grace

Ex impio fieri iustum

opera / at level of men’s works

In iustitia proficere, opera iustitae exequi

Gropper (1538) Remissio peccatorum Renovatio interioris mentis

Zegers (1553) Prima iustificatio Gropper’s remissio peccatorum and renovatio interioris mentis Officia charitatis [secunda iustificatio]

In order to prove the correctness of this doctrine, Zegers started his exposition with a long quotation from Augustine’s De diversis quaestionibus 76, where the Church father analyzes Paul’s expression non ex operibus (“not by works”). Augustine argues that this expression was not understood by those who believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, even in cases where one continues in sin.78 According to Augustine, there is a justification which precedes human good works, which is a free gift by God.79 This is precisely what Zegers defines as ‘first’ justification – although it should be noted that there is no prima in Augustine’s text. According to Augustine, there is no merit prior to the advent of grace, and this is what Paul means when he uses the phrase “by faith, without works” (Rom 3:28). Again, Augustine stresses that these words should not be understood in the way that ‘heretical’ theologians sometimes understand them, namely as indicating that it is sufficient to accept faith in order to be justified, even if one continues to live a sinful life.80 Moreover, Augustine explains that Paul’s justifi78 “Quoniam Paulus apostolus (inquit) praedicans iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus, non bene intellectus est ab eis, qui sic acceperunt dictum, ut putarent quum semel in Christum credidissent, etiam si male operarentur, facinorose flagitioseque uiuerent, saluos se esse posse per fidem”, Zegers: 1553, 11v–12r. 79 “Vnde apostolus Paulus dicit posse hominem sine operibus se praecedentibus iustificari per fidem. Nam iustificatus per fidem quomodo potest nisi iuste operari? Quamuis antea nihil operatus iute ad fidei iustificationem peruenerit, non merito bonorum operum, sed gratia Dei, quae in illo iam uacua esse non potest, quum iam per delectationem bene operatur. Quod si quum crediderit mox de hac uita decesserit, iustificatio fidei manet cum illo, nec praecedentibus operibus, quia non merito ad illam sed gratia peruenit, nec sequentibus, quia in hac uita esse non sinitur”, Zegers: 1553, 12v. 80 “Vnde manifestum est quod Paulus apostolus dicit: Arbitramur enim hominem iustificari per fidem sine operibus. Non tamen ita intelligendum est, ut accepta fide si uixerit, dicamus eum iustum, etiam si male uixerit, et caetera”, Zegers: 1553, 12v.

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

119

cation “by faith without works” and James’ statement that “faith without works is dead” are not in opposition. Otherwise even Paul would have contradicted himself, when he states, for instance, that “the doers of the law shall be justified” (Rom 2:13).81 When Paul affirms justification “by faith without works”, he was referring to those works which precede faith, and so are useless for justification. When James affirms that faith without works is dead, he is referring to those opera which necessarily follow upon faith.82 Augustine’s De diversis questionibus 76 ends at this point, as does Zegers’ quotation. As has already been shown, Zegers relies extensively on three sources: Driedo, Gropper, and Augustine. At the end of his section on Rom 3:28, however, he makes only two explicit references. The first is to Gropper’s Enchiridion. Although the Tridentine decree on justification had been issued six years before Zegers’ Scholion, the Franciscan theologian prefers to rely exclusively on works that preceded it, choosing not to take the decree into consideration. It is almost certain that he was aware of the decree, since he clearly refers to the Council’s Fourth Session in the prefatory epistle to his text-critical work, the Epanorthotes, noting that, a few years earlier, the Council fathers had declared the Latin Vulgate to be the official text of the Catholic Church.83 Although Zegers never mentions the Council in the Scholion itself, it is highly unlikely that he knew nothing about the decree on justification six years after its promulgation, especially since it was published precisely in Cologne where both Zegers’ Scholion and his Epanorthotes were also printed. While it is possible that Zegers wrote the Scholion prior to Trent, and only published it afterwards, this would still entail that Zegers ignored the Tridentine decree at the time of preparing his text for print. Therefore, considering that Zegers worked in an environment that did not at all appreciate the doctrine of double justice, the most likely explanation is that he consciously decided not to take the Tridentine decree into consideration and to stick to the doctrine of double justice. Another question should be asked: if Zegers adhered to the doctrine of double justice, why did he use Gropper’s Enchiridion instead of the Antididagma? Zegers should have been aware of the latter work, especially because of the controversy between Gropper and the Louvain Faculty of Theology. As such, Zegers may have 81 “Qui putant Iacobi sententiam contrariam esse illi Pauli sententiae, possunt arbitrari etiam ipsum Paulum sibi esse contrarium, quia dicit alio loco: non enim auditores legis iusti scilicet apud Deum, sed factores legis iustificabuntur (Rom 2:13)”, Zegers: 1553, 12v. 82 “Quapropter non sunt sibi contrariae duorum apostolorum sententiae Pauli et Iacobi, quum dicit unus iustificari homines per fidem sine operibus, et alius dicit inanem esse fidem sine operibus: quia ille dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt, iste de his quae fidem sequuntur”, Zegers: 1553, 13r. 83 “[Vulgatam] roboratam paucis ab hinc annis in inchoato apud Tridentum generali concilio … diffinitam declaravit authenticam”, Zegers: 1555, 7r.

120

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

opted for the Enchiridion in order to avoid a renewed dispute with the Faculty.84 This reason alone may satisfactorily explain Zegers’ choice, but another reason can be added. The Franciscan minor refers to the Enchiridion at the end of his analysis of Rom 3:28 because this text had a rapid diffusion in both Western and Southern Europe, with about 25 printings up to 1560.85 By contrast, the Antididagma was printed only in Cologne (1544), Louvain (1544), and Paris (1545), so the reader of that time might have encountered difficulties in finding a copy of the Antididagma. Strictly speaking, Gropper does not deal with double justice in the Enchiridion, but it seems that Zegers interpreted Gropper’s words in this sense, as Zegers’ scheme of justification clearly shows. Zegers’ second source was a work of Pighius, the Controversiarum praecipuarum in comitiis Ratisponensibus tractatarum … explicatio, which knew a diffusion in time and place similar to that of the Enchiridion (both geographically and chronologically), but with fewer printings (only seven, from 1542 to 1549, and all of them in Paris).86 The similar editorial history of Zegers’ sources of reference, characterized by a sudden rise and an equally sudden fall, might be explained by their analogous problematic content.87

84 As already said before, Zegers left Louvain and went wandering through several convents in the Low Countries, being appointed as vicarius or guardian: Tienen (1550–1551), Diest (1553– 1554), Amsterdam (1555–1556), and Boetendaal (1557), finally coming back to Louvain in 1559. I do not think that his wandering was due to the publication of his Scholion (which may have annoyed Louvain theologians because of the reference to Gropper), since he left Louvain before having printed his book. 85 After the editio princeps in Cologne, the Enchiridion was printed many times, first in the Serenissima Republic, both in Verona and in Venice, between 1541 and 1543. Then, 23 different printers published this book in France from 1544 to 1560, both in Paris (22) and in Lyons (1). It is important to emphasize that the Enchiridion was printed primarily in the halfdecade 1545–1550 – the period in which Zegers possibly wrote his Scholion. Antwerp was also an important diffusion centre of the Enchiridion, where John Steelsius published four editions, from 1552 to 1559, with two printings every year from 1552 to 1554. After 1560 the Enchiridion was no longer printed, and was in fact included by Pope Clement VIII in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum of 1596. Cf. Clement VIII: 1596, 65: “Enchiridion doctrinae Christianae, concilii Coloniensis”. There is also the expression “nisi expurgentur”, clearly from ‘heretical’ influences, especially on the doctrine of justification, according to Kakareko: 1996, 35, n. 157. 86 These data are taken from USTC database. 87 Even more, the teachings of the Colonienses, viz. Gropper and Pighius, whose positions were considered to be between Catholics and Lutherans, See: “Vide inter Alberti Pighii libros illum praesertim cuius titulus Controversiam praecipituarum in comiitiis Ratisbonensibus tractatarum … explicatio. Secunda controversia est de fide, operibus et iustificatione, in qua Pighius suam doctrinam quasi mediam inter Catholicos et Lutheranos exponit”, CT 5, 455, n. 3.

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

121

2.2.3 Sasbout: the Pupil Follows the Master. In 1556, the French printer Antoine-Marie Bergagne published Sasbout’s commentary on the Catholic Epistles, In Omnes fere divi Pauli et quorundam aliorum apostolorum epistolas explicatio, followed by a commentary on Isaiah, In Esaiam prophetam commentaria, in 1558. It is interesting to note that both works, the fruit of Sasbout’s office as lector in the Franciscan monastery, were ‘influenced’ by the well-known scholar Hasselius, first holder of the royal chair of Sacred Scripture.88 As François affirms: It is attested, however, that these [Sasbout’s] commentaries were largely based upon manuscript notes taken during lectures given by John Leonard van der Eycken … Sasbout used this material, which he supplemented for his own courses, and its publication after his death under his name was not entirely justified (François: 2012, 247)

Ten years later, in 1568, all of Sasbout’s writings were collected by the German printer Johann Birckmann in the Opera omnia, with a reprint in 1575, which even contains a Latin translation of the first book of Homer’s Iliad, made by the Franciscan himself. Michiel Vosmeer (1578–1616), who edited Sasbout’s homilies in 1613, defended Sasbout from the accusation of plagiarism in his edition of Sasbout’s homilies by including a Responsio adversus Improbam Cuiusdam in … Adamum Sasbout … Maldicentiam (‘Answer against Someone’s Bad Insinuation versus Adam Sasbout’). This short text is articulated into five famigerationes (‘rumors’) and depulsiones (‘rebuttals’). Leaving aside this interesting slice of Sasbout’s editorial fortune, I shall now pay attention to John Birckmann’s publication of Sasbout’s Opera Omnia published in 1568. The German printer furnished this edition with a very useful instrument for the reader: an Index rerum ac verborum, which was updated in 1575. This index is a useful source of all the instances in Sasbout’s complete oeuvre that deal with the doctrine of ‘double justice’ and, furthermore, indicates where Sasbout cites Gropper’s formula on justification, namely, in the commentary on Rom 1:17 “For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith”:

88 “Lector Esaiae Prophetae vaticinationes [Adamus] interpretabatur et Apostolorum explicabat Epistolas: haud mediocri auditorium, qua ad scientiam eruditioneque qua ad virtutes incitamento. Siquidem quas rerum enarrationes, quae commentaria orationis (D. Ioannem Leonardum Hasselium magistrum suum aemulabat) distincte et ordinate confecerat”, Sasbout: 1613, c. 11. On Hasselius, see François: 2012, 247, n. 31.

122 Gropper 1538, 158r Iustificatio duo proprie complectitur, nempe remissionem peccatorum, et interioris mentis renovationem seu repurgationem

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

Zegers 1553, 11v (Rom 3:28) Complectitur autem iustificatio duo, nempe remissionem peccatorum, et interioris mentis renovationem.

Sasbout 1556, 12r (Rm 1 :17) Haec iustitia duo complectitur, remissionem peccatorum, per quod subiectur erat homo irae Dei: et rectitudinem animi per Spiritus sancti donationem effectam, qua fit ut mens ante invisa et exosa iam placeat Deo …

Sasbout must have taken Gropper’s ‘formula’ either directly from the German theologian’s work or from Zegers. The latter option is more probable since Zegers was lector in the Franciscan house of study in Louvain when Sasbout arrived there; thus ‘the master’ probably introduced ‘the pupil’ to this doctrine. In any case, the two Franciscans worked together and thus inevitably influenced each other. Before discussing Sasbout’s analysis of Rom 1:17 in greater detail, it may be useful to look at the differences between Gropper’s, Zegers’ and Sasbout’s definitions of justification. Zegers simply changed the order of Gropper’s words, and dropped the term repurgatio. Sasbout tried to improve ‘Gropper’s formula’ by replacing renovatio interioris mentis with rectitudo animi. However, it is clear that Sasbout’s ‘rectitude of the soul’ equals Gropper’s ‘renovation of the inner mind’, since the rectitudo animi could be effective only thanks to the gift of the Holy Spirit. Sasbout seems to offer a more developed definition of the ‘rectitude of the soul’, via the relative clause qua … placeat Deo. In this clause, Sasbout explains to what end the donation “executed” (effecta) by the Holy Spirit is given, namely so that God can appreciate the human mind, which was at first utterly despised, as is expressed by the hendiadys invisa et exosa, which alludes to the Fall. Furthermore, Sasbout replaced ‘justification’ with ‘justice’, possibly in order to stress that he is dealing specifically with ‘double justice’. Sasbout examines the question of double justice also in relation to the expression sola fide, carefully explaining the difference between Catholic and ‘heretical’ points of view. The context for this discussion is his commentary on Gal 2:15–1689 where Paul deals with justification by faith. Sasbout explains that, because of the debate with the ‘heretical’ theologians, Catholics refuse to accept the addition of a “little word” (vocula), viz. “alone”, as an adjective modifying “faith”, even considering this word to be venomous for faith. Catholics avoid using the expression sola fide even though – the Franciscan argues – the Church fathers (generally defined as Veteres) accepted it: not even Thomas Aquinas 89 “We by nature are Jews, and not Gentile sinners. But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but, by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified”.

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

123

abhorred it. This is not strange since sola fide can be accepted with the meaning ‘not unless by faith’ (non nisi ex fide).90 The contrast between Catholics and Protestants is due precisely to their different interpretation of the “justice of faith”. Catholics maintain that the justice that is received by faith is not “the justice of Christ” but is a gift of grace, infused in the believer’s mind because of (propter) the merits of Christ’s justice. The believer’s mind has been made subject to God after having been against Him. This is the justice that inheres in the mind of the faithful. In other words, Sasbout is here stressing the difference between imputed and inherent justice that has already been mentioned.91 By contrast, Sasbout argues that the ‘heretics’ do not consider this justice to be inherent in the mind of the faithful. Rather, they speak only about the justice of Christ, imputed (imputata) by faith to the faithful which makes the believer just before God.92 To this exclusive affirmation, Catholics oppose the idea that the faithful, by receiving this justice, cannot be considered just in themselves, owing to the fact that they have received only an ‘external’ justice.Sasbout clarifies this explanation by providing an example: nobody can be considered prudent or temperate if he or she has received prudence or temperance externally.93 Sasbout makes a plea for ‘inherent justice’ which, he says, is infused in the human mind. Contarini, by contrast, said that it is diffused in human hearts. In the last words of his commentary on Gal 2:16, Sasbout declares that, when the Scriptures reveal that the faithful are made just by faith or through faith, it is not “external justice” viz., that of Christ, but rather the justice inherent in human minds.94

90 “quanquam hac nostra tempestate catholici scriptores nullo modo illam ferant, putantes uenenum esse in illa uocula (sola) et propterea abstinendum. Veteres tamen non ita abhorrent a uocula (sola) sed nec Thomas abhorrere uidetur …. Verus sensus Pauli est, non nisi ex fide, nullis meritis: distinguit siquidem fidem contra opera”, Sasbout: 1575, 359b. 91 “Hoc loco notandum, quod in explicanda iustitia illa, ad quam concipiendam disponitur mens per fidem, dissentiunt catholici ab haereticis. Catholici enim explicant iustitiam, quae fide accipitur, esse non Christi iustitiam, qua Christi anima formaliter et inhaerenter iusta est: sed esse donum gratiae et charitatis propter meritum iustitiae Christi infusum in mentem credentis, quo quidem dono mens, quae ante a Deo erat auersa, efficiatur Deo subiecta”, Sasbout: 1575, 360a. 92 “Haeretici uero contendunt hanc non esse iustitiam aliquam inhaerentem mentibus credentium, sed esse iustitiam Christi, quam per fidem imputari dicunt credentibus, atque ob hanc ipsis imputatam, credentes pronunciari apud Deum iustos”, Sasbout: 1575, 360a. 93 “Quam sententiam solida et perspicua ratione conuellunt catholici demonstrantes iustitiam Christi, quae est extra mentem hominis credentis posita, non posse intelligi facere hominem iustum. Quemadmodum enim ab externa prudentia aut temperantia, neminem proprie possis appellare prudentem, aut temperantem: ita ab externa Christi iustitia proprio sermone nemo iustus potest appellari”, Sasbout: 1575, 360a. 94 “Quare cum Scripturae pronuncient ex fide siue per fidem hominem effici iustum, necesse est intelligere iustitiam, quam docent fide impetrari et obtineri, non esse externam iustitiam, sed iustitiam menti inhaerentem, diuinitus datam”, Sasbout: 1575, 360a.

124

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

In addition to his adherence to double justice, Sasbout also maintains a more traditional approach in that he explains the difference between justification, understood as ‘to make just’ and understood as ‘to do good’, basically following Zegers’ approach (on the back of Driedo). It was Zegers who first dealt with the traditional dichotomy between ‘to make just’ and ‘to do good’, explaining, in a second instance, the further dichotomy between ‘imputed’ and ‘inherent’ justice. For instance, Sasbout speaks of a prima and a secunda iustitia in the sermon for the ‘Mass of the Purification’, viz. the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, on 2 February. Here, the Franciscan explains Rom 5:1 “Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ”. Sasbout here affirms that peace with God is the effect of ‘first justice’, which is the remission of sins. However, peace is also the effect of ‘second justice’, viz. “the practice of good works”. In this sense, Sasbout recovers Driedo’s iustitia Dei bifariam dicitur. The Franciscan, moreover, links the latter justice to Isaiah 32:17: “And the work of justice shall be peace, and the service of justice quietness, and security for ever”.95 Sasbout avoids giving further details on justice in his exposition on Romans, but given the cross-reference to Isa 32:17, I looked at Sasbout’s commentary on Isaiah, where, indeed, the Franciscan deals with double justice once again. In particular, the Franciscan maintains that this passage does not deal with the justice intended as the ethical virtue of the philosophers, but as the “justice of the Scriptures, which is double”. Sasbout explains the twofold meaning of this expression: on the one hand, there is the justice of faith, which justifies the faithful and is not based on the merit of works; on the other, there is the justice of works, which makes the believer perform good works after his justification by faith.96 After this introduction, Sasbout affirms that Catholics and Lutherans both have the same notion of justice but with a different interpretation. For Catholics, the apostle James was the promoter of the justice of works which allows those who are justified by faith to improve their justice. Lutherans, according to Sasbout, call this justice of works ‘inchoate obedience’ and the ‘new spiritual life’, even accepting it as necessary, though not sufficient, for eternal life. For Lu95 “Vnde Apostolus: Iustificati, ait, id est, remissionem peccatorum adepti, per fidem pacem habeamus a Deum. Est ergo pax effectus primae iustitiae, quae est in remissione peccatorum sita: est nihilominus effectus secundae iustitiae, quae posita est in exercitio bonorum operum, sicut scriptum est: Et erit opus iustitiae pax, et cultus iustitiae silentium, et securitas usque in sempiternum [Is 32:17]”, Sasbout: 1575, 103. In addition, Zegers called the remission of the sins “first justification” without, however, calling the performance of good works a “second justification”. 96 “Imprimis hoc constat, ipsum non loqui de iustitia ciuili, qualis est apud philosophos morales, sed loquitur de iustitia Scripturarum, quae cum duplex sit (altera autem fidei, quae est sine operum meritis, qua uidelicet ex impiis iusti efficimur: altera uero operum, quae est iustitia uitae, qua nimirum fide iam iustificati praestamus opera recta)”, Sasbout: 1575, Is 32:17, 142a.

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

125

therans, the justice of works cannot replace the justice of faith. In this instance, Sasbout makes an interesting remark, arguing that the Protestants, who, twenty years earlier, were ‘dogmatizing’ that good works are blameworthy (damnabilis), now (i. e. in Sasbout’s days) teach something less radical though still divergent from Catholic doctrine. It is difficult to say when these words were written, but in any case they indicate how Lutherans were perceived by (some) Catholics around the 1550s, viz. as being closer to Catholic positions than they had been at the beginning of the Lutheran Reformation. As Sasbout explains, the main difference between Catholics and Lutherans is, of course, related to the possibility of gaining eternal life: for Lutherans people are saved by faith alone, whereas for Catholics they are also saved through good works.97 In other words, Sasbout takes his distance from a view based only on imputed justice, but he assumes the doctrine of double justice in order that the imputation of Christ’s justice ‘from outside’, together with the justice that inheres in the believer, ‘make just’ a person who can, therefore, ‘do good’. In summary, like Zegers before him, Sasbout tries to combine both the classical dichotomy ‘to make just’ and ‘to do good’ together with Christ’s (imputed) justice and inherent justice, possibly to show the proximity between Catholic and Lutheran positions. In the context of the explanation of Gal 2:15–16, Sasbout explicitly quotes Driedo’s De captivitate et redemptione (“On Captivity and Redemption”), in particular from Rutgerus Rescius’s 1534 edition.98 Thanks to this reference, it was possible to find the abovementioned ‘hidden’ reference of Zegers to Driedo. Thus, Zegers and Sasbout use the same textual materials and refer to the same authors, Gropper and Driedo in particular. It is difficult to say whether Sasbout’s references to Driedo and Gropper are borrowed from Zegers, but, judging from the explicit references made by each of them, it seems that they influenced each other ‘chiastically’: Zegers explicitly mentions Gropper but not Driedo; Sasbout 97 “Duplicem hanc iustitiam, fidei nimirum et operum, cum agnoscunt nobiscum et lutherani, uidendum est an eodem modo de ea sentiant. Catholici autem apostolum Iacobum secuti dicunt quod Abraham consequutus sit aliquam iustitiam ex operibus et operum meritis, similiter et Raab, uerum non eam, de qua Paulus in epistola ad Romanos qua ex impio quis efficitur iustus, sed qua ex iusto fit magis iustus. Iustificari ergo apud Iacobum, est in iustitia per fidem accepta magis ac magis proficere. Vocatur haec secunda iustitia, quae operum est, a lutheranis oboedientia inchoata, praeterea spiritualis et noua uita, et fatentur necessaria esse, nec sufficere iustitiam fidei, eam mereri etiam corporalia et spiritualia bona post hanc uitam. Itaque paulo modestius iam loquuntur quam ante uiginti annos, quando dogmatizabant omnino damnabilia esse iustorum opera: Iam aliud docent, sed nondum sic docent quomodo catholici, Augustinus, Hieronymus et coeteri. Negant enim ipsi propter hanc operum iustitiam dari uitam aeternam, quae secundum ipsos eo modo contingit, quo prima iustitia id est, gratis absque ullis operum meritis: Cuius contrarium constanter tenet et docet ecclesia”, Sasbout: 1575, Is 32:17, 142a. 98 “Vide Turnout de captivitate et redemptione humani generis, pag. 287 iuxta impressionem Rescii”, Sasbout: 1575, Gal 2:15–16, 360a.

126

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

refers to Driedo but not to Gropper, although both authors are quoted by Zegers and Sasbout. Finally, Sasbout seems to be trying to mitigate the difference between Catholics and Lutherans, maintaining that good works cannot influence God’s judgment, as both ‘Christian schools’ accepted. However, Catholics believe that, by doing good, the faithful can hope to receive eternal life.99 From these words, it seems that Sasbout depicts Lutherans as ‘incomplete’ Catholics: their ideas would have been in harmony with Christian dogma, if they had accepted the importance of good works. However, from their initial total refusal, Lutherans were gradually changing their minds, declaring the necessity of acting well, although they still maintained that bona opera are not useful for salvation. Sasbout even seems to hope for a reunion of Lutherans and Catholics in a not-too-distant future – a hope that was never realized.

2.2.4 Iustitia Imputata as Remissio Peccatorum and Iustitia Inhaerens as Renovatio Animi? The analysis of the doctrine of double justice as it was developed by Zegers and Sasbout has not been an easy task. This section has shown that the two Franciscans regarded iustitia imputata and remissio peccatorum as equivalent, as they did with iustitia inhaerens and renovatio interioris mentis. Initially, this was a mere clue, and, for that reason, I formulated the hypothesis that Zegers and Sasbout read Gropper’s Enchiridion as a kind of manifesto of the doctrine of double justice in his famous sentence “Iustificatio duo proprie complectitur, nempe remissionem peccatorum et interioris mentis renovationem, seu repurgationem”. After a thorough study, this hypothesis became corroborated by solid evidence. The first point that became clear was indeed the equivalence of iustitia imputata and remissio peccatorum, on the one hand, and that between iustitia inhaerens and renovatio interioris mentis, on the other, at least for Sasbout (and also for Zegers). The latter equivalence is evident in Sasbout’s analysis of Gal 2:15–16 (Sasbout: 1575, 360a):

99 “Dicunt lutherani non licere opera nostra opponere iudicio Dei, quod neque catholici dicunt, quia nouo modo hoc dictum est et sonat nescio quid superbum: Verum dicunt catholici hominem Christianum magno animo esse posse, et propter opera iustitiae sperare mercedem et coronam, id est, uitam aeternam”, Sasbout: 1558, Is 32:17, 243a.

Franciscans and the Doctrine of Double Justice

Hoc loco notandum, quod in explicanda iustitia illa, ad quam concipiendam disponitur mens per fidem, dissentius catholici ab hereticis. Catholici enim explicant iustitiam quae fide accipitur, esse non Christi iustitiam, qua Christi anima formaliter et inhaerenter iusta est: sed esse donum gratiae et charitatis propter meritum iustitiae Christi infusum in mentem credentis, quo quidem dono mens quae ante a Deo erat aversa, efficiantur Deo subiecta. Heretici vero contendunt hanc non esse iustitiam aliquam inhaerentem mentibus credentium, sed esse iustitiam Christi, quam per fidem imputati dicunt credentibus, atque ob hanc ipsis imputatam, credentes pronunciari apud Deum iustos. Quam sententiam solida et perspicua ratione convellunt catholici demostrantes iustitiam Christi, quae est extra mentem hominis credentis posita, non posse intelligi facere hominem iustum. Quemadmodum enim ab externa prudentia aut temperantia, neminem proprie possit appellare prudentem, aut temperantem: ita ab externa Christi iustitia proprio sermone nemo iustus potest appellari. Quare cum Scripturae pronuncient ex fide sive per fidem hominem effici iustum, necesse est intelligere iustitiam, quam docent fidem impetrari et obtineri, non esse externam iustitiam sed iustitiam menti inhaerentem, divinitus datam

127

Here it should be noted that, in explaining that justice which is received when the mind is disposed by faith, Catholics disagree with heretics. Catholics actually explain that the justice received by faith is not the justice of Christ because the soul of Christ is formally and inherently just: on the contrary this is a gift of grace and of charity because of the merit of Christ’s justice, merit infused in the mind of the believer. By means of such a gift, indeed, the mind that was against God is made subject to God. However, the heretics maintain that this is not a justice inherent in the mind of the believers, but that this is the justice of Christ which, they say, is imputed by faith to believers, and, because of this justice imputed to them, the believers are said to be ‘just’ before God. Catholics contradict this sentence showing that the justice of Christ, which is beyond the mind of the believer, cannot be considered as making a person just. Similarly, indeed, nobody can properly call [himself] prudent and moderate from an external prudence or temperance. Thus, from the external justice of God, strictly speaking, nobody can be called ‘just’. Therefore, since the Scriptures say that by faith, viz. through faith, a person is made just, it is necessary to consider that the justice which they teach is obtained and achieved by faith is not an external justice but a justice inherent to the mind, divinely bestowed.

It seems evident that Sasbout is here asserting the existence of a justice conferred upon the believer by faith, and that this justice, which is external to believers, becomes inherent to man’s mind, which, as a result, is changed intrinsically. Those who first hated God, afterwards become subject to Him thanks to this justice. The equivalence of iustitia imputata and remissio peccatorum, furthermore, is dealt with in Sasbout’s exposition on Rom 4:2–5 (Sasbout 1575, 280a–b):

128

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

Credenti iustitia imputatur per fidem, nunc mutata orationis forma dixit, fidem imputari ad iustitiam, quod sic evidentius fortassis explicetur iustitiam esse gratuitam. Sensus est: Credenti iustitia non rependitur, tanquam merces debita, sed imputatur, id est gratuito confertur per fidem … At vero scriptura Genesis palam testatur, iustitiam apud Deum esse imputatitiam sive indebitam: Pronuniciat enim de Abraham non solum quod iustificatus est apud Deum per fidem, sed quod iustitia est illi imputata per fidem, quod est, eam fuisse indebitam et gratuitam. Igitur non potest ex operibus suis iustificari apud Deum … Quemadmodum Genesis ita et David explicat beatitudinem hominis in hoc consistere, quod Deus … imputat … iustitiam sine operibus. Hinc discimus de qua iustitia … quae posita est in remissionem peccatorum, sive qua ex impio quis iustus efficitur … notandum verbum, remittuntur, quod excludit meritum maxime autem verbum, imputare, quum illud praecipue urgeat Paulus

Regarding “the justice that is imputed to the believer by faith”, he [Paul] said that the form of the speech is now changed to “faith is imputed to justice”, since in this way it would be explained, possibly more clearly, that justice is free. The meaning is: justice is not repaid to the believer as a due reward, but it is imputed, so freely conferred by faith … actually Genesis plainly testifies, justice before God is imputed, viz. not owed: indeed, about Abraham, it declares that he is not only justified before God by faith, but that justice was imputed to him by faith, so it was free, not owed. Therefore, [somebody] cannot be justified by works before God … Similarly, Genesis, and David, explain that the beatitude of a person consists in this, that God imputes justice without works. Hence we learn about that justice … which is given in the remission of sins, viz., that [ justice] by which the impious person is made just … it should be noticed that the verb ‘are remitted’ excludes merit, and even more so does the verb ‘to impute’, which Paul particularly insists on.

In this case too, Sasbout deals with the justice by faith which is freely bestowed on the believer. However, unlike the previous one, this kind of justice has no relation to the change of the human mind; rather, it is linked specifically to the remission of sins. In sum, both types of justice are by faith, but the inherent one regenerates the human mind, while the imputed one allows the remission of sins. Sasbout, as Zegers, combines the classical scheme encountered in Driedo with Gropper’s formula present in the Enchiridion, read in the light of the Antididagma: Iustificari

Driedo (1534)

Dei munus/ at level of grace

Ex impio fieri iustum

opera / at level of In iustitia proficere, men’s works opera iustitae exequi

Gropper (1538) Sasbout (1556) Remissio Prima iustificatio peccatorum remissio peccatorum as iustitia imputata and Renovatio rectitudido animi as iusinterioris titia inherens mentis Secunda iustificatio The practice of good works

This is, therefore, the “curious case” of the two Franciscans who tried to include the doctrine of double justice in the classical Catholic scheme of justification. Leaving aside these two scholars, I shall now focus on one of the leading theo-

Jansenius: Biblical Humanism and Augustinian-minded Exegesis

129

logians of his time, Cornelius Jansenius, Bishop of Ghent, not to be confused with the homonymous father of Jansenism, Cornelius Jansenius (1585–1638), Bishop of Ypres.

2.3

Jansenius: Biblical Humanism and Augustinian-minded Exegesis

Among the Louvain scholars, Cornelius Jansenius is, perhaps, the most renowned author of his time. Scholars have already drawn attention to Jansenius, and, among those that have dealt with him, I can mention in particular Wim François (2012), Jean-Pierre Delville (2004; 1997) Andrew Screech (1990; 1987) and Roberto Osculati (2013, 393–414).100 Thanks to their important contributions, scholarship knows two important facts about Jansenius: first, he appreciated Erasmus so much that he even “worked, from beginning to end, with the Opera of Erasmus open before him. Direct borrowings from Erasmus are to be found on virtually every single page. The most frequently exploited source, but by no means the only one, is Erasmus’s Annotationes in Novum Testamentum” (Screech: 1990, 344); second, his exegesis was strongly influenced by Augustine’s writings, so much so that Delville even maintains that Jansenius’ theology of grace was very close to Lutheran positions: Tout les trois [John Hessels, Michael Baius and Jansenius] s’engagèrent dans un renouvellement de l’enseignement louvaniste en prenant distance vis-à-vis de la scolastique et en se replongeant dans la théologie se saint Augustine. Par cette voie ils se rapprochèrent aussi des positions luthériennes; cela se verra tant dans l’exégèse de Hessels, que dans celle de Jansenius (Delville: 2004, 468).

However, Jansenius’ appreciation of Erasmus’ works and his alleged ‘Lutheraninfluenced’ Augustinianism do not really fit together: Luther’s pessimistic view of mankind’s capability is in clear contrast with Erasmus’ view on human free will, a contraposition well expressed by their debate on de libero / de servo arbitrio in the years 1524–1525. Such an inconsistency has long aroused my curiosity, but the possible answer “Jansenius used Erasmus’ philology rather than his theology” cannot be accepted tout-court since the ideas contained in Erasmus’ works must have had an influence on Jansenius’ theology of grace. I therefore started to work on Jansenius’ Commentary on his Concordia evangelica, realizing that, far from developing a ‘Lutheran-influenced’ theology of grace, Jansenius offered a very ‘Catholic’ exegesis, by stressing the necessity of 100 Cf also de Kort/Lockefeer: 2010; de Vocht: 1951–1955, vol. 2, 512–515; Roegiers: 1991, 35–50; 540–541; Wünsch: 1983, 209–230.

130

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

both God’s grace and human free will in the economy of salvation. In contrast with Delville’s claim, I shall show a different Jansenius, one open to accepting the necessity of human free will on the path to salvation. Not by coincidence, Augustine is not the only auctoritas, even though the one most mentioned;101 Jansenius also shows his appreciation of the Greek Church fathers, such Chrysostom and Euthymius, and Byzantine scholars, such as Theophylact, who generally stress the role of human works more than Augustine. Delville supports his view by analyzing Jansenius’ exegetical study of Matt 20:1–16, but I read in the same passage, and in a linked pericope, Matt 22:1–14, a theology not only aimed at stressing the role of grace in the economy of salvation, but also a clear affirmation of the importance of human good works on the path to eternal life. Both pericopes from the Gospel of Matthew finish with the sentence Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi. This is the reason why I have decided to deal with both of them in order to show Jansenius’ reflections on good works. Moreover, thanks to other pericopes, such as Luke 6:46, Luke 10:20–21, John 6:37, I shall provide further evidence for my argument. With this purpose, after a brief bio-bibliographical introduction in which I shall pay attention also to the prefatory epistles to his works, and I shall therefore focus on Jansenius’ theology of grace.

2.3.1 Jansenius: from Hulst to Ghent Hailing from Hulst, Cornelius Jansenius first studied in Louvain and then became lector of the sacred Scriptures at the Premonstratensian Abbey of Tongerlo from 1540 to 1547. There he began work on his Concordia Evangelica, a harmony of the Gospels that consists of the compilation of a single text that combines the four gospels. However, he had to finish this work in Courtrai where he moved in 1547 to become parish priest. While there, he was finally able to publish his Concordia in 1549. He remained in Courtrai until 1561 where he had to engage in pastoral activity which he seems not to have appreciated. For instance, in the prefatory epistle to his Commentaria in suam Concordiam Evangelicam, published during his episcopacy, remembering his pastoral office in Courtrai, in a kind of hyperbole, he complains of having had “barely the space to breathe”, being overloaded by several duties or negotia. He therefore had to limit his work to the preparation of the many sermons that he had to give in his church. By comparison, he describes the “all-happy” literary otium of his time in Louvain which began soon after his having become Doctor Theologiae in 1562. His 101 Thanks to the DLCR, it is possible to search within the text for the names of these, and other, Church fathers: Augustine appears 612 times, Jerome 585, Chrysostom 418, Theophylact 288, and Euthymius 133.

Jansenius: Biblical Humanism and Augustinian-minded Exegesis

131

complaint about the inconveniences of his pastoral duties seems not to have been a simple humanistic τόπος, celebrating the literary otium, but a real annoyance. In effect, in his prefatory epistles to the Commentaria, he repeats several times that this office did not allow him to study the Scriptures. In that case, moreover, he could not rely upon the very prolix commentary of the Church fathers. Those texts required a lot of time to study, and such study was not necessary for preparing sermons. He even maintained that he could not analyse, comprehend and collect in one work the different and sometimes opposite sentences of the Church fathers, without being free of duties.102 Together with Michel de Bay and John Hessels, he also participated in the Council of Trent (Summer 1563 – Spring 1564). Not long after, he became the first bishop of Ghent, but, because of the revolt in the Low Countries, he could start his office only in 1568, remaining there until his death, in 1576. In Ghent, the first bishop was involved in several duties such as teaching, preaching, the foundation of a diocesan seminary (1569) and the organization of diocesan synods (1571 and 1574). Moreover, during his episcopacy, Jansenius published commentaries on some sapiential books of the Bible, including Proverbs (1568), Psalms (1569), and Ecclesiasticus (1569). With regard to the New Testament, Jansenius published his Commentary to his Concordia Evangelica (1571–1572). Therefore, in the wake of the Louvain tradition of Tapper, Sonnius and other theologians, Jansenius linked his exegetical work to his pastoral mission, although he did not hide his preference for the literary otium over the negotia pastoralia, as just has been shown (cf. Gielis: 2013, 21–36). Reading the prefatory epistles to his works, this double interest is clearly shown. For instance, concerning the reason behind the Concordia, Jansenius claims in his Commentary that the four Gospels are without any doubt the most important writings of Christianity since they contain the words of Christ.103 Nevertheless, both the study and the reading of the four Gospels as such may be tedious and repetitive precisely because of the content that they have in common. Therefore, Jansenius decided to compose a volume, viz. the Concordia, with the intention of sketching 102 “In hanc felicissimum nacti literarum otium [during his episcopate], memoria nostrae iuvandae gratia, Commentarios nobis ex omnis generis Authoribus congessimus … Etenim cum post annos aliquot ad pastoralem Cortracensis civitatis curam evocatus, tot tantisque illic negotiis in diversa distraherer, ut vix respirandi spatium esset, id mihi superior diligentia praestitit, ut ea sola adiutus, ad creberrimas, quae in Ecclesia habendae mihi erant, conciones abunde sufficerem, nec necesse haberem ad veterum semper patrum prolixissimos tractatus commentariosque recurrere: quod sane nisi multi temporis studio ac meditatione fieri non poterat”, Jansenius: 1597, 649, ii r. 103 “Inter omnes Scripturas Sacras …, singulariter eminere quatuor Evangelia, neminem esse puto qui dubitet, eo quod cum aliae scripturae aliorum contineant aut dicta, aut facta, haec ipsius filii Dei eximia dicta factaque nobis ob oculos ponant, in quorum cognitione omnis nostra salus sita est”, Jansenius: 1597, 2.

132

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

a coherent historical narrative that was common to the four gospels. Only after having solved this “problem of tediousness”, due to the misunderstood repetitive reading of the Gospels, Cornelius Jansenius could pay attention to the philological questions inherent in the study of the Scriptures.104 He considered the study of the Scriptures and a pastoral approach based upon them as the best means of defending the Catholic flock against the attacks of the Protestants, even comparing the advent of the heretics to the locusts that constituted the eighth plague of Egypt. More specifically, Cornelius Jansenius condemned the iconoclastic movement and the foolishness of an armed war inflicted on Catholics by the Protestants. In this instance, the profound faith of the bishop emerges with his eschatological reading of the Scriptures in which he reads the final defeat of the ‘heretics’ and the triumph of Catholic faith, thanks to the protection of God through the intermediary of King Philip II, who will act as David had against the Philistines.105 Also in the commentary to Proverbs, Jansenius asserts that a faithful explanation of the Scriptures is the most efficient medium for combatting Protestant preaching. Indeed, he states, “these times require that especially the pen is to be used against the heretics”. Good education and sound scholarship are the most successful instruments in the battle for the true faith, viz. to confute the errors of the Protestants, while at the same time giving a firm basis to ancient Catholic doctrine. Possibly, Cornelius Jansenius considered himself as the best candidate for this scriptural labour since he esteemed himself as a kind of “natural genius” who had a solid and authentic approach to the Scriptures. In this educational perspective, a solida scripturarum explanatio should lead reformedminded people to the awareness that their ‘heretical’ faith is wrong and prepare 104 “Pro quibus explicandis ut necesse non esset quae eadem a diversis Evangelistis conscribuntur, iterum iterumque repetere, & non sine taedio saepius inculcare, totam Evangelicam historiam ex quatuor Evangelistis magno labore contextam, in unum veluti corpus collegimus, quod praelo commissum Concordiam Evangelicam inscripsimus”, Jansenius: 1597, ii. See also the preface to the Concordia Evangelica: “Rursum perpendi praeter taedium etiam temporis nos facturos iacturam, si singulos Evangelistarum seorsum exponeremus, quod sic eadem nimis frequenter repetenda et inculcanda essent, ob earundem rerum apud diversos repetitam narrationem”, Jansenius: 1549, iii v. 105 “Primum quidem per haereticos concionatores, qui variis ex locis turmatim advolantes, velut alterae quaedam Aegypti locustae, universam terrae faciem opplerant, atque omnem eius virorem depascebant: dein per prophanam sacrilegamque iconomachorum audaciam: denique per armorum potentiam, ac vim militarem non uno in loco desaevientem. Horret animus quoties tantorum malorum & periculorum in mentem venit: sed ex quibus omnibus prudenter ac fortiter Dei gratia per datum ab eo nobis alterum Davidem servati & liberati sumus, effectumque ut omnia illa hostium consilia, conatus & machinationes, vanae irritaeque conciderint, palmam autem victoriamque Catholica obtineret religio, Quod ut hactenus feliciter, ita & in posterum quoque futurum confidimus, protegente nos Deo per tuum (Serenissime Princeps) praesidium & pium Zelum, quem pro Ecclesiae fideique defensione geris syncerissimum atque ardentissimum”, Jansenius: 1597, iii.

Jansenius: Biblical Humanism and Augustinian-minded Exegesis

133

them to disown it.106 Regarding the humanist and philological approach to the Scriptures, Jansenius explains his principles in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes, a biblical book which, after many centuries, owing to the ignorance and/or the negligence of the scribes, had become corrupted and needed to be emended in order to restore its “native splendour”. In effect, in the copying of the Scriptures, many so-called ‘corrections’ were included which eventually proved to be the error (vitium) of ‘some writers’, and therefore it follows that the translation does not allow us to understand the “verus et commodus” sense of the text.107 This is of course a general law in philology, and, in fact, ancient works by classical Roman authors, such as those of Plautus, Terentius and Virgil, were also liable to emendation. Hence, argues Jansenius, if scholars put such great effort into these writings, they should devote at least the same amount of effort to works that are both more useful and more divine than those of antiquity. Thus, a philological study of the Sacred Scriptures is not to be shunned but encouraged.108 Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that the Council fathers had declared the Vulgate to be juridically the authentic version of the Scriptures for the Catholic Church, the available Latin translation did not faithfully express the content of the Hebrew text. Furthermore, Jansenius argues that while most of the books of the Old Testament Vulgate were, in all probability, translated by Jerome, this was certainly not the case for Ecclesiastes, or for Proverbs or the Psalms. These books – Jansenius explains – could not have been translated by Jerome, because they contain obsolete words as well as poorly translated expressions. Therefore, the new Greek edition is a better instrument since it better adheres to the ‘original’, especially in the Wisdom Books.109 Unfortunately, the Bishop of Ghent does not 106 “Scio haec tempora summopere requirere ut potissimum stylus exerceatur contra haereticos in confutandis eorum erroribus & stabilienda antiqua catholicae fidei doctrina. Verum cum istud a multis abunde hoc iam tempore praestitum sit, & naturali genio semper magis tractus sum ad solidam atque genuinam scripturarum tractationem, putavi magis sectandum id ad quod natura ducit, persuasus etiam nulla alia magis ratione aut trahendos errantes ad catholicae nostrae matris gremium, aut confutandos eorum errores quam solida scripturarum explanatione, quam cum videant in quibusdam commentatoribus nostris desiderari, fit ut cum eorum commentariis etiam fidem & religionem quam sectantur reiiciant, & non satis firmam iudicent”, Jansenius: 1568, iii v. 107 “Nam et in sacris scripturis multae irrepserunt quorundam scriptorum vitio mendae, et pleraque sic versa sunt, ut commodus ac verus sensus hinc non facile percipi queat”, Jansenius: 1569b, ii r. 108 “Laudantur… qui bonis authoribus (quorum scripta posteritati relicta, temporis iniuria, aut librariorum inscitia vel negligentia corrupta erant) restituendis operam diligentem impenderunt eosque suo nativo splendori reddiderunt. Id qui praestiterunt in Plauto, Terentio, Virgilio, aliisque similibus scriptoribus restituendis, si sua laude non frustrantur, quanto magis qui similia conantur in scriptis tanto utilioribus, quanto divinioribus… non solum non sunt vituperandi, sed summa laude prosequendi?”, Jansenius: 1569b, ii. 109 “Quanquam enim certum satis sit pleraque veteris testamenti nos legere ex versione D. Hieronymi, nullo tamen modo verisimile est nos retinere in Ecclesiastico eius versionem,

134

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

reveal which edition he used but, at that time (29 June 1569), he could not have used Plantin’s Polyglot Bible since the third volume, containing the Wisdom books, was still to be published (8 July 1570).110 Perhaps he used the Complutense, as might be indicated by his use of the past perfect of e¯do, aediderunt, as well as by the temporal marker “this our century”, in his reference to the “new Greek” edition. In other words, the Bishop of Ghent was referring to something already completely published at his time and printed in the 16th century. In any case, Jansenius did not simply rely upon this ‘new edition’: indeed, he collected different manuscripts, using in particular twelve codices, put at his disposal by the Louvain professor, Augustine Hunnaeus (1521–1578). Moreover, Jansenius also referred to two authoritative Latin editions, viz. the codex Bessarionis and the codex Atrebatensis.111 Additionally, since Hunnaeus worked on Plantin’s Polyglot (François: 2012, 238–239), he possibly put at Jansenius’ disposal textual materials used for the Biblia Regia. However, what is important to stress is his attention to the use of ‘original’ sources as an innovation in Old Testament exegesis. He argued that the most faithful interpretation is given by the Hebrew and Greek texts to which the Latin translation should adhere as closely as possible.112 sicut nec in eo qui dicitur, Sapientia Salomonis, quos duos etiam non constat an aliquando D. Hieronymus verterit vel restituerit. Adeo enim obsoleta quaedam et dura in his libris occurunt verba, adeo incommode quaedam translata sunt, ut illius esse nostram qua utimur lectionem, nemo facile in animum duxerit. Has ob causas non inutiliter quidam hoc nostro saeculo novam ex Graecis fontibus versionem nostri Ecclesiastici mundo aediderunt, quae cum originalibus magis conveniret, et clarior esset atque elegantior. Verum cum et Graeca inter se in hoc libro maxime variant, ut nusquam magis, ut vulgatae nostrae versioni ob suam antiquitatem, et iustissimam Concili Tridentini approbationem suus sit honor, quatenus fieri potest, servandus: sane vulgate huius libri lectio non temere reiicienda est, sed ea retenta omnibus modis iuvanda est, et exornanda”, Jansenius: 1569, ii v. 110 The prefatory epistle is dated 29 June 1569, while the printing of the third volume is dated 8 July 1570, cf. Voet 1969–1972, vol. 1, 63–64. 111 “Inter descripta autem manu exemplaria, quibus usi et adiuti sumus, fuerunt potissimum duodecim, quae nobis praebuit … Augustinus Hunaeus Regius apud Lovanienses Professor … item codex Bessarionis Cardinalis, qui diligenter in Collegio Theologorum, ubi tum praesidentem egimus, asservatur. Codex item insignis et elegans, quem nobis suppeditavit Collegium Atrebatense”, Jansenius: 1569, iii r. There are two codices Atrebatensis and possibly Jansenius used the sericatus, viz. the so-called Anjou Bible, which John Henten used for his 1547 Vulgate together with the codex Bessarionis. In this instance, he basically followed the methodology of John Henten, who also used these editions for his 1547 Vulgate. See François: 2012, 238 n. 7 and Dequeker: 2010, 133–134. 112 “Sic tractarem ut semper ad originalia tum Graeca, tum Hebraea respectus haberetur, isque sensus potissimum daretur qui cum ipso fonte maxime conveniret”, Jansenius: 1568, f. A3. Jansenius, of course, used this philological approach in all his writings. For instance, in the Commentary to the Psalms, he writes: “Itaque cum in tanta varietate videremus medium aliquod sectandum, & quaerendum quod vulgatae nostrae lectioni rite & genuine explicandae maxime conveniret, in prismis dedimus operam, ut collatione facta cum originalibus linguis, et antiquis item nostris exemplaribus, veterumque commentariis, nostram lectionem a multis, quae librariorum incuria irrepserunt, mendis repurgaremus … recursu

Jansenius: Biblical Humanism and Augustinian-minded Exegesis

135

2.3.2 Jansenius’ Theology of Grace in the Commentary to his Concordia After a bio-bibliographical introduction and after having shown Jansenius’ approach to the Scriptures, we can turn to the Commentary to his Concordia. Jansenius considered this work his most important one and, for this reason, he addressed it to his most important patronus: King Philip II, who had appointed him first Bishop of Ghent.113 In his epistle, Jansenius praised his protector, on the one hand, but he also recognized the very difficult situation of the Spanish Netherlands of his time, listing the three most important challenges for the Catholic faith in the region: 1) the presence of many Reformed preachers, 2) the Calvinist iconoclastic fury, 3) the consequent war that was destroying the country.114 Jansenius wrote his letter in 1571, and, five years before, in 1566, Calvinists had started to preach openly in the Low Countries, criticizing the veneration of ‘holy’ images as a kind of idolatry. Given the difficult context of civil and transconfessional war, it comes as no surprise that Jansenius emphasizes the role of good works in the economy of salvation, by clear contrast with the Calvinist ideas. A very clear example of this is his exegesis of the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matt 20: 1–16). In the first lines, the Bishop of Ghent basically maintains the legitimacy of the Catholic tradition against the Protestant Reformation, but, in particular, his analysis deals with the difficulty inherent in the two sentences present in Matt 20:16, and especially their causal relationship: [a] Sic erunt novissimi primi et primi [a] So shall the last be first, and the first last. novissimi. [b] Multi sunt enim vocati pauci autem electi. [b] For many are called, but few chosen.

If “the first will be last”, the following sentence, viz. that “many are called but few are chosen”, seems not to be logically consequent. The adverb sic (so) may actually indicate a numerical equivalence between the first and the last, who would therefore be in the same proportion: so the first and the last would be pares, viz. numerically equal.115 However, how could it be then that there are ‘many called’ and ‘few chosen’? The answer is simple: according to the Bishop of Ghent, those who, among the first, are considered to be last in the future are the called people but not the chosen ones. Similarly, many ‘first’ may be last since semper habito ad fontes, eum sensum traderemus, qui cum illis vel omnino consentiat, vel illis vicinissime accedat”, Jansenius: 1569a, iii–iii v. 113 “Supremum nostrum maximique laboris opus supremo etiam maximoque patrono nostro dedicaremus”, Jansenius: 1597, 2v. 114 Cf. above, footnote 105. 115 “Praeterea illi intelligentiae, quam quidam intelligunt in illo: Sic erunt novissimi primi: non convenit quod pro declaratione et probatione subicitur: Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi. Quid enim hic causalis propositio ad probandum illud: Sic erunt novissimi primi: si sensus est: Sic erunt novissimi pares primi, et primi pares novissimi?”, Jansenius: 1597, 720.

136

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

“many are called and few are chosen”.116 After this short explanation, Jansenius recalls the Church fathers’ teachings on this pericope: the ‘future last’, viz. the ‘first’ first, should not be considered as those who seem to excel in worldly life. Instead, according to “all Church fathers”, God, in various eras of the world and/ or in different ages of human life calls his chosen people. Those who will be called in proximity to the Last Judgment, or close to the end of their own life, will also receive the reward, like those who were called at the beginning of the world, or at the beginning of their own life.117 After having explained the Church fathers’ general reading of this parable, Jansenius introduces his own reflection on it. He maintains that, by means of this parable, the Lord wanted only to explain what he says in the last sentence: many of those who are first will be last. Christ built the discourse precisely “to declare what is inferred at the conclusion”, by opening the parable with “the kingdom of heaven is like…”, while maintaining at the end that “So shall the last be first, and the first last”.118 This is therefore a kind of Ringkomposition where the element emphasized at the beginning of the discourse is repeated at its end, by carrying on the idea of reward, eternal life, the kingdom of heaven.119 Jansenius then affirms that Jesus’ purpose behind these words is to show the benignity of God, the “master of the house”, who bestows the same reward on all the faithful, regardless of when they converted, even if at the end of their life, without any injustice towards those who were good Christians from birth.120 In this sense, the first will 116 “Sed omnino ex reddita illa ratione datur intelligi, quod hi qui ex primis dicuntur futuri novissimi sint de numero vocatorum, sed non electorum, quodque ideo multi primi futuri sint novissimi, qua multi sunt vocati pauci vero electi”, Jansenius: 1597, 720. 117 “Unde per primos qui facti sunt novissimi, non videntur intelligi posse in parabola hi, qui cum in hoc mundo primi viderentur et haberentur, deprehendentur, in novissimo die esse ultimi, exclusi scilicet a sanctorum glora. Omnes enim patres intelligunt in parabolam significari DEUM in variis tum mundi, tum vitae humanae aetatius electos suos vocare: in novissimo tamen die eos qui circa finem mundi, aut circa dinem vitae siae vocati sunt ad vineam, idem praemium accepturos cum his qui a mundi exordio, aut a pueritia sua vocati sunt, et bonis operibus vacaverunt”, Jansenius: 1597, 720. 118 “Verum non aliud Dominum voluisse significare per parabolam, quam illud quod post eam subiecit: Sic erunt primi novissimi: patet satis ex eo quod post illud: Multi autem erunt primi novissimi: Dominus per coniunctionem causalem parabolam subiecit, dicens: Simile est regnum coelorum: unde cum post parabolam etiam repetat quod praemium sit, dubium esse non potest parabolam producta ad declarandum id quod concludendo infertur: Sic erunt novissimi primi, et primi novissimi”, Jansenius: 1597, 720. 119 “Ergo cum ex praecedentibus sit manifestum quis sit illius sententiae quae et ante parabolam [viz. Simile est regnum coelorum] and post parabolam [viz. sic erunt novissimi primi et primi novissimi] repetitur”, Jansenius: 1597, 720. 120 “Scopus itaque a Domino in parabolae propositione praecipue intentus videtur is esse, ut ex ea de qua agitur in parabola, benignitate paterfamilias, qua hi in vineam laboraturi venerant novissimi, sic facti sunt primi, ut et prius quam alii mercedem reciperent, et maiorem quam vel ipsi vel alii existimaverunt: qui vero primi venerit, sic facti sunt sine omni iniustitia novissimi, ut et postremo loco mercedem suam reciperent, et minorem acceperunt quam

Jansenius: Biblical Humanism and Augustinian-minded Exegesis

137

be last, and the last first: God’s reward is not proportional to the ‘quantity of time’ in which each person was in communion with Christ. Therefore, the first may receive less than they expected since they receive exactly the same as the last: there is no difference between first and last, as is emphasized by the word sic. In this instance, Jansenius implicitly takes his distance from Nicholas of Lyra concerning the sense of the expression “kingdom of heaven”: according to Nicholas, regnum coelorum is a reference to Christ and “evangelical grace”. By contrast, Jansenius maintains that “kingdom of heaven” should be considered literally as the “Kingdom of Christ”, in heaven and on the earth, by means of the Catholic Church.121 Jansenius also maintains that, in addition to its literal sense, the parable also contains a mystical sense. The master of the house is God, while the vineyard is a metaphor for the Church, and the farmers are the faithful, who perform good works, taking care of their souls and educating others of the faithful through the example of their life.122 Furthermore, God always calls people to him, and the timing presented in the parable represents the succession of God’s calling during the ages of the world. Those called in the ‘first hour’ were the Jews, from Moses up to the evangelical preaching, while, during the third, the sixth, the ninth, and eleventh hours, those people who were called around the world at any time.123 There could be other possible interpretations since the Bible in se could be explained and used in many different ways.124 For instance, the

121

122

123

124

speraverunt”, Jansenius: 1597, 720. On the concept of scopus, and its function in Jansenius, see Delville: 2004, 476. “Itaque non est dicendum regnum coelorum hic accipi pro Christo, aut gratia Evangelica, ut vult Lyra, sed pro eo quod proprie significat, nempe pro regno illo Christi, quo partim in terris regnat per fidem, et partim in coeli per gloriam, hoc est, pro Ecclesia partim in terris militante, et partim in coelis triumphante”, Jansenius: 1597, 721. This seems to be a criticism of Nicholas of Lyra’s doctrine of the double literal sense. On Nicolas of Lyra’s duplex sensus litteralis, see Krey/Smith: 2000 and Smith: 2008, 49–63. As Smith explains “[s]ometimes the literal sense of the text came to include both an historical meaning and a figurative, spiritual interpretation… this expansion of the historical reading of the text came to be known as the duplex sensus literalis”. For instance, according this theory, the filius regis present in Psalm 72 has a twofold literal sense: David concerning the historical meaning while Jesus for the figurative/spiritual sense, see Smith: 2008, 56. “Itaque per parabolam significatur Deum esse veluti patremfamilias qui vineam habeat Ecclesiam scilicet sanctorum … Excolunt autem eam quot quot doctrina aut vitae exemplo alio aedificant, aut suae saltem animae curam gerunt, ut fructum bonorum operum edant”, Jansenius: 1597, 721. “Per primo, vocatos Judaei designatur, qui et olim a Moysis tempori vocati fuerunt et deinde etiam ante gentes Evangelicam praedicationem audiverunt: per eos autem qui hora tertia, sexta, nona et undecima vocantur, gentes quas post Iudaeos diversis vicibus et temporibus non cessat, nec cessabit, Deus vocare”, Jansenius: 1597, 721. Jansenius implicitely maintains that the Bible is patient of different interpretations by referring to the particular case of this parable: “Quoniam autem parabolae pleraeque sic dictae sunt a Domino, ut variis possint modi explicari, et variis possint usibus servire, et quia scripturae fertiles sunt sub eisdem verbis varia utiliter significantes”, Jansenius: 1597, 721.

138

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

“hours” of this pericope could be read both ‘phylogenetically’ and ‘ontogenetically’, considering the hours as the eras of the world or as the ages of a person. These readings are both correct; the former reading is simply oriented more toward a Christological perspective while the second is oriented more toward the narration of the parable.125 Hour First

‘Phylogenesis’ From Adam to Noah

‘Ontogenesis’ Childhood

Third Sixth

From Noah to Abraham From Abraham to Moses

Puberty Adulthood

Ninth Eleventh

From Moses to Christ From Christ to the End

Oldness Close to death

In this instance, Jansenius specifies the great differences between Jews and Christians: first, Jews were first called, and they know the reward God has bestowed on them – the Promised Land on this temporal Earth. By contrast, since Christ promised eternal life only after the death of the body, Christians had to wait for their reward. Second, Jews were called and promised their reward only because of God’s decision, not because of any merit of their own,126 while Christians were promised their reward of eternal salvation through both faith and merit. Third, God promised Jews only a temporal reward, but Christians an eternal one.127 Moreover, Jews “murmured against the master of the house”, since God then preferred Christians to Jews themselves, making them unworthy of God.128 With the term “the first”, therefore, the parable indicates in particular the Jews, but it also refers to those who “seem to keep the first parts in God’s Church”, viz. those who receive temporal benefits from the Church: they will be last in 125 “Prior explicatio magis convenit scopo Christi, quia secundum eam etiam significatur gentes aequandas Iudaeis, quod non longe abest ab eo quod Dominus praecipue hic intendit. Posterior vero explicatio magis convenit narrationi parabolae”, Jansenius: 1597, 721. For these two different interpretations, see the same page. 126 “Quod autem primo vocatis certum pretium est promissum, cuius spe ad culturam vineae accesserunt: his vero qui postea vocati sunt, non est certum pretium constitum, sed dictum est: quod fuerit iustum dabo vobis: recte intelligitur significare, Iudaeos plane veluti mercenarios Deo servisse: gentes vero magis illius confisas gratiae quam Iudaeos, propter quod etiam praelatae Iudaeis non suo quidem merito, sed solo Dei beneplacito significatur”, Jansenius: 1597, 721. 127 “Illo enim significatur, tum quod gentes ex cauda mutandae essent in caput, primosque habendos qui novissimi venerunt in vineam Dei: tum quod mercendem accepturae essent labores longe excedentem, foelicitatem scilicet vitae aeternae, cum Iudaei tantum mercedem temporalem eis promissam consequantur”, Jansenius: 1597, 721. 128 “Quod in parabolam primi murmurant adversus patremfamilias ob gratiam novissimi factam, significat Iudaeorum aemulationem et invidentiam, qua et in principio invidebant gentes praeferri sibi, aut aequari in gratia Dei, et in novissimo die indigne ferent sibi praeferri gentes in foelicitate”, Jansenius: 1597, 722.

Jansenius: Biblical Humanism and Augustinian-minded Exegesis

139

receiving their spiritual reward.129 Jansenius does not specify who those ‘first’ in the Church are, but it is possible that he is criticizing corruption within the Church, especially at its highest levels. Basing his argument on ‘theological’ reasons, he maintains that Jews, because of their nature, cannot acquire what ‘Gentiles’ (gentes) can, if they are called by God. The argument stresses the different kinds of relationship that Jews and Christians have with God. The Bishop of Ghent also studies the corresponding Gospel passages of Matt 20:16, viz. Mark 10:31 and Luke 13:30. Jansenius pays particular attention to the use of a different adverb that introduces the sentence “the first will be last, the last will be first”. Matt 20:16 sic erunt novissimi primi et primi novissimi: multi enim sunt vocati pauci vero electi.

Mark 10:31 multi autem erunt primi novissimi et novissimi primi

So shall the last be first, and the But many that are first last. For many are called, but first, shall be last: few chosen. and the last, first

Luke 13:30 et ecce sunt novissimi qui erunt primi et sunt primi qui erunt novissimi And behold, they are last that shall be first; and they are first that shall be last.

Jansenius maintains that Matthew and Mark coincide. He relies upon the Greek text to support this, focusing on the causal conjunction γάρ (‘gár’)/autem in Mark, a conjunction that should carry the same meaning as the sic found in the Latin translation of Matthew.130 Moreover, Luke’s ecce should signify the moment of radical change in Jewish history: in the beginning, God chose Israel as his own people, so the Jews were the first, but, after Christ’s preaching, Jews became “inferior to the gentiles”. Jansenius stresses this point twice in the same paragraph. Jews, who, prior to Christ’s preaching, were preferred to other people, suddenly became inferior to them. Conversion is the mark that divides Jews from Christians: only the latter will enter the Kingdom of Heaven since they have converted during their worldly life.131 Somehow, Jansenius seems to argue for the 129 “Quanquam enim dicta sit haec parabola, potissimum ad significandum gentes praederendas Iudaeis, simul tamen in genere docemur, eos qui hic primas partes tenere in Ecclesia Dei videntur, plerumque futuros postremos in remuneratione”, Jansenius: 1597, 722. 130 “Parabolam hanc, quot ad litteram attinent, satis claram, vice explicationis subiectam esse illi propositioni) quam in praecedentibus cum Matthaeo, etiam Marcus posuit.) Multi autem erunt primi, etc. Certissimum est, quemadmodum patet cum ex eo quod Graeca habent coniuctionem causalem, γάρ ut sit, Simile est enim regnum caelorum, quomodo & reperi in duobus codicibus Latinis descriptis manu”, Jansenius: 1597, 719. On the lectio γάρ in this pericope, see Delville: 1997, 42. 131 “Et ecce sunt novissimi, qui erant primi: & sunt primi, qui erant novissimi, qua sententia significat mirabilem fore rerum mutationem contra Iudaeorum illorum expectationem, unde & addit adverbium, ecce. Est autem sensus, & ecce sunt, id est, erunt tunc novissimi qui olim erant primi, quia Iudaei, qui primi aliquando erant apud Deum & praelati gentibus, tunc erunt novissimi, & gentibus inferiores: & contra tunc erunt primi qui olim erant

140

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

importance of human cooperation in the economy of salvation by stressing the idea of conversion. Nevertheless, according to him, Jews seem to be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven since Yahweh has not promised it to them. More theologically, they are subject to original sin, like all human beings, but since they have refused the Lord, even killing him and his Apostles, they have permanently lost any chance of being redeemed. This is the reason why they are inferior to Christians: they can no longer receive that quid that allows them to grasp eternal life: God’s grace. They had their chance; they were chosen by God as his own people; they even received the Promised Land on this earth. Yet when the Lord was born among them, they deliberately chose not to follow him, thereby losing their salvation. As previously said, Matt 20:1–16 is linked to another passage, Matt 22:1–14, viz. the Parable of the Great Banquet, because of their common last verse: Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi. Jansenius’ analysis of this pericope further illuminates his views on the relationship between God’s grace and good works. He first introduces the common interpretation of this parable according to which those who are invited to the marriage are the Jews, the first servants are the Prophets of the Old Testament, and the second servants are the Apostles. However, Jansenius does not agree with this interpretation. According to him, there is no reference to the Prophets since, in the Parable, the marriage was ready to be celebrated, Christ having already arrived. Therefore, Jansenius argues, the first servants are John the Baptist and the Apostles, who preached the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven before the Lord’s death. They preached to the Jews inviting them to perform penance and convert. Therefore, the second servants are once again the Apostles, together with other preachers sent after Jesus’ resurrection, such as Paul or Barnabas. In support of this interpretation, Jansenius cites three authoritative sources: Hilary, Chrysostom, and Euthymius in their respective commentaries on this pericope.132 Furthermore, Jerome provides an novissimi, quia gentes credulae praelatae erunt Iudaeis quibus prius erant inferiores. Caeterum Graeca contrario modo habent hanc sententiam, & tamen sensus eodem recidit. Habent enim sic, Ecce sunt novissimi, qui erunt primi: & sunt primi, qui erunt novissimi, quo significatur gentes iam novissimas esse, & Iudaeis in Dei gratia inferiores, quae in Dei iudicio praeferendae sunt propter fidem & bonam conversationem Iudaeis, & econtra”, Jansenius: 1597, 649. This is not the only place in which Jansenius defines Jews as inferiors. See, for instance, Jansenius: 1597, 37 (Luke 1:51) and 609 (Luke 10:1–30). Concerning Jansenius’ opposition to Jews, Delville maintains: “L’élargissement de l’opposition Juifs– païen entre ceus qui sont considérés comme premiers et ceus qui sont considérés comme derniers correspond à l’idée émise par Luther en 1525, précisée par Bucer en 1527 et reprise dans la Bible d’Estienne en 1528”, Delville: 2004, 484. 132 “Porro per invitatos ad nuptias, significantur Iudaei … Per servos autem primo missos, plerique intelligunt Prophetas: et per servos secundo missos, Apostolos. At cum servi etiam primi significentur missi cum iam nuptiae essent paratae, ad eos quis prius erant invitati, rectius per servos primo missos intelliguntur significari Ioannes Baptista et Apostoli, quia

Jansenius: Biblical Humanism and Augustinian-minded Exegesis

141

additional interpretation with which Jansenius disagrees. The Church father considered Moses to be “the first servants” and the Prophets to be “the second servants”. However, after a long argument, Jansenius maintains his position by stressing that, in the parable, the servants were sent twice after the marriage was ready to be celebrated: so, after the coming of the Lord but, first, prior to his death and, then again, after his resurrection.133 Not only the Gospel, but also the historical events unfolding after the Gospel are open to this interpretation. Jansenius describes Jesus’ words as an anticipation of what happened to the Jews in the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73 AD), with particular reference to the Siege of Jerusalem (70 AD) and the consequent destruction of the Second Temple. Moreover, according to Jansenius, the Roman army ought to be understood as God’s army since the Romans were an instrument used God to punish Jews for their ‘deicide’ and the murder of the Apostles.134 Jansenius legitimates Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem, not because of the geo-political control that the Roman Empire had in that region in that time, crushing the temporary Jewish revolt, but because of God’s resentment. In other words, when God decided to punish Jews through a pagan army, that was a correct decision. After having dealt with the destruction of Jerusalem, Jansenius comments further upon the mystical senses concealed in this parable. Once again, he begins by introducing the Church fathers’ interpretation. First, he analyses the expression “both bad and good” (Matt 22:10), by quoting both Jerome and Gregory the Great. The former maintains that when God was calling ante mortem Christi praedicaverunt regnum coelorum appropinquasse, vocantes, Iudaeos ad paratas nuptias, dum ad poenitentiam agendam eos hortabantur … Per servos autem secundo missos, eidem Apostoli simul cum aliis multis, ut Paulo et Barnaba, missi post resurrectionem ad praedicandum Iudaeis. Ad quem modum intelligunt fere D. Hilarius, Chrysostomus, & Euthymius”, Jansenius: 1597, 800. Jansenius is referring to Hilary of Poitier: 1844, Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaei, PL 9, col. 1141–1144. Jansenius also refers to Chrysostom: 1862a, ser. 69 (70), PG 58, 647–654, and to Euthymius: 1864, 22, c. 51, PG 129, col. 567–574. 133 “D. Hieronymus indicat quosdam libros priori loco habere singulariter: Et misit servuum suum vocare: secundum quam lectionem vult per servum illum intelligendum Moysen primo missus ad Iudaeos ab initio mundi a Deo invitatos: et per servos secundo missos, Prophetas post Moysen missos … Ut est, significatur ad Iudaeos olim invitatos, nisi misso esse servo nuptiali convivio iam parato, nempe et ante mortem Christi, et post eius resurrectionem”, Jansenius: 1597, 801. 134 “Iuste ergo tantam impietatem Iudaeorum secuta est ultio divina, quae significatur per sequentia: Rex autem cum adisset, iratus est. Eo enim significatur, Deum patrem, qui ut est tardus ad iram, non statim ultus est Iudaeos, nec iratus illis, cum ad priorem servorum missionem recusarent venire, dissimulasse quidem ad tempus iniuriam servis suis, et sibi illa tam, sed tamen tandem velut illa iam audita et intellecta emisisse excercitus Romanorum (qui Dei recte dicuntur exercitus, quod omnes eius sint ratione creatoris, quodque his Deus usus sit ad vindictam necis Dominicae et Apostolorum) qui sub Tito et Vespasiano, homicidas Iudaeos perdiderunt simul cum civitate eorum Ierusalem igne vastata”, Jansenius: 1597, 801.

142

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

among Gentiles, he found “both bad and good”, while Gregory interprets the passage as saying that there will always be “both bad and good” in the Church. Nevertheless, Jansenius opts for Augustine’s inclusive reading,135 citing a specific text from De fide et operibus (‘On faith and Works’) where the Bishop of Hippo accepts the interpretations of both Jerome and Gregory.136 Thereafter, Jansenius pays attention to the typological meaning of the wedding garment: the mystical sense of the vestis nuptialis is the charity that covers a person’s nudity, namely his sinful condition. The wedding garment, symbol of the conjunction between Christ and the Church, may also indicate pureness of life, thanks to its vest made of virtues and good works. Whoever enters the Church by means of baptism, however, should never consider himself saved; he should also act well in order to live the faith truly.137 Even more, those who cannot present their good conduct before God in the Last Judgment will be damned to eternal hellfire. The importance of good works is stressed again: he who did not act well, “naked from good works”, cannot be free from hell.138 This leads to the end of his commentary on Matt 22:1–14: many are called but few are chosen; many are invited to become Christian, but few actually answer the vocation positively. For instance, those who were first called, the Jews, were unworthy to become part of the Church. Moreover, he who does not have the wedding garment is to be excluded from the number of saved people. Thus, those who act badly, disturbing the concord of the

135 “Quod vero servi egressi bonos pariter et malos congregasse dicuntur … intelligendum est D. Hieronymum ideo dictum esse bonos pariter et malos esse congregatos, quia inter ipsos gentiles infinita est diversitas, et secundum humanam conversationem quidam eorum boni dicuntur, quidam mali. Aut potius secundum Gregorium boni pariter et mali congregati dicuntur, ut intelligeremus in Ecclesia semper malos bonis permixtos fore … itaque boni et mali dicuntur non ratione bonitatis et malitiae in qua post vocationem erant futuri. Utramque intelligentiam tradit D. Augustinus cap. 17 lib. De fide et operibus”, Jansenius: 1597, 802. The reference to the Church fathers are Gregory the Great: 1999, 2, ser. 38, CCSL 141, 358–378, and Jerome: 1969, 3, c. 51, CCSL 77, 199–202. 136 “Sed quia hoc falsum esse non potest, adduxerunt servi bonos et malos, sive qui laterent, sive qui iam adducti, et intromissi apparerent; sive bonos et malos dictum est secundum quamdam humanam conversationem, in qua etiam ii qui nondum crediderunt, vel laudari vel vituperari solent”, Augustine: 1865b, 17.31, PL 40, col. 218. 137 “Proinde secundum antiquos patres per vestem nuptialem secundum mystericum sensum intelligi potius debet aut ipsa charitas, quae instar vestis tegit nostram nuditatem, et operit multitudinem peccatorum … quod in hac venerit Christus sponsus, Ecclesiam sini in sponsa copulaturus. Aut quod eodem redit, per vestem nuptialem intelligitur vita pura et splendida, in modum vestis virtutibus et bonis operibus contexta, hominemque ornans … ne satis sini esse putent [fideles] quod credant, et baptismate abluti sint, atque intra Ecclesia recepti … sed opus esse ut vivant vitam sua vocatione dignam”, Jansenius: 1597, 803. 138 “Quod autem in illo die fideles bonis operibus nudi, non tantum sint verbis servere corripiendi, sed etiam e nuptijs et sanctorum confortio eripiendi, ac carceri infernali tradendi in aeternum puniendi … Nam si bene operari possent [fideles] aut bene affici, possent et liberari ab inferno”, Jansenius: 1597, 803.

Jansenius: Biblical Humanism and Augustinian-minded Exegesis

143

Church, viz. the Protestants (perturbatores) and other hidden sinners (relinqui peccatores occulti), will suffer condemnation in the Last Judgment.139 In other passages, Jansenius also deals with the concepts of predestination, grace and free will: a careful analysis of these pericopes may further show his positive view on human good works in the economy of salvation. For instance, commenting upon Luke 6:46, he maintains that God’s love (dilectio) indeed consists in the eternal predestination by means of which he prepared eternal life for those He loved.140 Moreover, the righteous/just people are only those who were eternally predestined and called to eternal life.141 Predestination and vocation are therefore two related acts of God, and they come before any good motus of the human mind.142 Analyzing John 6:37, Jansenius further develops his view, relying on Paul’s phraseology of Rom 8:30 “those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified”. On the basis of this indissoluble link between predestination, vocation and justification, the Louvain theologian declares that he bestows an “infallible gift” (infallibile donum) which implies God’s “infallible expectation” (infallibilis expectatio) of those who will come to him. This gift, in the temporal dimension, consists of two elements, first God’s grace alone (sola Dei gratia), in which human free will is not involved at all. Of course, the expression “grace alone” reminds us of Luther’s sola gratia, a fact that might show Delville’s claim that Jansenius’ theology was influenced by Lutheran ideas. However, the Bishop of Ghent states that the second element consists in the

139 “Enim, legendum est, et non, multi autem sunt vocati … hic vero significetur multos reijcendos … non omnes qui vocati sint fore salvandos … primum quidem quod invitati, et deinde vocati exclusi sint a nuptiis, ac postea quod ex vocatis qui venerunt ad nuptias etiam unus sit eiectus … Notandum autem circa qui e nuptijs eiectus est, illud tantum in eo fuisse reprehensum, quod non haberet vestem nuptialem, non autem quod vestem haberet sordidam, ut intelligamus quantum iudicium maneat eos qui in Ecclesia non tantum non fulgent bonis operibus, sed malis plane sunt deformes: ac rursum eos qui mensae Domini non assident quieti, sed Ecclesiae communem et nuptiarum delitias perturbant …quemadmodum et ecclesia eijcit ante diem iudicij manifeste criminos, aut eccelsiasticae pacis et communionis perturbatores, reliquos peccatores occultos, aut non ita scandaloso reliquens divino iudicio”, Jansenius: 1597, 803. 140 “Aliquando vero solum dicitur diligere electos & praedestinatos: quae dilectio nihil aliud est quam praedestinatio, qua aeternam vitam eis certo praeparavit. Sic & singulari ista notitia dicitur aliquando nosse omnes iustos diligentes ipsum, ut cum dicit Paulus: Si quis diligit Deum, hic cognitus est ab eo”, Jansenius: 1597, Luke 6:46, 335. 141 “Iusti autem per divinam praedestinationem & gratiam vocationis ac iustificationis plantati sunt a Deo ad vitam aeternam”, Jansenius: 1597, Matt 15:12, 471. 142 “Itaque Augustinus exorta iam haeresi Pelagiana, exactius & expressius locutus est de gratia Dei, quod hic trahatur, & non ille, non tribuens diversae dispositioni hominum, sed divinae praedestinationi & vocationi praevenienti omnem bonum mentis nostrae motum, quemadmodum probat ex doctrina Pauli ad Roma. de Esau & Iacob, & ex ipsa Pauli conversione”, Jansenius: 1597, John 6:43, 453.

144

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

human will (nostra voluntas) which is expressed by the individual’s ‘faith in Christ’.143 To explain further who the predestined people are, commenting on Luke 10:20–21, Jansenius maintains that the expression “nomina vestra scripta sunt” clearly refers to the number of the just/righteous people before God, those people for whom heaven is prepared. Similarly, when the Scriptures mentions the “book of life” or “the book of the living”, it is referring to God’s knowledge of those people he ‘ordered to eternal life’. This expression, ‘to be ordered to eternal life’, could refer to both the divinely predestined people and those who have grace and justice. There is, of course, a great difference between these two categories. Only those who were divinely predestined cannot fall: from eternity they were ‘inscribed’ in the book of life and their name will always be there. A concrete example of predestined people are the Apostles. However, grace and justice are not part of a person from the beginning: so there are those who will obtain grace and justice in their life. If they never fall, they also will be ‘inscribed’ in the book of life. Thus, they are not on God’s list from eternity, and they can be removed at any time if they do not act well.144 In other words, there are people who have received grace in the temporal order but fall away since they do not perform good works. Such a huge difference implies that predestination is absolutely not in a person’s power but only in God’s; for this specific reason, people who do not believe have 143 “Quos enim praedestinavit, hos & vocavit, & quos vocavit, hos & iustificavit. Sicut autem praedictis verbis significavit infallibile esse donum patris, ita sequentibus significat infallibilem esse expectationem venientium ad se … Itaque hac Domini doctrina ex duabus pendere docetur, quod quis ab ipso recipiatur, saturetur, ac vivificetur; & primum ex dono patris, quod consistit in sola Dei gratia, & non in libero nostro arbitrio: secundo, ex fide hominis in Christum qua itur ad ipsum, quae consistit in nostra voluntate. Quo autem venientes & credentes in Christum securi sint de sua receptione, subiicit in illius confirmationem”, Jansenius: 1597, John 6:41, 451. 144 “Porro nomina aliquorum scripta esse in caelis, non est aliud, quam illos haberi apud Deum in numero iustorum, & eorum quibus caelestia regna sunt parata … Unde toties in scripturis fit mentio de libro vitae vel viventium, qui nihil est aliud quam notitia Dei qua novit ordinatos a se ad vitam aeternam … Notandum quod dupliciter quis dicitur ordinatus a Deo ad vitam aeternam, videlicet vel ex praedestinatione divina, vel ex gratia & iustitia quam habet. Quicunque enim gratiam Dei habet & iustus est, ex hoc ipso est dignus vita aeterna & ad eam ordinatus. Sicut ergo praedestinatio divina nunquam deficit, nec falli potest: ita qui ex ea ordinati sunt ad vitam aeternam, ab aeterno semper fuerunt in libro vitae descripti, semperque in eo scripti permanent, nec unquam ex eo delentur, unde dicuntur simpliciter scripti in libro vitae. Sed quemadmodum gratia & iustitia non ab initio fuit in homine, & postquam acquisita est nonnunquam deficit, amissa per sequens peccatum: ita qui ex ea ordinati sunt ad vitam, non semper in libro vitae fuerunt scripti, sed scribi coeperunt, cum credere & Deo placere coeperunt, & postquam conscripti sunt, deleri ex eo possunt, unde tantum secundum quid dicuntur scripti in libro vitae … Et alioqui etiamsi ratione divinae praedestinationis dicat Dominus horum nomina scripta in caelis, non magis hinc consequitur omnes simpliciter esse salvatos, quam consequitur salvatos esse omnes duodecim Apostolos”, Jansenius: 1597, Luke 10: 20–21, 601–602.

Jansenius: Biblical Humanism and Augustinian-minded Exegesis

145

no guilt (culpa), simply because the possibility to believe was not given to them.145 Faith is an effect of predestination – and, inversely, God’s eternal predestination is the cause of grace in the faithful.146 On the other hand, the act of believing is only partly in God’s hands: “indeed, unless the Father draws with (trahit) his prevenient grace, nobody believes; nonetheless, nobody believes unless he or she is willing”. Jansenius repeats once again that being part of Christ’s flock is due to both the grace of being predestined and the believer’s spontaneous will.147 Jansenius introduces the concept of grace, therefore, and he further explains that those who are defined ‘full of grace’ are so called since they have received sufficient grace in order to accomplish God’s will.148 He also explains that sufficient grace is granted through Christ’s death, intended for all people.149 God’s grace alone cannot save: Jansenius clearly states this while affirming that the sacrament of baptism is not enough without the use of the will.150 However, men do need the continuous assistance of God’s grace in order to achieve any specific goal.151 Jansenius stresses this concept several times in his commentary, maintaining, for instance, that God gave free will to men, as clearly established in John 1:12 where the Greek ἐξουσία refers also to the “discretion to do something”.152 145 “ Verum si venit is ad filium qui datur a patre: culpa ergo carebit qui non venit, utpote non datus a patre”, Jansenius: 1597, John 6:43, 453. 146 “Sicut enim dilectio & praedestinatio Dei aeterna est causa gratiae & gloriae in nobis”, Jansenius: 1597, John 17: 24, 983. 147 “Esse enim ovem Christi, est esse electum & praedestinatum, sed divina electio & praedestinatio non est sita in nostra potestate, ergo nec culpandi erunt qui non credunt, si ideo non credunt quia non sunt ex ovibus Christi, hoc est, quia non sunt electi. Ad quod dicendum, quod & esse ovem Christi & credere, partim in Dei gratia, partim in nobis situm est. Nemo enim credit nisi quem pater praeveniente sua gratia trahit, & tamen nemo etiam credit nisi volens, sic ut quis sit ex ovibus Christi, partim est ex gratia praedestinationis, partim ex spontanea credentis voluntate … ideo non esse datum eis credere, quia non essent ex electorum, numero ex quo si fuissent, datum utique etiam eis fuisset credere … Hinc ergo discimus, ut ex aliis scripturae locis, fidem esse donum Dei, & effectum praedestinationis divinae”, Jansenius: 1597, John 10:24, 667. 148 “Verum hi tantum pleni dicuntur gratia, quod sufficientem gratiam consecuti fuerant ad id ad quod a Deo deputati erant, aut potius quod abundantiorem prae aliis gratiam nacti essent”, Jansenius 1597, John 1:16, 133. 149 “Mors enim Christi pro omnibus redimendis sufficiens fuit pretium, & quantum in ipso fuit, omnes venit redempturus”, Jansenius: 1597, Matt 20:24, 740. Cf. also “quotquot, significant in fidei gratia nullam esse vel sexus, vel aetatis, vel conditionis, vel nationis discretionem”, Jansenius: 1597, John 1:12, 13. 150 “Nunc vero baptismus sine illo propriae voluntatis usu sufficit ad salutem”, Jansenius: 1597, Matt 2:16, 85. 151 “Unde intelligimus quanta sit differentia hominis sibi relicti, & eiusdem divina gratia adiuti: deinde quam non sufficiat Dei gratiam aliqua in re percepisse, si non eadem perseveret assistere”, Jansenius: 1597, Mark 8:33, 501. 152 “Et secundum tres primas interpretationes, maxime autem secundum primam & tertiam, commendatur hoc loco liberi arbitrii vis: secundum duas autem posteriores non liberum arbitrium, sed divina gratia commendatur his verbis, dedit potestatem … Porro dictio

146

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

However, “vice” – obviously to be interpreted as original sin – makes men’s will so weak that it cannot do good without the prevenient gift of grace and its constant aid.153 On several occasions, Jansenius stresses the role of human free will in the economy of salvation, bringing it into relation with the efficacy of God’s grace. Indeed, while analyzing John 6:44 “Nemo potest venire ad me, nisi Pater, qui misit me, traxerit eum” on the basis of Augustine’s Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, Jansenius maintains that the verb trahere shows God’s free generosity when he bestows his grace, before any act of human will and merit; moreover, by means of his efficacious grace, God can also attract to himself those who do not want to believe. On the other hand, on the basis of Greek Church fathers such as Euthymius, Chrysostom and Theophylact – typical of those Bible commentators who want to emphasize free will –, Jansenius claims that God attracts to him those who already have a good will/inclination.154 The weight (and the sinfulness) of the human body makes grace necessary in order to elevate the soul. However – Jansenius explains – Christ did not use only the verb trahere, but also venire, something which clearly shows the necessity of human free will in the act of believing. Therefore, not only does God act on each person by means of his grace, but also a person must move him/herself to God: it is a kind of reciprocal motion where both agents must act together to achieve the same effect. In other words, a cooperation between God and the believer is needed, as both Chrysostom and Theophylact sustained,155 even though we must take for ἐξουσία non significat solum potestatem, vel facultatem alicuius rei faciendae vel acquirendae … Itaque etiam secundum hunc sensum nihil ex his verbis, dedit eis potestatem, colligere licet de libero arbitrio”, Jansenius: 1597, John 1:12, 13. 153 “Dedisti quidem pater liberam nobis faciendi quae iussisti voluntatis potestatem, verum haec nostro vitio ad eam recidit infirmitatem, ut ad amandum & exequendum, maxime constanter, ex integro atque alacriter tua praecepta, non sufficiat sibi, nisi tuae gratiae munere praeveniatur & adiuvetur continue”. Jansenius: 1597, Matt 6:13, 311. 154 “Haec ille: quibus significare videtur, eos quos pater trahit ad filium promereri hoc praecedente aliqua eorum bona voluntate, qua se ad tractionem patris idoneos fecissent. Quod apertius dicit Euthymius Graecus, Chrysostomi etiam sicut Theophylactus imitator”, Jansenius: 1597, John 6:43, 453. 155 “Hoc & Christus se tracturum dicit postea, Cum, (inquit) exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad meipsum … Rursum autem hic observanda duo illa verba, venit & traxerit. Illud enim, aperte ostendit libertatem arbitrii in credendo: hoc vero, significat divinam gratiam praecedentem omnem nostram voluntatem, & multo magis omne meritum … Illo enim significatur & gratuita Dei benignitas, omnem nostram voluntatem & meritum praeveniens: & gratiae divinae efficacia, quae ex nolentibus facit volentes: & nostrae naturae infirmitas ac gravitas ad inferiora semper deprimens. Corpus enim quod corrumpitur, aggravat animam, & terrena inhabitatio deprimit sensum multa cogitantem … Proinde sicut corpus grave ut ascendat, sursum trahi debet: ita & nos ut ad Christum & caelestia elevemur, trahi debemus caelesti gratia … Aut illud, nemo potest venire ad me, potius sic est accipiendum, in sensu, ut loquuntur dialectici, composito: Fieri non potest ut quis veniat ad me, hoc est, credat in me: ut non significetur potentia credendi esse a tractu patris, sed ipsum credere necessario ab illo pendere … Ad quam quaestionem a Chrysostomo etiam hoc loco motam, post

Jansenius: Biblical Humanism and Augustinian-minded Exegesis

147

granted that God can also efficaciously convert those who do not want to believe in him. In fact, in specific cases, only efficacious grace can distract the human mind from earthly benefits. For instance, it is very hard for rich people to give up their love of wealth by their own efforts (sua virtute), so hard that it seems to be impossible, like the parable of a camel going through the eye of a needle (Matt 19:24): of course, such impossibility is not due to the wealth itself, but to the weakness of human nature before it.156 Another example of the efficacy of God’s grace is the adoration of the Magi: God made them aware of Christ’s birth, and induced them to search for the new King, to adore him and not to fear him, thanks to their love of him.157 On the basis on Augustine’s De praedestinatione sanctorum, Jansenius also maintains that God attracts people by means of his mercy (misericordia): on the one hand, God can righteously choose whether to attract someone or not, but, on the other hand, this also means that men’s salvation does not depends on grace alone. In any case, the faithful must be merciful in order to accomplish God’s grace with the means put within human power.158 The notion of predestination is strictly linked to that of God’s knowledge (notitia). More specifically, Jansenius explains that the Scriptures refer to it in three different ways: 1) the “simple knowledge” (simplex cognitio), extended to all good and evil acts; 2) the “singular knowledge” (singularis cognitio) by means of which God knows what he has approved, viz. the people he loves. God’s love is Chrysostomum sic respondet Theophylactus: Hoc autem, nempe potest venire: & c. dicit, non ut libertatem tollat arbitrii: absit, sed ut ostendat quod multa habet opus cooperatione a Deo is qui crediturus est”, Jansenius: 1597, John 6:43, 453–54. The reference is to Augustine: 1865a, I, 19, 37, PL 44. 156 “Difficile enim est divitem ingredi in regnum caelorum ea ratione quae dicta est, nempe quia difficile est eum abstrahi ab amore divitiarum, nec eis abuti saepe. Impossibile vero, tum quia quamdiu manet confidens in divitiis, non potest ingredi: tum quia non sua virtute, sed Dei gratia, eaque efficace & potente, potest a fiducia, amore, & abusu divitiarum abstrahi, ut sic possit ingredi regnum Dei. Nec tamen necesse fuerit dicere hac sententia Dominum significasse impossibilitatem, sed simplicissimum fuerit dicere hyperbolen esse in hac locutione, qua Dominus vulgari modo locutus significare tantum voluerit, valde difficile esse divitem ingredi regnum Dei”, Jansenius: 1597, Matt 19:24, 715. 157 “Deinde & efficaciae gratiae divinae id asscribi potest, quae ut non solum eos instruxit de novo rege nato, sed ad inquirendum eum, adorandumque commovit & accendit, ita & effecit ne praesentem metuerent regem ob amorem novi regis quem quaerebant”, Jansenius: 1597, Matt 2:2, 67. 158 “Sicut enim quicunque trahitur, ex misericordia Dei trahitur: ita qui non trahitur, iusto Dei iudicio non trahitur. Omnes inquit August. lib. de praedest. Sanctorum cap. 8. quos docet, misericordia docet: quos autem non docet, iudicio non docet. Alterum consilium est, ut ne considerantes omnia pendere ex divina gratia, diffidamus aut torpeamus, sed ea faciamus, & aliis consulamus quae scriptura nos docet ad impetrandam Dei gratiam esse media convenientia, quaeque in nostra sunt sita potestate, quamvis non sine Dei gratia”, Jansenius: 1597, John 6:43, 453.

148

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

therefore intimately linked to this singular knowledge, but God’s love can be conceived in two ways in the Scriptures: a) God’s love for the righteous living people, even those who are going to fall (lapsuri), and b) God’s love for only the elect and predestined people whom he has prepared for eternal life. 3) Through this love for the elect, God has also a third knowledge – not named – by means of which he knows the predestined.159 ‘Predestined’ and ‘elect’ are, therefore, two different attributions that refer to the same object, viz. those who will be saved. However, predestination is a technical term to be used while speaking ex parte aeternitatis; vocation is referred to ex parte temporis.160 On the basis of Augustine’s De dono perseverantiae, Jansenius specifies further that God’s predestination is completely free, without any prevision of merits, and that it precedes any good motion of the human mind.161 Indeed, in the contrary case, God would be influenced by a being that is ontologically inferior to him and God’s will would not be autonomous anymore. In conclusion, Jansenius first shows himself to have a polemical target, the Jews, maintaining their inferiority and considering them to be worse than heretics. In fact, God never gave Jews the possibility to obtain eternal life since He promised them only the temporal reward of the Holy Land. Heretics, by contrast, were at least called to salvation, though they abandoned the correct path to eternal life. Jansenius’ attitude towards the Jews could be explained in terms of a significant theological implication. As he maintains, Jews were chosen only because of God’s will, “without any merit” of their own. By stressing this, Jansenius implicitly affirms the importance of human merit, at least for Christians. An159 “Tripliciter enim scriptura loquitur de Dei notitia. Aliquando enim loquitur de simplici Dei cognitione, quae ad omnia bona & mala sese extendit. Aliquando vero loquitur de singulari quadam Dei cognitione, qua scilicet dicitur cognoscere ea quae approbat, & eos homines quos amat … Sicut autem de dilectione Dei dupliciter loquitur scriptura, ita & de hac singulari Dei notitia. Aliquando enim dicitur diligere omnes iuste viventes, etiam qui e iustitia sunt lapsuri, quia scilicet approbat eorum pro illo tempore conversationem. Aliquando vero solum dicitur diligere electos & praedestinatos: quae dilectio nihil aliud est quam praedestinatio, qua aeternam vitam eis certo praeparavit … Aliquando vero dicitur nosse tantum electos & praedestinatos, etiam qui adhuc non sunt spiritu eius donati”, Jansenius: 1597, Luke 6:46, 335. 160 “Patrem autem dare aliquo filios, est ab aeterno eos praedestinasse in numero electorum, & in tempore eos vocare inter electos & filios Dei”, Jansenius: 1597, 450–51. 161 “Ex his autem verbis Domini, Si in Tyro & Sidone factae essent virtutes, &c. D. Aug. lib. de bono perseverantiae c. 9. & 10. aliisque libris refellit docte eorum opinionem, qui asserebant homines iudicandos secundum ea quae facturi erant, confirmatque hinc gratuitae praedestinationi Dei tribuendam Dei electionem & vocationem non praevisis hominum meritis”, Jansenius: 1597, 359. Cf. Also “Itaque Augustinus exorta iam haeresi Pelagiana, exactius & expressius locutus est de gratia Dei, quod hic trahatur, & non ille, non tribuens diversae dispositioni hominum, sed divinae praedestinationi & vocationi praevenienti omnem bonum mentis nostrae motum quemadmodum probat ex doctrina Pauli ad Roma. de Esau & Iacob, & ex ipsa Pauli conversione”, Jansenius: 1597, John 6:43, 453.

John Hessels the ‘anti-Pelagian’

149

swering God’s call is not enough; doing good is necessary in the economy of salvation. Even more, Jansenius maintains that God’s reward is proportionate to human good works.162 I hope to have shown not only that “Jansenius … évite de condamner le rôle des œuvres, mais qu’il souligne la prépondérance de la grâce” (Delville 2004: 486) but also that good works have, for him, an important place in the economy of salvation. Furthermore, there seems to be no influence from Luther and/or Lutheranism in Jansenius’ works. On the contrary, possibly influenced by the optimistic anthropology of the humanists, he emphasizes the role of good works in the economy of salvation. On the other hand, the same optimistic view is totally absent in the works of John Hessels who stressed the efficacy of God’s grace, a view that has objective similarities to that of the Reformers. Hessels’ theology of grace as developed in his Commentary to Matthew is the topic of the next section.

2.4

John Hessels the ‘anti-Pelagian’

The Franciscans Zegers and Sasbout turned out to have appreciated ‘double justification’, by clear contrast with the official doctrine accepted in Louvain, while Jansenius offered a positive view of the importance of good works: three authors, two different theologies of grace and justification. But Louvain was a surprising and fertile soil for theological debates, and two other major schools of thought rose up: the anti-Pelagians and the Jesuits, who entered into a harsh debate. In this section, I shall first provide an introduction where I can show the context of that debate in Louavin. I then deal with the anti-Pelagianism. This is discussed extensively by Marcel Gielis (1994), Edmond Van Eijl (1994), and other scholars in the volume L’augustinisme à l’ancienne faculté de théologie de Louvain (1994). Radical anti-Pelagianism eventually led to so-called ‘Baianism’, a ‘heretical deviation’ that takes its name from Michael de Bay or Baius (cf. Vanneste: 1994, Vanneste: 1977, Schelkens / M. Gielis: 2007). This scholar based his theological reflections mainly on Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works, preferring them to Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastic authors. One of the main followers

162 Analysing Luke 6:38, Jansenius is clearer in this sense: “Sunt autem qui hanc sententiam intelligunt non solum de remuneratione bonorum operum, sed etiam malorum, quorum ultio veluti mensura quaedam superfluens gravissima erit. Sed videtur magis haec sententia solum dicta de remuneratione bonorum operum. Quoniam enim dixit: Date, & daebitur vobis, eam promissionem exagerare volens, subiicit: Mensuram bonam, &c. quasi dicat: Non solum dabitur vobis, sed etiam copiosa & abundans vobis remuneratio fiet, proportionata tamen vestrae liberalitati. Ad hoc enim significandum, remunerationem vocavit mensuram”, Jansenius: 1597, 325.

150

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

of Baius was indeed Johannes Hessels whose commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew is the subject of this section. Augustine was indeed the most authoritative patristic source used in biblical studies at the Louvain Faculty of Theology. However, at least two currents of thought characterized the study of Augustine:163 on the one hand, Ruard Tapper’s ‘eclectic Augustino-Thomistic spirit’ (François: 2012, 259), – together with Jacobus Latomus and Johannes Driedo – and, on the other hand, Michael Baius’ anti-Pelagianism which found many followers, including John Hessels. These two views determined the first strong contest in Louvain theology. The contest between Ruard Tapper and his pupil, Baius, began in the early 1550’s when Tapper and Hasselius left Louvain for the Council of Trent. On that occasion, Baius received the royal chair of Sacred Scriptures in place of Hasselius. The latter died shortly thereafter, in 1552. After his return to Louvain in 1552, Tapper found dangerous ‘deviations’ in Baius’ exegesis, thus beginning the debate between the two theologians which would last until Tapper’s death in 1559 (Jansen: 1927, 157– 160). After that, Baius’ anti-Pelagian ideas could be spread freely despite the harsh opposition of Josse Ravesteyn. In 1563, with the intention of countering Calvin, Baius published two volumes in which he dealt with human free will, justice, and justification, meritorious works, human original integrity, and the merits of the wicked, the sacraments, the form of baptism, and original sin. Three years later, in 1566, Baius published these two works in a single volume, adding some unedited material. In these works, he maintained that the state of innocence (integritas) was the natural condition of humankind before original sin (Baius: 1563, 56). However, after the first fall, evil became part of human nature. This meant that people were unable to perform good works at all, and, consequently, they were in need of gratuitous redemption. Without God’s aid, human free will sins irremediably (Baius: 1563, 71). As already mentioned in the introduction, Baius’ theses were censured by both the Faculties of Theology of Salamanca and Alcalá, in 1565 and 1567 respectively, after which followed condemnations from Popes Pius V (In omnibus afflictionibus, 1567) and Gregory XIII (Provisionis Nostrae, 1580; cf. van Eljil: 1953). Baius seemed to retract his ideas, but in 1568 he defended publicly some of the propositions condemned by Pius V. By the time Robert Bellarmine arrived in Louvain (1569), the Faculty of Theology was “in great tumult” (Galeota: 1966, 23–30; Grossi: 1968). On Pius V’s death, Baius continued to maintain his ‘heretical’ views – something he was able to do because of his strong position as Dean of the Faculty of Theology and because he counted many pupils amongst his colleagues. 163 Not by coincidence, in the years 1576–1577, the Louvain Theologians prepared a new edition of Augustine’s Opera Omnia in ten volumes under the editorial supervision of Johannes Molanus (1533–1585).

John Hessels the ‘anti-Pelagian’

151

However, some Jesuits started to contest Baius’ positions. Among them was Bellarmine who, in his Refutatio, used Augustine extensively to show the inconsistency of Baius’ anti-Pelagianism (Galeota: 1966, 68–75). The Jesuit Fransciscus Toletus, who had a more optimistic view regarding human free will in the economy of salvation, also criticized Baius and his followers. The Louvain Faculty of Theology wanted to clarify its position, in order to show that it had not fallen into an extreme anti-Pelagian position, but also that it was far from being close to Toletus’ view (Galeota: 1966, 37–38), as well as those of other members of the Jesuit Order such as Lessius. Therefore, the theologian Johannes Lensaeus (1541– 1593) prepared the Formula doctrinae in 1586 (cf. Steyaert: 1742, vol. 1, 193–225). In this Formula, by referring especially to Paul and Augustine, Lensaeus focused in particular upon original sin and its consequences: 1. human original justice is a special gift of grace; 2. as a consequence of Adam’s fall, humankind lost its original justice, without however irreversibly compromising the ability to do good; 3. Inherent grace regenerates people’s soul in order that they may follow God’s will (Roegiers: 2003, 5–6; Van Eijl: 1994, 215). The consequence of this ‘manifesto’ was a theological controversy amongst the Jesuits. The 31 theses defended by Leonard Lessius and John Hamelius (1554– 1589) were condemned by the Louvain Faculty of Theology on 12 September 1587, a condemnation that was followed on 20 February 1588 by that of the Douai Faculty of Theology. The main criticism was addressed to the value of human cooperation in the economy of salvation. This position articulated in the theses was considered to be a deviation from Augustine’s theology and even suspected of “semi-Pelagianism”.164 For instance, Lessius in his second thesis admits that “God, after the foreseen [or the first] original sin, had the will to give to Adam and to all his posterity sufficient means against their sins, and [sufficient] aids to achieve eternal life; therefore [God] gives them sufficient aid in order that they can come back”. To this statement, the Louvain theologians replied that it is not true that God gives sufficient aids to salvation to all of mankind: for instance, God’s law was not enough for the salvation of the Jews.165 This means that the 164 Concerning the origin of the term ‘Semipelagianism’, Backus / Goudriaan: 2014. Censvræ facultatum: 1641, 3–40 (censura lovaniensis); 41–118 (censura duacensis). See Van Eijl: 1994, 217–223; Roegiers: 2003, 6; Roegiers: 2012, 159–161. 165 “ASSERTIO II Deus post praevisum peccatum originale habuit voluntatem dandi Adamo et toti eius Posteritati sufficentia media contra peccata, et auxilia ad consequendam vitam aeternam, ergo dat illis sufficiens auxilium ut possint reverti. CENSURA. Quamvis locutio de sufficientia auxilio tolerari et excusari aliquo sensu possit, quia videlicet nunquam Dei beneficia mundo defuerint, quibus si adulti bene usi fuissent pervenire ad salutem potuissent, proprie tamen et exacte loquendo, quia id solum sufficit praeter quod aliud necessarium non est, rectius veriusque dicitur non fuisse toti Adae posteritati sufficientia ad salutem auxilia data, imo ne Iudaeis quidem sub veteri adhuc testamento consituitis: non enim dicendum est legem eis ad iustitiam suffecisse, quam propter infirmitatem ac in-

152

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

faithful cannot achieve salvation by means of their merits. Another important censure was on the 30th thesis: “the number of the predestination [scil. the number of the predestined people] is not sure, on the basis of the foreordination that precedes all prescience of the works”. To this statement, the Louvain theologians claimed that God absolutely and efficaciously foreordained the number of the predestined.166 Lessius replied to this censure affirming that the 31 propositions were taken out of their original context and distorted in their meaning. To clarify his position, he wrote a document of 34 propositions, trying to bring his views closer to those of Augustine (Van Eijl: 1994, 211; Broggio: 2009, 55). He sent this to Bellarmine who nevertheless still considered some of the propositions to be heretical (Van Eijl: 1994, 215). The main difference between Bellarmine and Lessius concerns the relation between predestination and foreseen merits. In no case does Bellarmine accept Lessius’ position that predestination is made on the basis of foreseen merits (ex praevisis meritis).167 In effect, Bellarmine’s position is closer utilitatem suam reprobatam fuisse Apostolus testatur, qua tamen si bene usi Iudaei fuissent”, Censvræ facultatum: 1641, 24–25. It must be noticed that the assertion reported in the Louvain Censura “Deus post praevisum peccatum originale habuit”, has another lectio: for the Douai Censura, “Deus post primum peccatum originale habuit”, 82. Part of this section is published in Wim François/Antonio Gerace (2019). The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism in the Post-Tridentine Catholic Church. In: Boersma K., et al. (Ed.), More than Luther: The Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 15–44. 166 “ASSERTIO XXX. Numerus praedestinationis non est certus ex praeordinatione quae antecedit omnem praescientiam operum. CENSURA Certum est apud Deum numerum praedestinatorum … quod autem certum sit ex praeordinatione omnem praescientiam operum … ex mera Dei praeordinatione et voluntate pendere certitudinem numeri electorum … quocirca non potest non peregrina, atque a Scripturarum et sanctorum Patrum, Augustini maxime, sensu aliena iudicari haec doctrina, quae praedestinationem eiusque certitudinem pendere vult ex operum praevisione”, Censvræ facultatum: 1641, 111–113. The Censura Lovaniensis is even clearer than that of Douai: “Evidens est Augustini doctrina eaque Apostolicae perquam consentanea, certum est apud Deum praedestinatorum numerum, non ex antecedente operum praescentia, sed ex absoluta et efficaci preordinatione, ubi praescientiam conditionatam intelligat, ut ex ea tota pendere praedestinatio putetur, iam nec secundum praescientiam quidem certus erit Deo electorum numerus … ideo praescivit, quia voluit, atque praeordinavit, ut salutem eorum, ita et omnem salutis modum ac ordinem”, Censvræ facultatum: 1641, 59. 167 Still in 1610 Lessius maintains, by interpreting Augustine, that predestination is ex praevisis meritis: “Idem lib. 1. ad Simplicianum q. 2. explicans illud, Ut secundum electionem propositum Dei maneret, sic ait: Non ergo secundum electionem propositum Dei manet; sed ex proposito electio: id est, non quia Deus invenit opera bona in hominibus quae eligat, ideo manet propositum iustificationis ipsius; sed quia illud manet ut iustificet credentes, ideo invenit opera quae iam eligat ad regnum caelorum. Nam nisi esset electio, non essent electi, nec recte diceretur, Quis accusabit adversus electos Dei? Hic aperte electionem illam unde aliqui dicuntur electi, vult esse ex praevisis meritis, quae fiunt post iustificationem, vel ex ipso iustificationis statu. quod magis declarat, subdens: Non tamen electio praecedit iusti-

John Hessels the ‘anti-Pelagian’

153

to the Augustinian tradition, and modern scholarship speaks about a “Bellarminian Augustinianism” (Broggio: 2009, 70; Motta: 2005, 466–471). In any case, even though Louvain and Douai condemned Lessius’ ideas, other faculties of theology, such as that of Paris, and even some bishops, such as Joannes Hauchin (Malines), Lindanus (Roermond) and Pierre Simons (Ypres), defended Lessius’ position against Baius (Broggio: 2009, 55–56). This controversy between the Augustinian-minded theologians and the Jesuits in Louvain was much discussed in Rome until Pope Sixtus V ordered the parties to stop the debate, even though he allowed both of them to teach their respective theological views (Roegiers: 2012, 161). Meanwhile, in 1588 a controversy burst out in Spain between Jesuits and Dominicans regarding the book De concordia that the Jesuit Luis de Molina had just published. According to the Louvain theologians, Molina was only repeating the errors of his confrere Lessius and thus showing that there was a direct link between the disreputable ideas and membership of the Jesuit Order. After that, under the term Molinism, the Louvain theologians understood not only Molina’s doctrine stricto sensu but also the ideas of Lessius and others (Roegiers: 2003, 7).

In Spain, the contrast between the Dominican Domingo Bañez and the Jesuit Luis de Molina led to the constitution Congregatio de Auxiliis of Clement VIII in 1597. However, in 1607, Paul V interrupted this discussion, prohibiting further debate. Eventually, he “issued a decree forbidding the antagonists [viz., Dominicans and Jesuits] from calling one another’s views heretical or even temerarious, in the technical jargon of theological censure. The Holy See would, the Pope continued, resolve the issue at an opportune time. It stands as a tribute to the prudence of Paul V and his successor that this ‘opportune’ time has yet to arrive.” (Molina: 1988, viii). In these doctrinally turbulent years, Michael Baius, who died in 1589, was succeeded as Royal Professor of Sacred Scriptures by Thomas Stapleton (1535–1598), a Molinist scholar. Therefore, in what follows, references to the ‘Jesuit-minded’ scholar should be understood as referring to the Molinist tradition specifically rather than to Bellarmine’s view. After this introduction, which has shown the development of Baianism and its consequences, the focus can now turn to John Hessels. After having studied philosophy, achieving his degree in 1541, he devoted himself to the study of theology which he later taught at the Premonstratensian Abbey of Park, near Louvain. Moreover, he was “ordinary professor at the Faculty of Theology, and, ficationem, sed electionem iustificatio. Nemo enim eligitur, nisi iam distans ab illo qui reiicitur. Unde quod dictum est, Quia elegit eos Deus ante mundi constitutionem, non video quo modo dictum sit, nisi praescientia: id est, ex praescientia operum bonorum electi sumus ad vitam aeternam”, Lessius: 1610, 258. The reference is to Augustine: 1970, I, q. 2, 4, CCSL 44, 28.

154

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

from 1562, holder of the Royal Chair of Scholastic Theology. A few months before taking up this final position, Hessels had also become the first president of the ‘minor’ College of the Holy Spirit” (François: 2012, 249). Together with Cornelius Jansenius and his colleague and master, Michel de Bay, he participated in the Council of Trent in 1563–1564. He wrote some polemical works, but the present contribution focuses upon his exegetical works on the New Testament. They were all published posthumously in Louvain by Jean Bogard. In 1568, two volumes appeared, the first containing the commentary on the First Letter of John, while the second offered a commentary on both the First Letter of Paul to Timothy and the First Letter of Peter. In 1572, Bogard then published the work that is the subject of this study: the commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew. Wim François, who has analysed Hessels perhaps more than any other contemporary scholar, has shown Hessels’ strict anti-Pelagian Augustinianism (2007; 2012b). I shall also show Hessels’ anti-Pelagianism by analyzing passages of Hessels’ commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew in order to illustrate his view on predestination, grace, and free will. In particular, I shall refer to Matt 20:1–16. Delville has also studied this passage, arguing that there was a “strong Lutheran influence” on Hessels, especially concerning the theology of grace: En conclusion, si l’on replace Hessels dans les traditions d’interprétations, on est frappé de trouver chez lui une reprise forte de deux caractétistique luthériennes : la chronique du symbolisme propositionnel et la théologie de la grâce. Certes, il n’insiste pas comme Luther sur l’inutilité des mérites ; mais il adapte sa conception du petit nombre de sauvés (Delville: 2004, 473).

However, one may ask why we need to invoke Lutheran influences to account for Hessels’ anti-Pelagian Augustinianism. I would argue that the use of similar nonLutheran sources may have lead him to similar theological conclusions. Hessels first introduces the parable, explaining the first part of Matt 20:16, “So shall the last be first, and the first last” (Sic erunt novissimi primi, et primi novissimi). Hessels maintains that the householder is God who, in the last days, will bestow eternal life on the basis of his “great and mere liberality”. This statement already reveals the uselessness of human cooperation in the economy of salvation since God makes his choice only on the basis of his own will. In God’s act of liberality, there is no injustice, although it may happen that those who seemed important (‘great’, magni) during their worldly life could be the last ones in receiving his reward.168 The magni refers first to the Jews whom God loved in ancient times, 168 “Vult significare, quod sicuti contingit subinde operarios, qui a principio diei laboraverunt in recipienda mercede fieri alijs operarijs, qui novissimi venerunt ad opus, posteriores, prioresque spe magne mercedes novissime frustratio ob magnam paterfamilias liberalitatem erga novissimos operarios. His namque misericordiam faciendo alijs non facit iniustiam. Ita et summus ille paterfamilias Deus, in die iudicij sine ulla iniuria, eos qui in hoc

John Hessels the ‘anti-Pelagian’

155

giving them temporal goods, but who will not receive the last reward, eternal life, which God has bestowed only on the Gentiles who came at a second stage.169 Hessels further affirms that, among the multi, only a few will be saved, separated from the lost mass (perdita massa), and foreordained and elected for eternal life.170 Relying upon Augustine’s De praedestinatione sanctorum, a source that he often uses in his commentary, Hessels then explains there are two kinds of vocation. In particular, Hessels is referring to the passage in which the Church father distinguishes the vocation addressed to those who will not accept his call, such as the vocation offered to the Jews, and the vocation by means of which God calls those who are predestined, who receive a kind of certain vocation (quaedam certa vocatio) made on the basis of God’s purpose.171 The difference between God’s vocation to the Jews and God’s vocation to the Gentiles is not coincidental: the former were first, since called only for “this world”, while the Gentiles will be first, since called “because of faith”.172 In effect, without the “special grace of God” which divides the elect from the “lost and damned mass” (perdita et damnata massa) nobody could be saved. On the same page, Hessels refers twice to the “lost mass”, which he explains should be identified with humankind, revealing a pessimistic view of human nature, inevitably corrupted by sin and only capable of redemption through the special grace of God. Focusing upon the people who will be saved, they should be considered ‘few’

169

170 171

172

saeculo magni videbatur, vel esse saltem cupiebant, abiectissimis, et vilissimis quibusdam in hoc saeculo postponent, ideque ex magna, et mera sua liberalitate”, Hessels: 1572, 147r. “Ut in Iudaeis patebit, quia ab antiquo tempore conducti servirent a Deo, ut feruirent ei, non autem gentiles nisi in finem temporum, et tamen Iudeorum eiectorum coronas accipient, et cum fuerint hic novissimi, ibi primi erunt, et Iudaei novissimi, quorum cuilibet dicetur Tolle quod tuum est, et vade [Matt 20:14]: temporalia recepisti quondam illi esto contentus, discende a me in ignem aeternum: Dabit autem gentibus Dominus danarium aeternum sicut erunt novissimi primi, et primi novissimi, in die iudicij contingit parabola. Multi sunt vocati pauci vero electi”, Hessels: 1572, 147r. “Multi sunt vocati ad gratiam Christi (inter quos etiam ij reponuntur, qui primi sunt in hoc mundo) ex ijs tamen pauci sunt, quia a perdita massa, seu genere humano per gratiam Dei sunt separati et ad vitam aeternam praeordinati, atque electi”, Hessels: 1572, 147r. “Vocat enim Deus praedestinatos multos filios suos, ut eos faciat membra praedestinati unici Filii sui, non ea vocatione qua vocati sunt et qui noluerunt venire ad nuptias: illa quippe vocatione et Iudaei vocati sunt, quibus Christus crucifixus scandalum est, et Gentes, quibus crucifixus stultitia est; sed ea vocatione praedestinatos vocat, quam distinxit Apostolus, dicens ipsis vocatis Iudaeis et Graecis praedicare se Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. Sic enim ait: Ipsis autem vocatis [1Cor 1: 23–24.], ut illos ostenderet non vocatos: sciens esse quamdam certam vocationem eorum qui secundum propositum vocati sunt, quos ante praescivit et praedestinavit conformes imaginis Filii sui [Rom 8: 28–29.]”, Augustine: 1962, 16. 32, BA 24, 560. “Iudaei qui primi erant per vocationem in hoc mundo, ad Dei gratiam, ibi novissimi sunt futuri: Gentiles vero novissime vocati primi propter fidem”, Hessels: 1572, 147v.

156

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

not in comparison with humankind; rather, the ‘few’ are to be counted even among Christians, and even among sacerdotes.173 Hessels further explains why someone murmured (Matt 20:11) against the householder: he or she represents the condition of those called in the first eras of the world, as allegorically evidenced by the hours listed in the parable. The first is from Adam to Noah, the third from Noah to Abraham, the sixth from Abraham to Moses, the ninth from Moses to Christ, while the eleventh is from Christ to the end of the world. Those who lived before Christ ‘murmured’ against God, since, after Christ’ passion, God bestowed much more grace (tanta gratia effusa) on the world. Having lived before Christ, the ‘first’ have to wait longer before being raised than the ‘last’ who lived after Christ. Here, Hessels bases his interpretation on Augustine, with particular reference to De spiritu et littera.174 Hessels seems to consider Augustine as the only authoritative source in commenting on the Gospel according to Matthew. At least, no other Church father seems to have had the same influence on Hessels. For instance, he totally rejects the author of the Opus imperfectum, wrongly attributed to Chrysostom. In effect, the author of the Opus imperfectum interpreted the word procurator (‘steward’) as Christ. However, according to Hessels, this reading is impious: the procurator cannot be Christ, since Jesus is not a creature: on the contrary, he is the Lord, as God himself. By contrast, a ‘steward’ remains a kind of slave or servant.

173 “Apte vocat salvandos, electos, quia nisi speciali Dei gratia ex massa humanis generis perdita, et damnata, a caeteris secernerentur, et eligerentur, salvari non possent. Porro non tantum pauci sunt electi totius generis humani comparatione, sed et inter christianos pauci, imo ut arbitratur Divus Augustinus, inter sacerdotes”, Hessels: 1572, 147v. Again, Hessels says he is relying upon Augustine, referring to De praedestinatione sanctorum chapter 7 in particular as he writes in the margin. In that place, however, the Bishop of Hippo does not maintain that point. The only mention of sacerdotes in De praedestinatione sanctorum is in chapter 16: “Legimus in Actibus Apostolorum, quod cum dimissi a Iudaeis Apostoli venissent ad suos, et indicassent quanta eis sacerdotes et seniores dixerunt”, Augustine: 1962, 16.33, BA 24, 562. Unfortunately, it was not possible to consult an edition of this text contemporary with Hessels to check whether sacerdos appears also in chapter 7. 174 “Sed quaeritur tunc quomod iusti murmuraverunt, qui ad numerum electorum pertinuerunt. In primis hoc afferentes diluculum ab Adam usque ad Noe faciunt, Tertiam horam, a Noe usque ad Abraham, quando omnes ad otium idolatriae defluxerunt. Sextam ab Abraham usque ad Moysem. Nonam a Moyse usque ad Christum ad finem usque seculi: dicunt novissime vocatos prius mercedem accipere, quia, cum omnes sancti simul per resurrectionem a mortuis exitandi sint, merito illi novissimi praeponi dicuntur, quia minus eorum dilata est resurrectio: primi etenim illi parentes, sanctique patriarchae er prophetae plurimuos annos expectarunt: illi non item, qui nihilominus corporis simul cum eis resurrectionem sunt accepturi. Pro quo Augustinus consultatur. Murmur autem priorum operariorum sic intelligendum erit, ut quoniam tanta post Christi passionem gratia effusa est, merito videantur ratione humana murmurare potuisse sibi tamdiu vitam aeternam esse dilatam, posteriores vero pares sibi factos, imo quadam ratione (cum minus eorum dilata si resurrectio) priores”, Hessels: 1572, 147v–148r.

John Hessels the ‘anti-Pelagian’

157

In this instance, Hessels has the occasion to take his distance from a renowned Franciscan and Bishop of Deventer, Johannes Mahusius (ca. 1507–d. 1572) who edited the Opus imperfectum published in Antwerp in 1537. The Louvain theologian must have used that edition, though he disliked Mahusius’ interpretation of this passage. Mahusius claims to have ‘cleansed’ the work from the ‘feces’ of the Arians, but, on Hessels’ account, the Franciscan seems not to have done a very good job of it. Arians taught that Christ was created and, therefore, subordinate to God. Mahusius’ interpretation of the word procurator clearly affirms this heretical position. Hence, Hessels says, Mahusius has not completely ‘cleansed’ the Opus.175 After this brief excursus, Hessels again mentions a work of Augustine, De sancta virginitate, concerning the reward that the faithful will receive. Of course, this is eternal life. However, the glory of the saints is different due to their different merits.176 This is the only mention of human merits, useless for being saved, but useful for establishing ‘the rating’ for the final contemplation of God. Nevertheless, Hessels recalls God’s unquestionable judgment: there is no injustice in God if he elects someone without merits and, at the same time, he damns someone in the same condition.177 Continuing the analysis of the commentary on Matthew 20, Hessels clearly states that Christ’s redemption through his death was not intended for everyone but only for the elect, chosen before creation: “non quidem pro omnibus, sed pro Dei electis tantum, nam non omnes mortis eius fructus percipiunt” (Hessels: 1572, 150v). He maintains this by analyzing verse 29 “and when they went out from Jericho, a great multitude followed him” (Hessels: 1572, 150v). Again, Augustine stands as the authoritative starting point of Hessels’ study although the reference to the Bishop of Hippo is not direct. In fact, Hessels refers to Prosper of Aquitaine’s (ca. 390 – ca. 463) Pro 175 “Advertendum est procuratorem de spiritu sancto intelligi non posse, is [Christus] enim non est servuus, sed Dominus, quia non est creatus: et Commentarius ille, qui opus imperfectum Chrysostomi in Matthaeum inscribitur sic explicans plane impius est, quem frater Mahusius minorita Aldernardensis sacrae Theologiae doctor, se ab Arrianorum foecibus repurgasse dicit: in hac tamen materia, non omnis repurgatum videtur”, Hessels: 1572, 148r. The reference is to Mahusius’ 1537 edition of John Chrysostom’s work. 176 “Quomodo omnes sanctes accepturi sint unum, et eundem denarium, nempe vitam aeternam, cum tamen futurum sit, ut pro diversitate meritorum diversa sit gloria sanctorum, tractat Augustinus libro de sancta virginitate cap. 26”, Hessels: 1572, 148r. Hessels specifically refers to this passage “tam quia ipsa vita aeterna pariter erit omnibus sanctis, aequalis denarius omnibus attributus est; quia vero in ipsa vita aeterna distincte fulgebunt lumina meritorum, multae mansiones sunt [John 14:2] apud Patrem. Ac per hoc, in denario quidem non impari non vivet alius alio prolixius; in multis autem mansionibus honoratur alius alio clarius”, Augustine: 1865d, 26. 26, PL 40, 395–428, col. 410. 177 “Amice non facio tibi iniuriam, tolle quod tuum est … docens [Augustinus] non esse iniquum, si ex massa perdita generis humanis, quosdam sine ullis eorum meritis eligat ad vitam aeternam, alijs omnino parem habentibus causam relictis in aeterna damnationem”, Hessels: 1572, 148v.

158

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

Augustino responsiones ad capitula obiectionum Vincentianarum, which defended Augustine’s position on God’s grace and predestination.178 By referring to Prosper, Hessels maintains that the saved will be few only in comparison with the number of the damned people, but the number of the elect in se is great.179 Commenting on Matt 23:4, “For they [Pharisees] bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them”, Hessels finds solid arguments for the necessity of God’s grace. Christ confutes the Pharisees since they taught that knowledge of the law is sufficient in order to obey God’s commandments. The contradiction of the Pharisees appears evident in Hessels’ view. Without the grace of Christ, nobody can observe God’s mandata. This is what the New Testament teaches: only “the just man liveth by faith” [Rom 1: 17; Gal 3:11; Hebr 10: 38].180 Another interesting passage is the Parable of the Talents, in particular Matt 25:14: “For even as a man going into a far country, called his servants, and delivered to them his goods”. Hessels comments on these words by first saying that God does not bestow his gifts, which, according to the Louvain scholar, are the three theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity, on the basis of the person’s natural capability (capacitas). For instance, if someone has a good physical and mental constitution, that does not mean that that person receives such gifts. The appearance of the body is not representative of the pureness of the soul.181 Moreover, he asserts that in no way could this verse be interpreted as saying that people might make good use of their free will. Nothing is good in human free will in itself, unless one has previously received the grace of Christ, argues the Louvain theologian.182 178 Prosper of Aquitaine: 1861, PL 51, 177–179. Hessels mentions Prosper’s De articulis Augustino falso impositis, which is the Responsiones ad capitula obiectionum Vincentianarum, cf. Molina: 1988, 245. In particular, Hessels refers to the first article “Quod Dominus noster Jesus Christus non pro omnium hominum salute et redemptione sit passus”. 179 “Electi multi dicuntur licet in comparatione reproborum pauci sint quia secundum se considerati multi sunt”, Hessels: 1572, 150v. 180 “Reprehendit Dominus modum eorum docendi pessimum, quo docebant sufficere ad mandatorum Dei observationem legis cognitionem, unde recte a Domino audiunt: Digito autem suo nolunt ea movere [Mt 23:4], ne in minimis quidem perficere: sine enim gratia Iesu Christi mandata servari non possunt, cum scriptum sit: Iustus ex fide vivit”, Hessels: 1572, 169r–v. 181 “Non tamen ex hac interpretatione existimandum est dominum praecipuam gratiam suam, utpote fidem, spem charitatem secundum naturalem capacitatem dare, quia non exacte exigenda sunt quae in parabolis ponuntur, ut omnia in rem significatam quadrent: non enim semper verum est quod qui ingeniosus, et sano corpore existit maiorem habet fidem, spem aut charitatem”, Hessels: 1572, 209r. 182 “Nullo autem pacto audiendi sunt, qui istam virtutem bonis propriam usum liberi arbitrij esse intelligunt, quem homo proprijs liberi arbitrij viribus sine gratia Dei ex se habeat, quo saltem de congruo dona spiritalia et gratiam Dei percipere meratur: nullus enim est bonus in homine ex seipso liberi arbitrij usus, qui tale meritum habere possit nisi gratia Christi praeveniatur”, Hessels: 1572, 209r.

John Hessels the ‘anti-Pelagian’

159

However, the severity of God’s judgment should not be a cause of sloth and negligence. Rather, it should induce one to solicitude and diligence even though the Gospel reveals that God will redistribute his gifts in the last days. This appears clear in Matt 25:28 “Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath ten talents”. What the damned received in their worldly life will be given to the elect, who will enjoy the fruits of the good works performed by the damned. The same happens in the contrary case: the bad actions of the elect will be transferred to the impious. This ‘exchange’ between the merits of the impious and the demerits of the elect is ‘congruous’ since this “remuneration of the others’ goods” is the accidental (hence unnecessary) price for access to beatitude.183 Thanks to this analysis of Hessels’s commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, it has been demonstrated that the Louvain theologian made an extensive use of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings, mainly referring to De praedestinatione sanctorum. Following the bishop of Hippo, Hessels maintained the eternal predestination of the elect who receive grace in their worldly life so that they can do good. In any case, they do not achieve merits by performing good actions out of their own effort. Rather, they are already saved and destined to eternal life, according to God’s decision, and so they perform good works.184 It is worth recalling that, according to Hessels, Christ did not die for everybody but only for the elect chosen by God. Having explained the position of the anti-Pelagian Augustinian scholars, I shall now focus on its main opponent, who relied directly on Luis de Molina: the English refugee Thomas Stapleton. In fact, given their proximity to the British Isles, the university cities of Louvain and Douai attracted English Catholic exiles who had to leave England from 1558 onwards.

183 “Divini iudici severitatis solicitudinis et diligentiae nobis debet esse causa, non socordiae et negligentiae … Damnatorum bona in die extremi iudicij, electis conferuntur, quia bonum quod in impijs invenitur, iustos delectabit, et gaudebunt de bonis operibus quae facta sunt ab his qui non perseveraverunt, deque bonis officis quae fecerunt et habuerunt impij ac infedeles … sicuti e contrario quisquis in pereuntium societate reperetur, omnium malorum etiam ab electis aliquando sanctorum particeps erit: electorum enim prava opera in societate impiorum in qua facta sunt, manent. Quia vero ista bonorum alienorum remuneratio, est quasi quoddam accidentale praemium accedens ad beatitudinem, congrue talentum servi inutilis donatur habenti decem talenta … accidentalis enim gloria principali beatitudini per hunc ordinem accedere denotatur”, Hessels: 1572, 210v–211r. 184 Cf. Hessels: 1572, 209r–211r.

160

2.5

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

Stapleton’s ‘Antidote’ to John Calvin: Luis de Molina’s ‘Middle Knowledge’185

2.5.1 Short Biography Thomas Stapleton (François: 2010; Richards: 1967; O’Connel: 1964; Albion: 1946) was one of several Catholic scholars who moved from England to the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands at the beginning of the Elizabethan Era (1558–1603). When the English Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy of 1558, it conferred the title of “Supreme Governor of the Church of England” on Queen Elizabeth after a brief reinstatement of Catholicism during the reign of Queen Mary I. The Habsburg Spanish Netherlands were, therefore, a place of refuge for Catholic people coming from the British Isles. Scholars, in particular, preferred to base themselves in the University town of Louvain (Albion: 1946, 897)186 and, later, in Douai, following the establishment of a university there. After having studied theology in Oxford and having become holder of a prebend in Chichester Cathedral, Thomas Stapleton refused to swear the Oath of Supremacy (1558)187 and, “soon after the accession of Elizabeth … retired with his father and family to Louvain and applied himself to the study of theology” (Albion: 1946, 901). In 1569, Stapleton moved to Douai, where he collaborated with another English exile, William Allen (1532–1594), in the opening of the English College. In 1571, he began teaching as a professor of divinity at the university, a position that he held until 1582, except for a brief period in 1576–1577 when an anti-Spanish faction took possession of the city during the turbulent years of the Dutch Revolt (François: 2010, 131). In this short intervening period, he visited Rome for the second time (following his first pilgrimage in 1562; cf. O’Connel: 1964, 28). After having resigned his professorship and canonry in 1582, Stapleton began his novitiate in the Society of Jesus in Douai. Stapleton recalls this period in his Compendium breve, et verum, admitting that, after almost two years, he “succumbed under the burner’ of the Jesuit education”.188 185 This chapter is derived in part from the article “Luis de Molina’s Middle Knowledge: Thomas Stapleton’s Antidote to John Calvin” published in Reformation and Renaissance Review, 17 May 2016, © Taylor & Francis, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. 1080/14622459.2016.1191826. 186 Regarding the academic relationship between Louvain and England, Oxford in particular, see among others Fordyce: 1933. 187 François: 2009, 397. Also, François, 2010, 129–140. In this chapter, I shall show the precise Jesuit inspiration in Stapleton’s works, following the suggestion by François in the conclusion of his latter article. 188 The date is an object of discussion. According to Albion, Stapleton began his novitiate in 1582, cf. Albion: 1946, 904. However, according to O’Connel, Stapleton “presented himself to the Jesuits at Douay” in 1585, cf. O’ Connel: 1964, 41. François follows Albion since the

Stapleton’s ‘Antidote’ to John Calvin: Luis de Molina’s ‘Middle Knowledge’

161

Throughout his career as a scholar, Thomas Stapleton wrote Bible commentaries in order to fight the biblical expositions of John Calvin, as well as those of Theodor Beza.189 Stapleton considered these two Reformed theologians to be the main polemical targets of his Antidota.190 Printed in Antwerp and in Lyons between 1595 and 1598, the Antidota were scholarly commentaries on large parts of the New Testament – on the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Letters of Paul to the Romans and to the Corinthians. Stapleton also published homiletic expositions, the most famous being the Promptuaria (Antwerp, 1591–1594) in order to aid priests in the preparation of their sermons (Richards: 1967, 187–199). Because the influence of Calvinism was very strong in the Low Countries and in England at the time,191 he regarded the training of clergymen in sound Catholic principles to be of the utmost importance. Only in this way could Calvin’s ideas regarding predestination, grace, and free will be countered. Given that the theoretical assumptions of the Antidota are more relevant than the practical teachings of Promptuaria to this chapter, I shall now focus upon a pericope taken from his Antidota evangelica in evangelium sancti Matthaei, published in 1595. Through the reading of this selected passage, Matt 11:21, I shall show the Jesuit, or rather Molinist, influence on this work, which is especially interesting given the primacy of Augustine’s authority in Early Modern Louvain.

Englishman started his novitiate after having taught controversial theology for eleven years, and, in 1582, William Estius replaced him as professor of Controversial Theology at the University of Douai, see François: 2013, 50, n. 45. In the present state of knowledge, what we know concerning Thomas Stapleton’s time in the Jesuit seminary cannot be more than what Stapleton writes in his Compendium verum, et brevem: “Experior vires annis de more duobus/ Hisque fere expletis oneri succumbo”, Stapleton: 1620, vol. 1, iij. 189 By searching for every occurrence of Bez* in the DLCR, the name of Theodor Beza occurs 74 times in Stapleton’s Antidota Evangelica in Evangelium Matthaei. In particular, the Englishman refers mainly to Beza’s Confessio Christianae Fidei (1560) and Annotationes maiores in Novum Testamentum (1594). Concerning Calvin, his name appears 1096, searching for all its cases. Mainly, Stapleton refers to Institutiones christianae religionis (1559) and to the Commentarii in Harmoniam ex Tribus Evangelistis Compositam (1563). 190 Even in his Compendium verum, et breve, Thomas Stapleton refers to Calvin and Beza, declaring the aim of his Antidota: “Antidota aggredior, diris aptanda venenis,/ Quae passim haeretici scriptis sparsere sacratis,/ Impius imprimis Calvinus, Bezaque posthinc,/ Quinque tomos scripsi …”, Stapleton: 1620, iij. Moreover, Stapleton referred to Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563), De coena Domini and De magistratibus in Loci Communes Theologiae Sacrae Scripturae (1560), and to Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586), Examen Concilii Tridentini (1565). Finally, Stapleton just mentioned by name Martin Luther (1483–1546), Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) and Huldrych Zwingli (1483–1531). 191 For instance, Stapleton reported: “Hinc erexerunt Calvinistae per totam Galliam, & in Hollandia, sicut & Anabaptistae … Puritani in Anglia Calvini sententiam sequuntur”, Stapleton: 1620, Matt 18: 17–8, 55.

162

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

2.5.2 A Revealing Title Thomas Stapleton’s intent behind the Antidota can already be deduced from the title: to provide an ‘antidote’ to the ‘venom of heresy’, and, in particular, to the heresy of Calvinism. The author wishes to explain the genuine meaning of Jesus’ words so that the faithful can understand them in the right way.192 The methodology used is simple but effective: he explains the meaning of a pericope in the light of Catholic faith, quoting Augustine as his main ancient source. Although he refers to the bishop of Hippo more than anyone else, Stapleton’s view is no less indebted to the Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina and his work, De liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia praedestinatione et reprobatione Concordia (1588), as I shall show. Before getting into the details of Stapleton’s reliance on Molina, I shall briefly recall John Calvin’s concepts of prescience and predestination, which are at issue in the passage of the Antidota under discussion here. Although Stapleton does not cite Calvin’s Institutes in this specific pericope, referring instead to the Harmony,193 it seems clear that Stapleton has a specific chapter of the Institutes in mind: Of the eternal election, by which God has predestined some to salvation and others to destruction. There, Calvin offers a synopsis of his thought concerning God’s election. With regard to prescience, Calvin asserts that it is the knowledge of all things that always were, and ever continue, under his eye; that to his knowledge there is no past or future, but all things are present, and indeed so present, that it is not merely the idea of them that is before him (as those objects are which we retain in our memory), but that he truly sees and contemplates them as actually under his immediate inspection. This prescience extends to the whole circuit of the world, and to all creatures.194

Calvin further explains what is commonly called the doctrine of ‘double predestination’: God, from eternity and only according to his own judgment, decrees those who are to be saved and those who are to be damned.195 A similar view had been rejected during the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent in the decree De iustificatione; even though the Council fathers stressed the priority of God’s 192 “Haec de voce & verbo Evangelii, eiusque vero sensu contra pestilentissimam haereticorum depravationem praemittere operae precium duximus, ut quis si Evangelii finis ac scopus Lector orthodoxus intelligat”, Stapleton: 1620, 4. 193 I used John Calvin’s Harmony edited by D. W. Torrance / T. F. Torrance: 1980. 194 I used John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion edited by McNeill: 1960, here III.21.5. 195 “God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. I maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment”, Calvin: 1960, III 21.7

Stapleton’s ‘Antidote’ to John Calvin: Luis de Molina’s ‘Middle Knowledge’

163

grace, they admitted the necessity of human free will in the process of salvation. However, the Council avoided giving a clear interpretation of the relationship between God’s predestination and human actions, leaving Catholic theologians with the difficult task of solving this problem. In the present state of knowledge, Wim François is possibly the only scholar who has taken an interest in Thomas Stapleton’s theory of predestination, grace, and human free will as found in his Bible commentaries. François (2009) first positions Stapleton within Louvain’s Augustinian-minded school, since the Englishman uses the bishop of Hippo as the most authoritative source for his works. However, “his interpretation of Augustine is moderate so that he keeps at a distance from the, in the meantime, condemned Baianism” (François: 2009, 385–386). However, by continuing to read Stapleton, François (2010) was able to find clear elements of Molinist teachings in the Antidota apostolica in epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos, in passages dealing with the postlapsarian person and his possibility of salvation. Very recently, Sheils (2017) has situated Stapleton within the Augustinian-minded framework; however, he bases his interpretation on François’ first article on Stapleton (2009) without taking into account the latter’s second contribution. Although Augustine remains Stapleton’s most authoritative source in these passages, Molina is never mentioned,196 François maintains that Stapleton was in fact looking for a concordance between the ‘authorized Augustinian-minded tradition’ and ‘Jesuit Molinism’ (François: 2010, 140).

2.5.3 Matt 11:21. Chorazin and Bethsaida While Stapleton shows his dependence on Molina in several places,197 perhaps the clearest example comes from his comment on Matt 11:21. There Christ says: “Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes”. According to Stapleton, Christ is here speaking about the contingency of things, viz. the fact that an event might have occurred in 196 François (2010) refers to Stapleton’s analysis of Rom 5:12; 5:18–9; 6:12; 6.20; 7:7–13; 10:5–8. As shown below, in the Antidota apostolica in epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos, commenting on Rom 11:29, Stapleton quotes Molina directly by referring to his middle knowledge theory. 197 Another important passage in the Antidota is the comment on Matt 23:37 where, again, Stapleton quotes Molina, with a parallel passage in the Promptuarium Catholicum super Evangelium in Festis Sanctorum where the Spanish Jesuit is cited in the marginal note. However, I shall postpone the analysis of Stapleton’s comment on Matt 23:37 in his Promptuarium for the third chapter. Concerning Matt 11:21, Stapleton does not analyse this passage in his Promptuaria, except for a brief mention in the Promptuarium Morale in Evangelia Dominicalia, Pars Hyemalis (1620), 83. In any event, this latter example does not present interesting elements for this research.

164

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

the past but did not (i. e., the possible repentance of Tyre and Sidon) or that an event might happen in the future (i. e., the repentance of Bethsaida and Chorazin). He is thereby also speaking about the freedom of human action. Thus, in Stapleton’s opinion, the main topic of this passage is the relation between God’s foreknowledge and human free will. With this interpretation in hand, Stapleton accuses Calvin of having distorted the real and genuine meaning of Jesus’ words198 as explicated in Calvin’s Harmony. There, Calvin argues that Christ is speaking humano more: he is using a simple metaphor to indicate how deep the sin of Chorazin and Bethsaida was, saying that it was even worse than that of Tyre and Sidon.199 Indeed, Tyre and Sidon would have repented if there had been miracles while the other two cities refused to repent even though they had Christ’s preaching. Hence, the sin of Chorazin and Bethsaida was worse than that of Tyre and Sidon. In the first case, there was only ignorance, while in the second maliciousness – with God’s irremediable contempt. However, Stapleton sees Calvin’s analysis as a distortion of Christ’s words. Stapleton suspects that Calvin only argues that Christ is speaking humano more because he, Calvin, is unwilling to accept the idea that Christ would speak about human free will, even though this seems to be clearly shown through Christ’s reference to the choice of the citizens of Chorazin and Bethsaida not to believe. Stapleton argues that this passage of the Gospel simply does not give support to Calvin’s view because it provides a concrete example of human free will – ‘infallible foreordination’ to use Stapleton’s expression – rather than of God’s double predestination. For this reason, Calvin has to maintain that Christ is speaking humano more, accommodating his speech to men. Therefore, according to the Englishman, Calvin distorts the real meaning of Jesus’ words in this instance; for Stapleton, they are not a kind of metaphor, but a vehicle of true teachings, which Stapleton calls documenta.200 In this way, the Englishman has the opportunity to explain his view regarding the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and human free will. Yet, the major part of his argumentation, divided into seven steps, relies completely upon Luis de Molina. Indeed, Stapleton consistently (though not always correctly) points out the references to Concordia (1588), referring readers to that text for a more complete treatment of this theme.

198 Stapleton: 1620, Matt 11:21, 31. Commenting on this verse, Stapleton does not mention Calvin’s Institutes, but refers instead to the Harmony. 199 Calvin: 1980, vol. 2, 15–16. On the use of the expression humano more, see for instance the chapter Accommodatio Dei by Jon Balserak in Selderhuis: 2009, 372–373. 200 Stapleton: 1620, Matt 11:21, 32.

Stapleton’s ‘Antidote’ to John Calvin: Luis de Molina’s ‘Middle Knowledge’

165

2.5.4 Matt 11:21. God’s Omniscience and Human Free Will The first lesson concerns God’s omniscience. According to Stapleton, God’s knowledge does not depend upon the object of knowledge actually existing; thus, he is able to foresee not only what will actually be, but also what might have been in the future. Indeed, in Stapleton’s opinion, there are two ways to know something: 1st The “knowledge of vision (merely free)”, which depends on the actual existence of the object of knowledge. In this case, God can have “knowledge of vision” of future events only if they will actually be realized. In this instance, Stapleton also makes reference to Augustine’s De praedestinatione sanctorum when he says that, through his foreknowledge, God “foreknew what would be, not what would not be” (Augustine: 1992, 249). Therefore, the “knowledge of vision” is the knowledge of the entities that God freely chose to create. 2nd The “knowledge of simple intelligence (merely natural)”, which does not depend on the actual existence of the object of knowledge. In this case the knowledge depends entirely on the subject who is able to have comprehension of what is not as well as what might be. In other words, the “knowledge of simple intelligence” is God’s knowledge of all possible entities that are in his mind. So, concerning the future contingents,201 in this case what Tyre and Sidon would have done if there had been preaching and miracles, God cannot have knowledge 201 Prior to introducing Molinism, its theoretical premise should be recalled briefly by explaining the difference between diachronic contingency and synchronic contingency. Cf. Duns Scotus: 1994, 24–ff. This is actually a necessary tool for comprehending Molina’s theory of middle knowledge. Aristotle considers time as an infinite dimension: there is no beginning or end. Moreover, he also maintains the principle of identity or non–contradiction. Therefore, something could not be and at the same time not be: for instance, at the moment t1 it could be a or –a, but not a and –a together. This is the so-called diachronic contingency since any potency is actualized through time, by means of change. However, John Duns Scotus (1265/66–1308) thought of another model, defined synchronic contingency, making a difference between logical possibility and factual reality: very briefly, although something really exists, at a logical level the possibility of its opposite at the same moment is still preserved: this is “an irreducible ontological quality of the things themselves” Duns Scotus: 1994, 30. Recalling the previous example, at t1, although it is a, it could also have been –a. Applying this principle to theology, we could say that by means of his creation, God actualizes a particular potency, but what is created still maintains the logical possibility to be opposite to itself. Therefore, the factual world that was created is just one of the possible worlds and actually the world might even not have been. Therefore, according to Scotus, although it is determinate, immutable and infallible, God’s knowledge does not limit the logical possibility of something to be or not to be. Molina “show[s] some familiarity with Scotus’ innovative theory of synchronic contingency”, but he seems not have “managed to

166

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

of vision, precisely because the object of knowledge does not exist. It is merely an uncreated entity or an un-actualized potency. However, he does have knowledge of simple intelligence. Therefore, God has comprehension of these non-existent futures, meaning that he is able to foresee all possible parallel futures, including those events that will not be. Stapleton assumes that Christ has such knowledge of “simple intelligence” that Tyre and Sidon might have been converted if there had been miracles. Thus, Jesus refers to the possible effect of a cause that had not occurred. The dichotomy between these two kinds of divine knowledge is by no means an original development of Stapleton’s, as he freely admitted. Rather, it is a development of Luis de Molina.202 In fact, the Spanish Jesuit elaborates on these two ways of knowing – the “knowledge of simple intelligence” and the “knowledge of vision” – linking them together through an intermediate type of knowledge he calls “middle knowledge”. On the basis of this knowledge, God is able to foresee what men may freely do in the infinite variety of every possible circumstance. However, prior to dealing with this latter kind of knowledge, it is necessary to discuss the meaning of eternity in Molina because this concept is closely linked to that of foreknowledge since God has foreknowledge of human actions in his eternal existence. If eternity is considered to be that condition in which all things are present, as Calvin maintained, there would not be space for human free will since people’s actions, which lie in the future, are actually present in God’s eternal existence. Therefore, wishing to maintain human free will, Molina could not accept this view of eternity, as that “whole, simultaneous, incorporate the metaphysical framework belonging to the theory”, Dekker: 1995, 453. On Scotus’ theory of contingency, see also Frost: 2010. 453). In any case, the Spanish Jesuit maintains a view similar to that of Scotus. For instance, the Jesuit affirms that two opposite propositions are not contradictory when thought in eternity, although in time they could be true only at different times. Moreover, Molina maintained that eternity does not include the future since the future has yet to come. Therefore, God’s foreknowledge of the future is contingent, precisely because the future does not exist, and, on Molina’s account, “when things are produced in time, they are simultaneously produced in eternity; therefore, things cannot exist in eternity before they exist in time”, Craig: 1988, 171. 202 “God’s knowledge of things that are still contingently future in time does not, properly speaking, have the character of knowledge of vision [in Latin scientia visionis] until those things actually exist in time; rather, in the meantime, it has the character of a knowledge of simple intelligence [scientia simplicis intelligentiae], because the things that are its objects do not yet exist. But since the proper duration of that knowledge is eternity, and because in eternity it coexists with future time and those things will in the end be present, God’s knowledge may simply be called a knowledge of vision in relation to all the things that will exist in any interval of time”, Molina: 1988, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 49, 127. Italics in the text. Already Thomas Aquinas dealt with scientia visionis and scientia simplicis intelligentiae (cf. Commentary on the Sentences I, d, 39, q. 1 art. 2) but he did not introduce the concept of middle knowledge developed by Molina upon which Stapleton relies, as I shall show in the pages below. In particular, in the passage of the Antidota analysed here, Stapleton mentions Aquinas just once, while he always quotes Molina.

Stapleton’s ‘Antidote’ to John Calvin: Luis de Molina’s ‘Middle Knowledge’

167

perfect possession of a limitless life”,203 thus the entire extension of time developed simultaneously. He did not consider it to be an eternal present, existing without any difference between past and future. In fact, according to Molina, eternity can be conceived of as not containing the future. He explained this concept by way of a geometrical example. Taking a point x to represent simple

eternity, I can draw a circle around it to represent time. The circumference has a starting point a, the beginning of the world. Thus, each instant of time is represented by a singular point on the temporal line, up until b, the present. Obviously, the arc ab is the past. God, from his eternal condition x, has a “knowledge of vision” about this part of time, since each instant has already existed. Translated in geometrical terms, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the centre and each point of the circle already drawn. By virtue of this correspondence, God knows with “knowledge of vision” since there is an object of knowledge. So, the centre of the circle x is simple eternity to which each point of the circle corresponds, viz. the passing time, but it can correspond to all indivisibles only when all points on the circumference have been drawn. Hence, where there is no one-to-one correspondence, it means that the ‘future’ still has to be delineated (cf. Molina: 1988, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 49, 125–126). Although in his simple-eternal condition x, God is able to foresee future events, he cannot have “knowledge of vision” since these events still have yet to be. Yet God still has a sure foreknowledge thereof even if this certitude cannot be given by the existence of the object itself. God is still able to see something that is uncertain and fallible thanks to his omniscience.204 This is possible thanks to another kind of knowledge, the 203 Boethius: 2008, 5.6.9–11, 169. Calvin’s idea of eternity, as it is expressed in the abovementioned definition of prescience, is the same as that described by Boethius. 204 “Thus, while the full force of created free choice is preserved, and while the contingency of things remains altogether intact in the same way as if there were no foreknowledge in God,

168

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

so-called “middle knowledge”, which is a sort of intuition205 capable of knowing the free will of everybody and the ways in which it will be used. This knowledge is not free since it is antecedent to God’s voluntary act of creation. Precisely because of that, men conserve their free will. Thus, it is not God, but man who actualizes a particular potency. When this happens, God knows what a person will do, but he knows in such a way that his knowledge leaves human action unaltered. Therefore to summarize, there are three types of knowledge: a) “Knowledge of simple intelligence merely natural”, or omniscience. God knows all potencies, both those that will be actualized and those that will not be actualized. This knowledge is natural in the sense that it is constitutive of God’s own being. Thus, it is prior to any intervention of his will into acts of choosing what should be created or not (cf. Molina: 1988, 47). b) “Middle knowledge”, or foreknowledge of future contingents. This knowledge is not natural in the sense that it is not constitutive of God’s own being. Thus, it cannot be focused upon all potencies. Through “middle knowledge”, God has certain foreknowledge of those events that would occur in the future even though their existence is not necessary. This knowledge is based on the “knowledge of simple intelligence merely natural” but with a more restricted focus. It is directed not toward potencies simpliciter, but only toward those potencies that would be actualized. Moreover, this knowledge is antecedent to God’s will in the sense that He knows a particular event even though He has not (yet) decided whether He will create it or not, or, more accurately, whether He will actualize it or not.206 c) “Knowledge of vision merely free”, or knowledge of “all actual or absolute future contingents” (Molina: 1988, 47). This knowledge is free precisely beGod knows future contingents with absolute certainty – not, to be sure, with a certainty that stems from the object, which is in itself contingent and really able to turn out otherwise, but rather with a certainty that flows from the depth and from the infinite and unlimited perfection of the knower, who in Himself knows with certainty an object that in its own right is uncertain and deceptive”, Molina: 1988, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 51, 157. Italics in the text. 205 The Italian philosopher Piero Martinetti defined the middle knowledge as “una specie di divinazione misteriosa” (“a kind of mysterious divination”), Martinetti: 1928, 48. Although this book is quite old, this scholar was able to explain very well, and in a few lines, Molina’s theory of scientia media. For English and more updated literature on middle knowledge, see Cruz Cruz: 2013, 102, n. 42; also, the chapter devoted to middle knowledge by Freddoso in Molina: 1988, 46–61. Moreover, Le Bachelet: 1931 still remains important. 206 “Perhaps someone will ask if such middle knowledge should be called free or called natural. To this question it must be replied, first that such knowledge should in no way be called free, both because it is prior to any free act of God’s will and also because it was not within God’s power to know through this type of knowledge anything other than what He in fact knew. Second, it should likewise not be said that this knowledge is natural in the sense of being so innate to God that He could not have known the opposite of that which He knows through it”, Molina: 1988, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 52, 168. Italics in the text.

Stapleton’s ‘Antidote’ to John Calvin: Luis de Molina’s ‘Middle Knowledge’

169

cause it depends only on God’s will. ‘Freedom’ should therefore be understood as a voluntary act of choice without external conditioning. Molina’s notion of freedom corresponds to the concept of αὐτονομία. Thus, “free knowledge” follows the voluntary act of actualizing (or not actualizing) a particular potency. “Knowledge of simple intelligence”, by contrast, is natural because it is an integral part of the divine nature, and it acts before the will. So, in a logical order, God a) sees all possible potencies through his “knowledge of simple intelligence”; b) foreknows what men would decide to do, or which potencies would be actualized, through his “middle knowledge”; c) knows the actualized potency with “knowledge of vision” (Gaskin: 1993, 412–413). Molina’s theory of threefold knowledge is fully embraced by Stapleton in the Antidota. An additional proof of this is given by his comment on Rom 11: 29: “For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance”. Here, Stapleton provides a short synopsis of the “middle knowledge” theory by giving a further explanation of Molina’s system. Somehow, he also completes the scheme he had already presented in the comment on Matt 11: 21 where he had introduced only the notions of “knowledge of vision” and “knowledge of simple intelligence”, leaving aside “middle knowledge”. In the comment on Rom 11: 29, Stapleton recalls that in God there is a “natural knowledge” of all potencies, a “free knowledge” of those potencies which will be actualized, since they are the consequence of a free act of God, and, in between these two, there is a “middle knowledge” of those potencies that ex hypothesi would be actualized. Indeed, in se, it is not necessary that a particular potency becomes act, and in fact its opposite could also occur, but that potency will be actualized since it is part of an order of cause-effect. That is to say, on the one hand, that the necessity of these potencies is not absolute, but conditional; on the other hand, that the actualization of a particular potency is foreseeable. This “middle knowledge” is neither “free”, since antecedent to any free act of God, nor “natural”, since, through it, God knows both the potencies which will be actualized and their opposites (Stapleton: 1595, Rom 11:29, 701). In conclusion, Molina and Stapleton seem to want to maintain that God’s eternal decision to actualize a particular temporal line depends on his prevision of free human decisions. However, in another instance, on the basis of Molina’s view, Stapleton affirms that the reason for God’s choice is inscrutable. Indeed, according to Molina, God gives his assistance, not on the basis of his prevision of men’s use of their free will. In other words, there is no causal-effectual relation between human actions and God’s aids. Rather, God acts only according to his own will. The first lesson which Stapleton deduces from Matt 11:21 needs a long exposition, being the notion of “middle knowledge” which is difficult to explain but necessary for comprehending the remaining six documenta. The second lesson

170

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

which Stapleton infers from this pericope has to do with the strict correlation between free will and human acts. Indeed, Christ said: “Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes”. Stapleton explains that Christ was imputing a graver sin to Chorazin and Bethsaida than he was to Tyre and Sidon, since Chorazin and Bethsaida chose, in conformity with their free will, not to believe. According to Stapleton, it is not possible to commit a sin without freely consenting to it. In sin, human free will is necessarily involved. Stapleton explains this concept by directly quoting Molina’s Concordia, and he further exhorts the reader to turn to this book in order to have a more complete overview of the problem.207 In particular, Molina affirms not only that Chorazin and Bethsaida chose not to believe, but further remarks that God did not deny his assistance to them, namely by miracles and preaching. Otherwise, it would not have been possible to blame them for failing to obey God. Here, Molina refers to Augustine’s explanation that when someone fails to believe, the fault is not on the side of God, but on the side of men, because God cannot deny himself.208 The third lesson tries to explain the efficacy of miracles and the reason why they are useful for converting some people but not all. In fact, given the same divine aids, some choose to believe in Christ while others do not. For example, miracles and preaching were not successful in converting Chorazin and Bethsaida, although Tyre and Sidon would have believed if they had received the same aids as those received by Chorazin and Bethsaida. Stapleton refers to Molina in order to provide a complete overview of the question. First, Molina maintains that, although there is no merit before prevenient grace, much depends upon free will. Conversion to faith in Christ is not only to be attributed to God’s instilling his grace, but also to human free will, as well as to external aids, namely miracles and the preaching of the Gospel.209 Therefore, in order to obtain eternal salvation, there is a strict relationship between prevenient grace on the one hand and human cooperation on the other. In support of this, Molina refers to Christ’s words: “No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day” (John 6:44). Based on this, Molina argues that nobody can reach salvation unless God has led him to conversion, with the assistance of prevenient grace, and the person has cooperated through his own 207 Stapleton: 1620, Matt 11: 21, 32. 208 Molina was referring to Augustine: 1954b, 53. 9, CCSL 36, 456. 209 “Tertium ex hoc loco documentum, quod cum aequali Dei auxilio alius interdum convertitur, alius non convertitur: de quo vide eundem q. & art. eisdem, disput. 12. Quae enim auxilia gratiae apud Iudaeos istos non valuerunt, eadem apud Tyrios & Sidonios valitura fuisse Christus affirmat”, Stapleton: 1620, Matt 11: 21, 32. Cf. Molina: 1595, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 12, 38.

Stapleton’s ‘Antidote’ to John Calvin: Luis de Molina’s ‘Middle Knowledge’

171

free agreement (cf. Molina: 1595, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 12, 37–40). In a separate passage, Molina further clarifies his position, explaining the temporal and logical connection between grace, free will, and salvation. Molina argues that when God gives prevenient grace to someone, this person accepts it and follows Christ, although he or she can also choose not to accept it. The previous condition, namely prevenient grace, of this subsequent consequence, namely conversion, does not remove the freedom from the person vis-à-vis this consequence. It still depends upon his free choice through the act of belief (cf. Molina 1595, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 12, 40). In short, the conversion is caused by human agreement, not only by God’s grace. If someone fails to believe, it is precisely because of his or her choice not to believe. The fourth lesson simply affirms that, among the aids of God’s grace which induce men to believe, there are also miracles which are external suasions. God does not directly induce men to believe, but he uses miracles as a way to convince men themselves to convert. They are “external suasions” because they are outside the subjects to whom they are addressed.210 In the fifth lesson, Stapleton develops the fourth documentum further, trying to explain how God uses his assistance to induce men to believe in him throughout their lives. According to the English theologian, the aids of grace are not given by God in relation to the prevision that He has of the use which men will make of their free will. Rather, God sends his aids only of his own will. Molina maintains the same, explaining that, during human life, God gives the gifts of his prevenient, exciting, and cooperative grace, not on the basis of his prevision of man’s use of his free will, but because of his own divine and inscrutable will.211 Stapleton proposes this idea, not only by quoting Molina, but also by referring to Augustine’s De dono perseverantiae. There, the Bishop of Hippo dealt with children who had died before receiving baptism by drawing a parallel with the case of Tyre and Sidon, in order to show that God does not judge men on the basis of the actions that he has foreseen, but 210 “Quartum documentum, quod inter auxilia gratiae, quibus ad credendum homo excitatur, miracula veluti suasiones externae computantur. Quod etiam ex oratione Apostolorum Act. 4. & ex effectu prophetandi quem Paulus describit 1Cor 14. colligi potest. Vide eundem Molinam q. & art. eisdem, disput. 38”, Stapleton: 1620, Matt 11: 21, 31. 211 “Quintum documentum, quod haec & alia auxilia gratiae specialia Deus non confert pro ratione usus liberi arbitrii praevisi aut futuri, nec ad illos omnes, Evangelii praedicatores misit quos ad fidem convertendos praevidit, sed salutis media pro suo solo beneplacito disponit: quod idem ex his verbis docet Molina q. 23. art. 4. & 5. disp. 1. membro 4. & S. Augustinus in libro de dono perseverantiae. cap. 9.”, Stapleton: 1620, Matt 11: 21, 32. Cf: “Quare licet Deus dona sua gratiae praevenientis, excitantis, & cooperantis ad accessum ad Christum, non distribuat pro qualitate usus liberi arbitrii & cooperationis adulti praevisae, sed pro sua tantum voluntate”, Molina: 1595, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 12, 40. Cf. also Molina: 1595, q. 23. ar. 4. & 5. d. 1. m. 4, 321. In this instance, Molina does not quote Augustine De dono perseverantiae, but, in any case, he refers on several occasions to the Bishop of Hippo, as, for example, to De praedestinatione sanctorum, 14.26.

172

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

on those that have actually occurred. In neither case does God concede his gift, the baptism of the children and the miracles shown to Tyre and Sidon, respectively. Instead, God’s decision not to bestow his aids on them leads both the non-baptized children and the two cities to eternal death since they died tied to original sin. Augustine explains that God’s decision to give his aid is always inscrutable (in particular, Augustine was speaking about the gift of perseverance), adding that those people who receive gifts were predestined to receive them (cf. Augustine: 1992, 286; 289–290). It seems clear that, in Augustine’s view, human contributions to salvation are completely absent. However, Stapleton, along with Molina, try to combine human free will and God’s predestination. Thereby, they substantially change Augustine’s assumption, stressing the importance of human merit in the economy of salvation, an aspect that was considered to be too close to Pelagianism by the Catholic Augustinians. The sixth lesson focuses, once again, upon divine omniscience. In God, there is a sure prevision of future contingents, but also a free predestination and free election of the faithful, as well as a just rejection of the sinful on the basis of God’s prevision.212 It seems clear why Stapleton speaks about “prevision” instead of “knowledge of simple intelligence” and of “predestination” instead of “knowledge of vision”. Indeed, ‘prevision’ seems to be the immediate effect of the “knowledge of simple intelligence”. I have omniscience or “knowledge of simple intelligence”, so I have certain prevision of future contingents. Concerning “predestination”, I know what will actually be in the future (knowledge of vision), thus, according to my will, I create this particular temporal line, viz. I predestine. Stapleton again supports his theory by quoting Molina. The Spanish Jesuit affirms that prior to creation God foreknows with certainty all future contingents, thanks to his “knowledge of simple intelligence merely natural”, but He also predestines, choosing to create, according to his “knowledge of vision merely free”. To explain the relation between prevision and predestination, Molina uses a metaphor: an artisan cannot know which instrument he would use to produce a given artifact until he has a clear idea of how to make it. Similarly, God first knows all future contingents, and then He chooses the potencies that will be actualized. If this were not the case, God’s actions would be indifferent, and the creation would be random, before any divine knowledge. However, this is clearly in contrast with Catholic faith (Molina: 1595, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 49, 121–122) Indeed, God acts in accordance with middle knowledge, and, for this reason, God 212 “Sextum documentum, quod ex loco convincitur certa futurorum etiam libere contingentium in Deo providentia, & electorum quidem praedestinatio atque electio gratuita, reproborum vero reiectio iusta: quod in eodem vide Molinam q. 14. art. 13. disput. 49”, Stapleton: 1620, Matt 11:21, 32.

Stapleton’s ‘Antidote’ to John Calvin: Luis de Molina’s ‘Middle Knowledge’

173

foreknows what men will freely choose. Therefore, it seems that God predestines post praevisa merita, after having seen the merits, doing so from eternity. However, the literature on Molina correctly notes that the Spanish Jesuit never used the expression post praevisa merita, nor did Stapleton, who avoided using technical terminology in his arguments (Martinetti: 1928, 49; Le Bachelet: 1931, 25; Cruz Cruz: 2013, 104). Nevertheless, from Molina’s words it is clear that God predestines after having seen, without this prevision influencing his decisions. In place of the expression post (after) praevisa merita, Molina preferred to use the preposition per (per propria merita),213 clearly put in opposition to propter (because of).214 What does per (through) mean in this context? As Molina writes, God first knows what will be through natural knowledge and middle knowledge; then, he creates a particular temporal line. However, the reason for God’s decision is still to be identified. Clearly, it cannot be based on foreseen merits;215 otherwise, God would not be free to choose, since his predestination would be determined by human merits. Here, Molina completely rejects Pelagianism, which assumes that men are able to obtain salvation without God’s aids, even after Adam’s sin. Moreover, according to Molina, men are predestined through their own merits, or rather, men (also) reach salvation through their own merits. In other words, human free will is a concurrent cause with respect to God’s grace. They are two parts of one integral cause.216 It is important to note that Molina uses the preposition per, wanting to state precisely that the merits are the human instrumental cause for the salvation, while God’s aids are the divine instrumental cause. Molina does not use the expression causa instrumentalis to refer either to God’s aids or to human merits, but it could reasonably be argued from the foregoing example of the artisan that the category applies. As Molina explains, God uses his aids as an artisan uses his means. Indeed, after having seen all future events in his eternal existence, God chose to create a particular temporal line during which he arbitrarily concedes his aids, but grace alone is not enough since men also receive eternal life through their own merits. In this way, Molina wants to preserve human free will in the economy of salvation. However, God simply ‘takes into consideration’ what people will do, but, again, He does not concede his aids on the basis of their future merits but 213 Searching per propria merita in the DLCR, this expression occurrs just ten times in Molina’s Concordia. 214 “Simul observa, me non dixisse, adultos praedestinatos esse propter propria merita, sed per propria merita: illud enim esset falsum; hoc autem est verum”, Molina: 1595, q. 23, ar. 4 & 5, d. 1, m. 9, 350. As he affirms, Cruz bases his analysis on Le Bachelet: 1931. 215 Propter, when using the accusative, introduces a complement of external cause: in this case, human merits are the cause of God’s decision. 216 “Totus effectus, totaque actio, totalitate ut vocant effectus, & est a Deo, & ab arbitrio nostro, tanquam a duabus partibus unius integrae causae, tam actionis quam effectus”, Molina: 1595, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 12, 42. See also Martinetti: 1928, 49.

174

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

only according to his own will, as shown in the fifth lesson.217 The problem of sin still remains: are people free or forced to sin? Molina would answer that God’s will to create a particular temporal line depends on his middle knowledge which is anterior to His will. Thus, He creates simply knowing what people will do, although their actions are not necessary in se since they could even do the opposite of what they will actually do. In any case, according to Molina, God’s knowledge cannot influence human actions precisely because this middle knowledge is anterior to his will, namely prior to the act of creation. Finally, the last lesson relates to the inscrutable divine will. God justly chose not to perform miracles in Tyre and Sidon. He did many other things – which I (viz. Stapleton) do not know – but they chose not to believe.218 This last point is vital because it reveals the inner problematic of Molina’s theory. As shown above, God has created a particular temporal line ab aeterno, and it should be stressed that predestination, or reprobation, is not ‘because of foreseen merits’: it is based on God’s will.219 From eternity, He inscrutably decides to bestow his external means, such as miracles or preaching, on some people during their life, but never because of their foreseen merits. He gives his aids only on the basis of his beneplacito, because of his mercy and his generosity, more to some than to others. As the Italian philosopher Piero Martinetti summarizes, God, anterior to each act of his will, through 1) “knowledge of intelligence” and 2) “middle knowledge” foresaw a) the infinite possible combinations of beings, b) the activities of men, both free and unfree, within all the possible combinations c) the aids which he could have given to them and d) the effects which would be the result of these aids. Among all these combinations, he actualizes ab aeterno that one which subsists today and which will subsist till the end of the world … by virtue of “middle knowledge” 217 “Dio relativamente alla predestinazione non ha potuto non tenere conto dell’uso del libero arbitrio. Non si può dire che Dio abbia distribuito la grazia in proporzione della buona volontà: ma non si può nemmeno dire che Dio non ne abbia tenuto conto”, Martinetti: 1928, 50–51. 218 “Postremo documentum, quod isti Tyrii & Sidonii revera fuissent convertendi (ut Christus diserte dicit) si virtutes ibi factae fuissent, nec propter defectum efficacis gratiae (quae per illa miracula fuisset efficax propter liberi arbitrii consensum quem illa miracula cum auxiliis gratiae indubie elicuissent, ut Christus docet) sed propter defectum miraculorum, & aliorum mediorum, quae iuste Deus illis subtraxit; alia tamen multa illis faciens quae eos promovebant ad salutem (ait in hunc locum Corn. Iansenius) non fuisse conversos: de quo etiam vide Molinam q.& art. citatis disput. 38. pag. 239.’ It is interesting to note that Stapleton in this passage refers not only to Molina, but also Jansenius, although giving his name between brackets only, to confirm Molina’s idea about the different helps given by God. The reference to Jansenius: 1571/72, II 358–9. 219 “Praedestinatio non est propter merita praevisa, ita neque reprobatio, sed in solam liberam voluntatem Dei ea reducenda est”, Molina: 1595, q. 23, ar. 4 & 5, d. 4, 309. I observe that meritum in Latin is a vox media, so it means not only “merit”, but also “demerit”. Thus, God acts after having seen what men would earn, salvation or (aut) damnation, but he decrees only on the basis of his own will.

Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will

175

… The reason for the choice of this [particular] order is only in God’s will and not in any foreseen act or [foreseen] merit of created beings; as for the question of why God, even though foreseeing the ruin of many beings, chose this [particular] order, Molina can just take refuge in the impenetrability of God’s plans (Martinetti: 1928, 50).

In sum, the analysis of Stapleton’s Antidota on Matt 11: 21 shows the strong Jesuit influence on him which was due to his formation in Douai where he took a clear position in the de auxiliis controversy, cherishing a more optimistic anthropology which stressed the capacity of man to do good works that are meritorious to gaining eternal life. However, Stapleton was not alone in adhering to Molinist teachings as the investigation into Lucas’ Commentaries on the Four Gospels shows in the next chapter.

2.6

Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will220

Lucas divided his Commentaries on the four Gospels into three volumes, all published at Plantin’s Press in Antwerp: the first volume, dedicated to the Archduke Albert VII and Isabella, rulers of the Spanish Netherlands, is divided into two tomes (tomi), published in 1606. The first tome contains the entire work on the Gospel according to Matthew, while the second has the whole treatise on the Gospel according to Mark. Moreover, in this first volume, the author also analyses the Gospels of Luke and John in those passages that are in common to Mark and Matthew.221 Finally, attached as appendices, this volume also provides: (a) The Notae ad varias lectiones, dedicated to Cardinal Bellarmine, and already completed in 1605. This text is the critical apparatus of the four Gospels, with the analysis of different Latin and Greek lectiones. (b) The Tractatus de Chaldaica S. Scripturae paraphrasi, dedicated to the Bishop of St. Omer, Jacques Blase, and already completed in 1577 when Lucas was preparing the Notationes in sacra 220 This chapter is published as Antonio Gerace, “Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ Gospels Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will”, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 35 (2018), 189–215. 221 In the last volume, Francis Lucas makes a clear synopsis of the structure of his commentaries: “Tandem, Lector, quartum et ultimum Commentarij mei in quatuor Evangelia Tomum, Deo favente, offero. Primus continent Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, integre et continue expositum. Secundus, Evangelium secundum Marcum, et ipsum integre ac continua serie enarratum. Habet praeterea secundus Tomus Evangelia Lucae et Iohannis, ijs locis tractata, quae sunt Lucae et Iohanni cum Matthaeo et Marco communia, Tertius Tomus supplet ea quae deerant Evangelio Lucae: explicat capita aliquot Evangelij secundum Iohannem. Quartus iste perficit reliqua quae restabant ex Iohanne edisserenda. Habes itaque in his quatuor Tomis perfectam et absolutam quatuor Evangeliorum tractationem”, Lucas: 1616, 4v.

176

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

Biblia (1580).222 This work is possibly the best testimony to Lucas’ mastery of Aramaic and other biblical Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Syriac, thanks to his collaboration with Harlemius. (c) The Index locorum S. Scripturae et Paraphraseos Chaldaicae. (d) The Index Verborum et Rerum. In 1612 there appeared the second volume – therefore the third tomus – of Lucas’ commentary, again dedicated to the Bishop of St. Omer, Jacques Blase, containing the explanation of the Gospel according to Luke and chapters 1–8:11 of that according to John. The remaining part of the Gospel according to John was eventually contained in the third volume – so the fourth tomus – in 1616, dedicated to the sixth Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Mutio Vitelleschi (1563–1645).

2.6.1 The Aim Lucas declares his aim in the prefatory chapter to his first volume, entitled de operis hujus sui ratione. He starts this document by reminding the reader of his first text-critical activity, the Notationes in sacra Biblia (1580), and of his splendidly edited 1583 Vulgate which had his Notationes in an appendix. He also makes an allusion to the Dutch Revolt (1568–1648) which had forced him to move from Louvain to St. Omer in 1581 when he was invited by the bishop, Jean Six. Following the suggestion of the well-known Antwerp publisher, Christopher Plantin, he started his exegetical analysis on the New Testament while in St. Omer.223 The author first states that a particular biblical passage is liable to different levels of interpretations but that he prefers to explain only the historical/literal meaning of the Gospel, that being the most faithful sense (simillimum). Hence, he avoids mentioning the other levels of interpretation, viz. allegory, tropology and anagogy since they are based on the literal sense handed 222 This text is divided in two parts. In the first one, Lucas explains what the “Chaldean paraphrases” are, i. e. the Targum, the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible. In the second section, Lucas uses various Targums to explain some Biblical passages better: “una est, ut sciat Parapheaseos Chaldaica lector, quomodo versari in ea debeat, et quo eam loco habere. Altera, quod arbitror complura hic a me S. Scripturae tractata loca, editionibus inter se mutuo et cum Hebraico fonte collatis, quae S. Scripturae studiosis adiumentum adferre possint. Vale Lovanij, Kal. Augusti, MDLXXVII”, Lucas: 1606, 1096. 223 “Cum absolvissem aliquando, jam a vigintiquinque eoque amplius annis [i. e. 1580], in varias SS. Bibliorum lectiones, tum marginales Notas, tum prolixiores tam ad calcem Bibliorum quam seorusum editas Notationes; Christophorus Plantinus … rogavit, ut me deinde addicerem scribendis Scholiis in novum Testamentum … Itaque aggressus sum statim negotium, ne quid mihi temporis periret; exordio ab eo quod primum obtinet locum, Evangelio Matthaei sunt: sed brevi impeditus tumultibus quibus concussum fuit Belgium hoc nostrum, supersedere coactus fuit, et aliena agere negotia, ejus inquam sub cujus me receperam invitatus alas, Episcopi Audomaropolitani”, Lucas: 1606, i.

Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will

177

down by the narrative of the Gospel. Even where the mystical-spiritual senses could be easily explained, he chooses not to show them or even mention them. As a consequence, Lucas affirms that he has chosen to avoid extensive disputations to explain Catholic dogmas or to contest “heretical” issues, just briefly mentioning Catholic and Protestant teachings when necessary.224 Despite this declaration of his intentions, Lucas several times quotes and criticizes his major opponent, John Calvin, delineating a theology definable at least as Jesuit-minded, being very focused on the contribution of human free will in the economy of salvation.

2.6.2 The Methodology After having explained the reason and the aim of his work in de operis hujus sui ratione, Lucas aims at clarifing his methodology in another preliminary chapter: De ordine, methodo, ceterisque in hac Evangeliorum tractatione observandis (Lucas: 1606, i–v). It is possible to divide Lucas’ approach into four main points. First, the analysis of each verse (versiculatim), taking into consideration both the Latin and the Greek texts: for the first version, he uses the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate since this is the official text for the Church, while the Greek version is taken from the so-called Biblia Regia, Plantin’s Polyglot Bible.225 The aim of this accurate work is to investigate the proper and specific sense of each verse (proprium sensum), explaining what the Gospel says in the Greek version as well as in its Latin translation. Lucas also explains the reason for the possible dis224 “Curavimus enim, ubi varietas erat, illum unum seligere sensum [historicum sive literalem] qui esset vero simillimum illumque ita solide statuere, ut caeteros sive referre sive refutare non esset opus. Nam quod ad mysticos sive spirituales sensus attinet, allegoriam inquam, tropologiam et anagogiam, cum illi nitantur historia sensuque primo ut fundamento, unde etiam facile elicit queant, nos illos aut praeterevimus, aut uno solo verbo attingimus. Disputationes denique longas, sive de explicandis dogmatibus ecclesiasticis, sive de refellendis haeresibus, evitavimus, nec nisi coacti aliquando brevibus perstrinximus hujusmodi”, Lucas: 1606, i. 225 “In primis … versiculatim progredientis, versiculum tractandum et Graece et Latine proponimus … Cum enim statutum nobis sit, ad investigandum sensum maxime proprium, etiam ea explicare quae ad literam faciunt editionis utriusque tam Graecae quam Latinae, adeoque non minus Graecam enarrare quam Latinam, sicubi se mutuo discrepent, non inconsulto utraque se coram spectandam offert. Ex Graecis porro textibus, pro integerrimo elegimus, eum qui in Regiorum Bibliorum opera exstat … Inter versiones autem Latinas, veterem vulgatamque potius quam aliam quamvis proposuimus, moti auctoritate oecumenici Concilij Tridentini, quod hanc in publicis lectionibus et expostionibus pro authentica hebendam definivit … ex variis Latinae vulgataeque editionis exemplaribus, illud merito praetulimus, quod Sixti Quinti Pontificis Maximi cura recognitum … iussu Clementis Papae Octavi”, Lucas: 1606, ii. The Biblia Regia is, of course, Plantin’s Polygot (1568– 1573).

178

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

crepancies between Latin and Greek concerning the literal sense. Moreover, our author clarifies that, of course, the interpretation could be literal, parabolic, metaphoric, and allegoric. However, he wants to show only the meaning that emerges from the text and that seems to be the specific sense (proprius), or the most probable (probabilis) for its clarity, in other words the sense which must have been in the mind of Christ or in that of the Evangelist.226 This assumption does not contradict what Lucas has said previously; indeed, he has declared that he has a preferential option for the literal sense in the presence of a plurality (varietas) of possible meanings. Lucas’ second point is the reference to other Greek and Latin Bibles, both in manuscript and in print, to compare them with the two aforementioned authoritative editions (Biblia Regia for Greek and the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate for Latin). Lucas, however, underlines that his intent is not to correct the Regia and the Sixto-Clementine through the reading of other codices, but to explain the reasons for the emendations present in the authentic text – i. e. the 1592 SixtoClemetine – or at least to show the distinctions between the faithful (genuina et germana) lectio and the spurious one (spuria), when the difference is clear. Moreover, if cause for doubt remains, the aim is to declare which lectio is genuina et germana, either that of the source text (fons) or that of the Vulgate (versio vulgata scriptura). In other words, Lucas does not want to correct the Vulgate, just to indicate which lectio, according to him, is the most accurate. In effect, as revealed by a private correspondence with Willem Estius, Lucas affirms that he does not always appreciate the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate even though he feels obliged to follow it.227 These lectiones are analyzed in the Commentaries as well as in the Notae ad varias lectiones. This work is actually divided into two parts, one for the Latin variants and another for the Greek lectiones.228 The third point is the comparison between the reference texts – the Regia and the 1592 Vulgate – with Syriac copies, and it clearly shows his mastery of the Aramaic language. Indeed, according to Lucas, knowledge of Syriac can help with the exegesis of difficult 226 “Sacris verbis declaratis, prosequimur unum illum, quem dicebamus, qui emergit, sive ex simplici, sive ex metaphorico aut figurato loquendi genere, historicum sive litteralem, vel certe parabolicum sensum, maxime proprium, aut maxime probabilem simplicitate genuinitateque, quem existimamus praecipue esse e mente Christi Domini aut Evangelistae”, Lucas: 1606, iii. 227 Cf. above, part I footnote 81. 228 “Hos deinde textus, Graecum Regiorum et Latinum Sixtinorum Bibliorum, cum aliis codicibus et manuscriptis et typis expressis contulimus: non ut textus illos nostra auctoritate emendaremus, sed partim ut indicaremus rationes emendationum quae illis textibus insunt … aut si non rationes, certe distinctions genuinae lectionis a spuria, quando res clara est … partim ut declaremus, quid in aliis libris invenerimus, ubi dubitandi causa remanet, quae sit genuine germanaque sive fontis sive versionis vulgatae scriptura. Caeterum … transtulimus notatiunculas has in finem huius nostril sive Commentarij sive Tractatus, duobus libellis adiectis, quorum unus de Graecis, alter de Latinis varietatibus agit”, Lucas: 1606, ii.

Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will

179

passages. Moreover, between Greek and Syriac, he prefers the latter to even the most ancient Greek copy.229 Further, Syriac and Hebrew words are written in their alphabets, followed by a Latin transliteration, intended for unable to read those Semitic languages.230 The fourth point is the explanation of the specific sense (proprius) of each verse, or the most probable (probabilis) for its clarity. The fifth point is the use of authoritative sources which can be divided into four sets: (a) From Greek commentators: Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Titus of Bostra (IV century), Victor of Antioch (IV century), Cyril of Alexandria, Nonnus of Panopolis (cf. Lucas: 1606, iii). In particular, Lucas prefers to cite Euthymius, Theophylact and Chrysostom most often. (b) From Latin commentators: Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Chromatius of Aquileia, the Venerable Bede, Thomas Aquinas, Christian Druthmarus, Nicholas of Lyra, and others (Lucas: 1606, iii). Among them, Lucas mostly quotes Augustine. Moreover, Lucas sometimes mentions even non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Pliny the Elder. (c) From Catholic contemporaries or at least recent commentators: Denis the Carthusian, Cajetan, Titelmans, Jansenius, Arias Montano, Juan Maldonado (SJ, 1533–1583), Caesar Baronio (1538–1607), Francisco de Toledo, Sebastião Barradas (SJ 1543–1615), Manuel de Sa (SJ, 1530–1596), and Stapleton (cf. Lucas: 1606, iv). As indicated by the ‘SJ’ preceding the date, about 50 percent of these authors (5/11) are Jesuit, or at least Jesuit-minded such as Stapleton: this element is the first evidence of Lucas’ appreciation of Jesuit teachings which becomes manifest in the reading of his Commentaries to the four Gospels. (d) From those contemporaries who were not “prudent” in their works or manifestly chose to abandon Catholic faith he refers to Erasmus, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, Sebastian Münster, Theodor Beza, Martin Bucer, John Calvin and non-specified “other” authors (Lucas: 1606, iv–v). In the last lines of this preface, Lucas explicitly declares that, in any case, his main authoritative source is Augustine, repeating that his purpose is not to give his own interpretation but to explain the real sense and the right interpretation of Scripture according to the authority of the Church fathers as well as of the Catholic Church to whose judgment and censorship he voluntarily submits his own work since only the Church has the authority to 229 “Post hac Graecum ac Latinum textus, et inter se, et (quod pauci aut nulli ante nos) cum Syriaca editione diligentissime conferimus: nam et ex Syriaca editione non parum frequenter lucis accedit, nec minus Latinus quam Graecus textus defensionis accepit, quibus locis discrepantia occurrit … ego … hoc teneo indubitanter, Syriacum novi Testamenti textum, vetustissimi exemplaris Graeci … loco habendum ac venerandum esse”, Lucas: 1606, ii. 230 “Jam Hebraica et Syriaca verba quae a nobis citantur, ita Hebraicis ac Syriacis literis exprimuntur, ut etiam Latinis, in gratiam eorum qui linguas illas non didicerunt”, Lucas: 1606, iii.

180

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

establish the Catholic faith.231 Finally, it should also be noted that, although the author profiles himself on the text-critical level, as evidenced in the first three main points of his methodology just analyzed, he does not avoid venturing into theological questions, such as the problematic relation between predestination, grace and free will, which is the focus of the next section.

2.6.3 Predestination, Grace and Human Free Will After having delineated Lucas’ aim and his methodology, the focus of this chapter turns now to the relation between eternal predestination, God’s grace and human free will. The exposition is divided into four main sections, each of them dedicated to a particular aspect of this relation through the reading of several pericopes. In the first part, the topic analyzed is the relation between God’s election and human free will where Lucas considers the Apostles as the best example of vocation and the cooperation between God’s grace and free will. In the second section, he discusses the cooperation between God’s grace and human works as concurrent causes of salvation. The third part specifically examines human good works and, finally, the fourth section is devoted to the problem of sin in relation to divine foreknowledge, with a particular study of Judas’ damnation. Inevitably, these topics are strictly interlinked and therefore his arguments are repetitive since the same problem can be analyzed from different perspectives. Be that as it may, Lucas’ theory will be delineated organically, so not necessarily following the order of the gospels. Moreover, in the course of this analysis of Lucas’ commentaries, some pericopes will be presented where the author explains their philological elements in order to follow his argumentation better.

231 “[A]pud nos frequens est, tractare Scripturam sacram pro exponere, et tractator pro Scripturae sacrae expositore; praesertim vero D. Augustinum … Postremo loco contestandum mihi hic est, quod non ex proprio ingegno sacro-sanctam Scripturam tractare aut interpretari voluerim, sed conatus sim ex ratione Veterum Patrum, et Ecclesiae Catholicae auctoritate … cuius est de vero sensu et interpretatione sacrarum Scripturarum iudicare: cuius proinde iudicio ac censurae omnia submisi”, Lucas: 1606, v. Of course, in this instance, it seems useless always to indicate Lucas’ quotations from Church fathers: it would be just an “erudite exercise” which has an end in itself. So I shall offer the complete references only in some places, just to show Lucas’ methodology in its practice.

Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will

181

2.6.3.1 Eternal Election, Temporal Vocation and Human Free Will The question of how a finite human being could interact with the divine presented a difficult problem, especially with regard to human free will, and Christianity provided a plethora of solutions, sometimes completely antithetical to each other, as in the case of Pelagianism and Calvinism (Burrel: 2008, 184– 187). Lucas ‘of Bruges’ also tried to give an answer to this question. In this instance, the Commentary on the four Gospels is a valuable mine for reconstructing Lucas’ theological viewpoints which appear to be completely developed already during the writing of the first tomus. In particular, regarding the object of this section – i. e. God’s eternal election – the author based his argument on a fundamental postulate, never explicated but clearly present in the elaboration of this matter: God’s eternal predestination is actualized in the temporal dimension through the divine call of the people who will be saved. Applying this postulate to vocation, God, in his eternal existence, has chosen from all eternity those whom He calls to Him for their salvation.232 The problem is, of course, the relation between God’s choice and human free will: is the predestination absolute, or do men have an active role in this process? A good starting point to answer this question is the vocation of the Apostles; in fact, Lucas considers it as the perfect example of the relation between divine election and human free will. The first Gospel passage to be analysed in this regard is Matt 9:9 when Jesus called Matthew: “And when Jesus passed on from here, he saw a man sitting in the custom house, named Matthew; and he saith to him: Follow me. And he rose up and followed him.” On the basis of John Chrysostom, Lucas comments that, in these words, two factors are evident: on the one hand, the power of the divine call, and, on the other hand, the example of a human obedience that is right (recta) and prompt (pronta).233 The necessity of these two elements – i. e. the divine call and the human agreement – seems clear. Lucas continues his study on the relationship between God’s call and human agreement in the comment on Matt 9:13, “Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners.” The author explains the meaning of the verb vocare/καλέσαι, affirming that the vocatio, the call, is made by God because of his misericordia, and the one who is called is already iustus.234 Indeed, 232 The explication of these concepts was made during the treatise. For a better reading, according to Lucas, the divine election is eternal while the divine vocation/call as well as the human assent is temporal. 233 “Sequere me … Sequutus est eum: Duo notanda hic sunt, quae et B. Chrysostomus notat. Unum est, quanta sit divinae vocationis virtus, alterum, exemplum rectae promtaeque obedientiae”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 9:9, 129. The reference is to Chrysostom: 1862a, h. 30, 1, Matt 9:9 PG 57, 361–363. 234 For Lucas, the just ( justus) is recognizable thanks to three elements: 1) faith in Christ; 2) a virtuous life; 3) the performance of good works. Actually, regarding the correlation between

182

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

the divine justification follows the vocation, but it is up to men to choose whether to follow God or not. The one who is called is free to refuse, because he or she is not forced, coerced, to agree with Christ’s will, only called to do it.235 Thus, faith towards God is not simply a gift; it is also the human answer to God as well as humanity’s persistent loyalty to Him. According to Lucas, it is only by faith – understood in this way – that Christ can save men. Thus, Lucas stresses the necessity of God’s call in cooperation with human consent. Concerning vocation in a more general perspective, Christ stated that “multi sunt vocati, pauci vero electi” (Matt 22:14): Lucas explains again that the vocati are those who have listened to Him, and follow His mandata, but, above all, that the electi are those who live this vocation with perseverance and, because of that, they receive eternal life. In fact, faith and the Ecclesiae communio are not enough for salvation since doing good persistently until the end of life is also necessary.236 However, some passages in the Gospel according to John seem to be in contrast with the idea of a cooperation between God and men. Specifically, in the Apostles’ case, in John 15:16 Jesus said: “You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you.” As Lucas explains, quoting also Theophylact – who borrowed his argument from Chrysostom and Augustine – these words are expressions of the inscrutable Divine Will. God indeed bestowed his prevenient grace on those who would become Christ’s apostles without any previous merits.237 However, God’s grace seems to be injustitia and good works, Lucas writes: “Qui persecutionem patiuntur … Propter justitiam.] quam ipsi prosecuti sint; ob fidem, ob virtutem, ob benefacta sua,” Lucas: 1606, Matt 5:10, 1:66. 235 “Vocare: Qua voce intelligendum datur, omnes nos, erraticum ovium instar, aberrare a Deo et salutis via, nec redire eo, nisi a Deo miserente, vocatos atque adductos; non tamen absque nostra voluntate adduci, cum non cogamur, sed vocemur. Justos.] Jam enim vocati sunt, qui justi sunt, jam ad Deum conversi et adducti sunt: vocationem enim sequitur justificatio”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 3: 13, 130. 236 “Vocatos … eos solos qui vocationi obtemperaverint … qui ita vocati fuerint ut et auderint et receperint fidem in Christum salutemque per Christum oblatam … Electos dicit illos quos elegit Deus aeterna per Christum vita saluteque donandos: qui quidem sunt illi … qui in Ecclesia militante, pie, integre, immaculate, omninoque digne vocatione sua, vivunt ad mortem usque: nam electio inde probatur, si quis ad finem usque perstet … In summa, docet hoc loco Christus, fidem ipsam et Ecclesiae communionem minime sufficere, ut quem pro suo agnoscat et aeterna vita deest Deus, si ea vocatione digne vivere et perserveret”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 22: 14, 341. Indeed, everyone has to be prepared because nobody knows when the Lord will come and the only way to be prepared is “poenitentia, fuga vitiorum, et exercitium virtutum,” Lucas: 1606, Matt 24: 42, 406. 237 “Sed ego, mea gratia praeveniens vos voluntaremque vestram, elegi prior vos nihil promeritos,] ut crederetis in me Christum Filium Dei, essetisque discipuli et amici mei … Hic sermo de vocatione ad fidem et justificatione, qui sunt duo primi effectus aeternae Dei electionis, quos nemo suis meritis, sed soli gratiae Dei ferre debet acceptos,” Lucas: 1616, John 15:16, 135. In this instance, Lucas makes references to: John Chysostom: 1862b, hom. 77, PG 59, 415; Theophylact: 1864, 714 A-D, John 15:14–6, PG 124, 199; 202; Augustine: 1954b, 86. 2, CCSL 36, 542. Obviously, the Church fathers were analyzing John 15:16.

Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will

183

sufficient by itself; indeed, Lucas stresses that Jesus chose the Apostles, separating them from other people, because of their faith, mores, and diligence; in other words, their personal merits seem to be involved in Christ’s call.238 Particular attention should also be paid to the pericope of the Good Shepherd and specifically John 10:26–29: “But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they followed me. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand. That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father. I and the Father are one.” The analysis of these verses was very difficult for Lucas, because they seem to confirm the Calvinist idea of double predestination which seems to be even proposed by Augustine239 and by Augustinian-minded theologians and confirmed by the Acts of the Apostles (13:48).240 However, Lucas explains that God “excludes nobody from the number of his elected peoples, unless because of their own sin and viciousness.”241 Therefore, the author insists on the importance of human works, good and bad, for salvation and damnation respectively, disowning completely the idea of double predestination by clear contrast with Calvin: everybody can go to the Father, but only with a righteous and honest life.242 Moreover according to Lucas, Christ simply wanted to describe the condition of his flock, which does good, in order to show the Pharisees’ sinful status. Since the latter do not want to listen to him, they are not part of his flock.243 Therefore, 238 “Quia ego separavi vos fide, moribus, ac studiis a mundanis hominibus, et tali doctrina imbui,” Lucas: 1616, John 15:19, 137. 239 “Sed vos non credetis] sive verbis sive operibus meis, etiam clarissimis, nec credetis umquam. Quia non estis. quia malitia vestra pertinax atque inveterata, facit id non sitis ex ovibus meis] ex numero ovium, quas Deus pater ad aeternam salutem elegit, et salvandas mihi dedit. Haec interpretatio est D. Augustini,” Lucas: 1616, John, 10:26, 4:51. The reference is to Augustine: 1954a, 48. 4, CCSL 36, 414–415, when Augustine writes: “ex ovibus meis. Jam supra [in Tract. 45] didicistis quae sint oves: estote oves. Oves credendo sunt, oves pastorem sequendo sunt, oves redemptorem non contemnendo sunt, oves per ostium intrando sunt, oves exeundo et pascua inveniendo sunt, oves vita aeterna perfruendo sunt. Quomodo ergo istis dixit, Non estis ex ovibus meis? Quia videbat eos ad sempiternum interitum praedestinatos, non ad vitam aeternam sui sanguinis pretio comparatos.” 240 “[M]alitia ergo vestra facit, inquit, ut non sitis ex numerum eorum hominum, quos Deus per me salvandos elegit (ut loquuntur Acta Apostolorum cap. 13. v. 48) qui *praedestinati sunt ad vitam aeternam. His enim Deus Pater dat donum fidei”, Lucas: 1616, John, 10:26, 4:51. Lucas puts in the margin the correction of the S-C where there is praeordinati. The Greek verb used is τάσσω. 241 “[N]eminem excludit numero electorum suorum, nisi propriae culpae et malitiae merito”, Lucas: 1616, John, 10:26, 51. 242 Specifically on the concept of predestination, just mentioned here, see the second section where Lucas’ doctrine of predestination is fully delineated. 243 “Oves meas,] id est, homines omnes quos a se electos Pater mihi dedit merito mortis meae ad

184

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

the author insists on the necessity of the faithful converting themselves and following Jesus’ Gospel, which should result in good actions. Faith is necessary but not sufficient to obtain eternal life: the Christian has also to obey Christ’s mandata, i. e. to follow his example and to observe his commandments.244 Only after the explication of Matthew’s and John’s passages is it possible to stress the aspect of human free will in the conversion process. According to Lucas, the verb sequi, present in both Matthew’s call (Matt 9:9) and the pericope of the Good Shepherd (John 10:27), is what shows that men have the power to decide whether to follow God or not; the act of following implies a free human decision, a free human assent to God’s calling.245 To summarize, according to Lucas, God’s election is not effective without human assent, and the Apostles’ case furnishes a clear example of this relation. Jesus calls the Apostles – a temporal vocation –, those who are previously chosen – in eternal election – by God, and they follow (sequuntur) him, as result of their own free decision. Nevertheless, they must also confirm their choice by persevering in righteous behaviour. In effect, to be an Apostle does not lead necessarily to salvation. Here, the reference is obviously made to Judas’ case, analyzed in the fourth section of this chapter. After having described the process of election, the focus now turns to the process of salvation. 2.6.3.2 Eternal Predestination, God’s Adjuvant Grace and Good works: Three Causes of Human Salvation As evidenced in the title, the topic of this section is the relation between predestination, grace and good works, a matter closely connected with that of the previous unit. Actually, there is a one-to-one correspondence between eternal predestination and eternal election; temporal adjuvant grace and temporal vocation are both expressions of God’s will; and good works and human agreement are consequences of men’s free will. However, Lucas does not explain the first triad ‘election-vocation-assent’ systematically: in other words, the three stages of conversion involved are not inserted into a scheme of cause-effect relation. However, Lucas does furnish a more systematic treatise in his explication of the salutem adducendos. Describit conditiones ovium suarum, ut intellegatur, Pharisaeos illos non esse ex numero earum”, Lucas: 1616, John, 10:27, 51. Regarding the central role of the obedience of the faithful, see the third section. 244 “Et sequuntur me,] scilicet … obtemperant praeceptis et imitantur exemplum vitae meae … Duo enim ad salutem necessaria sunt, fides et oboedentia mandatorum”, Lucas: 1616, John 10:27, 51. Indeed, in John 14:15 we read: “Si diligitis me, mandata mea servate”. 245 Matt 9:9, “… Sequere me. Et surgens, secutus est eum”, John 10:27, “Oves meae vocem meam audiunt, et ego cognosco eas, et sequuntur me.” The italics show the human assent after Jesus’s call which is represented in Matthew by the invitation “sequere me,” while in John by the first part of the verse “Oves meae vocem meam audiunt.”

Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will

185

second triad ‘predestination-grace-good works’, elaborating a complex ‘scheme of grace’ with a clear definition of the cause-effect relation which links them. By way of introduction, in the pericope of the Good Shepherd just analyzed, specifically in the comment on John 10:8, Lucas defines the oves as those who are chosen and (pre)destined by God to eternal salvation, basing this interpretation on Euthymius’ authoritative reading.246 He confirms that this verse speaks about predestined people, adding “prout omnes intellegunt” as a reference to the general agreement on the interpretation of this passage, thus also including Reformation-minded theologians.247 However, perhaps in order to remove all doubts, in the subsequent lines, the author explains better the meaning of the noun oves: they were the Apostles and those who followed Christ in his preaching. Indeed, they entrusted themselves to Jesus without listening to fures et latrones, the Pharisees.248 Moreover, oves is referring also to those people who convert themselves to Christ and do penance, leaving the Pharisees’ teachings.249 Indeed, Christ is “via et veritas et vita”, and the oves are precisely those who believe in Jesus as Filius Dei, following his doctrine and his example of life.250 “Predestination” is therefore a central notion in Lucas’ view, but human free will is a necessary tool in the conversion process, even though God predestined His sons ab aeterno. However, what does predestination mean for Lucas, and how does predestination work? An important starting point to answer these questions is the analysis of Matt 25:35: “For I was hungry, and zou gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in.” Lucas’ theory of eternal predestination, God’s grace and human free will is actually fully delineated in the explanation of this verse. Commenting on these words, the author first recalls John Calvin’s explanation of the pericope, directly quoting him with the aim of contradicting him. In order to follow and comprehend Lucas’ argumentation better, it is therefore necessary to recall Calvin’s words briefly. The reformer confirmed that salvation is given by grace only. This is the merces, the “recompense” for the faithful: to be freely adopted by God. Their good works are simply the consequence and the demonstration of men’s election by God. Indeed, He cannot be indebted to the 246 “Oves.] Euthymius qui vere erant oves, id est electi a Deo et aeterne vitae destinati”, Lucas: 1616, John 10:8, 43. The reference is to Euthymius: 1864, John 10:8, PG 129, 1323. 247 “De electis ergo et praedestinates est hic sermo Iesu, prout omnes intellegunt”, Lucas: 1616, John 10:8, 43. 248 “Hujusmodi tunc quoque erant Apostoli omnes, Juda excepto, et alii quidam qui se disciplinae Iesu addixerant: qui non audierunt Pharisaeos, in eo quod vellent ipsos a Christo separare”, Lucas: 1616, John 10:8, 43. 249 “Sunt alii, qui modo non sunt oves Dominici gregis, et modo audiunt fures et latrones, sed futuri sunt oves, et poenitentia ducti desinent audire alienos”, Lucas: 1616, John 10:8, 43. 250 “[V]adunt ad Patrem, qui credunt in Christum ut mediatorem Dei et hominum: sic enim, virtute meritorum ejus justificati, ambulant in justitia, secuti doctrinam et exemplum ejus, et perveniunt ad regum Patris”, Lucas: 1616, John 14:6, 112.

186

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

faithful because of their actions (nullam illis mercedem deberi) because no human act could satisfy the Lex Dei: merces, should be intended as “what is freely given by God.”251 However, according to Lucas, in this passage Calvin was offering a false interpretation. Actually, God’s predestination and God’s benediction do not exclude the contribution of human good works – and vice versa – in the economy of salvation. Indeed, referring to Augustine’s De civitate Dei,252 Lucas affirms that there are three different causes that produce the same effect, everlasting life, and moreover, they have a mutual influence.253 The three causes involved are precisely God’s predestination, God’s benediction, and human good works, which are in a reciprocal/mutual relationship, even if there is a chronological/ontological order among them because of the different conditions between the Creator and human beings. Lucas explains that the causa remota and prima is free and eternal predestination. It is important to stress that the eternal dimension of this “first cause” – predestination – is the basic prerequisite for men to receive the aid of grace during their temporal life. In this regard, the author does not focus upon the relation between God’s omniscience and God’s predestination as some of his contemporaries do. Nevertheless, Lucas’ statement is very important because it proves that he considers “predestination” to have the precise meaning of “preparation for the grace,” just as Augustine does.254 However, starting from the same assumption, Lucas and the Bishop of Hippo develop two different views of grace. If, in the eternal dimension, there could be only one cause of salvation – i. e. God’s predestination –, in the temporal order there are two causes, i. e. God’s benediction, also called gratia adiuvans, and human good works. The former is 251 “Quod in causali particulari insistent [Papistae] infirmum est: scimus enim non causa semper, sed consequentiam potius notari. Quanquam alia est clarior solutio: neque enim bonis mercedem promitti negamus, sed gratuitam, quia ex adoptione pendet … Haec igitur duo tenenda sunt, vocari fideles ad possessionem regni coelestis, bonorum operum respectu, non quia illud pro meriti sint operum iustitia, vel quod acquirendi fuerint auctores: sed quia Deus iustificat quos prius elegit. Deinde quamvis duce Spiritu ad stadium iustitiae aspirant, quia tamen Legi Dei numquam satisfaciunt, nullam illis mercedem deberi, sed mercedem vocari quod gratis donator”, Calvin: 1838, vol. 2, 295–296. 252 “Quaedam igitur vis est intellegenda divina, qua fiet, ut cuique opera sua, vel bona vel mala, cuncta in memoriam revocentur et mentis intuitu mira celeritate cernantur, ut accuset vel excuset scientia conscientiam atque ita simul et omnes et singuli iudicentur”, Augustine: 1955, 20. 14, 42–47, CCSL 48, 724. 253 “Quare pudeat Calvinum, adversus splendidam veritatem mentiri, enim hoc loco, non causam, sed consequentiam potius notare …? Neque vero una causa aliam excludit, predestinatio aut benedictio Dei, hominum opera; aut hominum opera, praedestinationem vel benedictionem Dei: ut enim unius effectus esse possunt plures causae, ita tunc maxime, cum causae sibi mutuo subjiciuntur, aut unam aliam movet”, Lucas: 1616, Matt 25:35, 428. 254 “Praedestinatio est gratiae praeparatio, gratia vero iam ipsa donatio”, Augustine: 1962, 10. 19, BA 24, 522.

Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will

187

the causa proxima ex parte Dei: just as in the eternal dimension God prepares men to receive grace, in temporal life God freely concedes his grace with the specific aim of helping men in their iter to salvation, bestowing his benediction during human life. Moreover, this adjuvant grace induces and helps the faithful to perform good actions (ad bene operandum). Thus, gratia works on the human will, to move it to do good, and, when this happens, there is the causa proxima ex parte electorum, the bona opera. Finally, good acts are meritorious of eternal life. Thus, not only God’s intervention through eternal predestination and temporal benediction but also human good works contribute to men’s salvation. Human free will is clearly necessary for salvation. In this regard, Lucas uses scholastic terminology: these two causes (God’s benediction/gratia adiuvans and good works) cooperate for the same effect, vita aeterna.255 In the following lines of his commentary on Matt 25:35, where Lucas affirms that predestination is the cause of bona opera, he immediately confirms his previous position, maintaining that predestination and benediction/gratia adiuvans are not the only causes of good works. Indeed, human free will is also necessary for doing good. In other words, God promises eternal life, bestowing his temporal benedictio, and men can obtain salvation thanks to good works, the effects of free will assisted by grace. In this sense, the causes collaborate in order to produce the same effect.256 In brief, according to Lucas, several causes can produce the same effect while at the same time reciprocally sustaining and influencing one another: the effect is the Regnum Dei. Of course, Lucas’ terminology is clearly borrowed from scholasticism, but the theory just explained obviously conveys the influence of Molina’s Concordia, precisely that God’s grace and human works are two integral parts of the same cause, both in action (in the causation process) and in effect 255 “Remota sed prima causa adeoque fons salutis electorum, est predestinatio Dei: proxima vero, ex parte quidem Dei, est benedictio Dei, ex parte vero electorum, sunt opera bona. Benedictio subjacent praedestinationi, estque praedestinationis effectus: nam quem Deus ab aeterno praedestinavit ad regnum, illi tempore opportuno benedicit et benefacit, augetque eum gratia ac donis suis. Benedictio autem seu gratia Dei movet et juvat hominem ad bene operandum: opera denique bona merentur regnum”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 25:35, 428. 256 “Recte gratuita est aeterna praedestinatio, quia hominum bona opera non sunt illius causa, sed ipsa causa est bonorum operorum: similiter dicendum est de temporaria benedictione, nisi quod hujus augmentum homo mereri queat: quamobrem bona opera ipsa, et quae illis redditur vita aeterna, merito vocantur gratia, tamquam proficiscentia ex radice, fonte seu origine, quae mera gratia est: sed quia bonorum operum non sola Dei praedestinatio et benedictio seu gratia causa est, verum etiam liberum homini arbitrium, quod cooperatur gratiae Dei, et placuit Deo, bonis operibus profectis a liberum hominum arbitrio, moto atque adjuto a gratia ipsius, promittere vitam aeternam; idcirco bona opera, et quae illius redditur vita aeterna, quae origine gratia sunt, haec vero merces ex proxima causa. Non enim ipsa per se bona opera hominum bona etiam adjuvante gratia Dei facta, mereantur vitam aeternam, nisi Deo placuisset promittere,” Lucas: 1606, Matt 25:35, 428.

188

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

(the result of this process).257 Still remaining is the question regarding the temporal relation of God’s grace and human free will, viz. whether human free will precedes grace or the reverse. Lucas answers in his analysis of Matt 11:28, where Jesus called all who suffer to him: “Come to tell me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you.” Commenting on the verb venite, Lucas specifies that this “calling out”/evocatio is an explicit appeal to human free will, but, above all, that the human assent is simultaneous with grace and that men’s action has an equal importance in the economy of salvation. To explain this simultaneous relation, our author uses a metaphor: grace and free will are similar to two horses that are pulling a wagon that cannot be pulled by only one of them. In other words, both grace and human free will are necessary, and they must act together and simultaneously in order to lead men to salvation.258 Once again, the criticism of Calvin and the Reformers in general is evident.

2.6.3.3 The Third Cause: Bona Opera as Fulfilment of God’s Will Bona opera are an essential element for human salvation, being, with God’s adjuvant grace, one of the two temporal causes the effect of which is actually eternal life. According to Lucas, a man does good only when he performs God’s will. In the practice of life, bona opera coincide substantially with the observing of Jesus’ mandata. This is the only human way to be saved, as the author underlines in his comment of John 14:23: “Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” In his treatise, Lucas analyses thoroughly the meaning of the word sermo which, according to the author, clearly refers to the doctrine and precepts of the Gospel.259 Commenting on this verse, Lucas stresses the reciprocal relation be257 “[T]otus effectus, totaque actio, totalitate ut vocant effectus, & est a Deo, & ab arbitrio nostro, tanquam a duabus partibus unius integrae causae, tam actionis quam effectus”, Molina: 1595, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 12, 42. 258 “Venite.] affectibus fidei et spei religiosae. In hac evocatione, liberi arbitri significatio est. Non autem quod hoc possint suis ipsorum viribus, absque singulari gratia Dei … sed quod non absque suis viribus id faciant, quando Deus facit ut faciant: simul enim operantur gratia Dei et liberum hominis arbitrium, ut duo iugales equi currum trahunt quem unus solus non queat”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 11.28, 1:171. Repeatedly, Lucas underlines the importance of good works in the life of the faithful in order to fight Protestants’ teaching, showing their distance from the Fathers’ orthodox interpretation. For instance, Lucas writes: “Contra hanc veterum Patrum explicationem, docent nostre aetatis haeretici, gratuitam Dei misericordiam eligentis, absque ullo operum ac meritorum respectu, significari his verbis quibus paratum est a Patre meo: sed refelluntur simili loco infra 25. v. 34. et. 35 ubi praeparationis regni ratio est ex operibus deducitur”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 20:23, 307. 259 “Sermonem meum. Singulari pro loco pluralis mandata mea, quod hactenus dixit, doctrinam ac praecepta evangelica”, Lucas: 1616, John 14:23, 122.

Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will

189

tween Jesus and his followers: the love of the flock is the cause of its obedience to Christ’s precepts, and this obedience is the proper effect of love.260 Moreover, the author underlines that everybody can be saved, without differences among nationality, sex and age:261 the only condition is love towards the Son, showing this love through good works, obeying his mandata. Here in this instance, Lucas criticizes the “heretic” theologians, Calvin first of all, stressing once again the importance of good works in the economy of the salvation.262 Indeed, as Lucas comments on the parable of the Vine and the Branches (John 15:1–17), the faithful remain in Christ thanks to faith, charity and holy works,263 as is particularly evidenced in John 15:11 “Si praecepta mea servaretis, manebitis in dilectione mea: sicut et ego Patris mei praecepta servavi, et maneo in ejus dilectione.” According to the author, Christ used the verb manere (to remain) to specify that the condition of observing the mandata is to be in the state of grace, as confirmed by Augustine,264 to whom Lucas explicitly refers. However, the faithful can continue to remain in that state of grace only by observing the mandata. In other words, to remain in the state of grace, a man must firstly have received God’s (prevenient) grace, and, then, by performing good actions that person 260 “Significatur, dilectionem esse propriam causam observationis mandatorum, et obedentiam in opere proprium esse effectum dilectionis in corde”, Lucas: 1616, John 14:23, 122. 261 “Si quis.] is qui, quicumque tandem, ubicumque gentium fuerit in toto mundo, cujuscumque nationi, sexus, aetatis”, Lucas: 1616, John 14:23, 122. 262 “[J]am observandum, quam necessarium quantique ponderis Christus esse teneat observationem mandatorum, quam extreme vitae tempore tantopere commendat, totiesque inculcate ac requirit. Caeterum non persuadet Calvino allisque nostri temporis haereticis, observationem illam esse possibilem, solummodo studium et conatum observandi, quod hic audent illi annotare, et fidem potius quam mandatorum observationem inculcare, correctores doctrinae Christi,” Lucas: 1616, John 14:23, 122. Indeed, analyzing the same passage, Calvin refused this reciprocal relation between God and human beings: “Iam prius exposuimus non statui in secundo ordine Dei amorem, quasi pietatem nostra sequatur ut amoris causa, sed ut certo persuasi sunt fideles, obedentiam quam Evangelio praestant Deo gratam esse, et nova subinde donorum incrementa ab eo expectant … Perperam ergo ex hoc eliciunt Papistae duplicem amorem quo Deum prosequimur. Fingunt Deum naturaliter a nobis diligi priusquam nos Spiritu suo regeneret, et hac etiam praeparatione nos mereri regenerationis gratiam”, Calvin: 1838, vol. 2, 277. 263 “Manete ergo in me.] … id est, perseverate manere hoc modo in me: constanter et perseveranter adhaerere mihi pergite per fidem, charitatem, et opera sancta”, Lucas: 1616, John, 15:3, 4:129. In this instance, Lucas makes several references to Church fathers, as Euthymius and Theophylact, but in particular to Augustine: 1913, 26, 29, CSEL 60, 255–256: “ad perfectam uitam iustitiamque perduxerit, non deserit si non deseratur, ut pie semper iusteque uiuatur.” 264 “Observandum autem verbum manebitis, quo Dominus utitur: non enim ait, Obtinetis dilectionem aut gratiam meam; sed, Manebitis in ea. Necesse est enim ut simus in gratia Christi, et diligat nos Christus, priusquam ejus praecepta servemus…nec nisi nos diligat Christus, praecepta ejus servare possumus, quod ait Augustinus”, Lucas: 1616, John, 15:10, 132. The reference is Augustine: 1954a, 82. 3, 27, CCSL 36, 533.

190

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

remains in God’s grace. The importance of the human contribution is therefore declared: only by doing good can the believer remain with God. Lucas is here expressing in practice how eternal predestination, temporal grace and human works are related. From eternity, God bestowed his love on all men, preparing them to receive grace in their lives. Thanks to this gift, men do good, assisted by grace, and, by observing the mandata, they remain in Christ’s love.265 Lucas emphasizes again that not only grace but also obedience to the precepts, hence good works, and lead to eternal life:266 only through doing good will the faithful be sure of remaining in Christ’s grace. In the Gospels, the Apostles, prototypes of the Christian, represent the best example of this process. Indeed, in his comments on John 16:27, Lucas explains that God chose Christ’s apostles from eternity, loving them and giving faith to them, but, since they constantly and persistently obey Jesus’ mandata, they achieve the merits of salvation. Thus, to be saved, non sufficit fides, faith is not enough. God loves the apostles because they love Christ and believe in Him.267 However, how is this reciprocal relation to be explained? To do this, Lucas refers to two concepts amor antecedens and amor consequens. In brief, a preceding love is the cause of a consequent one. God first loves the Apostles, the amor antecedens, and then, because of His love, they believe in Christ and love him. Of course, in this “preceding love,” the Apostles have no merits, but these are acquired exactly by persevering in faith and love towards Christ, and, specifically because of these merits, God loves the Apostles – and any believer in general – even more amply, with the amor consequens.268 In sum, according to Lucas, the good works performed thanks to the assistance of God’s grace are a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving eternal life. Moreover, “doing good” co265 “Sed observata praecepta faciunt, ut permaneamus in dilectione et gratia Christi”, Lucas: 1616, John 15:10, 132. 266 The precepts are summarized in John 15:12. “Hoc est praeceptum meum, ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos,” and as Francis explained, “[Christus] meminerat praeceptorum suorum, exigens illorum observationem ad hoc ut quis maneat in dilectione ipsius”, Lucas: 1616, John 15:12, 133. In this instance, Lucas makes a single mention of Theophylact and unspecified alii. 267 “Quia estis genuine discipuli mei, quia per fidem et amore mandatorumque observationem constanter mihi adhaeretis. Amoris meminit, quia non sufficit fides…Ergo quod amaret Deus Pater Apostolos, causa fuit, quod Apostoli fide et amore complecterentur Christum”, Lucas: 1616, John 16:27, 153. 268 “Qui diligit me, diligetur a Patre meo: sed intellige unum, quemadmodum alterum, de posterioribus divini amoris effectis, de amore Dei consequente, quem vocant, non antecedente. Quod Apostoli amarent Christum et crederent in eum, erat ejus causa amore Dei Patris antecedens, quod Deus Pater prior amasset eos, sed postquam Pater jam amasset eos ad fidem et amorem erga Christus adduxisset, illi ea in fide et amore perseveranter, meruerunt consequenter amplius a Deo amari”, Lucas: 1616, John 16:27, 153. Lucas bases his argument on Cyril of Alexandria: 1863, 11, 939 A, John 16:26–27, PG 74, 466, while in the end he quotes Theophylact: 1864, 724 A, John 16:25–28, PG 124, 222.

Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will

191

incides with obedience to Christ’s precepts: submission to God’s will proves the believer’s love towards Christ, resulting in those merits necessary in the economy of salvation. By virtue of this oboedentia, God gives eternal life to men. Thus, Christ indicates the way to go to the Father, to give to his flock the possibility of following him, and to show the danger of eternal damnation to people who do not want to believe.269 2.6.3.4 The Problem of Sin: God’s Foreknowledge and Human Free Will The aforementioned theory of amor antecedens/consequens is also related to a passage of Matt 18:14 “sic non est voluntas ante Patrem vestrum qui in caelis est ut pereat unus de pusillis istis.” Commenting on these words, Lucas declares that human actions can lead both to salvation and to perdition, and, in effect, God wishes that everybody can be saved.270 This is a very important statement in the light of the inner Catholic controversy that animated that period. For instance, during the same time, Willem Estius was arguing the exact opposite, viz. that God did not bestow the possibility of being saved on everyone, thus denying them sufficient grace.271 In addition, Lucas declares that some people will be damned to eternal death because of their obstinate lack of humility and justice. In order to be clearer, the author provides an example: if a son rises up against his father, the origin of this revolt is not the father, but the son.272 Indeed, God created human beings not for their perdition but for their salvation, giving them all the instruments – i. e. the sufficient grace – to obtain eternal life.273 In this instance, Lucas refers to John of Damascus, the Church father who described the difference between voluntas antecedens and voluntas consequens, sustaining that God wanted to save everybody274 before 269 “[D]eclarat quid boni sint consecuturae oves ipsius, ut probi quidem animentur ad sequendum, reprobi vero videant in quo periculo versentur”, Lucas: 1616, John 10:28, 52. 270 In his commentary to the Gospel according to John, Lucas clearly states: “Si quis.] is qui, quicumque tandem, ubicumque gentium fuerit in toto mundo, cujuscumque nationi, sexus, aetatis”, Lucas: 1616, John 14:23, 122. 271 Estius was proposing this doctrine in his commentaries on the Pauline corpus, published posthumously in two volumes (1614–1616). Cf. François: 2014, 117–143. 272 “An si quis pusillorum istorum humilitatem et pertinacem deserat…nolit Deus illum perire, id est, supplicis addici aeternis? Respondeo, hoc rarius accidere…quando tamen illud accidit, proculdubio vult Deus hujusmodi perire: caeterum non est illa illius perditio ex Dei voluntate tamquam ex origine, sed ex illius spontanea malitia…non patris voluntas hujus origo est…sed filii rebellio”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 18:14, 271. 273 “Non supplicii causa nos condidit Deus, sed beatitudinis, cujus nos capaces creavit, et plurima obtulit media illius assequendae”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 18:14, 271. This concept is commonly defined as gratia sufficiens, although Lucas did not use this expression. 274 “Deus primaria et antecedente voluntate velle omnes salvos esse, et regni sui compotes fieri. Non enim nos ut puniret condidit; sed quia bonus est, ad hos ut bonitas suae participes

192

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

actually condemning or saving someone. Owing to his voluntas antecedens, God wants everybody to be saved and gives everyone the possibility of being saved, but, only after having seen human actions, he decides, with his voluntas consequens, who will be saved and who will be damned. Therefore, human free will cannot be the only cause of obtaining salvation – in clear opposition to Pelagianism – but damnation is caused by men alone. Furthermore, Lucas maintains that God, being just, cannot condemn someone to eternal death or deny his adjuvant grace without having foreseen his or her sins.275 He affirms this in his analysis of Matt 25:42 and, in this regard, he seems to refer (although not explicitly) to two renowned Jesuit authors: Luis de Molina and Robert Bellarmine. Concerning the former theologian, Lucas possibly read him through the medium of Thomas Stapleton, one of the sources he admittedly used. In any case, Molina also stated that sin originates from human free will since it is impossible to sin without a voluntary act,276 while at the same time affirming that God never denies his aid – i. e. his adjuvant grace – to men, otherwise no condemnation is possible: no guilt could be imputed to a sinful man if he did not receive any divine support.277 Moreover, Bellarmine, Lucas’ friend and possibly his classmate in Louvain, criticized Calvin and Beza, and also insisted on the fact that God, being just, condemns only because of the prevision of human sins.278 According to Bellarmine, there is a “damnatio ob praevisa peccata”: a damnation without God’s foreknowledge of sins would be unjust.279

275

276 277

278

essemus. Peccatores porro puniri vult, quia justus est. Permissio duplex. – Itaque prima illa voluntas, antecedens dicitur et beneplacitum. Cujus ipse causa sit: secunda autem, consequens voluntas et permissio, ex nostra causa ortum habet”, John of Damascus: 1864, 2, 29, PG 94, 979. “Ex parte Dei aut Christi, quod isti damnetur igne aeterno, ipse quidem Deus justus judex causa est, sed quod promeruerint hunc ignem aeternum, hujus rei nulla causa in Deo auto in Christo. Non enim sicut praedestinatio et benedictio Dei, electi causa sunt promererint regni: ita reprobatio et maledictio Dei reprobis causa sunt promerendi igni aeterni: quia non ut illa operum bonorum, ita haec causa sunt malorum. Malorum operum, sola hominis voluntas, solum liberum arbitrium causa est … Nam si nullum a Deo praevisum fuisset hominis peccatum … non poterat Deus justus ipsum reprobare, aut statuere negarem ipsi gratiam necessariam, si non ad assequendum regnum caelorum, certe ad evitandum ignem aeternum”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 25:42, 432–433. Of course, the gratia necessaria is the adjuvant grace, the divine temporal cause that, in cooperation with the human temporal cause, i. e. good works, leads men to salvation. “Peccatum autem esse, & voluntarium non esse, pugnantia sunt”, Stapleton: 1620, Matt 11: 21, 32. Stapleton quotes Molina: 1595, q. 14. art. 13. disp. 10, 34. “[M]anifestum est, Deum non denegasse eis auxilia, sine quibus nulla ratione obedire possent: alioquin nulla ratione eis imputaretur ad culpam, quod Deo tunc non obedirent, ut Augustinus concedit”, Molina: 1595, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 10, 35. Molina in this instance makes a reference to Augustine: 1954a, 53, 9, CCSL 36, 456. See also Stapleton: 1620, Matt 11: 21, 32. Here, the reference is to Matt 11: 21, so that eis refers to Chorazin and Bethzaida. About the friendship between Lucas and Bellarmine, Bled writes: “Dans une de ses lettres le cardinal Bellarmin l’appelle: amicum suavissimum et virum modestissimum”, Bled: 1898,

Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will

193

Of course, the consequence of sin, in the absence of repentance, is eternal damnation, as Christ states: “And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left” (Matt 25:33). Lucas says that these words are a clear reference to the Last Judgment when God will judge men for their acts, dividing the faithful from sinners. Analyzing this passage, the author explains the attributes of these two groups. The faithful are characterized by obedience, patience, mildness, simplicity; sinners, on the contrary, are subject to stupidity, pugnacity, immodesty and wantonness, and Christ will divide them, putting the good people on his right and the bad ones on his left.280 This difference is not by coincidence, but there is symbolism behind the words: the right is intended as the highest, and so noblest and most honorable place, which refers to the air (i. e. the celestial Heaven), hence intended for those people who will gain eternal beatitude. The left is the lowest, most ignoble place which refers to the soil (i. e. the hypogean Hell) where sinners will go after having been condemned to eternal damnation.281 In sum, if “to do good” coincides with obedience to Christ’ precepts, “to do evil” is the opposite, to revolt against the Father. However, the problem of God’s foreknowledge still remains: if God knows everything, according to his omniscience, are men free or are they coerced to sin by God’s knowledge? The highest evidence of this contrast between human freedom and divine omniscience is represented by the case of Judas Iscariot, object of this last section. As has been 423, n. 3. Bellarmine even cited Lucas in his works, in particular making reference to his Notationes, see Bellarmine: 1586, 92. 279 “Tota autem quaestio in eo sita esse videtur, an impii creentur ad gloriam divinae iustitiae, in eorum suppliciis demonstrandam, ob decretum Dei, quod omnem culpae praevisionem antecesserit, ut Calvinus, & Beza docent; an potius, quod nos credimus, quia Deus ob eorum praevisa peccata, eos decreto suo ab aeternitate damnaverit … Nam damnationem decernere ob praevisa peccata, iustitiae est: Sine praevisione autem peccatorum damnationem decernere, iniustitiae esse videtur, sic enim loquitur sanctus AUGUSTINUS libro tertio in Iulianum, capite decimo octavo: Bonus est Deus, iustus est Deus, potest aliquos sine bonis meritis liberare, quia bonus est; non potest quemquam sine malis meritis damnare, quia iustus est. Et in epistola 106. ad Paulinum: Quenquam immeritum, & nulli peccato obnoxium, si Deus damnare creditur, alienus ab iniquitate non creditur. Non potuit igitur Deus ante praevisionem peccati decernere damnationem alicuius, ut iustitiam suam ea damnatione monstraret”, Bellarmine: 1586, 164–165. 280 “Illos oves, propter obedientiam, patientiam, mansuetudinem, simplicitatem, praesertim vero vitae innocentiam cum beneficiendi studio conjuctam … hos vero hircos, propter stupiditatem, rixositatem, immodestiam, lasciviam, praesertim vero vitae immunditiam et foetorem peccatorum”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 25:33, 426. 281 “A dextris suis,] id est, loco honoratiori ac nobiliori, superiori inquam in loco, in aere, (quomodo intrepretatur D. Thomas in commentario) quippe ad beatitudinem destinatos. A sinistris, id est loco ignobiliori, inferiori inquam, in terra, utpote ad miseriam perpetuam condemnandos … ante tribunali vero, in aere quidem consistent electi, in terra autem reprobi. A dextris igitur et a sinistris, idem sit hic, quos supra et infra, eodem loco, sed illos in aere, hos in terra constituent”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 25:33, 426. This analysis is borrowed from Aquinas: 1951, l. 3, Matt 25:31–34.

194

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

demonstrated, according to Lucas, human works are a cause of salvation, but only as a concurrent cause together with God’s grace which sustains it and makes possible its cooperation. Human beings and their sinful acts are the only cause of eternal damnation. However, the case of Judas Iscariot is problematic since the Filius perditionis seems to have been condemned ab aeterno by God. This interpretation is clearly not acceptable for Lucas; otherwise he would have fallen into the “Calvinist error” of double predestination. By contrast, Lucas considers Judas’ case as a paradigmatic example of the sinner who condemns himself precisely because of his sins. Lucas focuses his attention on this problem analyzing John 17:12: “While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled” (cf. Murray: 2015, 185–203). According to Lucas, Jesus took care of his Apostles and none of them died, “in temporal body or in eternal soul,” because of the Son’s negligence (negligentia). Whoever detached himself from Christ, as Peter did by denying having known Jesus, did not remain in sin but returned to Jesus after penance. However, it was not the same for Judas, who, after having betrayed Christ, chose to kill himself, ut Scriptura impleantur, in order to fulfil the Scripture. So, the question remains, whether Judas was free in his choice, if the Scripture had to be fulfilled? Lucas explains that Judas died, not because of Christ’s negligence but because of God’s ( just) will, as it was written in the Old Testament. Actually, God foreknew (praesciret Deus) what Judas would have chosen: not to do penance and not to convert himself to God, in opposition to Peter’s choice.282 After having foreknown Judas’ sins, according to Lucas, God decided (statuit) to lose Judas completely, predicting this event through the psalmist. Obviously, the author seems here to accept Bellarmine’s “damnatio ob praevisa peccata”: God’s praescientia guarantees Judas’ freedom and only after having known the sins, God decides to condemn him. Therefore, Judas, as free man, decided not to do penance and not to convert himself to Christ, but to kill himself, damning himself to eternal death. God, because of his omniscience, had foreknowledge of Judas’s will and decided to preannounce Judas’s damnation because of his own sins to the writer of the Psalms. 282 “[E]t nemo ex eis mea negligentia perierit, id est, in mortem incurrerit, sive corporis temporalem, sive animae aeternam…quamvis enim mox comprehensio Iesu fugerint Apostoli omnes, et intraverint in tentantionem defectionis, magnaque ex parte ei succuberint, ipso Petro negante Iesum: non tamen permanserunt in ea, sed bene cito emerserunt, Iesu ipsos respiciente…Quod igitur ille perierit causa fuit, non negligentia Christi, sed voluntas Dei per Scripturam declarata. Nam hic praesciret Deus scelera qua esset ille patraturus, quodque de eis nollet poenitere et converti ad Deum: statuit illum Deus perdere funditus, idque se facturum per Psalmographum praedixit: qui partim Psalmo 68, partim Psal. 108”, Lucas: 1616, John 17:12, 163.

Lucas’ Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will

195

Thus, Judas was not obliged to do what he did, but God had the foreknowledge of his act: the apostle did not consent to God’s will and God had foreknowledge of that. Moreover, God preannounced his decision to the writer of Psalms, and, through that medium, He praedixit Judas’ damnation. It is not a coincidence that Lucas uses this verb to describe Judas’ fall. The term has a very strict meaning which our author wanted to express at the opening of his commentaries. The occasion was given while analyzing Matt 1: 22, again with reference to the fulfilment of the Scriptures: “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet.” In this instance, Lucas explains that the Latin noun propheta comes from the Greek verb πρόφημι, whose translation in Latin is praedicere, generally associated with the notion of “prediction of the future.” However, according to Lucas, this is not the right interpretation of the verb πρόφημι; rather, it means “to express God’s will.” Indeed, the propheta is the “intermediary (internuntius) of the Divine Will” and the “messenger (interpres) of divine mysteries and divine oracles.”283 Judas’ case is, of course, a particular example of a general law, namely that God’s foreknowledge does not determine the course of events. This law could be better explained as the difference between necessitas absoluta, absolute necessity, and necessitas consequentiae, the necessity produced by the cause-effect relation. Lucas does not apply these notions to Judas’ case, but he comes to them on the occasion of his analysis of the expression “the Scriptures shall be fulfilled,” in Matt 26:53–54: “Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done?” The parallelism with John 17:12 is almost exact, given the central role of God’s prediction to the psalmist both in the case of Judas’ damnation and in Jesus’ decision. In the latter, Christ replies to Apostles that he could have asked to be saved, since God’s will was not absolute, i. e. God did not impose his will on his Son, but Jesus freely chose to fulfil the Scriptures. It seems clear that we have the same elements in Judas’ case as well as in that of Jesus: God foresaw what will be; then, the prophet expressed through human words what God had foreseen; and, finally the person acted according to his own will, “fulfilling the Scripture”, consciously in the case of Jesus, unconsciously in that of Judas. The difference between these two kinds of necessity could therefore be applied to Judas’ case. The apostle was not condemned because of necessitas absoluta, in the sense that he had to be condemned, without the possibility of salvation. Judas’ condemnation was caused by his own sin, which is the condition 283 “Propheta a predicendis rebus futuris nomen habet: πρόφημι enim Graece praedicere est. Caeterum non tantum is qui future praedicit […] verum etiam is qui divinae voluntatis internuntius est, aut oraculorum mysteriuorumue divinorum interperes: proprie tamen is solus, qui id facit immediate a Deo missus et instructus”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 1:22, 14.

196

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

of his eternal punishment.284 Hence his damnation is a necessitas consequentiae, a necessary consequence of his own free choice. In sum, after four hundred years of oblivion, Lucas’ commentaries on the four Gospels have been examined not only in order to delineate the doctrine of the salvation elaborated by this author but also to provide evidence of the importance which Jesuit scholarship had among theologians educated in Louvain and Douai. This theology was particularly interested in safeguarding human free will and its contribution to salvation. Lucas ‘of Bruges’ is a product of this new thought. He underlines several times the central role of human works in the economy of salvation which he considers an equivalent or concurrent cause and at the same level as God’s adjuvant grace, a thesis which reveals a clear Jesuit approach to the question since it presents a more optimistic view of the potentialities of human nature. To use a famous Latin sentence, Lucas maintains that homo faber fortunae suae, both good and bad fortune, because through his good works, man is able to gain eternal life, in cooperation with God’s adjuvant grace, or be damned to eternal fire owing to his own bad works. Indeed, according to Lucas, God wants everybody be saved, giving his grace to all men. Unfortunately, not everyone answers His call positively since men’s decision is absolutely free. The implicit problem in Lucas’ view should also be underlined: although men are free in their choice whether to follow Christ or not, men consciously or unconsciously fulfil the Scripture as in the opposite cases of Jesus and Judas respectively. In other words, human free will seems to be guaranteed only de jure but not de facto since men choose to do exactly what God has foreseen in his eternal dimension. Lucas’ terminology is borrowed from scholasticism, but, among the authoritative sources referred to in these commentaries, scholastic authors do not play an important role. Rather, Lucas prefers to base his thesis on Greek and Latin Fathers, in particular Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius and Chrysostom. Moreover, he tries to have a philological approach although he has to refer only to the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate for the Latin version and to Plantin’s Biblia Regia for the Greek text. Notwithstanding the restriction caused by the establishment of the Sixto-Clementine version as the authentic text of Scripture by Clement VIII in 1592, Lucas embellishes his commentaries with quotations from Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac in order to explain the four Gospels in depth. In this instance, the appendices to the first volume clearly testify to the intention of recovering the original evangelical 284 Lucas uses this difference in another passage, but the reference to this Scholastic theory seems evident: “Verum posita Dei voluntas, non imponit rebus eam necessitatem, qua aliter fieri non possit, sed eam dumtaxat qua aliter non fient: illa est necessitas absoluta, quae consequentis vocant Dialectici; haec non nisi conditionalis, et dicitur necessitas consequentiae”, Lucas: 1606, Matt 26:53, 484. The reference to Thomas Aquinas is clear; for example, see In III sententiarum, dist. 20, q. 1 a. 1.

Conclusion: Louvain between anti-Pelagianism and Molinism

197

message of Christ’s preaching on the basis of a philological study of the text. Lucas not only explains in the Notae different lectiones handed down in several manuscripts and shows his exhaustive knowledge of Aramaic in the Tractatus; he even uses Semitic languages to clarify passages of the Gospels which were unclear in the Greek and Latin. By a way of conclusion, Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ was a learned author, able to apply his thorough knowledge of ancient tongues to possibly the most discussed question of his time: the relation between God’s predestination and human free will. In his study, he felt challenged, on the one hand, by the strong Calvinist presence in the Low Countries, a ‘heresy’ to be counteracted exactly by stressing the central role of human free will in the economy of salvation. On the other hand, he found the instrument for this aim precisely in a Jesuit theology which was eager to emphasize the importance of free human actions.

2.7

Conclusion: Louvain between anti-Pelagianism and Molinism285

As I have shown in the second part of this work, Louvain was a dynamic centre of biblical exegesis with scholars adhering to several theological positions. This was demonstrated starting from the 1550s, when the two Franciscans, Zegers and Sasbout, defended the duplex iustitia doctrine by referring to iustitia inhaerens and iustitia imputata even though the Council fathers had firmly rejected it in the discussions that led to the decree on Justification (1547). In the same period, the contest between Tapper’s ‘Augustino-Thomistic’ school and Baius’ strict antiPelagianism arose. In this theological debate, Hessels followed his friend Baius and accepted the “radical depravity of human nature and the necessity of God’s grace” (François: 2012, 274), denying the value of human good works in the economy of salvation. Nevertheless, Baius’ positions received harsh criticisms: his works were first censured (Salamanca in 1565 and Alcalá in 1567) and then condemned (Pius V in 1567 and Gregory XIII in 1580). In the meantime, Jansenius showed an Augustinian theology – Augustine being the reference point par excellence for all ‘parties’ involved in the debate –, moderated by his humanistic approach to the Scriptures, with a more optimistic view of human free will. A few years later, another contest emerged, between the Augustinianminded scholars and Jesuit theologians. The casus belli were Lessius’ Theses 285 Part of this conclusion is included in Wim François/Antonio Gerace (2019), The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism in the Post-Tridentine Catholic Church, in: Boersma K., et al. (ed.), More than Luther: The Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 15–44.

198

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

Theologicae (1586), which were censured (Louvain in 1587 and Douai in 1588) because of their ‘semi-Pelagian’ doctrine of predestination ex praevisis meritis. Louvain theologians decided to end the controversy through Lensaeus’ Formula doctrinae (1586). However, Molina’s Concordia (1588) ‘rocked the boat’ of Catholicism once again, leading to a theological struggle in Spain between Dominicans and Jesuits. Molina’s Concordia was soon received in the Low Countries, mainly by Stapleton, who in 1590 was directly appointed by Philip II in succession to Baius. After Stapleton, Lucas also preferred a Jesuit-minded approach to the vexata quaestio of the relation between eternal predestination, temporal grace and human free will. In this regard, I also recall that Molinism was not the only Jesuit school of thought in Louvain. Indeed, another important Jesuit scholar, the above mentioned Robert Bellarmine, who remained in Louvain between 1569–1576, speculated on this difficult matter (Richgels: 1980). For instance, in his third volume of the Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei (1593), which Bellarmine published when he was in Rome, he took his distance from both Molina’s praedestinatio per propria merita and Lessius’ predestinatio ex praevisis meritis, even though he avoided mentioning his polemical targets by name. In any case, Bellarmine seemed to criticize the Spanish Jesuit by pointing out that, through predestination, God granted his salvation to certain men (certi homines) with no prevision of good works. On the other hand, he also wanted men to ‘execute’ good works. Therefore – thus argued Bellarmine – the praedestinatio per opera bona praevisa, which seems to me Bellarmine’s rendering of Molina’s praedestinatio per propria merita –, is not acceptable if the expression ‘per opera praevisa’ is related to the verb ‘[God] predestined’ since in this case God would predestine on the basis of human works Consequently, God would not be autonomous in his decision. However, if ‘per opera praevisa’ is related to the verb ‘to give [salvation]’ this doctrine is acceptable since salvation would be effect of justification – the ultimate effect of predestination – and good works.286 Even though Bellarmine tried to show that Molina’s words can also be interpreted in a sound way, he did not show the same willingness with Lessius’ doctrine ‘ex praevisis meritis’ which he completely rejected since predestination, vocation 286 “RESPONDEO, alia ratio est praedestinationis, alia exequutionis. Constituit enim in praedestinatione, regnum caelorum dare certis hominibus, quos absque ulla operum praevisione dilexit: tamen simul constituit, ut quoad exequutionem, via perveniendi ad regnum, essent opera bona. Itaque illa propositio Deus ab aeterno praedestinavit hominibus dare regnum per opera bona praevisa, potest & vera esse, & falsa. Nam si illud: Per opera praevisa, referatur ad verbum praedestinavit, falsa erit; significabit enim Deum praedestinasse homines, quia opera illorum bona praeviderat: si referatur ad verbum, dare, vera erit, quia significabit, exequutionem futuram esse per opera bona, sive, quod est idem, glorificationem effectum esse iustificationis, & operum bonorum, sicut ipsa iustificatio effectus est vocationis, & vocatio praedestinationis”, Bellarmine: 1593, 628B.

Conclusion: Louvain between anti-Pelagianism and Molinism

199

and separation [of the faithful] from the massa damnata do not depend on God’s foreknowledge, but only on His will,287 as Molina also affirmed in his Concordia. For his part, Bellarmine distinguished sufficient grace, granted to every person, so that s/he can do good, without being coerced to do so, from efficacious grace, given only to the elect so that they really perform good works.288 In other words, God’s grace is sufficient when he calls men to convert and to cooperate with Him. However, only with efficacious grace, people infallibly convert and perform good works (Cf. François/Gerace: 2019).289 Bellarmine was therefore able to distinguish betweem Molina’s and Lessius’ view, whereby he considered Lessius’ as far more ‘semi-Pelagian’. By a way of conclusion, I want to stress that anti-Pelagian Augustinianism arose again in Louvain after the de auxiliis controversy, with another and more famous Jansenius: Jansenius of Ypres. If we have a look at the holders of the Royal Chair of Sacred Scriptures in Louvain, we can notice the alternation of ‘antiPelagian’ and ‘Molinist’ professors. After the first holder, Hasselius (1547–1552), we have the ‘long reign’ of Baius (1552–1589), followed by Stapleton (1590–1598). After this brief ‘Molinist period’, the anti-Pelagian teachings again took the reins of the royal chair with Jacob Jansonius (1598–1625), his disciple Henry Rampen (1625–1630) and, above all, with Jansenius of Ypres (1630–1637) and his friend Libertus Fromondus (1637–1653). Eventually, the anti-Jansenist, Nicholas du Bois, was appointed in 1654, but he “was totally incompetent as a theologian and Bible commentator. With the appointment of Du Bois the Golden Age of Catholic Bible exegesis in Louvain came to an end” (François: 2012, 289). In sum, all the various theologies of grace developed in Louvain are to be considered as answers 287 “At si ex operibus praevisis Deus unum diligeret, alterum odio haberet, promptum fuisset B. Paulo hoc dicere, & omnem suspitionem iniustitiae Dei, uno verbo, de medio tollere. Cum autem hoc non fecerit, sed omnia revocaverit ad voluntatem Dei, qui miseretur, cuius voluerit, & cuius non voluerit, non miseretur: certum esse debet ex Apostoli sententia, praedestinationem, & electionem, sive, discretionem, ex massa perditionis non pendere ex ulla praevisione operum nostrorum, sed ex mero beneplacito Dei”, Bellarmine: 1593, 612 A. See Motta: 2005. 288 “Ubi praeterea est notandum, quod sicut circa fidem, paenitentiam, perseverantiam, aliosque actus bonos, ita etiam circa continentiam duplex gratia, sive auxilium distingui solet; Unum sufficiens, quod omnibus datur saltem pro loco, & tempore; quo auxilio non tam fit ut operemur, quam ut operari possimus; Aliud autem efficax, quo re ipsa operamur”, Bellarmine: 1588, 549C. 289 “QUINTA partitio est auxilii, sive gratiae, in auxilium, sive gratiam sufficientem, & efficacem. Auxilium SUFFICIENS dicitur, quo Deus ita hominem vocat, & excitat, & iuvare dirigendo, protegendo, cooperando paratus est, ut re vera possit ille sic excitatus, & vocatus velle credere, velle converti, velle bonum aliquod facere, tamen re ipsa non velit credere, aut converti, aut bonum illud facere. Auxilium EFFICAX dicitur, quo Deus ita hominem vocat, & excitat, & iuvare dirigendo, protegendo, cooperando, paratus est, ut infallibiliter re ipsa velit ille, qui sic excitatur, & vocatur, & re ipsa credat, convertatur, bonum faciat”, Bellarmine: 1593, 524C–D.

200

The exegesis of the Vulgate in Louvain and its alumni

to different needs, such as Sasbout’s irenic will to reconcile Catholics and Protestants through the doctrine of double justice, or Hessels’ wish to counter the Reformers by ‘playing on the same field’ and analyzing the Gospel of Matthew in the light of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings. By contrast, Jansenius of Ghent was able to use the achievements of Erasmus’ humanism and to integrate them in his exegesis. Even Molinism was not absent, thanks to Stapleton and Lucas. Having dealt in the first chapter with the textual criticism of the Vulgate, and its interpretation in the biblical commentaries in the second one, I shall deal finally with the preaching of the Scriptures to the flock, the next step in the ‘biblical flow’. In a certain sense, the works related to the preaching of the Scriptures are the most important in this contribution, since they had a greater impact on the common life of the lay people than the specialized text-critical and exegetical works which were spread only among a small percentage of population, being basically addressed to scholars and clergy. The last part of this work is therefore addressed to the sermons written by Sasbout, Jansenius, Stapleton and Lucas.

3.

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

Already at the beginning of the Counter Reformation, the Church felt the importance of sound preaching. When the Vulgate was declared to be the authentic text of the Catholic Church in the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, the Fathers mandated very clearly that the Latin Vulgate was the official text to be used in all public preaching such as sermons in the Mass (CT 5, 91, 35–92, 2). Perhaps of even greater importance was the second decree of the Fifth Session which imposed strict rules for the preaching of the Bible, considered as a necessary obligation of the Church. First, the decree established that one of the most important duties for all clergymen, from bishops to parish priests, was that of preaching.1 Secondly, preachers from religious orders would have to receive permission from the bishop to preach in a church not belonging to their order. Finally, if a member of a religious order wanted to preach within his own order, his superior had to examine his behaviour and knowledge, and he would have to receive benediction from the bishop.2 Given the primacy accorded to preaching, 1 “Quia vero christianae rei publicae non minus necessaria est praedicatio Evangelii quam lectio et hoc est praecipuum episcoporum munus: statuit et decrevit eadem sancta Synodus omnes episcopos archiepiscopos primates et omnes alios ecclesiarum praelatos teneri per se ipsos si legitime impediti non fuerint ad praedicandum sanctum Iesu Christi Evangelium … Archipresbyteri quoque plebani et quicunque parochiales vel alias curam animarum habentes ecclesias quocunque modo obtinent per se vel alios idoneos si legitime impediti fuerint diebus saltem dominicis et festis solemnibus plebes sibi commissas pro sua et earum capacitate pascant salutaribus verbis docendo ea quae scire omnibus necessarium est ad salutem annuntiando que eis cum brevitate et facilitate sermonis vitia quae eos declinare et virtutes quas sectari oporteat ut poenam aeternam evadere et coelestem gloriam consequi valeant”, CT 5, 242, 27–37. 2 “Regulares vero cuiuscunque ordinis nisi a suis superioribus de vita moribus et scientia examinati et approbati fuerint ac de eorum licentia etiam in ecclesiis suorum ordinum praedicare non possint; cum qua licentia personaliter se coram episcopis praesentare et ab eis benedictionem petere teneantur antequam praedicare incipiant. In ecclesiis vero quae suorum ordinum non sunt ultra licentiam suorum superiorum etiam episcopi licentiam habere teneantur sine qua in ipsis ecclesiis non suorum ordinum nullo modo praedicare possint”, CT 5, 243, 6–12.

202

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

Catholic theologians began to analyse the Vulgate philologically to ensure that the text was conformed as closely as possible to the ‘original’. They also commented on it in order to explain the Scriptures in a sound Catholic way, and they prepared homiletic texts, to educate the clergy in preaching to the faithful. This was of course a necessity for the Church, given the religious controversies that dominated the Early Modern Era. As seen in the general introduction to this work, the border between the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands and the Dutch Republic was not only a geo-political frontier but also, and above all, a confessional frontline. The importance of preaching is therefore obvious: it was the most powerful Catholic medium for educating the flock and the ultimate purpose of the ‘biblical flow’. Through their sermons, priests and preachers could teach religious doctrine, persuading the faithful of the correctness of the Catholic message and safeguarding them from any ‘heretical’ deviation. Therefore, the final part of this study will deal with the preaching of the Bible during the mass,3 carefully analyzing selected sermons. Among the seven scholars under consideration, Sasbout, Jansenius, Stapleton and Lucas were the only ones who wrote sermons or preparatory works for sermons. Some of the homilies here analysed seem to have been preached, as in the case of Sasbout and Lucas. Jansenius spent time as a parish priest in Courtrai (1547–1561), and he preached at St. Bavo’s Cathedral after becoming Bishop of Ghent, gathering his sermons from selected chapters of his Commentary on his Concordia. Therefore, since there is no difference between Jansenius’ commentary and the published version of his sermons, I will pay attention only to the editio princeps published by George Braun since he introduced each sermon with interesting prefaces. Then, I shall analyse Thomas Stapleton’s Promptuaria, preparatory texts for sermons, intended as an aid for priests and preachers. Such texts of Early Modern Catholic history provide an important, though underdeveloped, field of research. They are a primary source that can reveal some slices of the historical and religious context of the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands. This is particularly true with regard to Sasbout’s and Lucas’ sermons: having been preached and printed without a substantial re-elaboration, they clearly depict important aspects of Early Modern religious history. With respect to the texts of Lucas and Stapleton, these show how Catholic scholars tried to erect an ‘orthodox’ wall against the ‘heretical’ siege in the Low Countries, especially Calvinism. Generally, the starting point of my analysis will be a pericope taken from the Scriptures, read and sung during the mass – not necessarily during the Sunday 3 O’Malley: 1979; O’Malley: 1983, 238–252; Bayley: 1988, 299–314; McCullough (ed.): 2011, although centred only on the British Isles; about Franciscan preaching in general, still important is Bellucco: 1956; On the Low Countries spefically, very useful is Bosma: 2003, 327–355. Other interesting information can be gathered in the second chapter, “The Counter-Reformation”, of Oliphant Old: 2002, 158–250.

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

203

mass –, after which follows the preaching given to the simple flock both in Latin and in the vernacular, i. e. Dutch (or German in the case of the German translations of Stapleton’s Promptuaria), and to clerics in Latin. In spite of this precise assertion, the authors analysed here sometimes fall into the temptation of using the ‘original’ Greek sources, even in preaching the Scriptures. I will show in which cases Sasbout, Stapleton, and Lucas made use of these ‘originals’. The fact that they did so should not come as a surprise: these authors had a deep knowledge of ancient biblical languages and referring to them was ‘natural’ for at least two reasons. First, the ‘originals’ allow a reading that is closer to the words of the evangelists; second, they allow a reading that is often clearer than that of the Latin translation. References to the Greek text are always made to give a better explanation of the Latin pericopes. Another consideration may also have been at play: the use of Greek during the sermon conferred an aura of erudition on the preacher, disposing the audience to accept more readily the explanation of difficult passages, although the majority of the congregation would have been unable to comprehend what the preacher was actually saying.4 In sum, the authors analysed here referred to Greek texts to confer greater authority, seriousness, and erudition on their sermons. By offering a ‘philological’ reason for their interpretation, they could demonstrate the correctness of their reading and, implicitly, the wrongness of the ‘heretical’ reading. One year in particular was vital for the renewal of the liturgy: 1562. It was in that year that the Tridentine fathers promulgated the decree De observandis et evitandis in celebratione Missae (“On what to do and what to avoid in the celebration of the Mass”). There was division among the Council fathers, some of whom hoped for a complete renewal of the liturgy, other of whom wished to maintain the rituals handed down in their diocese. The fathers were not able to come to an agreement, so, in the Twenty-fifth and last Session of the Council, held on 4 December 1563, they left the resolution to the Pope. In particular, the Tridentine fathers asked for a new edition of the missal, together with the breviary and the catechism, to be later approved by the Pope.5 A year later, in 4 At least in Italy, this strategy is still used today: on several occasions, I have personally heard parish priests refer to Latin or to Greek words, quoting ‘the originals’, although the faithful were, of course, unable to interpret or even to understand the spelling of those words. 5 “Sacrosancta Synodus in secunda sessione sub sanctissimo domino nostro Pio IV celebrata delectis quibusdam patribus commisit ut de variis censuris ac libris vel suspectis vel perniciosis quid facto opus esset considerarent atque ad ipsam sanctam Synodum referrent; audiens nunc huic operi ab eis extremam manum impositam esse nec tamen ob librorum varietatem et multitudinem distincte et commode possit a sancta Synodo diiudicari: praecipit ut quidquid ab illis praestitum est sanctissimo Romano Pontifici exhibeatur ut eius iudicio atque auctoritate terminetur et evulgetur. Idemque de catechismo a patribus quibus illud mandatum fuerat et de Missali et breviario fieri mandat”, CT 9, 1106, 10–17. The edition of the Missal is of course, Missale Romanum ex Decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini Restitutum: 1570. Con-

204

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

1563, Pius IV established a committee, led by Cardinal Leonardo Marini (1509– 1573), in order to unify the liturgy of the mass in the entire Catholic Church. Pius V required the presence of other bishops in the committee, such as Cardinal Sirleto. The work of the committee was long: after four years, the Catechismus, intended only for parish priests, was printed, in 1566. A year later, in 1568, the breviary was ready to be published, but it took seven years for a new missal to be published, appearing only in 1570. In effect, this ‘new edition’ was just an emended and updated version of the missal printed in 1474 (Sorci: 2003, 48–52). Nevertheless, through the bull Quo primum tempore, Pope Pius V gave his approval for the new emended edition of the Roman Missal. The Pope established rigid control over its publication and dispersal: only authorized printers could print, sell, or receive it in deposit. The new printed copies must, of course, conform to the original; if they did not, the Church retained the right to confiscate the books from the printer or the bookseller. The latter would be liable for a fine of one hundred gold ducats, and even risked excommunication and additional penalties, at the Pope’s discretion.6 Together with Clement VIII’s ban on printing his Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (1592), this measure shows the increase of papal authority to which every aspect of Catholic life had to be subject. This could also be seen in Pius IV’s bull Iniunctum nobis (“Enjoined to us”), in which the Professio fidei Tridentina (“The Tridentine Profession of Faith”) was issued, requiring the believer to “promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ”.7 Concerning control of the Roman missal, the will of the Pope was clear: to give uniformity to the Catholic liturgy since every diocese, as well as every religious order, had its own missal. The Pope’s ban was addressed to all local liturgical rites with an exemption only for those that had a tradition of at least two-hundred

cerning the history and the evolution of the Roman missal from IX century until nowdays, see Sorci: 2003, 37–78. See also Mullett: 1999, 114. 6 “Quod ut ubique terrarum incorruptum, ac mendis et erroribus purgatum praeservetur, omnibus in nostro et Sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae Domino mediate, vel immeditate subjecto commorantibus impressoribus, sub amissionis librorum, ac centum ducatorum auri Camerae Apostolicae ipso facto applicandorum: aliis vero in quacumque orbis parte consistentibus, sub excommunicationis latae sententiae, et aliis arbitrari nostri poenis, ne sine nostra vel speciali ad id Apostolici Commissarii in eisdem partibus a nobis constituendi, licentia, ac nisi per eumdem Commissarium eidem impressori Missalis exemplum, ex quo aliorum imprimendorum ab ipso impressore erit accipienda norma, cum Missali in Urbe secundum magnum impressionem impresso collatum fuisse, et concordare, nec in ullo penitus discrepare prius plena fides facta fuerit, imprimere, vel proponere, vel recipere ullo modo audeant, vel praesumant, auctoritate Apostolica et tenore praesentium similibus inhibemus”, Pius V: 1570. 7 “Sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam omnium ecclesiarum matrem et magistram agnosco, Romanoque Pontifici, beati Petri Apostolorum principis successori, ac Iesu Christi Vicario, veram oboedientiam spondeo ac iuro”, Denzinger: 1991, 589.

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

205

years,8 a clause which saved some local traditions many of which exist to this day, such as the Ambrosian rite in Milan. To show the multiplicity of missals still in use in the second half of the 16th century, reference to the four authors under consideration here is instructive. Sasbout, Jansenius Stapleton and Lucas made use of three different missals, though a fourth missal was also involved. Sasbout used the Missale Franciscanum or Missale Fratrum Minorum. Jansenius used that of the diocese of Tournai during his preaching activity in Courtrai, and the Missale Romanum during his Bishopric in Ghent. However, Jansenius’ homilies were printed following the liturgy of Cologne for reasons that will be discussed later. Finally, Stapleton and Lucas – always very careful to fulfill the Council’s request – used the Missale Romanum issued by Pius V. The missal, however, does not furnish indications regarding preaching: there is no mention of sermo or homelia, nor of concionator.9 It should also be noted that sermons were delivered not only during the mass; the Council fathers mention, for instance, the presence of quaestarii or eleemosynarii, that is, ‘mendicants’, who also presume to preach.10 Because the mass was an important means for the Catholic Church to counter the Protestant Reformation, a severe control of the liturgy was felt to be absolutely necessary. This might lead one to expect that sermons were subjected to the same strict control. However, this seems not to have been the case: the texts analyzed here often contain theological elements that could not be counted within the Catholic canon, such as Sasbout’s appreciation of the doctrine of double justification. Moreover, the Franciscan makes interesting allusions to monastic life in Louvain; hence Sasbout very probably preached his sermons to his confreres in the Louvain studium theologicum. The study of sermons also shows how their authors regarded the time in which they were living, and how they regarded other religious confessions, whether as possible interlocutors or simply as ‘enemies’ of the faith. For instance, on several occasions, Stapleton declares his hatred for the ‘heretic’, Queen, Elizabeth I, and in general for the ‘Anglo Calvinists’. 8 “Nisi ab ipsa prima institutione a Sede Apostolica adprobata, vel consuetudine, quæ, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit: a quibus, ut præfatam celebrandi constitutionem vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus”, Pius V: 1570. 9 In the Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae present in the Missale Romanum (1566), there is no mention of the sermon or of the preacher. The Missal just recommends “Dicto Evangelio stans in medio Altaris versus crucem, elevans, et iungens manus, captuque cruci inclinans, incipit (si dicendum sit) Credo”. On the other hand, the newest edition of the Tridentine Missal (1962) specifies, “Si autem sit pradicandum, concionator, finite Evangelio, praedicet, et sermone, sive concione expleta, dicatur Credo vel, si non sit dicendum, cantetur antiphona ad Offertorium”. 10 “Quaestores vero eleemosynarii qui etiam quaestuarii vulgo dicuntur cuiuscunque conditionis existant ullo modo nec per se nec per alium praedicare praesumant”, CT 5, 243, 26– 27.

206

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

Concering the preaching given on Sundays, I shall analyze the sermons of Septuagesima, so-called because it is approximately 70 days before Easter, falling between 18 January and 22 February, and the sermons of the 19th Sunday after Pentecost.11 The Gospel readings of these Sundays are the “Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard” (Matt 20:1–16) and the “Parable of the Great Banquet” (Matt 22: 1–14), respectively. A proof of the variety of Catholic liturgical practice can be seen with regard to Jansenius’ sermon on the “Parable of the Great Banquet”: it was not given on the 19th Sunday after Pentecost, but on the 20th after Trinity, namely two Sundays after the 19th after Pentecost. Indeed, Trinity Sunday follows that of Pentecost, so an additional Sunday should be added ‘after Trinity’ to have the corresponding Sunday ‘after Pentecost’. The reason for this difference has to do with George Braun, the editor of Jansenius’ sermons, who used a different liturgical calendar, that of Cologne. Be that as it may, the constant purpose of this contribution is to retrace the ideas of each author with regard to God’s predestination, God’s grace and human free will. This is the reason why this work deals in particular with these two Sunday Gospel readings since, as seen, both of them contain a final problematic assertion: “multi sunt vocati, pauci vero electi” (Matt 20:16; Matt 22:14).12 Moreover, this choice allows us to link this study to my previous analysis of Jansenius’ Commentary on his Concordia. As has already been said, the sermons from these two Sundays are taken from that commentary. In other words, by analyzing Jansenius’ exegesis of both Matt 20:1–16 and Matt 22:1–14, I have already analyzed his sermons from those Sundays. Therefore, I will simply reflect on the editorial history of Jansenius’ homilies, which is quite interesting. Because these parables focus on vocation and election, they are a good instrument for situating the authors within the intra-Catholic debate between those who stressed God’s grace – the Augustinian-minded scholars – and those who stressed the importance of good works – the Molinist theologians. I shall analyse these sermons chronologically, so the first will be that of Sasbout, posthumously published in 1555, before the reform of the liturgy. However, Sasbout wrote a homily only for the Septuagesima Sunday, not for the 19th Sunday after Pentecost – on the other hand, Lucas did not deal with either Sunday. The work of Jansenius was published after his death, in 1577, while Stapleton printed his Promptuaria in the 11 For the Tridentine liturgy of Septuagesima Sunday and the 19th Sunday after Pentecost, see Missale Romanum, ex Decreto Sacrosancti Concili Tridentini Restitutum, Rome – Tours – Paris: Sanctae Sedis Apostolicae et Sacrae Rituum Congregationis Typographorum, 1962. For Septuagesima Sunday, see pp. 46–7: the Gospel reading is Matt 20: 1–16. For the 19th Sunday after Pentecost, see pp. 291–292: the Gospel reading is Matt 22:1–14. 12 This verse, multi sunt vocati, pauci vero electi is present in both of Matthew’s pericopes in the Louvain Vulgate (1547 & 1574), as well as in the Sixto-Clementine edition (1592). After almost four hundred years, in the 1979 Nova Vulgata, this verse was expunged.

Sasbout: Salvari possumus si volumus

207

years 1589–1592, specifically the Promptuarium Catholicum in 1589 – with an important revision in 1595 – and the Promptuarium Morale in the biennium 1591–1592. Finally, Lucas’ Sermones de diversis christianae fidei mysteriis were published in Antwerp in 1610, collecting sermons from 1578 to 1605. Therefore, Jansenius’, Stapleton’s and Lucas’ works were published after the reform of the liturgy which occurred in 1570. I shall first introduce each work by focusing upon its editorial history, to evaluate its impact in that religious context. In Stapleton’s case, in addition to the Sunday Gospels, I shall also pay attention to the mass on the feast of St. Stephen Protomartyr, on 26 December, when the Gospel lecture is taken from Matt 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?” Only Thomas Stapleton commented on this pericope, in his Promptuarium Catholicum, but his sermon is very important for showing the influence that Molina had on him. In effect, the sermon published in 1595 diverges from that on the same Sunday published in 1589, and the cause of this difference can precisely be traced to Stapleton’s reading of Molina’s Concordia (1588). This comes as no surprise: in his Antidota to Matthew (1595), the Englishman gave clear proof of his dependence on Molina and his ‘middle knowledge’ theory, as I have shown previously. As for Lucas, I shall go through his entire work, giving a general overview of it and paying specific attention only to those sermons which might be interesting for his theology of predestination, grace and free will.

3.1

Sasbout: Salvari possumus si volumus

Sasbout not only wrote exegetical works; he also preached. In fact, the few writings of his published while he was still alive were sermons. This shows how important this office was for the Friar Minor who wanted both to teach and give consolation to his flock. After Sasbout’s death, many of his sermons were collected in Louvain and printed in two volumes in 1554 by Anthoni-Marie Bergagne, who then reprinted them as a single volume two years later. A new edition appeared in Louvain in 1570 from Rutgerus Velpius, and an earlier edition was published in Antwerp by Jean Bellère in 1565. Of course, the Opera Omnia, which was printed in Cologne by Birckmann’s Press in 1568 and in 1574, contained all of Sasbout’s sermons. The sermons were even translated into Dutch and printed in Leiden by Jan Mathijszoon in 1569. Then, Michiel Vosmeer printed the Opus Homiliarum in Cologne in 1613, gathering additional sermons not collected in the earlier edition. Finally, Sasbout’s sermons appeared in Leiden in a Dutch

208

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

edition in 1614 from Jan Maes.13 After this last reprint, the author seems to have been forgotten since his works were not reprinted after that.14 This editorial history helps to comprehend the importance of Sasbout’s preaching between the second half of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th across the political and religious borders of the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands and the Dutch Republic. This fortune was due in part to the easy language used in these sermons and in part to the particular attention they give to men’s capacity to be saved. The Leiden Dutch translation especially shows that Catholics considered these sermons to be useful for combatting the rise of Calvinism. It is also possible that Sasbout’s sermons were appreciated and translated there because of Sasbout’s origin – he was from Delft – but I do think that this Dutch translation comes as no surprise following a few years after the Calvinist iconoclast fury or Beeldenstorm of 1566. After this short introduction, attention can now turn to Sasbout’s sermon for Septuagesima Sunday. At the very beginning of his sermon, Sasbout explains its twofold programmatic intent: on the one hand, he wants to explain the ‘paucity of the people to be saved’ and, on the other hand, to give comfort to his flock, showing that “nobody on the basis of the consideration of this issue [the paucity of the saved] has a right cause of pusillanimity and desperation”.15 An initial reflection on Matt 20:16 comes through the First Letter to the Corinthians (1Cor 10:1–5),16 which was regarded as offering a strict analogy with the Gospel pericope: [1] For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. [2] And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud, and in the sea: [3] And did all eat the same spiritual food, [4] And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.) [5] But with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the desert. 13 Editions consulted on USTC. In this contribution, the reference edition is Sasbout 1613. 14 The last mention of him is made by the Franciscan Minor Henri van Bukentop (1653–1716) who was lector of Sacred Scripture in the Louvain studium theologicum as Sasbout was, and who dedicates his work to his predecessor who was remembered as a man full of virtues and with a deep knowledge of ancient languages, without mention of his sermons. See the dedicatory epistle in van Bukentop: 1696. Furthermore, in the dedicatory epistle, Bukentop affirms that Michiel Vosmeer was an egregius vindex, defending Sasbout from the accusation of plagiarism. In any case, the 1706 edition of Bukentop’s Dictionary, printed in Louvain by Francis vande Velde, includes no mention of Sasbout since the dedicatory epistle does not appear, cf. van Bukentop: 1706. 15 “Duo in hoc concione tractabimus. Primo dicemus de paucitate salvandorum. Deinde ostendemus neminem ex huius rei consideratione iustam habere causam vel pusillanimitatis, vel desperationis”, Sasbout: 1613, 104. 16 Even though the sermons were published prior to the 1570 edition of Missale Romanum, the epistle is that prescribed by the Roman missal. See Missale Romanum, on Septuagesima Sunday, 46.

Sasbout: Salvari possumus si volumus

209

Prior to dealing with the analogies between the two New Testament passages, Sasbout explains that Paul was offering a typological explanation of the Exodus: the crossing of the Red Sea is a prefiguration of Christian baptism, which can also be said about the cloud that protected the Jews from the sun. Moreover, the manna in the desert is a type of Christ’s Eucharistic body, whereas the water that flowed by means of Moses’ rod is the type of Christ’s Blood. However, even though all Jews were called and granted God’s help, only a few of them arrived in the Promised Land, which was the result of their sins.17 Sasbout comments on these words by concluding that the narration of Jewish history in Exodus and Numbers is an “allegory of the present time”: it describes the destiny of those who do not respect God’s laws present in the Gospel. Even if people are baptized and enjoy the assistance of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, they can die just as the Jews did during their way to the Promised Land, if they do not follow Jesus’ precepts. There is a strict cause-effect correlation between disobedience and damnation: few obey the Gospel, therefore few escape damnation.18 In this connection, Sasbout makes an allusion to three deadly sins, although not by name: gluttony, greed, and vainglory (Sasbout: 1613, 105): Quam multi sunt, qui studiose sectantur mensas et prandia? [gluttony] Quam sunt multi, qui sagaciter venantur praebenda et sacrificia [greed]? Quam multi et hic, et alibi in patrimonio Christi triumphant et dominos agunt [vainglory]?

“How many are those who follow eagerly tables and lunches? How many are those who sharply hunt prebends and sacrifices? How many [are those who], also here and elsewhere, triumph in the patrimony of Christ and act as lords.”

Vainglory seems to be the most dangerous for learned people such as theologians, jurists, philosophers, and even friars. All these people are from the university setting, but Sasbout particularly focuses upon his own category, so we may assume that he preached this sermon before his confreres in the Franciscan convent in Louvain. With a description that recalls Jesus’ words against the 17 “Discisse sunt eis aquae maris rubri, ac per illas pedibus iter fecerunt duce Moyse, quae aquae, cum typis fuerint baptismi, quemadmodum et nubes, recte baptizatos eos dictum, qui sub nube [qua ab aestu solis protegebantur] illa fuerunt, et mare transierunt … omnes manducaverunt manna scilicet caelitus demissum, quod quia alterius figurae erat, videlicet carnis Christi, escam voco spiritualem, atque omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt, quia de latice, quem ictu virgae Moyses elicuit ex saxo (qui et ipse alterius figuram praetendebat nimirum calicis Domini) ex aequo omnes bibebant hisque non obstantibus, perdidit eos Dominus, et prostravit in deserto propter peccata ipsorum, nec eo, quo destinatum erat [i. e. the Promised Land], pervenerunt”, Sasbout: 1613, 104–105. 18 “Haec autem in figuram facta sunt nostri, hoc est, historia Exodi, ac Numerorum, allegoria est temporis praesentis, docetque nos, quod nisi oboedietes fuerimus legi, et Evangelio, nihil proderit nobis, quod Christiani sumus, quod in saguine Christi baptizati sumus, quos mensae Domini participes sumus, sed peribimus, quemadmodum illi perierunt, et quia pauci admodum oboediunt Evangelio, idcirco pauci etiam evadunt damnationem”, Sasbout: 1613, 104–105.

210

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

hypocrite Pharisees (Matt 23:23–9), Sasbout accuses his confreres of having neglected their vows. Moreover, he adds that his present sermon is addressed to those “many” in Louvain (hic) who fall into sins.19 Finally, Sasbout clearly speaks about another deadly sin: luxury, while criticizing flattery. The Franciscan asks rhetorically (Sasbout: 1613, 105): Quam multi in omni statu, delicatis foeminis, magnatibus, et divitibus, ne gratiam eorum perdant, applaudunt, blandiuntur, ac palpant?

“How many people, in any social condition, touch delightful women, fawn the mighty, and applaud rich persons, not to lose their favor?”

Sasbout introduces this rhetorical question by stating that the sins with which he will deal are spread throughout all social conditions, so also among friars. However, the fact that this question follows an explicit admonition to his friars regarding their conduct could indicate that the sins referred to are those to which the friars were particularly susceptible. In Sasbout’s words, the friars “seem to ignore absolutely what is monasticism”. Moreover, the number and the character of the sins correspond with the vows taken by every friar: chastity, obedience, and poverty. By using a chiastic structure – as marked bold, italic and underlined in the Latin quotation – Sasbout maintains that his confreres were used to acting against chastity, since they illicitly touch delightful women; against obedience, because they fawn the mighty; and against poverty, given that they applaud the rich. Palpare doelicatis foeminis To touch delightful women Chastity Blandiri magnatibus To fawn the mighty (Modest) Obedience Applaudire divitibus To applaud the rich Poverty

In particular, Sasbout embraces the friars’ sins within luxury, in a kind of Ringkomposition, which may stress the most dangerous sin for his confreres.20 19 “Quam multi Theologorum, tum Iuristarum, tum eorum, qui in Philosophia se exerceant, hoc unum studijs suis spectant, ut magni evadant? Quam multi monachorum in externis exercitijs sibi placentes, in vigiliis videlicet, ieiuniis et caerimonijs suis, atque in residentes, nihil cogitant de mortificandis affectibus, de mortificanda voluntate, ut ignorare prorsus videantur quid sit monachismus [vainglory]?”, Sasbout: 1613, 105. 20 This criticism may be a simple warning against Franciscans who met and interacted with women in the town of Louvain, but I would even suggest that Sasbout was referring to a real problem within his confraternity, a problem that was felt and discussed by the bishops in the Council of Trent, denouncing the abuses perpetrated by clergymen especially during confessions where the confessors were alone with women and where sins linked to sexuality were an important matter of confession, together with heresy and blasphemy. Franciscans were the confessors par excellence, and perhaps Sasbout was implicitly denouncing his confreres for cases of sollicitatio ad turpia during confession, an event that was not rare in Early Modern and Modern Catholic Church. Not by coincidence, this malpractice induced Bishop Gian Matteo Giberti (1495–1543) and Cardinal Charles Borromeo (1538–1584) to introduce an

Sasbout: Salvari possumus si volumus

211

After this introduction to the most common sins to which men succumb – here Sasbout refers only to ‘male’ categories’ – the Franciscan explains that these sinners are part of the Christian flock, being the multi vocati to whom the Gospel refers. Nevertheless, the way that leads to salvation is hard, while that to damnation is spacious. This aspect, however, – comments Sasbout – does not have to lead the believer to desperation. If it is true that the number of those who will be saved is unknown, then the number of those who will be damned is also not known, as already specified in 1 Cor 20:1–5. A parallel passage to Matt 20:16 could be found in the Scriptures, in the Exodus event, where Sasbout sees a kind of anticipation of the time in which he lives. Actually, the Jews who left Egypt were numerous, but only two were allowed to arrive in the Promised Land, Joshua and Caleb (Num 26:65). However, explains Sasbout, these data are not technically correct. The Scriptures were referring only to those men able to fight, viz., adult men, without counting women, children, and men unable to fight or those who were not supposed to fight, such as the Levites (Sasbout: 1613, 106–107). Another parallel with Matt 20:16 that Sasbout refers to is Isa 24:13 “For it shall be thus in the midst of the earth, in the midst of the people, as if a few olives, that remain, should be shaken out of the olive tree: or grapes, when the vintage is ended”. This metaphor is very appropriate, since Sasbout is dealing with the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, and its sense is evident: few people are saved. To illustrate his point, Sasbout refers to Louvain’s wine production, drawing a comparison between the paucity of those who will be saved, and the paucity of grapes that remained on the vine after the grape harvest.21 As a consequence, Sasbout asks his congregation, “who does not have fear?” In his answer, it is possible to find a clear attestation of Sasbout’s idea concerning men’s caelement of the ecclesiastical furniture now common but absent in that era: the confessional, a physical division between confessor and penitent. Pope Gregory XV even issued a Constitutio contra solicitantes in confessionibus (1622), basically extending what Pope Paul IV Carafa had already conferred only on the inquisitor of Granada in 1559: the power of bishops and the Holy Office to judge those confessors who had abused the sacrament. Of course, this is just a suggestion, but it seems not to be far from the truth: Sasbout could not have conducted a frontal attack on his confreres in a public sermon, but he may have implicitly referred to that sin, without manifestly declaring the sinners, again: “that hath ears to hear, let him hear”. See, for instance, Prosperi: 1996, 508–514; 520–542. Concerning the confessional, Giberti developed the confessorium, a simple division between the confessor and the penitent. Then, Borromeo developed this idea in actual ecclesiastical furniture. See Prosepri: 1996, 513. Unfortunately, the studies on the sollicitatio ad turpia during the Early Modern and Modern Era have only focused on Spain and the Italian states, but I presume that they could also be valid for the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands. Amongst others, see for instance Sarrión Mora: 2010, 61–ff. Romeo: 1998, 163–197 (even though particularly centred on the Kingdom of Naples) and Haliczer: 1996, 86–105. 21 “Habemus hic Lovanii vites, finita in aestate vindemia, circuite illas, certe per quam pauca reperietis”, Sasbout: 1613, 107.

212

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

pacity to achieve salvation. “In any condition, if we want, we can be saved”.22 Sasbout therefore states the importance of human free will, able in se to assure men’s salvation. He explains that God calls many people, all of whom can gain eternal life, otherwise God would have called them in vain, which would be simply absurd, even impious. Therefore, there is no reason to have fear of eternal death since the possibility to be saved is in men’s power.23 This reveals how important human free will and good works are in the economy of salvation, as described by Sasbout. On the one hand, he stresses person’s responsibility for his possible damnation, but, on the other hand, he stresses the hope – even the certainty – of being saved if one respects God’s law, “working in his vineyard”. Furthermore, Sasbout seems to introduce a psychological dimension by explaining what the ‘vineyard’ is: each person is a singular field, full of inner difficulties due to the weakness of human nature, subject to worldly temptations, but, if the faithful abstain from them, they can achieve the eternal life that is the effect (fructus) of the three theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity.24 Again, in this instance, Sasbout criticizes the higher classes: for rich, noble, and beautiful persons, it is difficult to attain salvation since they are more subject to sin, preferring to satisfy their ‘law’, by enjoying their youth, using their money, following their concupiscence, and losing their life in sloth. In any case, by quoting 1 Cor 9:24 “Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain”, Sasbout explains that the only way to achieve eternal life is by acting well, following the law of the Gospel. Using a metaphor, Sasbout maintains that the path to salvation should not be understood as a race in which there are many participants, but only one winner; on the contrary, anyone who does good can obtain salvation.25 Sasbout further explains that faith alone cannot guarantee salvation. It is necessary to do good since without good works, the faithful will be refused by God. Although Sasbout did not preach in a context characterized by the strong presence of Protestantism, having given his sermon between 1548–1553 in 22 “Quotquot sumus, salvari possumus, si volumus”, Sasbout: 1613, 107. 23 “Si vocati sumus ad vitam possidendam quemadmodum omnes sumus, utique ad illam pertingere possumus. Ratiocinatio bona est. Nam si pertingere non possumus, ergo frustra vocavit nos Deus, quod dicere impium est. Non igitur causam habemus desperatonis: in potestate nostra res posita est: si volumus, apprehendere possumus”, Sasbout: 1613, 107. 24 “Facite quod vocatio exigit, hoc est laborate in vinea Domini … Sed quid est laborare in vinea Domini? Aut quae est vinea Domini? Vinea Domini vos estis. In vinea hac laborat, qui terram suam, quae ferax spinarum est ac veprium, a spinis ac vepribus repurgat …qui denique vim infert, ut variae fidei, spei ac charitatis fructus haec afferat”, Sasbout: 1613, 107–108. 25 “Nescitis quod ii qui in stadio currunt, omnes quidem currunt, sed unus accipit bravium? Videtis hoc in vulgaribus stadiis, in quibus proposito praemio, cursu certatur. Certamen est multorum, sed uni tantum decernitur praemium: non sic in stadio Evangelico est, omnes hic bravium comprehendere possunt”, Sasbout: 1613, 108.

Sasbout: Salvari possumus si volumus

213

Louvain, such affirmations were later considered to be a good ‘antidote’ to that heresy. In less than 10 years, from 1565 to 1574, his sermons had five editions – of which one was in Dutch in Leiden –, in Antwerp, Cologne, and Louvain, in the period of strong Calvinist activity. Nevertheless, Sasbout was not thinking of the use to which his sermons might be put after his death; he was preaching only to his confreres in the hope of correcting their sinful conduct. In fact he speaks to fratres (brothers, friars), using the first-person plural – so including himself and the audience –, while he generally uses the first-person singular. Finally, he asserts that eternal life is equally available to everyone, without discrimination, on the basis of fortune, social condition, age or sex. In this sense, there is no difference between a king and a farmer since both of them are called to work hard to achieve eternal life which, Sasbout explains, is called “reward” (merces) and “money” (denarius) in the Gospel, while “crown” (corona) and “prize” (bravium) in Paul’s epistles.26 By recalling the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, Sasbout also affirms that each of the faithful receives his prize, regardless of the work asked by God or the length of time in which it is done, just as the workers in God’s vineyard started their work at different hours.27 In sum, although few will be saved, salvation is offered to everyone, and therefore everyone can be saved by constantly doing good and performing the works required by the group to which one belongs.28 It seems clear from this sermon that Sasbout had an optimistic view of people’s capacity to contribute to their salvation. It is up to people to contribute to their own salvation by both responding affirmatively to God’s graceful offer and persistently doing good. Sasbout seems therefore to deal with sufficient grace, considered as the call. In any case, grace becomes efficacious only through the will of the person, since “if we want, we can be saved” (salvari possumus, si volumus) as the Franciscan maintained. Moreover, in this sermon, no reference 26 “Securos nos esse debere putabimus, arbitrabimur nobis solam fidem sufficere? Laboremus fratres, cursu diligenter nos exerceamus, ingenue certemus, alioqui certo certius reprobabimur. Felicitas vitae aeternae omnibus exaequo proposita est: Non est discrimen fortunae, conditionis, aetatis, personae. Pares hic sunt rex et agricola, ita ea quoque in re pares sunt, quod ad laborandum, currendum, certandum, ex aequo uterque vocatus est … Vita aeterna, secundum Evangelium, denarius, et merces: secundum Epistolam corona est, et bravium”, Sasbout: 1613, 109. I read persona as “person”, so both male and female: in this sense, there is no discrimination concerning sex. 27 “Omnes pariter accipiunt praemium, licet diversus sit labor. Imo sit, nec id rato, ut qui minimum diei laboraverunt in vinea, citius illis accipiant praemium, qui totum diem perduraverunt in labore”, Sasbout: 1613, 110. 28 “Summa, eorum, quae hactenus diximus, haec est: electorum numerus exiguus est … ex huius tamen rei considerationem nemini desperandum est, qui foelicitas vitae aeternae ex aequo omnibus proposita est, et non quemadmodum in olympiacis certaminibus est ab uno tantun, sed ab omnibus omnino obtineri potest: sed currendum est, sed certandum est, sed laborandum est”, Sasbout: 1613, 110.

214

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

seems to be made to adjuvant and cooperative grace since Sasbout does not speak about aids bestowed by God during human life or about a person’s cooperation with God in the path to salvation. While this emphasis on the importance of men’s free will could easily be explained by the “exhortative” character of the homiletic genre, his silence on the primary importance of grace in the economy of salvation remains interesting. Sasbout further clarifies his ideas on eternal life by using ‘sportive metaphors’: life is like a race, where there are many participants, or like a boxing match, where the boxer has to take many blows. Sasbout uses the Greek to indicate the precise meaning of Paul’s expression “I chastise (my body)” (1Cor 9:27), literally interpreting the term ὑπωπιάζω as referring to the boxer who hits his body to become stronger and more disciplined.29 Sasbout seems therefore to advise his confreres to chastise their body, in order to be strong enough to withstand the allurements of sin. Might this be taken to refer to corporal discipline, still practised in observant monasteries, as it was at the origin of the Order? (Roest: 2000, 251; Bernarello: 1961, 51ff.) Sasbout seems to suggest this, and his use of the Greek word may be taken to demonstrate the legitimacy of this interpretation which the Latin castigo does not support. In conclusion, life, in Sasbout’s view, is a hard game in which God establishes the rules, namely his law, and promises a prize for the winners, namely eternal life. Nonetheless, the prize is hard to win: the field is full of risks, and the participants seem to be alone. This is the reason why “many are called, but few chosen”: many fall into temptation, while; few follow God’s law, even though everyone knows it. Sasbout clearly maintains that a person’s will has the power in se to resist temptation and consequently to be saved (Sasbout: 1613, 107). salvari possumus si volumus … in potestate “If we want, we can be saved … in our power nostra res posita est: si volumus, this thing (salvation) is placed: if we want, we apprehendere possumus. can grasp it.”

In several instances, Sasbout insists upon the capacity of the faithful to obtain eternal life. It is within the grasp of all who truly want it. This is a clear manifesto on the power of human free will. After God’s call, the faithful clearly know what they have to do: it is their responsibility to be saved; it is their fault if they are damned. It should be now recalled that Sasbout was a promoter of the doctrine of double justice, together with his colleague and confrere Zegers, even after the doctrine had been rejected by the Council fathers. Sasbout, however, considered 29 For the metaphor of the race, see above. Moreover Sasbout says “Rursus sic pugilem ago, non quemadmodum solent, qui per lusum aere feriunt, ut videri possint viri poenitentiae, interim nihil eorum quae dicunt, agunt, quales multos hodie invenire est concionatores: sed Castigo corpus meum [1 Cor 9:27], hoc est, plagis afficio, et lividum redo. (Idem significat vox Graeca ὑπωπιάζω, qua hoc loco utitur Paulus) sed plagis afficio, et lividum redo et modis omnibus illud subigo, sic assuefaciens veris incommodes et molestiis”, Sasbout: 1613, 110.

The Edition of Jansenius’ Sermons by George Braun

215

inherent justice as the regeneration of the human mind that allows men to do good. This is the reason why Sasbout says in potestate nostra res [salvation] posita est since: by means of inherent justice, the believer becomes intrinsically just and therefore able to do good, and, through good actions, people earn the necessary merits for eternal life. It is possible that Sasbout’s insistence on good works is due to the homiletic genre, but the reference to double justice convincingly shows that he really does believe in people’s ability to achieve salvation. As said, Sasbout’s intent was only to stress the necessity of his confreres strictly following the rule of the Franciscan Order. However, at the same time, the position he develops in the sermon, especially its praise of human free will, was thought to counter Protestant ideas such as double predestination and justification by faith alone. So, Sasbout’s intention may have been to address only the souls of his fratres, but the nachleben was different. Thanks to their Dutch translation, Sasbout’s sermons had a broader audience, and became useful as a counteraction to Calvinist preaching.

3.2

The Edition of Jansenius’ Sermons by George Braun

During his episcopacy in Ghent, Jansenius made fruitful use of his earlier pastoral activity in Courtrai, preparing new sermons, which he also preached in the new St. Bavo’s Cathedral and in other parish churches as well (Roegiers: 1997, 942– 947). He emended and completed earlier versions of his sermons on the basis of his Commentaria in suam Concordiam Evangelicam. When this new version was offered to print, the editor wrote in the frontispiece: Homiliae in evangelia quae dominicis diebus in Ecclesia populo proponi solent, ex quatuor commentarium in concordiam evangelicam libris, nuperrime ab ipso auctore renatis. Nunc primum a D. Georgio Braun collectae et praefationibus illustrate. “Sermons on the Gospel readings that are used to be given to the people in the church on Sundays, [taken] from the four books of the Commentaries on the Gospel Harmony, very recently revised by the same author [viz. Jansenius]. Now, for the first time, collected and explicated with prefaces by George Braun.”

The frontispiece also furnishes another important element: George Braun’s prefaces. Braun was a canon at St. George’s church in Cologne and the collector of Jansenius’ sermons. He explains in the prefatory epistle that he wants to introduce every sermon with a short preface in which he shows the most important elements of the Sunday Gospel reading.30 It is even possible that, when Jansenius 30 “Singulis autem homiliis praefationes, ut opus ipsum instar concionum coram populo habitarum, appareat, pro temporis et Evangeliorum conditione adieci, quibus, si fortasse pro ingenij mei tarditate, auctoris eruditioni minus respondens, non quibusuis satisfecero,

216

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

become Bishop, he preached these sermons in conformity with the requirements of the Fifth Session of the Council. As previously stated, the sermons are identical with the chapters of his Commentary that deal with the Sunday Gospel, so I shall focus only upon Braun’s prefaces, not on the sermons themselves, since the latter have already been analyzed in chapter 2.3 of this work. Concerning Septuagesima Sunday, Jansenius made use of chapter 101, while for the 20th Sunday after Trinity, the Bishop ‘recycled’ chapter 115.31 Concerning this last Sunday, it is interesting that, differently from the Roman Missal (1570), Braun puts this sermon on the “20th Sunday after Trinity”, instead of the “19th after Pentecost”, so two weeks later than foreseen in the Roman Missal and Braun’s edition. This fact needs to be explained by recalling the editorial history of the sermons. Of course, I shall also pay attention to George Braun’s prefaces which could help to illuminate the variety of catholic liturgical tradition prior to the revision of the Missale Romanum (1570) and, at the same time, the delay of some churches in applying the new liturgy. Though Jansenius first collected those chapters of his Commentaria useful for the Sunday Gospels with a view to publishing them according to the liturgical order, he was not able to publish them before dying. Thereafter, Braun recovered Jansenius’ work, and the Homiliae were printed a year after Jansenius’ death, in 1577, by Johann Gymnich. This work was also printed in Lyons and in Venice, both in 1578. It could be questioned whether, in completing his sermons, Jansenius already used the Missale Romanum issued on 1570, given for instance an Antwerp edition in 1571 by the Plantin Press, or whether he still used the Missale Tornacense where this Sunday is called the “20th Sunday after octave of Pentecost” (1498, 132v). He had of course used the latter when he was parish priest in Courtrai (1549–1561) and he possibly also used it in Ghent, since Ghent was part of the diocese of Tournai prior to becoming a diocese. However, it would be unusual for the first Bishop of Ghent not to use the Roman missal in a newly established diocese, given his great activity in applying the decrees of the Council of Trent. For instance, in 1571, together with his Commentary, Jansenius published the statutes of the first synod of the diocese of Ghent, following the advice of the Council (Cesareo: 2001, 76–77). This work was later complemented by additional statutes in 1573. Furthermore, a reminder of his experience as parish priest and in line with his new office as a ‘post-Tridentine’ bishop, Jansenius also summo tamen labore, conatum me esse, ingenue fateor, ut videret saltem id singulari diligentia et cura praestare voluisse: Adeo, ut sperare etiam audeam, labores nostros, benignis et candidis lectoribus non ingratos esse futuros”, Jansenius: 1577, 7v. 31 The sermon on Septuagesima Sunday is chapter 101: proponitur parabola de operariis in vineam conductis. Matthaei 20, in Jansenius: 1597, 719–22. The sermon on the 20th Sunday after Trinity is chapter 115: parabola proponitur de nuptiis filii. Matthaei 22, Jansenius: 1597, 799–804.

The Edition of Jansenius’ Sermons by George Braun

217

published the “Book of the Liturgy” (1576) to be used in the diocese of Ghent by the parish priests in administering the sacraments. The definitive answer seems to have been given by the seventh Bishop of Ghent, Antoine Triest (1577–1657) who, in editing the Officia propria sanctorvm ecclesiæ cathedralis Gandavensis, affirms that Jansensius conformed the liturgy of the saints venerated in Ghent to the Roman breviary.32 Since Jansenius adapted the local liturgy of the saints to the Roman Breviary, it would be probable that the first Bishop of Ghent used (or intended) to follow the Missale Romanum in collecting his sermons. Hence, the ‘culprit’ is George Braun who adapted the name of that Sunday according to the liturgy of the Diocese of Cologne where this Sunday is actually described as the “20th after Trinity”,33 despite the fact that the liturgy had been reformed in 1570 and notwithstanding the printing of the Missale Romanum also in Cologne (1573).34 Another indication that Braun may have intruded into Jansenius’ work is given in the prefaces added to each sermon. First of all, in editing these sermons, Braun emphasizes two merits of Jansenius’ work: 1) they make use of the ‘original’ Greek and Hebrew in order to give the most accurate reading of the Sunday Gospel readings; 2) they accurately refer to the doctrines of the Church fathers, even indicating the books and chapters referred to.35 This second merit is generally true only for quotations taken from Augustine’s works. Jansenius does not pay the same attention to the other Church fathers, often just mentioning them by name without specifying the work(s) to which he was referring. Concerning the sermon on Septuagesima Sunday, Braun stresses two points. The first concerns the ritual practice to be instituted (instituetur) in the Catholic liturgy; the second, the particular pericope to be read and explained. What Catholics do 32 “In quem finem Reverendissimus Dominus Cornelius Jansenius primus Episcopus Gandavensis Praedecessor noster, Officia eiusdem Ecclesiae antiquitus usitata in honorem Sanctorum, quorum sacra corpora vel insignis eorum pars ibidem publice culta fuerunt, quantum pro temporum illorum acerbitate licuit, ad normam Breviarij Romani, auctoritate Concilij Tridentini et iussu Pij Quinti editi, accomodaverat”, Triest: 1640, 1v. 33 Missale Romanum: 1573. Of course, the Sunday in question is here called “19th after Pentecost”, cf. ff. 70–71. 34 “Provincialia concilia, sicubi omissa sunt, pro moderandis moribus, corrigendis excessibus, controversiis componendis, aliisque ex sacris canonibus permissis renoventur. Quare metropolitani per se ipsos, seu, illis legitime impeditis, coepiscopus antiquior intra annum ad minus a fine praesentis concilii, et deinde quolibet saltem triennio … non praetermittat Synodum in provincia sua cogere”, Decretum de reformatione, CT 9, 979, 28–31. See also, Missale insignis ecclesie Coloniensis: 1509, 120 v. 35 “Si enim accuratissima et maxime propria verborum significatione, quispiam delectetur, ex limpidissimis Hebraeorum et Graecorum fontibus, in auctore nostro, quo laudabilem hanc sitim mitigare queat, inveniet. Si historiarum, et venerandorum Ecclesiae Patrum testimonis, quempiam afficiant … is quoque auctorum libros, et capita accuratissime annotata videbit”, Georg Braun, Epistola dedicatoria, in Jansenius: 1577, B4.

218

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

on this specific Sunday is in harmony with the tradition, but its message is distorted in part by the calumnies of the sectatores, viz. the Protestants, and in part by the incompetence of the more unlearned Catholics.36 Unfortunately, Braun does not refer to the particular liturgy to be instituted for Septuagesima Sunday. However, he must have in mind the new mass liturgy issued by the Church with the Missale Romanum (1570). Actually, Braun is dealing with ‘Catholic rituals’, so the change would have involved the whole Church: the Council is not mentioned, even though the reference to it seems clear. Possibly, it also reveals some delay in applying the canons of the Council in the diocese of Cologne. On this specific Sunday, both the Missale Coloniense and the Missale Romanum contain the same ritual by starting with Ps 17:5–7, “Circumdederunt me gemitus mortis”, followed by the prayer “Preces populi tui, Domine”, then Paul’s first Epistle to Corinthians (1Cor 9:24–27; 10: 1–5), the “Graduale” (Ps 9: 10–11; 9: 19–20) and then the “Tractus de Profundis” (Ps 129, 1–4), followed by the Gospel (Matt 20:1–16). This is also what Braun describes in the preface to Jansenius’s sermon on Septuagesima.37 Since there is no difference between the rituals to which Braun refers, those handed down by the Missale Coloniense and those recommended by the Missale Romanum, it is possible that Braun was referring to a tradition strictly linked to Septuagesima: the depositio (literally: ‘laying down’) of the Alleluia on the eve of Septuagesima. In other words, I think that Braun is alluding to a liturgical change in the office of the Hours rather than in the office of the Mass, but that he preferred this change to be explained just before the sermon of the Sunday, during the mass. The depositio, in effect, had different forms, perhaps due to its antiquity. Guillaume Durand Bishop of Mende (1230–1296), gave what is possibly the first description of it in his Rationale Divinorum Officiorum. Let me briefly recall Durand’s description, to show clearly the changes that occurred in this ritual, especially with regard to the diocese of Cologne, where Jansenius’ sermons were posthumously printed, and with regard to that of Tournai, where Jansenius preached. It is indeed interesting to show the tradition handed down in Tournai to which Ghent was subject prior to becoming a diocese and which it possibly continued until the introduction of the Missale Romanum. Concerning the eve of Septuagesima, Durand explains that there are two main traditions in the liturgy: there are some churches in which the faithful repeat 36 “Ante quam Evangelii interpretationem aggrediari, duo mihi visa sunt necessario praemittenda, quorum alterum de Catholicis huius diei caeremoniis instituetur, et quo deinde alterum derivabitur, quanam de causa hic textus hodie charitatibus vestris sit exponendus. Quod autem praeter Evangelii declarationem subinde Catholicarum traditionum mentionem facimus, partim sectatorium calumniae, partim simplicium ac rudium imperitia extorquet”, Jansenius: 1577, 209. 37 Cf. Jansenius: 1577, 211; Missale Romanum: 1570, 46–47, Missale Coloniense: 1509, 35r–v.

The Edition of Jansenius’ Sermons by George Braun

219

“alleluia” many times, since in this way human souls can recuperate the happiness lost because of Adam’s fall. However, other churches prefer to avoid saying “alleluia” altogether. The hour at which the depositio begins also differs according to the tradition of this or that church. The variety – explains Durand – is due to differences in the beginning of the day which, of course, depends on both latitude and season.38 The best hour, however, would be Vespers, so at sunet, as Pope Alexander II (ca.1015–1073) also recommended. Another difference is that some churches interrupt the song contritely, because of the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, other churches do it with gladness, because of the future salvation. Finally, Durand affirms that “alleluia” is to be replaced with “Laus tibi Domine, Rex aeternae gloriae”, Septuagesima being a “period of sorrow” (tempus moeroris), so a ‘human’ song is more suitable than an ‘angelical’ hymn of joy like “alleluia”.39 What about the diocese of Cologne? The Breviarium Coloniense preferred to postpone the depositio of the alleluia from the eve of Septuagesima to the following matins, and this depositio would last until the eve of Easter.40 Possibly, this was the change to which Braun was referring: from the matins of Septuagesima, the depositio was moved to the Vespers on the eve. What about the diocese of Tournai? That diocese also followed the same Sunday liturgy of Septuagesima as described in both the Missale Coloniense and the Missale Romanum,41 but, concerning the depositio of the alleluia, the Tournai liturgy seems to follow the 38 In our ‘Digital Era’, the reader is not familiar with the system used in the liturgy of the hours, but he or she can get some idea of it from The Name of the Rose, by Umberto Eco, who presents a useful scheme in the Note that precedes the novel. 39 “Et nota, quod in sabbato praecedenti [viz. the eve of Septuagesima] saepe et fere per omnia cantuum officia allelu–Ia iteratur, pro eo quod illud eligimus, et in thesauro cordi recondimus …Rursus ideo in sabbato ad vespras geminatur seu multiplicatur, quoniam in lapsu Adae, qui erat in magna quiete, gaudium perdidimus: sed animabus requiem recuperamus. Quidam autem in ipso sabbato, dimittunt allelu–Ia, ad sextam, quidam ad nonam, quidam ad vespras, quidam vero ad nocturnam huius dominicae, et quidam ad primam dominicam huius diei: quae varietas provenit ex diversitate inceptionis diei … Rectius tamen dimittitur in vespris: quia tunc dies incipit quo, quod ad divina officia: quia nox praecessit, dies autem appropinquabit: et hoc etiam statuit Alexander Papa II ut eius geminatio ad finem praecedentis temporis poenitentiae, quam laus sequitur evangelica referatur: et eius depositio luctui sequentis temporis assignetur. Unde et quaedam ecclesiae deponunt allelu–Ia cum magno gaudio. Aliae vero cum gemitu et suspirio illi, repraesentant futuram reparationem: isti de Paradiso eiectionem. Ceterum, quia hoc tempus moeroris est, non dicuntur cantica Angelorum, sed hominum: Laus tibi Domine, Rex aeternae gloriae: non quod aequipolleat. Allelu– Ia enim est vox angelica, ista humana, illa Hebraica, et ideo dignior: ista Latina, et ideo minus dignior”, Durand: 1570, VI, c. 24, 18, 298r. 40 The Breviarium Coloniensis recommends only on Sunday of Septuagesima that “ad ultimum psalmum non dicitur alleluia, sed loco ipsius dicetur Laus tibi Domine, Rex aeternae gloriae. Ita servabit usque ad vigiliam pasce sive de sanctis sive de tempore canitur”, see Dominica Septuagesimae ad matutinum, in Breviarium Coloniense: 1500, 135r. 41 See, Dominica in Septuagesima, in Missale Tornacense: 1498, 33r.

220

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

first school described by Durand, since the Breviarium Tornacense recommends singing several ‘alleluias’ at Vespers on the eve of Septuagesima. For instance, the faithful must repeat ‘alleluia’ three times prior to every psalm, and they must recite a hymn titled “Alleluia dulce carmen”, together with other similar prayers. Furthermore, the breviary of Tournai also recommends replacing “Alleluia” with “Laus tibi Domine, Rex aeternae gloriae”, intoned after the “Gloria Patri” from the eve of Septuagesima until the second Saturday of Easter, namely the Saturday before the Dominica in albis.42 The variety of the Catholic liturgies, such as that of the depositio, a variety which Durand showed, was no longer acceptable after the Council of Trent which established a uniform Breviary. The Breviarium Romanum therefore recovered the liturgy of Alexander II by simply stating that the “Alleluia” must be omitted from the eve of Septuagesima until the Holy Saturday and replaced with “Laus tibi Domine, rex aeternae gloriae”.43 In his preface, Braun also explains the reason behind the choice of establishing ceremonies: the Protestants consider the Catholic liturgy to be superstition while the Church maintains that it is by means of those liturgies that we come to know Christ in a deeper way. Therefore, it is necessary for the Church to teach specific passages of the Scriptures each Sunday so that the faithful are able to confute the calumnies of the ‘heretics’ and to improve their knowledge of Christ.44 Concerning the importance of Septuagesima Sunday, Braun introduces Jansenius’ sermon by furnishing a ‘cosmological’ reason: seven weeks separate Septuagesima Sunday from Passion Sunday when Passiontide (tempus passionis) starts, and each Sunday up to Passion Sunday shows a specific era of the world which Braun will explain during each Sunday. This explanation is clearly not original but recalls Durand.45 In particular, Septuagesima refers to the first era, from the fall of man up to the flood, an age of desolation and without the assistance of God’s grace, as also revealed by the Psalm 114:3 “The sorrows of death have encompassed me: and the perils of hell have found me”. Furthermore, the almost 42 “Sabbato in LXX ad vesprum ante Alleluia Alleluia Alleluia post feriam. Et dicetur ante Alleluia ter ad quaelibet psalmum … Sciendum est quod in omnibus horis post Gloria patri tam in matutinis quam in horis diurnis et etiam ad preces post Gloria de miserere pro Alleluia dicitur Laus tibi Domine, Rex aeternae gloriae. Et hoc ex observandum usque ad sabbatum secundum Pasche”. See the Sabbato in Septuagesima, in Breviarium Tornacense: 1497, a.67 v. 43 “Et deinceps non dicitur Alleluja, usque ad Sabbatum sanctum. Sed post Deus, in adjutorium, ubi dicebatur Alleluja dicitur Laus tibi Domine, rex aeternae gloriae”, Breviarium Romanum: 1932, 527. 44 “Illi enim Ecclesiam matrem flagellare non desinunt, eo nomine, quasi neglecto Christo, solas caeremonias nimis superstitiose obtundrat. Cum contra nihil haec aliud moliatur, quam ut filii sui Christum, luculentissime cognoscat. Inde est quod annum in certa tempora discretum partibus singulis certas portiones doctrinae Christi tribuit … quo simul et adversariorum calumnias reutemus, et in Christi cognitione proficere cupientibus documenta necessaria subministremus”, Jansenius: 1577, 209–210. 45 See Durand: 1570, VI, cc. 24–25, 289r–95v.

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

221

“seventy” days of the Sunday before Easter – 64 days – recalls the “seventy” years of the Babylonian captivity, stressing again the idea of misery expressed on Septuagesima Sunday.46 Concerning the 20th Sunday after Trinity, Braun briefly recalls that the parable of the Great Banquet is a kind of synopsis of the whole Scriptures, since it deals with God, the redemption by means of Christ, the alliance between God and Abraham and his progeny, the benefits that God bestowed on the Jews, their ingratitude, God’s subsequent vengeance, God’s calling of other people, real and false Christians, the last judgment, and finally the last reward.47 In sum, Braun’s prefaces to Jansenius’ sermons are interesting since they show differences in the liturgy before the introduction of the Roman Missal in the various dioceses.

3.3

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

“Like his contemporaries, Stapleton combined controversial, doctrinal preaching with an emphasis on Christian ethics and mores. He accomplished this, however, with separate collections devoted exclusively to each” (Frymire: 2010, 417). In this instance, Frymire is referring to Stapleton’s Prompturia (handbooks) for giving a useful instrument to clergyman in preparing their sermons. Actually, as De Landtsheer correctly points out, “[t]he meaning of the Promptuarium is very simple: with his consultation, Stapleton is offering every minister and pastor some material “ready at hand (promptus)” to illustrate the Gospel texts used in celebration of the mass, as they had to do every Sunday and Holy Day” (Landtsheer: 1996, 434). By consulting the USTC catalogue, the data reveals the editorial success of this work: in just nine years, from 1589 to 1598, there were 50 printings, spread throughout Europe: Antwerp, Lyons, Paris, Venice, with German translations in Ingolstadt in 1596 and 1597. This fortune continued up until the 18th century, but the thirty years between 1589 and 1620 were the most important period for Stapleton’s handbooks (Frymire: 2010, 417–422). Furthermore, “[i]n 1610, the Antwerp Synod instructed that all parish priests should obtain his 46 “Porro, septem hebdomades, quae hunc passionis tempus antecedunt, septem aetates mundi designant, singulae singulas, ut suo loco indicabimus: et communi nomine septuagesima, totum id tempus, tracto nomine a captivitate Babylonica, dicitur in qua septuaginta annis populus Dei exalavit … Prima aetas ab hominis lapsu ad diluvium usque perduravit, miserabilis plane, et omni salutis auxilio destituita … ut merito canat Ecclesia … circumdederunt me gemitus mortis etc.”, Jansenius: 1577, 211. 47 “Totius scipturae summam, et quasi compendium, breviter et luculenter exponit … Tradit enim, quid de Deo, de redemptione per filium Dei peracta, de pacto, sive testamento cum Abraham et eius semine facto, de beneficijs illi populo multipliciter, de intolerabili ipsius ingratitudine, de subsequenti vindica, et vocatione gentium: de veris et falsis Christianis, postremo, de iudicio, et retributione finali, sic sentiendum”, Jansenius: 1577, 764–765.

222

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

[Stapleton’s] Promptuarium Catholicum and Promptuarium Morale either in Latin or in translation.” (Machielsen: 2010, 101; cf. also Landtsheer: 1996, 436). The editorial history is more developed than it appears, especially with regard to the Promptuarium Catholicum, as I shall briefly explain. First of all, it should be stressed that these works were actually divided into two parts, as said in the above-mentioned quotation by Frymire: the Promptuarium Catholicum and the Promptuarium Morale. The former was first published in 1589 in Paris by Michel Somnius, although Stapleton would have preferred his work to have been published by the Antwerp Plantin Press, given the latter’s elegance of type, higher quality paper, and above all the accuracy their work, especially regarding the correctness of the Latin text.48 Owing to the difficult relationship between the Englishman and Moretus, however, Stapleton decided not to entrust the management of the printing to the Plantin Press (Machielsen: 2010, 100–104). He re-published his Promptuarium Catholicum, first in Lyons and then in Antwerp, but in the latter city with Pierre Bellère. Subsequently, Stapleton reworked his “Catholic Handbook”, finally printing a sixth edition in 1595 in which he further developed his sermons, showing the influence of both the contemporary editing of his Antidota and his reading of Molina’s Concordia. The difference between the editio princeps and this new updated text will be revealed in the final section of this chapter by analyzing a pericope absent in Sasbout’s and Jansenius’ sermons, viz. Matt 23:37, and read in the Mass on St. Stephen Protomartyr (26 December). With regard to the “Moral handbook”, Stapleton was able to make an agreement with Moretus, who published its editio princeps in 1591, followed by later reprints. Moreover, the text was republished in Venice, Lyons, and Paris in Latin, with the abovementioned German translation in Ingolstadt. Stapleton clarifies the difference between them: the Promptuarium Catholicum was intended both to define and defend the “orthodox” truth against the Protestants by furnishing preachers with a good instrument for defending Catholic faith and sound doctrine. Stapleton even maintains that the preparation of this work was not so difficult, thanks to his multiyear formation in controversial theology. He then prepared his second Promptuarium: describing the editorial rationale behind the publication of this second handbook, he states that he was no longer able to tolerate the attacks of heretic scholars (without speci48 “As I reasonably indicated several months ago on this, before everything [else] I desired that this work is made public with your type, not only because your [type] is the most elegant, and you use the most select paper, but also because so far as I have been able to observe, the Latin books that come out of your house are much more correct than those in Paris; and I hear that you yourself are admirably well lettered and devote yourself to the actual process of correction”, English translation of the Latin letter sent by Stapleton to Moretus on 27th August 1589, by Machielsen: 2010, 102.

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

223

fying who these scholars were). He composed the Promptuarium Morale to instruct preachers “against sin”, and to instill piety and other virtues in the faithful, stirring their desire for divine matters.49 Therefore, he took note of those pericopes that were useful improving human behaviour and promoting a zeal for piety. He included the Church fathers’ explanations of these biblical passages, while at the same time furnishing many historical examples, some from his own time and others from Late Antiquity. Of course, this instrument could be used by the preachers in whatever manner they desired, adding elements as needed.50 The difference between the Promptuarium Catholicum and Promptuarium Morale is clearly revealed by the different structure and methodology used by Stapleton. The Promptuarium Catholicum is very clear: the treatise is less structured and detailed than that of the Promptuarium Morale, and it has a clear polemical target, Calvin and his ‘heresy’. There are few references to the Church fathers or to the philosophers. On the other hand, the Promptuarium Morale is stylistically more complex than Stapleton’s Promptuarium Catholicum. It is full of erudite references to Church fathers and even quotations from ancient Roman philosophers, such as Cicero and Seneca, but also mentions classical Greek philosophers, such as Diagoras, ‘the Atheist’ of Melos, and Protagoras. For each Gospel of the Mass, Stapleton first quotes the entire biblical passage, then he creates a kind of ‘table of contents’ for the passage, accompanied by the “moral pericopes”. Moreover, each pericope listed in the table of contents is introduced by a single sentence that indicates the subject of the verse, so as to direct the preacher better concerning the context in which the sermon should be preached, as for instance:

49 “Promptuarium Catholicum super omnia totius anni Evangelia, tam de Dominicis, quam de Festis Christi & Sanctorum eius in lucem emisi, in quoad veritatem orthodoxam vel stabiliendam vel defendendum, Concionatores verbi aliqua bona supellectile instruere conatus sum: fuit illud non mihi forte adeo difficile & arduum: vel quia longa in hoc doctrinae genere exercitatio mea, & controversiarum professio plus quam decennalis … magnam mihi facultatem adferre potuit … Promptuarium Morale super omnia totius anni Evangelia, tam Dominicalia quam de Festis, ad instructionem Concionatorum, contra huius temporis, vel omnium potius temporum peccata emittere; & pietatem, atque omnes virtutes, maxime mundi contemptum, ac caelestium rerum desiderium, fidelium animis instillare per huius Promptuarii supellectilem, sicuti per alterius ipsam fidem & sanam doctrinam corroborare volui”, Stapleton: 1620, i. 50 “Hoc ergo nobis in hoc Promptuario Morali propositum est, in singulis per annum Evangeliis, tam de Dominicis quam de Festis, si vita, valetudo, & negotia caetera permittent, loca seu textus singulos observare & annotare, unde aliquid ad bonos mores, & pietatis studium promovendum depromi documentum queat … ex aliis Scripturis ad eam rem facientibus, ex sanctis Patribus, & optimis quibusque Authoribus petita, locupletare: & Exemplis ac Similibus crebro exornare … quam postea Concionator quisque, prout volet disponet, exornabit, amplificabit, atque etiam locupletabit”, Stapleton: 1620, ii.

224

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi. De For many are called, but few are chosen. paucitate salvandorum, locus ad timorem Concerning the paucity of the people to be saved, useful passage for the fear [of God]. [Dei] utilis (Stapleton: 1620, 475).

In addition to the ‘new entry’ Matt 23:37, I shall deal again with the two loci already studied, Matt 20:16 and Matt 22:10, to give a better comparison between Stapleton’s analysis and those of Sasbout and Jansenius. For each pericope, Stapleton provides a full explanation, always introduced by the expression “locus moralis de …” (moral passage concerning …), giving at once the general topic of that pericope. In the scheme below, the difference appears more clearly: Promptuarium catholicum (1st edition: Paris, 1589) Less developed Few references to, or mentions of, Church fathers and pagan philosophers. No particular scheme in the treatise, just introduced with the word locus, ‘passage’.

Promptuarium morale (1st edition: Antwerp, 1591) More developed Many references to, and mentions of, Church fathers and pagan philosophers. Use of a systematic scheme for each Sunday gospel: – Quotation of the entire pericope. – ‘Table of contents’ by using the moral pericopes with one sentence topic indication. – Explanation of each moral pericope, always introduced with the expression ‘locus moralis de’ (“moral passage on”).

3.3.1 Preaching against the Queen on the 19th Sunday after Pentecost As Stapleton explains, the Parable of the Great Banquet deals with the ineffable benefits that the faithful receive thanks to Christ’s incarnation, viz. hypostatic union with God. This union is similar to that of marriage, when “two fleshes become one”; somehow, God and the believer become one in spirit. Thanks to this indissoluble union, the faithful receive grace and divine aids. Baptism and confirmation are the two means that allow men to receive these aids. Indeed, thanks to these sacraments, men receive the Holy Spirit – the same “burning charity” that the Apostles received at Pentecost – so that they “become one” with God. Stapleton offers a solid explanation of this, using an anaphoric per hanc enim charitatem (“by means of this charity”), which is repeated three times at the beginning of the three following sentences, to mark the importance of God’s charity.51 The use of anaphora is constant in Stapleton’s treatise in order to stress 51 “Locus moralis de ineffabili beneficio per incarnationem Filii Dei humano generi collato.

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

225

the key-concepts of the moral pericopes. Another case, for instance, is the repetition of adest nobis (“it is present to us”), and again in the three following sentences to mark God’s presence in the faithful.52 However, people can also choose not to accept God’s invitation, something which leads eventually to their damnation. Since man is a rational creature, he is capable of discernment and therefore able to choose evil. It is therefore entirely within his power to choose condemnation. On the other hand, and for the same reason, it is within his power to answer God’s invitation, although, in this case, another essential component is also required: God’s adjuvant grace which excites and helps human will.53 As Stapleton explains in the Promptuarium Catholicum, the wedding garment is not to be understood as “faith”, as the “heretics” maintain, but as a kind of necessary garment for those who are already Christian, in order that, by means of this garment, the faithful can do good. This garment is therefore not faith; rather, it is the “justification of the saints”, that is to say, the good works performed by the “saints” whom Stapleton considers as the faithful.54 After a few lines, StaNuptiae enim quas Deus … fecit Filio suo unigenito, & ad quas vocat invitatos, sunt illa admirabilis unio & coniunctio hypostatica Filii Dei, cum natura & carne humana … Tunc etiam facti sunt Deus & humana natura per gratiam adoptata in filios Dei, non duo in carne una, ut in matrimonio carnali; sed duo in spiritu uno, per coniugium spirituale … Ex hoc enim matrimonio, ex his nuptiis inter Filium Dei & omnes electos per copulam & unionem spiritualem, inter Deum & animam sibi desponsatam facta est … Huius autem coniunctionis, huius desponsationis cum Deo, harum nuptiarum Filii Dei beneficia, dotes, munera, honores, gratiae, infinite multo maiores & ampliores sunt … (Spiritus enim promissionis, est ignita charitas, quam in die Pentecostes Apostoli acceperunt, nos in Baptismo, & Confirmationis Sacramento per manuum impositionem accipimus) … Per hanc enim charitatem compatimur Christo, ut conglorificemur ei. Per hanc charitatem Deus manet in nobis, & nos in eo. Per hanc charitatem sumus unus spiritus cum Deo. Qui enim adhaeret Deo, unus spiritus est. Per hanc charitatem servamus mandata Dei. Qui enim diligit me, sermones meos servabit, ut servantes ea, salvi fiamus. Si enim vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata”, Stapleton: 1620, 475– 476. 52 “Vere non est facta huiuscemodi res aliquando: nec ulla natio tam grandis est, quae habeat deos suos appropinquantes sibi, sicut adest nobis Deus noster. Adest nobis per naturam homo factus. Adest nobis per Spiritum sanctum suum in corda nostra missum. Adest nobis per auxilia gratiae suae, operans in nobis: per amicitiae nexum manens in nobis”, Stapleton: 1620, 477. 53 “Locus moralis de perversa hominum voluntate, suae incredulitatis, & propriae damnationis causa … Ex istis vocatis aliqui simpliciter credere nolunt … Nihil enim tam in potestate hominis est, quam ut velit. Et sicut voluntatem nemo cogere potest, sic nec ea carere, qui rationalis creatura est … Venire ad nuptias, vel non venire, in voluntate eorum, qui invitati vocantur, situm est … Ad Deum enim quod attinet, ille vult omnes homines salvos fieri. Ille omnes invitat, ille omnium voluntates excitat, & excitatos adiuvat”, Stapleton: 1620, 477–478. 54 “Docet ergo ipse contextus evidenter vestem nuptialem hoc loco, non ipsam fidem, ut haeretici volunt, sed hominis iam per fidem in Ecclesiam recepti, aliquod ornamentum, & indumentum necessarium significare … Et datum est illi … ut cooperiat se byssino splendenti & candido … Sed vide quid per hanc vestem significetur. Sequitur. Byssinum enim

226

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

pleton clarifies who the “heretics” are: Luther in the first instance, and Stapleton directly quotes him to stress his false interpretation. In particular, the Englishman is referring to Luther’s De captivitate Babylonica, where the German reformer maintained that the baptized person is saved unless he or she has no faith since without faith there is no salvation.55 This statement, argues Stapleton, is not correct, and he refutes Luther by affirming the necessity of good works on men’s part, using Gregory the Great, Jerome, Hilary and Origen as authoritative sources.56 The second target of Stapleton’s Promptuarium is Calvin. Stapleton quotes him verbatim, and criticizes his ‘heretical’ approach to human good works. According to Stapleton, the wedding garment is to be considered as “purity of life”, “application of good works”, and “charity”, as is clearly expressed not only in this pericope (Matt 22:1–10), but also in other parts of the Scriptures and the Church fathers’ works.57 Stapleton’s message is clear: both Lutherans and Calvinists cannot consider themselves to be real Christians since they read and interpret the Bible differently from the Church fathers. Stapleton’s exposition of this matter is of course not original; it is in keeping with his theology which emphasizes the role of free will and good works in the economy of salvation. This is due in part to the homiletic genre, in part to his Jesuit theological formation in Douai, and especially to the influence of Luis de Molina. More interesting comments on this pericope can be found in the Promptuarium Morale, although they do not concern theology. Between the lines of this text, one sees a clear sentiment of revenge directed at Queen Elizabeth I to whom he owed his exile. The occasion for Stapleton’s attack on his homeland is given by the analysis of Matt 22:6 “And the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death”. The passage, explains Stapleton, deals with the cruelty of the persecutors of the Catholic faith. Thereafter, he sets off on a long iustificationes sunt Sanctorum. Hae iustificationes sunt bona opera Sanctorum, & mandata Dei a Sanctis, id est, a fidelibus observata”, Stapleton: 1620, 659. 55 “Ita vides, quam dives sit homo Christianus sive baptisatus, qui etiam volens non potest perdere salutem suam quantiscumque peccatis, nisi noli credere. Nullam enim peccata eum possunt damnare, nisi sola incredulitas”, Luther: 1520, Eiii v. Without changing the meaning of Luther’s sentence, Stapleton quotes it in part (1620, 659). 56 “Est ergo vestis nuptialis, vestis fideli Christiano propria, vestis ad salute nocessaria, ipsa charitas seu bonorum operum aggregatio. Est autem nuditas & confusio solius fidei haeretica hodie praedicatio. Sic huic Evangelio caeterae Scripturae conformes sunt. Sic autem & SS. Patres hunc locum semper intellexerunt. Gregorius sic scribit … Hilarius sic exponit … Hieronymus sic hunc locum interpretatur … Origenes eodem modo intelligit”, Stapleton: 1620, 659. 57 “Frustra ergo Calvinus hanc quaestionem fugit, in qua se causa casurum facile praevidebat. Vestis quippe nuptialis nomine ipsam charitatem & bonorum operum studium ac vitae puritatem necessario intelligi, tum parabolae ipsius tota connexio, tum aliae Scripturae, tum veterum Patrum consentientes sententiae luculenter probant, sicut iam satis probatum & olim explicatum dedimus”, Stapleton: 1620, 660 (cf. Calvin: 1838, vol. 2, 43).

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

227

historical excursus on the persecutions suffered by orthodox Christians from the beginning of the Church until the present day. In the first three centuries, many Roman Emperors persecuted Christ’s believers, viz., Nero (37–68), Domitian (51– 96), Hadrian (76–138), Septimius Severus (146–211), Decius (201–251), Valerian (ca. 200–260), Maximianus (ca. 270–313), Maximinus (173–238), Valens (328–378), and Valentinian II (371–392) who tormented Ambrosius. Also Arian Germanic kings, like Huneric (5th century), persecuted orthodox Catholics. Even Byzantine Emperors tormented the true Church, examples being the iconoclast Leo III, the Isaurian (ca. 685–741), his son Constantine V, Copronym (718–775), Leo V, the Armenian (775–820), and the monothelite Philippicus Bardanes (7th–8th century). Reading about iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire, the reader of that time would understand the implicit reference to the Iconoclastic Fury that was ravaging parts of Europe. Jewish Kings, like Manasseh of Judah (ca. 709–643) and Zedekiah (ca. 618–585), had also persecuted the prophets sent them by God (Stapleton: 1620, 481–484). In addition to their persecution of the true faith, these emperors and kings have something else in common: their death. As Stapleton tells it, they died violent deaths because of God’s justice at the hand of those who defended the faith or in other bloody circumstances. This theme was quite a common element in the martyrologies of the 16th century. Though the Jewish kings seemed to have been exceptions to this since their reigns were prosperous, they were eventually sent into the Babylonian captivity.58 For Stapleton, this list of impious rulers and their ignominious deaths is both a manifestation of God’s vengeance against those who would persecute his followers and a historical parallel to those who refuse God in the present time – a kind of eternal cycle in which people refuse God, and God kills them. The same destiny 58 “Impii Reges iudae, qui sanctos Prophetas persequebantur, Manasses Esaiam, Sedechias Ieremiam, et alii alios, longa satis impunitate ac fortuna prospera usi sunt: sed uterque in miseram captivitatem cum toto tandem populo abducti sunt”, Stapleton: 1620, 484. For the fate of emperors’ and other kings’, see pp. 483–484. I shall not deal with the ‘historicity’ of Stapleton’s affirmations since he makes some evident errors. For instance, he says that Severus was a persecutor.That could be true for Septimius Severus, although this claim could be easily rejected. In any case, Stapleton then adds “Severus; & Iulius Maximinus filius eius, ab exercitu interfecti sunt”. Thus, “Severus and his son Iulius Maximinus were killed by the army”. Now, Septimius Severus’ sons were Caracalla and Geta, and Septimius was not killed but died naturally at 65 years old in Eburacum (York). Besides, Alexander Severus was indeed killed, by Maximinus, but he was not a persecutor and Maximinus was not his son or adopted by him but his successor. Maximinus was also killed by his soldiers, but he was not a persecutor. This was Maximinus II, Co–Augustus with Licinius (311–313), and who had been Caesar together with another Severus, Flavius Valerius Severus, in the years 305–306. Concerning the Jewish kings, Manasseh was captured by an Assyrian king and deported to Babylon (2Cor 33:11). Zedekiah suffered the same fate: Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon, imprisoned and deported him in Babylonia after the siege of Jerusalem, in 587 BC (2Kgs 25: 1–7).

228

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

awaits the many heretical persecutors spread throughout the German-speaking world: Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland. However, the ‘Anglo Calvinists’, and especially their head, Queen Elizabeth, are the subject of particular attention. The Englishman recalls the persecution perpetrated on Catholics, both clergy and laity, in England during the Elizabethan Era. According to Stapleton, this persecution is twofold, one at an educational level, with the preaching by heretical scholars, and, on the other hand, the persecution proper – that of the temporal power.59 Catholics or sympathizers are considered traitors and liable to capital punishment, even if they perform Catholic rituals in their own homes.60 By way of example, Stapleton recalls the fate of the English Jesuit, Edmund Campion (1540–1581), who was captured, imprisoned, and put to death.61 Stapleton refers in particular to his Rationes Decem (“Ten Arguments”), a booklet that the Jesuit had written in order to explain, in ten ‘reasons’, that the Catholic Church is the real continuation of the Church of the Apostles, a status that cannot be claimed by ‘heretics’ who deviate from the ‘orthodox’ way. This booklet was very successful: in 1581, the first edition was printed in England by the Catholic Stephen Brinkley (b. 1550), after which it went through 15 additional printings between 1581 and 1600 in Antwerp, Ingolstadt, Rome, Graz, Milan, Paris, Pont-à-Mousson, Rouen, Vilnius, Vienna and Würzburg.62 In the same year, 1581, the ‘Anglo Calvinist’, William Whitaker (1548–

59 “Talis hodie (etsi in Germania, Dania, Helvetia principes ac dominici haeretici multi sint) sola tamen quae religionem orthodoxam cruentis legibus, & omni crudelitatis genere persequitur, in Anglia est Elizabetha impotens & infamis faemina. Illa enim & vinctos tenuit omnes ad unum Catholicos Angliae Episcopos, multosque praeterea Ecclesiarum illic pastores & doctores, quam primum ad regni gubernacula sedere coepit; & a decem iam circiter annis, omnis ordinis Catholicos, sacerdotes, nobiles, cives, non tenuit tantum diris carceribus mancipatos, sed & omni praeterea contumelia affectos (sacerdotes maxime, qui ad nuptias caelestes, ad Ecclesiae & sponsae Filii Dei unionem, errantes oves revocabant) immanibus prius tormentis confectos, acerbissimo mortis genere interfecit. De qua afflictissimi illius regni persecutione duplici, una per haereticos magistros seductores, altera per potestates huius saeculi percussores (quae huic loco propria est) ea dici aptissime possunt”, Stapleton: 1620, 482. 60 “Hodie in Anglia, non solum ipsi servi Dei vocantes ad nuptias, sed etiam qui aliquem presbyterum Catholicum: in domum suam recipit; qui in privato colloquio, ut aliquem ab haeresi ad fidem Catholicam reducat, vel minimum sermonem miscet; qui huiusmodi aliquid, ab alio quopiam praestitum ultra 24. horas celat, laesae Maiestatis crimen committere, & capitali supplicio (quale supra posuimus) afficiendus, publico regni decreto iudicatur”, Stapleton: 1620, 482. 61 After almost four hundred years, in 1970 Pope Paul VI canonized him as a martyr. 62 “Inter caeteros virum eruditione, pietate, eloquentia, morum candore praestantissimum, Edmundum Campianum, Societatis Iesu Presbyterum; qui quum decem propositis rationibus (libello insigni) ad nuptias caelestes homines Anglos, & maxime Academicos vocasset, paulo post captus, post contumelias per totam urbem Londinensem acceptas, post equuleos in carcere tertio toleratos, barbaro supplicio per plateas tractus, fune strangulatus, exenteratus, & evisceratus, cum aliis compresbyteris, & gloriosi martyrii sociis occiditur”,

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

229

1595), rebutted the Rationes decem, arguing for the opposite thesis. Finally, Whitaker’s text was itself rebutted by a Scottish Jesuit, John Dury (1585).63 These facts perhaps shows the importance of Edmund Campion and his work in that historical context. Stapleton, a Jesuit sympathizer, intentionally brought up this well-known case in order to show the evilness of the ‘Anglo Calvinist’ Queen. However, argues Stapleton, the Parable of the Great Banquet teaches God’s sure and infallible vindictive justice against all those who persecute the Catholic Church and its faithful. This assertion is not coincidental, and it would be overly reductive to read it in exclusively theological or exegetical terms. The context in which he was writing clearly had a great influence. The editio princeps of the Promptuarium Morale was 1591, in the middle the Anglo-Spanish war (1585–1604). Stapleton’s sentiment of revenge against ‘his’ Queen and her persecution was perhaps fomented by the hope of a future victory of Philip II, the Catholic king, over the persecuting ruler, just as Constantine had enjoyed victory over Maximianus. In this instance, it should be recalled that Stapleton received the ‘royal chair’ of the Sacred Scriptures in Louvain thanks to his political support for the cause of Philip II. This pericope not only deals with the “pseudo-Christians”, viz., the heretics, but according to Stapleton, it also deals with the “politicians of our times”64 whose main error was to impose the principle cuius regio eius religio after the peace of Augsburg in 1555. These politicians had received intellectual aid from philosophers who affirmed that ‘all religions and sects’, so Lutheranism, Calvinism, Puritanism, must be tolerated and accepted by kings in order to obtain a complete peace. In Stapleton’s view, this idea is to be completely rejected since the consequence of this approach is a kind of religious relativism in which a clear principle is absent, and in which no religion could be considered to be the true religion. The extreme consequence of this relativistic approach to religion(s) in general and to the various Christian confessions in particular, is the absence of religion, the absence of God: in one word, atheism.65 The rejection of any religion Stapleton: 1620, 482. Campion’s booklet was also translated into French (s.d.), German (1589; 1594), and even into Hungarian (1606; 1607). 63 On the Anglican persecution during Elizabeth I, see for instance the chapter “La restauration du Protestantism sous Élisabeth et la persecution des catholique (1558–1603), in Lecler: 1955, vol. 2, 303–325. On the English Jesuits during the Elizabethan Era, the primary source is, of course, Edwards 1981; cf. also McCoog: 1996. On English Catholics, see Salmon: 1991, 219– 253; Janssen: 2012, 671–692. 64 Politicus should be understood more as ‘political philosopher’ than ‘politician’. Throughout the present text, I will use ‘politician’ to include the political philosopher. 65 “Ad religionem autem quod attinet, & veri Dei cultum, quem iste Politicorum atheismus explodit, nullam sine ea veram aut optabilem Reipubl. pacem consistere posse, ex ipsis profanae sapientiae principiis ac Philosophorum placitis, idem clarissimus doctor ostendi”, Stapleton: 1620, 487. “Sic enim isti Politici omnes religiones ac sectas, Lutheranorum, Calvinistarum, Puritanorum, atque adeo Catholicam alicubi devotionem tolerandas, & recipiendas, atque a Regibus permittendas arbitrantur, dummodo pax regni tuta sit; ut omnium

230

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

is considered an attack on social cohesion, precisely because of the absence of a unifying principle. For Stapleton, only religion, and not the State, could serve as this principle. The reason is clear: only religion derives from God and like God is true and eternal. The State is a human construction, liable to corruption and destruction. Stapleton shows this idea by listing all the Roman Emperors, as well as the pagan and Jewish kings who acted against God. Furthermore, God’s truth is unique, not liable to various interpretations. When it is allowed to be interpreted in various ways, war and persecution are the inevitable consequence. Stapleton is here appealing to the unity of the Church as guarantor of stability within a Europe which still coincides with Christendom, following the Middle Age’s notion of Res Publica Christiana. Stapleton seems to be offering a political manifesto as much as a theological sermon. Religious plurality is felt as a real danger for the State as a political entity in particular and for Christendom in a more general way. The politicians and those ‘false’ Christians who maintain atheism and heterodox confessions respectively are inevitably condemned to eternal death.66 In this instance, Stapleton maintains the proportionality of God’s justice and mercy: both are infinite yet proportional to each other, as one arm to another. Men are perfectly aware of God’s mercy bestowed on the elect and therefore men must know the immense justice to which the rejected are subject. In other words, if men are sure of God’s infinite mercy, they should also be sure of his justice, viz. his vengeance on those who persecute the faithful of the true religion, Catholicism, the only acceptable faith.67 Stapleton’s argumentation mixes theology with politics. Focusing on the verse “many are called, few are chosen” (Matt 22:10), he explains its theological sense but also provides a concrete example of a ‘bad’ politician from his personal position as a religious refugee. Stapleton first explains that this moral pericope deals with “the constant fear of God” which the faithful must have so that they can accept God’s will, observe God’s law, and achieve eternal life.68 However, as culturarum mysteria Politicorum idolum teneat, eique subserviant. Perinde illis est de qualibet religione, ad quam neminem ulla necessitate adigi posse affirmant, modo pax Reipub. & rerum omnium affluentia in tuto sit. Nulla unquam acerbior pestis orbem Christianum invasit, quae eo tendit,– ut nulla amplius colatur religio, Deus credatur nullus”, Stapleton: 1620, 488–489. 66 “Locus moralis de pseudo christianorum, et maxime Politicorum, horrenda et eterna poena”, Stapleton: 1620, 489. 67 “Primum illa poena in vindictam peccatorum infligitur ab irato & iusto Deo. At ut Dei misericordia erga electos immensa est, sic & eius iustitia erga reprobos … Quemadmodum igitur qui unum hominis cuiuspiam brachium videt, eiusque mensuram tenet; alterius brachii mensura & longitudo quanta sit ignorare non potest; sic plane, quum Dei misericordiam infinitam esse, & super numerum arenae maris miserationes eius certo sciamus, Dei quoque iustitiam immensam esse, & quae numerari aut expendi nequeat, dubitare non debemus”, Stapleton: 1620, 489. 68 “Hic locus de assiduo timore saluberrimus … quam ex hac multitudine ingenti vocatorum

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

231

Stapleton maintains, this obedience is impossible for “politicians” and “pseudoChristians”. Among the political philosophers, Stapleton refers to Niccolò Machiavelli (Stapleton: 1620, 486–487) who separated moral law from the law of the State, declaring the primacy of the State and its preservation over all else. Stapleton totally refuses this axiom of the new political thought. In sum, the Englishman does not tolerate the presence of other religions or “sects”.69 His view on the relationship between Church and State was, of course, influenced by his condition as an exile after the restoration of Anglicanism in England during the Elizabethan Era, in a historical context characterized by wars and persecution, the cause of which was the proliferation of different ways of being Christian. Stapleton was therefore perfectly integrated into a system of values in which tolerance was not considered as a virtue but as a weakness. It was seen as a kind of ‘absolute relativism’ where there are many truths, and the promoters of each confession consider themselves to be authorized to isolate and destroy any opponents. Stapleton recalls the persecutions perpetrated by ‘heretics’. He regards these as wrong because they were carried out against Catholics. Clearly, in his view, those carried out by Catholics are right, since those persecutions are against ‘heretics’, destroyers of both the ‘true’ religion and the unity of Europe. This argument reveals the limitations of this author who had a profound knowledge but aimed only at verbally attacking his opponent, often with rude words, little concealing his sentiment of revenge towards the ‘heretical Queen’ and her government. Stapleton’s approach to Calvinism is the consequence of his condition as an exile. English Catholics suffered persecution in their homeland where they were considered to be not only heretics, but also traitors, because they followed the Pope rather than the Queen, an idea still present in the philosopher John Locke (1632–1704).70 Another limitation is his total refusal of the raison d’État. He even claims the primacy of the Pope in Western Europe since every Christian must be subject to him.

Christianorum, sed ingenti paucitate electorum … sed via morum, via charitatis & observationis mandatorum Dei, per quam pauci ambulant, ideoque viae terminum, caelestem beatitudinem, pauci consequuntur”, Stapleton: 1620, 492. 69 Of course, such intolerance was not only on the Catholic side but also on the Protestant. The evidence of such intolerance is given, for instance, in the life of Michael Servetus, condemned by both Catholics and Protestants, and eventually burnt at the stake by Calvinists in Geneva (27 October 1553). 70 See for instance his Letters Concerning Toleration (1689) where the English philosopher maintains that “That church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country, and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own government”, Locke: 1963, 93.

232

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

3.3.2 The Mass on Septuagesima Sunday: again against the Queen? As Stapleton explains in the Promptuarium Catholicum, Matt 20:1–16 deals with the necessity of human good works against the sola fide principle of the Protestants. The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard has an allegorical interpretation: the “dinar” is God’s reward, viz. eternal life; the vineyard is the soul, and the Church is a “community of souls”; those who work in the Lord’s vineyard are those who observe Christ’s commandments. A more detailed analysis should be directed to the expression “the obedience of faith”, also called the “act of faith”. However, the works of faith are to be distinguished from faith in se, like fruits from the roots. Actually, there is not only one root for the fruit; there are two: faith and charity. Still, charity ‘is more root’ of the works than faith since the cause of the act lies more in the will than in the intellect. Faith enlightens the intellect, while charity excites the human will, and acts depend more on the will than on the intellect.71 In sum, grace, considered as the faith and the charity that God bestows on men, is the root of good works, but it is up to men to produce the fruit, viz. to do good. God gives to the faithful the means to do good, but men must make a fruitful use of those means.72 In this instance, Stapleton makes a frontal attack on the ‘heretics’ and in particular on Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586) and his famous Examen decretorum concilii Tridentini (1566). The Englishman rebuts the thesis of the German theologian in order to stress the importance of good works in the economy of salvation by analyzing the expression “servi inutiles sumus” (“We are unprofitable servants”), Luke 17:10.73 Stapleton refers to Augustine, also cited by the 71 “Locus late tractandi contra haereticos horum temporum necessitatem bonorum operum contra solam fidem quam unice necessariam ad salutem impie docent. Operantibus enim in vinea, id est, custodientibus mandata, excolentibus vineam Domini, quae vel propria cuiusque anima est, vel communitas animarum & Ecclesia fidelium … in hoc Evangelio denarius, id est, vita aeterna. Est quidem fides opus Dei … quia opus intellectus ac voluntatis est, quo obsequenter, captivamus intellectum in obsequium Christi, unde & obedientia fidei, actus fidei vocatur. Attamen per universam Scripturam opera distinguuntur a fide, & operarii a credentibus, sicut fructus a radice. Quanquam non unica radix fides est: Nam & in charitate radicamur atque fundamur (ut loquitur Apostolus) & omne bonum opus Deo placens, non secus a charitate quam a fide proficiscitur, imo magis proprie bonorum operum radix charitas est quam fides, quia principium operationis magis consistit in voluntatis imperio quam in intellectus dictamine. Quicquid enim dictet aut faciendum doceat intellectus fide illustratus, nihil fit, nullum opus producitur, nisi voluntas charitate incitata factum imperet”, Stapleton: 1620, 584. 72 “Sed vita aeterna est gratia: quia radix & principium eius est gratia. De qua re vide plura in altero Promptuario. Accepta autem gratia, bonorum operum radice; nostrum est fructus producere: accepta Domini pecunia, nostrum est eam bene expendere”, Stapleton: 1620, 118. 73 “Hoc loco notandum contra haereticos, quod haec bona opera, hunc bonum usum gratiae & talentorum a Deo acceptorum Christus a suis in Evangelio flagitat, non solum ut congrua quaedam bonis filiis opera, aut ut gratiarum actiones … sed ut prorsus ad salutem necessaria.

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

233

German theologian, explaining that the words of the Church father should be read, considering that he was writing strongly against the Pelagians. To strengthen his argument, Stapleton recalls that the Tridentine decree on justification teaches the necessity of both God’s grace and human good works.74 In sum, ‘heretics’ defame Catholics, accusing them of being Pelagians since they stress the importance of human participation in the process of salvation. Stapleton tries to defend this position by referring to the Council of Trent, not recognized by his opponent, arguing that the accusation of Pelagianism is inconsistent. Augustine was writing against Pelagius, and therefore he was forced to stress God’s grace. In particular, the words of Augustine at stake in the discussion between Stapleton and Chemnitz are taken from De gratia et libero arbitrio.75 It is not my aim to analyze Augustine’s pericopes as quoted by Stapleton and/ or by Chemnitz, or to decide which interpretation is closest to that of the Bishop of Hippo. The fact itself that both were proposed reveals that both of them are acceptable and both of them are refutable: they are an antinomy in which the different preconceived faiths inspire different interpretations. Two observations should be made, strictly linked to each other. First, Stapleton countered Chemnitz’ argument, formulating a kind of syllogism, or better a paralogism: – Reading Augustine, Chemnitz shows that Catholics are Pelagians, so heretics. – Augustine was writing against Pelagians, so he had to stress God’s grace (without however rejecting the importance of human works). – Therefore, Catholics are not Pelagians, but Chemnitz is a heretic.

Major premise Minor premise Conclusion

As the reader may notice, the Minor premise does not connect with the Major premise and therefore it does not connect with the conclusion: from the affirmation that Augustine was writing against Pelagius, it cannot be inferred that Christus enim de servo pigro qui talentis acceptis non quidem male usus, sed fine debito foenore abusus fuerat, sic loquitur. Inutilem servum eiicite in tenebras exteriores. Non impium, non flagitio sum, non criminosum eum vocat, sed Inutilem tantum, id est, a bonis operibus quae facere potuerat & debuerat, cessantem: & hoc solo cessationis nomine in teneras exteriores eiicit. Impudens evasio est magni haeretici Martini Chemnitii qui Concilii generalis superbam agere censuram non erubuit”, Stapleton: 1620, 584–585. 74 “Haec est S. Augustini clara doctrina, qui contra Pelagianos (quibus propter operum merita nos similes esse haeretici calumniantur) fortissime pugnavit. Hanc utramque & totam veritatem sacram hodie Concilium Tridentinum his verbis proposuit credendam. Proponenda est vita aeterna, & tanquam gratia filiis Dei misericorditer promissa, & tanquam merces meritis bonorum operum reddenda”, Stapleton: 1620, 585. 75 “Itaque, carissimi, si vita bona nostra nihil aliud est quam Dei gratia, sine dubio et vita aeterna, quae bonae vitae redditur, Dei gratia est: et ipsa enim gratis datur, quia gratis data est illa cui datur. Sed illa cui datur, tantummodo gratia est; haec autem quae illi datur, quoniam praemium eius est, gratia est pro gratia, tamquam merces pro iustitia; ut verum sit, quoniam verum est, quia reddet unicuique Deus secundum opera eius”, Augustine: 1962, 8.20, BA 24,134.

234

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

Catholics are not heretics (Pelagians in this particular case). Moreover, from this negation, the Englishman tries to infer that Chemnitz is heretic. Why this short circuit in Stapleton’s argument? To answer this question, two facts should be kept in mind: first, Stapleton does not really need to demonstrate that Chemnitz is a heretic, and, secondly, he does not need to demonstrate that Catholics are not Pelagians since both these things are evident to him. The implicit premise is that the Catholic Church is clearly on the right side and her opponents on the wrong side. Instead, Stapleton wants to show the wrong use that Chemnitz made of Augustine, a wrong use that emphasizes the heresy of the German Lutheran theologian. This leads to the second observation: the systematic use of Augustine as the highest authoritative source of interpretation of the Gospel on both sides of the ‘Catholic/Protestant’ divide. There is a kind of identity relation between Augustine and orthodoxy: somehow, Augustine’s theology expresses the purest Christianity upon which any good Christian must rely, especially in questions of eternal predestination, temporal grace, and human free will. Of course, many other Church fathers have found an important place in the debate within these two worlds of Christendom, as for instance John Chrysostom, Euthymius, and John of Damascus, but no source can be compared to the Bishop of Hippo. At several instances in the works analyzed in this research, the fight between Catholics and Protestants recalls the opposition between Augustine and Pelagius. There are always those – such as Lutherans and Calvinists – who consider themselves to be orthodox by claiming agreement with Augustine, accusing their opponent of Pelagianism. On the other hand, the Catholics maintain that Augustine was actually ‘fighting’ against Pelagius, so he had to stress God’s grace, without, however, denying good works. Augustine is therefore the most important authority, and his exegesis is the most ‘orthodox’ possible; therefore, not to follow Augustine implies not following the real evangelical message. Hence, if someone shows that his opponent does not correctly interpret Augustine, he can also show that his opponent is a ‘heretic’. This scheme is followed not only in the Catholic-Protestant debate, but also in that between the ‘Augustinian-minded’ Catholic theologians and the Molinists. In the latter case, it was the Molinists who are accused of being “semi-Pelagian”. In sum, the sound interpretation of the Scriptures goes hand-in-hand with a sound interpretation of Augustine’s writings. The Promptuarium Catholicum on Septuagesima Sunday does not reveal more; the focus now turns to the Promptuarium Morale in which the analysis of Matt 20:1–16 is more developed. This text is characterized by its many long quotations from Church fathers, especially Augustine and Chrysostom, who receive ten and seven citations respectively. Moreover, this text uses several metaphors taken from agriculture, making it more appropriate for the prepa-

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

235

ration of a sermon than that of the 19th Sunday after Pentecost. Stapleton uses the same organizational scheme that he has used throughout his Promptuarium Morale, viz. first quoting the Gospel passage and then stressing the ‘moral pericopes’ in a kind of ‘table of contents’. In particular, according to Stapleton, this Gospel passage deals with God’s mercy, providence, and benignity towards men since he calls them to their salvation. Stapleton focuses specifically upon the verb exire, “to go out”, which should actually be interpreted as “to call” (vocare), “to perform a new effect on the creature” (operari novum effectum in creatura). Stapleton bases his argument on Augustine’s interpretation, further explaining that God “goes out of himself to enter” the faithful, to convert men.76 This statement seems a better expression of the “hypostatic union” explained in the Promptuarium Morale on the 19th Sunday. As the Verbum goes out from the Father to enter the world, so the Father goes out from his majesty to inhabit men.77 Thanks to this relation between God and the faithful by means of which God’s grace inhabits the faithful, it is possible for the latter to do good and therefore to obtain eternal life. This is the message handed down by the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, but, again, Stapleton stresses the idea of human cooperation in the economy of salvation. God also put Adam in the Garden of Eden with the assignment to obey God, but the progenitor of mankind betrayed God through his disobedience and, as a consequence, became mortal. As Stapleton explains, God’s call is intended for everyone: everybody is called to receive eternal life.78 The importance of the active performance of good works is reinforced by another factor: acedia is a mortal sin. Basing his interpretation on Chrysostom, Stapleton maintains that those who do not work during their worldly life cannot gain eternal life. Moreover, he maintains that human justice can be thought of in two ways: 1) passively, when people do good by refusing evil; 2) actively, when people do good by performing good works.79 In this instance, Stapleton uses one 76 Cf. Augustine: 1865e, ser. 87 (a), 7, 9, PL 38, coll. 534–535. 77 “Locus moralis de summa Dei misericordia, providentia, benignitate circa hominum salutem procurandam, a nobis humiliter, & cum debita gratiarum actione consideranda. Exire enim Dei, est vocare, & operari novum effectum in creatura … Sic Deus, qui omnia implet, exit de se, ut intret in nos, imo ut nos convertat in se … Sicut enim verbum exiit a Patre, & venit in mundum; quia deiecit se, & humiliavit se, ut deisicet mundum: ita Pater exit velut a se, velut a Maiestate sua, ut inhabitet in nobis. Hic est ineffabilis Dei erga nos amor”, Stapleton: 1620, 117–118. 78 “Ad operandum ergo, ad negotiandum, ad fructum boni operis faciendum, omnes vocati sumus, ut denarium accipiamus. Hac enim conventione facta, denarium vitae aeternae accipiemur … Ecce opus Adae in Paradiso, obedire praecepto Dei: ecce conventio cum eo facta; quo die mandatum violat, morte morietur”, Stapleton 1620, 119. Also in this instance, Stapleton makes use of Augustine as authoritative source, quoting De Genesi ad Litteram libri duodecim, VIII, 10. 22 (PL 34, coll. 381). 79 “Esse otium per se grave peccatum, familiari exemplo docet Sanctus Chrysostomus. …

236

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

of several metaphors, characteristic of the Promptuarium Morale: that of the ants. They represent all those virtues which men have to possess in order to do good and to gain eternal life. They show charity, since they work together; industry, since they always work; providence, since they work for the future; mortification, since they cut off the grain so that it does not germinate or putrefy; they flee from temptation since they hide the grain in times of rain; praise God, by exposing the grain in sunny days; exhibit the “zeal of mercy”, by carrying a weight heavier than the ant itself.80 Two elements are noticeable from this metaphor: the first is the use itself of an easy metaphor in order to explain Christian virtues through means of something known to everyone. This moralizing intent shows the necessity of simplicity in the sermon, and it shows a readiness to borrow from ancient Greek and Roman literature. Aesop’s “The Ant and the Grasshopper” and Phaedrus’s “The Fly and the Ant”, were well known for their synopses of the virtues. The second element is the use of ancient literature for Christian purposes. At the end of the analysis of this metaphor, Stapleton quotes both Gaius Iulius Solinus’ De Mirabilibus Mundi and Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis Historia, linking both to Is 40:3 “make straight in the wilderness the paths of our God”.81 The purpose of this metaphor is again to stress the importance of human good works, necessary for gaining that eternal life which is the reward for diligence in this worldly existence. This repetitive appeal to good conduct is again directed at rebutting the Protestant claim about the futility of good behaviour for gaining salvation. Protestant theologians teach that good works are not worthy of reward and are not necessary for salvation. However, Stapleton argues that this is false: Catholics understand that they are called to work in God’s Vineyard with the promise of eternal life.82 Again, worldly metaphors can help the faithful to Duplex enim est hominis iustitia. Non solum Declinare a malo, sed etiam facere bonum … qui in hac vita non laborant, in altera vita nihil gratiae aut favoris impetraturos”, Stapleton: 1620, 122. 80 “Quanta ignominia, ut a formica homo discat, & sapientiam discat? … Sed & vide sapientiam formicae atque honestas: socios laborantes adiuvat, in quo docetur charitas: solicita semper cursitat, in quo monstratur industria: provida est de futuro, in quo ostenditur prudentia: grana collecta detruncat, ne in terra germinent vel putrescant, in quo significatur nostra mortificatio: tempore imbris grana abscondit, in quo nos docet tentationis fugam, tempore sereno granum soli exponit, in quo docet, vel Deum de bonis suis laudare, vel … ad Dei gloriam bona nostra depromere: pondus portat maius quam ipsa sit, in quo monstrat zelum compassionis … Vides formicae sapientiam, sine duce, sine praeceptore, sine principe”, Stapleton: 1620, 122–123. 81 “Occultas vias (ait Solinus) rectas faciunt, per quas incedant. Hoc nos docuit Scriptura, clamans: Rectas facite semitas Dei nostri, ut supra explicatum est. Iuxta Plinium, libro 11. capite 30. Grana sibi invicem communicant, & labores ordinant. Documentum dant charitatis, eiusdémque ordinatae. Faciunt denique semitas in silice tritas, quo docent duras vias nos custodire”, Stapleton: 1620, 123. 82 “ Nostri temporis haeretici renovarunt, suorumque animis altissime impresserunt, omnem bonorum operum apud Deum mercedem negantes, sicut omne meritum negant, & operas

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

237

comprehend the necessity of good works: a farmer first seeds and then reaps; a merchant first travels over sea and land, then he obtains his profits; an artisan first makes an artefact, then he receives his reward. However, there is an incalculable difference between what farmers, merchants, and artisans obtain from their activities and what the faithful obtain from good works. For the former, the profit only covers or slightly exceeds the expenditure, while God’s reward is infinite. Furthermore, what men can grasp in their worldly life is just temporal and can easily be lost through robbery, fire, or death, but what God promises is eternal.83 To refute the theories of his opponents, Stapleton makes use of both Christian and pagan sources: the reader can find the name of Augustine and those of Xenophon, Chrysostom and Pliny the Elder, Ambrose and Cicero, Gregory of Nazianzus and Seneca, Gregory the Great and Diagoras, showing a solid formation that is not only focused on the ‘canon’ of Catholic literature. The main difference between the passages of the Promptuarium Morale here proposed is the level of knowledge that Stapleton requires of his reader, even though the same collection must have been addressed to the same target audience. In the treatise for the 19th Sunday after Pentecost, Stapleton refers several times to ancient Roman history, linking it to present times and showing the repetition of history, read in an eschatological way. Stapleton recalls the vengeance of God against persecutors in ancient times in order to maintain – or to hope for – God’s vengeance on Queen Elizabeth. Even more, Stapleton rejects religious pluralism; he rejects the principle cuius regio eius religio and the secularization of the Modern State. Somehow, he seems to have learned nothing from persecution even though some contemporaries criticized intolerance and war.84 However, the Eucharisticas (sic enim loquitur) & gratuitas praedicant, docentes posse quidem unum quemque bene operari … sed nec ob expectationem mercedis … nec tanquam rem ad salutem necessariam … verum ex solo intuitu beneplaciti Dei … At nos Christiani Catholici agnoscimus & profitemur nos esse conductos ad operandum in vinea Domini amplissima mercede proposita. Sic sumus filii Dei & liberi, ut simus tamen servi. Sumus liberi peccato, servi iustitiae”, Stapleton: 1620, 124. 83 “Atqui in Christi vinea prius laboratur; & postea merces redditur: qui omins honestae negotiationis ordo est. Agricola prius seminat, postea metit. Mercator primum navigat & peregrinatur, postea ex mercibus domum aportatis rem facit. Opifex cuiuscunque artis primum opus facit, postea mercedem accipit. Sed isti omnes vix lucrum percipiunt, quod labores compenset; aut, si excedat compensatio laborem, mediocris ille excessus est; & ut sit maximus, parvo tempore eius fructus manet; mille quoque periculis subest, ut, quod longo tempore & labore comparatum est, uno momento pereat, aut bello, aut latrocinio, aut incendio, aut morte. Sed merces quam operariis suis Deus retribuit, ut infiniti excessus est, ita nullo casu intercidit”, Stapleton: 1620, 126. 84 Amongst others, possibly the most important after Erasmus is Sébastien Castellion (1515– 1563), a French scholar who rejected all religious intolerance, harshly criticizing Calvin when he condemned Michael Servetus (1511–1553) to be burnt in Geneva. On this scholar, see amongst others Gallicet Calvetti: 2005. On the rise of the literature on religious tolerance, see

238

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

treatise for Septuagesima Sunday contained in the Promptuarium Morale seems to have been addressed more to common people. The speech is simpler, without stylistic tricks such as anaphora, and the metaphors are very simple. In conclusion, the emphasis upon good works seems to be typical of the homiletic genre, but Stapleton reveals his very Jesuit-minded theology, stressing at several instances the necessity of human good works. He even seems to refer to the intra-Catholic debate between the more Augustinian-minded theologians of the Louvain and Douai milieu and the Jesuits and their adherents. Actually, the first editions of the Promptuarium Catholicum and that of the Promptuarium Morale, Paris 1589 and Antwerp 1591 respectively, were written shortly after the period of the fiery controversy between Lessius and Baius (1586–1587). As we have said, Lessius was condemned both in Louvain and in Douai, but, in the latter city, Stapleton had defended him. When Stapleton discusses human good works, he seems to have had that controversy in mind, a controversy that obviously had consequences for Stapleton’s cursus honorum since, as a consequence of his support for Lessius, he was ostracized by the Augustinian-minded professors of the University of Douai. He had to wait until 1590 to receive a new office from Phiilip II, that of Royal Professor of the Sacred Scriptures at the University of Louvain, in succession to the anti-Pelagian, Michael Baius. To show once again the Jesuit influences on Stapleton’s exegesis, I shall now focus upon another sermon of the Promptuarium Catholicum, that of the St. Stephen Mass, a homily that offers a clear proof of Stapleton’s dependence on the theology of Luis de Molina. Unfortunately, neither Sasbout nor Jansenius nor Lucas paid attention to the feast of the Protomartyr since they gave sermons primarily on Sundays. However, Stapleton does pay such attention, and, in this sermon, he refers to the Spanish Jesuit for the first time. The next and final section will therefore show the Englishman’s first appreciation of Molina’s theory.

3.3.3 Stapleton’s Sermon on the Protomartyr and Luis de Molina In the course of this work, I have already shown Stapleton’s dependence on Luis de Molina through an analysis of the Antidota. In his commentary on Matt 11:21, Stapleton completely relies upon “middle knowledge”, and he was so convinced by Molina’s solution that he expounded that theory not only in his commentary on Matt 11:21 but also in other passages of the Antidota and even of the the chapter “La polémique religieuse. Premiers écrite systématiques sur la tolérance civile (1580–1620)”, in Lecler: 1955, vol. 1, 282–96. Lecler pays particular attention to the Lutherans, Philip Camerarius (1537–1624), Johann Gerhard (1582–1637), Martin Becanus (1563–1624) and the Louvain Catholic Theologian, John Molanus (1533–1585,) and his De fide haereticis servanda (1584).

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

239

Promptuaria. The purpose of this section is therefore to analyze a specific pericope of the sermons in which the Englishman directly quotes from Molina’s Concordia or at least refers to his theory. My primary interest is in the Prompturarium, but I will also refer to the corresponding passage of the Antidota. Specifically, I will focus upon: Matt 23:37: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?”. Similarly to his commentary on Matt 11:21, Stapleton begins by remarking on Calvin’s distortion of Jesus’ words. According to Stapleton, the ‘heretical’ theologian was clearly aware that Christ was referring to human free will, but he deliberately gave a false interpretation in order to deceive the reader. A parallel passage to Stapleton’s Antidota on Matt 23:37 is present in the Promptuarium Catholicum super Evangelia de Festis Sanctorum Totius Anni (“Catholic Handbook on the Gospels for the Feasts of the Saints of the Whole Year”). As the title reveals, this work was intended to help priests in preaching on the feasts of the saints celebrated on specific days over the liturgical year. This work contains thirty-five sermons,85 and it was first published in 1592 in Lyons. However, Stapleton must have been so impressed by his reading of Molina’s Concordia that, in 1595, he published a revised edition of his Promptuarium Catholicum. This new edition improved the previous one: Stapleton further developed his sermons and added more marginal notes. The sermon on Matt 23:37 illustrates this change: unlike the 1592 edition, the updated version contains a mention of Molina’s work, although in a marginal note. The 1592 editio princeps presents a shorter text than the 1595 sixth edition where the Englishman extends his criticism of 85 Following Stapleton’s index: 1) On St. Andrew Apostle, 30 November; 2) On St. Thomas Apostle, 21 December; 3) On Christmas, 25 December; 4) On St. Stephen Protomartyr, 26 December; 5) On St. John Apostle and Evangelist, 27 December; 6) On St. Innocents Martyrs, 28 December; 7) On Circumcision of Jesus, 1 January; 8) On Epiphany, 6 January; 9) On the Purification of the Virgin, 2 February; 10) On St. Matthias Apostle, 24 February; 11) On the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, 25 March; 12) On the feria secunda of Easter; 13) On the feria tertia of Easter; 14) On St. Mark Evangelist, 25 April; 15) On St. Philip and St. James, 1 May; 16) On the Feasts of the Cross, 3 May & 14 September; 17) On Ascension Day, 6th Sunday after Easter NO, 18) On the feria secunda of Pentecost; 19) On the feria tertia of Pentecost; 20) On the Corpus Domini, Thursday of the second week after Pentecos; 21) On St. John Baptist, 24 June; 22) On St. Peter and St. Paul, 29 June; 23) On the Visitation of the Virgin Mary, 2 July; 24) On Mary Magdalene 22 July; 25) St. James Apostle, 25 July; 26) On St. Lawrence Martyr, 10 August; 27) On the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, 15 August; 28) On St. Bartholomew Apostle, 24 August; 29) On the Nativity of the Theotokos, 8 September; 30) On St. Matthew Evangelist, 21 September; 31) On St. Michael Archangel, 29 September; 32) On St. Simon and St. Jude Apostles, 28 October; 33) On All Saints, 1 November; 34) On All Souls’ Day, 2 November; 35) St. Martin of Tours, 11 November. Some dates are altered to follow the traditional rather than the Novus Ordo calendar.

240

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion by quoting passages from his works relating to God’s will, a topic of particular interest in this treatise. In particular, the reference is to the third book, chapter twenty-four, where the Reformed theologian dealt with the so-called doctrine of ‘double predestination’. Once again, Molina is Stapleton’s “antidote” to Calvin’s “venom”. Given this important difference, I shall use the 1595 sermon rather than that of 1592. Of course, the brief marginal reference to Molina’s Concordia which occurs in the Promptuarium Catholicum cannot be compared with those in the Antidota. Specifically, in the comment on Matt 11:21, Stapleton makes extensive use of the Spanish Jesuit’s book, referring to and relying upon his ‘middle knowledge’ theory. This difference finds an evident explanation in the diverse genre and aim of these two works: the Promptuaria were intended to help priests in the preparation of their sermons while the Antidota are more ‘theological-technical’ commentaries. That is to say that the Promptuaria were intended for a wider and (consequently) less learned audience than that of the Antidota. The preacher has to give sermons to the flock, a public that would not have been familiar with specialized philosophical and theological matters such as the ‘middle knowledge’ theory but that still needed a solid education in order to be able to counter Calvin’s doctrines. Focusing on the Promptuarium Catholicum, Stapleton cites Molina’s Concordia in the sermon for the Mass on 26 December on the occasion of the commemoration of the proto-martyr, St. Stephen. The main difference between the analysis contained in the Antidota and that of the Promptuarium is the reference to Calvin: in the Antidota, Stapleton refers to the Harmony of the Three Gospels, while in the Promptuarium he uses the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Before going into further detail concerning Stapleton’s analysis of Matt 23:37 in the Promptuarium and in the Antidota, we should briefly recall Calvin’s interpretation of this pericope in the Harmony since this is the passage that Stapleton criticizes in his Antidota. According to the Reformed theologian, the sophists, viz. Catholic theologians, see here the proof of human free will while at the same time abolishing God’s predestination. Calvin, however, affirms that God’s will should be considered from the effects that it produces.86 In other words, if some people do not believe (effect), it is because God has not predestinated them to the faith (cause). A more extensive analysis of Calvin’s concept of God’s will be given thanks to Stapleton’s criticism; indeed, what ought to be stressed in the first instance is the reason why Stapleton rejects Calvin’s assertion 86 “Quod autem locus hic ad probandum liberum arbitrium, et arcanam Dei praedestinationem abolendam a sophistis arripiuntur, facilis est solutio. Vult Dominus omnes congregare, inquiunt: ergo omnibus liberum venire, nec eorum voluntas a Dei electione pendet. Respondeo, voluntatem Dei, cuius hic fit mentio, ab effectu esse consideranda”, Calvin: 1838, vol. 2, 256.

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

241

that Christ was speaking only metaphorically. Stapleton argues that Jesus’ words have to be interpreted literally when he maintains that God wanted to save Jerusalem but that its inhabitants chose not to believe and, because of that, He allowed their sin.87 Stapleton affirms this as a support of human free will and its importance in the economy of salvation. Indeed, in his view, the postlapsarian person retains the power to refuse and/or to resist God’ grace since God does not coerce the faithful to believe in Him. However, men can also answer God’s election positively. Therefore people have the power to determine their final destiny, whether it be eternal death or beatitude.88 By contrast, the ‘heretical’ theologians – Stapleton does not mention Calvin by name, but he is clearly the target here – deny this power to people. In doing so, they deny the presence of any merit, and they reduce the efficacy of God’s grace, even though, in rejecting human free will, the ‘heretics’ believe they are stressing the importance of God’s grace. By contrast, when we see that people have the power to choose whether to follow Him or not, we see that they are capable of earning the necessary (although not sufficient) merits for reaching their salvation. Moreover, Christ receives more glory than he would have received if his grace were coercive.89 That is to say that God’s generosity could not exist if He obliged people to believe him. Similarly, God would not be considered just, but rather arbitrary if His judgment to damn or to save people were executed only on the basis of an eternal decree. Only by permitting human free will can God judge men’s acts justly. Stapleton also furnishes many proofs that God allows people to choose on the basis of their free will: the Scriptures make several reference to 87 “Quia haec Christi verba contra duo sua paradoxa manifeste facere Calvinus advertit, eorum sensum studiose pervertit. Vidit ex hoc loco arbitrii libertatem stabiliri, quae vocanti & volenti Deo repugnet, quia eo volente congregare, homines congregari nolunt. Vidit ex hoc loco non omnem hominis circa salutis opus voluntatem ex Dei electione pendere, sicuti ille singulariter docet, affirmans omnes qui credunt & convertuntur, ex praedestinante Dei gratia converti, neminem iustificari nisi electum, & nunquam perire qui semel iustificatus est: ut sic apud eum nulla sit sufficiens aut adiuvans Dei gratia, sed sola operans & efficax…Censet ergo Calvinus voluntatem Dei hoc loco non proprie & formaliter, sed metaphorice accipi”, Stapleton: 1620, 91. 88 “Locus perspicuus docendi contra haereticos nostri temporis omnes, esse in homine post peccatum primi parentis liberum arbitrium, quo possit recusare adeoque resistere gratiae Dei si velit, ideoque Dei gratiam voluntati humanae vim non facere, neque hominem vel invitum vel coactum Deo vocante obedire, sed sponte sua, adeoque prorsus libera electione gratiam Dei vel acceptare vel respuere”, Stapleton: 1620, 825. 89 “Hoc enim totum haeretici hodie negant, ut totius meriti radicem tollant: nec ut Dei aut Christi gratiam amplificent, sed plane ut eandem impie deprimant, eiusque & vim & efficaciam in cordibus fidelium infirment. Maior enim est Christi gloria, maior gratia, maior ipsius gratiae benignitas, quod ipsam quoque voluntatem hominis (qua nihil ad flectendum durius) suaviter tamen trahit & flectit, eamque in sua conditione relinquit, non cogit, non impollit, hominemque libere bene agere, atque ita ad suam ipsius glorificationem concurrere permittit ac denique iuste eum iudicandi causam non tollit”, Stapleton: 1620, 825.

242

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

human free will, especially in cases where people refuse God’s call. For example, God often describes the Jews as ‘stiff-necked people’: he bestowed on them his grace several times, but they repeatedly refused him. So too the Pharaoh ‘fought’ against God’s will. This is the first comment that Stapleton makes concerning Matt 23.37 in the Promptuarium. This general analysis introduces his criticism of Calvin’s interpretation of this pericope, finally revealing which “heretics” he was referring to. In particular, according to Stapleton, the Reformed theologian distorted Jesus’ words cunningly. Calvin was unquestionably aware that human free will was being affirmed in this passage since God tried to gather people to Him but they refused his invitation. Moreover, Calvin was aware that eternal life depends not only on God’s will but also on men’s free will. Nevertheless – Stapleton asserts – Calvin idiosyncratically assumed that those who believe were actually predestined to do so and that therefore no one could be justified unless previously elected. Conversely, no one who had been justified could be damned.90 According to Stapleton, precisely because Calvin was aware that Matt 23:37 asserts the existence of human free will, he chose to maintain that Christ was only speaking metaphorically. Stapleton explains the theology lying behind this exegetical analysis: Calvin rejected the notion of sufficient and adjuvant grace while accepting only operative and efficacious grace. Through the attributions ‘sufficient’ and ‘adjuvant’, Stapleton maintains that God bestows on the post-lapsarian man a grace sufficient to induce him to give a positive answer to his vocation. Therefore, sufficient grace is a gift that God grants to all men from eternity. However, although this grace is sufficient to call men, the believer must both answer the call positively and do good during his/her worldly life in order to achieve eternal life. Nevertheless, God knows that human nature is corruptible: he therefore also bestows his adjuvant grace, so that the faithful can persevere in their path to salvation through good works. Of course, sufficient and adjuvant grace alone do not lead men to eternal life: they are inefficacious in the event that men choose to refuse God’s call, just as happened to Jerusalem’s citizens, as described in Matt 23:37. Indeed, God bestowed on the Jews his sufficient grace – actually they were the chosen people in the Old Testament – and God also sent his Son who preached and performed miracles – viz. the adjuvant grace – in order that they could believe, 90 “Vidit ex hoc loco arbitrii libertatem stabiliri, quae vocanti & volenti Deo repugnet, quia eo volente congregare, homines congregari nolunt. Vidit ex hoc loco non omnem hominis circa salutis opus voluntatem ex Dei electione pendere, sicuti ille singulariter docet, affirmans omnes qui credunt & convertuntur ex praedestinante Dei gratia converti, neminem iustificari nisi electum, & nunquam perire qui semel iustificatus est: ut sic apud eum nulla sit sufficiens aut adiuvans Dei gratia, sed sola operans & efficax”, Stapleton: 1620, 825–826. Cf. above n. 87: Stapleton made use of the very same argument in the Antidota.

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

243

but they obstinately refused. Indeed, on other occasions, God even bestowed his adjuvant grace on his people in order that they might be purged from their sins, but they chose not to believe.91 Calvin, for his part, rejected these attributions of grace while sustaining an operative and efficacious grace alone (sola gratia operans et efficax). These two designations, ‘operative and efficacious’, are intended to explain that God bestows his grace from eternity, causing immediately an effect, justification, without any kind of human cooperation. In other words, grace is the only efficacious cause of human salvation. However, – insists Stapleton – the Reformed theologian commits an error of interpretation. To prove it, Stapleton quotes the most-cited ancient authority present in his works: Augustine. In particular, Stapleton refers to the Retractationes, where the Bishop of Hippo was replying to Adimantus, sustaining that “it is in a person’s power to change his will to the better, but there is no such power unless it is given by God”.92 Stapleton explains that the first part of this declaration applies to the theory of salvation proposed by Manicheans, which, in his mind, can be equated with Calvinist ‘double predestination.93 In the second part of the declaration, Augustine is criticizing the Pelagians who denied the necessity of God’s grace for achieving eternal life. According to Stapleton, Calvin’s mistake was due to his desire to avoid falling into Pelagianism, but, in the process, he fell instead into Manichaeism, even claiming that God wanted the Jews to sin.94 91 “Verum omnino est homines ad Dei praecepta complenda sese convertere posse si velint, sed praeparatur voluntas a Domino, & tantum augetur munere charitatis ut possint. Hanc Dei erga Iudaeos praecipue gratiam adiuvantem ac sufficienter praeparantem, sed eorum sola culpa inefficacem, Christus hoc loco ad futurae in eos vindictae iustitiam demonstrandam commemorat … Docet Deum multam illis & copiosam gratiam dedisse ut a peccatis suis mundarentur, illos tamen mundari noluisse”, Stapleton: 1620, 826. 92 “In potestate est quippe hominis mutare in melius voluntatem; sed ea potestas nulla est, nisi a Deo detur”, Augustine: 1984, I 22, 4, CCSL 57, 66. The English translation is taken from Augustine: 2010, 91. 93 The Manichean position could not be considered as ‘predestinarian’: “owing to its ‘radical’ and ‘eschatological’ dualism some texts in Manichean teaching might have been understood in a predestinarian way”, but “Manichean teachings seem to regard divine election as a chance which is offered to all … retribution and judgment will thus be allotted according to each individual’s works, works which, in their turn, are the result of the commitment of one own’s will”, Ogliari: 2004, 395; 397. 94 “Non igitur a Dei electione, ut vult Calvinus & absoluta eius voluntate, sed a Dei bonitate & libera hominum cooperatione pendet hominis voluntas bona, ut ad Deum convertatur, quod & perspicue August. docet, ubi concludit contra Manichaeos, in potestate hominis esse mutare in melius voluntatem: [Retract. li. 1. c. 22.] sed addit contra Pelagianos hanc potestatem nullam esse nisi a Deo detur. Id est, nisi Deus velit congregare, voluntatem praeparare, adiuvare, &c. Calvinus ut Pelagianismum excutiat, in Manichaeorum dementiam incurrit … Concludit hoc loco sic Christum voluisse congregare quod revera non voluit, [Calv. Inst. I 18 3] sicut alibi docet Deum mirabiliter velle peccata impiorum, quae nunc propter praecepta eius in contrarium voluntati eius adversa videntur”, Stapleton: 1620, 826–827.

244

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

Here Stapleton refers particularly to the Institutes where Calvin actually affirms that God permits evil in order that His just will is accomplished, as in the case of the fall of the apostate angels.95 This ‘wondrous’ and ‘ineffable’ manner seems to be actually self-contradictory, according to Stapleton, since an agent is said to act against God’s laws while accomplishing God’s will. However, according to Calvin, God’s will is univocal, “one and undivided”, even though “it appears manifold” to men since they cannot comprehend it.96 In order to develop this view further, in his discussion of Matt 23:37, Stapleton refers again to Luis de Molina’s Concordia. In particular, Stapleton quotes the passage in which the Spanish Jesuit stresses the difference between God’s voluntas signi or “will of the sign” – so-called because it is the expression, the “sign”, of the will existing in God – and God’s voluntas beneplaciti or “beneplacit will”.97 This distinction was an object of intense discussion amongst the scholastics: Thomas Aquinas, upon whom Molina relies, furnishes a short but efficacious definition of both of them, in his Question on God’s Will (Quaestio de voluntate Dei), in the article, “Whether God’s will is fittingly separated into beneplacit will and will of the sign” (Utrum voluntas Dei convenienter dividatur per voluntatem beneplaciti et voluntatem signi). Before venturing into Molina’s analysis, it might therefore be useful to recall Aquinas’ words briefly in order to illuminate the words of the Jesuit. Aquinas argued that “the beneplacit will” refers to God, while “the will of sign” refers to the “effect of God”. The will of the sign can be related to the beneplacit will in three different ways:98 95 “For the thing which God rightly wills, he accomplishes by the evil wills of bad man. He [Aug. Ench. Ad. Laur. c. 100] had said a little before that the apostate angels, by their revolt, and all the reprobate, as far they themselves were concerned, did what God willed not; but, in regard to his omnipotence, it was impossible for them to do so; for, while they act against the will of God, his will is accomplished in them … so that, in a manner wondrous and ineffable, that is not done without his will which is done contrary to it, because it could not be done if he did not permit it; nor does he permit it unwillingly, but willingly; nor would He who is good permit evil to be done, were he not omnipotent to bring good out of evil”; Calvin: 1960, I 18, 3, vol. 2, 203; “the will of God is manifold, yet he does not in himself will opposites, but, according to his manifold wisdom transcends our sense, until such time as it shall be given us to know how he mysteriously wills what now seems to be adverse to his will”, Calvin: 1960, III 24,17, vol. 2, 257. 96 “He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold; because of the feebleness or our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing”, Calvin: 1960, I 18, 3, vol. 1, 202. 97 The reference is to Concordia, art. 6, q. 19, d. 1. 98 “Distinguitur autem voluntas signi a voluntate beneplaciti quia unum est ipse Deus, aliud est effectus eius, ut iam dictum est. Et sciendum quod voluntas signi tribus modis se habet ad voluntatem beneplaciti: quedam enim est voluntas signi quae numquam incidit in idem cum voluntate beneplaciti, sicut permissio quae permittit mala fieri cum mala fieri numquam velit, quaedam vero semper in idem incidit sicut operatio; quaedam vero quandoque incidit et

Stapleton and the Education of the Preachers

245

1) When the will of the sign fails to coincide with the beneplacit will, as for instance when God does not impede sins. God cannot be named as the cause of the sins because he does not want them; that is to say that there is no correspondence between the cause (God) and the effect. 2) When the will of the sign coincides with the beneplacit will, as for instance when God acts; that is to say that there is a perfect correspondence between the cause (God), and its effect. 3) When the will of the sign might coincide with the beneplacit will, as for instance when God gives precepts, advice, or prohibitions, which the faithful can respect or not; that is to say that there may or may not be a correspondence between the cause (God) and the effect. Molina focuses his analysis specifically upon the third possibility, explaining that theologians commonly use the expression “will of the sign” to indicate those precepts and words of advice that God has given to men. God of course wants people to accomplish His precepts and words of advice, but only if they are willing to accomplish them. This “will of the sign”, according to Molina, is clearly expressed in the Lord’s Prayer by the words “[t]hy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 9:10b), where the faithful ask to be the medium through which the will of God is done.99 This “will of the sign” is also expressed in 1 Thess 4:1–2, where Paul writes “[2] [f]or you know what precepts I have given to you by the Lord Jesus. [3] For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from fornication”. The reason why God’s precepts and words of advice are to be considered as the “will of the sign” is clear: they are the “sign” of the will existing in God, viz. the “beneplacit will”, which Aquinas defined as “God himself”. An important element can be inferred from Aquinas’ delineation of the three possible relations between “beneplacit will” and “will of the sign”. In the second case, these wills coincide with each other. In effect, says Aquinas, in God the will is one, but the perception that people have of God’s will can differ: where it is clearly defined, as in the case of his precepts or advice, God’s will assumes the name of quandoque non sicut praeceptum, prohibitio et consilium”, Aquinas: 1976, 22–III, 660, 196– 207. 99 “In Deo est formaliter voluntas, qua vult ut impleamus praecepta & consilia quae nobis tradidit, si nos quoque idem velimus: hanc enim verbis illis orationis Dominicae; Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo, & in terra; petimus a nobis impleri. De eadem primae ad Thessalon. 4. ait Paulus: Scitis quae praecepta dederim vobis pet Dominum IESUM. Haec est enim voluntas Dei, sanctificatio vestra, ut abstineatis vos a fornicatione, & caet. Praterea praecepta ipsa, & consilia ab universis Theologis, comparatione Dei, voluntas signi dicuntur, neque alia ratione, nisi quia voluntatem in Deo formaliter existentem exprimunt, qua id vult, si nos quoque pro nostra libertate idem velimus, eaque ratione id nobis praecipit”, Molina: 1595, art. 6, q. 19, d. 1, 277.

246

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

“will of the sign”; by contrast, if God’s will transcends human comprehension, God’s will is called “beneplacit will”. This last assumption – that God’s will is only one and undivided – is very important, because it allows Molina to affirm that God’s will is always formally defined but the human will is still free. In any case, this theory is not an original development; rather, it is a classical topic within Catholic teaching which, for instance, John of Damascus. Molina even quotes him in this context: of course, the reference is to the difference between voluntans antecedens and voluntas consequens which was already explained (cf above n. 274). By quoting Molina, and in the light of this dichotomy, Stapleton renders Jesus’ words clearer than they first appear: God, according to his voluntas antecedens wanted to call the Jews to him and to gather them again within his grace, through both external and inner aids, as a hen wants to gather her chickens. However, this does not mean that God wants human conversion in an absolute way, as a kind a ‘coerced faith’. The difference between gratia sufficiens and gratia efficax thereby becomes more easily comprehensible. Indeed, with his antecedent will, God freely gives his grace in order that the faithful might be gathered by Him, thus simply extending the possibility of salvation to everyone. But in his antecedent will, God cannot gives his gratia efficax, otherwise there would be no room left for human free will since, with efficacious grace, the faithful cannot choose to believe, but must (irresistibly) believe. Therefore, God gives his sufficient grace even to the Jews. It prepares them to accept Christ’s preaching, but, without their agreement, this grace is not efficacious. In other words, they fail to believe because of their own fault/guilt (culpa), not because of God’s decision. Hence, conversion does not depend on divine election alone, as Calvin maintained. The good human will (bona voluntas hominis) to believe is determined both by God’s goodness – conceding his gratis sufficiens – and human cooperation.100 Once 100 “Vide Molinam quaest. 19. art. 6. disp. 1. Hoc autem loco ipsa Dei voluntas quae beneplaciti vocatur, respectu sane auxiliorum gratiae Dei intelligitur; respectu autem operum ipsorum voluntas non absoluta & efficax seu consequens, quae semper impletur, & cui non resistitur, sed antecedens & conditionata. Deus quippe vero voluntatis suae affectu, vera bonitate & misericordia sua, voluit & frequenter voluit, Iudaicum populum ad idola, & alias impietates diffluentem, ad sese revocare, & in sinum gratiae suae suppeditatis auxiliis tam externis, quam internis recolligere; sicut gallina vero & tenero affectu vagantes suos pullos vult ad se recolligere, ne a miluo vagantes rapiantur Hunc sensum ipsa Christi allata similitudo a nobis extorquet: & sine tali sensu falsa erit similitudo proposita. Non enim metaphorice, sed proprie vult suos ad se pullos gallina colligere. Nec sequitur tamen quod Deus efficaciter & absolute ipsam conversione velit, quia gallina vult absolute suos ad se pullos colligere; eo quod Deus sic misericorditer vult congregare dispersos, ut cum iudicio & iustitia id faciat, non impetu & impulsu aliquo naturali. Dei autem iudicium hoc habet, ut rationalem creaturam pro modo conditionis eius ad se colligat, volentem scilicet, & divinae voluntati, ac vocationi libere acquiescentem… Fuit ergo in hac Dei voluntate gratia sufficiens, tametsi non efficax: sufficiens, inquam, ut possent congregari, sed non efficax ut vellent, quae ut deesset, ipsi in causa fuerint … Non igitur a Dei sola electione, ut vult Calvinus, & absoluta

Lucas’ sermons to Bruges’ citizens

247

again, Stapleton concludes that, not understanding Jesus’ words, and in his struggle against the Pelagians, Calvin fell into the error of the Manicheans.101 After having analyzed Stapleton’s Promptuaria, I turn now to the last author who published homiletic works: Francis Lucas.

3.4

Lucas’ sermons to Bruges’ citizens

Like Sasbout, Lucas also preached personally, and he published the text of his homilies in 1610 at the Plantin printing house, as he did all his works. We do not know whether Lucas preached regurarly. He published at least a collection of twenty-five sermons that, of course, could not cover the entire liturgical calendar. Hence, I cannot focus on the Sunday Gospel pericopes for Septuagesima and the 19th after Pentecost, as I did for Sasbout (partially), Jansenius (in his commentary) and Stapleton. Lucas entitled his sermons “On Various Mysteries of the Christian Faith”. This work did not have great success since it received only one edition, that of 1610, and, perhaps for this reason, it has not received much scholarly attention. Lucas’ sermons are nevertheless interesting for this study as I shall show. Lucas listed his sermons according to the liturgical calendar. By doing that, he did not follow the chronological order in which they were preached. Moreover, it often happens that Lucas does not indicate the date or the year in which specific sermons were given. For instance, he starts his work with the sermon he gave on the 1st of January 1583 in St. Omer, while the second was preached on the Epiphany 1582, also in St. Omer. By contrast, the eighth was given in the Bruges countryside (ager suburbanus Brugarum) at Easter 1578, but the last one was given in Ebblingem in 1605 for the funeral of the noblewoman Jeanne Mamezia.102 Moreover, he also attached an “exhortation to the study of eius voluntate, sed a Dei bonitate, & libera hominum cooperatione pendet hominis voluntas bona, ut ad Deum convertatur”, Stapleton: 1620, 92. 101 “Perspicue Augustinus docet, Retract. lib. 1. cap. 22. ubi concludit contra Manichaeos, in potestate hominis esse, mutare in melius voluntatem; sed addit contra Pelagianos, hanc potestatem nullam esse nisi a Deo detur, id est, nisi Deus velit nos congregare, voluntatem praeparare, adiuvare, &c. Calvinus, ut Pelagianismum excutiat, in Manichaeorum dementiam incurrit”, Stapleton: 1620, 92. This passage of the Antidota is identical to that of the Promptuaria quoted above in footnote 94: this fact confirms that Stapleton made the new edition of Promptuaria on the basis of his Antidota. 102 Here the list of Lucas’ sermon, given according to the liturgical calendar, with place and date, if available: 1) 1 January 1583, St. Omer; 2) Epiphany 1582; 3) Candlemass; 4) Candlemass, Bruges; 5) Ash Wednesday; 6) 4th Sunday of Quadragesima; 7) Annunciation; 8) Easter 1578, Bruges; 9) Diocesan Synod 1582, St. Omer; 10) 3rd Sunday after Easter, Bruges; 11) Ascension of Jesus, 1580; 12) Pentecost 1580, Bruges; 13) Corpus Christi 1579, Bruges; 14) 1578, Bruges; 15) 13th Sunday after Pentecost 1583, St. Omer; 16) /; 17) St. Laurence, Bruges 1578; 18) Assumption of Mary; 19) Assumption of Mary; 20) Nativity of Mary; 21) All Saints’ Day; 22)

248

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

the Sacred Scriptures” read in the Cathedral of St. Omer in 1581 after the publication of his Notationes in sacra Biblia (1580). This last ‘exhortation’ cannot strictly be considered as a sermon; rather, it was a kind of public lecture on the value of biblical scholarship. It is worth focusing briefly on this last work since it can be used as a frame for this entire section. Lucas first considers that men look for perfection and beatitude, viz. God.103 Of course, the faithful can have vision of the divine beatitude only in their afterlife. However, they can have an idea of God, thanks to the Scriptures, which Lucas considers to be almost like “the other face of God”.104 The Scriptures, however, can be accessed only through the medium of priests and preachers who are skilled in order to interpret the Bible and make it intelligible to the flock.105 This is a very important Counter-Reformational thought and, indeed, in Lucas’ view, priests play a very strategic role: although they are not the only ones who can read the Bible, they are the only ones who can interpret the Scriptures faithfully. Hence, those who want to read them must follow the priests’ interpretations. Indeed, idiosyncratic readings and interpretations may put in question the social order and the legitimate power. In this instance, Lucas seems to make a close link between the preaching of the Bible and political control by recalling the consequences of a false reading of the Scriptures: cities occupied by heretics – like Antwerp, Bruges, Ghent, Ypres in 1577 and Louvain in 1578 –, and devastation in the rural areas. This is a war scenario, very present in 1581 when Lucas delivered his public lecture:106 it was in that year that the Dutch Republic arose with the Act of Abjuration against Philip II. Lucas himself experienced the struggle of the revolt, since he had to leave Louvain without the possibility of a return to Bruges. Finally, he refers to the Tridentine decree Pro lectione Sacrae Scripture (1546) to

103 104 105

106

Immaculate Conception; 23) /, Bruges; 24) Funeral of Jean Six, St. Omer 1586; 25) Funeral of Jeanne Mamezia, Ebblingem 1605. “Natura homini insitum est, ut id omni studio prosequatur, quod, aut beatitudinem esse suam, aut illam proxime accedere, extimat … sed nos cum certa fides doceat, beatitudinem hominis in hominis auctore, id est Deus, sitam esse”, Lucas: 1610, 381. “Nam si Dei visione, facie ad faciem frui, beatitudo id hominis aeterna erit: quid hic hominem magis decere queat, quam Sacris litteris incumbere, quae quasi altera facies Dei est, quam hac in vitam videndam praebet?”, Lucas: 1610, 387. “A sacerdotibus, nec ab iis tantum, quorum est commissos sibi greges pascere … os sacerdotis sacrae scientiae promptuarium esse debet … Deinde, et sacra quae sacerdos dat, ex Sacris litteris intelligenda sunt … non enim omnia clara et facilia intellectu in Scripturis sunt”, Lucas: 1610, 395; 397. “Sacerdotum proprie sit, sacris Scripturis operam dare, non tamen non convenit aliis (quanquam aliorum non tam sit interpretari quam sacerdotum interpretationem sequi) quinimo nullum eo aut decentius aut utilius studium, et hoc maxime saeculo turbolento, quod nil nisi tristes, nil nisi adversum occurrit: civitates partim ab hostibus hereticis occupantur, partim versantur in mille periculis, agris vastantur, ville incendiantur”, Lucas: 1610, 396.

Lucas’ sermons to Bruges’ citizens

249

stress once again the importance of the priests and their first duty, viz. the preaching of the Bible to the flock so that they can “rebut the heretics”.107 In the preface to his sermons, dated 21 March 1610, Lucas clearly shows the impact that the beginning of the Eighty Years’ War had on him. Indeed, having constantly in mind the ruins of the war, Lucas decides to address his work to the citizens of his hometown Bruges where Calvinists had even established a republic (1578–1584). He hopes indeed that his sermons may give consolation and help to his people, to confirm their adherence to Catholicism against the ‘heretics’.108 Therefore, in the preface, mindful of the religious wars and social troubles of his city, Lucas warns his people not to ‘relax’ their customs that pertain to faith and religion during the period of peace they are experiencing thanks to the Treaty of Antwerp (1609), and to avoid the peril of a new corruption that may induce them to abandon ‘simplicity in Christ’.109 In fact, Lucas seems to be really scared of a new Calvinist rebellion. He maintains he has no doubts that the local bishop, the clergymen and their collaborators are using all possible precautions against a return of ‘the venoms of heresy’.110 However, by means of such a claim, Lucas shows his concern about a resurgence of Calvinism in the Low Countries. Moreover, like Stapleton, Lucas too describes Calvinism as a ‘venom’, able very easily to ‘affect’ Catholics who change their faith and cause disorder within the State. The first interesting sermon on the topic of eternal predestination, temporal grace and human free will is the second, preached on the Epiphany 1582, when Lucas speaks about the “vocation of the peoples” (De vocatione gentium). First of 107 “Quaproter sancte sancta Synodus Tridentina, iam inde ab anno [15]46 statuit et decrevit, ut in Ecclesiis omnibus, Cathedralibus et Collegiatis, Monasteriis quoque Gymnasiis publicis, ubi hactenus instituta non fuerit, lectio ad sacrae Scripturae expositionem et interpretationem instituatur … maxime cum id animadverteret necessarium esse ad haereticos refellendos, qui se Scripturis, ad Scripturarum impugnationem, armaverant”, Lucas: 1610, 398–399. 108 “Sic enim mundo testatum fore credidi, quantum me Brugarum civitati debere agnoscam, neque immemorem me beneficiorum aut ingratum vivere … Nam et utilitatis aliquid civibus meis accedere posse persuasus fui, si animum ad legendos aliquando hos sermones applicarent; inter alia, ut adversus eas quae iam fere impune grassantur haereses muniretur, et in antiqua fide ac religione Catholica (a cuius constanti cultu semper commendati fuere) confirmerentur”, Lucas: 1610, 2v–3r. 109 “Ab aerumnis, miseriis et continua quasi obsidione, quas annos iam amplius viginti, liberati nunc estis, per eas quae inter Serenissimo Principe et vicinos nostros pactae sunt inductas. Sed quia pax ista temporaria, admitti distensionem in rebus quae pertinent in fidem ac religionem Christianam: curandum est unice, ne civium nostrorum Brugensium sensus, vel tantillum corrupantur, et excidant a simplicitate quae est in Christo Iesu”, Lucas 1610, 3r. Italics are mine to show Lucas’ reference to the Treaty of Antwerp. 110 “Non dubito quin iam multo solicitiores eritis, cum Reverendissimo Episcopo et Sacerdotibus vestris collaborantes, in adhibendis omnis generis cautionibus, ne haereseos venena, eo periculosiora, quo speciosius venditantur nomine veritatis”, Lucas: 1610, 3v.

250

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

all, Lucas states that God was aware from the beginning of his creation that human beings would be corrupted in their nature because of Adam’s fault. However, by means of his providence (providentia), God chose the Jews as the elected people to teach them his knowledge (cognitio) and his justice. God therefore gave them his law so that they could follow his will and avoid sins.111 God’s choice of the Jews was due to his mere mercy (mera misericordia) and his own will; indeed, the Jews and the other peoples were, in principle, on the same level. Lucas seems to state clearly the inscrutability of God’s will which, in any case, must be considered good. Again he stresses that there was no specific reason to choose the Jews rather than the other gentes.112 On the other hand, those who were not chosen had no good reason to complain, since they could simply have implored God’s mercy.113 In other words, God did not do any offence (iniuria) to all those He did not choose, even though they were the majority of the world’s population: God simply decided to bestow his justice on the Jews while denying it to all the other people, even though, theoretically, he could have given it also to them:114 Lucas is clearly arguing for the inscrutability of God’s mind. In effect, it happened that others than Jewish people also believed before Christ’s preaching, such as the biblical Magi who were the first among the Gentiles to believe.115 In any case, it was thanks to Jesus that the Gentiles were called to the faith, and it was mainly Paul, indeed the ‘Apostle of the Gentiles’, who continued Jesus’ evangelical mission, intended for all the world’s population.116 Lucas however

111 “Corruptum primi hominis iniquitate humanum genus, ita aequissima Dei providentia ab initio distinxit, ut una Hebraeorum genere, quam ad Dei cognitionem et iustitiam erudiret, electa atque adopta … Illi genti legem dedit, quo cognita Dei voluntate, impietatem vitaret”, Lucas: 1610, 22. 112 “Fecit igitur, non iustitia … sed mere dei misercordia … Si roges cur Israelitis magis quam Gentibus, quarum non minus quam Israelitarum creator et conditor erat …, non est alia ratio quam ipsa voluntas Dei, quam nefas sit non credere rectam … Quid igitur facit humano generi iniuriae, qui una massae parte electa atque honorata, reliquam, tametsi maiorem, qualis fuerat relinquit, aut sinit etiam suo proprio vitio ruere in peius? Nihil utique facit iniuriae, sed illi quidem parti misericordiam facit, in hanc vero exercet iustitiam, quam potuerat exercuisse in utramque”, Lucas: 1610, 24–25. 113 “Ceterum, tametsi non potuerit Gentes iusta ratione obmurmurare creatori suo, ob sui quidem relictionem, Israelitarum vero electionem: potuissent tamen, quandoquidem ipsis Israelitae ante electionem conditione similes fuerant, similem Dei misericordia implorare”, Lucas: 1610, 25. 114 “Quid igitur facit humano generi iniuriae, qui una massa parte electa atque honorata, reliquam tametsi maiorem, qualis fuerit relinquis, aut sinit etiam suo proprio vitio ruere in peius? Nihil utique facit iniuriae, sed illi quidem parti misericordiam facit, in hanc vero exercet iustitiam, quam potuerat exercuisse in utramque”, Lucas: 1610, 25. 115 “Magi enim … primi e Gentibus ad Servatorum adducti fuerint, primi in Christum crediderint, primi coluerint atque adoraverit”, Lucas: 1610, 27. 116 “Ita ut unus Paulus, vere minister Chrsti Iesu in Gentibus [Rom 15:16] … Haec vocatio est Gentium, felix illa et salutaris, magna Dei potentia facta, et misericordia magna; potentia

Lucas’ sermons to Bruges’ citizens

251

warns his flock: vocation and justification do not determine the faithful’s salvation. The thought that justification is enough to be saved is simply “a vain persuasion”.117 By contrast, the faithful should bear in mind their sinful condition due to Adam’s fall and consider the grace received thanks to Christ. The faithful must therefore be grateful to God and persevere in grace, of course by doing good since those who do not perform good works are not allowed to enter heaven. Even more, God will exclude those who do not follow His call worthily by doing good (fructus). Lucas gives historical examples of this by listing all those regions that had been Christian in the past but that were under Muslim control by the end of the 16th century: Syria, Egypt, Greece, Scythia (= Crimea) and Mesopotamia – conquered by the Turks –, Persia – under the Safavid dynasty–: the inhabitants of these regions did not follow God’s vocation and so they were abandoned.118 Lucas also gives a contemporary example: Germany, England and even a great part of Belgium abandoned the right path. Therefore, God decided to punish such crime by depriving people of his grace, and they consequently fell into ‘heresies’119. Lucas even refers to the disaster of the Beeldenstorm, the Inconoclastic Fury, by saying that the heretics “robbed sacred vessels, profaned altars, ruined temples and monasteries”, rebelling against the “legitimate power”.120 In sum, Lucas

117 118

119

120

magna, qua exsultantibus veritate et iustitia, obtinuerant apud omnes, perque orbem universum”, Lucas: 1610, 33. “Non enim quia vocati et iustificati semel sumus, existimemus oportet nihil ultra nobis agendum restare…absit haec vana persuasio”, Lucas: 1610, 34–35. “Quo meminerumus semper quales fuerumus nostro vitio et quale Christi liberatoris gratia effecti simus; quo memores, grati esse studeamus, in accepta gratia perseverantes, et ambulantes digne vocatione qua nos dignatus est Deus … quin cum non fecerant fructum, abstulit ab eis regnum Dei, ipsoque abierit et reprobavit … multo magis vocationem nostrum redditurus est irritam, nos abiecturus, nos reprobaturs, ablaturus a nobis regnum Dei, et daturus genti facienti fructum illius. Nonne vides, quot regnis, quot provincijs, quot regionibus, in quibus orthodoxa olim fluerit fides et Christiana religio, quae ipsorum ministerio Apostolorum ad Christum vocatae et adductae fuerunt, Syriae, Aegypto, Graeciae, Persae, Babyloniae, Schythiae, aliisque id fecerit? Qui illas abiecerit, reprobaverit, abstuleritque ab eis regnum Dei? Et quae causa? Quod non ambularet digne vocatione qua vocati errant, quod fructum non facerent regnum Dei”, Lucas: 1610, 34–35. “Possumus novisse ex recentibus historiis, hanc fuisse causam ruinae vicinarum nobis regionum, Germaniae, Britanniae, et ceterarum … ut ne longe abeamus; hanc ipsius nostri Belgii, iam pridem magnam ex parte, eheu dolor, collapsi, perditionem fuisse, quod sacrosancta religio, et quae illius sunt parvi fiant, vilipendatur, negligantur. Hoc enim crimen consuevit Deus altero crimine punire, haeresi, mittens operationem erroris, privans luce et gratia sua, ita ut reiecta antiqua fide, credatur profanis mendacibusque novitatibus. O virgam ferream, virgam exterminatricem, quando punit Deus peccata peccatis”, Lucas: 1610, 36–37. “Haeretici enim, ubi semel rerum potiuntur, divina proculare, sacramenta, vasa sacra rapere, altaria profanare, templa monasteriaque evertere, maiorum instituta convellere, adversus nativos principes legitimamque potestatem, quae perfidiam ipsorum contraria sit, rebellare, suis illos regnos excludere”, Lucas: 1610, 37.

252

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

warns his people not to abandon the true religion, to avoid God’s punishment, to follow the message of the Gospels carefully and perform good works to obtain salvation. The tenth sermon was given in Bruges (no date) on the third Sunday after Easter with its Gospel reading from John 16:16–22. Here, Lucas points out the necessity for his city to be firm in its Catholic faith. By using the allegorical image of the pilgrim (peregrinus), Lucas lists the thirteen characteristics of the wise Christian. First, the faithful must keep their customs, believing in God according to the Catholic faith, while rejecting and condemning the customs of unfaithful people:121 a clear message against tolerance of others, partially comprehensible given the confessional conflicts that were troubling Belgium and Europe in general during the second half of the 16th century. Second, the pilgrim must have the desire for his real homeland, heaven.122 Third, the desire for heaven must induce the faithful to prepare themselves on their path to salvation123 by renouncing the temptations of worldly life. Fourth, a pilgrim must not carry much luggage,124 conceived as the useless wealth achievable in this world. Fifth, if the pilgrim wants to keep with him some valuables, he/she must keep them secretly: such valuables are to be interpreted as the “works of the virtues” that the believer must praise. The faithful cannot be without good works in their worldly life, but – Lucas stresses again – these good works are not to be paraded before other people.125 Sixth, similarly, a pilgrim should wear no rich clothes, not to be recognized in his/her path.126 Seventh, the path being very dangerous, a believer should be accompanied by good friends.127 Eight, ready for his long trip, the pilgrim must know the path, and that via is the Catholic faith, and the observing 121 “Peregrinus laudare consuevit mores patriae suae, contemnere vero nec velle sequi aliarum regionum consuetudines: ita et nos extollere atque observare oportet patriae nostram morem laudandi et colendi Deum … vituperare autem odisse ac fugere, mores barbarae huius regionis in qua nunc sumus”, Lucas: 1610, 142. 122 “Altera proprietas in peregrinis observanda, est quod desiderent, quod suspirent patriam … Sumus hic velut hospites in regione extranea et populo barbaro: illic in patria erimus fruentes amica societate angelorum hominuque beatorum”, Lucas: 1610, 143. 123 “Tertia peregrini proprietas oritur ex secunda: nam qui magno patriae desiderio, ille se parat et componit ad iter faciendum”, Lucas: 1610, 144. 124 “Quarto … non ille multis sarcinis se onerat”, Lucas: 1610, 147. 125 “Quinta viatoris proprietas, ut si quas gemmas aut alia pretiosa … habeat, quae secum in patria ferre desiderat, non ea manibus gerat, ita ut ab omnibus videri possint, sed abscondat in sinum aut ubi potest secretissime … pretiosa nostra, opera virtutum, quae sola inferre possumus in patriam, non nuda feremus in itinere in huius vitae, non haec gloriabundi manifestabimus … opera nostra bona ac laudabilia non facile alicui monstranda aut manifestanda sunt”, Lucas: 1610, 148–149. 126 “Sexto, qui ad iter se parat, si splendidis vestibus indutus est, vili amiculo eas operit: nec enim vult cognosci in itinere”, Lucas: 1610, 149. 127 “Hoc igitur modo ad iter dispositurs peregrinus aut viator, quaerit quia periculosum est solitarium proficisci, probos socios itineris”, Lucas: 1610, 149–150.

Lucas’ sermons to Bruges’ citizens

253

of God’s commandments.128 Ninth, after having found the right path, the pilgrim must continue to walk in the same direction,129 viz. he/she must persevere in good works, following the teachings of the Church. Tenth, the pilgrim must eat and drink, an allegory of the Gospels.130 Eleventh, he/she must be aware of the dangerousness of the path so as not to fall into sins,131 and, twelfth, the believer on his journey will pass through many regions and will encounter many people with different (and sinful) customs. Above all, those people will be against the pilgrims: here Lucas stresses once again that the wise Christian must keep to the route, without paying attention them.132 Finally, the pilgrim must persevere on this difficult path despite all the potholes he/she may find on the way.133 As seen also in this sermon Lucas endlessly repeats the necessity of doing good, avoiding any kind of temptation. Lucas used to give his sermon by employing a ‘listing-system’ in which he could list the properties of specific notions, generally explained by means of metaphors. This happens also in the fifteenth sermon, given on the 13th Sunday after Pentecost 1583 whose Gospel reading is Luke 17:11–19. The sermon was preached in St. Omer at the Sodality of Our Lady (Sodales titulo Virginis Annuntiatae) where he warned the young boys (O’Malley: 1993, 197–198) of the dangerousness of the sins which he considered to be perilous like leprosy, first, since it is the worst of diseases, and, second, it determines the worst deformities in the body. Third, leprosy is the most contagious disease, also due to its smelly breath, and fourth it makes the body useless, destroying “eyes, ears, nostrils, feet and hands”. For all these reasons, a good Christian must avoid sins (Lucas: 1610, 224–232). With a similar scheme, on the Feast of Assumption (no place or date available in this case), Lucas describes the crown of Mary, focusing on the twelve gems, which, of course, are allegories of virtues or attributes of the Virgin: her impassibility (impassibilitas), clarity (claritas), nimbleness (agilitas), acuteness (subtilitas), vision of God (visio Dei), fruition of God (fruitio Dei), peacefulness (pax animae), knowledge (rerum cognitio), halo of virginity (aureola virgini128 “Post haec ubis quis ad iter paratus est, et probos itineris socios invenit, necesse est, ut noverit viam ad patriam … via ad patriam nostram est fides Orthodoxa coniuncta cum observatione mandatorum Dei”, Lucas: 1610, 150. 129 “Iam in recta via constituros oportet continue progredi, nusquam nec ullam ob causam, quidquid tandem fiat obvium, haerere”, Lucas: 1610, 151. 130 “Est quidem necesse, ut naturae satisfaciamus in itinere, quod ad cibum et potum: verum id ita agendum est, ut nihil minus progediatur”, Lucas: 1610, 151. 131 “Sunt etiam qui laqueos tendant in via, ut cadent nos in sua retia trahant: ij sunt daemones … ab his laqueis et insidiis diligenter ac provide nobis caveare debeamus”, Lucas: 1610, 152. 132 “Porro populos regionis per quam iter facimus habitatores inquam mundi, duri et inhumani sunt erga viatores, non diligunt peregrinos … Adversus hos uti nos oportet patentia ac longanimitate, solantes nos ipsi”, Lucas: 1610, 152. 133 “Postremo iter quidem est onerosum, et labores multos atque incommode ferre oportet antequam perficiatur: sed perseverantia coronam refert”, Lucas: 1610, 153.

254

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

tatis), glorification (excitatio super Angelos), majesty (maiestas Reginae caeli), maternity of God (dignitas matris Dei), and, finally, Pole Star (stella nautis or dux navigantium). Especially the last attribute is very important: Mary must really be considered as a Pole Star that can show the way to the sailors, viz. the faithful, who struggle in the ocean of their life, and, with her example, can teach men how to reach salvation (Lucas: 1610, 280–288). Lucas, therefore stresses the importance of Mary for Catholics, a clear attack on the Protestant criticism of the veneration of the Virgin. In fact, Lucas devotes other sermons to the Virgin Mary, for her Nativity (8 September; cf. Lucas: 1610, 288–298), the Immaculate Conception (8 December; Lucas: 1610, 314–320), and also for All Saints’ Day (1 November; cf. Lucas: 1610, 298–314), pointing out the importance of their veneration, and mainly of Mary, as examples of life to be followed (Lucas: 1610, 310). Lucas’ sermons seem to be quite repetitive, owing to the genre, on the one hand, but also because of his fear of Calvinists, considered as a ruin for Catholicism and the order of the State. We can therefore point out the evident difference between Lucas’ commentary on the four Gospels and his sermons: in the former case, Lucas stresses the role of human good works, showing an optimistic view of human capability to determine (part of) its salvation, while in his sermons he mainly warns his flock against the perils of their sins, pointing out the dangerous consequenses of ‘heresies’. Such a difference can be easily explained by the different intent and audience: the commentaries were intended to rebut Calvinist teachings on predestination, so Lucas had to stress the role of human free will in the economy of salvation, and he did it for learned people. By contrast, the sermons were addressed to common people and/ or young boys, to be warned against sins and temptations. In Lucas’ mind, it seems that the fear of God’s vengeance through wars and devastations worked better rhetorically than simply stressing the necessity of good works to convince the faithful that Catholicism was the only and true religion.

3.5

Conclusion

It is hard to compare the homiletic works of Adam Sasbout, Cornelius Jansenius, Thomas Stapleton and Francis Lucas, especially in the light of our general topic, i. e. the relation between eternal predestination, temporal grace and human free will. In effect, the works here analyzed are largely determined by the exhortative character of the homiletic genre, whatever the personal view any scholar may have. They generally stress the necessity to avoid sins and to do good so that the faithful may demonstrate their active adherence to Catholic faith and morals. Nonetheless, even though they can be listed in the same genre, these four works differ greatly from one another. Somehow, they can illustrate the process and the

Conclusion

255

steps that go from biblical commentaries to sermons that were really preached. Jansenius’s sermons are actually specific sections of his commentary on the Concordia excerpted by the canon of St. George’s church in Cologne, George Braun, without further editing. In any case, it seems to be evident that a faithful interpretation of the Scriptures is the first step for preparing sound homilies. Stapleton went further: he produced Latin works specifically intended to prepare preachers for their difficult duty. He published two Promptuaria, the Catholicum and the Morale; given their structures, it seems that the former could be used directly from the pulpit while the Morale was really intended to assist priests and preachers in the preparation of their sermons. The structure of each sermon gives a clear overview of the key-passages that the priest must point out while preaching actively. Finally, it was also interesting to show the influence that Molina’s scientia media had on Stapleton’s controversialist theology. In terms of doctrine, scientia media proved, at the logical level, the existence of human free will before any influence on God’s part. Stapleton considered this idea as the best ‘antidote’ against the ‘venom’ of Calvinism, which denied the autonomy of the human will before God’s predestination. Moreover, this was the confession that challenged both England – in Stapleton’s view – and the Low Countries, in other words his native homeland and his new home. Sure of the final victory of Catholicism, Stapleton shows the effect of God’s vengeance on the ‘heretical’ leaders. In several passages, he harshly attacks the ‘heretical’ Queen Elizabeth I who made him a religious refugee: somehow, Stapleton made a ‘private use of public means’ in his work. In some ways, Lucas offers the reverse of the coin: God may also opt to abandon those places that refuse him. The Balkans, North Africa and the Near East are a clear example of this: Muslims took over the control of those regions, people converted to Islam, and God forgot them. Lucas therefore warns his citizens – who become rebels against both God and their legitimate King – not to apostatize in order not to be abandoned by God. Stapleton and Lucas therefore show a kind of continuum: they are closely linked both in their commentaries, sharing the same Molinist principles, and in their sermons, preparing priests (we have no indication that Stapleton preached) or directly preaching (Lucas) against the peril of Calvinism. Moreover, both Stapleton and Lucas considered impossible any kind of tolerance towards heretics: sound Catholic principles are (at) the foundation of a State blessed by God. In effect, the two scholars showed the consequences of apostasy: God’s wrath against the disloyal rulers (Stapleton) and the instability of society (Lucas) whose inner division because of religious or confessional dissensions inevitably determines the collapse of the State. Stapleton seems to have hoped for the rising of a Res Publica Christiana ruled by a new Emperor, in his view Philp II, the ‘reborn Constantine’. The Englishman was convinced that Spain could really re-establish Catholicism throughout Europe,

256

Preaching the Bible in the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands

starting from the British Isles, overthrowing the ‘heretic’ Queen. By contrast Lucas, at the end of his life – he was 62 when he published the Sermones – and after having seen the rise and power of the Dutch Republic which challenged/ defied the Spanish Crown, did not have the same optimistic view. He was very well aware of the consequences of the confessional strife in his homeland; therefore, he wanted to defend Catholicism strenuously, at least within the borders of the Spanish Netherlands. Stapleton and Lucas share the same homiletic strategies since both of them make use of metaphors, listing the qualities of specific images to show the behaviour that a Catholic believer must follow. The Franciscan, moreover, shows the limits of human nature even among his confreres, who did not devote themselves completely to God. Once again, the exhortative character of the sermons shows a primacy over the doctrinal elements. The success of Sasbout’s Latin and Dutch editions, at the beginning of the 17th century, and Stapleton’s German editions show the potential of their works to reply to the new confessions. Calvinism’s power was indeed growing in those years, especially after the division of the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands and the birth of the Dutch Republic in 1581, while Lutheranism had already ‘conquered’ most of the Holy Roman Empire. Therefore, Sasbout and Stapleton were regarded as powerful instruments for combatting the new confession, given the strong emphasis they placed on the importance of good works in the economy of salvation. Even more, “Stapleton’s two collections became the most successful postils of any origin or in any language in the [Holy Roman] Empire over the next several decades, appearing in at least sixteen editions by 1620” (Frymire: 2010, 417). Even though Lucas’ sermons could also have been used to counter Calvinism, the primacy of Stapleton’s Promptuaria could not be countered in any way because Lucas’ work does not cover the entire liturgical year. This fact might also explain why his sermons received only one edition. Moreover, the edition of Lucas’ sermons seems to be a collection of specific sermons, given by a concrete person in particular circumstances, whereas Stapleton’s work had the explicit aim of reaching fellow priests and preachers. Also Jansenius’ sermons received only one edition, although the homilies cover the entire year. One can reasonably argue that preachers and priests considered them not very useful, being simply a collection of chapters taken from the Commentary to the Concordia rather than actual sermons or preparatory text for preaching. However, there are no clear indications for this hypothesis.

General Conclusion

By way of conclusion, I would like to recall briefly the concept of the ‘Golden Age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship’. This was elaborated in the late 19th century, in particular by Matthias Scheeben who spoke about a Blütezeit of biblical studies from the Council of Trent onwards. Rudolf Cornely further explained that this era of intense study of the Bible was even similar to the Patristic Age, considering the quantity and quality of the Catholic commentaries it produced. The category of ‘Golden Age’ was therefore used as an apologetic term. In the present work, however, I have made use of this expression as a rhetorical means of indicating an astonishing degree of production in Early Modern Catholicism. This development of biblical studies was due to several factors such as the rise of Renaissance Humanism and the linked study of ancient languages like Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, as well as the invention of the printing press which allowed for a rapid diffusion of both ancient sources and new books, and the quick spread of ideas throughout Europe. Moreover, the Reformation(s) also triggered Catholic scholars to combat Protestants on their own battlefield, that of the Bible and its exegesis. The room for interpretation left open by the Council of Trent in specific theological areas such as justification, grace and free will led to different Catholic (Counter-Reformation) strategies and brought about the publication of several theological works. Central in the development of the Golden Age was the institution of many studia theologica of religious orders and the opening of new universities (such as that of Douai in the Low Countries). In due course, the rise of the Jesuit Order was of great importance since it established many colleges throughout Europe (and in the colonies) which were to provide a solid education for the new generation of scholars, lay as well as clerical. In this way, many centres of biblical studies flourished in Europe, especially in Spain – homeland of the Jesuit Order – and in the Italian states, where Dominicans also contributed to the Golden Age. However, I have shown that the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands were probably the most important centre of biblical studies in the second half of the 16th century. This was due to religious-geographical reasons: being a point of

258

General Conclusion

contact between France, the Holy Roman Empire and England, they were a unique place of meeting between different confessions and trans-regional influences. Notwithstanding the terrible wars of those years, the Habsburg Spanish Netherlands were a kind of laboratory of ideas in the 16th century, one that strongly influenced the history of Catholicism. In the present work, I focused in particular upon the Louvain Faculty of Theology and the religious orders present in the town by analyzing seven authors who worked in the first part of that century: Nicholas Tacitus Zegers OFM, John Henten, Cornelius Jansenius ‘of Ghent’, Adam Sasbout OFM, John Hessels, Thomas Stapleton, and Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’. The works of these authors offer an effective synopsis of Catholic biblical scholarship in that period. This was divided into three main thematic areas: 1) Text-criticism of the Latin Vulgate; 2) Exegesis of the Scriptures; and 3) Preaching of the Bible. Concerning the first thematic area, I paid attention to the philological analysis of the Vulgate which was performed in order to restore its text to Jerome’s hypothetical original, as required by the Council of Trent in the Insuper decree (1546). The decree was strongly influenced by the Louvain theologian John Driedo’s ideas on biblical scholarship contained in the De ecclesiasticis Scripturis et dogmatibus (1533). The study of the ‘original’ biblical languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Syriac) become very important and it was first introduced to Louvain by Amandus of Zierikzee in the Franciscan studium theologicum. The first seeds that he planted then flourished with Titelmans, Zegers and Sasbout who aimed at criticizing the translation of and annotations to the New Testament by Erasmus. Erasmus had a key-role in the foundation of Busleyden’s Collegium Trilingue (1517) which considerably increased the study of biblical languages in Louvain. When, in 1546, the Vulgate was declared to be the official version of the Scriptures to be used worldwide among Catholics, although after a thorough revision of the text, Louvain was the first University to answer the Tridentine request by publishing in 1547 the Vulgata Lovaniensis, edited by John Henten. The authoritative character of the Louvain Vulgate is affirmed by Seripando’s private letter to Amulio (1561) in which he suggests that Catholics should use it until the Roman Committee(s) were able to print the official text. Moreover, owing to their debate with Erasmus, Franciscan scholars in Louvain focused on the New Testament specifically: Zegers published his Epanorthotes (1555) and, to counter Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum, he also issued a New Testament (1559) with the ambitious hope that the Pope would accept it as the official edition for the Catholic Church. Zegers showed a thorough knowledge not only of the biblical languages but also of Erasmus’ works from which he nevertheless took his distance. Moreover, he showed a clear understanding of the way in which languages evolve over time and the necessity to give a germana and authentica translation able to transmit the pristine meaning of the Scriptures.

General Conclusion

259

A few years later, in 1574, Lucas published a new edition of the Vulgata Lovaniensis, followed by a textual critical apparatus, the Notationes in Sacra Biblia (1580), in which the author analyzed several different lectiones that occur in the Scriptures. Also making use of Zegers’ scholarship, he applied both a careful study of the sources in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac and a clear philological methodology. By contrast with Henten’s ‘conservative’ approach, Lucas maintained that neither the frequency nor the antiquity of a specific reading are to be considered as evidence of the correctness of that reading. However, both Henten and Lucas had to be very cautious not to alter the text of the Vulgate – and for this reason they were appreciated in Rome. Indeed, Henten used only Latin sources, and Lucas published the Notationes considering it as an appendix to the main text, i. e. the Vulgate. Furthermore, before publishing the Notationes, Lucas submitted them to Sirleto’s censorship. Maybe, Zegers was more ‘temerarious’ than Henten and Lucas since he proposed his own emendation of the New Testament, convinced that he had restored the text to its pristine integrity. In 1583, Lucas had the Vulgata Lovaniensis reprinted, and it was used by the Roman Committees on the Vulgate as basis of the Sixto-Clementine. Issued in 1592 and dependent on the Louvain Vulgate, this edition would serve for almost 400 years as the reference edition of the Catholic Church, effecting a kind of “petrification” of the Vulgate. Hence, Lucas had to change his philological approach, as shown in his Notae in varias lectiones (1605). For instance, when Lucas analyzed Matt 1:11 philologically in the Notae, he had to distance himself explicitly from any reading different from the Sixto-Clementine, by saying “temerarium est, ex unius … codicis auctoritate, veterem et quidem constantem mutare sacrae scripturae lectionem”. Moreover, the reading that Lucas rejected was that of Estienne, an author whom Lucas had appreciated previously in the making of the Notationes (1580), but whom Sirleto’s censorship had obliged him to omit. Once again, 1592 meant the end of any new textual critical analysis of the Scriptures, even of any profitable use of the past research in this field. Somehow, we should conclude that the ‘Golden Age of textual criticism’ was much shorter than a century since it lasted only 45 years, from the issue of the Louvain Vulgate in 1547 until the edition of the Sixto-Clementine. The interpretation of a specific passage needs an accurate reference to the ‘original’ languages to show the genuineness of the interpretation itself. The textual restoration of the Scriptures and recourse to the ‘originals’ are therefore at the basis of a sound interpretation of the Bible, together with the invaluable aid of the Church fathers, especially concerning those difficult issues like predestination, grace and free will.1 This brings us to the second part of this work in which 1 Maybe the most important study case is Rom 3:28. In the Sixto-Clementine, the reading is “arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis”, while Luther in his

260

General Conclusion

I have focused on commentaries on the Scriptures by Zegers, Sasbout, Hessels, Jansenius and Stapleton – the two latter being the most important –, as well as Lucas, whose views on the theology of grace were so various that they offered a good specimen of Louvain’s dynamism and pluriformity, showing that theology there was not a monolithic block. In effect, Catholic theologians in the Low Countries had to counter both Lutheranism and Calvinism, fighting a ‘battle for the faith’ that the Spanish Government wanted to win by all means in order to maintain solid control of a highly strategic region. To that end, the Council of Trent provided an important means: an official text of the Scriptures, as well as the request for a solid Bible-based formation of the clergy and the establishment of new dioceses (1559). However, the Council fathers also left unexplicated some important matters of the faith, like the troublesome relation between eternal predestination, temporal grace and human free will: the de auxiliis controversy would prove to be a clear evidence of Trent’s indecisiveness in this regard. Hence, Catholic biblical scholars could opt for different theological strategies to counter the ideas of the Protestants, basically covering all the possible tonalities of the exegetical spectrum between the two clear unacceptable and ‘heretical’ limits: the Protestant sola gratia and the Pelagian ‘sola opera’. In the Low Countries, Catholic scholars ventured into this theological ‘grey’ zone, basically reflecting the broad spectrum of possible interpretations of the system ‘predestination-grace-freewill’. They proposed their doctrines on the basis of an analysis of the biblical text, of its interpretation given by the Tradition and by the philological analysis of the Vulgate, referring to the ‘originals’ in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac. Although Ruard Tapper and the ‘eclectic Augustino-Thomistic’ school (François: 2012, 259) tried to erect a bulwark against Lutheranism, Luther’s sola Scriptura and his strong appreciation of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works needed an approach that was different from the traditional scholastic theology. Baius gave an alternative, as did his friend and like-minded colleague John Hessels, in his commentary to the Gospel of Matthew, amongst other works. Both emphasized the primacy of God’s grace in the economy of salvation: since original sin corrupted human nature to such a degree, men cannot be saved from the massa damnata without the intervention of the ‘special grace’ of God. The new theological approach, however, was too close to Lutheran teachings – which Baius and Hessels actually aimed at fighting – and several of its aspects were formally condemned. On the other hand, the Franciscans, Zegers and Sasbout, seemed to be convinced of the possibility of a future reunion of the Western Latin Church thanks to the doctrine of ‘double justification’ which they included within the scholastic dichotomy of iustum fieri and German translation added allein, the famous sola: “So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben”.

General Conclusion

261

iustum facere. In effect, even after the Justification Decree (1547), both Zegers and Sasbout merged Driedo’s traditional scheme of justification by faith and by works with the innovative theological development of the Regensburg Diet, the doctrine of ‘double justice’ in which the Lutheran imputed justice was put ‘together with’ the Catholic inherent justice, both of them working at the level of justification by faith. Jansenius opted for another strategy: although basing his doctrine on grace mainly on the Doctor gratiae, the bishop of Ghent moderated Augustine’s strong positions on the basis of the Greek Church fathers which allowed for a greater importance to be given to good works. Moreover, Jansenius showed himself to have assimilated the humanistic ad fontes approach fully by looking at the Greek text to illuminate the Latin Vulgate better, and by extensively using Erasmus’ textual critical analysis of the New Testament. At the opposite side of the Catholic spectrum, closer to the ‘Pelagian position’, Stapleton and Lucas interpreted the Scriptures with the single aim of countering Calvinism but for different reasons: Stapleton suffered exile, because the ‘Anglo Calvinist’ Queen Elizabeth abolished Catholicism in England, while Lucas experienced the turmoil of the civil war in his native Low Countries. Both Stapleton and Lucas appealed to the Jesuit teachings, stressing the importance of good works in the economy of salvation, a view that would receive its ‘consecration’ in Molinism. In sum, the door that the Council left open to different interpretations of the troublesome relation between predestination, grace and free was one of the reasons for the development of a ‘Golden Age of exegesis’ a coin the reverse of which was the ‘discordia’ among Catholic scholars. The major division was between Molinists and Augustinian-minded theologians, causing the controversy de auxiliis which lasted up to 1607 when Paul V ordered the interruption of further discussions. Together with biblical text criticism and biblical commentaries, these years also saw the production and performance of many sermons. Priests were indeed the mediators between the Word of God and their flock, being the only ones educated and allowed to explain the Scriptures according to Catholic doctrine. Sermons therefore provide one of the only means of understanding how difficult topics of Catholic faith were explained to the faithful. In particular, an analysis has been given of the sermon preached on Septuagesima Sunday and on the 19th Sunday after Pentecost, whose Gospel readings are the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matt 20:1–16), and the Parable of the Great Banquet (Matt 22:1– 14) respectively, since both of them end with the verse “For many are called, but few are chosen”. In his preaching, Sasbout criticized his confreres for their sins, while emphasizing the importance of good works. Instead of sermons, Stapleton wrote preparatory texts for homilies, the Promptuaria, in which he shows his resentment of Elizabeth I, evidently because of his plight as a religious refugee. Similarly, Lucas, in the collection of sermons that he gave, emphasised the

262

General Conclusion

confessional strife that he and his homeland suffered. Unfortunately, I could not find any sermons preached by Hessels, but I have to say that the strong attention given to human behaviour by Sasbout, Stapleton and Lucas was due more to the homiletic genre than to their theological beliefs. Catholics must do good to keep their faith without giving in to the many temptations of the deadly sins (Sasbout), to avoid God’s wrath in case of their apostasy (Stapleton), and not to be tempted by any ‘heretical’ deviation that may lead the State to ruin (Lucas). Thanks to sermons, common people who lacked a thorough knowledge of the Catholic faith received instruction which was meant to prevent them from falling into ‘heresy’ by reading ‘erroneous’ translations or by interpreting the Scriptures in an unsound way, especially those passages dealing with difficult issues such as justification. A last word should be devoted to the next step in the biblical flow. Although, in the Low Countries, there was no official prohibition of vernacular Bible reading, it decreased in the wake of the iconoclastic fury and the refashioning of Catholicism along strict Counter-Reformational lines (François: 2015). In other words, being subject to rigid control by the Church, vernacular Bible reading had a less important place during the ‘Golden Age’ of biblical scholarship than preaching, which was especially promoted by the Fifth Session of Council of Trent (O’Malley: 2013, 257–259). Giving the large amount of sermons being preached and published, we can speak, in a certain sense, about a ‘Golden Age of preaching’.

Abbreviations

AA AG AISIG APM ASE ASEEHAF B BA BHR BLE BMGN BNB CBQ CCCM CCSL CH CSEL CT DBI DBSJ DC DHGE DLCR DRV ES ETL FP FS GP

Analecta Augustiniana Analecta Gregoriana Annali dell’istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento Archive of Plantin Museum Annali di storia dell’esegesi Annales de la Société d’Émulation pour l’étude de l’histoire et des antiquités de la Flandre Clerici regulares Sancti Pauli (Barnabites) Bibliothèque augustinienne Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique Bijdragen en Mededelingen van de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden – Low Countries Historical Review Biographie Nationale de Belgique The Catholical Biblical Quartely Corpus Christianorum: Continuatio Mediaevalis Corpus Christianorum Series Latina Church History Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Concilium Tridentinum: diariorum, actorum, epistolarum, tractatuum nova collectio Dizionario biografico degli Italiani Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Dutch Crossing Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques Digital Library of the Catholic Reformation Douai-Rheims Vulgate Estudios Bíblicos Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Faith and Philosophy Franciscan Studies De Gulden Passer

264 HJ HL IHJ JEastCS JEH JEMC JEMH JHP KJV LXX MGOKLO NTS NO OFM OFMCap OGE OP OSA OSB PG PK PL PQ RB RBAB REL RHE RRR RSR SC SCJ SJ SS TBT VSWG ZK

Abbreviations

Historisches Jahrbuch Humanistica Lovaniensa Inhalt des Historischen Jarbuches Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of Early Modern Christianity Journal of Early Modern History Journal of the History of Philosophy King James Version Septuagint Mededelingen van de Geschied- en Oudheidkundige Kring voor Leuven en Omgeving New Testament Studies Novus Ordo (calendar) Ordo Fratrum Minorum (Franciscans) Ordo Fratrum Minorum Capuccinorum (Capuchins) Ons Geestelijk Erf Ordo Fratrum Praedicatorum (Dominicans) Ordo Sancti Augustini (Augustinians) Ordo Sancti Benedicti (Benedictines) Patrologia cursus completus series Graeca Philosophy Kitchen Patrologia cursus completus series Latina The Philosophical Quarterly Revue Bénédictine Revue des bibliotheques et des archives de la Belgique Revue ecclésiastique de Liège Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique Reformation and Renaissance Review Revue des Sciences religieuses Sixto-Clementine Vulgate The Sixteenth Century Journal Societas Jesu (Jesuits) Studi di Sociologia The Bible Translator Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte

Bibliography

1.

Index of the Primary Sources

‘Η ‘Αγία Γραφή (2003), Athens: Greek Bible Society. Allen P.S. (1906–1958), Opus epistolarum Erasmi Roterodami, Oxford: Clarendon. Augustine (1992a), On the Gift of Perseverance, in: John A. Mourant/William J. Collinge (ed.), Four anti-Pelagian Writings, Washington (D.C.): Catholic University of America Press. Augustine (1992b), On the Predestination of Saints, in: J. A. Mourant William J. Collinge (ed.), Four anti–Pelagian Writings, Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 218–270. Augustine (2010), Revisions, Roland J. Teske (ed.), New York: New City Press. Augustine (1865a), Contra Iulianum, Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), PL 44, Paris: Jacques-Paul Migne, 641–880. Augustine (1865b), De fide et operibus liber unus, Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), PL 40, Paris: Jacques-Paul Migne, 197–230. Augustine (1865d), De sancta virginitate, Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), PL 40, Paris: JacquesPaul Migne, 395–428. Augustine (1865e), Sermones de Novo Testamento, Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), PL 38. Paris: Jacques-Paul Migne. Augustine (1913), De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, De spiritu et littera, De natura et gratia, De natura et origine animae, Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum, K. F. Vrba et J. Zycha (ed.). CSEL 60, Vienna: Tampsky. Augustine (1954a), In evangelium Ioannis tractatus centum viginti quatuor, Radbodus Willems (ed), CCSL 36, Turnholt: Brepols. Augustine (1954b), In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV, Radbodus Willems (ed.) CCSL 36, Turnhout: Brepols. Augustine (1955), De Civitate Dei, B. Dombart et al. (ed.), CCSL 36, Turnhout: Brepols. Augustine (1956), Enarrationes in Psalmos I–L, Johannes Fraipont (ed.), CCSL 38. Turnhout: Brepols. Augustine (1962), De dono perseverantiae, De gratia et libero arbitrio, De praedestinatione sanctorum, Jean Chéné/Jacques Pintard (ed.), BA 24, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. Augustine (1970), De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, Almut Mutzenbecher (ed.), CCSL 44, Brepols: Turnhout.

266

Bibliography

Augustine (1975), De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, Almut Mutzenbecher (ed.), CCSL 44a. Brepols: Turnhout. Augustine (1984), Retractationum libri duo, Almut Mutzenbecher (ed.), CCSL 57, Turnhout: Brepols. Augustine (1998), De Genesi contra Manicheos, Dorothea Weber (ed.) CSEL 91, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Baius, Michael (1563), De meritis operum libri duo; eiusdem de prima hominis iusticia & virtutibus impiorum, libri duo; eiusdem de sacramentis in genere contra Caluinum tractatus unus, Louvain: Jean Bogard. Baius, Michael (1566), Opuscula omnia, Louvain: Jean Bogard, 1566. Bellarmine, Robert (1591), Disputationum de Controversiis Christianae Fidei Tomus Primus, Ingolstadt: David Sartorius. Bellarmine, Robert (1593), Disputationum de Controversiis Christianae Fidei Tomus Tertius, Ingolstadt: David Sartorius. Bellarmine, Robert (1611), Explanatio in Psalmos. Rome: Bartholomeo Zannetto. Biblia Hebraica, Samaritana, Chaldaica, Graeca, Syriaca, Latina, Arabica. Quibus textus originales totius Scripturae sacrae, quorum pars in editione complutensi, deinde in Antverpiensi regiis sumptibus extat, nunc integri, ex manuscriptis toto ferè orbe quaesitis exemplaribus (1628–1645), Guy Michael de Jay (ed.), Paris: Antoine Vitré. Biblia his accesserunt schemata tabernaculi Mosaici, et templi Salomonis, quae praeeunte summa arte et fide expressa sunt. Index rerum et sententiarum quae in iis continentur (1546), Paris: Robert Estienne. Biblia Maxima versionum, cum commentariis (1660), Jean de la Haye (ed.), Paris: D. Bechet/L. Billaine. Biblia sacra Hebraice, Chaldeice, Graece et Latine (1569–1573), Benito Arias Montano (ed.), Antwerp: Christopher Plantin. Biblia sacra polyglotta complectentia textus originales, Hebraicum, cum Pentateucho Samaritano, Chaldaicum, Graecum: versionumque antiquarum, Samaritanae, Graecae LXXII interp., Chaldaicae, Syriacae, Arabicae, AEthiopicae, Persicae, Vulg. Lat., quicquid compari poterat (1655–1657), Brian Walton (ed.) London: Thomas Roycroft. Biblia sacra vulgatae editionis tribus tomis distincta (1590), Rome: Vatican Typography. Biblia Sacra. Qui in hac editione, a Theologis Lovanienibus prestitum sit, eorum praefatio indicat (1547), Johannes Hentenius (ed.) Louvain: Bartholomeus Gravius. Biblia Sacra. Qui in hac editione, a Theologis Lovanienibus prestitum sit, eorum praefatio indicat (1574), Franciscus Lucas Brugensis (ed.) Antwerp: Christopher Plantin. Biblia Sacra. Qui in hac editione, a Theologis Lovanienibus prestitum sit, eorum praefatio indicat (1583), Franciscus Lucas Brugensis (ed.), Antwerp: Christopher Plantin. Biblia Sacra: Vulgatæ Editionis Sixti Qvinti Pont. Max. ivssv recognita atque edita (1592), Rome: Vatican Typography. Biblia Sacra: Vulgatæ Editionis Sixti Qvinti Pont. Max. ivssv recognita atque edita (1599), Antwerp: Plantin. Biblia Sacra: Vulgatæ Editionis Sixti Qvinti Pont. Max. ivssv recognita atque edita (1603), Antwerp: Plantin. Boethius, Severinus (2008), The Consolation of Philosophy, D. R. Slavitt (ed.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Index of the Primary Sources

267

Bonfrère, Jacques (1625), Pentateuchus Moysis commentario illustrates, Antwerp: Plantin. Breviarium Coloniense (1500), Cologne: Hermann Bumgart. Breviarium Romanum, ex Decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini Restitutum (1568), Rome: Stamperia del Popolo Romano. Breviarium Tornacense, Pars hyemalis (1497), Paris: Jean Higman. Calvin, John (1960), Institutes of the Christian Religion, John McNeill (ed.), Philadelphia: Westminster Press/London: S.C.M. Press. Calvin, John (1980), A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, David W. Torrance/Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Calvin, John (1838), In Novum Testamentum Commentarii. Berlin: Thome. Campion, Edmund (1581), Rationes decem quibus fretus, certamen adversariis obtulit in causa fidei. [England]: Stephen Brinkley. Castell, Edmund (1669), Lexicon Heptaglotton Hebraicum, Chaldaicum, Syriacum, Samaritanum, Aethiopicum, Arabicum, et Persicum, London: Thomas Roycroft. Catechismus, ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini, ad Parochos. Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus (1566), Rome: Stamperia del Popolo Romano. Censvræ facultatum sacræ theologiæ Lovaniensis ac Duacensis super quibusdam articulis de Sacra Scriptura, gratia & praedestinatio (1641), Paris: s.n. Chemnitz, Martin (1566), Examen decretorum concilii Tridentini, Frankfurt am Main: Georg I Rab, Sigmund Feyerabend & Simon Hüter. Clement VIII (1596), Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Rome: Stamperia Camerale. Concordantiae Bibliorum utriusque Testamentis Veteris et Novi, novae et integrae, quas re vera maiores appellare possis (1567), Cologne: Arnold Birckmann. Concordantiae Bibliorum utriusque Testamentis Veteris et Novi, novae et integrae, quas re vera maiores appellare possis: opus post omnes quae praecesserunt editiones, multis depravatis locis commode restituitis et castigatis, summo studio ac lobore illustatrum (1585). Antwerp: Plantin. Concilium Tridentinum. Diariorum, actorum, epistolarum, tractatuum nova collectio, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1901–1950. Critici sacri: sive annotata doctissimorum virorum in SS. Biblia Annotationes (1660), Cornelius Bee et al.(ed.), London: Jacobus Flesher. Critici sacri: sive Annotata doctissimorum virorum in Vetus ac Novum Testamentum (1698), Amsterdam: Henricus & vidua Theodori Boom, Joannes & Aegidius Janssonii à Waesberge, Gerhardus Borstius, Abrahamus à Someren, Joannes Wolters. Cyril of Alexandria (1863), Commentarium in Ioannis Evanegelium, Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), PG 74, 9–757. Paris: Jacques-Paul Migne. De Castro, León (1570), Commentaria in Esaiam prophetam, ex sacris scriptoribus graecis, & Latinis confecta, aduersus aliquot commentaria, & interpretationes quasdam ex Rabinorum Scriniis compilatas, Salamanca: Matías Gast. De Schrevel, Arthur C. (1891), Documents pour servir à la biographie de François Lucas, ASEEHAF 39, 359–397. De Soto, Domingo (1549), Ad sanctum concilium Tridentinum de natura et gratia, Paris: Jean Foucher. Do Casal, Gaspar (1563), De quadripertita iustitia libri tres, Venice: Giordano I Ziletti.

268

Bibliography

Driedo, John (1534), De Captivitate et Redemptione Humani Generis. Louvain: Rutger Ressen. Driedo, John (1543), De ecclesiasticis Scripturis et dogmatibus: libri quatuor, Louvain: Bartholomaeus Gravius, 1543. Durand, Guillaume (1570), Rationale divinorum officiorum: nunc recens adnotationibus illustratum. Adjectum aliud divinorum officiorum rationale, Antwerp: Johannes Steelsius. Dury, John (1585), Confutatio responsionis Gulielmi vhitakeri … ad rationes decem, quibus fretus Edmundus Campianus anglus, societatis Jesu theologus, certamen Anglicanae ecclesiae ministris obtulit in causa fidei, Ingolstadt: David Sartorius. Euthymius Zigabenus (1544), Commentaria in sacrosancta quatuor Christi evangelia ex Chrysostomi aliorumque veterum scriptis magna ex parte collecta. In hoc opere redactum explanationem tractant Origenes, Basilius, Nazianzenus, Chrysostomus, caeterique theologi Graeci, John Henten (ed.), Louvain: Rutgerus Rescius. Euthymius Zigabenus (1864), Expositio in Evangelium Johannis, Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), PG 129, Paris: Jacques-Paul Migne, coll. 1105–1502. Euthymius Zigabenus (1864), Expositio in Evangelium Matthaei, Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), PG 129. Paris: Jacques-Paul Migne, coll. 107–764. Gregory the Great (1979), Moralia in Iob: libri I–X, Marcus Adriaen (ed.) CCSL 143, Turnhout: Brepols. Gregory the Great (1999), Homiliae in euangelia, Raymondus Étaix (ed.) CCSL 141, Turnhout: Brepols. Gropper, Johann (1544), Antididagma, seu Christianae et catholicae religionis per reverendissimos et illustrissimos dominos canonicos metropolitanae ecclesiae Coloniensis propugnatio, Cologne: Vivantium Gaultherot. Gropper, Johann (1550), Canones concilii provincialis Coloniensis … Celebrati. Anno 1536. Quibus adiectum est enchiridion Christianae institutionis, Paris: Fouchier. Gropper, Johann (1906), Articuli antididagmatis notati per Theologos Lovanienses, in: Wilhelm Van Gulit, Johannes Gropper (1503 bis 1559), Freiburg: Herder, 207–223. Harlemius, Johannes (1571), Index biblicus, qui res eas, de quibus in sacris bibliis agitur, ad certa capita, alphabeti ordine digesta, reuocatas, summa brevitate complectitur. Antwerp: Plantin. Hessels, John (1568), In primam beati Joannis apostoli et evangelistae canonicam epistolam absolutissimus commentarius, Louvain: Jean Bogard. Hessels, John (1568), In priorem beati Pauli apostoli ad Timotheum epistolam commentarius. Alter item commentarius in priorem beati Petri apostoli canonicam epistolam, Louvain: Jean Bogard. Hessels, John (1572), In sanctum Jesu Christi evangelium secundum Matthaeum commentarius, Louvain: Jean Bogard. Hilary of Poitier (1844), Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaei, Congregatio Sancti Mauri (ed.), PL 9, Paris: Vrayet. Hülsemann, Johan/Caselius, Martin (1700), Ἐπεξήγησις Cap. III. Gen. De Lapsu Priorum Parentum, in: Thomas Theodor Crusius (ed.), Exercitationes PhilologicoHistoricae, Lyons: Abraham de Swart, vol. 5, 55–142. Jansenius, Cornelius (1549), Concordia evangelica, Louvain: Bartholomaeus Gravius.

Index of the Primary Sources

269

Jansenius, Cornelius (1568), Proverbia Salomonis, in quibus Vulgata nostra lectio tractatur et et diligens fiat collatio cum originalibus, et literalis simul cum mystico sensus tradatur, Louvain: Jean Bogard, 1568. Jansenius, Cornelius (1569a), Paraphrases in omnes Psalmos davidicos, cum argumentis eroum, et annotationibus. In quibus omnibus agitur, et ut sublatis multis mendis, quae in nostram lectionem irrepserunt, vera lectio retineatur: et ut ex collatione facta cum originalibus Graecis et Hebraeis sensus habeatur qui illis consentiat, aut proximè accedat, Louvain: Pierre Zangre Tiletan. Jansenius, Cornelius (1569b), Commentarii in Ecclesiasticum, Louvain: Pierre Zangre Tiletan. Jansenius, Cornelius (1571), Statuta primae synodi dioecesis Gandavensis sub Cornelio Jansenio primo ejusdem diocesis episcopo, Ghent: Ghileyn Manilius. Jansenius, Cornelius (1573), Additiones statutorum factae & publicatae per reverendum dominum Cornelium episcopum Gandevensis feria tertia ante pentecosten anno 1573, Ghent: Pieter de Clerck. Jansenius, Cornelius (1576), Liber ecclesiae Gandavensis ritus, formulas atque succinctas quasdam instructiones continens, ad Dei sacramentorum administrationem, & ad aquae salisque benedictionem atque puerperarum purificationem spectantes: in usum parochorum editus, Ghent: Pieter de Clerck. Jansenius, Cornelius (1577), Homiliae in Evangelia, Quae Dominicis Diebus in Ecclesia Populo Proponi Solent, ex Quatuor Commentariorum in Concordiam Evangelicam, Cologne: Johann III Gymnich. Jansenius, Cornelius (1597), Commentariorum in suam concordiam, ac totam historiam evangelicam partes IIII, Lyons: Peter Landry. Jerome (1959), Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos, Paulus de Lagarde et al. (ed.), CCSL 72, Turnhout: Brepols. Jerome (1969), Commentariorum in Mattheum libri IV, David Hurst/ Marcus Adriaen (ed.) CCSL 77, Turnhout: Brepols. John Chrysostom (1862a), Homiliae XC in Matthaeum, Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), PG 58, Paris: Jacques-Paul Migne, 21–792. John Chrysostom (1862b), Homiliae LXXXVIII in Johannem, Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), PG 59, Paris: Jacques-Paul Migne, 23–484. John of Damascus (1864), Expositio fidei orthodoxae, Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), PG 94, Paris: Jacques-Paul Migne, 790–1226. John Duns Scotus (1978), De divina praedestinatione liber, Goulven Madec (ed.), CCCM 50. Turnhout: Brepols, 1978. John Duns Scotus (1994), Contingency and Freedom: Lectura I 39, Anthoine Vos Jaczn, et al. (ed.) Dordrecht: Kluwer. Le Bachelet, Xavier-Marie (1911b), Bellarmin avant son cardinalat (1542–1598). Correspondance et documents, Paris: G. Beauchesne. Leo the Great (1846), Sermones in praecipuis totius anni festivitatibus ad romanam plebem habiti, Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), PL 54, Paris: Jacques-Paul Migne. Leo XIII (1893), Providentissimus Deus, Rome. Lindt, Wilhelm van der (1575), Meditationes in Aureum illum Psalmum CXVIII, Cologne: Cholinus.

270

Bibliography

Lloret, Jerónimo (1570), Sylva allegoriarum sacrae scripturae mysticos eius sensus et magna etiam ex parte literales complectens, Barcelona: Pablo Cortey/Pedro Malo. Locke, John (1963), A Letter Concerning Toleration, Mario Montuori (ed.), The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Lucas, Francis (1580), Notationes in sacra Biblia, quibus, variantia discrepantibus exemplaribus loca, summo studio discutiuntur. Antwerp: Christopher Plantin. Lucas, Francis (1583), Biblia Sacra. Qui in hac editione, a Theologis Lovanienibus prestitum sit, paulo post indicator, Antwerp: Christopher Plantin. Lucas, Francis (1603), Romanae Correctionis, in Latinis Biblis editionis Vulgatae jussu Sixti V. Pont. Max. recognitis, loca insignora, Antwerp: Plantin. Lucas, Francis (1605), Notarum ad varias lectiones in quatuor Evangeliis occurrentes libellus duplex: quorum uno graece, altero latinae varietates explicantur, Antwerp: Plantin. Lucas, Francis (1606–1616), In sacrosanta quatuor Jesu Christi Evangelia, Antwerp: Plantin. Lucas, Francis (1610), Sermones de diversis christianae fidei mysteriis, Antwerp: Plantin. Lucas, Francis (1617), Concordantiae Bibliorum sacrorum vulgatae editionis ad recognitionem jussu Sixti V. Pont. Max. Bibliis adhibitam recensitae atque emendatae, Antwerp: Plantin. Lucas, Francis (1618), Libellus alter continens alias lectionum varietates, in eisdem Biblis latinis, ex vetustis manuscriptis exemplaribus collectas: quibus possit perfectior reddi, feliciter coepta collectio, si accedat Summi Pontifici auctoritas, Antwerp: Plantin. Luther, Martin (1519), Sermo de duplici iustitia, Leipzig: Wolfgang Stöckel Monacensis. Luther, Martin (1520), De captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae, praeludium, Wittenberg: Melchior II Lotter. Luther, Martin (1545), Contra XXXII Articulos Lovaniensium Theologistarum, Wittenberg: Joseph Klug. Maes, André (1574), Josuae imperatoris historia illustrata atque explicata, Antwerp: Plantin. Maldonado, Juan (1596), Commentarii in quatuor Evangelistas, Pont-à-Mousson: Etienne Marchant. Missale insignis ecclesie Coloniensis (1509), Cologne: Bungart. Missale insignis ecclesie Tornacensis (1498), Paris: Jean Higman. Missale Romanum (1474). Milan: Antonius Zarotus. Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum (1570), Rome: Bartolomeo Faletti/Giovanni Varisco. Missale Romanum, ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum. Pii V jussu editum (1571), Antwerp: Plantin. Molina, Luis De (1595), De liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia praedestinatione et reprobatione Concordia, Antwerp: Ioachim Trognaesius. Molina, Luis De (1988), On Divine Foreknowledge: Part IV of the Concordia, Alfred J. Freddoso (ed.), Ithaca: Cornell. Morin, Jean (1633), Exercitationes Biblicae de Hebraei Graecique textus sinceritate, Paris: Vitray. Norman P. Tanner/Giuseppe Alberigo et al. (1990), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, London: Sheed and Ward/Washington D.C.: Georgetown Unversity Press.

Index of the Primary Sources

271

Oecumenius (1543), Commentaria in sacrosancta quatuor Christi evangelia. Addidimus & in calce confutationem Judaice cujusdam imposturae, sive libelli de ficto legali Jesu Christi sacerdotio, Louvain: Rutgerus Rescius. Pavone, Francesco (1623), Introductio ad sacram Doctrinam, Neaples: Lazzaro Scoriggio. Pereira, Benedict (1601), Commentariun et disputationum in Genesim tomi quatuor, Cologne: Hierat. Pighius, Albert (1542), Controversiarum praecipuarum in comitiis Ratisponensibus tractatarum, et quibus nunc potissimum exagitatur Christi fides et religio, Paris: Charlotte Guillard. Pius V (1570), Quo primum, Rome. Poncelet, Alfred (1903), Dix lettres inédites relatives à François Lucas de Bruges, ASEEHAF 53, 226–259. Poole, Matthew (1669–1676), Synopsis criticorum aliorumque Sacrae Scriptures interpretum et commentatorum, Frankfurt: Bathasar Christopher Wusti. Prosper of Aquitaine (1861), Responsiones ad capitula obiectionum Vincentianarum, Jacques Paul Migne (ed.), PL 51, Paris: Jacques Paul Migne, 177–212. Radulphus Flaviacensis (1536), In mysticum illum Moysi Leuiticum libri XX, Cologne: Eucharius Cervicornus. Rooses, Max/Denuncé, Jan (1883–1920), Correspondance de Christophe Plantin, Antwerp: Buschmann. Sasbout, Adam (1552a), Conciones tres super scripturam Levitici, eritis mihi sancti ad clerum habitae, Louvain: Antoine-Marie Bergagne. Sasbout, Adam (1552b), Oratio quodlibetica demonstrans veram Christi ecclesiam. Cui adjuncta est alia funebris de obitu domini Tilmanni praesidis quondam collegij Pontificij, Louvain: Antoine-Marie Bergagne. Sasbout, Adam (1553), Memento homo quod pulvis es, et quod in pulverum revereris, Louvain: Antoine-Marie Bergagne. Sasbout, Adam (1575), Opera omnia nunc iterum excusa, et diligenter emendata, non nihil etiam aucta. Cum indice locupletissimo, Cologne: Theodoor Gras, haer. Arnold I Birckmann. Sasbout, Adam (1613), Homiliae accurate recognite, Cologne: Michiel Vosmeer. Septuaginta: id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (1571), Alfred Rahfls (ed.), Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt. Sirleto, Guglielmo (1571), Annotationes variarum lectionum in psalmos, ad sacri Bibliorum apparatus instructionem, Antwerp: Plantin. Sixtus of Siena (1566), Bibliotheca sancta ex præcipuis Catholicae Ecclesiae auctoribus collecta, Venice: Francesco De Franceschi. Stapleton, Thomas (1589), Promptuarium catholicum ad instructionem concionatorum contra haereticos nostri temporis, super omnia evangelia totius anni, tam dominicalia quam de festis. Paris: Michel Sonnius. Stapleton, Thomas (1591), Promptuarium catholicum ad instructionem concionatorum contra haereticos nostri temporis, super omnia evangelia totius anni, tam dominicalia quam de festis, Lyons: Giunta. Stapleton, Thomas (1592), Promptuarium catholicum ad instructionem concionatorum contra haereticos nostri temporis Antwerp: Pierre Bellère.

272

Bibliography

Stapleton, Thomas (1595a), Antidota apostolica in epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos, Antwerp: Pierre Bellère. Stapleton, Thomas (1595b), Antidota evangelica in Evangelium Matthaei, Antwerp: Pierre Bellère. Stapleton, Thomas (1620), Opera Omnia, Paris: Foüet. Tapper, Ruard (1555–1557), Explicatio articulorum venerandae facultatis sacrae theologiae Lovaniensis, Louvain: Merten Verhasselt. Tapper, Ruard Pseduo (1554), Declaratio Articulorum a Veneranda Facultate Theologiae Lovaniensis, Lyons: Macé Bonhomme. Theophylact (1864), Enarratio in Evangelium Joannis, Jasques Paul Migne (ed.), PG 124, Paris: Jacques Paul Migne, 9–318. Thomas Aquinas (1951), Super evangelium Matthaei lectura, Turin: Marietti. Thomas Aquinas (1972), Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate, Fratrum Praedicatorum (ed.), Rome: Ed. di San Tommaso. Thomas Aquinas (1892), Summa Theologiae, Fratrum Praedicamentorum (ed.), vol 7. Rome: Polyglotta. Triest, Antoine (1640), Officia propria Sanctorvm Ecclesiæ Cathedralis Gandavensis, Ghent: Servatius Manilius. Van Bukentop, Henri (1696). Dictionarium in quo voces omnes difficilioris significationis quae in Vulgata nostra S. Scripturae in Latina nostra aeditione occurunt breviter et dilucider explicantur. Louvain: van Overbeke. Van Bukentop, Henri (1706), Dictionarium in quo voces omnes difficilioris significationis quae in Vulgata nostra S. Scripturae in Latina nostra aeditione occurunt breviter et dilucider explicantur. Louvain: vande Velde. Whitaker, William (1581), Ad rationes decem Edmundi Campiani Jesuitae quibus fretus certamen Anglicanae ecclesiae ministris obtulit in causa fidei, London: Thomas Vautrollier. Zegers, Nicholas Tacitus (1553a), Scholion in omnes Novi Testamenti, Cologne: Arnold I Birckmann. Zegers, Nicholas Tacitus (1553b), Proverbia Teutonica latinitate donata, Antwerp: Jan van der Loe. Zegers, Nicholas Tacitus (1554), Proverbia Gallicae, una cum interpretatione tum Teutonica, tum Latina. Communs proverbes en francois, translatez en flameng, et en latin, Antwerp: Jan van der Loe. Zegers, Nicholas Tacitus (1555), Epanorthotes, sive castigationes in Novum Testamentum, Cologne: Arnold I Birckmann. Zegers, Nicholas Tacitus (1557), Inventarium in Testamentum Novum, vulgo Concordantias vocant, Antwerp: Hans de Laet. Zegers, Nicholas Tacitus (1559), Novum Jesu Christi Testamentum juxta veterem ecclesiae editionem, ex probatissimis eis deque vetustissimis, tum scriptoribus, tum exemplaribus proscae suae si dei atque integritati restitutum: brevibusque illustratum adnotatiunculis, Louvain: Stephanus Valerius. ΤΉΣ ΚΑΙΝΉΣ ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗΣ ͗ΆΠΑΝΤΑ Ε͗ΎΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ (1560), Paris: Robert Estienne.

Index of the Secondary Literature

2.

273

Index of the Secondary Literature

Agten, Els/François, Wim (2015), The Reception of Trent’s Regula Quarta (1564) and Vernacular Bible Reading in the Low Countries, Trajecta 24, 33–60. Albion, Gordon (1946), An English Professor at Louvain: Thomas Stapleton (1535–1598), in: Miscellanea historica in honorem Alberti De Meyer: Universitatis Catholicae in Oppido Lovaniensi iam annos XXV professoris, 895–913. Louvain: Presses universitaires de Louvain. Allen, Leslie E. (1970), Old Testament Background of (ΠΡΟ) ‘ΟΡΙΖΕΙΝ, NTS 17, 104– 108. Allgeier, Arthur (1932), Das Konzil und das Theologische Studium, IHJ 52, 313–339. Allgeier, Arthur (1940), Authentisch auf dem Konzil von Trient. Eine Wort- und Begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, HJ 60, 142–158. Allgeier, Arthur (1948), Haec vetus et vulgata editio. Neue wort- und begriffsgeschichtliche Beiträge zur Bibel auf dem Tridentinum, Biblica 29, 353–390. Allgeier, Arthur (1951), Ricardus Cenomanus und die Vulgata auf dem Konzil von Trient, in: Das Weltkonzil von Trient: sein Werden und Wirken, Georg Schreiber (ed.), Herder: Freiburg, vol. 1, 359–80. Amann, Fridolin (1912), Die Vulgata Sixtina von 1590. Eine quellenmässige Darstellung ihrer Geschichte mit neuen Quellenmaterial aus dem venezianischen Staatsarchiv, Freiburg: Herdersche Verlagshandlung. Andreu, Francesco (1987), Il teatino Antonio Agellio e la Volgata Sistina, in: La Bibbia ‘Vulgata’ dalle origini ai nostri giorni. Atti del simposio internazionale in onore di Sisto V, Grottamare, 29–31 agosto 1985, Tarcisio Stamare (ed.), Vatican City: Vatican Library, 68–97. Arblaster, Paul (2006), A History of the Low Countries, New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Armstrong, Elizabeth (1986), Robert Estienne, Royal printer, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asso, Cecilia (2008), Martin Dorp and Edward Lee, in: Erika Rummel (ed.), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 167–195. Aubert, Roger (1990), Article “Henten (Jan)”, DHGE 23, 1286–1287. Backus, Irena/Goudriaan Aza (2014), ‘Semipelagianism’: The Origins of the Term and its Passage into the History of Heresy, JEH 65, 25–46. Balboni, Dante (1987), L’edizione a stampa della ‘Vulgata’ di Sisto V, in: La Bibbia ‘Vulgata’ dalle origini ai nostri giorni. Atti del simposio internazionale in onore di Sisto V. Grottamare, 29–31 agosto 1985, Tarcisio Stamare (ed.), 107–117. Vatican City: Vatican Library. Baroni, Victor (21986; 1943), La Contre-Réforme devant la Bible: la question biblique, Lausanne: Éditions La Concorde; anast. repr., Geneva: Slatkine Reprints. Bauer, Johannes Baptist (1971), Der Weg der Exegese des Neuen Testaments, in: Einführung in die Methoden der Biblischen Exegese, Josef Schreiner et al. (ed.), Tyrolia: In den Verlagen Echtert, 18–39. Baumgarten, Paul Maria (1911), Die Vulgata Sixtina von 1590 und ihre Einführungsbulle. Aktenstücke und Untersuchungen, Münster: Aschendorff.

274

Bibliography

Bayley, Peter (1988), Preaching, in: Catholicism in Early Modern History: A Guide to Research, John O’Malley (ed.), St. Louis: Centre for Reformation Research St. Louis, 299–314. Bea, Augustin (1942), La Compagnia di Gesù e gli studi biblici, in: La Compagnia di Gesù e le scienze sacre, in conferenze commemorative del quarto centenario dalla fondazione della Compagnia di Gesù tenute alla Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 5–11 novembre 1941, Rome: Gregoriana University, Analecta Gregoriana – Series Theologica. vol. 29 Sectio A/ 3, 115–143. Bellucco, Bartholomaeus (1956), De sacra Praedicatione in Ordine Fratrum Minorum, Rome: Pontificum Athaenaeum Antonianum. Bernarello, Franco (1961), La formazione religiosa secondo la primitiva scuola francescana, Roma: Edizioni Francescane. Bianchin, Lucia (2005), Dove non arriva la legge: dottrine della censura nella prima età moderna, Bologna: il Mulino. Bignami, Jeanne (1961), Article “Baldassarre Ansidei”, DBI 3, 419–420. Bled, Oscar (1889), Les évêques de Saint-Omer depuis la chute de Thérouanne 1553–1619, Saint-Omer: H. D’homont. Bogaert, Pierre-Marie (2008), La Bible de Lobbes à Trente? Au sujet de quelques bibles apportées à des conciles (Constance, Bâle, Trente), RB 118, 135–147. Böhl, Meinrad (2007), Das Christentum und der Geist des Kapitalismus: Die Auslegungsgeschichte des biblischen Talentegleichnisses, Cologne: Bo¨ hlau. Bosma, Jelle (2003), Preaching in the Low Countries, 1450–1650, in: Preachers and People in the Reformations and Early Modern Period, Laryssa Taylor (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 327– 355. Braunisch, Reinhard (1974), Die Theologie der Rechtfertigung im „Enchiridion“ (1538) des Johannes Gropper, Münster: Aschendorff. Broggio, Paolo (2009), La teologia e la politica, controversie dottrinali, Curia romana e Monarchia spagnola tra Cinque e Seicento, Florence: Leo Olschki Editore. Brown, A. (2016), The Manuscript Sources and Textual Character of Erasmus’ 1516 Greek New Testament, in M. Wallraff/S. Seidel Menchi/ K. von Greyer (ed.), Basel 1516: Erasmus’ Editio of the New Testament, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 125–144. Bruening, Michael W. (2005), Calvinism’s First Battleground Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud, 1528–1559. Berlin: Springer. Burie, Luc (1977), Proeve tot inventarisatie van de in handschrift of in druk bewaarde werken van de Leuvense theologieprofessoren uit de XVe eeuw, in: Facultas S. Theologiae Lovaniensis 1432–1797: bijdragen tot haar geschiedenis, Edmond van Eijl et al. (ed.), Leuven: Leuven University Press. Burrel, David (2008), Creator/creatures relation: ‘The distinction’ vs. ‘onto-theology’, FP 25, 177–189. Cameron, Euan/Gordon, Bruce (2016), Latin Bibles in the Early Modern Period, in: The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3: From 1450 to 1750, Euan Cameron (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–216. Cavallera, Fernand (1939), L’Enchiridion Christianae Insititutionis de Jean Gropper (1538), BLE 40, 25–47. Cayré, Fulbert (1947), Patrologie et Histoire de la Théologie, Paris: Desclée.

Index of the Secondary Literature

275

Ceredi, Antonio/Alessandro Ceredi (1994), Il concetto di disciplinamento sociale. Dai trattati etico-religiosi alla teoria sociologica, SS 32, 299–311. Cesareo, Francesco (2001), The Episcopacy in Sixteenth-Century Italy, in: Early modern Catholicism: Essays in Honour of John W. O’Malley, S.J., Kathleen M. Comerford/ Hilmar M. Pabel (ed.), Toronto: University of Toronto, 67–83. Ceyssens, Lucien (1994), “Bellarmin et Louvain”, in: L’Augustinisme à l’ancienne Faculté de théologie de Louvain, Mathijs Lamberigts/Leo Kenis, Leuven: Peeters, 179–205. Combs, W. W. (1996), Erasmus and the textus receptus, DBSJ 1, 35–53. Connor Swietlicki, Catherine (1996), Fray Luis de León. El humanista màs humano, in: Fray Luis de León. Historia, Humanismo y Letras, García de la Concha et al. (ed.), Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 313–322. Coogan, R. (1992), Erasmus, Lee and the Correction of the Vulgate: The Shaking of the Foundations, Genève: Droz. Cools, Hans (2012), Bishops in the Habsburg Netherlands on the Eve of the Catholic Renewal, 1515–59, in: Episcopal Reform and Politics in Early Modern Europe, Jennifer Mara Desilva (ed.), Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 46–62. Craig, William (1988), Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents from Aristotle to Suárez, Leiden: Brill. Crew, Phyllis Mack (1978), Calvinist preaching and iconoclasm in the Netherlands, 1544–1569, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruz Cruz, Juan (2013), Predestination as Transcendent Theology: Molina and the first Molinism, in: A Companion to Luis de Molina, Alexander Aichele/Mathias Kaufmann (ed.), Leiden: Brill. Cummings, Brian (2007), The Literary Culture of the Reformation: Grammar and Grace, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dahan, Gilbert (2004), Sorbonne II. Un correctoire biblique de la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle, in: La Bibbia del XIII secolo: Storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi. Convegno della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino (SISMEL). Firenze, 1–2 giugno 2001, Giuseppe Cremascoli/Francesco Santi (ed.), Florence: SISMEL Edizioni del Galluzzo, 113–153. De Jonge, Henk Jan (2016), Erasmus’s Translation of the New Testament: Aim and Method, TBT 67, 29–41. De Jongh, Henri (1911), L’ancienne Faculté de Théologie de Louvain au premier siècle de son existence (1432–1540). Ses débuts, son organisation, son enseignement, sa lutte contre Érasme et Luther, Leuven: Bureaux de la revue d’histoire ecclesiatisque. De Kok, Johannes Antonius (2007), Acht eeuwen minderbroeders in Nederland: een oriëntatie, Hilversum: Verloren. De Kort, Jan/Lockefeer, Jan (2010), Cornelius Jansenius van Hulst. Theoloog en Pastor. Bisschop van Gent, Hulst: Oudheidkundige Kring ‘De Vier Ambachten’. De la Fuente, Vincente (1860), Biografía de Leon de Castro, Madrid: Eusebio Aguado. De Landtsheer, Jeanine (1996), The Correspondence of Thomas Stapleton and Jan Moretus: A Critical and Annotated Edition, HL 45, 430–503. De Lubac, Henri (1965), Augustinisme et théologie moderne, Paris: Aubier. De Michelis Pintacuda, F. (2001), Tra Erasmo e Lutero, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. De Morean, S. B., Article “Willelmsz (Jan)”, BNB 27 (1938), 338.

276

Bibliography

De Rosa, Gabriele/Tullio Gregory/André Vauchez (1994), Storia dell’Italia religiosa, vol 2: l’età moderna, Roma-Bari: Laterza. De Saint-Marie, Henri (1987), Sisto e la Volgata, in: La Bibbia ‘Vulgata’ dalle origini ai nostri giorni. Atti del simposio internazionale in onore di Sisto V. Grottamare, 29–31 agosto 1985, Tarcisio Stamare (ed.), Vatican City: Vatican Library, 61–67. De Schrevel, Arthur C. (1893), “Article Lucas, François”, BNB 12, 550–563. De Schrevel, Arthur C. (1894), Troubles religieux du XVIme siècle au quartier de Bruges, 1566–1568, Bruges: Impr. de L. de Plancke. De Troeyer, Benjamin (1965), Article “Amandus van Zierikzee”, Franciscana 20, 14–19. De Troeyer, Benjamin (1969–1970), Bio-bibliographia Franciscana Neerlandica saeculi XVI, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf. De Troeyer, Benjamin (1974), Bio-bibliographia Franciscana Neerlandica ante saeculum XVI, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf. De Vocht, Henry (1951–1955), History of the Foundation and the Rise of the Collegium Trilingue Lovaniense, 1517–1550, Leuven: University Library. De Vocht, Henry, Article “Tapper (Ruard)”, BNB 24 (1929), 555–577. Dejob, Charles (1884), De l’influence du Concile de Trente sur la littérature et les beauxarts chez les peuples catholiques, Paris: E. Thorin. Dekker, Eef (1995), The Reception of Scotus’ Theory of Contingency in Molina and Suárez, in: Via Scoti: Methodologica ad mentem Joannis Duns Scoti. Atti del congresso Scotistico internazionale, Roma, 9–11 marzo 1993, Leonardo Sileo (ed.), Roma: Edizioni Antonianum, 445–455. Delle Foglie, Anna (2008), Nuove ricerche sulla biblioteca di San Giovanni a Carbonara a Napoli e sul mecenatismo di Girolamo Seripando, AA 71, 185–202. Delph, Ronald K. (2008), Emending and Defending the Vulgate Old Testament: Agostino Steuco’s Quarrel with Erasmus, in: Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, Erika Rummel (ed.), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 297–318. Delville, Jean-Pierre (1997), Jansenius de Gand (1510–1576) et l’exégèse des paraboles, RHE 92, 38–69. Delville, Jean-Pierre (2004), L’Europe de l’exégèse au XVIe siècle: interprétations de la parabole des ouvriers à la vigne, Matthieu 20, 1–16, Leuven: Peeters. Delville, Jean-Pierre (2008), L’évolution des Vulgates et la composition de nouvelles versions latines de la Bible au XVIe siècle, in: Biblia: Les Bibles en latin au temps des Réformes, Gomez-Géraud/Marie-Christine (ed.), Paris: Presses de l’Universite´ ParisSorbonne, 71–106. Denzinger, Heinrich (1991), Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum/Kompendium der Glaubensnekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Dequeker, Luc (2010), The Anjou Bible and the Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis, 1547/1574, in: The Anjou Bible. Naples 1340, a Royal Manuscript Revealed, Liewe Watteeuw/Jan van der Stock (ed.), Leuven: Peeters, 127–137. Dequeker, Luc/Gistelinck, Frans (1989), Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis 1547–1574. Theology Faculty Library. Exhibition on the Occasion of the XII Congress of the International Organisation for the Study of the Old Testament. August 25 – Sept 8 1989, Leuven: Bibliotheek van de Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid.

Index of the Secondary Literature

277

Deyon, Solange/Lottin, Alain (2013), Les casseurs de l’été 1566: L’iconoclasme dans le Nord, Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion. Dierickx, Michel (1967), L’erection des nouveaux diocèses aux Pays-Bas, 1559–1570, Bruxelles: La Renaissance du livre. Dlabacova, Anna/Prochowski, Danielle (2014), Preken en publiceren. De franciscaanse observantie als producent en aanjager van religieuze literatuur in de Lage Landen, circa 1490–1560, OGE 85, 225–229. Ducros, Louis (1900), Les Encyclopédistes, Genève: Champion. Duke, Alastair (2009), Dissident Identities in the Early Modern Low Countries, Aldershot: Ashgate. Edwards, Francis (1981), The Elizabethan Jesuits: “Historia Missionis Anglicanae Societatis Jesu” (1660) of Henry More, London: Phillimore and Co. Elliot, James K. (1997), Translation of the New Testament in Latin, in: Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt: Inhaltsverzeichnis mit Autorenregister, Stephan Schwerdtfeger/Ute Ilchmann (ed.), Berlin: de Gruyter, 198–245. Elliott, James K. (2016), Novum Testamentum editum est: The Five-Hundredth Anniversary of Erasmus’s New Testament, TBT 67, 9–28. Emmi, Beniamino (1949), Il posto del de ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus nelle discussioni Tridentine, ETL 25, 588–599. Emmi, Beniamino (1953), Il Decreto Tridentino sulla Volgata nei commenti della prima polemica protestanto-cattolico, Angelicum 30, 228–272. Emmi, Beniamino (1957), Una votazione pro o contro i testi originali della S. Scrittura al Concilio di Trento, Angelicum 34, 379–392. Estep, William (1996), The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Farge, J.K. (2006), Les lecteurs royaux et l’université de Paris, in: Histoire du Collège de France, vol. 1: La création 1530–1560, A. Tuilier (ed.), Paris: Fayard, 209–232. Fayen, Arnold (1905), Lettres Plantiniennes (1574–1581), RBAB 3, 433–461. Fernández Tejero, Emilia/Fernández Marcos, Natalio (2008), Scriptural Interpretation in Renaissance Spain, in: Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Magne Sæbø (ed.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, vol. 2, 230–253. Fischer, Benedict D./François, Wim/ Gerace, Antonio/ Murray, Luke (2020), The ‘Golden Age’ of Catholic Biblical Scholarship (1550–1650) and its Relation to Biblical Humanism, in: Renaissance-Humanismus: Bibel und Reformbewegungen des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts und ihre Bedeutung für das Werden der Reformation, Herman Selderhuis (ed.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming. Fordyce, C. J. (1933), Louvain and Oxford in the Sixteenth Century, RBPH 12, 645–652. François, Wim (2005), La condamnation par les théologiens parisiens du plaidoyer d’Érasme pour la traduction de la Bible dans la langue vernaculaire (1527–1531), Augustiniana 55, 357–405. François, Wim (2006a), The Louvain Theologian John Driedo versus the German Reformer Martin Luther. And Who Could Impose Their Truth, in: Theology and the Quest for Truth. Historical- and Systematical-Theological Studies, Mathijs Lamberigts/Lieven Boeve/Terrence Merrigan (ed.), Leuven: Peeters.

278

Bibliography

François, Wim (2006b), Vernacular Bible Reading and Censorship in Early Sixteenth Century. The Position of the Louvain Theologians, in: Lay Bibles in Europe. 1450–1800, August den Hollander/Mathijs Lamberigts (ed.), Leuven: Peeters, 69–96. François, Wim (2007), Augustinian Bible Exegesis in Louvain. The Case of John Hessels’ Commentary on 1 John 2,15–18a, Augustiniana 57, 399–424. François, Wim (2009a), Exégesis bíblica agustiniana en Lovaina en el siglo XVI, Augustinus 54, 199–217. François, Wim (2009b) John Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (1533). A Controversy on the Sources of the Truth, in: Orthodoxy, Process and Product. On the Meta-Question, Lieven Boeve (ed.), Leuven: Peeters, 85–118. François, Wim (2009c), Andreas Masius (1514–73): Humanist, Exegete and Syriac Scholar, JEastCS 61, 199–244. François, Wim (2009d), Augustinus sanior interpres Apostoli: Thomas Stapleton and the Louvain Augustinian School’s Reception of Paul, in: A Companion to Paul in the Reformation, Holder R. Ward (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 363–386. François, Wim (2010), Thomas Stapleton (1535–1598) sobre la caída de Adán y las consecuencias de ella para su descendencia. ¿Exégesis agustiniana o cripto-jesuítica?, Augustinus 55, 129–140. François, Wim (2012), Augustine and the Golden Age of Biblical Scholarship in Louvain (1550–1650), in: Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and Their Readers in the Sixteenth Century, Bruce Gordon/Matthew McLean (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 235–289. François, Wim (2012b), Non habent nisi ista tria. The Threefold Concupiscence According to Augustine’s Second Homily on the First Epistle of John, and its Reception in the Early Modern Commentaries of Hessels, Cajetan, and Estius, in: Tractatio Scriptvrarvm: Philological, Exegetical, Rhetorical and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermons, Anthony Dupont et al. (ed.), Turnhout: Brepols, 153–176. François, Wim (2013a), La Iglesia Católica y la lectura de la Biblia en lengua vernácula antes y después de Trento, Mayéutica 39, 245–273. François, Wim (2013b), Thomas Stapleton, controversetheoloog tussen Engeland en de Nederlanden, in: Religie, hervorming en controverse in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden, Violet Soen/Paul Knevel (ed.), Herzogenrath: Shaker Publishing, 37–63. François, Wim (2014), Efficacious Grace and Predestination in the Bible Commentaries of Estius, Jansenius and Fromondus, in: Der Jansenismus – eine ? Das Ringen um Gnade, Rechtfertigung und die Autorität Augustins in der frühen Neuzeit, Burkard Dominik/Tanja Tanja (ed.), Münster: Aschendorff, 117–143. François, Wim (2015), The Catholic Church and the Vernacular Bible in the Low Countries: A Paradigm Shift in the 1550s?’, in: Discovering the Riches of the Word: Religious Reading in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Sabrina Corbellini/Margriet Hoogvliet/Bart Ramakers (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 234–281. François, Wim (2016), Erasmus’ Revision of the New Testament and its Influence on Dutch Bible Translations. The Dossier Revisited, TBT 67, 69–100. François, Wim/Gerace Antonio (2018), Trent and the Latin Vulgate, a Louvain Project?, in: The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700), vol. 1: Between Trent, Rome and Wittenberg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, François Wim and Violet Soen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 131–174.

Index of the Secondary Literature

279

François, Wim/Gerace Antonio (2019), The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism in the Post-Tridentine Catholic Church, Boersma K., et al. (eds.), More than Luther: The Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 15–44. Freedberg, David (1988), Iconoclasm and painting in the revolt of the Netherlands, 1566–1609, New York (N.Y.): Garland. Frost, Gloria (2010), John Duns Scotus on God’s Knowledge of Sins: A Test-Case for God’s Knowledge of Contingents, JHP 48, 15–34. Frymire, John M. (2010), The Primacy of the Postils: Catholics, Protestants, and the Dissemination of Ideas in Early Modern Germany, Leiden: Brill. Galeota, Gustavo (1966), Bellarmino contro Baio a Lovanio, Roma: Herder. Gallicet Calvetti, Carla (2005), Il testamento dottrinale di Sebastiano Castellion e l’evoluzione razionalistica del suo pensiero, Milan: Vita&Pensiero. Gallus, Tiburtius (1949), Interpretatio mariologica protoevangeli (Gen. 3,15) tempore postpatristico usque ad concilium tridentinum, Roma: Herder. Gallus, Tiburtius (1953), Interpretatio mariologica protoevangelii posttridentina usque ad definitionem dogmaticam immaculatae conceptionis vol. I: Aetas aurea exegesis catholicae a concilio Tridentino (1545) usque ad annum 1660, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Gallus, Tiburtius (1954), Interpretatio mariologica protoevangelii posttridentina usque ad definitionem dogmaticam immaculatae conceptionis, vol. II: Ab anno 1661 usque ad definitionem dogmaticam Immaculatae Conceptionis (1854), Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Garcia-Moreno, Antonio (1987), Reflexiones en torno a la Sessión IV de Trento, in: La Bibbia “Vulgata” dalle origini ai nostri giorni, Tarcisio Stramare (ed.), Rome/Vatican City: Abbazia San Girolamo/Libreria Vaticana, 40–60. Garofalo, Salvatore (1946), Gli umanisti italiani del secolo xv e la Bibbia, Biblica 27, 338–75. Gaskin, Richard (1993), Conditionals of Freedom and Middle Knowledge, PQ 43, 412– 430. Gerace, Antonio (2016a), Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ and Textual Criticism of the Vulgate Before and After the Sixto-Clementine (1592), JEMC 3, 201–237. Gerace, Antonio (2016b), Luis de Molina’s ‘middle knowledge’ Thomas Stapleton’s ‘antidote’ to John Calvin, RRR 18, 105–122. Gerace, Antonio (2017a), La determinazione della legge di Dio. Il pensiero del nómos in Paolo di Tarso, PK 4, 91–103. Gerace Antonio (2017b), Justification by Faith: A History of the Debate, in: Alberto Melloni (ed.), Martin Luther: A Christian between Reforms and Modernity (1517–2017), Berlin: De Gruyter, 741–758. Gerace Antonio (2020a), The Council of Trent and the Sixto-Clementine editions”. In: Houghton H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook for the Latin Bible, Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming). Gerace, Antonio (2020b), The Reception of Erasmus’ New Testament in the Louvain Franciscan Study House: The Case of Nicholas Tacitus Zegers and Adam Sasbout”, in: François Wim et al. (eds.), Authority Revisited: Towards Thomas More and Erasmus in 1516, Turnhout: Brepols (forthcoming).

280

Bibliography

Gerace, Antonio, Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ Gospels Commentaries and the Controversy on Predestination, Grace and Free Will, ASE 35 (2018), 187–213. Gerace, Antonio/ Gielis, Gert (2018), The Ambiguous Reception of the Doctrine of the Duplex Iustitia in Leuven (1544–1556), Augustiniana 68, 91–123. Gielis, Gert (2013), Een pleidooi voor klerikale herbronning: Ruard Tapper (1487–1559) en zijn ideeën over kerkhervorming, in: Religie, hervorming en controverse in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden, Paul Knevel/Violet Soen (ed.), Maastricht: Shaker Publishing, 21–36. Gielis, Marcel (1994), L’augustinisme anti-érasmien des premiers controversistes de Louvain in Jacques Latomus et Jean Driedo, in: L’Augustinisme à l’ancienne faculté de théologie de Louvain, Mathijs Lamberigts/Leo Kenis, Leuven: Peeters, 19–61. Gielis, Marcel (1994b), Scholastiek en Humanisme: De kritiek van de Leuvense theoloog Jacobus Latomus op de Erasmiaanse theologiehervorming, Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Gielis, Marcel (2008), Leuven Theologians as Opponents of Erasmus and of Humanistic Theology, in: Erika Rummel (ed.), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 197–214. Giustiniani, Lorenzo (1818), Memorie storico-critiche della Real Biblioteca Borbonica di Napoli, Neaples: Giovanni de Bonis. Grabmann, Martin (1933), Die Geschichte der Katholischen Theologie seit dem Ausgang der Väterzeit, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Grendler, Paul F. (2008), Italian Biblical Humanism and the Papacy, 1515–1535, in: Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, Erika Rummel (ed.), 227– 276, Leiden/Boston: Brill. Grossi, Vittorino (1968), Baio e Bellarmino interpreti di S. Agostino nelle questioni del soprannaturale, Roma: Studium theologicum Augustinianum, 1968. Guelluy, Robert (1941), L’évolution des méthodes théologiques à Louvain d’Érasme à Jansénius, RHE 37, 31–144. Gutiérrez, David (1966), La Biblioteca di San Giovanni a Carbonara di Napoli, AA 29, 59–212. Haliczer, Stephen (1996), Sexuality in the Confessional: a Sacrament Profaned, New York: Oxford University Press. Hamilton, Alastair (2016), In Search of the Most Perfect Text: The Early Modern Printed Polyglot Bibles from Alcalá (1510–1520) to Brian Walton (1654–1658), in: The New Cambridge history of the Bible, Richard Marsden et al. (ed.), vol. 3, 138–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hampson, Daphne (2001), Christian Contradictions: The Structure of Lutheran and Catholic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Höpfl, Hildebrand (1908), Kardinal Wilhelm Sirlets Annotationen zum Neuen Testament. Eine Verteidigung der Vulgata gegen Valla und Erasmus, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herdersche Verlagshandlung. Höpfl, Hildebrand (1913), Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata, Freiburg i. Br.: Herder. Hünermann, Friederich (1923), Gasparo Contarini, Gegenreformatorische Schriften, (1530c.–1542), Münster i. W.: Aschendorff.

Index of the Secondary Literature

281

Hurther, Hugo (1962), Nomenclator literarius theologiae catholicae theologos exhibens aetate, natione, diciplinis distinctos, Burt Franklin (ed.), New York: Burt Franklin. IJsewijn, Josef (2015), Humanism in the Low Countries, a Collection of Studies, Gilbert Tournoy (ed.), Leuven: University Press. Israel, Jonathan (1995), The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477–1806, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jansen, François Xavier (1927), Baius et le Baianisme, Louvain: Museum Lessianum. Janssen, Geert H. (2012), The Counter-Reformation of the Refugee: Exile and the Shaping of Catholic Militancy in the Dutch Revolt, JEH 63, 671–692. Janssen, Geert H. (2014), The Dutch Revolt and Catholic Exile Reformation in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jedin, Hubert (1937). Girolamo Seripando: sein Leben und Denken im Geisteskampf des 16. Jahrhunderts. Würzburg: Rita-Verlag und -Druckerei der Augustiner, 1937. Jedin, Hubert (1957–1961), A History of the Council of Trent, London: Nelson. Jenkins, Allan K./Preston Patrick (2007), Biblical Scholarship and the Church: a Sixteenth Century Crisis of Authority, Aldershot: Ashgate. Jiménez Fajardo, José (1944), La esencia del pecado venial en la segunda edad de oro de la teologiá escolástica, Granada: Facultad Teolo´gica de la Compan˜ia de Jesu´s. Kerr, Fergus (2004), After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism. Oxford: Blackwell. Kihn, Heinrich (1892), Encyklopädie und Methodologie der Theologie, Freiburg i. Br.: Herder. Krey, Philip D. W. (ed.), Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture, Leiden: Brill. Laffitte, Marie-Pierre (2009), La redécouverte des manuscrits carolingiens par les érudits et les collectionneurs français (XVIe–XVIIIe siècles), in: Les Manuscrits Carolingiens Actes du colloque de Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, le 4 mai 2007, Jean-Pierre Caillet/Marie-Pierre Laffitte (ed.), Turnhout: Brepols, 141–158. Lamberts, Emiel/Roegiers, Jan (1990), Leuven University, 1425–1985, Louvain, University Press. Lane, Anthony N.S. (2004), Cardinal Contarini and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy (1541), in: Grenzgänge der Theologie. Professor Alexandre Ganoczy zum 75. Geburtstag, Otmar Meuffels/Jürgen Bründl (ed.), Münster: LIT Verlag, 163–190. Le Bachelet, Xavier-Marie (1911a), Bellarmin et la Bible Sixto-Clémentine: étude et documents inédits, Paris: G. Beauchesne. Le Bachelet, Xavier-Marie (1931), Prédestination et grâce efficace: controverses dans la Compagnie de Jésus au temps d’Aquaviva 1610–1613: histoire et documents inédit, Louvain: Louvain Museum Lessianum. Lecler, Joseph (1955), Histoire de la tolerance au siècle de la Réforme, Lyons: Aubier. Lefranc, Abel (1970), Histoire du Collège de France depuis ses origines jusqu’à la fin du premier Empire, Paris: Hachette. Lennerz, Henric (1945), De Congregationibus Theologorum in Concilio Tridentino, Gregorium 26, 7–21. Letis, Theodore P. (2002), The Vulgata Latina as Sacred Text: What Did the Council of Trent Mean When it Claimed Jerome’s Bible was Authentica?, Reformation 7, 1–21. Lines, David A. (2008), Theaching Physiscs in Louvain and Bologna. Frans Titelmans and Ulisse Aldovrandi, in: Scholarly Knowledge: Textbooks in Early Modern Europe, Emidio Campi et al. (ed.), Genève: Droz, 183–203.

282

Bibliography

Lugioyo, Brian (2010), Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification: Reformation Theology and Early Modern Irenicism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Machielsen, Jan (2010), How (not) to Get Published: The Plantin Press in the Early 1590s, DC 34, 99–114. Mackensen, Heinz (1959), The Diplomatic Role of Gasparo Contarini at the Colloquy of Ratisbon of 1541, CH 27 (1959), 312–337. Maertens, Philip, Franciscus Lucas Brugensis et le texte de l’Ancien Testament (première partie), avalable online at https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Franciscus_ Lucas_Brugensis (accessed on 16–12–2014). Malloy, Christopher J. (2005), Engrafted into Christ: A Critique of the Joint Declaration, New York: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers. Manelli, Stefano (1995), All Generations Shall Call me Blessed: Biblical Mariology, New Bedford: Academy of the Immaculate. Marazzini, Alfredo (1997), Il problema della giustificazione nell’evoluzione del pensiero di Seripando, in: Geronimo Seripando e la Chiesa del suo tempo nel V centenario dalla sua nascita, Atti del convegno di Salerno, 14–16 ottobre 1994, Antonio Cestaro (ed.), Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 27–70. Martinetti, Piero (1928), La libertà, Milano: Libreria Editrice Lombarda. Masolini, Serena (2016), Petrus de Rivo (ca. 1420–1499): Portrait(s) of a Louvain Master, PhD Thesis: KU Leuven. Matava, Robert J. (2016), Divine Causality and Human Free Choice: Domingo Báñez, Physical Premotion, and the Controversy De Auxiliis Revisited. Leiden: Brill. Matheson, Peter (1975), Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, Oxford: Clarendon. Maxcey, Carl E. (1979), Double Justice, Diego Laynez, and the Council of Trent, CH 48, 269–278. McCoog, Thomas M. (1996), The Society of Jesus in Ireland, Scotland, and England 1541– 1588: Our Way of Proceedings, Leiden: Brill. McCullough, Peter (2011), The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McGrath, Alister E. (2005), Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Metzger, Bruce M./ Ehrman B.D. (2005), The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Michaud, Louis-Gabriel (1811–1828), Biographie universelle, ancienne et moderne, ou Histoire, par ordre alphabétique, de la vie publique et privée de tous les hommes, Paris: Despalces. Moran, Dermot (1989), The Philosophy of John Scottus Eriugena. A Study of Idealism in the Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Motta, Franco (2005), Bellarmino: una teologia politica della Controriforma, Brescia: Morcelliana. Mullett, Michael A. (1999), The Catholic Reformation, New York/London: Routledge. Muñoz Iglesias, Salvador (1946), El decreto tridentino sobre la Vulgata y su interpretación por los teólogos del siglo XVI, ES 5, 137–169. Murray, Luke (2015), The Church Fathers and the Fall of Judas: Grace, Free-Will, and Predestination in Early Modern Catholic Biblical Commentaries, Augustiniana 65, 185– 203.

Index of the Secondary Literature

283

Murray, Luke (2016), Jesuit Biblical Studies after Trent. Franciscus Toletus and Cornelius a Lapide (PhD thesis, K.U.Leuven). Nauwelaerts, Marcel A. M. (1969), Verblijf en werk van Erasmus te Leuven, MGOKLO 9, 133–160. Neirynck, Frans (1979), La concordance de Franciscus Lucas Brugensis (1617), ETL 55, 368–372. Norton, David (2016), English Bibles from c. 1520 to c. 1750, in: The New Cambridge History of the Bible Volume 3. From 1450 to 1750, Euan Cameron (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 305–344. O’Connel, Marvin R. (1964), Thomas Stapleton and the Counter Reformation, New Haven/London: Yale University Press. O’Malley, John W. (1979), Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: Rhetoric, Doctrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, c. 1450–1521, Durham: Duke University Press. O’Malley, John W. (1983), Content and Rethorical Forms in Sixteenth-Century Treatises on Preaching, in: Renaissance Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and Practice of Renaissance Rethoric, James J. Murphy (ed.), Berkley: University of California Press, 238– 252. O’Malley, John W. (1993), The First Jesuits, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. O’Malley, John W. (2013), Trent: What Happened at the Council, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Oestreich, Gerhard (1968), Strukturprobleme des Absolutismus, VSWG 55, 329–347. Ogliari, Donato (2004), Gratia et certamen: The Relationship between Grace and Free Will in the Discussion of Augustine with the So-called Semipelagians, Leuven: Peeters. Oliphant Old, Hughes (2002), The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian of Christian Church: vol. 4 The Age of Reformation, Cambridge/Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Compan. Orcibal, Jean (1962), De Baius à Jansénius: Le comma pianum, RSR 36, 115–139. Osculati, Roberto (2013), Evangelismo cattolico (secoli XIV–XVII). Proposte di lettura, Bologna: il Mulino. Ozment, Steven E. (1980), The Age of Reform 1250–1550: an Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe, New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Pabel, H. (2002), Exegesis and Marriage in Erasmus’ Paraphrases, in H. M. Pabel/ M. Vessey (ed.), Holy Scripture speaks: the production and reception of Erasmus’ Paraphrases on the New Testament, Toronto: University of Toronto. Paquot, Jean-Noël (1763), Me´moires pour servir a` l’histoire litte´raire des dix-sept provinces des Pays-Bas, de la principaute´ de Lie´ge, et de quelques contre´es voisines, Leuven: University Press. Pas, Paul (1954), La théorie de la doublé justification au Concile du Trent, ETL 30, 5–53. Pettegree, Andrew (2015), Brand Luther. How an Unheralded Monk Turned His Small Town into a Center of Publishing, Made Himself the Most Famous Man in Europe – And started the Protestant Reformation. New York: Penguin Press. Prodi, Paolo (1988), I colloqui di Ratisbona: l’azione e le idee di Gaspare Contarini: in: Gaspare Contarini e il suo tempo, Atti del convegno, Venezia 1–3 marzo 1985, Francesca

284

Bibliography

Cavazzana Romanelli (ed.), Venice: Comune di Venezia Assess. Affari Istituz.-Studium cattolico veneziano, 207–222. Prodi, Paolo/Carla Penuti (1994), Disciplina dell’anima, disciplina del corpo e disciplina della società tra medioevo ed età moderna. Bologna: il Mulino. Prosperi, Adriano (1994), Riforma cattolica, Controriforma, disciplinamento sociale, in: Storia dell’Italia religiosa. II: L’età moderna, Gabriele De Rosa/Tullio Gregory/André Vauchez, Roma/Bari: Laterza, 3–48. Prosperi, Adriano (1996), Tribunali della coscienza, Turin: Einaudi. Quentin, Henri (1922), Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate. Ière Partie. Octateuque, Rome: Desclée et Cie/Paris: Gabalda. Rekers, Bernard (1972), Benito Arias Montano (1527–1598), Brill: Leiden. Reusens, Edmond (1876), Article “De Grave, Henri”, BNB 5 127–131. Reusens, Edmond (1889–1892), Documents relatifs à l’Histoire de l’Universite de Louvain (1425–1797), Louvain: Reusens. Reynolds, Ph. L. (2016), How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments. The Sacramental Theology of Marriage from its Medieval Origins to the Council of Trent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, Michael (1967), Thomas Stapleton, JEH 18, 187–199. Roegiers, Jan (1991), Cornelius Jansenius (1565–1576), in: Het bisdom Gent (1559–1991): Vier eeuwen geschiedenis, Michel Cloet, Ludo Collin, and Robrecht Boudens (ed.), Ghent Werkgroep de geschiedenis van het bisdom Gent, 35–50; 540–541. Roegiers, Jan (1997) “Jansénius (Corneille)”, DHGE 26, 942–947. Roegiers, Jan (2003), Le Jansénisme de Louvain à la fin du XVIIe siècle, in: Zeger-Bernard van Espen at the Crossroads of Canon Law, History, Theology and Church-State Relations, Guido Cooman et al. (ed.), Leuven: Peeters 1–17. Roegiers, Jan (2012), The Louvain Faculty of Theology and the Jesuit College, in: The Jesuits of the Low Countries: Identity and Impact (1540–1773). Proceedings of the International Congress at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven (3– 5 December 2009), Rob Faesen/Leo Kenis, Louvain: Peeters, 153–175. Roest, Bert (2000), A History of Franciscan Education (C. 1210–1517), Leiden: Brill. Roest, Bert (2005), Franciscan between Observance and Reformation: The Low Countries (ca. 1400–1600), FS 63, 409–442. Roest, Bert (2014a), Franciscan Religious Instruction in the Low Countries, c. 1520–1560, OGE 85, 292–310. Roest, Bert (2014b), Franciscan School Networks, c. 1450–1650: A Provisional Sketch, in: Franciscan learning, preaching and mission c. 1220–1650: cum scientia sit donum Dei, armatura ad defendendam sanctam fidem catholicam, Bert Roest (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 132–196. Romeo, Giovanni (1998), Esorcisti, confessori e sessualità al femminile nell’Italia della Controriforma, Firenze: Le lettere. Rongry, H (1927–1928), La Vulgate et le concile de Trente, REL 19, 19–31. Roussel, Bernard (2008), La Biblia éditée par Robert Estienne à Paris, en 1532, in: Biblia. Les Bibles en latin au temps des Réformes, Gomez-Géraud/Marie-Christine (ed.), Paris: Presses de l’Universite´ Paris-Sorbonne, 107–129. Rouzet, Anne (1975), Dictionnaire des imprimeurs, libraires et éditeurs des XVe et XVIe siècles dans les limites géographiques de la Belgique actuelle, Nieuwkoop: De Graaf.

Index of the Secondary Literature

285

Rozzo, Ugo (1989), Article “Della Rovere, Giulio”, DBI 37, 353–356. Rückert, Hanns (1926), Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, Bonn: Marcus und Weber. Rummel, Erika (1986), Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament. From Philologist to Theologian, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Rummel, Erika (1989), Erasmus and his Catholic Critics, 2 vol., Nieuwkoop: De Graaf. Rummel, Erika (1999), Jiménez de Cisneros: On the Threshold of Spain’s Golden Age, Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies. Rummel, Erika (2008), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008. Sabbe, Maurits (1989), De Minderbroeders en de Oude Louvainse Universiteit … Tentoonstelling 20 Oktober–18 November 1989, Leuven, K.U.Leuven Faculteit Godgeleerdheid. Salmon, J.H.M. (1991), Catholic Resistance Theory, Ultramontanism, and the Royalist Response, 1580–1620, in: The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700, James H. Burns/Mark Goldie (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 219–253. Sarrión Mora, Adelina (2010), Sexualidad y confesión: La solicitación ante el Tribunal del Santo Oficio (siglos XVI–XIX), Ciudad Real: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Sartori, Paolo (2003), La controversia neotestamentaria tra Frans Titelmans ed Erasmo da Rotterdam (1527–30 ca.). Linee di sviluppo e contenuti, HL 52, 77–135. Sartori, Paolo (2005), Tracce dell’opera di Jacobus Latomus nel Prologus Apologeticus di Frans Titelmans, in: Margarita amicorum, Studi di cultura europea per Agostino Sottili, Fabio Forner et al. (ed.), Milano: Vita e Pensiero 1107–1119. Sartori, Paolo (2008), Frans Titelmans, the Congregation of Montaigu and Biblical Scholarship, in: Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, Erika Rummel (ed.), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 215–223. Scheeben, Matthias Joseph (1882), Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik, Freiburg: Verlag Herder. Schelkens, Karim/Gielis, Marcel (2007), From Driedo to Bellarmine: The Concept of Pure Nature in the 16th Century, Augustiniana 57, 425–448. Schenker, Adrian (2008), The Polyglot Bibles of Antwerp, Paris and London: 1568–1658, in: Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Magne Sæbø et al. (ed.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2 vol., 774–784. Schulze, Victor (1879), Dreizhen Depeschen Contarini’s aus Regensburg an den Cardinal Farnese (1541), ZK 3, 150–184. Schulze, Winfried (1992), Il concetto di “disciplinamento sociale nella prima età moderna” in Gerhard Oestreich, AISIG 18, 371–411. Screech, Michael Andrew (1987), Erasmus and the Concordia of Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ghent: Christian folly and Catholic Orthodoxy”: in: Colloque Erasmien de Liege commémoration du 450e anniversaire de la mort d’Erasme. Etudes rassemblées par Jean-Pierre Massaut, Jean-Pierre Massaut (ed.), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 297–307. Screech, Michael Andrew (1990), The diffusion of Erasmus’s Theology and New Testament, Scholarship in Roman Catholic Circles Despite the Tridentine Index (More on the Role of Cornelius Jansenius (1510–1574), Bishop of Ghent), in: Théorie et pra-

286

Bibliography

tique de l’exégèse: Colloque international sur l’histoire de l’exégèse biblique au XVIe siècle, Irena Backus (ed.), Genève: Droz, 343–353. Screech, Michael Andrew (1990), The diffusion of Erasmus’s Theology and New Testament, Scholarship in Roman Catholic Circles Despite the Tridentine Index (More on the Role of Cornelius Jansenius (1510–1574), Bishop of Ghent), in: Théorie et pratique de l’exégèse: Colloque international sur l’histoire de l’exégèse biblique au XVIe siècle, Irena Backus (ed.), Genève: Droz, 343–353. Servais, Dirk (1885), Histoire Littéraire et bibliographique des Frères Mineurs de l’Observance de St-François en Belgique et dans les Pays-Bas, Antwerp: Van Os/De Wolf. Sheils, William J. (2017), The Gospel, Liturgy and Controversy in the 1590s: Thomas Stapleton’s Promptuaria, in: Early Modern English Catholicism. Identity, Memory and Counter-Reformation, James E. Kelly/Susan Royal (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 189–205. Smith, Lesley (2008), Nicholas of Lyre and Old Testament Interpretation, in: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Magne Sæbø et al. (ed.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 49–63. Soen, Violet (2010), The Loyal Opposition of Jean Vendeville (1527–1592). Contributions to a Contexualized Biography, in: The Quintessence of Lives. Intellectual biographies in the Low Countries presented to Jan Roegiers, Dries Vanysacker (ed.), Turnhout: Brepols, 43–61. Soen, Violet (2012), Reconquista and Reconciliation in the Dutch Revolt: The Campaign of Governor-General Alexander Farnese (1578–1592), JEMH 16 (2012), 1–22. Soen, Violet (2015), Exile Encounters and Cross-border Mobility in Early Modern Borderlands: the Ecclesiastical Province of Cambrai as a Transregional Node (1559–1600), Belgeo 2, 2–13. Soen, Violet (2016), The Beeldenstorm and the Spanish Habsburg response (1566–1570), BMGN 131, 99–120. Soen, Violet/ Soetaert, Alexander/ Verberckmoes, Johann (2015), Verborgen meertaligheid. De katholieke drukpers in de kerkprovincie Kamerijk (1560–1600), Queeste 22, 62–81. Soetaert, Alexander (2016), Printing at the Frontier. The Emergence of a Transregional Book Production in the Ecclesiastical Province of Cambrai (ca. 1560–1659), GP 94, 137– 163. Sorci, Piero (2003), Il messale romano come strumento della tradizione celebrativa, in: Il messale romano. Tradizione, traduzione, adattamento. Atti della XXX Settimana di Studio dell’Associazione Professori di Liturgia, Gazzada, 25–30 agosto 2002, Cesare Giraudo (ed.), Roma: Edizioni Liturgiche, 37–78. Steyaert, Martinus (1742), Opuscula, 6 vols., Louvain: Martinus Van Overbeke. Telle, E. V. (1954), Erasme de Rotterdam et le septième sacrement. Etude d’évangélisme matrimonial au XVIe siècle et contribution à la biographie intellectuelle d’Erasme, Genève: Droz. Tuilier, A. (2006), Les lecteurs royaux après la crise de 1534. Un dessein contrarié, in: A. Tuilier (ed.), Histoire du Collège de France, vol. 1: La création 1530–1560, Paris: Fayard, 187–208. Ubaldi, Ubaldo (1882–1884), Introductio in sacram Scripturam, Rome: Propaganda fide. Vaccari, Alberto (1937), Historia Exegeseos, in: Institutiones Biblicae Scholis Accomodatae, Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum.

Index of the Secondary Literature

287

Vaccari, Alberto (1946), Esegeti ed Esegesi al Concilio di Trento, Biblica 27, 320–337. Vaccari, Alberto (1952), Scritti di erudizione e di filologia, vol. II: Per la storia del testo e dell’esegesi biblica, Roma: Ed. di Storia e Letteratura. Van Beuningen, Petrus Theodorus (1966), Wilhelmus Lindanus als inquisiteur en Bisschop: Bijdrage tot zijn biografie (1525–1576), Assen: van Gorcum. Van der Essen, Leon (1945), L’Université de Louvain (1425–1940), Bruxelles: Ed. universitaires. van der Linden, Herman (1931), Article “Sasbout (Adam)”, BNB 21, 422–424. Van der Meersch, A. (1873), Article “Colvener (Georges)”, BNB 4, 311–313. Van Eijl, Edmond (1953), Les censures des universités d’Alcalá et de Salamanque et la censure du pape Pie V contre Michael Baius, 1565–1567, RHE 48, 719–776. Van Eijl, Edmond (1955), L’Interprétation de la bulle de Pie V portant la condamnation de Baius, RHE 50, 499–542. Van Eijl, Edmond (1978), The Foundation of the University of Louvain, in: The Universities in the Late Middle Ages, Jozef IJsewijn/Jacques Paquet (ed.), Louvain: Peeters, 29–41. Van Eijl, Edmond (1994), La controverse louvaniste autour de la grâce et du libre arbitre à la fin du XVIe siècle, in: L’Augustinisme à l’ancienne faculté de théologie de Louvain, Mathijs Lamberigts/Leo Kenis (ed.), Leuven: Peeters, 207–282. Van Gelderen, Martin (1993), The Political Thought of the Dutch Revolt 1555–1590, Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press. van Liere, F. (2012), The Latin Bible, c. 900 to the Council of Trent, 1546, in: The New Cambridge History of the Bible, R. Marsden/A. Matter (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 93–109. Vanneste, Alfred (1977), Nature et grâce dans la théologie de Baius, in: Facultas S. Theologiae Lovaniensis 1432–1797: Bijdragen tot haar geschiendenis / Contributions to its History / Contributions à son histoire, Edmund J.M. van Eijl (ed.), Leuven: University Press, 327–350. Vanneste, Alfred (1994), Le De prima hominis justitia de M. Baius: une relecture critique, in: L’Augustinisme à l’ancienne Faculté de théologie de Louvain, Mathijs Lamberigts/Leo Kenis, Leuven: Peeters, 123–166. Viallet, Ludovic (2016), The Name of God, the Name of Saints, the Name of the Order: Reflections on the ‘Franciscan’ Identity during the Observant Period, in: Religious Orders and Religious Identity Formation, ca. 1420–1620 Discourses and Strategies of Observance and Pastoral Engagement, Bert Roest/Johanneke Uphoff (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 172–190. Voet, Leon (1969–1972), The Golden Compasses. The History of the House of PlantinMoretus, Amsterdam: Vangendt & Co. Voet, Leon (1980), The Plantin Press (1555–1589): A Bibliography of the Works Printed and Published by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp and Leiden, Amsterdam: Van Hoeve. Vosté, Jacques-Marie (1946), La Volgata al Concilio di Trento, Biblica 27, 301–319. Vosté, Jacques-Marie (1948), Medieval Exegesis, CBQ 10, 229–246. Vosté, Jacques-Marie (1947), The Vulgate and the Council of Trent, CBQ 9, 9–25. Waite, Gary K. (1987), The Anabaptist Movement in Amsterdam and the Netherlands, 1531–1535: An Initial Investigation into its Genesis and Social Dynamics, SCJ 18, 249– 265.

288

Bibliography

Walraff, Martin (2016), Basel 1516: Erasmus’ Edition of the New Testament, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wicks, Jared (2008), Catholic Old Testament Interpretation in the Reformation and Early Confessional Eras, in: Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Magne Sæbø et al. (ed.), 2 vol., 617–648, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Wilkinson, Robert J. (2007), The Kabbalistic Scholars of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible, Brill: Leiden. Williams, George H. (1997), The Radical Reformation. Kirksville: Truman State University Press. Wünsch, Dietrich (1983), Evangelienharmonien im Reformationszeitalter: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Darstellungen, De Gruyter, Berlin. Wursten, Dick (2011), François Vatable, So Much More Than a ‘Name’, BHR 73, 557–591.

Index of Names, Places and Matters

Abbey of Park, near Louvain 29, 153 Adimantus 243 Adriano Castellesi 13 Adrian VI (Adriaan Floriszoon Boeyens) 29 Aesop 236 Agelli, Antonio 15, 20 Agricola, Rudolf 13 Albert VII, Archduke of Austria 175 Alcalá de Henares 24, 31, 34, 150, 197 Alcázar, Luis 15 Alexander II (Anselmo da Baggio) 219 f. Alexandria 11 Alfonso de Zamora 13 Allen, William 37, 160 Amandus of Zierikzee 29, 44, 258 Ambrose 54, 102, 179, 237 Amsterdam 44, 83, 120 Andrea de Vega 19 Anglicans 24 Anglo Calvinists 205, 228 f., 261 Anjou Bible 134 Ansidei, Balthasar 56–58, 60 f. Antioch 11 Antwerp 14, 32, 36 f., 44, 50, 52 f., 66–69, 71, 120, 157, 161, 175 f., 207, 213, 216, 221 f., 224, 228, 238, 248 f. Arnobius of Sicca 62 Arras 34, 36 f. Artois 36 Augsburg 229 Augustine 22, 33, 38, 54, 62, 79, 81, 85 f., 89–92, 102, 104 f., 109, 111 f., 118 f., 129 f., 142, 146–153, 155–159, 161–163,

165, 170 f., 179, 182 f., 186, 189, 192, 196 f., 200, 217, 232–235, 237, 243, 260 f. Augustinian Hermits 28 f., 32, 41 Baechem, Nicolaas ‘of Egmond’ 31 Baianism 149, 153, 163 Baines, Ralph 14, 17 Bañez, Domingo 19, 153 Baronius, Caesar 68 Bartolomé de Medina 19 Basel 23, 29 Becanus, Martin 238 Bede the Venerable 54, 62, 80, 106, 179 Beeldenstorm 35, 208, 251 Bellarmine, Robert 15, 19, 42, 52, 72, 150– 153, 175, 192, 194, 198 f. Bellère, Jean 207 Bellère, Pierre 222 Benito, Arias Montano 15, 50, 55 Bergagne, Antoine-Marie 75, 121, 207 Bernard of Clairvaux 102 Bessarion, Basilios 23, 134 Beza, Theodor 73, 161, 179, 192 f. Bingen am Rhein 49 Birckmann, Arnold I 45, 121, 207 Bobadilla, Nicholas 18 Bochart, Samuel 18 Boetendaal 44, 120 Boethius, Severinus 167 Bogart, Jean 154 Bonfrère, Jacques 15 Borromeo, Carlo 210 f. Brabant 28, 37 Braun, George 202, 206, 215–221, 255

290 Breda 36 Bredenbach, Matthias 63 Brenz, Johann 108 Brielle 36 Brinkley, Stephen 228 Bucer, Martin 75, 92, 94, 140, 179 Burgundian Netherlands 28 f. Buxtorf, Johannes 18 Byzantine Empire 16 f., 23, 227 Calvin, John 75, 85, 100, 108, 150, 160–162, 164, 166 f., 177, 179, 183, 185 f., 188 f., 192, 223, 226, 237, 239–244, 246 f. Calvinism 24, 28, 33, 38, 161 f., 180, 202, 208, 229, 231, 249, 255 f., 260 f. Calvinists 21, 35, 135, 226, 228, 231, 234, 249, 254 Cambrai 34, 37 Camerarius, Philip 238 Campion, Edmund 228 f. Canisius, Peter 44 Carmelites 29, 49 Caselius, Martin 21 Cassiodorus 62 Castell, Edmund 83 Castellesi, Adriano 13 Castellion, Sébastien 83, 237 Castiglione, Battista 41 Chalcedon, Council of 13 f. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor 33 Chemnitz, Martin 161, 232–234 Chromatius of Aquileia 179 Cicero 223, 237 Clavius, Christophorus 18 Clement V (Raymond Bertrand de Got) 13 Clement VIII (Ippolito Aldobrandini) 38, 65 f., 120, 153, 196, 204 Clercx, Tilman 75 Cocceius, Johannes 18 Codex Carafianus 25, 65 Coimbra 100 Collegium Trilingue 30–33, 52, 258 Cologne 24, 28 f., 33 f., 45 f., 54, 94, 100, 102 f., 119 f., 205–207, 213, 215, 217–219, 255 Colvenerius George 67 f.

Index of Names, Places and Matters

Constantine V ‘Copronym’, Byzantine Emperor 227 Constantinople 11, 17 Contarini, Gasparo 92, 94–99, 105, 109 f., 123 Cordier, Balthasar 15 Cornelio Musso 19 Corsendonk 47 Courtrai 130, 202, 205, 215 f. Crimea 215 Cyril of Alexandria 179, 190 Cyprian 102 Da Mula, Marco Antonio ‘Amulio’ 43, 258 Davy, Jacques du Perron 19 De Bay, Michael ‘Baius’ 26 f., 34, 38, 129, 149–151, 153, 197–199, 238, 260 De Castro, León 55 f. De Corte, Peter 43 De Vio, Thomas ‘Cajetan’ 14 f., 17, 24, 179 De Zúñiga, Diego 13 Decius, Roman Emperor 227 Delft 74, 208 Denis van Rijkel ‘the Carthusian’ 13, 179 Devotio moderna 32 Diagoras of Melos ‘the Atheist’ 223, 237 Diest 44, 120 Do Casal, Gaspar 100 Dominicans 19, 28 f., 153, 198, 257 Domitian, Roman Emperor 227 Don Juan of Austria 36 Don Luis de Requesens 36 Doré, Pierre 44 Douai 19, 21 f., 34, 36–38, 67, 71, 151–153, 159–161, 175, 196–198, 226, 238, 257 Double justice 26, 91–97, 101 f., 105, 108– 112, 119–122, 124–126, 128, 199, 214 f., 261 Double justification 92, 94–98, 100–105, 149, 260 Driedo, John 24, 31–33, 39, 41, 111–114, 116–119, 124–126, 128, 150, 258, 261 Drieux, Remi 55 Du Bois, Nicholas 199 Dudley Robert, Count of Leicester 37

Index of Names, Places and Matters

Durand, Guillaume Dury, John 229

218–220

Eck, Johannes 92 Egypt 132, 211, 251 Elio Antonio de Nebrija 13, 17 Elizabeth I, Queen of England 37, 160, 205, 226, 228 f., 231, 255 f., 261 Ellenbog, Nicholas 30 England 24, 28, 32, 35–37, 82, 159–161, 228, 231, 251, 255, 258, 261 Erasmus of Rotterdam 13, 17, 23, 28–32, 41, 44, 47, 49, 57, 60 f, 75, 83, 129, 179, 199, 237, 258, 261 Estienne, Robert 34, 42 f., 49, 53, 57–60, 62, 73, 78, 140, 259 Eugene IV (Gabriele Condulmer) 28 Eustachius ‘of Zichem’ 31 Euthymius Zigabenus 42, 73, 130, 140 f., 146, 179, 184, 189, 196, 234 Faber, Peter 18, 61 Farnese, Alexander 36 f., 110 Felice da Prato 13 Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba 35 f. Fernando Quirino, de Salazar 15 Ferrara-Florence, Council of 23 Fifth Session of the Council of Trent 24, 33, 201, 216, 262 Flanders 37 Folengo, Giovanni Battista 63 Foreiro, Francisco 15, 20 Fourth Session of the Council of Trent 19, 24, 49, 63, 119, 201 France 19, 23 f., 28, 32, 34, 36 f., 120, 258 Francis, Duke of Anjou 37 Francis I, King of France 31 Franciscans 12, 19, 26, 28 f., 91 f., 94, 108, 122, 126, 128, 149, 197, 210, 260 Francisco de Toledo 15, 19, 179 Frankfurt 83 Free will 26 f., 83, 85 f., 91, 129 f., 143, 145 f., 150 f., 154, 158, 161, 163 f., 166 f., 169–171, 173, 177, 180 f., 183, 185, 187 f.,

291 191 f., 196–198, 206 f., 212, 214 f., 226, 234, 239–242, 246, 249, 254, 257, 259 f. Froben, Johan 29 f. Fromondus, Libertus 199 Funchal 100 Gagny, de Jean 14, 17, 102 Geldern 49 Gembloux 48 Génébrard, Gilbert 15 Geneva 19, 231, 237 Gerhard, Johann 238 Germany → Holy Roman Empire 23, 32, 35, 66, 228, 251, 256, 258 Ghent 36, 131, 205, 215–218, 248 Giberti, Gian Matteo 210 f. Giles of Viterbo 111 Giustiniani, Agostino 13 Giustiniani, Benedetto 15 Golden Age 9–15, 17–24, 27, 39, 82, 92, 199, 257, 259, 261 f. Gonzaga, Ercole 95 Gordon, James 15 Gottschalk of Orbais 85 Grace 26 f., 83, 85 f., 89, 91, 97, 107, 109– 118, 123, 127–130, 137, 140, 143–147, 149, 151, 154–156, 158 f., 161, 163, 170, 173, 175, 180, 182, 184–193, 196–199, 206 f., 213 f., 220, 224 f., 232–235, 241– 243, 246, 249, 251, 257, 259–261 Graz 228 Greece 251 Gregorio de Valencia 19 Gregory the Great 54, 80, 141 f., 226, 263 Gregory XIII (Ugo Buoncompagni) 18, 34, 150, 197 Gregory XIV (Niccolò Sfondrati) 64 Gregory XV (Alessandro Ludovisi) 211 Gretser Jacob 19 Gropper, Johann 26, 33, 92, 94 f., 99–105, 108 f., 111 f., 115–122, 125 f., 128 Grotius, Hugo 18, 83 Guelders 37 Gutenberg, Johann 13, 23 Gymnich, Johann 216

292 Hadrian, Roman Emperor 227 Haimo of Auxerre 62 Hainaut 36 Hamelius, Johannes 38, 151 Harlemius, Johann 50, 52, 54–56, 80 Hasselius 121 Havetius, Antoine 34 Heimericus de Campo 29 Hessels, John 150, 153–158, 197, 199, 258, 260, 262 Henry III, King of France 37 Henry IV of Navarra, King of France 37 Henten, John 24–26, 34, 39, 42–44, 50, 52– 54, 57, 59, 61, 63, 74, 76, 78, 80–82, 134, 258 f. Hessels, John 15, 25–27, 38, 86, 129, 131, 149 f., 153–159, 197, 200, 258, 260, 262 Hieronymus Varlenius 62 f. Hilary of Poitier 54, 89, 102, 140, 179, 226 Hofmann, Melchior 33 Holland 35 f., 74, 76, 161 Holy Roman Empire → Germany 23, 32, 35, 66, 228, 251, 256, 258 Homer 121 Huguenots 24, 34 Hulst 130 Hunnaeus, Augustinus 50, 134 Ignatius of Loyola 18 Ingolstadt 221 f., 228 Isabella Clara Eugenia 175 Isidoro da Chiari 14, 17 Italy 16, 19, 23 f., 44, 65, 203, 211 Iulius, Gaius Solinus 227, 236 Jacques Masson ‘Latomus’ 31, 33, 150 Jaime Pérez de Valencia 109, 111 Jansenius, Cornelius of Ghent 15, 19, 24 f., 26 f., 34, 38, 61, 63, 86, 129–149, 154, 174, 179, 197, 199 f., 202, 205–207, 215–218, 220–222, 224, 238, 247, 254–256, 258, 260 f. Jansenius, Cornelius of Ypres 129, 199 Jansonius, Jacob 199 Jean de La Haye 15, 17, 21

Index of Names, Places and Matters

Jerome 23, 54, 62, 65, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 130, 133, 140–142, 179, 226, 258 Jerome de Busleyden 30 Jerónimo de Azambuja ‘Oleaster’ 14, 17 Jerusalem 11, 141, 207, 227, 239, 241 f. Jesuits → Society of Jesus 12, 17–19, 21, 24, 38, 149, 151, 153, 160, 176, 198, 229, 238, 264 Jesus Christ 21, 75–77, 79–81, 87–90, 96– 112, 114 f., 117, 122–124, 136–142, 144– 147, 155–158, 162–164, 166, 169–171, 174, 177, 181–185, 187–190, 193–196, 201, 204, 208, 220, 223–225, 232, 237, 239, 241–243 Jiménez, Francisco de Cisneros 13, 20, 22, 30 f. John, the Baptist 140, 239 John, the Evangelist 130, 175, 239 John Chrysostom 75, 102, 130, 140, 146, 156, 179, 181 f., 196, 234, 237 John Duns Scotus 165 John IV, Duke of Brabant 28 John of Damascus 191 f., 234, 246 John Scottus Eriugena 85 John VIII Paleologos, Byzantine Emperor 23 Josel, Adrian 30 Juan de Mariana 15 Juàn de Pineda 15 Juan de Torquemada 13 Julius III (Giovanni Maria Ciocchi del Monte) 18, 46, 49 Julius von Pflug 92, 105 Justification 26, 91–95, 100–105, 107–122, 124, 128, 143, 149 f., 182, 197 f., 205, 215, 225, 233, 243, 251, 257, 261 Kürschner, Konrad ‘Pellikan’

13

Ladrón de Guevara, Pedro Pacheco 41 Laynez, Diego 18 Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques 17, 23, 44, 61, 179 Leiden 207 f., 213 Leiria 100 Leo the Great 80 f., 102

293

Index of Names, Places and Matters

Leo V the Armenian, Byzantine Emperor 227 Leo XIII (Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci) 11 León de Castro 55 Lessius, Leonard 27, 38, 151–153, 197–199, 238 Liège 34 Lloret, Jerónimo 58 Locke, John 231 Lodewijk de Dieu 18 Lorenzo Valla 13, 17, 23, 28 f., 44, 61, 75, 83 Louvain 9 f., 19, 22, 24–34, 36–39, 41–45, 47, 49–56, 60 f., 64 f., 67, 70, 73–76, 82 f., 85 f., 92, 94, 101–108, 119 f., 122, 129– 131, 134, 143, 149–154, 157–161, 163, 192, 196–199, 205–211, 213, 229, 238, 248, 258–260 Low Countries 9, 11 f., 23 f., 27–30, 32, 34 f., 39, 44, 50 f., 70, 92, 120, 131, 135, 161, 197 f., 202, 249, 255, 257, 260–263 Lucas, Francis ‘of Bruges’ 15, 19, 24–27, 36, 38 f., 49–64, 67–74, 77–83, 86, 175– 198, 200, 202 f., 205–207, 238, 247–256, 258–262 Luis de Tena 19 Luke, the Evangelist 130, 139 f., 143 f., 148 f., 175 f., 232, 253 Luther, Martin 23, 30–32, 38, 41, 76, 93 f., 111, 129, 140, 143, 149, 152, 154, 161, 226, 259 f. Lutherans 21, 24, 75, 100, 120, 124–126, 226, 234, 238 Machiavelli, Niccolò 231 Madrid 35 Maes, Andreas 15, 20, 83 Maes, Jean 208 Maldonado, Juan 15, 179 Malines 34 f., 49, 153 Malvenda, Tomás 15 Mamezia, Jeanne 247 f. Manasseh, King of Juda 227 Manicheans 243, 247 Margaret of Parma, Governor of the Netherlands 35, 49

Marini, Leonardo 204 Mark, the Evangelist 139, 145, 175, 239 Martin V (Oddone Colonna) 28 Mary, Duchess of Burgundy 29 Mary, mother of Jesus 21, 29, 80 f., 239, 247, 253 f. Mary I Tudor, Queen of England 160 Mathijszoon, Jan 207 Matthew, the Evangelist 26 f., 57–59, 68, 72, 86, 130, 135 140–143, 145–147, 149 f., 154–159, 169–172, 175, 181–188, 191– 193, 195 f., 200, 206–208, 210 f., 218, 222, 224, 226, 230, 232, 234, 238–240, 259–261 Maurice of Orange 37 Maximianus, Roman Emperor 227, 229 Maximillian of Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor 29 Maximinus, Roman Emperor 227 Mehmed II, Sultan 17 Melanchthon, Philip 92, 108, 161 Mende 218 Menochio, Giovanni Stefano 15, 17 Mesopotamia 251 Milan 205, 228 Molina, Luis de 19, 38, 153, 158–160, 162– 175, 187 f., 192, 198 f., 207, 222, 226, 238–240, 244–246, 255 Moretus, Balthasar 67, 71 Moretus, John 66–70, 222 Morin, Jean 15 Mosellanus, Petrus 31 Moses 77, 137 f., 141, 156, 208 f. Münster, Sebastian 60 f., 179 Musculus, Wolfgang 161 Namur 34, 37, 49 Nero, Roman Emperor 227 Netherlands 19, 28, 32–38 Nicaea, Council of 13 Nicholas of Kues ‘Cusanus’ 13 Nicholas of Lyra 17, 137, 179 Nicholas V (Tommaso Parentucelli) Oecumenius 42 Origen 21, 75, 102, 179, 226 Ottomans → Turks 17, 36 f., 251

13

294 Oud-Turnhout Overijssel 37 Oxford 160

Index of Names, Places and Matters

47, 49

Pagnini, Sante 14, 17, 23, 41, 55 f., 63, 81, 83 Paris 14, 24, 28 f., 31, 33 f., 60, 78, 120, 153, 206, 221 f., 224, 228, 238 Paul III (Alessandro Farnese) 18, 24 Paul IV (Gian Pietro Carafa) 34, 45, 49, 211 Paul V (Camillo Borghese) 153, 261 Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini) 25, 228 Paul of Tarsus 24, 26 f., 77 f., 86–89, 91, 94, 106, 116, 118 f., 122 f., 125, 128, 140 f., 143, 148, 151, 153 f., 161, 163, 171, 198, 208, 213 f., 218, 239, 245, 250 Pavone, Francesco 19 Pelagians 233 f., 243, 247 Pereira, Benedict 15 Perrenot, Antoine de Granvelle 35, 110 Perugia 56 Petrarch, Francesco 23 Petrus de Rivo 29 Phaedrus 236 Philip II, King of Spain 34–38, 50, 132, 135, 198, 229, 248 Philippicus Bardanes, Byzantine Emperor 227 Pico, Giovanni della Mirandola 13 Pighius, Albert of Kampen 92, 94 f., 99– 103, 105, 108 f., 112, 120 Pirckheimer, Willibald 30 Pistorius, Johann ‘the Elder’ 92 Pius IV (Giovanni Angelo Medici) 204 Pius V (Michele Ghislieri) 27, 34, 53, 150, 197, 204 f. Pius IX (Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti) 21 Plantin, Christopher 50–53, 55 f., 64, 66– 68, 71, 82, 134, 175–177, 196, 216, 222, 247, 263 Pliny ‘the Elder’ 179, 236 f. Pont-à-Mousson 228 Poole, Matthew 18, 83 Portugal 42

Predestination 26 f., 85 f., 89–91, 143–145, 147 f., 152, 154, 158 f., 161–164, 171–174, 180 f., 183–187, 189, 196–198, 206 f., 215, 234, 240, 243, 249, 254 f., 259–261 Prosper of Aquitaine 89, 157 f. Protagoras 223 Quaresmio, Francesco

15

Rabanus Maurus 54, 80 Radulphus Flaviacensis 54 Ravesteyn, Josse ‘Tiletanus’ 33 f., 150 Regensburg, Diet of 92, 94 f., 99–101, 105, 110, 261 Reims 34 Rescius, Rutgerus 125 Reuchlin, Johann 13, 23 Reyneri, Cornelius ‘Goudanus’ 50 Rome 11, 20, 24, 53, 56, 64, 68, 141, 153, 160, 198, 204, 206, 228, 259 Rouen 34, 228 Sadoleto, Jacopo 15, 24 Salamanca 19, 34, 55, 150, 197 Salmerón, Alfonso 18 f. Sanchez, Gaspar 15 Sasbout, Adam 15, 17, 25–27, 74–78, 80 f., 86, 92, 94 f., 101, 108, 112, 116, 121–128, 149, 197, 200, 202 f., 205–215, 222, 224, 238, 247, 254, 256, 258, 260–262 Scandinavia 24, 32 Schwarz, Peter ‘Niger’ 13 Scythia 251 Seneca 223, 237 Septimius Severus, Roman Emperor 227 Septuagint 14, 17, 41, 77, 79, 81 f., 87 Serarius, Nicolaus 15 Seripando, Girolamo 25, 41, 43, 93, 108– 111, 258 Servetus, Michael 231, 237 Simão Rodrigues de Azevedo 18 Siméon Marotte de Muis 15 Sirleto, Guglielmo 25, 51, 53–58, 60 f., 204, 259 Sixtine Vulgate 25, 82

295

Index of Names, Places and Matters

Sixth Session of the Council of Trent 14, 95, 162 Sixto-Clementine Vulgate 14, 17, 25 f., 42, 51, 64–73, 81 f., 177 f., 196, 204, 206, 259 Sixtus of Siena 15, 19 Sixtus V (Felice Peretti da Montalto) 25, 49, 64, 153 Somnius, Michiel 222 Spanish Netherlands 22, 28, 32, 34, 36, 135, 160, 175, 202, 208, 211, 256–258 St. Omer 36 f., 50, 64, 68, 73, 175 f., 247 f., 253 Stapleton, Thomas 19, 25, 27, 37 f., 86, 153, 159–167, 169–174, 179, 192, 197 f., 199 f., 202 f., 205–207, 221–244, 246 f., 249, 254–256, 260–262 Steenvoorde 35 Steuco, Agostino ‘Eugubinus’ 17, 24, 63 Suárez, Francisco 19 Sucket, Antony 30 Summenhart, Konrad 13 Syria 251 Tanner, Adam 19 Tapper, Ruard 33 f., 38, 42, 103–108, 131, 150, 197, 260 Theophylact 102, 130, 146, 179, 182, 189 f., 196 Thérouanne 34 Thomas Aquinas 20, 62, 99, 122, 149, 166, 179, 196, 244 f. Tienen 44, 120 Tirinus, James 15 Titelmans, Frans 14, 31, 44, 75, 179, 258 Tongerlo 130 Tournai 34, 37, 59, 70, 205, 216, 218–220 Trent, Council of 11 f., 14, 16, 18–21, 23, 25–27, 33 f., 41–43, 52, 65, 82, 93, 95, 100, 105, 108 f., 111, 115, 119, 131, 150, 154, 210, 216, 220, 233, 257 f., 260, 262 Triest, Antoine 217 Turks → Ottomans 17, 36 f., 251 Tyndale, William 30 f. Union of Arras 36 Union of Utrecht 36 f.

Ursin, Johann Heinrich Utrecht 29, 34, 37

18

Valens, Roman Emperor 227 Valentinian II, Roman Emperor 227 Valerianus, Roman Emperor 227 Van Bukentop, Henri 75, 208 Van den Driesche, Johannes ‘Drusius’ 18, 83 Van den Steen, Cornelius Cornelissen, ‘a Lapide’ 15, 19 Van der Eycken, John Leonard ‘Hasselius’ 33 f., 121, 150, 199 Van der Keele, Martinus ‘of Turnhout’ 29 Van der Lindt, Wilhelm ‘Lindanus’ 29, 52, 55 f., 61 f., 153 Van Est, Willem Hessels ‘Estius’ 15, 17, 19, 36, 38, 71, 161, 191 Van Grave, Bartholomew 42 Van Grave, Henri 49 Van Nispen, Nicolas 30 Van Vessem, Bartholomew 30 Vande Velde, Francis 208 Varenacker, Jan 29 Vatable, François 14 f., 17, 61, 83 Vatican, II Council of 22, 25 Vatican 49, 54–59, 65–68, 70, 72, 82 Velpius, Rutgerus 207 Verhasselt, Martin 106, 108 Vienna 228 Vienne, Council of 13 Vilnius 228 Vincentius Theoderici ‘of Haarlem’ 31 Vosmeer, Michiel 75 f., 121, 207 f. Vulgate 13 f., 16–21, 24–26, 28, 30–32, 34, 39, 41–44, 47 f., 50–55, 60, 63–74, 78, 80, 82 f., 85, 87, 91, 119, 133 f., 176, 178, 200– 202, 206, 258–260 Walton, Brian 82 f. Whitaker, William 228 f. Wild, John 14 f., 17 William of Orange 35–37, 55 Würzburg 228 Xenophon

237

296 Yolande de Soissons

Index of Names, Places and Matters

62

Zedekiah, King of Juda 227 Zeeland 36 Zegers, Nicholas Tacitus 24, 26, 31, 39, 44– 50, 61, 74–76, 82 f., 86, 92, 94 f., 99, 101,

108, 111–120, 122, 124–126, 128, 149, 197, 214, 258–261 Zierikzee 36 Zwingli, Huldrych 161