De locis theologicis

The authority of the saints is now to be established for us in the sixth place; heretics, especially the Lutherans, try to cast it down from its rank. First, they argue from many testimonies of St. Augustine, which Gratian gathered in 9. dist. decre. from these sources: ex prooemio libri tertii de tri.; ex lib. ad Vincen. victo. 2; ex epistola ad Hier. 19; ex epistola item altera ad Marcelli. 7; ex epistola rursum ad Vincen. 48; ex epistola quoque alia ad Fortuna. III; and ex lib. denique 2. de bap. contra Dona. cap. 3. From these they argue that whatever the ancient saints assert is uncertain. For in all these passages Augustine consistently says the same thing: apart from the sacred authors who wrote the canonical books, all others, however holy and learned they may be, are to be read in such a way that what they assert is not to be considered true merely because they themselves thought so, but because they could persuade us of it either by the testimony of the sacred authors or by probable reasoning. It is therefore lawful to think otherwise than they did and, while preserving the respect owed to them, to reject and disapprove something in their writings. If we believe that this testimony of St. Augustine is true, so consistently repeated in so many passages without obscurity, we must admit that no firm argument can be drawn from the saints’ authority to strengthen the doctrines of faith and theology. St. Thomas, confirmed by the authority of St. Augustine, plainly bears witness to this I. parte q. I. ar. 8. ad 2. arg., as follows: “Sacred doctrine argues necessarily from the authority of canonical Scripture, but argues probably from the authority of other doctors of the Church.” He also gives the reason: our faith rests on the revelation made to those who wrote the canonical books, not on any revelation that may have been made to other doctors. If these two most distinguished witnesses are disregarded, and the reasoning of St. Thomas too, this same point can certainly be confirmed by other arguments that must not be disregarded. For if any falsehood were found in a canonical book, as we argued in a certain earlier passage, the certainty of the whole book would be destroyed. Since, then, one falsehood or another may be found in the books of holy writers, even concerning matters of faith, it follows that we are not obliged to believe the holy writers with certainty. “I know,” says Jerome (ep. 82), “that I regard the apostles differently from other commentators: they always speak the truth, while these, as men, sometimes err.” Moreover, our opponents want to establish something greater by their argument, without discussing each author’s authority, which is known well enough to be uncertain. They claim that the holy writers, even when most of them agree in the same opinion, can provide probable but not certain belief. For many of them asserted that all parts of this world were not created, adorned, and completed all on the same day, but over many days. Basil certainly asserts this in homilia 2 Exameron and those that follow; Eusebius, at the beginning of his Chronographia; Chrysostom, homilia 2 super Genesim; Damascene, lib. 2 of his Theology; and Ambrose, lib. 1 Exameron, cap. 7.

Greg. 32. moralium cap. 10 also says so. Mag. senten. in 2. dist. 12. et 13. likewise cites Jerome in this view. He could also easily mention Bede, Rabanus Strabo, and other men of this kind, who understood in the common sense that the works recounted in Geneseos I. cap. were created on six successive days. Yet this common agreement of the saints supplies theologians with no certain argument; Augustine’s opinion, opposed to all the others, has always been regarded as probable in the Church. Therefore, no firm argument is drawn from the common opinion of the saints to confirm theological conclusions or even dogmas of faith. We can give another example of the same matter. Most of the holy writers taught that Moses, while living in this mortal body, did not see the nature of God openly and, as the saying goes, face to face. Hier. ad Damasum papam in sextum cap. Isaiae; Greg. Nazanzenus 2. lib. suae Theologiae; D. Greg. 18. moralium cap. 36; Chrys. homilia 14. in Ioannem; Cyrillus lib. I. in Ioannem cap. 22; Evaris. Papa in I. sua epistola decreta; Dio. in lib. de mystica Theo. cap. I; and Orig. lib. I. periar. c. 4. Yet Augustine’s contrary opinion has not only not been rejected but is also considered most probable among theologians. Thus nothing certain is established in theology by the common agreement of the saints; this can also be confirmed by the following argument. All the saints who happened to mention the matter asserted with one voice that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin. Ambr. astruit super psal. 118. 6; Aug. super Psalmum 34. in illum versiculum, Ego autem, cum mihi molesti essent, etc., et lib. secundo de baptismo parvulorum capit. 24. et 10. super Genesim, ad literam capit. 18 et lib. 53. contra Iulianum cap. 9; Chry. super Matthae.; Eus. Emis. in 2. concione Nativitatis Domini; Remigius super Psalmum vicesimum primum; and Maximus in sermone de Assumptione Beatae virginis. Beda in homilia super Missus est; Anselmus in lib. cur deus homo cap. 16; Bernard. in epistola ad Lugdunenses. 174; Erardus episcopus, et martyr in concione quadam de Nativitate Beatae virginis; sanctus Antonius Paduanus in concione etiam de Nativitate eiusdem sanctae virginis; sanctus Bernardinus in sermonum suorum opere tertio in tractatu de Beata virgine concione 4; Divus Bonaventura 3. senten. distinctio. 3. quaestio. I. artic. 2; Divus Thom. 3. parte. quaest. 27. articu. 2; Divus Vincen. in sermone de Conceptione Beatae virginis; Divus Anton. I. parte titu. 8; Damas. lib. 3. sententiarum suarum; and Hugo de Sancto Victore de sacram. parte 2. cap. 4. Although no saint opposed them, an argument drawn from the authority of them all is nevertheless weak; indeed, the contrary opinion is defended in the Church both probably and piously. Here is the Achilles’ argument with which Erasmus thinks he cannot be overwhelmed even by the testimony of all the saints, if he should at some time oppose them all. This reasoning also supports his view: all the saints, except the sacred authors who wrote the canonical books, composed their writings by the human spirit. For if they too spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, nothing would seem to prevent their books from being numbered among the canonical books. This, then, is a weak place to appeal to the authority of the saints. Human truth cannot be firm and certain, since every man is a liar. Osiander vero. I. lib. Anno. in armoniam evangelicam, adds this argument: all ancient commentators from the time of the apostles refer what Matthew says about Christ

“Out of Egypt I called my son,” in the genuine literal sense to Israel, but allegorically to Christ. Yet, as he says, allegory, however it is devised, cannot be established; wherever one turns, nothing seems similar except that both were in Egypt. He therefore contends that the literal sense from the beginning of the chapter concerns the Lord Christ, who is King of Israel and is deservedly compared to the dawn. If all the saints err in the exposition of Sacred Scripture, their authority certainly cannot provide theologians with a firm argument. These are the arguments with which our opponents try to attack and overthrow this position.