De locis theologicis

the argument from faculties contained in the natural light does not supply certain arguments, but carries only as much force as reason, in agreement with nature, persuades. First, the holy authors were not so intent on investigating philosophical doctrines that they did not either set aside the books of the philosophers, in order to devote themselves wholly to divine wisdom, or sometimes greet them only from the threshold. For Ruffinus, libro ecclesiasticae historiae suae secundo. cap. 9, and Jerome in prooemio commentariorum. 3. lib. super epistolam ad Galat, report that Gregory Nazianzen and Basil spent thirteen years setting aside all books of secular writers and devoting themselves only to the volumes of Sacred Scripture. Jerome says: “It is more than fifteen years since any author of pagan literature has come into my hands; and if anything from them happens while

we speak to slip in, we recall it as one recalls the dreams of long ago through a haze.” And shortly afterward, speaking of our studies, he says: ‘Who now reads Aristotle? How many know Plato’s books, or even his name? Idle old men scarcely recall them in their corners. But the whole world speaks of our country folk and fishermen; the entire world resounds with them.’” Thus far he. I need offer no more examples, since this is clearer than to require many. Moreover, some of the ancient saints had little or no knowledge of Physics and Metaphysics; others were largely Platonists before they converted to the faith. Therefore, when they encounter philosophical questions, they either follow popular and rhetorical opinions or introduce into the Christian school opinions they had received from the Platonists. Thus learned men sometimes detect errors among the ancient saints, insofar as human philosophy is concerned. It would be easy to give examples of this, but I do not wish even in these small matters to point out the faults of our ancestors. Second conclusion. The authority of one or two saints, even in matters pertaining to Sacred Scripture and the doctrine of faith, can provide a probable argument, but not a firm one. To despise and treat it as worthless is impudent; to revere it and regard it as certain is wholly imprudent. This conclusion is demonstrated by that plain argument, which admits of no answer. Since each of the saints—except those who wrote the canonical books—spoke with a human spirit and sometimes erred even about matters later shown to pertain to faith, it is clear that such authority cannot establish certain belief. Here we must admonish those who, having received no instruction in theology, turn immediately after their so-called humane letters to reading the ancient saints. Not everything they read there should be approved. No one should be misled into thinking that, if Ambrose or Jerome did or said something contrary to the custom and doctrine of our time, he may do the same. First, certain matters were not then defined in the Church as we now see them defined. Second, those men had obtained a certain license to act and speak through their great and divine virtues, a license that must not be granted indiscriminately to everyone. And if they had lived in our age, they would certainly have acted and spoken differently in some matters. Moreover, as we said earlier, did not the saints sometimes err even in matters pertaining to faith? If we must not depart from them by so much as a hair’s breadth, we will necessarily at times fall into great errors, even errors against the faith. Yet Gelasius, in 15 dist., decre., cap. Sancta Romana, approves the works of Cyprian, Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, and Ambrose. Therefore nothing contrary to the Catholic faith is found in these works. Otherwise, why were the works of Ruffinus not approved in the same way, but instead condemned because Jerome accused him of error on certain matters concerning free choice? Why are Origen’s books condemned, but not those of Ambrose or Cyprian, if they too contradicted orthodox faith in some respects? Either all those writings in which some error contrary to sound doctrine is found must be condemned, or all must be approved, though they are tainted with one error or another. It is by these arguments, of course, that the Gloss on 9 dist., decre., teaches that those testimonies of St. Augustine by which certainty is denied to the ancient writers should be understood according to the times when the writings of the holy Fathers were not authoritative—to use the Gloss’s own words: “But today everything must be held, down to the last jot.” Other writers have refuted this error, so it does not require my discussion.

What did Gelasius intend, then? That there is no error in the books of the ancients? As the saying goes, anyone who tries this would be washing a brick. God wished this perfection to belong only to the divine books, as Augustine taught most gravely and truly. Otherwise, no one, however learned or holy, is not sometimes mistaken, sometimes blind, or sometimes in error. One holy man believed that those baptized by heretics should be baptized again; another denied that Christ’s body experienced both the sense of pain and suffering; another adopted the doctrine of the Chiliasts; another allowed a man who divorced his wife for adultery to marry again; another denied the souls of the righteous true happiness until the day of judgment; another thought the human soul descended from its parents; another thought Adam’s soul had been created before his body; and some thought angels were created many ages before the material world. Yet Gelasius approved the writings of these men. Still, out of reverence I do not name them individually. I prefer to spare their antiquity and holiness rather than satisfy an idle reader. We shall therefore read the ancient Fathers with reverence, but as human beings, with discernment and judgment. If anyone thinks otherwise and will not accept sound counsel, he is now captivated not by reverence for the saints but by self-love, and tries to introduce new opinions under the name of the ancients. Vincent of Lérins says on this matter: “O wondrous reversal of affairs! The authors of the same opinion are judged Catholics, but its followers heretics. The teachers are acquitted, their disciples condemned. This judgment seems to me to have been proclaimed by God, chiefly because of the deceitfulness of those who scheme to construct heresy under another person’s name. They seize the writings of some ancient man, expressed rather obscurely, which by that very obscurity can be made to agree with their doctrine, so that they seem neither the first nor the only ones to hold the view they advance. I judge their wickedness worthy of hatred: with profane hands they stir up the memory of each holy man as if it were buried ashes, and revive by a new opinion what ought to have been covered in silence. They follow the footsteps of their father Ham, who not only failed to cover the nakedness of venerable Noah but announced it to the others for ridicule. His brothers acted very differently: they would not profane their reverend father’s nakedness with their own eyes or expose it to others, but, turning away, covered him, as it is written. That is, they neither approved nor disclosed the holy man’s error.” Thus far Vincent. Again he says: “What if an error is found in the very antiquity of two or three men? We shall certainly take care to prefer the decrees of a universal Council to the ignorance of a few. If these are lacking, let the reader consult the opinions of our elders, compared with one another—those who, though they lived in different times and places, remained in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church and proved themselves trustworthy teachers. Whatever he finds that not merely one or two, but all together, with one and the same agreement, openly, frequently, and steadfastly held, wrote, and taught, let him understand that he too must believe without any doubt.” Vincent of Lérins speaks no less prudently than truly. From these points Calvin’s slander is easily refuted: when addressing King Francis of France to excuse the Lutherans’ shamelessness, he traduced the innocence of Catholics. For when the Lutherans were most rightly and gravely charged with being everywhere contemptuous of and opposed to the Fathers, Calvin said that those holy men were ignorant of many things, often quarreled with one another, and sometimes even contradicted themselves. He then lists all the errors of the Fathers he could gather, many falsely attributed to them, and asks why we

Should we not, too, depart from the Fathers? We first use St. Augustine’s division, as he says in libro adversus Iulia. I. capit. 2: “There are some matters on which even the most learned and excellent defenders of the Catholic rule sometimes disagree among themselves without breaking the bond of faith; there are other matters that pertain to the very foundations of the faith.” In the former matters we sometimes depart from the Fathers; in the latter, the Lutherans do. We modestly and reverently turn our eyes away from the Fathers’ errors, whereas the Lutherans serve up the Fathers for ridicule or contempt. Further, we sometimes dissent from one or another Father, while the Lutherans often dissent from all who agree. It is one thing to reject the private doctrine of one or two saints—which, as we said in the second conclusion, is sometimes permissible—and another to speak against the common faith and doctrine of all, as we shall show in the following conclusions, explaining to what extent and in what manner this is permissible. First, however, we must explain what the Church means when it approves the books of the holy Fathers. That is perhaps what is still lacking in this discussion. We have not yet dissolved the arguments that supported the view of the Gloss. Not all approved ecclesiastical authors occupy the same rank and place. There is little need to refute here the foolishness of those who have equated Jerome’s or Augustine’s works with the canonical books. All the things created by God were approved (for God saw everything he had made, and it was very good), yet the diverse and different kinds of things did not receive the same place, power, or stability. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; the glory of the heavenly is one, that of the earthly another; the brightness of the sun differs from that of the moon and the stars, for star differs from star in brightness (I. Corinth. 15). In the same way, ecclesiastical writers were approved, for they were enlightened by the light of the Holy Spirit and themselves enlightened the Church. Yet Matthew’s brightness is one, Jerome’s another, Isaiah’s another, Ambrose’s another. The canonical authors, being heavenly, celestial, and divine, preserve perpetual and unchanging constancy. The other holy writers are lower and human; they sometimes fail and at times produce a monstrosity, contrary to the order and institution of nature. Why, then, is Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, approved? Why Ruffinus? Why Origen? They too enlightened Christ’s Church by their writings. The difference is that to err in obscure matters not yet explained and defined at the time is one thing; to err in matters clear and then firmly believed in the Church is another. The former happened to Cyprian, Ambrose, or Augustine; the latter to Origen, Eusebius, and Ruffinus. Cyprian, Ambrose, and Jerome never departed from the communion of the holy Roman Church or separated themselves from its faithful preaching, but always shared in its communion, to use Gelasius’s words. Origen, however, deserted unity and was rightly and deservedly considered the source of Arius. Hence Gelasius calls him a schismatic; hence also Eusebius is criticized as an excessive praiser of Origen and a fierce supporter of Arius. Ruffinus, although otherwise a religious man, is shown to have strongly favored Origen and his disciples, besides having erred concerning free choice, a manifest matter. The Church was always not only cautious but also sharp and severe toward the Origenists, having experienced from them a great plague in ecclesiastical doctrine. Enough about the second conclusion. Let us now proceed to the others. Third conclusion. The authority of many saints, even when a smaller number dissent, cannot provide or suffice for firm arguments for a theologian. This is sufficiently shown by the second argument offered earlier. Augustine and a few other ancient saints also asserted that angels are corporeal, and although

this opinion is false, it cannot be shown from the common opinion of the ancients to be contrary to the faith. Thomas Walden, in prooemio doctrinalis fidei antiquae, teaches that what the greater part of the Fathers thought from the apostles is the faith of the Catholic Church. Vincent of Lérins teaches the same in libr. adversus prophanas novationes. I do not deny that these statements are true; but this is so when the Church has completely rejected the contrary opinion of one or a few, as it did the opinion of those who thought that people coming from heretics must be baptized again, and of those who said Melchizedek was not a man but the Holy Spirit. Since then, the Church has always abhorred both opinions. But if the opinion of one or a few has not been rejected by the Church, the authority of the many, as we said, establishes nothing certain and firm. So much for the third conclusion. Fourth conclusion. Even the authority of all the saints, in a class of questions that we said does not pertain to the faith, makes belief probable but not certain. I consider this conclusion sufficiently proved by the final argument. That the controversy does not belong among those that can advance or disturb the Catholic faith is clear from this: nowhere in the Sacred Books, according to the genuine sense of the letter, is it stated that the Blessed Virgin was entirely free from original sin. On the contrary, they teach a general law that includes without exception all the children of Adam, that is, those born by carnal propagation. Nor can it be said that this was handed down to the Church through apostolic tradition, since such traditions reached us only through those ancient and holy bishops and writers who succeeded the apostles. Yet it is clear that those early writers did not receive this from their predecessors; otherwise, they would have faithfully handed it on to their successors. Therefore, a matter cannot pertain to the faith if it is found neither in Sacred Scripture nor in the traditions of the apostles, and cannot be established by necessary consequence from them. Moreover, that the contrary assertion—that the Blessed Virgin contracted original sin from her parents—is also not among Catholic dogmas is most clearly inferred from this: exempting the one Mother of God from the universal law by a special privilege in no way contradicts the faith of Sacred Scripture. Otherwise, since Scripture universally proclaims, “Man shall not see me and live,” and “No one has ever seen God” (Ioh. 1, 18), anyone who excepted Paul or Moses would have contradicted Sacred Scripture. This is the reason, unless I am wholly mistaken, why neither Sixtus IV, nor the Lateran Council under Leo X, nor the Council of Trent begun under Paul III and Julius III, defined this question. They could not approve either opinion as a Catholic dogma. Thus he erred who asserted that it is erroneous for anyone besides Christ to be freed from the law of original sin. The Council of Basel erred still more when it defined that the doctrine teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary was never subject to original sin should be embraced as consonant with Sacred Scripture and the Catholic faith, and that henceforth no one might teach the contrary. Those who believe either position can pertain to the Catholic faith are involved in an equal error. It is difficult to say this, I believe, if it is asked in a public sermon, but in this place and disputation it is very easy. For here we are not contending with the ignorance of the crowd, but instructing those who seek the truth.

and wish to preserve the solid and unmistakable image of genuine theology, pursuing no shadows. My purpose has been, in order to discover the truth, to speak both against our own side and in favor of outsiders, and, when the matter requires it, to criticize both without regard for anyone's person. Above all, in this work that we are composing for the public benefit of the Church, we ought not to have served private affections. Even after this, there will be some thoroughly learned men who rebuke me, and others who blame me, because I deliberately and knowingly entered into a question that is odious in many respects, in order to assert that a matter otherwise of the utmost gravity is of no importance in the Christian religion. But I can both appease well-disposed critics and refute spiteful detractors, so that the former regret having criticized me and the latter rejoice that they have learned something. I frankly admit that I saw no other way to elude the argument of Erasmus, by which he cleverly tried to evade the authority of the saints. Nor was it proper—something always characteristic of heretics—to corrupt the books of the ancient Fathers and mutilate a good part of their volumes, so that, even while conscience protested, I could at least deny with my lips that Bernard, Augustine, Ambrose, and the other Fathers held that opinion. For what good is it, if you wish to know the truth, to scrape the testimonies of the saints from parchment when you cannot erase them from your mind? Moreover, if, in order to defend the authority of the saints in Catholic doctrine—which was supremely necessary for the Church of God—we have maintained that certain opinions, not to say factions, are not necessary to faith and morals, what, I beg you by God, is there that should lead anyone to admonish us about it as a friend or attack us as an enemy? Let this suffice, then, for confirming the fourth conclusion. In this matter we also have a sufficiently suitable and weighty witness, Vincent of Lérins, in his book Adversum prophanas novationes. He says that the ancient consensus of the holy Fathers must be investigated and followed with great care “not in every minor question of divine law, but only in the rule of faith.” This is what the fifth conclusion must explain. Since the hinge of this topic turns on that conclusion, much must be said, even though much must be passed over, for it is most useful for understanding Sacred Scripture and necessary for the use of the schools. The fifth conclusion, then, is this: in expounding Sacred Scripture, the common understanding of all the ancient saints provides the theologian with the surest argument for strengthening theological claims, since the sense of all the saints is itself the sense of the Holy Spirit. I shall confirm this conclusion with weighty arguments which, unless I am mistaken, can settle the controversy so that no further dispute can arise among Catholics. I shall begin, however, by saying a few things about Cajetan's reputation. As I have often testified, I have always held this man in the highest esteem, for he greatly helped the Church of Christ by his writings. It would take too long to praise his learning and talent, and it would be tedious to list all his works. In brief, Cajetan could have been the equal of the greatest builders of the Church, had he not stained his teaching with certain errors, as though with an admixture of leprosy, and, driven perhaps by a desire for novelty or at least trusting in the agility of his own talent, expounded Sacred Scripture at last according to his own judgment—almost always most successfully, but in a few passages much more sharply than successfully. For he was not very tenacious of ancient tradition, and was not very well versed in reading the saints; he refused to learn the mysteries of the sealed book from those who had opened them not by their own understanding but by the tradition of their ancestors, the true key to the word of God. Thus, though he had written many excellent things, in the end he reversed everything, and

and by certain new interpretations of Scripture he either seriously diminished or at least weakened the authority of what he had so strongly asserted elsewhere. I do this unwillingly, criticizing by name a most learned man; but since the Lutherans brought his renown and fame against us at this point, I thought his rashness should be noted. The error into which he fell is such that I must refute it by every means, yet I cannot do so without plainly criticizing so eminent a man. At the beginning of his commentaries on Genesis he says: “If a new interpretation should at any time occur that agrees with the text, although it differs from the current of the sacred teachers, let the reader show himself a fair-minded judge.” A little later he says: “Let no one detest a new interpretation of Sacred Scripture because it differs from the ancient teachers. For God did not bind the interpretation of Sacred Scripture to the opinions of the ancient teachers, but to Scripture itself, intact under the judgment of the Catholic Church. Otherwise all hope would be taken from us and from those who come after us of interpreting Sacred Scripture, unless we transfer it, as they say, from one book into a gathering.” So far he. In truth, following our ancestors in everything and setting our feet in their tracks, as children do in play, seems to do nothing but condemn our own minds, deprive us of our own judgment, and take away our ability to seek the truth. Let us follow the ancients; that is well, but let us follow them as guides, not as masters. They are not to rule our faith, nor should we be so bound and enslaved to them that we have no discretion in expounding Sacred Scripture. This argument, no doubt, could have moved Cajetan to oppose the fifth conclusion. Luther is usually moved by cruder conjectures. In the prologue to the assertion of his articles, Luther says on the authority of the Fathers that no one should be compelled, since many errors are found in all their writings; they often contradict themselves, often disagree with one another, and twist the Scriptures. He tolerates no rules for interpreting the word of God, saying that the word of God must not be bound but must be free, and that it belongs to the same person both to make and to interpret laws. Thus men may be certain interpreters of human laws, but in no way of divine laws. Witcleffus held this same view, as Thomas Walden reports in book 3 of Doct. fi. anti. doctri. Peter Abailardus held it at the very outset of his disputations, as St. Bernard attests in his letter to Innocent, no. 190: “Peter Abailardus says that all the ecclesiastical doctors hold one opinion on this matter, then sets it forth and despises it, boasting that he has a better one, and not fearing to transgress the wise man's command not to move the ancient boundaries set by our fathers.” Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus were in the same boat of error, as Basil himself admits in the seventh synod, action 1, Anathema 7. You have Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, as a witness about Arius and his disciples in book 1 of histo. tri., chapter 14. Nestorius, though eloquent and thinking himself learned, disdained to apply himself to the books of the ancient interpreters and thought himself better than all of them, as reported in book 12 of histo. tri., chapter 4. Paul of Samosata followed the same path, according to Eusebius in book 7 of ecclesiasti. historiae, chapter 26. The Severians followed it as well, as the same Eusebius testifies in book 4 of eccle. histo., chapter 29. It will be worth quoting what Vincent of Lérins reports about Origen in adversus prophanas novationes, so that by this single example devout men may learn modesty in expounding Sacred Scripture. Having praised Origen's talent, learning, eloquence, and other remarkable virtues, “this same man,” he says, “so great and eminent, while he abused God's grace too boldly, indulged his own talent too much, and trusted himself too greatly, while he despised

the ancient simplicity of the Christian religion, while presuming to know more than everyone, and while, despising ecclesiastical traditions and the teaching of the ancients, he interpreted certain passages of Scripture in a novel way, deserved to hear said of himself: “If a prophet should arise in your midst,” etc. (Deute. 13.) That opinion of Cajetan's thus seems to have been common to heretics and schismatics. Yet I do not mean here to overcome heretics by argument. What can one do with those who have despised with equal shamelessness the judgments of the Apostolic See, the decrees of councils, the traditions of the apostles, and the teaching of all the saints? Our whole argument is directed against Cajetan, who, being ingenious, would weigh our reasons and, being devout, would not resist such weighty testimonies once he had heard them. It was enough for us that our ancestors had handed this down to us. But Cajetan scorns authority and fights by reason; he must therefore allow my reasons to contend with his. Philosophers may perhaps rightly demand a reason from you for a philosophical conclusion, but when it comes to understanding Sacred Scripture, you owe it to our ancestors to believe them even without a reason being given, and to defend the views on law, faith, and religion that you received from them. I will always defend them, and have always defended them. No argument, whether from learned or unlearned people, will ever move me from the understanding I received from the Fathers. But let us reason and show that, if we wish to be Catholic, the concordant understanding of the ancients must be maintained in the exposition of Sacred Scripture. First, however, let us explain what our ancestors thought about this matter. Since the course of my argument has brought me to this point, I shall teach what I have learned not only from the reasoning of theologians but also from the testimonies of antiquity. Clement writes first to the disciples at Hieroso.: “It has been reported that certain people teach not according to the tradition of the Fathers but according to their own understanding. For they derive from what they read many interpretations that seem plausible to human ingenuity. Therefore care must be taken that God's law not be taught according to one's own understanding. Many words in the divine Scriptures can be drawn toward whatever sense each person has presumed for himself. This must not be done. You should not seek a sense that you have brought from outside and that is alien and foreign, but should take the sense of truth from the Scriptures themselves. Therefore one must learn the understanding of Scripture from someone who preserves the understanding truthfully handed down to him by his ancestors, so that he too can competently defend what he has rightly received.” So far Clement. He also testifies that he received this teaching from the apostle Peter in book 10 of the Recognitions (if this book is accepted today). Dionysius likewise says in book 1 of de caelesti Hierar.: “Let us proceed as best we can to contemplate the meanings of the most sacred Scriptures as we have received them from the Fathers.” A trustworthy witness, Irenaeus, adds in book 4, chapter 63, that the lawful interpretation of Scripture must be received through the tradition of our ancestors. Epiphanius, refuting the heretics who called themselves Apostolics, says: “Scripture requires examination in order to understand the force and scope of each argument. One must also use tradition, for not everything can be learned from divine Scripture.” So Epiphanius. Without doubt, by “tradition” he means the understanding and sense received from the Fathers. Peter, speaking through Clement in book 10 of the Recognitions, attests that this is the key to the word of God; and the lawyers are said to have possessed it, since the traditions of Moses and the elders had come down to them as if passed from hand to hand. Clement of Alexandria, in book 7 of Stroma., says that those who interpret Scripture against ecclesiastical tradition have lost the rule of truth. Later in the same work,

also, speaking in book 7 of Stroma. about heretics, says that those are held by a desire for glory who, on their own initiative, corrupt through other treatments what naturally agrees with the words divinely inspired and handed down by the blessed apostles and teachers, resisting divine tradition with human doctrines and a false pretense of wisdom. For among those men who were so learned in ecclesiastical knowledge, what could Marcion, Prodicus, and their like have said, since they did not enter by the right way? They could not surpass in wisdom those who had gone before, to invent anything beyond what those men had truly said. They would have done well if they had been able to learn what had first been handed down. Origen too says in tractatu in Matth. 29: “Whenever heretics produce the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian agrees and believes, they seem to say: ‘Look, the word of truth is in our homes.’ But we must not believe them, nor depart from the first and ecclesiastical tradition, nor believe otherwise than as the succession of God's Church has handed it down to us.” So Origen. Ambrose likewise says in book 3 ad Gratianum de fide: “Let us preserve the precepts of our ancestors, and let us not dare, with the rashness of an inexperienced person, to violate the inherited seals. Who among us would dare to unseal the priestly book, sealed by confessors and already consecrated by the martyrdom of many?” Jerome adds in episto. ad Evagrium: “I turned to the books of the ancients to see what each one said, so that I might answer you as if after taking counsel from many.” And he found that all their opinions came to one reckoning: they said Melchizedek was a Canaanite. After much more, which would take too long to recount (epist. 73, 55, 10, 22, 14), he says: “You have what I have heard and read about Melchizedek. It was my part to recite the witnesses; it is yours to judge the witnesses' faith. If you reject them all, you will certainly not accept that spiritual interpreter who, with such pride and authority, pronounced Melchizedek to be the Holy Spirit and confirmed as most true the saying sung among the Greeks: ‘Ignorance breeds confidence; learning breeds fear.’” And in Danie. 12, chapter 12, he says: “The most unlearned people especially claim for themselves an understanding of Sacred Scripture without God's grace and the teaching of their ancestors.” In that famous letter to Paulinus, with many testimonies, examples, and arguments, he most elegantly teaches that no one can enter the Sacred Scriptures without someone to precede him and show the way—a point Clement of Alexandria had taught in book 5 of Stro. Cicero also says generally (ad fam. 7, 19): “No art can be acquired through books without a teacher and interpreter.” The person who approaches Sacred Scripture without a teacher is one who, neglecting the sense of the ancient Fathers, expounds the hidden Scripture from his own understanding. Augustine sings the same tune in his book de utilita. cred., to Honoratus, chapter 7. When Honoratus thought he could read and understand the sacred books without anyone's help, Augustine asks: “Is that so?” He says (Util. cred. 7, 17): “Though you had no training in poetry, you would not dare approach Terence without a teacher. Asper, Cornutus, Donatus, and innumerable others are required for any poet to be understood; yet you rush into the sacred books without a guide and dare to give judgment on them without a teacher.” And in chapter 17 he says: “If every discipline, even a lowly and easy one, requires a teacher or master to be understood, what could be fuller of presumptuous pride than to refuse to learn the books of the divine mysteries from their interpreters?” So far Augustine. Gregory too confirms this conclusion in book 28 of mora., chapter 9, expounding the words about the holy teachers, “upon which its foundations are laid.” I shall add one Cassiodorus to these

in the preface to lib. divinarum institu., where he says: “Let us ascend to divine Scripture through the probable expositions of the Fathers, as if by a certain ladder of Jacob's vision, so that, raised by their understandings, we may merit to reach the knowledge of the Lord effectively.” In the same book, chapter 2, he says: “There are some who think it praiseworthy to hold opinions against the ancients and to invent something new so that they may seem learned.” In chapter 25 of the same book he says: “Everything that the ancient interpreters have said with probability must be carefully retained; but what they have left untouched should first be examined, lest we weary ourselves with fruitless labor, to discover what virtues it has or to what teachings it leads us.” Add also Gregory Nazianzen and Basil, who, as Rufinus reports in book 2 of Eccles. histo., followed the understanding of divine Scripture not from their own presumption but from the writings and authority of their ancestors. They too had evidently received the rule of understanding by apostolic succession. So much there. These examples should have been sufficient to persuade a modest man to adopt our view. For who would not be moved by the most illustrious monuments of antiquity, testified and sealed? When I hear Clement, Dionysius, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Nazianzen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Cassiodorus, and Bernard all saying the same thing, I do not think I hear the opinion of as many men—however learned and holy they may be—but of the Catholic Church, whose foremost pillars they were. We cannot believe that all these men, in such agreement, held anything other than what the Catholic Church commonly believed. We have weightier witnesses, moreover, to establish this matter fully and completely. Someone might perhaps say that nearly all the testimonies we have cited work more against the Lutherans than against Cajetan. For Cajetan was not so rash as to despise altogether the teaching of the ancients or their commentaries on Sacred Scripture. He denied only that the common understanding of the ancients was a certain line by which we must always direct our own interpretations. So far, we may seem not yet to have refuted him. But however that may be, I wish to strike at the heart of the case and draw nearer, so that Cajetan's error may be refuted by the surest arguments. First, the Origenists were condemned at the second session of the sixth general synod for trying to introduce, against the tradition of the ancients, the same interpretations of Scripture that Cajetan introduces as new. Sophronius says: “They asserted many things outside apostolic and paternal tradition: they rejected the planting of Paradise, denied that Adam was formed in the flesh, disparaged the claim that Eve was formed from him, and rejected the sound of the serpent.” So far he. Sophronius's synodical letter was approved in action 13 of that same sixth general council. Next, Canon 19 of the Synodi Trullanae says: “Those who preside over churches must teach the clergy and people by drawing understandings and judgments of truth from divine Scripture, without transgressing the boundaries already set or the tradition of the divine Fathers. If a controversy concerning Scripture arises, they must not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and teachers of the Church explained it in their writings, nor seek greater praise from it than from what they themselves compose, lest in hesitating at some point they depart from what is fitting.” So far the Council of Trullo. Further, when a question arose among the faithful about the meaning of that testimony of John the Evangelist, “When they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead,” etc., and it was referred to the Viennen. Conci., Clement, presiding over the council, spoke as follows: “We turn our attention to

the common judgment of the holy Fathers and teachers, with the sacred council approving, we declare,” etc. Thus the Apostolic See and the Vienn. council, when pronouncing on the faith and the meaning of Sacred Scripture, hold the common sense of the saints as a thread of Theseus and follow them as guides to understanding. The Council Lateranens. under Leo X, in its second action, also directs all who are to teach the people evangelical truth to explain Sacred Scripture according to the interpretation of the teachers approved by the Church or by long usage. They must add nothing contrary or discordant from their own understanding, but must always adhere to what does not differ from the interpretations of those teachers. This was defined still more clearly in the synod Triden., session 4, in these words: “The holy synod, to restrain presumptuous minds, decreed that no one, relying on his own prudence in matters of faith and morals that pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, should twist Sacred Scripture toward his own meanings, or dare to interpret Sacred Scripture against the sense that the holy mother Church has held and holds, or even against the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” So far the Council of Trent. I could add here the decree of the fifth synod from Ivo, title 2, book 2, chapter 14, and another similar decree of the Council Melden., chapter 2, from Burchard, book 1, chapter 61; but we pass over many things lest we burden the reader with a long disputation. We also have not a few testimonies from Sacred Scripture to confirm the same point. First is the passage from Ecclesiastico, chapter 8: “Do not overlook the account of the elders, for they themselves learned from their fathers; from them you will learn understanding and how to give an answer in time of need.” Next is the Apostle's passage in Ro. 12: “Do not think more highly than you ought to think, but think soberly; and to each as God has divided the measure of faith … we have gifts that differ according to grace, whether prophecy, according to the proportion of faith,” etc. It is clear that the Apostle uses the word “prophet” not only for one who sees and foretells the future, but also for one who, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, understands and expounds the oracles of the prophets, Christ, and the apostles. Paul commands that whoever has received this office in the Church should first think not more highly than is fitting, but with modesty and restraint; and second, should have prophecy according to the proportion of faith. That is, in expounding Sacred Scripture one must not follow the acuteness of human ingenuity or the force and reasoning of nature, but interpret it according to the faith received from our ancestors and according to reasoning proportionate to that faith. You may perhaps expound the philosophers according to the reasoning of science without applying any faith, but you cannot expound the sacred books soberly without the faith and teaching of our ancestors. A person who, in explaining Aristotle, treated all the ancient Peripatetics as worthless and, while they all protested in strong agreement, prescribed for us from the philosopher's opinion some unheard-of paradox by a novel interpretation would not be thought very sober. How much more, then, should someone who invents new opinions from his own ingenuity in the books of the apostles, contrary to the apostles' disciples and all ancient interpreters, not be considered sound in mind. That is enough about the second testimony. Third: in 1 ad Corin. 14 the Apostle says: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.” So that no one might rashly dissent from the others, he says: “God is not the God of dissension but of peace,” that is, not of those who have departed from the unity of agreement, but of those who have remained in the peace of agreement, as Vincen. Lirinen. explained: “As I teach in all the churches of the saints,” that is, of the Catholics. Those churches are holy for this reason:

are holy because they persist in the communion of the saints. And lest anyone should finally draw the judgment of these matters to himself alone, despising the others, he adds a little later: “Did the word of God come forth from you? Or did it reach you alone? If anyone seems to be a prophet or a spiritual person, let him recognize that what I write to you are the Lord's commands.” It is certainly a command that, if anyone is a teacher of spiritual things, he should be a most devoted guardian of unity, neither preferring his own opinions to the common opinions of all the others nor departing from the sense of everyone. This will happen if two precepts are observed. First, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture must always look to those who came before, from whom the word of God passed down to later generations. The Apostle warns the Corinthians of this when he says, “Did the word of God come forth from you?” Second, he must not defend his own interpretation with stubborn contention, but should first consult the other teachers of the Church, so that if he sees that all approve what he thinks, he may now hold it safely; but if they reject it, he may now abandon it safely. This is what the Apostle means when he says, “Or did it reach you alone?” This, it seems to me, is the plain meaning of Paul's statement. If someone thinks this testimony of the Apostle is more suitable for persuasion than for proof, I would not consider it necessary to contend with him in a quarrelsome dispute. For we ourselves do not believe that all the arguments we use are conclusive. The fourth testimony of the same Apostle, however, is most weighty. It is found in ad Ephe. 4, in these words: “And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, others as Evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ … so that we may no longer be children, tossed about and carried around by every wind of doctrine through the wickedness of men, through cunning directed toward the deception of error.” Since these words of Paul were explained more fully in the third place, we shall now touch on them lightly, as far as will suffice to confirm the matter we are treating. From these words it is clearly understood that divine providence intended us to have not only the books of the prophets, apostles, and Evangelists, but also the commentaries of the holy teachers on them. For surely this is why Christ gives teachers to the Church after the prophets, apostles, and Evangelists: so that these teachers may interpret their sacred books. Whoever despises those whom God has provided for the Church, through times and places, to agree in one understanding of Scripture, despises not a man but God, who appointed them to instruct the Christian people in the sacred writings of the prophets, apostles, and Evangelists. If all the saints erred while interpreting them, then, under God's guidance, the Church would err by following the teachers Christ gave it and by standing in their footsteps in understanding the sacred books. I know that Paulinus and Augustine, in their letters 58 and 59, do not take “prophets” in this testimony of the Apostle to mean those who foretold future things before the Lord's coming, whose writings we retain as canonical and divine, but rather those who excelled in the Church of Christ by the gift of prophecy in the apostles' time. But since we cannot deny that Christ gave both groups to the Church, there is no reason to wonder if we have excluded neither from the Apostle's words. Someone may perhaps ask: Since the canon of Scripture is complete and sufficient, indeed more than sufficient, for everything, why must the understanding and authority of the saints be joined to it? Because, owing to the height and obscurity of Sacred Scripture itself, not everyone understands it in one and the same sense. One person interprets it one way, another differently, so that almost as many opinions can be drawn from it as there are people. Novatus explains it one way, Sabellius another, Arius another, and Donatus another. Therefore it is necessary that prophetic and apostolic

interpretation be directed according to some rule, because of the winding paths of such varied error. For this reason, after the prophets, apostles, and Evangelists, we also received the holy teachers, so that we might follow their Catholic—that is, universal—understanding as a rule of the Church prescribed by God. Thus the words that follow are rightly added: “For the perfecting of the saints, … for the building up of the body of Christ, … that we may no longer be children,” etc. So much for the Apostle's words. Now we shall add Solomon's single testimony, which, if examined carefully, will contribute much to strengthening the matter we are discussing: “The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails driven deep. They are given by one shepherd through the counsel of teachers. My son, seek nothing beyond these.” On this passage Jerome says: “Except for the words given by one shepherd and approved by the counsel and agreement of the wise, claim nothing for yourself; follow the footsteps of your ancestors and do not differ from their authority.” So Jerome. We understand through Ezekiel who that one shepherd is. “I will raise up,” he says, “one shepherd over them, who will feed them, … he himself will be their shepherd.” And so that you would not think that Christ himself always does this directly, he gives this promise through Jeremiah: “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, and they will feed you with knowledge and doctrine.” That the words of the saints were given by that one shepherd is shown by their great and universal agreement. All could not have understood the same things with one mind unless they were held together in that unity by one and the same spirit of Christ. Hence Solomon divinely says that the words were given by one shepherd through the counsel of teachers. No one denies that the ancient saints were wise; it is certain that they were teachers of the Church; Christ's providence toward the Church shows that they were given by God; Paul indicates that they were given to expound the oracles of the apostles, prophets, and Evangelists; and the unity and agreement of their teaching shows that so many men, provided by one shepherd at different times and places, were given to the Church. Nothing can be seen here but a council of teachers gathered by one spirit of truth. Certainly, as Augustine says in book 2 of adversus Iulianum, if a synod of bishops were gathered from the whole world to decide a controversy that had arisen about the sacred books, so many could not easily sit together, nor could they all be there, since the saints did not live at one time. Now, father Cajetan—if I may call a son a father—I call to you, Cajetan, I say; I summon you into this council. I do not lead you into a Lyceum or Academy, but into the peaceful and honorable assembly of the holy Fathers. Picture before you, I beg you, such a long succession of most learned men, approved down to this day by the consensus of so many centuries, commended not only for their remarkable knowledge of Sacred Scripture but also for their extraordinary piety of life. Look, I beg you, at how they seem to look at you and say gently and mildly: “Is it so, father Cajetan, that we all err together in expounding Sacred Scripture? Did all of us, whom Christ gave to the Church as teachers, lack the spirit of understanding? Do you alone dare to fight against us, believing that the Church will follow the opinion of one man, yet abandon the common judgment of this most weighty and holy senate? Do you think greater trust should be given to the prior judgments of so many learned men, saints, and martyrs, or to your own singular and private judgment? Will you answer these questions, or will you not even dare to speak?” Father Cajetan, I seem to see your modesty, the candor of your mind, and indeed your reverent piety toward the saints; and, as though you were present, I hear your voice in my ears

ringing around me: “We have both won. You receive the palm from me, and I from error.” But I do not know, good reader, what spirit and excessive heat of disputation carried me away. Cajetan has long been where he has overcome every error without my disputation, and I am not accustomed to mock the errors of those whose talent I admire. But let us continue as we began and refute this error also by theological reasoning. Though authority carries greater weight than reason in establishing faith in theology—since authority has sufficient force without reason, while reason without authority has little—reason joined to authority will have as much force as it can to establish faith. From the outset I promised that I would deal with this case against Cajetan more by reason than by testimony. First, those who promote this new method of expounding Sacred Scripture not only trample on the praise of the ancients but also provide an example to vain men, and especially to heretics, of how to corrupt the true meanings of Sacred Scripture with new and false inventions. If this license is once admitted, allowing everyone to interpret the sacred books according to his own judgment, I shudder to say how great a danger to the destruction of religion will follow. For if any one passage of Sacred Scripture is once left to the freedom of human ingenuity, then another and another, and at last all the rest, will be treated in this human fashion as if by common practice. Moreover, if anyone may expound the whole of divine Scripture according to his own ingenuity and judgment, nothing will remain firm. From then on there must be a brothel of errors where there had been a sanctuary of chaste and incorrupt truth, as Vincent. Lirinen. asserted no less truly than elegantly. Besides the many great harms this opinion brings to the faithful who will live in the Church in the future, it cannot free the Church that preceded us from the charge of grave error. For since all the preachers and writers who succeeded the ancient saints handed on to the people the meaning of Sacred Scripture according to the teaching they had received from the saints, and the people confidently received that same meaning, whoever rejects the concordant exposition of the ancient saints is convicted of rejecting the understanding the Church has held until now. Let us give a clearer example. All the saints explained that Eve was formed from Adam's rib, as the literal text says. Because the priests who came after them found this explained by the saints, they carefully taught it to the Christian people, and the people believed it in good faith. Thus, if the ancient saints erred in interpreting this passage, the whole Church was involved in the same error. Nestorius, condemned by the Council of Ephesus, plainly understood that the ignorance of the saints and of the Church were joined, when he spoke against Nestorius's wicked presumption in these words: “We have attacked the wicked presumption of Nestorius, because he boasted that he alone was the first to understand Sacred Scripture and that all who had performed the office of teacher before him had been ignorant interpreters of the divine utterances. He also claimed that the whole Church now errs because, as he saw it, it followed ignorant teachers.” So far the Council of Ephesus, as Vincent. Lirinen. relates in that truly golden little book, adversum prophanas novationes. Add that, as we said earlier, in matters whose knowledge does not belong to the people, the faith of the Church is the faith of our ancestors. Since grasping the true and sincere meaning of Sacred Scripture does not belong to the common people—unless we wish to follow the madness of the Lutherans—the understanding of our ancestors in the sacred books is certainly the very understanding of the Church.

Therefore, if all the ancient saints erred in understanding the divine writings, the Church undoubtedly erred, and did so by God's command. For the people would sin if they opposed Scripture as expounded according to the sense of all the saints, especially in matters whose judgment belongs not to the common people but to their teachers. Moreover, the word of God could not have departed from all the saints, who were all thinking the same thing with one mind. That is, they could not all at once have accepted as canonical a writing that was not canonical, or conversely rejected by common agreement one that was canonical. Therefore the true understanding of the word of God could not have departed from them all at once. Both the Spirit and the word were promised to the Church; if either had been lacking to all the holy teachers, it would likewise have been lacking to the Church. What was assumed earlier, if it is not understood, can be grasped from other doctrines of faith, in which we shall demonstrate with strong arguments that all the saints together cannot err. This will not be long delayed, but a few points must first be stated. That the word and the spirit of understanding are joined in the Church, as we assumed later, the Lord testifies through Isaiah in these words: “My Spirit, who is in you, and my words, which I have placed in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants … from now and forever.” No one who has even a little experience of Sacred Scripture will deny that the Church is the seed of Christ's faithful. Who, then, dares to separate by error things joined in the Church by Christ, and to take away either the word or the sense of the word from all the saints and therefore from the Church? Furthermore, as Jerome says in his commentaries on the first chapter of epist. ad Gala., the Church of God “which heard the faith of the apostles from those who came after them, did not receive the gospel of man but of God.” The teachers of the Church, he says, “do not so much teach themselves as God within them, who speaks through the saints. «I said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.» Those who are gods hand on the gospel of God, not of man. Marcion, Basilides, and the other plagues of heretics do not have the gospel of God because they do not have the Holy Spirit, without whom the gospel that is taught becomes human.” So far Jerome. Immediately in the same passage he says: “Let us not think that the gospel is in the words of Scripture, but in its meaning; not on the surface but in the marrow; not in the leaves of speech but in the root of reason. Otherwise the devil too, who speaks from the Scriptures, and all heresies sew cushions for themselves from them. There is great danger in speaking in the Church, lest by a perverse interpretation the gospel of Christ become the gospel of man, or, worse, of the devil.” Jerome says this too. To sum up these things, their reasoning is as follows: if the faithful received a false understanding of Scripture from the ancient saints, successors of the apostles, then they certainly did not receive the gospel of God, which is not in the words of Scripture but in its meaning; not in the letter that kills, but in the spirit that gives life; not on parchments, but in hearts. Jerome taught this, and so did Hilary in his book ad Constantium Augustum. If the law is spiritual and needs the Spirit to be understood, as we have already shown sufficiently in the first place, what kind of madness would it be, I ask, to say that the Holy Spirit was with me alone but absent from all the saints? Now, to let our discourse descend from divine to human reasons, if understanding and learning count for anything in interpreting Scripture, whose minds are more acute or perceptive than the Greeks'? Who was more practiced in Sacred Scripture? Nor did the Latin saints lack talent or knowledge of Sacred Scripture. We do not wish now to prefer Latins to Greeks or Greeks to Latins. It is clear that both peoples were,

strong in talent and learning. But if holiness of life is weighed more heavily in this judgment, what recent person will surpass those foremost men of the ancient Church? “But,” they say, “they were human.” I too believe these new interpreters are human. “I hear you. What does a multitude have to do with the sense of the Spirit?” I answer: “What does a small number have to do with it?” Even in matters believed on human testimony, the number of witnesses usually counts for something, especially when they are elders. For the most ancient are usually the most weighty. Younger men, like children, should not immediately reject an appearance of truth if they present one; nevertheless, antiquity must be preserved in its proper place. The force and authority of antiquity is very great, and when it contends with novelty it should undoubtedly be preferred. But I do not know how our argument has slipped from the weightiest reasons to these lesser ones. Let us return to those reasons and finally bring them to a conclusion. The more urgent point we were pressing is this: whoever claims that all the ancient saints erred when expounding any one passage of Sacred Scripture thereby attributes that same error to the Catholic Church. This can also be confirmed by the following argument. Wherever the body of the Church is, there too is the Spirit of truth, as Irenaeus teaches; indeed, the Lord Christ says, “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, to remain with you forever, the Spirit of truth.” Paul also teaches this plainly in ad Eph. 4 and I Cor. 12. The Spirit does not give the same functions to all parts of the body, as the Apostle explains most elegantly in ad Ro. 12 and 1 Cor. 12: “To one is given through the Spirit a word of wisdom …, to another prophecy …, to another interpretation of speech,” etc. For not all in the Church are apostles, not all are prophets, and not all interpret, etc. It is certain that the understanding of Sacred Scripture was given through the Spirit to the holy teachers, if to anyone. Whoever therefore denies that the Spirit of truth was with all the saints in interpreting Sacred Scripture undoubtedly takes that same Spirit away from the Church, just as someone who takes the power of sight from the eyes darkens all the other parts of the body too. For if the eye is not clear, the whole body will be dark. These are the weightiest reasons for the fifth conclusion. There may also be lesser ones. Certainly, the example of the best and wisest Fathers is not altogether slight: although they had the sharpest minds, they report interpretations of Sacred Scripture in such a way that they seem to have learned them from their ancestors rather than discovered them for themselves. We ought to be formed and imbued according to this rule, not merely instructed. And enough has been said about the fifth conclusion. Sixth conclusion: All the saints together cannot err in a dogma of faith. St. Augustine first demonstrates this in book 1 of adversus Iulianum, chapter 2. Wishing to overcome Julian by the testimonies of the saints on the dogma of faith under dispute, he says: “I shall not cite the opinions of everyone on this matter, but a few from a few, by which our opponents will nevertheless be compelled to blush and yield, if any fear of God or shame before men has overcome so great an evil as stubbornness.” Later he says: “There are other matters on which even the most learned and excellent defenders of the Catholic rule do not agree among themselves, while preserving the fabric of the faith; one says something better and truer than another about the same matter. But the matter we are now treating belongs to the very foundations of faith.” In book 2 against the same Julian he says: “We have proved this by the authority of holy Catholics, and therefore it does not follow that it is false. Such and so great men confirm that this is true according to the Catholic faith, so that your

fragile and overly clever novelty is crushed by their authority alone. Besides, they speak in such a way that Truth itself testifies that it speaks through them. But first your defiance must be restrained by their authority, so that … when you do not believe that such men of God could have erred in the Catholic faith … you may curb your reckless daring. A little farther on he says: “I set you before these judges … whom I have appointed as assessors in this dispute of ours, not as my friends and your enemies … and whose opinion about what we are debating is not uncertain or invented by empty speculation, but who are holy prelates of God, illustrious in the holy Church. I have named them individually, as was fitting, as men learned not in Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno … (although some of them were learned in these too), but all in the Sacred Scriptures … so that in them you may fear not the men themselves but the One who fashioned them as useful vessels … They judged this case … free from hatred, friendship, enmity, and anger … They held what they found in the Church.” Later he says: “Time has so mingled the highest with the lowest that Pelagius, Celestius, and Julian should see, while Hilary, Gregory, Ambrose, and Cyprian are blind?” But whatever sort of man you are, since you are human, I seem to see your shame (if all hope of health has not died in you), and in a way I hear your reply: “God forbid that I should even think or say that these men are blind.” At the end of the book, finally, he testifies that those who reject the saints reject the whole Church of Christ. Vincent of Lérins also says: “It is necessary for all Catholics who wish to prove themselves legitimate children of the Church to cling to, adhere to, and die for the faith of the holy Fathers, and to detest, shudder at, and pursue profane novelties. For the Council of Ephesus divinely resolved that posterity should decide that nothing else is to be believed except what the sacred antiquity, agreeing with itself, had held.” So far he. The sixth synod of Constantinople felt the same way, in action 12, in these words: “The holy synod said: It is altogether necessary not only to follow the doctrines of the holy Fathers in sense, but to use the very same words as they did, and to innovate nothing at all.” It says again: “The holy Churches of God receive the doctrines of the holy Fathers as law.” It does not matter that these statements were made by Sergius rather than by the synod. First, if the heretic Sergius himself, defeated by the public consensus of the Church, could not deny our conclusion, then our opponents are witnesses for us. Second, in its actions 17 and 18 the synod itself follows the holy Fathers as a rule. The synod Latera. under Marti. 5, canons 12 and 13, says that whatever all the Fathers of the Church, speaking in agreement, reject, the Catholic and Apostolic Church rejects; and whatever they believe, it believes. This can be confirmed not only by the weighty testimonies of Aug., Vincen., and the councils, but also by unanswerable arguments. For if the saints were wrong in any dogma of faith, the peoples who followed them would also have been wrong. It is established that the Christian people before us acquiesced in the faith of the holy teachers. They could not otherwise have had faith in Jesus unless they also had faith in his saints. “I give thanks to my God,” Paul says to Philemon, “hearing … of the faith you have in the Lord Jesus and in all his saints.” Jerome says on these words: “Whoever has believed in God cannot receive faith in him unless he also believes in his saints. For faith in God is not perfect if it is weakened by disbelief in his ministers.” Moreover, since certain matters pertain to the faith but are entirely unknown to the people—a point repeated often, but which must be repeated still more often—if all the saints had been deceived about such matters of faith, the Church would certainly have been deceived. Furthermore, the faith of all the saints

if rejected, the traditions of Christ and the Apostles would for the most part be rejected as well. For we have recognized many apostolic traditions more clearly from the testimonies of the holy ancients than from any other source. Thus, in the seventh general synod, action. prima, the seventh anathema of Basilius the Penitent reads: “Those who scorn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, and who make excuses and repeat the words of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, saying that if we had not been sufficiently instructed by the Old and New Testaments, we would follow the traditions of the holy Fathers and the Catholic Church: anathema.” These two things—the teaching of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Church—are so joined and connected that they cannot be separated. Whoever tries to undermine one of them must also shake the credibility of the other. In actione 6 of the same synod, tomo quinto, Epiphanius speaks on behalf of the synod as follows: “If the man who issued this account against the venerable images claims that he was not received by the holy Fathers who flourished around that time, how shall we, who are unworthy even to be called their disciples, receive what the holy Fathers did not approve?” Not only this synod but all the other councils, all the Pontiffs, and all the holy teachers have refuted every heresy by this path and method. They could not have done so properly in any other way, unless in the canonical Scriptures themselves and in the other decrees of faith they had maintained the judgment of their elders as they had received it. On this matter I very much wish to quote the words of Vincentius Lirinensis. “With the sacred authority of antiquity,” he says, “we shall crush the profane audacity of novelty. Nor is this new, since this custom has always prevailed in the Church: the more religious anyone was, the more readily he opposed novel inventions. Everything is full of such examples. But, to avoid being lengthy, we shall briefly touch on a few in summary, so that everyone may see more clearly than daylight the path by which the blessed succession of the blessed Apostles has always refuted new teachings. For holy and prudent men understood that the rule of piety admits nothing other than that all the things received in faith from the Fathers be handed on unchanged to their children. This is the proper mark of Christian modesty and seriousness: not to hand down our own things to posterity, but to preserve what we received from our elders. Religion leads us; we do not lead religion. We do not drag the views of our elders wherever we wish, but rather follow wherever they lead and draw us back.” Thus far he. As the one and chief example of the point he had made, he cites the Council of Ephesus. When it debated establishing rules of faith against Nestorius, it decreed that the judgments of the holy Fathers be brought forward. When this was done, Nestorius was condemned as opposed to Catholic antiquity, while Cyrillus was approved as agreeing with sacred antiquity. But, as he himself said, everything is full of such examples. In this way Hieronymus refuted the doctrine of Helvidius; Basilius asserted the divinity of the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius; Augustinus refuted the Donatists and Pelagians; Paulus Samosatenus was overcome by a celebrated writer; Theodoritus approved the definitions of the Alexandrian council; Pope Leo confounded Eutyches and his followers before the Emperor Leo, showing that none but impious heretics differed from the concordant testimony of the holy teachers; and Pope Agatho confirmed the Church’s dogma concerning Christ’s two wills and operations through the concordant testimonies of holy writers. The heretics thought they could answer these testimonies only by corrupting books and adducing other testimonies from those same saints, either mutilated or even fabricated, to support their error. Even the heretics did not think they could simply deny the authority of the saints. Why, however, should we now bring forward recent examples after the ancient ones? From Bernardus, epistola 77, ad Hugonem; from Innocentius, De presbytero non

bapti. c. apostolicam; from the Council of Florence; and from many others, which we shall omit for now to avoid making this too long. If we have made any progress in Christian philosophy, it should be enough for us, having set out examples, reasons, and testimonies, to be persuaded that the common understanding of all the saints establishes the certain faith of Catholic dogmas, and consequently that certain arguments can be drawn from their unanimous authority to confirm theological conclusions. This was what we had to establish in this sixth place. We have established it at length—for how could so great a matter be explained in fewer words?—yet so clearly that the darkness which the adversaries tried to cast over the truth with their arguments seems already to have been dispelled by the light of the preceding discussion. Certainly, the first, second, and third arguments need no answer after what has been said. Nor does the reasoning added afterward: it is no more valid against the ancient saints than against all the Fathers of the councils and indeed the whole Church. We refuted it earlier in two places. Only the scruples of Osiander and Caietanus remain; once they are removed, nothing further will be wanting in our explanation of the sixth place.