De locis theologicis

When Osiander contends that every interpreter from the Apostles onward has erred in understanding that prophecy, he first brings forward nothing contrary to us. For, as Vincentius Lirinensis rightly said, the ancient agreement of the holy Fathers must certainly be followed not in every minor question of divine law, but only in the rule of faith, and especially in those questions on which the foundations of Catholic dogma rest. We explained this somewhat more fully in the preceding chapter. Whether the prophecy of Osee is to be referred to Christ in the literal or allegorical sense does not pertain to a question of faith. Thus even if the saints were wrong about this, they would have been wrong not in a serious matter but in one of little importance to the Church. Further, it is false that all authors from the Apostles onward referred that passage to Christ only in the allegorical sense. They all refer it to the people of Israel and also refer it to Christ, but not all assert that this is done by allegory. Indeed, some affirm that the same passage of Scripture can sometimes have several literal senses. Finally, if we say that the sense is allegorical, there is no error. For Hieronymus answers Osiander’s objection learnedly in his commentary on Osee. This empty reasoning therefore works only on those who want to be deceived. We should warn the more serious and steadfast to take care lest they be caught by another, more subtle argument. Everyone can see that he is openly sophistical, except someone quite unlearned: the cunning and hidden sophist must be carefully avoided, lest he deceive under the appearance of truth. For he is not easily recognized. I do not mean to suggest that Caietanus should be counted among sophists, or that he wished to deceive anyone craftily, slyly, or maliciously. Rather, the ingenious and learned man was misled only by a certain obscure appearance of reasoning. Since his argument has greater power to deceive than the others, it must be guarded against here with greater care and diligence.

Caietanus argues, then: “God did not bind the exposition of sacred Scripture to the views of the ancient teachers,” and so on. On the contrary, he did bind it if they all agree unanimously on the same opinion. For all Catholics are bound to follow the Church’s understanding. I think I explained carefully enough just above that the Church’s understanding was the same as that of all the Church’s teachers. The Church does not now judge the meaning of Scripture by guesswork; it interprets it from the tradition of our elders. Just as, when another question of faith arises, the Church’s judgment brings nothing new to Christian ears but investigates and follows the ancient faith of our elders on that matter, so when there is a dispute about the meaning of sacred Scripture, we ought not to expect a new understanding from the Church’s judgment, but the one that careful inquiry has established as common to our Fathers. “Hope is taken away from us and posterity of interpreting sacred Scripture,” they say, “unless we transfer it from book to notebook.” Absolutely not. (To pass over the fact that there are many passages, and even entire books, in the sacred Bible where the Church desires the diligence of interpreters, and where younger scholars could therefore leave monuments of their learning and talent to their own posterity,) even in those matters worked out by the talent and diligence of the ancients, we can, if we wish, offer something to the Christian people, and do so very usefully. We can give newness to old things, polish to what is worn, light to what is obscure, appeal to what is tiresome, confidence to what is doubtful, and restore everything to its own nature and all that belongs to its nature. But since Vincentius Lirinensis answered this argument of Caietanus most learnedly and elegantly, we shall quote his words, surely worthy of being written in letters of gold: “Be, as it were, a Besaleel, O teacher, and carve the precious gems of divine doctrine; fit them together faithfully, adorn them wisely, add brilliance, charm, and beauty, so that through your exposition what was formerly believed obscurely may be understood more clearly. Yet teach the same things you learned, so that when you speak in a new way you do not speak of new things. But perhaps someone will say, ‘Will there be no progress in understanding in the Church of Christ?’ There will indeed be, and the greatest. But it must be genuine progress in faith, not a change. For progress means that each thing is enlarged within itself; change means that something is transformed from one thing into another. Let the growth of souls imitate the growth of bodies: although they unfold and expand their numbers with the passage of years, they remain the same things they were. The limbs of infants are small, those of young adults large, yet they are the very same limbs. There are as many joints in infants as in adults. And whatever is produced at the more mature age of life was already present in the seed, so that nothing new appears in old age that was not already hidden in children. If the human form were later changed into a figure unlike its kind, or if something were added to or taken away from the number of its limbs, the whole body would necessarily become monstrous, perish, or at least be weakened. So too, the understanding of sacred Scripture ought to follow these laws of progress: it should be strengthened over the years, broadened with time, and elevated with age, while remaining incorrupt and unharmed.” A little later he says: “Whatever was sown in the Church’s garden, God’s field, through the labor of the Fathers, should be cultivated, flourish, ripen, progress, and reach perfection through the diligence of their children. Let those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy be refined, polished, and burnished by posterity. But it is wrong for them to be changed, cut down, mutilated, or to receive foreign additions, as it were, from human ingenuity. They may receive clarity, light, and distinction, but they must retain their fullness, integrity, and proper character.”

Thus far he. His entire argument seems to me all the more probable because it seems to have been drawn from the Apostle in Ephes. 4. There he pursued the comparison with bodily growth so openly and fully that none of my own words are needed. Readers needed only to be warned. So much for the sixth place. Let us now proceed to the seventh, that is, the authority of the new school. Although I may perhaps say something new about it, I will say things that I trust pious readers will approve.

ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCHOLASTIC TEACHERS, WHICH IS PLACED IN THE SEVENTH PLACE