De locis theologicis

What the beginning of academic theology was, how it developed, and who its founders and authorities were, although relevant to commending the school, is not for this place to discuss. Here we try only to explain how much force an argument drawn from the school’s authority has for establishing belief. In explaining this, let the first conclusion be as follows. First conclusion. Even the testimony of many scholastic theologians, when learned men argue against them, is no more valuable for establishing belief than the reasoning or even weightier authority by which it is supported. In scholastic disputation, the authority of the greater number should not overwhelm the theologian; if he has only a few serious men on his side, he can certainly stand against the many. These matters are judged not by number but by weight. I need not prove this conclusion with arguments. For I do not usually argue about anything evident and agreed upon by everyone; clarity, as Cicero says, is diminished by argument. Certainly, when the opinions of the most learned men vary and conflict, we ought to imitate the Academic restraint and withhold certain assent from uncertain matters. For, as that same Cicero teaches most elegantly, what could be more rash and unworthy of a wise man’s gravity and constancy than to defend without any hesitation something that has not been sufficiently examined and understood? At this point some scholastics deserve criticism: because of prejudices formed by the opinions they learned in school, they brand otherwise Catholic men with harsher censures, and do so so readily that they rightly invite laughter. Our school does indeed give us great license to defend whatever seems most probable, as our right; but we are not permitted to condemn rashly and lightly those who disagree with us. Some things are opinions of the school, which we shall discuss shortly; others are rules of the sect, which is what we are discussing now. Those that disagree with the former bear a mark of error; those that disagree with the latter do not. For it is not the case that

something contrary to Scotist or Thomist pronouncements is immediately an error. Enough of this. Second conclusion. The common opinion of all scholastic authors on a serious matter yields arguments so probable that it is rash to oppose them. For reason shows that experts in any art should be believed. No sane person would refuse to trust sailors in the art of navigation. Anyone who places no trust in those experienced and practiced in the art of discussing theological dogmas is therefore either not very sane or certainly rash. Further, in Clement. de summa Trinitate, the Fathers of the Council of Vienna say that the opinion which holds that both infants and adults receive sanctifying grace and virtues in baptism, as the more probable and more consonant and harmonious with the theology of modern teachers, should be chosen by Catholics. If, then, on a matter once disputed even among scholastic theologians, the concordant opinion of the younger ones carried such weight with the council Fathers, how much more ought we to hold and revere matters prescribed by the school at all times? And if the common opinion of recent theologians establishes belief for a council and inclines it to define that such an opinion must be held, what should we think when all theologians have established something not as an opinion but with a certain and wholly unshaken mind? Do you not think that the Council of Vienna would judge more severely concerning such a dogma firmly received in the school? We would therefore reject the school’s common agreement only impudently and rashly. Moreover, since scholastic theologians almost everywhere dispute with one another in considerable disagreement, and may perhaps rightly be criticized in this respect, surely they would not all assert the same thing unless moved by the same divine Spirit. It is no less remarkable that the school’s different factions and teachers, so divided among themselves, have converged on one and the same opinion than that the seventy interpreters, reportedly confined in separate cells, arrived at one and the same translation. What the chorus of scholastic theologians sings in harmony therefore cannot be false. Third conclusion. To contradict the concordant opinion of all theologians of the school on faith or morals is, if not heresy, at least close to heresy. The school’s opinions, if we may call them that, are of two kinds. One concerns matters of philosophy more than of faith; the other concerns faith and morals necessary for the Christian people. What disagrees with the former is not heretical for a scholastic theologian. What opposes the latter kind, however, we flee here as poison. We do not dare openly and simply to accuse them of heresy, a crime that is itself most grave. In this matter I often find theologians lacking prudence: it is absurd to bring a most serious charge unless the matters too are most serious. But to the point. My conclusion is first shown by this: no dogma can be found that all scholastics have certainly and firmly asserted with the same mind and voice without the whole Church holding it too, moved by their authority. If heretics can find one, let them produce it, and we shall be silent. If none can be produced, then, whether they wish it or not, what is confirmed by the authority of the whole school is true, provided, as I said, that it concerns faith and morals. ¹

Add that no decree proper to the school lacks a definite origin either in sacred Scripture, the tradition of the Apostles, or the definitions of councils or Pontiffs. Those who have refuted the school’s decrees have always been found to reject the source from which they flow. In a word, no one regarded as Catholic has rejected all theologians without distinction. This is strong enough evidence that such opinions of the school cannot be denied without endangering the faith. Further, if all theologians agree with one another on some question, then, if they err in it, they expose the Church to the danger of error as well. For both those who hear confessions and those who preach to the people instruct the faithful in what they have received from theologians. Thus, if the Church concealed their common error in faith, it would deceive Christ’s faithful by its silence. “An error that is not resisted is approved; just as truth, when it is not defended, is suppressed,” as Innocentius says (83 dist. error). If God did not reveal an error shared by all theologians, he would fail the Christian people in matters necessary for them. What could an uninformed people do but follow those they had accepted at that time as teachers of ecclesiastical doctrine? Should scholastic theology be despised after all this? I would think so, were it not that the Church has defined many matters by its authority. For three hundred years now, whenever the Church has condemned heresies or issued decrees about faith and morals, it has been greatly assisted in both by the aid and diligence of the scholastics. Since this is acknowledged by everyone familiar either with the acts of councils or with the matters of faith under discussion, we must admit that scholastic teachers cannot all err together in faith and morals. Moreover, when the Lord said, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me,” he referred these words not only to the first theologians, that is, the Apostles, but also to teachers who would be in the Church as long as the sheep were to be fed with knowledge and teaching. Just as someone who despised theologians succeeding Christ despised Christ the Lord himself, so anyone who scorns younger theologians succeeding the ancients must also scorn Christ himself. Hence Chrysostomus, or whoever the author was, says in his commentaries on Matthaeus imperfecti, homi. 42: “When you hear someone praising certain teachers, examine how he regards his own teachers. If he tolerates and honors those with whom he lives, he would surely have honored those too, had he lived with them. If he despises his own teachers, he would have despised them too, had he lived with them.” Thus far he, commenting on Christ’s words: “Woe to you who build the tombs of the Prophets and adorn the monuments of the just, and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been their accomplices in the blood of the Prophets.’ Thus you testify against yourselves that you are sons of those who killed the Prophets. And you, fill up the measure of your fathers.” Heretics reason like the Pharisees. “If the scholastic teachers were like Hilarius, Hieronymus, and Basilius, we would follow them; if we had lived in the days of Augustinus, Ambrosius, and Hieronymus, we would not have been accomplices of Mani, Novatus, Vigilantius, Pelagius, or Iovinianus.” They therefore testify that they are sons of those who scorned the ancient saints, since they regard the younger theologians of the school as nothing. Finally, as the Apostle teaches in Ephes. 4, Christ gave some in the Church 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, until we all meet in the unity of faith as a perfect man, so that we are no longer children tossed about and carried by every wind of doctrine. Therefore, as long as the body of Christ, that is, the Church, exists, divine providence will ensure that those regarded in the Church as teachers of sacred doctrine, given as if by God, hold the truth in faith, lest the people be carried about like children. Nor, when we say that this testimony of the Apostle applies equally to the ancients and the younger teachers, do we immediately make the younger theologians equal to those of old (for we know how much is owed to antiquity and also to holiness). We contend, to the best of our ability, that this topic is firm on many other grounds and also on this testimony of the Apostle. Whether rightly or otherwise is for others to judge. For we have explained to our readers what seemed most probable to us on a new argument for which we had no model to follow. If anyone rejects our view while offering better reasons, we shall gladly and willingly embrace them. There is no need for me to say anything about myself. I need not fear that speaking truthfully and openly about myself may make me seem too boastful or talkative. However I have treated this topic of the school, I think I have made it very serious for theologians. Since I have discussed the matter fully, they will learn from me today the easiest arguments by which they can assert the weight and authority of scholastic theology. Enough of this. Let us now repel the objections raised at the beginning.