Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae

The fifth DOUBT is concerning the second place of arguing of those whom we have undertaken to examine in the present matter, although it has an argument drawn from the authority of the Saints. And indeed, that it is not infallible is proved first from Augustine, who teaches in several places that, with the exception of the authors of the Sacred Books, all others are so to be read that, however much they abound in doctrine and holiness, what they themselves wrote is not therefore to be thought true, but only insofar as the reason adduced by them has persuaded it. St. Thomas brings this authority here in the solution to the second. And Augustine repeats this opinion in book 2 On Baptism against the Donatists, ch. 3, tome 7, and in the prologue of book 3 On the Trinity, tome 3, and in the Epistle to Marcellinus VII., and Epistles 48 and 111. It is confirmed from the authority of Jerome in the Epistle to Theophilus, against John of Jerusalem, tome 2, where he says: «I hold the Apostles otherwise, and the other tractators otherwise; those I think always to say true, these sometimes to err»; therefore an argument drawn from the authority of the Saints is not infallible.

It is argued secondly. The common consensus of the Saints patronizes some opinion, and yet that opinion is not of faith — nay, even the opposite is probable and pious — therefore the argument drawn from the common authority of the Saints is not certain. The antecedent is proved and declared. For very many of the saints asserted that all the parts of the world were not produced and completed at once and on the same day, but over many days. So says Basil, homily 2 on the Hexaemeron; Chrysostom, homily 3 on Genesis; Gregory, 32 Moral., ch. 10; Ambrose, book 1 on the Hexaemeron, ch. 7; and Damascene, book 2 of his Theology; and very many others such as Bede, Rabanus, Strabo, whom the Glossa ordinaria cites on Gen., ch. 1. But although this be the common opinion of the Saints, nevertheless the opposite opinion of St. Augustine, book 4 on Genesis literally, ch. 8, 22, 34, and book 11 of The City of God, ch. 7, that all things were produced on the same day, is probable; therefore etc. Similarly, the common consensus of the Saints is that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, whose names one may see in Cajetan, opuscule On the Conception of the Virgin, especially in Master Bandellus, who published a very long treatise on this matter, and in the most wise Master Cano, book 7 On Places, ch. 1, num. 3; and yet the opposite opinion is judged in the Church not only probable but also very pious. Finally, very many of the Saints held that Moses did not see the divine essence, as Jerome on Isaias, ch. 6, tome 5; Gregory Nazianzen, book On the faith, near the end; Gregory, 18 Moral., ch. 37, and very many others; and yet the opposite opinion of Augustine, book 12 On Genesis literally, ch. 26, 27, 28, tome 3, and the book On seeing God, and Epistle 112, was chosen by St. Thomas, 1 p., q. 12, art. 11, ad 2, not only as probable but as more probable. Many also of the holy Fathers said that the Angels are corporeal: St. Basil, book On the Holy Spirit, ch. 16; and Ambrose, book On the ark and Noah, ch. 4; and the author of the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas, which is found among the works of Augustine, ch. 10 and 11; Tertullian, book On the flesh of Christ, and book On the veiling of virgins; and Cassian, collation 7, ch. 13; and Rupert the Abbot, book 1 on Genesis, ch. 11; and Augustine is doubtful about this question, as is plain in the Enchiridion, ch. 59, and in several other places, and book 3 On the Trinity, ch. 1; and yet the Scholastics hold the opposite; therefore.

For the explanation of this matter, note first that we can speak of the authority of the Saints in three ways. First, of the opinion of one or another. Second, of the common opinion or assent of several, from which nevertheless some one of the Saints dissents. Third, of the unanimous consensus of all the Saints.

It is to be noted secondly that the authority of the Saints can be brought forward to confirm the dogmas of Philosophy, or to confirm the dogmas of Theology; and among these the authority of the saints can be adduced either to confirm matters of faith, or those matters which are treated in Theology, which nevertheless can be ignored even by all the learned without loss of faith. Let the example of the first be that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle. Example of the second: whether the sacraments cause grace and the virtues through a certain force and power existing in themselves; and whether John the Evangelist died, or lives and perseveres with Elias and Enoch.

THESE things being supposed, let there be a first conclusion. An argument drawn from the authority of the Saints concerning dogmas which are known by natural light has no more certitude than the reason on which it rests. It is proved first. For very many of the Saints either were ignorant of Physics, or of Metaphysics, or at least had it in a sufficiently uncultured way; wherefore it is not surprising if it often happens that they decline from the truth in matters of this kind. Likewise, for very many among them were Platonists before they were converted to the faith, and consequently drank in its dogmas, as is plain in Augustine and others; therefore, since these did not conflict with the faith, it is not surprising if they afterwards taught them, although very many of them are discovered to be false from the Peripatetic doctrine. Moreover, many even of the wisest among the holy Doctors were not much solicitous in searching out philosophical truths, since they rather abstained from the books of the philosophers in order to give themselves wholly to the Sacred Scriptures.

The same conclusion is proved efficaciously; for natural truths rest upon the first principles of nature, which are known by natural light; therefore this truth will be as firm as the reason by which it is proved has had efficacy.

Second conclusion. An argument drawn from the authority of one or two of the Saints is not efficacious, but can be probable. It is proved: the holy Doctors, apart from those who wrote the canonical books, spoke by a human spirit, and sometimes (even in those things which pertain to faith) erred, as Bernard erred in sermon 4 On all the Saints, thinking that souls are not admitted to the divine Vision until the day of Judgment; and Cyprian, saying that those baptized by heretics must be rebaptized, as may be seen in book 2 of the Epistles, Epistle 1. We could bring very many other examples of this kind, which for the sake of brevity I pass over; therefore an argument deduced from their authority is not firm.

Where it is to be noted that although the holy Fathers could err, and in fact did sometimes err, their books nevertheless are to be read with reverence, but with judgment and discretion, so that the prudent reader, leaning upon the truths of faith and of the doctrine of the Catholic Church, may embrace what he sees to be consonant with these, but if he finds anything dissonant, may repel it with modesty. Third conclusion.

An argument deduced in matters of faith from the authority of several of the Saints (although the rest, fewer in number, stand for the contrary), and in matters which do not pertain to faith: the concordant consensus of all brings probability, yet not firmness.

The first part of this conclusion is sufficiently proved from the preceding conclusion. But it is further proved: for very few of the holy Doctors asserted that the Angels are incorporeal, as we said in the course of arguing; and yet this opinion is far removed from heresy; therefore.

But if you object, from Vincent of Lerins in the book Against the profane novelties of heresies, and Thomas Waldensis in the prologue of the Doctrinal of the ancient faith, that it is the faith of the Church which the greater part of the Saints held from the Apostles; therefore, with few reclamants, the opinion of the more numerous Saints makes an efficacious argument. It is answered that the saying of those authors is true when the Church has condemned the contrary opinion of the few, as it condemned the opinion of those who said that those baptized by heretics must be rebaptized; and of those who said that Melchisedech was not a man, but the Holy Spirit.

The second part of the conclusion is proved from that argument which we adduced to prove that the common opinion of the Saints does not bring firmness, bringing forward the opinion of those who said that the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in sin. Hence let an argument be formed. All the Saints agree that the Blessed Virgin contracted original sin, and yet, because this does not pertain to faith, the authority of the Saints is not an infallible argument; therefore universally this is true in matters not pertaining to faith. Although in the aforesaid example, unless the Church had interposed her authority, permitting both opinions, it could seem a matter of faith, since it was a question of the understanding of Scripture: «All have sinned».

Fourth conclusion. The common understanding of all the Saints in matters of faith and in the exposition of the Sacred Letters makes a firm and irrefragable argument in Theology. This conclusion is asserted against certain heretics, as being of faith. Peter Abelard thought the contrary, as St. Bernard reports in Epistle 190 to Innocent; and Wycliffe, as Waldensis reports, book of the Doctrinal of the ancient faith, third doctrine. Of the same error were the more ancient heretics, Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches; nay, even Cajetan (a man otherwise most Catholic and most pious) in the beginning of his Commentaries on Genesis so far erred as to say that a new exposition of Sacred Scripture, although it be dissonant from the interpretation of all the sacred Doctors, is not to be repelled, for the reason (he says) that God has not bound the exposition of Scripture to the senses of the ancient doctors. The conclusion is proved. By the testimonies of Sacred Scripture, Ecclus. 8: «Let not the narration of the elders pass thee by (he says), for they learned from their fathers; for from them thou shalt learn understanding, and to give an answer in the time of necessity». And to the Romans, 12: «Not to be more wise than it behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety»; and 1 Cor. 14: «Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge; for God is not the God of dissension, but of peace»; and to the Ephesians, 4: «And he gave some indeed apostles», etc., up to the circumvention of error. From which place it is plainly gathered that it was of divine Providence that we should have not only the canonical books of the sacred Authors, such as the Prophets and Apostles, but also the commentaries of the holy Doctors for their understanding. Hence, if all the Saints were to err in the interpretation of the Sacred Letters, it would follow that the Church would err with God for author, since, at the command of Christ Himself, she cleaves to the footsteps of the Doctors who were given by God for the understanding of the Scriptures. Moreover, in Ezechiel 34 such Doctors are promised to the Church as should feed her with the doctrine of truth: «I will give (he says) you pastors according to my own heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine». Let the testimony of Ecclus. ch. 12 be noted lastly: «The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fastened, which by the counsel of masters are given from one shepherd: more than these, my son, require not». On which place Jerome says: Except for these words which are given from one shepherd, and approved by the counsel and consent of the wise, claim nothing for thyself; follow the footsteps of the elders, do not depart from their authority.

Secondly the conclusion is proved by the authority of the sacred Councils: first, in the sixth general Synod, Sess. 11, and in the same place in the Synodic Epistle of Sophronius, action 13, the disciples of Origen are condemned on account of the new expositions which they attempt to introduce against the common consensus of the holy Fathers; and in the Trullan Synod, canon 19, prelates are most gravely admonished not to teach other dogmas than those which they have received from the luminaries and Doctors of the Church; and in the third Lateran Council, Sess. 11, the same is prescribed. And finally in the Council of Trent, Sess. 4, it is defined that no one, relying on his own prudence, dare to interpret Sacred Scripture against the unanimous consensus of the Fathers.

Thirdly it is proved by the authority of the Saints, who most gravely reprehend those who in the understanding of the Holy Scriptures depart from the holy Fathers. So Dionysius, ch. 1 On the celestial hierarchy; and the most ancient Irenaeus, book 4, ch. 63; and Clement I in Epistle 5 to the disciples of Jerusalem gravely reprehends the same, whose words are had in c. Relatum, 37, d.; the same teaches Epiphanius, Haeres. 61, and Clement of Alexandria, book 7 of the Stromata, and Ambrose, On the faith, to Gratian, ch. 7: «Let us keep (he says) the precepts of the elders, and let us not violate the hereditary seals with rude temerity»; and Jerome in the Epistle to Evagrius, and the Epistle to Paulinus, and on Daniel, ch. 12, teaches many most grave things to this purpose.

Let Augustine be seen in the prologue of the books On Christian Doctrine, and the book On the usefulness of believing, ch. 7 and 17, where he says that it is unworthy and foolish for anyone to approach the understanding of the Sacred Books without a teacher, whereas nevertheless no one would dare this with profane books and human disciplines. See also Gregory, book 28 Moral., ch. 9, on that [verse] upon which its bases are founded.

Finally it is proved by reason; for if the common consensus of the Saints in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture were not necessarily to be followed, it would follow that it is lawful for anyone to interpret the divine Scripture according to his own arbitrium; but this would bring great perdition to the faith; therefore the common consensus of the Doctors makes a firm argument for the theologian. The minor is proved. For since the temperaments of men are various, if so great a license were given them, various dogmas and sects would also arise; for as many as have hitherto been invented have flowed from this liberty. It is confirmed. For the faith of the holy Fathers is the faith of the Church; therefore their concordant consensus in matters of faith cannot err. The antecedent is proved. For, as we said before, the holy Fathers were given to the Church for the understanding of the divine Scripture; therefore what they interpret concordantly in the divine Scripture pertains to the faith of the Church. Secondly it is proved.

The Scripture which the Saints unanimously receive as canonical is infallibly canonical; and that which they reject is not Sacred; therefore their unanimous consensus in the understanding of the divine Scripture and in matters of faith is also infallible. The antecedent is proved. For otherwise the Church would not have whereby to be rendered certain concerning any divine Scripture. And the consequence is proved. For both the certitude of the divine Word, and its infallible understanding, are conjoined together, and both have been promised to the Church: Isaias 59: «My spirit which is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seed, from henceforth and for ever».

Thirdly it is proved. The Gospel of Christ consists rather in the sense than in the surface of the letter, as Hilary teaches in the book To Constantius Augustus, and Jerome most elegantly on the first chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians; therefore if the concordant sense of the Saints could be false, the Church would not have received the Gospel of Christ. The consequence is proved. For the Gospel has infallible truth, which is to be drawn rather from the sense than from the bark of the letter.

And although this fourth conclusion has been proved chiefly as regards the common sense of the Saints in the exposition of Sacred Scripture, the same arguments nevertheless proceed concerning their common concord about the dogmas of faith; on which matter, besides those things which have been said, St. Augustine is to be seen, book 1 Against Julian, ch. 2, and book 2, where, after he had disputed against Julian from the opinions of the Saints, he at last challenges him to set himself and his opinion before so many judges of truth; whom he then collects, [showing] that they cannot all err together in deciding the truth. Let the Ephesine Synod also be seen, and the Constantinopolitan, actions 6 and 12; and Jerome on those words of Paul to Philemon: «I give thanks to my God, hearing of thy faith which thou hast in the Lord Jesus, and toward all his saints», says: «Whoever has believed God cannot otherwise receive his faith unless he also believe in his saints: for that faith in God is not perfect which is weakened by infidelity toward his ministers».

NOW it is to be answered to the arguments.

To the first argument, which was taken from the authorities of Augustine, it is answered that St. Augustine is speaking not of the common consensus of all the Saints, but of the case when some of them agree while others disagree.

Or secondly it is said that, even if he speaks of the common opinion of the Saints, he is to be understood not of the case when they agree to assert matters of faith, but of that which pertains to natural cognition. Or thirdly let us say that the authority of the holy Doctors can be considered in two ways: first, as it is the authority of men, and thus it makes a probable argument, as St. Thomas said here in the solution to the second; for he speaks formally of the authority of Doctors insofar as it is only the authority of men. Secondly, they can be considered insofar as all of them agree to confirm matters of faith, and thus from their authority a certain argument is taken, such that the opposite is erroneous; and the reason of this is that this authority is a certain sign of the sense which the Church would define; for those Doctors are the eyes of the Church.

To the second it is answered by distinguishing the antecedent: if that opinion in which all the saints agree pertains to faith, I deny that their common consensus does not make an argument of faith, or at least that the opposite of it is not erroneous. But if it does not pertain to faith, we have already said that it does not effect a certain argument; of this kind is what is brought there concerning the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. But in the other two which are brought there — namely concerning the production of things over many days, or in one day, and whether Moses saw the divine Essence, and whether the Angels are corporeal — not all the saints agree. Wherefore the argument does not proceed against our fourth conclusion. It is true nevertheless that in this present time it will be temerarious to say that the Angels have bodies. For in the Sacred Eloquence they are often called spirits, and in the Lateran Council under Innocent III it is said that the Angels are incorporeal. On which matter we shall dispute ex professo below, q. 51, art. 1.