THE FATHERS, ?00E I. others. And it must not be forgotten that their best co?__m__ents are mt the side of Protestantism, and are directly opposite to the doctrines of the Church of Rome. A8 interpreters of Scriptore they are far inferior to many modern commentators, both Protestant and lb)man Catholic, especially the former. 8. Ol?io, u of Catl?ics req?cting tb ?tkority of tAe fatb,',. As it regards the precise authority of the fathers in Scripture interpreta- tion, there is much diversity of sentiment among Roman Catholic divines. Cardinal Cajetan, on (?en. i, says: "We must not reject a new sense of the Holy Scriptures because it differs from the ancient doctors, but we must search more exactly the context of Scripture; and if it agree, praise Cvod, who has not tied the exposition of the sacred Scriptures to the sense of the ancient doctors." Muldonat, on Matt. xvi, 13, rejects the expositions which all the authors he had read, except Hilary, give of these words: "The gates of hell 8hnl! not pt'e* vail against it." BeHarmine employs the following remarkable language: "It is one thing to interpret the law as a doctor, and another thing as a judge; for expounding as a doctor, learning is required; as a judge, authority. For the opinion of the doctor is to be followed as far as reason per- suades; that of the judge from necessity. Wherefore, in their com- mentaries, Augustine and the other fathers supply the place of teachers; but the popes and councils of a judge commissioned by God."* Baro- nins, in his Annals, A.D. 34, sec. 213, says: "Although the most holy fathers, whom, for their great learning, we rightly call the doctors of the church, were indeed, above others, imbued with the grace of the Holy Spirit, yet the Catholic Church does not always, in all things, follow their interpretation of the Scriptures." From Du Pint we produce the sentiments of two distinguished Ro- man divines. Arabrosins Catharinus says, when laying down rules to know when the opinions of the fathers may be followed and when not: "We ought," says he, "in the first place carefully examine whether all Catholic doctors are agreed upon a question, or whether they are of different opinions. Secondly, whether they assert a thing occa- sionally, and support it only with probable reasons, or whether they propose,it as an article of faith, grounded on the belief and practice of the ancient church." Melchior Canus speaks thus concerning the authority of the fathers: "The authority of two or three fathers makes but a probable argument, even in things relating to religion and the faith. The sense of a majority is not a sufficient proof. Their tma- nimous consent would'not be an infallible proof in matters which do not relate to the faith, but it would be so in any thing relating to the understanding of the Scriptures in matters of faith." In the Council of Trent there were very different opinions enter- tained by the doctors concerning the authority of the fathers in Scrip- ture interpretation. Some looked upon it as a spiritual tyranny to hin- der the faithful from exercising their understandings in interpreting Scripture, and to oblige them to abide by the sole sense of the fathers; and that men now ought not to be deprived of a liberty which produced + De Verbo Dei, hH. iii, c. 10. Soe Controversy of Breckenridge and Hughes, p. S88. t E?. Hist., 16th cont., vol iii, pp. 680, 697. 1
�
