Melchor (alt. Melchior) Cano was a Dominican priest and theologian. He was also in attendance during the Council of Trent.
De locis
theologicis, Book VII, Chapter 1, Number 3
Sancti nanque omnes, qui in eius
rei mentionem incidere, uno ore asseverarunt, Beatam virginem in peccato
originali conceptam, hoc videlicet Ambr. astruit super psal. 118. concione. 6.
hoc August. super psalmum. 34. in illum versiculum, Ego autem cum mihi molesti
essent, &c. & lib. secundo de baptismo parvulorum cap. 24. & 10.
super Genesim ad literam cap. 18. & lib. 53. contra Iulianum cap. 9. hoc
Chrysost. super Matthae. hoc Eus. Emis. in 2. concione Nativitatis Domini, hoc
Remigius super psalmum vicesimum primum, & Maximus in sermone de
Assumptione Beatae virginis astruxere.
Idem quoque affirmat Beda in homilia super Missus est. Anselmus in libr.
cur Deus homo cap. 16. Bernardus in epistola ad Lugdunenses 174. Erardus
episcopus, & martyr in concione quadam de Nativitate Beatae virginis,
sanctus Antonius Paduanus in concione etiam de Nativitate eiusdem sanctae
virginis, sanctus Bernardinus in sermonum suorum opere tertio, in tractatu de
Beata virgine, concione 4. Divus Bonaventura. 3. sentent. distinctione 3.
quaest. 1. articul. 2. Divus Thom. 3. parte, quaest. 27. articul. 2. Divus
Vincen. in sermone de Conceptione Beatae virginis. Divus Anton. 3. parte, tit.
8. Damas. lib. 3. sententiarum suarum. Hugo de sancto Victore de sacramentis
parte 2. cap. 4.
& cum nullus sanctorum contra venerit, infirmum tamen ex omnium
auctoritate argumentum ducitur; quin potius contraria sententia, &
probabiliter & pie in ecclesia defenditur. En argumentum illud Achilleum,
quo Erasmus omnium etiam sanctorum testimonio non se existimat obruendum, si
quando universis repugnauerit. Cuius sententiae ratio etiam illa suffragatur,
quod sancti universi, praeter auctores sacros, qui libros scripsere Canonicos,
humano spiritu libros suos ediderunt.
Nam si spiritu sancto inspirante ipsi etiam locuti sunt, nihil videtur
obstare, quo minus eorum libri in canonicis habeantur. Infirmus igitur hic
locus est, quo sanctorum auctoritas continetur. Humana enim veritas firma & certa esse non
potest. Omnis quippe homo mendax. Osiander vero. 1. lib. Ann. in harmoniam
evangelicam, illud argumentum addit, quod omnes veteres commentatores a tempore
apostolorum, id quod Matthaeus de Christo affert, ex Aegypto vocavi filium
meum, in genuino literae sensu ad Israelem referunt, iuxta allegoriam vero ad
Christum. Cum tamen, ut ait, allegoria, utcunque fingatur, constare non queat,
quoquo enim te vertas, nihil simile videtur esse, praeterquam quod utrique
fuerunt in Aegypto.
Ita contendit, literae sensum a
principio capitis de Christo domino esse, qui Rex Israelis est, & aurorae
merito comparatus. Quod si in sacrarum literarum expositione sancti omnes
errant, horum certe auctoritas firmum argumentum theologis exhibere non potest.
Ecce argumenta quibus adversarii
nostri locum hunc aggredi & expugnare contendunt.
All the saints, then, who happened to mention this
matter, unanimously asserted that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original
sin: thus Ambrose
maintains this in his Commentary on Psalm 118, discourse 6; Augustine,
in his commentary on Psalm 34, on the verse, “But when they were troublesome to
me,” etc.; and in book 2 On the Baptism of Infants, chapter 24; and in
book 10 of his Literal Commentary on Genesis, chapter 18; and in book 53
Against Julian, chapter 9. Chrysostom says the same in his commentary on
Matthew; likewise Eusebius of Emesa in his second discourse on the Nativity of
the Lord; Remigius on Psalm 21; and Maximus in his sermon on the Assumption of
the Blessed Virgin.
The same is also affirmed by Bede in his homily Missus
est; Anselm in Cur Deus Homo, book [or chapter] 16; Bernard in his Letter
to the People of Lyons, 174; Erardus, bishop and martyr, in a certain
sermon on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin; St Anthony of Padua likewise in a
sermon on the Nativity of the same holy Virgin; St Bernardine, in the third
book of his sermons, in the treatise On the Blessed Virgin, sermon 4; St
Bonaventure, III Sentences, distinction 3, question 1, article 2; St
Thomas, III, question 27, article 2; St Vincent, in a sermon on the Conception
of the Blessed Virgin; St Antoninus, III, title 8; Damascene, book 3 of his Sentences;
and Hugh of St Victor, On the Sacraments, part 2, chapter 4.
And although no saint has maintained the contrary,
nevertheless an argument drawn from the authority of all of them is a weak one;
indeed, the contrary opinion is defended in the Church both probably and
piously.
Here is that “Achilles” argument by which Erasmus does
not consider himself overwhelmed by the testimony even of all the saints,
should he at some point be opposed by them all. The reasoning supporting this
position is also this: all the saints, apart from the sacred authors who
wrote the canonical books, published their books by the human spirit.
For if they too spoke under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, there seems to be nothing that would prevent their books from being
regarded as canonical. Thus this is a weak point in which the authority of the
saints is contained. For human truth cannot be firm and certain. “Every man
is a liar.”
Osiander, however, in book 1 of his Harmonia
Evangelica, adds this argument: that all the ancient commentators, from the
time of the apostles, refer what Matthew says about Christ—“Out of Egypt I have
called my son”—in the genuine/literal sense of the text to Israel, but
according to the allegorical sense to Christ. Yet, as he says, however the
allegory may be constructed, it cannot be made to hold together; for, however
you turn the matter, there seems to be nothing similar except that both were in
Egypt.
Thus he argues that the literal sense, from the
beginning of the chapter, concerns Christ the Lord, who is the King of Israel
and is rightly compared with the dawn.
But if all the saints are mistaken in their exposition
of Sacred Scripture, certainly their authority cannot furnish theologians with
a firm argument.
These, then, are the arguments by which our adversaries
attempt to attack and overcome this position.
De locis
theologicis, Book VII, Chapter 3, Number 9
Quarta conclusio, Omnium etiam
sanctorum auctoritas in eo genere quæstionum, quas ad fidem diximus minimè
pertinere, fidem quidem probabilem facit: certam tamen non facit. Quam ego
conclusionem postremo illo argumento abundè probatam existimo. Quòd enim ea
controuersia non sit ex illarum numero, quæ catholicam fidem, aut promouere,
aut immouere possint, vel ex eo perspicuum est: quod beatam Virginem à peccato
originali fuisse penitus liberam, è libris sacris iuxta germanum literæ sensum
nusquam habetur. Quinimò lex generalis in eis traditur, quæ vniuersos filios
Adam, carnali scilicet propagatione creatos, sine vlla exceptione complectitur.
Nec verò dici potest, per traditionem Apostolorum id in ecclesiam descendisse.
Cum huiusmodi traditiones non per alios, quam per episcopos illos antiquos,
& sanctos auctores Apostolis succedentes, ad nos vsque peruenerint. At constat, priscos illos scriptores non
id à maioribus accepisse. Tràderent enim bona fide & ipsi posteris suis.
Non igitur ad fidem illud attinere potest, quod neque in sacris literis, aut
Apostolorum traditionibus inuenitur, neq; ex eis certa valet connexione
confici. Cæterum, quò opposita etiam assertio, hoc est, D. Virginem peccatum
originale à parentibus contraxisse, non sit in numero dogmatum catholicorum,
manifestissimè colligitur ex eo, quod à lege vniuersali per singulare
priuilegium vnam Dei matrem excipere, sacrarum literarum fidei nullo pacto
aduersum est.
Alioqui cum sacræ literæ in vniuersum clament, non videbit me homo &
viuet, Deum nemo vidit vnquam, qui Paulum aut Moysen excepisset, sacras literas
contra puḡnasset. Atque ea causa est, nisi toto cœlo animus meus errat,
quamobrem nec Sixtus 4. nec concilium Lateranen. sub Leone 10. nec synodus
Triden. sub Paulo & Iulio tertiis inchoata, eam quæstionem definierunt.
Neutram enim ex illis opinionibus, poterant tanquam dogma catholicum approbare.
Ita is erráuit, qui asseruit, erroneum esse, aliquem præter Christum à lege
illa originalis peccati liberare. Erráuit ac multò etiam magis Basiliæ∕nse
concilium, cum definivit, doctrinam illam, quæ docet beatam virginem Mariam
nunquam originali subiacuisse peccato, tanquam consormam Scripturæ sacræ ac
fidei catholicæ amplectendam fore, nullique de cætero licitum esse in
contrarium docere.
In pari quippe errore versantur, qui alterutram partem ad catholicam fidem
attinere posse credunt. Difficile est hoc dicere. Credo, si in concione
quæratur, at hoc loco & disputatione facillimum. Non enim hic cum vulgi
imperitia certamus, sed eos instituimus, qui veræ germanæque Theologiæ solidam
& expressam effigiem tenere cupiunt, nec fugientes vmbras persequi. Propositum est autem, veri reperiendi
causa, & contra nostros & pro alienis etiam dicere: &, cum res
postulāt, vtrōsque nullius accepta persona reprehendere. Atque in eo
opere maximè quod ad ecclesiæ publicam vtilitatem cudimus, priuatis non
debuimus affectibus inseruire.
Nec deerunt post hæc etiam ex
viris planè doctis, qui me obiurgent, erunt etiam qui vituperent: quod in
quæstionem multis nominibus inuidiosam consultò & cogitato, inciderim, vt
rem alias grauissimam nullius in Christiana religione esse momenti asseuerarem.
At ego, & beneuolos obiurgatores
placare, & inuidos vituperatores confutare possum: vt alteros reprehendisse
pœniteat, alteri didicisse se gaudeant. Non mihi, fateor ingenue, alia via
patuit ad illud Erasmi argumentum eludendum, quo sanctorum auctoritatem acutè
ille quidem tentauit eludere.
Nec fuit integrum, quod hæreticis semper proprium fuit, antiquorum patrum
libros corrumpere, & bonam etiam partem voluminum detruncare, vt ore saltem
reclamante, licet conscientia possem, Bernardum, Augustinum, Ambrosium,
aliosque item patres in ea fuisse opinione negare. Quid enim prodest, si verum
scire cupis, sanctorum testimonia membranis inscripta radere, cum animo
insculpta abolere non possis? Porro, si vt sanctorum auctoritatem in doctrina
catholica tueremur, quod erat ecclesiæ Dei apprime necessarium, quorundam
opiniones, ne dicam factiones, asseruimus non esse ad fidem & mores
necessarias, quid est, per Deum obsecro, quod nos ea de re valeat quisquam aut
admonere amicè, aut inimicè insectari? Atque hæc quidem hactenus in quartæ conclusionis confirmationem dicta sint.
In qua etiam causa habemus testem
satis idoneum & grauem Vincent. Lirinen. in libro aduersum prophanas
nouationes. Vbi antiqua, ait, sanctorum patrum consensio non in omnibus diuinæ
legis quæstiunculis, sed solum in fidei regula, magno nobis studio &
inuestiǵanda est & sequenda. Id quod quinta conclusione explicandum est. In
qua, quoniam huius loci cardo vertitur, & si multa prætereunda, multa tamen
dicenda sunt, & ad cognitionem sacrarum literarum vtilissima, & ad
scholæ vsum necessaria.
The authority even of all the saints, in that class of
questions which we have said pertain very little to the faith, does indeed make
the faith probable, but it does not make it certain. I consider this conclusion
to have been sufficiently proved by that preceding argument. For that this
controversy is not among the number of those which can either promote or
disturb the Catholic faith is evident from this alone: that it is nowhere found
in the Sacred Books, according to the genuine literal sense of the text, that
the Blessed Virgin was completely free from original sin. On the contrary, a
general law is handed down in them which encompasses all the sons of Adam,
namely those created by carnal propagation, without any exception. Nor can it
be said that this came down into the Church through the tradition of the
Apostles, since traditions of this sort have reached us through no others than
those ancient bishops and holy authors succeeding the Apostles.
But it is evident that those ancient writers did not
receive this from their predecessors. For they themselves would have handed it
down in good faith to their posterity. Therefore that cannot pertain to the
faith which is found neither in the Sacred Scriptures nor in the traditions of
the Apostles, nor can be established with certainty from them by a certain
connection. Moreover, that the opposite assertion also, namely, that the
Blessed Virgin contracted original sin from her parents, is not among the number
of Catholic dogmas, is most manifestly gathered from this: that to exclude one
mother of God by a singular privilege from the universal law is in no way
contrary to the faith of the Sacred Scriptures.
Otherwise, since the Sacred Scriptures universally
proclaim, “Man shall not see me and live,” and “No one has ever seen God,” they
would have spoken against the Sacred Scriptures if they had excepted Paul or
Moses. And this is the reason, unless my mind is altogether 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. For they
could approve neither of these opinions as Catholic dogma.
Thus he was in error who asserted that it was erroneous
to say that someone other than Christ could be freed from that law of original
sin. And the Council of Basel erred still more, when it defined that doctrine
which teaches that Blessed Mary had never been subject to original sin should
be embraced as consonant with Sacred Scripture and the Catholic faith, and that
henceforth no one should be permitted to teach the contrary.
For those who believe that either position can pertain
to the Catholic faith are involved in a similar error. It is difficult to say
this. I grant that, if it were asked in a sermon, it would be very difficult;
but in this place and in a disputation it is exceedingly easy. For here we are
not contending with the ignorance of the common people, but instructing those
who desire to possess a solid and precise image of true and genuine theology,
and not to pursue shadows while fleeing from them. Our purpose, for the sake of
discovering the truth, is to speak both against our own side and in favor of
outsiders, and, when the matter requires it, to criticize both parties without
regard to anyone's personal position. And in a work which we are composing
chiefly for the public benefit of the Church, we ought not to subordinate
ourselves to private affections.
Nor will there be lacking after this learned men who
will rebuke me; there will also be those who will blame me because I
deliberately and consciously entered into a question that is controversial in
so many respects, in order to assert that a matter otherwise extremely serious
is of no importance in the Christian religion. But I can both appease
benevolent critics and refute hostile faultfinders, so that the former may
regret having criticized me, and the latter may rejoice that they have learned
something. I confess frankly that no other route was open to me for eluding
that argument of Erasmus, by which he rather cleverly attempted to evade the
authority of the saints.
Nor was it proper for me to do what has always been
characteristic of heretics: to corrupt the books of the ancient Fathers and
mutilate a good part of their volumes, so that, at least with my mouth
protesting, though my conscience might permit it, I could deny that Bernard,
Augustine, Ambrose, and the other Fathers likewise held this opinion. For what
good would it do, if you desire to know the truth, to scrape the testimonies of
the saints from parchment, when you cannot erase them from your mind? Moreover,
since it was supremely necessary for the Church of God that we defend the
authority of the saints in Catholic doctrine, we have maintained that certain
opinions, not to say factions, are not necessary for faith and morals. What, I
ask you before God, is there by which anyone could either admonish us amicably
or attack us hostilely concerning this matter? And let what has thus far been
said suffice for the confirmation of the fourth conclusion.
In this same matter we have a sufficiently suitable and
weighty witness, Vincent of Lérins, in his book Against Profane Innovations.
There he says that the ancient consensus of the holy Fathers is not to be
diligently investigated and followed in every little question of divine law,
but only in the rule of faith. This is what must be explained in the fifth
conclusion. In it, since the whole hinge of this locus turns, and although many
things must be passed over, many nevertheless must be said, things both
exceedingly useful for the understanding of Sacred Scripture and necessary for
the use of the schools.
