We're extremely grateful today to be speaking with Dr. Matthew T. Gaetano. Dr. Gaetano is assistant professor of history at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, and is the CO editor of the text that we'll be discussing today, beyond doors and de auxiliaries, the dynamics of Protestant and Catholic soteriology in the 16th and 17th century, available from drill press in 2019. Dr. Gaetano, thank you so much for joining us today. It's so good to be with you. First of all, you're gonna help us unpack this project a little bit. This is a series of essays that we have in this text, and they explore the commonalities between Protestant and Catholic theology concerning salvation. In the post reformation period, how did you and your fellow editors come to this particular project?
Right, so my fellow editors, David sits, Jordan Balor. They are editors, some extent founders of the post reformation Digital Library, which would be a great resource, I think, for a lot of your listeners. And so the three of us have been in contact a bit through that process, I was recommending certain Roman Catholic sources to them. And this this sounds a bit exotic, but we were actually in Venice, at a meeting of the Renaissance Society of America and we were in a lovely restaurant. And we just got talking about the intersections and the the divergences, but also the convergences between the views of salvation, particularly predestination reprobation, certain elements of the doctrine, about free choice in the context of salvation, kind of, you know, in over a meal. And it became clear to us that not only for theological reasons for deeper understanding of where the lines actually are between tome ism and Calvinism, so called reformed tradition, but for simple historical understanding, we thought that a volume like this would be somewhat fruitful. That it was not only we who, even though we were students of this period needed to have a deeper understanding of where the lines were, but we had had an inkling and it turns out that it was just the tip of an iceberg. That 16th and 17th century theologians themselves recognized a surprising convergences between kind of reformed and thomistic. You know, the followers of Thomas Aquinas outlooks on these issues relating to the doctrines of grace, salvation, predestination, and so on. Hmm.
Doctor guy channel, actually, anything outside of my basement sounds exotic right now as we conduct this interview under under lockdown measures, but even more in front of Australia in Venice. Good, I'm seriously so many of these essays are studying the post reformation period and where there's genuine commonality between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant theologians in that period. Some historians see the Reformation basically as one extended argument over the interpretation of St. Augustine, St. Augustine of Hippo in the fourth and fifth centuries, what's your view?
It's a very difficult issue, but I would largely agree that there was a shared Augustinian outlook among Western Christians, that that we can find in the 16th and 17th centuries. And now, I think it's worth noting that, you know, luthers disputation against scholastic theology actually is defending Agustin against some of his, you know, fellow theologians, especially in the nominalist School, who raised certain questions about some Augustinian doctrines, there was an idea that you could not truly merit your justification through your works or through love, but Congress league a kind of merit. And Luther oppose this fiercely what's really, of note and I think that is something that has animated a lot of my work over the last few years, is that a while there were some Roman Catholic theologians believe well just you know, Western Latin Christian theologians of the late 14, early 1500s and into the 1500s, who didn't fully embrace some of these Augustinian views about grace, predestination, and so on, of the followers of Thomas Aquinas. Not just Thomas Aquinas, were rather devoted not only to Aquinas but to a Gustin his views of salvation of grace of predestination and so on. As troubling as some of those doctrines might be for some modern Christians. And I think when you put Luther and Calvin with their, you know, obviously some important differences into dialogue with this more Augustinian framework, when understanding salvation, represented by the toe mystic school, the followers of Aquinas, I think the conversation gets a lot more interesting about about where the where the lines are, where their true divergences are, between Roman Catholics in that tone, mystic school at least, and the magisterial reformation. And what what I found that's really of some interest, perhaps, is that as you move through the late 60s, into the late 16th century into the 17th century, you could argue that tome ism becomes even more fiercely Augustinian that there was a sense that the teachings of a Gustin about grace and predestination have been so kind of endorsed by the Latin Christian church, by the papacy by councils and so on that, you know, it was, it was bold, if not at times heretical to question some of Augustus formulations about these issues. And I don't think that that's something that's all that well known. If you look at dictionaries, just as another example, encyclopedias of the 17th and 18th century with a definition of tome ism. They'll often define totemism followers of Aquinas in terms of their views of predestination, Free Will and Grace. Whereas today, I think, if you say what does it mean to be a follower of Aquinas or tau? Must you often think about the relationship of faith and reason of theology and Aristotle, that was not always the way tome ism was defined in the 1600s. The last point I would just make about this question of Augustinian ism and the Reformation is I would raise a serious objection to the way in which this has been formulated at times by great theologians like BB Warfield by recent historian Darlene McCulloch, who says that the Reformation is the battle in the mind of Augusta with the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church taking the anti Donna test, a Gustin, who was defending the sacraments and the church from the dots as heretics and the Protestants taking the anti Palladian a Gustin who is defending grace against those who believe that you can merit your salvation simply through your good works. And what I want to argue of course, is that when you look at the Tomah school, certainly and many other schools in the Roman Catholic Church, you have that anti Palladian Agustin as well. And so you have these two forms of anti plagiarism, luthers and Calvin's, and then the Dominican thomistic schools version. And that debate that dialog is, I think, something that we need to pay more attention to.
absolutely fascinating Dr. Gaetano, and as we look at your broader research, so what is it then that causes this divergence in views of Augustinian ism? Is it is it a difference in philosophical method? Is it a clear difference on certain points of doctrine? What creates these two faces of Augusta?
Yeah, so I think as I think as far as the reception of Agustin in the 16th and 17th centuries, I think that I think that one thing worth noting is when it comes to the issues that we touched on this book, predestination, Grace, the efficacy of grace free choice. The the the issue of predestination was actually not all that central to the conflict within Rome and Luther say in the 15, teens, the conflicts between Rome and zwingli, in the 1520s, and, and and so on, you know that predestination becomes, I think, more central to Protestant Catholic controversies. As you move into the middle and late 16th century. For instance, the Council of Trent doesn't have an extensive discussion of predestination, the central issue is justification by faith. And how do we understand justification by faith alone, the imputation of Christ's righteousness and these are issues that are touched on by a Gustin but are a bit more come in Coate not quite as developed, I think as his formulations of the basic efficacy of grace, predestination and so on. And and and i think that's what's really heating up as you move into the middle and late 16th century and beyond.
Factory Gaetano, thank you for that explanation. The essay that you contribute in this volume is titled Calvin against the Calvinists in early modern tome ism. And in this piece you're writing on the 16th century debate between the Jesuits and the Dominicans over the interpretation of the doctrine of grace. The debate is referred to sometimes by the Latin title of the commission that Pope Pope Clement the eighth sets up to examine the debate, de auxiliaries. Can you explain to us please What is how this particular debate became so significant of the post reformation age? Right?
So, de auxiliaries, this is referring to Auxilium or xillia, which is the Latin word for help. Right? So, or aid, right that we are fallen, and we need God's grace, we need his aid, we need his help. All of those things were the details of which were being debated between the Dominicans and the Jesuits. Sometimes the Franciscans and the Augustine order, get involved and other so called secular churchmen, regular bishops and, and others. But what is really important to note and again, we could have a whole discussion about the Dominicans of the Jesuits and the details of that controversy. But the it's important once again, that to emphasize that the Dominican the Jesuits, agreed that a Gustin was authoritative. They agreed that Aquinas, and his formulations about grace and so on, were authoritative. Of course, scripture being the source of all of these of these doctrines. So there was agreement there, there was an agreement that Palladian ism was a heresy. I think this is something that I think scholars know, you know, kind of learned churchmen, pastors and so on. They know this, but I think still kind of in the streets on the ground. It's something that's not all that well known if it's a sub Catholics, unfortunately, that you know that plagiarism is a heresy in the Catholic Church that to say, I married heaven by my works is a heresy. And everybody in this debate in the late 1500s, early 1600s agreed that plagiarism was a heresy. The question is, well, okay, now we agree that plagiarism is wrong. So how can we give an account of predestination the efficacy of divine grace, that preserves human free choice intact, but I think we go we should go beyond that. The real concern I think, for the Jesuits, when they're looking at these Dominicans, what a very fierce view of predestination and divine grace and its efficacy was to preserve divine innocence. In other words, the problem of theodicy, justifying the waste of God to man in a way, and they worry that if you over emphasize in their view, predestination, the efficacy, the divine grace, well, how are we then responsible for our sin? And if we're not responsible for our sin? Doesn't that make God the author of our sin? Isn't? Isn't some ways, then you're making almost God at fault. And so that was really the drive to get started wasn't Oh, humans are so special, and we should defend our freedom. That wasn't really the animating concern is, as I see, it was really, again, defending God, from any suggestion that he is the source or author of sandwich. Of course, the Dominicans agree that God is not the author of sin. So this controversy between the Dominicans and the Jesuits and, and the papacy, getting involved. And, and, and the fact that the Jesuits in the beginning were in a bit of trouble, or they had trouble, you know, they had to really show that their views are faithful to us and and didn't slip towards plagiarism in the way they emphasized human freedom. By the end, though of this commission in the 16 Arts, you know, the around 1606 or so, the debate does turn and the Jesuit start to be very clear, and as they had been before, that, the Dominican physician, the tow mystic physician, was slipping towards what they deemed to be the Calvinist heresy. Right, which is that, in their view of Calvin, which, you know, is wasn't meant to be a generous charitable reading of Calvin in this context, that, in their view, Calvin had so emphasized the efficacy of divine grace and predestination as to eliminate human freedom, basically, and to make God the author of sin. And so the Americans are a bit on the defensive by the end. And what's really interesting about this is that the papacy, closes the commission and says we're, you need to wait for a decision about who's Right, who's wrong as the papacy judges this controversy, that judgment has never come. And so what the papacy really does, and I think this is somewhat significant, he and some Protestants even note how significant this is later in the 1600s, that this debate between the Dominicans and the Jesuits,
neither side was allowed to accuse the other side of heresy. They were still, of course, to be able to worship together to commune together and in their writings could not accuse each other of plagiarism or of Calvinism. And just a few years later, and I think this is when we talk about significance and legacy and this is something that has not really been touched upon or studied all that often, that the so called calvus are the reform the counter remonstrance at the Synod of dort, which we often associate, somewhat problematically, the idea of tulip. This Calvinist the five points of Calvinism with a set of doors that Calvinist reformed theologians do, at times recognize that they largely agree with the Dominicans. In that de auxiliaries, controversy in Rome, and we have pretty clear evidence, I think the the volume demonstrates this quite effectively, that Jacob arminius, right, the founder of this Armenian branch of Protestantism, that he is reading the key Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, and using some of his notions to develop his account of free choice. And so, what we see is and I think this is where perhaps some inter confessional dialogue or even ecumenical implications might come out of this, that what we tend to think of today as a Protestant Catholic controversy about predestination freewill, at least I see this all the time among my students. And even in the scholarship. When people talk about predestination. There's a quick association with Calvinism. And what I want to show is no predestination is a debate within Western Christianity within this Augustinian tradition one and to the details of how to work this out with important differences cut across the confessions. Roman Catholics are debating predestination and freewill in ways that are quite similar, not identical, but similar to the way so called Calvinist and Armenians are debating predestination free will just a few years later, in the Low Countries episode of door. And I think that that correspondence and the recognition of that correspondence by theologians of the 1600s is something I hope readers can see in this volume.
That that is extraordinary the way that you with such clarity show that picture. Thank you so much for your exposition there. Dr. Gaetano in your analysis, how accurately did day auxiliaries represent john Calvin's understanding of grace and predestination?
This is a this is a difficult issue. And I wish I had greater expertise in the details of Calvin's position on this myself to come to a clear historical judgment. I mean, it's worth noting that Lutherans, other reformed theologians before are mineus. And then Roman Catholics worried about Calvin's formulation of predestination. And we're concerned that it can not only undermine human freedom, but got much too close to making God the author of sin and of evil. So it's not just Catholics in Rome there during the day of zilis controversy who are making this charge. Now I want to be quite clear, Calvin denies explicitly clearly that he makes God the author of sin and evil. He denies that as an implication of his position. And later reformed theologians, I think of one is Burgess bootsy is who actually knows these debates, they exellys door extremely well. In in the Netherlands, because bear juice bootsy as he says it is a slander it is a calumny, to ascribe author's divine authorship of sin or evil to the reformed tradition. So I want to respect that that is the general trajectory of the reformed tradition. And I want to be very clear about Calvin's own denials that he in any way made God the author of sin, but I think from a tow mystic point of view, there were certain ways in which tow mists did the work to avoid making God the author of sin while having this very robust view of Providence. I think God is the first cause of every being. And it's really only sin, because it's evil because it's the privation of the good, where human beings are the first deficient Cause not an efficient cause, but the first deficient cause of evil. And the way tomaz do this was with the notion of divine permission. Alright, so this isn't God just standing around seeing what's going to happen. But there's some way in which the way God causes good because he's a good God. And the way he causes evil are fundamentally different. And the term used for that is that God wills to permit but only to permit evil as a defiance of his will. And, you know, in the institute's there is language word, Calvin. And again, I think the context helps us understand why that Calvin doesn't like using this language of permission. He thinks it makes God too much of a of a bystander, if you will. So So I would say this, that the goals of the Dominicans and the Jesuits in Rome, they were not trying to give a kind of objective, impartial, accurate interpretation of Calvin. What they were trying to do in the Jesuit case was to say, we all agree that Calvin is wrong, and it seems like you Dominicans are getting pretty close to that error. And the Dominicans goal was to say, here's the line. Here's the difference between our position and Calvin's position. And what I found really fascinating, and I'm sure we'll talk about this a bit more is that Dominicans and I was I was a bit surprised by this, kind of never really modify or or mollify or substantially alter their interpretation of Calvin, at least in the 1600s. Calvin is always ascribed the position of God being the author of evil and sin and so on. rejection of freewill without the qualifications Calvin makes is always associated with Calvin himself. But what what happens is that Dominican thomists, were being accused of being Calvinistic throughout the 76, late 16th into the 17th century by by Jesuits in particular, eventually read the senate of dork they read some reformed theologians and say, This seems pretty good, not on everything, but on the issue of some aspects of predestination, reprobation freewill and so on. But the way they tell that story is is by saying that these Calvinists have departed from Calvin and and have rejected rejected Calvin's errors have come back to the shore teachings of Agustin and even Aquinas. So that's the way these tomes, rightly or wrongly, are interpreting the reformed tradition of the late 16th and 17th. centuries.
Amazing. Okay, Gaetano, what are some of the fields of research that you uncovered through this project that you might pick up in the future? What projects are you currently anticipating? Yeah, so I think
some lines of research that have been built upon this, this volume one was an essay in the Oxford Handbook to the reception of Aquinas and I, in that essay, try to make a number of of points about the ways in which both Jesuits and Dominicans are saying that they're faithful to Aquinas, the other side is departing from Aquinas. And while that might just seem like a, like a petty controversy, you know, I hope that as you look through the evidence that they provide, you see that all these theologians know Aquinas his texts really well. They also all read Aquinas as a disciple of a Gustin when it comes to these issues related to salvation. And again, I think a lot of modern scholars and even churchmen, theologians tend to juxtapose Agustin and Aquinas. That may or may not be right, but that's not what 17th century theologians were doing, for the most part. Another line of inquiry that I think comes out of this research, you know, again, as much as I'm, I hope there's some fruit that comes out of this, where we see that all Western Christians are in some ways, historically in the same boat, when it comes to a lot of these controversial doctrines. My oh, you know, I really am not entirely sure that I come down with one side or the other theologically, and again, that's not really relevant to my work as a historian, I hope, but one thing that I've tried to do is to look at different ways in which this very strong teaching of predestination was being articulated. And one thing that I found that was very interesting was one of the key terms in the Dave zilis controversy that really troubles the Jesuits is the Dominicans would use the language of pre determination Right that God. Again he doesn't know eliminate our freewill but that God is the first cause of everything that's real. And human freedom, the human freewill is something real. And so that is a true secondary cause under God's primary causality. What's really interesting is that a number of these tomes just draw that term again somewhat problematically, but in a very interesting way, not only from Agustin and Aquinas, it should be from from from Aquinas, not from Agustin, that term but from Dionysius theory obligate. Right. So, during diagnosis theory obligate, that's a whole story in itself, but tends to be associated with a kind of Christian platonism. And so this very Baroque, post reformation, counter reformation, theological debate, having some roots problematically or not in this ancient Christian neo platonism is something that, I hope is of interest and, and somewhat unexpected. The last point is, there's a number of directions. This research has taken and there's other research that I hope might be of interest to your and your listeners, to you and your listeners. But the the the big issue, when it comes to salvation, as I've suggested a few times was not really predestination, it was justification. Right? That was, you know, for Luther, the colonel, everything else is husk justification by faith alone. And so I've tried to take a similar approach to looking at how Catholics especially in the tome, mystic tradition,
come to grips with the arguments of, of Luther and Calvin and others regarding this doctrine of justification. And, and what I found that was somewhat interesting is one, there were some, if not ecumenical voices, at least more irenic voices are trying to, even for polemical reasons, find points of agreement. There's two bishops in the Holy Roman Empire, the Wallenberg brothers, not well known, but one of them was a teacher of live nets, when it comes to theology, so some pretty significant figures in their own time. And, and, and they're actually reading Protestant scholastics. Later prophets, theologians who really have refined treatments of these theological issues, and they say, when it comes to even justification, there's a bit more convergence than we might expect. And again, for my part, I'm not endorsing that view entirely. I don't want to say, there's a lot of missed, you know, it's all a misunderstanding. I don't believe that. But I think that when we're having these conversations today, in the 21st century, something that we're haunted by is the idea that well, what are we seeing that our ancestors didn't see? And I think when we realize that our ancestors in the 16th and 17th century actually did see some of these points of convergence, even in the heat of polemical conflict. I think that that kind of opens up certain paths of reflection that I hope might be, might be fruitful. And then on, on the issue of justification, what I found also very interesting is the the central question there, again, was not just Well, what is the relationship of faith and love and the these kinds of issues, but those were there, but what really troubled 17th century Catholic readers of Protestant soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, was whether or not this idea that sin remains in a very strong sense in the justified, whether that in some way undermined in some ways undermined your the work of Christ on the cross. Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. And again, Protestants could object to that view. I know the kinds of objections they would make. But I think once again, it shows us that Catholics and Protestants recently back up, they're sorry, Catholics and Protestants in the 17th century, we're not living in two different theological universes. They had shared biblical and Augustinian concerns, even if they came to very different conclusions on some issues. And when it comes to justification, you know, Protestants, were concerned that certain Catholic views of the sacraments, certain Catholic views, about merit and so on, undermined the sufficiency of Christ work on the cross. Catholics had a similar concern, which is that the view that sin remains a very strong sense in the justify its undermines the work of Christ on the cross. So there was a shared concern there. And the question is which theological outlook was most in keeping with that shared, Outlook rooted I think ultimately, in figures like a Gustin and of course, ultimately in Scripture itself.
Dr. Gaetano you are you are an educator you're working in Christian higher education at Hillsdale College and Christian higher education is a field that's changing phenomenally right now, just so much change is being processed. In your experience, what do you anticipate to be some of the long term effects from the Coronavirus crisis on Christian higher education.
I mean, this is something that I don't have great expertise in. But it's something I've reflected upon a bit, I think, the experience of teaching on zoom, you know, while again, we can do these sorts of interviews and have this conversation, which would have been very difficult to do in the past in different contexts. I think teaching on zoom has only reinforced certain things that I've been pondering over the last several years. And perhaps these reflections are somewhat superficial. But I've really tried to think, as a teacher of history, about what I offer, that you can't get on the internet. And, you know, if if I'm just giving these eloquent well structured lectures, well, you could go and sign up for Yale courses online, or Great Courses or something along those lines and get much better lectures by better scholars, more more expert scholars, then the kind of day to day workman, like lectures that I'm able to give week by week at Hillsdale. Similarly, if I'm just and I think this was valuable in the past, transmitting information, like Here are the facts. Well, you know, there's so many resources available now, online, though, and again, of course, there's a certain kind of expertise and being able to sift and weigh sources and, you know, and, and, and, and what are really the facts, and so on, and so forth, and what's appropriate judgments about the past, those are all things that are valuable, but I think, simply transmitting information, it's really hard to justify the expense of higher education, if that's our goal. So I think that the, the thing that we can do in a classroom that you can't do online, right, is human beings, gathering together with a share text, with a shared document, really working through it together, having a discussion, having a dialogue, a bit of back and forth, where, of course, you know, I'm providing guidance, but I'm trying to help the students to be initiated into a conversation, to, for them to fuse their horizons, with ideas in the past that might be foreign or even repugnant to them. But for them to enter into those ideas with some sympathy, recognizing that these are fellow human beings, and it's really important for us to, to understand, enter into those horizons, before we frustrate inquiry by making some kind of final judgment, determination or evaluation, even though that, you know, will come for the students. So I think the ways in which we as involved in higher education, and then with this kind of broadly Christian framework, in, you know, in different ways at different colleges, where the the form that community takes the kind of the view of the person that we as Christians have, the kind of encounter that we should have with each other. And also, with those who came before us, at least when we're doing historical inquiry, it seems to me that the stakes are even higher, the burden is even stronger, when it comes to the obligations of professors, educators, teachers, who who claim to be Christian, for, you know, thinking about the kind of education, the kind of pursuit of truth and knowledge rooted in that vision of community, dialogue, harmony, that I hope a good liberal, liberal education helps to provide as we send our students out into the world, especially in these difficult times. That, you know, how do we help our students be people have conviction, but also an open to dialogue, conversation, and again, as Christians, recognizing that, you know, Christ's Christ is the Prince of Peace. He's the one who is supposed to bring the nations of the world gathered them together in common worship, share worship. Again, that's not my central task as a historian in a history Classroom. But I hope that at least indirectly, the implications of just good liberal education, dialogue, conversation, inquiry, has these, you know, kind of broader ethical implications, and even spiritual implications as my students go out into the wider world.
Dr. Gaetano, if I can ask a closing question that we've been asking all of the interviewees on this program, and that is this, what would it mean for the church to be united today? How is it that we could recognize this unity? And what is it that we can do is individual Christians pursue the community for which Jesus prayed in john 17?
I think it's beyond my capacities as a historian to think about what it would take to bring that kind of concrete visible unity or at least to be directly engaged in bringing something like that about, but I do hope that in small ways, we can have conversations like this, that we could recognize that, you know, that some of the things that we spent a lot of time arguing about, and thinking of as Catholic versus Protestant issues, at least my students, you know, every every crop of freshmen comes in and they start debating predestination, freewill. And Hillsdale is a special place because we have this, you know, a large Catholic population, a large magisterial Protestant confessional Protestant and evangelical Protestant population. And they have these debates. And think of those issues as the some of the key points for Catholic versus Protestant identity, rightly or I think, somewhat wrongly, but whether that's a widespread phenomenon or not, I'm not sure. And I think that I hope work like this could help begin a conversation about where we might not want to spend so much of our energy. Yeah, right to recognize the Catholics and Protestants among themselves at some of these debates about predestination and freewill, which then allows us to focus on the things that I believe are still pressing issues. What is the character of sin? In in the justified? What do we really mean by the imputation of Christ's righteousness? Is it fitting to invoke the saints? What is the role of the successors of the apostles particularly? This? Is this the successor of St. Peter, I mean, these are the issues that really animated theologians in the 15 teens 20s 30s and beyond. And I think, in many cases, those issues, even after the Joint Declaration, on justification, 1999 remain pressing issues in our in our own day, but we spent a lot of time talking about other things that really weren't Central, always to the 16th century. And that really, then perhaps don't need to be quite essential in the 21st century. And I think, you know, in light of the conversation that we've had, you know, one thing that I think might be fruitful is to recognize these shared sources, right, of course, scripture, but the many of the church fathers, particularly a Gustin, right. Again, if one of the more recent historians of the Reformation says, the Reformation is a battle in the mind of a Gustin with Protestants only really taking the anti Palladian a Gustin who defended divine grace without recognizing these Catholic voices who are doing exactly the same thing that shows that there's a lot of work to do, to recognize that even if on the ground, this is not always the case, that our traditions have a shared, anti Palladian, a shared Augustinian dynamic, and I hope, again, those small elements, in terms of the work of scholarship, could help us achieve greater unity and even with short of what I was describing earlier, as that concrete visible unity that that that we might want to pray for, that we might pray for. I think that the kind of communion in dialogue and conversation in prayer and affection for the heroes of the faith of the past, love of Scripture, all of those things are, I believe, marks, at least partial marks of the kind of unity for which Jesus pray. And that is a prayer that I'm engaged in regularly and I'm and I really cherish this opportunity to have a conversation with you with your audience. In a lot of ways, I you know, I hope that some of these can vary Somewhat arcane issues for the 16th and 17th centuries might be seen as kind of gifts going back and forth. And even, you know, my fellow editors, Jordan, and and David, the three of us the way we were able to work together, despite some theological disagreements, to do, I hope some solid historical work is is a mark of something more than just commitment to scholarship, but our fraternity in Christ.
Thank you guys. Thank you so much for joining us today for this. This interview. Dr. Gaetano is assistant professor of history at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, and also co editor of the text that we've been introduced to today beyond doored in de auxiliaries, the dynamics of Protestant and Catholic soteriology in the 16th and 17th centuries. Thank you so much for sharing your reflections today. It was so good to be with you. My absolute pleasure.