Section XXXIII

And here I must take up a question which offers itself of its own accord and is intimately connected with the things which I have discussed thus far: namely, what ought to be thought concerning the present head of doctrine, and in what class it should be reckoned; whether among those doctrines which are merely probable, or rather among those which are held certainly and firmly; whether among those which have pleased only a few ecclesiastical writers, or rather among those which have been received by common consent; whether among those which pertain to the deposit of revelation, or rather among those which wander beyond the bounds of revelation. Here anyone easily perceives both that the question is most grave and that no care, however solicitous, can be expended which may not appear to be employed with the highest right.

Therefore, to begin with, I separate from the doctrine itself the formulas by which it is expressed, and I distinguish the garment and habit from the body itself.

Then I admonish that one judgment and estimation must plainly be made concerning the formulas and garment, and another concerning the thing itself and the body.

And as regards the formulas, they can be considered in three ways: grammatically, logically, and theologically. Grammatically, indeed, they are neither unsuitable nor unusual; logically, they are especially conducive to distinguishing and unfolding notions; but theologically, they borrow no small measure of worth and dignity from those ecclesiastical writers who frequently employed them.

But concerning the thing itself and the sum of the doctrine, which comes to this—that the human race is so divinely ruled and administered that it does not experience the severity of justice before it has received the benefits of mercy and benignity and has contumaciously repelled them—I affirm two things in order, and first this: it appears altogether probable, even if only those things which we have thus far reported are considered. For Melchior Cano most truly wrote¹:

The authority of one or two saints, even in those things which pertain to Sacred Scripture and the doctrine of faith, can indeed furnish a probable argument, but not a firm one. Thus, to despise it and account it as nothing will be the part of an impudent man; to embrace it and hold it as certain will be the part of an altogether imprudent man.

Nor less truly did Denis Petau, having made a distinction between two kinds of arguments, of which one is necessary and ἀποδεικτικόν, demonstrative, and has a certain firmness of conclusion which compels assent, while the other is only probable, observe² that this latter kind is gathered especially from the authority of the Fathers and doctors of the Church disputing individually about divine matters outside synodal assemblies. The more numerous and more excellent those who concur in the same opinion, the more strength and weight they add to it. But not merely one or two, but eighteen, and these eminent and illustrious, with no one at all opposing them, profess that doctrine which we have reported in summary form. It would therefore be the part of an impudent man to contemn it and expunge it from the number of those things which are judged probable.

Then I affirm that this same doctrine is indubitable and is proved by a certain and necessary argument.

For, Petau continues³, whatever is of such a kind that all the Fathers and doctors of the Church agree among themselves concerning it either possesses the firmness of a Catholic decree or certainly approaches it as closely as possible, because so great a consensus among them contains an argument for an ancient tradition derived from on high, which Catholic piety acknowledges as one of the rules of faith. But I would venture to say that scarcely any other head of doctrine can be brought forward which the Fathers handed down with fuller consensus. For we read that always⁴, everywhere, and by all it was handed down that God does not betake himself to the order of justice before he has fulfilled the offices of mercy toward men; nor does he show himself wrathful by inflicting everlasting punishments before he has manifested himself good and merciful by imparting benefits.