Consequences of Scripture; extraordinary prophetic interpretation
Some papists little favor this. Forerus calls consequences futile glosses; Veronius says consequences are not the pure Word of God but something drawn by the intellect's discourse from the Word of God. But these men, as they are absurd, so they also contradict Bellarmine, who notes that when the Nicene council defined Christ to be homoousios with the Father, it was for no other reason than that Scripture says the Son is God — from which it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS that Father and Son are of the same substance and deity. Likewise, as in law what is truly and duly deduced from statutes by good consequence is received by jurists no less than what lies there in formal words, so what is truly and duly deduced from Scripture by good consequence is assumed by theologians as itself intended by the Holy Spirit.
We are secure that the Word of God and consequences differ. Consequences can be considered in two ways: (1) in themselves, abstractly and formally — and so they are human and are judged by Aristotle; (2) in and with the matter to which they are applied, so that they coalesce, as it were, with a sacred and infallibly true thing — and so they are not human. The firm rule is: from two premises, one natural and one revealed, there follows a conclusion that cannot be known naturally. XXIV. Extraordinary interpretation is what rests on some authentic and undoubted knowledge and truth of the interpreter, even of one alone. This is wholly infallible — as when God himself by later words teaches what he meant by earlier ones, and when the Apostles with extraordinary and prophetic certainty explain what the sense of the old prophets is.
Latin
Huic quidam e pontificiis parum favent. Forerus consequentias appellat futiles, glossemata. & Veronius: Consequentiae, inquit, non sunt purum putum verbum Dei, sed aliquid per discursum intellectus ex verbo Dei elicitum. Sed hi tales, ut absurdi sunt, ita & contradicunt Bellarmino, qui lib.2. de concil. cap.12. Cum Nicaenum, inquit, concilium definivit, Christum esse homousion Patri, non alia ratione, nisi quod Scriptura dicit Filium esse Deum: ex quibus SEQUITUR NECESSARIO Patrem & Filium esse ejusdem substantiae & divinitatis. Deinde, sicut in jure non minus illud, quod per bonam consequentiam vere & rite ex legibus deducitur, a Jurisconsultis recipitur, quam quod formalibus verbis ibi obvium est: ita & non minus illud, quod per bonam consequentiam vere & rite e Scriptura deducitur, a theologis assumitur, tanquam & ipsum a Spiritu sancto intentum. Securi sumus Verbum Dei & consequentias differre. Duobus enim modis consequentiae considerari possunt. 1. In se, abstracte & formaliter, & sic humanae sunt & ab Aristotele dijudicantur. 2. In & cum re cui adhibentur, ita ut cum re sacra & infallibiliter vera quasi coalescant. Atque ita humanae non sunt. Firma regula est: E duabus praemissis, altera naturali, & altera revelata, sequi conclusionem, quae naturaliter cognosci nequeat. XXIV. Extraordinaria est, quae authentica quadam & indubitata notitia & veritate interpretis, quamvis unius, nititur. Haec prorsus infallibilis est. Sic cum Deus, ipse posterioribus verbis docet, quid prioribus senserit: cumque Apostoli extraordinaria & prophetica certitudine explicant, quis sit sensus veterum prophetarum.