Two legitimate proof-genera; analytic force; justification syllogism; progymnasmata

For what is also customary in other disciplines — that sometimes dialectic syllogisms are premised to analytic ones, sometimes postponed according to the variety of controversies — nothing forbids the same in sacred theology, in which, as I said, there are two genera of legitimate proofs, just as in other disciplines too. The former contains analytic, didactic proofs, which can also be called with the Apostle merely spiritual and theological, proper, vernacular, and likewise of the Spirit and power of God — spiritual and effective demonstrations. The latter has common and dialectic proofs, which we have already briefly indicated as threefold.

But analytic proofs, which are merely spiritual, are either drawn from the written and divinely revealed Word of God — or handed down by Christ from the Father's bosom, by the prophets through whom the Lord's Spirit spoke, and by the Apostles, to whose authority, since they had a certain promise of the Holy Spirit not only in kind but also in individuals, no human authority of synods or even of fathers, Latin or Greek, is to be equated unless they speak with Scripture — or they are drawn from the proper nature of the spiritual things under discussion, which itself is gathered from the Scriptures by the benefit of analytic doctrine. The former proofs for proving the articles of faith are of all the most effective and powerful. For God is the author and fountain of all things, and truth itself. From Plato, Republic book 2, in the second formula for constituting religion: God, he says, is simple and truthful in work and words; he neither changes himself nor deceives others — neither by objects of images, nor by speeches, nor by signs sent in, nor through waking, nor in sleep. To God's truth in the Word is added omnipotence — to which two springs of certainty our Savior looked in confuting the Sadducees (Matthew 22:29).

But the later analytic proofs also have the greatest force for acquiring solid science of spiritual things, because they too are drawn from Israel's saving springs — as when one treats of original sin, faith, justification, and other spiritual things, proofs are sought from their proper nature; but they have more of art and skillful industry. For example, if someone wishes to prove analytically the Pauline saying: That those justified by faith have a pacified conscience. For one must first of all know beforehand what justification is, what faith, what peace, what conscience — which can hardly be done without analytic doctrine applied to the sacred letters. But once definitions of these extremes of the conclusion are constituted, partly perfect, partly also nominal, analytic proof becomes easy: Whoever rests on trust in divine mercy for Christ's merit has a pacified conscience. But the one justified by faith rests on trust in God's mercy for Christ's merit. Therefore the one justified by faith has a pacified conscience.

All the other proofs whose legitimate use is in our theology are only dialectic, of which we spoke a little earlier, together with their use. And although the whole of topics has much weight in theological study, yet first of all there are to be learned from the four progymnasmata set out at the end of the first book of the Topics the precepts of distinguishing things said in many ways, of finding differences, and of discerning likenesses of things — because unless ambiguities are distinguished (as the word justice, Gospel, faith, and the like) and things that are alike are separated by certain differences found (as law and gospel, active and passive righteousness, justification and regeneration, faith and good works, charity, faith and hope), doors are opened to various word-fights and dangerous disputations which Paul everywhere bids us avoid. Here also pertain Topics books 6 and 7, by whose precepts definitions constituted by others are examined — for example, whether the gospel is a sermon of repentance — and the springs and likenesses of differences are shown. From which it is clear that a double mode of treating spiritual things — acroamatic or analytic, and exoteric or dialectic — is not alien to our religion and the sacred letters, but rather is proper; and that it is most fitting for the solid — and to expose the false — theologian as such in theological treatments.