1. 'Excepting the sacred authors, no historian can be certain, that is, sufficient to constitute a certain faith in theological matter. As this is obvious and manifest to every one, it has no need to be proved by our arguments.
2. 'Historians of weight, and worthy of confidence, as some without doubt have been, both in Ecclesiastical and in secular matters, furnish to a theologian, a probable argument.
3. 'If all approved historians of weight concur in the same narrative of an event, then from their authority a certain argument can be educed, so that the dogmas of theology may be confirmed also by reason.'[1]
Let us apply these rules to the case of Honorius, and to the alleged historical difficulties. Is this one in which 'all approved historians of weight concur in the same narration of events?' In the case of Honorius, it is well known that great discrepancy prevails among historical critics. The histories themselves are of doubtful interpretation. But the Rule of Faith is the Divine tradition of revelation proposed to us by the magisterium, or doctrinal authority, of the Church. Against this, no such historical difficulties can prevail. Into this they cannot enter. They are excluded, as I have said, by a prescription which has its origin in the Divine institution of the Church. The revelation of the faith, and the institution of the Church, were both perfect and complete, not only before human histories existed, but even before the inspired Scrip-
- ↑ Melchior Canus, Loci theol. lib. xi. c. 4.
