Authors/Duns Scotus/Ordinatio/Ordinatio I (Quaracchi)/Prologus/Q2

 

See also the translation in the Franciscan archive.

• Argumenta principalia
• Contra
• Octo viae in communi proponuntur
• Scripturarum concordia
• Auctoritas scribentium
• Recipientium diligentia
• Rationabilitas contentorum
• Irrationabilitas singulorum errorum
• Ecclesiae stabilitas
• Miraculorum claritas
• Contra idem
• Contra utrumque
• Testimonium eorum qui foris sunt

Latin	English
QUAESTIO II.	Question 2.
29. — Proponitur quaestio. — Utrum cognitio supernaturalis necessaria viatori, sit sufficienter tradita in sacra Scriptura ?	It is asked whether the supernatural cognition necessary to the wayfarer is sufficiently handed down in Sacred Scripture?
30. (1) — Argumenta principalia. — * Videtur * quod non: a) Quia cognitio necessaria nunquam defuit generi humano: sed Sacra Scriptura non erat in lege naturae, quia Moyses primo scripsit Pentateuchum; nec tota erat in lege Mosaica, sed tantum vetus Testamentum; ergo, etc. .	Main arguments. It seems that it is not. For  the necessary cognition was never lacking in the human race. But Sacred Scripture did not exist in the law of nature, because Moses first wrote the Pentateuch, nor was the whole of Sacred Scripture in the mosaic law, but only the Old Testament; therefore etc.
b) Item, quicumque auctor scientiarum humanarum quanto acutior intellectu tanto plus vitat superfluitatem in tradendo: sed in Sacra Scriptura videntur contineri superflua, ut caeremoniae et historiae multae, quorum cognitio non videtur necessaria ad salutem; ergo, etc. .	Likewise, the more any author of human sciences is more acute in understanding, the more he avoids superfluity in handing down. But in Sacred Scripture there seems to be contained many superfluous things, such as ceremonies and many histories, cognition of which does not seem necessary for salvation; therefore etc..
c) Item, multa sunt de quibus non cognoscitur certitudinaliter ex Sacra Scriptura, utrum sint peccata mortalia, vel non: quorum tamen cognitio est necessaria ad salutem, quia nesciens illud esse peccatum mortale non sufficienter vitabit illud; ergo, etc. .	Likewise, there are many things concerning which we have no certain knowledge from Scripture as to whether they are mortal sins or not, of which, nevertheless, the cognition is necessary for salvation, for without  knowing something to be a mortal sin, we will not sufficiently avoid it; therefore etc..
31. (2) — Contra Aug. XI. De Civitate, cap. 3, loquens de Scriptura canonica ait: Cui fidem habemus de his rebus quas ignorare non expedit, nec per nosmetipsos nosse idonei sumus.	Against: Augustine (City of God, XI. 3), speaking of the canonical scripture, says "to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves"
[32] 32. — Haereses variae recensentur. — In ista quaestione sunt haereses innumerae damnantes sacram Scripturam, vel partem eius, sicut patet in libris Damasceni et Augustini de Haeresibus. — Quidam vero haeretici nihil de Scriptura recipiunt — Quidam non vetus Testamentum, ut Manichaei, sicut in lib. Aug. De Utilitate credendi patet, dicentes vetus Testamentum esse a malo principio. — Quidam vero tantum Testamentum vetus accipiunt, ut Iudaei.	Various heresies are enumerated. On this question there are innumerable heresies condemning Sacred Scripture, either partly or wholly, as is clear in the books of (St. John) Damascene and (St.) Augustine (On heresies). Certain heretics receive nothing of Sacred Scripture. Certain ones, in particular the Manicheans, disprove of the Old Testament, as is clear in the book (of St. Augustine), (On the usefulness of believing (ch. 2, n. 4), saying that the Old Testament is from an evil principle.Certain ones only receive the Old Testament, such as the Jews.
— Quidam autem aliquid utriusque, ut Saraceni, quibus Mahometus immundus alias immunditias innumeras immiscuit.	Certain others take something of each, such as the Saracens, to which the unclean Mohammed mixed other innumerable, unclean things.
— Quidam aliquid dictum in novo Testamento, puta haeretici diversi, qui diversas sententias Scripturarum male intellectas habentes pro fundamento, alias neglexerunt: verbi gratia ad Rom. XIV. v. 2;: Qui infirmus est olera manducet; item Iacob. V. v. 16: Confitemini alter utrum peccata vestra, ex hoc errarunt circa sacramentum Poenitentiae quidam, dicendo illud posse dispensari a quocumque non Sacerdote; vel aliis huiusmodi auctoritatibus innitendo male intellectis.	Moreover certain ones, for example diverse heretics, who take diverse sentences of the Scriptures, badly understood, as a basis, take some things said in the New Testament, but neglect others. For example according to [I] Romans [14:2]: Let him who is infirm eat vegetables.1 and (verses) of this kind. Likewise, James 5[:16]: Confess your sins to one another, from which they erred concerning the Sacrament of Penance by saying that it can be dispensed by anyone whomsoever, not by a priest, or by supporting themselves on authorities of the Sacred Scriptures of this kind, badly understood.
33. (3) — Octo viae in communi proponuntur. — Contra omnes istos in communi octo sunt viae eos rationabiliter convincendi quae sunt: praenunciatio prophetica, Scripturarum concordia, auctoritas scribentium, diligentia recipientium, rationabilitas contentorum, irrationabilitas singulorum errorum, Ecclesiae stabilitas, miraculorum claritas.	Eight common ways are put forward. Against all of these there are commonly eight ways of reasonably convincing them, which are: (1) the foretelling of the prophets, the agreement of the Scriptures, the authority of the writers, the diligence of those who received them, the reasonableness of the contents and the unreasonableness of individual errors, the stability of the Church, and the splendour of miracles.
34. — Praenuntiatio prophetica. — a) Ratio. — De primo patet quia solus Deus potest naturaliter, non ab alio, futura contingentia certitudinaliter praevidere; ergo solus ille, vel ab illo instructus potest ea certitudinaliter praedicere: talia autem multa praenunciata in Scriptura impleta sunt, ut patet consideranti libros prophetales; ex quibus non est dubium, quin sequantur pauca quae restant, secundum Gregorium, in homilia de adventu.	[On the foretelling of the prophets] Concerning the first it is clear, since God alone foresees future contingents with certainty from his nature, and not from another, therefore he alone, or one instructed by him can predict them with certitude. Moreover, many examples of such events, foretold in Scripture, have been fulfilled, as is clear to one considering the Books of the Prophets, from which there is no doubt that the few which remain are to follow, according to Gregory, in a homily on the advent.
b) Auctoritas. — Istam viam tangit August. XII De Civit. c. 10, ubi ait: Vera se narrasse praeterita ex his quae futura praenunciavit cum tanta veritate implentur, ostendit.	Authority. Augustine touches upon this way (On the City of God, XII c. 3), when he says that that it “had truly narrated past events by its prediction of future events, which have so exactly come to pass”.
[33] 35. (4) — Scripturarum concordia. — a) Ratio, — De secundo, scilicet scripturarum concordia, sic: In non evidentibus ex terminis, nec ex principiis evidentiam habentibus, non consonant firmiter et infallibiliter multi diversimode dispositi, nisi a causa superiore ipsorum intellectus inclinentur ad assensum: sed scriptores sacri Canonas varie dispositi, et diversis temporibus existentes, in talibus non evidentibus omnino consonabant.	[On the agreement of the Scriptures] — On the second, namely the agreement of the Scriptures, as follows. In matters not evident from terms, and not having evidence from principles, many persons are not firmly and infallibly in agreement, disposed as they are in diverse ways, unless their understanding is inclined to assent by a superior cause. But the writers of the sacred canon, variously disposed, and existing in diverse times, were entirely in agreement in such non evident matters.
b) Auctoritas. — Hanc viam pertractat Aug. XVIII. De Civitate Dei, cap. 41: Auctores nostri sane pauci esse debuerunt, ne multitudine vilesceret, quod religione carum ita esse oporteret, nec tamen ita pauci, ut eorum non miranda sit consensio. Neque enim in multitudine Philosophorum, qui labore etiam litterario monumenta suorum dogmatum reliquerunt, facile quis invenerit, inter quos cuncta quae sensere conveniant. Et hoc Aug. probat in exemplis ibi.	Augustine deals with this way (On the City of God, XVIII c. 41), saying that our authorities “ought, indeed, to be few, lest on account of their multitude what ought to be religiously esteemed should grow cheap; and yet not so few that their agreement should not be wondered at. For among the multitude of philosophers, who in their work have left behind them the monuments of their dogmas, no one will easily find any who agree in all their opinions” (and Augustine proves this in the examples he gives there).
Maior etiam assumpta non tantum probatur per exemplum de * Prophetis, * ut videtur probare Augustinus, sed etiam per rationem: quia cum intellectus quantum ad assensum sit natus moveri ab obiecto evidente in se, vel in alio, nihil aliud ab obiecto videtur talem assensum posse causare, nisi virtualiter includat evidentiam obiecti; nam si nihil tale moveat intellectum, remanebit sibi Theologia neutra: nihil autem est tale de non evidentibus ex terminis, nisi intellectus superior nostro; nihil autem intelligens superius homine potest hominem effective docere nisi Deus.	Also, the assumed major is not only proved by the example of the philosophers [/prophets], as Augustine seems to prove, but also by reason, for since the intellect is suited, as regards assent, to be moved by an object evident in itself or in another, nothing other than the object seems to be able to cause such assent, unless it virtually includes the evidence of the object. For if no such thing moves the intellect, theology will remain neutral to it. But there is no such thing among things not evident from their terms, except of an intellect superior to ours; but nothing intelligent superior to man can effectively teach a man except God.
c) Solvitur obiectio. — Si autem dicatur hic quod posteriores, licet aliter dispositi quam priores, et aliis temporibus existentes, tamen habuerunt doctrinas praecedentium in scripturis, et acquieverunt credendo, sicut discipuli doctrinae Magistrorum, et ita nihil scripserunt dissonum a prioribus, licet Deus non doceret hos et illos, contra hoc videtur Augustinus obiicere ubi prius, dicens de Philosophis: Qui labore litterario monumenta suorum dogmatum reliquerunt, etc, quae discipuli legentes, licet in aliquibus essent assentientes [34] prioribus, ut discipuli, aliqua tamen improbaverunt, ut patet ibidem de Aristippo et Antistone, qui ambo Socratici, tamen in quibusdam sibi contradixerunt; et quandoque discipuli magistro, ut Aristoteles Platoni. Quomodo igitur non contradixissent posteriores nostri prioribus in aliquibus, si non habuissent doctorem communem, eorum intellectus inclinantem ad eadem non evidentia?	If one says here that those who came after, though disposed in another manner than before, and existing in other times, nevertheless had a doctrine of the things preceding in scriptures, and agreed by believing, just as disciples agree to the doctrine of masters, and thus wrote nothing dissonant from those prior, though God taught neither the former or the latter. Against. Augustine seems to object to this in the place before, where speaking of the philosophers he says "By literary work they left monuments to their dogmas", which their disciples read, and though in some things they agreeing with their prior teachers, as disciples, nevertheless others they disproved. The same is clear with Aristippus and Antisthenes, who both were Socratics, but nevertheless however in some things contradicted one another. And sometimes disciples have contradicted their teacher, as Aristotle did with Plato. Therefore how would have our later ones not contradicted our earlier ones in certain matters, if they did not have a common Teacher, inclining their understanding to the same non-evident (things)?
d) Instantia proponitur. — Respondeo, quia non evidentia tradiderunt priores, ideo posteriores non potuerunt eos per rationes improbare, et noluerunt eis discredere, nisi possent rationem cogentem pro se habere, reverentes eos ut magistros veraces; sed Philosophi discipuli per rationem potuerunt magistros improbare, quia materia circa quam altercabantur potuit habere rationes sumptas ex terminis. Exemplum: non ita contradicit discipulus Historiographus magistro Historiographo, sicut Philosophus Philosopho, quia historiae de praeterito non possunt esse evidentes, ut avertant discipulum a magistro sicut possunt esse philosophicae rationes.	I reply, that those earlier writers handed down non-evident things, therefore the later ones could not disprove them through reason, and they did not want to disbelieve them, unless they could have a cogent reason for themselves, revering those earlier writers as truthful masters; but the disciples of the Philosopher could disprove their masters through reason, because the matter about which they disagreed could have reasons taken from terms. Example. The disciple-historian does not contradict the master-historian in the way that the philosopher contradicts the philosopher, because the histories of the past cannot be evident, to turn the disciple away from the master, as philosophical reasons can be.
— Solvitur. — Contra illud; saltem Ezechiel prophetans in Babylone eo tempore quo Ieremias in Iudaea prophetavit, cum non solum illa dicerent quae a Moyse quasi communi eorum magistro habuerunt, sed et alia multa, in illis potuissent discordare aut dissentire cum non essent evidentia ex terminis, nisi habuissent aliquem communem doctorem supra intellectum humanum.	Against this, at least, is Ezekiel prophesying in Babylonia at the same time that Jeremiah prophesized in Judea Since both did not say solely those things [reading sola] which they could have had from Moses as if from their common teacher, but also many other things, in these matters they could have disagreed or dissented since they were not evident from terms, if they did not have some common Doctor above human understanding.
36. (5) — Auctoritas scribentium. — a)Ratio. — De tertio scilicet auctoritate scribentium, sic: Aut libri Scripturae sunt istorum Auctorum quorum esse dicuntur, aut non. Si sic, cum damnent mendacium, praecipue in fide et moribus, quomodo est verisimile eos fuisse mentitos, dicendo: Haec dicit Dominus, si Dominus non fuisset locutus?	[On the authority of the writers of the scriptures] — Concerning the third, namely the authority of the writers, as follows. Either the books of Scripture are by those authors to which they are said to be by, or they do not.  If they do, since they condemn lying, chiefly in faith and morals, how is it possible that they had lied in saying ‘the Lord says this’ if the Lord had not spoken?
— Aut si dicas eos fuisse deceptos, non mentitos, vel propter lucrum mentiri voluisse, primum improbatur ex dicto Pauli, II. Corin. XII. v. 2 Scio hominem in Christo, etc. et subdit ibi: Verba arcana audisse, quae non licet homini loqui. Quae assertiones non videntur fuisse sine mendacio, si asserens non fuit certus; quia asserere dubium vel est mendacium, vel non longe est a mendacio. — Ex ista revelatione Pauli et multis aliis revelationibus factis diversis Sanctis concluditur quod intellectus eorum non potuerunt induci ad assentiendum ita firmiter illis, quorum [35] notitiam non potuerunt habere ex naturalibus, sicut assenserunt, nisi ab agente supernaturali.	Or if you say that they were deceived, not lying, or had wanted to lie for money - the first point is disproved by what Paul says (II Corinthians 2) "I know a man, who 14 years ago" etc., and he adds there [he himself - REF] heard secret words, which it is not lawful for a man to speak. These assertions do not seem to have been without mendacity if the one asserting them was not certain, because to assert what is doubtful [as though a certain truth] is either a lie or not far from a lie. From this revelation of Paul, and from many other revelations made to diverse Saints, it is concluded that their understanding could not be brought to assenting so firmly to those things of which they could not have had knowledge from natural [causes], in way they have assented, except by a supernatural agency.
Secundum improbatur, scilicet quod non fuerunt propter lucrum mentiti; quia pro illis, ad quae voluerunt homines inducere ad credendum, tribulationes maximas sustinuerunt.	The second point (namely, that they lied for the sake of money) is disproved because they endured the greatest tribulations for those things which they wanted to bring men to believe in.
Si autem libri non sunt illorum, sed aliorum, hoc videtur inconveniens dicere; quia ita negabitur quicumque liber esse illius auctoris cuius dicitur esse. Quare ergo soli isti falso ascripti sunt auctoribus quorum non erant? — Praeterea, aut illi qui ascripserunt libros istos eis fuerunt Christiani, aut non. Si non, non videtur quod voluerunt tales libros conscribere, et aliis ascribere, et ex hoc magnificare sectam cuius contrarium tenuerunt. Si fuerunt Christiani, quomodo illi Christiani mendaciter tales eis ascripserunt, cum lex eorum damnet mendacium? sicut prius. Et propter idem, quomodo assererent Deum locutum esse multa quae ibi narrant, et hoc personis quibus libri intitulantur, si talia non acciderunt illis personis? Quomodo etiam libri isti fuissent ita authentici et divulgati esse talium auctorum, nisi fuissent eorum, et ipsi auctores eorum authentici fuissent?	But if the books are not by them, but by others, this seems inconsistent to say, because in that case any book whatsoever will be denied to be by the author to whom it is said to be by. For why have these books of theirs alone been falsely ascribed to authors who did not write them?  Moreover, either those who ascribed the books to them were Christians, or not. If not, it does not seem that they wanted to write such books and to ascribe them to others, and thus to magnify a sect of which they held a contrary (belief). If they were Christians, how then did those Christians with a lyingly ascribe such to them, since their law condemns lying, just as before?  And on account of the same [reasoning], how could they assert that God had spoken the many (things) which are told there, and [had spoken] this to the persons to whom the books are assigned, if these things had not happened to those persons? Also, how were those books of theirs thus authentic, and published as being by such authors, unless they had been by them, and their authors had been authentic?
b) Auctoritas. — De quo Richar. I De Trin. c. 2: Certe summae sanctitatis viris sunt nobis tradita. De hoc etiam Aug. XI. De Civit. Dei, c. 3, loquens de Christo, dicit sic: Hic, inquit, prius per Prophetas, deinde per seipsum, postea per Apostolos, quantum saiis esse iudicavit, locutus, Scripturam condidit, quae canonica nominatur, eminentissimae auctoritatis, cui fidem habemus de his rebus quas ignorare non expedit, nec per nosmetipsos nosse idonei sumus.	Concerning this Richard (of St. Victor says in his) De Trinitate, book I, ch. 2: "From men of the highest sanctity have they been handed down to us". Likewise, (St.) Augustine, in De civitate Dei, book XI, ch. 2 [ch. 3], speaking of Christ says: ""This [mediator]", he says, "having spoken what he judged sufficient first by the prophets, then himself, and afterwards by the apostles, has produced the scripture which is called canonical, of the highest authority, and in which we have faith concerning matters it is not expedient to ignore, and yet cannot know for ourselves.
Et Aug. in XIII. Epistola ad Hieronymum, et habetur in Canone dist. 9: Si ad sacras Scripturas admissa fuerint vel officiosa mendacia, quid in eis remanebit auctoritatis? Et idem ad eumdem in eadem epistola(l): * Ego solis eis scripturarum libris qui iam canonici appellantur didici hunc honorem timoremque deferre: ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo uliquid errasse firmissime credam: ac si aliquid in eis offendero Litteris quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud quam mendosum esse codicem, vel interpretem non asse[36]cutum esse quod dictum est, vel minime intellexisse non ambigam. Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate, doctrinaque praepolleant, non ideo oerum putem quia ipsi ita senserunt, sed quia mihi vel per alios auctores canonicos, vel probabili ratione, quod a vero non abhorreat persuadere potuerunt. *	Likewise Augustine in his thirteenth letter to Jerome, says "I have learned to yield this honour and respect only to those books of the scriptures which are now called canonical, such that I firmly believe that none of their authors has erred in writing a thing. And if I have stumbled upon anything in these writings that seems contrary to the truth, I do not doubt but that the manuscript is faulty, or that the translator has not captured the meaning of what was said, or I myself have not understood it. But I read other authors such that, however much they excel in sanctity and teaching, I do not esteem that they wrote the truth simply because they felt it was true, but because they succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by other canonical writings, or by probable reasoning".
37. (6) —. Recipientium diligentia. — a) Ratio. — Quartum, scilicet recipientium diligentia, sic patet: Aut nulli credis de contingenti quod non vidisti, et ita non credes mundum fuisse ante * te, * nec locum esse in mundo ubi non fueris, nec istum esse patrem tuum, et illam esse matrem tuam: et talis incredulitas destrueret vitam politicam. Si igitur vis alicui credere de contingenti quod tibi non est, nec fuit evidens, maxime credendum est communitati, sive illis quae tota communitas approbat, et maxime quae communitas famosa et honesta cum maxima diligentia approbata recipit: talis est Canon divinae Scripturae; tanta enim apud Iudaeos sollicitudo fuit de libris habendis in Canone, et tanta apud Christianos de libris recipiendis tamquam authenticis, quod de nulla alia scriptura habenda pro authentica tanta sollicitudo fuit inventa, praecipue cum tam solemnes communitates de Scripturis istis curaverunt, tamquam de continentibus necessaria ad salutem.	Diligence of the recipients. The fourth, namely, the diligence of the recipients, is clear as follows. Either you believe in no contingent proposition which you have not seen, and thus do not believe that the world was made before you, nor that there is a place in the world where you have not been, nor that this is your father and that is your mother; and this incredulity destroys all civil life. If therefore you want to believe any of the contingent propositions which is not available to you, nor was evident, most of all you should believe the community, or those which the whole community approves, and most of all those which a famous and honest community, with the greatest diligence, received as approved. Such is the Canon of Scripture. For so great was the solicitude among the Jews concerning the books to be held in the Canon, and so great (the solicitude) among the Christians concerning the books to be received as authentic, that concerning no scripture to be held authentic was such great solicitude found, chiefly when such solemn communities of the Scriptures cared for them as for what was containing what was necessary for salvation.
b) Auctoritas. — De hoc Aug. XVIII. De Civit. Dei, c. 38: Quomodo scriptura Enoch, de qua Iudas in Epistola sua facit mentionem, non recipitur in Canone, et multae aliae scripturae, de quibus fit mentio in lib. Regum? Ubi innuit quod sola illa recepta sunt in Canone quae Auctores non sicut homines, sed sicut Prophetae divina inspiratione scripserunt. Et ibidem c. 41: Illi Israelitae, quibus credita sunt eloquia Dei, nullo modo pseudo prophetas cum veris Prophetis pari licentia confunderunt, sed concordes inter se, atque in nullo dissentientes, sacrarum liiterarum veraces ab eis agnoscebantur et tenebantur auctores.	Of this Augustine writes in his City of God, XVIII, ch. 38: "How was the writing of Enoch, of which (the Apostle St.) Jude in his own Epistle makes mention, not received in the Canon, and the many other scriptures of which mention is made in the Books of Kings?". He implies there that that scripture alone was received in the Canon which the authors wrote, not as men but as prophets, by divine inspiration. And in the same place, ch. 41 “The Israelites, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, in no way confounded with similar licence false prophets with the true prophets; but, agreeing together, and differing in nothing, acknowledged and upheld the authentic authors of their sacred books.”
38. (7) — Rationabilitas contentorum. — a) Ratio. — De quinto, scilicet rationabilitate contentorum, patet sic: Quid [37] rationabilius quam Deum tamquam finem ultimum super omnia diligi, et proximum sicut seipsum? id est ad idem ad quod se, secundum Greg. In quibus duobus praeceptis universa Lex pendet et Prophetae. Matth. XXII. v. 40. Item Matth. VII. v. 12: Omnia ergo quaecumque vultis, ut faciant vobis homines, ei vos facite illis. Ex istis quasi ex principiis practicis alia practica consequuntur in Scriptura tradita, honesta et rationi consona, sicut de eorum rationabilitate patere potest singillatim cuilibet pertractanti de praeceptis, consiliis et sacramentis, quia in omnibus videtur esse quasi quaedam explicatio legis naturae, quae secundum Apostolum ad Rom. II. v. 15, scripta est in cordibus nostris. — Hoc de moribus.	Reasonableness of the contents. Concerning the fifth, namely, the reasonableness of the contents it is clear as follows. What is more reasonable than that God is loved above all things, as the final end, and one’s neighbor as oneself ?
b) Auctoritas. — Et de hoc Aug. De Civit. Dei, lib. II. c. 28: Nihil turpe ac flagitiosum spectandum, imitandumque proponitur, ubi veri Dei aut praecepta insinuantur, aut miracula narrantur, aut dona laudantur, aut beneficia postulantur.	“For no filthy and wicked action is there set forth to be gazed at or to be imitated; where either the precepts of the true God are recommended, his miracles narrated, His gifts praised, or his benefits implored.”
c) Ratio. — De credibilibus patet: quia nihil credimus de Deo quod aliquam imperfectionem importet: imo quidquid credimus verum esse, magis attestatur perfectioni divinae quam eius oppositum. Patet de Trinitate personarum et incarnatione Verbi et huiusmodi. Nihil enim credimus incredibile; quia tunc incredibile esset mundum ea credere, sicut deducit August. De Civit. Dei, LIIc. 5: mundum tamen ea credere non est incredibile, quia hoc videmus.	Concerning what is credible, it is clear as follows. For we believe nothing concerning God which carries any imperfection. On the contrary, whatever we believe is true, attests more to the divine perfection than to its opposite. This is clear concerning the Trinity of Persons and of the Incarnation of the Word, and so on. For we believe nothing incredible, because it would then be incredible that the world believes them, just as Augustine deduces in City of God, Book XXII, ch. 5; but it is not incredible the world believes them, because we see it does.
d) Auctoritas. — De hac autem lege et honestate Christianorum patet per Augustinum, De Utilitate credendi, c. 17: Vulgus marium, et foeminarum, etc.	But of this law and of the honesty of Christians, it is clear from Augustine in The utility of believing: "The masses of men and women ..." etc.
39. (8) — Irrationabilitas singulorum errorum. — a) Ratio. — De sexto, scilicet de irrationabilitate singulorum errorum, patet sic: Quid Pagani pro idololatria sua adducent, colentes opera manuum suarum, in quibus nihil est numinis, sicut satis ostendunt Philosophi? Quid Saraceni vilissimi porci Mahometi discipuli, pro suis scripturis allegabunt, expectantes pro beatitudine quod porcis convenit, scilicet gulam et coitum ? Quam promissionem despiciens philosophus, qui fuit quasi illius sectae, Avic. IX. Met. c. 7, alium finem, quasi perfectiorem et homini magis congruentem, asserit dicens: Lex nostra, quam dedit Mahometh, ostendit dispositionem felicitatis et miseriae quae [38] sunt secundum corpus, et est alia promissio quae apprehenditur intellectu. Et sequitur ibi; Sapientibus magis cupiditas fuit ad consequendum hanc felicitatem quam corporum; quae quamvis daretur eis, non tamen attenderunt nec appretiati sunt eam comparatione felicitatis quae est coniunctio Primae Veritati.	The irrationality of individual errors. On the sixth, namely, the irrationality of individual errors, it is clear as follows. What do the pagans adduce in favor of their idolatry, adoring the works of their hands, in which there is no divine power, as the philosophers sufficiently show? What will the Saracens, of that most vile disciple of a pig, Mohammed, allege for his writings, expecting for their beatitude what belongs to pigs and donkeys, namely gluttony and coitus?   Despising this promise, the philosopher Avicenna, who was a sort of disciple of that sect, giving another end, as if more perfect and more fitting to man, says in his Metaphysics (Bk. IX), "Our law, which Mohammed gave, shows a disposition of felicity and misery which are appropriate to the body, but [et] there is another promise which is apprehended by the intellect".  And he continues there "There was more cupidity in the wise men to attain this felicity than that of bodies, which, though it was to be given them, nevertheless they did not attend to, nor did they appreciate it in comparison with the felicity which is conjoined to the First Truth".
— Quid Iudaei, qui novum Testamentum damnant, quod in suo veteri promittitur, ut ostendit Apostolus ad Heb.. Etiam, quam insipidae sunt eorum caeremoniae sine Christo! Christum etiam advenisse, et ita novum Testamentum ab eo principaliter promulgatum sicut authenticum fore recipiendum, Prophetae eorum ostendunt: Non auferetur, ait Iacob, Gen. XLIX v. 10, sceptrum de Iuda et dux de femore eius, donec veniat qui mittendus est, et ipse erit expectatio gentium. Et similiter illud Daniel. IX. v. 24: Cum venerit sanctus sanctorum.	Why do Jews condemn the New Testament, since it is promised in their own Old Testament, as the Apostle Paul shows in his Letter to the Hebrews? Also, how insipid are their ceremonies without Christ! Likewise, their prophecies show that Christ was to come and so that the New Testament was to be promulgated by him so as to be received as authentic. "There shall not be born away", says Jacob (Gen. XLIV v.10), the scepter etc., and he himself shall be the expectation of the nations".  Similarly that statement of Daniel: "When the Holy of holies will have come, thy unction shall cease."
— Quid asini Manichaei fabulantur primum malum, cum ipsi, etsi non primi, tamen valde mali essent? Nonne vident omne ens, in quantum ens, bonum esse? Nonne etiam in novo Teslamento potuerunt videre esse vetus authenticum et approbatum?
— Quid singuli alii haeretici, qui unum verbum Scripturae male intellexerunt, secundum Aug. in lib. LXXXIII. Quaestionum, q. 69: Non potest, inquit, error oriri palliatus nomine christiano, nisi de Scripturis non intellectis. Et hoc ideo quia praecedentia et sequentia non contulerunt. Unde ibidem infra: Solet circumstantia Scripiurarum illuminare sententiam. Nec etiam alia loca Scripturarum contulerunt, unde haereses ortae sunt per se legendo, quae conferendo repulsae sunt: quia conferentes diversas sententias adduxerunt, quae ex se invicem mutuo videri poterant quomodo et qualiter essent intelligendae.
b) Auctoritas. — Contra istos est illud verbum Aug. 'Contra epistolam Fundamenti: Non crederem, inquit, Evangelio nisi quia Ecclesiae catholicae credo. Igitur irrationabile est aliquid Canonis recipere, et aliquid non, cum Ecclesia catholica, cui credendo Canonem recipio, recipiat totum aeqaueliter.
Item, doctrinae Philosophorum aliquid continent irrationale, prout de politiis diversis ordinatis a diversis Philosophis probat Arist. II. Polit; sed etiam politia sua in quibusdam est irrationabilis, sicut patuit ex solutione quaestionis praecedentis [n. 21 b].
[39] Ipse enim tradens politiam suam dicit: Expedit te ad temperantiam coitum facere senibus. Item dicit, nullum orbatum debere nutriri. Similiter dicit quod si quis generaverit filios ultra sufficientiam divitiarum, antequam sentiatur vita fiat oborsum. Ponit etiam deorum pluralitatem Tullius, De Natura Deorum *
40. (9) — Ecclesiae stabilitas. — De septimo, scilicet de Ecclesiae stabilitate, patet quoad Caput per illud August. De Utilitate credendi, c. 17 quasi in fine: Cum igitur tantum auxilium Dei, tantum profectum, fructumque videamus, dubitabimus nos eius Ecclesiae condere gremio, quae usque ad consummationem generis humani ab apostolica sede per successiones episcoporum firmata, frustra haereticis circumlatrantibus, et partim plebis ipsius iudicio, partim consiliorum gravitate, partim etiam miraculorum maiestate damnatis, culmen auctoritatis obtinuit? Et parum post: Quid est aliud quod tam ingratum potest esse opi atque auxilio divino, quam tanto labore praedictae auctoritati velle resistere? Unde Gamaliel Actuum V. v v. 38 seqq.: Si est ex hominibus consilium hoc aut opus, dissolvetur; si vero ex Deo est, non poteritis dissolvere, ne forte et Deo videamini repugnare. Et Lucae XXII. v; 32, ait Dominus Petro: Ego rogavi pro te, Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua; et tu aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos.	The stability of the church. On the seventh, namely on the stability of the church, it is clear from the chapter by Augustine (on the profit of believing): “When therefore we see so great help of God, so great progress and fruit, will we doubt to hide ourselves in the bosom of that Church, which even unto the confession of the human race from [the] apostolic chair through successions of Bishops, (heretics in vain lurking around her and being condemned, partly by the judgment of the very people, partly by the weight of councils, partly also by the majesty of miracles,) has held the summit of authority". Ans shortly afterwards: "What else is it to be ungrateful for the Divine help and aid, than to wish to resist authority provided with so great labor?"
Firmitas enim Ecclesiae in membris patet per illud Aug. De Utilitate credendi, c. 17: Imperitum etiam vulgus marium foeminarumque in tam multis diversisque gentibus et credit et praedicat. Similem sententiam dicit: Contra epistolam Fundamenti: Quis enim tantam multitudinem ad peccata pronam, ad legem contrariam carni et sanguini servandam induceret, nisi Deus ? Et confirmatur, quia secta ludaeorum non manet in vigore, sicut contra eos obiicit Aug. in primo sermone de adventu: Vos inquam, convenio, o Iudaei.	... but also an unlearned crowd of males and females in so many and different nations both believe and set forth. He expresses a similar sentiment in On the basic letter of the Manicheans [where?]
Si obiicitur de permanentia sectae Mahometi, respondeo: illa incepit plus quam sexcentum annis post legem Christi, et in brevi, Deo cooperante, finietur, quae multum debilitata [40] est anno Christi 1300, et eius cultores multi mortui et plurimi sunt fugati, et prophetia dicitur esse apud eos, quod cito finienda est secta illa.	If there is an objection about the permanence of the Mohammedan sect, I reply: it began more than 600 years after the law of Christ and, with the cooperation of God, it will soon be ended, for it is greatly weakened in the year of Christ 1300, and many of its devotees are dead and some have fled, and there is said to be a prophecy among them that the sect will shortly come to an end.
41. (10) — Miraculorum claritas. — a) Ratio. — De octavo, scilicet de miraculorum claritale, sic patet: Non potest esse testis falsus Deus: sed Deus invocatus a praedicante Scripturam, ut ostenderet doctrinam eius esse veram, fecit aliquod opus sibi proprium, utpote miracula, ac per hoc testificatus est illud esse verum quod iste praedicavit.
Confirmatur hoc per Richar. I. De Trin. c. 2., ubi supra: Domine, si est error, a te decepti sumus: nam tantis signis confirmata sunt, quae non nisi per te fieri possent.
b) Obiectio solvitur. — Quod si dicatur, miracula non fuisse facta, aut etiam quod ipsa non testantur veritatem, quia Antichristus faciet miracula; contra primum dici potest illa sententia Aug. De Civit. lib. XXII. c. 5: Si ista miracula facta esse non credunt, hoc nobis unum grande miraculum sufficit, quod iam terrarum orbis sine ullis miraculis credidit.	if they do not believe these were miracles … this one grand miracle suffices for us, that the whole world has believed without any miracles.
Nota valde illud capitulum; quia si quidquid quod credimus dicatur incredibile esse, non minus est incredibile homines, inquit, ignobiles, infimos, paucissimos, imperitos, rem tam incredibilem, tam efficaciter, mundo et in illo etiam doctis, persuadere potuisse, ut mundus illud credat, sicut iam credidisse videtur, nisi per illos aliqua miracula fierent, per quae mundus ad credendum induceretur. Unde subdit ibi: Qui propterea exiguo numero ignobilium, infimorum, imperitorum hominum credidit, quia in tam contemptibilibus testibus multo mirabilius Divinitas seipsa persuasit.	Note especially that section, for if anything that we believe is said to be incredible, it is no less incredible, he says, that "a very few men, of mean birth and the lowest rank, and no education, should have been able so effectually to persuade the world, and even its learned men, of so incredible a thing".  "Hence he adds there “And if the world has put faith in a small number of men, of mean birth and the lowest rank, and no education, it is because the divinity of the thing itself appeared all the more manifestly in such contemptible witnesses.” (ibid).
Quid enim incredibilius quam ut ad legem contrariam carni et sanguini doctores pauci et rudes et pauperes possent plurimos potentes ac sapientes convertere? Quod specialiter patet de multis sapientibus, primo fidei rebellibus, postea conversis: ut de Paulo, prius persecutore, postea Gentium Doctore, et de Augustino, prius per Manichaeos seducto, postea Doctore catholico, de Dionysio, prius Philosopho, postea Pauli discipulo, et de Cypriano, prius mago, postea christianissimo Episcopo, et de innumeris aliis conversis.
(11) Contra idem secundo dici potest illud August. De Civit Dei, lib. X. c. 18: An dicet aliquis ista falsa esse miracula, [41] nec fuisse facta, sed mendaciter scripta? Quisquis hoc dicit, si de his rebus negat omnino ullis litteris esse credendum, potest etiam dicere nec deos ullos curare mortalia, etc. Et ibidem de eodem: Si libris magicis, sive (quod honestius putant) theurgicis credunt, quid causae est, cur illis Litteris nolint credere ista facta esse?	Against the same, secondly, Augustine can be cited: "Will some one say that these miracles are false, that they never happened, and that the records of them are lies? Whoever says so, and asserts that in such matters no records whatever can be credited, may also say that there are no gods who care for human affairs.” And in the same place on the same subject: “if in the books of magic, or of the more respectable theurgy, were wrought by these gods, what reason have they for refusing to believe the miracles recorded in those writings?”
Contra idem tertio: quia quaedam facta non nisi a nimis protervientibus negari possunt, ut sunt miracula facta a Silvestro coram Constantino, tam in curatione leprae eius, quam in disputatione eius contra Iudaeos, quae facta * postea * tamquam celeberrima mundum non latuerunt.	Likewise against the third, that certain deeds cannot be denied except by the very impudent, as are the miracles worked by Silvester before Constantine, in the curing of his leprosy, as well as in his disputation against the Jews, which deeds afterwards have not lain hidden from the world as things celebrated .
Contra secundum dici potest, quod si quis invocatus in testem signum consuetum testificationis permittat adduci, et praesens non contradicat, talis taciturnitas non stat cum veritate perfecta: miraculum autem est tale signum Dei ut testis; igitur si permittat miracula fieri a daemonibus, non contradicens, enuncians scilicet illa non esse testimonia sua, non videtur esse perfecte verax: quod est impossibile.	Against the second it can be said that if anyone summoned as a witness permits that there be cited a customary sign of testifying and being present does not contradict it, such silence does not stand with perfect truth. But a miracle is such a sign from God as witness, therefore if he permit that miracles be worked by demons, not contradicting them (i.e. not announcing that those are not his testimonies, it does not seem that he is perfectly truthful, which is impossible.
Et per hoc dicitur ad illud de Antichristo, quod praedixit illa miracula facienda non esse testimonia veritatis, sicut patet Matth. XXIV. v. 4 seqq. et II ad Thessalon. c. II. v. 1 seqq.	And through this it is replied to that objection about the Antichrist, that he foretold that those miracles will not be done as testimonies of the truth, as is clear from Matthew 24:[24] and Thessalonians 2:[8-9].
ltem, contra idem est differentia miraculorum quae fiunt a Deo, et quae fiunt a diabolo, de qua differentia tractat Aug. De Utilitate credendi, prope finem [cap. 16]: Miraculum, inquit, voco quicquid arduum aut insolitum supra spem vel facultatem mirantis apparet: quaedam solum faciunt admirationem, quaedam magnam gratiam, benevolentiamque conciliant, qualia fuerunt Christi miracula, ut pertractat ibi diffuse.	Likewise, against the same, there is the difference between the miracles which are made by God and those which are made by the Devil, which Augustine deals with in On the utility of believing (c.16) "But I call that a miracle", says "whatever appears that is difficult or unusual above the hope or power of them who wonder. Certain cause only wonder, but others procure also great favor and good-will", of which kind were the miracles of Christ, as Augustine discusses thoroughly in that work.
(12) ltem, contra utrumque potest dici, quod sunt aliqua miracula facta in lege christiana, in quibus non potest esse deceptio, quin sint facta, nec quin sint testimonia veritatis, quia a Deo facta, scilicet raptus Pauli, et revelatio contingentium futurorum.	Likewise, against both it can be said that there are some miracles, made under the Christian law, in which there can be no deception that they were made, nor that they are testimonies of the truth, because they were made by God. For example, the rapture of Paul and the revelation of future contingents.
Primum patet, quia impossibile est aliquem decipi in credendo se videre essentiam Dei; ergo impossibile fuit Paulum credere se illam videre, nisi eam videret: sed hoc asserit de se II. ad Corinth. c. 12. v. 2 seqq., secundum expositionem Sanctorum; illud igitur fuit vere factum, et non tantum apparenter.	The first it is clear, for it is impossible that someone be deceived in believing that he sees the essence of God, therefore it was impossible that Paul believe himself to have seen the divine essence unless he did see it. But he asserts this of himself (II Cor. [1] 2:2-4) according to the exposition of the Saints; therefore that truly happened, and not only apparently.
Probatio primi antecedentis: quia nullus potest de[42]cipi circa aliquod principium primum credendo se intelligere illud, cum non intelligat tale principium, quia tunc non constaret ex terminis apprehensis quod esset principium, et quod non; ergo multo magis non potest decipi circa Deum visum.	The proof of the first antecedent: for no one can be deceived about any first principle in believing that he understands it when he does not understand such a principle, for then would not be clear from the terms apprehended as to whether it is a principle or is not. Therefore, all the more, one cannot be deceived about having seen God.
Consequentia ista patet: quia plus distat visio Dei ab intellectione cuiuslibet obiecti, etiam quantum ad perceptionem intellectus iudicantis, quam distet intellectio principii complexi ab intellectione cuiuscumque non principii.	The consequence is clear, because the vision of God is more distant from the understanding of any object, even as regards the perception of the understanding of the one making the judgment, than the understanding of a complex principle is distant from the understanding of any non-principle.
— Item, qualiter intellectus crederet se quietari, si non quietaretur, nonne poterit cognoscere inclinationem suam ad verum quod non videt? Si crederet se videre Deum, crederet se quietari in Deo; si non videt, non quietatur. Stultius, ait Augustinus, nihil dici potest quam quod falsa opinione anima sit beata, II. De Civit. c. 4.
Secundum, scilicet quod a solo Deo fieri potuit, est manifestum, quia nulla creatura potest animam beatificare, nec simpliciter, nec ad tempus.
Secundum patet ex multis Prophetis in utroque Testamento. Unde contra falsa miracula Antichristi posset sibi obiici saltem de istis duobus, hoc modo: Si tu es Deus, fac me videre essentiam divinam nude, et post visionem memoriam certam habere visionis, et certitudinem quod illa fuit visio essentiae divinae, et tunc credam tibi. Item: si tu es Deus, dic mihi, quid faciam vel quid cogitabo, vel appetam pro tali hora.
c) Auctoritas. — Et huiusmodi viae efficaciam ex miraculis innuit Salvator Ioan. V. . Opera quae ego facio, ipsa testimonium perhibent de me: si mihi non vultis credere, operibus saltem credite.
42. (13) — Testimonium eorum qui foris sunt. — Nono quoque loco potest adduci testimonium eorum qui foris sunt. Iosephus, in lib. XVIII. Antiquitatum, pulcherrimum testimonium ponit de Christo, ubi inter alia de lesu ait: Christus hic erat, ubi eius veram doctrinam et resurrectionem ex mortuis confitetur * in his verbis dicens: Fuit autem his temporibus Iesus sapiens vir, si tamen eum virum nominare fas es; erat enim mirabilium operum effector et doctor hominum[43]eorum qui libenter quae vera sunt audiunt: et multos quidem Iudaeorum et multos etiam ex Gentibus sibi adiunxit. Christus hic erat. Hunc, accusatione primorum nostrae gentis virorum, cum Pilatus in crucem agendum esse decrevisset, non desinunt hi qui ab initio dilexerunt eum. Apparuit enim eis tertio die iterum vivens, secundum quod divinitus inspirati Prophetae vel haec vel alia de eo innumera miracula futura esse praedixerant. Sed et in hodiernum diem Christianorum, qui ab ipso nuncupantur, etiam nomen perseveraret et genus * Item de prophetia Sybillae nota illud XVIII. De Civii. c. 23: Iesus Christus, Dei filius, Salvator. Item: Contra epistolam Fundamenti nota quomodo singuli haeretici, de catholicis inquisiti, non ad suos mittunt, sed ad veros catholicos, quasi etiam illi soli ab omnibus etiam haereticis catholici nominentur.	The testimony of those outside the church. “Now there was in this period Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of those men who willingly receive the truth. He drew over to him many of the Jews and also many of the Gentiles. He was the Messiah. This man, when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the suggestion of the principal men of our people, was not deserted by those that loved him at the first. For he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And so both the name and people of those called Christians after him, have survived to this day".
43. — Deus non deest quaerentibus salutem. — Decimo et ultimo potest adduci, quod Deus non deest quaerentibus toto corde salutem: multi autem diligentissime inquirentes salutem ad hanc sectam conversi sunt; et quanto ferventiores facti sunt in inquirendo, tanto in hac secta amplius confirmati, subitoque in ea poenitentes de malitia ad bonum vitam mutati sunt; tormenta quoque pro ea plures magna exultatione spiritus perpessi sunt. Quae non videntur probabilia, nisi Deus hanc sectam, sacrae Scripturae innitentem, irrefragabiliter approbaret et ordinaret ad salutem.
44. (14) — Doctrina sacri Canonis necessaria est et sufficiens viatori. Habito igitur contra haereticos, quod doctrina Canonis est vera, videndum est secundo, an sit necessaria et sufficiens viatori ad consequendum finem suum.
Dico igitur, quod ista tradit quid sit finis hominis in particulari, quia visio et fruitio Dei, et hoc quantum ad circumstantias eius appetibiles; puta, quod ipsa habetur post resurrectionem ab homine immortali, et in corpore et in anima simul, sine fine [n. 7 b]. — Ipsa etiam determinat quae sunt necessaria ad finem, et quod illa sufficiant; quia decem mandata, Matth. XIX. v. 17: Si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata, [44] de quibus habetur in Exod.. Horum explicatio, et quantum ad credenda, et quantum ad speranda, et quantum ad operanda explicatur ex diversis locis Scripturae.
— Proprietates quoque substantiarum immaterialium in ea traduntur, quantum possibile est et utile viatori nosse. — Ista ergo conferendo ad tres rationes, quibus innititur solutio quaestionis praecedentis [nn. 7, 8 et 13] patet, quod sacra Scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinam necessariam viatori.
45. (15) — Solvuntur argumenta principalia n. 30. — a) Ad primum argumentum principale: ad minorem respondeo, quod lex naturae paucioribus fuit contenta, quae memorialiter ad filios per patres devenerunt. Illi etiam homines magis erant praediti in naturalibus, et ideo modica doctrina inspirata potuit eis sufficere. — Vel aliter ad illud et ad aliud de lege Moysi potest dici, quod ordinatus processus Scripturae ostendit eius doctorem, secundum Aug. LXXXIII. Quaestionum,q. 53.	The main arguments resolved.
b) Ad secundum dico, quod dulcius capitur quod latet sub aliqua senientia litterali quam si esset expresse dictum, et ideo ad devotionem conferunt illa quae expressa sunt in novo Testamento sub figura velata fuisse in Veteri. Haec quoad caeremonias. Sed quoad historias, in quibus exempla sunt legis declarativa, similiter ex toto processu Scripturae patet ordinata Dei gubernatio respectu hominis et totius creaturae.
c) Ad tertium: Origenes in homilia de Arca Noe dicit: Nulla scientia omnia scienda explicavit, sed illa ex quibus possunt alia sufficienter elici. Unde multae veritates necessariae non exprimuntur in Scriptura, etsi ibi virtualiter contineantur sicut conciusiones in principiis, circa quarum investigationem utilis fuit labor expositorum et doctorum.
[45] d) Solvitur istantia. — Et si obiicias: multa in actibus humanis sunt dubia, utrum sint peccata mortalia, etiam supositis omnibus doctrinis doctorum et expositorum, respondeo: non est dubia via salutis simpliciter, quia a talibus tamquam a periculosis debet homo sibi cavere et custodire se, ne homo, dum se exponit periculo, incidat in peccatum. Quod si noluerit quaerere salutem, sed non curando exponat se periculo, ubi forte de genere actus non est peccatum mortale, tamen peccabit mortaliter se tali periculo exponendo.