DOCTOR SUBTILIS ET MARIANI

IOANNIS DUNS SCOTI

ORDINIS FRATRUM MINORUM

OPERA OMNIA

Ordinatio

PROLOGUS

SECOND PART

ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

QUESTION SOLE

Vol. I, pp. 59-87.

IUSSU ET AUCTORITATE Rmi P. PACIFICI M. PERANTONI

TOTIUS ORDINIS FRATRUM MINORUM MINISTRI  GENERALIS

STUDIO ET CURA COMMISSIONIS SCOTISTICAE

AC FIDEM CODICUM EDITA

PRAESIDE

P. CAROLO BALIĆ

TYPIS POLYGOTTIS VATICANIS

MCML

English Translation by

The Franciscan Archive

https://franciscan-archive.org

[ PROLOGUS PARS SECUNDA	PROLOGUE SECOND PART
DE SUFFICIENTIA SACRAE SCRIPTURAE	ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
QUAESTIO UNICA	QUESTION SOLE
UTRUM COGNITIO SUPERNATURALIS NECESSARIA VIATORI SIT SUFFICIENTER TRADITA IN SACRA SCRIPTURA ]	WHETHER THE SUPERNATURAL COGNITION NECESSARY TO THE WAYFARER IS SUFFICIENTLY HANDED DOWN IN SACRED SCRIPTURE
95.  [Q. 2]*  Quaeritur utrum cognitio supernaturalis necessaria viatori sit sufficienter tradita in sacra Scriptura.	95.  [Q. 2]*  There is asked whether the supernatural cognition necessary to the wayfarer IS sufficiently handed down in Sacred Scripture.
Quod non:	That (it is) not:
Quia cognitio necessaria numquam defuit humano generi; Scriptura sacra non erat in lege naturae, quia Moyses primus scripsit Pentateuchum, nec tota sacra Scriptura erat in lege mosaica, sed tantum Vetus Testamentum; ergo etc.^1	Because the necessary cognition has never been lacking to the human race;  Sacred Scripture did not exist under [non erat 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; ergo etc..^1
96.  Item, quicumque auctor scientiarum humanarum quanto acutior est intellectu tanto plus vitat superfluitatem in tradendo; sed in sacra Scriptura videntur contineri multa superflua, ut caeremoniae et historiae multae, quorum cognitio non videtur necessaria ad salutem; ergo etc.	96.  Likewise, whatsoever author of human sciences as much as he is sharper in intellect, so much more does he avoid superfluity in handing down; but in Sacred Scripture there seems to be contained many superfluous things, such as ceremonies and many histories, of which the cognition does not seem necessary for salvation; ergo etc..
97.  Item, multa sunt de quibus non cognoscitur certitudinaliter ex Scriptura utrum sint peccata vel non; quorum tamen cognitio necessaria est ad salutem, quia nesciens aliquid esse peccatum mortale, non sufficienter vitabit illud; ergo etc.	97.  Likewise, many are those of which one does not know with certitude from Scripture whether they are sins and/or not;  of which, nevertheless, the cognition is necessary for salvation, because not knowing something to be a mortal sin, one will not sufficiently avoid it; ergo etc..
^1  Pro n. 95 cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 8 q. 4 arg. 3 et q. 5 (I f. 66A. 67L).	*  Text within square [ ] brackets has been added for clarity in the case of headings and citations by the editors of the Critical edition.  In the translation words supplied by the context are in round ( ) brackets, and references to the original latin text in square [ ] brackets. Paragraph numbers are according to the Critical Edition.

P. 60

98.  Contra:	98.  On the contrary :
Augustinus XI De civitate Dei cap. 3 loquens de Scriptura canonica ait:  « Huic fidem habemus de his rebus quas ignorare non expedit, nec per nos nosse idonei sumus ».	(St.) Augustine in De civitate Dei, Bk XI, ch. 3, speaking of canonical Scripture says:  « In this we have faith concerning those things which it is not expedient to ignore, and (which) are we not apt [idonei] to know through ourselves. »
[I.  —  De veritate sacrae Scripturae]	I.  —  On the Truth of Sacred Scripture
99.  [Haereses diversae]  —  In ista quaestione sunt haereses innumerae damnantes sacram Scripturam, totam vel partes eius, sicut in libris Augustini et Damasceni De haeresibus patet.  Quidam haeretici de Scriptura nihil recipiunt.  Quidam specialiter improbant Vetus Testamentum, manichaei, sicut patet in libro De utilitate credendi a, dicentes Vetus Testamentum esse a malo principio^1.  Quidam tantum Vetus Testamentum recipiunt, ut iudaei^2.  Quidam aliquid utriusque, ut saraceni, quibus immundus Mahometus misciut alia immunditias innumeras^3.  Quidam autem aliquid dictum in Novo Testamento, puta heretici diversi, qui sententias diversas Scripturarum male intellectas habentes pro fundamentis, . . .	99.  [The diverse heresies]  —  On this question there are innumerable heresies damning Sacred Scripture, whole and/or in its parts, just as is clear in the books of (St.) Augustine and (St. John) Damascene, De haeresibus.  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), De utilitate credendi [ch. 2, n. 4], saying that the Old Testament is from an evil principle.^1  Certain ones only receive the Old Testament, as (do) the jews.^2  Certain ones (receive) something of each, as (do) the Saracens, to which the filthy Mohammed mixed other innumerable, filthy things.^3  Moreover certain ones, for example the diverse heretics, who have as their fundamentals [fundamentis] badly understood, diverse sentences of the Scriptures, (receive) something said in the New Testament, . . .
^1  Cf. August., De haeresibus n. 46 (PL 42, 38).  —  Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 9 q. 1 in corp. (I f. 70B); a. 15 q. 2 in corp. (f. 102F).  ^2 Cf. August., Adv. Iudaeos c. 1 n. 2 (PL 42, 51-52).  ^3 Cf. Damasc., De haeresibus n. 101 (PG 94, 763-774).

P. 61

. . . alias neglexerunt; verbi gratia ad Rom. 13:  Qui infirmus est, olera manducet^1, et huiusmodi.  Item, Iac. 5:  Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra, si ex hoc erretur circa sacramentum paenitentiae dicendo illud posse a quocumque non sacerdote dispensari, — et huiusmodi auctoritatibus sacrae Scripturae innitendo, male intellectis^2.	. . . others they neglect; 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, if from this one err about the Sacrament of Penance by saying that it can be dispensed by anyone whomsoever, not by a priest — and by supporting themselves on authorities of the Sacred Scriptures of this kind, badly understood.^2
100.  [Variae viae convincendi haereticos]  —  Contra istas omnes in communi sunt octo viae eas rationabiliter convincendi, quae sunt  praenuntiatio prophetica, Scripturarum concordia, auctoritas scribentium, diligentia recipientium, rationabilitas contentorum et irrationabilitas singulorum errorum, Ecclesiae stabilitas, miraculorum limpiditas.	100.  [The various ways of convincing heretics] — Against all of these there are commonly [in communi] eight ways of rationally convincing them, which are:  the prediction of the prophets [praenuntiatio prophetica], the concordance of the Scriptures, the authority of writers, the diligence of those who received them, the reasonableness of the contents and the unreasonableness of each of (their own) errors, the stability of the Church, and the limpidity of miracles.
101.  [De praenuntiatione prophetica]  —  De primo patet.  Quoniam solus Deus praevidet naturaliter futura contingentia certitudinaliter, et non ab alio, ergo solus ipse vel ab ipso instructus potest ea certitudinaliter praedicere.  Talium autem multa, praenuntiata in Scriptura, impleta sunt (patet consideranti libros prophetales), . . .	101.  [On the prediction of the prophets] — Concerning the first it is clear:  Since God alone naturally foresees future contingents with certitude, and (these are not seen) by another, therefore He Himself alone and/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 the one considering the Books of the Prophets). . .
^1  Cf. Duns Scotus, Ordinatio III Suppl. D. 23 q. Un. N. [18].  ^2  Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 16 q. 1 in corp. (I f. 104G); a. 15 q. 1 in corp. (f. 102B).

P. 62

. . . ex quibus « non est dubium quin sequantur pauca quae restant », secundum Gregorium in homilia quadam De adventu Domini.  Istam viam tangit Augustinus XII De civitate cap. 10g:  « Vera esse praeterita ex his quae futura praenuntiavit, cum tanta veritate implentur, ostendit » *.	. . . from which « there is no doubt that the few which remain are to follow», according to (Pope St.) Gre gory (the Great), in a certain homily (entitled) De adventu Domini [Forty Homilies on the Gospels, I, Hom. 1, n. 1].  (St.) Augustine takes the same approach [istam viam tangit] in De civitate Dei, Book XII, ch. 10g:  « He shows that, when so many of those (things) which He foretold were to come, are in truth fulfilled, that the past (prophecies) were true ».*
102.  [De Scripturarum concordia]  —  De secundo, scilicet Scripturarum concordia, patet sic:  in non evidentibus ex terminis, nec principia sic evidentia ex terminis habentibus, non consonant multi firmiter et infallibiliter, diversimode dispositi, nisi a causa superiori ipso intellectu inclinentur ad assensum; sed scriptores sacri Canonis, varie dispositi, et exsistentes in diversis temporibus, in talibus inevidentibus consonabant omnino.  Hanc viam pertractat Augustinus XVII De civitate cap. 42^+:  « Auctores . . .	102.  [On the concordance of the Scriptures]  —  Concerning the second, namely the concordance of the Scriptures, it is thus clear:  among those (things) not evident from (their) terms, having neither principles so evident from (terms), many are not firmly and infallibly consonant, disposed (as they are) in diverse manners, unless they be inclined to assent by a superior cause to the same understanding;  but the writers of the sacred Canon, variously disposed, and existing in diverse times, were entirely consonant in such inevident (things).  (St.) Augustine treats of this approach [viam] in De civitate Dei, Book XVII, ch. 42:  « Our authors . . . »^+
*  August., De civ. Dei, XII c. 10 [11] n. 2 (PL 41, 359; CSEL XL pars I 584, 13-15):  « vera se narrasse praeterita, ex his quae futura praenuntiavit, cum tanta veritate implentur, ostendit ».  ^+  Ibid. XVIII, c. 41, n. 1 (PL 41, 600-6001; CSEL XL pars II 332, 8. 14-19):  « Denique auctores nostri . . . sane pauci esse debuerunt, ne multitudine vilesceret quod religione carum esse oporteret; nec tamen ita pauci, ut eorum non sit miranda consensio.  Neque enim in multitudine philosophorum, qui labore etiam litterario monumenta suorum dogmatum reliquerunt, facile quis invenerit, inter quos cuncta quae sensere conveniunt  ».	*  August., De civ. Dei, XII c. 10 [11] n. 2 (PL 41, 359; CSEL XL pars I 584, 13-15):  « He shows that, when so many of those (things) which He foretold were to come, are in truth fulfilled, that He Himself in the past spoke truly ».  ^+  Ibid. XVIII, c. 41, n. 1 (PL 41, 600-6001; CSEL XL pars II 332, 8. 14-19):  « Then our authors ought to have been rightfully few, lest by a multitude there would be cheapened what according to religion would be opportune to be dear;  and, nevertheless, not so few, that their consent would not be wondered at.  For neither in the multitude of philosophers, who by also  by a literary labor have left monuments of their own dogmas, does anyone easily find, (one) among the rest of them, who convene in his opinion ».

P. 63

. . . nostri pauci esse debuerunt, ne prae multitudine vilescerent; nec ita sunt pauci, ut eorum non sit miranda consensio:  neque enim in multitudine philosophorum facile quis invenerit, inter quos cuncta quae senserunt conveniant », et hoc Ausutinus probat ibi in exemplis.	. . .ought to have been few, lest on account of a multitude (the truths of our religion) be cheapened, and not so few, that their consensus be not admired:  for neither in the multitude of philosophers does one easily find among them (that to which) all the rest who opinion (in the matter), agree », and this (St.) Augustine proves there in the examples [De civitate Dei, Bk. XVIII, ch. 41, n. 2].
Major enim assumpta non tantum probatur per exemplum de philosophis, ut videtur probare Augustinus^1, sed etiam per rationem: quia cum intellectus natus sit quantum ad assensum moveri ab obiecto evidente in se vel in alio, nihil aliud ab obiecto videtur posse talem assensum causare nisi virtualiter includat evidentiam obiecti; nam si nihil tale moveat intellectum, remanebit theologia sibi 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^2.	For the assumed major is not only proven through the example of the philosophers, as (St.) Augustine seems to prove,^1 but also through reason:  because since the intellect is bound as much as regards assenting to be moved by the object evident in itself and/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 nothing such move the intellect, theology will remain neutral to it.  But there is nothing such of those (things) not evident from (their) terms, except of an intellect superior to ours; but nothing intelligent superior to man can effectively teach man except God.^2
103.  Si dicatur hic quod posteriores, licet aliter dispositi quam priores, et aliis temporibus existentes, tamen habuerunt doctrinam . . .	103.  If one says here that those (who came) after, though disposed in another manner than before, and existing at other times, nevertheless had a doctrine . . .
^1  Cf. supra lin.2-4.  ^2 De potestate angeli in intellectum hominis cf. Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, II d. 11 q. Un. N. [4-8].

P. 64

. . . praecedentium in scriptis, et acquieverunt credendo, sicut discipuli doctrinae magistorum, et ita nihil scripserunt dissonum a prioribus, licet Deus non doceret hos et illos, — contra hoc videtur Augustinus obicere ubi prius, dicens de philosophis:  « Labore litteratorio monimenta suorum dogmatum reliquerunt », quae discipuli legerunt, et licet in aliquibus essent assentientes prioribus, ut discipuli, aliqua tamen improbaverunt.  Patet ibidem de Aristippo et Antisthene, qui ambo socratici fuerunt, tamen in aliquibus sibi contradixerunt^1; et quandoque magistro discipuli etiam contradixerunt, ut Aristoteles Platoni^2.  Quomodo igitur non contradixissent posteriores nostri prioribus in aliquibus, si non habuissent communem doctorem, eorum intellectus ad eadem non evidentia inclinantem?	. . . of the things preceding in scriptures, and acquiesced (to them) by believing, just as disciples (d) to the doctrine of (their) masters, and thus wrote nothing dissonant from those prior, though God taught neither the former or the latter, — on the contrary (St.) Augustine seems to object to this [De civitate Dei, Bk. XVIII, ch. 41, n. 2] where before, speaking of the philosophers (he says):  « By a labor of letters [labore litteratorio] they left monuments to their dogmas », which (their) disciples read, and though in some (things) they assented [essent assentientes] to (their) prior (teachers), as disciples, nevertheless others they disproved [improbaverunt].  The same is clear of Aristippus and Antisthenes, who both were Socratics, however in some things contradicted one another^1; and at some time or another [quandoque] disciples have contradicted (their) teacher, as Aristotle (did) to Plato.^2  Therefore how would have those later ones not contradicted those prior to us in some (things), if they did not have a common Teacher, inclining their intellects to the same non-evident (things)?
104.  Responsio:  quia non evidentia tradiderunt priores, ideo posteriores non potuerunt per rationem improbare, et noluerunt eis discredere, nisi possent pro se rationem cogentem habere, reverentes eos ut magistros veraces; sed philosophi discipuli per rationem potuerunt magistros improbare, quia materia circa quam . .	104.  The Response:  because those prior handed on non evident (things), for that reason those posterior could not disprove them through reason, and they did not want to disbelieve them, unless they could on their own [pro se] have a cogent reason (to do so), revering (as they did) those (prior) as truthful teachers [magistros veraces]; but the disciples of a philosopher could disprove (their) teachers through reason, because the matter about which . . .
^1  Aristippus felicitatem hominis in voluptatibus corporis, Antisthenes vero in virtutibus animi posuit, cf. August., De civitate Dei, XVIII. C- 41 m 2 (PL 41, 601; CSEL XL pars II 333, 5-11).  ^2 Ita e.g. in quaestionibus de ideis, Metaph. I t. 25-49 (I, c. 9, 990a 34-993a 10); de mundi origine, De caelo I t. 102-106 (I, c. 10, 279b 12-280a 11); t. 109 (280a 28-34); t. 124-125 (c. 12, 282a 21-282b 1); et de temporis origine, Physic. VIII t. 10-11 (Theta c. 1, 251b 10-28).	^1  Aristippus held that the felicity of man lay in the pleasures of the body, but Antisthenes in the virtues of the soul, cf. August., De civitate Dei, XVIII. C- 41 m 2 (PL 41, 601; CSEL XL pars II 333, 5-11).

P. 65

. . . altercabantur potuit habere rationes sumptas ex terminis.  —  Exemplum:  non ita contradicit discipulus historiographus magistro historiographo sicut philosophus philosopho, quia historiae de praeteritis non possunt esse evidentes, ut avertant discipulum a magistro, sicut possunt esse philosophicae rationes.	. . . they altercated could have reasons taken from terms.  —  An example:  the disciple-historian [historiographus] does not contradict the master historian so much as the philosopher the philosopher, because the histories of past (ages) cannot be evident, to turn the disciple away from his master, as philosophical reasons can be.
Contra istud saltem est Ezechiel prophetans in Babylonia eo tempore quo Ieremias prophetavit in Iudeae^1.  Cum non ambo sola illa dicerent quae a Moyse quasi magistro communi eorum potuerunt habere, sed etiam alia multa, in eis potuissent dissentire cum non essent evidentia ex terminis, nisi habuissent aliquem doctorem communem supra intellectum humanum.	Against this, at least, is Ezekiel prophesying in Babylonia at the same time that Jeremiah prophesized in Judea.^1  Since both did not say solely those things [sola illa] which they could have had from Moses as from their common teacher, but also many other things, in these (things) they could have dissented since (these things) were not evident from (their) terms, if they did not have some common Doctor above (their) human intellect.
105.  [De auctoritate scribentium]  —  De tertio, scilicet auctoritate scribentium, sic patet: aut libri Scripturae sunt illorum auctorum quorum esse dicuntur, aut non.  Si sic, cum damnent mandacium, praecipue in fide vel moribus, quomodo est verisimile eos fuisse mentitos dicendo ‘haec dicit Dominus’^2 si Dominus non esset locutus?  Aut si dicis eos esse deceptos, non mentitos, vel propter lucrum mentiri voluisse, — contra, et primo contra primo, quod . . .	105.  [On the authority of writers]  —  Concerning the third, namely the authority of writers, it is thus clear:  either the books of Scripture belong to those authors to which they are said to belong, or (they do) not.  If so, since they damn mendacity, chiefly in faith and/or morals, how is it likely [verisimile] that they had lied in saying ‘this sayeth the Lord’^2 if the Lord had not spoken?  Or if you say that they were deceived, not that they (had) lied, and/or for the sake of lucre had wanted to lie, — on the contrary, and first against the first (objection), that . . .
^1  Simultanee prophetabant spatio quinque annorum (592-587 ante Chr.), tempore primae captivitatis babylonicae.  ^2 Cf. e.g. Ezech. 2, 4; 3, 11.27; 5, 5.7; 6, 11; 7, 2.5 etc.; Ier. 2, 2.5; 4, 3.27; 6, 6.16; 7, 21 etc.	^1 They prophesied simultaneously for the space of five years (592-587 B.C.), in the time of the first Babylonian captivity.

P. 66

. . . scilicet non fuerunt decepti.  Dicit enim beatus apostolus Paulus:  Scio hominem, ante annos quattuordecim etc., et subdit ibi, audisse se verba arcana, quae non licet homini loqui.  Quae assertiones non videntur fuisse sine mendacio si asserens non fuit certus, quia asserere dubium tamquam verum certum, est mendacium vel non longe a mendacio.  Ex ista revelatione Pauli, et multis aliis, factis diversis sanctis, concluditur quod intellectus eorum non potuerunt induci ad assentiendum ita firmiter illis quorum notitiam non potuerunt habere ex naturalibus, sicut assenserunt, nisi ab agente supernaturali.  —  Contra secundum, scilicet quod propter lucrum mentiti sunt:  quia pro illis ad quae volueurnt homines inducere ad credendum, tribulationes maximas sustinuerunt.

. . .namely, they were not deceived.  For the blessed Apostle Paul says:  I know a man, who 14 years ago etc., and he adds there, that he himself heard secret words, which it is not licit for man to speak [II Cor. 12:2.4].  Which assertions do not seem to have been without mendacity if the one asserting them was not certain, because to assert a doubt as if (it were) a certain truth, is a lie and/or not far from a lie.  From this revelation of (St.) Paul, and from many others, given to diverse Saints, it is concluded that their intellect could not be induced to assent so firmly to those (things) of which they could not have had knowledge [notitiam] from natural (things), so as to assent (to them), unless by a supernatural agent.  —  Against the second, namely, that they lied for the sake of lucre:  (is the fact of history) that on behalf of those (teachings) to which they wanted to induce men to believe, they endures the greatest tribulations.

106.  Si libri non sunt illorum, sed aliorum, hoc videtur inconveniens dicere, quia ita negabitur quicumque liber esse illius auctoris . . .

106.  If the books do not belong to them, but to others, this seems (to be) unfitting to say, because thus each book whatsoever is denied to belong to that author . . .

P. 67

. . . cuius dicitur esse.  Quare enim soli isti falso adscripti sunt, auctoribus quorum non erant?  —  Praeterea, aut illi qui adscripserunt illos libros eis fuerunt christiani, aut non.  Si non, non videtur quod volueurnt tales libros conscribere et aliis adscribere, et magnificare sectam cuius contrarium tenuerunt.  Si fuerunt christiani, quomodo igitur illi chistiani mendaciter eis tales adscripserunt, cum lex eorum damnet mendacium, sicut prius^1?  Et propter idem, quomodo asserunt Deum locutum esse multa quae ibi narrantur, et hoc personis quibus libri intitulantur, si talia non acciderunt talibus personis?  Quomodo etiam isti libri fuissent ita authentici, et divulgati esse talium auctorum, nisi et fuissent eorum, et auctores fuissent authentici?  De isto dicit Richardus De Trinitate libro I cap. 2:  « A summae sanctitatis viris sunt nobis tradita ».  Item, Augustinus libro XI De civitate cap. 3, loquens de Christo:  « Prius », inquit, « per prophetas, deinde per seipsum, postea apostolos, quantum satis iudicavit, locutus, Scripturam condidit, quae canonica. . .

. . . to which it is said to belong.  For why have these books of theirs alone been falsely ascribed, to authors who did not exist [erant]?  —  Moreover, either they who ascribed those books to them were Christians, or not.  If not, it does not seem that they wanted such books to be written [conscribere] and to be ascribed to other, and to magnify a sect of which they held a contrary (belief).  If they were Christians, in what manner, therefore, did those Christians with a lie [mendaciter] adscribe such to them, since their law dams falsehood [mendacium], just as before?^1  And on account of the same, in what manner did they assert that God had spoken the many (things) which are narrated there, and this to the persons to which the books are entitled?  Also in what manner were those books of theirs so authentic, and put forth [divulgati] as belonging to such authors, except that they both belonged to them, and that their authors were authentic?  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:  « First through the prophets, then through Himself, afterwards through the Apostles, how much did He judge, speak, (and) establish the Scripture, which is called canonical, . . .

^1  Cf. supra n. 105.

P. 68

. . . nominatur, eminentissimae auctoritatis »^1.  Hoc ibi.  Et Augustinus in Epistola ad Hieronymum (et habetur De consecratione):*  « Si ad sacras Scripturas admissa fuerint vel officiosa mendacia, quid in eis remanebit auctoritatis^2? »  Et idem ad eundem, epistola eadem:^+  « Solis eis Scripturarum libris »^3 etc. (et Henricus 7, 8 g).	. . . of the most eminent authority ».^1  This (is what he says) there.  And (St.) Augustine in his Epistle to Jerome (and it is had also in [Gratian’s] De  consecratione, [Decretum, part I, d. 9, ch. 7]):*  « If for example [vel] there are admitted to the Sacred Scriptures officious lies, what will remain in them of authority? »^2  And the same to the same, in the same Epistle:^+  « to these books of the Scriptures alone »^3 etc. (and Henry [of Ghent, Summa, a. 7, q. 7, in corp.].
107.  [De diligentia recipientium]  —  De quarto, scilicet diligentia recipientium, patet sic:  aut nulli credes de contingenti quod non vidisti, et ita non credes mundum esse factum ante te, nec locum esse in mundo ubi non fueris, nec istum esse patrem tuum et illam matrem;  et ista incredulitas destruit omnem 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 . . .	107.  [On the diligence of the recipients]  —  Concerning the fourth, namely, the diligence of the recipients, it is thus clear:  either you believe none of the contingents 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 man is your father and that (woman) your mother; and this incredulity destroys all civil life [vitam politicam].  If therefore you want to believe any of the contingents which is not nor was evident to you, most of all one is to believe the community, or those which the whole community . . .
*  August., Epist. 40, Ad Hieronymum, c. 3 n. 3 (PL 33, 155; CSEL XXXIV 71, 13-72,1): « Si enim ad Scripturas sanctas admissa fuerint velut officiosa mendacia, quid in eis remanebit auctoritatis? » ^+  August., Epist 82., Ad Hieronymum, c. 1, n. 3 (PL 33, 277; CSEL XXXIV 354, 5-8):  « solis eis Scripturarum libris qui iam canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam ».	*  (St.) Augustine, Epistle 40, Ad Hieronymum, ch. 3 n. 3 (PL 33, 155; CSEL XXXIV 71, 13-72,1):  « For if there be admitted to the holy Scriptures (something) like officious lies, what will remain in them of authority? » ^+ (St.) Augustine, Epistle 82., Ad Hieronymum, c. 1, n. 3 (PL 33, 277; CSEL XXXIV 354, 5-8):  « to these books of the Scriptures alone, which are already named canonical, I learned to bear this fear and honor, that I most firmly believe that no author of theirs erred in writing anything. »
^1  Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 7 q. 7 in corp. (I f. 57D); ef. Etiam ibid. a. 6 q. 4 in corp. (f. 46M); a. 9 q. 2 arg. 2 in opp. (f. 71H).  ^2 Cf. ibid. a. 7 q. 7 in corp. (f. 57D); a. 10 q. 2 in corp. (f. 74 O).  ^3 Cf. ibid. a. 7 q. 7 in corp. (f. 57D); Gratianus, Decretum pars I d. 9 c. 5 (ed. Friedberg I 17).

P. 69

. . . approbat, et maxime quae communitas famosa et honesta cum maxima diligentia praecepit approbanda.  Talis est Canon Scripturae.  Tanta enim apud iudaeos sollicitudo fuit de libris habendis in Canone, et tanta apud christianos de libris recipiendis tamquam authenticis, quod de nulla scriptura habenda authentica tanta sollicitudo fuit inventa, praecipue cum tam sollemnes communitates de Scripturis illis curaverunt tamquam de continentibus necessaria ad salutem.  De hoc Augustinus XVIII De civitate cap. 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 libris Regum? », ubi innuit quod sola illa scriptura recepta sit in Canone quam auctores, non sicut homines sed sicut prophetae, divina inspiratione scripserunt.  Et ibidem, cap. 41:^+  « Illi Israëlitae, quibus credita sunt eloquia Dei, nullo modo . . .

. . . approves, and most of all those which a famous and honest community, with the greatest diligence, precepted to be 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 invented, chiefly when such solemn communities of the Scriptures cared for them as for (books) containing the (things) necessary for salvation.  Of this (St.) Augustine (writes) in his De civitate Dei, Book 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 be made in the Books of Kings? », where he implies 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:^+  « Those Israelites, by whom the discourses [eloquia] of God were believed, in no manner . . .

*  August., De civitate Dei, XVIII c. 38 (PL 41,598; CSEL XL pars II 328, 9-329,3):  « Quid Enoch septimus ab Adam, nonne etiam in canonica epistola apostoli Iudae prophetasse praedicatur (Iudae 14)? . . . Nec mirum debet videri quod suspecta habentur quae sub tantae antiquitatis nomine proferunutur:  quandoquidem in ipsa historia regum Iuda et regum Israel, quae res gestas continet de quibus eidem Scripturae canonicae credimus, commemorantur plurima, quae ibi non explicantur et in libris aliis inveniri dicuntur, quos prophetae scripserunt, et alicubi eorum quoque prophetarum nomina non tacentur (I Par. 29, 29; II Par. 9, 29); nec tamen inveniuntur in Canone quem recepit populus Dei.  Cuius rei, fateor, causa me latet, nisi quod existimo etiam ipsos, quibus ea quae in auctoritate religionis esse deberent Sanctus utique Spiritus revelabat, alia sicut homines historica diligentia, alia sicut prophetas inspiratione divina scribere potuisse; atque haec ita fuisse distincta, ut illa tamquam ipsis, ista vero tamquam Deo per ipsos loquenti, iudicarentur esse tribuenda ». ^+  Ibid. c. 41, n. 3 (PL 41, 601-602; CSEL XL pars II 334, 9-13):  « illi Israelitae, quibus credita sunt eloquia Dei, nullo modo pseudoprophetas cum veris prophetis pari licentia [CSEL: parilitate licentia] confuderunt:  sed concordes inter se atque in nullo dissentientes, sacrarum Litterarum veraces ab eis agnoscebantur et tenebantur auctores ».

*  (St.) Augustine, De civitate Dei, Book XVIII, ch. 38 (PL 41,598; CSEL XL pars II 328, 9-329,3):  « What about Enoch, the seventh from Adam, was he not also said to have prophesied in the canonical Epistle of the Apostle Jude (Jude 14)? . . . Nor ought it seem (something) to be wondered at that they were held in respect [suspecta habentur], since they were proffered under a name of such great antiquity:  since in the very history of the kings of Judah and the kings of Israel, which contain (their) res gestae, which we believe belong to the same canonical Scripture, there are commemorated very many things, which are not explained there and (which) are said to be found in other books, which the prophets wrote, and in some of these the names of the prophets are not omitted [tacentur] (I Par. 29:29; II Par. 9:29); and nevertheless they are not found in the Canon which the people of God have received.  Of which matter, I admit, the cause lies hidden to me, except that I estimate that they too, to whom the Holy Spirit indeed revealed those thing which ought to be in the authority of religion, could have written some things as men diligent about history [historica diligentia], others as prophets by divine inspiration; and these (books of which we now speak) (are to be judged) to have been thus set apart, as (to be long) to the former kind [illa] as if by the (authors) selves, but these (books) of ours [ista], as from God speaking through them, are to be judged to be allowed ». ^+ Ibid. c. 41, n. 3 (PL 41, 601-602; CSEL XL pars II 334, 9-13):  «  those Israelites, by whom the discourses of God were believed, in no manner confounded the pseudo-prophets with the true prophets with equal liberty [CSEL: with a similarity liberty]: but were acknowledged and held by them to be , as ones concordant among themselves and in nothing dissenting, the truthful authors of the sacred Letters ».

P. 70

pseudoprophetas cum veris prophetis parilitate licentia confuderunt:  sed concordes inter se atque in nullo dissentientes, sacrarum Litterarum veraces ab eis agnoscebantur et tenebantur auctores ».	confounded the pseudo-prophets with the true prophets with a similarity of liberty: but were acknowledged and held by them to be, as ones concordant among themselves and in nothing dissenting, the truthful authors of the sacred Letters ».
108.  [De rationabiliter contentorum]  —  De quinto, scilicet rationabilitate contentorum, patet sic:  quid rationabilius quam Deum tamquam finem ultimum super omnia debere diligi, et proximum sicut se ipsum? —  id est ‘ad quod se’, secundum beatum Gregorium;* in quibus duobus praeceptis universa lex pendet et prophetae, Matth. 22.  Item, Matth. 7:  Hoc facias alii etc.^+  Ex istis quasi ex principiis practicis alia practica in Scripturis sequuntur tradita, honesta et rationi consona, sicut de eorum rationabilitate patere potest singulatim cuilibet pertractanti de praeceptis, consiliiis et sacramentis, quia in omnibus videtur esse quasi quaedam explicatio legis naturae, quae scripta est in cordibus nostris.°  Hoc de moribus.  De hoc Augustinus, De civitate libro II cap. 28:  « Nihil turpe aut flagitiosum . . .	108.  [On the reasonableness of the contents]  —  Concerning the fifth, namely, the reasonableness of the contents (of Sacred Scripture), it is thus clear:  what (is) more reasonable than that God (be) as the last end (of man) ought to be loved above all things, and one’s neighbor as oneself ? [cf. Mt. 22:37-39; Mark 12:30-31; Deut. 6:5] — that is ‘for this reason (that He loves) you’, according to blessed Gregory;*  in which two precepts the whole Law depends, and the prophets, Matthew 22:[40].  Likewise, Matthew 7:^+ Do this (what you would have) the others (do unto you) etc..  From these as from practical principles the other practices handed down in the Scriptures, (all) honest and consonant with reason, follow, just as of their reasonableness one can openly show [potest patere], treating thoroughly each of the precepts, counsels and Sacraments individually, which in all things seem to be as if a certain explication of the law of nature, which has been written in your hearts.°  This (is said) concerning morals.  Of this (St.) Augustine in De civitate Dei, book II, ch. 28 (says):  « Nothing filthy or shameful . . .
*  Gregorius, 40 Homiliarum in Evangelia II hom. 27 n. 1 (PL 76, 1205):  « ‘Hoc est praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem’, protinus addidit:  ‘sicut dilexi vos’.  Ac si aperte dicat:  ad hoc amate ad quod amavi vos ». ^+  Matth. 7, 12: « Omnia ergo quaecumque vultis ut faciant vobis homines, et vos facite illis.  Haec est enim lex et propheta ». °  Rom. 2, 15:  « qui ostendunt opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis ».	*  (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great), 40 Homilies on the Gospels, book II, homily 27, n. 1 (PL 76, 1205):  « To ‘This is My precept that you love one another,’ He immediately added:  ‘as I have loved you.’  As if He openly says:  for this reason love: for the reason that I have loved you ». ^+  Matthew 7:12:  « All, therefore, whatever you wish that other men do unto you, do also unto them.  For this is the law and the prophets ». °  Romans 2:15:  « who show the work of the Law (has been) written in their hearts ».

P. 71

. . . spectandum imitandumque proponitur, ubi veri Dei aut praecepta insinuantur, aut mirabilia narrantur, aut dona laudantur, aut beneficia postulantur ».	. . . is proposed to be respected [spectandum] and imitated, where either the true God’s precepts are hinted at, or miracles told, or gifts praised, or His benefices offered ».
De credibilibus patet quod nihil credimus de Deo quod aliquam imperfectionem importat; immo si quid credimus verum esse, magis attestatur perfectioni divinae quam eius oppositum.  Patet de Trinitate personarum, de incarnatione Verbi, et huiusmodi.  Nihil enim credimus incredibile, quia tunc incredibile esset mundum ea credere, sicut deducit Augustinus De civitate XXII cap. 5;*  mundum tamen ea credere non est incredibile, quia hoc videmus.	Concerning credibles, it is clear that we believe nothing concerning God which conveys [importat] any imperfection; nay rather if (one grants that) what we believe is true, it attests rather to the divine perfection than to its opposite.  (This) is clear concerning the Trinity of Persons, of the Incarnation of the Word, and (doctrines) of this kind.  For we believe nothing incredible, because it would then be incredible that the world believes them, just as (St.) Augustine deduces in De civitate Dei, Book XXII, ch. 5;*  however that the world does believe them is not incredible, because we see (that) it (does).
De hac lege et honestate christianorum patet per Augustinum De utilitate credendi g:  « Vulgus marium et feminarum » etc.^+	Concerning this law and honesty of Christians, it is clear through (what St.) Augustine (says) in De utilitate credendi g:  « The masses of men and women » etc..^+
109.  [De irrationabilitate errorum]  —  De sexto, scilicet irrationabilitate singulorum errorum, patet sic.  Quid pagani pro idolatria sua adducent, colentes opera manuum suarum, in quibus nihil est numinis, sicut satis ostendunt philosophi^1?° — Quid saraceni, illius vilissimi . . .	109.  [On the irrationality of (their) errors]  —  Concerning the sixth, namely, the irrationality of each of (their) errors, it is thus clear.  What do the pagans adduce in favor of their idolatry, adoring the works of their hands, in which there is no divine power [numinis], as the philosophers^1 sufficiently show?°  — What will the Saracens, of that most vile . . .
*  August., De civ. Dei XXII c. 5 (PL 41, 755; CSEL XL pars II 588, 11-13. 17-18):  « . . . si autem res incredibilis credita est, etiam hoc utique incredibile est, sic creditum esse, quod incredibile est . . . iam factum videmus, ut quod erat incredibile, crederet mundus ». ^+  August., De utilitate credendi c. 17 n. 35 (PL 42, 90-91; CSEL XXV pars I 44, 23-28):  « Parumne consultum rebus humanis arbitraris, quod nihil terrenum, nihil igneum, nihil denique quod corporis sensus attingit, pro Deo colendum esse, ad quem solo intellectu ambiendum est, non pauci doctissimi disputant, sed imperitum etiam vulgus marium feminarumque in tam multis diversisque gentibus et credit et praedicat? » °  Aristot., Metaphy. XII t. 50 (Nu c. 8, 1074a 38-1074b 10): « Tradita sunt autem a senioribus et antiquis in fabulae figura dimissa posterioribus, quia dii sunt hi, et continet divinam naturam universalem.  Reliqua vero fabulose iam adducta sunt ad persuasionem multorum et ad opportunitatem multorum ad leges et conferens.  Conformes enim hominibus hos et aliorum animalium quibusdam similes dicunt, et his altera consequentia et dictis similia:  a quibus si quis separans, id accipiens solum quod primum deos existimaverunt primas substantias esse, divine utique esse dictum putabit ». ^1  Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 25 q. 3 in corp. (I f. 154H).	*  (St.)  Augustine, De civitate Dei Bk. XXII ch. 5 (PL 41, 755; CSEL XL pars II 588, 11-13. 17-18):  « . . . but if something [rem] incredible has been believed, even this indeed is incredible, that in this manner there has been believed, what is incredible . . . we already see the fact, that what was incredible, the world has believed ». ^+  (St.)  Augustine, De utilitate credendi ch. 17 n. 35 (PL 42, 90-91; CSEL XXV pars I 44, 23-28):  « Do you not judge that (you) have considered too little of human affairs, because ‘that nothing earthly, nothing of fire, nothing in short which touches upon the senses of the body, is to be worshipped as God,’ not a few most learned men dispute, but the inexperienced masses of men and women in so many and diverse nations both believe and preach? » °  Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. XII t. 50 (Nu c. 8, 1074a 38-1074b 10): « But there have been handed down by the elders and ancients unto those after them in the abandoned form of fables, that these are the gods, and that (this Pantheon of the gods) contains all [universalem] the Divine Nature.  However the rest (of them) have already been brought forward in the manner of a fable for the persuasion of the many and for the opportunity of the many according to the laws and assembly [conferens].  For they say that these (gods are) conform to men and similar to certain of the other animals, and as a consequence things other than these and similar in sayings:  from which if one were to separate these fables [si quis separans], accepting that only, that at first (their ancestors) considered the gods to be the first substances, he will think indeed that it has been divinely said ».

P. 72

. . . porci Mahometi discipuli, pro suis scripturis allegabunt, expectantes pro beatitudine quod porcis et asinis convenit, scilicet gulam et coitum^1?  Quam promissionem descpiciens — qui fuit quasi illius sectae — Avicenna, IX Metaphysicae, alium finem quasi perfectiorem et homini magis convenientem ponens^2 inquit:  « Lex nostra, quam dedit Mahometus, ostendit dispositionem felicitatis et miseriae quae sunt secundum corpus, et est alia promissio quae apprehenditur intellectu ».  Et sequitur ibi:  « Sapientibus multo magis cupiditas fuit ad consequendum hanc felicitatem quam corporum, quae quamvis daretur eis, tamen non attenderunt, nec appretiati sunt eam comparatione felicitatis quae est coniuncta primae veritati ».  —  Quid iudaei Novum Testamentum damnat, quod in suo Veteri Testamento promittitur^3, ut ostendit Apostolus ad Hebraeos?  Et quam insipidae sunt eorum caeremoniae sine Christo^4!  Item, Christum advenisse et ita Novum Testamentum ab eo promulgatum . . .

. . .disciple of a pig, Mohammed, allege for his writings, expecting (as they do) for (their) beatitude what convenes pigs and jack-asses, namely gluttony and coitus?^1  Which promise despising — he who was a quasi disciple of that sect — Avicenna in his Metaphysics, Bk. IX, positing^2 another end, quasi more perfect and more fitting to man, says:  « Our law, which Mohammed gave, shows a disposition of felicity and misery which are according to the body, and there is another promise which is apprehended by the intellect ».  And there follows in the same work:  « The wise men had much more cupidity to attain this felicity than that of bodies, which though it was to be given them, nevertheless they did not attend to it, nor did they appreciate it in comparison with the felicity which is conjoined to the First Truth ».  — Why do Jews damn the New Testament, since it is promised in their own Old Testament,^3 as the Apostle (Paul) shows (in his Letter) to the Hebrews?  And how insipid are their ceremonies without Christ!^4  Likewise, that the Christ was to come and thus that the New Testament was to be promulgated by Him . . .

^1  « His [servis Dei sinceris] erit cibus constitutus (mane et vespere in paradiso) poma, et ipsi honorati erunt in hortis voluptatis super lectulos sese invicem respicientes.  Circumferetur illis calix ex fonte limpidus ad voluptatem bibentium.  Non erit in eo offuscatio intellectus, neque ipsi inebriabuntur.  Et iuxta eos accubabunt puellae cohibentes obtutum, ne alios respiciant quam ipsi amasios suos; amplis oculis praeditae, quasi ipsae sint ovum coopertum », cf. Marraccius L., Alcorani textus universis – Refuatio Alcorani, sura 37 v. 42-50 (Patavii 1698, 586-587).  Idem docetur in sura 36 v. 54-56, 38 v. 53-54, 43 v. 66-71, 47 v 16, 55 v 44-76, 56 v 13-38, 78 v. 30-33, et passim.  ^2 ‘ponens’, fidei codd. Mss. innitendo, est lectio non authentica.  ^3 Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 15 q. 2 in corp. (I f. 102G-I).  ^4 Cf. Hebr. 9, 1-28.

^1  « For these [sincere servants of God] there will be food constituted (morning and evening in Paradise) of fruit, and they themselves will be honored in gardens of pleasure, looking upon one another upon couches.  Carried about them will be a chalice shining from a fountain for the pleasure of those drinking of it.  There will be in that place no darkening of the intellect, nor will they become drunk.  And next to them there will recline girls holding their attention, lest these look upon others than themselves as their lovers [amasios]; furnished with the fullest of eyes, as if they were a covered egg », cf. Marraccius L., Alcorani textus universis – Refuatio Alcorani, sura 37 v. 42-50 (Padua 1698, pp. 586-587).  The same is taught in sura 36 v. 54-56, 38 v. 53-54, 43 v. 66-71, 47 v 16, 55 v 44-76, 56 v 13-38, 78 v. 30-33, et passim.

P. 73

. . . sicut authenticum fore acceptandum, prophetiae eorum ostendunt:  Non auferetur, inquit Iacob, sceptrum etc. (in Genesi), et ipse erit expectatio gentium;* similiter illud Danielis:  Cum venerit Sanctus sanctorum, cessabit unctio vestra.^+ — Quid etiam asini manichaei fabulantur ‘primum malum’^1, cum ipsi etiam etsi non ‘primum’, tamen valde essent mali! Nonne viderunt omne ens in quantum ens bonum esse^2? nonne etiam in Novo Testamento potuerunt videre Vetus Testamentum esse authenticum, et approbatum^3?	. . . as to be accepted as authentic, their prophecies show:  There shall not be born away, says Jacob, the scepter etc. (in Genesis), and He himself shall be the expectation of the nations:*  similarly that (verse) of Daniel: When the Holy of holies will have come, thy unction shall cease.^+ — Why do the asinine Manicheans even chatter about ‘the first evil’,^1 when they themselves, even if not ‘the first’, nevertheless are indeed evil!  Do they not see that every being [ens] inasmuch as it is ‘being’ [ens] is good?^2  can they not also in the New Testament see that the Old Testament is authentic, and approved?^3
110.  Quid singuli alii haeretici, qui unum verbum Scripturae male intellexerunt, secundum Augustinum 83 Quaestionum quaestione 69 a.°  « Non potest », inquit, « oririr error qui palliatur nomine christiano . . .	110.  What of each of the other heretics, who have understood badly one word of Scripture, according to (St.) Augustine, 83 Questions, question 69 a.  « Error could not, » he says, « arise, which is clad with the Christian name . . .
*  Gen. 49,19:  « Non auferetur scepturum de Iuda et dux de femore eius, donec veniat qui mittendus est, et ipse erit exspectatio gentium ». ^+ Dan. 9,24:  « Septuaginta hebdomadae abbreviatae sunt . . . ut consummetur praevaricatio . . . et ungatur Sanctus sanctorum »; Ps.-August., Sermo contra iudaeos, paganos et arianos c. 12 (PL 42, 1124):  « Dic, sancte Daniel, dic de Christo quod nosti. ‘Cum venerit’, inquit, ‘Sanctus sanctorum, cessabit unctio’ ». °  August., De diversis quaest. 83 q. 69 n. 1 (PL 40, 74):  « Non enim potest eis error oboriri palliatus nomine christiano, nisi de Scripturis non intellectis ».	*  Gen. 49:19:  « The scepter shall not be borne away from Judah and the leader from his thigh, until there comes Him who is to be sent, and He shall be the expectation of the nations ». ^+ Dan. 9:24:  « The seventy weeks have been shortened . . . for the prevarication to be consumated . . . and the Holy of Holies to be annoited »; Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo contra iudaeos, paganos et arianos, ch. 12 (PL 42, 1124):  « Speak, hoy Daniel, speak of the Christ which you know. ‘When there will come’, he says, ‘the Holy of Holies, there will cease (their) annoiting’ ». ° (St.) Augustine, De diversis quaest. 83, q. 69, n. 1 (PL 40, 74):  « For it could not be that there arises among them, which (is) clad with the Christian name, unless from the Scriptures not having been understood ».
^1  Cf. August., De haeresibus n. 46 (PL 42, 34-35);  Henricus Gand., Summa a. 25 q. 3 in corp. (I f. 154G); a. 29 q. 1 in corp. (f. 171B).  ^2 Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 25. q. 2 ad 3 et 4 (f. 151 V-X).  ^3 Cf. ibid. a. 9 q. 1 in corp. (f. 70B); a. 15 q. 2 in corp. (f. 102H).

P. 74

. . . nisi de Scripturis non intellectis »; et hoc ideo, quia antecedentia et consequentia non contulerunt.  Unde ibidem, b:  « Solet circumstantia Scripturarum illuminare sententiam ».  Nec etiam alia loca Scripturae contulerunt.  Unde haereses ortae sunt per se legendo, quae conferendo repulsae sunt, quia conferentes diversas sententias adduxerunt, quae ex se invicem mutuo invenire potuerunt qualiter essent intelligendae^1.  Contra istos est illud verbum Augustini in libro Contra epistolam Fundamenti:  « Non crederem », inquit Augustinus, « Evangelio, nisi quia Ecclesiae catholicae credo ».*  Ergo irrationabile est aliquid Canonis recipere et aliquid non, cum Ecclesia cahtolica, cui credendo Canonem recipio, recipiat totum aequaliter ut certum^2. —  Item, doctrinae philosophorum aliquid irrationabile continent, prout de politiis diversis, ordinatis a philosophis diversis, probat Aristoteles II Politicae.  Sed etiam et politia sua in quibusdam est irrationabilis, sicut patet ex solutione quaestionis praecedentis^3 ^a.	. . . except from the Scriptures not having been understood »;  and this for the reason, that they have not referred [contulerunt] to the (passages) before and after.  Whence in the same work [De diversis quaest. 83 q. 69 n. 2 (PL 40, 75)], b «  It is the custom of the Scriptures that the circumstances illumine the sentence ».  And they do not refer to the other passages of the Scripture.  Whence there have arisen by reading (a passage) by itself heresies, which have refused referring to (the other passages), because those referring to the diverse sentences have brought together, those which of themselves mutually interchanged could have found a manner in which they were to be understood.^1  Against these is that word of (St.) Augustine in the book Contra epistolam Fundamenti:  «  I would not believe », says (St.) Augustine, « the Gospel, except that I believe the Catholic Church ».*  Therefore it is unreasonable to receive something of the Canon and something not, since the Catholic Church, which by believing I receive the Canon, receives the whole equally as certain.^2  —  Likewise, the doctrine of the philosophers contains something unreasonable, insofar as concerns diverse political theories [politiis diversis], ordained by diverse philosophers, (as) Aristotle proves in Politics, Bk. II, [ch. 1-10].  But even his own political theory in certain things is also irrational, just as is clear from the solution to the preceding question.^3 ^a
^a Loco sicut (15) — praecedentis (16) textus interpolatus:  Ipse enim tradens politiam suam dixit:  « Expedit ad temperantiam facere coitum senioribus »^4.  Item dicit nullum orbatum nutriri^5.  Item dicit quod si quis generaverit filios ultra sufficientiam divitiarum, antequam sentiatur vita fiat aborsus^6 etc. Tullius, De natura deorum^7.	^a In place of just as . . . the preceding question there is this interpolated text:  For he himself treating of his own political theory said: « It is expedient for temperance to have coitus with the elderly ».^4  Likewise he says that if anyone will have generated sons beyond the sufficiency of his riches, before life is sensed, let it be aborted^6 etc.  Tully, De natura deorum.^7
*  August., Contra epistolam Fundamenti, c. 5 n. 6 (PL 42, 176; CSEL XXV pars I 197, 22-23):  « Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae Ecclesiae commoneret [CSEL: commoveret] auctoritas ».	*  (St.) Augustine, Contra epistolam Fundamenti, ch. 5 n. 6 (PL 42, 176; CSEL XXV pars I 197, 22-23):  « But I would not believe the Gospel, except that the authority of the Catholic Church thoroughly warns [CSEL: thoroughly moves] me (to do so) ».
^1  Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 16 q. 7 in corp. (I f. 198B-C); cf. etiam surpa p. 61 nota 2.  ^2 Cf. ibid. a. 10, q. 1 arg. 2 et in corp. (f. 73A-D).  ^3 Cf. supra n. 67. ^4 Aristot., Polit. VII [c. 16] (Eta c. 16, 1335a 22-23).  ^5 Aristot., Polit. VII [c. 16] (Eta c. 16, 1335b 20-21):  «  sic lex:  nullum orbatum nutrire ».  ^6 Ibidem (col. 1335b 22-25):  « oportet enim determinatam esse multitudinem puerorum procreationis; si autem aliquibus fiant propter hoc combinatis [plures pueris], antequam sensus insit et vita, fieri oportet aborsum ».  ^7 M. Tull. Cicero, De natura deorum I c. 7. 28 (ed. Romagnoli 40. 92).	^5 Aristotle, Politics, Bk. VII [ch. 16] (Eta ch. 16, 1335b 20-21):  «  in this manner the law:  to nurture no one orphaned ».  ^6 Ibid. (col. 1335b 22-25):  « for it is opportune that the multitude of children to be procreated be determined; moreover if for any couples [more children] come to be on account of this, before sense and life are in (the child), it is opportune that it be aborted ».

P. 75

111.  [De Ecclesiae stabilitate]  —  De septimo, scilicet Ecclesiae stabilitate, patet, quoad Caput per illud Augustini De utilitate credendi g:*  « Dubitabimus nos eiusdem Ecclesiae credere gremio, quae usque ad confessionem generis humani ab Apostolica Sede per successiones episcoporum, frustra haereticis circumlatrantibus, culmen . . .

111.   [On the stability of the Church]  —  Concerning the seventh, namely the stability of the Church, it is clear, as regards the Head, through that (passage) of (St.) Augustine in De utilitate credendi g:*  « Will we doubt to believe the bosom of the Church of the same (God), which from the Apostolic See unto the confession of the human race through the successions of bishops, with heretics barking in vain round about, has obtained the summit . . .

*  August., De utilitate credendi c. 17 n. 35 (PL 42, 91; CSEL XXV pars I 45, 18-23):  « dubitabimus nos eius [id est Dei] Ecclesiae condere gremio, quae usque ad confessionem generis humani ab Apostolica Sede per successiones episcoporum, frustra haereticis circumlatrantibus, . . . culmen [CSEL: columen] auctoritatis obtinuit? ».

*  (St.) Augustine, De utilitate credendi, ch. 17, n. 35 (PL 42, 91; CSEL XXV pars I 45, 18-23):  « will we doubt to hide ourselves in the bosom of His Church, which from the Apostolic See unto the confession of the human race through the successions of bishops, with heretics barking in vain round about, has obtained the summit [CSEL: the height] of authority? ».

P. 76

. . .auctoritatis obtinuit? »  Et parum post:*  « Quid est aliud ingratum esse ori Dei, quam tanto labore praedicatae auctoritati velle resistere^1? »  Unde Gamaliel, Act. 5:  Si est ex hominibus consilium hoc aut opus, dissolvetur;  si vero est ex Deo, non poteritis dissolvere, ne forte et Deo repugnare videamini.  Et Luc. 22 ait Dominus ad Petrum:  Ego rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua, et tu aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos.  —  Firmitas Ecclesiae in membris patet per illud Augustini De utilitate credendi g:  « Vulgus marium et feminarum »^2 etc.  Similem sententiam dicit Augustinus Contra epistolam Fundamenti^3 +.  Quid enim tantam multitudinem, ad peccatum pronam, ad legem contrariam carni et sanguini servandam induceret nisi Deus?	. . . of authority? »  And a little after (this):*  « What is it other than to be ungrateful to the Mouth of God, than to want to resist with so much labor the aforesaid authority? »^1  Whence Gamaliel, Acts 5:[38]:  If of men is this counsel or work, it shall be dissolved; on the other hand if it is of God, you will not be able to dissolve it, lest perhaps you seem to fight even  against God.  And in Luke 22: [32] the Lord says to Peter:  I have begged for thee, that thy faith may not fail, and thou when (thou art) converted, confirm thy brethren.  —  The firmness of the Church in (Her) members is clear through that (passage) of (St.) Augustine in his De utilitate credendi g [ch. 17, n. 5]:  « The masses of men and women »^2 etc..  A similar sentence does (St.) Augustine (have) in his Contra epistolam Fundamenti.^3 +  For what would induce such a great multitude, prone to sin, to observe a law contrary to flesh and blood, except God?
112.  Confirmatur, quia secta iudaeorum non manet in vigore, iscut contra eos obicit Augustinus in illo sermone (dominica quarta de Adventu)° « Vos, inquam, convenio, o iudaei! ».	112.  It is confirmed, because the sect of the Jews does not remain in force, just as (St.) Augustine objected against them in that sermon (for the fourth Sunday of Advent):°  « You, I say, I call upon you, o Jews! »
*  August., De utilitate credendi c. 17 n. 35 (PL 42, 91; CSEL XXV pars I 45, 26-46, 2):  « quid est aliud ingratum esse opi atque auxilio divino, quam tanto labore predicatae [CSEL:  robore praeditae] auctoritati velle resistere? ». ^+  August., Contra epist. Fundamenti c. 4 n. 5 (PL 42, 175; CSEL XXV pars I 196, 3-12):  « In catholic enim Ecclesia, ut omittam sincerissimam sapientiam, ad cuius cognitionem pauci spirituales in hac vita pervenieunt, . . . caeteram quippe turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit: . . . multa sunt alia quae in eius gremio me iustissime teneant:  tenet consensio populorum atque gentium . . .». °  Ps.-August., Sermo contra iudaeos, paganos et arianos c. 11 (PL 42, 1123); ibid. c. 12 (col. 1124): « ‘Cum venerit’, inquit [Daniel], ‘Sanctus sanctorum, cessabit unctio’ (Dan. 9, 24).  Quare illo praesente, cui insultantes dicebatis: ‘tu de te ipso testimonium dicis, testimonium tuum non est verum’ (Ioan. 8, 13), cessavit unctio vestra, nisi quia ipse est qui venerat Sanctus sanctorum? . . . si autem, quod verum est, cessavit unctio vestra, agnoscite venisse Sanctum sanctorum ».	*  (St.) Augustine, De utilitate credendi, ch. 17, n. 35 (PL 42, 91; CSEL XXV part I, 45, 26-46, 2):  « What it is other than to be ungrateful to the helpful power and assistance of God, than to want to resist with so much labor the aforesaid [CSEL: strength the aforesaid] authority? » ^+  (St.) Augustine, Contra epist. Fundamenti, ch. 4, n. 5 (PL 42, 175; CSEL XXV part I, 196, 3-12):  « For in the Catholic Church, to omit the most sincere wisdom, to the cognition of which few spiritual (persons) arrive in this life, . . . indeed, the rest of the crowd, not the vivacity of understanding, but the simplicity of believing makes most safe: . . . many are the other things which in Her womb keep me most just:  the consent of the peoples and of the nations holds . . . ». °  Ps.-August., Sermo contra iudaeos, paganos et arianos c. 11 (PL 42, 1123); ibid. c. 12 (col. 1124): « ‘When there will have come,’ says [Daniel], ‘the Holy of holies, there will cease thy unction’ (Dan 9:24).  Why with Him (now) present, to whom insulting you used to say: ‘you of yourself speak testimony, your testimony is not true’ (Jn. 8:13), has your unction has ceased, except that He Himself is the Holy of holies who has come?  . . . but if, as is true, thy unction has ceased, acknowledge that the Holy of holies has come ».
^1  Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 10 q. 2 in corp. (I f. 75T).  ^2 Cf. ibid. a. 9 q. 3 in corp. (f. 72R); cf. supra p. 71, 12.  ^3 Cf. ibid., a. 9 q. 3 ad 3 (f. 73Z); a. 10 q.2 ad 2 in opp. (f. 75X).

P. 77

Si obiciatur de permanentia sectae Mahometi, respondeo:  illa incepit plusquam sexcentis annis post legem Christi^1, et in brevi, Dominio volenti, finietur, quia multum debilitata est anno Christi millesimo trecentesimo^2, et eius cultores multi mortui, et plurimi sunt fugati; et prophetia dicitur apud eos esse quod secta eorum est finienda^3.	If one objects concerning the permanence of the sect of Mohammed, I respond:  that began more than six hundred years after the law of Christ,^1 and in a short (time), God willing, it finish, because it has been very much weakened in the year of Christ 1300,^2 and many of its worshippers have died, and very many have fled; and there is said to be a prophecy among them that their sect is to be ended.^3
113.  [De miraculorum limpiditate]  —  De octavao, scilicet miraculorum claritate vel limpiditate, sic patet:  Deus non potest esse testis falsus; sed ipse Deus, invocatus a praedicante Scripturam ut ostenderet doctrinam eius esse veram, fecit aliquod opus sibi proprium, ac per hoc testificatus est illud esse verum quod ille praedicavit.  Confirmatur per Richardum I De Trinitate cap. 2:*  « Domine, . . .	113.  [On the limpidity of miracles]  —  Concerning the eighth, namely the clarity and/or limpidity of miracles, it is thus clear:  God cannot be a false witness; but God Himself, invoked by a preacher to show that its doctrine is the true Scripture, has wrought some works proper to Himself, and through this has testified that it is true what that one preached.  (This) is confirmed through Richard (of St. Victor), De Trinitate, Bk. I, ch. 2:*  « Lord, . . .
*  Richardus a S. Victore, De Trin. I c. 2 (PL 196, 891):  « Domine, si error est, teipso decepti sumus, nam ista in nobis tantis signis et prodigiis confirmata sunt, et talibus, quae non nisi per te fieri possent ».	*  Richard of St. Victor, De Trinitate., I, c. 2 (PL 196, 891):  « Lord, if there is an error, by Thee thyself have we been deceived, for those things by so great signs and prodigies have been confirmed, and by such, which not but through they could they have been worked ».
^1  Mahometus suam religionem praedicare coepit circa an. 610 post Chr.  ^2 Duns Scotus verisimiliter alludit pugnae diei 23 decembris 1299, de qua cf. Röhricht R., Études sur les derniers temps du royaume de Jérusalem, B. Les batailles de Hims (1281 et 1299), in Archives de l’Orient latin I (1881) 633-652; Balić Ch., Les commentaires de Jean Duns Scot sur les quatre libres des Sentences, (in BRHE I), Louvain 1927, 41-42.  ^3 De hac prophetia loquitur etiam Rogerius Bacon, Opus maius pars VII (ed. Bridges II 389); cf. ibid. pars IV (I 266).  Cf. etiam Guil. Vorrillon, Collectarium (2r).	^1  Mohammed began to preach his own religion about A.D. 610.  ^2  (Bl. John) Duns Scotus seemingly alludes to the battle of December 23, 1299, concerning which cf. Röhricht R., Études sur les derniers temps du royaume de Jérusalem, B. Les batailles de Hims (1281 et 1299), in Archives de l’Orient latin I (1881) 633-652; Balić Ch., Les commentaires de Jean Duns Scot sur les quatre libres des Sentences, (in BRHE I), Louvain 1927, 41-42.  ^3 Of this prophecy Roger Bacon also speaks in Opus maius, part VII (ed. Bridges II 389); cf. ibid. part IV (I 266).  Cf. also Guil. Vorrillon, Collectarium (2r).

P. 78

. . . si est error, a te decepti sumus, nam confirmata sunt tantis signis facta tua, quae non nisi a te fieri possunt ».	. . . if there is an error, we have been deceived by Thee, for Thy works have been confirmed by so great signs, which could not have been done except by Thee ».
114.  Quod si dicatur miracula non fuisse facta, aut etiam non testificantia veritatem, quia etiam Antichristus faciet miracula, — contra primum potest dici illa sententia Augustini De civitate XXII cap. 5 g:*  « Si ista miracula facta esse non credunt, hoc nobis unum grande miraculum sufficit quod iam orbis terrarum sine ullis miraculis credit ».	114.    Which if it be said that the miracles have not been wrought, or even that they (do) not testify to the truth, because even the Antichrist will work miracles, — against the first can be said that sentence of (St.) Augustine from De civitate Dei, Bk. XXII, ch. 5 g:*  « If those miracles of Thine they do not believe have been wrought, for us this suffices as one great miracle, that already the world without any miracles believe ».
Nota valde illud miraculum et illud capitulum, quia si quod credimus dicatur incredibile esse, non minus est incredibile « homines », inquit, « ignobiles et infimos, paucissimos, imperitos, rem ita incredibilem tam efficaciter mundo, et in illo etiam mundo doctis persuadere potuisse », mundus ut illud credat, sicut iam credidisse videmus^1, nisi per illos aliqua miracula fierent, per quae mundus ad credendum induceretur.  Unde subdit ibi:  « Propterea mundus numero exiguo ignobilium, infimorum, imperitorium hominum . . .	Note well that miracle and that chapter, because if what we believe be said to be incredible, it is no less incredible « that men», he says, « ignoble and of the lowest (station), most few, inexperienced, could have persuaded the world of a thing so incredible so efficaciously, and even the learned in that world », so that the world believes it, just has we see it has already believed,^1 except that through them some miracles were worked, through which the world was induced to believe.  Whence he subjoins there:  « Besides the world by a exceedingly small number of ignoble, of the lowest (station), of inexperienced men . . .
*  August., De civ. Dei XXII c. 5 (PL 41, 756-757; CSEL XL pars II 590, 14-18):  « Si vero per apostolos Christi, ut eis crederetur, ressurrectionem atque ascensionem praedicantibus Christi, etiam ista miracula facta esse non credunt, hoc nobis unum grande miraculum sufficit, quod eam terrarum orbis sine ullis miraculis credidit ».	*  (St.) Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. XXII, ch. 5 (PL 41, 756-757; CSEL XL, part II, 590, 14-18):  « If however through the Apostles of Christ, if one would believe them, having preached the resurrection and ascension of Christ, do not believe even those miracles were wrought, this suffices for us as one grand miracle, that this the world without any miracles has believed ».
^1  Cf. supra p. 71, 8-10.

P. 79

. . . credidit, quia in tam contemptibilibus testibus multo mirabilius divinitas se ipsa persuasit ».  Quid enim incredibilius quam quod ad legem contariam carni et sanguini, doctores pauci, pauperes et rudes, plurimos potentes et sapientes converterent^1?  Quod specialiter patet de multis prudentissimis, primo fidei rebelibus, post conversis:  ut de Paulo, prius persecutore, postea gentium doctore^2; de Augustino, prius aliqualiter per manichaeos seducto, postea doctore catholico^3; de Dionysio, prius philosopho, postea Pauli discipulo^4; de Cypriano, prius mago, postea episcopo christianissimo^5, et aliis innumeris.	. . . has believed, that in witnesses so contemptible witnesses the Divinity Itself has in a much more wonderful manner persuaded it of these (doctrines) ».  For what (is) more incredible than that to a law contrary to the flesh and blood, a few teachers, power and rude, would convert very many powerful and wise (men)?^1  Which is especially clear from the very many most prudent (men), at first rebels to the faith, afterwards converts:  from (St.) Paul, first as persecutor, afterwards Doctor of the nations;^2 from (St.) Augustine, first somewhat seduces by the Manicheans, afterwards the Catholic Doctor;^3 from (St.) Dionysius, at first a philosopher, afterwards the disciple of (St.) Paul;^4 from (St.) Cyprian, at first a magician, afterwards a most Christian Bishop,^5 and innumerable others.
Contra idem secundo potest dici illud Augustini X De civitate cap. 18 a:*  « An dicet aliquis ista non fuisse facta?  Potest . . .	Against the same, there can be said, second, that (passage) of (St.) Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. X, ch. 18 a:*  « Or will anyone say that these things were not done?  He can . . .
*  August., De civ. Dei X c. 18 (PL 41, 296-297; CSEL XL pars I 478, 5-8):  « An dicet aliquis ista falsa esse miracula, 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 ».	*  (St.) Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. X, ch. 18 (PL 41, 296-297; CSEL XL, part I, 478, 5-8):  « Or will anyone say that these miracles are false, and that they were not done, but mendaciously written?  Whoever says this, if he denies entirely that one is to believe anything written [ullis litteris] concerning these things, he can also say that none of the gods care for mortals ».
^1  Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 11 q. 6 in corp. (I f. 81T-B).  ^2 Cf. August., Conf. III c. 6 n. 10-11 (PL 32, 686-8; CSEL XXXIII 50, 15-53, 16); De utilitate credendi c. 1 n. 2 (PL 42, 66; CSEL XXV pars I 4, 14-19); Sermo 51 c. 5 n. 6 (PL 38, 336).  ^4 Cf. Act. 17, 34.  ^5 Beda Ven., Martyrologia 26 sept. (PL 94, 1054-5):  « VI Kalend. Oct. — Natale sanctorum martyrum Cypriani episcopi et Iustinae virginis.  Quorum Iustina sub Diocletiano multa propter Christum perpessa, ipsum quoque Cyprianum cum esset magus, et magicis artibus eam dementare conaretur, convertit ad Christum.  Cum quo, iam episcopo et nobili doctore facto, matryrizata est sub Claudio principe et iudice Eutelmio ».  Cf. Dom Quentin H., Les martyologes historiques du moyen âge, Paris 1908, 71.	^5  (St.) Bede the Venerable, Martyrologia 26 Sept. (PL 94, 1054-5):  « VI day before the Calends of October. —  The birthday of the holy martyrs Cyprian, bishop, and Justina, virgin.  Of whom Justina suffered many things for the sake of Christ under Diocletian, (and) Cyprian too, since he was a magician, and strove to dement her by magical arts, converted to Christ.  After which, when having been made a bishop and a noble teacher, was martyred under the prince Claudius and the judge Euthelmius ».  Cf. Dom Quentin H., Les martyologes historiques du historiques du moyen âge, Paris 1908, 71.

P. 80

. . . etiam dicere deos non curare mortalia » etc.  Et ibidem, g,* de eodem:  « Si libris magicis sive theurgicis credunt, cur illis Litteris nolunt, ista esse facta, quibus » etc.	. . . also say that the gods do not care for mortals » etc.. And in the same place, g,* of the same (he says):  « If they believe the books of magicians or healers [theurgicis], why do they not these Writings, that these things have been done, by which » etc..
Contra idem tertio, quod quaedam facta non nisi a nimis protervientibus negari possunt, ut sunt miracula facta a Silvestro coram Constantino, tam in curatione leprae eius, quam postea in disputatione eius contra iudaeos,^1 quae facta tamquam celebria mundum non latuerunt.	Likewise against the third, that certain things done cannot be denied except by the exceedingly impudent [protervientibus], as for example the miracles worked by (Pope St.) Silvester before Constantine, as much in the curing of his leprosy, as afterwards in his disputation against the Jews,^1 which deeds as things celebrated have not lain hidden from the world.
115.  Contra secundum dici potest quod si aliquis invocatus in testem signum conseutum 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, annuntians videlicet illa non esse testimonia sua, non videtur esse perfecte verax, quod est impossibile.  Et per hoc ad illud de . . .	115.  Against the second there can be said that if anyone having been summoned as a witness permits that there be adduced a customary sign of testifying and as one 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 (these), announcing that is that those are not His testimonies, it does not seem that He is perfectly truthful, which is impossible.  And through this (line of reasoning) regarding that (objection) concerning . . .
*  August., De civ. Dei X c. 18 (PL 41, 297; CSEL XL pars I 479, 6-12):  « Porro autem si multorum deorum cultores . . libris magicis sive, quod honestius putant, theurgicis credunt, quid causae est cur illis Litteris nolint credere, ista facta esse, quibus tanto maior debetur fides quanto super omnes est magnus cui uni soli sacrificandum esse praecipiunt? »	*  (St.) Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. X, ch. 18 (PL 41, 297; CSEL XL, part I, 479, 6-12):  « Furthermore, if, on the other hand, the worshippers of many gods . . . believe the books of magicians or, what they more honestly think, of healers, what is the cause why they do not want to believe these Writings, that those things have been done, in which there ought to be as much greater faith, as He is above all great, to whom as to the only One they precept that one must sacrifice? »
^1  Cf. Liber pontificalis (PL 8, 799. 814: ed. Duchesne I 170, 3-4); Mombritius B., Sanctuarium seu vitae sanctorum (ed. Solesm. II 510, 35-40. 516, 28-531, 2).  De merito historico harum legendarum cf. Lewison W., Konstantinische Schenkung und Silvester-Legende, in Miscellanea Francescana, Fr. Ehrel, Roma 1923, II 170-200.

P. 81

. . . Antichristo^1, quia praedixit illa miracula facienda non esse testimonia veritatis, sicut patet Matth. 24 et ad Thess. 2.	. . . the Antichrist,^1 because He foretold that those miracles will not be done as testimonies of the truth, just as is clear from Matthew 24:[24] and (the Letter) to the Thessalonians 2:[8-9].
Item, contra idem, est differentia mirabilium quae fiunt a Deo et quae fiunt a diabolo, de qua differentia tractat Augustinus in libro De utilitate credendi: « Miraculum », inquit, « voco quidquid arduum supra spem  vel facultatem mirantis apparet; quaedam solam faciunt admirationem, quaedam magnam gratiam benevolentiamque conciliant », qualia fuerunt miracula Christi; et pertractat ibi diffuse.	Likewise, against the same, there is a difference among the miracles which are worked by God and those which are worked by the Devil, of which differance (St.) Augustine treats in the book De utilitate credendis, [ch. 16, n. 34]:  « A miracle », he says, « (is what) I call anything arduous beyond the hope or the capacity of the one wondering appears (to be); certain things which cause only admiration, which gather together a great grace and benevolence », of such a kind were the miracles of Christ; and (St. Augustine) treats (of this) thoroughly there at length.
116.  Item, contra utrumque^2 dici potest quod sunt aliqua miracula, facta in lege christiana, in quibus non potest esse deceptio an sint facta, nec quin sint testimonia veritatis, quia a Deo facta:  ut raptus Pauli^3 et revelatio contingentium futurorum.	116.  Likewise, against each^2 it can be said that there are some miracles, worked under the Christian law, by which there can be no deception whether they were wrought, nor that they are testimonies of the truth, because they (were) done by God:  as the rapture of (St.) Paul and the revelation of future contingents.
Primum patet:  quia impossibile est aliquem decipi circa se videre Dei essentiam, igitur impossibile fuit Paulum credere se videre divinam essentiam nisi illam videret; sed hoc asserit de se II Cor. 2, secundum expositionem sanctorum^4; igitur illud fuit vere factum, et non tantum apparenter.	First it is clear:  that it is impossible that someone be deceived concerning his seeing the Essence of God, therefore it was impossible that (St.) Paul believe himself to have seen the Divine Essence unless he did see It; but this he asserts of himself in II Cor. [1]2:2-4, according to the exposition of the Saints;^4 therefore that truly happened, and not only apparently.
^1  Cf. supra n. 114.  ^2 Cf. ibidem. ^3 Cf. II Cor. 12, 2-4.  ^4 Cf. August., Epist. 147 Ad Paulinam, De videndo Deo c. 13 (PL 33, 610; CSEL XLIV 305, 8-15); De Gen. ad litt. XII c. 2-4 n. 3-12; c. 28 n. 56; c. 34 n. 65 (PL 34, 455-457. 478. 482; CSEL XXVIII pars II 382, 5-397, 2; 422, 12-423, 23; 431, 14-26); Alulfus, Expositio Novi Testamenti, super epist. II ad Cor., c. 27 (appendix ad opera Gregorii, PL 79, 1344).  Cf. Nicolaus de Lyra, Biblia sacra cum glossa interlineari, ordinaria (VI 76ra).  — Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 1 q. 2 incorp. (I. F. 6 I); a. 24 q. 2 in corp. (f. 138 I).

P. 82

Probatio primi antecedentis, quia nullus potest decipi circa primum principium aliquod — credendo se intelligere cum non intelligat tale principium — quod non constaret ex terminis apprehensis quod esset principium et quod non^a; igitur multo magis non potest decipi circa Deum visum.  Consequentia ista patet, quia plus distat visio Dei ab intellectione cuiuscumque obiecti, etiam quantum ad perceptionem intellectus viatoris, quam distet intellectio principii complexi ab intellectione alicuius non-principii.  Item, qualiter crederet intellectus se quietari si non quietaretur^1?  Nonne poterit cognoscere inclinationem suam ad verum quod non videt?  Si credit se videre Deum, credit se quietari in Deo; si non videt, non quietatur.  « Stultius », ait Augustinus, « nihil dici potest quam quod anima falsa opinione sit beata », X De civitate* . . .	The proof of the first antecedent, that no one can be deceived about any first principle — by believing that he understands it when he does not understand such a principle — which would not be established [constaret] from terms apprehened as to whether it is a principle or is not;^a  therefore much more could one not be deceived about having seen God.  The consequence is thus clear, because more distant is the vision of God from the intellection of any object whatsoever, even as much as regards the perception of the intellect of the wayfarer, than the intellection of complex principles from the intellection of any non-principles.  Likewise, how would the intellect believe that it is resting if it would not rest?^1  Could it not cognize its own inclination to a truth [verum] which it does not see?  If it believes that it sees God, it believes that it rests in God; if it does not see, it does not rest.  « More stupid », says (St.) Augustine, « can nothing be said than that the soul be blessed by a false opinion », De civitate Dei, Bk. X*. . .
^a Loco quod non (3) — quod non (4) textus interpolatus:  dum constaret ex terminis quod aliquod tale principium esset.	^a In place of which would not be . . . or is not  there is the interpolated text:  which would be established from its terms that something is such a principle.
*  August., De civ. Dei XI c. 4 n. 2 (PL 41, 319-320; CSEL XL pars I 516, 6-8): « Si autem [anima] non praevidet nec se turpem ac miseram fore, sed beatam semper existimat, falsa opinione sit beata:  quo dici stultius nihl potest. »	*  (St.) Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. XI, ch. 4, n. 2 (PL 41, 319-320; CSEL XL pars I 516, 6-8): « If, on the other hand, [the soul] does not foresee that it would not also be filthy and wretched, but estimates itself (to be) always blessed,  it would be blessed by a false opinion: there can be nothing more stupid than to say that. »
^1  De huiusmodo quietatione cf. Duns Scotus, Ordinatio I d. 2 pars 1 q. 2 n. [31].	^1  On this manner of resting cf. Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, I, d. 2, part 1, q. 2, n. [31].

P. 83

. . . cap. 4.  Secundum^1, scilicet quod hoc a solo Deo fieri potuerit, est manifestum, quia nulla creatura potest animam beatificare, nec simpliciter nec ad tempus^2.	. . . ch. 4.  The second,^1 namely, that this could only be done by God, is manifest, because no creature can beatify a soul, neither simply, nor for a time.^2
117.  Secundum^3 patet ex multis prophetiis in utroque Testamento^4.  Unde contra falsa miracula Antichristi posset sibi obici, saltem de istis duobus, hoc modo:  si tu es Deus, fac me videre nude divinam essentiam, et post visionem memoriam certam habere visionis, et certitudinem quia illa fuit visio divinae essentiae nude, et tunc credam tibi;  item, si tu est Deus, dic mihi quid faciam vel quid cogitabo vel apetam tali die vel hora.	117.  The second^3 (of these later two) is clear from the many prophets in each Testament.^4  Whence against the false miracles of the Antichrist there could be objected to him, at least concerning these two (points), in this manner:  if you are God, make me see the Divine Essence unobstructed [nude], and after the Vision to have a certain memory of the vision, and the certitude that That was the Vision of the Divine Essence unobstructed, and then I will believe you; likewise, if you are God, tell me what I will do and/or what I will be thinking and/or will desire on such a day and/or hour.
Et huiusmodi viae efficaciam, ex miraculis, innuit Salvator, Ioan. 5:  Opera quae ego facio, illa testimonium perhibent de me; si mihi non vultis credere, operibus credite.	And the efficacy of this manner of approach [via] the Savior hints at in John 5:[36; 10:38]:  The works which I do, these bear testimony of Me; if you do not want to believe Me, believe My works.
118.  [De testimoniis non-fidelium]  —  Nono quoque loco adduci potest testimonium eorum qui foris sunt.  Iosephus in libro XVIII Antiquitatum* pulcherrimum testimonium ponit de Christo, ubi inter . . .	118.    [On the testimony of unbelievers] — In the ninth place there can also be adduced the testimony of those who are outside (the Church).  (Flavious) Josephus in the 18^th book of his Jewish Antiquities* gives the most beautify testimony of Christ, where among . . .
*  Flavius Iosephus, Antiquitates iudaicae XVIII c. 4 n. 3 (ed. Hudsonus II 798).  Textus ‘Fuit autem . . . et genus’ (p. 84, 12-21) fere ad litteram hoc loco legitur.	*  Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Bk. XVIII, ch. 4, n. 3 (Hudson edition, Bk. II, p. 798).  The text ‘But there was . . . and the race’ (p. 84, 12-21) is nearly litterally reproduced in this quote.
^1  Subdivit primum.  ^2 Cf. Duns Scotus, Ordinatio I d. 35 q. Un. N. [13].  ^3 ‘quin sint testimonia veritatis, quia a Deo facta’, ut revelatio futuorum contingentium, cf. supra n. 116.  ^4 Cf. supra n. 101.	^1  Here Scotus subdivides the first objection.  ^2 Cf. Duns Scotus, Ordinatio I d. 35 q. Un. N. [13]:  Trans. Note:  Scotus speaks in strict terms regarding the essential cause of beatification, which is God alone; however Christ as Redeemer and the Blessed Virgin, as Corredemptrix, as well as all angels and saints and men, by their participation in Christ’s and Mary’s mediation of grace, are remote efficient causes, either as meritorious and/or dispositive and/or occasional agents vis-à-vis the wayferer to be beatified. ^3 ‘nor that they be testimonies of the truth, because they were worked by God’, such as the revelation of future contingents, cf. supra n. 116.

P. 84

. . . alia de Iesu scripta ait:  « Christus hic erat »;  ubi etiam veram eius doctrinam et resurrectionem a mortuis confitetur^a.  —  Item, de prophetia Sibyllae; notatur De civitate libro XVIII cap. 23.*  —  Item, Contra epistolam Fundamenti, nota quomodo singuli haeretici de catholicis inquisiti, non ad suos mittunt sed ad veros cathlicos, quasi etiam illi soli ab omnibus, etiam haereticis, catholici nominentur^1.	. . . other things written he says of Jesus:  « This was the Messiah »; where he even confesses (His) true doctrine and resurrection from the dead.^a  —  Likewise, from the prophecy of the Sibyl; it is noted in De civitate Dei, Bk. XVIII, ch. 23*.  — Likewise, in Contra epistolam Fundamenti, [ch. 4, n.5] note how individual heretics (when) questioned by Catholics, don’t send us to their own, but to true Catholics, as if they alone are named by all, even by the heretics, as catholics.^1
119.  [De promissorum efficacia]  —  Decimo et ultimo potest addi quod Deus non deest quaerentibus toto corde salutem.  Multi enim diligentissime inquirentes salutem ad hanc sectam conversi sunt; et quanto ferventiores facti sunt inquirendo, tanto in hac secta amplius confirmati, subitoque in ea paenitentes, de malitia ad vitam.	119.  [On the promises of efficacy]  —  Tenth and lastly there can be added that God does not fail those who seek salvation with their whole heart.  For many seeking salvation in a most diligent manner have been converted to this sect; and inasmuch as they became more fervent in inquiring, so much more fully have they been confirmed in this sect, and suddenly doing penance in it, they have been changed from wickedness to a good life; . . .
^a Sequitur testus interpolatus:  his verbis dicens: « Fuit autem iisdem temporibus Iesus, sapiens vir, si tamen eum virum nominare fas est.  Erat enim mirabilium operum effector, et doctor hominum, eorum qui libenter ea quae vera sunt audiunt; et multos quidem iudaeorum, multos etiam ex gentibus sibi adiunxit.  Christus hic erat.  Hunc, accusatione primorum nostrae gentis virorum, cum Pilatus in cruce agendum esse decrevisset, non deseruerunt hi qui ab initio dilexerunt.  Apparuit enim eis tertio die iterum vivens, secundum quod divinitus inspirati prophetae, vel hoc vel alia de eo innumera miracula futura esse praedixerant.  Sed etiam in hodierunum diem christianorum, qui ab ipso nuncupati, et nomen preseverat et genus. »	^a There follows this interpolated text:  saying in these words:  « But there was in those times Jesus, a wise man, if, however, be right to call him a man.  For he was the worker of wonderful works, and a teacher of men, of those who freely heard those things which are true; and indeed he joined to himself many of the Jews, and many too of the gentiles.  He was the Messiah.  After being accused by the first men of our race, when Pilate decreed that he was to be driven to the cross, those who loved him from the start did not desert him.  For He appeared to them on the on the third day alive, according to which the divinely inspired prophets foretold that this and/or the other innumerable miracles were going to come from him.  But even unto today both the name and race of Christians, who are named from him, perseveres. »
*  August., De civ. Dei XVIII c. 23 n.1 (PL 41, 579; CSEL XL pars II 297, 22-298, 23). Cf. etiam Ps.-August., Sermo contra iudaeos, paganos et arianos, c. 16.  — Sibylla Erythræa (vel Cumana) loquens de ultimo iudicio, Regem de caelo in carne venturum, qui iudicet mundum, praenuntiat.  Carmen acrostichidem ‘propheticam’ praebet: « Ihsouz Creistos, Qeou Uios, Swthr » (IXQUS).  De eadem Sibylla cf. Aristot., De admir. audit. N. 91 (ed. Iuntina VII 126F; ed. Bekker n. 95, 838a 5-10).	*  (St.) Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. XVIII, ch. 23, n.1 (PL 41, 579; CSEL XL part II, 297, 22-298, 23). Cf. also Pseudo-Augustine, Sermo contra iudaeos, paganos et arianos, ch. 16 — The Erythræan (or Cumæan) Sibyl speaking of the last judgment, foretells that the King, who is to judge the world, is to come from heaven in the flesh. She offers this prophetic-acrostic song: Ihsouz Creistos, Qeou Uios, Swthr » (IXQUS).  Of the same Sibyl cf. cf. Aristot., De admir. audit. N. 91 (ed. Iuntina VII 126F; ed. Bekker n. 95, 838a 5-10).
^1  Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 10 q. 2 in opp. (I f. 75X).

P. 85

. . . bonam mutati sunt; tertio quoque, pro ea plures in magna exsultatione spiritus tristitias sunt perpessi.  Quae non videntur probabilia, nisi Deus hanc sectam, sacrae Scripturae innitentem, singulariter approbaret et ordinaret ad salutem.	. . . third, that for it they have suffered many sorrows in great exultation of spirit.  Which does not seem probable, unless God in a singular manner approved this sect, supported by Sacred Scripture, and ordained it to salvation.
[II.  —  Responsio principalis ad quaestionem]	II.  — The Principle Response to the Question
120.  Habito igitur contra haereticos quod doctrina Canonis vera est, videndum est secundo an sit necessaria et sufficiens viatori ad consequendum suum finem.	120.  Therefore against the heretics having shown that the doctrine of the Canon (of Sacred Scripture) is true, it must be seen, second, whether it be necessary and sufficient for the wayfarer to attain his end.
Dico quod ipsa tradit quis sit finis hominis in particulari, quia visio et fruitio Dei, et hoc quantum ad circumstantias appetibilitatis eius; puta quod ipsa habebitur post resurrectionem ab homine immortali, in anima simul et corpore, sine fine.  Ipsa etiam determinat quae sunt necessaria ad finem, et quod illa sufficiant, quia illa mandata, Si vis, inquit ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata (in Matthaeo), de quibus habetur in Exodo; horum etiam explicatio et quantum ad credenda et quantum ad operanda explicatur in diversis locis Scripturae.  Proprietates etiam substantiarum immaterialium in ea traduntur, quantum possibile est et utile viatori nosse^a.	I say that it hands down what belongs to the end of man in particular, since this is the vision and enjoyment of God, and this as much as accords with the circumstances of his ability to desire it; such as it will be had after the resurrection by an immortal man, together in body and soul, without end.  It also determines what things are necessary for the end, and that those are sufficient, because it (has) mandated them, If you wish, He says, enter in upon life, observe the mandates (in Matthew [19:17]), concerning which  (more) is had in Exodus [20:1-17]; the explication of these both (i. e. what belongs to man’s End and the means to that End) as much as regards the things to be believed and as much as regards the things to be done is also explained in diverse passages of the Scripture.  The properties too of immaterial substances are also handed down in it, as much as it is possible and useful for a wayfarer to know.^a
^a Sequitur textus interpolatus:  Ista conferendo ad tres rationes quibus inititur solutio quaestionis praecedentis^1, patet quod Scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinam necessariam viatori.	^a There follows this interpolated text:  By conferring these to the three reasons by which the solution of the preceding question is supported,^1 it is clear that the Scripture sufficiently contains the doctrine necesssary for the wayfarer.
^1 Cf. supra. N. 13-16. 17-18. 40-41; cf. supra p. 41, 2.

P. 86

[III.  —  Ad argumenta principalia]	III.  — Regarding the Principle Arguments
121.  Ad rationes principales.  Ad primam rationem^1.  Ad minorem respondeo quod lex naturae paucioribus fuit contenta, quae memorialiter per patres ad filios devenerunt.  Illi etiam magis erant praediti in naturalibus, et ideo modica doctrina inspirata potuit eis sufficere^2.  Vel aliter dicendum est ad istud et ad illud de lege Moysi, quod ordinatus Scripturae progressus ostendit eius decorem^3.  Pater per Augustinum 83 Quaestionum quaestione 53 c.	121.  Regarding the principle reasons.  Regarding the first reason.^1 To the minor I respond that the law of nature had been contained in fewer things, which came through fathers down to their sons as an immemorial tradition [memorialiter].  They were rather more provided for in natural things, and for that reason a little inspired doctrine could be sufficient for them.^2  And/or otherwise it must be said regarding this and that concerning the law of Moses, that the ordered progress of Scripture shows its beauty [decorem].^3  (This) is clear through (what St.) Augustine (says) in his 83 Questions, question 53 c [, n. 4].
122.  Ad secundum^4 dico quod dulcius capitur quod latet sub aliqua sententia litterali quam si esset expresse dictum^5: et ideo ad devotionem confert, illa quae expressa sunt in Novo Testamento, sub figura velata fuisse in Veteri, hoc quoad ceremonias; sed quoad historias ambo sunt exempla legis declarativa^6.  Similiter ex toto processu Scripturae patet ordinata gubernatio respectu hominis et totius creaturae.	122.  To the second^4 I say that more sweetly is there captured what lays hidden beneath any litteral sentence that if it were expressely said:^5 and for that reason it contributes [confert] to devotion, that those things had been expressed in the New Testament, had been veiled under a figure in the Old, this in regard to cerimonies; but in regard to history both are examples declarative of the law.^6  Similarly from the whole procession of Scripture the ordered (,divine) governance in respect to men and the whole creation is clear.
^1  Cf. supra n. 95. ^2 Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 8. q. 4 in corp. (I f. 66D-E). ^3 Cf. ibid. q. 5 in corp. (f. 67N). ^4 Cf. supra n. 96. ^5 Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 15. q. 1 in corp. (f. 101B). ^6  Cf. ibid. a. 6. q. 1 ad 2 (f. 43F).

P. 87

123.  Ad tertium^1, Origenes in homilia De arca Noe:  « In Scriptura super hoc opportunum videtur habitum silentium, de quo sufficienter consequentiae ipsius ratio doceret »^2 a.  Unde multae veritates necessariae non exprimuntur in sacra Scriptura, etsi ibi virtualiter contineantur, sicut conclusiones in principiis; circa quarum investigationem utilis fuit labor doctorum et expositorum^3.	123.  To the third,^1 Origen in his homily On the Ark of Noah (says):  « In Scripture on this (point) there seems opportune the silence had, which the reason for what would follow afterwards would sufficiently bring out » ^2 a.  Whence many necessary truths are not expressed in Sacred Scripture, even if they are virtually contained there, as conclusions in principles; in [circa] the investigation of which the labor of the doctors and expositors was useful.^3
Si obicias, multa in actibus humanis sunt dubia utrum sunt peccata mortalia vel non, etiam suppositis omnibus doctrinis doctorum et expositorum, — respondeo:  non est dubia via salutis, quia a talibus tamquam a periculosis debet homo se custodire, ne dum se exponit periculo indicat in peccatum.  Quod si voluerit quaerere salutem, sed non curando^b exponat se illi periculo ubi forte ex genere actus non esset peccatum mortale, tamen peccabit mortaliter, se ipsum tali periculo exponendo, sicut alias tangetur^4.	If you object, (that) there are many doubts in human acts whether they are mortal sins or not, even considering [suppositis] all the doctrines of the doctors and expositors, — I respond:  there is no doubt concerning the way to salvation, because from such things as from things dangerous ought a man guard himself, lest while he exposes himself to danger he fall into sin.  Because if he wanted to seek salvation, but by not caring exposes himself to that danger where perchance from the genus of the act there would be no mortal sin, nevertheless he will sin mortally, by exposing himself to such a danger, just as will be touched upon.^4
^a Loco In (1) — doceret (3) textus authenticus:  « Nulla scientia omnia scienda explicat, sed illa ex quibus sufficienter alia elici possunt »^5. ^b Loco sed non curando (12) textus interpolatus:  etiam si.	^a In place of  In (1). . . bring out (3) there is another authentic text:  « No science explains everything to be known, but (only) those (truths) from which there can be sufficiently elicited others ».^5 ^b In place of but by not caring (12) there is the interpolated text:  even if.
^1  Cf. supra n. 97.  ^2 Cf. Henricus Gand., Summa a. 13. q. 8 in corp. (I f. 98D); cf. etiam ibid. a. 16. q. 7 in corp. (I f. 109D).  ^3 Cf. ibid. a. 13. q. 8 in corp. (I f. 98H.  ^4  Cf. Duns Scotus, Ordinatio IV d. 5 q. 3 n. [2]; d. 30 q. 1 n. [4-5]. ^5  Post ‘Nulla . . . possunt’ (lin. 15-16), quae verba sunt Henrici et non Origenis, Henricus (Summa a. 13 q. 8 in corp. [f. 98D]) scribit:  « secundum quod dicit Origensis in homilia De arca Noe, quod », et continuo affert verba Origenis ‘In . . . doceret’ (lin. 1-3).	^5  After ‘No science . . . can be sufficiently elicited others’ (lines 15-16), which are the words of Henry (of Ghent) and not of Origen, Henry ((Summa a. 13 q. 8 in corp. [f. 98D]) writes:  « according to what Origen says in his homily On the Ark of Noah, that » and then immediately quotes the words of Origen, ‘ In Scripture . . . brings out’ (lines 1-3).

The English translation here has been released to the public domain by its author. The . . . symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appeared on the subsequent page of the critical edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation that that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets are Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s) and/or notes added by trans..