{"id": "3/33", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/33/", "site": "bradwardine", "collection": "book-3", "title": "De causa Dei: Book III, Chapter 33", "title_alt": [], "author": "Thomas Bradwardine", "languages": ["la", "en"], "source_edition": {"title": "Thomae Bradwardini archiepiscopi olim Cantuariensis De causa Dei contra Pelagium, et de virtute causarum, ad suos Mertonenses, libri tres", "editor": "Henry Savile", "place": "London", "year": 1618, "volume": null, "locator": "758D–761B", "scan_url": "https://archive.org/details/decausadeicontra00braduoft"}, "source_text": "CAP. XXXIII. Mouet eandem per viam reuelationis in verbo, et ponit sex responsiones concedentium reuelationē in verbo, et arguit grauiter contra.\n\nHIs igitur per viam actionis Dei intrinsecae contra hypothesin istam obiectis, restat per viam actionis eius extrinsecae contra eandem obijcere consequenter, per viam scilicet reuelationis diuinae et eius effectus. Haec autem secundum doctrinam Patrum est duplex. Nam quaedam est in verbo Dei, in ipsa scil. summa luce, summa veritate increata, in essentia\n\nipsa Dei; quaedam vero in proprio genere creaturae, in luce scil. inferiori creata. Primo ergo per viam reuelationis in verbo; Ponatur siquidem Deum reuelare vel reuelasse in verbo Paulo A. fore cras, tūc Paulus aut videt aut vidit, scit aut sciuit A. fore cras, ergo necesse est eum sic videre aut vidisse, scire aut sciuisse, quoniam omnem actū humanum, quando est, necesse est pro tunc esse, et omnem actum humanū praeteritū necesse est fuisse: alias enim qd. homo nunc vult et facit▪ posset nunc non velle nec facere, et quod voluit et fecit, potest nunquam voluisse nec fecisse; quare et illud quod nunc est aut fuit, potest pro nunc non esse nunc, nec vnquam fuisse, contra omnes Logicos, Philosophos, Theologos, et vulgares, quod et hypothesis ista negat. Et si\n\nnecesse est Paulum scire aut sciuisse A. fore cras, necesse est A. fore cras: nam necessario sequitur, Paulus scit aut sciuit A. fore cras; ergo verum est aut fuit A. fo•e cras, ergo A. est aut fuit futurum cras, ergo erit cras, sicut patet per ostensa 18. huius. Tota igitur haec consecutio est necessaria, et primum antecedens similiter, quare et vltimum consequens, sicut 30▪ huius patet; ergo necesse est A. cras fore, quare et similiratione de quocunque futuro nunc est necessarium, et semper fuit necessarium ipsum fore, et de quocunque non futuro, ipsum non fore, cuius oppositum hypothesis supponebat. Ad istud autem dupliciter respondetur. Nam quidā huiusmodi reuelationem concedunt; alij vero negant. Concedentes autem reuelationem huiusmodi respondent iuxta praedictam hypothesin consequenter, dicendo qd. sicut Deus per suam essentiam nunc scit, et semper sciuit quodcunque futurum fore, et potest nunc pro nunc illud non scite nec vnquam sciuisse, sed nunc et pro nunc scire et semper sciuisse eius oppositū; sic et homo vel Angelus, qui per eandē essentiam scit et sciuit quodcun que futurum fore, potest\n\nconformiter nunc et pro nunc illud non scire, nec vnquam sciuisse, sed hunc et pro nunc scire eius oppositum prius que sciuisse. Sed ista responsio videtur absurda. Nam si sic esset, possibile esset Christum, Mo•em, Paulum, et quemcun que Prophetam, qui vidit secreta Dei in verbo, nū quam quicquam ibi vidisse, nec fuisse Prophetam, sed pseudoprophetam, et Antichristum, eū fuerit praeteritus pessimus, Mahumetem et quemlibet maledictum, qui nunquam aliquid ibi vidit, omnia Dei secreta ibi vidisse, fuisse que eximium Prophetarum. Haec etiam responsio non euitat, quoniam si Paulus scit et sciuit in verbo A. fore, et potest non scire nec sciuisse A. fore, aut potest velle et voluisse, non velle et non voluisse, non velle conformiter, vel non potest. Si potest, ponatur qd. reuelabatur in verbo Paulo A. adhuc futurum fore, et praecipiebatur similiter qd. vellet, praedicaret, et faceret conformiter reuelationi ostensae, sicut Deus praeceperat Ieremiae, Praedicabis, inquiens, verba quae ego loquar ad te, Ier. 19. et Ezech. Vade et loqueris verba mea, Ezech. 3. et Ionae, Praedica, inquit, praedicationem quam ego loquorad te, Ion. 2. sicut\n\net verisimiliter creditur qd. Archangel. Gabriel recepit per reuelationē et iussionem in verbo negotium incarnationis dominicae beatissimae virgini nuntiandum. Dominus etiam Iesus Christus de seipso testatur, Ego, inquiens, ex meipso non sum locutus, sed qui misit me Pater, ipse mihi mandatum dedit quid dicam, et quid loquar Ioh. 12. Et infra 14. Sicut mandatū dedit mihi pater, sic facio; et si quis homo vel Angelus habuit reuelationē et mandatū in verbo, quis vnquā dignius Dom. Iesu Christo vnico Dei verbo, vnicissimo Dei verbo? Vnde Aug. super Ioh. part. 1. hom. vlt. scil. 54. primā autoritatē exponens, sic ait; Ideo se dicit non locutum ex seipso, quia nō est ex seipso. Filius est verbum Patris, et sapientia Patris; In illo sunt omnia mandata Patris: ne que enim Patris mandatum Filius aliquando nesciebat, vt eum necesse esset ex tempore habere qd. antea non habebat. Ita enim a Patre, qd. habet, accepit, vt nascendo acceperit, dederit que illi gignendo. Nam et vita est, et accepit vitam. vti que nascendo, non prius sine vita existendo, quia et Pater habet vitam, et qd. habet est, nec accepit tamen, quia non ex aliquo\n\nest; filius autem accepit vitam dante Patre, a quo est, et ipse qd. habet, est: habet n. vitam, et vita est: ipsum audi loquentem; Sic habet, inquit. Pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et filio habere vitam in semetipso. Nunquid existenti et non habenti dedit? Sed eo dedit, quo genuit, qui vitam genuit, et quia aeterna est ipsa natiuitas, nunquam non fuit filius qui est vita, nunquam fuit filius sine vita. Et sicut est natiuitas aeterna, sic est qui natus est, vita aeterna: ita et mandatum, non quod filius non habebat, pater dedit, sed, sicut dixi, In sapientia Patris, quod est verbum Patris, omnia mandata sunt Patris. Dicitur autem mandatum datum, quia non est a seipso cui dicitur datum; et hoc est dare filio, sine quo nunquam filius fuit, quod est gignere filium qui nunquam non fuit. Factis igitur Paulo reuelatione et mandato praemissis, ponatur quod voluit, praedicauit, et fecit extrinsecus operando conformiter reuelationi ostensae. Et secundum istam responsionem A. adhuc existente futuro, possibile est ipsum non fore, et verbum nunquam sciuisse nec reuelasse, ac Paulum nunquam vidisse in verbo A. fore; quaere\n\net sicut dicit responsio, est correspondenter possibile, Paulum nunquam voluisse conformiter reuelationi praedictae, est ergo nunc possibile Paulum non praedicasse, non fecisse extrinsecus quae iam fecit: non enim potuit talia facere nisi prima voluntate, quare et illa praeterita, est possibile non fuisse. Et ut istud manifestius deducatur in lucem, ponatur iuxta antoritates de orando et modo orandi praemissas 23. et 25. primi; quod Paulo detur mandatum sub poena damnationis aeternae, quod omnem et solum ostensum sibi in verbo saluandum velit absolute saluari, inuet que in orationibus et beneficijs alijs solum talem; ostendatur que sibi in verbo Petrum viatorem esse saluandum, quē velit absolute saluari, oret pro eo, aedificet sibi domum, et alia beneficia administret, moriatur, et migret ad coelum adhuc Petro superstite viatore; tunc, sicut dicit hypothesis, possibile est Petrum non saluari, quare et, sicut dicit ista responsio, possibile est consequenter hoc nunquam fuisse ostensum in verbo, Paulum\n\nnunquam hoc vidisse, nunquam hoc voluisse, nunquam pro eo orasse, nunquam ei domum aedificasse, nec alia beneficia ministrasse, nec ad coelum sed ad infernum migrasse, vel retentis mandato et reuelatione praemissis, ponatut Paulum in nullo paruisse mandato, et sic mortuum ad inferos descendisse, tunc possibile est Petrum adhuc viatorem non esse saluandum, nec hoc vnquam fuisse reuelatum, quare et Paulum non fecisse seu omisisse contra mandatum, nec peccasse, nec descendisse ad inferos, sed ad superos ascendisse; vel forsitan, sicut multis magis videbitur oportunum, ponatur Paulum recipisse mandatum, quod nullum ostenium sibi in verbo damnandum velit saluari, nec oret pro alicuius talis salute, et quod quemcunque ostensum sibi in verbo saluandum velit saluari, et oret pro eo, ostendaturque sibi in verbo Antichristum esse damnandum, quem nec velit saluati, nec oret pro eo, et sic decedens saluetur, vel contraria faciens, et sic decedens damnetur, adhuc Antichristo superstite viatore etc. sicut prius. Gabriel etiam medio tempore postquam venit ad virginem gloriosam nuntians quod\n\nconciperet filium benedictum, antequam concepit, potuit non venisse ad eam, nec illud nuntium protulisse, vt patet per deductionem priorem. Dominus etiam Iesus Christus medio tempore postquam fuit incarnatus pro humano genere redimendo, priusquam redemit, potuit non fuisse incarnatus, et postquam praedixit discipulis illud, Matth. 20. Ecce, ascendimus Hierosolymam, et filius hominis tradetur principibus sacerdotum, et Scribis, et condemnabunt eum morte, et tradent eum gentibus ad illudendum et flagellandum et crucifigendum, et teraio die resurget; ascenditque Hierosolymam ad illum finem; priusquam pateretur, potuit ista non dixisse, nec Hierosolymam ascendisse: postquam similiter iam propinquior passioni, tristabatur vsque ad mortem, et sudauit sudorem sanguineum, priusquam patetetur, possibile fuit non sic fuisse tristatum neque sudasse, quae omnia patent per deductionem priorem. Vt autem haec multa virtualiter in vno verbo recolligam, suppono nos esse in medio tempore inter tales effectus praeteritos et reuelata futura; et sicut dicit responsio, Possibile\n\nest illa reuelata futura non fore, et nunquam fuisse reuelata, visa nec voluta, ergo possibile est illos effectus praeteritos non fuisse: nam necessario sequitur negatiue, Causa non fuit, ergo effectus non fuit, et antecedens est possibile, ergo et consequens, sicut tricesimo huius patet. Vel e contrario affirmatiue, Necesse est illos effectus fuisse, ergo et illas volutiones, visiones, et reuelationes: nam necessario sequitur affirmatiue, Effectus fuit, ergo causa eius fuit, et antecedens est necessarium, ergo et consequens, sicut idem tricesimum demonstrauit. Et si necesse est illas visiones et reuelationes fuisse, ergo et illa reuelata fore sicut superius est ostensum: nec potest quisquam ad aliam partem biuij rationabiliter declinare, dicendo Paulum non posse, non velle quod vult, nec posse non voluisse quod voluit, sicut potest non scire quod scit, et non sciuisse quod sciuit facta huius reuelatione in verbo, quoniam per locum a simili et a proportionalitate videtur, quod sicut Paulus scit aliquid in verbo, siue in Dei essentia, sic potest velle seu diligere aliquid in spiritu sancto siue in Dei essentia. Nam sicut filius et Dei essentia\n\nse habet ad nostrum scire, sic spiritus sanctus in eadem essentia ad nostrum diligere: alias enim nequaquam nostra charitas nec dilectio veraciter diceretur, quod tamen 42. primi erat ostensum. Quare si propter hoc, quod verbum sciens et ostendens aliquid futurum, potest nunc pro nunc illud non scire neque ostendere; potest Paulus hoc videns, nunc et pro nunc illud non videre, cum similiter sit de spiritu sancto volente aliquid futurum, erit et similiter de Paulo volente in ipso. Haec etiam responsio non iuuat, sed magis illa queat respondentes, quia si facta reuelatione huiusmodi, et Paulo volente conformiter, necesse sit Paulo, sic velle, aut in praeterito voluisse, necesse est eum sic videre, et in praeterito sic vidisse: nam haec sua volutio ab illa sua visione causatur, quare necesse est sic esse reuelatum in verbo aut fuisse, quare et necesse est sic fore, sicut superius est deductum. Item aliqui sunt effectus causati a sola visione, siue volutione, aut nolutione coniuncta. Sola visio namque certa de aliquo prospero vel aduerso propinquo causat in corde et corpore sic videntis dilectionem aut tristitiam, dilatationem\n\nvel constrictionem, spem vel timorem, et multas passiones alias corporales, sicut ex 18. secundi potest haberi; veluti in Christo sudorem sanguineum, et in quibusdam mortem, sicut videtur in Nabal. 1. Reg. 25. sicut et refertur de quodā magno de Anglia post deportationem reconciliato, quod nimio gaudio incurabiliter resolutus vitam cum gaudio terminauit: quamobrem arguatur de talibus sicut prius. Igitur contra omnes admittentes reuelationē in verbo procedit haec ratio vna breuis, Necesse est hunc effectum esse vel fuisse, ergo et illam reuelationem in verbo, quare et illud reuelatum necesse est fore. Sed hic a multis multipliciter respondetur; omnes tamen in hoc vno conneniunt, quod consequutio ista non tenet. Et si contra omnes cōmuniter arguatur, necessario sequitur, Iste effectus fuit, ergo causa eius fuit,\n\nAntecedens est necessarium, ergo et consequens: concedunt; sed si arguatur vlterius, causa eius fuit, ergo reuelatio illa in verbo; dicunt concorditer hoc non sequi, sed esse fallaciam consequentis, quia iste effectus potest non habuisse hanc causam, sed alias causas multas; In assignatione tamen harum causarum multipliciter variantur. Nam quidam dicunt, possibile est illam reuelationem in verbo non fuisse reuelationem, quia nec fuisse veram, sed apparentiam vnam falsam, et illam, possibile est fuisse causam huius effectus. Alij vero dicunt opinionem, aestimationem, seu apparentiam creatam in proprio genere posse fuisse causam huius effectus. Tertij visionem oppositi illius reuelati in verbo. Quarti complexam et simplicem visionem simplicis obiecti in verbo. Quinti libertatem voluntatis creatae. Sexti autem Deum per se solum. Sed contra omnes istas responsiones simul est primo generaliter arguendum, deinde contra singulas singulatim. Omnes enim conueniunt in hoc vno, quod effectus ab vna causa productus, potest non fuisse productus ab illa, sed ab alia. Ex isto autem videtur sequi per locum\n\na simili, saltem de omnipotentia Dei, quod quaecunque causa aliquem effectum produxit, potest illum nullatenus produxisse, et quaecun que effectum a quacunque causa productum potest non illa sed alia produxisse: Paulus ergo, qui aedificauit domum, et genuit filium, potest non sic fecisse, et Petrus potest illam domum aedificasse, et illum filium genuisse, cum absurditatibus alijs multis nimis.", "english": "CHAPTER 33. He presses the same objection by way of revelation in the Word, sets out six answers of those who concede revelation in the Word, and argues gravely against them.\n\nWith these objections against that hypothesis now raised by way of God's intrinsic action, it remains to object against it, in due sequence, by way of his extrinsic action, that is, by way of divine revelation and its effect. According to the teaching of the Fathers, revelation is of two kinds. One kind is in the Word of God, that is, in the supreme light itself, the supreme uncreated truth, in the very essence of God; the other is in the creature's own kind, that is, in a lower, created light. First, then, by way of revelation in the Word. Suppose that God reveals, or has revealed, in the Word to Paul that A will be tomorrow. Then Paul either sees or has seen, knows or has known, that A will be tomorrow. Therefore it is necessary that he so sees or has seen, so knows or has known. For every human act, when it is, necessarily is as of then, and every past human act necessarily was. Otherwise, what a man now wills and does he could now not will and not do, and what he willed and did he could never have willed or done. Hence too what now is or was could, as of now, not be now, nor ever have been. This is contrary to all Logicians, Philosophers, Theologians and ordinary people, and it is what this hypothesis also denies. And if\n\nit is necessary that Paul knows or has known that A will be tomorrow, it is necessary that A will be tomorrow. For it follows necessarily: Paul knows or has known that A will be tomorrow; therefore it is or was true that A will be tomorrow; therefore A is or was going to be tomorrow; therefore it will be tomorrow, as is clear from what was shown in 18 of this book. This whole consequence, then, is necessary, and so is the first antecedent; therefore so is the final consequent, as is clear from 30 of this book. Therefore it is necessary that A will be tomorrow. By like reasoning, of anything future it is now necessary, and always was necessary, that it will be, and of anything not future that it will not be. The hypothesis supposed the opposite. [n1]\n\nTo this there are two kinds of answer. Some concede revelation of this sort; others deny it. Those who concede it answer consistently with the aforesaid hypothesis, saying that just as God by his essence now knows, and always knew, that whatever is future will be, yet can now, as of now, not know it and never have known it, and instead now, as of now, know its opposite and always have known it; so too a man or an Angel, who by the same essence knows and has known that whatever is future will be, can likewise now, as of now, not know it and never have known it, but now, as of now, know its opposite and have known it before.\n\nBut this answer seems absurd. For if it were so, it would be possible that Christ, Moses, Paul and any Prophet who saw God's secrets in the Word never saw anything there and were not Prophets but false prophets, and Antichrist; and that Muhammad and any accursed man, though he was in the past the worst of men [n2] and never saw anything there, saw all God's secrets there and was a most eminent Prophet. This answer also does not escape the difficulty [n3]. For if Paul knows and has known in the Word that A will be, and can not know it nor have known it, then either he can, though he wills and has willed, not will and not have willed (that is, not will conformably), or he cannot. If he can, suppose that it was revealed to Paul in the Word that A would still be future, and that he was likewise commanded to will, preach and do in conformity with the revelation shown, just as God commanded Jeremiah, saying, \"You shall preach the words which I shall speak to you,\" Jer 19, and Ezekiel, \"Go and you shall speak my words,\" Ezek 3, and Jonah, \"Preach,\" he says, \"the preaching which I speak to you,\" Jon 2 [3:2] [n4]; just as\n\nit is also credibly believed that the Archangel Gabriel received by revelation and command in the Word the business of the Lord's incarnation, to be announced to the most blessed Virgin. The Lord Jesus Christ too bears witness of himself, saying, \"I have not spoken from myself, but the Father who sent me, he himself gave me a command what I should say and what I should speak,\" John 12. And below, in 14: \"As the Father gave me command, so I do.\" And if any man or Angel has had revelation and command in the Word, who ever had it more worthily than the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Word of God, the most singularly only Word of God? Hence Augustine, on John, part 1, the last homily, namely 54, expounding the first authority, says this: [n5] \"He says that he did not speak from himself because he is not from himself. The Son is the Word of the Father and the Wisdom of the Father; in him are all the commands of the Father. For the Son never was ignorant of the Father's command, such that he would need to have in time what he did not have before. For he received from the Father what he has in such a way that he received it by being born, and the Father gave it to him by begetting him. For he is life, and he received life, namely by being born, not by first existing without life; for the Father also has life, and what he has, he is, and yet he did not receive it, because he is not from anyone;\n\nthe Son, however, received life from the Father who gave it, from whom he is, and he himself is what he has: for he has life, and he is life. Hear him speaking: 'As the Father has life in himself, so he gave the Son also to have life in himself.' Did he give to one already existing and not having? No, but he gave in the very act by which he begot, he who begot life; and because the birth itself is eternal, the Son, who is life, never was not; the Son was never without life. And as the birth is eternal, so he who was born is eternal life. So too with the command: the Father did not give it as something the Son did not have; rather, as I said, in the Wisdom of the Father, which is the Word of the Father, all the commands are the Father's. But the command is said to be given because he to whom it is said to be given is not from himself; and this is to give to the Son, without which the Son never was, namely to beget the Son who never was not.\"\n\nNow with the revelation and command premised to Paul having been made, suppose that he willed, preached and acted, working outwardly in conformity with the revelation shown. According to this answer, while A is still future it is possible that it will not be, and that the Word never knew nor revealed it, and that Paul never saw in the Word that A will be. Therefore\n\nalso, as the answer says, it is correspondingly possible that Paul never willed conformably to the aforesaid revelation. It is therefore now possible that Paul did not preach and did not outwardly do what he has already done. For he could not do such things except by a prior act of will, so that it is possible that those past acts too did not occur.\n\nAnd to bring this out into the light more plainly, suppose, in accordance with the authorities on praying and the manner of praying set out in 23 and 25 of the first book, that a command is given to Paul under penalty of eternal damnation: that he is to will absolutely to be saved everyone, and only those, shown to him in the Word as to be saved, and in his prayers and other good offices to help only such a person. Suppose too that it is shown to him in the Word that Peter, a wayfarer, is to be saved. Paul is then to will Peter's salvation absolutely, pray for him, build him a house [n6] and provide other benefits, and then die and depart to heaven while Peter still survives as a wayfarer. Then, as the hypothesis says, it is possible that Peter is not saved; and so, as this answer says, it is possible in consequence that this was never shown in the Word, that Paul\n\nnever saw it, never willed it, never prayed for him, never built him a house nor provided other benefits, and did not depart to heaven but to hell. Or, keeping the command and revelation premised, suppose that Paul obeyed no command at all, and so died and went down to the dead. Then it is possible that Peter, still a wayfarer, is not to be saved, that this was never revealed, and so that Paul did not act, or omitted to act, against the command, nor sinned, nor went down to hell but ascended to the heights. Or perhaps (as will seem to many more suitable) suppose that Paul received a command that he is to will no one shown to him in the Word as to be damned to be saved, and not to pray for the salvation of any such; and that he is to will everyone shown to him in the Word as to be saved to be saved, and pray for him; and suppose that it is shown to him in the Word that Antichrist is to be damned, whom he is neither to will saved nor pray for. If Paul, in dying, is saved by so doing, or damned by doing the contrary, then, with Antichrist still surviving as a wayfarer, the argument proceeds as before. Gabriel too, in the interval after he came to the glorious Virgin announcing that she would conceive a blessed son, before she conceived, could have not come to her nor delivered that message, as is clear from the prior deduction. The Lord Jesus Christ too, in the interval after he was incarnated to redeem the human race and before he redeemed it, could have not been incarnated; and after he foretold to his disciples that passage, Matt 20: \"Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man will be handed over to the chief priests and to the Scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and on the third day he will rise again\"; and he went up to Jerusalem to that end; before he suffered, he could have not said these things nor gone up to Jerusalem. Likewise, after he was already nearer to the passion and was sorrowful unto death and sweated a sweat of blood, before he suffered it was possible that he had not been so sorrowful nor sweated, and all this is clear from the prior deduction. To gather these many things virtually into a single word, I suppose that we are in the interval between such past effects and the future things revealed; and as the response says, it is possible\n\nthat those revealed futures will not be, and never to have been revealed, seen or willed; therefore it is possible that those past effects did not occur. For this follows necessarily in the negative: \"The cause was not, therefore the effect was not; and the antecedent is possible, therefore so is the consequent,\" as is clear from the thirtieth of this book. Or the contrary, in the affirmative: it is necessary that those effects occurred, therefore also those willings, visions and revelations. For it follows necessarily in the affirmative: \"The effect was, therefore its cause was; and the antecedent is necessary, therefore so is the consequent,\" as the same thirtieth demonstrated. And if it is necessary that those visions and revelations occurred, then also that those revealed things will be, as was shown above. Nor can anyone reasonably turn aside to the other branch of the fork by saying that Paul cannot not will what he wills, nor can have not willed what he willed, as he can not know what he knows and not have known what he knew, once this revelation in the Word has been made. For by the topic from likeness and proportion it appears that, just as Paul knows something in the Word, that is, in the essence of God, so he can will or love something in the Holy Spirit, that is, in the essence of God. For as the Son and the essence of God stand to our knowing, so the Holy Spirit in the same essence stands to our loving. Otherwise our charity and love could not truly be called such, which was shown in 42 of the first book. Therefore, if on this account (that the Word, knowing and showing something future, can now, as of now, neither know it nor show it) Paul, seeing it, can now, as of now, not see it, then since it is likewise with the Holy Spirit willing something future, it will also be likewise with Paul willing in him. Yet this answer does not help; rather it can [undo] those who give it [n7], because if, once such a revelation has been made and Paul willing conformably, it is necessary for Paul so to will, or to have so willed in the past, then it is necessary that he so sees, and so saw in the past. For this volition of his is caused by that vision of his, so that it is necessary that it is or was so revealed in the Word, and therefore necessary that it will be so, as was deduced above.\n\nAgain, some effects are caused by vision alone, without a willing or nilling joined to it [n8]. For vision alone, when it is certain, of some prosperous or adverse thing near at hand, causes in the heart and body of the one so seeing love [n9] or sadness, expansion or contraction, hope or fear, and many other bodily passions,\n\nas can be gathered from 18 of the second book: for example, in Christ the bloody sweat, and in some people death, as is seen in Nabal, 1 Kings [1 Samuel] 25 [n10]. So too it is reported of a certain great man of England, reconciled after exile, that he dissolved beyond cure from excessive joy and ended his life with joy. Wherefore let the argument be made about such effects as before. Against all who admit revelation in the Word, then, this one short argument proceeds: it is necessary that this effect is or was; therefore also that revelation in the Word; therefore it is necessary that what was revealed will be. But here many answer in many ways; yet all agree in this one point, that this consequence does not hold. And if it is argued against all of them in common, \"It follows necessarily: this effect was, therefore its cause was;\n\nthe antecedent is necessary, therefore so is the consequent,\" they concede it. But if it is argued further, \"its cause was, therefore that revelation in the Word,\" they say with one voice that this does not follow, but is the fallacy of the consequent, because this effect can have lacked this cause and had many other causes. In assigning these causes, however, they vary in many ways. For some say that it is possible that this revelation in the Word was not a revelation, since it need not even have been true but one false appearance, and that this could have been the cause of this effect. Others say that an opinion, an estimation or an appearance created in its own kind could have been the cause of this effect. A third group says it was the vision of the opposite of what was revealed in the Word. A fourth, the complex and simple vision of a simple object in the Word. A fifth, the freedom of the created will. A sixth, God alone through himself. But against all these answers the argument must first be made generally and together, and then against each singly. For they all agree in this one thing, that an effect produced by one cause can have not been produced by it but by another. From this it seems to follow, by the topic from likeness, at least as regards the omnipotence of God, that whatever cause has produced some effect can have not produced it at all, and that any effect produced by any cause can have been produced not by that cause but by another. Paul, then, who built a house and begot a son, can have not so acted, and Peter can have built that house and begotten that son, along with very many other absurdities.", "apparatus": {"notes": [{"n": 1, "text": "Nunc pro nunc, \"now, as of now\": Bradwardine's way of speaking of the present instant as such. Huius, \"of this book,\" refers to chapters of Book 3 itself, so \"18 of this book\" and \"30 of this book\" are chapter numbers. Cross-references are kept as Bradwardine wrote them (Conventions §5.4)."}, {"n": 2, "text": "cum fuerit praeteritus pessimus: the clause could attach to \"Antichrist\" (a figure of the future, so awkward with praeteritus) or to Muhammad and \"any accursed man.\" I take it with the latter (\"though in the past he was the worst\"), which gives the better contrast with the false prophet and Antichrist."}, {"n": 3, "text": "non euitat has no expressed object. I supply \"the difficulty.\" The following dilemma is clumsily put: \"if Paul knows and has known in the Word that A will be, and can not know it, then either he can, though willing and having willed, not will and not have willed, namely not will conformably, or he cannot.\""}, {"n": 4, "text": "Jer 19:2 (praedicabis ibi verba quae ego loquar ad te); Ezek 3:4 (vade ad domum Israel et loqueris verba mea ad eos); Savile cites Jonah as \"Ion. 2,\" but the passage is Jonah 3:2 (praedica in ea praedicationem quam ego loquor ad te). The wording of all three is Bradwardine's, not exact Vulgate."}, {"n": 5, "text": "The quotation is from Augustine, In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus 54, on John 12:44–50 (the \"first authority\" is John 12:49), with a citation of John 5:26 and John 14:31. Bradwardine's \"part 1, last homily\" refers to the division of the tractates into parts in the editions he used."}, {"n": 6, "text": "aedificet sibi domum: sibi is reflexive and here refers to Peter, not to Paul, who is the subject of the nearby ostendatur sibi (where sibi is Paul). The next unit's ei domum aedificasse confirms \"build him a house.\""}, {"n": 7, "text": "magis illa queat respondentes: the print reads queat (\"can\"), which has no object and gives no sense as it stands; it may be a misprint for a verb such as laedat or quatiat. I translate the evident sense (the answer damages those who give it) and mark the supplied word in brackets."}, {"n": 8, "text": "The print has siue volutione, aut nolutione coniuncta (\"whether willing or nilling joined\"). Since the point is that vision alone causes these effects, sine is the evident sense, and I translate \"without.\" I read it as a misprint in the 1618 print."}, {"n": 9, "text": "dilectionem: \"love\" is what the print says. The series (love or sadness, expansion or contraction, hope or fear) suggests delectationem (\"delight\"), but I translate the print."}, {"n": 10, "text": "\"1 Kings\" is Savile's (and the Vulgate's) name for 1 Samuel. The reference is to 1 Sam 25:37–38, where Nabal's heart \"died within him.\" The \"great man of England\" is not identified."}], "errata": [{"address": "759A", "keyed": "fo•e", "print": "fore"}, {"address": "759A", "keyed": "scite", "print": "scire"}, {"address": "759B", "keyed": "hunc et pro nunc", "print": "nunc et pro nunc"}, {"address": "759B", "keyed": "Mo•em", "print": "Mosem"}, {"address": "759D", "keyed": "quaere", "print": "quare (qua-/re at the line break)"}, {"address": "759E", "keyed": "inuet que", "print": "iuuet que"}, {"address": "760A", "keyed": "ponatut", "print": "ponatur"}, {"address": "760A", "keyed": "ostenium", "print": "ostensum"}, {"address": "760A", "keyed": "saluati", "print": "saluari"}, {"address": "760B", "keyed": "teraio", "print": "tertio"}, {"address": "760B", "keyed": "patetetur", "print": "pateretur"}, {"address": "760E", "keyed": "conneniunt", "print": "conueniunt"}]}, "segments": [{"anchor": "p758D", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/33/#p758D", "locator_display": "758D–758E", "source_text": "CAP. XXXIII. Mouet eandem per viam reuelationis in verbo, et ponit sex responsiones concedentium reuelationē in verbo, et arguit grauiter contra.\n\nHIs igitur per viam actionis Dei intrinsecae contra hypothesin istam obiectis, restat per viam actionis eius extrinsecae contra eandem obijcere consequenter, per viam scilicet reuelationis diuinae et eius effectus. Haec autem secundum doctrinam Patrum est duplex. Nam quaedam est in verbo Dei, in ipsa scil. summa luce, summa veritate increata, in essentia\n\nipsa Dei; quaedam vero in proprio genere creaturae, in luce scil. inferiori creata. Primo ergo per viam reuelationis in verbo; Ponatur siquidem Deum reuelare vel reuelasse in verbo Paulo A. fore cras, tūc Paulus aut videt aut vidit, scit aut sciuit A. fore cras, ergo necesse est eum sic videre aut vidisse, scire aut sciuisse, quoniam omnem actū humanum, quando est, necesse est pro tunc esse, et omnem actum humanū praeteritū necesse est fuisse: alias enim qd. homo nunc vult et facit▪ posset nunc non velle nec facere, et quod voluit et fecit, potest nunquam voluisse nec fecisse; quare et illud quod nunc est aut fuit, potest pro nunc non esse nunc, nec vnquam fuisse, contra omnes Logicos, Philosophos, Theologos, et vulgares, quod et hypothesis ista negat. Et si", "english": "CHAPTER 33. He presses the same objection by way of revelation in the Word, sets out six answers of those who concede revelation in the Word, and argues gravely against them.\n\nWith these objections against that hypothesis now raised by way of God's intrinsic action, it remains to object against it, in due sequence, by way of his extrinsic action, that is, by way of divine revelation and its effect. According to the teaching of the Fathers, revelation is of two kinds. One kind is in the Word of God, that is, in the supreme light itself, the supreme uncreated truth, in the very essence of God; the other is in the creature's own kind, that is, in a lower, created light. First, then, by way of revelation in the Word. Suppose that God reveals, or has revealed, in the Word to Paul that A will be tomorrow. Then Paul either sees or has seen, knows or has known, that A will be tomorrow. Therefore it is necessary that he so sees or has seen, so knows or has known. For every human act, when it is, necessarily is as of then, and every past human act necessarily was. Otherwise, what a man now wills and does he could now not will and not do, and what he willed and did he could never have willed or done. Hence too what now is or was could, as of now, not be now, nor ever have been. This is contrary to all Logicians, Philosophers, Theologians and ordinary people, and it is what this hypothesis also denies. And if", "margins": []}, {"anchor": "p759A", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/33/#p759A", "locator_display": "759A–759B", "source_text": "necesse est Paulum scire aut sciuisse A. fore cras, necesse est A. fore cras: nam necessario sequitur, Paulus scit aut sciuit A. fore cras; ergo verum est aut fuit A. fo•e cras, ergo A. est aut fuit futurum cras, ergo erit cras, sicut patet per ostensa 18. huius. Tota igitur haec consecutio est necessaria, et primum antecedens similiter, quare et vltimum consequens, sicut 30▪ huius patet; ergo necesse est A. cras fore, quare et similiratione de quocunque futuro nunc est necessarium, et semper fuit necessarium ipsum fore, et de quocunque non futuro, ipsum non fore, cuius oppositum hypothesis supponebat. Ad istud autem dupliciter respondetur. Nam quidā huiusmodi reuelationem concedunt; alij vero negant. Concedentes autem reuelationem huiusmodi respondent iuxta praedictam hypothesin consequenter, dicendo qd. sicut Deus per suam essentiam nunc scit, et semper sciuit quodcunque futurum fore, et potest nunc pro nunc illud non scite nec vnquam sciuisse, sed nunc et pro nunc scire et semper sciuisse eius oppositū; sic et homo vel Angelus, qui per eandē essentiam scit et sciuit quodcun que futurum fore, potest\n\nconformiter nunc et pro nunc illud non scire, nec vnquam sciuisse, sed hunc et pro nunc scire eius oppositum prius que sciuisse. Sed ista responsio videtur absurda. Nam si sic esset, possibile esset Christum, Mo•em, Paulum, et quemcun que Prophetam, qui vidit secreta Dei in verbo, nū quam quicquam ibi vidisse, nec fuisse Prophetam, sed pseudoprophetam, et Antichristum, eū fuerit praeteritus pessimus, Mahumetem et quemlibet maledictum, qui nunquam aliquid ibi vidit, omnia Dei secreta ibi vidisse, fuisse que eximium Prophetarum. Haec etiam responsio non euitat, quoniam si Paulus scit et sciuit in verbo A. fore, et potest non scire nec sciuisse A. fore, aut potest velle et voluisse, non velle et non voluisse, non velle conformiter, vel non potest. Si potest, ponatur qd. reuelabatur in verbo Paulo A. adhuc futurum fore, et praecipiebatur similiter qd. vellet, praedicaret, et faceret conformiter reuelationi ostensae, sicut Deus praeceperat Ieremiae, Praedicabis, inquiens, verba quae ego loquar ad te, Ier. 19. et Ezech. Vade et loqueris verba mea, Ezech. 3. et Ionae, Praedica, inquit, praedicationem quam ego loquorad te, Ion. 2. sicut", "english": "it is necessary that Paul knows or has known that A will be tomorrow, it is necessary that A will be tomorrow. For it follows necessarily: Paul knows or has known that A will be tomorrow; therefore it is or was true that A will be tomorrow; therefore A is or was going to be tomorrow; therefore it will be tomorrow, as is clear from what was shown in 18 of this book. This whole consequence, then, is necessary, and so is the first antecedent; therefore so is the final consequent, as is clear from 30 of this book. Therefore it is necessary that A will be tomorrow. By like reasoning, of anything future it is now necessary, and always was necessary, that it will be, and of anything not future that it will not be. The hypothesis supposed the opposite. [n1]\n\nTo this there are two kinds of answer. Some concede revelation of this sort; others deny it. Those who concede it answer consistently with the aforesaid hypothesis, saying that just as God by his essence now knows, and always knew, that whatever is future will be, yet can now, as of now, not know it and never have known it, and instead now, as of now, know its opposite and always have known it; so too a man or an Angel, who by the same essence knows and has known that whatever is future will be, can likewise now, as of now, not know it and never have known it, but now, as of now, know its opposite and have known it before.\n\nBut this answer seems absurd. For if it were so, it would be possible that Christ, Moses, Paul and any Prophet who saw God's secrets in the Word never saw anything there and were not Prophets but false prophets, and Antichrist; and that Muhammad and any accursed man, though he was in the past the worst of men [n2] and never saw anything there, saw all God's secrets there and was a most eminent Prophet. This answer also does not escape the difficulty [n3]. For if Paul knows and has known in the Word that A will be, and can not know it nor have known it, then either he can, though he wills and has willed, not will and not have willed (that is, not will conformably), or he cannot. If he can, suppose that it was revealed to Paul in the Word that A would still be future, and that he was likewise commanded to will, preach and do in conformity with the revelation shown, just as God commanded Jeremiah, saying, \"You shall preach the words which I shall speak to you,\" Jer 19, and Ezekiel, \"Go and you shall speak my words,\" Ezek 3, and Jonah, \"Preach,\" he says, \"the preaching which I speak to you,\" Jon 2 [3:2] [n4]; just as", "margins": [{"id": "759B·1", "kind": "source", "text": "Jeremiah. Ezekiel. Jonah."}]}, {"anchor": "p759C", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/33/#p759C", "locator_display": "759C–759D", "source_text": "et verisimiliter creditur qd. Archangel. Gabriel recepit per reuelationē et iussionem in verbo negotium incarnationis dominicae beatissimae virgini nuntiandum. Dominus etiam Iesus Christus de seipso testatur, Ego, inquiens, ex meipso non sum locutus, sed qui misit me Pater, ipse mihi mandatum dedit quid dicam, et quid loquar Ioh. 12. Et infra 14. Sicut mandatū dedit mihi pater, sic facio; et si quis homo vel Angelus habuit reuelationē et mandatū in verbo, quis vnquā dignius Dom. Iesu Christo vnico Dei verbo, vnicissimo Dei verbo? Vnde Aug. super Ioh. part. 1. hom. vlt. scil. 54. primā autoritatē exponens, sic ait; Ideo se dicit non locutum ex seipso, quia nō est ex seipso. Filius est verbum Patris, et sapientia Patris; In illo sunt omnia mandata Patris: ne que enim Patris mandatum Filius aliquando nesciebat, vt eum necesse esset ex tempore habere qd. antea non habebat. Ita enim a Patre, qd. habet, accepit, vt nascendo acceperit, dederit que illi gignendo. Nam et vita est, et accepit vitam. vti que nascendo, non prius sine vita existendo, quia et Pater habet vitam, et qd. habet est, nec accepit tamen, quia non ex aliquo\n\nest; filius autem accepit vitam dante Patre, a quo est, et ipse qd. habet, est: habet n. vitam, et vita est: ipsum audi loquentem; Sic habet, inquit. Pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et filio habere vitam in semetipso. Nunquid existenti et non habenti dedit? Sed eo dedit, quo genuit, qui vitam genuit, et quia aeterna est ipsa natiuitas, nunquam non fuit filius qui est vita, nunquam fuit filius sine vita. Et sicut est natiuitas aeterna, sic est qui natus est, vita aeterna: ita et mandatum, non quod filius non habebat, pater dedit, sed, sicut dixi, In sapientia Patris, quod est verbum Patris, omnia mandata sunt Patris. Dicitur autem mandatum datum, quia non est a seipso cui dicitur datum; et hoc est dare filio, sine quo nunquam filius fuit, quod est gignere filium qui nunquam non fuit. Factis igitur Paulo reuelatione et mandato praemissis, ponatur quod voluit, praedicauit, et fecit extrinsecus operando conformiter reuelationi ostensae. Et secundum istam responsionem A. adhuc existente futuro, possibile est ipsum non fore, et verbum nunquam sciuisse nec reuelasse, ac Paulum nunquam vidisse in verbo A. fore; quaere", "english": "it is also credibly believed that the Archangel Gabriel received by revelation and command in the Word the business of the Lord's incarnation, to be announced to the most blessed Virgin. The Lord Jesus Christ too bears witness of himself, saying, \"I have not spoken from myself, but the Father who sent me, he himself gave me a command what I should say and what I should speak,\" John 12. And below, in 14: \"As the Father gave me command, so I do.\" And if any man or Angel has had revelation and command in the Word, who ever had it more worthily than the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Word of God, the most singularly only Word of God? Hence Augustine, on John, part 1, the last homily, namely 54, expounding the first authority, says this: [n5] \"He says that he did not speak from himself because he is not from himself. The Son is the Word of the Father and the Wisdom of the Father; in him are all the commands of the Father. For the Son never was ignorant of the Father's command, such that he would need to have in time what he did not have before. For he received from the Father what he has in such a way that he received it by being born, and the Father gave it to him by begetting him. For he is life, and he received life, namely by being born, not by first existing without life; for the Father also has life, and what he has, he is, and yet he did not receive it, because he is not from anyone;\n\nthe Son, however, received life from the Father who gave it, from whom he is, and he himself is what he has: for he has life, and he is life. Hear him speaking: 'As the Father has life in himself, so he gave the Son also to have life in himself.' Did he give to one already existing and not having? No, but he gave in the very act by which he begot, he who begot life; and because the birth itself is eternal, the Son, who is life, never was not; the Son was never without life. And as the birth is eternal, so he who was born is eternal life. So too with the command: the Father did not give it as something the Son did not have; rather, as I said, in the Wisdom of the Father, which is the Word of the Father, all the commands are the Father's. But the command is said to be given because he to whom it is said to be given is not from himself; and this is to give to the Son, without which the Son never was, namely to beget the Son who never was not.\"\n\nNow with the revelation and command premised to Paul having been made, suppose that he willed, preached and acted, working outwardly in conformity with the revelation shown. According to this answer, while A is still future it is possible that it will not be, and that the Word never knew nor revealed it, and that Paul never saw in the Word that A will be. Therefore", "margins": [{"id": "759C·1", "kind": "source", "text": "John."}, {"id": "759C·2", "kind": "source", "text": "Augustine."}]}, {"anchor": "p759E", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/33/#p759E", "locator_display": "759E", "source_text": "et sicut dicit responsio, est correspondenter possibile, Paulum nunquam voluisse conformiter reuelationi praedictae, est ergo nunc possibile Paulum non praedicasse, non fecisse extrinsecus quae iam fecit: non enim potuit talia facere nisi prima voluntate, quare et illa praeterita, est possibile non fuisse. Et ut istud manifestius deducatur in lucem, ponatur iuxta antoritates de orando et modo orandi praemissas 23. et 25. primi; quod Paulo detur mandatum sub poena damnationis aeternae, quod omnem et solum ostensum sibi in verbo saluandum velit absolute saluari, inuet que in orationibus et beneficijs alijs solum talem; ostendatur que sibi in verbo Petrum viatorem esse saluandum, quē velit absolute saluari, oret pro eo, aedificet sibi domum, et alia beneficia administret, moriatur, et migret ad coelum adhuc Petro superstite viatore; tunc, sicut dicit hypothesis, possibile est Petrum non saluari, quare et, sicut dicit ista responsio, possibile est consequenter hoc nunquam fuisse ostensum in verbo, Paulum", "english": "also, as the answer says, it is correspondingly possible that Paul never willed conformably to the aforesaid revelation. It is therefore now possible that Paul did not preach and did not outwardly do what he has already done. For he could not do such things except by a prior act of will, so that it is possible that those past acts too did not occur.\n\nAnd to bring this out into the light more plainly, suppose, in accordance with the authorities on praying and the manner of praying set out in 23 and 25 of the first book, that a command is given to Paul under penalty of eternal damnation: that he is to will absolutely to be saved everyone, and only those, shown to him in the Word as to be saved, and in his prayers and other good offices to help only such a person. Suppose too that it is shown to him in the Word that Peter, a wayfarer, is to be saved. Paul is then to will Peter's salvation absolutely, pray for him, build him a house [n6] and provide other benefits, and then die and depart to heaven while Peter still survives as a wayfarer. Then, as the hypothesis says, it is possible that Peter is not saved; and so, as this answer says, it is possible in consequence that this was never shown in the Word, that Paul", "margins": []}, {"anchor": "p760A", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/33/#p760A", "locator_display": "760A–760B", "source_text": "nunquam hoc vidisse, nunquam hoc voluisse, nunquam pro eo orasse, nunquam ei domum aedificasse, nec alia beneficia ministrasse, nec ad coelum sed ad infernum migrasse, vel retentis mandato et reuelatione praemissis, ponatut Paulum in nullo paruisse mandato, et sic mortuum ad inferos descendisse, tunc possibile est Petrum adhuc viatorem non esse saluandum, nec hoc vnquam fuisse reuelatum, quare et Paulum non fecisse seu omisisse contra mandatum, nec peccasse, nec descendisse ad inferos, sed ad superos ascendisse; vel forsitan, sicut multis magis videbitur oportunum, ponatur Paulum recipisse mandatum, quod nullum ostenium sibi in verbo damnandum velit saluari, nec oret pro alicuius talis salute, et quod quemcunque ostensum sibi in verbo saluandum velit saluari, et oret pro eo, ostendaturque sibi in verbo Antichristum esse damnandum, quem nec velit saluati, nec oret pro eo, et sic decedens saluetur, vel contraria faciens, et sic decedens damnetur, adhuc Antichristo superstite viatore etc. sicut prius. Gabriel etiam medio tempore postquam venit ad virginem gloriosam nuntians quod\n\nconciperet filium benedictum, antequam concepit, potuit non venisse ad eam, nec illud nuntium protulisse, vt patet per deductionem priorem. Dominus etiam Iesus Christus medio tempore postquam fuit incarnatus pro humano genere redimendo, priusquam redemit, potuit non fuisse incarnatus, et postquam praedixit discipulis illud, Matth. 20. Ecce, ascendimus Hierosolymam, et filius hominis tradetur principibus sacerdotum, et Scribis, et condemnabunt eum morte, et tradent eum gentibus ad illudendum et flagellandum et crucifigendum, et teraio die resurget; ascenditque Hierosolymam ad illum finem; priusquam pateretur, potuit ista non dixisse, nec Hierosolymam ascendisse: postquam similiter iam propinquior passioni, tristabatur vsque ad mortem, et sudauit sudorem sanguineum, priusquam patetetur, possibile fuit non sic fuisse tristatum neque sudasse, quae omnia patent per deductionem priorem. Vt autem haec multa virtualiter in vno verbo recolligam, suppono nos esse in medio tempore inter tales effectus praeteritos et reuelata futura; et sicut dicit responsio, Possibile", "english": "never saw it, never willed it, never prayed for him, never built him a house nor provided other benefits, and did not depart to heaven but to hell. Or, keeping the command and revelation premised, suppose that Paul obeyed no command at all, and so died and went down to the dead. Then it is possible that Peter, still a wayfarer, is not to be saved, that this was never revealed, and so that Paul did not act, or omitted to act, against the command, nor sinned, nor went down to hell but ascended to the heights. Or perhaps (as will seem to many more suitable) suppose that Paul received a command that he is to will no one shown to him in the Word as to be damned to be saved, and not to pray for the salvation of any such; and that he is to will everyone shown to him in the Word as to be saved to be saved, and pray for him; and suppose that it is shown to him in the Word that Antichrist is to be damned, whom he is neither to will saved nor pray for. If Paul, in dying, is saved by so doing, or damned by doing the contrary, then, with Antichrist still surviving as a wayfarer, the argument proceeds as before. Gabriel too, in the interval after he came to the glorious Virgin announcing that she would conceive a blessed son, before she conceived, could have not come to her nor delivered that message, as is clear from the prior deduction. The Lord Jesus Christ too, in the interval after he was incarnated to redeem the human race and before he redeemed it, could have not been incarnated; and after he foretold to his disciples that passage, Matt 20: \"Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man will be handed over to the chief priests and to the Scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and on the third day he will rise again\"; and he went up to Jerusalem to that end; before he suffered, he could have not said these things nor gone up to Jerusalem. Likewise, after he was already nearer to the passion and was sorrowful unto death and sweated a sweat of blood, before he suffered it was possible that he had not been so sorrowful nor sweated, and all this is clear from the prior deduction. To gather these many things virtually into a single word, I suppose that we are in the interval between such past effects and the future things revealed; and as the response says, it is possible", "margins": [{"id": "760A·1", "kind": "variant", "text": "(variant) optimum"}, {"id": "760B·1", "kind": "variant", "text": "(variant) ista"}]}, {"anchor": "p760C", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/33/#p760C", "locator_display": "760C–760D", "source_text": "est illa reuelata futura non fore, et nunquam fuisse reuelata, visa nec voluta, ergo possibile est illos effectus praeteritos non fuisse: nam necessario sequitur negatiue, Causa non fuit, ergo effectus non fuit, et antecedens est possibile, ergo et consequens, sicut tricesimo huius patet. Vel e contrario affirmatiue, Necesse est illos effectus fuisse, ergo et illas volutiones, visiones, et reuelationes: nam necessario sequitur affirmatiue, Effectus fuit, ergo causa eius fuit, et antecedens est necessarium, ergo et consequens, sicut idem tricesimum demonstrauit. Et si necesse est illas visiones et reuelationes fuisse, ergo et illa reuelata fore sicut superius est ostensum: nec potest quisquam ad aliam partem biuij rationabiliter declinare, dicendo Paulum non posse, non velle quod vult, nec posse non voluisse quod voluit, sicut potest non scire quod scit, et non sciuisse quod sciuit facta huius reuelatione in verbo, quoniam per locum a simili et a proportionalitate videtur, quod sicut Paulus scit aliquid in verbo, siue in Dei essentia, sic potest velle seu diligere aliquid in spiritu sancto siue in Dei essentia. Nam sicut filius et Dei essentia\n\nse habet ad nostrum scire, sic spiritus sanctus in eadem essentia ad nostrum diligere: alias enim nequaquam nostra charitas nec dilectio veraciter diceretur, quod tamen 42. primi erat ostensum. Quare si propter hoc, quod verbum sciens et ostendens aliquid futurum, potest nunc pro nunc illud non scire neque ostendere; potest Paulus hoc videns, nunc et pro nunc illud non videre, cum similiter sit de spiritu sancto volente aliquid futurum, erit et similiter de Paulo volente in ipso. Haec etiam responsio non iuuat, sed magis illa queat respondentes, quia si facta reuelatione huiusmodi, et Paulo volente conformiter, necesse sit Paulo, sic velle, aut in praeterito voluisse, necesse est eum sic videre, et in praeterito sic vidisse: nam haec sua volutio ab illa sua visione causatur, quare necesse est sic esse reuelatum in verbo aut fuisse, quare et necesse est sic fore, sicut superius est deductum. Item aliqui sunt effectus causati a sola visione, siue volutione, aut nolutione coniuncta. Sola visio namque certa de aliquo prospero vel aduerso propinquo causat in corde et corpore sic videntis dilectionem aut tristitiam, dilatationem", "english": "that those revealed futures will not be, and never to have been revealed, seen or willed; therefore it is possible that those past effects did not occur. For this follows necessarily in the negative: \"The cause was not, therefore the effect was not; and the antecedent is possible, therefore so is the consequent,\" as is clear from the thirtieth of this book. Or the contrary, in the affirmative: it is necessary that those effects occurred, therefore also those willings, visions and revelations. For it follows necessarily in the affirmative: \"The effect was, therefore its cause was; and the antecedent is necessary, therefore so is the consequent,\" as the same thirtieth demonstrated. And if it is necessary that those visions and revelations occurred, then also that those revealed things will be, as was shown above. Nor can anyone reasonably turn aside to the other branch of the fork by saying that Paul cannot not will what he wills, nor can have not willed what he willed, as he can not know what he knows and not have known what he knew, once this revelation in the Word has been made. For by the topic from likeness and proportion it appears that, just as Paul knows something in the Word, that is, in the essence of God, so he can will or love something in the Holy Spirit, that is, in the essence of God. For as the Son and the essence of God stand to our knowing, so the Holy Spirit in the same essence stands to our loving. Otherwise our charity and love could not truly be called such, which was shown in 42 of the first book. Therefore, if on this account (that the Word, knowing and showing something future, can now, as of now, neither know it nor show it) Paul, seeing it, can now, as of now, not see it, then since it is likewise with the Holy Spirit willing something future, it will also be likewise with Paul willing in him. Yet this answer does not help; rather it can [undo] those who give it [n7], because if, once such a revelation has been made and Paul willing conformably, it is necessary for Paul so to will, or to have so willed in the past, then it is necessary that he so sees, and so saw in the past. For this volition of his is caused by that vision of his, so that it is necessary that it is or was so revealed in the Word, and therefore necessary that it will be so, as was deduced above.\n\nAgain, some effects are caused by vision alone, without a willing or nilling joined to it [n8]. For vision alone, when it is certain, of some prosperous or adverse thing near at hand, causes in the heart and body of the one so seeing love [n9] or sadness, expansion or contraction, hope or fear, and many other bodily passions,", "margins": []}, {"anchor": "p760E", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/33/#p760E", "locator_display": "760E", "source_text": "vel constrictionem, spem vel timorem, et multas passiones alias corporales, sicut ex 18. secundi potest haberi; veluti in Christo sudorem sanguineum, et in quibusdam mortem, sicut videtur in Nabal. 1. Reg. 25. sicut et refertur de quodā magno de Anglia post deportationem reconciliato, quod nimio gaudio incurabiliter resolutus vitam cum gaudio terminauit: quamobrem arguatur de talibus sicut prius. Igitur contra omnes admittentes reuelationē in verbo procedit haec ratio vna breuis, Necesse est hunc effectum esse vel fuisse, ergo et illam reuelationem in verbo, quare et illud reuelatum necesse est fore. Sed hic a multis multipliciter respondetur; omnes tamen in hoc vno conneniunt, quod consequutio ista non tenet. Et si contra omnes cōmuniter arguatur, necessario sequitur, Iste effectus fuit, ergo causa eius fuit,", "english": "as can be gathered from 18 of the second book: for example, in Christ the bloody sweat, and in some people death, as is seen in Nabal, 1 Kings [1 Samuel] 25 [n10]. So too it is reported of a certain great man of England, reconciled after exile, that he dissolved beyond cure from excessive joy and ended his life with joy. Wherefore let the argument be made about such effects as before. Against all who admit revelation in the Word, then, this one short argument proceeds: it is necessary that this effect is or was; therefore also that revelation in the Word; therefore it is necessary that what was revealed will be. But here many answer in many ways; yet all agree in this one point, that this consequence does not hold. And if it is argued against all of them in common, \"It follows necessarily: this effect was, therefore its cause was;", "margins": []}, {"anchor": "p761A", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/33/#p761A", "locator_display": "761A–761B", "source_text": "Antecedens est necessarium, ergo et consequens: concedunt; sed si arguatur vlterius, causa eius fuit, ergo reuelatio illa in verbo; dicunt concorditer hoc non sequi, sed esse fallaciam consequentis, quia iste effectus potest non habuisse hanc causam, sed alias causas multas; In assignatione tamen harum causarum multipliciter variantur. Nam quidam dicunt, possibile est illam reuelationem in verbo non fuisse reuelationem, quia nec fuisse veram, sed apparentiam vnam falsam, et illam, possibile est fuisse causam huius effectus. Alij vero dicunt opinionem, aestimationem, seu apparentiam creatam in proprio genere posse fuisse causam huius effectus. Tertij visionem oppositi illius reuelati in verbo. Quarti complexam et simplicem visionem simplicis obiecti in verbo. Quinti libertatem voluntatis creatae. Sexti autem Deum per se solum. Sed contra omnes istas responsiones simul est primo generaliter arguendum, deinde contra singulas singulatim. Omnes enim conueniunt in hoc vno, quod effectus ab vna causa productus, potest non fuisse productus ab illa, sed ab alia. Ex isto autem videtur sequi per locum\n\na simili, saltem de omnipotentia Dei, quod quaecunque causa aliquem effectum produxit, potest illum nullatenus produxisse, et quaecun que effectum a quacunque causa productum potest non illa sed alia produxisse: Paulus ergo, qui aedificauit domum, et genuit filium, potest non sic fecisse, et Petrus potest illam domum aedificasse, et illum filium genuisse, cum absurditatibus alijs multis nimis.", "english": "the antecedent is necessary, therefore so is the consequent,\" they concede it. But if it is argued further, \"its cause was, therefore that revelation in the Word,\" they say with one voice that this does not follow, but is the fallacy of the consequent, because this effect can have lacked this cause and had many other causes. In assigning these causes, however, they vary in many ways. For some say that it is possible that this revelation in the Word was not a revelation, since it need not even have been true but one false appearance, and that this could have been the cause of this effect. Others say that an opinion, an estimation or an appearance created in its own kind could have been the cause of this effect. A third group says it was the vision of the opposite of what was revealed in the Word. A fourth, the complex and simple vision of a simple object in the Word. A fifth, the freedom of the created will. A sixth, God alone through himself. But against all these answers the argument must first be made generally and together, and then against each singly. For they all agree in this one thing, that an effect produced by one cause can have not been produced by it but by another. From this it seems to follow, by the topic from likeness, at least as regards the omnipotence of God, that whatever cause has produced some effect can have not produced it at all, and that any effect produced by any cause can have been produced not by that cause but by another. Paul, then, who built a house and begot a son, can have not so acted, and Peter can have built that house and begotten that son, along with very many other absurdities.", "margins": []}], "provenance": {"method": "Machine translation drafted with Claude (Anthropic) under a set translation convention; the image of each Savile page was supplied to the translator, who logged differences between the keyed Latin and the print as errata. Not yet reviewed by a human scholar.", "corrected_against_scan": true, "verified_on": null, "status": "draft"}, "license_source": "CC0 1.0 (EEBO-TCP A16626); the underlying text is public domain", "license_translation": "CC BY-NC 4.0", "license_apparatus": "CC BY-NC 4.0", "credits": [{"name": "EEBO-TCP (Text Creation Partnership), A16626: the Latin", "license": "CC0 1.0", "url": "https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A16626.0001.001"}, {"name": "Internet Archive: the Minerva facsimile page images (linked, not hosted)", "license": null, "url": "https://archive.org/details/decausadeicontra00braduoft"}], "generated": "2026-10-28", "version": "0.1-draft"}