{"id": "3/36", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/36/", "site": "bradwardine", "collection": "book-3", "title": "De causa Dei: Book III, Chapter 36", "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": "767B–768B", "scan_url": "https://archive.org/details/decausadeicontra00braduoft"}, "source_text": "CAP. XXXVI. Arguit contra tertiam.\n\nTErtia vero responsio ponens causam effectus praeteriti visionis in verbo praeteritae posse non fuisse visionem A. futuri ostensi, sed eius oppositi, multipliciter deficit et aberrat. Primo, quia cum Deus voluntarie tantum reuelet, licet possit esse quod non reuelauit, A. quod prius reuelauit, et si illud ponatur in esse, non oportet quod reuelauit eius oppositum; imo bene stat cum hoc quod nihil penitus reuelauit; ponatur ergo hoc cum alio, et responsio non respondet. Secundo, quia habet dicere consequenter, quod sicut viso aliquo in verbo, possibile est illud nunquam fuisse visum, sed eius oppositum, ita voluto aliquo in verbo, posibile est illud nunquam fuisse volutum, sed eius oppositum; quare et per talem volutionem facto aliquo intra videntem et volentem vel extra, possibile est id nunquam fuisse factum, sed eius oppositum,\n\nsicut 33. huius probat. Si autem proteruiat non esse simile de visione et volutione, quia prius visum potest nunquam fuisse visum, et eius oppositum, quod nunquam fuit visum potest fuisse visum; de voluto autem non sic, quia quod semel fuit volutum, necesse est semper fuisse volutum, et non volutum pari modo non volutum per 33. huius tertij conuincetur. Dato etiam hoc quod dicit, fiat reuelatio talis Paulo cum mandato volendi et agendi conformiter, qui et in omnibus pareat, tunc necesse est Paulum nunc sic velle, vel in praeterito voluisse; ergo necesse est eum nunc sic videre, vel in praeterito sic vidisse: haec enim sua volutio ab hac sua visione nunc causatur, vel in praeterito causabatur. Praeterea vel Paulus per eundem actum, quo vidit distincte A. fore, potest vidisse distincte oppositum, vel per alium: si per eundem, ergo simili ratione per eundem actum, per quem voluit distincte A. fore seu quodlibet aliud, potest voluisse distincte oppositum, quare et non fecisse quae fecit: si per alium, ergo vnum alium actum, qui nunquam fuit, possibile est fuisse, et qui fuit, non fuisse, contra hypothesin\n\nprincipalem. Item visio oppositi causasset effectum oppositum, et non illum. Si enim Gabriel vidisset in verbo Filium Dei non fuisse incarnandum de Virgine, nunquam illa visio causasset in eo voluntatem adeundi Virginem benedictam, et nuntiasse quae fecit, sed potius nullam, vel oppositam voluntatem. Christus etiam si non vidisset in verbo passionem suam futuram, sed eius oppositum, non habuisset causam tantae tristitiae sanguineique sudoris. Paulus similiter si vidisset in verbo se saluandum, magnam delectationem creatam in proprio genere habuisset; si vero vidisset oppositum, magnam tristitiam habuisset. Item haec responsio difficultatem non vitat. Detur enim reuelatio talis Paulo cum mandato volendi concorditer et agendi, qui plene obediat, et mortuus sic saluetur; et secundum istam responsionem nunc est possibile, quod nunquam vidit illam visionem seu iussionem in verbo, sed oppositum vtriusque; et nunc necesse est ipsum sic fuisse operatum exterius; quare nunc est possibile\n\nipsum fecisse contra reuelationem et visionem in verbo, peccasse mortaliter, fuisseque miserum et damnatum. De Gabriele similiter medio tempore inter annuntiationem et incarnationem fuit possibile quod mentiebatur: nam quando dixit Virgini gratiosae, Ecce concipies, possibile fuit quod pro tunc non vidisset illud in verbo, sed oppositum eius plane; quare fuit similiter possibile, quod ille beatissimus Archangelus Domini fuit miserrimus Angelus Satanae, quia mentiens contra tantam et tam lucidam veritatem, mortaliterque peccauit. Affirmet hoc qui audet: ego autem propter reuerentiam veritatis haec omnia ostendentis, propter reuerentiam mittentis et illius ad quam fuit missus, ac propter reuerentiam missi et ipsius propter quem fuit missus, non audeo talia affirmare. Ex hoc autem sequitur, quod beati finaliter confirmati possunt peccare; quare nec sunt finaliter confirmati, contra decimum quintum secundi. Et ex isto infertur vltetius, quod beati non sunt, nec esse possunt de beatitudine sua certi, Quomodo namque creatura peccabilis in statu peccabili, quia non confirmata finaliter,\n\nde nunquam peccando, et de beatitudine perpetua erit certa? Nec alium statum firmiorem aut certiorem potest Deus beatis conferre. Si etiam Deus posset certificare beatum de beatitudine sua futura, hoc maxime esset per aliquam reuelationem in verbo; sed nulla talis certificat, quia quaecunque talis, etsi nunc sit vnius oppositorum, potest nunc et pro nunc non esse illius, sed eius oppositi; imo quod magis videtur erroneum, nec Deus potest certificare beatum de beatitudine sua praeterita nec praesenti. In hoc enim instanti praesenti ponatur, in quo beatus Gabriel nuntiat Virgini gratiosae quod est filium conceptura, possibile est cum nunc mentiendo peccare, in praetetitoque peccasse a tempore quo voluit hoc scienter: possibile enim est, quod nunc videat, et continue prius vidit oppositum huius in verbo; nullus ergo beatus est certus, nec esse potest de beatitudine sua futura, praeterita, vel praesenti, contra prius ostensa tricesimo quarto huius.", "english": "CHAPTER XXXVI. He argues against the third.\n\nThe third response holds that the cause of a past effect, namely a past vision in the Word [n1], could not have been the vision of A as a future thing shown, but was the vision of its opposite. It fails and goes astray in many ways. First, God reveals only voluntarily. So it can be that he did not reveal A, which he did previously reveal. And if that is posited as existing, it is not necessary that he revealed its opposite; indeed it stands well with this that he revealed nothing at all. Let this, then, be posited together with the other, and the response does not answer. Second, it must say in consequence that, just as when something has been seen in the Word it is possible that it was never seen but its opposite was, so too when something has been willed in the Word it is possible that it was never willed but its opposite was. Hence, by such a willing, when something has been done within the one who sees and wills, or outside him, it is possible that it was never done but its opposite was, as 33 of this book proves [n2].\n\nBut if he insists that the case of vision and of willing is not alike, because what was previously seen can never have been seen, and its opposite, which was never seen, can have been seen, whereas with what is willed it is not so, since what was once willed must always have been willed, and what was not willed, likewise, not willed, he will be refuted by 33 of this third book. Grant, moreover, what he says. Let such a revelation be made to Paul, with a command of willing and acting in conformity, and let Paul obey in all things. Then it is necessary that Paul now will thus, or willed thus in the past; therefore it is necessary that he now see thus, or saw thus in the past, for this willing of his is now caused by this vision of his, or was caused by it in the past. Besides, either Paul by the same act by which he distinctly saw that A would be can have distinctly seen the opposite, or by another. If by the same, then by like reasoning, by the same act by which he distinctly willed that A or anything else would be, he can have distinctly willed the opposite, and hence not have done what he did. If by another, then one other act which never was can possibly have been, and one which was can possibly not have been, against the principal hypothesis.\n\nAgain, the vision of the opposite would have caused the opposite effect, and not that one. For if Gabriel had seen in the Word that the Son of God was not to be incarnated of the Virgin, that vision would never have caused in him the will to go to the blessed Virgin and to announce what he did, but rather no will at all, or the opposite will. Christ also, if he had not seen in the Word his future passion, but its opposite, would have had no cause for so great a sorrow and bloody sweat. Paul likewise, if he had seen in the Word that he would be saved, would have had a great delight created in its own kind; but if he had seen the opposite, he would have had great sorrow. Again, this response does not avoid the difficulty. For let such a revelation be given to Paul, with a command of willing and acting in conformity, and let him obey fully and, dying thus, be saved. Then according to this response it is now possible that he never saw that vision or command in the Word, but the opposite of both; and it is now necessary that he acted thus outwardly. Hence it is now possible\n\nthat he acted against the revelation and the vision in the Word, sinned mortally, and was wretched and damned. Of Gabriel likewise, in the interval between the annunciation and the incarnation, it was possible that he was lying. For when he said to the Virgin full of grace, \"Behold, you will conceive,\" it was possible that at that moment he had not seen that in the Word, but had plainly seen its opposite. Hence it was likewise possible that that most blessed Archangel of the Lord was a most wretched angel of Satan, since he lied against so great and so clear a truth and sinned mortally. Let him affirm this who dares. I, however, out of reverence for the truth which shows all these things, out of reverence for him who sends and for her to whom he was sent, and out of reverence for the one sent and for him for whose sake he was sent, do not dare to affirm such things. From this, moreover, it follows that the blessed who are finally confirmed can sin, and so are not finally confirmed, against the fifteenth of the second book. And from this it is further inferred that the blessed are not, and cannot be, certain of their beatitude. For how will a creature capable of sin, in a state capable of sin because not finally confirmed,\n\nbe certain of never sinning and of perpetual beatitude? Nor can God confer on the blessed any state firmer or more certain. Again, if God could make a blessed person certain of his future beatitude, this would most of all be through some revelation in the Word; but no such revelation makes him certain, because any such revelation, even if it is now of one of two opposites, can now, and for now, not be of that one but of its opposite. Indeed, what seems still more erroneous, God cannot make the blessed person certain of his past or of his present beatitude. For let it be posited in this present instant, in which the blessed Gabriel announces to the Virgin full of grace that she will conceive a son, that it is possible for him now to sin by lying, and to have sinned in the past from the time at which he knowingly willed this. For it is possible that he now sees, and continuously before saw, the opposite of this in the Word. Therefore no blessed person is certain, nor can he be, about his beatitude, whether future, past, or present, against what was shown earlier in the thirty-fourth of this book.", "apparatus": {"notes": [{"n": 1, "text": "In verbo, \"in the Word\": the vision of things in the divine Word (Verbum), the sight the blessed are held to have of all things in God. I keep the phrase throughout as \"in the Word.\""}, {"n": 2, "text": "Bradwardine's bare huius (\"of this\") means this book, Book III, so \"33 of this\" is ch. 33 of Book III, and \"34 of this\" below is ch. 34. \"The fifteenth of the second\" is ch. 15 of Book II. Cross-references are left as he wrote them (Conventions §5.4).\n\n## Errata\n\n767C | posibile | possibile\n768A | vltetius | ulterius\n768B | cum nunc mentiendo | eum nunc mentiendo\n768B | praetetitoque | praeteritoque"}], "errata": []}, "segments": [{"anchor": "p767B", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/36/#p767B", "locator_display": "767B", "source_text": "CAP. XXXVI. Arguit contra tertiam.", "english": "CHAPTER XXXVI. He argues against the third.", "margins": []}, {"anchor": "p767C", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/36/#p767C", "locator_display": "767C–767E", "source_text": "TErtia vero responsio ponens causam effectus praeteriti visionis in verbo praeteritae posse non fuisse visionem A. futuri ostensi, sed eius oppositi, multipliciter deficit et aberrat. Primo, quia cum Deus voluntarie tantum reuelet, licet possit esse quod non reuelauit, A. quod prius reuelauit, et si illud ponatur in esse, non oportet quod reuelauit eius oppositum; imo bene stat cum hoc quod nihil penitus reuelauit; ponatur ergo hoc cum alio, et responsio non respondet. Secundo, quia habet dicere consequenter, quod sicut viso aliquo in verbo, possibile est illud nunquam fuisse visum, sed eius oppositum, ita voluto aliquo in verbo, posibile est illud nunquam fuisse volutum, sed eius oppositum; quare et per talem volutionem facto aliquo intra videntem et volentem vel extra, possibile est id nunquam fuisse factum, sed eius oppositum,\n\nsicut 33. huius probat. Si autem proteruiat non esse simile de visione et volutione, quia prius visum potest nunquam fuisse visum, et eius oppositum, quod nunquam fuit visum potest fuisse visum; de voluto autem non sic, quia quod semel fuit volutum, necesse est semper fuisse volutum, et non volutum pari modo non volutum per 33. huius tertij conuincetur. Dato etiam hoc quod dicit, fiat reuelatio talis Paulo cum mandato volendi et agendi conformiter, qui et in omnibus pareat, tunc necesse est Paulum nunc sic velle, vel in praeterito voluisse; ergo necesse est eum nunc sic videre, vel in praeterito sic vidisse: haec enim sua volutio ab hac sua visione nunc causatur, vel in praeterito causabatur. Praeterea vel Paulus per eundem actum, quo vidit distincte A. fore, potest vidisse distincte oppositum, vel per alium: si per eundem, ergo simili ratione per eundem actum, per quem voluit distincte A. fore seu quodlibet aliud, potest voluisse distincte oppositum, quare et non fecisse quae fecit: si per alium, ergo vnum alium actum, qui nunquam fuit, possibile est fuisse, et qui fuit, non fuisse, contra hypothesin\n\nprincipalem. Item visio oppositi causasset effectum oppositum, et non illum. Si enim Gabriel vidisset in verbo Filium Dei non fuisse incarnandum de Virgine, nunquam illa visio causasset in eo voluntatem adeundi Virginem benedictam, et nuntiasse quae fecit, sed potius nullam, vel oppositam voluntatem. Christus etiam si non vidisset in verbo passionem suam futuram, sed eius oppositum, non habuisset causam tantae tristitiae sanguineique sudoris. Paulus similiter si vidisset in verbo se saluandum, magnam delectationem creatam in proprio genere habuisset; si vero vidisset oppositum, magnam tristitiam habuisset. Item haec responsio difficultatem non vitat. Detur enim reuelatio talis Paulo cum mandato volendi concorditer et agendi, qui plene obediat, et mortuus sic saluetur; et secundum istam responsionem nunc est possibile, quod nunquam vidit illam visionem seu iussionem in verbo, sed oppositum vtriusque; et nunc necesse est ipsum sic fuisse operatum exterius; quare nunc est possibile", "english": "The third response holds that the cause of a past effect, namely a past vision in the Word [n1], could not have been the vision of A as a future thing shown, but was the vision of its opposite. It fails and goes astray in many ways. First, God reveals only voluntarily. So it can be that he did not reveal A, which he did previously reveal. And if that is posited as existing, it is not necessary that he revealed its opposite; indeed it stands well with this that he revealed nothing at all. Let this, then, be posited together with the other, and the response does not answer. Second, it must say in consequence that, just as when something has been seen in the Word it is possible that it was never seen but its opposite was, so too when something has been willed in the Word it is possible that it was never willed but its opposite was. Hence, by such a willing, when something has been done within the one who sees and wills, or outside him, it is possible that it was never done but its opposite was, as 33 of this book proves [n2].", "margins": [{"id": "767E·1", "kind": "variant", "text": "magis"}]}, {"anchor": "p767D", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/36/#p767D", "locator_display": "767D", "source_text": "", "english": "But if he insists that the case of vision and of willing is not alike, because what was previously seen can never have been seen, and its opposite, which was never seen, can have been seen, whereas with what is willed it is not so, since what was once willed must always have been willed, and what was not willed, likewise, not willed, he will be refuted by 33 of this third book. Grant, moreover, what he says. Let such a revelation be made to Paul, with a command of willing and acting in conformity, and let Paul obey in all things. Then it is necessary that Paul now will thus, or willed thus in the past; therefore it is necessary that he now see thus, or saw thus in the past, for this willing of his is now caused by this vision of his, or was caused by it in the past. Besides, either Paul by the same act by which he distinctly saw that A would be can have distinctly seen the opposite, or by another. If by the same, then by like reasoning, by the same act by which he distinctly willed that A or anything else would be, he can have distinctly willed the opposite, and hence not have done what he did. If by another, then one other act which never was can possibly have been, and one which was can possibly not have been, against the principal hypothesis.", "margins": []}, {"anchor": "p767E", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/36/#p767E", "locator_display": "767E", "source_text": "", "english": "Again, the vision of the opposite would have caused the opposite effect, and not that one. For if Gabriel had seen in the Word that the Son of God was not to be incarnated of the Virgin, that vision would never have caused in him the will to go to the blessed Virgin and to announce what he did, but rather no will at all, or the opposite will. Christ also, if he had not seen in the Word his future passion, but its opposite, would have had no cause for so great a sorrow and bloody sweat. Paul likewise, if he had seen in the Word that he would be saved, would have had a great delight created in its own kind; but if he had seen the opposite, he would have had great sorrow. Again, this response does not avoid the difficulty. For let such a revelation be given to Paul, with a command of willing and acting in conformity, and let him obey fully and, dying thus, be saved. Then according to this response it is now possible that he never saw that vision or command in the Word, but the opposite of both; and it is now necessary that he acted thus outwardly. Hence it is now possible", "margins": [{"id": "767E·1", "kind": "variant", "text": "variant: magis (for potius)."}]}, {"anchor": "p768A", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/36/#p768A", "locator_display": "768A", "source_text": "ipsum fecisse contra reuelationem et visionem in verbo, peccasse mortaliter, fuisseque miserum et damnatum. De Gabriele similiter medio tempore inter annuntiationem et incarnationem fuit possibile quod mentiebatur: nam quando dixit Virgini gratiosae, Ecce concipies, possibile fuit quod pro tunc non vidisset illud in verbo, sed oppositum eius plane; quare fuit similiter possibile, quod ille beatissimus Archangelus Domini fuit miserrimus Angelus Satanae, quia mentiens contra tantam et tam lucidam veritatem, mortaliterque peccauit. Affirmet hoc qui audet: ego autem propter reuerentiam veritatis haec omnia ostendentis, propter reuerentiam mittentis et illius ad quam fuit missus, ac propter reuerentiam missi et ipsius propter quem fuit missus, non audeo talia affirmare. Ex hoc autem sequitur, quod beati finaliter confirmati possunt peccare; quare nec sunt finaliter confirmati, contra decimum quintum secundi. Et ex isto infertur vltetius, quod beati non sunt, nec esse possunt de beatitudine sua certi, Quomodo namque creatura peccabilis in statu peccabili, quia non confirmata finaliter,", "english": "that he acted against the revelation and the vision in the Word, sinned mortally, and was wretched and damned. Of Gabriel likewise, in the interval between the annunciation and the incarnation, it was possible that he was lying. For when he said to the Virgin full of grace, \"Behold, you will conceive,\" it was possible that at that moment he had not seen that in the Word, but had plainly seen its opposite. Hence it was likewise possible that that most blessed Archangel of the Lord was a most wretched angel of Satan, since he lied against so great and so clear a truth and sinned mortally. Let him affirm this who dares. I, however, out of reverence for the truth which shows all these things, out of reverence for him who sends and for her to whom he was sent, and out of reverence for the one sent and for him for whose sake he was sent, do not dare to affirm such things. From this, moreover, it follows that the blessed who are finally confirmed can sin, and so are not finally confirmed, against the fifteenth of the second book. And from this it is further inferred that the blessed are not, and cannot be, certain of their beatitude. For how will a creature capable of sin, in a state capable of sin because not finally confirmed,", "margins": []}, {"anchor": "p768B", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/36/#p768B", "locator_display": "768B", "source_text": "de nunquam peccando, et de beatitudine perpetua erit certa? Nec alium statum firmiorem aut certiorem potest Deus beatis conferre. Si etiam Deus posset certificare beatum de beatitudine sua futura, hoc maxime esset per aliquam reuelationem in verbo; sed nulla talis certificat, quia quaecunque talis, etsi nunc sit vnius oppositorum, potest nunc et pro nunc non esse illius, sed eius oppositi; imo quod magis videtur erroneum, nec Deus potest certificare beatum de beatitudine sua praeterita nec praesenti. In hoc enim instanti praesenti ponatur, in quo beatus Gabriel nuntiat Virgini gratiosae quod est filium conceptura, possibile est cum nunc mentiendo peccare, in praetetitoque peccasse a tempore quo voluit hoc scienter: possibile enim est, quod nunc videat, et continue prius vidit oppositum huius in verbo; nullus ergo beatus est certus, nec esse potest de beatitudine sua futura, praeterita, vel praesenti, contra prius ostensa tricesimo quarto huius.", "english": "be certain of never sinning and of perpetual beatitude? Nor can God confer on the blessed any state firmer or more certain. Again, if God could make a blessed person certain of his future beatitude, this would most of all be through some revelation in the Word; but no such revelation makes him certain, because any such revelation, even if it is now of one of two opposites, can now, and for now, not be of that one but of its opposite. Indeed, what seems still more erroneous, God cannot make the blessed person certain of his past or of his present beatitude. For let it be posited in this present instant, in which the blessed Gabriel announces to the Virgin full of grace that she will conceive a son, that it is possible for him now to sin by lying, and to have sinned in the past from the time at which he knowingly willed this. For it is possible that he now sees, and continuously before saw, the opposite of this in the Word. Therefore no blessed person is certain, nor can he be, about his beatitude, whether future, past, or present, against what was shown earlier in the thirty-fourth of this book.", "margins": [{"id": "768B·1", "kind": "variant", "text": "variant: homo (for beatus)."}]}], "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"}