De causa Dei: Book III, Chapter 47
Thomas Bradwardine, De causa Dei contra Pelagium (1344). English translation: Wroot Press, CC BY-NC 4.0; machine-learning use permitted with attribution (https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/rights/).
Source: Henry Savile's edition, London 1618, 794D–803B; Latin from EEBO-TCP A16626 (public domain).
Canonical: https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/47/
Status: draft translation, not yet reviewed.

[794D–795A]
CHAPTER XLVII.

Against the same opinion and hypothesis, by the same route, concerning mere men. [n1]

We must now come, after the angels, to men. For the same argument can be made concerning men, both for the state of innocence and for the state of glory, as was just now made concerning the angels. Again: all the saints, even the Blessed Virgin, were cleansed before the saving passion of Jesus Christ, and were saved in the faith and power of that future passion, which was in some way revealed to them in its own kind. [n2] For he himself, made the cornerstone, by the manifold pounding of his passion joined both walls together into one, with the most tenacious mortar of his blessed blood. He is also the one to whom both the crowds that went before and those that followed cried out, saying, "Hosanna to the son of David." Hence the Apostle too says, "One," he says, "faith, not many." Hence also blessed Gregory, in Book 2 on Ezekiel, homily five, or seventeen of the whole, says: "The Jewish people went before, the Gentile people followed; and because all the elect, whether those who could be in Judaea or those who now exist in the Church, have believed and do believe in the Mediator of God and men, those who go before and those who follow cry Hosanna. 'Hosanna' in the Latin tongue means 'Save us.' From him both the earlier peoples sought salvation and the present ones seek it, and they confess 'blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'; for there is one hope, one faith, of the peoples who went before and of those who follow. For just as those were saved with the passion and resurrection of the Lord awaited, so we are saved with his passion past and his resurrection abiding for ever." Likewise blessed

[795B–795C]
Augustine, Hypognosticon 63, [n3] says: "All the saints of God who lived before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ were saved by no other faith than that which now is." He also teaches the same in On Free Choice 7, On the Perfection of Justice 32, On Nature and Grace 44, in the ninety-third letter, to Optatus, and in On Marriage and Concupiscence 2. Anselm too, Cur Deus homo 2, 17, wishes the same thing, as all Catholic writers harmoniously do. Let this therefore be argued, on the firm supposition, for an intermediate time at which we may stand between those past effects and that future passion: it is necessary that those effects have occurred; therefore it is necessary that this passion will be; or, if it is not necessary that this passion will be, then neither is it necessary that those effects occurred. For they could not have been cleansed and saved in an erroneous, deceptive and false faith. For if they could then, they could now and always; which seems to stain the Catholic faith with excessive suspicion, or rather to defame it, and to make men lukewarm and overly doubtful in believing. How, moreover, could falsehood be worth as much as truth itself is worth? Who would grant this, unless a false man? Furthermore, if a false faith sufficed, true faith would be superfluous, especially since the same effect would come about, and much more briefly and lightly, from a false faith than from a true one. For true faith required the incarnation, the nativity, the preaching, the passion and death of Christ, with many other deeds of his; for a false faith, that alone would suffice. It would therefore have been fully sufficient for salvation to have persisted in a false faith about the future Christ up to the completion of the number of the elect, and so to have closed the ages. Hence, as the Apostle argues, leading to the impossible, as he reckons it: Christ died for nothing. "If," he says, "righteousness is from the law, then Christ died for nothing," Galatians 2. Gloss: "for nothing," [n4] that is, in vain, without cause. For according to the opinion of the Philosophers, which they always suppose as a maxim known through itself, more things are posited in vain where fewer suffice. A false Christ would likewise have been worth as much as the truthful Christ, Christ who is Truth himself; and no one, I hope, will presume to grant that, unless perhaps a false Christian, a disciple of a false Christ, that is, of the true Antichrist. Hence also

[795D–795E]
Anselm, Cur Deus homo 2, 17, treating this matter, says: "He was truly going to die; for if he had not truly been going to die, faith in his future death would not have been true, and through that faith both that Virgin of whom he was born and many others were cleansed from sin; and if it had not been true, it could have profited nothing." Hence the whole faithful Church of Christ also faithfully sings: "The true faith of the Begotten purged the crimes of the world." Moreover, Christ asserted and swore that certain things would come to pass: his passion, resurrection, ascension, the general resurrection, Judas's betrayal, Peter's denial, and many like things. If then, at an intermediate time in which we may stand, these things can by no means come to pass, Christ could have been a liar, a perjurer, and a sinner, contrary to what was shown earlier in the thirty-second; or, if Christ cannot have been these things, then what he asserted by oath must necessarily come to pass. Again, God foretold to men many future things in their own kind, asserted them, promised them, and swore them; therefore it is necessary that all those things come to pass, or that God lie; but it is impossible for God to lie. All this also appears evidently from the authorities concerning fate, or divine utterance, [n5] in the twenty-seventh of this book, and from the reasons and authorities set out earlier in the thirty-second of this book. Hence also the Lord says through the Prophet: "Nor will I profane my testament, and what proceeds from my lips I will not make void," or "will not reject," as the Roman Psalter has it; which Augustine explains thus: "Once I have sworn by my holiness, if I should lie to David," Psalm 88. [n6] Now "testament," according to Papias, and according to Isidore, 5, Ethics 8, [n7] is said in the holy Scriptures not only of that which has no force except when the testators are dead, but every pact and agreement is called a testament; hence Jerome's translation reads thus: "Nor will I violate my pact, and what has gone out from my lips I will not change." On which Augustine says: Not because the sons sin shall I therefore be found a liar; I promised, I do it. Suppose that they want, even in despair, to sin, and so to go altogether into sins, so as to offend the eyes

[796A–796B]
of the Father and to deserve to be disinherited: is he not the very God of whom it was said, "From these stones God will raise up sons of Abraham"? The Lord knows who are his; for he promised with assurance, who predestined us before we existed. Let the desperate sin as much as they like; let the members of Christ answer, "If God is for us, who is against us?" God, therefore, will not do harm in his truth, [n8] he will not be deceitful, he will not profane his testament: his testament stands immovable, because he, foreknowing, predestined his heirs, and what proceeds from his lips he will not reject. Hear now your confirmation, hear now your security: if you know yourself to be among the members of Christ, "Once I have sworn by my holiness, if I should lie to David." Do you expect God to swear again? How many times will he swear, if by swearing once he lies? Cassiodorus: "Once," that is, unchangeably; just as Augustine and Isidore explain that text of Psalm 61, "God has spoken once," as the twenty-seventh of this book recited more fully. And further on, on the text, "But you have rejected," etc., "You have turned away the testament," etc., "What is this," says Augustine, "that you promised all those things, and you have done these contrary things? Where are the promises over which we rejoiced a little while ago, which we applauded so eagerly, over which, secure, we congratulated one another? It is as though one had promised and another had overturned them. That is what is astonishing: not another, but you, you who promised, you who confirmed, you who for the sake of human doubt even swore, you promised those things and have done these. Where shall I hold your oath? Where shall I find your promise? What is this? Is it so, then, that God would promise what is false, or swear what is false? Why then did he promise those things and do these? I say: he did these things in order to confirm what he promised. For David had been appointed as the one to whom all these things were promised, to be fulfilled in his seed, which is Christ; on account of the promises, therefore, which were spoken to David, men expected them to be fulfilled in David. And so, lest, when any Christian said, 'He spoke of Christ,' another should say, 'No, but he spoke of that David,' and be mistaken

[796C–796D]
even when he saw that all things were fulfilled in Christ, he destroyed them in David, so that when you see them not fulfilled in him, though they must needs be fulfilled, you may look for another in whom they are shown to be fulfilled. So also concerning Esau and Jacob we find the elder adored by the younger, although it is written, 'The elder shall serve the younger'; so that when you see that in those two earlier persons it was not fulfilled, you may expect two peoples in whom it will be fulfilled, what God, who does not lie, deigns to promise. 'Behold,' he said to David, 'from your seed I will set one upon your throne.' He promised something from his seed for ever, and Solomon was born; he was made of such great wisdom and such great prudence that God's promise concerning the seed of David was thought to be fulfilled in him. But Solomon fell, and gave place to Christ, who was hoped for, so that, since God could neither be deceived nor deceive, he would not place his promise in one whom he knew would fall, but after his fall you would look back to God and press for your promise: 'Then, Lord, have you lied? Do you not fulfil what you promised? Do you not show forth what you swore?' Perhaps at this point God was going to say to you, 'I did indeed swear, and I promised, but this man refused to persevere.' What then? Lord God, did you not foreknow that this man would not persevere? Surely you knew. Why then, in one who was not going to persevere, did you promise me what was to be for ever? Did you not say, 'If they abandon my law, and do not walk in my judgments, and do not keep my commandments, and profane my testimony, my promise will nevertheless remain, my oath will be fulfilled: Once I have sworn by my holiness, if I should lie to David'? Show forth, then, what you swore; pay what you promised. It has been taken away from this David, so that it would not be awaited in this David; await, therefore, what I promised. David himself knew that too; see, therefore, what he says: 'But you have rejected, and brought to nothing; so where is what you promised?' You have deferred your Christ. Though he enumerates certain sad things, yet by this word he restores us: what you promised, O God, stands altogether firm; for you have not taken away your Christ, but deferred him." On this passage Cassiodorus too: above, when the Father was promising about Christ, he spoke of David, of whom he now sets down the opposite, so that what had to come to pass, because God had sworn it, should be sought to be fulfilled not in him but

[796E–797A]
in another. And the Apostle says, 2 Timothy 2: "If we do not believe, he remains faithful; he cannot deny himself." Gloss: If we do not believe that he punishes the wicked, we have trusted foolishly in his mercy; yet he, namely Christ, remains faithful in his sayings, and also in what he said, "He who does not believe will be condemned"; and he is truly faithful, because he cannot deny himself, who is truth, which he would do if he did not fulfil what he said. That he cannot deny himself, moreover, is praise of the divine will, just as that some cannot believe is a fault of the human will. This last part of the gloss is from Augustine, on John, homily 53, who also says in book 15 of On the Trinity, 14: "This Word can never hold anything false, because it is unchangeably just as he is from whom it is. [n9] For the Son cannot do anything of himself, unless he sees the Father doing it; he powerfully cannot do this, and this is not weakness but strength, because truth cannot be false." And further on, in the fifteenth: "Great is the power of that Word: it cannot lie." Again, if God did not render what he promised, he would not be faithful, nor just; hence Hebrews 6: "God is not unjust, that he should forget your work and the love which you showed in his name." And 2 Timothy 4: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; for the rest, there is laid up for me the crown of justice, which the Lord, the just judge, will render to me on that day." Treating this, Augustine, on the text of Psalm 100, "I will sing to you of mercy and judgment, Lord," says: See how he says, "I have fought the good fight," etc.; this is the time of mercy; hear of judgment: "For the rest, there is laid up for me the crown of justice, which the Lord, the just judge, will render to me on that day." He did not say, "he was giving," but

[797B–797D]
"he will render." When he was giving, he was merciful; when he renders, he will be judge, because "I will sing to you of mercy and judgment, Lord." But by pardoning sins he made himself a debtor of the crown. There I obtained mercy; the Lord, then, is first merciful, but here he will render to me the crown of justice. On what ground will he render it? Because he is a just Judge. Why a just Judge? Because I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; therefore, being just, he cannot but crown these things. And the Prophet says, "The word of the Lord is right, and all his works are in faithfulness," Psalm 32, on which Augustine, in the second treatise, says: We have found God faithful. Hear the Apostle: "If we do not believe, he remains faithful; he cannot deny himself." We have, then, also a faithful God; let us rather distinguish the faithful God from the faithful man. A faithful man is one who believes God as he promises; a faithful God is one who shows forth to man what he promised. Let us hold a most faithful debtor, since we hold a most merciful promiser. Why a debtor? Because a promiser. We do not say to God, "Lord, return what you received," but "pay what you promised," since "the word of the Lord is right." What is "the word of the Lord is right"? It does not deceive you; do not deceive it, or rather, do not deceive yourself. Again, God swore that many things would be in the future, and every oath of God must necessarily be fulfilled; otherwise God could forswear himself and be perjured. This same thing is clear from what was alleged above from Psalm 88 and from Augustine there; and that text of Psalm 109 seems also to attest it: "The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent"; and that of Psalm 131: "The Lord swore the truth to David, and will not frustrate him"; where Augustine's text reads, "And he will not repent." On which he says: What is "he swore"? He confirmed the promise by himself. What is "he will not repent"? He will not change. When therefore he changes his works through his unchangeable counsel, he is said to repent on account of the very change, not of counsel but of the work; but this he promised in such a way that he would not change it, just as that also is said, "The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech"; so too with this, because it was so promised that it would not be changed, because it was necessarily going to be and to remain, it is said: "The Lord swore the truth to David, and will not repent of it: From the fruit of your womb I will set one upon your throne." Again, Isaiah 14: "The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, If not as I thought, so it will be." [n10] Gloss: "He swore," that is, he established immovably; "if not," etc., as if he said, it cannot be otherwise. Again, Genesis 22, the Lord, speaking to Abraham, says: "I have sworn by myself, because you have done this thing," etc.; "I will bless you, and I will multiply your seed," etc. Gloss on "I have sworn": because it has been established by God unchangeably; and this word is found explained in the same way very often in sacred Scripture. Hence Basil also, in agreement, on the text of Luke 1, "the oath which he swore to Abraham our father," says: Let no one, hearing that the Lord swore to Abraham, be ready to swear. For just as wrath, said of God, signifies not passion but punishment, so neither does God swear as a man does; rather his word is expressed to us, in place of an oath, as a pledge of truth, approving by an unchangeable decree what was promised.

[797E–798A]
This exposition the Apostle seems sufficiently to canonize in Hebrews 6, when he says: God, promising to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, swore by himself, saying, "Surely [n11] blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you"; and so, bearing patiently, he obtained the promise. For men swear by one greater than themselves, and the end of every dispute among them is an oath, for confirmation. In this, God, wishing to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed an oath, so that through two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest consolation, we who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us, which we have as an anchor of the soul, safe and firm. Gloss: "through two immutable things," that is, through the promise and the oath. Therefore Jerome also, in the thirty-third on Isaiah, treating that word of Isaiah 45, "By myself I have sworn; the word of justice shall go forth from my mouth, and shall not return, for to me every knee shall bow," says: He swears, according to the Apostle, so that through two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest consolation. Yet let no one on account of these and similar things suspect that God swears inwardly otherwise than he speaks simply, or that God's inward oath is firmer or more certain than his simple word. For it is not easier for God to say what is false simply than to swear it; whatever is there is good, and whatever good is there is there infinitely and supremely, as the preceding chapters have taught. To this the Gloss bears witness on that passage of Amos 6, "The Lord God has sworn by his soul": "Every word of God," it says, "must be taken as an oath; and he speaks in our manner, not that he has a soul as we do, but by the name of soul the disposition of the divine will is shown: he swore, therefore, by his will." Why then does God swear to men? So that, mercifully condescending to their slowness and unbelief, he may reassure and quiet them in the human way. Likewise, future things

[798B–798C]
revealed by God to the ancient Prophets, and prophesied by them, will come to pass of necessity. Otherwise it would now be possible that they saw only false and empty things, and prophesied only such things, and hence never were Prophets; for according to the men of every sect, only those are called Prophets who speak out true things from afar [n12] or foretell them. And it would now be possible that the ancient seers were never seers but blind (for he who is today called a Prophet was formerly called a seer, 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 9). It would be possible that the ancient truthful Doctors never were such, but were deceitful seducers, who had a splendid dignity and an eminent degree of goodness, and never had these but always their opposites. For who does not know that the truthful man is worthier and better than the deceiver, the man who believes what is true than the one who believes what is false? Who would not choose this over that? For truth itself is worthier and better than falsity, as is also shown in the thirty-fourth of this book. Indeed, and what seems more absurd, it would now be possible that the ancient Prophets and Apostles, friends of God (Wisdom 7 and John 15), instruments of the Holy Spirit (for he himself, as the Nicene Creed says, spoke through the Prophets, and the Apostles did not speak, but the Spirit of their Father spoke in them), who had his splendid gifts, namely Prophecy and the discernment of spirits (1 Corinthians 12), never were such, never received such things, but were instruments of that lying spirit in the mouth of all the lying Prophets, 3 Kings (1 Kings) 22; and that the Holy Spirit did not speak what he spoke, and did not do what he did. Likewise, according to this it would now be possible that Isaiah was deceived in what he saw most truly, without any deception whatever; and consequently that in what he deserved well he sinned mortally; and that in what he truthfully asserted he lied, as the preceding chapter, on the Angels, argued more fully. Further, if it is now possible that the ancients who were Prophets and seers, such and such, and had such and such gifts and performed such and such works, were not such, nor had such things, nor did such things; then correspondingly it is possible that the ancients who were not such, nor had nor did such things, were such, and had and did such things; indeed, that those who were in the opposite way, and had and did the opposite, were not so, and neither had nor did these things, and that they were, had, and did just as true Prophets; which

[798D–798E]
undoubtedly turns things round, indeed overturns them, changing the true Prophets and their true gifts and works into false prophets and their false gifts and works, and the reverse, as is argued more fully in the thirty-third of this book. Moreover, in that case the Prophets and Apostles could have been deceived in believing something false about the future, and this by Christ and the Holy Spirit of God. For the Apostle says in Galatians 1 that he received and learned the Gospel preached by him through the revelation of Jesus Christ; and in 1 Corinthians 12 he counts prophecy among the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Hence 2 Peter 1: "We have the more sure prophetic word, to which you do well to attend, understanding this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy was never brought by human will, but holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit"; which the whole Catholic Church also professes in the Nicene Creed, saying: "Who," namely the Holy Spirit, "spoke through the Prophets." How then does Christ call himself only the truth (John 14), and not also falsity? How also, if God and Christ knowingly assert something false about the future in the soul of Isaiah or of Paul, and so deceive him, does the truth remain, and is he excused from fallacy and lie, when John, the disciple of truth, says, "Every lie is not of the truth," 1 John 2? Therefore Augustine also, in the 83 Questions, question 14: "If," he says, "the body of Christ was a phantasm, Christ deceived; and if he deceived, he is not the truth; but Christ is the truth; therefore his body was not a phantasm." And in On the Christian Struggle: "Nor let us listen," he says, "to those who deny that the Lord rose with such a body as was laid in the tomb. For if it had not been such, he himself would not have said to the disciples after the resurrection, 'Feel and see, for a spirit does not have bones and sinews, as you see me have.' For it is sacrilege to believe that the Lord our God, since he himself is the truth, lied in anything." If he can assert what is false about the future, why not about the past and present,

[799A–799B]
and the present, and about any notorious falsehoods, and so lie notoriously and sin, contrary to what was set out beforehand in the thirtieth of this second? How also, if it is so, is the Holy Spirit called only the spirit of truth (John 14), and not also the spirit of falsity, the lying spirit in the mouth of all the Prophets (3 Kings (1 Kings) 22), and the spirit of dizziness and error (Isaiah 19)? How also does it befit a just and true God to deceive men, above all his most devout and most familiar servants, his best-loved and most loving friends, and this without fault or cause? Not so thinks Augustine, on Psalm 32 (33) and 88 (89), and in the 83 Questions, 14, cited above; who also in City of God 11.12 says: "Which of men can know that he will persevere to the end in the practice and progress of justice, unless he is made certain by some revelation from him who, by a just and hidden judgment, does not instruct all about this matter, but deceives no one?" Therefore Pope Innocent III also says: "The judgment of God always rests on the truth of God, which neither deceives nor is deceived." The most wise Sibyl also speaks thus: "There will arise from the stock of the Hebrews a woman named Mary, having a betrothed named Joseph, and from her, without union with a man, from the Holy Spirit, the Son of God will be born, named Jesus; and she will be a virgin before the birth and after the birth; and he who will be born of her will be true God and true man, as all the Prophets have proclaimed, and he will fulfil the law of the Hebrews, and will add his own at the same time [n13], and his kingdom will remain for ever and ever." And to the priests of the Hebrews, who were indignant and objected, she replied: "O Jews, these things must come to pass, but you will not believe in him." Likewise Cassiodorus in the prologue on the Psalter defines prophecy in this way: "Prophecy is a divine inspiration, which announces the outcomes of things with immutable truth." With him the Gloss of Peter on the Psalter, in the prologue, agrees [n14], as is cited more fully in the twenty-fifth of the first. The same is clear from the authority of Augustine on John, part 2, homily 62 or 116 of the whole [n15], cited in the twenty-seventh of this third. And behold one greater than Augustine, that most beloved disciple of the truth [n16], who drew his Gospel from the very fountain, that is, from the breast of the truth, and who says: Though he had done so many signs

[799C–799E]
before them, they did not believe in him, so that the word of Isaiah the Prophet might be fulfilled which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" For this reason they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: "He has blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they may not see with their eyes, and not understand with their heart, and be converted, and I heal them," John 12. Treating this in On the Good of Perseverance 41, Augustine understands it according to the literal surface; hence he says: "The Jews were left in the mass of damnation, who could not believe, though such great and brilliant miracles were done in their sight. For why could they not believe? The Gospel did not keep silent, saying, 'Though he had done so many,'" etc., cited above. He also, expounding the same text on John, part 1, homily 53, says: "It was said 'they could not' in the same way as it is said of the Lord our God, 'If we do not believe, he remains faithful, he cannot deny himself.' It is said of the Almighty, 'he cannot'; as therefore that the Lord cannot deny himself is to the praise of the divine will, so that they could not believe is the fault of the human will." And if someone objects that Augustine, in the same homily, in the same place, expounds it thus, "they could not," that is, "they would not"; and above in the same, "Why could they not? Because they would not," this does not conflict with the preceding understanding. For Holy Scripture, by its marvelous fecundity, has a manifold meaning, as all its Catholic expositors amply show. Yet it seems a very strange exposition, and very remote from the manner of speaking of Scripture, of the Doctors, and of ordinary people, to expound "could not" by "would not"; nor does Augustine expressly expound it so, but says: "It was said 'they could not,' where it must be understood that they would not"; and it is true that they would not. Yet it does not follow evidently that this is the exposition of that text; rather he says that it must be understood that they would not, to show that they do not believe voluntarily, not unwillingly, and that for this reason they are culpable in not believing and sin, according to what was premised in the first and tenth of this book. Hence he immediately adds: "In the way it was said of the Lord our God, 'If we do not believe, he remains faithful, he cannot deny himself,' because it was said of the Almighty, 'he cannot,' so that the Lord cannot deny himself is to the praise of the divine will; thus that they could not believe is the fault of the human will." Here he also plainly hints that it cannot be taken properly and in the common sense. For he says, "It was said 'they could not' in the same way as of the Lord, 'he cannot deny himself'"; and this is taken properly and in the common sense, for thus he cannot deny himself, as he cannot lie. But when he says "they could not, because they would not," he understands that they had been blinded by their own voluntary merits; whence, objecting and answering, he adds: "But the Prophet," he says, "gives another cause, not their will. What cause does the Prophet give? That God gave them a spirit of compunction, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, and he blinded their eyes and hardened their heart"; and I answer that even this they merited by their will: for thus God blinds, thus he hardens. This exposition, however, does not seem to fit the mind of the Evangelist; for he in no way, explicitly or implicitly, assigns that cause, but this one, that Isaiah said,

[800A–800B]
"He has blinded their eyes," etc., manifestly supposing that prophecies cannot fail to be fulfilled. Wherefore it must be observed that Augustine there proceeds in no way definitively but inquiringly. Whence he says: "When questions of this kind have come into the midst (why one is thus, another otherwise; why one is blinded, God forsaking him, another enlightened, God helping), let us not usurp for ourselves a judgment on the judgment of so great a Judge, but trembling let us exclaim with the Apostle: O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and how inscrutable his ways! Whence it was said in the Psalm: 'Your judgments are like a great abyss.' Therefore, brothers, let not the expectation of your charity push me to penetrate this depth, to examine this abyss, to search out the unsearchable. I acknowledge my measure, and I seem to myself to feel your measure also: this is higher than my growth and stronger than my powers, and I think than yours too. Let us therefore together listen to Scripture warning and saying: 'Seek not things higher than yourself, and search not into things stronger than yourself'; not because these things are denied us, since God the Master says, 'Nothing is hidden that shall not be revealed,' but let us walk in that to which we have attained, as the Apostle says: 'Not only what we do not know and ought to know, but if you are otherwise minded in anything, this too God will reveal to you.' But we have come into the way of faith; let us hold to it most perseveringly; it will lead us to the chamber of the King, in which are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. We must walk, advance, grow, that our hearts may be capacious of those things which we cannot now grasp; and if the last day finds us advancing, there we shall learn what here we could not. If anyone, however, knows that he can expound this question more clearly and better, and is confident of it, far be it from me not to be readier to learn than to teach." Whence also the very great difficulty of this matter appears. With this Apostle his fellow-apostle Peter agrees, saying: "Jesus of Nazareth you have killed, whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of Hell, since it was impossible that he be held by it. For David says of him, 'I foresaw the Lord before me always, because he is at my right hand that I be not moved;

[800C–800D]
therefore my heart has rejoiced, and my tongue has exulted; moreover my flesh also will rest in hope, because you will not abandon my soul in Hell, nor give your Holy One to see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life, you will fill me with joy with your countenance,'" Acts 2. And behold one greater than both, who says, "Scripture cannot be broken," John 10, from whom many similar things are cited more fully in the twenty-seventh of this book; who also in Luke 24 says: "All things must be fulfilled that are written in the law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms about me." That prophecies will necessarily be fulfilled the passages of Scripture seem to attest which say, "This and that was done that the Scripture might be fulfilled," or "the prophecy," or "the word of the Prophet." If Scripture must be, or had to be, fulfilled, it is necessary that Scripture be fulfilled [n17], and the like; hence Matthew 1: "Now all this was done" (namely the incarnation of Jesus Christ) "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the Prophet saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive in her womb,'" etc. Gloss: "One prophecy is from the predestination of God, which must by all means come to pass, so as to be fulfilled without our choice, like this one that is treated here; another is from the foreknowledge of God, with which our choice is mixed; another is what is called a threat, which is made as a sign of divine chastisement, that the elect may flee from the face of the bow and the unwary justly perish; and it is not from foreknowledge, because what is foreknown is far otherwise than what is threatened." The gloss of Thomas [n18] recites this also in almost the same words. And below, 21: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the Prophet saying: 'Tell the daughter of Sion, Behold, your King comes to you meek, sitting upon an ass and a colt, the foal of one used to the yoke'"; and still further below, 26, to Peter, who wished to defend the Lord about to be taken, he says: "Put up your sword," etc. "Do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and he will at once give me more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the Scriptures of the Prophets be fulfilled, that thus it must be done?" In Mark 14 also it is written: "As against a robber you have come out with swords," etc. "I was daily with you in the Temple teaching, and you did not seize me; but that the Scriptures might be fulfilled." Likewise John 19: they said to one another, "Let us not tear

[800E–801A]
it, but let us cast lots for it, to see whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saying: "They divided my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots." And below: "That the Scripture might be fulfilled, he says, 'I thirst.'" Further, Luke 24: "O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the Prophets have spoken! Did not Christ have to suffer these things, and so enter into his glory?" And John 20: "For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead." Blessed Peter also says, Acts 1: "Brothers, the Scripture must be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth of David concerning Judas." But this word, "must," carries necessity; whence Isidore, on that of Luke 24, "Did not Christ have to suffer these things?" as it is cited in the gloss of Thomas, says: "But if Christ had to suffer, yet those who crucified him are guilty: for they were not striving to accomplish what God was disposing; hence their execution of it was impious." And behold one greater than Isidore, Jesus Christ, expounding "must" by "it is necessary": "These," he says, "are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you" (that is, in mortal flesh, according to Bede), "that all things must be fulfilled that are written in the law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms about me," Luke 24. For when he was with them in mortal flesh he told them that the Son of man must suffer many things and rise again, as is clear in Matthew 16, Mark 8, and Luke 9; and it is likely that he did not merely tell them this simply, but also showed it through the Scriptures, as Luke plainly hints. Whence Matthew also, in the place cited first, says: "Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things"; and Mark 8: "He began," he says, "to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things," etc., and below, 9, he says to them how it is written of the Son of man that he must suffer many things; and Luke 18: "Jesus took the twelve, and said to them, 'Behold, we go up to Jerusalem,

[801B–801C]
and all things will be accomplished that are written by the Prophets of the Son of man; for he will be delivered to the Gentiles,'" etc. Therefore, according to the most true exposition of the Truth, to "must" and to be necessary are the same, which is also clear from his own words in Luke 24: "O foolish," he says, "and slow," etc., "did not Christ have to suffer these things," etc., "and beginning from Moses and all the Prophets," etc. And below, in the same chapter: "All things must be fulfilled that are written in the law of Moses and the Prophets," etc. And still further below: "Then he opened their mind that they might understand the Scriptures, and he said to them, 'Thus it is written, and thus Christ had to suffer,'" etc. It is therefore evidently apparent that he uses those words alternately and indifferently for the same sense, and that the true sense and true understanding of the Scriptures is that all the prophetic Scriptures concerning Christ had of necessity to be fulfilled. The same appears evidently from the common manner of speaking of nearly all the Prophets: for they frequently foretell future things in the manner of the past, and under verbs of the past tense, as very many prophecies show; which they do, according to the exposition of the Doctors, because these things are so certain, at least with God and with the Prophet, as if they were past and already done. Whence the Prophet in Psalm 3, in the person of Christ: "I slept and was drowsy, and I arose." On which Augustine, City of God 17.18: "Is anyone perhaps so foolish as to believe that the Prophet wished to point out to us as something great that he slept and rose, unless that sleep were death, and that waking the resurrection, which could so be prophesied of Christ? For in the fortieth Psalm this is shown much more clearly, where, in the person of the same Mediator, in the customary manner, things which were foretold as future are narrated as past; since the things that were to come were already, in the predestination and foreknowledge of God, as though done: 'My enemies,' he says, 'have spoken evil against me,'" etc. The same on that of Psalm 43 (44): "For you have saved us from those who afflict us," etc.: "This," he says, "is said by the figure of the past about the future, but it is said as past because it is as certain as if it were done. Attend to why the Prophets say very many things as though they were past, when future things, not yet done, are being foretold.

[801D–801E]
For the future passion of the Lord himself was announced, and yet 'they dug,' he says, 'my hands and my feet, they have numbered all my bones.' He did not say, 'they will dig' and 'they will number.' 'They themselves considered and looked upon me': he did not say, 'they will consider and look.' 'They divided my garments among them': he did not say, 'they will divide.' All these things are said as past, though they are future, because for God even future things are as certain as if they were past; for to us the things that are past are certain, and those that are future uncertain: for we know that something has happened, and it cannot be that what has happened has not happened. Give me a Prophet to whom the future is not as certain as the past is to you, and as it is impossible that what you remember as done should not be done, so for him it is impossible that what he knows as future should not come to pass." Whence also Cassiodorus: "You alone," he says, "will save us, and will confound those who hate us"; so it would seem he ought to have said [n19]; but since the future is as certain as the past, which cannot not have been, he says, "you have saved, and you have confounded." Likewise Augustine, expounding the title of Psalm 84 (85): "The Prophet," he says, "sings of the future, and uses verbs as of time already past; he says as done what was to be, because with God what is future is already done; there, then, the Prophet saw future things for us, but already done in the most certain providence and predestination of God." The same, On the Christian Struggle: "The Scriptures speak so as to signify the past tense for the future; as what the Apostle said, that he has made us sit together in the heavenly places, is not yet done, but because it is most certainly to be, it is said as though it were already done." The same, On Rebuke and Grace 33, treating that authority of the Apostle in Romans 8, "Those whom he predestined, these he also called," etc.: "Not in all," he says, "have these things been done; for until the end of the age many are yet to be called and justified, and yet he put verbs of the past tense even for future things, as though God had already done what he had disposed from eternity to be done." For this reason the Prophet Isaiah also says of him: "Who has made the things that are to come." Prophetic future things, therefore, are with God in eternity as though past, and so are fixed by a like necessity. Wherefore

[802A–802B]
he also immediately, in the thirty-fourth, concludes from these things: "Whoever therefore, in the most provident disposition of God, have been foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (I do not say even not yet reborn, but even not yet born) are already sons of God, and therefore can in no way perish." In agreement with him, Anselm in On Concord 3, treating the same authority, says: "But to show that the same Apostle had not used those words in a temporal signification, he pronounced even the things which are future by a verb of past tense. For those whom he foreknew as yet to be born he had not yet thus already called, justified, and magnified in time [n20]; whence it can be known that, because of the need for a word signifying eternal presence, he used verbs of past signification, since things which are past in time are, in likeness to the eternal present, entirely immutable. In this, indeed, things temporally past are more like the eternal present than are present things; for the things which are there, that is, in eternity, can never not be present, just as things past in time cannot ever not be past; but present things in time, all that pass away, become not present. Future things of this kind, therefore, prophesied with God in eternity, and past things in time, are fixed by a like necessity." Further, if prophecies could be falsified, and now not be true, nor ever have been true, no one ought to assert them most firmly, or with a simple oath; for they are not most firmly true, and he would expose himself to the danger of perjury and sin. But what Catholic, for the conversion of one unbeliever unwilling to be converted to the Catholic faith, would hesitate to do this except by a most firm assertion and with an absolute and simple oath about the resurrection and final beatification, as the Lord also often did, saying, "Amen, amen I say to you, that so and so will be," as the Prophets also frequently say, "The Lord has sworn this and that"? With how great security also does the Apostle say: "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you besides what we have preached to you, let him be anathema"? Of which he adds the cause after a few words: "For I make known to you,

[802C–802D]
brothers, that the Gospel which was preached by me is not according to man; for I neither received it from man, nor learned it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ," Galatians 1. Gloss: "Note that he does not say 'we, or an angel' (a good angel can be understood) because this might ever happen, but because he is certain from God of the truth of his Gospel; so that even if an angel announced otherwise, he would not believe but would anathematize." Further, if the Prophets can be falsified, so can Holy Scripture; sacred Theology is therefore more uncertain, weaker, lower, and less worthy than the other faculties which cannot be. Again, if Holy Scripture can be falsified, what security do we have in this life? For it is the teacher and guide of the whole of human life, its mirror and register. What security is possible for a man in the divine promises, if God can, without lie, fault, or cause, cut back, violate, erase, cancel, infringe, and falsify every book, every pact, every written bond, every instrument however solemnized by witnesses, seals, even by oath, every testament even confirmed by the death of the testator? How then could a contract with him be safe? Indeed, a contract of a man with God, who cannot lie or sin, would be incomparably less safe than with another man, who can do these things. For if, according to the hypothesis, God can do the opposite of whatever is promised under any pact, he can do this without duplicity or change, without lie, perjury, or sin, and can even have never contracted so; but no man can do so. Therefore any man, against any man who contracts so and does not fulfil the contract, can have a remedy and recourse, by taking action against him for perjury, for violation of faith and of the contract. This, then, seems to vary with foul stains the most beautiful uniform color of Holy Scripture, to change its most pleasing fragrance for putrid smoke, to ferment its sweetest taste into poisonous potions. Of men of this way, then, the Apostle was not silent: "They changed," he says, "the truth of God into a lie," Romans 1; and 2 Corinthians 2: "We are not like the many who adulterate

[802E–803B]
the word of God." For these things do those who change the truthful Scripture into a lying one, and Scripture, an uncorrupted virgin, into an adulterous harlot. Not so its Author and its witnesses. "Scripture cannot be broken," says Christ, "which the Father sanctified and sent into the world," John 10. Nor is it doubtful to any Christian that the testimony of the Lord is faithful. For he himself is the faithful witness in heaven; his testimonies, therefore, have been made exceedingly credible. This also plainly proves what was cited above from Psalm 88 (89). Therefore Augustine also, on that of Psalm 144 (145), "The Lord is faithful in his words," says: "For what has he promised and not given? Some things he has promised, and not yet given; but let him be believed from those which he has given. We could believe him merely when he speaks; he did not wish to be believed merely when he speaks, but wished his Scripture to be held; as

if you were to say to some man, when promising something, 'Do you not believe me? Look, I am writing it for you.' For since generation goes and generation comes, and thus these ages pass by, mortals departing and succeeding, the Scripture of God had to remain, a kind of written bond of God, which all who pass by might read, and hold the way of his promise; and how many things he has repaid from that bond! Men hesitate to believe him about the resurrection of the dead and the age to come, which alone remains yet to be repaid; through all the generations he has repaid what was written, and what remains is not believed of him, all these things having been repaid? Look, you have made your reckoning: so many things he has repaid; has he become unfaithful on account of a few that remain? Far from it. Why? Because the Lord is faithful in his words, and holy in all his works." See that Augustine expressly supposes that if God did not repay in the bond of Holy Scripture the things promised, he himself would become unfaithful; but this is manifestly impossible; therefore it is necessary that he faithfully repay

whatever he has promised through his canonical Scripture.

NOTES

1. Puri homines are men who are only men, as distinct from the angels of the preceding chapter and from the God-man Christ. The "opinion and hypothesis" are evidently the same ones combated there in the example of Michael and Paul: that what is foretold or foreknown of a saint (his salvation, say) may possibly not come to pass.
2. In proprio genere, "in its own kind," is Bradwardine's contrast with knowing or being told a thing "in the word" (in verbo, as in the Michael argument on 794B–C). Here the passion was revealed to the saints directly, as that very event, and not merely through its cause or in a general statement.
3. The Hypognosticon (or Hypomnesticon), which Savile's age took for Augustine's, is now counted pseudo-Augustinian. "The ninety-third letter, to Optatus" is rendered as printed. Augustine's Ep. 93 is addressed to Vincentius; his letter to Optatus is Ep. 190. The figure "2" that follows belongs with On Marriage and Concupiscence.
4. Gratis in Galatians 2:21 means "for nothing," that is, "without cause." The Gloss makes the equation gratis = frustra explicit, and Bradwardine uses it to bring in the Philosophers' maxim against superfluous causes. The gratia/gratis jingle is not otherwise in play here.
5. The print has farum. Fatum is evidently meant, and I translate it so. Famen seems to be Bradwardine's own form from fari, "to speak," on the ancient etymology of fatum as "what has been spoken," that is, a divine utterance or decree.
6. Psalm numbers throughout are Vulgate (Savile's): Psalm 32 = 33, 61 = 62, 88 = 89, 100 = 101, 109 = 110, 131 = 132 in English Bibles. "If I should lie to David" is the Hebrew oath formula, an elliptical self-curse, meaning "I will certainly not lie to David." Augustine and Bradwardine take it exactly so, as God's oath. In sancto meo is literally "in my holy place / my holy one"; I render it "by my holiness."
7. Testamentum in the Vulgate is "covenant" in modern usage. I keep "testament" throughout because the argument turns on the word (the ordinary sense of a will that takes effect at death versus the Scriptural sense of any pact). Savile's "Isidorum 5. Ethic. 8" is presumably Isidore's Etymologiae. The abbreviation looks misread or misprinted, and I have not verified the book and chapter; I give it as printed.
8. The Vulgate and Old Latin of Psalm 88:34 read neque nocebo in veritate mea, literally "nor will I harm in my truth." The sense is that God will not wrong anyone, or fail, in the matter of his truthfulness. I keep the literal wording.
9. "This Word" is the Son as the Word of God, and "he from whom it is" is the Father. The point is that the Word is unchangeably identical with the truth he expresses, and so can contain nothing false.
10. Si non ut putaui, ita erit is the Hebrew oath formula again: an elliptical conditional meaning "surely as I have thought, so it shall be." The Gloss, and Bradwardine after it, read the "if not" as marking an oath, hence "it cannot be otherwise." I render the Latin literally, since the gloss comments on those very words.
11. Vulgate Heb 6:14 reads nisi benedicens benedicam te. Nisi here is the elliptical oath formula, "[may I be punished] unless…", so "surely"; Savile's gloss above (si non, etc. quasi diceret, aliter non potest fieri) says as much.
12. The print reads procul fantur, siue praefantur. It plays on prophetae / profari: the Prophets speak out (pro-fantur) "from afar" and "beforehand" (prae-fantur). I give the sense in the English and the play only by "from afar."
13. adiunget sua propria in simul is obscure. I take it as "he will add his own [teaching or law] together with it, at the same time," rendering the words as they stand and not guessing at an object. The oracle is a medieval Latin Sibylline prophecy of Christ; I have not traced the exact text Bradwardine used.
14. The glossa Petri super Psalterium is the Psalms commentary of Peter Lombard, the Magna glossatura.
15. Savile numbers Augustine's Tractates on John in two series: "part 1" (to Tr. 54) and "part 2." So part. 2 homilia 62 equals overall Tr. 116, as Savile says (seu 116 totius).
16. John the Evangelist, as the quotation (John 12:37–40) shows. "From the breast of the truth" alludes to John at the Last Supper (John 13:23).
17. The argument depends on the Latin oportet (Greek dei), which Bradwardine, with Isidore and Christ, equates with necesse est. English has no single word for both. I render oportet / oportuit by "must / had to," and necesse est by "it is necessary." In the chapter's argument "must" is meant in this strong sense: it cannot fail to happen.
18. Glossa Thomae most probably refers to Aquinas's Catena aurea, since Isidore and Bede are quoted "as cited in the gloss of Thomas." The Gloss quoted on Matt 1:22 just before is attributed to no one by Bradwardine.
19. The Vulgate of Ps 43:8 (44:7) has the past tenses (Saluasti nos… et odientes nos confudisti). Cassiodorus's remark, as Bradwardine reports it, is that the future (saluabis… confundes) would seem the natural tense, but the Psalmist uses the past because the future is as certain as the past.
20. nondum enim quos praesciuit adhuc nascituros, sic iam temporaliter vocauit, iustificauit, magnificauit. It is a compressed sentence: Anselm's point is that Paul's "already" (the past tense) cannot refer to temporal calling, since those foreknown are not yet even born. I have kept the words in order.