{"id": "3/48", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/48/", "site": "bradwardine", "collection": "book-3", "title": "De causa Dei: Book III, Chapter 48", "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": "803B–804B", "scan_url": "https://archive.org/details/decausadeicontra00braduoft"}, "source_text": "CAP. XLVIII. Recitat quatuor responsiones, et corrigit.\n\nHIc autem occurrunt multae proteruiae responsiuae: quidam namque volentes Deum ab omni mendacio excusari, dicunt quod licet Deus praedixerit quicquam hominibus in proprio genere, promiserit,\n\natque iurauerit, possibile tamen est cum nunquam tale quid fecisse. Istud autem, etsi secundum aliquam phantasiam videatur posse dici de Deo, de Christo tamen secundum naturam humanam dici non potest, sicut erat ostensum quadragesimo quarto et quadragesimo quinto huius. Licet enim viderctur hoc posse de Deo dici reuelante in verbo, de ipso tamen reuelante in proprio genere dici non potest: talis namque reuelatio est aliqua res creata, significans naturaliter vno modo, sicut quadragesimum quartum huius docet; quare necesse est omnem talem reuelationem praeteritam iam fuisse, et significasse naturaliter illo modo. Fiat igitur talis reuelatio, quod A. erit, tunc si sit possibile A. non fore; est consequenter possibile, quod quando Deus illud asseruit et iurauit, hoc fecisse contra mentem, cum omnia semper sciat; quare et fuisse mentitum, atque periurum, decepisse quoque suos charissimos sine culpa, contra\n\nproximo praeostensa. Potestque similiter argui et probabilius forsitan de praesenti. Item tunc nulla fides aut minima esset diuinis promissionibus etiam iuratorijs adhibenda, et minor quam humanis, sicut quadragesimo quinto et proximo est argutum. Item hoc est expresse contra autoritates ex Psalmo 88. et expositionibus eius, atque alias similes capitulo proximo recitatas, est etiam contra prius ostensa tricesimo secundo istius. Item tunc quod Deus reuelauit ad vnum intellectum in proprio genere, posset non ad illum, sed ad alium reuelasse, contra praehabita quadragesimo quinto huius. Item eadem ratione quod Deus nunquam reuelauit in proprio genere Esaiae, potest sibi reuelasse, et nedum sibi, sed et alteri cuicunque, quare qui nunquam fuit Propheta, nunc potest fuisse Propheta. Potestque Deus simili ratione nunquam instituisse illa, quae vere fuerunt et sunt Ecclesiastica Sacramenta ad effectum salutis, sed alia statuisse; quare fideles praeteriti possunt non fuisse in via salutis neque saluati, et infideles praeteriti sic fuisse. Pari etiam ratione potest nunc Deus non praecepisse quod\n\nolim praecepit; quare et qui solum contra illud faciendo peccauit, et damnationem suscepit, nunquam peccasse nec damnatus fuisse; alias enim impotens homo peccando necessitaret omnipotentem Deum ad olim aliquid praecepisse. Amplius si Deus potest non praedixisse aut promisisse futurum, potest et praeteritum, puta incarnationem, passionem, et similia, quod non videtur: potest quoque simili ratione non praeuoluisse nec praesciuisse praeterita; quare et consequenter praeterita non fuisse, sicut totum apparet ex tricesimo, et tricesimo primo huius. Alij vero dicunt quod illud, quod Deus reuelauit in proprio genere ad vnum intellectum, potest non ad illum, sed ad alium reuelasse. Haec autem responsio reprobabitur, sicut prior, quae etiam potest refelli per praehabita quadragesimo quinto huius; quam et similiter destruunt autoritates ex Psalmo 88. et eius expositionibus, et aliae similes capitulo proximo allegatae. Alij autem ponunt, quod Deus nunquam reuelat in proprio genere futurum contingens, nisi sub aliqua conditione tacita vel expressa. Sed isti difficultatem\n\nnon vitant. Licet enim Deus de facto non reuelasset aliquid absolute sine conditione, scilicet qualicunque, posset tamen aliquid sic reuelare; sic enim scit multa futura, et sic Pater filio, et amborum spiritui reuelauit, et homini Christo Iesu, sicut ex trice simo quarto et quadragesimo secundo huius potest haberi: qui et possunt ad veritatem reduci per praehabita in correptione similis responsionis quadragesimo quinto huius. Et si quis adhuc non erubuerit proteruire dicendo Deum posse reuelasse, et asseruisse homini in proprio genere sub conditione saltem tacite intellecta illud quod reuelauit et asseruit absolute, corrigetur, vt spero, per eadem, per quae quadragesimo quinto huius responsio similis est correpta; potest etiam reduci per eadem, per quae prima responsio huius capituli reducebatur ab inuio et errore: omnes etiam responsiones praemissae sunt insufficientes, et multipliciter diminutae. Licet enim ad aliquam vnam rationem seu autoritatem, vel ad paucas respondere forsitan videantur, ad alias tamen plures nullam habent apparentiam respondendi, sicut pater consideranti\n\ndilucide has et illas.", "english": "CHAPTER 48. He recites four responses, and corrects them.\n\nHere, however, many insolent rejoinders present themselves. Some, wishing to clear God of every falsehood, say that even if God has foretold something to men in its proper kind [n1], and has promised and sworn it, it is nevertheless possible that he never did any such thing. Now this, even if by some fancy it might seem sayable of God, cannot be said of Christ according to his human nature, as was shown in 44 and 45 of this book. For although it might seem that this can be said of God when he reveals in word, it cannot be said of him when he reveals in its proper kind. Such a revelation is a created thing that signifies naturally in one way, as 44 of this book teaches. It is therefore necessary that every such revelation is already past and has signified naturally in that way.\n\nLet there be such a revelation, then, that A will be. Then if it is possible that A will not be, it follows that it is possible that when God asserted and swore that, he did it against his mind, since he always knows everything. Hence it follows that he lied and perjured himself, and also deceived his dearest ones without any fault of theirs, which is contrary to what was shown in the preceding chapter.\n\nA similar argument can be made about the present, and perhaps with more probability. Again, in that case no faith, or the least, would have to be given to the divine promises, even sworn ones, and less than to human ones, as was argued in 45 and in the preceding chapter. Again, this is expressly against the authorities from Psalm 88 [n2] and its expositions, and against other like ones cited in the preceding chapter; it is also against what was shown earlier in 32 of this book.\n\nAgain, in that case what God revealed to one intellect in its proper kind could have been revealed not to that one but to another, which is against what was set out in 45 of this book. Again, by the same reasoning, since God never revealed anything to Isaiah in its proper kind, he can have revealed it to him, and not only to him but to anyone else; hence one who was never a Prophet can now have been a Prophet. By a like reasoning God can also never have instituted what truly were and are the Sacraments of the Church for the effect of salvation, and can have established others instead. Hence the faithful of the past can have not been on the way of salvation or saved, and the unfaithful of the past can have been so. By equal reasoning, too, God can now not have commanded what he once commanded. Hence one who sinned only by acting against that command, and incurred damnation, would never have sinned nor been damned. Otherwise, in sinning, a powerless man would constrain almighty God to have commanded something at some earlier time.\n\nFurther, if God can have not foretold or promised a future thing, he can also have not foretold or promised a past one (for example the incarnation, the passion and the like), which does not seem so. By a like reasoning he can also have not willed beforehand nor foreknown past things [n3]; and consequently the past things did not occur, as is wholly clear from 30 and 31 of this book.\n\nOthers, however, say that what God revealed in its proper kind to one intellect he can have revealed not to that one but to another. This response will be reproved like the first. It can also be refuted by what was set out in 45 of this book; and the authorities from Psalm 88 and their expositions, and other similar ones alleged in the preceding chapter, likewise destroy it.\n\nOthers, again, hold that God never reveals a future contingent in its proper kind except under some condition, tacit or expressed. But these do not avoid the difficulty.\n\nFor although God had not in fact revealed anything absolutely, without a condition of whatever sort, he could nevertheless reveal something in that way. For in that way he knows many future things, and in that way the Father revealed them to the Son and to the Spirit of both, and to the man Christ Jesus, as can be gathered from 34 and 42 of this book. And these [n4] can be brought back to the truth by what was set out in the correction of a similar response in 45 of this book.\n\nAnd if anyone still does not blush to be insolent, saying that God can have revealed and asserted to a man in its proper kind, under a condition at least tacitly understood, what he revealed and asserted absolutely, he will be corrected, I hope, by the same things by which a similar response was corrected in 45 of this book. He can also be brought back by the same things by which the first response of this chapter was brought back from its pathless error.\n\nAll the responses set out above, moreover, are insufficient and defective in many ways. For although they may perhaps seem to answer one argument or authority, or a few, to many others they have no appearance of answering, as is plain to anyone who considers these and those clearly.", "apparatus": {"notes": [{"n": 1, "text": "In proprio genere is a revelation made by a created thing that signifies naturally (see the next sentence), as opposed to revelation in verbo, by word. The distinction is worked out in the chapters cited here (44–45). I render it \"in its proper kind\" throughout."}, {"n": 2, "text": "Psalm 88 in the Vulgate is Psalm 89 in the English numbering."}, {"n": 3, "text": "Praeuoluisse is from praevelle, \"to will beforehand\", paired with praescire, \"to foreknow\". It is not from praevolvere."}, {"n": 4, "text": "Savile prints the masculine qui, with no clear masculine antecedent; the neuter quae would be expected, for the things revealed or the passages cited. I translate \"these\" and leave the antecedent open."}], "errata": [{"address": "803C", "keyed": "viderctur", "print": "videretur"}, {"address": "804A", "keyed": "trice simo", "print": "tricesimo"}, {"address": "804A", "keyed": "pater", "print": "patet"}]}, "segments": [{"anchor": "p803B", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/48/#p803B", "locator_display": "803B", "source_text": "CAP. XLVIII. Recitat quatuor responsiones, et corrigit.", "english": "CHAPTER 48. He recites four responses, and corrects them.", "margins": []}, {"anchor": "p803B-2", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/48/#p803B-2", "locator_display": "803B–803C", "source_text": "HIc autem occurrunt multae proteruiae responsiuae: quidam namque volentes Deum ab omni mendacio excusari, dicunt quod licet Deus praedixerit quicquam hominibus in proprio genere, promiserit,\n\natque iurauerit, possibile tamen est cum nunquam tale quid fecisse. Istud autem, etsi secundum aliquam phantasiam videatur posse dici de Deo, de Christo tamen secundum naturam humanam dici non potest, sicut erat ostensum quadragesimo quarto et quadragesimo quinto huius. Licet enim viderctur hoc posse de Deo dici reuelante in verbo, de ipso tamen reuelante in proprio genere dici non potest: talis namque reuelatio est aliqua res creata, significans naturaliter vno modo, sicut quadragesimum quartum huius docet; quare necesse est omnem talem reuelationem praeteritam iam fuisse, et significasse naturaliter illo modo. Fiat igitur talis reuelatio, quod A. erit, tunc si sit possibile A. non fore; est consequenter possibile, quod quando Deus illud asseruit et iurauit, hoc fecisse contra mentem, cum omnia semper sciat; quare et fuisse mentitum, atque periurum, decepisse quoque suos charissimos sine culpa, contra", "english": "Here, however, many insolent rejoinders present themselves. Some, wishing to clear God of every falsehood, say that even if God has foretold something to men in its proper kind [n1], and has promised and sworn it, it is nevertheless possible that he never did any such thing. Now this, even if by some fancy it might seem sayable of God, cannot be said of Christ according to his human nature, as was shown in 44 and 45 of this book. For although it might seem that this can be said of God when he reveals in word, it cannot be said of him when he reveals in its proper kind. Such a revelation is a created thing that signifies naturally in one way, as 44 of this book teaches. It is therefore necessary that every such revelation is already past and has signified naturally in that way.\n\nLet there be such a revelation, then, that A will be. Then if it is possible that A will not be, it follows that it is possible that when God asserted and swore that, he did it against his mind, since he always knows everything. Hence it follows that he lied and perjured himself, and also deceived his dearest ones without any fault of theirs, which is contrary to what was shown in the preceding chapter.", "margins": []}, {"anchor": "p803D", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/48/#p803D", "locator_display": "803D–803E", "source_text": "proximo praeostensa. Potestque similiter argui et probabilius forsitan de praesenti. Item tunc nulla fides aut minima esset diuinis promissionibus etiam iuratorijs adhibenda, et minor quam humanis, sicut quadragesimo quinto et proximo est argutum. Item hoc est expresse contra autoritates ex Psalmo 88. et expositionibus eius, atque alias similes capitulo proximo recitatas, est etiam contra prius ostensa tricesimo secundo istius. Item tunc quod Deus reuelauit ad vnum intellectum in proprio genere, posset non ad illum, sed ad alium reuelasse, contra praehabita quadragesimo quinto huius. Item eadem ratione quod Deus nunquam reuelauit in proprio genere Esaiae, potest sibi reuelasse, et nedum sibi, sed et alteri cuicunque, quare qui nunquam fuit Propheta, nunc potest fuisse Propheta. Potestque Deus simili ratione nunquam instituisse illa, quae vere fuerunt et sunt Ecclesiastica Sacramenta ad effectum salutis, sed alia statuisse; quare fideles praeteriti possunt non fuisse in via salutis neque saluati, et infideles praeteriti sic fuisse. Pari etiam ratione potest nunc Deus non praecepisse quod\n\nolim praecepit; quare et qui solum contra illud faciendo peccauit, et damnationem suscepit, nunquam peccasse nec damnatus fuisse; alias enim impotens homo peccando necessitaret omnipotentem Deum ad olim aliquid praecepisse. Amplius si Deus potest non praedixisse aut promisisse futurum, potest et praeteritum, puta incarnationem, passionem, et similia, quod non videtur: potest quoque simili ratione non praeuoluisse nec praesciuisse praeterita; quare et consequenter praeterita non fuisse, sicut totum apparet ex tricesimo, et tricesimo primo huius. Alij vero dicunt quod illud, quod Deus reuelauit in proprio genere ad vnum intellectum, potest non ad illum, sed ad alium reuelasse. Haec autem responsio reprobabitur, sicut prior, quae etiam potest refelli per praehabita quadragesimo quinto huius; quam et similiter destruunt autoritates ex Psalmo 88. et eius expositionibus, et aliae similes capitulo proximo allegatae. Alij autem ponunt, quod Deus nunquam reuelat in proprio genere futurum contingens, nisi sub aliqua conditione tacita vel expressa. Sed isti difficultatem", "english": "A similar argument can be made about the present, and perhaps with more probability. Again, in that case no faith, or the least, would have to be given to the divine promises, even sworn ones, and less than to human ones, as was argued in 45 and in the preceding chapter. Again, this is expressly against the authorities from Psalm 88 [n2] and its expositions, and against other like ones cited in the preceding chapter; it is also against what was shown earlier in 32 of this book.\n\nAgain, in that case what God revealed to one intellect in its proper kind could have been revealed not to that one but to another, which is against what was set out in 45 of this book. Again, by the same reasoning, since God never revealed anything to Isaiah in its proper kind, he can have revealed it to him, and not only to him but to anyone else; hence one who was never a Prophet can now have been a Prophet. By a like reasoning God can also never have instituted what truly were and are the Sacraments of the Church for the effect of salvation, and can have established others instead. Hence the faithful of the past can have not been on the way of salvation or saved, and the unfaithful of the past can have been so. By equal reasoning, too, God can now not have commanded what he once commanded. Hence one who sinned only by acting against that command, and incurred damnation, would never have sinned nor been damned. Otherwise, in sinning, a powerless man would constrain almighty God to have commanded something at some earlier time.\n\nFurther, if God can have not foretold or promised a future thing, he can also have not foretold or promised a past one (for example the incarnation, the passion and the like), which does not seem so. By a like reasoning he can also have not willed beforehand nor foreknown past things [n3]; and consequently the past things did not occur, as is wholly clear from 30 and 31 of this book.\n\nOthers, however, say that what God revealed in its proper kind to one intellect he can have revealed not to that one but to another. This response will be reproved like the first. It can also be refuted by what was set out in 45 of this book; and the authorities from Psalm 88 and their expositions, and other similar ones alleged in the preceding chapter, likewise destroy it.\n\nOthers, again, hold that God never reveals a future contingent in its proper kind except under some condition, tacit or expressed. But these do not avoid the difficulty.", "margins": []}, {"anchor": "p804A", "url": "https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/48/#p804A", "locator_display": "804A–804B", "source_text": "non vitant. Licet enim Deus de facto non reuelasset aliquid absolute sine conditione, scilicet qualicunque, posset tamen aliquid sic reuelare; sic enim scit multa futura, et sic Pater filio, et amborum spiritui reuelauit, et homini Christo Iesu, sicut ex trice simo quarto et quadragesimo secundo huius potest haberi: qui et possunt ad veritatem reduci per praehabita in correptione similis responsionis quadragesimo quinto huius. Et si quis adhuc non erubuerit proteruire dicendo Deum posse reuelasse, et asseruisse homini in proprio genere sub conditione saltem tacite intellecta illud quod reuelauit et asseruit absolute, corrigetur, vt spero, per eadem, per quae quadragesimo quinto huius responsio similis est correpta; potest etiam reduci per eadem, per quae prima responsio huius capituli reducebatur ab inuio et errore: omnes etiam responsiones praemissae sunt insufficientes, et multipliciter diminutae. Licet enim ad aliquam vnam rationem seu autoritatem, vel ad paucas respondere forsitan videantur, ad alias tamen plures nullam habent apparentiam respondendi, sicut pater consideranti\n\ndilucide has et illas.", "english": "For although God had not in fact revealed anything absolutely, without a condition of whatever sort, he could nevertheless reveal something in that way. For in that way he knows many future things, and in that way the Father revealed them to the Son and to the Spirit of both, and to the man Christ Jesus, as can be gathered from 34 and 42 of this book. And these [n4] can be brought back to the truth by what was set out in the correction of a similar response in 45 of this book.\n\nAnd if anyone still does not blush to be insolent, saying that God can have revealed and asserted to a man in its proper kind, under a condition at least tacitly understood, what he revealed and asserted absolutely, he will be corrected, I hope, by the same things by which a similar response was corrected in 45 of this book. He can also be brought back by the same things by which the first response of this chapter was brought back from its pathless error.\n\nAll the responses set out above, moreover, are insufficient and defective in many ways. For although they may perhaps seem to answer one argument or authority, or a few, to many others they have no appearance of answering, as is plain to anyone who considers these and those clearly.", "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"}