Dialogus Biling V

7/30/2019 Dialogus Biling V

1/13

William of Ockham, Dialogus,

part 1, book 4, chapters 1-5

Text and translation by John Scott.

Copyright 1999, The British Academy

Capitulum 1 Chapter 1.

Discipulus Volo hic istum tertium finiri

et ad quartum me transferre. Intendoenim inquirere quomodo de pertinacia

debeat quis convinci. Ante omnia tamen

cupio scire quomodo "pertinax",

diffinitione exprimente quid nominis,

diffinitur. Ex tali namque diffinitione, ut

puto, multae difficultates debent solvi,

nec sine ipsius noticia potest sciri

qualiter de pertinacia debeat quis

convinci.

Disciple I want to finish this third [book]

here and to move on to the fourth. For Iintend to ask how someone ought to be

convicted of pertinacity. First of all,

however, I want to know how

"pertinacious" is defined by a definition

expressing the meaning of the word. For I

think that such a definition should resolve

many difficulties and that without such a

conception it can not be known how

someone ought to be convicted of

pertinacity.

"Pertinacious" defined

Magister "Pertinax" a quibusdam

diffinitur sic: pertinax est qui persistit in

eo quod debet dimittere. Istam

diffinitionem declarant dupliciter. Primo,

auctoritate Isidori dicentis quod pertinax

dicitur quasi impudenter tenax. Ille

autem est impudenter tenax qui tenet

quod debet dimittere. Ergo et pertinaxest ille qui tenet et persistit in illo quod

debet dimittere. Secundo, sic:

perseverantia et pertinacia opponuntur et

contrarias debent diffinitiones habere.

Sed perseverans diciturille qui persistit

in illo quod non debet dimittere. Ergo

pertinax diciturille qui persistit in illo

quod debet dimittere.

Master "Pertinacious" is defined by certain

people thus: a pertinacious person is one

who persists in that which he ought to put

aside. They explain that definition in two

ways. Firstly, on the authority of Isidore

who says that a pertinacious person is

described as if he were shamelessly

tenacious; he is shamelessly tenacious,however, who holds onto what he should

put aside; and that person is pertinacious,

therefore, who holds onto and persists in

that which he should put aside.Secondly

thus: perseverance and pertinacity are

opposed and ought to have contrary

definitions; but that person is said to be

persevering who persists in that which he

should not put aside; that person is said to

be pertinacious, therefore, who persists in

that which he should put aside.


2/13

Discipulus Miror quod isti volunt

probare diffinitionem pertinacis de

pertinace, cum diffinitio de diffinito

probari non possit.

Disciple I wonder that they want to prove

the definition of "pertinacious" from one

who is pertinacious, since a definition can

not be proved from the thing defined.

Magister Non intendunt probare proprie

loquendo diffinitionem "pertinacis" de

pertinace, sed volunt declarare et per

declarationes manifestare quodammodo

diffinitionem "pertinacis".

Master They do not intend strictly speaking

to prove the definition of "pertinacious"

from one who is pertinacious but they want

to explain it and by explanations to make

the definition of "pertinacious" in some way

clear.

Discipulus De talibus difficultatibus

nolo me intromittere multum ad

praesens, sed aliud movet me contra

diffinitionem praedictam, quia secundumeam omnis errans est pertinax. Omnis

enim errans aliquamdiu est in errore. Sed

nullus unquam debet esse in errore,

immo omnis errans debet errorem

dimittere. Ergo omnis errans est

pertinax.

Disciple I do not want to get much involved

with such difficulties now, but something

else moves me against the aforesaid

definition because according to it everyoneerring is pertinacious. For everyone erring is

in error for some time; but no one should

ever be in error; on the contrary everyone

erring should put aside his error. Everyone

erring, therefore, is pertinacious.

Magister Dicunt per aequivocationem te

decipi. Est enim debitumnecessitatis et

est debitumcongruitatis. In praedicta

autem diffinitione debet accipisecundum quod importat debitum

necessitatis, ut iste sit sensus: pertinax

est ille qui persistit in aliquo quod de

necessitate debet dimittere. Esto ergo

quod omnis errans debito congruitatis

deberet omnem errorem dimittere, quod

non est verum, non tamen omnis errans

de necessitate salutis omni tempore

debet errorem suum dimittere.

Master They say that you are misled by an

ambiguity, for there is a duty of necessity

and a duty of congruity. In the aforesaid

definition, however, it should be taken in away that implies the duty of necessity, so

that this is its sense: that person is

pertinacious who persists in something

which he should of necessity put aside.

Even if, therefore, everyone erring were

bound, by the duty of congruity, to put aside

every error - which is not true - yet it is not

the case that everyone erring should of

necessity for salvation put aside his error at

every time.

Discipulus Video quod isti diffiniunt

"pertinacem" communius quam

competat erranti in fide. Ideo appropria

diffinitionem praedictam erranti in fide.

Disciple I see that they define

"pertinacious" more generally than would be

appropriate to one erring in faith. Make the

aforesaid definition then specific to one

erring in faith.

Magister Appropriatur sic. Pertinaciter

errans in fide est qui persistit in heresi

quam debet de necessitate salutis

dimittere.

Master It is made specific thus. He errs

pertinaciously in faith who persists in a

heresy which he ought to put aside from the

necessity of salvation.


3/13

Discipulus Appropria eandem dubitanti

pertinaciter contra fidem.

Disciple Make the same [definition] specific

to one doubting the faith pertinaciously.

Magister Appropriatur sic. Pertinaciter

dubitans contra fidem est qui persistit in

dubitatione circa ea quae fidei sunt quam

debet de necessitate salutis dimittere.

Master It is made specific thus. That person

pertinaciously doubts the faith who persists

in doubt, which from the necessity of

salvation he should put aside, about matters

of faith.

Discipulus Secundum praedicta omnes

Iudaei et Gentiles essent pertinaces quia

omnes tenentur errorem suum dimittere.

Disciple According to the above remarks,

all Jews and gentiles would be pertinacious

because they are all obliged to put aside his

error.

Magister Ista est difficultas quae

longum tractatum requireret propter illosqui nunquam de fide vera informati

fuerunt; nec est defectus illorum quod

informationem minime habuerunt si qui

sunt tales. De aliis autem Gentilibus et

Iudaeis isti dicunt aperte quod debent in

numero pertinacium reputari.

Master That is a difficulty which would

require a long treatise because of those whohave never been instructed in the true faith.

Because they have not had any instruction it

is not a failing of theirs if they are such as

they are. They say plainly of other gentiles

and Jews, however, that they ought to be

reckoned among the number of the

pertinacious.


Discipulus De ista difficultate nolo

tecum ad praesens collationemhabere,

sed volo te interrogare de proposito

principali, scilicet quomodo de

pertinacia valeat quis convinci.

Disciple I do not want to discuss that

difficulty with you at the moment, but I

want to ask you about the main subject,

namely, how someone can be convicted of

pertinacity.

Magister Circa illa quae fidei sunt

duplex potest pertinaciainveniri. Una

mentalis, quando scilicet quis

pertinaciter corde adhaeret haereticae

pravitati vel pertinaciter dubitat decatholica veritate. Alia est pertinacia

exterior quae facto vel verboexteriori

consistit. Prima pertinacia aliter quam

per praesumptionem probabilem vel

violentam convinci non potest a nobis

quia in talibus non necessario

interioribus exteriora respondent, imo

unum saepe teneturinterius et aliud

exterius similatur.

Master Two kinds of pertinacity can be

found in connection with matters of faith.

One is mental, namely when someone

pertinaciously clings in his heart to heretical

wickedness or pertinaciously doubtscatholic truth. The other is exterior

pertinacity which consists in an outward

deed or a word.We can not convict anyone

of the first form of pertinacity except by a

probable or a violent presumption, because

in such cases what is on the outside does not

necessarily correspond to what is within;

indeed, often one thing is held within and

another thing counterfeited on the outside.

Discipulus Quamvis intentio mea fuerit Disciple Although my intention was to


4/13

interrogare de pertinacia exteriori

solummodo, causa tamen exercitii dicas

aliqua de pertinacia interiori et mentali,

quis videlicet pertinaciter errat in mente?

question you only about exterior pertinacity,

yet as an exercise [causa exercitii] would

you say something about interior and mental

pertinacity; who, that is to say, errs

pertinaciously in his mind?

Mental pertinacity

Magister Sunt quidam dicentes quod

tripliciter potest quis errare pertinaciter

in mente. Primo quidem si quis non

obstantibus miraculis quae audivit fuisse

facta pro fide confirmanda putat fidem

esse falsam vel incertam. Secundo, si in

genere credit totam fidem esse veram,

alicui tamen errori in speciali, quem

nescit explicite ad fidem pertinere,

adhaeret tam fortiter quod

quantumcunque sibi evidenter

ostenderetur pertinere ad fidem, dictum

errorem nullo modo dimitteret sed ante

putaret fidem esse falsam. Sicut si in

Veteri Testamento quando fideles

credere trinitatem personarum cum

unitate divinitatis explicite minime

tenebantur, aliquis credens totamdoctrinam Moysi et fidelium esse veram

in speciali putasset quod tres personae

non sunt unus Deus et suo errori tam

fortiter adhaesisset quod ante doctrinam

Moysi et prophetarum credidisset esse

falsam quamtenuisset tres personas esse

unum Deum. Iste licet in genere

credidisset totam fidem Moysi et

prophetarum esse veram, pertinax

extitisset. Tertio, potest quis esse

mentaliter pertinax in errore si alicuierrori adhaeret et negligit quando et

quomodo debet quaerere veritatem, quia

talis non est paratus corrigi sed persistit

in errore quem debet de necessitate

salutis dimittere.

Master Some people say that there are three

ways someone can err pertinaciously in his

mind. The first is if, for example,

notwithstanding the miracles that he has

heard have been done to confirm the faith,

someone thinks that the faith is false or

uncertain. The second is if in general he

believes that the whole faith is true yet he

adheres so strongly to some particular error,

which he does not know pertains explicitly

to the faith, that no matter how clearly it

were shown to him that the said error does

pertain to the faith he would in no way put it

aside but would sooner think that the faith is

false. It is just as if, when the faithful in the

Old Testament were not bound to believe

explicitly in a trinity of persons together

with a unity of divinity, someone believingthat the whole teaching of Moses and the

faithful is true had thought in particular that

three persons are not one God and had clung

so strongly to his error that he would have

believed the teaching of Moses and the

prophets to be false before he would have

held that three persons are one God.

Although he would have believed in general

that the whole faith of Moses and the

prophets is true, he would have been

pertinacious.Thirdly, someone can bementally pertinacious in error if he clings to

some error and neglects when and how he

ought to seek the truth, because such a

person is not ready to be corrected but

persists in an error which he ought to put

aside from necessity of salvation.

Discipulus Inter negligentiam et

pertinaciam differentia reperitur. Sed iste

ultimus est negligens. Ergo non est

pertinax.

Disciple A difference is found between

negligence and pertinacity; but that last-

mentioned person is negligent; therefore he

is not pertinacious.


5/13

Magister Respondetur quod quamvis

negligentia et pertinacia distinguantur,

tamen aliquis est negligens etiam

pertinax, nec est inconveniens quod

aliqua negligentia sitpertinacia

reputanda.

Master It is replied that although

negligence and pertinacity are distinguished,

someone negligent is nevertheless also

pertinacious and it is not inappropriate that

some negligence should be considered to be

pertinacity.

Discipulus Potestne aliquis dubitare

pertinaciter contra fidem?

Disciple Can someone pertinaciously doubt

the faith?

Magister Dicitur quod tot modis quis

potest pertinaciter dubitare contra fidem

quot modis potest errare pertinaciter

contra fidem.

Master It is said that someone can doubt the

faith pertinaciously in as many ways as he

can err pertinaciously against the faith.

Discipulus Nunquid potest aliomododistingui de pertinaci propter

pertinaciam interiorem?

Disciple Can a distinction concerning thepertinacious person be made in another way,

on account of interior pertinacity?

Magister Aliter distinguitur de tali

pertinaci saltem quantum ad verba, quia

sicut secundum beatum Augustinum

quidam est haereticus scienter et quidam

est haereticus nescienter, ita quidam est

pertinax scienter, ille scilicet qui putat

fidem Christianam pro aliqua sui parte

esse falsam, et quidam est pertinaxnescienter, qui scilicet credit in genere

totam fidem Christianam esse veram, in

speciali tamen alicui errori pertinaciter

contra fidem adhaeret.

Master A distinction is made concerning

the pertinacious person in another way, at

least as far as it concerns words, because

just as, according to blessed Augustine, one

person is knowingly a heretic and another

person is unknowingly a heretic, so one

person is knowingly pertinacious - namely

he who thinks that the christian faith is insome part false - and another is

unknowingly pertinacious - namely he who

believes in general that the whole christian

faith is true but clings pertinaciously to

some particular error against the faith.

Is it possible to be a heretic knowingly?

Discipulus Quomodo quis potest

scienter pertinax esse? Videtur enimquod hoc contradictionem includit. Si

enim est scienter pertinax scit se esse

pertinacem; sed hoc includit

contradictionem, quia qui errat putat esse

verum circa quod errat, eo quod errare

est approbare falsum pro vero. Nullus

ergo scit se errare. Et ita nullus est

scienter pertinax quia nullus scit se esse

pertinacem in errore.

Disciple How can someone be knowingly

pertinacious? This seems to contain acontradiction, for if he is knowingly

pertinacious, he knows that he is

pertinacious; but this contains a

contradiction, because he who errs thinks

that to be true about which he is in error, in

that to err is to regard the false as true. No

one therefore knows that he errs; and thus

no one is knowingly pertinacious because

no one knows that he is pertinacious in

error.


6/13

Magister Ista sententia"pertinacis

scienter" non debet referri ad

pertinaciam errantis, ut aliquis sciat se

pertinaciter errare, sed debet referri ad

contrarietatem suae pertinaciae vel

erroris ad fidem Christianam, ut dicatur

scienter pertinax quiascit assertionem

circa quam errat esse contrariam fidei

Christianae, quemadmodum dicitur quis

scienter haereticusnon quia sciat se esse

haereticum sed quia scit assertionem

suam esse contrariam fidei Christianae.

Sicut igitur ille vocatur scienter

haereticus qui scit assertionem suam

quae in rei veritate esthaeresis esse

contrariam fidei Christianae, et illedicitur ignoranter sive nescienter

hereticus qui assertionem suam nescit

esse contrariam fidei Christianae sed

putat esse consonam fidei Christianae,

sic ille dicitur scienter pertinax in errore

haereticali qui scit assertionem quam

putat veram esse contrariam fidei

Christianae. Ille autem dicitur ignoranter

sive nescienter pertinax in errore

haereticali qui nescit assertionem suam

esse contrariam fidei Christianae.

Master That phrase "knowingly

pertinacious" should not be related to the

pertinacity of the person erring - in the sense

that someone knows himself to err

pertinaciously - but should be related to the

opposition between his pertinacity or error

and the christian faith - in the sense that he

is said to be knowingly pertinacious because

he knows that the assertion about which he

is in error is opposed to christian faith. In

the same way someone is said to be

knowingly a heretic not because he may

know he is a heretic but because he knows

that his assertion is opposed to the christian

faith. Just as he is called knowingly a

heretic, therefore, who knows that hisassertion, which in truth of fact is a heresy,

is contrary to christian faith and he is called

ignorantly or unknowingly a heretic who

does not know that his assertion is opposed

to christian faith but thinks that it is

consistent with christian faith, so he is

called knowingly pertinacious in heretical

error who knows that an assertion which he

thinks is true is opposed to christian faith.

But he is called ignorantly or unknowingly

pertinacious in heretical error who does notknow that his assertion is opposed to

christian faith.


Discipulus Distinctionem inter scienter

pertinacem et nescienter pertinacem et

similiter inter scienter haereticum et

nescienter haereticum modo aliter quam

prius intelligo, et ideo quamvis priusputaverimnullum esse scienter

pertinacem aut scienter haereticum, nunc

mihi videtur quod omnispertinax in

errore et omnis haereticus est scienter

pertinax et scienter haereticus et nullus

penitus nescienter Quod potest tali

ratione probari. Ad hoc quod aliquis sit

catholicuset fidelis sufficit fides

implicita. Hoc per exemplum de

Cornelio centurione de quo habetur

Actuum 10 c. patere videtur. Qui

Disciple Now I understand differently from

before the distinction between a knowingly

pertinacious and an unknowingly

pertinacious person and likewise [the

distinction] between a knowingly hereticaland an unknowingly heretical person. And

therefore although I thought before that no

one was knowingly pertinacious or

knowingly a heretic, now it seems to me

that everyone pertinacious in error and

every heretic is knowingly pertinacious and

knowingly a heretic and absolutely no one is

unknowingly so. This can be proved by the

following argument. For someone to be

catholic and faithful it is enough that he has

implicit faith. This seems to be clear from


7/13

antequam de Christo fidem haberet

explicitam fuit fidelis quia iustus et

timens Deum et per consequens fidem

habuit saltem implicitam. Et ita fides

implicita sufficit ad hoc quod aliquissit

catholicus et fidelis. Sed quicunque non

est scienter pertinax neque scienter

haereticus modo praeexposito habet

fidem implicitam quia, ex hoc ipso quod

non putat se errare contra fidem

Christianam, credit totam fidem

Christianam esse veram, licet in aliquo

speciali erret. Qui autem credit totam

fidem Christianamveram habet fidem

implicitam. Ergo est catholicus et fidelis

et per consequens non est pertinax nequehaereticus. Confirmatur haec ratio quia

qui credit totam fidem Christianam esse

veramhabet fidem de omni veritate

pertinente ad fidem Christianam; qui

autem habet fidem de omni veritate

pertinente ad fidem Christianamnon est

haereticus et per consequens non est

pertinax. Sed quicunque non est scienter

pertinax neque scienter haereticus credit

totam fidem Christianam esse veram;

ergo habet fidem de omni veritatepertinente ad fidem Christianam, et per

consequens nullo modo est haereticus

nec pertinax.

the example of the centurion Cornelius,

about whom we read in Acts 10. He was

faithful before he had explicit faith

concerning Christ because he was just and

feared God and as a result did have at least

implicit faith. And thus implicit faith

suffices for someone to be catholic and

faithful. But whoever is not knowingly

pertinacious or knowingly a heretic in the

way set out earlier has implicit faith

because, from the fact that he does not think

that he is erring against the christian faith,

he believes that the whole christian faith is

true even if he errs in some particular. Now

he who believes that the whole christian

faith is true has implicit faith. He is,therefore, catholic and faithful and as a

result is neither pertinacious nor a heretic.

This argument is confirmed because he who

believes that the whole christian faith is true

has faith in every truth pertaining to the

christian faith; he who has faith in every

truth pertaining to the christian faith,

however, is not a heretic and as a result is

not pertinacious. But whoever is not

knowingly pertinacious nor knowingly a

heretic believes that the whole christianfaith is true; he has faith, therefore, in every

truth pertaining to christian faith and

consequently is in no way a heretic or

pertinacious.

Magister Istae obiectiones principaliter

inducuntur ad probandum quod nullus

est nescienter haereticus.

Master Those objections are brought

forward mainly to prove that no one is

unknowingly a heretic.

Discipulus Ita est. Disciple That is so.

Magister Dimittamus ergo loqui de

pertinace et sufficiat de haeretico facere

mentionem.

Master Let us therefore put aside speaking

about someone pertinacious and let it be

enough to talk about a heretic.

Discipulus Placet quiaqui potest videre

quomodo quis potest esse nescienter

haereticus non dubitabit quin valebitquis

esse pertinaxnescienter.

Disciple This is acceptable because he who

can see how anyone can be unknowingly a

heretic will not doubt that someone will be

able to be unknowingly pertinacious.

Magister De nescienter haereticodistinguitur. Quidam enim sunt vel esse

Master A distinction is made among thosewho are unknowingly heretics. For some


8/13

possunt nescienter haeretici quia scienter

et explicite arbitrantur aliquas

assertiones sub forma propria scriptas in

scriptura divina ad fidem Christianam

nullatenus pertinere. Tales fuerunt

Manichei qui, secundum Isidorum prout

recitatur24. q. 3. c. Quidam autem,

Testamentum Vetus respuerunt et

Novum ex parte tantummodoreceperunt

et ita putabant se catholicos et fideles

Christianos et ideo fuerunt nescienter

haeretici quia assertiones contentasin

Veteri Testamento asserverunt ad fidem

Christianam minime pertinere. Quidam

autem sunt nescienter haeretici qui

nullam assertionempertinentem adfidem Christianam sub forma propria in

scriptura divina repertam dubitant esse

veram quia totam scripturam divinam

recipiunt, sed tamen aliquas assertiones

sequentes ex illis non credunt esse veras

quia non putant quod sequanturpropter

hoc quod aliter intelligunt Scripturas

Divinas quam sensus Spiritus Sancti

flagitat a quo scriptae sunt. Quidam

autem credunt irrevocabiliter contrarias

assertiones esse veras; ideo haeretici suntcensendi qui tamen in genere credunt

totam fidem Christianam esse veram.

people are or can be unknowingly heretics

because they knowingly and explicitly think

that some assertions written in divine

scripture in those exact words do not pertain

to christian faith. The Manichees were like

this; according to Isidore, as is reported in

24. q. 3. c. Quidam autem [col.1001], they

rejected the Old Testament and accepted the

New only in part and in this way thought

that they were catholic and faithful

christians; and they were unknowingly

heretics, therefore, because they maintained

that the assertions contained in the Old

Testament do not pertain to christian faith.

Certain people are unknowingly heretics,

however, who do not doubt that anyassertion pertaining to the christian faith and

found in divine scripture in those exact

words is true because they accept the whole

of divine scripture, but they do not believe,

on the other hand, that some assertions that

follow from them are true, because they do

not think that they do follow from them, for

the reason that they understand the divine

scriptures in a sense other than the holy

spirit, by whom they are written, demands.

Some people irrevocably believe, moreover,that assertions contrary [to catholic faith]

are true; they should be considered heretics,

therefore, even though they believe in

general that the whole christian faith is true.

Capitulum 4 Chapter 4

Discipulus Ad quid valet ista distinctio? Disciple What is the force of that

distinction?

Magister Per istam distinctionem putant

nonnulli demonstrative probare quod

obiectiones tuae non concludunt.

Master Some people think to prove

demonstratively by that distinction that your

objectionsare not conclusive.

Discipulus Quomodo? Disciple How?

Magister Ex primo membro probant

quod aliqui possunt esse nescienter

haeretici sic: qui credit in genere quod

tota fides Christiana est vera et tamen

credit Vetus Testamentum vel

Master By the first part [of the distinction]

they prove as follows that some people can

unknowingly be heretics: he who believes in

general that the whole christian faith is true

and yet believes that the Old Testament or


9/13

Evangelium Lucae multa continere

erronea, eo quod Vetus Testamentum vel

Evangelium Lucae putatad fidem

Christianam nullatenus pertinere, vere

esthaereticus, praesertim si est pertinax.

Aliter enim posset quis absque haeretica

pravitate dicere quod omnia evangelia ad

fidem non pertinent Christianam. Sed

talis non est scienter haereticus quia non

credit se in aliquo contrariari fidei

Christianae. Ergo aliquis potest esse

haereticus nescienter, quemadmodum

Manichei fuerunt haeretici nescienter

quia putaverunt se esse veraciter

Christianos et omnes alios Christianos

qui Vetus Testamentum receperuntarbitrabantur haereticos contra fidem

Christianam errantes.

the Gospel of Luke contains many errors,

because he thinks that the Old Testament or

the Gospel of Luke does not pertain to

christian faith, is properly a heretic,

especially if he is pertinacious. (For

otherwise anyone could say without

heretical wickedness that all of the gospels

do not pertain to christian faith.) But such a

person is not knowingly a heretic because

he does not believe that he is opposed to the

Christian faith in anything. Someone can be

unknowingly a heretic, therefore, just as the

Manichees were unknowingly heretics

because they thought that they were truly

christians and considered that all other

christians who accepted the Old Testamentwere heretics erring against christian faith.

Discipulus Dic quomodo ad obiectiones

superius tactas respondetur.

Disciple Tell me how reply is made to the

objections touched on above.

Magister Obiectiones illae fundantur in

aequivocatione de fide implicita. Est

enim una fides implicita vera omnem

assertionem pertinacem respectu

cuiuscumquehaereticae pravitatisexcludens. Et istafides implicita sufficit

ad hoc quod habens eam sit catholicus et

fidelis. Alia est fides implicita falsa, qua

scilicet crediturhanc esse veram,"fides

Christiana est vera", sed alia fides quam

illa quae est vere Christiana pro

Christiana habetur. Et talem fidem

habuerunt Manichei quia credebant

fidem Christianam esse veram, sed illam

fidem vocaverunt Christianam quae in

rei veritate non est Christiana, immo est

contraria fidei Christianae. Et sic est de

omnibus haereticis nescienter quodlicet

credant hanc esse veram, "fides

Christiana vel fides ecclesiae universalis

est vera", tamen fidem reputant

Christianam quae in rei veritate non est

Christiana licet credant eam esse

Christianam. Et ideo quamvis nescienter

haeretici sunt.

Master Those objections are based on the

ambiguity of "implicit faith". For there is a

true implicit faith which excludes every

pertinacious assertion of any heretical

wickedness at all. And that implicit faith issufficient for the one having it to be catholic

and faithful. There is another false implicit

faith, by which, that is, it is believed to be

true that "the christian faith is true", but

another faith than that which is truly

christian is held to be christian. The

manichees had such faith because they

believed that the christian faith is true; but

they called christian that faith which in

point of fact is not christian; indeed it is

opposed to the christian faith. And so it is

with all who are unknowingly heretics, that

although they believe that it is true that the

christian faith or the faith of the universal

church is true, yet they regard as christian a

faith which in point of fact is not christian,

although they believe that it is christian.

And they are therefore heretics, although

unknowingly so.

Discipulus Nunquid aliqui credentes Disciple Do some people who believe that


10/13

fidem Christianam esse veram habent

falsam fidem?

the christian faith is true have false faith?

Magister Nullus propter hoc quod credit

fidem Christianam esse veram habet

falsam fidem, sed credens quandam

fidem esse Christianam quae in rei

veritate non est Christiana habet falsam

fidem. Sic Arrius in hoc quod credidit

quod fides Christiana est vera et quod

evangelium continet veritatem non

habuit falsam fidem, sed credendo quod

Filius Dei non est aequalis Patri et quod

hoc pertinet ad catholicam fidem habuit

falsam fidem.

Master No one has false faith for the reason

that he believes that the christian faith is

true; but in believing that a particular faith is

christian which in point of fact is not

christian he has false faith. Thus Arius did

not have false faith because of the fact that

he believed that the christian faith is true

and that the Gospel contains the truth, but

he had false faith in believing that the Son

of God is not equal to the Father and that

this pertains to catholic faith.

Discipulus Adhuc non sunt illa

argumenta soluta quiafundantur in hac

propositione, "omnis fides implicita vera

sufficit ad hoc quod habens eam sit

catholicus et fidelis".

Disciple Those arguments are still not

refuted because they are based on the

proposition that every true implicit faith is

sufficient for the one having it to be catholic

and faithful.

Magister De fide distinguitur, quia

quaedam ponitur fides infusa quam

etiam parvuli baptizati habere dicuntur,

et de hac posset concedi propositio quam

assumis; secundum illam nullus essethaereticus nescienter. Alia est fides

acquisita, quae est credulitas quaedam

qua quis absque dubitatione alicui

assertioni adhaeret. Et sic est propositio

falsa, quia non omnis talis fides implicita

vera sufficit ad hoc quod habens eam sit

catholicus et fidelis. Quamvis enim

nullus sit infidelis propter quamcunque

fidem veram, tamen poterit habens unam

fidem veram esse infidelis propter aliam

fidem falsam.

Master: A distinction is made about faith,

because there is a certain infused faith

which even baptised children are said to

have; and about this [faith] the proposition

which you assume could be granted;according to this no one would be

unknowingly a heretic. Another faith is that

which is acquired and this is a credence by

which anyone adheres without doubting to

some assertion. And in this sense the

proposition is false because not every such

implicit and true faith is sufficient for the

one having it to be catholic and faithful. For

although no one is unfaithful because of any

true faith, yet someone having a true faith

could be unfaithful because of some other

false faith.

Discipulus Tantummodo quantum ad

istammateriamindica quid dicitur ad

illampropositionem: qui credit totam

fidem Christianam esse veram habet

fidem de omni veritate pertinente ad

fidem Christianam.

Disciple Point out, with respect to that

subject only, what is said to the proposition

that he who believes that the whole christian

faith is true has faith in every truth which

pertains to christian faith.

Magister Hoc negatur de fide quaereddit aliquem catholicum, nisi, credens

Master This is denied about the faith thatmakes someone catholic, unless, while


11/13

totam fidem Christianam esse veram,

nullam fidem reputetChristianam nisi

illam solamquae vere est Christiana.

believing that the whole christian faith is

true, he considers no faith to be christian

except that alone which truly is christian.


Discipulus Postquam tecum collationem

habui de pertinacia interiori volo aliqua

interrogare de pertinacia exteriori,

quando scilicet propter ea quae apparent

exterius debent catholici aliquem

errantem contra fidem tanquam

pertinacem habere, et quomodo de

pertinacia in iudicio debeat quis

convinci. In primis autem cupio scire an

uno modo tantum vel pluribus possit

constare aliquem errantemcontra fidem

esse pertinacem.

Disciple Now that I have had a discussion

with you about interior pertinacity, I want to

ask some things about exterior pertinacity.

When, for example, because of some

outward appearance should catholics hold

someone erring against the faith to be

pertinacious, and how should anyone be

convicted in court of pertinacity? First of

all, however, I want to know whether it can

be established in one way only or in several

ways that someone erring against the faith is

pertinacious.

Magister Plures modi ponuntur quibus

possunt catholici praesumptionem

accipere violentam de aliquo quod est

pertinax in errore.

Master Several ways are described by

which catholics can accept the violent

presumption of someone that he is

pertinacious in error.

Discipulus Primo tractemus unum

modum, postea alium.

Disciple Let us first deal with one way; later

with another.

Twenty ways of extablishing from external behaviour a

presumption that a person is a heretic

Magister Primus modus quo potest quis

de pertinacia deprehendi est si facto vel

verbo monstrat se non firmiter credere

fidem Christianam esse veram et sanam,

puta si dicit fidem Christianam esse

falsam vel dubiam, vel ad sectam aliamse convertit, utpotesi facit se circumcidi

vel Mahometum adorat. De tali enim

licet cuilibet iudicare quod pertinaciter

errat vel dubitat contraveritatem et quod

est scienter haereticus manifestus. Et si

convictus fuerit vel confessus in iudicio

quod tale quid dixerit vel fecerit sine

ulteriori examinatione est tanquam

pertinax et haereticus condemnandus.

Master The first way by which someone

can be detected being pertinacious is if he

shows by deed or by word that he does not

firmly believe that the christian faith is true

and sound; for instance, if he says that the

christian faith is false or doubtful or if heconverts to some other sect, namely has

himself circumcised or worships

Mahommed. Anyone is allowed to

pronounce of such a person that he

pertinaciously errs or doubts against the

faith and that he is knowingly a manifest

heretic. And if he has been convicted or has

confessed in court that he said or did such a

thing he is to be condemned as pertinacious

and a heretic without further questioning.


12/13

Discipulus Potestne inveniri casus in

quo talis possit depravitatehaeretica

excusari?

Disciple Can a situation be found in which

such a person can be excused of heretical

wickedness?

MagisterUnus solus casus quantum ad

fidei abnegationem excipitur, scilicet si

metu mortis fidem negaverit dicendo

fidem Christianam esse falsam vel

dubiam. Duo vero excipiuntur quantum

ad factum haereticale. Primus est si quis

metu mortis actum haereticalem

commiserit, puta si pro morte vitanda

quis adoraverit Mahometum. Et isto

modo excusaturbeatus Marcellinus,

quod immolando idolis non fuit effectus

haereticus, licet mortale peccatumcommiserit. Secundus casus est si

absoluta coactione quis coactus fuerit

actum haereticalem committere, in quo

casu etiam ab omni peccato excusatur.

MasterOnly one situation of denying the

faith is excepted and that is if someone in

fear of death has denied the faith by saying

that the christian faith is false or doubtful.

There are, however, two exceptions with

respect to an heretical act. The first is if

someone has committed an heretical act out

of fear of death, if, for example, someone

has adored Mohammed in order to avoid

death. It is in this way that blessed

Marcellin is excused, because he did not

become a heretic by sacrificing to idols,even though he committed a mortal sin. The

second exception is if someone is forced by

unrestricted force to commit an heretical

act; in this situation he is excused too of all

sin.

Discipulus Vellem scire rationem quare

talis debet statim haereticus et pertinax

reputari, cum ita possit quisambitione

vel cupiditate tractus verbo et facto

ostendere se non tenere firmiter fidemChristianam esse veram, quam tamen in

mente tenet esse veram, sicut potest quis

hoc simulare metu mortis.

Disciple I would like to know the reason

why such a person should [not] be regarded

at once as a heretic and pertinacious since

anyone influenced by ambition or greed can

show in this way by word or deed that hedoes not firmly hold that the christian faith

is true yet hold in his mind that it is true,

just as anyone can pretend this out of fear of

death.

Magister Ratio assignatur quia cum quis

extra metum mortis aliquid dicit aut facit

plus habetde voluntarioquam quando

dicit aut facit aliquid metu mortis

inductus. Et ideo nulla cupiditas vel

ambitio excusat de pertinacia in licito

iudicio hominem quemcunque facto vel

verbo monstrantem se fidem

Christianam firmiternon tenere. Et

eodem modo dicitur quod nec amor nec

odium nec aliquid praeter timorem

mortis potest quemcunque in hoc casu

excusare quin sit haereticus reputandus,

nisi dicatur quod per gravia illata

tormenta vel metum eorum in hoc casu

quis valeat excusari.

Master The reason given is that when

someone says or does something other than

from fear of death it is more voluntary than

when he says or does something persuaded

by fear of death. Greed or ambition,

therefore, does not in licit judgement excuse

of pertinacity any man showing by deed or

word that he does not firmly hold the

christian faith. In the same way it is said that

neither love nor hate nor anything except

fear of death can excuse someone in this

situation of being regarded as a heretic,

unless it is said that someone can be

excused in this situation because of the

inflicting of severe tortures or fear of them.


13/13

Discipulus Nunquid modo praedicto est

dicendum de omni scienter haeretico?

Disciple Should the same thing said about

everyone who is knowingly a heretic?

Magister: De omni scienter haeretico

sunt intelligenda praedicta.

Master These remarks should be

understood of everyone who is knowingly a

heretic.

Return to Table of Contents

Documents

Dialogus Biling V