Questions on the Four Books of Sentences

...includes the evidence of the object. For if no such thing moves the intellect, theology will remain neutral to it; and nothing is such among things not evident from their terms unless it is an intellect superior to ours. But no intellect superior to man can effectively teach man except God.
Evangelical

If, however, it is said here that later [authors], although differently disposed and existing at other times, nevertheless had the doctrine of the predecessors in the scriptures and agreed by believing, just as students [agree] with the doctrine of masters, and thus they wrote nothing dissonant from the predecessors, even if God did not teach these and those.
Against

Augustine

Against this, Augustine objects where he was previously, saying of the philosophers who left behind monuments of their dogmas through literary labor, etc., which disciples reading—even if they were assenting to the predecessors in some things as disciples—nevertheless rejected [them] in some things, as is evident there regarding Aristippus and Antisthenes, who both being Socratic, nevertheless differed with each other in some things. And even students [differed] from the master, such as Aristotle from Plato. Why, therefore, would our later [authors] not have disagreed with the predecessors in some things if they had not had a teacher common to their intellects,
flight

inclining them to the same non-evident [truth]? I answer that because they provided non-evident things, the later ones could not disprove them by their own arguments and would not disbelieve them unless one could bring a compelling reason—here returning them as truthful masters. But student philosophers could disprove their masters through reason because the matter about which they were debating could allow reasons taken from the terms. Example: It is not thus,
against

says the student historiographer to the master historiographer, as the philosopher to the philosopher, because histories of the past cannot be evident [in the same way] so as to turn the student away from the master, as prophetic reasons can be. Against that: At least Ezekiel, prophesying in Babylon at the time when Jeremiah was prophesying in Judea, when he was saying not only those things which they had from Moses as their common master, but also many other things—in those [matters] they could have disagreed or dissented, since they were not evident from the terms, unless they had some common teacher above the human intellect.

Regarding the third, namely, the authority of the writers

Authority of the writers

It is clear thus: Either the books of Scripture are of those authors whose they are said to be, or not. If they are, since they condemn lying precisely in faith and morals, it is likely that they would have lied—I say this, says the Lord, if the Lord had not spoken. Or if you say they were deceived, not lying, or wished to lie for the sake of gain. The first is disproved from the statement of Paul, 2 Corinthians 12: "I know a man in Christ, etc.," and he adds there that he heard arcane words which it is not permitted for a man to speak. These assertions do not seem to have been without mendacity if the assertor was not certain, because to assert a doubtful thing is either a lie
A manicula (pointing hand) in the right margin pointing towards the text: "or is not far from a lie."
or it is not far from a lie. From this revelation of Paul and many other revelations made to various saints, it is precluded that their intellect could have been induced to assent so firmly to those things of which they could not have had knowledge from natural things, as they asserted, unless by a supernatural agent. The second [argument] is disproved, namely, that they did not lie for the sake of gain, because they sustained maximum tribulations for the sake of those things they wished to induce men to believe. If, however, the books are not theirs but others', this is inconvenient to say, because anyone would deny that a book is of that author whose it is said to be. Why, therefore, are these alone falsely ascribed to authors whose they were not?
Furthermore, either those who ascribed these books to them were Christians, or not. If not, it does not seem that they would wish to write such books and ascribe them to others, and from this, magnify a sect whose opposite they held. If they were Christians, why would those Christians mendaciously ascribe such things to them, since their law condemned lying, as above? And for the same reason [as before], why would they assert that God spoke many things that are narrated there, and this to the persons to whom the books are titled, if such things did not happen to those persons? How, also, would these books have been so authentic and disseminated as being of such authors, unless the authors themselves had been authentic? Regarding which, Richard, 1st [book] On the Trinity, chapter 2: "Certainly, they were handed down to us by men of highest sanctity."