(_e_) From the fact that Jerome here quotes the example of Daniel, the argument is derived that in doubtful cases recourse should be had to the example of our forefathers and others. XVI. quaest. I. sunt nonnulli. XXII. quaest. I. ut noveritis. I quaest. VII. convenientibus. XII. quaest. II questa. XVI. quaest. III. praesulum. XVI. quaest. I. cap. ult. XXVI. quaest. II. non statutum. et cap. non examplo. C. de sen. et interlo. nemo[AB] contra. The solution is that where rules fail recourse must be had from similars to similars, otherwise not. XX. distinct. de quibus;[AC] assuming that it is as there stated. Likewise the argument holds that good is assumed from the very fact that it has come from something good. As VII. quaest. I. omnis qui. & XXXIIII. quaest. I. cum beatissimus. IX. quaest. II. Lugdunensis. XII. quaest. I. expedit. XXVIII. quaest. I. sic enim. XXXI distinct, omnino. John. (_f_) For example, as to the Incarnation, that passage in Virgil[AD]: "Jam nova progenies caelo demittitur ab alto." (_g_) As that passage from Ovid[AE], "Odero si potero: si non, invitus amabo." [The notes on the remaining paragraphs of the text are here omitted owing to their length.] ...or philosophers, are said to have foretold any truth, it certainly has weight in overcoming the vanity of the pagans; not, however, in leading to the acceptance of their authority. For as great as is the difference between the prediction of the coming of Christ by the angels and the confession of the devils, so great a difference is there between the authority of the prophets and the curiosity of the sacrilegious. Likewise Pope Clement: =For the understanding of Sacred Scriptures knowledge of profane writings is shown to be necessary.=