Translated from Latin.
Second judgment of the laudable theological faculty in Paris
about Philipp Melanchthon's protective speech, written for Luther in the first book. The causes of the first judgment are added in the second book. The third book contains several rules on how to understand the Scriptures.
Because, as the preacher Solomon well says, there is no end to bookmaking; of which this is the cause, that the outrage and obstinacy of the heretics does not rest on the wholesome doctrines and does not want to hear about the main sum of all things, which, as the preacher says, is the fear of God: As recently, when we publicly announced our final judgment on the teachings of one named Luther, and in it condemned a great many articles as obviously contrary to the Catholic faith, by which we convinced him that he was a harmful arch-heretic, since we feared that his vile poison would spread further: behold, one has come forward, called Philippus Melanchthon, who is infected by this heresy and is a harmful disciple of this harmful teacher; he has taken the liberty of writing a protective speech against us for Luther, in which he has attacked our praiseworthy faculty so mockingly, so disrespectfully, so arrogantly, that it is annoying, sinful and disgraceful.
Since we now consider that it is our duty and official duty to counter the aversions, we will firstly speak our final judgment on the protective speech itself; secondly, we will indicate to some extent the reason and cause of our previous judgment; thirdly, we will make some points on how the Scriptures should be understood.
so that one does not have to argue without end later on. And so we divide this book into three chapters or sections, according to the matters just indicated.
The first book
contains, according to the order, those articles which have been taken and condemned from Philipp Melanchthon's Schutzrede, together with the annotations of the
Paris Faculty.
1st article.
A protective speech for Luther against the angry judgment of the Parisian theologians.
This article is annoying, disrespectful and scornful. And in that it calls our judgment an angry judgment, insofar as it pretends that the magisters of the laudable faculty are angry, it is blasphemous and unchristian against the laudable faculty; therefore it should be destroyed by fire, sword and water, together with its author. But since he calls them theologasters, inasmuch as he means to say that our magisters are not righteous theologians, but only theologasters, which means as much as wild theo-
*This superscription is found in the Latin Wittenberg and Jena editions, but not in the original edition. In the latter, the title reads thus: votorruiuatio soouuäa alruao Daouttatis DbootoZiao karisiou. super ^poloAiaru ktaitippi Motauotatouis pro Dutboro soriptaua. unfortunately primus. Vnuoxa ost ratio äotorruiuationis prinaao. läver soouuäus. Dortius lider trabet Huasctam re^utas intetti^enäl seripturas. In Latin, this writing is found in the Wittenberg edition, Dona. II, tot. 207; in the Jena edition, Dorn. II, tot. 457; in the Erlangen, opp. var. ar^. Vol. VI, p. 79; German in the Leipziger, Vol. XVII, p. 681, translated by LI. Job. Jak. Greifs. Walch has used this translation in his edition. We have improved this translation according to the text offered in the Erlangen edition and closely followed the expressions that Luther himself used in his translation of the Urtheil der Theologen zu Paris.
logens and who would be mere images of theologians, he is thereby disrespectful to the entire theological order.
2nd article.
In former times the Milesians were ricey. 1)
This article is suspicious because the author of the protective speech wrote it in Greek. But now the Greeks are heretics. And that he calls us Milesians is obviously wrong. For we are not Milesians, but Parisians. And insofar as he wants to say as much as if we were not brave people, he is mocking and offends pious ears.
3rd article.
You are nothing but vain sorba. 2)
This article is wrongly spoken, also Wider the grammar; for our school is not called Sorba, but Sorbona; and in so far as it seeks to mutilate the name of this laudable school, it is irreverent.
4th article.
O you rough (rudes) lumps and right SorLonic Magistri nostri!
This article, as far as the first part is concerned, is offensive to pious ears. And insofar as it understands the word rudes to mean the coarse blocks from which saws are made, it is all too mocking. But if the word rudes should mean so much as unlearned people, then he is annoying, and is belittling to the masters of theology and detracts from their honor. And as far as he says: "you are right Sorbonian people", which is supposed to mean that we were wrongly Sorbonian before, it is publicly wrong and erroneous, because we are always in the same Sorbona.
5th article.
Paris (Lutetia) is now no longer doing philosophy, but alfenzerei.
This article is very annoying and wrong. And in that he means that theology is alfenzerei with us, he is blasphemous against the Holy Spirit. And in calling us Lutetiam, he adds a stain to the good rumor of our laudable university, insofar as his intention is to compare it with filth (luto) and filth in which swine and swine defile themselves.
1) D. t. brave.
2) Cf. the note to § 17 of the previous paper.
6th article.
In the book of Johann Major there are cartloads of alfenzerei.
This article is foolishly and sacrilegiously put, in the piece that his intention and opinion is, as if one leads the Alfenzereien on large wagons; since the Alfenzereien are spiritual things, and the wagons are bodily things. But in the piece that he says that the writings of that highly learned man are alfenzerei, he speaks disparagingly and dishonorably against a respectable member of this university.
7. article.
This is the right Hadermetze Helena, for whose sake our dear Magistri nostri fight so dearly.
This article, in so far as it means that our magisters hold with harlots, it is very too close to them, infamous for them and is mocking. But in so far as he wants to call our theology a Helen, he is blasphemous against the Holy Spirit.
8th article.
Augustine spoke astutely in some pieces, but Luther spoke with greater diligence.
This article is unchristian and scornful against St. Augustine, thorously and haughtily set; all too conducive to the heresy of Luther, and brittle to the reputation of the holy fathers.
9th article.
Hui, dear Magistri nostri, break and tear yourselves.
This article is publicly a counsel of the devil, as he wants to persuade us to kill and tear ourselves apart. And in that it is spoken wishfully, it is cruel and murderous; because he wishes that we should burst, even as Judas Iscarioth burst. But now he that hateth his brother is a slayer of death.
10th article.
Light a lantern in broad daylight at noon.
This article is foolish, as it teaches that one should light a lantern in broad daylight. It is also suspicious because it is written in Greek. And inasmuch as the opinion is this, as if we were so blind that we could not see in broad daylight, it is disrespectful and mocking of the theological faculty.
11. article.
Who did not want to laugh at this female and monkish incapacity (muliebrem et monachaIem impotentiam)?
This article is set wrongly, thurally and incomprehensibly. And insofar as it wants to say that we are women who are incapable of begetting children without the help of a man, it is mocking. And insofar as he wants to say so much that we ourselves are also incapable of begetting children, he is publicly false and erroneous. Most of all, however, he is dishonorable, insofar as he has this opinion, as if we were monks who had been cut, and thus had lost our manhood. For this is contrary to experience and contrary to the saying: Theologi lardant per bracam: theologi beget many children.
12th article.
Dear Mr. Decane, you are angry now.
This article is meant mockingly and differently than the words read. And in this it is obviously inconsistent, since it says: Vos estis iratus likewise
than when I say: ego currit, I run; which way of speaking has long been condemned by us. And in the part where he wants to say that many of us are equal as one, by saying: You, i.e. you who are many, are angry, i.e. you are one angry (iratius), he is publicly wrong and angry. And in that he speaks, De cane vos estis, thinking that we are begotten of dogs, he is scornful. And in that he wants to say that one should not be angry, he is unchristian, and weighs down the Christian law too much.
13th article.
Homerus also saw this, whether he was blind or not.
This article is publicly false and against philosophy, in that it speaks that a blind man has seen, and ascribes to the faculty of which someone is deprived a certain activity, which nevertheless belongs to a skill alone, as Aristotle speaks.
14th article.
Evil retains the upper hand.
This article is false and unchristian. And in that it is written in Greek, it is suspect of heresy. And in that its opinion is that evil is stronger than good, it is blasphemous.
against God, who is the almighty good. Likewise, he is also wrong in philosophy, for evil is nothing. But nothing cannot overcome something. And in that which is meant by our being evil, it is diminutive, brittle, and offensive to pious ears.
15th article.
What do we care what the impure man Aristotle says?
This article is diminutive to the most distinguished among the philosophers. And in that he says that he was not a mere man, and so much as to say that he was mixed with the devil, he is publicly false and insincere. And in so far as he wants to say that philosophy is impure, he is put forward by such a man who is an enemy of science and ignorant. For science has no enemy but he who does not understand it, says the pure man Aristotle, the most excellent light of nature, as our fellow-father Eck teaches. And in that he wants to say that he is not bound to the reputation of Aristotle, he is publicly sacrilegious, stiff-necked and disrespectful to the entire philosophical and theological faculty.
16th article.
We do not believe the signs, but the Scriptures.
This article is publicly sacrilegious and indicates a rebellious mind, and that is against the Holy Spirit and His signs; in that the Historia Lombardica and Vincentius in his Speculo Exemplorum, and the preacher monks in their Rosario use only the signs as proof.
17. article.
School theology alone proves that all schools are heretical.
This article is set in a foolish, presumptuous, arrogant, unchristian and sacrilegious manner, and thereby blasphemes the holy Church of God, and thereby also God. And by speaking of "the schools" in general, with the intention that they are not universities, but common schools, he is dishonorable and blasphemous, because he wants to understand by the masters all whipping masters, 1) ace shooters and bachants.
1) The word 86uton68 will probably be kitchen Latin, derived from the whip, card whip.
986 D. V- a. VI, 83-88. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne rc. W. XVIII, 1176-1178. 987
18th article.
In four hundred years we have not had a teacher in Christendom who described the right proper way of repentance.
This article is unchristian and annoying, and against the Church of God scornful. And in that his opinion is that only the matter of repentance was naked without form, he is contrary to philosophy; because it is impossible that matter can stand naked (unless according to the Scotists' opinion), especially in such a long time of 400 years.
19. article.
Augustine talks about the justifying grace.
This article is false and contrary to the sense of our faculty, also contrary to our first judgment. And in that it says, "Augustine speaks," it is false; for Augustine writes, indeed he wrote long ago; but now he is dead and does not speak, at least with us.
20th article.
No one at the Sorbona read Augustinum.
This article is false and offensive to pious ears. And in so far as he means to say that we have not read this name of Augustine, he is publicly erroneous and contrary to experience.
The second book
contains the causes of the first judgment.
And first of all, it is to be noted that in the first judgment of our laudable faculty we publicly declared that we wanted to proceed in the same way as the apostles, who in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles wrote plainly what they thought, and showed no reason why they did so. The descendant of the heretic Reuchlin disgraces this praiseworthy example with great presumption (as our friend and co-father, Eck, wrote with truth), and disgraces our praiseworthy faculty in a shameful way by saying that we did not keep this way of the example mentioned, and that we lied and blasphemed, since we said of the apostles that they wrote what they thought, and did not say why they held thus. And makes every effort to prove that they did say why they held thus.
First, because they had signs and wonders that God had done among the Gentiles through Paul and Barnabam, so that they proved, as from insurmountable causes, that circumcision and the Law were not necessary, because God justified the Gentiles before and without circumcision and Law, giving them the Holy Spirit only for the preaching of the Gospel. For Lucas says in the place mentioned that when they heard these things from Paul and Barnaba, they kept silent, not only because they had a reason for doing so, but because they were completely resolved and convinced of them. For how could they resist God?
Secondly, he endeavors to prove this himself from the examples of Peter and from his long speech that he gave there about this very thing. For the cause that moved Peter and his followers was this threefold sign. The first was that an angel appeared to Cornelius from heaven, even though he was neither circumcised nor under the law, saying to him that his prayer was heard and his alms were acceptable to God. The other sign was that he saw a vision in which a cloth was shown to him from heaven with all kinds of animals in it, and he heard the words: "What God has cleansed, you shall not make common. The third sign, that while he was still preaching in the house of Cornelius, the Holy Spirit had fallen upon those who were listening to him, without circumcision and law. By these insurmountable causes they were moved to write what was in their minds. And they did not conceal these causes; but, as Lucas says (Acts 15:12 ff.), "Then the whole multitude held their peace. "etc. Hence it comes to pass, that, as they write, they put the Holy Ghost first, saying, "It pleaseth the Holy Ghost and us." For they were sure, and the causes were very well known to all, that Peter also said, "Who was I, that I could resist God?" (Acts 11:17.)
Thirdly, he reviles us for having condemned without Scripture, since the apostles, especially James, stood up and publicly proved from the prophet Amos (Cap. 15, v. 15, 16) why they held thus.
Fourth, they sent the most distinguished men to deliver the letter, and to state the causes mentioned. Signs and scriptures in a rambling speech. And this, he says, was not done by us; and so he concludes that the noble faculty did not proceed after the manner of the apostles, but lied, and blasphemed the apostles and the Holy Ghost.
when they wrote that the apostles had not shown any cause why they had therefore kept.
Because this would be too great a disgrace for such a distinguished university and for such a praiseworthy faculty, that it should have cited the way of the apostles and not kept it, and thus have acted contrary to its own public declaration, also lied and blasphemed the apostles; Moreover, it would follow that she never considered Lucas in the Acts of the Apostles, since she publicly made her declaration under her seal, that she often examined and considered what the sacred teachers held in this matter, and only decided after frequent and careful consideration: This would bring unbearable disgrace to our university, which is a queen above all other universities.
Therefore, in order to excuse the laudable faculty and to shut the mouth of the sacrilegious disciple of the aforementioned heretic, we hereby declare and declare that we too have observed the aforementioned four pieces.
First of all, we have also had double signs. Some of them agreed with the signs that Barnabas and Paul had in common among the Gentiles. Some, however, had agreements with the signs that Peter had in his own right. And since we must begin with the more worthy, let us first consider the signs of Peter and those who agreed with them. And so it is: our Decanus of the laudable faculty is St. Peter in the laudable faculty. And he has three signs that require him to hold so that he cannot err, which are the register, the seal, and the almu- tium.1 . 1) Therefore, it is clear that the heretic has written against the laudable faculty in a very deliberate and impudent manner. But the common signs are these, and so be it: the remaining Magistri nostri, especially these two most excellent ones, Quercus and Beda, are St. Paul and Barnabas in our laudable faculty. Their first and greatest sign, however, is the Liripipium, 2) or, as the scholars say, Usüpsnäium, which is the most obvious and well-known sign, by virtue of which it is thus concluded: he has the Liripi-
1) 44mutium is a garment of fur, which the French canons and other clergymen wore to cover the head and shoulders when performing their clerical duties, from which the coats of the deans at universities originate today.
2) Urlpipium are bands or appendages hanging down over the back on the hood. The Windsheim Chronicle, lüö. I, 6UP. 44, says: läripipium 81V6 tvmpam rstro iatam ckuplwsm st odlougam Uadsus xsr äorsum ässesudsutsm.
pium, therefore he is a Magister noster, enlightened in faith; therefore he has the Holy Spirit. The other sign is that they sit on the upper catheder when they discuss and read; by virtue of this it is concluded: Christ says: they sit on Mosi's chair, everything they say to you, keep it; therefore, everything they say is true. But now these sit on the catheder, and teach thus, therefore they cannot err.
There is another sign, which many of them have among themselves. And these are the badges of honor which they received at their doctoral graduation, namely the ring, the beret, the book, the kiss, the gloves, and the berets which were handed out at the doctoral graduation; likewise also the burning lights, and above all the "HErr GOtt! dich loben wir" (Te Deum laudamus) which is sung at the decision; last of all the excellent doctoral meal. The last and most powerful sign is the entrance of the Lord Decan into the Sorbonne, when the pedellets go before him with their scepters and shout in a strong voice: Make way! for the highly respected and excellent Magister noster, the Lord Decan of the laudable theological faculty with our excellent Magisters. Make room for him, make room! And this sign must be chewed well; for it concludes correctly (formaliter) that our magistri cannot err; just as in the same way the pope cannot err, if it is concluded very correctly (formaliter): because six strong men with great pomp, in the middle of the day, carry him out of his palace on a straight and level street; how could he err on such a bright day and on a level street, and since he is carried so splendidly? So also our magistrates cannot err, because they also hold a splendid procession in broad daylight and on a level street, as the pedals go before them with their scepters. And so the two first signs are examined and decided with glory, and the laudable faculty remains with its honors and dignities.
Thirdly, the laudable faculty was also moved by scriptural passages, although not ex-plicite, but implicite, that is, although they did not cite the scriptural passages with clear words, they nevertheless understood them. For when the laudable faculty said that the law forbidding vengeance was too burdensome for the law of Christ, it implicitly quoted the saying from the 2nd Psalm: "Let us break their bands, and cast from us their cords" (namely, of God and of His anointed). Likewise the saying in Lucas (19, 14.):
"We will not have this man to rule over us; for his citizens were enemies to him." And that of Jeremiah (23:33, 36), "What is the burden of the Lord?" when the Lord saith, "Call it no more the burden of the Lord: for every man's own word shall be a burden unto him, because ye thus pervert the words of the living God, the Lord of hosts, our God." Also the one in Job (21:14, 15): "They say to God, 'Get thee away from us, for we do not want to know thy ways. Where is the Almighty, that we should serve Him? Or what are we improved, if we call upon him?" From this it is evident that the praiseworthy faculty not only kept the way of the apostles, but did much more. For those only drew on the Scriptures with clear words (ex-plicite) a little, namely only a single saying. The praiseworthy faculty, however, has, as it were, drawn on all the prophets, even though they only understood (licet implicite) them, whose word was a burden to the Jews. And it is also more magisterial to cite many scriptural passages implicite, rather than only one ex- plicite. And in this way also the laudable faculty rests on more and better signs; for the signs of the apostles have soon passed away, and have been few of them: but the signs of the laudable faculty remain daily, and very many of them; for who could count all the Liri- pipia that have been, still find, and will be in the Sorbonne? But now Aristotle says: The good is the more divine, the more are those to whom it is common. And again, a noteworthy rule in topics is thus: The longer a thing lasts, the better it is. Consequently, the signs of the laudable faculty are better than the signs of the apostles.
Fourthly, we are surprised at the blindness of the wicked man who has written the protective speech, that he does not see what great men are everywhere, who praise and extol this judgment of the praiseworthy faculty in the most zealous manner by preaching, by writing, by shouting, by blaspheming, and who take such great pains that even many are angry with them, as if they were completely nonsensical about this holy service. But because he is blind, some must be named to him, that he may take hold of it. The first is Silvester Prierias, Magister of the Holy Apostolic See; after him was Cardinal Cajetan; and the third is our beloved fellow father Johann Eck, who took much trouble in this matter and also himself compiled the bull at Rome. The fourth is Thomas Rhadinus. The fifth a brother of Cremona. The sixth the devout brother Augu
stin Alveld. The seventh, it is said, was one called Hieronymus Emser, who wrote many good things against Luther in his mother tongue. Finally, our two beloved sisters, the Universities of Cologne and Louvain, condemned Luther with his teachings.
1) We also know that our dearest sister, the school in Leipzig, stands with us and is strongly zealous for the truth against the Wittenberg school. It also has for itself the illustrious Duke of Saxony, George, who is very concerned about this matter. But it [the Leipzig school] has one fault, namely, that it allows Greek to be taught and learned at its academy, so that it is to be feared that much evil may result from it. And that is why our laudable faculty did not want to pass judgment on the disputation between Eck and Luther, also because they did not send our masters any money for their efforts, and they did not want to pass judgment for nothing. That is also quite right. For "who ever goes to war on his own pay?" (1 Cor. 9, 7.)
Similarly, there are also many at other of our sisters [universities] who hold our party; as, at the University of Frankfurt, Conrad Wimpina, who is a very peculiar and so great Thomist, because he wanted to become a bishop, and he is now pulling the same rope with us (facit jam unam navem pro nobis). And at the University of Tübingen there is a subtle Scotist, Jakob Lemp, who, if he were as learned as he thinks he is, would be even above all our masters in Paris.
Behold, now go, thou Melanchthon, and write in thy foolish protective speech, which is filled with Greek, and heresy, that our laudable faculty has no excellent people who speak their opinion. What does it prevent that they have not been sent by us? Enough that they have come of their own free will to serve us. We also hear that the excellent man, Jacob Latomus of Louvain, has written admirably against Luther. Behold, all these men, who are with all truth the most distinguished, are despised by the man who wrote the protective speech, who has no reverence, who is insolent and very presumptuous.
Now let us also look for the signs together with which we prove that Melanchthon himself cannot know the truth. The first is because he teaches the Greek language. How is it possible that the Greeks can be good Romans and
1) This paragraph is missing in the Jena and Walch editions. We have inserted it from the Latin.
Christians should be, who have always been rebellious, spleenful and heretical?
The other, because we hear that he is a youth who is not yet twenty-four years old. And of this and of such a boy is one to believe anything else than that he can be mistaken? And he does not leave it at that, but he dares to write against such an old, such a great, such a high, such a praiseworthy school. It is wonderful that the noble Duke Frederick, who is said to be a wise prince, does not see that the boy is acting foolishly, and tolerates him, since he should put him in the carcer until he comes to his senses again. For we, as far as our laudable faculty is concerned, have pity on his senseless and tender age.
The third sign is because it is said that he is not so big in body and stature as his master Lutherus. How can there be a great science in such a small body, as in the whole Sorbona, which is so great?
The fourth, which is the greatest of all and quite abominable, is that he is not a clergyman, but a layman, and not even a priest; and yet they say he is a baccalaureate of the Bible, and runs over St. Paul in the public school without the almutium, and the ordained priests are to hear a layman, and the pupil teaches his masters, the youth teaches the ancients, and a Greek the Romans. O perverse Wittenberg, you pervert everything and want to make a Babel out of the church.
In the last place, which we can hardly believe, he is a layman who has been professed; and behold, a layman who has a wife teaches the Holy Scriptures among the ordained priests, clerics and clergy, against the decrees of the Pope, who teaches that no one can serve God in a married state; therefore he has also forbidden the clergy to take wives, so that they can serve and study God (in the game of dice). Oh that Emperor Carl and the princes would destroy this Wittenberg with sword, flames and fire, and with all forces from the ground up, which starts such great changes and innovations in faith and morals and follows them. And it would be high time to do so, lest, since God is for! women and boys also begin to teach and become theologians and magistri nostri (as they already are). For then what will become of them but that magistri nostri will become women and boys and everything will be reversed?
From this we now make this conclusion "from the theorem of the affirmed": It is erroneous and it is
is a layman; consequently, he is an erring layman. And again: He is erroneous and he is a teacher; consequently, he is an erroneous teacher. And again: He who teaches is erroneous; consequently the teaching is erroneous. And on the contrary: The praiseworthy faculty is right; consequently the teaching of the praiseworthy faculty is right. And it is also public that this maker of the protective speech is a layman, a youth, an adversary, small in stature, a Greek, a maniac. Therefore it was impossible, and still is impossible, that he should know the truth. Therefore we also want to deal with him more gently, in view of the fact that he has been deceived by his harmful teacher, and we ask him to desist from his error and to listen to his superiors. And if he has no others, let him at least hear our sister Leipzig, 1) who will teach him well. And so much of the other book.
The third book
contains some rules on how to understand the Bible.
The Law of Moses commanded that the priests judge between leprosy and leprosy. And without the priest's judgment, no one was to be considered either clean or unclean. Thus in the New Testament the universities are arranged, among which our University of Paris has the priority, which is the mother of the teaching institutions (studiorum), which are to judge about the doctrines; and without their judgment no one is to be considered either a right-believer or a heretic. Now, in order to give instruction as to how such judgments are to be made, let us set down a few rules or articles.
1st rule.
The holy scripture is dark.
This rule must be taken as the basic doctrine of faith, therefore it must not be proved.
2nd rule.
One should not believe anyone who cites Scripture par excellence.
This is proven from the first rule. For everyone who cites the Scriptures cites darkness, hence:
1) In the Jena edition: our sisters Cologne and Lions 2c
3rd rule.
It is to be accepted according to the declaration of the masters of sacred theology, especially the Parisians.
This rule is clear from what has been said before: for they are ordained to judge between leprosy and leprosy. Secondly, because they have the liripipium, consequently they are enlightened in faith, and cannot err; as is proved above.
But since these rules seem to be new, let us illustrate them with examples. When Christ says John 8: "He that committeth sin is the servant of sin." The reason seems to be clear that the free will cannot do anything but sin; but one does not have to believe it, because it is dark, and one has to listen to what the magisters say there. So when Paul says in Romans 14: "Everything that is not of faith is sin," Paul seems obviously to condemn moral works; therefore one must expect what the laudable faculty will say. Yes, that is even more, the saying in the first book of Moses at the first chapter: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth", is so obscure that it could give rise to many errors, if it were not for the magisters who carry Liripipia; for one could read it that way: In principio cremavit (anftatt creavit), i. e. combussit, Deus coelum et terram: In the beginning God burned heaven and earth. Similarly (s could one thus read: In principio creavit Deus zelum et iram: In the beginning God created zeal and wrath; if he understood by zelum invidiam, that is, envy, as if God had created envy and wrath. And other such horrible errors could arise from the Scriptures, if the magisters did not keep a watchful eye on them and allow the mere Scriptures to be cited.
And it is not valid if someone wants to say that the Scripture is clear and distinct in some places; for the opposite is already proven from the first book of Moses at the first chapter, where it seems to be clearest of all. Also because it is certain that the Scripture is dark here and there; consequently the conclusion is valid everywhere, because it is of the same nature everywhere. Everywhere it is true, holy; consequently it is also dark everywhere. Just as in a similar case Aristotle says of things that are of the same kind; e.g. the parts are like the whole. As the whole water is wet and round; consequently also the drops are wet and round. Consequently, Eck did well when he did not want to hear Luther's writing at Leipzig.
Luther insisted that his and the fathers' explanation should be heard. Hieronymus Emser is also right when he proves according to these rules that the Scriptures are dark; consequently, one should not believe Luther.
Yes, see the wonderful necessity of the Magistri nostri. Also the biblical text would not remain if they were not. Behold, one, when he read the gospel Luc. 7, 40. where it is written: Si- mon, habeo1 ) tibi aliquid dicere; Magister, dic (Jesus said: Simon, I have something to say to you. But he said, Master, tell), he was deceived by the letter d, which was written poetically and heretically, and thought it was a 6 and a 1, and so he read, Simon, habeo tibi aliquid dicere, and Magister, clic. Another should read: Regem vestrum crucifigam? (shall I
kill your king?) and read for it: Regem vestrum crucifigavi; that was a very big mistake. Likewise another read decem muas for decem mnas [minas] And the like examples much. Therefore, one must be very careful about the mere writing; and magistri nostri must have a watchful eye on this.
Likewise, when Luther denied that one could not prove Purgatory with a clear saying from Scripture, he was cornered by the declaration of the Magistri nostri about the saying: Transivimus per ignem et aquam: We are
He went through fire and water. And by 1 Cor. 3, 15: Salvus erit, sic tamen, quasi per ignem: He will be saved, but only by fire. And Ps. 17, 3: Igne me examinasti: Thou hast tested me with fire. 2) For if we were to follow the mere Scriptures here, nothing would be proven. Similarly, the saying, "Feed my sheep," when used by one who is not wearing a liripipium, does not mean to be a pope, but seems to mean to preach the gospel. Likewise, the saying in Proverbs Cap. 27, 23: Diligenter agnosce vultum pecoris tui (Thou shalt diligently know the appearance of thy cattle) does not enforce confession unless there is a magister with the liripipio to explain it thus. And in short: if one sticks to the Scriptures as they are merely dressed, all universities would have to err and would have to be heretical; and there would remain no way to resist the heretics and the world would become full of errors.
1) So here and at the same place in the Vulgate. In the Erlanger and the old Walch edition üavst.
2) According to the Vulgate.
4th rule.
The sayings of the holy fathers are dark.
This rule must also be taken as a basis; however, it is proven from the Magister sententiarum, from the Gratiano, and from the efforts of all universities. For what else does the Magister sententiarum do than to explain the dark sayings of the fathers? Does not Gratianus do the same? Is this not also done in all universities? Yes, there is more darkness in the Fathers than in the Bible; in that they take far more trouble with that [darkness of the Fathers] than with the Bible, as is evident.
5th rule.
One should not believe anyone who cites the fathers par excellence.
This is proven from the previous rule; for anyone who thus leads the fathers leads darkness.
6th rule.
The sayings of the fathers are to be accepted after explanation of the Magistri nostri, primarily the Parisians.
This is evident from what has already been said. Therefore our laudable faculty did well when it condemned Luther for citing Augustine and Ambrose, where they speak of justifying grace in the way the words read; because, according to the Magistri nostri, they speak darkly, and are to be understood only of natural grace. Likewise, when Augustine says, "In all works, and even in love, there are defects if it is not perfect," he is speaking obscurely. But according to the interpretation of the Magistri nostri, he takes the deficiencies for imperfection. So, when he demands above the saying of Matth. 5, "one should not take revenge", one should also hold out the other cheek, he also speaks darkly. But according to the interpretation of the magisters who carry Liripipia, there is not a commandment, but an evangelical advice set there.
And so we have it that the Scriptures are dark in and of themselves, proving nothing in and of themselves; but also that the Fathers are much darker, proving much less in and of themselves.
7th rule.
The magisters who wrote about Proverbs are dark.
This is clearest through experience. Because no one agrees with the other, a
each is dark and unknown to the other. Therefore, some are Albertists, others Egidiists, some Thomists, others Scotists, others Scotellists, some Modernists, others Occamists, others Gregoriists. Yes, these are the very darkest, which is evident from the fact that neither in the Bible nor among the Fathers is such a great difference as among these.
8th rule.
One should not believe anyone who cites a sententiarius par excellence.
This is clear from the predicted rule. For everyone who leads the same, leads discord and the darkest darkness.
9th rule.
The sayings of the Sentenzenfchreiber (Sententiariorum) are to be accepted after the explanation of the Magistri nostri, particularly of the Parisians.
This is clear from what has already been said and from the sufficient classification: because otherwise there is no one who could be consulted in the decision of the disputes and doubt knots. And so the matter becomes clear. In explaining the obscure Scriptures, the Fathers themselves have become far obscurer, so that more effort must be made to understand and unite them with each other than they have made effort to understand and unite the Bible, as this is amply proved by Magister sententiarum, Gratianus, and all the universities, as we have said. About this the scribes, in explaining the Fathers, have fallen into the greatest darkness and discord, that they strive with it in vain, and it is an impossible thing that they should once be united with each other and brought to one understanding; nay, precisely on this they are anxious that they may depart from each other. See now that for the sake of extreme necessity one must have masters. Therefore we conclude with the last rule.
10th rule.
But the verdict of the laudable faculty is clear, must be believed and accepted as often as it is quoted.
This is clear from what has already been said. For the praiseworthy faculty alone makes everything clear: first the Scriptures; then the Fathers; lastly the scribes, and it cannot err. For the Liripipium and Almutium are not such.
998 L. v. a. vi, S5-S7. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. xvm, 1190-1193. 999
Signs that can deceive. Consequently, those who follow the mere scriptures do evil. Even more evil do those who follow the mere fathers; most evil of all those who follow the scribes. For they go from one darkness to another until they abandon those, hear the praiseworthy faculty, and cling firmly to Liripipio; there is the light of the world and the unerring guide of faith and morals.
Finally, we have to consider some scruples. The first is that someone might think that the magistri nostri could not so badly pronounce from their heads, because Moses commanded to judge everything according to the law of the Lord, which some declare: not according to the sense of a man. Secondly, when God commanded Joshua to be commander of the people of Israel, He commanded him to do everything as written in the Book of Moses, Jos. 1. The answer to this is: Because these sayings are drawn from the Scriptures, therefore, according to the first, second and third rule, they are said to be dark. Consequently, by the law and the books of Moses must be understood that which natural reason prescribes, but most of all the light of faith, which is not inconsistent with the light of nature. And with both lights the Magistri nostri are illuminated.
But if anyone should quote this saying, Deut. 12, "Thou shalt not do that which is right in thine eyes, which we do here this day," where it seems that some are forbidden to follow the dictates of sound reason, the answer is that it is not so; but the words, "that which is right in thine eyes," are taken in two ways: once it is as much as, "that which seems right in thine eyes. And so Moses is to be understood when he says, "Thou shalt not do that which is right in thine eyes"; for the word "is" is there taken for the word "seemeth". In the other way, when the word "is" (est) is taken par excellence, it is taken noun, in its usual meaning (in suo actu exercitato). And so Moses does not take it, because it must be taken as it is right in the eyes of the magisters, and definitely (definitive).
Another scruple: Isaiah speaks Cap. 54, V. 13.: Dabo filios tuos universos Theodidac- tos, that is: "Your children shall all be taught by the Lord." And Paul speaks, "The spiritual judgeth all things." And Christ speaks Jn. 6:45, "They shall all be taught of God." And Jeremiah speaks Cap. 31, 33. 34.: "There will be
not to teach one another, nor one brother another, saying, Know the Lord; but they shall all know me, both small and great, saith the Lord. For I will put my law in their hearts, and write it in their minds; and they shall be my people; so will I be their GOOD." From this someone might think that even every layman, if he is a son of the church and spiritual, can judge of all things. To this is answered: Isaiah understands by those who are taught by the Lord, the masters of sacred theology. And Paul understands by the clergy the clerics, or the spiritual state, in which the magistri nostri are the most distinguished. So also Christ understands by those who are taught by God, the theologians, that is, the public teachers of sacred theology, who bear the liripipium. For a theologian takes his name from theos, that is, God, and logos, that is, ratlo, reason; because he is to teach and answer about God according to what natural reason tells him about Him. Just as Peter says, "Be always ready for responsibility" (reddere rationem, i. e. dictamen naturale, that is, What
your natural mind tells you) "against everyone who demands the reason of the faith and hope that is in you."
But if it be objected: Isaiah says, "All"; and Christ, "All"; and Jeremiah, "None shall teach another, nor one brother another." From which it follows that all Christians are masters of sacred theology, clothed with the liripipium, or that not only the masters can judge, but all who believe, and have the mind and spirit of Christ; and they are to be believed. To this is answered: This cause is very vexatious; and yet it does not conclude. But I, the Lord Decanus, would give half my liripipium for it, if Isaias and Christ had omitted this general characteristic "all" (but let that be said in secret); for it makes many stiff-necked. But the truth shall not be stuck. Therefore it is answered by a strange and exquisite distinction, namely, that truth is of three kinds. One is that which is decided by a jurisdictional decision, and this belongs before the pope and the conciliar authorities. The other is that which is decided by the magisters and by doctrines (magisterialiter et doctrina- liter); and this belongs before the noble universities. The third is that which is made known through the brothers (fraternaliter) and is secretly given by God. From this it is said: "By the truth according to the first and the second
The first way must be held publicly; and of these two kinds of truth Christ does not speak, but of the truth according to the third kind; in which one should not hold publicly, especially if it is contrary to the first two kinds. And the reason is, because now confusion and disorder would result, that the superior should be silent and learn from the inferior.
But when it is said, Nevertheless Paul saith 1 Cor. 14:30, But if one revelation be to another that sitteth, let the first hold his peace"; where he clearly teaches that a private person shall be heard in public church, and he that teacheth publicly in church shall hold his peace. To this is replied: The word "the first" may be taken in many ways in this chapter, likewise also the word "he that sitteth." For the Scripture is bare here, and therefore it is dark. In the first way the word "the first" can be taken from one who has the preference according to status and dignity. And so it is not to be taken here: for it is a disgrace if a superior man should hold his tongue against one of lesser rank. In another way, "the first" means the one who is more in time, in nature, in order, as can be clearly seen in the postpredicaments 1). And in this way, those who are first in order are the lowest and the youngest, like the scholars who go before the prelates, as is seen in the processions. And these are to "keep silence against him who sits there," that is, against the magisters who sit as teachers on the catheder. And about this it is also taken differently. The "first" (prior) means the chief in the Carthusian house and in the orders of the mendicant monks. And these shall be silent against him that sitteth, that is, against their bishop, who hath a seat, that is, a bishopric. For it would be shameful to use the word "he who sits there" for everything that sits there.
1) D. i. Subcategories.
because then the first or the superior (Prior seu Superior) would also have to be silent in front of the dogs and birds, because they want to sit when they want.
Finally, if one wants to say: The truth may be said by whom it may be, be it a private or a public person, it must be held publicly by all; because it is said by the Holy Spirit. So Christ speaks here: "All shall be taught of God"; consequently, whoever does not hear them does not hear God, who teaches them and gives it to them. Therefore, this exceptional distinction is of no use. To this is answered: We have already said that this cause is very vexatious, and yet it does not conclude: for a great and many inconvenience, which does not rhyme, would follow from it; namely, that the inferior should teach the superior. Therefore, whoever wants to answer this in general can say, according to the first and other rules, that this scripture is obscure, and that one should not believe it if it is cited in general without interpretation; but how it is to be interpreted, we want to leave that until another time, because of the vastness and shortness of time.
For now, this may be enough for an introduction on how to study sacred theology, so that everyone knows where to start, so that he does not go astray once he has settled on the sacred Scriptures and then gets lost in the darkness of them. And so the protective speech of Philip Melanchthon is hereby fundamentally overturned.
This was done in the Sorbona, in the manner, in the sense, of the persons, with the diligence, and with all the circumstances that are required and necessary for this action, and which we also used in our first judgment: except that we could not have kept it just the day, and just the month. But the fault was not ours, because they had passed, although we asked them, but in vain, that they should forgive until the matter was settled.