De locis theologicis

There follows a topic especially necessary to this discussion, containing the authority of the scholastic school. The younger heretics do not merely diminish and weaken it; they reject and deride it. Luther, standard-bearer of German impiety and in this, as in other matters, a disciple of Wicleff, asserts in his book against Iacobus Latomus that scholastic theology is nothing but ignorance of truth and empty deception, against which the Apostle warns in Colo. c. 2. In his book de abrogan. Missa priva. he calls the universities brothels of Antichrist. Philippus Melanchton, in his Apologia contra Parisien., says that profane scholasticism was born at Paris and that, once it was admitted, the Gospel was obscured and faith extinguished. In short, every Lutheran without exception both scorns our school’s authority and attacks it with hostility. Perhaps the other heresies of these men flowed from this as from their first source. For at the outset, after it was easy to scorn the school’s authorities, they also scorned the school’s judgments. Once these were neglected, it was soon necessary to neglect Hieronymus, Augustinus, Gregorius, Ambrosius, and Basilius, whom recent theologians regarded as the authorities for their dogmas. After the ancient saints had been pushed aside, their councils too were held in contempt. The result was that the Lutherans also cut down some canonical books and ecclesiastical authority. How true it is that whoever neglects the least things gradually falls away. Let no one take offense at the expression. The school’s authority cannot be so slight that anyone can make little of it without endangering the faith. Since the school arose, contempt for the school and the plagues of heresy have always been connected. I shall therefore defend this topic too, and, as it seems to me, not dispose of it easily or briefly. Although scholastic theology has expanded in us the ability to reason that we gained through dialectical exercises—and we have spent no small part of our earliest years’ effort and care on this study—here, though we are in our proper field, ^{1 2}

we do not wish to exercise our abilities in every direction for the sake of display, but to reason sparingly and narrowly in our usual manner. Throughout the whole discussion, Reader, remember that I am defending the school’s teaching insofar as it is founded on the basis of sacred Scripture. From this follows what, I see, I can say with everyone’s strong agreement: wretched is the school’s teaching that defends itself by the titles of mastership; wretched too—and perhaps much more so—is the teaching that, after setting aside the authority of sacred Scripture, speculates about divine matters with twisted syllogisms. Indeed, it speculates not even about divine matters, nor human ones, but about things that concern us not at all. I understand that there have been in the school certain counterfeit theologians who settled every theological question with frivolous arguments, and, by light and invalid little arguments, stripped great weight from the most serious matters and published commentaries on theology scarcely worthy of old women’s night work. Since testimonies from the sacred Bible are rare in them, councils are never mentioned, they smell nothing of the ancient saints or even of serious philosophy, but deal almost entirely with childish subjects, they are nevertheless, if heaven wills it, called scholastic theologians. They are neither scholastics, much less theologians: by inserting the dregs of sophistry into the school, they provoke learned men to laughter and more refined minds to contempt. But whom do we mean by a scholastic theologian? In whom do we place this title? I think it belongs to someone who reasons appropriately, prudently, and learnedly from sacred writings and institutions about God and divine matters. Although this must be discussed at greater length later, this much must be acknowledged briefly here: unless someone is such a person, no one is a theologian of the school. I also understand that there have been some in the school seemingly born to discord, who think they reason best when they contradict more learned men, appearing to seek not so much the truth as the defeat of their opponents, filling whole pages with contests and quarrels. Many in the Church, as if enlisted soldiers, defend or attack these men, and their entire discussion of theology is faction, contention, and division. I can neither approve nor ought I approve them. For although the mutual criticisms of those who disagree should not be condemned, stubborn contests in disputation seem unworthy of profane philosophy, much more of sacred doctrine. For, as Cicero said most eloquently, one cannot dispute rightly without criticism, nor with stubbornness. And what Publius said is true: truth is lost through excessive argument. I certainly do not agree with those who want to blame the stubbornness and itch to criticize everything on debates in scholastic circles. I think these evils are the fault of character, not of the school. For moderate people, who are neither quarrelsome nor stubborn, will define any matters soberly and with restraint. Everyone who professes any discipline must do this, but no one more than the theologian. There have undoubtedly been many in the school who, avoiding these faults, treated theology with serious modesty. Those whom these critics call stubborn theologians who pick everything apart are few, if they wish to speak truthfully. They displease me, if anyone, most of all; but the whole company should not be traduced for the faults of a few. Even if most theologians had these faults, this calumny would still be unjust. Just as no just and prudent person accuses all young people, although many are lustful, since lust belongs not to all young people but ^{3 4 5}

to those who are not good, so scholastic stubbornness belongs to shallow theologians, not to all of them. It is plainly unjust, as I said, to traduce the school for faults that belong not to the school itself but to an idle, empty, quarrelsome school. I therefore wish to assert and defend those scholastic theologians who alone deserve that name. I shall do this if I first set out the school’s proper purpose and method of teaching; without understanding these, no one can speak rightly either for or against them.