ERRORS CONDEMNED AT PARIS,1241

Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, I, 170-71 .

These are articles disapproved as against theological truth and disapproved by the chancellor of Paris, Eudes, and the masters teaching theology at Paris, A.D. 1240, the second Sunday after the octave of the Nativity.

First, that the divine essence in itself will be seen neither by man nor by angel.

This error we condemn, and we excommunicate those asserting and defending it, by authority of William bishop [of Paris]. Moreover, we firmly believe and assert that God in his essence or substance will be seen by angels and all saints and is seen by souls in glory.

Second, that it may be the divine essence is one in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, nevertheless with respect to form it is one in Father and Son but not one in these with the Holy Spirit, and yet this form is the same as the divine essence.

We reprove this error, for we firmly believe that there is one essence or substance in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the same essence with respect to form.

Third, that the Holy Spirit, as a bond or love, does not proceed from the Son but merely from the Father.

We reprove this error, for we firmly believe that as a bond or love it proceeds from both.

Fourth, that souls in glory are not in the empyrean heaven with the angels, nor will glorified bodies be there, but in the aqueous or crystalline heaven which is above the firmament, which also is stated of the blessed Virgin.

This error we reprove, for we firmly believe that there will be the same corporal place, forsooth the empyrean heaven, for angels and sainted souls and glorified bodies.

Fifth, that the evil angel was evil in the beginning of his creation and never was anything except evil.

This error we reprove, for we firmly believe that he was created good and afterwards by sinning became evil.

Sixth, that an angel in the same instant can be in different places and be everywhere, if he wishes.

We reprove this error, for we believe that an angel is in a defined space, so that, if he is here, he is not at the same instant there; for it is impossible that he be everywhere, for this is proper to God alone.

Seventh, that there are many eternal truths which are not God.

This error we reprove, for we firmly believe that there is only one eternal truth which is God.

Eighth, that now first and creation-passivity cannot be created.

This error we reprove, for we firmly believe that it is both created and creature.

Ninth, that he who has superior natural advantages of necessity will have more grace and glory.

This error we reprove, for we firmly believe that God, according as he has preelected and foreordained, will give unto each grace and glory.

Tenth, that the evil angel never had any standing ground, nor even Adam in the state of innocence.

This error we reprove, for we firmly believe that both had means to stand but not to progress.

These are the errors condemned and excommunicated with all who taught or asserted them knowingly by Stephen, bishop of Paris, in the year of the Lord 1270, the Wednesday after the feast of the blessed Nicholas in the winter.

The first article is: That the intellect of all men is one and the same in number.

2. That this is false or inappropriate: Man understands.

3. That the will of man wills or chooses from necessity.

4. That all things which are done here below depend upon the necessity of the celestial bodies.

5. That the world is eternal.

6. That there never was a first man.

7. That the soul, which is the form of man as a human being, is corrupted when the body is corrupted.

8. That the soul separated after death does not suffer from corporal fire.

9. That free will is a passive power, not active; and that it is moved necessarily by appetite.

10. That God does not know things in particular.

11. That God does not know other things than Himself.

12. That human actions are not ruled by divine Providence.

13. That God cannot give immortality or incorruptibility to a corruptible or mortal thing.

Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, I, 499-500.

To each and all of the sons of holy mother church who now and in the future shall see the present page, the masters of logical science or professors of natural science at Paris, each and all, who hold and observe the statute and ordinance of the venerable father Symon by divine permission cardinal priest of the title of St. Cecilia, legate of the apostolic see, made after separate deliberation of the nations, and who adhere expressly and entirely to the opinion of the seven judges appointed by the same legate in the same statute, greeting in the Saviour of all. All should know that we masters, each and all, from the preceding abundant and considered advice and deliberation of good men concerning this, wishing with all our power to avoid present and future dangers which by occasion of this sort might in the future befall our faculty, by common consent, no one of us contradicting, on the Friday preceding the Sunday on which is sung Rejoica Jerusalem, the masters one and all being convoked for this purpose in the church of Ste. Genevieve at Paris, decree and ordain that no master or bachelor of our faculty should presume to determine or even to dispute any purely theological question, as concerning the Trinity and incarnation and similar matters, since this would be transgressing the limits assigned him, for the Philosopher says that it is utterly improper for a non-geometer to dispute with a geometer

But if anyone shall have so presumed, unless within three days after he has been warned or required by us he shall have been willing to revoke publicly his presumption in the classes or public disputation where he first disputed the said question, henceforth he shall be forever deprived of our society. We decree further and ordain that, if anyone shall have disputed at Paris any question which seems to touch both faith and philosophy, if he shall have determined it contrary to the faith, henceforth he shall forever be deprived of our society as a heretic, unless he shall have been at pains humbly and devoutly to revoke his error and his heresy, within three days after our warning, m full congregation or elsewhere where it shall seem to us expedient. Adding further that, if any master or bachelor of our faculty reads or disputes any difficult passages or any questions which seem to undermine the faith, he shall refute the arguments or text so far as they are against the faith or concede that they are absolutely false and entirely erroneous, and he shall not presume to dispute or lecture further upon this sort of difficulties, either in the text or in authorities, but shall pass over them entirely as erroneous. But if anyone shall be rebellious in this, he shall be punished by a penalty which m the judgment of our faculty suits his fault and is due. Moreover, in order that all these may be inviolably observed, we masters, one and all, have sworn on our personal security in the hand of the rector of our faculty and we all have spontaneously agreed to be so bound. In memory of which we have caused this same statute to be inscribed and so ordered in the register of our faculty in the same words. Moreover every rector henceforth to be created in the faculty shall swear that he will cause all the bachelors about to incept in our faculty to bind themselves to this same thing, swearing on their personal security in his hand. Given at Paris the year of the Lord 1272, the first day of April.'

The following passage from the Perscrutationes physicales or commentary on the eight books of the Physics of Aristotle by Ludovicus Coronel, composed between 1506 and 1511 shows that, while the above statute was still enforced in the days of Buridan in the middle of the fourteenth century, it had become obsolete before the close of the fifteenth century.

After stating that God could supernaturally produce a vacuum, Coronel cites Buridan's commentary on the Physics, book IV, question 8.

For he says that many of our masters blamed him for sometimes mingling certain theological matters with physical questions, of which sort is whether this or that which is beyond the power of nature lies within divine power, since to discuss this does not pertain to artists. But he replying humbly said that he would prefer not to be restricted to this. But all the masters, he says, when they incept in arts, swear that they will dispute no purely theological question such as concerning the Trinity and incarnation, and they further swear that, if they chance to dispute or determine a question which touches faith and philosophy, they will determine it in favor of the faith. And they will overthrow the reasons to the contrary as they shall seem to them able to be overthrown. Moreover, it is clear, he says, that if any question touches the faith it is this one whether there can be a vacuum; therefore, if he is going to debate it, he must state what he thinks should be said about it according to theology or perjure himself.

These remarks of Buridan have astonished me, first, that our masters blamed him, for from the declaration of this term, vacuum, to conclude that it cannot be produced naturally but can happen supernaturally seems in no way blameworthy. In the second place, Buridan's method of reply, granting that our masters were justified in blaming him, was not satisfactory, for Buridan was not forbidden absolutely to treat of theology, and they did not blame him for this, that where he had treated something concerning the faith he had determined it in favor of the faith, because he was bound to do so apart from his oath. Thirdly, that oath does not seem reasonable when it compels a man to overthrow arguments, for there might be some loyal teacher for whom some argument worked out contrary to the determination of the church, and how would he overthrow it? But to this it seems it should be said that, if the instructor does not know how to overthrow such an argument, he ought not to formulate it in public to his students. But if he should do otherwise, he would remain perjured if he had taken the oath, and will sin although no oath has preceded. Therefore, let Parisian teachers of artists who touch on theological problems look out for themselves. In the fourth place, I, inadequate and unworthy as I am, do not recall that when I was promoted to the degree in arts I took, or knew of any of my fellows taking, such an oath, but, alas, that laudable custom of the university along with others had become obsolete. In the fifth place, where two catholic masters and teachers disagreed about any matter in natural or moral philosophy touching the faith in any way, one of them would not be immune from perjury, which seems to be awkward. For example, if one held that the infinite is possible and the other the opposite; and one that matter can exist without form and the other the opposite; one that, given two things neither of which is God nor either part of the other, God could annihilate one of them and leave the other, and the other, without excepting respective entities, should be unwilling with the Subtle Doctor to concede this. And whether there was an oath or not, I would strive where occasion offered to proceed conformably to the intention of the person who ordered that oath to be taken. I therefore assert that God can render any place vacant of content. .