Chapter 12 — Attacks brought against religious on account of their systematic method of preaching

Objections

We will now proceed to examine the objections brought against religious, on the score of their methodical and carefully prepared manner of preaching.

Obj. 1: St. Paul says, not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power (1 Cor 1:17). This the Gloss understands to mean, not with eloquence or tropes of language. For the preaching of Christ does not need pompous words, lest it should proceed rather from the cunning of human wisdom than from truth. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 1:17 (PL 191:1541D-1542A).) It is, therefore, alleged that because religious preach with fluency and eloquence, they must be false apostles.

Obj. 2: We read in 1 Corinthians 2:1, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom, that is, says the Gloss, I did not reason with you, nor use logical arguments. I displayed no wisdom. Neither did I, in my preaching, treat of the speculations of physical science. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 2:1 (PL 191:1547C).) St. Paul continues, my speech and preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom. (1 Cor 2:4.) The Gloss adds, even though my words were convincing, their power was not, like those of false apostles, due to human wisdom. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 2:4 (PL 191:1548B).) Hence we are to conclude that religious who preach learnedly, must be false apostles.

Obj. 3: St. Paul again, writes: I may be rude in speech, but not in knowledge (2 Cor 11:6). The Gloss remarks upon this passage that the Apostle called himself rude in speech, because he did not use flowery language. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 11:6 (PL 192:72C).) The commentary further adds, the words, "rude of speech," apply not to the apostles, who were not eloquent, but to the false apostles who knew how to combine choice phrases. But on account of the accuracy of their language, the Corinthians preferred the impostors to the preachers of the truth. For in religious matters, a power which convinces is needed, not a string of words. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 11:6 (PL 191:72C).)

Obj. 4: Nehemiah 13:24: half of their children spoke the language of Azotus, and . . . spoke the language of various peoples. And I contended with them and cursed them. The Gloss understands by the language of Azotus, a rhetorical style of speech. (Glossa ordinaria 2, 1412 at Neh 13:24.) Therefore, they who mingle rhetoric or philosophy with the words of Scripture are worthy of excommunication. Again, Isaiah 1:22: your wine is mixed with water. Now wine signifies the teaching of Sacred Scripture. (Cf. Glossa ordinaria 4, 27 at Isa 1:22 (PL 113:1236).) They, therefore, who mingle with this doctrine the water of human wisdom, are exceedingly reprehensible.

Obj. 5: On the words of Isaiah 15:1: because Ar is laid waste in a night, Moab is undone, the Gloss understands by Ar the adversary of God, namely, human wisdom, whose walls are built up by means of reasoning, and which in the night is laid waste and put to silence. (Glossa ordinaria 4, 173 at Isa 15:1.) From this comparison we may see how much they are to be blamed who, in instruction on sacred subjects, employ earthly wisdom or eloquence.

Obj. 6: We find in Proverbs 6:6 the following words: I have covered my bed with painted tapestry brought from Egypt. (This verse is in reality Prov 7:16.) The Gloss comments: the painted tapestry from Egypt is symbolic of flowery eloquence, or of cunning reasoning, derived from heathen sources. Heresy glories in adorning its pernicious doctrines with language of this description. (Glossa ordinaria 3, 1634 at Prov 7:16 (partly found in PL 113:1090).) Hence we are to understand how criminal a thing it is to use eloquence and earthly learning in expounding the faith.

Obj. 7: 1 Timothy 3:7: he (that is, a bishop) must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace; or, as the Gloss says, lest he be despised, both by believers and by infidels. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, 1 Tim 3:7 (PL 192:345B).) Now if certain religious preach in a learned and eloquent style, bishops who cannot equal them will be contemned by their people. Hence learned and eloquent preaching, practiced among religious, is a danger to the Church.

Response

I answer that, the foregoing arguments may be answered by the following words of St. Jerome addressed to the great orator of Rome: what cause do you have to wonder (the saint asks) that at times we, in our little writings, adduce examples drawn from the literature of the world? or that we sully the whiteness of the Church by the defilement of heathen authors? You would stop marvelling at our acting thus were you not wholly possessed by Tully, and ignorant of the Scripture and of their Commentators, Volcatius excepted. Who does not know that Moses and the prophets quote from the books of the Gentiles? and that Solomon makes use of the philosophers, citing some of their opinions, and refuting others? (Jerome, Epistle 70, para. 2 (CSEL 54:700-701; PL 22:665).) St. Jerome then proceeds to show that from the time of the apostles, the canonical writers and their exponents, have mingled human wisdom and eloquence with Sacred Scripture. (Jerome, Epistle 70, para. 2-6 (CSEL 54:700-708; PL 22:665).) When he has enumerated a long list of writers who have thus acted, he concludes by saying: all these have so filled their books with the sayings of the philosophers that it is difficult to know which most to admire in them, their secular learning or their knowledge of Scripture. (Jerome, Epistle 70, para. 4 (CSEL 54:706-707; PL 22:667).) At the end of his Epistle, St. Jerome adds: I beg you, therefore, to remind him who finds fault with us, on this score that it is unwise for a toothless man to envy the teeth of those who eat, or for a mole to grudge eyes to a goat. (Jerome, Epistle 70, para. 6 (CSEL 54:708; PL 22:668).) Hence it follows that it is commendable to make use of human eloquence and wisdom in the divine service, and that they who blame others for so doing resemble blind men who envy those who can see, and ignorant men who blaspheme against what they cannot understand, as we read in the Epistle of St. Jude. (Jude 1:10.)

St. Augustine (De doctrina Christiana, 4) says: if any man wish to speak not only learnedly but eloquently, it will profit him to read, hear and try to imitate those who are eloquent. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 4.5.8 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:92).) Hence they whose duty it is to expound the Sacred Scripture must be careful to speak eloquently and fluently, for the greater advantage of those who hear them.

In the same book, St. Augustine continues: someone may here enquire, whether they who have by their profitable authority compiled the canon for us, are to be called learned only, or eloquent also. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 4.6.9 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:92).) He goes on to prove that these authors are eloquent, and that they have adorned their style with rhetoric. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 4.6.9 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:92).) He then concludes as follows: let us acknowledge then that our canonical writers are not merely learned, but likewise eloquent, making use of an elegance of style befitting them. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 4.7.21 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:98).)

In the same book, St. Augustine says: an eloquent preacher must, in order to induce his hearers to do what is right, not merely instruct and delight them, but he must likewise convince them. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 4.13.29 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:102).) He shows, by eloquent passages taken from the fathers, how those holy men instructed, charmed and convinced their hearers. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 4.21.45-50 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:111-114).) Hence it becomes plain that he who has to preach or to expound the scriptures must make use both of eloquence and secular learning.

The same lesson is taught by St. Gregory and St. Ambrose, who are both remarkable for elegance of diction. St. Augustine, Dionysius, and St. Basil have interspersed their works with many passages culled from secular authors. Even St. Paul himself makes use of a heathen authority in his preaching, as may be seen in the eighteenth chapter of the Acts of the apostles, and in the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus.

St. Gregory, commenting on the words in Job 9:9, who makes Arcturus and Orion, observes: these names were given to the stars by devotees of earthly wisdom. As they who are wise with the wisdom of God make use, in Sacred Scripture, of the wisdom of the world, so God himself, the Creator of mankind, uses for the benefit of mankind our human language. (Gregory the Great, Morals 9.11.12 (CCSL 143; PL 75:865C-D).) This passage is a further proof that the teachers of Sacred Scripture may lawfully employ human eloquence and learning.

Replies to objections

Ad 1-2: But, we must remember that although an elegant style of preaching is at times commendable, it is likewise under certain circumstances reprehensible. It is reprehensible when it is used from motives of vainglory, or when beauty of language or a show of learning are esteemed as the chief essentials in preaching, and lead to the neglect or denial of the articles of faith which, being beyond the ken of human reason, are esteemed but lightly by earthly science.

Again, they who consider eloquence and fluency of speech to be the chief essentials of preaching, strive to attract attention to themselves, rather than to the truths they utter. It was for preaching in this manner that the false Apostle incurred the reproach of St. Paul (2 Cor 11:6). The Gloss, commenting on the words, not with eloquent wisdom (1 Cor 1:17), remarks: the false apostles, fearing lest they should be considered ignorant by the wise men of the world, preached Christ deceitfully by their human wisdom, for they studied human eloquence, and they avoided all that the world accounts foolish. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 1:17 (PL 191:1542A).)

But it is praiseworthy to make use in preaching of a harmonious and learned style, provided this is done, not from ostentatious motives, but in order to instruct our hearers and to convince our opponents. It is commendable to use eloquence and learning in preaching when the primary motive in so doing is not elegance of diction, but the more profitable teaching of Sacred Scripture, in whose service eloquence is used. When we act thus, we fulfil the words of St. Paul, we take every thought captive to obey Christ (1 Cor 10:5). It was in this manner that the Apostle himself made use of eloquence. Hence St. Augustine says (De doctrina Christiana, 4) that in the apostolic preaching, wisdom led the way and eloquence followed in its wake; but wisdom did not despise its follower eloquence. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 4.7.12 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:94).)

The teachers of the Church, in later times have, for the same reason made a greater use of learning and eloquence; for the first chosen to preach the Gospel were not philosophers, but fishermen and peasants. These, in their turn, converted orators and philosophers. Thus our faith consists not in human wisdom, but in the power of God, that no flesh might boast in the presence of God (1 Cor 1:29). See likewise the Gloss on the verse, for see your vocation, brethren. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 1:26 (PL 191:1545D).)

This explanation is our answer to the two first objections against religious preaching in an eloquent and learned style.

Ad 3: To the third argument, we will reply in the words of St. Augustine (De doctrina Christiana, 4). When commenting on the words, although I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge, (2 Cor 11:6.) he observes that St. Paul spoke thus, in condescension to his detractors, but that he does not acknowledge that he was ignorant. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 4.7.15 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:96).) This is a proof that in a teacher learning is more profitable than eloquence. St. Augustine continues that the Apostle did not hesitate to declare that he possessed learning, without which he could not have been the doctor of the Gentiles. But even if we understand this text as an affirmation, we cannot assume that St. Paul made no use of eloquence in preaching. All that we can conclude is that he did not, like rhetoricians, make fluency and elegance of style his main object in preaching, or else that he had some defect in his speech. The Gloss understands the words, although I be rude in speech, to mean, although I do not use ornamental language or although I have an impediment in my speech. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 11:6 (PL 192:72C).) Now the false apostles considered eloquence to be the essential part of preaching. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 11:6 (PL 192:72C).) They were, therefore, preferred by the Corinthians to St. Paul.

Ad 4: To the fourth argument we reply that when one substance is wholly transformed into another, there no longer exists a mixture. (Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, bk. 1, ch. 10, 327b21.) In a true mixture, one of two substances is converted into a third. Hence when a preacher, in expounding Sacred Scripture, makes use of human learning subject to the truths of faith, the wine of Sacred Scripture is not adulterated; it remains pure. Adulteration of the Scripture would consist in adding something to it which would destroy its truth. The Gloss observes: he who, instead of correcting his hearers by means of the Scriptures, makes the Scriptural precepts subservient to their auditors does, by his teaching, adulterate the wine of truth. (Glossa ordinaria 4, 27 at Isa 1:22 (PL 113:1236).)

Ad 5-6: The passage from the Gloss quoted in the fifth argument refers to that human wisdom which is hostile to God. Now human wisdom is always set up in opposition to the divine wisdom when men consider human learning to be paramount in importance, and when they endeavour to make the truths of faith subservient to the teaching of human science. This error is the origin of all heresy. The Gloss gives the same explanation of the text which was quoted from Proverbs in the sixth objection.

Ad 7: To the seventh argument we reply that good men ought not to be prevented from doing good for fear that others, who do not equally well, should be despised. It is, rather, those who make themselves contemptible who ought to be suppressed. Thus, the fact that certain prelates, from their worldly mode of life, are disedifying, when compared to religious, is no reason why religious should desist from a life of perfection. Again, the eloquence of religious is not to be blamed because the preaching of certain prelates is, on account of its lack of eloquence, but lightly esteemed.