De locis theologicis

The authority of philosophers who held false opinions cannot help our teaching or make hidden things known, as Augustinus wisely and truly wrote to Dioscorus. “What need do we have,” he says, “in defending the Christian religion, to ask what Anaximenes, Democritus, Epicurus, Parmenides, Melissus, and other philosophers of that sort thought? Their teaching was full of errors contrary to natural reason.” Therefore, not all philosophers have been approved by our school, but only those of whom Socrates says in Plato: “Many indeed carry the staff in the Mysteries, but few are Bacchic initiates.” This is a magnificent saying, worthy of a great and wise man, teaching us that many were philosophers only in beard and cloak, but very few in reality. It is these few, who investigated by method and reason the power and effects of nature and the norms of morals and life, and attained them to a great extent, whom we maintain in this discourse to be useful to theologians. I do not see why the Lutherans pursue philosophers of this kind with such hatred, unless they are unwilling and unable to study authors whose meaning is obscure and difficult. The commentaries of every excellent philosopher, especially those of Aristoteles, require a student not only to have talent but also to love hard work. These people have little talent and have also been occupied in driving toil from the Christian life. Therefore, what they see as difficult and demanding in the books of philosophers they both dread and turn young people away from. I do not fully understand what Theophilus Alexandrinus means when, in his second Paschal book, he criticizes Origines for mixing the quibbles of philosophers into his treatises, and says that he proceeded from an evil beginning to fables and deliriums and made theological doctrine a game and joke. How much more true and clearly expressed, although spoken by an impious philosopher, was that saying of Porphyrius: Origines turned all the riches of the Greeks toward enriching Christian doctrine.

But perhaps these points are obscure because they are explained slowly and without supporting arguments. First, they must be illustrated by the deeds of the greatest men; then by the testimonies of our fathers; finally by arguments, most evident ones indeed, but as few as possible. Since in these matters proper to the schools I fear that someone may think our speech comes from scholastic disputes rather than the mind of the Church, we sometimes touch on arguments drawn from reason and support the truth we follow chiefly by the authority of our predecessors. We should understand that, among the ten proposed sources from which arguments and reasonings flow, the most brilliant is that grounded in the traditions and examples of the ancients. If matters were in good order concerning the customs and institutions of the Church, there would be no need to argue about them, for those are the most certain arguments. The Lutherans’ entire case should then immediately be rejected, since it is hostile to ecclesiastical rule, without which nothing can be right, constant, or true. But that is for another time. Let us now do what is at hand. Long ago the greatest Doctors of the Church were also philosophers: Didymus, Iustinus, Origines, Gregorius Nazianzenus, Basilius, Gregorius Nisenus, and Augustinus. Eusebius writes in these words in cap. 10 of book 5 of Ecclesiastica historia that such men used to be appointed to lead the ecclesiastical school: “The ancient custom was preserved, that teachers of the divine Scriptures in the ecclesiastical school should be men approved for learning and erudition. At that time Panthaenus was regarded as a notably outstanding founder and leader of this office; he had previously flourished with distinction among Stoic philosophers.” Origines also reports in Eusebius, book 6, cap. 15, that not only Panthaenus but Heracla and many other apostolic teachers used to read the books of philosophers. If we wanted to cite passages from the saints in which they use the testimonies of philosophers, not only those who wrote about morals but also those who wrote about nature, we might seem to use witnesses we do not need in a case that is scarcely disputed. Let these men read the commentaries in which the six days of creation are discussed; there, even in those alone, they could see how diligently our predecessors read philosophers and how useful philosophers are for explaining Sacred Scripture. They should also look at Hieronymus in cap. 17 Ieremiae and lib. 2 Adversus Iovinianum, where, even when disputing with a heretic, he uses various testimonies of philosophers and presents many examples of natural things from their commentaries, plainly showing how much their authority contributes to a theologian’s argument. But more about this shortly. Now let us continue with our purpose. To pass over the others, whom our opponents do not doubt stand with us, even Epiphanius himself, whom they cite against us, makes use of the authority of philosophers more than once. Teaching in Haeresi 51 how heretics are to be driven away, he says: “Those who are accustomed to these things say that reptiles and creatures that spew venom are driven away by the scent of dittany, styrax, libanotis, southernwood, bitumen, incense, gagate stone, or deer horn.” Likewise, in Haeresi 78, after giving many arguments that the Blessed Virgin preserved her virginity after childbirth, he adds: “If it is also fitting to take the facts from another kind of inquiry, we will touch on the connections of natural reasoning as well. They say that a lioness gives birth only once, and to one cub.” After adding the reason natural philosophers gave for this, he concludes that the Blessed Virgin, who bore the Lion from the tribe of Iuda, gave birth only once, to one son.

There is Epiphanius, instructing Christians and contending with heretics about the faith, citing the testimonies of philosophers. Paulus too not only persuades pagans but also, when establishing the faithful, often cites testimonies of poets and philosophers and draws arguments from them. For when speaking to the Athenians, he uses this passage from the Astronomical Phenomena of Aratus: “For we too are his offspring.” To the Corinthians he cites these words from the tragedies of the poet Euripides: “Evil conversations corrupt good morals.” To Titus he cites this oracle of the philosopher Epimenides: “The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” He immediately adds: “This testimony is true.” If the Apostle confirms what he says with testimonies from philosophers, we can and should do the same, following not only Paulus’s example but also that of other saints. The second proposed point was to show from the testimonies of the fathers that philosophers are useful to theologians. I see no difficulty here, since many testify to this not obscurely but most clearly: Augustinus, in lib. 2 De doctrina christiana, cap. 40; Socrates, in lib. 3 Historiae ecclesiasticae, cap. 16. Do you seek more trustworthy authorities? I would cite others if our discussion were not hurrying elsewhere. Certainly Hieronymus, in epist. ad oratorem Magnum, does not merely testify to this but confirms it with strong arguments. The third proposal is to demonstrate this by reason itself. I will do so plainly and more briefly than so great a subject could allow. Those who deny that philosophers have discussed many matters wisely and seriously, said many things concisely and suitably, and finally explained many things ingeniously and clearly, should not be exhausted by words and arguments but by chains and prison. If natural reason also prescribes that young people memorize and strive to acquire the knowledge and prudence of what serious, intelligent, learned men have taught with sharpness and care, then philosophers’ teaching must be useful not only to young people but also to all who will at some time have dealings with human wisdom and prudence. If this is so, and if we have sufficiently shown above that theologians will have dealings of this kind in many matters, they will surely remain as close as they can and are allowed to those who think rightly about morals and nature. If this is so, theologians must certainly apply themselves to the books of philosophers, since today they will find no others who philosophize more aptly and wisely about such matters. The first proposition is true, and so is the conclusion. It is absurd to say, as some do, that everything useful and necessary for training human reason has been handed down in Sacred Scripture. Since the error in this view has been refuted sufficiently by what we said above, it need not be refuted further here. For what could be more foolish than to believe either that all the liberal disciplines are taught in Sacred Scripture or that such disciplines cannot train human reason well and usefully? If philosophy is useful and good for a theologian, and he cannot acquire it without the help of philosophers’ books, then he should certainly not neglect philosophers. Since knowledge of plants, stones, animals, trees, the elements, and other earthly things

and heavenly things is greatly necessary for understanding Sacred Scripture, as Augustinus teaches in lib. 2 De doctrina christiana and as we will demonstrate more fully in book 13 of this work, anyone who neglects the authors who have labored to know these matters with the greatest talent, extensive investigation, and long experience will surely be mad. Since there is no doubt in this matter that philosophers are of great benefit to theologians, we must now determine whether arguments drawn from the authority of philosophers are certain or rather uncertain, a question on which even learned people may have doubts. ¹