De locis theologicis

ON THE USE OF HUMAN HISTORY IN THEOLOGY

I have now emerged from the shallows, and my discourse has passed beyond the rocks. For I have moved from the most difficult matters to easy ones, and neither my intellect nor my theology can be endangered by explaining the authority of human history. Much less so when I explain how useful and necessary human history is for a theologian. Here we have no opponents and no arguments against the truth. For all learned men agree that those theologians whose writings are silent about history are altogether untutored. In my view, not only theologians but no one is sufficiently learned if he is ignorant of things done in the past. History supplies many things from its treasures; if we lack them, we will often be poor and ignorant in theology and almost every other discipline. Since the hinge of a theological disputation sometimes turns on something once done, who would deny that even in scholastic disputation it is sometimes necessary to summon the clearest witnesses from annals? I have observed more than once, and especially in this work, that history is necessary for a theologian in discussion. Those who have read the earlier books will readily judge how much I have used human history. I dare not now say how much greater its use will be later, lest I seem to promise mountains of gold. Those who have fallen into various errors through ignorance of history are ample proof of how much a theologian needs historical knowledge. Some offer as an example the commonly held belief that Trajan was released from hell by Gregory’s prayers, which was once believed not only by the common people but also by St. Thomas when he was young. He believed it on the authority of John Damascene, to whom St. Thomas certainly deferred greatly. But, they say, no one would be persuaded by that fable if he understood from the chronology that John Damascene could not have been its author, since, according to their account, he lived more than a century before Gregory. For Raphael Volaterranus, Vincent of Beauvais, and St. Antoninus report that he flourished under Theodosius.

But this example is inept, since that John Damascene who wrote four books De orthodoxa fide flourished under Constantine and Leo, that is, after St. Gregory had died. In an obvious matter there is no need to summon John, patriarch of Jerusalem, or the author of Roman affairs in libri 21 and 22, or other historians, when John Damascene himself plainly indicates when he lived. First, he often cites Cyril, who lived after Theodosius. He also sometimes mentions the Council of Chalcedon. Indeed, in libro 3 capite 10, he mentions a certain Peter the Fuller, who was condemned under Justinian at the Fifth Synod. In lib. 4, cap. 17, he writes against the Iconoclasts, whom in his book De haeresibus he also calls Iconoclasts and Thymoleontes, named for Leo, who was that sect’s chief founder and supporter. In the same book De haeresibus he mentions the Monothelites Cyrus, Sergius, and Eustathius, who were condemned at the Sixth Synod under Pope Agatho; he also wrote at length against them in libro 3 de orthodoxia fide capitibus 14 et 15. Anyone who weighs all these points will readily understand that John Damascene lived after Gregory. As for Trithemius’s claim that there were two men of this name, one under Theodosius who composed those books of theology, and another under Leo who fought for images, it is entirely fabricated, as the passages just cited show. I do not, however, approve that history. It is astonishing that a Greek man should have reported to his Greeks an event belonging to us and, as he himself says, widely known throughout the world, which all Latin history nevertheless ignores. Let the stories about Trajan and Gregory be fables, then; I do not object to that. But not for the reason that Damascene lived before Gregory. In this matter our Spaniard Gennesius Sepulveda recently erred—a man who, in my judgment, was not ignorant, and in his own judgment was very learned, certainly distinguished in eloquence and not averse to the study of theology. Wishing to persuade us that there was a just cause for waging war against the barbarians of the New World, he relied on this argument: Gregory, in epistola libri primi septuagesima tertia, cited in 23 quaest. 4, Si non, commends Gennadius for waging wars only to expand the Christian commonwealth, so that the name of Christ might spread everywhere among subject peoples through the preaching of the faith. Gennesius himself would easily have judged how inept Gregory’s testimony is for proving the point, if he had learned from histories that those against whom Gennadius waged war were enemies not only of the Roman Empire but also of the Church and Christ. This is clearer than daylight from another epistle to the same Gennadius, which is number 72 in the same book. There can be no doubt that the Vandals, whose remnants still remained in the province of Africa, were infected with the Arian plague; nor is it unknown that the Donatists, with whom Africa was then still full, fought against Catholics not only in debate but also with rewards and violence. But this is not the place to discuss these examples. Here we briefly and in passing remind the theologian not to neglect ecclesiastical history, whose knowledge yields great fruit, while ignorance produces errors. Augustine, in libro de doctrina Christiana 2 capite 28, also teaches that even the histories of the pagans contribute greatly to understanding Sacred Scripture, and shows that some have erred about Scripture because they were ignorant of them. Irenaeus and Tertullian, for example, were both mistaken in different ways about the age at which Christ suffered, but for the same reason: they neglected human histories at this point, and knowledge of them would have resolved the matter very easily. Yet each could also have been warned of his error by the Gospel.

Erasmus clearly writes that the darkness occurred over the whole earth, yet understands it to have fallen only on Judea. He gives as the reason for this false interpretation something that is not true and, even if it were true, would not be sufficient: if the darkness had covered so wide an area, some Latin or Greek writer would certainly have mentioned it. He offers for ridicule as a fabrication under Dionysius’s name the epistle in which Dionysius asserts that he carefully observed the eclipse with his eyes and considered it in his mind. I neither undertake in this work to restore to Dionysius the Areopagite the praise for philosophy and learning that Erasmus tries to take from him, nor do I criticize his making St. Jerome the author of this interpretation, although no other interpreter of Scripture contradicts it more plainly. My point is that, if Erasmus were not ignorant of human histories here, he would certainly interpret those darknesses differently and truly. For Phegon, an outstanding reckoner of the Olympiads, writes in lib. 14: “In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad there was an eclipse of the sun, great and surpassing all those that had occurred before it. At the sixth hour the day turned into a dark night, so that stars appeared in the sky; and an earthquake in Bithynia overturned many houses in the city of Nicaea.” Eusebius shows in Chronicis that this year coincided with the Lord’s Passion. Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, distinguished in character and learning, also said in a dispute with the pagans about the Christian faith: “Search your annals, and you will find that in the time of Pilate, while Christ suffered, the day was interrupted by darkness when the sun withdrew.” Eusebius is the source in libro nono ecclesiasticae historiae capite 6. Finally, Tertullian says: “At that same moment the day was withdrawn, with the sun marking the middle of its course. Those who did not know that this had been foretold concerning Christ thought it an eclipse; and yet you have that event, the world’s upheaval, recorded in your archives.” Thus far he in Apologetico, cap. 21. From these points it is easy to understand that even pagan histories are necessary for interpreting Sacred Scripture. Although this is so obvious that it requires no discussion, we must explain it more fully in Book XIII. Since we will illustrate it there with the clearest examples, there is no need for us to anticipate here the specific teaching of that book. Geometers do not prove everything by arguments; they ask that certain things be granted so that they may more easily explain what they wish. In the same way, for now I ask the reader to grant that there are many passages in the Sacred Books that cannot be explained without knowledge of human history. The practice of the most distinguished men plainly confirms that records of historical events are very useful to a theologian disputing against the enemies of the Christian faith. Tertullian argues from Roman histories themselves that the worst and most savage men were cruel to Christians, and that what evil men persecute is therefore good. In lib. Ad Scapulam, how many examples of historical events does he use to persuade us that many pagan governors met sad ends because they persecuted Christians? Therefore those who fought against our people undoubtedly fought against God as well. How does Cyprian use historical knowledge and recollection to refute the vanity of all idols? How many and varied histories does Jerome recall against Jovinian in praise of virginity and chastity? As we said above, Lucian the presbyter cites the very annals of the pagans so that he may also establish our faith

support their doctrines by the testimonies of those authors. Eusebius often refutes Jews and pagans from secular histories. Therefore not only ecclesiastical history but also history written by pagan authors is most useful to a theologian against the adversaries of the faith. Accordingly, complete ignorance of pagan history is either the height of laziness or the most fastidious disdain. Indeed, Tertullian, Jerome, and other most weighty men have shown well that it is fitting and prudent for a theologian to use examples not only in sermons but also in disputes, when he urges that something is just or unjust because it was practiced by good or wicked men; they often take pleasure in this kind of argument. But how can probable examples be offered without knowledge of history? It is clear, then, how widely the usefulness of history extends: wherever we theologians go, whether preaching, disputing, or expounding Sacred Scripture, we set foot in some history. Since books of history are so useful to a theologian in so many matters, he should certainly read them diligently, lest he disgracefully err in matters that concern him most and be ignorant of things that cannot be unknown without not only imprudence but even incompetence. For history, as Cicero said most truly, is both “the teacher of life” and “the light of truth.” So much has been said about the usefulness of history; now let us consider its authority.