CHAPTER XII

ATTACKS BROUGHT AGAINST RELIGIOUS ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR SYSTEMATIC METHOD OF PREACHING

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

             1. St. Paul says, "not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void" (1 Cor. i. 17). This the Gloss understands to mean, "not with eloquence or tropes of language. For, the preaching of Christ needs not pompous words, lest it should proceed rather from the cunning of human wisdom, than from truth." It is, therefore, alleged, that, because religious preach with fluency and eloquence, they must be false apostles.

             2. We read in the same Epistle to the Corinthians (ii. 1), "When I came to you, I came not in loftiness of speech," i.e., 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." St. Paul continues, "My speech and preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom." The Gloss adds, "even though my words were convincing, their power was not, like those of false Apostles, due to human wisdom." Hence, we are to conclude, that religious who preach learnedly, must be false apostles.

             3. St. Paul, again, writes: "For although I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge" (2 Cor. xi. 6). The Gloss remarks upon this passage, that the Apostle called himself "rude in speech," because he did not use flowery language. 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."

             4. We read in the Second Book of Esdras (xiv. 24, 25): "Their children spoke half in the speech of Azotus . . . they spoke according to the language of this and that people. And I chid them, and laid my curse upon them." The Gloss understands by "the language of Azotus," a rhetorical style of speech. Therefore, they who mingle rhetoric or philosophy with the words of Scripture, are worthy of excommunication.

             5. Isaias says (i. 22): "Thy wine is mingled with water." Now, wine signifies the teaching of Holy Scripture. They, therefore, who mingle with this doctrine the water of human wisdom, are exceedingly reprehensible.

             6. On the words of Isaias (xv. 1): "In the night, Ar of Moab is laid waste," the Gloss understands by "Ar of Moab," the "adversary of God, viz., human wisdom, whose walls are built up by means of reasoning, and which, in the night, is laid waste, and put to silence." From this comparison we may see how much they are to be blamed, who, in instruction on sacred subjects, employ earthly wisdom or eloquence.

             7. We find in Proverbs vii., the following words: "I have covered my bed with painted tapestry brought from Egypt." The Gloss thus comments on the text: "The painted tapestry from Egypt, is symbolical of flowery eloquence, or of cunning reasoning, derived from heathen sources. Heresy glories in adorning its pernicious doctrines with language of this description." Hence, we are to understand, how criminal a thing it is, to use eloquence and earthly learning, in expounding the faith.

             8. St. Paul says to Timothy (1st Ep. iii. 7): "He (i.e., a bishop) must have a good testimony of them who are without, lest he fall into reproach," "or," as the Gloss says, "lest he be despised, both by believers and by infidels." 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, practised amongst religious, is a danger to the Church.

             1. The foregoing arguments may be answered, by the following words of St. Jerome addressed to the great orator of Rome. "What cause hast thou 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? Thou wouldst cease to marvel at our acting thus wert thou not wholly possessed by Tully, and ignorant of the Scriptures, 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?" 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 Holy Scripture. 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." At the end of his Epistle, St. Jerome adds: "I beg thee, 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 them that eat, or for a mole to grudge eyes to a goat." 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 them that can see, and ignorant men who blaspheme against what they cannot understand, as we read in the Epistle of St. Jude.

             2. St. Augustine (lib. IV. De doctrina christiana), says: "If any man wish to speak, not only learnedly but eloquently, it will profit him to read, and to hear, and to try to imitate those that are eloquent." Hence, they whose duty it is to expound the Holy Scripture, must be careful to speak eloquently and fluently, for the greater advantage of such as hear them.

             3. 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." He goes on to prove, that these authors are eloquent; and that they have adorned their style with rhetoric. 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."

             4. In the book before quoted, 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." He shows, by eloquent passages taken from the Fathers, how those holy men instructed, and charmed, and convinced their hearers. 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, likewise, Dionysius, and St. Basil, have interspersed their works with many passages culled from secular authors. Nay, 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.

             5. St. Gregory, commenting on the words in Job ix., "who maketh Arcturus and Orion," etc., 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 Holy Writ, of the wisdom of the world; so, God Himself, the Creator of mankind, uses, for the benefit of mankind, our human language." This passage is a further proof, that the teachers of Holy Scripture, may, lawfully, employ human eloquence and learning.

             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 vain glory; 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. xi. 6).

             The Gloss, in the comment on the words, "not in the persuasive words of human wisdom" (1 Cor. i.), 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." 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 Holy Scripture, in whose service eloquence is used. When we act thus, we fulfil the words of St. Paul, "bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (1 Cor. x. 5). It was in this manner that the Apostle himself made use of eloquence. Hence, St. Augustine says, (IV. de Doctr. Christ.), that in "the Apostolic preaching, wisdom led the way and eloquence followed in its wake; but wisdom did not despise its follower eloquence." 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 should glory in his sight" (1 Cor. i. 29). (See likewise the Gloss on the verse, "For see your vocation, brethren.")

             This explanation is our answer to the two first objections against religious preaching in an eloquent and learned style. To the third argument, we will reply in the words of St. Augustine (IV. De doctr. Christ.). When commenting on the words, "although I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge," he observes that St. Paul spoke thus, in condescension to his detractors; but that he does not acknowledge, that he was ignorant. 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." Now, the false Apostles considered eloquence to be the essential part of preaching. They were, therefore, preferred by the Corinthians to St. Paul.

             To the fourth argument we reply, that, when one substance is wholly transformed into another, there no longer exists a mixture. In a true mixture, one of two substances is converted into a third. Hence, when a preacher, in expounding Holy Scripture, makes use of human learning subject to the truths of faith, the wine of Holy Writ 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." These words are a reply also to the fifth objection.

             The passage from the Gloss, quoted in the sixth 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 seventh objection.

             To the eighth 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.