3 On the distinction between the Gospel and philosophy 1 CR XII, 689–91
3 On the distinction between the Gospel and philosophy1
CR XII, 689–91
When Paul says: ‘See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy’ [Colossians 2:8], he does not reject philosophy but its abuse — just as, when someone says: ‘Take care not to be ensnared by wine’, he does not disparage wine but its abuse.
Paul is speaking of the kind of abuse that is most harmful in the Church, namely when Scripture is received as though it taught nothing other than a knowledge of human reason. For it is easy for cunning men to transform the Gospel, by skilful explanation, into philosophy, that is, the teaching of human reason. Thus Julian the Apostate2 charged the Christians with ignorance, because they had brought forth absurd beliefs, having misunderstood the figures of speech of Scripture.
Philosophy contains the art of rhetoric, physiology and precepts on civic morals. This teaching is a good creation of God, and the principal among all natural gifts. And it is a thing that is necessary in this corporal and civic life, such as food, drink, or such as public laws, etc.
Moral philosophy is the very law of God on civic morals.
The most absurd men of all are those who imagine that philosophy and the Gospel differ in such a way that either teaching is a law on morals, but that the Gospel adds a few laws on external works, such as that one must not take revenge, and other similar ones.
On the contrary, if anyone takes away from the Gospel any law on civic life that conflicts with philosophy or the laws of the emperors, he should immediately be despised.
Just as the hands of Jacob resemble the hands of Esau, so the Gospel certainly teaches nothing else regarding civic life than what philosophy and the laws themselves teach.
Pomponius Atticus3 and the Apostle Paul differ, because they disagree about God. The one doubts whether God cares about human affairs, and
1 This is a record of a disputation rather than a full oration, and thus lists the main points that were argued. It belongs to a series of disputations on Colossians 2.8 delivered by Melanchthon in 1527, when he dramatically changed the meaning of this passage; see further S. Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy: the Case of Philip Melanchthon (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 65–9. For Melanchthon's interpretation of the passage; see also Melanchthon, Paul's Letter to the Colossians, trans. D. C. Parker (Sheffield), 1989, pp. 46–56.
2 Julian the Apostate (d. 363), a nephew of Constantine, carried out a strict anti-Christian policy. He wrote the Adversus Christianos, which can be reconstructed from its refutation by Cyril of Alexandria.
3 Titus Pomponius Atticus (109–32 BC) was a close friend of Cicero. See his Letters to Atticus.
lives without God, the other declares that God truly punishes; similarly, that He forgives for the sake of Christ, and that He has regard for and hears us. They do not disagree in what regards civic morals.
Joseph, David, Isaiah and Daniel are statesmen just like Fabius, Scipio and Themistocles.4 They do not differ in the civic form of their life, but they differ in their faith in God.
The Gospel is not a philosophy or a law, but it is the forgiveness of sins and the promise of reconciliation and eternal life for the sake of Christ, and human reason by itself cannot apprehend any of these things.
Since, therefore, the Gospel teaches about God's will towards us, but philosophy teaches about matters subject to reason and does not assert anything about the will of God, it is sufficiently clear that the Gospel is not philosophy.
And however much reason judges about the will of God, certainly on its own it neither concludes nor asserts that God wants to forgive us without us giving anything in return, for the sake of Christ.
The Gospel approves of laws on good morals, and commands us to obey them.
Just as the Christian makes pious use of the law of God, so he can make pious use of philosophy, too. And since he knows that philosophy is the law of God, he should all the more respect the teaching of the philosophers and the true opinions of good writers.
That philosophy is the law of God can also be understood from the fact that it is the knowledge of natural causes and effects, and since these are things arranged by God, it follows that philosophy is the law of God, which is the teaching of that divine order.
Just as astronomy is the knowledge of the heavenly motions, which are arranged by God, so moral philosophy is the knowledge of the works, that is, of the causes and effects that God has arranged in the mind of man.
Thus we call philosophy not all the beliefs of everyone, but only that teaching which has demonstrations.
There is only one truth, as the philosophers say, therefore only one philosophy is true, that is, the one that strays least from demonstrations.
Stoic philosophy does not judge correctly on freedom from emotion
4 Quintus Fabius Maximus (c. 275–203 BC), renowned Roman general and consul of the Second Punic War. Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (c. 185–129 BC) achieved military success against Carthage and Numantia on behalf of Rome. He is known also as an orator and patron of letters. Cf. Cicero, The Dream of Scipio. Themistocles (c. 524–c. 459 BC), Athenian statesman and commander who achieved military success in the second Persian War.
(apatheia) and philosophises in a ridiculous way about things to be promoted (proēgmenois) and things in the second rank (apoproēgmenois), and those are most absurd who have said that no kind of philosophy is more similar to the Gospel than the teaching of the Stoics.
Augustine, too, is being absurd when he says that he has found the doctrine of the Christians in the Platonists, except for that one part: ‘The Word became flesh’ [John 1:14].
Augustine would have spoken correctly if he had said that he had found those laws on morals in the philosophers which are read in the Christian writers. For philosophers are completely ignorant of the Gospel, not knowing that, because of Christ, reconciliation is achieved through faith. For the rest they share the laws on civic morals with the Christians.
And Christ did not appear for the purpose of bringing out new laws on morals, since reason knew laws before that time. And it is a matter for magistrates to bring out laws, and there is no need of a new revelation for establishing them; for this is a matter for the judgement of reason.
And the Epicurean philosophy does not judge correctly about the purpose of moral goods, and Valla5 is being absurd when he prefers Epicurus alone to all the philosophers.
Aristotle's philosophy searches for demonstrations most assiduously, and therefore it surpasses all sects by far. And it judges correctly about the purpose of moral goods and the nature of virtue, at least if it is understood as being about civic life and civic virtues.
Nevertheless, philosophy is not contained within such narrow confines that one need assume that it is all included in the books written by Aristotle that have come down to us, but its elements are in Aristotle. Mathematicians, physicians and lawyers build on these as if on foundations.
Thus far we have spoken about the distinction between the Gospel and philosophy. It is another matter, however, to examine the distinction between divine law and philosophy. These agree with each other just as the Decalogue and the law of nature agree, because philosophy – to the extent that it has demonstrations – is the law of nature itself. But the Decalogue gives clearer precepts regarding the motions of the heart towards God.
5 Lorenzo Valla (1407–57) wrote the De Voluptate (later revised as De Vero Bono) which examined Stoic, Epicurean and Christian ideas of goodness. The Wittenberg University Library held two copies of this work: see S. Kusukawa, A Wittenberg University Library Catalogue of 1536 (Cambridge, 1995), nos. 950d and 979a.