however, the study of Scripture has always continued to advance in the
Church, their commentaries also have their own honorable place, and are
serviceable in many ways for the refutation of assailants and the
unravelling of difficulties. It is, moreover, most unbecoming to pass
by, in ignorance or contempt, the splendid works which our own scholars
have left behind them in abundance, and to have recourse to the works
of the heterodox, and to seek in them, with peril to sound doctrine and
not seldom with detriment to faith, the explanation of passages on
which Catholics have long ago most excellently expended their talents
and their labor. Although the studies of the heterodox, used with
prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic interpreter, he
should nevertheless bear well in mind this repeated testimony of the
ancients,--that the sense of the Sacred Scriptures can nowhere be found
incorrupt outside the Church, and that it cannot be delivered by those
who, being destitute of the true faith, only gnaw the husk of Scripture
and never reach its marrow.
Most desirable it is, and most essential, that the whole course of
Theology should be pervaded by the use of the Divine Scripture, which
should be, as it were, the soul thereof. This is what the Fathers and
the greatest theologians of all ages have professed and practised. It
was chiefly out of the sacred writings that they endeavored to proclaim
and establish the Articles of Faith and the truths which are their
consequences. It was in them, together with divine tradition, that
they found the refutation of heretical error, and the reasonableness,
the true meaning, and the mutual relation of the truths of the Catholic
faith. Nor will any one wonder at this who considers that the Sacred
Books hold such a pre-eminent position among the sources of Revelation
that without the assiduous study of them Theology cannot be rightly
treated as its dignity demands. Although it is right and proper that
students in academical institutions and schools should be chiefly
exercised in acquiring a scientific knowledge of dogma by means of
reasoning from the Articles of Faith to their consequences, according
to the rules of approved and solid philosophy, nevertheless a grave and
learned theologian will by no means overlook that method of doctrinal
demonstration which draws its proof from the authority of the Bible.
Theology does not receive her first principles from other sciences, but
immediately from God through Revelation. And therefore she does not
receive from other sciences as from superiors, but uses them as her
inferiors and her handmaids. It is this view of doctrinal teaching
which is laid down and recommended by the prince of theologians, St.
Thomas of Aquin. He also shows--such being the essential character of
Christian Theology--how a theologian can defend his own principles
against attack. "If the adversary," he says, "do but grant any portion
of the divine revelation, we have an argument against him. Against a
heretic we can employ Scripture authority, and against those who deny
one article we can use another. If our opponent rejects divine
revelation altogether, then there is no way left to prove the Articles
of Faith by reasoning. We can only solve the difficulties which are
raised against the faith." Care must be taken, then, that beginners
approach the study of the Bible well prepared and furnished; otherwise,
just hopes will be frustrated, or perchance--and this is worse--they
will unthinkingly risk the danger of error, and fall an easy prey to
the sophisms and labored erudition of the rationalists. The best
preparation will be a conscientious application to philosophy and
theology under the guidance of St. Thomas of Aquin, and a thorough
training therein--as We Ourselves have elsewhere shown and prescribed.
By this means, both in biblical studies and in that part of Theology
which is called _Positive_, they will pursue the right path and make
solid progress.
To prove, to expound, to illustrate Catholic doctrine by the legitimate
and skilful interpretation of the Bible is much; but there is a second
part of the subject of equal importance and of equal
laboriousness,--the maintenance in the strongest possible way of the
fulness of its authority. This cannot be done completely or
satisfactorily except by means of the living teaching authority of the
Church herself. The Church, by reason of her wonderful propagation,
her shining sanctity, and her inexhaustible fecundity in good, her
Catholic unity, and her unshaken stability, is herself a great and
perpetual motive of credibility, and an unassailable testimony of her
own divine mission. But since the divine and infallible teaching
authority of the Church rests also on the authority of Holy Scripture,
the first thing to be done is to vindicate the trustworthiness of the
sacred records at least as human documents. From this can clearly be
proved, as from primitive and authentic testimony, the divinity and the
mission of Christ our Lord, the institution of a hierarchical Church,
and the primacy of Peter and his successors. It is most desirable,
therefore, that there should be many members of the clergy well
prepared to enter upon a contest of this nature, and to repulse the
attacks of the enemy, chiefly trusting in that armor of God which is
recommended by the Apostle, but at the same time not unacquainted with
the more modern methods of attack. This is beautifully alluded to by
St. John Chrysostom. Describing the duties of priests, he says: "We
must use our every endeavor that the 'word of God may dwell in us
abundantly.' Not merely for one kind of light must we be prepared, for
the contest is many-sided, and the enemy is of every sort. They do not
all use the same weapons, nor do all make their onset in the same way.
It is needful that the man who has to contend against all should have
knowledge of the engines and the arts of all. He must be at once
archer and slinger, commandant and officer, general and private
soldier, foot-soldier and horseman, skilled in sea-fight and in siege.
Unless he knows every trick and turn of war, the devil is well able, if
only a single door be left open, to get in his ferocious bandits and to
carry off the sheep." The sophisms of the enemy and the manifold
strategy of his attack We have already touched upon.
Let Us now say a word of advice on the means of defence. The first
means is the study of Oriental languages and of the art of criticism.
These two acquirements are in these days held in high estimation. The
clergy, by making themselves more or less fully acquainted with them,
as time and place may demand, will the better be able to discharge
their office with becoming credit. They must make themselves "all
things to all men," always "ready to satisfy every one that asketh them
a reason for the hope that is in them." Hence it is most proper that
professors of Sacred Scripture and theologians should master those
tongues in which the Sacred Books were originally written. It would be
well that Church students also should cultivate them, more especially
those who aspire to academic degrees in Theology. Endeavors should be
made to establish in all academic institutions--as has already been
laudably done in many--chairs of the other ancient languages,
especially the Semitic, and of subjects connected therewith, for the
benefit principally of those who are destined to profess sacred
literature. These latter, with a similar object in view, should make
themselves well acquainted with and thoroughly exercised in the art of
true criticism. There has arisen, to the great damage of religion, an
artificial method, which is dignified by the name of the "higher
criticism." It pretends to judge of the origin, the integrity, and the
authority of every Book from internal indications alone. It is clear,
on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and
the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary
importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the
utmost care. In this matter internal evidence is seldom of great
value, except by way of confirmation. To look upon it in any other
light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make
the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and
endeavoring to destroy the authenticity of the Sacred Books. This
vaunted "higher criticism" will resolve itself into the reflection of
the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the
Scriptures the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to
doctrine. It will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those
sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully
exhibit in their own persons. Seeing that most of them are tainted
with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination
from the sacred writings of all prophecy and all miracle, and of
everything else that lies outside the natural order.
In the second place, we have to contend against those who, abusing
their knowledge of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred
Books, in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and so to vilify
the books themselves. Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on
matters of experience of the senses, are peculiarly dangerous to the
masses, and also to the young, who are but beginning their literary
studies. The young, if they lose their reverence for divine revelation
on any one point, are but too easily led to give up believing in
revelation altogether. It need scarcely be pointed out how the science
of nature, just as it is so admirably adapted to show forth the glory
of the Great Creator, provided it be rightly taught, so, if it be
perversely imparted to the youthful intelligence, it may prove most
fatal in destroying the principles of true philosophy, and in the
corruption of morality. Hence to the professor of Sacred Scripture a
knowledge of natural science will be of the greatest service in
detecting and meeting such attacks upon the Sacred Books.
There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian
and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own
lines, and so long as both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not
to make rash assertions, or to assert that which is not known as if it
were really known." If dissension should arise between them, here is
the rule, laid down by St. Augustine for the theologian: "Whatever they
can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to
be not contrary to our Scriptures. Whatever they assert in their
treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is, to
Catholic faith, we must either prove it, as well as we can, to be
entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest
hesitation, believe it to be so." To understand how just is the rule
here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or,
to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost, who spoke by means of them,
did not intend to teach men those things (that is to say, the essential
nature of the things of the visible universe)--things which are in no
way profitable unto salvation. The sacred writers did not seek to
penetrate the secrets of nature. They rather described and dealt with
things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were
commonly used at the time, and terms which in many instances are in
daily use at this day, even amongst the most eminent men of science.
Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes that which falls under
the senses. Somewhat in the same way the sacred writers--as the
Angelic Doctor reminds us--"went by what sensibly appeared," or put
down that which God, speaking to men, signified in a way which men
could understand, and to which they were accustomed.
The strenuous defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require
that we should equally uphold all the opinions which every one of the
Fathers, or which subsequent commentators have set forth in explaining
it. It may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters
are in question, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own
times, and have thus made statements which in these days have been
abandoned as unfounded. In their interpretations, therefore, we must
carefully note that which they lay down as belonging to faith, or as
intimately connected with faith, or that in which they are unanimous.
"In those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the
Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, even as we ourselves
are," says St. Thomas. In another place he says most admirably: "When
philosophers are agreed upon a point, and that point is not contrary to
faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as
a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the
philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to
the wise of this world an occasion of despising the doctrine of the
faith." The Catholic commentator, although he should show that those
facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now in these
days absolutely certain are not contrary to Scripture rightly
explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind that much which has
been held as proved and certain has afterwards been called in question
and rejected. If writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of
their own department, and carry their erroneous teaching into the
domain of philosophy, let them be handed over by the theological
commentator to philosophers for refutation.
The principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and
especially to history. It is a lamentable fact that there are many men
who with great labor make and publish investigations on the monuments
of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations, and other
illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often
to try to find mistakes in the sacred writings, and so to shake and
weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme
hostility, but also great unfairness. In their eyes a profane book or
an ancient document is accepted without hesitation. Scripture, if they
can only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the
slightest possible discussion as being entirely untrustworthy. It is
true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the
Bible. This question, when it arises, should be carefully considered
on its merits. The fact, however, is not to be too easily admitted,
but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also
happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous. In this case,
sound hermeneutical methods will greatly aid in clearing up obscurity.
It is absolutely wrong, however, and it is forbidden, either to narrow
inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that
the sacred writer has erred. The system of those who, in order to rid
themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that
divine inspiration regards matters of faith and morals, and nothing
beyond them, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth
or falsehood of a passage we should consider not so much what God has
said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it,
cannot be tolerated. All the books which the Church receives as sacred
and canonical were written wholly and entirely, with all their parts,
at the dictation of the Holy Ghost. So far is it from being possible
that any error can co-exist with inspiration, inspiration not only is
essentially incompatible with error, but it excludes error as
absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the
Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient
and unchanging faith of the Church. It was solemnly defined in the
Councils of Florence and of Trent. It was finally confirmed and more
expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the
words of that Council: The Books of the Old and of the New Testament,
whole and entire, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the
decree of the same Council (Trent), and as they are contained in the
old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.
The Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been
composed solely by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her
authority, nor only because they contain revelation without error, but
because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,
they have God for their Author. Hence we cannot say that, because the
Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, it was these inspired
instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary
Author. By supernatural power He so moved and impelled them to
write--He was so present to them--that all the things which He ordered,
and those things only, they first rightly conceived, then willed
faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in adequate words and
with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the
Author of the whole of the Sacred Scripture. Such has always been the
persuasion of the Fathers. "Therefore," says St. Augustine, "since
they wrote the things which He showed and said to them, it cannot be
said that He did not write them. His members executed that which their
Head dictated." St. Gregory the Great maintains: "Most superfluous it
is to inquire who wrote these things;--we loyally believe the Holy
Ghost to be the Author of the Book. He wrote it who dictated it to be
written. He wrote it who inspired its execution."
It follows that those men who maintain that an error is possible in any
genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic
notion of inspiration, or make God Himself to be the Author of error.
So emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine
writings, as left by the hagiographers, are entirely free from all
error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence,
to reconcile one with the other those numerous passages which seem to
be at variance--the very passages which in great measure have been
taken up by the "higher criticism." The Fathers were unanimous in
laying it down that those writings, in their entirety and in all their
parts, were equally from the divine _afflatus_, and that God Himself,
speaking through the sacred writers, could not set down anything that
was not true. The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what
they taught: "On my own part, I confess to your charity that it is only
to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have
learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that
no one of their writers has fallen into any error. If in these Books I
meet with anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate
to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has
not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself have not
understood it."
But with all the weapons of the best of arts, fully and perfectly to
fight for the holiness of the Bible is far more than can be looked for
from the exertions of commentators and theologians alone. It is an
enterprise in which we have a right to expect the co-operation of all
Catholic men who have acquired reputation in other branches of
learning. As in the past, so at the present time the Church is never
without the graceful support of her accomplished children. May their
services to the Faith ever grow and increase! There is nothing which
We believe to be more needful than that truth should find defenders
more powerful and more numerous than are the enemies whom it has to
face. There is nothing which is better calculated to imbue the masses
with homage for the truth than to see it joyously proclaimed by learned
men who have gained distinction in some other faculty. Moreover, the
bitter tongues of objectors will be silenced. At least they will not
dare to insist so shamelessly that faith is the enemy of science when
they see that scientific men, of eminence in their own profession, show
towards the faith most marked honor and reverence.
Seeing, then, that those men can do so much for the progress of
religion on whom the goodness of God has bestowed, together with the
grace of the faith, great natural talent, let such men, in this most
savage conflict of which the Scriptures are now the object, select each
of them the branch of study which is best adapted to his circumstances,
and endeavor to excel therein, and thus be prepared to repel with
effect and credit the assaults on the word of God. It is our pleasing
duty to give deserved praise to a work which certain Catholics have
taken in hand--that is to say, the formation of societies, and the
contribution of considerable sums of money, for the purpose of aiding
certain of the more learned in the pursuit of their study to its
completeness. Truly, an excellent method of investing money! It is an
investment most suited to the times in which we live! The less hope of
public patronage there is for Catholic study, the more ready and the
more abundant should be the liberality of private persons. Those to
whom God has given riches will thus use them to safeguard the treasure
of His revealed doctrine.
In order that such labors may prove of real service to the cause of the
Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which we have in
this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and
the Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures--and that
therefore nothing can possibly be proved, either by physical science or
by archeology, which can be in real contradiction with the Scriptures.
If apparent contradictious should be met with, every effort should be
made to meet them. Theologians and commentators of solid judgment
should be consulted as to what is the true or the most probable meaning
of the passage in discussion. Adverse arguments should also be
carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is not after all cleared up,
and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned.
Truth cannot contradict truth. We may be sure that some mistake has
been made, either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the
polemical discussion itself. If no mistake can be detected, we must
then suspend judgment for the time being. There have been objections
without number perseveringly directed against the Scriptures for many a
long year. These have been proved to be futile, and they are now never
heard of. Interpretations not a few have been put on certain passages
of Scripture (not belonging to the rule of faith or morals), and these
have been rectified after a more careful investigation. As time goes
on mistaken views die and disappear. Truth remaineth and groweth
stronger for ever and ever. Wherefore, as no one should be so
presumptuous as to think that he understands the whole of the
Scriptures--in which St. Augustine himself confessed that there was
more that he did not know than that which he did know--so, if one
should come upon anything that seems incapable of solution, he must
take to heart the cautious rule of the same holy Doctor: "It is better
even to be oppressed by unknown but useful signs than to interpret them
uselessly, and thus to throw off the yoke of servitude only to be
caught in the nets of error."
As regards those men who pursue the subsidiary studies of which We have
spoken, if they honestly and modestly follow the counsels and commands
which We have given--if by pen and voice they make their studies
fruitful against the enemies of the truth, and useful in saving the
young from loss of faith--they may justly congratulate themselves on
worthy service to the Sacred Writings, and on their having afforded to
the Catholic religion that aid which the Church has a right to expect
from the piety and from the learning of her children.