{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35682/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35682","id":"gutenberg_35682","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35682","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Bible -- Study and teaching -- Catholic Church","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Al Haines\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTERS OF BIBLE STUDY\n\n\nOR\n\n\nA POPULAR INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES\n\n\nBY\n\nTHE REV. HERMAN J. HEUSER\n\nPROF. OF SCRIPTURAL INTRODUCTION AND EXEGESIS, ST. CHARLES SEMINARY,\nOVERBROOK, PA.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CATHEDRAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION\n\n123 E. 50th Street\n\nNew York\n\n1895\n\n\n\n\nNihil Obstat:\n  D. J. McMAHON,\n    _Censor Librorum_.\n\n\n\nImprimatur:\n  MICHAEL AUGUSTINE,\n    _Archbishop of New York_.\n\n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT BY JOSEPH H. MCMAHON, 1895.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\nThe following pages are printed from notes used in a series of lectures\nbefore the \"Catholic Summer School of America\" at Pittsburgh.  They are\nneither an exhaustive nor a scientific exposition, but are meant as a\nsuggestive introduction, in popular form, to the intelligent reading of\nthe Bible.  Some of the answers to questions proposed by members of the\n\"School\" during the course have been inserted where it seemed most\nsuitable.\n\nI take occasion here to express my deep appreciation of the courtesy\nshown to its visitors by the Directors of the \"Catholic Summer School.\"\nTheir self-sacrificing spirit has secured to the organization the\nearnest co-operation of many gifted men and women animated by that\nrefined Catholic feeling which constitutes the highest type of a truly\ncultured society.  Nothing could have placed the institution on a\nfirmer basis, or could better have given it that guarantee of success\nto which the last session has borne witness.\n\nH. J. H.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n     I. The Ancient Scroll\n    II. Strange Witnesses\n   III. The Testimony of a Confession\n    IV. The Stones Cry Out\n     V. Heavenly Wisdom\n    VI. The Vicious Circle\n   VII. The Sacred Pen\n  VIII. The Melody and Harmony of the \"Vox Coelestis\"\n    IX. The Voice from the Rock\n     X. A Source of Culture\n    XI. The Creation of New Letters\n   XII. English Style\n  XIII. Friends of God\n   XIV. The Art of Prospecting\n    XV. Using the Kodak\n   XVI. The Interpretation of the Image\n  XVII. \"Deus Illuminatio Mea\"\n XVIII. Bush-Lights\n   XIX. The Use and the Abuse of the Bible\n    XX. The Vulgate and the \"Revised Version\"\n   XXI. The Position of the Church\n  XXII. Mysterious Characters\n XXIII. Conclusion\n  XXIV. Appendix\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTERS OF BIBLE STUDY.\n\n\n\nI.\n\nTHE ANCIENT SCROLL.\n\nIf a mysteriously-written document were brought to you, and its bearer\nassured you that it contained a secret putting you in possession of a\ngreat inheritance by establishing your relationship to an ancient race\nof kings, of which you had no previous knowledge, how would you regard\nsuch a document?\n\nYou would examine its age, the character of the manuscript, the quality\nof the paper or parchment; you would ask how it had come to you, and by\nwhom it had been transmitted through successive generations before it\nreached you.  And when, after careful inquiry, you had established the\nage and authenticity of the document, then you would study its\ncontents, examine the nature of its provisions, and, having clearly\nunderstood its meaning, ask yourself: How can I carry out the\nconditions laid down in this testament, in order that I may obtain the\nfull benefit of the generous bequest left by my noble ancestor?\n\nIt is on similar lines that I propose to treat our subject.  We shall\ntake up the Bible just as we would take up any other written work,\nrequiring, for the time being, simply so much faith--no more, but also\nno less than we would exact in the fair examination of any other work,\nwhether of fact or of fiction.\n\nWhen we have assured ourselves that the Bible is really as old and as\ntruthful a record of history as it pretends to be, and that it has for\nit such human testimony as leads us to admit historic facts in general,\nwe shall occupy ourselves with its contents, with the influence which\nthis wonderful book, this ancient testament of our royal Sire,\nexercises upon the heart, the mind, the general culture, by which it\nleads us to our inheritance, and enables us to assume our place in our\ndestined home.\n\nThe Bible, looking upon it as a merely human production, is a\ncollection of documents of various antiquity, containing historic\nrecords of successive generations, going back to a very remote period.\nIt relates the valiant deeds of valiant men and women, written either\nby themselves or by men of their own race.  It contains, furthermore, a\ngreat number of principles, doctrines, rules, and laws for the moral\nand external government of individuals and communities, particularly of\nthe families and tribes of the Hebrew nation.  Finally, we find in this\nancient scroll certain predictions and prophecies which, if we can show\nthat they were definitely made long in advance of the events foretold\nby them, become a strong argument in favor of the supernatural origin\nof the work.  However, this last point we shall leave entirely out of\nview for the present.\n\nIt is very clear that the book which we have in our hands, and which we\ncall the Bible, or The Book _par excellence_, has been printed and\nreprinted during four hundred years, in millions of copies, all of\nwhich agree substantially, not excepting the Bible of the so-called\n\"reformers,\" with whom, on the whole, we differ rather in the\ninterpretation than in the wording of its contents.  There are indeed\nsome disagreements on subjects touching religious doctrines, which,\nwhilst very important if we accept the Sacred Scriptures as the\ninspired word of God, hardly count for anything in a merely historical\nwork; and this is the light in which we regard the Bible just at\npresent.\n\nThe Bibles which are printed to-day are practically and substantially\nthe same as those which were printed four hundred years ago.  A great\nnumber of copies of first editions in different languages may still be\nfound in public and private libraries.  The New Testament version, from\nwhich Luther principally made his translation, was an edition by the\nwell-known humanist, Erasmus.  All the modern European translations,\nincluding that made into English five hundred years ago by Wiclif, had\nfor their original an ancient Latin version which was employed in the\nservice of the churches, and of which copies in manuscript, made over a\nthousand years ago, are still extant.  One of the oldest uncial Latin\nmanuscripts is the \"Vercelli Gospels,\" attributed to the hand of\nEusebius.  The Corpus Christi College Library at Cambridge has a\nmanuscript copy said to have been made by St. Augustine.  Of Greek\ncopies we have a very famous one in the Vatican Library, probably the\noldest preserved in the world--about 350; another manuscript, called\nthe Codex Sinaiticus, is in the Imperial Library of St. Petersburg; and\na third, of nearly the same age (IV. century), is the \"Codex\nAlexandrinus,\" at present in the British Museum.  Manuscripts older\nthan these are wanting, not only of the Bible, but of any other book,\nexcept fragments of writings on parchment and certain manuscripts\nrescued from Egyptian tombs, and papers discovered in the recent\nexcavations of Herculaneum, near Naples, in Italy.  Parchment, on\naccount of the expensive preparation required to make it suitable\nmaterial for writing, was sparingly used by the ancients at any time.\nThey preferred to employ the so-called papyrus, made of the fibrous\npith of a kind of rush growing abundantly in Egypt, and brought to\nEurope by Eastern merchants.  This, and other kinds of vegetable fibre\nfrom which paper suitable for writing was prepared since the days when\nMoses, as we must presume, practised the art of writing in the schools\nof Egypt, do not withstand the destructive influence of time.\nExperience proves that the ordinary atmosphere has completely corroded\ncotton paper of nine hundred years ago; the same is true of the linen\npaper made in the time of Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas.  Those\nexceptional treasures of Egyptian papyrus referred to above, which have\nbeen found of late years, owe their preservation to the fact that they\nwere enclosed in almost air-tight tombs, in a singularly dry climate;\nthe same is the case with regard to the manuscripts discovered in\nHerculaneum, which have been kept hermetically sealed by the tight\nlava-cover from Mount Vesuvius for a space of more than seventeen\nhundred years.\n\nHowever, among such manuscripts as have been preserved under ordinary\nconditions, by far the greatest number are copies, in various tongues,\nof the Bible, and some of these carry us back to the fourth century.\nWe have Bible manuscripts written on paper in Hebrew, Syriac, Greek,\nLatin, in the dialects of the Copts, the Arabs, the Armenians, the\nPersians, the Ethiopians, the Slavs, and the Goths, who were among the\nearliest nations converted to Christianity.  Now all these manuscript\nBibles, more than fourteen centuries old, substantially correspond to\nour Catholic Bibles of this day.\n\nThe early Christian missionaries who introduced the word of God to the\npagan nations speaking a strange tongue must have had some uniform\nsource whence to make their translations.  So many persons in different\nparts of the world, unacquainted with one another's language, could\nnot, except by some incredible miracle, have composed out of their\nfancy so large a book, agreeing page for page, nay, line for line.\nThey must have had some original at their disposal whence to make a\nuniform copy.  The fact is, we find that original book in the churches\nof Italy, Greece, Asia, and Africa.  The apostolic Fathers speak of it\nas known to everybody; they read from it on Sundays and festivals; they\nquote long passages, and the young candidates for Holy Orders are\ntaught, like the Hebrew levites of old, to memorize the psalms and\nmoral books of the Bible.  Among these witnesses is St. Clement of\nKoine.  According to Tertullian, who lived near his time, he was\nordained by St. Peter the Apostle; at any rate, St. Paul speaks of him\nin his Epistle to the Philippians.  Other disciples of the Apostles\nwere St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, St. Polycarp, the friend of St.\nJohn.  These are followed by St. Justin, who wrote a famous defence of\nthe Catholic faith called the \"Apology,\" which he presented to the\nEmperor Antoninus.  The latter, convinced of the young convert's\nsincerity, put a stop to the cruel persecutions which were then going\non against the Christians.  The Emperor Marcus Aurelius also received a\ncopy of the \"Apology\" from St. Justin.  In this well-known work the\nSaint states that \"_the Gospels, together with the writings of the\nprophets, are publicly read in the assemblies of the Christians._\"[1]\nHe also affirms that they were written in part by the Apostles\nthemselves and partly by their disciples.  This was shortly after the\nyear 138, when men were still alive who had conversed with St. Paul,\nand who could well remember the sweet admonitions of brotherly love\ngiven by the aged St. John, who tells us that he had seen with his own\neyes the things which he writes.[2]  The chain of apostolic writers\nfrom St. Peter to St. Augustine, _i.e._, from the first century to the\nfourth or fifth, bears witness that this wonderful book was used in\nevery Christian community from the regions of the Jordan, whence St.\nJustin came, to the confines of Spain, where Isidore of Cordova wrote\nhis commentaries; from the northernmost part of Dalmatia, where Titus\nhad preached the doctrine delivered him by St. Paul, to the limit of\nthe African desert, whence one of the oldest Latin versions of the\nScriptures was brought to St. Ambrose.\n\nIt is interesting to be able to cite the testimony of pagan as well as\nof Jewish writers concerning the great events which the Christian\nGospels record.  We have the historic fact of Christ's person and work\nattested in the \"Annals\" of Tacitus, the greatest of Roman\nhistorians,[3] who was consul of Rome in 97.  His statements are\ncorroborated by Suetonius, secretary to the Emperor Adrian, by Pliny,\nthe Viceroy of Bithynia and friend of the Emperor Trajan, by the Jewish\nwriters Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Christ, and the\nhistorian Flavius Josephus, and by the rabbis who collated the\ntraditions of the Talmud.  All these, whilst they wrote but briefly of\nthe subject, bear indirect witness to the belief and to the practice by\nthe earliest Christians of the Gospel precepts, although the books of\nthe New Testament had not at that time been formed into a definite\ncanon.  Thus the unbroken evidence of the existence of the Christian\nScriptures goes back to the very time of their first composition.\n\nWe come to the Old Testament.  That the Jews in the time of Christ\npossessed a collection of sacred books is recorded on every page of the\nNew Testament, of whose authentic source there can be no reasonable\ndoubt.  There are altogether about two hundred and seventy passages in\nthe New Testament books which are quotations from the Old Testament.\nThere are innumerable references in the Gospels and Epistles, and in\nthe early Christian writers, to the sacred law of the Jews, among whom\nthe first converts were made; for these converts continued to use the\nMosaic writings and the prophetical books.  Christ Himself had\nbeautifully illustrated this practice, from the first, in His teaching.\n\"He came to Nazareth,\" St. Luke tells us, \"where He was brought up; and\nHe went into the synagogue, according to His custom, on the sabbath\nday; and He rose up to read.  And the Book of Isaias the Prophet was\ndelivered unto Him.  And as He unfolded the book He found the place\nwhere it was written: _The spirit of the Lord is upon me, wherefore He\nhath anointed me; to preach the gospel to the poor He hath sent me; to\nheal the contrite of heart.  To preach deliverance to the captives, and\nsight to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised; to preach\nthe acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of reward_.  And when He\nhad folded the book He restored it to the minister and sat down.  And\nthe eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him.  And He began to\nsay to them: _This day is fulfilled this Scripture in your ears_.  And\nall gave testimony to Him.\"[4]\n\nAny attempt to corrupt the Old Testament writings, or to change and\ndestroy them, even in part, became impossible after the Gospels had\nbeen written.  It would at once have aroused marked attention among\nboth Jews and Christians, who with equal reverence regarded the Book as\nthe sacred and inviolable word of God, however mutually hostile their\nfeelings were regarding the interpretation of its meaning.  For if ever\nthere existed a document whose authority was sanctioned and whose\npreservation was guaranteed by the severest laws and most minute\nprecautions, it was the code of sacred writings known to the Jews as\nthe \"Law and the Prophets.\"  It was read in every synagogue on the\nsabbath and festival days.  Every Jew above the age of twelve was\nobliged to repeat certain parts of the Sacred Book each day, morning\nand night.  Thrice dispersed among the Gentile nations, north, west,\nand south, the Jews carried with them the book of the Law and the\nProphets, and we find them repeat its sweet words of hope and trust in\nJehovah by the rivers of Babylon as under the glimmer of the\ntorchlights in the caverns of Samaria or rocky Arabia.  Their faces\nwere forever turning towards Jerusalem.  Nay, when the language of\ntheir fathers had ceased to be spoken during generations of enforced\nexile, the children still repeated the Hebrew words of the Law in the\ntemple, even though they had versions made for the people by rabbis who\nwere under sacred vow not to change an iota of the Lord's written word.\nWe have in the present Hebrew Bibles some remnant of the traditional\ncare with which the Jew guarded the letter of the Law, whatever might\nbe the spirit in which he interpreted it.  In order that the Sacred\nText might never be tampered with, even by the addition or omission of\na single letter or word, the scribes were obliged to count the verses,\nwords, and characters of each book.  They knew by heart every\npeculiarity of grammatical or phonetic expression.  Thus the young\nrabbi must verify that the Book of Genesis contains 1,534 verses; that\nthe exact middle of the book, counting every letter from the beginning\nand from the end, occurs in chapter xxvii. 40.  He knew that there were\nten verses in the Scriptures beginning and ending with the letter\n[Hebrew: nun] (_nun_) (as in Lev. xiii. 9); two in which every word\nends with the letter [Hebrew: final mem] (_mem_).  The letter [Hebrew:\nayin] (_ayin_), in Ps. lxxx. 14, is the exact middle of the Psalter.\nThe letter [Hebrew: aleph] (_aleph_) occurs 42,377 times, [Hebrew:\nbeth] (_beth_) 38,218 times, [Hebrew: ghimel] (_ghimel_) 29,537 times,\nand so of every letter in the alphabet.  These, and a thousand other\npeculiarities which made the corruption of the Hebrew text an almost\nabsolute impossibility, were in later ages collected into a glossary\ncalled the Masorah, which forms a sort of separate commentary to the\nBible.  If you open the Hebrew volume of the Old Testament, just as it\nis printed to-day, you will find many of these warnings inserted in the\nvery text.  Thus at the end of the Book of Chronicles we have this\nsentence: \"The printer is not at fault, for the sum total of verses in\nthe whole Book of Chronicles is 1650.\"  Then, lest the reader might\nforget this number, a verse is attached which contains the letters\nrepresenting the same number.  The verse, which is taken from the I.\nSamuel vi. 13, reads: \"_They saw the ark and rejoiced in seeing it_.\"\nJust as the words \"_MeDiCaL VIrtue_\" might stand in English for the\nsame number.\n\nMany other peculiarities in the manner of copying the Hebrew text have\nbeen transmitted for ages without change.  Thus in the Book of Numbers\nxi. 1 we find the letter [Hebrew: nun] (_nun_) written backward\n[Hebrew: reversed nun], to express more emphatically the meaning of\n\"perversity,\" mentioned in the verse.  In Job xxxviii. 13 the letter\n[Hebrew: ayin] (_ayin_) in the word [Hebrew: final mem, yod, ayin,\nshin, khaf] (_reshachim_), \"ungodly,\" is raised above the line, to\nindicate how God will shake up into the air, like chaff, the ungodly of\nwhom the Prophet speaks.\n\nBut it is needless to point out in detail all the odd precautions which\nwere invented by the rabbis that they might exercise a most rigorous\ncontrol over the Hebrew text; and although these methods are the\nresults of a later school of Hebraists, they go to show the sense of\nresponsibility which the Jews must always have felt regarding the\npreservation of the ancient Testament.  Even at this day you can hardly\ndiscover a substantial departure from the original in the numerous\nmanuscript copies extant.  Kennicott, an English Biblical scholar,\nbrought together five hundred and eighty Hebrew manuscripts of the\nBible which, after careful study and comparison, revealed scarcely any\ndifferences of the text.  An Italian, Prof. de Rossi, who died in 1831,\nhad collected seven hundred and ten manuscripts, and had seen in\nvarious libraries one hundred and thirty-four more, all of which he\nexamined critically without finding any notable differences.  I am\nspeaking, remember, of such differences as would affect the historical\nidentity of these manuscript copies with their original.  It would be\nfolly to assert that these manuscripts, which reached the number of\nover 1,600, are copies made by the same scribes; for some of them were\ndiscovered in Arabia, others in old Jewish settlements in China; one,\nthe oldest in existence, as some believe, was found in a synagogue in\nthe Crimea, by a Jewish rabbi named Abraham Firkeowicz.\n\n\n\n[1] _Apolog._, i. 67.\n\n[2] Ep. St. John, chap. i. 1.\n\n[3] Tacit., _Annal_., xv. 38-44.\n\n[4] St. Luke iv. 16-22.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nSTRANGE WITNESSES.\n\nIf there remained no trace of the original writings of the Old\nTestament books preserved for us in the Hebrew tongue, we should still\npossess very reliable witnesses of ancient date to testify to their\nexistence in substantially the same form in which we have them; for the\nchildren of Jewish exiles, who were forced gradually to substitute the\nlanguage of their conquerors for their mother tongue, had well\nauthenticated translations for their use in the synagogues.  The most\nremarkable of such translations is the so-called Greek Septuagint,\ncommonly believed to have been made for the Alexandrian Library by\nseventy Jewish rabbis at the request of King Ptolemy Philadelphus.  We\nshall have occasion, later on, to revert to the significance of this\nGreek version.  For the present it is only necessary to mention that it\nwas so highly esteemed by the Jews themselves that they used it for\nseveral centuries in their reading to the people, many of whom\nunderstood only the Greek.\n\nEven the enemies of the Jews bear witness to the unchanged character of\nthe oldest portion of the Hebrew Bible for centuries before the coming\nof our Lord.\n\nAbout the year 536 B.C., on the return of the Jewish exiles from\nBabylon, the Samaritans, a mixed race of Jewish and Aramaic stock,\nsought from the temple authorities at Jerusalem the privilege of\nworshipping with the rest of the Jews in the holy city.  This was\nrefused.  Shortly afterwards one of the priests at Jerusalem was\nexcommunicated for having married the daughter of a Samaritan prince.\nHe sought refuge in Samaria, and having built a temple on Mount\nGarizim, induced the people to worship according to the Mosaic Law.\nThey were found to possess a copy of the Pentateuch, which they had\ntranscribed in Samaritan characters; and whilst the Jews of Southern\nPalestine held no communication with them, and the Samaritans on their\npart looked upon the Jews as schismatics who had changed the ancient\nobservances of the Law, yet both recognized the same sacred code as the\nrule of their conduct and religion.\n\nA copy of this valuable version, which at a later date was translated\ninto the actual Samaritan dialect, was discovered at Damascus in 1616,\nand has since been printed in several editions at Paris and London.  It\nis of great importance, as it establishes a perfect accord with the\nreading of the Jewish Hebrew text.  These versions, made at different\ntimes, in places widely apart, and by men who were decidedly hostile to\neach other on religious as well as on national grounds, force us to\nadmit a well-fixed, universally known, and trusted original of the\nbooks of Moses; for where there is a copy there must be something\ncopied from, just as when we see the well-defined shadow of an object\nwe know that the object itself exists.\n\nThe antiquity of the Hebrew Bible is indeed attested by many no less\nconclusive arguments than those we have given, which, from the\nhistorian's point of view, stamp it as the most important monument of\nantiquity which we have, and whose genuine character is proved by the\nmost trustworthy documentary evidence.  There is no page of historical\naccount in existence to-day that has such overwhelming testimony in\nfavor of its authentic origin as these books of the Bible.  Known by\ngenerations as the inviolable law of God, guarded with scrupulous\nsolicitude as their greatest religious treasure, read sabbath after\nsabbath in the synagogues, not alone of Palestine, but of Arabia,\nAssyria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome--in short, wherever the\nsons of Abraham had been dispersed in the course of more than twenty\ncenturies--who was it, friend or foe, that could have dared to change\nthis royal mandate of the Most High to His chosen people!  If a man\nwere to-day to print a copy of the Constitution, or a history of the\nformation of the American Republic, introducing some hitherto\nunheard-of statements, or omitting some important words or facts, how\nlong would such imposition remain unnoticed or unchallenged?  Yet it\nwould be infinitely easier in our times, and under our conditions, for\nsuch change to pass unnoticed than it would have been among the Jews.\nThe Oriental races are intensely averse to anything that threatens to\nalter their traditions.  The customs of the Eastern peoples to-day are\nthe same as they are described by Isaias seven hundred years before\nChrist, and the Jew of Isaiah's time reflects in every act the manners\nof another seven hundred years before, when Moses describes his people\nas imitating the domestic virtues and habits of Abraham's day, a time\nwhich carries us back still another seven centuries.  A thousand years\nmake no perceptible change in Oriental civilization.  You may see it\nevery day.  Take as a ready instance Algeria, visited annually by many\nAmericans, who go to Europe by the southern route.  It is a coast city,\nlying in the full glare of European civilization; nay, modern life has\nforced itself upon this town with the captivating aggressiveness of\nFrench manners, French magnificence, French soldiery, and a system of\ncommerce which, within the last sixty years, has caused the European\npopulation to outnumber the original Arab inhabitants of Algiers by\ntwo-thirds.  Yet the daily and forced contact, for two whole\ngenerations, between the Arab and the European has produced hardly any\nchange in the habits of the former.  The Mussulman passes through the\nsplendid streets of the French portion of the town when necessity urges\nhim, in silence and with apparent disdain.  He prefers his cavern-like\nhabitation, with small square holes for windows, and an iron grating\ninstead of glass, to the spacious and lightsome palaces built by the\nFrench and English colonists.  The Arab woman feels no desire for the\npretty vanities of modern fashion, for the graceful freedom and\nintellectual intercourse with men; she conceals her form in the\ntraditional wide robe of the East, with a veil over her head, a row of\nshining coins or beads hanging down from the forehead, and a kerchief\nover her face hiding all but the gazelle-like eyes.  You see in that\none city, open to the constant changes arising from the innumerable\nrelations of travel and commerce, two worlds of men: one busy, fitful,\ngay, and splendidly modern; the other silent, immovable, almost\nscornful, and in dwelling and dress, in manner and language, just the\nsame as you might have observed them ages ago.\n\nSuch precisely were the people who guarded and delivered to us the\nbooks of the Old Testament.  Their religious, civil, and domestic\npractices, everywhere and at all times of their history, correspond so\nperfectly with what we read in any part of this volume that, even if\nportions of the Bible were lost, we should have the living tradition to\nwitness to the omission, since we know that the life of the Hebrew was\never subject to the regulations of the law of Jehovah, which was to him\nthe supreme expression of all that is great and good and wise.\n\"Uniformity of belief and ritual practice,\" says the Protestant\nGeikie,[1]\" was the one grand design of the founders of Judaism; the\nmoulding the whole religious life of the nation to such a machine-like\ndiscipline as would make any variation from the customs of the past\nwell-nigh impossible.  A universal, death-like conservatism, permitting\nno change in successive ages, was established as the grand security for\na separate national existence....  For this end, not only was that part\nof the Law which concerned the common life of the people--their\nsabbaths, feast-days, jubilees, offerings, sacrifices, tithes, the\nTemple and Synagogue worship, civil and criminal law, marriage, and the\nlike--explained, commented on, and minutely ordered by the Rabbis, but\nalso that portion of it which related only to the private duties of\nindividuals in their daily religious life.\"  And to this day the\northodox Jew observes the same rites and ceremonies which marked the\nservice of his forefathers, whether in Judea or Samaria, on the banks\nof the Nile under the Ptolemies, at Babylon under the Seleucides, or at\nNiniveh under Nabuchodonoser.  \"What event of profane history,\" writes\nthe Abbe Gainet, \"can boast of an unbroken succession of 3,500\nanniversaries such as those of which we have assurance in the history\nof the Jews?\"[2]\n\n\n\n[1] \"Life of Christ,\" chap. xvii.\n\n[2] La Bible sans la Bible, vol. I., Etude preliminaire.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nTHE TESTIMONY OF A CONFESSION.\n\nThe argument of the last chapter leads us to another evidence which\npoints to the historical authenticity of the Hebrew Bible.  It is\nplain, even upon superficial examination of this book, that it\ncontains, beside the severest penalties for sin, the most stinging\naccusations of infidelity against the people of God, and the most\nscorching rebukes of their crimes; it relates the transgressions of\ntheir kings and princes and priests; in short, it records everything\nwhich the Jewish nation and their rulers must have been anxious to keep\nsilent, or to mitigate where it was necessary to write it down.  Every\nreason of prudence and national self-love must have suggested to them\nto destroy such records where they existed, because they made their\nvaunted glory a story of everlasting shame.  Compare this historical\nrecord of the Jewish people with the contemporary annals of the\nAssyrian, Persian, Greek, or Roman monarchs.  These are full of\nextravagant laudations, of royal deeds of valor, of the splendor of\ntheir victories over other nations; whereas the statements of the Bible\nare simple, the narrative of heroic acts and signal divine favors is\nconstantly mingled with incidents deeply self-humiliating for a race\nthat called itself chosen of God above all the Gentiles.  The Jews\nrecord numerous defeats, shameful treacheries, and errors of their most\nbeloved kings.  They rebel, they commit every crime forbidden by the\nLaw; yet whilst they kill the prophets who charge them with\ningratitude, they patiently suffer the record of it all to go into the\nbooks which they know will be read to all the people for their shame.\nThey make no attempt to minimize or to excuse themselves to their\nchildren, however much they love the glory of Israel and the splendor\nof Jerusalem as the one nation and city worthy of the most exalted\npatriotic praise.  Other nations made themselves a religion in harmony\nwith their passions, so as to soothe the conscience.  But the Jew finds\na law of life given him in the great book of Moses.  He may fall from\nhis ideals, he may worship idols, but he never ceases to recognize that\nthis is wrong because it is contrary to the law of Jehovah.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nTHE STONES CRY OUT.\n\nThe chain of documentary and circumstantial evidence which points to\nthe preservation, substantially intact, of the Bible as an historic\nrecord of the highest possible trustworthiness is completed by the\ndaily increasing store of monuments which are brought to light,\nespecially in Palestine, Assyria, and Egypt.  Up to the middle of the\npresent century the largest part of our knowledge of the ancient\nnations was drawn from the Bible.  It was the one great treasure-house\nwherein the history of the East was to be found.  We had Greek and\nRoman and some Egyptian historians, but their knowledge was confined to\ntheir own people, and needed to be supplemented by the details related\nin the Pentateuch, in Josue, Judges, Ruth, the two Books of Samuel, the\nBooks of Kings, Paralipomenon, Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Esther, and the\nMachabees, all of which are historical books containing facts,\nstatistics, constitutions, and dynastic lines, without which profane\nhistory would still be a doubtful and barren field of study.\n\nBut, lately, the studious industry of scholarly men has gone over the\nground of the old events, to test with the instruments of historic\ncriticism the veracity, and, incidentally, the authenticity of the\nBible record.  Aided by the royal munificence of governments and\nprivate corporations, scholars went to search out and examine the\nmonuments of antiquity in those parts where the Jewish race had dwelt\nduring the periods recounted in the Bible.  They found, mostly below\nthe earth, and sometimes beneath the flood-beds of streams and lakes,\ntraces in stone or clay or metal which pointed to their containing\nvaluable information regarding the Persian, Assyrian, Egyptian, and\nother nations with whom the Hebrew people had come in contact.  These\ntraces were sometimes in signs and languages not understood or wholly\nunknown in our learned world, but with assiduous study the mysteries\ncame, in course of time, to be unravelled.  The story of these\ndiscoveries is in various ways extremely interesting, and we shall\nspeak of them more in detail later on.\n\nBesides the primitive inscriptions just referred to, a number of cities\nhave been discovered which lay buried for many centuries beneath the\nground upon which afterwards other races dwelt and built their homes.\nExcavations in Palestine go, day by day, to explain, where they do not\nsimply corroborate, the statements of the Bible.  The diggings about\nthe supposed ancient site of Nineveh, in Babylonia, have unearthed the\nruins of an immense library.  Sir A. H. Layard, and subsequently Mr.\nGeorge Smith and Hormuzd Rassam, have brought together a number of clay\ntablets which open an immense world of Assyrian and Babylonian\nliterature, whose existence was hitherto known only by the indications\ngiven in the Book of Daniel and other historical portions of the Bible\nconcerning the conquerors of the Jews.  These discoveries, as Mr. A. H.\nSayce remarks in his \"Fresh Lights from Ancient Monuments\" (page 17),\nhave not only \"shed a flood of light on the history and antiquity of\nthe Old Testament, but they have served to illustrate and explain the\nlanguage of the Old Testament as well.\"\n\nThe evidence brought to light by these monuments has left no doubt in\nthe minds of scientific men as to the facts that occurred three and\nfour thousand years ago.  We read the inscriptions which bear witness\nto the work of the Chaldean king Nimrod, to Zoroaster the Elamite, to\nKhamu-rabi, the Arab of the days of Moses; we treasure as of primary\nhistorical importance the account of Herodotus, who visited Babylon at\nthe time when Esdras and Nehemias, who were both ministers at the court\nof Artaxerxes, wrote their continuation of the Book of Chronicles for\nthe Jewish brethren in Palestine.  When we read the works of Tacitus\nand Suetonius, of Cicero and Virgil, all of whom indicate that they had\nsome knowledge of the Jewish sacred books,[1] we entertain no doubt as\nto their existence or the authenticity of their writings; yet men under\nthe guise of scientific criticism have sought to cast doubts upon the\nBiblical records which have in their favor a documentary evidence a\nhundred times more accurate and trustworthy than any work of antiquity\nwithout exception in the whole range of history.  If apologists were\nsilent, the very stones would begin to cry out in behalf of the\nauthenticity and antiquity of the Biblical records.  Every day is\nbringing this truth into stronger relief.  \"Discovery after discovery,\"\nsays Prof. Sayce, \"has been pouring in upon us from Oriental lands, and\nthe accounts given only ten years ago of the results of Oriental\nresearch are already beginning to be antiquated....  The ancient world\nhas been reawakened to life by the spade of the explorer and the\npatient skill of the decipherer, and we now find ourselves in the\npresence of monuments which bear the names or recount the deeds of the\nheroes of Scripture.\"\n\n\n\n[1] Cf. Hettinger-Bowden, \"Revealed Religion,\" page 158.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nHEAVENLY DOCTRINE.\n\n  \"Whence but from heaven could men, unskilled in arts,\n  In several ages born, in several parts,\n  Weave such agreeing truths?\"\n            (Dryden, _Religio Laici_.)\n\n\nThe Bible, regarded as a work of history which offers us proofs of\ncredibility beyond those of any secular work of the same kind, has in\nits composition and style a refinement and loftiness of tone far\nsuperior to other writings of equal age which have come down to us.\nThe Jews \"attributed to these books, one and all of them, a character\nwhich at once distinguishes them from all other books, and caused the\ncollection of them to be regarded in their eyes as one individual\nwhole.  This distinguishing character was the divine authority of every\none of those books and of every part of every book.\"[1]  This belief of\nthe Jews was so strong, so universal, so unchanging that, as has\nalready been said, it pervaded and regulated their entire religious,\npolitical, and social life during all the eventful centuries of\nIsraelitish history.\n\nThat our Lord knew of this belief, that He endorsed it, preached and\nemphasized it repeatedly, is very evident from the authentic narrative\nof the Gospels.\n\nExpressions indicating this are to be found everywhere in the writings\nof the evangelists: \"Have you never read in the Scriptures?\"  He says\nto the Scribes in referring to the words of the Psalmist (cxvii. 22):\nThe stone which the builders rejected, etc. (St. Matthew xxi. 42.)\nAgain, a little later on, He charges the Sadducees who say there is no\nresurrection: \"You err, not knowing the Scriptures\" (Ibid. xxii. 29).\nIn the Garden of Olives He bears witness to the prophetic character of\nthe Book of Isaiah: \"How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled\" (Ibid.\nxxvi. 54)?  And the historian, a friend and Apostle of Christ, adds:\n\"Now all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be\nfulfilled\" (Ibid. 56).  St. John's Gospel, especially, abounds in\nreferences like the foregoing, which point to the intimate relation\nbetween the Messianic advent of Christ and the figures of the Old Law,\nand assure us that the books of the Prophets, as well as the\naccompanying historic accounts of the Scriptural books generally, were\nregarded as the sacred word of God, not only by the Jews, but by the\ndisciples of Christ.\n\nThis sacred collection was generally spoken of as consisting of three\nparts, namely, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.  Philo and\nJosephus, both trained in the schools of the Pharisees, mention the\ndivision as one well understood among the Jews of their time.  Christ\nHimself speaks of the Sacred Scriptures, in different places, with this\nsame distinction.\n\nNow the testimony of Christ, who proved Himself to be the Son of God,\nand therefore unerring truth, is explicit in so far as it appeals with\na supreme and infallible authority to the Jewish Scriptures as to a\ntestimony _not human, but divine_.  \"Have you not read that which was\nspoken _by God_?\" He says, referring to the Mosaic Law in Exodus iii. 6\n(St. Matt. xxii. 31).  Many times He speaks of the Scriptures \"that\nthey may be fulfilled,\" thus indicating that they contain that which\nlay in the future, and whose foreknowledge must have come from God.\nThis testimony of Our Lord is strengthened by the interpretation of His\nApostles in the same sense.\n\nYet although the testimony of Christ and the Apostles regarding the\nfact that the Books of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms are\ndivinely inspired, is very explicit, we have nowhere a clear statement\nor a catalogue which might assure us what books and parts of books are\nactually comprised in this collection of the Sacred Scriptures of which\nour Lord speaks.  Christ approves as the word of God those writings\nwhich were accepted as such among the Jews of His day, but He does not\ngive us any definite security by this general endorsement that every\nchapter, every verse, much less every word of the Bible, as we have\nreceived it, is actually inspired.  We are not therefore quite sure\nfrom the evidence thus far given that the Old Testament, as we have it,\nhas in every part of it the sanction of Christ's testimony to its being\ntruly the word of God.  As to the New Testament, we know that, however\naccurate and trustworthy as a history of the times in which it was\ncomposed it may be, yet it could not have had the explicit approval of\nour Lord, simply because it had not been written and was not completed\nfor about a hundred years after His death and glorious resurrection.\n\nYet we accept the New Testament as also inspired in just the same\nauthoritative way as we receive the Hebrew writings of the Old Law.\nAnd nothing but a divine testimony, such as that of Christ, could\nassure us sufficiently that in the Sacred Scriptures we have the word\nof God.\n\nWhat criterion have we by which to determine precisely what books and\nparts belong to this collection of Old Testament writings of which\nChrist speaks as the word of God?  What authority have we, moreover,\nfor believing the entire New Testament inspired, since it was written\nafter the time of Christ?  If Luther and other reformers, so-called,\nthrew out some portions of the sacred text, by what standard or\ncriterion were they guided?  Some have answered that we need not the\ntestimony of Christ or any other equally explicit proof to determine\nwhat parts belong to this collection of writings representing the\ninspired word of God.  They hold, with Calvin, that a certain spiritual\nunction inherent in the Sacred Scriptures determines their source, and\nproduces in the devout reader an interior sensation which gives him an\nabsolute conviction of the truth.  But common experience teaches that\ndevout feelings may be produced by books which are not inspired, nay,\nby positively irreligious books, which appeal to our better sensitive\nnature in some passages whilst they destroy a proper regard for virtue\nin others.  Moreover, the \"absolute conviction of the truth\" to be\ndeduced from the reading of the Sacred Scriptures is belied by a\nsimilar experience, since various sects draw opposing conclusions from\nthe same texts.  As truth cannot contradict itself, and as Christ\nprayed that His followers all be of one mind, we do not feel safe in\nadmitting mere subjective feeling and judgment as a test of what is\nGod's word.\n\nTherefore we must look for some other criterion.  Indeed, if our Lord\nwished us to accept the Sacred Scriptures, including the New Testament,\nwhich was written many years after His time, and for a long time was\nknown only to very much separated portions of the faithful, we may be\nquite sure that He provided a means, an authoritative and clear method,\nwhich would lead us to an unerring conclusion in regard to what is and\nwhat is not the inspired word of God.  This would be all the more\nnecessary for those who regard the Bible as the principal rule and\nsource of their faith.\n\nIt is a well-established historical fact that Christ taught some \"new\ndoctrines,\" as they were called, and that He gave a commission to His\nfollowers, which they repeated and carried out at the sacrifice of\ntheir lives.  There is no obscurity whatever about certain words and\nprecepts given by our Lord, historically recorded by six of His\nApostles and by many of His disciples who had heard and seen Him, who\nhonestly and intelligently believed in Him, and who were prepared to\ndie, and in some cases actually did suffer martyrdom for the assertions\nthey made.  He bade them teach all nations the things He had taught\nthem.  He did not give them a book, as He might have done, nor did He\ntell them to write books; for some of the Apostles never wrote\nanything; and of those who did write in later days, some had actually\nnever seen our Lord.  Such is the common belief regarding St. Paul, who\nwrote more than any other of the evangelical writers.  St. Luke, in the\nvery opening of his Gospel, tells us that he wrote what had been\ndelivered to him by those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the\nword.  Our Lord did not, therefore, give His disciples a book, but He\nwas very explicit in making them understand and feel that He gave them\nan unerring Spirit, who would be just the same as Himself, verily\nidentical with their living Master and Teacher, Christ, who would abide\nwith them to the end of time.  \"_Behold, I am with you all days, even\nto the consummation of the world._\"  To the consummation of the world?\nAnd were they never to die?  Were they actually to go, as some believed\nof St. John, to perpetuate the kingdom of Christ, wandering over the\nearth until all the nations were converted?  Not so.  They were to\ndeliver His doctrine to their successors, and the Holy Spirit, the\nParaclete, would watch over it until the end of ages.  St. Peter would\nlive, in this sense, forever, and all the opposing forces of error, the\nmighty gates of hell, would not overcome that Spirit any more than they\nwould triumph over Christ, who had \"overcome the world.\"  To St. Peter\nHe said: \"To thee I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;\" \"Confirm\nthou thy brethren.\"  All this was to go on and on, so that every human\ncreature could come into possession of truth through this unerring\nSpirit that presided over the Christian doctrine.  And this perpetual\ntransmission of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, who would guide\nthe future teachers and preside over their councils as at the first\ncouncils of Antioch and Jerusalem,--this perpetual transmission through\na body like the apostolic body, ever living, ever guarded from error,\never triumphant amid humiliations, what else is it but the Church, that\nglorious heritage of ages, which we recognize through all time in every\nland, holding every class and condition with the wondrous power of its\nunity of doctrine and discipline!\n\nNow it is this body, this ever-living and unchanging organism, this\ngrand apostolic tribunal, which Christ established, and without which\nHis mission to men would really have remained incomplete, that tells us\nthat the things which some of the Apostles and some of the disciples\nwrote for our instruction and edification are inspired by the same holy\nand infallible Spirit which guided the Apostles in their oral teaching.\nNot all things were written there, as St. John tells us, but many\nthings which they had taught, and which would keep the people, with\nwhom the Apostles could not be ever present, in mind of that doctrine.\nThe written things were not intended to replace the spoken word of\ndoctrinal jurisdiction, for the evangelical teaching of the spoken word\nwas to go on to the end; besides, there were many who could not read,\nand many who might listen but would not read.  Furthermore, there would\nbe need of a living apostolic tribunal, since a written doctrine, like\na written law, is liable to various and sometimes contradictory\ninterpretations.  We have constitutions and laws, but we need judges\nand courts to decide the meaning and application, and if it were not\nthat men forget the order of justice, or are too remote from the\ncentres of jurisdiction, we should not need any written laws at all.\nCommunities may be governed by a wise superior without any written\nlaws, and in no case does the written law dispense with the necessity\nof a discretionary living authority.  It is quite evident that in the\nmatter of truth God wished His Apostles to use _all the instruments_ by\nwhich that truth might be safely and rightly communicated, and thus the\nwritten word was added to the living teaching which the Holy Ghost was\never to direct and safeguard.\n\nI repeat: Christ did not give His disciples a book, but a living,\ninfallible spirit, abiding with them to the end of time, as He said;\nand since the Apostles were not to remain on earth to the end of the\nworld, what else could our Lord have meant but that others would take\ntheir place on the same conditions, with the same prerogatives!  That\nHe wished and said this is written over and over again in the sacred\nvolume, and by men who, if they had held this grand trust only for\nthemselves, would have had every reason to say so.  But they state the\ncontrary.  St. Peter ordains St. Paul; St. Paul sends Timothy and Titus\nto the new converts on the same conditions, bidding them to preserve\nintact the grace that is in them \"through the imposition of hands.\"\nAnd the successive generations of Pontiffs who take the place of Peter\nand Paul and Timothy and Titus are the grand tribunal for the\ntransmission of Christ's doctrine.\n\nThat tribunal, from St. Peter down to Leo XIII., is the authority:\n\"Christ having sent them, even as the Father had sent Him,\" which tells\nus that the books of the Sacred Scriptures, such as we have them, and\nas they are singly defined in what is called the Catholic Canon of\nBiblical Books, are truly and really the word of God, and were written\nunder the impulsion of the Holy Spirit.\n\n\n\n[1] \"The Sacred Scriptures,\" Humphrey.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nTHE VICIOUS CIRCLE.\n\nIn the preceding chapter it was said that the Sacred Scripture of the\nNew Testament contains Christ's statements according to which He\nfounded an ever-living tribunal of doctrine which decided the question\nof what books are, and what books are not inspired, whenever there is\nany doubt about such books.  Perhaps you will say: \"But is this not\narguing in a circle--a vicious circle, as philosophers say?  You prove\nthe existence of the Church as the tribunal to determine what books\nbelong to the Sacred Scriptures from the words of the Bible; and then\nyou turn about and prove the inspiration of the Bible from the\nauthority of the Church.\"  Now mark the difference.  When in my first\nargument I refer to the Bible as containing Christ's statement and the\ncommission given to His Apostles, I am taking the testimony of the\nBible, not as an inspired or divine book, but simply as a trustworthy\nhistorical record which tells us the fact, repeated by several\neye-witnesses and sincere men, such as the evangelists and apostolical\nwriters, that Christ, of whose divinity they were convinced, had said\nand emphasized the fact that He meant to found a Church.  And as that\nChurch was to have the divine spirit abiding in it, guiding its\ndecisions, it came naturally within the province of that Church to\ndefine whether certain books were to be regarded as really inspired by\nthat Holy Spirit.  Thus the Church placed upon these books the mark and\nsign-manual of that commission which she had unquestionably received.\n\nBut I am constrained, for the sake of completing our present aspect of\nthe subject, to say something on the character and extent of that\ndivine element which Jews and Christians recognize when they accept the\nSacred Scriptures as the word of God.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\nTHE SACRED PEN.\n\nWe have seen that the Biblical writings bear the unmistakable impress\nof a divine purpose.  The nature of that purpose is likewise clearly\nenunciated on every page of Holy Writ.  Man in his fallen condition\nstands in need of law and example, of precept and promise.  These God\ngives him.  We read in Exodus (Chap. iii.) that He first speaks to\nMoses, giving him His commands regarding the liberation and conduct of\nHis people out of Egypt.  Later on, in the desert on Mount Sinai,\n\"Moses spoke, and God answered him\" (Chap. xix. 19); and \"Moses went\ndown to the people and told them all\" (Ibid. 25).  Next we read (Chap.\nxxiv. 12) that the Lord said to Moses: \"I will give thee tables of\nstone, and the law, and the commandments which _I have written, that\nthou mayest teach them_.\"\n\nHere God announces Himself as the writer of \"the Law and the\nCommandments,\" although we receive them in the handwriting of Moses.\nIs Moses a mere amanuensis, writing under dictation?  No.  He is the\nintelligent, free instrument, writing under the direct inspiration of\nGod.  In this sense God is the true author or writer of the Sacred\nScriptures, making His action plain to the sense and understanding of\nHis children through the medium of a man whom He inspires to execute\nHis work.\n\nHow does this inspiration act on the writer who ostensibly executes the\ndivine work?  We answer: _God moves the will of the writer, and\nillumines his intellect, pointing out to him at the same time the\nsubject-matter which he is to write down, and preserving him from error\nin the completion of his committed task_.\n\nLooking attentively at this definition of Scriptural inspiration, a\nnumber of questions arise at once in our minds.  God moves the will,\nenlightens the mind, and points out the subject-matter which the\ninspired writer commits to paper.  Is the writer under the influence of\nthe divine impulsion so possessed by the inspired virtue that he acts\nwithout any freedom, either as regards the manner of his expression or\nthe use of previously acquired knowledge concerning the subject of\nwhich he writes?\n\nI answer: No.  God moves the will of the writer; He does not annihilate\nit or absorb it, unless in the sense that He brings it, by a certain\nillumination of the intellect, to a conformity with His own.  Hence the\nmanner and method of expression retain the traces of the individuality\nof the writer, that is to say, of his views and feelings as determined\nby the ordinary habits of life and the range of his previous knowledge.\nThe idea of the divine authorship of the Sacred Scriptures by no means\nrequires that the truths which God willed to be contained therein could\nnot or should not have been otherwise known to the inspired writers:\n\"Their use of study, their investigation of documents, their\ninterrogation of witnesses and other evidence, and their excuses for\nrusticity of style and poverty of language show this only, that they\nwere not inanimate, but living, intelligent, and rational\ninstruments--that they were men, and not machines....  They were\nemployed in a manner which corresponded to, and which became the\nnature, the mode, and the conditions of their being.  Previous\nknowledge of certain truths by men can be no reason why God should not\nconceive and will such truths to be communicated by means of Scripture\nto His Church....  Hence the idea of inspiration does not exclude human\nindustry, study, the use of documents and witnesses, and other aids in\norder to the conceiving of such truths, so long as it includes a\nsupernatural operation and direction of God, which effects that the\nmind of the inspired writer should _conceive_ all those truths, and\nthose only which God would have him communicate.\"[1]  And herein lies\nthe difference between inspiration and revelation, the latter being the\nmanifestation of something previously unknown to the writer.\n\nThe second question, which naturally occurs in connection with the one\njust answered, is whether we are to consider that the words, just as we\nread them in the Bible, are inspired in such wise that we may not\nconceive of the sacred text having any other meaning than that to which\nits _verbal expression_ limits it.\n\nThere are many reasons why we need not feel bound to accept the theory\nof literal or _verbal inspiration_ of the Bible, although such opinion\nhas been defended by eminent theologians, who wished thereby to defend\nthe integrity of the sacred volume against the wanton interference with\nthe received text on the part of innovators and so-called religious\nreformers.\n\nIn the first place, the theory of verbal inspiration is not essential\nto the maintenance of the absolute integrity of a written revelation.\nThat revelation proposes truths and facts, and whilst the terms\nemployed for the expression of these truths and facts must fit\nadequately to convey the sense, they admit of a certain variety without\nthereby in the least injuring the accuracy of statements.  This is\napplicable not only to single words, but to phrases and forms of\ndiction, and to figures of illustration.\n\nSecondly, the sacred writers themselves abundantly indicate the freedom\nwhich may be exercised or allowed in the verbal declaration of divinely\ninspired truths.  Many of them repeat the same facts and doctrines in\ndifferent words.  This is the case even with regard to events of the\ngravest character, such as the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, in\nwhich there can be no room for a difference of interpretation as to the\ntrue sense.\n\nSt. Matthew (xxvi. 26-28), for example, records the act of consecration\nby Our Lord on the eve of His passion in the following words: \"Take ye\nand eat: This is My Body....  Drink ye all of this, for this is My\nBlood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for many for the\nremission of sins.\"\n\nSt. Mark (xiv. 22-24) writes: \"Take ye.  This is My Body....  This is\nMy Blood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for many.\"\n\nSt. Luke (xxii. 19-20) says: \"This is My Body, which is given for\nyou....  This is the chalice, the new Testament in My Blood, which\nshall be shed for you.\"\n\nSt. Paul (I. Cor. xi. 24-25) has it: \"This is My Body, which shall be\ndelivered for you....  This chalice is the new Testament in My Blood.\"\n\nThese four witnesses cite very important words spoken by our Lord on a\nmost solemn occasion.  St. Matthew was present at the Last Supper.  He\nwrote in the very language employed by our Lord, and we have every\nreason to believe that he could remember and wished to remember exactly\nwhat our Lord had said on so important a subject, especially when he,\nwith the other Apostles, was told to do the same act in remembrance of\ntheir Master when He should be no longer with them in visible human\nform.  St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul nevertheless vary the\nexpression of this tremendous mystery in all but the words: \"This is My\nBody.\"  They drew their knowledge of the form of the institution of the\nBlessed Sacrament from St. Peter; at least we know that St. Peter\nrevised and approved of St. Mark's Gospel,[2] and St. Paul and St. Luke\nevidently obtained their knowledge of the Christian faith from a common\nsource, which the chief of the Apostles controlled.  They had every\nopportunity to consult St. Mark, and there might have been reason for\ndoing so since they wrote in Greek, whereas St. Matthew retained the\nHebrew idiom, but evidently neither they nor St. Peter deemed a literal\nor verbal rendering of the sacramental form essential, provided the\ntrue version of our Lord's action was faithfully given.\n\nFurthermore, the claim of verbal inspiration implies a necessity of\nhaving recourse to the original language in which the inspired writers\ncomposed their works, since it is quite impossible that translations\ncan in every case adequately render the exact meaning conveyed by an\nidiom no longer living.  But the necessity of referring to the Hebrew,\nChaldee, or Greek text in order to verify the true sense of an\nexpression would place the Bible beyond the reach of all but a few\nscholars, for whose exclusive benefit the generally popular style of\nthe Bible forbids us to think they were primarily intended.\n\nFinally, we have the indication by writers of both the Old and New\nTestaments that what they wrote was not conveyed to them by way of\ndictation, but that the divine thought conceived in their own minds was\nrendered by them with such imperfections of expression as belonged\nwholly to the human element of the instrument which God employed, and\ncould in nowise be attributed to the Holy Ghost, who permitted His\nrevelation to be communicated through channels of various kinds and\ndegrees of material form.  Thus the writer of the sacred Book of\nMachabees (II. Mach. ii. 24, etc.) apologizes for his style of writing.\nSt. Paul (I. Cor. ii. 13; II. Cor. xi. 6) gives us to understand that\nhis words fall short of the requirements of the rhetorician, but that\nhe is satisfied to convey \"the doctrine of the Spirit.\"\n\n\n\n[1] Vid. \"The Sacred Scriptures; or, The Written Word of God.\"  By\nWilliam Humphrey, S. J.--London, Art and Book Co., 1894.\n\n[2] Clement Alex.--Euseb., H.E., II. xv. 1; VI. xiv. 6; XX. clxxii.\n552.  Also Hieron., De Vir. Ill., VIII. xxiii. 621, etc.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\nTHE MELODY AND HARMONY OF THE \"VOX COELESTIS.\"\n\nBut, you will say, whilst it is plain that we need not adhere to the\ntext of Holy Writ so strictly as to suppose that each single word is\nthe only exact representation of the thought or truth with which God\ninspired the writer, it seems difficult to see where you can draw the\nline between the teaching of God and its interpretation by man who is\nnot bound by definite words.  In other words, if verbal inspiration is\nnot to be admitted, how far does inspiration actually extend in the\nformation of the written text?\n\nI should answer that inspiration extends to the _truths_ and _facts_\ncontained in the Bible, _absolutely_; that it extends to the terms in\nwhich these truths and facts are expressed, _relatively_.  The former\ncannot vary; the latter may vary according to the disposition or the\ncircumstances of the writer.  It may be allowable to express this\ndistinction by a comparison of Biblical with musical inspiration.\nTaking music, not as a mechanical art, but as an expression of the\nsoul, or, as Milton puts it, of\n\n  \"Strains that might create a soul,\"\n\nwe distinguish between the conception of the melody and its\naccompaniment of harmonious chords.  The former constitutes, so to\nspeak, the theme, the truth, or motive of the artistic conception,\nwhich the composer seizes under his inspiration.  When he goes to\ncommunicate the expression of this musical truth or melody through the\ninstrument he at once and instinctively avails himself of the chords\nwhich, by way of accompaniment, emphasize the musical truth which his\nsoul utters through the instrument, according to the peculiar nature or\nform of the latter.  These chords of the accompaniment are not the\nleading motive or truth of his theme, but they are equally true with\nit.  They may vary, even whilst he uses the same instrument, but the\nmelody must ever observe the exact distances between the sounds in its\nfinished form, and cannot be altered without changing the motive of the\npiece.\n\nThe inspiration of the Sacred Text offers an analogy to that of the\nartist musician.  The divine melody of truths and facts is definitely\ncommunicated to the inspired composer of the Sacred Books.  Sometimes\nhe sings loud and with strong emphasis, sometimes he barely breathes\nhis heavenly tones, yet they are no uncertain notes; they allow of no\nalteration, addition, or omission.  But in the accompanying chords he\ntakes now one set, now another, remaining in the same clef, ever true\nto the melody, yet manifold in the variety of expressing that truth.\nEven the seeming discords, which, taken by themselves, look like\nerrors, prove to be part of the great theme; when rightly understood\nthey are but transition chords which prepare us for the complete\nrealization of the succeeding harmony into which they resolve\nthemselves.\n\n\n\n\nIX.\n\nTHE VOICE FROM THE ROCK.\n\nDoes the Church indorse the definition of Scriptural inspiration which\nhas been given in the two preceding chapters?  The Church has said very\nlittle on the subject of the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures, but\nenough to serve us as a definition and as an expression of its\nlimitations.  The Councils of Florence and Trent simply state that \"the\nSacred Scriptures, having been written under the inspiration of the\nHoly Ghost, have God for their author.\"  How much may be deduced from\nthis was made clear by the late Vatican Council (Constit., _de Fide_,\ncap. ii.), which holds that \"the Church regards these books (enumerated\nin the Tridentine Canon), as sacred and canonical, not because, having\nbeen composed through the care and industry of men, they were\nafterwards approved by the authority of the Church, nor simply because\nthey contain revealed truth without error, but because they were\nwritten under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost in such a way as to\nhave God for their author....\"[1]\n\nBy this definition two distinct theories of inspiration are censured as\ncontrary to Catholic teaching.  The first is that which has been called\n_subsequent_ inspiration, according to which a book might be written\nwholly through human industry, but receiving afterwards the testimony\nof express divine approval, might become the written word of God.  This\nteaching is not admissible inasmuch as it excludes the divine\nauthorship of the Scriptures.\n\nA second theory condemned by the above clause of the Vatican Council as\nuntenable on Catholic principles is that which is called _negative_\ninspiration.  Its defenders hold that the extent of the divine action\nin the composition of the Sacred Scriptures is limited to the exclusion\nof errors from the sacred volume.  This would restrict the value of the\ntruth revealed in the Bible to a mere exposition of human knowledge\ncontaining no actual misstatements of fact.\n\n\n\n[1] See on this subject P. Brucker's recently published work\n\"_Questions Actuelles d'Ecriture Sainte_,\" _par le R. P. Jos. Brucker,\nS. J.: Paris, Victor Retaux_, which treats admirably this part of our\nsubject.\n\n\n\n\nX.\n\nA SOURCE OF GENERAL INFORMATION AND CULTURE.\n\nAmong the many interesting letters which St. Jerome has left us there\nis one to Laeta, a noble lady of Rome, regarding the education of her\nlittle daughter, Paula.  An aunt of the child was at the time in\nBethlehem, where, amid the very scenes where our Lord was born, she\nstudied the Holy Scriptures in the Hebrew and Greek tongues, as was\nthen the habit of educated Christian ladies.  St. Jerome would have the\nchild Paula trained in all the arts and sciences that could refine her\nmind and lead it to its highest exercise in that singularly gifted\nnature.  To this end he bids Laeta cultivate in the child an early\nknowledge of the Sacred Scriptures.  With a touching simplicity the\naged Saint enters into minute details of the daily training,--how the\nchildish hands are to form the ivory letters, which serve her as\nplaythings, into the names of the prophets and saints of the Old\nTestament; how later she is to commit to memory, each day, choice\nsayings, flowers of wisdom culled from the sacred writers, and how,\nfinally, he [Transcriber's note: she?] is to come to the Holy Land and\nlearn from her aunt the lofty erudition and understanding of the Bible,\na book which contains and unfolds to him who knows how to read it\nrightly all the wisdom of ages, practical and in principle, surpassing\nthe classic beauty of those renowned Roman writers of whose works St.\nJerome himself had been once so passionately fond that they haunted him\nin his dreams.\n\nIt must not be supposed, however, that the judgment of so erudite a man\nas St. Jerome in placing the study of the Sacred Scriptures above all\nother branches of a higher education was based upon a purely\n_spiritual_ view.  He realized what escapes the superficial reader of\nthe inspired writings: that they are _not only_ a library of religious\nthought, but, in every truest sense of the word, a compendium of\ngeneral knowledge.  The sacred volumes are a code and digest of law, of\npolitical, social, and domestic economy; a book of history the most\ncomprehensive and best authenticated of all written records back to the\nremotest ages; a summary of practical lessons and maxims for every\nsphere of life; a treasury of beautiful thoughts and reflections, which\ninstruct at once and elevate, and thus serve as a most effective means\nof education.  That this is no exaggeration is attested by men like the\npagans of old, who, becoming acquainted with the sacred books, valued\nthem, though they saw in them nothing of that special divine revelation\nwhich the Jew and Christian recognize.  We read in history how, nearly\nthree hundred years before our Lord, Ptolemy Philadelphia, the most\ncultured of all the Egyptian kings, and founder of the famous\nAlexandrian University, which for centuries outshone every other\ninstitution of learning by the renown of its teachers, sent a\nmagnificent embassy to the High-priest Eleazar at Jerusalem to ask him\nfor a copy of the Sacred Law of the Jews.  So greatly did he esteem its\npossession that he offered for the right of translating the Pentateuch\nalone six hundred talents of gold ($576,000), and liberty to all the\nJewish captives in his dominion, to the number of about 150,000 (some\nhistorians give the number at 100,000, others at 200,000).\n\nThere exists a spurious account, ascribed to Aristeas, one of Ptolemy's\nministers, who is said to have accompanied the royal embassy to\nJerusalem for the purpose of urging the king's request.  According to\nthis story, which is in form of a letter written by Aristeas to his\nbrother Philocrates, six rabbis, equally well versed in the Hebrew and\nGreek languages, were selected by the high-priest from each of the\ntwelve tribes.  The seventy-two rabbis were invited to the palace of\nthe king, who, whilst entertaining them for some time, publicly asked\nthem questions relating to civil government and moral philosophy, so\nthat by this means he might test their knowledge and judgment.  Many of\nthese questions, curious and quaint, have been preserved, and are\nintended to show the wisdom of Ptolemy and his desire to raise his\ngovernment to a high level of moral and political perfection.  Among\nthe guests who were present at the king's table we find Demetrius\nPhalereus, the famous librarian, Euclid, the mathematician, Theocritus,\nthe Greek poet philosopher, and Manetho, the Egyptian historian,\ntogether with other equally learned and illustrious scholars and\nliterary artists.\n\nLater on the seventy-two translators, according to the same tradition,\nwhich has come to us through some of the old ecclesiastical writers,\nwere brought to the island of Pharos, where they went to work in\nseparate cells, undisturbed and living according to a uniform rule,\nuntil the entire work of translation had been accomplished.  Then the\nresults were compared, and it was found that the translations of all\nagreed in a wonderful manner, and the Jews accepted it as a work done\nunder the special protection of Jehovah.\n\nWhatever we may hold as to the accuracy of the above account and its\npretended origin, it is certain that the story was current before the\ntime of Christ, it being credited by Philo, who repeats it in his Life\nof Moses, and by Josephus, as well as by St. Justin Martyr and others\nof the early Christian Fathers.  All agree that the Septuagint\ntranslation was made about the time of Ptolemy, and that the Jews of\nAlexandria and Palestine held it in equal veneration as a faithful copy\nof the Mosaic books, whilst the pagans regarded it in the light of a\nwonderfully complete code of laws--civil, domestic, and moral.\n\nReference has already been made to the Sacred Scriptures as\nconstituting the oldest and best-authenticated record of ancient\nhistory.  From it we draw the main store of our information regarding\nthe beginnings of human society in the Eastern countries of\nMesopotamia, early Chaldea, Assyria, Persia, Arabia, and Egypt, all of\nwhich are grouped around the common centre, Palestine, where the\nprincipal scenes of the Old and New Testament narrative are laid.\n\nBut it is not only in the departments of history and geography that the\nBible represents the most extensive and reliable source of information\nhitherto open to the student of mental culture.  The sacred books,\nalthough never intended to serve a purely scientific purpose, have\nwithin recent years become recognized indicators which throw light upon\ndoubtful paths in the investigation of certain scientific facts.  Sir\nWilliam Dawson, one of the leading investigators of our day, has lately\npublished his Lowell lectures, in which he shows how science at last\nconfirms and illustrates the teaching of Holy Writ regarding geology\nand the creation of man.[1]  Similar conclusions are being daily\nreached in different fields of scientific research, and the words of\nJean Paul regarding the first page of the Mosaic record, as containing\nmore real knowledge than all the folios of men of science and\nphilosophy, are proving themselves true in other respects also.  We may\nbe allowed to cite here from Geikie's \"Hours With the Bible\" the\ntestimony of the late Dr. McCaul, who gives us a legitimate view of the\nlatest results of science as compared with the Mosaic record of the\nBible.\n\n\"Moses,\" he says, \"relates how God created the heavens and the earth at\nan indefinitely remote period, before the earth was the habitation of\nman: Geology has lately discovered the existence of a long prehuman\nperiod.  A comparison with other Scriptures (_i.e._, those written\nafter the Pentateuch, or Mosaic account) shows that the \"heavens\" of\nMoses include the abode of angels and the place of the fixed stars,\nwhich existed before the earth: Astronomy points out remote worlds,\nwhose light began its journey long before the existence of man.  Moses\ndeclares that the earth was or became covered with water, and was\ndesolate and empty: Geology has found by investigation that the\nprimitive globe was covered with a uniform ocean, and that there was a\nlong azoic period, during which neither plant nor animal could live.\nMoses states that there was a time when the earth was not dependent on\nthe sun for light or heat; when, therefore, there could be no climatic\ndifferences: Geology has lately verifed this statement by finding\ntropical plants and animals scattered over all places of the earth.\nMoses affirms that the sun, as well as the moon, is only a light\nholder: Astronomy declares that the sun is a non-luminous body,\ndependent for its light on a luminous atmosphere.  Moses asserts that\nthe earth existed before the sun was given as a luminary: Modern\nscience proposes a theory which explains how this was possible.  Moses\nasserts that there is an expanse extending from earth to distant\nheights, in which the heavenly bodies are placed: Recent discoveries\nlead to the supposition of some subtile fluid medium in which they\nmove.  Moses describes the process of creation as gradual, and mentions\nthe order in which living things appeared: plants, fishes, fowls, land\nanimals, man: By the study of nature, geology has arrived independently\nat the same conclusion.  Whence did Moses get all this knowledge?  How\nwas it that he worded his rapid sketch with such scientific accuracy?\nIf he in his day possessed the knowledge which genius and science have\nattained only recently, that knowledge is superhuman.  If he did not\npossess the knowledge, then his pen must have been guided by superhuman\nwisdom\" (Aids to Faith, p. 232).\n\nSome years ago much ado was made by certain sceptics about the\nchronology of the Bible, as if the discrepancies of a few figures could\nundo the manifest authenticity of the vast store of facts vouched in\nthe grand collection of Biblical books.  These discrepancies are being\ngradually explained.  It may be that we err in properly understanding\nthe Oriental habits of counting genealogies, or that the method of the\nfirst transcribers led to inaccuracy, despite the care used in the\ncopying and preservation of the text.  When we remember that Hebrew\nsigns, very closely resembling each other, denote often great\ndifferences, clear enough, no doubt, at first, but becoming indistinct\nin the course of time, we cannot wonder that some words and expressions\npresent to the ordinary reader a mystery, or even seeming\ncontradiction.  It is not necessary to understand the ancient tongue in\norder to realize this fact.  In the first place, the similarity of\nHebrew characters which represent great numerical differences must have\neasily led to errors by the copyists, which caused difficulty to the\nlater transcribers unless they had a reliable tradition to correct the\nmistake.  Thus the letter [Hebrew: Beth] (_Beth_) represents _two_,\nwhilst [Hebrew: Kaph] (_Kaph_) represents _twenty_.  By placing two\nsmall dots above either of these two characters you multiply them by a\nthousand, [Hebrew: Beth with two dots] representing _two thousand_ and\n[Hebrew: Kaph with two dots] _twenty thousand_.  The letter [Hebrew:\nVav] (_Vav_) is equivalent to _six_, another letter very like it in\nform, [Hebrew: Zayin] (_Zayin_), is _seven_, whilst both of these\ncharacters represent a variety of meanings: oftenest [Hebrew: Vav]\n(_Vav_) is a copula, at other times it stands at the beginning of a\ndiscourse, or introduces the apodosis, or is simply an intensive, or\nadversative; sometimes it is prefixed to a future tense, and turns it\ninto an imperfect, etc.  Again, there are special reasons why certain\ncombinations of letters stand for numerals, contrary to the ordinary\nrule.  Thus _fifteen_ is expressed by [Hebrew: vav, tet]=9+6, instead\nof [Hebrew: tav, vav, he, yod], because the name of God commences with\nthe latter characters [Hebrew: ] (Jehovah), etc.\n\nFurthermore, many of the signs used as numerals had fixed symbolical\nsignifications, and were not meant to be taken as literal quantities.\n\nMoreover, in all the old Hebrew writings the consonants only are\nexpressed.  Thus it happens that the same written characters may denote\ndifferent things, sometimes contradictory, unless living tradition\ncould supply the true signification.  Thus the word [Hebrew: resh, kaf]\nmeans _son_ (Ps. ii. 12), or it may be an adjective signifying _chosen_\n(Cant. vi. 9), or, again, _clear_ (Cant. vi. 10), or _empty_ (Prov.\nxiv. 4).  Besides these primary meanings it stands for _corn_ or\n_grain_, for _open fields_ or _country_, for a _pit_, for _salt of lye_\n(vegetable salt), and for _pureness_.  The true signification in each\npassage is not always clear from the context, and critics are\nfrequently at a loss to divine the sense intended by the writer.\n\nBut whilst these discrepancies and obscurities are a momentary source\nof distraction, they arouse not only zeal for the study of the sacred\nlanguages, by which means philological mysteries are frequently cleared\nup, but they give us often an insight into the wonderful genius of the\nSemitic languages, with their peculiar imagery, which associates ideas\nand feelings apparently wholly distinct from each other according to\nthe use of modern terms.\n\nThe last-made reflection suggests another advantage, in an educational\npoint of view, which the study of the Sacred Scriptures opens to those\nwho possess sufficient talent and opportunity for its pursuit.  I mean\nthe power of thought and reflection which comes with the study of a\nforeign language.  There are portions of the Old Testament which we\ncannot rightly read and understand without _some_ knowledge of the\ntongue in which they were originally written.  This is one of the\nseveral reasons which the Church has for not sanctioning, without\ncertain cautions, the indiscriminate reading of the Sacred Scriptures\nin the form of translation.  Let me give you a very good authority for\nthis.\n\nAbout the very time when Ptolemy Philadelphus, of whom I have spoken in\nthe beginning, sent to Jerusalem in order to procure the Greek\ntranslation of the Thorah, or Hebrew law (Pentateuch), a holy Jewish\nscribe was inspired to write one of the later Scriptural books.  It\nappears that He was among the seventy learned scribes who had been sent\nby the High-priest to Alexandria for the purpose of making the\ntranslation for the king, and that afterwards, whilst still there, he\ncomposed the sacred book known as _Ecclesiasticus_.  This book he wrote\nin the Hebrew tongue.  Many years after, a grandson of this inspired\nwriter, who is called Jesus son of Sirach, came upon the book and\nresolved to translate it into Greek, in order that it might be read by\nmany of his brethren in the foreign land, who no longer spoke the\nHebrew language, though they believed in the law of their forefathers.\nTo this translation he wrote a short preface which, though it does not\nbelong to the inspired portions of the text, has been preserved and is\nfound in our Bibles.  Let me read it to you, because it demonstrates\nthe truth of what I have just said, namely, that our understanding of\nthe Bible is rendered difficult when we are obliged to depart from the\noriginal language in which it was written.  The younger Jesus Sirach,\nwho spoke both the Hebrew and Greek tongues equally well, at a time\nwhen they were still living languages, writes as follows about the\ntranslation of his grandfather's work:\n\n\n\"The knowledge of many and great things hath been shown us by the Law\nand the Prophets, and others that have followed them, for which things\nIsrael is to be commended for doctrine and wisdom; because not only\nthey that speak must needs be skilful, but strangers also, both\nspeaking and writing, may by their means become most learned.\n\nMy grandfather Jesus, after he had much given himself to a diligent\nreading of the Law and the Prophets, and other books that were\ndelivered to us from our fathers, had a mind also to write something\nhimself pertaining to doctrine and wisdom; that such as are desirous to\nlearn and are made knowing in these things may be more and more\nattentive in mind, and be strengthened to live according to the Law.  I\nentreat you, therefore, to come with benevolence, and to read with\nattention, and to pardon us for those things wherein we may seem,\n_while we follow the image of wisdom, to come short in the composition\nof words: for the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when\ntranslated into another tongue.  And not only these, but the Law also\nitself, and the Prophets and the rest of the books, have no small\ndifference when they are spoken in their own language_.  For in the\neighth and thirtieth year coming into Egypt, when Ptolemy Euergetes was\nking, and continuing there a long time, I found these books left, of no\nsmall and contemptible learning.  Therefore I thought it good and\nnecessary for me to bestow some diligence and labor to interpret this\nbook; and with much watching and study, in some space of time, I\nbrought the book to an end, and set it forth for the service of them\nthat are willing to apply their mind, and to learn how they ought to\nconduct themselves, who purpose to lead their life according to the Law\nof the Lord\" (Prologue to Ecclesiasticus).\n\n\n\n[1] \"Meeting-place of Geology and History,\" 1894.  Fleming H. Revell\nCo., New York.\n\n\n\n\nXI.\n\nTHE CREATION OF NEW LETTERS.\n\nIt is a fact not generally known or realized that if it were not for\nthe Bible some of the richest and most beautiful languages of antiquity\nwould now be entirely lost to us; nay, more, there are whole nations\nwho would in all probability never have had a written language or\nliterature except for the Bible.\n\nOf the ancient Semitic tongues only two remain living languages, that\nis, the Arabian, and, in a modified form, the Syrian.  The Chaldee, the\nSamaritan, the Assyrian, the Phoenician, the Ethiopia are dead and\nwould hardly be known to us except for the remnants of them which we\ntrace through the sacred books of the Scripture.  We have no relic of\nthe Hebrew tongue but the Bible; and this language, with all its\nwondrous musical forms, its strange capacity of eliciting and\nexpressing the deepest feelings of the human heart, and its charming\ntouches of Oriental genius, would be entirely dead outs, if we had not\nthe Bible.\n\nOur own English tongue bears the traces of another written language,\nnow entirely dead, but which was actually created by the study of the\nBible.  I mean the Gothic, of which no other written document exists\nto-day except some portion of the Holy Scriptures translated by Ulfilas\nin the fourth century.  When he came as a missionary among the Goths he\nfound them ignorant of the art of writing.  In order to Christianize\nthe rude people he invented for them an alphabet, gathered their\nchildren into Christian schools, and taught them to write and to read.\nThe first book, and the last, too, of that once powerful race was a\nBible.  When the Goths had died out in the ninth century, their written\ncopy of the inspired word of God still continued to live, and we can\ntrace in our unabridged dictionaries to-day the original meaning of\nmany a Saxon word by reference to this solitary copy of a part of the\nSacred Scriptures.\n\nWhat has been said of the Gothic is equally true of the written\nlanguage of the Armenians (for whom the anchorite Miesrop devised an\nalphabet and translated the Bible); also of the Slavonic nations (for\nwhom SS. Cyril and Methodius made an alphabet and Bible translation);\nand others--races who, like our own Indian tribes, lived only long\nenough as representatives of a separate language to learn the rudiments\nof Christianity.\n\nAll this must convince us that those who have the required means should\nseek to master one or several of the Biblical languages, since the\nancient tongues, less subject to the caprice of political changes than\nthose of later ages, open to the mind avenues of original thought and\nsentiment which modern literature and education have not been capable\nof retaining without them.\n\nYou will say that it is impossible for most, or perchance nearly all of\nyou to give yourselves to the study of Hebrew or Greek or Latin in\norder to gain that profit from the intelligent reading of the Bible\nwhich it yields to the man of learning.  Very well; if so, the fact of\nour deficiency must caution us in reading and rashly interpreting\naccording to our fancy what can only be determined by the wisdom of\nthose who act the legitimate part of divinely-appointed judges.  As in\nthe Old Law the High-priest and the great council of the Sanhedrin were\nthe infallible interpreters of the divine decrees, so the Church, which\nis the continuation and perfection of the Synagogue, completes the\nMessianic mission by interpreting for each succeeding generation the\nmeaning of the inspired words written in the sacred volume.\n\n\n\n\nXII.\n\nENGLISH STYLE.\n\nBut there still remains for all of us the reading of the English Bible,\nwith the aids of interpretation which render it intelligible for a\npractical purpose, and in so far as it is an expression of the natural\nmoral law.  This of itself contributes very largely to the perfection\nof our use of the mother tongue.  For it is always true of this sacred\nbook, as Dryden says, that in\n\n              \"... Style, majestic and divine,\n  It speaks no less than God in every line;\n  Commanding words! whose force is still the same\n  As the first _fiat_ that produced our frame.\"\n              (Dryden, _Relig. Laic._, i. 152.)\n\nYes, its frequent reading helps much to the formation of good English.\nThis is not simply fancy, but the verdict of those who have experienced\nand proved the benefit of frequent use of the Bible as a means of\nfashioning and improving a beautiful style of English writing.  Some\nyears ago Mr. Bainton, a lover of English literature, requested the\nbest of living writers to give their opinion as to what class of\nreading had most contributed to their attaining the elegance or force\nof beauty for which their writings were generally admired.  To the\nsurprise of many it appeared in the answers that the reading of the\nBible was considered the secret of a charming style, even by authors\nwho wrote in that lighter, sparkling vein which seems so remote from\nthe gravity and solidity of the sacred books.  To give one example of\nthis let me quote the words of Mr. W. S. Gilbert, the author of the\ndelightful \"Bab Ballads,\" and a long series of light operas and\nsparkling plays.  After referring to the advantage of studying the\nEnglish of the late Tudor and early Stuart periods, he adds: \"But for\nsimplicity, directness, and perspicuity, there is, in my opinion, no\nexisting work to be compared with the historical books of the Bible.\"\n\nMr. Marion Crawford, much read of late, and criticized for fostering a\nfaulty ideal, but whose vigorous expression, power of analysis, and\ncorrect delineation of character will hardly be denied by any one\ncapable of judging, gives his ideas of attaining to good English style\nin the following words: \"The greatest literary production in our\nlanguage is the translation of the Bible, and the more a man reads it\nthe better he will write English.\"  He adds: \"I am not a particularly\ndevout person, though I am a good Roman Catholic, and I do not\nrecommend the Bible from any religious reason.  I distinctly dislike\nthe practice of learning texts without any regard to the context....\nBut if we were English Brahmans, and believed nothing contained\ntherein, I should still maintain that the Bible should be the _first\nstudy_ of a literary man.  Then the great poets, Shakespeare, Milton,\"\netc.  I have quoted Mr. Crawford because he is not merely a good\nEnglish writer, but a real scholar, familiar with many languages,\nclassic and modern, and therefore all the better qualified to judge of\nour subject.\n\nThere are, of course, instances in the Bible when the grammatical rules\nof Brown and Murray forbid satisfactory parsing.  The reason of this is\nthe natural wish of the translators, anxious to preserve the literal\nform of the original, not to sacrifice accuracy to the nicety with\nwhich they might round their phrases.  They were intent alone upon\ntruth; and it is precisely in this element that eloquence finds its\nfirst and most powerful incentive.  Beauty of language has two sources\nof inspiration.  One is that of truth, which arouses in the heart a\nlove lifting the mind with a burning enthusiasm into the regions of all\nthat is fair and chaste and grand; and the language of him who has\nmastered it assumes the sound and form of these lofty emotions.  There\nis indeed another source of inspiration.  It is that from which\nemanates the brilliant but ephemeral beauty of the literature of the\nday.  It is not love of unchanging truth, but the captivating passion\nof the hour, which, as someone has said, acts upon the brain \"like the\nfoaming grape of Eastern France--pleasant to the sense of taste, yet\nsending its subtle fumes to the brain, and stealing away the judgment.\"\nTruth in literature possesses a power of eloquence of which fiction is\nbut a shadow at best, varying in size, and dwarfed or magnified in\nproportion as it approaches and recedes from the object which occasions\nit.\n\n\n\n\nXIII.\n\nFRIENDS OF GOD.\n\nAnd with this study of truth there is added to knowledge and power and\nbeauty of expression another vital element, which gives these\nacquisitions an infinite value: I mean the gift of wisdom as distinct\nfrom knowledge.  Read the Sapiential book of Solomon, and mark what he\nthere says.  He had learnt all things that human industry could\nsuggest, but the science of things earthly was as nothing to the wisdom\nwhich, as he says, \"went before me; and I knew not that it was the\nmother of all.\"  And when he had learnt wisdom in listening to the\nbreathing of that sacred voice whose words he recorded for our\ninstruction, he describes it as a sacred fire of genius, \"holy, one,\nmanifold, subtle, eloquent, active, undefiled, sure, sweet, loving that\nwhich is good, quick, which nothing can oppose, beneficent, gentle,\nkind, steadfast, assured--a breath of the power of God--making friends\nof God, and prophets, for God loveth none but him that dwelleth with\nwisdom--more beautiful than the sun\" (Sap. vii. 22-29).\n\nSurely, it makes us friends of God and prophets.  But not only this.\nIt keeps high ideals before us, and we become like to the things we\nlove.  Look on Abraham, whom the Arab calls even to this day by no\nother name but _El Khalil Allah_--that is, \"the friend of God\"--chosen\nthe father of a holy race whence eventually was to spring the Messias;\nlook on Moses, the meekest of men, as he is called in Holy Writ, or on\nDavid, the man \"according to God's own heart;\" look on the later\nprophets, whose words set the nations aflame, and made kings tremble\nwho had never felt fear of men or God.  We see Jeremiah, the youth at\nAnathoth, \"gentle, sensitive, yielding, yearning for peace and love,\naverse by nature from strife and controversy,\" stepping forth at the\nurging of motives such as speak to each of us from these pages of the\nBible.  Boldly he announces the judgments of God to his faithless\npeople.  \"During that long ministry\" of forty years, says Geikie, \"no\npersonal interest, comfort, or ease, no shrinking from ridicule,\ncontumely, or hatred, could turn him from the task imposed upon him,\nwith awful sanctions, by the lips of the Eternal God.\"[1]\n\nOr take the noble women with whose lofty virtue the inspired writers\nfill the sacred volumes, and whose names some of the books bear.\n\nThere is the sacred Book of _Ruth_, she who is called \"friend\" or\n\"lover\" in the Hebrew tongue, fair image of filial affection as she\nwalks beside the aged Noemi along the weary roads north from Moab, to\nconduct her mother to her native land.  There, at noon and eve, we see\nher scan the fresh-mown fields for the gleanings which the law of Moses\nallowed the poor, in order that she might honorably keep the humble\nhome of her widowed parent.  Another sacred book we have which bears\nthe name of _Judith_, the woman who, strengthened in the loyal love of\nher father's nation, by valiant deed set herself to defend the children\nof Israel from ignominious captivity.  In the Book of _Esther_ we have\nthe history of her whose name signifies \"myrtle,\" symbol among the Jews\nof joyous gratitude.  Full of that modest wisdom of which\nEcclesiasticus tells us that it \"walketh with chosen women\" (i. 17),\nher influence is typical of that which the Virgin Queen, fair Mother of\nthe Christ, in later day did exercise upon the children of Eve.  Ah,\ntruly, \"the word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom, and her ways\nare everlasting commandments\" (Ecclesiastic.).\n\nBut it would be a lengthy task to point out all the details of manifold\nutility in the intellectual and practical, as well as the moral order,\nwhich come from the study of the Sacred Scripture.  We have seen in a\nlimited measure what it does for history, for language, for the science\nof government, for the development of general knowledge, and the\ncultivation of a graceful and vigorous style in writing.  These books\nhold the key to true wisdom.  \"All Scripture,\" writes St. Paul to the\nyoung bishop Timothy, whom he himself had taught from the day he took\nhim to himself as a boy at Lystra, \"all Scripture, inspired by God, is\nprofitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct.\"\n\nYet there are those, the same Apostle says, \"who, always learning,\nnever attain to the knowledge of truth\" (II. Tim. iii. 7).  Why?\nBecause they do not study rightly.\n\n\n\n[1] Geikie, \"Hours With the Bible,\" v. 134.\n\n\n\n\nXIV.\n\nPROSPECTING.\n\n\"Man is the perfection of creation, the mind is the perfection of man,\nthe heart is the perfection of the mind,\" says St. Francis de Sales.\n\nOur aim is to become perfect in mind and heart, in character and\ndisposition.  Books are the readiest means of study to this end.  They\nare at our command at all times.  When we have discovered a beautiful\nthought, a strong chain of reasoning, which, whilst convincing,\nattracts and leads us into the domain of truth, however partial, we\nponder it and make it our own, and we feel stronger in the permanent\npossession of it.  We desire truth, and we look for it in books,\nmostly.  Yet we may be anxious for knowledge, and worry or dream out\nour days in a course of reading without gaining any real advantage from\nit.  Perhaps we fail in the proper choice of books, or else we do not\nobserve the right method in reading and study.\n\nYet it is impossible for most men to go in search of and test\neverything that is labelled \"_truth_.\"  Is there no remedy provided\nagainst the danger of oft going wrong in order to find the right?  Yes.\nGod has given us a compendium of everything that fosters true knowledge\nand wisdom in a book consigned to the direction of an old, experienced,\nand wise teacher.  That book is the Bible, and the teacher is the\nChurch of Christ.  In the book we find a store of great truths, of all\nthat is beautiful and ennobling, an infallible manual in the school of\nhuman perfection, which leads us so high that, having mastered its\ncontents, we touch the very gates of heaven, where we may commune with\nthe Creator of wisdom and of all that our souls are capable of knowing.\n\nThere are many who are thoroughly convinced of this.  They believe that\nthe Bible is the most perfect book on earth, that it is the book of\nbooks, as it has been called from time immemorial; for the word _Bible_\nmeans simply a book, _the_ book of all others by excellence, as if\nthere were none so worthy of study, and none which could not be\ndispensed with rather than this.  And so it is.  It contains all\nknowledge worthy of the highest aspirations and of the exercise of the\nbest talents.\n\nYet, as a traveller in search of fortune may pass over seemingly barren\ntracts of desert land or mountain ridge, which treasure beneath the\nsurface richest mines of gold, and caverns of splendid crystal and\nrarest marble, so the reader of the sacred books, in search of\nknowledge, may wearily tread along the paths of Bible truths, his eye\nbewildered by endless repetitions of precepts and monotonous scenes and\nseemingly uninteresting facts, unconscious of what wealth and beauty\nlie beneath him.  And the reason of this listless and tiring sense in\nscanning over the pages of this book, which has from the first\ncaptivated the admiration of the noblest minds of every race and age,\nis the lack of sufficient preparation.  The traveller looks for mines\nof gold and diamonds, but he has never learnt the art of prospecting.\nHe stumbles over the heavy, dark ore, and the clods of metallic sand,\nand his feet toil along the path lined with pebbles that, if polished,\nwould rival the stars of heaven, but they are a hindrance to him, for\nhe does not know _that_ or _how_ he should examine and utilize their\nprecious contents.  He requires the previous training of the\nprospector, the sharp eve of the skilled mining master, and the\nunwearied courage to go down to examine the often crude-looking stones.\nWithout these qualities he not only fails in his attainment of wealth,\nbut becomes discouraged and even sceptic of its existence.\n\nIn other words, there are certain essential conditions required upon\nwhich depends the acquisition of that excellent knowledge which the\nScriptures contain for every sphere of life.  They are conditions which\naffect us in our entirety as men--I should say as the images of God, in\nwhose likeness we were created.  Sin has tarnished this image, and we\nare to restore it to its original beauty by correcting it.  Our model\nis God Himself.  The Bible is the text-book containing the image of\nthis Model, drawn by Himself, and He has provided the preceptor to\nexplain the various meanings of lines, lights, and shadows, and the use\nof the instruments which must be employed in completing the process.\nIt is a little tedious, as all art training is in its beginning.\nSometimes we copy with tracing-paper, and of late the kodak has done\nmuch to help us by the aid of photography.\n\n\n\n\nXV.\n\nUSING THE KODAK.\n\nYou know that through the art of photography a perfect picture of an\nobject may be produced by the action of light upon a smooth and\nsensitive surface.  The light reflected from the object which is to be\nphotographed enters through a lens into the dark chamber of the camera,\nand makes an impression upon the plate which is rendered sensitive by a\nfilm of chloride (or nitrate) of silver.  To produce a good picture,\ntherefore, three things are principally required:\n\n1. _A faultless sensitized plate_ on which the reflection of the object\nis to be made;\n\n2. _A concentrated light_; that is, the rays must enter the camera\nthrough a lens, but be excluded from every other part;\n\n3. _The right focus_; that is to say, you must get the proper distance\nof your object in order to preserve the just proportions between it and\nits surroundings.\n\nThe same requisites may be applied to ourselves when we wish to image\nin our souls the object of divine truth, which is identical with God.\n\n1. The sensitive plate of our hearts and minds must be clean, without\nflaw, so as to admit the ray of heavenly light, and let it take hold\nupon its surface.  A tarnished mirror gives but a blurred and imperfect\nreflection.  Just so the mind occupied with the follies and vanities of\nworldliness, the heart filled with the changing idols of unworthy\nattachments, is no fit surface for the delicate impressions of those\nchaste delineations of truth which are nothing else but the image of\nGod in the human soul.  To His likeness we were created, and to His\nlikeness we must again conform ourselves by a right study of truth.\n\n2. Next, in order to obtain a correct impression of the sublime truth\ncontained in the sacred volumes, we must concentrate our lights.  That\nis to say, we must read with assiduity, must study with earnestness,\nand also with prayer, to obtain the light of the Divine Spirit who\ncaused these pages of the Bible to be traced for our instruction--for,\nas one of our greatest English writers, though not a Catholic, has\nbeautifully said:\n\n  \"Within that awful volume lies\n  The mystery of mysteries!\n  Happiest they of human race\n  To whom God has granted grace\n  To read, to fear, to hope, to pray,\n  To lift the latch and force the way;\n  And better had they ne'er been born,\n  Who read to doubt, or read to scorn.\"[1]\n\n\nThis implies that all side-lights which may distract the mind from this\nconcentrated attention and reverend attitude should be excluded.  To\nread the Sacred Scriptures in a flippant mood, or even in an irreverent\nposture, and without having previously reflected on the fact that it is\nGod's word, is to lessen immeasurably one's chance of profiting by the\nreading.  The Mahometan or Jew in the East reverently lifts each piece\nof paper or parchment which he finds upon the road, for fear that it\nmight contain the name of Allah or Jehovah, and be profaned by being\ntrodden under foot.  We owe no less to the inspired word of God, above\nall if we would gain the key to its intelligence.\n\nThe concentration into a focus is obtained through a perfectly-shaped,\nconvex lens.  Now this lens, which is capable not only of bringing into\none strong point all the scattered rays of light, but under\ncircumstances gathers the particles to intensity of heat producing a\nflame, is that centre of the affections commonly termed the heart.\nThere is a tendency among those who seek intellectual culture to\nundervalue this quality of the heart, which nevertheless contains the\nsecret power of generating supreme wisdom.  We are considering true\nwisdom, not superficial, exclusively human wisdom, which is the very\nopposite, and which debases man to a mere repository of facts and\nimpressions, like an illustrated encyclopedia, or makes of him a shrewd\negotist, whose cleverness we may admire as we admire the antics of a\ndancing serpent without wishing to come in contact with its slimy body\nor its poisonous fangs.\n\n\"As in human things,\" says Pascal, \"we must first know an object before\nwe can love it, so in divine things, which constitute the only real\ntruth at which man can worthily aim, we must love them before we can\nknow them, for we cannot attain to truth except through charity.\"  \"In\nall our studies and pursuits of knowledge,\" says Watts, \"let us\nremember that the conformation of our hearts to true religion and\nmorality are things of far more consequence than all the furniture of\nour understanding and the richest treasures of mere speculative\nknowledge.\"\n\nIf it be true that \"nothing is so powerful to form truly grand\ncharacters as meditation on the word of God and on Christian truths,\"\nthen we must suppose an inclination, a love for the lofty ideals which\nChristianity sets before us.  \"To whom has the root of wisdom been\nrevealed?\" asks that wise and noble old rabbi, son of Sirach; and he\nanswers: \"God has given her to them that love Him.\"  If the wise man in\nthe sacred book tells us that \"wisdom walketh with chosen women,\" may\nwe not assume that it is because woman enjoys the prerogative of those\nqualities of heart which make her counsels so often far surer than the\ncarefully pondered reasons of men?\n\nIf the fear of the Lord is the _beginning_ of wisdom, is not charity or\nlove its consummation?  \"Blessed is the man that shall continue in\nwisdom.  With the bread of life and understanding God's fear shall feed\nhim, and give him the water of wholesome wisdom to drink, and ... shall\nheap upon him a treasure of joy and gladness, and shall cause him to\ninherit an everlasting name.  But ... foolish men shall not see her:\nfor she is far from pride and deceit....  Say not: It is through God\nthat she is not with me, for do not thou the things that He hateth\"\n(Eccles., ch. xiv. and xv.).\n\nBut there is no need of multiplying these sayings of God.  The\nknowledge we seek here is the knowledge which comes from the Divine\nSpirit, source of all science as of all goodness and beauty.  What the\nfruits of that spirit are we are told by St. Paul: Charity, joy, peace,\npatience, etc.; and we know how the Apostle of the Gentiles, who had\nlearnt much in many schools, at the feet of Gamaliel and in the halls\nof the Greek philosophers, valued these fruits of wisdom above all the\ndoctrines of men.\n\nCatholics are fortunate in this, that they may gain from the study of\nthe Bible that purest light of wisdom which is only partially\ncommunicated to those who find no way, through the sacraments, of\ncleansing their souls,--that mirror in which God's image can show\nclearly only when it is polished and purified from the dust-stains of\nour earthly fall.  Whatever opportunities for thorough study of the\nBible we may have, there can be no doubt that this is one of the most\nimportant conditions for its proper and fruitful appreciation, because\nthe intelligence is always warped by sin.\n\nA correct knowledge of our faith, as the primary rule of our conduct,\nis, of course, supposed.  We cannot understand the written word of God\nunless we have become accustomed to the language He speaks to the\nheart, and that language is taught in our catechisms and textbooks of\nreligion.  Some need less of this knowledge than others, so far as the\ndifficulties and controversies of religion are concerned.  The Bible is\na book of instruction for all, and hence the preparatory knowledge\nrequired varies with the mental range and ability, and the consequent\ndanger of doubts and false views of each individual.  A child knows the\nprecepts and wishes of its parent often by a look or gesture, without\nreceiving any explicit instruction, because love and the habit of faith\nsupply intelligence.  Others require a certain amount of reasoning to\nmove their hearts to the ready acceptance of divine precepts.  This\nreasoning is supplied by the study of popular theologies, of which we\nhave a good number in English.\n\n3. Lastly, we must not only get a right glass, a good lens, but we must\nlikewise get the right focus for our picture.  We must know the\ndistance of our objects and their surroundings, the lights and shades,\nthe coloring, natural and artificial.  In other words, we must become\nfamiliar with the circumstances of history, the dates, the places, the\ncustoms and laws, national and social, which throw light upon the\nmeaning of the incidents related in the Sacred Scriptures, and which\noften aid us in the interpretation of passages mysterious and\nprophetic.  Hence we have to give some attention to, and study what we\ncan, of the ancient records and monuments brought to light by the\narchaeologist and the historian.  We must likewise inquire into the\norigin, history, authority, purpose, and general argument of each of\nthe inspired books.  All this is the object of what is called\n_Introduction to the Study of the Sacred Scriptures_, and is nothing\nelse but a becoming and essential preparation for the right use of the\nBible.\n\n  Ah, may our understanding ever read\n  This glorious volume which God's wisdom made,\n  And in that charter humbly recognize\n  Our title to a treasure in the skies!\n\n\n\n[1] Scott, _The Monastery_, c. xii.\n\n\n\n\nXVI.\n\nTHE INTERPRETATION OF THE IMAGE.\n\nThe Bible is not only a text-book which leads us to the acquisition of\nthe highest of arts--that of fulfilling the true purpose of life--but\nit is itself, as has already been suggested, a work of fairest art\ninasmuch as it contains a perfect delineation of the divine Beauty\ndrawn by the sovereign Artist Himself.\n\nNow true art needs, as a rule, an interpretation; for the outward form\nwhich appeals to the senses may have its deeper and real meaning\ndisguised beneath the figure, so as to be understood only by the finer\nperceptions of the intellect and heart.  Take, for example, a canvas\nsuch as Millet's popular picture entitled \"The Angelus.\"  It is a\nsmall, unpretentious-looking work, representing a youth and a maid in a\nfallow field, a village church in the distance, all wrapt in the gloom\nof eventide.  Ask a child looking at the picture what is the meaning of\nit, and it will probably answer: \"Two poor people tired of work.\"  Ask\na countryman, without much education, and he will say: \"Two poor lovers\nthinking of home.\"  But to the poet who has perchance dwelt in some\nvillage of fair Southern France, and knows the simple habits of\ndevotion among the peasant folk, the picture will awaken memories of\nthe sound of the Angelus:\n\n  \"Ave Maria,\" blessed be the hour,\n  The time, the clime, the spot where I so oft\n  Have felt that moment in its fullest power\n  Sink o'er the earth, so beautiful and soft,\n  While swung the deep bell in the distant tower,\n  Or the faint dying day-hymn stole aloft,\n  And not a breath crept through the rosy air.\n\n\nAnd the reflecting, devout Catholic will see in that picture even more\nthan the thoughts it suggests to the poet.  It will speak to him of the\nangelic salute to a Virgin fair at Nazareth; it will touch a chord of\ntender confidence and hope in the Madonna's help and sympathy; it will\narouse a feeling of gratitude for the mystery of the Redemption.  And\nall this difference of judgment arises from the varying degrees of\nintelligence and knowledge with which we approach the image.\n\nNow the Sacred Scriptures present just such a picture, only larger,\nmore comprehensive, truer, deeper, containing all the fair delineation\nof God's own image, the pattern according to which we are to correct\nthe same divine likeness in our souls, spoiled somewhat and blurred by\nsin.\n\nLet us look at the outline.  There are words and a fact.  In the words\ntruth is enunciated, in the fact those words are exhibited as being a\ndivine utterance.  In their _literal_ meaning the word affects us just\nas a picture would at first sight.  In the one case we have a precept\nor an incident or a scene in the life of our Lord; in the other case we\nhave an act of prayer or a scene from the daily life of French\npeasants.  But just as in the picture we may, by reason of artistic and\nspiritual culture, recognize not simply an ordinary scene of peasant\nlife, but a poetic thought, or a practical moral lesson calling for\nimitation, or, finally, a mystery of religion, so in the Sacred\nScriptures we may see below the literal sense one that is internal,\nhidden, and in its character either simply figurative, or moral, or\nmystically spiritual.  An old ecclesiastical writer has given us a\nLatin hexameter which suggests these various senses in which the sacred\ntext may at times be understood:\n\n    Litera _gesta_ docet, quod credas _allegoria_;\n    _Moralis_ quid agas, quo tendas _anagogia_.\n\nAn example of the four different senses (namely, the _literal_, the\n_allegorical_, which appeals to our faith, the _moral_, and the\n_mystic_) in which a word or passage of Holy Writ may be interpreted is\noffered in the term \"Jerusalem.\"  If we read that \"they went up to\nJerusalem every year,\" we understand the word Jerusalem to represent\nthe chief city of the Hebrews, situated on the confines of Judah and\nBenjamin.  If we happen upon the passage of St. John where he says: \"I,\nJohn, saw a holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven\nfrom God; ... behold the tabernacle of God with men, and He will dwell\nwith them,\" we know that this _new_ Jerusalem on earth can be no other\nthan the Church, where God has His tabernacle, dwelling with men.  The\nword is used _allegorically_, that is to say, it appeals to our faith;\nto the internal, not to our external sense.  Again, the word\n\"Jerusalem\" may be used in the sense which its etymology suggests\nwithout reference to any city.  Etymologically it consists of two\nwords, signifying _foundation_ and _peace_.  A rabbi might, therefore,\nbid his disciples to strive to build up \"Jerusalem,\" meaning that they\nshould seek to lay solid foundations of peace by conforming their lives\nto the law of Jehovah.  This would give the word Jerusalem simply a\n_moral_ signification.  Finally, the word is used as a synonyme for\n\"heaven,\" as in Apoc. xxi. 10: \"And He took me up in spirit, ... and He\nshowed me the holy city Jerusalem, ... having the glory of God.\"  Here\nwe have the term in its _anagogical_ sense, that is, referring to the\nfuture life.\n\nWithout entering into the various figures of speech with which the\nlanguage of the Hebrews abounds, let me suggest some points which must\nbe observed in order that the true sense of the Sacred Scriptures may\nnot escape us so as to mislead the mind.\n\nFor the discovery of the literal sense we must, of course, be guided by\nthe rules of ordinary grammatical construction.  Where this proves\ninsufficient we must have recourse to the idiomatic use of language,\nthe habits of speech, which prevailed among the Hebrews or those with\nwhose utterances or history we are concerned.  This is very important\nin order that we may get a right understanding of the expressions\nemployed.  As an instance of misconception in this respect may be cited\nthe words of our Lord to His holy Mother at the nuptials of Cana, which\nliterally sound like a reproof, yet are far from conveying such a sense\nin their original signification.  The like is true of the use of\ncertain comparisons which to our sense seem rude and cruel, yet which\nwere not so understood in the language in which they were originally\nspoken or written.  Thus when our Lord said to the Canaanitish woman\nwho followed Him in the regions of Tyre and Sidon that it is not right\nto give the bread of the children to \"dogs,\" He seemed to spurn the\npoor mother, who prayed Him for the recovery of her child, as a man\nspurns a cur.  Yet such is not the sense of the expression, which\nhardly means anything more than what we would convey by \"outside of the\npale of faith.\"\n\nBesides the usage of speech peculiar to a people or district or period\nof time, we must have regard to the individuality of the writer.  His\nsubjective state, his temperament, education, personal associations,\nand habits of thought and feeling necessarily influence the style of\nhis writing.  Thus in the letters of St. Paul we recognize a spirit\nwhich the forms of speech seem wholly inadequate to contain or express.\nHe writes as he might speak, impatient of words.  His thoughts seem\noften disconnected; he omits things which he had evidently meant to\nsay, and which the hearers might have supplied from the vividness of\nthe image presented, but which become obscure to the reader who only\nsees the cold form of the written page.  There is no end of\nparenthetical clauses in his discourses; often he begins a period and\nleaves it unfinished.  Sometimes there appears a total absence of\nlogical connection in what he intends for proofs and arguments; then,\nagain, there is a wealth of imagery, which suggests the quick sense and\npower of comparison peculiar to the Oriental mind, but slow to impress\nitself on the Western nations.  All this makes it necessary to _study_\nSt. Paul rather than to read him, if one would understand the Apostle.\nOf this St. Peter shows himself conscious when he writes that certain\nthings in the Epistles of St. Paul are \"_hard to be understood_, which\nthe unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures,\nto their own destruction\" (II. Pet. iii. 16).\n\nAnother element which contributes to the right interpretation of the\nSacred Text is the knowledge of what may be called the historical\nbackground of a passage or book.  This includes the various relations\nof time, place, persons addressed, and other circumstances which\nexercise an influence upon the material, intellectual, and moral\nsurroundings of the writer.  Accordingly, different parts of the Sacred\nScriptures require different treatment and different preparation on the\npart of the reader.  Thus to comprehend the full significance of the\nBook of Exodus we must study the geographical and ethnographical\ncondition of Egypt.  For a right understanding of the Book of Daniel we\nshould first have to become acquainted with the history of Chaldea and\nAssyria, especially as lit up by the recent discoveries of monuments in\nthe East.  The Canticle of Canticles presupposes for its just\ninterpretation a certain familiarity with the details of Solomon's life\nduring the golden period of his reign.  The Letters of St. Paul, in the\nNew Testament, reveal their true bearing only after we have read the\nlife of the Apostle as it is described in the Acts; and so on for other\nparts of the Sacred History.\n\nFinally, a proper understanding and appreciation of the inspired books\ndepend largely on our realization of the proximate scope and purpose,\nthe character and quality, of the subject treated by the sacred writer.\nThe Bible is a wondrous combination of historic, didactic, and\nprophetic elements.  Each of these goes to support or emphasize the\nother, but each of them has its predominant functions in different\nparts of the grand structure.  Hence we may not judge a prophecy as we\njudge the historical narrative which introduces and supports it; we may\nnot interpret in its literal sense the metaphor which is simply to\nconvey a moral lesson to the mind.\n\n\n\n\nXVII.\n\n\"DEUS ILLUMINATIO MEA.\"\n\nThe subject-matter of the Bible obliges us, however, to apply not only\nthe various cautions and methods of interpretation which are required\nfor the understanding of the classics generally, but it exacts more.\nThe Sacred Scriptures, as a grand work of art, have not only a human,\nbut primarily a divine conception for their basis.  Hence it does not\nsuffice to have mastered the meaning of the words and the outline of\nthe subject, or the individual genius and human ideal of the writer who\nacted merely as the instrument executing a higher inspiration.  We must\nenter into the conception of the divine mind.  If the principal and\nall-pervading motive of the great Scriptural composition is a religious\none, it stands to reason that it can be comprehended only when judged\nfrom a religious point of view.\n\nNow the divine mind is so far above us that we can reach it only if God\nHimself brings it down to us.  He has to descend, to lift the veil from\nHis immensity, not by opening to us, before the time, those sacred\nprecincts which \"eye hath never seen,\" but by emitting a ray of light\nto clear up our darkness, to give us a glimpse of the awful splendor\nwhich vibrates in those celestial realms where light and sound and\nwarmth of eternal charity mingle in the sweet harmony of the divine\nBeauty whose tones speak now to our senses in separate forms.  God\ndescends to our humility to interpret His own image.  First He came in\nhuman form, and told us all the things we were to believe and do.  Then\nHe sent the Paraclete, and under His direction men of God taught the\nsame things.  Then they wrote them, or, as St. John tells us, some of\nthem.  The Paraclete veils Himself, as our Lord had announced to His\nApostles, in the Church, whose divinely constituted earthly chief was\nto be Peter--to the end of time.  The Church, therefore, founded by\nChrist, and an ever-living emanation of the incessant activity of the\nHoly Spirit, although necessarily speaking to men through men, is the\nfirst and surest interpreter of the purpose and meaning of each and\nevery part of Holy Writ.\n\nAnd because God cannot contradict Himself it follows that every truth\nof the written word must correspond with every truth of the spoken\nword.  In doubtful cases, therefore, as to the meaning of a word or\ntext in the Sacred Writings, we have recourse to the supreme,\ndivinely-guided judgment of the Church.  Her doctrines, defined, are\nthe first and most important criterion of Scriptural truth.\n\nBut the Church has not defined every expression of truth, though she\nholds the key to all truth.  She points to the light which illumines\nour night; she declares the stars whence that light issues directly or\nby reflection; but she does not always indicate where the rays of the\none body begin to mingle with those of the other, or what precise\nelements determine the motion or stability of each.  Only when there\nare conflicts or threatened disturbances of the centres of attraction\nand repulsion she reaches out her anointed hand, informed with the\nmagic power of her Creator and founder, and directs the courses of\nbodies that otherwise would clash unto mutual destruction.  Hence the\nfreedom of investigation allowed the Catholic student of the Scriptures\nis limited only by the rules of faith taught by the same divine Teacher\nwho watches over the spoken and written revelation alike.  And as, in\ncases where we have not the express command of a superior, we interpret\nhis will by his known desires and views in other respects, so in the\ninterpretation of those parts of Holy Writ regarding the meaning of\nwhich we have no definite expression in the doctrinal code of the\nChurch, we follow the _analogy of faith_; which is manifest from the\ngeneral consent of the Christian Fathers and Doctors, and from the\nteaching of learned and holy commentators.  These we may safely follow\nin all doubtful cases, that is to say, where there is no evidence to\nshow that they were mistaken, either through want of certain sources of\ninformation or proofs which we have at our command presently, or\nbecause they accepted the views of their time and people, feeling that\nany departure from the received tradition would make disturbance, and\nfail of its intended good effect.\n\nIt is safe to say that the conditions of one age and the modes of\nthought and feeling of one generation are not a just standard by which\nto judge the conditions and views of another age or generation.  This\nis an important fact to remember for those who are inclined to look in\nevery part of the Sacred Scriptures for a verification of the\nsentiments which they feel, and of the views and opinions of things\nwhich they hold.\n\n\n\n\nXVIII.\n\nRUSH-LIGHTS.\n\nThere is a method of interpreting the Bible which, although it affords\na temporary satisfaction to the heart, is misleading to the mind.  I\nmean private interpretation in the sense in which it is generally\npractised and defended by our Protestant brethren.  To take a good\nphotograph you must have sunlight; candles, gas, even electric lights,\nunless they be flash-lights, which don't suit all purposes of accurate\nreproduction, will not accomplish it.  For vegetable growth you need\nsunlight; artificial light will give neither healthy fruit nor even\ncolor to the plant.  So it is with the divine image traced in the\nSacred Scriptures.  We cannot reproduce it in our souls by any earthly\nlight.  Now human judgment is an earthly light, because it is\nconstantly influenced by feelings, prejudices, attachments, and partial\nviews of things.  Some of us accept an opinion because it suits our\nconditions of life, is agreeable to our sense of ease or vanity,\nrelieves us from certain responsibilities to God and our neighbor which\na severer statement of the case would exact.  Others endorse a view\nbecause it is held by a person whom they love or respect.  Others,\nagain, maintain an opinion because it is contrary to the one held by a\nperson whom they dislike.  And there is a vast number of people who\ntake a view simply because it is the first that presents itself to\nthem, and they are as well pleased with it as with others which they\ndon't know.  It must be remembered, moreover, that man is not naturally\ninclined toward the right.  The world loves darkness since its eyes\nwere hurt by the wanton effort to see God and to be like Him in a way\nwhich was against His law.  Amid this darkness, intellectual and moral,\nwhich surrounds man, and which for the moment pleases him because it\nrelieves him of a strain, we need a guide.  We must follow a leader who\nknows all the ways and enjoys the full light of heaven.\n\nThe defence in favor of private interpretation of the Bible usually\nrests in the assumption of God's goodness, who must needs furnish an\ninward light to man lest he go wrong in his search after truth.  But\nGod's goodness gives you a guide, well accredited with testimonials\nfrom Himself, against whose efficiency the inward light compares like a\nrush-light against the sun.\n\nThe red cross of the Alpine Club marks the safe passage down the rocky\nmountain paths of Switzerland.  We recognize the stones which are\nlandmarks because they bear the conventional sign of an authorized body\nof mountaineers.  They lead our way, and we follow without hesitation.\nBut if the mark of the red cross of the Alpine Club were not visible,\nif we had to trust to the inward light or to our instinct to guide us,\nwe should run the risk of losing our way and lives, though the stones\nwhich marked the path of former travellers are still there.\n\nNor does it seem according to the divine wisdom to give man a written\nlaw and then to leave him to Himself for its interpretation.  No other\nwritten law was ever given under such conditions by or to man.  It\nwould frustrate the fundamental purpose of any written law to allow the\nindividual to interpret it, because it would lead to contradictions and\nconfusion, which it is the very object of laws to prevent.  That the\ndivine Law, in its written form, is no exception to this rule is proved\nfrom the effects of the theory of private interpretation, which have\ngrown into a history of many sects, conscientiously protesting one\nagainst the other because of the inferences which each draws from the\none sacred code of Christian law and doctrine.  Thus the written word\nof God would frustrate its own manifest purpose, nay, give occasion to\na thousand justifications of separation and hostility, which its\nfundamental canon, charity in the union of Christ, expressly forbids.\n\nWhat other conclusion, therefore, remains than to accept the warning of\nSt. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, who, speaking of the reading of the\nSacred Scriptures, wishes the converts to understand \"_this, first,\nthat no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation_,\"[1]\nbecause \"_the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost_\" (II.\nPet. i. 20, 21).\n\nAnd this disposes, in the mind of the sincere Christian, of all the\ntheories of interpretation advanced by rationalist and naturalist\nphilosophers, who render their arguments a trifle more consistent than\nProtestants by denying from the outset the divine inspiration of the\nSacred Scriptures.\n\n\n\n[1] The Protestant (King James) version of this passage reads: \"That no\nprophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.\"  The late\nrevision of the New Testament omits the word _any_.\n\n\n\nXIX.\n\nTHE USE AND THE ABUSE OF THE BIBLE.\n\n\"Revelation and a Church are practically identical.  Revelation and\nScripture are not.\"[1]  Though _revelation_ is necessary to guide the\nhuman mind, prone to error, and to sustain the human will, weak by\nreason of an hereditary fall, we have seen that the Bible is but _one_\nchannel of that revelation, and that a complementary, secondary one.\nIt neither contains all revealed truth, nor can the truth which it\ncontains be clearly and completely understood without the guidance of\nan intelligent interpretation.  A teacher of any science or art may\ngive a book into the hands of his pupils to serve as a text, as a\nreminder of his precepts, as a compend of his methods and practice; but\nno book, no matter how perfectly written, will make us dispense with\nthe teacher.  The education, in any direction, which rests upon the\nsole use of books is essentially defective and misleading.\n\nThis is eminently true of the Bible as a text or guide in the\nacquisition of the highest of arts, the profoundest of sciences, which\nleads us to the recognition of absolute truth, with an ever-increasing\napprehension, because its scope is immeasurable, eternal.\n\nThe teacher of revelation, in its first and most important\nsignification, is Christ.  He is the central historical figure,\nannounced to man immediately after his fall in Paradise foreshadowed by\nthe prophets in the Jewish Church, and completing His mission in the\nChristian Church.  As the Holy Ghost animated the prophets to foretell\nHim, and the priests of the synagogue to announce Him in the Old Law,\nso the Holy Ghost animates the Church to continue His work in the New\nLaw.  As books were written by the prophets of old to perpetuate the\nremembrance of what Jehovah had spoken through them to His people\nregarding the coming of the Messias, so books were written by the\nApostles and disciples of the New Law to perpetuate the remembrance of\nwhat that Messias had said and done, and of what He wished us to do.\nBut as the old written Law was not to be a substitute for the\ncommission of teaching and guiding the people through the Jewish\nSynagogue, so neither was the new written Law intended to be a\nsubstitute for the commission of teaching and guiding those who seek\nsalvation through Christ.  The Bible alone, as we have already seen,\ncannot satisfy us in such a way as to supply the full reason for our\nfaith in Christ's teaching.  For this we have a Church to whom Christ,\nas God, gave a direct commission, without adding a book, or an express\ncommand to write a book.\n\nBut a book was written, written under the guidance of the divine\nSpirit, who had been promised to the Church whenever it would speak,\nwhether by word of mouth or by epistle and written gospel.  And that\nbook, though not containing all truth, contains truth only.  Therefore\nit is useful, as St. Paul says, II. Tim. iii. 16: \"All Scripture\ninspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to\ninstruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to\nevery good work.\"  The use, then, of the Bible is to teach, to instruct\nin justice, primarily; to make man perfect, furnished to every good\nwork.  Mark the twofold term: to _teach_ and to _instruct_; both\nteaching and instruction to serve the one end--to make a perfect man,\n\"furnished to every good work.\"\n\nThat the principal purpose and scope of Scripture is to teach the\ntruths of religion has been demonstrated in a former chapter.  I have\nhere only to add that, as an instrument of Apologetics, and in\ndiscussion with Protestants who admit the divinity of Christ and the\ninspired character of the Sacred Scriptures, reference to the teachings\nof the Bible plays a very important part.  Whether we are defending our\nfaith against misrepresentation, or desirous of convincing other\nsincere and open minds of the justness of the claims which the Catholic\nChurch makes as the only true representative of Christ's divine mission\nto teach the nations, the Bible is a safe and commonly recognized\nmeeting-ground for a fair discussion of the subject.\n\nEven when we have to speak of religion with practical infidels, who\nread the Bible, or have some knowledge of its contents, that book will\nserve us as a powerful weapon of defence and persuasion.  Few\nintelligent men or women of to-day, especially if they are earnest, and\nhave a real regard for virtue and truth, though they may consider them\nas mere gifts of the natural order, fail to recognize that Christianity\nis a power for good, and that Christ, its Author, is and ever will be\nthe great teacher of mankind, in whose true following man becomes\nbetter, nobler, and happier.  To illustrate this fact, we may be\npermitted to quote at some length from an article by Baron Von Huegel in\na recent number of the _Dublin Review_ (April, 1895).  Speaking of\nChrist, he cites from various writers, as follows:\n\nThus \"Ernest Renan, sceptical even to his own scepticism, addresses him\nand says: 'A thousand times more living, a thousand times more loved,\nsince thy death than during thy passage upon earth, thou wilt become\nthe corner-stone of humanity, to such a point, that to blot out thy\nname out of the world would be in very truth to shake its very\nfoundations.'[2]  John Stuart Mill, who tells us of himself: 'I never\nlost faith, for I never had it,' proclaims at the end of his long\nlife's labors: 'Whatever else may be taken from us by rational\ncriticism, Christ is still left; a unique figure, not more unlike all\nhis predecessors than all his followers, even those who had the direct\nbenefit of his personal teaching.  It is no use to say that Christ in\nthe Gospels is not historical, and that we know not how much of what is\nadmirable has been superadded by the tradition of his followers.  For\nwho among his disciples or their proselytes was capable of inventing\nthe sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character\nrevealed in the Gospels?  Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee, as\ncertainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyncrasy were of a\ntotally different sort; still less the early Christian writers, in whom\nnothing is more evident than that the good which was in them was all\nderived, as they always professed that it was derived, from the higher\nsource.'[3]  Even so purely Deistic a critic as Abraham Kuenen\ndeclares: 'The international religion which we call Christianity was\nfounded, not by the Apostle Paul, but by Jesus of Nazareth, that Jesus\nwhose person and whose teaching are sketched in the Synoptic Gospels\nwith the closest approximation of truth.'  'The need of Christianity is\nas keen as ever.  It is not for less but for more Christianity that the\nage cries out.  Even those many who do not identify Christianity with\nthe ecclesiastical form in which they themselves profess it, and who\nhave no confidence that the world will necessarily conform to\nthem--even these may be at peace.  The universalism of Christianity is\nthe sheet-anchor of their hope.  A history of eighteen centuries bears\nmighty witness to it; and the contents of its evidence and the high\nsignificance they possess are brought into the clearest light by the\ncomparison with other religions.  We have good courage then.'[4]  So\nadvanced a critic and sensitively loyal a Jew as Mr. Claud Montefiore\ntells us: 'Some of the sayings ascribed to Jesus have sunk too deep\ninto the human heart, or shall I say into the spiritual consciousness\nof civilized mankind, to make it probable that any religion which\nignores or omits them will exercise a considerable influence outside\nits own borders.  It may be that those who dream of a prophetic\nJudaism, which shall be as spiritual as the religion of Jesus, and even\nmore universal than the religion of Paul, are the victims of a\ndelusion.'[5]  So largely naturalistic a critic as Julius Wellhausen\nwrites of our Lord's teaching and person: 'The miraculous is impossible\nwith man, but with God it is possible.  Jesus has not only assured us\nof this, but he has proved it in his own person.  He had indeed lost\nhis life and saved it, he could do as he would.  He had escaped the\nbonds of human kind and the sufferings of self-seeking nature.  There\nis in him no trace of that eagerness for action which seeks for peace\nin the restlessness of its own activity.  The completely super-worldly\nstandpoint in which Jesus finds strength and love to devote himself to\nthe world has nothing extravagant about it.  He is the first to know\nhimself, not simply in moments of emotion, but in completest\nrestfulness, the child of God; before him no one so felt or so\ndescribed himself.'  'Jesus not only prophesies the kingdom of God, but\nbrings it out of its transcendence on to earth; he plants at least its\ngerm.  The new times already begin with him: the blind see, the deaf\nhear, the dead arise.  Everywhere he found spaciousness for his soul,\nnowhere was he cramped by the little, much as he put forward the value\nof the great; this we should do, and not leave that undone.  He was\nmore than a prophet; in him the word had become flesh.  The historic\noverweightedness, to which the Jews were succumbing, does not even\ntouch him.  A unit arises in the dreary mass, a man from among the\nrubbish which the dwarfs, the rabbis, had heaped up.  He upsets the\naccidental, the caricature, the dead, and collects the eternally valid,\nthe human divine, in the focus of His individuality.  \"Ecce homo,\" a\ndivine wonder in this time and this environment.'\"\n\nSuch being the view of religiously disposed persons outside of the\nCatholic Church regarding the New Testament teaching of Christ, it\nwould seem easy at first sight to convince them of the Catholic\ndoctrine by reference to the words of Christ and the Gospels, which\ncontain explicit, if not complete testimony in behalf of the Catholic\nteaching.  There is one difficulty in the way of this, and that is that\nProtestants themselves distrust the meaning of the New Testament words\nexcept in so far as it expresses their own feelings.  The principle of\nprivate interpretation necessarily leads to this one-sided view.  A\nhundred persons appeal to the one Book as an infallible expression of\nGod's will and truth.  Now, some of these infallible expressions\nmanifestly contradict one another as Protestants interpret them.  Yet\nthe consequences of such contradictions are vital, and involve eternal\nlife or death.  Take the doctrine of baptism by water as essential to\nsalvation, according to the reading of some Protestants; yet the\nQuaker, no less sincere than his Baptist neighbor, and claiming a\nspecial inward light, consciously neglects baptism, holding that the\nteaching of the New Testament is only meant in a spiritual sense.\nEqually awful in their consequences are the two contrary doctrines\nregarding the Eucharistic presence of Christ as declared in the New\nTestament, one believer drawing the conclusion that he must adore God\nunder the veil of bread, the other equally convinced from the same\nScriptures that such a view is sheer idolatry, and that there is\nnothing divine under the appearance of bread.  This appeal to private\njudgment makes most Protestants sceptical if you attempt to prove to\nthem Catholic doctrine from the New Testament; and unless you can first\nconvince them that the Church has a greater claim to declare the sense\nof the Bible than any private individual, they will consider their\nopinion of its meaning and purpose just as good as yours.\n\nBut it is different if you appeal to the Old Testament for a\nconfirmation of Catholic doctrine.  And I would strongly urge this\nmethod for various reasons.  Every Protestant will admit that the Old\nTestament is not only inspired and divine in its origin, but that in\nits historic expression, even the deutero-canonical portion, contains\nthe application of its meaning and purpose.  In other words, that God\nnot merely gave the Israelites a law, but also shows us how He meant\nthem to interpret that law in their lives--domestic, social, and\nreligious.  Here, therefore, we have little need, or even opportunity,\nfor private interpretation as to God's meaning.  That meaning becomes\nclear from the action of His people.\n\nAt the same time it is also clear and generally admitted that the Old\nTestament is a foreshadowing of the New Law, hence that the doctrines\nand practices of the Christian Church have their counterpart in the Old\nLaw.  Protestants readily agree to this, in proof of which fact I may\nbe allowed to quote Prof. Robertson Smith:\n\n\"Christianity can never separate itself from its historical basis, or\nthe religion of Israel; the revelation of God in Christ cannot be\ndivorced from the earlier revelation on which our Lord built.  Indeed,\nthe history of Israel, when rightly studied, is the most real and vivid\nof all histories; and the proofs of God's working among His people of\nold may still be made, what they were in time past, one of the\nstrongest evidences of Christianity.\"[6]\n\nDr. A. B. Bruce in his _Apologetics_, 1892, p. 325, says: \"The Bible,\ninstead of being a dead rule, to be used mechanically, with equal value\nset on all its parts, is rather a living organism, which, like the\nbutterfly, passes through various transformations before arriving at\nits highest and final form.  We should find Christ in the Old Testament\nas we find the butterfly in the caterpillar.\"[7]\n\nHence if you can show to the average intelligent Protestant that a\ndoctrine or practice distinctively of the Catholic Church prevailed in\nthe Jewish Church, you have established an _a priori_ argument for its\nreasonableness.  This applies particularly to such doctrines and\npractices as Protestants condemn or censure in the Catholic Church from\na mere habit of not finding them in their own churches, or from some\nprejudice nourished by bigotry of early teachers, or by the popular\nliterature of the anti-Catholic type.  I only mention such topics as\nIndulgences, Confession, the Infallibility of the Pope, Celibacy of the\nclergy and religious, and such like.  Now all these things existed in\nthe Old Law, not so completely developed as in the Christian Church,\nbut sufficiently pronounced to establish a motive of credibility for\ntheir existence in the Church of Christ.  Thus we have the\nreasonableness of the practice of Confession plainly indicated in the\nMosaic times: \"And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Say to the children\nof Israel, when a man or woman shall have committed any of all the sins\nthat men are wont to commit, and by negligence shall have transgressed\nthe commandment of the Lord, and offended, they shall confess their\nsin, and shall restore the principal itself, and the fifth part over\nand above, to him against whom they have sinned\" (Num. v. 6-7; also\n13-14).  The Infallibility of the Pope finds its perfect counterpart in\nthe oracular responses given by the Jewish high-priest when he wore the\nUrim and Thummim in his breastplate, which covers the precise ground of\nPapal decisions regarding faith and morals, the breastplate being\ncalled \"the rational of judgment, doctrine, and truth\" (See Exod.\nxxviii. 30; Levit. viii. 8; Num. xxvii. 21; Deut. xxxiii. 8, etc.).\n\nAs to the practice of virginity, we know that it existed among the\nJews, as an exceptional condition; but as such it had the sanction of\nGod.  Thus the Prophet Jeremias receives the command of virginity from\nJehovah directly: \"And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Thou\nshalt not take thee a wife; neither shalt thou have sons and daughters\nin this place\" (Jer. xvi. 2).\n\nThus practical arguments, of which I can here only indicate a few, may\nbe found for each and all of the usages of the Catholic Church.  And\nany censure of the latter will cast its reflection upon the Jewish\ndispensation, of which God was Himself the Author and Guardian.  For if\nGod sanctioned ceremonies in worship, and infallibility in the\nhigh-priest, and virginity in the Prophet whom He selects for a special\nmission, and confession, with penance and the obligation of\nrestitution, why should Protestants think it so strange to find us\npractise the same things which have the seal of divine approbation!\n\nThus they may be inclined more readily to accept the more explicit\narguments in favor of Catholic doctrine and discipline as given in the\nNew Testament, which is but the fulfilment of the types suggested in\nthe Old Law.\n\nIt is hardly necessary for me to point out in this connection the\nadvantages of being able to disabuse Protestants of the impression that\nCatholics do not honor the Bible as the word of God.  Those who, as\nProtestants, do not recognize any other source of divine revelation\nthan the written word are, of course, obliged to occupy themselves\nwholly and entirely with its study, whilst Catholics look upon that\nsame written word, not with less reverence, but with less consciousness\nof having to rely upon it as the only symbol and exponent of their\nfaith.  If we refuse on general principles to have the Bible read to\nour Catholic children in a public school from a Protestant translation,\nit is simply because the admission of such a practice implies an\nadmission of a Protestant principle, and might leave a wrong impression\nupon our children as to the value of the true version of their\nreligion.  The Protestant translation of the Bible contains a great\ndeal of truth, _but some errors_ which we cannot admit in our teaching.\nTo give it to our children in the schools is something like planting a\nSouthern flag upon some public institution of the United States.  Some\nmay say it is better than none, because it begets patriotism, and as\nthere is no difference in the two flags except the slight one of a few\nstars and stripes, most people might never notice it.  But we know that\nif they did notice it, it would create considerable disturbance,\nbecause it implies something of disloyalty to \"Old Glory.\"\n\nFor a like reason Catholics often refuse to kiss the Protestant Bible\nin court.  They prefer simply _to affirm_.  And in this they are\nperfectly right, although to attest one's willingness to tell the truth\non such occasions is not supposed to be a trial of one's faith, and\nhence it does not involve anything of a denial of Catholic truth.\n\nBut I must pass on to one or two illustrations to show in what fields\nthe Bible is _not_ to be used.  For though it furnishes most apt means\nfor imparting a knowledge and inciting to the further study of history,\nlanguages, the principles of government and ethics, together with the\ndevelopment of a graceful and withal vigorous style of English writing,\nyet there are limits to its use in some directions.  Thus the Bible\ncannot be considered as replacing the exact sciences.  We are quite\nsafe always in affirming that the Bible never contradicts science; that\nwhere it does not incidentally confirm the results of scientific\nresearch it abstracts from the teaching of science.  Its language\nrelating to physical facts is popular, not scientific.  There is no\nreason to think that the inspired writers received any communication\nfrom heaven as to the inward workings of nature.  They had simply the\nknowledge of their age, and described things accordingly.  Leo XIII. in\nhis recent Encyclical on the study of the Sacred Scriptures strongly\nreiterates this doctrine, advanced by many Doctors of the Church,\nnamely, that the _sacred writers_ had no intention of initiating us\ninto the secrets of nature or to teach us the inward constitution of\nthe visible world.  Hence their language about \"the firmament,\" and how\n\"the sun stood still,\" as we still say \"the sun rises.\"[8]\n\nIf, then, we are confronted with some statement by scientists affirming\nthat there is a scientific inaccuracy in the Bible, we have no remark\nto make but that the Bible was not meant to be a text-book of exact\nscience.  If it is urged that there are contradictions between the\nBible and science, then the case demands attention.  We know that truth\ncannot contradict itself; but we know that we may err in apprehending\nit, and that science may err in its assumptions of fact.  Hence in the\nmatter of Biblical Apology, when dealing with science, it is of the\nfirst importance that we render an exact account to ourselves of what\n_science affirms_ and of what the _Sacred Scripture affirms_.  It is\nimportant to note here the distinction which P. Brucker points out;\nnamely, what _science affirms_, not what _scientists affirm_.  \"The\nlatter often mingle _conjecture_, more or less probable, with the\ndefinitely ascertained results of scientific experiment; they often\naccept as facts certain observations and plausible conclusions which\nare not always deduced from legitimate premises nor in a strictly\nlogical method.\"  The human mind is always prone to accept the\nplausible for the true, the appearance of things for their substance,\nthe general for the universal, the part for the whole, or the probable\nfor the proved.  This is demonstrated by the history of scientific\nhypotheses in nearly every department of human knowledge.\n\nIn the next place, we must be quite sure to ascertain _what the Sacred\nScriptures affirm_.  Apologists place themselves in a needlessly\nresponsible position when, in the difficult task of determining a\ndoubtful reading of the Sacred Text, they assume an interpretation\nwhich may be gainsaid by scientific _proof_.  The teaching of St.\nAugustine and St. Thomas on this subject is that we are not to\ninterpret in any _particular_ sense any part of Sacred Scripture which\nadmits of a different interpretation.  And here Leo XIII. in his\nEncyclical gives us an important point to consider when he says that\nthe defenders of the Sacred Scriptures must not consider that they are\nobliged to defend _each single_ opinion of isolated Fathers of the\nChurch.[9]  There is a difference between a _prudent conservatism_ and\na timid and slavish repetition of time-honored views.  Also between _an\nintelligent advance_ of well-founded, though _new_ views, and an\nexcessive temerity, which rashly replaces the tradition of ages by the\nsuggestions of new science.\n\n\"Hence any attempt to prove that the statements of the Bible imply in\nevery case exact conformity with the latest results of scientific\nresearch is a needless and, under circumstances, a dangerous\nexperiment; for although there are instances where (as in chap. i. of\nGenesis) the Bible statements anticipate the exactest results of\nscientific investigation by many centuries, yet it is not and need not\nbe so in all instances.\n\n\"Yet whilst we may not consider Moses as anticipating the\ninvestigations of a Newton, a Laplace, or a Cuvier, there are cases\nwhere the natural purpose and context of the sacred writers develop an\nexact harmony with the facts of science of which former ages had no\nright conception.  Such are the creation by successive stages, the\nunity of species, and origin of the human race, etc.  But these facts\nare _not proposed as scientific_ revelations.\"\n\nIn all important questions as to the agreement of the Bible with the\nresults of scientific research we may have recourse with perfect\nconfidence to the living teaching of the Church; where she gives no\ndecision there we are at liberty to speculate, provided the results of\nour speculation do not conflict with explicit and implied doctrines of\ntruth, that is to say, they must be in harmony with the general analogy\nof faith.\n\nThere is one other topic which I would touch upon in speaking of the\nuse and abuse of the Bible; it is a view which the late Oliver Wendell\nHolmes is supposed to have advocated.  The author of \"The Professor at\nthe Breakfast Table\" believed that it would be advantageous if the\nBible were, as he terms it, _depolarized_, that is to say, if the\ntranslations or versions made from the originals were put in such form\nas to appeal to the imagination and feelings of the present generation\nby substituting modern terminology and figures of speech for the old\ntime-honored words of Scriptural comparisons.  The aim would be, as I\nunderstand it, to do for the written word of God what the Salvation\nArmy leaders are attempting to do for nineteenth century Christianity\nin general.\n\nIn answer to this suggestion it may be said that the attempt has been\nmade in various ways, and seemingly always without result for the\nbetter.  As we have versions of St. Paul's Epistles in Ciceronian\nLatin, so we have had travesties of the Gospels intended to popularize\nthe moral maxims they contain.  If it is question of making the Bible\naccessible to the people for the purpose of getting them to read it,\ndevices of this kind may succeed to a degree with those who look for\nnovelty.  As to its essential form, the Bible is popular,--appeals to\nall minds and conditions.  This is proved by the experience of\ncenturies, in every clime and among all races.\n\nThose parts which do not directly appeal to a popular sentiment are of\na nature to forbid depolarization as above suggested, since in changing\nthem they would necessarily lose their identity, the inherent proofs of\ntheir origin, and their underlying mystic and spiritual meaning.  So\nfar as they were written, the truths contained in the Bible were to\nserve all time.  To change their form is to tamper with the spirit of a\ndivine language, which, although it comes to us in human sounds,\nvariable according to nationality and time and place, still has an\nunction, a breath of heaven accompanying it which would vanish as the\nperfume vanishes from the transplanted flower.  There are some truths,\nsome ideas and feelings, which cannot be expressed in popular fashion\nwithout losing their essential qualities.  One might urge the same\nreasons in behalf of painting the old Greek statues, because the common\npeople would find it possible to admire them if gaudy coloring helped\ntheir imagination to interpret the action of the figures in marble.\nSome things in the Bible were not written for all, and appeal only to\nrefined and spiritual minds.  Others can be easily understood and\nassimilated, and there are preachers commissioned to make attractive\nand intelligible that which of itself does not appeal to the rude.\nThere is such a thing as _accommodating_ the words of the Sacred\nScripture for the purpose of impressing a truth by analogy, and of the\nuse of this method we have beautiful illustrations in the writings of\nthe Fathers and in the Offices of the Breviary.  But the sense _by\naccommodation_, as it is called by writers on hermeneutics, does not\ntake liberties with the Sacred Text itself in the manner suggested by\nthe advocates of _depolarization_.  For the rest there is a difference,\nthere always will be a difference, between the qualities that call upon\nthe senses and attract, perhaps, the larger circle of admirers, and\nthat choicer spirit which reaches the soul.  You cannot substitute one\nfor the other; their domain is widely apart, though they may use the\nsame instrument.\n\n  One tunes his facile lyre to please the ear,\n  And win the buzzing plaudits of the town;\n  The other sings his soul out to the stars,\n  And the deep hearts of men.\n\n\nYou cannot depolarize, without destroying, Dante, or Milton, or any of\nour great poets; no more can you depolarize the great masterpiece of\nthe Bible.  Let us take it as we receive it under the guardianship of\nthe Church.  Its apparent imperfections are like the surroundings and\nexterior of its Founder: a scandal to the Greek, a stumbling-block to\nthe Jew, because they could not realize that a God was hidden in the\nimperfect guise of poor flesh.\n\nWhat we consider imperfections to be remedied in the Bible were\nrecognized by the Apostles, and by the chief of them, St. Peter, who\nwrites, II. Pet. iii. 16: \"Our dear brother Paul, according to the\nwisdom given him, has written to you; as also in all his Epistles; in\nwhich are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and\nunstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own\ndestruction.\"  Here was room for depolarization, yet St. Peter did not\ntake it in hand, neither should we desire scholars of perhaps greater\nknowledge but less wisdom to do so.\n\n\n\n[1] Humphrey, \"The Sacred Scriptures,\" _l.c._\n\n[2] \"Vie de Jesus,\" 1864, p. 426.\n\n[3] \"Three Essays on Religion,\" 1874, p. 258.\n\n[4] \"Hibbert Lectures,\" 1882, pp. 196, 197.\n\n[5] Ibid., 1892, p. 551.\n\n[6] \"The Old Testament in the Jewish Church,\" 1892, p. 11.\n\n[7] See _Dublin Review_, article cited above.\n\n[8] See Humphrey, \"The Sacred Scriptures;\" also \"_Questions Actuelles\nd'-Ecriture Sainte_,\" by Brucker, S. J.\n\n[9] See Appendix.\n\n\n\n\nXX.\n\nTHE VULGATE AND THE REVISED PROTESTANT VERSION OF THE BIBLE.\n\nIn instituting here a comparison between the two approved and typical\nEnglish Versions of the Bible as in use among Catholics and Protestants\nrespectively, I have no intention to be aggressive or polemic.  As from\nthe first we have taken what may be called the common-sense point of\nview in judging the Bible as an historical work, which verifies its\nclaims to be regarded as an organ communicating to us divine knowledge,\nso we proceed to make a brief suggestive examination of two English\nBibles: one found in the homes of Catholics, the other in those of our\nProtestant friends and neighbors, many of whom believe with all\nsincerity that among the various doubts and difficulties of life they\ncan consult no truer guide than that sacred volume.\n\nTaking the two volumes as a whole, and considering only their general\ncontents, there is but little difference between them.  I compared them\nin a former chapter to the two American flags of North and South:\nviewed in themselves, these are both of the same origin, copied from\nthe same pattern, and emblems, both, of American independence.  Though\nthey differ only in some detail that might escape the superficial\nobserver, they nevertheless represent very widely different principles,\nfor which the men of the South as of the North were willing to stake\ntheir lives.  They might meet in friendly intercourse in all the walks\nof daily life, but if you ask a Union soldier to carry the Southern\nflag, he will say: No; for though it looks very much like my own, there\nis a difference, and that difference constitutes a vital principle with\nme.\n\nCatholics have to make much the same answer when told that they might\naccept the Protestant Bible in their public relations with those who do\nnot recognize the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church has the old\nBible, as it came down the ages, complete and without changes.  She has\nno reason to discard it, and she has good reason not to accept another\nBible, though its English be sweeter and its periods fall upon the ear\nlike the soft cadences of Southern army songs.  We cannot sing from its\ntuneful pages, because it represents the principle of opposition to its\noriginal source and parent-stock, and no union can be effected except\nby the elimination of that principle.\n\nCatholics claim that their Bible, in point of fidelity to the\noriginal--and this is the _essential_ point when we speak of a\ntranslation of such a book--Catholics claim that their Bible, in point\nof fidelity to the original, is as superior to the Protestant English\nBible of King James as it is, we admit, inferior in its English.  \"The\ntranslators of the Catholic Version considered it a lesser offence to\nviolate some rules of grammar than to risk the sense of God's word for\nthe sake of a fine period.\"[1]\n\nWhat proof have we for such a claim?  I answer that we have the\nstrongest proof in the world which we could have on such a subject\noutside of a divine revelation, namely, the admission on the part of\nthe guardians and translators themselves of the Protestant Bible.  Now,\nwhen I say guardians and translators of the Protestant Bible, I do not\nmean merely the testimony of a few great authorities in the past or\npresent who may have expressed their opinion as to the faults and\ndefects of the latest English Protestant translation.  That would not\nbe fair.  But I mean that the history itself of Protestant translations\nmade since the days of King James, not to go back any farther, is a\nstanding argument of the severest kind:\n\nFirst, _against_ the correctness of the _Protestant_ English Versions;\nand,\n\nSecondly, _for_ the correctness of the _Catholic_ English Version.\n\nFor if we compare the first Protestant English Version (which departed\nconsiderably from the received Catholic text of the Vulgate) with all\nthe succeeding revisions made at various times by the English\nProtestants, we find that they have steadily returned towards the old\nCatholic Version.  This is not only an improvement as an approach to\nthe Catholic teaching, but it is also a confession, however reluctantly\nmade, of past errors on the part of former Protestant translators.\n\nAt the time of their separation from the Catholic Church the reformers,\nso-called, had to give reasons for their defection.  They found fault\nwith one doctrine or another in the old Catholic Church, such as the\nsupremacy of the Roman Pontiff, the jurisdiction of bishops, the Holy\nSacrifice, celibacy, confession, etc.  To justify the rejection of\nthese doctrines they must appeal to some authority: if not to the\nPontiff, then to the king, or to the Bible, or to both simultaneously.\nBut though the king might favor their novelties of doctrine inasmuch as\nthey relieved his conscience of the reproach of disobedience to the\nPontiff, who knew but one law of morals for the prince and the peasant,\nthe Bible as hitherto read was against them.  Now, Luther had given\ndistracted Germany an example of what might be done in the way of\nwhittling down the supernatural, and eliminating some of the irksome\nduties imposed by the old Church.  He had made a new translation of the\nBible, threw out passages, nay, whole books,[2] which did not meet his\nviews, and added here and there a little word which did admirable\nservice by setting him right with a world that for the most part could\nneither read Hebrew nor Latin nor Greek, and trusted him for a learned\ntranslator.\n\nIn similar fashion an English translation had already been attempted by\nWiclif about 1380, and almost simultaneously by Nicolas of Hereford.\nThere existed in England at the time of Luther an edition of the\nScriptures called the \"great Bible.\"  It was Catholic up to its fourth\nedition, that of 1541.  Then, as is generally supposed, it was revised\nby the Elizabethan bishops in 1508, and in 1611, after a more\nlengthened revision, it appeared as a King James \"Authorized Version.\"\nSince then various revisions and corrections of this Bible have been\nprinted, each succeeding one eliminating some of the previous errors.\nMr. Thomas Ward has made up an interesting book called \"Errata--the\ntruth of the English translations of the Bible examined,\" or \"a\ntreatise showing some of the errors that are found in the English\ntranslation of the Sacred Scriptures used by Protestants against such\npoints of religious doctrine as are the subject of controversy between\nthem and the members of the Catholic Church.\"  Dr. Ward's book embraces\na comparison between the Catholic English translation and the various\nProtestant versions up to the year 1683, for since then no changes were\nmade in the English Protestant Bible called the authorized version\nuntil 1871, when the work of a new revision, published between 1881-85,\nwas undertaken, which is not included in Dr. Ward's \"Errata.\"\n\nWhy was this last revision made?  Was not the King James version of\n1611, for the most part, beautiful English?  As to the rest, was it not\nfor every Protestant an absolute, infallible rule of faith?  The\nlanguage was good, the truth still better; what need, then, was there\nto revise?\n\nThe revisers of 1881 tell us that the language of the old English\nversion could be improved, and that they meant to improve it.  The\nolder translators, they say, \"seem to have been guided by the feeling\nthat their version would secure for the words they used a lasting place\nin the language; ... but it cannot be doubted that the studied\navoidance of uniformity in the rendering of the same words, even when\noccurring in the same context, is one of the blemishes in their work.\"\n\nBut are the changes of language or expression all that the reviewers of\nthis infallible text-book aim at?  No.  Listen to what Dr. Ellicott in\nthe Preface to the Pastoral Epistles says:\n\n\"It is vain to cheat our souls with the thought that these errors are\neither insignificant or imaginary.  There _are_ errors, there _are_\ninaccuracies, there _are_ misconceptions, there _are_ obscurities, not,\nindeed, so many in number or so grave in character as some of the\nforward spirits of our day would persuade us; but there _are_\nmisrepresentations of the language of the Holy Ghost; and that man who,\nafter being in any degree satisfied of this, permits himself to bow to\nthe counsels of a timid or popular obstructiveness, or who,\nintellectually unable to test the truth of these allegations,\nnevertheless permits himself to denounce or deny them, will, if they be\ntrue, most surely at the dread day of final account have to sustain the\ntremendous charge of having dealt deceitfully with the inviolable Word\nof God.\"[3]\n\nSo this book, the infallible voice of God revealing His ways, this sole\nrule of faith for millions of Englishmen, and by which millions had\nlived and sworn and died during more than two centuries, had to be\nrevised, not only as to the form, but in the matter also.  Two\ncommittees were formed, about fifty of the members being from England,\nthirty from America--Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, etc.\nCardinal Newman and Dr. Pusey were invited, but declined to attend.\nMr. Vance Smith, a Unitarian, a distinguished scholar, but certainly no\nChristian, received a place in the New Testament committee.  These\ngentlemen set to work in earnest to revise the Word of God and settle\nthe Bible of the future.  They had to consider the advance made in\ntextual criticism represented by Lachmann, Scholz, Tregelles,\nTischendorf, and Drs. Westcott and Hort.\n\nThey labored ten years and a half, as Dr. Ellicott assures us, \"with\nthoroughness, loyalty to the authorized versions, and due recognition\nof the best judgment of antiquity.  One of their rules, expressly laid\ndown for their common guidance, was to introduce as few alterations as\npossible into the text of the authorized version.\"\n\nHow many corrections, think you, were made in the New Testament alone?\nAbout 20,000, of which fifty per cent. are textual, that is \"9 to every\nfive verses of the Gospels, and 15 to every five in the Epistles.\"\nBesides these changes, which must be a shock to many an English\nProtestant who has accustomed himself by long reading of the Bible to\nbelieve in verbal inspiration, there are a number of omissions in the\nNew Revised Text which in all amount to about 40 entire verses.  It\nappears, then, that the King James Bible of some years ago has not been\nas most Protestants of necessity claimed for it--the pure, authentic,\nunadulterated Word of God.  And if not, what guarantee have we that the\npromiscuous body of recent translators, however learned, withal not\ninspired, have given us that pure, authentic, unadulterated Word of God?\n\nLet us glance over a few pages of the New Testament to see of what\nnature and of what importance, from a doctrinal point of view, are the\nchanges made by the late revisers of the \"Authorized (Protestant)\nVersion.\"\n\nIn the first place, they have acknowledged the reading of I. Cor. xi.\n27, regarding communion under one kind, by translating the Greek\n[Greek: gamma] by _or_, and not by _and_, an error which had been\nrepeated in all the Protestant translations since 1525, and which gave\nrise to endless abuse of the Catholic practice of giving the Blessed\nSacrament to the laity under only one species.  \"Whosoever shall eat\nthe bread _or_ drink the cup\" is the reading in the Greek as well as in\nthe Latin Vulgate, and nothing but \"theological fear or partiality,\" as\nDean Stanley expressed it, could have warranted this mistranslation,\nwhich may be found in all the editions of 1520, 1538, 1562, 1508, 1577,\n1579, 1611, etc.\n\nBut this is only one of many acts of justice which the learned revisers\nhave done to Catholics by restoring the true reading; they have given\nus back the _altar_ which, together with the Holy Sacrifice and\nconfession and celibacy, had become obnoxious to the \"reformers.\"  We\nnow read, I. Cor. x. 18, that \"those that eat the hosts\" are in\n\"communion with the _altar_,\" where formerly they were only \"partakers\nof the temple.\"\n\nHaving restored the Catholic practice of Holy Communion under one kind,\nand likewise the altar, we are not surprised that the \"overseers\" of\nthe King James version should have become _bishops_, as in Acts xx. 28,\nalthough a good many of the _overseers_ have been left in their places,\npossibly because the \"elders\" (Acts xv. 2; Tit. i. 5; I. Tim. v. 17 and\n19, etc.) have not yet become _priests_, as they are in the Rhemish\n(Catholic) translation.  However, the \"elders\" are likely to turn out\npriests at the next revision, because they are not only \"ordained,\" but\nalso \"appointed,\" whereas in the old English revisions of 1562 and 1579\nthey were ordained elders \"by election in every congregation,\" which is\nstill done in Protestant churches where there are no bishops, and even\nin some which have \"overseers\" with the honorary title of \"bishop.\"\n\nAs to the celibacy question, the revisers have not thought fit to\nendorse it by translating [Greek: _adelphen gynaicha_] a \"woman,\" a\nsister; but they adhere to the old \"wife,\" as Beza, in his translation,\nmakes the Apostles go about with their \"wives\" (Acts i. 14).\n\nIn the matter of \"confession\" we have got a degree nearer to the old\nCatholic version and practice likewise.  The Protestant reformers had\nno \"sins\" to confess; they had only \"faults.\"  Hence they translate St.\nJames v. 16 by \"confess your faults.\"  But the revisers of 1881 found\nout that these \"faults\" were downright sins, and so they put it.\nAccordingly we find that the Apostles have power literally \"to forgive\"\nsins, whereas formerly, the sins being only faults, it was enough to\nhave them \"remitted,\" which means a sort of passive yielding or\ncondoning on the part of the overseers in favor of repentant sinners,\nbut did not convey the idea of a sacramental power \"binding and\nloosening\" in heaven as on earth.\n\nOur dear Blessed Lady also receives some justice at the hands of the\nnew translators.  She is not simply \"highly favored\" as in the times of\nKing James and ever since, but now is \"endued with grace,\" though only\nin a footnote.\n\n\"It was expected,\" says an anonymous writer in the above cited article\nof the _Dublin Review_,[4] \"that the revisers, in deference to modern\nrefinement, would get rid of 'hell' and 'damnation,' like the judge who\nwas said to have dismissed hell with costs.  'Damnation' and kindred\nwords have gone....  A new word, 'Hades,' Pluto's Greek name, has been\nbrought into our language to save the old word 'hell' from overwork.\nThe Rich Man is no longer in 'hell,' he is now '_in Hades;_' but he is\nstill 'in torment.'  So Hades must be Purgatory, and the revisers have\nthus moved Dives into Purgatory, and Purgatory into the Gospel.  Dives\nwill not object; but what will Protestants say?\"\n\nAn important change has been introduced in their treatment of the\nLord's Prayer.  Protestants, for over three hundred years, have\nconcluded that prayer with the words: \"for Thine is the kingdom and the\npower and the glory forever.\"  These words were to be found in St.\nMatt. vi. 13 according to the Protestant text.  They were certainly\nwanting in St. Luke xi. 2, who also gives us the words of the \"Our\nFather\" with a very slight change of form.  Catholics were reproached\nfor not adding the 'doxology,' which proved to be a custom in the Greek\nCatholic Church, very much like our use of the \"Glory be to the Father,\nand to the Son,\" etc., at the end of each psalm recited or sung at\nVespers.  Examination showed that the phrase \"for Thine is the\nkingdom,\" etc., was to be found principally in versions made by and for\nthe Catholics of the Greek Church, and this explained how the same had\ncrept into the copyists' Greek version.  This fact is recognized at\nlength in the late revision where the words are omitted from the text\nof St. Matthew, whilst a footnote states that \"many authorities, some\nancient, but with variations, add: 'for Thine is the kingdom and the\nglory forever.'\"\n\nThe American revisers had made a number of very sensible suggestions,\nwhich would have brought the new Protestant version of the Bible still\nnearer to the old Catholic translation of Rheims and Douay; but their\nvoice was not considered weighty enough, and Mr. Vance Smith openly\nblames the English committee on this score, saying that \"they have not\nshown that judicial freedom from theological bias which was certainly\nexpected from them.\"  On the other hand, the American revisers showed\ntheir national spirit and liberality to a degree which must have\nhorrified the orthodox members of the Anglican Community.  The\nAmericans \"suggested the removal of all mention of the sin of\nheresy--heresies in their eyes being only 'factions.'  They desired\nalso that the Apostles and Evangelists should drop their title of\nSaint, and be content to be called plain John, and Paul, and Thomas.\nThis resulted, no doubt, from their democratic taste for strict\nequality, and their hatred of titles even in the kingdom of heaven.\"[5]\n\nAfter all this the principle of faith in the Bible alone became\nsomewhat insecure, and we find the revisers making a silent concession\non this point by allowing something to the Catholic principle of a\nliving, perpetually transmitted _tradition_.  St. Paul, who speaks of\nthe _altar_ and of _bishops_, and who allows _Communion under one\nkind_, and who had no wife, and wanted none (I. Cor. vii.), praises the\nCorinthians, not simply for keeping his \"ordinances,\" as in the time of\nKing James, but for keeping the _traditions_ as he had delivered them\nto the Greek churches before he found opportunity to write to the\nCorinthians.\n\nThere is one other point of difference between the Catholic and\nProtestant Bibles to which it is instructive to call attention.  It is\nin regard to the writing of proper names, especially in the Old\nTestament.  Thus where we in the Catholic Bibles have _Nabuchodonosor_\nfor the king of Babylon, son of Nabopollassar, the Protestant version\nhas _Nebuchadnezzar_; where we have _Elias_ and _Eliseus_, the\nProtestant version has _Elijah_ and _Elisha_, and so forth regarding\nmany Hebrew names of persons and places.  You will ask whence the\ndifference, and which is right?\n\nThe difference arises from the fact that the Protestant Version follows\nthe present Hebrew text of the Bible, whilst the Catholic Version\nfollows the Greek.  Which is the safer to follow on such points as the\npronunciation of proper names--the Hebrew or the Greek?  You will say\nthe Hebrew, but it is not so.  The old Hebrew writing had, as I\nmentioned before, no vowels.  Hence it could not be read by any one who\nhad not heard it read in the schools of the rabbis.  Some _six\ncenturies after our Lord_, certain Jewish doctors who were called\nMasorets, anxious to preserve the traditional sounds of the Hebrew\nlanguage, supplied vowels in the shape of points, which they placed\nunder the square consonants, without disturbing the latter.  Hence the\npresent vowel system in Hebrew, or, in other words, the present\npronunciation of Hebrew according to the reading of the Bible, is the\nwork of men who relied for the pronunciation of words on a tradition\nwhich carried them back over many centuries, that is, from the time\nwhen Hebrew was a living language to about six hundred years after\nChrist.  It is not difficult to imagine how in such a length of time\nthe true pronunciation may have been lost or certainly modified in some\ncases; for though the Hebrew words were there on the paper, written in\nconsonants of the old form, the pronunciation of the vowels must have\nbeen doubtful if resting on tradition alone, since the Hebrew had\nalready ceased to be a living language for many centuries.\n\nIn the meantime, the true pronunciation of the Hebrew proper names\ncould have been preserved in some of the translations made long before\nthe Masoretic doctors supplied their vowel points.  One of these\ntranslations from the Hebrew is the Greek Septuagint.  It was made, as\nwe have seen, in the time of Ptolemy, _i.e._, some two and a half\ncenturies before Christ.  The learned Jews who made this translation\nknew perfectly well how the Hebrew of their day was pronounced, and we\ncannot suppose that they would mutilate the proper names of their\nmother tongue in the translation into Greek which, possessing written\nvowels, obliged them to express the full pronunciation of the persons\nand places which they transcribed.\n\nAccordingly, we have two sources for our pronunciation of Hebrew proper\nnames: one which dates from about the sixth or seventh century of the\npresent era, when the Hebrew had become a dead language; and another,\nmade about _nine hundred years earlier_ by Jewish rabbis, who spoke the\nlanguage perfectly well, and who could _express the pronunciation of\nproper names_ accurately because they wrote in a language which had\n_written_ vowels, and with which they were as conversant as with their\nown, the Hebrew.\n\nFurthermore, we have other versions, made long before the Masoretic\nDoctors invented their vowel-points in order to fix the Hebrew\npronunciation as they conceived it.  Among these is the Latin Vulgate\nwhich, like the Greek of the Septuagint, should give us the correct\npronunciation--because it was made by St. Jerome, who had studied the\nHebrew and Chaldee in Palestine under a Jewish rabbi.  He knew,\ntherefore, the pronunciation of the Jews in his day (331-420), and\nthere was no reason why he should not give it to us in his several\ndifferent translations, whilst there might have been some cause why the\nMasoretic Jews who lived two or three centuries later should dislike to\naccept either the Greek or the Latin versions for an authority, because\nboth versions were used and constantly cited by the Christians as proof\nthat the Messiah had come.\n\nIncidentally, the late archeological finds confirm this.  Thus the name\nof Nabuchodonosor (IV. Kings xxiv. 1) (Protestant, Nebuchadnezzar),\nmentioned above as an example, reads in the cuneiform inscription of\nthe Assyrian monument Nebukudursur, which is evidently the same form of\nvowel pronunciation as that employed in the Catholic version.\n\nIn comparing the two versions thus far little has been said as to the\npeculiar character or merits of the English Catholic version commonly\ncalled the Vulgate English or Douay Bible.  But the main purpose of the\npresent chapter has been attained by the necessary inference which the\nreader must have drawn, namely, that the old Catholic version is the\nmore faithful, and that, after all, the Bible is not a safe guide\nwithout a Church to guard its integrity and to interpret its meaning.\n\nBut let me say just a word about the Vulgate.  The Catholic Vulgate is\npractically the work of St. Jerome, and our English Catholic edition is\nmade as literally as may be from this Latin Vulgate, \"diligently\ncompared with the Hebrew, Greek, and other editions in divers\nlanguages.\"  The copies, most in use now, were made from an edition\npublished by the English College at Rheims in 1582, and at Douay in\n1609, revised by Dr. Challoner.\n\nThe need of a new revision has been recognized, and an effort to supply\nthe want was made by the late Archbishop Kenrick, whose translation was\nrecommended by the Council of Baltimore in 1858, although it has not\nbeen generally adopted.  However, the changes to be made in the\ntranslation of the Catholic Bible in English cannot be very numerous\nnor affecting doctrines defined by the Church; nor is any accidental\nchange of words or expressions so vital a matter to the Catholic mind\nas it must be with those who have but the Bible as their one primary\nrule of faith.  So far Protestant revisions have done Catholics a\nservice in removing by successive corrections one error after another\nfrom the \"reformed\" Bible, thus demonstrating the correctness of the\nold Vulgate; but they have also led Protestants to reflect seriously,\nand to realize that the \"Bible only\" principle is proved to be false\nand dangerous.  They must see that the Scripture is powerless without\nthe Church as the witness to its inspiration, the safeguard of its\nintegrity, and the exponent of its meaning.\n\n\n\n[1] Cf. a paper on the subject of the New Revision in the _Dublin\nReview_, 1881, vol. VI., ser. iii.\n\n[2] These books have been mostly retained in the Protestant Bible under\nthe name of _Apocryphal_, _i.e._, not inspired.  The Church accepts and\ndefines their inspiration, and in this is supported by the strong\ntestimony of apostolic tradition.\n\n[3] \"Pastoral Epistles,\" p. 13.\n\n[4] Vol. VI., ser. iii.\n\n[5] _Dublin Review_, _l.c._\n\n\n\n\nXXI.\n\nTHE POSITION OF THE CHURCH IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENTIFIC\nCONTROVERSY REGARDING THE BIBLE.\n\nIn one of the old churches of Wales you may see the Ten Commandments\nwritten upon the wall, and beneath them the following inscription, the\nmeaning of which, it is said, had for a long time remained a mystery to\nthe people:\n\n  P R S V R Y P R F C T M N,\n  V R K P T H S P R C P T S T N.\n\nSome one supplied the key to the interpretation by suggesting the\nletter E.  Then everybody read the lines, and the old folks told their\nchildren, who inform the casual visitor that the strange letters\nplainly mean: _Persevere ye perfect men, ever keep these precepts ten_.\n\nThe inscription in the old Welsh church is a good illustration of the\nold text of the Bible, which had no vowels, no division of words and\nsentences.  God gave the key to its meaning through an intelligent\ninterpreter, and the men of learning supply the divisions--even in this\nsense that they sometimes dispute the place where to insert and where\nto omit the E.\n\nThe original obscurity has induced many to study the Bible, and the\ngrand result of this study in our day has been to lead the great\nmajority of scientific men, whether they are believers in the divine\norigin of the Book or not, to the conclusion that it is, to say the\nleast, an historical monument of the highest antiquity, the contents of\nwhich have come down to us in that genuine and authentic form which is\nclaimed for it; that is to say, that it has not been tampered with or\nfalsified to such an extent as would render its statements materially\nother than they were from the beginning.\n\nTischendorf, one of the leading Biblical text critics in recent times,\nallows indeed some 30,000 variations for the New Testament alone in the\ndifferent manuscripts of which we possess any trace.  Although these\nvariations are on the whole very slight, so as not to affect the\ngenuineness of the Scripture documents, they establish the fact that we\ndo not possess the text of the Bible in the _literal_ form in which the\ninspired writers originally wrote it down.\n\nWhatever changes have crept into the text of the Bible, through\ninadvertence of copyists or defective translations into other\nlanguages, it is a settled fact among Catholic divines that they do not\naffect the moral and dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.  They\nregard either purely historical incidents or scientific facts, neither\nof which are the object of the doctrinal definitions or moral teachings\nof the Church.  They are the proper subject for the study of human\nreason and investigation.  Hence philological science may very\nbecomingly occupy itself with the verbal criticism of the language and\nthought of the Bible.  But the Catholic Church, as a teacher of\nreligious truth, has an interest in these studies of verbal criticism\nin so far only as they may become a help or a hindrance to her\nlegitimate activity of preaching and preserving the truth of\nChristianity.  As a rule, the Church anticipates the dangerous issues\narising from the misuse of such studies by deliberately defining not\nonly the right use of the instruments employed for the purpose of\ncriticism, but also what she herself deems the subject-matter lying\noutside of the domain of such criticism.  Thus, in a negative way, she\npoints out the field for the exercise of theories, or rather she\ndefines the lines beyond which speculation may not safely go.  The\nChurch would have no end of tasks if she undertook to defend her\nposition against the continuously proposed hypotheses by which any\nchance comer might venture to challenge her veracity or authority.\nMost theories are ephemeral; two, succeeding each other, are often\nmutually destructive.  Prof. H. L. Hastings in his \"Higher Criticism\"\ntells us that since 1850 there have been published 747 theories, known\nto him, about the origin and authenticity of the Bible.  Of these 747\ntheories he counts 608 as now defunct, and as the Professor wrote\nseveral years ago, we may assume that nearly all of the remaining 139\nare dead by this time, although a few new ones have come in to take\ntheir place for a day.[1]\n\nWhat, then, is the position of the Catholic Church, as limited  by\n_positive definition_, with regard to the text of the Bible, by which\nshe limits the aggressiveness of Biblical criticism?\n\nThe Catholic Church gives us a very ancient and well-attested text of\nthe entire Bible in the Latin tongue, and in virtue of her commission\nto teach, which includes the right and duty to appoint the text-book\nfor that teaching, she says: _The sacred Council of Trent, believing\nthat it would be of great advantage to the Church of God to have it\nknown which of the various Latin editions of the Bible is to be held\nauthentic, hereby declares that the ancient edition commonly known as\nthe Vulgate, which has been approved by the long-standing use of ages\nin the Church, is to be considered as the authentic Bible for official\nuses of teaching_ (Trent, vi. 12).\n\nYou notice that the Council of Trent does not say that the Vulgate\ncorresponds exactly to the literal original text, nor that it is the\nbest of all known translations.  The Council states only, but states\nexplicitly, that the Vulgate edition of the Bible is a reliable source\nof the written revelation in matters of faith and morals.  And the\nreason which the Council alleges for this preference of the Vulgate\nover other editions is its constant use for centuries in the Church; in\nother words, that it represents the best tradition of the received\ntext-form of the Sacred Scriptures.  But the definition of the Council\nimplies not only that the contents of the Vulgate in their entirety are\nreliable and authentic, but that each of its statements is authentic in\nits dogmatic contents, since the whole Vulgate, _i.e._, in all its\nparts, is said to constitute a medium or instrument of official\nteaching in the Church.  The declaration of the Council is regarding\nthe _Latin_ Vulgate; hence all translations must conform to _its_ text,\nthat is to say, the corrected text of 1592, called the Clementine\nrecension.\n\nIt is noteworthy that, whilst the Church points out a text which is to\nbe the official pattern in her liturgy and in the defence of Catholic\nteaching regarding faith and morals, she does not define anything\nregarding other texts or versions of the Bible.  Neither the Hebrew nor\nthe Greek texts are mentioned, although the Church gives to them, and\nthe Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian versions, an implied approbation by\ntolerating their liturgical use in the Oriental churches.\n\nWhat the Church has defined, therefore, regarding the Vulgate is this:\nIt has declared its _dogmatic integrity_.  This implies that the\ncontents of the Vulgate give in their entirety and in their details a\nreliable version of the inspired text as an instrument of teaching\nCatholic truth and morals.\n\nFrom a scientific point of view the Vulgate enjoys the advantage of\nbeing the oldest of all the Scriptural versions.  In the Old Testament\nit represents a text more ancient than the Hebrew of the Masoretic\ndoctors.  The New Testament is likewise older than the oldest Greek\ntext extant, as Lachmann in his critical edition has demonstrated.\nMoreover, its composition is the result of the best scientific\napparatus of early Christian times, which St. Jerome possessed in a\nphenomenal degree, both as to his person and also as to the\ncircumstances in which he was placed.  Finally, it has an historical\nsupport of unequalled superiority, inasmuch as it has been from the\nbeginning the means of Christianizing the nations of Europe.\n\nAll this is being verified, not only by textual critics, but by the\nmore recent discoveries in the study of Christian paleography.\n\nSuch is the position in which scientific research finds the Church.\nThe multiform theories about the Bible, and the various possible senses\nof its words and passages, only affect her in a limited degree.\nCatholic apologists are obliged to deal with these theories so far only\nas they affect the positive teaching of the Church in faith and morals,\nalthough the analogy of faith demands that the Catholic scientist test\nhis opinions by weighty tradition and approved practice.  Whilst the\n_dogmatic_ integrity of the Sacred Scriptures is thus secured, the\nexamination of the critical integrity of individual parts leaves a wide\nfield open to Catholic Biblical students.  The work done by\nnon-Catholic scholars who have examined the Bible, either to bring out\nthe verbal meaning of its text, or to verify some historical or\nphilological hypothesis, is astounding.  Catholic students owe a great\ndebt to the first gleaners in this field; for though we have neither\nfelt impelled to look for the rule of our faith in the Bible\nexclusively, nor always been inclined to accept the dicta regarding the\nliteral sense of so sacred a document from the professors of\nphilological discipline, we have incidentally profited by all these\nsearchings.  They have illustrated the excellence of our faith, both as\na system and as a moral principle.  They have thrown light upon\nproblems of exegesis.  All the doctrines and practices of the Catholic\nChurch have found their confirmation in the analysis of Biblical terms\nas the result of textual criticism.  The words of the Bible have been\nthrown into the crucible, and the gold of Catholic doctrine has been\nthe outcome--purer, brighter, more refined, and still weighty.  Each\nverified theory regarding the sense of old forgotten Hebrew terms has\nreceived the impress of Catholic approbation, and served to give the\ndoctrine of the Church a more ready currency.  Scientists, often\nreluctantly, are pointing out golden opportunities for Catholic\nstudents.\n\nIt does not come within our present scope to speak of the various\nmethods employed by the science and art of Biblical criticism, nor to\nretail the separate results to which the inquiry into the authenticity\n(Higher Criticism) and the integrity and purity of the text (Lower\nCriticism) has led.  The history of the New Testament, which is the\nbest witness to the authenticity and integrity of the Old Testament\nbooks, provided we admit the divinity of Christ, which in its turn\nrests upon the strongest historic evidence, has received an immense\namount of confirmatory argument in numerous discoveries of ancient\ndocuments.  Within the last forty years have been found, among other\nvaluable writings, the famous _Codex Sinaiticus_ by Tischendorf (1859),\none of the oldest Greek texts of the Bible.  In 1875 Archbishop\nBriennios found in Constantinople the MS. Epistles of Clement of Rome,\nwhich not only confirm the apostolical writings and evangels as being\nreceived in the Church of his day, but furnish the oldest liturgical\nprayer and sermon of post-apostolic times.  Another document of the\nsame character, in Latin, was discovered by Morin in 1893.  Next we\nhave the celebrated _Diatessaron of Tatian_, the oldest gospel harmony\nin existence, which, known to Eusebius, but lost in the meantime, was\nrecovered lately, with a parallel manuscript found in Egypt, and\npublished last year in English.  This takes us back to the time of St.\nJustin.  Another most important find is the MS. of the so-called\n\"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.\"  The document was discovered by\nBriennios, and published in 1883.  It throws much light on the\necclesiastical discipline of the early Christian Church (about A.D.\n120), speaks of the written Gospels, etc.  Another valuable MS.\n(Syriac) was found in 1889 by Professor Harris.  It is the \"Apology of\nAristides,\" brought from the convent of St. Catharine on Mt. Sinai, and\ndates about the year 140, as it is addressed to the Emperor Hadrian,\nand offers him the Christian Scriptures to read.\n\nI pass over a host of other important finds of the same nature, of\nunquestioned authenticity, which carry us back to the apostolic age.\n\n\n\n[1] See Hettinser's \"Apologie,\" Preface xi.\n\n\n\n\nXXII.\n\nMYSTERIOUS CHARACTERS.\n\nWhilst Biblical criticism and constantly increasing discoveries of new\ntreasures, such as we mentioned in the last chapter, are adding their\napproving light to the ancient and unchanged traditions of the Catholic\nChurch regarding the Bible and its exegesis, the finds of archeology\nare confirming the statements of the Bible, especially the Old\nTestament history, with an accuracy which forces even the infidel\nscientist to bear witness to the historical truth of the inspired\nrecords.\n\nA century ago Biblical antiquity received its side-lights, for the most\npart, from rabbinical literature, and from newly-discovered methods of\ninterpreting those classics which dealt with the Oriental world\nincidentally.  But in modern times an immense literary field has been\nopened by the discovery of ancient monuments in Egypt, Assyria,\nBabylonia, Syria, Asia Minor, Palestine, and the surrounding countries.\nThese monuments place us in position to trace the condition of these\nnations to very remote periods, and give us a key to the explanation of\nthe Biblical documents.  Extraordinary labor, coupled with all-sided\nknowledge, a refined method of observation, and untiring patience, have\nmade it possible to read the hieroglyphics and the so-called cuneiform\ninscriptions.  It is interesting to trace the gradual progress by which\ndefinite results were attained in deciphering certain inscriptions\nwhose language was entirely unknown to any living man.  I may be\nallowed to give here an illustration, taken from Mr. Sayce's excellent\nlittle work, \"Fresh Lights on Ancient Monuments,\" in which he describes\nthe manner of unravelling the mysterious threads of the old Persian\nscript:\n\n\n\"Travellers had discovered inscriptions engraved in cuneiform, or, as\nthey were also termed, arrow-headed, characters on the ruined monuments\nof Persepolis and other ancient sites in Persia.  Some of these\nmonuments were known to have been erected by the Achaemenian\nprinces--Darius, the son of Hystaspes, and his successors--and it was\ntherefore inferred that the inscriptions also had been carved by order\nof the same kings.  The inscriptions were in three different systems of\ncuneiform writing; and, since the three kinds of inscription were\nalways placed side by side, it was evident that they represented\ndifferent versions of the same text.  The subjects of the Persian kings\nbelonged to more than one race, and, just as in the present day a\nTurkish pasha in the East has to publish an edict in Turkish, Arabic,\nand Persian, if it is to be understood by all the populations under his\ncharge, so the Persian kings were obliged to use the language and\nsystem of writing peculiar to each of the nations they governed\nwhenever they wished their proclamations to be read and understood by\nthem.\n\n\"It was clear that the three versions of the Achaemenian inscriptions\nwere addressed to the three chief populations of the Persian empire,\nand that the one that invariably came first was composed in ancient\nPersian, the language of the sovereign himself.  Now this Persian\nversion happened to offer the decipherer less difficulties than the two\nothers which accompanied it.  The number of distinct characters\nemployed in writing it did not exceed forty, while the words were\ndivided from one another by a slanting wedge.  Some of the words\ncontained so many characters that it was plain that these latter must\ndenote letters, and not syllables, and that consequently the Persian\ncuneiform system must have consisted of an alphabet, and not of a\nsyllabary.  It was further plain that the inscriptions had to be read\nfrom left to right, since the ends of all the lines were exactly\nunderneath one another on the left side, whereas they terminated\nirregularly on the right; indeed, the last line sometimes ended at a\nconsiderable distance from the right-hand extremity of the inscription.\n\n\"The clue to the decipherment of the inscriptions was first discovered\nby the successful guess of a German scholar, Grotefend.  Grotefend\nnoticed that the inscriptions generally began with three or four words,\none of which varied, while the others remained unchanged.  The variable\nword had three forms, though the same form always appeared on the same\nmonument.  Grotefend, therefore, conjectured that this word represented\nthe name of a king, the words which followed it being the royal titles.\nOne of the supposed names appeared much oftener than the others, and,\nas it was too short for Artaxerxes and too long for Cyrus, it was\nevident that it must stand either for Darius or for Xerxes.  A study of\nthe classical authors showed Grotefend that certain of the monuments on\nwhich it was found had been constructed by Darius, and he accordingly\ngave to the characters composing it the values required for spelling\n'Darius' in its old Persian form.  In this way he succeeded in\nobtaining conjectural values for six cuneiform letters.  He now turned\nto the second royal name, which also appeared on several monuments, and\nwas of much the same length as that of Darius.  This could only be\nXerxes; but if so, the fifth letter composing it (r) would necessarily\nbe the same as the third letter in the name of Darius.  This proved to\nbe the case, and thus afforded the best possible evidence that the\nGerman scholar was on the right track.\n\n\"The third name, which was much longer than the other two, differed\nfrom the second chiefly at the beginning, the latter part of it\nresembling the name of Xerxes.  Clearly, therefore, it could be nothing\nelse than Artaxerxes, and that it actually was so was rendered certain\nby the fact that the second character composing it was that which had\nthe value of r.\n\n\"Grotefend now possessed a small alphabet, and with this he proceeded\nto read the word which always followed the royal name, and therefore\nprobably meant 'king.'  He found that it closely resembled the word\nwhich signified 'king' in Zend, the old language of the Eastern\nPersians, which was spoken in one part of Persia at the same time that\nOld Persian, the language of the Achaemenian princes, was spoken in\nanother.  There could, consequently, be no further room for doubt that\nhe had really solved the great problem, and discovered the key to the\ndecipherment of the cuneiform texts.\n\n\"But he did little further himself towards the completion of the work,\nand it was many years before any real progress was made with it.\nMeanwhile, the study of Zend had made great advances, more especially\nin the hands of Burnouf, who eventually turned his attention to the\ncuneiform inscriptions.  But it is to Burnouf's pupil, Lassen, as well\nas to Sir Henry Rawlinson, that the decipherment of these inscriptions\nowes its final completion.  The discovery of the list of Persian\nsatrapies in the inscription of Darius at Naksh-i-Rustem, and above all\nthe copy of the long inscription of Darius on the rock of Behistum,\nmade by Sir H. Rawlinson, enabled these scholars independently of one\nanother to construct an alphabet which differed only in the value\nassigned to a single character, and, with the help of the cognate Zend\nand Sanskrit, to translate the language so curiously brought to light.\nThe decipherment of the Persian cuneiform texts thus became an\naccomplished fact; what was next needed was to decipher the two\nversions which were inscribed at their side.\n\n\"But this was no easy task.  The words in them were not divided from\none another, and the characters of which they were composed were\nexceedingly numerous.  With the assistance, however, of frequently\nrecurring proper names, even these two versions gradually yielded to\nthe patient skill of the decipherer; and it was then discovered that\nwhile one of them represented an agglutinative language, such as that\nof the Turks or Fins, the other was in a dialect which closely\nresembled the Hebrew of the Old Testament.  The monuments found almost\nimmediately afterwards in Assyria and Babylonia by Botta and Layard\nsoon made it clear to what people this dialect must have belonged.  The\ninscriptions of Nineveh turned out to be written in the same language\nand form of cuneiform script; and it must therefore have been for the\nSemitic population of Assyria and Babylonia that the kings of Persia\nhad caused one of the versions of their inscriptions to be drawn up.\nThis version served us a starting-point for the decipherment of the\ntexts which the excavations in Assyria had brought to light.\"\n\n\nIn this way results which stood the test of severe criticism were\nobtained until the most difficult inscriptions have become a\ncomparatively open book to the historian of to-day.  Thus it has come\nabout that, as Prof. Ira Price says: \"Since 1850 the Old Testament has\nbeen gradually appearing in the ever-brightening and brighter light of\ncontemporaneous history.  The new light now pours in upon it from all\nsides.  It is the one history made rich by that of all its neighbors.\nIsrael is the one people whose part in the drama of ancient nations is\njust beginning to be understood....  The cuneiform letters discovered\nat Tel el-Amarna in Egypt, in 1887, have opened up new territory in the\nfifteenth century, B.C.  They are despatches and official\ncommunications sent by a large number of rulers, kings, and governors,\nmainly of countries and provinces and cities of Southwestern Asia, to\nthe king of Egypt.  These documents disclose a marvellously advanced\nstage of development, intellectually, politically, and socially, among\nthe people who were soon to be Israel's nearest neighbors.  They formed\nthe early background of Israel's settlement in Canaan, and prepare us\nfor no surprises in Israel's growth.  In fact, we see that Joshua and\nhis army actually settled in a land of cities and fortresses, already\ncontaining many of the elements of civilization, but sadly reduced by\ninternal and external warfare.\"\n\nThe labor of the excavator in the Biblical countries, such as the\nunearthing of the immense library of brick tablets in the neighborhood\nof Nineveh, and the result of new discoveries which the ground of\nPalestine, so long and strangely neglected, promises to yield, widen\nthe field of Biblical research immensely, and from it all we may with\nperfect assurance look for fresh arguments in behalf of the\nauthenticity and substantial integrity of the Sacred Scriptures.  At\nthe same time the interpretation of many of its passages, now obscure,\nwill become clearer in the light of contemporary history.\n\nSurely this is a hopeful sign, and should encourage us in the study of\nthe Bible, which is on so many accounts a source of intellectual\npleasure, of abiding peace of heart, and of that high moral refinement\nwhich comes from contact with noble minds.  There are none better on\nearth than the sacred writers--men who walked and spoke with God, and\nwhose living contact we may enjoy in the participation of that\ncelestial inspiration which breathes through their writings.\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\nThe foregoing chapters are nothing more than a brief illustration of\nthe principles laid down by the Sovereign Pontiff, Leo XIII., in his\nEncyclical Letter \"On the Study of the Sacred Scriptures.\"[1]  The\ncareful reading of this Letter must convince us how important a part\nthe study of the Bible has always played in the Church.  The\nconclusions of Leo XIII. are not of yesterday, nor does he claim them\nas of his own invention.  He cites the Fathers and Doctors of the\nChurch, and the Decrees of Councils, from Antioch to Trent and the\nVatican, as witnesses to the fact that all Catholic teaching rests upon\nthe Sacred Scriptures as one of the two great foundation stones which\nsupport the grand archway leading into the domain of divine truth.\nGod, in order that He may reveal Himself to man, sends His messengers,\nthe Prophets and the Apostles, to announce with living voice His\npromises and His judgments; then, as if to confirm their mission for\nall time to come, He bids them take a letter, written by Himself, and\naddressed \"to the human race on its pilgrimage afar from its\nfatherland\" (Encycl.).  That letter is the Holy Scripture.  \"To\nunderstand and to explain it there is always required the 'coming' of\nthe same Holy Spirit\" who was to abide with the Church.  And she, \"by\nher admirable laws and regulations, has always shown herself solicitous\nthat the celestial treasure of the Sacred Book ... should not be\nneglected\" (Ibid.).  If men have grown remiss at any time in the use of\nthat heavenly gift, it cannot be said that the Church failed to keep\nbefore them its admirable utility.  \"She has arranged that a\nconsiderable portion of it should be read, and with pious mind\nconsidered by all her ministers in the daily office of the sacred\npsalmody.\"  For centuries past the solemn promise of every ordained\npriest throughout the Catholic world to recite each day the Hours of\nthe Breviary testifies to the constant practice of not only reading,\nbut meditating a fixed portion of the Scriptures, so that under this\nstrictest of his priestly obligations he has practically completed the\nentire sacred volume within the limit of each ecclesiastical year.\n\"She has strictly commanded that her children shall be fed with the\nsaving word of the Gospel, at least on Sundays and on solemn feasts.\"\nIf these laws and this practice receive a fresh impulse from the\nSovereign Pontiff in our day, it is because there have arisen men who\nteach that the Sacred Scriptures are the work of mere human industry,\nthat they contain only fables, which have no claim to be respected as\ncoming from God.  \"They deny that there is any such thing as divine\nrevelation, or inspiration, or Holy Scripture at all.  They see in\nthese histories only forgeries and falsehoods of men....  The\nprophecies and the oracles of God are to them either predictions made\nup after the event, or forecasts formed by the light of nature.  The\nmiracles and manifestations of God's power are not what they profess to\nbe, but are either startling effects which are not beyond the force of\nnature, or else mere tricks and myths.  The Gospels and apostolic\nwritings are not, they say, the work of the authors to whom they are\nassigned\" (Ibid.).  To confute these errors Leo bids us engage voice\nand pen.  In the limited space allowed us we have only been able to\nindicate the arguments which prove the historical authenticity and the\nessentially divine character which points to the true origin of the\nSacred Text, and at the same time to lead the earnest student into the\nway of reading with pleasure and profit the grandest of all written\nworks.\n\n\n\n[1] Litterae Encyclicae, \"Providentissimus Deus,\" Nov. 17, A.D. 1893.\n\n\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n_Encyclical Letter of Leo XIII._\n\nON\n\nTHE STUDY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES.\n\n\n_To Our Venerable brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and\nBishops of the Catholic World, in grace and communion with the\nApostolic See._\n\nLEO P. P. XIII.\n\nVENERABLE BRETHREN,\n\n_Health and Apostolic Benediction._\n\nThe God of all Providence, who in the wondrous counsel of His love\nraised the human race in its beginning to participation of the divine\nnature, and afterwards delivered it from universal guilt and ruin,\nrestoring it to its primitive dignity, has, in consequence, bestowed\nupon man a singular safeguard--making known to him, by supernatural\nmeans, the hidden mysteries of His divinity, His wisdom, and His mercy.\nAlthough in divine revelation some things are comprehended which are\nnot beyond the reach of human reason, they are made the objects of\nrevelation in order that all may come to know them with facility,\ncertainty, and freedom from all error.  It is not, however, on this\naccount that revelation can be said to be absolutely necessary; but\nbecause God of His infinite goodness has ordained man to a supernatural\nend.  This supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the\nuniversal Church, is contained both in unwritten Tradition and in\nwritten Books.  These are called sacred and canonical because, being\nwritten under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for\ntheir author, and as such have been delivered to the Church.  This\nbelief has been perpetually held and professed by the Church with\nregard to the Books of both Testaments.  There are well-known documents\nof the gravest character, coming down to us from the earliest times,\nwhich proclaim that God, who spoke first by the Prophets, then by\nHimself, and thereafter by the Apostles, composed the Canonical\nScriptures.  These are divine oracles and utterances--a Letter, written\nby our heavenly Father, and transmitted by the sacred writers to the\nhuman race on its pilgrimage afar from its fatherland.  If, then, such\nand so great is the excellence and the dignity of the Scriptures that\nGod Himself has, as the author of them, composed them, and that they\ntreat of God's deepest mysteries, counsels, and works, it follows that\nthe branch of sacred theology which is concerned with the defence and\ninterpretation of these divine books must be most excellent and in the\nhighest degree profitable.\n\nNow We, who by the help of God, and not without fruit, have by frequent\nletters and exhortation endeavored to promote other branches of study,\nwhich seemed well fitted for advancing the glory of God and\ncontributing to the salvation of souls, have for a long time cherished\nthe desire to give an impulse to the most noble study of the Sacred\nScriptures, and to impart to it a direction which is suitable to the\nneeds of the present day.  The solicitude of the Apostolic office\nnaturally urges, and even compels Us, not only to desire that this\ngrand source of Catholic revelation should be made more safely and\nabundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus Christ, but also to prevent\nit from being in any way violated, on the part either of those who\nimpiously and openly assail the Scriptures, or of those who are led\nastray into fallacious and imprudent novelties.\n\nWe are not ignorant, indeed, Venerable Brethren, that there are\nCatholics not a few, men abounding in talent and learning, who do\ndevote themselves with alacrity to the defence of the Divine Books, and\nto making them better known and understood.  But while giving to these\nmen the commendation which they deserve for their labor and the fruits\nof it, We cannot but earnestly exhort others also, from whose skill and\npiety and learning we have a right to expect the very best results, to\ngive themselves to the same most praiseworthy work.  It is Our wish and\nfervent desire to see an increase in the number of approved and\nunwearying laborers in the cause of Holy Scripture; and more especially\nthat those whom Divine Grace has called to Holy Orders should, day by\nday, as is most meet, display greater diligence and industry in\nreading, meditating, and explaining it.  Among the reasons for which\nthis study is so worthy of commendation--in addition to its own\nexcellence and to the homage which we owe to God's word--the chief\nreason of all is the manifold benefit of which it is the source.  This\nwe know will flow therefrom on the most certain testimony of the Holy\nGhost Himself, who says: \"All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable\nto teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man\nof God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.\"  That such was\nthe purpose of God in giving the Scriptures to men is shown by the\nexample of Christ our Lord and of His Apostles.  He who obtained\nauthority by miracles, merited belief by authority, and by belief drew\nto Himself the multitude, was accustomed in the exercise of His Divine\nMission to appeal to the Scriptures.  He uses them at times to prove\nthat He was sent by God, and that He is God.  From them He draws\narguments for the instruction of His disciples and the confirmation of\nHis doctrine.  He vindicates them from the calumnies of objectors.  He\nquotes them against Sadducees and Pharisees.  He retorts from them upon\nSatan himself, when he impudently dares to tempt Him.  At the close of\nHis life His utterances are from Holy Scripture.  It is the Scripture\nwhich He expounds to His disciples after His resurrection, and during\nall the time till He ascends to the glory of His Father.  Faithful to\nHis precepts, the Apostles, although He Himself granted \"signs and\nwonders to be done by their hands,\" nevertheless used with the greatest\nefficacy the sacred writings, in order to persuade the nations\neverywhere of the wisdom of Christianity, to break down the obstinacy\nof the Jews, and to suppress the outbursts of heresy.  This is manifest\nin their discourses, especially in those of St. Peter.  These were\nalmost woven from sayings of the Old Testament, which made in the\nstrongest manner for the new dispensation.  We find the same thing in\nthe Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John, and in the Catholic Epistles.\nMost remarkably of all is it to be found in the words of him who boasts\nthat he learned the law at the feet of Gamaliel, in order that, being\narmed with spiritual weapons, he might afterwards say with confidence:\n\"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty unto God.\"\n\nLet all, therefore, especially the novices of the ecclesiastical army,\nunderstand how much the divine Books should be esteemed, and with what\ndetermination and reverence they should approach this great arsenal of\nheavenly arms.  Those whose duty it is to handle Catholic doctrine\nbefore either the learned or the unlearned will nowhere find more ample\nmatter or more abundant exhortation, whether on the subject of God, the\nsupreme and all perfect Good, or of the works which display His glory\nand His love.  Nowhere is there anything more full or more express on\nthe subject of the Saviour of the human race than that which is to be\nfound throughout the Bible.  St. Jerome has rightly said \"ignorance of\nthe Scripture is ignorance of Christ.\"  In its pages His Image stands\nout as it were alive and breathing; diffusing everywhere consolation in\ntrouble, encouragement to virtue, and attraction to the love of God.\nAs regards the Church, her institutions, her nature, her functions, and\nher gifts, we find in Holy Scripture so many references, and so many\nready and convincing arguments, that, as St. Jerome again most truly\nsays: \"A man who is thoroughly grounded in the testimonies of the\nScriptures is a bulwark of the Church.\"  If we come to moral formation\nand to discipline, an apostolic man finds in the sacred writings\nabundant and most excellent aid, precepts full of holiness,\nexhortations framed with sweetness and force, shining examples of every\nkind of virtue, and, finally, the promise of eternal reward, and the\nthreat of eternal punishment, uttered in weightiest terms, in God's\nname and in God's own words.\n\nThis peculiar and singular power of the Scriptures, springing from the\ninspiration of the Holy Ghost, adds to the authority of the sacred\norator, fills him with apostolic liberty of speech, and communicates to\nhim a forcible and convincing eloquence.  Those who infuse into their\nspeech the spirit and strength of the Word of God speak, \"not in words\nonly, but in power also, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much fulness.\"\nHence those preachers are foolish and improvident who, in preaching\nreligion and proclaiming the precepts of God, use no words but those of\nhuman science and human prudence, trusting to their own reasonings\nrather than to those that are divine.  Their discourses may be\nglittering with lights, but they must be cold and feeble, for they are\nwithout the fire of the utterance of God.  They must fall far short of\nthat power which the speech of God possesses.  \"The Word of God is\nliving and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword; and\nreaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit.\"  All the more\nfar-seeing are agreed that there is in the Holy Scriptures an eloquence\nthat is marvellous in its variety and richness, and that is worthy of\nthe loftiest themes.  This St. Augustine thoroughly comprehended, and\nthis he has abundantly set forth.  It is confirmed also by the best of\nthe preachers of all ages.  They have gratefully acknowledged that they\nowed their repute chiefly to assiduous familiarity with the Bible, and\nto devout meditation on the truths which it contains.\n\nThe Holy Fathers well knew all this by practical experience.  They\nnever cease to extol the Sacred Scripture and its fruits.  In\ninnumerable passages of their writings we find them applying to it such\nphrases as--\"an inexhaustible treasury of heavenly doctrine,\" or \"an\noverflowing fountain of salvation,\" or as \"fertile pastures and most\nlovely gardens, in which the flock of the Lord is marvellously\nrefreshed and delighted.\"  Let us listen to the words of St. Jerome, in\nhis Epistle to the cleric Nepotian: \"Often read the divine Scriptures;\nyea, let holy reading be always in thy hand; study that which thou\nthyself must preach....  Let the speech of the priest be ever seasoned\nwith Scriptural reading.\"  St. Gregory the Great, than whom no man has\nmore admirably described the functions of the pastors of the Church,\nwrites in the same sense: \"Those,\" he says, \"who are zealous in the\nwork of preaching, must never cease from study of the written word of\nGod.\"  St. Augustine, however, warns us that \"vainly does the preacher\nutter the word of God exteriorly unless he listens to it interiorly.\"\nSt. Gregory instructs sacred orators \"first, to find in Holy Scripture\nthe knowledge of themselves, and then to carry it to others, lest in\nreproving others they forget themselves.\"  This had already, after the\nexample and teaching of Christ Himself, who \"began to do and to teach,\"\nbeen uttered far and wide by an apostolic voice.  It was not to Timothy\nalone, but to the whole order of the clergy, that the command was\naddressed: \"Take heed to thyself and to doctrine; be earnest in them.\nIn doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee.\"\nFor the saving and for the perfection, both of ourselves and of others,\nwe have at hand the very best of aids in the Sacred Scriptures, and\nmost abundantly in the Book of Psalms.  Those alone will, however, find\nit who bring to the divine oracles not only a docile and attentive\nmind, but a habit also of will which is both pious and without reserve.\nThe Sacred Scripture is not to be regarded like an ordinary book.\nDictated by the Holy Ghost, it contains matters of the most grave\nimportance, which in many instances are difficult and obscure.  To\nunderstand and to explain them there is always required the \"coming\" of\nthe same Holy Spirit; that is to say, His light and His grace.  These,\nas the Royal Psalmist so frequently insists, are to be sought by humble\nprayer, and to be preserved by holiness of life.\n\nIt is in this that the watchful care of the Church shines forth\nconspicuously.  By her admirable laws and regulations she has always\nshown herself solicitous that the celestial treasure of the Sacred\nBooks, so bountifully bestowed upon man by the Holy Spirit, should not\nlie neglected.  She has arranged that a considerable portion of them\nshould be read, and with pious mind considered by all her ministers in\nthe daily office of the sacred psalmody.  She has ordered that in\ncathedral churches, in monasteries, and in convents of other regulars,\nwhich are places most fit for study, they shall be expounded and\ninterpreted by capable men.  She has strictly commanded that her\nchildren shall be fed with the saving word of the Gospel at least on\nSundays and on solemn feasts.  Moreover, it is owing to the wisdom and\nthe diligence of the Church that there has always been, continued from\ncentury to century, that cultivation of Sacred Scripture which has been\nso remarkable and which has borne such ample fruit.\n\nAnd here, in order to strengthen Our teaching and Our exhortations, it\nis well to recall how, from the first beginnings of the Christian\nreligion, so many who have been renowned for holiness of life and for\nsacred learning have given their deep and most constant attention to\nHoly Scripture.  If we consider the immediate disciples of the\nApostles, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St.\nPolycarp--or the Apologists, such as St. Justin and St. Irenaeus, we\nfind that in their letters and in their books, whether in defence of\nthe Catholic faith or in commendation of it, they draw faith and\nstrength and unction mainly from the word of God.  When there arose, in\nvarious Episcopal Sees, catechetical and theological schools, of which\nthe most celebrated were those of Alexandria and of Antioch, there was\nlittle taught in those schools but what consisted in the reading, the\nunfolding, and the defence of the divine written word.  From these\nschools came forth numbers of Fathers and of writers whose laborious\nstudies and admirable writings have justly merited for the three\nfollowing centuries the appellation of the golden age of biblical\nexegesis.\n\nIn the Eastern Church, the greatest name of all is Origen.  He was a\nman remarkable alike for quickness of genius and for persevering labor.\nFrom his numerous writings and his immense work of the _Hexapla_ almost\nall who came after him have drawn.  Others who have widened the field\nof this science may also be named.  Among the more excellent,\nAlexandria could boast of Clement and Cyril; Palestine, of Eusebius and\nthe other Cyril; Cappadocia, of Basil the Great and the two Gregories,\nNazianzen and Nyssene; and Antioch, of St. John Chrysostom, in whom\nskill in this learning was rivalled by the splendor of his eloquence.\n\nIn the Western Church there were many names as great: Tertullian,\nCyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great; most famous\nof all, Augustine and Jerome.  Of these two the former was marvellously\nacute in penetrating the sense of God's word, and most fertile in the\nuse that he made of it for the promotion of Catholic truth.  The latter\nhas received from the Church, by reason of his pre-eminent knowledge of\nScripture and the greatness of his labors in promoting its use, the\nname of the \"Great Doctor.\"\n\nFrom this period, down to the eleventh century, although biblical\nstudies did not flourish with the same vigor and with the same\nfruitfulness as before, they nevertheless did flourish, and that\nprincipally through the instrumentality of the clergy.  It was their\ncare and solicitude that selected the most fruitful of the things which\nthe ancients had left behind them, placed these in digested order, and\npublished them with additions of their own--as did Isidore of Seville,\nVenerable Bede, and Alcuin, among the most prominent.  It was they who\nillustrated the sacred pages with \"glosses,\" or short commentaries, as\nwe see in Walafrid Strabo and Anselm of Laon, or who expended fresh\nlabor in securing their integrity, as did Peter Damian and Lanfranc.\n\nIn the twelfth century many took up with great success the allegorical\nexposition of Scripture.  In this Bernard is easily pre-eminent.  His\nwritings, it may be said, are Scripture all through.  With the age of\nthe scholastics there came fresh and fruitful progress in the study of\nthe Bible.  That the scholastics were solicitous about the genuineness\nof the Latin version is evident from the _Correctoria Biblica_, or list\nof emendations, which they have left behind them.  They expended,\nhowever, more of their study and of their industry on interpretation\nand on explanation.  To them we owe the accurate and clear distinction,\nsuch as had not been given before, of the various senses of the sacred\nwords; the weight of each word in the balance of theology; the division\nof books into parts, and the summaries of the various parts; the\ninvestigation of the purpose of the writers, and the unfolding of the\nnecessary connection of one sentence with another.  No man can fail to\nsee the amount of light which was thus shed on the more obscure\npassages.  The abundance of their Scriptural learning is to be seen\nboth in their theological treatises and in their commentaries.  In this\nThomas of Aquin bears the palm.\n\nWhen Our predecessor, Clement V., established chairs of Oriental\nliterature in the Athenaeum at Rome, and in the principal Universities\nof Europe, our students began to labor more minutely on the original\ntext of the Bible, as well as on the Latin version.  The revival\namongst us of Greek learning, and, much more, the happy invention of\nthe art of printing, gave the strongest impetus to the study of Holy\nScripture.  In a brief space of time innumerable editions, especially\nof the Vulgate, poured from the press, and were spread throughout the\nCatholic world; so honored and loved were the divine volumes during\nthat very period against which the enemies of the Church direct their\ncalumnies.\n\nNor must we forget how many learned men there were, chiefly among the\nreligious orders, who did excellent work for the Bible between the\ndates of the Councils of Vienne and Trent.  These men, by employment of\nmodern means and appliances, and by contribution of their own genius\nand learning, not only added to the rich stores of ancient times, but\nprepared the way for the pre-eminence of the succeeding century--the\ncentury which followed the Council of Trent.  It then seemed almost as\nif the great age of the Fathers had returned.  It is well known, and We\nrecall it with pleasure, that Our predecessors from Pius IV. to Clement\nVIII. caused to be prepared the celebrated editions of the Vulgate and\nthe Septuagint, which, having been published by the command and\nauthority of Sixtus V. and of the same Clement, are now in common use.\nAt this time, moreover, were carefully brought out various other\nancient versions of the Bible, and the Polyglots of Antwerp and of\nParis, most important for the investigation of the true meaning of the\ntext.  There is not any one Book of either Testament which did not find\nmore than one expositor, nor is there any grave question which did not\nprofitably exercise the ability of many inquirers.  Among these there\nare not a few--more especially of those who made most study of the\nFathers--who have made for themselves names of renown.  From that time\nforward the labor and solicitude of our students have never been\nwanting.  As time has gone on, eminent scholars have carried on\nbiblical study with success.  They have defended Holy Scripture against\nthe cavils of _rationalism_ with the same weapons of philology and\nkindred sciences with which it had been attacked.  The calm and fair\nconsideration of what has been said will clearly show that the Church\nhas never failed in any manner of provision for bringing the fountains\nof the Divine Scripture in a wholesome way within reach of her\nchildren, and that she has ever held fast and exercised the\nguardianship divinely bestowed upon her for its protection and glory.\nShe has never, therefore, required, nor does she now require, any\nstimulation from without.\n\nWe must now, Venerable Brethren, as Our purpose demands, impart to you\nsuch counsels as seem best suited for carrying on successfully the\nstudy of biblical science.  We must, in the first place, have a clear\nidea of the kind of men whom we have to oppose, their tactics and their\nweapons.\n\nIn earlier times the contest was chiefly with those who, relying on\nprivate judgment and repudiating the divine tradition and the teaching\nauthority of the Church, held the Scriptures to be the one and only\nsource of revelation and the final appeal in matters of Faith.  Now, we\nhave to meet the Rationalists, the true children and heirs of the older\nheretics.  Trusting in their turn to their own judgment, they have\nrejected even the scraps and remnants of Christian belief handed down\nto them from their fathers.  They deny that there is any such thing as\ndivine revelation, or inspiration, or Holy Scripture at all.  They see\nin these histories only forgeries and falsehoods of men.  They set down\nthe Scripture narratives as stupid fables or lying tales.  The\nprophecies and the oracles of God are to them either predictions made\nup after the event, or forecasts formed by the light of nature.  The\nmiracles and manifestations of God's power are not what they profess to\nbe, but are either startling effects which are not beyond the forces of\nnature, or else mere tricks and myths.  The Gospels and apostolic\nwritings are not, they say, the work of the authors to whom they are\nassigned.  These detestable errors, whereby they think to destroy the\ntruth of the divine Books, are obtruded on the world as the peremptory\npronouncements of a newly-invented \"free science.\"  This science,\nhowever, is so far from final that they are perpetually modifying and\nsupplementing it.  There are some of them who, notwithstanding their\nimpious opinions and utterances about God and His Christ, the Gospels,\nand the rest of Holy Scripture, would fain be regarded as being\ntheologians and Christians and men of the Gospel.  They attempt to\ndisguise under such names of honor their rashness and their insolence.\nTo them we must add not a few professors of other sciences who approve\nand sustain their views, and are egged on to attack the Bible by\nintolerance of revelation.  It is deplorable to see this warfare\nbecoming from day to day more widespread and more ruthless.  It is\nsometimes men of learning and judgment who are assailed; but these have\nlittle difficulty in standing on their guard.  The efforts and the arts\nof the enemy are chiefly directed against the more ignorant masses of\nthe people.  These men diffuse their deadly poison by means of books\nand pamphlets and newspapers.  They spread it by means of addresses and\nof conversations.  They are found everywhere.  They are in possession\nof numerous schools for the young, wrested from the guardianship of the\nChurch.  In those schools, by means of ridicule and scurrilous jesting,\nthey pervert the credulous and unformed minds of the young to contempt\nof Scripture.  Should not these things, Venerable Brethren, stir up and\nset on fire the heart of every Pastor, so that to this \"knowledge,\nfalsely so called,\" may be opposed the ancient and true science which\nthe Church, through the Apostles, has received from Christ, and that\nthe Sacred Scriptures may find champions that are strong for so great a\nstruggle?\n\nLet our first care, then, be to see that in Seminaries and Academical\nfoundations the study of Holy Scripture is placed on such a footing as\nboth the importance of it and the circumstances of the time demand.\nWith this view, that which is of first importance is a wise selection\nof professors.  Teachers of Sacred Scripture are not to be appointed at\nhap-hazard out of the crowd.  They must be men whose character and\nfitness have been proved by great love of, and long familiarity with,\nthe Bible, and by the learning and study which befits their office.\n\nIt is of equal importance to provide in due time for a continuous\nsuccession of such teachers.  It will be well, wherever this can be\ndone, to select young men of promise, who have studied their theology\nwith distinction, and to set them apart exclusively for Holy Scripture,\naffording them time and facilities for still fuller study.  Professors\nthus chosen and appointed may enter with confidence on the task that is\nset before them.  That they may be at their best, and bear all the\nfruit that is possible, there are some other hints which We may\nsomewhat more fully set before them.\n\nAt the commencement of a course of Holy Scripture, let the professor\nstrive earnestly to form the judgment of the young beginners, so as to\ntrain them equally to defend the sacred writings and to penetrate their\nmeaning.  This is the object of the treatise which is called\n\"Introduction to the Bible.\"  Here the student is taught how to prove\nits integrity and authority, how to investigate and ascertain its true\nsense, and how to meet and refute all captious objections.  It is\nneedless to insist on the importance of making these preliminary\nstudies in an orderly and thorough way, in the company and with the aid\nof Theology.  The whole of the subsequent course will rest on the\nfoundation thus laid, and will be luminous with the light which has\nbeen thus acquired.\n\nNext, the teacher will turn his earnest attention to that most fruitful\nbranch of Scripture science which has to do with interpretation.\nTherein is imparted the method of using the word of God for the\npromotion of religion and of piety.  We are well aware that neither the\nextent of the matter nor the time at disposal allows every single Book\nof the Bible to be separately studied in the schools.  The teaching,\nhowever, should result in a definite and ascertained method of\ninterpretation.  Hence the professor should at once avoid giving a mere\ntaste of every Book, and the equal mistake of dwelling at too great\nlength on merely a part of some one Book.  If most schools cannot do\nwhat is done in the larger institutions--that is, take the students\nthrough the whole of one or two Books continuously, and with some\nconsiderable development--yet at least those parts which are selected\nfor interpretation should be treated with some fulness.  In this way\nthe students may be attracted, and learn from the sample that is set\nbefore them to love and read the rest in the course of their after\nlives.  The professor, following the tradition of antiquity, will use\nthe Vulgate as his text.  The Council of Trent has decreed that \"in\npublic lectures, disputations, preaching, and exposition,\" the Vulgate\nis the \"authentic\" version; and this is the existing custom of the\nChurch.  At the same time, the other versions which Christian antiquity\nhas approved and used should not be neglected, more especially the more\nancient MSS.  Although the meaning of the Hebrew and the Greek is\nsubstantially rendered by the Vulgate, nevertheless, wherever there may\nbe ambiguity or want of clearness, the \"examination of older tongues,\"\nto quote St. Augustine, will be of service.  In this matter we need\nhardly say that the greatest prudence is required, for the \"office of a\ncommentator,\" as St. Jerome says, \"is to set forth not that which he\nhimself would prefer, but that which his author says.\"  The question of\n\"readings\" having been, when necessary, carefully discussed, the next\nthing is to investigate and expound the meaning.  The first counsel to\nbe here given is this: that the more our adversaries strive in the\ncontrary direction, so much the more solicitously should we adhere to\nthe received and approved canons of interpretation.  Hence, while\nweighing the meanings of words, the connection of ideas, the\nparallelism of passages, and the like, we should by all means make use\nof external illustrations drawn from other cognate learning.  This\nshould, however, be done with caution, so as not to bestow on such\nquestions more labor and time than that which is spent on the Sacred\nBooks themselves, and not to overload the minds of the students with a\nmass of information which will be rather a hindrance than a help.\n\nThe professor may now safely pass on to the use of Scripture in matters\nof Theology.  Here it must be observed that, in addition to the usual\nreasons which make ancient writings more or less difficult to\nunderstand, there are some which are peculiar to the Sacred Books.  The\nlanguage of the Bible is employed to express, under the inspiration of\nthe Holy Ghost, many things which are beyond the powers and scope of\nhuman reason--that is to say, divine mysteries and many matters which\nare related to them.  There is sometimes in such passages a fuller and\na deeper meaning than the letter seems to express or than the laws of\nhermeneutics indicate.  Moreover, the literal sense itself frequently\nadmits other senses, which either illustrate dogma or commend morality.\nIt must therefore be recognized that the sacred writings are wrapt in a\ncertain religious obscurity, and that no one can enter into them\nwithout a guide.  God has so disposed it that, as the Holy Fathers\nteach, men may investigate the Scriptures with greater ardor and\nearnestness, and that what is attained with difficulty may sink more\ndeeply into the mind and heart.  From this also, and mainly, men may\nunderstand that God has delivered the Scriptures to the Church, and\nthat in reading and treating of His utterances they must follow the\nChurch as their guide and teacher.  St. Irenaeus long since laid it down\nthat where the _Charismata_ of God were placed, there the truth was to\nbe learnt, and that Scripture is expounded without peril, by those with\nwhom there is apostolic succession.  His teaching, and that of other\nFathers, is embraced by the Council of the Vatican which, in renewing\nthe decree of Trent, declares its mind to be this--that \"in matters of\nfaith and morals, which belong to the building up of Christian\ndoctrine, that sense is to be considered the true sense of the Sacred\nScripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the\nChurch, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation\nof the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to\ninterpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, or contrary to\nthe unanimous consent of the Fathers.\"  By this law, most full of\nwisdom, the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of\nbiblical science.  She, on the contrary, provides for its freedom from\nerror, and greatly advances its real progress.  A wide field lies open\nto any teacher, in which his hermeneutical skill may exercise itself\nwith signal effect and for the welfare of the Church.  On the one hand,\nin those passages of Scripture which have not as yet received a certain\nand definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the sweetly ordered\nprovidence of God, serve as a preparation for bringing to maturity the\njudgment of the Church.  In passages already defined, a private doctor\nmay do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly\nto the commonalty of the faithful, or more learnedly before the\nlearned, or by defending them more powerfully from adversaries.\nWherefore the first and most sacred object of the Catholic commentator\nshould be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic\ninterpretation--either from the sacred writers themselves, under the\ninspiration of the Holy Ghost (as in many places of the New Testament),\nor from the Church, under the assistance of the same Holy Spirit,\nwhether by her solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal\nauthoritative teaching--in that identical sense, and to prove, by all\nthe resources of learning, that sound hermeneutical laws admit of no\nother than that interpretation.  In the other passages the analogy of\nfaith should be followed, and the Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively\nproposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme rule.  Since the\nsame God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine\ncommitted to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can\nby legitimate interpretation be extracted from the former which shall\nin any respect be at variance with the latter.  Hence it follows that\nall interpretation is unfounded and false which either makes the sacred\nwriters disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the\nChurch.\n\nThe professor of Holy Scripture, therefore, amongst other\nrecommendations, must be well versed in the whole of Theology, and\ndeeply read in the commentaries of the Holy Fathers and Doctors, and\nthe best of other interpreters.  This is inculcated by St. Jerome, and\nstill more by St. Augustine, who thus justly complains: \"If there is no\nbranch of teaching, however humble and easy to learn, which does not\nrequire a master, what can be a greater sign of rashness and pride than\nto refuse to study the Books of the divine mysteries by the help of\nthose who have interpreted them?\"  Other Fathers have said the same,\nand have confirmed it by their example.  They endeavored to acquire\nunderstanding of the Holy Scriptures, not by their own lights and\nideas, but from the writings and authority of the ancients, who in\ntheir turn, as we know, received the rule of interpretation in direct\nline from the Apostles.\n\nThe Holy Fathers, to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its\ngrowth--who planted, watered, built, fed, and nourished it--are of\nsupreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same\nmanner any text of the Bible as pertaining to doctrine of faith or\nmorals.  Their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has\ncome down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith.  The opinion\nof the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these\nmatters in their capacity of private teachers; not only because they\nexcelled in knowledge of revealed doctrine and in acquaintance with\nmany things useful for the understanding of the apostolic Books, but\nalso because they were men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for\nthe truth, on whom God bestowed a more ample measure of His light.  The\ncommentator, therefore, should make it his care to follow in their\nfootsteps with reverence, and to avail himself of their labors with\nintelligent appreciation.\n\nHe must not, however, on that account consider that it is forbidden,\nwhen just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the\nFathers have done--provided he religiously observes the rule so wisely\nlaid down by St. Augustine: not to depart from the literal and obvious\nsense, except where reason makes that sense untenable or necessity\nrequires.  This is a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere\nstrictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained\nlicense of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.\nNeither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have\nunderstood in an allegorical or figurative sense, more especially when\nsuch interpretation is justified by the literal sense, and when it\nrests on the authority of many.  This method of interpretation has been\nreceived by the Church from the Apostles, and has been approved by her\nown practice, as her liturgy attests.  The Holy Fathers did not thereby\npretend directly to demonstrate dogmas of faith, but used it as a means\nof promoting virtue and piety, such as, by their own experience, they\nknew to be most valuable.\n\nThe authority of other Catholic interpreters is not so grave.  Since,\nhowever, the study of Scripture has always continued to advance in the\nChurch, their commentaries also have their own honorable place, and are\nserviceable in many ways for the refutation of assailants and the\nunravelling of difficulties.  It is, moreover, most unbecoming to pass\nby, in ignorance or contempt, the splendid works which our own scholars\nhave left behind them in abundance, and to have recourse to the works\nof the heterodox, and to seek in them, with peril to sound doctrine and\nnot seldom with detriment to faith, the explanation of passages on\nwhich Catholics have long ago most excellently expended their talents\nand their labor.  Although the studies of the heterodox, used with\nprudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic interpreter, he\nshould nevertheless bear well in mind this repeated testimony of the\nancients,--that the sense of the Sacred Scriptures can nowhere be found\nincorrupt outside the Church, and that it cannot be delivered by those\nwho, being destitute of the true faith, only gnaw the husk of Scripture\nand never reach its marrow.\n\nMost desirable it is, and most essential, that the whole course of\nTheology should be pervaded by the use of the Divine Scripture, which\nshould be, as it were, the soul thereof.  This is what the Fathers and\nthe greatest theologians of all ages have professed and practised.  It\nwas chiefly out of the sacred writings that they endeavored to proclaim\nand establish the Articles of Faith and the truths which are their\nconsequences.  It was in them, together with divine tradition, that\nthey found the refutation of heretical error, and the reasonableness,\nthe true meaning, and the mutual relation of the truths of the Catholic\nfaith.  Nor will any one wonder at this who considers that the Sacred\nBooks hold such a pre-eminent position among the sources of Revelation\nthat without the assiduous study of them Theology cannot be rightly\ntreated as its dignity demands.  Although it is right and proper that\nstudents in academical institutions and schools should be chiefly\nexercised in acquiring a scientific knowledge of dogma by means of\nreasoning from the Articles of Faith to their consequences, according\nto the rules of approved and solid philosophy, nevertheless a grave and\nlearned theologian will by no means overlook that method of doctrinal\ndemonstration which draws its proof from the authority of the Bible.\nTheology does not receive her first principles from other sciences, but\nimmediately from God through Revelation.  And therefore she does not\nreceive from other sciences as from superiors, but uses them as her\ninferiors and her handmaids.  It is this view of doctrinal teaching\nwhich is laid down and recommended by the prince of theologians, St.\nThomas of Aquin.  He also shows--such being the essential character of\nChristian Theology--how a theologian can defend his own principles\nagainst attack.  \"If the adversary,\" he says, \"do but grant any portion\nof the divine revelation, we have an argument against him.  Against a\nheretic we can employ Scripture authority, and against those who deny\none article we can use another.  If our opponent rejects divine\nrevelation altogether, then there is no way left to prove the Articles\nof Faith by reasoning.  We can only solve the difficulties which are\nraised against the faith.\"  Care must be taken, then, that beginners\napproach the study of the Bible well prepared and furnished; otherwise,\njust hopes will be frustrated, or perchance--and this is worse--they\nwill unthinkingly risk the danger of error, and fall an easy prey to\nthe sophisms and labored erudition of the rationalists.  The best\npreparation will be a conscientious application to philosophy and\ntheology under the guidance of St. Thomas of Aquin, and a thorough\ntraining therein--as We Ourselves have elsewhere shown and prescribed.\nBy this means, both in biblical studies and in that part of Theology\nwhich is called _Positive_, they will pursue the right path and make\nsolid progress.\n\nTo prove, to expound, to illustrate Catholic doctrine by the legitimate\nand skilful interpretation of the Bible is much; but there is a second\npart of the subject of equal importance and of equal\nlaboriousness,--the maintenance in the strongest possible way of the\nfulness of its authority.  This cannot be done completely or\nsatisfactorily except by means of the living teaching authority of the\nChurch herself.  The Church, by reason of her wonderful propagation,\nher shining sanctity, and her inexhaustible fecundity in good, her\nCatholic unity, and her unshaken stability, is herself a great and\nperpetual motive of credibility, and an unassailable testimony of her\nown divine mission.  But since the divine and infallible teaching\nauthority of the Church rests also on the authority of Holy Scripture,\nthe first thing to be done is to vindicate the trustworthiness of the\nsacred records at least as human documents.  From this can clearly be\nproved, as from primitive and authentic testimony, the divinity and the\nmission of Christ our Lord, the institution of a hierarchical Church,\nand the primacy of Peter and his successors.  It is most desirable,\ntherefore, that there should be many members of the clergy well\nprepared to enter upon a contest of this nature, and to repulse the\nattacks of the enemy, chiefly trusting in that armor of God which is\nrecommended by the Apostle, but at the same time not unacquainted with\nthe more modern methods of attack.  This is beautifully alluded to by\nSt. John Chrysostom.  Describing the duties of priests, he says: \"We\nmust use our every endeavor that the 'word of God may dwell in us\nabundantly.'  Not merely for one kind of light must we be prepared, for\nthe contest is many-sided, and the enemy is of every sort.  They do not\nall use the same weapons, nor do all make their onset in the same way.\nIt is needful that the man who has to contend against all should have\nknowledge of the engines and the arts of all.  He must be at once\narcher and slinger, commandant and officer, general and private\nsoldier, foot-soldier and horseman, skilled in sea-fight and in siege.\nUnless he knows every trick and turn of war, the devil is well able, if\nonly a single door be left open, to get in his ferocious bandits and to\ncarry off the sheep.\"  The sophisms of the enemy and the manifold\nstrategy of his attack We have already touched upon.\n\nLet Us now say a word of advice on the means of defence.  The first\nmeans is the study of Oriental languages and of the art of criticism.\nThese two acquirements are in these days held in high estimation.  The\nclergy, by making themselves more or less fully acquainted with them,\nas time and place may demand, will the better be able to discharge\ntheir office with becoming credit.  They must make themselves \"all\nthings to all men,\" always \"ready to satisfy every one that asketh them\na reason for the hope that is in them.\"  Hence it is most proper that\nprofessors of Sacred Scripture and theologians should master those\ntongues in which the Sacred Books were originally written.  It would be\nwell that Church students also should cultivate them, more especially\nthose who aspire to academic degrees in Theology.  Endeavors should be\nmade to establish in all academic institutions--as has already been\nlaudably done in many--chairs of the other ancient languages,\nespecially the Semitic, and of subjects connected therewith, for the\nbenefit principally of those who are destined to profess sacred\nliterature.  These latter, with a similar object in view, should make\nthemselves well acquainted with and thoroughly exercised in the art of\ntrue criticism.  There has arisen, to the great damage of religion, an\nartificial method, which is dignified by the name of the \"higher\ncriticism.\"  It pretends to judge of the origin, the integrity, and the\nauthority of every Book from internal indications alone.  It is clear,\non the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and\nthe handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary\nimportance, and that historical investigation should be made with the\nutmost care.  In this matter internal evidence is seldom of great\nvalue, except by way of confirmation.  To look upon it in any other\nlight will be to open the door to many evil consequences.  It will make\nthe enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and\nendeavoring to destroy the authenticity of the Sacred Books.  This\nvaunted \"higher criticism\" will resolve itself into the reflection of\nthe bias and the prejudice of the critics.  It will not throw on the\nScriptures the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to\ndoctrine.  It will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those\nsure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully\nexhibit in their own persons.  Seeing that most of them are tainted\nwith false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination\nfrom the sacred writings of all prophecy and all miracle, and of\neverything else that lies outside the natural order.\n\nIn the second place, we have to contend against those who, abusing\ntheir knowledge of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred\nBooks, in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and so to vilify\nthe books themselves.  Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on\nmatters of experience of the senses, are peculiarly dangerous to the\nmasses, and also to the young, who are but beginning their literary\nstudies.  The young, if they lose their reverence for divine revelation\non any one point, are but too easily led to give up believing in\nrevelation altogether.  It need scarcely be pointed out how the science\nof nature, just as it is so admirably adapted to show forth the glory\nof the Great Creator, provided it be rightly taught, so, if it be\nperversely imparted to the youthful intelligence, it may prove most\nfatal in destroying the principles of true philosophy, and in the\ncorruption of morality.  Hence to the professor of Sacred Scripture a\nknowledge of natural science will be of the greatest service in\ndetecting and meeting such attacks upon the Sacred Books.\n\nThere can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian\nand the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own\nlines, and so long as both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, \"not\nto make rash assertions, or to assert that which is not known as if it\nwere really known.\"  If dissension should arise between them, here is\nthe rule, laid down by St. Augustine for the theologian: \"Whatever they\ncan really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to\nbe not contrary to our Scriptures.  Whatever they assert in their\ntreatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is, to\nCatholic faith, we must either prove it, as well as we can, to be\nentirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest\nhesitation, believe it to be so.\"  To understand how just is the rule\nhere formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or,\nto speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost, who spoke by means of them,\ndid not intend to teach men those things (that is to say, the essential\nnature of the things of the visible universe)--things which are in no\nway profitable unto salvation.  The sacred writers did not seek to\npenetrate the secrets of nature.  They rather described and dealt with\nthings in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were\ncommonly used at the time, and terms which in many instances are in\ndaily use at this day, even amongst the most eminent men of science.\nOrdinary speech primarily and properly describes that which falls under\nthe senses.  Somewhat in the same way the sacred writers--as the\nAngelic Doctor reminds us--\"went by what sensibly appeared,\" or put\ndown that which God, speaking to men, signified in a way which men\ncould understand, and to which they were accustomed.\n\nThe strenuous defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require\nthat we should equally uphold all the opinions which every one of the\nFathers, or which subsequent commentators have set forth in explaining\nit.  It may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters\nare in question, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own\ntimes, and have thus made statements which in these days have been\nabandoned as unfounded.  In their interpretations, therefore, we must\ncarefully note that which they lay down as belonging to faith, or as\nintimately connected with faith, or that in which they are unanimous.\n\"In those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the\nSaints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, even as we ourselves\nare,\" says St. Thomas.  In another place he says most admirably: \"When\nphilosophers are agreed upon a point, and that point is not contrary to\nfaith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as\na dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the\nphilosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to\nthe wise of this world an occasion of despising the doctrine of the\nfaith.\"  The Catholic commentator, although he should show that those\nfacts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now in these\ndays absolutely certain are not contrary to Scripture rightly\nexplained, must nevertheless always bear in mind that much which has\nbeen held as proved and certain has afterwards been called in question\nand rejected.  If writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of\ntheir own department, and carry their erroneous teaching into the\ndomain of philosophy, let them be handed over by the theological\ncommentator to philosophers for refutation.\n\nThe principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and\nespecially to history.  It is a lamentable fact that there are many men\nwho with great labor make and publish investigations on the monuments\nof antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations, and other\nillustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often\nto try to find mistakes in the sacred writings, and so to shake and\nweaken their authority.  Some of these writers display not only extreme\nhostility, but also great unfairness.  In their eyes a profane book or\nan ancient document is accepted without hesitation.  Scripture, if they\ncan only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the\nslightest possible discussion as being entirely untrustworthy.  It is\ntrue, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the\nBible.  This question, when it arises, should be carefully considered\non its merits.  The fact, however, is not to be too easily admitted,\nbut only in those passages where the proof is clear.  It may also\nhappen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous.  In this case,\nsound hermeneutical methods will greatly aid in clearing up obscurity.\nIt is absolutely wrong, however, and it is forbidden, either to narrow\ninspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that\nthe sacred writer has erred.  The system of those who, in order to rid\nthemselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that\ndivine inspiration regards matters of faith and morals, and nothing\nbeyond them, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth\nor falsehood of a passage we should consider not so much what God has\nsaid as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it,\ncannot be tolerated.  All the books which the Church receives as sacred\nand canonical were written wholly and entirely, with all their parts,\nat the dictation of the Holy Ghost.  So far is it from being possible\nthat any error can co-exist with inspiration, inspiration not only is\nessentially incompatible with error, but it excludes error as\nabsolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the\nSupreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.  This is the ancient\nand unchanging faith of the Church.  It was solemnly defined in the\nCouncils of Florence and of Trent.  It was finally confirmed and more\nexpressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.  These are the\nwords of that Council: The Books of the Old and of the New Testament,\nwhole and entire, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the\ndecree of the same Council (Trent), and as they are contained in the\nold Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.\nThe Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been\ncomposed solely by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her\nauthority, nor only because they contain revelation without error, but\nbecause, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,\nthey have God for their Author.  Hence we cannot say that, because the\nHoly Ghost employed men as His instruments, it was these inspired\ninstruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary\nAuthor.  By supernatural power He so moved and impelled them to\nwrite--He was so present to them--that all the things which He ordered,\nand those things only, they first rightly conceived, then willed\nfaithfully to write down, and finally expressed in adequate words and\nwith infallible truth.  Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the\nAuthor of the whole of the Sacred Scripture.  Such has always been the\npersuasion of the Fathers.  \"Therefore,\" says St. Augustine, \"since\nthey wrote the things which He showed and said to them, it cannot be\nsaid that He did not write them.  His members executed that which their\nHead dictated.\"  St. Gregory the Great maintains: \"Most superfluous it\nis to inquire who wrote these things;--we loyally believe the Holy\nGhost to be the Author of the Book.  He wrote it who dictated it to be\nwritten.  He wrote it who inspired its execution.\"\n\nIt follows that those men who maintain that an error is possible in any\ngenuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic\nnotion of inspiration, or make God Himself to be the Author of error.\nSo emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine\nwritings, as left by the hagiographers, are entirely free from all\nerror, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence,\nto reconcile one with the other those numerous passages which seem to\nbe at variance--the very passages which in great measure have been\ntaken up by the \"higher criticism.\"  The Fathers were unanimous in\nlaying it down that those writings, in their entirety and in all their\nparts, were equally from the divine _afflatus_, and that God Himself,\nspeaking through the sacred writers, could not set down anything that\nwas not true.  The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what\nthey taught: \"On my own part, I confess to your charity that it is only\nto those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have\nlearned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that\nno one of their writers has fallen into any error.  If in these Books I\nmeet with anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate\nto conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has\nnot expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself have not\nunderstood it.\"\n\nBut with all the weapons of the best of arts, fully and perfectly to\nfight for the holiness of the Bible is far more than can be looked for\nfrom the exertions of commentators and theologians alone.  It is an\nenterprise in which we have a right to expect the co-operation of all\nCatholic men who have acquired reputation in other branches of\nlearning.  As in the past, so at the present time the Church is never\nwithout the graceful support of her accomplished children.  May their\nservices to the Faith ever grow and increase!  There is nothing which\nWe believe to be more needful than that truth should find defenders\nmore powerful and more numerous than are the enemies whom it has to\nface.  There is nothing which is better calculated to imbue the masses\nwith homage for the truth than to see it joyously proclaimed by learned\nmen who have gained distinction in some other faculty.  Moreover, the\nbitter tongues of objectors will be silenced.  At least they will not\ndare to insist so shamelessly that faith is the enemy of science when\nthey see that scientific men, of eminence in their own profession, show\ntowards the faith most marked honor and reverence.\n\nSeeing, then, that those men can do so much for the progress of\nreligion on whom the goodness of God has bestowed, together with the\ngrace of the faith, great natural talent, let such men, in this most\nsavage conflict of which the Scriptures are now the object, select each\nof them the branch of study which is best adapted to his circumstances,\nand endeavor to excel therein, and thus be prepared to repel with\neffect and credit the assaults on the word of God.  It is our pleasing\nduty to give deserved praise to a work which certain Catholics have\ntaken in hand--that is to say, the formation of societies, and the\ncontribution of considerable sums of money, for the purpose of aiding\ncertain of the more learned in the pursuit of their study to its\ncompleteness.  Truly, an excellent method of investing money!  It is an\ninvestment most suited to the times in which we live!  The less hope of\npublic patronage there is for Catholic study, the more ready and the\nmore abundant should be the liberality of private persons.  Those to\nwhom God has given riches will thus use them to safeguard the treasure\nof His revealed doctrine.\n\nIn order that such labors may prove of real service to the cause of the\nBible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which we have in\nthis Letter laid down.  Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and\nthe Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures--and that\ntherefore nothing can possibly be proved, either by physical science or\nby archeology, which can be in real contradiction with the Scriptures.\nIf apparent contradictious should be met with, every effort should be\nmade to meet them.  Theologians and commentators of solid judgment\nshould be consulted as to what is the true or the most probable meaning\nof the passage in discussion.  Adverse arguments should also be\ncarefully weighed.  Even if the difficulty is not after all cleared up,\nand the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned.\nTruth cannot contradict truth.  We may be sure that some mistake has\nbeen made, either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the\npolemical discussion itself.  If no mistake can be detected, we must\nthen suspend judgment for the time being.  There have been objections\nwithout number perseveringly directed against the Scriptures for many a\nlong year.  These have been proved to be futile, and they are now never\nheard of.  Interpretations not a few have been put on certain passages\nof Scripture (not belonging to the rule of faith or morals), and these\nhave been rectified after a more careful investigation.  As time goes\non mistaken views die and disappear.  Truth remaineth and groweth\nstronger for ever and ever.  Wherefore, as no one should be so\npresumptuous as to think that he understands the whole of the\nScriptures--in which St. Augustine himself confessed that there was\nmore that he did not know than that which he did know--so, if one\nshould come upon anything that seems incapable of solution, he must\ntake to heart the cautious rule of the same holy Doctor: \"It is better\neven to be oppressed by unknown but useful signs than to interpret them\nuselessly, and thus to throw off the yoke of servitude only to be\ncaught in the nets of error.\"\n\nAs regards those men who pursue the subsidiary studies of which We have\nspoken, if they honestly and modestly follow the counsels and commands\nwhich We have given--if by pen and voice they make their studies\nfruitful against the enemies of the truth, and useful in saving the\nyoung from loss of faith--they may justly congratulate themselves on\nworthy service to the Sacred Writings, and on their having afforded to\nthe Catholic religion that aid which the Church has a right to expect\nfrom the piety and from the learning of her children.\n\n\nSuch, Venerable Brethren, are the admonitions and the instructions\nwhich, by the help of God, We have thought it well, at the present\nmoment, to offer to you on the study of the Sacred Scriptures.  It will\nnow be for you to see that what We have said be held and observed with\nall due reverence, that so we may prove our gratitude to God for the\ncommunication to man of the words of His wisdom, and that all the good\nresults which are so much to be desired may be realized, especially as\nthey effect the training of the students of the Church, which is matter\nof Our own great solicitude and of the Church's hope.  Exert yourselves\nwith glad alacrity, and use your authority, and your persuasive powers,\nin order that these studies may be held in just regard, and that they\nmay flourish in the seminaries and in the educational institutions\nwhich are under your jurisdiction.  May they flourish in the\ncompleteness of success, under the direction of the Church, in\naccordance with the salutary teaching and the example of the Holy\nFathers, and the laudable traditions of antiquity.  As time goes on,\nlet them be widened and extended as the interests and glory of the\ntruth may require--the interests of that Catholic Truth which comes\ndown from above, the never-failing source of the salvation of all\npeoples.  Finally, We admonish with paternal love all students and\nministers of the Church always to approach the sacred writings with the\nmost profound affection of reverence and of piety.  It is impossible to\nattain to a profitable understanding thereof unless, laying aside the\narrogance of \"earthly\" science, there be excited in the heart a holy\ndesire for that wisdom \"which is from above.\"  In this way the mind\nwhich has once entered on these sacred studies, and which has by means\nof them been enlightened and strengthened, will acquire a marvellous\nfacility in detecting and avoiding the fallacies of human science, and\nin gathering and utilizing solid fruit for eternal salvation.  The\nheart will then wax warm, and will strive with more ardent longing to\nadvance in virtue and in divine love.  \"Blessed are they who examine\nHis testimonies; they shall seek Him with their whole heart.\"\n\nAnd now, filled with hope in the divine assistance, and trusting to\nyour pastoral solicitude--as a pledge of heavenly graces and in witness\nof Our special good will--to all of you, and to the clergy, and to the\nwhole flock which has been intrusted to you, We most lovingly impart in\nour Lord the Apostolic Benediction.\n\n\nGiven at St. Peter's, at Rome, the 18th day of November, 1893, the\nsixteenth year of Our Pontificate.\n\nLEO PP. XIII.","title":"Chapters of Bible Study: A Popular Introduction to the Study of the Sacred Scriptures","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":45757}