Chapters of Bible Study / A Popular Introduction to the Study of the Sacred Scriptures

by Herman J. Heuser

The professor may now safely pass on to the use of Scripture in matters of Theology. Here it must be observed that, in addition to the usual reasons which make ancient writings more or less difficult to understand, there are some which are peculiar to the Sacred Books. The language of the Bible is employed to express, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, many things which are beyond the powers and scope of human reason—that is to say, divine mysteries and many matters which are related to them. There is sometimes in such passages a fuller and a deeper meaning than the letter seems to express or than the laws of hermeneutics indicate. Moreover, the literal sense itself frequently admits other senses, which either illustrate dogma or commend morality. It must therefore be recognized that the sacred writings are wrapt in a certain religious obscurity, and that no one can enter into them without a guide. God has so disposed it that, as the Holy Fathers teach, men may investigate the Scriptures with greater ardor and earnestness, and that what is attained with difficulty may sink more deeply into the mind and heart. From this also, and mainly, men may understand that God has delivered the Scriptures to the Church, and that in reading and treating of His utterances they must follow the Church as their guide and teacher. St. Irenæus long since laid it down that where the Charismata of God were placed, there the truth was to be learnt, and that Scripture is expounded without peril, by those with whom there is apostolic succession. His teaching, and that of other Fathers, is embraced by the Council of the Vatican which, in renewing the decree of Trent, declares its mind to be this—that "in matters of faith and morals, which belong to the building up of Christian doctrine, that sense is to be considered the true sense of the Sacred Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." By this law, most full of wisdom, the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of biblical science. She, on the contrary, provides for its freedom from error, and greatly advances its real progress. A wide field lies open to any teacher, in which his hermeneutical skill may exercise itself with signal effect and for the welfare of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the sweetly ordered providence of God, serve as a preparation for bringing to maturity the judgment of the Church. In passages already defined, a private doctor may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the commonalty of the faithful, or more learnedly before the learned, or by defending them more powerfully from adversaries. Wherefore the first and most sacred object of the Catholic commentator should be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic interpretation—either from the sacred writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (as in many places of the New Testament), or from the Church, under the assistance of the same Holy Spirit, whether by her solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal authoritative teaching—in that identical sense, and to prove, by all the resources of learning, that sound hermeneutical laws admit of no other than that interpretation. In the other passages the analogy of faith should be followed, and the Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme rule. Since the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate interpretation be extracted from the former which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is unfounded and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.

The professor of Holy Scripture, therefore, amongst other recommendations, must be well versed in the whole of Theology, and deeply read in the commentaries of the Holy Fathers and Doctors, and the best of other interpreters. This is inculcated by St. Jerome, and still more by St. Augustine, who thus justly complains: "If there is no branch of teaching, however humble and easy to learn, which does not require a master, what can be a greater sign of rashness and pride than to refuse to study the Books of the divine mysteries by the help of those who have interpreted them?" Other Fathers have said the same, and have confirmed it by their example. They endeavored to acquire understanding of the Holy Scriptures, not by their own lights and ideas, but from the writings and authority of the ancients, who in their turn, as we know, received the rule of interpretation in direct line from the Apostles.

The Holy Fathers, to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its growth—who planted, watered, built, fed, and nourished it—are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible as pertaining to doctrine of faith or morals. Their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of private teachers; not only because they excelled in knowledge of revealed doctrine and in acquaintance with many things useful for the understanding of the apostolic Books, but also because they were men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God bestowed a more ample measure of His light. The commentator, therefore, should make it his care to follow in their footsteps with reverence, and to avail himself of their labors with intelligent appreciation.

He must not, however, on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done—provided he religiously observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine: not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except where reason makes that sense untenable or necessity requires. This is a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained license of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate. Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense, more especially when such interpretation is justified by the literal sense, and when it rests on the authority of many. This method of interpretation has been received by the Church from the Apostles, and has been approved by her own practice, as her liturgy attests. The Holy Fathers did not thereby pretend directly to demonstrate dogmas of faith, but used it as a means of promoting virtue and piety, such as, by their own experience, they knew to be most valuable.

The authority of other Catholic interpreters is not so grave. Since, however, the study of Scripture has always continued to advance in the Church, their commentaries also have their own honorable place, and are serviceable in many ways for the refutation of assailants and the unravelling of difficulties. It is, moreover, most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or contempt, the splendid works which our own scholars have left behind them in abundance, and to have recourse to the works of the heterodox, and to seek in them, with peril to sound doctrine and not seldom with detriment to faith, the explanation of passages on which Catholics have long ago most excellently expended their talents and their labor. Although the studies of the heterodox, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic interpreter, he should nevertheless bear well in mind this repeated testimony of the ancients,—that the sense of the Sacred Scriptures can nowhere be found incorrupt outside the Church, and that it cannot be delivered by those who, being destitute of the true faith, only gnaw the husk of Scripture and never reach its marrow.

Most desirable it is, and most essential, that the whole course of Theology should be pervaded by the use of the Divine Scripture, which should be, as it were, the soul thereof. This is what the Fathers and the greatest theologians of all ages have professed and practised. It was chiefly out of the sacred writings that they endeavored to proclaim and establish the Articles of Faith and the truths which are their consequences. It was in them, together with divine tradition, that they found the refutation of heretical error, and the reasonableness, the true meaning, and the mutual relation of the truths of the Catholic faith. Nor will any one wonder at this who considers that the Sacred Books hold such a pre-eminent position among the sources of Revelation that without the assiduous study of them Theology cannot be rightly treated as its dignity demands. Although it is right and proper that students in academical institutions and schools should be chiefly exercised in acquiring a scientific knowledge of dogma by means of reasoning from the Articles of Faith to their consequences, according to the rules of approved and solid philosophy, nevertheless a grave and learned theologian will by no means overlook that method of doctrinal demonstration which draws its proof from the authority of the Bible. Theology does not receive her first principles from other sciences, but immediately from God through Revelation. And therefore she does not receive from other sciences as from superiors, but uses them as her inferiors and her handmaids. It is this view of doctrinal teaching which is laid down and recommended by the prince of theologians, St. Thomas of Aquin. He also shows—such being the essential character of Christian Theology—how a theologian can defend his own principles against attack. "If the adversary," he says, "do but grant any portion of the divine revelation, we have an argument against him. Against a heretic we can employ Scripture authority, and against those who deny one article we can use another. If our opponent rejects divine revelation altogether, then there is no way left to prove the Articles of Faith by reasoning. We can only solve the difficulties which are raised against the faith." Care must be taken, then, that beginners approach the study of the Bible well prepared and furnished; otherwise, just hopes will be frustrated, or perchance—and this is worse—they will unthinkingly risk the danger of error, and fall an easy prey to the sophisms and labored erudition of the rationalists. The best preparation will be a conscientious application to philosophy and theology under the guidance of St. Thomas of Aquin, and a thorough training therein—as We Ourselves have elsewhere shown and prescribed. By this means, both in biblical studies and in that part of Theology which is called Positive, they will pursue the right path and make solid progress.

To prove, to expound, to illustrate Catholic doctrine by the legitimate and skilful interpretation of the Bible is much; but there is a second part of the subject of equal importance and of equal laboriousness,—the maintenance in the strongest possible way of the fulness of its authority. This cannot be done completely or satisfactorily except by means of the living teaching authority of the Church herself. The Church, by reason of her wonderful propagation, her shining sanctity, and her inexhaustible fecundity in good, her Catholic unity, and her unshaken stability, is herself a great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an unassailable testimony of her own divine mission. But since the divine and infallible teaching authority of the Church rests also on the authority of Holy Scripture, the first thing to be done is to vindicate the trustworthiness of the sacred records at least as human documents. From this can clearly be proved, as from primitive and authentic testimony, the divinity and the mission of Christ our Lord, the institution of a hierarchical Church, and the primacy of Peter and his successors. It is most desirable, therefore, that there should be many members of the clergy well prepared to enter upon a contest of this nature, and to repulse the attacks of the enemy, chiefly trusting in that armor of God which is recommended by the Apostle, but at the same time not unacquainted with the more modern methods of attack. This is beautifully alluded to by St. John Chrysostom. Describing the duties of priests, he says: "We must use our every endeavor that the 'word of God may dwell in us abundantly.' Not merely for one kind of light must we be prepared, for the contest is many-sided, and the enemy is of every sort. They do not all use the same weapons, nor do all make their onset in the same way. It is needful that the man who has to contend against all should have knowledge of the engines and the arts of all. He must be at once archer and slinger, commandant and officer, general and private soldier, foot-soldier and horseman, skilled in sea-fight and in siege. Unless he knows every trick and turn of war, the devil is well able, if only a single door be left open, to get in his ferocious bandits and to carry off the sheep." The sophisms of the enemy and the manifold strategy of his attack We have already touched upon.

Let Us now say a word of advice on the means of defence. The first means is the study of Oriental languages and of the art of criticism. These two acquirements are in these days held in high estimation. The clergy, by making themselves more or less fully acquainted with them, as time and place may demand, will the better be able to discharge their office with becoming credit. They must make themselves "all things to all men," always "ready to satisfy every one that asketh them a reason for the hope that is in them." Hence it is most proper that professors of Sacred Scripture and theologians should master those tongues in which the Sacred Books were originally written. It would be well that Church students also should cultivate them, more especially those who aspire to academic degrees in Theology. Endeavors should be made to establish in all academic institutions—as has already been laudably done in many—chairs of the other ancient languages, especially the Semitic, and of subjects connected therewith, for the benefit principally of those who are destined to profess sacred literature. These latter, with a similar object in view, should make themselves well acquainted with and thoroughly exercised in the art of true criticism. There has arisen, to the great damage of religion, an artificial method, which is dignified by the name of the "higher criticism." It pretends to judge of the origin, the integrity, and the authority of every Book from internal indications alone. It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care. In this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except by way of confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and endeavoring to destroy the authenticity of the Sacred Books. This vaunted "higher criticism" will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scriptures the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine. It will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons. Seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and all miracle, and of everything else that lies outside the natural order.

In the second place, we have to contend against those who, abusing their knowledge of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Books, in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and so to vilify the books themselves. Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on matters of experience of the senses, are peculiarly dangerous to the masses, and also to the young, who are but beginning their literary studies. The young, if they lose their reverence for divine revelation on any one point, are but too easily led to give up believing in revelation altogether. It need scarcely be pointed out how the science of nature, just as it is so admirably adapted to show forth the glory of the Great Creator, provided it be rightly taught, so, if it be perversely imparted to the youthful intelligence, it may prove most fatal in destroying the principles of true philosophy, and in the corruption of morality. Hence to the professor of Sacred Scripture a knowledge of natural science will be of the greatest service in detecting and meeting such attacks upon the Sacred Books.

There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and so long as both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert that which is not known as if it were really known." If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule, laid down by St. Augustine for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be not contrary to our Scriptures. Whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is, to Catholic faith, we must either prove it, as well as we can, to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so." To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or, to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost, who spoke by means of them, did not intend to teach men those things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe)—things which are in no way profitable unto salvation. The sacred writers did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature. They rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and terms which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even amongst the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes that which falls under the senses. Somewhat in the same way the sacred writers—as the Angelic Doctor reminds us—"went by what sensibly appeared," or put down that which God, speaking to men, signified in a way which men could understand, and to which they were accustomed.