Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

[Revelation in general is the manifestation of a hidden truth or of an unknown fact.

If a revelation is made by God himself and in an extraordinary or supernatural manner, beyond the ordinary order of his providence, it is called divine.

Moreover, the object of divine revelation can be twofold. For there are certain truths to which even natural reason can attain; but because this reason, weakened by sin, can frequently hesitate even in these and can even err completely, truths of this kind are known more easily, more clearly and more certainly by the aid of revelation, as the Angelic Doctor expressly proves, lib. I Contra gentes, chap. 3|summa-contra-gentiles-liber-primus:liber.1/capitulum.3 and 4. And the Vatican synod teaches the same thing, in the constitution Dei Filius, where we read: « Divine revelation must indeed be credited with the fact that those things which in divine matters are not of themselves inaccessible to human reason can nevertheless, even in the present condition of the human race, be known by all readily, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error. » There are also truths whose knowledge entirely surpasses the perspicacity of the created intellect, such as the dogmas that are properly called mysteries. And it is evident that these truths can be made manifest to an intellectual creature only by God revealing them.

Now certain truths can be revealed by God either to all men indiscriminately, or to a single man or only to some, so that through this one or those few the rest may be taught. If it were done in the former way, which God has in fact never used, the revelation would be called general and common; if in the latter, it must be called peculiar and private. A revelation made by God to someone without any other intermediary is immediate; when it reaches others through the one whom God chose, it is mediate.

Among unbelievers, moreover, some deny every possibility whatsoever of revelation; others represent mediate revelation as in no way suited to man; finally, others attack revelation of the mysteries alone as impossible.

All of these will be refuted in the following articles.]

I answer. Affirmative.

Proof. Divine revelation must be judged possible if it involves no repugnance, whether on the part of God revealing, on the part of man receiving the revelation, or on the part of the things revealed. But on no side is there any repugnance. Therefore.

Proof. The first part of the minor. Since God is infinitely wise and powerful, it belongs to him to judge whether it is opportune, indeed necessary, that he manifest to his creatures truths hidden by their very nature; he has countlessly many ways ready at hand by which he may make known the things that concern him, or his wills. Nor will anyone deny this, unless he be an atheist, that is, a madman, nor even will he call it into doubt. For if any man could lay open all his thoughts to another man, why would this be impossible for God?

Proof. The second part. Man received intelligence and reason from God for no other purpose than to perceive truth, of which God himself is the one and essential source. Nothing therefore on his part stands in the way of his receiving any truths whatsoever proposed by God, just as men are accustomed to communicate whatever things to one another.

Proof. The third part. If certain truths contribute to a more perfect knowledge of God and to his greater glory, as also to the benefit of men, nothing prevents them from becoming the object of divine manifestation, as is evident.

These points are confirmed by the common sense of mankind, which has never detected any repugnance in revelations of this kind; indeed it has judged them necessary, as is clear from the history of all peoples, which have accepted revelations, whether true or fictitious. Therefore.

You will object. It ill beseems the divine majesty to stoop so far as to address wretched creatures. Therefore.

I answer. It did not ill beseem God to create man, and indeed so as to lead him to happiness. Much less, therefore, does it ill beseem him to point out to man the safe way to his end, which man could never find by himself; this is most consonant with the divine wisdom and goodness.

I answer. affirmative. That is, this revelation is possible whereby other men are taught divinely revealed truths through others, who received them from God immediately.

It is proved. It has been demonstrated that immediate divine revelation is possible. Yet nothing prevents a man from communicating to others the truths he has received from God: and in this consists mediate revelation. Therefore mediate revelation is possible.

If any difficulty arises, it arises not so much on the side of the thing itself as on the side of other men, who are in no way bound to extend faith to revelations handed over to them in this way. But, if the revelation has truly proceeded from God, since he made it only for the common good, he will win faith for it by extrinsic helps, and especially by miracles and prophecies; and if these motives of credibility are altogether lacking, no one is certainly bound to grant assent to anyone affirming some revelation or other.

You will object.: The supernatural order ought to be perfectly fitted to the natural order and to correspond with it. Yet God demonstrates natural truths to individual men through reason. Therefore it is more fitting that he open supernatural truths to individuals through private revelation. — I subsume. Yet it is repugnant for God to prefer less fitting means. Therefore mediate revelation is impossible.

I answer. I concede the major, thus understood, that the elevation of the whole of human nature to the supernatural order takes place through means corresponding to each of its faculties, which are not only internal but also external, as happens likewise in the natural order. — I distinguish the minor. God demonstrates natural truths to individual men through reason, not only admonished by the spectacle of his works, in which his invisible things are clearly seen, being understood from the creation of the world through the things that have been made, Rom., 1, 20; but also and necessarily through the discipline which they receive from their instructors: first, that they may perceive primary truths, then that they may make progress in them and avoid the admixture of error: in this sense I concede.

I deny, however, that God demonstrates natural truths to any private man through reason in such a way that man, alone and without any help whatsoever, could apprehend all natural truths, order them, and possess them safely. We have proved, from St. Thomas, in the treatise de Deo creatore, diss. IV, art. 1., that children in the state of innocence would not have been born perfect in knowledge, but would only easily have acquired it with the passage of time. Even then, therefore, they would have needed educators. How much more do they need the same in the state of fallen nature, in which even the external senses are now no longer intact, and the mind has suffered a notable weakening of its native perspicacity? Hence the manifold errors into which, not only private men, but almost the whole human race has lapsed, wherever divine revelation has not bedewed even natural truths with its light. Would it not have to be feared that men, who have so lamentably abused their reason, which nevertheless proceeds from God himself, would likewise abuse private revelations, if God deigned to manifest his mysteries to each individual? Besides, very many would affirm that they had received from God things that would be nothing but ravings of their own mind, and there could be as many religions as heads. God most wisely forestalled this most deadly evil, by manifesting the highest truths to others through selected men, attesting the mission of his heralds by signs truly divine. Therefore, although he could have obtained his end absolutely in another way, by acting thus he truly adapted himself to the condition of fallen man, so that satisfaction is made to the objection. — And thus the following inference is forestalled.]

[A mystery, or an arcane thing, is a truth far removed from our understanding: not indeed in the sense that it lies wholly hidden from us, for we truly know its terms, but because we do not attain the connection of its terms, whence it comes about that we scarcely comprehend it at all. Deists deny that mysteries can be revealed by God. Against whom:

I answer. Affirmatively.

Proof. For there are given truths that surpass the keenness of our mind. Therefore God can reveal them.

A mystery exists as regards us even in the natural order. That man is composed of soul and body united to one another is certain. But in what manner the composite resulting from this union is put together, and how the soul influences the body, and in turn the body the soul, these things altogether pass our understanding. Although bodies are more obvious to us, never has it been permitted to philosophers to determine their intimate nature. However far physicists have advanced in the knowledge of nature, they have not been able to assign the first causes of the laws and forces they have discovered. Whence, as far as one can see, this whole universe of things is a mystery. Moreover, every creature, though incomprehensible, is finite. Why then should truths of this kind not be found in God, whose nature is understood only as infinite? Therefore there are given truths that surpass the keenness of our mind.

Now, what could stand in the way of God's manifesting some of these truths to us, if it so please him, whether to exercise our faith, or to make trial of our obedience and compliance toward him? Surely no repugnancy is perceived on this side. Therefore God can reveal these truths to us.

You will object: God cannot reveal to man what man cannot admit. Now man cannot admit anything except what reason evidently demonstrates to be true, and such things are not mysteries. Therefore God cannot reveal them.

I answer. Let the major pass, or rather I even grant it. For it cannot be supposed that God would reveal to man something which man could not admit from any motive whatsoever. I distinguish the minor. That man cannot admit anything except what reason demonstrates to be true with evidence either intrinsic or extrinsic, I concede; intrinsic only, I deny. For if nothing ought to be admitted unless it is intrinsically evident, very many natural truths would be rejected; for if we tried to scrutinize them to the bottom, before long some mystery occurs that puts an end to our inquiry. It is no wonder, therefore, if truths pertaining to the supernatural order are not intrinsically evident, since they exceed the grasp of our reason. But if their terms are understood, and the historical fact of divine revelation is proved, they become evidently credible from an extrinsic motive, namely on account of the authority of God manifesting them. And this suffices to make the assent of the mind not only reasonable and legitimate, but altogether obligatory. Concerning the possibility and fittingness of supernatural revelation the Vatican Council thus decrees, de Revelatione, canons 2 and 3: « If anyone shall say that it cannot come to pass, or that it is not expedient, that man be taught about God and the worship to be rendered to him through divine revelation: let him be anathema. » — « If anyone shall say that man cannot be divinely raised up to a knowledge and perfection exceeding his nature, but that from himself he can and finally ought, by unceasing progress, to attain the possession of all truth and all goodness: let him be anathema. »]

[Now we have observed that the object of revelation can be either truths of an order superior to human reason, such as we have said the mysteries are, or those things which unaided man can in no way come to know about God, as well as those things which, although revealed, fall within the limits of human reason.

* A twofold necessity is understood in this matter, namely an absolute necessity, founded upon the total incapacity of human reason to attain the knowledge of truths of a certain kind, and a moral necessity, which supposes only a great difficulty in sufficiently understanding truths of another kind.

This twofold distinction being laid down,

I say 1°: Divine revelation was absolutely necessary in order that man might know supernatural truths. And this necessity is only hypothetically absolute, as is plain, namely supposing the supernatural end bestowed on man by God, which God fixed according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him, as the Apostle says, Ephes., I, 9.

Proof. from St. Thomas, I Contra gentes, cap. 5|summa-contra-gentiles-liber-primus:liber.1/capitulum.5 : « Because, he says, men are ordered by divine providence to a higher good than human frailty can experience in the present life, it was necessary that the mind be summoned to something higher than our reason can at present reach, that so it might learn to desire something, and by earnest striving tend toward something that exceeds the whole state of the present life... » It is also necessary that a truth of this kind be set before men to be believed, in order that they may hold a truer knowledge of God. For then only do we truly know God when we believe him to be above everything that it is possible for man to think about God, since the divine substance exceeds the natural knowledge of man. Therefore, through the fact that certain things about God are proposed to man that exceed reason, there is confirmed in man the conviction that God is something above what can be thought... » And therefore, although human reason cannot fully grasp those things that are above reason, yet much perfection is acquired if it holds them at least in some manner by faith. And so it is said : Many things beyond the sense of man have been shown thee, Eccli., III, 25. And : The things that are of God no man knows, but the Spirit of God... But to us God hath revealed them by his Spirit, 1 Cor., II, 10 and 11. »

The Vatican Council asserts this hypothetically absolute necessity, constit. Dei Filius, chap. 2, on Revelation. After teaching that by divine revelation natural truths « can be known with firm certitude and with no admixture of error, » it adds : « Not for this cause, however, must revelation be called absolutely necessary, but because God of his infinite goodness ordained man to a supernatural end, namely to partake of the divine goods that altogether surpass the understanding of the human mind, since eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him, 1 Cor., II, 9. »

Since the knowledge of truths that exceed the natural grasp of human reason was granted to man only in view of the supernatural end prefixed to us by God, it follows that this end holds logically the first place among truths of this kind, if you except the existence of God, which, as will be said below, belongs at once primarily to reason and secondarily to faith. This Paul testifies, ad Hebr., XI, 6, saying : He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him. Afterwards come the mysteries that manifest either the intimate life of God, whose contemplation we enjoy in heaven, namely the Trinity; or the means by which God leads man back, gone astray from his supernatural end through original sin, to this end, namely the incarnation of the Word and redemption, as also the Church, the sacraments and other things of this kind pertaining to the fitting and true worship of God : all which man instructed solely by the natural light would not even have suspected.

I say 2°: Divine revelation was morally necessary in order that man might be able to know natural truths with firm certitude and with no admixture of error.

Proof. 1° from holy Scripture. Sap., XIII, 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 : Vain are all men in whom there is not the knowledge of God, and who could not from the things that are seen understand him that is, nor, attending to the works, acknowledge who was the workman : but they deemed either fire, or spirit, or the swift air, or the circle of stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be gods the rulers of the world... For these perhaps err, seeking God and wishing to find him. For while they converse among his works, they search, and are persuaded that the things seen are good... But wretched are they, and among the dead is their hope, who called the works of men's hands gods... and the likeness of living creatures. Thereupon, most charmingly demonstrating the absurdity of idolatry, the wise man enumerates and pierces with the sharpest marks the manifold crimes born of it. Rom., I, 18-22 : The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and injustice of those men who detain the truth of God in injustice, because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God hath manifested it to them. His invisible things, from the creation of the world, are seen, being understood by the things that are made, also his everlasting power and divinity : so that they are inexcusable; because, having known God, they did not glorify him as God, or give thanks, but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened; for professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Here the Apostle, having asserted natural revelation through reason, shows it to have been wholly insufficient for men to stand fast in the true knowledge of God and exhibit to him fitting worship : whence the moral necessity of a new and supernatural revelation is demonstrated, as also in the preceding text. Many other testimonies from sacred letters could be drawn forth.

Proof. 2° from the Council of Trent, sess. v, canons 1 and 2 : « If anyone shall not confess that the first man Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted..., and that the whole Adam, through the offense of prevarication, was changed for the worse in body and soul; let him be anathema. » — « If anyone shall assert that the prevarication of Adam harmed himself alone, and not his posterity...; let him be anathema. » From these it follows that Adam and his posterity lost through sin not only the supernatural gifts, but were also « changed for the worse » in the faculties and powers inherent in nature itself, and consequently in natural intellect and reason; whence, left to themselves, they can no longer perceive even natural truths with sufficient clearness, nor know them with firm certitude and no admixture of error.

Proof. 3° from the reasons excellently drawn out by the Angelic Doctor, I Contra gentes, cap. 4|summa-contra-gentiles-liber-primus:liber.1/capitulum.4 : « This, he says, must be shown concerning that truth which can lie open to the inquiry of reason : lest perchance it seem to anyone that, since reason can be had of it, it was in vain handed over to be believed by supernatural inspiration. » Three inconveniences would nevertheless follow if a truth of this kind were left to be sought out by reason alone.

» The first is that the knowledge of God would be present in few men. For very many are hindered from the fruit of diligent inquiry, which is the finding of truth, for three reasons.

» Some indeed are hindered by the indisposition of their temperament, from which many are naturally indisposed to knowing. Hence by no study could they attain the point of reaching the highest degree of human cognition, which consists in knowing God.

» Others, however, are hindered by the necessity of domestic affairs. For there must be among men some who devote themselves to administering temporal things, and these could not spend so much time in the leisure of contemplative inquiry as to reach the highest summit of human inquiry, namely the knowledge of God.

» Still others are hindered by sloth. For the knowledge of those things which reason can investigate concerning God requires that many things be known beforehand, since the consideration of almost the whole of philosophy is ordered to the knowledge of God. On account of which metaphysics, which deals with divine things, remains the last to be learned among the parts of philosophy. Thus, then, one can arrive at the inquiry of the aforesaid truth only with great labor of study : which labor few are willing to undertake for the love of science, whose natural appetite God nevertheless implanted in the minds of men.

» The second inconvenience is that those who would arrive at the knowledge or discovery of the aforesaid truth would reach it scarcely after a long time, both on account of the profundity of such a truth, for the grasping of which by the way of reason the human intellect is found adequate only after long exercise; and also on account of the many things presupposed, as was said; and further because, in the time of youth, while the soul fluctuates amid the various motions of the passions, it is not apt for the cognition of so lofty a truth, but becomes prudent and knowing in quietness, as is said in VII Physicorum, c. 3. The human race, therefore, if only the way of reason lay open for knowing God, would remain in the darkest shadows of ignorance, since the knowledge of God, which makes men most perfect and good, would accrue only to a few, and even to these few only after a long lapse of time.

» The third inconvenience is that falsity is for the most part mixed into the investigation of human reason, on account of the weakness of our intellect in judging and the admixture of phantasms. And hence among many there would remain in doubt those things which are most truly demonstrated, so long as they are ignorant of the force of demonstration, and especially when they see different things taught by different persons who are called wise. Among the many true things that are demonstrated, something false is sometimes mixed in which is not demonstrated, but asserted by some probable or sophistical argument, which is sometimes taken for demonstration. And therefore it was necessary that, through the way of faith, with fixed certitude, the very truth concerning divine things be set before men.

» Divine clemency therefore provided wholesomely, in commanding that even those things which reason can investigate be held by faith, so that thus all could easily become partakers of the divine knowledge, without doubt and error.

» Whence it is said : Walk you no longer as also the Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their own sense, having the understanding darkened, Ephes., IV, 17 and 18. And : All thy children shall be taught of the Lord, Is., LIV, 13. »

The same the Vatican Council teaches, constit. Dei Filius, chap. 2, on Revelation : « Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be certainly known from created things by the natural light of human reason ; for his invisible things are seen, being understood by the things that are made, from the creation of the world, Rom., I, 20 : nevertheless it has pleased his wisdom and goodness to reveal to the human race other things, and those by a supernatural way, himself and the decrees of his eternal will, the Apostle saying : God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to us by his Son, Hebr., I, 1. » To this divine revelation indeed it must be attributed that those things which in divine matters are not of themselves impervious to human reason, even in the present condition of mankind, can be known by all readily, with firm certitude and with no admixture of error. » In the present condition, therefore, namely with the human intellect weakened and not little obscured by sin, unless divine revelation illumined and strengthened it, human reason would know, not readily, not with firm certitude, and with much admixture of error, even those things which in divine matters are not of themselves impervious to it. Whence arises the moral necessity of divine revelation. What the notes of divine and supernatural revelation are, was said in the treatise de Fide, dissert. II, where the prophecies of the prophets, the miracles, and the wonderful and plainly divine manner in which the Religion of Christ was founded and propagated are assigned as motives of credibility.]

: Holy Scripture is the word of God written.

Understand τὸ Dei not in the manner of a pure genitive, as when one says liber Petri, but in the manner of a genitive of the causing agent, as when one says lex Caesaris. And so τὸ verbum Dei, in this definition, is the genus in which holy Scripture agrees with traditions; by this particle, scriptum, however, it differs from them. For although traditions can be committed to writing, whether by the Fathers, or by councils, or by Pontiffs, they are nevertheless not the word of God written by God himself. Similarly, if God should approve some book, though it would be of infallible authority, it would not therefore be the word of God written, nor holy Scripture.

I say 2°: Holy Scripture exists.

Proof. 1° from the authority of the Church, which we shall prove below to be infallible.

2° That Scripture is truly divine : 1° which foretold many future things long beforehand just as they were afterwards fulfilled in reality and exactly; 2° which was announced and propagated throughout the whole world in a marvelous and stupendous manner by poor, rude and unlettered men, although it contains much above reason and contrary to the senses; 3° which has been confirmed by almost countless miracles; 4° which has been sealed and defended by the blood of innumerable martyrs shed; 5° which so many peoples, so many nations have received, though nature rebelled, though princes, magistrates and philosophers contradicted; 6° finally, which is so pure and holy that it forbids nothing but evil, commands nothing but good. Now such is the Scripture which we call sacred and divine. On this see what I said more at length concerning the motives of credibility of our faith. Therefore.

3° God must needs be worshipped by men as the author of nature and grace. But man does not know in what manner, with what rite God wishes to be worshipped, unless God himself manifest it. God therefore manifested this to men. But how did he manifest it ? Either through a private spirit, or through holy men, Prophets and Apostles delegated by him. Not through a private spirit, because this is not certain, but various and often self-contradictory, persuading one thing to one man, the opposite to another, as appears in heretics, who are led by it. Therefore through holy men delegated by him, Prophets and Apostles, who committed to writing the truths revealed to them by God and transmitted them to us.

You will ask whether the individual words of Scripture were dictated by the Holy Ghost ?

I answer. More probably, affirmatively.

1° Because holy Scripture is the scripture of God, that is, the word

of God written by God, as we said in the preceding article. Now, if God dictated only the senses and sentiments, and not the very words, to the writer whom he uses as it were as a pen, it could not be called the scripture of God, or the word written by God, namely in the manner in which he writes; but it would be the scripture of man, and a word written by man, as is plain. Therefore.

It is confirmed 1°. The sense and sentiments of the definitions which general councils issue are dictated and inspired by God, according to that saying of the Apostles in the first council, Act., XV, 28 : It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost. Yet they are not holy Scripture, since plainly the words are not dictated by the Holy Ghost, but left to the judgment of men. Therefore.

It is confirmed 2°. A letter whose sense and sentiments a king had dictated, but which he had not written out himself, could indeed be called the letter and mandate of the king, that is, written in the name and by the command of the king, but it would not be the king's own writing, nor a word written by the king. Therefore likewise, although God inspire the sense and sentiments of some book, yet if he do not himself write it, at least in the manner in which he writes, dictating the words to the man whom he uses as it were as a pen, that book can be called a mandate, or even, if you will, a letter of God, that is, written in the name of God, but it will not be the scripture of God, nor a word written by God.

[The opinion professed by our Billuart, although it can be freely defended, will perhaps appear more firmly established from what follows.

There must first be set forth the various opinions that have come forth concerning this question.

1° Some have judged — they are called the followers of the stricter inspiration — that not only the things and sentiments were inspired, but also the individual words and phrases, even the strokes of the letters ; so that the sacred books were written out with God dictating, and the sacred writers acquired nothing for themselves by their own industry, not even the historical and moral matters. To this opinion, which Billuart makes his own, the Academies of Louvain and Douai adhered in their censure against Lesseus.

2° The assertors of a freer inspiration require, first, a positive divine motion to write, and besides this the assistance of the Holy Spirit, whereby God suggests what is to be written or omitted, and directs and governs the writer even in the choice of words and the linking of periods, without however properly dictating the individual words.

3° Others, still looser, besides the motion and incitement to write, require only a negative assistance, placed precisely in this, that God so stand by the writers that they be rendered immune from any error however slight.

4° Here others do not stop, but contend that it suffices for inspiration that the Holy Spirit so breathe upon the writers that they at least take care to avoid the graver errors.

5° Still others, advancing yet further, affirm that, in order to make Scripture truly sacred, it suffices that the Holy Spirit attest that nothing false is contained in a given book, although the book may have been composed by human industry and without any divine breathing.

The last opinion must certainly be rejected. For such testimony of the Holy Spirit would indeed make us more certain that such a book is truthful, but it would not follow from this that it is truly divine. Thus, ad Tit., I, 3, the Holy Spirit testifies through Paul that a certain saying about the Cretans is true; but it is not therefore divine.¹

From the fourth opinion it would be allowable to assert that holy Scripture teems with certain errors, which indeed is altogether alien from the mind of the Catholic Church, and is condemned by Augustine, who writes in Epist. 82², n. 3, to Jerome : « I... have learned to pay this fear and honor to those books of Scripture alone which are now called canonical, that I most firmly believe that none of their authors ever erred in writing anything. » He repeats the same in n. 22, and in Epist. 28³ to the same, n. 3, and elsewhere.

Negative assistance offers us a notion of inspiration that is not sufficiently adequate, and it could also belong to the dogmatic definitions of councils or of supreme Pontiffs, which nevertheless it is not permitted to call inspired in that sense in which we name the sacred books inspired.

These looser opinions being rejected, one need not necessarily subscribe to the stricter opinion, which would have inspiration extend to the individual words. For : 1° This seems superfluous. Moreover the plan of divine providence, which never fails in things necessary, is not wont to abound in things superfluous. 2° A great variety of style shines forth in the different sacred books, and it would not be fitting to affirm that the Holy Spirit, without any necessity, accommodated his manner of speaking to the varied genius of each individual writer. Indeed, if it were true that the Holy Spirit dictated everything in such wise that the sacred writers held themselves merely passive in writing, a perfect uniformity of style would be necessary, in order that the same origin, namely divine inspiration, might be attributed to all the books.

Therefore entering upon the middle way, we embrace that notion of inspiration which Marchini held, de Divinitate et canonicitate sacr. biblior., part. I, art. 5, so that it must be called « that singular impulse, direction and presence of the Holy Spirit moving to write, governing the mind and heart of the writer, which does not suffer him to err, and makes him write what God wills. » From which notion it is plain that all those things are found in divine inspiration which, according to the common doctrine of theologians, are required and suffice to constitute it, namely 1° the excitation or impulse to write ; 2° the illumination of the mind and the motion of the will, so that not only does no error escape the sacred writer, but 3° there is found in him besides the choice of the things to be written, so that he omits nothing and adds nothing to those things which God willed to have written by him ; 4° a constant and singular assistance in bringing the work to completion. All these certainly suffice, and they leave nothing further to be wished.

In this sense are those passages of Scripture to be understood which are referred to divine inspiration, as Ps., XLIV, 2 : My tongue is the pen of a scribe that writeth swiftly. II Tim., III, 16 : All Scripture inspired of God is profitable, etc. And not rightly do the followers of the stricter opinion invoke these and similar words.

It is confirmed by the following words of the Council of Trent, sess. IV, Decree on the Canonical Scriptures : « Following the examples of the orthodox Fathers [the synod] receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament, since one God is the author of both, as also the traditions themselves, both those pertaining to faith and those pertaining to morals, as dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by continuous succession in the Catholic Church. » Where indeed the books of both Testaments are attributed to God as their author, but it is taught besides that the « traditions without writing » were dictated by the Holy Ghost. Moreover the traditions were not dictated word for word, but, breathed upon by the Holy Ghost, they were inspired and preserved as regards the sense alone, and nonetheless they are received as divine. Therefore the divine inspiration of the Scriptures requires nothing further in order that God be their author.

In this sense seems to be accepted what the Vatican Council teaches concerning the inspiration of the sacred books, where two looser opinions set forth above are especially reproved, constit. Dei Filius, chap. 2, de Revelatione: « But the Church holds those [books] as sacred and canonical, not because, fashioned by human industry alone, they were then approved by its authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church herself. » ]

You will ask 1° how holy Scripture is divided,

I answer. 1°. It is divided into the Old and the New Testament. The Old Testament is the collection of sacred books which promise the liberator to come, together with the precepts of the old law. The New Testament is the collection of sacred books which present the promised liberator as present, together with the precepts of the new law.

The canonical books of the Old Testament are forty-five in number; the canonical books of the New Testament twenty-seven: all seventy-two. So Trent, sess. IV, Decree on the Canonical Scriptures.

[In the aforesaid decree there are enumerated singly, as canonical, all the books contained in our Vulgate edition.

After this enumeration the following canon is read : « But if anyone shall not have received these same books entire with all their parts, as they are wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are found in the ancient Latin Vulgate edition, as sacred and canonical, and shall have despised knowingly and deliberately the aforesaid traditions ; let him be anathema. »

The Vatican Council decrees the same, constit. Dei Filius, chap. 2, on Revelation: « Indeed those books of the Old and New Testament, entire with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decree of that same [Tridentine] council, and are found in the ancient Latin Vulgate edition, are to be held as sacred and canonical. » In what precisely the canonicity of the sacred books consists, the holy council explains afterwards, whose text was reported at the end of the preceding article.]

2° The canonical books, both of the Old and of the New Testament, are divided into protocanonical and deuterocanonical. Protocanonical are those concerning which there never has been doubt; deuterocanonical are those concerning which, before Innocent I and the third Council of Carthage, some had doubt.

Yet they are not of less authority than the protocanonical; because both in the former and in the latter there is the same infallible Church proposing them. Nor does it stand in the way that there has sometimes been doubt about the deuterocanonicals, as was said; for that doubt was not positive on the part of the Church, as if she had judged or declared them doubtful, but on the part of certain Fathers : which doubt the Church tolerated in them for a while, until at length, the matter having been more fully discussed and elucidated by tradition, she inserted them in the canon.

(The deuterocanonical Scriptures are : from the Old Testament, Esther, Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Hymn of the three children, Dan., III, the History of Susanna and of the dragon, ibid., XIII and XIV, the Prayer of Azarias, the Prayer of Jeremiah near the end of the Lamentations, the first and second book of Machabees. From the New Testament, the last chapter of Mark, from the place : And Jesus rising up; the history of the bloody sweat of Christ and of his being comforted by an angel, Luc., XXII; the first epistle of John, chap. v, where that testimony : There are three who give testimony in heaven : the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; the whole epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews; the epistles of James and Jude; the second epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, and finally his Apocalypse.

As apocryphal scriptures were rejected by the Church: the third and fourth book of Esdras, the third and fourth of Machabees, the Prayer of king Manasses captive in Babylon, the Appendix of the book of Job, where his genealogy is described, the Little Preface of the Lamentations which begins : And it came to pass, the Letter of Jesus to Abgarus the king, the Gospels which circulate under the names of Andrew, Bartholomew, Barnabas, Nicodemus and others.

The Protestants did not rest content with the Tridentine decree on the canonical books, dissenting among themselves, as in other matters, so also in fixing the canon of the sacred books. They expunge all the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. But Luther and his followers repudiate also all the deuterocanonical books of the New Testament, namely the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, the second of Peter, the second and third of John and the Apocalypse; on the other hand the Calvinists admit all these books.

Care must nevertheless be taken that the opinion of all Protestants concerning the canon of the Scriptures is not the same. The more recent ones, who are called orthodox among themselves, admit more of the deuterocanonical books of the New Testament; others, whom they call heterodox, reject even more of the protocanonical ones, and although they cease not to appeal to the Scriptures as to the sole rule of faith, yet out of the Scriptures they determine that whatever does not agree with their errors, or is distasteful to carnal and proud wisdom, is to be expunged at pleasure. Among the cavils with which they attack the canon of the sacred books fixed by the Council of Trent, they say the ancient Fathers gave greater authority to the protocanonical books than to the rest. This perhaps happened when the holy Fathers refuted the Jews and heretics, against whom they drew arguments especially from those Scriptures whose divinity their adversaries themselves admitted; yet not so that they doubted the divine origin of the deuterocanonical books.

We are confined within limits too narrow for it to be permitted us to demonstrate the canonicity or authenticity of all the books which the innovators reject. These difficulties and several other critical questions were solved by the authors who applied themselves chiefly to sacred hermeneutics.]

3° The canonical books are divided into historical, prophetical and doctrinal.

You will ask 2° in what language holy Scripture was originally written.

I answer. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, except the books of Tobias, Judith, Esdras and Daniel, which in the time of the Babylonian captivity were written in the Chaldaic tongue of the Babylonians. There is excepted also the second book of Machabees, which, according to Jerome, was written in Greek. Some hold the same about the book of Wisdom; for the Greek tongue was familiar to the Jews.

The New Testament however was written at first in Greek, except the Gospel of St. Matthew, which was written in Hebrew or Syriac. Jerome, Theodoret and others more commonly hold the same about the Epistle to the Hebrews, against Origen and Clement of Alexandria.

Yet no autographs or original texts of holy Scripture now exist, but only copies and versions into other languages, such as the Chaldaic, Syriac, Greek and Latin.

[The editions or versions of holy Scripture are reduced to four classes. The first is the Hebrew edition, to which are reduced the Syriac, Samaritan and Chaldaic, which rather is a paraphrase than a version, teeming with the fables of the Jews and trifles of the Talmudists, and commonly called the Targum. The second is the Greek, which although manifold, is yet the first and more accurate of all, which seventy Interpreters compiled under Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and which the Church used for about six hundred years. St. Lucian, and afterwards St. Jerome, corrected it vitiated with many defects by the lapse of time and the carelessness of copyists. The third is the Latin, and of the innumerable ones circulating in the age of SS. Jerome and Augustine it is chiefly threefold: namely the ancient, which St. Augustine calls the Italian, St. Jerome the common, St. Gregory the old, Orosius the vulgar; then the new, which was the version of St. Jerome, which St. Augustine ranked below the ancient, but Isidore preferred, and which was held in great price and veneration in the Church; finally that which was put together after the time of St. Gregory, neither from the whole ancient nor from the whole new, but exhibiting some books in the manner in which the ancient exhibited them, and others in that in which the new did. This is our present Vulgate, which has prevailed in the Church and been received by the usage of many centuries. The fourth, lastly, is the vernacular version, which, according to the variety of vernacular idioms, is and can be various and most diverse, and has either catholic or non-catholic authors.]

You will ask 3° what be the authority of the Hebrew and Greek text, and likewise of the edition of the Seventy.

I answer. The Hebrew and Greek text, as they now exist, are not authentic nor of unanswerable authority; they are nevertheless useful for many things.

Proof. First part. 1° Because the Church by her irreformable judgment has not approved them, nor declared them authentic, as she declared the Vulgate edition authentic, of which presently.

2° Because, although before Christ, indeed even after Christ, before Jerome, they were not notably depraved, yet now they abound with many and grave errors.

Proof. Second part. The Hebrew and Greek texts are useful, 1° for confirming the Latin Vulgate in many places; 2° for correcting the errors of typographers; 3° for determining the doubtful signification of the Vulgate; 4° while from the variety of codices it is doubted which is the common reading, we are helped to know it from the Hebrew and Greek texts; 5° they avail so that the force and propriety of words may be better perceived, and things obscure and difficult may be more easily understood.

What we said of the Hebrew and Greek texts must be said likewise of the version of the Seventy; for although in its beginning it was authentic, and even for a while after Christ was of great authority in the Church, yet now it is not authentic, nor of unanswerable authority, partly because the Church has not declared it authentic, partly because in the time of Jerome it was already notably corrupted, as the holy Doctor testifies in the preface to I Paralip. and in chap. XXX Isaiae and V Ezech.

Nor does it matter that Sixtus V, in the year 1586, orders the Greek version of the Seventy corrected by himself, « that it be received and retained by all. » For he does not order it received as authentic, but, as he says, as useful « for the understanding of the Latin Vulgate edition and of the ancient Fathers. »

You will ask 4° what be the authority of the Vulgate edition.

I answer. The Vulgate edition, and that alone, is authentic and the certain rule of faith.

Proof. This and this alone version is authentic, which the universal Church declared authentic by a solemn decree; for the Church is the infallible rule for discerning divine Scripture, as we proved in dissert. I of the preceding treatise, art. 2, and shall prove further below : whence that known saying of Augustine against the Epist. fundamenti, chap. 5, n. 6 : « I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic

Church moved me. » Now the Church by solemn decree in the Council of Trent, sess. IV, chap. 1, declared the Vulgate edition authentic, and thus pronounced concerning that alone, not concerning the Hebrew or Greek texts, nor concerning any other version whatsoever. Therefore.

[Text of the aforesaid decree : « The same sacred synod, considering that no small utility can accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now circulating is to be held as authentic, ordains and declares that this same ancient and vulgate edition, which by the long usage of so many centuries has been approved in the Church itself, be held as authentic in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, and that no one dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatsoever. »

In order that the sacred text may remain intact, the same holy synod, by the same decree, « decrees and ordains that henceforth sacred Scripture, and above all this same ancient and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner, and that no one be permitted to print or cause to be printed any books whatever on sacred matters without the name of the author, nor henceforth to sell them, or even keep them in his possession, unless they shall first have been examined and approved by the Ordinary, under penalty of anathema and of the fine appended in the canon of the latest Council of Lateran.]

You will ask 5° in what respects the Vulgate edition is authentic: whether in some only, and in which ?

I answer. Some maintain that it is authentic in all things; because Trent, sess. IV, chap. 1, orders under pain of anathema that all the books of Scripture, « with all their parts..., as they are found in the ancient Vulgate edition, be received as sacred and canonical. »

Nor does it stand in the way that there are still found in it certain defects; these, they say, are the errata of writers or typographers, or of rash emendators, which therefore are not parts, but wounds of the Vulgate edition, and which the Church does not approve while approving it.

Others, and as seems more commonly, will have it that it is authentic in those things only which pertain to faith and morals, or that it contains nothing repugnant to faith or good morals, whence there arose pernicious error in following it.

The reasons are : 1° Because cited Trent, after declaring the Vulgate authentic, orders that after this it be printed in the most correct manner. Therefore it supposes there are defects and faults in it. And after the correction of Sixtus V and Clement VIII errata are still found in it, as Clement VIII plainly hints in the diploma prefixed to his edition, saying that in this Vulgate edition certain things appeared to need changing which were deliberately not changed, and this is commonly acknowledged by learned men. 2° Because Andreas Vega, who was present at the Tridentine council, lib. V de Iustif., c. 9, says that the council « willed it be held authentic to this extent, that it might be certain to all that it had not been defiled by any error from which some pernicious dogma could be gathered in faith and morals, and therefore it added : « That no one should dare reject it under any pretext. »

And he adds that the cardinal of Holy Cross, who presided over that session, testified to him more than once, « that the Fathers willed to establish nothing more. »

They understand however that there pertain to faith and morals all those things which regard the mysteries of our religion and the counsels of the divine will, which assist faith and religion, nourish piety and form morals; but that certain names of places, cities, rivers, plants and the like do not pertain to faith and morals.

As regards the Tridentine decree, they understand it of the more notable parts.

You will ask 6° whether it be lawful to read holy Scripture in the vulgar tongue.

I answer. 1° That the reading of holy Scripture in the vulgar tongue is not absolutely forbidden; because there is no law in the Church whereby it is absolutely forbidden.

I answer. 2° Nevertheless, the law standing, it is not permitted indiscriminately to all to read holy Scripture in the vulgar tongue, but to those only to whom it is conceded by bishops and inquisitors, or by their own prelates, if Regulars be concerned. So the Fourth Rule of the Index of the Council of Trent, which Pius IV, by the bull Dominici gregis given in the year 1564, and Clement VIII, by the bull Sacrosanctum, 1593, prefixed to this Index, commanded to be observed.

I said, « the law standing, » because in many places custom derogated from the law, and in some wholly abrogated it.

[The reading of holy Scripture in the vulgar tongue is not made lawful except under the conditions established in the aforesaid Fourth Rule of the Index, where it is read : « Whereas it is manifest from experience that, if the holy Bible be allowed everywhere indiscriminately in the vulgar tongue, more detriment than utility arises thence through the rashness of men, in this part let the judgment of the bishop or Inquisitor stand, so that, with the counsel of the parish priest or confessor, they can concede to them the reading of the versions by catholic authors in the vulgar tongue whom they shall understand able to take from such reading not loss but increase of faith and piety; which faculty let them have in writing.

« But whoever shall presume to read or possess these without such faculty cannot receive absolution of his sins, unless he first restore the Bibles to the Ordinary.

« But booksellers who, not having the aforesaid faculty, sell Bibles written in the vulgar idiom, or grant them in any other manner, let them lose the price of the books to be turned over to pious uses by the bishop, and let them undergo other penalties, according to the quality of the offense, at the judgment of the same bishop.

« Regulars truly can read or buy them only with the faculty had from their prelates. »

If the aforesaid prescriptions can now no longer be carried out entirely, especially as regards penalties, care must be taken that catholic booksellers and readers know and observe the law of the Church in this grave matter.

Since indeed the reading of vernacular versions can become perilous to many who are not sufficiently able to understand obscure passages, their publication is not permitted by the holy See or the bishops, unless notes be added by which the difficulties are unraveled.

The Council of Trent ordained, in the aforesaid decree on the edition and use of the sacred books : « Let no one be permitted to print or cause to be printed any books whatever on sacred matters, without the name of the author, nor to sell them henceforth, or even keep them in possession, unless they shall first have been examined and approved by the Ordinary, under penalty of anathema and of the fine appended in the canon of the latest Council of Lateran. » In the const. Apostolicas Sedis, the pecuniary penalty not renewed, it is declared that « those only are subject to the anathema who print or cause to be printed books treating of sacred matters without the approval of the Ordinary. » The S. Office, on December 22, 1880, decreed that « the censure reserved to no one inflicted upon those who print, or cause to be printed, books treating of sacred matters without the approval of the Ordinary, must be restricted to the books of the sacred Scriptures, as well as to annotations of the same treating of any things whatsoever belonging to sacred matters in general, that is, pertaining to religion, » — These things will be explained more fully in the treatise on Censures.

But the manner of proceeding in approving these versions was determined by the Council of Trent, ibid., in these words : « Let the examination itself of such books be given in writing, and thus it authentically appear on the front of the book, whether written or printed, and let the whole be done gratuitously, that is both the approval and the examination, so that what ought to be approved be approved, and what ought to be rejected be rejected. »

It must be noted that, by the instruction of Clement VIII added to the Rules of the Index concerning the printing of books, § 1, if there be just cause for concealing the name of the author, the name of him who examined and approved the book must be described.]

You will ask 1° how manyfold the sense of Sacred Scripture is.

I answer. 1° That it is twofold in genus, namely the literal, which is also called the historical, and the mystical or spiritual: because, since God is the author of Sacred Scripture, and can accommodate not only words to signify, but also the things themselves, the first signification, by which words signify things, pertains to the literal sense; while the signification by which the things signified by the words again signify other things is the spiritual or mystical sense, which is founded upon the literal. Thus this word manna signifies literally light food; but this light food signifies mystically the Eucharist.

2° The literal sense is twofold: one proper and grammatical, the other improper and metaphorical. The proper and grammatical sense is that which the words signify from their primary signification: thus lion properly and grammatically signifies a roaring animal. The improper and metaphorical sense is when words are transferred to an improper signification on account of some likeness: thus in this proposition, The lion of the tribe of Juda has conquered, lion signifies improperly and metaphorically Christ.

3° The spiritual or mystical sense is threefold, namely the allegorical, the moral or tropological, and the anagogical: because either the things signified by the words signify something else pertaining to the Church militant, and this is the allegorical sense, corresponding to faith; or they signify something pertaining to morals, and this is the moral sense, corresponding to charity; or they signify something pertaining to the Church triumphant or eternal beatitude, and this is the anagogical sense, corresponding to hope. These three senses, together with the literal, are expressed in these three verses:¹

The letter teaches events; allegory, what you must believe, morality, what you must do; anagogy, where you must tend.

Among other examples take this word, Jerusalem. According to Jerome, on chapter XVI of Ezech., it signifies literally the city of Palestine; allegorically it signifies the Church militant; morally, the soul of the just; anagogically, the Church triumphant.

[Besides these senses of Sacred Scripture, another is called among theologians the accommodated sense, when words that signify some thing by the intention of the Holy Spirit, or are applied by him to some person, are accommodated to signify another thing, or applied to another person, on account of some congruity. This sense is more customary with sacred orators than with theologians, although it is employed even by the Church herself, as when that encomium of Noe, Eccli., XLIV, 17, He was found perfect and just, and in the time of wrath there was made a reconciliation, is applied in the liturgical office of confessors who were pontiffs to several saints of the New Testament.]

You will ask 2° whether every text of Scripture has a literal sense.

I answer. Affirmatively:² otherwise it would lack all sense, since the spiritual is founded upon the literal.

You will ask 3° which sense is more certain: the literal or the spiritual?

I answer. That the literal is more certain. For about that sense there can be certainty, not about the mystical, unless it is asserted by the sacred writer or declared by the Church; for the mystical senses which the holy Fathers bring forward are only probable. Hence from the literal sense alone, or from a mystical sense asserted by another Scripture or by the Church, an efficacious argument can be deduced.

Nevertheless the mystical sense is nobler, because as a rule it signifies things more excellent and is principally intended by

the Holy Spirit. Thus in the narration of the deeds done under the Old Testament, Christ was principally intended.

You will ask 4° whether the sense of Scripture is obscure.

I answer. That it is obscure in many places. This is against the heretics. It is evident from Scripture itself. St Peter, Epist. II, III, 16, speaking of the Epistles of St Paul, says: In which are certain things hard to be understood. Act., VIII, 30, when Philip asked the eunuch whether he understood Isaias, whom he was reading, the eunuch answers, 31: And how can I, unless someone show me? Luc., XXIV, 27, Christ interprets the Scriptures to the disciples going to Emmaus. Luc., XVIII, 51, the Apostles understood none of the things which Christ was saying; and many other passages besides.

The same is proved by the many commentaries of the holy Fathers and interpreters for explaining Scripture, and by the many contentions of heretics among themselves over the true sense of Scripture; for if it be open and clear, as they claim, why do not all agree? why do the Lutherans understand it one way and the Calvinists another?

You will ask 5° whose office it is to judge concerning the true sense of Scripture.

I answer. 1° Scripture cannot judge concerning its own sense: 1° Because, when the sense of Scripture is disputed, Scripture itself and its sense is the object and matter of the controversy. Therefore it cannot be the judge; for no one ever dreamed that the thing disputed should be the judge of the dispute.

2° A judge in any controversy ought to hear the litigating parties, to pronounce a sentence which they themselves must hear and accept, and to be able to compel them to acquiesce in the sentence; otherwise the judgment would be futile. Yet Scripture cannot perform these things. Therefore. 3° If Scripture were so clear and open that it suffices for eliciting its true sense, as the heretics pretend, why then have they been disputing for all these years over the true sense of very many texts of Scripture, among others over that celebrated one: This is my body? Either therefore they do not read Scripture, or they are obstinate against a recognized truth.

I answer. 2° The private spirit of anyone cannot be the judge of the true sense of Scripture: 1° Because it does not have the authority to compel the parties to acquiesce in its sentence. 2° Because it is various in various men, uncertain, and often self-contradictory. The Lutheran says this is the true sense; the Calvinist says the contrary; the Lutheran says he has a good spirit; the Calvinist denies it: who will decide the dispute? 3° There is no heretic, nor ever was there one, who does not pretend that he is led by a good spirit. If therefore the private spirit of anyone is the judge of the true sense of Scripture, all heresies must be admitted as true; for nothing but truth can proceed from a good spirit.

You will object. [with the innovators, several testimonies of Scripture, of which these are the chief: Ioann., VII, 17: If anyone wills to do his will, he shall know concerning the doctrine whether it is of God. Ibid., X, 27: My sheep hear my voice..., and follow me. I Ioann., II, 27: You have no need that anyone teach you, but as his unction teaches you concerning all things; and it is true, and is no lie. Ibid., V, 9 and 10: If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater... He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony of God in himself. 1 Cor., II, 15: The spiritual man judges all things, and he himself is judged by no one.

I answer. 1° In general, that these and similar passages prove only that both testimonies, namely the external and the internal, ought to be joined. For words sounding outwardly profit little the man whom the Holy Spirit does not teach within, as Augustine says, in Epist. I Ioann., tract. III, n. 13: « Behold a great sacrament, brethren. The sound of our words strikes the ears. The Master is within. Do not think that anyone learns anything from man. We can admonish by the noise of our voice: if there be not within him who teaches, our noise becomes vain. » Again, in Ioann. Evang. tract. XXVI, n. 7: « What do men accomplish who announce outwardly? What am I doing now, when I speak? I pour the noise of words into your ears. Unless therefore he who is within reveal it, what do I say, or what do I speak? » And so in many places. Since man consists of body and spirit, in order that he may come to faith and through it to salvation, Christ furnished him with the helps necessary, not only inward but also outward, so that he might perceive the truth both by authority speaking outwardly and by grace illuminating inwardly; which is expressed by the Apostle saying, Rom., X, 17: Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. Therefore the truth is to be sought from those whom he left us as doctors and teachers.

I answer. 2° In particular, to the objected passages. The sense of the words of Christ, Ioann., VII, 17, is that a sure way for finding the truth is a sincere will of knowing and observing the commandments of God. For a perverse affection of the mind so corrupts the judgment of a man that he not only fails to understand the words of God, but does not even receive them with his ear, nor is he moved by the authority of the speaker, though it be confirmed by miracles and by testimonies of every kind, as is clear from the obstinacy of heretics and perverse men in repelling the truth. — If Christ says, ibid., X, 27, of his sheep that they hear his voice and follow not a stranger, the authority of the Church is not attacked by this; for those certainly are not strangers who feed not their own sheep, but Christ's, and lead them not to strange pastures, but to the pastures of Christ. — In the following text, I Ioann., II, 27, John directs such words not to the unlearned, but to the learned, and above all to the masters of the Church, and he exhorts them to remain steadfast in the faith, which, moved and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they received with joyful heart. Thus also the other passage of John and the testimony of the Apostle brought forward, and others that could be adduced, are to be interpreted. For in those places there is question of the interior disposition of the soul, which is indeed necessary in order that the truth may strike roots in the heart and bring forth the fruit of good works.]

I answer. 3°. The judge concerning the true sense of Scripture is the Church; because, as we shall prove below, she is infallible both in proposing the canonical Scriptures and in judging their true sense. Concerning this answer there will be a fuller discussion in the following dissertation.

You will ask 6° whether there are not certain rules for discerning the literal sense of Scripture.

[I answer. The following are commonly assigned. First rule. The sense which the words bear when taken in their proper signification, if it be not absurd, nor repugnant to the dogmas of faith or to the honesty of morals, is the literal sense. It is gathered from Augustine, book III of the De Doctrina christiana, chapter 10, and from book VIII of the De Genesi ad litteram, chapter 7.

Second rule. The literal sense is that which the Church or the unanimous consent of the Fathers holds to be literal. From concil. Trid., session IV, Decree on the edition and use of the sacred books.

This rule was renewed and explained by the Vatican Council, constitution Dei Filius, chapter 2, on Revelation: « Since however what the holy Tridentine Synod decreed salubriously concerning the interpretation of divine Scripture, in order to restrain petulant minds, is wickedly expounded by certain men, we, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its meaning: that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which holy Mother Church held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Sacred Scripture itself against this sense, or even against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. »

Third rule, arising from the first. The sacred text is to be taken in a figurative sense as often as an understanding according to the letter would evidently conflict with faith or good morals. Augustine sets down this rule, book III of the De Doctrina christiana, chapter 11, n. 17: « Whatever is read in the sacred Scriptures, from the person of God or of his saints, that is harsh and seemingly cruel in deed or in word, avails for destroying the kingdom of covetousness. But if it sounds plainly, it is not to be referred to anything else, as though it had been said figuratively. »

Fourth rule. The spiritual sense is founded upon the letter and supposes it. Thus all the Fathers and theologians. St Gregory the Great, book II in Evang., homily 40: « In the words of sacred eloquence, first the truth of history is to be preserved, and afterwards the spiritual understanding of the allegory is to be sought. For then is the fruit of allegory sweetly plucked, when it has first been grounded firmly in the root of truth by the history. »

Fifth rule. All the allegorical interpretations proposed by the sacred writers must be accepted without exception, and allegorical explanations received in the Church, or proposed by the Fathers as pertaining to the tradition of the Church, cannot be rejected without temerity. But the allegories must be natural, not forced.

Sixth rule. One must always stand by the interpretation which agrees better with the text of the Vulgate, which alone the Church declared authentic, although obscure passages can often, and even ought to, be elucidated from the other versions.

Other rules handed down by many fall back into the preceding ones.]