on the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite. He is now thoroughly discredited, and has probably no longer a single supporter. Yet none of the mystical theology itself has suffered from, or been discredited by, his fall. It must never be forgotten that the position of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to Scripture is different from that of any Protestant body. She claims to have existed before a line of the New Testament was written, to have had authority to determine what was and what was not 'canonical' and 'inspired,' and she still claims full power to place her own interpretation on whatever may therein be contained. She also, very reasonably, regards as God's teaching, his providential action with respect to the foundation, formation, and perfecting of the organisation of the Church herself, and she is thus already provided beforehand with other bases of support than that afforded by the texts to which her theologians or doctors have so frequently appealed. But a much more important matter remains to be noticed: the decrees of Trent and the Vatican really leave, after all, the essence of the question quite unsettled. A distinction has been long familiar to theologians between the parts of Scripture which relate to 'faith and morals' and the rest; the former being spoken of as scripta propter se, and the latter as scripta propter aliud. Now it is simply unquestionable that, as yet, no decree whatever binds. Catholics to regard as inspired anything but such passages as may turn out to have been scripta propter se, and it is, of course, conceivable that they may consist only of brief sentences scattered at wide intervals through the sacred books. In the matter of Biblical criticism Cardinal Newman has himself taken a step 18 which, though a very cautious and short one, as befits his responsible position as a prince of the Church, yet seems to indicate a road along which persons less officially fettered may boldly advance. In the publication referred to he makes 19 the following observations: I am not here affirming or denying that Scripture is inspired in matters of astronomy and chronology, as well as in faith and morals; but I certainly do not see that because inspiration is given for the latter subjects, therefore it extends to the former. As to the restriction of inspiration to faith and morals,' he asks: How otherwise are we to account for the remarkable stress laid on the inspiration of Scripture in matters of faith and morals, both in the Vatican and at Trent, if after all faith and morals, in view of inspiration, are only parts of a larger gift? 18 See his article in the February number of the Nineteenth Century, 1884, and also a postscript thereto (published by Burns & Oates) entitled 'What is of obligation for a Catholic to believe concerning the inspiration of the Canonical Scriptures.' 19 See his Postscript, pp. 8, 10, 11, 23, 24, and 25. Otherwise, he continues: What is gained by singling out faith and morals as the legitimate province of inspiration?... It is a paradox to say that the Vatican declarations about Scripture are in their wording so much of a facsimile of the Tridentine only because they mean so very little. Even when a phrase is not easy to translate, the identity is preserved; for instance, the clause 'in rebus fidei et morum, ad ædificationem doctrina christianæ pertinentium,' not 'pertinentibus,' is found in both Councils. As to the nature and extent of inspiration he pertinently adds: Inspiration of Scripture in omnibus suis partibus is one thing; in omnibus rebus is another. It is, indeed, a fact which no one can truthfully deny that there is as yet no decision as to what the word 'inspiration' really means. Is it compatible with error? The idea that it is so may at first seem absurd, but on no hypothesis can it be considered as a gift confined to good men; for, as the Cardinal significantly remarks, 'Balaam and Caiaphas' were inspired,' and he contends that, since it is evident that the Holy Spirit does not hinder varieties and errors in transcribers of Scripture, it is not clear that even the original writers If we had literally should have been altogether freed from error. to believe what the Bible says, we should be compelled to affirm that God himself hardened the heart of Pharaoh' and prompted, rewarded, or condoned mendacity on many occasions-notably in the instances of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Jael and Judith. Indeed no one who maintains the old-fashioned view of Biblical inspiration can venture to deny, in the face of the 24th verse of the xxii. chapter of the 1st Book of Kings, the shocking statement that God not only could, but actually did, inspire prophets who prophesied falsely, and not only could, but actually did, allow men to be thus deceived. As I have said, no one at present knows what the term 'inspiration' really signifies, while no reasonable person, even though not a Christian, can deny that in some sense the Scriptures are inspired' -that they contain a vast deal more that is likely to be of value to man than any other body of religious literature. If, then, Catholics at present are free to hold as inspired, in some undefined sense of that word, only certain portions, or passages, of the books set before them as canonical, then no difficulty to faith can arise from any historical research whatever, and no detriment to science can spring from any such religious belief. But, in fact, principles are already freely admitted which are amply sufficient to insure our complete scientific freedom in this matter; for if any Scripture narrative is detailed and distinct, it is that of the deluge, which is also referred to in the New Testament. Nevertheless no one now,20 of any account, even professes to believe 20 Anyone interested in seeing the absurd lengths to which a childlike faith may carry well-meaning people is referred to a variety of letters on this subject which appeared in the first quarter of the Tablet of 1884. the truth of the narrative we read, although it may be based on a tradition of some considerable local inundation.21 But if an inspired narrative, which has God for its author, can be thus deemed entirely unhistorical and untrustworthy, without prejudice to Catholicism, why may not the various other narratives which Kuenen, Wellhausen, Colenso, and Reuss criticise be unhistorical likewise? I recollect that, as long ago as when I was a boy at Oscott, I was taught that the book of Jonah was only a parable,22 and, as a very learned priest observed to me only a few days ago, God can teach us by symbols as well as by facts, ideal characters can serve for instruction as well -as real ones.' A man must be blind who does not see that the Bible, as a fact, has served in a supreme degree to promote the religious education of the world, to encourage belief in the Fatherhood of God, and has, by both stimulating and satisfying the conscience, most powerfully made for righteousness.' What, then, if the advance of critical science shows that many events deemed miraculous were not so, or never even took place at all, or that utterances for centuries deemed prophetical were not really such? The Scripture has none the less served its purpose by having arrested attention to, overcome prejudice against, and compelled belief in, permanent religious truths which might otherwise have failed to attain that hold on the Christian world they have in fact attained; nor can a Theist refuse to regard as providential the times and modes of the promulgation, preservation, and temporary, most reasonable, acceptance in their entirety, of the books which constitute the Bible. No Theist, who must believe that a Divine purpose underlies and manifests itself in the course of human history, can fail to regard such a book as inspired, and as a priceless guide to faith and morals, whatever may have been the number of its writers, the order, method, or date of composition of its various parts, or the extent or number of emendations, recensions, and additions it may have undergone and received. Nor can even the greatest stickler for literalism deny it to be a fact that our knowledge of truth in relation to the Bible has gained by the increase of scientific knowledge, nor that such gain was intended and is the result of a Divine purpose. The liberating influences of the instructive case of Galileo are thus wonderfully supplemented by the advance of historical science, 21 I well recollect dining at a priest's house (in or about 1870), when one of the party, the late accomplished Mr. Richard Simpson of Clapham (a most pious Catholic and weekly communicant), expressed some ordinary scientific views on the subject of the deluge. A startled auditor asked anxiously, 'But is not, then, the account in the Bible of the deluge true?' To which Mr. Simpson replied, 'True! Of course it is true. There was a local inundation, and some of the sacerdotal caste saved themselves in a punt, with their cocks and hens.' 22 That wide views are also now practically tolerated by authority in England is shown by the publication of a very remarkable article on the Pentateuch,' published in the Tablet for June 12, 1886, vol. xxxv. p. 928. VOL. XXII.-No. 125. E and any fear which the weak amongst Catholics might feel as to the harmony of modern criticism with their religion is shown to be unnecessary by our experience as to that never-to-be-forgotten case. For, as I before pointed out,23 God has taught us by the actual facts of the history of Galileo that it is to men of science that He has committed the elucidation of scientific questions, scriptural or otherwise, and not to a consensus of theologians, or to ecclesiastical assemblies or tribunals. Such authorities at that time sought to impose, and more or less succeeded in imposing, on Catholics a belief as to God's word which was erroneous, and it was men of science alone who delivered them from it. Similarly, it is the men of historical science now, and not theologians or congregations, who are putting us in the way of apprehending, with some approach to accuracy, what the truth is as to the dates, authorities, and course of development of the writings which were inspired, for our spiritual profit. These instances have an especial value since they appear to give (as regards questions of science) the coup de grâce to those two bugbears of timid Catholics which are known as a consensus of theologians' and the ordinary teaching.' Nothing will one day appear more strange and unreasonable than the opinion that a body of men, admittedly fallible, could not by any possibility have fallen into a common error, due to a common ignorance about matters of which it was impossible for them without a miracle to have any knowledge whatever; or that the ordinary teaching of such men need not have been limited by their very limited knowledge. True, doctors of divinity know well that theology' is not infallible,' and that what has been universally taught for centuries may not have a shadow of foundation in fact. We thus seem-as I before pointed out in the case of Galileo-to be most happily liberated from every bond save the formal decrees of the Sovereign Pontiff teaching the whole Church ex cathedra as to faith and morals. And to that benign and sagacious rule his spiritual children may look with the fullest trust and confidence. For, little by little, the invincible advance of historical, as of other, science permeates and transforms the whole Catholic body, and ultimately reacts upon its supreme head. While the general sentiment of Catholics remains unchanged, the Holy See remains, as a rule, sympathetically unaltering in its action. But it follows, with attention, though slowly and warily, the course of scientific thought and investigation. It cannot be expected to anticipate by positive pronouncements what is greatly in advance of general Catholic opinion. I have what seems to me sufficient evidence that broad views are not in disfavour at the Vatican, though sudden or abrupt action is neither to be expected nor desired. It is amply sufficient if a gradual change in the knowledge, the ideas, and 23 Nineteenth Century, July 1885, p. 41. the convictions of the Catholic body in due time overcomes a natural reluctance to forsake a beaten path, and by degrees induces conformity to a new environment. The slow, silent, indirect action of public opinion does in time infallibly produce its effect; and if now and again authority has yielded unduly to retrograde and obstructive influences, yet, as experience has shown us with respect to Copernicanism, it may end by thoroughly adopting what was at first resisted and denounced. No doubt it may astonish and vex some persons to be told that he who is officially the leader allows himself thus to be led. But he does so by a wise prescience which is the ordinary characteristic of the Supreme Pontiff. The Vatican decree as to Papal infallibility does not invest the Pope with any higher power than that which was before recognised as pertaining to the Universal Church. Yet that Church never claimed inspiration, but only a certain assistance,' which in no way dispensed it from making use of all ordinary human means of arriving at truth; and the Pope, therefore, must employ such ordinary human means also. The very possession of a recognised official infallibility is likewise a strong guarantee for extreme prudence on the part of supreme authority. The Holy See is no mere head of any school of philosophy, and no slave to the opinions or interests of any party of the Church, least of all of narrow-minded dogmatists. Papal Rome is essentially a spiritually imperial power, and its great task is to preserve the organic union of Christendom. And all men are debtors to the Papal chair for the course it has thus, on the whole, pursued. By maintaining the Catholic Church in one close-knit organisation, it has alone been able to preserve, through barbarous ages, the essentials of Christianity; and by upholding, as it has upheld, not only the idea, but the existence, of a Church essentially extra-national and aspiring to be universal, the Holy See has set before the world an ideal of the very highest moral significance. A ruling power of this kind is not likely voluntarily to narrow the basis of a world-wide sway. We cannot, therefore, refuse to believe that there is in store for the Catholic world a transformation of opinion in the domains of history and criticism, similar to the transformations which it has antecedently experienced in the fields of astronomical, geological, and biological science. ST. GEORGE MIVART. |