HERMENEUTICS
275
HERMENEUTICS
of opposition may spring from one of three sources:
Scripture may be wrongly interpreted, there may be
a mistake in reputed profane trutli, or finally the proof
establisliing the opposition between profane and Bibli-
cal truth may be fallacious.
(ii) Apparent Opiiosition. — Any statement resting on a faulty text, or an exegesis neglecting one or more of the many hermeneutic rules, cannot be said to be a Biblical truth. On the other hand, a mere theory in philosophy, or a mere hypothesis in science, or again a mere conjecture in history, cannot claim the dignity or right of a profane truth. Many mistakes have been made by Scriptural exegetes, but their num- ber is not greater than that of scientific blunders. But even in cases in which the sense of the Bible is certain, and the reality of the profane truth cannot be doubted, the proof of their mutual opposition may be faulty. It is all the easier to go wrong in the proof of such an opposition, because the language of the Bible is not that of philosophy, or of science, or of the professional historian. The Scriptures do not claim to teach ex professo either philosophical theses, or scientific facts, or historical chronology. The expressions of Scripture must be interpreted in the light of their own age and of their original writer, before they are placed in opposition to any profane truth. There are expressions even in the language of to-day (for instance, the rising and the setting of the sun, etc.) which con- tradict acknowledged scientific truths, if no attention be paid to the conformity of such language with " sen- sible appearances".
(iii) Relation between Hermeneutics and Profane Learning. — What is, therefore, to be the relation be- tween the interpreter and the scientist? (1) It would be wrong to make Scripture the criterion of science, to decide our modern scientific questions from our Biblical data. In certain historical controversies this course may be followed, because some of the books of Scrip- ture are truly historical works. But in scientific ques- tions, it suffices to hold that " in matters of faith and morals" Scripture agrees with the truths of science; and that in other matters. Scripture rightly under- stood does not oppose true scientific results. (2) To- wards the use of profane truths in Biljlical exegesis, the attitude adopted by commentators is not so uni- form. The ultra-conservatives are inclined to explain Scripture without any regard to the progress of pro- fane learning. This method is opposed even to the warning of St. Thomas (I, Q. Ixviii, a. 1). The conser- vatives are prone to adhere to traditional scientific views until such are evidently superseded by modern results; these exegetes expose themselves to the dan- ger of at least seeming defeat — a disgrace which reflects in Biblical exegesis. It is well, therefore, to temper our conservatism with prudence; prescinding from "matters of faith and morals" in which there can be no change, we should be ready to accommodate our exegesis to the progress of historians and scien- tists in their respective fields, showing at the same time that such harmonizing expositions of Scripture repre- sent only a progressive stage in Bible study which will be perfected with the progress of profane learning. To repeat once more, with regard to " matters of faith and morals" there is no progress of the faith in the faithful, but only progress of the faithful in the faith; with regard to other matters, the progress of profane knowledge may throw additional light on the true sense of Sacred Scripture.
(2) Authority of the Church. — Thus far we have con- sidered the inerrancy of the Bible which can never be lost sight of by the believing interpreter; we come now to the question of authority to which the Catholic exegete owes obedience.
(a) Law of the Church.— The Council of Trent (Sess. IV, De edit, et usu ss. 11.) forbids that, in "matters of faith and morals belonging to the building-up of Christian doctrine", the Bible be explained against
the sense held by the Church, or against the unanimous
consent of the Fathers. The Tridentine Confession
of Faith and the Vatican Council (Sess. Ill, Const,
de fide cath., cap. ii) enjoin in a positive form that
in "matters of faith ami morals belonging to the
building-up of Christian doctrine", the Scriptures be
explained according to the teaching of the Church
and the unanimous consent of the Fathers. In the
article Exegesis the rules have been laid down which
will ensure due conformity of C'atholic exegesis with
Catholic and patristic teaching; but little has been
said about the meaning of the clause in matters of
faith and morals" and about the relation of ecclesi-
astical authority to those truths which do not belong
to "matters of faith and morals".
(b) Meaning of "Matters of Faith and Morals". — ■ The phrase "matters of faith and morals" has been com- pared with St. Thomas's truths revealed on their own account as distinct from truths revealed, accidentally as it were, on account of their connexion with the former (II-II, Q. i, a. 6, ad luni); matters not of "faith and morals" have been found in the Angelic Doctor's expression, "in his quie de necessitate fidei non sunt" (II Sent., dist. ii, Q. i, a. .3) ; Vacant extends the words "matters of faith and morals" to the dog- mas of faith and the truths pertaining to the custody of the deposit of faith; Oranderath identifies "matters of faith and morals" with all religious truths as dis- tinct from merely profane verities; Egger is inclined to compri.se under "matters of faith and morals" all revealed truth, and again the whole deposit of faith, in which he includes all Biblical truths; Vinati ap- pears to extend "matters of faith and morals" to all truths that must be believed with Catholic or Divine faith, adding that all Biblical statements fall under these groups; Nisius seems to identify "matters of faith and morals" with the truths contained in the deposit of faith without including all Bililical state- ments in this collection (cf . " Theologische Zeit schrif t ", 1S95, .368 sqq.; 1899, 282 sqq., 460 sqq.; 1900, 672 sqq.; "Science cathoHque", 1900, 500 sqq.; "Hevue biblique", 1900, 135 sqq.). Whatever may be thought of the foregoing opinions, it appears to be clear that "matters of faith and morals" contain all truths that must be believed with either Catholic, Divine, or theological faith. The further clause, pertaining to "the building-up of Christian doctrine", includes all the truths necessarily connected with the Christian system of doctrine and morals whether by way of foundation, or necessary proof, or, again, logical in- ference.
(c) As to Matters not of Faith or Morals. — Certain writers have inferred from the fact that the decrees of the councils do not say anything explicitly about the interpreter's subjection to authority in case of Biblical truths not included among "matters of faith and morals", that the Church has left the commenta- tor perfectly free in this part of Biblical exegesis. The laws of logic hardly justify this inference. On the contrary, logic demands that he should not give any explanation which would not be in keeping with the analogy of faith. The most reasonable view of this question maintains that in matters not of faith or morals the teaching of the Church offers no positive guide to the commentator, but that it supplies a negative aid, inasmuch as it tells the Catholic student that any explanation must be false which is not con- formable with the spirit of the Catholic Faith. To illustrate the foregoing rules, we may consider the attitude of the Bible towards the movement of the earth as involved in the Galileo question: (o) If the Bible evidently teaches the stability of the earth, it ia not permitted by Biblical inerrancy to say that the earth moves; (fi If the Biblical teaching needs any explanation with regard to this point, the question arises whether the stability of the earth belongs to the "matters of faith and morals"; this is a question of
