man.

largest, and the moon the second largest star of the heavens, it would be just as absurd to blame Moses, or the Spirit which inspired him, because he let pass unused the splendid opportunity of improving the astronomical ideas of the Jews. It is quite immaterial whether the readers of the Bible believe this or that star to be the greater, if only they learn and believe that it is God who has created the stars both great and small, and made them shine for the use and delight of When, therefore, the Bible speaks of the things of nature as they appear to the eye of man, these conceptions, although they are, as has been said, relatively justifiable, are in no way to be considered as absolutely correct, and we must take care not to treat them as scriptural; they are the conceptions of the natural man as distinguished from the man of science, and the Bible, although placing itself in this respect in the position of the natural man, gives them no more authority than they intrinsically possess. Nor, however, do such popular superficial expressions involve a contradiction between nature and the Bible; the latter does not profess to be scientifically correct in such things, it professes only to be easily understood by the natural

man.

So much may be conceded by the exegete to the man of science, and the following quotations from one or two older theologians of undoubted orthodoxy will prove that such concessions are neither new nor hazardous. S. Jerome, who is honoured by the Church as "the greatest commentator on the Bible," may speak for the Fathers. He says, "Many things are expressed in Scripture according to the opinion of the times in

which they were written, and not according to the truth-Multa in scripturis sanctis dicuntur juxta opinionem illius temporis, quo gesta referuntur, et non juxta quod rei veritas continebat."1 S. Thomas Aquinas may stand as the representative of the Middle Ages. In his Summa he briefly dismisses an objection which might be based on the literal interpretation of a Biblical passage in these words, "Secundum opinionem populi loquitur scriptura,-Scripture here makes use of a popular expression, which must not be strained." 2 S. Thomas observes repeatedly, and especially when explaining the history of creation, that the Scriptures adapt themselves to the reader's power of comprehension.3

1 Jer. xxviii. 10, 11; cf. in Matt. xiv. 8.

21. 2. q. 98, a. 3 ad 2.

...

1e.g. 1. q. 68, a. 3 c.; q. 70, a. 1 ad 3. The astronomer Kepler observes on this point, " Astronomy discloses the causes of natural things ; it examines optical illusions ex professo. Holy Scripture, which teaches higher things, makes use of the ordinary forms of speech in order to be understood, and speaks quite incidentally about natural things as they appear, as in that way ordinary language has been formed. Scripture would express itself in the same way, even if all men understood the optical illusions. For we astronomers do not cultivate astronomy in order to change the ordinary form of speech, but we wish to open the doors of truth without affecting language. We say with the multitude, the planets stand still, go back, . . . the sun rises and sets, it mounts to the middle of the sky, etc. We say this with the multitude, just as it appears to our eyes, although, as all astronomers agree, it is not in the least true. Much less can we require that the divinely-inspired Scripture should neglect ordinary language, and model its words according to natural science, confusing the simple people of God with dark and unsuitable expressions about things beyond the comprehension of the uneducated, and thereby itself shutting out its own much more lofty aim."-Epitome Astronomia Copernicanæ, p. 138. "Supposing that the founder of a faith like Moses possessed all the modern knowledge of astronomy and geology, what use would it have been, or rather what harm would it not have done, if he had spoken in the language of Copernicus, Newton, Laplace, Werner, L. von Buch, or Sir Charles Lyell? He would certainly have been misunderstood and despised for 2000 years,

The supernatural religious teaching which is the task of Scripture, is not often closely connected in the Bible with the occasional and indirect allusions to natural things; and after what has been said, such passages are of no great difficulty compared to the Hexameron. But here we find a whole chapter in which the Bible treats of a subject on which it usually only touches occasionally and slightly. Certainly here also the first object is religious dogmatic instruction, but it is in this case completely interwoven with an account of events in the realm of nature. The foregoing general discussion will enable us in some measure to decide beforehand what quantity of information concerning natural things we may expect to find in the Hexameron, and what its character will be.

I have already quoted an instance from the first chapter of Genesis, in which the Bible adapts its expression to the ordinary popular idea; it speaks of two great lights in the heavens, apart from the other stars; and this not because the sun and moon are in reality the largest stars, but because they appear so to us, and when we are not speaking astronomically we call them so. We shall find other similar expressions, and during our explanation of the Hexameron we shall be justified in applying the standard by which we judge a popular account of the events and appearances in nature, and not that by which we judge the account given us by a savant.

Further, with reference to the Hexameron, we must,

and all this only to give some satisfaction in the nineteenth century; for by the twentieth much of the satisfaction of the nineteenth would have been lost."-Ausland, 1861, p. 410.

with S. Thomas Aquinas,' make the following distinction. Some of the things which are therein related to us belong ad substantiam fidei, they are essentially of a theological and dogmatic character, especially those statements which occur in the first verse of Genesis, that the world has a beginning, and has been created. Other things which are related in the Hexameron are not in themselves of a theological or dogmatic character, and therefore do not belong per se ad fidem; but because they are combined with the dogmatic statements in the Biblical account, they belong per accidens ad fidem. Genesis does not only say that the world was created by God,-which, properly speaking, if taken strictly, constitutes dogma,-but it also describes the manner and order in which the world was created; and if this description is not in itself of a dogmatic or theological character, it yet partakes of it because it is combined in Holy Writ with statements which are purely theological. Now, with reference to the first and strictly theological statements, proceeds S. Thomas, no one must have any opinion concerning them but the established, traditional, ecclesiastical one. The Bible here treats of its own special subject, that of the truths of faith, and therefore its expressions are clear and decided; the meaning of its words in this respect is clear to every impartial reader; they have always been understood in one certain sense both by the Jews in olden time and by the Christians later; there is a unanimis consensus patrum with reference to their meaning, and there is a traditional interpretation which, according to the rules of Catholic hermeneutics,

In 1. 2. Sent. dist. 12. art. 2.

is binding on the exegete. It is otherwise with the other elements of the Hexameron, with the statements and expressions which do not refer actually to dogma, but to the natural things connected with it. With reference to these things, says S. Thomas, the account given in the Bible is differently explained by the Fathers. This observation is somewhat superficial but quite accurate. The separation of light from darkness, of water from land, and similar things which are related in the Hexameron, have no dogmatic importance per se, but only per accidens, in so far as they are combined with the dogmatic statement that the world was created by God. Holy Writ need therefore only express itself clearly and unequivocally about these things when they are connected with dogma. But it is not the aim of Holy Writ to teach things that are of interest only to the natural philosopher, and not to the theologian, and therefore it is not necessary that it should express itself clearly and completely about them, as its teaching is to be altogether theological and not scientific. Now things which by their nature are not the objects of Biblical revelation, cannot either be the objects of ecclesiastical tradition; therefore a consensus patrum or an ecclesiastical decision can no more exist about questions of science than about questions of medicine or grammar. The Church is the infallible interpreter of Holy Writ, but only in rebus fidei et morum. Savants may discuss the meaning of the Hebrew word Kikajon, and decide what kind of tree or shrub it was, under which Jonah, according to the Biblical account, awaited the fall of Nineveh ; a council will never decide these questions, and even if