the Fathers were to agree on the subject as completely as in fact they differ, if a unanimis consensus patrum were to exist about it, the Catholic exegete would yet be free to hold another opinion; for this question has nothing to do with the rebus fidei et morum. But a consensus patrum never could exist about such questions, and therefore if, as S. Thomas observes, we find in the first chapter of Genesis much which has been variously explained by the holy Fathers and other expounders, this only proves, first, that these passages and expressions are capable of divers interpretations; and secondly, that in explaining these passages and expressions we are left on the whole unfettered by theology.

S. Thomas therefore teaches this. Whatever is of dogmatic importance in the Hexameron is declared clearly and decidedly; whatever is not of dogmatic importance is mentioned by the Bible correctly no doubt, because it is inspired, but obscurely and ambiguously, so that its words allow of several interpretations, and this because it is not intended to instruct us on non-religious questions. By reason of the inspired character of the Bible, therefore, we may expect to find no errors even in natural science; by reason of the religious character of the Bible, we must not expect to find in the Hexameron anything which is new and cannot be discerned by the ordinary man respecting the sciences of astronomy, geology, etc.; because the Bible is not intended to instruct us about science, and its expressions on the subject are not so clear and unequivocal as those which concern theology.

You will see at once after what I have said, that the opinions of Kurtz as expressed in the following quota

tion completely agree with those of the prince of schoolmen which I have just described to you :

"A physical element may no doubt be conceivably interwoven with the revelation of religious truth, either as the necessary means through which the latter is revealed, or as the more accidental foil and background of these truths. The subject of revelation is the religious and ethical bearing of the natural things whose physical condition is the subject of science. Now the relation of the two may be such, that a false account of the latter would pervert and disturb the former. So, for example, the physical condition of the universe, the different functions of the separate heavenly bodies, their relation to each other, and so on, has undoubtedly a religious importance, which as such might very well be itself the object of revelation, in so far as this knowledge would give us a deeper, wider, or clearer insight into the Divine Cosmos. But even in such cases revelation would neither convey nor wish to convey physical teaching; it would never induce the faithful believer to give up any error in physical science which he might hold, nor would it enable him on any occasion to anticipate the discoveries of human science. Revelation abstains from any teaching in such cases, for it is not its object to reveal at once everything which is of religious importance. It is more like a teacher who does not impart to the child at once everything which he knows himself, but each time only so much as is necessary for its further education, and for which it has been prepared by former teaching. In Holy Scripture all future science can find a place; it has made no mistake, no new science

can cry out to it 'si tacuisses.' It is by this means that it shows its divine character in dealing with questions of natural science. But we are assured that at some time, in the life eternal, a far higher and more comprehensive revelation will correct the errors of our scientific knowledge, will supply its defects, and will unfold to us its higher religious signification."1

We may therefore expect that the explanation of that part of the Hexameron which is not purely dogmatic cannot in one respect produce a perfectly satisfactory result. While we can with certainty point out the religious truths that are taught in the Hexameron, we cannot with equal certainty say what scientific truths there are in it; for it is not the aim of the Bible to teach us about such things; indeed, it only mentions them in so far as they are necessary for its object, i.e. the imparting of religious truths.

The statements about natural things are therefore uncertain, partial, and ambiguous; nor do the usual exegetical methods enable us to make them more decided, complete, and unequivocal; for exegesis can only explain what Scripture says, and cannot add what it does not say. If, therefore, we wish for a certain and complete history of the development of Creation, the Bible alone cannot give us this, because it is neither its vocation nor its object to do so. It only remains for us, therefore, to fill in and correct the uncertain, partial, and ambiguous notices in the Bible by the results of scientific inquiry. Now, if we do this, we obtain a combined statement which is drawn from two But here also there are difficulties; for while

sources.

1 Bibel und Astronomie, p. 10.

we have God's warrant for the truth of that which is taken from Scripture, the conclusions of natural science, which are not taken from the Bible, can only claim human certainty or probability; and it might possibly happen that in the further course of scientific inquiry, we might find that what we have accepted as a certain conclusion is doubtful or erroneous, and that therefore the above-mentioned combined statement must be given up again. The theologian, therefore, cannot insist too strongly on the necessity of separating theology from natural science, in order that its doctrines should not be mixed up with scientific truths, and especially that the character of theological truths should not be given to the latter, however probable they may seem. S. Augustine and S. Thomas warn us very urgently to be careful in this matter. The latter says, "We must steadily hold the doctrines which are plainly taught in Holy Writ. But where the words of Scripture are capable of various interpretations, we must consider well before we accept one explanation as being correct, and put aside all the others as quite inadmissible; for it is possible that the explanation of the passage in question which we believe to be correct, might on further investigation turn out to be false; and then the authority of Holy Scripture might be compromised by the caprice of the commentator." In another place S. Thomas says, "It is also very unwise to decide from a theological point of view things which do not belong to dogma; that is to say, to assert that one opinion is theologically right and another theologically wrong. We may make use of any facts 1 1. q. 68, a. 1 c.

1

won by non-theological inquiry which do not contradict the truths of our faith, but we should neither set up facts so obtained as theological truths, nor brand them as opposed to dogma."1 S. Augustine says,2 if a Christian teach erroneous scientific views, he may be laughed at; but if he say that these erroneous opinions are supported by the Bible, he is much to blame; for many a one who knows no better might suppose that the Bible really teaches such things. The exegete must therefore firmly insist on all the dogmatic elements in the Hexameron, but he must not pronounce more decidedly than does Holy Scripture on all that is only connected with dogma per accidens. He will therefore have to content himself with saying: the words of Scripture, looked at exegetically, allow of the following interpretations-which of these interpretations is right, I, as an exegete, do not know, and human inquiry must ascertain in another way. So long as the limits of human inquiry are not reached,and they have unfortunately not yet been attained,—I must hold myself so far neutral as not to confirm any of the conclusions of geology, etc., by means of the Bible. I can only say and prove this—the Bible leaves room for the results so far arrived at, it has many blank leaves which natural science may fill in, it says so little about natural things that up to this time natural science has never been able to say: Si tacuisses!

1 Opusc. X. And Aug. de gen. ad lit. 2. 18, 38: Nihil credere de re obscura temere debemus, ne forte, quod postea veritas patefecerit, quamvis libris sanctis sive Testamenti V. sive N. nullo modo esse possit adversum, tamen propter amorem nostri erroris oderimus.

De gen. ad lit. 1. 19, 39.