Holy Scripture. It is the name that Christians give to canonical books of the Old and New Testament inspired by the Holy Spirit. They have also simply been called Scripture , and, most characteristically, as is said, the Bible, Biblia , the Books .

A great number of questions concerning Holy Scripture have already been treated thoroughly and at length in preceding volumes, in the articles Bible, Canon, Canonical, Sacred Chronology, Deutero-Canonical, etc., and we refer the readers to them in order not to fall into repetition. We will here limit ourselves solely to some general issues common to all the books that, taken together, form Holy Scripture , or the canon of the Scriptures , namely: the authenticity of the Holy Books; the divinity of their origins; the distinctions among the various meanings that are met in it; and the authority of Holy Scripture in matters of doctrine.

I. The authenticity of the Holy Books requires for Christians no other proofs beyond the judgment and decision of the Church, which, in inserting these books into the canon or index of Scriptures , declared with an authority sufficient for the faithful and with well-justified motive, that these books had been inspired, had been written by the authors whose name they bear, and had not been either fraudulent with regard to their origins or interpolated or corrupted in the course of the centuries. But that assertion is inadequate for unbelievers, and it is necessary to demonstrate by the standard rules of criticism that the Books that we call divine have not been either forged or modified, and that they are not the simple work of men. Without that, what force will all the arguments drawn from the Holy Books have in the eyes of the man disposed and even dedicated to contesting everything? The greatest difficulty is that these books, cited at the slightest provocation, as is obvious, by the Christians and Jews as proof of received dogma or morality by the one and the other, or among the two peoples together, have never been known or preserved except among them and that they have too much of an interest not to sanctify them in order to justify either dogma which appalls reason, or a morality contrary to humanity. Confined to a corner of the world, what vestiges of these Books, one adds, can be found in pagan antiquity or shrouded in the obscurity of Judaism, and even of nascent Christianity? Besides, they say, who will verify that these Books, wholly divine in their origin, have not been altered by self-interest, bad faith, a spirit of partisanship or any of the other passions of men? Are examples of this sort lacking? Finally, do these writings, considered by themselves, carry the imprint and seal of divinity? In the substance of the material and style, do they not announce often enough that they are purely the work of man, and even sometimes of mediocre enough writers?

These problems deserve a much better, more sound response than those one reads or hears suggested every day. I thus, in general, respond to the unbelievers, that short of falling into universal historical Pyrrhonism, the authenticity of the divine Books cannot be denied because they have been kept, not uniquely (note this) but particularly, by one sole nation interested in citing them as confirmation of its doctrine. Have not all people regulated their religion, have they not preserved in their archives the documents and the vital works which give evidence in favor of their religion? Must one proceed to search for proofs of it in the public acts of a foreign nation or one unknown to it? Would it be permissible to say to a Muslim that the Qur'an is not authentic because from its origin the Mohammedans have been its trustee, that they cite it as proof of their doctrine, that they preserve it with respect, whereas it is the object of mere curiosity or contempt among partisans of all other religions? Such reasoning would doubtless be neither equitable nor just, and it would in no way prove that the Qur'an had not been written by Mohammed or compiled by his first disciples. Secondly, the authority of a book, or its implications, do not depend on the nature of the things it contains, true or false, absurd or likely, clear or obscure, mysterious or comprehensible; that contributes nothing to the matter. It remains only to decide by whom and at what time this or that work was written. As soon as the origin of a work can be traced back to a written tradition perpetuated from age to age among a people or within a society which professes one or another religion, and its author can be cited, and a crowd of writers constantly swear in its favor, that is enough to convince any sensible man. For example, has anyone ever denied that Titus Livy wrote the history that is attributed to him, even though it contains miraculous and unbelievable features, such as that it rained rocks, that statues talked or sweated blood, etc. Has it been cast into doubt that Plutarch was the author of the lives of illustrious men because he narrated marvels or facts which outrage verisimilitude, such as the battles of Marathon, of Plataea, of Orchomene, etc., where a handful of people defeated countless armies, and littered the earth with more than fifty thousand dead without losing more than a thousand men? Moral certitude being founded only on the uniformity of evidence, the same rules of criticism which prove the authenticity of secular authors demonstrate in favor of the sacred writers. One notes in this what success the pretensions of a modern critic, who maintains that all secular works were supposedly written by imposters, have had. Third, while the pagan authors have in no way made mention of the sacred Books, this silence has only created a negative argument, which has only very feebly counterbalanced the soundness of positive proof. One would have to be very poorly versed in the study of antiquity to claim that the divine Books, whether Jewish or Christian, had been unknown to the pagans: for without speaking of the books of the New Testament, concerning which Celsius and Porphery had prepared a coherent refutation, and that Julian, in some of his letters, straightforwardly attributed to the Evangelists or to other Apostles whose names they bear, let us pause at the Books of the Old Testament, and among those at the oldest of all, which is to say the Pentateuch . What a multitude of lay writers recognize the existence of Moses and the antiquity of his Books! Among them are the Egyptian priest Manethon, Cleodeme, Apollonius Molon, Cheremon the Egyptian, Nicholas of Damascus, Appion of Alexandria (against whom the historian Josephus wrote), Philochore of Athens, Castor of Rhodes, Diodorus of Sicily (cited by Saint Justin in his Hortatory Address to the Greeks ), Ptolemy of Mendes (cited by Saint Clement of Alexandria in Book I Stromat ), Eupoleme, Alexander Polyhistor, and Numenius (cited by Eusebius, book IX Praeparatio evangelica ), Strabo, Geography book XVI, Juvenal, Satires XIV, Tacitus, Histories book V, Galen of Pergamum, De Pulsibus book III and De usu partium corporis humani book XI chapter XIV, Longinus, On the sublime chapter VII, Calcidius, Porphyry, Julian the Apostate, and several others whose texts are recorded by Huet in his Demonstration of the Gospels or by Grotius in his excellent treatise On the Truth of the Christian Religion . The allegation of the unbelievers, founded on the silence of the lay writers, is therefore obviously false; but even if it had a little justification, it would still not prove anything against the authenticity of the divine Scriptures . Fourth, one argues in vain that the Books had perhaps been altered, corrupted, or falsified by self-interest, bad faith, partisanship, etc. That I agree could happen, and is not without example for an obscure, immaterial work that had no essential interest for all of a society. But for a work deposited in the archives of a nation, shared, so to speak, with all individuals, that is at the same time the repository of dogma and the code of laws, how could it be susceptible to corruption or alteration? In effect, such alteration or corruption would be the result of a conspiracy of the entire society, or the carrying out of a project thought up by several individuals; however, both the one and the other are impossible. Let us select for example the Pentateuch. It was recognized from the lifetime of Moses as a divine Book. Suppose that after his death all the Hebrew people had conspired to falsify or alter that Book; the people would therefore have been extremely inept, since they left intact all that which would cover them with perpetual infamy: the crimes of their fathers and their own offenses; the incest of Judah; the cruelty of the children of Jacob against the Shechemites; their perfidy and their barbarism toward their brother Joseph; and, after the departure from Egypt, their murmurs against God in the desert, their frequent revolts and sedition against Moses, their penchant for idolatry, their obstinacy, and a thousand other equally dishonorable traits. This is what passion, self-interest, and a partisan spirit, however little they might have been enlightened, would not have failed to suppress with the general consent of the nation. The matter became even more impossible after the schism among the ten tribes. The kingdom of Israel and that of Judah equally retained the Pentateuch; however little one of the two nations might have wished to alter it, the other would have immediately complained with all the vehemence that diversity of opinions in matters of religion furnishes. The same reason has equal weight for the times that followed the captivity. The ten tribes that had remained in Assyria, and the new inhabitants of Samaria, who preserved the Pentateuch written in ancient Hebrew characters, would not have failed to convict Efdras of imposture if he had changed the least thing in the new edition of the Pentateuch, which he gave to the Jews in Chaldean text. An alteration of the Pentateuch done with the general consent of the whole Jewish nation is therefore a chimera. It is even more foolish to pretend that it has been the work of several individuals. On what authority would they have undertaken such an innovation? Who would have asked for it? By what method would they have altered without any inconsistencies all the copies, those each citizen might possess as well as those deposited in public archives, and especially in the Ark of the Covenant? The same reasoning is perfectly applicable to the Books of the New Testament: the churches that were their trustees would not have been able to falsify them with common consent without exciting against themselves the same heretics who, from the first centuries of the church, preserved authentic copies of these Books. A stronger reason individuals would never have dared to attempt a similar innovation is that a general outcry would have been raised against such an attempt as has occurred every time the Jews or the heretics wished to alter, however little, the meaning of the divine Books. An alleged alteration is thus an unsustainable thesis that no one sets forth clearly elsewhere either in terms of the time or the place or the authors or the style, and that has no other foundation than the presumption with which it is advanced, regarding either fundamentals or circumstances. Fifth, finally the question arising from the style of the Scriptures is not any more viable, for, as we will set out in a moment, either the Holy Spirit, when inspiring the sacred writers about fundamental matters, left them free concerning the choice of expression, or it inspired them equally regarding the one and the other point. Either of these is possible. The interpreters and theologians have divided with regard to this without the faith declining, for in either the Scriptures are sheltered from the objections of the unbelievers. In the first, they are divine according to their principles, and according to their basics; in the second they are also divine according to the richness of style in which they appear. In fact, in no way is it really necessary that all the contents of the divine writings be expressed in a lofty manner in order to prove their divinity or authenticity. The mysteries are expressed with a kind of abstruseness because they are the source of faith, not of reason or of obvious fact. The rules of observance are expressed in a clear, precise and sententious manner, as so many precepts or admonitions that must be implanted easily in the memory in order to be recalled immediately. Facts are recounted in it with that noble simplicity so known among the ancients, so suited to portraying without bias or affectation, and at the same time so inappropriate in concealing truth. Finally, when it concerns proclaiming to people their destinies, to Israel its reprobation, and to the world its deliverer, what grand features, what images are in the Prophets! Speaking as a man, I ask of the unbelievers what they find better in the secular writers, and if the eloquence of the Canticle of Moses, of David, of Isaiah, of Saint John the Baptist, of Jesus Christ, of Saint Paul is not worth more than the eloquence or the urbanity of Plato, the vehemence of Demosthenes, and the abundant elegance of Cicero. It is necessary to have very uncertain rules of taste or strange prejudices to admire the latter when the sacred authors are sometimes treated as mediocre . But we will go on to examine this matter more deeply in a moment.

II. The solution to the question of the divinity of the Scriptures depends on one single point, on the opinion that one holds on the way that they emanated either from God as first or efficient cause, or from men as secondary or instrumental causes. Indeed, all Christians admit that Holy Scripture is the word of God, but the theologians have divided over the particular fashion through which God himself chose to transmit it to men. Some claim that all the sacred writers of the Books of Scripture had been inspired by the Holy Spirit not only in terms of basic content and thought, but again in terms of style and expression; others assert that the inspiration was limited to thoughts without extending to style, which the Holy Spirit left to the choice of others. Some modern theologians at the end of the sixteenth century proposed that a simple direction or assistance by the Holy Spirit would be sufficient for the divinity of Scripture , but that inspiration properly speaking would not in any way be necessary for all the sentences and truths contained in the holy books. They go further and claim that a book such as perhaps the second of Maccabees prepared by human skill became holy scripture when the Holy Spirit later affirmed that it contained nothing false . That would be to reduce the divinity of Scripture to the smallest of things; hence the Faculty of Theology of Louvain rose up against that doctrine and censured it in 1588. Grotius only allowed that the sacred writers represented a pious movement, without inspiration, direction, or assistance. Spinoza, in his theological-political treatise (chapters XI and XII), acknowledged no inspiration, even among the Prophets. Simon, in his critical history of the New Testament (chapters XXIII and XXIV), declared himself against the doctors of Louvain. Nevertheless, he recognized that the Holy Spirit was the author of all Holy Scripture , either by inspiration or instinct or individual assistance, the nature of which Simon does not expand upon enough. Whatever he might make of it, he asserts that the spirit of God assisted the sacred writers, not only in their thoughts but also in their style, so much that they were protected from all error that could have come from forgetfulness or attention lapses. Le Clerc advanced a daring theory concerning the origin of the Scriptures that differs in hardly anything from that of Spinoza. Here is in substance what can be found of it in a collection of letters printed under the title of Sentimens de quelques théologiens de Hollande (letter xi). The anonymous author (Le Clerc) whose opinions are related in that letter, claims that one does not have to acknowledge any supernatural help or special assistance among the sacred authors unless in a very rare and unique case. He said that the sacred historians only had need of their memory while also using all the care and accuracy that is demanded from those who take part in writing history. With regard to the prophets, he acknowledged that there must have been something supernatural in the visions with which they had been favored, and that the Lord appeared to them to demonstrate certain hidden truths, or to reveal to them some great mysteries. But he saw nothing out of the ordinary in the manner in which the prophets wrote their visions; they only had need, according to him, of their memory in order to remember what had been shown to them while they were awake or in their sleep. It would be unnecessary, he added, for their memories to be aided by any supernatural assistance; one easily retains what has made a deep impression on the imagination, and what has been profoundly etched in the memory; the visions that God accorded to the prophets naturally produced these effects. This author further claimed that what the prophets had said naturally and without inspiration would be a true prophecy in a different sense, one to which the prophet would give no attention. He cites as proof the example of the great priest Caiaphas who prophesized against his will and without perceiving the meaning of what he said, when he uttered that phrase concerning Jesus Christ, “ it is necessary that a man die for all the people .” Such is the theory of Le Clerc.

Before undertaking the proof of the inspiration of the Scriptures and their objective, it is useful to explain several terms relative to the subject that we have already employed, and to make several necessary distinctions to avoid any confusion of ideas.

It is understood that revelation means the manifestation of an unknown thing, whether it has always been unknown, or whether it has become forgotten after it was known.

Inspiration is an inner impulse of the Holy Spirit that directs an author to write and guides him in such a manner when he writes that it at least suggests to him thoughts and preserves him from all danger of straying from the truth.

Assistance or direction is God’s aid through which those who render judgment on various truths of religion cannot stray from the true way or be deceived in their decision. It is this aid that the Catholics accept as having been promised to the church and that renders it infallible when it makes a decision in a general council, or when, without being assembled, it gives its consent to what had been decided by the Holy See or in some special council, as occurred with regard to the second council of Orange concerning matters of grace.

The pious impulse considered acceptable to Grotius and others comes from heaven; it stimulates the author to write and grants him the thought and the will not to get the predetermined plan wrong, without, however, assuring him of special protection that would protect him against all error.

One differentiates in Scripture between things and terms that formulate things. The things contained in Scripture are histories, prophecies, or doctrines; and these are either philosophical and have for a subject the mechanism or the structure of the world, or theological, that divides into speculative , when they have God as a subject without influence on mores, or into practices , when they have as subject the duties of mankind. The terms of Scripture are the words that served the sacred authors. The order and relationship among the terms form what is called the style of the holy Books.

These notions presuppose the Catholic theologians agreeing generally enough that, as for things and thoughts, the holy Books had been divinely inspired, since, in order to write them, assistance and pious impulse were insufficient for the sacred writers and they required true inspiration. But, as this is a point not capable of proof according to the pure light of reason, they have recourse, in order to prove it, to the authority of Scripture itself and to that of the Fathers. First, Scripture itself acknowledges the fact that it had been inspired by God. All Scripture divinely inspired, said St. Paul, II Timothy 3:16 (in Greek θεόπνευσος , communicated by divine spirit ) is useful for teaching, etc. He additionally calls Scripture the word of God, the oracle of God, eloquia Dei , τα λογια τοῦ θεοῦ. Furthermore, the expressions so commonly used by the prophets, sanctus est sermo Domini, sanctum est verbum Domini, haec dicit Dominus, etc. (Holy is the discourse of God, holy is the word of God, thus spoke God). St. Peter cited in particular the prophecies in his second epistle, [II Peter] 1:21. “ It has not been by the will of man that the prophecies had previously been brought to us, rather it has been through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the holy men spoke of God .” The Vulgate includes: Spiritu sancto inspirati (inspired by the Holy Spirit); and one reads in the Greek θερομένοι , acti, impulsi (driven, impelled), that which distinguishes a movement of a superior order from a simple assistance or direction, and from the pious impulse imagined or at least upheld by Grotius. Second, the texts of the Fathers are not less precise on this subject. Some, such as Athenagoras, St. Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, St. Irene, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, etc., say that the sacred writers had written under direction of the Holy Spirit , by inspiration of the Word , that they were the authorized voices of Divinity : they compare them to musical instruments which only make sounds by the breath of the musicians who put their mouths to them, or by thrust of the bow which causes vibrations on the strings. The others, such as St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, etc., say that the sacred authors have been pushed along by the spirit of God , that the Holy Spirit is the inspiration of Scripture , that it is the author of it, etc. These texts may be consulted in the Fathers themselves or in the exegetes and theologians.

But, it is asked, is it probable, is it not even unworthy of the boundless knowledge and majesty of God to suggest that he inspired among the sacred writers so many inaccurate, if not to say absurd, things in physical matters? What necessitated recourse to inspiration for historic events about which these authors had eyewitnesses, or that they had been able to grasp through a written or oral tradition?

It is here that one must recall the definitions that we have given to the different kinds of help that the Theologians believed more or less necessary in order for the sacred writers to compose the books that have their names, and the distinctions that we have made among the diverse things concerning which the pens of these writers were brought to bear. It is here, I say, that it is very necessary to distinguish revelation from simple inspiration. Doubtless God revealed future events to the prophets because the vision of feeble and limited man could not penetrate the future, which only reveals itself to the eyes of him for whom all is in the present; likewise, he revealed to the apostles the theoretical and practical truths which must make up the fundamentals or essence of religion. But as for knowledge arising from pure curiosity, about which neither knowledge nor ignorance influences the actual happiness or misery of mankind, and about which the acquisition or deprivation does not serve to make them better, one could maintain without fear of wounding the majesty of God or of diminishing in the least his kindness, that he did not reveal such things to the sacred writers. The aim of Scripture was to render men good, virtuous, just, and agreeable in the eyes of God; and what has that to do with this or that theory of physics? Besides, it is perhaps uncertain that the physics of Scripture in general might not be the true physics; but however it might be in the end, God has not inspired the sacred writers less over what concerns the lot of man with regard to the hereafter, and it is not proven that they could be in error, even relative to philosophical knowledge. I say the same thing about historical events. Not, doubtless, that Moses would have had need of a special revelation in order to know and describe the plagues of Egypt, the encampments of the Israelites in the desert, the miracles that God worked through his agency, the victories or the defeats of his people, in a word, all the marvels of his mission and laws. St. Luke, in writing the Acts of the Apostles, assured his friend Theophilus that after having been informed very exactly, and since the very beginnings, about the things that he was going to describe, he had to present everything to him immediately in order that he know the truth about all that had been proclaimed . Did not St. John say the same, I John 1:1, what we have heard, what we have seen with our own eyes, what our hands have touched of the Word of life, we swear to you and we proclaim to you . The evidence of the eyes and ears or that based on written or oral tradition thus only excludes the necessity or the reality of a revelation, and in no manner that of an inspiration which incites the will of the sacred writer and which, in preserving him from all danger of straying from the truth, at least suggests to him the thoughts which form the basis of his work.

I say at least the thoughts, for De Vence, known for his erudition in an essay on inspiration in the Holy Books published at the head of a new edition of a translation of the Bible by Carrieres, argues that not only the things contained in the Holy Books, but also the language in which they were expressed, had been inspired by the Holy Spirit. That feeling has its defenders, and these are the principal reasons in support of De Vence. First, since the texts of Scripture and the Fathers make no distinction between thoughts and writing when inspiration of the Holy Books is concerned, it can be concluded that the terms employed by sacred authors were no less suggested to them by the Holy Spirit than the thoughts or ideas formulated by the terms. Second, that it could be said with regard to style, all the prophets and the sacred writers are equal, and that it is not true that one writes more elegantly than another, if it only concerns making use of the terms which are proper to express the ideas that they intended to write. Third, true eloquence, says the author we are analyzing, “properly consists in the most elevated ideas, in the most sublime thoughts, and in artistic representations which cannot be separated from thoughts. For it is certain that the thoughts of the sacred writers were inspired. Thus the conclusions derived from the differences in style of these authors, viewed from the aspect of eloquence, prove nothing against the feelings of those who believe that even the terms had been inspired. In Amos, for example, it is not poor choice of words and terms which made St Jerome say that that prophet was unrefined and uninstructed in language: it was because he drew his comparisons from things quite base and common, or even because he had no ideas as noble or as elevated as the prophet Isaiah. But all that consists of thoughts and has nothing in it which would be worthy of the spirit of God which had inspired them. If some among them might appear less noble or more common, it is only according to our taste and ideas that we judge them.” But could that be made into a rule in order to say that one is more worthy of God than another?

The defenders of the same opinion cite in their favor specific texts from St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Augustine, Theodoret, and St. Bernard that say expressly that the sacred writers had been the pens of the Holy Spirit, that they had written, so to speak, under its dictation, and that there is not in Scripture a letter, a syllable which does not contain mysteries or hidden treasures ; from this they conclude that the style of the Holy Books is no less inspired than the core ideas.

Against these authorities and these conclusions, the partisans of the contrary opinion, first asserted in the ninth century by Agobard, archbishop of Lyons, offered the authority of Scripture, the Fathers, and arguments which we will summarize.

I. The author of the second book of Maccabees maintained that he was only abridging the work of Jason the Cyrene which comprised five books, and that the editing of the work required much labor from him. He prayed his readers to excuse him if he had not attained the perfection of the original style; thus the Holy Spirit had not inspired the terms he employed. The simple copyists to whom it was dictated were not able to give a better tone to the work or to make more of the effort. In the hypothesis of inspiration extending to include the terminology of Scripture , the excuse offered in the secular book of Maccabees is injurious to the Holy Spirit, which is infallible, which never lacks proper expressions, and which has no need to offer excuses for the weakness of its genius or its language.

II. Origen, Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Jerome remarked that there were faults in the language of the evangelists; they did not attribute them to the Holy Spirit, but to the Apostles, who, born ignorant and crude, would never take pride in writing or speaking elegantly. Imperitus sermone sed non scientia (unskilled in speech, but not in knowledge), St. Paul said of himself even though he had been instructed at the feet of Gamaliel in all of the doctrines of the Jews. The Holy Spirit had therefore left the choice of expression to these writers.

III. If the Holy Spirit had dictated to the sacred historians the style that shaped their writings, why did they produce such different wording when referring to the same sense, the substance of the same facts? St. Augustine gave as the reason in book III De consensus evangelistorum chapter XII. Ut quisque evangelistarum meminerat , said this father, et ut cuique cordi erat, vel brevius vel prolixius eamdem explicare sententiam manifestum est . (It is clear that accordingly as each of the evangelists remembered, and accordingly as he had it in his heart to set down the sense either more briefly or at greater length, so they did set it down.) They were thus free to choose their wording and grammatical construction.

IV. St. Paul sometime quotes the very words of secular poets; why would he not have employed his own style to write his Epistles? And in effect, in accord with the differences in subjects, did they not create a different impression? The mystery of predestination in the Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians, and that of the Eucharist in the first to the Corinthians, are very much of another shade of color, if one is allowed to express himself thus, than the advice that he gave to Titus and Timothy. He therefore adjusted his style to the subject.

V. And that was the great argument of Agobard in his letter to Fredegis, Abbot of St. Martin of Tours. The style of all of the prophets is not the same: that of Isaiah is noble and elevated, that of Amos, to the contrary, is low and creeping. They announce, the one and the other, the fall of the Kingdom of Judea, but each expresses himself in a very different manner. Popular expressions and proverbs are found in Amos because he was a shepherd. Eloquence and nobility of style manifests itself everywhere in Isaiah, for he was a prince of the bloodline of David, and he lived at the court of the Kings of Judea. Thus, if the Holy Spirit had dictated to those two prophets the expressions that they employed, it would have made Amos speak as Isaiah, since that divine spirit loosened the tongues of the mute and could make eloquent even the mouths of babes. The diversity of style of the prophets is thus a perceptible proof that God left choice of phrasing to them in accord with the diversity of their natural talents. With regard to the prophets, it must however be admitted that sometimes the Holy Spirit dictated certain expressions to them, as when it revealed to Isaiah the name of Cyrus long before the birth of that conqueror.

One can consult on this subject all of the exegetes and commentators on Scripture, among others the treatise of De Vence, Calmet’s dictionary of the Bible under the word inspiration , and the introduction to Holy Scripture by Lamy.

III. The exegetes distinguish two types of meaning in Scripture ; one a literal and historical meaning, and one a mystical, spiritual, and figurative meaning. First, one understands by literal and historical meaning that which resulted from the power of the words used by the sacred authors. Literal meaning is divided into specific and metaphysical meaning.

True literal meaning is that which results from the natural power of the wording and which retains the specific sense of expressions. Scripture , for example, says (Matthew 3) that Jesus Christ was baptized by St. John in the Jordan. The literal and true meaning of this passage is that a man named John actually plunged Jesus Christ into the river called Jordan. See Meaning.

The literal metaphysical meaning is that which results from words not taken in their natural sense and structure, but taken according to what they signify, what they represent, and what they symbolize according to the intention of those who make use of them. Scripture (John 1:29) called Jesus Christ lamb ; the word lamb , taken in itself, offers to the mind the idea of an animal suitable to be slaughtered and eaten. But it is manifest that this meaning does not suit the word lamb when applied to Jesus Christ: it therefore must be taken in a different sense. The lamb is the symbol and the emblem of gentleness. Jesus Christ was the very essence of gentleness, and it is precisely because of this attribute that the sacred authors have metaphorically given him the name lamb . It can be read in the Holy Books (Exodus 33:31; Job 10:8) that God has hands, eyes, etc. These words, taken in themselves, represent body parts composed of bone, flesh, fibers, tendons, etc. Reason itself reveals that they cannot have that meaning when applied to God since he is a purely spiritual being. The eyes are the emblem of knowledge, and the hand is that of the all powerful. For it is precisely because of this analogy that Scripture grants hands and eyes metaphorically to God. See Metaphor and Metaphorical.

Second, mystical, spiritual, and figurative meaning is understood as that which is hidden under outward sense of literal meaning that results from the natural power of words. A passage has a mystical, spiritual, and figurative meaning when its literal meaning hides a mysterious picture and some kind of future event, or, that which comes back to the same thing, when its literal meaning offers to the mind something other than what it offers in itself and at first glance. See Mystical, Figurative.

Mystical meaning is subdivided into allegorical, tropological or moral, and analogical. The mystical allegorical meaning is that which, hidden under the literal meaning, has for its subject some future event which concerns Jesus Christ and his church. Scripture ( Genesis 22:6) teaches us that Isaac carried on his shoulders the wood which was to be used at his sacrifice. That fact, according to the figurativists, and even in the plan of the Holy Spirit, is an image speaking of the mystery of the passion of the Savior. See Allegory, Allegorical.

The mystical tropological or moral meaning, is that which, hidden under the outward appearance of the law, has as its subject some truth which concerns the manners and conduct of men. See Moral, Tropological. It is in this sense that the law ( Deuteronomy 25:4) that forbids binding the mouths of cattle that thresh the grain, marks in the purpose of Holy Scripture the obligation which Christians have to furnish to ministers of the evangelists all that is necessary for their subsistence.

The mystical analogical meaning is that which, hidden under the literal meaning, has as its subject celestial perfection and eternal life. The promises of temporal benefit, according to the Figurites, are only, for the purposes of Holy Spirit, images and emblems of spiritual benefits. See Anagogy, Anagogical.

Drawing distinctions among the diverse meanings results in being able to interpret Scripture differently; but there are in this matter two excesses to avoid. The first is to restrict oneself to the literal meaning without trying to include any figurative or spiritual meaning. The other is to wish to find allegories in all the texts of the Holy Books. The middle way that must be maintained between these two hazards is to acknowledge everywhere a literal meaning in Scripture , and to include figurative meanings in some of its parts.

That Scripture has a literal meaning is a truth easy to prove by the nature of the things that it contains and by their purpose. Scripture contains the history of the people of God and of his church, and some dogmatic truths, either speculative or practical: its purpose is to regulate the beliefs and the mores of men, and to guide them to their end, to eternity. All that is required from an infinitely wise lawgiver is that his mysteries, his will, his laws, the prophecies which attest to his all knowingness, and the miracles that confirm the truth of his religion, would be expressed with literal meaning that issues from the aptness of the wording that creates the style, without which the lessons would become pointless and fruitless. I will say nothing more since on one side the obscurity of the work and on the other curiosity and fanaticism could empower the imagination to find in it anything it seeks.

However, this literal meaning sometimes includes a mystical one, something that we can easily prove by several examples from Scripture . We will only select one of them. These words from Psalm 109: The Lord has said to my Lord, seat yourself at my right , help to explain the message of David when he designated Solomon as his successor. However, they have a spiritual, more sublime and more revealing, meaning since they also include the Messiah who, although a son of David according to the flesh, must be called his Lord according to the spirit, that is to say in what concerns his divine nature, in the same fashion as Jesus Christ was made known to the Jews: Quomodo ergo David in spiritu vocatum Dominum, dicens, dixit Dominus Domino meo , etc. (He said unto them, how then did David in spirit call him Lord, saying the Lord said unto my Lord...) (Matthew 22:43) Nevertheless, in that there are several mystical and spiritual meanings in Scripture , it would be wrong to conclude that all the phrases and parts of Scripture always contain the same meaning.

From this last claim arises the doctrine of the Figurativists under the pretext that Jesus Christ is foretold and symbolized in Scripture and that it yields testimony of him. According to St. John (5:45) the prophecies were accomplished in Jesus Christ, according to St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans (10:4), Jesus Christ is the completion and the end of the law , and according to the same apostle (1 Corinthians 10:11) all that befell the ancient Jews was only an allegory, an emblem of what must be accomplished in Jesus Christ and in the new law: haec autem omnia in figura contingebant illis . (Now these things happened to them in figure and they were written down for our correction, upon whom the end of the ages are come.) Finally, under the pretext of following the unchanging doctrine of the Fathers, the letter kills, and one remains in death with the Jews when one stops at its surface. But the Spirit quickens it and has recourse to spiritual intelligence and to the figurative sense . Under this pretext, I say, the Figurativists assert that all is symbolic or allegorical in Scripture .

But apart from the absurdity of that doctrine being made evident through the abuse that fanaticism could and has, by using a similar method, made of it, it is clear that while Jesus Christ might be portrayed and foretold in Scripture , he is not in all parts of the holy books. Jesus Christ is the consummation of the law, but that does not mean that he is a symbol everywhere, but that he is the author of the grace and of the spiritual integrity that the law alone can give. Lex per Moysem gratia et veritas per Jesum Christum sancta est , (For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.) said St. John (1:17). It is no less evident that one can have the contrary interpretation of the passage of the apostle, haec autem omnia in figura contingebant illis (Judaeis) (Now these things happened to them in figure) as if all would be completely figurative in the old law, for in this text the Latin word figura, corresponding to the Greek term τύπος which means example, model , as Vatable and Menochius have observed very ably. Now in this case, St. Paul simply wishes to say: “All the things that befell the Jews were examples for us; they must direct us in what happens to us today; it is for our instruction that they have been written.” He volunteers, in effect, in I Corinthians 9, to stimulate the vigilance of Christians and connect them to grace by his own example: corpus meum castigo et in servitutem redigo, ne ne forta cum aliis praedicaverim, ipse reprobus efficiax. (But I chastise my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.) Then he confirms it in I Corinthians 10:5 by the example of the Hebrews who, despite the kindness with which God showered them in the flight from Egypt, became prevaricators and the object of divine vengeance : non in pluribus eorum beneplacitum est Deo, nam prostrati sunt in deserto (nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness), and then he concluded, haec autem omnia in figura contingebant illis (Now all these things happened to them in figure), which is to say that all these events are so many striking warnings for Christians, not to become arrogant or to abuse the kindness of God, but to persevere and to be faithful to him. Also, he added straightaway, these deeds have been recorded for our correction, and for others for whom the end of time has come; that those then who believe be firm, and take great care not to fall . I do not claim, moreover, that the text would be absolutely incompatible with all symbolic sense, since this tenth chapter contains symbols that the apostle explains, such as this one: bibebant de spiritali consequente eos petra, petra autem erat Christus (And all drank the same spiritual Rock which followed them and the Rock was Christ). But to conclude that all is symbolic in the Old Testament is chimerical and an illusion. Finally, the Fathers are no more favorable toward Scripture as modern symbolism. In truth, they said that the letter kills, but in what sense? When one becomes so rigorously attached to the literal meaning of words that one absolutely rejects all metaphysical meanings, then one comes to the Anthromorphites, who, under the pretext that they read in Scripture that God has feet, hands, eyes, etc., have claimed that God was corporeal; or, when following the example of the Jews, one does not wish to recognize under the literal sense any spiritual sense, which is scarcely suitable for Jesus Christ and his Church for it limits everything to the accomplishments of purely historical figures. See Figure, Figurative, Figurism, Anthromorphites and Prophesies.

There is yet another doctrine sustained by some modern theologians, followers of Grotius, concerning the significance of the prophesies in particular, and which consists in saying that they had been achieved literally and with their own particular meaning before Jesus Christ, and that they had also been realized in the person of this man-God, but in a most sublime sense and in a most noble and distinguished manner. We will present an exposition and refutation of it in the article Prophesy.

It is generally recognized that in order to avoid variations which overheated imaginations could follow, as much from the universality of the symbolic meaning on each page and from each word of Scripture , as from the double meaning claimed to be found in all the prophesies, it is necessary to have recourse to an authority sufficient to fix and ascertain the meaning of Scripture . Otherwise each individual could become its sole author, and altogether the only believer in the religion that it pleases him to establish and to follow. That thought leads us naturally to discuss the fourth of the general questions that we undertook to elucidate: to know what is the authority on matters of doctrine in Holy Scripture.

IV. With the exception of unbelievers who reject all revelation, the whole world agrees that Holy Scripture , being the word of God, is the rule of our faith. But is it the only rule for it? It is on that issue that people divide.

The Catholics agree unanimously, first, that Holy Scripture is one of the rules of our faith, but not the only one. Second, that beyond the written word of God, it is still necessary to admit tradition or the word of God not written by the inspired writers, that the apostles had received from the very mouth of Jesus Christ, that they have passed on in their own voice to their successors, who passed it from hand to hand down to us through the education of ministers and pastors, of whom the first had been instructed by the apostles, which is to say that it is conserved in its purity by the preaching of the saintly doctors who wrote on matters of religion. Third, they add that establishing Christian truths depended essentially on knowledge of doctrines contained in Scripture and in tradition, and that since each individual could deceive himself in scrutinizing and interpreting the significance of the holy books and the writings of the fathers, it is necessary to have recourse to an obvious and infallible authority in distinguishing Catholic truths, an authority which is none other than the teachings of the Church, or the body of original pastors with whom Jesus Christ promised to be until the consummation of the centuries . See Tradition and Church.

The Protestants, to the contrary, claim that Scripture is the exclusive source, the only repository of the truths of faith. Reason alone, according to them, is the sole sovereign judge of the differing meanings of the holy books. It is not that they reject or scorn all authority or tradition equally. The most knowledgeable of the English theologians, among others Bullus, Fell, Archbishop of Oxford, Pearson, Bishop of Chester, Dodwel, Bingham, etc., have shown us the great weight they give to the works of the fathers. But in general the Calvinists and Lutherans, for the rules of the faith, only recognize Scripture interpreted by what they call individual minds , that is to say according to the degrees of intelligence of each reader. This exclusion of all visible and sovereign authority in matters of doctrine seems absolutely incompatible with the diverse confessions of faith that the reformation churches have drawn up in the name of all individuals, with the synods that they have held on different occasions to adopt or maintain or proscribe this or that doctrine. See Arminianism, Arminius.

The Socinians, born in the bosom of Protestantism and encouraged by the example of their fathers, have gone further. In truth, they acknowledge Scripture , but in place of regulating their belief on the natural meaning that it presents to the mind, they endeavor to adapt it to their own ideas. When, for example, the mystery of the Trinity is proposed to them as being part of the evangelical truths, they begin by examining it before the tribunal of reason, and since natural understanding did not seem to them compatible with the different parts of this mystery, they forcefully rejected it. God, the author of natural reason, could not, they say, be in opposition to himself as author of revealed religion; thus, since reason does not admit the truth which seems to ensue directly from Scripture , it is proved that its meaning is not from it and that it must be given another, however far it might be from a literal and natural meaning. They have done the same in attacking the doctrine of the Incarnation, of the Penitence of Jesus Christ, and of the Real Presence, as can be seen in Socinus, Crellius, Schlitingius, and in the vast variety of their authors, known under the title Bibliothèque des frères Polonaise . But to have at the same time a feeling for how much their interpretations, for the most part metaphorical, are hard and forced, it suffices to consult the evangelical proof of Huet, the treatise on the Trinity and the Incarnation by Vitasse, the works of Hoornebek, of Turretin and several other Protestant theologians who, we grant in fairness, have battled Socinianism with a great deal of force and success. See Socinianism.

We will cease our refutation of the methods of the Socinians here since the reasons we put forward against those of the Protestants have an equal force against the excesses of the Socinians, which we discuss at appropriate length in a separate place. See Socinians and Socinianism.

Our spokesmen against the Protestants thus demonstrate that Holy Scripture is not the only rule of our faith and that in order to discover its true meaning, the individual mind is an unreliable guide, and it is necessary to appeal to and to hold to the authority of the church of Jesus Christ as the only infallible judge in matters of doctrine. The obscurity of Scripture is, I claim, their reason for this. One law, they say, obscure and difficult to understand, susceptible to differing and even contrary interpretations, requires an interpreter and an infallible judge who untangles it, who establishes its true meaning, and who can, with sovereign power, decide disputes which arise even on the basics of the law and on points of doctrine which are part of the faith. For who can clarify the obscurity of Scripture on so many points? Without that, tell me how many commentaries, glosses, interpretations and treatises attempting to delve into the fathers and the most extraordinary founding spirits would there be? Not to mention at the same time, all the visions, all the errors when one wishes to follow his own reasoning and draw away from recourse to authority? All the interpreters, whether orthodox or heterodox, acknowledge that obscurity. These few words, for example, hoc est corpus meum (here is my body), have inspired among the Protestants an infinite number of different interpretations. Luther clearly sees in it the real presence, and Calvin clearly sees in it the real absence. Could Scripture alone decide between the two? Yes, one responds, by clarifying the obscure passages with those least obscure or with an obvious clarity. However, if it follows that one of the two parties contests the claims of clarity in these passages, and when all of them have been exhausted, who is it that will decide? Reason or individual minds? One knows the use, or better, the abuse that the Socinians made with regard to reason, and as for the individual mind, has not Luther as much right as Calvin to claim that he possesses to an eminent degree the gift of understanding and interpreting Scripture ? He who in the account of Bossuet, L’Histoire des variations des Églises protestans volume I, book II, note 28, expressed himself thus: “ I say without vanity, that for a thousand years Scripture has never been either so purified or so well explained, nor better understood than it is now by me .” One grasps from these contrary opinions that the dispute will be interminable.

The fathers, who it is assuredly not an exaggeration to say had natural judgement as penetrating as that of Luther or Calvin and at least equaled those two innovators in the variety and depth of their acquired knowledge, have traced a very different path for us. In recognizing the obscurity of Scripture , they insisted on the necessity of turning to an outside and infallible authority, alone capable of deciding on the meaning of the holy books, and of settling absolutely issues of faith. Vincent of Lerins said in his admonition, Chapter II, Hic forsitan requiret aliquis cum fit perfectus scripturarum canon, sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat, quid opus est ut ei ecclesiasticae intelligentiae jungateur autoritas? Quia videlicet Scripturum sacram pro ipsa sua altitudine non uno eodemque sensu universi accipiunt; sed ejusdem eloquia aliter alius atque alius interpretatur, ut pene quot homines sunt, tot illinc sententiae erui posse videantur. Aliter namque Novatianus, aliter Sabellius etc. exponit: atque idcirco multum necesse est propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus ut propheticae et apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et catholici sensiis normam dirigatur. (But here someone may well ask, are the books of the Bible not complete and sufficient of themselves for everything, and even more than sufficient? What need is there to join with them the authority of the church’s interpretation? For this reason, because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words one way, another in another way, so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For among the heretics, Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another. Therefore it is very necessary on account of so great intricacies of such various errors, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.) Now the rule of which Vincent of Lerins speaks here is nothing other than the judgment and the infallible decision of the Church. St. Augustine is no less precise on this issue: this is how he expresses it, Book III, De doctrina Christiana , Chapter II, note 2. Cum verba propria faciunt ambiguam Scripturam, primo videndum est ne male distinxerimus aut pronunciaverimus; cum ergo adhibita intentio incertum esse perviderit, quomodo distinguendum aut quomodo pronunciandum fit, consulat regulam fidei quam de Scripturarum planioribus locis et Ecclesiae autoritate percepit. (When the actual words render Scripture ambiguous, we should first check to see whether we have punctuated or articulated badly. When close attention has discerned that it is uncertain how it should be punctuated or articulated, we consult the rule of faith which we have perceived from the plainer passages of Scripture and the authority of the church.) St. Augustine does not disapprove. He approves, he even recommends work and research to reveal the true meaning of Scripture ; he recognizes that the clear passages can and must serve to clarify the obscure and difficult passages. But with that could one be sheltered from all error, from all mistakes? No, there is still a single infallible rule: consulat regulam fidei quam de Ecclesiae autoritate percepit (the authority of the Church). Thus the obscurity of Scripture alone is sufficient proof that Scripture is not the sole rule of our faith, and that it is necessary to have an external infallible authority to determine and fix the meaning of the holy books.

Second, Holy Scripture alone and by itself is insufficient to end all disputes over matters of faith. In effect, without speaking of the disputes which have been raised since the birth of the church and even among the Protestants either over the original text or over the versions of Scripture, the canonicity of the holy books, or the true meaning of an infinite number of passages, how many points of faith do the Protestants admit jointly with the Catholics even though they are not expressly contained in Scripture ? Where do they find, for example, in the holy books that there are only four evangelists ; that the eternal father , the first person of the Holy Trinity, had not been created ; that Mary had maintained her virginity after her pregnancy ; that new-born infants could be baptized; that their baptism is valid ; that the baptism of heretics is efficacious and valid ? They can only respond as we do with Tertullian in his book on the Couronne , chapter IV, Harum et aliarum ejusmodi disciplinarum, si legum expostules scripturarum, nullam invenies: traditio sibi pretendetur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, et fides observatrix : . . . (For these teachings and others of this kind, if you demand a law in Scripture , you will find none. Tradition will be held out to you as originating them, custom as confirming them, and faith as observing them.) And with St. Augustine in his book on Baptême contra les Donatistes , Chapter XXIII, note 31, . . . sunt multa quae universa tenet Ecclesia, et ob hoc ab apostolis praecepta bene creduntur, quanquam scripta non reperiantur . (There are many things that the universal church holds, and on account of this they are believed to have been enjoined by the apostles, although they are not found in writings.) Now if the Church is judge of the meaning of Scripture , as we have just demonstrated, its strongest support is in its unwritten traditions which it preserved in its bosom from the moment it perceived them to be well founded, or else it rejected them when they appeared suspect or ill-established.

Third, even in the confession of the Protestants, Scripture is law in matters of doctrine; how could it be at the same time judge on controversial points and the source of the body of the law? In all well-regulated commonwealths the judge and the law are two clearly separated things. The law stipulates what must be done, or forbids what must not be done; but it is an unchanging rule, so to speak, and it remains necessary to have a living rule with an authority to explain the meaning of the law, that applies the spirit of the law to different situations, that, in the case of division between two contestants who seek to find in the law a meaning favorable to their cause, declares and determines with sovereign authority that one of the two is fooling himself, or even that both are in error, finding that law is clear and precise, or that it is not. If all is clear, according to the claims of the Protestants, for what reason therefore have the Lutherans and the Calvinists witnessed the birth of controversies that will probably last as long as they do, over the meaning of that law? If it is not clear, it is necessary to have an interpreter, a judge who would clarify it, who would determine the true meaning. The judge cannot be partisan, limited, feeble, inconstant, error-prone, or slavish to one meaning. Thus an infallible authority established by God himself is required, one that can decide absolutely the meaning of the law. Otherwise, Jesus Christ would have seen to the establishment and maintenance of his religion very badly.

Fourth, also whether in the old or in the new law, did divine wisdom establish a sensible, visible, always permanent tribunal as infallible and sovereign judge in matters of doctrine, and did it command the faithful to consult that authority and to submit themselves to its decisions? The matter is incontestable in the Old Testament because of a passage in Deuteronomy (17:8 and following), a text so known that it is not necessary to recite it. The existence and the sovereign and infallible authority of that tribunal in the new law is no less evident as attested by the few words that Jesus Christ addressed to the apostles and to their successors: Matthew, final chapter, Omnis potestas data est mihi in caelo et in terra: ita ergo, docete omnes gentes, baptisantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, docentes eos servare quaecumque praecepi vobis: et ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi. (All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.) That was a promise whose power the great Bossuet understood so well that he did not fear to say in Instructions II , Sur l’Église page 3, “That Jesus Christ had placed in five or six lines of his Evangelist so much wisdom, so much clarity and so much truth that there is enough to convert every lost soul, provided only that they are willing to lend an open ear and not willfully close their eyes. That there are in these six lines enough of a common universal principle to cut through all doubts. That Jesus Christ prepared through it an efficacious remedy for all the disputes which could ever arise, and that, finally, this promise provided resolution for all controversies which had arisen or which could ever arise.” For the most part, such contestations have been over the meaning of Scripture . Therefore, the church alone would be the competent and infallible judge that could and must resolve them in the last instance and not some individual mind which could only seduce and misguide us.

Protestants do not lack subtlety in their efforts to deflect the force of these arguments. In the wise works of Cardinal Bellarmino, of Perron, of Richelieu, in the polemics of the Jesuit Father Veron, and in those of Monsieur de Wallembourg, in the pastoral instruction of Bossuet, and finally in the books of Arnaud, Nicole, Pelisson, etc. can be found the solid refutations of the subterfuges and chicanery of the ministers. The remainder of this article is not meant to convert people perhaps attached to their opinions less by conviction than by obstinacy. But as this dictionary will certainly fall into the hands of people who, I hope, are enlightened up to a certain point and who profess with good faith the errors in which they find themselves entangled by the misfortune of their birth, to the proofs that I have just proposed, the power of which I wish them to weight in the balance calmly, I will only add a precedent which might make some kind of impression on them: “In good faith,” I would say to them, “do you think that you have greater depth of genius to perceive and penetrate the meaning of Scripture than St. Augustine? Do you believe yourself to be more favored than he in spiritual fervor and the interventions of the Holy Spirit which can enable intelligence? Even more, listen to what that doctor, so enlightened, so profound, so pious, so well versed in the Scripture of the holy books, said: no, he said, I would not believe in the evangelists if I were not moved and impelled by the authority of the Catholic church: ergo vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiae catholicae commoveret autoritas . (Therefore I would not believe in the true gospel unless the authority of the Catholic church impelled me.) Libre contre epistolae fundamental , chapter ix, n. 8. Now decide for yourself, I would conclude, if you must have reference to, in doctrinal issues, the sole authority of Scripture interpreted by yourself, you dare what so many great men have not dared, to be judge in your own cause and in the most interesting cause ever.” See Church.