every individual proposition. This has been done even to the extent of finding a typical signification in the snuffers used to remove the snuff from the candles in the temple. The vanity of such position is very evident. There is much in the first Code that has only its plain historical sense, such as, for instance, the Decalogue.

The question has been moved by some, whether there are types in the New Testament. This question admits of a definite and certain answer.

There are no messianic types in the New Dispensation as there were in the Old, which was but the shadow of the perfect covenant. But still, as the Church was a future ens in the time of Christ, there were typical actions in his life, and certain events connected with his first coming, are typical of their counterparts in his second coming. Thus St. Paul finds a typical ratio in the fact that Christ suffered death outside the gate; the bark of the Apostles, tossed by the tempest, is a type of the Church, and the destruction of Jerusalem is most certainly a type of the dissolution of the world.

Now of the senses of Scripture, the greatest and most valuable is the literal sense. This should be first sought in every passage of Scripture, and recourse should only be had to the metaphorical sense, when the literal is plainly impossible. But in every proposition of Scripture, either the literal or metaphorical sense will be found. Care must be taken not to receive the error of Origen, who defended that at times only the typical sense was intended. The typical never stands alone, but is always built upon the literal. The Fathers have at times extolled the typical sense above the literal, on the assumption that it treated of higher concepts. This is erroneous. The typical sense is more sublime in those passages in which it is found than its type, but it is not more sublime than the literal sense in general. The typical sense of the passage relating to the Paschal Lamb is more sublime than its type, but it is not more sublime than the declaration of St. John: "The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us," or the Beatitudes; and these are to be accepted in their literal sense. Therefore, where there is a typical sense it is to be principally sought, because it was in such passage principally intended by the Holy Ghost; but the great body of the Scriptures especially of the New Testament contain their truths in the literal sense. The excessive looking wide of the literal sense in search of types, is one of the great defects of pulpit use of Holy Scripture.

Finally the typical sense of any passage can only be certainly known, by some authentic declaration of the Holy Ghost. The ordering of one ens to signify another is the work of God, and can only be fully known to us through some manifestation of the mind of God. Therefore, we can only found things which are of faith on those types, whose typical signification has been opened up to us by some inspired writer. When this is done, it is evident that the sense is as certain as the literal sense.

In the liturgical offices of the Church, and in the writings of the Fathers, often a passage of Scripture is applied to an object, which was not in the mind of the inspired writer, nor comprehended in the scope of the Holy Ghost in the inspired writing. This is called the accommodated sense. It is based upon some resemblance between the two themes.

To speak properly, it is not a sense of Scripture, but the adaptation of the sense of Scripture to another theme of similar nature. This accommodation takes place in two different ways. The first species occurs where the passage retains its real signification, but is extended to another theme, which is analogous in nature and circumstances. Thus a man who falls in temptation may say: "Serpens decepit me." Thus, the Breviary applies to the Holy Pontiffs, what was said by the Siracida of Noah: "Inventus est justus, et in tempore iracundiæ factus est reconciliatio". In the same manner, the

Breviary extends to Holy Pontiffs, what was said by him of Moses: "Similem fecit illum in gloria Sanctorum "; and of Aaron: "Statuit ei testamentum æternum."

This use of Scripture is legitimate and useful, provided always the first sense is not obscured, and the application is justly made, but it is never to be taken as the sense of Holy Writ; it can never prove a dogma. Even the material words of Holy Scripture possess a sort of divine virtue. And when they become the vehicles of even human thoughts, they are capable of moving the soul of man to piety.

The second species of accommodation is founded in no real similarity in nature or circumstances of the two themes, but in a mere ignorant distortion of scriptural words to express some human thought. Thus, when Jahve showed visible signs of his majesty in certain places, the Psalmist cried out: "Deus mirabilis in Sanctis suis (in Sanctuario suo)." "O God, thou art terrible in thy holy places." It is not uncommon to apply this to the mysterious ways of God to his elect, or even to the idiosyncrasies of holy people. Again in Psalm XVIII. 26,

(Hebrew) the Psalmist declares the action of God towards man to be fashioned by the qualities of a man's own life: "Cum sancto sanctus eris, et cum perverso perverteris." It is lamentable to hear a man tear this text to tatters, to prove the ill effect of evil associations.

It is related that after the Duke of Montmorency was executed by the order of Cardinal Richelieu, the sister of the Duke, passing the tomb of the Cardinal, directed to him an apostrophe in the words of Martha, the sister of Lazarus: "Domine, si fuisses hic, frater meus non fuisset mortuus". It was much in vogue in the sixteenth century to apply the sacred words to profane subjects.

When St. Francis de Sales lay ill, his physician in compounding some medicine for him, addressed him thus: "Quod ego facio, tu nescis modo; scies autem postea." Jo. XIII. 7. St. Francis reprehended him saying: "You profane the Scripture of God in applying it to profane things. The Scripture should only be used of holy themes, and with profound respect," So great was the abuse, that the Council of Trent in its fourth session formally forbade that the Scripture be applied to profane subjects. Of course, all species of such accommodation are not reprehensive in the same degree. In fact there is no evil in an occasional adaptation of the Holy Text to something refined and pure, even though it be not of the intent of the inspired writer. Thus one who had been rescued from a ruined coal mine, in speaking of his supplications to Heaven, could say without disrespect to the Scripture: "De profundis clamavi ad te, Domine". One can inveigh against sinful waste in the words of Judas Iscariot: "Ut quid perditio haec?”

CHAPTER XXXIII.

THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.

The interpretation of Scripture may be divided into AUTHENTIC and SCIENTIFIC.

The interpretation is authentic if the sense of some writer be enucleated for us, by some adequate authority. Thus, when a subsequent writer explains the sense of existing Holy Scripture such interpretation is authentic. In equal degree is the interpretation authentic when the Church authoritatively declares the sense of any passage.

The interpretation is scientific when it is based on human study and judgment. This interpretation is never independent

of the authority of the Church, and must be conducted by the just laws that she has enacted to regulate such province of human thought. Only a few passages have been authentically interpreted; hence the great body of the Scripture lies open to scientific interpretation, of which we shall now speak at some length.

In regard to this theme, writers give a complex system of rules which could be summed up in this: study the original languages, compare the best codices, compare the old versions, read the Scriptures intelligently, and endeavor to take the sense from the Scripture, not to bring one into it.

Parallel passages will also aid us to find the sense of obscure places.

"When, in any ordinary composition, a passage occurs of doubtful meaning with respect to the sentiment or doctrine it conveys, the obvious course of proceeding is, to examine what the author himself has in other parts of his work delivered upon the same subject; to weigh well the force of any particular expressions he is accustomed to use; and to inquire what there might be in the occasion or circumstances under which he wrote, tending to throw further light upon the immediate object he had in view. This is only to render common justice to the writer; it is necessary both for the discovery of his real meaning, and to secure him against any wanton charge of error or inconsistency. Now, if this may justly be required in any ordinary work of uninspired composition, how much more indispensable must it be when we sit in judgment upon the sacred volume; in which (if we acknowledge its divine original) it is impossible to imagine a failure either in judg ment or in integrity."

"God has been pleased, in sundry portions and in divers manners, to speak unto us in his world; but in all the books of Scripture we may trace an admirable unity of design, an intimate connection of parts, and a complete harmony of doctrines. In some instances the same truths are conveyed nearly in the same modes of expression; in other instances, the same sentiments are clothed with beautiful varieties of language. While we are interested in discovering some of the indications of mental diversity among the sacred writers, we clearly perceive that the whole volume of revelation is distinguished by a certain characteristic style and phraseology altogether its own, and which, for simplicity, dignity, energy, and fulness, must be allowed to have no parallel. Now, if there be in the various parts of Scripture such important

coincidences of sentiment, of language, and of idiom, it is evident that we proceed on just and rational principles, in comparing together passages that have some degree of resemblance, and in applying those, the meaning of which is clear, to the illustration of such as are involved in some degree of obscurity."

In seeking the sense of Holy Scripture, we must be ever mindful that the Scriptures are the word of God, that they contain the thoughts of a being whose ways are not our ways, and whose thoughts are not our thoughts. If we seek to make the Holy Text agree with our notions, we shall shut up the sense of the Scriptures of God. We should seek it with the same temper of mind in which it was written. The voice of God is heard through the Scriptures, and the voice of God is only heard by docile hearts.

Hence, we can not subject the Holy Books to the laws of hermeneutics as a mere literary production. Every interpretation which presupposes the possibility of error in the inspired writer, is to be rejected. The inability to find the sense of a passage must not be attributed to the error of the writer, but to the limitations of our comprehension. In the same way no real contradiction can be admitted between the different writers, or between the different statements of the same writer. The seeming contradictions in doctrinal and moral parts result from the dulness of our own minds. Some contradictions have come into the non-essential parts of Scripture, but these are not attributable to the authors, but to the defects of the agencies through which they have been transmitted to us.

The Council of Trent in its famous decree of the fourth session, "with a view to restrain the petulance of human minds, decreed: That no one relying on his own judgment, in the doctrinal and moral parts of Scripture, should distort the Holy Scriptures to conform to his opinions against the sense which our Holy Mother the Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scripture; and that no one shall dare interpret the same Holy Scriptures contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers". This decree was again promulgated by the Vatican Council. The last clause relating to the Fathers does not really add any new element to the decree; for the Fathers when agreeing on a doctrinal or moral part of Scripture, are always at one with the Church. This consensus needs not be mathematical, but only moral; and when it is such, it is an authentic witness of what the Church held in past ages.