and Bossuet above all, have made frequent and most felicitous use of it. All exponents of sacred eloquence have had a thorough knowledge of the holy Book.
The use which the Curé of Ars made of the Bible bears witness to his fairly extensive knowledge of the Scriptures, and, above all, of the Gospels.
His quotations are often made largely from memory; so it happens—very rarely, it is true—that M. Vianney gives his references incorrectly. He will attribute to the “holy Prophet-King” a text drawn from Ecclesiasticus, and to St. Paul a quotation from an unknown author. He will confuse the chastisement which threatened Nineveh with that which overtook Sodom. He will send the Prophet Habacuc “to carry food to the three children who were in the furnace of Babylon” while Habacuc fulfilled this task for Daniel thrown into the den of lions. But these are negligible errors.
In general, M. Vianney does not set out to quote Scripture as such. He develops, he arranges, he embellishes the inspired quotation; or, if he seems to render it in its native simplicity, he makes a really personal translation of it.
Together with Holy Scripture the Abbé Vianney had studied theology. What he learnt of it in the seminary of St. Irenaeus in Lyons hardly counted; M. Bailey, at the presbytery of Ecully, where the future Curé of Ars spent seven to eight years, was his unique teacher in the study of the sacred sciences. He was not only a saintly priest but he also had a most cultured mind: the diocesan administrators had offered him the professorship of moral theology in the seminary at Lyons but he had preferred to consecrate himself to the pastoral ministry. He took on the task of teaching his pupil the clear and solid dogmatic principles. He prepared him for his role of confessor and spiritual director by teaching him the current moral theology, that theological practice which came in a direct line from the eighteenth century and which showed itself so difficult in the matter of approach to the Sacraments of Penance
