Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae Tomus I: De Christo Legato Divino, De Ecclesia Christi, De Fontibus Theologicis

Cf. R. Cornely, Introduction to the two books of the sacred Old Testament I², Paris 1894; — Compendium of the Introduction⁷, Paris 1911, where Appendix II contains a treatise on inspiration; Franzelin, On Tradition and Scripture; Franc. Schmid, On the force and character of the inspiration of the Bible, Brixen 1885; G. I. Crets, On the divine inspiration of the Bible, Louvain 1886; D. Zanecchia, The Divine Inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures, Rome 1898; L. Billot, On the Inspiration of Sacred Scripture, Rome 1903; S. Schiffini, The Divinity of the Scriptures, Turin 1905; Chr. Pesch, On the Inspiration of Sacred Scripture, Freiburg im Breisgau 1906.

PRAENOTANDA.

371. What is meant by Sacred Scripture. The proximate rule of faith and the proximate source from which all the faithful draw knowledge of the things to be believed is the living ecclesiastical teaching office (above, no. 301). God, however, entrusted certain books to this teaching office, of which he himself became the author through human beings as instruments, and which are therefore called “Sacred Scripture” (above, no. 303). This name is drawn from these very books, in which the collection of the sacred books of the Jews is called either simply ἡ γραφή or αἱ γραφαί, or γραφαὶ ἅγιαι, ἱερὰ γράμματα (cf. Jn 7:38; 17:12; 19:24 ff.; Mt 22:29; Rom 1:2; 4:3; 2 Tim 3:15 f.). In 1 Macc. 12:9 they are called τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια; hence the name “Holy Bible.” Most of these books already existed before Christ. But certain apostles or disciples of the apostles also wrote sacred books. Scripture is therefore divided into the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are also called simply the Old and New Testament.

372. Which books these are was defined by the Council of Trent, which (in session 4) lists all and only those read in our Latin Vulgate edition, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalypse; it then continues: “But if anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the books themselves, entire and with all their parts, as they have customarily been read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition … let him be anathema” (Denz. no. 784). The First Vatican Council repeated this definition in session 3, chapter 2 (Denz. no. 1787). This catalogue of sacred books is not new, but had already been established by the Council of Carthage in 397 (Denz. no. 92; cf. nos. 84, 96), and repeatedly thereafter. The catalogue of sacred books is usually called the canon, and the books included in it are called canonical books. Nevertheless, this meaning of the word canon is not its original one, since canon in itself means the same as measure or rule. Transferring this term to dogmatic matters, the holy Fathers speak of a canon, that is, a rule of faith (St. Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 7; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, II, I, etc.). Therefore, since Scripture is the rule of faith, the books belonging to it are rightly called canonical books.

Because the canonicity of certain books of both the Old and New Testaments was once disputed in the Church, those books which were always and everywhere held to be canonical are commonly called protocanonical; those about which there was sometimes doubt are called deuterocanonical. These names indicate no greater or lesser degree of authority, but only the historical fact of the earlier or later universal acceptance of those books. The deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, the two books of Maccabees, Esther 10:4 to the end of the book, Daniel 3:24–90 and 13:1 to the end of the book. The deuterocanonical books of the New Testament are: the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letter of James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Letter of Jude, the Apocalypse, Mark 16:9–20, Luke 22:43 f., and John 7:53 to 8:11. The deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are called apocrypha by Protestants; those which Catholics call apocrypha are called pseudepigrapha by Protestants (e.g. 3 and 4 Maccabees, the Psalms of Solomon, the Book of Enoch).

The history of the canon is treated in the introduction to Sacred Scripture. Since this matter requires longer historical investigations than can conveniently be undertaken here or usefully recapitulated briefly, we leave it to that theological discipline. From the dogmatic point of view, every doubt once raised about certain books has long since been removed.

373. Two things belong to the concept of a canonical book: a) that the book be inspired, b) that as inspired it be entrusted to the Church. This was defined by the First Vatican Council (session 3, chapter 2): “The Church holds the books of the Old and New Testaments as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry alone, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself” (Denz. 1787). Since sacred books were entrusted to the Church to be preserved and expounded, and were not given to individual people as the proximate rule of faith, much less as the sole rule, the Council of Trent (session 4) decreed “to restrain presumptuous minds, that no one, relying on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, may twist Sacred Scripture to suit his own sense and dare to interpret it contrary to the sense which holy mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers” (Denz. no. 786). Since some had said that this decree merely forbade interpreting Scripture against the sense of the Church and the Fathers, but did not positively establish that the sense of the Church or the Fathers must necessarily be accepted, the First Vatican Council, rejecting this false exposition, said (session 3, chapter 2): “Renewing the same decree, we declare that this is its meaning: that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, that sense of Sacred Scripture must be held as true which holy mother Church has held and holds” (Denz. no. 1788). These decrees therefore state two things clearly: a) Sacred Scripture is inspired by God in such a way that God is its author; b) this Sacred Scripture was entrusted not to individuals but to the Church to be expounded. These two points must now be explained and demonstrated. We shall treat first the essence of inspiration, then its extent.

Prop. XLVI. The books of Sacred Scripture, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have God as their author.

374. Position of the question. God did not produce the sacred books miraculously by himself alone, but moved human beings to write them. This divine influence upon the sacred writers is called inspiration (active); the writers themselves, placed under this divine influence, are called inspired writers (personal inspiration); likewise, the books written by them through this influence are called inspired books (real inspiration). In Greek it is expressed more fully as θεοπνευστία, while the sacred writers and books are θεόπνευστοι. This designation is taken from 2 Tim 3:16: Πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος.

It must first be proved, then, that God exercised this kind of influence upon certain human beings, so that books written by the force of this divine influence are to be referred to God as their author and possess a certain divine authority. We shall speak later about the precise nature of this influence and the extent of this authority. The question is not how inspiration could have occurred in the abstract, but how it actually did occur; this is to be learned not from bare speculation about the concept of inspiration or authorship, but from the theological sources in which these concepts are explained.

It is clear that we cannot prove the inspiration of Scripture from the authority of Scripture as inspired. We can, however, learn from Scripture as a historical source what the persons speaking in it think about the inspiration of Scripture; and if these persons speak with infallible authority, as Christ and the apostles do, their teaching about the inspiration of Scripture must be accepted. Nevertheless, insofar as the question concerns not inspiration in general or the inspiration of only some books, but the inspiration of all canonical books, the argument is not available from Scripture alone; we must necessarily have recourse to tradition.

Whereas the old Protestant theologians, especially in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, had so exaggerated inspiration that they reached a kind of true bibliolatry, most recent Protestants reject inspiration in the true sense of the word; and if they retain the term, they understand nothing other than that the sacred books were written by people greatly stirred by religious feeling, and were therefore suited to arouse a similar feeling in readers (cf. Chr. Pesch, On Inspiration, no. 224 ff.). The modernists followed the rationalist Protestants in this matter; their condemned proposition 9 reads: “Those who believe that God is truly the author of Sacred Scripture display excessive simplicity or ignorance” (Denz. no. 2009; cf. 2090).

375. Argument 1. From Sacred Scripture as a historical source.

In the Old Testament, the sacred books are referred to God as their author in a special way; in the New Testament, the Lord Jesus and the apostles approve this belief and teach that the sacred books have God as their author in such a way that their statements are, for this very reason, the strongest proof of truth. But this teaching, being divinely revealed, is true. Therefore, the sacred books, divinely inspired, have God as their author. Only the major premise of the argument needs proof.

Proof of the major. a) From the Old Testament. Often in the Old Testament men specially chosen by God received a divine command to write things revealed by God, to preserve these writings, and in their own time to recall them to the people. Such men were Moses, Joshua, and Samuel (cf. Ex 17:4; 24:4 ff.; 34:27; Deut 31:10 ff., 24, 26; Josh 1:8; 24:26; 1 Sam 10:25). These men were “prophets” (Num 12:6 ff.; Deut 34:10; Josh 3:7 ff.; 1 Sam 3:20). After them came other prophets who received a similar command from God (Is 8:1; 30:8; 34:16; Jer 30:2; 36:1 ff.; Hab 2:2). Besides those strictly called prophets, other men who composed songs are also said to have written in such a way that God himself spoke through them. “David said … the excellent psalmist of Israel: The Spirit of the Lord spoke through me, and his word was on my tongue” (2 Sam 23:1 ff.). This is the very definition of a prophet, who is as it were the mouth of the Lord (Jer 15:19), so that while he himself speaks, he may say: “Thus says the Lord” (Ezek 3:10 f.; Zech 7:12). Whoever rejects the prophet’s words rejects God’s words (Jer 7:25 ff.; Ezek 3:7). When they speak as prophets, they are under the special movement of the Holy Spirit (1 Sam 10:10; 19:20; 2 Chr 20:14; Ezek 3:10). Thus, since not only prophecies strictly so called but also the law and the psalms are referred to prophetic writers who wrote at God’s special command or under his special impulse, we understand why they were held in such veneration among the Israelites (cf. 1 Macc 12:9; Jn 5:39), and why St. Paul counts among Israel’s privileges that “the oracles of God were entrusted to them” (Rom 3:2), especially the written oracles.

Flavius Josephus confirms this belief: “Among the Jews it was not permitted to just anyone to write history, but only to prophets, who learned the most remote and ancient things by divine inspiration … There are only twenty-two books containing the account of all time. Of these, five are Moses’ … The prophets who succeeded Moses recorded the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for human life.” Writings composed after Artaxerxes “are not considered equally trustworthy as the earlier ones, because the succession of prophets was less clearly established” (Against Apion I, 7 f.).

b) In the New Testament, the Lord Jesus and the apostles approve this belief of the Jews. For the formulas “Scripture says” and “It is written” introduce words of the Old Testament as an argument of irresistible certainty, which may not be contradicted (Mt 4:4, 7, 10; 21:42; Jn 10:34 f.; Rom 3:10). Similar formulas are repeated about a hundred and fifty times. “Scripture cannot be broken” (Jn 10:35). “The Scripture had to be fulfilled” (Acts 1:16). “Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” (Lk 24:44). Why are the words of Scripture so firm? Because they are God’s words, or because human beings spoke or wrote them under divine influence. Thus David spoke “in the Spirit” about Christ (Mt 22:43). In Scripture God speaks to the Jews living at the time of Christ (Mt 22:31). “The Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16). God said what is written in Gen 2:2 about the seventh day (Heb 4:4). In Gal 3:8, Scripture speaking is put in the place of God speaking. Therefore, according to the teaching of Christ and the apostles, the statements of Scripture are infallibly true because they are the written word of God, that is, because they are inspired by God.

In the Second Letter to Timothy (3:15 f.), the Scripture which Timothy had learned from childhood, that is, the Old Testament (according to the Septuagint version), is called γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, Scripture inspired by God. About “every prophecy of Scripture,” St. Peter says: “Prophecy was never brought by human will, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι)” (2 Pet 1:21). These words serve to explain St. Paul’s θεόπνευστος. For Scripture is θεόπνευστος because its principal cause is not the human will of the writers but the Holy Spirit, moving men chosen by God to speak either orally or in writing.

All these testimonies refer to the books of the Old Testament. The books of the New Testament, however, were not present from the beginning of the religion; they could therefore be mentioned only by those who wrote after the first books had been published. Thus St. Peter in his second letter (3:15 ff.) speaks of the letters of St. Paul: “Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters, among which there are some things hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” He therefore counts the Pauline letters among “the Scriptures,” ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς. We do not know which letters of Paul he had. St. Paul seems to cite certain words from the Gospel of Luke (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Lk 10:7). St. John in the Apocalypse often testifies that he received a command from God to write (1:10 f., 19, etc.), and he gives his book such authority that under the gravest punishments to be inflicted by God nothing may be added or taken away (22:18 f.).

Therefore, from Sacred Scripture we can indeed prove the existence of inspired books whose author is God, but from Scripture alone we cannot prove which books are all and only those that are inspired.

376. Argument 2. From the consensus of the Fathers and theologians.

The holy Fathers and theologians teach that human writers, in composing Sacred Scripture, were instruments of the Holy Spirit, so that the principal author of Scripture is not human beings but God. Therefore, they explicitly teach our thesis. St. Justin (or another of his contemporaries) says of the sacred writers: “They had no need of skill in words … but presented themselves pure to the operation of the divine Spirit, so that the divine plectrum, having descended from heaven, might use just men as an instrument, as though it were a lyre or harp” (Exhortation, ch. 8). St. Theophilus of Antioch calls the sacred writers ὄργανα θεοῦ, so that God speaks through them rather than the men themselves (To Autolycus 2, 10). Hence Scripture agrees with itself, “because all, moved by the Spirit (πνευματόφοροι), spoke by the one Spirit of God” (ibid. 3, 12). Athenagoras: The prophets “spoke what was inspired as the divine Spirit moved them, the Spirit using them as a flute player blows a flute” (Embassy 9). St. Irenaeus: “The Scriptures are perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit” (Against Heresies 2, 28, 2). St. Cyprian: “God deigned to teach and instruct us through the Holy Scriptures” (Preface to the Books of Testimonies). St. Basil: “All Scripture is divinely inspired, and therefore written by the Holy Spirit, so that … we may select a remedy to cure our sickness” (On Psalm 1, no. 1). “Paul said: All Scripture is divinely inspired … How is the Holy Spirit not God, when his Scripture is divinely inspired?” (Against Eunomius 5; M PG 29, 722). St. Cyril of Alexandria: “All Scripture is one book, and its words are spoken by the Holy Spirit” (On Isaiah, book 3, tome 2, v. 13). St. John Chrysostom: “The prophets spoke the Holy Scriptures, breathed upon by the divine Spirit; therefore, as written by the Spirit, they contain a great treasure within them”¹ (On Genesis 21, 1). St. Jerome: All the Scriptures “were written by one Holy Spirit, and are therefore called one book” (On Isaiah 29:9 ff.). St. Augustine addresses God: “O Lord, is not this your Scripture true, since you are truthful and Truth itself produced it?” (Confessions 13, 29). St. Gregory the Great: Asking who wrote the individual things contained in Scripture “is quite superfluous, when the Holy Spirit is faithfully believed to be the author of the book. He, then, wrote these things who dictated what was to be written. He wrote them who is their inspirer in the work, and through the voice of the writer transmits to us the deeds to be imitated” (Moralia on Job, Preface, no. 1 f.).

These few testimonies, selected from many, suffice to show that, according to the common and constant tradition of the holy Fathers, God inspired Sacred Scripture in such a way that he must be called its true author. Hardly any teaching is repeated more clearly and more often in tradition. The consensus of theologians is also unanimous. St. Bonaventure explains the excellence of Scripture in the prologue to the Breviloquium, where, among other things, speaking of Scripture’s manner of proceeding, he says: “In it nothing is to be despised as useless, nothing rejected as false, nothing cast aside as wicked, because the Holy Spirit, its most perfect author, could say nothing false, nothing superfluous, nothing incomplete.” St. Thomas: “The Holy Spirit is the author of Sacred Scripture, while the human being is its instrument” (Quodlibet 7, a. 16). “Faith presupposes that Scripture was promulgated at the dictation of the Holy Spirit” (Commentary on the Sentences 2, dist. 12, a. 2). There is no need to cite others, since all hand down the same teaching. Finally, this teaching was defined by the First Vatican Council (above, no. 373).

377. Objection I. When the Lord Jesus and the apostles spoke about Scripture, they accommodated themselves to the opinion of the Jews, who attributed divine authority to the sacred books, especially the books of Moses. Therefore, their statements should be considered as an argument ad hominem, not pressed as though they were divine revelation about the origin and authority of Scripture.

I answer. I deny the antecedent. For although it may be granted that Christ or the apostles sometimes used an argument ad hominem, yet they so constantly inculcate the authority of Scripture that it is unreasonable to want to consider all this as argument ad hominem, especially since often they are not trying to convince Jews but to instruct disciples (e.g. Lk 24:27, 44 f.; 2 Tim 3:15 f.). This method of explaining every unwelcome statement as an accommodation to Jewish prejudices is indeed fairly common among rationalists, but it is an all too flimsy and arbitrary evasion, which attributes to Christ a way of acting wholly unworthy of him.

378. Objection II. The ancient Christian writers, when they speak about the inspiration of Scripture, exaggerate so manifestly that their testimony has little force as proof for that very reason. For they compare sacred writers to a lyre, harp, or other instruments, making them appear to be instruments devoid of reason and driven by prophetic frenzy. Therefore, the argument from ancient tradition is ineffective.

I answer. I deny the antecedent. For although the ancients sometimes strongly emphasize the prevailing influence of the Holy Spirit upon the sacred writers, they nevertheless often and clearly say that these did not write with disturbed minds but with minds enlightened and fully aware of what they were doing and writing. When the Montanists tried to introduce prophetic frenzy, Catholics firmly resisted them, and the Montanists were expelled from the Church. “They will never be able to show that any prophet in either the Old or New Testament was inspired by such a spirit” (Eusebius, Church History 5, 17).

379. Objection III. Ancient writers not infrequently extend inspiration to noncanonical books, as when St. Augustine says that St. Jerome wrote “not merely with the Spirit’s gift, but also at his dictation” (Letter 82, 2). Therefore, nothing can be concluded from their statements about the origin and authority that are proper to Scripture alone.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. The holy Fathers sometimes use the word inspiration in a broad and less proper sense, so that nothing certain and determinate can be inferred from the bare word “inspiration,” I grant the antecedent; they do not apply this term to Scripture in a narrow and determinate sense that would fit no other book, I deny the antecedent. Thus St. Augustine says: “I have learned to defer this fear and honor to the books of Scripture alone that are called canonical, so that I most firmly believe none of their authors erred in writing anything … I read the others in such a way that, however greatly they excel in holiness and doctrine, I do not consider something true merely because they thought it so” (Letter 82, 3; cf. above, no. 362, 6). The canonical books alone were read everywhere in the liturgy, and this with special signs of veneration; many preferred to undergo death rather than hand them over to the pagans (cf. what I wrote in On Inspiration, no. 389 ff.). The many biblical commentaries published by the holy Fathers already provide an effective argument for showing what they thought about the divine inspiration of Scripture.

Prop. XLVII. God became the author of Sacred Scripture by arousing and moving the sacred writers through supernatural power to write, assisting them as they wrote, so that they rightly conceived in their minds all and only what he commanded, freely willed to write it down faithfully, and expressed it suitably with infallible truth.

380. Position of the question. Although all Catholics unanimously agree that Scripture is truly inspired by God, nevertheless there is no such consensus when it comes to explaining the concept of inspiration more precisely. We shall list some false or less probable explanations at the end of the thesis. Since inspiration consists in a certain influence of God upon the sacred writers, the question is what kind of influence this was. In every writer we distinguish acts of the intellect, by which the writer conceives what he wishes to write; the will to write; and the execution of the will. The question of inspiration, then, concerns the way God related to these various acts of the sacred writers.

We answer in the words with which Leo XIII explains the manner of inspiration in the encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” (Denz. no. 1952). This teaching was already very common among theologians before that encyclical; for example, it is transmitted almost word for word by Cornely in his dissertation on inspiration, Appendix II of the Compendium of the Introduction (no. 4), and by the cardinal he follows, Franzelin, in thesis III on Scripture, so that the latter’s exposition is in a way a preliminary commentary on the pontifical teaching, whatever some have imagined to the contrary. — We shall explain the proposition’s words part by part.

381. Proof of part I. The inspiring influence is supernatural. For God is the principal author of Scripture, while the human writers are his instruments. But God is the author of Scripture, and the sacred writers his instruments, only through a supernatural influence.

The major premise was proved in the preceding thesis (no. 376) and is often taught by the holy Fathers. St. Hippolytus: The writers are prophets, “having the Word within them as a plectrum, like instruments” (On Christ and Antichrist 2). Theodoret of Cyrus: “They are instruments of the divine Spirit” (Commentary on Daniel, Preface). According to St. Jerome, the sacred writer said in a certain sense: “It is my part to offer my tongue as an instrument; it is his [the Holy Spirit’s] part to sound through the instrument what is his” (Letter 65, 7). According to St. Augustine, Christ relates to the writers of the New Testament as the head to the hands. “For whatever he wished us to read about his deeds and words, he inspired them to write as his own hands” (Harmony of the Gospels I, 54). Finally, to omit other testimonies, Leo XIII says in the encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” that “the Holy Spirit took human beings as instruments for writing,” and that Scripture must be attributed to God as its “primary author.”

Proof of the minor. An instrument does not produce its effect through an action it receives from itself, but through the motion it receives from another, who is the principal cause and acts by a power inherent in itself while also imparting motion to the instrument. Therefore, if God specially uses sacred writers as instruments to write the sacred books, a supernatural influence of God is required, because in natural actions creatures act by their own power and motion; hence, although God concurs in all actions, he is not in the proper sense the author of all books that have been written. Indeed, not every supernatural influence suffices for a human agent to be only an instrumental cause. For if the agent acts through supernatural forms infused in him, whose use is subject to human choice, such as sanctifying grace and the virtues, he remains a principal cause. Thus, even if someone writes a book with the help of grace, God is not, properly speaking, its author or inspirer. For this reason the holy Fathers and scholastic theologians teach that inspiration is to be classed as the charismatic gift of prophecy, and call the sacred writers prophets (cf. the passages I collected in On Inspiration, nos. 38, 40, 43 f., 47, 51, 61, 64, 68 f., 71, 83, 117, 170 ff., etc.); they drew this way of speaking from Sacred Scripture (above, no. 375). From the few passages we have excerpted from the Fathers and theologians, it is already perfectly clear that inspiration is an entirely extraordinary supernatural influence upon the sacred writers. Nor do they restrict this influence to this or that book; rather, they teach that the whole of Scripture is the word or oracle of God.

382. Proof of part II. God moved the intellect and will of the sacred writers supernaturally. For God uses creatures as instruments in accordance with their nature. But the writers are rational creatures, acting through intellect and will. Therefore, God used them as instruments through a supernatural influence on their intellect and will. The holy Fathers especially emphasized this, fighting against the Montanists’ theory of prophetic frenzy. Thus the sacred writers wrote knowingly and willingly, but with their intellect enlightened and their will moved by God. St. Hippolytus: “They did not speak from their own ability, like impostors, nor did they announce what they themselves wanted; rather, they were first rightly instructed by the Word” (On Christ and Antichrist 2). St. John Chrysostom: “We learn that the prophets were not like seers [among the pagans]. There the demon, when it invades the soul, deprives the mind and darkens its reasoning … But the Holy Spirit does not act in this way; he allows the heart to understand what is said … Since he is solicitous and beneficent, he makes those who receive him share in knowledge.” He is speaking of the psalmist (On Psalm 44, 1). Of other sacred writers he says: “They prophesied as was fitting for them, with understanding and complete freedom … God does not drive one by necessity, but by counsels … It is God’s part to enlighten and to teach with understanding what is needed” (Homily 29 on 1 Corinthians, 2). St. Augustine: Matthew wrote “following the authority of the Holy Spirit, by whom he felt his mind was governed even more than we do” (Harmony of the Gospels 3, 7, 29). Other Fathers teach the same, as do theologians in common. If the sacred writers had chosen what to write by their own intellect and will, without God’s supernatural motion, they themselves would be the primary authors, not God. This does not mean, however, that God impeded their freedom in writing; for God, in his wisdom and power, can also use free instruments with infallible efficacy, in whatever way he wills.

383. Proof of part III. God assisted the writers as they wrote, so that they expressed what was to be written suitably and with infallible truth. Divine assistance concerns execution, that is, the actual material writing of the book. For a person may fail in execution even under a supernatural motion, since the executive faculties do not always obey the will perfectly. Therefore assistance is required at least to prevent those defects that would change the sense intended by God. A sacred writer may also use a secretary to write, who is not inspired, as Paul wrote the Letter to the Romans through Tertius (Rom 16:22) and other letters through other secretaries. So that no defects affecting the sense might creep in for these or other reasons, God watched over the process and allowed secondary causes to act so long as he saw everything being written suitably; but as soon as he saw a person straying from correct writing, he intervened so that errors would be avoided. Assistance, understood in this way, is in itself something negative, preventing defects; a positive influence is added only when necessary. Bañez, Contenson, Bellarmine, Suárez, and many recent authors explain this assistance in this way.

God therefore revealed to the apostles that Scripture, composed in this way, was Scripture inspired by him, and through them he handed it on to the Church. For without divine revelation the inspiration could not be believed with divine faith, as the Church commands it to be believed. Therefore, since the Church received all revelation from the apostles (above, no. 329), it also received Sacred Scripture as inspired from the apostles. The handing on of Scripture certainly does not constitute the inspiration of the books, but presupposes and manifests it. Yet the act by which God wills a book to be handed on to the Church as inspired belongs to the complete concept of inspiration. For the final cause of an inspired book is to be handed on to the Church to be preserved and explained. Therefore, the intention that the book be handed on to the Church as canonical and supernatural inspiration are two inseparably connected things.

384. Objection I. The sacred writers often committed to writing things naturally known to them. But in this case no supernatural enlightenment of the intellect is required. Therefore, this is not essential to the concept of inspiration.

I answer. I grant the major. I distinguish the minor: In such a case, a new revelation of things already known was not necessary, I grant the minor; a supernatural judgment about the things to be written was not necessary, I deny the minor. And in the same way I distinguish the consequence.

If God wanted things wholly unknown to the writers to be written, revelation was required. But God could also inspire people to write things they knew from another source. St. John wrote many things he had seen (Jn 19:35; 1 Jn 1:1 ff.). Luke carefully investigated what he was about to write in his Gospel (Lk 1:3), and in Acts he recounts many events in which he himself had taken part. The Second Book of Maccabees was abridged from the books of Jason of Cyrene (2 Macc 2:24 ff.). God could and did use these writers’ knowledge; but in order to become the author of the book, he had to enlighten their intellect so that they would judge these things ought to be written (cf. St. Thomas, 2, 2, q. 174, a. 2, ad 3). By the very fact that he moves the writer to form this judgment and reveals to the Church that he moved him in this way, God also attests that the things to be written are true, since he cannot inspire the writing of falsehoods. Nevertheless, it does not follow with certainty that each inspired writer was conscious of the supernatural character of this influence, just as there are other supernatural illuminations of the intellect whose supernatural character we do not apprehend directly, but know only from the teaching of the Church. Many theologians, however, think it fitting that an inspired writer be conscious of inspiration, although they admit that this is not part of the nature of this charism (cf. Franzelin, On Scripture, thesis III, corollary 3).

385. Objection II. The sacred writers not infrequently wrote when asked or questioned by other people, as the apostle Paul was by the Corinthians, or when prompted by other occasions and circumstances. But one who writes for such reasons is not moved by God to write. Therefore, an internal supernatural motion is not necessarily required for inspiration.

I answer. I grant the major. I deny the minor. For God can use those external circumstances and join an internal motion to them, just as he joins the internal grace of faith to external preaching. If the writers’ will to write had been moved not by God but only by external causes, God would not be the author of the books; but he does not cease to be their author if he moves them by both external and internal motions. It should also be noted that the Church defines in one general and comprehensive statement that all sacred books are inspired, and recognizes no books as more or less inspired in their origin and authority, but “receives and venerates them all with equal devotion and reverence” (Council of Trent, session 4). As for the personal inspiration of the writers, they may have had a greater or lesser enlightenment of the intellect and motion of the will, about which we know nothing; but this we do know: all were so inspired that their books are the infallible word of God. One inspired writer may also have had more prophetic, poetic, or other inspirations than another; nevertheless, these do not belong to the essence of biblical inspiration, but are concomitant with it.

Scholium. Various errors about the concept of inspiration are excluded.

386. 1. It is false to say that inspiration consists in divine assistance alone, by which errors are kept out of Scripture. This was taught by Io. Iahn in his introduction to the books of the Old Testament (Introduction to the History of the Books of the Old Covenant², Vienna 1802, § 19, p. 91 f.). This teaching was rejected by the First Vatican Council, session 3, chapter 2: “The Church holds the books of Sacred Scripture as sacred and canonical, not … merely because they contain revelation without error …” (Denz. no. 1787). No one becomes the author of a book merely by watching over it to ensure that nothing false is written. But God is the author of Sacred Scripture. Therefore, divine assistance alone does not suffice. Nor is one who provides only negative assistance rightly said to inspire, as Iahn admits, adding that the term “inspiration” is not very apt. But this name, θεοπνευστία, is the solemn designation by which both Scripture and tradition indicate the proper way God relates to the sacred books (above, no. 375 b, 376). Therefore, divine assistance alone does not suffice.

2. It is false to say that certain books are called inspired because, although they were in themselves purely human writings, they were received by the Church into the canon. This was once taught by D. Haneberg in his History of Biblical Revelation (Regensburg 1850, p. 714), but he later retracted the opinion. The First Vatican Council, in the same place, teaches: “The Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry alone, they were afterwards approved by her authority …” Manifestly, the Church’s approval cannot make God the author and inspirer of a book composed without his special influence.

3. It is false to say that God can become the author of a book by subsequent approval alone. Bonfrère distinguishes three ways in which God may relate to a book: by inspiring it, assisting it, or approving it; that is, antecedently, concomitantly, or consequently.

He then adds: “Although I do not think the Holy Spirit has ever used this third way in the books of Sacred Scripture that we possess, nevertheless there is absolutely nothing to prevent him from using it” (Prolegomena to Sacred Scripture, ch. 8, section 7). Thus, this is a purely speculative question of right, not a question of fact. Lessius taught something similar. It was declared at the Council itself that this scholastic question was not touched upon by the decree of the First Vatican Council (Collect. Lac. VII, 140). It must be granted that by approving the truth of statements in a book, God can confer divine authority upon it; but it must be denied that by this approval he becomes the author of a book written in a purely human way, without God’s special motion. Bonfrère, however, never spoke of concomitant or consequent inspiration, as is sometimes attributed to him.

4. Nor does a divine plan or command to write suffice for inspiration, nor merely an initial prompting to write and direction in carrying it out, nor a general provision of material, as Rich. Simon held (Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, ch. 23 ff.). These might perhaps suffice for saying that God inspired Scripture, but they by no means suffice for God to be its principal author and human beings merely its instrumental cause.

5. Much less does merely personal inspiration suffice, of which recent Protestants often speak. They understand this as a particular religious excitement by which the sacred writers were seized and wrote in such a way as to arouse the same excitement in readers’ minds. Those who follow this theory distinguish various degrees of inspiration in the different sacred books, according to whether they were written under greater or lesser excitement, and allow that other books, such as the Imitation of Christ, are more inspired than certain books of Scripture.

The modernists adopted this false opinion. According to them, the sacred writers present past, present, and future things not according to objective truth but according to their subjective apprehensions; these apprehensions are not purely human, but are also effects of God acting immanently within a person, though without preserving him from error in writing. Scripture is therefore indeed inspired, but not free from errors. This opinion is as consonant with the tenets of Protestant rationalists as it is foreign to the Catholic teaching on inspiration, and it was therefore condemned by the Church (Denz. nos. 2010 f., 2090).

The Catholic concept of inspiration is therefore this: Biblical inspiration is a charismatic enlightenment of the intellect, a motion of the will, and divine assistance given to the sacred writer so that he writes all and only those things which God wills to be written in his name and handed down to the Church.

Prop. XLVIII. Inspiration extends to all the subject matter and propositions of Scripture in such a way that everything is infallibly true by virtue of inspiration, although not everything is true in the same way; it extends to the material words in such a way that they are not individually dictated by God, but are chosen by the writer in the way God willed.

387. Position of the question. Once the concept of inspiration has been established, the question is whether and how inspiration extends to the whole of Scripture and all its parts. In Scripture, as in every book, we can distinguish the things said and the words in which they are said. The things said are also called truths, propositions, or judgments, taken objectively.

Already in the seventeenth century H. Holden taught that only “doctrinal matters” and those closely connected with them were inspired (Analysis of Divine Faith 1, 5, 1). Others adopted his opinion, such as Ph. N. Chrismann (Rule of Catholic Faith § 51). In the nineteenth century Fr. Lenormant maintained that “inspiration extends only to matters concerning religion, touching on faith and morals, that is, to the supernatural teachings contained in Scripture” (The Origins of History, Paris 1880, VII). Others held the same. The first part of the thesis is stated against this opinion, which ecclesiastical authority has censured.

On the other hand, many theologians once thought that not only all the subject matter and propositions were written under inspiration and infallibly true, but that the individual material words too were determined and dictated by the Holy Spirit. This was held, for example, by Bañez (On I, q. 1, a. 3, doubt 3) and commonly by the Thomists, as well as by quite a few others. Almost everyone has abandoned this opinion. Words are called “material” when considered according to their grammatical form; propositions considered according to their meaning are called “formal” words, or “things and propositions,” that is, propositions insofar as they signify things.

Nevertheless, many of those who reject what they call the “mechanical” inspiration of material words insist that inspiration extends also to words insofar as the inspired person writes with faculties supernaturally elevated; thus verbal inspiration is to be conceived psychologically, not mechanically (cf. Revue biblique 1904, 293 f.). The theologians whom these recent defenders of verbal inspiration criticize did not deny this “psychological” extension of inspiration to words. Therefore, in itself, the whole question concerns the manner of speaking more than the reality.

388. Proof of part I. Inspiration extends to all the subject matter and propositions, so that everything is infallibly true by virtue of inspiration. For Christ and the apostles cite as inspired and infallible testimonies of Scripture not only dogmatic and moral statements but also historical ones (Mt 2:18; 12:3 f., 40 ff.; 23:35; 24:37 ff.; Mk 2:25 ff.; Lk 11:30 ff.; Jn 3:14; Heb. ch. 11, and many other places). Therefore all Scripture is useful for teaching because it is divinely inspired (2 Tim 3:16). The holy Fathers unanimously and constantly insist that all and each of Scripture’s words are true because they were spoken by the Holy Spirit. St. Hilary: “We must think of the heavenly utterances so that everything in them is considered exalted, divine, reasonable, and perfect” (On Psalm 135, no. 1). St. Gregory of Nazianzus, speaking of historical events narrated in Scripture, says: “We shall never concede—and it is not lawful—that even the smallest things were set down carelessly by the writers” (Oration on His Flight, ch. 105). St. John Chrysostom: “Let us not pass over even those statements of Scripture which seem insignificant, for they too come from the grace of the Spirit” (Homily to the People of Antioch 1, 1). St. Jerome says of himself: “I was not so dull of mind or so grossly ignorant … as to think anything in the Lord’s words ought to be corrected or was not divinely inspired” (Letter 27, 1). St. Augustine: “No one doubts that Scripture is truthful except an unbeliever or an impious person” (Literal Commentary on Genesis 7, 28, 42). “The authority of this Scripture is greater than the capacity of every human intellect” (ibid. 2, 5, 9). Since all the holy Fathers who speak about this matter taught the same thing about the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, St. Leo the Great admonishes: “We may not differ by even one word from the teaching of the Gospel and the apostles, or think about the divine Scriptures otherwise than the blessed apostles and Fathers learned and taught” (Letter 82, 1), “since the sacred narrative possesses unquestionable authority” (Sermon 52, ch. 1).

The consensus of the scholastics on this matter is also complete. St. Thomas says: “Falsehood cannot underlie the divine Scriptures handed down by the Holy Spirit” (On the Power of God, q. 4, a. 1), as it can in other sciences; “for the other sciences are produced by human reason, but this Scripture comes from the impulse of divine inspiration” (Prologue to the Commentary on the Psalms). Canus: “It is the privilege of the sacred writers that none of them errs in writing” (On Theological Places 2, 18). See other evidence, if you wish, in my work On Inspiration, no. 157 ff.

In our time Leo XIII teaches in the encyclical “Providentissimus Deus”: “It would be wholly unlawful either to restrict inspiration to certain parts of Sacred Scripture alone or to concede that the sacred author himself erred. The position of those who resolve these difficulties by conceding that divine inspiration pertains to matters of faith and morals, and nothing further, is intolerable … For all the books, whole and entire, which the Church has received as sacred and canonical, were written under the dictation of the Holy Spirit, with all their parts. So far is it from being possible for any error to underlie divine inspiration that inspiration by its very nature not only excludes every error but excludes and rejects it as necessarily as it is necessary that God, supreme Truth, be the author of no error whatsoever” (Denz. no. 1950 ff.).

389. Proof of part II. Not everything in Sacred Scripture is true in the same way. From what we have said so far, we can certainly conclude that the sacred writers affirm nothing as true that is false, and deny nothing as false that is true. Therefore, all the statements of Scripture are true in the sense in which they are affirmed by the Holy Spirit through the sacred writers. But, notwithstanding this principle, not everything is affirmed in the same sense, nor is everything true in the same way.

a) First, the distinction between what the Holy Spirit himself says and what he reports as having been said by others is clear. When others are not introduced as speaking, either explicitly or implicitly, the Holy Spirit himself speaks, as at the very beginning of Scripture: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” But the Holy Spirit himself can also speak historically, prophetically, poetically, didactically; in short, he can use every reasonable manner of speaking customary among people. The truth of a poem differs from the truth of a historical narrative, and both differ from the truth of other literary genres. Compare, for example, what is sung in Psalms 104 and 105 with the historical narratives of the Pentateuch, or the descriptions of animals in chapters 39 and 40 of Job with scientific zoology. When a parable is presented, the whole narrative may be fictional, provided the teaching illustrated by the narrative is true. The prophets often present in a single view things separated by long intervals of time, because they see them together (cf. Joel 2:28 ff.). Metaphors, even when used by the Holy Spirit, are to be taken as metaphors, not in a crudely literal sense. Thus each literary genre, even in Sacred Scripture, has its own proper truth. Moreover, since God often moved writers to write things they knew naturally, without a new revelation, we can understand how there may be indefinite or hesitant statements in Scripture (cf. Jn 2:6; 6:19; Acts 25:6; 1 Cor 1:16). These are not hesitations on the part of the Holy Spirit but of the human writers, who were inspired to express the knowledge they possessed.

b) Sacred Scripture speaks about physical things as all people commonly speak, about sunrise and sunset and similar matters, according to external appearance, not according to the inner nature of things. Leo XIII gives this reminder: “First of all, it should be borne in mind that the sacred writers—or, more truly, the Spirit of God who spoke through them—did not wish to teach people these things (namely, the inner constitution of visible things), which would contribute nothing to salvation” (St. Augustine, Literal Commentary on Genesis 2, 9, 20). Therefore, rather than pursuing the study of nature directly, they sometimes describe and treat things in a figurative way, or as common speech at the time—and even today in daily life among people, including the most learned—would express them. Since ordinary speech first and properly expresses what falls under the senses, the sacred writer likewise (as the Angelic Doctor also noted, I, q. 70, a. 1, ad 3) “followed what appears to the senses,” that is, what God himself, speaking to human beings, expressed in a human manner suited to their understanding (“Providentissimus Deus,” Herder ed., p. 55). Thus, for example, the hare is counted among unclean animals (Lev 11:6) because to outward appearance it chews the cud and does not divide the hoof, although in reality it does not chew the cud but does divide the hoof. Therefore, in order to achieve the purpose of the law, God had to speak in a way the people of Israel would understand (cf. Ottiger, On Supernatural Revelation, 440 f.).

c) Historical matters are not to be judged in the same way as physical matters. For 1. physical matters do not in themselves pertain to the order of salvation, whereas many historical events are in themselves closely connected with the supernatural order, such as original sin, the history of the people of Israel, and especially the words and deeds of Christ. 2. By revelation God did not impart natural science to instruct us about the inner constitutions of things; but he revealed many historical events and proposes them through the Church for belief, as is already evident from the Creeds. 3. The common manner of speaking about physical phenomena is not used to explain the nature of things; but historical narrative is composed to teach people about events. Hence a historian may not narrate as truly happened things that did not happen; but if he reports some things that were merely popular opinion, he must adequately indicate that he is reporting only rumors or that he found this in documents to which he entrusts the truth of the events. In things cited in this way, the truth of the citation suffices; the truth of the cited matter is not required. Thus, in the two letters prefixed to the Second Book of Maccabees, certain things are recounted about the death of Antiochus that do not agree with the narrative of the book itself (2 Macc 1:15 f.; 9:1 ff.). The letters report rumors circulated among the Jews; the book itself narrates what truly happened. Citations may be explicit (Neh 7:5 ff.) or tacit, that is, implicit (2 Chr 5:9; 8:8). But as regards “implicit citations,” exaggeration must be avoided. For the historical books of the Old Testament are not a collection of citations gathered by sacred writers without any judgment about their truth or falsehood; rather, they are a history of the supernatural order, which Christ and the apostles use for teaching as true history. Hence ecclesiastical authority has denied that implicit citations may be assumed without solid reason (Denz. no. 1979). Still more often has it condemned the opinion that Scripture, under the form of history, narrates myths or fictions lacking historical truth, which serve only to illustrate certain religious ideas (cf. Denz. nos. 1707, 1980, 2014, 2016–2018).

d) In Sacred Scripture, people or angels are often introduced speaking. In such cases, the Holy Spirit immediately attests only that the words were spoken by this or that person; whether those words are true must be determined from elsewhere. Sometimes the words of others are approved as true (e.g. Titus 1:12 f.), sometimes rejected as false (e.g. Jer 28:15 f.), and sometimes simply reported. If the person whose words are reported speaks as a divine envoy, it is the testimony of God himself; but if that person says something not as God’s envoy but in his own name, he may be mistaken (cf. 2 Sam 7:2 ff.). If a long speech is praised for its principal intention, it does not follow that each incidental statement in that speech is true (cf. Job 42:3 and 42:7). Good angels who come and speak to people are considered always to speak as God’s envoys (cf. Dan 9; Heb 1:14; Apocalypse passim). If certain people are praised either generally or for a particular deed, it does not follow that all their statements are proclaimed true or all their deeds good (cf. Ex 1:15 ff.; Judg 10:12 ff.). If the sacred writers report what they themselves once said or did, inspiration guarantees only that they said or did it then (cf. Ex 2:13 ff.). If they express present feelings of love, joy, sadness, or other such feelings while writing, it is certain in the first instance that they had these feelings; but it also seems certain that these feelings are morally good, since otherwise there would be no reasonable purpose in inspiring them to write them. These few points suffice to show how much care is often needed in arguing from Sacred Scripture.

390. Proof of part III. By inspiration the individual material words are not dictated by God. For:

a) This verbal dictation, or supernatural divine influence by which people are determined to use these particular words, seems to conflict with the character of Sacred Scripture, which contains no few grammatical and literary defects, as the holy Fathers already observed. But it is unsuitable to refer these defects to the special motion of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they should instead be referred to the natural character of the human writers. In fact, the sacred writers sometimes attribute these defects to themselves. Thus the author of the Second Book of Maccabees says: “If I have written well and as befits history, that is what I myself wanted; but if poorly and in a mediocre way, that is what I was able to accomplish” (2 Macc 15:38, in Greek). St. Paul calls himself “unskilled in speech” (2 Cor 11:6). Similarly, the holy Fathers attribute these defects not to inspiration but to the natural conditions of individual writers, and expressly distinguish the composition of words, in which the writers differ from one another, from the meanings, which are divine everywhere. Thus, for example, St. Jerome says of Jeremiah: “The prophet Jeremiah seems to be cruder in speech among the Hebrews than Isaiah, Hosea, and certain other prophets, but he is their equal in meaning, since he prophesied by the same Spirit. Moreover, the simplicity of his language arises from the place where he was born” (Prologue to the Commentary on Jeremiah). He speaks similarly about St. Paul (Commentary on Ephesians 3:1). Nor does it help to say that in his supernatural motion the Holy Spirit accommodated himself to the character of each writer; for God does nothing in vain, and could have achieved the same effect by leaving each writer to his natural disposition.

b) The sacred writers sometimes cite scriptural statements by sense alone, changing the words (cf. 2 Sam ch. 22 and Ps 17, which give the same psalm but with substantial verbal differences; or Rom 9:3 with Is 8:14 and 28:16). But they would not have acted in this way if they had thought the Holy Spirit determined those words. Likewise, the Evangelists report the same sayings of Christ in different words, for example, the words of the institution of the Eucharist (Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19 f.). “For it is clear that each explained the same statement, some more briefly and others at greater length, as each remembered it and as it came to his mind … so that we might understand that what chiefly pertains to faithful teaching is that we seek and embrace the truth of things, not so much of words” (St. Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels 2, 27 f.). Therefore, when the holy Fathers so often insist that each word of Scripture is a word of the Holy Spirit and for that reason full of meanings, they speak of formal words, not material words. “In the divine Scriptures we must examine not the sequence of words but the weight of things” (St. Ambrose, Commentary on Luke 8, 63).

c) If material words determined by the Holy Spirit belong to the concept of inspired Scripture, Scripture has largely perished, because the original text of several books is no longer extant, such as the Gospel of St. Matthew. Moreover, versions, even authentic ones such as the Septuagint and the Vulgate, cannot in a perfect sense be called Sacred Scripture, because the words determined by the Holy Spirit are absent. But the Church has always held authentic versions without any restriction to be canonical Scripture. Indeed, many Fathers and councils did not refer to the Hebrew text, which they could not even read, and yet thought they possessed Scripture. All this sufficiently shows that material words, insofar as the sense of Sacred Scripture does not depend on them, are entirely accidental to the concept of an inspired book; therefore, it is wholly gratuitous to assert that inspired writers were supernaturally determined to use these words. If someone objects: “Is not a saying of Chrysostom, rendered in another language, simply called the word of Chrysostom by everyone, without qualification?” the answer is quite obvious: everyone regards it as the formal word of Chrysostom, I grant; any reasonable person regards it as Chrysostom’s material word, I deny; for Chrysostom might not even have understood these particular material words.

391. Proof of part IV. Inspiration extends to material words insofar as everything is expressed in the way God willed by virtue of inspiration. For a book cannot exist without definite words and an arrangement of words. Therefore, if God brings about a book by supernatural influence, he also influences the book’s external composition. No serious theologian has ever denied this; rather, those who opposed “verbal inspiration” rejected only “mechanical dictation,” which the defenders of the recent “psychological theory” also reject. Authors such as Suárez (On Faith, disp. 5, sect. 3), Franzelin (On Sacred Scripture, thesis III, part II, no. 1), and Kleutgen (cited in Schneemann, Controversies on Grace, 473 ff.) also teach that material words are inspired in some way. These authors, however, clearly explain how inspiration extends to the subject matter in one way and to material words in another. Many defenders of the recent theory of verbal inspiration, by contrast, say quite indeterminately and without distinction that both subject matter and words are inspired; declaiming against the “vivisection” of Scripture, they prefer confusion. We must therefore examine what kind of influence inspiration has—or does not have—on material words.

a) When God moves a writer to write in Hebrew, Greek, or another language about certain things, by that very fact he moves him to use the words by which those things are expressed. Whoever wants to write about water and fire must use the names for water and fire, not the names for a tree and a stone. Furthermore, since God moves the writer sometimes to write a poem, sometimes a history, a letter, or something else, he also moves him to choose poetic, historical, epistolary, or other diction.

b) Nevertheless, inspiration does not confer knowledge of a language or the art of poetry, history, or letter-writing; rather, presupposing these things from another source, God uses people as instruments suited to writing such a book. For not everything required to write an inspired book is to be derived from inspiration, but only those things that cannot exist or be conceived without God’s charismatic influence.

c) This argument of some should not be pressed too hard: “The sacred writer has been supernaturally elevated to write, and as supernaturally elevated and moved he writes propositions and words. Therefore, words too are inspired.” Although there is some truth in this argument, it suffers from two difficulties. For 1. the style of a book may belong not to the inspired writer but to someone else. The apostle Paul “could not express the majesty of divine meanings in worthy Greek speech. Therefore he had Titus as an interpreter … Finally, the two letters attributed to Peter also differ in style and character. From this we understand that, as circumstances required, he used different interpreters” (St. Jerome, Letter 120, 11). Many ancients and later writers especially held that the ideas in the Letter to the Hebrews are Paul’s, while the wording is that of one of his disciples (e.g. Eusebius, Church History 6, 25; Bellarmin, On the Word of God 1, 17). If this opinion is admitted, the “psychological” argument collapses, and it follows that in inspired books the choice of material words need not necessarily derive from inspiration.

2. It is not true that the person who has conceived in his mind what is to be written is thereby determined to use certain words. For people often labor greatly to find the most suitable way of expressing what they have in mind, and not infrequently fail in the attempt. St. Jerome asserts this of St. Paul: “Although he himself knows what he means, he cannot convey it in pure speech to the ears of others … In seeking to interpret himself, he becomes entangled” (Letter 121, 1).

For the rest, if someone likes that new theory of inspiration, let him adopt it, since in itself it is wholly harmless. He should only not forget that some value this theory so highly because they think they can thereby diminish the efficacy of inspiration. For they argue as follows: Since inspired words are manifestly often very imperfect, it is clear that inspiration does not remove human defects. But if defects of words are compatible with inspiration, defects of propositions and subject matter are compatible with inspiration too. If the doctrine of verbal inspiration is accepted with this in mind, it is clear that it is not without danger, to which some of its most ardent defenders have in fact succumbed (cf. what I wrote in On Inspiration, no. 454). It is therefore safer to say that by inspiration God determined the subject matter and propositions, while at the same time watching over their suitable expression (cf. above, Proposition XLVII). For this expresses more clearly the different relation of inspiration to the subject matter and to material words than the confused statement that both subject matter and words are inspired.

392. Objection I. People in our time speak about sunrise and sunset or other physical phenomena and are not deceived or deceiving only because everyone knows that things are objectively otherwise. But the sacred writers lacked such knowledge in many matters. Therefore, they really did err.

I answer. I deny the major. I concede the minor. I deny the consequence. For when we speak about sunrise and sunset or similar things, we are not protected from deception precisely because we secretly think to ourselves, “I know that objectively things are otherwise,” but because by speaking in this way we set aside the inner nature of things and simply signify in words what the senses report. The same must be said of the sacred writers. What a sacred writer had in mind about the inner constitution of things is outside the question; the only question is which sensible phenomena he expressed in words (cf. On Inspiration, 509 ff.).

393. Objection II. The sacred writers lacked the critical method. But without the critical method history cannot be written perfectly. Therefore, sacred history is imperfect.

I answer. I distinguish the major: The sacred writers were not scientifically trained in the critical method, I concede the major; the sacred writers lacked sound judgment and divine help by which they could distinguish truth from falsehood in matters to be written, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: Without a scientifically developed critical method, historical science cannot be perfected, I concede the minor; truth can never be distinguished from falsehood and stated correctly, even with divine help, I deny the minor. I distinguish the consequence: Sacred history is imperfect insofar as not everything is narrated, nor in the most perfect and scientific manner, I concede the consequence; insofar as false things are affirmed as true, I deny the consequence. Just as the critical method is not an absolute remedy for all errors, as can be seen in many books by biblical critics, so a lack of scientific criticism does not necessarily lead to the assertion of errors; for nature and grace provide for what is necessary, while science does not supply the rational basis but presupposes and perfects it (cf. On Inspiration, no. 498).

394. Objection III. A book absolutely true and written for human use is impossible, because as people’s mental dispositions change, they conceive the same things in different ways. Therefore, the history of Sacred Scripture is also only relatively true.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: A book is impossible if “absolutely true” means that it teaches all truth in the most perfect manner and in a way proportioned to all people, I concede the antecedent; a book is impossible if “absolutely true” means that it affirms nothing false, I deny the antecedent. I distinguish the consequence: Sacred history is relatively true insofar as it teaches only certain truths in a manner accommodated to human beings, I concede the consequence; insofar as it affirms what is false, I deny the consequence. Absolute truth is attributed to sacred history only in the sense that its affirmations conform to the ontological order. Sacred history is only relatively true insofar as not everything is narrated that was known to human beings and even to the sacred writers themselves, insofar as it contains indefinite and summary expressions, and insofar as the sacred writers sometimes expressly say they intend to report only those things they found in certain sources, as does the author of the Second Book of Maccabees (cf. On Inspiration, no. 516 ff.).

395. Objection IV. The theory of verbal inspiration is preferable if a) it better accords with the concept of an inspired book, if b) it better agrees with the teaching of the Fathers, and if c) it is more reasonable. But it does. Therefore …

I answer. I grant the major. I deny the minor. For, regarding a), whatever may be the concept of an inspired book considered in the abstract, in the books which the Church teaches are inspired the material words are not determined by the Holy Spirit, as we saw above (no. 390); hence verbal inspiration does not accord better with these inspired books, but differs from them. Regarding b), the holy Fathers trace material words not to inspiration but to the talent and circumstances of the human writers. Regarding c), it contradicts reason and experience to say that material words in their individual form are thereby determined simply because someone knows what things he wants to write. Whoever appeals to psychological laws to support such an assertion merely shows that he does not know those laws.

Scholium. On the use of the Vulgate in dogmatic theology.

396. The autograph text of no inspired book has come down to us, only copies; indeed, for some books we have only translations. Moreover, in the common use of the whole Church, or even of a particular Church, the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was never used, but translations, among which the Septuagint and the Latin version called the Vulgate are prominent. The Church is infallible in recognizing the authenticity of a version, whether it declares it authentic by a solemn definition or only by practical use; for Scripture as the source of revelation and rule of faith is without doubt one of the principal objects of ecclesiastical infallibility. By the practical use of the Greek Fathers, indeed of the apostles themselves, the Septuagint was declared authentic; the Vulgate, however, was declared authentic by a solemn definition of the Church.

For the Council of Trent says in session 4: “If anyone does not accept the books themselves in their entirety, with all their parts, as they have customarily been read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, as sacred and canonical … let him be anathema … Moreover, the same holy synod, considering that no small benefit could accrue to the Church of God if it were made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be held as authentic, establishes and declares that this very old and Vulgate edition, which has been approved in the Church by the long usage of so many centuries, is to be held as authentic in public readings, disputations, preaching, and exposition, and that no one may or shall dare to reject it under any pretext” (Denz. nos. 784 f.). It then adds about the exposition of Scripture what has already been cited above (no. 373). A few remarks about this decree will be useful.

a) The Council declared the Vulgate an authentic version, not by comparison with the original texts according to the requirements of critical scholarship, but on a theological principle: that this version has been approved by the Church through the long usage of centuries, since the Church cannot use as genuine Scripture something that is not genuine.

b) Thus, in the first instance this version was declared authentic in a juridical or legal sense: in the forum of theology it is not permitted to reject an argument legitimately made from the Vulgate on the pretext that it is from a translation and therefore has no probative force until its conformity with the primitive text has been proved. Consequently, this legal authenticity presupposes authenticity in conformity with the inspired writing, at least in substance, since otherwise no legitimate biblical argument could be made from the version.

c) Since the decree concerns establishing a certain norm of faith and morals, perfect conformity with the original text is not required, nor is freedom from error required in matters that have no relation at all to faith and morals; all doctrinal error is excluded only from dogmatic and moral texts. Therefore, when matters of faith and morals are not at issue, one may depart from the Vulgate for sufficient reasons.

d) Texts in the Vulgate that were critically doubtful before Trent did not acquire greater authority through the Council’s declaration, because the Council considers the Vulgate as it was customarily read in the Church. Thus, what was certain remains certain, and what was doubtful remains doubtful. There are very few such doubtful texts affecting dogma, and they are well known, such as 1 Cor 15:51. No certain argument can therefore be made from them, at least when the matter is disputed among Catholics themselves. If, however, there is a text in the Vulgate which the Church has received as stating a revealed dogma, that text provides a certain theological argument, although it perhaps was not read in the original Scripture; yet in this case the argument is not a biblical argument but an argument from tradition, as many judge concerning 1 Jn 5:7.

e) If a text in the Vulgate is obscure or ambiguous, it is explained by a clear text of the original Scripture or of other authentic versions. On this matter Leo XIII says: “Nevertheless, due account must also be taken of the other versions praised and used by Christian antiquity, especially the original-language texts. For although, as regards the general sense, the Hebrew and Greek are well reflected in the wording of the Vulgate, still, if anything is ambiguous or expressed less accurately there, inspection of the prior language, as Augustine advises, will be beneficial” (Denz. no. 1941). From these words it follows—and is otherwise clear in itself—that the Tridentine definition detracted nothing from the authenticity of other texts. A biblical argument can therefore be made from these just as well as from the Vulgate, and under the same conditions.

More about these matters, as well as the rules of hermeneutics, is taught in the introduction to Sacred Scripture. It is therefore enough to have recalled these few points.

Prop. XLIX. Sacred Scripture is not the sole source of revelation; sacred Tradition is the other source, according to which Scripture must be explained.

397. Position of the question. We have already said above (no. 301) that the proximate source and proximate rule of faith is the Church’s preaching. This ecclesiastical preaching, continued from the apostles down to our own time, is sacred Tradition considered actively. The teaching insofar as it is handed down in this way is Tradition considered passively. If both elements are taken together, we have Tradition in its complete sense.

The fundamental principle of the early Protestants was that Sacred Scripture is the sole rule and sole source of faith, and that nothing can be an object of faith unless it is taught in Scripture. For example, the Formula of Concord, no. 1: “We believe, confess, and teach that the only rule and norm according to which all dogmas and all teachers are to be evaluated and judged is none other than the prophetic and apostolic writings of both the Old and New Testaments” (cf. Moehler, Symbolism, § 44). Recent Protestants diverge in various directions. Rationalists recognize neither Scripture nor Tradition as an unchangeable norm of faith, but establish natural reason alone as the supreme norm of all religion. Methodists, Pietists, and others admit an internal motion (visitation) of the Holy Spirit by which they are guided on the way of salvation. Those called “orthodox” or “conservative” usually admit, besides Scripture, “symbolic books” (the Augsburg Confession, etc.) as a rule of faith.

According to Catholic teaching, however, Scripture alone is not the source and rule of faith; rather, everything must be believed or held that has come down to us from the apostles through the living ecclesiastical teaching office, whether or not it is contained in Scripture. Since we have already proved this (above, nos. 186 ff., 219 ff., 301 ff.), the principal question here concerns the relation of Tradition to Scripture.

398. Argument 1. From Sacred Scripture.

The Lord Jesus never gave the apostles a command to write books, but rather to go and preach the Gospel throughout the whole world until the end of the age (Mt 28:19 f.; Mk 16:15 f.). “They went out and preached everywhere” (Mk 16:20), and appointed others to preach, instructing them in turn to appoint others after them to the same ministry (Acts 14:22; 1 Tim 1:3, 18; 4:14; 5:7, 19 f.; Titus 1:5; 2:15). Only a few of the apostles wrote for special reasons, and they never refer the faithful to books written by the apostles, but admonish them to remain in what they had heard (Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 7:17; 11:23; 14:33; 2 Cor 1:18; Gal 1:8; Col 2:6 f.; 2 Thess 2:14; 2 Tim 1:13 f.; 2:2). This whole manner of acting shows that the Church was built, and is to be built in the future, principally upon oral Tradition (cf. Eusebius, Church History 3, 24). “How will they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?” (Rom 10:14).

399. Argument 2. From the conviction of the ancient Church.

For the very ancient Fathers, such as Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and others, teach that the apostles announced the Gospel by oral preaching and appointed successors who would hand down revealed doctrine to later generations in the same way (above, no. 271 f.). Furthermore, the holy Fathers already reject the heretics’ appeal to Scripture as the sole source of revelation. St. Ignatius of Antioch had to dispute with heretics who said: “Unless I find it in the archives—that is, in the Gospel—I do not believe”; and when I said to them, “It is written,” they replied, “That has to be proved” (Philadelphians 8, 2). St. Irenaeus says that all heretics hide their lies behind Scripture (Against Heresies 5, 21, 2). “But what if the apostles had not even left Scriptures to us? Would we not have had to follow the order of Tradition which they handed on to those to whom they entrusted the Churches?” (ibid. 3, 4, 1). St. Hilary: “Remember, however, that there is no heretic who does not falsely claim to preach what he blasphemes according to the Scriptures” (To Constantius 2, 9). Vincent of Lérins: “For Novatian interprets it [Scripture] one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, and Macedonius another, Photinus another … Therefore, in view of so many winding paths of such varied error, it is very necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed according to the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic sense” (Commonitorium, ch. 2). Or, as Tertullian had said much earlier: “Therefore we must not appeal to the Scriptures, nor must the debate be settled by them … The order of things demanded that what must now be disputed be proposed first: to whom does the faith itself belong, whose are the Scriptures? … For where the truth of Christian discipline and faith is shown to be, there will be the truth of the Scriptures, of their interpretation, and of all Christian traditions” (On the Prescription of Heretics 19).

400. Argument 3. From the contradictions entailed by the opposing opinion.

That teaching cannot be admitted which leads to manifest contradictions. But such is the teaching that establishes Scripture as the sole rule of faith. Therefore …

Proof of the minor. a) Protestants teach that all and only the books contained in the canon are the inspired word of God; therefore, nothing is to be believed by faith that is not drawn from these books; and, third, that each individual believer is an authentic interpreter of Scripture. But none of these things is taught in Sacred Scripture; rather, the institution of an authentic ecclesiastical teaching office is taught there. Therefore, the doctrine of Scripture alone as the rule of faith leads to contradictions.

b) Moreover, Protestants commonly teach that infants are to be baptized, that the baptism of heretics is valid, that Sunday is to be observed in place of the Sabbath, and many other things that are drawn not from Scripture but from Tradition.

c) At all times there were many people who could not obtain a copy of Scripture and yet had to be saved. Many people cannot even read. Few know Hebrew and Greek, the languages in which the sacred books were composed. Most must therefore rely on versions, whose authenticity they cannot judge for themselves. Thus, in place of the infallible teaching office instituted by Christ, they admit fallible witnesses and norms, to which they entrust themselves as guides in the matter of salvation.

d) The words of Scripture are often obscure or difficult, and when misunderstood can create grave danger (2 Pet 3:16). For many centuries learned men have devoted every effort to elucidating Scripture, yet even now they have not been able to remove all obscurity. How, then, can Scripture be the sole norm of belief for all people, when they lack the theological, historical, and philological knowledge needed to study Scripture—and even lack the talent and leisure to do so?

e) In fact, Protestants interpret the most important texts of Scripture in contrary ways. For example, the words “This is my body” have had an incredible number of mutually contradictory interpretations. According to Bellarmin (On the Eucharist 1, 8), a booklet appeared in 1577 listing two hundred interpretations of these words. From the doctrine of Scripture’s sufficiency have sprung so many sects, fiercely opposed to one another, each of which claims for itself the true interpretation of Scripture. Hence it is a vain evasion to say that the Holy Spirit gives individuals enlightenment to understand Scripture correctly. The Holy Spirit is not a spirit of discord and unbelief. Yet among those who neglect Tradition and the ecclesiastical teaching office and boast that they follow Scripture alone, the greatest discord prevails, and unbelief grows day by day.

We must therefore give thanks to God, who has given us a source and rule of faith free from all these defects, contradictions, and dangers: the apostolic teaching office, always living, accessible to all, from which all who sincerely wish to receive it obtain infallible instruction in matters of faith and morals. To it Christ said: “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me” (Mt 10:40).

401. Objection I. The holy Fathers often testify that Sacred Scripture is sufficient. Therefore, the sufficiency of Scripture is taught by Tradition itself.

I answer. The holy Fathers teach that Sacred Scripture is sufficient in the sense Protestants intend, I deny the antecedent; in another sense, I grant the antecedent. That is:

a) The holy Fathers teach that canonical Scripture is sufficient, and that apocryphal books should not be consulted. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem says in Catechesis 4, nos. 33, 35: “Learn diligently, and indeed from the Church, which are the books of the Old Testament and which of the New; do not read me any apocrypha … Carefully study only those books that we also read with confidence in the Church. The apostles and ancient bishops, the leaders of the Church who handed them down, were far wiser and more religious than you. Since you are a child of the Church, do not transgress her laws.”

b) The holy Fathers teach that Scripture suffices to demonstrate those principal articles of faith which are in the Creed, which catechumens had to learn. Speaking of the Creed, St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: “Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of faith, not even the smallest thing must be handed down without the divine Scriptures, nor should we be carried away rashly by probabilities and arguments consisting in rhetorical skill … For this faith derives its force not from invented disputation but from the demonstration of the divine Scriptures” (Catechesis 4, no. 17). Here Scripture is not opposed to ecclesiastical Tradition but to philosophical inventions.

c) At times the holy Fathers teach that Scripture suffices to settle various disputes with those heretics who acknowledge the authority of Scripture together with Catholics. Thus St. Augustine, disputing with the Donatists, says: “There are certainly the books of the Lord, to whose authority both sides agree … Let us examine our case there … Let those things be removed from our midst which we cite against one another not from the canonical books but from elsewhere” (On the Unity of the Church, no. 5 f.). Yet so far is St. Augustine from establishing Scripture alone, without the authority of the Church, as the rule of faith, that he says: “I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me” (Against the Letter of Mani, ch. 5, no. 6). See further in Franzelin, On Tradition, thesis XIX.

402. Objection II. Disputes about matters of faith also occur among Catholics, and many Catholics have fallen away from the faith. Therefore, nothing is proved against the rule of faith established by Protestants from the fact that there are disagreements among Protestants and many become unbelievers.

I answer. I deny the parity. For Catholics, as long as they follow their rule of faith, have a sure remedy for conflicting opinions and cannot fall away from the faith. Protestants, however, who profess to follow Scripture alone, have no other means of interpreting Scripture than their subjective opinions, and so necessarily fall into opposed doctrines. This subjectivism opens a very wide road to doubt and unbelief. Thus Catholics can act in this way only against their own principles, while Protestants do so according to theirs; and therefore, quite consistently, many of them reject all authority, both of Scripture and of Tradition, and each establishes his own subjective reason as the supreme norm of religion.

403. Objection III. “All Scripture, divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16 f.). Therefore, Scripture by itself alone suffices.

I answer. I grant the antecedent. I deny the consequence, since the inference is invalid. For from the fact that accurate knowledge of Scripture is useful to a bishop for instructing people in every good work, it certainly does not reasonably follow that there is no other means contributing to this end, much less that Scripture was given to individuals as the sole norm of faith and morals. The Apostle admonishes Timothy: “Hold to the pattern of sound words that you heard from me … Guard the good deposit” (2 Tim 1:13 f.). “So that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).