De inspiratione sacrae Scripturae: theologica disquisitio

I believe... in the Holy Spirit... who spoke through the prophets.

In declaring this notion we take the rule of our procedure from the Vatican definition, Const. Dei Filius, cap. 2, and, descending step by step from the more general to the more determinate, we establish the following propositions.

That all and each of the books of Scripture are to be held as sacred and canonical, not by reason of an approval received from the infallible magisterium of the Church, nor even by reason of the sole matter, or revealed truth, contained in them without admixture of error, but altogether by reason of their origin, inasmuch as, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author.

I. — James Bonfrère, in his prefaces to Sacred Scripture, had listed three modes in which the Holy Spirit can be conceived to stand to the sacred writers: antecedently, namely, concomitantly, and consequently. Concerning the last of these three modes, however, he had himself laid down as follows: « The Holy Spirit could stand consequently, if something had been written by some writer by the human spirit, without the help, direction or assistance of the Holy Spirit, and afterwards nevertheless the Holy Spirit testified that all things which had been written in it were true. For it is certain that then this whole writing would be the word of God, and would have the same infallible truth as the rest have which were written by the inspiration or direction of the same Holy Spirit. Just as it is equally the word of a king, and of equal authority, when one of his secretaries or a notary by his own effort drafts some royal mandate or public instrument, which the king afterwards approves when he has read it, and fortifies it by impressing his seal, as when the king himself conceives, writes, dictates it. Although I do not think that the Holy Spirit has ever used this third mode in the books of sacred Scripture which we have, absolutely nothing nevertheless prevents its use, or even its having once been used, perhaps in some of those books and writings which we said above were sacred Scripture, and afterwards perished »¹.

Thus far Bonfrère, who, considering only what could suffice for the notion of sacred Scripture in the abstract, indeed opines that the mode just described is admissible, but at the same time, considering that the things which revelation teaches us concerning our Scriptures are by no means verified in it, protests also that he wishes this theory of his to be applied to no book of our Bible. For in this opinion of his he sets forth a mere hypothesis which either never had a place, or, if perchance it had one, only in a Scripture now already lost, and one not of the same kind as those sacred Scriptures which were in fact handed down to the Church through the hands of the apostles.

But certain more recent writers before the Vatican Council wished to turn this very hypothesis into a thesis, diminishing still further the conditions laid down by Bonfrère, and substituting in place of the testimony of the Holy Spirit the simple approval of the ecclesiastical magisterium by insertion into the canon. They said therefore that several books, or texts of books, especially historical ones, really exist in our Bible which, written by human industry alone, were afterwards numbered among the sacred and canonical by the authority and approval of the Church.

And this error the Vatican Synod reprobated, teaching: « The Church, however, holds them (the books) as sacred and canonical, not because, composed by human industry alone, they were afterwards approved by her authority ».

And indeed the falsity of the opinion, and its absolute opposition to the rule of revelation, appears even at first glance. Certainly in 2 Tim. III-16 it is said: All Scripture divinely inspired is useful for teaching. Nor does it matter whether the word Θεόπνευστος, divinely inspired, is placed there as a predicate or as an adjective, because if as a predicate, the sense will be that all Scripture is divinely inspired and useful for teaching; if however as an adjective, that all Scripture is useful, as being divinely inspired. And in either way inspiration extends to all Scripture, so that in Paul's style γραφὴ Θεόπνευστος is plainly the same as τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα, or the sacred writings of which he had spoken in the immediately preceding verse. For this reason too, sacred Scripture, canonical Scripture and divinely inspired Scripture have always been taken as synonyms in the doctrine of the Church, nor is there need to insist longer on a matter so well known.

But now, whatever you may hold concerning inspiration, this at least will shine out with complete evidence: namely, that by the name of inspiration is signified an action of God upon the hagiographer by which he is moved to write. Whence it follows at once that an inspired book is none other than one which has been written under a special motion and influx of God. But in a book composed by human industry alone, however much the approval of the Church may supervene, indeed even if the revelation of God Himself be supposed to come in addition, as a testimony to the truth of all and each of its sentences, no such thing is had, as is clear in the terms. Therefore, prescinding even from the many other reasons which are omitted here for the sake of brevity, it must most certainly be concluded that no book of Scripture exists which is to be held as sacred and canonical by reason of an approval received from the infallible magisterium of the Church², indeed not even by reason of the consequent testimony of the Holy Spirit concerning the truth of the things written in it.

Rightly therefore did Bonfrère wish to keep safe from every application of that third mode devised by himself all and each of the books of the sacred Scripture which now is. For he saw that they are all expressly revealed as inspired, and that no place remains for inspiration in the mode described. Whence in his writings there never occurs that inept expression « subsequent inspiration », which the authors just refuted employ (and I call it inept, because to imagine an inspiration that is later than a book already written is nothing other than to join contradictories together). But what he most rightly judged to be insufficient for the notion of inspired Scripture, he nevertheless reckoned sufficient for the most common notion of sacred Scripture, that is, of a Scripture that would be the word of God. In which Bonfrère is by no means to be followed, since there lies hidden there a certain equivocation, which must at once be removed for the clarity of the whole disputation.

For in a twofold sense some writing can be called the word of God: in the merely objective sense, and in the formal sense. In the objective sense, I say, inasmuch as that writing would only express and report what has been said or revealed by God elsewhere. In this respect the symbols of faith, or the monuments of divine tradition, are the word of God; and therefore, when we bring forward testimonies from them, we are said to take our argument from the word of God handed down. In the formal sense, however, inasmuch as the object, or the sentence, or the truth which that writing expresses would not only be a thing revealed or said by God, but would also be said by Him through that very writing by which it is expressed: which certainly can by no means be the case unless the writing itself is from God as signifying, and not only the sentence signified through the writing. This is a truly fundamental distinction in the present matter, and one necessarily to be kept before the eyes, unless we wish to twist at will the meaning of this name sacred Scripture. For most certainly the written symbols of faith or monuments of tradition have never been held as sacred Scripture, precisely because of the defect of the other condition just assigned, and that rightly and reasonably. For it is one thing that the doctrine, the sentence, the history contained in a writing be sacred, and another that the writing itself in which it is contained be sacred, that is, descending from God. But now if anyone considers well, he will easily perceive that that consequent testimony of the Holy Spirit concerning the truth of the sentences contained in a book composed by human industry alone would effect only this: namely, that the things which had first been written and said by man would now be said also by the Holy Spirit, and therefore be credible and to be believed with divine faith. Accordingly the book in question could perhaps in some way be called a word of God brought about in the objective sense, but certainly not in the formal sense, as would be required for the notion of sacred Scripture. For it is plainly evident that a mere consequent attestation of God would by no means be able to effect that the truths set forth in that book should have been attested and said by the Holy Spirit through that very writing which man is supposed to have produced by his own effort.

But judgment would be different if, in place of the pure and simple attestation concerning the truth of the sentences which Bonfrère brings forward, you were to suppose an inspiration of the Holy Spirit for this end, that the same book be issued anew in His name and by His authority. In that case alone would there be a true parity with the scheme of a law or a bull, which, first drawn up by a jurist or a theologian, is afterwards published by the legislator or the pontiff, and becomes his word as truly and as properly as if he himself had conceived it, himself written it, himself dictated it. Nevertheless you will again and again observe that in the example adduced, the text of the law or bull is the word of the prince by reason of the first writing, not the second, which is had equivalently when the prince signs, and makes the text itself his own. For by such a subscription the same is done as if the scheme adopted were verbally dictated by the prince, and thus, dictated by him, came forth in public. Truly therefore there is found there an equivalent second writing, which alone is the cause why the writing of the edict is, even in the formal sense, the word of the legislator or the Pope. But to imagine anything similar concerning the Holy Spirit seems to be a nearly ludicrous thing. But in every mode we should now be outside the present hypothesis, which posits only a consequent testimony of God, and which is therefore shown to be plainly insufficient, not only for the notion of inspired Scripture, as Bonfrère himself conceded, but also for any notion whatever of sacred Scripture.

Let these things then be said concerning the first error reprobated by the Vatican Synod, and also concerning the opinion of Bonfrère which gave occasion to that error. There follows now the second error, in like manner occasioned by the doctrine of the same Bonfrère.

II. — This error now derives that by which our books are formally to be held as sacred and canonical, not from the approval of the Church, but from the argument or matter of these books, namely from this alone, that they contain revelation without error³.

Bonfrère had said, explaining the mode in which the Holy Spirit can stand to the hagiographers not consequently but concomitantly: « The Holy Spirit stands concomitantly when He does not stand in the manner of one dictating and inspiring, but in that manner in which one might by his eye direct another in the act of writing, lest he err in any matter. For in this way the Holy Spirit can direct the hagiographic writer, so as not to permit him to err or be deceived in anything. For since He foreknows what he is going to write, He stands by him in such a way that, if He saw him about to err anywhere, He would be present to him by His inspiration. This mode seems to have been preserved by the Holy Spirit in the histories, in reporting the sayings and deeds of others, which had been known by sight, or received by hearing from men worthy of faith. So the Gospels, so the Acts of the Apostles, so the other historical books written by the prophets or others ». Thus again Bonfrère, Praeloq. in Script. c. 8, sect. 3, where he no longer, as before, intends to propose a hypothetical and merely possible mode, but a mode in fact employed with regard to several books of our canon. Although his mind does not yet fully shine forth. For it is completed from what he adds, sect. 6: « Two things, he says, are to be noted in this second mode. One, that although in this mode the divine inspiration does not stand antecedently, by which the individual things are shown and inspired, nevertheless there is not wanting to the writer, at the beginning, a certain general inspiration of writing such a history, or beautiful maxims for ordering life and morals well, or something else... The other is, that although in this second mode the Holy Spirit leaves man to himself, nevertheless from time to time some inspiration comes in addition, so that if the writer had forgotten something of the things seen and heard, or if in some matter the writer were about to err unless taught by the Holy Spirit, etc. ». Where you see that something positive of the Holy Spirit's influx upon the hagiographer is still preserved; by reason of which influx the writing or book would still in some way be referred to the Holy Spirit as author. Therefore, in the view of Bonfrère (in other respects by no means to be received, as will appear in what follows), a book must not for this reason alone be held as sacred and canonical, namely because it contains revelation without error. But again, certain theologians before the Vatican Council embraced the opinion of Bonfrère, despoiling it of every addition by which a positive suggestion of the Holy Spirit was still in some measure retained. For they posited a bare assistance consisting in the negative⁴, and that in such a way that the ground of the canonicity of the books of Scripture could no longer in any way be derived from the part of the author. It remained therefore that it be sought from the part of the matter alone, or of the revealed truth contained in them without admixture of error; and this is the second error struck down by the Vatican Synod in the passage cited above.

Now for the confutation of this error nearly the same arguments are valid as for the refutation of the preceding one. — And first indeed, whatever can be common to inspired and uninspired writing in no way exhibits the proper ground on account of which our Scriptures are to be held as sacred and canonical. For inspiration itself is the cause why they are called and are sacred, according to the doctrine of Paul, in which the sacred writings and divinely inspired Scripture are the same, as was noted above. But revelation without error can be contained also in uninspired writing, as appears in the symbols of faith and the definitions of pontiffs or councils. And the reason is easily established, because for a book to contain revelation without error, there is no need of that positive afflatus of the Holy Spirit which is entirely of the notion of inspiration, as the very name of inspiration indicates more than sufficiently, and Peter also confirms in his second epistle, I-21, saying: Inspired by the Holy Spirit, (ὑπὸ Πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι, moved, acted), holy men of God spoke. — Moreover, from the fact that a book contains revelation without error, it follows at most that it is the word of God in the objective sense, according to the premises above. But this is not enough for sacred Scripture, which is the word of God also in the formal sense. — Finally, the canon of the Scriptures was closed together with the deposit of the Catholic faith, as the constant and perpetual sense of the Church has it. But it would be increased daily, or could be increased, if the ground constituting a writing in the being of sacred Scripture were that which is now assigned. In every way therefore the erroneous opinion is to be rejected⁵.

Now therefore, if the ground of the canonicity of the books of Scripture can be derived neither from a supervening approval nor from the matter contained, nothing else remains but that it be derived from their writing, inasmuch as those books have been written by God, and thereby have God as their author. And in this consists the truth which was defined by the Vatican Synod, and which must now be demonstrated accurately and diligently from the sources of revelation.

III. — The first argument, then, is taken from Scripture itself, which surely, if it sets down testimony concerning itself, gives testimony that is nothing if not truthful, descending as it does from the revelation of God. But Scripture testifies of itself that it is divinely inspired, and that, certainly, according as it was written, with the Holy Spirit inspiring. This being posited, the argument is as follows: Books written with the Holy Spirit inspiring are from God as from a principal efficient cause, but from men only as from instruments. But a book which is from God as from a principal cause, and from man only as from an instrument, is a book which has God as its author. Therefore the books of Scripture written with the Holy Spirit inspiring have God as their author, and as such are to be held as sacred and canonical.

In this syllogism the minor is known through itself, because in every kind of work the effect is to be attributed to the principal cause which acts through the instrument. And therefore, as soon as God is asserted to be the principal cause of the writing of the books, there is also an implicit assertion that He must be held as their proper author. There remains therefore only the major to be declared: namely, that it is the same thing for a book to be written with the Holy Spirit inspiring, and for a book to be from man only as from an instrument of the Holy Spirit. — Now it is declared first, because inspiration in Paul is, in Peter at the passage cited above, the motion under which the holy men of God spoke, and from which it is explained how prophecy or Scripture was not brought by human will, nor descends from human sense, but takes its origin from a higher principle, which is the Holy Spirit. — It is declared then secondly, because the very name of inspiration of itself always imports a suggestion which someone receives from another. Accordingly divine inspiration is a suggestion from God, and divine inspiration terminated at writing is the motion by which someone is divinely moved to write the things which are suggested to him by God. But in writing of this kind you have, certainly, man in the character of instrument, and God in the character of principal cause.

There are added very many other testimonies of the Bible, by which God is shown using inspired men as organs or instruments of writing. As when the Holy Spirit is said to have spoken in the Scriptures through the prophets, in the prophets, through the mouth of the prophets⁶. Or when, in the inverse order, a man is said to have uttered texts written in the Holy Spirit⁷. Or when Scripture is put absolutely for God Himself speaking⁸. All of which Cardinal Franzelin expounds excellently, de div. Script. Thes. 2.

Another argument also is from the universal consent of the holy Fathers. For they say that the Scriptures were written through the Holy Spirit, or through the operation of the Holy Spirit⁹, that they are letters of God sent to men¹⁰, that the Scriptures were dictated by God¹¹, that they are from God, or given and established by the operation of God¹², that men, in writing them, were instruments under the operation of the divine Spirit¹³.

Hence in the special authentic documents of the faith of the Church, God is explicitly said to be professed author of the books of both Testaments: « In the profession of faith prescribed for bishops to be ordained, which is still issued by them even now; in the profession of faith sent by Leo IX to Peter of Antioch; in the symbol proposed to the Greeks at the Second Council of Lyons, this faith is enunciated: I believe also that there is one author, God and Lord almighty, of the New and Old Testament, of the Law and the Prophets and the Apostles. Still more expressly in the Council of Florence, in the decree for the Jacobites, the same is declared: The holy Roman Church professes one and the same God to be the author of the Old and New Testament, that is, of the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel, since the saints of both Testaments spoke by the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, whose books she receives and venerates, which are contained in the following titles. Here therefore God is said to be the author of the Law, of the Prophets and of the Gospel, inasmuch as the writers of all the books of sacred Scripture spoke, namely in writing those books, with the Holy Spirit inspiring. Accordingly such is the inspiration for writing that God is the author of the books. Moreover the Council of Trent itself in Session IV had this decree of the Synod of Florence before its eyes. In the same sense therefore must be understood the words of Trent: All the books of the Old as well as of the New Testament, since one God is the author of both..., she receives and venerates »¹⁴. Finally and most recently the Vatican Council sanctioned this perpetual faith of the Church again and again by its decree, while it proscribed at the same time the errors then raging which opposed it. But since concerning the precise sense of the formula, God is the author of the books of both Testaments, certain men still seem to doubt, therefore at once, for the elucidation of this doubt, we establish the following proposition.

That God is the author of the books of the New and Old Testament, not in an improper sense, as having only inspired in the hagiographers the counsel of writing, supplied the general argument of the book, and, while they wrote, stood by them lest they err; but in a proper sense, as having dictated the books themselves with all their parts, by suggesting them to the sacred writers whom He used as instruments. Whence it follows that all and each of the things contained in the original books of Scripture, precisely as and in the respect in which they lie proposed to the reader in those books, are truly from God as the word of God directly written for us.

I. — The view to be confuted here is the very view of Bonfrère adduced above in the second place. Although, as it stands, it can by no means be said to have been directly reprobated in the Vatican Synod, it is nevertheless still easily destroyed by an argument drawn from the definition of the Council. For this definition, adhering exactly to the sense and letter of the preceding decrees of faith, proposes the whole books of Scripture with all their parts as sacred and canonical. But it declares them sacred and canonical inasmuch as they have God as their author. It follows therefore that God is the author of the whole books as regards all their parts. Now the author of a whole book as regards all its parts is certainly not he who only suggested the counsel of writing, supplying also the general argument, but he alone who wrote the whole book from beginning to end, and that either through himself (which indeed in the present case remains excluded once for all, since it is most evident that the sacred books were not written immediately by God), or through another as through an instrument of writing. But to write a book through another as through an instrument of writing is nothing other than to suggest and dictate all things which are set down in the book. Therefore from the first to the last, the legitimate conclusion of the Vatican definition is that God dictated the whole sacred books with all their parts, by a positive suggestion, to the hagiographers whom He used as instruments.

But at once there occur the new exegetes of the broad school of the critics, saying that it is not defined at the Vatican that God is the author of the books of Scripture simply and absolutely, but only with a diminishing addition: author to that extent, to the extent that He is inspirer. For the Council says that the canonical books, written with the Holy Spirit inspiring, have God as their author. Which is to say that they have God as their author for this reason, that they were written with the Holy Spirit inspiring, and not the other way around. Accordingly, they say, it is absurd to infer the mode in which God conducted Himself in producing Scripture from the dogmatic formula, God is the author of the books of Sacred Scripture, taken absolutely, as Franzelin did, de div. Script. Thes. 3. But even vulgar logic requires that the measure and mode of inspiration be determined first, and that from this there be consequently drawn the legitimate interpretation of the words by which God is declared the author of our books, and not the other way around. In which indeed, explaining now under one form, now under another, our new critics seem to themselves to bring forward a great apparatus of doctrine, but in vain, because perhaps their logic, and not that of Cardinal Franzelin, is defective.

In the first place, it is most false that there is a diminishing addition in the Vatican definition. For those words, written with the Holy Spirit inspiring, assign the reason why the books of Scripture have God as their author, that is, the ontological cause from which it comes about that they are referred to God as to their proper author. But who, I ask, ever imagined that to assign the cause of an effect is to diminish the truth and propriety of that which is affirmed as an effect? Certainly when it is defined in councils that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the blood by divine power¹, transubstantiation is assigned as the cause of the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament. Is anything therefore diminished from the truth and propriety of this presence? Is not the truth of the presence defined as absolutely as the reality of the transubstantiation is absolutely enunciated? And in like manner in the present matter, both things are to be taken with all propriety of terms: that God is the author of the books of Scripture, and that the books of Scripture were written with Him inspiring. There is therefore no diminishing addition to be found there, not even in appearance.

Moreover, one must distinguish the cause of being, which is in the ontological order, from the cause of inferring, which is in the logical order. And although according to the cause of being God is the author of Scripture because Scripture was written with Him inspiring, and not the other way around, nevertheless according to the cause of inferring it can most rightly be said that Scripture was written with God inspiring because it has God as its author. As if I were to say that according to the cause of being the body of Christ is contained in the Eucharist because the bread has been transubstantiated into it, as is had in Lateran IV, and that according to the cause of inferring the bread has been transubstantiated because the body of Christ is truly contained under the species of the sacrament, as is had in Trent, Sess. 13, cap. 4. As also if I were to say that according to the cause of being Caius is the son of Titius because he has been begotten by him, and that according to the cause of inferring he has been begotten by him because he is his son. Indeed, if from any source the filiation is established for me, I most rightly infer the generation which is the cause of the filiation. And the reason a priori is that just as the cause, from which the effect necessarily follows, demonstrates the effect, so in the inverse order the effect demonstrates the cause. Hence, if in the rule of faith I find that the books of Scripture, as written with the Holy Spirit inspiring, have God as their author, so far from this being a reason for me to diminish anything from the propriety and rigour of the dogmatic formula, God is the author of the books of sacred Scripture, there is rather supplied to me from this quarter too the means of taking the measure of inspiration, inasmuch as the infallible doctrine of the Church makes me certain that so great an extension is to be attributed to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as is required for God to be able to be called truly and properly the author of the books of sacred Scripture. In every way therefore the argument of the critics is of no value², and arguing from the authority of the councils, it is most rightly inferred that the canonical books were dictated integrally by the Holy Spirit with a positive suggestion.

But neither are there wanting those who wish to weaken the faith of the integral inspiration of the original Scriptures, led by this reasoning: namely, that in the decree of Trent to which the Vatican Fathers refer, it is not said simply: the books themselves, whole with all their parts, are sacred and canonical, but: the books themselves, whole with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and are had in the old Latin Vulgate edition. Now, they say, not all things which are found in the Vulgate can be called sacred and canonical, since Trent itself has admitted certain faults in it, at least equivalently. Therefore the parts which are defined as sacred and canonical are not all and each of the things which were originally written in the original books.

But that this is nothing, will be evidently established for you if you consider that the Tridentine decree concerning the canonical Scriptures does not directly regard the Vulgate version as such, because a version is not sacred and canonical as a version, but only as authentic, that is, conformable with the original. And this conformity or authenticity of the Vulgate is not directly dealt with except in the following decree concerning the edition and use of the sacred books. The first decree therefore is directly concerning the original books themselves, which are defined as sacred and canonical as whole, and thereby with all the parts pertaining in any way to their integrity. But now, because a doubt could arise concerning some parts, whether they were or were not integral parts of the original Scripture (for Jerome did not find chapters 13 and 14 of Daniel, and likewise several passages of the book of Esther, in the Hebrew volumes; and again, certain other things in the New Testament, such as Marc. XVI, 9-20, Luc. XXII, 43-44, Ioan. V-4 and VII-53, etc., are noted by some Fathers as omitted in fewer or more codices): therefore it was necessary to establish some edition in the concrete as the norm. And for this cause it was not enough for the Council to say that the books themselves are to be held as sacred and canonical as whole (which surely was enough to establish the integral inspiration of the original Scripture), but there had to be added: with all their parts as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and are had in the old Latin Vulgate edition, so that you might know that those things also pertain to the original Scriptures which are now lacking in many codices, whether Hebrew or Greek, and yet are contained in that old Vulgate edition, approved by the use of so many centuries in the Church herself.

II. — There follows now another heading of the argument, no longer from the Vatican definition, but from the very sources from which the Council drew its doctrine. These are Scripture and Tradition.

And Scripture indeed, in the passage cited above, has already set down testimony concerning itself, saying: All Scripture divinely inspired is useful for teaching. More expressly in the Greek: Πᾶσα γραφὴ Θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, namely: it is divinely inspired and useful. Now if inspiration extends to all Scripture, and consequently to all and each of its parts, then so does suggestion or dictation. And thereby, in the last analysis, that very thing which in the superior argument was taken as an antecedent from the authority of the Council—namely that God is the author of the whole Scripture—can now come as the conclusion of the scriptural argument. For each process is valid. The first thus: God is the author of the whole Scripture, therefore He inspired all things, dictated all things. The second thus: He inspired all things, dictated all things, therefore He is the author of the whole Scripture. And each is at the same time also legitimate, without the accusation of a vicious circle, provided that the antecedent of one be supposed accepted by a way other than from the conclusion of the other's enthymeme.

But let us come now to the holy Fathers, the most upright witnesses of the faith handed down from the apostles. Whose testimonies, if they were written out one by one, I do not think that whole volumes would suffice. I omit therefore those innumerable passages, partly indicated above, where the sacred writings are called by them simply and absolutely the utterances of God, the books of God, the voices of God, writings composed and issued by the Holy Spirit. I omit likewise that the faith of an inspiration extending itself to all, even the least, parts of the sacred books is among all the Fathers an evident presupposition on which is founded their whole manner of interpreting, and their whole manner of answering everywhere the difficulties or antilogies that occur. It is our purpose only to bring forward for now a few selected passages which shall seem to bear more upon the matter.

Hilary, in Psalm. 135, n. 1: « The prophetic discourse is not idle... For if among prudent men it is especially wont to be expected that the things they speak be worthy of their gravity and doctrine..., how much more must this be thought of the heavenly utterances, that whatever is in them be esteemed lofty, divine, reasonable and perfect ». But this, certainly, for no other cause than because all things there were dictated by the Holy Spirit.

Chrysostom, Hom. 21 in Genes. n. 1: « For there is not a syllable or a jot in the sacred writings, in whose depth there is not some great treasure... Nor does the divine Scripture need the wisdom of men in order to be understood, but the revelation of the Spirit, so that, drawing from it the true sense, a great gain may accrue to us from it. For if in secular affairs the writings which are composed by men often... from one syllable have much importance: so much more is this found in the divine Scriptures composed by the Holy Spirit ».

Basil, Hom. 9 in hexaem. n. 1, explaining the reason why there is nothing in Scripture concerning scientific matters, gives this cause, that all things in the Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit, who does not care to instruct us concerning these things. « Shall I therefore, he says, judge the utterances of the Holy Spirit to be more vile because of wisdom brought to foolishness? Shall I not rather give glory to Him, who did not detain our mind in the occupation of vain things, but ordained that all things be written for the edification and perfection of our souls? ».

Ambrose, epist. 8, asserting that nothing is found expressed in the sacred codices which has not descended from divine suggestion: « They did not write (the sacred writers) according to art, but according to the grace which is above all art. For they wrote the things which the Spirit gave them to speak ».

Jerome, epist. 27, n. 1, refuting those adversaries whom he suffered in the correction of the current versions of Scripture: « Whom I, he says, although I could rightly despise (for the lyre sings superfluously to an ass), yet, lest they accuse us of pride, as they are wont to do, let them have this answer: I have not been so dull of heart, and of such crass rusticity..., as to think that anything in the Lord's words was either to be corrected, or not divinely inspired. But that I wished to recall the faulty state of the Latin codices, which is proved by the diversity of all the books, to the Greek original ».

Augustine is copious in the same faith, to be inculcated everywhere, concerning that total inspiration of Scripture. And from this undoubtedly unshaken faith he lays down this golden rule, never to be meditated enough, epist. 82, n. 3: « If I find anything in those letters that seems contrary to the truth, I shall not doubt that it is either that the codex is faulty, or that the interpreter has not attained what was said, or that I myself have not understood ».

Cyril of Jerusalem, catech. 16, n. 2, instructs his catechumens in the same faith: « What else is it, he says, that knows the deep things of God, but the Holy Spirit alone who has uttered the divine Scriptures? » And below: « The Holy Spirit Himself has uttered the Scriptures ».

Gregory the Great, l. 4 in 1 Reg. c. 3, n. 49: « Their words (of the sacred books) Paul or John wrote, but whatever each one wrote, the Word speaking in them inspired ». And in the preface to the Moralia, c. 1: « Who wrote these things (the book of Job) is very superfluously asked, since nevertheless the author of the book is faithfully believed to be the Holy Spirit. He therefore wrote these things, who dictated the things to be written. He wrote who also stood as inspirer in his work... If, having received the letters of some great man, we read his words, but asked with what pen they had been written, it would surely be ridiculous to know the author of the letters and to grasp their sense, and yet to investigate with what kind of pen their words were impressed ».

Hence at last Leo XIII, in his most recent encyclical Providentissimus Deus, making himself the interpreter of the whole tradition, says: « It would be altogether impious either to restrict inspiration to certain parts only of sacred Scripture, or to concede that the sacred author himself has erred. Nor indeed is their reasoning to be tolerated, who free themselves from difficulties by not hesitating to grant that inspiration pertains to matters of faith and morals, and to nothing besides, because they falsely think that, when the truth of the sentences is in question, it is not so much to be inquired what God has said, as rather to be weighed for what cause He has said it. For all the books, and the whole of them, which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, with all their parts, were written with the Holy Spirit dictating... This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church ». You see therefore that nothing more express can be desired, and therefore, the other authorities now being passed over, I come at once to the conclusion placed in the thesis.

III. — The conclusion is that all and each of the things contained in the original books of Scripture, precisely as and in the respect in which they lie set down in those books, are truly from God as the word of God directly written for us. And it flows openly from what has been said, because whatever is found set down in a book from the dictation of someone is certainly his word. But all and each of the things in the original Scripture were dictated by God, as we premised above. Therefore all and each are the written word of God. Nevertheless attend to the added determination: precisely as and in the respect in which they lie set down in the sacred books, which now remains to be considered a little more diligently. And because in every word there is a twofold relation, one to the speaker, the other to the thing said, we must see what the added determination intends, taking Scripture first in order to God speaking, and second in order to the things said by God.

As to the first, it occurs to be observed that in any book whatever, besides the words of the author himself, the words of others also are found, and that in two ways: either by way of simple report, or by way of citation. By way of simple report, if it is only narrated in the book what was said by this man or that. By way of citation, if another's saying is brought forward also as an authority, in support of the argument treated in the book. And sometimes indeed as an authority in the matter of history, as when a historian produces his sources; sometimes as an authority in the matter of doctrine, as when a theologian brings forward the monuments of revelation on which he founds his conclusions; sometimes as an authority ad hominem, as when someone, to confound his contradictors, sets down testimonies which they themselves cannot reject; sometimes as the authority of a pure fact, as when the consequences of some doctrine are confirmed from the confessions of those authors who profess this doctrine, and so on by running through the individual cases. For a citation properly so called will always be found to differ from a simple report in this, that a simple report only narrates what was said by someone, while a citation brings forward also an authority in order to the aim which the author of the book pursues. But that in both ways the sentences of others are interspersed even in the Bible, no otherwise than in any other books of human origin, is not to be doubted in any way. For reports of words spoken by various persons occur continually in the sacred historical books. Citations too are everywhere present, and not only from other parts of Scripture itself, as is most frequent in the Gospels and apostolic epistles, but sometimes also from profane authors, as for example in Paul, Tit. I-12: A certain one of them, their own prophet, said: The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies.

It is asked therefore whether those passages of the Scriptures also which consist either of citations or of reports of human words are still the word of God, and are to be referred to God as to the speaker. And there is no doubt that the answer must be affirmative, provided you apply here the determination assigned above: precisely as and in the respect in which they lie set down in the sacred books. Namely, they are the word of God formally as reports or citations. For every citation, as a citation, is from the author, and every author says his citations, as he also says his reports. As if indeed citations were in books something indifferent, and contributing nothing to the end which the authors set before themselves! Accordingly the books of Scripture would not have God as their author as regards all their parts, if all and each of the citations were not from inspiration or divine suggestion, but had perhaps been inserted by the hagiographers by their own effort. And note this now for the confutation of the theory of implicit citations, in the sense of the new school of the critics. But of this later. For now it remains that the observation made concerning Scripture in order to God speaking be applied in the same way in order to the things said by God.

In a different way, surely, it happens that God says the things which are contained in the sacred books. For those things are either the proper thoughts of God, or the dogmas of religion, or the facts of history, or finally the senses or affections of some created person. And they are always said by God in that manner in which they are proposed in Scripture. If as the proper thoughts of God, if as the dogmas of religion, if as the facts of history, then they are absolutely and in themselves dictated by God. But if as the senses or affections of a created person, then they are said by God as the senses of such a person, prescinding from their absolute truth, or even from their rectitude and sanctity. Although a distinction is here especially necessary. For that person is either an ideal and typical person, or a living and concrete one. If living and concrete, it must be seen whether that person is one which has been divinely established as an example and instruction for others, or not. If ideal and typical, it must be seen whose idea or type it is, whether of an impious man, or of a fool, or of a man carried away by human prejudices, as occurs everywhere in certain sapiential books³, or rather of a faithful soul or of the Church, as is frequent in the Psalms and the Canticle of Canticles⁴. For the things which are said by God in the person of an impious man, or of one carried away by human prejudices, are by no means said by Him as true, right and holy in themselves, as is most evidently established. But the things which are said in the person of a faithful soul are undoubtedly said as the thoughts of God, that is, as affections and senses which are according to the heart of God. For it is similar when profane authors in dialogues, dramas, hymns or songs place their own thoughts in the mouth of an abstract or ideal person, under a form accommodated to the condition of him in whose mouth they are placed. Moreover the same judgment will also have to be passed if the person whose senses and affections are said by God dictating and inspiring is a real and concrete person, whom nevertheless God has set as an example and instruction for others. And this observation is valid for very many passages of the apostolic epistles, as will be seen below.

Finally, if at any time a thing is proposed in Scripture as said not by God but by man, then too it must be accepted as said by God in that very manner. You will therefore suffer no difficulty in that passage 1 Cor. VII, 8-12, which is commonly objected: But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they so remain, as I also... But to those who are joined in marriage, not I but the Lord commands that the wife depart not from her husband. But if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest (namely the unmarried and the widows) I say, not the Lord. And for a better understanding of the matter, consider someone who, composing a sermon, should write thus: Not I say, but the Lord, that enemies are to be loved, and prayer is to be made for those who calumniate us. Nor would there be a contradiction, because even if the preacher said all things from beginning to end, the matter would nevertheless be said by him, not as said by himself, but as said by God. Apply this now to the words of the Apostle: To the rest I say, not the Lord. For although the whole is said by the Lord, because Paul wrote all things from divine inspiration, that nevertheless which pertains to observing continence is said by the Lord, not as dictated or prescribed by Himself, but as advised by Paul. Otherwise stands that which preceded concerning the wife not to be put away.

So therefore all and each of the things contained in the original Scriptures, precisely as and in the respect in which they lie proposed to the reader in those books, are truly the word of God, for this cause namely: because all things were written with the Holy Spirit dictating.

But now the rationale and mode of this dictation are in question, and for the solution of the question the following proposition is established.

That it can be understood in two ways that Scripture was written with the Holy Spirit dictating. In one way, indeed, by material or verbal dictation. In the other way, by a dictation of a far higher order, that is, by an interior motion or instinct to conceive mentally the sentences and propositions which God wished to direct to us through the hagiographers, and to commit them thus conceived to writing. And that the former mode of dictation is not necessary for God to be called the author of the books of Scripture, nor, generally speaking, is it in any way to be admitted. Whence the latter mode remains, as that in which the proper notion of inspiration is truly had, of which the Vatican Council says: « The Church, however, holds them (the books) as sacred and canonical because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed down as such to the Church herself ».

I. — Verbal dictation would be that in which the hagiographer would provide no ministry, neither in conceiving nor in expressing the things he writes, but would receive from divine suggestion the words to be materially committed to the page. Thus a schoolmaster is accustomed to dictate lessons to his pupils; thus a writer his literary labours to an amanuensis. In this mode of dictation, indeed, it makes no difference at all whether the amanuensis understands the things that are dictated or not. And to this mode is reduced the prophetic instinct given to Caiaphas, when, as John XI-50 testifies, he said: It is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish. For Caiaphas did not understand the sense of his own utterance according as it was prophetic and inspired by God. There was therefore in that case a kind of verbal dictation, inasmuch as, when Caiaphas intended to express his own mind, such words were divinely suggested to him as were at the same time suited to express a plainly different mind of the Holy Spirit. Whence St. Thomas, 2-2, Q. 173, a. 4: « Sometimes he whose mind is moved to express certain words does not understand what the Holy Spirit intends by these words, as is clear in the case of Caiaphas, John XI ». Furthermore, whether the understanding of the things dictated be had concomitantly or not, the mode of dictation is always in itself the same and unvarying, namely by the material proposal of words, in which nothing is left to the activity of the instrument beyond the mere mechanical labour of transcribing or outwardly uttering.

Now the mere simple exposition of the matter itself shows clearly that this mode of dictation is not to be admitted with regard to the books of Sacred Scripture. And the reason is that in this way the books of Scripture would in no respect whatever be from the knowledge of the hagiographers, through whose ministry they were written. For certainly, whatever an amanuensis writes under verbal dictation is by no means drawn from his knowledge, formally speaking, since he stands to the dictator as a mere instrument of material writing. But such a thing is by no means admissible concerning the canonical books, nor can it even come into thought: both because it would destroy the truth of that utterance by which, as the apostle Peter testifies in the passage cited above, holy men of God spoke, and which must undoubtedly be understood of speech arising from interior knowledge, as befits rational men, especially those raised by the charism of the Holy Spirit to so high a summit of dignity; and because it is contrary to the things which the hagiographers themselves expressly assert about themselves. This is that disciple, says John, who testifies of these things, and wrote these things. And again: What we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life... and we testify... and we announce to you. And Luke in the proem of his Gospel: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, (namely from those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word), to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. And the author of 2 Mach. II-27: And to ourselves also, who have undertaken this work for the sake of abridging, we have taken upon us no easy labour, but truly a task full of watchings and sweat. All of which things are certainly not the ways of simple amanuenses. For an amanuensis testifies nothing, has no need to attain a prior knowledge of the things which he sets forth in writing, does not take upon himself a task full of sweat and watchings, but the phantasms of the words which he receives within, he sets their outlines without.

Moreover, just as divine inspiration does not remove from the sacred historical books the formality of a human authority as well, which is common to all other monuments of past times, and which ought to be of use in the preambles of faith for founding the judgment of credibility: so neither does it take away from the apostolic epistles the true and proper character of epistles, whether of Paul, or of Peter, or of James, and so on. But if those sacred books had emanated from the hagiographers as from mere amanuenses of God, neither would the Gospels agree in anything with the customary documents of history, nor would the epistles truly be inscribed: the epistle of Paul to the Romans, the epistle of Peter to the elect strangers of the dispersion of Pontus, and so on concerning the others. Indeed, the epistle which a mere amanuensis writes is not his own epistle, but the epistle of the dictator alone.

A third consideration is added, which applies equally to all the books of Scripture, because the individual hagiographers have their own style according to the diversity of their temperament, education and origin. Certainly Jerome says of Isaiah: « And first, concerning Isaiah, it must be known that he is eloquent in his speech: as indeed a noble man, and of urbane eloquence, having nothing of rusticity mixed into his speech. Whence it happens that, more than the others, the translation could not preserve the flower of his speech »¹. Then of Jeremiah: « The prophet Jeremiah, in speech indeed among the Hebrews, seems to be more rustic than Isaiah and Hosea and certain other prophets, but he is equal in meaning, since he prophesied by the same Spirit. Moreover, the simplicity of his eloquence befell him from the place in which he was born. For he was an Anathothite, which is to this day a small village, three miles distant from Jerusalem »². Then of Ezekiel: « At the same time, though later, this one in Chaldaea and Jeremiah in Judaea prophesied. His speech is neither sufficiently eloquent, nor excessively rustic, but tempered in a middle way from both »³. Finally, who would not recognize even at first glance the proper and characteristic manner of Paul or of John, to say nothing of the rest, concerning whom the observation is likewise equal and the same by the consent of all? But now, on the hypothesis of verbal dictation, in which even all grammatical construction would be from God alone, and the hagiographer would have contributed nothing more than the mere ministry of a material pen, that diversity found in the sacred books—just as in all other literary works of men—would have no connatural explanation. There is added finally that it would be absurd to charge to the Holy Spirit the faults of grammar, such as solecisms, hyperbata, and other things of this kind which Jerome notes in c. 3 to the Ephesians, or the imperfection of speech which Paul confesses in himself in 2 Cor. XI-6, or possible defects for which, perhaps admitted, the author of 2 Mach. XV-39 asks excuse, saying thus: I also in these things will make an end of my speech. And if indeed well, and as is fitting for history, this I myself would wish. But if less worthily, pardon must be granted me.

It must therefore be concluded that that verbal dictation, asserted by some theologians, is inadmissible, and the more inadmissible the less it is shown to be necessary for God both to be called and to be the author of the sacred books with all propriety of words. For even without it He remains the sole principal cause of the composition and writing of the same books, as will appear more than sufficiently from those things which remain now to be explained in what follows.

II. — I say therefore that we must rise to a higher mode of dictating, and one most proper to God. And for the evidence of this matter we must consider that in the edition of any book two things are distinguished: first, the composition of the context of the sentences, or its mental conception and formation; then, the exterior writing, which is nothing other than the transposition of the formed context onto material pages by pen and ink. You may therefore imagine two ways in which someone is assumed as an instrument for producing a book. First, so that he is an instrument with regard to the external writing alone. Second, so that he is an instrument with regard also to the composition of the context itself. And there is no third mode that can be devised, as will immediately appear to anyone attentive.

In the first mode, therefore, there intervenes the verbal dictation just now declared, in which the whole receiving of the context is from the dictator, and the activity of the instrument begins to be exercised only subsequently, because then the instrument is moved purely and simply so that it may trace with the pen the words suggested to it from outside. And since it contributes nothing to the composition of the book, it places nothing in it from its own style or its own manner of conceiving. Whence finally, the materiality of the manuscript aside, it makes no difference whose is the ministry of the scribe or amanuensis employed. But it is not so in the other mode, where there intervenes a dictation which is no longer made through sounding words or their phantasms. Then the receiving of an already formed context is not from the dictator. Then the instrumental activity precedes the formation of the sentences, because it is ordered to those very sentences. Then not only the materiality of the writing, but also its formality, will retain impressed upon it its own instrumental character and characteristic manner. Now that dictation consists in an interior motion or instinct to conceive mentally the sentences and propositions which the principal author wills to be in the book, and to commit them thus conceived to writing. And since, as has been shown above, the former mode of dictation had no place in the sacred Scriptures, this latter remains to be admitted, as that in which the true and proper notion of scriptural inspiration is placed.

But lest we seem to be content with a confused and merely general notion, we must now come to its further elaboration or analysis, which we shall pursue in the following chapter, God helping, to the best of our ability.