De inspiratione sacrae Scripturae: theologica disquisitio

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.