De inspiratione sacrae Scripturae: theologica disquisitio

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.