Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus II (Pars Altera): Demonstratio Catholica

¹

Concerning sacred Scripture as a source of revelation we are in agreement with Protestantism. Not, of course, with rationalistic Protestantism, which denies revelation entirely and accordingly repudiates the divine origin of the Christian religion and of the sacred books. Orthodox Protestantism, however (with which alone we have to do, the Christian demonstration having already been set forth), no less than the Catholic Church, acknowledges sacred Scripture as a source of revelation for this very reason, because it was consigned to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore the treatise on sacred Scripture as a source of revelation is completed by a disputation on the inspiration of the sacred books. All other biblical questions, namely those concerning the canon, genuineness, integrity, text, versions, exposition, and reading of the sacred books, pertain to that proper discipline which is called biblical introduction. It is ours to treat of the existence, nature, extent, and force of inspiration.

The inspiration of sacred Scripture is understood as that divine influence upon the sacred writer, by virtue of which the sacred books, although they may seem to have been written by man, in reality have God as their author. Such an influence of God upon the sacred writer, however, since it is a wholly supernatural work, becomes known only through the supernatural revelation of God.

Inspiration is not known from the character of the book. For inspired books are not of such a kind that, when compared with purely human books, they betray God as their author. Indeed, the literary form of the sacred books is entirely assimilated to the form of human books; and the teaching of the sacred books, however true, sublime and useful it may be, can also be present in other pious books, even though uninspired.¹ Nor does inspiration become certainly known from the affirmation of the sacred writer, unless it is already established beforehand that the sacred writer is an instrument of revelation. For even if some writer should affirm: "I wrote this book with God inspiring me," he is not absolutely to be believed. For many false prophets and pseudo-apocalyptic writers have affirmed such things; indeed, even the wisest and holiest of men can be deceived while they attribute to God as author some book composed by themselves. Much less does inspiration become known from the testimony of other men, unless they make use of the authority of God revealing. God alone knows how He conducted Himself in the composition of Scripture, and therefore from God revealing alone can we learn that He so conducted Himself in the composition of Scripture that He Himself must be called the author of the sacred books.

That God revealed the inspiration of the sacred books is established from the teaching of Christ and the apostles, from the consensus of the Fathers and theologians, and from the definitions of the councils and of the Roman Pontiffs.

We know for certain that Christ, the legate of God and God, proclaimed divine revelation through himself and through his apostles. Hence whatever Christ and the apostles taught concerning the inspiration of the sacred books is infallibly true. Now:

1. Christ confirms the faith of the Jews in the inspiration of sacred Scripture. That the Jews attributed certain books to God as author we gather both from the Old Testament and from profane writings. In the Old Testament many texts relate that men were moved by God to commit certain books or parts of books to writing. E.g. Ex 17, 14: "And the Lord said to Moses: Write this for a memorial in a book." Ex 34, 27: "And the Lord said to Moses: Write these words to thyself, by which I have made a covenant both with thee and with Israel." Deut 31, 19: "And the Lord said to Moses ... Now therefore write you this canticle and teach the children of Israel." Is 8, 1: "And the Lord said to me: Take thee a great book, and write in it with a man's pen." Is 30, 8: "Now therefore go in and write for him upon a box, and note it diligently in a book." Ier 30, 2: "Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel, saying: Write thee all the words that I have spoken to thee, in a book." Ier 36, 1. 2. 4: "This word came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: Take thee a roll of a book and thou shalt write in it all the words that I have spoken to thee ... And Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Nerias, and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord, which he spoke to him, upon the roll of a book." By these and similar words it is affirmed that certain determinate books or parts of them were written with God moving them. The books thus produced are called sacred books,¹ although all the books that belonged to the collection of sacred Scripture are nowhere enumerated in the Old Testament.

The profane writings of the Jews of the later age speak more clearly of the fact of inspiration and of the collection of the inspired books. Philo (born c. 30 years before Christ) very often mentions "our books", which he calls: "sacred books, sacred scriptures, sacred letters".² Philo does not hand down a complete catalogue of these sacred books, but he cites the books of the Pentateuch, Josue, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Paralipomenon, Esdras, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaias, Jeremias, Jonas, Osee, Zacharias.³ All their writers are prophets, i. e. "interpreters of God, who uses their organs to make manifest those things which he wills",⁴ "through whose mouth the Father of all brought forth oracles",⁵ "who, inspired by the divinity, spoke",⁶ "highly inspired ... speaking in the person of God".⁷

Josephus Flavius: The prophets, he says, "learned by divine inspiration. There are not among us many thousands of books discordant and conflicting, but only twenty-two books ..., to which we rightly give credence ... But it is shown by the very fact how much confidence we place in our books. For since so many ages have already passed away, no one has dared to add anything to them, or to take anything away, or to change anything, but it is innate in all the Jews from their very first childhood to believe that these are the precepts of God, and to hold fast to them, and, if need be, gladly to die for them".⁸ Therefore, according to the most ancient tradition, the Jews had 22 sacred books, which they attributed to hagiographers prophetically inspired by God. The Talmudist rabbis report the same tradition, venerating 22⁹ sacred books, whose authors spoke "in the Holy Spirit".¹⁰

That Jesus, however, fully approved this faith of the Jews concerning the inspiration of the sacred books is evident from the fact that he never disagreed about this matter, neither with the people, nor with the Pharisees and the scribes. Indeed:

2. Christ and the apostles attribute sacred Scripture to God as author both directly and indirectly. Indirectly, indeed, by ascribing to the sacred books absolute and divine authority. For whether they speak of the whole collection of the sacred books of the Old Testament¹¹ or of the individual sayings of these books, they always employ Scripture as an infallible and ineluctable argument of truth. They often repeat: "The Scripture cannot be broken",¹² "The Scripture must be fulfilled",¹³ "It is necessary that all things be fulfilled which are written",¹⁴ "Until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or one apex shall pass away from the law, until all things be done".¹⁵ In one word, "It is written", "Scripture says"¹⁶ every controversy is peremptorily settled.

And indeed the testimonies of Scripture are not called infallible because they contain divine revelation, but, on the contrary, they contain revelation because they are written. Therefore the reason for the absolute authority of the sacred books can be none other than that in Scripture God speaks and writes through the hagiographer.

That this is so, Christ and the apostles also profess directly. For they refer the sayings of the sacred books to God in such a way that he himself appears to be the principal cause, and the hagiographer the instrumental cause, of those things which are written and inasmuch as they are written. Christ challenges the Pharisees: "Have you not read what was said by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham?"¹⁷ He therefore adduces words written by Moses¹⁸ and affirms that they were said, i. e. written, "by God saying to you". Elsewhere Christ asks the Pharisees: "What think you of Christ? Whose son is he? They say to him: David. He says to them: How then does David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord?"¹⁹ Therefore David spoke and wrote these words of psalm 109 "in the Holy Spirit". Matthew contends that those things which were written by the prophets were said by the Lord: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was said by the Lord through the prophet saying ..."²⁰ Peter hands down that in the psalms, as they stand written, the Holy Spirit speaks through the mouth of David: "The Scripture must be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth of David".²¹ Paul testifies: "For God said in a certain place of the seventh day thus: And God rested on the seventh day."²² These words of Gen 2, 2, therefore, written by Moses, really have God as their author. Elsewhere the same apostle simply puts Scripture in place of God speaking: "Providing [i. e. foreseeing], Scripture announced beforehand to Abraham: because in thee shall all nations be blessed."²³

Therefore, according to the doctrine of Christ and the apostles, both the whole Scripture of the Old Testament and all and every saying of Scripture are so referred to God speaking that he himself is their principal cause, while the hagiographers are the instruments which God uses for writing. Whence it comes about that the sacred books have God as their author. Hence: 3. The apostles teach in express words that sacred Scripture is inspired, in the two classic passages 2 Tim 3, 14-16 and 2 Petr 1, 19-21.

2 Tim 3, 14-16 Paul admonishes Timothy: "But do thou continue in those things which thou hast learned ... because from infancy thou hast known the sacred letters (τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα), which can instruct thee unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, divinely inspired (πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος), is useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice."

The Apostle of the Gentiles exhorts his disciple to devote himself to the study of the sacred letters of the Old Testament, which the young Timothy had learned from his Jewish mother. He adds also the reason why he ought to give himself wholly to the study of the sacred letters: all scripture is supremely useful, because it is "θεόπνευστος".

But what the term θεόπνευστος signifies is gathered from the etymology, from usage, and from parallel biblical passages. By force of etymology this word designates that which is breathed upon by God, or, as the Vulgate rightly renders it, "divinely inspired". Usage of the word likewise requires this interpretation. In the sacred books the word θεόπνευστος is read only in this place of ours. Profane authors use it very rarely, and indeed constantly in the sense of divine afflation or inspiration.²⁴ In the same sense the Greek fathers afterwards always employ this word. But neither do the parallel biblical passages praised by us under n. 2 admit any other interpretation of the word θεόπνευστος than that by which God so breathes upon the hagiographers that he himself becomes the principal author of all the sacred letters and of all scripture. It is confirmed chiefly by the parallel passage 2 Petr 1, 19-21.

2 Petr 1, 19-21 Peter says: "And we have the more firm prophetical word, to which you do well to attend, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts; understanding this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy was not brought at any time by human will, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit (ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι)."

The apostle remembered that he had seen the glory of Christ in his transfiguration and had heard the voice coming down from heaven: "Hear him." He attests, however, that the faithful have a greater motive for believing in Christ, namely: "We have the more firm prophetical word", i. e. the whole sacred Scripture of the Old Testament containing the messianic prophecies.²⁵ For "no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation", i. e. the prophets did not find the messianic prophecies placed in Scripture by their own ingenuity. "For prophecy was not brought at any time by human will", i. e. no prophecy properly owes its origin to the hagiographers who wrote the sacred books.²⁶ "But the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit", i. e. the hagiographers, breathed upon, moved and having undergone the influence of the Holy Spirit, wrote.

Therefore the apostles expressly teach that the Old Testament is inspired by God. On the contrary, concerning the inspiration of the New Testament the apostles are almost silent. S. Paul seems to cite certain words from the gospel of Luke as Scripture. S. Peter warns that in the Pauline epistles there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction".²⁷ Yet the doubt remains whether the prince of the apostles thinks of the surviving Pauline epistles or of the lost ones. Finally, s. John in the Apocalypse often mentions that he received from God the command of writing.²⁸ But no certain testimony concerning the inspiration of the whole New Testament is found in the writings of the apostles. Whence recourse must be had to Tradition, which both confirms the inspiration of the Old Testament and establishes the inspiration of the New Testament.

That the consensus of the Fathers and of the theologians is an irrefutable argument of divine Tradition and therefore a genuine source of divine revelation will be proved later. Whatever, therefore, the Fathers and theologians have established with one voice concerning the inspiration of sacred Scripture was handed down orally to posterity by Christ and the apostles and pertains to the deposit of the revealed faith. But the inspiration of sacred Scripture is attested with one voice by the most ancient Fathers, by the later Fathers, and by the leading theologians alike.¹

But we do not appeal to the mere word of inspiration. For the Fathers and theologians sometimes call certain books inspired that do not pertain to sacred Scripture.² Hence they sometimes understand inspiration in that broad sense in which we too say that pious or talented authors are inspired. Nevertheless, it is evident from their manner of speaking that the Fathers and theologians, when they speak of the inspiration of sacred Scripture, are to be understood strictly.

1. The most ancient Fathers, from the first to the third century, already teach our thesis. According to s. Clemens rom. the sacred Scriptures "were given through the Holy Spirit" and therefore are "divine utterances".³

S. Iustinus, discussing inspiration in many places, testifies: the books of the Old and New Testament were not written, like the books of the philosophers, by human talent alone, but rather the hagiographers, "speaking by the Divine Spirit"⁴, "are divinely borne by the divine Word (θεοφοροῦνται)".⁵ The things that are said in sacred Scripture are said by the Holy Spirit Himself, and they are the words of the Holy Spirit.⁶ The hagiographers, he says, "offered themselves pure to the operation of the divine Spirit, so that that divine plectrum, fallen from heaven, using just men as a kind of cithara or lyre instrument, might open up to us the knowledge of divine and heavenly things."⁷

S. Theophilus antiochenus: "The men of God, filled with the Holy Spirit and made prophets, inspired and instructed by God Himself, became divinely taught, ... so that they might become organs of God and receive wisdom from Him, by which wisdom they spoke concerning the creation of the world and of the rest."⁸

S. Irenaeus: "The Scriptures are perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit ... And every Scripture given to us by God will be found in harmony with us ... and through the many voices of its utterances one harmonious melody will be perceived among us, praising with hymns the God who made all things."⁹

S. Hippolytus: The prophet-hagiographers, "all fitted by the prophetic Spirit and honored by the Word Himself, after the manner of instruments always having in themselves the Word as a plectrum, moved by which they announced the things that God willed."¹⁰

Clemens alexandrinus: "I could bring before you almost innumerable Scriptures, of which not even a single apex will pass away without being fulfilled. For the Holy Spirit, who is as it were the mouth of the Lord, has spoken them."¹¹

Origenes: "There is also this in the ecclesiastical preaching . . ., that the Scriptures were written through the Spirit of God."¹² "The Scriptures themselves are divine, i. e. inspired by the Spirit of God."¹³ One must believe that "the sacred books are not the writings of men, but were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by the will of the Father of all through Iesus Christus, and have come down to us."¹⁴

2. The later Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaim inspiration in innumerable places, so that it suffices to have recalled one or another of them.

S. Gregorius nyssenus: "The divinely inspired Scripture, as the divine apostle himself names it, is the Scripture of the Holy Spirit ... Whatever sacred Scripture says, let these be the voices or utterances of the Holy Spirit ... The holy prophets, breathed upon by the divinity, are inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit; and therefore all Scripture is called divinely inspired, because it is the doctrine of divine inspiration."¹⁵

S. Ioannes Chrysostomus: "God, the founder of the human race, from the beginning spoke to men through Himself ... But because they afterwards became unworthy of His familiarity, wishing to renew His friendship toward them again, He sends letters as to those who are far away ... And these letters indeed God gave, but Moyses brought them."¹⁶

S. Cyrillus hierosolymitanus: "There is one God of both Testaments, who foretold in the Old Testament Christ, who was made manifest in the New."¹⁷ "The Holy Spirit Himself spoke the Scriptures ... He both in the prophets and in the apostles in the New Testament."¹⁸

S. Ambrosius: The hagiographers, "with the divine Spirit supplying the abundance of all words and things, completed them without any effort."¹⁹

S. Hieronymus: "The Scriptures were written and published by the Holy Spirit."²⁰ "All the Scriptures," he says, "were written by the one Holy Spirit, and therefore they are called one book."²¹

S. Augustinus: "From that city, from which we are pilgrims, letters have come to us; these are the Scriptures."²² These letters were written by the Lord. "Therefore, when they [the hagiographers] wrote what He [the Lord] showed and said, it must by no means be said that He Himself did not write, since His members wrought what they had learned with the head dictating. For whatever He willed us to read of His deeds and words, this He commanded them to write as with His own hands."²³

S. Gregorius M.: "What is sacred Scripture but a kind of letter of almighty God to His creature?"²⁴ "It is often asked among many who is to be regarded as the writer of the book of blessed Iob ... But who wrote these things is asked quite superfluously, since nevertheless the author of the book is faithfully believed to be the Holy Spirit. He therefore wrote these things who dictated what was to be written; He wrote them who was both the inspirer of that work and through the voice of the writer transmitted His deeds to us to be imitated. If, having received the letters of some great man, we read the words, but asked with what pen they had been written, it would surely be ridiculous to know the author of the letters and to recognize the meaning, but to investigate with what pen their words were impressed. Since, therefore, we know the matter and hold the Holy Spirit as the author of that matter: when we seek the writer, what else do we do but, while reading the letters, inquire about the pen?"²⁵

3. The leading theologians, following the holy Fathers in age and authority, affirm the inspiration of sacred Scripture with concordant testimony, namely Alexander Halensis, Albertus M., Bonaventura, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus. And since, with these scholastic leaders agreeing, the whole Catholic school agrees, there is no reason to go to other theologians.

Alexander Halensis teaches that the Holy Spirit is the "efficient cause" of sacred Scripture,²⁶ and adds: "Since the doctrine of sacred Scripture is divinely inspired ... antonomastically, that is, by excellence, this Scripture or doctrine is said to be from the Holy Spirit."²⁷

Albertus M. agrees that sacred Scripture arose "by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit",²⁸ and, illustrating the matter with the example of the fourth Gospel, writes: Of this Gospel "the first efficient cause is the divine Wisdom, manifesting itself to Ioannes in the uncreated Word and instructing Ioannes in the uncreated Word and moving him to write ... The proximate efficient cause, however, externally is Ioannes."²⁹

S. Bonaventura: "Sacred Scripture is therefore like a very broad river, which is gathered together more and more from the confluence of many waters, according as it runs farther ... so that thus [the apostles], taught all truth by the Holy Spirit according to the divine promise ... completing sacred Scripture, might extend the knowledge of truth ... God provided this Scripture with the certainty of authority, which is so great that it surpasses all perspicacity of the human mind ... Therefore in it nothing is to be despised as useless, nothing rejected as false, nothing repudiated as unjust, for this reason, that the Holy Spirit, its most perfect author, could say nothing false, nothing superfluous, nothing defective."³⁰

S. Thomas Aq.: "Faith supposes that Scripture was promulgated with the Holy Spirit dictating."³¹ "The principal author of sacred Scripture is the Holy Spirit ... Man was the instrumental author of sacred Scripture."³² "Therefore the tongue of man is disposed in sacred Scripture as the tongue of a child speaking the words that another supplies."³³

Duns Scotus proves that Scripture is inspired by eight arguments, "which are: prophetic foretelling, the concord of the Scriptures, the authority of the writers, the diligence of the recipients, the reasonableness of the contents, the unreasonableness of individual errors, the stability of the Church, the clarity of the miracles."³⁴

It is therefore established that the Fathers and the theologians attribute the sacred books to God as author with unanimous consent. Therefore the inspiration of sacred Scripture of both Testaments is in reality revealed.

Finally, the councils and the supreme pontiffs have authentically and infallibly defined that the inspiration of sacred Scripture of both Testaments is a revealed dogma. In truth, there was no need of a formal definition, since the unanimous tradition, taught through the ordinary magisterium of all the churches and ages, attributed Scripture to God as its author, as we have seen. Because, however, the Manichaeans, Gnostics, and other heretics excepted the books of the Old Testament or other parts of sacred Scripture from inspiration,¹ the Church the more often affirmed her faith by a formal and solemn proposition. This indeed happened especially in the "Ancient Statutes of the Church" and in the Councils of Florence, Trent, and the Vatican.

1. The "Ancient Statutes of the Church" are the name given to canons collected from certain early councils before the end of the sixth century.² Among other things they prescribe that this question be put to a bishop about to be ordained: "Whether he believes in one and the same author and God of the New and Old Testament, i. e. of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Apostles."³ The same profession of faith, according to the Roman Pontifical, was thereafter prescribed to be made by all bishops;⁴ the same profession is found in the symbol of Leo IX (1053);⁵ the same profession was imposed on the Manichaeans and Waldensians returning to repentance by Innocent III (1208);⁶ the same was proposed to the Greeks returning to the Church by Clement IV and was offered by the emperor Michael Palaeologus at the Council of Lyon (1274).⁷ Therefore in all ages the ecclesiastical magisterium publicly and formally professed the inspiration of sacred Scripture.

2. The Council of Florence (1441) in the decree of Eugenius IV for the Jacobites pronounces still more solemnly: "The Most Holy Roman Church ... professes one and the same God as author of the Old and New Testament, that is, of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Gospel: since the saints of both Testaments spoke by the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit: whose books it receives and venerates, which are contained under the following titles: Genesis, Exodus ..."⁸ By this decree that most ancient profession of faith is repeated, and moreover the concept of inspiration is set forth more earnestly, with the canon of all the inspired books of both Testaments added as well.

3. The Council of Trent (1546) "receives and venerates all the books of both the Old and the New Testament, since one God is the author of both, ... with an equal affection of piety and reverence. It thought that the index of the sacred books should be attached to this decree, lest any doubt could arise as to which are the ones received by the synod itself ... If, however, anyone does not receive the books themselves, whole with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, as sacred and canonical, let him be anathema."⁹ In this document the Tridentine fathers set forth the same judgment concerning inspiration as the Council of Florence, enumerate the same catalogue of inspired books, and moreover add that "the books themselves, whole with all their parts," are inspired. Finally:

4. The Vatican Council: "The books of the New and Old Testament, whole with all their parts, as they are contained in the old Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical. The Church, however, holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by mere human industry, they were afterwards approved by her own authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and as such they were handed down to the Church."¹⁰

This Vatican definition not only, after the manner of the Council of Trent, proposes anew the fact of the inspiration of all the sacred books, but also sets forth the nature of inspiration.

In proving the existence of inspiration, we have already sketched the nature of inspiration. For we have shown Sacred Scripture to be inspired in this sense, that God is its principal or efficient cause, whereas the sacred writer is only an instrumental or ministerial cause. Therefore inspiration is that divine action upon the sacred writer in virtue of which the sacred book has God as its principal or properly so-called author, and the sacred writer only as a secondary author or one so-called improperly (the writer). From this obvious concept every more precise inquiry into the nature of inspiration must proceed. Provided that we never forget that God is the principal author, while the sacred writer is only the ministerial writer, we shall easily reject a spurious notion of inspiration and establish the genuine one.

It is evident that we take no account of the opinions of those who, having inspiration on their lips, expressly deny that God is the author of the sacred books. Among these are the modernists together with the Protestant rationalists, affirming: "They betray excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is truly the author of sacred Scripture."¹ But several most meritorious Catholic theologians as well, who since the Council of Trent have disputed more distinctly about the nature of inspiration, did not sufficiently weigh that God is the true author of sacred Scripture. Hence arose the twofold error of those who placed inspiration either in a mere approval or in a mere inerrancy of the sacred books. Let us speak briefly of both errors.

1. Mere approval of the sacred books. Some Catholic theologians, among whom chiefly Iac. Bonfrère S. I.² and Daniel Haneberg O. S. B.³ contended that the Holy Spirit can stand in three ways with regard to the hagiographers: by inspiring antecedently, by assisting concomitantly, by approving consequently, and that all three ways suffice of themselves for something to be sacred Scripture. But whereas Bonfrère judged that the canonical books which we have were inspired only in the third way, Haneberg thought that the historical books of sacred Scripture were inspired in this way of mere consequent approval.⁴

But for the notion of inspiration it does not suffice that a book written by human labor be marked with the approval of the Church or of God Himself and be recognized as a canonical book. For:

a) Only those books are inspired whose efficient cause or principal author is God. But before approval a book produced by human labor already pre-exists. Therefore God is not its efficient cause or author.

b) Nor can it come about by any subsequent approval that a book produced by human labor alone should thereafter have God as its efficient cause or principal author. Daily usage illustrates a matter clear in itself. However much bishops and censors approve the books offered to them, by force of the approval they do not themselves become the authors, but the books remain the authors' by whom they were composed. Thus neither would God ever become by force of subsequent approval the author of books composed by human study. Therefore the inspiration of the sacred books cannot consist in a mere subsequent approval.

2. Mere inerrancy of the sacred books. The already mentioned Bonfrère was of the opinion that the Holy Spirit in inspiration could have related, and perhaps sometimes actually did relate, only concomitantly, i. e., by so directing the hagiographer that He would not permit him to err or be deceived in anything.⁵ More boldly Phil. Ner. Chrismann O. F. M. writes: "The sacred authors therefore did not have revelation in all things, but truly they had that divine inspiration by which, being interiorly moved to write, they are directed by the peculiar assistance or presence of the Holy Spirit, lest they slip, lest they mingle anything false or erroneous, and lest they anywhere deviate from the truth."⁶ This opinion Io. Iahn, professor at Vienna, embraces and expounds thus: "That these books may have divine authority, it is necessary that their authors have been preserved by God free from errors in writing; this divine assistance, by which errors are warded off, we call inspiration."⁷

That this notion of inspiration is also false is evident. For:

a) God inspired the sacred books in this sense, that He Himself is their principal author, who used the hagiographer as His instrument. But if the hagiographers wrote the sacred books with their own mind and will, God only looking on and warding off error, then not God but the hagiographers are the principal authors of the sacred books.

b) According to Scripture and Tradition the word θεόπνευστος, or inspiration, is a technical term for signifying the proper manner in which God conducted Himself in composing the sacred books. But this term, as Iahn observes, does not indicate a mere negative assistance by which errors are warded off from a book, but a positive influx by which the book is divinely instilled into the hagiographer.⁸

c) The solemn definitions of the ecumenical councils and of the Roman pontiffs are by virtue of the assisting God themselves also immune from error, without however ever having been numbered or being able to be numbered among the inspired writings. Therefore mere inerrancy conferred upon the sacred books through a concomitant divine direction does not suffice for the notion of inspiration.

Therefore the Vatican Council justly decreed: "But the Church holds them (the books of the New and Old Testament) as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry alone, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author."

Keeping this one thing in mind, namely that the sacred books, “written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have God as their author,” we shall securely attain a more precise concept of inspiration. For the notion of an author requires, first, that he conceive in his mind the book to be written and the things to be set down in the book; then, that he have the will to express in written signs those things which he has conceived in his mind; finally, that he faithfully carry this plan into execution. Therefore, since God is the author who, through the medium of the hagiographer, produces the sacred books, it is required, first, that He illumine the mind of the hagiographer concerning the things to be written; then, that He move the will of the hagiographer to write; finally, that He assist the hagiographer in writing. By these three things, then, divine inspiration is completed: by the illumination of the intellect, whereby a man divinely understands the truths to be written; by the motion of the will, whereby a man is determined to the truths to be written; by directive assistance, whereby a man is suitably directed in writing. These three elements of inspiration are to be briefly set forth.

1. By inspirational illumination is understood that whereby God instills into the intellect of the hagiographer all the ideas to be set down in the book. For God would not be the author of the whole book if He Himself did not supply all the ideas to be recorded. Nevertheless:

a) It is not required that the hagiographer receive all the ideas by proper revelation. The hagiographer needs proper and express revelation with regard to those truths which he knows neither by his own nor by another's ability; but with regard to those truths which he attains by natural knowledge, he has no need of revelation. For God can be regarded as the author of the book without immediately revealing every particular. “For it is not the conception of the ideas in themselves, but the conception of them as here and now to be written down, that pertains to the composition of the book.”¹ Indeed, not even human authors dictate to their amanuenses all and every sentence immediately, but sometimes they only instruct the amanuenses, so that they insert certain things into the book either from their own experience or from external sources. That the hagiographers in fact did not always receive the matters to be written by express revelation is gathered from many places of Sacred Scripture. Thus the writer of the books of Kings makes use of the sources “Annals of the kings of Judah and Israel;”² the writer of the books of Paralipomenon often cites the human documents of which he made use;³ the writer of the second book of Machabees confesses that he excerpted the histories of Jason and moreover spent his own labor in composing the book;⁴ Luke the evangelist testifies that he diligently investigated all things and obtained them from those “who from the beginning themselves saw and were ministers of the word.”⁵ Therefore, for inspiration there is not required an immediate revelation or infusion of all the things to be written, but it is enough that God instilled into the hagiographers a practical judgment, so that they wrote those things which they had seen or heard or read or known in whatever way.

b) It is not required that the hagiographer be conscious of divine inspiration. For just as God acts in the human soul through natural concursus and through the common help of grace without man's having consciousness of that action, so also God is able to act in the soul of the hagiographer in the singular manner of inspiration without the hagiographer's being conscious of that divine influx. God can indeed be the principal cause of the book, and man the instrumental cause in writing the book, although man has no consciousness of this fact. Therefore, consciousness of inspiration does not belong to its internal essence. Indeed, although not a few hagiographers confess that they were conscious of inspiration,⁶ others rather seem to have undergone the inspirational influx unconsciously. V. g. the author of the second book of Machabees, writing: “The things contained in five books of Jason of Cyrene we have attempted to abridge in one volume. For considering the multitude of the books and the difficulty for those wishing to approach the narrations of the histories because of the multitude of things, we have taken care that it might be a delight of soul for those willing to read, and for the studious, that they might more easily commit them to memory, and that utility might be conferred on all readers. And for ourselves indeed, who have undertaken this work for the sake of abridging, we have taken upon ourselves no easy labor, but rather a business full of watchings and sweat ... I also will here make an end of my discourse. And if indeed it is well and as befits history, this too I myself would wish; but if less worthily, pardon must be granted me.”⁷ With these words it hardly agrees that the hagiographer was conscious of divine inspiration.

2. The inspirational motion is required whereby God efficaciously impels the will of the hagiographer to write. For, in order that the hagiographer may consign the conceived ideas to the book by external writing, an act of the will is needed. But if that act of the will proceeded from the hagiographer's own motion, the written book would be the effect of the human writer, not of God. Therefore God, as the efficient cause of the sacred books, must impel the will of the hagiographer to write by an efficacious motion. Nevertheless:

a) It is not required that God move the will of the hagiographer to write immediately, but He can determine it also through the mediation of secondary causes. V. g. Paul seems to have been moved to write his epistles by the condition of the individual churches. Mark wrote his gospel at Rome, asked by the brethren. These and similar natural causes God so disposed through His special providence that the hagiographer was efficaciously moved to write. By a similar means and manner men make other men their ministers for performing offices; by a similar manner and means also common grace makes use of, in order to impel men divinely to salutary works. Therefore, by the same means and manner the charismatic grace of inspiration can make use of, so that the hagiographer may become the minister of God in writing, while God is the true author of the book produced.

b) It is not required that God injure or take away the hagiographer's freedom. For just as God is able, with freedom intact, to move man to act through natural concursus and through ordinary supernatural grace, so He is able, with freedom intact, to inspire the hagiographer to write. Therefore, the suspension of human freedom is not necessarily of the essence of inspiration. Indeed, since God chose free instruments for producing the sacred books, it was not fitting that, with their freedom removed, He should move them after the manner of irrational beings. In fact, the hagiographers everywhere manifest free choice in writing. V. g. Luke: “It seemed good to me also ... to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus;”⁸ Paul: “Although I made you sorrowful in the epistle, I do not repent”⁹ etc. Whence the holy fathers and theologians commonly hold that all the hagiographers were free in writing.”¹⁰ A fortiori, inspiration neither requires nor tolerates the alienation of mind whereby the hagiographer, deprived of the use of intellect and will, would be moved by divine force as an irrational instrument. Ecstasy, properly so called, inspiration indeed does not require, but it nevertheless permits. For although a man in the ecstatic state lacks the use of the external senses, he does not lack the use of the rational faculties; indeed, he uses these faculties more aptly and easily for perceiving divine things.

3. The inspirational assistance is that whereby God so directs the executive faculties, that is, the material writing, that the divinely determined ideas are faithfully and infallibly expressed in apt form and signs. For God would not be the author of the whole book if the hagiographer failed in the very writing by adding, removing, or corrupting anything beyond the divine mind and will. Nevertheless:

a) Of itself, there is not required a physical influx, but only a moral one, upon the material writing. For someone can be the author of a book without effecting the writing by his own physical and immediate action, provided that he influences the writing morally, i. e., by dictating and supervising. In fact, human authors are considered and are true authors, although they use amanuenses in writing. But also several hagiographers did not themselves write the sacred books, but through scribes. Thus Jeremiah employed Baruch as a minister in writing;¹¹ Peter in his first epistle had Silvanus as scribe;¹² Paul dictated the epistle to the Romans to Tertius.¹³ A fortiori, God is not bound to exercise a physical and immediate influx upon the material writing or upon the executive faculties of the hagiographer. Indeed:

b) Of itself, there is not required a positive influx, but only a negative one, upon the material writing. For if the hagiographer perfectly carries out in written signs those things which he divinely understood and decreed to be written, he has no need of a positive influx of God. But if, per accidens, he should be unequal to his office, then God must indeed influence positively, so that at length all things are faithfully and infallibly written down.

Therefore the charism of inspiration consists in this, that God illumines the intellect of the hagiographer concerning the things to be written, moves the will of the hagiographer to write, and assists the executive faculties of the hagiographer in writing. Wherefore “biblical inspiration is the charismatic illumination and motion of the will and divine assistance granted to the hagiographer for writing all those things and those alone which God wills to be written in His name and handed on to the Church.”¹⁴ This notion of inspiration fully agrees with the definition of Leo XIII: “By a supernatural power God so excited and moved the hagiographers to writing, and so assisted them while writing, that all those things and those alone which He Himself commanded they both rightly conceived in mind and willed to consign faithfully and expressed aptly with infallible truth: otherwise He Himself would not be the author of the whole of Scripture.”¹⁵

Here it is not asked which books of the Old and New Testament are inspired by God, or which books in particular belong to the canon of sacred Scripture. For the question of the canon of Scripture belongs to biblical Introduction. It is our task, however, to inquire how far the charismatic influence of God extends in the books themselves that are truly inspired: whether, namely, all the things said in Scripture are inspired, and whether all the words set down in Scripture are likewise inspired. Whence arises the bipartite question of real inspiration and of verbal inspiration.

Some Catholics, in order to solve more readily the difficulties raised against sacred Scripture, contended that certain things, or sentences or propositions, of sacred Scripture are not inspired. Holden, a Sorbonne professor († 1665), noted that inspiration extends "only to those things which are either purely doctrinal or have some proximate or necessary relation to doctrinal matters."¹ Rohling confines inspiration to matters of faith and morals.² Lenormant, a layman and an orientalist, restricts it to supernatural doctrines.³ Cardinal Newman thinks that "obiter dicta" are exempt from inspiration, i.e. statements which neither pertain to faith and morals nor cohere with them, e.g. that Nabuchodonosor was king of Nineveh,⁴ that Paul left his cloak at Troas,⁵ etc.⁶

Nevertheless, it must on the contrary be altogether maintained that inspiration extends to all the things or sentences which were written by the hagiographers.

Proof: 1. Christ and the apostles indiscriminately adduce any text whatsoever of the sacred books, and even the very smallest matters, under the solemn formula: "It is written; Scripture says." And indeed "under one and the same most solemn formula the books of sacred Scripture are cited, both legal and historical and poetic and didactic; not only are testimonies and sentences of the religious and doctrinal order cited, but also those of the historical order and those which, being wholly profane in themselves, enter into no connection with religion." Therefore all sentences of the sacred books indiscriminately are sacred Scripture, and therefore all are inspired.

2. The Fathers and the theologians profess by testimonies both theoretical and practical that all the particular passages of sacred Scripture are inspired. We have already reported several theoretical testimonies. Recall the words of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Jerome, Bonaventure."⁷ In practice, however, they manifest their faith by the manner in which they cite, defend, and interpret Scripture. For they cite as arguments texts of every kind, whether they pertain to matters of faith and morals, or to the historical and profane order, or even to "obiter dicta".⁸ They defend and protect with the greatest zeal⁹ whatever texts are attacked by adversaries. They interpret and treat exegetically all and each of the very smallest sentences of Scripture, everywhere seeking the divine sense. But all these things suppose that the Fathers and the theologians extended inspiration to all the sentences of the sacred books.

3. The councils and the popes, by the very decrees by which they explicitly teach the existence of inspiration, seem also implicitly to teach that the whole of Scripture is inspired.¹⁰ This holds above all for the decrees of the Councils of Trent and of the Vatican, professing that "the books themselves, entire, with all their parts" are canonical and sacred and therefore inspired. These words indeed refer proximately to the Latin Vulgate, but by the name of "parts" there are designated rather the larger segments than the single and very smallest particular passages of the books. Therefore they do not define peremptorily whether all the particular passages of the original Scripture are inspired. Nevertheless they most certainly exclude the adverse opinions of those who restrict inspiration either to "purely doctrinal matters" or "to matters of faith and morals" or "to supernatural doctrines", and thereby exempt from inspiration a great, or rather by far the greater, part of the sacred books. Indeed, the aforementioned decrees seem to exclude also the opinion of those who exempt "obiter dicta" or other very small matters from inspiration, since, once such a norm has been admitted, innumerable texts of Scripture are exposed to the subjective judgment of men and consequently Scripture is altogether imperiled.

Finally, Leo XIII forbade every restriction of real inspiration in the encyclical letter "Providentissimus",¹¹ in which we read: "It will be altogether unlawful to confine inspiration to only some parts of Scripture." And although that letter is not an infallible decree ex cathedra, nevertheless it gravely obliges all Catholics in conscience, as Pope Leo XIII himself expressly established.¹² Therefore no further question can arise among the faithful concerning the real inspiration of all the sentences of sacred Scripture. It remains for us to discuss verbal inspiration.

Following the lead of the rabbis, the older Protestants almost universally denied to the hagiographers the liberty of choosing their words, contending that God dictated all and each of the words, indeed every character and apex.¹ No Catholic seems to have championed such an external dictation. But many Scholastics assert that God inspired the hagiographers through an internal influx equivalent to external dictation. Thus among the older Scholastics Henry of Ghent; among the more recent, Bañez, Billuart, and most Thomists,² with many other authors dissenting. Since the end of the eighteenth century the opinion denying verbal inspiration has almost universally prevailed and still prevails.³⁴

In truth it seems that we must hold altogether that inspiration does not extend to all the words or constructions that were written by the hagiographers.

Proof: 1. From the fact and nature of inspiration it follows, indeed, that God inspired the material words at least in a generic way. For by the very fact that He inspired all the things of the sacred books, He had at least to take care that all those things be written in suitable material words (vocables, external signs). Nevertheless, from the fact and nature of inspiration it can be proved by no argument that God determined for the hagiographer all and each of the words in the individual. The selection, namely, of the words to be used in the individual, and the whole manner of speaking, inasmuch as they do not alter the ideas to be expressed, relate accidentally to the composing of the book. For the same ideas can be expressed now in one way, now in another, since various terms are usually available for rendering the same ideas. For this reason anyone can be called an author, even though he does not himself dictate and determine all the words or all the phrases of the book, or even though he has had a book first written by himself translated into another language. Therefore God also is the author of sacred Scripture, even though He did not supply all the words in the individual.

From this very fact, however, that verbal inspiration is not necessary de iure, it must be presumed that it did not in fact take place, but that "God, who disposes all things sweetly, permitted that men, already illumined by the divine meanings and supernaturally moved to write those things, should themselves, under divine assistance, find and select, according to the diverse character and erudition of each, the signs of the inspired ideas"⁵.

Furthermore:

2. From sacred Scripture it sufficiently appears that the hagiographers were for the most part not determined in selecting their words and in the grammatical and rhetorical manner of writing. The verbalists appeal, to be sure, to various texts where the hagiographers are commanded to write the "words of God". But the hagiographers were commanded to write the formal words of God, i.e., the things or ideas received from God through charismatic revelation; they do not, however, appear to have been commanded to write the material words of God, i.e., the vocables and sounds uttered by God. Or if perhaps they were commanded to write some material words, from this it is not lawful to conclude that all the material words were inspired to them. That the contrary happened, Scripture itself indicates by several reasons, namely:

a) Each hagiographer uses his own style, according as the character, education, and erudition of each carried him. But if God Himself had determined the style in the individual, there is no reason why He would have chosen now one style, now another, according to the character, education, and erudition of the hagiographers. Therefore the style is the hagiographers', not God's. On this point already St. Jerome: "Concerning Isaiah it must be known that in his speech he is eloquent, inasmuch as he is a noble man of urbane eloquence, having nothing of rusticity mixed into his eloquence ... Jeremiah indeed seems among the Hebrews to be more rustic in speech than Isaiah and Hosea and certain other prophets, but he is equal in meanings, inasmuch as he prophesied by the same Spirit. Moreover, the simplicity of his eloquence came to him from the place in which he was born. For he was an Anathothite, which is to this day a little village."⁶

b) Different hagiographers report the same things in different words. E.g., they narrate the discourses of Christ the Lord in words that differ from one another.

Thus the words with which Christ instituted the most holy Eucharist are reported by the four writers⁷ in a way somewhat different from one another, although the Lord spoke them in only one way. This diversity is not explained if the Holy Spirit dictated the words to the hagiographers; it is explained, however, if He left the words to be chosen by the hagiographers, the sense of the matter being retained.

c) Finally, the hagiographers themselves attribute to themselves the style and the elocution. Thus Paul: "For although I am unskilled in speech, yet not in knowledge."⁸ The author of the second book of Maccabees: "I too will make an end of my discourse in these matters. And if indeed it is well and as befits history, this I myself would also wish; but if less worthily, it must be conceded to me."⁹ Thus the hagiographers attribute the manner of writing, and consequently the material words of Scripture, to themselves, not to God.

3. From the holy Fathers some indeed say that all and each of the voices, syllables, and apices were dictated by the Holy Spirit. Yet in saying this they emphatically extol only the inspiration of all the formal words (i.e., of the things and sentences), not of the material words. For however much they attribute all the words of Scripture to God, still they trace the words of Scripture taken materially back to the choice of the hagiographers, not to the inspiration of God. Thus St. Augustine: "For as each one remembered, and as it was in each one's heart to explain the same sentence either more briefly or more at length, so it is manifest that they explained it ... It pertains above all to faithful doctrine ... that the truth is to be sought or embraced not so much of the words as of the things, when we approve that those who do not use the same locution, while they do not disagree in the things and sentences, have stood in the same truth ... Let us not think that the truth is so fortified, as it were, by consecrated sounds, as though God commended to us, just as the thing itself, so also the words that are to be spoken on account of it, whereas rather the thing that is to be spoken is so preferred to the speeches through which it is to be spoken, that we should not seek those at all if we could know it without them."¹⁰ Also St. John Chrysostom, although he preaches that all the words of Scripture are not "words simply, but words of the Holy Spirit",¹¹ nevertheless teaches that only some things were revealed to the hagiographers by God "word for word (ῥητῶς)", i.e., as regards the material words.¹² Therefore all other things were inspired not ῥητῶς, but only as regards the things. Finally:

4. From its absurd consequences verbalism has long since been refuted. For, once verbal inspiration is admitted, the literary, stylistic, and grammatical defects that are found in countless places of Scripture would have to be imputed to God. Moreover, if the words belonged to divine inspiration, several books of the present canon would not be inspired, since their original text has either perished (e.g., that of the Gospel of Matthew) or has been so changed in many places by the injury of times and of men that the individual primitive words are no longer certain. Finally, on the supposition of verbal inspiration, the versions cannot be called sacred Scripture, because their words are entirely alien to inspiration. But the Church has always held the authentic versions as sacred Scripture, and has used and uses them in councils, in worship, in daily reading. Therefore the inspiration of all the words or constructions of Scripture is not to be admitted.

The force of inspiration is this, that it renders the sacred books immune from error. Books written by men can indeed enjoy inerrancy of fact, insofar as their authors are able and willing to write the truth; but books written by God must enjoy inerrancy of fact and of right, because their author, God, can neither be deceived nor deceive. This doctrine concerning the inerrancy of Scripture is indeed evident of itself. Yet since it has been attacked by some and misunderstood by others, it stands in need both of proof and of explanation.