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

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