Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

The notion of inspiration is declared more distinctly through analysis of the dogmatic formula: God is the author of the books of Sacred Scripture.

« With analysis instituted of the revealed doctrine by which we profess God to be the author of the sacred books or Scripture, and with the declarations of that same doctrine contained in the monuments of Christian antiquity compared together, inspiration for writing the sacred books seems to have consisted essentially in the freely given charism of illustration and motion, by which the mind of the inspired men would conceive for writing the truths which God willed to hand down to the Church through Scripture, and the will would be borne to consigning to writing all of them and only them, and thus elevated man, as an instrumental cause under the action of God the principal cause, would execute the divine counsel with infallible veracity. Whence, with the distinction made between inspiration and assistance, the former must be said to have pertained necessarily to the truths and the formal word, the latter also to the signs and the material words. »

For the declaration of the thesis we must first define more distinctly certain preliminary notions, both concerning the signification of the name author of a book, and concerning the elements constituting the formal rationale of a book.

1°. The name of author taken by itself and apart has indeed a generic signification, and by that very fact comprehends several significations distinct from each other in species. For generically he is called author from whom something has its origin as from an efficient cause. But since efficiencies are most diverse, and effects no less diverse, it comes about that the name of author takes on significations specifically diverse from each other. The specific signification is determined either from the context or more simply by epithets by which the species of the efficiency and of the effect is defined. In this way the complex term author of a book has a ratified and fixed specific signification. For the clarity of the notion a) we distinguish the first cause without whose concurrence the second cause cannot act, then the cause per se, which is also called principal, namely acting by its own inherent power, in distinction from the instrumental cause, which acts not by power inherent in itself but only from motion (as they say), i.e. from a derived and transient power of the principal cause. Now when author of a book is spoken of, there is never understood efficiency merely through the general course of the first cause, nor in the proper sense the efficiency of the instrumental cause; but there is always signified the cause per se, which can be first or second. But the relation between these causes is of this kind. If God (the first cause) is called author (and therefore cause per se) of a book, there is excluded the second cause acting as cause per se, i.e. by its own power inherent in itself; whence conversely if man (the second cause) is and is called in the proper sense author of a book, by that very fact it is denied that God (the first cause) is author of the book, yet there is not excluded, as is self-evident, the general concurrence of the first cause, which in no way imports that God is author of the book, unless, speaking absurdly, you would call God the author of all books. But whether God or man be author of a book, in neither hypothesis is there excluded the instrumental cause through which the principal cause (God or man) acts and effects the existence of his book. b) Looking to the effect, by the name of book we understand some ampler¹ context of sentences or senses consigned to writing. Whence the signification of the complex term author of a book is this: that he be author (cause per se) both of the conception of the senses for writing² and of their consignation in writing.

2°. As regards the formal rationale of a book, which we said is the other necessary preliminary notion, in any book or written document a) there must be considered the ideas and judgments and their whole complex, which are signified in the book by words and propositions, and are called by some things and sentences, by others senses, in our thesis truths. For since there is question of ideas and judgments or sentences which are from God, they cannot be other than truths, at least under that reflected rationale under which and in which sense they are written in the book from the intention of the author. From the truths and senses themselves b) are distinguished the signs by which the truths and senses are expressed, under a grammatical and rhetorical rationale, to which there can also pertain the order and connection of things. This, which we can call the διαταξιν or disposition of the book, is sometimes intended by the author per se as his own sense to be expressed, sometimes does not so pertain to the intention of the author, but can hold itself diversely with the whole truth and the integral senses preserved, whose expression through his book the author intends. Whence c) there must be considered the end of the work, or the end to which the author willed his book from the very character of the book to be directed; for from this it depends what, of all things comprehended in the book, is or is not intended per se by a wise author.

Now all those things which the author intends in the book per se, and without which the book would not be such as the author willed it to be, constitute the very formal rationale by which, imparted by him, the book is and is deservedly judged to be the work of this author. But there are other things which indeed in one way or another must in general be present, since without them the form intended by the author could not be expressed; yet they can hold themselves now in one way now in another, without the book ceasing to be such as the author willed it to be, since they are not intended per se by the author for the scope of his book, nor therefore are necessarily determined by him singly. These therefore, although they are not determined by the author to hold themselves either in this way or in that, yet so long as they are apt to express what the author in his book intends per se, do not prevent the book from truly being of this author. Therefore we call this the material part of the book, in distinction from the formal rationale by which the work of this author is constituted ³.

To explain the matter by some concrete application, e.g. in a code of laws, in a didactic book for teaching speculative or practical truth, in a historical book destined to teach some other truth through narrated facts, what from the scope of such books is intended per se, and what therefore constitutes the formal rationale, are the senses or things and sentences; but the whole of what we referred to the rationale of signs, not excepting the very disposition of order, is not necessarily intended per se, and therefore can hold itself as material part. Yet these very things which pertain to the material part, the signs themselves I mean, must be apt to express the intended truths; otherwise the very formal element of the book could not be preserved. I said the choice of signs can pertain to the material rationale; for if at any time from the scope of the book the signs themselves be intended per se, in that hypothesis they would indeed pertain to the formal rationale of the book. Thus in certain dogmatic passages, especially those containing supernatural mysteries, certain words and formulae for expressing the concept of the mystery can be, in keeping with the scope of such passages, formal; likewise in a book whose scope were rhetorical and aesthetic, besides the things and sentences the style also would pertain to the formal or essential rationale of the book; no less would the disposition of order in a history destined to teach the chronological succession of things be from its very scope intended per se, at least as far as would be needed for chronological truth, and therefore pertinent to the formal rationale of the book.

I. With these preliminaries laid down, it is clear that no one can be in the true sense author of a book unless he effects that at least what is formal in the book, conceived by him in mind, be consigned to letters. That anyone therefore be author of a book through another as through an instrumental cause yet acting with reason and will, it is necessary that the other, with himself suggesting, conceive in mind for writing, and with himself moving, be borne in will to writing all and only those things which, pertinent to the formal rationale of such a book, he himself as principal author had preconceived to be written. For if one of these be lacking, he cannot be author of the book. He is certainly not author of a book who indeed communicates his senses to another, yet not in order to their being written, nor induces the other to write them; nor would he acknowledge himself author of a book if what he himself willed to be comprehended as formal in the book the other did not receive in whole; nor is he author at least of the whole book and simply, if to the things and sentences intended by him in his book the other of his own motion superadds something; certainly he is not author of this superadded part.

When therefore we profess God author of the sacred books, but author through inspired men, by this dogmatic formula there is expressed what divine operation is and what is not essential, in such a way that, it being posited, God is truly author of the book, and therefore the book is divinely inspired, but it being denied, God is denied to be author of the book, and consequently the book is denied to pertain to divinely inspired Scripture.

1°. In that formula therefore there is positively affirmed that God effected that the truths which He Himself comprehended in mind to be handed down to the Church through Scripture, the mind of the inspired man would conceive to be written, and the will would be borne to writing all of them and only them.

I have said that all and only those truths are consigned in the inspired book which God as author of the book comprehended in His mind and will to be written. For if there were written in the book by man even a true sentence which God did not comprehend in His counsel to be written, and which therefore He did not inspire to man for writing, much more if in a book of Scripture — as certain recent writers have dared to affirm concerning what we call things revealed per accidens — there were contained any sentences in themselves not true⁴; of such sentences God would certainly not be author, nor therefore would they be the word of God, but altogether a human word. But a) when the holy Vatican Council, after other twin definitions of Councils and Pontiffs, declares that the books of the Old and New Testament are held by the Church herself as sacred and canonical « for this reason, that, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as author, » this writing is certainly understood simply, and therefore according to all the sentences consigned in the book by the inspired writer; for inspiration is asserted not for an interrupted writing and at intervals but for the whole writing. b) When the Church professes God the author of the sacred and canonical book, this sacred and canonical extends no less widely than the signification of the name Scripture. But to Scripture are reckoned all and only the sentences consigned in the book by the inspired man, and further, in evangelical and apostolic doctrine and in the common preaching of the Fathers, the single sentences expressly, because they too are Scripture, are attributed to God as author, both of which we demonstrated in theses I and II. Therefore in the profession of the Church and in her synodal formula, God is author of the sacred and canonical book, God is understood as author of the book according to all the parts which are Scripture, and therefore author of all the sentences which were first consigned to the book by the inspired man, since these, all and only, are Scripture.

2°. From the same notion of author of a book there is then deduced what, even as regards the formal part of the book of which we now speak, is not required. a) It is not required that the very truths which God willed to be consigned in the Scriptures should not have been or could not have been already known to the inspired man from elsewhere. For the preceding knowledge of the man cannot be a reason why God could not comprehend those truths in His counsel to be handed down through Scripture to the Church, and why by His supernatural operation He could not effect that man conceive in mind and will, for consigning them to writing, those very truths known to him from elsewhere.

b) By the same reason there are not excluded industry, study, and aids — e.g. of documents and witnesses — employed by man for conceiving the things and sentences or truths, provided the supernatural operation and direction of God effects that the mind of the inquiring man conceive for writing all and only those senses, and likewise that the will be supernaturally moved to writing all and only those same things, which God comprehended in His counsel to be written.

c) If by the name of revelation be understood the manifestation of a hidden thing, it is clear from what has been said that in inspiration revelation is not an essential element; for there can be truest inspiration whether for speaking or for writing apart from revelation taken in that strict sense. It depends therefore on the very nature and character of the inspired truth, or on the way in which the truth holds itself toward the man to be inspired, whether inspiration includes revelation understood in that sense or not⁵.

But if revelation be understood in the less strict yet most frequent sense, the proposition of truth made by God Himself, then assuredly every inspiration for writing the sacred books was revelation, which indeed took place first internally in the mind of the inspired man, that thereafter through writing it might be proposed to the Church as the word of God, and constitute an object of faith both for the inspired man himself and for others, when as an inspired word it had been sufficiently proposed.

II. That the divine operation which we have explained as necessary in order that a book may truly be and be called a book of God as author, and without which God would not be author of the book, is not required in the same way as regards the material part of the book, seems clear from the very notion of author of a book. For from what has been said God is author of a book insofar as by His operation on the mind and will of the writing man He effects that he write all and only those things which God Himself in writing the book intended per se. But this will be obtained however those things hold themselves which are not intended per se by the author — the signs, I mean, and the rest which we said constitute the material part of the book — provided these be apt to express the sense intended by the author. But this very thing demonstrates that not that divine operation which is properly called inspiration, and which is required for the formal part of the book, is necessarily extended also to the signs and to the other things of the material part; yet that some divine operation is necessary also for the material part, that God may infallibly be author of the book. What this divine operation is, and what it is not, we now inquire.

1°. As regards the signs or words, it is evident that neither can the things themselves, i.e. the senses of the principal author, be expressed in writing unless signs apt to express the sense be chosen. If therefore God by His inspiration of things and senses so acts on the inspired man for writing that the written book infallibly by force of the very divine operation truly and sincerely contains the senses of God, there must cohere with inspiration itself, or be included in it, such a divine operation that the writing man not only actually choose, but also infallibly choose apt signs to express the inspired things and sentences truly and sincerely, and thus be rendered infallible in the apt choice of signs and of the other things pertaining to the material part. For a man inspired indeed in mind and will to write the senses of God, but left wholly to himself in the choice of signs, would remain fallible in expressing the inspired concepts; and by this very fact it would not infallibly follow that the book written under such inspiration is Scripture inspired terminatively and the word of God. But that it be believed to be infallibly the word of God, no other argument was ever sought than that the human writer was inspired. As therefore with active inspiration there is infallibly connected the terminative inspiration (the inspired being) of the work itself, so in the notion of active inspiration there is included a divine operation by which man is rendered infallible in expressing the inspired concepts, i.e. in the very choice of apt signs and terms.

2°. From what has been said it is now clear what this divine operation is which we say is connected with inspiration. The scope of the sacred books, at least in most, is such that the formal rationale of the books for this scope is not changed if the same things and sentences be expressed in other words, in another style, provided the terms, which can be now these now those, be employed suitable and corresponding to the things. There pertains therefore, at least in most, not to the formal rationale but to the material rationale of the Scriptures that the sentences be expressed in these rather than in other equipollent terms. « Nor should we think the gospel to be in the words of the Scriptures but in the sense, not on the surface but in the marrow, not in the leaves of speech but in the root of reason » — St Jerome, on Gal. I. 11. 12, vol. VII, p. 386. Now for anyone to be author of a book there is indeed required that all that which for the scope of the book constitutes its formal rationale be from him as from the principal author; but it is not required that in the same way there be from him what in the book for its scope holds itself materially and does not constitute its proper rationale. Therefore one can through another as through an instrumental cause be the truest author of a book without himself supplying the terms in the individual and the style and the whole grammatical and rhetorical construction. Yet that it may nevertheless through the supply of things and sentences be rendered certain that the book to be written will be his as of the principal author, it is necessary that he preclude error of the writer in the choice of apt signs.

Therefore from the notion of inspiration, or from the fact that God is author of the Scriptures through human writers in such a way that from the very action of God on the inspired men it is infallibly certain that the Scriptures are books of God as author: a) in most cases, where namely the choice of these signs rather than other equipollent ones holds itself materially, there is no reason for affirming that God Himself by a supernatural prevenient action supplied and determined in the individual the signs and the manner of writing. There is yet b) an evident reason for affirming the assistance of God, by which He so stood by the human writers in their very choice of suitable signs that in expressing the inspired concepts truly and sincerely they were wholly infallible. c) In this assistance and direction as regards the very manner of speech there is included the grace of speech, « that one speak (write) effectively for instructing the intellect, for moving the affect, for bending the hearer (or reader) » ⁶, as St Thomas explains it, 2. 2, q. 117, a. 1. But if d) for the scope of some passage or context the very words and style in the individual pertained to the formal rationale, then indeed from the very notion of inspiration and of author of a book it would be deduced that the words and style were supplied by God no less than the things and sentences. But because such formal rationale can with greatest difficulty be determined, and the singular force, efficacy, and profundity of the very words, and what the Fathers proclaim concerning the value of the same individual words of Scripture, pertain partly more to the things signified and to the formal word, and partly are sufficiently explained from the assistance of the Holy Spirit in the selection of words; therefore from the very notion of inspiration, unless it be proved from elsewhere, the divine supply of words in the individual in single passages can scarcely be discerned and established.

The order and disposition of things for the diverse scope of a book sometimes constitutes the formal part and pertains to the very senses of the author, sometimes is reckoned to style. According to this diversity the order of things in the former hypothesis will be referred to inspiration properly so called, in the latter, according to what was just demonstrated, to divine assistance.

3°. From what we have said there is demonstrated only by a negative argument that divine suggestion and as it were dictation of words in the individual is not essential in the notion of inspiration; and therefore that such dictation of words cannot be gathered from the fact that God is author of Scripture. From this very fact it ought to be presumed, where the opposite is not demonstrated, that it really so happened, and that God, who disposes all things sweetly, permitted that men, already illumined with divine senses and supernaturally moved to write them, should themselves, according to the diverse character and erudition of each, under divine assistance find and select the signs of the inspired ideas. For the rest, there are also positive arguments from which it is deduced that at least for the most part the inspired authors in selecting words and in the grammatical and rhetorical manner of writing were aided and fortified by divine assistance only, and were not divinely determined to one thing by dictation received. These arguments, the weightiest, are three.

a) Evident in the sacred books is a diversity of utterance and style corresponding to the diverse character and erudition of the writers. « Concerning Isaias it must be known, says St Jerome, that in his speech he is eloquent, since (behold the reason) as a noble man and of urbane eloquence, nor having anything of rusticity admixed in his speech. » On the contrary, « Jeremias indeed among the Hebrews seems rougher in speech than Isaias and Osee and certain other prophets, but equal in senses, since he prophesied by the same Spirit. Moreover the simplicity of speech befell him from the place in which he was born; for he was an Anathothite, which is even now a village » — Jerome, Preface to Isaias and Jeremias.

b) While diverse sacred writers — e.g. several Evangelists — report not only the same deed done but also the same discourse spoken by others, e.g. by Christ the Lord, yet they use diverse words, although it is certain that he whose words they profess to recite said the same thing not in diverse words but in one manner only. Thus the words which Christ used in the institution of the most holy Eucharist are reported by four sacred writers: Matt. XXVI; Mark XIV; Luke XXII; 1 Cor. XI. But each exhibits the same words of Christ a little differently; yet so that Mark agrees more with Matthew, since he is believed and proved by the learned to have had his written Gospel before his eyes, while conversely Luke approaches nearer to Paul, whose disciple and follower he was. The reason of this discrepancy St Augustine explains at length as the same which we have stated (On the Consensus of the Evangelists, bk. II, nn. 27. 28). « If therefore it be asked, he says, which words John the Baptist rather said, whether those which Matthew, or those which Luke records him to have said, or those which Mark... it must in no way be labored over by him who prudently understands that the very sentences are necessary for knowing the truth, in whatever words they were set forth. For that one holds one order of words and another another is by no means contrary; nor is it contrary if one says what another omits. For as each remembered, and as it was in each one's heart to set forth the same sentence either more briefly or more at length, so it is manifest that they set it forth. » To one perchance objecting that « to the Evangelists by the power of the Holy Spirit it ought to have been granted that they differ neither in the kind of words nor in order nor in number, » the holy doctor answers that this ought not to have been done, both for other reasons and « at the same time also in order that, what pertains most to faithful doctrine, we might understand that not so much of words as of things is the truth to be sought or embraced, when we approve those who, while they do not use the same speech, yet do not disagree in things and sentences, as having stood in the same truth. » So Augustine, l. c.

c) Finally the writer of 2 Machabees, whom all Catholics believe to have written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, attributes style and turn of speech quite manifestly to himself and to the manner and faculty of his own erudition. « I also, thus he concludes the book, will here make an end of speech. And if indeed well and as befits history, this I myself would wish; but if less worthily, it must be pardoned me » (in Greek: but if meanly and indifferently, as much as I could attain εἰ δὲ εὐτελως καὶ μετριως, τουτο ἐφικτον ἤν μοι) 2 Mach. XV. 39. Read on these things the cited opuscule of the learned Father Patrizi (On the Divine Scriptures, § IV.) ⁷.

III. The remaining things which we enunciated in the thesis need only recapitulation.

1°. Analysis of the testimonies which, whether evangelical and apostolic or from the holy Fathers, we adduced in the preceding thesis, will demonstrate that in them there is always either supposed or expressed a divine operation both on the intellect and on the will of the inspired men. For on the one hand a) God is declared to have spoken the Scriptures through the prophets; Scripture is commended as spoken, written, composed, infused into minds by the Holy Spirit, by the operation of the Spirit, by heavenly grace; the sacred writers are said not to have had need of human art, but as instruments to have yielded themselves to the operation of the Spirit; on the other hand b) the sacred writers themselves are said in the Holy Spirit, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, prophesying — i.e. driven by the supernatural operation of the Spirit (ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι) — to have put forth, and thus to have written, the sacred texts as they are in Scripture; whence it comes about c) that the very books and texts which the Holy Spirit inspiring men by His charism, and the inspired men in the power of the Holy Spirit, wrote, are all and singly divinely inspired Scripture (πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος) and the word of God. But that active inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon men, that they be prophets (in the broader biblical sense) for writing the word of God, cannot be understood except as a supernatural operation on the mind for conceiving the senses of God and a motion on the will for writing them; nor can this state of passive inspiration in the prophet-man be understood except as an affection of mind and will corresponding to the active inspiration, as effect to its cause; nor finally can the very inspired being of Scripture be understood except as the terminus which the inspiring Spirit through the man inspired in mind and will regards and effects. Moreover d) this analysis of the twofold operation is sometimes expressly instituted by the Fathers themselves, as when the sacred writers are said both to have known from Christ the head the things to be written (by illustration of mind), and Christ is said to have commanded them as His hands, what they wrote, (by motion of will).

2°. Why inspiration is called a charism is sufficiently evident of itself, since it is a gratuitous and supernatural spiritual gift. It is equally certain that it pertains to the charisms which by a generic name but with specific signification are called freely given. For it is referred to the gift of prophecy taken generically (cf. Suarez, On Faith, disp. VIII, sect. 4, n. 6), and was granted not for the personal sanctification of the recipient, but for the sanctification and supernatural fruit of others and of the whole Church (cf. St Th., 1. 2, q. 111, a. 1.).

Corollary 1. The doctrine of the Fathers by which they exclude human art in writing from the inspired writers, and some of them affirm that the operation of the Holy Spirit extends to every apex of the Scriptures, only demonstrates that the ideas and sentences were inspired by God in order to writing, and that for expressing them no signs by which something other than what God willed would be signified, but everywhere suitable signs were employed under the assistance of the Holy Spirit; it does not however signify that the single words were inspired in the same way as the senses. On the other hand, the labor and industry and study of the sacred writers in investigating the things to be written from documents and witnesses, indeed even their apologies for the tenuity of style and speech, show indeed that the inspired men were not dead but living and rational instruments, who themselves also did something; they do not however show that divine inspiration was lacking to them. This matter can conveniently be illustrated from the manner in which God generally is wont to act in the order of grace. For preparing and conferring grace on men God can and is wont to use also external and sensible instruments (of which kind are all the sensible means of salvation in the Church, and among these the sacraments themselves). Moreover through grace He elevates the soul and furnishes it with supernatural powers even for those acts of the virtues which in substance can be put forth by merely natural powers; but through the powers of grace it comes about that the acts are now supernatural and of a wholly other order than if they were put forth by man left to his natural powers. So therefore it can be understood that God, for the inspiration of the ideas and sentences which He willed to be consigned in Scripture and thus to be proposed to the Church as His word, sometimes used also external instruments, supplying to the men to be inspired documents, witnesses, their own inspection of the things to be written and natural knowledge, with which aids He would join His internal illustration of intellect and motion of will, and would effect that they conceive in mind and embrace in will for writing all and only those things which He Himself in His counsel comprehended to be communicated to the Church through Scripture. Hence there exists no difficulty against inspiration from the fact that e.g. the writer of the book of 2 Machabees II. 24. 27 says that he « attempted to comprise in one volume the things comprehended by Jason of Cyrene in five books, » and that in this work he « assumed a task full of watchings and sweat; » that likewise St Luke I. 2. 3 protests that, having diligently attained all things — from witnesses namely of the deeds done — it seemed good to him to write them in order; that the Apostles, and by name John XIX. 36; 1 John I. 1, appeal, as to a historical motive of credibility, to their own inspection of things. These things concerning the very things and sentences.

Now as regards words and style in writing, since in these for the most part the writers, left to their own genius and erudition, were fortified through the assistance of the Holy Spirit only against errors harmful to the very truth and sincerity of the things and sentences, the writer of 2 Mach. XV. 39 could apologize for tenuity and mediocrity, and Paul could confess in 2 Cor. XI. 6 that he was « rude in speech but not in knowledge » (ἴδιωτῆς τῷ λόγῳ ἀλλ' οὗ τῆς γνώσεως.) In this same sense St Thomas declares what is said in the gloss (the ordinary of Walafrid Strabo) on the epistle to the Hebrews: « it is not to be wondered at (so Walafrid) that the epistle to the Hebrews shines with greater eloquence than the others; since it is natural to each one to avail more in his own than in a foreign tongue » (for he thought with others that this epistle was written by Paul in Hebrew, the rest in Greek). Whence the Angelic Doctor raises to himself the difficulty against the supernatural gift of tongues granted to the Apostles, and thus solves it: « it must be said that, as is said in 1 Cor. XII. 7, the manifestation of the Spirit is given unto profit, and therefore Paul and the other Apostles were divinely instructed in the tongues of all nations as much as was required for the doctrine of faith; but as regards certain things which are superadded by human art for the ornament and elegance of speech, the Apostle was instructed (by acquired knowledge) in his own tongue, but not in a foreign one » — St Th., 2. 2, q. 176, a. 1, ad 1. The speech is, as is clear, of utterance and style in the inspired epistles.

Corollary 2. As the charism of prophecy taken generally, so also the charism of inspiration for writing does not comprehend as an essential element either ecstasy of mind or suspension of liberty⁸. For although inspired men receive the charism of illustration and motion without their free cooperation, yet the motion is not necessarily of such a kind as to drive the will with antecedent necessity; but it suffices that it move it infallibly to obey. See Bonfrère, Praeloquia, ch. 8, sect. 2. 4; cf. St Th., 2. 2, q. 173, a. 3, ad 4.

Corollary 3. As in the prophetic instinct for speaking, which St Thomas, 2. 2, q. 173, a. 4, and the other theologians distinguish from complete prophecy (cf. Aug., Literal Meaning of Genesis, bk. III, n. 37), so also in inspiration for writing it does not indeed seem essential that man know himself to be inspired by God; yet it is not easily to be conceded that in fact any of the sacred writers were unaware of their inspiration. Cf. John XI. 49–52. See Suarez, On Faith, disp. V, sect. 3, n. 15; disp. VIII, sect. 4, nn. 2. 6; Bonfrère, Praeloq., ch. 8, sect. 6. It is self-evident that our faith concerning the fact of inspiration can stand no less through the revelation of it promulgated by Christ or the Apostles, even if the fact had not been known to the inspired man himself⁹.

Corollary 4. Although besides the Scriptures there exist other ecclesiastical documents which both contain the word of God and were put forth under the assistance of the Holy Spirit infallibly precluding error, yet not therefore besides the Scriptures are there other inspired monuments.

Corollary 5. Since the proposition of the word through books made by God, at least according to the ordinary destination of books, does not seem conceivable after the manner of a private revelation, but is of itself public and directed to the people of God — or at any rate all books which can be reckoned to Sacred Scripture according to the proper signification of this name have this scope (see thesis I) — it stands that the extraordinary charism of inspiration for writing the books of Sacred Scripture ceased with the very consummation of Catholic revelation. See Treatise on Tradition, thesis XXII. But although even in the present economy of consummated Catholic revelation inspiration for some private writing is not absolutely repugnant, yet such writing, if it existed, would in no way pertain to Scripture consigned to the Church and proposed by the Church to the faithful; but concerning it there would have to be judged in the same way as we said generally of private revelations in the Corollary to the cited thesis XXII.