Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

ON THE WAY IN WHICH THE INSPIRED BOOKS BECOME KNOWN TO US.

On the inefficacy of internal arguments for demonstrating the inspiration of the books.

« With no right have certain Protestants, as regards the books of the New Testament, placed both the positive and the exclusive criterion for discerning the inspired Scriptures in the office of apostolate with which the writers were adorned. Equally fallacious is the argument by which other Protestants affirm that all those books and only those, which at their defection from the Church they retained as the sole rule of faith, become known as divinely inspired from the internal characters of the books, both from their doctrine and form, and from their salutary efficacy upon the souls of readers. »

I. John David Michaelis (Introduction to the N. Testament, Vol. I, ch. 3) lays down this doctrine. a) By the principles of his Confession no Protestant is allowed to appeal to the testimony of the Church, whether present or past or even of the apostolic age, to prove the inspiration of the sacred books which they take up as the sole rule of faith. But the argument of Protestants drawn from the « sapore » and from the usefulness of these books is empty and inefficacious for proving inspiration¹. b) Concerning the inspiration of the books of the O. T. we can be certain from the testimony of Christ and the Apostles; but no such express testimony exists for the inspiration of the books of the N. T. c) The sole valid criterion for the inspiration of these books is, if they were written by Apostles. Hence the inspiration of those books of the N. T. which were written by others than Apostles, as the Gospels of Mark and Luke, cannot be demonstrated. d) That the Apostles were inspired by virtue of the apostolic office is proved by Michaelis with arguments reducible to three. α) The office and charism of the Apostles is more excellent than that of the prophets; but the prophets were inspired; therefore the Apostles too were inspired. β) Christ promised and sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, to teach them all truth. γ) Our faith rests upon the doctrine of the Apostles; therefore their writings, in which the doctrine of faith has come down to us, must be inspired. They had from Christ a legislative power; therefore their writings which contain moral doctrine are inspired². Finally, by way of appendix, he subjoins an argument from 2 Pet. III. 16, a passage which no longer concerns the office and charism proper to the apostolate, on which our knowledge of inspiration rests; insofar as the inspiration of the books of the N. T. is proved from that testimony, we shall see elsewhere.

Did we not know to what straits the Protestants, with Tradition rejected, have been reduced by their very fundamental principle of Scripture as the sole rule of faith, it might seem that Michaelis by these arguments wished not to demonstrate the inspiration of the books of the N. T. but to show that it can in no way be demonstrated by Protestants; so inept are they and so utterly beside the point. We shall examine the criterion thus laid down first in its affirming sense, then in its excluding sense.

1°. As regards the affirmation, that the office of apostolate is the positive criterion of inspiration for writing, the following points are to be noted. Inspiration for writing, no less than the gift of prophecy and inspiration for speaking, is a freely given charism, not permanent by way of habit, but transient by way of act (cf. S. Th. 2.2. q. 171. a. 2.). But inspiration for writing is a charism distinct both from the revelation made to a man immediately by God, and from infallibility for announcing revelation whether by voice or by writing, and also from inspiration for speaking, as is evident from the very notion of inspiration for writing demonstrated above. For with all these posited, inspiration for writing is not yet had; whence we see that many prophets and Apostles, to whom those charisms were not lacking, were nevertheless not inspired to write books. Conversely, there can be inspiration for writing apart from revelation in the strictest sense (above, th. III. n. I.), indeed even apart from the mission of the inspired man to announce revelation properly so called by voice and preaching, and apart from inspiration for speaking. For how will it be proved that the writer e.g. of the book of Esther, which even the Protestants retain in the canon, was necessarily furnished either with all those gifts or with any of them? The charism of inspiration for writing is therefore so distinct and separable from those gifts that it is neither included in them nor follows from them.

Now it can be demonstrated — and the arguments of Michaelis, if they prove anything, demonstrate this one thing — that the charisms of immediate revelation and of infallibility in preaching were proper and connected to the apostolate according to Christ's institution; but there is no argument by which it might be demonstrated that, from Christ's promise and institution, the charism of inspiration for writing books was essential to that same office or necessarily connected with it. For a) just as all the mandates given by Christ in His earthly life to the Apostles refer to preaching, and none belongs to writing; so too to the same refer the promises joined with the mandates, and from these promises come the essential charisms of the apostolate (see Tract. de Tradit. th. IV. V. VII.). Hence b) the Apostles, who indeed all discharged the office enjoined and were furnished with the charisms connected with it, nevertheless did not all write inspired books. Therefore c) from the charism of the apostolate it indeed follows that the Apostles, if they wished to set forth the revealed doctrine in writing, were infallible in writing the doctrine of Christ just as in preaching it; but from the apostolic office taken by itself it does not follow that the writing itself is inspired; nor does it follow that the Apostles could not have written other things having nothing to do with the doctrine of Christ, in which they would have been not only not inspired but not even infallible. From the genuineness, therefore, of an apostolic book there indeed follows the divinity of the revealed doctrine set forth in it, and infallibility in setting forth or writing the doctrine; but it does not follow per se that the book, by the very fact that it is genuine and has an Apostle as its writer, is inspired (cf. Tract. de Tradit. th. XXI. n. II.). The argument taken by Michaelis from the inspiration of the prophets is nothing but a begging of the question, if the genuine notion of inspiration for writing is held. For if the prophets are said to have been inspired for writing by virtue of the prophetic office itself, this is the very point at issue, since we deny that such inspiration is essentially connected with the office, whether prophetic or apostolic, taken by itself. But if prophetic writing in the biblical sense of the name is called inspired writing, this is certainly true (above, th. II. n. II.); but this charism is bound to no office or state. For what we have said of the Apostles of the New Testament holds also of the prophets of the Old Testament; there were, namely, many prophets who were not inspired for writing, and conversely there were or could be inspired writers who were not adorned with the office of prophets. Hence e) the charism of inspiration is extraordinary not only in comparison with successors, in that it was not to be propagated by any ordinary succession; but also in comparison with the apostolate itself, inasmuch as it was not necessarily connected with the apostolic office. Therefore the inspiration even of an apostolic book cannot become certainly known unless it is established by a special trustworthy testimony; and if the book is proposed to be believed with divine faith as belonging to inspired Scripture, the fact of inspiration can be sufficiently established only by divine testimony or revelation. For nothing is believed with divine faith except on account of the authority of God revealing.

But someone might perhaps call this doctrine into doubt because the inquiry into the canonical authority or inspiration of certain books of the N. T., e.g. the Epistle to the Hebrews, certain of the seven so-called Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, seems among ancient writers to coincide with the inquiry into the apostolic origin and genuineness of those same books, so that positively the books were held to be inspired by the very fact that they were established to have Apostles as authors; and conversely negatively, if a book were not of apostolic origin, its canonical authority too would be doubted. Indeed it seems absurd to confess that some book was written by an Apostle, and yet to deny that it is inspired.

But in the first place it is false that, in the negative sense, these two questions were treated by the ancients as so connected that from the denial of apostolic origin the denial of inspiration would necessarily follow. For there were no lack of those who doubted concerning the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as also of the Apocalypse, whether he was John the Apostle or another John the presbyter, without on that account calling inspiration into doubt. And who ever but a heretic doubted concerning the inspiration of the Gospels of Mark and Luke and of the book of the Acts of the Apostles? Then in the positive sense, inspiration was not inferred simply from apostolic origin; but that origin and genuineness were employed as a confirmation of the existing Tradition concerning the inspiration of the book, and for removing doubts concerning this existing Tradition. For the question concerned books which, as we shall afterwards demonstrate, by universal use, custom and reading were held as belonging to Holy Scripture handed down by the Apostles. If therefore any called into doubt this very apostolic Tradition concerning some book as Holy Scripture, nothing was more obvious to them than to try to weaken the force of the existing custom and use of the Churches by doubts raised concerning the very genuineness of the book, or, once a doubt had arisen concerning the force of the existing Tradition, to doubt also concerning the genuineness of the book. Indeed sometimes they did not simply adjudge the books away from the Apostle writers, but attributed them to heretical forgers, as the Apocalypse to Cerinthus; from which it would indeed have followed that it was not inspired. The state of the controversy, therefore, was such that the force of the existing Tradition, by which these books had been transmitted as Holy Scripture, was impugned by the suspicion that the books were supposititious. In these circumstances the Fathers could rightly argue, whether expressly or implicitly: these books which the Churches have received and retain as Holy Scripture were written by the Apostles themselves, and have not crept under their name into the Scriptures of the Churches; therefore that Tradition of the Churches is legitimate and retains its force. This line of argument does not conclude simply and in general, as by an intrinsically necessary consequence, from apostolic origin to the inspiration of the books; but from the apostolic origin of the books it confirms the force of the Tradition by which they were handed down as inspired books. Besides, there always flourished a common persuasion, by way of principle, that no books of the Apostles exist in writing, or at least none have been handed down to the Church, except inspired ones. But this was testimony not as concerning the essence of the matter, from the very nature of the apostolate, but as concerning a historical fact, from Tradition confirmed by ecclesiastical consent.

2°. Far more absurd, and indeed heretical, is the criterion of Michaelis in the excluding sense, that no books of the N. T. can be proved inspired unless written by Apostles. For the extraordinary charism of inspiration for writing is bound to no office or condition of persons; but if to any other gift, most of all to this one, so long as revelation is not complete, « the Spirit breatheth where he will. » Just as, therefore, the inspiration of a book can be demonstrated from no office with which the writer may have been invested in the Church; so too the lack of an office, whether apostolic or any other, is no obstacle to the demonstration, which must be sought elsewhere, namely from divine testimony and revelation.

II. The Protestants readily understood that their fundamental principle concerning the written word as the immediate utterance of the Holy Spirit, and concerning Scripture as the sole rule of faith, could not stand unless the inspiration of the Scriptures which they retained in their canon were certain, and unless it were established from foundations other than the apostolic Tradition preserved and declared through the Catholic Church. In order, therefore, somehow to free themselves from the necessity of finding a testimony besides the Scriptures, by which the inspiration of those Scriptures might be established — since they saw that such testimony could be none other than that preserved in the Tradition conserved and declared through apostolic succession in the Catholic Church — they took refuge in arguments and criteria internal to the canonical books themselves, from which their divine origin and inspiration might become known. They distinguish a threefold criterion: a) a historical one, which they place in the miracles and prophecies comprehended in Scripture; b) another which they themselves call internal, and which might better be called dogmatic, placed in the sanctity, sublimity, and agreement of the doctrine contained in these books; c) another which they call empirical, drawn from the wondrous effects which the souls of readers experience from the force and efficacy of the word of God (see Card. Wiseman, On the Principal Doctrines of the Catholic Church, Lect. 2. Some add d) what we may call the aesthetic argument, to be joined with the dogmatic criterion, placing it in the sublimity and simplicity of diction. And yet it is evident even to the dull-witted at a glance that all these arguments cannot constitute principles from which, whether taken generally or examined singly, it may legitimately be inferred that all those books and only those are divinely inspired.

1°. Let us consider them generally. For the inspiration of the books to become certainly known from such characters, a) it must be established that these marks can have no other cause than inspiration. But this is false, or at any rate can in no way be demonstrated or known by us. For suppose a book to contain revealed doctrine, and no reason can any longer be found why a book written by human effort could not be distinguished by all those marks, as easily appears both from the very nature of the thing and from the many books of saintly authors nowise inspired. b) Either the enumerated characters, all taken together and insofar as they are present in an eminent degree, are said to demonstrate inspiration as their cause, as an effect does, or individuals among them can do so too, in whatever degree they are present in the books. But the latter is evidently absurd, and with it posited not only those books comprehended in the canon but simply innumerable ones would be inspired. If, however, the former is asserted, there would first have to be determined that eminent degree and the manner in which these marks must be present — which can be done neither a priori and from the very nature of the thing, nor a posteriori and from some positive revelation of God Himself, since of such a revelation concerning internal marks by which the inspiration of books is to be known there exists no trace. But even omitting this determination, those enumerated characters all taken together are not present in all the books which even the Protestants have in the canon; and insofar as they are present in them, they are not present in them alone. For to say nothing of most of the historical books of the Old Testament and their parts, how, pray, with inspiration not yet supposed, will they demonstrate that those marks are present in the required degree in the Epistles e.g. 2nd and 3rd John, the Epistle of Jude, those of Paul to Titus and to Philemon; while on the contrary the admirable epistles e.g. of Ignatius or Polycarp or that of Clement or the other to Diognetus etc. lack these marks of inspiration? Nor let them say that these epistles are known from elsewhere to be nowise inspired, inasmuch as they were written after the apostolic age. For besides that this is not true of all of them, the question now is not concerning the inspiration of these epistles; but on the contrary it is supposed that they are not inspired; yet since it does not appear that the marks which they call indices of inspiration are less present in these and other human writings — indeed since they seem to be far more present — than in many books and parts of books which even the Protestants have retained as inspired, it is evident that by the internal marks they adduce, these canonical books cannot be distinguished from human books. It is evident, therefore, that from these characters it cannot be known that the books retained by Protestants in the canon are all and only inspired.

Far different from this doctrine of the Protestants concerning internal criteria is what Catholic apologists against unbelievers commonly appeal to: the sanctity, sublimity and purity of the doctrine in the Scriptures, comparing it with the character, time and circumstances of the sacred writers, and other internal criteria. For the apologists treat in the first place of revelation, not of the inspiration of the books; then insofar as they perhaps treat of inspiration, none of them ever undertook to prove by such internal criteria that all and only the books which we have among the Scriptures are divinely inspired; but they adduce certain singular places of the Scriptures to persuade the existence of some inspiration; yet in this very proof, and generally in the demonstration of Christian truth, they hold internal criteria neither as the sole nor as the principal motives of credibility; indeed they use them more in the negative sense, to show that there is nothing in the doctrine repugnant to the fact of revelation, whose truth they demonstrate by other positive criteria.

In this sense internal criteria can also be adduced, and are sometimes adduced by the Fathers and Catholic theologians, to defend the truth of the inspiration of the books against attacks. With the demonstration supposed, namely, as accomplished from another source, the consideration of the internal characters both of the men who wrote and of the sacred books can furnish a motive of credibility to some extent and in some places in the positive sense, but chiefly in the negative sense, namely that in the books there is nothing repugnant to the fact of inspiration; and thus this consideration of the inward character of the books can remove prejudices and difficulties which might impede understanding of the demonstration drawn from testimonies. Thus e.g. Augustine, who everywhere demonstrates the divinity and inspiration of the books from Tradition, nevertheless appeals to the agreement of doctrine in opposition to the dissensions and contradictions of the philosophers, to persuade a reasonable faith of the peoples. « Our authors, in whom the canon of the sacred letters is not without reason fixed and bounded — far be it that they should in any way disagree among themselves. Hence not without reason, when they wrote those things, did peoples so many and so great, with learned and unlearned alike, believe that God spoke to them or through them.... » City of God XVIII. ch. 41. n. 1.

Thus also the Church, in examining the Tradition concerning some inspired book, whether it be genuine and apostolic, could subsidiarily invoke the consideration of internal characters, the agreement of doctrine, and the likeness of the book to others about whose inspiration from constant and certain Tradition there was no doubt. Much more directly still could she take account of the sense of the Christian people concerning such a book; for that sense is one of the criteria for discerning Tradition, as we have demonstrated in the Tract. de Tradit. th. XII, and is of a far different nature than the gustus of Luther, who admitted or rejected inspired books according as, by his private interpretation, there seemed to taste to him agreement or disagreement with his preconceived system of doctrine repugnant to universal consent. In this sense, then, is to be understood the doctrine of Bellarmine, when he says (On the Word of God, bk. I, ch. 10, reply to 2): « The Church can declare which book is to be held canonical, and this not rashly nor arbitrarily, but from the testimonies of the ancients, and from the likeness of the books about which there is doubt to those about which there is none, and finally from the common sense and as it were taste of the Christian people. » 2°. If the four aforementioned criteria are considered singly, as to the first, which they call historical, the narration of miracles and prophecies described in a book is absurdly confused with the working of miracles and the issuing of true prophecies for confirming the truth of some doctrine. Miracles and prophecies are not already worked, nor are they understood to have been worked for confirming the doctrine of inspiration, by the fact that they are related in the Scriptures; and if they had been worked for this end, the divine testimony itself concerning inspiration would be presupposed, which would then be confirmed by those supernatural signs. But then the whole question would remain, how that testimony was preserved and has come down to us. For the rest, the argument as employed by the Protestants (in His Eminence Wiseman, l.c.), when from the narration and relation of miracles and prophecies they infer that the book in which they are written is inspired, is evidently absurd. The second argument (dogmatic) and the third (empirical), even if everything the authors of the argument postulate be conceded, could at most prove that these books in some parts contain revealed doctrine. But not even that do those two arguments prove, taken by themselves, unless others be joined to them by which the writers of the books are demonstrated to have been truthful and infallible. Certainly in no way do they demonstrate the inspiration of the writing itself, nor even the truth of the narrations and doctrine in all parts of the books comprehended in the canon. From the last argument finally (which may be called aesthetic) you will never effect anything else than that things and doctrines, whether revealed or known from elsewhere, have been expressed in apt words and utterances; but that this could not have been done except by inspiration is neither evident nor can it be demonstrated, without presupposing the very thing that is in question.

On the necessity of the testimony by which inspiration becomes known.

« From the very nature of the thing, the fact of inspiration cannot become known to others besides the inspired man except by testimony; but this testimony, as regards the Scriptures which are received and believed in the Church as the inspired word of God, can be none but a divine testimony. »

I. Inspiration is a supernatural psychological fact in the mind of man which, like other internal facts, is immediately known to God, and to the inspired man himself alone; although not even to him is it necessarily known under the formal character of inspiration and insofar as it is supernatural (see th. III. Coroll. 3.). « For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? » 1 Cor. II. 11. Inspiration, therefore, cannot become known to other men except either from its external effects or from trustworthy testimony. The external effect of the inspiration of which we speak is none other than the writing itself and the book written. But in these there is no inherent mark which of itself manifests inspiration as its necessary cause, as was demonstrated a little above. Therefore the fact of inspiration can become known to other men only by trustworthy testimony.

This testimony is either merely human or divine. If it is merely human testimony, then necessarily in the series of witnesses, whatever it be supposed to be, the first witness on whom the authority of the rest depends is the inspired man himself, because to him alone immediately, and to the rest, apart from divine testimony, it can become known only from his testimony.

Although human testimony concerning an internal supernatural fact, such as inspiration is, deserves belief with far greater difficulty than testification concerning external facts subject to the senses, and although such an internal fact, in nearly the same way as speculative truth, is not the proper object of human testimony, on account of the facility of illusion in the witness and the difficulty for others of certainly knowing the exclusion of illusion; I would not, however, affirm that, absolutely speaking, there could not be such authority in the witness as to deserve human faith.

II. But whatever be the case concerning this matter, the fact of inspiration is under the hypothesis proposed not by God, whether immediately through Himself or mediately through a divine legate, but is proposed by merely human testimony¹; hence not on account of the authority of God revealing (who is supposed to have nowise revealed this fact) but solely on account of the authority of the attesting man, and thus with not divine but human and fallible faith, is it believed that the things written in the book are the word of God. Wherefore if a book is to be so received that this sole reason, that some sentence is written in that book, must suffice and induce the obligation of believing with divine faith that that sentence is the word of God, and much more if in this manner and as of such authority the book be proposed to the universal Church; then indeed human testimony concerning the fact of inspiration does not suffice², but divine testimony is altogether required.

Now a) the Sacred Scriptures are received and must be received by the universal Church, indeed by all who by any right are called Christians, as inspired in such a way that, for this sole reason that some sentence is contained in these books, it is believed and must be believed with divine faith to be the word of God revealed through the writing itself. Therefore the fact of inspiration also, containing the reason why what is comprehended in the book is to be believed with divine faith to be the word of God, must be believed with divine faith; and consequently it must be established not by merely human but by divine testification. For if it were established by merely human authority that a book is inspired by God, not only would the existence of the word of God in that book be established by merely human faith on account of the authority of man alone; but also faith in the truth of the things written in the book would ultimately be resolved into assent on account of the authority of man. For even if one were to say that he believes those things to be true because he believes them to be in the book the word inspired by God, and thus that he believes on account of the authority of God speaking through the book; yet since this very thing, that God speaks in that book, he neither knows nor believes from any other source than solely from the authority and testimony of man, it is evident that the ultimate foundation of such faith in the truth of the things written in the book would be merely human authority³. b) If the question is considered polemically in controversy with those Protestants who still admit revelation, the reasoning is not less evident. For they require proposition through an inspired book as a necessary condition for rendering divine faith to the truth proposed, because through an inspired book the Holy Spirit speaks to us. If, therefore, it were believed on merely human testimony that the book is inspired, by that very fact the truths contained in the book could not be believed as the inspired words of the Holy Spirit except on human testimony; the whole faith would therefore rest upon the authority of the man testifying to the inspiration of the book, and not upon divine authority. This they themselves confess, and therefore they seek other reasons besides human testimony from which to receive the books as inspired. But those reasons are null; they are either gratuitous assumptions or at most conjectures, as was demonstrated in the preceding thesis. Since, therefore, from what has been said in this thesis the inspiration of the books cannot become known except through testimony, and this testimony, in relation to the Scriptures as the foundation of divine faith, cannot be merely human; it remains that all confess that the fact of the inspiration of the Scriptures cannot, as it ought, become known except by divine testimony.

It is evident per se that there is no question of the necessity of an immediate divine testimony, but that a divine testimony mediated through a divine legate accredited by God with motives of credibility suffices, whether the first promulgator of the divine attestation be the inspired man himself or another to whom God has immediately revealed the inspiration of the book.

It is likewise evident that, where the question concerns the criterion for knowing not now the essence but the existence of inspiration, there is no question of inspiration considered abstractly, what it is, of which we spoke above, but in concreto of the inspired books themselves, which they are. Concerning the individual inspired books, therefore, holds all that we have said of the manner in which inspiration becomes known; nor otherwise than from divine testimony can the number of the books and the individual books of inspired Scripture, as it ought, become known.

On the twofold way in which the divine testimony concerning the inspired books has been preserved to us.

« The divine testimony concerning the inspiration of very many of those books » which are received among the Scriptures by Christians with common agreement, » has been preserved to us also in the apostolic writings; yet concerning the entire canon of the books which even the Protestants have retained, it can be established » only by the testimony preserved by Tradition alone. »

By the very fact that it is a question of the holy Scriptures to be received and believed by the whole Church, the divine testimony concerning these Scriptures certainly belongs to the deposit of Catholic revelation. But Catholic revelation was completed through Christ and through the Holy Spirit in the Apostles (on Tradition, th. XXII). This testimony, therefore, this revelation concerning the inspired Scriptures and the books of the Scriptures, could not have been handed down in a subsequent age of the Church, but must necessarily have come to the Church from the Apostles themselves. No books, therefore, can be inspired for the Church herself concerning whose inspiration, now in the New Testament with revelation already completed, the divine testimony either does not exist in the deposit of revelation, or did not already exist in the apostolic age; although, absolutely speaking, there could have existed in the Old Testament, when the deposit of faith was still to be completed and unfolded through new successive revelations (on Tradition, th. XXV), inspired books whose revelation of inspiration was finally made by Christ or by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles and handed down to the Christian Church (above, th. III, Coroll. 3).

On these suppositions, that divine testimony could not have been preserved to us except either in Tradition alone or, besides Tradition (taken in the strict sense, cf. on Tradition, th. II), also in the apostolic writings.

I. First, then, we say that the divine testimony concerning the inspiration of several books which we have in the canon has been preserved also in the apostolic writings. This is evidently established from what was said in the preceding theses I and II. For from them it is concluded that at least the whole Scripture admitted by the Synagogue in the time of Christ and the Apostles is confirmed and proposed as inspired by the testimony of Christ himself and of the Apostles preserved also in the evangelical and apostolic writings — that is, that the canon of the Jews existing at that time, insofar as it is affirmans, is confirmed by the written divine testimony.

Although it has been called into controversy which were all and the only books comprehended in the canon of the Jews, yet concerning many of these books which we have in the Christian canon there is and can be no doubt that they were in the canon of the Jews in the time of Christ and the Apostles; to these, therefore, certainly belongs the divine testimony preserved in the apostolic writings, proposing and confirming the sacred Scriptures of the Jews as inspired. This is so evident as to need no proof; for what else but certainly many of the books which are in our canon is indicated by the division into three classes, and the express appeal to individual books, and the citation of texts from them¹, which stands forth as made by Christ and by the Apostles in the apostolic writings?

Nay, since in the apostolic writings there stands an express testimony (2 Tim. III. 15. 16.) for the inspiration of the whole collection of books which at that time were acknowledged by the Jews as belonging to Scripture, it can be determined by name to which all books — though not for that reason already to which alone — that written testimony is certainly referred, if it is established which were the books comprehended at that time in the Scripture acknowledged by the Jews as divine. But it is established by historical arguments, sufficiently for the purpose, that in the collection of the Jews at that time there existed at least all those books which they still now have in their canon and which are commonly called protocanonical.

1°. From the Fathers of the second to the fifth century who describe one by one the books of the Jewish canon, as Melito (in Eusebius IV. 26.), Origen (Eusebius IV. 25.), Epiphanius (On Measures and Weights n. 4. 22. 23; Heresies VIII. n. 6.), Hilary (Prologue to the Psalms n. 15.), Jerome (Helmeted Prologue, and elsewhere); likewise from the Jewish writings of that time (see Buxtorf, Tiberias ch. 11.), it is most certain that at least from the second Christian century all these books were in the canon of the Jews. But it is incredible that the Jews, within the time that elapsed from Christ and the Apostles down to that age, should have received into the canon some books which they had not yet had in it in the time of Christ and the Apostles, without any trace of this fact surviving in history. This is incredible if one considers the extent of this change, which would have had to take place, with no one protesting, throughout the whole world where the Jews were dispersed; and it becomes much more unbelievable still if at the same time there is taken into account their exceeding veneration for the sacred books, in which to add or take away or change anything they deemed the greatest sacrilege².

2°. Thereto is added that this canon, as the Christian Fathers of the first centuries diligently inquired it out from the Jews, and as the Jewish masters themselves recount it, is easily shown to agree with that very canon which Josephus reports from the persuasion and faith of his nation shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, and which he testifies had already remained unchanged for a long time (cf. above, th. I.). Josephus numbers twenty-two books: namely, five of Moses, thirteen of the prophets, four which contain hymns and precepts of morals. Now if one inspects the naming and division of the books among the Jews, as exhibited by Melito, Origen, Hilary, Jerome, Epiphanius, and the Talmudists, everywhere twenty-two books are numbered according to the number of the Hebrew letters, so that besides the five of Moses and the four moral books (of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles) there remain thirteen of the prophets in this reckoning: 1. Josue, 2. Judges with Ruth, 3. Samuel (1 and 2 Kings), 4. Kings (3 and 4 Kings), 5. Chronicles (1 and 2 Paralipomenon), 6. Esdras (1 and 2 Esdras), 7. Esther³, 8. Isaias, 9. Jeremias with Lamentations, 10. Ezechiel, 11. Daniel, 12. the Twelve Minor Prophets⁴, 13. Job. Those who think that the two books of Paralipomenon, the two of Esdras, and Esther cannot be comprehended in Josephus among the thirteen books of the prophets, but that these five books were received later — bringing forward as the reason for their assertion that these books are not prophetic (Haneberg, History of Biblical Revelation, p. 696. cf. above p. 366.) — seem altogether to neglect the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and of the Jews, and fail to attend to the contrary reasons: namely, that Josephus uses these books no differently than the rest; that he takes the name of prophets in the biblical and theological sense, for inspired men; and, finally, that such a late insertion into the canon is shown false by ineluctable arguments. See th. IV. n. II.

This being so, it is sufficiently established that at least those books which still belong to the canon of the Hebrews were already comprehended in the collection of the Scriptures in the time of Christ and the Apostles. But Christ and the Apostles approved that collection as of inspired books by a testimony consigned also in the apostolic writings, as is clear from the testimonies adduced in theses I and II, and expressly from 2 Tim. III. 15. 16. (on which passage see th. II. n. II. 3°.). Therefore the divine testimony concerning the inspiration of very many books which we have in the canon has been preserved to us also in the apostolic writings. Cf. the distinguished Welte in the Tübingen Quarterly Review, 1855. pp. 68. ff.

II. By that written divine testimony it can indeed be established that those books of the Old Testament belong to the Scriptures and are therefore inspired (cf. th. II.); but the same testimony by no means makes us certain that they alone are inspired Scripture, nor does it teach anything concerning the inspired books of the New Testament.

1°. From that testimony it is not established whether Christ and the Apostles, in the completion and consummation of revelation, handed down still other Scriptures besides those; for the testimony is affirmans — that these books are inspired — but not excludens — that there are no other inspired books of the Old Testament. Hence from that written attestation it cannot be defined whether the canon of the Jews was complete and closed, or incomplete and to be supplemented by a new revelation from Christ and the Apostles. This matter can be deemed defined by the affirming testimony, so long as that alone is considered, all the less because a) all Christians, even the Protestants themselves, confess that the Apostles handed down to the Churches as inspired other books — namely, the Scriptures of the New Testament, though of these there is no mention in that testimony; because b) it is certainly established that among the Jews, besides those mentioned, there were other books held in great veneration, concerning which — because « the succession of the prophets was not sufficiently ascertained and continuous » (p. 319.) — they remained doubtful whether they were of the same character and authority as those former ones; nay, c) it must be deemed at least probable that the Hellenist Jews, whose Greek Bibles the Apostles are established to have used, had among the Scriptures other books besides those numbered. Therefore, in the first place, the Protestants, by the testimony consigned in the apostolic writings, cannot be certain whether their canon, in which they have retained only the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, is not mutilated, and whether thus some part of the revealed word — which they think is contained in the Scriptures alone — is not lacking to them. But of this canon more will be said below.

2°. The Protestants, and all Christians who vindicate this name for themselves on any plausible ground, have in their canon the books of the New Testament, at least the protocanonical ones ⁵. Concerning the inspiration of these, therefore, there must be established for us a divine testimony preserved down to us and proposed to us (th. VI.) which, as we have already said, can have been preserved only either by Tradition alone or at the same time also in the apostolic writings. But concerning the inspiration of these books — if inquiry is made not merely in a confused way about the existence of some Scriptures of the New Testament, but if the whole collection and all and each books determinately are considered — there exists no testimony in the apostolic writings. Therefore concerning the inspiration of all the Scriptures which even the Protestants have retained, nothing can be established except by the divine testimony preserved by Tradition alone.

Some books of the New Testament are mentioned in the apostolic writings as belonging to the Scriptures — and therefore (from what was demonstrated in th. I. and II.) as inspired — only once or at most twice. The more certain passage is 2 Pet. III. 16, where the epistles of Paul are numbered by Peter among the Scriptures. « Our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you (the Churches of Asia), as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things (that, awaiting the coming of the Lord, they should strive to be found immaculate, and should account the longanimity of the Lord as salvation), in which⁶ are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures (ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς), to their own perdition. » When Peter says that unlearned men wrest the things that are in the epistles of Paul as they do the other Scriptures, he plainly numbers those same epistles among the Scriptures; for such is the force of numbering implied by the partitive other. I shall grant, then, that the epistles of Paul written by that time (which were either plainly all of them or all except 2 Timothy) are numbered among the Scriptures by a divine testimony preserved in an apostolic epistle. But that this appellation of Scripture suffices to testify to inspiration can be gathered from the other scriptural testimonies and has been demonstrated above.

But a) who, pray, will persuade you that all the other books of the New Testament are numbered among the Scriptures by this testimony of Peter? Nay, it is quite evident that not all the books can be comprehended by those words, since not all had even been written yet. For Peter wrote this second epistle shortly before his martyrdom, in the year 66 or 67 of the vulgar era, whereas the writings of John — his Gospel, that is, as well as his epistles and the Apocalypse — did not appear until nearly twenty years later. Moreover, b) this very epistle of Peter is among those books whose genuineness and apostolic origin can be certainly proved and placed beyond controversy only from Tradition understood in the Catholic sense; whence the divinity itself and the value of the written testimony assumed for proving the inspiration of the other books — and consequently the inspiration itself of those other books — must ultimately be referred back to proof from Tradition. Hence, finally, c) those Protestants who have repudiated this second epistle of Peter are destitute even of this written testimony for proving the inspiration of the Scriptures of the New Testament.

The other written testimony could be 1 Tim. V. 18, where it is read as follows: « For the Scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and: the labourer is worthy of his hire. » The former sentence is taken from Deut. XXV. 4; the latter, which according to the interpretation of the Vulgate is the citation of some passage of Scripture, in the words as conceived occurs nowhere except in Luke X. 7. If this is so, and unless perhaps the Apostle is only applying as to the sense what is prescribed in Deut. XXIV. 14. concerning wages to be rendered to labourers, St. Paul here numbers the Gospel of Luke among the Scriptures. But this matter is not certain enough, and even if it is admitted, you will prove nothing from it for the inspiration of all the books of the canon of the New Testament. For proving this, therefore, no testimony is to be found in the apostolic writings; but it has come down to us in no other way than by Tradition alone.

Scholion. Unless what has been said is rightly understood, what we assert concerning the books of the New Testament will seem not sufficiently coherent with what we concede concerning the books of the Old Testament. To some, moreover, less attentive to the sense in which we here understand Tradition, we shall seem besides to have conceded too much and even to have written contradictions.

1°. As regards the books of the Old Testament, once the number and canon of the books which were of authority among the Jews in the time of Christ and the Apostles has been historically proved, we concede that the testimony of Christ and the Apostles concerning the whole collection in common, consigned in the apostolic writings, suffices so that from that written testimony itself the inspiration of all these books must be deemed revealed. Why, then, once the collection of the books of the New Testament has been historically proved, is not the testimony of Peter in the same way enough for demonstrating the inspiration of all the books of this collection?

The answer is not difficult. For both the written divine testimonies and the historical proof as regards the books of the Old Testament are very different from the history and the written divine testimony as regards the books of the New Testament. As regards those former books, express testimonies stand forth in the apostolic writings by which all the books existing at that time in the canon of the Synagogue are confirmed by Christ and by the Apostles as inspired, and are reckoned to inspired Scripture. Let the testimonies adduced in th. I. and II. be weighed, above all 2 Tim. III. 15. 16. Then, moreover, it is demonstrated with historical evidence that at least all those books which the Jews still have in their canon were already at that time in the same. Whence the written divine testimony evidently belongs to all these books. In this argumentation the historical demonstration is only the application of the revealed universal proposition to the singular objects which are demonstrated to be comprehended under the universal proposition. If such an application prevented the singular object from being revealed and from being sufficiently proposed as revealed, mediate revelation and faith universally would be subverted: « unless we had rational souls, we could not believe. » Thus in the universal proposition by which it is revealed that all the posterity of Adam contract original sin (excepting, of course, Christ, and excepting the most holy Mother of God), it is already revealed that individual determinate men have contracted sin. For the natural knowledge that these men too are men drawing their origin from Adam is only (as I have said) the application of the universal and revealed proposition to singular objects. By the written divine testimony it is revealed that all the books comprehended in the time of Christ and the Apostles in the collection of the Scriptures of the Synagogue are books of inspired Scripture; but in that collection there were evidently comprehended at least all these books which the Jews still have in their canon; therefore by the written divine testimony it is revealed that all these books are books of inspired Scripture. The conclusion of this syllogism is contained wholly in the major; the minor only evidently shows the comprehension of the consequent in the major. Nay, if the minor proposition is enunciated thus: but in that collection there were comprehended at least many of the books which are still in the canon, this very minor has for itself the written divine testimony, as is established from the citations made most frequently by Christ and by the Apostles.

But as regards the books of the New Testament, the written testimony of 2 Pet. III. 16. cannot be referred except to the books then already existing in the collection of the Scriptures. But a) some of the books of the New Testament which we have in the canon were at that time not even yet written; b) concerning several others it cannot be evidently proved by historical arguments alone, with Tradition understood in the Catholic sense set aside, that they were even then held in the census of the Scriptures. Therefore from that written testimony the inspiration of the whole collection of the books of the New Testament which we now have, and which even the Protestants have retained, cannot be proved.

2°. The other difficulty which can present itself is the following. We seem to concede that from the Scriptures themselves the inspiration of very many books can be proved, precision being made from Tradition; but how can this be done, since both the books to be proved and the books furnishing the proof have been preserved to us only by Tradition, and only by Tradition can their genuineness and integrity be established? Moreover, it might seem that greater force is here conceded to proofs from the Scriptures independently of Tradition than was conceded in the Treatise on Tradition. The answer to these points can be drawn from what we said on Tradition, th. XXI. n. II.

a) The preservation and proof of the genuineness and integrity of the books certainly cannot be understood except from Tradition, at least historical; yet this proof can be instituted, and as regards several books — among which certainly are the Gospels and the epistles of Paul — rendered evident, with precision made from authentic Tradition understood in the Catholic sense. But once the genuineness of these books is proved, there follows the truth and divinity of the doctrine consigned in them. Whence from the testimonies of Christ and of the Apostles, which from the proved genuineness of the books are proved to be true and divine testimonies, the inspiration of the other books can be proved with precision made from Tradition understood in the Catholic sense.

b) The books from which the testimonies are drawn are not, however, supposed necessarily as inspired; but it suffices that they be proved genuine, that is, written by the Evangelists and Apostles to whom they are attributed; for from this very fact the veracity and divinity of the doctrine is sufficiently established.

c) We do not say that this demonstration of the inspiration of the books from the written testimonies is suited to all, for all circumstances, for settling controversies, for all books. Here we only inquire whether there are written apostolic testimonies in which the inspiration of some books is demonstrated to be enunciated — for those who are capable of grasping the demonstration and who profess that they admit the apostolic doctrine as divine revelation without controversy. This we certainly concede; yet at the same time what was said in the Treatise on Tradition remains firm. Namely, just as generally with regard to other dogmas, so also with regard to this dogma concerning the inspiration and the number of the inspired books, the proposition necessary for preserving unity of faith in Catholicity is through authentic Tradition understood in the Catholic sense; and this is the ordinary economy instituted by Christ for the preservation and propagation of the faith. Nay more, as is established from what was said in this thesis, the inspiration of all the books — whether contained in the Catholic canon or even retained by the Protestants — is one of those heads of doctrine which are not written, but have been preserved to us by Tradition alone under the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

The principles of Protestantism are repugnant to the proof of the canon of the Scriptures which the Reformers retained.

« For the Protestants, concerning this divine testimony, and consequently concerning their entire canon of the Scriptures, as is fitting for the foundation of the doctrine of faith, nothing can be established even from Tradition itself, so long as they admit it only in that sense which they themselves call historical tradition, and which in its entirety is to be judged and measured by Scripture as the sole rule of faith. »

In their symbolic books the so-called orthodox Protestants profess these three principles: 1°. that the books which they have in their canon, all and alone, are to be believed to be the written word of God and divinely inspired; 2°. that no divine attestation has been preserved or could have been preserved by Tradition alone in such a way that from it anything can be established concerning any dogma, and that it constitute an object of faith; 3°. that Tradition concerning dogmas and concerning the understanding of the word of God can be admitted only as historical in this sense, that from Tradition as from a historical testimony is learned how the word of God was understood by Christians in different ages — which Tradition indeed is of itself of no authority, but is to be measured and judged by individuals according to the sole norm, which is Scripture.

Nevertheless these same Protestants, at least for the most part, disputing with the antichrists whom they have in their communion, when the reason is demanded by which they hold all these books in their canon as inspired, appeal to Tradition, because they see that no other way of demonstration lies open. We now say that this demonstration cannot be instituted unless, with the principles laid down as fundamental by the Protestants rejected, the Catholic principle of Tradition is admitted; and thus from the principles of Protestantism no way lies open for demonstrating the inspiration of at least most of the books of the New Testament, which books nevertheless they hold as the inspired word of God, that is, as the sole rule of faith.

Tradition, indeed, on their principles, only reports the opinion of the ancient Christians, and can teach only this one thing: that all these books were held by the ancient Church as belonging to sacred Scripture and as inspired. But whether this opinion of the ancients is true or false is to be judged by individuals according to the sole norm of the word of God consigned in the Scriptures. Now if they understood this sole norm of judgment only negatively — that nothing can be admitted in Tradition which is repugnant to the written word of God — this would indeed be most true, but it contributes nothing to the demonstration in question. For that the Tradition of the ancient Church concerning the inspiration of the books of the New Testament which they have in their canon is not repugnant to the written word they will indeed easily prove; but neither is the Tradition concerning other books, which the Protestants have nevertheless repudiated, any more repugnant; and in general, from mere non-repugnance with the written word they cannot conclude the truth of the testimony contained in Tradition concerning the inspiration of their books — but this truth of the testimony must be drawn from the authority of Tradition itself. Then, however, Scripture is no longer the sole norm according to which all dogmas are to be judged; nor is it any longer true that there can be or is no dogma handed down by Tradition alone — but, with the principle of Protestantism abandoned, the Catholic principle of Tradition must be admitted, and from it, together with the other dogmas, the entire canon of the Scriptures must also be adopted according to the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But if — what in reality the principle of Protestantism holds — Scripture is the sole rule of faith, and if Tradition and the opinion of the ancient Church in general, and consequently also the Tradition concerning the inspiration of the books of the New Testament, is to be judged according to the norm of Scripture in such a way that a positive testimony of Scripture is demanded for proving a dogma contained in Tradition and in the opinion of the ancient Church, and thus the silence of Scripture suffices for repudiating Tradition and for judging the opinion of the ancient Church false or at least doubtful, then assuredly they cannot prove the inspiration of these books from Tradition either. For Scripture is altogether silent concerning the number and canon of the books of the New Testament which the Protestants have adopted. Therefore, if the silence of Scripture is the reason for judging Tradition false or doubtful, then for them that historical Tradition of theirs can be of no value for proving the inspiration of the books of the New Testament.

Moreover, from this very thing which we demonstrated in the preceding thesis — that the testimony concerning the inspiration of all the books of the canon, even as admitted by the Protestants, has been preserved to us by Tradition alone — you will easily see the evident contradiction in the three principles of the Deformers which we recalled at the outset. For in the first principle there is implicitly contained the affirmation of that which in the second principle is explicitly denied: namely, that there is some dogma handed down by Tradition alone. Likewise in the third principle there is laid down a norm for judging Tradition by which the value of that same Tradition is explicitly denied which in the first principle is implicitly affirmed. See on Tradition, th. XX. n. III.