Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

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.