Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

1. The dispute in the pamphlet of the learned Doctor is not that criticism which is wont to be held now and then, whether all parts of the sacred books as they now stand must be judged genuine and proceeding from the first writers themselves of the books; but another question is now introduced, among Catholics almost new and wholly theological, whether the canonical books according to all their genuine parts must be believed to have been written with God inspiring? Moreover the question is not whether by the name of parts of the books there must necessarily be understood each or the minutest sections, of which sort are e. g. the salutations annexed by the Apostles to the epistles, or what Paul has about the cloak left at Troas, or (as the author says) about the little wine which the Apostle commends to his disciple. I am not unaware that one or another theologian (I speak of the rather older ones) has been found who has dared to deny that inspiration extends to such minutest things¹. But now our dissertation progresses far further, and proposes a doctrine which in my judgment an ineluctable authority opposes, from which moreover I understand there follow most grave dangers certainly never intended by the author, which finally I see supported by no argument but by mere conjectures.

2. Let us examine the chief heads of this new commentary. In the sacred books, it is there said, there is to be distinguished the doctrine of faith and morals, which is also called by the author in the words of the Master (not rightly understood) «the science of the soul» (die Wissenschaft der Seele)², and further there are to be discerned (as he says) the «profane things» comprised in those same Scriptures. In writing things of faith and morals the human author was preserved by God through supernatural aid from all error; whether in writing these things men were not only through divine assistance fenced off from error, but also through inspiration enlightened in intellect and moved in will unto writing all and only the things which God willed to propose to men through Scripture as His written word, the learned disputant nowhere sufficiently declares. Only hypothetically does he propose some notion of «inspiration in the stricter sense» p. 102, which notion however is either very obscure or, if taken in the obvious sense of the words, by no means sound, and which above all after the Vatican definition can no longer be sustained.

3. Most certain indeed it is that in inspiration unto writing there were diverse grades; but it must be held equally certain that neither is the revelation of truth of itself inspiration unto writing, nor does the fencing off from error through divine assistance suffice for its essence, of which sort is required also in the infallible definitions of Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs, though those definitions do not thereby constitute inspired Scripture. But least of all can be admitted what the author pp. 100. 101. teaches concerning the distinction between «the infallibility of the Church and the inspiration of Scripture,» as though it consisted only in diversity of object, inasmuch as through inspiration new truths are revealed, through the infallibility of the Church not new but long since revealed truths are proposed. Neither revelation in the strict sense, the manifestation namely of a hidden thing, nor new revelation in the wider sense, the first divinely made proposal namely of a truth, pertains to the essential notion of inspiration. Many things were inspired unto writing which were known to the inspired men through human aids and through human industry: «those who wrote the hagiographa, says St. Thomas (2.2. q. 174. a. 2. ad 3), for the most part spoke more frequently of the things that can be known by human reason, not as from the person of God but from their own person, yet with the aid of the divine light.» This light he explains as «an intellectual light divinely infused not for knowing supernatural things (as in the higher grade of prophecy or inspiration), but for judging according to the certainty of divine truth the things that can be known by human reason.» Likewise the evangelical doctrine had long been revealed, preached in the Church and daily reduced into practice, before it was inspired unto writing to the Evangelist St. Matthew; indeed very many things which had already been proposed even in Scripture were anew consigned under the charism of inspiration by other sacred writers, which, not to speak of the rest, is known to all from the comparison of the four Gospels. The distinction therefore between the proper reason of the infallibility of the Church and the essence of inspiration is by no means placed in the object, as the author asserts, but wholly in the diversity of the charism itself in the subject, since for infallibility divine assistance suffices, by which error in defining is excluded, while for the inspiration of writing, besides the fencing off from error, there is essentially required a positive supernatural operation of God upon the intellect and will of the writer, by which it comes about that God Himself through the inspired man is in the proper sense author of the book, and consequently the book, not in whatever way it contain the word of God without error, but inasmuch as it is a written book, is efficiently from God as author, and the written word of God. This notion of inspiration from the Scriptures themselves, from the Councils and from the consenting doctrine of the Fathers we have sufficiently demonstrated in the Tract. on the Scriptures sect. I.

4. But now the dispute is not so much of the notion and essence of inspiration as of its amplitude, not of the intension but of the extension of inspiration. For with the distinction made, which I mentioned, between «religious» doctrine and the «profane things» in the sacred Scriptures, the dissertation affirms that in writing these «profane things» men were left wholly to themselves, so that in these they could even err, and consequently that unto the writing of these things neither inspiration (whatever notion of it be established) nor error-preventing divine assistance extended. According to all these parts therefore which do not contain «doctrine of faith or morals,» if the new theory were to be trusted, Scripture would be held merely human, written namely by merely human powers, and therefore in these parts could neither be believed inspired, nor a priori be held immune from errors; consequently in all these parts, whether errors be actually in them or not, neither would it be to be judged canonical Scripture. In this doctrine further, when we seek a certain norm by which to distinguish these human parts from those which are either inspired or at least infallibly contain the word of God, this rule the author proposes pp. 98. 99. «If some historical narration (he says) constitutes a necessary foundation of religious truths, so that these truths themselves hang upon the truth of the history, just as e. g. the sojourn of the people of Israel at Mount Sinai sustains and bears the truth of the legislation; then God had to keep the writer immune from error in favour of the religious truth. But if such a connection of the narrated fact with religious truth does not obtain; then it depends upon human criticism whether the truth of such a history is to be acknowledged or repudiated» ³

These furnish a sufficiently clear norm, which yet it were not lawful for any Catholic to adopt. The sacred books were written under the charism of infallibility (whether also of inspiration is not said) in those parts only which contain «religious truths» or historical facts as a «necessary foundation, without which religious truth itself would collapse;» all other things therefore written in those same books were written merely humanly; and consequently concerning all these, as concerning other human books, it pertains to criticism to judge, no longer whether they were written divinely or humanly (for it is established according to the proposed norm that they are wholly human works), but whether they are true or false. If by critical examination they shall have been found true, without doubt they are to be believed with human faith i. e. on account of the demonstrated science and veracity of the human narrator, but they can never be believed with divine faith as the word of God on account of the authority of God, since in all these there is not the word and authority of God, but only of man. Hence it appears what worth belongs to what the learned author there infers: «If the examination be instituted with a sincere mind, it will most rarely happen that we are compelled to repudiate a biblical narration, even one unconnected with religion» ⁴. Namely, as in Thucydides or Tacitus so in these books we shall most rarely reject such a narration as false, but yet we shall always deny it inspired or from divine assistance at least infallible, and shall admit a document worthy of human faith, as much as the science and veracity of the human witness shall have been demonstrated.

5. But in this way a great part of the books, and whole books especially of the Old Testament, will be judged merely human books, however much they can be demonstrated veracious by human faith. For I ask e. g. in the books of Ruth, Esther, in the epistle to Philemon and others, what «religious truths» in the sense of our author are proposed, what facts «without which religious truth could not stand»? According to the new doctrine therefore these books with a great part of the others could not be held canonical in the ecclesiastical sense of this appellation. Yet it is of faith, defined in the Councils of Florence, Trent, Vatican, to say nothing of others, that the books there enumerated of the Old and New Testament «entire with all their parts» are sacred and canonical, and the very sense of this appellation is expressly declared by the Vatican Council: «them (entire with all their parts) the Church holds for sacred and canonical... for the reason that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for author, and as such have been handed down to the Church.»

6. The error in the matter and doctrine itself of the learned man, unless I am deceived, has its origin in a methodical error. He willed namely to decide from the inward necessity of things and a priori concerning the amplitude of inspiration, whereas concerning it nothing can be established except a posteriori from divine testimony. For the notion of inspiration is wholly theological, and therefore to be inquired in divine revelation, as it is handed down and declared in the Church of God, and from that same revelation proposed by the Church we must learn the extension of inspiration. Omitting the question of the genuine concept of inspiration, as to its extension it is wholly certain that a) under the name of excellence Scripture, Sacred Scripture, and by the formulas it is written, Scripture says and their twins, there were designated by Christ Himself, by the Apostles, by the whole Church, not only the whole collection or entire books, but the several parts of them and even single texts; b) this name of Scripture was always understood for inspired Scripture πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, and those formulas were employed equivalently and promiscuously with others: God says, the Holy Spirit says, man says in the Holy Spirit; c) this excellence of Scripture, that all Scripture both in entire books and in single parts should be declared and believed inspired and the written word of God, was not derived from the excellence of the matter but formally from the manner in which it was written, as the very name of inspiration sufficiently manifests. These things sufficiently demonstrated in the Treatise on the Divine Scriptures I now assume.

Now indeed from this universal doctrine it follows that those historical parts of which the learned author speaks were as certainly and indubitably held and are held by the Church as written under the charism of inspiration as certainly as they were and are reckoned sacred Scripture. Yet never in the Catholic Church was there doubt; but always in the homilies, in the commentaries, in the citations of the Fathers and Doctors, in the synopses and little indices of the sacred books it is expressed and preached, e. g. that ch. I. of Gen. 2-25, of which the author of the dissertation expressly treats, pertains wholly to sacred Scripture, so that he must needs be blind who should say that concerning this matter doubt, I do not say prevailed, but was permitted or tolerated or was ever heard. Therefore those parts, and particularly Gen. I. 2-25, were and are believed by the Catholic Church to have been written under the charism of inspiration, in which a fortiori the charism of infallibility is included.

7. Let there be read, I pray, the homilies of Basil and the twin books of Ambrose upon them and again the hexaemeron homilies of Chrysostom, then the books of Augustine on Genesis according to the letter and the most frequent lucubrations of other Fathers upon the history of creation, in which the interpretation of words and sentences is indeed diverse and manifold, but the persuasion, no longer private but public of the Church, concerning the inspiration of Moses in writing these things stands expressed as of itself certain and indubitable to all Christians. Chrysostom beginning his exposition says «these letters God sent as to men far absent, but Moses brought them... As to all of us he cries: He who made these things when they were not, that they should be, He also impelled my tongue unto the narration of them. Therefore so let us hearken, as hearing them not from Moses but through the tongue of Moses from the God of all» hom. I. in Gen. Equivalent things you will find in Basil and Ambrose.

8. But since the adversary in some way I know not has appealed to Jerome and Augustine, concerning each of these doctors something must be said particularly. Jerome acknowledges in the Scriptures a «norm of truth» for the very science «of the natures of things,» inasmuch namely as anything concerning them is contained in the Scriptures. «You urge, he says against Rufinus (Apol. l. III. ed. Martian. p. 465), that I answer concerning the nature of things. If there were place, I could tell you the opinions of Lucretius according to Epicurus, or of Aristotle... or of Plato and Zeno... And to pass to the Church, where the norm of truth is, many things both Genesis and the books of the prophets and Ecclesiastes suggest to us concerning questions of this sort.» In the same sense he discourses in the epistle to Paula (T. II. p. 708). «I have said that as philosophers are wont to divide their disputations into physics, ethics, and logic, so too the divine utterances dispute either of nature, as in Genesis and in Ecclesiastes, or of morals, as in Proverbs and scatteredly in all the books, or of logic for which our (sacred writers) vindicate theology to themselves, as in the Canticle of Canticles and in the Gospels.» Equally therefore does Jerome believe the divine utterances in disputations of nature as in those of morals and of theology. In general Jerome explains how even the things that seem more minute in the sacred books are to be held truly as divine Scripture and thereby as what Christ speaks in man, and what man speaks through the Holy Spirit. For refuting men undoubtedly heretics, who for the same reason which our adversary now induces repudiated the epistle to Philemon, and denied such «examples of human infirmity» in other books of the Old and New Testament to have been said through the Holy Spirit, the greatest doctor brings forth an answer which seems wholly to meet the chief argument of the recent dissertation. «But if they think not His to be the small things whose also are the great, they must introduce, according to Valentinus, Marcion and Apelles, one maker of the ant, of worms, of gnats, of locusts, another of heaven, earth, sea and Angels. Or is it rather of the same (divine) power, not to deny the genius which you have exercised in greater things (in «things of faith and morals» according to our author), also in lesser?» (Prolog. ad ep. Philem. T. IV. p. 442).

But why it pleased him to appeal unto Jerome on Jer. XXVIII. for vindicating the new doctrine, nay to prefix the holy doctor's words torn from context as the compendium as it were of the whole dissertation, no one will easily understand. Neither Jerome nor ever any of the holy Fathers felt or said that the sacred writers, left sometimes to themselves, imbibed the false opinions of their time, and wrote down these errors as their own judgment in the canonical books. For among the doctrines which in the whole Church, by none called into controversy, were handed down by constant and unanimous preaching, all with Origen (Praefat. in II. de princip.) held this too: «Sacred Scripture (without distinction) to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.» Jerome in the cited place and on Matth. XIV. 9. says nothing else except that sometimes in the Scriptures things are expressed by the words and names by which they are judged not by the author of the Scriptures and according to the truth of the matter, but by others according to appearance. And this has place not only in «profane things» but equally in dogmatic ones, as the examples adduced by the holy doctor sufficiently demonstrate. Ananias the pseudoprophet is there called prophet, which name Jerome does not approve the LXX to have omitted. «They (the Septuagint) did not call Ananias Prophet, lest namely they seem to call him prophet who was not a prophet; as though many things were not said in the holy Scriptures according to the opinion of that time in which the deeds are related, and not according to what the truth of the matter contained. Finally both Joseph in the Gospel is called father of the Lord, and Mary herself who knew she had conceived by the Holy Spirit... speaks to her son: I and thy father sorrowing sought thee.»

9. Much more do I wonder that an appeal unto St. Augustine seemed opportune to the learned man. In the place he cites (de actis cum Felice Manich. l. I. c. 10), there is no vestige of the judgment of which question is now made. For Augustine does not treat of texts which are in Scripture, but of doctrines which are in no way found in Scripture, nor handed down in ecclesiastical preaching. Further he does not say that nothing at all in Christian doctrine is taught concerning the sun and moon; but the things which Felix had affirmed to have been revealed through the Manichaean paraclete «concerning the beginning, middle and end, concerning the fabric of the world, why it was made and whence it was made and who made it, why day and why night, concerning the course of the sun and moon,» these dogmas namely of Mani Augustine denies to be contained in the Gospel, but he does not say nor dream that they are indeed read there and yet can be judged false.

What the Hipponese doctor felt concerning the inspiration and infallible divine truth of all texts in the canonical books, he himself declared in many places, in which he repeats that well known saying: «I have learned to bear this fear and honour to those books of the Scriptures alone which are now called canonical, that I most firmly believe none of their authors to have erred in writing anything. And if I shall find in their letters anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not doubt anything else than that either the codex is faulty, or the translator has not attained what was said, or I have not understood... Concerning the writings of the prophets and Apostles, that they are free from all error, to doubt is nefarious» Aug. ad Hieronym. ep. 82. n. 3; Civ. Dei XI. 3; contr. Faust. XI. 5. 6.

But particularly in the matter of which we now dispute, in those testimonies namely which contain something concerning the history of creation, Augustine testifies: «That Scripture is truthful no one doubts, unless unfaithful or impious» in Gen. ad litt. l. VII. c. 28. But above all most worthy of reading are the things he disputes in l. I. in the last four chapters c. 18-21, in which these things above all are to be noted as inculcated by the holy doctor. a) It is one thing to inquire concerning interpretation, another concerning the sense of the book; the former is often uncertain or erroneous, the latter is always infallibly true. b) Interpretation in the places of Scripture which treat of natural things can be much aided through the natural sciences⁵. c) But if it be established that in the natural sciences some judgment is put forward contrary to the genuine and indubitable sense of Scripture, it must most certainly be held for error; and so it is to be laboured that it be refuted even from the proper principles of natural science, but if this cannot yet be done, from the principle of faith «let us believe without any doubting it to be most false.» For d) «whatever is put forward contrary to these our letters» (it is a question of natural things), that «is contrary to the Catholic faith.» e) With so much greater caution is there need, lest we rashly vend our interpretation as certain, since it perhaps contains our false sense not the true sense of Scripture, which rashness indeed both brings molestation and sadness to the faithful, and impedes the salvation of the unfaithful; «for if they shall have thought these books to have been falsely written concerning the things which they themselves the unfaithful could perceive by indubitable numbers, in what way will they believe those same books concerning the resurrection of the dead, concerning the hope of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven?»

I judge there is no need of the testimonies of more holy Doctors, for manifestly these whom I have cited in passing demonstrate by their very manner of speech that the doctrine they propose is universal and common to all Christians, which nefariously and not except by the impious and unfaithful is denied. I shall conclude therefore from all the premises that the new doctrine proposed can neither consist with the integrity of the canon of the Scriptures, nor be reconciled with the manifest preaching of the Church.