Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae

IT IS DOUBTED thirdly, in the order of the commentaries of this article: What is Sacred Scripture; whether it was written with the Holy Spirit inspiring and dictating the words? Behold how we now begin to exercise the things which have been said concerning sacred theology, that it pertains to it to explain its principles, one of which is that Sacred Scripture is infallible, which through God's revelation has been written by men. And nevertheless it will be very useful to set forth and elucidate the definition of Sacred Scripture. That we may therefore proceed in our manner, it is argued for the negative side by the arguments of those who, as Jerome testifies in the proemium on the epistle to Philemon, held the opinion that the sacred writers did not always write with God inspiring.

The first argument therefore is: Human weakness cannot bear for a long time the surpassing illumination of the Holy Spirit: but authors of this sort wrote very many things in which they spent much time: therefore it is not likely that they were continually acted upon by the Holy Spirit. And it is confirmed. Because very many things are contained in the Sacred Scriptures which on account of their lowliness seem unworthy to be dictated by the Holy Spirit: as, for example, that a dog followed the younger Tobias on his journey, Tob. 6. Likewise what the Apostle says in the 2nd epistle to Tim., ch. 4: The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee. And in the same place: Luke only is with me. And elsewhere, 1 Tim. 5: Use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thy frequent infirmities. And many other similar things which seem unworthy that they be believed to have been written by a special help of God. Secondly.

The aforesaid authors wrote very many temporal things of which they themselves were eyewitnesses; therefore for writing such things divine inspiration was not necessary. The antecedent is clear. For St. John says, ch. 19: And immediately there came out blood and water, and he that saw it hath given testimony. And he wrote very many other things which he himself heard with his own ears from Christ and saw with his own eyes; therefore for such things the illumination of the Holy Spirit was superfluous. And Moses wrote very many things concerning the departure of Israel from Egypt, of which he himself was an eyewitness. And it is confirmed from what Luke says, ch. 1: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; therefore the Gospel of Luke was written not with the Holy Spirit inspiring and dictating, but, as he himself says (even as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word), by human tradition. And Mark too (as Jerome testifies in the catalogue of ecclesiastical writers) wrote his Gospel as he had heard Peter narrating. Therefore it was not written with God inspiring and dictating the words.

Thirdly. If the whole of Sacred Scripture had been written with the Holy Spirit inspiring and dictating the words, the style of speech would be one and similar in accordance with the subject matter. Just as the Ciceronian style is everywhere recognized: but in truth we see in the Sacred Letters the greatest difference of diction, in accordance with the genius and the property of the language of each writer. Which Jerome observed on Isaiah, noting that Isaiah, because he was of the royal seed, spoke more elegantly than the other Prophets. It is therefore a sign that the sacred writers themselves composed the words at least by their own effort.

Fourthly. The authors of the New Testament, when they bring forward the testimonies of the Old, do not report them in the same words in which they were written, but, the truth of the sense being preserved, they use other words; therefore it is a sign that in the composition of words each one uses his own effort. The antecedent is proved from Jerome on Isaiah, ch. 7, where he says that in many testimonies which the Apostles and Evangelists took from the old books they did not follow the order of the words, but the sense. In witness of which he adduces that of Isaiah, ch. 7: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son; which Matthew, citing, says, ch. 1: Behold a virgin shall have in her womb, and shall bring forth a son; and where it was said, he shall be called, Matthew put, they shall call his name. The same Euthymius teaches on Matth., ch. 3, and adduces an example from Isaiah ch. 9, which Matthew cites, ch. 4: The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephtali, the way of the sea beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light, etc. And yet in Isaiah it had not been written in the same words. Likewise the same Jerome teaches in Amos, ch. 5, and on the epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 5, where the Apostle, citing that from Genesis: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, does not use the same words. All which things are confirmed. Because the Evangelists themselves, narrating the same history, do not use the same words and circumstances. Fifthly.

Because the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12, says: But to the rest I speak, not the Lord: for if he were writing everything by the revelation of the Holy Spirit, he would not have said, I speak, not the Lord, but rather, as the prophets said, Thus saith the Lord. And it is confirmed from St. Basil, lib. 5 against Eunomius, ch. penult., where among other things he teaches that the Spirit does not sometimes speak his own things, sometimes the things of God; but all the words of the Spirit are the words of God. But Moses and Paul and the other Prophets sometimes speak the things which are God's, sometimes their own. Origen too, in homil. 16 on Numbers, says that the discourse of Jonah to the Ninevites was uttered by Jonah rather than by God. For through Moses God indeed spoke many things; yet some things Moses also commanded by his own authority. And Ambrose, lib. 8 on Luke, ch. 16, on that word, Because of the hardness of your heart, says: The things which were written because of human frailty were not written by God, and he brings an example from the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12, where he says: But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And a little later he says: But to the rest I speak, not the Lord. Here Ambrose says that the Apostle denied that it is of divine law that any marriage whatever be dissolved. And this same thing is confirmed from 2 Cor. 11, where the Apostle says: In whatever any one dares, I speak in foolishness, I also dare. They are ministers of Christ, I speak as one less wise, I am more. But the words of the Holy Spirit cannot be spoken in foolishness; therefore the Apostle there spoke by a human spirit. Lastly.

If all things which the Apostle wrote exist from divine revelation, it follows that the Supreme Pontiff cannot dispense in the matter of a bigamist becoming a bishop. Since Paul says, that he be the husband of one wife.

On account of these and similar arguments there were not lacking in former times those who followed the negative side. Among whom Erasmus is noted, in his annotations on Matth. ch. 2 and on ch. 1 of Mark.

FOR the decision of the truth it must be adverted that, when any scripture is said to have been written with God inspiring, this can be understood in three ways. In the first way, because the things themselves of which the writing was to be made were hidden from the writer, and become known to him by God revealing. According to that of Ps. 50: Thou hast made known to me the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom. In the second way, because the thing which is written was indeed known to the writer; yet that he applied his mind to writing was done with God specially moving and inspiring. And accordingly the writer is held by a certain special assistance of the Holy Spirit, lest by malice or forgetfulness he be deceived in anything. In the third way a scripture is said to be revealed, or from revelation, because God himself not only revealed hidden things to the one writing, or stirred him to write things known to him, and held his hand lest he err, but also suggested and as it were dictated the very individual words with which he was to write.

Let the first conclusion therefore be: Sacred Scripture, of which we speak, is had from divine revelation sometimes in the first way, sometimes in the second way. This conclusion must be certain among all Catholics. And it is proved. Because it partly contains very many things elevated above all natural reason, such as is the mystery of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation, and very many others; but partly things which could be established either by experience or by human reason. But in all these the writer himself, however diligent and attentive, could nevertheless sometimes be deceived or forget; therefore in all those things the Holy Spirit was present, partly by revelation, partly by instigation and assistance, lest the writer in any way deviate from the truth. The consequence is clear. For, as Augustine says in epistle 8 and 10 to Jerome: If in any sacred book any falsity whatever is found, the certainty of the whole book perishes. By which argument he himself, lib. 2 On the Agreement of the Evangelists, ch. 12, shows that the writings of the Prophets and Apostles have absolutely no falsity. And it is confirmed. For if we once admit that a sacred writer has failed in any one thing, even the lightest, it will then have to be judged which thing is light and which is grave. But if this is left to be judged by human arbitration, what is grave will seem light to someone, and accordingly the certainty of the Scriptures fails. Then it is proved from that of Peter in the 2nd canonical epistle, ch. 1: No prophecy is made by private interpretation; but holy men of God, that is, the ministers of God, spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Likewise the Apostle, 2 Cor. 13: Do you seek a proof of him who speaks in me, Christ? Then the argument is: It would be blasphemous to say that God lies in any one thing, even the lightest; therefore if the Holy Spirit spoke through the writings of the Prophets, it follows that the Holy Spirit himself fails or is deceived in something — or certainly that the Prophet does so in nothing. Moreover Matth. 5, the Lord says: Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Therefore if the Old Testament, or the law of Moses, errs not in one jot or tittle, much less can the Gospel of Christ err. Moreover. If any lie can be called light in the Sacred Letters according to the speech of those who hold the contrary opinion, it would be greatest if the sacred writers fabricated something by their own effort for the praise of God and the edification of the people; but the Apostle judges this very thing to be most grave, 1 Cor. 15, when he says: If Christ be not risen again, we are found false witnesses of God, because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ, whom he hath not raised up; therefore no falsity can be light in the sacred writers, who speak in the place of God. And finally we seem to labor in vain while we adduce the testimonies of the Scriptures for the confirmation of our conclusion; since the adversaries will perhaps answer that these same testimonies contain light matter. Let us therefore hold the aforesaid conclusion as certain according to the Catholic faith, which we have received from the holy Fathers, and which has been implanted in the minds of all the faithful by the Catholic Church, the mistress and guide of them. Second conclusion. The Holy Spirit not only inspired the things contained in Scripture, but also dictated and suggested the individual words with which they were to be written.

This conclusion seems to follow from the preceding one. For if it were left to the arbitration of the sacred writer with which words he should utter or write the things he understood, he could err in the legitimate explanation of the things which have been revealed to him; therefore in the Sacred Letters some falsity could be found. The consequence is clear, and the antecedent is proved. Because it is human, even if a man has no error in his mind, often to err in words, and to utter one thing for another. Moreover this truth is confirmed from the teaching of St. Ambrose in the proemium of St. Luke, on those words, Since many have attempted to set forth the narratives of things: where he says: They surely attempted who were unable to accomplish. For he who attempted to set in order attempted by his own labor. For without attempt are the gifts and the grace of God, which, when it has poured itself in, is accustomed to water, so that the genius of the writer has no need but overflows. Matthew did not attempt, Mark did not attempt, John did not attempt, Luke did not attempt: but with the Divine Spirit supplying the abundance of the sayings and of all things, they completed what they had begun without any effort. Behold where he says that the Holy Spirit supplied them with the abundance of sayings, that is, of words and of things. And it is confirmed from the text itself. For, he says, to set forth the narrative of things. Which indeed is not only to understand the things themselves, but also to compose a speech by word or writing by which the things understood may be explained. Likewise St. Gregory in the proemium of the Morals, ch. 1, says: God himself therefore wrote these things, who dictated these things to be written. But to dictate signifies to determine the words themselves. And it is confirmed from Ps. 44: My tongue is the pen of a scribe writing swiftly. Which comparison seems to consist in this, that just as the pen is determined by the writer himself to express these characters, so the imagination of the Prophet receives determinate words, that he may utter them by word or writing. And finally, to what end would the interpreters of the Sacred Letters so attentively weigh the individual words of Sacred Scripture, unless they understood that they were dictated by the Spirit of God? It is proved moreover. Because the Holy Spirit is said to have spoken through the Prophets; but to speak through the Prophets is not only to reveal the truth to them, but to move their tongue and pen, so that they speak insofar as they fittingly utter the things revealed, according to that of Ps. 44: My tongue is the pen of a scribe writing swiftly. It is confirmed from what Christ said, Matth. 20: For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. But it had preceded: Be not thoughtful how or what to speak. Therefore to the sacred writers was given how and what they should write. Likewise Jerem. 36, there is an elegant testimony of this matter, where when Baruch had read to the people the book which he himself wrote with Jeremiah dictating, and the princes asked him how he had written all these words from the mouth of Jeremiah, Baruch answered: He spoke from his mouth as if reading unto me all these words, and I wrote them in the book with ink. Behold the argument. He who speaks as if reading in a book does not compose the words which he speaks, but receives those which he finds already determined. Since therefore the Prophet spoke as if reading in a book, the words which he spoke had already been written in his phantasy by the Holy Spirit.

Third conclusion. If however someone asserts that the composition of words is often left to the knowledge and diligence of the sacred writer, yet in such a way that he affirms the necessary assistance of the Holy Spirit, so that the writer himself does not err in the words or in the composition of words, he says nothing contrary to the faith, such that this assertion merits a grave censure, although it does not seem to me true, or altogether safe, on account of the arguments made in confirmation of the preceding conclusion.

This conclusion is proved. Because when the sacred writer writes things which he himself saw, it suffices for that writing to be called Sacred that by the instinct of the Holy Spirit he applied his mind to writing those things, and that he be upheld by the assistance of the same Spirit lest the things which he is commanded to narrate fall out of his memory: therefore the same concurrence of the Holy Spirit will suffice for the composition of words, which the sacred writer himself can devise and make by his own powers. The consequence is clear. Because the memory of things done matters no less than the order and composition of words. Likewise it is proved. Because according to the aforesaid manner of speaking it cannot be gathered that there is any falsity in Scripture, even in a minimal or light matter. For the upholding of the Holy Spirit suffices that a man not err in the things which he could attain by his own powers — although defectibly, if he were not upheld by the Spirit of God. But also the testimonies of Sacred Scripture in which it is said that God speaks through the Prophets, and that the things which they speak are the words of God, and other similar things, can be satisfied if it be said that they are called the words and speeches of God when the Prophet speaks or writes by the impulse and upholding of the Holy Spirit, even if he composes and orders the words in an idiom known to himself. But I have said often in this conclusion, since sometimes, when the sacred writer speaks of sublime and supernatural things, it even seems necessary that the very words by which they are explained be inspired by God. Let there be an example: when John said, ch. 1 of his Gospel, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the rest, it does not seem possible that he compose that speech by human art, unless he had learned the words with the Holy Spirit dictating. Nevertheless it is said more safely and without calumny that, just as the Holy Spirit applies the mind of the writer to writing, so too he hands over the words and their composition: and it is proved. Because unless we say this, we shall scarcely be able to assign a difference between Sacred Scripture, on the one hand, and the definitions of councils, which have also been confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff, and Sacred Scripture, on the other. For in both the Holy Spirit assists that there be no error. But if in both the words and their composition are left to human industry, it follows that there is no difference. Since the definitions of councils too, written with the upholding of the Holy Spirit himself, contain infallible truth. Although to this it could also be answered that there is a great difference. Because the definitions of councils, while they are written by some notary with a theologian dictating, are not attended there by the impulse of the Holy Spirit so that the one writes and the other dictates. For in the composition of a speech of this sort there can be error on their part, and their error is afterwards corrected by the Council. But Sacred Scripture is written with the Spirit of God assisting, and has no superior on earth to correct it.

TO the arguments set out at the beginning of the doubt it must now be answered.

To the first it is answered that the Holy Spirit strongly and sweetly moves the human mind by supernatural instinct and illumination. And so, as long as he wills, he holds it, that it may minister to him by understanding and writing the things which are well-pleasing to him. Nor is it necessary that the things written by the sacred writers be written by one continuous motion, but with certain intervals made, the impulse of the Holy Spirit ceasing, they ceased, and when he impelled again, they wrote.

To the confirmation it is answered that all things which are contained in Sacred Scripture, even if they seem most small, are nevertheless useful. It is proved first. Because God, the special author of the Scriptures, says nothing without cause. For he refers all things to the utility of men and to his own glory, according to that of Isai. 48: I am the Lord thy God that teach thee profitable things, and to Rom. 15: What things soever were written were written for our learning, and 2 Tim. 3: All scripture inspired of God is profitable for teaching, etc. But to advert in particular what utility each thing narrated in some history has is not the business of the present undertaking. But in general we say that very many things are interposed for the truth of the history and for ornament. Just as also in the Gospel parables not all things which are interposed signify something parabolically, but those which do signify are attached for their sake. As Chrysostom says on Matth., ch. 20, explaining the parable of the father of a family who goes out early in the morning to hire laborers. And St. Augustine, lib. 16 of the City of God, ch. 2, says: Not all things which are narrated as done are to be thought to signify something also, but they are woven in on account of those which do signify something. And he brings an example: just as the earth is ploughed by the ploughshare alone, but that this may be done the other members of the plough are also necessary. Likewise the strings alone produce the sound on the cithara, and yet the strings are not alone on the cithara or the lyre. See Pagninus in the prologue of his Isagoge. Hence let the preachers of the Word of God advert that, although it is pious to seek mystical senses in the individual circumstances of the Sacred Letters — which St. Gregory does excellently and with great fruit in his Morals, interpreting the history of Job tropologically — nevertheless they ought to draw and set forth mystical senses of this sort from the Sacred Letters congruously and fitly, modestly and gravely. But that some things are narrated in the argument as lowly and unworthy of God — those who say so do not understand the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For the dog that followed Tobias on his journey signifies the preachers who follow the footsteps of Christ. See there the ordinary and interlinear gloss. Then, it is no small consolation to us, when we see the Apostle, who could contend in charity with the Seraphim, needing a little cloak on earth, and commanding that it be brought to him. Moreover that the Apostle recounted the charity which St. Luke had toward him is not out of place. But that he was solicitous for the salvation of Timothy, who does not see that he gave us an example, that we be merciful toward our neighbors, especially the ministers of God. On which place you have a singular whole homily of St. Chrysostom, which is the first of those which bear the title to the people of Antioch, which are had at the beginning of volume 5. Where Chrysostom also teaches with how great learning Sacred Scripture is full even in the least things.

To the second argument we have already said in the first conclusion how necessary the assistance of the Holy Spirit was even for infallibly narrating the things which the sacred writers themselves saw and heard.

To the confirmation it is answered that the Holy Spirit sometimes assumed as ministers of the Gospel those who had conversed with Christ, that they might be witnesses of the mysteries of Christ in all ways, so that his Gospel might be judged credible by men even in a human manner. Whence also Peter, as is related in ch. 1 of the Acts, says: Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. It is necessary, he says, not because a chief testimony had to be rendered for this reason, that the Apostles had conversed with Christ, but that their testimony might also avail and be firm among men in a human manner. Yet there was another testimony more certain and firm in their heart, by whose power they both preached and wrote, and to which testimony we must attend more. For so Peter teaches in the 2nd canonical epistle, ch. 1, when he says: For we have heard this voice brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount; and we have the more firm prophetical word, whereunto you do well to attend. And after a few words: For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit. To the aforesaid end therefore Luke could say: Even as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. Yet Luke wrote certain things which the Apostles did not see, such as the angelic annunciation, and the virginal birth in so lowly a place, and the angels singing, glory in the highest, and many other things which pertain to the infancy of Christ, which he could not learn except from the Holy Spirit and perhaps from the mother of God herself narrating. But whether Luke or Mark wrote things narrated by others, nevertheless the Holy Spirit impelled them to write the things narrated, and the same Spirit assisted them that they might not forget in narrating those things: nay, as seems more probable and safer, he taught them those narrated things by a higher light, and dictated to them the individual words with which they were to be written.

To the third argument it is answered that, since God disposes all things sweetly, he so illuminated the mind of each sacred writer, and dictated to him the words which most became their state and condition. Just as a musician by the breath of his mouth sounds one way on the pipe, another way on the trumpet, and on other instruments. So also God of old spoke in the Prophets in many ways and in many manners. And it is said in Isai. 11: God is assimilated into the hands of the Prophets. Because each Prophet used such similitudes as were at hand for him, and as it were in his hand, according to his own condition.

To the fourth the consequence is denied. Because although the Evangelists and Prophets spoke by the same Spirit, it pertained to the gravity of God speaking that they not always repeat the same thing in exactly the same words. Nay, from this very thing it is gathered that the sacred writers did not speak by their own spirit. Because they would not have dared to change a single word.

Secondly it is answered that those testimonies which the Evangelists cite from the Old Testament are so had in the edition of the Seventy interpreters, which edition the Apostles and Evangelists almost always used not without a mystery. But what satisfies me more is this, that the Author of the Scriptures himself, to whom the sense of the Scriptures is most known, uttered the same things in different words. Which we find to be done everywhere through the four Evangelists with so great a difference of words that sometimes the works of the holy Fathers were necessary for understanding their harmony.

To the fifth it is answered that Paul called the Lord's in that place either a precept or a counsel, what Christ the Lord by his own mouth either commanded in the Gospel or counselled. But Paul esteemed his own counsel to be the counsel of the Holy Spirit, when he said: But I think that I have the spirit of God.

To the confirmation master Cano answers, lib. 2 de locis, ch. 8, to the second argument, distinguishing: the things which the sacred authors wrote are of two kinds. Some which they knew by supernatural revelation alone, and these Basil says to be from the Holy Spirit: but others they held by natural knowledge, namely which they had either seen with their eyes or, so to speak, handled with their hands, and these, in order to be written, did not need supernatural light and express revelation, but only the presence of the Holy Spirit, that they be written without any error; and these are what Basil says that Paul and the Prophets speak of their own. But Origen did not persist in that opinion. Ambrose, however, on the first epistle to the Cor., ch. 7, agrees with our explanation in ch. 35 of his commentaries.

It is answered secondly that it seems to me more probable that also those very things which the sacred writers had seen and handled, being illuminated again by a higher light by the Holy Spirit, they understood, and received from him the words with which they were to write. Therefore I understand St. Basil otherwise. For he intended to confirm from the Sacred Letters that the Holy Spirit is God, and this he proves. Because where the Holy Spirit is introduced in the sacred letters as speaking in his own person, his speech is never set in opposition, according to the form of the words, to the speech of God, as if he were not God. But when the Prophets and the sacred writers speak of themselves, and as it were in their own person — even though this very thing which they speak, they speak with the Spirit of God helping — nevertheless the things which they say cannot be verified as though God himself spoke those very things of himself. And to this point he brought the saying of Jeremiah, ch. 12: Thou indeed, O Lord, art just, if I plead with thee, but yet I will speak to thee what is just. Why doth the way of the wicked prosper? etc. Which words, although the Prophet speaks with God expressly commanding and illuminating, nevertheless cannot be said in the person of God or of the Holy Spirit. But sometimes they so speak as if God himself were introduced speaking in his own person. But if you have read Basil attentively in the aforesaid place, perhaps this solution of ours will not displease you.

But neither does the former one displease me. To the last argument some answer that the authority of the Church is so great that it has even changed certain things of the Sacred Scriptures. As, for example, they bring forward that of Acts 15, where the Apostles ordained that the Gentiles converted to the Gospel abstain from things strangled and from blood, and similarly that baptism be conferred in the name of Christ, and that Christ conferred the Eucharist after supper, but the Church only on the fasting; Christ also conferred the Eucharist under both kinds, but the Church to the laity under one only. But a response of this sort is slippery and gives occasion to error.

It is answered therefore better and more safely that the precepts which are had in Scripture are some of them temporal, which are conveniently commanded according to the circumstances of place and time; and such was the decree of the Apostles concerning abstinence and things strangled. Because eating of this sort was a horror to the Jews, with whom the Gentiles had to converse. But when a cause of this sort ceased, the Church, knowing and prudent, could dissemble or abolish an observance of this sort. But there are other precepts, either natural or also supernatural, which do not regard the circumstances of time or place, so that they be obligatory and valid, but carry with them a necessity and an end of the matter; such as is that of Matth. 28: Baptize all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and that of Jn. 3: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, etc. And these can in no way be changed by the authority of the Church. Or let us say otherwise: that some precepts the Apostles established prudently as ordinary prelates of the Church according to the circumstance of the times. But others, already instituted by Christ, they published. Precepts of the former kind can be changed by the same ordinary and Apostolic authority which remains in the Church. But precepts of the second kind the Church neither changes nor can change. And accordingly we say that it is not fitting for a bigamist to become a bishop — a precept of the former kind. But it is dispensable for a legitimate cause. Let what has been said so far on this doubt suffice. To another, which is no less difficult, let us come on with the Lord's help.