Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae

IT IS DOUBTED fifth, whether the locutions which in Sacred Scripture are attributed to holy persons, or to Prophets, or to those stirred by the Holy Spirit — locutions, I say, of this sort — are to be admitted as Sacred Scripture?

To this it is answered that for the truth of Sacred Scripture it is enough that those things be true which the author himself, the Holy Spirit impelling, affirms. But the other persons who are introduced speaking have no greater firmness and authority in their words than the sacred writer gives them, or than the things themselves which are said by them have from elsewhere. This is proved. For Scripture sometimes introduces the wicked speaking, as Wis 2: «The impious said, thinking within themselves not rightly, etc.», and in Ps 13: «The fool said in his heart: there is no God». Whose words nevertheless are blasphemous lies. Further, Scripture introduces the friends of Job speaking many things indeed true, yet erring in the conclusion. For they intended to conclude that God does not afflict the just in this life. Their opinions, therefore, which are true, are true from elsewhere, and not because they are contained in the book of Job do they immediately have the authority of Sacred Scripture. But if at some time sayings of this sort are cited by the Saints, they will indeed have the authority which the Saints themselves give them, understanding the truth in them. Further, Scripture introduces Caiaphas saying: «It is expedient that one man die»; which words, as said by Caiaphas, would have had no authority, unless the Evangelist had added: «Since he was the high priest of that year, he prophesied, not knowing what he said». Further, Sacred Scripture introduces holy men and those full of the Holy Spirit speaking. As in Acts 6 and 7, Stephen is introduced, full of grace and of the Holy Spirit. And nevertheless in the discourse made to the Jews he seems to narrate certain things from the history of the Old Testament which do not agree in all things with Sacred Scripture. Which difficulty certain men intend to solve, saying that the sacred writer, who was Luke, only affirms that Stephen spoke such things, but does not assert that Stephen's words are true in all things. For Stephen could in those least matters have forgotten, or spoken according to the opinion of the common people: although in the principal intent of his doctrine he would not be deceived, as being full of the Holy Spirit. So Master Cano explains it in bk. 2 On the Places, last chapter, and says it is the opinion of Bede and Rabanus. But in truth an opinion of this sort has always seemed harsh to me. For since the sacred writer bears witness that Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, spoke such things, he seems to have confirmed that his discourse was from the Holy Spirit. Wherefore by other most learned men the consonance of the things said by St. Stephen with the history of the Old Testament is sought and brought forward.

Finally, advert that when the sacred writer himself introduces himself speaking at another time, as Paul does in Gal 2 — he introduces himself speaking to Peter and reproving him — it is to be considered attentively from the antecedent and subsequent circumstances whether those things which he says he said, or which appeared to him, he confirms by his writing. I would note this because certain men defending the cause of Peter, [saying] that he did not sin, not even venially, by withdrawing and separating himself from the Gentiles, when it is objected to them that Paul himself says that he was reprehensible and did not walk rightly toward the truth of the Gospel, answer that St. Paul affirmed words of this sort not as a sacred writer, but reported concerning himself that at another time he had so spoken and so thought.

But however it may be with the principal question, whether Peter sinned venially or not (for it pleases me more to excuse Peter from sin; on which matter, if you please, see what we have said in 2-2, q. 1, art. 7, near the end of the commentary), nevertheless in the present matter I will by no means concede that Paul, when he introduces himself speaking or reproving, sinned in any matter or was false. For if anyone attentively considers the sequence of the second chapter to the Galatians, he confirms everything as a sacred writer. For he approves what he said and what he did toward Peter, while he introduces all those things for the confirmation of the truth intended, namely that the legal observances were not to be kept together with the Gospel. But Paul would seem blasphemous if, to confirm the truth, he used his own error or a lie, and if in that discourse the Holy Spirit had not assisted him. And therefore it seems to me an intolerable error to assert that the things which Paul writes in that chapter that he said do not have the authority of Sacred Scripture.