Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

: Holy Scripture is the word of God written.

Understand τὸ Dei not in the manner of a pure genitive, as when one says liber Petri, but in the manner of a genitive of the causing agent, as when one says lex Caesaris. And so τὸ verbum Dei, in this definition, is the genus in which holy Scripture agrees with traditions; by this particle, scriptum, however, it differs from them. For although traditions can be committed to writing, whether by the Fathers, or by councils, or by Pontiffs, they are nevertheless not the word of God written by God himself. Similarly, if God should approve some book, though it would be of infallible authority, it would not therefore be the word of God written, nor holy Scripture.

I say 2°: Holy Scripture exists.

Proof. 1° from the authority of the Church, which we shall prove below to be infallible.

2° That Scripture is truly divine : 1° which foretold many future things long beforehand just as they were afterwards fulfilled in reality and exactly; 2° which was announced and propagated throughout the whole world in a marvelous and stupendous manner by poor, rude and unlettered men, although it contains much above reason and contrary to the senses; 3° which has been confirmed by almost countless miracles; 4° which has been sealed and defended by the blood of innumerable martyrs shed; 5° which so many peoples, so many nations have received, though nature rebelled, though princes, magistrates and philosophers contradicted; 6° finally, which is so pure and holy that it forbids nothing but evil, commands nothing but good. Now such is the Scripture which we call sacred and divine. On this see what I said more at length concerning the motives of credibility of our faith. Therefore.

3° God must needs be worshipped by men as the author of nature and grace. But man does not know in what manner, with what rite God wishes to be worshipped, unless God himself manifest it. God therefore manifested this to men. But how did he manifest it ? Either through a private spirit, or through holy men, Prophets and Apostles delegated by him. Not through a private spirit, because this is not certain, but various and often self-contradictory, persuading one thing to one man, the opposite to another, as appears in heretics, who are led by it. Therefore through holy men delegated by him, Prophets and Apostles, who committed to writing the truths revealed to them by God and transmitted them to us.

You will ask whether the individual words of Scripture were dictated by the Holy Ghost ?

I answer. More probably, affirmatively.

1° Because holy Scripture is the scripture of God, that is, the word

of God written by God, as we said in the preceding article. Now, if God dictated only the senses and sentiments, and not the very words, to the writer whom he uses as it were as a pen, it could not be called the scripture of God, or the word written by God, namely in the manner in which he writes; but it would be the scripture of man, and a word written by man, as is plain. Therefore.

It is confirmed 1°. The sense and sentiments of the definitions which general councils issue are dictated and inspired by God, according to that saying of the Apostles in the first council, Act., XV, 28 : It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost. Yet they are not holy Scripture, since plainly the words are not dictated by the Holy Ghost, but left to the judgment of men. Therefore.

It is confirmed 2°. A letter whose sense and sentiments a king had dictated, but which he had not written out himself, could indeed be called the letter and mandate of the king, that is, written in the name and by the command of the king, but it would not be the king's own writing, nor a word written by the king. Therefore likewise, although God inspire the sense and sentiments of some book, yet if he do not himself write it, at least in the manner in which he writes, dictating the words to the man whom he uses as it were as a pen, that book can be called a mandate, or even, if you will, a letter of God, that is, written in the name of God, but it will not be the scripture of God, nor a word written by God.

[The opinion professed by our Billuart, although it can be freely defended, will perhaps appear more firmly established from what follows.

There must first be set forth the various opinions that have come forth concerning this question.

1° Some have judged — they are called the followers of the stricter inspiration — that not only the things and sentiments were inspired, but also the individual words and phrases, even the strokes of the letters ; so that the sacred books were written out with God dictating, and the sacred writers acquired nothing for themselves by their own industry, not even the historical and moral matters. To this opinion, which Billuart makes his own, the Academies of Louvain and Douai adhered in their censure against Lesseus.

2° The assertors of a freer inspiration require, first, a positive divine motion to write, and besides this the assistance of the Holy Spirit, whereby God suggests what is to be written or omitted, and directs and governs the writer even in the choice of words and the linking of periods, without however properly dictating the individual words.

3° Others, still looser, besides the motion and incitement to write, require only a negative assistance, placed precisely in this, that God so stand by the writers that they be rendered immune from any error however slight.

4° Here others do not stop, but contend that it suffices for inspiration that the Holy Spirit so breathe upon the writers that they at least take care to avoid the graver errors.

5° Still others, advancing yet further, affirm that, in order to make Scripture truly sacred, it suffices that the Holy Spirit attest that nothing false is contained in a given book, although the book may have been composed by human industry and without any divine breathing.

The last opinion must certainly be rejected. For such testimony of the Holy Spirit would indeed make us more certain that such a book is truthful, but it would not follow from this that it is truly divine. Thus, ad Tit., I, 3, the Holy Spirit testifies through Paul that a certain saying about the Cretans is true; but it is not therefore divine.¹

From the fourth opinion it would be allowable to assert that holy Scripture teems with certain errors, which indeed is altogether alien from the mind of the Catholic Church, and is condemned by Augustine, who writes in Epist. 82², n. 3, to Jerome : « I... have learned to pay this fear and honor to those books of Scripture alone which are now called canonical, that I most firmly believe that none of their authors ever erred in writing anything. » He repeats the same in n. 22, and in Epist. 28³ to the same, n. 3, and elsewhere.

Negative assistance offers us a notion of inspiration that is not sufficiently adequate, and it could also belong to the dogmatic definitions of councils or of supreme Pontiffs, which nevertheless it is not permitted to call inspired in that sense in which we name the sacred books inspired.

These looser opinions being rejected, one need not necessarily subscribe to the stricter opinion, which would have inspiration extend to the individual words. For : 1° This seems superfluous. Moreover the plan of divine providence, which never fails in things necessary, is not wont to abound in things superfluous. 2° A great variety of style shines forth in the different sacred books, and it would not be fitting to affirm that the Holy Spirit, without any necessity, accommodated his manner of speaking to the varied genius of each individual writer. Indeed, if it were true that the Holy Spirit dictated everything in such wise that the sacred writers held themselves merely passive in writing, a perfect uniformity of style would be necessary, in order that the same origin, namely divine inspiration, might be attributed to all the books.

Therefore entering upon the middle way, we embrace that notion of inspiration which Marchini held, de Divinitate et canonicitate sacr. biblior., part. I, art. 5, so that it must be called « that singular impulse, direction and presence of the Holy Spirit moving to write, governing the mind and heart of the writer, which does not suffer him to err, and makes him write what God wills. » From which notion it is plain that all those things are found in divine inspiration which, according to the common doctrine of theologians, are required and suffice to constitute it, namely 1° the excitation or impulse to write ; 2° the illumination of the mind and the motion of the will, so that not only does no error escape the sacred writer, but 3° there is found in him besides the choice of the things to be written, so that he omits nothing and adds nothing to those things which God willed to have written by him ; 4° a constant and singular assistance in bringing the work to completion. All these certainly suffice, and they leave nothing further to be wished.

In this sense are those passages of Scripture to be understood which are referred to divine inspiration, as Ps., XLIV, 2 : My tongue is the pen of a scribe that writeth swiftly. II Tim., III, 16 : All Scripture inspired of God is profitable, etc. And not rightly do the followers of the stricter opinion invoke these and similar words.

It is confirmed by the following words of the Council of Trent, sess. IV, Decree on the Canonical Scriptures : « Following the examples of the orthodox Fathers [the synod] receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament, since one God is the author of both, as also the traditions themselves, both those pertaining to faith and those pertaining to morals, as dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by continuous succession in the Catholic Church. » Where indeed the books of both Testaments are attributed to God as their author, but it is taught besides that the « traditions without writing » were dictated by the Holy Ghost. Moreover the traditions were not dictated word for word, but, breathed upon by the Holy Ghost, they were inspired and preserved as regards the sense alone, and nonetheless they are received as divine. Therefore the divine inspiration of the Scriptures requires nothing further in order that God be their author.

In this sense seems to be accepted what the Vatican Council teaches concerning the inspiration of the sacred books, where two looser opinions set forth above are especially reproved, constit. Dei Filius, chap. 2, de Revelatione: « But the Church holds those [books] as sacred and canonical, not because, fashioned by human industry alone, they were then approved by its authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church herself. » ]