Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/77

 INSPIRATION

47

INSPIRATION

(c) The influence of the Holy Ghost had to extend also toall the executive faculties of the sacred writer — to his memory, his imagination, and even to the hand with which he formed the letters. Whether this in- fluence proceed immediately from the action of the Inspirer or be a simple assistance, and, again, whether this assistance be positive or merely negative, in any case everyone admits that its object is to remove ail error from the inspired text. Those who hold that even the words are inspired believe that it also forms an integral part of the grace of inspiration itself. However that may be, there is no denying that the inspiration extends, in one way or another, and as far as needful, to all those who have really co- operated in the composition of the sacred text, especially to the secretaries, if the inspired person had any. Seen in this light, the hagiographer no longer appears a passive and inert instrument, abased, as it were, by an exterior impulsion; on the contrary, his faculties are elevated to the service of a superior power, which, although distinct, is none the less in- timately present and interior. Without losing any- thing of his personal life, or of his liberty, or even of his spontaneity (.since it may happen that he is not conscious of the power which leads him on), man becomes thus the interpreter of God. Such, then, is the most comprehensive notion of Divine inspira- tion. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. clxxi) reduces it to the grace of prophecy, in the broad sense of the word.

(3) Considered in its term, inspiration is nothing else but the Biblical text itself. This text was des- tined by God, Who inspired it, for the universal Church, in order that it might be authentically recog- nized as His written word. This destination is essen- tial. Without it a book, even if it had been inspired by God, could not become canonical; it would have no more value than a private revelation. That is why any writing dated from a later period than the Apostolical age is condemned ipso facto to be excluded from the canon. The reason of this is that the deposit of the public revelation was complete in the time of the Apostles. They alone had the mission to give to the teaching of Christ the development which was to be opportimely suggested to them by the Para- clete, John, xiv, 26 (see Franzelin, "De divina Tra- ditione et Scriptura" (Rome, 1870), thesis xxii). Since the Bible is the Word of God, it can be said that every canonical text is for us a Divine lesson, a revelation, even though it may have been written with the aid of inspiration only, and without a reve- lation properly so called. For this cause, al.so, it is clear that an inspired text cannot err. That the Biljle is free from error is, beyond all doubt, the teaching of Tradition. The whole of Scriptural apologetics consists precisely in accounting for this exceptional prerogative. Exegetes and apologists have recourse here to considerations which may be reduced to the following heads: (a) the original un- changed text, as it left the pen of the sacred writers, is alone in question, (b) As truth and error are properties of judgment, only the assertions of the sacred writer have to be dealt with. If he makes any affirmation, it is the exegete's duty to discover its meaning and its extent; whether he expresses his own views or those of others; whether in quoting another he approves, disapproves, or keeps a silent reserve, etc. (c) The intention of the writer is to be found out according to the laws of the language in which he writes, and consequently we must take into accoimt the style of literature he wished to use. All styles are compatible with inspiration, because they are all legitimate expressions of human thought, and also, as St. Augustine says (De Trinitate, I, 12), "God, getting books written by men, did not wish them to be composed in a form differing from that u.sed by them". Therefore, a distinction is to be made be- tween the assertion and the expression; it is by means

of the latter that we arrive at the former, (d) These general principles are to be applied to the different books of the Bible, mutatis mutandis, according to the nature of the matter contained in them, the special purpose for which their author wrote them, the traditional explanation which is given of them, and also according to the decisions of the Church.

C. Erroneous Views Proposed by Catholic Authors. — (1) Those which are wrong because insufficient, (a) The approbation given by the Church to a merely human writing cannot, by itself, make it inspired Scripture. The contrary opinion hazarded by Sixtus of Siena (1566), renewed by Movers and Haneberg, in the nineteenth century, was condemned by the Vatican Council. (See Denz., 1787.) (b) Biblical inspiration, even where it seems to be at its mini- mum — e. g., in the historical books — is not a simple assistance given to the inspired writer to prevent him from erring, as was thought by Jahn (179.3), who followed Holden and perhaps Richard Simon. In order that a text may be Scripture, it is not enough "that it contain revelation without error" (Cone. Vatic, Denz., 1787). (c) A book composed from merely human resources would not become an in- spired text, even if approved of, afterwards, by the Holy Ghost. This subsequent approbation might make the truth contained in the book as credible as if it were an article of Divine Faith, but it would not give a Divine origin to the book itself. Every in- spiration properly so called is antecedent, so much so that it is a contradiction in terms to speak of a sub- sequent inspiration. This truth seems to have been lost sight of by those moderns who thought they could revive — at the same time making it still less acceptable — a vague hypothesis of Lessius (1585) and of his disciple Bonfrere. (2) A view which errs by excess confounds inspiration with revelation. We have just said that these two Divine operations are not only distinct, but may take place separately, although they may also be found together. As a matter of fact, this is what happens whenever God moves the sacred writer to express thoughts or senti- ments of which he cannot have acquired knowledge in the ordinary way. There has been some exagger- ation in the accusation brought against early writers of having confounded inspiration with revelation ; how- ever, it must be admitted that the explicit distinction between these two graces has become more and more emphasized since the time of St. Thomas. This is a very real progress and allows us to make a more exact psychological analysis of inspiration.

III. Extent of Inspiration. — The question now is not whether all the Biblical books are inspired in every part, even in the fragments called deutero- canonical: this point, which concerns the integrity of the Canon, has been solved by the Council of Trent (Denz., 784). But are we bound to admit that, in the books or parts of books which are canonical, there is absolutely nothing, either as regards the matter or the form, which does not fall under the Divine inspi- ration?

A. Inspiration of the Whole Subject Matter. — For the last three centuries there have been authors — theologians, exegetes, and especially apologists, such as Holden, Rohling, Lenormant, di Bartolo, and others — who maintained, with more or less confi- dence, that inspiration was limited to moral and dog- matic teaching, excluding everything in the Bible relating to history and the natural sciences. They tliink that, in this way, a whole mass of difficulties against the inerrancy of the Bible would be removed. But the Church has never ceased to protest against this attempt to restrict the inspiration of the sacred books. This is what took place when Mgr d'Hulst, Rector of the Institut Catholique of Paris, gave a sympathetic account of this opinion in "LeCorres- pondant" of 25 Jan., 189.3. The reply was quickly