Chapter III. The Relation of the Holy Ghost to the Letter of Scripture

The two divine truths which reign, and will reign for ever over the whole kingdom of faith and of theology, are the infallibility of the Church, and the inspiration of the Scripture; or, in other words, the relation of the Holy Spirit of God to the Word of God written and unwritten.

These two divine truths, when contemplated as doctrines — or rather these two divine facts, when contemplated in the supernatural order of grace — have had, like other dogmas, -their successive periods of simple affirmation and simple belief — incipient controversy and partial analysis — and will probably have their formal contradiction, their last analysis, and their final scientific definition.

The history of the infallibility of the Church and of the inspiration of Holy Scripture will then be written like as the history of the Immaculate Conception, which has now been closed by the dogmatic Bull of Pius IX.

It is far from my thoughts to pretend to give here the history of so great and delicate a doctrine as Inspiration, but it may not be unseasonable to trace a slight outline of a subject which has now fixed upon itself an anxious attention in our country at this time. The Protestant Keforrnation staked its existence upon the Bible; and as Protestants have extensively denied or undermined its inspiration, no other subject can be so vital to their religion, or more opportune for us.

The Church of England has lately been thrown into much excitement, and public opinion has been not a little scandalised, by the appearance of works denying in great part the inspiration of Holy Scripture. And yet there is nothing new in the rise of such errors. Error has its periodic times. What is passing now, has returned in every century, almost in every generation. It is not new to the Catholic Church to have to combat with the depravers of Holy Writ; for there has been a line and succession of gainsayers who have denied the Divine veracity and authenticity, either in whole or in part, of the written Word of God. Even in the lifetime of S. John, the Cerinthians rejected all the New Testament except the Grospel of S. Matthew and the Book of Acts. In the second century, the Carpocratians rejected the whole of the Old Testament; Marcion and Cerdon denounced it as the fabrication of an evil deity, and acknowledged only the Grospel of S. Luke and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. In the third century the Archontici rejected the Old Testament; the Apellitae, the Severiani, and the Eucharitae rejected most of the Old Testament and of the New. In the fourth, the Alogi, the Gnostics, and the Manichseans rejected the greater part both of the Jewish and of the Christian Scriptures. Faustus the Manichsean, and others, against whom S. Ambrose and S. Augustine wrote in the fourth and fifth centuries, accused the Old Testament of immorality, contradiction, and intrinsic incredibility, as others have done since. The Apocryphi received only the Prophets and Apostles. In the eighth century, the Albanenses, Bajolenses, Concordenses — names known only to students — repeated the errors of Marcion. Herman Eissuich, in the fifteenth century, rejected the whole of Scripture as imperfect and useless: David Georgius revived this impiety in the sixteenth cencentury. Luther and his followers rejected the Epistle of S. James, the Hebrews, the third of S. John, the second of S. Peter, and the Apocalypse.

The Libertini held all the Scriptures to be fables. The Ambrosians, claiming for themselves divine revelations, despised both the Old Testament and the New. This brings us to the seventeenth century, in which modern infidelity began to appear, and the Eationalistic criticism to arise. In the eighteenth and the present century there is no book of the Old or New Testament which has not been rejected by some among the Rationalistic or Neologian critics of Grermany. The author to whom the modern errors on the subject of Inspiration may be ascribed is Spinoza. He first reduced to a complete statement all the objections which can be brought against it. He was the father of the sceptical criticism which in the seventeenth century inundated Holland and Grermany, and found its way over into England. It is a remarkable fact that Schleiermacher, whose writings have extensively propagated the Rationalistic movement both in Grermany and in England, sacrificed a lock of his hair as a token of pious veneration on the grave of Spinoza.1 After Spinoza, Le Clerc, in 1685, published his letters entitled 'Sentimens de quelques Theologiens de Hollande,' which excited a great sensation, especially in England. They were a mere reflection of Spinoza.

1 Lee on Inspiration, App. C. p. 450. K

It is, therefore, no new thing in the history of the Church, nor, indeed, in the history of England since the Eeformation. From the Deistical writers down to Thomas Paine, there has never wanted a succession of critics and objectors who have assailed the extrinsic or intrinsic authority of Holy Scripture.

So far it is no new thing. But in one aspect, indeed, it is altogether new. It is new to find this form of scepticism put forth by writers of eminence for dignity and personal excellence, and mental cultivation, in the Church of England; by men, too, who still profess not only a faith in Christianity, but fidelity to the Anglican Church. Hitherto these forms of sceptical unbelief have worked outside the Church of England, and in hostility against it. Now they are within, and professing to be of it and to serve it. Unpalatable as the truth may be, it is certain that a Eationalistic school imported from Germany has established itself within the Church of England; that its writers are highly respectable and cultivated men, and that though they may be few, yet the influence of their opinions is already widely spread, and that a very general sympathy with them already extends itself among the laity of the Anglican Church. This is certainly a phenomenon altogether new.

Before entering upon the subject of this chapter, it would seem, therefore, to be seasonable to examine briefly the present state of the subject of Inspiration in the Church of England, and contrast with it the teaching of the Catholic Church upon this point.

And first, as to the doctrine of the Church of England on Inspiration, it is to be remembered that though the Canon of Scripture was altered by the Anglican Eeforrnation, the subject of Inspiration was hardly discussed. The traditional teaching of the Catholic Theology, with its various opinions, were therefore passively retained. The earlier writers, such as Hooker, repeat the traditional formulas respecting the inspiration and veracity of Holy Scripture. Hooker's words are, cHe (that is, God) so employed them (the Prophets) in this heavenly work, that they neither spake nor wrote a word of their own, but uttered syllable by syllable as the Spirit put it into their mouths.' l Such was more or less the tone of the chief Anglican writers for a century after the Eeforrnation.

Perhaps the best example of the Anglican teaching on the subject will be found in Whitby's general Preface to his < Paraphrase of the Grospels.' His opinion is as follows. He begins by adopting the

1 Works, vol. iii. p. 62. Ed. Keble. K 2 distinction of the Jewish Church between the e Prophets' and the 6 Chetubin,' or holy writers, and therefore between the ' inspiration of suggestion ' and the 6 inspiration of direction.' He then lays down —

1. First, that where there was no antecedent knowledge of the matter to be written, an inspiration of suggestion was vouchsafed to the Apostles; but that where such knowledge did antecedently exist, there was only an inspiration exciting them to write such matters, and directing them in the writing so as to preclude all error.

2. Secondly, that in writing those things which were not antecedently known to them, either by natural reason including education, or previous revelation — e. g. the Incarnation, the vocation of the Grentiles, the apostacy of the latter times, the prophecies of the Apocalypse, — they had an immediate suggestion of the Holy Spirit.

3. Thirdly, that in all other matters they were directed so as to preclude error, and to confirm the truth whether by illumination in the meaning of the previous revelation, or by reasoning.

4. Fourthly, that in the historical parts of the New Testament they were directed in all that is necessary to the truth of the facts related, but not as to the order or accessories of such events, unless these things affected the truth of the facts.

5. Fifthly, that in relating the words or discourses of our Lord and of others, they were directed so as to preclude all error as to the substance, but not so as to reproduce the words.

6. Lastly, that the inspiration or divine assistance of the sacred writers was such as (will assure us of the truth of what they write, whether by inspiration of suggestion, or direction only; but not such as would imply that their very words were dictated, or their phrases suggested to them, by the Holy Ghost.' l

In Bishop Burnet may be seen a somewhat less explicit tone. He says, ' The laying down a scheme that asserts an immediate inspiration, which goes to the style, and to every tittle, and that denies any error to have crept into any of the copies, as it seems on the one hand to raise the honour of Scripture very highly, so it lies open on the other hand to great difficulties, which seem insuperable on that hypothesis.' 2

Such was the current teaching of the most respectable class of Anglican divines, men of true learning

1 Whitby's Paraphrase, Gen. Pref. p. 5-7. Ed. London, 1844.

2 Burnet, Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 117. Ed. Oxford.

and of sound judgment, in the best century of the Church of England. But I need quote no more. Let us now examine one or two of the modern opinions on the same subject.

A member of the University of Oxford writes as follows: — ' The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High.' l A member of Trinity College, Dublin, writes as follows: — ' The opinion that the subject-matter alone of the Bible proceeded from the Holy Spirit, while its language was left to the unaided choice of the various writers, amounts to that fantastic notion which is the grand fallacy of many theories of Inspiration; namely, that two different spiritual agencies were in operation, one of which produced the phraseology in its outward form, while the other created within the soul the conceptions and thoughts of which such phraseology was the expression. The Holy Spirit, on the contrary, as the productive principle, embraces the entire activity of those whom He inspires, rendering their language the Word of God. The entire substance

1 Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation of Holy Scripture, p. 89, quoted by Dr. Colenso, part i. p. 6.

and form of Scripture, whether resulting from revelation or natural knowledge, are thus blended together into one harmonious whole.' l Once more. Dr. Arnold writes as follows: — cAn inspired work is supposed to mean a work to which God has communicated His own perfections; so that the slightest error or defect of any kind in it is inconceivable, and that which is other than perfect in all points cannot be inspired. This is the unwarrantable interpretation of the word Inspiration.... Surely many of our words and many of our actions are spoken and done by the inspiration of God's Spirit.... Yet does the Holy Spirit so inspire us as to communicate to us His own perfections? Are our best works or words utterly free from error or from sin?'2 Mr. Jowett, in his well-known Essay on the 'Interpretation of Scripture,' after reciting the commonly-received theories of Inspiration, proceeds as follows: — c Nor for any of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration is there any foundation in the Gospels or Epistles. There is no appearance in their writings that the Evangelists or Apostles had any inward gift, or were subject to any power external to them different from that of preaching or

1 Lee on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture, pp. 32, 33.

2 Arnold's Sermons, quoted by Stanley, The Bible, its Form, and its Substance, Preface, vii. viii. ix.

teaching which they daily exercised; nor do they anywhere lead us to suppose that they were free from error or infirmity.... The nature of Inspiration can only be known from the examination of Scripture. There is no other source to which we can turn for information; and we have no right to assume some imaginary doctrine of Inspiration like the infallibility of the Eoman Catholic Church. To the question What is Inspiration? the first answer therefore is, That idea of Scripture which we gather from the knowledge of it.' l Dr. Williams says, ' In the Bible, as an expression of devout reason, and therefore to be read with reason in freedom, he [Bunsen] finds a record of the spiritual giants whose experience generated the religious atmosphere we breathe.'

I do not undertake to do more than recite these opinions of clergymen of the Church of England. It is not for us to say what is the authoritative doctrine of that body; but it has been recently declared by the highest Ecclesiastical tribunal, that the views of Inspiration last given are not inconsistent with the Anglican formularies. Dr. Lushington expressed himself as follows:— f As to the liberty of the Anglican clergy to examine and determine the text of Scrip- 1 Essays and Reviews, pp. 345, 347.

ture, I exceedingly... doubt if this liberty can be extended beyond the limits I have mentioned, namely, certain verses or parts of Scripture. I think it could not be permitted to a clergyman to reject the whole of one of the books of Scripture.' l

It is evident from the above quotations that the theory of Inspiration among many prominent men in the Anglican Church has been moving in the direction of the Grerman Neology.

Let us now turn to the Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church has expressed itself authoritatively on the subject of Holy Scripture and its Divine character in the following points: —

1. That the writings of the Prophets and Apostles are Holy Scripture; or in other words, that certain sacred books exist in its custody in which the 'veritas et disciplina' of Christ is partly contained; ' perspiciens hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus.' 2

2. That God is the Author of these sacred books. It declares both the books and the traditions to be given to the Church, 'Spiritu Sancto dictante,' by God Himself, and that He is the Author of all such books and traditions, both of the Old and of the

1 Judgment— Bishop of Salisbury versus Williams, p. 16.

2 Condi. Trid. sess. iv.

New Testament: 'omnes libros tamVeteris quam Novi Testament! quum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor.' l

3. That the sacred books are so many in number, and are such by name; that is, the catalogue or canon of the Old and New Testament. The canon declared by the Council of Trent is that of the Council of Florence in the fourteenth century, of Constantinople in the sixth, of Carthage in the fourth, and of the Pontifical declarations of S. Innocent and S. Grelasius.

4. That these books in their integrity, and with all their parts (libros integros cum omnibus suis partibus,' are to be held as sacred and canonical; that is, to be inspired, and to have God for their Author, which excludes the supposition that any part of such books is merely of human authorship, and therefore that falsehood or error can be found in them. This declaration, though made explicitly of the Latin version called the Vulgate, applies afortiori to the Holy Scriptures objective sumptse. It is made also under anathema.

5. That the Latin version called the Vulgate is authentic, ' pro authentica habeatur.' 2

These five points are, I believe, all that the Catholic Church has authoritatively declared. To

1 Condi. Trid. sess. iv. 2 Ibid.

these every Catholic yields assent. But beyond these nothing is of obligation. And whatsoever I may add belongs to the region, not of faith, but of theology, not of the Councils and Pontiffs, but of the Schools.

And first we will begin with the period of simple faith.

The Catholic Church, in inheriting the canon of the Hebrew and of the Hellenistic books from the synagogue, inherited with them the belief of inspiration current among the Jews, by whom the operations of the Divine Spirit were believed to extend to the whole substance and form, the sense and the letter, of Holy Scripture.

Such was evidently the belief of the early Christian writers. The writings of the Fathers both of the East and West show that they extended the inspiration of the Holy Grhost to the whole of Scripture, both to its substance and to its form; so that it is altogether pervaded by the mind, voice, and authority of God.

For instance, S. Irenaeus says, 'The Scriptures are perfect, being dictated by the Word of God and by His Spirit.' ]

1 Contra Hcer. lib. ii. c. 47.

S. Macarius says, (God the King sent the Holy Scriptures as His epistles to men.' l

S. John Chrysostom says, f What things the Scriptures promulgate, the Lord promulgated.' 2 Again, 6 All that is in Scripture we must thoroughly examine; for all are dictated by the Holy Grhost, and nothing is written in them in vain.' 3 Again, (The mouth of the Prophet is the mouth of God.' 4 Again, 6 The Divine Scripture declares nothing vaguely or without intention, but every syllable and every point has some mystery hidden in it.' 5 Not an iota, not a point, in Scripture is there in vain.6 Again, 6 Nothing in the Divine Scriptures is superfluous, for they are dictated by the Holy Grhost.' These might be extended to any length. S. Basil says, 'Let therefore the Scriptures, which are inspired of God, decide for us.'7 S. Grregory of Nazianzum says, f But we who extend the diligence (i. e. the operation) of the Spirit even to every, the least point and line (of the Scriptures) will never grant, for it is not right we should, that even the least actions by them commemorated were written without intention.'8 S.

1 Horn. XXXIX. p. 476. 2 Horn. De Lazaro, torn. i. p. 755.

3 Horn. XXXVI. in 8. Joan. * Horn. XIX. in Acta App. 5 Horn. XVIII. in Genesim. 6 Horn. XXI. et XLIL in Gen.

7 Epist. ad Eustathium.

8 Oratio Secunda, sect. cv. torn. i. p. 60.

Gregory Nyssen says, * Whatever the Sacred Scriptures declare are the utterances of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, the holy Prophets filled by God are inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost, and the whole of Scripture is therefore said to be divinely inspired.' l I will only add one more. S. John Damascene says, 6 The Law, Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles, Pastors and Doctors, spoke by the Holy Ghost; so that the whole Scripture inspired by God without doubt is useful.' 2

For the Latin Fathers, passages might be indefinitely multiplied. The following will suffice. S. Augustine says of the Scripture, ' In it God Himself speaks.'3 * Holy Scripture is the handwriting of God,' 4 * the adorable style and pen of the Spirit of God.'5 'The faith wavers if the authority of the Divine Scriptures is shaken.' 6 ' They are labouring to destroy the authority of the Holy Scripture, who ascribe to it any falsehood.' 7 e In Scripture there is no place for either emendation or doubt.' 8

1 Orat. VI. cont. Eunom. torn. ii. p. 605.

2 De Fide Orthod. lib. iv. c. 17.

S. Aug. Confess, lib. xiii. cap. 44, torn. i. p. 241. S. Aug. Enarrat. in Ps. cxliv. cap. 17, torn. iv. p. 1620. S. Aug. Confess, lib. vii. cap. 27, torn. i. p. 143. S. Aug. De Doct. Christ, lib. i. cap. 41, torn. iii. p. 18. S. Aug. De Sanct. Virg. cap. 17, torn. vi. p. 348. 8 S. Aug. contr. Faust, lib. xi. capp. iv. and v. torn. viii. pp. 221, 222.

S. Gregory the Great says, ' The Author of the book is the Holy Ghost. He therefore wrote these things who dictated them to be written. He Himself wrote who inspired them in the act of writing.1 Whatsoever the Fathers declare in the sacred oracles, they declare not from themselves, but they received them from God.' 2

S. Ambrose, speaking of the sacred authors, says, 6 They wrote not by art, but by grace. For they wrote those things which the Spirit gave them to speak.' 3

Such are the statements of three of the four great doctors of the Church.

It is clear that these Fathers had no thought of error or uncertainty in the sacred text, but extended the dictation of the Holy Spirit to the whole extent of the books of the Old and New Testament as simply the Word of God. They may be taken to represent the mind of the whole Church in the ages which went before the period of controversy as to the nature of Inspiration.

The next period of the subject is that of analysis as to the nature and limits of Inspiration. But as I

1 S. Greg. MOT. in Job, praef. cap. i. sect. 2, torn. i. p. 7-

2 S. Greg. Lib. iii. in prim. Beg. cap. i. sect. 8, torn. iii. pars. 2, p. 115.

3 S. Amb. Epp. class, i. epist. viii. sect. i. torn. iii. p. 817.

am not pretending to write its history, all I will attempt is to state the two opinions which exist among Catholic theologians since the Council of Trent.

1. The first is that of the older writers, who maintain that every particle and word of the Canonical books was written by the dictation of the Holy Spirit.

Such, as I have shown, was certainly the language — I will not say the opinion — of most of the Fathers both of the East and of the West. They spoke of the New Testament much as the Elder Church spoke of the Old. I say the language — not the opinion — because it is evident that they were occupied with the sole intention of affirming the Canonical books to be the Word of God, without entering analytically into the questions which a later criticism forced upon the Scholastic theologians.

This opinion is stated by Habert in the Prolegomena to his Theology as follows: ' Tostatus on Numbers, chap, xi., Estius on 2 Timothy, chap, iii., and many theologians of weight, affirm that every word was inspired and dictated by the Holy Spirit, so that the composition and style of the language is to be ascribed to Him.' l

The Faculties of Louvain and Douai censure the 1 Habert, Proleg. in Theol. pp. 41, 42.

opposite opinion as a departure from orthodoxy. So in their censure they declare, c It is an intolerable and great blasphemy, if any shall affirm that any otiose word can be found in Scripture. All the words of Scripture are so many sacraments (or mys-teries). Every phrase, syllable, tittle, and point is full of a divine sense, as Christ says in S. Matthew, " a jot or a tittle shall not pass from the law." ' They go on to quote S. John Chrysostom, S. Augustine, S. Bernard, and the Fathers generally.

Melchior Canus is supposed to be of this opinion.1 In his second book De Locis TheoL, after stating and refuting the opinions (of those who thought that the sacred writers in the Canonical books did not always speak by the Divine Spirit,' he establishes the following proposition: that c every particle of the Canonical books was written by the assistance of the Holy Spirit.' He says, 'I admit that the sacred writers had no need of a proper and express revelation in writing every particle of the Scripture; but that every part of the Scripture was written by a peculiar instinct and impulse of the Holy Grhost, I truly and rightly contend.' After saying that some things were known to them by supernatural revelation, and others by 1 Melchior Canus, Loc. TheoL lib. ii. cap. xvii.

natural knowledge, he adds, (that they did not need a supernatural light and express revelation to write these latter truths, but they needed the presence and peculiar help of the Holy Ghost, that these things, though they were human truths, and known by natural reason, should nevertheless be written divinely and without any error.'

The same is also the teaching of Banez, and of the Dominican theologians generally.

2. The other opinion, which is that of Bellarmine, — and I believe I may say, of the Jesuit theologians, and of a majority of the more recent writers on Inspiration,— is, that the whole matter of Holy Scripture was written by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, but not the whole form dictated by Him; or, in other words, cres et sententias' — the sense and substance; 4 non verba et apices' — not every particular word or letter.

But, before we enter into the detail of this question, it may be well to give, in a few words, the history of a controversy which, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, promoted the analysis of the subject, and left it in its present form. It may be said to have arisen out of the excesses of the Lutheran Reformation.

The account given by Mosheim of the opinions of L

Luther and of the Lutherans is as follows. He says that Luther taught that the matter of the Holy Scripture— that is, the truths contained in it — are from the Holy Grhost; but the form — that is, the style, words, phrases, and construction — are from the writer. When Catholic theologians replied that this opened the way for error into the sacred text, certain followers of Luther went into the other extreme, and taught, as the younger Buxtorf,1 that the Hebrew vowel-points and accents are inspired.

It appears also that Erasmus expressed himself at one time with very little caution. In his commentary on the 2nd chapter of S. Matthew, he said, * Sive quod ipsi Evangelists testimonia hujusmodi non e libris deprompserimt; sed memoriae fidentes, ita ut lapsi sint.' ' Whether it be that the Evangelists did not draw their narratives from records, but trusted to their memory, and so fell into error.' Eckius wrote to him, 'Audi, mi Erasme, arbitrarisne Christianum patienter laturum Evangelistas in Evangeliis lapsos? Si hie vacillat S. Scripturse auctoritas, quae pars alia sine suspicione erit?'2 Erasmus was attacked by the Salmanticenses and other Spanish

1 Lee on Inspiration, Appendix C. p. 436.

2 Lee on Inspiration, Appendix C. p. 437. Erasmi Opp. ep. 303, torn. iii. 296.

theologians. He afterwards explains himself, though not very firmly or frankly, but the objectionable words were erased from the next edition of his Commentary.

The next discussion on the subject of Inspiration, among Catholic theologians, arose during the Jansenist Controversy. In 1586, Lessius and Hamel, in their lectures at Louvain, taught the following propositions: —

1. ' Ut aliquid sit Scriptura Sacra, non est necessarium, singula ejus verba inspirata esse a Spiritu Sancto.' ' That a book be Holy Scripture, it is not necessary that every word of it be inspired by the Holy Ghost,'

2. f Non est necessarium ut singulse veritates et sentential sint immediate a Spiritu Sancto ipsi Scriptori inspiratae.' (It is not necessary that every truth or sentence be immediately inspired into the writer by the Holy Grhost.'

3. f Liber aliquis (qualis forte est secundus Machabseorum) humana industria sine assistentia Spiritus Sancti scriptus, si Spiritus Sanctus postea testetur nihil ibi esse falsum, efficitur Scriptura Sacra.' l ' A book (such as perhaps the 2nd of Maccabees), written by human industry, without the assistance of the

1 See Theol. Wirceburg. torn. i. p. 23. L 2

Holy G-host — if the Holy Spirit afterwards testify that nothing false is contained in it — becomes Holy Scripture.'

These propositions were at once assailed. The Archbishops of Cambrai and Mechlin sent them to the Faculties of Douai and Lou vain.1 They were condemned by both. The third was especially censured. Estius, who drew up the censure, in his 'Commentary on the Epistles ' gives his own opinion as follows: * From this passage it is rightly and truly established, that all the sacred and canonical Scripture is written by the dictation of the Holy Ghost; so that not only the sense, but every word, and the order of the words, and the whole arrangement, is from God, as if He were speaking or writing in person. For this is the meaning of the Scripture being divinely inspired.' 2

Lessius and Hamel appealed to the Sorbonne. The Faculty of Paris did not approve either of the Jesuit propositions, nor of the censures of Louvain and Douai. The Faculties of Mayence, Treves, Ingoldstadt, and Rome disapproved the censures; but Sixtus V. imposed silence until the Holy See should pronounce. The subject has never been decided. The censures are given by D'Argentre, in his e Col-

1 See Theol. Wirceburg. torn. i. p. 23.

2 Estii Comment, in Ep. 2 ad Timoth. cap. iii. 16.

lectio Judiciorum de novis Erroribus,' and the Jesuit propositions are defended by P. Simon, in his ' Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament.' l

About fifty years after, that is in A.D. 1650, Holden published his ' Divinae Fidei Analysis,' in which he maintained a theory of inspiration which is certainly open to some, if not to all the censures which were directed against it. I hope, however, that his orthodoxy may be maintained, though somewhat at the expense of his coherence.

The passage which caused the censure of P. Simon is to be found in the fifth chapter of the first book, and is as follows: — ' Auxilium speciale divinum prsestitum auctori cujuslibet script!, quod pro verbo Dei recipit Ecclesia, ad ea solummodo se porrigit, quse vel sint pure doctrinalia, vel proximum aliquem, aut necessarium habeant ad doctrinalia respectum: in iis vero quse non sunt de institute Scriptoris vel ad alia referuntur, eo tantum subsidio Deum illi adfuisse judicamus, quod piissimis cseteris auctoribus commune sit.' 2

This, at first sight at least, would seem to imply that in all matters not of faith or morals the inspired writers were liable to err like any other pious men. Nevertheless, in three places Holden affirms that the

1 Simon, Histoire, &c., ch. xxiii.

2 Divines Fidei Analysis, lib. i. c. v. p. 48.

books of Scripture are absolutely free from all error. In the first section of the same chapter he defines the Scripture as a document containing truth, and nothing ' a veritate quacunque dissonam vel alienam.' In the third he says, f Quamvis enim nullam complectatur Scriptura falsitatem.' In the third chapter of the second book he says, (Quamvis falsitatis arguere non licet quicquid habetur in Sacro Codice, veruntamen quae ad religionem non spectant, Catholicae Fidei articulos nullatenus astruunt.' It is evident, then, that he denied the presence of anything false or erroneous in Holy Scripture; that if he limited the infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit to matters of faith and morals, he supposed that the whole of the sacred text was written by such assistance as, in fact, excluded all error; or, in other words, that if the sacred writers in other matters might have erred, they never did.

I notice this because it is well to show how little the name of Holden may be quoted by those who, at this day, maintain that the inspired writers, in matters not of faith and morals, did err; and because even the writer in Bergier's Dictionary seems so to represent him, aod, I regret to add, Pere Matignon.1

We have now before us the main lines of opinion

1 La Liberte de Vesprit humain dans la Foi Catholique, p. 187.

which have existed among Catholic divines on the subject of Inspiration. They have never been much modified to this day. The one affirms the inspiration both of the matter and the form of Holy Scripture; the other, of the matter only, except so far as the doctrine of faith and morals, all error of every kind being excluded by a special and infallible assistance. To these two opinions some would add that of Holden as a third; namely, that this special assistance is limited to faith and morals, all error being nevertheless excluded, though the assistance in other subject-matters is only of an ordinary kind; but, I think, without sufficient foundation, for the reasons I have given.

In order to appreciate more exactly the reach of these opinions, it will be well to examine them somewhat more intimately, and to fix the sense of the terms used in the discussion of the subject.

(1) First, then, comes the word Inspiration, which is often confounded with Revelation.

Inspiration, in its first intention, signifies the action of the Divine Spirit upon the human, that is, upon the intelligence and upon the will. It is an intelligent and vital action of God upon the soul of man; and ' inspired' is to be predicated, not of books or truths, but of living agents.

In its second intention, it signifies the action of the Spirit of God upon the intelligence and will of man, whereby any one is impelled and enabled to act, or to speak, or to write, in some special way designed by the Spirit of God.

In its still more special and technical intention, it signifies an action of the Spirit upon men, impelling them to write what God reveals, suggests, or wills that they should write. But inspiration does not necessarily signify revelation, or suggestion of the matter to be written.

(2) Secondly, Revelation signifies the unfolding to the intelligence of man truths which are contained in the intelligence of God, the knowledge of which without such revelation would be impossible. Men may be the subjects of revelation, and not of inspiration; and they might be the subjects of inspiration, and not of revelation.

(3) Thirdly, Suggestion, in the theory of inspiration, signifies the bringing to mind such things as God wills the writer to put in writing. All revelation is suggestion, but not all suggestion revelation; because much that is suggested may be of the natural order, needing no revelation, being already known by natural reason, or by historical tradition and the like.

(4) Fourthly, by Assistance is understood the presence and help of the Holy Spirit, by which the human agent, in full use of his own liberty and powers — such as natural gifts, genius, acquired cultivation, and the like, — executes the work which the Divine Inspiration impels him to write. There are three kinds of assistance.

(1) First, there is the assistance afforded by the Holy Spirit to all the faithful, by which their intelligence is illuminated and their will strengthened, without exempting them from the liability to error.

(2) Secondly, there is the assistance vouchsafed to the Church diffused throughout the world or congregated in council, or to the person of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, speaking ex cathedra, which excludes all liability to error within the sphere of faith and morals, and such facts and truths as attach to them (of which relations the Church is the ultimate judge), but does not extend to the other orders of purely natural science and knowledge.

(3) Lastly, there is the assistance granted as a 6 gratia gratis data ' to the inspired writers of the.Holy Scripture, which excludes all liability to error in the act of writing, not only in matters of faith and morals, but in all matters, of whatsoever kind, which by the inspiration of God they are impelled to write.

The Jesuits, in the ' Theologia Wirceburgensis,' sum up the subject in the following way: — The authorship of (rod ' may be conceived in three ways. First, by special assistance, which preserves the writer from all error and falsehood. Secondly, by inspiration, which impels the writer to the act of writing, without, however, destroying his liberty. Thirdly, by revelation, by which truths hitherto unknown are manifested.' They then affirm, 'that God specially inspired the sacred writers with the truths and matter expressed in the sacred books.' *

Perhaps it may be more in accordance with the facts of the case to invert the order, and to say that what we call Inspiration, in the special and technical sense, includes the three following operations of the Holy Grhost upon the mind of the sacred writers: —

(1) First, the impulse to put in writing the matter which God wills they should record.

(2) Secondly, the suggestion of the matter to be written, whether by revelation of truths not previously known, or only by the prompting of those things which were already within the writer's knowledge.

(3) Thirdly, the assistance which excludes liability to error in writing all things, whatsoever may be suggested to them by the Spirit of God to be written.

1 Theol. Wirceburgensis, torn. i. pp. 15, 16.

From this follow two corollaries: —

1. That in Holy Scripture there can be no falsehood or error.

2. That G-od is the author of all inspired books.

The enunciation of these two axioms of Christianity has elicited in all ages a series of objections. It would be impossible to enumerate or to recite them all: I will, therefore, take only the chief categories, so to say, of the difficulties which are supposed to exist in Holy Scripture.

1. First, it was alleged by the Manichaeans or Marcionites that the Old Testament was both evil and discordant with the New. S. Augustine wrote a book called ' Contra Adversarium Legis et Prophetarum,' in refutation of a manuscript said to be found at Carthage in a street by the sea-shore, and read in public to the people, 'multis confluentibus, et adtentissime audientibus.' The sum of the book was, that the maker of the world was evil, and the creator of evil; that he was cruel, because he inflicted death for trifling causes, as on the sons of Heli, also upon infants and innocents; that he could not be the true God, because he delighted in sacrifices: and that the Flood was not sent because of sin, because mankind was worse after it than before.1 I need not give

1 S. Aug. torn. viii. p. 550.

15G THE RELATION OF THE HOLY GHOST more examples: I quote these only to show that this form of objection is not new.

2. Secondly, it has been objected that the Evangelists are discordant with each other. This also was treated by S. Augustine, by S. John Chrysostom, and has produced a whole Bibliotheca of Harmonies.

3. Thirdly, that the Holy Scriptures contain errors in science, history, chronology, and the like.

This objection is chiefly of modern date. The late Dr. Arnold expresses himself as follows: — ' I would not give unnecessary pain to any one by an enumeration of those points in which the literal historical statement of an inspired writer has been vainly defended. Some instances will probably occur to most readers; others are, perhaps, not known, and never will be known to many.'1 His disciples naturally follow the same line. The writers of the f Essays and Keviews? are bolder and more explicit.

It is, however, with surprise that I find the Abbe Le Noir writing in these terms: (There are in Holy Scripture faults of geography, chronology, natural history, of physical science — of science generally; in short, perhaps, also philosophical inaccuracies, and literary errors against real and unchangeable good taste.' These faults, he says, concern < the idea

1 Dr. Stanley on the Sible &c., Preface, p. ix.

itself,' that is, the matter of Holy Scripture, not the form only, and are not to be explained by errors of copyists.' l

4. Fourthly, that the Holy Scripture contains expressions of hope, uncertainty, and of intentions never accomplished; of advice declared to be simply personal, not of Divine suggestion; all of which are evidently of human authorship, and therefore liable to error.2

1 Dictionnaire des Harmonies de la Raison et de laFoi, pp. 921, 2.

2 In order to show that the inspired writers did not always write by inspiration, and that what they wrote without inspiration they wrote only as men liable to error, a well-known writer has lately quoted such passages as the following from the commentaries of S. Jerome on the words of S. Paul: 'Although I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge ' (2 Cor. xi. 6).

' Therefore Hebrew of the Hebrews as he was, and most learned in his vernacular tongue, he was not able to express the profundity of his meaning in a language not his own: nor did he much heed the words so long as the sense was secure' (S. Hierom. Com. lib. iii. ad Oral. cap. vi. torn. iv. p. 309).

Again on the third chapter to the Ephesians he says: ' He, therefore, who committed solecisms in his words, and could not express an hyperbole or complete a sentence, boldly claims for himself wisdom, and says, according to the revelation the mystery is made known unto me ' (Ib. ad Ephes. cap. vi! lib. ii. p. 348).

Once more, in the Epistle to Algasia on the words, ' Although I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge,' he says: ' Paul said this not out of humility but in truth of conscience.'... ' He does not fully express his profound and recondite meaning by his speech, and though he himself knew what he said, I conceive that he was not able to transfer it in speech to the ears of others' (Ib. torn. iv. p. 204). These passages might be easily multiplied, and others

5. Fifthly, that much of the matter of Holy Scripture is intrinsically incredible. Passing over all other examples of this objection in the past, and in other countries, I will name only the works of Dr. Colenso on the Pentateuch.

6. Sixthly, that the text, by reason of innumerable variations, is uncertain, and that the authority of the Book is thereby shaken; for if the text be uncertain in one part, we do not know that it is not uncertain in others.

I do not at all underrate the importance of meeting these objections, which has been already done again and again in past centuries. But error, as I have said, seems to have periodic times, and to return upon us; not, indeed, identical, nor in the same also where he speaks as a man carried away by human infirmity (ad Gal. cap. v. ib. p. 293).

These passages not only fall short of the conclusion for which they are quoted, but overturn it. For S. Paul expressly affirms that though he was rude in speech he was not in knowledge, which S. Jerome interprets to be his consciousness of ' profound and recondite meanings,' and also of wisdom. But this excludes the supposition of all error. For solecisms in words and the limitations of a language not his own, did not cause the utterances of divine truth to Become erroneous. The Greek of S. John is not Attic, but his Gospel is free from all error. A Jew of Tarsus might speak Greek rudely, but the matter revealed to him was not thereby infected with human error. The above passages may indeed be quoted against the extreme theory of literal inspiration, but not to prove that the inspired writers were liable to error.

precise forms, but still the same errors under new aspects, and attaching to other portions of the truth. As I do not now attempt to discuss the large questions I have here enumerated, I will do no more than add one or two general reflections.

1. And first it is to be observed, that the Church in declaring the Vulgate Version to be authentic, does not declare that the existing text is free from uncertainty.

By authentic, the Church intends to say authoritative in the sense of jurisprudence, in which an ' authentic document ' signifies a writing which is conclusive in evidence. Such writings may be of three kinds: 1. Autographa, or the original docu ments; 2. Apographa, or copies agreeing with the original; and, 3. Translations in versions which are called authentic in a wider sense, conformity of substance with the original being secured.

Again, authenticity is either intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic authenticity in autographa signifies that the writing is original, and in the hand of the writer; in apographa, or copies, and translations, that they are conformable to the original. Extrinsic authenticity is the external evidence by which the intrinsic authenticity is established.

Authenticity is again divided into absolute and relative. 1. J.&SG toe authenticity signifies conformity with the original both in matter and form, and in things both of great and of light moment; in a word, in all things which constitute the perfection of the original, to the exclusion of fault or defect. 2. Relative or respective authenticity signifies conformity as a whole, but not to the exclusion of lesser faults or defects.

Now, by declaring the Vulgate to be authentic, the Church signifies that it is in conformity with the original Scriptures, and that it has not been vitiated either by the malice or the carelessness of the translators. But theologians of great weight interpret this declaration to signify, that the authenticity is not absolute, extending to jots and tittles, but relative or respective, extending to the substance and to all the chief parts of the text; that is, to the doctrine of faith and morals, and to all the histories, facts, and sayings which are contained in it.

In this sense the Council of Trent declared the Vulgate to be authentic; but in doing so it did not detract from the authenticity of the Greek or the Hebrew Scriptures.1

And this is the more evident from the fact that two editions of the Vulgate were published, the one

1 Theologia Wirceburgensis, torn. i. p. 35.

by command of Sixtus V., the other of Clement VII., with numerous corrections of the text.

It is clear, therefore, that the Church has never pronounced any version to be identical in every jot or tittle with the sacred original.

And this leads us to a train of thought very seasonable at this da}^. At this moment there exists in the Christian world an almost inconceivable multitude of copies of the Bible, in I know not how many tongues. The art of printing has multiplied them with a rapidity and a profusion which would be almost miraculous not only to a mediaeval transcriber, but to Caxton and Aldus. As we trace this wide stream upward through the last three centuries, it becomes narrower and narrower, until we reach the time when printed volumes disappear, and a number of manuscripts — many indeed, but in proportion to the printed copies indefinitely few — is all that represents the written Word of God. If we trace this stream of written tradition upwards, it becomes narrower still. Without doubt, the copies and versions of Scripture were always numerous; and multitudes have perished by age and other causes: multitudes have ceased to exist since the art of printing rendered a manuscript an unwieldy and wearisome book. Nevertheless, the ancient manuscripts are still

M the chief criteria for the correction of our printed text. And of these none is to be found of an earlier date than the fourth century. Some twenty or thirty principal manuscripts in Greek, and about forty in Latin, are all that appear to remain to us of a trustworthy kind. Of course, I do not forget the texts which are incorporated in the works of the Fathers, and in the Lectionaries or Antiphonaries. But we are now speaking of texts or manuscript copies representing the great and Divine Original, which is now, like the body of Moses, withdrawn by the Divine Providence from the custody of man. This is a wonderful fact; and wonderful also it is that we so little reflect upon it. In the heat of their controversies, men contend as if their Bibles were attested facsimiles, stereotyped or photographed copies of the autograph of S. John and S. Paul; utterly inconsiderate of the long tract of human agency by which the Scriptures have come down to them, and all the while refusing to believe in the Divine office of the Church, which has guarded and authenticated the written Word of God to us by its unerring witness. The authenticity, intrinsic and extrinsic, of each particular writing of the New Testament, was known and guaranteed by those to whom the several inspired writers committed it. The Church, by the interchange of these testimonies, and by the collection of the books so attested, formed the canon, in which it recognised the revelation it had already received., and spread throughout the world, before the canon was collected. The Scripture corresponded with this great Original, as the Tabernacle corresponded afterwards, with the Pattern which was shown to Moses in the Mount. The Church is the sole judge of the intrinsic authenticity, and alone knows the handwriting of the Author of the Sacred Books, and the autograph of the Spirit of God.

The next observation to be made is, that although, by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Church both knows, and at all times can declare with divine certainty, the doctrine of faith and morals committed to its charge; and although it can also declare, and has declared with divine certainty, the existence of Holy Scripture, the catalogue or canon of the Sacred Books, the inspiration of the writers — their immunity, and therefore the immunity of their writings, from all falsehood or error, — nevertheless, it has hitherto only declared the Vulgate to be authentic, and that, as I have already shown, with the relative or respective authenticity, which does not exclude the errors of translators or transcribers. It has never as yet declared any text to possess immunity from the errors of translations or transcriptions, nor that transcribers or translators are exempt from the liability to err. The custody of the faith resides in the sphere of the Divine illumination, which pervades the Church with its active and passive infallibility. The custody of the material documents of Holy Scripture resides in the office of the Church, as a Divine witness to the facts of its own history, and of the Divine gifts committed to its trust. The Scriptures were indeed written by an impulse and assistance of (rod, and as such, are Divine endowments to the Church; but the material volumes, the manuscripts or parchments, were not a part of the deposit, like the Divine truths revealed to the Apostles, nor like the holy sacraments divinely instituted by Jesus Christ.

It follows from what has been said,

1. That whensoever the text can be undoubtedly established, the supposition of error as to the contents of that text cannot be admitted: but,

2. That wheresoever the text may be uncertain, in those parts error may be present.

But this would be not error in Scripture, but in the transcription or translation of the Scripture, and would be due, not to the inspired writer, but to the translator or transcriber.

That such a supposition may be entertained, is evident from the fact that the variations in the versions are stated by some writers at 30,000, by others at 40,000, by others at 100,000. That variations existed already in S. Augustine's time is evident from his answer to Faustus the Manichsean, to whom he says, (If anything absurd be alleged to be there (i. e. in Holy Scripture), no man may say, The author of this book did not hold the truth. But (he must say), either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator was in error, or you do not understand it.'1 In these words S. Augustine has provided an answer for our days as well as for his own. It would seem that these three suppositions suffice to cover the difficulties alleged against the historical character and intrinsic credibility of Holy Scripture.

1. First, it is evident that Holy Scripture does not contain a revelation of what are called physical sciences; and that when they are spoken of, the language is that of sense, not of science, and of popular, not of technical usage.

2. Secondly, no system of chronology is laid down in the Sacred Books. There are at least three chronologies, probable and admissible, apparently given by Holy Scripture. It cannot be said, therefore, that

1 S. Aug., Contra Faustum, lib. xi. c. 5, torn. viii. p. 222.

there are chronological faults in Holy Scripture, forasmuch as no ascertained chronology is there declared.

3. Thirdly, historical narratives may appear incredible and yet be true; and may seem irreconcileable with other history, and yet the difficulty may arise simply from our want of adequate knowledge. A history may seem improbable, and yet be fact after all.

The most certain and exact sciences have residual difficulties which resist all tests, and refuse all solution. The sciences most within our reach, of the natural order, and capable of demonstration, not only have their limits, but also phenomena which we cannot reconcile. How much more Eevelation, which reaches into a world of which eternity and infinity are conditions, and belongs to an order above nature and the reason of man! It is no wonder that in the sphere of supernatural science there should be residual difficulties, such as the origin of evil, the freedom of the will, the eternity of punishment. They lie upon the frontier, beyond which, in this world, we shall never pass. Again, what wonder that the Holy Scriptures should contain difficulties which yield to no criticism, and that not only in the sphere of supernatural truth, but also of the natural order — that is, of history, chronology, and the like!

To hear some men talk, one would suppose that they were eye-witnesses of the creation, observers of the earth's surface before and after the Flood, companions of the patriarchs, chroniclers of the Jewish race. The history of the world for four thousand years, written in mere outline, with intervals of unmarked duration — genealogies which cannot be verified by any other record, events which are the cnraf \syo/jueva of history — may well present difficulties, and apparent improbabilities upon the surface, and yet after all be true. The same historical event, viewed from different sides, will present aspects so different, that the records of it may be apparently irreconcileable; and yet some one fact or event not preserved in the record would solve and harmonise all. It may be from ' intellectual obtuseness,' or (want of the critical faculty,' or (obstinate adherence to preconceived belief,' but it makes little impression on me to be told that S. Stephen, in Acts vii. 16, fell into an historical error in saying that Jacob was buried in Sichem. I confess that I cannot explain the difficulty, and that the explanations usually given, though possible and even probable, are hardly sufficient. Nevertheless, I am not shaken in the least as to the divine axiom, that Holy Scripture is exempt from all error. Whether it be a fault in the manuscript, or in the translator, or only a want of our understanding, I cannot tell; but an error in Scripture most assuredly it is not, and our inability to solve it, is no proof that it is. There it stands, an undoubted difficulty in the existing text — and not the only one; and yet all together will not shake our faith in the immunity from error which was granted to the sacred writers.

Nor, again, when we read in one place that King Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses, in another 40,000; nor that king Josias began to reign at eight years of age, in another place at eighteen. I cannot explain it. But I can imagine and believe many solutions except one, namely, that the inspired writers contradicted themselves, or that in this they were not inspired.

So likewise, when I am told that the history of the Pentateuch is intrinsically incredible; — that half a million of men could not be slain in one battle; that the people in the wilderness could not have survived without water; that to furnish the paschal lambs would require I know not how many millions of sheep; that, according to sheep-masters in Yorkshire and Natal, this would require I know not how many millions of square acres of grass; that the priest could not carry every day a bullock, with his head, and hide, and inwards, and appurtenances, six miles out of the camp, and the like; — I confess that it makes little impression on me. It reminds me of the Athenian, who having a house to sell, carried about a brick in his pocket as a view of the premises; and of another, who showed in his olive garden the well out of which his forefathers used to drink; to which his friend — testing history by mensuration, and yet believing — said, 'What long necks they must have had! ' I do not profess to be able to understand all the difficulties which may be raised. The history shows to me afar off like the harvest-moon just over the horizon, dilated beyond all proportion, and in its aspect unnatural; but I know it to be the same heavenly light which in a few hours I shall see in a flood of splendour, self-evident and without a cloud. So I am content to leave, as residual difficulties, the narratives which come down from an age, when as yet the father of secular history had not been born. Why should we assume that we must render an account of all difficulties in Scripture any more than in revelation, or in revelation any more than in science? Why should we be ashamed of saying with S. Augustine, ' Let us believe and immoveably affirm that in Scripture falsehood has no place.'1 ' As for us, in the history of our religion, upheld by Divine authority,

1 S. Aug. Ep. 82, ad Hier. torn. ii. p. 198.

we have no doubt that whatsoever is opposed to it is most false, let the literature of the world say what it will of it.' l (We cannot say the manuscript is faulty, for all the corrected Latin versions have it so; nor that the translator is in error, for all the corrected Greek have it so. It remains that you do not understand it.'2 ' Even in the Holy Scriptures themselves, the things of which I am ignorant are many more than the things which I know.' 3 f Adore in the Grospel what you do not as yet understand, and adore it all the more in proportion as it is now hidden from you.' 4 These may be hard sayings to the nineteenth century; but they are the judgments of reason illuminated by faith, c which is yesterday, and to-day, and the same for ever.'

And if it should seem irrational and perverse to shut our eyes to difficulties, as men say, we can but answer — We neither derive our religion from the Scriptures, nor does it depend upon them. Our faith was in the world before the New Testament was written. The Scripture itself depends for its attestation upon the Witness who teaches us our faith, and that Witness is Divine. Our faith rests upon an

1 S. Aug. De Civ. Dei, lib. xriii. cap. 40. torn. vii. p. 522.

2 Ibid. Cont. Faust, lib. xi. c. 6.

3 Ibid, ad Inquis. Januar. Ep. LV. torn. ii. p. 143.

4 Ibid. Serm. LI. de Concor. Matt, et Luc. torn. v. p. 285.

order of divine facts which was already spread throughout the world, when as yet the Grospel of S. John was not written. Of what weight are any number of residual difficulties against this standing, perpetual, and luminous miracle, which is the continuous manifestation of a supernatural history among men; a history, the characters, proportions, and features of which are, like the order to which it belongs, divine, and therefore transcend the ordinary course of nations and of men. One of these divine facts, and that, which is the centre and source of all our certainty, is the perpetual Voice of the Church of God. That Voice has declared to us that the Sacred Books were written by inspiration, and that whatsoever those books contain, howsoever it may surpass the bounds of our experience, and refuse the criteria of our statistics, and the calculus of our arithmetic, is simply to be believed because it is divinely true.