Hence it is of faith that God is the AUTHOR of the Sacred Scriptures, and of the integral books with all their parts. It is not here asserted that God with his own hand wrote the books materially, but that he is the auctor principalis per conscriptores suos. Now, we will bear in mind the relation of the author to his work, in weighing and judging of the correctness or falseness of opinions which deal with this subject.

Inspirare is the Latin equivalent for the Greek Оeoπveúeiv, which word S. Paul uses in his II Epist. to Tim. III, 16., “ πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος”. It signifies that one is impelled by God, that the Spirit of God is in him, moving him to action and guiding him in that action. Hence, God is the principal author, the principal cause; and the inspired agent is the instrumental cause.

In every action wrought by a creature, there is a concursus of two causes, the causa prima, and the causa secunda; the Creator and the Creature. We exist by reflected existence, as the moon shines by reflected light. The same act, which brought us into being at our creation, preserves us in that being, and this is what is called the conservatio in esse; and the conservative act is all that prevents us from relapsing into the primal absolute chaos. God must then cooperate with his creature in every act, for the second cause must depend on the First Cause essentially, and, therefore, in every act, it must be upheld by the conservative power of God. This cooperation of the First Cause is called the Concursus Generalis, and is found even in acts which are morally bad. The murderer and the incestuous receives the conservatio in esse in his act, without thereby making the crime imputable to God, for man's will is free; God preserves him in his being, but gives him the free will to do right or wrong; nay more, God calls, assists, urges to do right; but, if the second agent wishes to do wrong, God does not withdraw his "conservatio in esse". He does not necessitate virtue nor eliminate vice; for he made his creature free. This then is the concursus of the First and second cause in every act. But there are certain acts where this concursus is more marked and potent on the part of the Creator, and Inspiration is one of these acts.

It is declared in the definition of the Vatican Council that God is the Author of the books of the Old and New Testaments with all their parts. We also assert and prove that the various inspired writers were authors of the respective books which history and tradition attribute to them. Therefore, there is a

concursus of two causes here, of two authors. A book may be defined to be a "Contextus Sententiarum seu sensuum scripto consignatus". We here denominate book, every complete component factor of the Old or New Testaments, even though it consist of but a few sentences, as for instance the Epistle to Philemon, consisting of but 25 verses, comprised in one chapter. In every book or writing, there are two elements, the material and the formal element. The formal element comprises the "Complexus" of ideas and judgments signified by the words and propositions in the book. These by some are called the "res et sententiæ "; by others, the "sensa"; by Franzelin, the "Veritates". The material element of the book, "in fieri," is the consigning of these veritates to writing. The author of a book needs not necessarily consign the veritates to writing. St. Paul employed an amanuensis to commit his teachings to writing in his Epistles, and, yet, he is their author. It is the creations of the soul reflected in a work that denominate an agent an author. Any hand may do the material work, but the mind back of the truths is the factor to which is rightly attributable the authorship.

When we, therefore, assert for God the authorship of the Scriptures, we do not mean to say that he consigned the ideas to writing with his own hand, but that he was the formal cause of the "res et sententiæ," of the "sensa," of the "veritates." Now the relation of an author to his work is to be measured by the object of the work. In a rhetorical or poetical work, the words and style would be "per se intenta." They would be in the formal ratio of the work, and, consequently, the work could not be called the creation of any certain author, unless he had per se produced such beauty of diction. But in a book whose scope was to convey truth to the mind, and naught else, the style or the selection of the words would not necessarily need be the effect of the author principalis. Provided they be adequate and fitting to convey the truths which he might wish to impart, the book can attain its end, even though the principal cause have no special influence in the selection of words or the style. Now, it is evident that no being can be termed the author of a book, unless he produces the formal element of the book. God is the author of all the books of Scripture, and, therefore, he produced all the "veritates," or "res et sententiæ" therein contained. These are true and inspired; the other part may be defective. God produced these "res et sententia" either by revelation or by inspiration; by revelation, if the truths were impervious to human reason, such

as futura contingentia, mysteries, or any other truth which the writer could not acquire by natural means: by inspiration always, illumining the mind and moving the will to write all those things and only those things which God wished to communicate to his creature, whether those things were then for the first time known by revelation, or were the acquisitions of human industry and observation. For even in this latter case, the special action of God is necessary to impel the writer to write all and only the things which God wishes written, and to write them infallibly, without mixture of error.

We see thus that there is always a greater concursus than the concursus generalis in inspiration. God does for the inspired writer more than " conservare in esse." He is the impelling power within him. Sometimes, as was the case with the Prophets, the second agent is thrown into an ecstacy, and his mind is imbued with ideas, in the creation of which he is only the passive agent. The inspired writer is vπò ПIveúμaтos 'Aylov pepóμevos, borne on, impelled by the Holy Ghost. Not always is this impelling force active in the same way. It is different in prophecy than it is in the inspiration which guided the Evangelists in infallibly committing to writing things to which they had been eye-witnesses. Inspiration does not pre

clude the examining of existing documents, the patient toil and research which always accompanies the natural acquisition of knowledge. Moses may have made use of existing documents, when giving an account of Creation. But the certainty of inspiration is not measured by the certainty of these existing documents, nor by the certainty of fallible human observation and research. Always the hand of God is there, guiding, and positively influencing the agent to write all those things, and only those things which God would have written; and this assistance is not merely a negative one, but a positive act exercised in every concept of Holy Writ. Such is the relation of an author to his work, and we know by divine faith that God is the Author of the Holy Scriptures.

Having thus established this relation of God to the Holy Scriptures, we pass to consider the effect of this relation on the Holy Writ, that is, we consider here the EXTENT OF INSPIRA

TION.

CHAPTER III.

EXTENT OF INSPIRATION.

On this subject there have been many different opinions. Up to the time of Lessius (born 1554), Verbal Inspiration was

quite generally admitted. This opinion sustained that the material words were the work of the Holy Ghost, and some extended it even to the dotting of the letters, and other such minutiæ. Lessius having entered the Jesuit Order, and having been appointed Professor of Theology at Louvain from 1585 to 1605; he, in concert with Du Hamel, his confrere, published certain theses, among which were the three following:

1.—" Inspiratio non se extendit ad omnia verba divinæ Scripturæ."

2.-" Divina Inspiratio non se extendit ad omnes sententias divinæ Scripturæ, sed Auctor inspiratus potest scribere ea quæ aliunde noverit."

3.-" Liber aliquis, qualis est fortasse secundus Maccabaorum, humana industria, sine assistentia Spiritus Sancti scriptus, si Spiritus Sanctus postea, testatur ibi nihil esse falsum, efficitur Scriptura sacra."

Lessius was condemned by the Universities of Louvain and Douay, but Stapleton the famous professor of Louvain defended him. Called to defend himself, Lessius explained his doctrine, in relation to the second and third proposition. He declared that he did not exclude the positive influence of the Holy Ghost in the writings, but wished to assert that the inspiring power so acted on the second agent, as to leave him the free use of his memory and other intellectual powers, whose use the Holy Ghost presupposed. In relation to the third proposition, he defended that he did not wish to assert such action of any particular book; neither did he mention the 2nd of Maccabees as an example of such action; but, simply, he meant theoretically to assert such possibility. Pace tanti viri, I would call this a subterfuge. However, we are not dealing with possibilities, but with realities. To assert that such were the inspiration which actuated any of the books of our Holy Scriptures is condemned by the Vatican Council; while, of the possibility, the council says nothing. We shall now examine every one of these propositions in detail. The first marks a new era in theological opinion, in relation to Holy Scripture. As we have said, up to this time, verbal inspiration had been generally held by all. From Lessius' time, there was a gradual abandonment of this idea, a gradual trend to the opposite, until now verbal inspiration is held by none who merits aught for his authority. And, indeed, it is patent to him who considers, that verbal inspiration could not have taken place.

1. God does not operate out of the ordinary course of nature, unless for necessary or useful reasons. Now the choice

of words and the style of the discourse needed not the direct intervention of God, but could be adequately accomplished by the ordinary faculties of the writer. In the words of Marchini, De Div. et Can. Sac. Bibliorum, pag. 84: "Dici nequit a Spiritu Sancto ademptum fuisse Apostolis aut Prophetis, rationis, memoriæ, judicii usum; hæc igitur omnia scribendo adhibuerunt." Another proof for the thesis under consideration is found in the variety of style prevailing among the different authors. Isaiah is polished and cultured in his diction; Jeremias, on the contrary, and Amos are less polished and coarser in their style. Isaias was in high social rank, while Jeremias was a burgher from Anatoth, and Amos, a cowherd.* And differences of style exist among all the inspired writers, due to their different characteristics. No one can fail to detect the sublimity of conception in St. John over the other Evangelists; and the massive genius of St. Paul gleams forth in those inimitable Epistles, which have been and are the great treasure of the Christian religion. Now, if the Holy Ghost had inspired the very words, such differences could not exist.

2. Moreover, in the Original text of the new Testament barbarisms and violations against the Greek language exist. Can we, for a moment believe that the Holy Spirit, inspired these also?

3. In the Scriptures, sometimes the same fact is related by different writers in different ways. For instance, the consecration of the chalice is related in four different ways by St. Math., XXVI, 28; St. Mark, XIV, 24; St. Luke, XXII, 20, and St. Paul, I. Cor. XI., 25. These speak of the same words of Christ, as he used them once for all at the Last Supper. If the Holy Ghost had inspired the words, how could we account for these divergencies? Here applies aptly what St. Augustine said of the inspired writers: "Ut quisque meminerat eos explicasse manifestum est."

4.-Again, the author of the second book of Maccabees dates certain events differently from the manner in which they are dated by the author of the first book: II. Maccab. XI, 21, 33, 38; XII, 1; XIV, 4, date certain events in the 148th, 149th

*Very little that is certain is known of the life of Isaiah. According to the Rabbis he was of the tribe of Juda, and of the gens Davidica. They make Amos the father of Isaiah, the brother of Amasia, the King of Juda. Some of the fathers have received this opinion from the Rabbis ; and Jerome himself calls Isaiah a vir nobilis. But there is nothing trustworthy to prove that he was of the royal line. His style gives evidence of his liberal education and may well be called regal, but we have nothing to warrant that his blood was of the kingly line.