Cardinal Newman on the Inspiration of Scripture

John Healy, "Cardinal Newman on the Inspiration of Scripture," Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Third Series, Volume V. (1884) pp. 137-149.

[N.B., Newman's original article, which occasioned this critique, as well as his response to it, are available here. John Healy was appointed coadjutor Bishop of Clonfert, Ireland, the year of this writing, and died as Archbishop of Tuam in 1918.]

In the January number of the Nineteenth Century there is an article on "The Inspiration of Scripture," written by Cardinal Newman, which has attracted a very considerable share of attention, both amongst Catholics and non-Catholics. The Cardinal's high position in the Church, his literary fame, and his well known love of truth, not unnaturally lend great importance to everything he writes, especially on religious questions. His smallest word is received with respect, and listened to with attention, and of course the interest is intensified a hundred-fold when he deals with the momentous theme of the Inspiration of Scripture, and makes statements that are certainly calculated to startle even the veterans of the theological schools. We need no apology, therefore, for calling the attention of our readers to the Cardinal's views on this most important subject.

It is well to observe and to remember that the Cardinal himself expressly says, "My statements are simply my own, and involve no responsibility of anyone besides myself." At the end of the article, too, with genuine filial obedience and in the spirit of a true Catholic, he unreservedly submits whatever he has written to the judgment of the Holy See. Moreover, as he says, his statements are more of a tentative than dogmatic character; he "is more anxious that the question should be satisfactorily answered, than that my own answer should prove to be in every respect the right one." A prince of the Church who writes in this spirit deserves to be treated with the greatest consideration; and we trust that in our observations we shall not say a single word inconsistent with the affectionate reverence in which, in common with all the Roman Catholics of these kingdoms, we hold his Eminence Cardinal Newman.

The question which he proposes for consideration is whether, as alleged by Renan and others, "it is an undoubted fact that the Church does insist on her children's acceptance of certain Scripture informations on matters of fact, in defiance of criticism and history." Many persons would probably object to the assumption implied in this question, that there are Scripture informations on any matters of fact which are in defiance of genuine criticism and true history. Hence, we think it is safer, and more satisfactory from a logical point of view, as being less open to the charge of undue assumption, to accept the statement of the question at issue as it is formulated a little lower down in No. 8: "Now, then, the main question before us being what it is that a Catholic is free to hold about Scripture in general, or about its separate portions or its statements, without compromising his firm inward assent to the dogmas of the Church, that is, to the de fide enunciations of Pope and Councils, we have first of all to inquire how many and what these dogmas are." Then the writer goes on to say that there are two such dogmas; one relates to the authority of Scripture, or, as we should say, its inspiration, the other to its interpretation.

With regard to the Cardinal's views on the interpretation of Scripture, we have nothing to say; he merely expresses the common teaching of theologians on this point. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves to the first question which he discusses - the authority or inspiration of Sacred Scripture.

In answer to his own question on this point - What is de fide with regard to the inspiration of Scripture? his reply is: "As to the authority of Scripture, we hold it to be, in all matters of faith and morals, divinely inspired throughout." In No. 11 he tells us that the Councils of Trent and the Vatican "specify 'faith and moral conduct' as the 'drift' of that teaching (in Scripture) which has the guarantee of inspiration." In No. 12 he says that the Vatican Council pronounces that supernatural Revelation consists "in rebus divinis," and is contained - the italics are not ours - "in libris scriptis et sine scriptis traditionibus." And finally, in No. 13, he asserts that while the Councils, as has been shown, lay down so emphatically the inspiration of Scripture in respect to "faith and morals," it is remarkable that they do not say a word directly as to its inspiration in "matters of fact;" and hence he raises the question - but does not answer it - whether there may not be in Scripture, as there are in the dogmatic utterances of Popes and Councils, obiter dicta, "unimportant 'statements of fact,' not inspired, and therefore unauthoritative" (No. 26), and, we may add, not even necessarily true.

The merest tyro in the schools of Catholic theology will at once perceive the startling character of these statements, and the pregnant consequences which they involve. Hence we propose to examine them very briefly, in order to ascertain if the de fide utterances of the Church on this matter of the inspiration of the sacred volume are exactly of the character described by Cardinal Newman; and we shall for the most part confine ourselves to an analysis of these dogmatic utterances themselves.

Of course, when the Cardinal says it is de fide that Scripture, in all matters of faith and morals, is divinely inspired throughout, he says what is true; but he certainly seems to imply that it is not de fide that Scripture is inspired in those things (if there be any such) which are not "matters of faith and morals." Now, here precisely we join issue, and we say that, in our opinion, the Catholic dogma, as defined both in the Council of Trent and the Vatican, admits of no such restricting clause; that it is adequately and accurately expressed only by eliminating that clause; or, in other words, the Catholic dogma is, to borrow some of the Cardinal's own words, that Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired throughout.

The Council of Trent first enumerates the books that constitute the canon of Scripture, and then, in the strictest language, formulates its decree in the following words: "Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones praedictas sciens et prudens contempserit, anathema sit."¹ There is here no restriction of inspiration or canonicity to matters of faith and morals; the entire books, with all their parts, are declared to be sacred and canonical, that is, inspired Scripture, recognised as such by the Church; for, as we shall see, that is the meaning of sacred and canonical, as applied by the Council of Trent and of the Vatican to the books of Scripture. If we take the expression "entire books, with all their parts," to be equivalent to the Cardinal's word throughout, we have a right to conclude that the Catholic dogma, as enunciated in that canon, proclaims that these canonical books are inspired throughout, and therefore not merely in questions of faith and morals.

Lest there might be any doubt of the meaning of the expression "pro sacris et canonicis," we beg to append the analogous canon in the Vatican Council, which, in our opinion, leaves no doubt about the matter. Here it is: "Si quis sacrae Scripturae libros integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout illos Sancta Tridentina Synodus recensuit, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, aut eos divinitus inspiratos esse negaverit, anathema sit." (Can. 4, De Revelatione.) It is impossible to enunciate in clearer language the great Catholic truth, that the entire books of Sacred Scripture, with all their parts, are divinely inspired; or in other words, that the books of Sacred Scripture are inspired throughout. If any one should urge that perhaps "eos," in the last clause of this canon, is not necessarily the exact equivalent of the subject of the preceding clause, our answer is, that both grammatically and logically "eos " and "illos" stand for the subject of the preceding clause, and are therefore exactly co-extensive with it. At any rate, the Council pronounces the entire books - eos, scil, libros integros - to be inspired, without making any distinction between "matters of fact" and "matters of faith and morals," and that is quite enough for our argument.

Every one trained in theological discipline knows that it is not always easy to ascertain, from the wording in the body of a dogmatic chapter of a General Council, what is strictly and exactly de fide. But when a Council wishes to express Catholic dogma with the utmost accuracy and exactness, it formulates it as a canon, and pronounces anathema against the gainsayers. I have a right, therefore, to infer from this canon, as a Catholic dogma, that Sacred Scripture, without exception or restriction, is inspired throughout.

Cardinal Newman says that the dogmatic phrase used by the Councils of Florence and Trent to denote the inspiration of Scripture, viz., that one and the same God was the author of both Testaments - Deus unus et idem utriusque Testamenti Auctor - left some room for holding that the word "Testament" might mean "Dispensation [i.e., covenant]," rather than the Books of the Testaments, although he admits that the Vatican Council has settled the question by inserting the word "books."

It appears to us that the Council of Florence left no doubt about the matter, for it has explained the meaning of the word "Testament" in its decree, as may be seen in so common a book as Franzelin.² Here are the words:

"Firmissime credit, profitetur et praedicat (Sacrosancta Rom. Ecclesia) unum verum Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum creatorem ... Unum atque eundem Deum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, hoc est, Legis et Prophetarum atque Evangelii profitetur Auctorem, quoniam eodem Spiritu Sancto inspirante utriusque Testamenti sancti locuti sunt, quorum libros suscipit et veneratur, qui titulis sequentibus continentur."

Surely the expression "Old and New Testament," when explained to mean "the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel," can mean nothing else but the Sacred Books that commonly go under these names.

But if there could be any doubt about the matter it would be removed by the reason that is subjoined - God is the author of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel, because it was under the inspiration of His Holy Spirit that the saints of both Testaments spoke, whose books, therefore, the Council receives and venerates. The word "locuti" evidently refers to the written word, as in 2 Peter 1:21, and, in conjunction with libros, clearly shows that by Testament the Council meant the books of the Old and New Testament - that is, as it explains, the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel.

It is difficult to see how this explanation given by the Council itself can be reconciled with the statement that the Councils of Florence and Trent left the meaning of the word Testament in the phrase referred to somewhat doubtful. The Council of Florence certainly did not; and, Pallavicini tells us, the Council of Trent, in framing its decree, was careful to follow the very words of the Council of Florence.³

It is defined both by the Councils of Trent and of Florence, that God is the auctor utriusque Testamenti, and as we have just seen, that is the same as to say he is the author of all the books of the Old and New Testament; and so it has been expressly defined by the Vatican Council, as the Cardinal himself admits. But, he says, the Latin word auctor still leaves some ambiguity, for it is not equivalent to the English word author. That may be very true, when there is question of the words auctor and author in their generic sense; it is too delicate a point for us to discuss, and it is quite unnecessary to discuss it. For there is no question now of the generic meaning of these terms, but of their specific meaning, which, as Cardinal Franzelin clearly points out⁴ is determined by the context, that is, by the special efficiency of which there is question. Generically, both in English and Latin, 'author' means the person who gives origin or authority to anything, but in its specific sense the meaning will very much depend on the kind of origin or authority of which there is question. The same man may be the author of a law, the author of a book, and the author of a crime, but in very different senses. Now it is de fide that God is the author of the Books of the Old and New Testament, and will the Cardinal undertake to say, that when thus used in regard to books, auctor in classical Latin is not equivalent to "author" when said in reference to books in English? We do not pretend to the Cardinal's knowledge of classical Latin, but we know something of ecclesiastical Latin, as used by the Councils of Trent and Florence, and we are quite sure that auctor libri in ecclesiastical Latin is pretty much the same as the "author of a book" in English.

It is de fide, therefore, that God is the author of all the Books of the Old and New Testament; and we have seen that it is de fide that they are inspired throughout, whole and entire, without any distinction between 'matters of fact' and 'matters of faith and morals.' Well, now, in No. 11, the Cardinal asks, in what respect are the Canonical Books inspired? "It cannot be in every respect," he says, "except we are bound de fide to believe that 'terra in aeternum stat,' that heaven is above us, and that there are no antipodes." If by "respect" is meant every signification which a word or phrase might have, scientific or popular, literal or metaphorical, he is evidently right; but then it is hardly necessary to tell us so. Surely the phrases "terra in aeternum stat," "and heaven is above us," "the sun rises," and the like, have a popular meaning which is perfectly true, and which might be revealed by God, and which if revealed by God, incidentally or otherwise, in that popular sense, we should be bound to believe as de fide.

But apparently this is not what Cardinal Newman means, for in the next sentence he says: "And it seems unworthy of Divine greatness that the Almighty should, in His revelation of Himself to us, undertake mere secular duties, and assume the office of a narrator as such, of a historian, or geographer, except so far as the secular matters bear directly on the revealed truth." Does any one assert that God in His Revelation undertakes the office of narrator, as such, or historian, or geographer? We thought it was a well-known distinction made by Catholic theologians of every school between the things revealed propter se [for their own sake], or, as the Cardinal calls them, matters of faith and morals, and things revealed per accidens, including every other statement made in Sacred Scripture, whether in narration, history, geography, or anything else. God reveals none of these things propter se. He does not undertake the work of annalist, historian, geographer, as such. They are revealed on account of their connection, necessary, useful, or accidental as the case may be, with the main purposes of Divine Revelation. But as Benedict XII, in his Dogmatic Catalogue of the Errors of the Armenians very clearly signifies, they must be all believed, even those which have been revealed per accidens, because they are all equally the word of God, and all serve a useful purpose in the Divine economy of our salvation.⁵ "For whatsoever things were written, were written for our learning; that through patience and the comfort of the Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom 15:4).

And what is man that he should undertake to pronounce what is worthy, or what is unworthy of Divine Majesty? If we were to attempt to do so, especially in God's revelation, where should we stop? Does not the Socinian think it unworthy of God to reveal mysteries? The Rationalist, for a somewhat similar reason, denies miracles. The ordinary Protestant contends that the Catholic teaching about the Blessed Eucharist is utterly unworthy of God, and so he gives up the literal, and adopts a metaphorical sense. It is the old story - Durus est hic sermo, et quis potest eum audire? (John 6:61) Our reply is - Quis enim cognovit sensum domini, qui instruat eum? (1 Cor 2:16) Human wisdom left to itself would say that of all unworthy things the most unworthy of God was to redeem the word by the "folly" of the cross; and it did say it by the mouth both of Jew and Gentile.

We have no objection to the statement that faith and moral conduct is the 'drift' of the teaching that has the guarantee of inspiration, or that the Council of Trent insists on faith and morality as the 'scope' of inspired teaching, provided always it is not thereby implied that Scripture is not also inspired throughout, even in those things which to us seem to have least connection with faith and morals. It is in this sense and in no other sense the Council of Trent speaks. In the preamble of the chapter it states, as Cardinal Newman says, that faith and morality is the 'scope' of inspired teaching, and that the Gospel is the 'fount' of all saving truth and all instruction in morals; and this is perfectly true, but the main proposition to which everything else is incidental is contained in the following words, which necessarily imply the inspiration of every single statement made by sacred writers. "Sacrosancta... Synodus... orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, necnon traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel oretenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas et continua successione in ecclesia Catholica conservatas pari pietatis affectu et reverentia suscipit et veneratur." From the beginning of the chapter to the word veneratur is one single sentence; the last part, as written by us, contains the main assertion, the purport of which is perfectly clear: that as God is the author of all the books of the Old and New Testament, and, as the divine traditions regarding faith and morals were either spoken by Christ himself or dictated by His Holy Spirit, therefore the Council accepts and venerates both with equal affection of piety and reverence - and why? because they are both equally the Word of God. It must be carefully observed that the words "tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes" refer only to the traditions, and have nothing at all to do with the preceding words. And they were inserted, as Pallavicini tells us, in order to distinguish the divine traditions, of which God is the author, and which concern faith and morals, from purely apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, which are of their own nature disciplinary and mutable. So far, therefore, is the Council of Trent from lending any countenance to the idea that all Scripture is not inspired, that it distinctly affirms the divine authorship of all the books of Sacred Scripture, and as we have seen, pronounces anathema against those who would dare to assert that they are not "sacred and canonical," and inspired Scripture throughout.

There is one point to be carefully kept in mind in any discussion on this important question, if we wish to avoid grave errors - the difference between inspiration and revelation. Inspiration, as we shall see further on, in its plenary sense, implies three things: the Divine afflatus moving, enlightening, and guiding the writer - inspiratio active sumpta; the state of the human agent under this Divine influence - inspiratio passive sumpta; and, lastly, the product of the combined action of God and man, that is, the book written by the Holy Spirit through man's agency - which is inspiratio terminative sumpta. Inspiration therefore, in reference to Sacred Scripture, essentially regards the writing - the writing in fieri [in the act of execution], and the writing in facto esse [in the fact of its existence]. Not so in the case of revelation. It need have no connection with inspired writing at all. In its active sense it is simply the Divine manifestation of hidden things, and sometimes of things not previously hidden; in its objective sense it merely means the things so made known by God. Inspiration, therefore, necessarily implies revelation in the wide sense given above; but revelation, as in the case of Divine traditions not contained in Scripture, may have nothing at all to do with inspiration. Let our readers bear this in mind, for the Cardinal goes on to say that "the Vatican Council pronounces that supernatural revelation consists in rebus Divinis, and is contained in libris scriptis, et sine scriptis traditionibus," italicising as above, and implying thereby, it seems to us, that all Sacred Scripture is not necessarily Divine truth or a Divine revelation, and that revelation and inspiration are identical.

What the Council says on the first point is contained in the following sentence, and certainly will not admit the meaning given above by implication : "Huic Divinae revelationi tribuendum quidem est, ut ea, quae in rebus Divinis humanae rationi per se impervia non sunt, in presenti quoque generis humani conditione ab omnibus expedite, firma certitudine et nullo admixto errore cognosci possint." I do not think the Council declares in that sentence that revelation consists "in things Divine," but even if it does, then all we can say is, that every statement in Scripture is Divine, or, what comes to the same, is the Word of God - as St. Paul himself asserts, at least by implication, regarding the Scriptures certainly of the Old Testament, if not also of some of the New - pasa graphe theopneustos kai ophelimos &c. (2 Tim 3:16). If every scripture is theopneustos, it may well be called Divine.

As regards the second point, the Council does say that the supernatural revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten Divine traditions; but concerning these same books it says in the very next sentence, that the church does not regard them as sacred and canonical, merely because they contain this revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the church. "Eos vero (libros) ecclesia pro sacris et canonicis habet, non ideo quod sola humana industria concinnati, sua deinde auctoritate sint approbati, nec ideo duntaxat, quod revelationem sine errore contineant; sed propterea quod Spiritu Sancto inspirante conscripti, Deum habent auctorem, atque ut tales ipsi ecclesiae traditi sunt." To say, therefore, that the Divine books contain the revelation of God, and even without any error, is declared by the Council itself to be an inadequate description of their sacred and canonical character.⁶ The reason is manifest. A book might contain the whole revelation of God, and contain it without error, and yet not be at all an inspired book, because inspiration essentially regards the writing or authorship of the book. If it is an inspired book God is its author; it must have been written in all its parts under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, so much so, that God becomes responsible for every single statement it contains, and therefore quite as much responsible for its statements "in matters of fact," as for its statements in reference to "faith and morals." All these truths will not have the same intrinsic importance in relation to each other, or to the economy of man's redemption; but they are all divine as regards their origin and their authority.

And now this leads us to give, in conclusion, a very brief explanation of the nature of inspiration as taught in all Catholic schools, and it is as contained in the writings of the Fathers, and of all our eminent theologians, since the Council of Trent. Catholic teaching on this point has become still more definite and dogmatic since the definitions of the Council of the Vatican already referred to.

The points of Catholic dogma clearly defined are, (a) that God is the author of all the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, (b) that these books have been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, (c) and hence the entire books are inspired. The second of these points more clearly and accurately defines the meaning of the first; and the third expresses the abiding consequence of the other two, that is, the inspiration of the sacred books terminative, as the theologians call it.

God, then, is defined to be the author of all the Sacred Scriptures, because they were written under the inspiration of His Holy Spirit. Now, what is meant by being the author of a book in this sense? It must mean here, as it means everywhere else, either that He Himself wrote it, as He wrote the Tables of the Law, with his own finger, which, of course, is out of the question; or that He dictated the sacred books word for word to the inspired penmen, an opinion which has been held by a few, but is now justly and generally rejected; or finally, as a minimum, it must mean according to the use of language, that He directed or procured the writing of all these sacred books; that He suggested to the sacred writers all the matter to be written - res et sententias - even that known before, and finally gave them such constant, ever watchful assistance in the composition of all these books as to ensure that everything which He wished should be said, and that nothing should be said except what He wished, and hence that there should be no trace of falsehood or error, for which He, the principal and infallible Author of the book, would, in that absurd hypothesis, be held responsible. The very nature of Divine authorship requires this at least; if the instrumental author begin to write motu proprio [on his own initiative], it is in no special sense God's work; if he write anything which he is not directed to write, it is not God's work so far; and if there could be errors or mistakes in any book written by Divine authority, God could never claim that book whole and entire, with all its parts, as purely and simply His own - as written in its entirety under the inspiration of His Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Divine authorship of the Sacred Books, in the sense defined by the Church, imperatively requires that, as a minimum, the impulse to write should come from God, that He should suggest at least the matter, and that He should preserve the sacred writers from all error, which, if it were possible, would not be the error of man, but of God. It is as absurd to say that a man could commit sin under the impulse of the Holy Ghost, as to say that the sacred writer could write error under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, as it is de fide that the Sacred Books, whole and entire, were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it follows, at least as a conclusion theologically certain, that everything written by the sacred writers is, what it is called in Scripture, and by the Church, and by the Fathers, and by the people, verily and indeed the Word of God, unmixed with any false, or erroneous, or merely human element.

This doctrine, regarding the nature of inspiration, does not imply that God did not, in most cases, leave the choice of the words to the sacred writer. It does not even imply that the words chosen were the most elegant, or most appropriate, for expressing the Divine ideas in the writer's mind. It does not imply the adoption of the graces of style, nor the niceties of grammar, nor exactness in scientific or rhetorical arrangement. But it does imply that the words must be suitable to express the writer's Divine thoughts, that his language must be intelligible, and that the arrangement must not be such as will necessarily lead the readers astray.

Again, inspiration does not exclude antecedent knowledge of much of the matter to be written, nor labour in its acquisition, provided always it is written by the human author of the Sacred Book, not motu proprio, but in virtue of the Divine impulse, consciously or unconsciously followed, and written also under the Divine guidance, lest any error might creep in, of which, as it could not originate from God, He could not accept the authorship or responsibility.

Neither does our doctrine on inspiration imply that it is confined to the autograph of the sacred writer. Inspiration does not, terminative sumpta, consist in the material book as such - in the handwriting, the ink, and the vellum; but it consists in the book as a series of signs, with a definite objective significance for the mind of man: and hence the inspired books remain, although the autographs have all perished.

Of course, what we have been saying only regards that which has been actually written by the sacred writers. We are not now speaking of any additions, omissions, or other changes in the sacred text. We know, however, for certain, that in the Vulgate, at least, these corruptions do not involve any error in faith or morals, or interfere with the substantial integrity of the text.

It will be observed that we have not, except incidentally, appealed to Sacred Scripture in support of our views, nor quoted the Fathers, many of whom speak in exceedingly strong language of the impossibility of the smallest error in Sacred Scripture. Neither have we cited the authority of all the great scholastic and modern theologians,⁷ from St. Thomas's to the present time, who, if they do not go much further in the direction of verbal inspiration, without exception deny the possibility of merely human, and therefore possibly erroneous, statements in Sacred Scripture.

In conclusion, we wish to observe, that it is with great reluctance we deem it our duty to dissent from the views which Cardinal Newman has put forward regarding the inspiration of the Sacred Scripture. We think, with St. Augustine, that the possibility of a falsehood in Sacred Scripture would be fatal to the Sacred Volume. "I pay the canonical books," he adds, "such reverence and honour, that I most firmly believe that no sacred writer in writing committed the least mistake."⁸ On the other hand, to use the words of the learned Patrizi, while the Church is silent, we, of course, do not dare to censure those views, but neither do we dare to hold them. In one respect at least we beg to follow the excellent example of the Cardinal, by unreservedly submitting our observations, such as they are, to the judgment, and, if necessary, to the correction of our ecclesiastical superiors.

John Healy

[1] Quarta Sessio, Decr. de Canonicis Scripturis.

[2] De Inspir. S. Scrip., Thesis II, No. 1.

[3] Hist. Concil. Trid., Lib. vi, c. 11, n. 11-14.

[4] Thesis III, No. 1.

[5] See Franzelin note, Thesis III, p. 352. The 114th Error in the Catalogue seems to consist in the fact that the Armenians assumed a historical statement in Genesis to be false.

[6] See Franzelin, p. 375, Thesis IV.

[7] The opinion of Lessius, Du Hamel, and Bonfrere, put forward by them only as a hypothesis, is no longer tenable since the Vatican Council. In any case the doctrine of subsequent inspiration does not touch the present question.

[8] De Consensu Evang. I. 11,12.