A supernatural impulse to write with the assistance of divine illumination

Divine Inspiration

The Church has repeatedly declared that the whole Bible is inspired; but while the fact of inspiration is thus declared, its precise nature has never been the object of a definition. We may, however, formulate a definition in these terms:

Inspiration is a supernatural impulse to write -- an impulse, too, which is maintained while the writing is continued; by reason of this motion, and with the assistance of a divine illumination, the Sacred Writer writes all those things, and only those things, which God bids him write.

It will be noticed that there are two things in this definition, a divine motion and a divine illumination.

The analysis which justifies the above definition is somewhat as follows:

St. Thomas distinguishes graces according as they are destined for the salvation of the recipient or for the salvation of others than the recipient. These latter he terms the Gratiæ gratis datæ, and these, again, he distinguishes according to the different purposes for which they are bestowed. If they are bestowed in order that a man may prove the truth of his doctrine by performing wonders this grace is called the grace of miracles; if however he is gifted with supernatural knowledge, this grace is called that of prophecy. Now knowledge does not consist in the mere acquisition of material but more especially in the judgment we form regarding that material. Thus sometimes it is one man who has the material, but another who has the acumen to appreciate it at its true worth. The "grace" of Prophecy is concerned with supernatural knowledge only, and since knowledge consists both in the acquisition of material and in the judgment passed upon it, it is evident that

(a) both these -- the acquisition and the judgment -- can be from God, i.e., be supernatural; or
(b) the acquisition can be supernatural while the judgment is natural, or
(c) vice-versa, the acquisition can be natural and the judgment upon it supernatural.

We have an example of the first case in the Prophets, strictly so-called, who received visions from God and were also instructed by Him as to their meaning, cf. Jer. i.; we have an example of the second in Pharaoh, Nebuchodonosor, and Caiaphas, who all received in different ways communications from God, but who none of them received divine illumination as to their significance; and we have an instance of the third class in Joseph who received from Pharaoh, not from God, an account of the former's dream, but received from God an illumination of his judgment as to its precise signification.

We are thus enabled to distinguish three clear degrees in the divine communications:

(a) The mere material for judgment may be communicated, as to Pharaoh and Caiaphas, this is the lowest degree and may be termed Prophetic instinct.

(b) The intermediate degree is present when the material is only bestowed through the ordinary human channels but the illumination of judgment comes from God. This is Inspiration.

(c)The highest degree occurs when the same man receives from God both the material and the illumination of judgment requisite for realizing its divine import. Such men are Prophets and they receive Revelation.

Thus we have a fundamental distinction of the highest value, that namely between Inspiration and Revelation; the latter is wholly divine, the former has in it a human element as well as a divine.

But Biblical Inspiration goes a step further. There is clearly a great difference between Joseph, for in stance, divinely illumined to pass a judgment on Pharaoh's dream, and Moses divinely illumined regarding the truth of the facts he narrates and also divinely moved to commit those same facts to writing.

In order, then, to arrive at a clear notion as to what is meant by inspiration, we have to ask in what precisely consist this illumination and this motion. What, again, is required in order that a writing may be regarded as divinely inspired?

Is it sufficient that any particular writing should have been declared by the Church to be free from error? The Vatican Council decides in the negative.

Is it that God dictates the writing? Is it that God revealed the ideas to the writer and left him to express them in his own words? If we were to endorse the latter explanation we should have to allow that every inspired writer was the recipient of a revelation, whereas we have seen that there is all the difference in the world between inspiration and revelation. But before we answer these two questions let us examine the decrees of the three Councils of Florence, Trent, and the Vatican.

In declaring the doctrine of Inspiration, these Councils make use of a definite formula which must necessarily lie at the base of any investigation into the nature of Inspiration. Thus in the Decree of Union promulgated by the Council of Florence, we read:

"The Holy Roman Catholic Church ... confesses the same God as the Author of the Old and the New Testaments ... since by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the holy men of both Testaments ... have spoken."

The same formula occurs in the Tridentine Decree; the Church declares that She receives

"all the Books of both Testaments, the Old and the New, since the One God is the Author of both."

The Vatican Council speaks still more explicitly:

"The Church holds these Books as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by Her authority; not merely because they contain Revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author"

We notice at once that in all three Councils the Books are said to have God as their Author because they are inspired; hence to arrive at a clear idea of inspiration we must realize clearly what is meant by "authorship." Further, though God is here spoken of as the "Author," the Sacred Writers too are always spoken of as "authors." Consequently the essentials of authorship must be safeguarded both for God and for the individual Sacred Writers. But how can two be the authors of one and the same work?

Joint-authorship, such as that with which we are familiar in the case of Besant and Rice, for example, will not satisfy the conditions; for Besant was in no sense the author of the portions which Rice wrote. Thus if we wish to safeguard the full title of author to both God and the individual Sacred Writers we must not conceive of the latter as merely co-operating with God, we must not picture God and the Sacred Writers as working simply harmoniously together, for thus we should still have portions which were due to the human authors, while neither God nor the human writers could be said to be the "authors" of the resulting whole. But there is in nature one case in which two causes so co-operate that the resulting work is attributable wholly to each of the two causes, when, namely, one is the instrumental, the other the principal, cause.

For when two causes combine to produce an effect, the one as applying, the other as applied, the one as moving, the other as moved, the one as planning and designing, the other as executing and carrying into effect there is a mutual dependence between them. But, be it noted, it is not that each contributes its share, there is not in the effect produced anything which belongs to the one cause and not to the other; the whole is due to each cause, but in different senses. It is due to the principal cause as designing and applying, to the instrumental cause as carrying out the design and as applied by the principal cause for that purpose. This will be clear from a familiar example. When we write with a pen and ink we have a whole series of causes and effects each subordinated to the other. The brain moves the hand, the hand the pen, the pen adjusts the flow of ink, the ink marks the paper, the ultimate effect -- intended by the brain from the outset -- is the intelligible writing on the paper.

But, if we consider further, there is nothing in that writing which is not due to the pen. Neither is there anything in it which is not due to the brain from which, in some mysterious way, there has flowed a power transmitted by the arm, the hand, the pen, and the ink to the paper. Further, the more complete the harmony between the various agents here employed -- the more completely will the writing express what the brain directed. And if we were skillful in making pens we could fashion them so delicately as to produce with their aid the most delicate specimens of handwriting. Now instead of the brain put Almighty God, and instead of the pen put one of the Sacred Writers, St. Luke for example. He is no chance pen, picked up -- so to speak. On the contrary, he is a perfectly prepared instrument, prepared from eternity by God for the particular work for which He destined him, namely the writing of the Third Gospel. But when the fitting time comes God moves him to write, and at the same time, illumines his intellect so that he writes under the influence of a divine light directing, stimulating, and, if need be, correcting, his judgment as he shapes his materials, so that he only commits to writing, what God wills and all that God wills.

And there is nothing automatic about this -- it is here that the analogy of the pen fails; for St. Luke is still "Luke the beloved physician," he is still the polished Greek, the friend, the fellow-traveler, the fellow-prisoner of St. Paul. He has to work for his information. He may not, probably did not have, the remotest idea that God was inspiring him. He may receive no revelation whatsoever, i.e., his materials may be all acquired by purely human means, and it is only his judgment which requires illumination. The difference between him and the pen is that Luke is free to pick and choose, though divinely guided all the time. The similarity between him and the pen is that just as we choose a pen precisely because it is fine or thick, so God has chosen Luke because he has just the qualities which fit him to write the Gospel. The difference between the brain, in the analogy, and God, in the actuality, is that the brain could not prepare its instruments -- while God chooses an instrument just because He has perfectly prepared it.

But what right have we to say that the relation between God and the inspired writer is precisely that of principal cause to instrumental cause? First of all because, as the above argument will have shown us, only thus can we explain that character of "author" which must be safeguarded in its entirety to both God and the individual writer. And secondly, because in the Encyclical Providentissimiis we see that Leo XIII. has used this very expression to designate the relationship of the Inspirer and the inspired, "the Holy Ghost employed these men as His instruments."

But this explanation, if rightly apprehended, will show us how impossible it is to regard the Sacred Scriptures as dictated by God. He alone would be the author in that case, and even then He would not be the author of the mechanical act of writing. It will also appear how futile it is to suppose that the ideas a*e God's while the way of expressing them is left to the human author; for then neither God nor the writer could be regarded as the author of the whole.

The following scheme will perhaps make clear the doctrine given above.

GRATIÆ GRATIS DATÆ

Divinely-bestowed powers of working, or the gift of Miracles.			Divinely-bestowed knowledge, or the gift of Prophecy. (all knowledge demands acquisition of material and judgment).

If the acquisition alone is from God we have Prophecy improperly so-called, e.g., Pharaoh, Caiaphas and Nebuchodonosor. This is called by St. Thomas Prophetic Instinct.		If the Judgment alone is from God we have Inspiration; e.g., Joseph and Daniel. This is described by St. Thomas as an uplifting of the mind.		If both the acquisition and the Judgment are from God we have Revelation; e.g., Isaias 7:14. This is described by St. Thomas as the perception of Divine things.

By Very Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P., S.T.M.
Doctor in Sacred Scripture,
Member of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, and
late Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Collegio Angelico, Rome.