From “The Inspiration of Scripture.”

THE PSALMS are inspired; but when David, in the outpouring of his deep contrition, disburdened himself before his God in the words of the “Miserere,” could he, possibly, while uttering them, have been directly conscious that every word he uttered was not simply his, but another’s? Did he not think that he was personally asking forgiveness and spiritual help?

  Doubt again seems incompatible with a consciousness of being inspired. But Father Patrizi, while reconciling two Evangelists in a passage of their narratives, says, if I understand him rightly, that though we admit that there were some things about which inspired writers doubted, this does not imply that inspiration allowed them to state what is doubtful as certain, but only it did not hinder them from stating things with a doubt on their minds about them; but how can the All-knowing Spirit doubt? or how can an inspired man doubt, if he is conscious of his inspiration?

  And, again, how can a man whose hand is guided by the Holy Spirit, and who knows it, make apologies for his style of writing, as if deficient in literary exactness and finish? If then the writer of Ecclesiasticus, at the very time that he wrote his Prologue, was not only inspired but conscious of his inspiration, how could he have entreated his readers to “come with benevolence,” and to make excuse for his “coming short in the composition of words”? Surely, if at the very time he wrote he had known it, he would, like other inspired men, have said, “Thus saith the Lord,” or what was equivalent to it.

  The same remark applies to the writer of the Second Book of Machabees, who ends his narrative by saying, “If I have done well, it is what I desired, but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.” What a contrast to St. Paul, who, speaking of his inspiration (I. Cor. vii. 40) and of his “weakness and fear” (id. ii. 4), does so in order to boast that his “speech was, not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the showing of the Spirit and the power.” The historian of the Machabees would have surely adopted a like tone of “glorying,” had he had at the time a like consciousness of his divine gift.

  Again, it follows from there being two agencies, divine grace and human intelligence, co-operating in the production of the Scriptures, that, whereas, if they were written, as in the Decalogue by the immediate finger of God, every word of them must be his and his only; on the contrary, if they are man’s writing, informed and quickened by the presence of the Holy Ghost, they admit, should it so happen, of being composed of outlying materials, which have passed through the minds and from the fingers of inspired penmen, and are known to be inspired, on the ground that those who were the immediate editors, as they may be called, were inspired.

  For an example of this we are supplied by the writer of the Second Book of Machabees, to which reference has already been made. “All such things,” says the writer, “as have been comprised in five books by Jason of Cyrene, we have attempted to abridge in one book.” Here we have the human aspect of an inspired work. Jason need not, the writer of the Second Book of Machabees must, have been inspired.

  Again, St. Luke’s gospel is inspired, as having gone through and come forth from an inspired mind; but the extrinsic sources of his narrative were not necessarily all inspired any more than was Jason of Cyrene; yet such sources there were, for, in contrast with the testimony of the actual eyewitnesses of the events which he records, he says of himself that he wrote after a careful inquiry, “according as they delivered them to us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word”; as to himself, he had but “diligently attained to all things from the beginning.” Here it was not the original statements, but his edition of them, which needed to be inspired.

  Hence we have no reason to be surprised, nor is it against the faith to hold, that a canonical book may be composed, not only from, but even of, pre-existing documents, it being always borne in mind, as a necessary condition, that an inspired mind has exercised a supreme and an ultimate judgment on the work, determining what was to be selected and embodied in it, in order to its truth in all “matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,” and its unadulterated truth.

  Thus Moses may have incorporated in his manuscript as much from foreign documents as is commonly maintained by the critical school; yet the existing Pentateuch, with the miracles which it contains, may still (from that personal inspiration which belongs to a prophet) have flowed from his mind and hand on to his composition. He new made and authenticated what till then was no matter of faith.

  This being considered, it follows that a book may be, and may be accepted as, inspired, though not a word of it is an original document. Such is almost the case with the First Book of Esdras. A learned writer in a publication of the day says: “It consists of the contemporary historical journals, kept from time to time by the prophets or other authorized persons, who were eyewitnesses for the most part of what they record, and whose several narratives were afterward strung together, and either abridged or added to, as the case required, by a later hand, of course an inspired hand.”

  And in like manner the Chaldee and Greek portions of the Book of Daniel, even though not written by Daniel, may be, and we believe are, written by penmen inspired in matters of faith and morals; and so much, and nothing beyond, does the Church “oblige” us to believe.

  I have said that the Chaldee, as well as the Hebrew portion of Daniel, requires, in order to its inspiration, not that it should be Daniel’s writing, but that its writer, whoever he was, should be inspired. This leads me to the question whether inspiration requires and implies that the book inspired should in its form and matter be homogeneous, and all its parts belong to each other. Certainly not. The Book of Psalms is the obvious instance destructive of any such idea. What it really requires is an inspired editor,—that is, an inspired mind, authoritative in faith and morals, from whose fingers the sacred text passed. I believe it is allowed generally, that at the date of the captivity and under the persecution of Antiochus, the books of Scripture and the sacred text suffered much loss and injury. Originally the Psalms seem to have consisted of five books; of which, only a portion, perhaps the first and second, were David’s. That arrangement is now broken up, and the Council of Trent was so impressed with the difficulty of their authorship, that, in its formal decree respecting the Canon, instead of calling the collection “David’s Psalms,” as was usual, they called it the “Psalterium Davidicum,” thereby meaning to imply, that, although canonical and inspired and in spiritual fellowship and relationship with those of “the choice Psalmist of Israel,” the whole collection is not therefore necessarily the writing of David.

  And as the name of David, though not really applicable to every Psalm, nevertheless protected and sanctioned them all, so the appendices which conclude the Book of Daniel, Susanna, and Bel, though not belonging to the main history, come under the shadow of that Divine Presence, which primarily rests on what goes before.

  And so again, whether or not the last verses of St. Mark’s, and two portions of St. John’s Gospel, belong to those evangelists respectively, matters not as regards their inspiration; for the Church has recognized them as portions of that sacred narrative which precedes or embraces them.

  Nor does it matter whether one or two Isaiahs wrote the book which bears that Prophet’s name; the Church, without settling this point, pronounces it inspired in respect of faith and morals, both Isaiahs being inspired; and, if this be assured to us, all other questions are irrelevant and unnecessary.

  Nor do the councils forbid our holding that there are interpolations or additions in the sacred text, say, the last chapter of the Pentateuch, provided they are held to come from an inspired penman, such as Esdras, and are thereby authoritative in faith and morals.