_The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church by Heinrich Schmid, D.D. Third edition, revised Translated from German and Latin by Charles A. Hay, D.D. and Henry E. Jacobs, D.D. Copyright 1875 and 1889, Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs Copyright 1899, Henry E. Jacobs and Charles E. Hay Reprinted 1961 by Augsburg Publishing House_ Pages 38-91 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CHAPTER IV. OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. In treating of the Holy Scriptures as the recorded revelation of God, we speak 1, of what is understood by the Holy Scriptures and Inspiration; 2, of the Attributes of the Holy Scriptures; 3, of the Canon. PARA 6. Of the terms, Holy Scriptures and Inspiration. God determined that His revelation should be committed to writing, so that it might be preserved pure and uncorrupted throughout all future time; [1] therefore He has deposited it in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. [2] -------------------------End of Page 38---------------------------------------- These are, therefore, defined to be the written Word of God. [3] GRH.: "The Holy Scripture is the Word of God recorded in the Holy Scriptures." Between these and the Word of God, there is, then, no real distinction, inasmuch as they con- tain nothing more than this very Word of God, which was also orally proclaimed; [4] and they contain it entire and complete so that, aside from them, no Word of God is any- where to be found. [5] By being the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures are distinguished from all other books for, in con- sequence of this, they are, in respect of all their contents, en- tirely divine; and this by virtue of the fact that they were communicated by inspiration from God to the prophets and apostles. [6] God is therefore their author (causa principalis), and the prophets and apostles only the instruments (causa in- strumentalis) which God employed in their production. [7] We are, therefore, to ascribe the origin of the Holy Scriptures to a peculiar agency of God, by means of which He impelled the prophets and apostles to the production of the Holy Scrip- tures, [8] and communicated to them both the matter and the form of that which was to be written. [9] This agency of God, by means of which the Holy Scriptures were produced, we call Inspiration. [10] BR: "Divine inspiration was that agency by which God supernaturally communicated to the in- tellect of those who wrote, not only the correct conception of all that was to be written, but also the conception of the words themselves and of everything by which they were to be ex- pressed, and by which He also instigated their will to the act of writing." Hence it follows, that everything that is con- tained in the Holy Scriptures is altogether, and in every par- ticular, true and free from all error. [11] [1] CHMN. (Exam. Conc. Trid. I,20): "We show....why and wherefore the Holy Scriptures were written; because, viz., by tradition purity of doctrine was not preserved; but, under shelter of that term, many strange and false things were mingled with the true." GRH.(II,26): "`Why did God desire His Word, at first orally promulgated, to be committed to writing?' The principal causes appear to have been the following: 1. The shortness of human life. 2. The great number of men. 3. The unfaithfulness to be ---------------------------End of Page 39-------------------------------------- expected from the guardianship of tradition. 4. The weakness of human memory. 5. The stability of heavenly truth, Luke 1:4. 6. The wickedness of man. 7. In the New Testament, the per- verseness of heretics, which was to be held in check." [2] GRH. (II, 13): "The scriptures have their designation from the formal, external act, viz., that of writing, by which the Word of God, at first orally promulgated, was, by the command of God, recorded. God himself made the grand and majestic begin- ning of this work when He inscribed His law on Mount Sinai, upon tablets of stone, which, on this account, are called `the writing of God.' Ex. 32:16. To distinguish them from all other writings, they are called the Holy Scriptures, an appellation derived from Rom. 1:2 and 2 Tim. 3:15. The reasons of this designation are drawn, 1. From their original efficient cause, their Great Author, who is God most holy, yea holiness itself, Is. 6:3; Dan. 9:24. 2. From their instrumental cause, viz., holy men, 2 Pet. 1:21. 3. From their matter, for they contain holy and divine mysteries, precepts for holy living, Ps. 105:42. 4. From their design and effects, for the Holy Spirit sanctifies men through the reading and study of the Scriptures, John 17:17. 5. From the additional cir- cumstance that they are widely different from all other writings, both ecclesiastical and profane, inasmuch as they are clothed with the sublime attribute of canonical authority, to which every believ- ing and godly mind pays due deference." Terms synonymous with Holy Scripture are (Id. II,16): graphe or graphai, John 7:38 and 42; Acts 8:12; Rom. 4:3; graphai hagiai, Rom. 1:2; hiera grammata, 2 Tim. 3:15; graphe Theopneustos, v. 16. Titles of honor which are attributed to the Word of God in Scripture, are the following: XXXXXXXX logia tou Theou. Rom. 3:2; Zon ho logos tou Theou, Heb. 4:12; hremata tes Zoes aioniou, John 6:68. The whole collection is termed XXXXXXXX Josh. 1:8; XXXXXXXX Is. 34:16; XXXXX Neh. 8:8. [3] GRH. (II,427): "The Holy Scriptures are the Word of God reduced to writing, according to His will, by the prophets, evange- lists, and apostles, perfectly and perspicuously setting forth the doctrine of the nature and will of God, that men may thereby be brought unto eternal life." HOLL. (77): "In the definition of the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God signified formally the purpose of God, or the conception of the divine mind, revealed for the salvation of men immediately to the prophets and apostles, and mediately, through their ministra- tions, to the whole race of man." For the sake of the greatest possible accuracy, the following dis- ---------------------End of Page 40---------------------------------- tinctions are made. GRH. (II, 14): "By the term Scripture, we are not to understand so much the external form, or sign, i.e., the particular letters employed, the art of writing and the expressions by which the divine revelation is described, as the matter itself or the thing signified, just that which is marked and represented by the writing, viz., the Word of God itself, which instructs us concerning the nature and will of God. For, as in all writing, performed by an intelligent agent, so also in these prophetic and apostolic writ- tings, two things are to be considered, viz., in the first place, the letters, syllables, and sentences which are written, and which are external symbols signifying and expressing conceptions of the mind; and secondly, those conceptions themselves, which are the thing signified, expressed by these external symbols of letters, syl- lables, and sentences; wherefore in the term Scriptures we embrace both of these, and the latter especially." According as the term is taken in one or the other of these significations, the relation of the Church to the Scriptures is differently expressed. GRH. (II, 15): "Whence we add, by way of corollary, that certain things are predicated of Scripture, with reference to its matter, as that it is more ancient than the Church, that it is the very Word of God itself, formerly preached orally by the apostles and prophets; and others in reference to its form, as that it is, in point of time, later than the Church, that at the last day it will perish, while, on the other hand, as to its matter, it can never be destroyed or perish, John 10:35." [4] GRH. (II,15): "That there is no real difference between the Word of God and the Holy Scriptures, viewed in reference to the matter contained in them, is proved, 1. By the subject-matter of Scripture. The prophets and apostles wrote that, and nothing else than that, which, taught by divine inspiration, they had before preached orally, 1 Cor. 15:1; 2 Cor. 1:13; Phil. 3:1; 2 Thess. 2: 15; 1 John 1:3. 2. By the identity of the spoken and written Word. Because the recorded predictions of the Old Testament are frequently quoted in the New, with these words: `That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,' Matt. 1:22, 2:15, 4:14, etc. Therefore, what the prophets said or predicted, is the same as that which they wrote. 3. By the rule of logic: `The accident does not alter the essence.' It is a mere circumstance in regard to the Word of God, whether it be proclaimed orally or com- mitted to writing. It is one and the same Word of God, whether it be presented to us in the form of spoken or of written lan- guage; since neither the original efficient cause, nor the matter, nor the internal form, nor the object, is thereby changed, but only the ------------------------End of Page 41---------------------------------- mode of presentation by the use of different organs. 4. By the demonstrative particle employed by the apostles. Paul speaks thus distinctively of the Mosaic writings and the other like books of the Old and New Testament: `tout esti to hrema tes pisteos,' `this is the word of faith,' Rom. 10:8; Peter, in 1 Pet. 1:25." CAL. (I,528): "The fanatical sects, especially, deny that the Scriptures are, strictly speaking, the Word of God, maintaining that the internal Word of God alone can properly be called the Word of God." (Schwenckfeld, Rathmann, Weigel.)* [5] GRH. (II,16): 1. "This distinction of the Papists between the written and unwritten Word may, in a certain sense, be admit- ted, viz., if by the term `unwritten Word' be understood the divine revelation proclaimed orally by the patriarchs before the Mosaic books were written, but after the publication of the Scripture Canon, there can be no unwritten Word of God, as distinct form Scripture." 2. "We must distinguish between the leading truths of divine revelation which are necessary, essential, etc., and their more full explanation. The prophets and apostles committed to writing the principal doctrines of revelation, which are necessary to be known by all, and which we do not deny that they explained orally at greater length." [6] QUEN. (I, 56): "The internal form, or that which gives existence to the Scriptures, so that they are indeed the Word of God, that, namely, which constitutes them and distinguishes them from all other writings, is the inspired sense of Scripture, which, in general, is the conception of the divine intellect concerning divine mysteries and our salvation, formed from eternity, and re- vealed in time and communicated in writing to us; or it is divine inspiration itself, 2 Tim. 3:16, by which, namely, it is constituted a divine, and is distinguished from a human word." [7] QUEN. (I, 55): "The efficient or principal cause of Scripture is the triune God, 2 Tim. 3:16 (the Father, Heb. 1:1; the Son, John 1:18, and the Holy Spirit, 2 Sam. 23:2; 1 Pet. 1:11; 2 Pet. 1:21); 1. By an original decree. 2. By subsequent inspira- tion, or by ordering that holy men of God should write, and by inspiring what was to be written." GRH. (II, 26): "The instrumental causes of Holy Scripture were holy men of God, 2 Pet. 1:21, i.e., men peculiarly and im- mediately elected and called by God for the purpose of committing to writing the divine revelations; such were the prophets of the Old Testament and the evangelists and apostles of the New Testa- -------------------------------------------------------------------- *Ample quotations from Schwenckfeld and Weigel in GRH. xiii:69 sqq.; for Rathmann, see WALCH's Streitigkeiten innerhalb d. Luth. Kirche, iv:577 sqq. --------------------End of Page 42------------------------------------ ment; whom, therefore, we properly call the amanuenses of God, the hand of Christ, and the scribes or notaries of the Holy Spirit, since they neither spoke nor wrote by their own human will, but, borne along by the Holy Spirit (pheromenoi hupo tou pneumatos hagiou), were acted upon, led, driven, inspired, and governed by the Holy Spirit. They wrote not as men, but as men of God, i.e., as servants of God and peculiar organs of the Holy Spirit. When, therefore, a canonical book is called a book of Moses, the psalms of David, an epistle of Paul, etc., this is merely a reference to the agent, not to the principal cause." QUEN. (I,55): "God, therefore, alone, if we wish to speak accurately, is to be called the author of the Sacred Scriptures; the prophets and apostles cannot be called the authors, except by a kind of catachresis." To the remark that prophets and apostles may be called the amanuenses of God, QUEN. (I:52) adds: "And not as though these divine amanuenses wrote ignorantly and unwill- ingly, beyond the reach of and contrary to their own will; for they wrote cheerfully, willingly and intelligently. They are said to be pheromenoi, driven, moved, urged on by the Holy Spirit, not as though they were in a state of unconsciousness, as the Enthusiasts pre- tended to be, and as the heathen feigned that there was a certain enthousiasmos in their soothsayers; not, further, by any means, as though the prophets themselves did not understand their own prophecies or the things which they wrote, which was formerly .... the error of the Montanists; but, because they wrote noth- ing of their own accord, but everything at the dictation of the Holy Spirit." Inasmuch as it holds good of all the sacred writers, that they are inspired, those are also accounted such who were not, in the strictest sense, apostles. HOLL. (80): "By the name apostles we here designate those holy men of God, who, after the birth of Christ, wrote the Scriptures of the New Testament; although they did not all belong to the college of the apostles, chosen by Christ, before His ascension, to teach all nations; but who, after Christ's ascension, were numbered with the apostles; such were Matthias (whose writings, however, we do not possess) and Paul. But also those apostolic men, nearest to the apostles in office and dignity, are called apostles in a wider sense; such are Mark and Luke, the evangelists, cf. Rom. 16:7." [8] HOLL. (83): "Inspiration denotes as well the antecedent divine instigation or peculiar impulse of the will to engage in writing, as the immediate illumination by which the mind of the sacred writer is fully enlightened through the supernatural illumination of divine grace, and the conceptions of the things to be written are --------------------End of Page 43----------------------------------- themselves suggested immediately by the Holy Spirit." The co-operation which here takes place on the part of God is described by QUEN. (I, 65) as "a most special and extraordinary concurrence, peculiar to the sacred writers," and to be carefully distinguished from "the general and common concurrence of God, by virtue of which He is present to all believers sincerely meditating upon, and writing about, sacred things." HOLL. (83) distinguishes between inspira- tion and divine governance. "For the latter merely guards against anything being written that is not true, becoming, con- gruous; whereas the former, through the Holy Spirit dictating, suggests the conception of the things to be written. The divine governance would warrant the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures, but not their inspiration." If the impulse to engage in writing be embraced under the term inspiration, then it follows that all the Holy Scriptures were written by the command of God, because all are inspired. QUEN. (I, 65): "All the canonical books, of both the Old and New Testaments, were written by God, who peculiarly incited and impelled the sacred writers to engage in the work, and, therefore, the Scriptures of the New Testament were recorded according to the command and will of God by the evangelists and apostles." The opposite view is that held by the Papists, who foolishly assert that the evangelists and apostles did not write by any divine command, but were incidentally urged by some accidental circum- stance originating elsewhere, or by necessity. It is, indeed, granted that we do not possess the proof of an express and outward com- mand of God in the case of each of the sacred writings, but it is at the same time observed that the want of this is not felt where the impulse exists. GRH. (II,30): "In the holy men of God, the ex- ternal command and the internal impulse correspond to each other. For what else is that divine impulse than an internal and secret command of precisely the same authority and weight with one that is external and manifest?" The latter is proved (by HOLL. (81), but also in the same manner by all the earlier writers) to have ex- isted in the case of all the books of Scripture: "1. By the general command of Christ, Matt. 28:19. (GRH. (II,31): Those who were commanded to teach all nations, were also commanded to re- duce their teachings to writing; for they could not teach all nations, even of the succeeding age, orally and without writing.) 2. By the impulse of the Holy Spirit, which Peter teaches, 2 Pet. 1:21. 3. By the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, which Paul inculcated, 2 Tim. 3:16. 4. By the apostolic office, in which these holy men became the ambassadors of God, 2 Cor. 5:20. Ambas- -------------------------End of page 44----------------------------- sadors are restricted by the commands of their sovereign. Peter, as an ambassador of God, did not undertake to preach to the Gen- tiles without a divine command; therefore still less would he dare to write an epistle unless commanded by God." That, however, the external instigations alluded to in the antithesis of the Papists are not excluded, GRH. (II,33) had already stated: "The induce- ments to engage in writing brought to bear upon the apostles from without, do not annul the internal command, but rather confirm it, since those circumstances were made to influence the apostles by the won- derful arrangement of divine Providence, and to them was subsequently added the interior impulse of the Holy Spirit, urged on by which they applied their hand to the work." [9] Hereby an inspiration both of subject-matter and of the words is asserted, from which it follows that there is absolutely noth- ing in the Holy Scriptures that is not inspired. These assertions are contained in the following two sentences (of HOLL., 83 and 85): "I. The conceptions of all that is contained in the Holy Scrip- tures were immediately communicated by the Holy Spirit to the prophets and apostles. "II. All the words, without exception, contained in the Holy Manuscript, were dictated by the Holy Spirit to the pen of the prophets and apostles." These two sentences we illustrate by the following remarks of QUEN. and HOLL. In reference to No. I: 1. "In inspiration, we recognize a divine assistance and direction, which includes the in- spiration and dictation of the Holy Spirit; but we deny as insuffi- cient such a bare divine assistance and direction as would simply prevent the sacred writers from departing from the truth in speak- ing and writing.... The Holy Spirit guides others also in writ- ing, i.e., so that we observe here a difference in this respect, that the Holy Spirit so directed the inspired men, that He at the same time suggested and communicated all things to them in so far as they are recorded in Scripture."--QUEN, I,68. 2. Inspiration embraces all that is contained in Scripture, and therefore also those things which could have been otherwise known to the apostles and prophets, because in this case it was necessary that these things should be said just at the particular time when the design which God had in view required it. HOLL. (84): "The things which were known to the sacred writers may be considered either absolutely and in themselves, or relatively, in so far as they were to be written by the purpose of God. In the former manner they were previously known by the sacred writers, but not in the latter. For, although the sacred amanuenses may have known ----------------------End of Page 45--------------------------------- certain things, which are described by them before the act of writ- ing, yet it was not, in the nature of the case, known to them whether God desired these things to be described, or under what circumstances, in what order, and with what words they should be committed to writing." 3. In like manner inspiration embraces things that are not of a spiritual nature. HOLL. (83): "There are contained in Scripture historical, chronological, genealogical, astronomical, natural-histor- ical, and political matters, which, although the knowledge of them is not actually necessary to salvation, are nevertheless divinely re- vealed, because an acquaintance with them assists not a little in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and in illustrating the doc- trines and moral precepts. If only the mysteries of the faith, which are contained in the Holy Scriptures, depend upon divine inspiration, and all the rest, which may be known by the light of nature, depend merely upon the divine direction, then not all of Scripture is inspired. But Paul declares that the whole of Scrip- ture is divinely inspired. Therefore not only the mysteries of the faith, but also the remaining truths that may be known by the light of nature, which are contained in Scripture, are divinely sug- gested and inspired;" therefore, 4. Even apparently unimportant matters are, none the less, to be regarded as also inspired. QUEN. (I, 71): "A matter may be of small moment, considered in itself and with reference to the estimation in which it is held by men, and yet of great import- ance if we regard the end and wise design which God has in view with regard to it. Many things in Scripture seem to be of small account (2 Tim. 4:13), in regard to which some suppose that our theory of inspiration derogates from the dignity of the Holy Spirit; but they are, nevertheless, of great moment, if we regard the end had in view (Rom. 15:4) and the all-wise design of God, in ac- cordance with which these things were introduced into the Scrip- tures." CALIXTUS (in QUEN.,I,69) is a prominent advocate of the opposite view, viz.: "Neither is it taught in Scripture, that it is necessary to ascribe all the particulars that are contained in it to a peculiar divine revelation, but that the principal topics, those which the Scripture is mainly and peculiarly designed to teach, viz., those which relate to the redemption and salvation of the human race, are to be ascribed solely to that particular divine reve- lation; while in writing concerning other things, known in some other way, either by experience or the light of nature, the writers were so directed by the divine assistance and by the Holy Spirit, that they wrote nothing but what was actual, true, becoming, and congruous." The proof of plenary inspiration is drawn 1. From --------------------End of Page 46----------------------------------- 2 Tim. 3:16. (QUEN. (I, 71): "The word pasa may be taken distributively, of the single books or parts of Scripture, or collec- tively for those parts taken as a whole, so that pasa is the same as hole; in either case our opinion remains true, viz., that all Scripture is inspired.") Whence the following argument of CAL. (I, 555): "If all Scripture be inspired, then there can be nothing in the Holy Scriptures that was not divinely suggested and by inspiration com- municated to those who wrote. For, if even a single particle of Scripture were derived from human knowledge and memory, or from human revelation, then it could not be asserted that all Scrip- ture is divinely inspired." 2. From 2 Pet. 1:21 (although Peter does not allude particularly to writing, but speaking,... yet by lalian both speaking and writing are here implied, and both are comprehended under this term cf. Acts 2:31;3:24; Rom. 3:19; for just as the holy men of God were incited and impelled by the Holy Spirit to speak, so were they also incited and impelled by Him to write). 3. By the promise of Christ, John 14:26. 4. From 1 Cor. 2:10. We add, from CAL. (I, 556), the following additional proofs: "From the originating cause of Scripture, if in- deed the sacred writers were merely the pen, the hand, or the amanuenses of the Holy Spirit; from the nature of the direction of the Holy Spirit, which is usually described as such that the Scrip- tures were written by His direction, wherefore Gregory the Great declared that the whole of the Holy Scriptures were nothing more nor less than a letter from God the Creator to man His creature; from the equal authority of all that is contained in Scripture. For not merely those things which directly refer to the subjects of faith and salvation are the Word of God, but everything that is found in Scripture, Rom. 3:2, and, for the same reason that they are called by this name, they well deserve to be regarded as the immediate Word of God." In relation to No. II., HOLL. (87): "The divine inspiration of the words known by common usage, was necessary to the proper expression of the mind of the Holy Spirit. For the prophets and apostles were not at liberty to clothe the divine meaning in such words as they might of their own accord select; but it was their duty to adhere to, and depend upon, the oral dictation of the Holy Spirit, so that they might commit the Holy Scriptures to writing, in the order and connection so graciously and excellently given, and in which they would appear in perfect accordance with the mind of the Holy Spirit." QUEN. (I, 76) thus accounts for the variety of style: "There is a great diversity among the sacred writers in regard to style and mode of speaking, which appears to -------------------End of Page 47-------------------------------- arise from the fact that the Holy Spirit accommodated Himself to the ordinary mode of speaking, leaving to each one his own man- ner; yet we do not thereby deny that the Holy Spirit suggested the particular words to these individuals." CAL., however (I, 574), remarks: "The Holy Spirit, Supreme Author of the Holy Scriptures, was not bound to the style of any one, but, as a perfectly free teacher of languages, could use, through any person soever, the character, style, and mode of speech that He chose, and could just as easily propose the divine oracles through Jeremiah in a highly ornate style, as through Isaiah in one of great simplicity. But He regarded not so much the ability of the writers to speak as the character of the subjects concerning which He wished them to speak; and, throughout the whole, He used His own authority (autexousia) under the guidance of His unlimited wisdom. So that we need not wonder that the same Spirit employed diversities of style.... The cause of this di- versity of style is the fact that the Holy Spirit gave to each one to speak as He pleased." Yet CAL. adds also: "Although the style of Scripture is plain and very well suited, not only to the genius of the readers and hearers, but also to the old and custom- ary style of speech of the sacred writers, yet there may be recog- nized in it a condescension, syngkatabasis, of the Holy Spirit; because He accommodated Himself sometimes to the ordinary method of speaking, leaving to the writers their own style of speech; but it must not be denied that the Holy Spirit breathed into them the words." The inspiration of the Hebrew vowel-points was included in this theory; conf. GRH.'s argument ex absurdo (II,272): "It would follow that the Scriptures were not communicated by God through the prophets, so far as the single words are concerned, since without the vowel-points the words cannot possibly exist; therefore not all Scripture is inspired." From the theory of verbal inspiration there arose also the assertion: "The style of the New Testament is free from every trace of barbarism and from solecisms." (QUEN., I, 82.) The proof of verbal inspiration was drawn, 1. From 2 Tim. 3:16. (All Scripture is wholly inspired; not only its meaning, or the thing signified, but also the words, as signs of things, were divinely inspired. Therefore, etc., etc. (HOLL., 85.)) 2. From 1 Cor. 2:13; Ex. 34:27,28; Matt. 5:18. [10] Inspiration is, therefore, a divine agency employed in con- nection with the recording of the truth, and, in several respects, it differs from Revelation. If we consider the latter as embracing the whole compass of Christian faith, it owes its very existence to inspiration. CAL. (I, ---------------------End of Page 48----------------------------------- 280): "Divine inspiration may be regarded either as the source and efficient cause of revelation, in which sense it is an act of God as inspir- ing, or as the form which revelation assumes, or the revealed Word." But if revelation be taken in its etymological sense, as the commu- nication of that which was before unknown, then it differs from inspiration in the following respects: 1. The latter may contain also that which was before known, merely specifying the particular time and manner in which it is to be consummated, and, 2. The subject- matter of revelation may be communicated to man in various ways, but that of inspiration only by an immediate divine suggestion. QUEN. (I, 68): "Revelation, formally and etymologically viewed, is the manifestation of things unknown and hidden, and can be made in many and various ways, viz., by outward speech, or by dreams and visions. Inspiration is that act of the Holy Spirit by which an actual knowledge of things is supernaturally conveyed to an intel- ligent creature, or it is an internal suggestion or infusion of concep- tions, whether the things conceived were previously known to the writer or not. The former could precede the commitment to writ- ing; the latter was always associated with it and influenced the writing itself." Add to this the remarks: "With all this I do not deny that divine inspiration itself may be called revelation, in a certain sense; in so far, namely, as it is a manifestation of certain circumstances, as also of the order and manner in which certain things are to be written. (We must distinguish between divine revelation when by it the subject-matter itself is made known, and when it refers to the peculiar circumstances and time and manner and order in which the subject-matter is to be reduced to writing." (I, 72) "And when, also, revelation concurs and coincides with divine inspiration, when, viz., the divine mysteries are revealed by inspiration and inspired by revelation, in the very act of writing. Thus CALOVIUS very properly remarks: `That all the particulars contained in the Holy Scriptures are not, indeed, to be regarded as having been received by a peculiar and new revelation, but by the special dictation, inspiration, and suggestion of the Holy Spirit.'" [11] HOLL. (88): "Divine inspiration, by which the subject- matter and the words to be spoken, as well as those to be written, were immediately suggested to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit, preserved them free from all error, as well in the preaching as in the writing of the divine Word." CAL. (I, 551): "No error, even in unimportant matters, no defect of memory, not to say untruth, can have any place in all the Holy Scriptures." QUEN. (I, 80): "We are to distinguish between the conversation -----------------------End of Page 49----------------------------- of the apostles and their preaching and writing; or between infirmi- ties in conduct and errors in doctrine. In doctrine the apostles never could err, after receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, ... but in their conduct and outward conversation they were not sin- less, but, in consequence of innate original corruption, were still subject to infirmities and failings." The more accurate development of the doctrine of inspiration begins with GRH. HUT. (Loci Theologici (30)) still thus briefly expresses himself in regard to it: "Although God did not directly write the Scriptures, but used prophets and apostles as His pen and instrument, yet the Scripture is not, on that account, of any the less authority. For it is God, and indeed God alone, who inspired the prophets and apostles, not only as they spoke, but also as they wrote; and He made use of their lips, their tongues, their hands, their pen. Therefore, or in this respect, the Scriptures, as they are, were written by God Himself. For the prophets and apostles were merely instruments." This contains, however, essen- tially everything that we have adduced above from the later theo- logians. It was mainly the controversy with the Roman Catholics that gave occasion for detailed specifications; for these very well knew that they would rob the Protestant Church of all its weapons, without thereby injuring themselves, if they could cast suspicion upon the true inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Such dis- criminations were also called forth in part by the fanatics, who treated the written Word of God with little respect; partly by the Socinians and Arminians, who adhered to a merely partial inspira- tion of the Scriptures. In opposition to these, it became of great importance to the Lutheran theologians to defend with all earnest- ness the doctrine of the inspiration, not only of the matter, but of the very words. PARA. 7. The Attributes of the Holy Scriptures. If the Holy Scriptures are really the Word of God, then it follows that we are bound to yield to them implicit faith and obedience. As they are the only source of truth, they must contain this entirely and so clearly that we can really learn it from them. And they are, finally, as the Word of God, the only means by which we can attain unto faith, and, therefore, must also be able to awaken this faith in us. We ascribe to them, therefore, the attributes of authority, perfection or suffi- ciency, perspicuity and efficacy. [1] ---------------------End of Page 50--------------------------------- PARA. 8. (1.) Authority BR.: "The authority of the Holy Scriptures is the manifest dignity that inclines the human understanding to assent to their instructions, and the will to yield obedience to their commands." We believe what the Holy Scriptures declare, simply because they declare it, and it is they that beget faith in us, and they are the only source from which we derive our faith. They are, at the same time, the only inspired book, and by this they are distinguished from all other writings. It is therefore only from them that we can learn what is true in divine things; and they furnish the means by which we can everywhere distinguish between truth and error. The author- ity of Holy Scripture is, accordingly, divided into: "(a) Caus- ative authority, by which the Scriptures create and confirm in the mind of man assent to the truths to be believed. (b) Nor- mative or canonical authority, by which authentic Scripture is distinguished from other writings and versions, and that which is true from that which is false." [2] HOLL. (104.) (a) Causative Authority. This rests upon the fact, that we acknowledge God as the author of the Holy Scriptures, [3] and this we prove by the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. [4] The proofs of inspiration are, it is true, derived in the first instance only from the Holy Scriptures themselves, and already presuppose faith in the Holy Scriptures themselves, on the part of those who admit them as evidence. But, for the Church and her members, there is no need of proof for the in- spiration of Scripture, for her very existence depends upon this faith, and this faith precedes all proofs; [5] without this no article of faith could be based upon the Holy Scriptures. [6] Therefore, the proof that the Holy Scriptures are in- spired, or, what amounts to the same thing, that they are of divine origin, and consequently possess full authority in mat- ters of faith, is required only for those who are yet without the Church, or who, if within her pale, are not confirmed in the faith. But it lies in the nature of the case, that no proof can be given to those, which they cannot, in an unbelieving frame of mind, evade; for the only absolutely stringent proof lies in the fact, that the Holy Spirit bears witness in the heart of each individual, and thus convinces him of the divinity of -------------------End of Page 51--------------------------------- the Word of God, by the mighty influence which it exerts upon him; [7] but that this may be the case, it is necessary that the individual do not resist the drawings of the Holy Spirit, and before this takes place the testimony of the Holy Spirit can have no probative power for him. [8] To this ex- perience, therefore, the individual is referred, and through it alone will he attain to absolute certainty in regard to the di- vinity of the Holy Scriptures. All other so-called proofs are rather to be considered as such evidences for the divinity of the Holy Scriptures as can make this probable to the individ- ual, and invite him to give himself up to the influence of the Holy Spirit, in order to acquire for himself the same exper- ience which the Church has gained. [9] Such evidences are of two kinds. The Holy Scriptures themselves testify in re- gard to this divinity, by their internal excellence and dignity (kriteria interna, internal proofs); and the effects which the Holy Scriptures have produced upon others, testify also to the same {kriteria externa, external proofs). [10] These evidences the Church holds out to each individual, and seeks by their means to induce him to yield his heart to the influence of the Holy Spirit, who will produce in him the full conviction of the di- vinity of the Holy Scriptures. [11] (b) Normative or Canonical Authority. HOLL. (125): "The canonical authority of Scripture is its supreme dignity, by which, in virtue of its meaning, as well as of its divinely in- spired style, it is the infallible and sufficient rule, by which all that is to be believed and done by man in order to secure eternal salvation, must be examined, all controversies in re- gard to matters of faith decided, and all other writings ad- judged." [12] Accordingly, we must acknowledge the Holy Scriptures as the only rule and guide of our life, by which alone all controversies in regard to divine things must be set- tled, [13] so that in no case is the addition of any other au- thority required, by which they may be decided. [14] But if the Holy Scriptures are thus the only judge of controversies, the question arises: How is this decision to be obtained from them? It lies in the nature of the case, that not every one can accomplish this with equal success, for certain previous conditions are required for this purpose, without which the ----------------End of Page 52----------------------------------- Holy Scriptures cannot be understood and expounded; and besides, necessary ecclesiastical order demands that, at least for the public investigation and announcement of the decisions contained in the Holy Scriptures, there should be a regular calling. Hence, it pre-eminently belongs to the Church pub- licly to make known, by means of her representatives (the clergy), the decision discovered in the Holy Scriptures, in re- ference to a contested point, [15] whence, however, it does not yet follow, that every private individual within the pale of the Church does not possess the right of private judgment. [16] If then, in any given case, the adjustment of a controversy be not attained, the fault lies not in the Holy Scriptures, but in the fact that the Holy Scriptures were not properly interpreted, or the proper interpretation was not adopted. [17] But, in every case, when such a controversy is to be decided, resort must be had to the original text of the Holy Scriptures; for, although a good translation may enalbe us to secure the testi- mony of the Holy Spirit, it is never so accurate, that we dare employ it in doubtful cases, in which often everything de- pends upon the most accurate investigation of the single words of the original text. [18] [1] The attributes are variously enumerated by the early divines. CAL. and QUEN. add to those we have mentioned, infallible truth, the power of interpreting itself, normative and judicial authority, which are again by others incorporated in those we have mentioned. Some theologians also add the following as secondary attributes: (1) "Necessity; or, that it was necessary for the Word of God to be committed to writing, in order to preserve the purity of the heavenly doctrine. (2) Integrity and perpetuity; or, that the Holy Scriptures have been preserved entire, and will be thus perpetually preserved. (3) Purity and uncorrupted state of its sources; or, that the Hebrew text in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, have not suffered, in all copies, any corruption, either through malice or carelessness, but have been preserved by Divine Provi- dence, free from all corruption. (4) Authentic dignity; or, that the Hebrew text alone of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, is to be regarded as authentic, nor is any version to be counted worthy of such supreme authority. (5) The liberty of all to read for themselves."--CAL., I,450. [2] BR. (82): "The authority of Scripture, so far as it regards ---------------------End of Page 53--------------------------------- the assent that is to be yielded to its declarations, may be viewed in a two-fold light: first, in a strict sense, in order to cause assent to the things that are to be believed, which right the Scriptures hold because they are the source of knowledge and the formal object of faith and revealed theology; secondly, in order to distinguish by the inspired Scriptures themselves, both the true Scriptures and those other teachings, which relate to matters of faith and practice; and this right they hold, inasmuch as they are canonical, or the rule and guide whereby to distinguish truth from falsehood....For, although the author- ity of Scripture is one and the same, based upon the veracity of God and the dependence of the Scriptures upon God, through which it is appointed, both in a formal sense to produce faith and in a normal sense to examine and decide between certain Scriptures and other teachings; and as, further, the Scriptures are to be em- ployed somewhat differently for the formal purpose of causing assent to the faith, and for the normal purpose of distinguishing truth from falsehood; thus, also, we must by all means treat dis- tinctly of both these methods in discussing the authority of Scrip- ture." HOLL. (105): "In the former method, they (the Holy Scriptures) are employed in every language for producing faith in the mind of an unbelieving man, and for confirming it in the mind of a believer; in which respect this authority is called causative or promotive of faith; in the latter method, they are employed only in the original text, to distinguish from the actually inspired Scrip- ture the versions of the Hebrew and Greek originals, the Symbolical Books, and all writings that treat of matters of faith and practice." [3] BR. (80): "The authority of Scripture, viewed in itself and absolutely, or with reference to its contents, depends upon God, the sole Author of Scripture, and results from His veracity and great and infinite power." GRH. (II, 36): "Inasmuch, then, as the Holy Scriptures have God for their author, by whose immediate inspiration the prophets, evangelists, and apostles wrote, therefore they also possess divine authority; because they are inspired, they are in like manner self-commendatory, winning faith by virtue of their own inherent excellence." [4] BR. (81): "So far as we are concerned, or that we may be convinced that the Holy Scriptures are worthy to receive faith and obedience, not only these perfections of God must be known, but also the dependence of Scripture upon God, or its inspiration by Him." Our conviction, however, rests upon the two theses: "(1) Whatsover Scripture is recorded by divine inspiration, that is certainly and infallibly true. (2) The Holy Scriptures were recorded by divine inspiration." --------------------End of Page 54-------------------------------- [5] GRH. (I,9): "Those who are within the Church do not in- quire about the authority of Scripture, for this is their starting- point. How can they be true disciples of Christ if they pretend to call in question the doctrine of Christ? How can they be true members of the Church if they are in doubt concerning the founda- tion of the Church? How can they wish to prove that to them- selves which they always employ to prove other things? How can they doubt concerning that whose efficacy they have experi- enced in their own hearts? The Holy Spirit testifies in their hearts that the Spirit is truth, i.e., that the doctrine derived from the Holy Spirit is absolute truth." [6] GRH. therefore very properly observes, that the doctrine of the authority of Scripture is no article of faith, but rather the fountain-head of the articles of faith. (I, 11): "The doctrine concerning the Canon is, properly speaking, not an article of faith, since Moses, the prophets, evangelists, and apostles did not fabri- cate in their writings a new article of faith superadded to the former, which they taught orally." [7] GRH. (II, 37): "The first (testimony) is the internal wit- ness of the Holy Spirit, who, as He bears witness to the spirit of believers that they are the sons of God, Rom. 8:16, so, also, efficaciously convinces them, that in the Scriptures the voice of their Heavenly Father is contained; and God is the only fit and authentic witness. To this testimony belongs the lively sense of the godly in daily prayer and in the exercises of penitence and faith, the grace of consoling and strengthening the mind against all kinds of adversities, temptations, persecutions, etc., etc., which the godly daily experience in reading and meditating upon Scripture." QUEN. (I, 97): "The ultimate reason by and through which we are led to believe with a divine and unshaken faith that God's Word is God's Word, is the intrinsic power and efficacy of that Word itslef, and the testimony and seal of the Holy Spirit, speak- ing in and through Scripture. Because the bestowment of faith, not only that by which we believe in the articles, but even that by which we believe in the Scriptures, that exhibit and propose the articles, is a work that emanates from the Holy Spirit, or the Supreme Cause." HOLL. (116): "By the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, is here understood the supernatural act of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God, attentively read or heard (His own divine power being communicated to the Holy Scriptures), moving, opening, illuminating the heart of man, and inciting it to obedience unto -------------------End of Page 55--------------------------------- the faith; so that man, thus illuminated by internal, spiritual influences, clearly perceives that the word proposed to him has indeed proceeded from God, and thus gives it unyielding assent." The Scripture proof for the testimony of the Holy Spirit is de- duced from 1 John 5:6; 1 Thess. 1:5,6; 2:13. To the common objection, that Theology here reasons in a circle, the following answer is returned, HOLL. (119): "If I inquire, says the ob- jector, How do you know that the Scriptures are divine? the Lutherans answer: `Because the Holy Sprit in each one testifies and confirms this by the Scripture.' If I ask again: `How do you prove that this Holy Sprit is divine?' the same persons will reply: `Because the Scriptures testify that He is divine, and His testimony infallible.' To all of which we reply: We must distinguish between a sophistical circle and a demonstrative retro- gression. In reasoning in a circle, one unknown thing is em- ployed to prove another equally unknown; but in a demonstrative retrogression, we proceed from confused knowledge to that which is distinct. For the divine dignity of Scripture is proved by the supernatural effect of the Holy Spirit operating efficaciously through the Scriptures, illuminating, converting, regenerating, re- newing. But, if you ask whether that spirit is divine or malignant, then we reason from the effect, which is divine and salutary, that the Spirit, who bears witness within concerning the divine origin of the Holy Scriptures, is divine, most holy, and excellent." QUEN. (I, 101) further adds: "The Papists, therefore, wrongly accuse us of reasoning in a circle, when we prove the Holy Scriptures from the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and the testi- mony of the Holy Spirit from the Holy Scriptures. Else would it be also reasoning in a circle when Moses and the prophets testify concerning Christ, and Christ concerning Moses and the prophets; or, when John the Baptist testifies that Christ is the Messiah, and again Christ that John the Baptist is a prophet." [8] Therefore GRH. (II, 36) distinguishes, among those who stand without the pale of the Church, two classes: "Some are curable, who come with minds tempered and desirous of learning; others are incurable, who come with minds unyielding and obstinate, and who contumaciously resist the truth, Acts 13:46; 19:28. The incurable, just as those who are past bodily recovery, are to be for- saken to their fate, Titus 3:10. The same applies to those who are within the pale of the Church, if, in the midst of temptation, they begin to doubt the authority of the Scripture." [9] QUEN. (I, 98): "Those arguments both of an internal and external nature, by which we are led to the belief of the authority --------------------End of Page 56------------------------------------ of Scripture make the inspriation of Scripture probable, and pro- duce a certainty not merely conjectural but moral, so that to call it in question were the work of a fool; but they do not make the divinity of Scripture infallible, and place it beyond all doubt, nor do they produce within the mind an immovable conviction, i.e., they beget not a divine, but merely a human faith, not an unshaken certainty, but a credibility, or a very probable opinion." [10] GRH. (II, 37): "I. The internal criteria inherent in the Scriptures themselves, some of which are found in the causes, others in the effects, some in the subject-matter, others in incidental cir- cumstances. Such criteria are antiquity, the majesty of the subjects discussed, peculiarity of style, harmony of all parts, dignity of the predictions concerning future events, the reality of their fulfil- ment, divinity of the miracles by which their doctrine is confirmed, the violence of the diabolical opposition to it, the efficacy of Scrip- ture itself in persuading and moving to action. II. The external testimonies (which can be drawn from all classes of men), among which is pre-eminent the testimony of the Church, to which we may add that of the martyrs, who sealed the doctrine taught in Scripture with their blood, and also, the punishment of blasphemers and persecutors, who contumaciously opposed this doctrine." The later divines present these proofs in substantially the same manner as HOLL. (106): "The external criteria (which are derived, not from Scripture, but from other sources) are (a) the antiquity of Scripture; (b) the singular clearness of the sacred writers, their desire after knowledge and truth; (c) the splendor of the miracles by which the heavenly doctrine is confirmed; (d) the harmonious testimony of the Church, spread over the whole earth, to the divinity of the Holy Scriptures; (e) the constancy of the martyrs; (f) the testimony of other nations to the doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures; (g) the successful and rapid propagation of the Christian doctrine through the whole world, and its wonderful preservation during so many persecutions; (h) the extremely severe punishments inflicted upon the despisers and persecutors of the Divine Word." In reference to these, HOLL. remarks (109): "We premise these external criteria, in order to prepare the minds of the unbelieving for reading and meditating upon the Holy Scriptures with interest and desire...it is necessary that first of all unbe- lievers be led by external criteria to regard it as not improbable that the Holy Scriptures had their origin in God, and therefore begin to respect, read, and meditate upon them." The internal criteria ("drawn from the intrinsic nature and attri- butes of Scripture," BR.) are: "(a) the majesty of God, testifying ----------------------End of Page 57------------------------------- concerning Himself in the Holy Scriptures; (b) the simplicity and dignity of the biblical style; (c) the sublimity of the divine mysteries which the Scriptures reveal; (d) the truth of all biblical assertions; (e) the sanctity of the precepts contained in the Holy Scriptures; (f) the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to salvation." In regard to these, HOLL. further adds: "These internal criteria, taken together and conjointly, constitute a stronger argument than if taken successively or singly." [11] GRH. (I, 9): "Although the testimony of the Holy Spirit is of the very highest importance, yet we are not to make a begin- ning with it in the conversion of such men, i.e., they are not to be commanded to wait until the Holy Spirit bears witness immediately in their hearts concerning the authority of Scripture, but they are to be directed to the testimony of the Church, which, in this respect, performs the part of a preceptor to the unbelieving disciple. Just as, therefore, it is necessary for a pupil first to believe, until he afterwards becomes able to form an independent judgment concern- ing the things taught, so it is necessary for an unbeliever to yield assent to the testimony of the Church, which is the first step towards ascertaining the authority of Scripture; then the internal criteria of antiquity, prophecies, etc., are to be added. Yet the testimony of the Church alone is not sufficient to convince an un- believer of the divine authority of the Scriptures, since he may, perhaps, still be in doubt whether this be really the true Church of God. Wherefore, as it is the duty of the preceptor, not only to propose precepts, but also to corroborate their truth; so it is not sufficient for the Church to declare that these are divine Scriptures, unless it accompany its declaration with reasons. Then at length it may follow that the Holy Spirit shall bear testimony in the heart of the inquirer, and prove the truth of His words." The testimony of the Church varies in weight, according as it is derived from the earlier or from the later Church. GRH. (I, 10): "The primitive Church, that heard the apostles themselves, excelled in being the original recipients of the sacred books, and in being fav- ored with the living instruction of the apostles and with a number of miracles to prove the authority of the canon; the next age, in which the autographs of the apostles were still preserved, excelled the former in the more complete fulfilment of New Testament prophe- cies, in the abundance of versions of both Testaments into vari- ous languages, and in the testimony concerning the Holy Scrip- tures extracted from various writings of believers; and it excelled the age succeeding it, by possessing the autographs of the evange- lists and apostles, the voice of the ancient Church, and a number -------------------End of Page 58-------------------------------- of miracles. The latest age of the Church excels both the others (although the autographs of the apostles are no more), at least in the more perfect fulfilment of prophecy." Occasion is here taken to protest against the Romish axiom, "All the authority of Scripture depends upon the Church," and to guard against such an interpretation being put upon what has been above stated. HOLL. (120): "The authority of the Holy Scriptures neither depends upon the Church of the divine, pre-eminent dignity in which its power lies; nor, in order that it may be known, does it need the testimony of the Church either, as the grand and ultimate source of proof for the divine authority of Scripture, or as the only and absolutely necessary arguments." GRH. (II, 38) remarks (1): "It is one thing for the Church to bear witness to the Scrip- tures and their authority ministerially, and another to confer upon Scripture its authority dictatorially and judicially. From the min- istry and testimony of the Church, we are led to acknowledge the authority of Scripture, but from this it by no means follows that the authority of Scripture, either in itself, or in respect to us, de- pends alone upon the authority of the Church; because, when we have once learned that the Scriptures are divine and contain the Word of God, we no longer believe the Scriptures on account of the Church, but on account of themselves; because, viz., they are the voice of God, which is autaletheia, and hence autopistos, which we know must be believed on its own account and immediately. (2) It is one thing for us to become acquainted with the authority of the Scriptures by the testimony of the Church, and another, for the whole authority of the Scripture, so far as we are concerned, to depend solely upon the testimony of the Church. The former we concede, the latter we deny; because, beside the testimony of the Church, we have two other classes of evidence for the authority of Scripture, and in the same class, that embraces the testimony of the Church, other external evidences derived from all kinds of men may be adduced; yet, at the same time, we do not deny, that the testi- mony of the Church is to be preferred to all others in this class. (3) It is one thing to speak of the testimony of the primitive Church, which received the autograph of the sacred books from the apostles, and handed down a credible testimony concerning them to poster- ity, and another, to speak of the authority of the present Church." QUEN. (I, 93) notices, in addition, the objection of the Papists, "The Church is more ancient than the Scriptures; therefore, it has greater authority;" to which he replies: "We must make a dis- tinction between the Word of God contained in the Scriptures, and the act of writing itself, or, between the substance of Scripture, ----------------End of Page 59------------------------------------- which is the Word of God, and its accident, which is the writing of it. The Church is prior to the Scriptures, if you regard the mere act of writing; but it is not prior to the Word of God itself, by means of which the Church itself was collected. Surely the Scrip- tures, or the Word of God, is the foundation of the Church, Eph. 2: 20; but the foundation is older than the building." [12] HOLL. (125): "The Holy Scriptures exercise their highest canonical authority, when a controversy arises concerning the truth of a doctrine, and the truth is to be confirmed and falsehood to be confuted; but the Scriptures exert their faith-producing authority, as often as the unbelieving are to be converted to the Christian faith, or the weak faith of believers is to be strengthened." [13] GRH. (I, 28): "The Holy Scriptures are the rule of our faith and life; therfore, also, the judge of theological controversies." (I, 30): "Add to this, that all the qualities of a rule, properly so called, belong to Scripture. For a rule should be certain, fixed, invariable, fundamental, suited to meet every case, always self- consistent. But these qualities belong neither to tradition, nor to the teachings of human reason, nor to the writings of the fathers, nor to the Pope, nor to the decrees of councils, but to the Holy Scriptures alone." FORM. CONC. (Preface, 1): "We teach, that the only rule according to which all doctrines and all teachers are to be estimated and judged, is none other than the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testament' (Compare also the remarks of QUEN. (I, 150): "When we say that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and of life conformed to the will of God, we do not speak of every age of the Church, for there was a time when the Church was instituted and governed without the written Word of God, the time, viz., before Moses; but we refer to that age in which the first written canon was prepared, and especially to the New Testament times, in which all things necessary to faith and the worship of God have been written down, and with great care col- lected into the canon.") HOLL. (125): "As a rule of knowledge, it performs a two-fold function, directive and corrective. For it directs the thoughts of the human mind, so that they abide within the bounds of truth; and it corrects errors, inasmuch as it is properly its own rule of right and wrong. Wherefore, the Holy Scriptures are called the Canon, or rule, partly on account of their directive character, because the true faith and pure morals are learned from them; partly on ac- count of their corrective character, since controversies in regard to the faith are decided by them, and whatever is right and godly is retained, and what is erroneous and ungodly is rejected.' -------------------End of Page 60--------------------------------------- Others, as CAL. and QUEN., express this by a separate attribute, viz., the normative and judicial authority. CAL. (I, 474): "The Holy Scriptures are a rule, according to which all controversies in regard to faith or life in the Church should, and can be, decided (Ps. 19:7; Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:16); and as a rule they are not partial, but complete and adequate, because, beside the Scriptures, no other infallible rule in matters of faith can be given. All others beside the Word of God are fallible; and on this account we are referred to the Holy Scriptures as the only rule (Deut. 4:2; 12:28; Josh. 23:6; Is. 8:20; Luke 16:29; 2 Pet. 1:19); to which, alone, Christ and the apostles referred as a rule (Matt. 4: 4; 22:29,31; Mark 9:12; John 5:45; Acts 3:20; 13:33; 18:28; 26:22)." [14] Hence, the two corollaries of QUEN. (I, 158,167): "(1) It is therefore not necessary that there should be in the Church a supreme, regularly appointed and universal judge, who, seated upon a visible throne, is peremptorily to decide all strifes and controversies that arise among Christians concerning faith and re- ligion, and orally and specifically to pronounce sentence in regard to them. We cannot acknowledge as such a judge either the Roman pontiff, or the fathers, or councils. (2) Nor is the de- cision concerning the mysteries and controversies of the faith to be granted to human reason, nor to an internal instinct or secret spirit." [15] CHMN. (Trid.): "The Church has the right and liberty of deciding." GRH. (II, 359): "If the Church is `the pillar and the ground of the truth,' and we are `commanded to hear it' (1 Tim. 3:15; Matt. 18:17), then all decisions in matters of faith belong to her." But the right which is hereby ascribed to the Church is carefully distinguished from that which belongs to the Holy Scriptures. This is usually done in the following manner: (1) The principal judge is the Holy Spirit; the instruental judge, the Holy Scrip- tures; the ministerial (inferior) judge, the clergy. In regard to the latter, however ("whose duty it is to seek for the decision of the Supreme Judge as laid down in Scripture, and from this to teach what is to be done, to interpret this, and decide in accord- ance with it"), it is maintained `that this judge should not pro- nounce sentence according to his own will, but according to the rule laid down by the Supreme Judge,' i.e., according to the Holy Scriptures, which we therfore call the decision of the Su- preme Judge, the rule of the inferior judge, and the directive judge (GRH., II., 366). And QUEN. (I, 150): "An inferior decision, viz., of a teacher -------------------End of Page 61-------------------------------- of the Church, is nothing else than the interpretaion, declaration, or annunciation of a divine, decisive, and definitive judgment, and its application to particular persons and things." Whence it further follows: "We are able to decide by the decision of an inferior judge, not absolutely, but if he pronounce according to the prescriptions of the divine law or the Scriptures, and in so far as he shows that he decides according to the Word of God. (Deut. 17:10.) Wherefore, we may appeal from this inferior judge to the Supreme, but not conversely, from the Supreme to the inferior. The subordinate judge is, therefore, not absolute, but restricted and bound by the decisions of the Supreme Judge as recorded in Scrip- ture. According to this distinction, the Holy Scriptures are called the judging Judge, or the Judge ad quem (to whom there is appeal), and the Church the Judge to be judged, or the Judge a quo (From whom there is an appeal)." The Church is, therefore, it is true, a visible judge, but merely discretive, who, in the exercise of sound judgment, distinguishes truth from falsehood. She is, however, "not a judge, specially and strictly so called, viz., authoritative and decisive, pronouncing sentence authoritatively, and by virtue of the authority belonging to her, compelling the disputants to acquiesce in the whole opinion she may propose without further investigation." (HOLL., 146.) [16] GRH. (II, 359): "Whatever pertains to a spiritual per- son, may be regarded as belonging to all children and members of the Church. The reason of this is, that by spiritual person, we understand not merely the clergy, according to the nomenclature of the Papists, but all the children of the Church, who are con- trolled by the Spirit of God. Rom. 8:9. For `he that is spir- itual judgeth all things.' 1 Cor. 2:15." QUEN. (I, 150): "We assert that every believer, according to the measure of the gift of God, can and ought to judge, not indeed, in all controversies, but concerning the doctrines necessary to salvation, and to mark the difference between brass and beans by his own discretive judgment. Not that every one should follow his own notions, as the Papists accuse our churches of doing, but that he should submit himself to the judgment of the Holy Spirit, recorded in the Scriptures, and examine all things according to the tenor of this decision, but leave to the learned the public decision of controversies. 1 Cor. 10:15; 11:31: 1 Thess. 5:19." In accordance with this, a distinction is made between "the pub- lic and the private ministerial (inferior) judge. The public judge is the clergy; the private, each member of the Church, or private person." ----------------------End of Page 62-------------------------------- [17] GRH. (II, 367): "We must distinguish between power and its exercise. The Holy Scriptures are indeed sufficient and adapted, by virtue of their authority, and the perfection and perspicuity of their character, to decide controversies; but, through the fault of human wakness and wickedness, it happens that this effect does not always, nor with all persons, follow their application; just as the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all such as believe, Rom. 1:16, yet, at the same time, not all are actually converted and saved by the preaching of the Gospel." BR. (161): "Doubt- less, all controversies that relate to matters of faith and practice, necessary to be decided and known, can, in this way, be adjudged and decided; only, when an occasion of controversy occurs, let those who are to engage in it, bring to the task minds that are pious, truth-loving, and learned. For thus, prejudice and partiality and evil feelings being laid aside, and the arguments of both sides being duly weighed, according to the rule of Scripture, it easily become apparent which is the true and which is the false opinion, on ac- count of the perspicuity of Scripture, which acts in this case by virtue of its appointed office. But, as to other questions, either side of which may be held without injury to the faith, their decision ought not to be demanded, or expected, to be so clear." [18] HOLL. (125): "The causative authority of the faith differs from the canonical authority of Scripture, because the Scriptures beget divine faith, through the inspired sense, which sense of Scrip- ture remains one and the same, whether expressed in the original idiom of Scripture, or in a translation conformed to the original text. So that the illuminating power, connected with the sense of Scripture, effectually manifests itself in the production of faith, not only by means of Scripture in the original tongues, but also through translations, provided the translations be perspicuous and con- formed to the authentic text. Such is Luther's translation of the Bible, which is used in our churches by the faithful; which, when read, or heard, is as efficacious is causing assent to the faith, as if they should read the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New, or hear it read and expounded by a teacher, although the words of that translation were not immediately in- spired by God. But, that the Scriptures may have canonical author- ity, it is necessary, that not only the sense, but also the words, shall have been derived immediately from God. For to canonical and normal authority in matters of doctrine and practice, an abso- lute certainty and infallibility in the words themselves is necessary, which does not exist except in the original text of Scripture, for this depends immediately upon divine inspiration. Translations are ---------------------End of Page 63---------------------------------- the work of men, who, in translating the Scriptures, may have erred." PARA. 9. (2.) Perfection, or Sufficiency. From the fact that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, it necessarily follows that all that is contained in them is perfectly true; from the fact that they are the only Word of God given to us, it further follows that, if we are at all to learn the way of life, it must be perfectly taught in the Holy Scrip- tures, [1] and this is what is meant by their perfection or suffi- ciency. GRH. (II, 286): "That the Scriptures fully and per- fectly instruct us concerning all things necessary to salvation." [2] And, indeed, so perfectly must everything necessary to salvation be contained in the Holy Scriptures, whether de- clared in express words or to be learned inferentially, [3] that we never find occasion to make up deficiences from another source; whence, all doctrines claiming to be derived from oral tradition are to be rejected. GRH. (I, 25): "Laying aside tra- dition, we are to adhere to Scripture alone." [4] [1] HOLL. (173) distinguishes: "the perfection of Scripture (a) in reference to the subject-matter; since no inspired book, re- ceived into the permanent canon of the faith, perishes. (b) In reference to the form; that no error has crept into the authentic text by the negligence or perfidy of transcribers. (c) In reference to the end to be attained; for it sufficiently teaches man all doctrines and moral precepts necessary to salvation." Of the latter, viz., perfection as to the end to be accomplished, we are here speakingl. BR. (136): "We only assert that the Scriptures are perfect in reference to the accomplishment of their end, and in this opinion we all agree. Those things are said to be perfect in reference to their end which want nothing that is necessary for the attainment of that end. But the ultimate aim of Scripture is our salvation; the intermediate, faith in Christ." Of perfection in the second sense, we have already spoken, under the head of inspiration. In reference to perfection, in the first sense, BR. (135) remarks: "We do not so much refer to the number of the books that ever were written by the sacred penmen, of which some referred to by the names of their authors or titles in the remaining books of Scripture are supposed to have perished; but we refer to the perfection of the Scriptures that remain in regard to the accomplishment of their end. Moreover, also, as to those -----------------------End of Page 64------------------------------ books which some suppose to have perished, it is to be observed that some of them have not really perished, but are still extant, though under different titles....But, if some books written by the sacred penmen did really perish, yet we hold that (1) such were not written by Divine inspiration, but by human prompting; (2) they were also rather historical than doctrinal; at all events, or if it be (3) conceded that inspired books have perished, it must be maintained that the doctrines themselves are found with equal truth and fulness in the remaining books; certainly (4) that no book which once by the intention of the Holy Spirit formed a part of the canon or rule, has perished, to the detriment of the canon- ical Scriptures, so that they should cease to be the adequate source and rule of faith and practice." GRH. remarks, in addition, that the Holy Scriptures are not to be regarded as perfect only since the canon of the Old and New Testament has been closed. (II, 286): "The perfection of the Holy Scriptures is to be estimated not by the number of the books, but from the sufficiency of the doctrine necessary to be known, in order to salvation. That which was written at any particular age of the Church, constituted a perfect canon, since the divine revelation was perfectly developed, so far as that age required it, in those books. Thus, when ony the books of Moses were extant, the Scriptures were perfect, i.e., with respect to that age of the Church, in which not many revelations had been made which God wished to be committed to writing." [2] QUEN. (I, 102): "The Holy Scriptures contain with per- fect fulness and sufficiency all things necessary to be known in order to Christian faith and life, and therefore to the attainment of eternal salvation." This GRH. (II, 286, sq.): proves. "(1) From their plain designation and title, Ps. 19:7. (2) From their efficient original cause, viz., God, most wise and most perfect. (3) From the subject-matter. The inspired Holy Scriptures, comprehended in the prophetical and apostolical books, contain the whole counsel of God concerning our salvation, and unfold all the parts of Christianity in such a manner that nothing need be added or sub- tracted. This is proved by Acts 20:27; 26:22; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Gal. 1:8; Rev. 22:18. (4) From their aim and effects." [3] CAL. (I, 610): "We assert, that the Holy Scriptures suffi- ciently and adequately contain all things necessary to faith and a Christian life, and we think that those other things also in the Scriptures should be clearly and sufficiently considered, which, ------------------------End of Page 65---------------------------- both according to the words and according to the sense, are com- prehended therein, or, as plain interferences, are drawn from those which are clearly written; so that there is no need of any unwritten tradition to supply the defects of Scripture, or to collect and deduce from it those things which are virtually contained in it; because without any tradition they may all be sufficiently ob- tained from Scripture alone." GRH. (II, 286): "We by no means say that the Scriptures are perfect in such a sense that all things which are necessary to be known for faith and practice are contained in the Scriptures, literally and in so many words, but some of them in substance, others literally; or, what is the same thing, that some are con- tained in them explicitly and others by implication, so that by legitimate and undeniable inference they can be deduced from them." QUEN. (I, 102) thus guards against the misapprehension of his remark: "We do not say, with the Papists, that the Scrip- tures are perfect by implication or contain all things necessary to faith, as in a root or germ, or common source, or, as it were, in outline....so that they do not themselves really contain all things, but show whence and where they are to be sought, with a reference to the Church and her traditioons, from which the defects of those doctrines which are wanting may be supplied." [4] Hereby the papal doctrine of tradition is rejected, which CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 110) thus describes: "They pretend that many things necessary to faith and practice were handed down by the apostles which are not comprehended in Scripture. To this claim they add another, viz., that those things which are handed down and observed in the Roman Church, and cannot be proved by any Scripture testimony, are the very things which were orally transmitted by the Apostles and not comprehended in Scripture." Whence HOLL. (178): "Tradition is the instruction orally given by Christ and the Apostles, which is neither substantially nor liter- ally contained in Scripture, but by continuous succession is pre- served in the Church." To which is replied: "We infer from the perfection of Scripture that it needs in no way the aid of traditon in the articles of faith necessary to salvation." (GRH. II, 307.) Inasmuch as the word, tradition, was used in such different senses in the Holy Scriptures, and such various significations ap- plied to it, the Dogmaticians take occasion accurately to designate the sense in which they reject tradition, and from this signification carefully to distinguish those which in a certain sense they admit. CHEMN. in Exam. Trid. I, 110 seq., marks eight different signifi- cations, viz.: ----------------------End of Page 66---------------------------------- "(1) Those things which Christ and the Apostles orally deliv- vered, and which were aftrerwards committed to writing by the Evangelists and Apostles, are often called traditions. "(2) The books of Holy Scripture have been guarded by the Church during an uninterrupted series of ages and in a connected and sure succession, and they have been faithfully transmitted to posterity and handed down, as if from hand to hand, unto us. "(3) Irenaeus and Tertullian celebrate apostolical traditon ...They do not, indeed, propose and prove any other doctrines of faith by traditon than those which are contained in Scripture; but they show, and prove also by traditon, those same doctrines which are contained in Scripture. "(4) There are traditions concerning the exposition, the true sense or native meaning, of Scripture. "(5) The fathers sometimes thus designate those doctrines which are not contained in so many words and syllables in Scrip- ture, but are derived from clear Scripture testimony, by sound, certain, indisputable, and evident reasoning. "(6) The term is applied to the universal consent of the fathers. The phrase is common, `by the tradition of the fathers' (patres ita tradiderunt). "(7) When the ancients made mention of unwritten tradi- tion they did not understand by them doctrines of faith to be received without, over and above Scripture, even if they could not be proved by any Scripture testimony; but they spoke concerning certain rites and customs, which on account of their antiquity they ascribed to the Apostles. "(8) Traditions relating both to faith and practice, which cannot be proved by any Scripture testimony, which nevertheless the Council of Trent commands to be received and venerated with the same reverence and pious feeling as the Scriptures them- selves." HOLL. (178) accordingly divides the traditons of the Church into "ritual, historical, exegetical, evidential, and dogmatical." Only the latter class is here referred to. HOLL.: "We do not dis- approve of all the ritual traditions of the Church, but the theolog- ical rule observed by CHEMN. in his Exam. Conc. Trid. must be adhered to, viz., `Let the ceremonies in the Church be of an un- essential nature, few in number, devout, and useful for edification, order, and decorum; let the observance of them be left free, so as to avoid giving offence,' and so that they may be instituted, changed, or abrogated with a reference to edification, to times, places, and persons. We admit historical traditon, concerning the -----------------------End of Page 67------------------------------ canon of Scripture, not as an infallible, but as a probable argument. We receive with gratitude exegetical traditions, if namely the inter- pretation of the fathers present no discrepancy with the scriptural text, the proper use of the words, the context, and the analogy of faith. We hold in high esteem evidential traditon, and confess with Chemnitz that we differ from those who invent opinions that find no supporting testimony in any age of the Church. We think also that no doctrine that is new and at variance with all antiquity should be received in the Church." The Symbolical Books treat only of the ecclesiastical or ceremonial traditions. The AUG. CONF. XV, APOLOGY VIII, and FORM. CONC. X, discuss the questions: (1) Whether these are admissible, which they answer affirmatively; and (2) Whether in the Church nothing dare be taught, as nothing is believed, which is not proved by an express declaration of Scrip- ture? which, in the light of Christian liberety, they deny. Syncretism then gave occasion to further specifications in regard to the idea of tradition. G. CALIXTUS has said: "It should not be doubted, that from the writings of the ancient Church, which are still extant, the common belief of antiquity can be sufficiently ascertained, and that should be regarded as apostolical, which they unanimously teach and declare that they receive as apostolical." To which CAL. (I, 327) replies: "Although some innovators differ from the Papists in this, that they do not recognize any article of faith that is merely traditional and not contained in the Scriptures, or receive any doctrine as taught by the Apostles, which is not written; yet they side with the Papists in this, that they accept as the Word of God something not written and handed down by the Apostles, and wish some apostolical tradition, I know not what, handed down to us through the writings of the fathers, to be re- garded as the undoubted Word of God." And, page 330, the ad- ditional statement: "Although it is not to be doubted that the Apostles taught not only by writings but also viva voce, and that the Word which they preached, no less than what is comprehended in the Scriptures, is to be regarded as the undoubted Word of God, yet we neither can, nor ought to, gratify the Papists by teach- ing that there is still extant some additional Word of God com- municated by the Apostles, and handed down from them to us, which should be received as infallible and indubitable, along with the prophetical and apostolical Holy Scriptures. PARA. 10. (3.) Perspicuity. If the Holy Scriptures contain everything necessary to sal- vation, and if they alone contain it, they must necessarily ex- --------------------End of Page 68---------------------------------- hibit it so clearly and plainly that it is accesible to the com- prehension of every one; hence the attribute of Perspicuity is ascribed to the Holy Scriptures. CAL. (I, 467): "Because in those things which are necessary to be known in order to sal- vation, the Scriptures are abundantly and admirably explicit, both by the intention of God their Author, and by the natural signification of the words, so that they need no external and adventitious light." [1] But while such perspicuity is as- scribed to the Holy Scriptures, it is not meant that every par- ticular that is contained in them is equally clear and plain to all, but only that all that is necessary to be known in order to salvation is clearly and plainly taught in them, [2] and that, if this be not expressed in all cases with equal clearness, it can nevertheless be gathered from a collocation of the passages bearing upon it. [3] It is also not maintained that the Holy Scriptures can be understood without the possession of certain prerequisites. On the other hand, such as the following are required, viz., proper maturity of judgment, the neccessary philological attainments, an unprejudiced frame of mind in the investigation of the sacred truth, and a will inclined to embrace this truth in its purity. [4] Where these prerequi- sites are wanting,there can, as a matter of course, be no thor- ough understanding of the Holy Scriptures; but in such a case the fault does not lie in the Holy Scriptures. [5] Where these prerequisites exist, a clear and accurate comprehension of the saving truths contained in Scripture may be gained, which nevertheless, even in this case, is merely external and natural until, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, an internal ap- prehension of them is effected, [6] as well as the power of heartily appropriating, to one's self the saving truths contained in Scripture. [7] Finally, the perspicuity of the Holy Scrip- tures is not to be so understood as if the mysteries of the Chris- tian faith were unveiled by it; on the other hand, these re- main as they are, mysteries; perspicuity consists only in this, that the Scriptures make known to us the mysteries just as God wishes them to be made known. [8] From what has here been said, it naturally follows, further, that in all cases in which the interpretation of a passage is doubtful, the decision dare never be found anywhere else than ------------------End of Page 69------------------------------- in the Scriptures themselves, whereby the faculty of self-inter- pretation is ascribed to the Holy Scriptures. [9] And, in this interpretation, it is a fundamental principle, that the doubtful passages are to be explained by those that are clear. [10] In- asmuch now as all doctrines necessary to be known in order to salvation, are clearly taught in Scripture, so that we gain from them the general substance of the Christian plan of sal- vation; and inasmuch, further, as we can safely presuppose that the Holy Scriptures will not contradict themselves, we need only take care that we do not derive from these doubtful passages a sense that would conflict with the clearly revealed truths; we must therefore interpret according to the analogy of faith. (CAL.: "The analogy of faith is the consistency of the doctrine clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures.") [11] To the interpretation of all Scripture, whether doubtful or plain, the general rule applies, that each passage contains but one original and proper sense, that, namely, which is derived im- mediately from the words employed (the literal sense), which is to be ascertained in every case by the use of the means above described. [12] [1] The fullest description of perspicuity we find in BR. (138): "Perspicuity, or that those things which are necessary to be be- lieved and done by man in seeking to be saved, are taught in Scripture in words and phrases so clear and conformed to the usage of speech, that any man acquainted with the language, possessed of a common judgment, and paying due attention to the words, may learn the true sense of the words, so far as those things are concerned which must be known, and may embrace these fun- damental doctrines by the simple grasp of his mind; according as the mind of man is led, by the Scriptures themselves and their supernatural light, or the divine energy conjoined with them, to yield the assent of faith to the word understood and the things signified." The proof, according to QUEN. (I, 121, 122): "(1) From Deut. 30:11, 12; Rom. 10:8; 2 Pet. 1:19; Ps. 19:8; 119:105; Prov. 6:23. (2) From the character of Scripture: (a) Because it has God for its Author, who can speak perspicuously, and does not wish to speak obscurely. He can speak perspicuously, for He formed speech and the voice. To say that He wished to speak obscurely, would be nothing short of blasphemy. (b) It gives wisdom to babes or the unskilled, Ps. 19:7; 2 Tim. 3:15. (c) It reveals -----------------End of Page 70-------------------------------- hidden mysteries, Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:9, 10; Col. 1:26, 27. (d) It was given for the purpose that the will of God might here be learned, and men informed in regard to eternal life, John 20:31; Rom. 15:4. (e) Because its precepts are to be read by all, Deut. 17:19; John 5:39." [2] GRH. (I, 26): "It is to be observed that when we call the Scriptures perspicuous, we do not mean that every particular ex- presseion, anywhere contained in Scripture, is so constituted that at the first glance it muyst be plainly and fully understood by every one. On the other hand, we confess that certain things are ob- scurely expressed in Scripture and difficult to be understood... But this we do assert, and endeavor in every way to prove, that the perspicuity of the Scriptures is of such a nature that a certain and consistent opinion can be drawn from them concerning the doctrines whose knowledge is necessary to salvation." Whence it follows (II, 329) that "the knowledge of those things, which are nowhere plainly and perspicuously revealed in Scripture, is not absolutely necessary to salvation." QUEN. (I, 118): "We do not maintain that all Scripture, in every particular, is clear and perspicuous. For we grant that cer- tain things are met with in the sacred books that are obscure and difficult to be understood, 2 Pet. 3:16, not only in respect to the sublimity of their subject-matter, but also as to the utterance of the Holy Spirit, that afford materials for calling into exercise the learning of the doctors during the course of a long life, and the full understanding of which is to be expected only in heaven; but that the doctrines of faith and moral precepts are taught so obscurely everywhere, that they can nowhere be found clearly and explicitly, it is this that we deny. But the articles of faith and the moral precepts are taught in Scripture in their proper places, not in ob- scure and ambiguous words, but in such as are fitted to them, and free from all ambiguity, so that every diligent reader of Scripture, who reads it devoutly and piously, can understand them." (BR. (140): "At least in those places where the writer professedly, as they say, treats of a particular precept of faith or morals, or where its seat is; so that there is no article of faith, or no moral precept, which is not taught in Scripture somewhere in literal, clear, and conspicuous language.") QUEN. (I, 18) distinguishes between "onomastic, chronological, topographical, allegorical, typical, prophetical (i.e., predictions, but unfulfilled) matters, and those which are historical, dogmat- ical, or moral. If in the former class, especially in points relating to style and order, there should occur some difficulty or obscurity, -----------------------End of Page 71---------------------------------- this would still not derogate from the perspicuity of Scripture in matters of the latter class. The Scriptures give us elementary truths, containing the supreme and necessary articles of our religion. They give us sublime, mystical, onomastic truths. God chose to teach most clearly in the sacred books the elementary truths, be- cause what is taught by them is necessary to be known by all in order to salvation. Other matters are involved in some difficulty." [3] GRH. (II, 329): "Observe that some things in Scripture are clearer than others, and what is obscurely expressed in one pas- sage is more clearly explained in another." QUEN. (I, 118): "It is one things that there should at times be some difficulty and obscurity in the statement of the mysteries of the faith and of those things that must be believed in order to sal- vation; and another, that this obscurity should be nowhere cleared up in the Scriptures themselves, if a comparison be instituted with parallel passages and the analogy of faith as contained in Scripture be called into requisition. Doubtless what is expressed in one place obscurely, appears perfectly clear in another; and what in one passage is hidden under tropes and figures, is elsewhere dis- closed in plain and simple language; and thus upon many difficult passages of Scripture, light is thrown by others that are more clear." [4] GRH. (II, 329): "Observe that, is asserting perspicuity, we do not exclude the godly study of the Scriptures by reading and meditation, nor the use of the aids necessary to the interpretation of the Scriptures." QUEN. (I, 119): "We are to distinguish between men who, on account of their immature age and their want of familiarity with the language in which they read the Scriptures, meet with difficulty through unskillfulness or ignorance, or who are prejudiced by pre- conceived erroneous opinions, and those with whom this is not the case....For we presuppose a sufficient knowledge of the lan- guage, maturity of age, a mind not filled with prejudice and erron- eous opinons, and also a legitimate and good translation of the original text." BR. (146): "For he who does not attend to the words them- selves, but follows his own prejudices and makes the words of Scripture conform to them, can err even in perspicuous passages and in investigating the true sense." Whence HOLL. (149): "The perspicuity of Scriptures is not absolute, but dependent upon the use of means, inasmuch as, in endeavoring to understand it, the divinely instituted method must be accurately observed. For there is required: (1) Prayer to God the Father of Lights. (2) A -------------------End of Page 72---------------------------------- knowledge of the idiom in which the Holy Scriptures are ex- pressed, whether it be the original or in a version. (3) The attentive consideration of the expressions, of the scope, of the previous and subsepent context. (4) The laying aside of pre- conceived opinions and of evil feelings, of ambition, hatred, envy, boldness, etc., etc." [5] Wherefore QUEN. (I, 118) distinguishes between "obscurity in the object contemplated and that which lies in the subject con- templating it. The Scriptures, especially in things necessary to salvation, are not obscure in and of themselves, or through a want of native clarness and plainness, but they are lucid and perspic- uous. They may be obscure, however, accidentally, on account of the incapacity and blindness of the human mind, and through the malice of heretics and the heterodox who superadd to their natural blindness a voluntary one, and maliciously close the eyes of their mind against the clearest light of Scripture. (2 Cor. 4: 3.)" As an instance of this, the controversy in regard to the Lord's Supper is cited (I, 124): "The words of the Testament are in themselves very perspicuous, but are variously interpreted; because many, neglecting the literal and proper sense, studiously seek a foreign one, and do not follow so much the teaching of Christ as the counsel and dictation of blind reason. A mistake as to the cause is therefore made when the discrepancy in the ex- postions is ascribed to the obscurity of Scriptures, since its cause is either the perverseness or imbecility of men. The obscurity which lies in the subject must not be transferred to the object... If nothing be perspicuously spoken except that which cannot be understood perversely and expounded in a bad sense, then noth- ing in the wide universe can be perspicuously and plainly uttered." [6] GRH. (I, 26): "The clearness of Scripture is twofold; as Luther says, `One kind is external, lying in the ministry of the Word, the other in the knowledge of the heart. If you speak of the internal clearness, no man understands a single iota in the Scriptures by the natural powers of his own mind, unless he have the Spirit of God; all have obscure hearts. The Holy Spirit is required for the understanding of the whole of Scripture and of all its parts. If you allude to the external clearness, there is nothing left obscure and ambiguous, but all things brought to light by the Word are perfectly clear.'" GRH. (I, 52): "Some, who have not yet been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, may have a knowledge of the Scripture doctrines, and acquire an historic faith by the outward ministration of the Word; but an absolutely certain, firm, and saving knowledge they ---------------------End of Page 73------------------------------------ cannot have without the internal illumination of the mind by the Holy Spirit." There is, therefore, a distinction made between the "grammatical (literal) and external" and the "spiritual, divine and internal sense." Perspicuity in the first sense consists, BR. (140), "in the proper selection of words, their correspondence with the things signified, and their mutual connection and arrange- ment, according to the common usage of language" (141): "For not only the regenerated and believers, but also the unregenerate and godless, through this clearness of the words in their natural signification, in which respect they are the same for all readers, can acquire a knowledge of the sense designed by the words. i.e., a merely literal or historical, not a saving or believing knowledge." Also (144), (from the Jena and Wittenberg Opinion, in answer to Rathmann's Reply, 1629):..."If the Reply means to infer that no unconverted person can understand the proper sense which is contained in the words of Scripture, and expressed by them, i.e., the grammatical and literal sense, unless the Holy Spirit assist with His gracious illumination, then we cannot agree with the Reply, but abide by our own opinion....For the words, and whatever serves to interpret them, viz., the lexicons, dictionaries, and grammars of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, are human inventions, and belong to the gifts of nature and not to the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit; for He was not appointed, nor was He poured out, that He might treat of gram- matical rules and teach us to hunt up Hebrew roots,...but that He should teach us the articles of faith through the Scriptures and instruct us in the truth that maketh wise unto salvation. Many a one properly understands the words without possessing that saving knowledge of the mysteries which belongs to faith." CAL. (I, 657): "Although the external sense of Scripture may be understood by the unregenerate, yet the saving and internal sense, joined with hearty assent, cannot be attained without the illumination of the Holy Spirit." [7] GRH. (II, 338): "A literal acquaintance with the articles of the faith is not sufficient to salvation, but there must also be a spiritual knowledge, for the acquisition of which the internal illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary; and this is to be obtained by humble prayer." BR. (150): "In order that man may properly understand the plan of salvation, two things are necessary: first, that by the nat- ural powers of his mind he comprehend those things that neces- sarily must be known by him in order to his salvation; and sec- ondly, that he embrace these, thus apprehended as true and ---------------------End of Page 74----------------------------------- divinely revealed, and yield to them the full assent of faith. The Scriptures, therefore, which in this matter should be as a bright and shining light, ought to accomplish these two ends: first, to repre- sent to the mind the things that are to be known in language adapted to this end and clear, so that they may be simply and naturally apprehended; and secondly, that when the thing signi- fied is of a more exalted nature and the mind too weak or corrupt to be able to judge correctly by the exercise of its own powers concerning that which is signified by the words, or to elicit or yield the assent that is due, the Scriptures themselves, by their own illuminative power, should enable the mind to accomplish this and bestow the faculty of apprehending and embracing the truth." The latter alone is referred to when HOLL. remarks (155): "An unregenrate man, opposing the illuminating grace of the Holy Spirit, cannot understand the true sense of the sacred writings. But when an unregenrate man, in a teachable spirit, attentively reads the Holy Scriptures, or hears them expounded by the living teacher, the Holy Spirit illuminates him by the Scriptures, so that he may understand the true sense of the Divine Word and rightly apply it, thus understood, with saving effect." And although HOLL. claims "for the unregenerate but teachable and prevenient and preparative grace of the Holy Spirit, that they may acquire an external and literal knowledge of the Holy Scriptures," he does not thereby mean anything more than that such grace is needed in order that they may attain to a self-appropriation of the truth of salvation; for he elsewhere remarks (158): "The words of the Prophets and Apostles may be considered either out of their proper scriptural connection, or in it. In the former case, they are analo- gous to human words, and can be understood by the unregenerate without the grace of the Holy Spirit; but if they be considered in their proper connection, as they are accommodated to the mysteries of the faith, and are, as receptacles or vehicles of these, really Divine words, no correct conception, conformed to the mind of the Spirit, can be formed concerning them without the preceding prevenient and preparative grace of the Holy Spirit." [8] HOLL. (149): "The Scriptures are called clear, not in re- spect to the subject-matter, but to the words, for even subjects that are not clear may be expressed with clear and perspicuous words." QUEN. (I, 117): "We must make a distinction between the clearness of the subjects which are revealed in Scripture and the plainness of the words by which the revealed subjects are expressed. We refer not to the former but to the latter; for we acknowledge that many mysteries are contained in the Scriptures, abstruse and -------------------End of Page 75------------------------------------ impenetrable by the human intellect, especially in this life; but we deny that they are taught in Scripture in an obscure style and with ambiguous words." Luther expresses it differently: "The things of God are obscure;...the things of Scripture are perspicuous. ...The doctrines in themselves are obscure; but in so far as they are presented in Scripture they are manifest, if we are willing to be content with that knowledge which God communicates in the Scriptures to the Church." [9] QUEN. (I, 137): "From no other source than the Holy Scriptures themselves can a certain and infallible interpretation of Scripture be drawn. For Scripture itself, or rather the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture or through it, is the legitimate and indepen- dent (anupeuthunos) interpreter of itself." And further, QUEN. (I, 144): "We cannot, therefore, acknowl- edge the harmonious opinions of the ancient teachers of the Church or the decisions of councils as a certain and unquestionable rule and measure of scriptural interpretation, nor the Roman pontiff as the supreme, infallible interpreter of the Holy Scriptures." [10] QUEN. (I, 137): "The most obscure passages, which need edxplanation, can and should be explained by other passages that are more clear, and thus the Scripture itself furnishes an interpre- tation of the more obscure expressions when a comparison of these is made with those that are more clear; so that Scripture is ex- plained by Scripture." [11] GRH. (I, 53): "From those perspicuous passages of Scrip- ture a rule of faith is gathered, which is, so to speak, a summary of the heavenly doctrine extracted from the clearest passages of Scripture. Whatever, therefore, is necessary, is clearly expressed in the Holy Scriptures, says Chrysostom. If certain things in them are very obscure, the knowledge of these is not necessary to all for their salvation; and hence, although we may not always ascertain their true and genuine interpretation, it is sufficient if, in inter- preting them, we propose nothing that conflicts with the rule of faith." (II, 424): "All interpretation of Scripture should be according to the analogy of faith. This canon is taught in Rom. 12:6, and signifies that the interpretation of Scripture should be instituted and carried on in such a manner as to accord with the usual line of thought which is conveyed in Scripture concerning each article of the heavenly doctrine. For, since all Scripture was given by the immediate suggestion of the Holy Spirit, and is inspired, all things in it are harmonious and perfectly consistent with each other, so that no discrepancy or self-contradiction can occur. ---------------End of Page 76--------------------------------------- The article of faith, which the apostle here means by pistis, the knowledge of which is necessary for all in order to salvation, are taught in the Scriptures in clear and perspicuous language, of which a brief summary is contained in the Apostles' Creed, which the fathers often call "the rule of faith." Nothing is ever to be broached in the interpretation of Scripture that conflicts with this rule of faith; and hence, if we be not exactly able at times to ascertain the precise sense of any passage, as designed by the Holy Spirit, we should nevertheless beware of proposing anything that is contrary to the analogy of faith." GRH. (I, 54) thus states all the rules that apply to the interpre- tation of the Holy Scriptures: "(1) Without the light of the Holy Spirit, our mind is blind so far as the understanding and in- terpreting of Scripture are concerned. (2) In addition to this blindness, natural to us all, some are blinded by peculiar wicked- ness and an unyielding obstinacy, whose eyes the Holy Spirit either has opened or has wished to open, but they have contuma- ciously resisted Him; neither of these kinds of blindness, however, makes or proves the Scriptures obscure. (3) Because our mind is blind, we are prayerfully to implore the light of the Holy Spirit. (4) But this illumination of the mind the Holy Spirit does not confer immediately, but by the light of the Word heard and medi- tated upon. (5) Inasmuch as the doctrines necessary to be known by every one in order to salvation are taught in Scripture in clear and perspicuous language, (6) the remaining passages of Scripture receive light from these. (7) For from the perspicuous passages of Scripture, a rule of faith is deduced to which the exposition of the remainder must be conformed. (8) And if we cannot ascertain the precisely literal sense of all passages, it is sufficient that in their interpretation we do not propose anything contrary to the analogy of faith. (9) Nevertheless, it is also of importance that we rightly and accurately interpret the more obscure passages of Scripture, which can be done if we apply the means adapted to remove the difficulties. (10) That we may discover these means, we must seek the causes of the obscurity. (11) Some Scripture passages are obscure in themselves, when singly considered, others when compared with other passages; if they merely seem to conflict with other passages, this obscurity may be removed by reconciling the passages. (12) Those that are obscure in themselves and singly are so either as to their subject-matter or as to their words. The obsucrity in regard to the subjects discussed is removed by those settled axioms, in individual articles of belief, which are to be regarded as the unfailing guide. (13) The obscurity in regard --------------------End of Page 77------------------------------------ to the words is dispelled by the grammatical analysis of sentences, by the rhetorical exposition of the tropes and figures, by the logical consideration of the order and circumstances, and finally by an acquaintance with physical science; but the greatest assistance in all these cases is afforded by a prudent and diligent collation of Scripture passages, whenever either the same or different words and phrases are employed to express the same or different things." He illustrates the manner of making deductions from the rule of faith by the example of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. [12] GRH. (I, 67): "There is but one proper and true sense of each passage, which the Holy Spirit thereby intends, and which is drawn from the proper signification of the words, and only from this literal sense available arguments may be derived." But this literal sense may be either strictly literal, which the Holy Spirit intends when the words are taken in their usual signification, e.g., God is a spirit (John 4:24), or figurative or tropical, which is the intention of the Holy Spirit when words are used figuratively, e.g., God is our shield (Gen. 15:1), (HOLL., 91). But in this case also the remark applies, GRH. (II, 425): "All interpretation of Scrip- ture shoudl be literal, and there should be no departure from the letter in matters of faith, unless the Scriptures themselves indicate the figurativeness and explain it." (I, 67): "Allegories, tropes, anagogies, are not different senses but different adaptations of the same sense and subject designated by the letter. The same histor- ical narrative may be presented in a variety of ways, and treated either allegorically, or tropically, or analogically, while the true and literal sense of the words in which the history is described remains the same." The Dogmaticians therefore assume, it is true, such a spiritual sense in certain cases, but strictly speaking this is not understood as a second sense, co-ordinate with the first, but only that the natural signification of the words, which must always be the basis of the interpretation, admits also a special spiritual application, or contains at the same time a symbolical allusion. HOLL. (91): "That is called the mystical sense which is not immediately signified by the inspired words, but which pro- ceeds and is deduced from the subject signified by the inspired words. It is, however, improperly and unauthorizedly called the sense of the biblical expression, since it is not the immediate sense of the inspired words, but inasmuch as God desire, by means of the subject or fact described by those words, to present some other subject or fact to the consideration of men. More properly, there- fore, it is called the accommodation of the literal sense, or its mystical application, than the mystical sense of Scripture, e.g., Jonah 2:1. --------------------End of Page 78------------------------------------ Here the prophet Jonah is said to have been three days and nights in the belly of the whale, and the literal sense it the one plainly designed by God, expressed and immediately implied by the words. When now this whole history or transaction is employed to signify the abode of Christ for three days and nights in the grave, no new sense here arises, but there is merely an accommodation and application of that historical narrative so as by it to express the fact that Christ was to be three days and nights in the grave." Hence the Dogmaticians declare against the assumption of a double sense in the prophecies of the Old Testament. Such a mystical sense may either be designed by God, or it may be engrafted upon the literal sense. Only in the former case dare it be employed in the inter- pretation of Scriptures. CAL. (I, 664): "The mystical accommo- dation may either be enggraphos (contained in the written Word) and divine, or agraphos (superadded to the written Word) and of human invention." (HOLL.: Either innate or introduced.) QUEN. (I, 131): "When our theological writers approve of the following scholastic axioms, viz.: `Mystical theology can prove nothing, parabolic theology cannot be advanced in argument, solid and effective arguments for proving the doctrines of the faith and refuting errors can be drawn only from the literal sense of Scrip- ture,' they do not exclude, but at the same time include, mystical applications of the literal sense of this or that biblical passage, made by the Holy Spirit Himself in the Holy Scriptures; yet they exclude allegorical and parabolical interpretations that men have devised and forced upon the Scriptures. For applications of the literal sense of this or that passage or sacred narrative, that are shown to exist and are explained in the Scriptures themselves, can be used in proof, just as other things that are literally expressed in the Scriptures. When, therefore, in any plain Scripture passage there is an accommodation of the literal sense to a spiritual subject, then its validity for proving or disapproving is just as great." "The mystical sense, as it may be loosely styled, is divided by the Lutheran theologians into the allegorical, typical, and parabolical. It is called the allegorical sense, when a Scriptural historical narra- tive of things that really occured is applied to a certain mystery or spiritual doctrine by the intention of the Holy Spirit in an alle- gorical manner; it is called typical when, under external facts or prophetic visions, things hidden, either present or future, are pre- figured, or especialy matters relating to the New Testament are shadowed forth; and parabolical, when something is described as having really occured, and yet applied to designate something else that is spiritual." (CAL. I, 665.) ----------------End of Page 79--------------------------------------- The Romanists distinguish between the allegorical sense, the tropological (when the words or facts under consideration refer to something that relates to morals), and the anagogical (when the words or facts are used with a reference to eternal life). PARA. 11. (4.) Efficacy. CAL. (I, 478): "That the Holy Scriptures are living and efficacious, and a means of illumination, conversion, and sal- vation, prepared and vivified by Divine power." This subject will be treated of subsequently under the head of the Means of Grace. PARA. 12. Of the Canon and the Apocryphal Books. The written Word of God consists of the Word of God of the Old and the Word of God of the New Testament. [1] In the col- lection, however, that contains both of these, we find also other writings, which we do not call the Word of God in the same sense. We distinguish these two kinds of writings in the fol- lowing manner, viz.: we call the first class canonical books, i.e., such as, because they are inspired by God, [2] are the rule and guide of our faith; [3] the others, apocryphal books, i.e., such whose divine origin is either doubtful or has been disproved. [4] Although both kinds are found in the Bible, only those of the first class are admitted as a rule of faith, whence they are called the Canon (catalogue, or number, of the canonical books), while those of the other class may contribute their share to the edification of believers, but are not to be regarded as the Word of God, and from them, therefore, no proof for any doctrine of the faith is to be drawn. [5] Whether a book is canonical or not, we are then to ascertain by the signs whereby we recognize the Word of God in general as such, as of the divine origin, as inspired. [6] The testimony of the Holy Spirit is more conclusive evidence than anything else of the divine character of the contents of a book; next to this come all the other kinds of evidence which we have enumerated under the head of the Authority of Holy Scripture (PARA. 8, Note 10) as the external and internal criteria. [7] Among the lat- ter, the testimony of the Church in the earliest ages in regard to the canonical character of a book is of special importance, for it is assuredly a matter of the highest moment if we know ---------------------End of Page 80--------------------------------- that a book was acknowledged as canonical already at a day when its origin could be most accurately ascertained. [8] More particularly do we need the testimony of the earliest ages of the Church in deciding historical questions, as to the name of the author of a book, as to the language in which it was originally composed; [9] for by the testimony of the Holy Spirit we may indeed become assured of the divinity of a book, experiencing its power in our own hearts, but He bears no testimony as to questions of this kind. As canonical books of the Old Testament we acknowledge: (1) Genesis; (2) Exodus; (3) Leviticus; (4) Numbers; (5) Deuteronomy; (6) Joshua; (7) Judges; (8) Ruth; (9) I and II Samuel; (10) I and II Kings; (11) I and II Chronicles; (12) Ezra and Nehemiah (or second Ezra); (13) Esther; (14) Job; (15) Psalms; (16) Proverbs; (17) Ecclesiastes; (18) Song of Solomon; (19) Isaiah; (20) Jeremiah; (21) Lamentations; (22) Ezekiel; (23) Daniel; (24) twelve minor prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi. [10] As apocryphal: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, I, II, and III Mac- cabees, III and IV Ezra, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus or Syracides. As appendices: Epistle of Jeremiah, annexed to Baruch, Appendix to Daniel, Supplement to Esther, Prayer of Manasseh.(GRH.) [11] In the New Testament we have no apocryphal books in the same sense as in the Old Testament; but still there are single books of the New Testament in regard to whose origin and authors the evidence is not in all cases equally consentaneous. A certain distinction must therefore be made between them and the others that are equally authenticated by every species of evidence; and yet this distinction, resting as it does merely upon the want of entire agreement in the evidence, whilst very important testimony of various kinds is at hand to prove their canonical authority, is not of so much importance as to prevent us from making a canonical use of these books. [12] The books of the New Testament authenticated by all the testimonies are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, [13] and John, Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistle to the Romans, his two Epistles to the Corinthians, his Epistles to the Galatians, ------------------------End of Page 81--------------------------- Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, two Epistles to the Thessa- lonians, two to Timothy, the Epistle to Titus, the Epistle to Philemon, the first Epistle of Peter, and the first of John. Those in regard to which doubts are entertained by some are the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of James, that of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John. [1] GRH. (II, 50): "The biblical books are distinguished into the books of the Old and New Testaments. The books of the Old Testament are those which were written before the appearance of Christ; the books of the New Testament, those which were written after the appearance of Christ, and addressed to the Church. It is to be observed, that the books of the Old Testament are called such, not because they do not manifestly contain anything of the substance, grace, and felicity of the New Testament promised through Christ to those believing in Him, but because they predict and prefigure that as future and to be fulfilled in due time, which in the New Testament is announced as complete. Rom. 3:21; 16:26." HOLL. (129), as to the relation between the Old and New Testa- ments: "The books of the Old Testament were committed to the Israelitic Church, those of the New Testament to the Christian Church, collected from all nations. Yet the Christian Church re- ceives the canonical books of the Old Testament on account of the most admirable harmony of the prophetic and apostolic writings, on account of their great utility, and especially in obedience to the command of Christ, John 5:39. There is a disparity between the Old and New Testaments as to the degree of perspicuity, but not a diversity as to the object of revelation, as if in the one, things were explicitly taught as necessary to be believed, different from those so taught in the other, since faith is the same in both. Eph. 4:16." [2] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I,85): "The Canonical Scriptures de- rive their eminent authority mainly from the fact that they are divinely inspired, 2 Tim. 3:16; i.e., that they came not by the will of man, but the men of God both spake and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." [3] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I,81): "The Scriptures are called canonical, the canonical books, or the canon of Scripture, because they are a rule according to which the edifice of the faith of the Church is to be so contructed and framed that whatever agrees with this rule is to be regarded as right, sound, and apostolical; ---------------------End of Page 82-------------------------------- and that whatever does not quadrate with it, but varies either by excess or deficiency, is properly to be regarded as suppositious, adulterated, erroneous. This canon or rule is the doctrine divinely communicated from the beginning of the world to the human race through the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and the apostles. And because this doctrine is by the will of God contained in the Scrip- tures, they are hence called canonical. A canon is an infallible rule or measure which by no means allows that anything be added to it or taken from it." [4] GRH. (II, 53): "The apocryphal books are so called apo tou apokruptein, which signifies concealed, either because their origin was not clearly ascertained by those by whose testimony the authority of the true Scriptures has been handed down to us (Augustine); or, because they are not read publicly in the churches as a source of proof for ecclesiastical doctrines, but merely as a means of moral improvement." HOLL. (131): "The apocryphal books are those which are found in the volume of Scripture, but do not belong to the canon, and were not written by immediate divine inspiration." This definition applies only to those which accompany the canon- ical Scriptures; another class consists of those "which contain fable, errors, and lies, and hence are not to be read in the churches." GRH. (II, 55): "The former kind are called apocry- phal, in the sense of obscure (absconditi), i.e., uncertain and hidden as to their origin; the other class, in the sense that they deserve to be kept obscure (abscondendi) and ought not to be read in the churches." CAL. (I, 491): "The division of the books of Scrip- ture into canonical and apocryphal is improper and equivocal, since only the former meet the definition of the Holy Scriptures, the latter merely having the name." [5] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 93): "Are then these books to be ab- solutely condemned and rejected? This we by no means demand. Of what use then is this whole discussion? We reply, That the rule of faith or sound doctrine in the Church may be certain. The fathers taught that authoritative proof of ecclesiastical doctrine was to be drawn only from the canonical books....The authority of canonical Scripture alone was judged competent to decide in dis- puted questions; but the other books, which Cyprian calls eccle- siastical, Jerome apocryphal, they desired indeed to have read in the churches, merely however for the edification of the people, not as proof in matters of doctrine. No dogma is, therefore, to be de- duced from these books which has not clear and indubitable sup- port and evidence in the canonical books. No controverted topic can be decided by these books, if there be not other and conclu- -------------------End of Page 83-------------------------------- sive evidence in the canonical books. But whatever is said in these books is to be expounded and understood according to the analogy of those truths which are plainly taught in the canonical books." CAL. (I, 492): "Two things are necessary to constitute a canon- ical book; first, inspiration, or the immediate divine impulse, which proves the document in question to be divine truth, or the very Word of God; secondly, the divine sanction (canonicatio divina), by which God constitutes His written Word the perpetual and univeral rule of the Church." HOLL. (129): "The canonical books are those whose doctrines and single words were committed to writing by the prophets and apostles, by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and were communicated to the Church by God, and received by her as the infallible rule of faith and morals for man who is to be saved." [6] HOLL. (126): "We judge of the canonical authority of Scripture with reference to its doctrines, by the same proofs and arguments by which we decide in regard to its divine origin. For the Holy Scriptures are an infallible rule or canon of faith and morals, because they derive their origin immediately from God, and are designed by Him for canonical use. Wherefore, when the above-mentioned criteria convince us that the meaning or doctrine of Scripture has proceeded immediately from God, there is no need of an extended demonstration of canonical authority, so far as the doctrine of the canon is concerned." [7] HOLL. (126): "The canonical authority of Scripture, con- sidered as to its doctrines, is proved by external and internal criteria, but especially by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit illuminating the minds of men, through the Scriptures attentively read or heard from the mouth of a teacher." [8] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 85): "That this whole matter, in itself of such vast importance, might be perfectly secure against all imposture, God selected certain men to write, furnished them with many miracles and divine testimonials, that there might be no doubt that those things which they wrote were divinely inspired. Finally, these writings, divinely inspired, were at the time when they were written, by common consent, with public indorsement, presented, given, and intrusted to the Church, that she should, by all possible care and forethought, preserve them uncorrupted, transmit them thence from hand to hand, and intrust them to pos- terity. And as the ancient Church, in the time of Moses, Joshua, and the prophets, so also the primitive Church in the time of the apostles, could give certain testimony as to which writings were divinely inspired. For she knew the authors whom God com- -------------------End of Page 84---------------------------------- mended to the Church by the peculiar evidence; she knew also what those things were that were written by them, and, from what she learned orally from the apostles, could decide that those things which were written were the very same doctrine which the apostles orally delivered....The Scriptures, therefore, derive canonical authority principally from the Holy Spirit, by whose impulse and inpiration they were written; secondarily, from the writers them- selves, to whom God gave clear and peculiar proofs of their truth; finally, from the primitive Church, as a witness, in whose day these writings were published and approved. Now this testimony of the primitive Church concerning the divine inspiration of the Scrip- tures has been handed down in perpetual succession to posterity, and carefully preserved in certain ancient historical records; so that the Church in subsequent ages is the guardian of the testimony of the primitive Church concerning the Scriptures. There is, there- fore, the greatest difference between the testimony (1) of the primi- tive Church in the times of the apostles, that (2) of the Church in the first centuries, which received the testimony of the primitive Church, and (3) that of the present Church concerning the Scrip- tures; for if what now is and formerly was the Church, can show the testimony of those who received and knew the testimony of the early Church concerning the true Scriptures, we give our assent to her as to a witness proving her assertions. But she does not possess the power of determing or deciding anything concerning the sacred books of which she cannot adduce clear documentary proof from the testimony of the primitive Church." As to the manner in which the primitive Church proceeded in this matter, CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 87) thus expresses himself: "The testimony of the primitive Church, in the times of the apos- tles, concerning the genuine writings of the apostles, the immedi- ately succeeding generations constantly and faithfully retained and preserved; so that when many others afterwards were brought for- ward, claiming to have been written by the apostles, they were tested and rejected as suppostitious and adulterated, first, for this reason, that it could not be shown and proved by the testimony of the original Church either that they were written by the apostles, or approved by the living apostles, and transmitted and intrusted by them to the Church in the beginning; secondly, because they proposed strange doctrine not accordant with that which the Church received from the apostles, and was at that time still preserving fresh in the memory of all." [9] HOLL. (126): "But the canonical authority of Scripture, in reference to the original language, or the authentic Hebrew text ------------------End of Page 85----------------------------------- of the Old and Greek of the New Testament, is indeed distinctly proved by the testimony of the primitive Church, but not by this alone." (127): "We add to the testimony of the primitive Church the testimony of Scripture, its continued preservation for the profit- able use of men, and the character of its style." The intent of this passage and the one quoted in the eighth note is the following: The internal and external criteria may indeed beget in us a human faith, but not a divine; the latter can be pro- duced only by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. And this must not necessarily be obtained by the use of the original text: a trans- slation will answer quite as well, since the power of the Holy Spirit lies in the sense and not in the letter of the Word. Wherefore, also, we cannot become divinely assured, in regard to the idiom in which any of the sacred books has been written, by an internal experi- ence. For information on this point we are therefore referred to his- torical evidence; and the state of the case thus appears to be, that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is necessary to assure us of the divinity of the Scriptures, to which must be added historical proofs to satisfy us as to the language in which a sacred book was written, as to its author, etc. For BR. (112) thus expresses himself: "The internal illuminating power of the Scriptures is associated with the sense in every language, in such a manner, that it does not point out precisely the words of the original text as essentially different from other equivalent words of the same or any other language, text or version." But the other criteria, which prove the inspira- tion of the doctrine contained in Scripture, either do not at all relate to the material part, or the words, of Scripture, but only to the for- mal part, or the doctrine; or, when they do in some degree relate to the words and their connection, and are employed to prove in general that God is the author of the words of Scripture in any idiom, whatever it may be, they still cannot clearly indicate the precise words and letters in which each book of Scripture was orig- inally committed to writing. There remains, therefore, the testimony of the Church, which does not, indeed, confer canonical or normative dignity upon the books of Scripture in any particular language, nor does it by its own authority induce that reception of the divine faith by which the inspiration of that idiom is believed; but not- withstanding this, inasmuch as it historically proves a certain idiom or writing to be the original of the books of Scripture, in which it received them as written by the sacred penman, thus producing a moral certainty in regard to it, it now joined with that which the Scriptures themselves teach, and with which the Holy Spirit intimately connects his own influence, holds a place -----------------End of Page 86-------------------------------------- in the discussion of the faith. As an example, HOLL. (127) ad- duces the following: "When it is asked, Was the Gospel of Matt- hew originally written in Greek or Hebrew? this is a question not of Dogmatics, but of history....Of this fact the Primitive Church is a credible witness, for it fought upon earth under the banner of Christ, together with the writers then living in the flesh, and re- ceived their autographs from their own hands....Thus we seek from the Jewish Church evidence for the Hebrew original of the Old Testament, and from the primitive Christian Church for the original Greek of the New." It is still worthy of remark that it cannot be clearly understood, from the passages quoted from Hollazius and Baier, whether these theologians supposed that, as each individual can attain ony by the testimony of the Holy Spirit unto divine faith in the revelation by Christ, so in like manner each individual can be convinced of the divinity of each single book of Scripture by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The contrary might seem to be proved by the fact that the most of the theologians speak of the testimony of the Holy Spirit only when they are discussing the grounds upon which the authority of Scripture rests (so GRH.); for when it is asserted that each individual attains to divine assurance of the authority of Scrip- ture ony through the testimony of the Holy Spirit, this is still somewhat different from the assertion that the canonicity of each separate book must be proved in the case of each individual by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. And Chemnitz, further, does not mention, in this connection, this testimony of the Holy Spirit; but, in order to prove the canonicity of the separte books, points only to the testimony of the earliest Church, which could appeal to the indorsement of the Apostles. And, finally, in all the investigations by the Dogmaticians, in regard to the canonicity of a single book, there is never any allusion to the testimony of the Holy Spirit (Lu- ther's well-known expression of opinion, in regard to the Epistle of James, must not here be taken into the account), but they are all con- ducted upon the basis of historical evidence. The true state of the case appears most probably to be, that the question whether the proof of the canonicity of a particular book is to be distinguished from the proof of the divine authority of Scripture in general, was never clearly brought home to the consciousness of our theologians; so that the passage quoted in this note, and in Note 6, are designed merely to preclude the error of supposing that the historical testimony of the Church can establish divine faith in the Scriptures in general. [10] Many theologians divide the books of the Old Testament into legal, historical, dogmatical, and prophetical. ------------------End of Page 87----------------------------------- QUEN. (I, 236): "All those books, therfore, of the Old Testa- ment, and only those, are canonical, which (1) were written by the prophets and in the prophetic spirit, i.e., by immediate Divine in- spiriation (Luke 16:29; Rom. 1:2; Eph. 2:20; 2 Pet. 1:19, 21); (2) and written in the original Hebrew tongue, then vernacular to the Jews, with the exception of a few sections in Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Jeremiah, that are extant in Chaldee; (3) contain infallible truth, in all points most exactly self-consistent; (4) which were divinely committed to the Jewish Church for perpetual canon- ical use, received by it, regarded as canonical, preserved and faith- fully handed down to the times of Christ; (5) a, approved, cited, and commended by Christ and the Apostles; and b, as a canon or rule of faith and morals, transmitted unto us by the primitive Church." [11] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 91): "The reason why those books have been denied canonical authority is obvious. For some of them were written after the time of the prophets, when the people of Israel no longer had prophets, such as the ancient ones were; and they were written by those who had not the divine testimonies, as the prophets had, concerning the truth and authority of their doctrine. Some of these books, indeed, bear the names of prophets, but do not possess certain proofs of having been written by those to whom they are attributed. This is the manifest reason why they have been removed from the canon of Scripture." The most ex- tensive investigations in regard to the separate canonical and apoc- ryphal books of the Old and New Testament are to be found in GRH., vol. ii, loc. i, c. vi-xi. [12] We find that the earliest Dogmaticians insist more than the later upon the difference between these and the other un- doubtedly canonical books. The most strenuous of all is CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 192): "I have cited the testimony of the ancients, not only that the catalogue of those writings of the New Testament may be known which have not sufficiently sure, strong, and con- sentaneous proofs of their authority, but more especially that the reasons may be known why there should have been any doubt concerning them. (1) Because the ancients did not possess sure, strong, and consentaneous evidence that the original apostolic Church bore testimony that these books were approved by the apostles and recommended to the Church. (2) Because it does not certainly appear, by the testimony of the earliest and an- cient Church, whether these books were written by those whose names they bear; but they have been regarded as published by others under the name of the apostles. (3) Since some of the ancients --------------------End of Page 88------------------------------------ ascribe some of these books to the apostles and others advance a different opinion. This matter, then, inasmuch as it was not in- dubitably certain, has been left undetermined. This whole contro- versy depends upon the sure, strong, and consentaneous evidence of the earliest and ancient Church; for, when this is wanting, the Church in after times, without the aid of clear and positive docu- mentary evidence, can no more create a certainty out of an uncer- tainty than it can make truth out of falsehood." Chemnitz therefore classes those writings of the New Testament, in regard to whose canonical authority some doubts are entertained, with the apocryphal books, and applies to them all, without exception, what was said concerning such parts of the Old and New Testa- ments in Note 5. It is, however, not hereby denied that there may be a certain difference in value between the apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments, but it is ony asserted that these writings are not to be placed in the same category with the canon- ical books. For, as we see, Chemnitz insists upon the principle that only those books are to be regarded as canonical in regard to which we possess the most specific and perfectly consentaneous evidence: (1) that they were recommended to the Church by apostles, and (2) that they really are the production of the authors whose names they bear. But the theologians who im- mediately succeeded him began, appealing to the voice of the Church in past ages, to regard these books as canonical, although they did make some distinction in regard to them. Thus the Magdeburg centuriators (GRH. II, 184) say: "There were some writings disseminated throughout the Church during this century in the name of the apostles or their disciples, of which some were not generally received, owing to doubts in regard to them, but were afterwards received among the number of the Catholic writings, and others which were altogether rejected as apocryphal. Of the former kind are the epistle of James, etc." And HUNNIUS (in GRH. ib.): "We nevertheless acknowledge that the apocryphal books of the New Testament merited more favor and approbation from the primitive Church than the apocrypha of the Old Testa- ment. Wherefore many of the Fathers, who excluded from the canon certain books of the Old Testament, excluded no book of the New Testament, but made them all canonical." If we inquire into the reason why this was done, it appears to be the following (although we find it nowhere distinctly expressed), that an abso- lute agreement was no longer demanded, or this circumstance was ignored and reference had merely to the second requisite men- tioned by Chemnitz; and even this was not regarded as absolutely -----------------------End of Page 89--------------------------- necessary to establish the canonical authority of a book. For Mentzer already (in GRH. II, 185) says: "The books of the New Testament that are called ecclesiastical or apocryphal we receive as deserving to be regarded as canonical, and as having equal norma- tive authority with the rest. We add, however, the qualifying term `almost' for this reason, that in the primitive Church some per- sons occasionally objected to these books because it could not be certainly known by whom they were written or published." And SCHROEDER (also in GRH. II, 185): "There are certain books of the New Testament called by some apocryphal, but for scarecely any other reason than because it was doubted concerning them, not whether they were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but whether they were published by the apostles to whom they are ascribed. But inasmuch as the doubt concerning them did not relate so much to their original Divine author, viz., the Holy Spirit, as to the writers or secondary authors, and as their authority, in the face of this doubt, was abundantly sustained by the principal and earlier fathers of the Church, they are received generally as of equal authority with the canonical. For, that a book may be regarded as canonical, it is not necessarily required that the secondary author, or writer, be manifest; it is sufficient if the prime author or dictator, viz., the Holy Spirit, be manifest; for the books of Judges, Ruth, and Esther are canonical and yet their writers are unknown" From this time, therefore, these books have been thus regarded by nearly all, as by GRH., e.g. (II, 186): "(1) There is, indeed, some difference to be made between the books that are contained in the New Testament. For it cannot be denied that some of them were, at times, objected to by some in the early Church. (2) These books are inappropriately called apocryphal, as we can show by a threefold argument: (a) Because the doubts concerning them in the primitive Church did not so much relate to their canonical authority as to their secondary author; (b) Because even this doubt was not entertained concern- ing them by all the churches or teachers, but only by some. Two manifest points of difference are therfore discernible between the apocrypha of the Old Testament and those books which some call the apocrypha of the New Testament. The authority of the former was rejected by the whole Church, but it was ony some in the Church who doubted the authority of the latter; (c) The fathers who treated as such the apocrypha of the Old Testament did not exclude any book of the New Testament from the canon. (3) In teaching we may distinguish between the canonical books of the New Testament of the first and second rank. Canonical books of the -------------------------end of Page 90--------------------------- first rank are those concerning whose authors or authority there never was any doubt in the Church, but which by common con- sent were always regarded as canonical and divine. Canonical books of the second rank are those concerning whose authors doubts have sometimes been entertained by some persons in the Church." Precisely in the same strain QUEN. (I, 235): "We call those books of the New Testament protocanonical, or of the first rank, concerning whose authority and secondary authors there never was any doubt in the Church; and those deuterocanonical, or of the second rank, concerning whose secondary authors (not their authority, however,) there were at times doubts entertained by some. There was doubt, I say, and discussion concerning these books, yet not among all, merely among a few; not at all times, only occasionally. And these doubts had not reference so much to their divine authority or primary author, the Holy Spirit, as to their secondary authors." And HOLL. (131) at last no longer finds this distinction necessary; "since at the present time all evangelical teachers assign divine authority to these deutero- canonical books, there seems to be no occasion any longer for that distinction." The assertion that the authority of these books had never been doubted is contradicted by BR. (120): "It cannot indeed be denied that some of the ancients did so doubt in regard to these writers, as to refuse to them the authority that belongs to inspired books;" but he also says concerning them: "They are not ignored when we are asked for the rule of faith, but they have authority in such case by common consent at the present day among Christians, especially those of our confession." He does not go into the special proof of this position, it is true, but probably for the reason that he did not regard the doubt raised by so few as of sufficient importance to make this necessary. [13] In reference to the gospels of Mark and Luke, CHEMN. (Eq. Trid., I, 87) remarks: "That Mark and Luke, who were not apostles, were divinely called to write the gospel, Augustine thus explains, lest namely it should be thought that, in reference to the preaching and reception of the Gospel, it made any difference whether those proclaimed it who followed the Lord while here in the flesh as disciples and servants, or those who believed what they clearly learned from these; and that it was providentially so ar- ranged by the Holy Spirit, that to some of those who followed the apostles authority was given, not only for preaching, but also for writing the Gospel," etc. -------------------------End of Page 91---------------------------- This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by William Alan Larson and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary. E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA Phone: (260) 452-3149 Fax: (260) 452-2126