_16_Holy Scripture and Exegesis

All exegesis, whether it be in general the unfolding of the sense of Scripture165 or in particular the explanation of (or rather the attempt to explain) the more difficult passages of Scripture,166 is based on the fact that the entire Christian doctrine is revealed and set forth in Scripture passages so clear that the learned and unlearned alike can understand them; they do not stand in need of “exegesis” for explanation. If Scripture did not have this quality, it would not be for all Christians “a lamp unto their feet and a light unto their path,” nor would all Christians be able to establish the truth of their faith by Scripture and in the light of Scripture to mark and avoid false teachers. The great teachers of the Church, Augustine, Luther, Chemnitz, etc., have always insisted that God gave His people a Bible which presents the entire Christian doctrine in all its parts in passages which need no clarification on the part of the exegetes. We have brought the proofs from Augustine under the heading of the perspicuity of Scripture. As Luther expresses it: “If you cannot understand the obscure, then stay with the clear” (St. L. V:338). No one need fear that if he follow this course, he may be deprived of one or the other doctrine of faith or life.

Good Papists and poor Protestants object here that in that case the special gift of explaining the Scriptures, which God gives to some Christians in preference to others, would be of no use. The objection is not valid. There is a wide territory open for the profitable exercise of the gift of interpreting Scripture in spite of the perfect clarity of Scripture in the sense just described. In the first place, Harless declares in his preface to Luther’s explanation of John 17: “Even though the Word of God in itself does not need interpretation, still our hard hearts and deaf ears stand in need of the voice of the heralds and the preachers in the wilderness. And this again not as though Christ’s words were too high and deep, too obscure and mysterious, but because, as Luther correctly saw, we human beings in our perverse desire to reach false heights, like blind idiots, take no notice of the divine simplicity of the words of Christ.” 167 The first and foremost duty of the exegete consists in holding the flighty spirit of man to the simple word of Scripture and, where he has departed from it, to lead him back to the simple word of Scripture. Luther says that the sole purpose of all his writings and particularly of his works is to lead back into Scripture, to get every Christian and every teacher to base his faith on the bare Scripture, on the “nuda” Scriptura, minus any “gloss,” the good glosses no less than the false interpretation. Luther therefore, as is well known, frequently uttered the wish that also his books might perish in order that Christians might base their faith on the “nuda” Scriptura, without any interpretation; every interpretation is less clear than Scripture, and every interpretation must be examined in the clearer light of Scripture. “No clearer book has been written on earth than Holy Scripture. Among all other books it is like the sun among all lights.” (St. L. V:334.)

Fortunately Luther’s wish that all his books might disappear was not fulfilled. For the writings of Luther cannot but lead the flighty spirit of man to the bare Scriptures, without interpretation, and keep it there, so that every Christian and particularly every public teacher in the Church can say with Luther: “The Word they still shall let remain,” the “nuda” Scriptura. This manuductio ad nudam Scripturam was necessary not only in Luther’s day. The Church in all ages, up to the Last Day, needs it; for men will always be inclined, “in their perverse desire to reach false heights, like blind idiots, to take no notice of the divine simplicity of the words of Christ.” Thus our day, too, needs exegetes — they do not have to be in every case professional theologians — who by God’s grace possess principally four qualities: 1) they know Scripture to be God’s own Word and treat it accordingly; 2) they have learned, from Scripture’s own testimony, that Scripture is clear; 3) they concentrate their efforts upon the manuductio ad nudam Scripturam; 4) they uncover the deceit practiced when men propose, under the good name of exegesis, to shed light on Scripture by means of their human opinions. Zwingli asserted that “the most precious words concerning the eternal deity and the true manhood of Jesus Christ” must “by figures and tropes be made to agree with the right sense which faith demands.” 168 Also modern theologians assert that Scripture must be “subordinated” to “faith” as the highest principle in theology; “faith” meaning the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing individual (Seeberg, Dogmengesch., 2d ed., II, p. 289).

And this constitutes the second part of the work of the true exegete: he must be able to expose the abuse connected in ancient and modern times with the “exegesis according to the faith” or “according to the analogy of faith.” Scripture must certainly be interpreted “according to the analogy of faith.” But this term is used in a twofold, contradictory sense, with totally different results. Rightly used, it serves the proper interpretation of Scripture. Wrongly used, it serves utterly to pervert Scripture. Luther and the old theologians, who with him took the right course, understand by analogy of faith the clear Scripture passages that require no interpretation, but are lucid in themselves. The sum of these passages constitutes the “analogy,” or the “rule of faith.” The Apology defines the “rule of faith” when it says: “Besides, examples [as the life of the Rechabites] ought to be interpreted according to the rule, i. e., according to certain and clear passages of Scripture” (Trigl. 441, 60). And Luther reminds us: “Therefore you are to know that Scripture without any gloss is the sun and the whole light, from which all teachers receive their light; they do not shed light on the Scriptures” (St. L. XVIII:1293). He teaches that both the instructing and the refuting of error must be done “with clear passages, as with a bared and drawn sword, without any glosses or commentaries.” These clear passages are the rule according to which the faithful teacher is to explain obscure passages, as far as this lies in his power. “The holy fathers,” Luther says, “explained Scripture by taking the clear, lucid passages and with them shed light on obscure and doubtful passages” (St. L. XX:856). These “clear, lucid” passages are, of course, to be found in those places in Scripture which deal with a doctrine ex professo, in the so-called sedes doctrinae. Quenstedt says: “It is to be observed that every article of faith has its proper and native seat, from which it is determined” (Systema I, 349). Only in this way the principle is maintained: Scriptura ex Scriptura explicanda est. Luther: “In this manner Scripture is its own light. It is a fine thing when Scripture explains itself. Therefore do not believe the Pope’s lies; freely regard as dark whatever is not approved by clear passages of Scripture. Thus we have first had to remove the error that the Scriptures are obscure and must be illuminated by the doctrines of men; this had taken a deep hold. It is certainly a capital error and a blasphemy; in fact, it amounts to taking the Holy Ghost to school and teaching Him how to speak.” (St. L. XI:2335 f.)

Diametrically opposed to this view is the false conception of “faith,” or the “analogy of faith,” held by all those who do not permit the “certae et clame Scripturae,” the “clear, lucid passages of Scripture,” to constitute the rule, or analogy, of faith, but substitute for it a “faith” which, with complete disregard of the clear and lucid passages, they have constructed out of their own notions. This “faith” is to be the light with which to elucidate the clear passages of Scripture, which need no elucidation whatever! The Sacramentariarts were exegetes of this type. In order to evade Scripture and retain their own thoughts concerning the Lord’s Supper, they proposed that Luther should disregard all passages dealing with the Lord’s Supper and, like themselves, construct the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper from John 6. The modern theologians belong in the same class of exegetes. In order not to be instructed and reproved by Scripture, but to be able, undisturbed by Scripture, to make the “pious self-consciousness” the source and norm of theology, they take recourse under the leadership of Schleiermacher and of Hofmann to the “whole of Scripture.” And the old method of taking the Christian doctrines from the passages which treat of these doctrines they seek to discredit with the cry that this outmoded method converts Scripture into a “collection of proof-texts.”

Exposing the fraud perpetrated by the “enthusiasts,” who, under the guise of interpreting Scripture, by referring to John 6 entirely did away with Scripture, Luther wrote: “It is the arrogance and fatuous malice of the wicked devil who would in this serious matter make fools of us through these ‘enthusiasts’ by pretending a readiness to accept the instruction of Scripture if only he be first permitted to get rid of Scripture or twist it to suit his prejudice. Just as if I would deprive my opponent of his weapons by cunning words and gave him in place thereof painted paper weapons — just like his — and then would dare him to vanquish me with them and fight me off. Oh, that would be a daring hero — fit to be spit upon!” (St. L. XX:780.) Back of the proposal of the “enthusiasts” to explain the words of institution with John 6 lay the thought, more or less clearly expressed, that the sense of all Scripture passages, including the clear ones, must be determined by comparing them with other passages. Luther had no use for such an exegetical method. He wrote: 169 “The result of this method will be that no passage in Scripture will remain certain and clear, and the comparison of one passage with another will never end… . To demand that clear and certain passages be explained by drawing in other passages amounts to an iniquitous deriding of the truth (nequiter veritatem illudere) and the injection of fog into the light (nebulas in lucem vehere). If one set out to explain all passages by first comparing them with other passages, he would be mixing up Scripture into an uncertain and wild chaos (totam Scripturam in infinitum et incertum chaos contundere). Is not this plain enough? No doubt you will see that this is the case.” Luther is unalterably convinced that God gave Holy Scripture such a form that the entire Christian doctrine is revealed and submitted in passages which need no “exegesis” (exegesis in the sense of removing obscurities). He who would determine the meaning of the clear passages through still other passages engages in a work of interminable adjustments, makes the entire Scriptures uncertain and obscure, and converts them into an inextricable chaos. Yes, there is the rule: “One passage must be explained by another,” but, as Luther adds immediately: “Namely, a doubtful and obscure passage (locus ambiguus et obscurus) must be explained by means of a clear and certain passage.” The clear passage needs no further explanation. Shall we adopt the senseless exegetical method of illuminating the light by darkness and explaining the clear matter by the obscure? This method has been fostered carefully by the errorists of all times. After Luther had stated that in the obscure passages of Scripture nothing else is found “than what is found at other places in the clear passages,” he adds: “Then the heretics come forward and explain the obscure passages according to their own mind and contend with them against the clear passages, the foundation of our faith.” (St. L. V:335.)

These severe strictures of Luther apply in even a higher degree to the modern theologians who would explain the whole Bible and in particular also all clear passages of Scripture according to the “whole of Scripture.” If anything is pure “human self-conceit” (Menschen-duenkel), the very antithesis of “Scripture,” it is this “whole of Scripture,” which, introduced by Schleiermacher, has penetrated, particularly through Hofmann’s influence, into the modern so-called Lutheran theology. This “whole of Scripture” lies entirely outside Scripture. It is the product of the illusion that the Christian doctrine forms a whole or a system agreeable to human reason and the several doctrines of Scriptures must be adjusted to fit into this system. Before us lies the proof that this exegetical method makes a mockery of the entire Christian truth and turns the entire Scriptures into a shapeless ruin. Modern theologians admit that Schleiermacher by means of the “whole of Scripture” cast the entire Christian doctrine overboard. And Hofmann, too, denied, as the result of his system, the inspiration of Scripture, the satisfactio vicaria, original sin, etc., and, by principle, the entire Christian doctrine, though he for his person did not draw this final conclusion. In short, exegesis according to the “whole of Scripture” does not permit Scripture to be its “own light,” but this “whole of Scripture,” which Schleiermacher, Hofmann, etc., extract from their own Ego, is made the light of Scripture.

Exegesis, in its double function of the enarratio of the Scriptural content and of the removal of obscurities by means of the clear passages, is a most serious and sacred occupation. The Scriptures are the Word of God, and adding to them or subtracting from them is strictly forbidden to everyone (Deut. 4:2). Whoever attempts to shed more light on dark passages of Scripture than Scripture itself offers in its clear passages is adding to God’s Word. And whoever obscures clear passages by bringing in obscure passages is taking away from God’s Word. Let the exegete particularly study the words (1 Pet. 4:11). What he cannot speak as God’s Word, he should leave unuttered. If he is not certain that he is speaking God’s Word, he should say so and — following Luther’s advice — leave the passage unexplained. If the exegete wishes to hold the right course and keep the fountain of the Christian doctrine clear, he must ever bear in mind the divine truth (Ps. 119:105; 2 Pet. 1:19) that “the Scriptures are a light in themselves,” that Scriptura sua radiat luce. He must reject every interpretation which is based on something outside Scripture.

This principle takes in both the linguistic usage and the historical circumstances of the text. Interesting and important for apologetics as it is, e. g., to compare the New Testament Greek with the earlier Greek of Homer and with the contemporary Greek of Philo and Josephus and the monuments, etc., in the last analysis the linguistic usage of the New Testament alone decides the matter. We would be violating the fundamental tenet: Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse, and introducing an element of uncertainty into our understanding of Scripture if we invested a word or a phrase with a meaning which it does not bear in Scripture itself. This is generally admitted. Our theologians lay particular stress upon it. As Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Athanasius, Jerome, etc., must be understood according to the linguistic usage which is peculiar to each, so Scripture, as it emphatically declares, demands the same treatment; otherwise we would be practicing eisegesis instead of exegesis. Compare, e. g., the chapter in Quenstedt: An Sacra Scriptura seipsam interpretetur?170

The same applies to the historical statements and circumstances. All historical and chronological data which are needed to the end of time for the correct understanding of Scripture are furnished by Scripture itself. The study of the Old and New Testament contemporary history has been given an undue importance in our day. Recently an essayist at a sectarian conference in St. Louis took occasion to assert that the layman could never be positively sure of the meaning of Scripture because the meaning of Scripture depended on the “historical background” with which only the experts were familiar. There you have again the Roman fundamental article of the obscurity of Scripture; only instead of the Pope you have the experts in Old and New Testament contemporary history to “hatch the eggs and become our idol” (Luther). To be sure, acquaintance with contemporary history, as it is based on what secular writers, historical monuments, etc., say, is important; important, for instance, for apologetics, with which we cannot entirely dispense. It enables us to show that the historical, etc., data of Holy Scripture are not fables but are largely confirmed by secular history. But, on the other hand, it must be maintained that the sure understanding of Scripture in no wise depends on the acquaintance with its secular-historical background, since the entire “historical background” necessary for a correct understanding of the meaning of Scripture is given in Scripture itself.

In fact, we go astray in our exegesis of Scripture as soon as we think that the historical background given in Scripture needs to be supplemented by material from secular history and permit this supplementation to have any decisive influence on our exegesis. Such a procedure, too, would be an infraction of the truth that Scripture shines in its own light and would introduce also an element of uncertainty into the interpretation of Scripture, for who will guarantee the correctness of the background taken only from secular history? The Bible is the only book in the world in which no historical errors can occur. — The most flagrant misuse of contemporary history is committed when men undertake to correct, or cast doubt upon, the historical data of Scripture on the basis of “contemporary history.” We have pointed out above how modern theologians, who do not accept the Bible as God’s Word, correct, or at least cast doubt upon, the historical statements of Scripture by means of the contemporary history furnished by Josephus.

We close this chapter with Luther’s oft-repeated admonition never to substitute a human interpretation for the “text,” i. e., for the words of Scripture themselves. He says: “With the text and from the foundation of the Holy Scriptures I have silenced and slain all my opponents. For whoever is well founded and practiced in the text will become a good and fine theologian, since a passage, or text, from the Bible has more weight than many commentators and glosses, which are not strong and round and do not help in the controversy.” (Erl. 57, p. 7.) Again: “When the fathers teach anything, they do not trust their teaching, fearing it to be too obscure and uncertain, but they go to the Scriptures and take a clear passage out of it to shed light on their teaching. How should they have overcome the heretics if they had fought with their own glosses? They would have been regarded as fools and madmen; but when they brought forward clear texts which needed no glosses, so that reason was brought into captivity, the evil spirit himself with all his heresies was completely routed.” (St. L. XVIII:1293.) And so Luther further admonishes: “It must be the prime concern of a theologian to be well versed in the text, a bonus textualis, as it is called” (St. L. V:456). He complains about the many “commentaries and books,” through which “the dear Bible is being buried and covered up so that no one takes note of the text.” He refers to his own experience: “When I was young, I familiarized myself with the Bible, read it often, and became well acquainted with the text; so well acquainted that I knew where every passage that was mentioned was to be found; thus I became a good textualis. Not till then did I read the commentators. But finally I had to disregard them all and put them away because the use of them did not satisfy my conscience, and I had to take my stand again on the Bible; for it is much better to see with your own eyes than with another’s.” (St. L. XXII:54 f.) Thus Luther and his conscience stood on the bare text of Scripture, excluding all human interpretation.

The talk common in our day that all church bodies stand on Scripture and differ only in their interpretation of it is not in accordance with the facts. The Roman Catholic Church does not stand on Scripture, but on the papal interpretation of Scripture. The Reformed Churches, as far as they differ from the Lutheran Church, do not stand on Scripture, but on Zwingli’s, Calvin’s, etc., interpretation of Scripture. The Lutheran Church, however, does not stand on an interpretation of Scripture, but on Scripture itself. This is not a mere assertion. It can be proved by induction in the face of universal contradiction.

1 Gen. 4:26: “Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord,” plainly refers to meetings held for the purpose of preaching and hearing the Word of God. Cf. Luther on this passage, St. L. 1:398 ff.; likewise J. P. Lange on the passage; Calov, Bibl. Illustrata, remarks: “Most exegetes accept this passage as referring to the beginning of public preaching.” Lucas Osiander comments: “Worship before the birth of Enos was less solemn and was practiced in a somewhat private manner.” Further on Scripture reports that God spoke to Noah (ch. 6 ff.) and to Abraham (ch. 12 ff.), etc. And they spread the Word of God that came to them. Abraham is called “a prophet” (Gen. 20:7), and Gen. 13:4 we are told that he “called on the name of the Lord,” i. e., preached the name of the Lord. The “name of the Lord” is primarily that whereby God has made a name for Himself among sinful men: the redemption of mankind from the guilt of sin and its consequences by the Seed of the Woman, Christ. What Peter says Acts 10:43 of all Prophets of the Old Testament includes also the passages Gen. 4:26; 13:4; etc.

2 As reasons which may have induced God to substitute the fixed Scriptures for the oral transmission of His Word, Baier gives the following (I, 106): “(1) The growth of the human race; (2) the shortening of man’s span of life, it being no longer possible to instruct all men in the same manner, orally and personally, as formerly the patriarchs, who received their instruction by direct revelation of God; but also (3) the infiltration of much corruption of doctrine; in addition (4) the feebleness of the mortals to be instructed and the frailty of their memory required a revelation to which recourse could be had in every case of need, and therefore a written record was considered advantageous.” If the objection is raised that the almighty and all-wise God could no doubt have continued to preach to His Church and preserve it without a written transmission of His Word, we answer with Baier: “It has pleased divine Providence that the chief parts of the divine revelation be comprehended in writing” — God willed it so. Moreover, we know that God loves fallen mankind and that therefore, like the gift of His incarnate Son (John 3:16), also the gift of His written Word serves His saving love of sinners (2 Tim. 3:15-17). God’s children gratefully acknowledge this love (Ps. 119) and shun the sin of setting aside the written Word or of even denying outright that it is the infallible divine truth. Expressing it according to the causal method: “The internal impelling cause of the reduction to writing, in Holy Scripture, by the divine will, is God’s goodness; the external () is the need of mankind to be saved” (Baier I, 105). That, however, no necessitas absoluta may be ascribed to Scripture, is maintained also by the old Lutheran theologians and will be brought out more fully when the use to be made of Scripture is treated.

3 Quenstedt, I, 51: “We must distinguish between the time before and the time after Moses, or between the revelation which was given by God to the patriarchs without the recording of any Scriptures through 2,454 years (after the calculation of Calvisius), namely, from the beginning of the world down to Moses, and which was spread by word of mouth, and that revelation which was recorded in books by Moses and the Prophets. The former was the theological principle up to Moses, the latter after Moses. For immediately after the first canon was constituted, which consisted of the Pentateuch, the Book of Job, and the Song of Moses (Psalm 90), the revelation transmitted by word of mouth was no longer the norm and principle of religion, but solely the revelation recorded in books.” That the Scriptures of the Old Testament are the complete canon for the Church of the Old Testament is indicated also by Christ, when He says (Luke 16:29): “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.”

4 Stoeckhardt’s comment on this passage: “The Apostles come into consideration here not as persons, but according to their office, namely, as Apostles, and as such in their relation to the Church of all ages… . Though long dead, they live on for us and speak to us in their writings. And so the second genitive, , can mean only the Old Testament Prophets and the writings of the Prophets, which occupy the same rank as the writings of the Apostles and form with them one genus; therefore and have but one article.”

5 Luenemann: “ (‘as from us’) is to be connected with (‘by word’) as well as with (‘by letter’), and the former expression is to be understood as referring to oral statements which were falsely ascribed to the Apostle, and the latter to written statements that were attributed to the Apostle by means of a spurious letter. However, to refer (‘by spirit’) as does Erasmus, is impossible. For while one might circulate ‘words’ or ‘letters’ as coming from an absent person, this could not be done with Spirit-inspired Prophetic lectures, since such a case required the personal presence of the speaker.” Also in v. 15 Paul’s “word” and “epistle” are joined: “whether by word or our epistle.”

6 See p. 16 ff. on the philosophy of religion.

7 Quenstedt also points this out over against the Calviniste, who likewise appealed to the regenerate reason as source and norm of the Christian doctrine: “The Calvinists urge that they here understand the regenerate reason, or human reason after spiritual regeneration has taken place. Thus Calvin, Inst. IV, 17, 26… . B. Dannhauer answers: ‘This objection would have some weight if reason in man had remained pure, without the streaming into it of a spring that has remained sin-stained unto this hour; but the water is polluted, similar to sweet water which is at least suspected of being poisonous, because every imagination of man’s heart is only evil continually. And was not Sarah regenerated? And still she laughed at and even derided the promise of God as a paradox.’ ”

8 Der Schriftbeweis des Dr. J. Ch. K. ν. Hofmann, p. 32.

9 This has been fully discussed p. 55 ff.

10 William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, d. 1645. R. E., 2d ed., VIII, 485 ff. On Calixt’s Consensus quinquesaecuhris see Quenstedt, I, 65 sq. Kahnis, Innerer Gang, 3d ed., I, 105: “When Calixt spoke of two principles in the Church, namely, Scripture and tradition, this was manifestly done at the cost of the Protestant Scripture principle and was again a leaning toward the Roman Church” (Baier-Walther, I, 87).

11 Quenstedt, I, 65 sq. Kahnis’ judgment in the preceding note is very mild.

12 Thus the Augustana repeatedly pleads that it teaches no novelties but is professing only such doctrines as have had the testimony of the ancient Church (Trigl., pp.51, 59, 61, 93). Likewise the Formula of Concord. (Trigl. 1037, 64; cf. the Catalogus Testimoniorum, p. 1107 ff.) — Chemnitz says in his Examen Concilii Tridentini, Geneva, 1667, p. 71, in the chapter De Traditionibus: “Andradius has done us wrong in that he claims that in general we make nothing of the testimony of antiquity, that the authority of the Fathers means nothing, that we impair the approbation of the Church, its faith, and its majesty. However, with a good conscience we can affirm that after the study of Holy Scripture we have in our inquiry and investigation of the consensus of the true and purer antiquity stood for as much as agreed with the grace of God and do stand for that today. For we give to the writings of the Fathers their proper and honorable place, which is due them, as men who have explained many passages of Scripture very clearly and defended the ancient doctrines of the Church against the new corruptions of the heretics, and that from Scripture, explaining many doctrinal passages correctly.” Chemnitz then demonstrates this by particular instances.

13 Cp. the relevant words of the Smalcald Articles: “The Papists quote here Augustine and some of the Fathers who are said to have written concerning purgatory, and they think that we do not understand for what purpose and to what end they spoke as they did. St. Augustine does not write that there is a purgatory, nor has he a testimony of Scripture to constrain him thereto, but he leaves it in doubt whether there is one, and says that his mother asked to be remembered at the altar or Sacrament. Now, all this is indeed nothing but the devotion of men, and that, too, of individuals, and does not establish an article of faith, which is the prerogative of God alone. Our Papists, however, cite such statements [opinions] of men in order that men should believe in their horrible, blasphemous, and cursed traffic in masses for souls in purgatory… . For it will not do to frame articles of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers; otherwise their kind of fare, of garments, of house, etc., would have to become an article of faith, as was done with relics. [We have, however, another rule, namely] The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel.” Trigl. 465, 13 ff. See also the clear-cut and concise declaration of the F. C., both in the Epitome and in the Solida Declaratio, regarding the specific difference between Holy Scripture and all other writings, the Symbols included (Trigl. 777, 1, 2, 7, 8; 851, 3).

14 The entire section in Quenstedt (I, 66) is instructive and interesting. “The conclusion is proved: By the nullity or nonexistence of that consensus. Many writings of the ancient doctors of the Church were never published; few of those that were published have come down to us; very many have perished; also many of the Fathers, particularly of the earliest antiquity, wrote little or nothing, and whatever is now left as writings of the Fathers is mutilated, interpolated, and corrupted. The consensus, however, of a few Fathers is not immediately the consensus of the whole Church. — The adversaries counter: The best writings of the Fathers, however, have been preserved by the providence of heaven, while the less valuable have perished. But who will convince us of this? Who writes the laws for divine providence? Or who will convince us that in the burning of the Alexandrian library, which Callius reports lib. VI, Noc. Att. c. ult., or in the burning of the Diocletian library, of which Dr. Dannhauer tells in Christeid., p. 231, only the less valuable documents perished while those worthy of immortality escaped the teeth of fate. Luther rather ascribes more to divine providence in his preface to the First Wittenberg Part, namely, ‘that by no means a small part of the ecclesiastical writers perished, so that men would not find the time which they should devote to the reading and scrutiny of Scripture taken up by the study of the wallowing of the Fathers and the councils.’ — They insist that from the published writings we can satisfactorily estimate the consensus of the ancient Church. I answer: I concede that it is possible to estimate particulariter et probabiliter, but I deny this with reference to the Christian faith; it is possible in those cases in which there appears a unanimous decision, not in others, where they themselves are divided; it is possible to estimate it if in any one tradition of the faith they manifestly, universally, and constantly agree in one and the same sense: Thus, for example, on the Canon of Scripture we have a very fine agreement of the old doctors if you take the testimonies collectively through five or more centuries; but this consensus is not in like manner apparent in the doctrines. How much discrepancy in the writings of the Fathers also in regard to the sense of Scripture! How great often the gulf of time! What empty spaces where no books have appeared! That consensus of five centuries deals solely with co-eval controversies, not with heresies born after the five centuries.”

15 R. Seeberg, Dogmeng., 1895, I, 328 f.

16 Thus Bellarmine, De Conciliis, II, 12, 1, states the four principles: “The written Word of God, the unwritten traditions, the authority of the Councils, and the Roman Pope” (see Quenstedt, I, 53). In the Roman Catechism, Prooem., qu. 12, we read: “The contents of every doctrine which is to be communicated to the faithful are contained in the Word of God, which is divided into Scripture and the traditions.”

17 Huelsemann: “Though they pretend that their faith rests on Sacred Scripture and the prime truth, understood according to the sense of the Church Universal, they nevertheless make the interpretation of the Church Universal depend on the interpretation of one man, who is called by them the Roman Pontifex” (Anti-Bellarminus, cap. I, thes. 20, quoted by Quenstedt, I, 53).

18 Constitutio dogmatica prima de ecclesia Christi, edita, in Sess. IV, Concilii Vaticani: “Pastor aeternus.” A. 1870, d. 18 Iulii. See Die Kanones und Beschluesse des Vatikanischen Konzils, deutsch-lateinische Ausg. von G. Schneemann, 1871, p. 45 sq. — Baier-Walther, I, 81.

19 Luther describes the nature of Carlstadt and his ilk in his book Wider die himmlischen Propheten (St. L. XX:202 ff.) as follows: “What God ordains externally as the adjunct to the Spirit inwardly, as we have said, oh, how disdainfully and scoffingly does he [Carlstadt] cast that aside and wants to get into the Spirit beforehand. … If you ask them: How does one get that high Spirit? they do not direct you to the external Gospel, but to a utopia and say: Stand and wait, as I have waited for a long time; then you will experience it; the heavenly voice will come and God Himself will speak to you… . Do you not see the devil here, that enemy of divine order, how he gets you to gape by his shouting: ‘The Spirit, the Spirit, the Spirit!’ and all the while he is tearing up the bridges, highway and by-way, ladder, and everything by which the Spirit is really to come to you, namely, the external ordinances of God in the material Baptism, the written and oral Word of God, and wants to teach you, not how the Spirit will come to you, but how you should come to the Spirit, that you should learn to float on the clouds and ride the wind; and still they will not tell you how or when, where or what, but tell you that you must experience it yourself just as they.”

20 For proofs see Guenther, Symbolik, p. 90 ff. (Popular Symbolics, p. 378 ff.; 388 ff.; 323 ff.; 423 f.; 440 ff.)

21 Quenstedt (I, 70 sq.) lists the “enthusiasts” up to his day. This list, because of the remarks interspersed, is interesting and informative. He writes: “Antithesis: 1. Various fanatics who state: ‘The knowledge of God and of all the doctrines to be believed must be sought not in the written Word of God, but from the exclusive revelation given specially to the individual and from the congenital light, from raptures, dreams, conversations with angels, from the internal word, from the inspiration (Einsprechen) of the heavenly Father, from the information given them internally by Christ, who is essentially united with them, from the teaching of the Holy Ghost, who is speaking from within them — all of which constitutes a higher wisdom than that contained in the Holy Scriptures.’ It is certain that ever so many fanatics, ancient and modern, were seized by such enthusiasm’; among the ancients can be named the Montanists, Donatists, Adelphius… . The words of the Hist. Tripart. are these: ‘This heresy came from the disturbance of the Messalians, who were called the , i. e., the “pray-ers” (orantes). They were, however, also called by the other name of , i. e., men breathed upon, and divini. For they expect the operation of some demon, whom they call the presence of the Holy Spirit. Those who have given themselves over entirely to this disease, despise any manual labor as evil, give themselves over to dreaming, and call their dreams and phantasies prophecies. The leaders of this heresy were Dadoes and Sabbas and Adelphius, Hermas and Symeones, and others. More recent ‘enthusiasts’ are those who … came forth out of the nether world … under the leadership and auspices of Thomas Muenzer, that seditious forerunner of the Anabaptists, in Thuringia, Caspar of Schwenkfeld in Silesia, Theophrastus Paracelsus in Switzerland, Coppinus and Quintinus in Picardy, Valentin Weigel in Meissen. All these contended that not merely the written Word of God, but also revelations, enthusiasms, dreams, and the immediate voice of God were to be heard and according to these things the government of the Church was to be organized… . To these add the Rosicrucian brethren and the recent prophets John Warner and George Richard, the Quakers, or Tremblers, in England, who also dream of divine raptures and immediate revelations. Thus also Jean de Labadie has publicly boasted of heavenly revelations, of talks with the blessed saints, and of appearances of the blessed Virgin Mary granted him while praying, and also his followers; they assert that God often deals with the faithful without the Word of God and accordingly admonish men ‘to seek refuge in the internal revelations of the Spirit and give diligent attention to them.’ Also Anna von Schuermann attempts to prove in her Eukleria, p. 80, that ‘besides Scripture there are also given today doctrinal prophecies and internal revelations.’ 2. The Papists, of whom Dr. Dannhauer (Hodom. Spiritus Pap. Phantasm., I, p. 61 sq.) shows that they admit among the fundamentals of faith revelations given to individuals, e. g., Brigitta, Catherine of Siena… . 3. The Socinians. Thus Faustus Socinus expresses it as his opinion, against Joh. Erasmus, p. 166, that Laelius Socinus … by many prayers obtained from Christ Himself the interpretation of those words of Christ, John 8:52: ‘Before Abraham became the father of many nations, I am the light of the world,’ and that this was revealed to him by God Himself. Osterodus, Instit. Germ., c. 1, regards immediate revelations or special internal illuminations necessary for understanding the prophetic Scripture and the largest part of the Apocalypse of John… . 4. Some of the Calvinists. Thus Andrew Carlstadt regarded private revelations and visions highly; Luther refuted him in his book Contra coelestes prophetas, Tom. III, lenens.; cf. Sleidanus, III, 61; V, 117, where he says: ‘This man of whom we spoke above, Carlstadt, disagreeing with Luther, left Wittenberg and became very friendly with those secret teachers who simulated visions and talks with God.’ And Huld. Zwingli, who claims that the Spirit revealed to him through a special revelation that the word ‘est’ in the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper is written there for ‘significat.’ For this reason Dr. Dannhauer, Hodom. Spirit. Calv. Phantas, I, 9, p. 59 says: ‘If you look at the beginning, Calvinism owes the fanatical enthusiasm of Carlstadt and Zwingli not a little, although later this seems to have died out.’ ”

22 Examples in Scripture (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11). In church history: John Hilten’s prophecy of the coming of Luther (Trigl. 419, 1–4). It is added: “The outcome will teach how much weight should be given to this declaration.”

23 Quenstedt says on this score (I, 75): “We must distinguish between revelations which pertain to, or attack, an article of faith, and those which concern the state of the Church or the State, social life, and future events; the first we repudiate; the latter, however, some hold, are not to be urged with any necessity of believing, nevertheless are not to be rashly rejected. B. Balduin says in his Commentary on 1 Tim. 4, P. I, q. 1: ‘We do not doubt that God to this day at times reveals to some men future things pertaining to the state of the Church or the State, to be announced for the use of men.’ ”

24 Nachweis der Echtheit saemtlicher Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 1832, p. 168.

25 Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, by James Hastings, II, 589.

26 Richard W. Hiley, The Inspiration of Scripture, 1885, p. 50.

27 The statement in Meusel, sub “Inspiration der Heiligen Schrift,” is entirely correct: “More or less all the polychrome, modern theories amount to a transformation of the inspiration of Scripture into an illumination of the writers, which differs from the illumination of every believing Christian only in degree.” For a while it was the fashion to translate (2 Tim. 3:16) not as passive, “breathed by God,” but as active, “breathing God.” This fashion has died out. Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 263, note 1: “Today the interpretation of as inspired is universally accepted; cf., e. g., Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 1894, p. 135.21.”

28 Thus also Ihmels, Zentralfragen, p. 72.

29 Lehre und Wehre, 32, 255 f., in his comprehensive essay: “Was sagt die Schrift von sich selbst?”

30 Also Luthardt (Komp., 10th ed., p. 332) does not hesitate to say that Verbal Inspiration has no basis in Scripture, but is “a purely mental construction.” Theodor Kaftan (Moderne Theol. d. alten Glaubens, 2d ed., p. 109) speaks of Verbal Inspiration as a “theologumenon” — having no basis in Scripture.

31 Die Bibel Gottes Wort und des Glaubens einzige Quelle, 2d ed., p. 18.

32 InstitutioTheologiaeDogmaticae Evangelicae, Historico-critica, 2d ed., p. 122.

33 Thus Bellarmine says: “It is wrong to say that God commanded the Apostles to write. For in the last chapter of Matthew we read that they should preach the Gospel; but we read nowhere that they should write. Therefore God neither commanded expressly that they should write, nor did He command that they should not write. Still we do not deny that the Apostles wrote what they wrote by the will and inspiration of God.” (Quoted in Quenstedt, I, 94, from Bellarmine, De V. D., 1, 4, c. 3.)

34 Trident., Sess. IV, decr, de canon. Script. Cat. Rom., praef. 12.

35 Quenstedt, I, 90, brings the documentary proof: “Antithesis: 1. Of the Scripture-hating Papists who assert that the Holy Scriptures are not necessary and the Church could do without the Scripture; thus Gregory of Valencia in Anal. Fid., p. 388, where he says ‘that the heavenly doctrine can be preserved purer by tradition than by Scripture.’ Bellarmine, IV, De V. Dei, c. 4, contends ‘that the Church can subsist without the Scriptures but not without tradition.’ Costerus asserts ‘that Christ did not want His Church to be dependent on paper Scriptures or commit His mysteries to parchments.’ Petrus a Soto: ‘This should be held as most certain that this plan of writing the divine words and revelations has been devised by God because of the human imperfection and infirmity, and so it is of great help to the more infirm and imperfect; but for the more sanctified and purer ones it is either less or not at all necessary.’ Of the same nature is that impious remark of some cardinal, related by Tilenus, P. 1, disp. 2, th. 35: ‘The Church would have been better served if no Scriptures had ever appeared.’ ”

36 Moderne Theologie des alten Glaubens, 2d ed., p. 112 f.

37 The unknown Italian monk of Cremona who had written an article in which he sought to bring Luther back into the Roman Church. Several pages later Luther describes him.

38 With this “God forbid, etc.” Luther does not contradict 1 Cor. 7:26. There Paul does not give a commandment (v. 25), but only the advice to young women not to marry “by reason of the present distress.” The sophistry of Papistic theologians that the Apostles wrote “by accidental reasons” (ex occasione accidentaria, fortuito), hence not by divine command and accordingly not as binding all Christians, is shown up by Quenstedt thus: “The Apostles wrote sometimes prompted by the occasion; however, not by a casual happening, but by one sent by God. God so guided everything that we should have a complete and perfect canon of faith and life — the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures.” Quenstedt quotes from Tertullian, Contra Marcionem, 1, 5: “The Apostles, in writing to certain people, wrote to all,” and from Cyril, Proleg. in loh.: “Moved by this thing, John believed it to be meet to provide by the composition of his Gospel for his contemporaries as well as for future generations.”

39 Kompendium, 10th ed., 1900, p. 338. By the way, also Luthardt, in 1900, fails to take notice of Philippi’s retraction, 17 years before, in his Glaubenslehre, 3d ed., 1883, I, 279, of the statement concerning “the possibility of errors in Scripture in minor matters.”

40 The entire quotation is given in Baier-Walther, I, 102, taken from Grau’s Entwicklungsgeschichte des neutestamentlichen Schrifttums, I, 11, 12, 18.

41 Glaubenslehre, 1921, p. 52. This advice is nothing new. Many years before, Bretschneider had written in his Dogmatik, 4th ed., I, 394: “In general, all inspiration of the New Testament, and particularly of the words, appears useless for the reason that it presupposes a mechanism of instruction which is entirely inapplicable to human souls.”

42 Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 251. Grau, according to Hofmann, calls it “the literary diversity” of the various authors; see Baier-Walther, I, 101 f.

43 Quenstedt adds: “One and the same thing is expressed by some in more magnificent language, by others in more lowly language; but that these and no other phrases, these and no other words or synonyms were used by the holy writers, was due entirely to the divine impulse and inspiration.”

44 Zeitschrift f. luth. Th. u. Kirche, 1841, Section 4, p. 34.

45 The complete quotation is given in Baier-Walther, I, 102. Later on we shall have something to say on the abuse of this term “dictated” and of the ridicule heaped upon it.

46 Bruce calls them, op. cit., p. 55, “a formidable affair” and refers to Tischendorf’s “eighth edition in two large octavos.”

47 Well-intentioned men, who in other respects are theologically well trained, harbor distorted conceptions of the “legion” of variations. The “legion” dwindles decidedly when we scrutinize the nature of these variations. Take, by way of example, two German Bibles, the one having the old and the other the new orthography, and compare merely the New Testament text of both. The difference in orthography will at once reveal thousands of variae lectiones. The same thing applies to the thousands of variations in the transcripts of the Greek New Testament that have come down to us; the variants pertain solely to the orthography. Also Bruce points this out when he speaks of variants “not affecting the sense, but merely the spelling and grammatical form of words.” Such, for instance, is the large number of variations in the spelling of proper names: — , — , — , — , — , etc. Among other insignificant variations Bruce mentions the presence or absence of the final in verbs ( — ); the omission or insertion of μ ( — ); the assimilation or non-assimilation of and in compound verbs (); the doubling of or the reverse (); the conjunction or disjunction of syllables (); for ; the aorist forms , etc., replaced by forms in α (); single or double augment in certain verbs (). Anyone interested in the variations of this kind will find rich material in Winer, Grammatik d. neatest. Sprachidioms, 6th ed., p. 39 ff.

48 We are of the opinion that J. E. F. Sander’s position on the passage has yet to be proved wrong. And Stroebel’s criticism of Sander (Zeitschr. f. luth. Theologie, 1854, p. 135 f.), that “abysmal arbitrariness in criticism” would prevail if the old codices were not made the judge in textual criticism, is not cogent. Modern criticism is right in insisting that a quotation from the Fathers is often of decisive importance over against even the oldest codices. If Schoemann in his edition of Cicero’s De Natura Deorum (3d ed., Berlin, 1865, p. 99) has seen correctly, we have an analog to 1 John 5:7-8 in the field of secular literature. Schoemann in his edition of De Natura Deorum I, 41, inserts the words “ne intereat” and adds a note: “These words are, it is true, lacking in the codices, but are preserved in a quotation of this passage in Augustine, Epist. 56, tom. II, p. 267, ed. Basil, 1569.” We shall have to take up this subject again in the section on “The Integrity of the Biblical Text.”

49 Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte, 2d ed., p. 59.

50 Quoted in Broadus, A Harmony of the Gospels, 8th ed., p. 232.

51 Vol. 36, No. 17, Berlin, April 28, 1923. The quotation is from a letter addressed by Rector, em., August Gruenweller in Rheydt to a teacher in Saxony.

52 A very thorough discussion of the “alleged contradictions in the Bible,” in connection with the controversy in the Baltic provinces, is found in Lehre und Wehre, 1893, pp. 33–273 passim. Cp. also the Proceedings of the Eν. Luth. Synodical Conference, 1902, pp. 5–56. In these two essays practically all essential passages in which contradictions have been found have been considered.

53 The long quotation from Kahnis is found in Baier-Walther, I, 102 f.

54 Cf. the series of articles by Dr. Stoeckhardt in Lehre und Wehre 30, p. 42 ff. and 31, p. 220 ff., with the heading: “Weissagung und Erfuellung.” In these articles all the “misquotations” found in Matthew are treated: Is. 7:14 – Matt. 1:18-23; Micah 5:2 – Matt. 2:5-6; Hos. 11:1 – Matt. 2:15; Jer. 31:15 – Matt. 2:17-18; Is. 11:1 and Zech. 6:12 – Matt. 2:23; Is. 40:3 – Matt. 3:1-3; Is. 8:22 and 9:1-2 – Matt. 4:12-16; Is. 53:4 – Matt. 8:17; Is. 42:1 ff. – Matt. 12:15-21; Is. 6:9-10 – Matt. 13:13-15; Ps. 78:2 – Matt. 13:34-35; Zech. 9:9 – Matt. 21:1-5; Ps. 118:26 – Matt. 21:9; Ps. 118:22-23 – Matt. 21:42-44; Ps. 8:2 – Matt. 21:16; Ps. 110:1 – Matt. 22:43-46; Ex. 3:6 – Matt. 22:31-32; Dan. 9:23ff. – Matt. 24:15; Zech. 13:7 – Matt. 26:31 ff.; Zech. 11:12-13 and Jer. 32:6 ff. – Matt. 27:3 ff. (Here it is demonstrated that Matthew also quotes Jeremiah.) Ps. 22:18 – Matt. 27:35; Ps. 22:1 – Matt. 27:46.

55 Thus Ludovicus Capellus II. Cf. Pfeiffer, Critica Sacra, Leipzig, 1712, p. 105 ff.

56 Huther comments: “Of course the Apostle does not mean to forbid Timothy to drink water at all, but only urges him not to avoid wine altogether, does not exactly mean ‘to drink water,’ but ‘to be a water drinker’ and is only used of a man who makes water his special and exclusive drink.” Similarly Winer, Grammar, 6th ed., p. 442. The verb occurs in the New Testament only here; it is, however, not a word coined by the Apostle, but is genuine Greek. Ebeling, s. v., furnishes the proof of this.

57 Hoenecke says (Dogmatik I, p. 351) that these passages [1 Tim. 5:23 and 2 Tim. 4:13] yield two important principles for our Christian life; the first, that an overstrained asceticism is foreign to the spirit of the Gospel; the second, that it is a false spirituality which despises the insignificant things of this life and regards itself as superior to them; and that statements of Scripture which are so edifying are not unworthy of being inspired by the Holy Ghost. Quenstedt says (I, p. 103) that it is one thing to regard a thing unimportant when it is considered in itself, and another thing to regard the same thing as unimportant when you consider its purpose and the wise counsel of God; that many things in Scripture seem of little importance, such as Paul’s leaving his cloak at Troas (2 Tim. 4:13); and that these things, which some think are contrary to the majesty of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless of great import if we look to the end (Rom. 15:4) and the most wise counsel of God by which these things were inserted into the divine writings. Philippi (Glaubenslehre, 3d ed., I, 261): “But what of that cloak at Troas, worn threadbare by modern criticism, with which the Anomians loved to cloak their unbelief, and the books, especially the parchment of 2 Tim. 4:13? And, to crown all, the dietary advice of the Apostle (1 Tim. 5:23)! We should not be surprised if our modern naturalists, who set such store by eating and drinking, by clothing, and by books, especially their own, and parchments, as being absolutely necessary for the welfare of the human race would one of these days make a complete about-face and rate only these passages as inspired. But as pertaining to the matter itself, the higher, ethical import of both statements is easily recognizable. The second passage guards against a false overstrained asceticism as well as an immoderate use of God’s earthly gifts, teaches in a concrete way both that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4:4), and that we are to make provision for the flesh, but not in such a manner as to fulfill the lusts thereof (Rom. 13:14). The first passage shows us how faithful attention to seemingly insignificant matters comports well with even the most zealous devotion to the highest calling in the Kingdom of God, that the one does not exclude, but include the other.”

58 Quoted in Baier-Walther, I, 102 f., from the 1st ed. of his Dogmatik. These words are somewhat toned down in the 2d ed., I, 281, 284 ff., 293 ff.

59 Systema I, 119. The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia has some interesting remarks on the use of the term solecism.

60 Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 1913, Preface, III.

61 Grammar, 3d ed., p. 54. Regarding the term Hellenistic compare Winer, p. 26 f.; Blass-Debrunner, Grammatik des neutcst. Griechisch, 5th ed., p. 1.

62 Dr. A. L. Graebner calls the New Testament Greek “a type of Greek which rendered the New Testament highly adapted to its intended use for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, not to men of polite education only, but to the people at large, to entire congregations of hearers to whom these books were to be read and interpreted, and who should themselves be readers searching the Scriptures of the New Testament as well as of the Old” (Theological Quarterly, 1897, p. 146).

63 Quenstedt, I, 118 sq., under status controversiae.

64 Woerterbuch der neutest. Graezitaet, 3d ed., Preface, V.

65 Quoted by Cremer, op. cit., Preface, VI, from Rothe’s Zur Dogmatik, Gotha, 1863, p. 238.

66 Quenstedt, I, 119, under “The style of the New Testament is free from every blot of barbarism and solecism.” Robertson reports in his Grammar (3d ed., p. 50): “Deissmann strongly disapproves the term ‘vulgar Greek,’ ‘bad Greek,’ ‘Graecitas fatiscens’ in contrast with ‘classic Greek.’ ” The objectionable terms are not only linguistically improper but, above all, offensive to the Christian, because the Christian knows that the New Testament Greek is “the organ of Christ.” However, the term vulgar Greek is in our day not always used in a derogatory sense; at times it is synonymous with “popular language.’

67 A word of caution is here in place. One who is versed in the vocabulary and diction of the New Testament Greek will find every point of agreement with the classical Greek interesting, but it would be going too far to speak of such agreement as enhancing the dignity of the language of the New Testament. We should thereby be surrendering the true criterion of excellence. The unique dignity of the New Testament Greek consists in its being “the Greek organ of the Spirit of Christ,” as Cremer expresses it. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that in the case of such terms as , , etc., there is no more than an agreement in sound, since the specifically Christian meaning of these words was utterly unknown to all authors of the classical period of Greek (1 Cor. 2:9). The same is true also of expressions such as , etc., in reference to life and conduct, since the conceptions which these terms awaken in the unbelievers are distinctly unchristian.

68 Their number has been exaggerated. Cf. Winer, Grammar, 6th ed., p. 26 ff., ¶3: “Hebraeisch-aramaeisches Kolorit der alttestamentlichen Diktion.”

69 Quenstedt, I, 119: “ is one thing, is another. The former we affirm concerning the New Testament; the latter we deny… . For it pleased God to connect the two covenants and to preserve in the Old and the New Testament, in things as well as in words and phrases, a conformity which is truly admirable and in no wise accidental… . He who dares to accuse Holy Scripture of barbarisms must himself be a barbaric despiser of Holy Scripture.”

70 Illustrations in Winer, op. cit., p. 500 ff. There is in Gal. 2:6 an anacoluthon also in Luther’s translation. In regular grammatical sequence the sentence beginning with ought to have an apodosis of passive construction, e.g., (Winer). But induced by the inserted clause, , etc., an apodosis in active (medial) construction follows. Robertson, Grammar, 3d ed., p. 438: “One of the most striking anacolutha in Paul’s epistles is found at the end of Rom. 5:12, where the apodosis to the clause is wanting. The next sentence () takes up the subordinate clause , and the comparison is never completed. In v. 18 a new comparison is drawn in complete form.” The more recent New Testament philologists, such as Winer, Blass (Blass-Debrunner, Grammar, 5th ed., 1921, p. 269 ff.), differ very considerably in their explanation of the New Testament anacolutha. There is no harm in this difference, because the attentive Bible reader understands the passages very well without having the anacolutha explained. Gal. 2:6, for example, is understood by every reader of the Bible without any dissecting of the sentence structure. While Winer, Robertson, Buttmann, and others speak very sensibly of these irregular sentence structures, Blass-Debrunner unfortunately does not. Compare, for example, p. 271: “The sentence structure of 1 Tim. 1:3 ff. turns out to be a real jumble, because of the ceaseless intercalations and appendages.” The “jumble” has its source elsewhere than in the words of Paul. In spite of the anacoluthon every thought in the entire mighty chapter is clearly attached to the preceding thought until the Apostle closes, v. 17, with . Buttmann (Grammar, p. 331) is right in classing the passage 1 Tim. 1:3 ff. with the passages in which the initial sentence structure is not completed “because of the wealth of thoughts and the fullness of the heart.”

71 Alex Buttmann, in his New Testament Grammar, which closely follows Ph. Buttmann’s Griech. Grammatik, also discusses extensively the anacoluthon, p. 324 ff. Robertson, in part following Winer, deals very thoroughly with this subject, Grammar, 3d ed., p. 435 ff.: “The very jolt that is given by the anacoluthon is often successful in making more emphasis. The attention is drawn anew to the sentence to see what is the matter.”

72 Cf. Fuerbringer, Einleitung in d. N. T., p. 71.

73 One might speak of a “pleasantry” here on the part of the Apostle, as a number of exegetes do. But it is a “refined spiritual” humor. Thus, for example, Vilmar writes in his Erklaerung des Neuen Testaments, II, 427: “Finally the Apostle jokes in a refined manner, saying that he is ready to have charged to his account any damage Onesimus may nave caused Philemon by absconding; he will, even as he was writing this with his own hand, personally square this account with him and will not take into account at all that Philemon owes himself to him,” the Apostle, by whom he had been converted. See in Calov, Biblia Illustrata, on this passage, the testimonies of the Church Fathers on the fine spiritual tone of the Epistle to Philemon.

74 How emphatically Zoeckler denies the inspiration of Scripture and hence also questions its “judicatory authority,” its “perspicuity,” and its “sufficiency” becomes evident from his presentation of these matters in his Handbuch der theol. Wissenschaften, 2d ed., III, 148–151.

75 Luke 22:25-26: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them… . But ye shall not be so.” Matt. 23:8: “One is your Master, even Christ.” John 18:36: “My kingdom is not of this world.”

76 Cp. Philippi, Glabenslehre, 3d ed., p. 299: “The fact that the Apostles regard the entire Scriptures of the Old Testament as the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Ghost, and hence regard God Himself as auctor primarius Scripturae Sacrae is a fact so undeniable that even Rothe (in his book Zur Dogmatik, 1863, p. 180 ff.) dares not deny, yea, even admits, that the Apostles themselves can be cited as authority for the doctrine of inspiration as taught by our Church and dogmaticians. Nevertheless he does not want to be bound by the doctrine of the Apostles in general nor by their particular doctrine regarding the source and the nature of the Old Testament.” Also Meusel (III, 459) calls attention to this concession of Rothe: “Rothe acknowledges that the entire exegesis and hermeneutics of the New Testament in reference to the Old Testament rests on such a view of the inspiration. For that very reason his exegetical conscience forbids him to be bound here by the doctrine of the Apostles, and he proposes another theory of inspiration in opposition to theirs. For us the testimony of the Scripture itself counts for more.”

77 Zeitschrift fuer d. luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1840, 1st section, p. 18 f. Baier’s Compendium Theologiae Historicae (published posthumously by his son, 1690) contains sufficient quotations from the Church Fathers to prove that they taught Verbal Inspiration. Quenstedt on Augustine’s doctrine of the Scriptures, Systema I, 116. Cp. in Chemnitz’ Examen the lengthy section “Testimonia veteris ecclesiae de Scriptura,” p. 39 sqq. In the preceding pages Chemnitz sets forth what Scripture teaches regarding itself, and this presentation clearly shows Chemnitz’ view of Scripture. Concerning the proof from Scripture for Scripture Chemnitz remarks, loc. cit.: “These testimonies which we have adduced so far from the very words of Scripture are the strongest kind of testimonies, on which the pious mind can safely rely. For they set before us the verdict of the Holy Spirit Himself regarding the Scriptures. For just as the ancient teachers say that nothing is to be believed regarding God except what God Himself has revealed and testified, so we are also to believe regarding the Scriptures just what Scripture itself says concerning itself, yea, rather what the Holy Ghost Himself judges and pronounces regarding His work.” Chemnitz is therefore certainly not “hesitant,” as has been here and there asserted by modem theologians, in expressing his position as to the inspiration of Scripture.

78 Quenstedt reports (I, 106): “See the treatise of Musaeus on the style of the New Testament, which he wrote against the Apology of M. lac. Gross in 1641 and in which he says, par. 16: ‘The argument of Gross will meet the reply of the opponent that it rests upon a hypothesis which is not yet conceded nor satisfactorily proved, scil., that the Holy Ghost breathed into the Apostles not only the matter, but also the very words.’ Likewise, par. 39: ‘An utterance of the Apostles is not an utterance by God pertaining to the materiale, or the words themselves, but only to the formale, namely, that which is revealed through the utterance.’ See der Jenaer Theologen ausfuehrliche Erklaerung, locus I, De Scriptura Sacra, p. 31 sq., where the same Musaeus declares that he said this not from his own viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of the opponent.” Regarding Musaeus see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3d ed., I, 252.

79 Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 33 ff., 556. As to Toellner, see also R. E., 2d ed., XV, 711 ff. Toellner argues in a manner that indicates his rejection not only of the obedientia activa, but of the substitutional satisfaction of Christ in general.

80 Attention has been called to this point in Lehre und Wehre (1893, p. 163 f.) in connection with the trial of Dr. Briggs: “If a person denies the inspiration of Scripture as definitely as Dr. Briggs, there is every reason to ask whether Briggs still believes anything at all of the Christian doctrine. By Christian doctrine we do not, of course, mean the Law — for all pagan religions still contain parts of the Law — but the Gospel, that is, the doctrine that man is saved by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith and not through works of his own. If a person actually believes the Gospel, if he believes that God has saved mankind from eternal damnation by the substitutional suffering and death of His Son, he will not be inclined to doubt that God has in addition given man the Holy Scriptures as His infallible Word. Whoever really believes the doctrine of justification may indeed for a time be assailed by doubts regarding the divinity of Scripture, but it is hard to assume that he could persistently deny it and still cling to the Christian doctrine of the remission of sins by faith in the merit of Christ. Dr. Briggs has — so he has himself declared — thrown the Christian faith overboard… . He explicitly stats this in his presentation of the doctrine of ‘progressive sanctification.’ To prove his doctrine that the ‘sanctification’ of the soul is progressive after death, he states that it is impossible to assume that ‘father and child, mother and infant, teacher and pupil, the self-sacrificing missionary and the new convert, the zealous evangelist and the thief and murderer who on the gallows, in his last hour, turns to Christ — that all these should receive the same treatment.’ This argumentation involves a denial of Christianity, namely, of the doctrine: ‘There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.’ Dr. Briggs will not let the malefactor on the cross enter Paradise at once together with the ‘zealous evangelist,’ but makes him first go through the ‘progressive sanctification,’ because Briggs does not believe that all sins are remitted solely for the sake of Christ’s merit and that therefore for the believer, as soon as he believes, all transgressions are blotted out like a thick cloud and all his sins like mist. Briggs therefore has renounced the very center of the Christian faith. It need not surprise us, then, that also those passages which testify that Holy Scripture is the Word of God no longer make any impression on him. His teaching concerning the way of salvation would have caused him to forsake the Christian faith, even if he outwardly believed that Scripture were the Word of God.”

81 Hastings, VII, 346, gives an apt description of this a posteriori method of modern theology.

82 This caused the appeal of “the Fundamentalists” to “the laymen” to organize an alliance against the unbelieving generation of the ministers trained in the “skeptical schools and seminaries of today.” Cf. Lehre und Wehre, 1923, 89 f. John Horsch, a fundamentalist, recently wrote an excellent book, in which he courageously attacks American Liberalism. Its title is Modern Religious Liberalism. The Destructiveness and Irrationality of the New Theology. Fundamental Truth Depot, Scottdale, Pa. 331 pages. Cp. the review in Lehre und Wehre, 1922, p. 179 f.

83 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1873, 3 vols. He says (I, 170): “Admitting that the Scriptures do contain, in a few instances, discrepancies which, with our present means of knowledge, we are unable satisfactorily to explain, they furnish no rational ground for denying their infallibility. ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). This is the whole doctrine of plenary inspiration, taught by the lips of Christ Himself.” Hodge, however, now and then does make uncalled-for obeisances before geologists and astronomers, thus weakening his position. — William Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, two volumes and one supplementary volume, 2d ed., 1889, says (I, 93, 103): “Scripture itself asserts verbal inspiration… . Those who contend that the Bible is fallible because it contains a human element commit the same error in kind with those who assert that Jesus Christ was sinful because He had a human nature in His complex person. The human element … is not a fallible element, because it is blended with the divine element of inspiration and kept free from human error.” But our note regarding Hodge applies also to Shedd. — Benj. B. Warfield has to our knowledge, up to his recent demise (d. 1921), taught the inspiration and absolute infallibility of Scripture, a position he already took in his inaugural address at Princeton, 1887. (Published in the Presbyterian Quarterly, p. 389 sqq.) Because of this stand he had to endure opposition and derision from many in his own church body; in these trials he found much comfort in the fact that “an entire Lutheran Synod” unanimously subscribed to the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture.

84 We have already stated that he revoked his former error regarding the possibility of errors in Scripture. Of the lesser known German theologians Wilhelm Rohnert (Dogmatik der ev.-luth. Kirche, 1902) subscribes to “the much-maligned doctrine of inspiration held by the old Church.” — A complete presentation and review of the doctrine of inspiration held by modern theologians is found in the 11th report of the Synodical Conference, 1886.

85 Thus the Jesuit Franz Suarez (d. 1617). Quenstedt (Systema I, 106) quotes him to the effect that this method, according to which the Holy Ghost furnished also the words, is the most appropriate where the mysteries of faith were recorded, but that it does not seem necessary that the words were always dictated by this peculiar method; for where the canonical writers wrote of things that were known by means of the senses, it would appear sufficient that the Spirit assisted them and preserved them from all error. Quenstedt adds: “Suarez’ opinion is lauded and approved by Dr. Geo. Calixt in Exercit. de auctoritate Scripturae, thes. 47.”

86 Quenstedt (I, 114) quotes Pighius (d. 1542) to the effect that the Evangelists could have a lapse of memory and lie, and Erasmus, he says, taught that the Evangelists, trusting to memory, made mistakes. On the other hand, Quenstedt reports (I, 117) that Dr. Eck, “at other times the most violent defender of Papistic errors and superstitions,” attacked Erasmus sharply in a public letter and stated: “By these words you seem to insinuate that the Evangelists wrote as other men do, that they wrote these things trusting to their memory, but that they neglected to look up these things in the books and thus made mistakes. Listen to me, Erasmus, do you hold that a Christian will patiently accept that the Evangelists made mistakes in their Gospels? If the authority of the Holy Scriptures becomes shaky here, what other part will be above suspicion of error, as Augustine concludes in a most beautiful argument?” This fact has correctly been adduced as proof (also by Walther in Lehre und Wehre, 1886, p. 35 f.) that the inspiration of Scripture was acknowledged in the Papacy as a firmly established doctrine.

87 Faustus Socinus says in his De Auctoritate Scripturae, c. 1, p. 15: “Certain things in Scripture — such as are of little moment — are in themselves plainly false” (see Quenstedt, I, 114; the full quotation is given in Guenther, Pop. Symbolik, p. 97). Schneckenburger, “Kleinere protest. Kirchenparteien,” p. 34 f.: “The dependability [of Scripture] according to Socinus is limited to matters pertaining to doctrine… . In minor matters he grants that there are errors.” But it is just in “matters pertaining to doctrine” that Socinus goes against Scripture; he denies the deity of Christ and the substitutionary satisfaction; and this results most naturally in the denial of the inspiration of Scripture. — The teaching of the modern Unitarians regarding Scripture is in complete agreement with that of modern theologians, including the positive wing. Guenther, op. cit., p. 96 f.: “In C. W. Wendt’s What Do Unitarians Believe? it is stated: ‘We do not regard the Bible as a fetish, as a verbally inspired and infallible oracle of God.’ In Unitarian Principles and Practices it is stated: ‘Unitarians regard the books of the Bible as the record of the doctrine of God… . The inspiration which they find in the Bible is an inspiration of men, whose history is told, not an inspiration of words and letters… . The Unitarians think as highly of the Bible as any sect … but they do not make more of it than it actually is, nor do they assert it to be something that it never claims to be.’ In Scriptural Belief of Unitarian Christians we read: ‘Unitarians believe that the Bible contains the Word of God.’ ” — Regarding the Arminian doctrine of Scripture consult Schneckenburger, op. cit., p. 10 f., and Guenther, op. cit., p. 97. Episcopius asserts (Inst. Theol. IV, 1, 4: “The holy writers were fallible and suffered lapses of memory in unimportant matters not pertaining to salvation.”

88 Schneckenburger, op. cit., p. 67 ff., has some trenchant remarks on the relationship of the Quakers to the “orthodox-Reformed” position. According to the Reformed position the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost proceeds not through the external Word, the Scripture, but without it and alongside it. “The Quakers go a step farther and come very close to the line beyond which Scripture as a historical book really becomes something irrelevant, accidental, immaterial, over against the immediate granting of the Spirit” (p. 71). “It [Scripture] stands lower than this higher thing [the immediate Word], without which it would have no authority” (p. 73). According to Robert Barclay, the dogmatician of the Quakers, the Scriptures are the product of the revelation by the Holy Ghost, but he adds: “Nevertheless, as they are only the declaration of the fount and not the fount itself, so also they are not to be rated as the principal source of all truth and knowledge nor the adequate primary rule of faith and morals, although, since they give true and trustworthy testimony of the prime source, they can be rated as a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit.” Barclay does not want the inner light tested by the Scriptures, as though the Scriptures were a more certain norm, since immediate revelation brings with it its own certainty: “From this it does not follow that these divine revelations should be examined according to the external testimony of the Scriptures … as a higher and surer norm and rule. For divine revelation and internal illumination is something evident and clear per se, the mind, well informed through proper evidence and clarity, being forced to assent and in an insuperable manner moved and bent.” Therefore Barclay directs the Christians to look, not upon the Bible, but upon the inner immediate revelation as ‘their mighty fortress or last resort. “That must be the only very sure and immovable foundation of the entire Christian faith. It is the internal, immediate, objective revelation of the Spirit to which all who profess Christianity ultimately have recourse.” It is a sad self-deception, but its agreement with modern theology is manifest; modern theology declares the “experience” or the “self-assurance” of the theologian, not Scripture, to be the “invincible fortress” of Christianity. Barclay therefore, just like the modern theologians, would hear nothing of identifying Scripture and the Word of God. He says in his Animadversions against Nic. Arnold that the Bible “is not properly and without qualification the Word of God and should not be called the Word of God.” See the quotation in Guenther, p. 97. There also, p. 93, is a quotation from the American Christian Record, which shows that the Hicksites likewise employ the terminology of the modern theologians.

89 Calvin remarks in his Comment. super Ioh., p. 346: “When David there (Ps. 22) complains that he became the prey of his enemies, he metaphorically designates by the name ‘clothes’ all his possessions, as though he had said in one word that he was robbed and made naked by the godless. Because the Evangelists neglect this figure, they depart from the native sense.”

90 This matter has been discussed, in another connection, in chapter 4 of the Prolegomena.

91 On this point see Vol. I, p. 29; Vol. II: “The Pernicious Character of Synergism”; and Vol. III: “The Synergists on the Means of Grace.”

92 Cp. Presbytery of New York. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D. Argument of the Rev. J. J. Lampe, D. D., a member of the Prosecuting Committee, p. 54 sqq. — Likewise the rebuttal: The Other Side, by S. A. Farrand, Ph. D., 1897.

93 Schrift an die Ratsherren, St. L. X:483 f.

94 Quoted in Baier-Walther, I, 102, from Kahnis, Dogmatik, 1st ed., I, 666.

95 Systema I, 101 f. On Bonfrère compare W. S. Reilly in The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, 655 sq.

96 In Lehre und Wehre, 1886, p. 9, note 7, attention is called to the fact that also Quenstedt and Calov show the Scriptural basis for the “Spiritus Sanctus non semper tangit corda prophetarum.”

97 In the entire discussion, Luther draws attention to the fact that a preacher proceeds differently when he teaches his Christian hearers than when he argues with the enemies of the Church. Luther says: “The godless Jews deride us that our Fathers [the Church Fathers are meant] sought to prove the Trinity from this text [Gen. 18:1 ff.] that three men appeared to Abraham and he nevertheless spoke only with one.” Luther judges of this: “As far as this text is concerned, we grant that its historical meaning disproves no contention of the Jews; however, at times also the figurative and symbolic meaning is in place.” Then follows Luther’s remark on the allegory Gal. 4:21 ff: “For Paul does just that (Gal. 4:22). Having proved in a masterly manner the doctrine of faith [namely, “by other certain and clear passages of Scripture”] and, so to say, won it with the sword, he then adds the allegory of Sarah and Hagar, which, though it is too weak in controversy [that is how our St. Louis edition translates “in acie minus valet”], for it departs from the historical sense, nevertheless makes the matter of faith very clear and embellishes it” (St. L. I:1150).

98 Ev. Dogmatik, p. 269. Seeberg argues along the same lines, Dogmengesch., 2d ed., II, 287.

99 Cp. Dorner, Geschichte der prot. Theologie, p. 246; Luthardt, Kompendium, 10th ed., p. 328; Seeberg, Dogmengesch., 2d ed., II, 288 ff.; Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 269. Even earlier Hase, Eν. Dog., 4th ed., p. 394. Grimm (Institutio Theotogiae Dogmaticae, 2d ed., p. 118) states the case of the critics thus: “Though Luther taught that in the controversies fought concerning the Lord’s Supper one must cling tenaciously to the letter of the Holy Scriptures and brought forward the individual words of Scripture with grandiloquent [!] praises, he nevertheless at other times made the divinity of the sacred books depend on the vigor and fervor with which the merit of Christ was preached and commended to the hearts, and thus, in a way, he established a canon within the canon.” Somewhat differently, though rather hazily, Gottlob Mayer, Das religioese Erkenntnis-prohlem, 1897, I, 65 ff.

100 Thus also Beza; cp. Lehre und Wehre, 1886, p. 72, note. The question here is not whether other solutions of the difficulty are not possible or even lie nearer at hand, but what is Luther’s attitude toward the inerrancy of Scripture — which he definitely holds. Other solutions are found in the Weimarer Bibel, the Hirschberger Bibel, also in Calov. See the commentaries of Meyer, Lange-Schaff, and Bloomfield. Bloomfield, after offering two possible solutions, remaries: Thus no error will attach to either passage [1 Kings 6:1 and Acts 13:20] and only different modes of computation be supposed to be adopted.”

101 The same thing happened to Dr. Briggs, as his trial showed.

102 Der innere Gang des deutschen Protestantismus, 2d ed., p. 241, quoted in Baier-Walther, I, 103.

103 Cp., e. g., Zoeckler, Handbuch d. theol. Wissenschaften, 2d ed., III, p. 151.

104 Baier-Walther, I, 119: “The authority of Holy Scriptures is founded in its theopneusty, in its having God as its author. It does not depend on a causa minus principalis. Even as other writings do not get their authority from the amanuenses, just as little does Sacred Scripture get its authority from the Church, since the Church was not the author, or efficient cause, of it.”

105 Compare the chapter “Theology and Certainty.”

106 See the lengthy quotation from the Koran in Baier-Walther, I, 130 f. Max Mueller on the contents of the “Sacred Books of the East”: “One refrain through all — salvation by works… . Our own holy Bible, our Sacred Book of the East, is from beginning to end a protest against this doctrine… . It contains that faithful saying, worthy to be received by all men, women, and children, and not merely by us Christians — that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” On the style or manner of expression consult Luthardt, Apol. Vortraege, I, 208 f.; Rousseau and Pascal, quoted by Luthardt, pp. 263, 265.

107 Baier-Walther, I, 129. Luthardt, op. cit., p. 175 ff.

108 The assurance of being reconciled with God by faith in Christ’s satisfactio vicaria, the holy life, patience in suffering, readiness to depart. Max Mueller: “Let us teach Hindus, Buddhists, Mohammedans, that there is only one Sacred Book of the East that can be their mainstay in that awful hour when they pass all alone into the unseen world.”

109 It is generally admitted that nothing civilizes nations more quickly and more surely than Christianity.

110 See Proceedings of the Western District, Missouri Synod, 1865; also the extensive compilation of the arguments producing the fides humana in Baier-Walther, I, 121–131.

111 Christ tells the Sadducees, who declared the resurrection to be impossible: “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matt. 22:29). Christ is appealing not only to the Scriptures, but also to something which is known even to natural reason — to the omnipotence of God. He thereby declares that the doctrine of the Sadducees contradicts not only Scripture, but also reason. Paul tells the Corinthians the same thing (1 Cor. 15:34). Also Peter (Acts 2:15) operates with an argument of reason. Paul (Acts 17:28) appeals to “certain of your own poets.”

112 Gerhard, locus “De Scriptura Sacra” § 20: “When in their temptations believers begin to doubt the authority of Scripture, then one must deal with them as with those who deny it. For doubt is very close to denial.”

113 On the case of Michaelis consult R. E., 2d ed., IX:746 ff.; Meusel, IV, 597. Also Knoes in Inst. Theol. Practicae, Holmiae, 1768, pp. 66-71, quoted in Baier-Walther, I, 136, deals with the case of Michaelis and men of his ilk.

114 Huther: “Instead of Tischendorf, following A. G. K., has , which is merely another way of writing it.” Huther adds in explanation: “, that is, for him the witness is no more merely an external one, but through his faith he has it in himself; what was external has become for him internal.”

115 Handbuch, 2d ed., III, 151. Lehre und Wehre, 32, p. 4 f.

116 See the chapter “The Relation of the Holy Ghost to the Holy Writers.”

117 See Lehre und Wehre, 1901, p. 289 ff.: “Ueber die Grenzen der menschlichen Wissenschaft.”

118 Quenstedt, Systema I, 147: “The Holy Scriptures are perfect, not in the sense of absolute perfection, embracing every knowable divine and supernatural thing; for that would not befit the Church Militant on earth, for whom the Scriptures are intended.”

119 Cp. the chapters “Christianity the Absolute Religion” and “Theology and System.”

120 Quenstedt (I, 147 sq.): “Holy Scripture is perfect … in the sense of a restricted perfection, in so far as it teaches all things that a Christian needs to know in order to believe correctly and to lead a saintly and pious life here on earth.”

121 Cp. the chapter “Holy Scripture the Only Source and Norm of Christian Doctrine for the Church Today.”

122 The Unitarian Enjedinus, quoted in Baier-Walther, I, 176, says: “If abrupt, halting obscurity, if a speech with utter lack of cohesion and consisting of allegories is to be called sublime, then I admit that John is sublime.”

123 He does that at length in his treatise “An die Ratsherren aller Staedte Deutschlands,” St. L. X:473 ff.

124 See the fuller discussion in the chapter “The Relation of Faith to the Election of Grace,” in Vol. III.

125 That will be shown fully in the chapter “The Public Ministry Not a Human, but a Divine Institution,” in Vol. III.

126 This will be further discussed in the chapter “Holy Scripture and Exegesis.”

127 See the chapter “The Cause of Divisions Within Visible Christendom.”

128 See Quenstedt (Systema I, 173) on the purpose of the dark passages in Scripture. Luther’s dicta on dark and on clear passages (St. L. V:336 f.) read in their entirety: “That indeed is true, some passages of Scripture are dark, but they contain nothing that is not found in other places in clear, open passages. And now come the heretics, explain the obscure passages according to their own mind, and contend with them against the clear passages, the foundation of our faith. Then the Fathers fought them with the clear passages, threw light with these on the dark passages, and showed that the dark passages taught the very same thing as the clear passages. Be assured and doubt not that there is nothing brighter than the sun, that is, the Scriptures. Even when a cloud has drifted before it, there is nothing else behind it than the same bright sun. Therefore, if you encounter an obscure passage in Scripture, do not doubt; it certainly contains the same truth which is elsewhere stated in clear language, and if you cannot understand the obscure, then stay with the clear.”

129 See the quotations in Baier-Walther, I, 169 ff. In the controversy with Rathmann the question was raised “whether an unconverted Jew without the added light of grace could understand the letter of Scripture and from it could get the sensus literalis.” The faculty of Jena gave this opinion: “Quite a few have the correct sense of the words, but nevertheless lack the blessed understanding of the mysteries pertaining to faith; therefore one must guard also here against equivocations.”

130 Also those who prefer the reading cannot but see in a reference to the previously mentioned Last Things. Thus the Expositor’s Greek Testament: “Where he touches on these subjects (Mayor)” … “ indicates a widening of the reference to include Paul’s treatment of the whole question of the second coming.” Bloomfield comments: “Instead of the vulg. several versions and some Fathers have , ‘the Epistles,’ which is preferred by Beza, Mill, Benson, and Dr. Malthy… . Yet the weight of authority is decidedly in favor of , which is retained by all the editors and preferred by most of the commentators.” But Bloomfield makes too much of the various readings when he says: “Here some difference of opinion exists as to the sense, which mainly depends on the reading.” Also those preferring must refer to the Last Things, the destruction of the world and the new heaven and the new earth.

131 Also Meyer acknowledges that Luther rendered the sense of the term correctly with his “in einem dunkeln Wort.”

132 The Faith of Our Fathers, 1894, p. 111.

133 Baier-Walther, I, 149. Gerhard, Loci (locus “De Scriptura Sacra,” § 75 sqq.), furnishes much material on the refusal of the early Christian Church to receive the Apocrypha into the canon. Cf. Keil, Einleitung, § 216; H. L. Strack, R. E., 2d ed., VII, 442 ff.

134 Church History III, 25. On the Epistles of James and Jude particularly, II, 23. He reports, VI, 25, on the canon of Origen and the latter’s opinion of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cp. for further detail Baier-Walther, I, 150, note b. Baier says: “It can certainly not be denied that in the ancient Church there was so much doubt as to their writers that they were denied the authority proper to inspired books.” Cp. the comprehensive article “Kanon des Neuen Testaments,” by Theodor Zahn, in R. E., 3d ed., IX, 768-796.

135 See Luther’s prefaces to the epistles mentioned, St. L. XIV: 126-139. On the Second and Third Epistles of St. John, Luther says: “They are not doctrinal epistles, but examples of love and faith and breathe a truly Apostolic spirit,” loc. cit., p. 126 f.

136 Tridentinum, Sess. IV: “But if anyone receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books [the Old Testament plus the Apocrypha, the New Testament, including the antilegomena] entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition … let him be anathema.”

137 Examen, 1667, p. 48 sqq. Walther gave a German translation of it, op. cit., pp. 205–210. It is given in the original in Baier-Walther, I, 150 sqq.

138 Thus Baier, I, 150, 153.

139 Disputatt. Theologic., Ienae, 1655, p. 1015; quoted in Baier-Walther, I, 153.

140 Gerhard, Loci, locus “De Scriptura Sacra,” defends this position at length, § 334-353.

141 Luther says of the puncta vocalia: “They are a recent invention … therefore I do not bother about these their grammatical superstitions. However, the grammar is on our side if the right vowel points are used.” (St. L. VI: 195.) In his Genesis Commentary (St. L. II:1838) he says: “I care little for the ‘above’ and ‘below’ of the rabbis; it would be better to read the Scriptures according to the ‘internal.’ And the New Testament gives us that right internal sense, not the ‘upper’ or the ‘lower.’ ” Previously Luther had said: “At the time of Jerome, it seems, the vowel points were not yet in use, but the entire Bible was read without them.” Luther evidently fears that the assumption “that the vowel points are of the same age with the text” might make something outside Scripture the principle of interpretation.

142 Thus Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 251; Cremer, R. E., 2d ed., VI, 755.

143 This is historically incorrect. As the Apostles claimed divine authority for the Word which they preached and wrote, so there is also sufficient evidence in the writings of the Church Fathers of the first conturies — and this is acknowledged also by recent theologians, for example Ihmels (Zentralfragen, p. 56) — that the “Primitive Church” identified “Scripture with the Word of God.” That is the very thing for which the Early Church is criticized. Compare Ihmels, loc. cit.

144 The Expositor’s Greek Test., I, Introduction, p. 55, 4. That is one of the reasons why this commentary uses the textus receptus.

145 Bishop Burgess is one of the theologians who based their arguments for the authenticity of the passage on text and context. Stoeckhardt also belongs in this class. Others of our circle voiced the opposite opinion.

146 Der Text des Neuen Testaments nach seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung. By August Pott, 1906, p. 14, one of a series of “Scientifico-popular Studies… .”

147 The dogmaticians say: “Finis cui Scripturae Sacrae omnes sunt Christiani, imo omnes homines.”

148 Detailed information on this point in Gerhard, Loci, “De Scriptura Sacra” § 494 sqq. See the articles “Bibeluebersetzungen” in R. E., 2d ed., II, 437 ff., in Meusel I, 429 ff., or in any larger encyclopedia; also Fuerbringcr, Einl. in das N. T., 1914, p. 14 f.

149 Loci, “De Ecclesia,” § 121; so also Quenstedt, Systema, I, 313.

150 Rome treats the Bible as a dangerous book. Permission to read it is to be granted only to certain laymen, namely, to those to whom, in the opinion of the parish priest or confessor, it would not be harmful. The fourth rule of the Congregation of the Index of Prohibited Books, approved by Pius IV, states: “Since it is manifest by experience that if the Holy Bible in the vulgar tongue be suffered to be read everywhere without distinction, more evil than good arises, let the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor be abided by in this respect, so that, after consulting with the parish priest or the confessor, they may grant permission to read translations of the Scriptures, made by Catholic writers, to those whom they understand to be able to receive no harm, but an increase of faith and piety from such reading, which permission should be given in writing. But whosoever shall presume to read these Bibles, or have them in possession without such permission, shall not be capable of receiving absolution for their sins, unless they have first given up their Bibles to the bishop. The booksellers, however, who sell Bibles in the vulgar tongue to someone who has not this permission, or make a concession in any other way, are to lose the price of the books, which is to be converted to a pious use by the bishop or be subject to other punishments commensurate with their transgression according to the judgment of the bishop. The regular clergy, however, dare neither read nor buy them unless they have obtained the permission from their prelates.” (In Smets, p. 224.) To this rule Clemens VIII added the note: “It is to be well noted in regard to the above described Rule of the Index of Pope Pius IV, of blessed memory, that through this impression and edition no right is given anew to the bishops, or inquisitors, or superiors of the regular clergy to grant permission to buy, read, or possess the Bible in a vulgar tongue edition; since so far this right has been taken away from them by the command and usage of the holy Roman and universal Inquisition, namely, the right of granting such permission of reading and having Bibles in the vernacular, or parts of the Holy Scriptures, be it of the New or of the Old Testament, in whatever vernacular they may be published, or even historical summaries or compends of the Bible or the books of Holy Scripture, in whatever vulgar idiom they may be written; all of which is inviolably to be observed.” (Observatio circa Quartam Regulam. Cf. Index, etc. Coloniae sumpt. B. Gualtheri, 1602.) Earlier, Gregory VII had written Duke Wratislaw of Bohemia, who had asked for divine worship, and of course for the use of Scripture, in the national tongue: “Since your Honor has asked that the divine office be celebrated among you in the Slavonic tongue, know that we can by no means comply with this your petition. To us who are familiar with the Scriptures it is clear that the omnipotent God was not without reason pleased to have the Holy Scriptures dark in some places, in order that they might not, if they were clear unto certainty for all and everyone, become worthless and despised, or, falsely understood by the common people, lead into error. Neither does that serve as an excuse that certain religious men have patiently borne or left uncorrected what the people simply demand; for the primitive Church has overlooked much which, after Christianity had taken firm root and religion was spreading, was after thorough examination corrected by the holy fathers. We therefore prohibit by the authority of the blessed Peter that which is imprudently demanded by your people, and we command you to resist this ill-considered temerity with all your power, to the honor of omnipotent God.” (Mansi XX, 296. Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte II, 1, p. 257.) Compare the thorough article by Walther: “Das antichristische paepstliche Verbot, die Heilige Schrift in der Muttersprache zu lesen,” Lutheraner 29, 73–90. Guenther, Symbolik, p. 112.

151 Tridentinum, Sess. IV, decretum de editione, etc.

152 Cp. Dr. S. A. Farrand, The Other Side, p. 17 ff.

153 Elements of Religion, 1898, p. 31 f.

154 Proceedings of the Northern District, 1867, p. 34.

155 Holtzmann (Neutestamentl. Theologie II, 297) correctly remarks that the Apostle Paul evidently “personifies” Scripture and lets it speak “directly to present-day Christendom.” He ascribes this to the “Jewish opinion” of the Apostle, “according to which theopneusty is ascribed directly to Scripture.”

156 Gerhard, Loci, “De Ministerio Eccles.,” § 88: “We do not make shepherds of the sheep, but demand that they be and remain sheep; however, we do not want them to be brute sheep, which neither can nor should distinguish between shepherds and wolves.” Gerhard in this paragraph convincingly refutes appointed shepherds when they err. If he answers affirmatively, he will make it plain that he is lending his venal support to him who in ‘Si papa,’ dist. 40, thus bellows: ‘If the Pope, unmindful of his and his brethren’s salvation, is found negligent, incompetent, and remiss in his labors, and in addition silent as to the good, which will harm him and all, and leads innumerable nations in multitudes with him to hell, as its first property, to be punished with him by many plagues throughout eternity: let no mortal presume to accuse him of guilt in this case; for he who himself will judge all can be judged by none.’ ” (Quoted in Baier-Walther, I, 188.)-Luther’s well-known words (St. L. X:1542 f.) belong here: ‘All warnings uttered by St. Paul, Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 10:15; Gal. 3:4-5; Col. 2:8, and at all other places, likewise all passages in the Prophets instructing us to avoid the doctrines of men, take the right and power to judge doctrine away from the teachers and place it, with earnest commands and threatening the loss of salvation, upon the hearers; they have not only the right and power to judge whatever is preached, but it is made their duty thus to judge on pain of incurring the disfavor of the divine Majesty. It will be seen how the tyrants have dealt with us in a most unchristian manner, taking this right, which we are commanded to exercise, from us and appropriating it to themselves.”

157 Introductio in Libros Symb. II, 2, § 11.

158 Cp. F. Bente, American Lutheranism, II, p. 39 ff., on the doctrinal basis of the General Synod prior to 1864.

159 See Walther: “Warum sind die symbolischen Buecher unserer Kirche von denen, welche Diener derselben werden wollen, nicht bedingt, sondern unbedingt zu unterschreiben?” (St. L., 1858, p. 6 ff.)

160 On the question what the unconditional pledge means and what it does not mean, Dr. Walther in his essay “Why Are the Symbolical Books … to be Signed Unconditionally?” says the following: “Since the Symbols are confessions of the faith, or doctrine, of the Church, and are to be and desire to be nothing else, an unconditional subscription to them can mean nothing else than the solemn affirmation and oath, given to the Church by him who is entering on its service, that he has found the doctrinal content of the Symbols of our Church, without any exception whatever, as not conflicting, neither in a fundamental nor in a secondary point of doctrine, with Holy Scripture; that he, accordingly, sincerely believes in this doctrine as the divine truth and hence is resolved to preach this doctrine without adulteration. No matter, therefore, what place any doctrine may occupy in the doctrinal system of the Symbols and in what form it may occur there, whether it be the subject discussed ex professo or whether it occurs as an incidental reference, the unconditional subscription pertains to every one of them; none of them is excepted by the signer. Some doctrines, for example, are used in the Symbols merely to support the line of argumentation; but far from declaring these doctrines immaterial, our Church treats them as the irrefutable foundations of doctrine and takes for granted that they are gladly accepted by those who subscribe to the Symbols.

“On the other hand, since the Symbols were never intended to be anything else but confessions of faith and doctrine, the confessional pledge does not cover things which do not pertain to doctrine. As little as he who unconditionally signs the Symbols of the Church, his Symbols, thereby declares them to be the norm of German or Latin orthography or of a perfect style, so little does his signature pertain to things which belong in the domain of the human sciences. When, e. g., Art. VI of the Augsburg Confession quotes a passage from an old commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and Art. XX (of the Latin text) quotes a passage from the De Vocatione Gentium as statements by Ambrosius, and when Art. XVIII quotes a statement from the ancient writing Hypognosticon as a statement by Augustine, he who subscribes to the Augsburg Confession unconditionally self-evidently does not obligate himself to regard Ambrosius and Augustine as the authors of those books simply because they are attributed to them in the Confessions; and this would be the case even if it were not well known that the writer of this our fundamental Confession himself knew that these writings were customarily cited as written by these men, without directly ascribing the authorship to them. And as anything that is properly a subject for criticism does not bind the servant of the Church, so in general nothing in the Symbols binds him that belongs into the realm of history.

“This applies also to the interpretation given in the Symbols to individual Scripture passages. As an absolutely necessary requirement of an unobjectionable ‘prophecy’ or interpretation of Scripture the Apostle Paul himself names this: ‘Having prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith’ (Rom. 12:7). From this Johann Gerhard draws this exegetical canon: ‘Even though we may not arrive at the true and particular meaning of all passages, it suffices if in our interpretation we offer nothing conflicting with the analogy of faith.’ Granted that the exegete did not succeed in finding the particular meaning of some Bible passage, but nevertheless gave it a meaning which is supported by other clear passages, he would indeed be mistaken in finding that particular truth in this passage, but he would not be erring in the doctrine. One who therefore subscribes to the Symbolical Books unconditionally is simply declaring that the interpretations found in them are ‘according to the analogy of faith.’ — Since, furthermore, the argumentation in favor of a doctrine may be faulty (though the doctrine to be proved, or the conclusion, rests on an immovable, divine foundation and the auxiliary doctrines used to prove it, or the major and the minor, are perfectly correct), the unconditional subscription does not imply that the line of argumentation is not subject to improvement; in other words, that the form, the method, and the process of the argumentation is perfect and that hence every faithful servant of the Church would be held to use the method followed in the Symbols and no other. In this way our fathers understood the unconditional confessional pledge.”

161 Chemnitz Loci, Wittenb., 1623, III, 235: “The Symbols are not something alongside or contrary to Scripture, but are the very marrow of Scripture. And so we also say that we accept Scripture in the sense which is delivered to us in the true and proved Symbols of the ancient Church.”

162 A list of the terms is given in Walch, Introd. in Libr. Symb., Jena, 1732, p. 932 sqq.; Baier-Walther, I, 139 sqq.

163 Examen, Proleg. II, qu. 27.

164 The treatise of Walther: “Why Are the Symbolical Books … to be Signed Unconditionally?” an essay adopted at the Western District Convention of 1858, deals in its twenty pages more thoroughly with the question at issue than any other publication known to us. The same matter is treated in the “Gutachten der Dorpater theologischen Fakultaet ueber die von der Deutschen Ev.-Luth. Synode von Iowa in Nordamerika ihr vorgelegten Fragen den kirchlichen Lehrkonsensus betreffend” of 1866, signed by the Professors T. Harnack, Kurtz, v. Oettingen, M. von Engelhardt, W. Volck. Lehre und Wehre reviewed the “Dorpat Opinion,” 1867, p. 257 ff. See also Oeffentliches Kolloquium, abgehalten vom 13. bis 19. November 1867 zwischen den Vertretern der Synode von Missouri, Ohio u. a. St. und der Synode von Iowa.” — The nature and authority of the Symbols is treated from the modem theological viewpoint, e. g., in Nitzsch-Stephan in the chapter: “Das Verhaeltnis des Protestantismus zur Tradition,” p. 282 ff. The terminology norma, used of Scripture, and norma normata, used of the Symbols, does not mean anything to modern theology. Since it has renounced Scripture as the infallible Word of God, it has thereby in principle renounced the difference between Holy Scripture and the Symbols and other religious books. It has made of Scripture a norma normata. Its norma normans is the “Christian experience,” the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject. It would be downright mockery if the modern theologians, who deny the inspiration of Scripture and the satisfactio vicaria, consented to subscribe to the Symbols of the Lutheran Church, because the entire doctrinal content of the Symbols rests on those two fundamental doctrines. — The article on te confessional obligation by Dr. von Burger, in the R. E., 2d ed., XV, p. 86 f., agrees in most points with Dr. Walther’s essay. Dr. Burger attacks especially the theological professors whose object in demanding “academic freedom” is to assail the Confessions of the Church. He also refutes the senseless assertion that the confessional obligation involves coercion.

165 The so-called enarratio, as, for instance, Luther’s Enarrationes in Genesin. Thus old regulations for the examination of candidates for the ministry demand that the candidate be examined as to whether he possesses, besides the sound knowledge of all articles of the Christian faith, also the gift of “expounding the Scripture,” the , that is, the “gift and aptitude to teach others,” the ability to proclaim the Scripture doctrine in the public ministry.

166 In this narrow sense, Quenstedt employs the term: “Scripture is interpreted when the genuine sense of the more difficult passages, in agreement with the mind and intention of the Holy Spirit and with the help of hermeneutical methods and rules, is aptly sought and shown” (Systema I, 199).

167 Leipzig, 1857, p. V.

168 Quoted from Zwingli’s answer to Luther’s book Dass diese Worte, etc. (St. L. XX:1196.)

169 In a letter to Carlstadt, reprinted in De Wette, Luther’s Briefe, etc., III, 231–240, translated by Dr. Hoppe in St. L. XX:325 ff.

170 Systema I, 199 sqq.; Calov, Syst. Locorum Theol. I, 469 sqq.

The Doctrine of God

(DE DEO)

THE only source of man’s knowledge of God is God’s self-revelation. There can be no absolute knowledge of God independent of God’s self-revelation, because God dwells in the light which no man can approach, 1 Tim. 6:16, . God has revealed Himself in a twofold manner: a) In creation, or in the realm of nature, and b) in His Word, or in Holy Scripture, the only source and norm of Christian doctrine. Accordingly we distinguish between a natural and a Christian knowledge of God.