TH E
DOCTRINAL THEOLOGY
OF THE
n%ran
YEBIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL feOURCES,
BY THE LATE
HEIKRICH SCHMID,
DOCTOR AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT F.RLANGEN.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN AND LATIN,
CHARLES A. HAY, D. D.,
tATB PROFESSOR OF HEBREW AND GERMAN LANGUAGES, AND OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY IN THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, GETTYSBURG, PA.,
AND
HENRY E. JACOBS, D. D.,
NORTON PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
ffourtb BDftfon,
BY
HENRY E. JACOBS, D. D,, LLD., AND CHARLES E. HAY, D. D.
PHILADELPHIA : LUTHERAN PUBLICATION SOCIETY.
COPYRIGHT, 1875 AND 1889, BY CHARLES A. HAY AND HENRY E. JACOBa
COPYRIGHT, 1899, BY HENRY E. JACOBS AND CHARLES E. HAY .
)
I
PREFACE.
FOR twenty-three years former editions of this translation have been widely used in Lutheran Seminaries. The aim of its compiler was of a purely historical character. It was not to afford a summary of the absolutely final definitions of Luth eran Theology, but to exhibit the teaching that had been current up to the time of the beginnings of Rationalism. As such, it does not grow obsolete. No public teacher in the Lutheran Church is qualified for his work without knowing the positions held by the leading Dogmaticians, even though he may often regard them open to criticism. The book re quires the living teacher to indicate the weaknesses, as well as the excellences of these revered authorities. Definitions in Theology are always to be interpreted historically. The roots of Biblical Theology are found in Chemnitz and the theolo gians who lived nearest the time of Luther ; but a different method prevails in their successors. While occasionally giving a hint concerning the changes that are thus pro duced, Dr. Schmid does not make this a prominent part of his treatment.
The second edition of this translation, published in 1889, aimed at a faithful reproduction of the Fifth Edition of the original, the last published in the life of its author, together with such additions from the same authorities from which Dr. Schmid had compiled as would render the work more service able to American students. In the present edition, we have followed in general the same plan ; but have taken the liberty of dispensing with a few of the quotations from the old theolo gians, which no one will miss, as, e. g., the long discussion on
COPYRIGHT, 1875 AND 1889, BY CHARLES A. HAY AND HENRY E. JACOB&
COPYRIGHT, 1899, BY HENRY E. JACOBS AND CHARLES E. HAY .
PREFACE.
FOR twenty-three years former editions of this translation have been widely used in Lutheran Seminaries. The aim of its compiler was of a purely historical character. It was not to afford a summary of the absolutely final definitions of Luth eran Theology, but to exhibit the teaching that had been current up to the time of the beginnings of Rationalism. As such, it does not grow obsolete. No public teacher in the Lutheran Church is qualified for his work without knowing the positions held by the leading Dogmaticians, even though he may often regard them open to criticism. The book re quires the living teacher to indicate the weaknesses, as well as the excellences of these revered authorities. Definitions in Theology are always to be interpreted historically. The roots of Biblical Theology are found in Chemnitz and the theolo gians who lived nearest the time of Luther ; but a different method prevails in their successors. While occasionally giving a hint concerning the changes that are thus pro duced, Dr. Schmid does not make this a prominent part of his treatment.
The second edition of this translation, published in 1889, aimed at a faithful reproduction of the Fifth Edition of the original, the last published in the life of its author, together with such additions from the same authorities from which Dr. Schmid had compiled as would render the work more service able to American students. In the present edition, we have followed in general the same plan ; but have taken the liberty of dispensing with a few of the quotations from the old theolo gians, which no one will miss, as, e. g., the long discussion on
4 PREFACE.
demoniacal possession. Dr. Schmid's own statements are un changed and unabbreviated ; but his compilations have been edited and enriched. A similar attempt was made in Ger many, about five years ago, by Prof. Dr. Franck, of Erlangen, Dr. Schmid's son-in-law.
HENRY E. JACOBS, CHARLES E. HAY. Festival of the Reformation, 1898.
CONTENTS.
1-13. INTRODUCTION, 15-102
CHAPTER I.
OF THEOLOGY IN GENERAL.
2. Meaning of the term — Natural and Revealed — Its Divisions — Its End — Who is a Theologian ?— The need of the Holy Spirit, . . . 15-20
CHAPTER II.
OF THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF THEOLOGY, viz., RELIGION.
3. Religion, true and false. Characteristics of the true — Proofs for the Chris tian Religion 21-25
CHAPTER III.
OF THE SOURCE OF THEOLOGY, viz., REVELATION.
4. Revelation — Not Reason— Not Tradition. . . . . 25-29
5. On the Use of Reason in Theology — What is Reason ? — Relation of Reason to
Revelation— Reason before the Fall — Reason since the Fall — Reason not normative — Reason a Handmaid to Theology — Reason useful in its Sphere — Mixed and Pure Articles. 29-38
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES.
6. The terms Sacred Scriptures and Inspiration. Scriptures, the written Word of
God — Their two-fold origin —Meaning of Inspiration — Extent of Inspira tion — Inspiration distinct from Revelation, .... 38-50
7. The Attributes of the Sacred Scriptures, -^O
8. 1. Authority of the Scriptures, (a) Causative Authority of the Sacred Scriptures.
Proofs of Inspiration — Proofs not needed for Believers — Only real Proof, the work of the Holy Spirit — Internal Criteria of Inspiration — External Criteria of Inspiration, (b) Normative or Canonical Authority of the Sacred Scriptures. The Scriptures the only Rule of Faith — The Scriptures derive no authority from the Church — The Scriptures the only Judge of Contro versies -Who are to interpret the Scriptures?— Original languages alone authoritative, 51-64
9. 2. The Perfection or Sufficiency of the Scriptures. The consequence of Inspira
tion — The abuse and use of Tradition, 64-68
10. 3. The Perspicuity of the Scriptures. Meaning of Perspicuity — Extent of
Perspicuity — Perspicuity absolute and ordinate — Piety essential to an In terpreter — The Literal and Spiritual Sense — Obscure Things in Perspicuous "Words— Analogy of the Faith— The Mystical Sense, . . 68-80
11. 4. The Efficacy of the Scriptures. The topic is discussed under the kead of
"The Means of Grace," . . 80
12. Of the Canon and (he Apocrypha. The Old and New Testaments — The Apo
cryphal Books — Marks of Canonicity — External and Internal — Testimony of the Ancient Church — The Antilegomena of the New Testament, 80-92
CHAPTER V.
OF THE ARTICLES OF FAITH AND OF THE SYMBOLS OF THE CHURCH.
13. What are Articles of Faith?— How related to each other?— Pure and mixed— Fundamental and non-fundamental — Earlier and Later Sym bols—Relation of the Symbols to the Scriptures— Necessity of the Sym bols • 92-102
CONTENTS.
PAET I. OF GOD.
\ 14. Division of the Subject, ... • . » . . 103
CHAPTER I.
OF GOD.
8 15. Preliminary statement— The natural and supernatural Knowledge of God- Innate Natural Knowledge of God— Acquired Natural Knowledge of God — Imperfection of such knowledge— Value of such knowledge — Super natural Knowledge of God, 103-111
$16. 1. The Certainty of the Existence of God, ..... HI
§ 17. 2. The Nature of God — His name — Cannot be defined — Approximate definitions, . . . . . . . . 111-117
\ 18. 3. The Attributes of God— Not Accidents— They are one with the Divine Essence — Threefold Method of recognizing them— Classification of Divine Attributes. I. Negative Attributes. Unity— Simplicity— Immutability — Infinity — Immensity — Eternity. II. Positive Attributes. Life — Knowledge —Wisdom— Holiness— Justice— Truth — Power— Goodness, . 117-129
CHAPTER II.
OF THE HOLY TRINITY.
$ 19. The Doctrine is a Mystery — Purely a Matter of Revelation — It is a Funda mental Doctrine — The Church does not claim to understand it — Why de scribed in Philosophical Terms— Gradual Development of the Doctrine — Definition of the Trinitarian Terminology. 1. Numerical Unity of the Di vine Essence. 2. Diversity and Plurality; not (a) Essential; nor (6) Accidental ; but (c) Hypostatical. Specific Hypostatical Distinctions- Personal Properties. I. God the Father. II. God the Son— The Eternal Generation. III. God the Holy Ghost — Procession. Scriptural Proof of the Doctrine of the Trinity, . ." . . . 129-159
CHAPTER III.
OF CREATION.
§20. 1. Creation a Divine work. 2. The World created from Nothing. 3. Mat ter not Eternal. 4. Order and Manner of Creation — Dichotomy or Tri-
CONTENTS.
chotoiny ?— Creationism or Traducianistn ? 5. Design of Creation. 6. -Excellence of Creation. 7. Time of Creation, . 159-170
CHAPTER IV.
()v PROVIDENCE.
\ "21. The Doctrine taught both by Reason and Revelation— Comprehends Fore knowledge, Predetermination, and Administration— Basis of the Divine Foreknowledge. I. Preservation, or Continuous Creation— Influence of Second Causes— May Providence be deceived? II. Concurrence, or Divine Co-operation. Does God concur with sin ? III. Government, or Divine Control— Does not neutralize Human Freedom— Providence em braces all Things— Providence, general and special, extraordinary and ordinary, 1™-1M
CHAPTER V.
OK ANGELS.
| 22. When were they created? I. The Nature of Angels. Design of their Cre- tion— Attributes of the Angels. II. The Moral Condition of the Angels. Their Original Condition. A. The Good Angel*. Their Powers enlarged
Their Employments. B. The Evil Angels. Consequences of their fall
— Demoniacal Possession 195-216
PART II.
OF MAN.
23. General Statement, -17
CHAPTER I. OF THE STATE OF INTEGRITY.
g 24. State of Integrity Defined. Meaning of the Image of God— Original Right eousness—Other Features of the Image of God, . 217-231
CHAPTER II.
OF THE STATE OF CORRUPTION.
£ 25. State of Corruption Defined, Of Sin in General— Cause of Sin— Immediate Consequence of Sin,
CONTENTS. 9
26. Man's First Sin and his consequent Depravity. How did Adam sin? — All
men sinned in Adam — Imputation, Arguments of Pelagians answered — What is Natural Depravity? — Natural Depravity Inherent — Natural De pravity Hereditary — Is Original Sin an Accident? — Termination of Original Sin. 234-250
27. Actual Sins. Classified — Sin against the Holy Ghost, . . 250-257
28. The Freedom of the Will. Human Ability — No Free Will in Spiritual Things— Extent of Freedom— Synergism Unscriptural — Civil Righteous ness—Threefold Condition of the Will, 257-268
PART III. OF THE SOURCES OF SALVATION.
| 29. Sources of Salvation, 269
CHAPTER I.
OF THE BENEVOLENCE OF GOD TOWARDS FALLEN MAN.
$30. Of the Benevolence of God towards Fallen Man. 1. T he Universal Benevo lence of God. Gratuitous — Impartial — Sincere— Efficacious — Conditioned. 2. The Special Benevolence of God. Consequent — Particular — Predesti nation or Election — Divine Decrees not absolute or arbitrary— Election with respect to faith — Election and Foreknowledge — Divine Decrees not conditioned, but categorical — Election is immutable and irrevocable — Reprobation — Defined and Illustrated 270-292
CHAPTER II.
OF THE FRATERNAL REDEMPTION BY CHRIST. g 31. Statement of the Subject, . . . . . . . 293-294
A. — Of the Person of Christ.
\ 32. Of the Personal Union. I. Of the Two Natures in Christ, Truly Divine and truly Human — Attributes of Christ's Humanity. II. Mode of the Per- »(>nal Union. Negatively stated — Positively stated, . 294-309
10 CONTENTS.
\ 33. Of the Communion of .Natures, the Personal Designations, and the Com- municatio Idioinatum— Communion of Natures denned — No Intermixture of Natures, but I. Interchange of Designations. II. Communication of Properties. 1. Idiomatic. 2. Majestatic. 3. Apotelesmatic— Meaning of Perichoresis — Concrete of Nature and Person— Communication— Patris tic Designations — Lutheran and Reformed views — Diversity among the Lutheran Dogmaticians, ....... 309-337
B.—Of the Office of Christ.
# 34. The Threefold Office of Christ — His Mediatorial Work in its threefold aspect, .....-••••• 337-339
\ 35. The Prophetic Office of Christ. Denned— The Immediate and Mediate, 340-342
\ 36. The Sacerdotal Office of Christ. Defined. I. Satisfaction. Why was Satis faction needed? — Antitheses of the Socinians — Satisfaction Infinite — Christ's Active and Passive Obedience — Vicarious Satisfaction — Complete ness of the Satisfaction— Its Real Object — Its Personal Object. II. Inter cession. General and Special Redemption, .... 342-370
I 37. The Regal Office of Christ. I. The Kingdom of Power. II. The King dom of Grace. III. The Kingdom of Glory— The Delivery of the Kingdom, - • 370-376
C.— The States of Christ.
\ 38. I. The State of Humiliation. Conception— Nativity — Circumcision — Educa tion — Earthly Intercourse — Passion — Death — Burial— Incarnation not Humiliation— "The Form of God." II. T he State of Exaltation. Descent into Hell — Resurrection — Ascension — Sitting at the Right Hand of God. Diverse views of the Dogmaticians, 376-407
CHAPTER III.
OF THE GRACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.
\ 39. Preliminary Remarks 407-409
\ 40. The Agent— The Means— The Result, .... 410
§41- 1- Of Faith. Its Constituent Elements— Explicit and Implicit— Confidence, the Chief Part— Special Faith— Faith of Infants— Living and Dead Faith Contrasted — Nature of Justifying Faith — Efficient Cause of Faith— Instru mental Cause of Faith— Grades of Faith— Assurance of Faith, 410-424
\ 42. 2. Of Justification. The immediate Effect of Faith— Justification a Divine Forensic Act, embracing I. The Forgiveness of Sins. II. The Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ. The Ground of Justification — The Means
CONTENTS. 11
of Justification— Osiander's Error — Justification a Free Gift of God — Good Works and Justification— The Exclusive Particles— The Effects of Justification . 424-441
43. Concomitants and Consequences of Justifying Faith, . 441
44. 1. Of the Divine Call. Necessity, Efficacy and Universality of the
Call 442-450
45. 2. Of Illumination. Necessity of Illumination by the Holy Spirit— Its
Influence upon Intellect and Will — Legal and Evangelical Illumi nation, 450-458
46. 3. Of Reyeneration and Conversion. The Terms defined and contrasted. I.
Regeneration. Regeneration a Divine Act — Regeneration of Infants and Adults contrasted — Regeneration always Divinely efficacious — Regenera tion amissible and recoverable. II. Conversion. Conversion a Divine Act — Elements of Repentance — Private Confession — Conversion ends in Faith — Prevenient and Co-operating Grace — The Divine Word the Instrument —The Human Will in Conversion — Converting Grace may be re sisted, 458-480
47. 4. Of the Mystical Union. Not Metaphorical but Real — Union, General and
Special, 481-486
48. 5. Of Renovation. Renovation contrasted with Regeneration— A gradual
work 486-491
49. Supplementary. Of Good Works. The Effect of Renovation — Can Unbe
lievers perform Good Works? — Must Believers perform Good Works? — The Works of the Unregenerate — Reward of Good Works, . 491-499
PART IY.
OF THE MEANS OF GRACE AND OF THE CHURCH.
CHAPTER I.
OF THE DIVINK WORD.
\ 50. Preliminary Statement, 500
\ 51. Of the Efficacy of the Divine Word. The Supernatural Power of the Word — Mysticism and Enthusiasm, ...... 500-508
| 52. Of the Law and the Gospel. I. The Law. The Ceremonial Law— The Moral Law — Fourfold Use. II. The Gospel. The Gospel in Embryo in the Old Testament — The Gospel and the Law Contrasted — Concurrence of the Law and the Gospel, ... 508-520
12 CONTENTS.
CHAPTER II.
OF THE SACRAMENTS.
53. Of the Sacraments in general. What «onstitutes a Sacrament? — Only Two
Sacraments — The two Factors — Requisites — The Act of Administration — ''Ex Opere Operate " rejected — Relation of Word to Sacrament — Design of the Sacraments — Proper Use of the Sacraments — Old Testament Sacra ments, 520-536
54. Of Baptism. The Holy Spirit in Baptism — Sacramental Union — Usages-
Design — Affusion — Baptismal Formulae Explained — Exorcism — Baptism by Heretics — Infant Baptism — Infant Faith — Baptismal Grace Continuous — Necessity of Baptism, ....... 536-555
55. Of the Lord" s Supper. I. The Nature of the Lord? 8 Supper. The Words of
the Institution to be literally interpreted — The Mode of the Saviour's Presence— Omnipresence of the Human Nature of Christ — Sacramental Manducation — Sacramental Union — Distinction between the Lutheran and Reformed Doctrine — Xo Consubstantiation — Distinction between the Lutheran and Romish Doctrine. II. The Form nf the Lords Supper. Consecration and Distribution are Essential- Sacramental Union only dur ing distribution — The Worthy Reception — Is it a Sacrifice? III. The Desiyn of the Lord! s Supper. Commemorative — Nutritive — Imparts Saving Grace — Promotes Christian Fellowship, .... 555-582
CHAPTER III.
OF THE CHURCH.
§ 5(1 Of the Church in a Wider and a Narrower Sense. The Assembly of Be lievers—Church Militant and Triumphant — Church Catholic— Universal and Particular — In what Sense, Visible and Invisible — Church, True and False 582-599
£ 57. Of the Church Collective and Representative. Special and General Councils —Authority of the Councils, 599-604
158. Of the Three Estates in the Church 604-605
% 59. I. The Ecclesiastical Estate. The Holy Ministry a Divinely-appointed Office — The Church gives the Mediate Call— Ordination confirms this Call — The Power of the Keys — Is Ordination Necessary ? — Duty of Obedience — Grades in the Ministry, . . ... . . • • 605-616
\ 60. II. The Political Estate. The Civil Authority Divinely-appointed— De sign of the Civil Authority — Relation of the Civil Authority to the Church, ' . . . . 616-619
g 61. III. The Domestic Estate. 1. The Marriage Relation— Divorce. 2. The Parental Relation. 3. The Relation of Master and Servant, 619-623
CONTENTS. 1 3
PART V. OF THE LAST THINGS.
'•'-•• '• - '•' • I '• ' '•• ' :' '•- S. U (.1 /',
? 62. Preliminary Statement, 624
I 63. I. Of Death. The Consequence of the Fall— The Dissolution of Soul and Body — Death threefold— The Immortality of the Soul — No Intermediate State of Dormancy, -....,. 624-639
\ 64. II. Of the Resurrection of the Dead. Attributes of the Resurrection Body, 640-643
\ 65. III. Of the Final Judgment. The Signs of its Approach— Antichrist— Con version of the Jews— Christ the Judge— Form of the Final Judg ment, . .... 643-655
£ 66. IV. Of the End of the World, 655-656
#67. V. Of Eternal Damnation and Eternal Life. 1. Eternal Death. 2. Eternal Life- • • . . 656-6C.3
APPENDIX I.
Sketch of the Dogmaticians cited, ...... 665-<:"'l
APPENDIX II.
Explanation of some Scholastico-dogmatic terms, . . . 673-67A
INDEX, ........ 677
ABBREVIATIONS.
Ap. Conf., Apology of the Augsburg Confession.
Art. Smalcald, Smalcald Articles.
Bchm., Bechmann.
jjr .... Baier.
Brchm Brochmann.
(vi .... Calovius.
Cat 'Mai . . • • • Luther's Large Catechism.
CatMin.', ... • • • Luther's Small Catechism.
Chmn., Chemnitz.
Chmn ex. c. Trid., .... Chemnitz on the Council of Trent.
(' d c p ... Chemnitz on the Lord's Supper.
Conf. Aug.', .' - ' . . • Augsburg Confession.
Form. Cone., The Formula of Concord.
Grh. ...... Gerhard.
Hfrffr. .... Hafenreffer.
I loll., ' Hollazius.
Hutt Hutterus.
Rg^ Koenig.
\jel .... Melanchthon.
Quen., Quenstedt.
Schrzr Scherzer.
Seln • • Selnecker.
Symb. Nic., Nicene Creed.
(14)
INTRODUCTION.
§ 1. Of Theology in General, etc.
Introduction treats: 1. Of Theology in general ; 2. Of -*- the Subject of Theology, Religion ; 3. Of the Source of TJie- ology, Revelation in general (with an appendix, on the Use of Reason in Theology) ; 4. Of the Holy Scriptures, in which Rev elation is contained ; 5. Of the Articles of Faith, which com prise the contents of the Holy Scriptures ; and of the Symbolical Books, which contain the Confession of the Church.
CHAPTER I.
OF THEOLOGY IN GENEKAL.
§ 2. Meaning of the terms, Natural and Revealed.
Y Theology we understand, according to the etymology of the term, the knowledge or doctrine of God and of divine things [1]. Such a knowledge we gain, partly in a natural way, by the use of reason alone, partly in a supernatural way, by special revelation ; and hence Theology is divided into Natural and Revealed. [2] In both cases, however, Theology is not a mere outward knowledge, by which the understanding alone is enriched, but is of such a nature as to make man truly wise, and show him the way to be saved ; hence Theology, strictly so-called, must be denned : " Eminently practical wis dom, teaching from the revealed Word of God all things which sinful man, who is to be saved, needs to know and to do, in order to attain true faith in Christ and holiness of life." [3] (HOLL. 1.) If,
(15)
J6 INTRODUCTION.
however, we leave out of view the influence which Theology exerts upon man, and consider only its subject-matter, Theology may be defined as the d«u 'trine concerning Clod and all religious truths, the province of which is to instruct men concerning the means by which they may be saved. • Theology, rieiced «..- a system <nid in a secondary sense, is the doctrine concerning (ind, which teachc* man, from the dirine Word, as to the true method of worshijiiixj (iod in Christ, unto Vernal life." (Ilni.i.. 7.)[4]
[1] QIK.V (I, 1); "Theology, if you consider the force and usage of the word, is nothing else than >»;'« -'/« -•« "«»« "» ' Utiur, what is said about God and divine things, as m r/i«ro>.«) /'« is what is said about spirits, and uor/w/.o) («, what is said alxtut tin- stars.''
The word is sometimes employed in a wider and sometimes in a narrower sense. The different significations are thus stated by IIoi.i.. (.'{): ' The word Tfieolnyy is employed in a fourfold sense; (a) most eomprehensively, for every doctrine concerning (Jod, whether true or mixed with error; (/>) comprehensively, for true Theology, either in itself considered, or as communicated; either of men on earth or of saints in heaven; either natural or re vealed; (r) specially, of revealed Theology, that guides mortal man to eternal life; (d) most specifically, of the doctrine concern ing the one and triune (Jod."
In all these significations, reference is had merely to the The ology of the creature, i. e., to the knowledge which creatures have of (iod, and not to that which (iod has of Himself. Theologians distinguish also between these, and call the former thnJiHfiti /*rrTm (derived Theology), and the latter thmhtyia a/n/nTof (original The ology), by which they mean to say that our knowledge of (Jod, although derived and not original, is, nevertheless, absolutely correct, because derived from God, and only the faithful copy of His own knowledge. HOLL. (3 and 4): "Archetypal Theology is the knowledge which (Jod has of Himself, and which in Him is the model of another Theology, which is communicated to intelli gent creatures. Ectypal Theology is the science of God and divine things communicated to intelligent creatures by God, after His own Theology, as a pattern. We thus prove our assertion: (1.) Man was made complete, in the image of (iod. But the image of (Jod consisted in a knowledge of God conformed to the divine wisdom. Therefore its archetype was the infinite wisdom of God. (2.) Fallen man ''is renewed in knowledge after the image of God,"
OF THEOLOGY IN GENERAL. 17
Col. 3 : 10. Therefore his prototype is the divine self-knowledge. For the knowledge of God and of divine things, which divine reve lation communicates to the minds of men, is called by the Apostle knowledge after the image of God, for no other reason than because it is expressed in imitation of the knowledge which God has of Himself and of all divine things." Considered in its relation to Christ: "Archetypal Theology belongs to Christ essentially, and through His nature, inasmuch as He is eternal God ; it belongs to Him, as to His human nature, personally, and through the rommu- nicatio idiamatum, by virtue of the personal union." Concerning Ectypal Theology, QUEX. further adds (I, 5): "We have one Ectypal Theology in Christ, viewed as to His human nature, an other in angels, and a third in men. (I, 6.) The Ectypal The ology of mere men is either that of the Way, t, e., of this life, viz., of mortals, or that of the Home,* i. r., of the other and happy life, viz., of the finally saved. The Theology of the Way, or of mortals, is twofold, viz., that In-fore and that after the Fall. That which describes man before the Fall, in the state of integrity, is called also the jumidisaical, from the place in which man was placed." Hut, in reference to all these divisions, BAIER remarks (4). "As the ugu* lofftimdi does not allow us to call either God, or Christ, or men in heaven, or angels, theologians, it readily appears that that meaning must here be rejected, which obtains elsewhere, when we add to the definition, ' the theology of the way.' "
[2] HOLL. (6): "The Theology of the Way is twofold, natural and revealed (supernatural). The former is that according to which God is known both by innate ideas, ami by the inspection of created thing*. The latter is the knowledge of God and of divine things, which God communicate* to man u|K>n earth, either by immediate revelation or inspiration (to prophets and apostles), or by mediate revelation or the divine Won!, committed to writing."
[3] Still more frequently Theology is called a jtractiaU habit. AM it appeared to the theological writers that the expression science gave too much prominence to the mere acquaintance with the subjects concerned, they therefore sought a definition in which it should be distinctly expressed that by Theology there was meant a divinely-wrought knowledge, such as urged its possessor to put to practice what he learned.
[The dogmaticians follow the mediaeval mystics and some scho lastics, in defining Theology as "wisdom'* rather than "science," thus emphasizing the need of spiritual illumination for the appro-
* This distinction is founded upon 1 Cor. 9 : 24 ; 2 Cor. 5 : 6, 8. It is made «fl early as Thomas Aquinas.
2
18 INTRODUCTION.
hension of its truths. Scotus taught that Theology could be a science only to the glorified; to others, it could only be a matter of faith. On this, GRHIX (-11, 4): "To believe and know are partic ularly unlike; for scientific certainty depends upon internal and inherent principles, but that of faith, upon external, viz., upon the authority of the Revealer. Besides, the subject of Theology is Christ, the knowledge of whom cannot be acquired in a scientific way, but from divine revelation. Matt. Ifi: 17; 1 Cor. 2: 7. In Theology, the intellect is not the source, but the end. 'We believe, that we may know; we do not know, in order that we may believe.' Cf. Is. 7:9."]
QUEN. (I, 11): "We are here speaking of Theology, not as to what it signifies in a book, but as to what it is, subjectively in the mind."
GRH. thus defines (II, 13): "Theology, viewed as a discipline and concretely, is a divinely-given discipline, bestowed upon man by the Holy Spirit through the Word, whereby he is not only in structed in the knowledge of divine mysteries, by the illumination of the mind, so that what he understands produces a salutary effect upon the disposition of his heart and the actions of his life, but so that he is also qualified to inform others concerning these divine mysteries and the way of salvation, and to vindicate heavenly truth from the aspersions of its foes ; so that men, abounding in true faith and good works, are led to the kingdom of heaven."
QUEN. (I, 16): "A distinction is made between theoretical habit*, which consist wholly in the mere contemplation of the truth, and practical habits, which, indeed, require a knowledge of whatever is to be done, but which do not end in this, nor have it as their aim, but which lead to practice and action. Theology, we refer, not to the theoretical, but to the practical habits."
HOLL. (8) thus states the reasons for this distinction: "(1) Be cause the immediate aim of Theology is true faith in Christ, the operation of which is twofold, viz. : internal, which embraces Christ with His benefits, and external, which produces good works, the fruit of righteousness. The ultimate end of Theology is eternal happiness, which consists not only in the intuitive knowledge of God, but also in the enjoyment of God. (2) Because Theology treats of man, not theoretically, as the subject of its description, as certain qualities are ascribed to man in Physiology, but as the subject of its operation, or how he, as a sinner, is to be freed from his misery and transferred into a state of blessedness ... (3) Because Paul himself defines Theology to be ' the knowledge of the truth which is after godli ness.' Tit. 1: 1."
WHO IS A THEOLOGIAN? 19
[4] QUEN. (I, 11): "The term Theology is taken either essen tially, absolutely, and as a mental habitude, for the knowledge which the mind holds and to which it clings, or in as far as it is a habit of the human mind ; * or accidentally, relatively, systematically, in so far as it is the doctrine or branch of learning which is taught and learned, or contained in books. The former is the primary, the latter the secondary application of the term."
As to the subject-matter of Theology, systematically considered, out of which it is drawn, ROLL. (11) states: "It consists of theological truth, i. e., of facts or conclusions known or deduced from the supernatural revelation of God." In regard to the subject-matter concerning which it treats : ' ' Theology in general discusses God and divine things, in so far as they have been truly revealed through the divine Word to sinful man, to be believed and practiced. Spe- rijically, it teaches by what ways and means mortal man, corrupted by sin, is to be introduced into eternal life."
Theology is divided, according to KG., (3) into: "Catechetical, or simple, such as is required of all Christians, and acroamatic, or more accurate, which is the province of the learned and ministers of the Word. The latter is divided, according to the method of treating it, into exegetical, which is employed in the exhibition of the sacred text; didactic strictly so-called, which discusses theological subjects in order and systematically; polemic, which treats of theological controversies; homiletic, which teaches the method of preaching to the people; casuistic, which solves doubtful cases of conscience; ecclesiastical, which treats of church discipline, visitations, synods, etc., etc.
Corresponding to the two definitions of Theology, we have (HoLL. 13 seq. ): "The Theologian properly and strictly so-called ; a regenerated man, firmly believing in the divine Word, that reveals the mysteries of faith, adhering to it with unshaken confidence, apt in teaching others and confuting opponents. A Theologian, in the general sense of the term, is a man well instructed in the depart ment of Theology, whereby he is rendered prompt in expounding and defending heavenly truth. The Theologian in a under sense may be one who while rightly discharging the office of a Theologian by expounding, confirming and defending theological truths, is, never theless, destitute of sincere holiness of disposition." The " theo logical knowledge of a truly regenerated and renewed man1' is described as ' ' spiritual knowledge, by which the literal sense of the Biblical language is applied according to the use designed by the Holy Spirit, and produces spiritual and godly emotions of the heart;"
*See explanation of scholastic terms, Appendix II.
20 INTRODUCTION.
the "knowledge of an unregenerate Theologian," on the other hand as "a merely literal knowledge, which is applied to the investigation, development, and apprehension of the sense of Scripture, and not to the use designed by the Holy Spirit," Concerning this spiritual knowledge, we have the remark : "Far be it from us that we should assert, with the fanatics, that spiritual theological knowledge is derived either from the immediate illumination of the Holy Spirit, or from the internal light or mnemonic power of the soul, through introversion into the hidden recesses of the soul, or that it compre hends only the mystical sense ! We know that the literal sense of the Biblical language is primarily and immediately set forth in the words inspired by the Holy Spirit, ' ' Literal theological knowledge is, moreover, distinguished as "external, by which one treats the words of Scripture, in so far as they are analogous to human words, according to the rules of grammar and rhetoric, and searches out and extracts some meaning from them ; and internal, by which >one properly estimates the words of Scripture as the truly divine receptacles or vehicles of the mysteries of the faith, and apprehends, with firm assent, their true literal sense, conformed to the mind of the Holy Spirit." And, with an illusion to QUEN., he adds: '| To understand the internal literal sense, which is spiritual and divine, the illumination of the Holy Spirit is needed ; the illumination may be imperfect, of which the unregenerate are capable, or perfect, such as the regenerate enjoy." This internal, literal knowledge is, therefore, not natural or carnal, but supernatural. "It is super natural (a) by virtue of its origin, for it is derived from the light of supernatural revelation; (6) by virtue of its object, ... for the mysteries of the faith are the object of literal knowledge (But what is a mystery other than a doctrine transcending the grasp of un aided reason?) (c) in view of the impotence of the intellectual subject, 1 Cor. 2: 14; (d) on account of the intimate connection between the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures. For, if the literal internal knowledge of believers be not supernatural, the Holy Spirit is not perpetually and inseparably united with the Holy Scriptures. But the Holy Spirit is perpetually and inseparably united with the Holy Scriptures ; therefore," etc.
WHAT IS TRUE RELIGION? 21
CHAPTER II.
OF THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF THEOLOGY, viz., RELIGION. § 3. Religion, True and False.
r I ^HE subject of Theology is accordingly, Religion. [1] Re- -^- ligion is the way and manner in which God is wor shiped. That is a false religion in which God is worshiped in a manner that does not accord with His nature and will ; that is the true and right religion in which this is done in the manner which He regards as right and which He prescribes, [2] so that hereby man, estranged from God, is brought back again to Him, and secures his salvation. This proper man ner is taught in the Holy Scriptures ; and thus the true re ligion, more accurately defined, is that in which God is wor shiped in the manner therein prescribed, and therefore the Christian Religion is the true one. [3] The proper manner of worshiping God must, accordingly, first of all, manifest itself in that disposition of soul towards God which is agree able to Him, and secondly, in love toward our neighbor and the practice of all the virtues enjoined by God. [4] In the widest sense, therefore, Religion embraces all that God com mands to be believed and to be done. [5]
[1] HOLL. (32): "Some suppose the term Religion to be de rived from religando (Lactantius), others from relegendo (Cicero). According to the former derivation, religion signifies the obligation rightly to worship God, or, that which imposes upon man obliga tions and duties. According to the latter etymology, religion is diligent attention to those things which pertain to the worship of God. The former derivation is more generally received." — QUEN. "Synonymous are ityfama, James 1 : 26; ewe/toa, 1 Tim. 4:8;
Aoyi/c# iMTpeia, Rom. 12 : 1."
[2] QUEN. (I, 19): "The Christian religion is the method of worshiping God prescribed in the Word, by which man, separated from God by sin, is led back to God, through faith in Jesus Christ (who is both God and man), so that he is reunited with God, and enjoys Him eternally."
22 INTRODUCTION.
HOLL. (33): "Religion, improperly speaking, signifies the false, properly speaking, the true method of worshiping God. ' '
HOLL. (60) : " As opposed to the true Religion, we have not only false religion, but also atheism or irreligion. A false religion is that in which either false gods are worshiped, or the true God is improperly worshiped. Irreligion is that in which impious men regard all religion with contempt, so that, denying the providence and punitive justice of God, they boldly and recklessly do as they please. ' '
[3] HOLL. (34): "The true Religion is that which is conformed to the Divine Word."
That the Christian religion is the true one is proved by CAL. 1 : 152 sqq. :
" (1) From the requisites of a true religion. A religion which is true and has proceeded from God, must have these characteristics : (a) Not to teach false, corrupt or absurd things. (6) Not to be new but to have existed since the creation of man as an institution for communicating salvation, (e) Not to have perished or here after to perish, (d) Not to leave men in their former errors, much less to sink them the more deeply, but to lead them to holiness. All these characteristics pertain to no other than the Christian religion; since every other religion teaches false, absurd, base things, has originated since men, etc.
(2) From the truth of Scripture. For since the Christian religion is compnsed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, its truth will be proved from the truth of these Scriptures, as else where set forth.
(3) From the religion of the Hebrew's. For the religion of the Christians and of the ancient patriarchs is one and the same.
(4) From the supreme dignity of its rewards. For the excellence of the Christian religion is displayed by the fact that in all ages and nations, none can be produced either more excellent in its rewards, more perfect in its precepts, more sublime in its mysteries or more admirable in the method in which it is to be propagated. For while among the Greeks some entertained the hope of life after the end of the present life, nevertheless they spoke with great hesi tancy concerning it (Socrates in Plato's PhaBdo, Cicero's Tusculnn Disputations, Seneca's Epistles). Philosophers were divided into diverse opinions concerning the end of man, some making virtue the reward, others contending that pleasure is the highest good; the Christian religion, however, offers the true knowledge of this end, promising, after this life, a happy existence not only for the soul, but also for the body; nor are the joys it promises vile, as the
CHRISTIANITY, THE TRUE RELIGION. 23
banquets for which the Jews hope, or the licentious indulgence which Mohammedans expect, hut true, solid, perennial. Lactan- tius has well said (Institutes, 1. iii. , cap. xii. ) : ' Virtue is not happy of itself, since all its force is expended in the endurance of evil.'
(5) From the supreme holiness of its precepts. The sacred rites of the heathen, throughout almost the whole world, were full of cruelty. The mysteries of Ceres and Bacchus abounded in ob scenity. How profane and unworthy of God is Mohammedanism, the Koran can testify. The Christian religion requires an abso lutely holy worship of God, holy trust in Him, and all that is most worthy of God; and of like nature are the duties towards our neighbor which it enjoins. Mohammedanism was born in war, breathes nothing but war, is propagated everywhere by \var, while Christianity prohibits every injury, and wishes good to all. Many of the most eminent Greek philosophers praised a community of women, and even did not disapprove of sodomy, which wras com mended by the example of the gods. But the Christian religion teaches that marriage must be held most holy. ... In short, nothing excellent can be found in any nation which is not taught in the Christian religion with still greater purity, and under sanc tion of divine authority, as modesty, temperance, prudence, the duties of magistrates and subjects, of parents and children, of husbands and wives, the avoidance of sin, etc. ; so that the sum of all its precepts is, to love God above all things, and our neighbor as ourselves.
(6) From the sublimity of its mysteries. For whatever mystery other religions seem to have easily brings to those better informed the suspicion of vanity. Only the mysteries of the Christian re ligion are entirely placed beyond the reach of man's understand ing, and can be convicted of no falsity or superstition.
(7) From the propagation of the Christian religion. For there is no religion so widely diffused. If Paganism be mentioned, you mention one name, but not one religion.
(8) From the mode of its propagation. For the Christian religion made such progress, not by violence or arms, or the example of kings and the powerful. The first teachers of Christianity were of humble rank, and yet, through their agency, within thirty years it not only pervaded all parts of the Roman Empire, but was ex tended to the Parthians and inhabitants of India, Rom. 15: 19. Nor only in the beginning, but for about three centuries, it was advanced without threats of violence, and even with the power of the empire arrayed against it, so that before Constantine professed Christianity it had conquered almost the greater part of the Roman
24 INTRODUCTION.
world. Nor was this done by any elaborate preparation, whether of eloquence or the various arts whereby philosophers rendered themselves commendable to the Gentiles.
(9) From the multitude of its miracles. For, as the faith of the Old Testament was attested by most remarkable miracles, performed at various times but especially on the departure from Egypt and the entrance into Canaan, whereby its fame was spread abroad among the Gentiles, so far more numerous and more illustrious miracles proclaim the authority of the New Testament.
(10) From the magnanimity of its martyrs.
(11) From the testimony of other religions. 'The Jews,' says Augustine (De Civitate Dei, 1. xviii., c. 45), 'are dispersed throughout the earth, and by their scriptures give a testimony that we have not invented the prophecies concerning Christ. The Mohammedans acknowledge Christ as the greatest prophet; and among the heathen many things occur corroborating its testimony in historical matters.'
(12) From the efficacy and power of Christian doctrine, in arousing, swaying, and soothing souls, attested not only by Scripture, but by innumerable examples of those converted to faith in Christ. ' '
[4] QUEN. (I, 20): "The Christian religion may be viewed either /^p^r (in part), or 6A/«wj- (as a whole). Taken in the former sense it signifies, first and principally, the immediate wor ship of God, viz., evoefieia, or the piety which has regard to the worship of God according to the first table of the Law; secondarily, it signifies those other duties by which God is mediately wor shiped, which have respect to the second table of the Law. The love of our neighbor presupposes love to God; hence, secondarily and by analogy, the duty of love to our neighbor comes under the name of religion. ' '
BR. (16): "The term Religion signifies, in a stricter sense, either the habit of the will by which we are inclined to the love, honor and worship due God, on account of His excellence; or, the acts themselves, of honoring or worshiping God on account of His ex cellence; and, at the same time, it signifies, on the part of the in tellect, the true knowledge of God; on the part of the will, the other virtues (or virtuous acts) which aim at the honor and wor ship of God. But, in a wider sense, it denotes the whole circle of virtues or acts, that pertain to the worship of God. ' '
[5] HOLL. (43): " Under the name of the Christian Religion is comprehended whatever is to be believed and to be done by sinful man, in order to attain eternal life. As God is religiously wor shiped by true faith and the sincere effort to perform good works,
REVELATION, THE SOURCE OF THEOLOGY. 25
so religion, which is the form or method of worshiping God, em braces within its compass things to be believed and things to be done. In a general sense, the things to be believed are all things revealed in the written Word of God; in a more limited sense, those which are revealed in the Word of God in regard to the salvation of man; in the most specific sense, they are mysteries, above the com prehension of reason, and to be learned alone from the divine revelation for our salvation. " Hence, " the subject-matter of Re ligion is faith, and love to God and our neighbor."
We observe further, that GRH. and BR. do not treat of Religion as a separate topic. BR. has, under the head of ' ' The Nature and Constituent Elements of Theology, ' ' only the following proposition (14) : " In Natural Theology the means of attaining happiness are the acts of the mind and will directed towards God, by which God is rightly known and worshiped. They are known by one name, Religion." This is explained by the definition which the theolo gians give of Theology, for in accordance with this there is little material left for a special section on the subject of Religion.
CHAPTER III. OF THE SOURCE OF THEOLOGY, viz., REVELATION.
§ 4. Revelation, — not Reason, nor Tradition.
TN order to understand what is true and correct Theology, -*- we must inquire for the Source from which we derive our knowledge of it. QUEN. 32 : " The source (principium) is that from which anything, in some manner or other, proceeds." This is the Revelation given by God. [1] By this divine Reve lation we understand here, not that which is given in nature, but that given in the Word (supernatural, as distinguished from natural revelation). [2] More accurately, therefore, we say : the source of theological knowledge is the revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures, [3] and this is, moreover, the only source of Theology, [4] and neither reason, [5] nor, at a later date, tradition, or the appeal to the consentaneous doctrine of the ancient church, [6] is to be ranked with it ; nor are supple mentary revelations now to be expected from any quarter. [7]
26
INTRODUCTION.
[1] CAL. (I, 269); " Revelation is taken either in a formal sense, for the act of the divine communication, or objectively for that which is divinely revealed. The former sense is here intended. ' '
[2] HOLL. (61) : "We speak here not of that general revelation or natural manifestation, by which God makes Himself known both by the innate light of nature and by the effects conspicuous in the kingdom of nature. But we speak of the special and supernatural revelation, which is twofold, immediate and mediate. The Holy Spirit immediately illuminated the prophets and apostles, and sug gested to them conceptions of things and of words concerning doc trines of faith and moral precepts. At the present day God reveals Himself to men by means of the Word written by the prophets and apostles." Revelation is, therefore, denned as: "The external act of God, by which He makes Himself known to the human race by His Word, in order that they may have a saving knowledge of Him."— QUEN. I, 32.
CAL. (I, 268) thus states the proof that this divine revelation exists: "It having been proved, if this should be denied, that God is, and that there must be some method in which God may be wor shiped by men, we must teach, that it cannot be but that God has revealed that method, so that He may be worshiped properly; then, that God wishes men to be led to the enjoyment of Himself, and also, that He has revealed unto men the manner in which they arc to be thus led; finally, the fact that God has revealed Himself, must be taught from history, which revelation God has seen fit abund antly to accompany with miracles and documents, by which we are rendered absolutely certain that it is truly divine. Rom. 1: 16; 2 Cor. 12: 12. But as one general revelation has been made in Nature, Rom. 1: 19 sq., and another special one by verbal com munication, it is first to be proved from nature that God is, inas much as God has revealed Himself unto all by His works, in the formation of this world ; and subsequently it is to be shown that God has revealed Himself to the human race in a more perfect manner by the Word."
[3] QUEN. (I, 32): "The source of Theology is the written, divine revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures." HOLL. (61) more accurately: " Christian Theology is derived from an infallible source of knowledge, viz. , divine revelation, which, for the present state of the Church, is mediate, i. e., comprehended in the writings of the prophets and apostles." As proof, John 20: 31; 2 Tim. 3: 14, 15 ; Rom. 15: 4; 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17. With regard to the differ ent modes of revelation in ancient times, Bn. (62): "Formerly God employed many and various methods in revealing those things
REVELATION, THE SOURCE OF THEOLOGY. 27
which pertain to the salvation of man, Heb. 1:1. Specifically: (1. ) By articulate language, uttered in a supernatural way. Thus revelations were made to the patriarchs, Gen. 18: 2; 19: 1; 22: 1; to Moses, Ex. 3: 2; Num. 12: 6; to the Israelites, Ex. 19: 10. (2.) By dreams or visions, presented to the minds of the sleeping, Gen. 28: 12; Dan. 2: 19. (3.) By ecstatic visions of the waking, Ez. 1: 4; Dan. 10: 5; Acts 10: 10; finally (4.) By the immediate illu mination of the intellect, without the intervention of dreams and visions, 2 Tim. 3: 16; 2 Pet. 1: 21. But now, since God has chosen to present, in certain books, those things which are neces sary to be known with reference to revealed things, in order to sal vation, and not to communicate any new revelations, the only source of Theology is to be found in those ancient revelations which were made immediately to the prophets and apostles and have been committed to writing. ' '
Inasmuch, however, as the religion of the Old and New Testa ments is to be regarded as substantially the same, QUEN. (I, 32) adds the remark : "As the divine revelation became more full, in the course of time, so also did Theology, which was based upon it ; and as the former, just so the latter, gathered up its own additions in the progress of time, God meanwhile imparting new revelations. These additions did not relate to those things which constitute the foundation of faith and salvation, but to other things which render the statement and comprehension of these more complete, or which relate to various circumstances, rites, and ceremonies, and to eccles iastical order and discipline. ' '
If, therefore, the Holy Scriptures are thus the Source of Theol ogy, we are authorized to draw the following conclusion: "What ever the Holy Scriptures teach is infallibly true. ' ' Hence the early divines speak of a twofold source, viz. , the source indefinitely stated, i. e., by a single term ; and the source more fully stated, i. e. , by an entire proposition. The former is the Holy Scriptures. The latter, from which the doctrines of the Christian faith are deduced, and into which they are again merged, is this proposition : " Whatever God has revealed in His Word, that is infallibly true, and must be reverently believed and embraced." From the Holy Scriptures, then, as this source, are drawn all doctrinal truths. ' ' The source, whence theological conclusions are drawn, is but one, viz., the Word of God, or, ' Thus saith the Lord. ' Theological conclusions are nothing else than truths concerning the faith, elicited and de duced from the Word of God.
[4] QUEN. (I, 33): "The sole, proper, adequate, and ordinary source of Theology and of the Christian Religion is the divine
28 INTRODUCTION.
revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures; or, what is the same thing, that the canonical Scriptures alone are the absolute source of Theology, so that out of them alone are the articles of faith to be deduced and proved."
Further (I, 36): " Divine revelation is the first and last source of sacred Theology, beyond which theological discussion among Christians dare not proceed. For every doubt concerning religion in the mind of a true Christian is removed by divine revelation, and by this the faith of the believer grows so strong, and is so firmly established, that it frees his mind from all fear and suspicion of deception, and imparts to him a firm assurance. ' '
.[5] QUEN. (I, 38): "Human or natural reason is not the source of Theology and supernatural things."
[6] CAL. (I, 304): "We contend that, over and above the writ ten Word of God, there is at present no unwritten Word of God concerning any doctrine necessary to Christian faith and life, not comprehended in the Scriptures, that ever came forth from the apostles, was handed down by tradition, was preserved by the Church, and is to be received with equal reverence."
QUEN. (I, 44): "The consent of the Primitive Church, or of the Fathers of the first centuries after Christ, is not a source of Christian faith, either primary or secondary, nor does it produce a divine, but merely a human or probable belief." In reference to this latter clause, HOLL. (71): " The consent of the Fathers is not to be esteemed of little, but of great importance, as a ground of credibility, as a secondary source of theological conclusions (viz. , because it furnishes opinions or conceptions that are probably true), and as a demonstrative and invaluable testimony that the early bishops of the Catholic Church understood and expounded passages of the Holy Scriptures in the same sense in which the Evangelical Church of the present day understands them."
[7] HOLL. (63): "After the completion of the canon of Scrip ture, no new and immediate divine revelation was given to be a fundamental source of doctrine, 1 Cor. 4: 6; Heb. 1:1." QUEN. (I, 48): "The opposite opinion is that of various fanatics who hold that the knowledge of God, and of all doctrines that are to be believed, is not to be sought from the written Word of God, but that a higher wisdom than that contained in the Holy Scriptures is to be sought from a revelation especially made to each indi vidual, and from innate light, from ecstatic raptures, dreams, angelic communications, from an internal word, from the inspira tion of the Father, from knowledge internally communicated by Christ, who is essentially united with them, and from the instruc-
USE OF REASON IN THEOLOGY. 29
tion of the Holy Spirit, speaking and teaching internally." [Cf. APOLOGY, 215: 13; SMALCALD ARTICLES, 332: 4; 333: 9, 10; LARGE CATECHISM, 499: 13; FORMULA OF CONCORD, 552: 4; 561: 46.]
§ 5. Excursus. Concerning the Use of Reason in TJieology.
By the term Reason, we may understand either, the capacity of intellectual apprehension in general — and this is essential to man, for it is only by means of this capacity, which distin guishes him from irrational animals, that he can comprehend the truths of religion; [1] or, the capacity of acquiring knowledge and appropriating truths. [2] The knowledge, however, which one thus acquires is, even if true, still defect ive and unsatisfactory, [3] and therefore Reason is by no means the source from which man can draw the knowledge of saving truths, [4] but for these the revelation contained in Holy Scripture remains ever the only source.
The question now arises, How is Reason related to this reve lation, and what use can Theology make of Reason?
Inasmuch as Reason also derives its knowledge from God, Reason and Revelation are, of course, not opposed to each other. [5] This holds true, however, only of Reason consid ered per se, of Reason as it was before the fall of man. This would have remained conscious of the limits of its sphere ; would not have sought to measure divine things by the rule of natural knowledge ; would have subordinated itself to Reve lation, [6] and would have known that there are truths which, although not in antagonism with it, are yet far beyond its reach. [7]
But the case is very different with Reason as it dwells now in fallen man ; for we must concede that, by man's fall, such a change has occurred that Reason now often assumes a posi tion of antagonism to revealed truth. [8] It still, indeed, possesses some knowledge of divine things, but this knowledge is obscured in proportion to the moral depravity of man, and it now, more easily than before, transcends the assigned limits. If now Reason, even before the fall of man, had to keep within modest limits, with respect to the truths of Revelation, much less dare it now, in the fallen condition of man, assume to judge in regard to divine things, or subject the truths of Revelation to its tests ; still less dare it reject that which does
30 INTRODUCTION.
not seem to agree with its knowledge : its duty rather is to subject itself to Revelation and learn therefrom. If this be done, however, much will again become intelligible that pre viously appeared contradictory, and Reason will again ap proach the condition occupied before the Fall. But this will be only an approach to that condition ; for just as man, even through regeneration, never again becomes entirely sinless, so the Reason of the regenerate never attains its original power. [9] We may therefore say of Reason, even when en lightened, that it can have no decisive judgment in regard to matters of faith, and possesses in such matters no norma tive authority, all the more since this was true of Reason be fore the Fall. [10]
As to the use, then, that is to be made of Reason in Theol ogy, it follows, from what has been said, that Reason stands in the relation merely of a handmaid to the latter. [1 1] In so far as it is the capacity for intellectual apprehension in gen eral, the use that is to be made of it will consist in this, that man, by its help, intellectually apprehends the truths of The ology, and accepts from it the means of refuting opponents. In so far, however, as it also conveys knowledge, one may also employ it in the demonstration of a divine truth ; in such a case, Reason would contribute whatever of natural knowledge it has acquired. And just in the same proportion as Reason has suffered itself to be enlightened by divine Revelation, will it be able to demonstrate the harmony of divine truth with natural knowledge. [12]
[1] CAL. (I, 358): "Human Reason denotes two things. On the one hand, it designates the intellect of man, that faculty of the rational soul that must be exercised in every kind of knowledge, since it is only by the reason or intellect that man can under stand." . . . HOLL. (69): "Without the use of reason we can not understand or prove theological doctrines, or defend them against the artful objections of opponents. Surely not to brutes, but to men using their sound reason, has God revealed the knowledge of eternal salvation in His Word, and upon them He has imposed the earnest injunction to read, hear, and meditate upon His Word. The intellect is therefore required, as the receiving subject or appre hending instrument. As we can see nothing without eyes, and hear nothing without ears, so we understand nothing without reason. ' '
PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY. 31
[2] CAL. (ibid.): "On the other hand, Reason denotes Phil osophy itself, or the principles known from nature, and the discus sion or ratiocination based upon these known principles." These principles are divided "into organic and philosophical (strictly so called). The former (organic) relate to the mediate disciplines, grammar, rhetoric, and logic."— (QuEN. (I, 39): "These are to be employed in Theology, as the means of becoming acquainted with Theology, since without them, neither the sense nor significance of the words can be derived, nor the figures and modes of speech be properly weighed, nor the connection and consequences be per ceived, nor discussions be instituted"). The latter (the philo sophical) are again divided into "philosophical principles absolutely and unrestrictedly universal (general or transcendental), which con sist of a combination of terms essential and simply necessary, so that they cannot be overthrown by any argument, not even by the Scriptures; e. g., 'It is impossible for anything to be and not to be at the same time;' " and " philosophical principles restrictedly uni versal (special or particular), which are indeed true, to a certain extent, hypothetically, or so far as mere natural knowledge extends, but which, nevertheless, admit of limitation, and which may be invalidated by counter evidence drawn from revelation, if not from nature; e. g., 'As many as are the persons, so many are the essences,' etc." HOLL. (68). Through these philosophical sources we can also gain a knowledge of God, for there is a natural knowl edge of God, described elsewhere by the Theologians under the heads of the innate, and the acquired knowledge of God.
[3] CAL. (II, 47): "Of the natural knowledge of God there is predicated, as to those things that are revealed in nature, imperfec tion; and as to the supernatural mysteries of faith, entire worthless- ness [nullitas].
[4] HOLL. (69): "Meanwhile, nevertheless, human reason is not a fountain, or primordial element, from which the peculiar and fundamental principles of faith are derived."
[5] FLACIUS, with his assertion, that "the knowledge of God, naturally implanted, is a light full of error, fallacious and decep tive," and subsequently, Daniel Hofmann ("Philosophy is hostile to Theology; what is true in Philosophy is false in Theology "), gave especial occasion to dispute the antagonism between Reason and Revelation.
CAL. (I, 68): "That Philosophy is not opposed to Theology, and is by no means to be rejected as brutish, terrene, impure, diabolical, we thus demonstrate: 1. Because the true agrees with the true, and does not antagonize it. But what is known by the
32 INTRODUCTION.
light of nature is no less true than what is revealed in Scripture; 2. Because natural and philosophical knowledge has its origin from God; 3. Because Philosophy leads us to the knowledge of God."
As this antagonism was still asserted, the Theologians endeavored to prove it to be only apparent. CAL. (I, 74): "We must distin guish between a real and an apparent contradiction. The maxims of Philosophy and the conclusions of Theology do not really con tradict each other, but only appear to do so; for they either do not discuss the same subject, or they do not describe the same condi tion, mode, or relation of it; as when the philosopher says that the essence is multiplied with the multiplication of persons, he declares this of finite and created persons, not of divine, of which he knows nothing; concerning the latter, the theologian teaches that this is not true. When the philosopher says, ' Of nothing, nothing comes,' i. e. , by way of generation, he does not contradict the theologian, who teaches that by the way of creation something does come from nothing. Let Philosophy remain within the limits of its own sphere, then it will not contradict Theology, for this treats of a different subject. But it is not wonderful that those who con found Philosophy with Theology should find contradictions be tween them, for they pervert both." QUEN. (I, 43): "We must distinguish between contrariety and diversity. Philosophy and the principles of Reason are not indeed contrary to Theology, nor the latter to the former; but there is a very great difference be tween those things that are divinely revealed in Scripture and those which are known by the light of nature." — As the Theolo gians here opposed those who asserted a contradiction between Reason and Revelation, they also controverted those who claimed too much for Reason, as over against Revelation, by maintaining that, because Reason came from God, that which opposes it cannot be true. This charge was brought against the Calvinists, Socin- ians, and Arminians. It was admitted, in opposition to them, that Reason in itself does not contradict Revelation; an inference, however, which might have become derogatory to divine truth, was obviated by explaining any seeming contradiction on the ground that Reason, in such a case, had overstepped its proper limits. To the proposition : "In nowise can that be true which is repugnant to reason," GRH. (II, 371) replies: "Not human Reason, but divine Revelation, is the source of faith, nor are we to judge concerning the articles of faith according to the dictation of Reason, otherwise we should have no articles of faith, but only decisions of Reason. The cogitations and utterances of Reason are to be restricted and restrained within the sphere of those things
PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY. 33
which are subject to the decision of Reason, and not to be extended to the sphere of those things which are placed entirely beyond the reach of Reason; otherwise, if they should be received as absolutely universal, and are found opposed to the mysteries of the faith, there arise oppositions of science falsely so called. To the objec tion : " As a smaller light to a greater, so Reason is not contrary to Scripture," GRH. (II, 372) answers: "This contrariety is not necessary, but accidental. Reason restricted to its proper sphere is not contrary to Scripture, but when it attempts to overleap and surpass this, and to pass judgment upon the highest mysteries of the faith by the aid of its own principles, then, by accident, it comes in conflict with Scripture which informs us in regard to the mysteries of faith. Just as the stronger light often reveals those things which were hidden in the weaker, so the light of grace, en kindled for us in the Word, makes manifest those things which were hidden in the light of nature. Just as any one, therefore, who would deny those things which are visible in the greater light because he had not seen them in the smaller, would fail to ap preciate the design and benefit of the smaller, so also he who denies or impugns the mysteries of faith revealed in the light of grace, on the ground that they are incongruous with Reason and the light of nature, fails, at the same time, to make a proper use of the office and benefits of Reason and the light of nature. ' ' To the proposition: "What is true theologically cannot be false philosophically, for truth is one," GRH. (ibid.) answers: "In themselves considered, there is no contrariety, no contradiction between Philosophy and Theology, because whatever things con cerning the deepest mystery of the faith Theology propounds from Revelation, these a wiser and sincere Philosophy knows are not to be discussed and estimated according to the principles of Reason, lest there be a confusion of what pertains to entirely distinct de partments. So when Theology teaches that Mary brought forth and yet remained a virgin, a truly sensible Philosophy does not say this assertion is contrary to its conclusion, that it is impossible for a virgin to bear a child, because it knows that that conclusion must necessarily be received with this limitation, that for a virgin to bring forth a child naturally and yet remain a virgin, is impos sible. Nor does Theology assert the contrary of this, for it says, by supernatural and divine power it came to pass that a virgin brought forth a child. But when some philosophizer attempts to make his axioms and assertions so general that the highest mysteries of the faith are to be adjudged by them, and so invades other spheres, then it comes to pass, by way of accident, that what is true theo- 3
34 INTRODUCTION.
logically is pronounced false philosophically; i. e., not according to the proper use of a sound Philosophy, but according to the miserable abuse of it. Thus, justice and the nature of law is everywhere the same, i. e. , in its general conception, while, never theless, the law of this province is not the same as that of other provinces, but each government lives under its own special laws. So truth is one in its general conception, while each branch has. its own axioms which are not to be dragged before another tribunal, but to be left in their own sphere. ' '
[6] GRH. (II, 372): "Sound reason is not opposed to the faith, if we accept as such that which is truly and properly so- called, namely that which does not transcend the limits of its sphere, and does not arrogate to itself decisions in regard to the mysteries of faith; or which, enlightened by the Word, and sancti fied by the Holy Spirit, does not follow its own principles in the investigation of the mysteries of faith, but the light of the Word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit,"
[7] GRH. (II, 372): "The articles of faith are not in and of themselves contrary to Reason, but only above Reason. It may happen, by accident, that they be contrary to Reason, namely, when Reason assumes to decide concerning them upon its own principles, and does not follow the light of the Word, but denies and assails them. Hence the articles of faith are not contrary to, but merely above Reason, since Reason before the Fall was not yet corrupt and depraved; but since the Fall they are not only above but also contrary to corrupt Reason, for this, in so far as it is thus corrupt, cannot control itself, much less should it wish to judge articles of faith by its own principles. ' '
[8] GRH. (II, 371): "We must distinguish between Reason in man before and since the Fall. The former, as such, was never op posed to divine Revelation; the latter was very frequently thus opposed through the influence of corruption." GRH. (II, 362): "Natural human Reason since the Fall CD is blind, darkened by the mist of error, inwrapped in the shades of ignorance, exposed to vanity and error, Rom. 1: 21 ; 1 Cor. 3: 1; Gal. 4: 8; Eph. 4: 17; (2) unskilled in perceiving divine mysteries and judging concern ing them, Matt. 11: 27; 16: 17; 1 Cor. 2: 14 sq.; (3) opposed to them, Rom. 8: 6 ; 1 Cor. 2: 11 sq. ; 3: 18 sq. ; hence to be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10: 4, 5; (4) and we are commanded to beware of its seduction, Col. 2: 8. Therefore natural human Reason cannot be a rule for judging in matters of faith, and any one pronouncing according to its dictation cannot be a judge in theological controversies." QUEX. (I, 43):
REASON BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 35
" We must distinguish between Philosophy (i. e., Reason) consid ered abstractly and in mew of its essence, and Philosophy considered concretely and in view of its existence in a subject corrupted by sin: viewed in the former light, it is never opposed to divine truth (for the truth is ever presented as uniform and in harmony with the nature of the objects successively subordinated to it), but viewed in the latter light, in consequence of the ignorance of the intellect and the perversion of the will, it is often preposterously applied by the philosopher to the purposes of perversion and hollow deception. Col. 2: 8."
[9] GRH. (II, 371) : "We are to make a distinction between the reason of man unregenerate and regenerate. The former counts the mysteries of faith foolishness, but the latter, in so far as it is such, does not object to them. Then only, and only so long, is it regen erate as it follows the light of the Word, and judges concerning the mysteries of the faith, not by its own principles, but by the Scrip tures. We do not reject Reason when regenerated, renewed, illu minated by the Word of God, restrained and brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ; this does not draw its opinions, in mat ters of faith, from its own sources, but from Scripture; this does not impugn the articles of belief as does Reason when corrupt, left to itself, etc. We must distinguish also between Reason partially rectified in this life, and that which is fully rectified in the life to come. The former is not yet so completely renewed, illuminated, and rectified that it would be impossible for it to oppose the articles of faith and impugn them, if it should follow its own guidance. Just as there remains in the regenerate a struggle between the flesh and the spirit, by which they are tempted to sin, so there remains in them a struggle between faith and Reason, in so far as it is not yet fully renewed; this, however, excludes all opposition between faith and Reason."
[10] QUEN. (I, 43): "Reason is admissible as an instrument, but not as a rule and a judge: the formal principles of Reason no. one rejects; its material principles, which constitute its rule for judging of mysteries, no wise man accepts. No material principle of Reason, as such, but only as it is at the same time a part of Revelation, produces faith theologically : that God is, we know from nature; we believe it, however, only through the Scriptures. It does not follow, because some parts of Scripture are axioms known by nature, that therefore Reason is the regulator of theological con troversies." Id. (I, 43): "Theology does not condemn the use of Reason, but its abuse and its affectation of directorship, or its mag isterial use, as normative and decisive in divine things. ' '
36 INTRODUCTION.
[11] HOLL. (71): "Reason is not a leader, but an humble fol lower, of Theology. Hagar serves as the handmaid of her mistress, she does not command; when she affects to command she is ban ished from the sacred home. ' '
[12] QUEN. (I, 42): "A distinction must be made between the organic or instrumental use of Reason and its principles, when they are employed as instruments for the interpretation and exposition of the Holy Scriptures, in refuting the arguments of opponents, drawn from Nature and Reason, and discussing the signification and construction of words, and rhetorical figures and modes of speech; and the normal use of philosophical principles, when they are re garded as principles by which supernatural doctrines are to be tested. The former we admit, the latter we repudiate. ' ' The fol lowing from QUEN. explains and expands this idea: "It is one thing to employ in Theology the principles and axioms of Philos ophy for the purpose of illustration, explanation, and as a second ary proof, when a matter is decided by the Scriptures; and another to employ them for the purpose of deciding and demonstrating, or to recognize philosophical principles, or the argumentation based upon them, as authoritative in Theology, or by means of them to decide matters of faith. The former we do, the latter we do not. There must be a distinction made between consequences deduced by the aid of reason from the Holy Scriptures, and con clusions collected from the sources of nature and reason. The for mer must not be confounded with the latter. For it is one thing to use legitimate, necessary consequences, and another to use the principles of Reason. It is one thing to draw a conclusion and deduce consequences from the declarations of Scripture, according to logical rules, and another to collect consequences from natural principles. A sort of illustration of heavenly matters can be sought for among those things which Reason supplies, but a demonstration can never be obtained from that source, since it is necessary that . this should proceed from the same sphere to which the truth which is to be proved belongs, and not from a foreign one. ' '
This doctrine of the use of reason GRH. develops in a manner somewhat different, although substantially the same, as follows, under the topic, "The Use of Reason in the Rule of Faith." (I, 76, sq. ): (1) The organic use is the following: When our reason brings with it, to the work of drawing out the treasures of divine wisdom hidden in the Scriptures, knowledge of the gram matical force of words, logical observance of order, rhetorical elu cidation of figures and acquaintance with the facts of nature, derived from the philosophical branches. This use we greatly
USE AND ABUSE OF REASON. 37
commend, yea, we even declare it to be necessary. (2) As to the edificative use of Reason, it is to be thus maintained: There is a cer tain natural knowledge of God, Rom. 1 : 19, 20, but this should be subordinate to that which is divinely revealed in the Word; so that, where there is a disagreement, the former should yield to the latter; and where they agree, the former confirms and strengthens the latter. In short, as a servant it should, with all due reverence, minister to the latter. (3) The destructive use, when legitimate, is the following: Errors in doctrine are first to be confuted by argu ments drawn from the Holy Scriptures, as the only and proper source of Theology, but afterwards philosophical reasons may be added, so that it may be shown that the false dogma is repugnant, not only to the light of grace, but also to the light of Nature. But wrhen the truth of any doctrine has been clearly proved by unan swerable scriptural arguments, we should never allow our con fidence in it to be shaken by any philosophical reasons, however specious they may be. ' '
Id. (II, 9): "Although some things are taught in Theology, which can be learned in some measure by the light of Nature and Reason, yet human Reason cannot undertake to become thoroughly acquainted with the mysteries of faith, properly so called, by means of its own powers; and as to such things as, already known from Nature, are taught in Theology, it need not seek for proof elsewhere than in their own proper source, the Word of God, which is abun dantly able to prove them. ... In this latter manner the Theolo gian becomes indebted, for some things, to the philosopher; not, indeed, as though he were not able to know them without the aid of philosophical principles, from Scripture, as the proper and native source of his own science, but because, in the course of the investigation, he perceives the truth of the proposition according to the principles of philosophy."
That to which GRH. here merely alludes, the later Theologians, such as QUEN., BR., and HOLL., develop at greater length when treating of the pure and mixed articles ; by the former of which are understood those which contain truths that can be known only by Revelation, by the latter such as contain truths which may, at least in part, be othenvise known. HOLL. (68): " Mixed articles of faith may, in some measure, be knowrn by the principles of Phil osophy. But the pure articles of faith can be learned and proved only from Holy Scripture as the appropriate, fundamental, and original source." But the remark of QUEN. is well worthy of attention, that (I, 39) "in the mixed articles we grant that philo sophical principles may be employed; not, indeed, for the purpose
38 INTRODUCTION.
of decision or demonstration, but merely for illustration, or as a sort of secondary proof of that which has already been decided by the Scriptures." And here belongs also the statement of QUEN., concerning the formal and material principles of Reason, already quoted in the tenth note. This statement of QUEN. conveys the same idea as the last, quoted from GRH. , and is designed to prevent the assignment of the right of decision in the mixed articles to Reason, although it is to have something to do with them. Those Theologians who observe the distinction, described in note second, between organic and philosophical principles, admit also the use of the absolutely universal principles in Theology. It may be ques tioned, however, whether these are so accurately distinguished from the restrictedly universal principles which are not admissil >le, that mistakes may not easily arise. In regard to this BR. (157) thus expresses himself: "The material principles of Reason are also with propriety employed; however, when they are particular or specific, they are subordinated to the universal principle of The ology; but the universal principles of Reason may be employed only when they are absolutely necessary, namely, when the demon stration of the opposite would imply a contradiction. For other wise, if the principles of Reason were employed, not absolutely, but relatively, or, so to speak, universally and necessarily, it might easily happen that a conclusion would be reached repugnant to the mysteries or to the articles of faith, even to those of fundamental importance. ' '
CHAPTER IV. OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
TN treating of the Holy Scriptures as the recorded revelation -•- of God, we speak 1, of what is understood by the Holy Scriptures and Inspiration ; 2, of the Attributes of the Holy Scriptures ; 3, of the Canon.
§ 6. Of the terms, Holy Scriptures and Inspiration.
God determined that His revelation should be committed to
writing, so that it might be preserved pure and uncorrupted
throughout all future time; [1] therefore He has deposited it
in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. [2]
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ARE THE WORD OF GOD. 39
These are, therefore, defined to be the written Word of God. [3] GRH. : " The Holy Scripture is the Word of God recorded in the Holy Scriptures." Between these and the Word of God, there is, then, no real distinction, inasmuch as they con tain nothing more than this very Word of God, which was also orally proclaimed ; [4] and they contain it entire and complete, so that, aside from them, no Word of God is any where to be found. [5] By being the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures are distinguished from all other books, for, in con sequence of this, they are, in respect of all their contents, en tirely divine ; and this by virtue of the fact that they were communicated by inspiration from God to the prophets and apostles. [6] God is therefore their author (causa principalis), and the prophets and apostles only the instruments (causa in- strumcntalis) which God employed in their production. [7] We are, therefore, to ascribe the origin of the Holy Scriptures to a peculiar agency of God, by means of which He impelled the prophets and apostles to the production of the Holy Scrip tures, [8] and communicated to them both the matter and the form' of that which was to be written. [9] This agency of God, by means of which the Holy Scriptures were produced, we call Inspiration. [10] Bit.: "Divine inspiration was that agency by which God supernatu rally communicated to the in tellect of those who wrote, not only the correct conception of all that was to be written, but also the conception of the words themselves and of everything by which they were to be ex pressed, and by which He also instigated their will to the act of writing." Hence it follows, that everything that is con tained in the Holy Scriptures is altogether, and in every par ticular, true and free from all error. [11]
[1] CHMN. (Exam. Cone. Trid. I, 20): "We show . . . . why and wherefore the Holy Scriptures were written; because, viz., by tradition purity of doctrine was not preserved; but, under shelter of that term, many strange and false things were mingled with the
true."
GRH. (II, 26) : '" Why did God desire His Word, at first orally promulgated, to be committed to writing?' The principal causes appear to have been the following: 1. The shortness of human life. 2. The great number of men. 3. The unfaithfulness to be
40 INTRODUCTION.
expected from the guardianship of tradition. 4. The weakness of human memory. 5. The stability of heavenly truth, Luke 1: 4. 6. The wickedness of man. 7. In the New Testament, the per- verseness of heretics, which was to be held in check. ' '
[2] GRH. (II, 13): "The Scriptures have their designation from the formal, external act, viz., that of writing, by which the Word of God, at first orally promulgated, was, by the command of God, recorded. God himself made the grand and majestic begin ning of this work when He inscribed His law on Mount Sinai, upon tablets of stone, which, on this account, are called ' the writing of God.' Ex. 32: 16. To distinguish them from all other writings, they are called the Holy Scriptures, an appellation derived from Rom. 1: 2 and 2 Tim. 3: 15. The reasons of this designation are drawn, 1. From their original efficient cause, their Great Author, who is God most holy, yea holiness itself, Is. 6:3; Dan. 9: 24.
2. From their instrumental cause, viz., holy men, 2 Pet, 1: 21.
3. From their matter, for they contain holy and divine mysteries, precepts for holy living, Ps. 105 : 42. 4. From their design and effects, for the Holy Spirit sanctifies men through the reading and study of the Scriptures, John 17: 17. 5. From the additional cir cumstance that they are widely different from all other writings, both ecclesiastical and profane, inasmuch as they are clothed with the sublime attribute of canonical authority, to which every believ ing and godly mind pays due deference. ' '
Terms synonymous with Holy Scripture are (Id. II, 16): ypn^fi or •)'pa<t>di, John 7: 38 and 42; Acts 8: 12; Rom. 4:3; ypaqbi ayiai, Rom. 1:2; iepa -ypd^ara, 2 Tim. 3: 15; ypa<j>i} deoTrvevaTos, v. 16. Titles of honor which are attributed to the Word of God in Scripture, are the following: miT "D"! My«* rofr few. Rom. 3: 2; C"" 6 Uyos rovdeov, Heb. 4: 12; p^uara TW C<^r aiuviov, John 6: 68. The whole collection is termed rnifini^p Josh. 1:8; HVT 1g)p Is. 34: 16; N"p:D Neh. 8: 8.
[3] GRH. (II, 427) : "The Holy Scriptures are the Word of God reduced to writing, according to His will, by the prophets, evange lists, and apostles, perfectly and perspicuously setting forth the doctrine of the nature and will of God, that men may thereby be brought unto eternal life. ' '
HOLL. (77) : "In the definition of the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God signifies formally the purpose of God, or the conception of the divine mind, revealed for the salvation of men immediately to the prophets and apostles, and mediately, through their ministra tions, to the whole race of man."
For the sake of the greatest possible accuracy, the following dis-
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ARE THE WORD OF GOD. 41
tinctions are made. GRH. (II, 14): "By the term Scripture, we are not to understand so much the external /orm, or sign, i. e., the particular letters employed, the art of writing and the expressions by which the divine revelation is described, as the matter itself or the thing signified, just that which is marked and represented by the writing, viz. , the Word of God itself, which instructs us concerning the nature and will of God. For, as in all writing, performed by an intelligent agent, so also in these prophetic and apostolic writ ings, two things are to be considered, viz. , in the first place, the letters, syllables, and sentences which are written, and which are external symbols signifying and expressing conceptions of the mind; and, secondly, those conceptions themselves, which are the thing signified, expressed by these external symbols of letters, syl lables, and sentences; wherefore in the term Scriptures we embrace both of these, and the latter especially. ' ' According as the term is taken in one or the other of these significations, the relation of the Church to the Scriptures is differently expressed. GRH. (II, 15): ' ' Whence we add, by way of corollary, that certain things are predicated of Scripture, with reference to its matter, as that it is more ancient than the Church, that it is the very Word of God itself, formerly preached orally by the apostles and prophets; and others in reference to its form, as that it is, in point of time, later than the Church, that at the last day it will perish, while, on the other hand, as to its matter, it can never be destroyed or perish, John 10: 35."
[4] GRH. (II, 15) : "That there is no real difference between the Word of God and the Holy Scriptures, viewed in reference to the matter contained in them, is proved, 1. By the subject-matter of Scripture. The prophets and apostles wrote that, and nothing else than that, which, taught by divine inspiration, they had before preached orally, 1 Cor. 15: 1; 2 Cor. 1: 13; Phil. 3: 1; 2 Thess. 2: 15; 1 John 1:3. 2. By the identity of the spoken and written Word. Because the recorded predictions of the Old Testament are frequently quoted in the New, with these words : ' That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,' Matt. 1: 22, 2: 15, 4: 14, etc. Therefore, what the prophets said or predicted, is the same as that which they wrote. 3. By the rule of logic: 'The accident does not alter the essence. ' It is a mere circumstance in regard to the Word of God, whether it be proclaimed orally or com mitted to writing. It is one and the same Word of God, whether it be presented to us in the form of spoken or of written lan guage; since neither the original efficient cause, nor the matter, nor the internal form, nor the object, is thereby changed, but only the
42 INTRODUCTION.
mode of presentation by the use of different organs. 4. By the demonstrative particle employed by the apostles. Paul speaks thus distinctively of the Mosaic writings and the other like books of th,' Old and New Testament: l TOVT' ton TO jriifui rift irioreoe,' 'this is the word of faith,' Rom. 10: 8; Peter, in 1 Pet, 1: 25."
CAL. (I, 528): "The fanatical sects, especially, deny that the Scriptures are, strictly speaking, the Word of God, maintaining that the internal Word of God alone can properly be called the Word of God." (Schwenckfeld, Rathmann, Weigel.)*
[5] GKH (II, 16): 1. " This distinction of the Papists between the Avritten and unwritten Word may, in a certain sense, be admit ted, viz., if by the term ' unwritten Word ' be understood the divine revelation prpclaimed orally by the patriarchs before the Mosaic; books were written, but after the publication of the Scripture Canon, there can be no unwritten Word of God, «.s distinct from Scripture."
2. " We must distinguish between the leading truths of divine revelation which are necessary, essential, etc. , and their more full explanation. The prophets and apostles committed to writing the principal doctrines of revelation, which are necessary to be known by all, and which we do not deny that they explained orally at greater length. ' '
[6] QUEN. (I, 56): "The internal form, or that which gives existence to the Scriptures, so that they are indeed the Word of God, that, namely, which constitutes them and distinguishes them from all other writings, is the inspired sense of Scripture, which, in general, is the conception of the divine intellect concerning divine mysteries and our salvation, formed from eternity, and re vealed in time and communicated in writing to us; or it is divine inspiration itself, 2 Tim. 3: 16, by which, namely, it is constituted a divine, and is distinguished from a human word."
[7] QUEN. (1,55): " The efficient or principal cause of Scripture is the triune God, 2 Tim. 3: 16 (the Father, Heb. 1:1; the Son, John 1: 18, and the Holy Spirit, 2 Sam. 23: 2; 1 Pet. 1: 11; 2 Pet. 1: 21); 1. By an original decree. 2. By subsequent inspira tion, or by ordering that holy men of God should write, and by inspiring what was to be written."
GRH. (II, 26): "The instrumental causes of Holy Scripture were holy men of God, 2 Pet. 1: 21, i. e., men peculiarly and im mediately elected and called by God for the purpose of committing to writing the divine revelations; such were the prophets of the Old Testament and the evangelists and apostles of the New Testa-
* Ample quotations from Schwenckfeld and Weigel in GRH. xiii: 69 sqq. ; for fUthmann, see WATCH'S Streitigkeiten innerhalb d. Luth. Kirche, iv: 577 sqq.
INSPIRATION. 43
ment ; whom, therefore, we properly call the amanuenses of God, the hand of Christ, and the scribes or notaries of the Holy Spirit, since they neither spoke nor wrote by their own human will, but, borne along by the Holy Spirit ^tp6pEvot into rov nvEVfiaro^ ayiov), were acted upon, led, driven, inspired, and governed by the Holy Spirit. They wrote not as men, but as men of God, /. e. , as servants of God and peculiar organs of the Holy Spirit. When, therefore, a canonical book is called a book of Moses, the psalms of David, an epistle of Paul, etc., this is merely a reference to the agent, not to the principal cause."
QUEN. (I, 55): "God, therefore, alone, if we wish to speak accurately, is to be called the author of the Sacred Scriptures; the prophets and apostles cannot be called the authors, except by a kind of catachresis. ' ' To the remark that prophets and apostles may be called the amanuenses of God, QUEN. (I: 52) adds: "And not as though these divine amanuenses wrote ignorantly and unwill ingly, beyond the reach of and contrary to their own will; for they wrote cheerfully, willingly and intelligently. They are said to be Qepoptvoi, driven, moved, urged on by the Holy Spirit, not as though they were in a state of unconsciousness, as the Enthusiasts pre tended to be, and as the heathen feigned that there was a certain Ei^ovotaaub- in their soothsayers; nor, further, by any means, as though the prophets themselves did not understand their own prophecies or the things which they wrote, which was formerly .... the error of the Montanists; but, because they wrote noth ing of their own accord, but everything at the dictation of the Holy Spirit." Inasmuch as it holds good of all the sacred writers, that they are inspired, those are also accounted such who were not, in the strictest sense, apostles. HOLL. (80): " By the name apostles we here designate those holy men of God, who, after the birth of Christ, wrote the Scriptures of the New Testament; although they did not all belong to the college of the apostles, chosen by Christ, before His ascension, to teach all nations; but who, after Christ's ascension, were numbered with the apostles; such were Matthias (whose writings, however, we do not possess) and Paul. But also those; apostolic men, nearest to the apostles in office and dignity, are called apostles in a wider sense; such are Mark and Luke, the evangelists, cf. Rom. 16: 7."
[8] HOLL. (83): "Inspiration denotes as well the antecedent divine instigation or peculiar impulse of the will to engage in writing, as the immediate illumination by which the mind of the sacred writer is fully enlightened through the supernatural illumination of divine grace, and the conceptions of the things to be written art
44 INTRODUCTION.
themselves suggested immediately by the Holy Spirit. ' ' The co-operation which here takes place on the part of God is described by QUEN. (I, 65) as "a most special and extraordinary concurrence, peculiar to the sacred writers," and to be carefully distinguished from "the general and common concurrence of God, by virtue of which He is present to all believers sincerely meditating upon, and writing about, sacred things." HOLL. (83) distinguishes between inspira tion and the divine governance. i ' For the latter merely guards against anything being written that is not true, becoming, con gruous; whereas the former, through the Holy Spirit dictating, suggests the conception of the things to be written. The divine governance would warrant the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures, but not their inspiration. ' ' If the impulse to engage in writing be embraced under the term inspiration, then it follows that all the Holy Scriptures were written by the command of God, because all are inspired. QUEN. (I, 65): "All the canonical books, of both the Old and New Testaments, were written by God, who peculiarly incited and impelled the sacred writers to engage in the work, and, therefore, the Scriptures of the New Testament were recorded according to the command and will of God by the evangelists and apostles. ' '
The opposite view is that held by the Papists, who foolishly assert that the evangelists and apostles did not write by any divine command, but were incidentally urged by some accidental circum stance originating elsewhere, or by necessity. It is, indeed, granted that we do not possess the proof of an express and outward com mand of God in the case of each of the sacred writings, but it is at the same time observed that the want of this is not felt where the impulse exists. GRH. (II, 30): " In the holy men of God, the ex ternal command and the internal impulse correspond to each other. For what else is that divine impulse than an internal and secret command of precisely the same authority and weight with one that is external and manifest?" The latter is proved (by HOLL. (81), but also in the same manner by all the earlier writers) to have ex isted in the case of all the books of Scripture: "1. By the general command of Christ, Matt. 28 : 19. (GRH. (II, 31): Those who were commanded to teach all nations, were also commanded to re duce their teachings to writing; for they could not teach all nations, even of the succeeding age, orally and without writing. ) 2. By the impulse of the Holy Spirit, which Peter teaches, 2 Pet. 1 : 21. 3. By the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, wrhich Paul inculcates, 2 Tim. 3 : 16. 4. By the apostolic office, in which these holy men became the ambassadors of God, 2 Cor. 5 : 20. Ambas-
INSPIRATION. 45
sadors are restricted by the commands of their sovereign. Peter, as an ambassador of God, did not undertake to preach to the Gen tiles without a divine command; therefore still less would he dare to write an epistle unless commanded by God. ' ' That, however, the external instigations alluded to in the antithesis of the Papists are not excluded, GRH. (II, 33) had already stated: "The induce ments to engage in writing brought to bear upon the apostles from without, do not annul the internal command, but rather confirm it, since those circumstances were made to influence the apostles by the won derful arrangement of divine Providence, and to them was subsequently added the interior impulse of the Holy Spirit, urged on by which they applied their hand to the work. ' '
[9] Hereby an inspiration both of subject-matter and of the words is asserted, from which it follows that there is absolutely noth ing in the Holy Scriptures that is not inspired. These assertions are contained in the following two sentences (of HOLL., 83 and 85) :
' ' I. The conceptions of all that is contained in the Holy Scrip tures were immediately communicated by the Holy Spirit to the prophets and apostles.
'.' II. All the words, without exception, contained in the Holy Manuscript, were dictated by the Holy Spirit to the pen of the prophets and apostles."
These two sentences we illustrate by the following remarks of QUEN. and HOLL. In reference to No. I: 1. "In inspiration, we recognize a divine assistance and direction, which includes the in spiration and dictation of the Holy Spirit; but we deny as insuffi cient such a bare divine assistance and direction as would simply prevent the sacred writers from departing from the truth in speak ing and writing. . . . The Holy Spirit guides others also in writ ing, i. e. , so that we observe here a difference in this respect, that the Holy Spirit so directed the inspired men, that He at the same time suggested and communicated all things to them in so far as they are recorded in Scripture." — QUEN., I, 68.
2. Inspiration embraces all that is contained in Scripture, and therefore also those things which could have been otherwise known to the apostles and prophets, because in this case it was necessary that these things should be said just at the particular time when the design which God had in view required it, HOLL. (84) : "The things which were known to the sacred wrriters may be considered either absolutely and in themselves, or relatively, in so far as they were to be written by the purpose of God. In the former manner they were previously known by the sacred writers, but not in the latter. For, although the sacred amanuenses may have known
46 INTRODUCTION.
certain things, which are described, by them before the act of writ ing, yet it was not, in the nature of the case, known to them whether God desired these things to be described, or under what circumstance*, in what order, and with what words they should be committed to writing."
3. In like manner inspiration embraces things that are not of a spiritual nature. HOLL. (83): " There are contained in Scripture historical, chronological, genealogical, astronomical, natural-histor ical, and political matters, which, although the knowledge of them is not actually necessary to salvation, are nevertheless divinely re vealed, because an acquaintance with them assists not a little in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and in illustrating the doc trines and moral precepts. If only the mysteries of the faith, which are contained in the Holy Scriptures, depend upon divine inspiration, and all the rest, which may be known by the light of nature, depend merely upon the divine direction, then not all of Scripture is inspired. But Paul declares that the whole of Scrip ture is divinely inspired. Therefore not only the mysteries of the faith, but also the remaining truths that may be known by the light of nature, which are contained in Scripture, are divinely sug gested and inspired;" therefore,
4. Even apparently unimportant matters are, none the less, to be regarded as also inspired. QUEN. (I, 71): "A matter may be of small moment, considered in itself and with reference to the estimation in which it is held by men, and yet of great import ance if we regard the end and wise design which God has in view with regard to it. Many things in Scripture seem .to be of small account (2 Tim. 4 : 13), in regard to which some suppose that our theory of inspiration derogates from the dignity of the Holy Spirit; but they are, nevertheless, of great moment, if we regard the end had in view (Rom. 15 : 4) and the all-wise design of God, in ac cordance with which these things were introduced into the Scrip tures." CALIXTUS (in QUEN., I, 69) is a prominent advocate of the opposite view, viz. : " Neither is it taught in Scripture, that it is necessary to ascribe all the particulars that are contained in it to a peculiar divine revelation, but that the principal topics, those which the Scripture is mainly and peculiarly designed to teach, viz., those which relate to the redemption and salvation of the human race, are to be ascribed solely to that particular divine reve lation; while in writing concerning other things, known in some other way, either by experience or the light of nature, the writers were so directed by the divine assistance and by the Holy Spirit, that they wrote nothing but what was actual, true, becoming, and congruous." The proof of plenary inspiration is drawn 1. From
INSPIRATION. 47
2 Tim. 3 : 16. (QuEN. (I, 71): "The word ™aa may be taken distributively, of the single books or parts of Scripture, or collec tively for those parts taken as a whole, so that xaaa is the same as ox1.?; in either .case our opinion remains true, viz. , that all Scripture is inspired.") Whence the following argument of CAL. (I, 555): ' ' If all Scripture be inspired, then there can be nothing in the Holy Scriptures that was not divinely suggested and by inspiration com municated to those who wrote. For, if even a single particle of Scripture were derived from human knowledge and memory, or from human revelation, then it could not be asserted that all Scrip ture is divinely inspired." 2. From 2 Pet, 1 : 21 (although Peter does not allude particularly to writing, but speaking, . . . yet by '/.aUav both speaking and writing are here implied, and both are comprehended under this term, cf. Acts 2 : 31; 3 : 24; Rom. 3 : 19; for just as the holy men of God were incited and impelled by the Holy Spirit to speak, so were they also incited and impelled by Him to write). 3. By the promise of Christ, John 14 : 20. 4. From 1 Cor. 2 : 10. We add, from CAL. (I, 556), the following additional proofs: " From the originating cause of Scripture, if in deed the sacred writers were merely the pen, the hand, or the amanuenses of the Holy Spirit; from the nature of the direction of the Holy Spirit, which is usually described as such that the Scrip tures were written by His direction, wherefore Gregory the Great declared that the whole of the Holy Scriptures were nothing more nor less than a letter from God the Creator to man His creature; from the equal authority of all that is contained in Scripture. For not merely those things which directly refer to the subjects of faith and salvation are the Word of God, but everything that is found in Scripture, Rom. 3 : 2, and, for the same reason that they are called by this name, they well deserve to be regarded as the immediate Word of God."
In relation to No. II. , HOLL. (87): "The divine inspiration of the words known by common usage, was necessary to the proper expression of the mind of the Holy Spirit. For the prophets and apostles were not at liberty to clothe the divine meaning in such words as they might of their owrn accord select; but it was their duty to adhere to, and depend upon, the oral dictation of the Holy Spirit, so that they might commit the Holy Scriptures to writing, in the order and connection so graciously and excellently given, and in which they would appear in perfect accordance with the mind of the Holy Spirit," QUEN. (I, 76) thus accounts for the variety of style: "There is a great diversity among the sacred writers in regard to style and mode of speaking, which appears to
48 INTRODUCTION.
arise from the fact that the Holy Spirit accommodated Himself to the ordinary mode of speaking, leaving to each one his own man ner; yet we do not thereby deny that the Holy Spirit suggested the particular words to these individuals."
CAL., however (I, 574), remarks: "The Holy Spirit, Supreme Author of the Holy Scriptures, was not bound to the style of any one, but, as a perfectly free teacher of languages, could use, through any person soever, the character, style, and mode of speech that He chose, and could just as easily propose the divine oracles through Jeremiah in a highly ornate style, as through Isaiah in one of great simplicity. But He regarded not so much the ability of the writers to speak as the character of the subjects concerning which He wished them to speak; and, throughout the whole, He used His own authority (ain-efowfo) under the guidance of His unlimited wisdom. So that we need not wonder that the same Spirit employed diversities of style .... The cause of this di versity of style is the fact that the Holy Spirit gave to each one to speak as He pleased." Yet CAL. adds also: "Although the style of Scripture is plain and very well suited, not only to the genius of the readers and hearers, but also to the old and custom ary style of speech of the sacred writers, yet there may be recog nized in it a condencension, cvyKardpaai^ of the Holy Spirit; because He accommodated Himself sometimes to the ordinary method of speaking, leaving to the writers their own style of speech; but it must not be denied that the Holy Spirit breathed into them the words. " The inspiration of the Hebrew vowel-points was included in this theory; conf. GRH.'S argument ex absurdo (II, 272): "It would follow that the Scriptures were not communicated by God through the prophets, so far as the single words are concerned, since without the vowel-points the wrords cannot possibly exist; therefore not all Scripture is inspired." From the theory of verbal inspiration there arose also the assertion : ' ' The style of the New Testament is free from every trace of barbarism and from solecisms." (QuEN., I, 82. ) The proof of verbal inspiration was drawn, 1. From 2 Tim. 3: 16. (All Scripture is wholly inspired; not only its meaning, or the thing signified, but also the words, as signs of things, were divinely inspired. Therefore, etc., etc. (HoLL., 85.)) 2. From 1 Cor. 2: 13; Ex. 34: 27, 28; Matt. 5: 18.
[10] Inspiration is, therefore, a divine agency employed in con nection with the recording of the truth, and, in several respects, it differs from Revelation.
If we consider the latter as embracing the whole compass of Christian faith, it owes its very existence to inspiration. CAL. (I,
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 49
280) : " Divine inspiration may be regarded either as the source and efficient cause of revelation, in which sense it is an act of God as inspir ing, or as the form which revelation assumes, or the revealed Word. ' ' But if revelation be taken in its etymological sense, as the commu nication of that which was before unknown, then it differs from inspiration in the following respects: 1. The latter may contain also that which was before known, merely specifying the particular time and manner in which it is to be consummated, and, 2. The subject- matter of revelation may be communicated to man in various ways, but that of inspiration only by an immediate divine suggestion. QUEN. (I, 68): "Revelation, formally and etymologically viewed, is the manifestation of things unknown and hidden, and can be made in many and various ways, viz. , by outward speech, or by dreams and visions. Inspiration is that act of the Holy Spirit by which an actual knowledge of things is supernaturally conveyed to an intel ligent creature, or it is an internal suggestion or infusion of concep tions, whether the things conceived were previously known to the writer or not. The former could precede the commitment to writ ing; the latter was always associated with it and influenced the writing itself. ' ' Add to this the remarks : ' ' With all this I do not •deny that divine inspiration itself may be called revelation, in a certain sense; in so far, namely, as it is a manifestation of certain circumstances, as also of the order and manner in which certain things are to be written. (We must distinguish between divine revelation when by it the subject-matter itself is made known, and when it refers to the peculiar circumstances and time and manner and order in which the subject-matter is to be reduced to writing." (I, 72)) "And when, also, revelation concurs and coincides with divine inspiration, when, viz., the divine mysteries are revealed by inspiration and inspired by revelation, in the very act of writing. Thus CALOVIUS very properly remarks : ' That all the particulars contained in the Holy Scriptures are not, indeed, to be regarded as having been received by a peculiar and new revelation, but by the special dictation, inspiration, and suggestion of the Holy Spirit.' '
[11] HOLL. (88): "Divine inspiration, by which the subject- matter and the words to be spoken, as well as those to be written, were immediately suggested to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit, preserved them free from all error, as well in the preaching as in the writing of the divine Word. ' '
CAL. (I, 551): "No error, even in unimportant matters, no defect of memory, not to say untruth, can have any place in all the Holy Scriptures."
QUEN. (I, 80): " We are to distinguish between the conversation 4
50 INTRODUCTION.
of the apostles and their preaching and writing; or between infirmi ties in conduct and errors in doctrine. In doctrine the apostles never could err, after receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, . . . but in their conduct and outward conversation they were not sin less, but, in consequence of innate original corruption, were still subject to infirmities and failings."
The more accurate development of the doctrine of inspiration begins with GRH. HUT. (Loci Theologici (30)) still thus briefly expresses himself in regard to it: "Although God did not directly write the Scriptures, but used prophets and apostles as His pen and instrument, yet the Scripture is not, on that account, of any the less authority. For it is God, and indeed God alone, who inspired the prophets and apostles, not only as they spoke, but also as they wrote; and He made use of their lips, their tongues, their hands, their pen. Therefore, or in this respect, the Scriptures, as they are, were written by God Himself. For the prophets and apostles were merely instruments. " This contains, however, essen tially everything that we have adduced above from the later theo logians. It was mainly the controversy with the Roman Catholics that gave occasion for detailed specifications; for these very well knew that they would rob the Protestant Church of all its weapons, without thereby injuring themselves, if they could cast suspicion upon the true inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Such dis criminations were also called forth in part by the fanatics, who treated the written Word of God with little respect; partly by the Socinians and Arminians, who adhered to a merely partial inspira tion of the Scriptures. In opposition to these, it became of great importance to the Lutheran theologians to defend with all earnest ness the doctrine of the inspiration, not only of the matter, but of the very words.
§ 7. The Attributes of the Holy Scriptures.
If- the Holy Scriptures are really the Word of God, then it follows that we are bound to yield to them implicit faith and obedience. As they are the only source of truth, they must contain this entirely and so clearly that we can really learn it from them. And they are, finally, as the Word of God, the only means by which we can attain unto faith, and, therefore, must also be able to awaken this faith in us. We ascribe to them, therefore, the attributes of authority, perfection or suffi ciency, perspicuity and efficacy. [1]
AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 51
§8. (1.) Authority.
BR.: "The authority of the Holy Scriptures is the manifest dignity that inclines the human understanding to assent to their instructions, and the will to yield obedience to their commands." We believe what the Holy Scriptures declare, simply because they declare it, and it is they that beget faith in us, and they are the only source from which we derive our faith. They are, at the same time, the only inspired book, and by this they are distinguished from all other writings. It is therefore only from them that we can learn what is true in divine things ; and they furnish the means by which we can everywhere distinguish between truth and error. The author ity of Holy Scripture is, accordingly, divided into: "(a) Caus ative authority, by which the Scriptures create and confirm in the mind of man assent to the truths to be believed. (6) Nor mative or canonical authority, by which authentic Scripture is distinguished from other writings and versions, and that which is true from that which is false." [2] HOLL. (104.)
(a) Causative Authority. This rests upon the fact, that we acknowledge God as the author of the Holy Scriptures, [3] and this we prove by the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. [4] The proofs of inspiration are, it is true, derived in the first instance only from the Holy Scriptures themselves, and already presuppose faith in the Holy Scriptures themselves, on the part of those who admit them as evidence. But, for the Church and her members, there is no need of proof for the in spiration of Scripture, for her very existence depends upon this faith, and this faith precedes all proofs ; [5] without this no article of faith could be based upon the Holy Scriptures. [6] Therefore, the proof that the Holy Scriptures are in spired, or, what amounts to the same thing, that they are of divine origin, and consequently possess full authority in mat ters of faith, is required only for those who are yet without the Church, or who, if within her pale, are not confirmed in the faith. But it lies in the nature of the case, that no proof can be given to those, which they cannot, in an unbelieving frame of mind, evade ; for the only absolutely stringent proof lies in the fact, that the Holy Spirit bears witness in the heart of each individual, and thus convinces him of the divinity of
52 INTRODUCTION.
the Word of God, by the mighty influence which it exerts upon him ; [7] but that this may be the case, it is necessary that the individual do not resist the drawings of the Holy Spirit, and before this takes place the testimony of the Holy Spirit can have no probative power for him. [8] To this ex perience, therefore, the individual is referred, and through it alone will he attain to absolute certainty in regard to the di vinity of the Holy Scriptures. All other so-called proofs are rather to be considered as such evidences for the divinity of the Holy Scriptures as can make this probable to the individ ual, and invite him to give himself up to the influence of the Holy Spirit, in order to acquire for himself the same exper ience which the Church has gained. [9] Such evidences are of two kinds. The Holy Scriptures themselves testify in re gard to this divinity, by their internal excellence and dignity (npiTf/pia interna, internal proofs); and the effects which the Holy Scriptures have produced upon. others, testify also to the same <(itpiT4pia externa, external proofs). [10] These evidences the Church holds out to each individual, and seeks by their means to induce him to yield his heart to the influence of the Holy Spirit, who will produce in him the full conviction of the di vinity of the Holy Scriptures. [11]
(b) Normative or Canonical Authority. HOLL. (125): "The canonical authority of Scripture is its supreme dignity, by which, in virtue of its meaning, as well as of its divinely in spired style, it is the infallible and sufficient rule, by which all that is to be believed and done by man in order to secure eternal salvation, must be examined, all controversies in re gard to matters of faith decided, and all other writings ad judged." [12] Accordingly, we must acknowledge the Holy Scriptures as the only rule and guide of our life, by which alone all controversies in regard to divine things must be set tled, [13] so that in no case is the addition of any other au thority required, by which they may be decided. [14] But if the Holy Scriptures are thus the only judge of controversies, the question arises : How is this decision to be obtained from them? It lies in the nature of the case, that not every one can accomplish this with equal success, for certain previous conditions are required for this purpose, without which the
AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 53
Holy Scriptures cannot be understood and expounded ; and besides, necessary ecclesiastical order demands that, at least for the public investigation and announcement of the decisions contained in the Holy Scriptures, there should be a regular calling. Hence, it pre-eminently belongs to the Church pub licly to make known, by means of her representatives (the clergy), the decision discovered in the Holy Scriptures, in re ference to a contested point, [15] whence, however, it does not yet follow, that every private individual within the pale of the Church does not possess the right of private judgment. [16] If then, in any given case, the adjustment of a controversy be not attained, the fault lies not in the Holy Scriptures, but in the fact that the Holy Scriptures were not properly interpreted, or the proper interpretation was not adopted. [17] But, in every case, when such a controversy is to be decided, resort must be had to the original text of the Holy Scriptures ; for, although a good translation may enable us to secure the testi mony of the Holy Spirit, it is never so accurate, that we dare employ it in doubtful cases, in which often everything de pends upon the most accurate investigation of the single words of the original text. [18]
[1] The attributes are variously enumerated by the early divines. CAL. and QUEN. add to those we have mentioned, infallible truth, the power of interpreting itself, normative and judicial authority, which are again by others incorporated in those we have mentioned.
Some theologians also add the following as secondary attributes : (1) " Necessity ; or, that it was necessary for the Word of God to be committed to writing, in order to preserve the purity of the heavenly doctrine. (2) Integrity and perpetuity ; or, that the Holy Scriptures have been preserved entire, and will be thus perpetually preserved. (3) Purity and imcorrupted state of its sources; or, that the Hebrew text in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, have not suffered, in all copies, any corruption, either through malice or carelessness, but have been preserved by Divine Provi dence, free from all corruption. (4) Authentic dignity ; or, that the Hebrew text alone of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, is to be regarded as authentic, nor is any version to be counted worthy of such supreme authority. (5) The liberty of all to read for themselves." — CAL., I, 450.
[2] BR. (82): "The authority of Scripture, so far as it regards
54 INTRODUCTION.
the assent that is to be yielded to its declarations, may be viewed in a two-fold light: first, in a strict sense, in order to cause assent to the things that are to be believed, which right the Scriptures hold because they are the source of knowledge and the formal object of faith and revealed theology; secondly, in order to distinguish by the inspired Scriptures themselves, both the true Scriptures and those other teachings, which relate to matters of faith and practice; and this right they hold, inasmuch as they are canonical, or the rule and guide whereby to distinguish truth from falsehood. . . . For, although the author ity of Scripture is one and the same, based upon the veracity of God and the dependence of the Scriptures upon God, through which it is appointed, both in a formal sense to produce faith and in a normal sense to examine and decide between certain Scriptures and other teachings; and as, further, the Scriptures are to be em ployed somewhat differently for the formal purpose of causing assent to the faith, and for the normal purpose of distinguishing truth from falsehood; thus, also, we must by all means treat dis tinctly of both these methods in discussing the authority of Scrip ture." HOLL. (105): "In the former method, they (the Holy Scriptures) are employed in every language for producing faith in the mind of an unbelieving man, and for confirming it in the mind of a believer; in which respect this authority is called causative or promotive of faith; in the latter method, they are employed only in the original text, to distinguish from the actually inspired Scrip ture the versions of the Hebrew and Greek originals, the Symbolical Books, and all writings that treat of matters of faith and practice. ' '
[3] BR. (80): "The authority of Scripture, viewed in itself and absolutely, or with reference to its contents, depends upon God, the sole Author of Scripture, and results from His veracity and great and infinite power." GRH. (II, 36): "Inasmuch, then, as the Holy Scriptures have God for their author, by whose immediate inspiration the prophets, evangelists, and apostles wrote, therefore they also possess divine authority; because they are inspired, they are in like manner self-commendatory, winning faith by virtue of their own inherent excellence."
[4] BR. (81): "So far as we are concerned, or that we may be convinced that the Holy Scriptures are worthy to receive faith and obedience, not only these perfections of God must be known, but also the dependence of Scripture upon God, or its inspiration by Him." Our conviction, however, rests upon the two theses: " (1) Whatsoever Scripture is recorded by divine inspiration, that is certainly and infallibly true. (2) The Holy Scriptures were recorded by divine inspiration. ' '
AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 55
[5] GRH. (I, 9): "Those who are within the Church do not in quire about the authority of Scripture, for this is their starting- point. How can they be true disciples of Christ if they pretend to call in question the doctrine of Christ ? How can they be true members of the Church if they are in doubt concerning the founda tion of the Church ? How can they wish to prove that to them selves which they always employ to prove other things? How can they doubt concerning that whose efficacy they have experi enced in their own hearts? The Holy Spirit testifies in their hearts that the Spirit is truth, i. e., that the doctrine derived from the Holy Spirit is absolute truth. ' '
[6] GRH. therefore very properly observes, that the doctrine of the authority of Scripture is no article of faith, but rather the fountain-head of the articles of faith. (I, 11): "The doctrine concerning the Canon is, properly speaking, not an article of faith, since Moses, the prophets, evangelists, and apostles did not fabri cate in their writings a new article of faith superadded to the former, which they taught orally."
[7] GRH. (II, 37): "The first (testimony) is the internal wit ness of the Holy Spirit, who, as He bears witness to the spirit of believers that they are the sons of God, Rom. 8 : 16, so, also, efficaciously convinces them, that in the Scriptures the voice of their Heavenly Father is contained; and<jod is the only fit and authentic witness. To this testimony belongs the lively sense of the godly in daily prayer and in the exercises of penitence and faith, the grace of consoling and strengthening the mind against all kinds of adversities, temptations, persecutions, etc., etc., which the godly daily experience in reading and meditating upon Scripture."
QUEN. (I, 97): "The ultimate reason by and through which we are led to believe with a divine and unshaken faith that God's Word is God's Word, is the intrinsic power and efficacy of that Word itself, and the testimony and seal of the Holy Spirit, speak ing in and through Scripture. Because the bestowment of faith, not only that by which we believe in the articles, but even that by which we believe in the Scriptures, that exhibit and propose the articles, is a work that emanates from the Holy Spirit, or the Supreme Cause."
HOLL. (116): " By the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, is here understood the supernatural act of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God, attentively read or heard (His own divine power being communicated to the Holy Scriptures), moving, opening, illuminating the heart of man, and inciting it to obedience unto
56 INTRODUCTION.
the faith; so that man, thus illuminated by internal, spiritual influences, clearly perceives that the word proposed to him has indeed proceeded from God, and thus gives it unyielding assent." The Scripture proof for the testimony of the Holy Spirit is de duced from 1 John 5: 6; 1 Thess. 1: 5, 6; 2: 13. To the common objection, that Theology here reasons in a circle, the following answer is returned, HOLL. (119): " If I inquire, says the ob jector, How do you knoAv that the Scriptures are divine? the Lutherans answer: ' Because the Holy Spirit in each one testifies and confirms this by the Scripture.' If I ask again: ' How do you prove that this Holy Spirit is divine?' the same persons will reply: 'Because the Scriptures testify that He is divine, and His testimony infallible.' To all of which we reply: We must distinguish between a sophistical circle and a demonstrative retro gression. In reasoning in a circle, one unknown thing is em ployed to prove another equally unknown; but in a demonstrative retrogression, we proceed from confused knowledge to that which is distinct. For the divine dignity of Scripture is proved by the supernatural effect of the Holy Spirit operating efficaciously through the Scriptures, illuminating, converting, regenerating, re newing. But, if you ask whether that spirit is divine or malignant, then we reason from the effect, which is divine and salutary, that the Spirit, who bears witness within concerning the divine origin of the Holy Scriptures, is divine, most holy, and excellent." QUEX. (I, 101) further adds: "The Papists, therefore, wrongly accuse us of reasoning in a circle, when we prove the Holy Scriptures from the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and the testi mony of the Holy Spirit from the Holy Scriptures. Else would it be also reasoning in a circle when Moses and the prophets testify concerning Christ, and Christ concerning Moses and the prophets; or, when John the Baptist testifies that Christ is the Messiah, and again Christ that John the Baptist is a prophet."
[8] Therefore GRH. (II, 36) distinguishes, among those who stand without the pale of the Church, two classes: "Some are curable, who come with minds tempered and desirous of learning; others are incurable, who come with minds unyielding and obstinate, and who contumaciously resist the truth, Acts 13: 46; 19: 28. The incurable, just as those who are past bodily recovery, are to be for saken to their fate, Titus 3 : 10. The same applies to those who are within the pale of the Church, if, in the midst of temptation, they begin to doubt the authority of the Scripture."
[9] QUEN. (I, 98): " Those arguments both of an internal and external nature, by which we are led to the belief of the authority
EXTERNAL CRITERA OF INSPIRATION. 57
of Scripture make the inspiration of Scripture probable, and pro duce a certainty not merely conjectural but moral, so that to call it in question were the work of a fool; but they do not make the divinity of Scripture infallible, and place it beyond all doubt, nor do they produce within the mind an immovable conviction, /. e. , they beget not a divine, but merely a human faith, not an unshaken certainty, but a credibility, or a very probable opinion."
[10] GRH. (II, 37): "I. The internal criteria inherent in the Scriptures themselves, some of which are found in the causes, others in the effects, some in the subject-matter, others in incidental cir cumstances. Such criteria are antiquity, the majesty of the subjects discussed, peculiarity of style, harmony of all parts, dignity of the predictions concerning future events, the reality of their fulfil ment, divinity of the miracles by which their doctrine is confirmed, the violence of the diabolical opposition to it, the efficacy of Scrip ture itself in persuading and moving to action. II. The external testimonies (which can be drawn from all classes of men), among which is pre-eminent the testimony of the Church, to which \ve may add that of the martyrs, who sealed the doctrine taught in Scripture with their blood, and also, the punishment of blasphemers and persecutors, who contumaciously opposed this doctrine."
The later divines present these proofs in substantially the same manner as HOLL. (100): "The external criteria (which are derived, not from Scripture, but from other sources) are (a) the antiquity of Scripture; (/>) the singular clearness of the sacred writers, their desire after knowledge and truth; (r) the splendor of the miracles by which the heavenly doctrine is confirmed; (d~) the harmonious testimony of the Church, spread over the whole earth, to the divinity of the Holy Scriptures; (c) the constancy of the martyrs; (/) the testimony of other nations to the doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures; (g) the successful and rapid propagation of the Christian doctrine through the whole world, and its wonderful preservation during so many persecutions; (A) the extremely severe punishments inflicted upon the despisers and persecutors of the Divine Word." In reference to these, HOLL. remarks (109) : "We premise these external criteria, in order to prepare the minds of the unbelieving for reading and meditating upon the Holy Scriptures with interest and desire ... it is necessary that first of all unbe lievers be led by external criteria to regard it as not improbable that the Holy Scriptures had their origin in God, and therefore begin to respect, read, and meditate upon them."
The internal criteria (" drawn from the intrinsic nature and attri butes of Scripture," BR.) are: "(a) the majesty of God, testifying
58 INTRODUCTION.
concerning Himself in the Holy Scriptures; {&) the simplicity and dignity of the biblical style; (c) the sublimity of the divine mysteries which the Scriptures reveal; (d) the truth of all biblical assertions; («) the sanctity of the precepts contained in the Holy Scriptures; (/) the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to salvation." In regard to these, HOLL. further adds: "These internal criteria, taken together and conjointly, constitute a stronger argument than if taken successively or singly. ' '
[11] GRH. (I, 9): "Although the testimony of the Holy Spirit is of the very highest importance, yet we are not to make a begin ning with it in the conversion of such men, i. e. , they are not to be commanded to wait until the Holy Spirit bears witness immediately in their hearts concerning the authority of Scripture, but they are to be directed to the testimony of the Church, which, in this respect, performs the part of a preceptor to the unbelieving disciple. Just as, therefore, it is necessary for a pupil first to believe, until he afterwards becomes able to form an independent judgment concern ing the things taught, so it is necessary for an unbeliever to yield assent to the testimony of the Church, which is the first step towards ascertaining the authority of Scripture; then the internal criteria of antiquity, prophecies, etc., are to be added. Yet the testimony of the Church alone is not sufficient to convince an un believer of the divine authority of the Scriptures, since he may, perhaps, still be in doubt whether this be really the true Church of God. Wherefore, as it is the duty of the preceptor, not only to propose precepts, but also to corroborate their truth; so it is not sufficient for the Church to declare that these are divine Scriptures, unless it accompany its declaration with reasons. Then at length it may follow that the Holy Spirit shall bear testimony in the heart of the inquirer, and prove the truth of His words. ' '
The testimony of the Church varies in weight, according as it is derived from the earlier or from the later Church. GRH. (I, 10): "The primitive Church, that heard the apostles themselves, excelled in being the original recipients of the sacred books, and in being fav ored with the living instruction of the apostles and with a number of miracles to prove the authority of the canon; the next age, in which the autographs of the apostles were still preserved, excelled the former in the more complete fulfilment of New Testament prophe cies, in the abundance of versions of both Testaments into vari ous languages, and in the testimony concerning the Holy Scrip tures extracted from various writings of believers; and it excelled the age succeeding it, by possessing the autographs of the evange lists and apostles, the voice of the ancient Church, and a number
THE SCRIPTURES THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH. 59
of miracles. The latest age of the Church excels both the others (although the autographs of the apostles are no more), at least in the more perfect fulfilment of prophecy. ' '
Occasion is here taken to protest against the Romish axiom, ' 'All the authority of Scripture depends upon the Church," and to guard against such an interpretation being put upon what has been above stated. HOLL. ( 120) : ' ' The authority of the Holy Scriptures neither depends upon the Church for the divine, pre-eminent dignity in which its power lies; nor, in order that it may be known, does it need the testimony of the Church either, as the grand and ultimate source of proof for the divine authority of Scripture, or as the only and absolutely necessary argument." GRH. (II, 38) remarks ( 1 ) ; " It is one thing for the Church to bear witness to the Scrip tures and their authority ministerially, and another to confer upon Scripture its authority dictatorially and judicially. From the min istry and testimony of the Church, we are led to acknowledge the authority of Scripture, but from this it by no means follows that the authority of Scripture, either in itself, or in respect to us, de pends alone upon the authority of the Church; because, when we have once learned that the Scriptures are divine and contain the Word of God, we no longer believe the Scriptures on account of the Church, but on account of themselves; because, viz., they are the voice of God, which is avraMjOeia, and hence, din-fa UJTOC, which we know must be believed on its own account and immediately. (2) It is one thing for us to become acquainted with the authority of the Scriptures by the testimony of the Church, and another, for the whole authority of the Scripture, so far as we are concerned, to depend solely upon the testimony of the Church. The former we concede, the latter we deny; because, beside the testimony of the Church, we have two other classes of evidence for the authority of Scripture, and in the same class, that embraces the testimony of the Church, other external evidences derived from all kinds of men may be adduced; yet, at the same time, we do not deny, that the testi mony of the Church is to be preferred to all others in this class. (3) It is one thing to speak of the testimony of the primitive Church, which received the autograph of the sacred books from the apostles, and handed down a credible testimony concerning them to poster ity, and another, to speak of the authority of the present Church."
QUEN. (I, 93) notices, in addition, the objection ef the Papists, "The Church is more ancient than the Scriptures; therefore, it has greater authority;" to which he replies: "We must make a dis tinction between the Word of God contained in the Scriptures, and the act of writing itself, or, between the substance of Scripture,
00 INTRODUCTION.
which is the Word of God, and its accident, which is the writing of it. The Church is prior to the Scriptures, if you regard the mere act of writing; but it is not prior to the Word of God itself, by means of which the Church itself was collected. Surely the Scrip tures, or the Word of God, is the foundation of the Church, Eph. 2: 20; but the foundation is older than the building."
[12] HOLL. (125) : " The Holy Scriptures exercise their highest canonical authority, when a controversy arises concerning the truth of a doctrine, and the truth is to be confirmed and falsehood to be confuted; but the Scriptures exert their faith-producing authority, as often as the unbelieving are to be converted to the Christian faith, or the weak faith of believers is to be strengthened."
[13] GRH. (I, 28): "The Holy Scriptures are the rule of our faith and life; therefore, also, the judge of theological controversies." (I, 30): "Add to this, that all the qualities of a rule, properly so called, belong to Scripture. For a rule should be certain, fixed, invariable, fundamental, suited to meet every case, always self- consistent. But these qualities belong neither to tradition, nor to the teachings of human reason, nor to the writings of the fathers, nor to the Pope, nor to the decrees of councils, but to the Holy Scriptures alone." FORM. CONC. (Preface, 1) : "We teach, that the only rulo according to which all doctrines and all teachers are to be estimated and judged, is none other than the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments. ' (Compare also the remarks of QUEN. (I, 150): "When we say that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and of life conformed to the will of God, we do not speak of every age of the Church, for there was a time when the Church was instituted and governed without the written Word of God, the time, viz., before Moses; but we refer to that age in which the first written canon was prepared, and especially to the New Testament times, in which all things necessary to faith and the worship of God have been written down, and with great care col lected into the canon. ' ' )
HOLL. (125): "As a rule of knowledge, it performs a two-fold function, directive and corrective. For it directs the thoughts of the human mind, so that they abide within the bounds of truth; and it corrects errors, inasmuch as it is properly its own rule of right and wrong. Wherefore, the Holy Scriptures are called the Canon, or rule, partly on account of their directive character, because the true faith and pure morals are learned from them; partly on ac count of their corrective character, since controversies in regard to the faith are decided by them, and whatever is right and godly is retained, and what is erroneous and ungodly is rejected.'
THE SCRIPTURES THE ONLY JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES. 61
Others, as CAL. and QUEN. , express this by a separate attribute, viz., the normative and judicial authority. CAL. (I, 474): "The Holy Scriptures are a rule, according to which all controversies in regard to faith or life in the Church should, and can be, decided (Ps. 19: 7; Gal. 6: 16; Phil. 3: 16); and as a rule they are not partial, but complete and adequate, because, beside the Scriptures, no other infallible rule in matters of faith can be given. All others beside the Word of God are fallible; and on this account we are referred to the Holy Scriptures as the only rule (Deut. 4:2-, 12: 28; Josh. 23: 6; Is. 8: 20; Luke 16: 29; 2 Pet. 1: 19); to which, alone, Christ and the apostles referred as a rule (Matt. 4: 4; 22:29,31; Mark 9: 12; John 5: 45; Acts 3: 20; 13:33; 18:28; 26: 22)."
[14] Hence, the two corollaries of QUEN. (I, 158, 167): " (1) It is therefore not necessary that there should be in the Church a supreme, regularly appointed and universal judge, who, seated upon a visible throne, is peremptorily to decide all strifes and controversies that arise among Christians concerning faith and re ligion, and orally and specifically to pronounce sentence in regard to them. We cannot acknowledge as such a judge either the Roman pontiff, or the fathers, or councils. (2) Nor is the de cision concerning the mysteries and controversies of the faith to be granted to human reason, nor to an internal instinct or secret spirit. ' y
[15] CHMN. (Trid.): "The Church has the right and liberty of deciding." GRH. (II, 359): "If the Church is 'the pillar and the ground of the truth,' and we are 'commanded to hear it' (!' Tim. 3: 15; Matt. 18: 17), then all decisions in matters of faith belong to her. ' '
But the right which is hereby ascribed to the Church is carefully distinguished from that which belongs to the Holy Scriptures. This is usually done in the following manner: (1) The principal judge is the Holy Spirit; the instrumental judge, the Holy Scrip tures; the ministerial (inferior) judge, the clergy. In regard to the latter, however ( ' ' whose duty it is to seek for the decision of the Supreme Judge as laid down in Scripture, and from this to teach what is to be done, to interpret this, and decide in accord ance with it"), it is maintained 'that this judge should not pro nounce sentence according to his own will, but according to the rule laid down by the Supreme Judge,' i. e., according to- the Holy Scriptures, which we therefore call the decision of the Su preme Judge, the rule of the inferior judge, and the directive judge (GRH., II., 366).
And QUEN. (I, 150): "An inferior decision, viz., of a teacher
62 INTRODUCTION.
of the Church, is nothing else than the interpretation, declaration, or annunciation of a divine, decisive, and definitive judgment, and its application to particular persons and things." Whence it further follows : ' ' We are able to decide by the decision of an inferior judge, not absolutely, but if he pronounce according to the prescriptions of the divine law or the Scriptures, and in so far as he shows that he decides according to the Word of God. (Deut. 17: 10.) Wherefore, we may appeal from this inferior judge to the Supreme, but not conversely, from the Supreme to the inferior. The subordinate judge is, therefore, not absolute, but restricted and bound by the decisions of the Supreme Judge as recorded in Scrip ture. According to this distinction, the Holy Scriptures are called the judging Judge, or the Judge ad quern (to whom there is appeal), and the Church the Judge to be judged, or the Judge a quo (from whom there is an appeal)."
The Church is, therefore, it is true, a visible judge, but merely discretive, who, in the exercise of sound judgment, distinguishes truth from falsehood. She is, however, "not a judge, specially and strictly so called, viz., authoritative and decisive, pronouncing sentence authoritatively, and by virtue of the authority belonging to her, compelling the disputants to acquiesce in the whole opinion she may propose without further investigation. " (HoLL., 146.)
[16] GRH. (II, 359): "Whatever pertains to a spiritual per son, may be regarded as belonging to all children and members of the Church. The reason of this is, that by spiritual person, we understand not merely the clergy, according to the nomenclature of the Papists, but all the children of the Church, who are con trolled by the Spirit of God. Rom. 8: 9. For 'he that is spir itual judgeth all things.' 1 Cor. 2: 15."
QUEN. (I, 150) : " We assert that every believer, according to the measure of the gift of God, can and ought to judge, not indeed, in all controversies, but concerning the doctrines necessary to salvation, and to mark the difference between brass and beans by his own discretive judgment. Not that every one should follow his own notions, as the Papists accuse our churches of doing, but that he should submit himself to the judgment of the Holy Spirit, recorded in the Scriptures, and examine all things according to the tenor of this decision, but leave to the learned, the public decision of controversies. 1 Cor. 10: 15; 11: 31: 1 Thess. 5: 19."
In accordance with this, a distinction is made between ' ' the pub lic and the private ministerial (inferior) judge. The public judge is the clergy ; the private, each member of the Church, or private person. ' '
SUFFICIENCY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 63
[17] GRH. (II, 367): "We must distinguish between power and its exercise. The Holy Scriptures are indeed sufficient and adapted, by virtue of their authority, and the perfection and perspicuity of their character, to decide controversies; but, through the fault of human weakness and wickedness, it happens that this effect does not always, nor with all persons, follow their application; just as the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all such as believe, Rom. 1 : 16, yet, at the same time, not all are actually converted and saved by the preaching of the Gospel." BR. (161) : " Doubt less, all controversies that relate to matters of faith and practice, necessary to be decided and known, can, in this way, be adjudged and decided; only, wrhen an occasion of controversy occurs, let those who are to engage in it, bring to the task minds that are pious, truth-loving, and learned. For thus, prejudice and partiality and evil feelings being laid aside, and the arguments of both sides being duly weighed, according to the rule of Scripture, it easily becomes apparent which is the true and which is the false opinion, on ac count of the perspicuity of Scripture, which acts in this case by virtue of its appointed office. But, as to other questions, either "side of which may be held without injury to the faith, their decision ought not to be demanded, or expected, to be so clear. ' '
[18] HOLL. (125): " The causative authority of the faith differs from the canonical authority of Scripture, because the Scriptures beget divine faith, through the inspired sense, which sense of Scrip ture remains one and the same, whether expressed in the original idiom oi Scripture, or in a translation conformed to the original text. So that the illuminating power, connected with the sense of Scripture, effectually manifests itself in the production of faith, not only by means of Scripture in the original tongues, but also through translations, provided the translations be perspicuous and con formed to the authentic text. Such is Luther's translation of the Bible, which is used in our churches by the faithful; which, when read, or heard, is as efficacious in causing assent to the faith, as if they should read the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New, or hear it read and expounded by a teacher, although the words of that translation were not immediately in spired by God. But, that the Scriptures may have canonical author ity, it is necessary, that not only the sense, but also the words, shall have been derived immediately from God. For to canonical and normal authority in matters of doctrine and practice, an abso lute certainty and infallibility in the words themselves is necessary, which does not exist except in the original text of Scripture, for this depends immediately upon divine inspiration. Translations are
•64 INTRODUCTION.
the work of men, who, in translating the Scriptures, may have erred."
§ 9. (2.) Perfection, or Sufficiency.
From the fact that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, it necessarily follows that all that is contained in them is perfectly true ; from the fact that they are the only Word of God given to us, it further follows that, if we are at all to learn the way of life, it must be perfectly taught in the Holy Scrip tures, [1] and this is what is meant by their perfection or suffi- ciency. GKH. (II, 286): " That the Scriptures fully and per fectly instruct us concerning all things necessary to salvation." [2] And, indeed, so perfectly must everything necessary to salvation be contained in the Holy Scriptures, whether de clared in express words or to be learned inferentially, [3] that we never find occasion to make up deficiences from another source ; whence, all doctrines claiming to be derived from oral tradition are to be rejected. GRH. (I, 25): " Laying aside tra dition, we are to adhere to Scripture alone." [4]
[1] HOLL. (173) distinguishes: "the perfection of Scripture (a) in reference to the subject-matter; since no inspired book, re ceived into the permanent canon of the faith, perishes, (b) In reference to the form; that no error has crept into the authentic text by the negligence or perfidy of transcribers, (c) In reference to the end to be attained; for it sufficiently teaches man all doctrines and moral precepts necessary to salvation." Of the latter, viz., perfection as to the end to be accomplished, we are here speaking. BR. (136): "We only assert that the Scriptures are perfect in reference to the accomplishment of their end, and in this opinion we all agree. Those things are said to be perfect in reference to their end which want nothing that is necessary for the attainment of that end. But the ultimate aim of Scripture is our salvation; the intermediate, faith in Christ." Of perfection in the second sense, we have already spoken, under the head of inspiration. In reference to perfection, in the first sense, BR. (135) remarks: " We do not so much refer to the number of the books that ever were written by the sacred penmen, of which some referred to by the names of their authors or titles in the remaining books of Scripture are supposed to have perished; but we refer to the perfection of the Scriptures that remain in regard to the accomplishment of their end. Moreover, also, as to those
SUFFICIENCY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 65
books which some suppose to have perished, it is to be observed that some of them have not really perished, but are still extant, though under different titles. . . . But, if some books written by the sacred penmen did really perish, yet we hold that (1) such were not written by Divine inspiration, but by human prompting; (2) they were also rather historical than doctrinal; at all events, or if it be (3) conceded that inspired books have perished, it must be maintained that the doctrines themselves are found with equal truth and fulness in the remaining books; certainly (4) that no book which once by the intention of the Holy Spirit formed a part of the canon or rule, has perished, to the detriment of the canon ical Scriptures, so that they should cease to be the adequate source and rule of faith and practice."
GRH. remarks, in addition, that the Holy Scriptures are not to be regarded as perfect only since the canon of the Old and New Testament has been closed. (II, 286): "The perfection of the Holy Scriptures is to be estimated not by the number of the books, but from the sufficiency of the doctrine necessary to be known, in order to salvation. That which was written at any particular age of the Church, constituted a perfect canon, since the divine revelation was perfectly developed, so far as that age required it, in those books. Thus, when only the books of Moses were extant, the Scriptures were perfect, i. e. , with respect to that age of the Church, in which not many revelations had been made which God wished to be committed to writing."
[2] QUEN. (I, 102): "The Holy Scriptures contain with per fect fulness and sufficiency all things necessary to be known in order to Christian faith and life, and therefore to the attainment of eternal salvation. ' '
This GRH. (II, 286, sq.): proves. "(1) From their plain designation and title, Ps. 19: 7. (2) From their efficient original cause, viz., God, most wise and most perfect. (3) From the subject-matter. The inspired Holy Scriptures, comprehended in the prophetical and apostolical books, contain the whole counsel of God concerning our salvation, and unfold all the parts of Christianity in such a manner that nothing need be added or sub tracted. This is proved by Acts 20: 27; 26: 22; 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17; Deut. 4: 2;' 12: 32; Gal. 1: 8; Rev. 22: 18. (4) From their aim and effects."
[3] CAL. (I, 610): "We assert, that the Holy Scriptures suffi ciently and adequately contain all things necessary to faith and a Christian life, and we think that those other things also in the Scriptures should be clearly and sufficiently considered, which, 5
66 INTRODUCTION.
both according to the words and according to the sense, are com prehended therein, or, as plain interferences, are drawn from those which are clearly written; so that there is no need of any unwritten tradition to supply the defects of Scripture, or to collect and deduce from it those things which are virtually contained in it; because without any tradition they may all be sufficiently ob tained from Scripture alone. ' '
GRH. (II, 286): "We by no means say that the Scriptures are perfect in such a sense that all things which are necessary to be known for faith and practice are contained in the Scriptures, literally and in so many words, but some of them in substance, others literally; or, what is the same thing, that some are con tained in them explicitly and others by implication, so that by legitimate and undeniable inference they can be deduced from them." QUEN. (I, 102) thus guards against the misapprehension of his remark: " We do not say, with the Papists, that the Scrip tures are perfect by implication or contain all things necessary to faith, as in a root or germ, or common source, or, as it were, in outline .... so that they do not themselves really contain all things, but show whence and where they are to be sought, with a reference to the Church and her traditions, from which the defects of those doctrines which are wanting may be supplied. ' '
[4] Hereby the papal doctrine of tradition is rejected, which CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 110) thus describes: "They pretend that many things necessary to faith and practice were handed down by the apostles which are not comprehended in Scripture. To this claim they add another, viz. , that those things which are handed down and observed in the Roman Church, and cannot be proved by any Scripture testimony, are the very things which were orally transmitted by the Apostles and not comprehended in Scripture."
Whence HOLL. (178): " Tradition is the instruction orally given by Christ and the Apostles, which is neither substantially nor liter ally contained in Scripture, but by continuous succession is pre served in the Church." To which is replied: "We infer from the perfection of Scripture that it needs in no way the aid of tradition in the articles of faith necessary to salvation." (GRH. II, 307.)
Inasmuch as the word, tradition, was used in such different senses in the Holy Scriptures, and such various significations ap plied to it, the Dogmaticians take occasion accurately to designate the sense in which they reject tradition, and from this signification carefully to distinguish those which in a certain sense they admit. CHEMN. in Exam. Trid. I, 110 seq., marks eight different signifi cations, viz. :
MEANING OF TRADITION. 67
" (1) Those things which Christ and the Apostles orally deliv ered, and which were afterwards committed to writing by the Evangelists and Apostles, are often called traditions.
" (2) The books of Holy Scripture have been guarded by the Church during an uninterrupted series of ages and in a connected and sure succession, and they have been faithfully transmitted to posterity and handed down, as if from hand to hand, unto us.
"(3) Irena3us and Tertullian celebrate apostolical tradition . . . They do not, indeed, propose and prove any other doctrines of faith by tradition than those which are contained in Scripture; but they show, and prove also by tradition, those same doctrines which are contained in Scripture.
"(4) There are traditions concerning the exposition, the true sense or native meaning, of Scripture.
" (5) The fathers sometimes thus designate those doctrines which are not contained in so many words and syllables in Scrip ture, but are derived from clear Scripture testimony, by sound, certain, indisputable, and evident reasoning.
" (6) The term is applied to the universal consent of the fathers. The phrase is common, 'by the tradition of the fathers' (patres ita tradiderunt) .
" (7) When the ancients made mention of unwritten tradi tions they did not understand by them doctrines of faith to be received without, over and above Scripture, even if they could not be proved by any Scripture testimony; but they spoke concerning certain rites and customs, which on account of their antiquity they ascribed to the Apostles.
"(8) Traditions relating both to faith and practice, which cannot be proved by any Scripture testimony, which nevertheless the Council of Trent commands to be received and venerated with the same reverence and pious feeling as the Scriptures them selves. ' '
HOLL. (178) accordingly divides the traditions of the Church into "ritual, historical, exegetical, evidential, and dogmatical." Only the latter class is here referred to. HOLL. : ' ' We do not dis approve of all the ritual traditions of the Church, but the theolog ical rule observed by CHEMN. in his Exam. Cone. Trid. must be adhered to, viz. , ' Let the ceremonies in the Church be of an un essential nature, few in number, devout, and useful for edification, order, and decorum; let the observance of them be left free, so as to avoid giving offence,' and so that they may be instituted, changed, or abrogated with a reference to edification, to times, places, and persons. We admit historical tradition, concerning the
68 INTRODUCTION.
canon of Scripture, not as an infallible, but as a probable argument. We receive with gratitude exegetical traditions, if namely the inter pretation of the fathers present no discrepancy with the scriptural text, the proper use of the words, the context, and the analogy of faith. We hold in high esteem evidential tradition, and confess with Chemnitz that we differ from those who invent opinions that find no supporting testimony in any age of the Church. We think also that no doctrine that is new and at variance icith all antiquity should be received in the Church." The Symbolical Books treat only of the ecclesiastical or ceremonial traditions. The AUG. CONF. XV, APOLOGY VIII, and FORM. CONG. X, discuss the questions: (1) Whether these are admissible, which they answer affirmatively; and (2) Whether in the Church nothing dare be taught, as nothing is believed, which is not proved by an express declaration of Scrip ture ? which, in the light of Christian liberty, they deny.
Syncretism then gave occasion to further specifications in regard to the idea of tradition. G. CALIXTUS had said: "It should not be doubted, that from the writings of the ancient Church, which are still extant, the common belief of antiquity can be sufficiently ascertained, and that should be regarded as apostolical, which they unanimously teach and declare that they receive as apostolical. " To which CAL. (I, 327) replies: "Although some innovators differ from the Papists in this, that they do not recognize any article of faith that is merely traditional and not contained in the Scriptures, or receive any doctrine as taught by the Apostles, which is not written; yet they side with the Papists in this, that they accept as the Word of God something not written and handed down by the Apostles, and wish some apostolical tradition, I know not what, handed down to us through the writings of the fathers, to be re garded as the undoubted Word of God." And, page 330, the ad ditional statement: "Although it is not to be doubted that the Apostles taught not only by writings but also viva voce, and that the Word which they preached, no less than what is comprehended in the Scriptures, is to be regarded as the undoubted Word of God, yet we neither can, nor ought to, gratify the Papists by teach ing that there is still extant some additional Word of God com municated by the Apostles, and handed down from them to us, which should be received as infallible and indubitable, along with the prophetical and apostolical Holy Scriptures.
§ 1.0. (3.) Perspicuity.
If the Holy Scriptures contain everything necessary to sal vation, and if they alone contain it, they must necessarily ex-
PERSPICUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 69
hibit it so clearly and plainly that it is accessible to the com prehension of every one ; hence the attribute of Perspicuity is ascribed to the Holy Scriptures. CAL. (I, 467): " Because in those things which are necessary to be known in order to sal vation, the Scriptures are abundantly and admirably explicit, both by the intention of God their Author, and by the natural signification of the words, so that they need no external and adventitious light." [1] But while such perspicuity is as cribed to the Holy Scriptures, it is not meant that every par ticular that is contained in them is equally clear and plain to all, but only that all that is necessary to be known in order to salvation is clearly and plainly taught in them, [2] and that, if this be not expressed in all cases with equal clearness, it can nevertheless be gathered from a collocation of the passages bearing upon it. [3] It is also not maintained that the Holy Scriptures can be understood without the possession of certain prerequisites. On the other hand, such as the following are required, viz., proper maturity of judgment, the necessary philological attainments, an unprejudiced frame of mind in the investigation of the sacred truth, and a will inclined to embrace this truth in its purity. [4] Where these prerequi sites are wanting, there can, as a matter of course, be no thor ough understanding of the Holy Scriptures; but in such a case the fault does not lie in the Holy Scriptures. [5] Where these prerequisites exist, a clear and accurate comprehension of the saving truths contained in Scripture may be gained, which nevertheless, even in this case, is merely external and natural until, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, an internal ap prehension of them is effected, [6] as well as the. power of heartily appropriating to one's self the saving truths contained in Scripture. [7] Finally, the perspicuity of the Holy Scrip tures is not to be so understood as if the mysteries of the Chris tian faith were unveiled by it ; on the other hand, these re main as they are, mysteries ; perspicuity consists only in this, that the Scriptures make known to us the mysteries just as God wishes them to be made known. [8]
From what has here been said, it naturally follows, further, that in all cases in which the interpretation of a passage is doubtful, the decision dare never be found anywhere else than
70 INTRODUCTION.
in the Scriptures themselves, whereby the faculty of self-inter pretation is ascribed to the Holy Scriptures. [9] And, in this interpretation, it is a fundamental principle, that the doubtful passages are to be explained by those that are clear. [10] In asmuch now as all doctrines necessary to be known in order to salvation, are clearly taught in Scripture, so that we gain from them the general substance of the Christian plan of sal vation ; and inasmuch, further, as we can safely presuppose that the Holy Scriptures will not contradict themselves, we need only take care that we do not derive from these doubtful passages a sense that would conflict with the clearly revealed truths ; we must therefore interpret according to the analogy of faith. (CAL.: " The analogy of faith is the consistency of the doctrine clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures.") [11] To the interpretation of all Scripture, whether doubtful or plain, the general rule applies, that each passage contains but one original and proper sense, that, namely, which is derived im mediately from the words employed (the literal sense), which is to be ascertained in every case by the use of the means above described. [12]
[1] The fullest description of perspicuity we find in Bit. (138): ' ' Perspicuity, or that those things which are necessary to be be lieved and done by man in seeking to be saved, are taught in Scripture in words and phrases so clear and conformed to the usage of speech, that any man acquainted with the language, possessed of a common judgment, and paying due attention to the words, may learn the true sense of the words, so far as those things are concerned which must be known, and may embrace these fun damental doctrines by the simple grasp of his mind; according as the mind of man is led, by the Scriptures themselves and their supernatural light, or the divine energy conjoined with them, to yield the assent of faith to the word understood and the things signified."
The proof, according to QUEN. (I, 121, 122): "(1) From Dent. 30: 11, 12; Rom. 10: 8; 2 Pet. 1: 19; Ps. 19: 8; 119: 105; Prov. 6: 23. (2) Fryni the character of Scripture: (a) Because it has God for its Author, who can speak perspicuously, and does not wish to speak obscurely. He can speak perspicuously, for He formed speech and the voice. To say that He wished to speak obscurely, would be nothing short of blasphemy. (&) It gives wisdom to babes or the unskilled, Ps. 19: 7; 2 Tim. 3: 15. (c) It reveals
PERSPICUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 71
hidden mysteries, Rom. 16: 25; 1 Cor. 2:9, 10; Col. 1:26, 27. ((/) It was given for the purpose that the will of God might here be learned, and men informed in regard to eternal life, John 20: 31; Rom. 15: 4. (e) Because its precepts are to be read by all, Deut. 17: 19; John 5: 39."
[2] GRH. (I, 26): " It is to be observed that when we call the Scriptures perspicuous, we do not mean that every particular ex pression, anywhere contained in Scripture, is so constituted that at the first glance it must be plainly and fully understood by every one. On the other hand, we confess that certain things are ob scurely expressed in Scripture and difficult to be understood . . . But this we do assert, and endeavor in every way to prove, that the perspicuity of the Scriptures is of such a nature that a certain and consistent opinion can be drawn from them concerning the doctrines whose knowledge is necessary to salvation." \Yhence it follows (II, 329) that "the knowledge of those things, which are nowhere plainly and perspicuously revealed in Scripture, is not absolutely necessary to salvation."
QUEN. (I, 118): "We do not maintain that all Scripture, in every particular, is clear and perspicuous. For we grant that cer tain 'things are met with in the sacred books that are obscure and difficult to be understood, 2 Pet. 3: 16, not only in respect to the sublimity of their subject-matter, but also as to the utterance of the Holy Spirit, that afford materials for calling into exercise the learning of the doctors during the course of a long life, and the full understanding of which is to be expected only in heaven; but that the doctrines of faith and moral precepts are taught so obscurely everywhere, that they can nowhere be found clearly and explicitly, it is this that we deny. But the articles of faith and the moral precepts are taught in Scripture in their proper places, not in ob scure and ambiguous words, but in such as are fitted to them, and free from all ambiguity, so that every diligent reader of Scripture, who reads it devoutly and piously, can understand them." (140): "At least in those places where the writer professedly, as they say, treats of a particular precept of faith or morals, or where its seat is; so that there is no article of faith, or no moral precept, which is not taught in Scripture somewhere in literal, clear, and conspicuous language.")
QUEN. (I, 18) distinguishes between " onomastic, chronology topographical, allegorical, typical, prophetical (i. e.,, predictions, but unfulfilled) matters, and those which are historical, dogmat ical, or moral. If in the former class, especially in points relating to style and order, there should occur some difficulty or obscurity,
72 INTRODUCTION.
this would still not derogate from the perspicuity of Scripture in matters of the latter class. The Scriptures give us elementary truths, containing the supreme and necessary articles of our religion. They give us sublime, mystical, onomastic truths. God chose to teach most clearly in the sacred books the elementary truths, be cause what is taught by them is necessary to be known by all in order to salvation. Other matters are involved in some difficulty."
[3] GRH. (II, 329): "Observe that some things in Scripture are clearer than others, and what is obscurely expressed in one pas sage is more clearly explained in another."
QUEN. (I, 118): "It is one thing that there should at times be some difficulty and obscurity in the statement of the mysteries of the faith and of those things that must be believed in order to sal vation; and another, that this obscurity should be nowhere cleared up in the Scriptures themselves, if a comparison be instituted with parallel passages and the analogy of faith as contained in Scripture be called into requisition. Doubtless what is expressed in one place obscurely,' appears perfectly clear in another; and what in one passage is hidden under tropes and figures, is elsewhere dis closed in plain and simple language; and thus upon many difficult passages of Scripture, light is thrown by others that are more clear. ' '
[4] GRH. (II, 329): "Observe that, in asserting perspicuity, we do not exclude the godly study of the Scriptures by reading and meditation, nor the use of the aids necessary to the interpretation of the Scripture."
QUEN. (I, 119): " We are to distinguish between men who, on account of their immature age and their want of familiarity with the language in which they read the Scriptures, meet with difficulty through unskillfulness or ignorance, or who are prejudiced by pre conceived erroneous opinions, and those with whom this is not the case. . . . For we presuppose a sufficient knowledge of the lan guage, maturity of age, a mind not filled with prejudice and erron eous opinions, and also a legitimate and good translation of the original text."
BR. (146): "For he who does not attend to the words them selves, but follows his own prejudices and makes the words of Scripture conform to them, can err even in perspicuous passages and in investigating the true sense." Whence HOLL. (149): "The perspicuity of Scriptures is not absolute, but dependent upon the use of means, inasmuch as, in endeavoring to understand it, the divinely instituted method must be accurately observed. For there is required: (1) Prayer to God the Father of Lights. (2) A
PERSPICUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 73
knowledge of the idiom in which the Holy Scriptures are ex pressed, whether it be the original or in a version. (3) The attentive consideration of the expressions, of the scope, of the previous and subsequent context. (4) The laying aside of pre conceived opinions and of evil feelings, of ambition, hatred, envy, boldness, etc., etc."
[5] Wherefore QUEN. (I, 118) distinguishes between " obscurity in the object contemplated and that which lies in the subject con templating it. The Scriptures, especially in things necessary to salvation, are not obscure in and of themselves, or through a want of native clearness and plainness, but they are lucid and perspic uous. They may be obscure, however, accidentally, on account of the incapacity and blindness of the human mind, and through the malice of heretics and the heterodox, who superadd to their natural blindness a voluntary one, and maliciously close the eyes of their -mind against the clearest light of Scripture. (2 Cor. 4: 3.)" As an instance of this, the controversy in regard to the Lord's Supper is cited (I, 124): "The words of the Testament are in themselves very perspicuous, but are variously interpreted ; because many, neglecting the literal and proper sense, studiously seek a foreign one, and do not follow so much the teaching of Christ as the counsel and dictation of blind reason. A mistake as to the cause is therefore made when the discrepancy in the ex positions is ascribed to the obscurity of Scriptures, since its cause is either the perverseness or imbecility of men. The obscurity which lies in the subject must not be transferred to the object. . . If nothing be perspicuously spoken except that which cannot be understood perversely and expounded in a bad sense, then noth ing in the wide universe can be perspicuously and plainly uttered. ' '
[6] GRH. (I, 26): "The clearness of Scripture is twofold; as Luther says, ' One kind is external, lying in the ministry of the Word, the other in the knowledge of the heart. If you speak of the internal clearness, no man understands a single iota in the Scriptures by the natural powers of his own mind, unless he have the Spirit of God; all have obscure hearts. The Holy Spirit is required for the understanding of the whole of Scripture and of all its parts. If you allude to the external clearness, there is nothing left obscure and ambiguous, but all things brought to light by the Word are perfectly clear.' '
GRH. (I, 52): "Some, who have not yet been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, may have a knowledge of the Scripture doctrines, and acquire an historic faith by the outward ministration of the Word; but an absolutely certain, firm, and saving knowledge they
74 INTRODUCTION.
cannot have without the internal illumination of the mind by the Holy Spirit." There is, therefore, a distinction made between the "grammatical (literal) and external" and the " spiritual, divine and internal sense." Perspicuity in the first sense consists, BR. (140), "in the proper selection of words, their correspondence with the things signified, and their mutual connection and arrange ment, according to the common usage of language" (141): "For not only the regenerated and believers, but also the unregenerate and godless, through this clearness of the words in their natural signification, in which respect they are the same for all readers, can acquire a knowledge of the sense designed by the words, i. e. , a merely literal or historical, not a saving or believing knowledge. ' ' Also (144), (from the Jena and Wittenberg Opinion, in answer to Rathmann's Reply, 1629): . . . "If the Reply means to infer that no unconverted person can understand the proper sense which is contained in the words of Scripture, and expressed by them, i. e. , the grammatical and literal sense, unless the Holy Spirit assist with His gracious illumination, then we cannot agree with the Reply, but abide by our own opinion. . . . For the words, and whatever serves to interpret them, viz., the lexicons, dictionaries, and grammars of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, are human inventions, and belong to the gifts of nature and not to the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit; for He was not appointed, nor was He poured out, that He might treat of gram matical rules and teach us to hunt up Hebrew roots, . . . but that He should teach us the articles of faith through the Scriptures and instruct us in the truth that maketh wise unto salvation. Many a one properly understands the words without possessing that saving knowledge of the mysteries which belongs to faith."
CAL. (I, 657): " Although the external sense of Scripture may be understood by the unregenerate, yet the saving and internal sense, joined with hearty assent, cannot be attained without the illumination of the Holy Spirit."
[7] GRH. (II, 338): "A literal acquaintance with the articles of the faith is not sufficient to salvation, but there must also be a spiritual knowledge, for the acquisition of which the internal illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary; and this is to be obtained by humble prayer."
BR. (150): " In order that man may properly understand the plan of salvation, two things are necessary: first, that by the nat ural powers of his mind he comprehend those things that neces sarily must be known by him in order to his salvation; and sec ondly, that he embrace these, thus apprehended as true and
PIETY ESSENTIAL TO AN INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE. 75
divinely revealed, and yield to them the full assent of faith. The Scriptures, therefore, which in this matter should be as a bright and shining light, ought to accomplish these two ends: first, to repre sent to -the mind the things that are to be known in language adapted to this end and clear, so that they may be simply and naturally apprehended; and secondly, that when the thing signi fied is of a more exalted nature and the mind too weak or corrupt to be able to judge correctly by the exercise of its own powers concerning that which is signified by the words, or to elitit or yield the assent that is due, the Scriptures themselves, by their own illuminative power, should enable the mind to accomplish this and bestow the faculty of apprehending and embracing the truth." The latter alone is referred to when HOLL. remarks (155): "An unregenerate man, opposing the illuminating grace of the Holy Spirit, cannot understand the true sense of the sacred writings. But when an unregenerate man, in a teachable spirit, attentively reads the Holy Scriptures, or hears them expounded by the living teacher, the Holy Spirit illuminates him by the Scriptures, so that he may understand the true sense of the Divine Word and rightly apply it, thus understood, with saving effect." And although HOLL. claims "for the unregenerate but teachable the prevenient and preparative grace of the Holy Spirit, that they may acquire an external and literal knowledge of the Holy Scriptures," he does not thereby mean anything more than that such grace is needed in order that they may attain to a self-appropriation of the truth of salvation; for he elsewhere remarks (158): "The words of the Prophets and Apostles may be considered either out of their proper scriptural connection, or in it. In the former case, they are analo gous to human words, and can be understood by the unregenerate without the grace of the Holy Spirit; but if they be considered in their proper connection, as they are accommodated to the mysteries of the faith, and are, as receptacles or vehicles of these, really Divine words, no correct conception, conformed to the mind of the Spirit, can be formed concerning them without the preceding prevenient and preparative grace of the Holy Spirit."
[8] HOLL. (149): "The Scriptures are called clear, not in re spect to the subject-matter, but to the words, for even subjects that are not clear may be expressed with clear and perspicuous words. ' '
QUEN. (I, 117): "We must make a distinction between the clearness of the subjects which are revealed in Scripture and the plainness of the words by which the revealed subjects are expressed. We refer not to the former but to the latter ; for we acknowledge that many mysteries are contained in the Scriptures, abstruse and
76 INTRODUCTION.
impenetrable by the human intellect, especially in this life; but we deny that they are taught in Scripture in an obscure style and with ambiguous words. ' ' Luther expresses it differently : ' ' The things of God are obscure; . . . the things of Scripture are perspicuous. . . . The doctrines in themselves are obscure; but in so far as they are presented in Scripture they are manifest, if we are willing to be content with that knowledge which God communicates in the Scriptures to the Church."
[9] QUEN. (I, 137): "From no other source than the Holy Scriptures themselves can a certain and infallible interpretation of Scripture be drawn. For Scripture itself, or rather the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture or through it, is the legitimate and indepen dent (d™~fi'#wof) interpreter of itself."
And further, QUEN. (I, 144): " We cannot, therefore, acknowl edge the harmonious opinions of the ancient teachers of the Church or the decisions of councils as a certain and unquestionable rule and measure of scriptural interpretation, nor the Roman pontiff as the supreme, infallible interpreter of the Holy Scriptures."
[10] QUEN. (I, 137): " The more obscure passages, which need explanation, can and should be explained by other passages that are more clear, and thus the Scripture itself furnishes an interpre tation of the more obscure expressions when a comparison of these is made with those that are more clear; so that Scripture is ex plained by Scripture."
[11] GRH. (I, 53): " From those perspicuous passages of Scrip ture a rule of faith is gathered, which is, so to speak, a summary of the heavenly doctrine extracted from the clearest passages of Scripture. Whatever, therefore, is necessary, is clearly expressed in the Holy Scriptures, says Chrysostom. If certain things in them are very obscure, the knowledge of these is not necessary to all for their salvation; and hence, although we may not always ascertain their true and genuine interpretation, it is sufficient if, in inter preting them, we propose nothing that conflicts with the rule of faith."
(II, 424) : "All interpretation of Scripture should be according to the analogy of faith. This canon is taught in Rom. 12 : 6, and signifies that the interpretation of Scripture should be instituted and carried on in such a manner as to accord with the usual line of thought which is conveyed in Scripture concerning each article of the heavenly doctrine. For, since all Scripture was given by the immediate suggestion of the Holy Spirit, and is inspired, all things in it are harmonious and perfectly consistent with each other, so that no discrepancy or self-contradiction can occur.
ANALOGY OF THE FAITH. 77
The articles of faith, which the apostle here means by nton^ the knowledge of which is necessary for all in order to salvation, are taught in the Scriptures in clear and perspicuous language, of which a brief summary is contained in the Apostles' Creed, which the fathers often call "the rule of faith." Nothing is ever to be broached in the interpretation of Scripture that conflicts with this rule of faith; and hence, if we be not exactly able at times to ascertain the precise sense of any passage, as designed by the Holy Spirit, we should nevertheless beware of proposing anything that is contrary to the analogy of faith. ' '
GRH. (I, 54) thus states all the rules that apply to the interpre tation of the Holy Scriptures: " (1) Without the light of the Holy Spirit, our mind is blind so far as the understanding and in terpreting of Scripture are concerned. (2) In addition to this blindness, natural to us all, some are blinded by peculiar wicked ness and an unyielding obstinacy, whose eyes the Holy Spirit either has opened or has wished to open, but they have contuma ciously resisted Him; neither of these kinds of blindness, however, makes or proves the Scriptures obscure. (3) Because our mind is blind, we are prayerfully to implore the light of the Holy Spirit. (4) But this illumination of the mind the Holy Spirit does not confer immediately, but by the light of the Word heard and medi tated upon. (5) Inasmuch as the doctrines necessary to be known by every one in order to salvation are taught in Scripture in clear and perspicuous language, (6) the remaining passages of Scripture receive light from these. (7) For from the perspicuous passages of Scripture, a rule of faith is deduced to which thi exposition of the remainder must be conformed. (8) And if we cannot ascertain the precisely literal sense of all passages, it is sufficient that in their interpretation we do not propose anything contrary to the analogy of faith. (9) Nevertheless, it is also of importance that we rightly and accurately interpret the more obscure passages of Scripture, which can be done if we apply the means adapted to remove the difficulties. (10) That we may discover these means, we must seek the causes of the obscurity. (11) Some Scripture passages are obscure in themselves, when singly considered, others when compared with other passages; if they merely seem to conflict with other passages, this obscurity may be removed by reconciling the passages. (12) Those that are obscure in themselves and singly are so either as to their subject-matter or as to their words. The obscurity in regard to the subjects discussed is removed by those settled axioms, in individual articles of belief, which are to be regarded as the unfailing guide. (13) The obscurity in regard
78 INTRODUCTION.
to the words is dispelled by the grammatical analysis of sentences, by the rhetorical exposition of the tropes and figures, by the logical consideration of the order and circumstances, and finally by an acquaintance with physical science; but the greatest assistance in all these cases is afforded by a prudent and diligent collation of Scripture passages, whenever either the same or different words and phrases are employed to express the same or different tilings." He illustrates the manner of making deductions from the rule of faith by the example of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
[12] GRH. (I, 67): "There is but one proper and true sense of each passage, which the Holy Spirit thereby intends, and which is drawn from the proper signification of the words, and only from this literal sense available arguments may be derived." But this literal sense may be either strictly literal, which the Holy Spirit intends when the words are taken in their usual signification, e. g. , God is a spirit (John 4: 24), or figurative or tropical, which is the intention oi the Holy Spirit when words are used figuratively, c. g. , God is our shield (Gen. 15: 1), (HoLL., 91). But in this case also the remark applies, GRH. (II, 425): "All interpretation of Scrip ture should be literal, and there should be no departure from the letter in matters of faith, unless the Scriptures themselves indicate the figurativencss and explain it," (I, 67): "Allegories, tropes, anagogies, are not different senses but different adaptations of the same sense and subject designated by the letter. The same histor ical narrative may be presented in a variety of ways, and treated either allege rically, or tropically, or analogically, while the true and literal sense of the words in which the history is described remains the same." The Dogmaticians therefore assume, it is true, such a spiritual sense in certain cases, but strictly speaking this is not understood as a second sense, co-ordinate with the first, but only that the natural signification of the words, which must alwrays be the basis of the interpretation, admits also a special spiritual application, or contains at the same time a symbolical allusion. HOLL. (91): " That is called the mystical sense which is not immediately signified by the inspired words, but which pro ceeds and is deduced from the subject signified by the inspired words. It is, however, improperly and unauthorizedly called the sense of the biblical expression, since it is not the immediate sense of the inspired words, but inasmuch as God desires, by means of the subject or fact described by those words, to present some other subject or fact to the consideration of men. More properly, there fore, it is called the accommodation of the literal sense, or its mystical application, than the mystical sense of Scripture, e. g., Jonah 2: 1.
BUT ONE TRUE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. 79
Here the prophet Jonah is said to have been three days and nights in the belly of the whale, and the literal sense is the one plainly designed by God, expressed and immediately implied by the words. When now this whole history or transaction is employed to signify the abode of Christ for three days and nights in the grave, no new sense here arises, but there is merely an accommodation and application of that historical narrative so as by it to express the fact that Christ was to be three days and nights in the grave." Hence the Dogmaticians declare against the assumption of a double sense in the prophecies of the Old Testament. Such a mystical sense may either be designed by God, or it may be engrafted upon the literal sense. Only in the former case dare it be employed in the inter pretation of Scripture. CAL. (I, 664): " The mystical accommo dation may either be mpa^ (contained in the written Word) and divine, or dypaooc (superadded to the written Word) and of human invention." (HoLL. : Either innate or introduced.)
QUEN. (I, 131): " When our theological writers approve of the following scholastic axioms, viz.: 'Mystical theology can prove nothing, parabolic theology cannot be advanced in argument, solid and effective arguments for proving the doctrines of the faith and refuting errors can be drawn only from the literal sense of Scrip ture,' they do not exclude, but at the same time include, mystical applications of the literal sense of this or that biblical passage, made by the Holy Spirit Himself in the Holy Scriptures; yet they exclude allegorical and parabolical interpretations that men have devised and forced upon the Scriptures. For applications of the literal sense of this or that passage or sacred narrative, that are shown to exist and are explained in the Scriptures themselves, can be used in proof, just as other things that are literally expressed in the Scriptures. When, therefore, in any plain Scripture passage there is an accommodation of the literal sense to a spiritual subject, then its validity for proving or disapproving is just as great.' " The mystical sense, as it may be loosely styled, is divided by the Lutheran theologians into the allegorical, typical, and parabolical. It is called the allegorical sense, when a Scriptural historical narra tive of things that really occurred is applied to a certain mystery or spiritual doctrine by the intention of the Holy Spirit in an alle gorical manner; it is called typical when, under external facts or prophetic visions, things hidden, either present or future, are pre figured, or especially matters relating to the New Testament are shadowed forth; and parabolical, when something is described as having really occurred, and yet applied to designate something else that is spiritual." (CAL. I, 665.)
INTRODUCTION.
The Romanists distinguish between the allegorical sense, the tropological (when the words or facts under consideration refer to something that relates to morals), and the anagogical (when the words or facts are used with a reference to eternal life).
§ 11. (4.) Efficacy.
CAL. (I, 478): " That the Holy Scriptures are living and efficacious, and a means of illumination, conversion, and sal vation, prepared and vivified by Divine power."
This subject will be treated of subsequently under the head of the Means of Grace.
§ 12. Of the Canon and the Apocryphal Books. The written Word of God consists of the Word of God of the Old and the Word of God of the New Testament. [1] In the col lection, however, that contains both of these, we find also other writings, which we do not call the Word of God in the same sense. We distinguish these two kinds of writings in the fol lowing manner, viz.: we call the first class canonical books, i. e., such as, because they are inspired by God, [2] are the rule and guide of our faith ; [3] the others, apocryphal books, i. e., such whose divine origin is either doubtful or has been disproved. [4] Although both kinds are found in the Bible, only those of the first class are admitted as a rule of faith, whence they are called the Canon (catalogue, or number, of the canonical books), while those of the other class may contribute their share to the edification of believers, but are not to be regarded as the Word of God, and from them, therefore, no proof for *my doctrine of the faith is to be drawn. [5]
Whether a book is canonical or not, we are then to ascertain by the signs whereby we recognize the Word of God in general as such, as of divine origin, as inspired. [6] The testimony of the Holy Spirit is more conclusive evidence than anything else of the divine character of the contents of a book; next to this €ome all the other kinds of evidence which-we have enumerated under the head of the Authority of Holy Scripture (§ 8, Note 10) as the external and internal criteria. [7] Among the lat ter, the testimony of the Church in the earliest ages in regard to the canonical character of a book is of special importance, for it is assuredly a matter of the highest moment if we know
EFFICACY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 81
that a book was acknowledged as canonical already at a day when its origin could be most accurately ascertained. [8] More particularly do we need the testimony of the earliest ages of the Church in deciding historical questions, as to the name of the author of a book, as to the language in which it was originally composed ; [9] for by the testimony of the Holy Spirit we may indeed become assured of the divinity of a book, experiencing its power in our own hearts, but He bears *no testimony as to questions of this kind.
As canonical books of the Old Testament we acknowledge : (1) Genesis; (2) Exodus; (3) Leviticus; (4) Numbers; (5) Deuteronomy ; (6) Joshua ; (7) Judges ; (8) Ruth ; (9) I and II Samuel ; (10) I and II Kings ; (11) I and II Chronicles ; (12) Ezra and Nehemiah (or second Ezra) ; (13) Esther ; (14) Job ; (15) Psalms; (16) Proverbs; (17) Ecclesiastes ; (18) Song of Solomon ; (19) Isaiah ; (20) Jeremiah ; (21) Lamentation ; (22) Ezekiel ; (23) Daniel ; (24) twelve minor prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi. [10]
As apocryphal : Tobias, Judith, Baruch, I, II, and III Mac cabees, III and IV Ezra, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus or Syracides. As appendices : Epistle of Jeremiah, annexed to Baruch, Appendix to Daniel, Supplement to Esther, Prayer of Manasseh. (GRH.) [11]
In the New Testament we have no apocryphal books in the same sense as in the Old Testament ; but still there are single books of the New Testament in regard to whose origin and authors the evidence is not in all cases equally consentaneous. A certain distinction must therefore be made between them and the others that are equally authenticated by every species of evidence ; and yet this distinction, resting as it does merely upon the want of entire agreement in the evidence, whilst very important testimony of various kinds is at hand to prove their canonical authority, is not of so much importance as to prevent us from making a canonical use of these books. [12]
The books of the New Testament authenticated by all the
testimonies are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, [13] and
John, Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistle to the Romans, his
two Epistles to the Corinthians, his Epistles to the Galatians,
6
82 INTRODUCTION.
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, two Epistles to the Thessa- lonians, two to Timothy, the Epistle to Titus, the Epistle to Philemon, the first Epistle of Peter, and the first of John.
Those in regard to which doubts are entertained by some are the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of James, that of Judc, and the Apocalypse of John.
[1] GRH. (II, 50): "The biblical books are distinguished into the books of the Old and New Testaments. The books of the Old Testament are those which were written before the appearance of Christ; the books of the New Testament, those which were written after the appearance of Christ, and addressed to the Church. It is to be observed, that the books of the Old Testament are called such, not because they do not manifestly contain anything of the substance, grace, and felicity of the New Testament promised through Christ to those believing in Him, but because they predict and prefigure that as future and to be fulfilled in due time, which in the New Testament is announced as complete. Rom. 3 : 21 ; 16 : 26."
HOLL. (129), as to the relation between the Old and New Testa ments: "The books of the Old Testament were committed to the Israelitic Church, those of the New Testament to the Christian Church, collected from all nations. Yet the Christian Church re ceives the canonical books of the Old Testament on account of the most admirable harmony of the prophetic and apostolic writings, on account of their great utility, and especially in obedience to the command of Christ, John 5 : 39. There is a disparity between the Old and New Testaments as to the degree of perspicuity, but not a diversity as to the object of revelation, as if in the one, things were explicitly taught as necessary to be believed, different from those so taught in the other, since faith is the same in both. Eph. 4 : 16."
[2] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 85): "The Canonical Scriptures de rive their eminent authority mainly from the fact that they are divinely inspired, 2 Tim. 3 : 16; i. e., that they came not by the will of rnan, but the men of God both spake and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
[3] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 81): "The Scriptures are called canonical, the canonical books, or the canon of Scripture, because they are a rule according to which the edifice of the faith of the Church is to be so constructed and framed that whatever agrees with this rule is to be regarded as right, sound, and apostolical ;
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT. 83
and that whatever does not quadrate with it, but varies either by excess or deficiency, is properly to be regarded as supposititious, adulterated, erroneous. This canon or rule is the doctrine divinely communicated from the beginning of the world to the human race through the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and the apostles. And because this doctrine is by the will of God contained in the Scrip tures, they are hence called canonical. A canon is an infallible rule or measure which by no means allows that anything be added to it or taken from it. ' '
[4] GRH. (II, 53): "The apocryphal books are so called anb nn dTroKpvTTTeiv, which signifies concealed, either because their origin was not clearly ascertained by those by whose testimony the authority of the true Scriptures has been handed down to us (Augustine); or, because they are not read publicly in the churches as a source of proof for ecclesiastical doctrines, but merely as a means of moral improvement." ROLL. (131): " The apocryphal books are those which are found in the volume of Scripture, but do not belong to the canon, and were not written by immediate divine inspiration. ' ' This definition applies only to those which accompany the canon ical Scriptures ; another class consists of those ' ' which contain fables, errors, and lies, and hence are not to be read in the churches." GRH. (II, 55): " The former kind are called apocry phal, in the sense of obscure (absconditi), i. e., uncertain and hidden as to their origin; the other class, in the sense that they deserve to be kept obscure (abscondendi) and ought not to be read in the churches." CAL. (I, 491): " The division of the books of Scrip ture into canonical and apocryphal is improper and equivocal, since only the former meet the definition of the Holy Scriptures, the latter merely having the name. ' '
[5] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 93): "Are then these books to be ab solutely condemned and rejected ? This we by no means demand. Of what use then is this whole discussion ? We reply, That the rule of faith or sound doctrine in the Church may be certain. The fathers taught that authoritative proof of ecclesiastical doctrine was to be drawn only from the canonical books. . . . The authority of canonical Scripture alone was judged competent to decide in dis puted questions; but the other books, which Cyprian calls eccle siastical, Jerome apocryphal, they desired indeed to have read in the churches, merely however for the edification of the people, not as proof in matters of doctrine. No dogma is, therefore, to be de duced from these books which has not clear and indubitable sup port and evidence in the canonical books. No controverted topic can be decided by these books, if there be not other and conclu-
84 INTRODUCTION.
sive evidence in the canonical books. But whatever is said in these books is to be expounded and understood according to the analogy of those truths which are plainly taught in the canonical books."
CAL. (I, 492) : " Two things are necessary to constitute a canon ical book; first, inspiration, or the immediate divine impulse, which proves the document in question to be divine truth, or the very Word of God; secondly, the divine sanction (canonicatio divina), by which God constitutes His written Word the perpetual and universal rule of the Church. ' '
HOLL. (129): " The canonical books are those whose doctrines .and single words were committed to writing by the prophets and apostles, by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and were communicated to the Church by God, and received by her as the infallible rule of faith and morals for man who is to be saved."
[6] HOLL. (126): "We judge of the canonical authority of Scripture with reference to its doctrines, by the same proofs and arguments by which we decide in regard to its divine origin. For the Holy Scriptures are an infallible rule or canon of faith and morals, because they derive their origin immediately from God, and are designed by Him for canonical use. Wherefore, when the above-mentioned criteria convince us that the meaning or doctrine of Scripture has proceeded immediately from God, there is no need of an extended demonstration of canonical authority, so far as the doctrine of the canon is concerned. ' '
[7] HOLL. (126): "The canonical authority of Scripture, con sidered as to its doctrines, is proved by external and internal criteria, but especially by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit illuminating the minds of men, through the Scriptures attentively read or heard from the mouth of a teacher."
[8] CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 85): "That this whole matter, in itself of such vast importance, might be perfectly secure against all imposture, God selected certain men to write, furnished them with many miracles and divine testimonials, that there might be no doubt that those things which they wrote were divinely inspired. Finally, these writings, divinely inspired, were at the time when they were written, by common consent, with public indorsement, presented, given, and intrusted to the Church, that she should, by all possible care and forethought, preserve them uncorrupted, transmit them thence from hand to hand, and intrust them to pos terity. And as the ancient Church, in the time of Moses, Joshua, and the prophets, so also the primitive Church in the time of the apostles, could give certain testimony as to which writings were divinely inspired. For she knew the authors whom God com-
MARKS OF CANONICITY. 85
mended to the Church by peculiar evidence; she knew also what those things were that were written by them, and, from what she learned orally from the apostles, could decide that those things which were written were the very same doctrine which the apostles orally delivered. . . . The Scriptures, therefore, derive canonical authority principally from the Holy Spirit, by whose impulse and inspiration they were .written; secondarily, from the writers them selves, to whom God gave clear and peculiar proofs of their truth; finally, from the primitive Church, as a witness, in whose day these writings were published and approved. Now this testimony of the primitive Church concerning the divine inspiration of the Scrip tures has been handed down in perpetual succession to posterity, and carefully preserved in certain ancient historical records; so that the Church in subsequent ages is the guardian of the testimony of the primitive Church concerning the Scriptures. There is, there fore, the greatest difference between the testimony (1) of the primi tive Church in the times of the apostles, that (2) of the Church in the first centuries, which received the testimony of the primitive Church, and (3) that of the present Church concerning the Scrip tures; for if what now is and formerly was the Church, can show the testimony of those who received and knew the testimony of the early Church concerning the true Scriptures, we give our assent to her as to a witness proving her assertions. But she does not possess the power of determining or deciding anything concerning the sacred books of which she cannot adduce clear documentary proof from the testimony of the primitive Church."
As to the manner in which the primitive Church proceeded in this matter, CHEMN. (Ex. Trid. I, 87) thus expresses himself: " The testimony of the primitive Church, in the times of the apos tles, concerning the genuine writings of the apostles, the immedi ately succeeding generations constantly and faithfully retained and preserved; so that when many others afterwards were brought for ward, claiming to have been written by the apostles, they were tested and rejected as supposititious and adulterated, first, for this reason, that it could not be shown and proved by the testimony of the original Church either that they were written by the apostles, or approved by the living apostles, and transmitted and intrusted by them to the Church in the beginning; secondly, because they proposed strange doctrine not accordant with that which the Church received from the apostles, and was at that time still preserving fresh in the memory of all. ' '
[9] HOLL. (126): " But the canonical authority of Scripture, in reference to the original language, or the authentic Hebrew text
86 INTRODUCTION.
of the Old and Greek of the New Testament, is indeed distinctly proved by the testimony of the primitive Church, but not by this alone. " ( 127) : ' ' We add to the testimony of the primitive Church the testimony of Scripture, its continued preservation for the profit able use of men, and the character of its style."
The intent of this passage and the one quoted in the eighth note is the following: The internal and external criteria may indeed beget in us a human faith, but not a divine; the latter can be pro duced only by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. And this must not necessarily be obtained by the use of the original text: a trans lation will answer quite as well, since the power of the Holy Spirit lies in the sense and not in the letter of the Word. Wherefore, also, we cannot become divinely assured, in regard to the idiom in which any of the sacred books has been written, by an internal experi ence. For information on this point we are therefore referred to his torical evidence; and the state of the case thus appears to be, that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is necessary to assure us of the divinity of the Scriptures, to which must be added historical proofs to satisfy us as to the language in which a sacred book was written, as to its author, etc. For BR. (112) thus expresses himself: "The internal illuminating power of the Scriptures is associated with the sense in every language, in such a manner, that it does not point out precisely the words of the original text as essentially different from other equivalent words of the same or any other language, text or version. ' ' But the other criteria, which prove the inspira tion of the doctrine contained in Scripture, either do not at all relate to the material part, or the words, of Scripture, but only to the for mal part, or the doctrine; or, when they do in some degree relate to the words and their connection, and are employed to prove in general that God is the author of the words of Scripture in any idiom, whatever it may be, they still cannot clearly indicate the precise words and letters in which each book of Scripture was orig inally committed to writing. There remains, therefore, the testimony of the Church, which does not, indeed, confer canonical or normative dignity upon the books of Scripture in any particular language, nor does it by its own authority induce that reception of the divine faith by which the inspiration of that idiom is believed; but not withstanding this, inasmuch as it historically proves a certain idiom or writing to be the original of the books of Scripture, in which it received them as written by the sacred penman, thus producing a moral certainty in regard to it, it now joined with that which the Scriptures themselves teach, and with which the Holy Spirit intimately connects his own influence, holds a place
PROOFS OF CANONICITY. 87
in the discussion of the faith. As an example, HOLL. (127) ad duces the following: "When it is asked, Was the Gospel of Matt hew originally written in Greek or Hebrew ? this is a question not of Dogmatics, but of history. ... Of this fact the Primitive Church is a credible witness, for it fought upon earth under the banner of Christ, together with the writers then living in the flesh, and re ceived their autographs from their own hands. . . . Thus we seek from the Jewish Church evidence for the Hebrew original of the Old Testament, and from the primitive Christian Church for the original Greek of the New."
It is still worthy of remark that it cannot be clearly understood, from the passages quoted from Hollazius and Baier, whether these theologians supposed that, as each individual can attain only by the testimony of the Holy Spirit unto divine faith in the revelation by Christ, so in like manner each individual can be convinced of the divinity of