[In October/November of 1517, a little more than 500 years ago, Martin Luther published
and distributed his “95 Theses”, enumerating his objections to certain practices, at that
time, of the Roman Catholic Church. The publication of the “95 Theses” is commonly
considered to be the event that sparked the Protestant Reformation. To commemorate its
500
th
anniversary, we reprint here Philip Schaff’s introduction to the history of the
Reformation, from volume six of his excellent work, History of the Christian Church.]
Introduction to the
Protestant Reformation, pt. 6,
by Philip Schaff
“Now the Lord is the Spirit:
and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”
(2 Cor. 3:17, KJV)
[We
are
picking
up
in
the
middle
of
section
9,
which
discusses
the
relationship
between
the
Reformation
and
the
rise
of
philosophical
Rationalism.
For
his
first
point,
Dr.
Schaff
considered
“the
relation
of
the
Reformation
to
the
use
of
reason
as
a
general
principle.”
Here
we continue with his second point.]
Section 9.
The Reformation and Rationalism
2.
Let us now consider the application of the principle of free inquiry to the Bible
.
The
Bible,
its
origin,
genuineness,
integrity,
aim,
and
all
its
circumstances
and
surroundings
are
proper
subjects
of
investigation;
for
it
is
a
human
as
well
as
a
divine
book,
and
has
a
history,
like
other
literary
productions.
The
extent
of
the
Bible,
moreover,
or
the
canon,
is
not
determined
by
the
Bible
itself
or
by
inspiration,
but
by
church
authority
or
tradition,
and
was
not
fully
agreed
upon
until
the
close
of
the
fourth
century,
and
even
then
only
by
provincial
synods,
not
by
any
of
the
seven ecumenical councils. It was therefore justly open to reinvestigation.
The
Church
of
Rome,
at
the
Council
of
Trent,
settled
the
canon,
including
the
Apocrypha,
but
without
any
critical
inquiry
or
definite
theological
principle;
it
simply
confirmed
the
traditional
usage,
and
pronounced
an
anathema
on
every
one
who
does
not
receive
all
the
books
contained
in
the
Latin
Vulgate.
She
also
checked
the
freedom
of
investigation
by
requiring
conformity
to
a
defective
version
and
a
unanimous
consensus
of
the
fathers,
although
such
an
exegetical
consensus
does
not exist except in certain fundamental doctrines.
The
Reformers
re-opened
the
question
of
the
extent
of
the
canon,
as
they
had
a
right
to
do,
but
without
any
idea
of
sweeping
away
the
traditional
belief
or
undermining
the
authority
of
the
Word
of
God.
On
the
contrary,
from
the
fulness
of
their
faith
in
the
inspired
Word,
as
contained
in
the
Scriptures,
they
questioned
the
canonicity
of
a
few
books
which
seem
to
be
lacking
in
sufficient
evidence
to
entitle
them
to
a
place
in
the
Bible.
They
simply
revived,
in
a
new
shape
and
on
doctrinal
rather
than
historical
grounds,
the
distinction
made
by
the
Hebrews
and
the
ancient
fathers
between
the
canonical
and
apocryphal
books
of
the
Old
Testament,
and
the
Eusebian
distinction
between
the
Homologumena
and
Antilegomena
of
the
New
Testament, and claimed in both respects the freedom of the ante-Nicene church.
They
added,
moreover,
to
the
external
evidence,
the
more
important
internal
evidence
on
the
intrinsic
excellency
of
the
Scripture,
as
the
true
ground
on
which
its
authority
and
claim
to
obedience
rests;
and
they
established
a
firm
criterion
of
canonicity,
namely,
the
purity
and
force
of
teaching
Christ
and
his
gospel
of
salvation.
They
did
not
reject
the
testimonies
of
the
fathers,
but
they
placed
over
them what Paul calls the
“demonstration of the Spirit and of power”
(1 Cor. 2: 4).
Luther
was
the
bold
pioneer
of
a
higher
criticism,
which
was
indeed
subjective
and
arbitrary,
but,
after
all,
a
criticism
of
faith.
He
made
his
central
doctrine
of
justification
by
faith
the
criterion
of
canonicity.
He
thus
placed
the
material
or
subjective
principle
of
Protestantism
above
the
formal
or
objective
principle,
the
truth
above
the
witness
of
the
truth,
the
doctrine
of
the
gospel
above
the
written
Gospel,
Christ
above
the
Bible.
Romanism,
on
the
contrary,
places
the
church
above
the
Bible.
But
we
must
remember
that
Luther
first
learnt
Christ
from
the
Bible,
and
especially
from
the
Epistles
of
Paul,
which
furnished
him
the
key
for
the
understanding of the scheme of salvation.
He
made
a
distinction,
moreover,
between
the
more
important
and
the
less
important
books
of
the
New
Testament,
according
to
the
extent
of
their
evangelic
purity
and
force,
and
put
Hebrews,
James,
Jude,
and
Revelation
at
the
end
of
the
German Bible.
He
states
his
reason
in
the
Preface
to
the
Hebrews
as
follows:
“Hitherto
we
have
had
the
right
and
genuine
books
of
the
New
Testament.
The
four
that
follow
have
been
differently
esteemed
in
olden
times.”
He
therefore
appeals
to
the
ante-Nicene
tradition, but his chief objection was to the contents.
He
disliked,
most
of
all,
the
Epistle
of
James
because
he
could
not
harmonize
it
with
Paul's
teaching
on
justification
by
faith
without
works,
and
he
called
it
an
epistle of straw as compared with the genuine apostolic writings.
He
objected
to
the
Epistle
to
the
Hebrews
because
it
seems
to
deny
(in
chaps.
6,
10
and
12)
the
possibility
of
repentance
after
baptism,
contrary
to
the
Gospels
and
to
Paul,
and
betrays
in
Heb.
2:3,
a
post-apostolic
origin.
He
ascribed
the
authorship
to
Apollos
by
an
ingenious
guess,
which,
though
not
supported
by
ancient
tradition,
has
found
great
favor
with
modern
commentators
and
critics,
chiefly
because
the
authorship
of
any
other
possible
writer
(Paul,
Barnabas,
Luke,
Clement)
seems
to
offer
insuperable
difficulties,
while
the
description
of
Apollos
in
Acts
18:24-28,
compared
with
the
allusions
in
1
Cor.
1:12;
3:6;
4:6;
16:12,
seems
to
fit
exactly the author of this anonymous Epistle.
He
called
the
Epistle
of
Jude
an
“unnecessary
epistle,”
a
mere
extract
from
Second
Peter
and
post-apostolic,
filled
with
apocryphal
matter,
and
hence
rejected
by the ancient fathers.
He
could
at
first
find
no
sense
in
the
mysteries
of
the
Apocalypse
and
declared
it
to
be
“neither
apostolic
nor
prophetic,”
because
it
deals
only
with
images
and
visions,
and
yet,
notwithstanding
its
obscurity,
it
adds
threats
and
promises,
“though
nobody
knows
what
it
means”;
but
afterwards
he
modified
his
judgment
when
the
Lutheran
divines
found
in
it
welcome
weapons
against
the
church
of
Rome.
The
clearest
utterance
on
this
subject
is
found
at
the
close
of
his
preface
to
the
first
edition
of
his
German
version
of
the
New
Testament
(1522),
but
it
was
suppressed in later editions.
Luther’s
view
of
inspiration
was
both
strong
and
free.
With
the
profoundest
conviction
of
the
divine
contents
of
the
Bible,
he
distinguished
between
the
revealed
truth
itself
and
the
human
wording
and
reasoning
of
the
writers.
He
says
of
one
of
the
rabbinical
arguments
of
his
favorite
apostle:
“My
dear
brother
Paul,
this argument won’t stick.”
Luther
was,
however,
fully
aware
of
the
subjective
and
conjectural
character
of
these
opinions,
and
had
no
intention
of
obtruding
them
on
the
church:
hence
he
modified
his
prefaces
in
later
editions.
He
judged
the
Scriptures
from
an
exclusively
dogmatic,
and
one-sidedly
Pauline
standpoint,
and
did
not
consider
their
gradual
historical growth.
A
few
Lutheran
divines
followed
him
in
assigning
a
subordinate
position
to
the
seven
Antilegomena
of
the
New
Testament;
but
the
Lutheran
church,
with
a
sound
instinct,
accepted
for
popular
use
the
traditional
catholic
canon
(not
even
expressly
excluding
the
Jewish
Apocrypha),
yet
retained
his
arrangement
of
the
books
of
the
New
Testament.
The
Rationalists,
of
course,
revived,
intensified,
and
carried
to
excess
the
bold
opinions
of
Luther,
but
in
a
spirit
against
which
he
would
himself
raise the strongest protest.
The
Reformed
divines
were
more
conservative
than
Luther
in
accepting
the
canonical
books,
but
more
decided
in
rejecting
the
Apocrypha
of
the
Old
Testament.
The Reformed Confessions usually enumerate the canonical books.
Zwingli
objected
only
to
the
Apocalypse
and
made
no
doctrinal
use
of
it,
because
he
did
not
deem
it
an
inspired
book,
written
by
the
same
John
who
wrote
the
fourth
Gospel.
In
this
view
he
has
many
followers,
but
the
severest
critical
school
of
our
days
(that
of
Tubingen)
assigns
it
to
the
Apostle
John.
Wolfgang
Musculus
mentions
the
seven
Antilegomena,
but
includes
them
in
the
general
catalogue
of
the
New
Testament;
and
Oecolampadius
speaks
of
six
Antilegomena
(omitting
the
Hebrews), as holding an inferior rank, but nevertheless appeals to their testimony.
Calvin
had
no
fault
to
find
with
James
and
Jude,
and
often
quotes
Hebrews
and
Revelation
as
canonical
books,
though
he
wrote
no
commentary
on
Revelation,
probably
because
he
felt
himself
incompetent
for
the
task.
He
is
silent
about
Second
and
Third
John.
He
denies,
decidedly,
the
Pauline
authorship,
but
not
the
canonicity,
of
Hebrews.
He
is
disposed
to
assign
Second
Peter
to
a
pupil
of
Peter,
who
wrote
under
the
auspices
and
by
direction
of
the
Apostle;
but
he
guards
in
this
case, also, against unfavorable inferences from the uncertainty of origin.
Calvin
clearly
saw
the
inconsistency
of
giving
the
Church
the
right
of
determining
the
canon
after
denying
her
right
of
making
an
article
of
faith.
He
therefore
placed
the
canon
on
the
authority
of
God
who
bears
testimony
to
it
through
the
voice
of
the
Spirit
in
the
hearts
of
the
believer.
The
eternal
and
inviolable
truth
of
God,
he
says,
is
not
founded
on
the
pleasure
and
judgment
of
men,
and
can
be
as
easily
distinguished
as
light
from
darkness,
and
white
from
black.
In
the
same
line,
Peter
Vermilius
denies
that
“the
Scriptures
take
their
authority
from
the
Church.
Their
certitude
is
derived
from
God.
The
Word
is
older
than
the
Church.
The
Spirit
of
God
wrought
in
the
hearts
of
the
hearers
and
readers
of
the
Word
so
that
they
recognized
it
to
be
truly
divine.”
This
view
is
clearly
set
forth
in
several
Calvinistic
Confessions.
In
its
exclusive
form
it
is
diametrically
opposed
to
the
maxim
of
Augustin,
otherwise
so
highly
esteemed
by
the
Reformers:
“I
should
not
believe
the
gospel
except
as
moved
by
the
authority
of
the
Church.”
But
the
two
kinds
of
evidence
supplement
each
other.
The
human
authority
of
tradition
though
not
the
final
ground
of
belief,
is
indispensable
as
an
historical
witness
of
the
genuineness
and
canonicity,
and
is
of
great
weight
in
conflict
with
Rationalism.
There
is
no
essential
antagonism
between
the
Bible
and
the
Church
in
the
proper
sense
of
the
term.
They
are
inseparable.
The
Church
was
founded
by
Christ
and
the
apostles
through
the
preaching
of
the
living
Word
of
God,
and
the
founders
of
the
Church
are
also
the
authors
of
the
written
Word,
which
continues
to
be
the
shining
and
guiding
light
of
the
Church;
while
the
Church
in
turn
is
the
guardian, preserver, translator, propagator, and expounder of the Bible.
3.
The
liberal
views
of
the
Reformers
on
inspiration
and
the
canon
were
abandoned
after
the
middle
of
the
sixteenth
century,
and
were
succeeded
by
compact
and
consolidated
systems
of
theology
.
The
evangelical
scholasticism
of
the
seventeenth
century
strongly
resembles,
both
in
its
virtues
and
defects,
the
catholic
scholasticism
of
the
Middle
Ages
which
systematized
and
contracted
the
patristic
theology,
except
that
the
former
was
based
on
the
Bible,
the
latter
on
church
tradition.
In
the
conflict
with
Romanism,
the
Lutheran
and
Calvinistic
scholastics
elaborated
a
stiff,
mechanical
theory
of
inspiration
in
order
to
set
an
infallible
book
against
an
infallible
pope.
The
Bible
was
identified
with
the
Word
of
God,
dictated
to
the
sacred
writers
as
the
penmen
of
the
Holy
Ghost.
Even
the
classical
purity
of
style
and
the
integrity
of
the
traditional
text,
including
the
Massoretic
punctuation,
were
asserted
in
the
face
of
stubborn
facts,
which
came
to
light
as
the
study
of
the
origin
and
history
of
the
text
advanced.
The
divine
side
of
the
Scriptures
was
exclusively
dwelled
upon,
and
the
human
and
literary
side
was
ignored
or
virtually
denied.
Hence
the
exegetical
poverty
of
the
period
of
Protestant
scholasticism.
The
Bible
was
used
as
a
repository
of
proof
texts
for
previously
conceived
dogmas,
without
regard
to
the
context,
the
difference
between
the
Old
and
New
Testaments,
and
the
gradual
development
of
the divine revelation in accordance with the needs and capacities of men.
4.
It
was
against
this
Protestant
bibliolatry
and
symbolatry
that
Rationalism
arose
as
a
legitimate
protest
.
It
pulled
down
one
dogma
after
another,
and
subjected
the
Bible
and
the
canon
to
a
searching
criticism.
It
denies
the
divine
inspiration
of
the
Scriptures,
except
in
a
wider
sense
which
applies
to
all
works
of
genius,
and
treats
them
simply
as
a
gradual
evolution
of
the
religious
spirit
of
Israel
and
the
primitive
Christian
Church.
It
charges
them
with
errors
of
fact
and
errors
of
doctrine,
and
resolves
the
miracles
into
legends
and
myths.
It
questions
the
Mosaic
origin
of
the
Pentateuch,
the
genuineness
of
the
Davidic
Psalms,
the
Solomonic
writings,
the
prophecies
of
Deutero-Isaiah
and
Daniel,
and
other
books
of
the
Old
Testament.
It
assigns
not
only
the
Eusebian
Antilegomena,
but
even
the
Gospels,
Acts,
the
Catholic
Epistles,
and
several
Pauline
Epistles
to
the
post-apostolic
age,
from
A.D.
70 to 150.
In
its
later
developments,
however,
Rationalism
has
been
obliged
to
retreat
and
make
several
concessions
to
orthodoxy.
The
canonical
Gospels
and
Acts
have
gained
by
further
investigation
and
discovery;
and
the
apostolic
authorship
of
the
four
great
Epistles
of
Paul
to
the
Romans,
Corinthians,
and
Galatians
and
the
Apocalypse
of
John
is
fully
admitted
by
the
severest
school
of
criticism
(that
of
Tubingen).
A
most
important
admission:
for
these
five
books
teach
or
imply
all
the
leading
facts
and
truths
of
the
gospel,
and
overthrow
the
very
foundations
of
Rationalism.
With
the
Christ
of
the
Gospels,
and
the
Apostle
Paul
of
his
acknowledged Epistles, Christianity is safe.
Rationalism
was
a
radical
revolution
which
swept
like
a
flood
over
the
Continent
of
Europe.
But
it
is
not
negative
and
destructive
only.
It
has
made
and
is
still
making
valuable
contributions
to
biblical
philology,
textual
criticism,
and
grammatico-historical
exegesis.
It
enlarges
the
knowledge
of
the
conditions
and
environments
of
the
Bible,
and
of
all
that
belongs
to
the
human
and
temporal
side
of
Christ
and
Christianity.
It
cultivates
with
special
zeal
and
learning
the
sciences
of
Critical
Introduction,
Biblical
Theology,
the
Life
of
Christ,
the
Apostolic
and
post-
Apostolic Ages.
5.
These
acquisitions
to
exegetical
and
historical
theology
are
a
permanent
gain,
and
are
incorporated
in
the
new
evangelical
theology,
which
arose
in
conflict
with
Rationalism
and
in
defense
of
the
positive
Christian
faith
in
the
divine
facts
of
revelation
and
the
doctrines
of
salvation.
The
conflict
is
still
going
on
with
increasing
strength,
but
with
the
sure
prospect
of
the
triumph
of
truth.
Christianity
is
independent
of
all
critical
questions
on
the
canon,
and
of
human
theories
of
inspiration;
else
Christ
would
himself
have
written
the
Gospels,
or
commanded
the
Apostles
to
do
so,
and
provided
for
the
miraculous
preservation
and
inspired
translation
of
the
text.
His
“words
are
spirit,
and
are
life”
(John
6:63).
“The
flesh
profiteth
nothing.”
Criticism
and
speculation
may
for
a
while
wander
away
from
Christ,
but
will
ultimately
return
to
Him
who
furnishes
the
only
key
for
the
solution
of
the
problems
of
history
and
human
life.
“No
matter,”
says
the
world-poet
Goethe
in
one
of
his
last
utterances,
“how
much
the
human
mind
may
progress
in
intellectual
culture,
in
the
science
of
nature,
in
ever-expanding
breadth
and
depth:
it
will
never
be able to rise above the elevation and moral culture which shines in the Gospels.”
[This study will continue, D.V., in the next issue.]
This study is taken from: Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, Vol. VI.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1904. A PDF file of this book can be
downloaded, free of charge, at:
http://www.ClassicChristianLibrary.com
© 1994-2020, Scott Sperling
[In October/November of 1517, a little more than 500 years
ago, Martin Luther published and distributed his “95
Theses”, enumerating his objections to certain practices, at
that time, of the Roman Catholic Church. The publication of
the “95 Theses” is commonly considered to be the event that
sparked the Protestant Reformation. To commemorate its
500
th
anniversary, we reprint here Philip Schaff’s
introduction to the history of the Reformation, from volume
six of his excellent work, History of the Christian
Church.]
Introduction to the
Protestant Reformation, pt. 6,
by Philip Schaff
“Now the Lord is the Spirit:
and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”
(2 Cor. 3:17, KJV)
[We
are
picking
up
in
the
middle
of
section
9,
which
discusses
the
relationship
between
the
Reformation
and
the
rise
of
philosophical
Rationalism.
For
his
first
point,
Dr.
Schaff
considered
“the
relation
of
the
Reformation
to
the
use
of
reason
as
a
general
principle.”
Here
we
continue
with
his
second point.]
Section 9.
The Reformation and Rationalism
2.
Let
us
now
consider
the
application
of
the
principle
of
free inquiry to the Bible
.
The
Bible,
its
origin,
genuineness,
integrity,
aim,
and
all
its
circumstances
and
surroundings
are
proper
subjects
of
investigation;
for
it
is
a
human
as
well
as
a
divine
book,
and
has
a
history,
like
other
literary
productions.
The
extent
of
the
Bible,
moreover,
or
the
canon,
is
not
determined
by
the
Bible
itself
or
by
inspiration,
but
by
church
authority
or
tradition,
and
was
not
fully
agreed
upon
until
the
close
of
the
fourth
century,
and
even
then
only
by
provincial
synods,
not
by
any
of
the
seven
ecumenical
councils.
It
was
therefore justly open to reinvestigation.
The
Church
of
Rome,
at
the
Council
of
Trent,
settled
the
canon,
including
the
Apocrypha,
but
without
any
critical
inquiry
or
definite
theological
principle;
it
simply
confirmed
the
traditional
usage,
and
pronounced
an
anathema
on
every
one
who
does
not
receive
all
the
books
contained
in
the
Latin
Vulgate.
She
also
checked
the
freedom
of
investigation
by
requiring
conformity
to
a
defective
version
and
a
unanimous
consensus
of
the
fathers,
although
such
an
exegetical
consensus
does
not
exist
except
in
certain
fundamental doctrines.
The
Reformers
re-opened
the
question
of
the
extent
of
the
canon,
as
they
had
a
right
to
do,
but
without
any
idea
of
sweeping
away
the
traditional
belief
or
undermining
the
authority
of
the
Word
of
God.
On
the
contrary,
from
the
fulness
of
their
faith
in
the
inspired
Word,
as
contained
in
the
Scriptures,
they
questioned
the
canonicity
of
a
few
books
which
seem
to
be
lacking
in
sufficient
evidence
to
entitle
them
to
a
place
in
the
Bible.
They
simply
revived,
in
a
new
shape
and
on
doctrinal
rather
than
historical
grounds,
the
distinction
made
by
the
Hebrews
and
the
ancient
fathers
between
the
canonical
and
apocryphal
books
of
the
Old
Testament,
and
the
Eusebian
distinction
between
the
Homologumena
and
Antilegomena
of
the
New
Testament,
and
claimed
in
both
respects
the
freedom
of the ante-Nicene church.
They
added,
moreover,
to
the
external
evidence,
the
more
important
internal
evidence
on
the
intrinsic
excellency
of
the
Scripture,
as
the
true
ground
on
which
its
authority
and
claim
to
obedience
rests;
and
they
established
a
firm
criterion
of
canonicity,
namely,
the
purity
and
force
of
teaching
Christ
and
his
gospel
of
salvation.
They
did
not
reject
the
testimonies
of
the
fathers,
but
they
placed
over
them
what
Paul
calls
the
“demonstration
of
the
Spirit
and
of
power”
(1
Cor.
2:
4).
Luther
was
the
bold
pioneer
of
a
higher
criticism,
which
was
indeed
subjective
and
arbitrary,
but,
after
all,
a
criticism
of
faith.
He
made
his
central
doctrine
of
justification
by
faith
the
criterion
of
canonicity.
He
thus
placed
the
material
or
subjective
principle
of
Protestantism
above
the
formal
or
objective
principle,
the
truth
above
the
witness
of
the
truth,
the
doctrine
of
the
gospel
above
the
written
Gospel,
Christ
above
the
Bible.
Romanism,
on
the
contrary,
places
the
church
above
the
Bible.
But
we
must
remember
that
Luther
first
learnt
Christ
from
the
Bible,
and
especially
from
the
Epistles
of
Paul,
which
furnished
him
the
key
for
the understanding of the scheme of salvation.
He
made
a
distinction,
moreover,
between
the
more
important
and
the
less
important
books
of
the
New
Testament,
according
to
the
extent
of
their
evangelic
purity
and
force,
and
put
Hebrews,
James,
Jude,
and
Revelation at the end of the German Bible.
He
states
his
reason
in
the
Preface
to
the
Hebrews
as
follows:
“Hitherto
we
have
had
the
right
and
genuine
books
of
the
New
Testament.
The
four
that
follow
have
been
differently
esteemed
in
olden
times.”
He
therefore
appeals
to
the
ante-Nicene
tradition,
but
his
chief objection was to the contents.
He
disliked,
most
of
all,
the
Epistle
of
James
because
he
could
not
harmonize
it
with
Paul's
teaching
on
justification
by
faith
without
works,
and
he
called
it
an
epistle
of
straw
as
compared
with
the
genuine
apostolic writings.
He
objected
to
the
Epistle
to
the
Hebrews
because
it
seems
to
deny
(in
chaps.
6,
10
and
12)
the
possibility
of
repentance
after
baptism,
contrary
to
the
Gospels
and
to
Paul,
and
betrays
in
Heb.
2:3,
a
post-apostolic
origin.
He
ascribed
the
authorship
to
Apollos
by
an
ingenious
guess,
which,
though
not
supported
by
ancient
tradition,
has
found
great
favor
with
modern
commentators
and
critics,
chiefly
because
the
authorship
of
any
other
possible
writer
(Paul,
Barnabas,
Luke,
Clement)
seems
to
offer
insuperable
difficulties,
while
the
description
of
Apollos
in
Acts
18:24-28,
compared
with
the
allusions
in
1
Cor.
1:12;
3:6;
4:6;
16:12,
seems
to
fit
exactly
the
author
of
this
anonymous Epistle.
He
called
the
Epistle
of
Jude
an
“unnecessary
epistle,”
a
mere
extract
from
Second
Peter
and
post-
apostolic,
filled
with
apocryphal
matter,
and
hence
rejected by the ancient fathers.
He
could
at
first
find
no
sense
in
the
mysteries
of
the
Apocalypse
and
declared
it
to
be
“neither
apostolic
nor
prophetic,”
because
it
deals
only
with
images
and
visions,
and
yet,
notwithstanding
its
obscurity,
it
adds
threats
and
promises,
“though
nobody
knows
what
it
means”;
but
afterwards
he
modified
his
judgment
when
the
Lutheran
divines
found
in
it
welcome
weapons against the church of Rome.
The
clearest
utterance
on
this
subject
is
found
at
the
close
of
his
preface
to
the
first
edition
of
his
German
version
of
the
New
Testament
(1522),
but
it
was
suppressed in later editions.
Luther’s
view
of
inspiration
was
both
strong
and
free.
With
the
profoundest
conviction
of
the
divine
contents
of
the
Bible,
he
distinguished
between
the
revealed
truth
itself
and
the
human
wording
and
reasoning
of
the
writers.
He
says
of
one
of
the
rabbinical
arguments
of
his
favorite
apostle:
“My
dear
brother Paul, this argument won’t stick.”
Luther
was,
however,
fully
aware
of
the
subjective
and
conjectural
character
of
these
opinions,
and
had
no
intention
of
obtruding
them
on
the
church:
hence
he
modified
his
prefaces
in
later
editions.
He
judged
the
Scriptures
from
an
exclusively
dogmatic,
and
one-
sidedly
Pauline
standpoint,
and
did
not
consider
their
gradual historical growth.
A
few
Lutheran
divines
followed
him
in
assigning
a
subordinate
position
to
the
seven
Antilegomena
of
the
New
Testament;
but
the
Lutheran
church,
with
a
sound
instinct,
accepted
for
popular
use
the
traditional
catholic
canon
(not
even
expressly
excluding
the
Jewish
Apocrypha),
yet
retained
his
arrangement
of
the
books
of
the
New
Testament.
The
Rationalists,
of
course,
revived,
intensified,
and
carried
to
excess
the
bold
opinions
of
Luther,
but
in
a
spirit
against
which
he would himself raise the strongest protest.
The
Reformed
divines
were
more
conservative
than
Luther
in
accepting
the
canonical
books,
but
more
decided
in
rejecting
the
Apocrypha
of
the
Old
Testament.
The
Reformed
Confessions
usually
enumerate the canonical books.
Zwingli
objected
only
to
the
Apocalypse
and
made
no
doctrinal
use
of
it,
because
he
did
not
deem
it
an
inspired
book,
written
by
the
same
John
who
wrote
the
fourth
Gospel.
In
this
view
he
has
many
followers,
but
the
severest
critical
school
of
our
days
(that
of
Tubingen)
assigns
it
to
the
Apostle
John.
Wolfgang
Musculus
mentions
the
seven
Antilegomena,
but
includes
them
in
the
general
catalogue
of
the
New
Testament;
and
Oecolampadius
speaks
of
six
Antilegomena
(omitting
the
Hebrews),
as
holding
an
inferior
rank,
but
nevertheless
appeals
to
their
testimony.
Calvin
had
no
fault
to
find
with
James
and
Jude,
and
often
quotes
Hebrews
and
Revelation
as
canonical
books,
though
he
wrote
no
commentary
on
Revelation,
probably
because
he
felt
himself
incompetent
for
the
task.
He
is
silent
about
Second
and
Third
John.
He
denies,
decidedly,
the
Pauline
authorship,
but
not
the
canonicity,
of
Hebrews.
He
is
disposed
to
assign
Second
Peter
to
a
pupil
of
Peter,
who
wrote
under
the
auspices
and
by
direction
of
the
Apostle;
but
he
guards
in
this
case,
also,
against
unfavorable
inferences
from
the uncertainty of origin.
Calvin
clearly
saw
the
inconsistency
of
giving
the
Church
the
right
of
determining
the
canon
after
denying
her
right
of
making
an
article
of
faith.
He
therefore
placed
the
canon
on
the
authority
of
God
who
bears
testimony
to
it
through
the
voice
of
the
Spirit
in
the
hearts
of
the
believer.
The
eternal
and
inviolable
truth
of
God,
he
says,
is
not
founded
on
the
pleasure
and
judgment
of
men,
and
can
be
as
easily
distinguished
as
light
from
darkness,
and
white
from
black.
In
the
same
line,
Peter
Vermilius
denies
that
“the
Scriptures
take
their
authority
from
the
Church.
Their
certitude
is
derived
from
God.
The
Word
is
older
than
the
Church.
The
Spirit
of
God
wrought
in
the
hearts
of
the
hearers
and
readers
of
the
Word
so
that
they
recognized
it
to
be
truly
divine.”
This
view
is
clearly
set
forth
in
several
Calvinistic
Confessions.
In
its
exclusive
form
it
is
diametrically
opposed
to
the
maxim
of
Augustin,
otherwise
so
highly
esteemed
by
the
Reformers:
“I
should
not
believe
the
gospel
except
as
moved
by
the
authority
of
the
Church.”
But
the
two
kinds
of
evidence
supplement
each
other.
The
human
authority
of
tradition
though
not
the
final
ground
of
belief,
is
indispensable
as
an
historical
witness
of
the
genuineness
and
canonicity,
and
is
of
great
weight
in
conflict
with
Rationalism.
There
is
no
essential
antagonism
between
the
Bible
and
the
Church
in
the
proper
sense
of
the
term.
They
are
inseparable.
The
Church
was
founded
by
Christ
and
the
apostles
through
the
preaching
of
the
living
Word
of
God,
and
the
founders
of
the
Church
are
also
the
authors
of
the
written
Word,
which
continues
to
be
the
shining
and
guiding
light
of
the
Church;
while
the
Church
in
turn
is
the
guardian,
preserver,
translator,
propagator,
and
expounder of the Bible.
3.
The
liberal
views
of
the
Reformers
on
inspiration
and
the
canon
were
abandoned
after
the
middle
of
the
sixteenth
century,
and
were
succeeded
by
compact
and
consolidated
systems
of
theology
.
The
evangelical
scholasticism
of
the
seventeenth
century
strongly
resembles,
both
in
its
virtues
and
defects,
the
catholic
scholasticism
of
the
Middle
Ages
which
systematized
and
contracted
the
patristic
theology,
except
that
the
former
was
based
on
the
Bible,
the
latter
on
church
tradition.
In
the
conflict
with
Romanism,
the
Lutheran
and
Calvinistic
scholastics
elaborated
a
stiff,
mechanical
theory
of
inspiration
in
order
to
set
an
infallible
book
against
an
infallible
pope.
The
Bible
was
identified
with
the
Word
of
God,
dictated
to
the
sacred
writers
as
the
penmen
of
the
Holy
Ghost.
Even
the
classical
purity
of
style
and
the
integrity
of
the
traditional
text,
including
the
Massoretic
punctuation,
were
asserted
in
the
face
of
stubborn
facts,
which
came
to
light
as
the
study
of
the
origin
and
history
of
the
text
advanced.
The
divine
side
of
the
Scriptures
was
exclusively
dwelled
upon,
and
the
human
and
literary
side
was
ignored
or
virtually
denied.
Hence
the
exegetical
poverty
of
the
period
of
Protestant
scholasticism.
The
Bible
was
used
as
a
repository
of
proof
texts
for
previously
conceived
dogmas,
without
regard
to
the
context,
the
difference
between
the
Old
and
New
Testaments,
and
the
gradual
development
of
the
divine
revelation
in
accordance
with the needs and capacities of men.
4.
It
was
against
this
Protestant
bibliolatry
and
symbolatry
that
Rationalism
arose
as
a
legitimate
protest
.
It
pulled
down
one
dogma
after
another,
and
subjected
the
Bible
and
the
canon
to
a
searching
criticism.
It
denies
the
divine
inspiration
of
the
Scriptures,
except
in
a
wider
sense
which
applies
to
all
works
of
genius,
and
treats
them
simply
as
a
gradual
evolution
of
the
religious
spirit
of
Israel
and
the
primitive
Christian
Church.
It
charges
them
with
errors
of
fact
and
errors
of
doctrine,
and
resolves
the
miracles
into
legends
and
myths.
It
questions
the
Mosaic
origin
of
the
Pentateuch,
the
genuineness
of
the
Davidic
Psalms,
the
Solomonic
writings,
the
prophecies
of
Deutero-Isaiah
and
Daniel,
and
other
books
of
the
Old
Testament.
It
assigns
not
only
the
Eusebian
Antilegomena,
but
even
the
Gospels,
Acts,
the
Catholic
Epistles,
and
several
Pauline
Epistles
to
the
post-apostolic
age,
from
A.D.
70
to 150.
In
its
later
developments,
however,
Rationalism
has
been
obliged
to
retreat
and
make
several
concessions
to
orthodoxy.
The
canonical
Gospels
and
Acts
have
gained
by
further
investigation
and
discovery;
and
the
apostolic
authorship
of
the
four
great
Epistles
of
Paul
to
the
Romans,
Corinthians,
and
Galatians
and
the
Apocalypse
of
John
is
fully
admitted
by
the
severest
school
of
criticism
(that
of
Tubingen).
A
most
important
admission:
for
these
five
books
teach
or
imply
all
the
leading
facts
and
truths
of
the
gospel,
and
overthrow
the
very
foundations
of
Rationalism.
With
the
Christ
of
the
Gospels,
and
the
Apostle
Paul
of
his
acknowledged Epistles, Christianity is safe.
Rationalism
was
a
radical
revolution
which
swept
like
a
flood
over
the
Continent
of
Europe.
But
it
is
not
negative
and
destructive
only.
It
has
made
and
is
still
making
valuable
contributions
to
biblical
philology,
textual
criticism,
and
grammatico-historical
exegesis.
It
enlarges
the
knowledge
of
the
conditions
and
environments
of
the
Bible,
and
of
all
that
belongs
to
the
human
and
temporal
side
of
Christ
and
Christianity.
It
cultivates
with
special
zeal
and
learning
the
sciences
of
Critical
Introduction,
Biblical
Theology,
the
Life
of
Christ,
the
Apostolic
and
post-Apostolic
Ages.
5.
These
acquisitions
to
exegetical
and
historical
theology
are
a
permanent
gain,
and
are
incorporated
in
the
new
evangelical
theology,
which
arose
in
conflict
with
Rationalism
and
in
defense
of
the
positive
Christian
faith
in
the
divine
facts
of
revelation
and
the
doctrines
of
salvation.
The
conflict
is
still
going
on
with
increasing
strength,
but
with
the
sure
prospect
of
the
triumph
of
truth.
Christianity
is
independent
of
all
critical
questions
on
the
canon,
and
of
human
theories
of
inspiration;
else
Christ
would
himself
have
written
the
Gospels,
or
commanded
the
Apostles
to
do
so,
and
provided
for
the
miraculous
preservation
and
inspired
translation
of
the
text.
His
“words
are
spirit,
and
are
life”
(John
6:63).
“The
flesh
profiteth
nothing.”
Criticism
and
speculation
may
for
a
while
wander
away
from
Christ,
but
will
ultimately
return
to
Him
who
furnishes
the
only
key
for
the
solution
of
the
problems
of
history
and
human
life.
“No
matter,”
says
the
world-poet
Goethe
in
one
of
his
last
utterances,
“how
much
the
human
mind
may
progress
in
intellectual
culture,
in
the
science
of
nature,
in
ever-
expanding
breadth
and
depth:
it
will
never
be
able
to
rise
above
the
elevation
and
moral
culture
which
shines in the Gospels.”
[This study will continue, D.V., in the next issue.]
This study is taken from: Schaff, Philip. History of the
Christian Church, Vol. VI. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1904. A PDF file of this book can be downloaded,
free of charge, at:
http://www.ClassicChristianLibrary.com
