t4g*JETVERJT£y'
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE
B1BLI0THECA SACRA

ARTICLE I.

LUTHER'S DOCTRINE AND CRITICISM OF
SCRIPTURE.
BY PROFESSOR KEMPER FULLERT03KT.
I.
We are unable to appreciate the full significance of Luther's
doctrine of Scripture unless we understand how he arrived at
it. We cannot understand how he arrived at it until we under
stand what, in essence, was the religious situation in his day.
Two facts furnish us with the key to this situation.
1. Ecclesiastical tradition had superseded Scripture; and
the Pope as the mouth of tradition, rather than the Bible as
its source, was the supreme authority. Theoretically the
Bible was still the ultimate authority (the Pope supported his
¦claims by the appeal to Scripture1), but practically it was not
so. The Bible was a book of heavenly mysteries. The alle
gorical method of interpretation, received from the early church
and elaborated by the Schoolmen, had turned the Bible into
.an enigma. It needed a competent interpreter. This com
petent interpreter was the church as represented by the Pope.
"Was he not the possessor of apostolic tradition as to the mean
ing of Scripture ? But the one who has the authority to explain
1 Cf. the Bull " Unam Sanctam " of Boniface VIII.
Vol. LXIII. No. 249. 1

2 - Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan.
the meaning of the Bible is the one who possesses the real and
final authority. Theoretically the law is supreme. Practical-.
ly the court which interprets the law is supreme.
2. The hierarchy, as the conservers of the apostolic tradi
tion and the dispensers of the sacraments, had arrogated to
themselves divine powers. They held the keys of heaven and
hell. Through them alone men could find access to God. The
right of the individual to approach his Gcwi directly through
Jesus Christ was denied. The priest blocked the way. y$5alva-
tion was the reward of merit which the church had largely at
its own disposal, not a gift of grace directly from God to the
individual soult But at this point the individual soul rebelled.
Luther's position was developed in the sharpest and most
direct antithesis to the two principles of the papacy just de
scribed. 1. The Reformation was born in a great spiritual experi
ence. ( Luther found God without the church's mediation.
It was the realization of this possibility by one who had the
strength to accept its consequences, that initiated a new epoch
in the world's history-} In the great spiritual struggle through
which Luther passed in the convent at Erfurt, his sins weighed
him down. The thought of the anger of a just God gave him
no peace, do what he would to earn merit and forgiveness. He
was only finally comforted by the words of an old monk, who
reminded him of the article of the Apostles' Creed, " I believe
in the remission of sins," and of Paul's assurance that the sin
ner is justified by faith. Then, in accordance with the advice
of Staupitz, he turned from the study of the Schoolmen to the
study of the Scripture, St. Augustine, and Tauler. The light
broke into his soul. The great gospel doctrines of sin and
grace were absorbed into his being, becamp an integral part
of his experience. ^This experience of justification by faith

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 3
alone, as contrasted with the acceptance of it at the hands of
the church, was an assured fact in Luther's life before he en
tered upon his great struggle with the church) which began'
with the Indulgence Controversy.
3. But Luther did not at first appreciate the critical signifi
cance of what he had passed through. The immediate though
wholly unlooked-for consequence was that he was compelled
to grapple with the question of authority./ His experience*
brought him into conflict with certain abuses of the day which
had the sanction of the church. It was soon made apparent
by his adversaries that Luther's position was at variance with
the recognized religious authorities of the times, the Schoolmen,
the Pope, the Fathers, and even the General Councils. Had
a mere individual the right to assert himself against these au
thorities, which the whole religious world, at least the whole
official religious world, held to be final? It was a critical
moment. \How could Luther support himself in the eyes of
the world in such an emergency ? ) At this point he made his
appeal to Scripture. But would he be able to maintain the
authority of Scripture against the weight of all these ecclesi
astical authorities? It took nearly two years of strenuous
conflict (from the beginning of the Thesis Controversy, in
October, 1517, to the debate with Eck at Leipzig, in the summer
of 1519) to decide this question.1 Slowly and with difficulty
Luther fought his way through. One authority after another
was abandoned, until only the supremacy of the General Coun
cil was left. The Leipzig Disputation largely turned on the
question whether such a council could err. Luther wavered in
the debate. He could scarcely bring himself to take the final
1For the development of Luther's doctrine of Scripture during
this period, cf. especially the exhaustave treatise of Preuss, Die
Bntwickelung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther bis zur Leipziger Dis
putation (Leipzig, 1901).

4 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan,
step, and reject the supreme authority of a general council.
Through his hesitation he was placed at a disadvantage in the
debate. But immediately after the close of the disputation
he reaches tire final decision. In his report of the proceedings
to the Elector of Saxony, he bluntly announces his conviction
that one should rather believe a layman with Scripture than the
Pope and Councils without Scripture,1 and he never subse
quently swerved from this position. Thus, as against the
two fundamental positions of Rome described above, we have
two fundamental principles developed in the history of Luther ;
viz. (1) the necessity of a personal religious experience in
which the individual soul comes into contact with its God
through faith in Christ alone, without human mediation, as
opposed to the claims of the church to bestow salvation; and
(2) the supreme and sole authority of Scripture as authenti
cating and supporting this experience, as opposed to all eccle
siastical or any other authorities which might be introduced
to cast doubt upon it. 'These [namely Scripture and expe
rience] are to be the two witnesses, and as it were the two
touchstones, of the right teaching.' 2
These two principles have been called respectively the Ma
terial and the Formal Principle of the Reformation. This
terminology follows the old Catholic distinction between
forma and materia, or content. In its present application it
implies, if it is used at all strictly, that we are to distinguish
between a certain truth contained in the Bible, namely, the doc
trine of justification by faith (the materia, or content, or mat
ter, of Scripture), and the Bible as such (the forma), which is
supposed toi vouch for the truth of this truth. When, to take
1Erlangen Edition of Luther's Works (hereafter referred to as
B. A.), liii. 19.
= E. A. li. 103 (date, 1534).

1906.] Lutlver's Criticism of Scripture. 5
another example, a person says that he believes in a creation
in six days because it is in the Bible, he is really making this
distinction between the Bible as forma and the content, or
materia, of the Bible.
Starting from this distinction, and keeping in mind the
historical sequences in Luther's development, Dorner arrives *
at the following exceedingly important conclusion: —
' The apostolic and prophetic writings only came to be regarded
I by Luther] as the decisive rule and judge after the saving matter
which the church still held in common with the Scriptures^ had
approved itself to his heart by its own inherent power. Before the
decisive turning point in his life, the Scriptures only influenced
him as means of grace, similarly to preaching, but not as a divine
rule recognized by him as independent,'
i.e. as a formal authority independent of the inherent truth
of its content. Yet it seems historically hardly possible to
hold that the Scripture was not, in some degree at least, a for
mal authority for Luther before the Indulgence Controversy.
Luther was heir to the general church doctrine of the Bible.
It must therefore have had for him, at the start, a certain
measure of formal authority.2 He would scarcely have been
quieted in his distress of mind if he had not thought the old
monk had the warrant of Scripture to assure him of the truth
of the forgiveness of sin. If this assurance had possessed no
rnpre authority for him than that which attaches to the opinion
of a trusted friend, it would scarcely have sufficed to relieve
him. The carefully worded formulation of Kostlin 3 seems ap
propriately to combine the truth in Dorner's statement with
the consideration just mentioned.
' That certainty [of justification by faith] to which he had been
1 History of Protestant Theology (English trans.), i. 221.
= Cf. Walther, Das Erbe der Reformation im Kampfe der Gegen-
wairt, 1. Heft (Leipzig, 1903), p. 60 ff.
s Luther's Theologie (2d German Ed., Stuttgart, 1901), i. 243.

6 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan.
led, . . . especially through his penetration into the Pauline Epis
tles, and with which he then opposed the dominant ecclesiastical
doctrine of salvation, did not rest for him upon a previously attained
conviction and theory of a unique, divine origin of the biblical writ
ings, by virtue of which they were to be raised above the ecclesi
astical authorities. Rather, after he had first received a general
persuasion of the divine origin of Scripture out of the church doc
trine, the full consciousness of its uniqueness was first attained by
him, and maintained against the ecclesiastical authorities in his
fight for his doctrine of salvation, which he had taken from Scrip
ture and of whose truth he was fully persuaded.'
In this statement the original authority of Scripture as in
herited by Luther from the church is not ignored, as it seems to
be on Dorner's view, but it is subordinated to the authority
which the Scripture possessed for Luther through the truth
of its content. The fact is, we are probably not justified in
distinguishing between form and content in considering the de
velopment of Luther's persuasion of the truth of Scripture. It
"was certainly not any formal authority of the Bible as such,
apart from its materia, or content, that influenced Luther. On
the other hand, it was not the self-evidencing power of a great
religious truth isolated from Scripture that affected him. It was
the self -evidencing power of a great truth contained in Scripture
that won him first of all. The relationship between a truth as
self-authenticated and a truth authenticated by Scripture
was not considered by him. Accordingly a distinction between
a Formal and a Material Principle as seen in Luther's develop
ment does not seem to be justified if we press the strict use of
the terms. Nevertheless, it may be allowed a relative justifica
tion in so far as the Material Principle stands for the truth of
the doctrine of justification by faith, not apart from but as
contained in the Bible, while the Formal Principle stands, not
for the general authority of the Bible as such, which was the
oretically admitted by everybody, but for the sole authority of
the Bible as containing this truth, and as opposed to all other

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 7
authorities.1 The Formal Principle, accordingly, must not
be understood as referring to the formal authority of the
Bible "apart from its content— though this is undoubtedly its
proper definition, — but it means, as applied to Luther's doctrine
of the Bible, the sole authority of the Bible as containing in
objective form the great truth of justification by faith.
Even when the Formal Principle is thus qualified, it is still
of the utmost importance to observe the sequence in Luther's
development, to which both Dorner and Kostlin call attention.
The Formal Principle was only gradually developed, and its
enunciation followed Luther's conviction of the Material
Principle in point of time.2 In other words, Luther expe
rienced the truth <of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith
before he zvas prepared to admit the final and absolute suprem
acy of the Bible over all other authorities. This means that
c. Luther's experience of the religious truth of the Bible was de
cisive for his doctrine of the Bible as the sole authority. The
prime question with Luther was, whether he would deny the
truth of a great religious experience which he had enjoyed,
and the logical consequences which followed upon it. But this
experience was the experience of a truth which he had found in
Scripture. Hence the defense of his experience meant in the
last analysis, because of the historical conditions of his time,
the defense of Scripture as the sole authority. While, there
fore, it is not legitimate to hold that Luther made a conscious
distinction between the authority of form and the authority of
content, it is, nevertheless, true that, in his most characteristic
utterances concerning Scripture, Luther had the content of
Scripture chiefly in mind. That which was really epoch-
1 Cf. Preuss, op. cit., p. 2.
aCf. Preuss, I. c, Scheel, Luthers Stellung zur heiligen Schrift,
(Tubingen und Leipzig, 1902), p. 13 if.

8 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan.
making in Luther's treatment of Scripture can be understood
only when tlie influence of his experience of the saving truth
of Scripture upon the development of his doctrine of Scripture
is constantly borne in mind.
It is now proposed to state the main features of Luther's
doctrine of Scripture in the light of the historical conditions
under which it was developed.
1. The Christocentric Character of Scripture. — The first
and most original feature in Luther's conception of the Bible
was that it was Christocentric. The Bible was considered to
teach, above everything else, Christ, and justification by faith
in him.
' If you will interpret well and surely, then take Christ with you,
for he is the mam whom the whole of it [the Scripture] concerns.1
. . . The entire Scripture refers to him '. . . . The Lord points out to
us the true knack of interpreting Moses and all the prophets, and
gives- us. to understand that Moses, with all his histories and fig
ures, points himi out and belongs to Christ; . . . that Christ is the
point in the circle from which the whole circle is drawn 3 . . . . All
Scripture is so ordered as always to urge this saying [namely, the
doctrine of salvation by faith]. It is the chief saying in all of
Moses, and all that proceeds and follows refer to it.* ... He can
not err in Scripture who sees Christ everywhere in it, even though
in the words of a passage he-is- not to be seen.' 5
In accordance with these ideas, Luther proposes, in his Pref
ace to Genesis,
' to take a book from the Old Testament and interpret the same
. . . just as he has done in the New Testament, from which every
Christian may see how Scripture everywhere agrees, and how all
examples and histories, yes the entire Scripture, through and
through, tend to 'this, that Christ be recognized. ... As we have
seen hitherto how all the Gospels teach and urge nothing but the
one thing, so we will see the same thing in the Old Testament." "
'E. A. Ixiii. 22.
2E. A. xlvii. 242 (1530-32).
3E. A. xlvi. 338 ff. (1537-38). *E. A. xxxiv. 18.
0 Cited in Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus, i. 238.
'E. A. xxxiii. 22 (1527).

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 9
It is evident that the conception of Scripture implied in these
statements, which' might be multiplied indefinitely, springs im
mediately out of the personal experience of Luther. Here the
whole emphasis lies upon the content of Scripture. The Bible
has no meaning for him apart from its presentation of Christ
(vid. infra).
2. The Perspicuity of Scripture. — Not only does Scripture
teach Christ, it must teach him so clearly that the individual
can understand it for himself without the aid of any ecclesias
tical interpretation. |Fhe perspicuity of Scripture, at least with
regard to Christ, is an absolutely essential characteristic of
Scripture, if it is to serve as the sole principle of authority^]
An obscure authority which necessitates an interpretation is
for all practical purposes no authority at all. If Luther was to
maintain the validity of his experience on tlie basis of Scrip
ture as against the ecclesiastical authorities, it was essential
that the sense of Scripture should be so clear that there could
be no possibility of mistaking it. Otherwise his opponents could
say that he had not interpreted it aright, and the scriptural ba
sis for his position would then be undermined.
3: The Grammatico-historical Principle of Exegesis. — Im
mediately connected with the perspicuity of the Scripture is
Luther's principle of exegesis. The perspicuity of the Scrip
ture can be maintained only when the allegorical interpretation
is abandoned, and the grammatico-historical principle intro
duced. The allegorical method, as we have seen, had turned
the Bible into a book of riddles, and had thus necessitated the"
introduction of an authoritative ecclesiastical interpreter. /By
the adoption of the new principle of exegesis, tlie Bible became
Jself-interpreting\ It could now be recovered from the hands
of the priest, and placed in the hands of the layman, in the
assurance that the layman eould understand it for himself.

10 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan.
The principles of the perspicuity of Scripture and of the gram
matico-historical exegesis are thuis seen to be indisseverably
linked together.
With respect to the perspicuity .of Scripture, we frequently
meet with such statements as the following: —
"We must be sure of this that no simpler speech has come to
earth than that which God has spoken.1 ... Be only absolutely cer
tain that nothing is clearer than the sun, that is the Scripture.
But if a cloud has passed over it, yet there is nothing else behind
it than the same sun. And if there is an obscurity in Scripture,
do not doubt that there is certainly the same truth behind, which
is clear in other place's; and let him who cannot understand the
dark places remain by the light."2
Perhaps the fullest treatment of the grammatico-historical
principle of exegesis is found in two works dating from 1521,
— the Answer to "Bock" Emser, and the "Exposition of the
Twenty-second Psalm. In the former work he speaks of the
literal sense as
' the highest, best, strongest, in short as the whole substance, es- ,
sence, and basis of the Holy Scripture; so that, if one did away
with it, the whole Scripture would go for nothing. ... As the Holy
Spirit is the simplest writer and speaker of all that is in heaven
and earth [Perspicuity], therefore his words can have no more than
the one simple sense, which we call the literal or tongue sense."
In his exposition of Ps. xxii. 18, Luther draws an analogy
between Scripture and Christ's garments.
' The truth of faith is wrapped up in Scripture as Christ is wrapped
up in his clothes. But the garments were divided. So the sim
ple meaning of Scripture is divided by the allegory into various
senses. The apostles of the Pope began to spread through the
world the fourfold sense cf Scripture [the illusion is to the scho
lastic elaboration of the allegorical method], and so rent the gar
ment of Christ, which became thus mere rags and tatters [note the
contemptuous expression], which serve for the teaching of neither
faith, nor hope, nor morals. But, beyond this division of the gar
ments, there was the casting of lots whose it should be. In this
JE. A. xxxiii. 24.
2 This reference I have unfortunately lost.
SE. A. xxvii. 258, 259, 262.

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 11
game the Pope is prince. Others may investigate and dispute in
Scripture, but without the Pope they can decide nothing conclu
sively. He plays with hisi fellow-gamesters till the lot falls to him
alone, and so the interpretation of Scripture comes into his power
alone. The victory in this game has been so complete that the
Pope is raised above Scripture. Through this gaming of the
accursed popes and sophists upon the seamless robe of Christ, the
robe has become a mockery and an uncertain possession; for how
will you teach faith with certainty when you make the sense of
Scripture uncertain?'1
Nothing can show more clearly than do these statements
how conscious Luther himself was of the logical relationship
between the allegorical method of exegesis, the resultant ob
scurity of Scripture, and the consequent necessity of an author
itative interpreter, of which the Pope skillfully took advantage.
The consistency with which Luther himself applied the gram
matico-historical method is, however, another matter. This
very exposition of Ps. xxii. 18 is about as neat an example of
allegorical interpretation as one could wish to find, though it
is only fair to Luther to add that, in accordance with the prin
ciple laid down in his exposition of Gal. iv. 24,2 he rarely, if
ever, made use of the allegory in proof of a doctrinal position.
His use of it was rather for homiletical purposes.
But there is one qualification which should be carefully no-
,ted, as it has a direct bearing oh our conception of Luther's at
titude toward the Bible. His adoption of the grammatico-his
torical principle of exegesis was due, not to a scientific interest,
but to a dogmatic interest.3 The Bible wag for him, not pri
marily an historical source, but a religious source. It follows,
JE. A. (Exegetica Opera), xvi. 314 ff.
2E. A., Latin Commentary on Galatians, ii. 248. 'Allegories yield\
no firm proofs in theology, but, like pictures, they adorn and illus- ~
trate the subject.' Cf. also E. A. xxvii. 285, ' The spiritual sense^
which Emser puffs up is not valid for argument.'
3Ct Harnack, History of Dogma (Engl. Trans.), vii. 246 ff., Kost-
lin, op. cit, ii. 44; Walther, op. cit., 27.

IS Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jatl-
therefore, that his principle of exegesis, which was enunciated
in a dogmatic and religious interest, would be largely domi
nated by this interest, rather than by a strictly historical one.
An instructive illustration of this result is seen in the
relationship of his exegetical principle to his Christocentric
theory of Scripture. In the statements cited under (1) there
is really involved a new canon of interpretation, which may
be called a dogmatic canon. The Scripture must be so inter
preted as to teach Christ. The grammatico-historical exegesis
is the means by which Scripture is to be made to teach Christ.
This comes out very clearly in the Preface to Genesis, already
alluded to.
' These are the two things which we have to slay by way of pref
ace, first, that we should allow the words to remain in their simple,
straightforward meaning [here the grammatico-historical method
13 expressly adopted]; secondly, that one should understand the
words in their kernel and feel them, in the heart.'1
Here the dogmatic canon of interpretation is asserted. But
what if the grammatical method and the dogmatic interest
should' lead in opposite directions? Which is to be followed?
On this point, Luther observes : — ¦
' I have often said, Whosoever will study in the Holy Scripture
must see to this, that he stand by the Bimple words as long as he
cara, and not turn from: them unless an article of faith compel him
to understand it differently from what the words express, . . . that
is, when faith does not suffer the meaning which the words give.' '
Accordingly when, in another connection, Dan. iv. 27 was
urged against his doctrine of justification by faith, he says:
' One must hold to the Hauptstiick, and get along with the
sayings on good works as best he can.' If Luther could not
solve this statement of Daniel, he would prefer to let it pass,
rather than to deny the one clear text, John vi. 27 (the verse
on which he was commenting). Hence 'the statements on
*E. A. xxxiii. 28 (1527). 2E. A. xxxiii. 24.

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 13
good works must receive a gloss, in order that they may rhyme
with this text, for this must stand fast.' 1 The extent to which,
on occasion, Luther's dogmatic interest will carry him, is seen
in the following remarkable passage. To the Sophists who
urge texts of Scripture favoring work-righteousness (he again
has Dan. iv. 27 chiefly in mind) , he says : —
'Here on this side stands Christ, there on that side stand cer
tain texts of Scripture which speak of law and works. But now
Christ is ever a Lord over the Scriptures and all works. . . . There
fore, while Christ himself is the treasure by which I am ransomed
and redeemed, and was made a sin and curse that he might make
me righteous and bless me, I ask no questions of other texts of
Scripture, however many you may bring against me with which to
establish righteousness by works and to overthrow righteousness by
faith. For I have on my side the Lord and Master of the Scripture
with whom I will hold, . . . and [I will] let you cry away that the
Scripture contradicts itself, at one place ascribing righteousness to
faith, at another to works, although it is impossible that the
Scripture should contradict itself. . . You may see to it how to
rhyme these texts with each other, which you say disagree. I stand
by the one who is the Lord and Master of Scripture. Therefore if
any one cannot deny the fact that he is unable satisfactorily to
harmonize the texts in Scripture which speak of works with those
[which speak of faith], and must listen to the antagonists boast
ing with a great noise of the work-texts, then let him give this
simple answer, Hear you well, you boast confidently with the Scrip
ture, which is nevertheless under Christ as a servant, and you be
sides bring out of it what is not at all the best part of it. I do
not care for this at all. Boast away of the servant. I however
bid defiance in Christ, who is the true Herr and Kaiser over the
Scripture.' 2
In these bold, really startling words, the dogmatic canon of
interpretation, namely, that the Scripture should urge Christ,
has transcended all other considerations. ' Of course what Lu
ther means to imply is that those parts of Scripture which
JE. A. xlvii. 242 ff. (1530-32).
2 Walch's Edition of Luther's Works, viii. 2139 ff . The same pad-
sage is found in a more original form in E. A., Lat. Comm. on Gal.
i. 387 ff.

14 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan.
reveal Christ are so clear that they serve as a criterion for all
the rest of Scripture. When he says, therefore, that Christ is
above Scripture, this is his vigorous way of saying that Scrip
ture is to be interpreted by Scripture.1 But in the peculiar
way in which this fact is stated there is something more funda
mental involved. The materia, or what Luther calls the relig
ious " kernel," of Scripture, is emphasized to such an extent
that its formal authority is altogether lost sight of. Of course,
when reduced to the simple proposition that Scripture is to be
interpreted by Scripture, the above statement is quite compati
ble with the recognition of the formal authority of Scripture.
Biit in its mode of expression it betrays the attitude of one who
is, for the time at least, quite indifferent to any authority of
Scripture apart from its religious content. It is this content,
as summed up in the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ
and as experienced by Luther, that was supreme for him. But
this very kernel of Scripture, in the interest of which it was
to be interpreted, might, when it takes the forrti of the " anal
ogy of faith," become itself a formal authority in its relation
to interpretation, and so hamper very disastrously the scientific
development of the grammatico-historical principle of exegesis.
In fact, this was the result that actually happened in the sub
sequent development of Protestant scholasticism which practi
cally subjected exegesis to the creeds.
4. The Testimonium Spiritus Sancti. — According to Lu
ther, perception of the real meaning of Scripture and the final
persuasion of its truth are impossible without the cooperation
of the Holy Spirit. This thought is a supplement to his theory
of biblical perspicuity, and a corollary to his Christocentric
theory of Scripture. His treatment of this subject in his great
work against Erasmus, " De Servo Arbitrio," may be regarded
1 Dorner, op. cit., i. 252 ff.

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 15
as typical. Here again he lays down his fundamental principle,
that ' what is given for instruction rn'mst not be obscure,' but he
proceeds to qualify this as follows : —
' There are two kinds of perspicuity and two kinds of obscurity
in Scripture. The one is external, in the Scripture itself, as it lies
before us. This, is in no respect obscure, but gives to the whole
world in clear words the chief thing which the Scripture contains.
The other is internal, in the heart, so that one recognizes and un
derstands the spiritual things which the Spirit brings to the atten
tion. In regard to these things there is» not a man on earth who
understands the least letter of Scripture, except those who have
the Spirit Of God. For all men are by nature blind and have a
darkened heart.'1
But a spirit-wrought understanding of Scripture is practically
equivalent to a spirit-wrought persuasion of its truth. This
latter thought, that it is only the Spirit who can produce this
persuasion, is involved in the following statements.
In arguing against the dictum of Augustine, that he would
not have believed Scripture if he had not believed the church,
— a statement, by the way, which gave Luther and other Re
formers a good many unhappy moments, — he says : —
' Each one must believe by himself that it is God's word, and
that he inwardly comprehends it that it is true, though an angel
from heaven and all the world preach against it.2 . . . You must not
be Luther's, but Christ's scholars-; and it is not enough that you
say Luther, Peter, or Paul has said this, but you must feel Christ
himself in your conscience, and inwardly experience that it is
God's word, though all the world should contend against you. As
long as you have not the feeling, so long you have not tasted God's
word.' 3
Perhaps the most remarkable passage of all is the follow
ing:— ' The Romanists say, Yes; but how can it be known what is
God's word, and what is true or false? We must learn it from the
Pope and the Councils. Very well, let them decree and say what
they will, still say I, Thou canst not rest thy confidence thereon,
nor satisfy thy conscience. Thou must decide for thyself, thy neck
E. A., Opera latina, varii argumenti, vii. 127.
2E. A. li. 324 ff. (1523). 3E. A. xxviii. 298 (1522).

16 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan-
is at stake, thy life is at stalte. Therefore must God say to thee
in thy heart, This is God's word; else it is undecided.'1
The way in which Luther utilizes the Testimonium Spiritus
Sancti is very significant. In the above passages, Luther is
not thinking mainly, if at all, of the inspiration or divine ori
gin of " God's word," but of its religious content.2 It is to this
that the Holy Spirit bears witness. He d,oes not argue from
the formal authority of Scripture to the truth of its content.
The whole emphasis again falls on the content. The truth
of this is practically axiomatic, self-authenticating to the spir
itually illuminated man. ' Through the truth,' says Luther,
' is the soul captivated so that she can sit in judgment upon all
things, yet cannot sit in judgment upon the truth, but rather
is compelled to say in infallible assurance, that this is truth.'
Luther gives an analogy. We say that 3 and 7 are 10, but we
cannot tell why. We only know that it is so. He then con
tinues : —
' Such a sensus is in the church [for Luther, the communion of
individual believers] through the illumination of the Spirit to judge
and confirm the doctrines, of which, though she cannot demonstrate
them, she is yet certain. Just as, among the philosophers no one
judges of common ideas [axioms], but by them judges all other
ideas; so is it among us3 the sense of the spirit which judges all
things, yet is judged by none, as St. Paul says.' *
In statements such as these the formal authority of Scripture
is completely lost sight of in the self-authenticating truth of its
religious content. In statements such as these is also involved
that great Reformation principle which was the most direct
contribution of the Reformation to the history of civilization, —
1Walch, xi. 1888.
2 Cf. Kostlin, ii. 10.
"What is said of the church in this passage holds good for the
the individual believer; cf. Kostlin, i. 303, n.
*E. A., Opera latina, v. a., v. 102 (1520).

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 17
the Right of Private Judgment.1 For this right ultimately
meant the overthrow of feudalism in Society as well as in re
ligion. From the foregoing statements of Luther, — which are not
isolated statements, or wrested from their contexts unless I
have wofully misinterpreted them, but are typical expressions,
and embody what are some of the rrdost fundamental and char
acteristic convictions of Luther, — it is clear that the weight of
emphasis does not fall on the Bible as a formal authority. It
is not the inspiration or divine origin of Scripture which is
most in Luther's mind, but the religious truth of its content
which had been verified in Luther's experience. We may re
mind ourselves again that Luther did not isolate this truth
from the Bible. The Christ-truth by which he had been " taken
captive " was a biblical truth, not a truth of philosophy or nat
ural religion. It is improper to ignore the effect of this con
sideration upon him. Indeed, as we shall see, he is himself
quite conscious of this consideration. Nevertheless, in the pe
culiar historical development of his doctrine of Scripture in the
correlation of his main conceptions of Scripture as illustrated
in the four points thus far presented, and in many of his spe
cific statements in which he formulates these conceptions, the
momentum of his thought is distinctly away from the Scrip
ture as a formal authority and toward the spiritual authority
of its content. That this is not an unwarranted inference is
fairly demonstrable from the criticism of Scripture which Lu
ther allows himself, ' The Christian man is the most free lord
of all, and servant of none.' This liberty of the Christian may
be exercised upon the Scripture.
1 Yet in Luther's view this was really the judgment of the Spirit
in the Christian, rather thlan of the Christian himself. Cf. Kohler
in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1903, No. 13.
Vql. LXIII. No. 249. 2

18 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. {Jan-
' From this [he says, alluding to the distinctions which he drew
Among New Testament books], you can now judge of all books and
doctrines, what is gospel and what not. For what is not preached
or written in this way, [namely, what does not urge Christ], that
is false, however good it seems. This power to judge all Chris
tians possess, not the Pope or Council.' 1
It is now proposed to consider Luther's criticisms of Scripture.
II.
It has been questioned whether Luther's criticisms were
mainly influenced by religious or by historical considerations.
As we shall see, historical arguments are not ignored, but, as
might be expected from what has already been said, it is pri
marily his Christocentric theory of Scripture which is Luther's
main canon of criticism, as it is his main canon of interpreta
tion.2 Thus he says in his Preface to James : ' This is the true
touchstone, by which all books are to be judged, when one
sees whether they urge Christ or not, as all Scripture shows
forth Christ, and St. Paul will know no one but Christ (1 Cor.
ii. 2).' s In accordance with this canon, Luther feels at liberty
to draw distinctions in Scripture, even to the point where cer
tain books seem to lose all their authority for him, because of
their inability to meet the test which he has set up.
1. In the conclusion to his Preface to the New Testament
of 1522, we read: —
' From all this you can rightly judge among all books, and make
distinction as to which are the best. For John's Gospel and St.
Paul's Epistles, especially that to the Romans,* and St. Peter's
'B. A. li. 324 ff. (1523).
2Cf. Kostlin, i. 383 ff., and Scheel, 48 ff., who lay the emphasis
on the religious nature of Luther's criticism. On the other hand,
Walther, 39 ft., creates the impression that it should be regarded
as historical. I have been unable to consult Kunze's works, in
which the historical interest of Luther is emphasized.
!E. A. Ixiii. 157 (1522).
* ' This epistle is the true masterpiece of the New Testament,
and the purest evangelium of all' (E. A. Ixiii. 119).

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture.
First Epistle, are the true kernel and marrow among all the booka.
These should be fairly the first, and it would be advisable for every
Christian to read them first and most of all, and through daily
reading to make them as common as the daily bread. In these you
do not find much description of the works or miracles of Christ.
But you do find developed, in a masltjerly fashion, how faith in
Christ overcomes sin, death, and hell, and gives righteousness and
blessedness, and this is the true nature of the gospel. . . . For if
one were to be deprived of either the works or the preaching of
Christ, I would prefer to forego the works rather than the preach
ing, for the works do not help me. But his words, they help me as
he says, John v. 51. [Note the subordination of the historical in
terest in Christ's life to the religious interest in his doctrine.] Be
cause, now, John writes little of the works of Christ but much of
his preaching, whereas the other three Gospels write much of his
works but little of his words, therefore John's Gospel is the one
dear, true, chief gospel, and to be much preferred to the other three,
and to be exalted above them. And also the Epistles of St. Paul
and St. Peter are far in advance of the three Gospels of Matthew,
Mark, and Luke. In fine, St. John's Gospel and First Epistle, St.
Paul's Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, and
Ephesians, and St. Peter's First Epistle, — these are the books which
show Christ to you, and teach everything which it is necessary
far you to know, even though you never saw or heard any other
books.' * ' -
It is indeed true that elsewhere he praises the Synoptists as
supplementing John in their fuller account of Christ's works,2
and even says in his " Table Talk " that they are to be especially
recommended to the common man and young people; while
John, Paul, and the Psalms are the best books for those who
must contend with heretics.3 But these statements can hardly
be considered as materially qualifying the important distinc
tions drawn in the Preface just cited. That these bold dis
tinctions spring out of the very essence of Luther's conception
of the Bible, and are not simply casual and thoughtless criti-
1E. A. Ixiii. 114. SE. A. xliii. 81 (1532).
•E. A. lxii. 137. But Luther does not explain why he recom
mends the Synoptists to the common man.

20 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan-
cisms, is seen in the fact that almost the same paragraph which
has been quoted from the Preface of 1522 is again found in
his preface to his sermons on First Peter of 1523. 1 But the
paragraph was suppressed in the last edition of his Prefaces to
the New Testament in 1545. The significance of this omission
will be considered later.
2. But Luther's criticisms go far beyond the statements
just examined. This is notably true in the case of his criticism
of the antilegomena James, Revelation, Hebrews, and Jude.
In his Prefaces to the New Testament of 1522 he groups these
books together at the end, and introduces them by saying,
' Hitherto we have dealt with the certain, true, chief books of
the New Testament. The four following, however, have had
from ancient times a different standing;' 2 This caption might
suggest that Luther's doubts of these books are mainly histor
ical, and attention has been called to the fact that such good
Catholics as Erasmus and even Cajetan felt free to criticise
them, as being of doubtful canonicity.3 And it is true that the
doubt as to these books in the ancient church and the uncer
tainty as to their apostolic origin influenced Luther. I Chiefly
historical reasons seem to determine his attitude toward Jud&.
It is an abstract from Second Peter, not apostolic, and doubt
ed in tlie ancient church. Its citation from Enoch also
gives him trouble. But criticism of the contents is not want
ing. T/hough he will praise it, yet he describes it as an un
necessary epistle, subordinate to the chief books.* \ Formerly,
according to another casual statement, the book had seemed
to himi inutilis, though this severer judgment he after
ward retracted. At a later date his attitude is more
conservative. He speaks of Jude as the author, and
1 E. A. li. 326.
2 E. A. Ixiii. 154. 3 Walther, 39. * E. A. Ixiii. 158.

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 21
does not stumble at. the citation from Enoch.1 He de
nies the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, on account of
ii. 3 (an historical argument) ; but in the case of this Epistle
he also takes specific exception to the contents. He finds it a
" hard knot " that repentance should be denied to one who sins
after baptism, and holds that xii. 17 ' is against all the Gos
pels, and Epistles of St. Paul.' Yet he acknowledges that it is
a fine epistle, that it speaks of the high priesthood of Christ
in a masterly fashion, and interprets the Old Testament in a
fine, rich way. It is evidently the^book of an excellent, learned
man who was a disciple of the apostles, and built upon their
foundation gold, silver, precious stones, although possibly
some zvood, hay, and stubble ivere mixed in. Who wrote it is
unknown. But that makes no difference. We are to be con
tent with the teaching.2 Later we again find a more cautious
attitude assumed. The hard knot is untied, and, instead of
saying that xii. 17 is against all the Gospels, and Epistles of
Paul, the text of the revised. Preface of 1530 substitutes, ' as
it reads, it seems to be against,' etc.3 But he still denied its
Pauline authorship.
While the historical arguments are chiefly influential with
Luther in the case of Jude and Hebrews, though the argument
from contents is by no means ignored, the latter is the con
clusive reason for his very unfavorable opinion of Revelation.
He will not, force others to adopt his opinions, but he proposes
to say what he feels. His chief objection to the book is its
obscurity (recall what has been said upon Luther's demand for
a perspicuous Bible). The apostles prophesy with clear words,
as it is proper to the apostolic office to speak clearly and with-
1 Kostlin, ii. 32. 2E. A. Ixiii. 154 ff.
3 Kostlin, ii. 32. The text of the Erlangen Edition does not notice
this change, but it is vouched for by Walther, presumably on the
ground of a purer text, though he does not give his authority.

22 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan.
out figure, of Christ's person and work. Not even in the Old
Testament is there a prophet who deals so much in figures.
The Apocalypse is more like Fourth Ezra [the same compari
son is also made elsewhere], and Luther cannot discover that
it is by the Holy Spirit. He finds fault with its threats and
promises with regard to those who respectively add to or take
from the book, or who keep its words when nobody knows what
it means, and, as far as we are concerned, it need never have
been written. In fine, his spirit cannot adjust itself to the book
(Mein Geist kann sich in das Buch nicht schicken), though he
will let others thinlc what they please about it. He notices also
the doubts of the book in the early church, but this difficulty
is entirely subordinate to the difficulties raised by the contents.
It is enough reason for him to think little of the book because
Christ is neither taught nor recognized in it, though that is the
chief work of an apostle.1 In a sermon of the same year
(1522) he actually classes the Apocalypse with the prophecies
of Lichtenberger.2
When it is remembered how hostile Luther was to Fourth
Ezra (he would not even translate it), and to Lichtenberger,*
these comparisons are all the more surprising. But, as in the
case of Jude and Hebrews, we must recognize here also the
assumption of a much more conservative attitude in Luther's
later writings. In a subsequent edition of the sermon just
mentioned, the reference to the Apocalypse as being on the
same plane with Lichtenberger is left out,* and in the edition
of his works in 1545 a new and mMch more moderate preface
was substituted for the old one.b He still finds trouble with
the obscurity of the book. On account of this he had formerly
JE. A. Ixiii. 169 ff. (1522).
2E. A. viii. 23. SE. A. Ixiii. 250; cf. Kostlin, ii. 29.
4 See the text in E. A. viii. 23. ' E. A. Ixiii. 158.

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 23
let it alone, and especially because of the doubt of it in the
early church, as attested by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 25). Many
have attempted to explain it, but up to the present time have
brought out nothing certain from it, but have read into it much
inappropriate stuff out of their own heads (a timely warning
still). But Luther will now make an earnest effort to give ic
an interpretation. It is noticeable how the emphasis now falls
on the testimony of Eusebius, an historical argument as con
trasted with the earlier emphasis upon the content.
Luther's opinion of the Epistle of James is well known.
Through his entire life he was hostile to it, and a more cau
tious attitude toward it is not so observable in his later years,
as in the case of the other Antilegomena. As early as 1519,
in the Leipzig Resolutions, he expressed an unfavorable judg
ment upon it. ' Its style was far below the majesty of an apos
tle, and not to be compared in any way with Paul.' 1 In the
Babylonish Captivity he doubts its authenticity.2 As compared
with the other Epistles, it is a right strawy epistle, and has
no evangelic quality in it.3 He praises it because it does not
set up any doctrine of man, but urges God's law, and he ac
knowledges that there are many good sayings in it, and that
the author was a good,, pious man who had gathered together
various sayings from the disciples of the apostles. But he de
nies its apostolic character, as it ' flatly contradicts St. Paul
and all other Scripture ' in allowing righteousness to works,
when it says that Abraham was justified by works. Again, the
Epistle proposes to teach Christian people, and yet not once
1 B. A., Opera Latina, v. a., iii. 278.
2 B. A., Opera Latina, v. a., v. 111. He adds, ' Even if it were by
an a.postle, it does not become an apostle to institute new sacra
ments. This belongs to Christ.' Luther is discussing James v. in
its relation to extreme unction.
"E. A. Ixiii. 115.

24 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jaru
does it mention, in so long a writing, the death, resurrection,
or spirit of Christ. It names Christ several times, but it
teaches nothing concerning him, speaking only of the common
faith in' God. The office of an apostle, oh the other hand, is
to preach of Christ's sufferings and death. He then announces
the true touchstone for judging Scripture, quoted above.1 In
tbe " Table Talk " he will put his doctor's cap upon the head
of any man who can harmonize the doctrine of James with that
of Paul.2
Here, as in the case of his earlier views of Revelation, almost
the whole emphasis falls upon thevxdigiews' content of the book.
This is the true touchstone.
How little real weight he attached to purely historical argu
ments is seen in the fact, that, on the one hand, he accepted Sec
ond and Third John and Second Peter, though these books
were also reckoned among the Antilegomena in the early
church, and that, on the other hand, he rejected Second Macca
bees, against church authority.8 Of Second and Third John
he only says in his Preface that they are not doctrinal Epistles,
but examples of love and faith, and have a right apostolic
spirit.4 In his Preface to Second Peter he never raised the
question of its apostolicity, but refers only to its content.5
In his later exposition of this Epistle he notices the
argument against its apostolicity that was based on iii,
15, 16, but he is not convinced by it, though he had
used himself a precisely similar argument against the
Pauline authorship of Hebrews.0 As to Second Macca
bees, Eck had cited it in support of the doctrine of purgatory.
Luther answered that it was not canonical. Eck adduced the
Council of Florence, which had recognized its canonicity. To
¦B. A. Ixiii. 157; cf. also li. 337. 2E. A. lxii. 157.
3Cf. Scheel, 48 ff. 4E. A. Ixiii. 154.
"E. A. Ixiii. 152. «E. A. Iii. 271 (1524).

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 25
this, Luther replied, that Jerome and the Hebrew canon omit
ted it (an historical argument), and then added, and this was
for him decisive, ' the church is not able to attribute more au
thority or force (firmitatis) to a book than that which it has
in itself,' 1 Further, the fact that Luther expressly stated that
his criticisms were only the expression of his own private opin
ions (cf. the citation from his Preface to the Apocalypse), and
others were at liberty to entertain other opinions, also shows
how independent he was of historical considerations.8 If he
had attached much importance to the authority of the ancient
church, he would scarcely have permitted such latitude to pri
vate judgment.
• But here a question arises :¦ Did Luther feel free to criticise
these books because in his opinion they were not canonical, or
was. he bold enough to criticise them on the basis of his Chris
tocentric theory of Scripture, even though they were canon
ical ? In the latter case we would have to admit that logically
Luther had really destroyed the formal authority of the Bible.
In the former case this inference would not necessarily fol
low.3 Perhaps it is not possible to give a definite answer to
this question, yet the evidence would seem to suggest that Lu
ther really made these thoroughgoing distinctions within God's
word, rather than definitely separated these books from God's
JE. A., Opera latina, v. a., iii. 131. On the other hand, he says
of 1 Mace. : ' This is also a book which is not reckoned in the He
brew Bibles, although its discourses and words are almost like
those of the other books of Holy Scripture, and it would not be
unworthily reckoned among them, as it is a very necessary and
helpful book to understand the Prophet Daniel in chap. xi. [!]
... .-.as fairly as the first book might be received into the num
ber (of the books) of Holy Scripture, so fairly the second book
of Maccabees has been rejected, although there is some good in
it" (E. A. Ixiii. 104 ff.).
2Cf. Scheel, 49.
3 Cf. respectively Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, vii. 224, and Walther
in the Theologisches Literaturblatt, 1901, No. 50.

26 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan-
word as being uncanonical. This view is borne out by his
willingness to express a very adverse criticism of Esther, which
was an undoubtedly canonical book. ' The Book of Esther,
he says in " De Servo Arbitrio," ' although they have it in the
canon, deserves beyond all others, in my judgment, to be kept
out of the canon.' x Again, he says in the " Table Talk," ' I
am so hostile to that book [2 Mace] and to Esther that I wish
they did not exist, for they Judaize too much, and have too
milch that is heathenish.' 2 These sentiments are as severe as
any that he expressed as to James, and yet they are entertained
with regard to a book which Luther admits to be canonical.
Judging by these statements, his religious criticism seems to
have led him1 not only to distinguish within Scripture between
the more and the less important, as in the case of John and
the Synoptists, but also at times between the true and the actu
ally false. This would not conflict with anything that has been
said thus far with regard to Luther's doctrine of Scripture. In
fact, it is a very natural outcome of his Christocentric theory of
Scripture. Whether it is consistent with another group of
Luther's statements not yet noticed is another question.
3. Because of the same Christocentric point of view, from
which' the religious kernel becomes the all-absorbing object of
interest, the questions raised by modern biblical study sink for
him into insignificance. But just because they are so subordi
nate, he is able to treat them with a freedom astonishing to
those who have been under the influence of the post-Reforma-
tron theories of inspiration. \The human element in Scripture:
is admitted by Luther to a very large degree. Thus he notes
the-compilatory character of the prophetical books. In his
1 E. A., Opera latina, v. a., vii. 195.
*E. A. lxii. 131. Of Ezra and Nehemiah he says: "They Estherize
and Mordecaize in a wonderful fashion ' (Jena ed. of Luther's
Works, iv. 726 b.)

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 27
" Table Talk " he makes the general observation that ' no'pro-
phet's sermons have been completely written, but their disciples
and hearers have gathered one saying at one time, another at
another, and so compiled them together. Thus hath the Bible
been preserved.' 1 More specifically he marks the disorder in
the arrangements of Isaiah's prophecies, and says in his pref
ace to the book : ' Whether this is due to one who may have
read and compiled his prophecies, as is thought to have hap
pened in the Psalter, or whether Isaiah so arranged them him
self, .... I do not know.' 2 Of the disorder in Jeremiah he re
marks, ' It looks as if Jeremfiah had not arranged such books
himself, but that they are composed of fragments from his
discourses. . . . Hence one must not trouble himself about the
order, or allow himself to be hindered by the disarrangement.' i
Finally, in the Preface to Hosea, he says ' It looks as if this
prophecy of Hosea had not been fully and completely written,
but that certain fragments [Stiicke] and sayings of his had
been gathered together and compiled into a book.' * In these
statements we find the clear admission of redaction in the pro
phetical books. What were the natural impressions made by
these bo©ks upon Luther's mind, unhampered by dogmatic
prepossessions, have been amply confirmed by the more careful
scientific study of modern times. But modern scholars have
*E. A. lxii. 132. 2E. A. Ixiii. 52 ff. (1528).
• E. A. Ixiii. 61 (1532) ; cf. also lxi. 74.
* E. A. Ixiii. 74. According to the present text of E. A. lxii. 128,
Luther suggests that Ecclesiastes may have been complied in its
present form by Sirach on the basis of material found in the Ptole
maic library in Egypt. But the text of this passage is probably
corrupt, and the reference is to Ecclesiasticus, not Ecclesiastes.
Of. Kostlin, iii. 25. This supposition is borne out by what he says
of Ecclesiasticus at B. A. Ixiii. 100; whereas, in his Preface to
Ecclesiastes (E. A. Ixiii. 40) the book is attributed to Solomon,
though not written down by his own hand, but compiled by others
from Solomon's words, a position proved by xii. 11 (!).

2S Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan.
taken the next logical step, and ask what bearing these phe
nomena, so long ago noted by Luther, have upon the questions
of date and authenticity of these writings. *
When modern criticism, on the basis of these phenomena,
proceeds to deny the genuineness of certain passages, even
here a warrant may be found in principle in Luther'^ indiffer
ence to the questions of authorship. As we found him assert
ing that it made no difference who wrote Hebrews, so we find
him asking, ' What difference would it make even if Moses did
not write the Pentateuch ?' 1 His own opinion is that it is
Moses' book, and he warns against asking such useless ques
tions ; but this does not affect the principle involved.2 An in
teresting passage bearing on the same subject of redaction is
found in Luther's exposition of Matt. xxiv. 15 — 28 : —
' The two evangelists, Matthew and Mark, throw both together
[i.e. the two descriptions of the fall of Jerusalem and the end of
the world], and do not preserve the order which Luke has pre
served, for they both look to nothing further than to give the words
of Christ, and do not trouble as to what was spoken first or last.
Luke endeavors to write more clearly and in order. . . . Know
then that Matthew weaves together here the end of the Jewish
people and of the world, boils them, as it were, in one pot of por
ridge. If you will understand it, you must separate it, and refer
each part to its own end.' 3
JE. A. Ivii. 35.
" How indifferent Luther is to the question of authorship is seen.
in the striking statement (E. A. Ixiii. 157) : ' That which does not
urge Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul
taught it. On the other hand, that which proclaims Christ would
be apostolic, though Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod said it.' Here
the whole emphasis is laid upon the content.
* E. A. xiv. 319 ff. It may be noted, in passing, that Calvin adopt
ed a similar theory of compilation with reference to Matthew's re
vision of the Sermon on the Mount, and he says: 'When the
Holy Spirit does not trouble himself about the order, he will not
either.' Thus the keen minds of Luther and Calvin, less tram
meled by rigid inspiration theories than the later Protestant schol
astics, recognized some of those peculiar phenomena which create
the Synoptic problem.

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. • 29
Thus difficulties in the connection of the Gospels are ex-
. plained by the evangelists' indifference to order in their re
daction of Christ's words. But in this particular instance Lu
ther does not regard such a disarrangement as an actual blem
ish, as he says on this very passage in another sermon, ' It
is the manner of the Holy Spirit in the Sacred Scripture to
speak in this way.' 1
But does Luther admit that the human element in Scripture
involves its errancy ? In this connection the following passages
are to be considered. In discussing the place of Peter's denial.
Luther notes that, according to John, the first denial seems to
take place in the house of Annas and the last two in the house
of Caiaphas. This question must be left to the learned. It is
John who makes the confusion. A troublesome fellow would
blame the evangelist for this. But one does not go to heaven v
or hell even if he does hold that all the denials took place in the
house of Caiaphas. Luther then proceeds to give a possible
method of reconciliation by which John is brought into har
mony with the Synoptists, but concludes as follows : ' We will
not sharply investigate such subtle questions and opinions.
One should at this place give most attention [mark the empha
sis] to the great and superabundant comfort for sinners.' 2
On the different positions assigned to the cleansing of the tem
ple by John and the Synoptists, he says : —
' If we have the true understanding of Scripture and the true ar
ticles of faith that Jesus Christ, God's Son, has suffered and died
for us, there is no great lack if we do not answer all that is other
wise asked. The evangelists do not have a uniform order. What
one places first another places last. ... It may be that the Lord
did this more than once, and that John describes the first event
and Matthew the second. Be that as it may, whether it is to be
placed first or last, whether it happened once or twice, it does not |/>
disturb our faith.' " 1E. A. xiv. 119.
2E. A. 1. 266 ff. (1528-29). SE. A. xlvi. 173 ff. (1537-38).

30 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan.
In these two statements there is, it is true, no distinct ad
mission of errancy. Luther even suggests ways of solving the
difficulties. But the important thing to notice is his utter in-
t difference as to whether he can solve them. Walther seeks
to restrict the significance of this fact by maintaining that all
we can infer from these passages is Luther's indifference to
his ability to solve a biblical difficulty, not his indifference to
the existence of a biblical error.1 But this seems to me to draw
a distinction not warranted by the spirit of the passages. If
Luther had been vitally interested in the inerrancy of Scripture,
he certainly would not have expressed himself as he does.'
The belief in an inerrant Scripture is always scrupulously anx
ious to harmonize the discrepancies. The solutions are never
matters of indifference to it, but, on the contrary, are of vital
importance. All allusions to the bearing of the phenomena dis
cussed in the passages just cited upon the inspired accuracy
of the Bible are noticeably absent.
But, in the next passage to be cited, Luther admits at least
fthe possibility, if not the actuality, of an error. On Matt, xxvii.
9 he asks, why Matthew ascribes a text to Jeremiah when it
stands in Zechariah. He answers : —
' Such questions do not trouble me, as they matter little, and
Matthew does enough in citing certain Scripture, though he may
not hit just the name, especially as he in other places cites [Old
Testament] sayings, but not just word for word as they stand in
Scripture. Now, if one can stand that, and it can be done without
danger to the sense, why should it make trouble though he may
not give just the name?'2 \
It is urged by Walther that Luther avoids admitting here
the actuality of a mistake, the German expressing only the pos
sibility, but this seems to be forcing the German to a more
precise definition of Luther's thought than Luther himself
probably intended.3 In his " Supputatio Annorum Mundi,"
"] Op. cit., 49. 2E. A. xiii. 330 ff.
3 The exact words are: " Solche und dergleichen Fragen bekum-

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 31
written in the last years of his life, he notices the contradiction
between Acts vii. 2ff. and Genesis xi., and says that he prefers
to agree with Moses.
'With reference to this narrative of Stephen, it may be said,
that his assertion was not a proper one, but the narrative was taken
from the common talk [e vulgo] which is wont to be confused and
obscure. Thus the evangelists are accustomed rather to indicate
the passages than to cite them, content briefly to adduce, and then
refer to the fountains themselves [he refers to the looseness in the
New Testament citations]. See how the genealogies (Matthew i.)
do not correspond with the histories. At the same time it cannot
he denied that this place (Acts vii.) is in no way corrupted by
smafcterers [sciolos, i.e. it is not due to text-corruption], for this
is a patent [perspicuus] error when he said the Lord appeared in
Mesopotamia before he dwelt in Haran.' 1
Walther seeks to destroy the force of this passage by urging
the familiar distinction between Stephen's statement, which
was incorrect (though he was full of the Holy Spirit), and the
report of it in Acts, which was correct.2 But this explanation
is based on the supposition that Luther held to the subsequent
scholastic theory of a special inspiration for the writing- of
Scripture. Unfortunately neither in the passage before us nor
elsewhere does Luther make use of or imply such a theory of
inspiration/' One of the most interesting of Luther's casual criticisms
concerns Chronicles.
mem mich nicht, weil sie wenig zur sache dienen und Mattheus
gleich genug thut da'ss er gewisse Schrift fiihrt, ob er gleich nicht
so eben den namen trifft. . . " According to Walther (p. 51 ff.), the
ob clause avoids expressing the actuality of an error.
^Jena, iv. 617 (1540). On the same page he says, with refer
ence to the discrepancies! in the synchronisms of 2 King*, i. 17 ; iii.
1 and viii. 25: ' The description of the time of Elijah and Elisha is
most confused, just as the Kingdom was then most confounded by
the idolatry and impiety of Jezebel? ' Yet elsewhere he tries to har
monize such chronological discrepancies (cf. Scheel, 72).
2 Op. cit., p. 51.
8Cf. Kostlin, ii. 16, 30; Scheel, 68, 73.

32 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan.
' The Books of Kings go ten thousand steps for one of the writ
ers of Chronicles. For he [the Chronicler] has only shown the
summum and the finest of the history. What is bad he has passed
over. Hence the Books of Kings are more trustworthy than Chron
icles.' 1
The modern view of the Chronicler is nothing more than the
scientific elaboration of this statement of Luther. Finally may
be adduced two statements which Luther makes with reference .
to the prophets.
In the same sermon in which Luther speaks so slightingly
of the Apocalypse, cited above, he refers to different kinds of
prophesying, and says that the prophets are so called principally
' because they prophesied concerning Christ, and by their exposi
tions of the divine word guided the people aright in faith, rather
than because they sometimes foretold things concerning kings and
the course of earthly events, which [kind of prophesying] they also
exercised on their own account, and hence often failed in it, but
the former kind of prophecy they exercised daily and never failed
in it,' 2
*E. A. lxii. 132 (Table Talk). Walther (p. 48) paraphrases this
statement as follows: 'The latter [Chronicles] pass over much
and abbreviate the rest which the books of Kings do not omit or
treat more fully. In consequence of this different "tendenz " of
the two works, the worth of the Chronicles [Walther must mean
Kings here?] as an historical work is much greater. There is not
a word about errors.' Walther seeks to resolve Luther's state
ment into a harmless statement of the different purposes of the
two works. But it is not a harmless statement, for Luther refers
to the Chronicler's habit of omitting what is bad, and for this rea
son he is less trustworthy. Not 'so very many years ago a promi
nent professor of one of our leading seminaries was deposed from
his position for maintaining this proposition among others.
2E. A. viii. 23 ff. Walther seeks to avoid the testimony of this
passage by suggesting that Luther does not have in mind prophe
cies found in Scripture, and he maintains that no specific instance
has been given of a prophecy in the Bible pronounced to be false
by Luther. The passage is still adduced by Kostlin in his second
German Ed. (ii. 21) as proof of Luther's admission of error. The
context certainly does not hint that Luther is thinking of extra-
canonical prophecies. Walther's method of treating these various
statements is unpleasantly suggestive of the special pleader.

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 33
The second statement is even more remarkable. After re
ferring to Christ's commands to search the Scriptures, Luther
continues : —
'And without doubt the prophets in this way have studied in
Moses, and the later prophets in the former, and have written down
in a book their good thoughts inspired by the Holy Spirit. For they
were not the kind of people who, like the fanatics, have thrust
Moses under the bench, and have fabled their own visions and
preached their own dreams. But they have practised themselves
daily and industriously in Moses, as he often and emphatically com
manded even the king. But although hay, wood, straw, and stubble
were sometimes gathered by these same good and faithful students
and teachers of Scripture, and not simply silver, gold, and precious
stones, yet the foundation remains. . . . We have the same exper
ience [he continues1] with other writers, as the Magister Senten-
tiarum, Augustine, Gregory, and Cyprian.' *
Here we have the recognition of the natural human agency
in the composition of the prophetical books (the prophets study"
in Moses) and the admission of failings in these writers (cf.
the wood and stubble in the Epistle to the Hebrews), combined
with his statement, that their thoughts were given them by the—
Holy Spirit.
But does this not involve a self-contradiction on the part of
Luther? Can errancy and inspiration be predicted of the same
men? The syllogism which is said to demand a negative an
swer to the second question, and therefore to require an exe
gesis of Luther's statements which will relieve him of the
charge of a self-contradiction, may be thus constructed: (a)
The Holy Spirit cannot err: (&) The Scripture is the product
1B. A. Ixiii. 379 (1543). Kostlin, after accepting this passage in
his first edition (Eng. Trans, ii. 235, 254) asi proof of Luther's ad
mission of errancy in the propbeitis, holdis, in his second German
edition (ii. 21, n.), that it does not apply. The errors are said to
be attributed not to the prophets, but to Augustine, Cyprian, etc.
So, also, Walther, 48. This is not the usual, nor does it seem to
me to be the natural, interpretation of the passage if the Erlangen
text is adhered to. Neither Kostlin nor Walther mentions any
change of text.
Vol. LXIII. No. 249. 3

34 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [Jan-
of the Holy Spirit: (c) Ergo, the Scripture cannot err.
The trouble lies in the minor premise. The question is, In
what way and to what extent is the Scripture the product of
the Holy Spirit? On the assumption of the later verbal dicta
tion theory of Scripture, and only on this assumption, will this
syllogism be strictly valid. What now was Luther's theory
of/inspiration ?

III.
Thus far, it will be noticed, no direct statements of Luther
have been cited illustrative of his views of inspiration. This
may seem to be an oversight. But it was intentional, and the
explanation of it is simple. We have seen that, while the
Bible as a formial authority in the strict sense of tbe term
probably influenced Luther to some degree, yet its role as a
formal authority in his development was a very subordinate
one. The whole emphasis fell on the content of the Bible.
The Bible was true for him because authenticated in his ex
perience through the work of the Holy Spirit. The formal
authority of Scripture was practically resolved into the sole
authority of Scripture, not apart from, but including its con
tent, as against all other external authorities. In the light of
this peculiar attitude of Luther toward Scripture, determined
by his historical development, his statements upon the canon
and historical contents of Scripture have been examined. They
have been found to be surprisingly free. Why ? Because Lu
ther was influenced by the religious content of Scripture far
more than by its form. In other words, his religious exper
ience, and not an inspiration theory, is the only key by which
to explain Luther's criticism of the Bible. It was proper,
therefore, to look at these criticisms from the point of view
of his religious experience, rather than from the point of view

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 285
of a possible inspiration theory. If, on the other hand, the
formal authority of Scripture, in the strict sense of the term,
had received the chief emphasis in Luther's development, the
method followed in this article would have been highly im
proper. If we start from the formal authority of Scripture
as distinct from its content, and place the emphasis here, this
necessarily involves an inspiration theory. The Scripture as
materia is self-authenticating, but the Scripture as forma can
scarcely be so. If Scripture is not primarily true because of
the truth of its content, it must be true because of the truth of
its origin, i. e. because it is divinely inspired.
The practical inference from these considerations is simply
this, that, if the controlling fact in Luther's doctrine of Scrip
ture is his religious experience of its content, we are to exam
ine his inspiration theory in the light of his criticisms which
are explicable only by this fact, and not vice versa. Hence it
is that those statements which seem to express or imply a more
or less rigid theory of inspiration have been reserved to the
present point in the discussion.1 But, as Luther nowhere elab
orates a doctrine of inspiration, we must arrive at his views
indirectly. 1. Since we have just seen that to the degree in which the
formal authority of the Bible is recognized, to that degree its
inspiration is implied, it will be best to begin with those state
ments which recognize the Bible as a formal authority.
Here again the historical conditions which confronted Luther
must be remembered.
1 The order of treatment follows that of Scheel's monograph,
Walther (Theologisches Literaturblatt, 1903, No. 19) unjustly crit
icises Scheel for first grouping together those experiences of Lu
ther, which are for him " symlpathisch," and then those which ara
" unsympathisch." But Scheel's treatment seems to me to be
objectively justified in the peculiarity of the development of Lu
ther's doctrine of Scripture.

286 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [April,
(1) At the outset, his contest was with tbe formal author^
ities of the church. To these he opposed Scripture, not pri
marily as a formial authority, but as containing a great truth
which he himself had experienced. At the same time Luther
must show that his experience was not a mere subjective de
lusion. His experience by itself would have no weight with
others unless he could show that it was objectively authenti
cated. We have seen him, therefore, in his contest with papacy,
justifying his experience from the Scriptures. But the Scrip
tures were one of the several formal authorities of the church.
Accordingly, when Luther used it against the church, of ne
cessity he must use it in a measure as a formal authority. The
objective authority, so necessary for him, easily becomes the
formal authority, especially when it is the sole objective.
(2) Again, from within the Reformation movement itself
there arose very unexpectedly though quite logically a neces
sity for emphasizing this formal side of scriptural authority.
In his contest with Rome, Luther had asserted the right of the
individual against the church. Excesses always accompany any
movement of real significance to society. It is not surprising,
therefore, that Luther's healthy subjectivity was exaggerated
by many to an unwarranted degree. Groups of so-called " fa
natics " arose, e. g. Carlstadt, the Zwickau <Prophets, and the
Anabaptists, who had visions and dreamed breams, and often
substituted their own revelations for the Scripture. These
excesses Luther combatted most/vigorously. As against this
exaggerated subjectivism, Luther was again led to insist on
the objective authority of Scripture.1
Thus, from two exactly opposite points of departure, we
see how the tendency would develop to emphasize the formal
authority of Scripture. We have said that the Reformation
lCf. Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, vii. 246.

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 287
was born in a religious experience) This experience must
authenticate itself against Rome by ah appeal to the external
Scripture. I On the other hand, it must guard itself against a
dissolution into an uncontrolled and morbid mysticism, and
thus again it is led to emphasize the external, which almost
necessarily meant for Luther the formal authority of Scrip
ture. (3) A third thing which led Luther to lay as much em
phasis as he did upon the formal authority of Scripture was
his unreasoning hostility to reason. Luther was a religious
genius, but not a constructive philosopher, and in his attitude
toward the " harlot," reason, his limitations become somewhat
painfully apparent. In the sacramentarian controversies his
hostility toward reason is especially manifest. This leads him
again to insist on the wording of Scripture. He will listen
to no arguments against his interpretation of the "words of
institution)," which appear to him to spring from human rea
son, but instead he takes his stand on the text of Scripture,
and thus again is led to insist upon its formal authority.
In Luther's exposition of 1 Cor. xv. we meet with a passage
which is worth giving in extenso, as it illustrates most of the
points just made. He is speaking of the unreasonableness,
from a human point of view, of a bodily resurrection, where
a leg is in England, an arm in Germany, a skull in France,
as is the case with the bones of the saints : —
' When one thinks of this, and judges by human reason, the whole
thing is lost, just as one who feels his isin and does not hold to the
word of forgiveness through Christ is lost. The >same is true of.
heretics in the high article of Christ [his divinity] and of the Fa
natics in their view of the sacrament, because they do not simply
believe the word, but speculate with the reason, which can say
nothing else than that bread is bread, and ask, how it can be
Christ's body. . . . For they will not remain in the Word, or allow
themselves to be taken by it, but they allow play to their wit, and
will understand all about it. . . . In short, if you will not let God's

288 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [April,
Word count for more than all your feeling, eyes, senses, and heart,
then you will be lost. For example, I feel my sin and the devil
around my neck, but shall I argue from my feeling? Then I would
despair. If I would be helped, I must say, I feel indeed God's
wrath, devils, death, and hell, but the Word says otherwise, that 1
have a gracious God. ... I feel that I and all others must rot in
the grave, but the Word says otherwise, that I will arise with
great glory. But you will say, If you [Luther] confess that one
does not feel, then your preaching is a dream. If there is anything
in it, experience must show something of this. I reply, that one
must first believe beyond experience. How then, if it is true, must
not experience come also. . . . Indeed, yes, but I mean that feeling
follows, faith must precede without and beyond feeling.'
In the same passage he points out the fact that Paul at 1
Cor. xv. 3ff. adduces two witnesses for the resurrection, —
Scripture, and the experience of many others and himself: —
' See how he praises the testimony of Scripture by insisting upon
this word "according to the Scripture." He does so, not without
reason. In the first place, to warn all the mad spirits [the Fanat
ics] not to despise the Scripture and the external Word.1 Instead
of this, they seek mysterious revelations, . . . and look upon Scrip
ture as a dead letter. But hear you, at this point, how St. Paul
adduces Scripture for his strongest witness, and shows how it is
impossible to preserve one doctrine except through the bodily and
written word, through himself [Paul] or others orally preached.
For it stands here Scripture! Scripture!'
As against the position of the Fanatics, that the Scripture
is a dead letter, and cannot give life, Luther says again in the
same context : —
'Although the letter in itself does not give life, yet it must be
present and heard and received, and the Holy Spirit must work
through it in the heart, and the heart must be preserved in faith
through and in the Word, for the Holy Spirit has summed up his
wisdom and counsels and all his mysteries in the Word, and re
vealed them in Scripture.'
He concludes by asserting that there are two witnesses, and
as it were two touchstonesr_for the right teaching, namely
^cripture and Experience^ In this passage we have the doc-
1C1 especially the articles of Smalcald, cited by Harnack, op.
cit., vii. 249, for the insistence on Scripture against the fanatics.
2E A. li. 88 ff. (1534).

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 289
trines of forgiveness, the bodily resurrection, and the sacra
ment, supported on the authority of Scripture, as distinct from
and even opposed to human reason, feeling, and experience.
In another sermon he expresses himself even more paradox
ically in discussing the Trinity: —
' When I hear the Word sound as from above, I believe it, al
though I cannot grasp otr understand it, as I can understand that
2 and 5 are 7. . . . Yet when He says from above, Nay, but they are
8, then I should believe it against my reason and feeling. . . .
There you have the Word and Reason against each other. She
[Reason] is not to assume the mastery or to be judge and doctor,
but to take off the hat, and say, Two are one!, though I do not see
or understand. But I believe it. Why? Because of Him who
spoke it from above.' 1
The whole tone and temper of these passages differs in a re
markable manner from those passages cited above, where Lu
ther speaks of the axiomatic quality of the religious content
of Scripture. They may perhaps be reconciled in a measure
on the supposition that, in the first series of passages, Luther
has ih mind the axiomatic quality of Scripture only for the
spiritually illuminated, while in those just cited he is thinking
of persons who propose to judge Scripture by the human rea
son unaided by the Spirit.2
]E. A. xix. 8 ff. (1533).
•When Luther says that faith must precede feeling, he seems to
be thinking of the feeling of the natural man. This new view is
corroborated by E. A. xi. 218 ff., where he again discusses the
same subject as E. A. li. 88 ff. : ' There are two things, feeling and
faith. Faith is of this nature that it does not feel, but lets the
reason go, shuts the eyes, and submits absolutely to the Word.
. . . But feeling goes no further than what one can comprehend
with the reason and the outward senses. . . . Hence feeling is op
posed to faith, and faith to feeling.' That feeling is here the
practical equivalent of reason, and not a spiritual experience, is
also clear from the fact that a little further on (p. 221) Luther
speaks of ' another feeling, seeing, hearing,' etc., which, according
to the context, must be a spiritual feeling. Only when this dis
tinction is kept in mind, can the statement just cited be harmon
ized with those passages cited above, where the axiomatic quality
of biblical truths which must be felt in the heart, is insisted upon.

290 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [April,
It may also be urged that these doctrines all stand very
closely connected" with Luther's peculiar experience. Thus
Kostlin says : —
'But even that authority which he here attributes to the Word
is by no means for him external or legalistic. Rather, the God
whom one hears speak in the word of Christ is the Heavenly Fa
ther, who wins the heart with the revelation of his love, and by
this means awakes in them the absolute confidence in the truth of
his Word. While he believes1 on Christ's divinity or on the Trinity,
because of the word of Scripture, nevertheless this is always with
him a faith which originates neither merely nor chiefly under the
impression of the majesty of Christ, who speaks to him there, or
the God who talks to him in it, but rather in the inner experiences,
in which he has come to experience the divine mercy.'
In proof of this, the interesting statement of Luther is, cited
from the " Table Talk " : 'I have learned through Scripture,
in the greatest agonies and trials, that Christ is God, and be
came incarnate, likewise the article of the Trinity/' J
What Kostlin says here is very possibly true ; but the way in
which Luther expresses himself in the passages under dis
cussion certainly suggests that he at timles was led to empha
size the formal at the expense of the religious authority of
Scripture. This comes out even more clearly in other passages,
where Luther is discussing m|atters which really have no |
bearing upon his religious experience. On the difficulties in
the first chapter of Genesis, he remarksj] ' One must not take
council of reason, but give honor to the Holy Spirit, that what
he speaks is divine truth ; and one must believe his words while
he blinds the eyes of reason,' 2 and again, alluding to the
strange conceptions involved in i. 4ff., he observes: 'What
sort of water it is which is over the firmament, we cannot very
well know. Hence we must give room to the Holy Spirit,
¦Kostlin, ii. 41. 2E. A. xiv. 301 (1537-38).

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 291
and say that he knows better than we do.' J Here the Bible
has become an infallible text-book on geology. On Jonah he
says : ' This history of the prophet Jonah is so great that it
is absolutely incredible, yea it sounds false, and more unrea
sonable than any of the fables of the poets, and, if it did not
stand in the Bible, I would laugh at it as a lie ! 2 Here the Bi
ble has become an infallible historical text-book. The truth
of the biblical content is no longer self-evident, but vouched
for by the formal authority of the Bible. And this holds good
not simply of religious truth, but of scientific and historical
facts that are not directly connected with religious truth.
2. But we have said that, where the formal authority of
the Bible is insisted upon, an inspiration theory is implied.
The Bible is to be believed, not because it contains inherent
truth, but because it is the inspired word of God. Now the
pages of Luther are full of the most superlatively expressed
praises of Scripture, which at first sight imply a very strin
gent conception of its divine origin, and thus agree with those
statements which imply a formal authority of Scripture: —
'[It is] Christ's spiritual body,'8 'the Holy Spirit's Proclamation,'*
' We are to handle it as if God himself spoke it ' ; * 'Although it is
written by men, it is, nevertheless, not from or out of men, but
out of God'; " 'It is the Holy Spirit's own peculiar book, Scripture
and word.' 7 Luther insists upon the harmony of Scripture. ' The
Scriptures cannot err '; s ' This is certain, that the Scripture cannot
disagree with itself. " ' There are many passages of Scripture which
are contradictory, according to the letter, but when the circum
stances are considered, it is all right,' 10 etc.
'E. A. xxxiii. 86 ff. (1527). Cf. also his criticism of Copernicus
in the Table Talk (E. A. lxii. 319) : ' The fool will upset the whole
science of astronomy. But, as the Holy Scripture shows, Joshua
commanded the sun, not the earth, to stand still.'
2 E. A. lxii. 148. The same opinion is repeated on p. 151.
'E. A. xxiv. 57 (1520). "E. A. xii. 300.
eE. A. xxxiii. 31 ff. (1527). "E. A. xxviii. 343 (1522).
'E. A. Ixiii. 415 (1548). 8E. A. xxviii. 33 (1522).
•E. A. xxx. 52 (1527)( 10E. A. xxv. 263 (1539).

292 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [April,
From such phrases we might argue to a very high inspira- _
tion theoty', and if we read them in Quenstedt or John Owen
we would have to do so. But these expressions are not found
where Luther is elaborating a theory of inspiration. The re
markable thing is that he never elaborates such a theory. These
statements are regularly the expression of Luther's esteem of
the contents of Scripture. Luther probably does not intend
to express by them a precise dogmatic theory of the origin of
Scripture or the extent of their inspiration. His language is
not the language of scientific precision, but simply the languagey
of strong religious feeling, by which be expressed the con
viction that God does speak to us in the Scriptures. It is
noticeable also that where Luther speaks of the /inerrancy of
Scripture, he regularly (not always, vide infra)) has the doc
trinal content in mind.pThese expressions may therefore be as
satisfactorily explained, if considered in the light of Luther's
experience of the content of Scripture, as when viewed in the
light of his emphasis of the formal authority of Scripture.
It would not have been improper to group them with those
passages which look at the -qmtent rather than the form of
Scripture. 3. More important are those passages where he insists upon
the wording and text of Scripture, or where he brings the
thought of the inspiration into immediate connection with his
insistence upon the authority of Scripture. Thus, for exam
ple, he doggedly insists upon the ipsissima verba in the ' words
of Institution ' : —
' I am caught, I cannot escape, the text is too powerful for me '; ¦
'For if they believed that it [the word of institution] was God's
word, they would not call them miserable, poor words, but would
hold a tittle or letter greater than the whole world, and tremble
before them as before God himself.'2
JE. A. liii. 274 (1524). 2E. A. xxx. 305 ff. (1528).

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 293
After citing a number of texts to prove the Trinity, and
blaming the Jews for not receiving them, he says: 'Here
stands Text and Scripture, which are not to be thrown over
by man's fancies.' x In such passages and many like them,
where the words of Scripture are insisted upon, a very high
inspiration theory is logically involved. It is logically in
volved, but we remember how Luther spoke of the prophets'
studying in Moses ( a very human activity), at the same time
that he, speaks of their thought as inspired by the Spirit.2
Two passages may be cited to illustrate the immediate con-A
nection between the formal authority of Scripture and its^*
inspiration : —
' The Pope and his crowd know as well as we do that one can
learn out of no book but the Holy Scripture, what church and bish
op really mean. The Pope's decrees, the Turk's Alkoran, the Jew'u
Talmud, will not teach us and cannot teach us [Scripture the sole
authority]. The Holy Scripture is the Book given by God the Holy
Spirit to his church [the inspiration of the Scripture]."
The most remarkable passage, however, is that cited by
Walther from a work published in 1541. He is discussing
what is to be done when differences arise between the Bible
and profane historians. He will give the preference to the Bi-
JE. A. xxiii. 278 (1540).
"In this connection it is also worthy of note how. Luther at times
understood the written word as compared with the spoken word.
' It is not " neutestamentisch " to wirite books of Christian doc
trine  Before the apostles wrote they first preached to, and
converted, the people with bodily voice, which was their real apos
tolic and New Testament work  That books had to be WTitten
was a great Abbruch und Gebrechen in the Spirit, which was due
to necessity, and not the manner of the New Testament. . . . The
Epistles- of Paul only preserve what he had first taught, and he
will have preached much more fully (reichlicher) than he wrote '
(E. A. x. 388 ff.). Such expressions should warn us from laying too
much stress upon those statements which insist upon the letter
of Scripture.
"E. A. xxvi. 100 (1541).

294 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [April,
ble, because, he says, ' I believe that in the Scripture God
speaks, who is true, but in other history-books true men have
exercised their best endeavor, but only as men.'1 Here the
.syllogism referred to above 2 is practically adopted. The Bible
is specifically differential from all other books,3 and is in-
errant in matters of history, because God speaks in it. And
yet it was only a year before that Luther admitted a ' perspic
uous error ' in Stephen's speech.
It is increasingly apparent that there are two different
groups of statements to be found in Luther, and the citation
last given makes it impossible to avoid any longer the ques
tion whether these groups are reconcilable. This is a burning
question in Germany at the present time. Harnack maintains
that no reconciliation is possible. Accdrding to him, Luther
is guilty of a ' flagrant self-contradiction.' 4 He retained what
was really a remnant of the Middle-age dogma of scriptural
infallibility, and yet developed a new conception of Scripture
in his Prefaces which ignores its formal authority altogether.
This view of Harnack, as might be expected, has aroused the
greatest opposition in Germjany. It is about as disconcerting
to some of our German cousins to have a contradiction pointed
out in Luther as in Scripture itself. Not being biassed by the
politico-ecclesiastical situation which prevails in Germany, I
cannot avoid the impression that Harnack is nearer to the
truth in this particular than his opponents, though I realize
more and more how easy it is to misunderstand and to do
injustice to Luther on account of the emotional and homilet-
ical, rather than scientific, way in which he expresses himself,
1 Walther, 52. 2 See p. 33.
'Cf. also the following: 'If the Spirit has spoken in the Fa
thers, he has ispoken all the more in his own Scripture ' (E. A
xxvii. 244).
* Hist, of Dogma, vii. 24 n.

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 295
especially if his critic is- not perfectly familiar with his whole
system pf thought.
The. question of reconciling Luther's varying statements with
each other is largely a question of proper emphasis. A ques
tion of proper emphasis is always disputable, yet I think
the following propositions are fairly demonstrable. (1) What
Luther said as to the inspiration of the Bible was what the
church had always maintained. His criticisms, however, were
both in spirit and largely in matter an innovation.1 (2) These
criticisms sprang out of, and were made possible, by the pre
eminently religious conception which Luther had of the Bible^
That his criticisms were carried on in the religious rather than
in the historical interest cannot be too strongly insisted upon.
(3) These criticisms meant a much more complete subordina
tion of the formal authority Of the Bible to the religious author
ity of its content than had ever before been recognized in the
development of the doctrine of Scripture. (4) Luther does
not seem to have been aware of this result himself. He did
not distinguish between forma and materia. The authority
of the Bible was for him, so to speak, simultaneously formal
and self-authenticating.2
It is at this point that disputes arise. Does the subordina
tion of the formal authority of the Bible to the religious au
thority of its content mean the eventual destruction of its
formal1 authority, and is Luther, in holding to both without
distinction, guilty of a logical impossibility? In answering
this question the previous question of emphasis is raised, At
1 what point shall we take our start ? Shall we begin with Lu
ther's inherited dogma of Scripture, lay all the emphasis on
•the fact that he asserted the final authority of Scripture, whose
truth he had experienced, against the ecclesiastical authorities
•Kostlin, ii. 8. 'Kostlin, ii. 13, 43, 221.

296 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [April,;
of the papacy on the one hand, and the subjectivism of the
" Fanatics " on the other, and seek to understand his criticisms
in the light of this undoubted attitude of his toward Scripture?
Or shall we begin with Luther's experience of the truth of the
scriptural content as the determining factor in his attitude
toward Scripture, lay the emphasis on his criticisms as the
most remarkable illustrations of his attitude toward the re
ligious content of Scripture, and, in view of these, examine
those statements which imply a conception of the formal au
thority of the Bible and a high inspiration theory? In the
former case the temptation will be very strong to tone down
Luther's criticisms so as to bring them into harmony with the
older dogma. In the latter case, impressed by the novelty of
Luther's views, the temptation may arise to widen the breach
unduly between the various momenta of Luther's doctrine.
Nevertheless, as the preceding discussion suggests, I, for my
part, must hold that the latter method is the only proper one.
It starts from what is original in Luther's doctrine of Scrip
ture, from what was the center of his entire reforming activi
ty. If the method of this article is the correct one, whether
there is an ultimate reconciliation possible between the two
great tendencies in Luther's doctrine of Scripture or not, the
-^unarticulated character of his doctrine must be admitted.1
However this question may be decided, there is a fifth propo
sition, which I think must be admitted, and which serves to
point the lesson of the whole discussion for lis of the present
time. (5) In centering his attention upon the religious content
of the Bible, and finding its authority in that content, Luther
placed its authority on the securest of all bases. It is only
when this fact is remembered that we can explain the apparent
anomaly of Luther's readiness to criticise Scripture at the
•Cf. Kostlin, ii. 8, 15, 39.

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 297
very time that he was at the height of his conflict with Rome
as to the sole authority of Scripture.1 At the Leipzig Disputa
tion, when his doctrine of the sole authority of Scripture
reached its culmination, he took his stand squarely on the re
ligious content of Scripture as the final test of canonicity, as
is clear in what he says of Second Maccabees, and only three
years after this his prefaces to the New Testament were writ
ten. This astonishing freedom in criticism at the very moment
when he was asserting the sole authority of Scripture can be
explained only on the supposition that Scripture possessed for
Luther fundamentally the authority of a religious axiom rather
than a formal authority. But we have observed a tendency in
Luther to emphasize also the formal authority of the Bible.
This tendency seems to have become stronger in Luther's later
years, particularly in his contest with the " Fanatics." The
more conservative attitude adopted by Luther in the last edi
tion of his prefaces, to which attention was called above,2 is
strong evidence of this.
This tendency to emphasize the formal side of biblical au
thority passed over into the subsequent history of Protestant
dogmatics with ever increasing power. It was a natural, per
haps under the historical conditions an almost inevitable, de
velopment. The admission of a human element in Scripture,
which Luther's criticisms logically involved, put Protestant
ism undoubtedly at a tactical disadvantage in its contests with
Rome and the " Fanatics." Hence, more and more the Bible
became, in the hands of the post-Reformation theologians, a
" paper pope." These theologians scored a temporary victory,
perhaps, but they left to the Protestant church a direful legacy.
1 This singular fact is especially insisted upon by Harnack, Hist.
of Dogma vii. 224; Kostlin, i. 244; Scheel, 52.
' See p. 20 ff.
Vol. LXIII. No. 250. 7

298 Luther's Doctrine of Scripture. [April,
In proportion as the formal authority of Scripture is empha
sized, it becomes impossible or unnecessary to utilize the Tes
timonium Spiritus Sancti successfully. The witness of the
Spirit can be properly employed only with respect to the re
ligious content of the Bible. The Spirit does not witness to
the correctness of the biblical account of creation or the chro
nology of the Books of Kings. Accordingly it became custom
ary to believe these things because ' they are in the Bible.' But
this formal authority was held to guarantee the religious con
tent also. Witness the popular Sunday-school couplet, which
may be regarded as typical of the post-Reformation develop
ment : — " Jesus loves me, this I know,
For the Bible tells me so."
There is no need for the witness of the Spirit here. But
where the witness of the Spirit was illegitimately utilized to
support historical and scientific matters, and no longer needed
to support religious* truths, it would gradually become ignored.
This is what actually happened. The whole burden of apolo
getics was laid upon the Formal Reformation Principle. " The
Bible became the religion of Protestants " in an unfortunately
exclusive sense. The laity became accustomed to this scholas
tic idea of the Bible and this one-sided apologetic. The con
sequence is that in our day, when the biblical problem has been
raised in a new and acute form by the historical study of the
Bible, Apologetics, which had so largely surrendered the sub
jective element of spiritual experience of the saving religious
content of Scripture, found itself helpless, and the laity have
become confused in a most unfortunate way as to the real
grounds of their faith. Under these circumstances I have
hoped that it might be of some profit to consider once again
the peculiar attitude of Luther toward the Bible, which per-

1906.] Luther's Criticism of Scripture. 299
mitted freedom of criticism without endangering its religious
authority. Luther enables us to see that it is the religious con
tent of Scripture that is the all-important thing. Modern
Criticism in an historical and scientific interest has challenged
the formal authority of Scripture, and has dealt a fatal blow
at the post-Reformation doctrine of Scripture. But, in doing
this, is it not in reality compelling a misled church to return to
the religious content, of Scripture as its final authority ? Luther,
in his religious criticism of the Bible, together with his enun
ciation of the grammatico-historical principle of exegesis, laid
the foundation for the modern Historical Criticism of Scrip
ture. Historical Criticism would now seem to be on the point
of paying its debt back to Luther by compelling the Protestant
churches to adopt his emphasis upon the religious content of
Scripture, which is axiomatic for the spiritually illuminated
man.