The Bible, its origin and nature; seven lectures delivered before Lake Forest College on the foundation of the late William Bross

Front matter

RICK COLLEGE LRC

3 1404 00 003 297 6

THE BROSS LIBRARY

Contents

PASES

II. The Canon of Scripture .... 29

III. Revelation • . 61

II

The readiest way to reach an intelligible and defensible position regarding the Canon is to trace the course of reasoning into which Luther was driven by his controversy with Rome.

If you ask a Romanist why he accepts cer- Romanist

i_ • l i •lit, r.Li'i.1 and Protes*

tain books as canonical, he has a perfectly mtel- tant on ligible answer ready. He accepts these books Canon. because the Church bids him do so. The Church has determined what books are canonical, and he accepts the decision of the Church. If you ask a Protestant why he believes that just these books bound up together in his Bible are canonical, and neither more nor fewer, I fear that ninety-nine Protestants out of a hundred could give you no answer that would satisfy a reasonable man. The Protestant scorns the Romanist because he relies on the authority of the Church, but he cannot tell you on what authority he himself relies. The Protestant watchword is, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible," but how many Protestants are there who could make it quite clear that within the boards of their Bible they have the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible? If you asked them to show you that no canonical writing has been omitted, and that no uncanonical writing has been received, how will they proceed to do so? If you ask the average Protestant to say why he receives the second Epistle of Peter, which a large part of the early Church declined to receive, or why he accepts the Epistle of James, regarding which Luther himself was more than doubtful, — what can he say but that the Church to which he belongs receives them? In other words, what is the difference between the Protestant and the Romanist on this cardinal point of canonicity? Do not Protestants and Romanists alike accept their canonical books at the hands of the Church?

Council of Let us see if any light can be shed on this decree. matter. And first of all, it may be well briefly

to indicate the position which the Church of Rome assumed regarding the Canon at the Reformation. Before the Council of Trent there were laid four propositions which summed up the heresy of Luther. Two of these concerned the Bible ; the first being that Scripture was the sole and complete source of doctrine; the second, that the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament and the acknowledged books of the New Testament should alone be admitted as authoritative. In April, 1546, the Council, after considerable debate, issued the following decree : " The Holy, (Ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent legitimately convened in the Holy Ghost . . . and having always as its aim to remove errors and preserve the very purity of the Gospel, which was promised before by the Prophets, and in the Holy Scripture, and which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first proclaimed with His own lips, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature as the fountain of all verity and saving truth, as well as of instruction in conduct, and [this Council] perceiving that this truth and discipline are contained in written books, and in unwritten traditions received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or dictated to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit, and handed down as if from hand to hand even to us ; following the example of the Orthodox Fathers [this Council] receives and venerates with an equal piety and reverence all the books as well of the Old as of the New Testament; one God

This decree a new departure.

being the Author of both, together with the Traditions pertaining both to faith and to morals, as proceeding from the mouth of Christ, or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Church Catholic by continuous succession. And that no doubt may arise as to what these books are which the Synod thus receives, it has seemed good to append to this decree a Catalogue of the Sacred Books." Then follows a list which includes the books of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, and all the books now composing our New Testament. And the Decree concludes with an anathema on all who shall not receive as sacred and canonical these books and all their parts, "as they have been wont to be read in the Church, and as they are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition."

Councils had previously taken the subject of the Canon into consideration, and had pronounced upon it; but these councils were not oecumenical and their decisions were not regarded. In fact, the very circumstance that the Council of Trent found itself compelled to give a definite decision on the subject suggests that there was no previous decree to which they could appeal. Hitherto usage had determined the Canon. It was the universal use of Jerome's Latin version, the Vnlgate, which practically led the entire Western Church to adopt the same canon. But in the original admission of books into the Vulgate, Jerome did not carry through any scientific principle. He allowed himself to be guided by the generally received opinion, preferring the opinion of the primitive Church to that of a later date, and following the majority in preference to the minority.

Previous to the Reformation, then, the ques- Canon tion of the Canon was in abeyance. The ^termined

Church rested in the practical determination of bv the Vul-

gate.

the question by Jerome's issue of a Latin Bible which was everywhere received and used. And it was determined by Jerome with a regard to prevalent opinion in the Church, and not by the thorough application of a principle or test of canonicity, although no doubt underlying the procedure, both of the Church and of Jerome, there was the principle that those writings were canonical which proceeded from the Apostolic Circle. This principle had been explicitly enounced by Tertullian, and it was only the difficulty of making good the claims of certain writings to be of Apostolic origin that prevented them from being universally accepted as canonical.

36 The Bible : Its Origin and Nature This had This practical solution of the difficulty worked jiced. very well as long as the Bible was merely used

as a book of edification, or to eke out a Church service. But when Luther and his followers proposed to make it the one law of everything religious and ecclesiastical ; when they proposed on its authority to repudiate and condemn what was imposed upon them by the authority of the Church ; when they proposed to listen to it, not as a law which must be interpreted and modified by other laws, but as the one only rule of faith and life, — then it became necessary to define with precision what writings contained this law and whence they derived their authority. In answering these questions the Church of Rome found no difficulty. Even before the Council of Trent was convened, one of her theologians had asked, "How can you know that the Scriptures are canonical except by the Church ? " Another had said, " The whole authority which the Scripture has among us necessarily depends upon the authority of the Church." "It is the Church which has invested with authority certain books . . . which did not derive this authority either from themselves or from their authors." When Luther objected to Eck's citing a passage from Second Maccabees to prove the doctrine of Purgatoryf

Eck replied, " But the Church has received these books into the Canon." To which Luther answered : " The Church cannot give more authority or force to a book than it has in itself. A Council cannot make that be Scripture which in its own nature is not Scripture." 1

These quotations sufficiently show the dia- Luther was metrical contradiction between the position of H^or^ ** Luther and that of the Romanists. The Church exact* of Rome decreed that the Old Testament books (both those we receive and those called Apocryphal), and the books of the New Testament as we now have them, be received as Scripture. They instituted no further inquiries into their authenticity ; they simply closed all debate regarding this matter by accepting Jerome's Vulgate. With Luther such an easy course was impossible. Denying the authority of the Church, he was compelled to define clearly the authority on which he rested. Claiming the words of God as his sole authority, he must set forth with distinctness where the Word of God is to be found and how he can recognize it to be the Word of God. There were two ques- and asks tions which Luther found himself driven to ^o°J.Me answer : What assures me that Scripture is the Word of God, and therefore authoritative? and, 1 C. Berger, " Histoire de la Vulgate," p. 86.

What books are Scripture ? Prior to the question, What is the Canon of inspired Scripture ? comes the question, Is there an inspired Scripture ? Prior to the question, What writings contain the Word of God ? comes the question, Is there a Word of God ? We cannot understand Luther's answer to the one question unless we recognize his attitude toward the other. Is there a Now, according to Luther, the prior ques-

^0/ tion, Is there a Word of God? or, Has God spoken? is answered in the affirmative, and with certainty, by every man in whom the Word of God attests its own Divine origin and authority, and it can be answered with an assured affirmative by none beside. Luther's explicit and constant teaching is that this word is self-evidencing and needs no authority at its back, but carries in it its own authentication. Let us hear some of his own strong statements to this effect. Showing that the question between himself and Rome was not whether God was to be obeyed when He spoke, — for they were agreed as to that, — he goes on : " The Romanists say, Yes, but how can we know 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 can'st not rest thy confidence thereon, nor satisfy thy conscience : thou must thyself decide, thy neck is at stake, thy life is at stake. Therefore must God say to thee in thine heart, This is God's Word, else it is still undecided." Again: "Thou must be as certain that it is the Word of God as thou art certain that thou livest, and even more certain, for on this alone must thy conscience rest. And even if all men came, aye, even the angels and all the world, and determined something, if thou can'st not form nor conclude the decision, thou art lost. For thou must not place thy decision on the Pope or any other, thou must thyself be so skilful that thou can'st say, God says this, not that; this is right, that is wrong ; else it is not possible to endure. Dost thou stand upon Pope or Concilia? Then the Devil may at once knock a hole in thee and insinuate, ' How if it were false, how if they have erred?' Then thou art laid low at once. Therefore thou must bring conscience into play, that thou may'st boldly and defiantly say, That is God's Word, on that will I risk body and life, and a hundred thousand necks if I had them. Therefore no one shall turn me from the Word which God teaches me, and that must I know as certainly as that two and three make five, that an ell is longer than a half. That is certain, and though all the world

speak to the contrary, still I know that it is

not otherwise. Who decides me there? No

man, but only the truth which is so perfectly

certain that nobody can deny it."

Sei/-evidenc- Why is Luther so urgent on this point?

%Qodthe -^e *s urgent because he sees that the whole

basis of difference between himself and Rome hinges

Protestant-

ism. here. If he cannot make good this position,

that the truth or the Word of God has power to verify itself as such to the conscience it awakens, he has no standing at all. The principle which made him a Protestant, and which constitutes men Protestants always, is simply this, that the soul needs not the intervention of any authority to bring it into contact with God and the truth, but that God and His truth have power to verify themselves to the individual. Luther did not accept the Gospel because it was written in a book he believed to be inspired, or canonical, or the Word of God; but he accepted it because it brought new life to his spirit and proved itself to be from God. He did not accept Christ because he had first of all accepted the Scriptures, but he accepted the Scriptures because they testified of a Christ he felt constrained to accept. In short, it is the truth which the Scriptures contain which certify him that they are the Word of God; it is not his belief that they are the Word of God which certifies him of the truth they contain. The proclamation of God's grace quickening a new life within him convinced him this proclamation was from God.

The difference between the Romanist and Differentia the Protestant is not what it is so often said tanttim. to be, that the Romanist accepts the Church as his infallible authority, while the Protestant accepts the Scriptures as his infallible authority. The Romanist equally with the Protestant accepts the authority of Scripture. The difference lies deeper. The difference lies here: that the Romanist accepts Scripture as the Word of God because the Church tells him so, the Protestant accepts it as the Word of God because God tells him so. The Protestant believes it to be God's Word because through it God has spoken to him in such sort as to convince him that it is God who here speaks. This is the one sure foundation-stone of Protestantism, — the response of the individual conscience to the self-evidencing voice of God in Scripture. He does not need to go to the Church to ask if this be God's Word ; his conscience tells him it is. Deeper than that for a foundation of faith you cannot get, and any faith that is not so deeply founded is insecure — it may last, and it may bring a man to all needed benefit, but it is not reasonably defensible, and therefore it is liable to be upset.

This, then, was Luther's first position regarding Scripture ; this was the fundamental position on which Protestantism is reared; viz. that through Scripture God Himself so speaks to the soul that the man is convinced without the intervention of any other proof or authority that this is the Word of God. The individual does not need the Church to tell him that this is the Word of God. God tells him so, and makes all other authority superfluous. What writ- But next comes the question, What writings \ain God's contain this word ? Are we to carry through Word? j-^jg fundamental principle, and maintain that

only such writings can be accounted Scripture as approve themselves to be God's Word by renewing or building up the fundamental faith in God which has already been quickened within us? This fundamental principle of Protestantism— that God's Word is self -evidencing — can we carry it over to the subject of canonicity and make it the sole, absolute test of canonicity? Or can we at any rate say that whatever agrees with the Word of God which at first begot faith in us and presents to us the same Gospel and the same Christ is canonical ? This Luther does, subject to the limitation that it springs from the Apostolic Circle. Or can we only use this fundamental faith of our own as a negative test, rejecting whatever does not harmonize with that faith in Christ which has given us spiritual life, or at any rate whatever contradicts it ? In other words, can I say that all those writings are canonical which awaken faith in me, or can I say that all those writings are canonical which present that same Christ whose presentation at first awakened faith in me ; or can I only say that those are certainly not canonical which do not harmonize with faith in Christ ?

Now we shall find Luther's answer to these Luther's questions in the judgments he pronounced on

the books actually forming our Canon. Taking up his translation of the New Testament, we find that the four writings — Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation — which he considered to be non-apostolic, are relegated to the end by themselves, and introduced with these significant words : " Up to this point we have been dealing with the quite certain (rechten gewissen) chief books (Hauptbucher) of the New Testament. But these four following have in times past had a different position." He then goes on to prove briefly but convince ingly that Hebrews is not by Paul nor by any Apostle, and after extolling its ability and pointing out what he considered faulty, he remarks that "although the writer does not lay the foundation of faith, which is the Apostolic function, he yet builds upon it gold, silver, precious stones, and if, in accordance with Paul's words, he mingles some wood, hay, stubble, this is not to hinder us from accepting with all reverence his teaching — although it cannot in all respects be compared to the Apostolic Epistles." His criticisms on the Apocalypse are also very outspoken : " My spirit," he says, " can't accommodate itself to this book : the reason being that I do not think Christ is taught therein"1 His judgment of this book, however, underwent considerable modification; and although, in contradistinction to the body of modern critics, he seems never to have been convinced that it was written by the Apostle John, it is not probable that in his later years he would have spoken of it so slightingly. But in his introductory remarks to the

1 Luther's " Prefaces" are to be found in old editions of his translation of the Bible. See also Reuss's " Histoire du Canon," p. 347,

Epistle of James he shows more explicitly his criterion or test of canonicity. He refuses to admit this Epistle among the Hauptbucher of the New Testament, or to allow its Apostolic authorship, and he defends his judgment in these words : " Herein agree all the genuine (jechtsehaffene) holy books, that they all preach and exhibit Christ. This, indeed, is the right touchstone (der rechte Priifestein) to test all the books, — if one sees whether or not they present Christ, for all Scripture witnesses to Christ (Rom. iii. 21); and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ. That which does not teach Christ is not Apostolic, though St. Peter or St. Paul teaches it. That which preaches Christ is Apostolic, though Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod teaches it."

Luther's direct test of canonicity, then, is, Luther's

tsst of*

Does the book in question occupy itself with can0nicityo Christ or does it not ? So says Dorner : l " The deciding principle as to whether a writing is to pass for canonical, lies, in a dogmatic aspect, according to Luther, as is well known, in this, whether it is occupied with Christ." Luther, in short, recognizes that God has an end to secure in making a revelation, and this end is to bring clear before men His will for i " History of Protestant Theology," E. Tr., I., p. 252.

our salvation; or, in one word, Christ. The books that promote this end he accepts as canonical. its inade- But while this was Luther's final and deter-

quacy. mining test of canonicity, it is obvious that he

at the same time employed some preliminary test. He applied his final test, not to all books he knew, but only to a number already selected and already passing for canonical. He never thought of carrying his principle through all literature and accepting as canonical every book that was occupied with Christ. He did not accept Augustine and Tauler as canonical, though to them he in great part owed his salvation, his peace, his light, his strength. And it may, on the other hand, be questioned whether, with all his boldness, he would have dared to reject any writing which was proved to be of Apostolic authorship. In point of fact he does not reject any such writing. His test of canonicity is, in short, only a supplemental principle; it is a principle which can be applied only in a field already defined by the application of some other principle, or by some universal usage such as the Church-collection of Scriptures had sprung from. Luther's method is really this : he first accepts at the hand of Jerome certain candidates for admission into the Canon, and to these selected candidates he applies his test. He was aware that up to Jerome's time the Church had always been in doubt regarding certain of these writings, and to these he freely applies the testing question, Are they occupied with Christ?

Theoretically, therefore, Reuss is right in say- Reuss on ing that Luther did not look upon the Canon as a collection, more or less complete, of all the writings of a certain period or of a certain class of men, but as a body of writings destined by God to teach a certain truth; and accordingly the test of the individual writings must at bottom lie in the teaching itself.1 But practically what Luther did was to apply this test only to writings which already had some claim to be considered Apostolical. The course of his thought was briefly this : he arrived at faith in Christ before he reached any clear view of the inspiration or canonicity of certain writers ; he reached faith in Christ apart from any doctrine regarding Scripture. But having believed in Christ, he found that certain men had been appointed by Christ to witness to the great facts of His life, death, resurrection, and gift of the Spirit. The same faith which accepts Christ as supreme, the same faith which i " History of Protestant Theology," E. Tr., I., p. 344.

produces self-verifying results in his soul compels him also to believe that the commission of Christ to His Apostles was actually effectual and that they are the appointed, normative witnesses to Him and His salvation. The writings of these Apostles he accepts, though holding himself free to reject them if they contradict the fundamental faith in Christ which gave him his new life. The other books, whose authorship is doubtful, but which from the first have claimed admittance to the New Testament Canon, he judges purely on their merits, rejecting or admitting as he finds they do not or do fit into the Apostolic teaching. Liberty This, it will be said, leaves a ragged edge on

Luther. V ^ne Canon. It leaves much to be decided by the individual. A man may say to Luther, " I do not find in the gospel of John agreement with the three synoptic gospels, and as you throw over James because he does not agree with Paul, so I throw over John because he does not agree with the synoptists." And Luther could have made no satisfactory reply. Better, he would think, let a man accept Scripture from his own feeling of its truth than compel him to do so by some external compulsion. Indeed, his boldness in pronouncing his own opinion is quite equalled by his explicit and repeated allowance of liberty to every other man. Thus, though he himself did not accept the Apocalypse as the work of John, he hastens to add, " No man ought to be hindered from holding it to be a work of St. John or otherwise as he will." Similarly, after giving his opinion of the Epistle of James, he concludes, " I cannot then place it among the chief books, but I will forbid no one to place and elevate it as he pleases." So that if we find ourselves in disagreement with Luther regarding the judgments he pronounces on some of the books of Scripture, this is only what he himself anticipated. Neither does the fact that his principle can never be applied without such discordant results emerging, reflect any discredit on the principle itself. As Reuss says, "To begin to speak to-day of the infatuation of Luther's method of procedure, because in the details of its application one cannot always share in his opinion, this only proves that with the modern champions of a pretended, privileged orthodoxy, ignorance and fatuity go hand and hand in the van."

The same vagueness which marred the Lu- CaMnistic theran doctrine of canonicity affected the Calvinistic position. The inward witness cannot reasonably be expected to be sufficient for the position.

Confusion of thought regarding Canon.

Inadequacy of inward witness.

task of certifying every word that God has uttered to man. It cannot, in other words, be expected to form of itself a sufficient test of canonicity.

The truth is there seems to have been some confusion of thought in Calvinistic writers, arising from the fact that in speaking of the authority of Scripture they viewed Scripture as a whole. Challenged by the Romanists to say how they knew the Bible to be from God, they said, We know it to be from God because God's Spirit within us recognizes it as His. But this inward witness could only become a test of canonicity if the Bible were an indissoluble whole, part hanging with part, so that each part stands or falls with every other part.

If, in order to prove the canonicity of all the writings in the Bible, it were enough to say, the Spirit within me recognizes God's voice in the Bible as a whole, then this were a sufficient test. If, in order to prove the canonicity of the Epistle of James, it were enough to say, I recognize the voice of God in the Epistle of John, then the " inward witness of the Spirit " would be a sufficient test. But the very thing we are seeking for is that which brought the parts together, the principle on which the Church proceeded when it took one writing here and another there and brought them into one whole. What is it which is characteristic of each part, so that even when the parts were lying separate, they could be and were recognized as properly belonging to the Canonical Scriptures ? The question seeking solution is, why do we receive this or that book into the Canon ? There is no question here as to whether we have a word of God, nor as to the general collection of writings in which we find that word ; the question is, how do we know that the Epistle to the Hebrews or the Epistle of Jude, or any other individual writing, is the Word of God ?

The Westminster Confession makes "inspira- Caninspira* tion" the test of canonicity, although it does test of cannot in express terms say so. After naming the onlGltlJ^ books of the Old and New Testament, it proceeds, "all which are given by inspiration of God ; " and then in section 3 it goes on, " The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of Divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture." That is to say, writings which are inspired are canonical, writings not inspired are not canonical. But how are we to discover what writings are inspired? The Confession, singularly enough, says nothing of Prophetic and Apostolic authorship, but refers us to the various marks of divinity in the writings them-

How can inspiration be recognized ?

Inspiration not always recognizable.

selves, and concludes in the well-known words, " Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and Divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.''

There are two processes by which we can arrive at the conclusion that a writing is inspired. First, as in reading any book we form an opinion of it and either pronounce it stupid or feel in it the touch of genius, so in reading the work of an inspired man we may arrive at the conclusion that it has been written with Divine aid. There may be that in it which makes us feel that we have to do with a Divine as well as a human author. Second, we may believe in the inspiration of a book, because we first of all believe in Christ and find that He authorized certain persons to speak in His name and with His authority and spirit. When the well-authenticated writings of such persons come into our hands, we accept them, if we are already Christian.

But there are books in the Bible whose inspiration cannot be ascertained by either of these methods. There are books of which we cannot say that they are written by prophet or apostle or otherwise commissioned person ; Chronicles, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, — no one knows who wrote these books. One of the methods of ascertaining inspiration is therefore closed to us. And as to the other method, the inward witness, I am not persuaded that John Owen himself could have detected the book of Esther as an inspired book, had it been found lying outside the Canon. How, then, can we justify the admission of such a book as Esther — a book of which the authorship is unknown, and to which the inward witness bears at the best a somewhat doubtful testimony so far as regards its inspiration?