^{page 337 note 1} The Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Ghost (Clement, Cohortatio, ix; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., II, xxviii.2), written by the Spirit of God (Origen, De Princ., praef. viii). The real author of Scripture is: ‘qui scribenda dictavit’ (Gregory, Moralia, praef. i.2). So also St. Thomas: ‘Auctor sacrae scripturae est Dais’ (Sum. Theol. I, Q.i, a. 10).

^{page 337 note 2} Gregory, op. cit. Cf. the illustration of the ‘prophet’ as a musical instrument (Athenagoras, Legatio, ix; Justin, Cohortatio, viii; also Montanus ap. Epiphanius, Panarium, I, xlviii.4).

^{page 338 note 1} Cf. Augustine, Epist., I, lxxxii.3. Apparent error must be explained in one of three ways: either the MS is faulty, or the translator is mistaken, or the reader has failed to understand.

^{page 338 note 2} De Prim., IV, i.8ff.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 3} Op. cit.

^{page 338 note 4} Ibid., a.8.

^{page 339 note 1} Quoted from Seeberg's, ReinholdLehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (E.T., Grand Rapids, 1954), vol. II, p. 149Google Scholar. The italics are mine.

^{page 339 note 2} ‘Si quid autem scripsero in praesenti opusculo quod scripturae vel doctrinae sanctorum seu sacrosanctae ecclesiae assertioni repugnet et adversetur, correctioni praefatae ecclesiae catholicae …me et dicta mca subiicio et expono.’

^{page 339 note 3} ‘Christiamts de necessitate salutis non tenetur ad credendum nee credere quod nee in Biblia continetur nee ex solis contentis in Biblia potest consequentia necessaria et manifesta inferr’ (Dialogus, 411). ‘Qui dicit aliquant partem novi vel veteris tsstamenti aliquod Jalsum asserere out non esse rccipiendum a Catholicis est haereticus et pertinax reputandus’ (ibid., 449).

^{page 340 note 1} ‘Ego autem, licet multi inclyti dociores sic sentiant, lamen quia non habent pro se scripturam, sed solum humanas raliones, et ego in ista opinione habeo scripturam, quod anima sit imago Dei, ideo dico cum Apostolo “Si angelus de coelo”, i.e. doctor in ecclesia, “aliud docuerit, anathema sit”’ (W.A. 9.46.16).

^{page 340 note 2} ‘Deus ipse, ipse inquam per se deus; non iam Moses out Helios, sed dens locutus est, id est loquetur in Sanctuario suo’ (W.A. 3.347.11). ‘Alii prophetae sese locutos esse fatentur, hie autem non se, sed per se locutum esse spiritum singulari modo pronunciat’ (W.A. 3.15.6). ‘Propheta vult quod lingua sua sit organum spiritus sancti’ (W.A. 3.262.30). ‘Evangelium audiendum est, quasi dominum praesentem, quasi Christum loquentem audiamus: quod enim pretiosum sonabat de ore Domini, et propter nos scriptum est et nobis servatum et propter nos recitatur et propter pastores recitabitur et donee seculum finiatur’ (W.A. 4.535.1).

^{page 341 note 1} ‘Ego quidem credo me debere Domino hoc obsequium latrandi contra philosophiam et suadendi ad sacram scripturam’ (W.A. 56.371.17).

^{page 341 note 2} W.A.Br. 1.99.8.

^{page 341 note 3} ‘In his nihil dicere volumus nee dixisse nos credimus, quod non sit catholicae ecclesiae et ecclesiasticis doctoribus consentaneum’ (W.A. 1.228.34).

^{page 341 note 4} ‘Nunquam fuit in anirno ut ab apostolica sede Romand voluerim desciscere. Denique sum contentus ut omnium vocetur, out etiam sit, dominus’ (W.A.Br. 1.356.7).

^{page 341 note 5} W.A. 10².232. Quoted from Reu, M., Luther and the Scriptures (Columbus, Ohio, 1944), p. 22Google Scholar. Reu's discussion is perhaps the best available in English on the problem of authority in the writings of Luther. Particularly valuable are the profuse citations of Luther's own words, and I have drawn freely upon them. But Reu's critical judgments I have not always found so acceptable.

^{page 342 note 1} Trans, by Bainton, R. H., Here I Stand (New York, 1950), p. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 2} W.A. 6.508.19.

^{page 342 note 3} Trans, by Bainton, op. cit., 185.

^{page 342 note 4} In this he was largely anticipated by John Wyclif. See The Reformers and Holy Scripture by Carter, C. S. (London, 1928), p. 37Google Scholar. Cf. McNeill's, J. T. remarks on Rupert of Deutz in The Interpreter's Bible vol. I (New York, 1952), p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 1} W.A.Tr. 2.439 (2383).

^{page 343 note 2} Introduction to the OT. Luther's ‘prefaces’ are conveniently collected and translated in vol. VI of the ‘Philadelphia Edition’ of his works (Muhlenberg Press, 1943), pp. 363ffGoogle Scholar. For the Int. to the OT see pp. 367–82.

^{page 343 note 3} W.A. 401.600.13; 82.31.

^{page 343 note 4} Pref. to James and Jude (Phila. Edn., 477–9).

^{page 343 note 5} Pref. to the NT (Phila. Edn., 439–44). The sentence only appears in the edn. of 1522.

^{page 343 note 6} ‘Eyn rechte stroern Epistel’ (ibid.). ‘Ich werde tin mat mit dem Jekel den offen heizer’ (W.A.Tr. 5.382, 5854).

^{page 343 note 7} The Preface to the NT.

^{page 344 note 1} W.A. 48.31.4.

^{page 344 note 2} W.A. 54.35.2, 48.19, 48.22.

^{page 344 note 3} W.A. 40³.254.23.

^{page 344 note 4} ‘In Petro et Paulo non milt nos admirari vel adorare apostolatum, sed Christum in eis loquentem et ipsum verbum Dei quodde ore ipsorum egreditur.’ Comm. Gal. (edn. of 1535): W.A. 4O¹.173.21.

^{page 344 note 5} W.A. 26.448.18.

^{page 344 note 6} ‘ W.A. 15.394.12 (trans, by Reu, op. cit., p. 50).

^{page 345 note 1} Op. cit., 300–1.

^{page 345 note 2} Op. cit., esp. ch. V.

^{page 346 note 1} At two points Reu is surely right in arguing that Luther has been misunderstood. (1) Luther did not say in his preface to the Annotations of Wenceslaus Link that the writings of the prophets, as contained in the OT, included ‘hay, straw, wood’ as well as ‘silver and gold’. He was referring, not to Scripture at all, but to ‘annotations’ which he presumes the prophets to have made in reading Moses. (2) Luther does not accuse Paul of using an invalid allegory in Gal. 4.25 (W.A. 4O¹.652ff). What he says is that allegory does not serve for proof (here or anywhere else), but only for illustration of what has already been proved. See Reu, op. cit., 68ff.

^{page 346 note 2} Sometimes Reu shows himself to be far more of a ‘fundamentalist’ than Luther found it necessary to be. On Matt. 27.9 Luther says: ‘What does it matter if he does not give the name exactly?’ Reu jumps on the ‘if’ as proof that even here Luther was not persuaded that he was faced with an error. Again, in Stephen's speech (Acts 7) Luther admits discrepancies with ‘Moses’; but, Reu assures us, this is not to admit a fault in the sacred text, since the Holy Spirit is accurately recording Stephen's errors. Whether Luther himself would have approved such artifice, may be at least doubted. He does, however, occasionally deny that the Scriptures could contradict one another (e.g. W.A. 40¹420.27), though he devotes far less labour to explaining ‘Bible difficulties’ than Calvin did.

^{page 346 note 3} ‘Videbam allegorias esse inanes speculations… sola enitn historica sententia est quae vere et solide docet. Postquam haec tractata et recte cognita est, tune licet etiam allegoriis ceu ornamento etjloribus quibusdam uti, quibus illustretur historia seupingatur’ (W.A. 42.173.31; on Gen. 3). ‘Sicubi autem Allegoriis vultis uti, hoc facile, ut sequamini analogiam fidei, hoc est, ut accommodetis eas ad Christum, Ecclesiam, fidem, ministerium verbi’ (W.A. 42.377.20: Gen. 9).

^{page 347 note 1} Phila. Edn. II, 73ff.

^{page 347 note 2} W.A. 7.650.21 (trans, by Reu).

^{page 347 note 3} W.A.Br. 3.50.

^{page 347 note 4} W.A. 7.97.23.

^{page 347 note 5} See Mackinnon, James, Luther and the Reformation vol. IV (London, 1930), p.293Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 6} ‘Scripturas non nisi eo spiritu intelligendas esse, quo scriptae sunt, qui spiritus nusquam praesentius et vivacius quant in ipsis sacris suis, quas scripsit, literis inveniri potest’ (W.A. 7–97.1).

^{page 347 note 7} Cf. Carter, op. cit., p. 29.

^{page 347 note 8} Ibid., 66.

^{page 348 note 1} Lehmann, Paul L., ‘The Reformers’ Use of the Bible', Theology Today, vol. III (1946–1947), p. 333.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 2} Brunner, Emil, The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics, vol. I (E.T., Philadelphia, 1950), p. 108.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 3} Citations from the Institutes are generally given in the English translation by Henry Beveridge (2 vols., London, 1949). Beveridge usually keeps close to the original Latin of the 1559 edn., but occasionally I have thought it advisable to add the Latin, in part or whole, as a footnote or parenthesis.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 1} The words of the title to chap, iv are carefully chosen: the innate knowledge of God is either ‘suffocated’ (suffocari) or ‘corrupted’ (corrumpi).

^{page 349 note 2} ‘Antequam longius progrediar, quaedam inserere operaepretium est de Scripturae aulhoritate…’

^{page 350 note 1} ‘Nam sapere nostrum nihil aliud esse debet quant mansueta docililate amplecti, it quidem sine exceptione, quicquid in sacris Scripturis traditum est.’ Exceptione could be rendered ‘exception’ and taken with the phrase ‘quicquid… est’: i.e. ‘everything without any exception…’.

^{page 351 note 1} ‘Atqui putabam, quaecunque ad Christianismum pertinent, omnia Scripturis perscripta ac comprehensa esse’ (IV.xix.9).

^{page 351 note 2} Comm. on Rom. 8.21 and Acts 1.21–22, respectively.

^{page 352 note 1} Quoted by Hunter, Mitchell, The Teaching of Calvin (2nd edn., London, 1950), p. 82Google Scholar. But Hunter adds that Calvin ‘did not burn his classics, nor did he cease to peruse them’. Cf. Dakin, A.: ‘There are passages in the Institutes which taken out of their context might almost seem to suggest that the Reformer was willing to confine men to Scripture entirely, as though nothing profitable could be found in any other place. But a consideration of his own educational system at Geneva alone is enough to refute such an idea …’ (Calvinism (London, 1940), p. 191).Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 2} Admonitio does not mean ‘reference’ in the sense of a ‘proof-text’, of course, but Calvin certainly intends to contrast the tortuous discussions of the philosophers with the ‘simple’ teaching of Scripture. I.xv.2.

^{page 352 note 3} ‘Adeo certis clarisque Scripturae testimonüs asseritur, ut minim sit potuisse de ea quernpiam dubitare’ (I.xvi.4).

^{page 353 note 1} ‘ Verum ubi demum in carne manifestaia est Dei Sapientia, quicquid humana mente de Patre caelesti comprehendi potest et cogitari debet, plena ore nobis edisseruit.’

^{page 353 note 2} The Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology (New York, 1952), pp. 87ff and 160ff.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 3} See Warfield, , Calvin and Calvinism (New York, 1931), p. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 1} ‘Nempe quod aliae otnnes loquendi formulae quae Deum humanitus nobis describunt. Quia enim ad eius altitudinem nonpertingit nostra infirmitas, quae nobis traditureius descriptio, adeaptum nostrum submittenda est…’ (I.xvii.13).

^{page 355 note 1} See Warfield, op. cit., 65.

^{page 355 note 2} It ought perhaps to be added that the term dictare scarcely supplies Calvin with a fully-articulated ‘theory of inspiration’. Neither Luther nor Calvin devote much space to the ‘mechanics’ of inspiration: they are far more interested in the results. The real problem of the Reformers' teaching on this theme lies in their apparent assumption of an inerrant text: it is less just to accuse them of holding to a mechanical view of inspiration. Several scholars have maintained that Calvin did not intend ‘dictation’ to be understood literally at all. This may be true: in any case, Warfield is surely right in saying that ‘what Calvin has in mind is, not to insist that the mode of inspiration was dictation, but that the result of inspiration is as if it were by dictation, viz., the production of a pure word of God free from all human admixtures’ (op. cit., 63).

^{page 355 note 3} The Word-Spirit correlation takes on a different appearance in the argument against the ‘fanatics’ in ch. ix, and to this we must return.

^{page 356 note 1} Cf. Dowey: ‘If we should dare the Barthian expression that the Bible “becomes” the word of God in faith, we must confess that it becomes it for Calvin by book-size units’ (op. cit., 120, n. 355).

^{page 356 note 2} Op. cit., 31–32. Cf.: ‘It is no revelation in the strict sense’ (ibid.). Also: the question concerns ‘the accrediting of Scripture’ (71). On the other hand, Warfield's estimate of the probationes is surely wrong. He not only exalts the indicia, as he likes to call them, to a status which Calvin would not accord to them: he even tries to argue that Spirit and indicia work together as though inseparable. The real problem in Calvin's own position is to see why he bothers to mention the probationes at all, for he says: ‘Neque demonstration et rationibus subiici earn (i.e. Scripture) fas esse’ (I.vii.5).

^{page 357 note 1} ‘Haec Regina debet dominari, huic omnes obedire et subiacere debent’ (W.A. 40¹.120.20). ‘Domimon qui rex est Scripturae’ (see below).

^{page 357 note 2} ‘Scriptura est, non contra, sed pro Christo intelligenda, idea vel ad eum referenda, vel pro vera Scriptura non habenda… Si adversarii Scripturam urserint contra Christum, urgemus Christum contra Scripturam’ (W.A. 39¹.47.3, 19). ‘Tu urges servum, hoc est, Scripturam, et earn non totam… Ego urgeo dominum, qui rex est Scripturae’ (W.A. 40¹.420: only in the 1538 edn.).

^{page 357 note 3} Op. cit., III. Cf. Brunner's, remarks in Revelation and Reason (E.T., Philadelphia, 1946), p. 276Google Scholar: ‘If we hold firmly to the Reformation principle of the Scriptures—Christus dominus et rex scripturae—then, in principle, the problem of Bible faith and Bible criticism is solved. The Bible is the human, and therefore not the infallible, witness to the divine revelation in the Old Covenant and in the history of the incarnate Son of God.’

^{page 358 note 1} Rev. and Reason, 275.

^{page 358 note 2} Op. tit., 34a.

^{page 358 note 3} Lindsay, T. M., History of the Reformation vol. I (New York), p. 461.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 4} E.g. in the Treatise on Christian Liberty (Phila. edn. II), p. 315. Cf. 1 Pet. 1.25; Acts 4.31, 6.2, etc.: the NT uses μα and λ⋯γος in roughly this sense.

^{page 358 note 5} Cf. Luther: ‘Ego credo sacrae Scripturae, rum Josua hissit solan stare, rum terrain’ (W.A.Tr. 4.4638).

^{page 358 note 6} Calvin finds himself obliged to maintain, for example, that David's hatred of his enemies is a ‘pattern set before us by the Holy Spirit’; and that the speeches of Job's friends contain ‘sound doctrine’.

^{page 359 note 1} ‘Qui ut omni veritatis luce, sine Dei Spiritu, orbatos se vidtnt, ita non ignorant verbum esse organum quo Spiritus sui illuminationem fidelibus Dominus dispensat’ (I.ix.3).

^{page 360 note 1} Op. cit., 203.