# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_April 1856_S109
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Dr. Seyffarth's Corrections, etc. 109

the Bible may be acknowledged by the Church in deed and in truth, without the Church at the same time confessing its doctrine as agreeing with the Bible. Not even a law-code can be adopted by a state otherwise than through so-called organic laws, that is, through ordinances that make possible the use of the book and therefore correspond to it; but the Bible is for the Church far more than a law-code — it stands, as the Word of the apostles and prophets, in a far more intimate connection with the Church. It is not like a lighthouse, by which the sailor from time to time recognizes his way, and that too not without instruments and charts — it is the ground or foundation, of whose measure the edifice erected upon it bears witness, and from which one cannot tear the building away without damaging the foundation itself. Rationalism pressed toward an obligation to the Bible alone, and in some places even brought this about, by setting aside the obligation to the confessions through the addition that it should hold only insofar as (quatenus) the confessions agreed with Scripture; but it was likewise rationalism that in this way cast the confessions out of their churchly standing, its intention thereby being to bring the Bible under the power of its own arbitrariness. The effort to be rid of the ecclesiastical confessions is wasted, so long as one still wishes to believe and teach in real agreement with the Bible.
(To be continued.)

(Submitted by A. Hoppe, pastor in New Orleans.)

Dr. Seyffarth's Corrections
of ancient history and chronology, especially Hebrew, together
with introductory remarks on the relationship of theology to
scholarship.

(Continuation.)

If we now take up the book itself, we find the following results:
The chronology and history now in use, generally current since Petavius (1627), rests upon the calculation of solar and lunar eclipses, of which 130 are mentioned in the ancient authors. But many solar and lunar eclipses did not occur in the years to which Petavius assigns the events connected with them, because he took no account of the total solar eclipses of the ancients, which in many years occur only once at certain places, and are therefore of the highest importance for the correct determination of time. Furthermore, the conjunctions of the planets and phases of the moon escaped him, which the ancients mention in connection with certain events and from which the events bound up with them can be determined with more than