# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juli 1856_S215
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Whether Such a One Is to Be Declared a Heretic or a Dangerous False Teacher, etc. 215

...by no means exclude them from the authority of the other biblical books ... We conclude from this, rather, that we rightly doubt concerning the authors of those epistles, whose original manuscripts the first Church did not see, yet without any contempt for the things contained in them." (Phosphorus veri catholicismi, p. 391.)

Dr. Theodor Thummius (Professor at Tübingen, d. 1630) writes: "However that may be, this much remains: that this whole book (the Revelation) is not protocanonical, but only — because nothing certain is known about the author by whom it was written (namely, whether he was taught immediately by the Holy Spirit, or only mediately, and could consequently have erred) — deuterocanonical (canonical in a subordinate sense); and the nature and character of such books is this: that although in themselves they have a thoroughly divine and unerring authority in the decision of dogmatic controversies, yet, as far as we are concerned, if they do not have the agreement of the protocanonical books — by which they are to be tested, so that nothing of doubtful origin may be imposed on the Church — they prove nothing irrefutably." (S. A. Pfeiffer's Antichiliasmus, Lübeck, 1729, p. 158.)

May God the Lord grant that these foregoing testimonies serve to help each one strive to become rightly certain of his faith in these last, troubled times, and to recognize that this, on many points, can be achieved only through conscientious, earnest inquiry and amid great inner struggles of conscience. But may everyone also, through this, be warned against the grave sin of promptly suspecting as opponents of the Word of God those who, together with the most faithful teachers of our Church in her best and most blessed days, indeed hold fast to all the articles of faith, and who acknowledge the holy books universally recognized by the whole of Christendom of all times as the divine rule and standard of faith and life, yet hesitate to acknowledge those books as writings of equal authority which have been disputed, and concerning whose origin and authority doubt has, again and again, also been raised by upright, faithful Christians and teachers of the Church — who therefore do not attack the divine doctrine contained in the disputed books, but wish the Homologoumena to be interpreted not from these, but these from the Homologoumena. If this question is not handled in an unchristian manner, if the poor people are not thrown into confusion by a dishonest presentation of what is here at issue, by a partisan exploitation of a thesis whose true meaning is difficult for the people to grasp — for that is very easy to do here — then the treatment of the question that has arisen can only serve to rouse Christians to earnest inquiry, and, on this occasion, to ground them more deeply and firmly in their knowledge and in their faith.

Should any periodical take notice of the present article, we declare in advance that we [will meet] senseless chatter, which