Unbiased readers will see in all these remarks of Luther nothing but the earnest struggle of a sincere soul to get at the real Word of God.  A person may express a preference for certain portions of the Bible without declaring all the rest of the Bible worthless.  Doubts concerning the divine character of certain, portions of the Scripture arise and are occasionally expressed by the best of Christians.  But Luther’s critical attitude toward certain books of the Bible is either misunderstood or misrepresented when it is made to appear that Luther permanently rejected, or tore out of his Bible, such books as Esther, Jonah, Ecclesiastes, Second Peter, James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.  Some Catholics go so far as to charge Luther with having rejected the Pentateuch, the first five books in the Bible, because he speaks slightingly of Moses’ law as a means of justification.  Not only did Luther translate and take into his German Bible all the writings just named, but he also cites them in his doctrinal writings as proof-texts.  In the Index of Scripture citations which Dr. Hoppe, the editor of the only complete edition of Luther’s works printed in America, has added to the last volume we find 11 such references to Job, 12 to Ecclesiastes, 6 to Jonah, 48 to Second Peter, 18 to James, 6 to Jude, 61 to Hebrews, 17 to Revelation.  We have counted only such references as show that Luther employed these writings as divine in his doctrinal arguments.  By actual enumeration it would be found that he has referred to them much more frequently.  On Jonah, Second Peter, and Jude he wrote special commentaries, and for all the books of the Bible he furnished illuminating summaries, in some cases, as in Revelation, the summaries are furnished chapter for chapter.  This goes to prove that Luther had ultimately reached very clear and settled opinions regarding the authenticity and divine character of those books of the Bible which he is charged with having blasphemously criticized.  Luther’s criticism of these portions of the Bible is the most respectable criticism that has come to our knowledge.  It shows his scrupulous care not to admit anything as being God’s Word of the divine origin of which he was not fully convinced.  It is Rome, not Luther, that has vitiated the Bible and created confusion in Christian minds, by admitting into the sacred volume portions which do not belong there.

Luther’s questioning attitude towards the books of the Bible, which we have named is the attitude of the early Christians.  There was doubt expressed in the first centuries as to the genuineness of these books, and it required convincing information in those days when facilities for communication were poor to secure the adoption of the books which we now have in the Bible.  Why do not the Catholics embrace the early Christians in their charge of Bible mutilation?  Nor were those early Christians who questioned the divine authorship of certain books about the origin of which they had no definite knowledge any less Christian than those who had convincing information about them.  For the former possessed in the writings which they had accepted as authentic the same truths which the latter had embraced.