Luther found the Church in the quiet possession of a canon of Holy Scripture. There was some discussion about the books that were in the extant Hebrew text and those that had been preserved in the Hellenistic translation thereof, but the discussion was very limited and mostly a classroom affair. Luther was not concerned to prefer the Palestinian to the Alexandrian Canon of the Old Testament. He did not throw over certain of the books of the Alexandrian Canon because they were extant in Greek and not in Hebrew. No, with Luther the fight was not so scientific. The question was simply this to Luther: Is an infallible Pope to decide the make-up of the Bible, or an infallible Luther? That way of phrasing this phase of Lutheranism is not found in the writings of Luther, and yet it is not unfair to him.

If you wish to be fair and square to a leader of thought, you look up his writings, and, if possible, you go to the original of the man you are studying. It is not fair and square to assign ideas to a man unless those ideas have been found by you in the writings of public utterances of that man and not merely in second-hand translations or quotations from him. We shall go to Luther himself, and let him speak for himself. He shows clearly that we are not unfair in the statement that Luther merely wished to substitute an infallible Luther for an infallible Pope.

Look up his "Letter on Interpretation." It is in volume 30, part 2, page 65, page 107, of the Erlangen edition of his works. This is a polemic treatise in the form of a letter; it was first published by Wenceslas Link (A. D. 1530), at Luther's orders:

"When your Papist gives himself useless trouble about the word 'alone,' just tell him prudently, Dr. Martin Luther wills it so and says: 'Papist and jackass are one and the same. Sic volo, sic jubeo: sit pro ratione voluntas. Thus I will have it, thus I order it; let my will stand for the reason why.'"

The moot question was Luther's insertion of the word "alone" in St. Paul's words to the Romans (III: 28):

"For we account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law." To make good his arbitrary interpretation of this passage, Luther mutilated it by reading into St. Paul the idea that man was justified by faith alone. When taken to task the arbitrary revolter from the Papacy became still more arbitrary and said:

"The word alone must remain in my New Testament: although all the Papists run mad, they shall not take it thence. It now grieves me sore that I did not add two other words and make Paul to have said: We account a man to be justified by faith alone without any of the works of any law."

"We would be not the pupils and disciples of the Papists but their masters and lords; we, too, would strut it a bit, and be arrogant with these donkies. And, as Paul makes boast against his crazy saints, so I make boast against these my jackasses. Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they controversialists? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they dialecticians? So am I. Are they teachers? So am I. Do they write books? So do I. And I will go farther in my boast * * * Why, if there be only one among them that can understand aright a foreword or a chapter of Aristotle, I am ready to be tossed in a blanket." That is the arrogant, arbitrary sort of stuff that Protestants accepted instead of the Canon of the Church.