De locis theologicis

IT IS SHOWN THAT THOSE BOOKS ABOUT WHICH THERE WAS CONTROVERSY MUST WITHOUT DOUBT BE HELD TO BE CANONICAL

In the second part of this controversy, we promised to show that the fourteen books called into question are canonical. To do so as briefly as possible, let the first conclusion be this. First conclusion: It is not only rash but erroneous to remove Baruch from the canon of Sacred Scripture. I call it erroneous because this term has various and ambiguous meanings; since that is close to heresy, I do not venture to call it heresy. This is evident first from the Council of Florence under Eugene IV, in the decree On the Union of the Jacobites and Armenians, where Baruch is counted among the prophets and sacred authors. Then the Synod of Trent under Paul III openly counts the book of Baruch among the canonical books. It is therefore erroneous to exclude it from the canon. For Eusebius, in Demonstration of the Gospel, chapter 19, does not hesitate to affirm that the prophecy of Baruch is divine; Clement of Alexandria says the same in book 2 of the Instructor, chapter 3.

Finally, on the eve of Pentecost, this book is read in all the churches to the whole Christian people under the name of a prophet. If the Churches of Christ were deceived in this matter, they would be deceived most perniciously. Why? Because as soon as the people understood that the priests were deceiving them in such a matter, they would never again have certain faith in those who presented prophecies or even the Gospels, since these people would already have proved false and deceived them in a similar matter. If the faith of the Christian people wavers and falters here, I certainly do not see where else it could stand firm. The view of those who want the unlearned people not to depend on the authority of priests, but to determine for themselves whether the book being read is canonical, was rejected long ago. Therefore, let us admit, so that we do not seriously err in the Church’s teaching, that Baruch, which the Church has read under the name of a prophet for many centuries, must be counted among the canonical books. No devout person can be persuaded that God would have allowed the Christian people to be deceived for so many centuries in so grave a matter. Second conclusion: It is much more erroneous, not to say heretical, to reject Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of Maccabees from the canon. Augustine first counts these six among the other canonical books (De doctr. christian. 2, chapter 4), where he sets out the catalogue of the Divine Scriptures, without doubt following the common judgment of the Church. Isidore too, speaking of these books in Etymologies 6, chapter 1, says that although the Hebrews do not receive them into their canon, the Christian Church honors and proclaims them among the Divine Books. This conclusion was also defined by Innocent I in his Epist. ad Exuperium, Bishop of Toulouse, in the final chapter, where he inserted the books of Sacred Scripture. Pope Gelasius also decreed and asserted this with a Council of seventy bishops: the Holy and Catholic Roman Church receives and venerates these books as part of the Old Testament. The Third Council of Carthage teaches the same conclusion. Although it was provincial, it was confirmed by Leo IV (distinction 20, chapter “De libellis”) and by the Synod held at Trullo. We should not be troubled by the fact that the Trullan Synod is said to have approved the Council of Carthage, not the councils, since among the Greeks there is only one council called Greek Carthage, and in its canon 24 this enumeration of the Sacred Books is found. Yet the fathers of the Trullan Synod did not approve the Council of Carthage, as Gratian understood it, in the singular number, but the canons issued at New Carthage. Finally, you find this same conclusion in the two Councils already cited, that of Florence under Eugene IV and that of Trent under Paul III. Third conclusion: It is heretical not to include the Letter to the Hebrews among the canonical books. First, because this opposes the definition of all the Pontiffs and Councils that enumerate the Sacred Books: those of Innocent I and Gelasius, the Third Council of Carthage, and also Florence, Trent, and finally Laodicea, a Council plainly confirmed by the Trullan Synod. The conclusion is further proved because the Letter to the Hebrews was received at the Council of Nicaea, as St. Thomas testifies in his commentary on that same letter. A holy man would not assert so grave a matter unless he had found it established. Moreover, this is plainly shown by the Council of Ephesus, whose words are: “Divine Scripture records that Christ was made the High Priest and Apostle of our confession. If anyone, then, denies that the very Word of God was made our High Priest and Apostle, let him be anathema.” Thus far the Council. The Apostle said this nowhere other than in the Letter to the Hebrews;

therefore it is Divine Scripture, and from its authority alone an effective argument is drawn to refute heresy. If, after such splendid testimonies of both Supreme Pontiffs and Councils, I wished to cite the holy authors in confirmation of this view, I fear someone would object that witnesses are quite unnecessary in a matter that is not in doubt. Yet an argument drawn from the common agreement of all the saints is no slight one. To pass over the Greek writers, whose unanimous agreement remains firm to the last, as Jerome says to Dardanus, and to omit the other Latins except Jerome—whose view we shall discuss later—St. Augustine consistently maintains everywhere that this letter is canonical. In book 2 of De doctrina christiana he lists it in the canon of Sacred Scripture; and in book 3 of De Trinit. he believes its authority so firmly that it is no more permissible to depart from it than from the other Divine Scriptures. Since, after Augustine’s time, all the saints, all the theologians, and all Catholics have held this letter to be canonical, why do these younger writers try to bring darkness upon the noonday light? Unless they want the whole Church for a thousand years to have been in the gravest error and in great ignorance of this question, even though throughout the nations the letter is read in the name of the Apostle by the Church’s usage. Fourth conclusion: It is heretical not to include the Letter of James among the canonical books. First, because Jerome asserts in De viris illustribus that although there was once some doubt, the letter gradually gained authority as time went on. The Church, then, had received this letter already in St. Jerome’s time. Again, Innocent and Gelasius, and all the Councils—Carthage, Laodicea, Florence, and Trent—placed it among the sacred books. Add to these the ancient saints, whom we shall also name later, and all the younger writers together with the older scholastic theologians—in short, all Catholics. For by the Church’s usage it is read everywhere among the nations as sacred and apostolic. Let Luther go, then, and, abandoning the most weighty testimonies, believe only himself, a witness supposedly sound and incorrupt. But let us, relying on a solid foundation, hold that this letter is canonical. And if we truly wish to build upon this foundation of the Church, let us count the Second Letter of Peter, the two later letters of John, and that of Jude among the canonical books, and judge the contrary doctrine heretical. For the reasons are entirely the same as those I gave a little earlier. First, Jerome held this view in his epistola adPaulinum, as did Augustine in De doctr. christ. 2, chapter 8, and Isidore in Etymologies 6, chapter 1, as well as Damascene in book 4, chapter 18—not to mention all the ancients. None of them fails to cite testimonies from these letters as divine. Second, Innocent, Gelasius, the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage, Florence, and Trent count them among the canonical books by common consent. Since this is agreed by all, we must admit that they are canonical. Finally, the universal Church presents and reads them in the names of the apostles at various times of the year. Here, to press this same point more often, if the people were being deceived by the priests, they could afterward in no way be brought to trust their pastors even in

the same doctrine, though all concurred in believing. No greater evil could invade the Church than that. Fifth conclusion: It is heretical to exclude the book of the Apocalypse from the canonical books. This is evident first because, according to St. Jerome in De viris illustribus, his epistola ad Dardanum, his epistola ad Paulinum, and other places, and according to St. Augustine in De doctr. Christi. 2, the Church holds the book of the Apocalypse to be canonical. Likewise, in Heresy 51, which belonged to the Alogi, Epiphanius refutes as heretics those who deny that either the Gospel or the Apocalypse of John is Sacred Scripture. Clement of Alexandria counts the Apocalypse among the Scriptures in Instructor 2, chapter 12. Dionysius confirms that it is by John the Evangelist in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 3; Origen does so, cited by Eusebius in Eccl. histor. 6, chapter 18; and Eusebius himself does so in his Chronicle. Dionysius of Alexandria also affirms, beyond doubt, that the Apocalypse was written through the Spirit of God, on the authority of Eusebius in Eccl. histor. 7, chapter 23. So too Justin Martyr, cited by Eusebius in Eccl. histor. 4, chapter 18; a passage survives in the Dialogue with Trypho. So too Irenaeus in Adversum haereses 4; Chrysostom, as Suidas reports; and Damascene in book 4, chapter 18. I pass over more recent writers who have also illuminated this book with their commentaries: Bede, Cassiodorus, Rabanus, Rupert, Richard of St. Victor, and others. Therefore Tertullian most truly asserts in adversus Marcionem 4 that the line of bishops succeeding the apostles attributes this same book to John the Evangelist. If we believe the line of bishops succeeding the apostles, then, it is Sacred Scripture. Moreover, Innocent, Gelasius, the Council of Carthage, Florence, and Trent defined that the Apocalypse must be counted among the canonical books. Furthermore, the Fourth Council of Toledo says: “The authority of many Councils and the synodical decrees of the Roman prelates have established that the Apocalypse is to be received among the Divine Books; and since many do not accept its authority, anyone who does not receive it hereafter shall incur the sentence of excommunication.” Thus far the Council. Finally, since by ecclesiastical usage it is presented to the people to be read in the name of John the Evangelist, that is, as a sacred book, it is not permissible to doubt that it is canonical. With these points plainly set forth and firmly confirmed, I believe I have sufficiently shown what I promised in the second part of this question: those fourteen books of the Old and New Testaments must be honored with divine reverence alongside the other sacred books and henceforth held without controversy to be canonical.