De locis theologicis

IT CONTAINS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ADVERSARIES AGAINST THE CONCLUSIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER

Now the third part will present the arguments that seem to have moved those who rashly and inconsiderately held opposing doctrines. As for Luther’s argument that a Christian should accept no book of the Old Testament, because if we accept Moses in one commandment we must accept all of Moses, be circumcised, and observe the Sabbath, there is no reason for us to be troubled by it; for both Tertullian, in his five books Adversus Marcionem, and

Augustine in his thirty-three books Contra Faustum Manichaeum refuted not only this argument of Luther’s but many others as well, copiously and learnedly. Besides, we deliberately pass over many objections by many people in this book, partly because they are frivolous and trifling—for Aristotle wisely taught that a wise person should not be troubled whenever any fool puts forward contrary claims—and partly because they are either curious or useless. In a work that I hope will be both extremely weighty and useful, one should not expect me to answer questions about a bent oar or a pigeon’s neck. First argument. The first argument attempts to undermine the first conclusion set out above: Baruch is not counted among the canonical books by Augustine, Damascene, Innocent, Gelasius, the Council of Laodicea, or the Council of Carthage. Indeed, when Augustine claimed to be setting out the entire canon of the Divine Scriptures, he omitted the book of Baruch from his enumeration; and Innocent, having counted all the others except this one, asserted that the remaining books were to be condemned. The force of this argument is further confirmed by the preface to this book, where it says that because Baruch is not found in the Hebrew canon, it is included only for the instruction of readers. This is taken from St. Jerome’s preface to his commentary on Jeremiah. For the same reason, although Jerome commented on all the other prophets, he wrote absolutely no commentary on this one. Second argument. The second argument tries to weaken the second conclusion: St. Jerome, in the Prologue “Galeatus” prefixed to the books of Kings and in the letter to Chromatius and Heliodorus that serves as the preface to Proverbs, excludes those six books of the Old Testament from the canon. But the Church rejects whatever books Jerome rejects, as Gelasius teaches in chapter “Sancta Romana,” distinction 15. Therefore, they are not canonical. The same point is further confirmed by another substantial argument. In his Exposition of the Creed, Cyprian excludes those same six books from the number of sacred books on the authority of the Fathers, from whom he says he received this teaching. Melito did the same. To investigate this matter, he went to the East, where the beginning of our preaching had taken place; after carefully examining everything, he learned through a thorough inquiry that these books were to be rejected from the canon of the Old Testament, as Eusebius reports in Ecclesiasticae historiae 4, book 26. Origen too, in his commentary on the first Psalm, rejects these six books from the canon along with the Hebrews, as Eusebius reports in book 6, chapter 18. The same Eusebius also seems to exclude these books from the sacred books in book 6, chapter 2. Damascene in book 4, chapter 18 is not opposed to this view; St. Thomas is uncertain about Ecclesiasticus, and even St. Augustine in De cura pro mortuis gerenda is not certain. Epiphanius too, in his treatise De ponderibus et mensuris, rejects Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus from the canon. The same reasoning applies to the other five. This conclusion, then, is not as firmly established as we claim. The argument is further strengthened because at the Council of Laodicea only those books from the Old Testament that Jerome counts are listed, and there is absolutely no mention of those six. It is confirmed further because the Trullan Synod approved the eighty-five canons of the Apostles, but canon 84 does not count Tobit, Judith, or Ecclesiasticus among the canonical books. Therefore, they are not canonical. For the apostles handed such books on to the Church, and we have no other sacred books than those we received from them.

They finally confirm this by arguing that the Synagogue could not err in the faith—for at that time it was the same Church that was later spread among the Gentiles, and so it was upheld by the same Divine Spirit and had the same God assisting and governing it. Yet all the Hebrews rejected those six books from the canon, as not only Jerome and Josephus but Origen in his commentary on the first Psalm and the other authors attest most consistently. Therefore, those six books are not canonical. Third argument. The third argument presses against both conclusions. If it were erroneous to reject those books of the Old Testament from the canon, then surely pious and learned men would never have fallen into this condemned error after the definitions of the Pontiffs and Councils. For it is not plausible that such men were unaware of what the Supreme Pontiffs and Councils had prescribed on this matter. Yet it is clear that many, and among them very learned men, adopted the contrary view, while always being regarded as Catholics in the Church. For the gloss on Jerome’s preface to all the books of Divine Scripture, and John Driedo in book 1 of De Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, deny that Baruch is canonical. Nicholas of Lyra, in his commentary on Ezra, chapter 1, and on Tobit; Abulensis, in his commentary on Matthew, chapter 1; St. Antoninus, part 3, title 18; and Cajetan, in other places and especially at the end of his commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament, deny that the other six books are sacred. If we were to grant that all of them departed from the definition of the faith, we would be insulting not only them but also the other faithful, as though Christ’s zeal had so fallen asleep in them that no one protested against the authorities just mentioned. Even without anything else, this is a sufficiently weighty argument for admitting that these books are not canonical. Fourth argument. The fourth argument is directed specifically at expunging the books of Maccabees from the number of canonical books. For Pope Gelasius rejected the second book, as we mentioned above; St. Gregory rejects both books in Moralia 19; Eusebius rejects them in De temporibus; Richard in book 2 of Questions, chapter 9; and Ockham in part 4 of Dialogues, treatise 1, book 3, chapter 16. St. Augustine, in Contra secundam Gaudentii epistolam 2, chapter 23, teaches that they were indeed received by the Church, but not with certain faith. Nor is there any lack here of a wealth of arguments by which the same view can be supported. The first is that the first book says that the illustrious Antiochus reigned in the 137th year of the Greek kingdom; yet it is established from Greek annals and from Eusebius in his Chronicle that he held the kingdom in the 153rd year. Likewise, in the same book and chapter, the author of that book applied the abomination of desolation foretold by Daniel to Antiochus’s idol; in this he was wrong, as Cajetan shows in his commentary on Matthew 24. The second argument is that in book 2 the author begs the readers’ pardon for his fault, which is foreign to divine authority. Certainly someone who admits that his writings need pardon declares them not to be oracles of the Holy Spirit, as Calvin also argues in chapter 9 of the Institutes. The third argument is that at the very beginning of the same book, the letter placed first mentions another letter that immediately follows; yet it says that the latter was written in the 169th year, when it was in fact written in the 188th year, as can be seen at the beginning of that same letter. The fourth argument is that in the letter placed second, which is mentioned in the preceding one, Judas is reported to be alive; yet he had already died not only in the 188th year but even in the 169th, as can be seen in the First Book of Maccabees.

The fifth argument is that in the same second book Antiochus is said to have been dismembered limb by limb, but his death is later described quite differently. The sixth argument is that the same second book recounts certain apocryphal stories about the Ark of the Lord and proves them from Jeremiah’s descriptions, although Jeremiah did not even allude to them in a dream; indeed, he seems to have written the contrary in chapter 3 of his prophecy, saying: “They shall no longer say, ‘The Ark of the Lord,’” etc. The final argument is that both books report that the Maccabees were leaders over Judah and Jerusalem, although it is well known—more than I need to prove here—that they were not of the tribe of Judah but of Levi. For in book 2 of De temporibus Philo says that hostilities and feuds arose at that time for this reason: the Maccabees had seized leadership from the house of David. But that plainly conflicts with Jacob’s prophecy: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a ruler from his loins, until he comes who is to be sent.” If each of these arguments does not move people, all of them together can move not only the unlearned but even the learned to think that the books of Maccabees are not in the canon. These are all appendages to the fourth argument, intended to undermine the second conclusion. Fifth argument. The fifth and chief argument does not oppose the conclusions themselves, but contends that the reason we give is not sufficiently firm. For the Council of Carthage and Innocent count five books of Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus. Yet almost all the most learned agree that the latter two are not Solomon’s, as Augustine also teaches in City of God 17, chapter 20. Innocent, then, was wrong, and the Council was wrong too. Consequently, they did not intend to pronounce anything concerning the faith, but spoke from opinion. Thus no certain argument can be drawn from either the Pontiffs or the Councils to confirm what we want. Sixth argument. The sixth argument also attacks the reasons established to confirm these two conclusions. For in Latin a canonical book is called “regular.” This can be understood in two ways: either as a rule for confirming the faith or as a rule for instructing morals. Therefore, even if those books are defined by Pontiffs and Councils as canonical, we are not immediately compelled to believe that they are canonical for confirming the dogmas of faith; it is enough if we admit that they are canonical in the latter sense. The holy authors also cite testimonies from the Fourth Book of Esdras with the same reverence as they do from the seven books we approve, as is evident in Ambrose, De bono mortis, chapter 10, and his commentary on Luke, chapter 1. Yet it is certain that the Fourth Book of Esdras is not canonical. Therefore, the fact that the saints cite testimonies from such books as sacred does not sufficiently prove that they are divine. Seventh argument. The seventh argument is against the third conclusion: St. Jerome doubts whether that Letter to the Hebrews is canonical; indeed, he says that the Latins do not receive it, as is clear from De viris illustribus, in the entry on Caius, and from his commentaries on Isaiah. Eusebius likewise says (book 6, chapter 16): “Caius, a most eloquent man, asserts that the Apostle Paul has thirteen letters,” not mentioning the one written to the Hebrews, “which even now among the Latins is thought not to be by the Apostle Paul.” Therefore, it is not certain that this letter is canonical. Jerome himself also doubts its authority in De viris illustribus, in the entry on Paul, in his Epistola ad Paulinum, and in his Commentariis Ieremiae. And so that everything may not be referred to St. Jerome’s authority, reason itself suggests the same. Luther’s first argument is from the prefaces, where he says: “The Letter to the Hebrews is neither Paul’s nor anyone else’s...”

the Apostle’s. For it presents a difficult knot: in chapters 6 and 10 it simply denies repentance to sinners after baptism, and in chapter 12 it says that Esau found no place for repentance, though he sought it with tears. This is contrary to all the Gospels and Paul’s letters. So says Luther. Certain men of considerable reputation in the Catholic Church also add another argument: if this were Paul’s letter, it would undoubtedly have been written to the Hebrews in Hebrew by a Hebrew. They offer several arguments to show it was not written in Hebrew. First, the author of this letter says that “Melchizedek” is interpreted as “king of righteousness”; but if he were speaking Hebrew, this would be absurd, just as if he had said, “Melchizedek means Melchizedek.” Second, the same author cites Hebrew testimonies not according to the Hebrew text but according to the Septuagint translation. He therefore was not a Hebrew writing in Hebrew to Hebrews. Third, the Hebrew letter is found nowhere in the world; yet it is not plausible that this one letter alone among all the apostolic letters was lost, since the others have been preserved among us in the language in which the Apostle wrote them. They further argue in a third way that the author of this letter was not Paul: to prove to the Hebrews that Christ is the Son of God, he uses the testimony, “He shall be a son to me, and I shall be a father to him.” Yet in the literal and proper sense this is understood of Solomon, as is clear from 2 Kings and 1 Chronicles. It is unbecoming for so great an Apostle, speaking to stubborn Hebrews about such a great matter and at the beginning of his letter, to use a weak argument. They add a fourth argument: the author of this letter asserts that he was confirmed in the Gospel’s teaching by those who heard the Lord. But Paul cries out in Galatians that he did not learn the Gospel from a human being, but received it by revelation of Jesus Christ without an intermediary. They add a fifth argument: the author of this letter, speaking specifically of a testament as distinguished from a covenant, proves that the Old Testament too was confirmed by death and blood, and proves it by the testimony from Exodus, where Moses was speaking not specifically of a testament but of a covenant. This is not Paul, then, since he cites testimonies of Sacred Scripture less aptly. The final argument is that the author of the same letter asserts that the Ark contained the jar of manna, Aaron’s rod, and the tablets, although 1 Kings 3 explicitly says that there was nothing in the Ark except the tablets. Therefore, it is not Paul’s letter, nor is it canonical, since it plainly conflicts with a canonical book. These are the arguments by which Erasmus of Rotterdam, followed by Cajetan, tries to overturn the third conclusion. Eighth argument. They try to weaken the fourth conclusion with arguments of this kind. The greeting of the letter entitled “of James” says nothing about God, nothing about Jesus Christ, nothing about grace or peace, but offers a greeting in a profane manner. It therefore does not reflect apostolic usage and authority. Accordingly, James does not seem to be the author of that letter, nor, consequently, does any other apostle. Eusebius offers another conjecture about this matter when discussing the letter in Ecclesiastical History 2, chapter 23, in these words: “Yet one should know that it is not received by some, and scarcely any of the ancients makes mention of it.” As for Luther’s argument, made with gross ineptitude, that the letter belongs to no apostle because it attributes justification to works contrary to Paul, it must be utterly scorned by learned men and passed over by us, lest we discuss faith and works παρέργως. Ninth argument. The ninth argument is directed against the same conclusion: the style of the second letter attributed to Peter is quite different from the style of the first, and

therefore they were not written by the same author. It is certain, however, that the Apostle Peter wrote the first. Therefore, the second was not written by the Apostle Peter. For this reason Jerome expresses doubt about that second letter in his second letter to Cyprian; and Eusebius says of the second letter of Peter (book 3, chapter 3), “Many are uncertain,” etc. Tenth argument. The tenth argument is directed against the same conclusion: in book 3 of Eccles. Histo., Eusebius agrees with those who assert that the two later letters of John are not by the Evangelist but by a certain John surnamed the Presbyter. Hence the greeting of these letters is of this sort: “The Elder to Gaius,” “The Elder to the chosen lady.” “Elder” is the same as “presbyter.” It is also clear that Jerome adopted this opinion of Eusebius in De viris illustribus, when he set out the life and works of both John the Evangelist and Papias. Eleventh argument. The eleventh argument also attempts to undermine the same conclusion because the Letter of Jude cites testimony from the apocryphal Book of Enoch. For this reason many rightly rejected it. Jerome attests that most people rejected it; Eusebius likewise says so in Eccles. Hist. 2. Twelfth argument. The final argument against the fifth conclusion rests on many conjectures, all of which Erasmus gathered in his annotations on the Apocalypse. So far as I can gather, he lists nine reasons why the Apocalypse does not seem to be by John the Apostle and Evangelist. First, Eusebius asserts in Hist. eccl. 3 that the Apocalypse is not by John the Evangelist. Second, Dionysius of Alexandria, a particularly weighty authority who judged this book most impartially, suspects that it was written by some other John. Third, Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre and martyr, reported that John wrote his Gospel on the island of Patmos, but makes absolutely no mention of the Apocalypse. Fourth, Caius, certainly an orthodox man, openly denies in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 21, that the Apocalypse is by John the Evangelist. Fifth, in his Catalogue, where he discussed such matters with the utmost care and without dispute, Anastasius does not dare assert that this work is by John the Evangelist. Sixth, John the Evangelist modestly conceals his name in the Gospel, while the author of the Apocalypse, by contrast, frequently emphasizes his own name. Seventh, the Greeks did not receive this book, as Jerome testifies in his letter to Dardanus; indeed, many very learned men attacked the entire book as fictitious, as though it had nothing of apostolic gravity and none of its statements seemed worthy of apostolic majesty. Eighth, the style of the Gospel and of this book differ greatly. Ninth, the Greek manuscripts did not bear the title “John the Evangelist” but “John the Theologian,” who was otherwise surnamed “the Presbyter.” Erasmus uses these conjectures to take this book away from John the Evangelist. Luther, however, considers it neither apostolic nor prophetic because it calls blessed those who keep what is written in it, even though no one knows whether he is blessed or not; moreover, since the human intellect does not at all grasp that writing, he says, it is just as though we did not have it. Yet Divine Books are adapted to the people’s benefit and are not entirely beyond human understanding. These are the arguments by which the truth of the faith can indeed be attacked by human beings, but certainly cannot be conquered or overcome. This will become clear in the final part of this question, where we shall see how much weight each of those arguments has and how suitable each one is.