Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book I: On the Canonical Books
Chapter 18: On the Epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book I: On the Canonical Books of Scripture. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
That some once doubted of these epistles, whether they were really apostolic, Eusebius witnesses book 3 of the History chapter 25, and blessed Jerome in the book On Illustrious Men, in James, Jude, Peter, and John. Among more recent men, Luther in his Prologues to these epistles, Brentius, Kemnitz, and the Centuriators (in the places noted in the chapter above) utterly despise the epistles of James and Jude; of the rest they remained in doubt — although Luther, in his Prologue to the epistle to the Hebrews, places the latter epistle of Peter among the canonical. Erasmus, in his annotations on these epistles, affirms that the epistle of James does not savor of apostolic gravity; of the second of Peter he doubts; of the second and third of John he asserts that they are not the Apostle John's, but some other's; of the epistle of Jude he says nothing. Cajetan doubts of the authors of the epistle of James, of Jude, and of the second and third of John, and therefore also wishes them to be of less authority than the rest. But Calvin receives them all, and the Calvinists in that Confession of Poissy, article 3.
To us it is now not lawful to think otherwise than that these epistles are apostolic and divine. It is proved first of all together: because they are placed in the catalogue under the names of the Apostles Peter, James, John, and Jude by the Councils of Laodicea, the Third of Carthage, Florence, and Trent, cited above; likewise by Innocent I to Exuperius epistle 3, and Gelasius in the Council of seventy Bishops. Moreover by Origen homily 7 on Josue, Epiphanius heresy 76, Athanasius in the Synopsis, Jerome in the epistle to Paulinus On the study of the Scriptures, Augustine book 2 On Christian Doctrine chapter 8, Rufinus in his Exposition of the Creed, Isidore book 6 of the Etymologies chapter 1, and Damascene book 4 chapter 18. Then of each severally. For the Council of Milevis canon 7 brings forward the epistle of James to prove an Ecclesiastical doctrine; the same is cited by Dionysius On the divine names chapter 4, Cyprian in the book to Novatian, Augustine in epistle 29 to Jerome, and others everywhere. It is also read frequently in the Church under the name of James the Apostle.
The second epistle of Peter is cited under the name of Peter by Hyginus epistle 2, by St. Gregory homily 18 on Ezechiel, and by others everywhere. It is read in the Church on the feast of the Transfiguration. Moreover, either one must confess that this epistle is Peter's, or that it contains an intolerable error, which no one has hitherto dared to say. For in chapter 1 the author says: This voice we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount, etc.; but certainly in the holy mount, when the Lord was transfigured, there were alone with the Lord Peter, James, and John, as the Gospel says, Matthew 17. Therefore the author of this epistle was either some notable impostor, or is one of the three chief Apostles of Christ. And although it matters little which of the three it be, as far as authority is concerned, yet it is sufficiently established that it is not James's or John's; both because no one ever said this, and also because the author openly at the beginning of the epistle calls himself Simon Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ. Persuaded by this argument, Bede, in his Commentary on this epistle, wonders on what ground it could have been doubted who was the author of this epistle.
The epistle of Jude is cited as Jude the Apostle's by Dionysius On the divine names chapter 4, Tertullian in the book On women's apparel, Cyprian in the book to Novatian, and most frequently by later writers. The same has testimony also from Origen book 5 on chapter 5 to the Romans, from Epiphanius heresy 76, and from Jerome on chapter 1 to Titus, and in his Catalogue of Writers.
The second epistle of John is cited by Cyprian in book 2 of the sentences of the Council of Carthage, near the end. The third epistle of the same is cited by Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy chapter 3.
But on the contrary there are not wanting arguments. And the first indeed is Erasmus's, against the epistle of James. This epistle, if it is any James's, will certainly be his who was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and of whom so many things are said in the Acts of the Apostles and in the epistle to the Galatians — where, they say, those gravely err who say that this James is one of the twelve.
I answer: this argument of Erasmus rests on a manifest falsehood. For Jerome does not say that those err who hold this James to be one of the twelve, but those who say that this James is the brother of John, and whom Herod commanded to be beheaded. But that this our James is one of the twelve, the same Jerome teaches and proves in the book against Helvidius in these words: “No one doubts that there were two Apostles called by the name of James: James of Zebedee, and James of Alphaeus. This certain lesser James, whom Scripture records as the son of Mary, but not of the mother of the Lord — do you wish him to be an Apostle, or not? If he is an Apostle, he will be the son of Alphaeus; if not an Apostle, but some third James, how is he to be thought the brother of the Lord? and how shall a third be called the less for distinction from the greater, since greater and less are wont to make a distinction not among three, but between two? And the brother of the Lord is an Apostle, Paul saying, Other of the Apostles I saw none, but James the brother of the Lord.” Moreover this same could be proved by many reasons; but because it is not necessary in this place, and I study brevity, I will say only this: If this our James is not one of the number of the twelve Apostles, then no memory is made in the Church of one Apostle out of the twelve. For it is established from the Gospel, Matthew 10, that there were two Jameses among the twelve: James of Zebedee, and James of Alphaeus. But in the Church there is no memory except of James the brother of John on the 25th of July, and of this James who wrote this epistle and was the first Bishop of Jerusalem on the 1st of May. If therefore this one is not that James of Alphaeus, it follows that no memory at all is made of him, which is certainly most absurd.
The second argument: The author of this epistle does not use the customary salutation of the Apostles, but after a profane manner only says: James, the servant of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are in the dispersion, greeting; therefore it is not likely that it is James's. I answer to this argument, which is Cajetan's on this place: If that salutation is to be judged profane, then that must be held more profane which is had Acts 15: The Apostles and the ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, in Syria and Cilicia, greeting; but no Catholic would dare to reprehend this salutation as profane; therefore neither ought anyone to reprehend that of James as profane.
The third argument against the same epistle is the Magdeburgers', century 1 book 2 chapter 4 column 54 — as also the rest that follow. Eusebius affirms, book 2 of the History chapter 23, that this epistle, and that of Jude, are spurious; therefore they are not of firm authority. I answer: this is a falsehood, not an argument. For these are the words of Eusebius in the place cited by the adversaries: “It must be known,” he says, “that they are not received by some.” And he adds: “We know, however, that these too, with the rest, are received by almost all the Churches.”
The fourth argument: This epistle wanders much from the analogy of apostolic doctrine. For in chapter 2 it ascribes justification not to Faith alone, but to works, whereas Paul, Romans 3, says that man is justified by Faith without works. I answer: by this argument the Lutherans confess that they are the sons of those old heretics against whom that epistle was written. For hear what Augustine writes in the book On Faith and Works chapter 14: “Wherefore,” he says, “let us now see that which must be shaken out of religious hearts, lest by an evil security they lose their salvation, if they think Faith sufficient to obtain it, but neglect to live well and to keep the way of God by good works. For even in the times of the Apostles, certain obscure sentences of the Apostle Paul not being understood, some thought him to say this, etc.” And below: “Since therefore this opinion had then arisen, the other apostolic epistles of Peter, John, James, and Jude direct their intention chiefly against it, to affirm vehemently that Faith without works profits nothing; as also Paul himself defined not any faith whatsoever whereby God is believed, but that saving and plainly evangelical faith whose works proceed from love.”
But to the argument we answer with Augustine, Preface on Psalm 31, that the Apostles do not fight among themselves. For Paul speaks of the first justification, by which a man is made just from unjust, and by the name of works he understands works which are done without Faith and grace, by the sole powers of free will. But James speaks of the second justification, by which one from just is made more just, according to that of Apocalypse last chapter: He that is just, let him be justified still; and by the name of works he understands works which are done with Faith and the help of the grace of God. For as a man cannot procreate himself, or raise himself from the dead, yet after he is born can nourish and increase himself by his own work, so a sinner cannot make himself just, yet can, when he is just, increase his justice by his own works. But of this question there will be fuller disputation in its place.
The fifth argument: This epistle is silent about the work of Christ and the doctrine of Faith, and preaches only of works; but the Apostles are wont always to insert something of the doctrine of Faith; therefore this epistle is not apostolic. I answer: that the Apostle James is of set purpose wholly occupied in commending works, as we have shown above from Augustine, for this reason, that the Evangelists and Paul had sufficiently explained the doctrine of Faith, and those against whom he himself writes extolled the doctrine of Faith too much and neglected good works. I add moreover, if this epistle is to be judged spurious because it is almost wholly consumed in commending good works, then the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes of Solomon ought also to be esteemed spurious books, since nothing is read in them but discourses on morals; or if the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are to be held among the sacred books — the adversaries too consenting — there is certainly no cause why we should reject the epistle of James, so very like to those books.
The sixth argument: This author, chapters 1 and 2, calls the law of liberty the Law of the Old Testament; but the Apostle Paul, Galatians 4, calls it the Law of servitude; therefore both epistles cannot be apostolic. But it is established that the epistle to the Galatians is apostolic; therefore that which is carried under the name of James is not apostolic, but contrary to the apostolic.
I answer: James speaks not of the old Law but of the new, when he calls it the Law of liberty. But he seemed to them to speak of the old Law because he makes mention of the precepts of the Decalogue, and they dream that the new Law contains no precepts, but only promises of grace and the preaching of Faith. But without any doubt they are deceived. For the precepts of the Decalogue pertain no less to Christians than to the Hebrews, as is gathered from chapter 5 of Matthew and other places; but this is the difference between the new and the old Testament, that the old brought laws, but did not supply strength for fulfilling those laws; and so it was called, and was, a Law of fear and servitude. But the new Testament, together with the laws, bestows grace, whereby men, being helped, easily, freely, and gladly fulfill the precepts themselves; and therefore Christians are said not to be under the Law, and to the just it is said that the Law is not laid down — not that they ought not to keep it, but because the Law does not press or burden them, since they keep it most gladly and most freely.
But let us hear Augustine teaching these very things, in the book On nature and grace chapter 57: “If you are led by the spirit,” he says, “you are no longer under the Law — the Law, namely, which strikes fear, does not bestow charity; which charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, not by the letter of the Law, but by the Holy Ghost who is given to us. This is the Law of liberty, not of servitude, because of charity, not of fear; of which James the Apostle also says: But he that hath looked into the law of perfect liberty, etc.” And on chapter 6 to the Galatians: “The same,” he says, “Scripture and the same commandment, when it presses as servants those gaping after earthly goods, is called the Old Testament; when it raises up as free those burning for eternal goods, is called the New Testament.” And in the book On continence chapter 3: “We are not under the Law, commanding indeed the good but not giving it, but we are under grace, which, making us love that which the Law commands, can command the free.”
The seventh argument: The author of this epistle brings forward testimonies out of the epistles of Peter and Paul; therefore he himself was not an Apostle, but some one of the disciples of the Apostles. I answer: no places of Peter or Paul are cited in this epistle; but the adversaries were deceived because they saw certain places of Peter and Paul noted in the margin of the book opposite the words of James. But we see also in the margins of the epistles of Paul certain places noted out of the epistles of Peter and of other Apostles; and in the margin of the former epistle of Peter and of the first of John very many places of Paul are noted; nor yet are those epistles of Peter, Paul, and John called into doubt. For such annotations do not signify that one Apostle is cited by another, but that like sentences are found in the Apostles — which the Holy Ghost did for this reason, to show that he is one and the same author of them all. Which same thing we see also in the Prophets: for Isaiah and Micah lived at one and the same time, since each records at the beginning of his book that he wrote in the days of Joatham, Achaz, and Ezechias, kings of Juda; and yet we find in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 a notable prophecy of Christ, described not only in the same sentences, but even in the same words.
The eighth argument: The author of this epistle does not call himself an Apostle of Christ, as Paul does; therefore it is not credible that he is an Apostle, but some disciple of lower note. I answer: if credit were to be given to such petty reasonings, not only the epistle of James, but also several others of Paul and John would have to be rejected. For Paul, in the epistle to the Philippians, in both to the Thessalonians, and to Philemon, does not call himself an Apostle of Christ, but either a servant (as James does) or adds nothing; John too, neither in his epistles nor in the Apocalypse, names himself an Apostle.
Against the epistle of Jude the same Magdeburgers bring four arguments. The first, because he does not call himself an Apostle; but this is already solved. The second, because Jude asserts that he lived after the Apostles, when he says: Be mindful of the words which have been spoken before by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, who told you that in the last time there should come mockers, etc., openly citing certain things out of the second epistle of Peter. I answer: that Jude lived together with the Apostles, but yet wrote his epistle later than Peter and Paul, and therefore could rightly cite their epistles; just as Peter too, in his second epistle, makes mention of the epistles of Paul, although they both lived at the same time and were crowned on the same day.
The third argument: Jude preached not in Greece, but in Persia; therefore, if he had written anything, he would have written not in Greek but in Persian. I answer: that Jude, although he preached in Persia, yet wrote his epistle not to the Persians, but to the Jews dispersed through the world, to whom Peter and James also had written; and so he rightly wished to write in the Greek tongue, which was then most common. Moreover, who does not see how inept an argument it is: Jude preached in Persia, therefore he ought to have written in the Persian tongue? For if such an argument availed anything, by like reasoning we should conclude that Peter, who taught at Rome and from that same city wrote two epistles, ought to have written in Latin, not in Greek; and that Matthew, who preached in Ethiopia, ought to have written his Gospel in the Ethiopian tongue; and that Paul too, who preached in Italy, when he wrote to Timothy, to Philemon, and to the Hebrews, ought to have written in Latin, not in Greek or Hebrew.
The fourth argument: Jude relates the history of the altercation between Michael the Archangel and the Devil about the body of Moses, and a certain prophecy of Henoch; but none of these things is read in the approved Scriptures; therefore this epistle is to be numbered among the apocryphal. I answer: although Tertullian, in the book On women's apparel, contends that the book of Henoch is canonical, and Bede on this epistle says that in the time of Jude the book of Henoch was true and canonical in the hands of men, though now it is not extant, yet it seems more probable that the book is apocryphal. But, as Jerome on chapter 1 to Titus, and Augustine book 15 of the City of God chapter 23 and book 18 chapter 38 say, there is in the apocryphal too something of truth, and this Jude brought forward, yet did not thereby approve the whole book; just as Paul also, Acts 17, 1 Corinthians 15, and to Titus 1, brings forward testimonies out of the pagan Poets, Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides, nor yet thereby consecrated those Poets.
But Jude, says Cajetan, cites the book of Henoch not as apocryphal, but as prophetic. I answer with Augustine book 15 of the City of God chapter 23: it is without doubt to be believed that Henoch wrote something prophetic and divine, and that his prophecy was inserted in that book which Jude cites; but that the book is nevertheless apocryphal, because it contains many uncertain and fabulous things together with this true prophecy which Jude cites.
Against the second of Peter only the diversity of style from the first is objected, which is certainly established to be Peter's; which objection is Erasmus's, from whom the Magdeburgers dissent not a little, since they write that the style of this epistle seems to them very like the style of the former epistle. Blessed Jerome answers, question 11 to Hedibia, that the diversity of style, if there be any, arose from the diversity of the interpreter; for Peter did not always use one and the same interpreter.
Against the second and third of John they object only the authority of Papias (in Eusebius book 3 of the History chapter 39) and of Jerome On Illustrious Men, in John. For Papias handed down that there were two Johns, one the Apostle, and the other who was called the elder; and since the author of these epistles names himself not the Apostle but the elder, it seems likely that these two very short epistles were written by John the elder, not by the Apostle John. But this is a lighter conjecture than that it ought to be opposed — not to say preferred — to the authority of so many Councils, Pontiffs, and Fathers who attribute these epistles to John the Apostle; especially since Papias did not even say that these epistles are not the Apostle John's (for he only names two Johns; but which of them wrote the epistles, he is silent), and John the Apostle could rightly be called the elder, because he lived after all the Apostles and reached extreme old age. Moreover holy Jerome so far from doubting of these epistles that, about to cite them in epistle 85 to Evagrius, he thus began: “Let the evangelical trumpet sound, the son of thunder, whom Jesus loved most, who drank the streams of doctrines from the breast of the Saviour.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVIII. » De epistola Jacobi , Judce , secunda Petri , secunda et tertia Joannis. De his epistolis quosdam olim dubitasse an revera apostolicae essent, testis est Euse- bius lib. III. histor. cap. 25. et B. Hierony¬ mus lib. de viris illustribus, in Jacobo, Ju- da, Petro et Joanne. Ex recentioribus Luthe- rus in Prologis harum epistolarum, Brentius, Kemnitius, et Centuriatores locis notatis ca¬ pite superiore, epistolam Jacobi et Judse penitus contemnunt ; de reliquis dubii hse- (1) 11. Reg. Vll, 13. ; Ps. LXX1, 8. — (2) 111. Reg. Vlll, 3. — (3) Exod. XXIV, 8. 110 LIBER I. rcnt : quamquam Lutherus in Prologo epi¬ stolae ad Hebraeos posteriorem Petri episto¬ lam inter canonicas ponit. Erasmusin anno¬ tationibus ad has epistolas, epistolam Jacobi affirmat non redolere apostolicam gravita¬ tem ; de secunda Petri dubitat ; de secunda et tertia Joannis asserit, eas non esse Joan- nis Apostoli, sed cujusdam alterius ; de epi¬ stola Judae nihil dicit. Cajetanus de auctori¬ bus epistolae Jacobi, Judse, et secunda ac tertia Joannis dubitat, et propterea etiam eas minoris auctoritatis vult esse, quam cee- teras. Porro Calvinus omnes recipit, et Cal- vinistae in illa confessione Pissiacensi art. 3. Nobis jam non licet aliud sentire, quam esse has epistolas apostolicas et divinas. Probatur primo de omnibus simul ; quoniam ponuntur in catalogo nomine Apostolorum Petri, Jacobi, Joannis, et Judse a Concilio Laodicensi, Carthaginiensi III, Florentino et Tridentino supra citatis ; item ab Innocen- tio I, ad Exuperium epist. 3. et Gelasio in Concilio 70. Episcoporum. Praeterea ab Ori¬ gine hom. 7. in Josue, Epiphanio haeres. 76. Athanasio in Synopsi, Hieronymo inepistol. ad Paulinum de studio Scripturarum, Au¬ gustino lib. II, de Doctr. Ghrist. cap. 8. Ruf- fino in Exposit. Symboli, Isidoro lib. YI, Etymolog. cap. 1. Damasceno lib. IY, cap. 18. Deinde de singulis seorsim. Nam episto¬ lam Jacobi adfert ad probandum dogma Ecclesiasticum Concilium Milevitanum can. 7. eamdem citat Dionysius de divin. nom. cap. 4., Cyprianus in lib, ad Novatianum, Augustinus in epist. 29. ad Ilieronym. et alii passim. Legitur quoque frequenter in Ecclesia nomine Jacobi Apostoli. Epistola secunda Petri citatur nomine Pe¬ tri ab Higinio epist. 2. a S. Gregorio hom. 18. in Ezechielem, et ab aliis passim. Legi¬ tur in Ecclesia in festo Transfigurationis. Praderea vel oportet confiteri, hanc episto¬ lam esse Petri, vel contineri intolerabilem errorem, quod nullus hactenus dicere ausus est. Nam cap. II, auctor dicit : Hanc vocem nos audivimus , cum essemus cum ipso in monte sancto (1), etc. at certe in monte sancto cum Dominus transfiguratus est, soli cum Domi¬ no fuerunt, Petrus, Jocobus, et Joannes, ut Evangelium loquitur, Matth. XVII. Igitur epistolae hujus auctor, aut insignis aliquis impostor fuit, aut est unus e tribus Aposto¬ lis Christi primariis. Et quamvis parum re¬ ti) ii; Petr. 1, 18. ferat, cujus sit e tribus quantum attinet ad auctoritatem, tamen satis constat non esse Jacobi, aut Joannis ; tum quia nemo hoc unquam dixit ; tum etiam quoniam auctor aperte initio epistolae vocat se Simonem Pe¬ trum Apostolum Jesu Christi. Quo argumen¬ to persuasus Beda, in Commentario ad hanc epistolam miratur, qua ratione dubitari po¬ tuerit de auctore hujus epistolae. Epistola Judae citatur ut Judae Apostoli a Dionysio de divin. nom. cap 4. Tertullia¬ no lib. de habitu muliebri, a Cypriano in lib. ad Novatianum, et a posterioribus fre¬ quentissime . Eadem quoque testimonium habet ab Origene lib. Y. in cap. Y ad Rom. ab Epiphanio haeresi 76. et a Hieronymo in cap . 1 . ad Titum, et in Catalogo Script . Epistola secunda Joannis citatur a Cypria¬ no in lib. II, sententiarum Concilii Cartha- « giniensfs circa finem. Epistola tertia ejusdem citatur a Dionysio Coelest. hierarch. cap. 3. At contra non desunt argumenta. Ac Pri¬ mum quidem Erasmi est contra epistolam Jacobi. Haec epistola si est ullius Jacobi, il¬ lius certe erit, qui fuit primus Episcopus Hierosolymorum, et de quo tam multa di¬ cuntur in Actis Apostolorum, et epistola ad Galat. ubi dicit, graviter errare eos qui di¬ cunt, Jacobum istum esse unum ex duode¬ cim • Respondeo : argumentum hoc Erasmi manifesto mendacio inniti . Hieronymus enim non dicit errare eos qui sentiunt, hunc Jaco¬ bum esse unum ex duodecim, sed eos qui dicunt, hunc Jacobum esse fratrem Joannis, et quem Herodes capite plecti jussit. Esse autem hunc nostrum Jacobum unum ex duo¬ decim idem Hieronymus docet, et probat in libro advers. Helvidium his verbis : a Nulli dubium est, duos fuisse Apostolos Jacobi vocabulo nuncupatos : Jacobum Zebedcei, et Jacobum Alphsei : istum nescio quem mino¬ rem Jacobum, quem Marise filium, ncc ta¬ men matris Domini Scriptura commemorat, Apostolum vis esse, an non ? Si Apostolus est, Alphsei filius erit : si non Apostolus, sed tertius nescio quis Jacobus, quomodo est frater Domini putandus? et quomodo tertius ad distinctionem majoris appellabitur minor ? cum major et minor non inter tres, sed inter duos soleant praebere distantiam ; et frater Domini Apostolus sit, Paulo dicente, alium I CAPUT XVIII. 111 Apostotorum vidi neminem, nisi Jacobum fratrem Domini. » Praeterea hoc idem multis rationibus probari posset : sed quia nec est necessarium hoc loco, et ego brevitati stu¬ deo, hoc solum dicam : Si non est Jacobus hic noster unus ex numero duodecim Apo¬ stolorum, unius Apostoli ex duodecim nul¬ lam fieri memoriam in Ecclesia ; constat enim ex Evangelio Matth. X. duos fuisse Jacobos inter duodecim : Jacobum Zebedsei et Jacobum Alpheei : in Ecclesia autem non sit memoria nisi Jacobi fratris Joannis die 25 Julii, et hujus Jacobi qui scripsit hanc epistolam, et fuit Fpiscopus primus Iiiero- solymae die 1 . Maii ; si ergo iste non est ille Jacobus Alphaei , sequitur , illius nullam prorsus fieri memoriam, quod certe est ab¬ surdissimum. Argumentum secundum. Auctor hujus epistolae non utitur solita Apostolorum salu¬ tatione, sed profano more tantum dicit : Ja¬ cobus Dei et Domini nostri jesu Christi servus , duodecim tribubus , quce sunt in dispersione , salutem (1) ; ergo non est verisimile eam esse Jacobi. Respondeo ad hoc argumentum, quod est Cajetani in hunc locum : Si ista profana salutatio censenda est, illam esse habendam magis profanam, quae habetur Act. XV. Apostoli et seniores fratres his qui sunt Antiochiae , Syrice, et Ciliciae fratribus ex Gentibus , salutem (2) atqui nullus Catholicus hanc salutationem ut profanam reprehendere auderet ; igitur neque illam Jacobi ullus ut profanam reprehendere debet. Argumentum tertium contra eamdem epis¬ tolam Magdeburgensium, centur. l.lib. II. cap. 4. coi. 54. quemadmodum et caetera quae sequuntur. Eusebius affirmatlib.il. histor. cap. XXIII, hanc epistolam, et illam Judae esse adulterinas ; igitur non sunt fir¬ mae auctoritatis. Respondeo : mendacium esse hoc, non argumentum ; haec enim sunt Eusebii verba loco citato ab adversariis : « Sciendum, inquit, est, quod a nonnullis non recipiantur. » Et addit : « Nos tamen scimus, etiam istas cum caeteris ab omnibus pene Ecclesiis recipi . » Argumentum quartum. Haec epistola mul¬ tum aberrat ab analogia doctrinae apostoli- cae. Nam c. II, justificationem non Fidei soli, sed operibus adscribit, cum Paulus Roman. III, dicat, hominem justificari ex Fide sine operibus. Respondeo : hoc argu¬ mento confiteri Lutheranos, se esse filios veterum filorum haereticorum contra quos epistola ista scripta fuit. Audi enim, quid Augustinus scribat libro : de Fide et Operibus cap 14. « Quamobrem, inquit, jam illud videamus, quod excutiendum est a cordibus religiosis, ne mala securitate salutem suam perdant, si ad eam obtinendam sufficere Fi¬ dem putaverint, bene autem vivere, et bonis operibus viam Dei tenere neglexerint. Nam etiam temporibus Apostolorum, non intel¬ lectis quibusdam subobscuris sententiis Apo¬ stoli Pauli, hoc eum quidam arbitrati sunt dicere, etc. » Et infra. « Quoniam ergo haic opinio tunc fuerat exorta, aliae apostolicee epistolae Petri, Joannis, Jacobi, Judae contra eam maxime dirigunt intentionem, ut vehe¬ menter astruant, Fidem sine operibus non prodesse : sicut etiam ipse Paulus non quam¬ libet fidem qua in Deum creditur, sed eam salubrem planeque Evangelicam definivit, cujus opera ex dilectione procedunt. » Ad argumentum autem respondemus cum Augustino Praefat. inPsal. XXXI, Apostolos non pugnare inter se : nam Paulus loquitur de prima justificatione qua homo fit justus ex injusto, et nomine operum intelligit opera quae fiunt sine Fide et gratia solis viribus li¬ beri arbitrii : Jacobus autem loquitur de se¬ cunda justificatione, qua quis ex justo fit justior; juxta illud Apocalypsis ult. : Qui justus est, justificetur adhuc (3); et nomine operum intelligit opera, quae, fiunt cum Fide et auxilio gratiae Dei. Quemadmodum enim non potest homo seipsum procreare, vel a mortuis excitare; tamen posteaquam natus est potest seipsum opere suo alere et augere: ita peccator non potest seipsum justum fa¬ cere; tamen potest, cum justus est, operi¬ bus Suis augere justitiam. Sed de hac quaes¬ tione suo loco plenius disputabitur. Argumentum quintum. Haec epistola muta est de opere Christi, et doctrina Fidei, et so¬ lum de operibus concionatur : solent vero Apostoli semper aliquid interserere de Fidei doctrina; non igitur Apostolica haec epistola est. Respondeo : Apostolum Jacobum de in¬ dustria totum esse in operibus commendan¬ dis, ut ex Augustino supra demonstravimus/ propterea quod Fidei doctrinam satis expli¬ cuerant Evangelistae et Paulus ; et ii adver¬ sus quos ipse scribit, doctrinam Fidei nimis extollebant, et bona opera negligebant. Addo (1) Jud. 1, 1. — (2) Act. XV, 23. — (3) Apoc. XXII, 11. 112 LIRER I. praeterea, si ideo haec epistota adulterina ju¬ dicanda est, quia tota fere consumitur in operibus bonis commendandis ; Proverbia quoque, et Ecclesiasten Salomonis adulteri¬ nos libros existimari debere, cum nihil in iis, praeter conciones de moribus legatur, vel si Proverbia et Ecclesiastes inter sacros libros habendi sunt, adversariis etiam con¬ sentientibus, nulla certe causa est, cur Jacobi epistolam libris illis persimilem rejiciamus. Argumentum sextum. Iste auctor c.I et II, vocat legem libertatis Legem Testamenti ve¬ teris : at eam vocat Legem servitutis Aposto¬ lus Paulus, Galat. IV, non igitur utraque epi¬ stola Apostolica esse potest : constat autem epistolam ad Galatas Apostolicam esse ; igi¬ tur quae fertur nomine Jacobi, non Aposto¬ lica, sed Apostolicse contraria est. Respondeo : Jacobum non loqui de Lege veteri sed de nova, cum eam Legem liber¬ tatis appellat. Sed ideo illis visus est Jacobus loqui de Lege veteri, quia mentionem facit Decalogi praeceptorum, et ipsi somniant Le¬ gem novam non continere ulla praecepta, sed solas promissiones gratiae Fideique praedi¬ cationem. At sine ulla dubitatione falluntur. Siquidem praecepta Decalogi non minus ad Christianos quam ad Hebraeos pertinent, ut exV. cap, Matthaei aliisque locis Colligitur: sed hoc interest inter novum et vetus Testa¬ mentum, quod vetus leges adferebat, non au¬ tem vires ad eas leges implendas suppedite- bat : proinde Lex timoris ac servitutis, et dicebatur, et erat. Testamentum vero novum una cum legibus gratiam prcebet, qua homi¬ nes adjuti, facile, libere, ac libenter implent ipsa praecepta, et propterea dicuntur Chris¬ tiani non esse sub Lege, et justis dicitur Lex non esse posita, non quod eam servare non debeant, sed quia Lex eos non premit aut gravat, cum eam libentissime liberrimeque servent. Sed Augustinum haec ipsa docentem au¬ diamus, libro De nat. et gratia cap. 57. <c Si spiritu ducimini, inquit, non adhuc estis sub Lege, utique Lege quae timorem incutit, non tribuit charitatem, quae charitas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris, non per Legis litte¬ ram, sed per Spiritum sanctum qui datus est nobis. Haec est Lex libertatis, non servitutis, quia charitatis, non timoris; de qua et Ja¬ cobus Apostolus ait : Qui autem perspexerit in legem perfectae libertatis etc.» Et cap. VI. ad Galatas : « Eadem, inquit, Scriptura, et idem mandatum cum bonis terrenis inhian¬ tes premit servos, Testamentum vetus, cum in bona aeterna flagrantes erigit liberos, Tes-. tamentum novum vocatur.» Et libro De con¬ tinentia c. 3. « Non sumus sub Lege, bonum quidem jubente non tamen dante, sed su¬ mus sub gratia, quae id quod Lex jubet fa¬ ciens nos amare, potest liberis imperare. » Argumentum septimum. Auctor hujus epistolae testimonia profert ex epistolis Petri et Pauli; non igitur ipse Apostolus, sed ali¬ quis ex Apostolorum discipulis fuit. Respon¬ deo : non citari in hac epistola ulla loca Petri vel Pauli; sed inde adversarios esse deceptos, quod viderint ad marginem libri e regione verborum Jacobi loca quaedam Pe¬ tri et Pauli annotari. At etiam in marginibus epistolarum Pauli notari videmus loca quae¬ dam ex epistolis Petri, et aliorum Apostolo¬ rum; et ad marginem prioris epistolae Petri et primae Joannis annotantur plurima loca Pauli : nec tamen epistolae istae Petri, Pauli, Joannis in dubium revocantur. Nec enim ejusmodi annotationes significant unum Apostolum ab alio citari, sed similes senten¬ tias in Apostolis inveniri, quod Spiritus san¬ ctus ideo fecit, ut ostenderet, se unum atque eumdem eorum omnium auctorem esse. Quod idem videmus etiam in Prophetis : Isaias enim et Michaeas uno atque eodem vixerunt tempore, cum uterque initio sui libri se scrip¬ sisse commemoret in diebus Joathan, et Achaz, etEzechiae Regum Juda, et tamenin- venimus Isaiae II. et Michaeae IV. insignem prophetiam de Christo, non modo sententiis, sed etiam verbis iisdem descriptam. Argumentum octavum. Epistolae hujus auctor non se vocat Apostolum Christi, ut Paulus facit ; non igitur credibile est, eum Apostolum esse, sed discipulum aliquem in¬ ferioris notae. Respondeo : si ejusmodi ratiunculis fides habenda esset; non solum epistolam Jacobi, sed etiam aliquot alias Pauli et Joannis re¬ jiciendas fore. Siquidem Paulus in epistola ad Philippenses, in utraque ad Thessaloni- censes, et ad Philemonem, non vocat se Christi Apostolum, sed aut servum, ut facit Jacobus, aut nihil addit : Joannes quoque nec in epistolis, nec in Apocalypsi Aposto¬ lum se nominat. Contra epistolam Judae proferunt iidem Magdeburgenses argumenta quatuor. Pri¬ mum, quia non se vocat Apostolum, sed hoc jam est solutum. Secundum, quia Judas asserit, se post CAPUT XVIII. 413 Apostolos vixisse, cum ait : Memores estote verborum , quce praedicta sunt ab Apostolis Do¬ mini nostri Jesu Christi , qui dicebant vobis , quoniam in novissimo tempore venient illusores etc. (1) citans aperte quaedam ex secunda epistola Petri. Respondeo : Judam simul cum Apostolis vixisse, sed tamen posterius epistolam scripsisse quam Petrum et Pau¬ lum, et ideo merito potuisse eorum episto¬ las citare : quemadmodum etiam Petrus in secunda epistola mentionem facit epistola¬ rum Pauli, cum tamen et simul vixerint, et eadem die sint coronati. Argumentum tertium. Judas non in Grae¬ cia, sed in Perside praedicavit ; igitur si quid scripsisset, non Graece sed Persice scripsis¬ set. Respondeo : Judam, etsi in Perside praedicaverit, tamen non ad Persas, sed ad Judaeos per orbem terrae dispersos epistolam suam scripsisse, ad quos etiam Petrus et Ja- cobus scripserant. Merito proinde scribere voluisse lingua Graeca, quae tunc communis¬ sima erat. Praeterea quis non videt, quam ineptum argumentum sit : Judas in Perside praedicavit; igitut1 lingua Persica scribere debuit? Si quid enim valeret ejusmodi argu¬ mentum, pari ratione colligeremus, Petrum qui Romae docuit, et ex eadem urbe duas epistolas scripsit, Latine non Graece scribere debuisse ; et Matthaeum qui praedicavit in iEthiopia, oportuisse ^Ethiopica lingua scri¬ bere Evangelium : Paulum quoque qui in Italia praedicabat, cum scriberet ad Timo¬ theum, ad Philemonem et ad Hebraeos, de¬ buisse Latine scribere, non Graece vel He¬ braice. Argumentumquartum. Judas refert histo¬ riam altercationis inter Michaelem Archan- gelum et Diabolum de Moysis corpore, et vaticinium quoddam Henoch : at nihil ho¬ rum legitur in probatis Scripturis ; igitur epistola haec inter apocryphas numeranda est. ' Respondeo : quamvis Tertullianus lib. de hab. mulieb. contendat, librum Henoch esse canonicum, et Beda in hanc epistolam dicat, tempore Judse librum Henoch verum et canonicum in manibus hominum fuisse etsi modo non extet ; tamen probabilius vi¬ deri, librum esse apocryphum. Cseterum, ut Hieronymus in cap. I ad Titum, et Augus¬ tinus lib. XV de Civitate Dei cap. 23. et lib. XVIII, cap. 38. dicunt; etiam in apocryphis esse aliquid veri, et hoc Judam protulisse, nec tamen propterea totum librum appro¬ basse; sicut etiam Paulus Actor. XVII., I Corinth. XV. et ad Titum I. profert testimo¬ nia ex ethnicis Poetis, Aratro, Menandro et Epimenide : nec tamen idcirco Poetas illos consecravit. At Judas, inquit Cajetanus, librum Henoch non ut apocryphum, sed ut propheticum ci¬ tat. Respondeo cum Augustino lib. XV. de Civit. Dei cap. 23. sine dubio credendum esse, Henoch aliquid prophetici et divini scripsisse, et ejus vaticinium insertum fuisse in eo libro, quem Judas citat, sed eum li¬ brum propterea apocryphum esse, quod multa incerta et fabulosa contineat simul cum hoc vero vaticinio quod Judas citat. Contra secundam Petri solum objicitur di¬ versitas styli a prima, quam constat certo esse Petri; quae objectio Erasmi est, a quo non parum dissentiunt Magdeburgenses, quippe qui scribunt, sibi videri valde simi¬ lem stylum hujus epistolae, stylo epistolae prioris. Respondet Beatus Hieronymus quae¬ stio XI, ad Hedibiam, styli diversitatem, si quae sit, natam ex interpretis diversitate ; nec enim Petrum semper uno atque eodem in¬ terprete usum esse. Contra secundam et tertiam Joannis solam objiciunt auctoritatem Papiae apud Euse- bium, libro III histor. cap. 39. et Hierony¬ mum de viris illustribus in Joanne. Tradidit enim Papias, duos fuisse Joannes, unum Apostolum, et alterum qui senior dicebatur; et quoniam auctor harum epistolarum, non ApOstolum, sed seniorem se nominat, veri simile esse videtur, duas has brevissimas epistolas a Joanne seniore, non ab Apostolo Joanne scriptas esse. At haec levior conjec¬ tura est, quam ut opponi debeat, ne dicam praeponi tot Conciliorum, Pontificum et Pa¬ trum auctoritati, qui has epistolas Joanni Apostolo tribuunt; praesertim cum nec Pa¬ pias dixerit, has epistolas non esse Joannis Apostoli (solum enim ille duos Joannes no¬ minat : uter autem epistolas scripserit, ta¬ cet) et Joannes Apostolus merito senior dici potuerit, quod post omnes Apostolos vixerit, et ad extremam usque pervenerit senectu¬ tem. Porro Sanctus Hieronymus de his epi- „ stolis adeo non dubitavit, ut eas citaturus in epistola 85. ad Evagrium, ita coeperit: (1) Jud. 17. et 18. 9 114 LIBER I. « Clangat tuba Evangelica, filius tonitrui, quem Jesus amavit plurimum, qui e pectore Salvatoris doctrinarum fluenta potavit. »