Book One: On the Sacred and Apocryphal Books
Chapter Eighteen: On the Epistles of James, of Jude, of Second Peter, of Second and Third John
That some once doubted of these epistles, whether they were really Apostolic, is evidenced by Eusebius History bk.3 ch.25 and Divine Jerome, book on Illustrious Men on James, Jude, Peter, and John. Of more recent writers Luther in his prologues to these epistles, Brentius, Chemnitz, and the Centuriators in the places cited in the previous chapter altogether contemn the epistles of James and Jude, remain dubious about the rest, although Luther in his prologue to the epistle to the Hebrews puts the second letter of Peter into the canon. Erasmus in his notes on these epistles says that the epistle of James is not redolent of Apostolic gravity, doubts of Second Peter, and asserts of Second and Third John that they are not from John the Apostle; about the epistle of Jude he says nothing. Cajetan doubts of the authors of the epistles of James, Jude, and Second and Third John, and for that reason wants them to be of lesser authority than the rest. Calvin receives them all and also the Calvinists in their confession at Pissy art.3
For us it is not licit to think other than that these epistles are Apostolic and divine. First there is proof about all of them together, since they are put in the catalogue under the names of the Apostles Peter, James, John, and Jude by the Council of Laodicea, the Third of Carthage, of Florence, and of Trent above cited; again by Innocent I in epist.3 to Exuperius, and by Gelasius in the Council of 70 bishops. Further, by Origen Homily 7 on Joshua, Epiphanius Heresy 76, by Athanasius in his Synopsis, by Jerome in his epistle to Paulina on the Study of the Scriptures, by Augustine On Christian Doctrine bk.2 ch.8, by Ruffinus in his exposition of the Creed, by Isidore Etymologies bk.6 ch.1, by Damascene in bk.4 ch.18.
Next about individual ones separately. For the Council of Milevis can.7 brings in the epistle of James to prove Ecclesiastical dogma; the same letter is cited by Dionysius on Divine Names ch.4, by Cyprian in his book to Novatian, by Augusine in epistle 29 to Jerome, and by others passim. It is also frequently read in the Church under the name of the Apostle James.
The second epistle of Peter is cited under the name of Peter by Hyginus epistle 2, by St. Gregory Homily 18 on Ezekiel, and by others passim. It is read in the Church on the feast of the Transfiguration. Besides one should either confess that this epistle is Peter’s or that it contains an intolerable error, which no one hitherto has dared to assert. For in ch.2 the author says, “this voice we heard when we were with him on the holy mount etc.” But it is certain that when the Lord was transfigured there with the Lord only Peter, James, and John, as the Gospel says, Matthew 17. Therefore the author of this epistle was either some signal impostor or is one of the three chief Apostles of Christ. And although it matter little as far as authority is concerned which of the three it is, yet it is sufficiently clear that the epistle is not James’ of John’s, both because no one has ever said this and also because the author at the beginning of the epistle openly calls himself Simon Peter, Apostle of Jesus Christ. Bede, persuaded by this argument, marvels in his commentary on this epistle by what reason there could have been doubt about the author of this epistle.
The epistle of Jude is cited as Jude’s the Apostle by Dionyisus on Divine Names ch.4, by Tertullian in his book on the Female Habit, by Cyprian in his book to Novatian, and very frequently by later writers. The same epistle also has testimony from Origen bk.5 on Romans ch.5, by Epiphanius Heresy 76, and by Jerome on Titus ch.1, and in his Catalogue of Scriptures.
The second epistle of John is cited by Cyprian in bk.2 on the Opinions of the Council of Carthage, near the end.
The third epistle of John is cited by Dionysius in Celestial Hierarchy ch.3.
But there are not lacking arguments to the contrary. And the first indeed is from Erasmus against the epistle of James. This epistle, if it is from any James, is certainly from him who was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and about whom much is said in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the epistle to Galatians. But that this James is not truly one of the twelve Apostles is plain from Jerome in his commentary on Galatians ch.1, where he says that they greatly err who say that this James was one of the twelve.
I reply that this argument of Erasmus manifestly rests on an error. For Jerome does not say that they err who think that this James was one of the twelve, but that they err who say that this James was the brother of John and was he whom Herod ordered punished with death. But that this our James was one of the twelve is taught by the same Jerome, and he proves it in his book Against Helvidius in these words: “There is no doubt that there were two Apostles called by the name of James, James son of Zebedee and James son of Alphaeus; as to that lesser James or other, whom the Scripture relates was the son of Mary, though not of Mary the mother of the Lord, do you want him to be an Apostle or not? If he is an Apostle he will be the son of Alphaeus; if he is not an Apostle but some third James or other, how is he supposed to be the brother of the Lord? And how will this third be called lesser to distinguish him from the greater, since greater and lesser are wont to put a distance not between three but between two; and the brother of the Lord is an Apostle, on the saying of Paul, ‘I saw no other Apostle save James the brother of the Lord’.” Besides the same thing can be proved by many reasons; but because it is not necessary in this place and I am aiming at brevity, I will say only this. If this our James here is not one of the twelve Apostles, then no mention is made in the Church of one of the Apostles; for it is clear from the Gospel of Matthew ch.10 that there were two Jameses among the twelve: James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus. But in the Church, memorial is made only of James the brother of John, on July 25th, and of this James who wrote this epistle and was first bishop of Jerusalem, on May 1st. Therefore, if this James is not James son of Alphaeus, it follows that there is altogether no memorial of him, which is certainly most absurd.
The second argument. The author of this epistle does not use the accustomed salutation of the Apostles, but only says in a profane manner: “James servant of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes that are in the diaspora, greeting.” Therefore it is not likely that it is from James the Apostle. I reply to this argument, which is Cajetan’s on that place, that if this salutation is to be reckoned profane, that salutation is to be held more profane that is contained in Acts ch.15, “The Apostles and Elders brothers, to those who are in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia brothers from the Gentiles, greeting.” But no Catholic would dare to blame this salutation as profane; therefore neither should anyone blame that one of James as profane.
A third argument against the same epistle is from the Magdeburgians, cent.1 bk.2 ch.4 col.54, as are also the rest that follow. Eusebius asserts, History bk.2 ch.25, that this epistle and that of Jude are adulterated, therefore they are not of firm authority. I reply that this is a lie and not an argument; for these are the words of Eusebius in the place cited by the adversaries: “One must know,” he says, “that they are not received by some”. And he adds: “we however know that these too along with the rest are received by almost all in the Church.”
A fourth argument. This epistle errs much from the analogy of Apostolic doctrine. For in ch.2 justification is ascribed not to faith alone but to works, although Paul in Romans 2 says that man is justified by faith without works. I reply that with this argument the Lutherans confess that they are sons of those ancient heretics against whom this epistle was written. For hear what Augustine says in his book On Faith and works ch.14: “Let us know see,” he says, “what must be cut out from religious hearts so that they do not by an evil security lose their salvation, if for obtaining it they should think faith alone sufficient but should neglect to live well and hold the way of God in good works. For even in the times of the Apostles, because certain rather obscure opinions of the Apostle Paul were not understood, some thought that this is what he said etc.” and later: “Since then this opinion had then arisen, the other Apostolic epistles of Peter, of John, of James, and of Jude most of all direct their meaning against it, so as vehemently to lay down that faith without works profits nothing; just as even Paul himself did not define as salvific and plainly Evangelical any faith at all by which one believes in God, but that faith whose works proceed from charity.”
Now to the argument we reply with Augustine in his preface to Psalm 31, that the Apostles are not in conflict with themselves. For Paul speaks about the first justification, by which a man becomes just from being unjust, and under the name of works he understands works that are done without faith and grace and with the strength alone of free choice; but James speaks of the second justification, by which someone just becomes more just, according to that verse of Apocalypse last chapter, “He who is just, let him be justified still;” and under the name of works he understands works that are done with faith and the help of the grace of God. For just as a man cannot procreate himself or raise himself from the dead, although after he is born he can nourish and increase himself by his own work, so the sinner cannot make himself just, though he can, when he is just, increase justice by his works. But we will dispute of this question fully in its place.
A fifth argument. This epistle is silent about the work of Christ and the doctrine of faith, and only speaks of works; the Apostles however are wont always to insert something about the doctrine of faith; therefore this epistle is not Apostolic. I reply that the Apostle James is purposely all involved in commending works, as we showed above from Augustine, for this reason, that the Evangelists and Paul had sufficiently explained the doctrine of faith, and those against whom he is writing were extolling too much the doctrine of faith and were neglecting good works. I add further that if this epistle is judged for this reason to be adulterated, that it is also all taken up in commending good works, then Proverbs too and Ecclesiastes of Solomon must be reckoned adulterated books, since nothing is read in them besides speeches about morals; or if Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are to be held among the sacred books, even with the consent of our adversaries, certainly there is no reason for us to reject an epistle of James that is very similar to them.
A sixth argument. This author in chs.1 and 2 calls the law of the Old Testament a law of liberty, and the Apostle Paul in Galatians 4 calls it a law of servitude. Therefore it is not possible for both epistles to be Apostolic; but it is clear that the epistle to the Galatians is Apostolic, therefore the letter that goes under the name of James is not Apostolic but contrary to Apostolic. I reply that James is not speaking of the old law but of the new when he calls it a law of liberty. But for this reason it seems to them that James is speaking of the old law because he makes mention of the Precepts of the Decalogue, and they foolishly imagine that the new law does not contain any precepts but only promises of grace and preaching of faith. But without any doubt they are deceived, since the precepts of the Decalogue pertain no less to Christians than to the Hebrews, as is collected from Matthew ch.5 and other places. But there is this difference between the New and the Old Testament, that the Old introduces laws but does not supply the strength to fulfill the laws; consequently it was called and was a law of fear and servitude. But the New Testament together with the laws provides grace whereby men are aided and fulfill the precepts easily and freely and gladly, and for this reason Christians are said not to be under the law, and the law is said not to have been imposed on the just; not because they should not observe it, but because the law does not oppress them or weigh them down, since they keep it most gladly and freely.
But let us hear Augustine teaching these very things, in his book on Nature and Grace ch.57: “If you are led by the spirit,” he says, “you are not under the law, namely the law which inspires fear and does not bestow charity, whereby the love of God is diffused in our hearts not by the letter of the law but by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. This is a law of liberty, not of servitude, because it is a law of charity and not of fear; about this the Apostle James says: But he who has looked in the law of liberty etc.” And Augustine on Galatians ch.6 says, “The same Scripture and the same command, when it weighs on slaves gaping after earthly goods, is called the Old Testament, but when it raises up the free who are on fire for eternal goods, it is called the New Testament”. And in his book on Continence ch.1 he says, “We are not under a law that bids the good and does not give it, but we are under grace, which, by making us love what the law commands, is able to command the free.”
The seventh argument is that the author of this epistle brings forward testimony from the epistles of Peter and Paul, so he is not himself an Apostle, but was one of the Apostles’ disciples. I reply that no places from Peter and Paul are cited in this epistle, but the adversaries are hereby deceived by the fact that they saw on the margin of the book, set apart from the words of James, certain places noted from Peter and Paul. But even in the margins of he epistles of Paul we see noted certain places from the epistles of Peter and of other Apostles; and in the margins of the first epistle of Peter and of first John are noted several places from Paul; yet these epistles of Peter, Paul, and John are not called into doubt. For notes of this sort do not signify that one Apostle is cited by another, but that like opinions are found in the Apostles; which thing the Holy Spirit did for this reason, so as to show that he is one and the same author of them all. This same thing we also see in the Prophets; for Isaiah and Micah lived at one and the same time, since each at the beginning of his book records that he wrote in the days of Joatham and Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and yet we find in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 a signal prophecy about Christ described, not only in the same sense, but also in the same words.
An eighth argument. The author of this epistle does not call himself an Apostle of Christ, as Paul does, so it is not credible that he is an Apostle but some disciple of inferior note. I reply that if we are to trust to these sort of petty reasonings then not only the epistle of James but also some other epistles of Paul and John will have to be rejected, since Paul in the epistle to the Philippians, in the two to Thessalonians, and to Philemon does not call himself an Apostle of Christ but either a servant, as James does, or he adds nothing; John too does not call himself an Apostle either in his epistles or in the Apocalypse.
Against the epistle of Jude the same Magdeburgians bring forward four arguments. The first is that he does not call himself an Apostle, but this has already been solved.
The second is that Jude asserts that he lived after the Apostles when he says, “Be mindful of the words that were preached by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said to you how in the last times will come deceivers etc.” citing openly certain things from the second epistle of Peter. I reply that Jude lived at the same time as the Apostles but yet he wrote his epistle later than Peter and Paul, and therefore rightly could he cite their epistles; in the way that even Peter in his second epistle makes mention of the epistles of Paul, although however they 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 wrote anything he would have written not in Greek but in Persian. I reply that although Jude preached in Persia, yet he wrote his epistle not to the Persians but to the Jews dispersed through the whole earth, to whom Peter and James had also written. Rightly therefore did he wish to write in the Greek tongue, which was then most common. Further, who does not see how inept the argument is that since Jude preached in Persia, therefore he had to write in the Persian tongue? For if an argument of this sort had any validity, we would by parity of reasoning collect that Peter, who taught at Rome and wrote two epistles from that city, ought to have written in Latin and not Greek; and Matthew, who preached in Ethiopia, ought to have written his Gospel in Ethiopic; Paul too, who was preaching in Italy when he wrote to Timothy, to Philemon, and to the Hebrews ought to have written in Latin and not Greek or Hebrew.
The fourth argument. Jude relates the story of the dispute between the Archangel Michael and the Devil about the body of Moses, and a certain prophecy of Enoch. But neither of these is read in approved Scripture. Therefore this epistle is to be numbered among the apocryphal books. I reply that although Tertullian maintains in his book on Female Habit that the book of Enoch is canonical, and Bede on this epistle says that in the time of Jude a true and canonical book of Enoch was in the hands of men, although now it is not extant, yet it seems more probable that the book is apocryphal. Besides, as Jerome on Titus ch.1 and Augustine on the City of God bk.15 ch.23 and bk.18 ch.38 say that even in apocryphal books there can be something of the truth, and that Jude put it forward, yet not for this reason did they approve the whole book; just as even Paul in Acts ch.17, I Corinthians ch.15 and Titus ch.1 produces evidence from national poets, from Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides, yet not for this reason did he consecrate those poets.
But Jude, says Cajetan, quotes the book of Enoch not as apocryphal but as prophetic. I reply with Augustine ibid. that we must without any doubt believe that Enoch wrote something prophetic and divine, and that his prophecy was inserted in the book which Jude cites, but that that book is for this reason apocryphal because it contains many uncertain and fabulous things along with this true prophecy that Jude cites.
Against the second epistle of Peter there is only objected the diversity of its style from the first epistle, which it is certainly clear is Peter’s; this objection is from Erasmus from whom the Magdeburgians not a little dissent, since they write that the style of this epistle seems very similar to the style of the first epistle. Blessed Jerome replies, question 11 to Hedibias, that the diversity of style, if there is any, arises from diversity of translator. For Peter did not always use one and the same translator.
Against the second and third epistles of John they only object the authority of Papias in Eusebius History bk.3 ch.39, and in Jerome on the Illustrious Men on John. For Papias hands down that there were two Johns, one the Apostle and a second who was called John the Elder; and since the author of these epistles names himself not an Apostle but an Elder, it seems very likely that these two very short epistles were written by John the Elder, not by John the Apostle. But this is too flimsy a conjecture to deserve to be opposed, not to say to be preferred to the authority of so many Councils, Pontiffs, and Fathers who attribute these epistles to the Apostle John; especially since Papias does not say that these epistles are not from John the Apostle (for he only says that there were two Johns, but is silent about which of them wrote the epistles), and John the Apostle could rightly be called Elder, because he lived beyond all the Apostles and reached an extreme old age. Further St. Jerome doubted so little of these epistles that when about to cite them in epist.85 to Evagrius he begins thus: “The Gospel trumpet sounds, the son of thunder, whom Jesus loved most, who drank the streams of doctrine from the breast of the Savior.”
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME