Guy de Brès And The Apocrypha

By Wes Bredenhof

[Wes Bredenhof is pastor of the Providence Canadian Reformed Church, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.]

I. Introduction

The Belgian martyr Guy de Brès (1522–1567) is mostly remembered as the author of the Belgic Confession (1561). Recent research by N. H. Gootjes, however, confirms that de Brès should also be accounted as the most significant reformer of the sixteenth-century Low Countries.[1] When de Brès was in prison on death row, the Roman Catholic Church sent Bishop François Richardot, its foremost theologian and polemicist in the region, to debate with him.[2] If providence had allowed a longer life, more literary output from de Brès could reasonably have been expected. As it happened, besides the Belgic Confession, we have two major works plus some assorted smaller writings. In this study, we will explore de Brès’s use of the Apocrypha. How do these writings function in his theology?

The question arises out of two observations. First, there is article 6 of the Belgic Confession. This article is found in a section of the Confession that deals with the Scriptures. Article 3 introduces this section by stating that Scripture has come to us through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Article 4 lists the sixty-six books recognized as canonical by Protestants. Article 5 states that only those sixty-six books are received “as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation and confirmation of our faith.”[3] Article 6 outlines the differences between the canonical and the apocryphal books.

The article first lists the books: 3 and 4 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, additions to Esther, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men in the Furnace, Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.[4] The Confession then asserts the following:

The church may read and take instruction from these so far as they agree with the canonical books. They are, however, far from having such power and authority that we may confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion; much less may they be used to detract from the authority of the holy books.

This can be recognized as a classic Reformed position on these books.

Our second observation is also in regard to the Belgic Confession. The first editions (1561/1562) contained biblical proof-texts in the margins. Among these proof-texts we find two references to apocryphal writings. Later editions of the Confession excised these apocryphal references. The question beckons: why did de Brès include these references in the first place? Furthermore, as we survey his other writings, we find that this was not an isolated occurrence. De Brès referred to the Apocrypha relatively often. He frequently appeared to place these writings on the same level as the canonical Scriptures. In this study, therefore, we will survey his use of the Apocrypha, place it within the sixteenth-century context, and endeavor to explain it.

II. The Belgic Confession (1561)

The original editions of the Confession had the proof-texts in the margin, sometimes roughly corresponding to the statements that they supported, but not always. It can be difficult to ascertain which texts belong with which statement.[5] An additional problem is the fact that Bibles with chapter and verse divisions were only beginning to appear at this time. In his pastoral and scholarly labors, when he was not providing his own translation or version from memory, de Brès apparently used both the older French translation of Lefèvre d’Étaples and the newer one produced by Pierre Robert Olivetan. D’Étaples had chapter divisions and subdivided chapters into sections denoted by lower case letters. Olivetan had the modern chapter and verse divisions. In the early editions of the Belgic Confession we find both systems in use. Both d’Étaples and Olivetan included the Apocrypha following the canonical OT.

The first apocryphal reference in the Belgic Confession appears in article 12. This article deals first with creation in general and then specifically the creation of angels. Alongside article 12, there is a reference to “Dan. 14.a4.” In his critical edition of the Confession, Bakhuizen van den Brink reproduced this reference as “Dan. 14:4.”[6] In the Vulgate tradition, ch. 14 of Daniel consisted of Bel and the Dragon, so we know the reference is to this apocryphal writing. Furthermore, v. 4 of subdivision “a” in the d’Étaples translation corresponds with v. 4 in modern editions. This verse speaks of the Babylonian idol Bel: “The king revered it and went every day to worship it. But Daniel worshiped his own God.”[7] Given the placement of this reference in the 1561 and 1562 editions and given the neighboring texts (Isa 40:26 and Matt 28:19), it is readily evident that this apocryphal reference is intended to support this statement (and especially the last clause):

We believe that he also continues to sustain and govern [all creatures] according to his eternal providence and by his infinite power in order to serve man, to the end that man may serve his God.

King Cyrus worshiped his idol, but Daniel worshiped God, thus fulfilling the purpose of God’s providence. Naturally the question arises: could not basically this same point have been made by appealing to ch. 6 of the canonical book of Daniel? There too Daniel is portrayed as worshiping God in the context of idolatry. Why not refer to that? It is possible that this text was originally included by de Brès with a view to persuading his readers from sources that they would have regarded as authoritative. However, the question probably accounts for the reason why this text was dropped from subsequent editions of the Confession.

The other reference in the Confession is found in article 37, which briefly outlines a biblical eschatology. Among the many canonical texts referenced we find also Wis 5. Only a chapter is given; there is no verse reference. This is unnecessary since the entire chapter is eschatologically oriented. Wisdom 5 is especially interested in the contrast at the last judgment between the righteous and the wicked and the vindication of the righteous. This was also the interest of de Brès in article 37. There are particularly two sentences in the Confession that resonate with the theme and language of Wis 5:

The wicked will be convicted by the testimony of their own consciences and will become immortal, but only to be tormented in the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt. 25:41). On the other hand, the faithful and elect will be crowned with glory and honour.

Wisdom 5 portrays the wicked being convicted by their own consciences: “So it was we who strayed from the way of truth, and the light of righteousness did not shine on us, and the sun did not rise upon us . . . the way of the Lord we have not known . . .” (Wis 5:6,7). The chapter also speaks of the reward that awaits the righteous: “Therefore, they will receive a glorious crown and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord” (Wis 5:16).

Why did de Brès include the reference to Wis 5? An attempt at postulating an answer will have to account for the context in which he was writing. For de Brès and other Reformers in the Low Countries, there was an essential antithesis between the world and the church. The world persecuted the church. In the nature of the case, the world included the Roman Catholic Church which, since the Council of Trent in 1546, accepted Wisdom as a canonical book.[8] My theory is that, as with the reference to Dan 14:4, de Brès included this with an eye to Rome. He was saying: “Look at this book which you regard as canonical. See what it says about the coming judgment.” De Brès could do this insofar as the contents of Wis 5 are in broad agreement with other biblical teachings. It is true that Wis 5 speaks in more explicit and detailed terms about the contrast between the righteous and the wicked at the last judgment. As such, it served the polemical and missionary purposes of de Brès in the Belgic Confession.

Besides the apocryphal proof-text references, there is also at least one direct quote from an apocryphal writing. It occurs in this part of article 7:

We may not consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with the divine Scriptures; nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and lighter than a breath (Ps. 62:9).

Although it is not directly referenced as such, “The truth is above all” comes from 1 Esd 4:33–41, especially v. 35b: “But truth is great, and stronger than all things” and in v. 41, “Great is truth, and strongest of all!” According to the notes of Bruce Metzger in The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, “The Latin proverb magna est veritas et praevalet (‘Great is truth, and it prevails’) is the most famous line from the Vulgate text of 1 Esdras.”[9] This was a well-known proverb in the sixteenth century and it too would have served Guido de Brès’s purposes as he sought to reach Roman Catholics with the gospel.

III. “Le Baston” (1558)

While he is most remembered for the Belgic Confession, de Brès also wrote two major books. His first major published work was Le baston de la foy chrestienne, published in 1555 while he was a pastor in Lille. This was written as a retort to a popular Roman Catholic work published in 1547, Nicolas Grenier’s Le Bouclier de la Foy. A sort of loci communes, Le baston is composed mostly of Scripture passages that refute specific Roman Catholic teachings, along with quotes from the early church fathers. It became rather popular, being published at least fifteen times between 1555 and 1565 in Geneva, Lyons, and Caen. It was a polemical work intended to address those under the sway of Rome. De Brès’s intention was to draw Roman Catholics to the gospel as he and other Reformed believers had come to understand it.

As with the Belgic Confession, de Brès included marginal proof-texts in Le baston. Most of these are from the canonical Scriptures, but there are also thirteen references to the apocryphal books. Some of these references occur within the context of quotes from the fathers while others stand independently as direct quotes from the Apocrypha. Most of the references are used in a positive way. There is only one apocryphal reference employed negatively.

As an example of the first category, there is a reference to Wis 8:21 in the chapter on vows.[10] This comes in the context of a quote from Augustine’s Confessions (6.11.20):

I thought I should be miserable if I were deprived of the embraces of a woman, and I never gave a thought to the medicine that thy mercy has provided for the healing of that infirmity, for I had never tried it. As for continence, I imagined that it depended on one’s own strength, though I found no such strength in myself, for in my folly I knew not what is written, “None can be continent unless thou dost grant it.”[11]

De Brès makes no comment on Augustine’s use of the Apocrypha here or otherwise. He simply quotes him and then moves on to his next quotation. De Brès seems to provide his own French translation from the Latin here, as he does elsewhere in his patristic quotations.

In the chapter on purgatory, de Brès uses two quotations from Wisdom to undermine the Roman Catholic doctrine.[12] Before and after these quotations are quotes from the canonical Scriptures. After citing Mic 7:19, de Brès quotes Wis 3:1–3:

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace.

Then before quoting Matt 3:13, he quotes Wis 4:7:

But the righteous man, though he die early, will be at rest.

In these examples, de Brès is using the Apocrypha, accepted as canonical by the Roman Catholics, against the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

He was well aware of the objection that would soon be raised by a Roman Catholic because, after all, the doctrine of purgatory was and is partly based on 2 Macc 12:45. This passage speaks of Judas Maccabeus and what he did with the bodies of those who had fallen in battle. The verse concludes by saying:

Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

Working with this verse (and other sources), the Council of Florence (1438–1443) had made purgatory into official church doctrine:

If they have died repentant for their sins and having love of God, but have not made satisfaction for things they have done or omitted by fruits worthy of penance, then their  souls, after death, are cleansed by the punishment of Purgatory; also . . . the suffrages of the faithful still living are efficacious in bringing them relief from such punishment, namely the Sacrifice of the Mass, prayers and almsgiving and other works of piety which, in accordance with the designation of the Church, are customarily offered by the faithful for each other.

In 1563, at its twenty-fifth session, the Council of Trent reaffirmed this doctrine.

De Brès was aware of this objection and dealt with it over the course of three pages.[13] The first part of this discussion consists of quotes from various patristic sources. When he comes to the issue of the passage from 2 Maccabees, he tackles it by way of the question of canonicity. He quotes first from Gregory. In his commentary on Job 29, Gregory said that the church does not hold the books of the Maccabees to be canonical. Likewise Augustine, in De civitate Dei and De doctrina christiana, said that the books of the Maccabees are not included in the canon.[14] Quotes from Jerome follow to the same effect.[15] De Brès wraps up his case against the canonicity of the Maccabean books by referring first to the Council of Laodicea (ch. 59), which did not include these books in its roll of the canon. Second, in a rare editorial aside, de Brès notes also that the author of Maccabees himself was rather apologetic about his efforts at the end of the second book (2 Macc 15:38). He seems to beg the pardon of his readers if they find what he has written to be poorly done. This certainly does not sound like someone inspired by the Holy Spirit.

In summary, in Le baston de Brès uses the Apocrypha freely to undermine Roman Catholic doctrine. He is also not afraid to quote the church fathers as they use the Apocrypha. He does not hide their usage of these books, but openly places the references in the margin. Finally, when it comes to the establishment of a doctrine such as purgatory, he refuses an authoritative place for these writings.

IV. “La Racine” (1565)

La racine, source et fondement des anabaptistes was the magnum opus of Guy de Brès. Over nine hundred pages long, this 1565 work systematically exposed the weaknesses of Anabaptist teachings. De Brès was deeply concerned about the influence of the Anabaptists in France and the Low Countries. La racine does not appear to have been as popular as his previous book Le baston. Nevertheless, a Dutch translation appeared in 1570 and a greatly abridged English translation was made by Joshua Scottow in 1668. It was published in Cambridge, Massachusetts—one of the first English books printed in North America.

La racine contains thirty-two references to apocryphal writings. The majority of these references are to the books of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom (twelve references each). La racine contains the only references that de Brès makes to the books of Baruch (once), Tobit (twice), and Susanna (two chapters referenced in one note).

As in his other writings, de Brès uses the apocryphal writings in a supportive fashion. He is not critical of these writings, but rather appeals to them. For example, in chapter 7 of book 3, de Brès is interacting with the Anabaptist construal of a carnal circumcision of the OT versus a spiritual baptism in the NT. As part of his deconstruction of this construal, de Brès appeals to what Paul writes in 1 Cor 10. The Israelites ate spiritual food and drank a spiritual drink from a spiritual rock. Paul was not presenting a novel way of looking at the Israelites in the exodus. Rather, de Brès says, this was already found in Ps 78:25, “Men ate angels’ food . . .” De Brès then also appeals to Wis 16:20, “Instead of these things thou didst give thy people the food of angels . . .” He concludes, “See how these two passages agree very well and properly together.”[16]

De Brès wrote La racine with two main audiences in mind. As is readily evident in the book’s preface, the primary audience was Reformed believers in the Low Countries. He was seeking to inoculate them against Anabaptist teachings. These Reformed believers, holding to the Belgic Confession, would have no qualms about de Brès appealing to apocryphal writings. Many of them (if not all) would have been raised in a Roman Catholic environment where these writings were regarded as authoritative. The secondary audience would have been the Roman Catholic majority in the Low Countries. De Brès’s purpose with them was to systematically lay out the differences between the Reformed and the Anabaptists. It happened repeatedly that these differences were confused and identified with one another. De Brès wanted to make it clear that there was little overlap. He could only do this briefly in the Belgic Confession, but in La racine he laid it out in detail. For his Roman Catholic readers, the references to the apocryphal writings would also have presented no difficulties. Such references were to be expected in respectable theological works.

A third possible audience would have been the Anabaptists themselves. De Brès may have hoped to win some of them to the Reformed faith. Given the highly polemical nature and tone of this work, this is not a likely possibility. Nevertheless, the apocryphal references would not have been out of place for them either. As we shall see momentarily, Anabaptist writers were also known to frequently reference apocryphal writings in a positive way.

De Brès’s usage of the Apocrypha in La racine, then, is consistent with his usages elsewhere. He uses these writings in a positive way to support various arguments against Anabaptist theology. In most places, as in the example above, de Brès uses the apocryphal texts alongside canonical texts. In those instances, they have value in that they agree with and support the biblical teaching. However, there are also instances where de Brès quotes an apocryphal writing in isolation, apparently attributing it with some independent authority.[17]

V. “Procedures” (1568)

The year after de Brès’s martyrdom, the Genevan publisher Jean Crespin published a volume of writings relating to his imprisonment and death. This volume, Procedures tenues a l’endroit de ceux la religion du pais bas, contains debates held between de Brès and some Roman Catholic figures, the account of his martyrdom, as well as his last letters to his church, his wife, and his mother.

De Brès only mentions the apocryphal writings once in Procedures. The reference appears in the May 19, 1567, letter to his mother. In this last letter, de Brès encouraged her in the face of his imminent death. He mentioned how she had been blessed to live a long life. In answer to her prayers, she had been able to see her son become a preacher of the biblical gospel. The present life involves suffering, he wrote, but one should remember that this life is but a moment. Furthermore, God will avenge those who persecute the saints. Then de Brès wrote the following paragraph:

Put before your eyes the example of that virtuous mother mentioned in chapter 7 of the second book of Maccabees. She saw seven of her sons martyred in one day. She saw them die a very cruel death, the tongue cut out, the arms and legs cut off, then being roasted in a kettle over the fire. She saw the pitiful sight before her eyes and she showed a truly courageous heart, comforting and strengthening her children so that they could endure death for the Law of God. And when the youngest showed signs of being stirred by the promises of the tyrant, she again encouraged him to suffer and to go the way of his brothers, telling him that he was giving his life and his body for the Law of God, and that he would be raised up in the resurrection.[18]

De Brès was referring to 2 Macc 7. The chapter speaks of seven anonymous brothers and their mother. They were ordered by Antiochus to eat pork and so renounce the law of God. Each in turn refused and each in turn was tortured and died. Last of all, the mother herself was put to death for refusing to yield to the king.

This use of 2 Maccabees is historical. De Brès regarded this account as a factual description of what happened in the intertestamental period. Moreover, it was history with which a sixteenth-century son facing martyrdom could encourage his mother.

From elsewhere in the letter we learn that de Brès’s mother had been a devout Roman Catholic. He encouraged her with the biblical gospel and it appears that he did so as one true believer to another. Evidently at some point she also had become a Reformed Christian. Therefore the use of Maccabees here does not have a missionary intent. Rather, it is an example of the church taking instruction from the books of the Apocrypha insofar as they agree with the canonical books.

Summary

De Brès refers to nine apocryphal books forty-nine times. Of those forty-nine times, only once is it in a negative context. If we consider the books quoted, 41 percent (20/49) of the references are to Wisdom, and 33 percent (16/49) are to Ecclesiasticus. Together these two books make up 74 percent of the apocryphal references in de Brès’s writings. The following chart summarizes my research:

	Belgic Confession	Le Baston	La Racine	Procedures	Totals
1 Edras	1		3		4
2 Maccabees		1		1	2
Baruch			1		1
Bel	1				1
Judith		1	1		2
Ecclesiasticus		4	12		16
Susanna			1		1
Tobit			2		2
Wisdom	1	7	12		20
Totals	3	13	32	1	49

VI. Apocrypha In Context

I now want to try and place de Brès within the context of the sixteenth century. Were his views novel in any way? Did his usage of the Apocrypha fall into the range of what one might expect from non-Roman Catholic theologians of this period? To answer these questions I will survey the views of Andreas Karlstadt, John Calvin, Menno Simons, and some other Reformed confessions (apart from the Belgic).

1. Andreas Karlstadt

According to Metzger, Andreas Karlstadt wrote the first and only Reformation work devoted to the topic of the canon of Scripture, De canonicis scripturis libellus.[19] In this short work, Karlstadt divided the Apocrypha into two categories. Although they are outside the canon, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and 1 and 2 Maccabees were regarded as “holy writings” (agiographi). The other apocryphal books, however, were to be disregarded as “worthy of the censor’s ban.”[20]

Karlstadt, however, was not entirely original with his categorization. He had drawn it from patristic sources. In his discussion of the decrees of the Council of Trent regarding the canon, the Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz drew attention to certain patristic distinctions. Speaking of the NT, Eusebius had distinguished three classes of writings: those which are certain, those concerning which doubts had been raised, and those which are counterfeits.[21] Chemnitz quoted Jerome regarding the second class, “The church reads these for the edification of the people, not to confirm the authority of the dogmas of the church.”[22] Chemnitz also noted that Augustine only distinguished two classes of books: canonical and apocryphal.[23] From this post-Reformation discussion, it is readily evident that there has not always been a strict delineation between apocryphal and canonical books.

2. John Calvin

The influence of John Calvin on de Brès and the Belgic Confession has been well-documented.[24] With regard to the Apocrypha, there are two main places in Calvin’s works that need our attention. The first is his Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (1547). The discussion of the Apocrypha appears in his refutation of the decrees issued at the fourth session of Trent. Calvin noted that the Roman Catholic Church gave full authority to these books and from them drew several doctrines including purgatory, the worship of saints, “satisfactions,” exorcisms, “and what not.”[25] Calvin then wrote, “I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them an authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in colouring their errors.”[26] Further on, Calvin appeals to the “consent of the primitive church.” He refers to Rufinus who “declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine.”[27] Calvin noted that there had been some dissent on this from Augustine and the Council of Carthage—and, in fact, Trent was in line with Carthage. Nevertheless, Calvin insists that the consensus of the early church spoke differently. Moreover, he draws attention to the concluding words of Maccabees where the author asks pardon if he has written poorly. Calvin exclaims, “How very alien this acknowledgement from the majesty of the Holy Spirit!”[28]

The second place that calls for some attention is the Institutes.[29] Calvin seldom refers to the Apocrypha in his magnum opus and when he does the references are limited to six books: Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.[30] Twice we find Calvin referring to historical references found in these books. In 1.14.8 he is discussing the names of the angels. He mentions Michael and Gabriel and then indicates a third, “if you wish to add the one from Tobit.” The reference is to Tob 12:15 and its mention of Raphael. In 1.8.10 he discusses the authenticity of Scripture. “Certain rascals” argued that, on the testimony of 1 Macc 1:56–57, Antiochus ordered all the books to be burned. So, they queried, where do the present copies of Scripture come from? Calvin does not dispute the history mentioned in Maccabees. He simply argues that Antiochus made this order, but he was unsuccessful in executing it. God preserved his Word.

There are other places in the Institutes where Calvin gives doctrinal credence to passages from the Apocrypha. In 1.11.8, he refers to Wis 14:15–16 and states, “What is held in the book of Wisdom concerning the origin of idols is received virtually by public consent.” He quotes Sir 6:31 right alongside Rev 7:17 in 3.9.6 and does so without any comment on the status of such a passage. Finally, we can note 3.20.8 where Calvin quotes “very true and holy words attributed to the prophet Baruch” from Bar 3:2. Calvin is clearly not averse to using the writings of the Apocrypha where they might have historical value or where they buttress what is taught in the canonical Scriptures.

Yet Calvin does not want to be bound to the authority of these writings. That sentiment comes across in two separate places where he discusses passages from Ecclesiasticus. In both places he asserts that he has the right to reject the authority of this book. In 2.5.18 Calvin discusses those who appeal to Sir 15:14–17 in support of the free will of unregenerate man. He says that this comes from “a writer whose authority is known to be in doubt.” After asserting his right to reject Ecclesiasticus if he so chooses, he proposes to proceed on his opponents’ assumption that it is authoritative. He goes back to the canonical Scriptures in Eccl 7:29, “God made man upright, but he has sought out many devices for himself.” Calvin distinguishes between man in the original state and man in his fallen state and then concludes:

Therefore I am answering not only my opponents but also Ecclesiasticus himself, whoever he may be: If you wish to teach man to seek in himself the capacity to acquire salvation, we do not esteem your authority so highly that it may in the slightest degree raise any prejudice against the undoubted Word of God. But suppose you strive simply to repress the evil inclination of the flesh, which tries vainly to defend itself by transferring its vices to God, and for this reason you answer that uprightness was implanted in man that thereby it might be clear that he is the cause of his own ruin. I willingly assent to this, provided you and I agree that man has now been deprived through his own fault of those adornments with which the Lord in the beginning arrayed him. Thus let us alike confess that man now needs a physician, not an advocate.

According to Calvin, the book of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus can only be given any credence insofar as it agrees with what the canonical Scriptures teach.

Similarly, in 3.15.4 in the Institutes, Calvin discusses an appeal that his opponents make to Sir 16:15 in support of the doctrine of human merit in justification. His opponents cited the Vulgate translation, “Mercy will make room for every man according to the merit of his works.” Calvin foregoes his “right to reject the authority of Ecclesiasticus.” He then goes on to show from the Greek how the Vulgate mistranslated this verse. He maintains that it should be translated, “He will make room for every work of mercy; each man shall find according to his works.” Thus, even if the passage were given canonical status, it would not support the doctrine of human merit.

Last of all, Calvin also discusses the apocryphal passage used in support of the doctrine of purgatory, 2 Macc 12:43. This discussion appears in 3.5.8 of the Institutes. There Calvin clearly excludes Maccabees from the canon. He notes, however, that his opponents will appeal to Augustine for support. Calvin responds by saying that even Augustine noted that the Jews did not consider the books of Maccabees to be on the same level as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Yet they could be still received with profit provided that they were read soberly. Calvin then himself appeals to Jerome who taught “without hesitation that its authority is of no value for the proving of doctrine.” Similarly, a writing attributed to Cyprian (but written by Rufinus), On the Exposition of the Creed, asserted that “this book had no place in the ancient church.” Calvin then brings in the argument again from the concluding words in 2 Macc 15:39: “Surely, he who admits that his writings are in need of pardon does not claim to be the oracle of the Holy Spirit.” Finally, Calvin also finds the authority of this book doubtful because the author asserts a form of works righteousness with regard to Judas Maccabeus in 2 Macc 12:43. While elsewhere Calvin will use the books of Maccabees as historically helpful, he rejects some of their doctrinal assertions since they are in conflict with what the canonical Scriptures hold forth. This is consistent with his approach throughout the Institutes.

3. Menno Simons

Menno Simons was one of the most prominent of de Brès’s Anabaptist contemporaries. In his La racine, de Brès interacted extensively with Simons on the incarnation of Christ and other doctrinal points. Simons provides an interesting point of comparison and contrast. According to Jonathan Seiling’s research, Simons referenced the Apocrypha thirty-eight times in his works. The most frequently referenced books were Wisdom (21 times) and Ecclesiasticus (10 times).[31] Simons and other Anabaptist writers frequently used the Apocrypha to independently establish points of doctrine, especially the doctrine of the free will of unregenerate man. Seiling concluded that sixteenth-century Anabaptists “considered the apocrypha to be of equal authority as the rest of Scripture.” While Reformers such as Calvin denied the use of the Apocrypha in independently establishing or confirming Christian doctrine, “the Anabaptists were closer to medieval Catholic understandings.”[32] Moreover, Anabaptists of this period explicitly rejected and criticized the approach outlined by Karlstadt. Also of interest in Seiling’s research is the fact that the most published single books of the Apocrypha from 1500 to 1599 were Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Tobit.[33]

4. Other Reformed Confessions

As we turn our attention to other Reformed confessions, the natural place to begin is the Vorlage of the Belgic Confession, the French Confession of 1559. There is a direct connection between the French Confession and Calvin. An eighteen-article statement of faith was sent to Calvin for his advice. Likely working together with his colleagues Theodore Beza and Pierre Viret, Calvin sent back a revised draft with thirty-five articles. A Synod of the Reformed Churches was held in Paris in 1559 and there the French Confession was adopted. TheSynod did some revision and the final draft ended up having forty articles.[34]

Calvin’s thirty-five article draft of the French Confession did not discuss the Apocrypha directly. The first article simply stated, “Ainsi nous tenons les livres de la saincte Escripture du vieil et nouveau Testament comme la somme de la seule verité infaillible procedée de Dieu, à laquelle il n’est licite de contredire.”[35] This draft did not identify which books of Scripture belong to the Old and New Testament, so arguably there was some room for the possibility of taking the Apocrypha as canonical. Nevertheless, in the text of this draft there were no proof-texts drawn from the Apocrypha.

The final draft of the French Confession differed considerably in the opening articles. The doctrine of Scripture was elaborated upon. Article 3 explicitly stated the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The Apocrypha was mentioned in a new article 4:

We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books upon which, however useful, we can not found any articles of faith.[36]

Of course, this is mostly a familiar approach. The mention of the Apocrypha as “ecclesiastical books” is particularly noteworthy since Calvin had earlier used this same appellation.[37] This seems to speak of the origin of these writings. Rather than having their origin with God, they have their roots with human beings in the church. As with the earlier drafts, the 1559 final version of the French Confession also contained no apocryphal proof texts.

Nicolaas Gootjes and others have also identified Theodore Beza’s Confession de la foy chrestienne (1559) as a source for the Belgic Confession.[38] However, Beza’s Confession did not deal with the issue of which biblical books are canonical, nor the status of the Apocrypha. In the Confession he occasionally quotes and makes references to various patristic sources, especially to Augustine. However, we do not find any apocryphal references or proof-texts.

The same pattern generally holds for a confession prepared by another French Reformer, Guillaume Farel. Throughout the various editions of his Summaire et briefve declaration, Farel does not discuss the extent of the canon or the authority of the Apocrypha. However, on two occasions in his Summaire he does reference proof-texts from the Apocrypha.[39] Interestingly, the first reference is to the same chapter that de Brès referenced in article 37 of the Belgic Confession: Wis 5.[40] For Farel this passage functions as proof that civil authorities will be faced with a more severe judgment if they do not execute their offices faithfully. The reference to Wis 6 comes in a similar context.[41] In a discussion on marriage Farel refers to the responsibility of civil magistrates to hold marriage in honor and the consequences that will follow should that responsibility be shirked.

References to apocryphal proof-texts occur frequently in other Reformed confessions of this era. John à Lasco’s Large Emden Catechism (1551) contained numerous references to Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Baruch, and Tobit. It should be mentioned that de Brès spent time in London with à Lasco receiving theological training. The Rhaetian Confession (1552) referenced Sir 39:27.[42] The Emden Examination of Faith (1553) contained references to Tob 4:16 and Sir 19:13.[43] The Confession of the English Congregation at Geneva (1556) had proof-texts from Sir 19:13–17 and Wis 6:4.[44] Wisdom 2 was used as a proof-text in the Confession of the Spanish Congregation of London (1560/1561).[45] The Confession of Tarcal and Torda (1562/1563) referenced Bar 2:11. This brief survey illustrates that it was not uncommon for Reformed confessions of this era to appeal to apocryphal texts in some limited way.

From the foregoing, it is evident that de Brès’s usage of the Apocrypha was not anomalous. Other non-Roman Catholic theologians (Reformers and Anabaptists) were familiar with the Apocrypha and occasionally referred to it. There was sometimes a degree of ambiguity regarding these writings, although it might be argued that this ambiguity is more pronounced in the less systematic writings of the Anabaptists. Among Reformers, however, it was agreed that the apocryphal writings did not have the same authority as the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. The Apocrypha could be used for historical purposes. It could also be used in doctrinal discussions, but only insofar as it agreed with the canonical writings.

Moreover, it is telling that most positive uses of the Apocrypha by non-Roman Catholics in this era are of writings in the wisdom genre. De Brès also fits into this pattern. This suggests an understanding that wisdom can be garnered from extra-biblical sources, especially from those produced by God-fearing men. When these extra-biblical sources have a long history of being respected by the catholic (in the sense of “universal”) church, they ought to continue to be valued and respected. This results in what we see with de Brès and other writers, following in Karlstadt’s footsteps: there is a quasi-canon within the apocryphal writings consisting of the wisdom genre. It is still not inspired or infallible and so certainly not above criticism. Nevertheless, it would seem that, according to de Brès and other Reformers of this era, apocryphal writings such as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are of particular, continuing value to the church.

VII. Conclusion

Over the years following de Brès’s death, attitudes toward the Apocrypha continued to evolve among Reformed theologians. Despite the assertions of the Belgic Confession, the Apocrypha gradually fell out of sight. The apocryphal proof-texts were still in place in at least one 1564 edition. However, the Synod of Antwerp in 1566 revised the Belgic Confession and it was then that these texts were excised.[46]

The question of the status of the Apocrypha received attention at the Synod of Dort, 1618–1619. The Synod commissioned a new translation of the Bible and some delegates advocated the inclusion of the apocryphal books while others were opposed. The Synod took a mediating position: the apocryphal books would be included but they would be clearly distinguished from the canonical books by a different font, new pagination, and an introduction that warned against the errors contained in these writings.[47] The Apocrypha was indeed included in early editions of the Statenbijbel, but it was not long before printers were leaving them out. Muller gives evidence that at least some post-Reformation theologians continued to hold these writings in some esteem as an “ecclesiastical canon,” but there is little question that the tide was turning.[48]

With the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647 we find evidence of a decisive turn away from the apocryphal writings. Westminster Confession of Faith 1.3 states: “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” With this statement, the apocryphal writings were brought down to the level of all other human works, arguably giving the tradition (that had also been held among many Protestants) a less than fond farewell. Today the default position among many Reformed Protestants is that of the Westminster Confession.

Yet all editions of the Belgic Confession continue to maintain the perspective of Guy de Brès and the early Reformers. De Brès and the Reformed churches in the Low Countries were self-consciously desirous of being catholic. “Catholic” often carries a negative connotation in Reformed and Presbyterian churches today, but it was not so for de Brès and his contemporaries. They insisted that they were the true Catholics of their day and they did not hesitate to use this word to describe the true Church of God. As true Catholics, they respected the tradition insofar as it agreed with the Word of God. This is why they could unapologetically make use of the apocryphal writings, criticize them where necessary, and at the same time advocate for their rightful place in the edification of the church.

Notes

1. N. H. Gootjes, The Belgic Confession: Its History and Sources (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 52-58.
2. Wes Bredenhof, ed. and trans., “De Brès versus Richardot: A Sixteenth-Century Debate Regarding the Lord’s Supper,” The Confessional Presbyterian 6 (2010): 134-47.
3. All quotes from the Belgic Confession are from the Canadian Reformed edition found in the Book of Praise: Anglo Genevan Psalter (Winnipeg: Premier, 2010).
4. The Canadian Reformed edition is the only one that lists the Prayer of Azariah separately in article 6. In the sixteenth century, the Prayer was included with the Song of the Three Young Men in the Furnace and all other editions follow suit.
5. N. H. Gootjes, Teaching and Preaching the Word: Studies in Dogmatics and Homiletics (Winnipeg: Premier, 2010), 297-300.
6. J. N. Bakhuizen van den Brink, De Nederlandse Belijdenisgeschriften (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Ton Bolland, 1976), 90.
7. Quotations from the Apocrypha are from The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Revised Standard Version (The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha) (ed. Bruce M. Metzger; New York: Oxford University Press, 1965).
8. Wes Bredenhof, For the Cause of the Son of God: The Missionary Significance of the Belgic Confession (Fellsmere, Fla.: Reformation Media & Press, 2011), 91-118.
9. Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, 8.
10. Guy de Brès, Le baston de la foy chrestienne (Geneva: Nicolas Barbier & Courtreau, 1558), 221.
11. Augustine, Confessions and Enchiridion (ed. and trans. Albert C. Outler; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955), 129.
12. De Brès, Le baston, 137-38.
13. Ibid., 155-57.
14. De Brès refers to Civ. 18.26 and Doctr. chr. 2.8.
15. The references are to epistles written to Bishops Chromatius and Héliodore d’Altino and Jerome’s prefaces to Proverbs, Galatians, and Kings.
16. “Voila comment ces deux passages s’accordent fort bien & proprement ensemble” (De Brès, La racine, source et fondement des Anabaptistes [Rouen: Abel Clemence, 1565], 589).
17. For one example, see the reference to Sir 34:1 in de Brès, La racine, 99.
18. The full text of this letter appears in translation in Wes Bredenhof, “A Heart Aflame with Zeal,” Clarion 58.21-22 (October 9 and October 23, 2009). The quote appears in Clarion 58.22, p. 539. The original French text may be found in Procedures tenues a l’endroit de ceux la religion du pais bas (Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1568), 382.
19. Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957), 181.
20. Andreas Karlstadt, De canonicis scripturis libellus (Wittenberg: Ioannem Virdi Montanum, 1520), k2.
21. Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1 (trans. Fred Kramer; St. Louis: Concordia, 1971), 179-80.
22. Ibid., 180. Chemnitz seems to be paraphrasing Jerome from this passage: “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures (Canonicas Scripturas), so let it read these two volumes [Wisdom and Ecclesiaticus] for the edification of the people, not to give authority to the doctrines of the Church” (“Preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs” [NPNF2 6:492]). Thanks to Tyler Vandergaag for finding this reference. As noted by de Brès in Le baston (see n. 16 above), Jerome also writes in this vein in his preface to Samuel/Kings. Finally, there is also a similar reference in Jerome’s preface to Malachi.
23. Chemnitz, Examination, 194.
24. See S. A. Strauss, “John Calvin and the Belgic Confession,” In Die Skriflig 27 (1993): 501-17; J. Faber, “De Brès Versus Calvin? Early History of the Belgic Confession,” Clarion 28.17 (August 25, 1979): 354-56.
25. John Calvin, Tracts and Treatises in Defense of the Reformed Faith (trans. Henry Beveridge; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 3:68.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., 3:70.
28. Ibid., 3:71.
29. In what follows I have used John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960). I did not compare the final 1559 edition with earlier editions to analyze any development in Calvin’s use or evaluation of the Apocrypha.
30. There are a few instances in the McNeill/Battles edition where the editor supposes Calvin is referring to an apocryphal book, but this is clearly not the case. A good example is in 1.13.7. The editor thinks Calvin is referring to Sir 24:14, but more likely the reference is to Prov 8:22 (as indicated by the older Beveridge edition).
31. Jonathan Seiling, “Solae (Quae?) Scripturae: Anabaptists and the Apocrypha,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 80 (2006): 33.
32. Ibid., 30.
33. Ibid., 32. The figures that Seiling provides apply only to German-speaking lands.
34. See Arthur C. Cochrane, ed., Reformed Confessions of the Sixteenth Century (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 137-38. Cochrane includes the (somewhat flawed) English translation by Emily Butler which originally appeared in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 3:356-82. A critical text of the Confession is found in Bakhuizen van den Brink, De Nederlandse Belijdenisgeschriften, 70-142. Calvin’s revised thirty-five article draft can be found in vol. 9 of Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia in Corpus reformatorum 36:738-52.
35. Corpus reformatorum 36:740-41.
36. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:361-62.
37. French: les autres livres Ecclesiastiques. The Latin text: ab aliis libris ecclesiasticis. See H. Niemeyer, Collectio confessionum (Leipzig: J. Klinkhardt, 1840), 330.
38. See Gootjes, Belgic Confession, ch. 4.
39. Unfortunately, this fact is obscured in the text of Farel’s Summaire found in Jason Zuidema and Theodore Van Raalte, Early French Reform: The Theology and Spirituality of Guillaume Farel (Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2011), 165, 169. For some reason, Zuidema translates the French “Sapience” as “Eccl.” (presumably Ecclesiastes), rather than “Wisdom.” This problem is not found with James Dennison’s translation in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), vol. 1.
40. Dennison identifies this passage more precisely as Wis 5:18-24.
41. Dennison identifies this passage more precisely as Wis 6:5-9, 24.
42. Dennison, Reformed Confessions, 1:673.
43. Ibid., 2:46, 51.
44. Ibid., 2:100, 101.
45. Ibid., 2:375.
46. Compare the editions found in Henr. Egb. Vinke, Libri symbolici ecclesiae reformatae nederlandicae (Utrecht: J. G. Van Terveen, 1846).
47. Marten H. Woudstra, “The Synod and Bible Translation,” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 (ed. Peter Y. De Jong; Grandville, Mich.: Reformed Fellowship, 2008), 127-28.
48. “Many of the Protestant writers register respect for this ancient collection of books: Trelcatius referred to them as belonging to an ‘Ecclesiastical Canon’ and Leigh calls them a ‘second canon.’” Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (4 vols.; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 2:392.