Yes, he did get taken to task for it. Which is why it is his private opinion. If it wasn’t his private opinion, then the books wouldn’t be there.
This is false logic, the fact that his
public campaign to remove these books failed doesn’t mean it was his
private opinion. It means it was his very
public opinion which was rejected by even his own reformation bretheren. You can’t call it “private” when at the start of the Epistle of James you write:
I do not look upon it as the writing ot any Apostle, and this is my reason. First of all, because in direct opposition to St. Paul, and to all the other Scriptures, it (the Epistle of St. James) attributes justification to the works, and says, Abraham was justified by his works when he sacrificed his son. Whereas St . Paul, Rom. 4, on the contrary, teaches that Abraham was justified without works, through his faith alone
Secondly (
I reject the Epistle), because it professes to instruct Christians, and in such a long treatise (lere), it does not even mention the Passion, the Resurrection, the Spirit of Christ .
Whatever does not teach Christ, that is not apostolic, even if Peter or Paul were to teach it . Whereas, whatever teaches Christ, that is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod were to do it. But this James does nothing else but drive on to the law and to its works, and he mixes up things in such disorder, that I should say he was some good, pious man, who had heard certain sayings from the disciples of the Apostles, and then committed them ,vo paper; or perhaps it (the Epistle) has been taken from his own discourse by some one else Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible in the number of the truly principal books: but I will not forbid any one to place him and to keep him as he pleases.
Emphisis is mine, but imagine this… Maybe Luthers bible is your very first one ever… You read through the “Approved texts”, sans 7 DCs, James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation… All of the sudden you notice there are “extra books”. You flip through and find James (you would have to flip through all individaul pages, as Luther offered no reference to these books) and the first thing you read is
that introduction to the Epistle of James…
Are you really gonig to try and tell me this wasn’t a very public campaign? Are you going to tell me he didn’t have very public motives?
Please…
This is expressly why one can’t reason the Canon of scripture the way in which you want. This is why Staples is correct to make the arguments he does. It is expressly because as Vatican I states,
it is not our perogitive to be individuall removing and adding books to the bible. We don’t get to make those choices, they were already made, long ago.
It is our place to accept the Canon as defined by the Church at Hippo, Carthiage 1 & 2, and finally Trent (I think Florance delt with it to, but didn’t dogmaticaly define it).
