Calvin and Baruch

Did John Calvin think that Baruch was canonical Scripture?  This question came up during a recent episode of Dan and my podcast (link to episode).  After all, when responding to Trent (Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote), Calvin specifically observes that "Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books."  However, Calvin nowhere specifically identifies an issue with Trent's inclusion of Baruch.

Calvin's Commentary on 1 Corinthians, at 1 Corinthians 10:19-24:

Some, however, understand the term demons here as meaning the imaginary deities of the Gentiles, agreeably to their common way of speaking of them; for when they speak of demons they meant inferior deities, as, for example, heroes, and thus the term was taken in a good sense. Plato, in a variety of instances, employs the term to denote genii, or angels. That meaning, however, would be quite foreign to Paul’s design, for his object is to show that it is no light offense to have to do with actions that have any appearance of putting honor upon idols. Hence it suited his purpose, not to extenuate, but rather to magnify the impiety that is involved in it. How absurd, then, it would have been to select an honorable term to denote the most heinous wickedness! It is certain from the Prophet Baruch, (4:7,) that those things that are sacrificed to idols are sacrificed to devils (Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 96:5.) In that passage in the writings of the Prophet, the Greek translation, which was at that time in common use, has δαιμόνια — demons, and this is its common use in Scripture. How much more likely is it then, that Paul borrowed what he says from the Prophet, to express the enormity of the evil, than that, speaking after the manner of the heathen, he extenuated what he was desirous to hold up to utter execration!

On the other hand, elsewhere - indeed in his most central work, Calvin acknowledges that the author is uncertain:

Calvin's Institutes, Chapter 20, Section 8:

For it was most truly and piously written by the uncertain author (whoever he may have been) that wrote the book which is attributed to the prophet Baruch,[FN: French, “Pourtant ce qui est escrit en la prophetie qu’on attribue à Baruch, combien que l’autheur soit incertain, est tres sainctement dit;”—However, what is written in the prophecy which is attributed to Baruch, though the author is uncertain, is very holily said.] “But the soul that is greatly vexed, which goeth stooping and feeble, and the eyes that fail, and the hungry soul, will give thee praise and righteousness, O Lord. Therefore, we do not make our humble supplication before thee, O Lord our God, for the righteousness of our fathers, and of our kings.” “Hear, O Lord, and have mercy; for thou art merciful: and have pity upon us, because we have sinned before thee,” (Baruch 2:18, 19; 3:2).

The most revealing treatment of Baruch, however, comes from Calvin's take on the end of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 51:64):

The Conclusion follows, Thus far the words of Jeremiah We have said that the prophets, after having spoken in the Temple, or to the people, afterwards collected brief summaries, and that these contained the principal things: from these the prophetic books were made up. For Jeremiah did not write the volume as we have it at this day, except the chapters; and it appears evident that it was not written in the order in which he spoke. The order of time is not, then, everywhere observed; but the scribes were careful in this respect, that they collected the summaries affixed to the doors of the Temple; and so they added this conclusion, Thus far the words of Jeremiah But this, in my view, is not to be confined to the prophecies respecting the fall of Babylon; for I doubt not but that the scribe who had collected all his prophecies, added these words, that he had thus far transcribed the words of Jeremiah.

We hence conclude that the last chapter is not included in the prophetic book of Jeremiah, but that it contains history only as far as was necessary to understand what is here taught: for it appears evident that many parts of the prophecy could not be understood without the knowledge of this history. As to the book of Lamentations, we know that it was a work distinct from the prophecies of Jeremiah: there is, then, no wonder that it has been added, Thus far the words of Jeremiah

This seems to make it clear that Calvin viewed Baruch as separate from Jeremiah, since Calvin even raises some question regarding chapter 52 of Jeremiah, and did not offer any further commentary on it (much less on Baruch).  It is also extremely hard to explain why Calvin would not offer a commentary on Baruch (without explanation) if he did consider it Scripture, although Calvin did not provide a commentary on Esther, though he almost certainly considered it Scripture.

One of the commenters then suggested that according to my logic, since Calvin did not comment on Revelation, he must not have considered it to be canonical.  This is an interesting separate question (link to James Swan's interesting discussion of the question).  Ultimately, we may simply conclude that Calvin passed over 2nd and 3rd John and Revelation temporarily in order to provide Old Testament commentaries, and that his death at 55 prevented him from writing commentaries on the remainder (see the quotation from Beza in T. H. L. Parker's Calvin's New Testament Commentaries).

Finally, while we do not have a canon list directly from John Calvin himself, we have the canon list from the French Confession of Faith of 1559 (link), which includes Revelation but does not include Baruch or any of the Apocrypha highlighted by Calvin in response to Trent.  This work was based on notes from John Calvin (as discussed here)(though see this dissenting view)(and see the evolution of the Gallican Confession discussed here).

Ultimately, there ought not to be any serious doubt about Calvin's view of Baruch, considering that his commentary on Daniel ends at chapter 12 (link to volume) and considering that Calvin did not raise any known objection to the French Confession of Faith, which included Esther and Revelation, but omitted Baruch.