Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 11: On Enoch and Elijah
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. XII, Apologia pro Responsione sua ad Librum Jacobi Magnae Britanniae Regis, an apology of 1609. 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).
Eighth, on page 67 and the following to 87, the king disputes on the two prophets who in chapter 11 of the Apocalypse are said to be going to fight with Antichrist, and at last to be killed by him, and after three days to rise again and be taken up into heaven. These two prophets we with the holy Fathers say are Enoch and Elijah, who were translated for this very end, and still live in mortal flesh, that in the last days, with the greatest glory of God and benefit of the Church, they may pay the debt of death. The Fathers who teach this from the divine letters are these: Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom, Origen and all the other interpreters of Saint Matthew on chapter 17 affirm that Elijah will come in the time of Antichrist. The same of the same Elijah teach Lactantius, book 7, chapter 17, Augustine, tract 4 on John, Theodoret on the last chapter of Malachi, and Primasius on chapter 11 of the Apocalypse. Of Enoch and Elijah together the same is witnessed by Hippolytus the martyr in the oration on the consummation of the world, Augustine, book 9 on Genesis to the letter, chapter 6, and the interpreters of the Apocalypse on chapter 11, Bede, Anselm, Richard and Arethas, who adds that it is believed unvaryingly by the whole Church that Enoch and Elijah will come to oppose themselves to Antichrist. Yet the king, although he confesses that this is the opinion of the Fathers, nevertheless more than once calls it a Jewish fable; and to this so great cloud of witnesses prefers his own conjectures, or rather those of his doctors. For what he calls his own conjecture we read before in Abbot, which Abbot did not first devise, but took from the venerable Bede. But Bede, even if he expounds it so spiritually, yet adds the common opinion of others, that those two prophets are Enoch and Elijah; nor does he refute it, and by not refuting seems to approve it. I pass over what the king disputes with many words about chapters 11 and 17 of Matthew on the coming of Elijah, where he also says that I deal in bad faith with Christ, impudently expound the words of Christ, most wickedly cavil at the words of Christ, and the like; which he says because I preferred to expound the words of the Gospel with the Fathers Origen, Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom and the other ancients, rather than with the innovators Bibliander and Chytraeus. For however much the king grows angry and loads me with reproaches, I prefer to be foolish with those than wise with these. But it will be the readers' judgment which have more rightly expounded the passages of the Gospel, the king with Chytraeus and Bibliander, or I with the Fathers; the books exist, often reprinted; there is no reason why I should spend time in repeating the same things again and again.
That I ought not to pass over, that the king, who at the beginning had said that he venerated the Fathers of the first five hundred years, and would not dare to censure them, in this place, that is, page 73, openly says that they erred: “But since,” he says, “we have perhaps fallen on this discourse about the ancient Fathers, allow me, I pray, on this occasion to warn you in passing that it is no wonder if the Fathers here often err, and understand less rightly many mysteries of the Apocalypse, because that book was in their times still sealed, and although the mystery of iniquity was even then working, yet that man of sin was not yet revealed; for in all obscure prophecies it is a most certain rule that they can never be sufficiently understood until they are fulfilled.” So he, who makes the ancient Fathers not only mistaken, but even foolish, for having tried to unseal a sealed book. Then, if at this time the prophecy has been fulfilled, and thereby its interpretation is manifest and clear, whence still so many contentions and opinions on these matters? why did the king himself, page 56, about to enter the disputation on Antichrist, write that in a matter so obscure and involved he wished simply to give his opinion? and why at the end of the disputation, page 113, does he call his explanation of Antichrist a conjecture? if the prophecy is already fulfilled, and the book unsealed, what need of conjectures? why is the disputation on Antichrist called obscure and involved? But that the man of sin is already revealed, and thereby the prophecy of Saint John fulfilled, the innovators say, but do not prove, nor can they prove, since on the contrary most evident demonstrations are brought by Catholics. So from that which is in question, as if it were certain and settled, they seek arguments for charging the ancient Fathers with error. But the king is to be pardoned, who did not produce of himself what he wrote in censure of the Fathers, but borrowed it from book 1 of Robert Abbot, his subject.
There is another thing too in the king's disputation on Enoch and Elijah very much to be wondered at. For he writes on page 74 that the bodies of Enoch and Elijah are now glorified in heaven, and have for many thousands of years been exempt from the curse of death. And on page 76 he writes in express words that Enoch and Elijah have for many thousands of years been inhabitants of heaven, loosed from the laws of mortality, and have incorruptible and glorified bodies; and from this he makes out that it cannot be that they be killed by Antichrist. But this dogma, even if it has for author a certain Theodore of Heraclea, and Apollinaris, as Saint Jerome witnesses in the epistle to Minervius and Alexander, is nevertheless a settled error, and contrary to all the Fathers, who write that Enoch and Elijah are not yet dead, but are mortal, and will die in the last persecution. Yet lest we say nothing at all against this heresy, we shall bring forward a few things out of many. In John 14 the Lord says: I go to prepare a place for you; and if I shall go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself, that where I am, you also may be; which is explained by the Apostle in Hebrews 6, when he says: Where the forerunner Jesus is entered for us. If the Apostles could not enter heaven unless Jesus entered as forerunner and prepared them a place, how did Enoch and Elijah enter so many thousands of years before Christ's ascension? The same Apostle in Hebrews 9: The Holy Ghost signifying this, that the way into the holies was not yet made manifest, whilst the former tabernacle was yet standing. So while the state of the Old Testament lasted, the way to the heavenly country was not yet made manifest to the saints; wherefore the same Apostle concludes in Hebrews 11: And all these, being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise; God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us. Could it be said more openly that the Fathers of the Old Testament, although most approved in faith, among whom Enoch is numbered by the Apostle, did not receive the promises, that they should not be perfected without us, that is, that they should not without us receive the perfected glory of body and soul? And what is it that the prophet David says as something singular in the person of Christ in Psalm 15: Thou hast made known to me the ways of life, if so many thousands of years before the ways of life were made known to Enoch and Elijah? What is it that Christ himself says in John 3: No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven, if before Christ himself, who is the head of the elect, Enoch and Elijah ascended into heaven with glorified body, who are certainly members of Christ? For that, no man hath ascended into heaven, is not of the present time, but of the past, as is manifest from the Greek text; for the sense is, no man has hitherto ascended into heaven, and thereby no one knows heavenly things, except the Son of man, Christ, who as God descended from heaven by the incarnation, and as man ascended into heaven by the hypostatic union and the communication of properties, whence he also added: the Son of man who is in heaven. For the Son of man was then in heaven, because the same person was God and man. So he does not say, no one will ascend afterwards, but, no one has ascended hitherto; therefore Enoch and Elijah did not ascend with glorified body into the true and ethereal heaven, but only into the aerial heaven, so that, lifted from the earth, they might be led into a place remote from the habitation of men. Truly, then, the Church spread through the whole world sings in that most well known hymn, which not even Luther thought fit to despise: “Thou, having overcome the sting of death, hast opened to believers the kingdoms of heaven”; which certainly the orthodox Church would not sing if she believed that Enoch and Elijah could have entered the kingdoms of heaven so many thousands of years before Christ's ascension. I add also the general decree that all men die, from which not even the Son of God himself wished to be immune, nor did he make his most holy Mother immune. It is appointed, says the Apostle in Hebrews 9, unto men once to die, and after this the judgment; that is, when all without exception have paid the debt of death, then the judgment will be at hand. Therefore before the judgment it is necessary that Enoch and Elijah, who hitherto remain among the living, themselves also die. To which sentence is like that of 1 Corinthians 15: As in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive; and Romans 5: Death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned; and Psalm 88: Who is the man that shall live, and not see death? By which most open sentences that otherwise ambiguous sentence is to be explained, 1 Thessalonians 4: Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them to meet Christ in the air. For this sentence does not signify that those who are found alive on the last day will not die, but that in the very taking up they will die, and soon rise to immortal life, as Saint Augustine teaches, book 20 of the City of God, chapter 20. From the same Scriptures it is to be judged which is the truer reading of 1 Corinthians 15: We shall all indeed rise again, or, as it is in the Greek, we shall all indeed sleep, but we shall not all be changed; or that: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed; for that former is the truer, because it agrees with the open Scriptures; and Saint Jerome affirms it to be the truer and more common in the epistle to Minervius and Alexander.
But the king objects the testimonies of Irenaeus and Tertullian. For Irenaeus, book 5, writes that Enoch and Elijah remain in the place to which they were translated, until the consummation, beholding incorruption. And Tertullian, in the book against the Jews, chapter 2, writes that Enoch has not yet tasted death, as a candidate for eternity. But these do not signify that they will never die, as the king thinks; for they remain, not in heaven, as the king says, but in the earthly paradise, as Irenaeus says, until the consummation, beholding incorruption, that is, not seeing corruption, but remaining alive and whole for so many thousands of years. But this incorruption is not that which the blessed have in heaven, who cannot die, but that which Adam had in Paradise, who could not die as long as he did not sin, as Saint Augustine is author, book 9 on Genesis to the letter, chapter 6, and book 1 on the merits and remission of sins, chapter 3. So Enoch and Elijah behold incorruption, not absolutely, but until the consummation of the world, in which, paying the debt of death, they will pass to true and perfect incorruption. And rightly is Enoch said not to have tasted death, as a candidate for eternity. For candidates were not yet consuls, but expected and sought the consulship. So then Enoch does not have true immortality, but expects and desires it, and from a life so long, of many thousands of years, which he has led in the earthly paradise, conceives a certain hope of everlasting life to come in the heavenly paradise. As to what the king says, that Bellarmine in the Controversies sweats much to settle whether paradise is on earth or in the air, and concludes that the earthly paradise was destroyed by the flood, the answer is easy. For Bellarmine nowhere said, either in his own opinion or in another's, that paradise hangs in the air; which the king laboriously tries in vain to confute. He only related, in the book on the grace of the first man, chapter 12, the opinion of some who affirm that paradise is indeed situated on earth, but on very high mountains, which reach even to the globe of the moon; which opinion the same Bellarmine refutes, unless it be excused as hyperbole. But that the earthly paradise has been wholly destroyed, which the king affirms, is contrary to the common opinion of the ancient Fathers and of the more recent doctors. Certainly Saint Augustine, in the book on original sin, chapter 23, expressly pronounces thus: “That there is a paradise, whence Adam was cast out, the Christian faith does not doubt.”
But the king pleases himself much in that conjecture which he took from Robert Abbot, that by the name of the two prophets killed by Antichrist ought or can be understood the two Testaments, that is, the sacred books of the Old and New Testament. In which disputation he says many things which he will not be able to prove. First he writes that certain gibes are thrown by the papists against sacred Scripture, that it is a nose of wax, a dead letter, a Lesbian rule, and six hundred other things full of reproach and disgrace. But I, having turned over most Catholic writers, could find gibes of that kind in none, except in this sense, that among the adversaries sacred Scripture is so twisted into various meanings that it seems to be a nose of wax or a Lesbian rule; which also in this disputation on the two prophets most openly has place. For we Catholics, who follow the sacred Scriptures, do not accommodate them to our opinions; where we read that two prophets clothed in sackcloth will preach against the doctrine of Antichrist, and be killed by him, and after three days be raised up by God, by prophets we understand true prophets; by sackcloth, true sackcloth; by preaching, true preaching; by Antichrist, the true Antichrist; by killing, true killing; by three days, true three days; by resurrection, true resurrection. The innovators, who would have the Scriptures serve their opinions, by two prophets would have understood either the ministers of the new Gospel, although they are more than six hundred; or the books of the Old and New Testament, which are very many; by Antichrist, who will be one, a very long series of men; by three days they understand about a thousand years; and the rest by tropes and metaphors they so plainly twist to their errors as to make of it a Lesbian rule and a nose of wax. Second, he says that the papists refuse to correct even the most corrupt passages of the old edition; and gives examples, where we read, to overturn the house, for, to overturn, Luke 15; and, so I will have him remain, for, if I will have him remain, John 21. But the former passage was corrected in the Bible revised by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff; the latter was not changed, because it is found in all the Latin codices, even the most ancient. For so read Saint Ambrose on Psalm 45 and sermon 20 on Psalm 118, Saint Augustine, Bede and Rupert in the explanation of that passage, Eusebius of Emesa, or whoever is the author, in the homily on Saint John the Evangelist, and others. Nor is it true that those words, so I will have him remain, contain a lie, as the king too boldly affirms; for, so I will have him remain, does not signify, I will not have him die, but, I will not have him depart from this life by a violent death before the time of his natural period. Third, he says that Scripture has been corrupted by us, because we have made the apocryphal books equal to the canonical, contrary to what the Fathers think and the ancient councils decree. But we on the contrary can truly say that by the sectaries, as forerunners of Antichrist, both Testaments have been miserably defaced, some members being cut off. For the books which they have rejected as apocryphal we find held among the canonical in the third council of Carthage, celebrated twelve hundred years ago, and among all the ancient Fathers, one or two excepted. Fourth, he says that the psalter was sacrilegiously corrupted by Saint Bonaventure, since he put Lady for Lord through the whole psalter. But Saint Bonaventure did not touch at all the psalter of David, which belongs to canonical Scripture; but after the likeness of the psalter of David he himself composed another psalter, out of a godly affection toward the blessed Virgin. Fifth, he says that Scripture was suppressed by the papists, because for many centuries the Christian people lived in great blindness and ignorance of saving doctrine, since the laity were forbidden to touch Scripture, and the greatest part of the clergy either would not or could not read it. But nowhere will the king find that the reading of the divine Scripture was forbidden to laymen or clerics. And very much to be wondered at is what the king adds, that the sacred books were condemned to silence, so that he was burned as a heretic who dared to take them in his hands or look into them; what history has ever recorded this? what author has handed it down? not to say, who has seen or heard of anyone burned as a heretic for touching or looking at the Scriptures? But, he says, the sacred books lay hidden in an unknown tongue. Nor is this true, for the Latin tongue is not unknown to the Latin Church. But also Bibles published in the vulgar tongues are not lacking, although they are not everywhere allowed to those who, being rude and unskilled, cannot understand them except wrongly; and for this very thing preachers have been instituted, to explain in the popular tongue what is read in Latin in the churches. Sixth, he says that this Scripture was killed by Antichrist when in the year 1562 a general censure came out which ordered all other translations besides its own to be burned, which is also now wont to be done. But if in the year 1562 Scripture was killed, then it was recalled from the dead by Luther before it was killed by Antichrist. For that Luther, by whom the adversaries boast that sacred Scripture was recalled into the light, did not reach the year 1562, no one is ignorant. But this is truly an unheard-of miracle, to raise a man from the dead before he dies. But jokes aside, the ecclesiastical censure did not order all translations to be burned except its own, since it receives the translation of the Seventy interpreters, and permits Syriac, Chaldaic and even not a few Latin translations of more recent men; but it ordered to be burned the translations of heretics, of Martin Luther and the like, which it is established are corrupt in very many places.
These calumnies briefly refuted, I shall say what seems to me of that opinion which teaches that by the two prophets the two Testaments are signified. If that opinion is true, three things will follow which the adversaries will in no way grant, since by the confession of all, both theirs and ours, they are most false. The first is that in the ancient Church, in the first five or six hundred years, there were no books of holy Scripture, since those two prophets, by whom the books of both Testaments are signified, did not appear except after Antichrist arose, Apocalypse 11; and Antichrist did not arise except after the six hundredth year of Christ by the opinion of the adversaries, and by ours not even after the one thousand six hundredth; therefore in the first six hundred years those two prophets, that is, the books of the two Testaments, did not appear. Whether this is true I leave to the king to judge, who has read so many commentaries of the ancient Fathers on the sacred books. The second is that, Antichrist reigning, through the whole time of his reign the divine Scriptures and their preaching were public and most well known; for the two prophets preached for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, that is, forty-two months, or three years and a half, as long a time as Antichrist will reign; as in the book of the Apocalypse, chapter 11, is expressly written; for however those times are understood, it cannot be denied that the same space of time is given in Scripture to the two prophets and to Antichrist, excepting a very short interval in which Antichrist will survive after the destruction of those prophets. Therefore if the two prophets signify the two Testaments, through the whole time of Antichrist's reign the preaching of the Scriptures must altogether flourish and prevail. Why then did the king a little before lament that blindness and ignorance of saving doctrine prevailed for so many centuries among Christians? So unless the adversaries invent, against Scripture, that the two prophets were extinguished in the first days of Antichrist, they will never make out that for many centuries, Antichrist reigning, the sacred Scriptures were either taken away, or hidden, or unknown. The third is that the holy Scriptures, after they were restored to the light by the divine power, were taken up into heaven, and never again seen among men on earth. For so it is written in Apocalypse, chapter 11, that the two prophets, raised up after three days, were at once taken up into heaven. Wherefore if Luther or Calvin recalled again as it were from the dead the Scriptures of both Testaments buried by Antichrist, it is necessary that the Scriptures have now been received into heaven, and hidden from the eyes of men, if the likeness of the two prophets and the two Testaments is worth anything. But we see that the two Testaments are still in the hands of men, and have filled public and private libraries. The king's conjecture, then, totters on every side; nor is it useful for us on account of that conjecture to depart from the common opinion of our Fathers and of the Church. I pass over what is said of another signification of the two prophets, since we left it refuted in the books of Controversies, book 3 on the Pontiff, chapter 6.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI. De Henoch , et Elia,. Octavo, pag. 67. et sequentibus ad 87. dis¬ putat rex de (b) duobus Prophetis, qui cap. xi Apocalypsis dicuntur pugnaturi cum An¬ tichristo, atque ab eodem tandem occidendi, et post tres dies resurrecturi, et in ccelum assumendi. Hos duos Prophetas nos cum sanctis Patribus dicimus esse Henoch, et Eliam, qui ad hunc ipsum finem translati sunt, et adhuc vivunt in carne mortali; ut in novissimis diebus, cum maxima Dei gloria, et Ecclesiae utilitate, mortis debitum solvant. Patres qui ex divinis litteris hoc docent hi sunt : Hilarius, Hieronymus, Chrysostomus, Origenes, et alii omnes interpretes sancti Matthaei ad cap. xvii. affirmant Eliam ven¬ turum tempore Antichristi. Idem de eodem Elia docent Lactantius lib. vn. cap. 17, Au¬ gustinus tract. 4. in Joan., Theodoretus in cap. ultim. Malachiae, et Primasius in cap. xi Apocalypsis. De Henoch, et Elia simul idem testantur Hippolytus Martyr in oratio¬ ne, de Consummatione mundi, Augustinus lib. ix. de Genesi ad litteram cap. 6. et in¬ terpretes Apocalypsis ad cap. xi. Beda, An- selmus, Richardus, et Arethas, qui addit in- variabiliter a tota Ecclesia credi, Henoch, et Eliam venturos, ut Antichristo se opponant. Rex tamen cum fateatur (c) hanc esse Pa¬ trum sententiam, tamen Judaicam fabulam non semel appellat ; et huic tantae testium nubi conjecturas suas, vel potius suorum Doctorum anteponit. Quam enim conjectu¬ ram suam vocat, nos in Abbato antea legi- (1) Matth. XXIV, 29 et seq. (q) Solutio. — (b) Henoch et Elias sunt duo Prophetae, qui pugnabunt cum Antichristo. — («) Sententiam veterum, Patrum , rex Anglice Judaicam fabulam appellat. 172 APOLOGIS GAP. XI. mus, qui Abbatus non eam primus excogi¬ tavit, sed a venerabili Beda desumpsit. Beda vero, etiam si spiritualiter ita exponit ; ta¬ men adjungit communem aliorum senten¬ tiam, quod duo illi Prophetae sint Henoch, et Elias ; neque illam refellit, et non refel¬ lendo approbare videtur. Omitto quae rex multis verbis disputat de cap. xi. et xvii. Matth. de adventu Elise, ubi etiam dicit, (a) me mala fide agere cum Chri¬ sto, impudenter exponere verba Christi, im¬ probissime cavillari super verbis Christi' et similia : quse ideo dicit, quia malui verba Evangelii exponere cum Patribus Origene, Hilario, Hieronymo, Chrysostomo, et aliis veteribus ; quam cum Novatoribus Biblian- dro et Chitrseo. Quantumvis enim rex irasca¬ tur, et conviciis me oneret, malo cum illis desipere, quam cum istis sapere. Sed lecto¬ rum erit judicium, utri rectius exposuerint loca Evangelii, rex cum Chitrseo, et Biblian- dro ; an ego cum Patribus : libri exstant sae- pius recusi, non est cur tempus consumam in rebus iisdem ssepius repetendis. Illud praeterire non debeo, regem, qui ini¬ tio dixerat, se Patres primorum quingento¬ rum annorum venerari ; neque se ausurum eos reprehendere, hoc loco, id est, pag. 73. palam eos errasse dicere : « Sed quoniam, inquit, in hunc de Patribus antiquis forte sermonem incidimus, sinite, quaeso, hac oc¬ casione obiter vos moneam, mirum non esse, (6) si saepius Patres hic errent, et minus recte multa Apocalypsis mysteria intelligant, propterea quod liber ille eorum temporibus adhuc obsignatus fuit, et licet mysterium iniquitatis jam tum ageretur, ille tamen homo peccati nondum erat revelatus : in om¬ nibus enim obscuris prophetiis certissima est regula, numquam eas satis intelligi po^se usque dum compleantur. » Haec ille, qui veteres Patres non tantum erroneos facit, sed etiam stultos, quod li¬ brum obsignatum resignare tentaverint. Deinde, si jam hoc tempore prophetia im¬ pleta est, ac per hoc manifesta, et dilucida ejus interpretatio ; unde tot adhuc de his rebus contentiones, et opiniones ? cur ipse rex pag. 56. ingressurus disputationem de Antichristo scripsit, in re tam obscura, et involuta, velle simpliciter sententiam suam dicere ? et cur in extrema disputatione pag. \ 13. conjecturam vocat explicationem suam de Antichristo ? si prophetia jam impleta est, et liber resignatus ; quid opus est con¬ jecturis ? cur dicitur obscura, et involuta de Antichristo disputatio. Verum, quod jam sit revelatus homo pec¬ cati, ac per hoc prophetia S. Joannis adim¬ pleta, Novatores dicunt, sed non probant, nec probare possunt, cum contra demon¬ strationes evidentissimse a Catholicis adfe- rantur. Itaque ex eo quod in quaestione est, quasi certum, et exploratum esset, argumen¬ ta petunt ad Patres veteres arguendos erro¬ ris. Sed regi ignoscendum est, qui ea quse de reprehensione Patrum scripsit, non ex se protulit in medium, sed ex lib. i. Itoberti Abbati, subditi sui, mutuatus est. Aliud quoque est in disputatione regis de Henoch et Elia, valde admirandum. Scribit enim pag. 74. corpora Henoch et Eliae, nunc esse in coelo gloriticata, et per multa anno¬ rum millia exempta fuisse a maledictione mortis. Et pag. 76. disertis verbis scribit, Hengch et Eliam per multa annorum millia coeli fuisse incolas, mortalitatis legibus solu¬ tos, incorruptibilia, et glorificata corpora habere : atque inde efficit, non posse fieri, ut ab Antichristo interficiantur. Atqui, hoc dogma, etiam si auctorem ha¬ beat Theodorum quemdam Eracleotem, et Apollinarium, testeS. Hieronymo in epistol. ad Minerium, et Alexandjnim : tamen explo¬ ratus error est, et contrarius omnibus Pa¬ tribus, (e) qui Henoch, et Eliam scribunt nondum esse mortuos, sed esse mortales, et morituros in persecutione novissima. Ne ta¬ men nihil omnino adversus hanc hseresim dicamus, pauca de multis adducemus. Joan xiv. Dominus ait : ( d ) Vado parare vobis lo¬ cum, , et si abiero , et paravero vobis locum , iterum veniam, et assumam vos ad me ipsum , ut ubi ego sum , et vos sitis , quod explicatur ab Apostolo ad Hebraeos vi. cum ait : Prae cursor pro nobis introivit Jesus (1). Si non poterant Apostoli in coelum intrare, nisi praecursor intraret Jesus, et pararet illis lo- (1) Heb. VI, 20. (a) Calumniae manifestas. — ( b ) Hcec est reverentia erga sanctos, ac veteres Patres. — (c) Henoch » et Elias non sunt mortui , sed morituri tempore suo. — ( d ) Ante Christi ascensionem nullus homo in coelum ascendit. APOLOGLE CAP. XI. 173 cum : quomodo Henoch, et Elias tot milibus annorum ante Christi ascensionem introi¬ erunt ? Idem Apostolus ad Heb. ix. Hoc , inquit, significante Spiritu sancto , nondum propala¬ tam esse Sanctorum viam adhuc priore taber¬ naculo habente statum (1). Itaque dum status testamenti veteris duravit ; nondum pro¬ palata erat Sanctis via ad coelestem patriam, quare concludit idem Apostolus adHebr. xr. Et hi omnes testimonio fidei probati non acce¬ perunt promissionem ; Deo pro nobis aliquid melius providente , ut non sine nobis consum¬ marentur. Poterat ne apertius dici, Patres veteris testamenti, quamvis fide probatissimi essent, inter quos Henoch ab Apostolo nu¬ meratus est, non accepisse promissiones, ut non sine nobis consummarentur, id est, ut non sine nobis consummatam corporis, et animae gloriam acciperent? Et quid est quod Propheta David tamquam singulare dicit in persona Christi in Psal. xv. Notas mihi fecisti vias vitae ; si ante tot anno¬ rum millia Henoch, et Elise notse factse sunt vise vitse? quid est quod ipse Christus dicit Joan. iii. Nemo ascendit in ccclum, nisi qui descendit de coelo filius hominis , qui est in coelo (2) ; si ante ipsum Christum, qui caput est electorum, ascenderunt in coelum cum corpore glorificato Henoch, et Elias, qui utique membra Christi sunt ? nam illud ne¬ mo ascendit in coelum, non est praesentis temporis, sed praeteriti, ut ex graeco textu manifestum est ooSsis av aj3s(3-/]xev, est enim sensus, nullus homo hactenus ascendit in coelum, ac per hoc nemo scit coelestia, nisi filius hominis Christus, qui ut Deus descen¬ dit de coelo per incarnationem, et ut homo ascendit in coelum per unionem hypostati¬ cam, et idiomatum communicationem, unde etiam subjecit : Filius hominis, qui est in coelo. Erat enim tunc filius hominis in coelo, quia eadem persona erat Deus, et homo. Itaque non ait, nemo ascendet postea, sed nemo ascendit hucusque ; proinde Henoch, et Elias non ascenderunt cum corpore glo¬ rificato in coelum verum, atque sethereum, sed in coelum tantum aerium, ut sublevati a terra ducerentur in locum remotum ah ho¬ minum habitatione. Vere igitur canit Ecclesia toto orbe dif¬ fusa, in hymno illo notissimo, quem nec Lu- therus despiciendum putavit : « Tu devicto mortis aculeo, aperuisti credentibus regna coelorum »; quod certe Ecclesia orthodoxa non caneret, si crederet Henoch, et Eliam, tot annorum millibus ante Christi Ascensio¬ nem introire potuisse in regna coelorum. Addo etiam (a) generale decretum, ut omnes homines moriantur, a quo ne ipse quidem Filius Dei immunis esse voluit ; ne¬ que sanctissimam Matrem suam immunem fecit. Statutum est , inquit Apostolus ad Hebr. ix. hominibus semel mori , et post hoc judicium , id est, cum omnes omnino mortis debitum solverint, tunc aderit judicium. Ergo ante judicium necesse est, ut Henoch, et Elias, qui hactenus in vivis manent, ipsi etiam moriantur. Cui sententiae similis est illa I Cor. xv. Sicut rn Adam omnes moriun¬ tur, ita et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur ; et Rom. v. In omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt. Et Psal. lxxxviii. Quis est homo, qui vivet , et non videbit mor¬ tem (3) ? Ex quibus apertissimis sententiis decla¬ randa est sententia illa alioqui ambigua I Thessal. iv. Deinde nos qui vivimus, qui resi¬ dui sumus, simul rapiemur cum illis obviam Christo in aera (4). Non enim significat haec sententia, non morituros, qui vivi reperien- tur in novissimo die ; sed in ipso raptu mori¬ turos, etmox resurrecturos ad vitam immor¬ talem, ut S. Augustinus docet lib. xx. de Civit. Dei cap. 20. Ex iisdem scripturis judi¬ candum est, ( b ) utra sit verior lectio I Cor. xv. Omnes quidem resurgemus, sive, ut est in graeco, omnes quidem dormiemus, sed non omnes immutabimur : an illa, non om¬ nes dormiemus, sed omnes immutabimur : illa enim prior est verior, quia concordat cum apertis scripturis : et veriorem, et com¬ muniorem esse affirmat S. Hieronvmus in */ epistol. ad Minerium, et Alexandrum. At objicit rex testimonia Irenaei, et Ter¬ tulliani. Irenaeus enim lib. v. scribit He¬ noch, et Eliam manere in loco, ad quem translati sunt, usque ad consummationem conspicantes incorruptionem. Tertullianus autem lib. contra Judaeos cap. 2. scribit, (I) Heb. IX, 8. — (2) Psalm. XV, 11 ; Joan. III, 13. — (3) Heb. IX, 27 ; I Cor. XV, 22; Rom. V, 12; Psalm. LXXXVIII, 49. — (4) I Thes. IV, U. (a) Generali decreto omnes homines morti addicti sunt. — ( b)De varia lectione loci Paulini 1 Cor. XV. et quce sit lectio verior. 174 APOLOGLE CAP. XI. Henoch necdum mortem gustasse, ut aeter¬ nitatis candidatum. Sed haec non significant illos numquam morituros esse, ut rex existimat : (a) manent enim, non in coelo, ut rex dicit ; sed in pa¬ radiso terrestri, ut Irenaeus dicit, usque ad consummationem conspicantes incorruptio- nem, id est, non videntes corruptionem, sed vivi, atque integri permanentes tot millibus annorum. Sed haec incorruptio non est ea, quam habent in coelo Beati, qui mori non possunt; sed ea quam habebat Adam in Paradiso, qui poterat non mori donec pec¬ caret, ut auctor est S. Augustinus lib. ix de Genesi ad litteram cap. 6. et lib. i. de pecc. meritis, et remiss. cap. 3. Itaque Henoch, et Elias conspicantur incorruptionem, non absolute, sed usque ad mundi consumma¬ tionem, in qua debitum mortis solventes transituri sunt ad veram et perfectam incor¬ ruptionem. Recte vero dicitur Henoch non gustasse mortem ut candidatus aeternitatis. Candidati enim nondum consules erant, sed consulatum expectabant, et petebant. Sic igitur Henoch non habet veram immortali¬ tatem, sed eam exspectat, et desiderat, et ex vita tam diuturna multorum millium anno¬ rum quam egit in terrestri paradiso, certam spem concipit vitee sempiternae futurae in paradiso coelesti. Ad id autem quod rex dicit, Bellarminum in controversiis multum sudare, ut statuat, ( b ) paradisus ne in terra sit, an in aere ; et concludit, paradisum terrestrem diluvio esse destructum : facilis est responsio. Bellarmi- nus enim nusquam dixit, neque ex sententia sua, neque ex aliena, paradisum in aere pendere.: quod operose confutare frustra rex conatur. Retulit solum in lib. de gratia primi hominis cap. 12. sententiam quorum¬ dam, qui affirmant Paradisum in terra qui¬ dem situm, sed in montibus altissimis, qui ad globum usque lunae pertingant, quam sententiam idem Bellarminus refellit, nisi per hyperbolem excusetur. Paradisum au¬ tem terrestrem omnino esse destructum , quod rex affirmat ; contrarium est communi sententiae Patrum veterum, et recentiorum Doctorum. Certe S. Augustinus lib. de pec¬ cato orig. cap. 23. diserte sic pronuntiat : «Esse Paradisum, unde ejectus est Adam, fides Christiana non dubitat». Multum au¬ tem sibi rex placet in ea conjectura, quam a Roberlo Abbato desumpsit, quod nomine duorum Prophetarum ab Antichristo occi¬ sorum intelligi debeant, aut possint duo testamenta, id est, libri sacri testamenti veteris, et novi. In qua disputatione multa dicit, quse probare non poterit. Primo scribit, (c) adversus Scripturam sacram dicteria quaedam a Pontificiis jactari, quod sit nasus cereus, mortua littera, lesbia regula, sexcenta alia probri, et ignominiae plena. Ego vero cum plerosque Scriptores Catholicos evolverim, apud nullum ejusmodi dicteria reperire potui, nisi in hoc sensu, quod apud adversarios , Scriptura sacra ita torquetur in varios intellectus, ut nasus ce¬ reus, aut lesbia regula esse videatur, quod etiam in hac disputatione de duobus Pro¬ phetis apertissime locum habet. Nos enim Catholici, qui Scripturas sacras sequimur, non eas ad nostras opiniones accommoda¬ mus, ubi legimus, duos Prophetas saccis indutos, adversus Antichristi doctrinam pree- dicaturos, atque ab illo interficiendos, et a Deo post triduum resuscitandos : per Pro¬ phetas, veros Prophetas ; per saccos, veros saccos ; per praedicationem, veram praedica- tionem ; per Antichristum, verum Anti- christum ; per occisionem, veram occisio¬ nem; per triduum, verum triduum; per resurrectionem, veram resurrectionem in- telligimus. (d) Novatores, qui opinionibus suis scripturas deservire volunt : per Pro¬ phetas duos, intelligi volunt, aut ministros novi Evangelii, quamquam plusquam sex¬ centi sint; aut libros testamenti veteris, et novi, qui plurimi sunt ; per Antichristum, qui unus erit, seriem hominum bene lon¬ gam ; per triduum, mille circiter annos in- telligunfc, et caetera per tropos, et metapho¬ ras ita plane detorquent ad errores suos, ut de regula Lesbia, et de naso cereo face¬ rent. Secundo dicit, (e) Pontificios' nolle corrigi locos etiam corruptissimos veteris editionis : et ponit exempla, ubi nos legimus evertere domum, pro, evertere Luc. xv. Et sic eum volo manere , pro, si eum volo manere (4). (1) Joan. XXI, 21. (a) Explicantur testimonia Irencei , et Tertulliani de qualitate vitee Henoch , et Elice. — (b) Ca~ lumnia de situ Paradisi terrestris. — (c) Calumnia haereticorum. — ,(d) Haeretici scripturas sacras ad opiniones suas accommodare satagunt. — (e) Alia calumnia. APOLOGIS CAP. XI. 175 Joan. xxi. At prior locus correctus est in Bibliis Summi Pontificis auctoritate recogni¬ tis : posterior non est mutatus, quoniam ha¬ betur in omnibus latinis codicibus, etiam antiquissimis. Sic enim legunt S. Ambrosius in Psalm. xlv. et senn. 20. in Psalm. cxvin. S. Augustinus, Beda, et Rupertus in expla¬ natione ejus loci, Eusebius Emissenus, sive quisquis est auctor in homil. de S. Joanne Evangelista, et alii. Neque verum est, verba illa, sic cum volo manere, mendacium con¬ tinere, ut rex nimis audacter aflirmat : non enim, sic eum volo manere, significat, non volo eum mori, sed non volo eum morte violenta ante tempus naturalis periodi, de hac vita migrare. Tertio dicit, (a) depravatam esse a nobis Scripturam, quoniam libros apocryphos ca¬ nonicis exaequavimus, contra quam Patres sentiunt, et vetera concilia decernunt. At nos contra vere dicere possumus, a sectariis, tamquam Antichristi praecursoribus, utrum¬ que testamentum aliquot membris detrun¬ catis, misere esse foedatum. Quos enim li¬ bros, ut apocryphos rejecerunt, nos inveni¬ mus in concilio III Carthaginiensi, ante mille ducentos annos celebrato, et apud veteres Patres omnes, uno, vel altero excepto inter Canonicos esse habitos. Quarto dicit ( b ) a S. Bonaventura sacri¬ lege corruptum esse psalterium, cum Domi¬ nam, pro Domino in toto psalterio posuerit. At S. Bonaventura psalterium Davidis, quod ad scripturam canonicam pertinet, omnino non tetigit ; sed ad similitudinem psalterii Davidis, aliud psalterium ipse composuit, ex pio ad B. Virginem affectu. Quinto dicit, (c) scripturam a Pontificiis fuisse supressam, quoniam multis saeculis in magna c.ecitate, et ignoratione salutaris do¬ ctrinae populus Christianus versatus est ; cum laici Scripturam attingere prohibiti es¬ sent : maxima pars clericorum eam legere, aut nollent, aut non possent. At nusquam inveniet rex Scripturae divinae lectionem laicis. aut clericis fuisse prohibitam. Et valde mirandum est quod rex addit, ad silentium damnatos esse libros sacros, ut pro haeretico combureretur qui eos in manus sumere au¬ deret, ant inspicere, quae unquam historia hoc prodidit? quis auctor tradidit? ne dicam t quis vidit, aut audivit, pro haeretico com¬ buri qui Scripturas attingeret, aut cerne¬ ret? At, inquit, in ignota lingua libri sacri absconditi jacuerunt. Neque hoc est verum, non enim latina lingua ignola est Ecclesiae latinae. Sed etiam Biblia vulgaribus linguis edita non desunt, quamvis non passim con¬ cedantur iis, qui rudes, et imperiti cum sint, eas nisi perperam intelligere non queunt ; atque ad hoc ipsum instituti sunt conciona- tores, qui populari lingua explanent, quae latine in Ecclesiis leguntur. Sexto dicit, (d) Scripturam hanc fuisse ab Antichristo interfectam , cum anno 1562. prodiit censura generalis, quae omnes alias translationes, praeter suam comburi jussit, quod etiam nunc fieri solet. At si anno 1562. Scriptura interfecta est ; ergo a Luthero ante a mortuis revocata est, quam ad Antichristo interficeretur. Lutherum enim, a quo adver¬ sarii jactant Scripturam sacram in lucem esse revocatam, ad annum 1562. non per¬ venisse nemo nescit. Atqui hoc vere inaudi¬ tum miraculum est, excitare a mortuis ho¬ minem antequam moriatur. Sed omissis jo¬ cis, Ecclesiastica censura non jussit comburi translationes omnes, excepta sua, cum reci¬ piat translationem 70. interpretum, et per¬ mittat translationes Syriacas, Chaldaicas, Latinas etiam recentiorum non paucas; sed comburi jussit translationes haereticorum, Martini Lutberi, et similium, quas constat plurimis in locis esse corruptas. His breviter calumniis refutatis, dicam quid mihi videatur de sententia illa, quae per duos Prophetas duo testamenta signifi¬ cari docet. Si ea sententia vera sit, tria se- quentur, quae adversarii nullo modo conce¬ dent, cum omnium confessione, et ipsorum, et nostra falsissima sint. Primum est, [e) in Ecclesia veteri primis quingentis, vel sexcentis annis nullos fuisse Scripturae sanctae libros, siquidem duo illi Prophetae, per quos libri utriusque testa¬ menti significantur, non apparuerunt nisi post exortum Anticbristum, Apoc. xi. Anti- christus exortus non est, nisi post annum Christi sexcentesimum ex sententia adver¬ sariorum ; ex nostra vero, neque post an¬ num millesimum sexcentesimum : igitur pri- i (a) Alia calumnia. — (b) Alia calumnia. — (c) Alia calumnia , eaque gravissima. — ( d ) Calum¬ nia intolerabilis. — (e) Prima absurditas sententiae de duobus Prophetis duo testamenta signifi¬ cantibus. 17(5 APOLOGLE GAP. XII. mis sexcentis annis cluo illi Propheta? , id est, duorum testamentorum libri non appa¬ ruerunt. An hoc sit verum regi judicandum relinquo, qui tot veterum Patrum Commen¬ taria in sacros libros legit. Alterum est, (a) regnante Antichristo, toto tempore regni ejus Scripturas divinas, at¬ que earum praedicationem , publicam , et notissimam fuisse, nam duo Prophetae, mille ducentis sexaginta diebus praedicaverunt, id est, mensibus quadraginta duobus, sive tribus annis cum dimidio : quanto tempore Antichristus regnabit; ut in libro Apoca¬ lypsis cap. xt. diserte scribitur, quomodo¬ cumque enim illa tempora intelligantur, ne¬ gari non potest, idem temporis spatium tri¬ bui in Scriptura duobus Prophetis, et Anti¬ christo, excepto brevissimo intervallo, quo Antichristus supervivet post Prophetarum illorum interitum. Ergo si duo Propheta? duo testamenta significant, toto tempore regni Antichristi praedicatio Scripturarum vigeat, et valeat, omnino necesse est. Cur ergo paulo ante deploravit rex caecitatem, et ignorantiam doctrinae salutaris tot saeculis invaluisse apud Christianos? Itaque nisi fin¬ gant adversarii contra Scripturam, duos Prophetas primis Antichristi diebus extin- ctos fuisse, numquam efficient, per multa saecula Antichristo regnante Scripturas sa¬ cras, vel sublatas, vel absconditas, vel igno¬ ratas fuisse. Tertium est,(ft) Scripturas sanctas, postea- quam restitutae fuerunt in lucem per divi¬ nam potentiam, assumptas esse in codum, neque apud homines in terris unquam am¬ plius visas. Sic enim scribitur in Apocal. cap. xi., duos Prophetas post triduum exci¬ tatos, continuo in coelum assumptos fuisse. Quare si Lutherus, aut Calvinus, Scripturas utriusque testamenti ab Antichristo sepultas, iterum quasi a mortuis revocarunt : necesse est, ut Scripturae in coelum jam sint receptae, atque ab oculis hominum abscondita?, si quid similitudo duorum Prophetarum, et duorum testamentorum valet. Atqui videmus duo testamenta in manibus hominum adhuc esse, et bibliothecas publicas, et privatas occu¬ passe. Nutat igitur undique conjectura regis; neque utile nobis est ob eam conjecturam a communi sententia Patrum nostrorum, Ec¬ clesiaeque recedere. Omitto quae dicuntur de alia significatione duorum Prophetarum , quoniam eam in libris Controversiarum lib. iii. de Pontifice cap. 6. refutatam reliqui¬ mus.