Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book I: On the Canonical Books
Chapter 17: On the Epistle to the Hebrews
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book I: On the Canonical Books of Scripture. 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).
There was a twofold doubt concerning this epistle: one about its author, the other about its authority; yet these are so connected that there are few who have doubted of the one and not of the other. First, then, among the ancient heretics, Marcion (as Jerome witnesses in the Preface to the epistle to Titus) and Arius (as Theodoret witnesses in the Preface to the epistle to the Hebrews) taught that the epistle to the Hebrews was neither Paul's nor sacred. Among the new heretics, Luther, in his Prologue to the epistle to the Hebrews, contends that this epistle is neither Paul's nor any Apostle's, because it contains certain things against the evangelical and apostolic doctrine. To Luther subscribe Brentius in the Wittenberg Confession, chapter On sacred Scripture, and Kemnitz in his Examination of the fourth session of the Council of Trent; the Centuriators of Magdeburg also, century 1, book 2, chapter 4, column 55, and other heretics of this time, the Calvinists excepted. For Calvin, in the Institutes printed in the year 1554, chapter 8, section 216, contends that this epistle is truly apostolic, and that the Lutherans err in this point. Yet whether it be Paul's or another Apostle's, as Barnabas's or Luke's, Calvin doubts, as is plain from the same Institutes, chapter 10 section 83, and chapter 16 section 25; wherefore the Calvinist Ministers, in that Confession which they offered at Poissy, article 3, place this epistle in the number of the divine Scriptures, but as of an uncertain author.
That besides these manifest heretics, certain Catholics also, and especially the Latins, doubted about the author of this epistle, and on that account esteemed it the less, Eusebius witnesses book 3 of the History chapter 3, and also blessed Jerome in the book On Illustrious Men, in Paul, where he says: that this epistle is by certain of the Latins denied to be Paul's, but held to be either Barnabas's, or Luke's, or Clement the Roman Pontiff's. And Sixtus of Siena, book 7 of the Holy Bibliotheca, says it is by some attributed even to Tertullian. In our times Erasmus, at the end of his annotations on this epistle, and Cajetan, at the beginning of his Commentaries on the same epistle, called back into the light a question long since laid to rest.
But that this epistle is both canonical and Paul the Apostle's can easily be proved. First, because it is read in the Church under the name of the Apostle Paul on the day of the Lord's Nativity, and frequently at other times. Secondly, because it was brought forward in testimony and received as Paul's by many most ancient Pontiffs: as by Clement I in the epistle to the Corinthians (in Eusebius book 3 chapter 38), Innocent I in epistle 3 to Exuperius, and Gelasius I in the Council of seventy bishops. Thirdly, because it is placed in the canon of the sacred Scriptures under Paul's name by the Council of Laodicea canon 59, the Third of Carthage canon 47, and Trent session 4; and it is acknowledged also as Paul's by the First of Nicaea (as blessed Thomas witnesses on this epistle); by the First of Ephesus and by Chalcedon, which approved the twelve chapters of Cyril, the tenth of which is this: “that Christ was made the Pontiff and Apostle of our confession, the divine Scripture records, etc.”; and also by the Second of Orange, in the last canon, where it is said to be both the Apostle's and divine Scripture.
Fourthly, because it was always received by all the Greek Fathers, as is plain, both because they all cite it as the Apostle's, and because blessed Jerome affirms it in the epistle to Dardanus, and also because all who expound the canon number this epistle with the rest of Paul's: as Origen (in Eusebius book 6 chapter 18 of the History), and Eusebius himself book 3 chapter 3, Gregory Nazianzen in his poem on the canon of Scripture, Athanasius in the Synopsis, Epiphanius heresy 76, and Damascene book 4 chapter 18.
Fifthly, it was received also by all the Latins after Lactantius. For Tertullian alone, Cyprian, Lactantius, and Arnobius seem not to acknowledge this epistle, since they never cite it, so far as I know; but Hilary book 12 On the Trinity, Ambrose book 2 On Cain chapter 2, Jerome in the epistle to Dardanus On the Land of promise, Augustine book 2 On Christian Doctrine chapter 8, and Rufinus on the Creed, and all the rest thereafter acknowledge it as Paul's, and most frequently cite it. Philastrius indeed, in his Catalogue of heresies, did not hesitate to number among the heretics those who either reject this epistle or deny it to be Paul's. But the doubt of two or three Latins ought not to be set before the most certain confession of all the rest.
Sixthly, blessed Peter seems to make mention of this epistle. For Peter wrote his former epistle to the Hebrews dispersed among the Gentiles, as is plain from the title, and as Oecumenius teaches, and as Erasmus himself contends at the beginning of his Annotations on this epistle; and his latter epistle he wrote to the same, as is gathered from those words of chapter 3: This second epistle, dearly beloved, I write to you. And in the same chapter he afterward subjoins: As also our most dear brother Paul hath written to you. Paul therefore, by Peter's testimony, wrote some epistle to the Hebrews.
Lastly, this epistle, by the consent of all Catholics, is either Paul's, or Luke's, or Barnabas's, or Clement the Roman's, or at least Tertullian's. But it cannot be Tertullian's, since Clement of Alexandria, who was somewhat more ancient than Tertullian, affirms this epistle to be Paul's (in Eusebius book 6 of the History chapter 11); and further, since Tertullian himself thought this epistle to be Barnabas's, as Jerome teaches in the book On Illustrious Men, in Paul. Neither can it be Clement the Roman's, since Clement himself cited it as the Apostle Paul's in a certain epistle of his to the Corinthians, as Eusebius relates book 3 chapter 38; and finally, since at the end of this epistle the author says: “But I beseech you the more to do this, that I may be the more speedily restored to you.” For these words can in no way suit Clement, who, being the Roman Bishop, was to dwell not in Judaea but at Rome. From which it appears how ineptly Erasmus, at the end of his annotations on this epistle, tries to make Clement its author. Finally, that the epistle is neither Luke's nor Barnabas's, nor at all any other's than Paul's, the arguments brought forward above sufficiently prove; but even when it should be either Luke's or Barnabas's, it would be an apostolic man's, and ought not to lack apostolic authority.
But against this epistle the Centuriators of Magdeburg bring five arguments, in which they embrace together the arguments of Luther and Erasmus. The first is: because prudent Antiquity doubted of this epistle. I answer: it is ineptly said that Antiquity doubted of this epistle, since they can bring forward only one Caius among the Greeks, and two or three among the Latins, while we, on the contrary, have for us so many Pontiffs, so many Councils, all the Greeks (one excepted), and all the Latins (three or four excepted). And if the matter be of antiquity, not of multitude, Clement of Rome is more ancient than Caius, and Clement of Alexandria than Tertullian, and Dionysius the Areopagite than both, who nevertheless cites this epistle under Paul's name in the epistle to Titus.
The second argument is: because it has not, prefixed at the beginning, the name of Paul, as all the other epistles have — although they themselves confess in the same place that this argument is not so very weighty. I answer with Jerome, Preface to the epistles of blessed Paul: if it be not Paul's because it has not Paul's name prefixed, then it is no one's, because it has no one's name. And what of this, that the first epistle of John has not his name prefixed, and yet it is in no way doubted to be John's? And on the contrary, certain Gospels bear the name of Thomas, Bartholomew, James, and Nicodemus, and yet are by all, and not undeservedly, rejected.
I add moreover that for just causes Paul did not add his name to this epistle. For either he did it (as Jerome there teaches) because he knew his name was hateful to the Hebrews, though already converted to the faith, for this reason, that he above the rest most keenly disputed that the old Law was abrogated, of which Law they were still zealous, Acts 21; or (as the same Jerome teaches on chapter 1 to the Galatians) because in this epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 3, he was about to say that Christ is the Apostle of our confession, he was unwilling at the beginning to name himself, after his wonted manner, Paul an Apostle, lest he should seem in any part to compare himself with Christ; or lastly (as Theodoret teaches in the Preface of his Commentary on this epistle) because Paul was not the Apostle of the Hebrews but of the Gentiles, as he himself confesses Galatians 2, he was unwilling to begin after his wonted manner “Paul an Apostle,” but to set forth the bare doctrine, not as an Apostle and Master, but as a friend and companion. Wherefore at the end of the epistle he puts: And I beseech you, brethren, that you suffer this word of consolation; for I have written to you in few words — as if he would say: take it not ill, if I, who am not your proper Apostle, have wished by letters to admonish and exhort you. For I have done this that I might console you, not that I might command. All these reasons Clement of Alexandria touched, in Eusebius book 2 of the History chapter 11.
The third argument they take from the diversity of style, since indeed the discourse of this epistle is far graver, richer, and more ornate than that of the rest. Nor would he satisfy who should answer: that this epistle was written in Hebrew, and that the Apostle could speak better in his own tongue than in a foreign one, that is, in Greek. For that this epistle was not written in Hebrew, but in Greek, is plain, both from this, that testimonies are cited in it according to the version of the Seventy, and also because the author of the epistle in chapter 7 interprets the Hebrew name Melchisedech, that is, King of justice, and King of Salem, that is, King of peace — which he would not do if he were speaking in Hebrew.
Some answer: that this epistle was written first not in Hebrew but in Greek, and that the sentences indeed are Paul's, but the words Luke's or Clement's, whom Paul used as an interpreter and scribe; and that therefore this epistle is more ornate than the rest are, because the discourse of this epistle was composed not by Paul, as of the others, but by another more eloquent man. So Origen, in Eusebius book 6 chapter 18. Others think that this epistle was first written in Hebrew, and then translated into the Greek tongue by Luke or by Clement. So answers Eusebius book 3 of the History chapter 30, and Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius book 6 chapter 11. Nor does the interpretation contradict this answer: for the Apostle does not interpret the Hebrew name Melchisedech in Greek, but in Hebrew, that from the etymology and force of the name he may prove something. Just as if one should say in Latin, homicidium is the slaying of a man, and in Greek [the corresponding term] is [of God]; so in Hebrew [Hebrew garbled in the scan] is [King of justice] — although if the interpreter had added the interpretation it would not be absurd, as in Exodus 12, For it is the Phase, that is, the passage of the Lord, which interpretation is not had in the Hebrew; and Matthew 27, Eli, Eli, etc., that is, My God, my God, etc. Nor does that objection about the Scriptures cited according to the version of the Seventy stand in the way: for the Apostle, if he wrote in Hebrew, brought forward the testimonies from the Hebrew source; yet the Greek interpreter wished so to render those words cited by Paul as the Seventy had before rendered those same words, lest he should bring anything new to Greek ears. Nor is this new; for how many testimonies in the Hebrew tongue did the same Apostle bring forward in the sermon which he made in the synagogue of Antioch? and yet Luke reported them all, Acts 13, according to the version of the Seventy. Of these two solutions, although each is probable, yet the former seems both simpler and readier.
The fourth argument, on which the Magdeburgers chiefly rely, is of this sort: The author of this epistle, in chapter 2, places himself in the number of those who were converted to the Faith by the Apostles, for he says: How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders, etc. But Paul, Galatians 1, gravely affirms that he learned the Gospel not from man, nor by man, but from Christ by revelation; therefore Paul is not the author of this epistle.
I answer first: that blessed Paul says these things not of himself, but of the men of his time, just as Isaiah chapter 64, in the person of the people, says: We are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman; there is none that calleth upon thy name, that riseth up and taketh hold of thee, etc. — in which place it is plain that Isaiah is not speaking of himself, since in the same passage he calls upon God in a long prayer. I add moreover that it is not absurd if Paul places himself in the number of those who were confirmed by the Apostles; for here he treats not of confirmation by doctrine, but by miracles: for he says that salvation, that is, the preaching of salvation, was confirmed by the Apostles, God bearing witness by signs and wonders. And who can deny that Paul, when he was converted, although he learned the Gospel most fully by revelation, was nevertheless confirmed in the Faith by the miracles of Peter and the other Apostles that he heard of, and especially by that miracle whereby he himself received the light of his eyes by the hands of Ananias?
The fifth argument: the author of this epistle fights with the doctrine of the Lord; for the Lord says, Matthew 11, Come to me, all; but this author excludes those who have once sinned, for thus he speaks, chapter 6: It is impossible for those who were once illuminated to be renewed again to penance. And chapter 10 he affirms that there is left no sacrifice for sin to those who sin wilfully after having received the knowledge of the truth. And chapter 12, that Esau found no place of penance.
I answer: that these places no more fight with that Come to me, all, than do the words of the Lord, Matthew 12, where he says that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. For the Apostle speaks not of any sinner whatsoever, but of him who sins against the Holy Ghost, that is, who wilfully assails the known and examined truth.
Further, such sins are called irremissible for three causes. First, because for the most part such men are not converted, nor are such sins forgiven, although absolutely the contrary can happen, and sometimes in fact does happen: as in bodily diseases, we call those incurable which for the most part are not cured, though sometimes they are cured; and we call those curable which for the most part are cured, though sometimes they are not. Secondly, because those who sin against the Holy Ghost directly resist grace, by which alone they could be cured; just as one who cannot be healed except by the opening of a vein, and in no way admits this remedy, the physician rightly pronounces of him that it cannot be that he should be healed — nor yet is it thereby denied that some most wise physician might persuade the sick man to admit the opening of the vein. Thirdly, he who sins from malice has nothing in himself whereby he may merit remission, and therefore his sin is called irremissible, although absolutely it can be remitted. But he who sins from ignorance or infirmity has something whereby he may provoke the mercy of God, according to that of the Apostle 1 Timothy 1: I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
And this answer indeed seems sufficient to take away the difficulty which arose from the former places. Another also can be applied. For the former place, which is had Hebrews 6, many and almost all expound — as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Anselm, Sedulius, and others on this place, and also Augustine at the end of the unfinished Exposition on the epistle to the Romans — of the renewal to penance which is in Baptism, not of that which is in reconciliation after Baptism. For that blessed Paul here speaks of Baptism, those words sufficiently indicate: Not laying again the foundation of penance, of faith, of baptisms, etc., and those: Those who were once illuminated. For in Dionysius chapter 2 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and in other of the ancients, Baptism is called illumination, because it is the Sacrament of Faith. And those words renewed again: for, as Augustine in the cited place teaches, by Baptism we are properly renewed, by reconciliation we are cured. Finally those words crucifying again the Son of God: for in Baptism we represent the death and burial of Christ, as is said Romans 7; and as Christ died but once, so also we can be baptized but once. Blessed Paul therefore disputes against the deserters of the Faith, and teaches that no one ought to hope that, after Baptism received in the Church, he can lay elsewhere another foundation and find another Baptism; for that is impossible, since there is but one true Baptism, and it cannot be repeated. The second place has the same sense. For truly to those sinning wilfully, that is, departing from the already known and received truth of the Faith, there is left no sacrifice for sin; not because there is no place of penance, but because there is no truly efficacious sacrifice except the death of Christ, which by their apostasy they despise. For no other Christ can be found, nor another Baptism, in which his death is represented.
To that from chapter 12 I say: Esau found no place of penance in two ways: in one way with his father, because the thing lost was irrecoverable; in another way with God, because he did not rightly do penance, as Chrysostom expounds this place. The Apostle therefore, wishing to deter men from falling, proposes the uncertain issue of penance. For as Esau could not recover his inheritance, because it was irrecoverable, so a sinner cannot recover innocence, virginity, and the like; and as Esau did not rightly do penance, although he wept, and therefore did not appease God, so often sinners seem to do penance, and yet do not appease God, because they do not do penance as they ought.
The sixth argument is Cajetan's, in his commentary on this epistle. The author of this epistle proves in chapter 1 that Christ is the Son of God from those words in the book of 2 Kings chapter 7, I will be to him a Father; and these words are understood literally of Solomon, and firm arguments are drawn only from the literal sense; therefore either this author is not Paul, or Paul does not argue solidly.
I answer: that the Apostle argues similarly Romans 10 and 1 Corinthians 9, and yet it cannot be said either that these epistles are not Paul's, or that Paul does not argue solidly. The Apostle's argument therefore is most strong for this reason, that those to whom he writes admitted that Solomon bore the type of Christ, nor could they deny this, as blessed Augustine proves book On the Unity of the Church chapter 8. For both in 2 Kings 7 and in Psalm 71 many things are said of Solomon which suit him only as he was a figure of Christ — as that: I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever; and that: He shall rule from sea to sea, and all kings of the earth shall adore him, all nations shall serve him, etc.
The seventh argument is the same Cajetan's. In Hebrews 9 the author says that there was in the Ark the urn holding manna, and the rod of Aaron that had budded, and the tables of the Law; but in 3 Kings chapter 8 only the tables are reported to have been in the Ark; therefore either Paul lies, or the author of this epistle is not Paul.
I answer: that in the time of Solomon there was nothing in the Ark but the tables of the Law, as is said 3 Kings 8; yet afterward the urn and the rod also were placed within the Ark by the Jews, which Paul could know by tradition. So Theophylact solves it, who also admonishes that the Hebrews of his time held this. Add that the author of the book of Kings, when he says, But in the Ark there was nothing else but the two tables, seems to intimate that in his own time there was something else which was not in the time of Solomon; for he seems to have wished to say: although now certain other things are in the Ark besides the tables of the Law, yet at the time when the Ark was brought into the Temple by Solomon, there was nothing in it besides the two tables. And what if also, as some will have it, the urn and the rod were in some outer part of the Ark, not within the Ark itself?
The last argument is Erasmus's and Cajetan's. The author of this epistle in chapter 9, speaking of a Testament properly so called, which is confirmed by the death of the testator, alleges the words of Exodus 24: This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you. But in Exodus, according to the Hebrew truth, no mention is made of a testament, but of a covenant; for those words of Exodus 24 [Hebrew garbled in the scan] have no other sense than this: Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you upon all these words; therefore either Paul did not know the Hebrew tongue, or the author of this epistle is not Paul.
I answer: either the question is of the thing, or of the name. If of the name, Erasmus unjustly accuses this author; for not only this author, but also the Seventy Interpreters, perpetually render the word [berith] by [diathēkē], that is, Testament, as is plain from the Psalms which we have from the version of the Seventy, and from Jerome on chapter 2 of Malachi, where he affirms that the Seventy almost always rendered it Testament. And the Apostle Paul, Romans 9, Galatians 3 and 4, and elsewhere, speaking of the old Law, always calls Testament that which the Hebrews call [berith]; indeed this word Testament is so worn for the Hebrew term in the Church that we say or hear nothing more frequently than the Old Testament and the New Testament.
But if the question is not of the name, but of the thing — as though the author of this epistle had wrested to a Testament properly so called this place of Exodus, in which a covenant is treated of — it must be answered: that the promise of eternal life, which is treated of by figures in the Old Testament and openly in the New, is at once both Testament and covenant. A Testament, because it contains a disposition concerning the eternal inheritance to be given to the sons of God, which was not ratified before the death of the testator; for a testament is a disposition concerning an inheritance, which is not ratified before the testator dies. But that promise of God is at the same time a covenant, because it has an annexed condition; for God the testator does not will to give the eternal inheritance except to those who have observed his laws, and for this reason it is called a covenant and pact. Now therefore Moses in Exodus 24 and Paul in Hebrews 9 speak of the same thing; and Moses indeed calls it a covenant, but understands not any covenant whatsoever, but a covenant concerning the giving of the inheritance after the death of the testator, and therefore he sprinkled the blood upon the people, which is a figure of the blood of Christ to be shed for us. But Paul calls it a Testament, yet understands of a testament not of any kind whatsoever, but a conditioned one, that is, which is at the same time a covenant.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVII. De epistola ad Hebrceos. Duplex dubitatio de hac epistola fuit, una de auctore, altera de auctoritate ejus , quae tamen ita connexae sunt, ut pauci sint, qui de uno dubitaverint , et non de altero . Pri¬ mum igitur ex antiquis haereticis Marcion, teste Hier. Praef. in epist. ad Titum ; et Arius, (l)Cap.V. 7. CAPUT XVII. 105 teste Teodoreto Prsefatione in epist ad He¬ braeos, epistolum ad Hebraeos neque Pauli esse, neque sacram docebant. Ex novis hae¬ reticis Lutherus in Prologo epist. ad Hebraeos hanc epistolam nec esse Pauli, nec ullius Apostoli contendit quod quaedam contineat contra Evangelicam et Apostolicam doctri¬ nam. Luthero subscribit Brentius inConfess. Wittemberg. c. de sacra Scriptura, et Kem- nitius in examine 1Y. sess. Cone. Trident. Magdeburgenses quoque cent. l.lib.II.cap. 4. coi. 55. et alii hujus temporis haeretici, exceptis Calvinistis ; Calvinus enim in Instit. impressa anno 1554. cap. VIII. §. 216. con¬ tendit, hanc epistolam esse vere Apostoli¬ cam, et errare in hac parte Lutheranos : ta¬ men an Pauli sit, an alterius Apostoli, ut Barnabae, aut Lucae, dubitat Calvinus, ut pa¬ tet ex eadem Instit. c.X. §. 83. et cap. XVI. §.25. quocirca Ministri Calvinistae in ea Con¬ fessione quam obtulerunt Pissiaci art. 3., ponunt hanc epistolam» in numerum divina¬ rum Scripturarum, sed tanquam auctoris in¬ certi. Praeter hos manifestos haereticos, Catholi¬ cos etiam quosdam, ct praesertim Latinos de auctore hujus epistolae dubitasse, et propte- rea eam minoris fecisse , testis est Eusebius lib. III. hist. c. 3. necnon B. Hieronymus in lib. de Viris illustribus in Paulo, ubi dicit : hanc epistolam a quibusdam Latinorum ne¬ gari esse Pauli, sed vel Barnabae , vel Lucae, vel Clementis Romani Pontificis. At Sixtus Senens, lib. VII. Bibliothecae sanctae, a qui¬ busdam etiam attribui Tertulliano. Nostris temporibus Erasinus ad finem annotationum in hanc epistolam, et Cajetanus ad initium Commentariorum in eamdem epistolam , quaestionem jam olim sopitam iterum revo¬ carunt in lucem. Verum hanc epistolam et canonicam esse, et Pauli Apostoli, facile probari po¬ test. Primum, quoniam nomine Apostoli Pauli legitur in Ecclesia in die Natalis Do¬ mini et alias frequenter. Secundo, quia producta in testimonium ac recepta est ut Pauli a multis antiquissimis Pontificibus, ut Clemente I. in epist. ad Corinthios apud Eusebium lib. III. c. 38. Innocentio. I. in epist. 3. ad Exuperium, Gelasio. I. in Con¬ cilio Episcoporum LXX. Tertio, quia ponitur in canone sacrarum Scripturarum nomine Pauli a Concilio Laodiceno can. 59. Car- thag. III. can. 47. et Trident. sess. IV. et agnoscitur etiam ut Pauli a Nicaeno. I. teste B. Thoma in hanc epistolam : ab Ephesino I. et Chalcedonensi approbantibus duode¬ cim capitula Cyrilli, quorum decimum tale est : « Pontificem et Apostolum confessionis nostrae factum esse Christum, divina Scrip¬ tura commemorat, etc., » etiam ab Arausi- cano. II. canone ultim., ubi et Apostoli, et divina Scriptura esse dicitur. Quarto, quoniam recepta fuit semper ab omnibus Graecis Patribus, ut patet, tum quia omnes eam ut Apostoli citant, tum quia B. Hieronymus in epist. ad Dardanum id affirmat, tum etiam quia omnes qui ca- nonem exponunt, hanc epistolam cum ce¬ teris Paulinis numerant, ut Origenes apud Eusebium lib. VI. cap. 18. histor. et ipse Eu¬ sebius lib. III. cap. 3. Gregorius Nazianzenus in carmine de canone Scripturae, Athanasius in Synopsi, Epiphanius heeres. 76. Damas¬ cenus lib. IV. cap. 18. Quinto, recepta fuit etiam ab omnibus Latinis post Lactantium. Soli enim Tertul¬ lianus , Cyprianus , Lactantius , Arnobius hanc epistolam non videntur agnoscere; nec enim eam unquam citant, quod sciam : at * Hilarius lib, XII. de Trinit. Ambrosius lib. II. de Cain cap. 2 Hieron. in epist. ad Darda¬ num de Terra promissionis, August. lib. II. Doctr . Christ. cap. 8. et Ruffinus in Sym¬ bolum, et alii deinceps omnes eam ut Pau- 1 in am agnoscunt, et frequentissime citant. Philastrius vero in Catalogo haeresum, inter haereticos numerare non dubitavit, qui eam epistolam vel rejiciunt, vel Pauli esse ne¬ gant. Non autem debet duorum aut trium Latinorum dubitatio anteponi certissimae confessioni omnium aliorum. Sexto, videtur B. Petrus hujus epistolae mentionem facere; Petrus enim priorem epistolam scripsit ad Hebreeos inter Gentes dispersos, ut patet ex titulo, utque OEcume- nius docet, et ipse etiam Erasmus ad initium Annotationum in hanc epistol. contendit : posteriorem ad eosdem scripsit, ut colligi¬ tur ex illis verbis cap. III. Hanc vobis , caris¬ simi, secundam scribo epistolam. In eodem autem capite postea subjungit : Sicut et ca¬ rissimus frater noster Paulus scripsit vobis (1). Scripsit igitur Paulus, Petro teste, epistolam aliquam ad Hebraeos. Postremo, epistola haec Catholicorum ora¬ ti) Cap. 111, 1 . et 15. 106 LIBER I. nium consensu, vel est Pauli, vel Lucse, vel Barnabae, vel Clementis Romani, vel certe Tertulliani : sed Tertulliani esse non potest, cum Clemens Alexandrinus, qui ali¬ quanto antiquior Tertulliano fuit, affirmet hanc epistolam esse Pauli, apud Eusebium lib. YI. histor. cap 11. Quid, quod ipse Ter¬ tullianus hanc epistolam Barnabse esse pu¬ tavit, ut Hieronymus docet lib. de viris il- lust. in Paulo ? Neque etiam esse potest Clementis Romani, cum ipse Clemens eam citaverit tanquam Apostoli Pauli in quadam sua epistola ad Corinthios, ut Eusebius re¬ fert lib. III. hist. cap. 38. ac demum cum in fine hujus epistolae auctor dicat: « Amplius autem deprecor vos hoc facere, quo celerius restituar vobis. » Ista enim verba nullo modo Clementi convenire possunt, qui cum esset Episcopus Romanus, non in Judaea, sed Ro¬ mae habitaturus erat. Ex quibus apparet, quam inepte Erasmus ad finem annotatio¬ num in hanc epistolam ejus auctorem Cle¬ mentem facere conetur. Denique, nec Lucae, nec Barnabae epistolam esse, nec alterius omnino quam Pauli, satis probant argu¬ menta supra allata : sed quando etiam aut • Lucae, aut Barnabae esset, Apostolici viri esset, nec Apostolica auctoritate carere de¬ beret. At contra hanc epistolam quinque argu¬ menta proferunt Magdeburgenses, quibus argumenta Lutheri et Erasmi simul com¬ plectuntur. Primum est, quia prudens Ve¬ tustas de hac epistola dubitavit. Respondeo : inepte dici Vetustatem de hac epistola du¬ bitasse, cum unum solum Caium ex Gramis, et duos vel tres ex Latinis proferre possint, et nos contra tot Pontifices, tot Concilia, omnes Graecos, uno excepto, et omnes La¬ tinos, tribus vel quatuor exceptis, pro nobis habeamus. Et si de antiquitate, non de mul¬ titudine agatur, antiquior est Clemens Ro¬ manus Caio, et Clemens Alexandrinus Ter¬ tulliano, et Dionysius Areopagita utroque, qui tamen hanc epistolam Pauli nomine citat in epistolam ad Titum. Secundum argumentum est, quia non ha¬ bet adjectum initio nomen Pauli, ut habent omnes alite epistola! ; quamquam hoc argu¬ mentum fatentur ipsi ibidem non esse usque adeo grave. Respondeo cum Hieronymo Preefat. in epistol. Beati Pauli: si ideo non est Pauli, quia non habet praefixum nomen Pauli; nullius esse, quia nullius habet no¬ men. Quid, quod epistola prima Joannis non habet ejus nomen praefixum, et tamen Joan¬ nis esse minime dubitatur? Et contra, Evan- gelia quaedam Thomse,Bartholom8ei, Jacobi, Nicodemi nomen praeferunt, et ab omnibus tamen nec immerito rejiciuntur. Addo praeterea, justis de causis nomen suum huic epistolae Paulum non addidisse. Vel enim id fecit, ut ibidem Hieronymus docet, quia sciebat, nomen suum invisum Hebraeis esse quamvis ad fidem jam conver¬ sis, propterea quod ipse prae caiteris Legem veterem esse abrogatam acerrime disputa¬ bat, cujus Legis illi adhuc aemulatores erant, Act. XXL Vel, ut idem Hieronymus docet in cap. I. ad Galatas, quia in hac epist. ad Hebraeos cap. III. dicturus erat, Christum esse Apostolum confessionis nostra!, noluit initio se more solito Paulum Apostolum no¬ minare, ne videretur, se cum Christo aliqua exparte conferre. Vel denique, ut Theodo- retus Praefat. Commentar, in hanc episto¬ lam docet, quia Paulus non erat Apostolus Hebraeorum sed Gentium, ut ipse fatetur Galat. II., noluit more solito incipere Pau¬ lus Apostolus, sed nudam doctrinam expo¬ nere, non quasi Apostolus et Magister, sed ut amicus et socius. Quocirca in fine epistolae ponit: Rogo autem vos fratres, ut sufferatis verbum solatii , etenim perpaucis scripsi vo¬ bis etc. (1), quasi dicere velit : non aegre feratis, si ego qui proprius Apostolus vester non sum, per litteras vos monere et cohor¬ tari volui. Id enim feci ut vos consolarer, non ut imperarem. Has omnes rationes at¬ tigit Clemens Alexandrinus apud Euseb. lib. II, hist. cap. 11. Tertium argumentum sumunt a diversi¬ tate styli, siquidem oratio hujus epistola! longe gravior, copiosior, ornatior est, quam caeterarum. Neque satisfaceret qui respon¬ deret : hanc epistolam esse scriptam He¬ braice, et Apostolum propria lingua melius loqui potuisse quam aliena, id est, Graeca. Nam epistolam hanc non Hebraice scriptam esse, sed Graece patet, tum ex eo quod ci¬ tantur in hac epistola testimonia secundum versionem LXX, tum etiam quia auctor epistolae cap. VII. interpretatur nomen He¬ braicum Melchisedech, id est, Rex justitiae ; et Rex Salem, id est, Rex pacis, quod non faceret si Hebraice loqueretur. (1) Heb. XUl, 22. CAPUT XVII. 107 Respondent aliqui : hanc epistolam non Hebraice sed Graece primum esse scriptam, et quidem sententias Pauli esse, verba au¬ tem Lucae, aut Clementis, qno tanquam in¬ terprete et Scriba Paulus usus sit. Et ideo epistolam hanc esse magis ornatam quam caeteree sint, quia sermo hujus epistolae, non a Paulo ut caeterarum, sed ab alio magis di¬ serto compositus sit. Ita Origenes apud Eu- sebium lib. VI. c. 18. Alii existimant, episto¬ lam hanc Hebraice primum esse scraptam, ac deinde translatam in Graecum sermonem a Luca, vel a Clemente. Ita respondet Eu- sebius lib. III. histor. cap. 30, et Clemens Alexandrinus apud Eusebium, lib. VI. cap. 11. Neque repugnat huic responsioni inter¬ pretatio : non enim Apostolus interpretatur Melchisedech nomen Hebraicum Graece, sed Hebraice, ut ex etymologia et vi nominis aliquid probet. Quemadmodum si Latine quis dicat homicidium, est hominis caedes : et Graece AwpoSsoj est @sov. Ita Hebraice piy wVo est -pu p"iy : quanquam si inter¬ pres addidisset interpretationem non esset absurdum ; ut Exod. XII. Est enim phase , id est, transitus Domini (1), quae interpreta¬ tio non habetur in Hebraeo, et Matth. XXVII. Eli , eli etc. id est, Deus meus, Deus meus, etc. (2) Neque illud obstat de Scripturis cita¬ tis secundum versionem LXX : Apostolus enim si Hebraicum scripsit, ex Hebraeo fonte testimonia protulit ; tamen interpres Graecus ea verba a Paulo citata ita vertere voluit, ut antea verterant illa eadem LXX, ne aliquid novi Graecorum auribus inferret. Neque id est novum; quam multa enim testimonia Hebraeo sermone protulit idem Apostolus in concione, quam habuit in Synagoga Antio¬ chena ? et Lucas tamen ea omnia retulit Act. XIII. secundum versionem LXX. Ex his duabus solutionibus, tametsi utraque probabilis est, tamen prior cum simplicior, tum etiam expeditior esse videtur. Quartum argumentum, quo maxime ni¬ tuntur Magdeburgenses, ejusmodi est : Auc¬ tor hujus epistolae cap. II. ponit se in nu¬ mero eorum, qui ab Apostolis ad Fidem conversi sunt, dicit enim : Quomodo nos ef¬ fugiemus, si tantam neglexerimus salutem ? quoe cum initium accepisset enarrari, per Do¬ minum, ab eis qui audierunt in nos confirmata est, contestante Deo sighis et virtutibus , etc. (3) AI Paulus Galat. 1. graviter affirmat, se non ab homine, nec per hominem, sed a Christo per revelationem didicisse Evangelium : non igitur Paulus hujus epistolae auctor est. Respondeo primum : B. Paulum haec di¬ cere, non de se, sed de hominibus sui tempo¬ ris, quemadmodum Isaias cap. LXIV, in per¬ sona populi dicit : Facti sumus ut immundus omnes nos , et quasi pannus menstruatae uni¬ versae justitiae nostrae ; non est , qui invocet no¬ men tuum , qui consurgat, et teneat te, etc. (4), quo loco non loqui Isaiam de seipso patet, quia ibidem longa oratione Deum invocat. Addo praeterea, non esse absurdum si Pau¬ lus ponat se in numero eorum, qui ab Apos¬ tolis confirmati sunt; non enim hic agit de confirmatione per doctrinam, sed per mira¬ cula : ait enim, salutem, id est, salutis prae¬ dicationem confirmatam esse per Apostolos, contestante Deo signis et prodigiis : quis au¬ tem negare potest, Paulum quando conver¬ sus est, etsi Evangelium plenissime didicerit per revelationem, tamen confirmatum esse in Fide auditis miraculis Petri et aliorum Apostolorum, et praecipue eo miraculo, quo ipse per manus Ananiae lumen oculorum re¬ cepit? Quintum argumentum : auctor hujus epis¬ tolae pugnat cum doctrina Domini ; Domi¬ nus enim dicit, Matth. XI. Venite ad me om¬ nes (5): hic autem excludit eos qui semel pec¬ caverunt; sic enim loquitur, c. VI. Impossibile est eos qui semel sunt illuminati, rursus reno¬ vari ad poenitentiam (6). Et cap. X. affirmat, non relinqui hostiam pro peccato iis, qui volun¬ tarie peccant post acceptam notitiam veri¬ tatis. Et cap. XII. Esau non invenisselocum poenitentiae. Respondeo : non magis haec loca pugnare cum illo Venite ad me omnes, quam pugnent verba Domini, Matthaei XI, ubi dicit, Blas- phemiam in Spiritum Sanctum non remitti, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro. Apos¬ tolus enim non de quocumque peccatore lo¬ quitur, sed de eo qui peccat in Spiritum sanctum, id est, qui voluntarie oppugnat cognitam et exploratam veritatem. Porro dicuntur talia peccata irremissibilia tribus de causis. Primo, quia ut plurimum ejusmodi homines non convertuntur, nec ejusmodi peccata remittuntur, etsi absolute contrarium potest accidere, et aliquando re (1) Exod. XI, 11. — (2) Matii. XXV11, 46. — (3) Heb. II, 3. — (4) Isai. LXIV, G. — (5) Matii. XI, 28. — (6) Hebr. VI, 4. I 408 LIBER I. ipsa accidit : sicut in morbis corporalibus, eos vocamus incurabiles qui ut plurimum non curantur, etsi quandoque curentur ; et eos vocamus curabiles qui ut plurimum cu¬ rantur, etsi quandoque non curentur. Se¬ cundo, quoniam qui in Spiritum sanctum peccant, directe resistunt gratia?, qua sola curari possent, quemadmodum qui non pot¬ est sanari nisi sectione venae, et nullo modo admittit hoc remedium, recte medicus de eo pronuntiat, fieri non posse ut sanetur ; nec tamen propterea negatur, quin possit ali¬ quis sapientissimus medicus aegroto persua¬ dere ut admittat venae sectionem. Tertio, qui ex malitia peccat nihil habet in se unde remissionem mereatur, et propterea dicitur ejus peccatum irremissibile, quamvis abso¬ lute remitti possit. Qui autem peccat ex ignorantia vel infirmitate, aliquid habet unde misericordiam Dei provocet, juxta il¬ lud Apostoli I. Timoth. I. Misericordiam consecutus sum , quia ignorans feci in incre¬ dulitate (1). Atque haec quidem responsio satis esse vi¬ detur ad eam tollendam difficultatem, quae ex prioribus locis oriebatur. Potest etiam alia adhiberi. Nam priorem locum qui ha¬ betur Hebr. VI. exponunt multi ac ferme omnes, ut Chrysostomus, Theodoretus, QEcumenius , Theophylactus , Anselmus , Sedulius et alii in hunc locum, necnon Au¬ gustinus in fine exposit. inchoatae in epist. ad Roman., de renovatione ad poenitentiam quae sit in Baptismo, non ad eam quae sit in reconciliatione post Baptismum. Nam quod de Baptismo loquatur hic B. Paulus, satis indicant verba illa : Non rursum jacientes fundamentum Pcenitentice, Fidei, Baptisma¬ tum etc.et illa : Eos qui semel snnt illumi¬ nati (2). Nam apud Dionysium cap. II. Ec- clesiast. hierarch. et alios Veteres, Baptismus dicitur illuminatio, quia est Sacramentum Fidei. Et illa: Rursum renovari : nam ut Augustinus loco citato docet , per Baptis¬ mum proprie renovamur, per reconciliatio¬ nem curamur. Denique illa : Iterum cru¬ cifigentes Filium Dei : nam in Baptismo repraesentamus Christi mortem, et sepultu¬ ram, ut dicitur Roman. VII, et sicut semel tantum Christus mortuus est, ita et nos se- mei tantum baptizari possumus. Beatus Pau¬ lus igitur adversus Fidei desertores disputat ac docet, neminem sperare debere, se post Baptismum in Ecclesia susceptum alibi posse jacere aliud fundamentum, et invenire aliud Baptisma: nam id impossibile est, cum unum sit tantum verum Baptisma, et illud repeti non possit. Eumdem sensum habet secundus locus. Vere enim volontarie peccantibus , id est, recedentibus a jam cognita et suscepta Fidei veritate, non relinquitur hostia pro pec¬ cato ; non quia non est locus poenitentise, sed quia nulla est vere efficax hostia nisi mors Gtiristi, quam illi apostasia sua con¬ temnunt. Nec enim alius Christus inveniri potest, nec alius Baptismus, in quo mors ejus repraesentetur. Ad illud, ex capite XII, dico : Esau duo¬ bus modis non invenisse locum pcenitentice : uno modo apud patrem suum, quia res per¬ dita erat irrecuperabilis : altero modo apud Deum, quia non recte poenitentiam egit, ut Chrysostomus hunc locum exponit. Aposto¬ lus igitur deterrere volens homines a lapsu, proponit incertum exitum pcenitentice. Ut enim Esau non potuit recuperare hseredita- tem, quia erat irrecuperabilis, ita peccator non potest recuperare innocentiam, virgini¬ tatem, et similia : et quemadmodum Esau non recte poenitentiam egit, quamvis fleve¬ rit, et ideo Deum non placavit, ita saepe peccatores poenitentiam agere videntur, et' tamen Deum non placant, quia non agunt poenitentiam ut oportet. Argumentum sextum est Cajetani in com¬ mentario hujus epistolae. Auctor hujus epi¬ stola? probat cap. I. Christum esse Filium Dei ex illis verbis libro IIReg. cap. VII. Ego ero illi in Patrem (3) : et ha?c verba intelli- guntur ad litteram de Salomone, et solum ex litterali sensu sumuntur argumenta firma; igitur vel iste auctor non est Paulus, vel Paulus non solide argumentatur. Respondeo : similiter argumentari Apo¬ stolum Roman. X, et I. Corinth. IX, nec tamen posse dici, aut non esse Pauli eas epis¬ tolas, aut Paulum non solide argumentari. Argumentum igitur Apostoli ideo fortissimum est, quoniam illi ad quos scribit admitte¬ bant, Salomonem typum Christi gessisse, nec poterant hoc negare, ut B. Augustinus probat libro De unit. Ecclesice cap. VIII. Nam et II Reg. VII. et Ps. LXXI. dicuntur multa de Salomone, quae ei non conveniunt nisi ut figura erat Christi. Ut illud : Stabiliam thro¬ num regni ejus usque in sempiternum. Et illud : (1) I. Tim. I, 13. — (2) Hebr. VI, 1. et 6. — (3) Hebr. I, 5. CAPUT XVIII. 109 Dominabitur a mari usque ad mare : et adora¬ bunt eum omnes Reges terrae , omnes gentes ser¬ vient ei , etc. (1). Argumentum septimum ejusdem Cajetani est. Ad Hebr. IX. dicit auctor, fuisse in Arca urnam habentem manna, et virgam Aaroh quas fronduerat, et tabulas Legis : sed lib. III Reg. cap. VIII. solee tabulae referuntur fuisse in Arca ; igitur aut mentitur Paulus, aut hujus epistolae auctor non est Paulus. Respondeo : tempore Salomonis non fuisse in Arca aliud quam tabulas Legis, ut dicitur III Reg. VIII. , tamen postea a Judaeis positas intra Arcam etiam urnam et virgam ; id quod Paulus ex traditione scire potuit. Ita solvit Theophylactus, qui etiam monet, He¬ braeos sui temporis id sensisse. Adde quod auctor libri Regum cum dicit : In Arca autem nihil erat aliud nisi duce tabulce (2), videtur innuere, suo tempore fuisse aliquid aliud, quod non erat tempore Salomonis : videtur enim dicere voluisse, etsi nunc alia quaedam sint in Arca praeter tabulas Legis ; tamen quo tempore Arca in Templum a Salomone adducta est, nihil in ea erat praeter duas ta¬ bulas. Quid si etiam, ut quidam volunt, ur¬ na et virga in parte aliqua exteriore Arcae, non intra ipsam Arcam fuerint? Argumentum postremum Erasmi et Caje¬ tani est. Auctor hujus epistolae cap. IX. lo- quens de Testamento proprie dicto, quod morte testatoris confirmatur, allegat verba Exod. XXIV : Hic est sanguis foederis , quod pepigit Dominus vobiscum (3); atqui in Exodo secundum Hebraicam veritatem nulla fit mentio Testamenti , sed pacti ; illa enim verba Exod, XXIV, 'rnan mimn -a Dsiajr nVro rns 'itoK nmnn?] fun non habent alium sensum quam istum : Ecce sanguis foederis , quod pepigit Dominus vobiscum super omnibus verbis istis ; igitur aut Paulus non tenebat Hebraicam linguam , aut hujus epistolae auctor non est Paulus. Respondeo : vel est quaestio de re, vel de nomine ; si de nomine , injuste Erasmus hunc auctorem accusat ; nam non solum iste auctor, sed etiam LXX. Interpretes vo¬ cem 'ni"p perpetuo vertunt Sia&fawv, id est, Testamentum, ut patet ex Psalmis quos ex versionc LXX habemus, et Hieronymo in c. II. Malachise, ubi affirmat LXX, semperfere vertisse Testamentum. Et Apostolus Pau¬ lus Roman. IX, Galat. III et IV, et alibi loquens de Lege veteri, semper Testamen¬ tum vocat id quod Hebraei dicunt nyrp ; im- mo adeo trita est in Ecclesia haec vox Testa¬ mentum pro Hebraica ut nihil frequen¬ tius dicamus, vel audiamus, quam Testa¬ mentum vetus et Testamentum novum. Si autem non de nomine, sed de re quae¬ stio est, quasi auctor hujus epistolae ad Te¬ stamentum proprie dictum detorserit hunc locum Exodi, in quo agitur de foedere, res¬ pondendum est : promissionem vitae aeter¬ nae, de qua per figuras in Testamento veteri, et aperte in novo agitur, esse simul Testa¬ mentum et pactum .- Testamentum, quia continet dispositionem de haereditate aeterna danda filiis Dei, quae non fuit rata ante mor¬ tem testatoris ; testamentum enim est dispo¬ sitio de haereditate, quae non prius rata est quam testator moriatur : est autem simul pactum illa Dei promissio, quia habet anne¬ xam conditionem; non enim vult testator Deus dare haereditatem aeternam nisi iis qui leges suas observaverint, et hac ratione di¬ citur foedus et pactum. Jam ergo de eadem re loquitur Moyses Exod. XXI V. et Paulus Hebr. IX. et Moyses quidem vocat pactum, sed intelligit non quodcunque pactum, sed pactum de danda haereditate post mortem testatoris, et propterea sanguinem aspersit in populum, qui figura est sanguinis Christi pro nobis effundendi : Paulus autem vocat Testamentum, sed intelligit de testamento non qualicumque, sed conditionato, id est, quod simul sit pactum.