Journal of Theological Interpretation 3.

2 (2009) 261-279

Reformation Responses to Novatianism:

i6th-Century Interpretations of
Hebrews 6:4-6

DEREK COOPER
BIBLICAL SEMINARY

Abstract — The text of Heb 6:4-6 has posed an ongoing problem for
Christian exegetes throughout the history of the church. Ever since the
Novatian heresy in the 3rd century, interpreters have offered a number of
responses to this difficult pericope. Although precriticai interpreters
agreed that Novatian's exegesis was insufficient, they differed noticeably
in their actual exposition of the passage. This is especially the case with
16th-century interpreters of this passage. Erasmus of Rotterdam, Martin
Luther, and John Calvin, though all trained in humanism, came to re-
markably different conclusions based on their hermeneutical approaches.
Erasmus, armed with humanism but still a loyal supporter of Rome, could
at once reject Pauline authorship while simultaneously relying on the tra-
dition to solve the exegetical dilemma. Luther, who lectured on the
epistle early in his career and subsequently relegated it to the four letters
of the N T of "a different reputation," used the results of humanist exege-
sis but coupled them with his single-minded theology of God's mercy to
reject Pauline authorship, thereby reading and using Hebrews selectively.
Calvin, in a splendid example of what might be termed 16th-century ca-
nonical criticism, accepted the premise of authorship that Erasmus and
Luther espoused yet assertively claimed the book to be canonical and in-
terpreted the section through the lens of election and reprobation.
Key Words — Heb 6:4-6, precriticai exegesis, canon, humanism, 16th century,
Erasmus of Rotterdam, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Novatian(ism)

T h e text of H e b 6:4-6 has posed an ongoing problem for Christian ex-

egetes throughout t h e history of the church. Ever since the Novatian her-
esy 1 in t h e 3rd century, interpreters have offered a number of responses to

1. Novatian (fl. 235-58), a disciple of Tertullian, was a Roman presbyter who set up a
schismatic sect within the church. He argued that Christians who lapsed in the midst of the
great persecutions of Decius and Valerian in the mid~3rd century should not be readmitted
262 Journal of Theological Interpretation $.2 (200p)

this difficult pericope. Although precriticai interpreters agreed that Nova-

tian's exegesis was insufficient, they differed noticeably in their actual ex-
position of the passage. Kenneth Hagen identifies four interpretations of
this text throughout the exegetical tradition. 2 (1) Chrysostom and Tho-
mas, representing the most dominant view, argued that the term repentance
in Heb 6:4-6 signifies "baptism," thereby denying the possibility of rebap-
tism. (2) Other interpreters held that the passage denies any possibility of
repentance after this life, an interpretation that may reflect a tacit critique
of Origen's dissenting theological views concerning the state and fate of
humanity in the afterlife. (3) Pseudo-Hugh of St. Victor argued during the
13th century that "'those who have fallen away' refers to those who have
sinned against the Holy Spirit and, therefore, have no second chance for
repentance." (4) Finally, Nicholas of Lyra conjectured in the middle of the
14th century that the term impossible means "difficult," thus allowing for
"the possibility of second repentance."3
In the 16th century, however, a confluence of historical and theologi-
cal circumstances changed the way theologians approached the biblical
text. For the first time in hundreds of years, interpreters began question-
ing Pauline authorship anew (which medieval commentators carefully af-
firmed) as well as requestioning the canonicity of Hebrews (which medi-
eval commentators confidently asserted). Erasmus, Martin Luther, and
John Calvin particularly illustrate this change in biblical interpretation
during the 16th century; though all trained in humanism, they came to re-
markably different conclusions based on their hermeneutical approaches.
Erasmus, armed with humanism but still a loyal supporter of Rome,
promptly rejected Pauline authorship while simultaneously relying on the
tradition to solve the exegetical dilemma. Martin Luther, who lectured on
the epistle early in his career and subsequently relegated it to one of the
four letters in the N T of "a different reputation [eyn ander ansehen gehabt]'''4

into the church—a strict position that he held and based on Heb 6:4-6. The Novatianists,
and others who were concerned about what to do with baptized Christians who had lapsed,
sporadically divided the Western church throughout its history.
2. Kenneth Hagen, Hebrews Commenting from Erasmus to Bèze 1516-1598 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1981), 12.
3. Ibid.
4. Luthers Works (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann; American ed.; 55 vols.; St.
Louis: Concordia / Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955-), 35:394 (hereafter, LW)\ Luthers Werke
(Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Die Deutsche Bibel; 12 vols.; Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883-), 7 : 344· 2-
3 (hereafter, WA Bi), 7:344.2-3. Luther's posting of the 95 Theses occurred directly in the
middle of his Lectures on Hebrews (April 1517-March 1518). It was also at this time that "Luther
altered his surname, which until then was 'Luder,' to the new form Luther," and for a time
'Eleutherius,' after the Greek In alluding to the Greek term eleutheros (free) he wished to
state that he was free of the fetters of scholastic theology" (Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther's
Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development {Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999}, 101). To add
 COOPER: Reformation Responses to Novatianism 263

used the results of humanist exegesis but coupled them with his single-
minded theology of God's mercy to reject Pauline authorship, thereby
reading and using Hebrews selectively. John Calvin, in a splendid example
of what might be termed 16th-century canonical criticism, accepted the
premise of authorship that Erasmus and Luther espoused yet vigorously
claimed the book to be canonical and interpreted the section through the
lens of election and reprobation.

ERASMUS ON HEBREWS

Erasmus published the first edition of his annotations on the N T in

1516 and his paraphrase on the Epistle to the Hebrews in January of 1521 .*
The annotations contained his condiments on Scripture and, from 1519
onward, his personal Latin translation of the Greek—both of which were
designed to supplant the sacrosanct Vulgate.6 Erasmus ostensibly champi-
oned Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews in his dedicatory
letter to Lord Bishop Silvestro in the paraphrase: "Here now is Paul, who
with my assistance has learned to write at greater length and more clearly
and, what is more, in Latin."7 His annotations several years earlier assumed
the same. 8 In truth, however, Erasmus rejected the standard consensus
that Paul authored the letter to the Hebrews as early as 1516 (the same year
he wrote the annotations).
He was, in fact, one of the first persons to do so in any substantial way
since the 5th century. 9 The fact that he still used Paul's name to refer to
the author of the letter simply reflects common practice. Johannes Bugen-
hagen, writing a few years after Erasmus, likewise describes "Paul" as the

to Lohse's description, Luther's use of this term additionally illustrates the humanist predi-
lection for Hellenizing names as well as the humanist preoccupation with classical Greek.
5. Erasmus, "Epistula ad Hebraeos" in Annotations on the New Testament: Galatians to the
Apocalypse (Leiden: Brill, 1993); Paraphrases on Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Peter, James, Jude, John,
Hebrews (Collected Works of Erasmus 44; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), xiii, 213.
6. Bruce Demarest, A History of Interpretation of Hebrews 7,I-IO from the Reformation to
the Present (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976}), 10. Erasmus's "Annotations" were widely read
and his comments proved influential.
7. Erasmus, Annotations, 212.
8. He writes in his argumentum: "Nulla gens obstinatioribus animis repugnabat Evan-
gelio Christi, quam Judaeorum, qui Paulo etiam peculiariter erant infensi, quoad se gentium
Apostolum profìteretur, quas Judaei ut profanas & impías abominabantur" {English: "No
people resisted the gospel of Christ with more obstinate spirit than the Jews. They were also
peculiarly hostile to Paul, because he professed himself to be the apostle of the Gentiles,
whom the Jews abhorred as profane and unclean"}, etc. (D. Erasmi opera omnia, vol. 6: Novum
Testamentum cum adnotationibus (ed. J. le Clerc; 10 vols.; Lugdunum Batavorum, 1703-7}, 982).
9. Faber Stapulensis and Cajetan are other Catholic interpreters who did similarly.
Those, by contrast, who insisted on Pauline authorship in the 16th century included Conrad
Pellican, Johannes Oecolampadius, and Heinrich Bullinger.
2Ó4 Journal of Theological Interpretation 3.2 (200p)

author even though he opposes Pauline authorship. 10 Two of the primary

reasons that Erasmus contested the traditus receptus of Pauline authorship
were modus scribendi (unlike Paul's undisputed letters, this letter contained
no salutation) and stilus (its style was elegant in contrast to the apostle's
more unassuming Greek). In nuce, Paul could not have written Hebrews
because it contained neither a greeting nor any likeness to the apostle's
style, as a comparison with his undisputed letters confirms.11
Indeed, Erasmus's paraphrase on Heb 6 illustrates well the dissonance
between Paul's theology and that of the writer of Hebrews. In contrast to
the apostle's acceptance of "a man into the church who had slept with his
father's wife" (1 Cor 5), Erasmus believed that Heb 6:4 "denies repentance
after baptism." 12 In order to iron out any theological inconsistencies,^ Er-
asmus's handling of this pericope largely reflected the tradition before
him, particularly Chrysostom and Aquinas, whom he followed in engaging
the question of Pauline authorship but whose conclusions in favor of
Pauline authorship he rejected. For Erasmus, the key language to this pas-
sage related to baptism and repentance:
For when people have been enlightened {illuminati) r4 by the teachings
of the gospel and have once and for all left the darkness of their earlier
life behind; when, after their sins have been forgiven through bap-
tism, they have felt God's spontaneous generosity and have received
the heavenly gift through which removes every vice once and for all

10. Johannes Bugenhagen, "In epistolam ad Hebraeos Ioannis Pomerani Annotationes,"

Annotationes in Decern Epístolas Pauli (Strasbourg: Johann Hervagium, 1524). Bugenhagen
writes: "That Paul did not write this letter is clear from the second chapter, where it says that
he received the Gospel of Christ from the preaching of others and by a demonstration of
miracles. In Galatians 1 Paul strongly denies this" (p. 117). "Paulum non scripsisse hanc Epis-
tolam, vel ex secundo capite palàm est, ubi dicit se didicisse ex praedicatione aliorum, & ex
ostensione miraculorum Evangelium Christi, id quod fortiter Paulus de se negai, ad Gala. 1."
11. Nonetheless, Erasmus equivocates; he wants to reject Pauline authorship while si-
multaneously affirming the "spirit" of the letter as being Pauline: "ita ad spiritum ac pectus
Paulinum vehementer accedit" [English: "so it strongly resembles the spirit and heart of
Paul"}. What is more, Erasmus also questioned Pauline authorship based on the blemished
history of the reception of the letter in the early church. Eusebius of Caesarea's listing of He-
brews as a disputed book was not far from the mind of any commentators in the 16th cen-
tury: "Some dispute the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was rejected by the church of
Rome as not being by Paul" {Hist. eccl. 3:25). Jerome also played an important role for subse-
quent interpreters, who used his comments both for and against Pauline authorship, espe-
cially throughout the 16th century. Hagen, Hebrews Commenting, 6.
12. Ibid.
13. Hagen writes: "Erasmus concludes that the status of Hebrews is heretical" (ibid., 63).
14. In the early church there was a growing tradition that equated illuminati with bapti-
smus. John Owen, for instance, still working off this tradition, writes in his commentary in
the 17th century: "'to enlighten,' was used for 'to baptize'" {An Exposition of Hebrews {3 vols.;
Marshallton, DE: National Foundation for Christian Education, i960}, 73).
 COOPER: Reformation Responses to Novatianism 265

and bestows innocence; and when they have then through the laying
on of the priest's hand become partakers of the Holy Spirit, through
whom they began to have faith in the blissful promises of eternal life
and to have, as it were, a foretaste now of the powers of the age to
come, it is afterwards impossible for them to be renewed again
through repentance.1*
In other words, after baptism washed away previous sins and the priest de­
clared a person innocent, repentance was no longer possible. This was, Er­
asmus explained, because "this renewal is made once and for all in baptism,
in which the old man with his acts is put off once and for all and a new crea­
ture comes forth from the baptismal font {lavacro)"16
Erasmus's interpretation here reflected Chrysostom's, who published
his homilies on Hebrews at the beginning of the 5th century. The patristic
father conjectured: "What, then, is repentance excluded? Not repentance,
far from it! But the renewing again by the laver (δια λουτρού) To 'be re­
newed,' that is, to be made new, for to make people new is {the work] of the
laver only."1? Chrysostom understood the author of Hebrews to prohibit
only a second baptism, not a subsequent repentance. This is because the act
of baptism was unrepeatable: "He then that baptizes himself a second time,
crucifies {Christ} again." 18 In this way, Chrysostom's entire discussion
hinged on the belief that Jesus' crucifixion signified human baptism: "Bap­
tism is a cross [baptisma est crux]" And because the crucifixion could not be
repeated, neither could baptism. After being baptized, "there is repen­
tance, and it has great force, and is able to set free from the burden of his
sins, if he will, even him who has been baptized much in sins, and to estab­
lish in safety he who is in danger, even though he should have come unto
the very depth of wickedness."*9
Erasmus, for his part, followed Chrysostom closely: "For those who
ask to be made new again through baptism when they have repeatedly slid
back into their old life—what else do they do except to crucify the Son of
God again for themselves and again to expose him, as it were, to public
shame. He died for us just once. We died with him in baptism just once." 2 0
In addition to Chrysostom, Erasmus also followed Thomas Aquinas at this
point, who explicitly correlated the biblical (Vulgate) term illuminati
(φωτισθέντας in Greek) with baptismus. Thomas writes, "In regard to this
{Paul} says enlightened, namely by baptism. And baptism is fittingly called

15. Erasmus, Paraphrase, 227; idem, D. Erasmi opera omnia, vol. 7: Paraphrases in Novum Tes-
tamentum (Lugdunum Batavorum, 1703-7), 1175.
16. Idem, Paraphrase, 227.
17. John Chrysostom, "Homilies on Hebrews," in NPNF2 410; idem, P G 63.79-80.
18. Idem, "Homilies," 410; idem, PG 63:79-80.
19. Idem, "Homilies," 410-11; idem, PG 63:79-81.
20. Erasmus, Paraphrase, 227.
266 Journal of Theological Interpretation 3.2 (2009)

an enlightenment because it is the beginning of spiritual rebirth, in which

the intellect is enlightened by faith." Thomas further opined that the
apostle "does not say that it is impossible to repent, but that it is impos-
sible to be renewed again, i.e., baptized." 21
This Thomistic interpretation reflected the strong sacramental tenor
of the medieval church with respect to baptism. 22 In effect, baptism Bap-
tismus) commenced the life-long expedition of a sojourner {viator) by ef-
fecting regeneration {regeneratio). Erasmus accordingly paraphrased that
pilgrims were initially "cleansed (purgemur) by holy baptism {baptismo sacro)
from the filth of {their} vices {vitiorum), to be restored to innocence {inno-
centiae)" He additionally evoked language of the journey by noting: "After
we have once entered this course, there must be no stopping, no looking
back, no returning to what has been left behind, but only continual ad-
vance towards better things."23 In this way, Erasmus's exegesis of Heb 6
could be characterized as continuing the medieval understanding of the
Christian life as a pilgrimage—and thus highly traditional. As Rummel
notes, Erasmus "accepted papal primacy and the teaching authority of the
church and did not discount human tradition."24 Although critical of
Pauline authorship and of his exegetical predecessors at specific points, Er-
asmus ultimately deferred to the tradition to resolve this difficult passage.

LUTHER ON HEBREWS

Martin Luther began lecturing on Hebrews approximately a year after

Erasmus published his Novum Instrumentum in 1516. The reformer's re-
marks, which emerge both from his lectures on Hebrews in 1517-18 as well
as his translation of the book and accompanying preface in 1522, represent
the next phase of the interpretation of Hebrews in the 16th century.
Luther commenced his preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews in 1522 by
stating: "Up to this point we have had {to do with} the true and certain
chief books [die rechten gewissen hembt bucher] of the New Testament." In

21. Thomas Aquinas, Epistle to the Hebrews 6:i-6a. This interpretation provoked, at
times, Erasmus's disdain for Thomist exegesis because it was completely dependent upon the
occasionally erroneous Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek versions.
22. For a similar view regarding baptism in the medieval church, Gabriel Biel writes:
"Denique baptismus secundo datus nullam penitus habet efficaciam respectu remissionis
peccati sicut iterata penitentia," IV Sent. D 14 q 3 art. 2 H in Heiko Oberman's The Harvest
of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000),
82. {English: "Therefore baptism given a second time has no efficacy inwardly in respect to
the remission of sins as a second repentance."}
23. Erasmus, Paraphrase, 227.
24. Erika Rummel, "The Theology of Erasmus," in The Cambridge Companion to Reforma-
tion Theology (ed. David Bagchi and David Steinmetz; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), 37·
 COOPER: Reformation Responses to Novatianism i6j

contrast to "chief books" such as Romans and ι Peter, for instance, Luther
explained that Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were of "a different
reputation." 2 * Yet, as is frequently the case with Luther, there is more here
than meets the eye; his construal of the book of Hebrews was complex.
On the one hand, Luther clearly believed the epistle to be less impor­
tant than Galatians or Ephesians. He gave two reasons for this in his 1522
preface. First, the book lacked apostolicity: "Hebrews is not an epistle of
St. Paul, or of any other apostle." Luther explained that there were no dis­
ciples connected to the book, "which is proved by what it says in chapter
2{:3}, that through those who had themselves heard it from the Lord this
doctrine has come to us and remained among us." Second, portions of He­
brews contradicted the clear teaching of Paul: "there is a hard knot in the
fact that in chapter 6:{4-6}... it flatly denies and forbids to sinners any
repentance after baptism This {appears} contrary to all the gospels
and to St. Paul's epistles." 26
On the other hand, despite his criticisms above, Luther also believed
Hebrews to be "a marvelously fine epistle." He therefore deduced that "we
should not be deterred if wood, straw, or hay {cf. 1 Cor 3:10-15} are perhaps
mixed with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though, to
be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles."27
This ambivalence toward the book would continue to manifest itself in
Luther's work on Hebrews, be it in the lectures (1517-18), the preface (1522,
1546), or later works that referenced the letter.
Luther's ambivalence in terms of authorship is especially noteworthy.
The reason is that Luther's comments in 1522, which argued that the au­
thor of the letter was neither an apostle nor "the apostle" (Paul), differ
from other statements that he made. In his lectures on the epistle five
years before the preface, for instance, Luther affirmed Pauline authorship
and consistently referred to it as being written by "the apostle," namely,
28
"Paul." In a sermon that he preached on 1 Cor 1 (entitled "I Am of
Cephas") 20 years after lecturing on Hebrews, however, he explicitly at­
tributed authorship of the book to Apollos. 29 When combined, then,
there are four options on the table concerning the authorship of the
epistle, all of which come from statements that Luther himself made: (1)

25. LW35:394; WA Bi 7:344.2-3.

26. LW35:394-96; WA Bi 7:344.2-31.
27. L^35:394-96; WA 617:344.2-31.
28. LW729:109; WA Bi 57.3:97.13, 57.3:98.1. Both Lohse {Martin Luther's Theology, 68) and
Hagen {Hebrews Commenting, 9) corroborate that Luther believed Hebrews "to be Pauline" at
the time of his lectures.
29. WA Bi 45:389.34-45. "Dieser Apollo est ein hochverstendiger Man Die Epistel
Hebreorum ist freilich sein."
2Ó8 Journal of Theological Interpretation3.2 (200p)

Paul did not write Hebrews, (2) Paul did write it, (3) Apollos wrote it, or (4)
the author is completely unknown.
Here stands a typical instantiation of Martin Luther's approach to
Scripture. Although "contradictions" of this sort would probably raise the
brow, if not the ire, of an organized thinker such as John Calvin, Luther
was neither baffled nor concerned with such trivialities. As David Stein-
metz explains,
Luther was not terribly interested in critical questions about the
Bible, questions such as who wrote what, when it was written and un-
der what circumstances.... For example, when Luther translated the
Bible into German, he took the Pentateuch and renamed it. He called
it the book of Genesis First Moses, {etc.} When somebody ob-
jected, "But Dr. Luther, Moses dies in Fifth Moses (Deuteronomy)
and the book still goes on," Luther answered, 'Ach, it does not really
matter. It is still Moses' book."3°
In other words, Luther did not overly concern himself about the question
of authorship in the Epistle to the Hebrews: truly, as he concluded his
preface to the book, "it makes no difference." Luther would consequently
confirm, presuppose, or reject Pauline authorship according to the pas-
sage that he was explicating at the moment. What really mattered was the
content of the letter, that is, whether it affirmed Christ; not the identity
of the author.
Such content, however, was the problem that directly related to Heb
6:4-6 for Luther. His comments on this matter issue mostly from his lec-
tures on Hebrews, which he delivered to his students at Wittenberg.
Luther based these lectures on the Vulgate, the Novum Instrumentum^1 and
the exegetical tradition of the letter. In addition to Nicholas of Lyra and
Erasmus, he most closely followed Chrysostom. Indeed, as Luther later
commented in his treatise On the Councils and the Church (1539): "Let them
take a book of the Bible and look up the interpretations of the Fathers and

30. David Steinmetz, "Luther, the Reformers, and the Bible," in Living Traditions of the
Bible: Scripture in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Practice (ed. James Bowley; St. Louis: Chalice,
1999), 172-73 (emphasis added).
31. As Kenneth Hagen notes: "Luther lectured on Hebrews . . . in the traditional man-
ner by dividing his material into Gloss and Scholium. It was the last time that he proceeded
in this manner.... Luther's lectures consisted of dictating his own Gloss and then his Scho-
lium. Each student had his own copy of the Vulgate, which Luther had had printed especially
for his class. The student then glossed his own text with the interlinear and marginal Glosses
as well as with the Scholium that Luther dictated" {A Theology of Testament in the Toung Luther:
The Lectures on Hebrews {Leiden: Brill, 1974}, 6). Note that Luther's gloss on Hebrews appears
only in the Weimar edition (WA Bi 57.3:1-91), not in the English Luther's Works.
 COOPER: Reformation Responses to Novatianism 269

the same thing will happen to them that happened to me when I took up
the Epistle to the Hebrews with the Gloss of St. Chrysostom."32
Luther began his lectures with the following gloss:
It should be noted that in this epistle Paul exalts grace in opposition
to the pride of legal and human righteousness, showing that without
Christ neither the law nor the priesthood nor prophecy nor even
lastly the ministry of the angels was sufficient for salvation. In fact, all
these were instituted and provided in references to the coming of
Christ. Therefore, everything considered, he proposes that one
should teach Christ alone.33
Initially, Luther claimed the supremacy of Christ and the grace he brought
with him in this letter over against the law or any effort that men and
women attempted. This theme—crucial to the reformer's hermeneutic—
remained central throughout the lectures and was considered a bedrock
truth because of its parallel to other more trusted books of the N T such as
Romans and Galatians. By the sixth chapter of the epistle, however,
Luther perceived some of the difficulties of the letter.
He commented on Heb 6:1-2 in his lectures with Faber Stapulensis in
mind: "Some think that the apostle is saying this to those who took for
granted that Baptism should be repeated rather frequently and that cate-
chetical instruction in the faith should take place again and again."34
These "rudiments of faith," such as baptism, faith, and forgiveness of sins
were read over those who were baptized; as such, Luther explained, they
were not able to be repeated. Luther confirmed Chrysostom's view (and,
by extension, Erasmus's), who argued for the impossibility of rebaptism.
Luther also agreed with Chrysostom's view that Paul's use of the word ma-
turity means "the completely good life," a life the German reformer con-
sidered to be "the hope of the things that are invisible," which should
"bear fruit in patience."35 In his gloss, Luther also argued that the "matu-
rity" {adperfectiora) refers to the "complete knowledge of Christ."36
However, Luther's most distinct handling of this pericope stemmed
from his remarks on Heb 6:6, "To restore again to repentance those who
have fallen away" {Prolapsisunt, rursus renovari adpoenitentiam). In customary

32. LW41:19; WA Bi 50:519.22-27.

33. WA Bi 57.3:5.10-16. "Notandum in hac epistola, quod Paulus gratiam extollit adver-
sus superbiam legalis et humane iusticie, probans, quod sine Christo nee lex nee sacerdotium
nee prophecia neque denique angelorum etim ministerium ad salutem satis fuerit, immo
haec omnia in Christum futurum istituta et facta fuerint. Omnino igitur solum Christum
docendum proponit."
34. LW29:180; WA Bi 57.3:179.19-20.
35. ¿^29:181; WABi 57.3:180.19-20,181.1-5.
36. WABi 57.3:31.1.
270 Journal of Theological Interpretation 3.2 (2009)

fashion, he offered his interpretation in the context of a previous doctor's,

namely, Nicholas of Lyra:
Some think that these words are spoken by the apostle about those
who in anyway have fallen into sin. And in order to counteract the er-
ror of the Novatians they are compelled to distort the word 'impos-
sible' and to declare that it was used instead of the word 'difficult.'
But because it is dangerous to twist clear words of Scripture into a
different meaning, one should not readily permit this, lest in the end
the authority of all Scripture vacillate, except where the context de-
mands it. 37
Luther argued against Lyra on two accounts. First, it was not appropriate
to import new meanings into biblical words except in extreme cases in
which context otherwise demanded it. Second, this interpretation still can
"neither escape nor refute the Novatian error, since it is no less difficult
for God to justify any godless person again, and it is impossible for man to
rise from any sin. Therefore the truth must be asserted, and heresy must
be refuted, and not till then should one, so far as possible, harmonize this
text."38
Luther's approach to this difficult passage, in contrast to Lyra's, in-
tended to counter its teaching by juxtaposing it with the "chief books"
(and the chief apostle) of the NT. He stated,
But that repentance remains for those who have fallen is clear, in the
first place, from what the apostle Paul says in 2 Cor. 12:21-22: "Lest
perhaps . . . God should humiliate me . . . and I should mourn over
many of you who have not repented of the . . . fornication." And in
1 Cor. 5:5 he delivered the fornicator along with this stepmother to
Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that his spirit might be
saved. 39
The reformer further built his interpretation—that repentance was not to
be denied—on the basis of additional Pauline works: 1 Tim 3:5; 2 Tim 2:25;
and Tit 1:7; 3:10. "Indeed," he continued, "if there were no repentance, the
entire Epistle to the Galatians would amount to nothing, since it is not the
so-called actual sins that are censured in this epistle but the greatest sin,
namely, the sin of unbelief, because of which they had fallen away from
Christ to the Law." And, "lest the heretics reason captiously that their
opinions" are in line with the Scriptures, Luther polished off his argument
by appealing to the rest of the biblical corpus: David and Joseph's brothers

37. LW29:181; WABi 57.3:181.9-14. Refer to n. 1, p. 261 for Novatian's important role in
this discussion.
38. LW29:181-82; WABi 57.3:181.15-22.
39. LW29:182; WABi 57.3:181.23-24,182.1-3.
 COOPER: Reformation Responses to Novatianism 271

in the O T and Peter in the NT. 4° By so arguing, Luther posited Scripture

against Scripture. As he remarked similarly in his lectures on Galatians
several years later (1531):
I am not put off at all by passages of Scripture, even if you were to pro-
duce six hundred in support of the righteousness of works and against
the righteousness of faith, and if you were to scream that Scripture
contracts itself. I have the Author and the Lord of Scripture, and I
want to stand on His side rather than believe you.41
In other words, Luther's hermeneutic that ''Scripture is its own best inter-
preter," *2 coupled with his scriptural hierarchy of passages (depending on
whether they proclaim Christ or not), allowed him considerable freedom
when reading any particular text.
As a result, because Heb 6:6 purported to teach a doctrine that was
contrary to more authoritative passages (and apostles), exegetes were to
follow one of two options: (1) interpret the troublesome verse in light of a
more clear and trustworthy text; or (2) disregard the inferior reading in fa-
vor of an interpretation that proclaims Christ and his promises. Luther
employed both here. He asserted in his lectures on Hebrews,
Therefore one must understand that in this passage the apostle is
speaking about the falling of faith into unbelief, namely, because of
their opinion that they can be saved without Christ by their own righ-
teousness, which is altogether impossible. For this reason he {the au-
thor} says at the beginning (6:1) that he will omit the words about
faith and the elementary doctrines of Christ. This means that it is 'im-
possible' for him to be restored who at one time began with Christ
and, after backsliding, seeks someone else.43
On the one hand, then, Heb 6:6 was to be scripturally bypassed, so to
speak, because it denied repentance. On the other hand, and perhaps
more importantly, Luther interpreted this text as reinforcing his under-
standing of the centrifugal force of Rom 3:21—that God alone justifies ir-
respective of human works. In this vein, Luther believed that Heb 6
denied the possibility of repentance to those who lapsed from a faith-
based to a works-based understanding of the gospel. The author of He-
brews was compelled to discuss this in the primitive church because
"there was danger not only with regard to the changing of morals after
faith had taken root but more so with regard to the newly planted faith

40.1^29:182; WA Bi 57.3:182.3-24.
41. LIT26:295; WABi 50.1:458.4-8.
42. Ralph W Doermann, "Luther's Principles of Biblical Interpretation," in Interpreting
Luther's Legacy (ed. F. W. Meuser and S. D. Schneider; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1969), 23.
43. LW29:182-183; WABi 57.3:182.13-18.
272 Journal of Theological Interpretation 3.2 (2009)

itself," a concern that Paul showed "abundantly enough in the rest of his
epistles."44
On the whole, Martin Luther's interpretation of Heb 6:4-6 vacillated
between two differing positions. On the one hand, Luther never com-
pletely distanced himself from the opinion that Hebrews was, in a certain
manner, a second-class epistle. It was not apostolic, and it purported to
teach doctrines that did not coalesce with those of more first-class books
in the NT. Interpreters were to handle this letter with suspicion, because
it appeared to deny repentance and stood in contrast to other important
teachings of Scripture. This interpretation reflected Luther's humanist
training, which believed that texts had a center {scopus or status) that sum-
marized the text in nuce-, this conviction, coupled with Luther's nominalist
training about the meaning of words, profoundly shaped his exegesis so
that he, from a more Reformed perspective, created a "canon within a
canon."
On the other hand, Heb 6:4-6 defended the doctrine upon which the
reformer based his life: that people were justified by faith alone and not by
any works of the law. In this way, the epistle comported well with Luther's
doctrina suprema. Once read through the lens of the totality of Scripture,
interpreters could obviate any textual difficulties, for the letter merely in-
stantiated what other scriptural portions had previously taught, namely,
that forgiveness was possible for those who truly repented—granted they
did so through faith alone in Christ's righteousness with the understand-
ing that their works played no role in their salvation. Luther held these
two extremes in tension throughout his career.

CALVIN ON HEBREWS

In contrast to Luther, whose understanding of the book of Hebrews

fluctuated from approval to rejection, Calvin was noticeably of a different
temperament. Whereas Luther relegated the letter, Calvin revered it. 45
Indeed, Calvin's dedicatory epistle to Sigismund Augustus in 1549 boasted
of his "fidelity" to the text. His objective was twofold: (1) to explain the
letter briefly and simply so that, as Richard Gamble explains, even the
"dullest student"4 6 could understand it; and (2) to reestablish the signifi-
cance and canonicity of the epistle. In this way, he explained in no equiv-
44. LW29:183; WA Bi 57.3:182.20-24.
45. The Geneva reformer argued that the book of Hebrews "deservedly ought to obtain
in the Church the place and the honor of an invaluable treasure" (John Calvin, Commentary on
the Catholic Epistles {Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948}, xx {hereafter, Commentary]; idem, Ioannis
Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia {ed. Wilhelm Baum et al.; Braunschweig: Schwetschke,
1863-1900}, 55:5-6 {hereafter, CO]).
46. Richard Gamble, "Brevitas et Facilitas: Toward an Understanding of Calvin's
Hermeneutic," WTJ 47 (1985): 3.
 COOPER: Reformation Responses to Novatianism 273

ocal terms: "I, indeed, without hesitation, class it [Hebrews] among

apostolical writings; nor do I doubt but that it has been through the craft
of Satan that any have been led to dispute its authority." He further writes:
There is, indeed, no book in the Holy Scriptures which speaks so
clearly of the priesthood of Christ, so highly exacted the virtue and
dignity of that only true sacrifice which he offered by his death, so
abundantly treats of the use of ceremonies as well as of their abroga-
tion, and, in a word, so fully explains that Christ is the end of the Law.
Let us not therefore suffer the Church of God nor ourselves to be de-
prived of so great a benefit, but firmly defend the possession of it. 47
Although Gamble advises caution when identifying Calvin's oppo-
nent, the Genevan reformer is most likely responding to Roman Catholics
on the one hand and Luther(ans) on the other. First, as mentioned above,
Stapulensis, Cajetan, and, most pointedly, Erasmus strongly questioned
the authority of Hebrews. Luther had done similarly. Calvin interpreted
their rejection of the letter as a continuation of the Novatian heresy. As he
writes in his Institutes: "There are . . . passages, from a misinterpretation of
which the Novatians of old extracted materials for their heresy; so much
so, that some good men taking offence at their harshness, have deemed
the Epistle altogether spurious, though it truly savors in every part of it of
the apostolic spirit. "48 For Calvin, the church could not afford to part
with such a powerful witness to Christ, and he aggressively asserted the
letter's authority and canonicity.
As regards the authorship of Hebrews, Calvin entertained and then
dismissed the various proposals that the Church Fathers had made. Nei-
ther Paul nor Luke had written the letter. But instead of suggesting an
alternative, Calvin simply sidestepped the argument of authorship alto-
gether. He concurred with Luther that it did not matter. 49 It was impos-
sible to determine the author. Instead of relegating the letter to a
secondary status, however, Calvin took a path that differed considerably
from Luther's. Hagen explains the reason for this departure by underscor-
ing how previous theologians had understood the issue of authority: "In the
medieval period and continuing in the 16th century, authorship and author-
ity were seen as interrelated. Generally, Pauline authorship was considered
necessary in order to maintain the authority of the epistle."*0

47. Calvin, Commentary, xxvi; idem, CO 55:6-7.

48. Idem, Institutes of the Christian Religion (vol. 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 528.
49. Accordingly, Calvin inferred that Paul was the author of Hebrews on some occa-
sions {CO 58:11), while inferring that he was not on other occasions {CO 43:340)—without
giving further details.
50. Hagen, Hebrews Commenting, 62.
274 Journal of Theological Interpretation 3.2 (2009)

This mindset clearly evidences itself in Erasmus's and Luther's com­

ments. What distinguished them from Calvin, in other words, were their
approaches to Scripture. For instance, what maintained Luther's interest
in the letter was his "hermeneutic of a canon (Christ) within the canon
(Scripture)."*1 Luther accordingly highly esteemed Hebrews in passages
that proclaimed Christ, while rejecting other passages in the letter that
appeared suspect. His methodology was consistent with what he wrote in
his preface to the Epistles of James and Jude in 1522, where he explained
the criterion for judging the apostolicity of any particular scriptural text:
"Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St.
Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ
would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing
it."* 2 Calvin, by contrast, did not think in these Lutheran paradoxes. He­
brews was apostolic because it was in the canon; and the canon was, for all
purposes, closed. In this way, Calvin diverged noticeably from the theolo­
gians before him. In contrast to Erasmus and Luther, Calvin was the first
commentator who denied Pauline authorship yet who unequivocally as­
serted the apostolicity of the entirety of Hebrews.
Although he argued for the canonicity of the letter, Calvin rejected
apostolic authorship of Hebrews for several reasons. In addition to the
standard handling of this question in the tradition, Calvin himself gave
two additional reasons.53 First, the longstanding supposition that He­
brews was initially written in Hebrew was proven incompatible on the ba­
sis of etymology: "for διαθήκη has two meanings in Greek, while ΓΪΗ31 in
Hebrew means only a covenant." Second, the notion of the letter's having
been written in Hebrew "has no weight in it; for how few then understood
their ancient language? Each had learned the language of the country
where he dwelt."*4 For these reasons, Calvin rejected Pauline authorship.
On this point, Erasmus and Luther agreed. But they would not have de­
fended Calvin's thesis that Hebrews was nonetheless a completely apos­
tolic letter that even competed with the so-called "chief books" in the
canon. In the sight of Calvin, Hebrews was no minor book.
What followed in Calvin's exegesis of Heb 6:4-6, then, was an at­
tempt to understand this most difficult passage in light of its reliability as
a legitimate word from God. The reformer began his comments on 6:1-2
by stressing the necessity of moving beyond the rudiments of faith, that is,
the foundation:

51. Ibid., 63.

52. 11^35:396; WA Bi 7:385:29-32.
53. Hagen, Hebrews Commenting, 63.
54. Calvin, Commentary, xxvii; idem, CO 557.
 COOPER: Reformation Responses to Novatianism iy$

For as the foundation is laid for the sake of what is built on it, he who
is occupied in laying it and proceeds not to the superstruction, wea-
ries himself with foolish and useless labor. In short, as the builder
must begin with the foundation, so must he go on with his work that
the house may be built.55
In other words, the foundation was meant to be built upon, not rebuilt.
Calvin's reading of "the rudiments of the doctrine of Christ" compelled
him to suppose that Hebrews was written after the church had been estab-
lished for some time; the writer was therefore picturing the process of a
catechumen entering the church. Just as a teacher teaches the alphabet to
her beginning students, so the pastor teaches the catechumen the essen-
tials of the faith. The essentials or rudiments that the text enumerated—
repentance, baptism, and resurrection—were meant to be taken "in appo-
sition," lest "there be the absurdity of repetition." Moreover, in opposi-
tion to Chrysostom, Calvin rejected the interpretation that the writer of
Hebrews employed "baptisms," plural, to demonstrate how those who re-
turned to the rudiments had "abrogated their first baptism."56
Calvin discussed next Heb 6:4-6 in full awareness of the problematic
reception of the text:
This passage has given occasion to many to repudiate this epistle, es-
pecially as the Novatians armed themselves with it to deny pardon to
the fallen. Hence those of the Western Church, in particular, refused
the authority of this epistle, because the sect of Novatus annoyed
them; and they were not sufficiently conversant with the truth so as
to be equal to refute it by argument. But when the design of the
apostle is understood, it then appears evident that there is nothing
here which countenances so delirious an error. Some who hold sacred
the authority of the epistle, while they attempt to dispel this absur-
dity, yet do nothing but evade it. 57
Calvin's remarks were straightforward and indignant. He lamented that
the epistle had been abused and evaded through both heresy and reti-
cence. The error of the Novatians, who sought to deny repentance to
those who lapsed, obfuscated the meaning of the text through the centu-
ries. They had smeared the passage, and no one had taken the time to
wash away the mud. By the time someone did, it was too late; a stain al-
ready surrounded the letter. However, the meaning lurked beneath, and it
was Calvin's objective to clarify the true meaning of the passage.

55. Idem, Commentary, 131; idem, CO 55:67.

$6. Idem, Commentary, 132; idem, CO 55:68-69.
57. Idem, Commentary, 135; idem, CO 55:70.
276 Journal of Theological Interpretation 3.2 (2009)

To begin with, Calvin rejected a common interpretation that Nicholas

of Lyra championed, which argued that by the word impossible was meant
difficult. On this, Luther agreed with the Genevan reformer. Nor did
Calvin entertain the notion that "impossible" was confined "to that repen-
tance by which the catechumen in the ancient Church was prepared for
baptism."*8 Instead of applying simply to the catechumens, Calvin argued
that, because "the Lord gives the hope of mercy to all without exception,
it is wholly unreasonable that anyone for any cause whatever should be
precluded."59 The verse, in all its difficulty, applied to all; therefore, there
must be an interpretation that better appropriated the meaning.
Calvin identified the "knot" of the passage in the term "fall away,"
thereby resolving this difficult passage through the doctrine of election
and reprobation. It must be noted, he explains, that "falling away" con-
tained a twofold significance, "one particular, and the other general." 00
The "particular" significance of falling away refers to committing any sin
—whether adultery, theft, falsehood, or drunkenness. Accordingly, all
have offended God and fallen away from God's higher calling of righteous-
ness and goodness. The "general" significance "refers to a total defection
or falling away from the Gospel, when a sinner offends not God in some-
thing, but entirely renounces his grace." 61 Hence, whereas the first type of
falling away was human nature and thus pardonable, the second type was
utterly heinous and thus unpardonable. It was as if the gift that passed
from the hand of God into the hand of a person had been for a time re-
ceived but later rejected. This was not the will of God but the foolish act
of a man or a woman. The gravity of this action was effectively a sin
"against the Holy Spirit," for which there was no return to repentance; not
because God deliberately prohibited it, but because the individual willed
it. 62 Or, to put it differently, only the reprobate could sin against the Holy
Spirit; God never deprived true believers "of his grace."63

$8. Idem, Commentary, 135; idem, CO 55.70.

59. Idem, Commentary, 135-36; idem, CO 55:71.
60. Note Calvin's Aristotelian language.
61. Idem, Commentary, 136; idem, CO 71. Calvin calls this a "universal aversion to God, and
(so to speak) the apostasy of the whole man." This aversion must be understand "as referring
to those who, with deliberate impiety, have quenched the light of the Spirit" {Institutes, 529).
62. Idem, Commentary, 136; idem, CO 55:71. In relation to the sin against the Holy Spirit
(Matt 12:31-32), Calvin explains: "Here, however, let us give the true definition, which, when
once it is established by sound evidence, will easily of itself overturn all the others. I say, there-
fore, that he sins against the Holy Spirit who, while so constrained by the power of divine
truth that he cannot plead ignorance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of
resisting But those who are convinced in conscience that what they repudiate and im-
pugn is the word of God, and yet cease not to impugn it, are said to blaspheme against the
Spirit, inasmuch as they struggle against the illumination which is the work of the Holy
Spirit" {Institutes, 529; emphasis added).
63. Idem, Commentary, 136; idem, CO 5571.
 COOPER: Reformation Responses to Novatianism 2jj

At this juncture in his commentary, the reformer perceived the tension

between the author's claim to address believers while actually referring to
nonbelievers. Calvin responded, in Stoic terms, that "the danger was
pointed out by him [the apostle} in time, that they {the audience} might be
on their guard... for a continued torpor commonly ends in lethargy, which
is followed by alienation of mind." And once alienation of mind has tran­
spired, there would be no return from wickedness. Did not this imply,
though, that Calvin was a synergist? If a person could taste of the heavenly
gift and participate in the work of the Holy Spirit before ultimately falling
away, what were the ramifications of such a doctrine in relation to justifica­
tion and perseverance of the saints? Perceiving the question that was brew­
ing in the mind of his reader, Calvin asked rhetorically: "How can it be that
he who has once made such a progress should afterwards fall away?"
The answer was simple. God protected God's true children, the elect,
but not imposters:
The elect are . . . beyond the danger of finally falling away; for the Fa­
ther who gave them to be preserved by Christ his son is greater than
all, and Christ promises to watch over them so that none may perish.
To all this I answer, that God indeed favors none but the elect alone
with the Spirit of regeneration, and that by this they are distinguished
from the reprobate. 6 4
Calvin therefore juxtaposed two opposing groups, both of which had
tasted of God's goodness: the elect and the reprobate. God saved the elect
but God allowed the reprobate to slip and fall in the mud of apostasy. All
sins that the elect committed were pardonable; they could not "lose" their
salvation, in other words, because they had not participated in it any way.
God saved them. The reprobates, by contrast, necessarily lost their "salva­
tion." That was the very definition of a reprobate: one who did not perse­
vere by faith. It was thus inconsequential that many reprobates "tasted of
{God's} grace" at some point in their lives. For why should God deny God's
goodness just because some ungrateful person would eventually reject it?
"Otherwise where would be the temporary faith mentioned by Mark
6
4:17? * There is therefore some knowledge even in the reprobate, which
afterwards vanished, either because it did not strike roots sufficiently
66
deep, or because it withers, being choked u p . "
For Calvin, Jesus' teaching on the subject of the perseverance of the
saints in the parable of the sower was archetypical. God graciously show­
ered God's word on various kinds of people: the word, thenceforth, ran
the gamut of being immediately accepted to being eventually rejected. In

64. Idem, Commentary, 137-38; idem, CO 55:71-72.

65. "But they have no root, and endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecu­
tion arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away (ευθύς σκανδαλίζονται)."
66. Idem, Commentary, 138; idem, CO 55:72.
278 Journal of Theological Interpretation 3.2 (200p)

this way, Heb 6:4-6 simply evidenced what Jesus had taught in the Gos-
pels. And though it "seems hard" to accept the premise that the reprobate
is unable to be renewed again to repentance, "there is no reason to charge
God with cruelty when anyone suffers only the punishment of his own de-
fection." The reason was twofold: (1) "God's mercy is offered to sinners as
soon as they sigh for it (Ezek i8:2j),"67 and (2) the reprobates ultimately
reject God's mercy, because "they are either smitten with stupor, and fear
nothing, or curse God their judge, because they cannot escape from
him." 68 How then can one ever discern whether he or she is a sheep or a
goat? The answer for Calvin was not difficult; it just took a great deal of a
time before it was apparent: the goats eventually stopped following their
shepherd in search of a better path to the field, while the sheep ambled
along. 69

CONCLUSION

Despite their similar training in humanism, it is remarkable how

much Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin differed in their exegesis of Heb 6:4-6.
Although each believed it incumbent upon himsef to correct the Novatian
heresy, they did so in different ways. Erasmus's annotations on the Greek
text of Hebrews resurfaced longstanding questions about the authorship
and canonicity of the letter, but his methodology exhibited an affinity
with traditional ecclesial concerns. Believers walked a series of steps in
their journeys toward heaven. His interpretation of this process could be
called peripatetic theology, for he, like so many theologians before him,
regarded life as a theological journey that commenced at baptismus and
concluded at beatitudo.
Luther dealt with Hebrews in a different way. His initial lectures on
the book underscored the importance of the epistle, but only because he
originally assumed that Paul had written it. His preface to the book five
years later, however, clearly revealed his suspicion of the letter, due to
questionable passages such as 6:4-6 that contradicted the clear teachings
of Paul. He therefore relegated Hebrews to the lesser "four" of the N T
and exercised his hermeneutic of a "canon within a canon" to affirm the
biblical portions of the letter that he believed to be apostolic while simul-
taneously rejecting those (like 6:4-6) that he believed were not.

67. "Again, when the wicked turn away from the wickedness they have committed and
do what is lawful and right, they shall save their life."
68. Idem, Commentary, 138; idem, CO 55:72.
69. Or to put it differently, the elect could know their election—the surety of their sal-
vation—on account of the presence of the Holy Spirit. If God's Spirit resides in, encourages,
and even reproves a person, then he or she is one of the elect.
 COOPER: Reformation Responses to Novatianism 279

Finally, Calvin was familiar with the work of the two great thinkers be-
fore him. Although he was appreciative of and indebted to their comments
on the book of Hebrews, he believed that they had acted inappropriately
and irresponsibly. Erasmus had conducted himself inappropriately by fail-
ing to overcome such a "papist" rendition of theology. Whatever rhetorical
or philological virtues he attempted to employ had been smothered by
theological vice. Similarly, Luther had acted irresponsibly by erecting a par-
adoxical and (for Calvin) puzzling methodology that did more harm than
good. True, he did overcome the "papist" fallacy; yet he nevertheless balked
at the task as Calvin understood it: to redeem the book of Hebrews from
the Novatianists and anyone else who deigned to call God's word into ques-
tion. Of course the letter was apostolic: it was in the canon, it elevated
Christ above all others, and it comported with the rest of Scripture. He be-
lieved that the way to reclaim the book's honor was to resolve the knotty
passage of Heb 6:4-6 in relation to election and reprobation.
Despite their differences, however, there were agreements among Er-
asmus, Luther, and Calvin. All three interpreters not only questioned
Pauline authorship of the epistle, they downright rejected it. Paul did not
write Hebrews. Who did? They did not know, and they did not really seem
to care. It was not the author but the content of the letter that mattered.
Moreover, they all interpreted the book in the same manner—relative not
to methodology but to tradition. The history of the interpretation of He-
brews was their history. They knew the tradition; in different ways, they
all accepted the tradition and questioned it. When they read the letter,
they did so with an eye on the past and their pens in the present. Some of
the debates had changed through time; some had not. But what had not
changed was the glaring reality that Hebrews was a book of the NT.
Whether accepted or rejected, it had to be reckoned with. And reckon
with the text they did; but their differing methodologies were not suited
for an interpretive consensus that would unite the church in the first half
of the 16th century. Although they were united in their assaults on the No-
vatian heresy and on Pauline authorship of the letter, Calvin successfully
deflected Erasmus's and Luther's shots at its canonicity, but he was less
successful in returning the letter to its pre-Novatian place of honor.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.