Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book I: On the Canonical Books
Chapter 6: On the heretics who attacked the books of the New Testament above numbered
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).
The ninth heresy rejects the books of the Gospels almost entirely. The authors of this error are divided into two sorts. For some are in this heresy, that they think the Gospels were written neither by the Apostles nor by other disciples of the Lord, but by certain impostors, who mingled many false things with the true, and yet vended these their own inventions as apostolic writings. That Faustus the Manichee so thought and wrote, St. Augustine is the author, book 32 against Faustus, chapter 2, and book 33, chapter 3. But some deny not indeed that the Gospels were written by the Apostles, yet contend that they in very many places fight either with themselves or with the truth; because the Apostles partly, as men, sometimes erred, and partly doubted not studiously to adorn the glory of their master with feigned narrations. And this opinion had very many patrons. First the heathen (Augustine witnessing, Retractations book 2, chapter 16); then Julian the apostate (Cyril witnessing, book 10 against Julian); then Mohammed the false prophet (John Damascene witnessing, in the book On the Hundred Heresies); finally in our times also Otho Brunfels (John Cochlaeus witnessing, in the book On the Authority of Scripture and the Church, chapters 3 and 4).
And the former heresy indeed, which is of the Manichees, St. Augustine, book 32 against Faustus, chapters 16 and 21, and book 33, chapter 7, confutes by a twofold reason. First, because the Manichees, since they strive to confirm their errors out of the Gospels, and yet contend that those same Gospels were written by certain impostors, plainly seem so to act as if one should first say that his own witness is corrupted by falsehood, and only then produce him to give testimony. Then, because if from so clear a continual attestation of so many ages succeeding one another it is not sufficiently proved that those letters are of the Apostles which the Church, propagated from the Apostles themselves and diffused far and wide through all nations, calls and holds to be of the Apostles, the credit of all letters and books must needs perish. For the books of Hippocrates, of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and other authors of this kind, whence is it certain that they are theirs? Whence, if any deny this, is he not so much refuted as laughed at, save because the series of succession has so commended them from their own time even to this time, that plainly to doubt of this is the part of a madman?
The latter heresy then the same Augustine, book 1 On the Agreement of the Evangelists, chapters 7 and 8, refutes by these arguments, no less briefly than acutely. First, if concerning Pythagoras and Socrates, who themselves wrote nothing of their own, we believe their disciples who wrote, what cause is there why credit should not be given to the Apostles writing of their master? Or could those, perhaps, because they were wise, make their disciples truthful; and could not Christ, who (even by their own consent) surpassed all in wisdom, make his disciples truthful? Then, since those very men who cry out that the Apostles wrote false things judge Christ to have been a most wise man, and could learn this from no other source than from the letters of the Apostles, are they not plainly enough convinced that they believe the books of the Apostles now, and now believe them not, not by the judgment of reason, but by the arbitrament of will? Besides, if the disciples had studied too eagerly to amplify the glory of their master in their writings, they ought surely either to have covered the ignominy of the cross with silence, or to have touched it as briefly as possible, but to set down a very long discourse in unfolding the return from the lower world and the ascension into heaven. With what design, then, do all the Evangelists scarcely mention the resurrection and ascension, while in setting forth the bonds, the scourges, the cross, the reproaches, the disgrace, the torments, they linger as long as possible? Without doubt they had it as their purpose, not to pursue the praises of their master with a false narration, but to commend to writing simply and truly the discourses of Christ and the things done by him.
The tenth heresy receives three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, but rejects John as contrary to them. This heresy Philastrius reports without the author's name, chapter 60; but Epiphanius, heresy 51, judges that they may be called Alogians, or Alogi, whom St. Augustine follows, heresy 30. The eleventh heresy approves only Matthew of the Evangelists: that Ebion was the author of this heresy, Irenaeus writes, book 1, chapter 26. See also on this matter Epiphanius, heresy 30, and Eusebius, book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 21. The twelfth heresy, which is of Cerinthus (the same Irenaeus witnessing, book 3, chapter 11), uses the Gospel of Mark alone. The thirteenth heresy is of Marcion, who (as Irenaeus in the same place, and Tertullian in the book On Prescription against Heretics, have left in writing) holds in esteem only Luke, though not entire, but mutilated and corrupted, as is plain from Tertullian, book 4 against Marcion, and Epiphanius, heresy 24. The fourteenth heresy acknowledges no Evangelist except John alone; of which heresy Irenaeus in the same place makes Valentinus the author. And this heresy Martin Luther seems vehemently to have wished to be vigorous and to flourish, although, because he understood the thing to be at this time too difficult, he thought that not too much pains and labor should be spent on it. Certainly in the preface on the New Testament (as also John Cochlaeus notes, in the book On the Authority of Scripture and the Church, chapter 3, and in the Septiceps, chapter 5) he says that that false opinion is to be abolished, that there are only four Gospels; likewise that the Gospel of John is the one, beautiful, true, and principal Gospel, far and away to be preferred to the other three, so that even the Epistles of Paul and Peter far excel those three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These five last heresies the ancient Fathers, that they might refute them, endeavored by many reasons to demonstrate not only that there are but four books of the Gospels, but also that neither more nor fewer ought to have been made. See Irenaeus, book 3, chapter 11; Tertullian, book 4 against Marcion; Ambrose, in the preface of his Commentaries on Luke, and book 10, chapter 101; Eucherius, book 1 on Genesis, chapter 14; Jerome, in the preface of his Commentaries on Matthew; Augustine, book 1 On the Agreement of the Evangelists, chapter 6; Gregory, homily 4 on Ezechiel. And indeed, to pass over other reasons for the present, what are those four living creatures to be believed to signify, which were divinely shown to Ezechiel and to John — the Man, the Lion, the Ox, the Eagle — save the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? For this not only the letters and voices of the people everywhere testify, but the very walls also cry it out with signs and images.
The fifteenth heresy withdraws the book of the Acts of the Apostles from the number of the divine volumes. Of this heresy we have many authors: Cerinthus, in Philastrius, chapter 36; Cerdo, in Tertullian, On Prescription; Tatian, in Eusebius, book 4 of the History, chapter 29; the Manichee, in Augustine, in the book On the Profit of Believing, chapter 3. The sixteenth heresy is of the Ebionites, who reject all the writings of the Apostle Paul, and call Paul himself a Greek and an apostate: the witnesses are Irenaeus, book 1, chapter 26, and Epiphanius, heresy 30. That the same error afterward pleased the Helcesaites, Eusebius writes in the sixth book of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 27. The seventeenth heresy, which is of Marcion (Epiphanius, heresy 42, and Jerome, in the preface of his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, being witnesses), rejects entirely the Epistles to Timothy and Titus; from the rest he blots out with his sponge whatsoever seems good to him. These three heresies Peter of Cluny, Abbot, accurately refutes in his former epistle against the Henricians and Petrobrusians; nor is it worth while to waste time on a matter so plain.
The last is the heresy of those who will have it that in the very epistles of blessed Paul, and in the other sacred and divine books, not all things were written at the dictation of the Holy Ghost, but some sometimes under the sole guidance of human prudence and reason. Wherefore they contemned the whole Epistle to Philemon, as written after a human manner. Of old this error was labored under both by the Anomoeans (in Epiphanius, heresy 76), and also by certain others (in Jerome, on chapter 6 of Micheas, and in the preface of his Commentary on the Epistle to Philemon, and in Augustine, book 2 against the adversary of the law and the prophets, chapter 2). In our age Erasmus renewed the same heresy; for in his annotations on chapters 2 and 27 of Matthew he wrote not obscurely that it is not to be feared lest the authority of the whole Scripture should fall, if some light error be detected in it, especially since Augustine grants that the Evangelists sometimes lapsed in memory (book 3 On the Agreement of the Evangelists, chapter 7), and it seems that it can in no way be denied.
Let Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine, in the places a little before noted, refute this heresy. But because Erasmus abuses the testimony of St. Augustine, it will be worth while that we bring forward into the midst the words of this one doctor. Thus, then, speaks St. Augustine, book 2 On the Agreement of the Evangelists: “It becomes all falsehood to be absent from the Evangelists, not only that which is brought forth by lying, but also that which is by forgetting.” Not therefore, as Erasmus will have it, does Augustine attribute an error to a lapse of the Evangelist's memory. Again, in epistle 8 to St. Jerome, he says: “For if once, into so high a pinnacle of authority, any officious lie be admitted, there will remain no particle of those books which, as soon as it shall seem to anyone either hard in morals or incredible in faith, may not by that same most pernicious rule be referred to the design and office of a lying author.” This reason of Augustine is most firm; for if any error could have been committed by the author in the Scriptures, whether by inexperience, or by forgetfulness, or by any other human weakness, whatsoever place be brought forward, there will be able to be a question concerning it, whether in writing it the author did not nod.
What then, you will say, did Augustine mean, when in the third book On the Agreement of the Evangelists he attributes to a lapse of memory the error of the name, in that in Matthew Jeremias is read for Zacharias? I answer that I have not read in Augustine an error, or a lapse, as Erasmus says, but the mind of the Evangelist wonderfully governed by the Holy Ghost, without error and without lapse. This one thing Augustine says, that to the Evangelist writing, by divine providence, the name of one prophet occurred for another; in which, if there was a lapse or error, it was surely the Holy Ghost's. But that the Holy Ghost can lapse or err, no one of sound mind ever said. But let us hear the very words of St. Augustine: “What is to be understood, save that this was done by the more secret counsel of the providence of God, by which the minds of the Evangelists were governed? For it might come to pass that to the mind of Matthew writing his Gospel Jeremias occurred for Zacharias, as is wont to happen; which nevertheless he would without any doubt have amended, at least being admonished by others who could read this while he yet lived in the flesh, unless he thought that not in vain had one name of a prophet occurred to his recollection (which was ruled by the Holy Spirit) for another, save because the Lord had so determined this to be written. But why the Lord so determined it, that first most useful cause ought most easily to be thought of — that it was thus also intimated that all the holy prophets, speaking by one spirit, agree among themselves in a wonderful concord, so that this is much more than if all the sayings of the prophets were uttered by the one mouth of one man; and that therefore whatsoever the Holy Spirit said through them ought to be received without doubt, and the several sayings to be of all, and all of each. Since therefore both the things which were said through Jeremias are as much Zacharias's as Jeremias's, and the things which were said through Zacharias are as much Jeremias's as Zacharias's, what need was there that Matthew should amend, when, re-reading what he had written, one name occurred to him for another, and not rather, following the authority of the Holy Spirit, by whom he felt his own mind to be ruled more than we do, leave this so written, even as the Lord, admonishing him, had determined it for him — to inform us that there is so great a concord of their words among the prophets, that not absurdly, nay most fittingly, we should ascribe even to Jeremias what we find said through Zacharias?” The arguments which Melchior Cano, book 2 On Theological Places, chapters 16, 17, 18, brings forward for this heresy and dissolves, I thought were to be passed over by me, both because I have read them in no heretic, and also because they can easily be sought from Cano himself.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. De haereticis , qui libros Testamenti novi supra numeratos oppugnarunt. Nona hseresis Evangeliorum libros in uni¬ versum fere repudiat. Auctores hujus erroris bifariam dividuntur. Nonnulli enim in ea hse- resi sunt, ut neque abApostolis, neque ab aliis discipulis Domini scripta esse Evangelia ar¬ bitrentur, sed a quibusdam impostoribus, qui multa falsaveris admiscuerint, et tamen haec sua commenta pro scriptis Apostolicis ven¬ ditaverint. Ita sensisse atque scripsisse Fau¬ stum Manichaeum, auctor est S. Augustinus lib. XXXII, Contra Faustum, cap. 2. et lib. XXXIII, cap. 3. Nonnulli vero Evangelia quidem, ab Apostolis scripta esse non ne¬ gant, sed ea tamen plurimis in locis, vel ipsa secum, vel cum veritate pugnare conten¬ dunt : propterea quod Apostoli partim, ut homines interdum erraverint, partim stu¬ diose magistri sui gloriam confictis narratio¬ nibus ornare non dubitaverint. Atque haec sententia permultos habuit pa¬ tronos. Primum Ethnicos, teste Augustino II. Retract. c. 16. deinde Julianum aposta¬ tam, teste Cyrillo lib. X. in Julianum; tum Mahumetem Pseudoprophetam, teste Joanne Damasceno, libro De centum haeresibus ; de¬ nique etiam nostris temporibus Othonem Brunfelsium, teste Joanne Cochlaeo libro De Scripturae et Ecclesiae auctoritate, cap. 3 et 4. Ac priorem quidem heeresim, qui est Ma¬ nichaeorum, S. Augustinus, lib. XXXII Con¬ tra Faustum, c. 16 et 21. et lib. XXXIII c. 7, duplici ratione confutat : Primum, quod Manichaei, cum ex Evangeliis errores suos confirmare nitantur, et tamen eadem Evan¬ gelia ab impostoribus quibusdam scripta esse contendant ; ita sane agere videantur, ac si quis testem suum prius dicat falsitate esse corruptum, et tunc demum eum produ¬ cat ad testimonium. Deinde, quoniam si ex tam clara tot sae¬ culorum sibi invicem succedentium contes¬ tatione continua, non satis probatur, Apo¬ stolorum esse eas litteras, quas Apostolorum dicit, et tenet Ecclesia ab ipsis Apostolis pro¬ pagata, et per omnes gentes longe lateque diffusa ; omnium litterarum atque librorum fides pereat necesse sit. Siquidem Hippocra¬ tis libros, Platonis, Aristotelis, Ciceronis, Varronis, aliorumque hujusmodi auctorum, unde constat esse ipsorum? Unde, si quis hoc neget; nec saltem refellitur, sed ridetur; nisi quia sic eos ab ipso eorum tempore us¬ que ad hoc tempus successionis series com¬ mendavit, ut plane sit hac de re dubitare dementis ? Alteram deinde hajresim hisce argumen¬ tis idem Augustinus lib. I De consen. Evan- gel. cap. 7 et 8, non minus breviter, quam acute refellit : Primum, si de Pythagora at¬ que Socrate, qui nihil ipsi suum scripserunt, discipulis eorum scribentibus credimus; quse causa est, cur Apostolis de magistro suo scribentibus non sit fides habenda? An illi fortassis, quoniam sapientes erant, discipu¬ los facere veraces potuerunt; non potuit ve¬ races facere discipulos Christus, qui, ipsis etiam consentientibus , sapientia omnibus praestitit? Deinde cum illi ipsi, qui falsa scripsisse Apostolos clamant, Christum sapientissimum hominem fuisse censeant, neque id aliunde, quam ex Apostolorum litteris discere potue¬ rint ; an non satis perspicue convincuntur, Apostolorum libris modo credere, modo non credere, non rationis judicio, sed arbitrio voluntatis? Praeterea si magistri gloriam di¬ scipuli nimis cupide scriptis suis amplificare studuissent, debebant certe crucis ignomi¬ niam aut silentio tegere, aut attingere quam brevissime : in reditu vero ab inferis, atque ascensione in coelum explicanda orationem longissimam ponere. Quo igitur consilio Evangelistse omnes resurrectionem atque ascensionem vix commemorant; in exponen¬ dis vinculis, flagellis, cruce, contumeliis, de¬ decore, cruciatibus, quam diutissime immo¬ rantur ? Nimirum non magistri laudes falsa narratione prosequi, sed Christi sermones, resque ab eo gestas simpliciter ac vere litte¬ ris commendare propositum habuerunt. Decima hseresis tres Evangelistas recipit, Matthseum, Marcum, Lucam, Joannem ut 80 LIBER I. illis contrarium repudiat Hanc haeresim sine nomine auctoris Philastrius refert c. 60. sed Alogianorum , sive Alogorum dici posse, censet Epiphanius haeres. 51, quem sequitur S. Augustinus haeres. 30. Undecima haeresis solum Matthaeum ex Evangelistis probat : auctorem hujus hsere¬ sis Ebionem fuisse, scribit Irenaeus lib. I, cap. 26. Yide etiam de hac re Epiphanium haeres. 30, et Eusebium lib. III hist. Ec- cles. cap. 21. Duodecima hseresis, quae est Cerinthi, eo¬ dem teste Irenaeo, 1. III c. 11, solius Marci Evangelio utitur. Decimatertia hseresis Marcionis est, ut Irenaeus ibidem , et Tertullianus libro de praescrip. adversus haereticos scriptum reli¬ querunt , solum Lucam in pretio habet ; quanquam nec integrum , sed mutilum et corruptum, ut ex Tertulliano lib. IV contra Marcionem, et Epiphanio haeres. 24 planum est. Decimaquarta hseresis Evangelistam' nul¬ lum agnoscit, praeter unum Joannem ; cujus hseresis auctorem Yalentinum ibidem Ire- nseus facit. Atque hanc haeresim vigere ac florere vehementer optasse videtur Martinus Lutherus, tametsi, quoniam rem esse hoc tempore nimis difficilem intellexit, non ni¬ mium operae ac laboris in eo ponendum esse putavit. Certe praefatione in novum Testa¬ mentum, ut etiam Joannes Cochlaeus ani¬ madvertit in libro de Scripturae et Ecclesiae auctoritate, cap. 3. et in Septicipite cap. 5. abolendam esse dicit illam falsam opinionem, quod sint tantum quatuor Evangelia. Item JoannisEvangeliumesse unicum, pulchrum, verum, ac principale Evangelium, aliisque tribus longe ac late praeferendum, adeo ut etiam Pauli ac Petri Epistolae longe praece¬ dant tria illa Evangelia Matthaei, Marci, ac Lucae. Has quinque postremas haereses veteres Patres ut refutarent, multis rationibus de¬ monstrare conati sunt, non modo quatuor tantum esse libros Evangeliorum, verum etiam nec plures, nec pauciores confici de¬ buisse. Yide Ireneeum lib. III, c. 11 ; Tertull. lib. IV. in Marcionem ; Ambrosium praefa¬ tione Commentariorum in Lucam, et lib. X, cap. 101 ; Eucherium lib. I in Gen. c. 14; Hieronymum praefat. Commentariorum in Matth. August. lib. I, de consensu Evangel. c. 6; Greg. hom. IV in Ezech. Et sane, ut rationes alias interim omittamus, quid signi¬ ficare credenda sunt quatuor illa animantia, quae Ezechieli et Joanni divinitus ostensa sunt, Homo, Leo, Vitulus, Aquila; nisi qua¬ tuor Evangelistas, Matthaeum, Marcum, Lu¬ cam et Joannem? Id enim non solum litteris et vocibus populi ubique testantur, sed ipsi etiam parietes signis et imaginibus clamant. Quintadecima haeresis librum Actorum Apostolorum e numero divinorum volumi¬ num detrahit. Auctores hujus haeresis multos habemus , Cerinthum apud Phila- strium cap. 36 ; Cerdonem apud Tertull. de praescript. ; Tatianum apud Eusebium lib. IV hist. cap. 29.; Manichaeum apud Augu¬ stinum lib. de utilitate credendi cap. 3. Sextadecima haeresis Ebionitarum est, qui scripta omnia Pauli Apostoli rejiciunt, et ipsum Paulum Graecum atque apostatam vocant : testes sunt Irenaeus lib. I, cap. 26., et Epiphanius haeres. 30. Eumdem errorem Helcheseitis postmodum placuisse , scribit Eusebius in VI libro hist. Eccles. cap. 27. Decimaseptima haeresis, quae est Marcio¬ nis, testibus Epiphanio, haeres. 42., ac Hie¬ ronymo praefat. Comment. Ep. ad Titum, Epistolas ad Timotheum et Titum integras respuit : e caeteris, quod sibi videtur, spon¬ gia sua delet. Refellit has tres haereses accu¬ rate Petrus Cluniacensis Abbas in epistola priore adversus Henricianos et Petrobusia- nos : nec est operae pretium in re tam per¬ spicua tempus terere. Postrema, eorum haeresis est, qui in ipsis B. Pauli epistolis, aliisque sacris ac divinis libris, non omnia scripta esse volunt dicti¬ tante Spiritu sancto, sed aliqua interdum sola prudentia et ratione humana duce. Quocirca totam Epistolam ad Philemonem, ut more humano scriptam contempserunt. Laborabant olim hoc errore, tum Anomoei apud Epiphanium haeres. 76, tum etiam alii quidam apud Hieronymum in cap. VI Mi- cheae, et praefat. Comment. epist. ad Phile¬ monem, et apud Augustinum lib. II contra adversarium legis et Prophetarum cap. 2. Nostro saeculo Erasmus eamdem haeresim renovavit : siquidem in annotationibus suis ad II et XXVII cap. Matth. non obscure scripsit, non esse metuendum , ne totius Scripturae corruat auctoritas, si levis aliquis error in ea deprehendatur, praesertim cum Evangelistas interdum memoria lapsos Au¬ gustinus concedat, lib. III de consensu Evangel. cap. 7 ; et negari nullo modo posse videatur. Refellant hanc haeresim Epiphanius, Hie¬ ronymus, et Augustinus locis paulo ante no¬ tatis. Quia vero S. Augustini testimonio Erasmus abutitur, operae pretium erit, ut hujus unius doctoris verba in medium adfe- ramus. Sic igitur loquitur S. Augustinus, II de consensu Evangelistarum : «Omnem autem falsitatem abesse ab Evangelistis decet, non solum eam, quse mentiendo promitur, sed etiam eam, quse obliviscendo (1). » Non igi¬ tur, ut vult Erasmus, errorem ex memorise lapsu Evangelistae tribuit Augustinus. Rursum in epist. 8 ad S. Hieronymum, inquit : « Admisso enim semel in tantum au¬ ctoritatis fastigium officioso aliquo mendacio, nulla illorum librorum particula remanebit, non ut cuique videbitur, vel ad mores diffi¬ cilis, vel ad fidem incredibilis, eadem perni¬ ciosissima regula ad mentientis auctoris con¬ silium officiumque referatur. » Quas ratio Augustini firmissima est, si enim erratum aliquod in Scripturis , sive imperitia, sive oblivione , sive alia quacumque humana imbecillitate ab auctore committi potuit, quicumque locus proferatur, de eo quaestio esse poterit, an in eo scribendo auctor non dormitaverit. Quid igitur, inquies, sibi voluit Augusti¬ nus, cum in tertio libro, de consensu Evan¬ gelistarum, quod apud Matthaeum legatur Hieremias pro Zacharia, nominis errorem tribuit lapsui memoriae? R&pondeo, non legisse me apud Augustinum errorem, vel lapsum, ut Erasmus dicit, sed a Spiritu san¬ cto mirabiliter gubernatam mentem Evan¬ gelistae, sine errore et sine lapsu. Id unum Augustinus dicit, scribenti Evangelistae, di¬ vina providentia unius Prophetae nomen pro alio occurrisse : in quo si lapsus, aut error fuit, certe Spiritus sancti fuit. Spiritum san¬ ctum vero labi, aut errare posse, nemo sanae mentis unquam dixit. Sed verba ipsa S. Au¬ gustini audiamus. « Quid, inquit, intelligendum est, nisi hoc actum esse secretiore consilio providentiae Dei, qua mentes Evangelistarum sunt guber¬ natae ? Potuit enim fieri, ut animo Matthaei Evangelium conscribentis pro Zacharia Hie¬ remias occurreret, ut fieri solet, quod tamen sine ulla dubitatione emendaret, saltem ab aliis admonitus, qui ipso adhuc in carne vi¬ vente hoc legere potuerunt, nisi cogitaret recordationi suae, quae sancto Spiritu rege¬ batur, non frustra occurrisse aliud pro alio nomen Prophetae, nisi quia ita Dominus hoc scribi constituit. Cur autem ita constituerit Dominus, prima illa causa utilissima debet facillime cogitari, etiam sic esse insinuatum, ita omnes sanctos Prophetas uno spiritu lo¬ cutos mirabili inter se consensione constare, ut hoc multo amplius sit, quam si omnia Prophetarum uno unius hominis ore dice¬ rentur, et ideo indubitanter accipi debere quaecumque per eos Spiritus sanctus dixit, et singula esse omnium, et omnia singulo¬ rum. Cum igitur et quae dicta sunt per Hie- remiam tam sint Zachariae quam Hieremiae ; et quae dicta sunt per Zachariam tam sint Hieremiae quam Zachariae ; quid opus erat ut emendaret Matthaeus , cum aliud pro alio sibi nomen occurrens a se scriptum re¬ legisset, ac non potius sequens auctoritatem Spiritus sancti, a quo mentem suam regi plus nobis ille utique sentiebat, ita hoc scri¬ ptum relinqueret, sicut eum admonendo constituerat ei Dominus, ad informandos nos tantam verborum suorum inter Prophe¬ tas esse concordiam, ut non absurde, imo congruentissime etiam Hieremiae deputare¬ mus, quod per Zachariam dictum reperi- mus (2) ? » Argumenta quae Melchior Canus lib. II. De locis Theolog. cap. 16, 17, 18, pro hac haeresi adducit, et diluit, praetermittenda mihi esse putavi, tum quod ea apud nullum haereticorum legerim, tum etiam quod ab ipso Cano facile peti possint.